Is there a middle ground? The Church and gay marriage

[Serragon]

Facts don't care about your feelings.

What you have is a belief, a feeling that homosexuals don't have a choice. You are welcome to that belief-absolutely.

However, your belief needs to be consistent. When it's not you get cognitive dissonance. Which is exactly what you have right now.

You believe really, really, really badly that homosexuality is not by choice but by biology. Okay, fine.
Then how does your belief account for twins which come from the same egg, same sperm, which have the same DNA where one is homosexual and one is not?

You're belief that it is biology cannot stand up in the face of these facts. Which means you can either be dogmatic in the face of all evidence and reason (that's fine) or you can find a way to resolve these contradictions and modify your belief.

If you are unwilling to recognize the contradictions and attempt to solve them, then you can simply admit your viewpoint is one based on faith-i.e. it is a religious ideology and one that you can't prove. Again, that's fine just be honest with it. Unfortunately, you do prove the point that most individuals simply follow the dogmatic crowd-the power of belief in the face of overwhelming facts is quite impressive.

What you have is a belief as well.

"For men, new research suggests that clues to sexual orientation may lie not just in the genes, but in the spaces between the DNA, where molecular marks instruct genes when to turn on and off and how strongly to express themselves.
On Thursday, UCLA molecular biologist Tuck C. Ngun reported that in studying the genetic material of 47 pairs of identical male twins, he has identified “epigenetic marks” in nine areas of the human genome that are strongly linked to male homosexuality.
In individuals, said Ngun, the presence of these distinct molecular marks can predict homosexuality with an accuracy of close to 70%."

This is a great example of stuff that gets passed on as science and used by the pro-homosexual groups to bolster their views.

This was a sample size of 97 people, of which 57 said they were homosexual. It predicted sexuality at 67% accuracy.

Problems:
Sample size much too small and heavily weighted towards people who are homosexual.
Random chance would choose correctly 50% of the time. So this process was 34% more predictive than random chance.

So we have a small sample size that is weighted is non-representative of society at large, and it is only slightly more predictive than random chance on the weighted sample.

What happens when applied to society at large or representative sample sizes? Scientists doing better and more comprehensive studies since have concluded that there is no identifiable biological markers. The markers they have found are 8-25% predictive on their own, but when combined are less than 1% predictive.

Which means biology may play a very minute role, while the vast majority is via environment and choice.

[catcatinabox]

Facts don't care about your feelings.

What you have is a belief, a feeling that homosexuals don't have a choice. You are welcome to that belief-absolutely.

However, your belief needs to be consistent. When it's not you get cognitive dissonance. Which is exactly what you have right now.

You believe really, really, really badly that homosexuality is not by choice but by biology. Okay, fine.
Then how does your belief account for twins which come from the same egg, same sperm, which have the same DNA where one is homosexual and one is not?

You're belief that it is biology cannot stand up in the face of these facts. Which means you can either be dogmatic in the face of all evidence and reason (that's fine) or you can find a way to resolve these contradictions and modify your belief.

If you are unwilling to recognize the contradictions and attempt to solve them, then you can simply admit your viewpoint is one based on faith-i.e. it is a religious ideology and one that you can't prove. Again, that's fine just be honest with it. Unfortunately, you do prove the point that most individuals simply follow the dogmatic crowd-the power of belief in the face of overwhelming facts is quite impressive.

What you have is a belief as well.

"For men, new research suggests that clues to sexual orientation may lie not just in the genes, but in the spaces between the DNA, where molecular marks instruct genes when to turn on and off and how strongly to express themselves.
On Thursday, UCLA molecular biologist Tuck C. Ngun reported that in studying the genetic material of 47 pairs of identical male twins, he has identified “epigenetic marks” in nine areas of the human genome that are strongly linked to male homosexuality.
In individuals, said Ngun, the presence of these distinct molecular marks can predict homosexuality with an accuracy of close to 70%."

This is a great example of stuff that gets passed on as science and used by the pro-homosexual groups to bolster their views.

This was a sample size of 97 people, of which 57 said they were homosexual. It predicted sexuality at 67% accuracy.

Problems:
Sample size much too small and heavily weighted towards people who are homosexual.
Random chance would choose correctly 50% of the time. So this process was 34% more predictive than random chance.

