wenglund

Just to hit something specific, you mentioned Paul saying it's better not to marry.
Context, context, context. Yes he did say that. But he was answering a specific question, and we don't know what that question was. It's important.
I can think of a contemporary example that illustrates this. Elder M. Russel Ballard said at a meeting I was at in regards to church history that "research isn't the answer"
Wow! I saw on the internet people take issue with his statement and on the surface it does look bad. But context! This meeting was specifically for young married couples, it was about how to keep your marriage strong. The question was about how to handle a spouse that was falling away due to issues with church History. In that context I agree out researching your spouse probably isn't the best way to keep your marriage strong.
Likewise with Paul, we don't know what the question was, or the circumstances surrounding the question were.

What's interesting to me is that we all (those who've replied) have independently all said the exact same thing. Which leads one to the potential conclusion that the idea should be obvious. Which leads to the question (or...begs it -- just to bug @Vort ) why isn't it obvious to people like @Scott?
I have a premise:

These articles may provide a good starting point for your research:: A Case For Ancient Temple Ordinances. and Ancient Temples and Their Functions. and Eternal Marriage and Family in the Old Testament.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It is because we are more in agreement about the heterosexual immorality, which is why it is less controversial.
Ironically, that is the rub. Logically, there shouldn't be as much disagreement about homosexual immorality as there is about heterosexual immorality. But, pop culture has granted special status to homosexuals, and members, like yourself,  cater to that unwarranted favoritism. If you and other left-leaning members were consistent, there wouldn't be the greater degree of disagreement and controversy.
[Edit: I just noticed that others have iterated and reiterated this point earlier in the thread. But, evidently it bears repeating since it seems to be lost on some]
Thanks, -Wade  Englund-
 

It is because we are more in agreement about the heterosexual immorality, which is why it is less controversial.
Ironically, that is the rub. Logically, there shouldn't be as much disagreement about homosexual immorality as there is about heterosexual immorality. But, pop culture has granted special status to homosexuals, and members, like yourself,  cater to that unwarranted favoritism. If you and other left-leaning members were consistent, there wouldn't be the greater degree of disagreement and controversy.
[Edit: I just noticed that others have iterated and reiterated this point earlier in the thread. But, evidently it bears repeating since it seems to be lost on some]
Thanks, -Wade  Englund-
 

It is because we are more in agreement about the heterosexual immorality, which is why it is less controversial.
Ironically, that is the rub. Logically, there shouldn't be as much disagreement about homosexual immorality as there is about heterosexual immorality. But, pop culture has granted special status to homosexuals, and members, like yourself,  cater to that unwarranted favoritism. If you and other left-leaning members were consistent, there wouldn't be the greater degree of disagreement and controversy.
[Edit: I just noticed that others have iterated and reiterated this point earlier in the thread. But, evidently it bears repeating since it seems to be lost on some]
Thanks, -Wade  Englund-
 

It is because we are more in agreement about the heterosexual immorality, which is why it is less controversial.
Ironically, that is the rub. Logically, there shouldn't be as much disagreement about homosexual immorality as there is about heterosexual immorality. But, pop culture has granted special status to homosexuals, and members, like yourself,  cater to that unwarranted favoritism. If you and other left-leaning members were consistent, there wouldn't be the greater degree of disagreement and controversy.
[Edit: I just noticed that others have iterated and reiterated this point earlier in the thread. But, evidently it bears repeating since it seems to be lost on some]
Thanks, -Wade  Englund-
 

