All Comments (581)

Thanks for the post Mr. Otterson. I hope the vitriol spewed above doesn't discourage you. Others are reading besides those who post, and your messages are always thoughtful and on-point. The doctrine is sound, whether you're looking at scriptural sources or modern prophets. If the scriptures are God's Word, then the issue is settled. If prophets today receive revelation, it's settled. If not, there's a discussion. Period.

Observer:

I had intended to post a response to your question as to the "light of reason" vs. that of faith. However, I cannot improve upon James' pithy post regarding the truth claims of sharply divergent religions, all relying on faith and personal discernment to arrive at such distal points. Bravo James!

This is likely my final post on this thread, and I want to extend my appreciation to all those with whom I had the good fortune to interact here.

Best wishes,

Phaedrus.

Prejudice Against Gays Destined for
Dustbin of History

Mayan, you're right.
Simpson's conversion (he has always seemed to me a fair man, especially for a Republican :-) )

is another sign that the
Ignorance, Prejudice, and Fear

that has fueled immoral discrimination against Gays is destined for the Dustbin of History.

Bull Connor vs. Black civil rights,
Great Patriarch vs. women's rights
the Nazis vs the Jews

will be joined by the
Anti Gay fear mongers
who refuse to recognize the basic human goodness
in their Gay Brothers and Sisters.

Ignorance rarely wins in the long run.

Heraclitus:

You, me, Hippocrates. Just a few old Greek curmudgeons hanging out and holding forth. Some things never...uh....sorry.

Anyway, an excerpt from the SLC paper on Neilson's termination from BYU was posted at 7:42am on 5/12.

Phaedrus,

you have an ally. alan k. simpson agrees that this ridiculous "immoral" label is not a basis for making policy. he, like many other americans and people around the world, has managed to change his views. perhaps as has been suggested on this thread, its only a matter of time before the old guard of the lds church does the same.

==================
from former Senater Simpson:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/13/AR2007031301507.html

"In World War II, a British mathematician named Alan Turing led the effort to crack the Nazis' communication code. He mastered the complex German enciphering machine, helping to save the world, and his work laid the basis for modern computer science. Does it matter that Turing was gay? This week, Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said that homosexuality is "immoral" and that the ban on open service should therefore not be changed. Would Pace call Turing "immoral"?

Since 1993, I have had the rich satisfaction of knowing and working with many openly gay and lesbian Americans, and I have come to realize that "gay" is an artificial category when it comes to measuring a man or woman's on-the-job performance or commitment to shared goals. It says little about the person. Our differences and prejudices pale next to our historic challenge. Gen. Pace is entitled, like anyone, to his personal opinion, even if it is completely out of the mainstream of American thinking. But he should know better than to assert this opinion as the basis for policy of a military that represents and serves an entire nation. Let us end "don't ask, don't tell." This policy has become a serious detriment to the readiness of America's forces as they attempt to accomplish what is arguably the most challenging mission in our long and cherished history.

The writer was a Republican senator from Wyoming from 1979 to 1997."

Quickly to Mayan Elephant:

You are generous in your assessment. My wife says "far too generous." But, I appreciate your assessment all the more, as one coming from a fine wordsmith in his own right.

Questioning the Prophet

Did someone recently say that
Mormons are encouraged to
Question the Prophet and the General Authorities?

That's great!!! As I philosopher who loves questions, that makes me very happy.

Can you give me the official sanction source, to make sure I am not sinning if I do so.

I don't want to be excommunicated. Wasn't a guy named Nielson just excommunicated for questioning the general authorities? I must have that wrong then. I even thought it was about these issues that Gay people have.

Weary, you Got a Big thing Wrong

God is a Woman. A Black Woman.

There is No God but Allah, and Allah has no gender.

Gay Sin

Please read the above statement to mean
"Gays who have gay sex are sinful."

My God and Gays

I am a MORMON named CTR, and MY GOD tells me he is the ONLY God, and that Gays are sinful. I KNOW it is true because I have a Burning in my Chest.

I am a MUSLIM named Abdul, and MY GOD tells me he is the ONLY God, and that Gays are sinful. I KNOW it is true because I have a Burning in my Chest. And my God says very different things than the other Gods claimed here.

I am a CATHOLIC named Kevin, and MY GOD tells me he is the ONLY God, and that Gays are sinful. I KNOW it is true because I have a Burning in my Chest. And my God says very different things than the other Gods claimed here.