So we have a small sample size that is weighted is non-representative of society at large, and it is only slightly more predictive than random chance on the weighted sample.

What happens when applied to society at large or representative sample sizes? Scientists doing better and more comprehensive studies since have concluded that there is no identifiable biological markers. The markers they have found are 8-25% predictive on their own, but when combined are less than 1% predictive.

Which means biology may play a very minute role, while the vast majority is via environment and choice.

Right. The % of homosexual in the dataset was 59%. So the algorithm did better by 8% than if you just randomly selected and used the actual percentage.

That's a real good algorithm there! Basically as good as a coin flip-i.e. worthless.

[pho·to·syn·the·sis]

!Warning! language.

The homosexual narrative is sometimes very different from reality. Sometimes, it is not the homosexual narrative, but a progressive narrative that uses the homosexual as canon fodder to establish policy or systemic upheaval. Any society that embraces homosexuality (as normal and natural), soon loses its cohesion and impetus.

[RocknRoll]

!Warning! language.

The homosexual narrative is sometimes very different from reality. Sometimes, it is not the homosexual narrative, but a progressive narrative that uses the homosexual as canon fodder to establish policy or systemic upheaval. Any society that embraces homosexuality (as normal and natural), soon loses its cohesion and impetus.

Because only Gay's are child molesters...Riiiiiggght....

[Silas]

!Warning! language.

The homosexual narrative is sometimes very different from reality. Sometimes, it is not the homosexual narrative, but a progressive narrative that uses the homosexual as canon fodder to establish policy or systemic upheaval. Any society that embraces homosexuality (as normal and natural), soon loses its cohesion and impetus.

Because only Gay's are child molesters...Riiiiiggght....

I would not allow my children to be alone with a homosexual. Sexual disorders are not something that people are born with. They have a cause and that cause is usually abuse, and that abuse usually happens in childhood.

[RocknRoll]

!Warning! language.

The homosexual narrative is sometimes very different from reality. Sometimes, it is not the homosexual narrative, but a progressive narrative that uses the homosexual as canon fodder to establish policy or systemic upheaval. Any society that embraces homosexuality (as normal and natural), soon loses its cohesion and impetus.

Because only Gay's are child molesters...Riiiiiggght....

I would not allow my children to be alone with a homosexual. Sexual disorders are not something that people are born with. They have a cause and that cause is usually abuse, and that abuse usually happens in childhood.

OK. Well, none of that is true, but since I’m sure no one will be changing your mind anytime soon, I wish you well living in your alternate universe.

[Silas]

!Warning! language.

The homosexual narrative is sometimes very different from reality. Sometimes, it is not the homosexual narrative, but a progressive narrative that uses the homosexual as canon fodder to establish policy or systemic upheaval. Any society that embraces homosexuality (as normal and natural), soon loses its cohesion and impetus.

Because only Gay's are child molesters...Riiiiiggght....

I would not allow my children to be alone with a homosexual. Sexual disorders are not something that people are born with. They have a cause and that cause is usually abuse, and that abuse usually happens in childhood.

OK. Well, none of that is true, but since I’m sure no one will be changing your mind anytime soon, I wish you well living in your alternate universe.

You won’t change my mind but not because I can’t change my mind, I’ve done that a lot and about my most deeply held foundational beliefs. I can change my views because I already have and I likely will again. No, you won’t change my mind because all you have is nonsense words and social shame. You are proud of having the socially approved beliefs so that you can prove to everyone that you are a good person.

You aren’t acting based on principles or reason. You are just in a school of fish, if everyone starts swimming one way that is the way you go and if they change directions then you’ll go that way too.

Reason dictates that a person cannot naturally have a desire that subverts the purpose of that desire. The purpose of sexuality is the creation of life. Whether it is pornography or homosexuality if your sexual desires are preventing you from fulfilling the purpose of sexuality you are out of order.

Exactly how people get out of order can get a little complex, and it varies between individuals. But no one is simply born with a desire to subvert nature. Something is causing the disorder. And if you believe in evolution that makes your case much worse because you can’t pass on a genetic trait that prevents you from passing on genetic traits.

If an eagle would not fly we would all easily understand that something is wrong with it because it is the nature of eagles to fly. There could be different reasons that the eagle doesn’t fly but none of those reasons are that it is its nature not to fly. Something happened to the bird to keep it from flying.

[Sirius]

How long before church members are advocating for pedophiles? Mormons building bridges, is that a bridge you're wanting to build as well? Buckle up, it's here.

"All the evidence suggests that paedophilia begins in the womb," Dr Cantor told 60 Minutes reporter Liam Bartlett.
"A person does not pick it. And despite every kind of treatment that has been attempted over a century, nothing has been shown to be able to change these people from paedophiles into non-paedophiles." "Paedophilia is not a synonym for child molestation, which is how most people think," said Dr Cantor.
"Paedophilia is the genuine underlying, unchanging sexual interest in children (while) child molestation is the actual behaviour that harms a child." "The thing that would most protect our children, is to help them…. To make it easier for them to come in. But if we're going to treat them like criminals, they will stay underground, and we're just back to where we started."

[Lexew1899]

!Warning! language.

The homosexual narrative is sometimes very different from reality. Sometimes, it is not the homosexual narrative, but a progressive narrative that uses the homosexual as canon fodder to establish policy or systemic upheaval. Any society that embraces homosexuality (as normal and natural), soon loses its cohesion and impetus.

Because only Gay's are child molesters...Riiiiiggght....

I'd worry most about drag Queens and beta cucks being child molesters.

[Silas]

How long before church members are advocating for pedophiles? Mormons building bridges, is that a bridge you're wanting to build as well? Buckle up, it's here.

"All the evidence suggests that paedophilia begins in the womb," Dr Cantor told 60 Minutes reporter Liam Bartlett.
"A person does not pick it. And despite every kind of treatment that has been attempted over a century, nothing has been shown to be able to change these people from paedophiles into non-paedophiles." "Paedophilia is not a synonym for child molestation, which is how most people think," said Dr Cantor.
"Paedophilia is the genuine underlying, unchanging sexual interest in children (while) child molestation is the actual behaviour that harms a child." "The thing that would most protect our children, is to help them…. To make it easier for them to come in. But if we're going to treat them like criminals, they will stay underground, and we're just back to where we started."

There is a 100 percent effective cure. It is a lead pill administered to the back of the head.

But I do recognize the distinction between someone who offends and someone who struggles with an appetite. Kill the offender. Every time.

I don’t think it’s genetic. I believe it is childhood trauma. There could be a genetic component as we see with epigenetics but these people are acting out trauma. I pity them and I don’t judge their soul but I would not hesitate to insist that they be executed if they assault a child.

[[email protected]]

I don't believe in a middle ground on this or any other recent social trend. I think we should go back to sending cops in to raid gay bars and outlaw sodomy personally.

"What!?"
"How could you be such an evil bigot?!"
"You just an angry repressed homosexual yourself!"
"Backward uneducated Jesus freak!"
"You aren't a true Christian, don't judge!"

There I got the autistic screeching SJW responses out of the way for you. I used to be more libertarian on this kind of stuff but not anymore. Several things have become abundantly clear over the last 15-20 years:

- Incrementalism works, it's been the left's SOP for decades. 10 years ago all major Democratic Party candidates were against gay marriage including Barack Obama. Today it's the standard DNC platform to outlaw "conversion therapy" and protect a parent's "right" to give their child transgender hormone therapy even if it's against the will of the child. You give these people an inch they take the planet.

- Homosexuality is not genetic or otherwise and inherent inborn trait, simple twin studies prove that. There are several documented cases of one identical twin being an active and open homosexual and the other a normal married family man with children.

-Homosexuality never the less must be presented as an inborn trait because that's the basis for all the favorable legislation and activism that surrounds that identity.

Not at this point I don't want to accomidate these people, I want a roll back.

[RocknRoll]

I don't believe in a middle ground on this or any other recent social trend. I think we should go back to sending cops in to raid gay bars and outlaw sodomy personally.

Would you outlaw it for both heterosexuals and homosexuals alike? And how would you possibly enforce it?

"What!?"
"How could you be such an evil bigot?!"
"You just an angry repressed homosexual yourself!"
"Backward uneducated Jesus freak!"
"You aren't a true Christian, don't judge!"

