Anatess Threadjackers Welcome Here!!!

[Just_A_Guy]

Continuing from this post in Anatess' Gay Appreciation Thread:

Anddenex, personally I try not to put myself in God's position or speak for Him, I feel inadequate to do so because of my limitations, sins and wrongdoings. I believe only the Lord knows how exactly is he going to judge, not only practicing homosexuals but all of us.

Suzie, forgive me, but you seem to be flirting with moral nihilism here. Surely you don't mean to imply that gay sex is not sinful; or that we should only find morally objectionable those behaviors that secular society has chosen to punish via its democratically-enacted criminal code?

I just find very hard to digest that an homosexual can be indirectly compared with a rapist or child molester.

Why not? Sin is sin.

[Suzie]

Continuing from this post in Anatess' Gay Appreciation Thread:

Suzie, forgive me, but you seem to be flirting with moral nihilism here.

I am not implying anything. I just have a hard time saying "God will punish gays!", I don't think I am in a position to speak for the Lord, NOT because the behavior of practical homosexuals isn't sin, but because I am unable to speak for Him, I have a problem doing that because I feel inadequate and imperfect.I believe the Lord will judge according to the life circumstancess of every single individual.

Why not? Sin is sin.

So you are cool then comparing someone who breaks the WOW by drinking a cup of beer with a rapist or a pedophile?

[Anddenex]

I am not implying anything. I just have a hard time saying "God will punish gays!",

My apologies Suzie if you interpreted my words as saying "God will punish gays!" My intention is that God punishes sin (no matter what that sin is, God will punish a non repentant heart), no matter what the sin maybe. Thus, I don't have any problem saying God will punish a rapist, because he will. God will punish adulterers because he has already said they will be punished if they do not repent.

I agree, we don't have any authority to speak for God, but we do have authority to declare words the Lord has already declared.

[Dravin]

So you are cool then comparing someone who breaks the WOW by drinking a cup of beer with a rapist or a pedophile?

Really, the question isn't if such things can be compared. After all, I can be compared to Stalin, Mao, and Hitler; we're male. The question is if the comparison is relevant/meaningful to a point being made.

Edited January 24, 2014 by Dravin

[carlimac]

I disagree with this...

Terminology correction:

Gay - sexually attracted to the same sex.

Homosexual - the same thing.

...because it just doesn't cover it.

Here's my definition:

Gay- someone with same gender attraction who has acted on those attractions by engaging physically with someone of the same sex. AND who doesn't feel the need to stop. One who flirts with and gets infatuated with the same gender, embraces the lifestyle by continuing to have sex with the same gender, or even frequent gay bars or gay hang outs looking to hook up with someone of the same gender. One who's whole personal identity becomes wrapped up in their sexual orientation.

Homosexual (or same gender attracted)- has sexual attraction for the same gender but may or may not have actually had sexual contact with them. Someone who may or may not be trying to control, modify or even eliminate those feelings. Someone who can't drum up any sexual attraction for the opposite sex.

[The Folk Prophet]

I think I've discovered the problem. When I talk about the "thoughts", I'm not talking about immoral thoughts. I'm talking about simple attraction. I'm talking about where people with SSA can be attracted to someone...ya know, think they are nice looking or like their personality without mentally undressing them or going to bed with them. If they let their thoughts go behind closed doors, obviously that's something to be repented of. But homosexuality doesn't necessarily go from 0 to 100 in a half a second. It can start with the merest, innocent thought of, " That guy has nice, friendly eyes." Or "he's in great shape." And for them it can then trigger the desire to get to know that person- the "ping".. Even up to this point, I don't believe the brethren would call this a sin or even something to be repented of. It's when that person starts to contemplate the action it would require to get closer physically and emotionally to that person when clearly they are off limits, THOSE are the thoughts that need to be controlled and eliminated. If you are saying they should be able to control their attractions, well they better pray to be struck blind and deaf because I think you're asking for the impossible.

Thought I ought to move over to the non-highjacker thread, in spite of my strong opinion that that thread needed to be highjacked. But it's been highjacked and what needed to be said was said, I believe, so I'll move here.

The confusion of the platonic attraction and sexual is a problem. When the church is talking about SSA they're talking about sexual SSA, obviously, not platonic. There is no need to change anything about platonic attraction. Clearly and obviously that is not "wrong". And no one should EVER think they're gay because they are platonically drawn to someone of the same sex. Unfortunately there is a bit push out there to convince people of just that, which is part of the problem.

