The Gay Appreciation Thread

[The Folk Prophet]

You are incorrect. There is a marked inequality between the majority and the minority. Elevating the presence of minorities brings them on equal grounds with the majority so nobody forgets that they exist and they remain represented in the democratic process. Being in a majority has everything to do with it.

So if I have 3 sons and only 1 daughter, the daughter should get treated special?

[Vort]

No, mere pedophilic impulses make someone a child-sexual.

Now you're just making up terms, anatess.

[Guest]

Now you're just making up terms, anatess.

Yes, I am. Look at my revised post. I added some stuff to clarify what I'm saying.

[The Folk Prophet]

Legal definition. For consistency, mere pedophilic impulses make someone a child-sexual.

But then English is my 3rd language.

So, if we get a general consensus on the use of the word homosexual as only those who has acted on it, then I will differ. Because, I'm fairly certain Quinn is using the term in the same manner as I.

And if your use of the word pedophile includes someone who is valiantly struggling with child attraction, then the answer to your previous question is Yes. I would also call my pedophile friend amazing and spread some love his way.

This is a fair point. Would you, however, start a thread calling it Appreciation for Pedophiles in order to do so? (or Appreciation for Child-sexuals)

[Crash]

You are incorrect. There is a marked inequality between the majority and the minority. Elevating the presence of minorities brings them on equal grounds with the majority so nobody forgets that they exist and they remain represented in the democratic process. Being in a majority has everything to do with it.

Perhaps you may not know about the attack on Christians in the U.S. then, who are clearly the majority. This past Christmas saw a new level of anti-Christmas acts being performed and enacted all over the country. The very small minority is forcing the majority to stop practicing their religious ceremonies in public. How is that part of the democratic process?

Again, pointing out our differences in no way brings people together. All are equal in the eyes of God, whether black, white, Christian, Jew, etc, we are all the same. There will not be any gay pride parades in heaven, nor will there be any celebrations that only certain people will appreciate.

I do not buy into this notion that people need to hold special events in order to vilify themselves and to justify their lifestyles.

[LittleWyvern]

This is a fair point. Would you, however, start a thread calling it Appreciation for Pedophiles in order to do so? (or Appreciation for Child-sexuals)

I don't understand why some on this thread insist on bringing up bestiality or pedophilia as if it's some kind of pet subject. This thread was clearly started to help those who suffer with a certain temptation/sin but are making an effort to become better and who have recently been the subject of heated and sometimes vitriolic conversation on this board realize that those conversations apply only to the temptation/sin, not the person. Nobody has been insisting about talking about pedophiles on this thread except you and maybe a couple other people. The subject was chosen based on recent conversations, and this thread was never about accepting or appreciating a sin, but about appreciating people that are making an effort to become better. It's obvious now that this venue is the wrong choice for that kind of conversation, for better or for worse.

EDIT: before Windseeker replies, no, I'm not saying that we should appreciate a sin. I'm also not saying that we should appreciate people that are hostile to the Church or trying to destroy it.

Edited January 24, 2014 by LittleWyvern

[Bini]

If you can't say nothin' nice, don't say nothin' at all!

Thumper's mama was a wise wabbit.

This thread remains hijacked even though we have a designated thread now. It's too bad because I thought the sentiment behind the topic title was nice and I personally appreciated it. LW, I agree with you, the purpose of this thread has been overlooked and some continue to debate.

[pam]

There is a fallacy in your argument. There are no "straight" parades not because straight people are the majority but because there is no need to show inequality by having one. Nothing shows inequality more than the need to point out our differences, like a gay pride parade, Ebony Magazine, Black Entertainment Television, etc. These things draw specific attention to what separates us as people. Being in a majority has nothing to do with it.

I'm in total agreement.

[Vort]

This thread was clearly started to help those who suffer with a certain temptation/sin but are making an effort to become better

Not so. anatess said nothing about making any effort to become better. The only qualifier is that the person was homosexual. And so far, I haven't seen anyone extolling a person who has homosexual feelings but has never acted on them, so that argument appears to be a crock.

[Leah]

I'm starting to get a glimmer of what is failing here.

By definition - a person is not a pedophile UNTIL they engage in the sinful act.

By definition - a person can be gay WITHOUT engaging in sinful act.

I'm starting to think that what is failing here is that some people hold by definition that a person is not gay UNTIL they engage in the sinful act.

By whose definition? Yours?

By that definition, then you wouldn't be heterosexual (I am assuming you are heterosexual...some would find that presumptous and insulting of me) unless and until you engaged in heterosexual sex. What were you prior to that?

Using your definition, are whatever-sexuals no longer whatever-sexual they are when they stop engaging in their whatever-sexual acts they do? What do they become then?

I'm a widow. Haven't had sex in years. Does that make me no longer a heterosexual? Does that mean I won't know what I am until the next time I engage in sex and - surprise! - maybe it will be with a woman and I'll find out that I am now a homosexual?

