LDS Freedom Forum

Yesl...there is a calculated effort to destroy the family...the "person" primarily responsible is the adversary. As goes the family, so goes the nation.

natasha wrote:Yesl...there is a calculated effort to destroy the family...the "person" primarily responsible is the adversary. As goes the family, so goes the nation.

Yep!

Again, it is important to distinguish behavior from people.
Love everyone, and part of love is calling harmful behavior what it is, not sugar coating it out of fear of being called "homophobic" etc.

There are several reasons to be concerned with the "little" bullies who bully by attempting to play victim and thereby get power.
It is becoming undeniably obvious of the need to stand up for marriage between a man and a woman and for religious liberties.

"The following action points of the gay agenda are not “straw men” trumped up by anti-gay evangelical Christians. Rather, they are taken from published statements by homosexual apologists themselves and are abundantly evident in news reports, both past and contemporary (see 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13):

1. Government encouragement, support and even requirement of sex education courses, prepared and taught by homosexual women and men, presenting homosexuality — and homosexual sex acts — as a valid, healthy preference and lifestyle and a viable alternative to heterosexuality (for a recent summary of the queering of sex education in America, click HERE, and for a blatant admission that gay activists want to indoctrinate your kids, click HERE). This is where your children are taught details about homosexual sex acts... (See 12, 20 and 21);

2. Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent (making your children open season for pedophiles);

3. Repeal of all laws that restrict the gender or number of persons entering into a marriage unit;

4. Extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit, regardless of gender or numbers;

5. Addition of “sexual orientation” to the list of minorities protected by anti-discrimination laws (this would be the first people group in America granted such status based upon volitional behavior rather than upon immutable characteristics, such as gender or race);

6. Deny tax-exempt status to organizations and institutions that discriminate against lesbian and gay people (this would include Christian churches and para-church ministries);

7. Deny federal funding to institutions that discriminate against lesbian and gay people (this would include Christian colleges and universities and para-church ministries);

8. Passage of “hate crimes” laws in all 50 states (regardless of the fact that such laws violate the U.S. Constitution);

9. Passage of laws making it criminal to have thoughts and speech of a “homophobic” nature (regardless of the fact that such laws violate the U.S. Constitution);

10. Permeate every level of government with gay-friendly officials (to codify the gay agenda);

11. Demand legalized same-sex marriage, thereby wrecking the traditional institution of marriage (for a recent admission of this intent by a pro-gay activist, click HERE);

12. Attack the Bible, especially where homosexuality is condemned, and make it appear that God does not condemn homosexuality by inventing new interpretations of selected verses (7);

13. Win over Christian churches and denominations, thereby neutralizing the greatest obstacle to the homosexual movement (7);

14. Partner with the liberal media in mounting a propaganda campaign to win over the majority of heterosexuals to the homosexual movement;

15. Portray homosexuals as victims, instead of aggressive challengers;

16. Make homosexuals look good by publicizing famous homosexuals who are well-liked by the general public;

17. Make homosexuality look good by portraying lasting, committed homosexual relationships as the norm of the homosexual lifestyle (never mind the facts that such homosexual relationships are the exception rather than the rule and that promiscuity is rampant in most such relationships, relative to heterosexual marriage);

18. Make the anti-gay “victimizers” look bad by coining and repeating charges of hatred, homophobe and bigotry against anyone who does not agree with them;

19. Knowingly and intentionally propagate lies, myths and hoaxes that promote the ideals and goals of the homosexual movement, in order to win over the heterosexual majority;

20. Punish businesses that do not support the homosexual movement (e.g., boycotts, demonstrations, lawsuits and negative media blitzes).

21. Jamming. This tactic refers to the public smearing of Christians, traditionalists or anyone else who opposes the “gay” agenda in order to marginalize them and make them shut up, and it requires the full cooperation of the liberal media.

If you think, after reading this list of agenda items, that the gay agenda will not affect your own life to any significant degree, you may want to read about true-life examples of the real and present threat of the gay agenda to your personal freedoms, as reported by Gagnon (12). And for a comprehensive, documented list of recent examples of the “gay agenda” in action..."
http://m.ipost.christianpost.com/news/t ... /?redirect" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Robin Hood wrote:

BalaamDoctrineLDS wrote:I like this new thought I'd never considered but have pondered since reading and it makes sense to me...

Many years ago I helped a man with his homosexuality who wrote the following account of his experience...

taken from this blog:
http://uncleanspirits.blogspot.com/2012 ... irits.html

So essentially, we have endless evil spirits (followed satan in war in heaven) and disembodied spirits (humans who have died, - agency still is sacred in the hereafter) who can attack any of us for whatever reason, and for whatever susceptibility or environment we grew up in, we can have females spirits all about us (gay) or male (lesbian) that could be a factor in this issue.

I don't believe this for the simple reason that the scriptures (in this case the D&C) make it clear that Satan cannot tempt little children. Little children are out of bounds to the adversary. Just imagine the mayhem he would cause if he had access to the very young!

Robin Hood - Thanks for the thoughts. So please distinguish for us in your view if you would, the difference between Tempt and Influence?

Can the adversary, evil spirits, unclean spirits, dumb and deaf spirits (Christ distinguishes them) influence a child, if so how?

I and my siblings were levitated in our active LDS priesthood father's home from age 2 to 8 all too often. Physically awake, in the air, limbs held tight, tongues unable to speak, moved from room to room. Often had devils in my bedroom at night. I helped cast devils from children in Phoenix and Peru. I have seen children possessed. Scriptures are showing us the same, children possessed since they were little. You are right in my view, that satan cannot tempt children but he for sure can influence them per unrighteous parent's influence and environment.

At what age are children then able to be tempted would be a good question? And I think the answer is just as it was for Adam and eve.

When they comprehend nakedness.

Fiannan wrote:Interesting. I just ran across an article (can't link due to language and references but it is a mainstream publication) that the claim is made that 1/2 of all subscriptions to lesbian porn sites are made by straight women. It gave some possible explainations for this but I was wondering if anyone wants to take a stab at this.

I am really working to not make a joke here.

Robin Hood wrote:I don't believe this for the simple reason that the scriptures (in this case the D&C) make it clear that Satan cannot tempt little children. Little children are out of bounds to the adversary. Just imagine the mayhem he would cause if he had access to the very young!

People, children included, do not need satan's temptation to do wrong. The natural man alone is sufficient. It's true that satan wants to do all he can to influence misdeeds, but I've seen 5 and 6 year olds torture animals because they thought it was funny.

skmo wrote:

Fiannan wrote:Interesting. I just ran across an article (can't link due to language and references but it is a mainstream publication) that the claim is made that 1/2 of all subscriptions to lesbian porn sites are made by straight women. It gave some possible explainations for this but I was wondering if anyone wants to take a stab at this.

I am really working to not make a joke here.

Ever actually have that many conversations with women that issues of sexuality might come up. I have seen other articles, I believe I have posted a couple here on the forum, that the category "lesbian sex" is either #1 or #2 in popularity for women looking up porn in general. So are all these women suffering from SSA? Most women according research do have characteristics that apply to that label. Wonder how many wind up accepting they are gay or wind up shamed and feeling there is something wrong with them.

Lately, with the church caving into homosexual pressure, I've felt discouraged.
But I need to keep the big picture in mind, and to keep standing up for truth - like the means by which all of us were conceived, and the importance of marriage defined between a man and a woman, as most healthy for society.

I have written to many congressmen, and to the Supreme Court justices a few times.
I encourage more people to do so, and to do all you can to stand for what is right.
It is not just about opposing homosexual "marriage" - but also opposing how homosexual fanatics are bullying and ignoring or twistin the democratic process and constitution, ruining our country.

The link below offers some ideas, some of which I don't completely agree with, but many good points...

Those of us under the heel of the powerful LGBT movement often feel overwhelmed, fearful that it can never be stopped. We hear it all the time from pro-family people.

That is simply an illusion. Like other oppressive movements, the LGBT dynasty is a house of cards that can continue to dominate only through force and pressure. It’s particularly true because it is based on such overwhelming lunacy and represents a complete inversion of nature.

You can take this to the bank: There will come a time when people will wonder how that movement could have even existed, much less dominated society. Like other periods of depravity, it will seem like a fictional account of history. Those who cooperated with it will all seem like unbelievable fools.

Right now the LGBT activists – and the lawmakers and judges who drink their Kool-Aid -- love to use the Marxist refrain that they are “on the right side of history.” -- just like the old Soviet Union.