I can, but I won't. I haven't been shy about criticizing Trump when I felt the need to do so. If you can't find those posts, then I'm not going to do so to try to justify myself to you.
(Helpful hint: Use this site's search function to search for posts by "Vort" that contain the term "Trump". You will get four pages of results. Start on Page 4 and work your way up.)
Isn't this obvious? Why would I point out the "wrongs" of people I agree with, and who therefore I don't think are doing wrong?
I appreciate that. The feeling (of not disliking) is mutual, though your seeming attacks on list members (including myself) for not being sufficiently vocal about evils that rarely come up for debate made me question how you felt.
Yes, when I'm personally attacked, even if not named, I do tend to take it personally. Consider it a personality flaw, one of  many that dog me.
I have seen this charge leveled before by @MormonGator, among others. I don't understand it, though, because I rarely see list members here "confessing [their] neighbors' sins". Pointing out that X is a sin is hardly "confessing" it, and even mentioning that your neighbor commits Sin X is not condemning your neighbor. Furthermore, I rarely see people bringing up their neighbors' sins out of thin air; in almost every case, it's a matter of Sin X being discussed, typically with some people claiming that X isn't really a sin or that the sinful nature of X is overstressed or some other exculpatory defense, that leads a list member to talk about Sin X being a real live sin.
I have asked you many times in this thread alone for examples of your claims of misbehavior. In this case, I ask again. Please point out some times when you think someone is "confessing [their] neighbors' sins", and let's examine your citations to see if that's really what's going on. I'm going to predict that if you do actually provide citations, they won't pan out on examination.
Again, isn't this obvious? I impute no sin at all to a married (heterosexual) couple who engage in mutual sexual relations. Zero sin; quite the opposite, in fact. But I impute great sin to homosexuals who do the same, even if their relationship carries the state's imprimatur of "marriage".
Perhaps you are claiming something more like: Conservatives tend to be Republicans, and thus impute less evil to other Republicans than they do to leftists/Democrats. That's an entirely different situation, and you may well be correct. But if you're going to make such accusations toward members of this list, then once again, I request that you back up your accusations.
My perspective: In almost every case, this is due to the "non-conservative" list members stating a position with which most (possibly "conservative") list members disagree. Then those list members say something like, "I disagree", and explain why. That cannot reasonably be considered chasing people away.
At times, such discussions go further, with someone bringing morality into the discussion. It might be the "conservative" member asserting that his/her position is the morally correct one, perhaps even citing scripture or prophetic teaching. Just as often (perhaps moreso), it's the "non-conservative" list member asserting that his/hers is the morally correct position. When this happens, do you really believe that the ("conservative") list majority has some sort of obligation to hold back on discussion that might upset the "non-conservative" list member? If not, what exactly are you suggesting?

It is because we are more in agreement about the heterosexual immorality, which is why it is less controversial.
Ironically, that is the rub. Logically, there shouldn't be as much disagreement about homosexual immorality as there is about heterosexual immorality. But, pop culture has granted special status to homosexuals, and members, like yourself,  cater to that unwarranted favoritism. If you and other left-leaning members were consistent, there wouldn't be the greater degree of disagreement and controversy.
[Edit: I just noticed that others have iterated and reiterated this point earlier in the thread. But, evidently it bears repeating since it seems to be lost on some]
Thanks, -Wade  Englund-
 

We're not talking about everyone in the world. We're talking about your implication of "some on this board".
The only evidence you have for this is that people talk about it less -- which is no evidence at all.
Clearly the rampant adultery in the world is a much bigger problem than homosexuality. Much, much, MUCH bigger.
Go ahead... defend adultery and see what kind of a response you get.
Of course there's more debate about homosexuality. There are literally people in this forum supporting it as wholesome and avidly confident that it will be added as legitimate temple marriage someday.
Try defending adultery the way homosexuality is defended at times and see what happens. Try defending the man who runs off with that stripper as a "good person" who can't help the way he feels and we shouldn't be harsh to judge him, etc. Try it. You will get the exact same as you do with homosexuality.
Despicable actions are despicable.
It's people like you who are falsely applying inequality to the sins. If I call an adulterer despicable no one says a word. I say the same thing about someone leaving their marriage for homosex and I get lectured by folks like you on being judgmental and condemning them.
So who's actually driving the amount of debate on adultery vs. homosex?
I believe I and others have addressed some ideas as to why homosexual issues are likely discussed more. You seem to have ignored that.
Anybody here want to debate the right and wrong of leaving one's wife for a stripper?
Anyone? No taker?
Anyone believe Trump was justified in his adulterous affairs and extramarital sexual activity?
Anyone?
It just seems like we're all on board with the sinful nature of adultery --- even be it the mere lusting after women who aren't your wife.
And yet, somehow, when someone says anything about turning away from homosexuality and changing hearts and minds on the matter it relegated to condemnatory hate speech.
You cannot show a single instance of anyone saying "murder all gays" or anything akin to it here. But you react as if there are myriads of people on here saying just those sorts of things and then you get all in a huff.
Useful. Now we're being conflated with the middle east. Well I stand convinced. I guess I won't talk about homosex being a sin any longer because...Muslims?? 
Sorry. That crap didn't stick to the wall.
 

On this list, the answer is obvious. No one here justifies heterosexual adultery. Even those who support Trump freely admit that his infidelities were and are shameful; they simply argue that such things are irrelevant. (And there most certainly has been back-and-forth about that.)
But some here do attempt to justify homosexual activity. Some go so far as to proclaim the Restored Church wrong in its insistence that homosexual activity is intrinsically sinful and must be abandoned. So of course there is plenty of push-back on that. Then the pro-homosexuality crowd argues against the Church's teachings.
You cannot seriously be blind to this. The reason why homosexual sin gets more discussion here than heterosexual sin is because no one disputes the sinfulness of heterosexual fornication, but some do dispute the sinfulness of homosexual gratification. You must certainly see this happening. You have to know this already. So what exactly are you questioning?
 

