God's Attitude Toward Homosexuality

[loganonekenobi]

The justice department says people can be fired for being gay
If that instructor was say LDS and he said that to the woman to ease her aprehension then afterwards was fired for it, the law suit would not be denied. The public outrage would be global. Remember, to be religious is a choice unlike being gay.
The important thing to understand is that all it requires to realize such treatment is wrong is to use empathy. Jesus preached this as did many other faiths and philosophies "do unto others....."
Just in case you want to use the argument that a loving homosexual adult consenting coulple is the same as a pedophile , please look at that logically. They are not the same. I wont go into that argument unless you want it.
One of the problems i see with all of the monotheistic Abramic mesianic faiths is that calls for the demonization of certain groups of people such as blacks, homosexuls, atheists, other faiths, and other denominations. This over rides natural empathy and has been the cause of many dire evils in history.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually, the exact opposite is true.

I think you are referring to his comments in 1 Corinthians 7, but you need to know that that chapter was dedicated to answering questions had about those called to the ministry.

Basically, Paul discouraged those who were serving a call to ministry (becoming a travelling missionary) from marrying, because it would distract from the proselyting work.

However, he did concede that if there were those who found this to be too difficult, they should marry.

At that point it is better to marry than to burn (with lust) while trying to teach others about Christ.

Now you are merely making excuses for your error. And you do not understand that part of the Bible either. You are making an assumption it is about those that wanted to enter the ministry.

Also his being a human being could explain this "thorn" he mentioned.

All of the human family of Adam are filled with weaknesses (or thorns) in their flesh that cause them to fall victim to sin.

No one is exempt.

You do realize that Adam was a myth don't you? If you were not being poetic in your use of that word you just shot yourself in the foot. And being human is hardly an explanation since we are all human. It appears there was something stronger eating at him. Once again excuses are not refutations.

Anyone who speaks out against homosexuality is a closeted homosexual?

Really?

That's like saying people are racist for not emphasizing someone's race.

With logic like this, you could potentially win every argument.

"You're only against violence against women because you secretly want to beat women!"

"You only fight for freedom of speech because you secretly want to silence others!"

Paul, being a life-long Pharisee, had a wife and kept the Law of Moses, which forbade homosexual behavior.

You are making quite the stretch here sir.

Let's try to be honest. I neither said that or implied that. Paul did far more than just speak out against homosexuality. And please, don't try to claim others cannot think logically when that is your own personal flaw.. As I said homophobic people have been tested and there is a tie between homophobia and latent homosexuality. If one speaks out of it as an "abomination" and other claims that show that people go far past saying "Nah, it is not for me" are often motivated by their own attraction to their own gender.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You can make these arguments against many of the things taught in our history books.

Are you honestly advocating that unless we can see it happen for yourselves first-hand, we can claim that anything at all happened in the past?

You are conflating the Bible with history. Modern biblical scholars are where I get these arguments from. You do realize that there are rather massive holes in the Road to Damascus story, don't you? Paul had no authority in Damascus. Why would he go chasing Christians there? Are you claiming that he was a crazy vigilante that would break the law to chase down those that he did not like?

 

[Skwim]

Let's try to be honest. I neither said that or implied that. Paul did far more than just speak out against homosexuality. And please, don't try to claim others cannot think logically when that is your own personal flaw.. As I said homophobic people have been tested and there is a tie between homophobia and latent homosexuality. If one speaks out of it as an "abomination" and other claims that show that people go far past saying "Nah, it is not for me" are often motivated by their own attraction to their own gender.

Yup.

"A theory that homophobia is a result of latent homosexuality was put forth in the late 20th century. A 1996 study conducted at the University of Georgia by Henry Adams, Lester Wright Jr., and Bethany Lohr[1] indicates that a number of homophobic males exhibit latent homosexuality. The research was done on 64 heterosexual men, 35 of whom exhibited homophobic traits and 29 who did not. They were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The groups did not differ in aggression.[1]

Three tests were conducted using penile plethysmography. While there was no difference in response when the men were exposed to heterosexual and lesbian pornography, there was a major difference in response when the men were exposed to male homosexual pornography.

