Surehand

Here a quote: “I’ve worked with exhomosexuals, and I have never met one woman who had not been sexually violated in her life.” — Melissa Fryrear, Focus on the Family What does sexual violence deal with (female) homosexuality? If this statement was right, every 2nd woman would be a lesbian, because every 2nd woman experiences, statistically seen, before her 18th year sexual violence. With men, by the way, every fourth . In BOTH CASES the culprits are male (98%) and to 94% are heterosexual, accordingly of several studies in Germany, England and the USA.

The federal laws as well as the laws of the state of Illinois (in 1841) said this. Indeed, the practise looked different if it concerned white men and indian or black women. There it was officially also forbidden (and there was no "certificate of marriage"), but it was patient because indian and black women less worth than white women / men were (in the social world at that time). In reality men have taken this always what they wanted. If it is political, religious or economically been motivated. And thus it was also as I believe, with Joseph Smith and the polygamy. In my eyes it was no order/commandment of God, but an "order" of Joseph Smith's " third leg" as it is called here in Germany. With it I men the leg between the legs, if you understand.

Do the "other side" respect us and OUR decissions? No! And to use sweet words in an iron glove isn't my way. But it seems to be the way of some christian denominations and the LDS church, as the Packer speech shows it one more time.

Than explain it to me. Tell me the difference between marriage A and marriage B. The Law states, that they is NO DIFFERENCE

@ Soulsearcher, A problem might be that my English does not very feel well. Better said, it is terrible! But this is not the only problem. These are here two groups: One group are Mormons or Christians who are against the marriage for homosexual also often against homosexuality; and the other group of homosexual people or gay friendly people, who try to explain their arguments, often essentially understandably, to the other group. This group remains, often again of better knowledge, with her opinion because the prophet, the pope, the Bible, or whoever must hold out as a "divine authority" which says supposedly so or wants. How should a discussion be fertile there if a side is like a wall to which the other side talks? This is useless, and this is why I say goodbye for the time being from this discussion.

As well as so often in the life a "middle course" also seems to be here the best. Priests are not paid in principle by the state. However, they are active as a teacher, possibly for the religious lessons which should be soon abolished in some federal states (education is land thing), the priest gets the money. Not as a priest, but as a teacher. If something is really a sin, a priest has the right to call this also a sin. Only what is a sin? The dictionary (In German) says which is meant with it a turning away from God. Sexuality / homosexuality can't beno sin in itself. Only if it stands in connection with real sins, possibly shrine prostitution or idol adoration, homosexuality can be a sin. This says the Bible very clearly. Just read the context of Leviticus 18 & 20, Romans 1 (and don't forget to read the first verse of Chapter two), and also Timothy and 1. Corinthians ( forgot the chapters). Wrong. The modern Christian Bible science brings back to the Bible only this what was taken from her: her explanatory power. I would like to cite a small example. If you read Roman 16:7 (the greeting list of Paul), you will look there at a name: Junia. A female apostle. Up to the 13th century was known that she was an apostle. From the 14th century became from Junia a JUNIAS, from the woman became a man. Because cannot be what may not be. Today's Bible scientists have returned Junia her good name and her honour. Nevertheless, it is still taught in many churches that Junia was a man. This is a falsification of biblical message. This groups are behind the "advocacy groups", gave them donational money and support them by their speeches. Not the "race card", but a very sad part of American history which reaches up to the present. Or why do you mean, why the Republicans are so sour that a democrat, an Afro-American, is president of the USA, namely one who tries to hold his election pledges. The electoral appointment for prop 8 was well chosen (the presidential election was at the same time). And as judge Walker already in his judgment said, was prop 8 about moral values, and nothing else. And no citizen of the USA may force his moral values upon another citizen. The majority is not allowed to do the civil rights, in such a way as refuse in the American constitution written down, denied a minority. this showed in the American history just the history of the civil right movement and the judgments against racial discrimination. And something else: I have seen the promotional films of NOM. They were exposed as lies after the election, as a dirty advertising campaign which worked with the fears and prejudices of black, white and hispanic population. The connection between LDS and NOM is also known. Also, that in California, as an accuser of the court said which had increased violence against homosexual in the course of the campaign. Prop 8 stinks to heaven! And I would be sure, today would be made this prop 8, the result would be different. And I hope that the Suprime Court give this homophobic churches and people the right answer

