Church policy change on same sex marriage


Fether
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, wenglund said:

Since the immoral behaviors of heterosexuals tends not to generate as much discussion as the immoral behavior of homosexuals (likely because of the stark difference in controversy), the analysis needs to be proportional.

I was trying to formulate this thought but hadn't really gotten there until I read this -- I intuitively knew there were several logical faux pas going on in his idea but struggled to articulate it a bit until now:

@Scott's point: There's more negative talk about homosexuality than there is about Trump's adultery. Therefore people are more condemnatory of homosexuals than they are of Trump. The implication seems to be that people should be less condemnatory of homosexuality.

The disconnects:

1. Why do people talk about homosexuality here more than they do of Trump's adultery? Scott's implying it's evidence that we forgive one but not the other. But that implies the "why" of the matter is related to how much contempt we have for one thing over the other, and ignores they myriad of other reasons why that may be. For example, if we all agreed Trump shouldn't have been elected because of his chastity/morality what difference does it make? He's still the president. Discussion that no one should have voted for him that did doesn't have a lot of value. (Edit: maybe it will closer to the next election).

2. Negative talk does not equate to condemnation. I don't condemn Trump. That's between him and God. I don't condemn homosexuals. That's between them and God.

3. Let's presume for a second that Scott is correct -- more than correct -- let's assume that every conservative on the forum was 100% dismissive of Trump's past immoral sexual behaviors. What does that have to do with the truth about homosexuality?

You see, Mr. Scott, I could say that murder is wrong and that stealing is okay and the fact that I was mistaken about stealing being okay is entirely irrelevant to the fact that murder is wrong. Murder stands as right or wrong on it's own, regardless of my views on any other issues.

The same is true of homosexuality. The truth about homosexuality and how people should think on the matter is irrelevant the correct or incorrect nature of anyone's views on Trump's morality.

4. If people are more condemnatory of Trump is it then okay to be condemnatory of homosexuality? What about the reverse? If people are less condemnatory of homosexuality is it then okay to be less condemnatory of Trump? Is Scott pro or anti on being condemnatory? It can't be both ways. He's put himself in a corner where he's both supportive and against the idea. Which is it?

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, as an independent (though super liberal comparatively to those on the boards here most likely) I see BOTH sides as the epitome of evil!!!!

Republicans and Democrats are just to opposing sides of the same evil.

One side is against mercy, helping the poor, and charity where there are no RICH OR POOR among us.

The other side is against morality, living the laws of chastity, and respect and regard for life (well, some life at least) while promoting hedonism.

See...

Equal opportunity dislike for everyone!!!

Unfortunately that means I'll be the first to be lynched when the shooting starts as everyone sees me as the bad guy right off the bat! 

See, I'm a unifier, both sides of the opposites can agree on one thing!!

To be more serious though...

Whether Republican or Democrat, both parties are probably far more similar in many areas than many would tend see.  They are far more centrist in their views than those on the really far right or really far left. 

This is why Clinton was a warhawk while Trump was making statements about getting the US out of foreign wars/battles in Syria and other areas.  Normally people would view Republicans as warhungry and democrats as peaceniks. 

This is why when one party is in power the other harps about balanced budgets and the like, but then they suddenly trade places when the positions are reversed.

Two sides of the same coin except for a few differences in regards to how they promote things (such as in regards to law of chastity, or the usage of charity ideas for each party).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scott
42 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Since the immoral behaviors of heterosexuals tends not to generate as much discussion as the immoral behavior of homosexuals (likely because of the stark difference in controversy), the analysis needs to be proportional.

OK, lets stop here and have a serious and hopefully meaningful discussion.  For the purpose of this question, let's leave politics completely out of it so we can stay on topic.

Why do immoral behaviors of heterosexuals often generate less discussion (not only in our Church, but elsewhere) than the immoral behavior of homosexuals? Just by sheer numbers of heterosexuals vs homosexuals (only a small percentage of the population is homosexual), there is a lot more heterosexual immorality than homosexual immorality, yet on topics concerning homosexuality, it seems that a lot more discussion at times (maybe not always).   It seems proportionately, heterosexual immorality should generate a lot more discussion on a forum post if all things were treated equal (and I'm not saying that they have to be, so let's continue).  

