I Cant Wrap My Head Around Men Becoming Gods

[Guest MormonGator]

42 minutes ago, Vort said:

Marriage is an institution designed to preserve and strengthen society. From a secular point of view, that is the only purpose of marriage.

Society is founded upon the union of the sexes. No union, no society. Take sexual morality completely out of the equation for the moment. Marriage -- the real, heterosexual kind -- is designed to foster that union between the sexes. Even if the husband is sleeping around. Even if the wife is sleeping around. Even if the husband has sexual boyfriends. These things are not good from a moral viewpoint, and are not healthy from a societal viewpoint, but a robust society can tolerate some level of filth and indiscretion as long as its foundation is sound. It is very much in society's best interest to promote marriage, meaning heterosexual marriage.

Homosexual "marriage" ignores the very purpose of marriage, which is not merely to make a public contract of bed-sharing and genital stimulation between adults.

The argument against homosexual marriage is a moot point. It's legal, it's not going anywhere. So instead of saying why you are against it (which, of course, you have every right to do) , better learn to adapt. 

[BJ64]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

So you don't teach "dress modesty" to boys. Do you teach them modesty at all? Or do you associate the word "modesty" solely with what kind of clothes people wear?

I already said that unlike most people, I recognize that modesty is more than how much skin is covered. 

[BJ64]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

Then why don't you teach modesty to boys, who by their nature are often the least modest of people?

Give an example of boys being immodest. 

[Vort]

12 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

Give an example of boys being immodest. 

"Look what a great swimmer I am!"

"My daddy can beat up your daddy!"

 

[Vort]

15 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

I already said that unlike most people, I recognize that modesty is more than how much skin is covered. 

And yet, you don't teach modesty to boys. I don't understand that.

[Guest]

17 hours ago, BJ64 said:

What was the other question?

Do you believe that homosexual acts constitute a sin in the eyes of God?

Specifically: Do you believe that homosexual marriage is condemned by God?

[Guest]

14 hours ago, BJ64 said:

Do these two statements conflict with each other?

ELDER WICKMAN: <>

Alma 34:34 .<>

Did you mean to address this to me?  I fail to see what this has to do with anything I've said.

[BJ64]

12 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Did you mean to address this to me?  I fail to see what this has to do with anything I've said.

No, I’m just asking. 

[BJ64]

18 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Do you believe that homosexual acts constitute a sin in the eyes of God?

Specifically: Do you believe that homosexual marriage is condemned by God?

What I said is that I know that the church does not approve of homosexuality or gay marriage and is not going to change that stance. I also added that I support the right of people to have gay marriage. That does not mean that I condone it or that it is not a sin. 

I think I also said something about free agency and people have the right to choose their own life.

[Guest]

Dup.

Edited May 17, 2018 by Guest

[wenglund]

2 hours ago, Grunt said:

I understand your position, and waiver between that and my own all the time.  At the end of the day, though, I don't want the government making those decisions.  Maybe as the majorities shift, next year they decide organized religion doesn't promote the general welfare and shouldn't be protected.

Like you, I want the government out of our lives as much as possible, particularly now that we have become a welfare state and tend to politicize everything.

And, I would be completely in favor of getting the government out of marriage and family with this exception--to the extent that we involve the government in adjudicating marital and custody and inheritance disputes, the government should have the power to make laws to keep manageable the burden it is obliged to bear. 

Sadly, redefining the legal definition of marriage, while seemingly well intended, does exactly the opposite. It greatly increases the burden on the government without any benefits. 

Granted, as @MormonGator said, it is a moot point since so-called gay marriage is now the law of the land, but that doesn't prevent me from noting the legitimate role of government in marital affairs, nor suggesting that judicial and legislative activism in changing the legal definition of marriage was the most asinine and wrong-headed movements in political history--which says quite a lot given this is typically the unintended consequence of Leftist policies.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

What I said is that I know that the church does not approve of homosexuality or gay marriage and is not going to change that stance. I also added that I support the right of people to have gay marriage. That does not mean that I condone it or that it is not a sin. 

I think I also said something about free agency and people have the right to choose their own life.

Nice deflect.  That's not what I asked.  I wasn't asking what you said.  I know what you said.  Note the non-committal

15 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

That does not mean that I condone it or that it is not a sin. 

It does not mean that you don't believe it is a sin either.  So, again nice deflect.

When someone refuses to answer a question, that is usually because he's ashamed of the answer.  If you are in any way confused, by all means, ask me to clarify whatever word you did not understand.  But when you refuse to answer these questions, it lends to the supposition that you believe what would not be an acceptable answer.

I did not ask about "The Church".  I did not ask about free agency.  I did not ask about support.  I did not ask about individual rights.

I asked if you believed homosexual acts are sinful in the eyes of God.

Go ahead and deflect if you wish.  But then we'd all know that you believe it is NOT a sin.  I find it interesting that you're so aware of how wrong your position is that you refuse to state it.  But you get all huffy when someone wonders about your faith.

If you find this topic to be too sensitive, then you probably don't want to discuss it in an open forum.  So, if you feel the need to bow out, then please do so.  But you've chosen to get into this topic TWICE.  Both times knowing what would happen.

Please note: I have not accused you of anything yet.  I'm just wondering why you refuse to say what your position is.  I've also stated what statistically is the case when people refuse to answer a direct question.  You could easily clear this up.  But I don't think you will.

[BJ64]

9 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Nice deflect.  That's not what I asked.  I wasn't asking what you said.  I know what you said.  Note the non-committal

It does not mean that you don't believe it is a sin either.  So, again nice deflect.

When someone refuses to answer a question, that is usually because he's ashamed of the answer.  If you are in any way confused, by all means, ask me to clarify whatever word you did not understand.  But when you refuse to answer these questions, it lends to the supposition that you believe what would not be an acceptable answer.

I did not ask about "The Church".  I did not ask about free agency.  I did not ask about support.  I did not ask about individual rights.

I asked if you believed homosexual acts are sinful in the eyes of God.

Go ahead and deflect if you wish.  But then we'd all know that you believe it is NOT a sin.  I find it interesting that you're so aware of how wrong your position is that you refuse to state it.  But you get all huffy when someone wonders about your faith.

Please note: I have not accused you of anything yet.  I'm just wondering why you refuse to say what your position is.  I've also stated what statistically is the case when people refuse to answer a direct question.  You could easily clear this up.  But I don't think you will.

I don’t know how this statement,  “I support the right of people to have gay marriage. That does not mean that I condone it or that it is not a sin.” can be construed to mean anything other than that although I support someone’s right to gay marriage, I do not condone gay marriage or believe it is not sinful. 

The double negative in “does not mean I do not believe it is a sin” is the same as saying “does mean that I do believe it is a sin.

Is English not your first language?

 

[Guest]

Another deflect.  Excellent.  We're going nowhere.

2 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

I don’t know how this statement,  “I support the right of people to have gay marriage. That does not mean that I condone it or that it is not a sin.” can be construed to mean anything other than that although I support someone’s right to gay marriage, I do not condone gay marriage or believe it is not sinful. 

Because it doesn't.  You obviously don't understand direct speech vs indirect speech.  Where did you get your Politician's Phrasebook, anyway?

The very fact that you kept saying indirect statements was the reason why I asked for clarification. But you've refused even now to clarify.

2 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

The double negative in “does not mean I do not believe it is a sin” is the same as saying “does mean that I do believe it is a sin.

No it isn't.  Still, you refuse to make a simple statement.  Do you enjoy simply talking around a topic instead of simply stating Yey, yey or ney, ney?

2 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

Is English not your first language?

Ahhh.. So, this isn't a sensitive topic after all.  You just enjoy teasing people.  Ok.

[Lost Boy]

6 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Nice deflect.  That's not what I asked.  I wasn't asking what you said.  I know what you said.  Note the non-committal

It does not mean that you don't believe it is a sin either.  So, again nice deflect.

When someone refuses to answer a question, that is usually because he's ashamed of the answer.  If you are in any way confused, by all means, ask me to clarify whatever word you did not understand.  But when you refuse to answer these questions, it lends to the supposition that you believe what would not be an acceptable answer.

I did not ask about "The Church".  I did not ask about free agency.  I did not ask about support.  I did not ask about individual rights.

I asked if you believed homosexual acts are sinful in the eyes of God.

Go ahead and deflect if you wish.  But then we'd all know that you believe it is NOT a sin.  I find it interesting that you're so aware of how wrong your position is that you refuse to state it.  But you get all huffy when someone wonders about your faith.

If you find this topic to be too sensitive, then you probably don't want to discuss it in an open forum.  So, if you feel the need to bow out, then please do so.  But you've chosen to get into this topic TWICE.  Both times knowing what would happen.

Please note: I have not accused you of anything yet.  I'm just wondering why you refuse to say what your position is.  I've also stated what statistically is the case when people refuse to answer a direct question.  You could easily clear this up.  But I don't think you will.

In support of allowing gay marriage does not mean one is for it.  One can be in support of allowing people to smoke weed, but still be opposed to smoking weed.  It is basically leaving the decision up to the individual and not dictating what one can or cannot do.

I tend to have mixed feelings about it.  but pandoras box is open.  It isn't going to be closed.  

[BJ64]

11 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Another deflect.  Excellent.  We're going nowhere.

Because it doesn't.  You obviously don't understand direct speech vs indirect speech.  Where did you get your Politician's Phrasebook, anyway?

The very fact that you kept saying indirect statements was the reason why I asked for clarification. But you've refused even now to clarify.

No it isn't.  Still, you refuse to make a simple statement.  Do you enjoy simply talking around a topic instead of simply stating Yey, yey or ney, ney?

Ahhh.. So, this isn't a sensitive topic after all.  You just enjoy teasing people.  Ok.

