Same-sex marriage coming to Utah

[creekster]

I've never had a problem with the argument that some single characteristic or trait, whether innate or not, should not define you. I could define myself many ways, some better than others. I don't know what Bednar believes is inherent or not, but it would not surprise me if he does believe as you stated. My understanding of this particular response was not to argue innateness or not, but that you could substitute both inherent and non-inherent characteristics for homosexuality. I also believe he avoided the question and gave the Sunday school answer. That doesn't make the Sunday school answer invalid, but it wasn't helpful in answering the real pain and anguish that is probably behind the original question.

As for the Sunday school lesson he decided to teach, I agree with it. My brown eyes don't define me, my heterosexuality does not define me, nor does the color of my skin, heritage, culture, or myriad of other attributes. As Paul stated bond or free (non-inherent), Jew or Greek (inherent), neither matters with respect to the gift of salvation--when you are one with Christ. They are part of me and the risk is I let one or more of them get in the way of accepting Christ's gift.

I have not reached such a state, neither has the church nor Bednar, but I do know that is the state I'm (or at least know I should be) ultimately striving for--usually failing miserably.

12 Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering;

13 Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye.

14 And above all these things put on charity, which is the bond of perfectness.

15 And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which also ye are called in one body; and be ye thankful.

Well that was certainly superior to any of my efforts. Thanks.

[Northwestcoug]

You did not win the fight with me. Explain how you think so. Even having used the precise phrase described by Swampfrog (and he did) your comparison to the Iranian position was odious and misleading and there was no attempt by Bednar to redefine anything; he rephrased a question.

Oh come now Creek. Just a few hours ago you were going to allow me to bask in my triumph, and now you want to fight again? Am I going to have to win ANOTHER argument today?

Before we begin AGAIN, please explain how the comparison (not mine I might add; you may want to review today's posts again) to the Iranian dude is odious, especially since I said Bednar's wasn't as bad as his.

[creekster]

That you go back to what has already been said , rather than show how you are suddenly shown correct by my admitted error proves my point. So go ahead, bask away.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Oh come now Creek. Just a few hours ago you were going to allow me to bask in my triumph, and now you want to fight again? Am I going to have to win ANOTHER argument today?

Before we begin AGAIN, please explain how the comparison (not mine I might add; you may want to review today's posts again) to the Iranian dude is odious, especially since I said Bednar's wasn't as bad as his.

lol.

Let me warn you: Humor escapes him and he takes these things very seriously.

[Northwestcoug]

I've never had a problem with the argument that some single characteristic or trait, whether innate or not, should not define you. I could define myself many ways, some better than others. I don't know what Bednar believes is inherent or not, but it would not surprise me if he does believe as you stated. My understanding of this particular response was not to argue innateness or not, but that you could substitute both inherent and non-inherent characteristics for homosexuality. I also believe he avoided the question and gave the Sunday school answer. That doesn't make the Sunday school answer invalid, but it wasn't helpful in answering the real pain and anguish that is probably behind the original question.

As for the Sunday school lesson he decided to teach, I agree with it. My brown eyes don't define me, my heterosexuality does not define me, nor does the color of my skin, heritage, culture, or myriad of other attributes. As Paul stated bond or free (non-inherent), Jew or Greek (inherent), neither matters with respect to the gift of salvation--when you are one with Christ. They are part of me and the risk is I let one or more of them get in the way of accepting Christ's gift.

I have not reached such a state, neither has the church nor Bednar, but I do know that is the state I'm (or at least know I should be) ultimately striving for--usually failing miserably.

12 Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering;

13 Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye.

14 And above all these things put on charity, which is the bond of perfectness.

15 And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which also ye are called in one body; and be ye thankful.

I really can't argue much with what you have said. I think most of us, gays included, would rather not be defined by a single characteristic. I will only add that I do not think the homosexual experience is defined solely by which gender you have sex with. And I think Bednar oversimplifies the issue when he reduces gay members to that single variable.

[Northwestcoug]

That you go back to what has already been said , rather than show how you are suddenly shown correct by my admitted error proves my point. So go ahead, bask away.

Hey, I don't sway too many around these parts. I'll take it when it comes. Thanks!

[creekster]

And I think Bednar oversimplifies the issue when he reduces gay members to that single variable.

Seriously? Bednar doesn't reduce them to the variable of orientation, the questioner does. That's precisely Bednar's objection. Bednar does apply a single characteristic, however, we are all children of God.

[creekster]

lol.

Let me warn you: Humor escapes him and he takes these things very seriously.

