In defense of the LDS Church

[_Ray A]

Homosexuality is a perversion. I see nothing positive coming out of such relationships (note: relationships, not the people involved in them). I want to ask you if you have you ever had real interactions with the gay community or had close gay friends who would share what goes on with you. I think until you do that you're pontificating about a phenomenon you don't understand. I'll tell you what I found in it. Pain, despair, and hurt. I hate this sin. It is hurting my brothers and sisters.

From the LDS point of view, anything but the missionary position is a perversion.

[_The Nehor]

I want to ask you if you have you ever had real interactions with the gay community or had close gay friends who would share what goes on with you.

What do you mean by "the gay community"?

Are you referring to activists?

I have some very good friends who are gay. They live pretty normal lives. They work. They have families, etc. They have ups and downs as couples just like any heterosexual couple has.

The gay friends I associate with are in their early 30's. I also have a very close gay friend who is my age, in his mid 40's.

Please elaborate on what you are referring to.

What I learned from my gay friends going from 18 to 40's, watching some go from age of consent till today. Watching one 18 year old friend used and broken in many ways by a 40 year old using him for sex and his remarks that such relationships are not uncommon (they're not). Watching the pain as my friend went from straight (and much better at getting girls then me) to experimentation to claiming bisexuality to homosexuality to the perversions often associated with homosexuality. He is a shell of who he used to be but is starting to recover. I blame a good portion of what happened to him on a manipulative older guy who pretended to be his friend, got him drunk, and then started remolding his sexual urges.

Again, I see pain, suffering, and hurt. I HATE IT. If hating these things and wanting the cause eradicated makes me a bigot, then I cringe at what the meaning of bigotry has become.

[_The Nehor]

Homosexuality is a perversion. I see nothing positive coming out of such relationships (note: relationships, not the people involved in them). I want to ask you if you have you ever had real interactions with the gay community or had close gay friends who would share what goes on with you. I think until you do that you're pontificating about a phenomenon you don't understand. I'll tell you what I found in it. Pain, despair, and hurt. I hate this sin. It is hurting my brothers and sisters.

From the LDS point of view, anything but the missionary position is a perversion.

Uhhhhh......no. I defined some of what I consider to be perversion in this very thread. Try reading it.

[_JohnStuartMill]

What I learned from my gay friends going from 18 to 40's, watching some go from age of consent till today. Watching one 18 year old friend used and broken in many ways by a 40 year old using him for sex and his remarks that such relationships are not uncommon (they're not). Watching the pain as my friend went from straight (and much better at getting girls then me) to experimentation to claiming bisexuality to homosexuality to the perversions often associated with homosexuality. He is a shell of who he used to be but is starting to recover. I blame a good portion of what happened to him on a manipulative older guy who pretended to be his friend, got him drunk, and then started remolding his sexual urges.

Again, I see pain, suffering, and hurt. I HATE IT. If hating these things and wanting the cause eradicated makes me a bigot, then I cringe at what the meaning of bigotry has become.

What on Earth could YOU, a Mormon, possibly have against sexual relationships between teenagers and older men? How much of this "pain, suffering, and hurt" could describe Helen Mar Kimball's feelings after the founder of your Church "used and broke" her? I suspect that the answer is "quite a lot". Just as Joseph Smith's appetite for younger women does not constitute an effective argument against letting heterosexuals or Mormons get married, neither does your anecdote about a predatory gay man constitute an effective argument against letting truly consensual gay couples get married.

[_The Nehor]

The homosexual marriage and African-American marriage are not comparable in that way at all.

My main argument (after that God commanded it) about why homosexual marriage should not be allowed is that homosexuality is innately repugnant. Asking me why I feel homosexuality is wrong is like asking me why I think pedophilia or murder is wrong. It simply is.

Your system of morality must be pretty bankrupt if it can't even account for the immorality of pedophilia an murder.

Please point out to me the error in this argument: "Asking me why I feel Mormonism is wrong is like asking me why I think pedophilia or murder is wrong. It simply is." According to you, there is none, and therefore Mormonism is wrong.

I can quote studies of how damaging it is to participants but everyone seems to hold out that it's unfair to discriminate against this mythical ideal homosexual couple (who I have never met or seen or heard of in all my interactions with the gay community) despite how bad it is for everyone else. It seems the reponse is that not everyone participates in these things who is homosexual. I see it in the same light as I see computer-generated child pornography. I don't care if some people who view it will never go on to molest children. I WANT IT GONE.

Yes, because your morality is based on what you personally find unappealing, not on any kind of rational basis. This is the same ethical reasoning that has led various civilizations to rail against the abomination that is interracial marriage, or the abject depravity of eating beans.

Homosexuality is a perversion. I see nothing positive coming out of such relationships (note: relationships, not the people involved in them). I want to ask you if you have you ever had real interactions with the gay community or had close gay friends who would share what goes on with you. I think until you do that you're pontificating about a phenomenon you don't understand. I'll tell you what I found in it. Pain, despair, and hurt. I hate this sin. It is hurting my brothers and sisters.

Actually, it seems that I'm some kind of outlier, because most of my gay and lesbian friends are in committed relationships that they've been in for years. I think this is because I'm relatively young, and that the young gay culture I interact with is more monogamous because it hasn't had to accommodate charges of "perversion" in their sexual identity as much as the older generation of gays has. It seems to me that people like you and Droopy are what's messing up these people's lives, NOT their God-given predilection for same-sex partners.

My system of morality trusts my inborn disgust at murder and pedophilia. I find those who consider homosexuality acceptable to be morally bankrupt. I want that revulsion back. I also want it back about adultery and numerous other sins. As to your argument if you feel that Mormonism is repulsive on the same level as murder and pedophilia and that it is a fundamental wrong I encourage you to try to destroy it. I will fight you though.

Of course my morality is based on what is unappealing. Morality doesn't HAVE A RATIONAL BASIS. Why should I not kill everyone who disagrees with me? Because they have rights? Why should they have rights? That's an emotional reaction not a rational one. I can't rationally come up with a reason that humanity should have rights except that I think they should. I can argue against pedophilia on the grounds that it harms children but why do I feel that harming children is worse then harming adults unless it's just an emotional reaction? I can argue against adultery because I feel that the pain and sorrow it brings is not worth the gratification but that's only because I have a desire (not rational) to avoid pain.

I do not accept that their predilection is God-given. I do not see how I am messing up their lives. I've read the statistics. They seem to do a fairly good job of messing them up without my help. Still, I freely admit that I would be much happier if they would leave Babylon. I have little interest in trying to make it a nicer place.

[_JohnStuartMill]

To say that something has no rational basis is to say that it has NO basis.

If morality has no rational basis, then how could you prefer one system over another? You'd have no reason to do so. You might as well say "arf darf kablooey chargey-margey rammalamma ding-dong, therefore we must fight Mormonism to the death".

Contrary to your nihilistic viewpoint, morality DOES have a rational basis. What this basis is is disputed (although I myself believe that the question is pretty much settled in utilitarianism's favor), but it's possible -- indeed preferable -- to believe in a binding morality without introducing supernatural elements.

http://fair-use.org/john-stuart-mill/ut ... hapter-iii

[_The Nehor]

What I learned from my gay friends going from 18 to 40's, watching some go from age of consent till today. Watching one 18 year old friend used and broken in many ways by a 40 year old using him for sex and his remarks that such relationships are not uncommon (they're not). Watching the pain as my friend went from straight (and much better at getting girls then me) to experimentation to claiming bisexuality to homosexuality to the perversions often associated with homosexuality. He is a shell of who he used to be but is starting to recover. I blame a good portion of what happened to him on a manipulative older guy who pretended to be his friend, got him drunk, and then started remolding his sexual urges.

Again, I see pain, suffering, and hurt. I HATE IT. If hating these things and wanting the cause eradicated makes me a bigot, then I cringe at what the meaning of bigotry has become.

