Same-sex sealings

[ttribe]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

You didn't point it out in his post though, not in the way that you've repeatedly implied.  You took one thing (a post about the need for God to validate ordinances) and made it into something completely different (sex with animals I guess?), and then got upset because of what you made the post into. 

That's the what I'm find fault with.  Actually comparing gay and lesbians to people who have sex with animals is atrocious.  But, JLH wasn't doing that so we didn't actually need to go there.

(And thankfully, what goes on in the great wide web is not really a good example for what goes on here--because lots of sickos out there  Thankfully in here, most of us have a long history together, so we can generally know where someone is coming from and what they are likely to mean, and what they aren't).

 

Let's go back to what I actually said:

On 9/28/2022 at 4:08 PM, ttribe said:

That didn't take long for the inevitable comparison between SSM and relationships with animals.

I said "relationships." The quote from JLH was comparing SSM to sealing to a horse. That was the straight up comparison. I changed nothing about it. Getting married, or sealed, to a horse is a relationship with an animal.

I've provided you a number of examples both here and elsewhere of the pattern of comparing SSM to bestiality, pedophilia, and criminality to show you that comparing someone's marriage to someone they love, regardless of sex of gender, to marrying one's 'horse' is in the exact same vein as the examples I provided, and that such comparison's are inherently hurtful and completely obliterate discussion of the underlying issue. A number of people understood my point as evidence by the "likes." The Nehor understood it and commented on it.

 

[ttribe]

2 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Time for GUI’s Law1.1

No, it really isn't. If people stop comparing SSM to marrying animals, inanimate objects or children, you'll hear nothing from me about the issue. If people stop talking about homosexuality in the same breath as bestiality and pedophilia, you'll hear nothing from me. I am simply responding to others, not instigating it.

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

It makes not difference if same sex couples can't biologically reproduce therefore they can't be married.  An elderly man can marry and elderly woman and they can't reproduce.  Their marriage is still 100% acceptable in terms of the doctrine of the Church.  Lots of reasons why gay marriage is not doctrinal but the issue of the capacity of having kids I think is at the bottom of the list.

 

 

I appears you may be missing the central point. All eternal marriage sealings performed on earth are in preparation for celestial family life and procreation in heaven. Also consider that the marriages of older heterosexual couples beyond childbearing years are at least on the path of trajectory that could ultimately lead to eternal marriage. After all, how many hundreds of thousands of deceased nonmember husbands and wives are there who have been vicariously sealed for time and all eternity in the temples? The same cannot be said for deceased nonmember homosexual couples.

Edited September 30, 2022 by teddyaware

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

 

Let's go back to what I actually said:

I said "relationships." The quote from JLH was comparing SSM to sealing to a horse. That was the straight up comparison. I changed nothing about it. Getting married, or sealed, to a horse is a relationship with an animal.

I've provided you a number of examples both here and elsewhere of the pattern of comparing SSM to bestiality, pedophilia, and criminality to show you that comparing someone's marriage to someone they love, regardless of sex of gender, to marrying one's 'horse' is in the exact same vein as the examples I provided, and that such comparison's are inherently hurtful and completely obliterate discussion of the underlying issue. A number of people understood my point as evidence by the "likes." The Nehor understood it and commented on it.

 

It's hard to believe that you are still trying to argue that what JLH posted "was in the exact same vein" as comparing SSM to bestiality, pedophilia and criminality.  Especially after he clarified that he didn't mean his comparison to imply any kind of relationship and that he could have just as easily used the word 'truck' to make the exact same point.  

If that's true and a relationship wasn't a necessary aspect of his argument (and we aren't just going to flat out accuse him of lying now as well), then continuing to interpret his words to mean a relationship with an animal seems incredibly unreasonable (to put it nicely).

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, ttribe said:

No, it really isn't. If people stop comparing SSM to marrying animals, inanimate objects or children, you'll hear nothing from me about the issue. If people stop talking about homosexuality in the same breath as bestiality and pedophilia, you'll hear nothing from me. I am simply responding to others, not instigating it.

But you aren't responding to the people who are actually doing that. 

[ttribe]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It's hard to believe that you are still trying to argue that what JLH posted "was in the exact same vein" as comparing SSM to bestiality, pedophilia and criminality.  Especially after he clarified that he didn't mean his comparison to imply any kind of relationship and that he could have just as easily used the word 'truck' to make the exact same point.  

If that's true and a relationship wasn't a necessary aspect of his argument (and we aren't just going to flat out accuse him of lying now as well), then continuing to interpret his words to mean a relationship with an animal seems incredibly unreasonable (to put it nicely).

Clearly we disagree as to his intent.

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

But you aren't responding to the people who are actually doing that. 

I'm not? I've done it repeatedly in the past on this very board. There's absolutely nothing new about what I said this time.

