No Homosexuals wanted

[Guest]

no dog introduces itself as gay.

if you were presented with a female... if a wolf in "the wild" were to be caught being gay it would be exiled from the pack. so the "exclusion of gays is also natural." humans have decided homosexuals are to be cast out of the group. that is our choice as a species.

key word choice.

Where are you getting this stuff? For example, I've never read that "if a wolf in 'the wild' were to be caught being gay it would be exiled from the pack." As I understand it, not all members of a wolf pack mate, even if they are heterosexual. And not all human societies (past or present) have decided that "homosexuals are to be cast out of the group." Are you just making stuff up to justify your own prejudices? If not, help me out here.

yes homosexuals are around, but they are not accepted.

the romans used homosexuality as a way to gloat. to make it known they didn't need to have children to defend their empire. that's the only reason it was accepted, it was propaganda.

by the way animals are not capable of deception...derr that's how that bird defends itself. its not lying.

[_Obiwan]

Obiwan, you have my sympathy. Coping with a natural attraction for the same sex whilst being a member of a Church that actively discriminates against people must be more than a test. I agree with you that someone should not force their cross onto the world, but surely you see that the Church's involvement in Proposition 8 was exactly that. The Church trying to force it's organizational viewpoint on same sex partnerships on people who aren't members.

No more of a "test" than any other "sin" that the Church "discriminates" against.
However, you are wrong. The Church does not actively discriminate against homosexuality. It simply says not to do it, that it is wrong, period. And Prop 8 doesn't amount to discrimination on our part, it is discriminiation on the part of the Gay Agenda. Prop 8 is about "protecting marriage" as it has always been, not on taking away the rights of others.

If the gay agenda wishes to have something like marriage, then they are FREE to create something like marriage. They don't however have any right to take something that doesn't belong to them. Marriage is a heterosexual institution. They however are free to create something called "Bi-arriage" maybe??? Create a name and own it.... don't however take someone elses institution as your own, THAT is the true and first cause intolerance.

We are responding to the gay agendas intolerance. That's doesn't make "us" the intolerant ones. Liberals and gays are confused and decieved, not just in their sexuality or politics.

Also bear in mind, it is natural to be black, but the Church still discriminated - or perhaps you believe it was God who cursed them with that colour skin....

Bear in mind.... The Church did not discriminate against "blacks". It had a religious policy that those of African decent, including white persons couldn't hold the Priesthood. Blacks of other races and all other colors including just as black as African blacks WERE given the Priesthood.

Christ wasn't a "racist" when he banned Gentiles from the Gospel. The Law of Moses wasn't racist when only a certain Tribe was allowed the Priesthood.

The ban existed because the "world" was in sin, and in order to protect the Church. When the world was no longer in sin, and the Church was secure, the ban was lifted 1978. Can you tell me when "racism" finally ended most of the world over?

I hope you wake up to the suppression and victimization that your Church is levying against you.

Nothing of the sort..... I'm entirely free..... There is no freedom in sin, only enslavement.

[_Obiwan]

Bigotry: it's what's for Mormon breakfast

It's your own bigotry and ignorance that is the true bigotry.
There is no bigotry in my words.
My gay best friend who's in a live in gay relationship, whom I do martial arts with, eat with him and his partner at their home and the partners Italian restaurant, have barbeque's with, etc. etc. knows very well that I'm not a bigot, even though he's not a Mormon (never been), and that we don't agree with each other on some things.

Woe unto those who call good evil and evil good. :(

[_Morley]

the romans used homosexuality as a way to gloat. to make it known they didn't need to have children to defend their empire. that's the only reason it was accepted, it was propaganda.

"to make it known they didn't need to have children to defend their empire." I can't figure out what this even means. And how is homosexuality associated with 'gloating' or 'propaganda'?

by the way animals are not capable of deception...derr that's how that bird defends itself. its not lying.

Are you serious? Are you familiar with de Waal's work with bonobos? Or any biology 101 course's coverage of animal mimicry?

I have to ask again. Where are you getting this sh--, er stuff.

[_Morley]

Bear in mind.... The Church did not discriminate against "blacks". It had a religious policy that those of African decent, including white persons couldn't hold the Priesthood.

The above is not true. (One assertion among many.)

To refute, I refer to a part of The First Presidency statement of 1949:

"The attitude of the Church with reference to the Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the Priesthood at the present time."

It had nothing to do with geography and everything to do with race.

[Guest]

"to make it known they didn't need to have children to defend their empire." I can't figure out what this even means. And how is homosexuality associated with 'gloating' or 'propaganda'?

i read it. there can be gay animals if they leave the group. so shunning of gays is "a little more natural" than being gay.

the romans- if you are the best you don't need to worry about war coming, and if you don't need to worry about war coming you don't need to make babies, so why not screw a man?. that's how it is propaganda.

