Pope Endorses Homosexual Behavior?

[california boy]

49 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

The Mormon Church is a toxic place for someone who is gay, someone who has gay relatives, parents with gay children, people with friends who are gay etc. You only have to peruse this thread to see the kind of abhorrent thinking the Mormon environment propogates.

If message boards were a thing back in the early 1970’s, we’d be witnessing a thread with these same people espousing that God doesn’t want whites to marry blacks. I’m glad society is leaving Mormonism behind, it belongs in the past.

 

Oh I don’t think the Mormon Church is going away any time soon. There are plenty of people out there that like the idea of making gays live a lonely and undeserved life of torchured sadness. Heck there are even a few gay people that believe they are lesser, and don’t deserve a rich and fulfilling life.  The church will always be a small nich church where many are quite content with the way it views gays. It fits their view of gays being suppressed while heterosexual  lives are filled with family, children and a loving spouse,  That is their trial. They must suffer throughout life. And if they do, they too can one day be like US.  Someone who is gay should be grateful that one day this curse will be lifted from them.  All in favor, show by raising your right hand to the square.  

[Marginal Gains]

59 minutes ago, california boy said:

Oh I don’t think the Mormon Church is going away any time soon. There are plenty of people out there that like the idea of making gays live a lonely and undeserved life of torchured sadness. Heck there are even a few gay people that believe they are lesser, and don’t deserve a rich and fulfilling life.  The church will always be a small nich church where many are quite content with the way it views gays. It fits their view of gays being suppressed while heterosexual  lives are filled with family, children and a loving spouse,  That is their trial. They must suffer throughout life. And if they do, they too can one day be like US.  Someone who is gay should be grateful that one day this curse will be lifted from them.  All in favor, show by raising your right hand to the square.  

Their views belong in the dark ages, not modern society. I know numerous gay people who live far more rich, fulfilling and charitable lives than most testimony-bearing religious people I know.

[Marginal Gains]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

Well, imagine that, you can't even figure that out for yourself.  "Their objects", dear Marginal, are opposite versus same sex.  

How's it going, the search for something else to set up as a straw man?

The problem is indeed that you believe that gay vs straight sexual attractions are equal.

I'm done with this pointless exchange.  Have a nice day.

That I see gay and straight people as fundamental equals is not a problem for me or most of humanity. In fact, it’s to our credit. Religion really does bring out the discriminatory worst in people. And here’s the rub. All it would take for you to do a U-Turn on your views and opinions is for the Prophet to have a ‘revelation’. Would you take the same position you do now if it suddenly didn’t agree with the Prophet/Church? I doubt it. You will likely hold whatever view your Church Leaders tell you to hold, even if its the reverse of what they told you yesterday.

Edited May 23, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[Storm Rider]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

Oh I don’t think the Mormon Church is going away any time soon. There are plenty of people out there that like the idea of making gays live a lonely and undeserved life of torchured sadness. Heck there are even a few gay people that believe they are lesser, and don’t deserve a rich and fulfilling life.  The church will always be a small nich church where many are quite content with the way it views gays. It fits their view of gays being suppressed while heterosexual  lives are filled with family, children and a loving spouse,  That is their trial. They must suffer throughout life. And if they do, they too can one day be like US.  Someone who is gay should be grateful that one day this curse will be lifted from them.  All in favor, show by raising your right hand to the square.  

Okay, Cal, this type of recontextualization has gone on long enough. The Church of Jesus Christ is a place for sinners - as in all humans. Those that are welcome are those that seek to acknowledge their sins and seek forgiveness. It is not a healthy place for those who deny sin or who seek to get others to deny their sins.  

The fact that the Church of Jesus Christ is not "hip", "with it", and the most obnoxious of all - "woke" is evidence that the Church does not follow the arm of flesh. We recognize that the passions of humans will often lead us astray.  Our passions should be used as the Lord intended. And no, if it feels good, do it is not a motto for living a Christian/spiritual life. 

Your spinning is good for pushing an agenda, but it has little to do with reality or an understanding of sin.  

