Please explain this to me

Post by **_Ren** » Thu Jul 31, 2008 10:51 pm

Notice how the statistics cited here...
http://www.mormondiscussions.com/discus ... 872#178872
...only mention details for homosexual men. This is because men are more promiscuous than women. Therefore, if there are two men involved in a relationship, then we know that the chances of promiscuity will be higher due to the sex of the individuals without needing to address their sexuality at all.
It's a common anti-homosexual trick. (You'd think these people don't know that lesbians exist, or they don't know that lesbians are actually homosexuals. Or maybe they only find homosexual men disgusting. Maybe they think that while lesbians are still 'wrong', they're kinda cool at the same time... Who knows...)

It also wasn't mentioned that the fidelity rate in Canada of male homosexual couples is over 5 times that of male homosexual couples in the USA. Of course, this has nothing to do with the fact that homosexual marriage has been legalised across Canada for years now.
...nope - nothing to do with it...

And of course, the entire idea of denying marriage to a group because of their statistical dedication and fidelity is silly in the first place.
On that basis Belgium, Sweden, the Czech Republic, Finland, Hungary, Austria, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Australia and Norway (for starters) should all ban their population from getting married until they 'take it seriously' - and stop setting a bad example to the rest of the world...

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/peo_d ... -marriages

Post by **_The Nehor** » Thu Jul 31, 2008 10:51 pm

beastie wrote:So why doesn't your "side" work on cleaning up all this, first. Find a way to mandate and legislate that heterosexuals marry only with the expectation of exclusivity, and prevent promiscuous people from marrying. Then you can worry about the gays.

We preach exclusivity. The Book of Mormon is clear that in those days adultery was punishable under the law. We focus on the gay issue out of pragmaticism. We still have some support on this issue. Legally, we have no way to fight for enforcement or legislation of adultery laws or the base to even get started. So we pick the battle we can fight and fight it until it is lost (probably soon). Asking us to wait to clean up other issues we can't win before we fight on issues we have a prayer of winning (even in the short-term) is asking us to do nothing which I'm sure you would love but it's not happening.

Post by **_beastie** » Fri Aug 01, 2008 12:06 am

That may or may not be the case. I'm not afraid of those things because I have not heard the brethren give them as reasons. All I know is that the brethren know it's important to oppose gay marriage. I don't always know why doctor instructs me the way he does, but I'm pretty sure he's right.

First, you'd better be more proactive with the medical community. You cannot be a passive patient.

Of course, at the end of the day, after all the internet apologia has gone to bed, we know you're supposed to follow the prophet, even if you don't know why.

We preach exclusivity. The Book of Mormon is clear that in those days adultery was punishable under the law. We focus on the gay issue out of pragmaticism. We still have some support on this issue. Legally, we have no way to fight for enforcement or legislation of adultery laws or the base to even get started. So we pick the battle we can fight and fight it until it is lost (probably soon). Asking us to wait to clean up other issues we can't win before we fight on issues we have a prayer of winning (even in the short-term) is asking us to do nothing which I'm sure you would love but it's not happening.

If you want to live in a theocracy that actually walks the walk instead of just persecuting one small group, there are plenty in the mid-east.

Post by **_asbestosman** » Fri Aug 01, 2008 12:23 am

beastie wrote:Of course, at the end of the day, after all the internet apologia has gone to bed, we know you're supposed to follow the prophet, even if you don't know why.

Do we deny that? I thought that whole thing about Adam sacrificing without knowing why in the PoGP supported that. All I object to is the notion that such is blind obedience. It is faith obedience. The difference is that I have reason to trust them just as I have reason to trust my physician even when I don't always understand.

Post by **_The Nehor** » Fri Aug 01, 2008 12:24 am

beastie wrote:If you want to live in a theocracy that actually walks the walk instead of just persecuting one small group, there are plenty in the mid-east.

Ummm....I prefer it when God runs a Theocracy so thanks but I'll pass.

Post by **_beastie** » Fri Aug 01, 2008 12:26 am

Do we deny that? I thought that whole thing about Adam sacrificing without knowing why in the PoGP supported that. All I object to is the notion that such is blind obedience. It is faith obedience. The difference is that I have reason to trust them just as I have reason to trust my physician even when I don't always understand.

The end result is the same. You obey even when you do not understand why.

If you continue to simply trust your physician as well as the prophet, one day you're going to get into trouble.

Post by **_beastie** » Fri Aug 01, 2008 12:29 am

Ummm....I prefer it when God runs a Theocracy so thanks but I'll pass.

Yeah, like the ones described in the Old Testament. Those were totally cool.

Post by **_The Nehor** » Fri Aug 01, 2008 12:32 am

beastie wrote:
Ummm....I prefer it when God runs a Theocracy so thanks but I'll pass.

Yeah, like the ones described in the Old Testament. Those were totally cool.

When did that happen? Are you referring to the judges who stepped up as champions to deliver a wicked Israel from their enemies or the kingship that followed (in defiance of God's will) and who succeeded in producing about 4 decent kings out of about 50 rulers. I look more to the city of Enoch and the early days of the 3 Nephites for my ideal theocracy.

Post by **_beastie** » Fri Aug 01, 2008 12:50 am

When did that happen? Are you referring to the judges who stepped up as champions to deliver a wicked Israel from their enemies or the kingship that followed (in defiance of God's will) and who succeeded in producing about 4 decent kings out of about 50 rulers. I look more to the city of Enoch and the early days of the 3 Nephites for my ideal theocracy.

Don't quibble. When the leader of your group is your religious leader and dictates laws based on that same religion, it's a theocracy. You know, like when they committed mass genocide of other groups who were inconveniently living on the land god told them was theirs. Except when they saved the virgins for themselves. Yeah, that's the cool theocracy I meant.

Post by **_The Nehor** » Fri Aug 01, 2008 1:55 am

beastie wrote:
When did that happen? Are you referring to the judges who stepped up as champions to deliver a wicked Israel from their enemies or the kingship that followed (in defiance of God's will) and who succeeded in producing about 4 decent kings out of about 50 rulers. I look more to the city of Enoch and the early days of the 3 Nephites for my ideal theocracy.

Don't quibble. When the leader of your group is your religious leader and dictates laws based on that same religion, it's a theocracy. You know, like when they committed mass genocide of other groups who were inconveniently living on the land god told them was theirs. Except when they saved the virgins for themselves. Yeah, that's the cool theocracy I meant.

I'm not quibbling. If there were a different word that differentiated being led by a religious leader/church and being led by God I'd grab it gladly. Until then the distinction is important.