Mormon Church To US Supreme Court: Ban Gay Marriage

[Prestor John]

I honestly believe you have misunderstood the definition of the word, "homosexual." I believe that if you and I could sit down together with any member of the Quorum of the Twelve and were agree upfront to accept his explanation of the word "homosexual," you'd be the one to end up having to say, "Yeah, I guess I got that wrong."

I think that that Apostle would agree with me wholeheartedly.

The Brethren almost always use the terms “same-sex attraction” or “same gender attraction” to describe someone’s predisposed attraction. They tend to only use the terms “gay” “lesbian” or “homosexual” either when describing someone’s particular behavior or to refer to those people or members of the Church that classify themselves as “gay” or “homosexual”.

For example, on www.lds.org under “Homosexuality” in Gospel Topics it simply reads, “See Same-Sex Attraction”. That’s it. That is the page I shared with you earlier.

Another website is referenced on that page titled “Love One Another: A Discussion on Same-Sex Attraction” that has a lot of videos from members who have had dealings with same-sex attraction as well as videos of some of the Apostles sharing the Church’s view on this issue.

Here is a link to the website: http://mormonsandgays.org/

Elder Dallin H. Oaks has two videos and he never uses the terms “gay” or “homosexual”. He only uses the term “same gender attraction”.

Elder D. Todd Christofferson also has two videos. He only uses the term “homosexual” in his first video when he refers to a person’s “behavior”. Otherwise he refers to it as “same-sex attraction”. He also said in the first video that, “The feeling, the desire is not classified the same as homosexual behavior itself.”(Bold and italics added)

At the beginning of the same page under the title, “Where the Church stands” it reads, “With love and understanding, the Church reaches out to all God’s children, including our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters.” It only uses the terms “gay” and “lesbian” to refer to those who have already labeled themselves thusly and live that lifestyle.

Although not a General Authority, a member of the Church named Dora also had a video and she made a good point which I believe sums up why the Church discourages the use of the terms “gay”, “lesbian” and “homosexual”. She said, “It shouldn’t identify them, because again, I don’t walk around saying, ‘hi, I’m Dora and I’m a heterosexual.’ It shouldn’t be any different for them. You know, what their sexual preference is should not define who they are as a human being. It should not define them as a Christian.”

Do you remember the flak that Elder David A. Bednar got for his comment, “There are no homosexual members of the Church.” People tend to focus on only that part and ignore that he said immediately after, “We are not defined by sexual attraction. We are not defined by sexual behavior."

https://www.ldsliving.com/What-the-Media-Got-Wrong-About-Elder-Bednar-s-Comments/s/81467

This source helps clarify what Elder Bednar meant,

“Elder Bednar was not dismissing members of the Church who are gay, lesbian, transgender, or who experience other struggles regarding sexual attraction, identity, or gender; he didn't want to simplify their situation by labeling it.”

It also quoted Elder Holland when he said to a young man struggling with same-sex attraction, “You serve yourself poorly when you identify yourself primarily by your sexual feelings. That isn’t your only characteristic, so don’t give it disproportionate attention. You are first and foremost a son of God, and He loves you.”

I also found a generally anti-Mormon website that actually defended Elder Bednar.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...here-are-no-homosexual-members-of-the-church/

“Bednar’s answer isn’t as bad as it sounds. He’s not saying there are no gay people in the Mormon Church — of course there are. He’s not denying that.

He’s saying that the Church doesn’t define people by their sexual orientation because they’re more than that — they don’t say “We have X gay members and Y straight members,” just like they don’t say “We have X white members and Y black members.” No matter how you identify, according to Church leaders, you’re more than any one characteristic.”

Also at Fair Mormon they address the issue of “terminology” concerning homosexuality and the Church here:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_gender_issues/Same-sex_attraction/Terminology

They share the question, “Why does FairMormon (and other LDS sources) typically refer to homosexual/gay/lesbian issues with such terms as "same-sex attraction" and heterosexual/straight issues with such terms as "opposite-sex attraction"?”

Their answer, “LDS doctrine emphasizes that people are not the sum of their desires, temptations, or sins. Secular evidence suggests that those who self-identify with their desires in this way are more likely to engage in acts which the gospel of Christ teaches are sinful. FairMormon wishes to support members and non-members in choosing to live lives in harmony with God's commandments.”

They also clarify, “Our choice of terminology should not be construed to deny others the privilege of choosing their own acts or self-labels. When labels such as "homosexual," or "heterosexual", and labels such as "gay," "lesbian," or "straight" are used by FairMormon, this terminology should be understood to:

• reflect the self-understanding of those referred to; or
• serve as an adjective (e.g., "gay activists" are those working politically on behalf of those who self-identify as gay or "heterosexual marriage" is a marriage between two people of the opposite sex regardless of sexual orientation).”

I feel that the leaders of the Church have been very clear that they, and therefore the Lord, does not judge someone that has a same-sex attraction to be homosexual and that is why I make such a distinction.

