Brethren gathering BYU force to help with Prop 8 ...

[_Yoda]

Liz,

Your response to me is misplaced. We are not discussing my anger and hatred of the behavior of a penantant soul. My comments were placed towards the participants of a gross and vile lifestyle they are currently engaged in.

If my comments were towards a former sinner, then you would be correct in reproving me. These twisted perverts who are seeking to change the definition of a family and pervert the institution of marriage are the very enemies of God himself, and should be treated as such.

People who seek to defend these unchaste and vile defilers of the flesh are the ones in need of repentance, not me.

You made a blanket, bigoted statement. That was uncalled for, and I stand by my reprove. Choose to accept it or not. It is deserved, nonetheless, and I think, that deep down, you know I am right.

I have no problem with you disapproving of a homosexual lifestyle. I DO have a problem with you making bigoted slurs toward PEOPLE. If you had stated that you find homosexual activity abhorrent, I could accept that. You didn't say that. You have, on more than one occasion, referred to PEOPLE who are homosexuals as sick bastards, among other things.

What happened to love the sinner, hate the sin, Gaz?

Have you EVER heard of a modern General Authority refer to homosexuals the way you did? Use the vile language references you chose to use?

You are a victim of pride, Gaz. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

[_Ray A]

Have you EVER heard of a modern General Authority refer to homosexuals the way you did? Use the vile language references you chose to use?

Recommended reading for Gaz:

Dallin Oaks, "Same-Gender Attraction" (1995)

Our doctrines obviously condemn those who engage in so-called “gay bashing”—physical or verbal attacks on persons thought to be involved in homosexual or lesbian behavior.

We should extend compassion to persons who suffer from ill health, including those who are infected with HIV or who are ill with AIDS (who may or may not have acquired their condition from sexual relations). We should encourage such persons to participate in the activities of the Church.


Similarly, in a conference address on this same subject, President Gordon B. Hinckley said: “I desire now to say with emphasis that our concern for the bitter fruit of sin is coupled with Christlike sympathy for its victims, innocent or culpable. We advocate the example of the Lord, who condemned the sin, yet loved the sinner. We should reach out with kindness and comfort to the afflicted, ministering to their needs and assisting them with their problems.”.....

“Another concern we have is the way in which our sons and daughters are classified as people who practice deviant and lascivious behavior. Perhaps some do, but most do not. These young men and women want only to survive, have a spiritual life, and stay close to their families and the Church. It is especially damaging when these negative references are spoken from the pulpit. We believe such talks only create more depression and a tremendous amount of guilt, shame, and lack of self-worth, which they have endured throughout their entire lives. There is sometimes a real lack of the pure love of Christ expressed to help them through their ordeals. We will all appreciate anything you can do to help with the plight of these much misunderstood children of our Father in Heaven. If some of the General Authorities could express more sensitivity to this problem, it would surely help to avoid suicides and schisms that are caused within families. Many simply cannot tolerate the fact that Church members judge them as ‘evil people,’ and they, therefore, find solace in gay-oriented lifestyles.” 20

These communications surely show the need for improvement in our communications with brothers and sisters who are struggling with problems—all types of problems. Each member of Christ’s church has a clear-cut doctrinal responsibility to show forth love and to extend help and understanding. Sinners, as well as those who are struggling to resist inappropriate feelings, are not people to be cast out but people to be loved and helped (see 3 Ne. 18:22–23, 30, 32).

[_Jersey Girl]

Let's see what Gaz's post would look like, were there an anti-bigotry censor mode on this board.

'Liz,

Your response to me is misplaced. We are not discussing my anger and hatred of the behavior of a penantant soul. My comments were placed towards the participants of a particular lifestyle they are currently engaged in, and one which I feel is un-Biblical and with which I strongly disagree.

If my comments were towards a former sinner, then you would be correct in reproving me. These are people who are seeking to change the definition of a family and pervert the institution of marriage are the very enemies of God himself, and should be treated as such.

People who seek to defend these people are the ones in need of repentance, not me.'

[/bigotry censor]

[_Brackite]

Amen, Liz!!!. Great Post!.

