In defense of the LDS Church

[_Droopy]

Well, the problem is that homosexuality is not immoral per se and, moreover, the LDS Church's views on and actions towards homosexuals is immoral.

Calling evil good and good evil is otherwise known as Korihorism, and it has many variants, otherwise known as leftism or social liberalism (or, perhaps more appropriately, social libertineism).

The inversion of moral categories and values are the key. Its not enough just to seek a loosening of standards or moral compromise, we must invert the normative concepts. This actually moves beyond moral relativism and into the turning of normative moral concepts on their heads.

Eallusion seeks the utter destruction of Judeo-Christian moral ideals and boundries...just like all true leftist social radicals.

[_JohnStuartMill]

Monogamy doesn't allow "three-ways" but heterosexuality certainly does. Once again, you have not linked this behavior to homosexuality any more than to heterosexuality.

So a monogamous homosexual relationship would have no problem with your definition.

Yet those are so very rare. Do the research. Compare how many heterosexual relationships have an agreement to allow sexual activity with outsiders to how many homosexual relationships do. Read up on it.

Even if this were found to be true, would it be so surprising, given that homosexuality is deemed to perverted, and that homosexuals have historically been unable to marry? Think about it: if someone told you that your sexuality itself was immoral, would you have many qualms with other things that society frowns upon, such as multi-partner relationships?

Who's to say that these multi-partner relationships are wrong, anyway? That seems an awfully strange premise for a Mormon to hold, given that polygamy is regarded as a divine institution in your religion.

Finally, it's important to point out that you are (very conveniently) ignoring lesbians, who have extremely high rates of monogamy, in your analysis. Lesbians meet your secular criteria for marriage: they form committed relationships, and are very good at raising families. Would you let them marry? Of course not, because you have decided to blindly follow the fatwas of a dozen old white Utahrds (and honorary Utahrds) instead of reason. How pathetic.

[Guest]

1. It is in defiance of divine will.

True, and probably the most important point, in and of itself, of the group.

2. It is almost always polyamorous and there are VERY few monogamous homosexual couples.

This is an empirical and historical reality for which there is centuries of cultural experience and no counter-argument. This aspect, particularly of male homosexuality, was celebrated by the Gay liberation movement in the late sixties through the seventies, and only in the decade after the eighties did there fully emerge the new cause celeb of homosexual "marriage", in which homosexuals want their sexuality to be perceived as simply an alternative to yet essentially identical with, heterosexual relations.

3. It cuts off the fountain of life and prevents reproduction.

Also no counter-argument possible.

4. It is more often associated with perversion then heterosexual relationships.

Also quite correct.

5. This is an observed behavior but homosexual relationships seem to be more about sex then commitment and love.

Anyone who has observed or lived around homosexuals to any substantial degree has also more than likely come to this conclusion.

I think that is enough to start. I consider it a dangerous phenomenon. Rampant homosexuality is not a new thing. In history it was always eventually removed from public acceptance again and labeled immoral again. Why? I suspect people were unhappy by the social effects of the practice and drove it away. I can only hope that history will repeat itself.

Probably not, considering that we are, in very point of fact, in the Last Days. It will probably continue to metastasize...until the very end. They will be eating and drinking, and being merry, and marrying and giving in marriage, just as many heterosexuals will be, when Christ comes as a thief in the night.

[_Gadianton]

Let me ask you this Droopy, sometimes you religious folk say that wicked people like EA -- and EA is definitely wicked, I will not dispute this -- turn bad good and good bad, but sometimes they say wicked people like EA tell 99 truths in order to sneak in one lie. So, I've always wondered, is the anti-Christ a metamerism of Christ or Christ minus one percent?

[_Droopy]

Bull. You just made that up.

No, I didn't. Unless you buy into the idea that monogamy allows three-ways. The closed gay monogamous relationship is the exception, not the rule. Are you close enough friends with any gay people to know anything about the lifestyle that has grown up around it? I am.

An example:

http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/g ... ever-after[/quote]
Monogamy doesn't allow "three-ways" but heterosexuality certainly does. Once again, you have not linked this behavior to homosexuality any more than to heterosexuality.

