Homosexuality: Disorder

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
Post Reply
User avatar
Thinker
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12975
Location: The Universe - wherever that is.

Re: Homosexuality: Disorder

Post by Thinker »

skmo wrote:1. Homosexuality is a sin, one that hurts the people involved. If you're not one of the people involved, it shouldn't hurt you, as we believe than people are responsible for their own sins and transgressions and not the actions of another.
Is this what Jesus taught when he called people out on their wickedness? That it doesn't hurt him, so let them sin away??

Skmo, we are a society and cannot help but influence each other. And there are many ways to show love - sometimes by showing truth, when lies have become more popular. Yes, it may not make you the most popular one around, but it is of God, who is love - based on light and truth.
I have a responsibility to preach the gospel, but that does not extend to me trying to force my beliefs on others.
How does one "force their beliefs on others"??

Is this what you mean??....

Children have the right to not be taught homosexuality in school. Yet, in places where homosexual fetish marriage has been supported, these rights have been infringed upon...
*Freshmen were told not to tell their parents about a pro-gay seminar & were required to sign a confidentiality agreement (Derrfield, Illinois Mar. 2007).
*In March, 2007, a Massachusetts high school banned parents from attending a seminar for students on how they can know they are homosexual.
*In October, 2008, First graders (6 year-old students) were taken on a field trip to watch their lesbian teacher's wedding.
*In Oct 2008, a Hayward CA public elementary school celebrated "Coming Out Day."

Normalizing & even encouraging children to explore homosexuality obviously causes more to experiment with homosexuality.
"The Legal Liability Associated with Homosexuality Education in Schools... This report is part of an integrated strategy to inform and educate parents, students and school officials across the nation of its contents and of their respective rights and duties. It has documented the concern that the health of students in many schools across the country may have been compromised and their First Amendment rights may have been denied."
http://www.afamichigan.org/images/Legal ... 200504.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Some in the homosexual fetish activist group have bluntly admitted that their eventual goal is to normalize pedophilia and inappropriate adult-child sexual relations.

Many have been harassed by the homosexual fetish herd, without public notice, but some have been public, like Chick Filay and a Miss America contestant, both who voiced their support for marriage between a man and a woman.
Other examples include...
*In April 2008, an Albuquerque photographer was fined over $6,000 for refusing to be hired to photograph a lesbian couple's commitment ceremony.
*In May, 2008, a black administrator was fired from the U of Toledo, Ohio, for writing an editorial objecting to the comparison of black discrimination to same-sex marriage.
*An intolerant opponent of Proposition 8 violently attacked & injured a Proposition supporter in Oct. 2008.
*On November 19, 2008, eHarmony, a Christian-based matching service was forced by New Jersey's Division on Civil Rights to provide website matching services for homosexuals.[/quote]
I do not have to justify the actions of others, nor do I have to condemn them. All I have to do is be Christlike in my behavior to others.
I agree that we are not to condemn, and nobody is condemning anybody, only behavior that statistically proves to be harmful. That is what Christ would do, and what he did do.
2. Birth control is not a sin. It is a medicine or medical tool that people may choose to employ to guide their lives as they see fit. Refusal to have children is contrary to our purpose, but using birth control is not refusal to have children. They are separate incidents. One is wrong. One may or may not be wrong depending on its application.
I agree, for the most part.
3. Unrighteous judgment is as destructive or even more so than almost all other sins in our LDS community.
No, the most destructive sin is the ignorance of sin - pretending it is not sin. Jesus taught the importance of recognizing one's sinful nature - because only through that honesty and humility can God work with us.
I do believe that we should have righteous judgment - based on truth and understanding, which is why I have posted information from the United States Center for Disease Control and from medical and research sources.
"Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free"!

