Re: More leadership and the homosexual agenda -- Mamusz' Restoration Forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, [6], 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 20:48:42 07/19/11 Tue
Author: George
Subject: Re: More leadership and the homosexual agenda
In reply to: Lois 's message, "Re: More leadership and the homosexual agenda" on 10:31:34 07/19/11 Tue

>I wonder what "monogamous" means to the c-not-of-c
>gaylesbianbisexualtransgendered crowd/leadership?
>
>Well, I guess what I am really asking is, is there
>such a thing as "long term" in glbt speak?
>
>A long time ago there was a show called The Love Boat.
>There were alot of weddings onboard. The wedding vows
>went like this, "as long as we both shall love". That
>was instead of the traditional vows of "as long as we
>both shall live." The Love Boat vows really should
>have been "as long as I feel like **** you". (several
>words could apply)
>
>The second reference which follows is an article in
>the New York Times in which Andrew Shields, World
>Church Secretary of the Community of Christ, was
>also quoted. So don't blame me if I infer the
>c-not-of-c attitude from this article.
>
>The woman quoted claimed to be a lesbian who fell in
>love with a man. That infers "choice", a bad word with
>the glbt crowd. She would not have "felt a frisson of
>fear, waiting for the customary dirty looks or at
>least for the customary looking-away", if she were
>"inexperienced". So, "falling in love" with this man
>is presumably not her first relationship.
>
>So, the question is, what does "monogamy" mean to the
>glbt/c-not-of-c leadership? Is it kind of like high
>school "going steady for a few months"?
>--------
>
>from the Community of Christ
> >href="http://www.cofchrist.org/USAConf/01-2011NatlConf.
>pdf">http://www.cofchrist.org/USAConf/01-2011NatlConf.p
>df
>
>"The delegate conference, July 18�22, 2012, in
>Independence, Missouri, will determine the level of
>support for
>
>1.) Extending the sacrament of marriage to persons of
>the same sex/gender OR providing a church-recognized
>way for two persons of the same sex/gender to publicly
>express their commitment to each other.
>
>2.) Allowing people in committed, monogamous,
>long-term, same sex/gender relationships (legal
>marriage, civil union, church-recognized commitment)
>to be considered for ordination.
>
>The delegates� common consent will determine if
>present policies will remain in place or new policies
>will need to be written and implemented.
>
>These are difficult issues......"
>
>signed by Linda L. Booth, Stassi D. Cramm, Ronald D.
>Harmon Jr., Rick W. Maupin, and K. Scott Murphy
>USA Team of Apostles
>
> >href="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.ht....63&pa
>gewanted=1">http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.ht...
>.63&pagewanted=1
>A Kiss Too Far?
>By GUY TREBAY
>Published: February 18, 2007 (bold by Lois)
>
>After considering herself exclusively lesbian for
>decades, Sarah Van Arsdale, a novelist, not long ago
>found, to her surprise, that she had fallen in love
>with a man. At first, as she wrote last week in an
>e-mail message from a writer's colony in Oaxaca,
>Mexico, '' Whenever we would hold hands in public, I
>felt a frisson of fear, waiting for the customary
>dirty looks or at least for the customary
>looking-away.''
>
>In place of revulsion, Ms. Van Arsdale was startled to
>discover that, having adjusted her sexual
>identity, she was now greeted by strangers with
>approving smiles. ''I felt suddenly acceptable and
>accepted and cute, as opposed to queer,'' she said.
>--------
>
>Submitted by Lois

Lois, a lot of same-sex couples find that the fire just dies out. They remain very good friends. Some adopt a "Don't Ask Don't Tell" attitude toward one or the other member of the pair having sex outside the relationship. It is emotional monogamy that they are looking for. The benefits of keeping toxic spiritual shock or STD's out of the relationship aren't considered a plus.

I read a treatise by a sociologist, but you can't quote it because I don't remember who or when. He said that in same-sex couples, they usually break up if one member of the pair seems him or herself as contributing more financially to the relationship than the other one. The one who feels like he or she is being used to provide a meal ticket for the other usually is the one who breaks up the relationship. And, of course, if there is only "emotional" monogamy, when feelings of being exploited intrude, the fact that there is no sexual monogamy being practiced usually accelerates the breakup process.

That has now become true of many heterosexual couples as well. Now that premarital sex is considered the norm, estramarital sex is considered no big deal, and single parenting is de rigeur, there isn't much to consider on the plus side of keeping a relationship together.

And in the case of the same-sex couple, they have already decided that God doesn't care what they do, or they wouldn't be together in the first place. So where is the force that keeps the relationship together after the hormone levels drop?

Manipulating feelings of guilt and using the court system to force others to change the way they think doesn't change the way the world is. Up is still up, and down is still down -- even if nobody believes it.

George

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Re: More leadership and the homosexual agenda -- Lois, 21:21:11 07/19/11 Tue
- Re: More leadership and the homosexual agenda -- George, 23:16:35 07/19/11 Tue