Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Identity = Child of God > Gay Man


Recommended Posts

Just now, bOObOO said:

Not being sexually attracted to a woman or women in general should not make you blind to indecent exposure, whether it is a man or a woman who is indecently exposed.  Cloth the naked is my motto.  I would have brought her a more modest top to wear.

 

Sorry but it does.  If breasts are not viewed as sexual then seeing them is not any more indecent than a hand or a foot.   What is the difference between looking at a breast and a hand when there is no sexually connected to either?

Link to comment
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I said nothing about "a mental image of porn."  Please don't impute such things onto me.  I find that very offensive.

And I would rather not "think of her chest" at all.  That was the point in my moving to the corner of the classroom and lecturing from there.

I am fortunate in that I work in a legal setting, where everyone dresses professionally.  I guess I'm sort of old-fashioned.  I think men should dress modestly and professionally as well.

Thanks,

-Smac

EDIT:

Again, I have said nothing about "walking porn" or anything like it.

Yes, there are cultural elements.  

I'm not particularly inclined to adjudicate incremental comparisons.

I get that there is no "bright line rule" in terms of modesty, and that cultural expectations/norms play a part.

I guess you'll have to take my word for it.  If and when I encounter a woman who is wearing provocative/revealing clothing, I can avert my eyes.  Look or turn away.  Stop for a moment to tie my shoe.  Don't ogle or stare or admire.  Be a gentlemen.  In the classroom setting, however, I did not really have those options.

Thanks,

-Smac

Thanks for responding, I know you're a busy guy. I probably didn't apologize well by bringing up the walking porn statement. In my edit I was empathizing with you when I mentioned that I wouldn't like or like you mentioned would have to avert my eyes if a gentleman was sitting with his lower body peeking through. But somehow I don't think I did a good job of empathizing. Sort of a backhanded way of empathizing. But come to think of it, I don't think they compare at all, since it's not the lower part of a woman that was showing. I think the comparison could be of a male student that has his shirt mostly open perhaps. So I do get it.

I like MustardSeed's comment as well:

"That said, there’s a new movement on the horizon looking to de emphasize the objectification of women.  This movement elevates all of us.  I love it."

But again, maybe women objectify male's bodies too. Not as much, but it's there. And there is appropriate attire on both sides. Sorry to have wasted space on this thread. :)

Link to comment
1 minute ago, california boy said:

Sorry but it does.  If breasts are not viewed as sexual then seeing them is not any more indecent than a hand or a foot.   What is the difference between looking at a breast and a hand when there is no sexually connected to either?

Maybe that's something for scientists to analyze and offer an opinion on.  As well as for a prophet of God to teach us about.  Generally in society it is understood that we have what are called "private" parts of our bodies that are not meant for public display.  

We could change all of that, of course, if as a global society we decided that every part of our body was okay for public display.  Buit then of course we would want everybody to be okay with that.  Maybe you could start the petition for everybody to sign.

Link to comment
48 minutes ago, california boy said:

Maybe it is you that should have been born gay.  Women’s breasts do nothing for me.  She could have been naked and I would have no problem lecturing right in front of her.

Okay.

48 minutes ago, california boy said:

Actually if you were born gay, I think most of your views would change.  But I get it.  We each view life through the lense we have been given.  

And through what information we obtain, and through how we evaluate it, and through our choices, and so on.

48 minutes ago, california boy said:

And maybe your obsession with LGBT issues is because you know you will never have to deal with them.  

Well, let's take a look at the threads I have started in the last while (the asterisked ones pertain to homosexuality):

  • ***Identity = Child of God > Gay Man 
  • Update on Story Re: Missing Kids (Daybell) 
  • Minerva Teichert's Grandson's Lawsuit Against the Church 
  • Multiple Latter-day Saints churches lit on fire in St. George, man arrested 
  • RICO Act, Proposed Class Action against the Church - it is filed (Part 2) - Gaddy Lawsuit
  • James huntsman (jon's brother) sues church for 'fraud' 
  • Salt Lake Tribune: Why the Church's $100B "May Be Needed"
  • Elder Holland: BYU may need to "stand alone" 
  • Poll re Crystals / Tarot Cards / Fortunetelling 
  • Alaska Assistant Attorney General in "DezNat" Trouble 
  • New Book on Polygamy 
  • Federal lawsuit against religious schools, including byu 
  • BYU Requiring Vaccination Status
  • August Updates to Handbook: Treatment of Refugees, No Politics in Church...
  • Saturday Session of General Conference . . . is Back (in-person attendance...out)
  • ***First Amendment Win in the 8th Circuit
  • 'First amendment audits' in california (religious harassment - Disturbing stuff)
  • Judge strikes daca, sez it's unconstitutional
  • ***Dan reynolds on mormonism 
  • ***'A message from the gay community performed by the san francisco gay mens chorus' 
  • And now, a cheerful story....
  • Update on 2018 shooting in nv sacrament meeting
  • Church preserving records of historic african-american cemetery
  • Dan Peterson Takes on the "No Evidence At All for The Book of Mormon" Argument 
  • Article re worldwide population decline 
  • The parley p. Pratt freedom run
  • An uplifting story
  • ***Update on Masterpiece Cake Shop Case 
  • Trib article re: Native americans and the church
  • New policy re: Lay leaders officiating in marriages
  • Deznat (deseret nation) = White nationalism? - Part 4 
  • Two news items re: Latter-day saints and catholics
  • Thoughts on 'magic' as a pejorative argument against theism
  • Article re church's interest in land
  • Mark hofmann's 'oath of a freeman' for sale at auction
  • Increasing state-authorized/Mandated segregation
  • Article re lack of consensus in evolutionary theory
  • Deznat (deseret nation) = White nationalism? - Part 3
  • Byu devotional talk re: Sin of racism'
  • Church building in missouri burned, arson suspected
  • Stations of the cross videos produced by byu increase understanding of the catholic devotion
  • The church's new 'international area organization adviser' position. 
  • How much of a thing is 'mormon survivalism?
  • 'Inspired fiction' and doctrine and covenants section 27
  • Religious affiliation in u.S. Falls below 50 (first time ever)
  • The Pronoun Wars Continue
  • ***Catholic Church Prohibits Blessings of Same-Sex Unions
  • ***"Y" on Mountain Above BYU Lit Up with Rainbow Colors
  • Terryl Givens Weighs in on Ethics of Abortion
  • New Discovery of Dead Sea Biblical Fragments - More to Come?
  • "Mother" and "Father" Erased at British University 
  • Ex-Mormons on Shrooms
  • What does a prophet look/act like?
  • "Love One Another" v. "Black Lives Matter"
  • "Mormon" as a Genetic Ethnicity?
  • New Lawsuit Against Church in Oregon
  • "Saints Unscripted" YouTube Channel is Really Doing Well
  • Article Re: Declining Interest in Marriage (by Men)
  • Update on "Witnesses" Film
  • Erda Temple Moving to Tooele
  • Update on Story Re: Decertification of BYU Police 
  • Controversy Re: USU Prez's Purported Comments on Polynesian Latter-day Saint Coach's Religious and Cultural Background 
  • Another Religion-based "Affinity Fraud" Case in Utah
  • Church Rebukes Latter-day Saints Participating in Riot in DC w/ "Title of Liberty" Banner
  • Apocalyptic Predictions About the Environment
  • Jane Riess on Pixar's "Soul"
  • Governor of New York Issues Executive Citation Commemorating 200th Anniversary of First Vision
  • Saints Unscripted Interviews Don Bradley / "The Lost 116 Pages"
  • Saints Unscripted - The Witnesses and "Trilemma" Analysis
  • DezNat (Deseret Nation) = White Nationalism? - Part 2
  • AZ Court of Appeals Issues Decision Re: Are Mormons Christian?
  • Update on Human Trafficking Scam in AZ/UT
  • SCOTUS Justice Alito: "Religious Liberty Is In Danger Of Becoming A Second-Class Right"
  • Update on AZ Abuse Case
  • Address by Pres. Nelson on 11/20/20 - "The Healing Power of Gratitude"
  • Legalization of "Hard" Drugs
  • Dan Vogel's "Early Mormon Documents" Now Online
  • A Non-Political Point About a Political Ad
  • Pres. Oaks and "Black lives matter"
  • The Proclamation and Rugby: Developments in the Latter as a Reality Check on the Former
  • Catholic Bishop: Abortion Is the 'Preeminent Evil in Our Culture.
  • Joseph Smith Papers, Volume 11 - Released
  • Catholic Publisher Accidentally Uses Angel Moroni on Hymnal Cover 
  • Church in Recent News Items
  • HBO Developing Another "Mormon" Drama
  • Locals in Erda, Ut Complain Re: Temple Development, Church Responds....
  • Catholic Views on Priesthood Authority
  • Interesting Article Re Byu Student Fighting Racism
  • Shots Fired at Mtc
  • Church Sued in California
  • Covid = End of College 'As We Know It' = End of Byu?
  • Recent Increased Violence Against Religious Symbols
  • Laswuit Against Pres. Nelson's Daughter Dismissed
  • Simon Southerton's New Book
  • Church to Publish Sermons of Eliza R. Snow
  • Jod as Evidence of Brigham Young's Racism
  • ***Gay Utah County Commissioner Loses Primary, Partially Attributes Loss to His Orientation
  • Religious Leaders Unite Against Racism, Rioting, Looting
  • Byu Prof Charged: Sexual Misconduct

Of these 98 topics, seven of them, or about 7%, pertain to issues about homosexuality, which is perhaps the most hotly contested and most frequently discussed topics in the Church today.  And all of these pertain to my faith.

Now let's take a look at the topics you have started (again, the asterisked ones pertain to homosexuality):

  • ***We Can Find Common Ground on Gay Rights and Religious Liberty
  • A Prophet of God
  • ***In Latter Times Some Shall Forbid Marriage
  • ***You Guys Need a Hug
  • ***Is there a place in the Plan of Happiness for gays?
  • Do you think there has  been a revelation from God since Joseph Smith's time? 
  • Is the Bible the Words of God?
  • ***Why would any straight person want to be a member of the COJCOLDS?
  • ***Main resons for faith crisis
  • So What Is The Real Plan Of God. Or Is The Plan Of Salvation A Complete Disaster.
  • ***The Last Ever Ssm Thread. Who's In?
  • Why Is Organized Religion Failing 
  • ***Eternal Increase And Eternal Progression
  • Use Of The Urim And Thummim In Translating The Book Of Mormon
  • ***Plantiff Files Prop 8 Brief For Supreme Court
  • ***The Church Has Done More For Gay Marriage Than Any Other Organization
  • ***Marriott Pushes For Doma Repeal
  • Does God Cause Natural Disasters?
  • ***Has Anyone On This Board Softened Their Views Of Gay Marriage?
  • ***Catholics Backing Away From Politically Fighting Gay Marriage.
  • ***Prop 8 The Play To Broadcast On Youtube
  • David Archuleta Announces He Is Serving A Mission
  • ***George Cloney To Star In Dustin Lance Black'S Prop 8 Play
  • Morality And The Presidency
  • ***Prop 8, The Play

Of these 25 topics, sixteen of them, or 64%, pertain to issues about homosexuality.

  • My topics about homosexuality: 7%
  • Your topics about homosexuality: 64%

Would I describe you as "obsessed?"  Nope.  Why?  Because the topic is relevant and important to you.

For me, pretty much 100% oif my posts pertain to the Church.  Its doctrines and policies.  Its history and practices.  Recent developments and news items about it.  Lawsuits.  And yes, the issue of same-sex attraction is a pretty common topic these days.  

48 minutes ago, california boy said:

So you regularly start these threads and pontificate on how you would solve the problems.

And you regularly personalize threads to focus on me rather than on the topic.  I'd really rather you not do that.

48 minutes ago, california boy said:

It is always easier to deal with other peoples problems rather than dealing with our own. 

Quite so.  Sage wisdom, that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
3 hours ago,  Peacefully said: 

Unfortunately, I think some leaders counsel from their own, personal biases. I was counseled by a Bishop to ask my daughter not to wear tight shirts to church because it made his son uncomfortable.

I think the bishop could have omitted the reference to his son and the counsel still be sound.  I can understand that some women and girls don't like "modesty" framed primarily as a "how it affects others" kind of thing.  I'm not sure I fully understand it, though.

By way of illustration: I think the highest and best motivation to adhere to the Law of Chastity is because I am trying to obey God.  Now, a well-intended bishop may suggest that I keep this commandment because violating it would adversely affect my wife and children.  Is he wrong?  Well, no.  Would it be better for him to encourage me to keep the Law of Chastity based on a love of God ("If ye love me, keep my commandments...")?  
 

We will have to agree to disagree. My daughter was not responsible for his son’s thoughts. 

   3 hours ago,  Peacefully said:

The same Bishop counseled me not to invite any of the young women to my wedding in the chapel be cause it would be celebrating a non-temple wedding.

Oi.  I'm sorry to hear that.  

   3 hours ago,  Peacefully said:

I was younger and sometimes I took these things to heart instead of seeking my own inspiration. I now realize these are men, doing the best they can in a probably overwhelming position.