Thanks, Brackite. :) Did you check out my post to Gaz on page 2 of the thread?

This is the link:
http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... 34#p195734

I ALMOST used scriptures as well as you do. ;)

I'm still waiting on a response from him.

Hi Liz3564,

I did Check out and See Your Post on using the Scriptures, from the Gospel of Luke, within the New testament.

Great Job and Work, Liz!.

So, do you think that a person who supports Proposition 8 in California is a bigot and homophobic? By definition?

My Answer: No!.

<>

[_Jason Bourne]

I have contributed financially to the cause.

Quite handsomely, too, per CA public records.

One wonders why Rollo loves to tout public issues in a seemingly belittling way. Gee Rollo, isn't America a lovely thing? Free speech man. Are you envious the Bob has the cash to donate to a something he believes in even if you don't.

Are you saying therefore that I fit within your categorization of a bigot and a homophobe?

Yes

How specious of you Rollo. One can oppose marriage for gays without being a homophobe. They may be fine with gays as people, even have gay friends but see compelling reasons for leaving marriage between a man a woman that have nothing to do with hate, bigotry or prejudice. To call such a one a homophobe is frankly stupid and it is stupid to use it. Are you teenagerphobe because you might place limits on a 13 year olds ability to marry?

Those who call people that have valid reasons that are not rooted in bigotry to oppose this homophobes are as much a a phobe towards those who disagree with them as thay accuse the other of.

And for the record I teeter on this issue. I am not sure where I stand. Probably to granting domestic partnerships with all the rights a gay couple wants but leaving marriage between a man and woman. But I probably would not lose a lot of sleep over this if it went the other way.

[_asbestosman]

How specious of you Rollo. One can oppose marriage for gays without being a homophobe. They may be fine with gays as people, even have gay friends but see compelling reasons for leaving marriage between a man a woman that have nothing to do with hate, bigotry or prejudice. To call such a one a homophobe is frankly stupid and it is stupid to use it. Are you teenagerphobe because you might place limits on a 13 year olds ability to marry?

Bad analogy. We can easily find valid non-teenagerphobe reasons to limit marriage for teens. We are having trouble finding convincing non-homophobic reasons for opposing gay marriage. Well, at least under Rollo's golden standard of morality--whatever that is. Somehow "because we believe God said so" doesn't count.


As for me, if it weren't for the church's involvement I'd be in favor of the government only recognizing and providing civil unions for everyone (including incestuous ones) and parental rights while leaving "marriage" to be defined by private citizens as they will. I am in fact a bigot in that I support a person's right to be bigoted. No, that doesn't mean I support the right to mistreat, harass, or deny opportunity to others.

[_Jason Bourne]

Bad analogy. We can easily find valid non-teenagerphobe reasons to limit marriage for teens. We are having trouble finding convincing non-homophobic reasons for opposing gay marriage. Well, at least under Rollo's golden standard of morality--whatever that is. Somehow "because we believe God said so" doesn't count.

It is a fine analogy and many who are opposed to day marriage have good reasons even if you or Rollo disagree and those reasons do not make them homophobes. Homophobes exist of course. Gaz is one,

[_moksha]

Homophobes exist of course. Gaz is one,

But in Gaz's defense, he does not limit this to just Gays.

[_Dr. Shades]

It is a fine analogy and many who are opposed to day marriage have good reasons even if you or Rollo disagree and those reasons do not make them homophobes.

I disagree. People who insist on having their wedding ceremonies at night have no valid reason to push their views on others who may wish to get married during the day.

[_asbestosman]

As I understand it, I'm a homophobe and a bigot becaues I intend to support God's position. Certainly there is a difference between us and Gaz. We're not in to the whole name calling thing.

Maybe Jason's analogy wasn't bad, but it is certainly unconvincnig to Rollo for the reasons I mentioned. At the same time, I did wish to hint about the problem of judging reasons. How do we judge whether your morality is superior to my morality--by using your morality or mine? It is the problem of infinite regress. That's another reason I don't really care about being labeled a homophobe and a bigot by someone else's standard. I'm more worried about God's label for me--sheep or goat? Sinner for sure, but I'm trying--I hope.