cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board  

Go Back   cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board > non-Sports > Current Events

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-30-2006, 05:08 AM   #21
Cali Coug
Senior Member
 
Cali Coug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
Cali Coug has a little shameless behaviour in the past
Default Re: Natural Urge Apologetics

Quote:
Originally Posted by Archaea

What do you mean by "being mean"? I do have interactions with lesbians, which has been most pleasant, as no sexual tension there, it was professional and we discuss matters of general interest. I render professional service, they pay and we move on. A great relationship. I sense a lesbian relations is less about sex and more about a relationship with somebody who emotionally anticipates another's needs. That part makes sense. I don't agree with it, but it makes a little bit of rational sense. You could have that without the sex.
You render professional services to lesbians who pay you and you move on? Wow- what does your bishop have to say about this?



Your statement confirms what I have thought about you for a while- you are simply homophobic. You have some crazy fear that at some point a gay man might grab you and take you into a back room for some manly loving. You don't have a problem with lesbians because you don't perceive a threat of being man-molested.

I haven't ever seen you in person, but I think you may be giving yourself a bit too much credit here in the looks department. You have managed to make it this far in life without being man-loved, something tells me you are safe from here on out as well.

:P
Cali Coug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2006, 05:11 AM   #22
Cali Coug
Senior Member
 
Cali Coug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
Cali Coug has a little shameless behaviour in the past
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoCalCoug
Quote:
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.
I couldn't agree any more with you. I think you have laid out my feelings on the subject exactly. LDS people don't realize how destructive and alienating the constant gay-bashing is to LDS members who struggle with homosexuality. My sincere hope is that all those who have contributed to driving homsexual LDS members away from the church are someday held accountable for their sin.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Archaea
Sex, in proper confines, is very spiritual and moving. Outside of that, it's just getting your rocks off. I'm not very sympathetic about a gay's "need" to get his rocks off. Do it on his time but don't claim any rights to it.
I'm having a hard time understanding the hatred by church members of homosexuals. I think you kind of highlight what I think is the inconsistency in the prevailing LDS attitude. The hate is all about the sacredness of sex. Homosexuals are "unnatural" and "perverted". Yet, the homosexual "movement" (of which Mormons are so terrified) isn't about allowing men to hump each other freely on the city streets. The social changes that I see happening (i.e., domestic partnerships, gay marriages, gay adoptions) are aimed at allowing homosexuals enjoy the social benefits to this point permitted only to heterosexual couples.

Archaea, do you not see the inconsistency? Homsexuals are saying, "Let us get married and have committed relationships and families," while Mormons are saying, "Keep your sexual perversions to yourself!" It's not the right to have gay sex in the privacy of their homes that they're trying to get - they'll do that regardless, just like unmarried heterosexuals will do it, as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Archaea
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.
But you don't, because you continually reference their sexual orientation. Face it - if you've got a gay file clerk, he's not the "file clerk" - he's the "gay file clerk." Why do LDS homosexuals uniformly feel ostracized if we're treating them based on their merits, rather than based on their sexual orientation?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Archaea
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.
Do Mormons generally feel the same way about anal heterosexual sex? I bet (if you work with non-LDS) you work with heterosexuals who participate in anal sex, too. I know what you're thinking: "But they don't flaunt it!" Seriously, have you ever had a gay man come up to you and say, "Hey, know what? I just banged my boyfriend in the ass, and boy was it great!" No, I'd bet my house that you've never had that happen. You simply know that's how it's done - if someone's gay, you assume they're having anal sex with another man. (I'd also bet that you've had a heterosexual man come up to you and say something similar about a woman - were you horrified and nauseated?)

Is anal sex between an unmarried man and woman any less of a sin than anal sex between two unmarried men? What about anal sex between a married man and woman? Between two married men? It's only the homosexuals who receive the derision and scorn. Simply because it's easier to discern that they must be doing it. Is that really fair or reasonable?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Archaea
I do have interactions with lesbians, which has been most pleasant, as no sexual tension there, it was professional and we discuss matters of general interest. I render professional service, they pay and we move on. A great relationship. I sense a lesbian relations is less about sex and more about a relationship with somebody who emotionally anticipates another's needs. That part makes sense. I don't agree with it, but it makes a little bit of rational sense. You could have that without the sex.
You imply that there is tension between you and homosexual men. The fact that you don't have the same problem with lesbians suggests to me that the difference lies in your own prejudice and distaste for male homosexual sex. If a male homosexual seeks "a relationship with somebody who emotionally anticipates another's needs," do you have a problem with that? Or do you believe that with homosexual men, it's just all about the anal sex? Could the "sense" you have about lesbians as compared to gay men be more a function of your own prejudices (not meant to be used in a pejorative term) rather than any true feeling conveyed by them?

You can tell I have strong feelings about this - I have a gay brother, and I've seen the difficulties he's gone through as a direct result of the LDS attitude toward homosexuals - it's actually acted to drive him farther away from the church. It's destructive and un-Christlike, and I hate it.

I couldn't have possibly said it any better. Very well put.
Cali Coug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2006, 05:15 AM   #23
Cali Coug
Senior Member
 
Cali Coug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
Cali Coug has a little shameless behaviour in the past
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tooblue
Quote:
Archaea, do you not see the inconsistency? Homosexuals are saying, "Let us get married and have committed relationships and families," while Mormons are saying, "Keep your sexual perversions to yourself!" It's not the right to have gay sex in the privacy of their homes that they're trying to get - they'll do that regardless, just like unmarried heterosexuals will do it, as well.
That’s not what homosexuals are saying, their ultimate goal is to gain acceptance, to force others to see the world from their perspective, to belittle and tear down faith and label religious expression as hate. Homosexual marriage cannot be confined to the little bubble you have constructed; acceptance of the practice has far reaching consequences that will alter all individuals’ right to freedom of expression.

I understand that you live with a brother who is gay and suffer watching his social anguish, and I am sorry for the hate he has and will continue to face in his lifetime. Regardless his lifestyle is now a part of the above stated agenda.

Quote:
But you don't, because you continually reference their sexual orientation. Face it - if you've got a gay file clerk, he's not the "file clerk" - he's the "gay file clerk." Why do LDS homosexuals uniformly feel ostracized if we're treating them based on their merits, rather than based on their sexual orientation?
The agenda is real, powerful and significant in our society –I have first hand experience with its influence. I attended college where a significant number of the population is gay. I studied, created art, ate lunch and dinner and interacted with homosexuals on a daily basis. I listened to and read the homosexual agenda virtually every week of my four years … I have since returned to school for advanced degrees and as a FUNDAMETAL part of the curriculum I must now study and report on the homosexual agenda.

Each time I attend class and open my mouth I am assailed for my beliefs, the condescension is ruthless and degrading. I am always referred to as the straight, religious, American, married with four kids (which is always accompanied by rolling eyes and copious amounts of ‘what an idiot’ attitude) white guy. The hate that has been directed at me is REAL and unnerving. For every time I have labeled a person gay, I in turn have been labeled intolerant and stupid. My thought process, belief system, upbringing is always portrayed as WRONG and unfortunate.

It’s easy to play the victim –a role that ALL homosexuals relish. I do not hate homosexuals, but I am well aware of the tremendous disdain most homosexuals have for me, my CHOICES, belief system and lifestyle.
Oh, the tremendous discrimination us straight, white men have faced in our lives!!!

How do you think gays feel? Perhaps that the hate directed at them is "REAL and unnerving?"

Isn't the answer exactly what SoCal said above? Treat the people with the respect they deserve. You don't have to accept homosexuality as being legitimate, but we should be kinder and more loving towards those who are homosexual.
Cali Coug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2006, 05:21 AM   #24
Cali Coug
Senior Member
 
Cali Coug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
Cali Coug has a little shameless behaviour in the past
Default Re: Natural Urge Apologetics

Quote:
Originally Posted by Archaea

I really have never seen anybody since high school, demonstrate meanness to somebody, except from a gay to a straight, on the basis of sexual orientation. I'm not naive enough to think it doesn't happen, but this is a major red herring.

Where are all the LDS gayphobes? They don't exist. We might ask that the definition of marriage be preserved so that the few straight, monogamous folk out there. We might be the few who care about our blood supplies not being tainted. But perhaps we are in the minority and society wishes to ultimately add so many vices that it no longer can suppor them.



You're not advocating that, but the rubric that LDS people are mean to gay people is a LIE.