And their "best" is often fairly congruent with the principles and doctrines espoused by the Church.  But yeah, they can and do screw up as well.

   3 hours ago,  Peacefully said: 

Have some done damage, maybe even irreparable? Absolutely, and I think there are legitimate reasons to take other paths. 

Could you elaborate?  I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts.

Specifically referring to CB’s situation here. He and the woman he married were damaged by what leaders told them to do. It sounds like CB has recovered. I don’t know if his ex has. Sometimes it is very hard to trust the next person once you’ve been hurt I this way.
 

Currently, if a gay member wants to marry someone of the same sex then they have to take a path away from the church. I hope it will not always be the case. 

   3 hours ago,  Peacefully said: 

But I think it is getting better. So I choose to stay and be the change I want to see because I do think there is more light and knowledge to come. 

Very cool.  I think we improve the Church by improving ourselves and then work together to improve and strengthen our community.

Hmmm, funny you jump right to a person needing to improve themselves. Not really the point I was making, but ok. 

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by Peacefully
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

Maybe that's something for scientists to analyze and offer an opinion on.  As well as for a prophet of God to teach us about.  Generally in society it is understood that we have what are called "private" parts of our bodies that are not meant for public display.  

We could change all of that, of course, if as a global society we decided that every part of our body was okay for public display.  Buit then of course we would want everybody to be okay with that.  Maybe you could start the petition for everybody to sign.

I traveled to Bali in the 80’s.  Traditionally women there never covered their breasts.  It never seemed to bother anyone.  Then the president of Indonesia passed a law requiring all women to cover their breasts.  The young women who didn’t grow up with women’s breasts showing all wore blouses to cover up.  The older women however thought the law was stupid.  After centuries of having women not covering up they couldn’t understand why because some guy in Jakarta decided it was immodest they now had to be hot.  So they would put on a blouse but not bother to button it. As they walked slowly down the street their sagging breasts would swing back and forth.  No one else seemed to care. I doubt very much that God cared either.  Why would He?

Do you remember who told Adam and Eve to put something on because they were naked?   

Link to comment
28 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Thanks for responding, I know you're a busy guy. I probably didn't apologize well by bringing up the walking porn statement.

Yeah, I really didn't appreciate that.  I have never expressed any view that characterizes women in this way.

28 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

But again, maybe women objectify male's bodies too. Not as much, but it's there.

I dunno.  Consider this:

Quote

Women watch porn. Alright? We watch it. And some of us watch a lot of it. In fact, recent research has shown that women watch more porn than men do— at least when length is considered. Pornhub and their Pornhub Insights have long broken down interesting facts and trends about all things porn. But now we have ten years of Pornhub data at our fingertips and looking at the information as a whole provides a whole new understanding. One things that the research found, according to The Cut, is that women, on average, spend 1:14 more minutes a day on the site than male viewers.

And here:

Quote

When women comment publicly about porn, some say they enjoy watching, but most condemn it as incomprehensible, off-putting, disgusting, misogynous, or worse. It’s surprising that 2019 Google Analytics data show that the audience for PornHub, one of the world’s most popular porn sites (30 billion views annually), is 32 percent female.

Corroborating evidence on female porn viewing comes from a University of Denver study of 1,291 coupled individuals. Among the women, 45 percent said they watched with their partners, 30 percent by themselves.

Seems like there is plenty of "objectification" going on, from both genders.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
42 minutes ago, california boy said:

Unfortunately I believe it was a pretty common promise given to gay men during that time period.  I have heard a lot of stories from across the country from other gay men.  They too resent those church leaders giving them that false promise    I only know of one that is still in the church.  And thankfully Gordon B Hinkley put an end to this practice when in a conference address declared that marriage is not therapy. We move forward.  

The history of how gay people have been treated is so sad. The movie “The Imitation Game” comes to mind. I’m sorry you have had these terrible experiences, and I hope you have found true happiness. 

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, california boy said:

I traveled to Bali in the 80’s.  Traditionally women there never covered their breasts.  It never seemed to bother anyone.  Then the president of Indonesia passed a law requiring all women to cover their breasts.  The young women who didn’t grow up with women’s breasts showing all wore blouses to cover up.  The older women however thought the law was stupid.  After centuries of having women not covering up they couldn’t understand why because some guy in Jakarta decided it was immodest they now had to be hot.  So they would put on a blouse but not bother to button it. As they walked slowly down the street their sagging breasts would swing back and forth.  No one else seemed to care. I doubt very much that God cared either.  Why would He?