The researchers reported that 24% of the non-homophobic men showed some degree of tumescence in response to the male homosexual video, compared to 54% of the subjects who scored high on the homophobia scale. In addition, 66% of the non-homophobic group showed no significant increases in tumescence after this video, but only 20% of the homophobic men failed to display any arousal. Additionally, when the participants rated their degree of sexual arousal later, the homophobic men significantly underestimated their degree of arousal by the male homosexual video.

The results of this study indicate that individuals who score in the homophobic range and admit negative affect toward homosexuality demonstrate significant sexual arousal to male homosexual erotic stimuli."
Source:Wikipedia

.​

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yup.

"A theory that homophobia is a result of latent homosexuality was put forth in the late 20th century. A 1996 study conducted at the University of Georgia by Henry Adams, Lester Wright Jr., and Bethany Lohr[1] indicates that a number of homophobic males exhibit latent homosexuality. The research was done on 64 heterosexual men, 35 of whom exhibited homophobic traits and 29 who did not. They were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The groups did not differ in aggression.[1]

Three tests were conducted using penile plethysmography. While there was no difference in response when the men were exposed to heterosexual and lesbian pornography, there was a major difference in response when the men were exposed to male homosexual pornography.

The researchers reported that 24% of the non-homophobic men showed some degree of tumescence in response to the male homosexual video, compared to 54% of the subjects who scored high on the homophobia scale. In addition, 66% of the non-homophobic group showed no significant increases in tumescence after this video, but only 20% of the homophobic men failed to display any arousal. Additionally, when the participants rated their degree of sexual arousal later, the homophobic men significantly underestimated their degree of arousal by the male homosexual video.

The results of this study indicate that individuals who score in the homophobic range and admit negative affect toward homosexuality demonstrate significant sexual arousal to male homosexual erotic stimuli."
Source:Wikipedia

.​

I think that he is well aware of these studies. I offered to link them but he never took me up on that offer. Perhaps he thinks ignoring them will make them go away.

 

[Prestor John]

Now you are merely making excuses for your error. And you do not understand that part of the Bible either. You are making an assumption it is about those that wanted to enter the ministry.

Nope. I made no error. You are the one who does not know what he is talking about.

In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul claims that he is answering questions from the members in Corinth and, at first, it sounds as though he is advocating celibacy.

It is only unclear because we do not have the initial letter written to Paul, so we don't know what questions he is answering.

However, after talking about how the married and unmarried should act, he clearly states that he is talking about those who have received a calling.

"Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.

Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.

Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called.

Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather.

For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord’s freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ’s servant.

Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men." (1 Corinthians 7:18-23)

All of his advice concerning the married and unmarried only makes sense when taken in the context that he is referring to those called to the ministry.

You do realize that Adam was a myth don't you?

The LDS Church believes and teaches in the literal Creation and Fall of Man.

We believe that both Adam and Eve were real people and that all human beings alive today are descended from them.

We also believe that other stories from the Genesis account, such as the Flood, the building of the Ark, the Tower of Babel and the corruption of Man's language to be real events.

And being human is hardly an explanation since we are all human. It appears there was something stronger eating at him.

As someone draws closer to God, their weaknesses and sins become more glaring and offensive to them.

Paul, being an Apostle, was more aware and sensitive to his failings than the average man.

Let's try to be honest. I neither said that or implied that.

That is not honest. You are just unwilling to be consistent with your silly arguments.

Paul did far more than just speak out against homosexuality.

You're right.

He spoke like a life-long Pharisee, observer of the Law of Moses, and a man who had a first-hand experience that led him to know, without the shadow of any doubt, that homosexuality is sinful and destructive to the souls of men.

As I said homophobic people have been tested and there is a tie between homophobia and latent homosexuality.

The word "homophobia" denotes a fear of homosexuality, which is not the case with Paul and others who believe the Word of God.

If one speaks out of it as an "abomination" and other claims that show that people go far past saying "Nah, it is not for me" are often motivated by their own attraction to their own gender.

Or, they believe it is an abomination because the Word of God declares it to be so.

I believe that homosexuality is an abomination and I am not attracted to my own sex. Latent or otherwise.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nope. I made no error. You are the one who does not know what he is talking about.

In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul claims that he is answering questions from the members in Corinth and, at first, it sounds as though he is advocating celibacy.

It is only unclear because we do not have the initial letter written to Paul, so we don't know what questions he is answering.

However, after talking about how the married and unmarried should act, he clearly states that he is talking about those who have received a calling.

"Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.

Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.

Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called.

Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather.

For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord’s freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ’s servant.

Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men." (1 Corinthians 7:18-23)

All of his advice concerning the married and unmarried only makes sense when taken in the context that he is referring to those called to the ministry.

Nope, nothing there implies that it is a calling to the ministry. It is rather obvious the he is talking about a calling to Christianity itself, no more. You keep ignoring Paul's huge error of thinking that those were the end days.

The LDS Church believes and teaches in the literal Creation and Fall of Man.

We believe that both Adam and Eve were real people and that all human beings alive today are descended from them.

We also believe that other stories from the Genesis account, such as the Flood, the building of the Ark, the Tower of Babel and the corruption of Man's language to be real events.
As someone draws closer to God, their weaknesses and sins become more glaring and offensive to them.

So now you are claiming that the LDS got quite a bit wrong. We know that those stories are myths. At best they are allegories. Probably the easiest to understand is why and how we know that there was no flood. You should check out some of the threads on that topic.

Paul, being an Apostle, was more aware and sensitive to his failings than the average man.
That is not honest. You are just unwilling to be consistent with your silly arguments.

Bit he was merely a self appointed apostle. He is not that reliable of an authority.

That is not honest. You are just unwilling to be consistent with your silly arguments.

Wrong again and massive projection on your part. Those are your sins and you are the one making silly arguments. But then you know that you are wrong deep down inside.

You're right.

He spoke like a life-long Pharisee, observer of the Law of Moses, and a man who had a first-hand experience that led him to know, without the shadow of any doubt, that homosexuality is sinful and destructive to the souls of men.

But it is hardly "sinful". You have yet to identify one thing that is sinful about that behavior. After all it is very obvious that people are born that way. How is acting according to one's nature with a behavior that does not harm others "sinful"?

The word "homophobia" denotes a fear of homosexuality, which is not the case with Paul and others who believe the Word of God.

Actually it is. The fear in homophobia is a fear of being a homosexual. That fear is what causes those that are latent to strike out at others of their own kind.

Or, they believe it is an abomination because the Word of God declares it to be so.

]
The "word of God" does no such thing. The Bible might, but if you call that "the word of God" you are also calling God an incompetent and vile being. That would seem to be sacrilege to me.

I believe that homosexuality is an abomination and I am not attracted to my own sex. Latent or otherwise.

Sorry, but you may be lying to yourself. Why else would you think that a natural activity is an "abomination"? Shakespeare had a line that you should remember:


The Queen in "Hamlet" by Edwin Austin Abbey
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks"

 

[loganonekenobi]

As I have studied the subject further it becomes worse than i imagined. The violence rate against the LGBT community since Trump's election is up by 17%. I can safely say that the christians have no desire to spread the love of jesus to these people. Trump is a known supporter of the evangelical movement. This connection should not go unnoticed.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Sorry, but you may be lying to yourself. Why else would you think that a natural activity is an "abomination"?

Do you think that incest is okay? Because that's perfectly natural in the animal world, quite common in fact. Dogs will do it with any other dog, even immediate family members. Does that mean that human beings should do the same? Does being in love make incest okay? What about the fact that incest is a "victimless crime?"

Although I don't think eating meat is immoral, I find that this article points out the very same logical error that many meat eaters make when talking to vegetarians.

