LDS Freedom Forum

Posted: **February 20th, 2020, 1:41 pm**

thestock wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 1:17 pm
Serragon wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 1:14 pm
thestock wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 12:56 pm If a man is an unmarried adult and has sex with a female, I dont distinguish that from a man being an unmarried adult and having sex with a male.
During Christ's time on the earth, the Jews were ruled by the Romans. Paul spent much of his missionary life in the Greek lands.

For both of these cultures, homosexuality was widely practiced and accepted. In fact, bi-sexuality was the norm. Given that there was no stigma against homosexuality, whey do you think both the jews and the newly formed Christians taught and believed that homosexuality was a sin? If there is no distinction between same gender sex and opposite gender sex, whey wouldn't they have simply adopted it into their habit like the rest of the world had done?

It would have caused them more problems and persecution by calling this "normal" practice sinful and requiring new converts to give it up than it would have done to accept it fully. And if God saw no distinction between both types of sex, why would this small group of people go out of there way to bring persecutions on themselves when God didn't require it?
I mean if it is your opinion that gay fornication is worse than hetero fornication....more power to you. Im not really interested in stack ranking people's sins, but to me sexual sin is sexual sin. If two consenting adults have sex.....if it is fornication it is fornication. Why would one be worse than the other? Who, aside from the two individuals, is getting hurt in either scenario? At least in the gay scenario, there isnt any risk of a bastard child that grows up without a father.........

What do you think about homosexual marriage thestock? Is it wrong? Should it be allowed in the Church?

Posted: **February 20th, 2020, 1:46 pm**

Luke wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 1:41 pm
thestock wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 1:17 pm
Serragon wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 1:14 pm
thestock wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 12:56 pm If a man is an unmarried adult and has sex with a female, I dont distinguish that from a man being an unmarried adult and having sex with a male.
During Christ's time on the earth, the Jews were ruled by the Romans. Paul spent much of his missionary life in the Greek lands.

For both of these cultures, homosexuality was widely practiced and accepted. In fact, bi-sexuality was the norm. Given that there was no stigma against homosexuality, whey do you think both the jews and the newly formed Christians taught and believed that homosexuality was a sin? If there is no distinction between same gender sex and opposite gender sex, whey wouldn't they have simply adopted it into their habit like the rest of the world had done?

It would have caused them more problems and persecution by calling this "normal" practice sinful and requiring new converts to give it up than it would have done to accept it fully. And if God saw no distinction between both types of sex, why would this small group of people go out of there way to bring persecutions on themselves when God didn't require it?
I mean if it is your opinion that gay fornication is worse than hetero fornication....more power to you. Im not really interested in stack ranking people's sins, but to me sexual sin is sexual sin. If two consenting adults have sex.....if it is fornication it is fornication. Why would one be worse than the other? Who, aside from the two individuals, is getting hurt in either scenario? At least in the gay scenario, there isnt any risk of a bastard child that grows up without a father.........
What do you think about homosexual marriage thestock? Is it wrong? Should it be allowed in the Church?

I used to think it was wrong and that it should not be legal. I have changed my mind.....people are free to pursue happiness. That is their constitutional right. People getting married to the same sex has absolutely ZERO impact on my own life and happiness, and so now, I no longer oppose or care really about the same sex marriage laws in this country.

That being said, I do not believe the Church should change its doctrines. I believe same sex couples should be allowed to come to church just like anyone else, but I dont believe the Church should offer to host their secular wedding ceremonies or hand them a temple recommend....

Posted: **February 20th, 2020, 1:49 pm**

thestock wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 1:46 pm
Luke wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 1:41 pm
thestock wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 1:17 pm
Serragon wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 1:14 pm

During Christ's time on the earth, the Jews were ruled by the Romans. Paul spent much of his missionary life in the Greek lands.

For both of these cultures, homosexuality was widely practiced and accepted. In fact, bi-sexuality was the norm. Given that there was no stigma against homosexuality, whey do you think both the jews and the newly formed Christians taught and believed that homosexuality was a sin? If there is no distinction between same gender sex and opposite gender sex, whey wouldn't they have simply adopted it into their habit like the rest of the world had done?