What you're talking about is that platonic attraction moving to a sexual one. When and if that platonic draw "pings" into a sexual thought or desire, there's a problem!

I think that people are conditioned to think improperly about what is and isn't a "ping" and whether such things make someone gay or not. A thought does not make one gay. Even a physical reaction (if you know what I mean) does not. Youthful, male bodies react pretty easily to any sort of excitement. A breeze would do it for me when I was in my 20s. So reasonably, I could have been talking to a guy who I was platonically drawn to, had some sort of sexual-potential related thought pass into my head (say, like the idea of kissing) and the sheer excitement of a new, strange, and perhaps even obscene-to-me idea causes a physical arousal. That does NOT make me gay. It could lead to that if I don't respond to it properly. But these things are nowhere near as simple as the gay-agenda propaganda would have us believe. The balance of mind, emotion, hormones, social influence, etc., are incredibly complex. The world would have us believe you are either gay or you're not. Bologna! We're not homo or hetero. We're just sexual. The rest is driven by a myriad of factors, of which choice is being highly, unfairly, discounted, and yet I will maintain that it is still the most important one.

I don't believe those pings just come out of nowhere either. Society has drilled it into us. We are a sex-saturated society. Everything is about sex. I can certainly admit that there are those who are more naturally inclined in such ways...but as I've said before, irrelevant. Natural or not, it's a problem. It should be dealt with as if it's a problem.

Concerning the perfection thing, take some time when you have it and read through this lesson from then Lorenzo Snow manual: Chapter 6

It's a bit of a read, but take the time when you have it and then we can discuss.

[The Folk Prophet]

I disagree with this...

Terminology correction:

Gay - sexually attracted to the same sex.

Homosexual - the same thing.

...because it just doesn't cover it.

Here's my definition:

Gay- someone with same gender attraction who has acted on those attractions by engaging physically with someone of the same sex. AND who doesn't feel the need to stop. One who flirts with and gets infatuated with the same gender, embraces the lifestyle by continuing to have sex with the same gender, or even frequent gay bars or gay hang outs looking to hook up with someone of the same gender. One who's whole personal identity becomes wrapped up in their sexual orientation.

Homosexual (or same gender attracted)- has sexual attraction for the same gender but may or may not have actually had sexual contact with them. Someone who may or may not be trying to control, modify or even eliminate those feelings. Someone who can't drum up any sexual attraction for the opposite sex.

I think I pretty much agree here. I think the point was to simplify the meaning for the purpose of the thread.

[Guest]

Is Anatess welcome in this thread?

CHURCH IS A HIJACKER! BOO!

[Quin]

Will we also have a Folks-Who-Have-Sex-With-Their-Dogs Appreciation Thread? A Wife-Beater's Appreciation Thread? A People-Who-Use-Filthy-Language-All-The-Time Thread?

[in case that was just too subtle] What is the point for having an "Appreciation Thread" based on which particular perversion someone enjoys?

Shockingly, not too subtle.

What's the point a mother's appreciation thread? When are we going to have a fat lazy cow appreciation thread?

Gee. The inference just goes completely over my head.

No, wait, it doesn't exist!

Roll. Eyes.

Which IS me spouting off.

And it's how I show my appreciation.

By not tolerating hateful and divisive language that dehumanizes and insults entire groups of people, be it racist, sexist, antisemetic, misogynistic, or any other hateful ism. Anything that wants to declare a person to be 3/5ths of a "real" person, deny the same treatment under the law as everyone else, or compares them to animals and criminals (or make them criminals) just because they're different from the majority OR different from their own religious beliefs. I'm not a slut because I don't cover my hair, even if someone else's religion says I am. Nor your wife, nor your daughters, sisters, mother.

Heck, MY religion doesn't even say that homosexuality is a sin, but because you & others don't like it, you compare them to people raping dogs, and beating their wives. What? Because they're black? Or Jewish? Or don't cover their hair? Or... Wait... What's that group that's okay to hate right now? Oh. Right. Hate-group-du-jour.

EACH and every single time someone makes a hateful comment about someone's race, religion, sexuality... Whatever. I. Do. Not. Let. That. Stand.

Regardless of how much I might like the person in all other ways, when they choose to abase an entire group of people, they are wrong. And I would be just as wrong to say nothing and let them do it.

