Overwatch Posted June 29, 2018 Report Share Posted June 29, 2018 6 minutes ago, Vort said: So, then, your answer boils down to, "There are worse things than homosexual behavior. Therefore, a representative of the homosexual lobby should conduct the Mormon Tabernacle Choir." I find that reasoning profoundly unconvincing. Vort on fire tonight. Hey, I am very glad you comment on these forums after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 29, 2018 Report Share Posted June 29, 2018 (edited) 27 minutes ago, Vort said: Then by your reasoning, homosexual impulses lead to the forcible rape of same-sex individuals. No, rape is camparable to pedophilia. Because ones agency ( the childs) is taken from them. When people have sex as homosexual no one has their agency taken from them. If your son had 1. A desire and need to sleep with his girlfriend before marriage or 2. A desire and need to rape a woman. Which one would you rather have home have? Or are you saying thinking of sleeping and wanting to sleep with ones girlfriend is the same as thinking of and wanting to rape someone? Likewise a need and desire to sleep with someone who agrees with it is totally different that need and desiring to sleep with a child. Edited June 29, 2018 by miav Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlimac Posted June 29, 2018 Report Share Posted June 29, 2018 1 hour ago, Grunt said: I can't imagine why any LDS would show up at a parade honoring sin. Because their child is in the parade. True story. I still can't figure out how a parent can completely and publicly accept a child's homosexual behavior and be a card carrying member. How is "acceptance" any different than "endorsement"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overwatch Posted June 29, 2018 Report Share Posted June 29, 2018 Just now, miav said: No, rape is camparable to pedophilia. Because ones agency ( the childs) is taken from them. When people have sex as homosexual no one has their agency taken from them. If your son had 1. A desire and need to sleep with his girlfriend before marriage or 2. A desire and need to rape a woman. Which one would you rather have home have? Or are you saying thinking of sleeping and wanting to sleep with ones girlfriend is the same as thinking of and wanting to rape a someone? Wow... both sins will keep you from enjoying all the blessings of the Lord in this life and in the life to come. They are both third in the sin severity scale, if there even is one anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overwatch Posted June 29, 2018 Report Share Posted June 29, 2018 7 minutes ago, bytebear said: My answer is yes. As I see it, a gay couple has made a choice that stops their progression. They cannot have biological children in this life or the next. But other than that, I don't see much harm to anyone else. With the heterosexual, I see them destroying several lives, including any children that they may produce. So, yes, I see a difference. And by the way, the gay couple's eternal fate is the same as one who chooses to marry a non-member, or pre-1978, a member who is of African descent. I think you are far to hung up on the sexual act, than the actual ramifications of sexual acts. Easy to see, if they make it into public service positions they can change laws and make mandatory classes be taught to the children; Normalizing homosexuality. Grunt 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted June 29, 2018 Report Share Posted June 29, 2018 13 minutes ago, bytebear said: 19 minutes ago, Vort said: So, then, your answer boils down to, "There are worse things than homosexual behavior. Therefore, a representative of the homosexual lobby should conduct the Mormon Tabernacle Choir." My answer is yes. Yes, I know. But your conclusion is illogical -- specifically non sequitur. 14 minutes ago, bytebear said: I think you are far to hung up on the sexual act, than the actual ramifications of sexual acts. Behold bytebear the mindreader! Everyone take note: If you publicly proclaim that homosexual acts are unholy, bytebear will label you as being politically incorrect and will try to shame you by inventing and assigning negative personal characteristics to you. Overwatch 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MormonGator Posted June 29, 2018 Report Share Posted June 29, 2018 7 minutes ago, carlimac said: . How is "acceptance" any different than "endorsement"? Acceptance is acknowledging that some things are beyond your control but dealing with it regardless of your personal feelings. Endorsement is saying you agree and/or support a behavior. Huge difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zil Posted June 29, 2018 Report Share Posted June 29, 2018 10 minutes ago, miav said: No, rape is camparable to pedophilia. You seem to be missing that he's only talking about the attraction, not the acting on it. You and others in this thread are all failing to abstract (using that as a verb). If same-sex-attraction is not, in and of itself, a sin, but acting on it is; then sexual-attraction-to-children is not in and of itself a sin, but acting on it is. And yet, we have MoTab advertising performing with a practicing homosexual conductor and choir, and everyone's fine with it. But the mere thought of someone who experiences sexual-attraction-to-children (even if they don't act on that attraction) is enough to make people see red and lose their reading comprehension. And I think that might be the point. Or the origin of the question, why? SilentOne, Vort, Grunt and 1 other 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MormonGator Posted June 29, 2018 Report Share Posted June 29, 2018 4 minutes ago, zil said: ]And yet, we have MoTab advertising performing with a practicing homosexual conductor and choir, and everyone's fine with it. This thread shows that not everyone is fine with it by a long shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlimac Posted June 29, 2018 Report Share Posted June 29, 2018 Branching out on the possible motivation for the choir to extend themselves to this group...I find some of the preemptive moves the Church makes to be very savvy. for instance, missionaries can't hold children or babies. New policy states there need to be two-deep leadership always, including two adults in classrooms. With religious tolerance waning in the USA and elsewhere and one of the primary groups attacking religion being LGBTs, I see this primarily as a diplomatic move. I hope it doesn't