Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Boy Scouts reviewing Ban on Gays ...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by pellegrino View Post
    I believe that we should refer to groups of people as they prefer. I've never met a homosexual that refers to themselves as being or having Same Gender Attraction or Same Sex Attraction. Every single one of them has said "I'm gay/homosexual." On occasion they've used the term queer and I'll never forget the one time a woman declared to the whole room that she was an "effing dyke!" (true story)

    The truth is that whenever the church uses the term SSA or SGA they most often use it in reference to "those who suffer from SGA/SSA." That sounds like a disease to me, which is why I hate the term.
    I guess I don't exist.

    I definitely agree that using the word "suffer" is a bad idea, but I don't believe the Church uses that terminology as much as you are suggesting. In fact it is never used on the mormonsandgays.com website.

    And besides ... is it inaccurate to say that someone who is gay but wants to live the gospel is suffering?

    I guess I just don't understand what your beef is. What should the church be saying? It is crystal clear that the Church teaches that homosexual behavior is sinful. How do you want them to talk about that issue without caving on its principles? Or maybe you think it should just cave on its principles.

    As I stated, the term "gay" is vague, confusing, and usually connotes a type of behavior that the Church advocates against. I don't understand why it is surprising or offensive to you that the leaders of the Church would refer to use more precise language when discussing this nuanced issue.

    The world isn't black and white, and it isn't even shades of gray. It is full of color and despite your claims to the contrary, there are many, many people in and out of the Church that are attracted to the same sex but don't identify as "gay", "queer", or "effing dykes".
    Last edited by UVACoug; 06-03-2013, 06:23 AM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by pellegrino View Post
      so the website name is encouraging, but what's the title of the page? "Love One Another: A Discussion on
      Same-Sex Attraction"
      Again... What is wrong with that?

      Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 4 Beta

      Comment


      • Originally posted by pellegrino View Post
        I believe that we should refer to groups of people as they prefer. I've never met a homosexual that refers to themselves as being or having Same Gender Attraction or Same Sex Attraction. Every single one of them has said "I'm gay/homosexual." On occasion they've used the term queer and I'll never forget the one time a woman declared to the whole room that she was an "effing dyke!" (true story)

        The truth is that whenever the church uses the term SSA or SGA they most often use it in reference to "those who suffer from SGA/SSA." That sounds like a disease to me, which is why I hate the term.
        I think the Church is stuck on this one, absent a large doctrinal shift. Until it starts teaching that one can become an exalted gay being, I don't see how it can avoid treating it like a defect or disease, as you say.
        At least the Big Ten went after a big-time addition in Nebraska; the Pac-10 wanted a game so badly, it added Utah
        -Berry Trammel, 12/3/10

        Comment


        • Originally posted by ERCougar View Post
          I think the Church is stuck on this one, absent a large doctrinal shift. Until it starts teaching that one can become an exalted gay being, I don't see how it can avoid treating it like a defect or disease, as you say.
          Hmm... It is not like it hasn't happened before. A slightly edited and modernized quote from Mark E. Peterson:

          Think of the [gay], cursed as to the [Family: A proclamation to the World].... This [gay], who, in the pre-existence lived the type of life which justified the lord in sending him to earth in the lineage of [those from the city of Sodom].... In spite of all he did in the pre-existent life, the Lord is willing, if the [gay] accepts the gospel with real, sincere faith, and is really converted, to give him the blessings of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. If that [gay] is faithful [and celibate] all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as [an eunuch] servant, but he will get a celestial resurrection. He will get a place in the celestial glory. He will not go then even with the honorable men of the earth to the Terrestrial glory, nor with the ones spoken of as being without law.
          Last edited by Uncle Ted; 06-03-2013, 06:01 AM.
          "If there is one thing I am, it's always right." -Ted Nugent.
          "I honestly believe saying someone is a smart lawyer is damning with faint praise. The smartest people become engineers and scientists." -SU.
          "Yet I still see wisdom in that which Uncle Ted posts." -creek.
          GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

          Comment


          • Originally posted by UVACoug View Post
            I guess I don't exist.

            I definitely agree that using the word "suffer" is a bad idea, but I don't believe the Church uses that terminology as much as you are suggesting. In fact it is never used on the mormonsandgays.com website.

            And besides ... is it inaccurate to say that someone who is gay but wants to live the gospel is suffering?

            I guess I just don't understand what your beef is. What should the church be saying? It is crystal clear that the Church teaches that homosexual behavior is sinful. How do you want them to talk about that issue without caving on its principles? Or maybe you think it should just cave on its principles.

            As I stated, the term "gay" is vague, confusing, and usually connotes a type of behavior that the Church advocates against. I don't understand why it is surprising or offensive to you that the leaders of the Church would refer to use more precise language when discussing this nuanced issue.

            The world isn't black and white, and it isn't even shades of gray. It is full of color and despite your claims to the contrary, there are many, many people in and out of the Church that are attracted to the same sex but don't identify as "gay", "queer", or "effing dykes".
            I don't think there is anything ambiguous about the word gay or homosexual. I think you're allowing the culture in which you were raised color your perception of the word and you are associating it too much with sexual acts, not sexual preference. The only thing that gay/homosexual means is that they are romantically or sexually attracted to the same sex (dammit, there it is again). Referring to someone as gay or homosexual offers no commentary about their sexual activity anymore than referring to someone as straight does. It simply denotes one's sexual preference.