I agree with you that there is a difference in controversy, but why?

I provide the following (hopefully meaningful) argument that heterosexual immorality is "worse" than homosexual immorality for several reasons.

Both activities are condemned in the scriptures and both are considered sins. Heterosexual immorality gets a lot more attention in the scriptures.  Interestingly, forum post on homosexuality seem to generate a lot more post.  

It seems though that heterosexual immorality should be at least as great or a greater sin than homosexual immorality.

Heterosexual immorality can lead to out of wedlock pregnancies, abortions, unwanted children, etc.  Both heterosexual and homosexual immorality can lead to serious diseases.  When considering consequences to others, it seems to me that the consequences of heterosexual activity are more serious.   

So why shouldn't heterosexual immorality be at least as controversial and serious as homosexuality?   I say that it should be.

 

Edited by Scott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JohnsonJones said:

One side is against mercy, helping the poor, and charity

That is a statistical falsehood.

It might be correct to say that one side doesn't use these ideas to drive their narrative, but when push comes to shove, the statistics of who gives more to charity are what they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Scott said:

Why do immoral behaviors of heterosexuals not generate less discussion (not only in our Church, but elsewhere) than the immoral behavior of homosexuals?

If I were to post that my such-n-such relative left his wife and kids to run off and marry a blonde, buxom, bimbo stripper everyone in the world would response by saying, "That's awful!"

What's there to discuss? Everyone agrees. Awful.

If that same person left his wife and kids to be with another guy then half the world (more than half) would praise him for being true to himself.

There's a serious disconnect here, and why the one engenders more discussion than the other should be obvious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scott
21 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

3. Let's presume for a second that Scott is correct -- more than correct -- let's assume that every conservative on the forum was 100% dismissive of Trump's past immoral sexual behaviors. 

Only I never sad anything close to that.  I said some conservatives.  I also never said 100% dismissive.   

21 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Is Scott pro or anti on being condemnatory? It can't be both ways. 

It can be both ways.

Who a person is should have no bearing on whether or not you condemn that persons sin.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scott
31 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Do you also admit that condemning homosexual sex is GOOD?  Because, right now, I'm not sure if you believe this.

As much as I admit that condemning heterosexual immorality as being good.

Do you believe that heterosexual immorality is at least as serious as homosexual activity? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
12 minutes ago, Midwest LDS said:

A current picture of @MormonGator with some friends

downloadfile.jpg

OMG I love this. 

Someone on Facebook called me a "shill for the right" a few years ago and my friend Kris and I still laugh about this. I've also been called "evil incarnate" a "Nazi" and "heartless." 

So yea, I became LDS just so that I could find people who would call me liberal. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Scott said:

OK, lets stop here and have a serious and hopefully meaningful discussion.  For the purpose of this question, let's leave politics completely out of it so we can stay on topic.

Why do immoral behaviors of heterosexuals often generate less discussion (not only in our Church, but elsewhere) than the immoral behavior of homosexuals?

So why shouldn't heterosexual immorality be at least as controversial and serious as homosexuality?   I say that it should be.

 

Some ideas: Immoral heterosexual behavior is most often kept in the dark.Meaning, if it's going on and it shouldn't be- as in the case of adultery) it doesn't get talked about till someone finds out.  But homosexual immoraity get's a HUGE amount of light shown on it. It's out there! According to society It's nothing to hide anymore. 

Heterosexual immoral behavior, (especially adultery) is bad- no question. We all agree on that. Nothing to argue about. We know and understand that the world disagrees with our morality and there isn't much new to discuss. ( Frankly Trumps indiscretions are boring. Now if Mitt Romney had had affairs, you can bet this forum would be a-buzz!!) )  But with homosexual immoraity, some of us think it's bad. Others don't.  Hence there is more controversy- more intrigue. More to debate about.  More stuff to try to get our heads around.  Heterosexual immorality after marriage isn't ever justified by any church member and even by most of the world. Homosexual behavior is justified by many people, even within the church. 