I am an Episcopalian named Muffy, and MY GOD tells me he is the ONLY God, and that Gays are NOT sinful. I KNOW it is true because I have a Burning in my Chest. And my God says very different things than the other Gods claimed here.

I am a Hindu named Ramesh, and MY GOD tells me he is the ONLY God, and that Gays are sinful. I KNOW it is true because I have a Burning in my Chest. And my God says very different things than the other Gods claimed here.

Does anyone see a problem with the above complex of statements?

Anyone who can claim this:

Man can say all they want with a stamp called "research,"

has absolutely no concept of research. It might even be said that the primary virtue of empirical research is that man "cannot" use it to place a stamp of approval on whatever he wishes. Much has been said of science, and how it is done, on this thread that is simply untrue, but this one was most straightforwardly false. All the poster has done is ascribe the weaknesses of othr forms of inquiry to the scientific one, where it certainly does not belong.

There is more in the above post that demands scrutiny, but I'll get to that later.

Well, I'll have to say I'm very weary after reading so much contention.

First of all, there is a God, he has laws and he hasn't changed! I have had too many witnesses of his reality to deny it.

The prophets are right again: "People can leave the church but they can't leave it alone."

Most of the time they leave because they are breaking one or more of the commandments and leave the church to try and justify their behavior instead of repenting. Ask any of them; if they're truthful they'll admit it, but they'll probably cloke it to their satisfaction by saying they left because they disagree with the doctrine (i.e. the commandment they broke) and have hence lost their testimony. There is a time in my life when I had sexual relations outside of marriage. I could have got angry with the church because of the commandments. I would only have been harming myself. I knew what I did was wrong -- my conscious hollered at me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I didn't feel relief until I had repented, and God showed me his tender and abundant mercy and was only waiting for me to come back to him. My conscious doesn't bother me about it any more. :)

During the pre-existence (before we came to earth) we lived with God and Jesus Christ. We were men or women. We had freedom to make choices. We had strengths and weaknesses. We came to earth as who we were and will leave as who we are. Sin is sin. God did not send us here to fail and wouldn't "create" a person as homosexual because it is against his commandments. Sorry, I would have to say that homosexuality is a weakness that is like any other weakness (alcoholic, clepto, anger, etc.). We all have them! God did not "create" these weaknesses, we do when we give into them and listen to that bad boy scratch: the devil, who is seeking our misery. Entertaining bad thoughts is sin; having bad thoughts (of any kind) and changing them is not.

Man can say all they want with a stamp called "research," but I know there is a God and know following his laws will bring joy and blessings here and in eternity. I'm trying myself to overcome my own weaknesses, so I'm not condemning any of you who have struggled or who are with whatever you struggle with. Some of you will disagree with me no matter what. Oh well, I know you won't listen anyway.

i mean: Is there room for faith in your view of the world?

Phaedrus, very interested and thinking about your post, will write more later. You asked

"If we want to do our own exploration do we use the light of reason, the light of faith, or a combination of the two?"

I think you answered this in the rest of your post but i don't want to jump to conclusions. Could you expound a bit please?

Sister Mary Lisa said:

"Now you made ME smile with your Shakespeare reference. :)"

yes, the Mayan Elephant did certainly smile.

Phaedrus, know that you have been added to my newest list of heroes. i would love nothing more than to have your wisdom and the ability to express myself as well as you do. tell your mother that she should can be very proud.

Grasshopper ~

Your posts always seem to make me smile, and chuckle a bit too.

RTC- Your post has made me smile. :-)

Grasshopper -

Thanks for your words my friend. You have been most kind for an insect who seems to get very little respect.

But I suppose you to be one who might understand why I speak out so boldly here for those who are smaller, much like yourself who might need others to help out when you may not realize what dangers may lay ahead.

So, be careful in the future, as others do not seem to mind where they step.

James:

Brodie, Quinn, DNA, and the Salamander Letter.

"and the walls came tumbling down."

Salud,

As a follow-up to James' central point, and the response from R, I mean Grasshopper, I would like to ask this question:

Would any of the current LDS on the thread like to provide an example of something they openly disagree with the church leadership on?

I must address a statement made by James wherein he states as fact, “Mormons are taught not to question”, which is a gross generalization of error. Mormons are taught, “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” An example of that teaching could not be better illustrated then by reading the posts made by RTC.