It would have caused them more problems and persecution by calling this "normal" practice sinful and requiring new converts to give it up than it would have done to accept it fully. And if God saw no distinction between both types of sex, why would this small group of people go out of there way to bring persecutions on themselves when God didn't require it?
I mean if it is your opinion that gay fornication is worse than hetero fornication....more power to you. Im not really interested in stack ranking people's sins, but to me sexual sin is sexual sin. If two consenting adults have sex.....if it is fornication it is fornication. Why would one be worse than the other? Who, aside from the two individuals, is getting hurt in either scenario? At least in the gay scenario, there isnt any risk of a bastard child that grows up without a father.........
What do you think about homosexual marriage thestock? Is it wrong? Should it be allowed in the Church?
That being said, I do not believe the Church should change its doctrines. I believe same sex couples should be allowed to come to church just like anyone else, but I dont believe the Church should offer to host their secular wedding ceremonies or hand them a temple recommend....

How in the world is the Church going to hold that line? How can you on the one hand allow homosexual couples and marriages into the Church and on the other hand deny them a Temple Recommend.
People don't operate like that . . .the cognitive dissonance . . .

Posted: **February 20th, 2020, 1:52 pm**

I believe we have into into the 5th phase of Mormonism, where anything of the world gets included, defended, embraced, and grows in wickedness and abominations.

The people who purport to have the most truth, and who did receive the most truth, will now stand under heavier judgment and condemnation.

There is nothing peculiar about Mormons (oops, I mean LDSers...or whatever ) than the rest of the world....anymore. This olive tree has grafted in all the wild branches and is now completely bitter, top heavy, almost completely deteriorated roots, and unable to produce what is required.

The only topics the day seems to be LGBTQ, instead of things of light and truth. From the changing of the ordinances to embracing doctrines of devils, there are red flags that the “good ship Zion” is anything BUT a “good ship” and anything but “Zion”.

Posted: **February 20th, 2020, 1:54 pm**

johnBob wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 1:49 pm
thestock wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 1:46 pm
Luke wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 1:41 pm
thestock wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 1:17 pm

I mean if it is your opinion that gay fornication is worse than hetero fornication....more power to you. Im not really interested in stack ranking people's sins, but to me sexual sin is sexual sin. If two consenting adults have sex.....if it is fornication it is fornication. Why would one be worse than the other? Who, aside from the two individuals, is getting hurt in either scenario? At least in the gay scenario, there isnt any risk of a bastard child that grows up without a father.........
What do you think about homosexual marriage thestock? Is it wrong? Should it be allowed in the Church?
That being said, I do not believe the Church should change its doctrines. I believe same sex couples should be allowed to come to church just like anyone else, but I dont believe the Church should offer to host their secular wedding ceremonies or hand them a temple recommend....
How in the world is the Church going to hold that line? How can you on the one hand allow homosexual couples and marriages into the Church and on the other hand deny them a Temple Recommend.
People don't operate like that . . .the cognitive dissonance . . .

How is it any different than a person who struggles with alcohol, or fornication, or anything else coming to Church? All should be welcome at Church, as long as they are respectfully while IN church. I dont see why the Church needs to get in the business of performing gay ceremonies or giving out temple recommends just because gay members attend and commune with the congregation....The Church doesnt throw keggers just because alcoholics come to church....

Posted: **February 20th, 2020, 1:59 pm**

simpleton wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 1:32 pm Good ol apostle Paul got to the point, he explicitly stated men with men and women with women and some other abominations were "worthy of death".
And all grant you adulterers also...

I don’t understand your point here. You just stated that the apostle Paul stated that men with men, women with women and adultery (men with women) were all worthy of death. So, what’s your point? I don’t think anyone here has stated they believe sex outside of marriage is not sin.

Posted: **February 20th, 2020, 2:03 pm**

thestock wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 1:54 pm
johnBob wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 1:49 pm
thestock wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 1:46 pm
Luke wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 1:41 pm

What do you think about homosexual marriage thestock? Is it wrong? Should it be allowed in the Church?
That being said, I do not believe the Church should change its doctrines. I believe same sex couples should be allowed to come to church just like anyone else, but I dont believe the Church should offer to host their secular wedding ceremonies or hand them a temple recommend....
How in the world is the Church going to hold that line? How can you on the one hand allow homosexual couples and marriages into the Church and on the other hand deny them a Temple Recommend.
People don't operate like that . . .the cognitive dissonance . . .
How is it any different than a person who struggles with alcohol, or fornication, or anything else coming to Church? All should be welcome at Church, as long as they are respectfully while IN church. I dont see why the Church needs to get in the business of performing gay ceremonies or giving out temple recommends just because gay members attend and commune with the congregation....The Church doesnt throw keggers just because alcoholics come to church....