backfire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bytebear Posted June 29, 2018 Report Share Posted June 29, 2018 11 minutes ago, Overwatch said: Easy to see, if they make it into public service positions they can change laws and make mandatory classes be taught to the children; Normalizing homosexuality. We've already normalized premarital sex. And yet, we don't shun people who lived together before marriage, or even those living in sin, as it were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bytebear Posted June 29, 2018 Report Share Posted June 29, 2018 8 minutes ago, Vort said: Yes, I know. But your conclusion is illogical -- specifically non sequitur. Behold bytebear the mindreader! Everyone take note: If you publicly proclaim that homosexual acts are unholy, bytebear will label you as being politically incorrect and will try to shame you by inventing and assigning negative personal characteristics to you. Speaking of mind reading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bytebear Posted June 29, 2018 Report Share Posted June 29, 2018 1 minute ago, MormonGator said: This thread shows that not everyone is fine with it by a long shot. No, but I think the current mouthpiece of God is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overwatch Posted June 29, 2018 Report Share Posted June 29, 2018 2 minutes ago, zil said: You seem to be missing that he's only talking about the attraction, not the acting on it. You and others in this thread are all failing to abstract (using that as a verb). If same-sex-attraction is not, in and of itself, a sin, but acting on it is; then sexual-attraction-to-children is not in and of itself a sin, but acting on it is. And yet, we have MoTab advertising performing with a practicing homosexual conductor and choir, and everyone's fine with it. But the mere thought of someone who experiences sexual-attraction-to-children (even if they don't act on that attraction) is enough to make people see red and lose their reading comprehension. And I think that might be the point. Or the origin of the question, why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted June 29, 2018 Report Share Posted June 29, 2018 Just now, bytebear said: Speaking of mind reading. Yes, my commenting on things you have explicitly said and done is exactly the same as you making up motivations and assigning them to me. How did I miss that? Overwatch 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlimac Posted June 29, 2018 Report Share Posted June 29, 2018 1 minute ago, bytebear said: We've already normalized premarital sex. And yet, we don't shun people who lived together before marriage, or even those living in sin, as it were. I have a hard time believing the MoTab would choose to do a concert with a choir named The Sex Before Marriage Chorus. Overwatch and Grunt 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MormonGator Posted June 29, 2018 Report Share Posted June 29, 2018 1 minute ago, bytebear said: No, but I think the current mouthpiece of God is. Yes, he obviously is or never would have happened. Agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bytebear Posted June 29, 2018 Report Share Posted June 29, 2018 1 minute ago, carlimac said: I have a hard time believing the MoTab would choose to do a concert with a choir named The Sex Before Marriage Chorus. I bet they would do a concert with a well known celebrity with an active and somewhat promiscuous sex life. In fact, I can probably give examples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overwatch Posted June 29, 2018 Report Share Posted June 29, 2018 4 minutes ago, bytebear said: We've already normalized premarital sex. And yet, we don't shun people who lived together before marriage, or even those living in sin, as it were. wait what? The Church has normalized this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 29, 2018 Report Share Posted June 29, 2018 5 minutes ago, zil said: You seem to be missing that he's only talking about the attraction, not the acting on it. I understand completely what he is saying. He is saying having the thought or desire is not harmful. Ok, true enough, its not harmful to the child to think about hit. But still widely different than the thought and desire to have a sexual relationship with someone who consents to it. One is a thought and desire to take an innocent child and abuse it, to take that childs agency away from them. The other is finding someone who would like to also have a sexual relationship with you. Two very different desires. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted June 29, 2018 Report Share Posted June 29, 2018 Just now, MormonGator said: 3 minutes ago, bytebear said: No, but I think the current mouthpiece of God is. Yes, he obviously is or never would have happened. Agree. Not so. I doubt that the Mormon Tabernacle Choir leadership runs every decision past the First Presidency. They may well have gotten approval for this, but it's not obvious to me that they did. Overwatch 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted June 29, 2018 Report Share Posted June 29, 2018 1 minute ago, miav said: One is a thought and desire to take an innocent child and abuse it, to take that childs agency away from them. This is simply baloney. You cannot take another person's agency. Not possible. Even God cannot do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MormonGator Posted June 29, 2018 Report Share Posted June 29, 2018 Just now, Vort said: Not so. I doubt that the Mormon Tabernacle Choir leadership runs every decision past the First Presidency. They may well have gotten approval for this, but it's not obvious to me that they did. It is so-if he didn't want to happen, it wouldn't. Is it happening? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bytebear Posted June 29, 2018 Report Share Posted June 29, 2018 2 minutes ago, Overwatch said: wait what? The Church has normalized this? No, society has. The church still condemns premarital and extramarital sex, but they don't exclude people from involvement with the choir because of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overwatch Posted June 29, 2018 Report Share Posted June 29, 2018 Just now, bytebear said: No, society has. The church still condemns premarital and extramarital sex, but they don't exclude people from involvement with the choir because of it. You can be a part of Mo tab if you are having premarital sex? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts