barrelomonkeys wrote:Oh! And I would definitely have lesbian sex to help ease societal ills.
Ok, that's just HOT.....now my imagination is running rampant.
I think actually this may be on to something.
Imagine if women were just all over each other all the time with men standing with mouths agape and tongues lolling how much more peace and tranquility there would be in this world?
Quite a bit! Maybe a few lesbian/dyke tussles thrown into the mix. But all in all probably a bit of a better world.
That settles it. We'll just have to have lesbian sex and let these guys watch to save the world! ;)
barrelomonkeys wrote:Oh! And I would definitely have lesbian sex to help ease societal ills.
Ok, that's just HOT.....now my imagination is running rampant.
I think actually this may be on to something.
Imagine if women were just all over each other all the time with men standing with mouths agape and tongues lolling how much more peace and tranquility there would be in this world?
Quite a bit! Maybe a few lesbian/dyke tussles thrown into the mix. But all in all probably a bit of a better world.
That settles it. We'll just have to have lesbian sex and let these guys watch to save the world! ;)
WOO HOO!!!
If there's one thing I've learned from this board, it's that consensual sex with multiple partners is okay unless God commands it. - Abman
I find this place to be hostile toward all brands of stupidity. That's why I like it. - Some Schmo
liz3564 wrote: That settles it. We'll just have to have lesbian sex and let these guys watch to save the world! ;)
Why do we need to save the world? How about you just have lesbian sex and let us watch?
"We of this Church do not rely on any man-made statement concerning the nature of Deity. Our knowledge comes directly from the personal experience of Joseph Smith." - Gordon B. Hinckley
"It's wrong to criticize leaders of the Mormon Church even if the criticism is true." - Dallin H. Oaks
1. Yes, if I knew it was Osama and I knew what he'd do.
2. Yes, if it were the guy who played Harm (lead hunk) on JAG. Instead of this, however, I'd generously offer to have sex with Catherine Bill (lead vixen) on JAG.
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."
liz3564 wrote: That settles it. We'll just have to have lesbian sex and let these guys watch to save the world! ;)
Why do we need to save the world? How about you just have lesbian sex and let us watch?
You have to wear tie-die, smell like patchouli, hold both hands up in the form of a peace sign, and make banners that declare it's all being done for "World Peace".
guy sajer wrote:....Catherine Bill (lead vixen) on JAG.
OMG! She's a fox! (Even if she is a scientologist.)
"Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded."-charity 3/7/07
guy sajer wrote:....Catherine Bill (lead vixen) on JAG.
OMG! She's a fox! (Even if she is a scientologist.)
Whoops, it's Catherine Bell, no Bill. Yes, she's quite the hottie.
A scientologist, huh? Hmm, I could be her big Zargon and she could be my little thetan.
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."
Time paradoxes being what they are (even if it was physically possible to go back in time and actually interact with past phenomena), the first question is unanswerable (one would have to otherwise know that this fetus is the fetus that would become Osama Bin Ladin). This would also involve a severe determinism in individual matters that the Church does not support in its fundamental doctrinal understanding of God's foreknowledge.
To the second, ethics does raise the question of the one and the many. Are moral principles hierarchal, or horizontal and all essentially equal such that stealing a loaf of bread is equivalent to setting of a ten megaton thermonuclear device in downtown Los Angeles?
All soldiers in war, even the most just and necessary wars, subsume and suppress one important moral principle-not to take the life of another human being-to prevent the enemies of himself and his country taking many more lives and/or destroying his society. Would the killing of many thousands of Japanese soldiers be justified to prevent the rape of Nanking. Many would say yes.
The problem with Bill Mahr's intellectually mushy (as are most of his thought processes it seems) ethical problem is that an individual sacrificing one individual moral imperative for the purpose of fulfilling a far greater (saving thousands of innocent adults and children from some horrible death) has no analogy to the general question of homosexuality and its relation to human sexuality vis-a-vis Judeo/Christian moral concepts of normative sexuality. In other words, the moral status of homosexuality has no bearing on its status in the context of a choice between engaging in it against my will to save others and choosing to engage in it for strictly personal reasons outside of any moral imperative that places me in a position in which to not engage in it would eventuate in another act of immorality of far greater magnitude.
This would really require a monograph length essay to flesh it out, but Mahr's question, as with most of his questions, are intended to get a rise out of people, not facilitate serious discussion.
Why didn't Mahr ask if one would commit adultery to prevent 9/11? Would you commit adultry to prevent a bio-terror attack that could kill thousands? But in this, we must ask what kind of moral principle is at work with the prohibition on adultery, and if this is a different kind of principle that is at work in a situation in which one could prevent some collective outrage by engaging, against one's will, in another personal outrage against a moral precept.
Assuming that adultery is perceived as an personal moral outrage by all faithful LDS (and Christians/Jews) as much as homosexual behavior, why mix this up with homosexuality? Obviously, the answer is that for most heterosexual men, even those who see nothing amiss in adultery, the very thought of homosexual sex creates visceral revulsion. So the question as Mahr puts it, involves a "yuck" factor that, in and of itself, is not directly connected to the moral issue at hand (all sexual conduct outside of marriage or with someone else while married is sexually immoral, regardless of the sex of the other involved).
Homosexuality is a perversion as well as a moral transgression in the sexual realm, and hence, would be harder to approach then would heterosexual conduct (if one were allowed to have sex with this month's centerfold, as opposed to a middle aged beer bellied construction worker who likes to swing both ways, presumably this would make it, once the choice had been made, somewhat easier).
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.