1970s Church Pamphlet on Homosexuality

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

I would believe that, if I thought you had any.

Abraham Lincoln once said, "You can call a horse a cow if you want to, but it's still a horse."

My contributions here stand on their own merits, no matter how you characterize them. As do yours.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

So, you would agree that the only course of action acceptable before God by a homosexual is to live a life of celibacy, with no hope for entering into an intimate relationship with another human being while in this life?

Gee, that's an impartial way to phrase it. Why not just say "so you would agree that God hates homosexuals" and not sugar coat it?

I wonder what's next after the church normalizes homosexuality. Maybe we'll back off the whole abstinence thing, and just go with the "safe sex" movement. We've already had people here suggest that for the 30+ crowd, that ought to be the teaching.

Perhaps the biggest canard in the modern moral debate is the specter of the "compassionate hedonist."

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Gee, that's an impartial way to phrase it. Why not just say "so you would agree that God hates homosexuals" and not sugar coat it?

I wonder what's next after the church normalizes homosexuality. Maybe we'll back off the whole abstinence thing, and just go with the "safe sex" movement. We've already had people here suggest that for the 30+ crowd, that ought to be the teaching.

Perhaps the biggest canard in the modern moral debate is the specter of the "compassionate hedonist."

So, is my statement correct or not? If it's not correct, what is incorrect about it?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

A point I can't answer? For instance? Are you actually going to make a point, or are you just putting on your Lebowski hat for the day?

LOL.

As usual, you are getting your ass thoroughly kicked. But I like your moxie.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Gee, that's an impartial way to phrase it. Why not just say "so you would agree that God hates homosexuals" and not sugar coat it?

I wonder what's next after the church normalizes homosexuality. Maybe we'll back off the whole abstinence thing, and just go with the "safe sex" movement. We've already had people here suggest that for the 30+ crowd, that ought to be the teaching.

Perhaps the biggest canard in the modern moral debate is the specter of the "compassionate hedonist."

This is what happens when you try to respond to a logical argument with an emotional one.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

LOL.

As usual, you are getting your ass thoroughly kicked. But I like your moxie.

Reading Lebowski is like driving through a small town. If you don't look carefully, you'll miss it. Not that there was much to see in the first place.

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

So, is my statement correct or not? If it's not correct, what is incorrect about it?

No, your statement is correct, minus the drama. The teachings of the church are that homosexual behavior is a sin, and a person with that temptation must not act out on it.

We knew this already. What's your point?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

Reading Lebowski is like driving through a small town. If you don't look carefully, you'll miss it. Not that there was much to see in the first place.

Tex is just pissed that I rarely engage him anymore. So he lashes out like this from time to time as if the old rivalry was still going on.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Tex is just pissed that I rarely engage him anymore. So he lashes out like this from time to time as if the old rivalry was still going on.

I'm like a polygamist debater on Cougarguard. You were one of my ugly wives.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

No, your statement is correct, minus the drama. The teachings of the church are that homosexual behavior is a sin, and a person with that temptation must not act out on it.

We knew this already. What's your point?

A couple of points. First, the pamphlet put out by the church in the 1970's, therefore, was apparently way off base.

Another is that the teachings and beliefs of the members of the church regarding the importance of temple marriage and the family therefore do not apply to homosexuals. There is therefore a large segment of our population who are not permitted to participate in what is clearly one of the great purposes of our existence - the formation and nurturing of families.

Haven't we been led to believe that voluntary celibacy by heterosexuals is a sin? Or is at least contrary to the will of God (not sure if there's a difference there)?

Therefore, aren't homosexuals essentially given a similar choice as that given to Adam and Eve, that of competing, contradictory commandments?

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

LOL.

As usual, you are getting your ass thoroughly kicked. But I like your moxie.

I'm getting my ass kicked? Whatever. This thread, as far as my involvement in it goes, has primarily revolved around people purposefully ignoring or miscontruing what I'm saying.

If you would care to refute the self-evident but inexplicably controversial claim that our brain is responsible for our sexual responses, then feel free to offer up a counter-argument rather than just being the pathetic waste of cyberspace that you are.