So much for your pledge not to engage me again. That lasted about as long as I thought it would.
And my comment should read exactly as I wrote it. When appealing to past societies to justify the actions of current societies, there are two points to consider. Point the first is how much stock to put in those past societies. Point the second is whether there are societies which acted contrary to the way being asserted. My post was addressing point the first, not point the second. If you would like a fuller explication of point the second, the societies which recognized some form of same-sex union, I’d be happy to elucidate. Just ask.
Revelation came to the prophet that if Mormons kept practicing polygamy, the temples and whole mission of the Church would be in danger. Here’s a link to a site that explains this issue in more detail:
So many homophobes (closet homosexuals) suround themselves with distractions and live their life as if they were straight. They marry, have children, and deny. Their hate is directed outward to those who are comfortable with their sexuality. If you think that sounds like a bunch of psycho-bable then maybe its time you say a shrink.
So many homophobes (closet homosexuals) suround themselves with distractions and live their life as if they were straight. They marry, have children, and deny. Their hate is directed outward to those who are comfortable with their sexuality. If you think that sounds like a bunch of psycho-bable then maybe its time you say a shrink.
Okay. There are some really strong attitudes being taken that need not be.
First point, regarding Snark:
I think everybody here but him and me has missed the point. He believes homosex is immoral. That’s his right. He believes gay marriages are wrong. That also is his right. But his argument is not that gay marriages should be made illegal because of his beliefs about their immorality.
It is because he himself, and his fellow men, are due to “suffer the wrath of God” if gay marriages are legalized. He believes this because he is a good Mormon, and because the one man whom Mormons believe to be the instrument of revelation of God’s will to man at the present time, the President of the Twelve Apostles of his church, has announced this as church doctrine. You can disagree with him all you like; I certainly do. But disagree with what he’s saying. As a secular individual, he does not have any problem with you doing what you like, so long as you give him the same respect. As a Mormon, he is honor-bound to support the teachings of his prophet. The fact that Jesus Christ was much more offended, during his earthly life, by self-righteous churchiness and hypocrisy in high places (especially religious ones), than he was by people’s sex drives and how they dealt with them, is not applicable, except in Snark’s own judgment of how far to follow his Prophet.
If somebody in whose hotline to God I had complete certitude told me that He was pissed off by some behavior committed by others, and that it was my job as a good Christian to combat that behavior, I certainly would do so. The fact of the matter is that I don’t believe anybody has a better hotline than I do, and I make my judgments on the basis of what Jesus said and did then and how his views apply to situations now. Snark is otherwise – he has somebody in whom he can put that kind of certitude. And you cannot fault him for doing so.
Given that, Snark, you do have to admit that the timing of that revelation was certainly convenient to the secular survival of the Mormon church. Although that, I believe, is your point – that from a Mormon point of view, God, not wanting his restored church trashed on account of something he had consented to, revoked that consent for the nonce to prevent that trashing. Right?
Now, on to the rest of this. Whatever may be the causes of homosexuality and whether there may be a way to change homosexuals into heterosexuals, whatever may be the morality of it in an objective sense, the bottom line has got to be that it is very inconvenient to be a homosexual in most of America today. There is, as this thread has exemplified, a lot of"homohatred" (avoiding using “homophobia” in a way offensive to another poster) going on. That was my point on the terminology Rousseau took exception to. Supposing a homosexual orientation could be changed, I suspect there are more than a few homosexuals who would take advantage of that possibility – who in the social niche they inhabit find themselves at risk, potentially abused or even killed, for whom they are. There are a lot of well-adjusted homosexuals living “safe” lives who definitely would not change. But there are others who would.
(I am not saying that it’s a choice. I hope I’ve made myself clear that I know very well it is not. I am setting a hypothetical case for its becoming a choice through a treatment that “cures” it – for lack of a better word, and Otto and Esprix please don’t take offense at it.)