The Problem With Incest

Mr. James Russell of Cashiers, N.C. recently justified meat-eating in the pages of Asheville Citizen-Times by arguing that humans are biologically classified as carnivores. His reasoning was simple. The consumption of animal flesh is morally right because it is natural.
Unfortunately, Mr. Russell got his facts wrong. Zoologists place humans in the order Primate (family Hominidea), not in the order Carnivora. Furthermore, like rats, humans are omnivores, not carnivores. But more troubling is Mr. Russell’s belief that humans should look to nature for moral guidance. He justifies meat-eating in humans on the grounds that other animals eat one another. I suspect, however, that he does not approve of gang rape, adultery, cannibalism, and the consumption of feces, all of which are practiced in nature by our four-legged brethren. While moral codes exist in other species (see here), humans have the capacity — and, indeed, the responsibility — to operate on a higher ethical plane.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you think that incest is okay? Because that's perfectly natural in the animal world, quite common in fact. Dogs will do it with any other dog, even immediate family members. Does that mean that human beings should do the same? Does being in love make incest okay? What about the fact that incest is a "victimless crime?"

I am not sure if your claims are correct. Dogs are hardly 'natural' so they are a poor example to choose. And in the animal world excessive inbreeding is self defeating. People recognized the possible harm of incest a long time ago. Yet Christians cannot seem to come up with a valid flaw in homosexuality. In the human world incest is not a victimless crime. Surely you can see that.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I am not sure if your claims are correct. Dogs are hardly 'natural' so they are a poor example to choose. And in the animal world excessive inbreeding is self defeating. People recognized the possible harm of incest a long time ago. Yet Christians cannot seem to come up with a valid flaw in homosexuality. In the human world incest is not a victimless crime. Surely you can see that.

You think dogs are not natural simply because of breeding selection? How about the banded mongoose? Or simple mice?

The inbreeding diseases do not occur for many generations, and happens in isolated groups where long histories of cousins marrying take place, such as with the Amish.

Human beings who are raised together in close quarters have a natural block against pairing up, as scientific research has shown with children raised together in a Kibbutz, or cases where an arranged marriage includes the girl being raised in the home of the boy -- they can be so reluctant to consummate the marriage that the father will literally stand outside the door to make sure they do. Our laws against incest have more to do with this instinctual reluctance to have sex with siblings than anything to do with "figuring out" the problems that arise due to incest.

All of this is, of course, unrelated to the point I made., which still stands.

 

[SomeRandom]

You think dogs are not natural simply because of breeding selection? How about the banded mongoose? Or simple mice?

The inbreeding diseases do not occur for many generations, and happens in isolated groups where long histories of cousins marrying take place, such as with the Amish.

Human beings who are raised together in close quarters have a natural block against pairing up, as scientific research has shown with children raised together in a Kibbutz, or cases where an arranged marriage includes the girl being raised in the home of the boy -- they can be so reluctant to consummate the marriage that the father will literally stand outside the door to make sure they do. Our laws against incest have more to do with this instinctual reluctance to have sex with siblings than anything to do with "figuring out" the problems that arise due to incest.

All of this is, of course, unrelated to the point I made., which still stands.

Humans have been marrying their cousins for literally generations. It was so commonplace you find it casually mentioned in even young children's literature of yesteryear (like Beatrix Potter, the old timey equivilent of Sesame Street.)
Incest was relatively accepted by society for a long time, provided there was a bit of a gap.

And if we are naturally inclined to avoid close quarters incest, why even have the laws in the first place? Seems a little redundant.

Even still at least with the objection to incest there's an actual tangible consequence everyone with a passing acquaintance of biological knowledge can point to. Homosexuality doesn't seem to do anything except exist. It doesn't affect the population numbers, it doesn't pass along detrimental genes. The closest tangible harm was maybe the AIDS epidemic. And even then that wasn't a gay only thing and could have been reduced, if not prevented, with more aggressive health treatment and realistic informative sex education.

 

[loganonekenobi]

The argument always goes this way with the faithful. Homosexuality is some how conflated with incest, beastiality, and pedophilia. You can show them the difference till the cows come home but they will not listen. They would rather see these people suffer (and suffer they do because of the religious) than admit that maybe the holy book is not as inspired as they believe.
Paul lumped all of those together in his letters because at the time the Romans were in charge. As I have said before the Romans were bad. A loving homosexual relationship is not what the Romans practiced.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

And if we are naturally inclined to avoid close quarters incest, why even have the laws in the first place? Seems a little redundant.

We have laws against incest because there are sociopaths that do not bond, and will rape their sisters. We also have cases of siblings being separated, i.e. when adopted out or placed in foster care. They do not have a chance for the sibling effect.