[Marginal Gains]

42 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

The Church of Jesus Christ is a place for sinners - as in all humans. Those that are welcome are those that seek to acknowledge their sins and seek forgiveness. It is not a healthy place for those who deny sin or who seek to get others to deny their sins. 

But the Church Of Jesus Christ is not a place that acknowledges the sins of its leaders nor one that seeks forgiveness. So it appears to operate on a double standard. I could cite the Church Leaderships behaviour during the Joseph Bishop case, the cover up of Paul H. Dunn, its lack of historical transparency, it’s refusal to apologise for 100 years of institutional racism etc. Aren’t those types of things “sin”? They would be if it was a member rather than a Church Leader(s) committing the acts.

If the Church got a revelation and did a U Turn and started embracing same sex couples in full membership of the Church, allowing marriages, sealings, full participation etc. What position would you be taking at that point? 

Quote

The fact that the Church of Jesus Christ is not "hip", "with it", and the most obnoxious of all - "woke" is evidence that the Church does not follow the arm of flesh. We recognize that the passions of humans will often lead us astray.  Our passions should be used as the Lord intended. And no, if it feels good, do it is not a motto for living a Christian/spiritual life. 

Your spinning is good for pushing an agenda, but it has little to do with reality or an understanding of sin.  

Do you think Church Leaders aren’t spinning and pushing an agenda? Simply look at the thread started by Calm about the Church releasing some statements about finances.

You are only seeing things with one eye.

Edited May 23, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[ALarson]

14 hours ago, kllindley said:

I apologize for singling you out. Others on the thread are probably more guilty. 

Still, I hate how easy it is to close off discussion by declaring a particular viewpoint offensive. To say nothing of "over the top offensive." 

I think it's funny that now it is not politically correct to talk about being born gay.

Who has stated here that it is not politically correct to talk about being born gay?  (Or have you read that elsewhere?).

It's the referring to being gay as a "birth defect" (or "malady") that is offensive to most.

Being born gay is no more of a birth defect than being born heterosexual, IMO.

[kllindley]

37 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

You are only seeing things with one eye.

What a compliment. Though I'm sure you didn't mean it that way. Thank you for helping us see true depths of bitterness, superiority, and animosity that drives you. 

I imagine that reflects the depth of the pain and hurt you've felt. I feel sad that you've had to experience all that.

[kllindley]

10 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Who has stated here that it is not politically correct to talk about being born gay?  (Or have you read that elsewhere?).

It's the referring to being gay as a "birth defect" (or "malady") that is offensive to most.

Being born gay is no more of a birth defect than being born heterosexual, IMO.

I see. I'm glad that you've spent years researching the science of etiology and psychology of sexual orientation and attraction. That you've explored the logical, philosophical, and existential implications of essentialism versus constructivism. Because it would be wonderful if this discussion could actually transcend the parroting of political ideology masquerading as incontrovertible facts.  Maybe instead of speaking for LGBT folks and virtue signalling, those who claim to want to be allies might actually seek the understanding necessary to create real change. 

[ALarson]

20 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I see. I'm glad that you've spent years researching the science of etiology and psychology of sexual orientation and attraction.

Where did I state or claim that?

I'm giving my opinion (IMO means "in my opinion").  It is my opinion that a person who is born gay does not suffer from a malady or defect anymore than a person who is born heterosexual.  You can disagree and once again, I respect your right to do so.

Edited May 23, 2018 by ALarson

[JulieM]

57 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Who has stated here that it is not politically correct to talk about being born gay?  (Or have you read that elsewhere?).

It's the referring to being gay as a "birth defect" (or "malady") that is offensive to most.

Being born gay is no more of a birth defect than being born heterosexual, IMO.

Correct. I think maybe people should just use the word “different” (born with “different” sexual attractions, etc.).   I’m having a hard time reading this thread and understanding why some don’t see why it’s not right to label being gay as an illness or flaw or defect.  That’s pretty much common sense I would think.  

[kllindley]

6 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Correct. I think maybe people should just use the word “different” (born with “different” sexual attractions, etc.).   I’m having a hard time reading this thread and understanding why some don’t see why it’s not right to label being gay as an illness or flaw or defect.  That’s pretty much common sense I would think.  