Ironically, one of the four “Standard Works” of the Church, the Book of Doctrine and Covenants is simply that, questions and the answers that followed.

Phaedrus, Questions, Answers, and the Truth

Phdrus cut himself off so as not to get off the subject of the thread in his kind and generous response to CO above,

BUT
a large part of his story is directly relevent to the question on this thread.

The Official Mormon Church, and Mormons such as RTC, are convinced that
Gay parents are bad for children
Being Gay is a "Lifestyle" that is a choice to live sinfully while expressing one's sexuality.

The Church and RTC
DO NOT
pose these as questions.
In other words,
they DO NOT ask: are these things true
and then attempt in the fairest, most thorough, most intelligent and reasoned way try to find the answers.

They use biased research, invocation of the word of "God", ignorance,and prejudice to promulgate a position on these issues that is
-overwhelmingly contradicted by all the responsible research that has been done on these questions,
AND
here is the tragic part,
they deny equal rights to, ostracise, characterize as sinners, and try to "cure" a class of people who are often traumatized by this barbaric treatment.

That is Morally Contemptible.

Phaedrus finally DID get the answers to his questions. Mormons are taught NOT to Question, to only read Faithful History, to ignore the fact the Joseph didn't mention the first vision for 17 years.

In the process of ignoring the evidence and staying with an archaic version of "morality" based on a medieval text,

the Church, to use Otterson's phrase
ABANDONS FUNDAMENTAL MORAL LAWS.

(stipulating that the church does lots of good things and that most Mormons are very good people, for the 1000th time).

Phaedrus- Your reference has also made me smile.

If it is implied by your post that I be she, then you are mistaken. I could quote another who was accused of that same thing on this blog who put it quite simply, “so in the future if people post something and you don’t like what they have to say....they are not this RTC.” (Contemporary Mormon expounded quite well on this fact, you may wish to reference his post.)

IF in fact you are simply throwing us into the same “vase” I find the fragrance delightful myself, and thank you for the compliment.

Sister Mary:

;-)

P.

To Casual Observer:

Thank you for a thoughtful post. Your observations and questions help me in clarifying some misperceptions based on my attempt to tell a long story in short fashion. Looking back on what I wrote, I think your observations are penetrating. But to further clarify:

You are correct in stating:
"Your main problem with the faith seems to be with the fact that you didn't get answers to your hard questions. I wonder, have you found your answers elsewhere?"

However, what I should have made more clear was that my failure to get answers was true only "initially." The answers did come when I knew how to pursue them independently. Perhaps you are right that these early questions seem basic to me now, but were challenging then. I do not wish to be unfair to those adults in the ward who responded to me in this way. I now believe that they did not have the answers for themselves at that point either, and my asking them touched on their own insecurities with the vagaries of a new dogma. Nonetheless, I could not help but notice then, and I see it still; those who decry reason and the need for evidence when they fear the direction it may point, rush to embrace it when they think that it points their way.

David Hume once observed: "Man turns on reason when he fears that reason has turned on him." I see much evidence of that in this, and similar threads.

CO, I think that man is faced with a daunting situation in life. We seem to be the only species with a consciousness of the ultimate limit of our existence. As a young college freshman I took to referring to this as "the burden of consciousness." We know that we are frighteningly ignorant in a world full of confusing stimuli. And, as a species, we find this cognizance of ignorance unpleasant, and seek to shine the light of knowledge into its dark corners. Some do this with great fearfulness, some with the excitement of endless challenge, and some leave this exploration to others on whom we then rely to tell us what is found there. (And in the end, we know that we die. "No one here gets out alive.")

But a fundamental question is "what is the best light to use" for the purpose? Is the word of others good enough, despite our not knowing what type of light that they used, or if they used a light at all? The world is full of charlatans who pretend to knowledge they do not have, and never pursued. Such people are to be avioded. If we want to do our own exploration do we use the light of reason, the light of faith, or a combination of the two?

I have been told by hundreds of people that I should "learn to have faith," as oxymoronic as this still sounds. But, those hundreds of people were telling me to have faith in a hundred diferent things, each one of them assuring me that "theirs" was the only truth that I would find. All those people telling me to "listen to my heart and I would find truth," and most of them used the exact same method to come to any number of different conclusions! If you have a calculator that gives you 10 different answers when you put in the same equation 10 times, you get a new calculator. The Muslim is as certain of his god-given truth as the catholic is, the Hindi is, the Mormon is......