Speaking for my generation- heterosexual immoral behavior has been around since we first learned about sex in the elementary school years, or shortly thereafter. It's been hashed and re-hashed ad nauseum! Not that we have become complacent about it. It's still wrong but we "get it" and why it happens and there is nothing more to learn about it. But homosexual behavior is basically still blowing us away, even after 35-40 years of it creeping more and more into the world around us. We don't "get it". It's still very very confusing! I remember in my 20's finding out that a friend was gay and that he actually had very high hopes of marrying his "boyfriend" some day.  I was floored and laughed out loud. ( not in his presence)  It was preposterous! but the unthinkable has happened. And it still makes as much sense to me now as it did then. Zero!

Edited by carlimac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Scott said:

Only I never sad anything close to that.  I said some conservatives.  I also never said 100% dismissive.   

That's why I preambled it with "Let's presume...." Whether all or some and whether 100% dismissive or 80% or something, the point remains.

10 minutes ago, Scott said:

It can be both ways.

Who a person is should have no bearing on whether or not you condemn that persons sin.  

I'm beginning to wonder how much of what I'm saying you're even understanding.

Do you want "some" conservatives to be less condemning of homosexuality or not? Do you want those same conservatives to be more condemning of Trump's adultery or not?

If you support condemning Trump's adultery then do you support condemning homosexuality? If you don't support condemning homosexuality then how can you support condemning Trump's adultery?

Which is it? What is your actual position here man?

Are you just throwing crap at the wall to see what sticks?

Clearly you're conflating a call to repentance with a vote for a presidency. The one is not the other. But which is is. Do you want more condemnation of sin -- or less?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scott
21 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

If I were to post that my such-n-such relative left his wife and kids to run off and marry a blonde, buxom, bimbo stripper everyone in the world would response by saying, "That's awful!"

Would they?   Maybe so, but would they do so vocally?   The above is a good example, because that's almost exactly the same thing Trump did. 

Trumps first wife was Ivana.   The marriage fell apart when Donald ran off with, and to quote you "a blonde, buxom, bimbo stripper" (Marla Maples).   I won't call her a bimbo, but she was a blonde, buxom, stripper (or at least did nudes in pornographic magazines).  

Did everyone in the world condemning his actions?

And I'm not saying that people don't condemn it for it, but some seem to seldom bring things like this up, while at the same time bringing up the sins of people they don't agree with it.  If you haven't seen this then you haven't been paying attention.  

21 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

If that same person left his wife and kids to be with another guy then half the world (more than half) would praise him for being true to himself.  And a large part of the world would put him to death or at least send him to prison.

Added a little bit.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

There it is again.  Trust is greater than "to be Loved".  Makes me think again... the definition here used for Love is vague.   There is NOTHING greater than Love. 

Not according to the Prophet David O McKay.  He said that it is a greater honor to be trusted than to be loved.  G-d loves all his children but he only trusts those that keep the commandments.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Scott said:
1 hour ago, Vort said:

I honestly do not recall anyone on this forum, conservative or otherwise, "condemn[ing] those with same gender attraction". As far as I have seen, the condemnation has always been toward (1) the sin of homosexual activity and (2) the possibly greater sin of justifying the sin of homosexual activity.

Can you provide some examples of this condemnation you mention?

[...] There is a difference between condemning a person and an act.  I will provide a random quote from this forum that show a difference between the two.  I will intentionally choose statements that I don't consider to be inflammatory, just so I can answer your question sincerely without starting an argument.  

Note that my claim is that people have been condemning the act rather than the individual, and that you wrongly impute personal condemnation to them. Your examples:

45 minutes ago, Scott said:
Whether right or wrong, this quote meets the definition of condemning one with same gender attraction:

throughout the United States, the rate of homosexual-related social ills (including suicides) have markedly increased with acceptance of homosexuality, and same-sex marriage in particular. (See HERE)

 

It appears that people are intent on learning the hard way that "wickedness never was happiness

Your claim is false on its face. The quote you offer in no possible way meets the definition of condemning an individual. It is clearly a condemnation of behavior and of the acceptance of that behavior (which is itself a behavior).