Some postings spoke of the fact that homosexual should live in celibacy. How heterosexuals before marriage. Only, a marriage is forbidden for homosexuals in the US of A, a lifelong celibacy is required by them, similarly, how with the Catholic priests (who often do not keep to it). The celibacy can be a good thing if two people learn know themselves and to love. The point of view is laid by the sexuality on the interpersonal respect and relationship. So, in principle, I would be for abstinence before the marriage if three points were also valid for homosexual people who are natural rights for heterosexual people: 1. The right to marry. All the same how one calls it: marriage, registered partnership, domestic relation, etc., with it the same rights and duties are connected like in a heterosexual marriage. 2. The right to live a partner sexuality responsibly (after the marriage ceremony no affairs, common responsibility for relationship and possible children) 3. The right to educate children as foster parents, adoptive parents or bodily parents. As sociological investigations pointed worldwide, the children can be only conducive, nevertheless, they thereby learn tolerance, sympathy and self-confidence, things which they partially do not learn in heterosexual families. However, thus long as a church or society applies double standards, a society will never find peace in itself.

You may believe what always you want to believe, regardless of facts and personal experiences. If you want to think that the moon is made with Swiss cheese, you can believe this. I have tried twice in my life to commit suicide. Both times I did not know any more further because the people whom I loved and should love me (parents, brothers and sisters, friends, priests)excluded me because of my lesbian feelings and refused to me their love and support. The first time I was 16 years old, with the second attempted suicide more than thirty. My parents wanted to make me homeless. They meant, I can live only with them under their roof if I was "normal. I suppressed my feelings, said them, it would be a mistake (there I was 15 years old). A year later I undertook an attempted suicide because I did not stand the conflict any more, between my feelings and the demands of my parents. I married even, and got children. I tried to adapt myself. But this was off sick me, and to escape, I fled in affairs with other women for which I felt guilty because of the norms of my church. The pressure of family, church and society was off sick me, and I committed, after I had become dependent on tablet, my second attempted suicide. I began a therapy, and recognised the internal connections, and which I had a right on my sexual identity to live also, this. I said husband, children, parents and priest what I had found out in the therapy, and the psychic pressure already started. But this time I was strong enough to fight for MYSELF. I lost everything: Family, friends, children, marriage, church and my job. But I also won a lot: Freedom, tolerance, sympathy, a "combative" Christianity which is there for the weak and outsiders of the society, and not least also my first big love: A former JW.

I agree with this statement. But it isn't fault of this leaders alone. Their leaders did only what they think is right and aree with the word of God (no matter wer it stood). But, if the would read e.g. the Bible with unterstanding, they would understand, that they was never ever an interpretation possible which allowed to condemn homosexual people. And, Pam, "homo" ist a nasty word for homosexuals (such as "Fag", "Dyke" or "Sissy"), and people who want to use it shown a lack of understanding and charity.

Here a quote I found few minutes ago at the internet: And the footnote said: Found in: http://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V34N0102_135.pdfMaybe this was one of the reasons why Smith keep his polygamous relationships silent?

It makes no difference whether it was a civil or ecclesiastical wedding. She was already officially married with another man, and married Joseph Smith. This is bigamy!!!! What is so difficult in it to understand? They both have broken the law!

I visit this German section, and I think that they are less active or inactive. But maybe I try it.