User avatar
skmo
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4495

Re: Homosexuality: Disorder

Post by skmo »

Thinker wrote:Is this what Jesus taught when he called people out on their wickedness? That it doesn't hurt him, so let them sin away??
No, He taught "Come follow me" after teaching right from wrong. He also taught "Judge not that you be not judged." And I do show truth, but I try to do it in a way that shows respect for others' right to choose rather than the smugness that the Crusaders showed the Jews and Muslims, and the smugness that the Utah Zionists showed me when I moved there. Our light should attract the gaze, not blind the eyes. The Iron Rod should steady us on the path of life, not be used as a billy club to beat others we perceive as sinners.
How does one "force their beliefs on others"??
By tyranny of the majority, and that is able to be forced on others regardless of whether you're on the side with Truth or lies. If I help pass legislation that homosexuality cannot be taught in school I am as guilty of being a tyrant as if I pass a law that says homosexuality must be taught in school. I believe there should be no legislation about what should or should not be taught in school, and for that matter there should be no legislation that forces kids to go to school at all, or even laws that use public money to build schools. If people don't want to teach their kids in their own homes, send them to a school of your own choice that you pay for yourself. There is no such thing as free public education, it all comes at a price. In our current situation, that price is people having things that are unacceptable taught to their kids in order to have the things they do want taught to them. TANSTAAFL.

The example of Chick-Fil-A is a good point about freedom, not tyranny. Liberals and other people with diminished mental capacity are free to protest and boycott the chain because it's a company that chooses to take a stand with its beliefs. That is the company's right, and it's the lib-tard’s right to boycott. It’s also an opportunity for lots of families in Orem, and Boise, and Biloxi, and Dallas and other locations to flock to a place where they can get a tasty sandwich served to them by a company who stands for the right. Freedom at work. By that same token, I have the right to NOT ever buy anything from a company like Ben (dover) and Jerry (the Nazi kind of Jerry) because they are a couple of liberal butt face commie pinko asses who will never, as far as I know have a penny of my money to donate to their socialist causes. (Besides, BYU Creamery ice cream is the best in the world, anyway.)
...the most destructive sin is the ignorance of sin - pretending it is not sin.
Which I would not do, and even in the midst of my grievous sins I recognized and acknowledged that I was sinning. I do not excuse the sins of others as not sinful either, but I don’t look down my nose at them because they have a sin that is more socially taboo in some places than some of the others I listed before. I’m not saying you do this, but it is something I know some do because I’ve seen it. Our leaders have been clear, we love even those who choose a sinful lifestyle and we treat them with the same respect expected of us to give to everyone.
...which is why I have posted information from the United States Center for Disease Control and from medical and research sources...
And I always welcome any information I can get, but my government has progressed to the point of corruption that I wouldn’t trust a United States Dept. of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration report that rain was wet without questioning what their ulterior motive with the report was.

User avatar
Thinker
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12975
Location: The Universe - wherever that is.

Re: Homosexuality: Disorder

Post by Thinker »

skmo wrote:If I help pass legislation that homosexuality cannot be taught in school I am as guilty of being a tyrant as if I pass a law that says homosexuality must be taught in school.
So, are you are calling every teacher (or board of education) for the past several centuries, "tyrants" because they could not teach homosexuality in school??
Thinker wrote:...the most destructive sin is the ignorance of sin - pretending it is not sin.
skmo wrote:Which I would not do, and even in the midst of my grievous sins I recognized and acknowledged that I was sinning. I do not excuse the sins of others as not sinful either, but I don’t look down my nose at them because they have a sin that is more socially taboo in some places than some of the others I listed before. I’m not saying you do this, but it is something I know some do because I’ve seen it. Our leaders have been clear, we love even those who choose a sinful lifestyle and we treat them with the same respect expected of us to give to everyone.
I agree that we should love the sinner, and not the sin. At this point in the discussion though, I feel like I should have that pasted on my forehead, or preface every other sentence with it.