The Dalai Lama once wrote: "If Buddhism finds itself at odds with scientific understanding, it is Buddhism that must change." These are truly enlightened words in my opinion.

Reason provides the same answer given the same inputs. The questions are "what to input?", and this is where the wonderful questions are still found. We answer one, and are lucky enough to find another, and it is marvelous. Reason remakes the world continuously, while religion remains mired in the 15th century. You ask if I have found what I looked for as a child, and the answer is both yes and no. I will always have questions, and I am lucky in this way. There are always dark corners, but I am confident that I have the light for exploring them. I now know that what I was looking for is to always have things to look for, and ways of finding them.

I should also say that I did not fully describe how I came to reject LDS dogma. It is not true that I did so because I did not get my questions answered. I did so because of the answers I found when I was old enough to know where to find them. But, this is not the subject of this thread, and to recount such things would lead things off in a new direction. Maybe another time for that.

Thank you again for your keen questions and observations.

Phaedrus ~

Now you made ME smile with your Shakespeare reference. :)

Hopper:

You "fortuitous" timing brings to mind the Bard's most famous floral reference.

"Tenacity and stubborness in pursuit of questionable ends are questionable virtues."

Is there not more than one on this blog that exhibit these same qualities?

How is that for "the pot calling the kettle black"?

HM:

Tenacity and stubborness in pursuit of questionable ends are questionable virtues.

Hi everyone,

To echo some of the thoughts of HHHHHH

Been watching this dialogue here and I want to point out that though RTC is tennacious and stubborn to be sure, she did not say that everyone else is choosing Satan or that she does not look to science at all and therefore would not seek a doctor.

It seems that in these instances the most unflattering inferences of RTC's statements have been made.

Phaedrus,

I don't know about Hippocrates' smile, but if I made YOU smile, then that makes my day.

SML

Sister Mary:

Good point that you make there. On another thread a poster was taking secularism and science to task for being amoral, materialistic, etc. He mentioned how many hospitals had been established by religious organizations, as an example of the superior ethos of the religiously-inclined. Of course, the next poster made mention of the fact that the hospitals were only empty buildings. Whatever relief of pain and suffering that would occur within those walls, would be done by that "wicked old materialistic science."

Hippocrates just smiled.

RTC ~

I just caught up on the last couple days' worth of comments. Wow.

You wrote, "For me personally... seeking for TRUTH and leaving God, the creator of me and this world, out of the equation just does not seem like the right formula....So for me I will trust my God and His unchangeable laws and put Him and His ways far above the always changing, never certain and unhappy ways, of the supposed educated and know-it-all men of the world, who are always searching for truth, but can't seem to figure it out..."

I wonder, do you seek the advice of doctors ("supposed educated and know-it-all men of the world") when you or your loved ones have medical problems? Or is your right formula one where you trust fully that your God will provide you with all the answers you seek, since he created this world as well as any medical problems you may have suffered?

Mayan -

You have clearly stated your shock and disgust as to how you feel, insomuch that it seems you may have even lost your sense of humor? It seems you may have even gone beyond a reasonable ability to regard differences that we as Americans are offered through free speech? Which frankly surprises even me. I thought differently of you? My dialogue with you became difficult and I am disappointed, in that I had hopes of learning much from you, as you seem quite intelligent at times.

Now I find what I detect as hate? I do not feel those kinds of feelings toward anyone here, including you, simply because you do not agree with me. Now I certainly don't have a problem telling you or anyone what I think and why. But, it is only what I think and have found to be true. You have the same right.

IF as you say, they have posted the article (of previous posts) on this website (of which you note), of course and we will both agree, it is to point out that... and as we both have said, to make out what awful people those who do not support the cause of those that engage in homosexual behaviors ARE!

We both agree on this, (meaning - you say we are and I have said you say we are) SO, do we not realize this as their intention If they have it posted? It is about intentions, is it not?

This is my question here? I posted it as information to be learned from, let the article stand for itself.

But this was not to be allowed. Motive will always be required. Will it not? That definitely helps make my earlier point anyway.

My best to you,
rtc

RTC?

like PHAEDRUS? this will be my FINAL response? to you? as well?

your TWO POWERS shot was the final straw? if i understand you correctly? you chose god? and those opposed chose SATAN? nice? your god is a bully? i suppose he would have no objection to flooding the entire earth, save sasquatch and a few white people? you can have that god? and you can have On Faith ALL to yourself?