OK, I won’t say any of the above, if you promise not to call my son or other close family, whom I dearly love, evil, or a “sodomite” (which really only describes people from the city of Sodom anyway).

- Homosexuality is not genetic or otherwise and inherent inborn trait, simple twin studies prove that. There are several documented cases of one identical twin being an active and open homosexual and the other a normal married family man with children.

Maybe not so simple? What do actual scientists and clinical researchers have to say?

2014
A genetic analysis of 409 pairs of gay brothers, including sets of twins, has provided the strongest evidence yet that gay people are born gay. The study clearly links sexual orientation in men with two regions of the human genome that have been implicated before, one on the X chromosome and one on chromosome 8.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... z64cl1sauB

A 2019 study involving over 500,000 people, has the headline, “No ‘Gay Gene’”, but toward the bottom of the article they admit…” For their second analysis, Ganna and his colleagues wanted to see which particular SNPs were associated with same-sex sexual behaviours, and found five that were more common among those individuals. However, those five SNPs collectively explained less than 1% of the variation in sexual behaviour. This suggests that there are a lot of genes that influence sexual behaviour, many of which researchers haven’t found yet, says Ganna. An even larger sample size could help to identify those missing variants, he says.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02585-6

And here is one from 2015:
A new study of male twins, scheduled for presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) in Baltimore, Maryland, today, could help explain that paradox. It finds that epigenetic effects, chemical modifications of the human genome that alter gene activity without changing the DNA sequence, may have a major influence on sexual orientation.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/10 ... ations-dna

The point is, the jury is still out (contrary to your stated beliefs). You might be surprised to learn you really don't have everything figured out (for yourself nor for anyone else). And neither do I.

I strongly believe that God doesn't want anyone to be forced into a life of celibacy and loneliness. I believe that part of the Plan of Happiness is indeed finding someone to share this life with and to learn the real deep lessons of unconditional love, charity and commitment. If that were not true, why would the Church focus so much on marriage and family. Just because someone is gay is not a reason to forbid all those experiences that are gained from committed relationships.

[Fiannan]

Want to tick off a liberal? Tell them intelligence is mostly genetically determined.

[Fiannan]

The only compromise I could see that might make some happy, but not others, is to reinstate polygamy and then encourage women who want to be in relationships with other women to get married to a man who will be the father of their kids.

I know there are a couple people here who might wish to mock this, but it has been proposed that the reason lesbianism is not condemned in the Old Testament was because the emphasis was not as much on sex as it was on reproduction and if a man had seven wives, and two of them were more than just sister wives, as long as they were reproducing then no problem.

[Sirius]

I strongly believe that God doesn't want anyone to be forced into a life of celibacy and loneliness. I believe that part of the Plan of Happiness is indeed finding someone to share this life with and to learn the real deep lessons of unconditional love, charity and commitment. If that were not true, why would the Church focus so much on marriage and family. Just because someone is gay is not a reason to forbid all those experiences that are gained from committed relationships.

Few things to reflect on. The Plan of Happiness entails a lot more than just this life, and not all will be experienced or accomplished here. It's fine if you or anyone else wants to believe a homosexual relationship is seen in God's eyes, as wholesome or acceptable. You will find no doctrinal basis for this though. He has established His pattern, and stated throughout the scriptures as that being, Man and Woman. If we begin to stray from God's established pattern and order, it is no longer His Plan, but ours. There is no end to the perversions man will accept as good. If you need a witness to this, look no further than today's society.

[jsk]

The only compromise I could see that might make some happy, but not others, is to reinstate polygamy and then encourage women who want to be in relationships with other women to get married to a man who will be the father of their kids.

I know there are a couple people here who might wish to mock this, but it has been proposed that the reason lesbianism is not condemned in the Old Testament was because the emphasis was not as much on sex as it was on reproduction and if a man had seven wives, and two of them were more than just sister wives, as long as they were reproducing then no problem.

This is hilarious! Pretty sure the Church doesn’t agree that there’s nothing wrong with lesbianism. And if what you are saying were true, why couldn’t a married man engage in homosexual activity so long as he were reproducing with his spouse? Crazy...