[Bernard Gui]

12 minutes ago, ttribe said:

No, it really isn't. If people stop comparing SSM to marrying animals, inanimate objects or children, you'll hear nothing from me about the issue. If people stop talking about homosexuality in the same breath as bestiality and pedophilia, you'll hear nothing from me. I am simply responding to others, not instigating it.

It seems to me a brother who apparently had no intention to link the two and had no history of such is being made an offender for a word. I think he should be taken at his word and given the benefit of the doubt. 

Edited September 30, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

I appears you may be missing the central point. All eternal marriage sealings performed on earth are in preparation for celestial family life and procreation in heaven. Also consider that the marriages of older heterosexual couples beyond childbearing years are at least on the path of trajectory that could ultimately lead to eternal marriage. After all, how many hundreds of thousands of deceased nonmember husbands and wives are there who have been vicariously sealed for time and all eternity in the temples? The same cannot be said for deceased nonmember homosexual couples.

Agreed.  My biggest point against SSM in terms of sealings and temple blessings simply is that it does not allow us to arrive at our destiny.   We are commanded to become perfect like Jesus and the Father are perfect.  There is only one version of perfection.  There are no variant forms or shades of perfection.  Perfect is perfect.  So to become like them we must became as they are in every way.  So unless one is going to argue that both the Father and Son are bisexuals and married to both men and women in eternity, there is no way it could ever lead one to exaltation.  One can't become like the Father and Son while being fundamentally different than they are .

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

It makes not difference if same sex couples can't biologically reproduce therefore they can't be married.  An elderly man can marry and elderly woman and they can't reproduce.  Their marriage is still 100% acceptable in terms of the doctrine of the Church.  Lots of reasons why gay marriage is not doctrinal but the issue of the capacity of having kids I think is at the bottom of the list.

 

 

You missed the point.  The discussion is about universal laws not an individual's fertility.

Everybody's mom has probably said "What if EVERYONE acted like that?

[ttribe]

3 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

It seems to me a brother who apparently had no intention to link the two and had no history of such is being made an offender for a word. I think he should be taken at his word and given the benefit of the doubt. 

It seems to me, you wouldn't be willing to give the same benefit of the doubt to a single critic on this board.

[Hamba Tuhan]

15 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

It seems to me a brother who apparently had no intention to link the two and had no history of such is being made an offender for a word. I think he should be taken at his word and given the benefit of the doubt. 

The Outrage Machine simply cannot tolerate any disapproval of same-sex couplings. One just has to walk past the gnashing of teeth and keep going.

Edited September 30, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[ttribe]

Just now, Hamba Tuhan said:

The Outrage Machine simply cannot tolerate any disapproval of same-sex couplings. One just has walk past the gnashing of teeth and keep going.

Oh, nonsense. I've stated very clearly the type of rhetoric I find objectionable and why. It's really not that difficult.

[Peacefully]

25 minutes ago, ttribe said:

 

Let's go back to what I actually said:

I said "relationships." The quote from JLH was comparing SSM to sealing to a horse. That was the straight up comparison. I changed nothing about it. Getting married, or sealed, to a horse is a relationship with an animal.

I've provided you a number of examples both here and elsewhere of the pattern of comparing SSM to bestiality, pedophilia, and criminality to show you that comparing someone's marriage to someone they love, regardless of sex of gender, to marrying one's 'horse' is in the exact same vein as the examples I provided, and that such comparison's are inherently hurtful and completely obliterate discussion of the underlying issue. A number of people understood my point as evidence by the "likes." The Nehor understood it and commented on it.

 

I agree with you. We’ve heard so many insensitive comparisons when talking about SSM and many of us have explained each time why they are insensitive but the remarks still get trotted out every time (see what I did there:) 

I do not think the person who said you can marry a horse was in any way referring to bestiality, but it was an unnecessary and insensitive comparison to SSM. IMHO

[Bernard Gui]

28 minutes ago, ttribe said:

It seems to me, you wouldn't be willing to give the same benefit of the doubt to a single critic on this board.

Then you would be mistaken yet again. 

Edited September 30, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

21 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

The Outrage Machine simply cannot tolerate any disapproval of same-sex couplings. One just has to walk past the gnashing of teeth and keep going.

Yes, it is only total reversal that can be satisfactory….and cancellation. 

Edited September 30, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Time for GUI’s Law1.1

In a latter-day saint discussion of gay marriage, the likelihood of a comparison of gay relationships to rape approaches one as the page count increases past 3?

Edited September 30, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Hamba Tuhan]

48 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I've stated very clearly the type of rhetoric I find objectionable and why. It's really not that difficult.

Yes, your list of what you find objectionable leaves a single possible option: same-sex 'marriage' can only and exclusively be compared to marriage between a woman and a man.

And you're right: it's really not that difficult to surrender on this point. I can understand why so many people do. '2 + 2 = 5' is certainly easy to say.

Edited September 30, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[SeekingUnderstanding]

16 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

The Outrage Machine simply cannot tolerate any disapproval of same-sex couplings. One just has to walk past the gnashing of teeth and keep going.

