This is topic Not to continue beating a dead horse... in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=022169

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
...but I just had an epiphany. Sorry, I am really slow. Kinda like that whole "rotating perspectives in relativity" thing. I think I finally put my finger on what bothers me about gay marriage, and I am just sharing that for what it is worth.

Here's the deal: according to what I firmly believe, sexual relations between people of the same gender is wrong in God's sight. Now an appeal to the Bible, a scripture I am sure you are all familiar with (it has been posted here not long ago after all) Heb 13:4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge. So what is bothering me here is the idea of using a word describing the only circumstances under which sex is honorable to describe a situation in which sex cannot ever be honorable.

A man and woman who co-habitate are going against God's will, but they can get married and thus become acceptable in God's sight. A man and man who co-habitate may be able to legally get married in the near future, but (according to my faith) they are still "living in sin" so to speak. If they are going to co-habitate, I can handle that, accept that. Especially in circumstances where the individual feels no attraction to the opposite sex. Who am I to thrust celibacy on someone?

But for them to get married, using a word that is supposed to make their sexual relations acceptable before God, that is deeply disturbing to me. I would even go so far as to say it offends me. But do I think it is wrong enough to legistlate against it? Jury is still out on that one.

Along with the unique view that LDS have on the eternal nature of marriage and its purpose, even a non-reproducing couple (man and woman) are perfecctly valid enjoying married sex and God's blessing and approval upon it. Their relationship can be valid before God for eternity. A homosexual one never can be. So using the word "marriage" to describe a homosexual couple does bother me.

I ask you to forgive me of the offense my point of view may cause you, it is an honest description of how my religious beliefs effect the way I see things. Just hopin' it will bring understanding from both sides of the issue.

On a slightly different topic, guys, could you explain something to me? What is the deal with heterosexual men and lesbian activity? Do all/most men really find this so erotic? Hollywood sure would have me think so. Why is that? Is it just the concept more eye candy? Better to watch to two women than a woman and a guy? So do bisexual men enjoy watching a man and woman go at it? I have been dying for someone to explain this great mystery to me!
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
At the risk of being truly offensive (and I really do not intend to be), I hope that some day the leaders of your church receive a revelation on this issue that causes a 180 degree change in the attitudes of LDS members regarding homosexual love.

This kind of reversal of long-standing policy/teaching has happened in your church's past history. It is actually one of the things I admire about the LDS church -- that it has a mechanism for change that appears to be working in the modern world.

(and I don't mean that in a pejorative sense at all -- I mean that many churches do have a problem with changing in general, but particularly with adjustments in social attitudes.)

So... I guess I'll just keep praying that all religious people get a different sense of this in the not-too-distant future.

Because, basically, everything I know about God and everything I know about life tells me that the attitude regarding homosexuality=sin is wrong.

I think some homosexuals are sinning with respect to sex. But by no means are all of them. And I think the same could be said of heterosexuals and sex. And even some celibate people are sinning over the issue of sex.

But the blanket statement that homosexual behavior IS a sin...I just can't wrap my heart and my spirit around it.

Sorry if this was offensive to anyone, especially our LDS members & our hosts. I truly don't intend it that way. I'm just convinced so thoroughly that this stance is not the religiously correct one for a Christian to adopt that I can't sit here silent.
 

---

Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
 
Bob, I don't speak for everyone when I say this, but I'm not offended.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
*bows respectfully to Bob*

I do not find your opinion offensive. You are correct, our church's policy does change via modern revelation to living prophets in response to the needs and circumstances of the times. But God does not change. If this is as important to Him as I believe it to be, I don't think that policy will change.

I do believe that he will judge fairly and take all things into account. Those who die unaware of His laws are not held responsible for them. They will be given the opportunity to learn them, though. This is the merciful and just God I believe in.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
Sure most people sin with respect to sex, and everyone sins with respect to something. I think the greatest danger in the homosexuality debate is that it will foster complacency in those who feel they are justified by being heterosexual.
 

---

Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
 
I doubt it will happen Bob. They've changed several times on several different points, but never on anything that was flatly stated in the bible. And, the bible flatly states in several places that men who lie with men is a no-no. I can't see how they will alter their stand on this.

A change about blacks in the priesthood? yes. Polygamy? yes. Being gay is suddenly not a sin? No.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Yes, pooka, that would be a bad thing.
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
pooka, you mean that some might believe that if God approves of your sexual partner, you don't have to worry about being loving and faithful, etc?
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
Slash, a man can dream, can't he?

In those other instances, people found Scriptural reasons for their opinions too. And we have lots of other things in the Bible that "were" no-no's but no longer are. (Eating Shellfish and being near women during menses, for example).
 

---

Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
 
Bob, I think you put it excellently. That's really the same kind of sentiment I feel about the whole matter.

(loves Bob real good)
 

---

Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
 
Neither of which were repeated in the new testament, which the ban on men who lie with men was.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Bob, this is bigger, though.

And concerning the church, it would be huge. Titanic. Against most of the revelation in this dispensation, specifically the Proclamation on the Family.

Here's some more about what the church teaches on this subject:

http://www.lds.org/topics/0,8170,1569-1-72,00.html
 

---

Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
 
If a couple of my friends got together and started spreading 'false witness', would I be lying with men?
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
You're in high school, right?

Uh, no.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

If a couple of my friends got together and started spreading 'false witness', would I be lying with men?

---

 

---

Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
 
College. : :
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 

quote:

---

pooka, you mean that some might believe that if God approves of your sexual partner, you don't have to worry about being loving and faithful, etc?

---

No, I mean more like even more of them than already have give up on the "no lusting in your heart" commandment. Why, I just broke that one this morning.
 

---

Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
 
Orlando Bloom, right? Tsk tsk...
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 


I knew it!!! We've had that whole Bible quote wrong all along!!!

LOL

Thanks T... I needed that.

kat et al... Sure, it feels bigger. But it really isn't.

At least I don't think it is.

The injunction in the NT is from Paul, right? I could toss Paul out in a heartbeat and not regret it for a minute.

I mean, hey, thanks for proselytizing the gentiles and all, but his attitude was abyssmal, IMHO.

He was wound at least two rotations too tight for me anyway.

I say we retain him, just stick him in the Apocrypha where he so obviously belongs.

Then what've you got? Just a thing or two in Leviticus sandwiched between prohibitions on shellfish and pork that many believe only apply to God's chosen people, and maybe not for all time...

Anyway, I don't really want to get into a big debate here. I'm just saying my prayers because I think the attitude is not a Christian attitude. It's something else. And I don't like it, so I try to change it.

But I can't make my case using Biblical sources. I can only tell you what I believe is true based on what I have learned.

And if you go by my level of knowledge of Christianity, you probably ought to pick a different source. Because I'm like the biggest proponent of "picking and choosing" in the Bible as you're ever likely to meet.

And I also think that the further we get away from stuff that Jesus is quoted as saying, the less certain we should be as Christians.

And that means that I not only pick and choose, but I prioritize as well.

Either of which would've earned me decades of torture in just about any era except for the one I live in now.

Thank God!!!
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
I don't know if I can take responsibility for what I dream, but I didn't have to remember it fondly. Or post it on Hatrack. But it wasn't his breast anyway, it was the softness where the expanse of the cheek is enfolded by the lips... Darn it! Gotta go scrub my sink again.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Bob, it's not just from the Bible, though.

I mean, you're applauding modern revelation because it allows change, but the modern revelation is currently saying... that's it's bigger than the shellfish thing. That it's against God's plan for all of us. That it's a sin that will destroy you. Not that God will destroy you for it, but that it will do it on its own and God wants to protect us from that. Modern revelation doesn't just clear up some wriggly points in the Bible - it's reiterated and emphasized this point several times over.

In the Book of Mormon, Alma states that sexual sin is the worst sin next to murder. I usually hate linking to things and expecting people to read them, but if you really want to know the attitude, the link will help.

So, in a switch, it wouldn't be going against a few controversial points Paul made. It would be negate itself.

[ March 08, 2004, 05:50 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 

---

Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 
"So if we agree to throw out this scripture that I don't like, then there's no scriptural basis for calling homosexuality a sin."
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Quick Scriptural question: Was Hebrews written by Paul? I'd heard that it wasn't.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
 
[a possible answer to beverly's last part of her initial post]

So far I stood away from all the debates concerning homosexuality/gay marriage and I won't start posting about this now. But, beverly, I would like to answer your second question. It really should go in this thread: Ask the 22 Year Old Male Heterosexual , but for some reason nobody posted there for a long time... Sincerity is getting underrated or overlooked…

So, what is the deal with heterosexual men and lesbian activity ? I can speak for myself and for some other guys I know (not friends, though): yes, lesbian activity attracts me/them. And I think it's true for most men. For me, it's just a fantasy, I'm sure I couldn't stand watching it in real life and never tried to. I don't look at pornographic movies - not because of religious beliefs, 'cause I don't have any - and my idea of a couple is a man and a woman (now you see why I said what I said in the first sentence of my post). I've had some crushes over girls in my life, been involved in a relationship and I think my real-life sexual preferences are quite straight and about straight persons of the opposite sex (or complementary sex, I like it better this way ). A reason I can think of, though, for fantasizing about lesbians is that it's something appealing to the most animalistic part of me. I'm sure it has nothing to do with love, (but then again, I'm also sure you know this ), but it has to do with sex: the (my) animal part does not necessarily see this kind of activity as real sexual activity between women, but as a way for them to attract men. I think this is as far as I can/want to go with the explanation, and I hope my being sincere and my language won't offend anybody.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
I did love this part.

quote:

---

I'm just saying my prayers because I think the attitude is not a Christian attitude. It's something else. And I don't like it, so I try to change it.

---

That's actually the only method that could work.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Bob, just out of curiosity, what is it about being against homosexuality that you find un-Christian? Is it that it seems heartless to deny Heaven-endorsed sexual gratification to many of God's children? God allows many more severe life-long difficulties than that. But you know that already.

And I firmly believe that physiologically based same-sex-orientation will not exist in a ressurrected being. Nor will any other physiological mortal ailment. I do not believe homosexuality is an innate part of that person's soul. I believe that gender is.
 

---

Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
 
Personally, the way hollywood portrays lesbians (extremely hot chicks) in those types of scenes, I'd be just as attracted as I would be if she was alone.

Although, having 2 hot babes instead of one just doubles the excitement.
 

---

Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
 
T_Smith, I think you hit it just right there, in your few words as in my thousand. Simplicity is an art, after all, and I'm pretty lousy at it.
I to you, oh great artist !
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Corwin, thank you very much for answering my question about the appeal of lesbian activity on straight men.

So you are saying that the appeal to men is pretty common and is a primal feeling and so is difficult to explain rationally? Ok. Surely there must be more to it though. That is interesting that you think of it as a way for women to get a man's attention pretty quick. I have heard about women doing that on purpose. Ew, I sure couldn't bring myself to do it, nor would I want to attract that sort of attention. I could probably get more attention walking around naked--but then I might have to go to jail.

Um, just so y'all know, I am happily married and I am just talkin' silly!
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Bev, this was actually brought up on Hatrack before, and I'll give you the answer that someone posted that finally made things make sense.

Umm...*takes a breath*

Okay, touch is one of the things that is erotic. That's why things like silk are erotic. So, it's the smoothest, softest, warmest material imaginable (a woman's body) up against not just silk, but... the smoothest, softest, warmest material.

Also, the following quote:

The reason men like a woman with a past is because they are hoping history will repeat itself.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Thanks, Nate. That is more along the lines of what I would have expected. You know, its funny, I can look at a picture of a model lingerie and think that is fine. Then I look at a picture where there are two or more women modeling the lingerie, and I feel irked--because I know just what they are trying to appeal to, and I guess I resent it a little.
 

---

Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
 
Heard a tape once of a comedienne at a lesbian festival held outside of a small town. She was referring to demonstrations and editorials opposing the festival and said something like the following:

"Men - two of us is their number one fantasy. A thousand of us is their worst nightmare."

Just had to share that. Go back to beating the dead quadruped.
 

---

Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
 
beverly, I think you misread part of my post. I'm not saying that women perform sexual activities with other women in order to get men's attention; I'm saying that's how I perceived it in my occasional fantasies. Or other men, for that matter.

[Edit: and yeah, what katharina said.]

[Double edit: at sndrake's quote]

[ March 08, 2004, 06:16 PM: Message edited by: Corwin ]
 

---

Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
 
We do not want to see a hot looking girl kissing a hot looking guy. Since I am not as hot looking as the guy featured, the implicit message is that I will never get to kiss that hot looking girl. But if there were two hot girls kissing, at least I can lie to myself and say, hey, maybe they need a guy in there!

aka Beren One Hand.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
Maybe it appeals to men who don't want to have to do anything to get a woman excited. Because, you know, they are already excited.

But this goes against the attraction of men for women who look hostile and bored. Or is that supposed to attract women?
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Corwin: OK
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
>> So, it's the smoothest, softest, warmest material imaginable (a woman's body) up against not just silk, but... the smoothest, softest, warmest material. << (kat)

This is exactly right.
 

---

Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
 

quote:

---

Maybe it appeals to men who don't want to have to do anything to get a woman excited.

---

Nice point. Maybe I'm secretly thinking: Look, they're doing fine all by themselves. Woohooo! Less work for me! /fantasy
 

---

Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
 
::does a double take::

Beren!? Dude, I totally thought you were a girl.
 

---

Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
 
The important question is, did you picture me kissing another girl?
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
pooka, no kiddin' men do love a pre-heated woman! I find it interesting about women using chemicals to make their eyes appear dialated and therefore more attractive. When your eyes are dialated, it means you are looking at something that is a_ pretty a_ nice a_. So if said woman is looking with her oh-so-dialated eyes at a man, he perceives that she is interested in him. Same thing with exaggerating the lips. An aroused woman's lips become slightly more engorged. It all adds to the illusion.
 

---

Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
 
Ok, people, I think I'll get out of this now, since here in France it's 20 min past midnight and I want my dreams to be *normal* (you know, about flying and stuff...) and every minute spent here threatens their purity
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Corwin

Sweet dreams!
 

---

Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
 
Do I ever picture a girl kissing someone other than myself? What kind of crazy person, imagines a girl kissing someone else?

Edit:
Oh, and to save future rumors and such, I didn't really picture anyone kissing me.

[ March 08, 2004, 06:25 PM: Message edited by: T_Smith ]
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
there is also... two men to consider *innocence*
But seriously speaking, I think the the anti-homosexuality rules should be thrown out because they don't apply to our era anymore.
 

---

Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 
But WHY do you think they don't apply to our era anymore? And why did they apply to previous eras?
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
Because maybe the reason why they had that rule in Leviticus is because back in the those days the slightest thing could make a person sick. Eating pork could kill a person.
That's why they said that men were not allowed to lay with other men. Because everyone had to reproduce and add to the tribe.
As for most of Paul's statements they refered more to temple prostititution than anything.
They don't fit these days. Gay people are now too complex for such rules...
*watching this funny episode of the Simpson's about gayness*
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
This makes sense if you start with the assumption that the Bible is not based on God's word. It doesn't seem very convincing to someone who believes that it is.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Why are gay individuals more complex today than any other time?

That is a good point about the getting sick thing, I think that was (at least in part) the reason for some of the rules in the OT.

Our reasons for believing it is wrong are much more complex than that though. They are also based on the words of modern-day prophets. So for an LDS, even if you were to come up with a good argument to refute every Biblical reference, it still would not cover the issue.

[ March 08, 2004, 06:58 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
 
God: Aw man, the gays went and got too complex this century. Now what am I going to do?
 

---

Posted by Anthro (Member # 6087) on :
 
Sorry, but:

Post. Me.

New page!
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Dagonee – No. It’s occasionally disputed, but modern scholars are virtually unanimous in agreeing that Hebrews was not written by Paul. His name is no where in the text and the style and vocabulary are very different from his. My textbooks/commentaries don’t even class it among the “disputed” letters.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 

quote:

---

But WHY do you think they don't apply to our era anymore? And why did they apply to previous eras?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

Very simply, because the world has too many people who are virtually assured of living 60 plus years. Up until the last couple hundred years or so, this was not the case. Anything that diverts the desires of people away from having children (which is not the same thing as not valuing children, mmmmk?) and slows the rate of population growth is a good thing.

Hadn't seen this aspect of homosexuality discussed before, so thought I'd bring it up.


 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Hmmm, if you are worried about over-population, I can understand this point of view.
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
Attitudes have changed...
At once time marriage wasn't so much as about love, it was about commerce and continuality. Globally arranged marriages were the norm.
It's true. In parts of Africa, in Europe and in Asia.
Romantic love was considered outside of marriage for the most part.
But then things changed. Things are different.
Marriage is about romance to a lot of people. Many people get married and don't have children or even have children outside of marriage.
Which is not nessasarily good, but it happens.
That aside, certain biblical rules and norms are outmoded.
And, quite frankly, this is a good thing.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Certainly those changes create an atmosphere in which gay marriages and homosexuality in general are more likely to be accepted. That is true 'nuff.

Not quite sure how that effects God's point of view though, bringing it back as a religious issue.
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
Like a variable in an equation...
It's impossible to dispute and using a certain argument can be considered rude...
 

---

Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 
So, Storm, you're saying that the acceptability of homosexuality is entirely dependent on world population and life expectancy? Doesn't that seem pretty arbitrary? Especially since opinions on world population differ so widely?

Synesthesia, "attitudes have changed" is not a logical argument. Attitudes change about lots of things, but that doesn't make them acceptible.
 

---

Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 

quote:

---

But for them to get married, using a word that is supposed to make their sexual relations acceptable before God, that is deeply disturbing to me.

---

quote:

---

Look, you have every right to hold to your faith and not think it is morally right according to your faith to be part of a homosexual marriage. What is totally unconstitutional is allowing that religious faith to dictate the rights of people who don't belong to that faith. And if they change the constitution to make it okay to deny rights to individuals according to this religious faith, then that is equal to the same codes and and laws passed by a bigoted Democratic (Party) South in the last quarter of the 19th Century. Those who advocate such legislation are bigots. Plain and simple.

---

quote:

---

I said: But for them to get married, using a word that is supposed to make their sexual relations acceptable before God, that is deeply disturbing to me.

Leto said: That's too freaking bad.

Sounds like it is NOT ok with you that I feel this way.

---

quote:

---

And since our friend beverly is using slippery slopes, how long before activities not endorsed by some church are made illegal if homosexual marriage is allowed to be outlawed?

---

quote:

---

Whaa? What is this imaginary conversation and who are you having it with?

---

quote:

---

I'm not going to give that straw man any credence, Jon Boy. You know they are not the same, and you know it's a straw man.

---

quote:

---

Polygamy does not equal homosexuality. I repeat: polygamy does not equal homosexuality. Homosexual marriage = two people (not four, not six, not fourteen). Polygamy = more than two people. Different situations altogether.

---

quote:

---

Trying to equate them is done either by people who are for legislation against homosexual marriage or bitter Mormons who aren't allowed to have men with six wives.

---

quote:

---

Trying to equate them is done either by people who are for legislation against homosexual marriage or bitter Mormons who aren't allowed to have men with six wives

---

quote:

---

Why don't you address that issue instead of this other non-existent one?

---

quote:

---

Sorry, Jonny, but marriage is marriage between two people.

---

quote:

---

So you feel it's okay to be intolerant and bigoted on the basis of number, right?

---

I do. Back to your cage newbie! (always wanted to say that, and now I CAN!) Yay me.
 

---

Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 
First of all, if you're going to behave like I'm insulting you, then I'll stop responding to your continuing insistence on this straw man.

quote:

---

Second of all: Since when?

So you feel it's okay to be intolerant and bigoted on the basis of the number of people in a marriage, right? Why? What makes homosexuals more deserving of marriage than polygamists? Why do you feel it is okay to deny polygamists that right?

---

Second of all, since insurance, taxes, and other non-religious and non-census organizations began to give special privileges to couples. Since the whole of the free world has taken the word and defined it as such. Since polygamy is, in its very essence, a result of the religious concept, and religion has not "owned" marriage for a very long time.

I'm not saying it's okay to be intolerant of polygamy as a theory, I'm saying that in the United States, every instance of polygamy has been a situation that was based on unequal rights of women (even though the religions themselves were not). I'm against allowing inequality to be endorsed by the government. In any form. If you can give an example of a polygamous society where women weren't denied the same rights of men, I'm all ears.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Oh, hush, lurker.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 

quote:

---

polygamy is, in its very essence, a result of the religious concept

---

I don't see how that's true. There have been many cultures that practiced polygamy. It's not always a religious thing. It's a marriage thing.
 

---

Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
 
rivka is a post-count bigot.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Beren is a member-number bigot!
 

---

Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 

quote:

---

I don't see how that's true. There have been many cultures that practiced polygamy. It's not always a religious thing. It's a marriage thing.

---

Name each one, and you will find religious precedence used in each one. I can understand you being ignorant to this fact, but it's true. Don't just trust me, go look it up yourself.
 

---

Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
 
And to think, just two weeks ago I would've called you a "post-count Nazis."

Oh, how times have changed.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
I just want to sincerely apologize for opening a BIG UGLY CAN OF WORMS!!!!

*is nauseated*

It was so not my intention.
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
Normally I think worms are cute, but those are almost the grossest worms I've ever seen!
 

---

Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
 
eww! eww! i'm never clicking a link again!
 

---

Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
 
I'm SO glad I didn't go with Italian tonight.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 

quote:

---

So, Storm, you're saying that the acceptability of homosexuality is entirely dependent on world population and life expectancy?

---

quote:

---

Doesn't that seem pretty arbitrary? Especially since opinions on world population differ so widely?

---

Let's put it this way, even if you, or someone, doesn't believe that global overpopulation is a serious issue(and I imagine I could probably google, literally, a hundred sources saying that it is), surely it's pretty evident that the world long ago passed the stage where it's a do or die frontier situation and that the need for every man and woman to be engaged in the process of reproducing the race has long since passed away? Olivet has made mention of this a couple times with her fruit fly analogy.

This doesn't refute any of the social and epistemological arguments that the discussion has basically revolved around these last few days, of how gay marriage will impact the societal landscape. The wonder of those arguments, because they are basically subjective, is that they'll never be proven or disproven. So, it's interesting that you bring arbitrariness as a point now. One man's functionality is another man's dysfunctionality. I submit that that the usual arguments are a lot more arbitrary than my point.

[ March 09, 2004, 08:25 AM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

John L said:
Name each one, and you will find religious precedence used in each one. (Emphasis added.)

---

quote:

---

Bob, it's not just from the Bible, though.

I mean, you're applauding modern revelation because it allows change, but the modern revelation is currently saying... that's it's bigger than the shellfish thing. That it's against God's plan for all of us. That it's a sin that will destroy you. Not that God will destroy you for it, but that it will do it on its own and God wants to protect us from that. Modern revelation doesn't just clear up some wriggly points in the Bible - it's reiterated and emphasized this point several times over.

In the Book of Mormon, Alma states that sexual sin is the worst sin next to murder. I usually hate linking to things and expecting people to read them, but if you really want to know the attitude, the link will help.

So, in a switch, it wouldn't be going against a few controversial points Paul made. It would be negate itself.

---

quote:

---

while I can see the Scripture-based support for the current positions of the two, I also think that the Scripture or the use thereof is flawed.

---

quote:

---

Bob, just out of curiosity, what is it about being against homosexuality that you find un-Christian? Is it that it seems heartless to deny Heaven-endorsed sexual gratification to many of God's children? God allows many more severe life-long difficulties than that. But you know that already.

And I firmly believe that physiologically based same-sex-orientation will not exist in a ressurrected being. Nor will any other physiological mortal ailment. I do not believe homosexuality is an innate part of that person's soul. I believe that gender is.

---

quote:

---

my PRIVATE lewd thoughts about another person cause someone who I never met, never will meet, and cannot possibly affect in any physical way

---

quote:

---

Your argument rests on the premise that there are no bad choices, because if the option exists, it must come from God, and therefore is a legitimate choice.

---

quote:

---

There's nothing that occurs naturally in the world that is not a reflection of God

---

quote:

---

Second of all, since insurance, taxes, and other non-religious and non-census organizations began to give special privileges to couples. Since the whole of the free world has taken the word and defined it as such. Since polygamy is, in its very essence, a result of the religious concept, and religion has not "owned" marriage for a very long time.

---

quote:

---

Bob, I implied in my post that had the question that God does make people homosexual, he also makes them blind, deaf, mentally retarded, and a host of other things. Those things will always be with us too. I know that puts me in the category of people who think that homosexuality is a disorder, but so be it.

And I really think that for those who are thouroughly attracted to their own sex and not the opposite (or complimentary as was so beautifully put) will be judged with that taken into account. Just as God won't blame a blind man for not being able to see, God will not blame a fully homosexual man for not being attracted to women. I guess on this point, you and I actually come close to agreement, because I can't see a just God creating a homosexual man and then condemning him for it.

---

I totally agree with the last paragraph.

On the first...I don't necessarily see homosexuality as a disorder or derailment. I see it as part of a continuum -- from flaming hetero- to flaming homo-sexual and everything in between.

I don't think a "disease" or "deformity" model of the world works even for those things we call diseases or deformities, let alone something like sexual preference.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Bob, I meant the words and stance were unequivocal. You can disagree that that the words have authority, but not with what the words say.
 

---

Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
 
I had a lot to say in support of Bob, but I think he has said it both eloquently and correctly.

We can't know God's designs until they are revealed to us.

To not show compassion, to even those who seem despicable to us, is definitely a sin.
 

---

Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
 
Jon, I don't think he's trying to place polygamy into right or wrong. I think he's trying to explain why the two issues aren't the same.
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
kat...

I disagree.




 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 

quote:

---

This is the source of my understanding that you were saying that if the desire to do it exists, it must come from God.

That means if the temptation exists, it's a legitimate choice from God. That means no bad choices.

---

quote:

---

I have trouble believing that polygamy is man-made, John.

It's too prevalent in the animal world, specifically primates.

I can understand you being ignorant to this fact, but it's true.

Now, maybe taking multiple wives is religious, as marriage is man/religion-made, but the act of a single male mating with multiple females seems pretty natural.

---

quote:

---

So polygamy is wrong because the whole of the free world has defined it as wrong, but homosexuality is right, even though the whole of the free world has not defined it as such, right?

---

quote:

---

Bob, I meant the words and stance were unequivocal. You can disagree that that the words have authority, but not with what the words say.

---

quote:

---

I would posit that it's because in its current state, religious institutions have a comfortable scenario where they can not claim the word marriage for couples who either fail at marriage or are sinful according to their doctrines, and they don't have to admit that there are just people who get married for non-religious reasons (or for reasons outside of anything to do with religion). In this case, religious institutions don't have to admit that marriage doesn't belong to them, because once something is made known that is contrary to their doctrine, it's easy to shrug off as "oh, they were different people" or "that was before they changed and learned what it really meant." Such excuses have been used on this very forum, regarding the incredibly huge divorce rate among Protestant Christians. Religious institutions get to recognize the marriage without having to admit that they have no final say on who can marry, and then when something goes wrong, they can blame the individuals involved for not being adherent to their faith. The difference with homosexual marriage is that it wouldn't be able to be ignored by religious institutions as being outside of their realm of influence, which would make the institutions have to admit they don't have (and haven't for a long time) the final say on who can or cannot marry. In other words, it would force the "churches" (meaning institutions) to finally admit something that has been so for quite a long time, but has existed in a more comfortable (and convenient) form for them. If there's any reason to feel threatened, that's the biggest. Religious institutions are very used to being the final authority on Earth to their members, and a sign that their authority does not extend to those outside of their religions is threatening to those institutions. And it's scary to many members, since their institution feeling threatened in any way is met with claims of attack and persecution (real or, more often, imagined).

A non-LDS heterosexually married couple may not have been sealed in temple, but there is still the "hope" that those people will convert (thus be "made whole") and then be sealed; with homosexual marriages, this is a hope that is not possible. With non-Baptist or non-Pentecostal married heterosexual couples, they may not have been "born again" and baptized by a minister from that denomination, but the hope still remains that they can be converted (thus be "made new/whole") and baptized; with homosexual marriage, this is not a possibility. It is much the same with Catholicism, other Christian denominations, Jehovah's Witnesses, Islam, and Judaism—while the hope of conversion and completion is possible for non-members that are heterosexual, it's impossible for homosexual marriages to convert (and remain homosexually married). This means the church(es) can never give the final blessing on the marriage, even if it's done post-hoc. This means that the church(es) would have to admit that they are not required to give the final blessing on marriages any more, even though they haven't been required to do so for a very long time. After all, do churches have to give the final blessing in marriage to atheist couples, couples who do not follow dietary, traditional, or ritual laws today? Only according to followers of whatever faith is claiming it, not non-members.

Am I the only one who sees the double-standard in that? Or is everyone of different faiths here going to openly and honestly let those of other faiths know that their marriages are not sanctified and blessed according to their God?

---

quote:

---

What defines abuse? ... Who has the authority/legitimacy to define abuse?

---

quote:

---

No, polygamy—as it has been performed by various civilizations—is inherently unequal, and that inequality is what is wrong.

---

quote:

---

In every one of those species, the relationships are inherently unequal. That's my point, bud. Why foster inequality? After all, the "natural" world is also very brutal and dangerous, yet we do not condone violence or brutality.

---

quote:

---

Sopwith said
Because we often enter into things freely without knowing what we are getting ourselves into.

---

quote:

---

Remember too that the polygamy laws are aimed at the traveling fellow with an unknowing bride in every town along his route.

---

quote:

---

But if it were practiced in America today by free and willing participants, why should your belief that it is unequal prevent them?

In fact, if it's voluntarily entered into, why should it matter if it's unequal?

---

quote:

---

Don't put words in my mouth, John. I haven never said that those outside my faith are not blessed, nor have I ever said that marriages outside my faith are not real marriages.

---

quote:

---

Leto, what are you quoting? By the nature of your questions, I assume you do not understand the LDS doctrine on eternal marriage. This topic belongs in another thread.

---

quote:

---

The point I'm making, both in the quote (which is my own words) and here is that if you are going to claim the invalidity of homosexual marriage as not being condoned by God according to your faith, then are you prepared to admit you feel the same way about marriages of other faiths?

---

quote:

---

Because those who are being treated unequally have no way to change their minds later. If there's no choice, where does the allowance of pursuit of happiness end and endorsed mistreatment begin? As I already said, there are marriages that employ unequal treatment already. And within the confines of the law, these people always have an option out of it. In those predefined situations, the women were always the ones who were screwed out of a choice to get out of it. That's where the illegality (or, rather, the unconstitutionality) comes into play.

---

quote:

---

And seriously, people, there is already a thread devoted to this straw man.

---

quote:

---

After all, you can't say that you aren't arguing it as a straw man against homosexual marriages, and then make the argument as pertaining to homosexual marriages.

---

quote:

---

However, don't you believe that a homosexual marriage would not be a real marriage? Isn't that saying the same thing? Why or why not? Are you going to tell me that God endorses marriages that are not LDS, even when those marriages are Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, or Islamic? Why or why not?

---

quote:

---

We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children. . . .

The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.

---

quote:

---

Dag, I know practicing polygamists. Ones who went into it fully knowing the situation.

Now, fifteen years in, troubles are arising for the third in the group, the one who doesn't have any legal marriage rights, the one who has been caught in something that she can't extricate herself from, the one who found that a marriage works best between two equals.

One can make polygamy legal, but not equal. A nation could set forth laws, but cannot guarantee against dominance of one against the many within the relationship. You can legislate equal rights and responsibilities within the relationship, but cannot prevent later wives in the marriage from being delegated to subservient roles.

Look at the societies that permit and promote polygamy that exist in our world. Look at the roles of women within those families. Even among the Mormons, the woman's role was subservient to the male and her rights were more curtailed than those of the man, and this is looking at it from a more enlightened perspective.

Polygamy, in practice, just doesn't work in the society we have strived to establish in the United States, because it actually works against equality of station and respect.

---

quote:

---

Because there is nothing we do that doesn't affect others.

---

quote:

---

Women got the short end of the stick in traditional monogomous heterosexual marriage. Why is this relevant here? If the laws can provide protection from unequal treatment in monogomous marriage (at least to the extent we think it's still worthwhile), why can't it in polygamous marriages?

---

quote:

---

I'm responding to your inconsistent remarks in this thread. Saying over and over again that it's a straw man does not make it so.

---

But pointing out why does show why it is not so. I have already pointed out why—polygamy is a multiple marriage arrangement, where homosexuality is a sexual preference. You want to see Yet Another Discussion on why they are not the same? okay, here:

quote:

---

I'll break it down in simple terms for now, but I will probably get more in-depth as I go on later:

• Homosexual marriage = marriage between two human beings | Polygamy = marriage between more than two human beings || In other words, one is monogamy, thus not polygamy, thus not the same in anything but social stigma.
• Homosexual marriage = marriage between two human beings | interspecies marriage = marriage between a human and a non-human || not the same, because one includes two humans and one includes a human and a non-human.
• The only main difference between homosexual marriage and inbred marriage is the probability of recessive flaws being passed on. Other than that, they both weigh in heavy on the social stigma scale.

---

quote:

---

I'm pointing out the utter inconsistency of your own arguments equating opposition to legal recognition of homosexual marriage to bigotry, when that same reasoning applies to polygamous marriages.

---

quote:

---

I believe that God approves or monogamous heterosexual marriages, and occasionally polygamous heterosexual marriages. Marriage is an important institution, so even if people aren't going to be sealed in the temple, it's still important for marriage to exist on earth.

---

quote:

---

We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children. . . .
The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.

---

quote:

---

My point is (and NOT aimed at you), trying to justify legal recognition of homosexual marriage because "Christians don't own marriage" founders on the rock of polygamy.

---

No, aimed at me, right? Can you get over your grudge? I already apologized for what you took offense at, can you lay off the constant attempts to contradict me for its own sake, and not for a real reason?

I have never made "Christians don't own marriage" as the foundation for justifying homosexual marriage. I said that religions do not own the institution of marriage as a reply to the original claim in the first post that marriage is considered (by the poster) a union that is endorsed by god. It neither has to be endoresed by any god nor has to defer to any faith. So get the hell off my back (in the personal sense). Jon Boy brought up the straw man of polygamy separately, and as I have been addressing in a totally different thread already, there are things about currently-defined polygamy that are inherently unequal, and are not condone-able by law. As I said in that other thread addressing polygamy, and not homosexuality, I am open to there being another solid example, if one could be shown. It is a different subject, and arguing polygamy has absolutely no bearing on homosexual marriage except that it has to do with marriage in general. Outside of that broad generality, there is no equity.
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
Amka...private behavior is not a drop in a river reaching flood stage.

And, we are getting off topic again, I think. Basically, we can talk about sending a message to children (and idiots who can't think for themselves) elsewhere.

I don't think that's what you were proposing earlier in your talk of "everything we do affects everyone...". But if it was, you grossly overstated your own belief, IMHO.

To deny someone their freedom based on a vague fear is way outside the realm of what a Christian philosophy should espouse. If that's what you meant, I just have to say that not only do I disagree with you, but I think your way leads to creation of "Thought Police." And I think that fear is far more realistic than the one you expressed about permissiveness permeating society.

You posit that we should avoid these things because people (other than you and a few others) are too simple minded to act in their own best interest. I just think that's cynical.

Besides, the only reason floods are bad is that people foolishly choose to live in the flood plain. For lots of other reasons, a periodic inundation is just fine!
 

---

Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 

quote:

---

Even if those marriages are forever separated from the Church? Even if they are not even remotely Christian? Even if there is no option of them ever being Christian? And can you answer the "why or why not" part?

---

quote:

---

As has already been asked here, what about those who want no children? What about single parents? What about abandoned and foster children?

---

quote:

---

If there are no directions, no definitive statements to go against, how could someone possibly be held accountable for anything?

There is no sin if there are no wrong choices.

---

quote:

---

Jon Boy brought up the straw man of polygamy separately.

---

quote:

---

Bob, I'm actually fascinated with this. Do you believe that God does not hand out prescriptives for behavior? Of any kind? That we are left to figure out what is hurtful to ourselves and others based solely on our conciences? That's what I'm getting from your posts. Is that right?

---

quote:

---

I'm not quite sure what the relevance of single parents and abandoned and foster children is. If you can explain, I'll try to answer.

---

quote:

---

we are left to figure out what is hurtful to ourselves and others based solely on our conciences

---

quote:

---

truly thinking feeling humans know when they are on track with what they should be doing and when they are not.

---

quote:

---

It was an analogy, somewhat like your constant comparisons to racism.

---

Except I already pointed out that I wasn't comparing it to racism, but to bigoted legislation. That's why I constantly referred to the legislation and not the racism!

Are my posts not being read? Why do I have to keep saying the same thing over and over in the same thread, when I already answered this false accusation? Are you people even reading what I'm saying, or just scanning for hot-words to reply to with the same-old remarks?

[edit] And I'm outta here for a few hours, so don't get hot if I don't reply with the cat-like speed of the last hour or so.

[ March 09, 2004, 12:51 PM: Message edited by: John L ]
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
kat...

They're similar enough to express compatible sentiments.

Why? I guess I'm missing the point of your question. I've said both of those things in the context of these discussions and believe both of them to be true.

I don't think either statement implies that God is prescriptive though.

I might quibble with the word "solely" but only because conscience without reason seems lazy to me.

Or are you making a different point?

[ March 09, 2004, 12:56 PM: Message edited by: Bob_Scopatz ]
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

You see, bringing up polygamy to argue against homosexuality is not arguing against homosexuality, it's arguing about polygamy.

---

quote:

---

Of course, this just means (I predict) that this thread is going to dig even deeper into this ultimately off-topic and unrelated argument, instead of actually logically eddressing homosexual marriage itself. Feel free to prove me wrong. Or let pride get in the way, and prove me right.

---

quote:

---

I tell you what: I'll let you know when I'm not saying something completely at face value. I feel no need to be anything but straight-forward with what I say. I'd appreciate the consideration of being taken that way.

---

quote:

---

No, aimed at me, right?

---

quote:

---

Can you get over your grudge?

---

quote:

---

So get the hell off my back.

---

quote:

---

I don't think either statement implies that God is prescriptive though.

---

quote:

---

Out of interest, who here does NOT base their moral decisions on their conscience?

---

quote:

---

GAH!

quote:It was an analogy, somewhat like your constant comparisons to racism.

Except I already pointed out that I wasn't comparing it to racism, but to bigoted legislation. That's why I constantly referred to the legislation and not the racism!

Are my posts not being read? Why do I have to keep saying the same thing over and over in the same thread, when I already answered this false accusation? Are you people even reading what I'm saying, or just scanning for hot-words to reply to with the same-old remarks?

[edit] And I'm outta here for a few hours, so don't get hot if I don't reply with the cat-like speed of the last hour or so.

---

quote:

---

Just for my own Bob Edification, how that work in with the whole idea of commandments?

---

quote:

---

Except that, to my knowledge, no one actually does this. I haven't seen anyone say "I disagree with God about this, but what He says goes, and I respect and love Him for it."

---

quote:

---

"I don't personally think this, and it breaks my heart, but I have to believe this because God says so."

---

quote:

---

Bob, may I return this to an analogy of parents and children? I have authority over my children (ages 4, nearly 3, and 9 mo.). It is important that they obey me because I understand far more than they do. When they ask "why" and I think they can handle the answer, I delight in explaining to them. But there are times where the answer is, "because I said so", or "because I'm your MOM." I still expect them to obey me.

So when God says to me, "Because I am GOD," I say, "OK, I don't really like it, but I will trust you."

---

quote:

---

beverly, to take the analogy further...as your children age and become more aware of their surroundings and demonstrate their ability to comprehend things, a good parent changes the lessons & the type of control

---

But earthly parents are still just human. We trust them to make their decisions because we have to struggle through with our own decisions without knowing all. God on the other hand, does know all. He may see something 20 years in our future, that we don't. And, unlike us, he isn't sitting around agonizing over what's going to be considered sin and what isn't and who is going to be judged and who is going where and all that - he knows.

The analogy to an earthly set of parents isn't close enough. There is no analogy to God, because we don't have and can't even comprehend the amount of knowledge he has.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Alexa, I do not know if you are LDS or not, or how familiar you are with LDS doctrine, but there is a reason for many of those differences.

LDS doctrine says that we started out living in heaven with God as His children, being raised by our Heavenly Parents. Our life here on earth is brief in comparison, a crucial mortal test. For reasons I don't fully understand, in this life it is crucial that we learn faith and trust in a God that we cannot physically sense and have no memory of being in his presence.

We willingly gave up living in heaven for a brief time, putting incredible stake on our mortal lives, for the incredible opportunitiy of becoming like God. LDS doctrine basically views this life as a sort of "coming of age" trial for Godhood.

But since He is our loving Father, the analogy still is very useful. The scope is just on a far grander scale than that of me and my kids.

[ March 09, 2004, 03:49 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
kat,

isn't there another possibility...

that Scripture is Scripture, but men interpret it and make the rules?

I mean, I really see a misogynistic tradition in the Catholic church. I don't know enough about LDS to say whether I think the same of your church or not. But any church that makes a gender distinction in worship is, I think, relegating at least 1/2 of its members to 2nd class status.

Sounds to me like something men would do, not God.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Bob,

Yeah. Me too. Hence the year of finding out.
 

---

Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
 
Just read through this whole thread-whew!

Bob, I think a lot of what you say is well put.

Personally, I believe both homesexual and polygamous families should be given the same legal protections that heterosexual couples enjoy.

I have seen the legal hurdles my gay friends have jumped through to share custody of their children, share a last name, take care of each other in a medical emergency...all with the knowledge that it may mean nothing.They have to pay lawyer's fees and produce documentation for rights my hubby and I have as a matter of course. I am personally thrilled that is starting to change.

edited for spelling errors that occurred while nursing a little person who, I have just discovered, has peed all over me.

[ March 09, 2004, 04:06 PM: Message edited by: romanylass ]
 

---

Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
[This started out focused, but then rambled; fire away! ]

beverly, I think that the parent/child analogy only works if you think that God is still working in that way.

I've been thinking on it (I think I am very close to Bob, theologically speaking; at least nothing he has said when talking about such things has struck me as false, and not just on this thread), and I think that, with Jesus, we AREN'T children any more, or aren't supposed to act in the same manner. Jesus expects from us, in my mind.

Children, quite frequently, act like many of the "bad guys" in Jesus' parables do. They follow the letter of the law quite blindly, to the point where it doesn't make sense (the Good Samaritan parable comes to mind as an example). Jesus, not exactly a stickler for the law (at least as interpreted by the leaders of the day), preached that through your faith you will do (even be) good, not that through your obedience you will be faithful. There are exceptions to rules, and they can't possibly be spelled out in a concise readable format.

If, by following a rule you are harming someone, it likely means you aren't following the Rule, IMO.

We can argue that gay marriage will have negative pragmatic (that is, non-metaphysical) repurcussions (Amka and Jenny Gardener and Geoff, and others certainly have). Others can argue that there will be positive repurcaussions (Storm Saxon, TomD, and others). So long as we slavish follow the rules (and essentially semantic rules at that, since there is no edict that says a word can only have one definition, and there are many words that have multiple definitions), however, we do pragmatically harm others. We should be better than the men in the parable who ignored their fallen brother, because it would technically make them unclean for the temple. We should both help them, and be clean.

We can both provide civil marriages to gays, with all the legal value it conveys, whilst still practicing our form as our God commands (and by extension continue to promote our form of marriage as the preferred, for the various theological reasons).
---

Of course, I have an inability to fathom why some people can't separate civil marriage from the larger (and heterogeneous) religious one. We use the same word because it is convenient, IMO, not because we wish to confer some of the connotations of one definition to the other.

-Bok
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
Legalizing polygamy creates tax law problems that I believe are insurmountable.

Legalizing homosexual marriage doesn't.

Given that one of these things is legally unworkable, but the other is not, I don't think the analogy is valid.
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
Dang! I'm getting beat up for someone else's analogy!!!

Foul! Ref, I want a free throw!

kat, I never said that Jesus tossed out anything. In fact I said that we have MORE to be concerned with.

With greater understanding comes greater responsibility.

And I'm sorry, I'm not a toddler. If I can understand something, I can decide whether it applies or not. And if God wants me to understand it differently, He's got plenty of ways to explain it to me.

And, I include among those ways the discussions here at Hatrack.

Is that wrong?

How else would a loving God have me behave?

Heck, let those who can obey blindly do so. I'm not stopping anyone. I admire the ability to do that and wish I didn't have to puzzle it all out before I believe.

But I'm not wired that way and I show no signs of changing, you know...

So God knows how to reach me. I'm not closed to learning new lessons. I know I'm not perfect and that my plans aren't necessarily HIS plans. It's not like I'm thumbing my nose at God by saying I prefer to understand his orders before I obey.

And maybe I'll fall shy of Heaven being this way. But I actually think that after death we come to understand a great many more things than we do now. And I look forward to that. I'm not afraid of it... I want it.

If one of the things I come to understand is that blind obedience would've been the right course to follow, I guess I'll have some really tense moments there.

But I doubt it'll be like that.

Why would God explain it all to us and then say "Gotcha!"

Seems arbitrary and capricious, and that's not the God I would want to worship either.

So, you see, if I was obeying without understanding, I'd be a grumbling malcontent in my heart anyway and lose my shot at Heaven just as certainly.

I figure hypocrisy is worse than doubt.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 

quote:

---

I figure hypocrisy is worse than doubt.

---

quote:

---

if I was obeying without understanding, I'd be a grumbling malcontent in my heart anyway and lose my shot at Heaven just as certainly.

---

quote:

---

The more I think about this, the more it scares me to think that there are people out there who are willing to ignore their own sense of right and wrong for the sake of commands they don't understand. It's even scarier to think that these people are perhaps in the MAJORITY.

---

quote:

---

Jesus condemned both.

---

Yeah, but he didn't condemn Thomas to hell, now did he?

kat...you think I don't agonize over that?

But changing that is like asking me to become homosexual. It just ain't in the genes or the intellect or the spirit.

I've tried blind obedience. It doesn't "take." And usually people get hurt.

Sorry.
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
Tom, my sense of right and wrong is flawed. I'm a human person, and I have a fallen, sinful nature.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Bob, for what it's worth, I believe God loves you and understands you and He is exceedingly patient. Who are we to judge?
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
*hugs Bob*

I think that's part of what is meant by the change of heart. It's a surrender.

Very, very scary.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
I think Bob loves carriage returns more than he loves God.
 

---

Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
 

quote:

---

The more I think about this, the more it scares me to think that there are people out there who are willing to ignore their own sense of right and wrong for the sake of commands they don't understand.

---

quote:

---

The more I think about this, the more it scares me to think that there are people out there who are willing to ignore their own sense of right and wrong for the sake of commands they don't understand.

---

But you’re ignoring that people who think this way have two premises that mean they are not really “ignoring their own sense of right and wrong:”

1.) My in-born sense of right and wrong is in someway misaligned, even when I apply my powers of reason to it to the best of my ability.

2.) I have decided to trust the statements of certain authorities to help provide guidance to my sense of right and wrong.

In other words, they’re not ignoring their sense of right and wrong. They have incorporated these commands into it.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
 
But rather than seek understanding, we should just accept doctrine?
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Absolutely not. But at some point in a believer's journey of faith, he or she should approach doctrine with the presumption that it is right and good and seek understanding that way.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
I think sceptics have broader issues with faith.
 

---

Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
 
yeah. i'm so glad i didn't hit add reply. twinky's said it in a much nicer and more understandable way.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"Tom, my sense of right and wrong is flawed. I'm a human person, and I have a fallen, sinful nature."