[Fiannan]

The only compromise I could see that might make some happy, but not others, is to reinstate polygamy and then encourage women who want to be in relationships with other women to get married to a man who will be the father of their kids.

I know there are a couple people here who might wish to mock this, but it has been proposed that the reason lesbianism is not condemned in the Old Testament was because the emphasis was not as much on sex as it was on reproduction and if a man had seven wives, and two of them were more than just sister wives, as long as they were reproducing then no problem.

This is hilarious! Pretty sure the Church doesn’t agree that there’s nothing wrong with lesbianism. And if what you are saying were true, why couldn’t a married man engage in homosexual activity so long as he were reproducing with his spouse? Crazy...

Did the Church condemn treatment of hysteria back in the 1800s? And remember, female midwives provided treatment for hysteria as well.

[jsk]

The only compromise I could see that might make some happy, but not others, is to reinstate polygamy and then encourage women who want to be in relationships with other women to get married to a man who will be the father of their kids.

I know there are a couple people here who might wish to mock this, but it has been proposed that the reason lesbianism is not condemned in the Old Testament was because the emphasis was not as much on sex as it was on reproduction and if a man had seven wives, and two of them were more than just sister wives, as long as they were reproducing then no problem.

This is hilarious! Pretty sure the Church doesn’t agree that there’s nothing wrong with lesbianism. And if what you are saying were true, why couldn’t a married man engage in homosexual activity so long as he were reproducing with his spouse? Crazy...

Did the Church condemn treatment of hysteria back in the 1800s? And remember, female midwives provided treatment for hysteria as well.

No idea...but lots of weird stuff has happened throughout history in the name of medical treatment. I think if you are hanging your hat on lesbianism being ok on this basis that’s a pretty shaky foundation.

And you didn’t address the issue of male homosexuality so long as they are reproducing.

[EmmaLee]

Time to post this pesky thing again....

THE FAMILY: A PROCLAMATION TO THE WORLD

The First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

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.

ALL HUMAN BEINGS—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.

IN THE PREMORTAL REALM, spirit sons and daughters knew and worshipped God as their Eternal Father and accepted His plan by which His children could obtain a physical body and gain earthly experience to progress toward perfection and ultimately realize their divine destiny as heirs of eternal life. The divine plan of happiness enables family relationships to be perpetuated beyond the grave. Sacred ordinances and covenants available in holy temples make it possible for individuals to return to the presence of God and for families to be united eternally.

THE FIRST COMMANDMENT that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.

WE DECLARE the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed. We affirm the sanctity of life and of its importance in God’s eternal plan.

HUSBAND AND WIFE have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. “Children are an heritage of the Lord” (Psalm 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, and to teach them to love and serve one another, observe the commandments of God, and be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations.

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. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities. By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.

WE WARN that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

WE CALL UPON responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.

[Fiannan]

The only compromise I could see that might make some happy, but not others, is to reinstate polygamy and then encourage women who want to be in relationships with other women to get married to a man who will be the father of their kids.

I know there are a couple people here who might wish to mock this, but it has been proposed that the reason lesbianism is not condemned in the Old Testament was because the emphasis was not as much on sex as it was on reproduction and if a man had seven wives, and two of them were more than just sister wives, as long as they were reproducing then no problem.

This is hilarious! Pretty sure the Church doesn’t agree that there’s nothing wrong with lesbianism. And if what you are saying were true, why couldn’t a married man engage in homosexual activity so long as he were reproducing with his spouse? Crazy...

Did the Church condemn treatment of hysteria back in the 1800s? And remember, female midwives provided treatment for hysteria as well.

No idea...but lots of weird stuff has happened throughout history in the name of medical treatment. I think if you are hanging your hat on lesbianism being ok on this basis that’s a pretty shaky foundation.

And you didn’t address the issue of male homosexuality so long as they are reproducing.

Actually my point is that it is interesting that female sexuality was not even a consideration, in many aspects, up until recent years. What was treatment for hysteria by our definitions today was sex, unless it is Bill Clinton defining it, but the only emphasis in the 19th Century was on men, for the most part. How do we know what was defined as sex in the Old Testament? Apparently, a woman was to be put to death for adultery or sex with a non-human organism. However, if in a polygamist marriage, was anything between two women seen within the same context? And since the most important thing in the scriptures, in relation to marriage, was making babies then maybe it was not seen within the context we have today. Just speculation based on something a local rabbi once said in an interview and trying to figure out the apparent double-standard between males and females in those days.