 

16 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Yes, your list of what you find objectionable leaves a single possible option: same-sex 'marriage' can only and exclusively be compared to marriage between a woman and a man.

And you're right: it's really not that difficult to surrender on this point. I can understand why so many people do. '2 + 2 = 5' is certainly easy to say.

I really don’t get this sentiment. You can say whatever offensive thing you want about gay marriage. What you don’t get to decide is whether or not you are informed it’s offensive. If it offends you to hear people disagree with your analogies (and even call them offensive), there are plenty of echo chambers on the internet. 
 

A: “Hey, you’re living a lifestyle that will lead to suffering and the destruction of civilization (“calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.”)

B: “That’s pretty offensive and bigoted rhetoric”

A: “Stop being part of the super woke outrage machine man. What I can’t have an opinion? Help I’m being oppressed and persecuted!”

 

Edited September 30, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Buckeye]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

One of the things Kant held about Ideal morality is the notion that while justifying an act, one must be able to universalize it, and think about what would be the outcome for humanity if that act became a Universal Law.

That reiterates your point above.  On this view, homosexual behavior is immoral.

""One of Kant's categorical imperatives is the universalizability principle, in which one should "act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.” In lay terms, this simply means that if you do an action, then everyone else should also be able to do""

Under this logic, neither President Nelson nor President Oaks should have married their current wife. Both marriages began after menopause and have had no chance of bearing children. What a horrible example to set for others. Imagine if everyone got married to someone with whom they couldn’t have children. 

[Buckeye]

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

I appears you may be missing the central point. All eternal marriage sealings performed on earth are in preparation for celestial family life and procreation in heaven. Also consider that the marriages of older heterosexual couples beyond childbearing years are at least on the path of trajectory that could ultimately lead to eternal marriage. After all, how many hundreds of thousands of deceased nonmember husbands and wives are there who have been vicariously sealed for time and all eternity in the temples? The same cannot be said for deceased nonmember homosexual couples.

You’re missing the point. Some SS couples from LDS backgrounds believe they can procreate eternally. The fact that you think they’re factually wrong doesn’t change the sincerity of their belief.  

The vast majority of humans do not believe in spiritual procreation. Does it make LDS belief therefore immoral just because nearly everyone else disagrees with us factually? 

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Help I’m being oppressed and persecuted!

Something that I have never said (or even felt) in this discussion.

Quote

What you don’t get to decide is whether or not you are informed it’s offensive.

I'm 100 per cent fine with that. You also get to be 100 per cent fine if that 'information' does not result in my capitulation.

And thank you for clarifying/verifying that the actual 'offence' was not the way in which a particular comparison was worded but rather the fact that the comparison encoded a non-embrace of same-sex 'marriage'! 

[Buckeye]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

Agreed.  My biggest point against SSM in terms of sealings and temple blessings simply is that it does not allow us to arrive at our destiny.   We are commanded to become perfect like Jesus and the Father are perfect.  There is only one version of perfection.  There are no variant forms or shades of perfection.  Perfect is perfect.  So to become like them we must became as they are in every way.  So unless one is going to argue that both the Father and Son are bisexuals and married to both men and women in eternity, there is no way it could ever lead one to exaltation.  One can't become like the Father and Son while being fundamentally different than they are .

Wait, so exalted people are all the exact same height, weight, hair color, blood type? And they have the same preference for ice cream flavors, beach vs mountains, and so forth? 
The truth is we only have to be the same as Christ in things pertaining to righteousness. There can be (and thankfully are) many great diversities on things not pertaining to righteousness - such as skin color. Sexual orientation falls into that same category. It is a beautiful diversity. Not a deviation from righteousness. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

4 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Something that I have never said (or even felt) in this discussion.

I'm 100 per cent fine with that. You also get to be 100 per cent fine if that 'information' does not result in my capitulation.

And thank you for clarifying/verifying that the actual 'offence' was not the way in which a particular comparison was worded but rather the fact that the comparison encoded a non-embrace of same-sex 'marriage'! 

I’m not sure where that was, but glad you found what you where looking for anyway 👍

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

Clearly we disagree as to his intent.

Clearly you're completely mistaken. 

About a few things apparently.

Edited September 30, 2022 by JLHPROF

[mfbukowski]

37 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Under this logic, neither President Nelson nor President Oaks should have married their current wife. Both marriages began after menopause and have had no chance of bearing children. What a horrible example to set for others. Imagine if everyone got married to someone with whom they couldn’t have children. 

I already answered this above.  I think you are confusing two very separate issues.

This is what  I said to someone else: 

Quote

You missed the point.  The discussion is about universal laws not an individual's fertility.

It's kind of bothering me that now this is two individuals here who actually concluded that I was suggesting that everyone had to have children to reach the CK.

That's like concluding that everyone who has a driver's license must own an automobile from a discussion about the authority for driving rules.