It's wrong, unchristlike, and moreover directly against instruction given to us who are LDS from our leaders to love, NOT mock, ridicule, or attack gay people....Just in case this is too subtle for you ... "With love and understanding, the Church reaches out to all God’s children, including our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters." Mormons and Gays

Q

[The Folk Prophet]

Is Anatess welcome in this thread?

CHURCH IS A HIJACKER! BOO!

Technically Vort hijacked it first.

I figure if you don't like thread hijacks, don't start threads.

:)

[Bini]

Some people just lack tactfulness. My sister and I have been known to go around in circles. She mostly has conservative views and I mostly have liberal views. But that doesn't stop us from trying to use tact in our communication, even if a point can be made by using vinegar, there are better methods in getting one's view across.

[Windseeker]

I thought the thread a bit ironic as there is a movie coming out called G.B.F (Gay Boy Friend) where they actually depict 3 girls competing to see who can befriend the first out of the closet gay- guy in their High School and one of the girls happens to be playing a Mormon.

In G.B.F., social warfare erupts when three high school clique queens battle for supremacy: drama diva Caprice, Mormon princess 'Shley and blonde fashionista Fawcett. When unassuming Tanner is outted, he finds himself cast as the hottest new teen-girl accessory

I think there is a strong pull for LDS to "accessorize" themselves with all the trendy worldly, vain and destructive societal attitudes and doctrines in order to feel better about themselves, to feel superior and enlightened compared to those LDS who hold fast to traditional views and to feel accepted by their peers.

It's nothing new really, Israel did it and so did the Nephites in the BoM, over and over and over again.

[Guest]

Technically Vort hijacked it first.

I figure if you don't like thread hijacks, don't start threads.

:)

I don't mind hijackers... I do it too... but I try not to hijack it to the point that the original theme of the thread is completely overrun.

Okay, you know why I started that thread? KountC came into the Ask a Catholic thread. He mentioned the Catholic Answers Forum. I was in that forum and I got buried by anti-mormons... in the forum titled "Other Christian Beliefs"... and the most vicious ones are Catholics! I couldn't believe it! I mean, yes, I understand that for Catholics, a Mormon is jeopardizing his salvation... especially the Catholic that converts to Mormonism. But my Catholic family - even after not speaking to me for years and having my name in the prayer rolls at the monastery - never made me feel that I am not loved. It is because they love me so much that they try their best to bring me back to the fold. But in CAF - I did not feel any of that love at all. It was just attack-attack-attack like Pit Bulls going after a squirrel.

So then I noticed all these gay threads popping up on LDS.net and it made me pause... that was CAF and Mormon threads... they were popping up a lot - usually starting with an innocent question and not even 3 posts later goes into attack-attack-attack... and I saw that here on our own lds.net. I thought of Soulsearcher and Hoosierguy and thought... I hope they don't feel the way I did in CAF!

So... I started the appreciation thread. And guess what... not even 3 posts later... attack-attack-attack.

This is CAF and Mormons. It really is. And it is terrible because I was at the receiving end of that beat-up stick in CAF and I thought we are better than that. We are not. We are exactly like it. And it is terrible. We really need to dig deep and really wonder if we have that antagonism towards gay people. Love the sinner hate the sin - easy to say. Now I wonder if y'all really do or if that's just something we preach but we don't bother practicing. It's amazing that we can't even just have one thread that can talk about positive experiences we have with gay people - especially with the request not to bring up gay marriage and sexual relationships - that stays positive. It is telling of who we are.

I'm seriously depressed about it that I can't even bring myself to read the thread anymore.

Edited January 24, 2014 by anatess

[The Folk Prophet]

Shockingly, not too subtle.

What's the point a mother's appreciation thread? When are we going to have a fat lazy cow appreciation thread?

Gee. The inference just goes completely over my head.

No, wait, it doesn't exist!

Roll. Eyes.

Which IS me spouting off.

And it's how I show my appreciation.

By not tolerating hateful and divisive language that dehumanizes and insults entire groups of people, be it racist, sexist, antisemetic, misogynistic, or any other hateful ism. Anything that wants to declare a person to be 3/5ths of a "real" person, deny the same treatment under the law as everyone else, or compares them to animals and criminals (or make them criminals) just because they're different from the majority OR different from their own religious beliefs. I'm not a slut because I don't cover my hair, even if someone else's religion says I am. Nor your wife, nor your daughters, sisters, mother.

Heck, MY religion doesn't even say that homosexuality is a sin, but because you & others don't like it, you compare them to people raping dogs, and beating their wives. What? Because they're black? Or Jewish? Or don't cover their hair? Or... Wait... What's that group that's okay to hate right now? Oh. Right. Hate-group-du-jour.

EACH and every single time someone makes a hateful comment about someone's race, religion, sexuality... Whatever. I. Do. Not. Let. That. Stand.

Regardless of how much I might like the person in all other ways, when they choose to abase an entire group of people, they are wrong. And I would be just as wrong to say nothing and let them do it.

It's wrong, unchristlike, and moreover directly against instruction given to us who are LDS from our leaders to love, NOT mock, ridicule, or attack gay people....Just in case this is too subtle for you ... "With love and understanding, the Church reaches out to all God’s children, including our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters." Mormons and Gays

Q

Impassioned, punctuated, assertions aside, not a single thing you're insinuating here is accurate.

[Bini]

Anatess, I know that we see eye-to-eye differently on the GLBT topic but I must say that I was touched by your last post. Like I said, we could all be a bit more gentle in our approach and use a bit more tact, as well.

[Windseeker]

We really need to dig deep and really wonder if we have that antagonism towards gay people. Love the sinner hate the sin - easy to say. Now I wonder if y'all really do or if that's just something we preach but we don't bother practicing.

I honestly don't think I have ever read anyone on this forum express hatred of homosexuals. Not ever.

[Bini]

I honestly don't think I have ever read anyone on this forum express hatred of homosexuals. Not ever.

I have not read anyone come straight out and say: "I hate homosexuals" or "Homosexuals are disgusting" but I have certainly felt that tone in certain posts. I'm sure others have too.

[The Folk Prophet]

I don't mind hijackers... I do it too... but I try not to hijack it to the point that the original theme of the thread is completely overrun.

Okay, you know why I started that thread? KountC came into the Ask a Catholic thread. He mentioned the Catholic Answers Forum. I was in that forum and I got buried by anti-mormons... in the forum titled "Other Christian Beliefs"... and the most vicious ones are Catholics! I couldn't believe it! I mean, yes, I understand that for Catholics, a Mormon is jeopardizing his salvation... especially the Catholic that converts to Mormonism. But my Catholic family - even after not speaking to me for years and having my name in the prayer rolls at the monastery - never made me feel that I am not loved. It is because they love me so much that they try their best to bring me back to the fold. But in CAF - I did not feel any of that love at all. It was just attack-attack-attack like Pit Bulls going after a squirrel.

So then I noticed all these gay threads popping up on LDS.net and it made me pause... that was CAF and Mormon threads... they were popping up a lot - usually starting with an innocent question and not even 3 posts later goes into attack-attack-attack... and I saw that here on our own lds.net. I thought of Soulsearcher and Hoosierguy and thought... I hope they don't feel the way I did in CAF!

So... I started the appreciation thread. And guess what... not even 3 posts later... attack-attack-attack.

This is CAF and Mormons. It really is. And it is terrible because I was at the receiving end of that beat-up stick in CAF and I thought we are better than that. We are not. We are exactly like it. And it is terrible. We really need to dig deep and really wonder if we have that antagonism towards gay people. Love the sinner hate the sin - easy to say. Now I wonder if y'all really do or if that's just something we preach but we don't bother practicing.

Your intentions, as I think I've mentioned several times, are great. I really do appreciate them.

But here's the thing. We, who seem to be the ones who "attack, attack, attack" feel it our obligation to correct error with truth. We do not attack with animosity, but consider it our duty to speak up when falsehoods are spoken or presented. I was just reading through all the information on religious liberty from the church site. Two important points it stressed throughout. 1. We should debate concerning things wherein we disagree. 2. We should remain civil in doing so.

The problem is, it's pretty easy to become uncivil. First, points are made in ways that could probably have been more carefully stated. Second, points are severely misunderstood, misjudged, and mistaken because of the general chip-on-the-shoulder attitude on both sides.

I have, admittedly, seen, and been guilty of myself, saying things that I probably shouldn't have. More often, however, anything said is taken as hate and intolerance.

The criteria for what constitutes civility, however, is not the other side claiming incivility. We should make every effort to state our points-of-view in a civil manner, and as Latter-day Saints and Christians, we are responsible to remain Christlike as much as possible in our discourse. I applaud people like Anddennex and Prison Chaplain for this who very successfully keep things civil. However, there will be times, and certainly with subjects like this, where one side will view the other as hateful and bigoted regardless of the civil intent. The solution to that is NOT to back off the important truths we believe. However, it might do us all good to, in these cases, to re-examine how we express our points.