            You bring up the valid point that the Mormons and gays website does not use the term "suffer," which is a no-brainer as that would defeat the purpose of the website. You can read that language in just about any conference talk given on the subject, though and it is very very common in every day Mormon conversations. If you look you'll see at the site they do say over and over "those who have SSA" or "those with SSA." Homosexuals aren't simply homosexuals, they're "people/individuals with . . ." which situates homosexuality as a temporary condition, not a state of being, which is what it is. Underlying the whole linguistic construct is the implication that "SSA/SGA is a choice."

            I get that theologically they (and it appears you too) aren't ready to admit that homosexuality could be an eternal state, but they're really just trying to impose their will on the topic. But perhaps I'm asking too much as we all know that the website was created for one of the two groups of people it claims to address, and it ain't gays.

            It seems to me that you do not want to be identified with the homosexual community. Given your background, I can understand that. So, if you want me to refer to you as "having SSA/SGA" then I'll be happy to do so, and I would do the same for any individual, but the fact remains that on the whole the homosexual community does not refer to themselves in that way and up until now I have never heard anyone from that group complain about the terms homosexual/gay. I find it counterproductive and even a bit devious to insist on using an artificial terminology that isn't widely used simply because it suits a certain ideology.
            Dio perdona tante cose per un’opera di misericordia
            God forgives many things for an act of mercy
            Alessandro Manzoni

            Knock it off. This board has enough problems without a dose of middle-age lechery.

            pelagius

            Comment


            • I am having some difficulty following the discussion. So is it currently un PC to say a gay person is attracted to his or her same sex? I would like to be enlightened. If it is incorrect to say this, why is it?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by byu71 View Post
                I am having some difficulty following the discussion. So is it currently un PC to say a gay person is attracted to his or her same sex? I would like to be enlightened. If it is incorrect to say this, why is it?
                I don't know about the PC status of such phrases but why not just say gay? Why would someone say SSA?
                Dyslexics are teople poo...

                Comment


                • Originally posted by byu71 View Post
                  I am having some difficulty following the discussion. So is it currently un PC to say a gay person is attracted to his or her same sex? I would like to be enlightened. If it is incorrect to say this, why is it?
                  It's like when Urban used to refer to us as the team down south. Technically and geographically he was correct, but he was a dick because of what he refused to say.
                  "The mind is not a boomerang. If you throw it too far it will not come back." ~ Tom McGuane

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Flystripper View Post
                    I don't know about the PC status of such phrases but why not just say gay? Why would someone say SSA?
                    because it doesn't fit their agenda.
                    Dio perdona tante cose per un’opera di misericordia
                    God forgives many things for an act of mercy
                    Alessandro Manzoni

                    Knock it off. This board has enough problems without a dose of middle-age lechery.

                    pelagius

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Flystripper View Post
                      I don't know about the PC status of such phrases but why not just say gay? Why would someone say SSA?
                      It could very well be I don't keep current on the subject of what "gays" want in terms of how they should be referred to. I don't see why it is important for me to care quite frankly. I do know of nasty and demeaning terms that would be in very poor taste to refer to a gay person and I won't use those terms.

                      I know I don't get offended when someone refers to me as a "mormon" and yet I think we want to be called Latter Day Saints don't we?

                      The other reason for me is that I was around when gay meant happy or lively.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by byu71 View Post

                        The other reason for me is that I was around when gay meant happy or lively.
                        I've always wanted to ask, what became of your handcart once you were through with it?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Non Sequitur View Post
                          It's like when Urban used to refer to us as the team down south. Technically and geographically he was correct, but he was a dick because of what he refused to say.
                          Technically??? I don't get what your problem is with people who are attracted to the same sex. I would hope you would agree, there is a difference. I would sincerely hope those of you who have a problem with the term aren't burying some prejudices against people who are attracted to those of the same sex.

                          Comment


                          • http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...outing-policy/
                            Everything in life is an approximation.

                            http://twitter.com/CougarStats

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Shaka View Post
                              I've always wanted to ask, what became of your handcart once you were through with it?
                              You wouldn't believe it. There is this religious group called mormons. They get their young people to act like pioneers and go on these "treks". I got a pretty good price for it a couple of years ago.

                              Comment


                              • I was just browsing through the lds.org newsroom looking for a link to the answers to hard questions that is being speculated about and I came upon upon a short article about an address that Gary Stephenson gave in Grapevine last week. The remarks were not what stood out to me, but rather a statement made about the role of the Church's Presiding Bishop. It says at the end of the article:

                                As the presiding bishop of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Bishop Stevenson oversees the programs for young men in the Church, including Scouting.
                                The Presiding Bishop is over the Young Men's program? Why didn't I know that? I guess it makes sense, if the local Bishops responsibilities are meant to mirror that of the Presiding Bishop's. But I've only really ever heard the Presiding Bishopric address welfare-typed issues.

                                Am I alone on this?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X