• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Mormon Church To US Supreme Court: Ban Gay Marriage

Status
Not open for further replies.

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists

I have already discredited these because the majority are out of date and the rest are either unrelated, or the studies have been conducted by openly gay people, or the test subjects have been to small, or not representative of the average same sex parents. It is now a fact that children from gay homes do not do as well as children from normal parents. You really need to read the whole article I posted here to dispel you incorrect bias
 
Last edited:

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Your thank yous are like your opinions, empty. He is educated and does not have zero education, as claimed, but for the more astute of us, education tells the world that you have the ability to learn and the resilience to study. He is very much an intellectual in the field of same sex relationships because of his time served working within it. He is well known for his literature and knowledge in this field, which caused you to try and dig for dirt on him rather then address his views,.Now you might be forgiven in thinking that, as someone who writes paper, that you may have been aware that academic achievement indicates an ability to learn and comprehend.
I didn't dig any dirt up on him. Another poster looked up his credentials.
He is not educated in the relevant fields.

Can you explain how divinity, economics or politics are relevant fields of study when discussing homosexual and/or parenting/childhood development?
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
I have already discredited these because the majority are are out of dare and the rest are either unrelated or the studies have been conducted by openly gay people or the test subjects have been to small or not representative of the average same sex parents. It is now a fact that children from gay home do not do as well as children from normal parents. You really need to read the whole article i posted here to dispel you incorrect bias
You haven't discredited a single one of them. You cut and pasted some paragraph from a website that you apparently think did that for you.

It is not "now a fact that children from gay home do not do as well as children from normal parents" because you posted a single study that you think says so. It's a laughable claim to say that one single study, in light of all existing studies to the contrary, holds all the weight because it agrees with your point of view.
 

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
I didn't dig any dirt up on him. Another poster looked up his credentials.
He is not educated in the relevant fields
.
Whether you found it yourself or someone else found it is irrelevant because you used it to discredit him because he said things that disagreed with you. Your intentions were to discredit him and thus his argument. It is ad hominem.

Can you explain how divinity, economics or politics are relevant fields of study when discussing homosexual and/or parenting/childhood development?

Yes, sure. It shows the mans ability to comprehend new concepts, to learn and retain new knowledge, to reason objectively, to be able to use both deductive and inductive reasoning, the divinity gives him compassion and understanding to empathize with others, but the most important qualification that he has is 25 years experience with The Family Research Council, which should tell you that he knows what he is talking about, only it will not because it means that you will have to admit that you were wrong.
 

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
You haven't discredited a single one of them. You cut and pasted some paragraph from a website that you apparently think did that for you.

Not only did I discredit them, I did so using the same logic as you tried to discredit mine with.
It is not "now a fact that children from gay home do not do as well as children from normal parents" because you posted a single study that you think says so. It's a laughable claim to say that one single study, in light of all existing studies to the contrary, holds all the weight because it agrees with your point of view.

The most recent study, New Study On Homosexual Parents Tops All Previous Research, has rendered all previous studies obsolete. In a historic study of children raised by homosexual parents, sociologist Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas at Austin has overturned the conventional academic wisdom that such children suffer no disadvantages when compared to children raised by their married mother and father. Just published in the journal Social Science Research, the most careful, rigorous, and methodologically sound study ever conducted on this issue found numerous and significant differences between these groups--with the outcomes for children of homosexuals rated "suboptimal" (Regnerus' word) in almost every category.

The article that I originally posted was written by Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Councle giving an appraisal of the study. The published paper was written by Mark Regnerus, a professor of sociology at the University of Texas at Austin. I would say that his qualification satisfactorily dispels any claim of "not qualified in the relevant field" as being summarily dismissed. Now to see where the goal post will go to now. Look out Mark you could be the next victim of scrutiny.

Peer Reviewed Published Paper
How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610 on the psychological impact of same-sex parenting.

Mark Daniel Regnerus is a sociology professor at the University of Texas at Austin. His main fields of interest are sexual behavior, relationship dynamics, and religion.

Regnerus graduated from McBain Rural Agricultural High School in McBain, Michigan in 1989. He then attended Trinity Christian College, where he received his B.A. in sociology in 1993. He then earned his M.A. in 1997 and Ph.D in 2000 from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. His dissertation, Adolescent socialization and avoiding trouble: A perspective on religious influences, was written under the direction of Christian Smith, with whom he subsequently co-wrote several articles about religion and social behavior. He then was post-doctoral researcher at the Carolina Population Center before taking a position as Assistant Professor at Calvin College, where he remained until 2002. He accepted a position as Assistant Professor of sociology at the University of Texas at Austin, and advanced to Associate Professor in 2007.

