General Conference - Fall 2010

[colton]

Drug addiction has known psychological effects that interfere with an individuals ability to function. Homosexuality does not.

For what it's worth, I just signed up to be a bone marrow donor a week or two ago. One of the questions on the application form was if I had ever had any homosexual relationships. If I had said "yes", they would have refused me, presumably because the likelihood of me having AIDs without knowing it, or something along those lines. Homosexual behavior is certainly not without a SUBSTANTIAL health risk, in case you are saying otherwise.

 

[TroutBum]

For what it's worth, I just signed up to be a bone marrow donor a week or two ago. One of the questions on the application form was if I had ever had any homosexual relationships. If I had said "yes", they would have refused me, presumably because the likelihood of me having AIDs without knowing it, or something along those lines. Homosexual behavior is certainly not without a SUBSTANTIAL health risk, in case you are saying otherwise.

Does your bishop know that you lied?

 

[Scat]

For what it's worth, I just signed up to be a bone marrow donor a week or two ago. One of the questions on the application form was if I had ever had any homosexual relationships. If I had said "yes", they would have refused me, presumably because the likelihood of me having AIDs without knowing it, or something along those lines. Homosexual behavior is certainly not without a SUBSTANTIAL health risk, in case you are saying otherwise.

I read just last week that 1 out of every 4 gay men is HIV positive. 25% of the gay male population has HIV. That's pretty high.

 

[One Brow]

Apparently, you are one of those that got slapped down.

*chortle*. No doubt you remeber it that way.

0-2 here my man.

I'm well aware of your score-keeping abilities, and give them all the credence they deserve.

For what it's worth, I just signed up to be a bone marrow donor a week or two ago. One of the questions on the application form was if I had ever had any homosexual relationships. If I had said "yes", they would have refused me, presumably because the likelihood of me having AIDs without knowing it, or something along those lines. Homosexual behavior is certainly not without a SUBSTANTIAL health risk, in case you are saying otherwise.

Holding hands with another man is more dangerous than holding hands with woman? There are no behaviors that are risker for homosexuals than they are for heterosexual couples engaging in the same behavior.

It's certainly true (or at least, seems true) that many young men engage in riskier behavior than young women do. That could easily be why homosexuals are the groups at highest risk and lowest risk for having AIDS (highest for men, lowest for women). There is nothing inherently homosexual about forgetting/refusing to wear a condom.

So, while I agree that homosexual men are more likely to have AIDS, I reject your contention (as I perceived it, anyhow) that it is the homosexual status of the men that puts them at risk.

I read just last week that 1 out of every 4 gay men is HIV positive. 25% of the gay male population has HIV. That's pretty high.

I agree.

 

[C l u t c H 385]

So, while I agree that homosexual men are more likely to have AIDS, I reject your contention (as I perceived it, anyhow) that it is the homosexual status of the men that puts them at risk.

You just offer reasons why it is so, but then reject the fact that gay men are more likely to have AIDS? No matter how many steps you put between gay and AIDS there IS a correlation.

 

[Archie Moses]

Why is it that homosexuals are more likely to have AIDS than heterosexuals?

 

[CONAN]

*chortle*. No doubt you remeber it that way.

I'm well aware of your score-keeping abilities, and give them all the credence they deserve.

Pot meet kettle.

 

[Scat]

There are no behaviors that are risker for homosexuals than they are for heterosexual couples engaging in the same behavior.

It's certainly true (or at least, seems true) that many young men engage in riskier behavior than young women do. That could easily be why homosexuals are the groups at highest risk and lowest risk for having AIDS (highest for men, lowest for women). There is nothing inherently homosexual about forgetting/refusing to wear a condom.

So, while I agree that homosexual men are more likely to have AIDS, I reject your contention (as I perceived it, anyhow) that it is the homosexual status of the men that puts them at risk.

I seem to recall a study that anal sex is inherently riskier because the possibility of injury and bleeding is much greater than traditional ******/vaginal sex. If that's the case, then absolutely homosexual behavior puts homosexuals at a greater risk for transmitted diseases. And while heterosexual couples do participate in such behavior, it is an option, not a necessity for having intercourse.