When I was in school, a guy was picking on a friend of mine who happened to have feminine mannerisms. I got in his face and told him to knock it off and stop picking on him. Understand that I'm considered somewhat shy and reserved. I've also got in between friends who's boyfriends were abusive, to try to protect them - and got hit both times. I believe in standing up for people who are picked on & it really ticks me off to see any bullying or prejudice. I also have seen a lot of prejudice in the church, especially in Utah.
Lately, I've seen much more prejudice FROM those with homosexual fetishes/homosexuality supporters, than the other way around.

Two friends of mine died of AIDS. When I first began studying about this, I got tired of it & disgusted & was going to give up. Then out of the blue a picture of these 2 friends fell down from a box right in front of me, as if to tell me to get the truth out there. Also, when i was going through storage, a book fell open to a page describing a woman who was struggling with sexual abuse and was wondering if she'd feel safer with women, than men. I feel like somebody needs to stand up for truth - even truth that isn't comfortable for some.

I just see such a trend - a push in peer pressure to accept homosexuality & I've also experienced & seen harassment from those who want to make everyone honor homosexuality as healthy and natural, when it so often proves otherwise. I don't want to see that in the church. I want members to get another perspective with more objective information.
Thinker wrote:...which is why I have posted information from the United States Center for Disease Control and from medical and research sources...
skmo wrote:And I always welcome any information I can get, but my government has progressed to the point of corruption that I wouldn’t trust a United States Dept. of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration report that rain was wet without questioning what their ulterior motive with the report was.
If you read the links, you'll see that the US CDC is trending toward favoring homosexuality, yet they still don't deny the statistics, which show a less pleasant picture of homosexuality. I agree with you that we must be careful how we interpret anything these days, but I generally trust the statistics in this case.

BTW - I love your avatar picture. My favorite dog was a German Shepherd - felt like part of the family so much I still miss her.

User avatar
skmo
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4495

Re: Homosexuality: Disorder

Post by skmo »

Thinker wrote:So, are you are calling every teacher (or board of education) for the past several centuries, "tyrants" because they could not teach homosexuality in school??
As a public school teacher, I have to say no, passing laws and following them are completely different things. I teach because I want to make a difference, I want to help kids learn in a way to prepare them for life, not make them little Lenins or little Reagans. As an English teacher, I generally mean just what I say, I don't make a lot of implications with my words that need to be interpreted unless I'm being sarcastic.

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12983

Re: Homosexuality: Disorder

Post by Fiannan »

Thinker wrote:Finnan,
You seriously think that practicing homosexual fetishes is better than not producing offspring? :-o /:)
The twisted use of logic, or rather lack of logic, reminds me a little of this hypothetical "debate" over whether reading is good or not...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ou4yaF-gACs" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (Brian Regan on Reading)

As I mentioned, you're attempting to make evil/sickness appear to be good/healthy - and in the process of using extreme logical fallacies, are making your ability to reason seem questionable.
I suppose one needs to ask what the purpose of sex is ultimately, right? If one believes that sex is merely a neuro-muslular response to a given set of stiluli causing a release of hormones that cause the person a sense of intense relaxation then I suppose anything goes if we divorce reproduction from the equation. However, if we do then that automatically makes any form of human sexual expression (for adults) equally valid, doesn't it?

Okay, so let's suppose we connect sexuality with reproduction. That takes it to a whole new level. It means we are participating with God in the process of creation. We are giving a fellow spirit the chance to come down and take a body and progress. Add to this the sacrifices we make to guide that child through life and that is the greatest means by which we can get a sense of what God feels for his children.

A couple that is healthy and intelligent and chooses not to reproduce is breaking a generational chain. They also avoid demonstrating God-like sacrifice for any spirits, thus helping to thwart God's will. However, a lesbian couple who chooses IVF or AI, while in an unconventional relationship (although I suppose polygamy could at least provide a permanent male father for the kids) at least are able to help their spirit brotehrs and sisters come here. I also believe God will reward them for their sacrifices to give children love and support through life.

So yes, lesbian parents are (I believe) doing God's will more than double-income-no-kids parents.