So it's appropriate for someone to come to Church with a bottle of beer in their hand and take a swig from it as they drool?

Posted: **February 20th, 2020, 2:08 pm**

johnBob wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 2:03 pm
thestock wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 1:54 pm
johnBob wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 1:49 pm
thestock wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 1:46 pm
That being said, I do not believe the Church should change its doctrines. I believe same sex couples should be allowed to come to church just like anyone else, but I dont believe the Church should offer to host their secular wedding ceremonies or hand them a temple recommend....
How in the world is the Church going to hold that line? How can you on the one hand allow homosexual couples and marriages into the Church and on the other hand deny them a Temple Recommend.
People don't operate like that . . .the cognitive dissonance . . .
How is it any different than a person who struggles with alcohol, or fornication, or anything else coming to Church? All should be welcome at Church, as long as they are respectfully while IN church. I dont see why the Church needs to get in the business of performing gay ceremonies or giving out temple recommends just because gay members attend and commune with the congregation....The Church doesnt throw keggers just because alcoholics come to church....
So it's appropriate for someone to come to Church with a bottle of beer in their hand and take a swig from it as they drool?

Nope. And neither is it appropriate for a same sex couple (or opposite sex couple, for that matter) to come to church and have sex in the pews. Just comparing apples to apples here.

Posted: **February 20th, 2020, 2:10 pm**

RocknRoll wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 2:08 pm
johnBob wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 2:03 pm
thestock wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 1:54 pm
johnBob wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 1:49 pm
How in the world is the Church going to hold that line? How can you on the one hand allow homosexual couples and marriages into the Church and on the other hand deny them a Temple Recommend.
People don't operate like that . . .the cognitive dissonance . . .
How is it any different than a person who struggles with alcohol, or fornication, or anything else coming to Church? All should be welcome at Church, as long as they are respectfully while IN church. I dont see why the Church needs to get in the business of performing gay ceremonies or giving out temple recommends just because gay members attend and commune with the congregation....The Church doesnt throw keggers just because alcoholics come to church....
So it's appropriate for someone to come to Church with a bottle of beer in their hand and take a swig from it as they drool?
Nope. And neither is it appropriate for a same sex couple (or opposite sex couple, for that matter) to come to church and have sex in the pews. Just comparing apples to apples here.

Okay so you are perfectly fine with a man and 2 women coming into Church sitting down in the front pews and holding hands between them and kissing.

As a parent, no-that's not an environment I want my children to see at Church.

Posted: **February 20th, 2020, 2:13 pm**

thestock wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 1:54 pmHow is it any different than a person who struggles with alcohol, or fornication, or anything else coming to Church? All should be welcome at Church, as long as they are respectfully while IN church. I dont see why the Church needs to get in the business of performing gay ceremonies or giving out temple recommends just because gay members attend and commune with the congregation....The Church doesnt throw keggers just because alcoholics come to church....

because homosexuality is way worse than all that. you can’t compare having a bender to desecrating the procreative faculties we have been given to create and propagate life. this is the key characteristic that separates god from satan: to have children.

god created adam in His own image. he created eve in the image of adam for an helpmeet. man was made in the likeness of the Creator; women was made in the likeness of the creation, the earth. Which is why the earth was cursed, when eve was deceived being at fault.

putting ones penis in the end of another mans digestive tract is nothing but debasement, not just to the men but to that god in who’s image they are. which is why satan and his devils get off on it so much and why god takes such personal offense.

men are not meant to burn their lust on one another. they are commanded to return the desire of the woman, glorifying god.

to not do so is literally characteristic of the antichrist, who may well potentially prove to be a homosexual:

Daniel 11
Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.