We might not let them marry in the temple, we don't encourage the activity, but we're not malicious or mean, simply doing what we interpret our Father to have us do. If we are wrong, He will hold us accountable.

We may be judged for many faults, but being "mean" to gay people will not be one of them.

Umm, wow. No other word comes to mind.



Hey, 5 posts in a row! Is that cougarguard bingo?
Cali Coug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2006, 05:24 AM   #25
Cali Coug
Senior Member
 
Cali Coug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
Cali Coug has a little shameless behaviour in the past
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tooblue
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeWaters
people condemn legal things all the time.

shirley you can't be serious that civil unions imperil free speech.
Firstly, I would like to establish the idea that there is NO such thing as true freedom of speech in either the US or Canada.

It is not too far a reach to suggest that at some point the freedom I currently have to condemn homosexuality from the pulpit will be labeled hate, as such it will become prosecutable. Ergo, my right to free speech will be severely prohibited, or in your terms imperiled.

The above stated possibility will be an inevitable consequence of protecting Homosexual rights.
I don't want to burst your bubble, but your fear is the very definition of "too far a reach." You believe statements about homosexuality from the pulpit could be characterized as hate speech. Hate speech is a very precise legal term with very strict conditions. I doubt there is a single serious legal scholar, judge, or lawyer in America who would be afraid that our free speech and religious freedoms would be so abridged that speaking out on homosexuality would be impermissible under the laws of this country.
Cali Coug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2006, 04:02 PM   #26
tooblue
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,016
tooblue is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoyacoug
I don't want to burst your bubble, but your fear is the very definition of "too far a reach." You believe statements about homosexuality from the pulpit could be characterized as hate speech. Hate speech is a very precise legal term with very strict conditions. I doubt there is a single serious legal scholar, judge, or lawyer in America who would be afraid that our free speech and religious freedoms would be so abridged that speaking out on homosexuality would be impermissible under the laws of this country.

-----------------------

Oh, the tremendous discrimination us straight, white men have faced in our lives!!!

How do you think gays feel? Perhaps that the hate directed at them is "REAL and unnerving?"

Isn't the answer exactly what SoCal said above? Treat the people with the respect they deserve. You don't have to accept homosexuality as being legitimate, but we should be kinder and more loving towards those who are homosexual.
Please do not condescend to suggest that I do not have a right to feel threatened or discriminated against simply because I am a white male … the arrogance of your statement suggests an abject ignorance in regards to this subject, and a lack of real exposure to all types of peoples and cultures … white males are not the center of the universe, in fact they do not represent the majority in terms of numbers or even power in the modern world in whole.

I currently live, work, study and raise my children in part of the world where I am in the minority, both racially and ideologically, and in certain respects, opportunity.

The characterization as hate speech has already begun to occur … if Homosexual rights are afforded the same constitutional protections as racial and gender rights, then verbal or written condemnation of homosexual behavior may be construed as hate … the so called enlightened advocates and judges you site will have no trouble reaching such a conclusion.

Pointing out inevitable consequence is not fear mongering … refrain for disparaging my remarks, or qualifying them as fear, and contend with my valid ideas.

When did I ever state that a homosexual person should not be treated with respect? In fact I ahve stated many times on this board and elswereh that they should be viewed as an individual of worht and value to all facets of society and culture, and not merely a homosexual.
tooblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2006, 04:44 PM   #27
Cali Coug
Senior Member
 
Cali Coug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
Cali Coug has a little shameless behaviour in the past
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by "tooblue
Please do not condescend to suggest that I do not have a right to feel threatened or discriminated against simply because I am a white male … the arrogance of your statement suggests an abject ignorance in regards to this subject, and a lack of real exposure to all types of peoples and cultures … white males are not the center of the universe, in fact they do not represent the majority in terms of numbers or even power in the modern world in whole.

I currently live, work, study and raise my children in part of the world where I am in the minority, both racially and ideologically, and in certain respects, opportunity.

The characterization as hate speech has already begun to occur … if Homosexual rights are afforded the same constitutional protections as racial and gender rights, then verbal or written condemnation of homosexual behavior may be construed as hate … the so called enlightened advocates and judges you site will have no trouble reaching such a conclusion.

Pointing out inevitable consequence is not fear mongering … refrain for disparaging my remarks, or qualifying them as fear, and contend with my valid ideas.