Even still at least with the objection to incest there's an actual tangible consequence everyone with a passing acquaintance of biological knowledge can point to. Homosexuality doesn't seem to do anything except exist. It doesn't affect the population numbers, it doesn't pass along detrimental genes. The closest tangible harm was maybe the AIDS epidemic. And even then that wasn't a gay only thing and could have been reduced, if not prevented, with more aggressive health treatment and realistic informative sex education.

Again, the genetic problems of close family relationships only show up after generations. There have been whole societies that have practiced sibling marriage and there hasn't been genetic problems with the kids. The Egyptian royal families come to mind.


My entire post can be summed up by the following: Society (specifically our children) are best served by supporting traditional marriage, so we need to support policies and develop a culture that supports the traditional marriage whenever possible.

One of told me that, having been a liberal and is now a conservative, that liberals tend to value the rights of the individual over what is best for society, and conservatives tend to value what is best for society over individual rights.

I believe in the rights of individuals until 1) they hurt other individuals or 2) they hurt the greater community.

Based on that, I think that homosexual behavior (I don't care what's in people's heads: same sex attraction is not a problem) when tolerated, is harmful to society because it is harmful to the traditional family which makes it harmful to children, innocent victims, even if they are many steps removed.

Children are society's greatest blessing and we have the responsibility to give them not just an "okay" upbringing, but a *good* upbringing. We know that children prosper best in traditional families where mom and dad are committed through marriage (brings security) and the children have role models of each sex (we know that children bond with the same sex parent and opposite sex parent differently).

So we know that not all families love the children or follow through on providing a stable and organized upbringing -- what we do is set policies that make this the most likely environment for kids. We need to encourage marriage rather than deliberately having sex out of wedlock and making babies in an environment that is not ideal. I know that sometimes being a single parent is unavoidable in cases of divorce (heck I ended up raising my kids alone when their father abandoned us). But even in such cases we know that children are disadvantaged and we need to find ways to help couples marry on solid grounds and be able to work through their problems. In other words, society needs to support married couples -- right now we are failing miserably at this.

One of the ways we undermine the ideal environment for kids is being dishonest about what's not good for them and saying this is just as good. This includes homosexual relationships. They give another option to the married family. But to be fair, it also includes all sex outside of marriage and embracing all alternative forms of the family as equally good.

I am the first person to have compassion on those who through no fault of their own end up in a situation that is not the ideal. That includes people who end up (either congenitally or via environment) with same sex attraction. Like I said, I myself was abandoned by my husband, and my own sexuality is not exactly typical -- and I'm divorced so I'm celibate until such time as I ever remarry (unlikely). I think a divorce which is necessary for those marriages where the relationship is toxic (drug abuse, alcoholism, and abuse are for sure reasons to divorce in my book). BUT WE MUST NOT DISTORT REALITY OUT OF COMPASSION. We tell our kids, "Oh that's the greatest picture ever!" because they are kids. We should not do this for adults.

So you see, my views on homosexuality are not an independent notion, but are part of a larger concern for society/children that encompasses many things.

 

[SomeRandom]

We have laws against incest because there are sociopaths that do not bond, and will rape their sisters. We also have cases of siblings being separated, i.e. when adopted out or placed in foster care. They do not have a chance for the sibling effect.

Again, the genetic problems of close family relationships only show up after generations. There have been whole societies that have practiced sibling marriage and there hasn't been genetic problems with the kids. The Egyptian royal families come to mind.


My entire post can be summed up by the following: Society (specifically our children) are best served by supporting traditional marriage, so we need to support policies and develop a culture that supports the traditional marriage whenever possible.

One of told me that, having been a liberal and is now a conservative, that liberals tend to value the rights of the individual over what is best for society, and conservatives tend to value what is best for society over individual rights.

I believe in the rights of individuals until 1) they hurt other individuals or 2) they hurt the greater community.

Based on that, I think that homosexual behavior (I don't care what's in people's heads: same sex attraction is not a problem) when tolerated, is harmful to society because it is harmful to the traditional family which makes it harmful to children, innocent victims, even if they are many steps removed.