My daughter hasn't had sex yet. By your definition, she would NOT be heterosexual because she has not yet engaged in heterosexual sex. So, what is she then? She can't be homosexual by your definition, because she hasn't engaged in homosexual sex.

If she's not heterosexual or homosexual, what is she?

This definition is ludicrous. And can be dangerous. If you believe a pedophile is only a pedophile during the act of pedophilic sex, then you are at risk of putting innocent children in serious danger.

I think the thread is pretty ludicrous. And discriminatory. Where's our Straight Appreciation thread? Where's our Black Appreciation thread? Where's our Crippled People Appreciation thread? Where's our Fat People Appreciation thread? Where's our Bald People appreciation thread?

[The Folk Prophet]

I don't understand why some on this thread insist on bringing up bestiality or pedophilia as if it's some kind of pet subject. This thread was clearly started to help those who suffer with a certain temptation/sin but are making an effort to become better and who have recently been the subject of heated and sometimes vitriolic conversation on this board realize that those conversations apply only to the temptation/sin, not the person. Nobody has been insisting about talking about pedophiles on this thread except you and maybe a couple other people. The subject was chosen based on recent conversations, and this thread was never about accepting or appreciating a sin, but about appreciating people that are making an effort to become better. It's obvious now that this venue is the wrong choice for that kind of conversation, for better or for worse.

EDIT: before Windseeker replies, no, I'm not saying that we should appreciate a sin. I'm also not saying that we should appreciate people that are hostile to the Church or trying to destroy it.

Seriously? Did you not read the conversation that led to my post? I was responding (and jokingly, I might add) to the discussion others were already having. Accusing me of "insisting about talking about pedophiles" only shows you haven't read my posts very carefully.

[LittleWyvern]

I was responding (and jokingly, I might add) to the discussion others were already having.

Oh, I didn't know your post was supposed to be a joke.

[Lakumi]

reading just a few of those, yeah love is not something I get from this

bitter hatred and loathing yes

love no

[The Folk Prophet]

reading just a few of those, yeah love is not something I get from this

bitter hatred and loathing yes

love no

This is pretty much the same claim made of religious teaching since the dawn of time. It's not very compelling to claim bitter hatred and loathing because of a different moral stance on any given issue.

[Crash]

reading just a few of those, yeah love is not something I get from this

bitter hatred and loathing yes

love no

Pointing out the sin of homosexuality is not bitter hatred and loathing. Nobody said anything about hating gay people. This thread's intended purpose was to highlight good and decent gay people. The title could have been written differently but the content of the message is that there are good people who happen to be gay.

But if we say that homosexuality is a sin, that isn't bitter hatred and loathing. It simply is so, as has been written as such throughout the scriptures.

[McLainDow]

While I disagree with the life style choices some people make I do not feel it is my place to judge them. They will be judged by their Lord when it's time. It is my role to love all of my brothers and sisters because they chose their second estate and this mortal life can be extremely difficult at times. Making harsh statements that cause people to stop listening to your points does not accomplish anything. Becoming someone's friend and having candid, respectful conversations with them can.

[The Folk Prophet]

While I disagree with the life style choices some people make I do not feel it is my place to judge them. They will be judged by their Lord when it's time. It is my role to love all of my brothers and sisters because they chose their second estate and this mortal life can be extremely difficult at times. Making harsh statements that cause people to stop listening to your points does not accomplish anything. Becoming someone's friend and having candid, respectful conversations with them can.

I appreciate this sort of thinking. Certainly the last sentence is valid.

I do think the presumption of judgement based on statements of truth is, however, invalid. Judging a principle to be true does not mean judgment of a person. It is often presumed to mean that by the person feeling so judged.

The offense is being taken, not offered. The sensitivity of the issue is forced into the issue by those taking offense whether offense is meant or not.

Forums are public venues, not personal conversations. I would never randomly PM anyone a general statement of the sinful nature of any given thing. That would be rude. Publicly it is important to respond with broad truths because it is public, meaning lots of people are potentially reading. Publicly, truth needs to be stated clearly. Interpreting such comments as hateful will happen, and that is too bad, but it doesn't relieve those who know the truth from the responsibility of speaking the truth. The intent of these statements is not to offend. If that was the point, I would agree wholeheartedly that it is wrong. But the intent of the statements is to publicly make clear the truth and put down the half-truths, agendas, and outright lies of the enemy. (And to be clear here, by enemy I mean Satan, not gays.)

Sure, a statement may seem harsh to some. To others it constitutes a clear defense of a principle. There is a growing problem, particularly concerning this issue, of confusion. Most, even in the church, don't know quite how to think or feel on it. Plain and clear statements are necessary to alleviate this problem and to displace confused thinking. Will it help with those deeply entrenched in the confusion? Perhaps not. Will it drive some further into their offended feelings? Perhaps. The cost of that is weighed against the benefit of working to clarify the issue for those not so deeply engulfed in the mists of darkness.

We speak sharply, yes. Perhaps, in some cases, we fail to show an increase of love afterwards. For my own part, I have repeatedly said, we love people, including those who are gay. If my attempt to show an increase of love is ignored, that is not on me. But I do accept that I have weaknesses in that regard and can look for ways to do better. In this case, although my post seems contrary to yours, I did, actually take a step back and think from what you said. So thank you for that.

But the idea of don't say anything because you might offend someone is distinctly counter to the command we have been given to open our mouths. (D&C 24:12, D&C 28:16, D&C 30:11, D&C 33:8-10, D&C 60:2, D&C 71:1)

[Just_A_Guy]

Legal definition. For consistency, mere pedophilic impulses make someone a child-sexual.

FWIW (and apologies for the late hit on this):

My fifth-edition Black's Law Dictionary does not have an entry for "pedophilia" or "pedophile". (It does have an entry for "pederasty", which is defined as a specific act.) I don't believe it comes up in statute, either--at least, not in any Utah statute that I'm aware of. In practice, the only time I've heard the former two terms come up was in discussing the results of psychosexual evaluations at sentencing for purposes of discussing issues relating to the rehabilitation of an offender.

(I suppose I could Google the terms, but I'm rather disinclined to do so . . .)

[Guest]

I'm starting to get a glimmer of what is failing here.

By definition - a person is not a pedophile UNTIL they engage in the sinful act.

By definition - a person can be gay WITHOUT engaging in sinful act.

I'm starting to think that what is failing here is that some people hold by definition that a person is not gay UNTIL they engage in the sinful act.

By whose definition? Yours?

By that definition, then you wouldn't be heterosexual (I am assuming you are heterosexual...some would find that presumptous and insulting of me) unless and until you engaged in heterosexual sex. What were you prior to that?

Using your definition, are whatever-sexuals no longer whatever-sexual they are when they stop engaging in their whatever-sexual acts they do? What do they become then?

I'm a widow. Haven't had sex in years. Does that make me no longer a heterosexual? Does that mean I won't know what I am until the next time I engage in sex and - surprise! - maybe it will be with a woman and I'll find out that I am now a homosexual?

My daughter hasn't had sex yet. By your definition, she would NOT be heterosexual because she has not yet engaged in heterosexual sex. So, what is she then? She can't be homosexual by your definition, because she hasn't engaged in homosexual sex.

If she's not heterosexual or homosexual, what is she?

This definition is ludicrous. And can be dangerous. If you believe a pedophile is only a pedophile during the act of pedophilic sex, then you are at risk of putting innocent children in serious danger.

I think the thread is pretty ludicrous. And discriminatory. Where's our Straight Appreciation thread? Where's our Black Appreciation thread? Where's our Crippled People Appreciation thread? Where's our Fat People Appreciation thread? Where's our Bald People appreciation thread?

Exhibit A in bold and neon sign.

Okay, so Leah has this strange habit of not understanding what I'm saying... but this is still perfect Exhibit of how any thread here that touches on homosexuality ends up in heated debate. Because a lot of people don't bother to understand what the other is saying.

Advice to Leah - read what I post very very carefully. Read it twice or three times if needed. Preferably reading the previous posts that it responds to... BEFORE spewing out a response.

Edited January 27, 2014 by anatess

[bay2boy]

This reminds me of the members of the Church who march in gay pride parades REPRESENTING THE CHURCH. I don't like people representing me and my faith while celebrating the gay lifestyle. You can march and cheer all you want but don't go representing the Church, an organization that would love nothing more than to see that lifestyle disappear.

[Suzie]

This reminds me of the members of the Church who march in gay pride parades REPRESENTING THE CHURCH. I don't like people representing me and my faith while celebrating the gay lifestyle. You can march and cheer all you want but don't go representing the Church, an organization that would love nothing more than to see that lifestyle disappear.

Really? I never heard of any member representing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in Gay Pride parades. What's your source for this? (if you do not mind me asking)

[The Folk Prophet]

Really? I never heard of any member representing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in Gay Pride parades. What's your source for this? (if you do not mind me asking)

He probably means Mormons Building Bridges and the like.

[Suzie]

He probably means Mormons Building Bridges and the like.

Thanks. I am not following the news too much on this issue. Are these members saying they are representing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints or are they members who said they are LDS members and they are marching in the parade?

[Bini]

Thanks. I am not following the news too much on this issue. Are these members saying they are representing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints or are they members who said they are LDS members and they are marching in the parade?

Yes, I think this needs to be clarified on.

My sister and I went to the Gay Pride Parade here in SLC awhile back. I was mostly a spectator and didn't participate at all but she helped setup and had a more active role. We are both LDS but neither of us claimed to represent the LDS Church.

[The Folk Prophet]

Thanks. I am not following the news too much on this issue. Are these members saying they are representing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints or are they members who said they are LDS members and they are marching in the parade?

No, they don't claim to officially represent the church.

I think the point is that anyone or any group that stands up and explicitly says "I'm a Mormon and we __________" will certainly represent the church in some way and to some people. It comes down to what you mean by represent I guess.