No Homosexuals wanted

[_Obiwan]

I did not know that Obiwan "suffered" from same gender attraction. That explains why he fights so hard against those feelings.

And you people never end showing your lack of comprehension and reading skills....
It's no wonder you are anti-mormons.
I specifically said I had another "cross/sin" that is just as strong. I didn't say what it was. But I did in fact say it wasn't homosexuality.

Slimeball idiots! :(

[_Obiwan]

Baker wrote:

For the billionth time - pedophilia is not akin to homosexuality.


That is true, the Church doesn't allow homosexuals to run their scouting programme...
**********************************

A good observation, and true.

Actually, not true at all.... Most children who grow up gay were molested by gay or bi men or women. It has been shown over and over again that no matter the sexual deviency, when you place such a person with children, those children more often than not get hurt.

Of course, that is not saying "all" OR even "most" gays are also child molesters, but having studied this issue well and associated with gays and victim children I know for a fact that a LARGE majority of gays, especially those who don't grow up with religious values (like gay Mormons) will most certainly have no problem trying to have sexual experiences with children and youth.

You all have no clue of what you are talking about.

[_Obiwan]

Hi, Obiwan,

I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts with me, and I'm content to receive them in the positive spirit I imagine that motivated them. There's no need for you to project the idea that "[you] know [I] don't want to hear" your testimony against my acceptance and experession of my homosexuality onto me. The condemnation you share is nothing new to me, and are concepts that I myself spend countless hours reading and in therapy over the span of the first three decades of my life trying to fully understand--and eventually abandon, after much study, prayer, and discovery.

Your view and testimony obviously give you some semblance of fortitude (and possibly comfort) as you wrestle with whatever your own particular demons are that you've alluded to, and I support you in productively channeling that challenge according to what you feel is best for you.

Whether or not either of us have been deceived is certinaly highly possible, as I believe that all humans have a HIGH capacity for self-deception. In my particular case, I'm comfortable that I put in the necessary blood, sweat, and tears to arrive at what I am convinced is a position that is the most non-self-deceptive position I could hope for, with regards to understanding my own homosexual thoughts, feelings, nature, and inherent worth and worthiness. I do not seek to force anyone to my position, and fully support you in your views, even as they so radically differ from my own. I operate from that position while striving for a continual balance of self-assurance and compassion and respect for others.

Best to you,
Darin

I know and understand..... However, your "comfort" is the great lie. I know your story, seen it a thousand times from other gays in and out of the Church. You just need to know, that as much as you "feel" it is a part of you, the Gospel teaches us to not give into sin, that it IS in fact a choice. The cross that you bear is no different than anyone elses cross, specifically the crosses of a "sexual" nature. Sexuality, attraction is to the deepest core of us..... That however doesn't change the fact that "norishing" such feelings and engaging in said actions is "right" and "moral". God gave you a difficult cross....., but that doesn't change Eternal Law.

Anyway.... Right is right and wrong is wrong. Our own feelings can't change that.
And because of that you and those likewise have no right in trying to change the Church to conform to YOUR religion.

[_Obiwan]

This world would not be the same without homosexuals in it. Good grief, as individuals they have contributed SO MUCH to the human family. I say, Hell Yeah! We want homosexuals.

And what is that exactly that somehow no other person could also do?
They have contributed nothing but more wickedness onto the world.
The good that many do, doesn't change that fact. As well, whatever good they do, is the same things others can do. Being homosexual adds nothing of value.

[_Obiwan]

I niether want nor don't want homosexuals or any other kind of sexuals. Unless I am personally involved it is none of my damn business what others do in their private life.

Why should I be part of keeping two or more people who want to commit to a life together apart?

If they/anyone wants their shot at happiness, as long as it does hot harm children and those involved are consenting adults, it is their life to live and I wish them all the best.

LDS believe the same..... It's their choice to do as they wish.
That reality and freedom however doesn't change the fact that doing such is wrong.
It also doesn't change the fact that taking over an institution that is not theirs is also wrong.
As I've said before, they are FREE to create their own institution. But to take over ours, to dilute, pervert, and make low the God ordained and natural institution of marriage, in our view, and even in some homosexual views is wrong.