Children are society's greatest blessing and we have the responsibility to give them not just an "okay" upbringing, but a *good* upbringing. We know that children prosper best in traditional families where mom and dad are committed through marriage (brings security) and the children have role models of each sex (we know that children bond with the same sex parent and opposite sex parent differently).

So we know that not all families love the children or follow through on providing a stable and organized upbringing -- what we do is set policies that make this the most likely environment for kids. We need to encourage marriage rather than deliberately having sex out of wedlock and making babies in an environment that is not ideal. I know that sometimes being a single parent is unavoidable in cases of divorce (heck I ended up raising my kids alone when their father abandoned us). But even in such cases we know that children are disadvantaged and we need to find ways to help couples marry on solid grounds and be able to work through their problems. In other words, society needs to support married couples -- right now we are failing miserably at this.

One of the ways we undermine the ideal environment for kids is being dishonest about what's not good for them and saying this is just as good. This includes homosexual relationships. They give another option to the married family. But to be fair, it also includes all sex outside of marriage and embracing all alternative forms of the family as equally good.

I am the first person to have compassion on those who through no fault of their own end up in a situation that is not the ideal. That includes people who end up (either congenitally or via environment) with same sex attraction. Like I said, I myself was abandoned by my husband, and my own sexuality is not exactly typical -- and I'm divorced so I'm celibate until such time as I ever remarry (unlikely). I think a divorce which is necessary for those marriages where the relationship is toxic (drug abuse, alcoholism, and abuse are for sure reasons to divorce in my book). BUT WE MUST NOT DISTORT REALITY OUT OF COMPASSION. We tell our kids, "Oh that's the greatest picture ever!" because they are kids. We should not do this for adults.

So you see, my views on homosexuality are not an independent notion, but are part of a larger concern for society/children that encompasses many things.

Oh the whole "please think of the children" rhetoric. Please don't tell me you sincerely went with the "Helen Lovejoy" route?

Humans are a tribal species. Back before marriage was a thing (and even now where ancient tribal traditions thrive including in the West) humans raised children together as a large group unit. The whole mother and father unit is actually a fairly recent phenomenon, even in the West. It used to be normal for grandparents and even in laws to help raise children. The nuclear family model you are referring to is literally modern. As in it became far more prominent during the 1950s. (Hence its name, the nuclear family.)

I'm half Indian living in Aus and even now the oldies think only a mother and father raising a child is a cold harsh "gora" way the West adopted, cutting short the potential family warmth one can actually have in life.
Grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, sisters, in laws etc are always a large part in raising our younglings since we pride ourselves on community togetherness and family.

Besides studies have shown time and time and time again that gay parents raise just as many stable progeny than their heterosexual counterparts. This in spite of the rejection and snooty attitude heterosexuals have towards gay parents. Kids who have gay parents fare no worse and in some cases even better than their peers with a heterosexual couple raising them.
So we've studied this and found the opposite of what you're claiming, just FYI.

What's best for the kids? How about as a community supporting and helping their parents regardless of sexual orientation or their situation? Whether adopted, being raised by two dads or with step family or grandparents only. That's what we do that's in the best interests of a child. Condemning shaming or otherwise looking down on the kids family situation only increases their chances of developing anxiety, stress and even low self esteem.

You claim you're against homosexuality based on the kids. But from I can see you're merely using them as a shield to justify your own biases. That's kind of low, man. Not going to lie.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Oh the whole "please think of the children" rhetoric. Please don't tell me you sincerely went with the "Helen Lovejoy" route?

Humans are a tribal species. Back before marriage was a thing (and even now where ancient tribal traditions thrive including in the West) humans raised children together as a large group unit. The whole mother and father unit is actually a fairly recent phenomenon, even in the West. It used to be normal for grandparents and even in laws to help raise children. The nuclear family model you are referring to is literally modern. As in it became far more prominent during the 1950s. (Hence its name, the nuclear family.)

I don't know who Helen Lovejoy is. I've reached my opinions with a little help from Dennis Prager, and a lot of thinking about things on my own for long, long periods of time, years, decades.