Final point. Gay marriages. What is the purpose of marriages, anyway? Damn good question. Certainly for procreation and the ensuring of care for the offspirng by a team of parents. But as a good catholic Christian, I believe there is more to it than that. Marriage is the sacrament whereby human love is made a part of the love between God and his creation. And while there are some people who are not called to this role in life, that is their choice. It is not one made by society for them. I do not believe that gay people should be excluded from this sacrament if they wish to partake of it. That’s intensely theological. But from my worldview, that’s the way it is. If your mileage varies, you may want to get a tuneup.
Well, not exactly. I don’t believe that God would punish someone for something someone else did. If I vote against gay marriages and do all in my power to prevent their legalization, God isn’t going to subject me to his wrath if they’re legalized anyway. At least, not for that reason–I believe I’ve incurred God’s wrath with my sexual habits, but that’s another story…
No. I’m not really a “good Mormon”–I’ve been inactive in my church for over 10 years. But I do trust the prophets.
I’m sorry if I’ve seemed “self-righteous” in this and other recent threads. I’ll try to be more humble. I really couldn’t care less what someone else does in the privacy of their own home between consenting adults. That’s not my business. Okay, I think it’s sad, but it’s still not my business. SSM, however, I see as a genuine threat to the sanctity of the institution of marriage, and if society accepts SSMs as normal and legal, we as a nation are headed for disaster, IMHO. The “Proclamation on the Family” makes that clear.
Yes, except God didn’t just “consent” to polygamy–he commanded it.
The web article I cited is clear on the polygamy being discontinued issue: Mormons believe in obeying, honoring and sustaining the law, so when a law came along that prohibited a practice that was not essential to salvation, such as polygamy, they submitted to that law, as instructed by God through President Woodruff.
Thank you for helping to clarify my position, Poly. Hopefully I won’t have to respond further in this thread.
Not you, Snark. The Pharisees. Maybe your Prophet – that’s between him and God. Sorry you understood it as applying to you.
IMHO, you may not be an active Mormon, but you’re a good Christian…better than most. And if a Mormon can take the word of an Episcopalian on any matter religious, I affirm to you that God does not hold your sexuality and sexual habits against you. He created you, and IMHO endowed you with them – not so that you could sin with them, but that you could use them to his glory. Perhaps there is some male, unloveable, whom your desires will allow you to love (chastely if you insist), and help to find his way to a better life through you. Such things do happen.
Polycarp, there isn’t a more righteous man on the earth than the leader of the LDS Church, IMHO. He is the Lord’s mouthpiece for our times. I trust that he is correct on this issue.
Sexual sin is considered to be of great impact among the LDS. No, I don’t want to be with another man sexually. My dream is to become a family man with a loving wife and children. SSM would not be part of my dreams.
Thanks for the compliment, though. I think you are a wonderful person, but I can’t take your advice in this matter. Hetero or bust!
Polycarp: Excellent posts. Yes, there are a lot of gay people who would change their sexuality if they could. Snark being one of them. They can’t. It strikes me as at the very least unfair of society to set up the rules as if a change in sexual orientation is possible. That attitude permeating society is what leads to the desire to change. As you note, most of us who are not in an “unsafe” place for having a variant sexuality have no desire to change. As for word choice, “cure” implies disease. “Change” or “alter” would be IMHO better word choices.
Snark: You’re more screwed up than I thought you were. You’re not a good mormon, but you have absolute faith in the “prophet”? Doesn’t the prophet tell you to be active in the church? Where do you get off telling anyone your church has the answers when you don’t even go? And why is it so difficult for you and those who “think” as you do to grasp the difference between civil marriage and religious marriage? Were civil marriages legalized tomorrow, the Mormons would be required by law to allow exactly ZERO same-sex couples to be married in the church. You mocked me in an earlier post when I requested that you not seek to impose your doctrine on society. Yet here you are a few days later expressing your willingness to do everything in your power to do just that. All the while knowing that it’s a man you want to be with yourself. Get some therapy.
Okay, for the umpty-umpth time: I am both paranoid schizophrenic and socially phobic. I don’t attend church because I freak out whenever I’m around a crowd of people of any size. I prefer to keep to myself. If I were not socially phobic or schizophrenic, I would attend church every Sunday. I believe in the LDS church even though I don’t attend due to my mental illness. Got it? Good.