The fact that you cannot even understand an opposing view, but continue to see your own view as common sense is exactly the problem. 

[Marginal Gains]

Just now, kllindley said:

The fact that you cannot even understand an opposing view, but continue to see your own view as common sense is exactly the problem. 

My irony gauge just exploded...

[Gray]

9 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Correct. I think maybe people should just use the word “different” (born with “different” sexual attractions, etc.).   I’m having a hard time reading this thread and understanding why some don’t see why it’s not right to label being gay as an illness or flaw or defect.  That’s pretty much common sense I would think.  

Kind of similar to how people used to see red hair. Whether or not such natural variations are a "defect" is purely subjective, but seeing benign traits (such as red hair, or being gay) as being somehow defective is evidence of a spiritual pathology, IMO.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_hair#Prejudice_and_discrimination_against_redheads

[kllindley]

19 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Where did I state or claim that?

I'm giving my opinion (IMO means "in my opinion").  It is my opinion that a person who is born gay does not suffer from a malady or defect anymore than a person who is born heterosexual.  You can disagree and once again, I respect your right to do so.

I get that it's your opinion. And that opinion rests on many philosophical assumptions. What I'm saying is that by limiting the conversation to the narrow ideas that you find appropriate, you prevent actually making any progress in healing the divide. But maybe that isn't something you want. 

[kllindley]

3 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

My irony gauge just exploded...

It's ironic that I go out of my way to understand alternative viewpoints and conceptualizations of sexuality and respect and honor them? Or is it ironic that I readily admit my perspective is far from the only reasonable or correct way to see things. 

Pluralism is very confusing for you isn't it?

[JulieM]

20 minutes ago, kllindley said:

The fact that you cannot even understand an opposing view, but continue to see your own view as common sense is exactly the problem. 

I used the words “I think” and “a hard time understanding” (which means I’m at least attempting to see yours and others view).

You seem to have so much anger about this topic that I feel it’s actually you who “cannot even understand an opposing view”.  I do know this is something you are personally acquainted with, but you appear to be bitter and angry over anyone disagreeing with you.  I honestly can’t imagine what you must have gone through though.

[ALarson]

50 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I get that it's your opinion. And that opinion rests on many philosophical assumptions. What I'm saying is that by limiting the conversation to the narrow ideas that you find appropriate, you prevent actually making any progress in healing the divide. But maybe that isn't something you want. 

I'm not sure why you continue trying to insult me or put words in my mouth.  I'm respectful of your experience and views.  I've altered posts to qualify that I'm not attempting to speak for ALL gays and tried to have a civil conversation with you.   As others are now pointing out, you seem to be so consumed with anger over this topic that maybe it's you who cannot see other's views or work towards "making any progress in healing the divide".  I'm sorry for what you've suffered over this issue, kllindley, and do always appreciate your perspective.  I'm a bit puzzled over your responses to me here to be honest.

 

Edited May 23, 2018 by ALarson

[kllindley]

8 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I used the words “I think” and “a hard time understanding” (which means I’m at least attempting to see yours and others view).

You seem to have so much anger about this topic that I feel it’s actually you who “cannot even understand an opposing view”.  I do know this is something you are personally acquainted with, but you appear to be bitter and angry over anyone disagreeing with you.  I honestly can’t imagine what you must have gone through though.

I don't feel any anger at disagreement. Can you help me better understand by pointing out what I've said that communicates anger or bitterness? Have you not read the comments I've made about respecting and empathizing with others who have made different decisions or have different beliefs around sexuality? Have I ever communicated that the conclusions I've reached are the only right or reasonable or righteous, or sensible position?  Have you not seen my posts defending the dignity of all people regardless of how they choose to live their sexuality? 

I readily admit that I do have some wounds around LDS members, and former members, attacking me and my family in the name of love and equality. Usually for the galling crime of defending my right to have my own beliefs and live according to those beliefs. And I do get frustrated when I continue to encounter that rhetoric here. 

