I am genuinely depressed from Cougarboard today.
 

One step forward for BYU in making its announcement of a policy change, two steps back for the students who post on CB.

This really is sad.

I missed it. What is the policy change?

You're being overly dramatic.

I need to stay away from CB today. I already let K-dog get to me.

No, unfortunately I am not.

You people never cease to amaze me. Homosexuality is WRONG! The Lord has said it and has been reaffirmed through his mouthpiece. If you have a problem with that, it is not with CougarBoarders, it is with the Lord and/or His Church.

I didn't see any posts today that displayed true bigotry or hatred towards gays. Please provide links if I missed some. But the gay movement and there liberal buddies equate any statement about homosexuality being wrong as "bigotry".

You're from Texas, right?

Yes, what does that have to do with anything?

You guys take stuff you read on CB with too much liberal salt and I don't mean that in an insulting way.

I've mentioned many times I don't take very seriously what people say on an internet messaging board.

My genuine question on the topic is this: What genuinely do you propose? The church will never be accepting of the homosexual lifestyle/behavior. They never will. It isn't going to happen. Just like the church will never be accepting of a heterosexual acting out as well.

Yeah I know,,,everyone is gonna say,,,"But it's different for homosexuals because they are shunned",,,and I don't really disagree with that but I don't think that's an entirely accurate statement either.

You and most in the church who feel differently about homosexuality will never see eye to eye on the issue and the reason for that is because the crux of the matter is.....there are many who don't believe they are born that way,,,and others who believe they are born that, thus robbed of choice.

That is at the fundamental heart of the matter. If most agreed that it wasn't their choice then I think you'd see attitudes and opinions closer to yours and others with a liberal slant of things.

Me? I don't believe they're born that way. I believe that using that as an excuse for the challenge is a convenient way to absolve them of their accountability and believing that way doesn't make me a bigot towards homosexuals,,,it simply makes me have a different belief system. I'm a heterosexual, but I don't absolve myself of my choices that ended up in discipline in the past. I have a testimony of the reality of things and accept it.

I don't hate homosexuals and never have, but regardless of what I say, I'm sure many liberals will place my stance as a bigoted one and that's fine.

Homosexual feelings or homosexual acts? This is the distinction that BYU just drew, right?

For those of us who are not on the LDS distribution list and can't bear to cast eyes on CB, "What is the freaking policy change!"

Not a thing Bubba. ;)

Link(s)?

Pretty much.

The Pope issued this as an encyclical quite a while ago. What's the big deal?
I know, it makes no sense, internally. It's a mind blast to try to fathom homosexual behavior being a "sin," if the proclivity is something that can't be helped or wasn't caused by behavior.

Chickens coming home to roost. Dipshits.

Come on, SU. You know there is more nuance than that.

Can an action be a sin when the desire to commit the action is natural? Isn't the answer to that, theologically speaking, obviously yes? It certainly isn't only applicable to homosexual behavior. In fact, it is kind of hard to think of many sins it wouldn't apply to.

Here is one of the most amusing ones:

http://www.cougarboard.com/noframes/...tml?id=2626904

The day the Church condones premarital sex is the day homosexual sex will be permitted.

Tell me when that day comes please, praying for the former not the latter.

I havent' browsed CB in quite a while. I went there today and saw this thread and am reminded why I don't like it much anymore. K-Dog's interaction with Lebowski was disgraceful. The entire episode was off-putting and I am no 'liberal'. No need to go there again for a while.

And that is intolerant HOW?

That one wasn't intolerant- just amusing.

I assumed your request for links was a joke, given that you could pretty much throw a dart at a post on CB an hour ago and hit what you were looking for.

From the old policy
 

"Advocacy of a homosexual lifestyle (whether implied or explicit) or any behaviors that indicate homosexual conduct, including those not sexual in nature, are inappropriate and violate the Honor Code."

What exactly are behaviors that indicate homosexual conduct that are not sexual in nature, anyway? Listening to Cher? Speaking with a lisp?

I didn't realize this used to be the policy. The change is definitely for the better.

Part of the problem is Jefe has purged dialogue. So the hate speech goes unchallenged and unchecked. Cougarboard finding its natural equilibrium.

What hate speech? Please refer us to a link that is "hate speech". Since when does "I think homosexuality is wrong" = "hate speech"?

CatBlue is just bitter that his blatant trolling attempts have been hindered by Jefe et al.

Jefe's desire is to set Cougarboard up as an ensign to all nations and a symbol of Mormon culture and thought. He thinks the way to do so is by manipulating discussion, but what he's ended up with is a rabid, vicious gang of ultra-conservatives. What he's done is unbalanced the ecosystem and turned it into something more unattractive than what he wanted to prevent.

Tunnel Singers Rejoice!!!!

mormonism has no answer for homosexuality . it only condemns acts. BYU HAS decided not to be thought police. its a start.

Now THAT was funny

I posted this in another thread, but I don't think anyone saw it:

Here is an article I came across a few years ago in Dialogue magazine. It is written by a person who was not gay, but then was sexually abused by another male and subsequently became homosexual. The article discusses the author's challenges as an LDS male

http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/doc...OW=27394&REC=9

It is well worth the read (even though the page turning is a bit odd- you have to click on the page number on the left side of the webpage to progress).

no link

http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/doc...OW=27394&REC=9

Fixed.

Story ended abruptly, didn't it?

Did you click the page turns on the left frame? It is about 8 pages or so.

yes but the transition from the psychiatrist telling to have gay sex to him bearing testimony was weird.

Not to downplay someone's tragedy but I suggest this story may be a made up parable to illustrate a point, using what is in fact a rather far fetched scenario for the purpose of illustration, and provoking thought--i.e., what if someone were turned into a gay because he was molested as a child? Pretty hard to condemn such a hypothetical person, but it's then a short step to saying, well, if gays are born not made, then, what's the difference? It seems kind of cloying to me, but years back I can see how someone might have thought this would be a powerful object lesson.

I don't think the Sunstone people would be above passing a "parable" off as true since the practicing members there essentially beleive that that is what the Book of Mormon is. I can't fully explain why but the story doesn't ring true to me, partly because I think homosexuals are born not made, perhaps. The story also seems kind of dated.

You seriously don't think that at least SOME gays are homosexual due to sociological influences in their life?

David Bowie said about his earlier days, "I think I was a closet heterosexual."

Well, born not made is a figure of speech. Environmental factors may play a part. I don't know the mix, but the point is I believe sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic, and I don't believe someone can go from being wired to be perfectly heterosexual to homosexual because they were molested as a child. That's what I blelieve.

The story doesn't really serve homosexuals' interests, and, as I say, it seems dated. I'm pretty sure it's fiction.