Seems to me it’s you who is seeking to impose your will on me. I have the right to vote, just as you do. If that is “imposing my will on society,” then every single American citizen has the exact same right as I do. It’s called a democracy.
You folks don’t seem to understand, although I’ve repeatedly said this: I DO NOT WANT TO BE A HOMOSEXUAL. I DO NOT WANT TO BE WITH A MAN SEXUALLY. I believe that that is wrong, and I am entitled to believe as I please, unless I woke up in China this morning. So stop trying to enforce your will on me. Thank you.
I’ve experienced the awful misery that many homosexually-oriented people go through, especially in adolescence, due to the majority’s homophobia and bigotry towards “gays.” I didn’t like it one bit, and I think America definitely needs to be more tolerant of those who are different. I had a very miserable time of it in junior high school when I discovered sexuality. And people’s lack of understanding about my sexual orientation only fed the fire of sadness.
Personally, if my church leaders were not so adamant about fighting SSM, I wouldn’t have a problem with it. But they are, and I believe they are inspired, so I will vote my conscience when it comes down to a vote. I have nothing against you or Esprix or anyone due to their sexual orientation. But I do reserve the right to try to change. I don’t expect immediate and lasting change. I don’t even expect change to occur within my mortal lifetime, except maybe slowly. But I trust that with God, all things are possible. That’s where I’m coming from, good brother. I’m sorry if my angry words have offended you; sometimes I post without thinking that there is someone on the other end of the phone line. Take care.
Alright, you asked for it. For about a week or so (since somebody else posed the question), you’ve been asking and asking and asking the same question over and over and over again. I was ignoring it because I know you’re not gonna like the answer one lousy bit. But you insist. How are gay marriages detrimental to me?
There’s a reason why the public doesn’t want SSMs. There’s a reason beyond “homophobia,” or “homohatred,” or whatever you want to call it. It’s because a lot of heterosexuals, while they do not make judgements about homosexuals as people, don’t really care for homosexuality as a lifestyle. And they raise their children accordingly, trying to give them a picture of what a family is, and what the meaning of marriage is. On a basic level I guess you could say that the motivation behind this is the perpetuation of their bloodline, but I think there’s a more conscious motivation: that they don’t want their kids to be gay. And they’re perfectly justified in that desire, and that’s why they, and I, don’t really care to see the definition of marriage extended to include something beyond a man and a woman. It undermines what a lot of people are trying to teach their children, and what I will eventually try to teach my children. You can tell me that’s wrong, but I will repeat the most-quoted line of this thread and tell you that I don’t care.
You’re upset because your partnership can’t be called a “marriage?” You think this designates it as “second-class?” I think then that the problem is you. If you have a real good relationship with somebody, you don’t need someone else to call it a “marriage.” You don’t need a little piece of paper that says you’re “married.” The “benefits” that you’ve so overblown here on this thread are distantly secondary.
You want people to compromise what they’re trying to teach their kids so you can pull the plug on your life partner if he should happen to slip into a coma? So you can file jointly on your tax returns? So it will be easier for you to get a dental plan from your employer? Sorry, but not likely. If you really want to spend the rest of your life with a guy, then I wish you all the happiness in the world, and enough love to not care about whether the government recognizes your partnership or not. I’m not about to compromise my values, which are just as valid and legitimate as yours, because you’re hung up on semantics and minor “benefits.”
Besides, whose name would you take?
“History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it.” -Winston Churchill
I had no previous knowledge of your mental illness, being new to the boards. Sorry to hear it. My ex has schizo-affective disorder and social phobia. He’s on medications which control the symptoms to an extent but still tends to problem-solve in terms of “I’ll try killing myself first, and if that doesn’t work I’ll try to handle the problem.” So I’m sorry to hear of your illness. Still, it seems odd that God would put you in a religion with regular worship services and then make you unable to attend those services.
I’m not saying you don’t have the right to vote. You don’t have the right to strip civil rights by fiat. And no, I’m not imposing anything on you by seeking to make SSM legal. When it becomes legal, no one who doesn’t want to marry someone of the same sex will have to. I want to allow people who want to do something to do it. You want to stop people from doing something because of your religion.
And yet, here you are, a homosexual.
I’m not trying to impose my will on you, I’m just encouraging you to deal with reality (which I understand is very difficult for you). You’re homosexual, you always will be homosexual, and all the self-torture and self-loathing in the world isn’t going to change that. You may get married. You may even be able to father children (although I certainly hope not). But deep in your heart you’ll always know you’re really a queer. I could find you some resources for gay Mormons; they might be able to help you reconcile your religion and your sexuality so you can stop beating yourself up about it.
Then why do you feed that fire by perpetuating the attitude?
But you’re not voting or speaking your conscience. You’re voting the party line espoused by your “prophets,” who are fallible human beings. It wasn’t that long ago that mental illness was viewed as demonic possession. If your “prophets” espoused that viewpoint, would you accept it unquestioningly and submit to exorcism? Or would you actually discover your conscience and maybe start thinking that there was a possibility however small that the “prophets” make mistakes?
Of course you do, evidenced by the simple fact that you are full of loathing for yourself because you’re gay.
Fine. Go right ahead. In the meantime, could you not cause suffering to the rest of us by voting to restrict our rights as human beings and as citizens?
So then it’s possible that the “prophets” are wrong. It’s possible that homosexuality in general and your homosexuality in particular is part of God’s plan for the universe, and that by trying to change your sexuality you are trying to contravene the will of God.
Rousseau, proving beyong all reasonable doubt that he’s a total asshole:
So the parents have been taught that homosexuality is “bad,” and because they were taught lies and want to teach their children lies, gay people are supposed to accept being denied basic civil rights. Despite the simple fact that no sexual orientation can be taught and that sexual orientation won’t be influenced in the slightest by the legality of SSM.
Why? What harm does it do a parent if their child is gay? And please, spare me the nonsense about perpetuating the bloodline, since it’s already been established that homosexuality is not a bar to procreation nor is heterosexuality a guarantee of it.
Does anyone else see the contradiction here? In one breath you’re declaring the vital importance of “marriage” remaining man-woman only, yet in the next sentence you’re declaring how completely irrelevant it is to have that piece of paper if the quality of the relationship is high enough. Certainly heterosexuals don’t need that piece of paper either, unless you’re perhaps arguing that gay couples are so much better than str8 ones that str8 couples need all the help they can get. With a 50+% divorce rate among str8 married couples, you may just be right about that. Obviously even with all the societal and legal props of marriage the majority of str8 people are incapable of maintaining a relationship.
Wow, wasn’t it you who was griping about someone’s reducing marriage to this level being “cold”? What does that make you?
Another contradiction, since you stated earlier in your post and again in the next sentence that you believe and intend to teach your children that gay people are inherently inferior.
Sorry, no, but your values are not as valid or as legitimate as Esprix’s because Esprix’s values do not include institutionalizing falsehood as truth. Yours do.
A few posts ago it was pointed out to you the many hundreds of rights and responsibilities which accrue to married people. These are all “minor”? If they’re so minor, then what do you care if same-sex couples access them? If it’s gay people who are hung up on semantics, then why did you earlier appeal to the dictionary definition of “marriage” to support your discrimination?
This sentence would be Rousseau thinking he’s being funny, because Rousseau seems to believe that by inserting a “humorous” closing line he may later, when the nastiness of his post as a whole is pointed out to him, point to the last line and say something like “it was a joke. Can’t you take a joke?” Leaving aside for the moment that the line is not the least bit funny, it does reveal the origin of marriage law as property transfer. The female, who had her father’s name prior to marriage, was legally transferred to her husband and thus took his name. It was illegal for centuries for a woman to keep her birth nam after marriage. If “Ann Smith” married “Bob Johnson” then “Ann Smith” legally ceased to exist. She became “Mrs Bob Johnson.” She could not hold property in her own name. Even if the marriage ended through divorce or death, she did not become “Ann Smith” again. She became “Mrs Ann Johnson.” Women in the last few decades, having won the recognition of their personhood even after marriage, have in large numbers begun keeping their “maiden names” after marriage, or hyphenating their last names. Same-sex couples currently either keep their own names, hyphenate, blend or one partner does a legal name change. I’m sure once SSM is legalized we will continue doing the same things.