 

[One Brow]

You just offer reasons why it is so, but then reject the fact that gay men are more likely to have AIDS? No matter how many steps you put between gay and AIDS there IS a correlation.

Correlation is not causation.

I seem to recall a study that anal sex is inherently riskier because the possibility of injury and bleeding is much greater than traditional ******/vaginal sex.

Even to the extent this might be true, blood doesn't flow through a condom.

If that's the case, then absolutely homosexual behavior puts homosexuals at a greater risk for transmitted diseases. And while heterosexual couples do participate in such behavior, it is an option, not a necessity for having intercourse.

It's also not necessary for homosexuals to have anal sex, and certainly not necessary for them to do so without a condom.

 

[Scat]

Even to the extent this might be true, blood doesn't flow through a condom.

But it does make risky behaviour that much more risky.

]

If that's the case, then absolutely homosexual behavior puts homosexuals at a greater risk for transmitted diseases. And while heterosexual couples do participate in such behavior, it is an option, not a necessity for having intercourse.

It's also not necessary for homosexuals to have anal sex, and certainly not necessary for them to do so without a condom.

Hence the reason I specified intercourse and not just sexual pleasure.

 

[franklin]

Why is the world going to end in a few years? Geez everyone be afraid? My parents were gulllible enough to fall for that scam of having to buy dehydrated meat from the church and then forcing me to eat the crap. I can tell you that listening to a talk about food storage would be as exciting as watching paint dry.

I don't know why I'm bothering... Since I'm somewhat into the sport of hording a bunch of cans that I'll most likely throw away, I'd like to offer up some ideas on why you're being a little naive on the whole food storage thing.

The world is 2 months away from famine pretty much all the time. One Irish potatoe blight incident and we're all gonna be fighting at the grocery stores. What about terrible weather worldwide for just one year? We have numerous continental incidents each year. Read up on the potential problems with genetically modified food. If all farmers grow the exact same strains then we lose genetic diversity. The lower the genetic diversity the higher susceptibility to catastrophic crop failure. Food storage is only a thing of the past for the past 50 years or so. It was a way of life the prior 100,000 years. Why be so confident now? Google "world grain stocks" or listen to investment guru Don Coxe once in a while.

The Mormon reasons aren't just end of the world as you suggest. They also councel getting out of debt and having savings. These, along with food storage, can really help when the banks take a **** on everyone's home equity. There's really more to it than "I hate Mormons and daddy made me eat crappy food.".

 

[Jazz Spazz]

There is a joke, that helps people understand many of the issues here.

"God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve."

If you believe in God, and/or the Bible, you may remember one of, if not the first commandment to Adam and Eve was to multiply and replenish the earth. It is biologically impossible for 2 men, or 2 women to "multiply".

Marriage just happens to be the means God has to unify each "Adam and Eve" with any children they have through the "multiplication" process.

Why would God, who created Adam and Eve, and instructed them to be married and multiply and replenish the earth, think it ok down the road for an Adam and Steve to be married, and not multiply and replenish the earth? Wouldn't that basically be those people saying to God, we dont like your plan, or think it is good enough. Isn't that also basically the same thing lucifer did.... I dont like your plan, I think it should go like this.... which got him where he is?

I think we should skip what our own agenda is and really ask ourselves, "What does God want".
Ask it honestly, and sincerely without thought for any ulterior motives.
Then, kneel down and in prayer, sincerely ask God if what you think he wants is really what he wants.
If you are honest with yourself, and honest with God, you will get an answer.
If you only want to defend yourself, someone else, or are on a crusade... you may not be open to an answer and will probably get nothing, and be in the same place you were before you started.

What is God's plan for us here?
Can you learn about God's plan from the Bible?
Can you learn about God's plan from the Book of Mormon?
Can you pray about these things and find out for yourself?
Are Prophets real? Was Joseph Smith a true Prophet? Is Thomas Monson a Prophet today?
Is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints the Lords true church?

If you actually go back to the basics and find out for yourself the answers to these things, it will help you resolve all of these issues discussed here in this thread. Many people with questions, or even arguments are wanting to argue point 10, when points 1-9 have not been agreed upon, or a common ground has not been reached. Difficult to reconcile differing viewpoints from different points on a map.