Posted: **February 20th, 2020, 2:25 pm**

abijah` wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 2:13 pm
thestock wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 1:54 pmHow is it any different than a person who struggles with alcohol, or fornication, or anything else coming to Church? All should be welcome at Church, as long as they are respectfully while IN church. I dont see why the Church needs to get in the business of performing gay ceremonies or giving out temple recommends just because gay members attend and commune with the congregation....The Church doesnt throw keggers just because alcoholics come to church....
because homosexuality is way worse than all that. you can’t compare having a bender to desecrating the procreative faculties we have been given to create and propagate life. this is the key characteristic that separates god from satan: to have children.

god created adam in His own image. he created eve in the image of adam for an helpmeet. man was made in the likeness of the Creator; women was made in the likeness of the creation. Which is why the earth was cursed, when eve was deceived being at fault.

putting ones penis in the end of another mans digestive tract is nothing but debasement, not just to the men but to that god in who’s image they are. which is why satan and his devils get off on it so much and why god takes such personal offense.

men are not meant to burn their lust on one another. they are commanded to return the desire of the woman, glorifying god.

to not do so is literally characteristic of the antichrist, who may well potentially prove to be a homosexual:

Daniel 11
Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.

Whether the anti christ turns out to be homosexual or not -- which wouldn't surprise me -- he will at the very least have engaged in homosexual sex, as that is a major part, perhaps an ordinance, even, in the great secret combination.

Moses 5:
51 For, from the days of Cain, there was a secret combination, and their works were in the dark, and they knew every man his brother.

If married sex between a man and a woman is an ordinance (which I believe it is), then Satan would have a counterfeit in his upside down Church.

Posted: **February 20th, 2020, 2:27 pm**

Davka wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 2:25 pmWhether the anti christ turns out to be homosexual or not -- which wouldn't surprise me -- he will at the very least have engaged in homosexual sex, as that is a major part, perhaps an ordinance, even, in the great secret combination.

Moses 5:
51 For, from the days of Cain, there was a secret combination, and their works were in the dark, and they knew every man his brother.

If married sex between a man and a woman is an ordinance (which I believe it is), then Satan would have a counterfeit in his upside down Church.

“every man knew his brother”, sounds like sexi stuff

Posted: **February 20th, 2020, 2:35 pm**

Things are upside down when
1) you CANT get a temple recommend when you drink alcohol, including the version oked in scripture (wine for sacrament, mild barely drinks)

2) you CAN have a temple recommend for something condemned in scripture (going after strange flesh, same sex burning in lust for each other, lasciviousness a.k.a. LGBTQ ) including going to pride parades, and apparently showing all signs of outward affection (unrepentant)

3) you CAN go the the temple IN your sins (which scripture says makes the temple unholy and is thereby rejected by Him)
(D&C 97: 17 But if it be defiled I will not come into it, and my glory shall not be there; for I will not come into unholy temples.)

4)you CANT have a beard and serve in the temple, but you CAN be openly and unrepentant LGBTQ, holding hands and kissing on the way into the temple and serve

5) you CANT have a beard at BYU, but you can kiss a member of the same sex on (or off) campus, which makes you “brave” or something like that. But do NOT let that God given facial hair grow...

Posted: **February 20th, 2020, 2:48 pm**

skylight wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 2:35 pm Things are upside down when
1) you CANT get a temple recommend when you drink alcohol, including the version oked in scripture (wine for sacrament, mild barely drinks)

2) you CAN have a temple recommend for something condemned in scripture (going after strange flesh, same sex burning in lust for each other, lasciviousness a.k.a. LGBTQ ) including going to pride parades, and apparently showing all signs of outward affection (unrepentant)

3) you CAN go the the temple IN your sins (which scripture says makes the temple unholy and is thereby rejected by Him)
(D&C 97: 17 But if it be defiled I will not come into it, and my glory shall not be there; for I will not come into unholy temples.)

4)you CANT have a beard and serve in the temple, but you CAN be openly and unrepentant LGBTQ, holding hands and kissing on the way into the temple and serve

5) you CANT have a beard at BYU, but you can kiss a member of the same sex on (or off) campus, which makes you “brave” or something like that. But do NOT let that God given facial hair grow...

I agree with your assessment that the “beard rules”, for BYU, the temple, etc., are outdated and need to be changed.

But for your #1 – this is the same WoW the church has followed for decades. Most LDS don’t have a problem with it. If you do – then that’s on you.

For everything else (which is basically the same point, you just split it into 4) – since when has holding hands, kissing, attending pride parades or showing affection been against the law of chastity?

