[Archaea]

Originally Posted by outlier

Not sure how we're defining apologists here, so maybe I'm not one, but my main contention isn't that Everyone Should Be Carnal, but rather that Mormons should stop being jackasses toward people who are different from them. Including those who think acting gay is a-okay.

I'm totally with you on the standpoint that morality exists and just because you *want* to do something, that doesn't mean you necessarily should. OTOH, most of the comments I ever hear from LDS isn't that "gays are in a tough situation and we should try to help them out where possible", but rather "gays are WRONG and should be mocked and shunned and considered as though they're completely devoid of worthwhile human content".

There are more than two ways to address the issue and it bugs me that people seem to want to choose up sides and form teams around the two extreme positions rather than address reasonable realities.

Tja.

o

Your comments are sensible, but you have to remember from whence we came. Prior to AIDS, gay bashing was almost the norm and quite acceptable within society.

I grew up nonLDS with many redneck friends. I'm told, but can't verify it, because I did not participate, some of them went to gay bars to pick fights with them, because "it was fun."

All of a sudden there is this social acceptance of something previously kept silent and hidden, to a nouveau acceptance, yeah a parading of something previously thought an embarrassment.

Many of us still harbor the embarrassment part. It's something we can't understand. I can't see the point of it.

And, I imagine, most of us are pragmatic, in that as far as we associate with gays for non-sexual purposes, we treat them based on their merits. However, I don't see anything positive to be gained by treating the gay aspect with respect. Treat them as physicians, accountants, engineers and other aspects with the respect earned for that position. But gay sex is not worthy of respect. It is intellectually repugnant to common sense, rejects the physical marital sacrament for which it is, and ignores the blessed differences communing betweeh the very delightfully different sexes.

Even if one were to eliminate all religious componetry from the intellectual discussion, can you imagine how a man would ever become sensitive to another's needs if he didn't have a woman? The very neurological and emotional differences of the female are completely necessary for a man to become unselfish in sex. Two men? Yikes, it's unworkable and unimaginable to even think of. It's probably urban legends such the gerbel in your ass arose.