Yes, I know, indecent exposure is common in a lot of places.  As if some people don't know we created air conditioners to keep our bodies cool.  And as if some people just don't care if they are walking around indecently exposed. 

I say: MORE CLOTHES FOR EVERYBODY!!!  AND AIR CONDITIONERS TOO!!! 

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

Do you remember who told Adam and Eve to put something on because they were naked?   

Yes, but his goal was to make them feel ashamed of their bodies, and their bodies were nothing to be ashamed of.  People should dress modestly not because they are ashamed of their bodies but because their bodies should be modestly clothed in public.

Link to comment

Some years ago, I read a book called "Predictably Irrational."  Fascinating read, covering a number of topics.  But one part, regarding sexuality, has stuck with me over the years.  Forgive me that I'm resorting to memory here.

The author describes an experiment in which a control group was shown a number of pictures of both men and women and were asked to rate them on sexual desirability.  Another group of men were brought into a state of sexual arousal, and then shown the same pictures.  The group that was already sexually excited indicated a much broader selection of sexual desirability from among those pictures.  (Or maybe it was the same group of men in both instances and they were asked to look at pictures in both an unexcited state and an excited state, and the experiment compared the differences in the gender-ratio of their picture selections.  As I said, it's been a while since I read the book).

Point being, we think we know what excites us sexually, as we sit here in an unexcited state.  We think we know exactly what our sexual preferences actually are.  But those preferences can be very different, and much broader once we find ourselves in an aroused state.  It may very well be that sexual preferences aren't just fluid over a lifetime, but throughout the day. 

Link to comment
39 minutes ago, california boy said:
Quote

Not being sexually attracted to a woman or women in general should not make you blind to indecent exposure, whether it is a man or a woman who is indecently exposed.  Cloth the naked is my motto.  I would have brought her a more modest top to wear.

Sorry but it does.  If breasts are not viewed as sexual then seeing them is not any more indecent than a hand or a foot.

With respect, I disagree.

Witnessing "indecent exposure" is not necessarily a matter of sexual arousal or attraction.  Decorum, decency and propriety are also important considerations.

I was born in Hawaii and lived there until I was five.  I then moved to Utah, but I still have not acclimated to wearing shoes.  I am barefoot at pretty much all times I am at home.  And I never wear gloves.  So I have no qualms about letting my children see my feet and hands.  But I have never walked around nude below the waist.  Not because I am concerned about sexual arousal/attraction, but rather because I think basic notions of modesty, decorum, decency and propriety preclude such indecent exposure.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Okay.

And through what information we obtain, and through how we evaluate it, and through our choices, and so on.

Well, let's take a look at the threads I have started in the last while (the asterisked ones pertain to homosexuality):