Posted: **February 20th, 2020, 2:49 pm**

johnBob wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 2:03 pm
thestock wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 1:54 pm
johnBob wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 1:49 pm
thestock wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 1:46 pm
That being said, I do not believe the Church should change its doctrines. I believe same sex couples should be allowed to come to church just like anyone else, but I dont believe the Church should offer to host their secular wedding ceremonies or hand them a temple recommend....
How in the world is the Church going to hold that line? How can you on the one hand allow homosexual couples and marriages into the Church and on the other hand deny them a Temple Recommend.
People don't operate like that . . .the cognitive dissonance . . .
How is it any different than a person who struggles with alcohol, or fornication, or anything else coming to Church? All should be welcome at Church, as long as they are respectfully while IN church. I dont see why the Church needs to get in the business of performing gay ceremonies or giving out temple recommends just because gay members attend and commune with the congregation....The Church doesnt throw keggers just because alcoholics come to church....
So it's appropriate for someone to come to Church with a bottle of beer in their hand and take a swig from it as they drool?

LOL wut?

Posted: **February 20th, 2020, 2:52 pm**

thestock wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 11:47 am

Irrelevant to the discussion but I've come to expect you to attack me for no good reason so....cheers!

First of all, the gospel is the most relevant thing. It's never irrelevant not even to this discussion.

Second, I did not now, nor have I ever, attacked you.

Third, considering immorality a sin does not mean that you hate the people who commit it.

Lastly, this life Is but a millisecond compared to eternity. If anything is irrelevant it is your protected classes as defined by the laws of man.

Posted: **February 20th, 2020, 2:54 pm**

abijah` wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 2:13 pm
thestock wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 1:54 pmHow is it any different than a person who struggles with alcohol, or fornication, or anything else coming to Church? All should be welcome at Church, as long as they are respectfully while IN church. I dont see why the Church needs to get in the business of performing gay ceremonies or giving out temple recommends just because gay members attend and commune with the congregation....The Church doesnt throw keggers just because alcoholics come to church....
because homosexuality is way worse than all that. you can’t compare having a bender to desecrating the procreative faculties we have been given to create and propagate life. this is the key characteristic that separates god from satan: to have children.

god created adam in His own image. he created eve in the image of adam for an helpmeet. man was made in the likeness of the Creator; women was made in the likeness of the creation, the earth. Which is why the earth was cursed, when eve was deceived being at fault.

putting ones penis in the end of another mans digestive tract is nothing but debasement, not just to the men but to that god in who’s image they are. which is why satan and his devils get off on it so much and why god takes such personal offense.

men are not meant to burn their lust on one another. they are commanded to return the desire of the woman, glorifying god.

to not do so is literally characteristic of the antichrist, who may well potentially prove to be a homosexual:

Daniel 11
Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.

You can stack rank sins all you want, but that is just your opinion. I dont really think Christ would shun a gay person who wants to attend church meetings.

Posted: **February 20th, 2020, 2:58 pm**

gangbusters wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 10:40 am No one is a bigger BYU supporter/apologist than I am. I've been texting and emailing people I know about this all morning. I am literally fighting back tears at some points.

Here is the MAJOR issue BYU has gotten themselves into: we all agree that there is a natural progression to our physical affections. When we're teenagers we cuddle, canoodle, make out, etc. Then when we're married we are able to give full expression to our feelings. BYU is putting gay affection into the same category but cutting it off halfway. IOW, it's totally ok to make out, etc, just like heteros, but UNLIKE heteros, you can't give full expression to it when you're married. They're giving the first half full sanction and the other part none. It's ridiculously inconsistent and indefensible. It's either ALL ok or it's not. BYU made a huge mistake in retreating from their line in the sand, and I'm absolutely mortified.

According to BYU, if you're not breaking the law of chastity, you're good. So by that ridiculously generous standard, a married couple living at Wymount could introduce another person into their relationship, AS LONG AS THEY DON'T BREAK THE LAW OF CHASTITY. Makes sense, right? Hell no it doesn't. Both are examples of Godly-sanctioned relationships being perverted.

First of all- Go Aggies! I've never been a BYU fan.

Second- BYU and the church leadership are probably not OK with public expressions of homosexual relationships. However, they aren't going to punish anyone for them. Agency is alive and well. God punishes by withholding blessings and sometimes even by cursing.
President Nelson was very clear in his talk at BYU last year-
"Finally, we also clarified that homosexual immorality would be treated in the eyes of the Church in the same manner as heterosexual immorality"

Posted: **February 20th, 2020, 3:08 pm**

thestock wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 2:54 pmYou can stack rank sins all you want, but that is just your opinion. I dont really think Christ would shun a gay person who wants to attend church meetings.

im probably biased since i used to drink every day. but even still, at least i never brought a flask to sacrament meeting or advertised it in class discussions.