 

[Prestor John]

The Church doesn't dispute the commonly used definition of the word "homosexual." It doesn't have its own definition. It simply makes the distinction between "a homosexual person who acts on the attraction he feels for a person of the same sex" and "a homosexual person who doesn't act on the attraction he feels for a person of the same sex." I'm not trying to force any definition on you or anyone else. I agree with you that the Lord judges the behavior itself and not the attraction. You don't seem to have a word for "someone who is attracted to a person of the same sex."

I use the same terms that the Brethren use. Either “same-sex attraction” or “same gender attraction”.

The rest of us would call that person a homosexual. It is possible for a "homosexual" to be a celibate homosexual, but being a celibate homosexual is not the same thing as being a heterosexual.

I don’t know who the “rest of us” are.

It is true that the “world” would label anyone with a “same-sex attraction” as “gay” or “homosexual”, but I do not believe that the Brethren would do this and I know that they discourage anyone from doing that.

I don’t believe I made the claim that a celibate homosexual was a heterosexual.

Too close? Why on earth would you say that?

You have an obvious bias in regards to this issue.

I am not saying that to try and single you out. We all have biases.

But you're lashing out at me as if I were.

I don’t consider you an enemy. I just disagree with you. I may sound insensitive, like I said above, but I don’t believe I “lashed out” at you. Would you mind sharing an example?

You shouldn't. You should always feel that you can express a different opinion from mine. But telling me to "chill" wasn't really nice of you.

I am sorry. That was not meant to be mean or rude or anything like that!

I’m from Southern California and one of the rudest things a person can say to someone around here is, “Calm down.”

The word “chill” is considered amicable and is often used among friends like, “Chill bro. Check this out.”

I did not intend to be rude or “not nice” toward you by using the word “chill”.

Sorry for the confusion.

As I said before, I don't believe the Church does disagree. I believe they would simply make the distinction between a "sexually active homosexual" and a "celibate homosexual."

You are free to believe that and I shared some reasons and sources for why I believe the way I do.

I rely on the doctrines of the Church, too, John. I just disagree with the Church's leadership as to how involved the Church should be with regards to the laws of the land. I believe in a clear distinction between church and state, that's all.

What do you believe the leaders of the Church have done to blur that line between Church and State?

I agree, but I fail to see that as a justification for us to discriminate against law-abiding citizens of this country who do not share our moral values.

I would not consider it discrimination. They just do not fit the definition.

As I mentioned way earlier in this thread, I am a Federal Law Enforcement officer. I work with Customs and Broder Protection. Some people are not eligible to enter the U.S., for whatever reason, and I do not consider it “discrimination” to deny them entrance.

Neither would I consider denying same-sex couples the right to “marry” since the only way that idea can be feasible is if we change the definition of what “marriage” is and has been for time immemorial.

I don't believe "same sex attraction" is something that can be overcome.

On that website I shared with all the videos, Elder Christofferson said in his first video in answer to the question, “Should one be actively working to overcome same-sex attraction or just coping with it?”,

“It’s difficult to say because each case is different, each person is different. Their circumstances will vary. You’ll see in some of these vignettes experiences that are recounted that people have found a diminishing of that same-sex attraction, almost to the point of vanishing, and others not at all.

“So, we think it’s something that each person can evaluate and they can discuss, both with priesthood leaders and family and others, and make decisions. But we simply don’t take a uniform position of saying “yes” always or “no” always.

“This is a gospel of change. Jesus Christ is asking every one of us to change, and to become better and to progress and to follow in his footsteps. His ultimate commandment is that we become as He is and as His father. And none of us are at that point.

“And the standard is always the gospel of Jesus Christ. And every one of us has to measure up to that standard because that’s where our ultimate happiness is going to be found. That’s where our ultimate freedom is going to come. And God being just and loving all of His Children is going to help everyone who wants to progress toward that ideal, whatever they may need to do in their lives to do that.”

You should also watch the video titled “Ty’s Story”, which shows a member of the Church that struggled/s with same-sex attraction. He said,

“It was a slow process over several years. I don’t know that I ever really started to feel a sense of changing from homosexual to heterosexual as much as I just felt like the feelings didn’t have as much, they didn’t have any control or power, they didn’t have the pull in my life that they once had. I went from thinking I probably won’t marry in this life, and really believing that I probably wouldn’t, to feeling like I think I will marry in this life but it’ll be later rather than sooner, to thinking I will marry and it will be sooner rather than later, but this is over a process of like seven years. So this is a long time of just taking life a day at a time, staying close to the spirit, letting the Lord guide me as to that next step.”

He eventually married and had a son. So, it is possible.

Besides, if the attraction itself is not a sin, why would the Lord want the person to "overcome" it?

The Lord wants us to eventually become perfect like He is.

Same-sex attraction is a weakness and perfected Beings do not have weaknesses.

I hope you're not suggestion that a person with same-sex attraction marry someone of the opposite sex.

I’m not suggesting that marriage is a “cure” for same-sex attraction. I am saying, however, that once a person overcomes that weakness, they should marry.