Extended family living is what we have evolved into. The changes that have come in the last 150 years have happened to fast for our species to adjust to it. The nuclear family is not entirely natural -- it was a necessary adjustment to the industrial revolution. It is the degradation of the extended family. Today, we have gone even further down the slippery slope. What we have now is the degradation of the nuclear family. And it's not good for kids, which in turn affects society negatively.

 

[loganonekenobi]

I don't know who Helen Lovejoy is. I've reached my opinions with a little help from Dennis Prager, and a lot of thinking about things on my own for long, long periods of time, years, decades.

Extended family living is what we have evolved into. The changes that have come in the last 150 years have happened to fast for our species to adjust to it. The nuclear family is not entirely natural -- it was a necessary adjustment to the industrial revolution. It is the degradation of the extended family. Today, we have gone even further down the slippery slope. What we have now is the degradation of the nuclear family. And it's not good for kids, which in turn affects society negatively.

Prager is a conservative that uses his videos to convince young people to be conservative. This means that there is a whole lot of bias in these videos. There are some facts in them however, it has been shown repeatedly that they are often misrepresented, cherry picked, and anecdotal. These videos often don't have citations for the viewer to check the facts (Bad Prager!)
My point on this is to be careful not to live in an echo chamber. Even I have to swallow some vomit at times and read or watch a conservative/religious piece of propaganda now and then so as to not live in the echo chamber.
The facts are these:
It's always best if the child is raised with both biological parents IF they are loving and actually want the child and have good economic base.
Life is not always ideal. No amount of Bible thumping to tell people to hold back their hormones will work. Not all marriages stay together. The economy changes.
If plan A doesnt work then a great plan B is to have two loving same sex couples adopt a child. Studies have shown that such children do just as well as other children on average.
In fact the only problem being a kid that has same sex parents/guardians are the religious that often use the word of god to justify their bigotry.
Marriage changes all the time. one look at history will show you this. Usually this change is for the better. Family units change all the time often due to economic and cultural pressures.
Finally: the LGBT community suffers more often from mental illnesses on average. There is strong correlation that the reason this is is because they do not have the same rights as others nor the same protections from discrimination. They are more likely to be assualted and harrassed than other groups.
It has also been shown that a sense well being is bestowed on those with legally recognized marriages. This includes same sex couples. This in turn reduces the mental illnesses suffered by these people which in turn helps society in the form of less cost to treat these folks.
I can cite all of these facts but i find that my hard work goes to waste as no one really looks at them.
So in summery, they dont do harm to society, their kids do fine, the problems they face are largely due to religious based bigotry.
My question is why does it have to happen this way?
The answer is "God said so".

 

[RedhorseWoman]

Prager is a conservative that uses his videos to convince young people to be conservative. This means that there is a whole lot of bias in these videos. There are some facts in them however, it has been shown repeatedly that they are often misrepresented, cherry picked, and anecdotal. These videos often don't have citations for the viewer to check the facts (Bad Prager!)
My point on this is to be careful not to live in an echo chamber. Even I have to swallow some vomit at times and read or watch a conservative/religious piece of propaganda now and then so as to not live in the echo chamber.
The facts are these:
It's always best if the child is raised with both biological parents IF they are loving and actually want the child and have good economic base.
Life is not always ideal. No amount of Bible thumping to tell people to hold back their hormones will work. Not all marriages stay together. The economy changes.
If plan A doesnt work then a great plan B is to have two loving same sex couples adopt a child. Studies have shown that such children do just as well as other children on average.
In fact the only problem being a kid that has same sex parents/guardians are the religious that often use the word of god to justify their bigotry.
Marriage changes all the time. one look at history will show you this. Usually this change is for the better. Family units change all the time often due to economic and cultural pressures.
Finally: the LGBT community suffers more often from mental illnesses on average. There is strong correlation that the reason this is is because they do not have the same rights as others nor the same protections from discrimination. They are more likely to be assualted and harrassed than other groups.
It has also been shown that a sense well being is bestowed on those with legally recognized marriages. This includes same sex couples. This in turn reduces the mental illnesses suffered by these people which in turn helps society in the form of less cost to treat these folks.
I can cite all of these facts but i find that my hard work goes to waste as no one really looks at them.
So in summery, they dont do harm to society, their kids do fine, the problems they face are largely due to religious based bigotry.
My question is why does it have to happen this way?
The answer is "God said so".