Posted: **February 20th, 2020, 4:07 pm**

Here is what I am seeing right now.
BYU has received negative press about their stance on homosexual behavior, as stated in the previous honor code. To appease those who were de-listing them from scientific publications, and to head off sports teams who have threatened to boycott games with BYU, they quietly deleted the paragraph on homosexuality from the Honor Code. When this was discovered, some students were told that straights and gays could display the same behavior on campus that the honor code allows. Then BYU puts out a statement that there was some misunderstanding, BUT they didn't clarify exactly what that was. They said they would clarify today. Still waiting on that clarification.......

Then the story gets picked up by SLTrib, Deseret News, Yahoo News, the NY Times, the NY Post, and probably others.

Now what to do? If they reinstate the ban against gay dates and PDA, they will have the same problem, only worse, that they were trying to solve. They seem to want to look more accepting about LGBTQ student activity, without actually changing anything.

I wonder how many phones calls, texts, and emails there have been in the past 24 hours from 50 N Temple to BYU admins?

It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic for all concerned.

Posted: **February 20th, 2020, 4:16 pm**

Homosexuality seems to be a unique sin (although lately Abortion has been catching up) in that it is the only sin that people take pride in. Pride in either participating in homosexual acts or pride in wanting to be identified as a homosexual. If you support same-sex marriage then you support what same-sex couples do in the bedroom. It may be private, but we all know what happens. The media has slowly educated us about this over the past 50 years or so. No one in a same-sex marriage is struggling with their homosexuality. They have already chosen where they stand. What they want is to be told that it's okay; okay with their fellow humans and okay with God. An openly "gay" couple sitting quietly in the Church pew is making a statement. Just like the media, they are "educating us" to think of their behaviour as normal. If we say nothing, it is giving silent consent to how they behave. We will ultimately accept practicing homosexuals because we are afraid to speak up, afraid to be embarassed or afraid that we will lose our reputations or our job. Our children will accept practicing homosexuals because they see that we have accepted such people, even while they practice or parade their sin. On a personal note: I am now retired. I have three small pensions (old age, Canada pension, provincial pension). If I live long enough, there will come a time when those pensions may be withheld from me on the basis of my "hate crime" of thinking LTBGXXX people are immoral and sinful. I certainly would not be surprised.

Posted: **February 20th, 2020, 4:34 pm**

mike_rumble wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 4:16 pm Homosexuality seems to be a unique sin (although lately Abortion has been catching up) in that it is the only sin that people take pride in. Pride in either participating in homosexual acts or pride in wanting to be identified as a homosexual. If you support same-sex marriage then you support what same-sex couples do in the bedroom. It may be private, but we all know what happens. The media has slowly educated us about this over the past 50 years or so. No one in a same-sex marriage is struggling with their homosexuality. They have already chosen where they stand. What they want is to be told that it's okay; okay with their fellow humans and okay with God. An openly "gay" couple sitting quietly in the Church pew is making a statement. Just like the media, they are "educating us" to think of their behaviour as normal. If we say nothing, it is giving silent consent to how they behave. We will ultimately accept practicing homosexuals because we are afraid to speak up, afraid to be embarassed or afraid that we will lose our reputations or our job. Our children will accept practicing homosexuals because they see that we have accepted such people, even while they practice or parade their sin. On a personal note: I am now retired. I have three small pensions (old age, Canada pension, provincial pension). If I live long enough, there will come a time when those pensions may be withheld from me on the basis of my "hate crime" of thinking LTBGXXX people are immoral and sinful. I certainly would not be surprised.