Look, at this point, we're just going around in circles. So that we might be able to actually make some progress towards resolving our differences of opinion about same-sex marriage, I will -- in any further posts I direct to you personally -- use your terminology. So from now on, in my posts to you, I will use the word "homosexual" to mean "a person who is attracted to someone of the same sex who acts on that attraction" and the words "a person who is attracted to someone of the same sex" to mean "a person who is attracted to someone of the same sex but who doesn't act on that attraction."

I do not consider that to be “my” terminology, but rather that of the Church and I believe that you would be in agreement with the leaders of the Church by using such terminology.

I don't think it's the same thing at all.

I believe this to be further proof of your bias in regards to this issue.

I don't. Besides, if the attraction itself is not a sin, then it need not be repented of.

Repentance does not have to do solely with sin. It has to do with any changes we need to make to align our will with our Father’s will. We need to change our hearts. We need to change our weaknesses into strengths.

Once as a young teen, I overheard my parents talking. My dad said, "You can't legislate morality." I didn't have a clue what he was getting at. Now, years later, I totally understand and I totally agree. We can pass laws that may make life for certain groups of people miserable because we don't like their moral choices, but we can't change their moral choices by passing laws.

I like what your father said, but I don’t feel that it is relevant to this discussion.

The hope that Church leaders had in petitioning the government was not to change anyone’s moral choices or to combat homosexuality.

It was to preserve the definition of marriage.

I'm curious as to how you believe "homosexuals" (your definition) would behave if they were not able to marry. Would this restriction change their behaviors?

Again, I feel that that is not a relevant question.

My agreement with leaders of the Church petitioning the government was not to affect the moral choices of anyone.

I just wanted to preserve the definition of marriage.

I don't believe the government has "demanded" that any church "change its doctrines" nor do I believe the government has the right to do so.

They have. I have shared extensively on this thread many sources showing how the U.S. Government has done just that, especially toward the Catholic Church.

This is not anything new either. It has been happening on a local and State level for decades.

At this point, I'm trying to decide whether to just walk away from this discussion. I already did walk away once, and I stayed away from a good long time. If there is anything I can say that I haven't already said, I suppose there would be some point in my staying. I just don't think there is.

At this point I think the only reason you should stay is if you feel that your heart can be swayed on this issue.

If you choose to remain firm in your convictions, then maybe you should walk away because we are just going to bonk heads over and over.

I don’t mind that bonking really, but if it will cause friction between us then maybe you should refrain.

I've already apparently really hurt you, and that was not my intention.

No, I’m fine. I can compartmentalize.

 

[Watchmen]

Prestor John, you realize that not everything that comes out of an Apostle's mouth is the word of God, right?

 

[Prestor John]

Prestor John, you realize that not everything that comes out of an Apostle's mouth is the word of God, right?

Yes.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

I would not consider it discrimination. They just do not fit the definition.

Why doesn't denying the same rights to gay people, as enjoyed by straight people, on the basis that they're gay fit the definition of discrimination? That sounds like it fits the established definition of discrimination to me.

As I mentioned way earlier in this thread, I am a Federal Law Enforcement officer. I work with Customs and Broder Protection. Some people are not eligible to enter the U.S., for whatever reason, and I do not consider it “discrimination” to deny them entrance.

Except you're talking about denying legal protections to people who are already American citizens. Why aren't gay people eligible to enjoy the same right to marry who they desire as straight people? Do you like the idea of people who pay the same taxes as you being given less rights? In fact, why should gays pay taxes if government is not going to ensure them equal rights? No taxation without representation.

Neither would I consider denying same-sex couples the right to “marry” since the only way that idea can be feasible is if we change the definition of what “marriage” is and has been for time immemorial.

First off, that's not true. Not every culture believed that marriage was 'only for one man & one woman'. Indeed, many cultures were polygamous. Anybody with an understanding of history will know that's not true.

1. Mesopotamia where the Almanac of Incantations contained prayers pledging equality before the law for unions regarding opposite sexes and same sexes;
2. The Ming and early Zhou dynasties of China;
3. The Roman Empire - Nero married two men (one marriage at a time) and a child emperor called Elagabulus who referred to his blonde chariot driver as 'husband' and married another man called Zoticus. Indeed - the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans passed laws banning the practice which indicates it was already happening and was presumably legal.

Second, you're super-imposing your religion's definition of marriage onto historical cultures and expecting it to stick. No dice.

Third, you're playing an argument from tradition fallacy. Just because that's how Western cultures have viewed marriage as 'only for one man & one woman' for the last millennium or so doesn't mean it's the best way to view it.

Fourth, it's more than a tad ironic (not to mention hypocritical) for you to denounce the changing the definition of marriage given the Church you belong to.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well yes that is the case, however, the point that they are making is that there is far more cases of homosexual child abuse then hetrosexual child abuse. I wonder why someone would fail to follow their own line of logic to its obvious conclusion and instead, only see half the picture

There is no link. Pedophiles are pedophiles. Not homosexuals or heterosexuals or bisexuals, or anything else. They're people who are attracted to children.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1556756


This is from your own link you should have read:

"A second problem is that the terminology used in this area is often confusing and can even be misleading. We can begin to address that problem by defining some basic terms.
Pedophilia and child molestation are used in different ways, even by professionals. Pedophilia usually refers to an adult psychological disorder characterized by a preference for prepubescent children as sexual partners; this preference may or may not be acted upon. The term hebephilia is sometimes used to describe adult sexual attractions to adolescents or children who have reached puberty.
Whereas pedophilia and hebephilia refer to psychological propensities, child molestation and child sexual abuse are used to describe actual sexual contact between an adult and someone who has not reached the legal age of consent. In this context, the latter individual is referred to as a child, even though he or she may be a teenager.
Although the terms are not always applied consistently, it is useful to distinguish between pedophiles/hebephiles and child molesters/abusers. Pedophilia and hebephilia are diagnostic labels that refer to psychological attractions. Not all pedophiles and hebephiles actually molest children; an adult can be attracted to children or adolescents without ever actually engaging in sexual contact with them.
Child molestation and child sexual abuse refer to actions, and don't imply a particular psychological makeup or motive on the part of the perpetrator. Not all incidents of child sexual abuse are perpetrated by pedophiles or hebephiles; in some cases, the perpetrator has other motives for his or her actions and does not manifest an ongoing pattern of sexual attraction to children.
Thus, not all child sexual abuse is perpetrated by pedophiles (or hebephiles) and not all pedophiles and hebephiles actually commit abuse. Consequently, it is important to use terminology carefully.
2 is often referred to as "homosexual molestation." The adjective "homosexual" (or "heterosexual" when a man abuses a female child) refers to the victim's gender in relation to that of the perpetrator. Unfortunately, people sometimes mistakenly interpret it as referring to the perpetrator's sexual orientation.
As an expert panel of researchers convened by the National Academy of Sciences noted in a 1993 report: "The distinction between homosexual and heterosexual child molesters relies on the premise that male molesters of male victims are homosexual in orientation. Most molesters of boys do not report sexual interest in adult men, however" (National Research Council, 1993, p. 143, citation omitted)." ....

... "The distinction between a victim's gender and a perpetrator's sexual orientation is important because many child molesters don't really have an adult sexual orientation. They have never developed the capacity for mature sexual relationships with other adults, either men or women. Instead, their sexual attractions focus on children – boys, girls, or children of both sexes. ...

For the present discussion, the important point is that many child molesters cannot be meaningfully described as homosexuals, heterosexuals, or bisexuals (in the usual sense of those terms) because they are not really capable of a relationship with an adult man or woman. Instead of gender, their sexual attractions are based primarily on age. These individuals – who are often characterized as fixated – are attracted to children, not to men or women."

http://psc.dss.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/HTML/facts_molestation.html

 

[SkepticThinker]

You are twisting the word "link" to mean that I know that there is a link between homosexuals and pedophilia and I am accusing gays of being pedophiles, when I have no authority to make such an assertion I absolutely don't know that, however, I can see why there are those that can see it and feel, as I do, that it is a worthy area to study and research. The only problem being reprisals from gays trying to stifle and censor the outcome if it is not in their favour. What I meant was that the link between homosexuality and pedophilia can be found on these sites, then I posted the relevant links, which contained four that were counter arguments. Admittedly there was some ambiguity over the word "link" which could have bee resolved just by asking for clarification rather then seizing the moment to accuse me of calling all gays pedophiles.

I'm not twisting anything. I provided the exact words you used. You wrote that there is a link between homosexuality and pedophilia and that the media censors it from us.

You can take it back if you want, that's fine (you did once already and then turned back around and doubled down on the original claim). Maybe you didn't really mean it. But you flat out said it, and I'm pointing that out. Especially because you're trying to accuse me of lying and making it up and twisting your words, when it's obvious to any reasonable human being that you made the connection between homosexuality and pedophilia.

 

[Katzpur]

Prestor John, I'm not going to quote even parts of your two previous posts because I believe we have both explained, to the best of our abilities, how we feel and why we feel the way we do. But I do want you to know that I am directing my comments in this post to you specifically. I sincerely appreciate the time it took for you to respond to my posts in as much detail as you did, as well as the obvious effort you put into not judging me for my point of view I really, really don't want to post on this thread any more, and I hope you can understand that. I just hope we can agree that, despite the fact that we don't see eye to eye on this particular issue, our opinions of this issue really don't define us in terms of our membership in the Church, in terms of whether we're "good" or "bad" people or in terms of how much our Father in Heaven loves us (or even how He sees us in light of our difference of opinion). I suspect that if this topic had never come up, we really wouldn't have found anything significant upon which to disagree. It would make me really happy if we could just be friends (and supporters) despite our differences on this issue. Would you be amicable to that?

(By the way, I'm just like you in how quickly my temper rises past the boiling point and then how quickly I get over things. My husband is more like your wife in how it takes him time to "process" what was said and have things get back to normal. So in that regard, I totally understand the kind of person I'm dealing with. It's someone who's just like me.)