Hm. I might not always be noble enough to do what I think is right, but I think my sense of right and wrong is pretty flawless. Is that hubris?
 

---

Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
 
Beverly,

I am gald you find the God-Parent analogy useful. I don't. I am well versed in LDS scripture, doctrine, theology, and culture. I am also a temple holding memeber who reads the scriptures every night with my spouse, grew up in Utah, attended BYU, and hold Family Home Evening.

I am also someone who doubts. I believe we should not put our faith in the arm of the flesh. I include living prophets as the arm of flesh. Inspired, but flesh.

The reason Jesus told us doubting was wrong is not because (IMHO) doubting is wrong. But because eternal truth are manifested by the Spirit.

Hence, when Christ said it was better for those who did not feel the resurrected Messiah but still believed. He was not talking about blind obedience or faith. He was talking about having the spirit of prophecy (Holy Ghost) with you as a more sure testimony.

I have left the church, studied church history, went the ways of the world, came back to the social organization that spreads the gosple and has authority for ordinances, and am quite happy right now.

I understand the analogy and why there are all of those differences. My point is that IT DOES REQURE FAITH in God. Whatever the the reason the relationship with God is different then our temporal parents, IT IS DIFFERENT.

To require someone to have faith because the prophet spoke seems wrong to me because then we are just believing and not having the testimony of the spirit with us. If we do have the spirit with us, then this is not an issue--unless, like me, sometimes your understanding of the spirit is different then what is being advocated. Hence my delimma and that start of this post.

In the end tho, Satan is the father of lies, so if you are honest with God and yourself, then whatever side of the fence or religion you find yourself on, I believe you have God's blessings (provided you are not taking away the righs of someone else through violating their consent--is rob, rape, murder, lie, cheat, et cetera.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
I understand - what I'm saying makes sense only with regards to people who have resolved a whole lot of issues in a particular way. My explanation was responding to Tom's statement about how people of faith clarify issues of right and wrong.

Dagonee
Edit: this was a reply to celia and twinky.

[ March 09, 2004, 04:43 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
I like how Dag said it. You don't start with a moral understanding of the universe and then figure out what God would want us to do. You start with his laws, and develop your moral understanding from there.

But of course, that doesn't answer everything. Which/Whose laws do you accept? Your own moral sense has to jive with the laws for you to accept them in the first place.

I don't have any magic answers. Thanks for your posts, Tom. I believe we will all be blesses as we try to live what we understand and try to understand the truth better.
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
Actually, you misunderstand a bit. I think God made me this way.

So, I'm being obedient by asking for explanations and proof.

I'm using the gift of intelligence that He gave me.

It's not like I'm in open defiance or anything. I just want to understand first, then act. If I'm responsible for the action, I want to know what I'm getting myself into. Or what God is getting me into.

So please...the (((Bob))) stuff isn't necessary. It's not like I can make myself change.

And I have tried the surrender bit. Really tried it. It lasts a few months at most and then I really do start rebelling.

I've learned to surrender in some areas, though. I think my close friends can see it. But you know, it's because of trust in those areas. I think God has all of our best interests at heart.

Think on this, though. I have known many Christians who believe things about what God wants them to do. And often they are very wonderful and useful things. And sometimes they are just plain wrong things. But the belief that God "wants this of me" is always strong and true.

IMHO, these people could do with a good dose of skepticism. Maybe not to be skeptical of God, but to be distrustful of their own secret desires.

And that's the biggest barrier to "surrender" for me. That I couldn't trust myself under those circumstances to secretly push the "calling" in ways that only I really intended.

I don't know that I could tell the difference between a good thing that I'd convinced myself of, versus one that God was putting forward as part of His plan.

I believe that maybe both are going on.

And I feel it is important to examine EVERYTHING and be as sure as I can be.

I think that's not doubting. I think that's the responsibility of a faithful person.

Am I wrong? ... again?
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
*walks in*

*beats dead horse* (not Dead_Horse)

*walks out*


AJ
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

IMHO, these people could do with a good dose of skepticism. Maybe not to be skeptical of God, but to be distrustful of their own secret desires.

And that's the biggest barrier to "surrender" for me. That I couldn't trust myself under those circumstances to secretly push the "calling" in ways that only I really intended.

---

I think this is the crux of the matter right here. Unfortunately, our rational sense of right and wrong can mislead us just as easily. Our human nature has got us coming and going...

That's why I've likened morality to a tightrope. Every good has a corresponding evil. What's worse, every evil has an opposite evil that can be just as bad.

Dagonee

[ March 09, 2004, 04:51 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
 

---

Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
 
Bob, that God would have made me this way is a sick joke. And yet it's something I find myself wondering.

I have struggled to find faith and failed. Is this not how I was made? Would God make me incapable of faith and then require it of me?

I don't understand. I certainly don't accept it.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. -- Galileo Galilei

That's where testimony comes in... you know what you know. Do you have a testimony of the scriptures? I mean, do you trust the source? If you have felt before, and have a testimony from before of the source, and then you learn something that is incompatible with something you feel is your nature, one of the two has to give. If you don't know which one, pray your guts out for understanding.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
I truly, truly believe that God intends everyone to have faith, but that he knows us each individually, and the exact same path is not required of everyone.

Ultimately, we recieve what we truly desire. I really believe that.

Added: That sounds SO condescending. I don't mean it to. I'd like to point out that I don't have everything I want.

[ March 09, 2004, 05:05 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
How about I just pray that God grades on a curve?
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
*grin* I think he does. But are you sure that's going to work in your favor?

[ March 09, 2004, 05:07 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 

---

Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
 
It's going to have to be some curve to include us students who've never managed to pick up the pen.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
Well put. I'm sure He will.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Why a curve? Since I believe that each of us are judged on an absolutely individual basis, wouldn't that look more like a broken-line graph?

[Edit: adjectives, adverbs, whatever]

[ March 09, 2004, 05:10 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

To require someone to have faith because the prophet spoke seems wrong to me because then we are just believing and not having the testimony of the spirit with us. If we do have the spirit with us, then this is not an issue--unless, like me, sometimes your understanding of the spirit is different then what is being advocated. Hence my delimma and that start of this post.

---

quote:

---

"You need to stop spending so much time on Hatrack and attend RL").

---

quote:

---

And that's the biggest barrier to "surrender" for me. That I couldn't trust myself under those circumstances to secretly push the "calling" in ways that only I really intended.

---

Bob's Soul: A metaphysical Ouija Board .

-Bok
 

---

Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 

quote:

---

Yes, Leto, and we are talking about BIGOTED LEGISLATION against polygamy. Your point is totatlly lost on me. The comparisons are the same.

---

No, they are not, because no firm basis has been given to show how they are the same except that they are both not allowed. Murder is not allowed as well, is that accurately comparable? Stealing is not allowed either, is that equally comparable to homosexual marriage?

According to some arguments I've heard on this forum, I seriously wouldn't be surprised if people here said "yes."
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
I have seen people use Leto's exact argument against homosexual marriage instead of polygamous marriage as he did. They were promptly condemned for it.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Leto, so is it safe to say you think that outlawing polygamy is not bigoted? Then how is outlawing gay marriage bigoted?
 

---

Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
 
Homosexual Marriage and Polygamus Marraige ARE the same tho in many regards.

1: They both involve consenting adults (unless you are talking about the statutory rape we sometimes hear about in Colorado City)

2: They both involve taboo sexual liasons by societies norms.

3: They both deal with the institution of marriage.

Given these three factors, I think it is safe to group them together for discussions sake. Murder does not involve consensual sexual relations. Statutory rape does not include consent because we determine minors cannot consent to any adult, especially one who has power over them.

The major difference is that homosexuality is considered innate and Polygamus is considered a choice. But since my heterosexuality is considered innate and I can choose to marry, then polygamy and homosexuality (whether innate or a choice) should have that same choice. And I think it is safe to group them together when talking abour marriage rights.

Neh?
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
>> I understand - what I'm saying makes sense only with regards to people who have resolved a whole lot of issues in a particular way. My explanation was responding to Tom's statement about how people of faith clarify issues of right and wrong. <<

Ah, okay.