When did I ever state that a homosexual person should not be treated with respect? In fact I ahve stated many times on this board and elswereh that they should be viewed as an individual of worht and value to all facets of society and culture, and not merely a homosexual.
You missed the point completely. You are complaining incessantly about discrimination you have faced as a straight, white male without stopping to think that gay individuals of any race or sex probably feel as strongly about discrimination as you do. Nobody likes being discriminated against- extend that feeling to the homosexual community.

How do you arrive at the conclusion that the consequences you discuss are "inevitable?" While remarks against gays may be "hateful" they will not, in the context of a church meeting, ever arise to the level of "hate speech" unless those members immediately leave church, inspired by the speech, and attack homosexuals. Do you find that to be at all likely? That is the standard for hate speech. If not, then I don't think your concerns are all that inevitable.
Cali Coug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2006, 04:50 PM   #28
tooblue
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,016
tooblue is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoyacoug

You missed the point completely. You are complaining incessantly about discrimination you have faced as a straight, white male without stopping to think that gay individuals of any race or sex probably feel as strongly about discrimination as you do. Nobody likes being discriminated against- extend that feeling to the homosexual community.

How do you arrive at the conclusion that the consequences you discuss are "inevitable?" While remarks against gays may be "hateful" they will not, in the context of a church meeting, ever arise to the level of "hate speech" unless those members immediately leave church, inspired by the speech, and attack homosexuals. Do you find that to be at all likely? That is the standard for hate speech. If not, then I don't think your concerns are all that inevitable.
Two posts is complaining incessantly :lol: :?: :!: I have first-hand knowledge of the point of view of many homosexuals who regularly face horrific discrimination. My point is to give voice to the flip side of this issue … too often we only hear about discrimination against homosexuals. I have empathy for the homosexual community, but I do not sympathize with their cause.

Let me explain further my perspective on ‘inevitable’. In recent years the Church very nearly abandoned Scouting in Canada due to unforeseen but ‘inevitable’ consequences of guarantying homosexuals the same rights secured to protect against gender and race discrimination in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Charter of Rights in Canada has been changed to reflect such guaranties. In the wake of these changes a homosexual activist in Toronto challenged scouts Canada’s policy of prohibiting homosexuals from being scout leaders or even of forming teen homosexual scout troops. This activist threatened a lawsuit and in fact identified the wording in Scouts Canada policies as not only discriminatory but potentially ‘hate speech’.

As a result Scouts Canada changed its policies and wordings. Their lawyers very brightly conceded and informed the activist that he could be a scout leader and even form a homosexual troop, with the youths parents permission. The dumfounded activist didn’t really want to be a scout leader; he never formed a troop and dropped the issue.

Regardless, the church was forced to reevaluate its relationship with scouts Canada. Ultimately scouts Canada, not wanting to miss out on the principle funding that keeps them afloat, has guaranteed the church the right to prohibit girls from joining scout troops and to assign (call) it’s own scout leaders.

Was this event foreseeable –not readily. Was it inevitable –Yes!
tooblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2006, 05:16 PM   #29
UtahDan
Senior Member
 
UtahDan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Bluth Home
Posts: 3,877
UtahDan is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoyacoug
How do you arrive at the conclusion that the consequences you discuss are "inevitable?" While remarks against gays may be "hateful" they will not, in the context of a church meeting, ever arise to the level of "hate speech" unless those members immediately leave church, inspired by the speech, and attack homosexuals. Do you find that to be at all likely? That is the standard for hate speech. If not, then I don't think your concerns are all that inevitable.
I have been wondering for some time now what the definition of "hate speech" is and have suspected that if I ever learned the definition I would find it to be so broad that almost anything could be put in that category. Not surprisingly, I think that your defenition is along those lines.

Maybe I don't fully understand you though. In order to be hate speeach, does the speaker have to intend that the listener commit violence as a result? If yes, what level of intent are we talking about, actual intent, scienter, etc.? Or is any speech that inspires violence hate speech if the person is, in fact inspired?

Also, what does "inspire" mean in this context? Is it any intellectual shove at all regardless of whether or at what level the listen is predisposed to some act? Must particular action be suggested?
__________________
The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. -Galileo
UtahDan is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.