I have also been hurt by members who have very judgemental, even hateful attitudes toward gays. I've done so much work to educate and be a force for change in the Church. I want the Church (membership) to be more loving and understanding and accepting. In that effort, I've found what is and what is not effective in bringing about change. 

So, I guess what frustrates me the most is seeing people here continue to engage in rhetoric that not only prevents progress, but actively undermines the work that is currently unfolding. 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

Correct. I think maybe people should just use the word “different” (born with “different” sexual attractions, etc.).   I’m having a hard time reading this thread and understanding why some don’t see why it’s not right to label being gay as an illness or flaw or defect.  That’s pretty much common sense I would think.  

Allow me to provide an illustration: What are your thoughts about cochlear implants?  Do you think they are a good thing or a bad thing?  Many people would find "common sense" in the idea that technology allowing the deaf to hear would be an unqualified good thing.  And yet there is some substantial controversy about these implants.  See, e.g., here.

It seems like there is room for principled disagreement about these implants.  Would you agree?  Some people in the "deaf community" want to use them, even if doing so means leaving - to an extent - that community (since deafness is a defining feature of it).  Others in that community, however, deeply resent and oppose cochlear implants.  From the above link:

Quote

Five years ago, a deaf woman named Sloan Churman decided to film herself at the moment she activated her new cochlear implant — the surgically implanted device that helps deaf people perceive sounds. "29 years old and hearing myself for the 1st time!" she wrote as a caption, when she uploaded the clip to Youtube.

That video has now been viewed more than 26 million times.

...

...

Cochlear implants are still a divisive choice.

Share a cochlear implant activation video online and you're likely to see an all-out brawl unfold in the comments section. Deaf people assert that deaf kids don't need implants. Hearing people fire back, arguing that denying those kids cochlear implants is akin to child abuse.

Even within the deaf community, there's fierce debate.

Some see cochlear implants as a form of oppression from the hearing world and actively protest the technology. Some deaf people who get implants have even been shunned by the deaf community.

Others in the community are more open to the technology. The deaf father who spoke to INSIDER believes that the trend is toward tolerance for all deaf people — no matter whether they're implanted. That happens to be the position of the National Association for the Deaf, too.

"The NAD welcomes all individuals regardless of [...] mode of communication, preferred language use, hearing status, educational background, and use of technologies," reads the organization's current position statement on cochlear implants. "Diversity requires mutual respect for individual differences and choices."

I propose that we analogize the Deaf community to the Gay/Lesbian community.  Here are a few thoughts that come to mind:

• Both communities exist because its members having a defining attribute that is not shared with the majority of society (most people can hear, and most people are heterosexual). 
• Some members of both communities now have the option of moderating or changing their participation in these communities by altering some aspect of a defining attribute (some deaf people choose to get a cochlear implant, and some gay/lesbian people choose to abstain from homosexual behavior for personal and/or religious reasons).
• There is some resentment/hostility in both communities at the idea that their respective defining attributes (deafness and homosexual behavior) can or ought to be changed for individual members, even if individual members want to change that defining attribute for themselves (getting a cochlear implant, and abstaining from homosexual behavior).

Is it possible, then, that there is also room for principled agreement about these things? 

Is it possible to acknowledge the Gay/Lesbian community's right to exist, but also acknowledge the right of individual members of that community to choose to leave it or limit participation in it (such as by abstaining from homosexual behavior for personal/religious reasons)?

Perhaps we should focus less about reaching a consensus about labels ("it’s not right to label being gay as an illness or flaw or defect"), and instead addres the right of autonomy for individuals within the Gay/Lesbian community as to what they want to do with their lives, and why they make such choices, even if that includes choosing to leave that community or limit participation in it.

I'd be interested in your thoughts.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited May 23, 2018 by smac97

[rongo]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Allow me to provide an illustration: What are your thoughts about cochlear implants?  Do you think they are a good thing or a bad thing? 

Man, oh man! 