What on Earth could YOU, a Mormon, possibly have against sexual relationships between teenagers and older men? How much of this "pain, suffering, and hurt" could describe Helen Mar Kimball's feelings after the founder of your Church "used and broke" her? I suspect that the answer is "quite a lot". Just as Joseph Smith's appetite for younger women does not constitute an effective argument against letting heterosexuals or Mormons get married, neither does your anecdote about a predatory gay man constitute an effective argument against letting truly consensual gay couples get married.

You can suspect the answer all you want. I haven't seen proof that he did 'use' her. Even less that he 'broke' her. Still suspician seems to be enough to hang him for you. Then you construct an appetite from this....hmmmm....

It may not on it's own be an effective argument. It is, however, a real argument. As I said before, my main argument is that it is fundamentally wrong. I don't see good coming out of it. I use that as my main indicator, that and that it disgusts me. It has been my experience that most of the human race finds it disgusting. If they still do in California, then I figure they feel the same way elsewhere. I can't rationally explain such a thing to everyone's satisfaction. I'm okay with this. I do know it's wrong and I will keep fighting it until the day comes that we lose.

[_JohnStuartMill]

Broccoli disgusts me. Therefore, eating broccoli is morally wrong.

Don't tell me you're too dumb to recognize the error in that logic.

[_The Nehor]

To say that something has no rational basis is to say that it has NO basis.

If morality has no rational basis, then how could you prefer one system over another? You'd have no reason to do so. You might as well say "arf darf kablooey chargey-margey rammalamma ding-dong, therefore we must fight Mormonism to the death".

Contrary to your nihilistic viewpoint, morality DOES have a rational basis. What this basis is is disputed (although I myself believe that the question is pretty much settled in utilitarianism's favor), but it's possible -- indeed preferable -- to believe in a binding morality without introducing supernatural elements.

http://fair-use.org/john-stuart-mill/ut ... hapter-iii

Morality is always based on some preconceptions that can't be explained rationally. When you get into more complex situations then yes, rationality is used to adjudicate between two moral stances.

For example, killing is wrong is one preconception. Another could be that we owe a sense of duty to our tribe/nation. Another could be that we have a right to self-defense. Okay, now someone is considering joining the armed forces of their nation at war. They have to rationalize between the moral stances to determine which is more important and which has priority in this situation. This is why from the same moral base people can be pacifists and non-pacifists. There is room for rationality there.

However, when you get down to base principles such as:

"The Human race should survive."
"I must protect my children."
"I must defend my people."

there is no way to rationalize them except to argue that they are instincts. If they are just instincts why should I be bothered to follow them? Why should I want the human race (or even myself to survive)? Why do I owe my children protection? Why do I owe my people anything at all? I can't answer these questions except to say that I want the human race to survive, will protect my children, and will defend my people because I consider it to be right.

[Guest]

You can suspect the answer all you want. I haven't seen proof that he did 'use' her. Even less that he 'broke' her. Still suspician seems to be enough to hang him for you. Then you construct an appetite from this....hmmmm...

Interesting, isn't it, that you require a much higher burden of proof for the idea that Smith had sexual relations with his plural wives than for the idea that an omniscient cosmic ape helped him translate millennia-old gold plates into a story about an enormous civilization in the New World, for which no evidence whatsoever exists. I wonder if this double-standard has anything to do with the fact that you were inculcated in the latter belief since childhood?

It may not on it's own be an effective argument. It is, however, a real argument. As I said before, my main argument is that it is fundamentally wrong. I don't see good coming out of it. I use that as my main indicator, that and that it disgusts me. It has been my experience that most of the human race finds it disgusting. If they still do in California, then I figure they feel the same way elsewhere. I can't rationally explain such a thing to everyone's satisfaction. I'm okay with this. I do know it's wrong and I will keep fighting it until the day comes that we lose.

I admire your bravery, as well as your willingness to acknowledge that you are on the losing side of the war.