But really, if one has the conviction that homosexuality is as bad a sin as bestiality (not that I'm saying I think this, but I allow that it is certainly within the rights of someone to believe so), how does one say so, no matter how civilly, with out being called a hateful, intolerant bigot? I could state something like this with as much decorum and civility as humanly possible and it would still be offensive.

I think Vort's original post is a prime example of this. "Should we also have threads on other perversions? Here's some examples, some more extreme, some less..."

"How dare you call homosexuality a perversion!?!"

I mean, come on. It's a no-win. If you think homosexuality is a perversion you're labeled a hater. Should we then back off the position?

I also think that your approach was slightly mistaken. Letting gay people know that they are loved is awesome. But not at the cost of the destruction of souls. I, for one, think there will be many cases in the next life where the gay people we knew will say to us, "Why didn't you kick my butt on this? You knew better and you just let me be gay. You were so scared of offending me that you didn't dare tell me the harsh truth."

Moreover, showing love to them should be an individual to individual expression. When put into a public "Hoorah for gays" type platform it's going to carry ulterior meaning for both sides of the issue.

It's a tough thing though. How do we speak the harsh truth without offending? In some ways it isn't possible. Sometimes, speaking for myself, that puts me into a position of "What difference does it make anyway? They're going to just call me a hater no matter how I say it." That should never be our position, however.

Anyhow, in the spirit of your effort, to those I may have offended by the tactless way I put things sometimes, I apologize.

[carlimac]

Homosexual "involvement" is something that I absolutely hate the thought of. And to think that people that I value(d) as friends are engaging in that kind of behavior makes me almost physically sick. Repulsed. It has a lot less to do with my religious beliefs than with my understanding of anatomy and physiology. I am frankly going to judge anyone who feels it's appropriate and natural as deranged in some way. That said, I can just as easily judge that people with homosexual tendencies all the way to full out gays have many redeeming remarkable qualities and actually can be quite loveable.

How's that for an explanation?

But to be frank, I am nearly as repulsed by a lot of other things people do, too. People I love and am sealed to eternally have some disgusting behaviors that make me sick.

I think it's human nature to be repelled by certain things. I don't think we need to be sorry for that. I certainly don't feel sorry for being repulsed by the thought of same sex intimacy.

[The Folk Prophet]

I have not read anyone come straight out and say: "I hate homosexuals" or "Homosexuals are disgusting" but I have certainly felt that tone in certain posts. I'm sure others have too.

Then you are reading things in that are unfair. That is a sure way to have misunderstandings.

[Guest]

Your intentions, as I think I've mentioned several times, are great. I really do appreciate them.

But here's the thing. We, who seem to be the ones who "attack, attack, attack" feel it our obligation to correct error with truth. We do not attack with animosity, but consider it our duty to speak up when falsehoods are spoken or presented. I was just reading through all the information on religious liberty from the church site. Two important points it stressed throughout. 1. We should debate concerning things wherein we disagree. 2. We should remain civil in doing so.

The problem is, it's pretty easy to become uncivil. First, points are made in ways that could probably have been more carefully stated. Second, points are severely misunderstood, misjudged, and mistaken because of the general chip-on-the-shoulder attitude on both sides.

I have, admittedly, seen, and been guilty of myself, saying things that I probably shouldn't have. More often, however, anything said is taken as hate and intolerance.

The criteria for what constitutes civility, however, is not the other side claiming incivility. We should make every effort to state our points-of-view in a civil manner, and as Latter-day Saints and Christians, we are responsible to remain Christlike as much as possible in our discourse. I applaud people like Anddennex and Prison Chaplain for this who very successfully keep things civil. However, there will be times, and certainly with subjects like this, where one side will view the other as hateful and bigoted regardless of the civil intent. The solution to that is NOT to back off the important truths we believe. However, it might do us all good to, in these cases, to re-examine how we express our points.

But really, if one has the conviction that homosexuality is as bad a sin as bestiality (not that I'm saying I think this, but I allow that it is certainly within the rights of someone to believe so), how does one say so, no matter how civilly, with out being called a hateful, intolerant bigot? I could state something like this with as much decorum and civility as humanly possible and it would still be offensive.