[_Obiwan]

For the billionth time - pedophilia is not akin to homosexuality. Pedophilia involves a imbalance of power; it is abusive. Homosexuality is no different than heterosexuality in terms of mutual consent.

Wrong.... You know nothing about "sin", nor pedophilia.
The imbalance of power applies to "Rape" not pedophilia. Yes, because of the age difference there is an imbalance of power, thus most of society "currently" considers pedophilia wrong. But, those who actually study sexual deviancy know very well that most pedophiles have no interest whatsoever in "hurting" a child. They very simply and plainly for various psychological and physical reasons are simply "attracted" to children. In fact, in most cases what they are actually attracted to is the smallness and shortness of the female, as well as the female having had little sexual interaction and experience yet, not simply because they are children. Most pedophiles have penis size complexes, in which "smallness" of their partner is what gives them sexual confidence, whereas larger women are intimidating to their sexual ability.

Further, you are aware that their are children and youth homosexuals, as well as adult and youth homosexuals? When it comes to the sexual deviancy itself, TO THEM, there is nothing wrong with what they are doing. Yes, you are correct when it comes to SOCIETY, "abuse" is according to the age differences, but sexual attraction is sexual attraction, societal constructs are irrelevant to the deviation itself, which is "abnormal attraction". Can you comprehend the difference between the two?

I'm talking about sin and sexual attraction here..... Not the current standards that most of society including some "adult" homosexuals consider right or wrong. I should make clear also that most adult homosexuals find it not wrong at all to have sex with an under-aged child, not ultra young obviously, but certainly within the teens. In fact, most heterosexuals have the same value system. If they could, they would have no problem with having sex with a teenager. Yet, all are under-aged.

Anyway, the point is that you're missing so you can make your judgment, is that we are talking about sin and about sexual "attraction". Attraction has no limits..... Society's do. Comprehend? Or do I need to explain further the simple common sense reality of attraction?

We are not talking about "adult" mutual consent, we are talking about attraction itself.
Further, you are mistaken to think that there is not mutual consent even in child molestation or pedophilia, especially concerning those in the teen years. Most teens are already sexually active by the time they are 13-14, thus choices are already being made, an adult getting in the mix wouldn't technically make a difference if there is the same free, no-forced choices occurring. Of course, SOCIETY places a standard of wrong in that, but that's not the same as what people actually do and think. To give an example, when I was in the Marine Corps, during my apostasy period, I had sex with what I presumed to be a 15 year old prostitute. Of course, she claimed to be 18, but I could tell otherwise. Was that wrong, certainly, and certainly by my own standards today, but it was certainly consensual and non-power based or forced. Of course, her pimp was clearly exerting power, cause we took longer then we apparently were supposed to, thus he wanted to make sure he was getting money, but anyway, all a sad thing.

Anyway, "consent" is irrelevant to the main point, which is the "attraction". The unnatural attraction is the first sin..... The age if under-aged could be another sin either literally or by society's standards.

Homosexuality is not a "sin" simply because it consensual between two adults.
Otherwise, one could say the same thing about any number of other sins and evil acts that occur between two adults. Just because something is "free" and "adult" doesn't somehow make RIGHT or GOOD. Get it?

Now if you want to talk legal and illegal, that's a different thing. Of course, remember homosexuality, especially anything public about it, has been illegal for most of history. So, I wouldn't be so proud..... Like I said, legal or tolerated by society doesn't make moral.

[_moksha]

Christ's Church
“He inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none”2 NEPHI 26: 33

That is correct. He also invites them to repent of their sins and cannot save people in their sins. Homosexuality is merely one of a myriad of possible sins.

So in essence, no one is quite ready for the Church since we are all sinners.

[_Obiwan]

bwan wrote: "Darin.... I know you don't want to hear it, but homosexuality is a "deviation", a perversion of the natural order, thus a sin."
*******************************

Genetic modification of plants and animals is a "deviation", a perversion of the natural order also. Is it a sin? Are we sinning when we eat bread prepared from genetically modified wheat? Sinning when we eat meat from genetically modified cows?

A 'sin' is just something used by religious types to beat people over the head for doing something they don't personally like. It is a control mechanism, nothing more.

It doesn't help your case by building a strawman of unlike things to compare to what I said to try and tear it down. Homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom, but does that mean they are being moral?

It's not about personal like or dislike, it's simply about right and wrong, good and evil.
You wishing to live by amoral ideology doesn't make our ideology as simply a control mechanism. We simply have actual standards, where yours are self-serving and relative to circumstance.

[_moksha]

... if a wolf in "the wild" were to be caught being gay it would be exiled from the pack. so the "exclusion of gays is also natural."

You failed to note that reindeers have even gone so far as to discriminate on the basis of nose color, which excludes deviants from reindeer games.

In the animal world, homosexual behavior happens.