I’m through with you. I will no longer comment on anything you post. I don’t have time to deal with half witted people. 

[Grunt]

14 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

I’m through with you. I will no longer comment on anything you post. I don’t have time to deal with half witted people. 

You refuse to pointedly answer the question so you insult him and move on?    That's nice.

Do you believe same-sex marriage is a sin?

Edited May 17, 2018 by Grunt

[Grunt]

19 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

In support of allowing gay marriage does not mean one is for it.  One can be in support of allowing people to smoke weed, but still be opposed to smoking weed.  It is basically leaving the decision up to the individual and not dictating what one can or cannot do.

I tend to have mixed feelings about it.  but pandoras box is open.  It isn't going to be closed.  

What are your mixed feelings?   Do you believe same-sex marriage is a sin?

[Lost Boy]

1 minute ago, Grunt said:

What are your mixed feelings?   Do you believe same-sex marriage is a sin?

Absolutely I think it is a sin.  I also think drinking alcohol is a sin, but I am not in favor of prohibition.

Prohibiting gay marriage does not stop homosexuals from sinning.  Them getting married is not really condoning sin as they are going to have sex regardless.  How does it hurt society?  I certainly don't condone same sex temple marriage.

[Grunt]

2 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

Absolutely I think it is a sin.  I also think drinking alcohol is a sin, but I am not in favor of prohibition.

Prohibiting gay marriage does not stop homosexuals from sinning.  Them getting married is not really condoning sin as they are going to have sex regardless.  How does it hurt society?  I certainly don't condone same sex temple marriage.

I think supporting gay marriage is supporting sin.  I think that is different than thinking the government should be out of the marriage business.  I may be splitting hairs, though.  

I think same-sex marriage hurts society by downplaying the societal impact of marriage, families, and the role of the mother and father in development.  I also think divorce hurts society.

[Guest]

43 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

In support of allowing gay marriage does not mean one is for it. 

I'm not saying it is.  It wasn't that position that BJ stated.  If that is all BJ said, I wouldn't have a problem at all.  But he carefully chose words to dance around it.  He sounded like he was saying exactly what you said.  But it was the details of his word choice that says that he actually believes that the Brethren are in error and homosexual acts are not sinful in the eyes of God.

I've asked for clarification multiple times.  But instead of clarifying he 1) Keeps repeating his earlier statements and 2) chooses to get huffy.  Do you not recognize this is exactly the behavior of a politician when he doesn't want to state his position because he knows it is unpopular?  it's like hearing a politician admitting he was wrong.

(The following is a paraphrase of an actual interview).

A: That was the worst idea ever had by the mind of man!

B: (After the results showed it was a great success.)  So, what do you think now?

A: It was obviously much more successful than anyone, even he, thought it would be.

B: So, you're willing to admit you were wrong about it?

A: It was much more successful than anyone thought it would be.

B: Are you going to apologize for the vitriol that you spewed about it?

A: It was much more susccessful than anyone ever thought it would be.

B: So, you're saying you were wrong in your initial assessment?

A: I already said it was much more successful than anyone ever thought it would be.  What more do you want?

B: I'm just wondering if you have it within you to actually admit you were wrong.

A: I said it was much more successful than anyone ever thought it would be.

B: Yes, I heard that.  But apparently you can't admit you were wrong about it.

A: I said it was much more successful than anyone ever thought it would be. 

Edited May 17, 2018 by Guest

[Lost Boy]

1 minute ago, Grunt said:

I think supporting gay marriage is supporting sin.  I think that is different than thinking the government should be out of the marriage business.  I may be splitting hairs, though.  

I think same-sex marriage hurts society by downplaying the societal impact of marriage, families, and the role of the mother and father in development.  I also think divorce hurts society.

I can agree with you on the down playing of the role of mother and father.

As for divorce....  I think it is on a per case basis.  If there is abuse, especially repeat offenses, I am all for divorce.  As for infidelity.. that is a harder issue.  My wife didn't physically cheat on me, but she certainly did emotionally.  I have decided to stay with her.  If she had physically cheated, that would be a harder decision, but I could probably give her one chance.

[Guest]

39 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

I’m through with you. I will no longer comment on anything you post. I don’t have time to deal with half witted people. 

Personal attacks now?  Hmm.  You're lucky I'm not so thin-skinned as you.  I'd report you for misbehavior on this forum.

[Grunt]

21 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

I can agree with you on the down playing of the role of mother and father.

As for divorce....  I think it is on a per case basis.  If there is abuse, especially repeat offenses, I am all for divorce.  As for infidelity.. that is a harder issue.  My wife didn't physically cheat on me, but she certainly did emotionally.  I have decided to stay with her.  If she had physically cheated, that would be a harder decision, but I could probably give her one chance.

I never said there wasn't a legitimate reason for divorce, I said it hurts society.

[BJ64]

3 hours ago, Vort said:

And yet, you don't teach modesty to boys. I don't understand that.

You didn’t give an example if boys being immodest.