Oh, I thought you were someone else, then. There is a certain poster here who used to post as “OttoPlndrm” on the AOL SDMB, and I just assumed you were him (although he isn’t gay, just gay-friendly).
He tests everyone else–why not me as well?
I want to help preserve society from the wrath of God. I want to defend the institution of marriage between a man and a woman as a divine mandate.
That can change. Hard to do, but possible.
Change takes time. You don’t plant an acorn and then expect an oak tree to be there the next morning. When you plant a seed, you water it, give it sunlight and care for it. Well, I’m planting the seed of heterosexuality in my heart. I don’t pretend that that oak tree will be there tomorrow, but I can nurture that seed and see what happens. My body is heterosexual–that is, it’s sexually compatible with females but not with males. That tells me a lot about the way God meant it to be.
I’m trying to convey that although homosexual feelings aren’t wrong, homosexual behavior is. It’s a hard line to walk.
Oh, I have no doubt that prophets are fallible and make mistakes. But I have pledged my support to them and have faith that the Lord will not allow them to lead the church astray.
I don’t loathe myself. I loathe my sins.
< Sigh >. You have the same rights as any other citizen does. You can marry a woman, I can marry a woman. You can’t marry a man (presently), and I can’t marry a man. I do appreciate that you feel the need to be able to marry homosexually, and I don’t want to tread on your rights. However, I do feel that society would suffer if the majority of people did endorse SSM. Again, I base this feeling on the “Proclamation on the Family” linked to above.
If God wanted me to lust after men and have sex with th
This notion has never made the slightest sense to me. God is omniscient. By definition an omniscient being already knows what you will do in response to a given stimulus. So where’s the test? How cruel of God, to make you suffer to obtain information which, being God, he must already have. And is “lab rat” really the self-image you think a loving God would want for His children?
God’s a big boy, He can take care of himself without any help from you. Besides, does a loving God need to rule through fear?
If you don’t want to marry a man, then don’t. If your church doesn’t want to perform SSM, then they shouldn’t. What your church is doing is pouring millions of tax-free dollars into a secular campaign which does not affect them in any tangible way. Regardless of the outcome of the Prop 22 vote, SSM will not be legal in California and the LDS will not perform them in their temples. So what’s the point?
I disagree, but you’re entitled to try whatever you want. If in God all things are possible, it seems like He should be able to just change you instantly if you want it instead of making you go through years of suffering and pain, but hey, maybe God gets off on poking His lab rats with sticks.
You can, if God really wants an oak tree to be there. In God all things are possible. If God wanted you str8, He could make you so this instant. If God wanted me str8, He could do so this instant. God, if you want me str8, please make me so if it is your will.
Huh. Still gay. I guess God wants it that way.
What kind of timeframe are we looking at here? If you’re still queer in a year, does that mean God wants it that way? If you’re still queer in three years? In ten years? In fifty years? If you die queer? At what point does it become possible that God really and truly wants you to be homosexual, and if he didn’t want you to be homosexual why would he bother making you one in the first place?
I don’t see how you can know that. Aren’t you a virgin?
If homosexual feelings aren’t wrong, why are you trying to change them in yourself?
First the prophets are “inspired” and now they’re “fallible.” Isn’t it possible that one of their fallibilities is in their stance on homosexuality and SSM? I’m not asking you to say that they’re wrong, but can you at the very minimum admit to the {b]possibility**?
But according to you, homosexual feelings aren’t wrong, and thus by definition can’t be sins. You’re beating yourself up not because of your acts but because of your feelings.
So you’re not only in favor of restricting my rights but your own as well, as you would also gain the right to marry a man when SSM is legalized.
