Utah gay activists protest Mormon church remarks

[amicus]

",,,I have tried and tried to find something, anything, wrong with homosexuality and cannot. Who can say what is wrong with it without bringing in God's judgment? Anyone care to try?..."[/QUOTE]

~~~

Yup, that would be me.

As an atheist, I do not have the luxury of depending upon "God's judgment", or any religious interpretation of human actions as good or bad; I and those like me must use our minds to comprehend the nature of man and the qualities of his behavior.

Common sense, Allard, common sense. Throughout all life; plant, animal or human, opposite sexes exist for procreation of the species. Nature tosses in a modicum of pleasure or delight in the mating rituals of all species in that they find satisfaction in opposites.

I perceive a kind of sliding scale in human sexuality as it is applied to the individual. That being said, one must also accept the premise that the 'sliding scale' of sexuality contains a null point where the two components equal each other. If that is so, then it is a natural occurence, just as blindness or deafness at birth is a natural event but not one to applaud or nuture.

That is not a 'mean' or 'hateful' assessment of human sexuality, just a rational, objective one that takes all things into consideration.

In the natural scheme of things same sex couplings are unproductive and should be avoided.

However, in the matrix of contemporary political thought, decreasing the population is perceived as a 'value'.

Go figure?



Ami

 

[Sophus_Cat82]

At the same token, how many parents, preachers and the like wish to condemn their family, friends and parishoners? In the script they have chosen to subscribe to, it tells them Homosexuality, as well as any other sin as defined by the tradition and creed of their faith, alienates them from the approval of their God who says those who love him obey his commandments.

Now is God a hypocritical, jealous narrcisist who gives you free will, then punishes you for making the "wrong choices?" Shrugs. His book may suggest this.

Was Lucifer justly dealt with or perhaps their is another side to the story, as the "history books" are written by the victors of a war.

Does natural law exist? Most likely. Are their sins? Maybe.

In the end, our choices to do or not do, partly define us.
What choices are...correct? I suppose we will learn in the end.

 

[Stella_Omega]

G people are not created via gay sex, you know. They have to have a Mommy and a Daddy, at least in those first few seconds. But there's no dearth of gay folk even so.

I have two kids, even though I'm gay.

I talked with a gay man yesterday-- he has three.

Another lesbian couple of our acquaintance has three kids.

Making babies is so easy, even a faggot can do it.

 

[ABSTRUSE]

G people are not created via gay sex, you know. They have to have a Mommy and a Daddy, at least in those first few seconds. But there's no dearth of gay folk even so.

I have two kids, even though I'm gay.

I talked with a gay man yesterday-- he has three.

Another lesbian couple of our acquaintance has three kids.

Making babies is so easy, even a faggot can do it.

love you

 

[AllardChardon]

Correct me if I am wrong, Amicus, but are you leading me to believe that homosexual people are genetic rejects? I beg to differ.

Some of the sexiest people I have ever met, whether I was involved that way or not, were homosexuals or bi- sexuals. In my mind, the bi-sexuals are at the top of the heap, straights and gays running neck and neck with scholars and scribes at the bottom. Hahahahaha!

I mean, bi-sexuals will fuck everyone possible without limitation. That is freedom and quite possibly the stuff we humans spring from.

The biggest fuckers make the most kids, after all. Look at Genghis Khan.

 

[TE999]

Sexual intercourse is designed to perpetuate of the species; it also serves, as other sexual acts, as a form of enjoyable recreation. The nerve endings don't know the difference, so what does it matter who's pleasing whom.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I mean, bi-sexuals will fuck everyone possible without limitation.

Only the promiscuous bisexuals, sweetheart.

Some bisexuals are monogamous. You'd never know they were bi, because they made one choice and have stuck to it.

Some bisexuals do that serial monogamy thing. They might have a boyfriend and then later, a girlfriend.

Some bi's really prefer one or the other sex, but will make an exception sometimes.

Some of us, yeah-- our eyes are bigger than our mouths, so to speak.

 

[amicus]

At the same token, how many parents, preachers and the like wish to condemn their family, friends and parishoners? In the script they have chosen to subscribe to, it tells them Homosexuality, as well as any other sin as defined by the tradition and creed of their faith, alienates them from the approval of their God who says those who love him obey his commandments.

Now is God a hypocritical, jealous narrcisist who gives you free will, then punishes you for making the "wrong choices?" Shrugs. His book may suggest this.

Was Lucifer justly dealt with or perhaps their is another side to the story, as the "history books" are written by the victors of a war.

Does natural law exist? Most likely. Are their sins? Maybe.

In the end, our choices to do or not do, partly define us.
What choices are...correct? I suppose we will learn in the end.[/QUOTE]

~~~

As this is our first meeting....hello and welcome to the forum...

If you 'buy in' to the religious mantra, then yes, only St. Peter at the Pearly Gates will grant or deny entrance to the afterlife...

Most religions, as most omniscient government schemes, require the individual to be 'reborn' and thus sacrifice their own individual identity to become part of the fortunate few or or the 'chosen ones'.

The fatal flaw in both, is that the human mind is an individual organ and any attempts to force it to conform to a conflicting set of standards will eventually destroy that mind.

Faith is a disease.

Belief in any fantasy or mythology, be it Santa Claus, Karl Marx or Jesus Christ, sets up a contradiction between belief and reality and the mind will, by its' very nature, discard such information.

Thas why so many of you folks turn to drugs...to ease the pain of actually thinking.

Amicus

 

[Sophus_Cat82]

Thankyou Amicus for your greeting and welcome. Same to you.

I like your Abbey Avatar.

Much like a disease, a Meme is an idea which is spread from person to person.
Religion does consist of memes. As do many other things.
Faith, the belief in something you cannot see, yet believe to be true anyway, can be a beautiful thing. It is said those who have some sort of positive belief system heal faster in hospitals after debilitation.

Fundementalist or Extremist anything can be dangerous. Conversely, being so open that there are no limits can also be. The Golden Rule is a good meme, it is prevalent in almost all belief systems, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Obviously in certain cases that idea might backfire...machosists for example, as not every one is the same.

 

[Katiecat]

I perceive a kind of sliding scale in human sexuality as it is applied to the individual. That being said, one must also accept the premise that the 'sliding scale' of sexuality contains a null point where the two components equal each other. If that is so, then it is a natural occurence, just as blindness or deafness at birth is a natural event but not one to applaud or nuture.

That is not a 'mean' or 'hateful' assessment of human sexuality, just a rational, objective one that takes all things into consideration.

In the natural scheme of things same sex couplings are unproductive and should be avoided.

Does that mean that -- in the natural scheme of things -- any sex that doesn't produce or potentially produce children should be avoided then? That would include oral sex, anal sex, sex with a partner who has been sterilized, had a hysterectomy, or is past menopause, or any sex using birth control...

Homosexual behavior has been observed in approximately 1500 species. Homosexuality in animals was cited in Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court's decision which struck down the sodomy laws of 14 states. Wiki has an interesting article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

 

[cloudy]

Does that mean that -- in the natural scheme of things -- any sex that doesn't produce or potentially produce children should be avoided then? That would include oral sex, anal sex, sex with a partner who has been sterilized, had a hysterectomy, or is past menopause, or any sex using birth control...

Homosexual behavior has been observed in approximately 1500 species. Homosexuality in animals was cited in <I>Lawrence v. Texas</I>, the Supreme Court's decision which struck down the sodomy laws of 14 states. Wiki has an interesting article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

Don't bother to debate anything with amicus. No one actually takes him, or anything he says, seriously.

 

[Katiecat]

Don't bother to debate anything with amicus. No one actually takes him, or anything he says, seriously.

Ah, duly noted. I find the topic interesting, because years ago, a woman who was "letting God plan her family" -- and who had eight children so far, I believe -- was lecturing me that birth control was a sin because the theoretical couple using birth control was trying to thwart God and his purposes. I told her that all birth control methods have a chance of failure, so a condom or the pill certainly wouldn't stop God if God's intention was pregnancy. She then said that having sex without the possibility of pregnancy was sinful because procreation was the designed purpose of sex. So I told her I had a hysterectomy, so I'd make sure to run right home and let my husband know that any further sexual activity between us was a sin, because it would only be for selfish, carnal pleasure since we had no chance of making a baby.

 

[AllardChardon]

Stella, my dear, I should have said that bi-sexual people have the option of attraction to both sexes, unlike me who favors the opposite kind. Therefore, I am limited, but was a great producer with four grown children to my credit.

So far, neither the religious approaches to answering the question of homosexual behavior nor the scientific ones have come close to the most fundamental questions of all;

Whom does homosexuality hurt? What harm does it do? How can making love hurt anything?

Other than the harm perpetrated against those who practice it openly, of course.

Thanks, everyone, for the great input.

 

[Stella_Omega]

My sister's landlady keeps on having children for God. And she raises her tenants' rent to pay for them-- or she did before the recession hit. I'm not sure if God wants her to keep having babies now...

 

[AllardChardon]

I risk sounding politically incorrect, but is your landlady Hispanic by chance?

Let us not forget Sarah Palin's little down syndrome boy that God gave her as a special gift, not because her eggs might have been too old.

I feel sorry for God if he does exist, he gets a bum rap every which way he turns.

 

[pizzaboyatdoor]

Making babies is so easy, even a faggot can do it.