48 minutes ago, Scott said:

Do you agree or disagree that the above randomly chosen statement condemns (even if part or all of it might be true-I won't go there) those with same gender attraction?  It does by definition.   Do you agree?  

No, of course not. Your insistence that it meets a definition that it most clearly does not meet doesn't magically change the meaning of the words.

48 minutes ago, Scott said:

Now, moving on, my comment wasn't a beef against statements such as the above (and I intentionally chose one that was civil), it was against the double standard.   Don't tell me that double standards don't show up on this forum.   It isn't only about this particular topic either.

The one example you chose failed miserably to make your point. The condemnation was (and remains) on homosexual activity and the justification of homosexual activity, not on those who for whatever reason experience same-sex attraction. In effect, you are insisting that vocal condemnation of homosexual activity IS condemnation of homosexual individuals.

I still await your justification for implicitly accusing me of hypocrisy in my "double-standard" treatment of individuals and arguments. I believe you are bearing a false witness, but I'm willing to examine your evidence and see if I have indeed been guilty of what you claim I have done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

OMG I love this. 

Someone on Facebook called me a "shill for the right" a few years ago and my friend Kris and I still laugh about this. I've also been called "evil incarnate" a "Nazi" and "heartless." 

So yea, I became LDS just so that I could find people who would call me liberal. 

 

Lol I totally get it. And to be fair here is a picture of me 

192627-004-E20A8593.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scott
8 minutes ago, carlimac said:

Some ideas: Immoral heterosexual behavior is most often kept in the dark. But homosexual immoraity get's a HUGE amount of light shown on it. It's out there!

I'd have to respectfully disagree with you.  Immoral heterosexual activity is all over out there.  It gets a huge amount of spotlight shown on it.  It's all over the news, TV shows, movies, internet, magazines, etc., etc.  

8 minutes ago, carlimac said:

Heterosexual immoral behavior, (especially adultery) is bad- no question. We all agree on that. Nothing to disagree about. But with homosexual immoraity some of us think it's bad. Others don't.  Hence there is more controversy- more intrigue.

I don't think that everyone (especially outside the Church) agrees that immoral heterosexual activity (even adultery) is bad, but I do see what you are saying.  People don't have "adultery  pride" parades for example.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Scott said:

Why do immoral behaviors of heterosexuals often generate less discussion (not only in our Church, but elsewhere) than the immoral behavior of homosexuals?

On this list, the answer is obvious. No one here justifies heterosexual adultery. Even those who support Trump freely admit that his infidelities were and are shameful; they simply argue that such things are irrelevant. (And there most certainly has been back-and-forth about that.)

But some here do attempt to justify homosexual activity. Some go so far as to proclaim the Restored Church wrong in its insistence that homosexual activity is intrinsically sinful and must be abandoned. So of course there is plenty of push-back on that. Then the pro-homosexuality crowd argues against the Church's teachings.

You cannot seriously be blind to this. The reason why homosexual sin gets more discussion here than heterosexual sin is because no one disputes the sinfulness of heterosexual fornication, but some do dispute the sinfulness of homosexual gratification. You must certainly see this happening. You have to know this already. So what exactly are you questioning?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Scott said:

I'd have to respectfully disagree with you.  Immoral heterosexual activity is all over out there.  It gets a huge amount of spotlight shown on it.  It's all over the news, TV shows, movies, internet, magazines, etc., etc.  

I don't think that everyone (especially outside the Church) agrees that immoral heterosexual activity (even adultery) is bad, but I do see what you are saying.  People don't have "adultery parade pride" parades for example.  

I edited it above to mean immoral heterosexual behavior that even the world agrees is wrong- having sex with someone other than the person you are committed to -whether officially married or not. Unless you are part of some obscure tribe on a hidden island, all culture condemns unfaithfulness in sex. ( UNLESS you're part of the swinger crowd.) Most people who are involved in adultery try extremely hard to keep it hidden.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scott
8 minutes ago, carlimac said:

Most people who are involved in adultery try extremely hard to keep it hidden.   