User avatar
jnjnelson
captain of 100
Posts: 688
Location: Kearns, UT

Re: Homosexuality: Disorder

Post by jnjnelson »

Fiannan wrote:So I will ask you, who is being more sinful towards both nature and the intent of God regulating sexuality, the DINKS or the pregnant lesbians?
According to all the modern prophets, the law of chastity is nothing more nor nothing less than the commandment that sexual relations be exercised only between a man and woman who are legally married.

Married couples who do not have children, but honor marital fidelity, are completely complying with "the intent of God regulating sexuality". 100%.

Lesbians who participate in sexual relationships outside of marriage are not in compliance with the law of chastity, and are therefore not complying with "the intent of God regulating sexuality", regardless of whether they are pregnant.

This is pretty simple stuff, and your comments are bringing a level of complexity to the issues that doesn't exist otherwise. Such a hypothetical pregnant lesbian might be attempting to comply with the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth, but the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth is not the same thing as the law of chastity. They are related, but they are not the same thing. Sins that are against the law of chastity are far more serious and damaging to an individual than sins against the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth. Also, according to modern day prophets, the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth does not apply at all to any individuals who are not yet married, including lesbians who might want to become pregnant.

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12983

Re: Homosexuality: Disorder

Post by Fiannan »

jnjnelson wrote:
Fiannan wrote:So I will ask you, who is being more sinful towards both nature and the intent of God regulating sexuality, the DINKS or the pregnant lesbians?
According to all the modern prophets, the law of chastity is nothing more nor nothing less than the commandment that sexual relations be exercised only between a man and woman who are legally married.

Married couples who do not have children, but honor marital fidelity, are completely complying with "the intent of God regulating sexuality". 100%.

Lesbians who participate in sexual relationships outside of marriage are not in compliance with the law of chastity, and are therefore not complying with "the intent of God regulating sexuality", regardless of whether they are pregnant.

This is pretty simple stuff, and your comments are bringing a level of complexity to the issues that doesn't exist otherwise. Such a hypothetical pregnant lesbian might be attempting to comply with the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth, but the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth is not the same thing as the law of chastity. They are related, but they are not the same thing. Sins that are against the law of chastity are far more serious and damaging to an individual than sins against the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth. Also, according to modern day prophets, the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth does not apply at all to any individuals who are not yet married, including lesbians who might want to become pregnant.
Well, there are more complexities to this issue than I bring in. For instance, what of all the modern prophets who were not leally married to their wives? I would hope they are still okay even thought they were lawbreakers, and urging others to break the law.

Also, there are purposes for commandments. Even the laws regarding chastity have their reasons beyond the "It's the rule." logic. A person who is married and refuses to have kids have been told by modern prophets they are practicing evil. Has any official Church statement been issued using as harsh a description for gays as for using birth control? Please, share if you can.

I'll put it to you this way. Let's pretend your daughter, your only daughter, comes home and says she is getting married to either a man who has made it clear they has to get her tubes tied or he won't marry her or she can marry a girl who has proposed to her who wants a big family through both getting AI. Pretending these are the only two alternatives which would you prefer? Tell me why.

User avatar
jnjnelson
captain of 100
Posts: 688
Location: Kearns, UT

Re: Homosexuality: Disorder

Post by jnjnelson »

Fiannan wrote:For instance, what of all the modern prophets who were not leally married to their wives?
There are no modern prophets who were not legally married to their wives.
Fiannan wrote:Has any official Church statement been issued using as harsh a description for gays as for using birth control? Please, share if you can.
Elder Bednar's most recent conference address is completely applicable to homosexual activity and is a much more harsh condemnation of the evil practice than that which you have quoted from Joseph F. Smith:
Elder David A. Debnar wrote:Violating the law of chastity is a grievous sin and a misuse of our physical tabernacles. To those who know and understand the plan of salvation, defiling the body is an act of rebellion (see Mosiah 2:36–37; D&C 64:34–35) and a denial of our true identity as sons and daughters of God. As we look beyond mortality and into eternity, it is easy to discern that the counterfeit companionship advocated by the adversary is temporary and empty.
Fiannan wrote:I'll put it to you this way. Let's pretend your daughter, your only daughter, comes home and says she is getting married to either a man who has made it clear they has to get her tubes tied or he won't marry her or she can marry a girl who has proposed to her who wants a big family through both getting AI. Pretending these are the only two alternatives which would you prefer? Tell me why.
I would strongly and emphatically counsel her against both courses of action, but my counsel would include a higher priority against violating the law of chastity (sexual relations to be exercised only between a man and woman who are legally married) than my counsel against violating the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth.

A man who insists on sterility as a prerequisite to marriage (with no other extenuating circumstances, such as those to which Joseph F. Smith referred) is not worthy of marriage to any daughter of God, let alone my daughter. Any woman, including my daughter, sells themselves very short by descending to the level of a man who makes such a choice.

For my daugher to enter into a sexual relationship with another woman is an entirely different level of sin. For my daughter to take this action, she would be, as Elder Bednar says, defiling her body in an act of rebellion against God. This is a much more serious situation, and enters firmly into the realm of serious and grievous sin.

User avatar
skmo
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4495

Re: Homosexuality: Disorder

Post by skmo »

jnjnelson wrote:...I would strongly and emphatically counsel her against both courses of action, but my counsel would include a higher priority against violating the law of chastity (sexual relations to be exercised only between a man and woman who are legally married) than my counsel against violating the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth...
Add my support to this. I agree that neither situation is acceptable, and if I had a daughter who brought both choices to me I would counsel her against BOTH choices in the strongest terms, but marrying a man who refused to have children with her is the less grievous sin.

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12983

Re: Homosexuality: Disorder

Post by Fiannan »

Okay, so what would one say to the rabbi from my home town who said that if two Jewish women in his congregation were lesbians he would say that as long as they were having babies they would at least be following God's first commandment?

I recently spoke to a female rabbi who said that in the days of the OT lesbian sex was not considered sex so when there were polygamist marriages it allowed women who were into women the chance to procreate.

Oh, jnjnelson many of the modern prophets were illegally married to their wives. Only the first wife was recognized as a wife by the US government. So legally the man whose statue graces the Utah capitol building, Brigham Young, has two dozen wives he was not married to.

The laws regarding sexual unions have changed many times while man has been on earth. Abraham was married to his half-sister Sarah and that was okay, as was Jakob marrying two sisters. The Mosaic law regulated both practices. Yet when the LDS people practiced polygamy marriage to two sisters, marriage to a woman and her mother, was okay.

Now with all the changes in what is considered moral and immoral in God's eyes the one thing that has remained consistent is the importance of having children and maintaining the population. I have explained this in detail and still, a man and woman who marry in this life and refuse to have kids, even if they are healthy and intelligent, are just living as virtual homosexuals who don't have kids. Yet a couple that is gay that wants kids...you say that is worse than the ultimate act of selfishness?

User avatar
skmo
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4495

Re: Homosexuality: Disorder

Post by skmo »

What is allowed sexually has not changed. Man may have sex with their wife to whom they are married. Woman may have sex with their husband to whom they are married. The worldly definition of marriage may change, but God recognizes marriage in His own way. Just becasue the ancient Jews distorted the law to fit whatever perversion they had doesn't mean it was what God intended for them. Hoomosexuality is a serious sin, one that is causing great damage to us as a people and will bring destruction upon us.

Both are sins. Participating in gay sex is more serious than choosing to not have kids, in my opinion.

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12983

Re: Homosexuality: Disorder

Post by Fiannan »

skmo wrote:What is allowed sexually has not changed. Man may have sex with their wife to whom they are married. Woman may have sex with their husband to whom they are married. The worldly definition of marriage may change, but God recognizes marriage in His own way. Just becasue the ancient Jews distorted the law to fit whatever perversion they had doesn't mean it was what God intended for them. Hoomosexuality is a serious sin, one that is causing great damage to us as a people and will bring destruction upon us.

