• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

LDS

Status
Not open for further replies.
skyrider44 said:
Yes, you said that, but that isn't all you said, and it isn't the statement of your making to which I responded. In Post 8407, dated Oct. 18 [responding to Janadele] you wrote: "Again, I ask the question you have never answered: How can anything that happens among consenting adults lin the privacy of my home affect you, in any way at all" [emphasis added].

I don't know anything about your home, but inasmuch as you were using it to make a representative, universal point, what I know or don't know about your home is irrelevant. The fact is, events can and do transpire between consenting adults in the privacy of their homes that affect the citizenry at large. Examples: they run a drug business out of their homes. . .they grow pot in their basements. . .they set up a counterfeiting operation. . . they design and implement an internet scam. . .they hack their way into sensitive government documents. Perhaps, however, you had sexual relationships in mind when you wrote what you did. I assume you are aware that near-suffocation of a female during intercourse is believed to heighten erotic pleasure. Sometimes that practice, carried too far, leaves the woman brain damaged. She ends up on in a long-term care facility on a ventilator. They have no medical insurance, nor do they have the resources to pay out-of-pocket. Who then finances the woman's care?

Your statement (the one to which I responded) simply isn't true. It's both simplistic and naive.
Click to expand...

Speaking of simplistic and naïve...

I'm sure we all noticed that you didn't actually come up with anything specific to the question. All you offered was a bunch of impertinent situations without ever actually stating how two people of the same gender forming a domestic partnership might adversely impact your life. All you seemed to be able to offer was the fact that a small percentage of people are into some pretty extreme practices that might put an individual at risk. I would like you to answer the following questions:

1. What does this have to do with homosexual domestic partnerships?

2. How does your observation not also apply to heterosexual relations as well?

If you do not directly address either of the above queries, I will know that your comment regarding Slowvehicle's "simplicity" and "naïveté" were so much hyperbolic puffery.
 
Foster Zygote said:
Speaking of simplistic and naïve...

I'm sure we all noticed that you didn't actually come up with anything specific to the question. All you offered was a bunch of impertinent situations without ever actually stating how two people of the same gender forming a domestic partnership might adversely impact your life. All you seemed to be able to offer was the fact that a small percentage of people are into some pretty extreme practices that might put an individual at risk. I would like you to answer the following questions:

1. What does this have to do with homosexual domestic partnerships?

2. How does your observation not also apply to heterosexual relations as well?

If you do not directly address either of the above queries, I will know that your comment regarding Slowvehicle's "simplicity" and "naïveté" were so much hyperbolic puffery.
Click to expand...

I took his sloppy evasiveness as an admission that he HAD no specific argument against same-sex marriage. If he did, he'd have presented it. He appears to be arguing in favor of Theocratic control of the lives of individuals, regardless of if they're members of his church or not. His reply only makes sense in the context of arguing for a theocracy.

I'm fascinated by his attitude. In one of the recent Irreligiosophy episodes, one of the hosts mentioned his Father being excited about marriage equality, because he thought that polygamy would be a logical next step. I wonder at the psychology of extremism, that leads some extremists to embrace marriage equality as a stepping stone to legalizing their own faith's marital quirks, while another extremist of the same religion despises marriage equality in what appears to be part of a justification for theocracy.
 
skyrider44 said:
Some unmarried consenting adults, in the privacy of their homes (or elsewhere), fail to pactice contraception. It is not unusual for the males, on learning that the females are pregnant, to disappear. Who then do you suppose supports the unwed mothers and their children?

Is it your position that welfare funding, amounting to billions and billions of dollars annually, doesn't affect in "any way at all" the taxes you pay? How about the children who grow up without a male role model and find one in street gangs?
Click to expand...

So gay people shouldn't be allowed to form state recognized domestic partnerships because one of them might bet pregnant and then be abandoned by his/her partner?
 
skyrider44 said:
SV is on record as declaring that what consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes has no effect on anyone else.
Click to expand...
Is that really what he said, or are you once again twisting the argument so that you can address some strawman rather than the real issue.

That statement breaks new ground in absurdity.
Click to expand...
You are, I'm quite sure, fully aware that Slowvehicle did not argue that no one could do anything in the privacy of their own homes that causes harm to others. He was, as is transparently obvious, arguing that a domestic partnership between consenting, law abiding adults of the same gender does not impinge on your rights or daily activities at all. The fact that you cannot offer any specific negative effect intrinsically associated with homosexual partnerships that could not also apply to heterosexuals demonstrates your knowing attempt to cover up the deficiency of your own preposterous argument. Talk about absurd...
 