This is a Peer Reviewed Published Paper that you have been harping on about and even suggesting that it may not existence .[/QUOTE]
 

JoStories

Well-Known Member
English teacher moment (I haven't been reading the thread much):

In the original statement, the wording was "Can a person having same-sex attraction lead them to commit homosexual acts?"
and the response was "Yes it can"

The problem is in the missing 's before the gerund. It should read "Can a person's action of having a same-sex attraction lead them" [ignoring the number mismatch between "person" and "them"].

Then the response "Yes IT can" becomes clearer as the gender indefinite pronoun "IT" replaces "action of having..." not the individual, and actions are represented without gender.

There are plenty of reasons for people to criticize each other. In this case, a subtle grammatical error shouldn't be one of them.
I did not read it that way and assumed the poster meant that the IT was the person. So please try to see that not all people would view this as you did.
 

JoStories

Well-Known Member
Yes, I would have to agree with you. As a Christian I believe that our spirit continues to live, you know, that person that is you and live in your chest, your consciousness. I just cannot see any way that you could prove it, but the study got funding, so whatever it was must have been convincing to someone.

There was once a study in Cardiff University, into an electrostatic discharge that nurses had reported at the point of death and an average wieght loss of 21g. The proved it to be true but had no explanation as to why.
And as a Buddhist, I would agree that our spirit continues on but not in the same manner that you suggest. Interestingly, I read a novel some time ago where it was suggested that the spirit of a person does have weight and they measured that by weighing the person at the exact time of death. It was only in nanograms but it did turn out to have weight. Of course, this was fiction but it was intriguing.
 

JoStories

Well-Known Member
Not only has my father been cremated, but his ashes have been strewn about all across Canada. I wonder what happens to him?
My partner was cremated and scattered over the Pacific. My father was cremated and scattered over a mountain here in Maine. My mother will be and scattered in her town where she was born. I will be, my sister will be, etc. The idea of being placed in the ground where we have so little land left now with the over population is just silly to me.
 

JoStories

Well-Known Member
He still exist in elemental form and energy, so the process for a God to find a needle in a hay stack is not a insurmountable one. LDS member do not get cremated. It is thought that only those who have received the relevant signs and tokens will gain entry into the Celestial Kingdom, so their work will be at the top of the list leaving the following 1000 years to find those who wrongly were cremated. Yet another tool in the toolbox of satan by influencing man to push cremation just to cause problems
I could not disagree more strongly. We have little land left on this planet and She groans with each new birth. Do you like breathing? Because with each new birth, trees are cut down and eventually, we will have no trees and then no CO2 or O2 to breath. Good luck with that. All because you have to be buried. Shame on you for hating the planet so much.
 

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
None of which have anything to do with the things we are talking about. Thank you for demonstrating that he has zero education in any relevant field.
If he were the one who wrote the paper instead of the article then we could debate it, however, the one that wrote the paper was a professor of sociology, Mark Regnerus. Did you think that the person who wrote the article also wrote the paper?
 

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
I could not disagree more strongly. We have little land left on this planet and She groans with each new birth. Do you like breathing? Because with each new birth, trees are cut down and eventually, we will have no trees and then no CO2 or O2 to breath. Good luck with that. All because you have to be buried. Shame on you for hating the planet so much.

Who told you that. What proof have you seen that verifies that. Sometime you need to be apprehensive as to what you are being fed, especially by the media or our governments. It is a bit like the climate change scare mongering.

Burial is far more environmentally friendly the cremation. with burial we return to the ground from whence we came, the cremation we pollute the atmosphere and warm it up a little.
 

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
My partner was cremated and scattered over the Pacific. My father was cremated and scattered over a mountain here in Maine. My mother will be and scattered in her town where she was born. I will be, my sister will be, etc. The idea of being placed in the ground where we have so little land left now with the over population is just silly to me.

Being buried does not take up valuable space. We will be assimilated into the earth, after time, and the grave yards reclaimed. In Germany you have to pay ground rent to the catholic church for your grave, every 15 years. when there is no one left to pay it they dig you up, grind down your bones and through you into land fill site, then they take your headstone and skim and polish to be sold on. At the end of the day it is all down to personal preference. I cannot help but to see myself waking up engulfed in flames
 

Prestor John

Well-Known Member
You keep twisting-twisting - trying to make it say something it doesn't.

AGAIN - since you keep ignoring it.

The LDS pages say the Bible is the source for that material. They quote ONLY the Bible for it.

Stop the BULL! I posted the LDS main books in post number 2336!

*
*sigh*

Alright, since you won't listen/read/process what I have said, why don't you do some talking.

What point are you trying to make?
 

Prestor John

Well-Known Member
This is in response to post #1810.

Sorry it took me so long to respond. I got side-tracked by what other members have said.

Looking back, I don’t feel that their comments were worth responding to, but “Oh well”.
Thank you for sharing. I think it helped to clarify your position to me. And even though there are quite a few things I would take issue with, I’m not going to bother pointing them out because I don’t think it’s important to this particular discussion. I just wanted to try to understand where you’re coming from, and I think I’m getting there.
Sweet.

You can feel free to start a conversation with me about your concerns. I think that’d be fun and edifying.
So from what I gather you believe that the only sinless relationship available to human beings is two people of the opposite sex refraining from any kind of sexual relationship until marriage after which time they have the opportunity to procreate, raise children and spend their lives together as “eternal mates.” This is the sin-free relationship.
I do not believe that anything we do can be “sinless” in this life. I believe that only the mortal life of Lord Jesus Christ was and will be the only sinless life lived in this world.

In terms of sexual sin, God wants His children to only have sexual relations within the bounds of marriage. According to God, marriage is only between a man and a woman.

However, there are still ways for even husbands and wives to commit sexual sin.

Like all types of sin, sexual sin varies in degrees of seriousness. Having a “naughty” thought about someone other than your spouse is not as severe as abusing yourself sexually (masturbation), yet both are still sinful.

The Lord Jesus Christ has taught Man what the “ideal” is and we are just trying to live as closely resembling that ideal as best we can.

The further we stray from that ideal, they more serious our sin.
Two people of the same sex entering into a relationship where no sexual intercourse is involved is less sinful that two people of the same sex being involved in a sexual relationship, but is not ideal and still has some level of sinfulness attached to it.

Have I got that right?
Yes, both are sinful.

The Lord wants us to use the procreative powers that He has given us. He has not, however, demanded that precreation be our only goal in mind.

God created everything. He is the Creator. Creation is an eternal characteristic of God. Yet, He does not only create. He also rejoices in the bounty of His creations. He cherishes them and nurtures them.

Our sexual relationship with our spouses should not be only about procreation. We should also experience them in such a way that both partners rejoice with, cherish and nurture one another.

A sexless heterosexual marriage is sinful. (Exempting disability or health concerns of course) The Lord gave marriage to Man so that men and women can eventually become perfect. They do this by – melding – one toward another. The man receives from his woman that which he lacks. The woman also receives what she lacks from her man. Both of their weaknesses should be overcome and made into strengths when they are together. This should be spiritual as well as physical. They become one flesh.

A huge part of this process of molding and reflecting one another is in child rearing. You learn a lot about yourself and your spouse during those years and parenting.

So, two people forming a relationship is a part of God’s plan, yet two members of the same-sex doing this does not conform to the ideal and you go even further away from the ideal by including sexual relations between those of the same-sex.
That leaves me with one question, I think. What about the people who can’t procreate? What about an opposite sex, married couple where one or both of the people is/are unable to have children. What do you think your god’s plan for them is?
I mentioned this briefly in in post #1741. I said,

“God has given to each person, male and female, the ability to Create life. This is a divine characteristic for God Himself is the grand Creator.

I understand that not everyone is blessed with this ability in this mortal life. God decided to deny certain people this ability in this life for a number of reasons which are His own, but that does not change the fact that it is both a divine and also eternal characteristic. Those who cannot procreate in this life will not be denied that blessing in the next life if they remain worthy to receive it.”

All of us lived with God as spirits before we came to this world. He raised us and taught us and this is how He came to know us so well. Even though we were all raised by the same perfect parents, we were all different. We responded to everything differently. We all progressed differently.

When the time came for us to embark on our mortal test, God had prepared each of our mortal lives in accordance with where we were in terms of our progression. He gave us all strengths and weaknesses geared toward realizing our potential.

The hurdles we face in our lives were specifically placed there to test us. Many of our circumstances in this life were placed according to how we faired in the life before this one. Each struggle was designed to help us develop what we lack in order to be perfect.