Both are sins. Participating in gay sex is more serious than choosing to not have kids, in my opinion.
Careful, you are walking on the same thin ice that so-called Christianity has attempted to do since it fused with Roman and Greek philosophical traditions and has since condemned polygamy.

If you say the ancient Jews, who may have been attempting to preserve their family lines even if it meant marrying relatives, were perverted then that means the prophets of old were what?

Now I have never said that I support people going gay. However, I contend most people on both sides fail to analyze the issue of marriage or reproduction beyond a very concrete means of understanding. I will have to say that I don't believe this is a Mormon trait however. I recall that a lesbian Utah politician acted as a surrogate mother for two gay men wanting a kid and from my memory of this she had a lot of public support in Utah. Here is an article in the Deseret News: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7053 ... tml?pg=all" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Again, if sex is for reproduction then two people with the means to reproduce who refuse to do so seem more at odds for the fulfillment of the Plan of Salvation than two women who are together and want to make babies anyway -- and will pay a lot of money and put in a lot of effort to make their dream come true.

User avatar
jnjnelson
captain of 100
Posts: 688
Location: Kearns, UT

Re: Homosexuality: Disorder

Post by jnjnelson »

Fiannan wrote:Oh, jnjnelson many of the modern prophets were illegally married to their wives. Only the first wife was recognized as a wife by the US government. So legally the man whose statue graces the Utah capitol building, Brigham Young, has two dozen wives he was not married to.
I disagree. I do not consider government prohibitions or punishment of polygamy to be legally binding, and I don't think God does either. According to Doctrine and Covenants, God only recognizes laws that are constitutional:
Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet wrote:And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.
Therefore, the polygamy, including that which is participated in by prophets, is not, in my opinion, illegal.
Fiannan wrote:I have explained this in detail and still, a man and woman who marry in this life and refuse to have kids, even if they are healthy and intelligent, are just living as virtual homosexuals who don't have kids. Yet a couple that is gay that wants kids...you say that is worse than the ultimate act of selfishness?
Are you implying that birth control the ultimate act of selfishness? If so, I cannot disagree more. Are you also implying that a married couple that lives in perfect fidelity but happens not to have children that they are in some way equal to a homosexual couple? I also could not disagree more with that premise.

User avatar
skmo
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4495

Re: Homosexuality: Disorder

Post by skmo »

Fiannan wrote:...If you say the ancient Jews, who may have been attempting to preserve their family lines even if it meant marrying relatives, were perverted then that means the prophets of old were what?...
I am saying that if they excused two women having sex as a non-sin, then they were perverting the law. Of course, there are all kinds of examples of the ancient Israelites fitting their laws to whatever whim they wanted in spite of what the prophets told them. To be hinest, I don't know that your assertion that lesbianism was acceptable, I'm accepting it on what you said for the sake of the discussion. If you're right, this is another example of people bending God's laws to fit their inproper desires. Just what homosexuals have successfully done with today's society.

As for the story about the gay woman having a gay man's baby having a lot of support, I'm glad to say I was not in Utah by then so I know little of the incident. Having read the story, I'm guessing the person who wrote it grabbed one of the only people around who wouldput a positive spin on it and that support, at least support among the LDS community was slim. Very slim. She didn't do a noble thing. She didn't do a good thing. She helped bring a child into a home where perversion is not only practiced, but preached. That poor kid. I would not rob these freaks of their right to their perversion, nor would I deny them the right to have children if they so desire. That would be unrighteous dominion. However, I would speak against it if asked, and I would not support anyone to lobby the church to say this is okay.

Sex is a procreative power. It is also a rite and a sacrament for two people to engage in to enhance their relationship, but this should only be done in a place, time, and situaiton appropriate with the action.

