Saints and Homosexuality

[Guest User-Removed]

What about those people in Denmark who go to animal resorts? Does their lifestyle demand acceptance and equality as well?

baaaaaaaaaaaaa

baaaaaaaaaaaaa

[Hemidakota]

Skip, was that your old job, radio announcer?

[Guest User-Removed]

Skip, was that your old job, radio announcer?

No...but there was a radio host down your way...Mark Larson stole my comment and created a website for it...of course failing to give me any amount of credit.

My end of broadcasting was always in production...from KBFK in Sacramento to WMAQ in Chicago...and ultimately TV syndication back at WOR in Jersey and later at CNBC.

I will plead guilty to listening to Michael Savage daily...and I remember when Rush Limbaugh was a chain smoking LIBERAL....

[Guest Topspin]

Europe is known to be immoral. . They're getting desperate to find money for California.

[Fiannan]

Europe is known to be immoral. . They're getting desperate to find money for California.

Ha, with the value of the dollar so low many Europeans find that it's cheaper to do major shopping in the USA. Last October an article ran in a Swedish newspaper that said that if you were planning on buying a moderate-priced digital camera and two pairs of Levis Jeans you could skip buying them in Sweden and fly to the USA and get them -- the savings would pay for your plane fare and you could get a trip included.

[WANDERER]

Freight would be cheaper ; ).

[Fiannan]

Has anyone ever seen that poster showing the difference between women of the EU v. those of the USA? I'd post it but I'm not sure if it might offend a couple of people here -- a bit of the women's behind shows as they sit down to eat.

[Guest User-Removed]

Has anyone ever seen that poster showing the difference between women of the EU v. those of the USA? I'd post it but I'm not sure if it might offend a couple of people here -- a bit of the women's behind shows as they sit down to eat.

You make a good point here...When I'm in Europe (Pais Vasco, Madrid, Barcelona, Taormina) I'm never hungry...food is plentiful, and as I'm sure you can vouch...It's darn good. Of course, We're rarely in a restaurant or fast food joint.

Yet with all the food both men and women rarely appear obese...at least not like you'd see at Enrichment Night at your local ward...(OH...I feel trouble coming on....)

[Fiannan]

On looking up the poster on the net I noticed it isn'r really that revealing. If someone disagrees I am sorry -- guess it can be deleted. However, if a picture is worth a thousand words this certainly ilustrates it:

http://voorgevorderden.com/images/difference_eu_and_us.jpg

Thing is, this image doesn't apply for England.

[Guest User-Removed]

On looking up the poster on the net I noticed it isn'r really that revealing. If someone disagrees I am sorry -- guess it can be deleted. However, if a picture is worth a thousand words this certainly ilustrates it:

http://voorgevorderden.com/images/difference_eu_and_us.jpg

Thing is, this image doesn't apply for England.

AND....We wonder why Greenpeace is stronger in the States than across the pond...

[WillowTheWhisp]

Here in England we're about the same as the USA I think regarding weight problems. We have the same sort of junk food and we have the same sort of additives in our processed foods. I think the latter accounts for a lot of the problems too. As a nation we don't do a lot of meal creating from scratch. We open a lot of tins and packets and call it cooking.

[Guest User-Removed]

On looking up the poster on the net I noticed it isn'r really that revealing. If someone disagrees I am sorry -- guess it can be deleted. However, if a picture is worth a thousand words this certainly ilustrates it:

http://voorgevorderden.com/images/difference_eu_and_us.jpg

Thing is, this image doesn't apply for England.

And we wonder why Greenpeace is stronger here in the States than across the "pond"

[Guest User-Removed]

Here in England we're about the same as the USA I think regarding weight problems. We have the same sort of junk food and we have the same sort of additives in our processed foods. I think the latter accounts for a lot of the problems too. As a nation we don't do a lot of meal creating from scratch. We open a lot of tins and packets and call it cooking.

Speaking of that...I'd like a case of Walkers Crisps...Prawn Flavoured please....Some Ribena...but save the Cadbury...unless of course I need to change the oil on my MGB...then Cadbury's works quite well....

[Fiannan]

Speaking of that...I'd like a case of Walkers Crisps...Prawn Flavoured please....Some Ribena...but save the Cadbury...unless of course I need to change the oil on my MGB...then Cadbury's works quite well....

Okay you guys -- the thread is being hijacked. Remember the topic!!!! If you can't, then check below:

[Snow]

Hi all!

I was born and raised in the church (no longer a member) and I'm a little confused on my parents opinions.

I really don't want a debate, I'm looking for peoples personal beliefs and the reasoning behind them!

So my problem is- The LDS church teaches that we are all here to be tried, we all have free agency to do as we wish, but we do have to live with those consequences. The 11th article of faith states-

I realize they are talking specifically about religion, but I figure it would work for all major decisions in life.

Okay, so in my family in every election they always vote to ban gay marriage, or to outlaw gay rights.

What do you (members of the LDS church) vote, and how do you justify either your decision?

Am I to understand that you don't believe in legislating any personal behavior? Drugs, incest, nuisances, etc should all be legal?

Just for the record, I am not myself homosexual, I have a fantastic girlfriend that I'm crazy about, but I am EXTREMELY libertarian and it really bugs me that the church teaches so much acceptance, love, and freedom of choice, but the members vote to ban anything they don't agree with... Is this just because I live in Idaho, or is this how the majority of LDS people believe?

Sorry for the rambling

I really don't know what you are referring to - that "members vote to ban anything they don't agree with"

I'm thinking Camel, no-filters, Britney Spears, oil subsidies, anti-Mormons, etc are all things I am opposed to but I've never voted on them. Perhaps you can define "anything they don't agree with" and give 10 or 12 examples.

[cullenh]

The thing that confuses me about you questioning this is as far as I know most churches out there have a problem with same sex relationships..... not just the LDS Church!!! as far as my own personal feelings hey who am I to judge if that is the choice that one makes that is there choice and as long their choice does not affect me or my love ones I make no judgements

[Guest Xzain]

I've thought long and hard about this topic (as well as prayed for understanding about it) and it comes down to this, from my perspective:

Are we on this earth to learn to act for ourselves, or to be acted upon?

Gay rights is not a civil rights issue, nor can it be lumped in with racial or feminist/masculinist issues. The church affirms that homosexuality is NOT something that is inescapable and one cannot be homosexual, but suffer from homosexual thoughts and feelings (Same gender attraction). The ultimate philosophy behind homosexual marriage is that pleasure is the ultimate pursuit of mankind.

The idea that one should be given a 'right' to marry whatever (male or female) they choose is to give one a 'right' to defy the entire order of the universe- order that governments are meant to protect. One cannot argue for the 'rights' of homosexual union without using logic that, in its basic form, could not also argue for the legalization of beastiality, rape and murder, polyamory, and other heinous crimes. If anyone feels otherwise, I'd be happy to discuss it on another thread, as Redbeard is trying to avoid debate and I don't think it'd be fair to debate on his thread.

[ztodd]

You don't see the difference with rape and murder?

[Guest Topspin]

A right storm in a teacup this same sex marriage thing

[Elphaba]

Are we on this earth to learn to act for ourselves, or to be acted upon?

How are you “acted upon” when two people who love each other get married?

Gay rights is not a civil rights issue, nor can it be lumped in with racial or feminist/masculinist issues.

Yes it is, just as every other civil rights issue has been.

For example, there was a time it was illegal for a white person and a black person to marry. And believe it or not, it‘s only been a little over thirty years since the Supreme Court ruled miscegenation was unconstitutional.

But in that day, dire consequences and slippery slopes were cautionary tales over this abomination. And most of the outcries were the same nonsense you’re proposing, including bestiality. Guess what? Nothing happened.

Today most people don’t look twice at a mixed marriage, unless they’re skinheads. I believe this is how it will be for SSM in thirty years as well. None of the slippery slopes or doomsayer’s prophecies will have come true; in fact, they will be looked on with derision, and humor.

The church affirms that homosexuality is NOT something that is inescapable and one cannot be homosexual, but suffer from homosexual thoughts and feelings (Same gender attraction).

The "Church" says nothing of the sort.

According to Elder Oaks and Wickham, there are men who have had had same-sex experiences, but who are also attracted to women. If they will repent, they should marry a woman.

However, for those men who are never attracted to women, but remain attracted to men, Elder Oaks understands that these men's attractions are not going to change, and advises them to live chaste lives, just like other single members of the Church. If they do, they are as eligible for all of the blessings that you are (I'm assuming you're not gay.)

In fact, President Hinckley addressed this saying men with SSA should not marry in their lifetime.

The "Church" does not confirm homosexuality is NOT unescapable. What Elder Oaks says is to not let homosexuality be what defines the person. Make note of this the next time you discuss what the "Church" teaches, especially when your fellow Latter-day Saint in the pew next to you is gay.

The ultimate philosophy behind homosexual marriage is that pleasure is the ultimate pursuit of mankind.

And you know this how?

How many homosexual men do you know who are married? How many gay men have you discussed this with? How many gay men do you even know? What about gay women? Do you have statistics or data or evidence of this, or are you just picking up talking points and putting them down in writing.

I’m sure you are right about this for some homosexual couples, just as it is true of heterosexual couples. Additionally, you couldn’t be more wrong for many homosexual couples as it would also be wrong for many heterosexual couples.

Your sweeping statement about gay couples is a red herring. You cannot pigeonhole people into categories that support your own belief system. We’re talking about human beings, with complexities, nuances, and good and not so good characterstics. SSM is not going to change this, any more than straight marriages have.

The idea that one should be given a 'right' to marry whatever (male or female) they choose is to give one a 'right' to defy the entire order of the universe-

Have you ever taken a physics or astronomy class?

I promise you, the moon is not going to lose its orbit if gay people are allowed to marry. Mars will not crash into the sun if two women exchange vows. And the states who legalize SSM will not be sucked into black holes, leaving a rent in the fabric of time.

The universe will move along just fine if same-sex couples are allowed to marry.

order that governments are meant to protect.

Governments are supposed to protect things that defy the universe? Since when?