RTC,

you are wrong again. here is your little article, same site.

http://www.gayconspiracy.co.uk/page57.html

yep, it is awful. and that is exactly the type of people that are carrying your banner and hosting the sort of article you just posted, again.

all i did was look to see where you got the article. my intentions were simply to show the source of your material.

Dearest Phaedrus,

First and above all else, you are a son of God. I know that as an absolute. Because I know that, I know of your infinite worth Phaedrus.

Those who engage in homosexual behavior are of infinite worth. It is because of this individual infinite worth of each son and daughter of God that we labor so diligently for an atmosphere that will provide for them to develop to their full spiritual potential.

I realize that you have taken through a process of logical reasoning the "truth" that a god does not exist. You have convinced yourself that this has freed you from any laws that could be imposed upon this society by the religious among you.

In fact, scientist are so good at this deductive reasoning and teaching its reasoning skills, that they can even teach one to separate feelings, emotions, actions, etc... to the point that the spiritual experiences of how God communicates to man are reasoned away...

They have lumped THE WAY of seeking all types of knowledge into ONE way of FINDING?

Does this fit into HOW we honestly discover what anything IS?

Are YOU not actually DOING what maybe you are suggesting that I am DOING?

You suggest that I am taking the prophets word only? I submit to you I am not...

That would only be true IF I accepted his word only and considered it "peer reviewed" (such as the twelve say?) Then I call it TRUTH!

IS THIS WHAT YOU SUGGEST? If it is, then you would be very, very wrong my friend.

Do you really believe that I could possibly be this passionate, raise a family of five children who gave me heck, have one son probably your age who is in-active, go through three inactive children -- two returned, only one married in the temple out of three married -- another being sealed in a couple of weeks, husband served as a bishop... I could go on and on....

point is, not easy my friend. This life of living the gospel takes WORK! Taking up the cross and holding it up for 30 years when life gets crappy... can suck at times.

It takes more that just wanting to believe what those sweet prophets say, no matter how much you really, really want to believe it!

Now if it was just scientific facts and things didn't need to get personal along the way... well then, maybe we would never hit the wall, but we do. So, like you I study, study, study, BUT I ALSO prayed, prayed, prayed and fasted, fasted, fasted, more times that I can count, and serve, serve, serve to know, know, know, know for MYSELF!

That's life, so... you have it all wrong Phaedrus.

Besides taking the word of the "end result" of findings (prophets in my case) Have you worked as hard to KNOW FOR YOURSELF if what you know is true, really IS true?

Because Phaedrus,

HEAR THIS ONCE AGAIN, YOU ARE A SON OF GOD AND ARE OF INFINITE WORTH, AND THAT GOD LOVES YOU DEARLY... AND THIS IS FOR ALL OF TIME AND ETERNITY -- THIS IS AN ABSOLUTE TRUTH.

So: each one of us are the true "scientist" in our discovery of what IS TRUE as we personally MUST discern for ourselves through that POWER OF COMMUNICATION which inherently is the LIGHT WITHIN EACH ONE OF US to call upon...

There are two POWERS of which we may choose to connect with in order to receive and be enlightened by?

I am anonymous this time! lol I am happy to claim her!

***ALERT***ALERT***

POTENTIAL OFFENSIVE LINK ABOVE

POSTED - Posted March 13, 2007 12:14 AM

PLEASE NOTE: Mayan posted a link suggesting that the pdf document that I had previously posted could be found at a certain link that HE included. For many it would be considered a very offensive site. Could this have been his intention?

This is NOT a site I would recommend and is NOT the site I linked to. My link is ONLY to a pdf document. If the doc is at the site, which I doubt... you would need to search through much to find it!

I would still recommend this article to all. In my opinion, it is nothing like what Mayan has stated, but informative.

http://www.narth.com/docs/TheTrojanCouchSatinover.pdf

RTC:

This will be my last response to you. I respect your right to believe what you want, and to post whatever you want. I am content to disagree with you on this, and many other, issues, and let the readers determine for themselves which of us is more credible. Those who ascribe to the notion that they either discern the will of God, or follow those who do this for them, will likely agree with your conclusion that homosexuality is an abomination, and homosexuals should be treated accordingly. I accept that, understand the basis for it, and in so doing recognize the face of the opposition.