Lol I totally get it. And to be fair here is a picture of me 

Note that my claim is that people have been condemning the act rather than the individual, and that you wrongly impute personal condemnation to them. Your examples:
Your claim is false on its face. The quote you offer in no possible way meets the definition of condemning an individual. It is clearly a condemnation of behavior and of the acceptance of that behavior (which is itself a behavior).
No, of course not. Your insistence that it meets a definition that it most clearly does not meet doesn't magically change the meaning of the words.
The one example you chose failed miserably to make your point. The condemnation was (and remains) on homosexual activity and the justification of homosexual activity, not on those who for whatever reason experience same-sex attraction. In effect, you are insisting that vocal condemnation of homosexual activity IS condemnation of homosexual individuals.
I still await your justification for implicitly accusing me of hypocrisy in my "double-standard" treatment of individuals and arguments. I believe you are bearing a false witness, but I'm willing to examine your evidence and see if I have indeed been guilty of what you claim I have done.

That's why I preambled it with "Let's presume...." Whether all or some and whether 100% dismissive or 80% or something, the point remains.
I'm beginning to wonder how much of what I'm saying you're even understanding.
Do you want "some" conservatives to be less condemning of homosexuality or not? Do you want those same conservatives to be more condemning of Trump's adultery or not?
If you support condemning Trump's adultery then do you support condemning homosexuality? If you don't support condemning homosexuality then how can you support condemning Trump's adultery?
Which is it? What is your actual position here man?
Are you just throwing crap at the wall to see what sticks?
Clearly you're conflating a call to repentance with a vote for a presidency. The one is not the other. But which is is. Do you want more condemnation of sin -- or less?

A current picture of @MormonGator with some friends

If I were to post that my such-n-such relative left his wife and kids to run off and marry a blonde, buxom, bimbo stripper everyone in the world would response by saying, "That's awful!"
What's there to discuss? Everyone agrees. Awful.
If that same person left his wife and kids to be with another guy then half the world (more than half) would praise him for being true to himself.
There's a serious disconnect here, and why the one engenders more discussion than the other should be obvious.

That is a statistical falsehood.
It might be correct to say that one side doesn't use these ideas to drive their narrative, but when push comes to shove, the statistics of who gives more to charity are what they are.

I was trying to formulate this thought but hadn't really gotten there until I read this -- I intuitively knew there were several logical faux pas going on in his idea but struggled to articulate it a bit until now:
@Scott's point: There's more negative talk about homosexuality than there is about Trump's adultery. Therefore people are more condemnatory of homosexuals than they are of Trump. The implication seems to be that people should be less condemnatory of homosexuality.
The disconnects:
1. Why do people talk about homosexuality here more than they do of Trump's adultery? Scott's implying it's evidence that we forgive one but not the other. But that implies the "why" of the matter is related to how much contempt we have for one thing over the other, and ignores they myriad of other reasons why that may be. For example, if we all agreed Trump shouldn't have been elected because of his chastity/morality what difference does it make? He's still the president. Discussion that no one should have voted for him that did doesn't have a lot of value. (Edit: maybe it will closer to the next election).
2. Negative talk does not equate to condemnation. I don't condemn Trump. That's between him and God. I don't condemn homosexuals. That's between them and God.
3. Let's presume for a second that Scott is correct -- more than correct -- let's assume that every conservative on the forum was 100% dismissive of Trump's past immoral sexual behaviors. What does that have to do with the truth about homosexuality?
You see, Mr. Scott, I could say that murder is wrong and that stealing is okay and the fact that I was mistaken about stealing being okay is entirely irrelevant to the fact that murder is wrong. Murder stands as right or wrong on it's own, regardless of my views on any other issues.
The same is true of homosexuality. The truth about homosexuality and how people should think on the matter is irrelevant the correct or incorrect nature of anyone's views on Trump's morality.
4. If people are more condemnatory of Trump is it then okay to be condemnatory of homosexuality? What about the reverse? If people are less condemnatory of homosexuality is it then okay to be less condemnatory of Trump? Is Scott pro or anti on being condemnatory? It can't be both ways. He's put himself in a corner where he's both supportive and against the idea. Which is it?

In a sense, the marriage made moot the need for repentance. That which was wrong (at least in terms of appearances) was made right by the marriage.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I strongly encourage this as well.
However, since you, Scott,  and perhaps 3 others, including Mormongator,  seem vulnerable to false equivalencies,  let me kindly offer two critical suggestions so that you don't end up make egregious rookie analytical mistakes.
First, compare apples to apples rather than apples to an orange (deprecating pun intended). In other words, as @The Folk Prophet intimated a logical comparative  analysis should be sexual behavior to sexual behavior, and not sexual behavior to the full gamete of behaviors. And, it should be group to group rather than group to individual. In other words, tally all the positive and negative comments about the immoral behaviors (as the Church views it) of both homosexuals and heterosexuals, as made by the Right and the Left respectively pm this board.Then maybe create a subsection on Trump alone compared with one homosexual, to merely provide perspective Since the immoral behaviors of heterosexuals tends not to generate as much discussion as the immoral behavior of homosexuals (likely because of the stark difference in controversy), the analysis needs to be proportional. I would caution you, though, because these kinds of rational comparative analysis tend to work heavily against Leftist and pop-culture thinking, particularly as it relates to homosexuality. But, you may find the experience beneficial nevertheless.
Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-. 