My brother-in-law (a seven-footer) served an ASL mission. We have a fantastic deaf sister in our ward who teaches a weekly community ASL class that is snowballing in popularity. And I once taught some deaf students among my other English students. Many don't know this, but many in the deaf community actually hate the hearing world, and they become incensed with those who receive cochlear implants. Their position is that there is nothing wrong with them, and they don't need to be fixed, and they are outraged at deaf people who buy into the "need to fix" mentality. Galudette University has had riots over university presidents who were either not deaf, or not fully deaf (two riots over two presidents, I think). 

It is tough. The principal of the deaf school, born deaf and fluent in ASL and MSL (American and Mexican) reads lips and talks nearly flawlessly (he served a mission to Mexico). He told us in training that nearly all deaf children with hearing parents completely cut ties with their family when they reach their majority and never go back. Most hearing parents never learn ASL (cf. Mr. Holland's Opus). The deaf community becomes their life. He told us this by way of explaining the anger we may sometimes encounter.

The sister in our ward has a great attitude towards hearing people. She runs differentiated classes so that people work simultaneously at the level they are at (novices coming for the first time aren't left in the dust), and she has the more advanced people teach the newbies while she works with others. My daughter and my 14 year-old son have become quite proficient, and they practice all the time. I set up the class as a way to help her be engaged and involved. She attended church, and we didn't have anything we could do other than have a real-time typist type on a Google doc for her to read. So, the idea was to build up a cadre of people who could communicate with her, and maybe get good enough to kind of interpret (there is a vast gulf between a competent interpreter and us learners). Many have gotten to be quite good! 

As with most other languages (other than French!   ), deaf people really appreciate the effort to try to speak their language, and are very patient with people's mistakes and imperfections.

Edited May 23, 2018 by rongo

[JulieM]

25 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I don't feel any anger at disagreement. Can you help me better understand by pointing out what I've said that communicates anger or bitterness? Have you not read the comments I've made about respecting and empathizing with others who have made different decisions or have different beliefs around sexuality? Have I ever communicated that the conclusions I've reached are the only right or reasonable or righteous, or sensible position?  Have you not seen my posts defending the dignity of all people regardless of how they choose to live their sexuality? 

I readily admit that I do have some wounds around LDS members, and former members, attacking me and my family in the name of love and equality. Usually for the galling crime of defending my right to have my own beliefs and live according to those beliefs. And I do get frustrated when I continue to encounter that rhetoric here. 

I have also been hurt by members who have very judgemental, even hateful attitudes toward gays. I've done so much work to educate and be a force for change in the Church. I want the Church (membership) to be more loving and understanding and accepting. In that effort, I've found what is and what is not effective in bringing about change. 

So, I guess what frustrates me the most is seeing people here continue to engage in rhetoric that not only prevents progress, but actively undermines the work that is currently unfolding. 

I guess I don’t see how comparing being born gay to a birth defect (being deaf for example) or calling it a disease, isn’t what is preventing progress here in communicating and understanding on this topic.  That’s what is really stopping any progress I think.

I believe that type of thinking is harmful. And immediately closes down communication.  

I do appreciate your response, kllindley.  Thanks for explaining more.

Have you ever stepped back and tried to remove religion from your feelings on this?  Or are they too intertwined for you?  I just wonder if that would have made a difference for you and your suffering (or actually made it worse).

Edited May 23, 2018 by JulieM

[kllindley]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I'm not sure why you continue trying to insult me or put words in my mouth.  I'm respectful of your experience and views.  I've altered posts to qualify that I'm not attempting to speak for ALL gays and tried to have a civil conversation with you.   As others are now pointing out, you seem to be so consumed with anger over this topic that maybe it's you who cannot see other's views or work towards "making any progress in healing the divide".  I'm sorry for what you've suffered over this issue, kllindley, and honestly do always appreciate your perspective.  I'm a bit puzzled over your responses to me here to be honest.

 

I am not trying to insult you or put words in your mouth. I apologize that I am not being more clear. 

I have been trying to confront a single dynamic. You have disagreed with other posters here. I don't fault you for that. In fact, I should have been more up front and direct in expressing my appreciation that you care enough to be a part of this conversation. My concern is that there is a popular rhetorical strategy, used on all sides, of delegitimizing any opposing view. In my experience trying to build more understanding and acceptance in the Church, this tactic backfires. So. I am probably a little over sensitive to it. I try to confront it on a witty way, but I suppose that just ends up backfiring as well. I'll try to be less witty and more articulate in the future.