But, you may be surprised by how many of those samepeople disagree with the "reasoning" that brings you to your conclusion. You posts abound with biased sources, non sequitors, meaningless tautologies, and a great number of logical fallacies. I have pointed more than a few of these out to you. In the end, you must accept that there are rules for having logical discussions with other people, and that not following these rules, for whatever reason(s), renders any discussion absolutely fruitless. To do otherwise is merely to polemicize back and forth. Some people like that sort of thing, I do not. Nothing is ever learned, so time is simply wasted.

Casual Observer, John D., Thankful, Flashlight et al; discussion is possible with them because they understand the importance of behaving rationally, which means observing the rules of logical discourse. You have not seen them posting ad hominems, non-sequitors, citing horrendously biased sources, refusing to acknowledge points that others make, or simply (no other word for it), "ranting." Yelling a thing louder does not make it more true.

I do not wish to insult you. I would be willing to bet that you are a relatively nice person, and I know that you REALLY believe what you say, though this is often not such a good thing. But, your beliefs do not appear to be based on any logic that you can elucidate, and so there is not really anything to discuss. It somes down to these propositions:

1. God exists, and he disapproves of homosexuality.
2. This disapproval requires God's followers to oppose all efforts to make homosexuality more accepted in society.
3. Marital rights are a form of societal acceptance.
4. Therefore, God's followers must oppose homosexual marriage, using almost all means seen as necessary.
5. To fail to do so, is, to some degree, to refuse to be a follower of God.
6. This requirement will only be lifted when the LDS leadership tells you it has been lifted.

All the rest for you is mere commentary.

You also fail or refuse to take note of the efforts of others to make logically consistent statements, and engage those statements in like fashion.

And, since you brought my mother into it, let me say that she would take great issue with your method.

That said, I wish you well.

James -

You indeed are a credible source... you said:

"Magazines like Nature don't have a pro or anti gay agenda."

Here is what I found out about "Nature" Magazine... qualifications for those and perks that come along to those who are fortunate enough to publish in this benign little mag.

Publishing in Nature

Having an article published in Nature is very prestigious, and the articles are often highly cited, leading to promotions, grant funding, and attention from the mainstream media.

Because of these positive feedback effects, competition among scientists to publish in high-level journals like Nature and its closest competitor, Science, can be very fierce.

Nature's impact factor for 2005 was 29.273 (as measured by Thomson ISI).

As with most other professional scientific journals, articles undergo an initial screening by the editor, followed by peer review (in which other scientists, chosen by the editor for expertise with the subject matter but who have no connection to the research under review, will read and critique articles), before publication.

In the case of Nature, they are only sent for review if it is decided that they deal with a topical subject and are sufficiently ground-breaking in that particular field. As a consequence, the majority of submitted articles are rejected without review.

According to Nature's mission statement:

It is intended, FIRST, to place before the general public the grand results of Scientific Work and Scientific Discovery; and to urge the claims of Science to a more general recognition in Education and in Daily Life; and, SECONDLY, to aid Scientific men themselves, by giving early information of all advances made in any branch of Natural knowledge throughout the world, and by affording them an opportunity of discussing the various Scientific questions which arise from time to time.

Me - back to my previous post of thoughts and comments?

To suggest that there is no motives to those who give their reviews, for the scientist of the findings and now we shall introduce the COMPANIES which will benefit when these findings are made public and published?

Shall we continue? Motives are a part of our world and we must acknowledge this in all things!

The question is... what kind of motives are they?

Selfish, financial, evil, pure?

That is the question?

Thank you James.

Phaedrus or Pheadrus? If you can't get it right, how can you expect me to? lol

PHAEDRUS:

Unfortunately, it is just these very advocacy groups that are exposing the agendas of the very so-called "reputable" sources that you adhere to...

It is no wonder that you do not post anything that would associate to them?

Thus the absolute need to discredit them in every possible way on this thread.

Advocacy groups are THE PEOPLE! PEOPLE ARE INTELLIGENT AND THEY HAVE AND DO gather information supporting and the facts regarding that which they advocate.

They are a very VALID and CREDIBLE source for THE PEOPLE.

AND as with any information that any of us acquire WE as an INDIVIDUAL must then DISCERN it for ourselves and decide whether we accept or reject it...

IT IS OUR CHOICE!

There is a reason that I have not cited pro-gay publications on this or any other thread. These organizations put out information defending homosexuality and attacking their detractors, just like the FRC, the ACP, Focus on the Family etc, do on the other side. But, because they have a clear agenda, and their information is inherently biased, they have no place in a reasonable discussion based on reliable sources of information. Nor have I cited left-wing groups like moveon.org, the ACLU etc, because they also have an agenda that colors what they choose to report, and how they report it. So, anyone who cites the American Spectator as an example of responsible journalism either does not know what responsible journalism means, or does not care about being responsible.

That said, the Spectator article is instructive in pointing out another obvious logical fallacy. The article describes the breakup of a relationship, the struggle for custody of a child, and the suspicion that concerns, other than the best interest of the child, are being given greater respect in the dispute.

Now, which of these material dynamics is true ONLY of homosexual relationships? These unfortunate (if you believe the Spectator has not left out key details) circumstances are characteristic of many marital and non-marital dissolutions every day, and have nothing to say about gay marriage at all. To cite these sources and to fail to recognize these fallacies is either simple carelessness or willful intent to deceive.

The American Psychological Association, which is a reputable scientific body, has found NO connection between homosexual parenting and poor developmental outcomes.

To put out this kind of "information" is to show disrespect for other participants to the discussion, in my opinion.

James and Phaedrus,

My apologies for insulting a very valid source (peer reviewed journals) of information that is highly thought of by many, nonethless, there are reasons to be skeptical of even these we must admit?

I think you also miss the point though, in your insisting that when an entire group in this country who oppose your views and upon presentation they then powerfully lay before you evidence that strongly supports their reasons for that opposition.

But IF that evidence does not fall into what YOU deem, judge or categorize as scientifically acceptable, then it is rejected immediately as NOT VALID.

Whether this be a single person, a group of persons with valid personal opinions, testimonies, etc...

How can this be? And you claim to be seekers of TRUTH?

THIS DOES NOT COMPUTE?

How is it that you ONLY deem quality information of that which comes from college files of who knows who scientist? These people may submit anything or findings they like? They can then be reviewed by other "objective" expert scientist who have no "bias" whatsoever?

Now... WHY, would another expert scientist take ALL the time required to review another scientist findings so that it could pass this review or stamp of approval in it's field? And the required time it takes for this review is amazing!

HOW can anyone believe that there is NO motivation to move a cause? That is simply IMPOSSIBLE.

Do you not see how insensitive and not to be disrespectful, but truly ignorant it is to ignore the many, many experiences of individuals and families, as well as the opinions of such a large majority of people in this country who deeply value the traditional institution of marriage between only a man and a woman?

Do you really feel that it serves your cause to back this group into a corner and now make them out to be such a terrible group, even your own mother?

Would you actually end up at this place with HER? I think you would... because she sounds so much like me. Honestly guys... I can't imagine if we were face to face we would want to be at odds as human beings with each other in such a way?

Think of "me" as your mom? No disrespect intended... I bring this up because I believe you have said, at least one of you, that she is a good thinker, but on THIS thing she loses it? lol Don't you find that odd?

Don't you think it should cause you to THINK just a little bit more on this one?

Profile:
generally active nana, raised five somewhat normal children, has six grandchildren, happily married 28.5 years to the same man, active in her chuch, teaches seminary, enjoys techy stuff, reading, travel, music, some say she suddenly lost it on internet blog when discussing same-sex marriage... !!!

So I am thinking if you took her to the wall on this issue, you just might be looking at RTC! lol Have you thought about THAT?

So maybe I am one of your worst nightmares? Therapy time boys? lol

Well anyway... give it a thought my friends.

Me too:-)

RTC
you REALLY do need to take a course in critical thinking and evaluating evidence.

I am impressed by your stubbornness in refusing to realize the basic reasoning mistakes you are making. Our president is a good model for that also.

Of course a Single Source *can* provide true information. But only a child takes the word of one source in making important decisions.

Again, there are millions of sources out there. Magazines like Nature don't have a pro or anti gay agenda.

You don't really need this explained to you, do you? You are being ironic, aren't you?

The results of an "irony-deficient" diet:

"OR better yet, IF it is in a two person "peer reviewed journal", of which of course there is absolutely no bias involved... right?

And we ALL buy that, of course we do."

The denigration of science and the methods by which it is done, while typing madly away on material evidence of the fruits of those methods.

