Let's stop beating around the bush

[T Blue]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

This is an excerpt from BYU's honor code:



Isn't that self-contradictory? It's okay to have same sex attraction, but it's not okay to have homosexual feelings?

I guess you will see in it what you will see in it.

All I see in there is that you are not to act on your feelings, nor are you to promote that homosexuality is OK in society, but if you see something that is contradictory, well, OK.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

It's a good idea. Maybe I will.

Of course we know how it goes. It gets read by a secretary and gets sent to the stake president. I like my stake president. He's the one that gave the seminal "big tent" impromptu speech in my ward. He also sent out on email explaining that the federal amendment from the FP was not a request to vote for it.

If you do that, you have guts.

Personally, if you laid it out as passionately as you discuss it here, I have a REALLY hard time beleiving that you would not be contacted by someone. Not saying you would get into trouble, but there may be an interview or chat.

[T Blue]

Originally Posted by Archaea

there is no higher man and perhaps no God. Gays disprove the existence of God.

God would not create something that serves no purpose, but as science proves the probability of a combination of mostly genetic, with in utero factors, determining sexuality, then the existence of something which serves no evolutionary purpose proves the non-existence of God.

I guess SU is correct, there is no God.

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by CardiacCoug

I disagree with it, but it's not self-contradictory. You can HAVE homosexual feelings and admit to those feelings but you can't physically EXPRESS homosexual feelings, even with holding hands, kissing, etc.

But surely you can read between the lines. If the feelings are not sinful, then how can there be a sin in expressing those feelings. The Church's attitude seems to be: "If you're attracted to someone of the same sex, that's fine. Just keep it to yourself."

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by T Blue

I guess SU is correct, there is no God.

SU does not get the credit for that concept. The notion that there is no God dates back to the early 80s, from a movie called Caddyshack.

Bartender: Another Rob Roy, Bishop?

Bishop: You never ask a navy man if he'll have another drink, because it's nobody's goddamned business how much he's had already.

Judge Smails: Wrong, you're drinking too much your Excellency.

Bishop: Excellency, fiddlesticks, my name's Fred and I'm a man, same as you.

Judge Smails: You're not a man, you're a bishop, for God's sakes.

Bishop: There is no God

[creekster]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

But surely you can read between the lines. If the feelings are not sinful, then how can there be a sin in expressing those feelings. The Church's attitude seems to be: "If you're attracted to someone of the same sex, that's fine. Just keep it to yourself."

As I noted, I don't like looking ot the HC for this issue, but even so I think you are looking at it backwards. THe portion you highlighted prohibits physical acts that are expressions of homosexual feelings. Itis not talking about verbal expressions, it is talking about acting physically on urges, or acticing physically so as to create urges.

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by creekster

As I noted, I don't like looking ot the HC for this issue, but even so I think you are looking at it backwards. THe portion you highlighted prohibits physical acts that are expressions of homosexual feelings. Itis not talking about verbal expressions, it is talking about acting physically on urges, or acticing physically so as to create urges.

Let me give you a hypothetical:

Suppose there were a person with same sex attraction that was in love with another man but never physically acted on his attraction. Let's also suppose that he lived with the person he was in love with and that he made no secret to people in the ward that he was in love with his partner. How do you suppose his verbal expressions of love would go over in the ward?

[creekster]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

Let me give you a hypothetical:

Suppose there were a person with same sex attraction that was in love with another man but never physically acted on his attraction. Let's also suppose that he lived with the person he was in love with and that he made no secret to people in the ward that he was in love with his partner. How do you suppose his verbal expressions of love would go over in the ward?

Not well, but that is a different issue altogether.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by creekster

Not well, but that is a different issue altogether.

I suppose nonseq believes in the Easter Bunny as well.

A man sexually attracted to any object and stays within proximity of it, will not act upon it? Yeah right.

And the BYU coed will refuse to eat the twinkie in front of her, if nobody is watching in the middle of the night.

[8ballrollin]

Originally Posted by Archaea

A man sexually attracted to any object and stays within proximity of it, will not act upon it? Yeah right.

And the BYU coed will refuse to eat the twinkie in front of her, if nobody is watching in the middle of the night.

<spit coke on monitor>