Or maybe they just like being gay, are happy being gay, and they don’t care what you think about that? I highly doubt other people’s sexuality is all about you accepting it. Lol

Posted: **February 20th, 2020, 4:57 pm**

thestock wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 4:34 pm
mike_rumble wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 4:16 pm Homosexuality seems to be a unique sin (although lately Abortion has been catching up) in that it is the only sin that people take pride in. Pride in either participating in homosexual acts or pride in wanting to be identified as a homosexual. If you support same-sex marriage then you support what same-sex couples do in the bedroom. It may be private, but we all know what happens. The media has slowly educated us about this over the past 50 years or so. No one in a same-sex marriage is struggling with their homosexuality. They have already chosen where they stand. What they want is to be told that it's okay; okay with their fellow humans and okay with God. An openly "gay" couple sitting quietly in the Church pew is making a statement. Just like the media, they are "educating us" to think of their behaviour as normal. If we say nothing, it is giving silent consent to how they behave. We will ultimately accept practicing homosexuals because we are afraid to speak up, afraid to be embarassed or afraid that we will lose our reputations or our job. Our children will accept practicing homosexuals because they see that we have accepted such people, even while they practice or parade their sin. On a personal note: I am now retired. I have three small pensions (old age, Canada pension, provincial pension). If I live long enough, there will come a time when those pensions may be withheld from me on the basis of my "hate crime" of thinking LTBGXXX people are immoral and sinful. I certainly would not be surprised.
Or maybe they just like being gay, are happy being gay, and they don’t care what you think about that? I highly doubt other people’s sexuality is all about you accepting it. Lol

Nice. I had planned a point-by-point rebuttal to Mike’s opinions on what he “believes” about homosexuals, but you summed it up perfectly in two sentences. Good work.

Posted: **February 20th, 2020, 5:02 pm**

Yes, maybe they just like being 'gay'. Never said that wasn't a possibility. Plenty of folks love partaking in all kinds of sin. Much of our economy is based on that fact. I'm quite sure they don't care what I think about it, and you probably don't care about what I think either. That's okay with me. I'm not here to change anyone's mind, just to enjoy the exchange of ideas.

Posted: **February 20th, 2020, 5:05 pm**

thestock wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 4:34 pm
mike_rumble wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 4:16 pm Homosexuality seems to be a unique sin (although lately Abortion has been catching up) in that it is the only sin that people take pride in. Pride in either participating in homosexual acts or pride in wanting to be identified as a homosexual. If you support same-sex marriage then you support what same-sex couples do in the bedroom. It may be private, but we all know what happens. The media has slowly educated us about this over the past 50 years or so. No one in a same-sex marriage is struggling with their homosexuality. They have already chosen where they stand. What they want is to be told that it's okay; okay with their fellow humans and okay with God. An openly "gay" couple sitting quietly in the Church pew is making a statement. Just like the media, they are "educating us" to think of their behaviour as normal. If we say nothing, it is giving silent consent to how they behave. We will ultimately accept practicing homosexuals because we are afraid to speak up, afraid to be embarassed or afraid that we will lose our reputations or our job. Our children will accept practicing homosexuals because they see that we have accepted such people, even while they practice or parade their sin. On a personal note: I am now retired. I have three small pensions (old age, Canada pension, provincial pension). If I live long enough, there will come a time when those pensions may be withheld from me on the basis of my "hate crime" of thinking LTBGXXX people are immoral and sinful. I certainly would not be surprised.
Or maybe they just like being gay, are happy being gay, and they don’t care what you think about that? I highly doubt other people’s sexuality is all about you accepting it. Lol

I have never met a homosexual who is truly happy.
It's a thoroughly miserable existence.

LDS Freedom Forum

If you are still confused about BYU/gay stuff

Re: If you are still confused about BYU/gay stuff

Re: If you are still confused about BYU/gay stuff

Re: If you are still confused about BYU/gay stuff

Re: If you are still confused about BYU/gay stuff

Re: If you are still confused about BYU/gay stuff

Re: If you are still confused about BYU/gay stuff

Re: If you are still confused about BYU/gay stuff

Re: If you are still confused about BYU/gay stuff

Re: If you are still confused about BYU/gay stuff

Re: If you are still confused about BYU/gay stuff

Re: If you are still confused about BYU/gay stuff

Re: If you are still confused about BYU/gay stuff

Re: If you are still confused about BYU/gay stuff

Re: If you are still confused about BYU/gay stuff

Re: If you are still confused about BYU/gay stuff

Re: If you are still confused about BYU/gay stuff

Re: If you are still confused about BYU/gay stuff

Re: If you are still confused about BYU/gay stuff

Re: If you are still confused about BYU/gay stuff

Re: If you are still confused about BYU/gay stuff

Re: If you are still confused about BYU/gay stuff

Re: If you are still confused about BYU/gay stuff

Re: If you are still confused about BYU/gay stuff

Re: If you are still confused about BYU/gay stuff

Re: If you are still confused about BYU/gay stuff