And like the Soviet Union, with enough pressure it will all come down. The question isn’t “if.” The question is: “when.” The answer to that is up to us.

http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen2 ... to-do.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I wish Obama had the backbone Putin has shown regarding keeping homosexuality out of schools and media...
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/putin-russi ... sexuality/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

MOSCOW - Russian President Vladimir Putin has offered new assurances to gay athletes and fans attending the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics next month. Yet he defends Russia's anti-gay law by equating gays with pedophiles and says Russia needs to "cleanse" itself of homosexuality if it wants to increase its birth rate.

Putin's comments in a TV interview broadcast Sunday still show the wide gulf between the perception of homosexuality in Russia versus the West. A Russian law passed last year banning "propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations" among minors has caused an international outcry.




12 PHOTOS
Sochi's gay culture
Putin refused to answer a question on whether he believes that people are born gay or become gay. The Russian law, however, suggests that information about homosexuality can influence a child's sexual orientation.
The Russian president has found himself frequently discussing his country’s anti-gay laws, as the world’s attention shifts Russia's way ahead of the Olympics. Putin has identified himself closely with the $50-billion event. Calls for a mass boycott of the games due to the laws have failed, but the row has clouded the build-up to the event.

Critics say the law is discriminatory and part of a rolling back of human rights and democratic freedoms under Putin, who has taken a more conservative course on social issues since returning to the presidency in mid-2012.

On Friday, Putin insisted Russia is not "going after" gays, according to Reuters.

"There is no ban on non-traditional forms of sexual interaction between people. We have a ban on propaganda of homosexuality," Putin told a meeting with young volunteers preparing for the games. "We ban nothing, we aren't going after anyone, we have no responsibility for such contacts."

Putin said some U.S. states had laws envisaging criminal responsibility for gay sexual intercourse.

"We have no such thing, people can feel free and at ease but please leave the children in peace," he said.

So much energy and passion trying to convince the world how sinful other people are.

Something's just wrong about that.

You totally miss the issue.
The issue is, is it sin or not. The agenda says it's not.
I think a lot of us believe it is.
dc

David13 wrote:You totally miss the issue.
The issue is, is it sin or not. The agenda says it's not.
I think a lot of us believe it is.
dc

But sin really, in a way, exists if you believe it does.
Because you don't believe in the sin of all the other religions, only your own, and vice versa.
And those who don't believe in any religion have no sin...

I really don't think you can have a religion influence a government regarding sin, when not everyone is on the same page to what sin is and what is a sin or not.

At the heart, sin is incorrect thought and subsequent e-motions and actions.
It's missing the mark - often in harmful ways to the person or others.

Homosexual practices statistically prove to be harmful to the person and to others.

Thinker wrote:At the heart, sin is incorrect thought and subsequent e-motions and actions.
It's missing the mark - often in harmful ways to the person or others.

Homosexual practices statistically prove to be harmful to the person and to others.

Uh huh...harmful in the "someone might jump you/parents might kick you out of the house" harmful?
Do you have any actual credible sources?
Because the only harmful things I have seen really impact GLBT people I know, is how crappy a lot of other people treat them.
Oh sure I don't have my foot much in the water (I've no desire to be with either men or women) but know enough...
And I don't see, using myself as an example, how my life would impact you if I married a man, a woman or a Nintendo DS

Sirroco,
It would help if you read the OP before engaging in more logical fallacy and cognitive distortion, unless of course, emotional reasoning is all you have considered...

Thinker wrote:The American Psychological Association originally defined homosexuality as a disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-II (DSM-II), then, was harassed into changing the definition. "Led by radicals like Franklin Kameny, pro-sodomy activists attacked psychiatrists across America, as Newsweek describes: “But even more than the government, it is the psychiatrists who have experienced the full rage of the homosexual activists. Over the past two years, gay-lib organizations have repeatedly disrupted medical meetings, and three months ago—in the movements most aggressive demonstration so far—a group of 30 militants broke into a meeting of the American Psychiatric Association in Washington, where they turned the staid proceedings into near chaos..."
http://www.freewebs.com/theborngayhoax/theapa.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So, the definition of homosexuality was changed from being a disorder to being normalized, not because of scientific research, but as a political move by harassing homosexual fetish lobbyists.

The truth found in undeniable statistics is that actions based on homosexual fetishes make it a disorder (state of confusion) and even one that causes suffering by such confusion:

1. Homosexuality is not ever truly sex but involves fetishes, because sex involves the sexual organs of each, and homosexuality must resort to subsitutes... fetishes. (Fetish: any object or nongenital part of the body that causes a habitual erotic response or fixation. ) Anal sex is such a fetish. Some fetishes cause no harm, but unfortunatley anal sex can cause anal fissures, anal cancer, colon rupture and bacterial infections.

2. According to the United States Center for Disease Control (US CDC), those with homosexual fetishes are many times more likely to contract STDs than heterosexuals. http://www.cdc.gov/stdconference/2000/m ... ay2000.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

3. According to the United States Center for Disease Control (US CDC), those with homosexual fetishes are many times more likely to contract AIDS than heterosexuals. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

4. Also According to the United States Center for Disease Control (US CDC), those with homosexual fetishes are more likely to develop mental illness. Research also has found that, compared to other men, MSM are at increased risk of: Major depression during adolescence and adulthood; Bipolar disorder; and Generalized anxiety disorder during adolescence and adulthood. MSM are also at greater risk for other health threats that often occur in conjunction with mental health problems (i.e., co-morbidities). These include greater use of illegal drugs and a greater risk for suicide.

5. Most babies are born healthy, without disorders, including without homosexual fetishes. At birth, our brains are only 25% developed. This makes us less intelligent at birth than many other mamals, however it ends up in our best interest because along with more caregiving support, we are better able to adapt to environmental influences. Under various circumstances, some such adaptations result in the development of homosexual fetishes. There is no such thing as a gay gene - as mentioned in the first link above.

Evidence shows that the development of homosexual fetishes is more linked to environmental influences than to biology. Science does not support the claim that homosexuality is genetic.. Even Homosexual Researchers Debunk ‘Born Gay’ Urban Legend http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/724179/posts" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"1. No research has found provable biological or genetic differences between heterosexuals & homosexuals that weren't caused by their behavior. 2. In 2 large studies conducted... Homosexuals overwhelmingly believed their feelings and behavior were the result of social or environmental influences. (Note that the focus of homosexual fetishes is limited to select countries, globally.) 3. Older homosexuals often approach the young 4. Early homosexual experiences influence adult patters of behavior 5. Sexual conduct is influenced by cultural factors - esp. religious convictions 6. Many change their sexual preferences 7. There are many ex-homosexuals"

The homosexual fetish herd is trying to push its way into the public - to make this disorder that statistically proves to be harmful, be accepted, even legally. Don't fall for it. Love people, don't love the sin. "Tolerance applies to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies to truth, but never to persons. Tolerance applies to the erring; intollerance to the error." -Fulton Sheen

Then, there's also....

Thinker wrote:Please defend marriage as defined between a man and a woman!

Kids of Gay Parents More Likely to Suffer Mental Problems, Study Shows
http://www.charismanews.com/us/48331-ki ... tudy-shows" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Researchers found that 17 percent of children with same-sex parents had serious emotional problems compared to 7 percent of children with a mom and dad."

Study: Children of Parents in Same-Sex Relationships Face Greater Risks
http://www.citizenlink.com/2012/06/11/s ... ter-risks/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"According to data from the New Family Structures Study, led by Mark Regnerus at the University of Texas at Austin, children raised by homosexual parents are dramatically more likely than peers raised by married heterosexual parents to suffer from a host of social problems. Among them are strong tendencies, as adults, to exhibit poor impulse control; suffer from depression and thoughts of suicide; need mental health therapy; identify themselves as homosexual; choose cohabitation; be unfaithful to partners; contract sexually transmitted diseases; be sexually molested; have lower income levels; drink to get drunk; and smoke tobacco and marijuana."

Adults Raised by Gay Couples Speak Out Against Gay ‘Marriage’ in Federal Court
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/laurett ... eral-court" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thinker wrote:Sirroco,
It would help if you read the OP before engaging in more logical fallacy and cognitive distortion, unless of course, emotional reasoning is all you have considered...

You just couldn't repost that without adding an insult could you?

I never had any harsh words or thoughts about you, heck I even admitted some lack of, I suppose qualifications to speak about this, if it were, but you just couldn't respond without digging at me.

David13 wrote:You totally miss the issue.
The issue is, is it sin or not. The agenda says it's not.
I think a lot of us believe it is.
dc

No, you totally miss the issue. It isn't whether or not it's a sin. It's why is it so important to identify, and marginalize, this particular sin? You don't make that much fuss about adultery -- it's a sin too. There's an agenda that says adultery's okay too. So what should we do about that sin? Keep them out of stores, apartments, and restaurants?

Go ahead and quietly think it's a sin, like you do adultery, when you run into an adulterer in public. And then try to understand, like you do with adultery, that it isn't your place to take action against other peoples' sins.

There is absolutely no comparison between any "adulterers rights campaign" and the homosexual campaign. The lobbying, the public "pride" parades. You have seen the adulterers do that?
I sure haven't.
The truth is, the adultery is still 100% "in the closet". Two entirely different things. Based on the behavior of the sinner.
What's wrong is wrong. And I don't not think anyone should be "proud" of something wrong.
So yes, my reaction is different.
dc

David13 wrote:There is absolutely no comparison between any "adulterers rights campaign" and the homosexual campaign. The lobbying, the public "pride" parades. You have seen the adulterers do that?
I sure haven't.
The truth is, the adultery is still 100% "in the closet". Two entirely different things. Based on the behavior of the sinner.
What's wrong is wrong. And I don't not think anyone should be "proud" of something wrong.
So yes, my reaction is different.
dc

Now hold on there. You can turn on just about any movie or TV show made in the past 20 years and adultery is part of the plot. And it is often presented as if you root for the man or woman who is in an unfulfilling relationship to hook up with the man or woman of their dreams who has come into their life. While homosexuality is now being integrated into mass media it still has a ways to go before it catches up to adultery. And as for fornication...

True, there are no parades for adultery or fornication but maybe there is no need. Look at what happened when Bill's affair with Monica came out, his support with women skyrocketed. Gotta understand Freud to know why that happened. Even the movie Dr. Zhivago, in which adultery is at its core, was a favorite of young adult LDS women back in the 1990s.

Maybe people can relate to adultery more than they can relate to homosexuality. Also, adultery does not (on the face of it) negatively affect the reproduction of the species while homosexuality can certainly set it back.

http://godfatherpolitics.com/21400/appl ... s-freedom/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Tim Cook is the CEO of Apple. He has sex with men. I’m not revealing anything about him that he has not revealed about himself. Here’s what he said:
“While I have never denied my sexuality, I haven’t publicly acknowledged it either, until now. So let me be clear: I’m proud to be gay, and I consider being gay among the greatest gifts God has given me.”
“Proud to be gay”? What does that mean?
Cook’s statement reveals something about how the same-sex sexuality movement defines itself. Cook states that he never denied his “sexuality.” A pedophile and an adulterer could say the same thing. There are millions of people who argue that that they are “proud” of their behavior.
By the way, homosexuals get very upset when pedophilia is used as an example of another form of “sexual preference.” Consider the following:
"‘Paedophilic interest is natural and normal for human males,’ said the presentation. ‘At least a sizeable minority of normal males would like to have sex with children … Normal males are aroused by children.’
“The statement that paedophilia is ‘natural and normal’ was made not three decades ago but last July [2013]. It was made not in private but as one of the central claims of an academic presentation delivered, at the invitation of the organisers, to many of the key experts in the field at a conference held by the University of Cambridge.
“Other presentations included ‘Liberating the paedophile: a discursive analysis,’ and ‘Danger and difference: the stakes of hebephilia.’
“Hebephilia is the sexual preference for children in early puberty, typically 11 to 14-year-olds.”
Could the day come when discriminating against pedophile behavior and pedophile marriages will bring about leftist outrage? Ted Kennedy, Chuck Schumer, Barbara Boxer, Harry Reid, and 93 other senators signed the national Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in 1993. That was only 22 years ago. A lot could change in another 22 years. Pedophilia could be mainstreamed.
I and millions of other people believe same-sex sexuality is immoral, anti-science, and irrational. The Bible states that it is “unnatural” (Rom. 1:26-27) in terms of biology and thereby irrational.
Those who reject the Bible have nothing from which to argue in order to make their case for anything. In fact, in evolutionary terms, same-sex sexuality is contrary to evolution. Tim’s Cook’s DNA will stop with him. If he attempts to find a surrogate, he will only be admitting that same-sex sexuality is “unnatural.”
Religious freedom laws protect everybody. They are not about discriminating against anybody. The word “homosexual” does not appear anywhere in any of the religious freedom laws, and that includes Indiana’s law which is very similar to the national law that was signed by Bill Clinton in 1993 with almost unanimous consent from Congress (only three no votes).
It’s not surprising that Tim Cook “does not quote a single word from any of the religious freedom laws he denounces” which are an extension of the First Amendment, you know, that pesky right from the Constitution that has served our nation well for more than 230 years.
To do so will lead to a lot of explaining. Better to throw the elephant.
Why were these new state laws necessary? Because of people like Tim Cook who wants to cut down the Liberty Tree of clear thinking and impose his will on the vast majority of Americans by force of law. Cook is a bigot and hypocrite who wants to force people to believe like he does and at the same time call for a boycott of those who don't.
This is done by forcing people to accept certain behaviours they believe are contrary to their worldview. Everybody should have this freedom. Cook and others are calling for a boycott of Indiana saying they refuse to do business with the state. They are free to do so, but if a baker wants to boycott a same-sex wedding, it’s a criminal offense.
The irony is thick with these people.
These religious freedom laws were written for people like Barronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlene's Flowers, “who declined to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding because of her Christian belief in traditional marriage.” She “has been fined $1,001 by a Washington court and will be held liable to pay the legal fees incurred by the gay couple, which could ‘devastate’ her financially. . . . Stutzman is still at risk of losing her retirement savings and business as she will be responsible for paying the legal fees and damages incurred by Ingersoll and Freed, who were represented by the ACLU.”
Her “crime”? Not agreeing that same-sex marriage is legitimate marriage. So who’s the bigot? It’s multi-billionaire Tim Cook who will not allow people like Barronelle Stutzman to believe in a way different from him.”