[Fiannan]

Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

Not to mention how birth control is putting an end to western society.

[Trucker]

This has been an interesting thread to read through. I can say that in this day and age, the way you win the argument for your cause is to be the victim. LGBT advocates don't have to argue the merits of their position. They just have to argue that LGBT people have been the victims. The "right side" is the side that has been oppressed, and the "wrong side" is the side doing the oppression.

You can see it in this thread where a main argument has been that the church has treated gay people poorly, without enough compassion or kindness, therefore the church's position is wrong.

This is the same tactic Marxists use. It's what modern liberals and progressives use, and it works.

Maybe gays need to shape up. Stop whining. Stop being crybabies. Defend your position. Don't be so fragile that just by having people "not accept your lifestyle" you collapse in a heap and consider killing yourself.Is that too much tough love?

Why do heterosexual people have to "accept" homosexuality? Why is there "ignore it if you don't like it" for lewdness and degradation in music, tv, movies, in teaching kids sexuality in schools, etc, but when it comes to homosexuality, we all have to embrace it, support it, or else we are mean, terrible people, on the wrong side of history.

The pattern is: 1) claim to be the victim, 2) demand to be considered "just the same", 3) demand outright advocacy, 4) claim superiority, 5) obtain power, 6) shutdown opposition.

Everyone can decide where we re in the pattern.

[jsk]

This has been an interesting thread to read through. I can say that in this day and age, the way you win the argument for your cause is to be the victim. LGBT advocates don't have to argue the merits of their position. They just have to argue that LGBT people have been the victims. The "right side" is the side that has been oppressed, and the "wrong side" is the side doing the oppression.

You can see it in this thread where a main argument has been that the church has treated gay people poorly, without enough compassion or kindness, therefore the church's position is wrong.

This is the same tactic Marxists use. It's what modern liberals and progressives use, and it works.

Maybe gays need to shape up. Stop whining. Stop being crybabies. Defend your position. Don't be so fragile that just by having people "not accept your lifestyle" you collapse in a heap and consider killing yourself.Is that too much tough love?

Why do heterosexual people have to "accept" homosexuality? Why is there "ignore it if you don't like it" for lewdness and degradation in music, tv, movies, in teaching kids sexuality in schools, etc, but when it comes to homosexuality, we all have to embrace it, support it, or else we are mean, terrible people, on the wrong side of history.

The pattern is: 1) claim to be the victim, 2) demand to be considered "just the same", 3) demand outright advocacy, 4) claim superiority, 5) obtain power, 6) shutdown opposition.

Everyone can decide where we re in the pattern.

You nailed it with this post.

I have a gay son, and I’ve made it clear to him my love for him will never change. But I’ve also
made it clear that I think homosexuality is wrong and the fact that he’s decided to live that life doesn’t change that fact. I told him if he makes our relationship conditional on accepting homosexuality as being on par with heterosexuality, then we will have big problems. I can live and let live where I don’t agree, but don’t tell me I have to condone and celebrate your sinful behavior.

[Lizzy60]

This has been an interesting thread to read through. I can say that in this day and age, the way you win the argument for your cause is to be the victim. LGBT advocates don't have to argue the merits of their position. They just have to argue that LGBT people have been the victims. The "right side" is the side that has been oppressed, and the "wrong side" is the side doing the oppression.

You can see it in this thread where a main argument has been that the church has treated gay people poorly, without enough compassion or kindness, therefore the church's position is wrong.

This is the same tactic Marxists use. It's what modern liberals and progressives use, and it works.

Maybe gays need to shape up. Stop whining. Stop being crybabies. Defend your position. Don't be so fragile that just by having people "not accept your lifestyle" you collapse in a heap and consider killing yourself.Is that too much tough love?

Why do heterosexual people have to "accept" homosexuality? Why is there "ignore it if you don't like it" for lewdness and degradation in music, tv, movies, in teaching kids sexuality in schools, etc, but when it comes to homosexuality, we all have to embrace it, support it, or else we are mean, terrible people, on the wrong side of history.

