More homosexual discussion - Page 10 - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

Archaea · 07-28-2007, 01:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

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.

I'm not stating gays have it easy, because I would not wish to be afflicted with the orientation.

But the black analogy is also poor. Blackness is a full genetic condition; orientation is a complex mechanism, and it's not binary.

Do you agree that the only logical change would be the elimination of the LoC, which is unlikely to happen?

Insensitive PAP · 07-28-2007, 01:35 AM

but most of commieguard are bottoms.

non sequitur · 07-28-2007, 01:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archaea

But the black analogy is also poor. Blackness is a full genetic condition; orientation is a complex mechanism, and it's not binary.

The black analogy is an apt one. It's not just about the prospect of not being able to marry and have sex -- hell, there's still masturbation. It's more about the stigma attached to homosexuality. Gays are thought of as deviants and perverts. Yeah, we hear the line about hating the sin and loving the sinner, but we all know that is bullshit. People in the Church, for the most part, do not embrace gays. It makes little difference whether they act on their homosexuality or not. Not only are gays in the church denied one of the most basic human needs, that of intimacy, but they are subjected to the scorn of those in the church who are "normal".

Archaea · 07-28-2007, 01:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by non sequitur

Not only are gays in the church denied one of the most basic human needs, that of intimacy, but they are subjected to the scorn of those in the church who are "normal".

Again, you're speaking as an encyclopedic authority on a matter I have never witnessed. I'm aware of two persons, who were treated well, who left to pursue their orientations.

I disagree that members are categorically cruel to gays. Members may be standoffish to something they can't conceive or understand.

Church bashing homophiles often like to depict the Church behavior as one approaching the era of Catholic Inquisition. There may be misunderstanding, but should everybody different expect a groupthink to automatically accept the alien?

non sequitur · 07-28-2007, 02:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archaea

I disagree that members are categorically cruel to gays. Members may be standoffish to something they can't conceive or understand.

Take a look at CougarBoard sometime when the issue of homosexuality is discussed.

marsupial · 07-28-2007, 02:07 AM

I befriended a gay man who regularly worked out at the gym the same time I did. He was an RM, married in the temple with 2 kids and was living in Utah. He was later ex'ed, divorced and then moved to Dallas. He said something interesting to me once that I found surprising (and I am sure Archaea will appreciate this). He told me that he thinks that if his ex-wife had been more interested in sex he might have been able to stay in his marriage and continue to live a heterosexual life.

Whether or not someone is born gay, I don't know, but obviously some people's sexuality is more maleable than others. Also, he appears to be in a difficult situation. He now has a life partner and is not willing to live a celibate life, however, he would also like to be a part of a church and the religion he feels most at home with is a place he is no longer welcome.

Surfah · 07-28-2007, 02:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by non sequitur

Take a look at CougarBoard sometime when the issue of homosexuality is discussed.

I don't think CB is an appropriate yardstick for all things Mormon.

Archaea · 07-28-2007, 02:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by surfah33

I don't think CB is an appropriate yardstick for all things Mormon.

In fact, I submit CB is an aberrational subset of the most extreme aspects of Mormonism.

Surfah · 07-28-2007, 02:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archaea

In fact, I submit CB is an aberrational subset of the most extreme aspects of Mormonism.

Agreed. At least this is what I tell myself. If it were not, I don't think I could be numbered among them.

07-28-2007, 01:35 AM	#92
Insensitive PAP Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 293	Mike and Rocky are both tops but most of commieguard are bottoms.

07-28-2007, 02:07 AM	#96
marsupial Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: M-I-S-S-I-S-S-I-P-P-I... Isn't it so fun to spell? Posts: 1,701	I befriended a gay man who regularly worked out at the gym the same time I did. He was an RM, married in the temple with 2 kids and was living in Utah. He was later ex'ed, divorced and then moved to Dallas. He said something interesting to me once that I found surprising (and I am sure Archaea will appreciate this). He told me that he thinks that if his ex-wife had been more interested in sex he might have been able to stay in his marriage and continue to live a heterosexual life. Whether or not someone is born gay, I don't know, but obviously some people's sexuality is more maleable than others. Also, he appears to be in a difficult situation. He now has a life partner and is not willing to live a celibate life, however, he would also like to be a part of a church and the religion he feels most at home with is a place he is no longer welcome.