Many people who are homosexual also try to keep it hidden, but it's the ones who are loud about it that get all the attention.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Scott said:

Did everyone in the world condemning his actions?

We're not talking about everyone in the world. We're talking about your implication of "some on this board".

The only evidence you have for this is that people talk about it less -- which is no evidence at all.

Clearly the rampant adultery in the world is a much bigger problem than homosexuality. Much, much, MUCH bigger.

Go ahead... defend adultery and see what kind of a response you get.

Of course there's more debate about homosexuality. There are literally people in this forum supporting it as wholesome and avidly confident that it will be added as legitimate temple marriage someday.

Try defending adultery the way homosexuality is defended at times and see what happens. Try defending the man who runs off with that stripper as a "good person" who can't help the way he feels and we shouldn't be harsh to judge him, etc. Try it. You will get the exact same as you do with homosexuality.

Despicable actions are despicable.

It's people like you who are falsely applying inequality to the sins. If I call an adulterer despicable no one says a word. I say the same thing about someone leaving their marriage for homosex and I get lectured by folks like you on being judgmental and condemning them.

So who's actually driving the amount of debate on adultery vs. homosex?

27 minutes ago, Scott said:

And I'm not saying that people don't condemn it for it, but some seem to seldom bring things like this up, while at the same time bringing up the sins of people they don't agree with it.  If you haven't seen this then you haven't been paying attention.  

I believe I and others have addressed some ideas as to why homosexual issues are likely discussed more. You seem to have ignored that.

Anybody here want to debate the right and wrong of leaving one's wife for a stripper?

Anyone? No taker?

Anyone believe Trump was justified in his adulterous affairs and extramarital sexual activity?

Anyone?

It just seems like we're all on board with the sinful nature of adultery --- even be it the mere lusting after women who aren't your wife.

And yet, somehow, when someone says anything about turning away from homosexuality and changing hearts and minds on the matter it relegated to condemnatory hate speech.

You cannot show a single instance of anyone saying "murder all gays" or anything akin to it here. But you react as if there are myriads of people on here saying just those sorts of things and then you get all in a huff.

27 minutes ago, Scott said:
Quote

And a large part of the world would put him to death or at least send him to prison.

Added a little bit.  

Useful. Now we're being conflated with the middle east. Well I stand convinced. I guess I won't talk about homosex being a sin any longer because...Muslims?? <_<

Sorry. That crap didn't stick to the wall.

 

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scott
6 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

You cannot show a single instance of anyone saying "murder all gays" or anything akin to it here. But you react as if there are myriads of people on here saying just those sorts of things and then you get all in a huff.

I never said that.  I think that you lack reading comprehension.  

6 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Useful. Now we're being conflated with the middle east.

 

Middle East?   I didn't say anything about the Middle East.  That's a different topic though.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Scott said:

I never said that.  I think that you lack reading comprehension.  

I'm pretty sure I said you "react as if..."  Just a sec...

7 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

But you react as if...

Oh...yep...there it is. I think who might be lacking in reading comprehension speaks for itself.

3 minutes ago, Scott said:

Middle East?   I didn't say anything about the Middle East.  That's a different topic though.  

Sure. Because we all know there are places all over the world where they put gay people into prison or kill them.

And, of course, this board is just flooded with those cultures. Just inundated. So clearly I'm mistaken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scott
28 minutes ago, Vort said:

justification for implicitly accusing me of hypocrisy in my "double-standard" treatment of individuals and arguments. I believe you are bearing a false witness, but I'm willing to examine your evidence and see if I have indeed been guilty of what you claim I have done.

I didn't accuse anyone.  I chose my quotes at random without mentioning any names.  I simply when to a post and pulled out the first few posts that met the criteria.   Do you seriously want to make this personal?  

If you really want me to, I will, but I ask for your permission first.

 

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam featured this topic
  • pam unfeatured this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share