And yet, we really can't say with 100% certainty that God did, in fact, say so. People today are taking scriptures written several thousand years ago in an entirely different culture and manipulating them to fit their current prejudices.

It was common in Middle Eastern countries that heterosexuals would engage in same-sex relations either in the context of pagan worship or simply to satisfy sexual urges outside of marriage. The same thing happens to this day with young boys (bacha boys) dancing and engaging in sexual relations with heterosexual men in order to earn money...many times to earn money so that they can afford to marry a woman in the future.

Sadly, most religions automatically assume that what was written about the culture in the Middle East back then was about homosexuality. I don't believe that homosexuality was what was condemned at all, but rather same-sex relations engaged in by heterosexuals...and it is still being done today.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Finally: the LGBT community suffers more often from mental illnesses on average. There is strong correlation that the reason this is is because they do not have the same rights as others nor the same protections from discrimination. They are more likely to be assualted and harrassed than other groups..

I don't think that's it. I don't have an explanation, but I'm sure that's not it. I'll tell you why. Other kids get bullied for other issues (I was very ugly in Junior High, going through an "awkward stage" that I like to pretend never happened). The don't grow up to commit suicide because of it. Does it impact lives? Sure, bullying can scar. But there is a difference between that and being given so over to depression that they sadly take their own lives. This should not be interpreted as making light of bullying (of anyone by anyone). Suicide is contemplated by people who cannot accept themselves (this is almost always a symptom of depression. It's not that other people reject the depressed person, it's that they reject themselves. Don't you think there is a lot of truth in linking that fact to the high rate (sky high rate!) of gays and transgenders?

 

[Prestor John]

Nope, nothing there implies that it is a calling to the ministry. It is rather obvious the he is talking about a calling to Christianity itself, no more. You keep ignoring Paul's huge error of thinking that those were the end days.

It's no wonder that you don't believe in the Bible or in Christianity if you hold such ridiculous misconceptions and misinterpretations.

You believe that Paul was advocating that all Christians should be celibate?

Not only does that violate the very first commandment God ever gave to Mankind, but it contradicts the teachings of Christ and Paul's own words.

I could walk through the his first epistle to the Corinthians with you if you want, but I doubt you'd want to learn anything.

So now you are claiming that the LDS got quite a bit wrong. We know that those stories are myths. At best they are allegories. Probably the easiest to understand is why and how we know that there was no flood. You should check out some of the threads on that topic.

Whos is "we" in this comment?

It is no wonder that the purposes and meaning of the Atonement of Christ allude you.

You can't understand the need for an infinite Atonement without there having been a literal Fall of Man.

Does the Genesis account record a world-wide Flood or a localized event?

Bit he was merely a self appointed apostle. He is not that reliable of an authority.

He was recognized by the Brethren in Jerusalem.

But it is hardly "sinful". You have yet to identify one thing that is sinful about that behavior. After all it is very obvious that people are born that way. How is acting according to one's nature with a behavior that does not harm others "sinful"?

Did you know that not remembering the Sabbath day, to keep it holy, is a sin?

I don't think avoiding church or watching football games on Sundays actively "harms" anyone, but they are sins all the same.

You appear no different than your false perception of Paul.

You think that you somehow have the authority to decide what is or is not sinful. Why is that?

Why do you feel that you are qualified to decide how the universe works?

Actually it is. The fear in homophobia is a fear of being a homosexual. That fear is what causes those that are latent to strike out at others of their own kind.

You understand that this is a classic case of circular reasoning called "begging the question"?

The "word of God" does no such thing. The Bible might, but if you call that "the word of God" you are also calling God an incompetent and vile being. That would seem to be sacrilege to me.

I'm not surprised by this comment because, as I said above, you accept ridiculous interpretations of scripture.

The Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price are the word of God.

Even the words of modern-day prophets are the Word of God.

Sorry, but you may be lying to yourself. Why else would you think that a natural activity is an "abomination"?

Something being "natural" is not "ideal" or "correct".

I don't care how "natural" cannibalism is, I won't eat my children.