 

[SkepticThinker]

it was allegorical.

The moral of the story is?

Why not for the adults. Why would any adult want to watch such intimacy that belong in a time and place that is more appropriate and conducive to the mood.

Why not for the adults? Well, because they’re adults. And adults are capable of making adult decisions about what they want to watch. Different people like different things. My grandfather enjoys watching people hunt for gold on tv, but I find it incredibly boring.

I don’t understand this sentiment where we have to censor everything in our society to be geared toward children. So adults are just big children? Who is supposed to do the adult stuff that needs to be done then? I don’t get it. I mean, are we supposed to have the government decide for us adults what can watch in movies and on TV?

To which you said:By agreeing to this aren't you throwing all kids to the wolf because you are making the parents the sole deterrent to bad TV and exonerating those who see fit to put out this filth. "The only censor that should exist are the parents"

No I don’t think so. It is up to the parents to parent their own children. But there are many tools available to parents to help make those decisions. Television shows have ratings now, and movies have always had ratings. Such ratings can help a parent determine if the show or movie in question is appropriate for their child. Plus now with the internet you can read online reviews from other parents, you can put on filters to keep out the “filth” you don’t want your kids seeing. You can put that on your television as well. You don't have to just flail around in the dark.

Adults can have adult content available to them without destroying the lives of children or their own lives.

But I think there’s a bit of an exaggeration going on here as well. Lots of kids (like myself) have found their father’s porn collection or walked in on a horror movie or walked in on their parents having sex once or twice without having their entire lives destroyed over it. I used to sit and watch boxing matches on TV with my dad when I was a kid. It’s probably something I shouldn’t have been watching but all I remember about it was being there with my dad and snuggling up with him and sharing time together with him. Now that he’s gone, I ‘d give my left foot to be able to do that again. So I think there is some element of overreaction going on here. Of course, if a parent is sitting and watching porn with their kid, that is problematic.

You also agreed with this "media should not be censored because some parents can't turn it off or change the channel." Can't you see how naive and poorly thought out this is. He is saying that the only time that a child can be exposed to inappropriate content on TV is if a parent turns on the TV, like they cannot turn it on themselves, or see it outside of the home, or watch it in their own bedroomIt is not child friendly it is family orientated.

I never had a TV in my own bedroom. Maybe I had a good parent?

Kids can’t just go to the movie theatre and walk into a XXX-rated movie. They can’t just walk into a Guns N Roses concert. They can’t walk into a store and start reading porn or buying cigarettes and booze. (Here in Canada, they’ve passed new laws where cigarettes have to be hidden away behind the counter so kids won’t be tempted to smoke them). And they can’t get into a strip club. So it seems society does censor itself to protect children. There are a number regulations put in place to do just that. Just not as much as you would like, it seems.

But adults still get to be adults.

What else are you eager to see. What adult content do you want to watch to desensitize you to it. Do you want to see men kissing and acting erotically.

Maybe I do. Why is it up to you to decide if that’s appropriate for someone else?

Maybe you like to watch crime soaps that are full of death, murder, rape, child abuse and immoralities.

Actually they’re not my cup of tea, but my Nana loved them. That and mafia movies. She was one of the sweetest and kindest people I've never known.

Why would you want to watch such damaging programs as opposed to innocent and uplifting family TV?

Why would an adult want to watch shows that depict adult things, instead of wanting to watch Barney and Care Bears? You really don’t know?

I used to take care of my niece and nephew when they were quite young, during the day while my sister went to school. And If I ever have to watch Mickey Mouse Clubhouse ever again I think I’ll have a nervous breakdown.

Again you think that the only way they will see it is if you show it to them. There are a multiplicity of ways that they could see it, which is why it is best not to show it at all. It would be interesting to see how it would change society

See my above response.

Children are special, all children, not just your niece and nephew. There is nothing wrong in lending a friendly hand, regardless of what the parents are doing. You do not punish the child because of the irresponsibility and iniquities of the parent.

No, there isn’t. But if a parent is standing right there and doing nothing, it shouldn’t have to be my responsibility to parent their child so that all of the children don’t end up injured. But I will do it anyway, as I said. It just bothers me that someone who is actually a parent doesn’t feel the need to put forth the effort to do it.

I’ve helped lost kids find their parents in shopping malls and amusement parks; I’ve parented other peoples’ kids on the playground because their own parent was too busy on the phone; I’ve asked my niece and nephew to include other children at the park in their games, and I’ve helped a neighbourhood kid find his lost dog. So don’t get me wrong, people should do things like that when they come across kids in need because that’s just a human thing to do, and no a child should not be punished because (s)he has terrible parents. But the idea of policing and censoring everything and making every single bit of available information/content completely child-friendly sounds nutty to me. I don’t see how that could ever work or why it needs to be done at all.

Child raising is primarily the responsibility of the parents, but it is a shared responsibility with the world family. In many eastern countries whole villages take responsibility for their children, but that is because they have no TV to corrupt them.