So a monogamous homosexual relationship would have no problem with your definition.[/quote]


Why don't you just bow out of the debate John, as all you seem to be able to provide to Nehor as a counter-argument is "neener, neener, neener"?

[_Droopy]

John Larson:

Bull. You just made that up.

No, I didn't. Unless you buy into the idea that monogamy allows three-ways. The closed gay monogamous relationship is the exception, not the rule. Are you close enough friends with any gay people to know anything about the lifestyle that has grown up around it? I am.

An example:

http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/g ... ever-after

Monogamy doesn't allow "three-ways" but heterosexuality certainly does. Once again, you have not linked this behavior to homosexuality any more than to heterosexuality.

John Larson:

So a monogamous homosexual relationship would have no problem with your definition.

Why don't you just bow out of the debate John, as all you seem to be able to provide to Nehor as a counter-argument is "neener, neener, neener"?

[_Droopy]

John Larson:

Bull. You just made that up.

No, I didn't. Unless you buy into the idea that monogamy allows three-ways. The closed gay monogamous relationship is the exception, not the rule. Are you close enough friends with any gay people to know anything about the lifestyle that has grown up around it? I am.

An example:

http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/g ... ever-after

John Larson:

Monogamy doesn't allow "three-ways" but heterosexuality certainly does. Once again, you have not linked this behavior to homosexuality any more than to heterosexuality. So a monogamous homosexual relationship would have no problem with your definition.

Why don't you just bow out of the debate John, as all you seem to be able to provide to Nehor as a counter-argument is "neener, neener, neener"?

[_moksha]

I think so. Just remember back to last year when one or two of the posters said incredibly disparaging things about homosexuals.

You have a weird idea of what morality entails.

The "TOO" part of that morality consisted of taking such a harsh stance against homosexuals that it was done in a very disparaging manner. This of course runs counter to Jesus' greatest commandment that we should love one another. I have heard the oft repeated slogan at Church that we should hate the sin but love the sinner. The remarks in question were a result of too much emphasis being placed on the hate portion of that slogan, while unfortunately overlooking the more important love part. To me, the emphasis on the latter part is what authentic morality entails.

.

[_JohnStuartMill]

No, John has a point: not all homosexual relationships are promiscuous. Why would we condemn those relationships as immoral just because some other homosexuals fool around?

The argument that homosexuality is immoral because homosexuals are statistically more likely to engage in promiscuous behavior is idiotic. African-Americans are statistically more likely to engage in promiscuous behavior; Droopy must believe, then, that it's immoral to be black.

I think Droopy needs to experience some of the world outside his Utah compound.

[_Droopy]

No, John has a point: not all homosexual relationships are promiscuous. Why would we condemn those relationships as immoral just because some other homosexuals fool around?

Homosexuality is a perversion of human sexuality wholly outside the laws of God and the boundaries he has set to human sexual relationships. The aggressive promiscuity is fundamental to homosexuality as a sexual fetish/orientation but tangential to its classification as a sexual sin and perversion, from a Gospel perspective.

The argument that homosexuality is immoral because homosexuals are statistically more likely to engage in promiscuous behavior is idiotic. African-Americans are statistically more likely to engage in promiscuous behavior; Droopy must believe, then, that it's immoral to be black.

Yes it would be, but Nehor has not made that argument.

You set up a transparent strawman here and knocked it over quite nicely, but the mustard won't be cut in this way. Homosexuality as a sexual orientation and as a sub-cultural self identification (Gay) is aggressively promiscuous because of inherent psychological, social, and spiritual features of the practice. The higher rates of social pathology among blacks as a group have to do with complex aspects of culture, not core aspects of gender identity that only inhere in a tiny demographic group (perhaps three percent of the population). Interestingly, American blacks came out against Prop 8 in disproportionate numbers.

I think Droopy needs to experience some of the world outside his Utah compound.

I consider myself a native Washingtonian and Californian. I've never lived in Utah (save for a few months, in the eighties).