One cannot argue for the 'rights' of homosexual union without using logic that, in its basic form, could not also argue for the legalization of beastiality,

This is your definition of logic?

Let’s look at this “logically.“

For a person and a beast to enter into a contract, both parties must be able to read, comprehend, and sign the contract. Therefore, logically, the beast cannot enter into a contract, because he/she cannot read the contract, comprehend the contract, or sign the contract. About the only thing the beast can do is eat the contract.

Besides, the beast isn’t thinking about anything except “Feed me,” and “Stop doing that!” but only in beast language of course.

So until scientists find a way to make Algernon smart again, there is not one beast on the planet that can enter into a marriage contract, and it is an insipid argument to claim SSM has any connection whatsoever.

rape and murder

This argument was used against abolishing miscegenation laws. But they were abolished, and lo and behold, no laws legalizing murder or rape have ever been put on the books.

Just for kicks and giggles, exactly how is SSM going to legalize rape and murder?

polyamory,

How telling is it you chose to include marriage between a woman and two or more husbands in between bestiality and “other heinous crimes." What about polygamy? Is that not dangerous to society as well?

I agree polygamy will be legalized one day. And so what? Polgamy, in and of itself, is not inherently bad. It is also not going to have any effect on society as a whole, as the majority of people living in polygamous relationships already do so.

And just as in marriages between a man and a woman, if there is child abuse in any of the polygamous marriages, the laws should be enforced, and every effort made to protect the children.

and other heinous crimes.

What other heinous crimes?

Elphaba

[Guest User-Removed]

Oh what a twisted web we weave....

"For example, there was a time it was illegal for a white person and a black person to marry. And believe it or not, it‘s only been a little over thirty years since the Supreme Court ruled miscegenation was unconstitutional."

You are correct...at one time in America it was illegal for a black man/woman to marry a white man/woman...That's the point the California Supreme Court missed...Mscegenation was between MEN and WOMEN of different races.

The California Supreme Court has REDEFINED marriage...not clarified it....

Again...as I've stated to others...read the decision...the links been posted twice...

[pam]

Okay you guys -- the thread is being hijacked. Remember the topic!!!! If you can't, then check below:

I find it rather humorous coming from someone that hijacks threads all the time.

[Brother Dorsey]

The Lord has given us plenty of scriptures regarding the "sexual" acts of homosexuality and it being an abomination......

Gen. 19: 5

bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

Lev. 18: 22

(Lev. 20: 13) Thou shalt not lie with mankind . . . it is abomination.

Deut. 23: 17

there shall be no . . . sodomite of the sons of Israel.

Isa. 3: 9

(2 Ne. 13: 9) declare their sin as Sodom.

Rom. 1: 27

men . . . burned in their lust one toward another.

1 Cor. 6: 9

nor abusers of themselves with mankind.

1 Tim. 1: 10

them that defile themselves with mankind.

Jude 1: 7

as Sodom and Gomorrah . . . going after strange flesh.

2 Ne. 13: 9

doth declare their sin to be even as Sodom.

However, as the church teaches....abstenance of the "acts" of homosexuality (those things a wife and husband share) can bring a Gay member all the rights and privileges of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

As far as my opinion on the matter....same sex marriage cheapens what I hold sacred but if they want to enter into a legal marriage contract more power to them...but I will vote against it.

[Fiannan]

Okay you guys -- the thread is being hijacked. Remember the topic!!!! If you can't, then check below:

I find it rather humorous coming from someone that hijacks threads all the time.

You didn't catch the irony, did you? Oh well, since my topic in Sunday School was forgiveness I won't hold it against you for the personal jab.

PS, what did you find objectionable in regards to comic I posted? If you are going to delete something you can at least give a reason why I suppose.

[Guest Username-Removed]

The Lord has given us plenty of scriptures regarding the "sexual" acts of homosexuality and it being an abomination......

Gen. 19: 5

bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

Lev. 18: 22

(Lev. 20: 13) Thou shalt not lie with mankind . . . it is abomination.

Deut. 23: 17

there shall be no . . . sodomite of the sons of Israel.

Isa. 3: 9

(2 Ne. 13: 9) declare their sin as Sodom.

Rom. 1: 27

men . . . burned in their lust one toward another.

1 Cor. 6: 9

nor abusers of themselves with mankind.

1 Tim. 1: 10

them that defile themselves with mankind.

Jude 1: 7

as Sodom and Gomorrah . . . going after strange flesh.

2 Ne. 13: 9

doth declare their sin to be even as Sodom.

However, as the church teaches....abstenance of the "acts" of homosexuality (those things a wife and husband share) can bring a Gay member all the rights and privileges of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

As far as my opinion on the matter....same sex marriage cheapens what I hold sacred but if they want to enter into a legal marriage contract more power to them...but I will vote against it.

Excellent post! Those that find themselves with this physical temptation can come to the understanding that what the body is tempted with, is not necessarily spiritually correct. It must be unimaginably difficult knowing that oneself is spiritually heterosexual, but the body is simply not. I think we, as members of the church, need to show more compassion for people in this category.