Of course you do. You’ve said time and again that you do.
And again, God is a big boy who can take care of Himself without any help from you. Perhaps you should try not fearing God and loving Him instead.
And if God had meant man to fly, He would have given us wings. And yet look, man can fly. Are you saying that by imbuing you with homosexual feelings (which by your own words are not wrong) God made a mistake?
Not having seen your body, I can’t comment, but I can assure you that in general the human body’s design works quite well for gay sex.
And back we go to the polygamy argument. First it was right, now it’s wrong. Someone made a mistake and led the church astray, either by endorsing multiple marriages or denying them.
You’re not voting your beliefs or your conscience. You’re voting the beliefs and the conscience of your “prophets,” whom you admit are fallible and prone to error. And I’m sorry, it is not sufficient to “agree to disagree” on issues of fundamental human rights and dignity. We’re not talking about favorite color here, or who makes the best cake. We’re talking about using your vote and your church using its considerable tax-free wealth to impose its religious doctrines on secular society.
{{There’s a reason why the public doesn’t want SSMs. There’s a reason beyond “homophobia,” or “homohatred,” or whatever you want to call it. It’s because a lot of heterosexuals, while they do not make judgements about homosexuals as people, don’t really care for homosexuality as a lifestyle. And they raise their children accordingly, trying to give them a picture of what a family is, and what the meaning of marriage is. On a basic level I guess you could say that the motivation behind this is the perpetuation of their bloodline, but I think there’s a more conscious motivation: that they don’t want their kids to be gay. And they’re perfectly justified in that desire, and that’s why they, and I, don’t really care to see the definition of marriage extended to include something beyond a man and a woman. It undermines what a lot of people are trying to teach their children, and what I will eventually try to teach my children. You can tell me that’s wrong, but I will repeat the most-quoted line of this thread and tell you that I don’t care.}}
When I was a little girl, certain of my family members didn’t want to accord members of other races the same rights as whites had. While they admitted that some blacks (or hispanics, or whatever) might be fine human beings, they should not aspire to the same rights and privileges as WASPs, as they were just inherently inferior (in these people’s opinion). These family members most definitely did not want blacks portrayed as any sort of role model (except possibly in sports and entertainment), and they deeply resented anyone who tried to teach their children that different races all deserve the same rights. In fact, my mother was told “White girls DON’T marry Italians!” and yet here I am.
You don’t have the right to raise your children as bigots.
Lynn
Christian Fundamentalism: The doctrine that there is an absolutely powerful, infinitely knowledgeable, universe spanning entity that is deeply and personally concerned about my sex life.
He isn’t testing us for His benefit, but for ours, so we can prove to ourselves that we are willing to keep His commandments.
Does a caring society need to put people in jail for breaking the law? If so, aren’t we “ruling through fear” as well? Hey, it’s better than having rapists and murderers loose on the streets.
Once again, I will mention the “Proclamation on the Family.” That which threatens the sacred institution of the family is worth fighting.
Hey, why doesn’t God just snap his fingers and make everything right for everyone? This mortal life is a school, not a party.
You didn’t try hard enough, < g > .
God didn’t “make” me have SSA (Same-Sex Attraction), any more than he “made” someone be abused by their parent sexually. I don’t know the time frame. Perhaps all my life, I will struggle with SSA, and even into the next life. I can see that as a strong possibility. All I know is, if I keep reinforcing the habits associated with SSA, I will never break free. I’ve got to try.
Technically. But a guy can fantasize, can’t he? Not all of my fantasies have been homosexual, and I don’t ever want to have gay sex.
Just because something isn’t wrong doesn’t make it desirable.
Not on this issue, or any issue where they have released an official statement for the Church which declares official church policy.
You do have a point here–I do loathe being so different from the mainstream. But mainly I loathe my sexual behavior, which is different than feelings.
[quote]
quote:
You have the same rights as any other citizen does. You can marry a woman, I can marry a woman. You can’t marry a man (presently), and I can’t marry a man.
Hopefully I won’t have to respond further in this thread.