More homosexual discussion

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Black Diamond Bay

You clearly haven't been in a singles ward for a long time. They actually say things to us like "Everyone needs to be prepared to be self-sufficient, because not all of us will have the opportunity to marry in this lifetime." How old were you when you got married, my own mother has started to say things to me like "when and IF you get married..." Truthfully I really don't think she believes it will ever happen, and my mom isn't bad compared to some of the stuff I've heard insensitive parents saying to their older single children.

It seems SoCal is trying to make a distinction without much of a difference. Which is the strangest part of gay advocacy, engender sympathy because their suffering is more unique than all others combined, and that therefore their suffering should take precedence over all others.

Single people with no reasonable prospects of marriage do lose all hope, the seeds really aren't there. You haven't counseled them if you believe otherwise.

I don't believe a gay person grows up hoping for a gay relationship, but rather is introduced into heterosexual society, just like everybody else and gradually gravitates to gay society, eventually deciding like unmarriagable singles, they will either be single forever or not associate with the Church. Again, it's an analogy, and heaven forbid anybody I know suffer this, but who's to say who has the heavier burden, because all of those burdens suck.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

I wish I had the answer. That's the dilemma. The problem is that the prejudices of the church membership at large are so set right now, and they are ratified by the current doctrine, that I think it would take a change in doctrine to make any difference.

It's not my place to change the doctrine regarding this. However, if it were made, I would welcome it.

The only change one could make would be to eliminate the Law of Chastity. Do you see that happening?

[Surfah]

Originally Posted by Archaea

The only change one could make would be to eliminate the Law of Chastity. Do you see that happening?

I was the guy in the back row of Priesthood Session of GC with his fingers crossed when the Prophet would get up and make announcements. Now that I am getting married I'll be pissed if they eliminate the LoC.

But Arch, I share your sentiment. I really have little association with any gays. No family members, no close friends, maybe some associates but sexuality is never discussed so I have little concept or understanding of this matter.

I think you're onto something though in your last post. I think the distinction between gays in the Church and those members whom BDB described who have no hope for that type of companionship the Church espouses is very gray. I don't think one can make a conclusive argument that one segment of the population is suffering more than another.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by surfah33

I was the guy in the back row of Priesthood Session of GC with his fingers crossed when the Prophet would get up and make announcements. Now that I am getting married I'll be pissed if they eliminate the LoC.

But Arch, I share your sentiment. I really have little association with any gays. No family members, no close friends, maybe some associates but sexuality is never discussed so I have little concept or understanding of this matter.

I think you're onto something though in your last post. I think the distinction between gays in the Church and those members whom BDB described who have no hope for that type of companionship the Church espouses is very gray. I don't think one can make a conclusive argument that one segment of the population is suffering more than another.

Wouldn't that be a bummer of a switch, okay singles, you don't have to obey the law of chastity but marrieds you have to. Do you think people would still marry?

[Surfah]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Wouldn't that be a bummer of a switch, okay singles, you don't have to obey the law of chastity but marrieds you have to. Do you think people would still marry?

Exactly. That's why it would never happen.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Wouldn't that be a bummer of a switch, okay singles, you don't have to obey the law of chastity but marrieds you have to. Do you think people would still marry?

the women would still want to marry but the men wouldn't. That's my guess.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

the women would still want to marry but the men wouldn't. That's my guess.

Of course, outsid of Mormondom isn't that how it already is? It might make for more committed members when they do marry, but I'm uncertain about that.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

I wish I had the answer. That's the dilemma. The problem is that the prejudices of the church membership at large are so set right now, and they are ratified by the current doctrine, that I think it would take a change in doctrine to make any difference.

It's not my place to change the doctrine regarding this. However, if it were made, I would welcome it.

I think the prejudices may be ratified by other persons with prejudices, but they are not ratfieid by the doctrine.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

It seems SoCal is trying to make a distinction without much of a difference. Which is the strangest part of gay advocacy, engender sympathy because their suffering is more unique than all others combined, and that therefore their suffering should take precedence over all others.

Maybe I am. Maybe this is the difference: for those who suffer, it very often is a result of either their own choices or environmental circumstances. Things that can change or can be resolved (albeit sometimes only with great effort).

For homosexuals, it is simply because of something that is an immutable part of who they are - something that simply cannot be changed under any circumstances (I know some will argue this point, but humor me here). I think it's more similar to racial discrimination - what if there were a commandment that you cannot marry if you were black?

Originally Posted by Archaea

Single people with no reasonable prospects of marriage do lose all hope, the seeds really aren't there. You haven't counseled them if you believe otherwise.

You're right - I haven't counseled them, but is losing hope the same as never even being given the opportunity to have hope for joy in the future?

Originally Posted by Archaea

I don't believe a gay person grows up hoping for a gay relationship, but rather is introduced into heterosexual society, just like everybody else and gradually gravitates to gay society, eventually deciding like unmarriagable singles, they will either be single forever or not associate with the Church. Again, it's an analogy, and heaven forbid anybody I know suffer this, but who's to say who has the heavier burden, because all of those burdens suck.

I think I hit on the closest analogy - it would be like saying you cannot and will not be able to marry anyone because you are black. Unless you choose to marry someone of your own sex. Or maybe a better example would be to imagine if the church believed only in homosexual relationships - say you could not have an intimate relationship with a female.

I guess I'm just having trouble verbalizing my thoughts on this.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by creekster

I think the prejudices may be ratified by other persons with prejudices, but they are not ratfieid by the doctrine.

The people with prejudices feel ratified by the doctrine - that's probably how I should have put it.