I think Vort's original post is a prime example of this. "Should we also have threads on other perversions? Here's some examples, some more extreme, some less..."

"How dare you call homosexuality a perversion!?!"

I mean, come on. It's a no-win. If you think homosexuality is a perversion you're labeled a hater. Should we then back off the position?

I also think that your approach was slightly mistaken. Letting gay people know that they are loved is awesome. But not at the cost of the destruction of souls. I, for one, think there will be many cases in the next life where the gay people we knew will say to us, "Why didn't you kick my butt on this? You knew better and you just let me be gay. You were so scared of offending me that you didn't dare tell me the harsh truth."

Moreover, showing love to them should be an individual to individual expression. When put into a public "Hoorah for gays" type platform it's going to carry ulterior meaning for both sides of the issue.

It's a tough thing though. How do we speak the harsh truth without offending? In some ways it isn't possible. Sometimes, speaking for myself, that puts me into a position of "What difference does it make anyway? They're going to just call me a hater no matter how I say it." That should never be our position, however.

Anyhow, in the spirit of your effort, to those I may have offended by the tactless way I put things sometimes, I apologize.

I understand this completely and I agree with it. But the OP in that post was perfectly clear - I stated the purpose of the thread and I specifically said to stay away from gay marriage and sexual relations - the ONLY things that make homosexuality sinful. So we don't have to go into the "correcting error with truth" mode.

But, as you can see... we can't do that. CAN'T do that. Why is that?

[Guest]

Then you are reading things in that are unfair. That is a sure way to have misunderstandings.

I don't know church... Bini and I have different views on the LGBT issue. But, I truly felt this in that thread. It may not be intentioned, I understand that - because I am very sure none of us hate gays. But, the feeling is there nonetheless because of that thread's complete failure. So yes, we may not hate gays, but our actions, at least in that thread, belie that fact.

[Quin]

Impassioned, punctuated, assertions aside, not a single thing you're insinuating here is accurate.

I'm not insinuating anything.

Gay bashing is intolerable.

Any kind of racist, sexist, anti-religionist, etc. bashing & bigotry is intolerable.

Homosexuality is not considered a sin in the LDS Church.

The LDS Church is pretty clear in its directive on how homosexual people are to be treated : which is the opposite of what many members are doing. Including on here.

How is any of this inaccurate?

Q

[The Folk Prophet]

I understand this completely and I agree with it. But the OP in that post was perfectly clear - I stated the purpose of the thread and I specifically said to stay away from gay marriage and sexual relations - the ONLY things that make homosexuality sinful. So we don't have to go into the "correcting error with truth" mode.

But, as you can see... we can't do that. CAN'T do that. Why is that?

Won't do that is more accurate. I apologize for it, but your intended purpose, as I've said, I felt misguided, and felt it important to say so for others browsing the thread. Clearly others felt the same.

If I made a post you felt was misguided, in spite of my intent, I would hope you would do the same.

And, really, what do you expect on a forum? :) It's the way they go, really. I remember when I was searching for an LDS forum to join I was in one where they had "focused" threads, where the OP had moderation power and could delete any posts they didn't want in their thread. Something like that would clearly a better platform for your intent, but really, the whole idea bugged the stink out of me. I'm too American to be censored. I HATE my HOA (stinking communists! Whoever came up with HOAs should be exiled). And I relish the concept of free speech and free debate. In spite of some weaknesses, it's a better way. Clearly there is some moderation that is appropriate, particularly on an LDS forum. Can you imagine some of the nasty things that would go down with no moderation? In my opinion this forum and our mods do a very good job of balancing this. Does a bit of rude happen? Sure. I prefer that to over-site that oppresses real thought and debate. If things get really out of hand, as we know, the mods close the thread -- sometime annoying, sure, especially if you're right in the middle of a good fight. But it all seems to work out pretty well in the end. I guess what I'm getting at is look on the bright side. You can't control things like this, even with a stated purpose. So enjoy.

[The Folk Prophet]

I'm not insinuating anything.

Gay bashing is intolerable.

Any kind of racist, sexist, anti-religionist, etc. bashing & bigotry is intolerable.

Homosexuality is not considered a sin in the LDS Church.

The LDS Church is pretty clear in its directive on how homosexual people are to be treated : which is the opposite of what many members are doing. Including on here.

How is any of this inaccurate?

Q

The insinuation is that it's "bashing" and that homosexuals are being mistreated. Both of those things are false.