Foster Zygote said:
The fact that you cannot offer any specific negative effect intrinsically associated with homosexual partnerships that could not also apply to heterosexuals demonstrates your knowing attempt to cover up the deficiency of your own preposterous argument. Talk about absurd...
Click to expand...

It's also stunning simplistic and naive to think one could slip such a transparent straw man past the posters on a forum for skeptics. Bearing false witness like that may work from the pulpit, but not when there are people willing to fact check.
 
Last edited:
As the topic of gay marriage has been discussed and the LDS are clearly against it, what's the official church policy on the legality of homosexuality?
Are they against it being legal and what punishment would they like to have introduced, if they believe that it should be illegal?
 
Dissolution said:
As the topic of gay marriage has been discussed and the LDS are clearly against it, what's the official church policy on the legality of homosexuality?
Are they against it being legal and what punishment would they like to have introduced, if they believe that it should be illegal?
Click to expand...

From what little I understand, They don't have a stance on the legality of homosexual activity or the like. And they are accepting of Homosexuals, as long as you are chaste, and engage in no sexual activity at all.
 
Shalamar said:
From what little I understand, They don't have a stance on the legality of homosexual activity or the like. And they are accepting of Homosexuals, as long as you are chaste, and engage in no sexual activity at all.
Click to expand...

I wonder what Jan and Sky will make if this web site's claims:

Love One Another: A Discussion on Same-Sex Attraction

The experience of same-sex attraction is a complex reality for many people. The attraction itself is not a sin, but acting on it is. Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them. With love and understanding, the Church reaches out to all God’s children, including our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters.
Click to expand...
 
I suspect Jan and sky would agree with it. I don't believe the church any longer encourages gay and lesbian members to marry against their attraction, although my understanding is that, unofficially at least, they used to.

But they do expect them to live in accordance with the Law of Chastity. Sex only within the boundaries of marriage. Since the LDS church opposes gay marriage, that means that if you happen to be gay, you're stuck in a sexless life. This is apparently their softened view. :rolleyes:

And I don't think masturbation is even allowed (though what that could possibly do since it doesn't affect anyone else is beyond me) so gay and lesbian members who wish to remain in good standing must be celibate and have absolutely no sexual outlet.

We all know how well that works out for the Catholic Priesthood.
 
Janadele said:
Incorrect... as usual.
Click to expand...

Where DO you get the idea that the "rules" your sect invented for members should be applied to everyone, even (or especially) non-members?

I mean, seriously: if you and yours want to get together and sing hymns about "eternal law", and tell each other how to act, I have absolutely no problem with it--It affects me and mine no more than Cubs fans.

However, when you come out of your fastnesses, and pretend that your "rules" must be applied across the board, you make no more sense than if you were to picket a performance cycle of Der Ring des Niebelungen because it was not done bel canto, or because there were no banjos.

You should stop worrying so much--play your game on your field by your rules, and let everyone else do the same.

BTW, if halleyscomet is, in fact, incorrect, consider a substantive response instead of pointless silly smileys or OT copypasta. Demonstrate why.
 
Last edited:
Janadele said:
Incorrect... as usual.
Click to expand...

Oh really?

Pray tell, oh stoic copypasta gatherer, where have I been wrong, save on assuming you had conceded my points when you posted only a string of smileys?

I'm waiting.

I expect you'll answer me about as thoroughly as you've answered my repeated request for your rationale for trying to impose Mormon ideas about gay rights upon non-Mormons. That is to say, not at all.
 
Janadele said:
Then your wait will be long :) enjoy it :p the reason should be obvious, check my profile.
Click to expand...

Okay, I checked it. You have several friends and a note from a banned member. That was exciting.

If you meant for us to check your response to a post, you might do us the courtesy of pointing to the post in question. After all, you have nearly 2000 of them, not counting those in AAH.

And the forum software doesn't allow us to search an individual's posts for ones containing original thought rather than copypasta, sorry.
 
I can't help but notice that we still have no explanation as to why some LDS members feel that their values and rules should apply to non-members.

Janadele and/or Skyrider44, please address this point at your earliest convenience.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom