It was out of control? I had just written one of my best posts of the day and couldn't post it. Damn.
General Conference - Fall 2010
- Thread starter colton
- Start date
It was out of control? I had just written one of my best posts of the day and couldn't post it. Damn.
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
Post it in here.
I just read page 5 of that thread and it was a bit much, but I don't think it deserved to be closed.
G-O-A-T
Member
I was going to post as a response in the other thread that just got locked... but since I can't, this seems like the next best place.
What I got from Packer's speech is that homosexual tendencies are impure and unnatural.
People who cannot overcome these tendencies are impure and unnatural.
Homosexuals are impure and unnatural.
How would you like to grow up in a family that preached that same tune, when you yourself were homosexual? You could either pretend you were someone else your whole life or be shunned by the very people who are supposed to provide you strength when things get tough.
Personally, I think this scenario would cause most kids to grow up to be pretty ****ed in the head... but I'm no psychologist, maybe someone here is...
The problem with Packer's speech is that he made potentially damaging comments as a highly visible representative of a very significant religious group. When he voices his opinion, people listen... and then a lot of those people who listened to him go back home and preach the same garbage (in my opinion) to their own families... which in turn leads to what I think would be a very ****ed up childhood for those few unfortunate homosexual children growing up in a "Packer" values household.
What I got from Packer's speech is that homosexual tendencies are impure and unnatural.
People who cannot overcome these tendencies are impure and unnatural.
Homosexuals are impure and unnatural.
How would you like to grow up in a family that preached that same tune, when you yourself were homosexual? You could either pretend you were someone else your whole life or be shunned by the very people who are supposed to provide you strength when things get tough.
Personally, I think this scenario would cause most kids to grow up to be pretty ****ed in the head... but I'm no psychologist, maybe someone here is...
The problem with Packer's speech is that he made potentially damaging comments as a highly visible representative of a very significant religious group. When he voices his opinion, people listen... and then a lot of those people who listened to him go back home and preach the same garbage (in my opinion) to their own families... which in turn leads to what I think would be a very ****ed up childhood for those few unfortunate homosexual children growing up in a "Packer" values household.
That's WAAAAAY more retarded than saying that people choose their sexual preference! I remember when I decided after much prayer and thought that I had no interest whatsoever in taking or giving a ***** to a man's ********. It's among one of the most important decisions I've ever made, as I'm sure it was for you as well.
Libertarians, LDS, and gay marriage.
Since everyone is so interested in defending their position, I'd like to offer up the main points I've seen missing that just might bring some solidarity.
As I understand the position, the LDS church is supportive of legal unions.
Legal unions are contracts that we've come to know as marriage.
The LDS church is fine with allowing any two consenting adults the freedom to enter legal unions.
Marriage is seen as a religious commitment. The non-religious or less-religious can make similar commitments too (infidelity, common property, etc.).
Putting these religious commitments into a government contract makes absolutely no sense. Do you want fidelity included into your "marriage" certificate? If not, then let's call it what it is--A legal union with legal protections/consequences.
The LDS church, and other anti-gay marriage proponents are worried about the slippery slope that allowing gay marriage will become. They do not want to be forced to adopt to gay couples, etc. in the name of equal rights. Instead, they (we) prefer adults to make decisions amongst themselves as free men.
Hopefully you can see this is more of a libertarian stance amongst the LDS. Others aren't so respectful of the rights and freedoms of all.
Personally, I'd do away with all marriage certificates and prefer legal unions for both gay and opposite sex unions. Maybe the best path forward would be for those who are against gay marriage to also support exchanging a county marriage certificate for a county legal union certificate. That is what they really are. Your vows are personal and/or religious commitments.
Now run along and get a legal union, then be married by whomever will do you the honor.
Since everyone is so interested in defending their position, I'd like to offer up the main points I've seen missing that just might bring some solidarity.
As I understand the position, the LDS church is supportive of legal unions.
Legal unions are contracts that we've come to know as marriage.
The LDS church is fine with allowing any two consenting adults the freedom to enter legal unions.
Marriage is seen as a religious commitment. The non-religious or less-religious can make similar commitments too (infidelity, common property, etc.).
Putting these religious commitments into a government contract makes absolutely no sense. Do you want fidelity included into your "marriage" certificate? If not, then let's call it what it is--A legal union with legal protections/consequences.
The LDS church, and other anti-gay marriage proponents are worried about the slippery slope that allowing gay marriage will become. They do not want to be forced to adopt to gay couples, etc. in the name of equal rights. Instead, they (we) prefer adults to make decisions amongst themselves as free men.
Hopefully you can see this is more of a libertarian stance amongst the LDS. Others aren't so respectful of the rights and freedoms of all.
Personally, I'd do away with all marriage certificates and prefer legal unions for both gay and opposite sex unions. Maybe the best path forward would be for those who are against gay marriage to also support exchanging a county marriage certificate for a county legal union certificate. That is what they really are. Your vows are personal and/or religious commitments.
Now run along and get a legal union, then be married by whomever will do you the honor.
Can you name one church that was forced to admit interracial couples in the wake of Loving vs. Virginia? Otherwise, this is just fear-mongering.
Yeah, I realized shortly after my post that you had probably been talking about something like Lawrence v. Texas.
I'm not gay, but I grew up in pretty much the exact same religious situation (shunned or deal with it). I have many friends in an identical situation. I'm sure you can see why I see this as a copout. I'm not angry or looking for excuses. I deal with it and live a pretty normal, run of the mill life. This is the way life is. People are emotional creatures, and have expectations that others see as irrational. Some can deal with that pressure and others cannot. I know people who've taken the shunned rout, and it worked out fine. I know others who deal with it "in the closet" and it worked out fine. Unfortunately, others weren't blessed to be born with the capacity to deal with it. That truly is very sad. I hate to see people chemical disadvantaged as I like to call it. That's not a spot I'd like anyone to be in. Life should be enjoyable.
Do you seriously think that in 50 years the LDS church will be tolerant of gay sex? I sure as heck don't.
G-O-A-T
Member
I assume you are from Utah... so here are the Utah guidelines for marriage: https://www.le.state.ut.us/~code/TITLE30/30_01.htm
Can you please find me one reference suggesting that the state of Utah intended to limit marriage to only religious commitments?
I see no problem with that... but what's easier, rewriting thousands of pages of law and making widespread changing of labels, or just letting homosexuals call their union a "marriage"?
Don't be an ***. I specified "slippery slope", and "worried". You want to call it fear-mongering then whatever. Leave it up to you to pick the tiniest part and make a whale out of it. There's a reason I'm under the impression you're a fundy that doesn't give a rats *** about freedom. Why don't you find the beauty in the solution that has potential to satisfy all? Are you really so cynical that you want to hurt and deteriorate the conditions of humanity over this? Who's the real fear-mongerer?