Hey. I'm right here. I can hear you.


Besides, humor doesn't escape me. I just dont laugh at stupid jokes.

[Northwestcoug]

Seriously? Bednar doesn't reduce them to the variable of orientation, the questioner does. That's precisely Bednar's objection. Bednar does apply a single characteristic, however, we are all children of God.

OK Creek. I understand you side with Bednar in that exchange. You think the questioner is reducing his life to his orientation, and Bednar is trying expand it to help him realize he is more than just a gay person. I would argue that Bednar's view of the gospel immediately reduces members who deviate from the married heterosexual ideal to something inferior. If gay members were accepted unconditionally, they might see themselves as something more expansive. But as they are not currently accepted for who they are, I don't blame them at all for identifying as they do. Even if it does make others uncomfortable.

[creekster]

OK Creek. I understand you side with Bednar in that exchange. You think the questioner is reducing his life to his orientation, and Bednar is trying expand it to help him realize he is more than just a gay person. I would argue that Bednar's view of the gospel immediately reduces members who deviate from the married heterosexual ideal to something inferior. If gay members were accepted unconditionally, they might see themselves as something more expansive. But as they are not currently accepted for who they are, I don't blame them at all for identifying as they do. Even if it does make others uncomfortable.

You are basing your criticism primarily on things neither said nor referenced in that exchange. You are reading that into Bednar's comment, but that is simply not what he said (and I did read it this time). Now you might think this is what the church does to homosexuals, but that is another issue. In this particular instance, however, bednar is being unfairly portrayed, as the comparison to the Iranian was ludicrous, as my favorite comedian opined earlier.

[Uncle Ted]

It seems the press is going to run with this anyway no matter what Bednar was trying to say...

Mormon Leader: 'There Are No Homosexual Members Of The Church'

The elder's remarks reflect his church's crackdown on LGBT issues.

A top Mormon leader made some eyebrow-raising claims about the gay community during a visit to Chile last week.


During a Feb. 23 meeting, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) Elder David A. Bednar claimed that he and his fellow Mormons "do not discriminate" against gay and lesbian members because "there are no homosexual members of the church," Raw Story first reported.


As seen in the video clip above, Bednar was responding to a question from an audience member, and a translator repeats his comments in Spanish for the audience.


"We are not defined by sexual attraction. We are not defined by sexual behavior," he continued. "We are sons and daughters of God, and all of us have different challenges in the flesh."
[...]
Bednar's remarks follow the Mormon Church's new, more rigid policy on same-sex couples that was adopted in November 2015. Under the new guidelines, any Mormon in a same-sex marriage would be deemed an "apostate," or having abandoned the religion, and subjected to disciplinary hearings that could lead to excommunication.


In addition, children of same-sex couples will be barred from baptism, and hence unable to join the church until they are 18. They'll also have to disavow same-sex relationships of any kind and move out of their parents' homes.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mormon-leader-homosexuality_us_56d5c8a3e4b03260bf782ee5

So what I gather from what Bednar said is that it is ok to be gay (you are still a child of God). But is not ok to be "gay-ing" with someone of the same sex. Next time he should use a life line and give me a call on these tough questions.

[creekster]

It seems the press is going to run with this anyway no matter what Bednar was trying to say...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mormon-leader-homosexuality_us_56d5c8a3e4b03260bf782ee5

So what I gather from what Bednar said is that it is ok to be gay (you are still a child of God). But is not ok to be "gay-ing" with someone of the same sex. Next time he should use a life line and give me a call on these tough questions.

This is just lazy, lazy journalism. And I am not surprised it is from the Huffington post, which seems to have become the bastion of lazy journalism.

[Northwestcoug]

You are basing your criticism primarily on things neither said nor referenced in that exchange. You are reading that into Bednar's comment, but that is simply not what he said (and I did read it this time). Now you might think this is what the church does to homosexuals, but that is another issue. In this particular instance, however, bednar is being unfairly portrayed, as the comparison to the Iranian was ludicrous, as my favorite comedian opined earlier.

Since I completely agree with what you and the comedian said, and I never said the two comments were comparable, I'm not exactly sure what we're arguing about now. But I'm not relinquishing my win!

[creekster]

Since I completely agree with what you and the comedian said, and I never said the two comments were comparable, I'm not exactly sure what we're arguing about now. But I'm not relinquishing my win!

COngrats on the victory! You just beat an old man with no sense of humor who can't type. I hope you are proud of yourself.

[Northwestcoug]

COngrats on the victory! You just beat an old man with no sense of humor who can't type. I hope you are proud of yourself.