Let's stop beating around the bush

[creekster]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

Let me give you a hypothetical:

Suppose there were a person with same sex attraction that was in love with another man but never physically acted on his attraction. Let's also suppose that he lived with the person he was in love with and that he made no secret to people in the ward that he was in love with his partner. How do you suppose his verbal expressions of love would go over in the ward?

Not well, but that is a different issue altogether.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by creekster

Not well, but that is a different issue altogether.

I suppose nonseq believes in the Easter Bunny as well.

A man sexually attracted to any object and stays within proximity of it, will not act upon it? Yeah right.

And the BYU coed will refuse to eat the twinkie in front of her, if nobody is watching in the middle of the night.

[8ballrollin]

Originally Posted by Archaea

A man sexually attracted to any object and stays within proximity of it, will not act upon it? Yeah right.

And the BYU coed will refuse to eat the twinkie in front of her, if nobody is watching in the middle of the night.

<spit coke on monitor>

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

Let me give you a hypothetical:

Suppose there were a person with same sex attraction that was in love with another man but never physically acted on his attraction. Let's also suppose that he lived with the person he was in love with and that he made no secret to people in the ward that he was in love with his partner. How do you suppose his verbal expressions of love would go over in the ward?

Again I ask - isn't the Honor Code more stringent in it's rules than the LDS Church?

[T Blue]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

This is an excerpt from BYU's honor code:



Isn't that self-contradictory? It's okay to have same sex attraction, but it's not okay to have homosexual feelings?

I guess you will see in it what you will see in it.

All I see in there is that you are not to act on your feelings, nor are you to promote that homosexuality is OK in society, but if you see something that is contradictory, well, OK.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

To the church, saying SSA is not a sin, is like saying a passing thought of a naked beautiful woman is not a sin, if not dwelt upon by the thinker.

However, love, LOVE, LOVE is a very different thing. And for a man to love another man is horrifying, and means that SSA has gone too far, and is now devilish and evil.

Why is holding hands so offensive and worthy of priesthood intervention? Because it indicates love. And if a man can truly love a man, in the true sense of love, then there is no God.

It's really as simple as that.

No, if there is no explanation in religious doctrine for something that shouldn't exist, then perhaps there is no God.

The existence of a phenomenon not theologically explainable, especially one as significant as homosexuality, suggests that the entire scheme is man created, not inspired and we're all just base animals.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Archaea

No, if there is no explanation in religious doctrine for something that shouldn't exist, then perhaps there is no God.

The existence of a phenomenon not theologically explainable, especially one as significant as homosexuality, suggests that the entire scheme is man created, not inspired and we're all just base animals.

Base animal = natural man.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by creekster

Base animal = natural man.

there is no higher man and perhaps no God. Gays disprove the existence of God.

God would not create something that serves no purpose, but as science proves the probability of a combination of mostly genetic, with in utero factors, determining sexuality, then the existence of something which serves no evolutionary purpose proves the non-existence of God.

[T Blue]

Originally Posted by Archaea

there is no higher man and perhaps no God. Gays disprove the existence of God.

God would not create something that serves no purpose, but as science proves the probability of a combination of mostly genetic, with in utero factors, determining sexuality, then the existence of something which serves no evolutionary purpose proves the non-existence of God.

I guess SU is correct, there is no God.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by T Blue

I guess SU is correct, there is no God.

SU does not get the credit for that concept. The notion that there is no God dates back to the early 80s, from a movie called Caddyshack.

Bartender: Another Rob Roy, Bishop?

Bishop: You never ask a navy man if he'll have another drink, because it's nobody's goddamned business how much he's had already.

Judge Smails: Wrong, you're drinking too much your Excellency.

Bishop: Excellency, fiddlesticks, my name's Fred and I'm a man, same as you.

Judge Smails: You're not a man, you're a bishop, for God's sakes.

Bishop: There is no God