What societies are you talking about and do you think TV is the only thing that corrupts children?

And like I pointed out above, movies and television shows have ratings, strip clubs, bars, stores that sell cigarettes, alcohol and pornography, etc. are regulated so that kids may not have access to them. So society does actually do many things to censor itself for the sake of children already. But again, why shouldn’t adults be able to access adult things, if they so desire. Why should adults have to act like children?

As I have said, they are not like everybody else. Who they are is a product of the world. I am in the world because I have no other choice but I am not of the world for the world is corrupt and wicked as a result of mans carnality and lusts. Gays are in the world but they are also of the world. They are an integral part of the corruption, demonstrated by a desire for adult TV

I’m sorry but I can’t follow what you’re saying here or how it pertains to my comment.

You will not walk into my home and find a soap on my TV, which is a shame as it was not that long ago when they were harmless to watch.

Good for you. That is your choice. Isn’t it nice to have choices?

I have answered. Post #2633

Well yes that is the case, however, the point that they are making is that there is far more cases of homosexual child abuse then hetrosexual child abuse. I wonder why someone would fail to follow their own line of logic to its obvious conclusion and instead, only see half the picture

Great, thank you. I responded to that in another post.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

But I think there’s a bit of an exaggeration going on here as well. Lots of kids (like myself) have found their father’s porn collection or walked in on a horror movie or walked in on their parents having sex once or twice without having their entire lives destroyed over it.

I often blame my mom for my enjoyment of "darker" stuff because she introduced me to classic horror movies when I was a kid. It wasn't long before I was reading Poe and King, and watching more contemporary horror flicks when I was a bit older, which would also eventually have me watching foreign horror flicks, and loving Japanese horror (but yet I loathe slasher flicks like Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street - though I think Freddy Krueger is a rather horrifying concept for a horror villain).

 

[SkepticThinker]

I often blame my mom for my enjoyment of "darker" stuff because she introduced me to classic horror movies when I was a kid. It wasn't long before I was reading Poe and King, and watching more contemporary horror flicks when I was a bit older, which would also eventually have me watching foreign horror flicks, and loving Japanese horror (but yet I loathe slasher flicks like Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street - though I think Freddy Krueger is a rather horrifying concept for a horror villain).

I had kind of a similar thing going on with my dad. We watched many Stephen King movies together, and the kind of stuff you're talking about. Poltergeist was one of my favourites as well. We weren't too much into the slasher flicks, though we did watch most of the Nightmare on Elm Street movies. And funny you should say so because that's the only one that freaked me out at all. I'm really not into the really graphic stuff like the Saw movies or Human Centipede (I think it's called?) and I have to admit that I have to cover my eyes for the really gory stuff - even when I watch Game of Thrones there are some moments when I can't look. I find psychological thrillers to be much scarier. Foreign horror movies are often better for that type of stuff.

I was into some dark stuff in my teenage years (loved Poe!), while at the same time, I got good grades in school, I wasn't much into drugs or drinking, I had a job, and I was responsible for myself. My mother likes to joke that I've been a mature, responsible adult since I was 5 years old.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'm really not into the really graphic stuff like the Saw movies or Human Centipede (I think it's called?) and I have to admit that I have to cover my eyes for the really gory stuff

Personally, I think the Final Destination movies would have been great if they just hacked them all up and gave us nothing but their death scenes. Although I will say Otis' skin mask in the Devil's Rejects was pretty intense. It's not the only thing that makes me like a movie, but blood being spilt will make me pay more attention to a boring movie, at least for a few minutes.

 

[Serenity7855]

Because some of us are mature enough to handle "non-family" programing without becoming desensitized to it.

That is not true. Firstly, it is not possible to be able to evaluate the effects and consequences that negative images have on our own psyche and subconscious mind by exposing it to prolonged lewd and perverse imagery. There is nothing ostentatious about watching material that could have distressing consequence. It is not big, it is foolishness. There is no truer saying that if you live with pigs for long enough you will begin to squeal. You will act like a pig. If you watch pornography for long enough you will become desensitized to it and end up a sexual predator. Follow the principles and precepts of God and you will become magnanimously admired for your integrity.

Some of the animes I watch would probably make your head explode from the amount of extreme violence and gore. But even watching stuff that is so violent that many people don't like it because they find it to be too much, real violence upsets me. Mortal Kombat I have no problems with, but 9/11 videos make me cringe.

Well, that would explain your hostility here. You are watching to many animes. The animes are raw violence and hatred that you know are actors, despite the fact that it will inevitably cause you to feel the same anger, if only for the time that it is on. 911 is a reality. It actually happened and you are actually witnessing the loss of life on you TV screen. It incenses me even more to consider that the American government could have been responsible for taking the lives of over three thousand innocent lives. Before you pooh pooh it, I can literally post reams of evidence by eminent scientists and demolition engineers along with evidence of the most poorly staged cover ups that has ever been seen. So many coincidences that are unexplained. And then we have people who say that our world is a better place to live in then it was a few decades ago. The truth is that back then we could see the enemy but now we do not even know who the enemy is, it could be the very people we are supposed to trust

Outside of the home is an issue with anything, not just TV. But if you turn on something that a child shouldn't be watching with a child present, you have problems. In their own bedroom, you, as the parent, have parental controls and locks that you can use. It's not hard. It's a given I'd never let children watch something like Happy Tree Friends, but even with something like Batman, due to the violence, I wouldn't let a child watch it without parental consent.