>> The major difference is that homosexuality is considered innate and Polygamus is considered a choice. <<

Polygamy also involves more than two people. That's a pretty major difference, and one that – in my mind – precludes an analogy with homosexual marriage.

There's also a difference between an open marriage and polygamy. I'd say that people who want to be polygamous could probably be content with an open marriage rather than marrying more than one person.

And what about homosexual polygamy? Or bisexual polygamy? Say, for instance, that the Gateses married the Ellisons and, with their combined financial clout, simply bought the rest of the world outright? Would that be okay?
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

Polygamy also involves more than two people. That's a pretty major difference, and one that – in my mind – precludes an analogy with homosexual marriage.

---

quote:

---

I'd say that people who want to be polygamous could probably be content with an open marriage rather than marrying more than one person.

---

quote:

---

Leto, so is it safe to say you think that outlawing polygamy is not bigoted?

---

quote:

---

Topic: Not to continue beating a dead horse...

---

...but we will anyways.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
>> I agree this turns out to be the dispositive difference. But if you're going to ignore one aspect of the traditional definition of marriage (man/woman), you need to be able to explain why other aspects of that tradition (such as number) should not be questioned. <<

As I've said in this thread and others, because tax laws for polygamous marriage would be unworkable. I don't think state-recognized polygamy is legally feasible, and I think that reason is enough to dismiss it from the argument, especially given that it isn't even what the argument is actually about.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
Because taxes would be more problematic doesn't seem like a very good reason for not allowing people to marry as they wish.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
Not problematic. Impossible.

Edit: And not just taxes. Insurance, too.

So it's a pragmatic perspective. So what? As an agnostic heterosexual serial monogamist, what else can I base my perspective on? I honestly don't think I should even have a say in whether or not homosexuals can get married as far as my country is concerned, since I'm not homosexual.

[ March 09, 2004, 06:42 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
If somehow they did legalize multi-partner marriages, I am *sure* that the government would find a way to tax them.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
What if, say, the ten richest people in the world all decided to get married to each other? How do you deal with that? What if an entire company decides that every single one of the company's employees is to be united in matrimony? Is the company a company, or is it a family? Or both? Does everyone have visitation rights with everyone else's children? What about divorces? Who gets compensated, and from whose funds, if damages are merited?

Basically, I don't think polygamy is worth considering by itself, especially given that this debate is about homosexual marriage. There's a chance of legalizing the latter. There's no chance of legalizing the former, so why bother arguing about when it's tangential at best?
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
Oh, I'll grant that it would take a lot of doing. But impossible -- that's a claim that I just cannot swallow.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
As far as I'm concerned, it's so close to impossible that the difference is negligible. But then, I'm in engineering.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
As am I.

Maybe it's just ignorance on my part, but it doesn't seem like it would be that hard.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
If you work under the assumption that bisexual polygamy would be allowed, with any mix of genders and any number of people (because how could you define a limit?), it becomes so complex as to be essentially impossible, in my view.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Actually, I bet a lot of general partnership law would apply. That's the analogy used by community property states, anyway.

Taxes would be easy. Insurance would be easy.

Almost everything else would be hard. Especially figuring out whose kid is whose.

Dagonee
P.S., Tom's idea of perosnal incorporation would handle polygamy as easily as monogamy.

[ March 09, 2004, 10:32 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
 

---

Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
 
Especially figuring out whose kid is whose

I would like to watch THAT Jerry Springer show.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
I agree with twinky wrt legal polygamy, but I will submit that if a religion wants to recognize such a union, then so be it.

-Bok
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 

quote:

---

The more I think about this, the more it scares me to think that there are people out there who are willing to ignore their own sense of right and wrong for the sake of commands they don't understand. It's even scarier to think that these people are perhaps in the MAJORITY.

So I'll go back to thinking that people rationalize their faith, because it makes me happier than being consciously aware of mass sociopathy....

---

quote:

---

Truth is usually uncomfortable! If you're really looking for a testimony, that almost always means changing your mind about things and abondoning the theory that a newly discovered has rendered obsolete.

---

quote:

---

unless one is so welded to one's preconceived notions.

---

quote:

---

Most people are welded to their pre-concieved notions. It is the only way action is possible - without that confidence, we'd be eternal Hamlets and Prufrock's, the native hue of resolution sicklied over with the pale cast of thought, and we'd lose the name of action.

---

I totally disagree, kat. I wouldn't trust any person who either claimed certainty in their decision-making or, conversely, couldn't make decisions under uncertain conditions.

But that was a nice turn of phrase.

[ March 10, 2004, 10:53 AM: Message edited by: Bob_Scopatz ]
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Wow, did I poke the bear?

Tom, I just want you to be happy, and to have everything your heart desires.

Added: I think completing your quest is something you desire.

Bob, it's a continuum. But considering past history and current politics, people are often quite sure of themselves up until the point they change.

[ March 10, 2004, 10:56 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Y'know, I really hate that particular debate tactic.
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
Happy 14,000 Tom.

Still no landmark post????
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Meh.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
It wasn't a tactic.

[ March 10, 2004, 10:58 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
Happy 11,000 kat.

et tu?
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
We're all really just waiting for you to hit 15K, Bob.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
*grin*

Sic est.
 

---

Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
 
Read Tom's first landmark, and you can see why he'll quite possibly never write another, though I'm still hoping he times things well enough to hit a landmarkish number very shortly after his child is born, and feels impelled to share some thoughts.

Tom, I'm not going to agree or disagree with you in regard to the topic, but I think you're unfairly using the term "sociopathy" to score some emotional points. It could reasonably be argued that believing in one's own sense of right and wrong, regardless of what anyone else (including authority figures of various types) says, is more in line with the definition of sociopathic behavior.

--Pop
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
I'm TRYING!!!



<We now return you to your original circular argument/misunderstanding.>
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Post 11,000

Tom, Bob, and Pop: I love you guys. I want y'all to be very, very happy.

Christy, Dana, MamaSquirrel and anyone else who may care: The above is meant completely platonicly <edit: *considers* filialy >.

[ March 10, 2004, 11:37 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
*laugh*

------

Pop, I've actually been struggling to come up with a term that DOES fit. As you've pointed out, sociopathy isn't quite it; it's not that religious fanatics believe that no one else matters besides themselves, after all. And it's not psychosis.

It's the belief that nothing, not even one's own reason and perceptions, matters more than an external set of commandments that are trusted, in the majority, based on personal vibe reinforced by familial tradition. I can't think of a term for that. But it IS scary, and it's remarkably unhealthy, and I think it poses a clear danger to both individuals and society.
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
kat & Tom,

Dana says you are both really cool. Can't wait to meet you.

And Christy, of course! Has she recovered from fondling me at the Midwest clump gathering?

I haven't!!!



(oh, and Papa Moose, I'm not leaving you out, but I've already met you so I know you're cool based on my own observational study.)
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 

quote:

---

I think it poses a clear danger to both individuals and society.

---

quote:

---

Dana says you are both really cool

---

Cool. I can't wait to meet her.

[ March 10, 2004, 11:42 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Kat, you’re just so cool that he couldn’t tell from talking to me that we’ve never met in RL. But interactions by snail mail and parcel post should count for at least partial “real” points.

Bob is pretty cool too, for those of you who didn’t know.
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
Oh! kat, I thought you two had met. Maybe it was someone else she said was cool.

<checks memory>

Nope, it was you.


 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
Dana!

We've got stop meeting like this!

REALLY!!!!!

We've got to stop meeting (only) like this!


 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"Only if it's not true."

As Mark Twain observed, a wise and benevolent dictatorship is the best form of government. But an evil or incompetent dictatorship is the worst.

And since you don't actually know what kind of dictator you have until he gets into office, the potential benefits of the rare benevolent dictatorship are outweighed by the costs of the more commonly evil ones. Consequently, Twain argued, democracy was overall the best form of government, even if other forms were capable of individually greater things.

By the same token, the dangers of behaving irrationally based on blind faith so outweigh the benefits that I can't see a legitimate argument for that behavior.

[ March 10, 2004, 11:57 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
It saves energy otherwise spent thinking????
 

---