I'll point out that I don't think homosexuality is a birth defect. I don't think it's related to prison rape. I DO believe that if some people have that perspective(and they do), that it won't accomplish anything productive to discourage that conversation. We delegitimize opinions when we tell them their comparisons are offensive and inappropriate. We do that when we tell them their views belong in the dust bin of history (I know that wasn't you). We do that when we communicate that other perspectives make no sense and that ours is the only rational or the only compassionate (and I acknowledge that Julie clarified that she was not trying to do this). 

[kllindley]

5 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I guess I don’t see how comparing being born gay to a birth defect (being deaf for example) or calling it a disease, isn’t what is preventing progress here in communicating and understanding on this topic.  That’s what is really stopping any progress I think.

I believe that type of thinking is harmful. And immediately closes down communication.  

I do appreciate your response, kllindley.  Thanks for explaining more.

Have you ever stepped back and tried to remove religion from you feelings in this?  Or are they too intertwined for you?  I just wonder if that would have made a difference for you and your suffering (or actually made it worse).

I guess it depends a lot on what you mean by progress. If you mean total acceptance of LGBT ideology and the elimination on any opposition, then yeah, those metaphors probably do get in the way. If progress is a more loving and inclusive pluralism that respects everyone's right to believe and live their beliefs, then no. I believe engaging honestly with the similarities-and differences-in the comparisons will do more to promote mutual respect. 

Yes. I have stepped back from religion personally and professionally. I can say that when I was out of the Church any no longer believed in God, I was the most miserable. I know that's not true for everyone who steps back or leaves, but it was my experience. 

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I guess I don’t see how comparing being born gay to a birth defect (being deaf for example)

I invite you to give this some further thought.  You construe deafness as - in your words - a "defect."  But there are many people in the Deaf community to who do not view it that way, and instead treasure their deafness and all that comes with it.  On the other hand, there are people who are born deaf and who choose to get a cochlear implant.  These folks can still treasure and value many aspects of the Deaf community, even if they choose to alter their own participation in it.

In other words, there is much principled debate about deafness.  I propose that we put aside labels, as they tend to distract and cause offense in these sorts of discussions.  Instead, we could focus on the legitimacy of the debate, and that both sides have principled grounds for their respective positions.

Quote

or calling it a disease, isn’t what is preventing progress here in communicating and understanding on this topic.  That’s what is really stopping any progress I think.

You may well have a point.  So let's put aside the labels.

Quote

I believe that type of thinking is harmful. And immediately closes down communication.  

Labels aside, I think analogies can be very useful.  The comparison of the Deaf community and the Gay/Lesbian community is only harmful if you label the defining attribute of the former as a "birth defect," as you did.  But then, some people think that the defining attribute of the latter is also a "birth defect."  So why is your label okay for one community, but not the other?

Might it be better, then, to drop the labels and focus on individual rights of autonomy?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 23, 2018 by smac97

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, california boy said:

As I have said often on this board, the Mormon Church is a toxic place for someone who is gay. And a gay member’s best option is to get as far away from it as possible. The church may work great for many straight people. The same can not be said if you are gay.  Leave it, and go out into the world and find a full and rich life filled with joy and love. Find God for yourself and learn the blessings and path He has in store for you. The Mormon Church is not the path.  If a young gay man has any doubts, I would have them read any of the countless threads where straight Mormons give their understanding of what it is to be gay.  I see little of Christ in this thread except the words of the Pope and a few that think outside the Mormon belief system.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And yet you protest the church's wisdom in delaying the baptism of the children of misled gay parents who want their children taught by the church?

If I were gay, I would never want my kids taught their parents were in a sinful relationship. I have never understood protesting against that policy.

Yes we must love everyone and I am sure we can do better in that area. I personally love gay people and have gay friends. But I believe it is a sinful lifestyle.

On the other hand it seems to me to be a total contradiction to feel the way you do about the church and still want to have your children raised in it.