  • ***Identity = Child of God > Gay Man 
  • Update on Story Re: Missing Kids (Daybell) 
  • Minerva Teichert's Grandson's Lawsuit Against the Church 
  • Multiple Latter-day Saints churches lit on fire in St. George, man arrested 
  • RICO Act, Proposed Class Action against the Church - it is filed (Part 2) - Gaddy Lawsuit
  • James huntsman (jon's brother) sues church for 'fraud' 
  • Salt Lake Tribune: Why the Church's $100B "May Be Needed"
  • Elder Holland: BYU may need to "stand alone" 
  • Poll re Crystals / Tarot Cards / Fortunetelling 
  • Alaska Assistant Attorney General in "DezNat" Trouble 
  • New Book on Polygamy 
  • Federal lawsuit against religious schools, including byu 
  • BYU Requiring Vaccination Status
  • August Updates to Handbook: Treatment of Refugees, No Politics in Church...
  • Saturday Session of General Conference . . . is Back (in-person attendance...out)
  • ***First Amendment Win in the 8th Circuit
  • 'First amendment audits' in california (religious harassment - Disturbing stuff)
  • Judge strikes daca, sez it's unconstitutional
  • ***Dan reynolds on mormonism 
  • ***'A message from the gay community performed by the san francisco gay mens chorus' 
  • And now, a cheerful story....
  • Update on 2018 shooting in nv sacrament meeting
  • Church preserving records of historic african-american cemetery
  • Dan Peterson Takes on the "No Evidence At All for The Book of Mormon" Argument 
  • Article re worldwide population decline 
  • The parley p. Pratt freedom run
  • An uplifting story
  • ***Update on Masterpiece Cake Shop Case 
  • Trib article re: Native americans and the church
  • New policy re: Lay leaders officiating in marriages
  • Deznat (deseret nation) = White nationalism? - Part 4 
  • Two news items re: Latter-day saints and catholics
  • Thoughts on 'magic' as a pejorative argument against theism
  • Article re church's interest in land
  • Mark hofmann's 'oath of a freeman' for sale at auction
  • Increasing state-authorized/Mandated segregation
  • Article re lack of consensus in evolutionary theory
  • Deznat (deseret nation) = White nationalism? - Part 3
  • Byu devotional talk re: Sin of racism'
  • Church building in missouri burned, arson suspected
  • Stations of the cross videos produced by byu increase understanding of the catholic devotion
  • The church's new 'international area organization adviser' position. 
  • How much of a thing is 'mormon survivalism?
  • 'Inspired fiction' and doctrine and covenants section 27
  • Religious affiliation in u.S. Falls below 50 (first time ever)
  • The Pronoun Wars Continue
  • ***Catholic Church Prohibits Blessings of Same-Sex Unions
  • ***"Y" on Mountain Above BYU Lit Up with Rainbow Colors
  • Terryl Givens Weighs in on Ethics of Abortion
  • New Discovery of Dead Sea Biblical Fragments - More to Come?
  • "Mother" and "Father" Erased at British University 
  • Ex-Mormons on Shrooms
  • What does a prophet look/act like?
  • "Love One Another" v. "Black Lives Matter"
  • "Mormon" as a Genetic Ethnicity?
  • New Lawsuit Against Church in Oregon
  • "Saints Unscripted" YouTube Channel is Really Doing Well
  • Article Re: Declining Interest in Marriage (by Men)
  • Update on "Witnesses" Film
  • Erda Temple Moving to Tooele
  • Update on Story Re: Decertification of BYU Police 
  • Controversy Re: USU Prez's Purported Comments on Polynesian Latter-day Saint Coach's Religious and Cultural Background 
  • Another Religion-based "Affinity Fraud" Case in Utah
  • Church Rebukes Latter-day Saints Participating in Riot in DC w/ "Title of Liberty" Banner
  • Apocalyptic Predictions About the Environment
  • Jane Riess on Pixar's "Soul"
  • Governor of New York Issues Executive Citation Commemorating 200th Anniversary of First Vision
  • Saints Unscripted Interviews Don Bradley / "The Lost 116 Pages"
  • Saints Unscripted - The Witnesses and "Trilemma" Analysis
  • DezNat (Deseret Nation) = White Nationalism? - Part 2
  • AZ Court of Appeals Issues Decision Re: Are Mormons Christian?
  • Update on Human Trafficking Scam in AZ/UT
  • SCOTUS Justice Alito: "Religious Liberty Is In Danger Of Becoming A Second-Class Right"
  • Update on AZ Abuse Case
  • Address by Pres. Nelson on 11/20/20 - "The Healing Power of Gratitude"
  • Legalization of "Hard" Drugs
  • Dan Vogel's "Early Mormon Documents" Now Online
  • A Non-Political Point About a Political Ad
  • Pres. Oaks and "Black lives matter"
  • The Proclamation and Rugby: Developments in the Latter as a Reality Check on the Former
  • Catholic Bishop: Abortion Is the 'Preeminent Evil in Our Culture.
  • Joseph Smith Papers, Volume 11 - Released
  • Catholic Publisher Accidentally Uses Angel Moroni on Hymnal Cover 
  • Church in Recent News Items
  • HBO Developing Another "Mormon" Drama
  • Locals in Erda, Ut Complain Re: Temple Development, Church Responds....
  • Catholic Views on Priesthood Authority
  • Interesting Article Re Byu Student Fighting Racism
  • Shots Fired at Mtc
  • Church Sued in California
  • Covid = End of College 'As We Know It' = End of Byu?
  • Recent Increased Violence Against Religious Symbols
  • Laswuit Against Pres. Nelson's Daughter Dismissed
  • Simon Southerton's New Book
  • Church to Publish Sermons of Eliza R. Snow
  • Jod as Evidence of Brigham Young's Racism
  • ***Gay Utah County Commissioner Loses Primary, Partially Attributes Loss to His Orientation
  • Religious Leaders Unite Against Racism, Rioting, Looting
  • Byu Prof Charged: Sexual Misconduct

Of these 98 topics, seven of them, or about 7%, pertain to issues about homosexuality, which is perhaps the most hotly contested and most frequently discussed topics in the Church today.  And all of these pertain to my faith.

Now let's take a look at the topics you have started (again, the asterisked ones pertain to homosexuality):

  • ***We Can Find Common Ground on Gay Rights and Religious Liberty
  • A Prophet of God
  • ***In Latter Times Some Shall Forbid Marriage
  • ***You Guys Need a Hug
  • ***Is there a place in the Plan of Happiness for gays?
  • Do you think there has  been a revelation from God since Joseph Smith's time? 
  • Is the Bible the Words of God?
  • ***Why would any straight person want to be a member of the COJCOLDS?
  • ***Main resons for faith crisis
  • So What Is The Real Plan Of God. Or Is The Plan Of Salvation A Complete Disaster.
  • ***The Last Ever Ssm Thread. Who's In?
  • Why Is Organized Religion Failing 
  • ***Eternal Increase And Eternal Progression
  • Use Of The Urim And Thummim In Translating The Book Of Mormon
  • ***Plantiff Files Prop 8 Brief For Supreme Court
  • ***The Church Has Done More For Gay Marriage Than Any Other Organization
  • ***Marriott Pushes For Doma Repeal
  • Does God Cause Natural Disasters?
  • ***Has Anyone On This Board Softened Their Views Of Gay Marriage?
  • ***Catholics Backing Away From Politically Fighting Gay Marriage.
  • ***Prop 8 The Play To Broadcast On Youtube
  • David Archuleta Announces He Is Serving A Mission
  • ***George Cloney To Star In Dustin Lance Black'S Prop 8 Play
  • Morality And The Presidency
  • ***Prop 8, The Play

Of these 25 topics, sixteen of them, or 64%, pertain to issues about homosexuality.

  • My topics about homosexuality: 7%
  • Your topics about homosexuality: 64%

Would I describe you as "obsessed?"  Nope.  Why?  Because the topic is relevant and important to you.

For me, pretty much 100% oif my posts pertain to the Church.  Its doctrines and policies.  Its history and practices.  Recent developments and news items about it.  Lawsuits.  And yes, the issue of same-sex attraction is a pretty common topic these days.  

And you regularly personalize threads to focus on me rather than on the topic.  I'd really rather you not do that.

Quite so.  Sage wisdom, that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Can you tell me the last time I gav started a thread about any LGBT issue?    Because I don’t think I have started a thread about LGBT issues in over 5 years. 

Can you point to anyone who has started more threads on LGBT issues than you in the last 5 years?

 

Link to comment
Just now, california boy said:

Can you tell me the last time I gav started a thread about any LGBT issue?    Because I don’t think I have started a thread about LGBT issues in over 5 years. 

Can you point to anyone who has started more threads on LGBT issues than you in the last 5 years?

Could you perhaps stop personalizing threads?

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

With respect, I disagree.

Witnessing "indecent exposure" is not necessarily a matter of sexual arousal or attraction.  Decorum, decency and propriety are also important considerations.

I was born in Hawaii and lived there until I was five.  I then moved to Utah, but I still have not acclimated to wearing shoes.  I am barefoot at pretty much all times I am at home.  And I never wear gloves.  So I have no qualms about letting my children see my feet and hands.  But I have never walked around nude below the waist.  Not because I am concerned about sexual arousal/attraction, but rather because I think basic notions of modesty, decorum, decency and propriety preclude such indecent exposure.

Thanks,

-Smac

But you have no problem walking around in front of your children showing off your breasts?

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Could you perhaps stop personalizing threads?

Thanks,

-Smac

Wait.  You dredge up posts of mine from over 5 years ago most of them even 10 years ago and when I call you on it all the sudden it becomes personal?

You are the one who claimed you are not obsessed with LGBT issues yet you can’t name a person who has started more threads on this issue in the past 5 years?

Edited by california boy
Link to comment
22 minutes ago, Peacefully said:
 

We will have to agree to disagree. My daughter was not responsible for his son’s thoughts. 

I don't think we disagree on that point.

22 minutes ago, Peacefully said:
Quote

 

Quote

But I think it is getting better. So I choose to stay and be the change I want to see because I do think there is more light and knowledge to come. 

Very cool.  I think we improve the Church by improving ourselves and then work together to improve and strengthen our community.

 

Hmmm, funny you jump right to a person needing to improve themselves. Not really the point I was making, but ok. 

I said "I think we improve the Church..."