The pattern is: 1) claim to be the victim, 2) demand to be considered "just the same", 3) demand outright advocacy, 4) claim superiority, 5) obtain power, 6) shutdown opposition.

Everyone can decide where we re in the pattern.

You nailed it with this post.

I have a gay son, and I’ve made it clear to him my love for him will never change. But I’ve also
made it clear that I think homosexuality is wrong and the fact that he’s decided to live that life doesn’t change that fact. I told him if he makes our relationship conditional on accepting homosexuality as being on par with heterosexuality, then we will have big problems. I can live and let live where I don’t agree, but don’t tell me I have to condone and celebrate your sinful behavior.

I agree. I don't have a gay child, but I do have a son who no longer believes in God. His wife and children still go to Church, and we all love each other and have great times together as a family. However, my son has never claimed victimhood because his wife and kids don't support his belief, and he has never tried to advocate his alternative beliefs with other family members. We don't preach to him, as we recognize his agency, and he doesn't try to convert us to his liberal atheist worldview.

I've read the stories of numerous LDS parents, who when they find out their child is gay, they choose to completely accept the entire LGBTQ agenda, advocating that homosexual sexual relations are not sinful, that God has created everyone perfectly, and that their gay children should be able to be married, and even sealed, and they will have their gay spouses in the Celestial Kingdom, BECAUSE God would not have created them gay if He didn't allow gay couples in heaven (Celestial Kingdom).

What I don't understand is this "new" doctrine that God has created every human being perfectly. What happened to "fallen nature"? What has become of the natural man is an enemy to God? What about God gives us weaknesses so that He can turn them into strengths? Wheat and tares anyone? Goats and sheep? I could go on and on......scripture is replete with examples of our not being born perfect. Otherwise, what's the point of this probation if not to overcome our desire for sin?

[Lizzy60]

One of the most vocal LDS supporters of gay marriage has just compared the "personal revelation" that many gay members of the church say they have received, that tells them they are perfectly made homosexual and that God approves of them marrying a same-sex spouse, with.............Joseph Smith's First Vision. Yep. Our Church is founded on the personal revelation received by the Prophet Joseph, and the revelations received by homosexuals that their marriages are sanctified by God are no different.

Here it is in her words, so you will read for yourself that I'm not exaggerating.
-------------------------------------
Today I was listening to a podcast where one of our lgbtq brothers spoke about the personal revelation he received from God about how he knew, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that God created him perfectly as a Gay man. He said, “When you know who you are and when you know God knows who you are then that’s all that matters.” Immediately after I heard this I thought of when Joseph Smith talked about his vision and said, “I knew it and I knew God knew it.”
We are a church built on personal revelation and it requires a great deal of faith to believe that Joseph had this Heavenly exchange with God. Why can’t we put the same faith in one another when we also receive personal answers from God.

Our lgbtq brothers and sisters have spent their lives earnestly praying to God and asking how He feels about them especially as the world has turned its back on them. So many have shared their personal experiences with personal revelation with me and every person I have talked to has found out that God loves them and wants them to be happy and approves of them finding a lasting and fulfilling relationship with someone of the same sex. Many have even received these personal revelations when seeking guidance in the temple.

Joseph Smith asked us to believe that he spoke with God and with that he taught us how important personal revelation is for all of God’s children. Personal revelation is a principle I have kept in my Truth Cart and because I believe strongly in personal revelation I choose to believe when others tell me about what God has revealed to them.

To all of my lgbtq brothers and sisters and your families! I believe you when you tell me what your Heavenly Parents have revealed to you! I’m proud of you for seeking to find their will for your life and for following the path they have laid out for you. I know that you have not taken anything lightly in your quest for direction in your life and I’m glad you have chosen to follow where your personal revelation has lead you. You, like Joseph Smith, know what God has told you and you also know that God knows this. When the rest of the world tries to tell you differently, keep holding strong to what you know to be personally true. Let the rest of us engage in our own wrestle as we seek to find ways to better love and embrace you into our lives and our churches but in the meantime follow in the path that you have been directed.
---------------------------------------

Yeah, there is no bridge to build. They do not want any sort of compromise. They only want to guilt and shame us into their belief.