What use are they if they only tempt you but can never be used?
Mormons and Gays.
- Thread starter Beantown
- Start date
What use are they if they only tempt you but can never be used?
Absolutely. I've read homosexuals using terms like "jailbait", there is the whole bear culture (men with lots of body hair), etc. While I hate to overgeneralize, mature homosexual men generally want an adult partner. Male homosexuals run the gamut, or course. Some of them into teens, just like some heterosexual men are into teens.
No. I was honestly confused by your answer, and was seeking clarification. It was not rhetorical. You seemed to be focusing on the sex aspect, as opposed to the gender aspect, and that did not seem to comport withyou previous positions.
I would appreciate if you would respond to my original questions to you, with non-questions. I'll amend. Of course, if the answer is "religion" or the like, I agree there is nothig more to argue about, expect whether we should allow religion to dictate law.
If two (possibly but not necessarily) gay men are raising a child together, being married allows them to provide better resources, better security, and better support to their family, in areas like health insurance, chronic illness, and estate planning. What better reason do you need? What better reason do you use to justify heterosexual marriage?
So how do psychologists draw that prepubescent-postpubescent line?
I get your analogy with male hetero running attraction down through the female teen ages (& how ethics are relative across cultures) but have never thought or read about it with male specific homo interaction. Female changes seem so much more pronounced to me. Maybe that's just because I'm a guy, I don't know.
The sex aspect was important to you. Otherwise you wouldn't have started your scenario with "If two gay men are raising a child together...". Or so it seemed to me.
As I mentioned, we've had this exact same discussion at least once before, so this will probably be my last post along these lines in this thread.
Your question is operating from the assumption that I think two men should be allowed to adopt children together, an opinion I do not necessarily share. So it just doesn't make much sense.
To reiterate the point I was making, if you take heterosexual sex out of the marriage equation (something that I feel certainly *does* belong in marriage, and has since time immemorial, to the extent that having a non-consummated marriage is grounds for annulment in most states), then why leave sex in the equation at all? You might be one of the few who believe that two non-gay roommates should be allowed to marry, but even if so, most don't share that view.
One of my good friends growing up in California's father was a gay LDS member. He was actually on an episode of Geraldo Rivera back in the day talking about it, though I was too young to know or care about what he felt about the church. My mom knew more, I may ask her about it sometime. IIRC he wasn't much of a churchgoer but I think his mother took my friend and their siblings to church.
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
I think more information and more support will do wonders for everyone involved.
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
One of the guys on the website that the OP cited is named Ty Mansfield. He received a lot of hate mail from those seeking tolerance when he decided to get married to a woman. I think it's important that tolerance goes both ways, regardless of what your religious belief or sexual orientation is.
JAG
Well-Known Member
Well, I think we can at least agree that the LDS church is fairly consistent on this issue. They understand it is human to have sexual desires but self control is one of the many values they try to teach their members. Unmarried members are taught to refrain from any sexual act until they enter into marriage and the members that cannot do this must go through the proper repentance process. So really the LDS church is not asking its homosexual members to do anything its other members are asked and taught.
HeavenHarris
Banned
Interesting discussions guys. I find the angle from religious people interesting.
What if there was a new prophet, and he was gay. I mean, let's just say there's a gay man who gay people start following as a leader.
Kinda like Mohammad/Jesus in the middle east, Joseph Smith in Utah or Missouri or wherever it is, etc.
Let's call him Fabulous Jesus from San Francisco. What if he and his followers establish their own gay religion, and their text includes marriage (of the gay variety). Then, would this gay religion kinda be on equal footing, since it's also a religion? It wouldn't be 'ruining' the institution of marriage any more, or would it? Or would the argument then shift to 'my institution craps on yo mama's institution'.
Discuss.
What if there was a new prophet, and he was gay. I mean, let's just say there's a gay man who gay people start following as a leader.
Kinda like Mohammad/Jesus in the middle east, Joseph Smith in Utah or Missouri or wherever it is, etc.
Let's call him Fabulous Jesus from San Francisco. What if he and his followers establish their own gay religion, and their text includes marriage (of the gay variety). Then, would this gay religion kinda be on equal footing, since it's also a religion? It wouldn't be 'ruining' the institution of marriage any more, or would it? Or would the argument then shift to 'my institution craps on yo mama's institution'.
Discuss.
spycam1
Well-Known Member
Well, there are religions that permit gay marriage. That's why the the Supreme Court overruled Prop 8 in California--because it was infringing on people's freedom of religion. At least, that's my understanding.
JAG
Well-Known Member
There are plenty of members that never get married for a variety of reasons but they are still all asked to live their life without participating in sexual acts.
spycam1
Well-Known Member
Yes, but I think BabyPeterzz' main point was that the true injustice is taking away someone's opportunity to have sexual relations. The members you described at least have that, even if you're correct in that they experience the same struggle of going through life without sex due to their inability to find a spouse.
spycam1
Well-Known Member
I don't think this comparison is valid. Although it is very clear that one's sexual orientation is not something derived by choice, you seem to be inferring that it is caused by genetics through your comparison to eye color. Just because it is not a choice, that does not necessarily mean it is genetic. That is not to say that it is not genetic either; there is simply not conclusive evidence to prove whether it is genetics, environment, or some combination of the two.
JAG
Well-Known Member
I suppose I agree with that point there but both as you pointed out, experience the same struggles. The LDS church believes that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God in part because it gives the couple to ability to procreate. Two parent families, and specifically a mother and a father raising their children is what the LDS church believes is best for its members if it is possible. I do not see a time in the future when the LDS will change its position so the only thing it can do is try to help its members live up to its standards it has set.
The Black Swordsman
Well-Known Member
I believe in equal rights for gays. Just like I have the right to marry a woman a gay should also have that right to marry a woman, no more no less 
addictionary
Well-Known Member
have to say, I've misread the title "Mormons are gay".
and they are gay, if you mean the primary meaning "cheerful-joyful-happy" by gay.
and they are gay, if you mean the primary meaning "cheerful-joyful-happy" by gay.
I don't understand why you think this is a question. You can't tell the difference between a prepubescent and a postpubscent boy? You don't think age of consent laws apply?
Even as a straight guy, I can tell that my sons friend look different at 19 than they did at fifteen. Shoulders grow out, hair thickens, etc. I agree that if I were sexually interested in men, I'd know the markers even better.