In my marriage, I don't tend to "jump right to" me contemplating how my wife can improve herself.  Motes and beams and all that.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, california boy said:

Wait.  You dredge up posts of mine from over 5 years ago and when I call you on it all the sudden it becomes personal?

Not all of the sudden.  You personalizing threads by talking about me personally rather than the topic is a very, very common thing.

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

You are the one who claimed you are not obsessed with LGBT issues

You are the one who accused me of being "obsessed."  I responded by denying your personalized accusation.

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

yet you can’t name a person who has started more threads on this issue in the past 5 years?

Sigh.  I've asked respectfully to stop, and you continue to personalize the thread.  I guess I'll report you to the mods and let them address it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

I think more women are not covering up when breastfeeding. I was kind of shocked the first time my daughter breastfed in front of my husband and me. I figured she would use a cover-up the old-school way, no she popped it out and latched baby on. We got used to it, because there was nothing sexual about it. I think we have a lot of hang ups about the female body in this country. 

Every part of every person is sexual because every person is a sexual being, from head to foot.  Some people seem to have the erroneous idea that only a woman's private parts are sexual for her sex, but her face and her skin and every other part of her screams "woman!" just as much as her private parts and the spirit within her.  Or at least this is how I think on this issue. So when I hear people say they are not sexually attracted to someone or some group of people I have to shift into translate mode to try to understand what they are thinking.  And because of language that is not usually an easy feat.  A man may say he is not sexually attracted to a woman and yet he may love her dearly and be really good friends with her, as a woman, which is her sex.  And yet he is saying he is not sexually attracted to her?  She IS a woman! bb What do you mean you are not sexually attracted to her?  You and she are very attracted to each other as good friends usually are and should be.  I think you just mean you don't think about her private parts when you are with her.  Words are weird.  People often do not mean what they say with the words they use to say something.

Link to comment
35 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

Every part of every person is sexual because every person is a sexual being, from head to foot.  Some people seem to have the erroneous idea that only a woman's private parts are sexual for her sex, but her face and her skin and every other part of her screams "woman!" just as much as her private parts and the spirit within her.  Or at least this is how I think on this issue. So when I hear people say they are not sexually attracted to someone or some group of people I have to shift into translate mode to try to understand what they are thinking.  And because of language that is not usually an easy feat.  A man may say he is not sexually attracted to a woman and yet he may love her dearly and be really good friends with her, as a woman, which is her sex.  And yet he is saying he is not sexually attracted to her?  She IS a woman! bb What do you mean you are not sexually attracted to her?  You and she are very attracted to each other as good friends usually are and should be.  I think you just mean you don't think about her private parts when you are with her.  Words are weird.  People often do not mean what they say with the words they use to say something.

Sounds like you would advocate for burkas. 

Edited by Peacefully
Link to comment
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Could you perhaps stop personalizing threads?

The personal cannot be easily divorced from the discussion of societal/political matters.

Look, I’m new here and even I’ve noticed that the subject seems to of especial, even personal emphasis to ya.

So be it.

But it’s only natural that the subject is of great importance to those of us that are 2SLBTQ+

So no. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Well, maybe in this circumstance think of her chest as a life giving substance for babies, not a mental image of porn? :) ETA: I want to add that I understand that in our world in the US, we are programmed to believe that image is walking porn, or whatever you want to call it. And if a student was a man and I was teaching and he was showing his lower half, too low, I might not like that either. So I think it's our conditioning, all of us. But cleavage seems a little better than a man showing the beginnings of his pubic area. I see cleavage at church. On Marie Osmond. So I really don't know since I wasn't in the classroom how bad it was.

Though I don't mean to pick you out singularly, I do believe you and many others are guilty of this. Your comment "And if a student was a man and I was teaching and he was showing the lower half, too low, I might not like that either" prompts my question - But are you yourself struggling with notions of modesty you expect others to follow and that perhaps you should take a look at? And your later comment "So I really don't know since I wasn't in the classroom how bad (italics added) it was". How bad what was? Are you suggesting a standard that you haven't shared? And if so, please share this standard with the board. And that's mainly my point - it seems far too many find great ease in criticizing those who suggest a standard though they themselves fall far short of explaining where this different standard should be - that is, unless those who are critical are suggesting there should not be a standard? In that event, I don't see how we'll ever come to an agreement.

In order to best insure a productive exchange here, many times we must first plot out the extremes. Is there someone who would argue there should be no standard?

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...