The most effective way to ensure that your children, or adults, do not watch what is damaging and quite literally mind altering TV, is not to make it available to anyone. We do not need it, We can live without it. I guarantee that it would very quickly make our world so much more inhabitable.

For years I was engrossed in "Friends". I know what they were going to say before they said it and still laughed until tears rolled down my face. I would even emulate them in everyday life. That was until a friend pointed out some very obvious facts to me that the laughter had stopped me from seeing. The entire thing promotes promiscuity and lasciviousness that is hidden within the comedic character of the six main characters, who very subtly take us away from morality and into the satanic world of sex and debauchery. To this day I struggle to stop myself from flicking over to the Comedy Channel, were they have reruns all day long, just to watch a couple of episodes. I have thus far resisted, however, it has been close at times, when I try to justify to myself that it wouldn't hurt to just watch a couple of episodes.

It's not the same link, but the same exact story.

But that was not what you, or SkepticThinker said. You said that I had posted the same link three times when in fact it was twice with one having the same story line.

It just further proves you aren't actually reading or considering the things you are posting, especially when you post something like quora (you may well just cite Yahoo! Answers because it's the same "community approval" system), and don't realize that 3 of the 4 people who replied do not agree with your position

The truth is the truth, a constant, regardless whose lips form the words.

No, it proves that on this occasion I dropped my guard and you are still delivering punches. On this occasion I did not read them, however, you are taking that and saying that because I did not read them this time, then I probably never read them. You are judging me. I usually always read them before posting them, however, I was hampered by insufficient time to finish what I had to do, which was more important then writing on here, so I did not read them.

No, I did realise what they were saying when I read them and saw that they were on the other end of the table to me. I didn't read it and then post it regardless, as you seem to be suggesting. I never read it before I posted it.

We've never claimed that.

"We've"? has someone walked into the room or are you trying to intimidating me with numbers. Voice your own opinions because by including others in your words gives you a potentially unfair advantage and in the process makes you look dishonest.

We'd be idiots to believe the Family Research Council would say otherwise (much how it takes just not at all knowing what HuffPo and DailyKos are to think they would support your claim). The other ones do not support your claims. Not the one that features your student of a "professional," not the story article which clearly states that FBI statistics do not support the claim, and your UC Davis link even discredits your FRC link.

And still you persist in pouring salt into my wounds thus not allowing them to heal, like posting this comment three times now "student of a "professional," whilst elevating yourself on your knowledge of the bias and bigotry of certain web pages. What ever those sites might say can be refuted by the many sites that oppose their beliefs. Just because they say it does not make it true, Indeed, I posted a further 4 links that did just that making their comments incredulous.

The other day I exposed you in a dead to rights falsehood when I wrote post #2609

You say you can do research (The Lie), but you resort to a Google search and post things as "evidence" even though you yourself make it obvious that you didn't even read your "evidence."

To which I responded

I have never said that I do research. I challenge you to show me where I have said that "I can do research". If you cannot, then it is you who is dishonest and your accusation is fallacious.

You have never been able to show me where I said that. Why? because I didn't say that. I could have tossed you around like a man dog, however, that same dog has tossed me around to and I did not like it so I let it go. Now here you are, the dog, trying to toss me all over the place because I had erred in not reading the articles that I posted here.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Personally, I think the Final Destination movies would have been great if they just hacked them all up and gave us nothing but their death scenes. Although I will say Otis' skin mask in the Devil's Rejects was pretty intense. It's not the only thing that makes me like a movie, but blood being spilt will make me pay more attention to a boring movie, at least for a few minutes.

Oh I forgot about Final Destination! Despite what I said, I love those movies. And I totally agree. All the fun with those movies is, how are they going to die and how gory is it going to be?

I like the Devil's Rejects because it's just so freaking creepy.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Well, that would explain your hostility here. You are watching to many animes. The animes are raw violence and hatred that you know are actors, despite the fact that it will inevitably cause you to feel the same anger, if only for the time that it is on.

They're actually animated. Animation - anime... just saying.

911 is a reality. It actually happened and you are actually witnessing the loss of life on you TV screen.

Which is why that bothers me, but yet in a movie watching someone get skinned alive as they are ritualistically sacrificed to Dagon doesn't bother me.

There is no truer saying that if you live with pigs for long enough you will begin to squeal. You will act like a pig. If you watch pornography for long enough you will become desensitized to it and end up a sexual predator.

Not only is the sexual predator thing not true, there is zero chance of me skinning women alive to wear their skin ala James Gum/Ed Gein because I've watched Silence of the Lambs too many times. Nor am I going to turn into a cannibal because of Anthony Hopkin's exquisite performance.

