Interesting bit on 60 Minutes last night

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

involved in what? the political effort?

I find it curious that of the myriad moral problems in the world, the church focuses almost exclusively on gay marriage.

For me, it's not an issue that keeps me up at night.

World hunger and disease takes a back seat to denying the clothing company FCUK a trademark, in my ward.

The Church really has few political efforts. Most of its efforts are involved in the threefold purpose of the Church, proclaiming the Gospel, perfecting the Saints, and redeeming our dead. Everything else is tangential.

BTW, I'm not involved in the Church's political efforts either. However, I understand why the Church speaks out on that issue. Symbolically, if this issue fails, it will become harder and harder to preach the Gospel, as those living in the world will not relate to our message. If you have a world even more licentious than it is now, how could one ever expect somebody to be chaste?

Chastity is probably a word most teenagers don't even know and the concept of saving yourself for marriage is laughable to most of them. Most couples now probably don't even know how to be faithful to one another. If you add for it to be commonplace for gender confusion and same sex relations to be more common, we won't have anybody at all who could ever join.

We may be fighting a losing battle, where no matter what our efforts, nobody will care about anything, but shouldn't the Church try?

And we will never have significant enough efforts to make a dent in world hunger. It helps when it can but this will never be a focus of primary emphasis. We are not social egalitarians.

We will seek to ease suffering, but we know we can never eliminate it.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Archaea

be a focus of primary emphasis. We are not social egalitarians.

We will seek to ease suffering, but we know we can never eliminate it.

In that case, Zionism in the Mormon religion is truly dead isn't it.

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by Archaea

BTW, I'm not involved in the Church's political efforts either. However, I understand why the Church speaks out on that issue. Symbolically, if this issue fails, it will become harder and harder to preach the Gospel, as those living in the world will not relate to our message. If you have a world even more licentious than it is now, how could one ever expect somebody to be chaste?

Chastity is probably a word most teenagers don't even know and the concept of saving yourself for marriage is laughable to most of them. Most couples now probably don't even know how to be faithful to one another. If you add for it to be commonplace for gender confusion and same sex relations to be more common, we won't have anybody at all who could ever join.

So the reason you're in favor of the Church's efforts to deny rights to homosexuals is so that more people will join the church? So this is all about recruitment?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

So the reason you're in favor of the Church's efforts to deny rights to homosexuals is so that more people will join the church? So this is all about recruitment?

Recruitment?

No because, intellectually I believe homosexuality is destructive, and a cause for soul destruction. There is absolutely nothing positive about it. Guys may believe it is the result of natural urges. So what? Lots of natural urges are destructive. Alcoholism, pedophiliaism, spousal abuse, adultery and many others. Calling something "natural" never wins the day.

No the reason I intellectually support the cry for sexuality purity, including homosexual sex, is I believe most of us, including myself, are probably headed for the telestial kingdom (lowest level), because we didn't master our natural urges for better purposes.

If the Church can save one person or many persons from following their natural urges to destruction, then that is a good thing.

If you study homosexuality clinically or at least unbiased clinical reports, you will see that homosexuality is inherently destructive. Can individuals function and even prosper in spite of it? Of course, but it is a burden which brings no benefit, especially at the social level. Now if I were competing for women, maybe I would want all guys to be gay so I could win, but outside of that, there is no social benefit to homosexuality. IF a person can't make a reasoned argument or a historical argument for something, then I don't see any reason for it to exist.

In the end, the Church is helping just a little by its anti-homosexual behavior stance. It won't matter, as most of us are going to hell any way, but the very few that actually heed God's warnings and become good will enjoy salvation for the eternities.

[MikeWaters]

Committed monogamous marriage builds righteousness. Except when it is gay committed monogamous marriage in which case it is Satan's playground.

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Committed monogamous marriage builds righteousness. Except when it is gay committed monogamous marriage in which case it is Satan's playground.

Just curious how can something be righteous that is clearly a sin even if it is a "marriage so to speak? (I am assuming you are being sarcastic "Except when it is gay committed monogamous marriage in which case it is Satan's playground)

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Committed monogamous marriage builds righteousness. Except when it is gay committed monogamous marriage in which case it is Satan's playground.

You really equate the two?

I submit, except for very, very, very small percentage, gay relationships are not capable of monogamy, but that's beyond the question.

A committed hetero relationship can and usually does produce offspring, contribute to the broadening of the gene pool, unless you're from Oklahoma where you marry your sister, and thereafter provides the universal basis for supporting the offspring. Once the offspring leave the nest, they continue for a lifetime of nurturing.

A gay relationship contributes nothing to the gene pool. It can't under any point of view ever produce offspring. The chief benefit to society of marriage is well-reared, productive offspring. The rest is a joy ride. Sometimes it provides economic support, that benefit is tangential, not primary. A gay monogamous relationship, in and of itself more difficult to maintain and truly much more theoretical, doesn't provide nuturing of younger and older generations. You're asking for whacked out relationship to provide something it can't provide.

Sociology is not psychiatry.

[MikeWaters]

what makes gay marriage a sin? What fundamental aspects, that is.

Polygamy was a commandment. Now it's a sin. So we gather that polygamy as to its very nature, is not inherently sinful.

Is it possible that gay marriage is just not a commandment, and as such is potentially not inherently sinful?

just throwing it out there.

[MikeWaters]

or put another way, is it less sinful for a gay person to be monogamous in a longterm relationship than to be promiscuously gay?

[Archaea]

Both are equally sinful as it's a plain abuse of the procreative power, with no intent to procreate. It's sole purpose is to tintilate.

So if I hump one whore a week, or ten whores a week, which is less sinful? I don't think it matters.

I don't think a gay limits his sins by screwing only one guy as opposed 100s in a gay bar.

I know this runs contrary to humping one gal in whom you are in love versus a thousand groupies.

From an eternal sense, humping the same sex is NEVER an act of love, just an act of lust.

In hetero sex, when the two separate is not something I'm probably qualified to discuss. It probably turns on when you focus solely upon the other person's needs and wants.