Buwahahahaaha!

My favorite line I would use when the "To be a real man, ya hafta...." bullshit started, was to look them square in the eye and say:

"Learning a BASIC SKILL of 'insert tab A into slot B and mix vigorously' doesn't take all that much testosterone!"


.

 

[Handley_Page]

I cannot call Alexander the Great a "poof" or any other derogatory homosexual term because he was not a weak man, but a very strong one, a warrior of warriors, as well as the noble and refined leader of his huge Empire. The fact that he preferred the company of men was not an obstacle for him nor did it deter him from the long list of accomplishments he achieved in his lifetime.

He also came from a background where masculine bonding started at an early age. Women were there for the procreation and little else.
(Mind you, Lysistrata was on the right lines).

 

[Handley_Page]

My sister's landlady keeps on having children for God. ...

does she know what causes them, then ?

 

[AllardChardon]

I once heard anal sex called Irish Birth Control and the light bulb of enlightenment showed me how many women had avoided unwanted pregnancies throughout time, especially in Catholic countries.

No slur to the Irish or Catholics intended, of course.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I once heard anal sex called Irish Birth Control and the light bulb of enlightenment showed me how many women had avoided unwanted pregnancies throughout time, especially in Catholic countries.

No slur to the Irish or Catholics intended, of course.

There's no slur in anal sex!

Just slick.

 

[AllardChardon]

Very funny, Stella.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

I strongly disagree with what the Mormon church leaders had to say, but as Voltaire said, I would defend to the death their right to say it. Which, I might add, is more than any Frenchman could probably say today (or any of the other EU countries where it is okay to censor "fringe" or unpopular views).

I might add that it is one thing to follow homosexuals around Bibles and Books of Mormon, trying to convert them to the point of stalking, and quite another to simply express the standard position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (which, to my knowledge, has always been their position on this subject) in a general conference of the selfsame church.

If the Mormons had done the former, I would say that stretches the First Amendment a tad (though it would still be protected by it, until said Mormons might trespass on a gay man or lesbian's property), but as they did only the latter in this case, they are well within their rights of religious freedom, free speech, and free assembly.

The fact that I strongly dissent from their views of course is well within my own First Amendment rights, of course. No one has the right to be protected from hearing different views or being offended.

 

[pizzaboyatdoor]

If the Mormons had done the former, I would say that stretches the First Amendment a tad (though it would still be protected by it, until said Mormons might trespass on a gay man or lesbian's property), but as they did only the latter in this case, they are well within their rights of religious freedom, free speech, and free assembly.

The fact that I strongly dissent from their views of course is well within my own First Amendment rights, of course. No one has the right to be protected from hearing different views or being offended.

While I completely concur with that opinion; the problem is that most of the centuries-old organized groups, virtually all of the fundies, and many other so-called "religious" zealots would happily restrict any opposing viewpoint from EVER being allowed to see the light of day when it comes to the subject of homosexuality. It's a safe bet, that a good chunk of that attitude comes from the fear that ANY positive expressions will only lead to more and more tolerance and acceptance.

Personally, I think an even larger part of their narrow outlook is due to many, many, m~a~n~y decades of various churches' leadership, putting forth highly biased, very limited, and poorly interpreted versions of what the Bible *DOES* and *DOESN'T* say on the subject....mainly because they are frightened to study it in depth, and/or take it *TO* God in complete faith & prayer, and trust whatever answer they receive.

Ignorance is something the scriptures say is automatically forgiven in children....I am not too certain that transfers to willful ignorance once the child reaches the age of reason.

 

[AllardChardon]

Am I too limited in my thinking by seeing the subject of anal intercourse as the religious basis for a blanket abomination of all homosexuals? Is this where "unnatural" comes from? Why is it considered unnatural? I can understand unclean in days of old, but that is not usually a problem these days.

Since discussion of homosexuality often leads to the big taboo of anal intercourse at some point, no pun intended, why has there not been a comprehensive study into the positive and negative aspects of this widely practiced human behavior?

If there has been such a study and I missed it, please enlighten me. There are studies about everything it seems, is the study of anal intercourse also taboo?

 

[ABSTRUSE]

Am I too limited in my thinking by seeing the subject of anal intercourse as the religious basis for a blanket abomination of all homosexuals? Is this where "unnatural" comes from? Why is it considered unnatural? I can understand unclean in days of old, but that is not usually a problem these days.

Since discussion of homosexuality often leads to the big taboo of anal intercourse at some point, no pun intended, why has there not been a comprehensive study into the positive and negative aspects of this widely practiced human behavior?

If there has been such a study and I missed it, please enlighten me. There are studies about everything it seems, is the study of anal intercourse also taboo?

People fear what they don't understand.