http://godfatherpolitics.com/21400/appl ... LBhrbtz.99" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

S&N. Thank you. I like the truth you speak.
Fiannan
First, I don't watch tv, sitcoms, movies, etc. I didn't even see Dr Zhivago, so I have no idea what the theme was.
And the reason is exactly that. It's all part of an agenda, a plot or conspiracy if you will to revise the concept of sin, to rewrite the book on right and wrong, and probably to sell a lot of other things as well, such as the "proper" form of government.
None of which do I subscribe to.
The adulterers generally do not go into the schools as the homosexuals have and demand that the school teach little children that homo. is perfectly 100% a - ok, and must, must mind you be "celebrated, encouraged, accepted" etc etc.
And as to this idea that everyone gets to vote on what is today sin, and that if everyone is doing it, it is ok.
I think, to some extent there is an absolute difference between right and wrong that will never change.
I think it can be said that Islam is rather extremely against homosexuality, but also just about every 'Latino' country is somewhat severely not in favor of homosexuality. It's only here that this "new agenda" has started to sprout like a giant weed.
I don't think any of us here go as far as Islam or the Latino countries.
But I do think that like S&N posts, some of the others go way too far. And that is the point. If the adulterer keeps their affair secret, how could I ever say anything about it? I wouldn't even know. I wouldn't approve, they wouldn't demand that i revise my beliefs. And we wouldn't have to try for this "new, improved morality." This neo revisionist concept of right and wrong.
dc

I am sorry, but I honestly miss the thank you function. Just for everyone, including the moderators to know.

While you are all debating sin and gay marriage you might consider that the whole dynamic of "SSA" is being re-designed by the younger generation:

http://nymag.com/news/features/15589/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

David13 wrote:There is absolutely no comparison between any "adulterers rights campaign" and the homosexual campaign. The lobbying, the public "pride" parades. You have seen the adulterers do that? I sure haven't.

They don't have to have parades or lobbyists. They're already fully accepted, and fully protected by the law.

Fiannan wrote:

David13 wrote:The truth is, the adultery is still 100% "in the closet". Two entirely different things. Based on the behavior of the sinner. What's wrong is wrong. And I don't not think anyone should be "proud" of something wrong. So yes, my reaction is different. dc

Now hold on there. You can turn on just about any movie or TV show made in the past 20 years and adultery is part of the plot. And it is often presented as if you root for the man or woman who is in an unfulfilling relationship to hook up with the man or woman of their dreams who has come into their life. While homosexuality is now being integrated into mass media it still has a ways to go before it catches up to adultery. And as for fornication...

True, there are no parades for adultery or fornication but maybe there is no need. Look at what happened when Bill's affair with Monica came out, his support with women skyrocketed. Gotta understand Freud to know why that happened. Even the movie Dr. Zhivago, in which adultery is at its core, was a favorite of young adult LDS women back in the 1990s.

Maybe people can relate to adultery more than they can relate to homosexuality. Also, adultery does not (on the face of it) negatively affect the reproduction of the species while homosexuality can certainly set it back.

Fiannan old bud, I think we might be on common ground here. But what about birth control? That has certainly has set back reproduction too. Is that a sin on the same level as homosexuality?