Grassroots Mormon anti-gay campaign

Nick the Pilot said:
The "I support Boyd K. Packer" page was started Oct. 5, two days after the senior leader of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints called homosexual attraction unnatural and said gays can and should change. By Monday afternoon, more than 4,500 people had joined the page as fans.
Click to expand...

This story saddens me. There are many stories detailing homosexual behavior exhibited by (non-human) animals in--where else?--nature; so how can anyone claim that homosexuality is "unnatural?" :rolleyes:
 
Dragonseer said:
This story saddens me. There are many stories detailing homosexual behavior exhibited by (non-human) animals in--where else?--nature; so how can anyone claim that homosexuality is "unnatural?" :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
The argument can be said that man is made in God's likeness and image (Genesis 1: 26-27)...animals are not. This means we are different from the animals of the earth, and we are to die of our "natural" state or nature in order to embrace and live in our "spiritual" state or nature.

Regardless of the exibition of our base nature's potential faults (be it greed, sloth, envy, wrath, pride, gluttony, or lust), any and all of them can spell our downfall, regardless of what form they take, or whom they are taken upon, or with.

Animals are without fault (innocent and blameless), man knows better, and so is accountable for his thoughts and deeds. To denigrate man to that of nothing more than another animal is to strip him of his crown and glory of being God's prized creation, unique among all the rest of creation, so precious God would sacrifice part of himself in order to keep man reserved, redeemed and sanctified for companionship with God, in an intimate relationship no other being can have (animal or angel).
 
You are arguing then that it is good to be "unnatural"; the Mormons were saying it is bad; in either case, the premise that it is "unnatural" is factually mistaken.
 
bob x said:
You are arguing then that it is good to be "unnatural"; the Mormons were saying it is bad; in either case, the premise that it is "unnatural" is factually mistaken.
Click to expand...

Based on "what" facts, is the premise mistaken?
 
How can a 'Mormon' instigated campaign be 'grass roots'?

When something is created by corporate money or a large enitities influence this is not 'grassroots' eg stimulated by the masses spontaneously, but 'astroturf' a synthetic movement created by an entity to appear grassroots.
 
Wil,

My impression was that the Facebook page was not started by a Mormon church leader but by a rank-and-file member (although it does not say this in the article). If the page was indeed created by one of the church leaders, that would definitely make it 'astro turf.'
 
. . . it is good to be "unnatural"
[Mormons say it is bad]
---that it is "unnatural" is factually a FALSEHOOD.
Click to expand...

As a matter of undisputable fact, it does occur in nature.
Click to expand...

Can I view this on "Wild Kingdom" or "Safari Adventures"?
Is there a comparable equivilance of bestial life and sexual pursuits of Humans?

If the monkeys & penguins do it ---then who is to say Gays shouldn't? ---is that what is being ascerted as providential proof of sophisticated norms?

If I object to animals (sub-humans) from engaging in homosexual pastimes ---I am an uncouth barbarian?
 
bhaktajan said:
Can I view this on "Wild Kingdom" or "Safari Adventures"?
Is there a comparable equivilance of bestial life and sexual pursuits of Humans??
Click to expand...
Heck no, you don't have to go to the TV for beastiality..it tis biblical...

18And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

19And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
20And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
21And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
23And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 24Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
Click to expand...
 G!d tried to make all the animals to be a good helpmeet for Adam...and he didn't find a good helpmeet. So G!d made woman...and she was a good helpmeet and they were one flesh...
 
Negative comments in the Bible about homosexuality can be interpreted as a reaction to Hellenist ideas in which heterosexual marriage is devalued. I understand the reaction, because I think man-wife marriages are truly an institution for children that must be supported. They need a pedestal and the support of the community. I would not like to see the return of those times (Hellenistic) where heterosexual sex was seen as less or even relatively dirty, however I don't think the mere presence of homosexuality would cause that. I think the ideas that grieved Christians were Hellenistic propaganda spread politically and pushed onto the population, and I do not think that that aspect of Hellenism could rebound in modern times. People are generally more educated, for one thing. For a time homosexual sex was almost proclaimed as an ideal, and I think artificially and it understandably caused problems and grief. It was too much, but the Hellenists are gone. Times are different now, and we need a different response without so much venom and gusto.

Yes it is one of those areas where Christianity has to accept that maybe the sun doesn't revolve around the earth, but I think there needs only to be compromise. It is right to promote lifelong heterosexual coupling yet not necessary to force people to be in relationships that make them completely unhappy. We should take the idea behind the seemingly anti-gay quotes, (which was to reverse the anti-hetero hellenistic rhetoric of that age); but we should not make the same Greek mistake, blowing the issue way out of proportion. Like we have been doing.
 
Dream,

I agree that both sides must learn to respect each other's point of view. Neither side presently respects the other side's point of view (heck, they refuse to admit that either side's point of view has any validity at all). Acknowledging each other's point of view is the first step. Which side will be the first?
 
Dream said:
It is right to promote lifelong heterosexual coupling yet not necessary to force people to be in relationships that make them completely unhappy.
Click to expand...
That is absolute rubbish. If I were to write:
We should promote white's moving into the area yet not necessarily [sic!] ...​
no one would hesitate to characterize such an attitude as bigotry. This is no different.
 
Homosexuals must respect the idea that a person has the right to think that homosexuality is immoral, that such a person does not want his/her children exposed to a homosexual lifestyle, etc.
 
Nick the Pilot said:
Homosexuals must respect the idea that a person has the right to think that homosexuality is immoral, that such a person does not want his/her children exposed to a homosexual lifestyle, etc.
Click to expand...
Willful ignorance and the bigotry it spawns deserve no respect. As MLK said:
The church must never tire of reminding men that they have a moral responsibility to be intelligent.

We must admit that the Church has often overlooked this moral demand for enlightenment. At times it has talked as if ignorance is a vlrtue and intelligence a crime. Through its obscurantism, closed mindedness, and obstinancy to new truth, the church has often unconsciously encouraged its worshippers to look askance upon intelligence.
Click to expand...
Sound familiar?
 
Nick the Pilot said:
Homosexuals must respect the idea that a person has the right to think that homosexuality is immoral, that such a person does not want his/her children exposed to a homosexual lifestyle, etc.
Click to expand...


I agree not everyone wants homosexuality rammed down they throats :confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top