For some reason the Lord decided that certain people would not become parents in this life. This could be for many reasons, yet I personally feel it is because either because they had already learned whatever it was they would have learned from having children in this life from the life before. Either that or perhaps they would gain more in this life with that loss. Maybe they were meant to mourn with those that mourn?

The Lord has promised those that could not conceive in this life that if they remain faithful and worthy of it, they will have children in the life to come.
Oh no, I’ve got another question. What about someone who is unable to find an “eternal mate?” What becomes of them? Are they committing sin?
That all depends on what they are doing. If a person does not want to find an eternal mate, for whatever reason, then yes, that could be sinful. This mentality usually leads to other sin as well, such as issues of chastity.

However, for those who do not find a mate in this life through no fault of their own, they commit no sin and they are promised to have the opportunity to find a mate after this life as long as they remain worthy to receive it.

I don’t know if these responses were worth the wait, but if you have any further questions or if you want to bring up any of those “issues” you mentioned before, go ahead and start up a private chat.

I just wouldn’t want to discuss your real questions on this thread. You seem to be one of the only sincere members responding to this thread.
 

Prestor John

Well-Known Member
I know. However both of you are making claims about what different verses as the truth. So pointing out this for one group while doing it yourself isn't convincing.
Not at all.

I made the claim that the LDS Church considers his interpretation to be false. That is the belief of the LDS Church and my personal belief as well.

He, however, made a claim that everyone else agreed with his interpretation, which is a ludicrous and absurd assertion to make.

I am a member of the LDS Church. I have the authority to share what the LDS Church considers true or false.

He has no authority to declare what the remainder of the population on the planet considers true or false.
 

Prestor John

Well-Known Member
Do you think these spirits will have binocular vision while waiting?
The vision of spirits are not bound to only their eyes. They can see all around them in an overwhelming 360 degrees.

I had an "out of body" experience and I could see the whole room at once.

The Lord gave our physical bodies to us and we have a responsibility and stewardship for them.

It is out of respect for God and the gift that He gave us that we watch and see where our physical bodies are laid to rest.

Our spirits do not "wait" around forever. We will have many things to do to prepare ourselves and others for the Resurrection.
I would not trust that information. Sometimes bodies are moved around and it would be suboptimal for a spirit to enter the body of a stranger.
With that stewardship comes a knowledge of our bodies. We will know if they have been moved.

It would also not be possible for anyone to enter into someone's body other than their own at the time of the Resurrection. The Resurrection is when our spirits and physical bodies reunite perfectly, for the first and last time.

You can only do that by first living in that body during mortality.
By the way, how does it work with people who are cremated?
Its much the same process. Nothing will be lost or destroyed, only changed.

However, the Lord gave our bodies to us and one of the reasons that He counsels against cremation is that we are deciding to destroy the body that He gave to us and taught us to revere our bodies as if they were Temples.

Cremation is essentially burning away a Temple of God.

How responsible we are with our "little things" will be Judged. If we cannot be responsible for our "little things", then the Lord may not want to make us responsible for greater things.

You may not receive certain eternal blessings if you abuse or denigrate your physical body.

Seeya
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Burial is far more environmentally friendly the cremation. with burial we return to the ground from whence we came, the cremation we pollute the atmosphere and warm it up a little.
Actually, we're put in a box that is sealed tight, and we're pumped full of preservatives. And why do we need our own special place? We're dead, and funerals, memorials, and other such things are for those we leave behind. We don't need our own special place to sit and do nothing but take up precious space. And on top of that, when we do decay and return to the environment, we're very toxic for the environment because of our diets and the crap we're pumped full of.
 

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
Actually, we're put in a box that is sealed tight, and we're pumped full of preservatives. And why do we need our own special place? We're dead, and funerals, memorials, and other such things are for those we leave behind. We don't need our own special place to sit and do nothing but take up precious space. And on top of that, when we do decay and return to the environment, we're very toxic for the environment because of our diets and the crap we're pumped full of.

That is all very interesting, can you post the link so I can have a read of it, only I am told that it is the blood that is toxic, which is why it is now removed and replaced with embalming fluid. I am also told that since they now use diggers to dig the graves with, and fill it back in, compacting it down with the diggers bucket, that many of the cheaper coffins collapse. You can tell by how much excess dirt is left after filling it in if it has collapsed or not. Lastly, it is only but a relatively short period of time for mourners to put up memorial stones and visit the grave. But I live in The UK where space is at a premium but their is no apparent shortage of space. I did two road trips in the US, from east coast to west coast, and drove for long periods without even seeing a house, so it seem like there is plenty of space there as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top