[_Obiwan]

Homosexuality has been observed in countless animal species.

There are all-male species and all-female species. And even in many mammal species, there are frequent instances of homosexual behavior.

So, taking what we learned from Boyd K. Packer, that Heavenly Father would never make someone 'that way', how shall we view these aberrations in the animal kingdom?

Perhaps it is Satan influencing these animals to do these evil acts, knowing that humans will watch and some will be motivated to copy them, thereby ensnaring another human soul for himself?

Whatever you may say or not say about homosexuality, please don't try to pretend it's not 'natural'.

Animals also don't have free and moral agency, thus what is "natural" to them, is not natural to us. So, stop trying to conflate the two as if they are the same. We are not them, and they are not us. Animal instinct is to "hump".... hence why so-called homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom. Actual homosexuality DOES NOT exist in the animal kingdom. Humans also have the instinct to "hump", but we also have more than instinct to govern our actions, we have choice, thought, standards, etc.

If you want to debase human nature to that of animal humping, then all the power to you, however the truth and reality is much different. We are moral agents, thus to hump or not to hump is based much more than on the humping instinctual action of animals.

[_Spurven Ten Sing]

Obiwan, you are an offensive, small minded bigot. Your heart is filled with hate with your fellow man. The only way you could make the LDS church look worse is if you murdered homosexual people. Your ignorance is so epic, it makes Schryver's ego look about the size of a photon packet. Your willfully insane babblings are vile, stupid, and you deserve to be beaten with dildos by a bear and a butterfly and I will sell tickets. Your own sexual deviancy is so crooked, TAO raises an eyebrow.

Welcome to my foe list, bitch.

[_Obiwan]

getting off is natural, but there are no 100% queer mammals. show me a male dog that takes it in the butt and gives only to other male dogs in the butt and the same dog would never consider going for a bitch in heat. all-male species don't have a choice to be queers they are just an 'all-male species'. animals don't know right from wrong.

Actually well said.... As I also mentioned, there are no "queer" animals. There are only animals who's instinct is to "hump". Animals not caring what they hump, even a persons leg is not the same thing as "homosexuality" in the animal kingdom.

This is a big lie homosexuals and liberals tell themselves to make themselves apparently feel good and intelligent. But, they don't realize that their argument simply doesn't work as I and you have explained.

[Guest]

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.

And "negro" in that particular instance was referring to those of African decent!
You are aware aren't you that "negros" of other black races were generally actually called something else?

So, if "negro" means what YOU say it means, then tell me how 1,000's of BLACKS of Central/South America AND the Islands, as well as India WERE in fact given the Priesthood moron???

Complete figgen slimeball idiots anti's are.... It's like dealing with KKK children or fanatical Islamists, ignorant bigots who have no interest in facing actual facts of things! :(

I will say it again..... Your anti-mormon rumor mill facts are NOT the actual facts in relation to the Priesthood ban. They ban ALWAYS only applied to those of African decent. There were some other groups in which for a time, the ban temporaryily was applied to until lineage was determined by geneology and patriarcle blessing, but it certainly wasn't "all" blacks.

So jerkwad! How do you think I became a Mormon again after leaving the Church PRIMARILY over this issue??? It's because I studied it thoroughly for the FULL truth and facts of the issue, and came to realize I was ignorant like you are. What I'm telling you is the absolute truth.... I don't give opinions, I give facts from YEARS of study and experience.

[_Obiwan]

Read above and get a clue jerk....

I've studied the actual history on the issue, and you are trying to claim one quote out of context of the entire issue somehow proves your point? Gosh I'm dealing with children! :(

There WERE in fact whites who were both denied the priesthood AND had it removed because of African decent. I've studied the history, you moron haven't. So, get with the program. I'm not making crap up!!!

Update: Now I see you deleted your post, after apparently realizing I responded to you.
Anyway, sorry, I don't have all the friggen history books and scholarship I studied some 17 years ago to get at the full truth and facts on the Priesthood ban, so I can prove my every word to you. Your loss!