User avatar
skmo
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4495

Re: Homosexuality: Disorder

Post by skmo »

jnjnelson wrote:...Are you implying that birth control the ultimate act of selfishness? If so, I cannot disagree more. Are you also implying that a married couple that lives in perfect fidelity but happens not to have children that they are in some way equal to a homosexual couple? I also could not disagree more with that premise.
I cannot agree more.

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12983

Re: Homosexuality: Disorder

Post by Fiannan »

"How do you think that the Lord looks upon those who use the contraceptives because in their selfish life it is not the convenient moment to bear children?" Spencer W Kimball

"I regret, I think it is a crying evil, that there should exist a sentiment or a feeling among any members of the Church to curtail the birth of their children." Joseph F. Smith Also, "Birth control is wickedness."

Ezra Taft Benson in reference to people who say the poor should curtail their families, "They advocate an evil to cure the results of the wickedness they support."

Heber J. Grant, "Another of the great evils of the age is race suicide."

Again, Joseph F. Smith, "When a man and a woman are married and they agree, or covenant, to limit their offspring to two or three, and practice devices to accomplish this purpose, they are guilty of iniquity which eventually must be punished. Unfortunately this evil doctrine is being taught as a virtue by many people who consider themselves cultured and highly educated. It has even crept in among members of the Church and has been advocated in some of the classes within the Church."

User avatar
skmo
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4495

Re: Homosexuality: Disorder

Post by skmo »

Neither Joel nor I are saying limiting offspring is a good thing, but I believe it to be in error to say that it is as pernicious as homosexuality.

JohnnyL
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 9831

Re: Homosexuality: Disorder

Post by JohnnyL »

Limiting offspring might be a good thing for some couples and families.
If your wife will die if she has another child, would you limit your offspring?

Homosexuality? When would it be a good thing?

User avatar
Thinker
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12975
Location: The Universe - wherever that is.

Re: Homosexuality: Disorder

Post by Thinker »

JohnnyL wrote:Limiting offspring might be a good thing for some couples and families.
If your wife will die if she has another child, would you limit your offspring?

Homosexuality? When would it be a good thing?
Well put.


Fiannan,

No doubt, getting married to someone of the opposite sex and producing children together is beautiful - and of God. Putting off children just to be able to live a self-centered life will ultimately be much less fulfilling, socially, emotionally & spiritually. There is no greater joy & challenge than parenting - & there is no greater purpose than what we do "within the walls of our own homes." It should be done in wisdom and order.

We should not run faster than we have strength.
We should know or get to know our limits - what we can handle, as far as how many children - physically, emotionally & financially.
Each child is precious - not just a number. Each child deserves to be cared for - which requires a lot.
I see a lot of neglect & it breaks my heart because that can be as bad, or even worse than abuse - because to the child it's like saying, "You are not even worth acknowledging."
Hate is not the opposite of love... hate is frustrated or misguided love.
The opposite of love/care is apathy/not caring.

We are commanded to "multiply and replenish the earth." There are many ways to do that - having children is just one way. Recycling & caring for the planet that cares for us - and teaching our children to also replenish the earth are a few other ways.

The practice of homosexual fetishes statistically proves to be a harmful disorder, and there is no doubt that children NEED a mother and father - to exist and to thrive. So, suggesting that a child would benefit by learning unhealthy behavior (through imitation) and being denied a mother or father... is a cognitive distortion itself. As someone mentioned, "the Plan of Salvation doesn't end with a spirit getting a physical body." Children need to be taught healthy ways of living - socially, physically & spiritually. If you believe that health & worthiness are important, you wouldn't suggest breaking the law of chastity in harmful ways and teaching children, through example, to do so as well.

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12983

Re: Homosexuality: Disorder

Post by Fiannan »

All I have to say is that a lesbian couple having a family is also more valuable to the survival of the society than a double-income-no-kids couple. The first rule of demographics is quite blunt: he who survives, wins.

As for the Gospel, again, if the reason for marriage to be between a man and a woman, or a man and several women, then why do you suppose that is? Why was it so important to Brigham Young before the era of artificial insemination to have a couple in which the man was sterile divorce, have the wife marry a polygamist and have two kids, and then go back to the first husband once she had some kids for them to raise? Having kids is VERY important in the Gospel plan. Why do you think Satan is waging such a war today to get the people living where the Gospel is able to be shared to stop having offspring?

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12983

Re: Homosexuality: Disorder

Post by Fiannan »

We are commanded to "multiply and replenish the earth." There are many ways to do that - having children is just one way. Recycling & caring for the planet that cares for us - and teaching our children to also replenish the earth are a few other ways.
Let me guess, you grew up on Captain Planet. :)) http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-nkS884PspYY/T ... planet.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
jnjnelson
captain of 100
Posts: 688
Location: Kearns, UT

Re: Homosexuality: Disorder

Post by jnjnelson »

Fiannan wrote:All I have to say is that a lesbian couple having a family is also more valuable to the survival of the society than a double-income-no-kids couple. The first rule of demographics is quite blunt: he who survives, wins.
So you are focused on the "big picture" problem - the priority is to correct "society" and not necessarily correct individuals, is that right?

If it comes down to it, I am confident that God has the power to make sure the human race survives without pandering to the wicked practices of some of His children. If my memory serves me correctly, He once wiped all but a small handful of the human race by flooding the entire earth, didn't he?

If it comes to demographics and fertility, the fertility rate of Latter-Day Saints is not anywhere near the point of putting the membership of the Church in danger of not surviving - the fertility rate isn't even trending that direction. Quite the opposite. While the fertility of the general population of the United States is definitely precarious, the fertility rate of Latter-Day Saints is such that the Church would continue to grow even without missionary work. Thankfully, we do have missionary work; but, we don't need it to survive as a Church, thanks to the fertility rate.

The fertility rate of those who practice homosexuality? Not that great. Fortunately for them, they seem to have a lot of people doing missionary work for them, including many in government.

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12983

Re: Homosexuality: Disorder

Post by Fiannan »

Utah births still on decline: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/55519 ... s.html.csp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Also, I might note that while LDS married couples have more kids than average in the USA one must also take into account the number of people who drop out of the Church or who can't have kids if married or never marry. Once they are all averaged in the population is just a little over replacement.

On top of this a birth rate of two kids per family ensures that family line will perish once one considers a few generations of mortality, infertility and the like. True replacement is around three kids per couple for the most part, and in an optimal case it will lead to slight growth of that family line.

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12983

Re: Homosexuality: Disorder

Post by Fiannan »

On a related note, Jewish group wants to restore polygamy: http://www.jpost.com/Jewish-World/Jewis ... e-polygamy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I guess if you want to really promote the traditional Biblical family then this is the direction people should be taking the argument.

User avatar
Thinker
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12975
Location: The Universe - wherever that is.

Re: Homosexuality: Disorder

Post by Thinker »

Fiannan wrote:
We are commanded to "multiply and replenish the earth." There are many ways to do that - having children is just one way. Recycling & caring for the planet that cares for us - and teaching our children to also replenish the earth are a few other ways.
Let me guess, you grew up on Captain Planet. :)) http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-nkS884PspYY/T ... planet.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Fiannan,
If you were truly most interested in fulfilling the commandment to multiply & replenish the earth, you wouldn't be laughing at the ridiculous consumption and lack of respect for the planet that houses YOU. "20 percent of the population consume 75 percent of the world's resources."

Fiannan, you seem to have an ulterior motive - maybe you want to feel justified in sleeping around, so you want to push for polygamy. I don't know your intentions. Still, you attempting to justify marriage based on homosexual fetishes by claiming it's better than people not having children, is not only illogical, but it's also contrary to moral, psychological and spiritual health.

Post Reply