Phaedrus [and others], I am mostly sorry to hear about your experience in the LDS church. I think you got a bum deal on an otherwise, beautiful religion. Your main problem with the faith seems to be with the fact that you didn't get answers to your hard questions. I wonder, have you found your answers elsewhere? (I apologize for asking so personal questions, I'm truly interested). It seems to me that your questions were very specific and VERY HARD. "Why the Curse?" "Why 8 years old?" And they obviously are still very specific and very hard, "Why can't two responsible loving people be married based solely on their gender?" No-one has convinced you based on their secular arguments and the moment someone appeals to a higher authority you bemoan the fact that "[your] appeals to fairness, tolerance, and legal rights mean nothing in the face of supernaturally-derived convictions". I think I understand what you mean by your statement which I have just quoted but please understand our view on it. Imagine if the spiritually (read: supernaturally)-derived convictions are REAL. Meaning there is a higher authority, who is the definition of GOOD, who does reveal his will to people, and not only has he revealed his will to people but he has done it by means of a well-established pattern (prophets) that can be recognized and tested by those who seek to know his will. Then I interpret your statement as "[your] appeals to {the current societal perspective on} fairness, tolerance, and legal rights mean nothing in the face of {God}-derived convictions" Which I'm sure you'll recognize as something no mormon would argue with.

I understand this must be very frustrating for someone who is so logical, because the truths we hold to ARE spiritually, not logically derived (this does NOT make them illogical, I think John D has done very well at arguing that point). In my mind, it comes down to this: the hardest questions have never been answered satisfactorily to me [I won't speak for anyone else] by any of the philosophers which you obviously respect (phaedrus). Why are we here? Is there a reason? Why is there pain in the world? Why are we all different? How can someone know what is REAL and TRUE? These are the questions that our religion in general makes the bold step of answering. Mormonisms answers are unique, sublime beyond description (I think), and they lead to our answers to other questions ("Why can't two responsible loving people be married based solely on their gender?"). If not seen from the perspective of the bigger questions, then I believe you when you say that our arguments seem lacking in terms of legal rights. But IF you look at it from "thankfuls" perspective, that we have a divine purpose and potential, and it's not just to sing in choirs in heaven, but it involves a perfect eternal partnership of man and woman in eternal creation; then you too would disagree with and vote against anything that legitimizes a destruction of that potential, despite arguments for legal rights and tolerance &c.

Phaedrus and james,

I really appreciate you guys giving us a little background, as someone stated earlier, the mormons on this post seem to be at a disadvantage since we seem to be constantly grouped together with respect to our beliefs and the "other team" remain an amorphous group in every respect except their advocating gay marriage (thus allowing me to call them a team :) ). This has been a fascinating discussion, thanks to all. And I have to say that I really have enjoyed and thought about your comments. Bit by bit the amorphism is being stripped away as Sister Mary Lisa, Mayan Elephant, Phaedrus, James (who am I missing?) reveal that they have LDS backgrounds (not that there was much doubt to begin with but we respect your privacy).

The only opposition that appears to make an attempt are flimsy insults, as well as others that hide behide psuedo-psuedos...

Truth is a tough opponent for you, I realize.

Now, if you would seriously like to address an issue as yourselves, (who you normally are here) not rudely, name calling or insulting, just let me know and I would be happy to hear or learn from you in an adult manner as I always have on these threads.

It is interesting how little addressing of RTC's links is being done (well, maybe an allegation against FRC).

It is also interesting to note how much energy is devoted to insulting or belittling RTC. This is behavior is highly interesting, considering that most pro-gay rights advocates count on having substantial evidence on their side.

Probably the weight of 2,000,000 Danes is a little too heavy of a mental burden, and that explains the hit-and-run ad-hominems.

ANONYMOUS AND MAYAN -

Are you kidding me? My response/question back to Phaedrus regarding holocaust survivors was intended to give their ONENESS ABSOLUTE CREDIBILITY! hello?

I would imagine most would have seen this, but AS USUAL you are seeing ONLY THE TWISTED again...

What material that opposes the homosexual agenda would you then find digestible?

Also, it is the one by one, by one, by one, by one accounts of the individual that you are bothered by? Is it the power of truth that frightens you so? Gee, it was just an article.

But IF it works FOR you THEN you are okay with it... right?

OR better yet, IF it is in a two person "peer reviewed journal", of which of course there is absolutely no bias involved... right?

And we ALL buy that, of course we do.