Well, that would explain your hostility here.

You've not seen any hostility.

I can literally post reams of evidence by eminent scientists and demolition engineers along with evidence of the most poorly staged cover ups that has ever been seen.

And I can a bunch of stuff about the Loch Ness monster being real. Flat Earth? The "evidence" is there. Kennedy being killed by aliens? You betcha! I can even post "evidence" that supports the claim that a prison I live near is not actually a prison but a FEMA death camp. But that is just silly, because I know, factually, the place is a prison (I've even known several people who have either been employees or inmates).

The most effective way to ensure that your children, or adults, do not watch what is damaging and quite literally mind altering TV, is not to make it available to anyone. We do not need it, We can live without it. I guarantee that it would very quickly make our world so much more inhabitable.

It simply is not your place, or anyone's place, to censor what people can and cannot watch. If I want to watch Edward Norton pound in Jared Leto's face, I'm going to watch it. If I want to watch a movie that involves the spirits of creepy Japanese girls, I'm going to watch it. If I want to watch A Time to Kill, American History X, or Mississippi Burning, I'm going to watch them, because despite the depictions of violence, they are all wonderful stories with very positive messages.

The entire thing promotes promiscuity and lasciviousness that is hidden within the comedic character of the six main characters, who very subtly take us away from morality and into the satanic world of sex and debauchery.

If watching a TV show is alone enough to make you fall into this world of sex and debauchery, perhaps it is you who should not be watching TV. I've been watching a show about a lying and manipulative politician who cheats on his wife, but yet there is no risk of me becoming a manipulative liar who has sex with people just to exercise any power I hold above them. Not going to happen.

Follow the principles and precepts of God and you will become magnanimously admired for your integrity.

Except you don't need god or religion to have such a trait. If you need god to be honest and truthful, you have problems.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I like the Devil's Rejects because it's just so freaking creepy.

I love just because there is no well in hell you can ever forget those characters. And not just Spaulding, Otis, and Baby, but even Sheriff Wydell permanently burns his visage into your brain. I also love how intense it gets at times, and I especially love the role reversal between the Rejects and Wydell close to the end. And I'll never forget when I was watching at an apartment I used to live at, when my room mate came home with his friend, a friend who was already scared of clowns before he watched that.

One thing that is pretty cool, is Sid Hiag played in the movie Little Big Top (which was filmed the year Devil's Rejects came out) that was filmed near here (in Peru, IN), and in it Sid plays a retired clown who isn't a deranged psychopath (although he is an alcoholic), and watching the local amateur circus inspires him to get back into the business and out of his rut.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The animes are raw violence and hatred that you know are actors

Brings me back to my acting days, and the few staged arguments and fights, and even when "I"'ve been killed. I can't say that I ever made anyone feel anger or hatred, but in an Agatha Christie play I was in I did have the audience convinced my character was the killer, until that is my character was killed. I had that role down so well that I even had a few cast members freaking out during rehearsals when they had to be on stage alone with just me.

 

[JoStories]

No, I asked you for peer reviewed studies and you gave me the opinion of a pro-gay schoolboy. You then searched the internet for a published paper showing that HIV is directly link to AIDS, however, you were unsuccessful in your plight and did not produce a single paper showing that HIV is directly link to AIDS. Oh you produced published papers that had the keywords in them that you put in your search engine but nothing to prove that HIV is directly link to AIDS. It amazes me that when ever a new aspect of the debate appears that yo have to search the internet on it

Here you go:

HIV, C., & LONG, H. (2012). AIDS. Medical Care, 916, 874-7720.

And here is the relevant portion for you to purview:

"AIDS is caused by a virus known as Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). This virus is what destroys the immune system. HIV can also invade the central nervous system causing severe neurological problems."

Here is another...in case you are not convinced with the one:

"Within 2 years after the initial reports of AIDS, a retrovirus, later called the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), was identified as the cause of AIDS"

Piot, P., & Quinn, T. C. (2013). Response to the AIDS pandemic—a global health model. New England Journal of Medicine, 368(23), 2210-2218.

 

[JoStories]

HIV/AIDS: A study based upon statistics from 1986 through 1990 estimated that 20-year-old gay men had a 50% chance of becoming HIV positive by age 55. As of June 2001, nearly 64% of men with AIDS were men who have had sex with men.

Not even a few pages ago, you were stating that HIV does not cause AIDS. So which is it?

 

[JoStories]

This has nothing to do with being an atheist, or a Christian or a whatever. You have made a very serious claim against a large and diverse group of people in tying homosexuality to pedophilia. It's a claim that is not backed up by evidence, and certainly not by anything you've provided. You can try to backpedal now, but you apparently thought the claim was strong enough to try to support it with those articles you posted.

You can believe whatever you want, but you don't get to assert it as fact, especially when you are wrongfully accusing a large group of people of committing serious crimes against children.

Bravo Skeptic. As a member of the LGTB community, I applaud you and thank you for printing the truth. This poster makes me tired. Very tired.