lds backlash from gay community cnn.com

[Soulsearcher]

Surehand

You are new to the site and being new i'll give you a little ground, but honestly you are undoing more of the work that has been done by the civil gay members of this site than you are actually helping. There have been countless threads on these subject where we have been able to have a mostly civil conversation about all of your points. Right now for the most part you are doing nothing but going over ground that has been covered and doing so in a manner that harms those of use who want a respectful dialogue with members of the church in hopes or breeding understanding and compassion vs ignorance and closed mindedness. If you wish to keep talking on these issues i request that for the good of the intent behind your arguments you go and review the many pages of discussion and debate we've had on these topics and then approach the conversation with a more civil understanding tone.

You are not the only homosexual here, but me and the other few that are here are actually trying a peaceful(ish) for of communication, we'd appreciate you don't add to the view that our side is nothing but fringe relying on drama and hyperbole .

[Surehand]

I understand this line of reasoning. Let me restate it though, to be certain...in order to protect the freedom of speech, we must restrict it. If free speech is allowed to stir up hatred, and perhaps violence, then, in order to protect the rest of free speech, we will restrict that dangerous, violence-inducing kind.

In sum, Germany in general, and Europe as well, have declared a broader range of speech to be "yelling fire in a movie theater." You err on the side of restriction, whereas Americans err on the side of liberty.

As well as so often in the life a "middle course" also seems to be here the best.

The missionary was telling me his impression of how most Germans think, not telling me what the law is. Also, am I wrong in the understanding that some clergy are employees of the government?

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 you argue that everytime a minister condemns a sin, people are incited to violence and persecution against those sinners (despite their activities being legal), I say you give far too much credit to ministers' power, and far too little credit to the discernment of most church-goers. I have never persecuted, belittled, or harrassed a homosexual, though I have often been taught that their activities are sin.

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).

As for abominations being mere ritual uncleanness, the opposition to homosexual activity is far too prevalent and consistent for that interpretation to hold. The modern gay-Christian interpretations are historic revisionism. They proffer polemic views meant to justify behavior. They are not pure interpretations discovered during pure Bible study. They were discovered by those who went to scripture seeking to defend their behavior.

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.

We don't. The major groups of the last 30 years, the Moral Majority and the Christian Coalition have largely diminished already. Further, they never promoted a political party, only advocacy groups seeking specific policies (opposition to abortion, pornography, and gay marriage). I've heard a few foolish officials try to claim that Al Qaida and the Christian Coalition are equivalent. Such comparison demonstrate intentional ignorance, and absolutely no sense of nuance.

This groups are behind the "advocacy groups", gave them donational money and support them by their speeches.

I note your last line about whites--ah the race card. Do be aware that Proposition 8 passed in California (prohibiting gay marriage), largely because African-American Christians were over 70% for it. Of course, the bigots went after LDS instead, because they saw the group as more vunerable.

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

[bytor2112]

Nom?

[Surehand]

@ 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.

[Soulsearcher]

@ 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.

Considering That Myself and other gay members of this forum have tried and had some very fertile discussions by being polite and respectful it is possible. All you do with your rants, and accusations is prove once more that we don't deserve to be listened to because we show no respect to the other side. So far i prefer the honey over the vinegar approach.

[Soulsearcher]

Nom?

National Organization for Marriage

National Organization for Marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[carlimac]

I'm guessing that carlimac meant homo- or heterosexual, not intending to use the pejorative. But I do agree with you in general, pam.

Yes, that's what I meant. Thank you Wingnut. Sorry. I was in a hurry.

[prisonchaplain]

Surehand, let me say that I read a lot of intelligence in your posts...that you've done your research. It's a little difficult discuss the five or six different strains of thought your bring up in one string...but I do respect your thoughtfulness and passion. We do not totally disagree. I favor "everything but marriage." We passed it in my state. Civil union with all the rights of marriage, but not the actual marriage...in order to preserve a 1000s year old tradition of its meaning. Additionally, while I favor religious freedom, including sermons against homosexual behavior (and heterosexual promiscuity, btw)...I would agree with you that folks like Fred Phelps are probably more of an abomination than the ones they condemn.

Thank you for being open enough to come to our forum, share your thoughts, and engage us in this difficult but important conversation.

[Just_A_Guy]

PC and Soulsearcher -

You, sirs, are both (as the saying goes) gentlemen and scholars. My hat is off to you both.

[Surehand]

Considering That Myself and other gay members of this forum have tried and had some very fertile discussions by being polite and respectful it is possible. All you do with your rants, and accusations is prove once more that we don't deserve to be listened to because we show no respect to the other side. So far i prefer the honey over the vinegar approach.

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.

[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.

[Soulsearcher]

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.

I'd like to think the majority of those on this sight do respect. I also think they respect my view while not always agreeing with them, and i think understanding has been growing. that's why your tactics worry me. Those of us who have been trying to hard to foster a respectful relationship here do not want it compromised by people just looking for a fight. Again surehand, go through the many threads on the subjects you are debating, read them all then chime in, until then you are making more assumptions and accusations than anything and it's not really helping your case.

[pam]

Surehand will be unable to respond.

[PrinceofLight2000]

Surehand will be unable to respond.

Temp or perma?