Also I estimate the right at free speech high. But to be allowed to say something, does not tell to have to say something. In the German history there were several times where the freedom of speech was limited, or was forbidden. We know Germans about that words can heal, but can also kill. This is why we handle responsibly with this high property of the freedom of speech. Here nobody would effect with impunity racist, sexist or homophobic statements. Just because we know around our responsibility. As already uncle Ben said in Spiderman 1: "With a lot of power a big responsibility is also tied together". Is called freedom of worship that religions have the right to preach hate (Fred Phelps) or denied others their civil rights? By the way, we have no religion sponsored by the state. The state enters only Church-expensive by order of the churches, something what wants to change the German parliament. If somebody is neither Catholic nor Protestant, he maybe belongs to one of many free churches (the Baptists belong to it, e.g.), or to the sects (like JW) if he is not a Jew, Muslim or Buddhist. On the idea that somebody belongs to a cult nobody would come. The missionary has told rubbish. You err, because they CAN BE ACCUSED!!!!! Why? Because they create a climate by their sermons that it makes homosexual impossible to lead a quiet and sure life. And this, although the Bible does not condemn the homosexuality of homosexual people. Besides, "homosexual actions" are called, e.g., in Leviticus 18 & 20 not as a moral sin if one uses the original word for abomination", but as a ritual impurity (Levitical holyness code). You as a priest should know this. Read up once in Kittel's. If you are too decayed in addition, here a link. If religious leaders want to take over the USA as "a God's state", they will experience not only the opposition of the homosexuals and women, also those of the dissidents and atheist. The civil rights, and the constitution are valid for ALL CITIZENS of the USA, not only for white fundamentalist heterosexual men.

From my point of view the LGBT community has not gone yet far enough. Why? In Germany there is the saying of the honest man (Biedermann) and arsonist (Brandstifter). It means which arouses somebody by a speech other people so far / influenced that these do something unlawful or / and morally despicable. The speeches of Hitler and Stalin are, in political area, the best example of it. And in the religious area? How often preached priests of the inferiority of the women and blacks and they used Bible citations, better abused the Bible. And everything only to cement the Leadership of the (white) man. And now an apostle of the Mormons rushes, - it could also have been the pope or Fred Phelps - against the civil and human rights of homosexual people, and states, that they can be "cured". But homosexuality is no cold! The American Psychiolical Association, the American Association of Paediatrics and the social workers have proved it by researches. What can arrange such a sermon, points the following story which I heard from a former JW (she is not it now any more) whose son committed suicide because he heard over and over again that his being, his feelings are wrong and ill and perverted. I have given the trouble to myself once to investigate on the Internet, and, besides, bumped into a side of homosexual Mormons in whom I found a "Memorial list" in which the following stories were to be found: [Mod edit: links removed] Do you think now that the accusations are groundless against this address of packer?

I have read several Internet sites about John D. Lee and the massacre. Also some sides which was made by descendants of those who died with the massacre. Also Internet sites with articles of historians, from Mormons and non-Mormons. And, besides, came out that Brigham Young had justified the massacre afterwards, and protected all culprits first. Then when he and the church ran the risk to be accused independently, he sacrificed John D. Lee. It is right, John D. Lee is a convicted murderer, and, so much I had found out, he had done as a Danite many awful things (by order of his local church leaders). But does mean this which was implausible his statement? No, because to his statement still there come the others which state similar. And if two or more witnesses confirm the same one, a statement is confirmed. In my opinion Joseph Smith was quite a normal man with normal sexual needs. A woman did not reach to him. But because in the American society adultery was not seen with pleasure (although almost all men made it), he wanted to realise his desire legally, why he introduced the polygamy. This is my opinion. Here maybe it is not seen with pleasure, and maybe I am punished for it (by ban me), but this makes no difference to me. It is my opinion. Nevertheless, I can be persuaded with pleasure of the opposite. And, BTW, if a woman who is married, marry another man, this is bigamy and against the law. No matter if they had sex or not.