I honestly do not recall anyone on this forum, conservative or otherwise, "condemn[ing] those with same gender attraction". As far as I have seen, the condemnation has always been toward (1) the sin of homosexual activity and (2) the possibly greater sin of justifying the sin of homosexual activity.
Can you provide some examples of this condemnation you mention?

Are you capable of seeing the difference between criticism of ideology and criticism of individual motive?
"The philosophy you're espousing is evil and of the devil." vs. "You hate people and want them to die."
???
Do you understand the difference? Or are you too blinded by your narrative to step back and see what is and is not actually a personal attack on character?
With a few rare exceptions, the conservatives on this board understand that the a progressive's embrace of socialist ideas is based on that progressive's good intent -- that their underlying motivation is compassion and a desire to see good.
The same should be obvious in these homosexuality discussions. I know full well that @LiterateParakeet, for example, has goodness, compassion, love, and mercy underlying her views.
But you're so blinded by your views that you aren't even willing to admit that just maybe the views conservatives have are also based in goodness, compassion, love, and mercy -- and that our implications that change is necessary is based in our concern and love for God's children, and our firm understanding that mankind cannot be saved in his sins. No though -- according to you we're just condemning people out of hatred, meanwhile sustaining adultery and evil where it suits our political agenda.
Do you believe that we are going to be convinced that our love and concern for people who are engaged in serious transgression which drives us to sue for humility and change is actually nothing but hate by posting a bunch of our quotes? Do you think that by posting what was written we'll decide our concern with leftist ideologies is based in hate? Do you think we don't know what we actually believe, and aren't fully aware of what we said and why we said it?

I strongly encourage this as well.
However, since you, Scott,  and perhaps 3 others, including Mormongator,  seem vulnerable to false equivalencies,  let me kindly offer two critical suggestions so that you don't end up make egregious rookie analytical mistakes.
First, compare apples to apples rather than apples to an orange (deprecating pun intended). In other words, as @The Folk Prophet intimated a logical comparative  analysis should be sexual behavior to sexual behavior, and not sexual behavior to the full gamete of behaviors. And, it should be group to group rather than group to individual. In other words, tally all the positive and negative comments about the immoral behaviors (as the Church views it) of both homosexuals and heterosexuals, as made by the Right and the Left respectively pm this board.Then maybe create a subsection on Trump alone compared with one homosexual, to merely provide perspective Since the immoral behaviors of heterosexuals tends not to generate as much discussion as the immoral behavior of homosexuals (likely because of the stark difference in controversy), the analysis needs to be proportional. I would caution you, though, because these kinds of rational comparative analysis tend to work heavily against Leftist and pop-culture thinking, particularly as it relates to homosexuality. But, you may find the experience beneficial nevertheless.
Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-. 

If God commands it, then of course I can!  God promised he won't give me more than I can bear.  So if he gave it to me, I must be strong enough to bear it.  Unless you're going to suggest that God was mistaken?
But see... I don't believe that "sexually attracted to" is solely a biological attraction.  I believe that sex is an expression of one's OVERALL attraction to the other person - that's not just his physical attributes as those are temporary - but his SPIRITUAL ATTRIBUTES.

Your post had me chuckling. 
However, joking aside,  if you think the lack of sexual attraction makes marriage a horrible idea, then logically wouldn't that mean that the loss of sexual attraction would make staying in a marriage a horrible idea as well? Isn't the high divorce rate argument the same?
Where is the social sympathy for the high-powered males who marry raving beauties only to later find them gaining weight and wrinkles, sagging in places, and experiencing the unpleasantness of menopause, etc.  If these alpha types subsequently lose sexual interest in their spouses, particularly when there are willing, younger raving beauties about, should they not follow their heart and their sexual attractions? Many of them do now anyway--not just by way of divorce, but also adultery?.
To me, this is the problem with secular-social "reasoning." There is nothing to prevent  "immorality" creep" and the eventual normalization thereof.
Besides,  isn't the "high rate of divorce" argument a product of " immorality creep"--the increased acceptance of divorce and immoral sexual activities?  Prior to the gay movement in the mid 70, not a few gay men got married, and stayed married. It was only afterwards, when gays divorcing their heterosexual spouses became vogue, that the high rate of divorce became a factor. 
Supposed compassion and understanding made matters worse for gays.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-