CougarCorner

SpiffCoug wrote:I didn't mean to imply being gay was a chastisement. I meant that maybe preaching all this acceptance is removing chastisement from the equation of being delivered from temptation?

Do you mean something like codependency on a grand scale? Where both parties become negatively effected.

I have a half-sister that I have tried to help out of her problems over the years. No matter how much time or money I invested in her, she has either made no change or gotten worse. I might as well have been trying to change the course of the Mississippi with my arm. The problem is that she has no desire to change. Though my intentions were good, I fear I may have interfered with the process and wonder if she might have been better off if I had not helped her at all.

Yeah. Kind of like that. But when the chastisement is removed from sin, then from where does the impetus for change come? Why would you need to change when no one is really telling you what you are doing is wrong? When does repentence start when the sin is never recognized as such?

SpiffCoug wrote:Yeah. Kind of like that. But when the chastisement is removed from sin, then from where does the impetus for change come? Why would you need to change when no one is really telling you what you are doing is wrong? When does repentence start when the sin is never recognized as such?

This is a good point. We need to be careful not to let the pendulum swing too far in the other direction. Before, it seemed that too many were hating the sinner as well as the sin, and now it seems that many are loving the sinner and the sin.

Yes, it seems to me that these people have used politics, through a sympathetic media and politicians scrambling for votes, to take the sin out of the acts they commit, therefor any one calling their acts a sin is now the sinner. Of course that same media and most of those politicians are working hard to remove God from things so the word sin is no longer part of the discussion. While it was never right to condemn or judge them condemned, it is not right for them to condemn either.

nuk13 wrote:Yes, it seems to me that these people have used politics, through a sympathetic media and politicians scrambling for votes, to take the sin out of the acts they commit, therefor any one calling their acts a sin is now the sinner. Of course that same media and most of those politicians are working hard to remove God from things so the word sin is no longer part of the discussion. While it was never right to condemn or judge them condemned, it is not right for them to condemn either.

Here's really the bottom line - the politicians in Washington DC that are re-defining the moral fabric of this Country are the biggest bunch of liars, thieves and immoral collection of folks in the entire USA.

For instance - for the 2nd year in a row - Washington DC has been rated the #1 adulterous cheating capitol, per capita, in the USA.

"No One Does Extramarital Affairs Better Than D.C. No One!"

Pat yourself on the back, D.C.: you're a cheating bastard.

For the second year in a row, extramarital dating site AshleyMadison.com has declared D.C. the "Least Faithful City in America," saying that there are more registered users per capita here than anywhere else in the country. Last year the site said D.C. had registered some 38,000 registered users; over the course of 2012, 34,157 new members were added to the rolls of people looking for discreet extramarital affairs. Austin and Houston ranked second and third, respectively."

http://dcist.com/2013/02/no_one_does_ex ... airs_b.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And as for theft, dishonesty and stealing from the citizens of the USA? No one does it better than Washington DC politicians:

"Mark Levin was furious tonight over the destruction of this country by Democrats like Obama, Pelosi, and Reid and gutless Republicans who are not only complicit, but even now are still afraid to speak out about it:

You should view these politicians with the deepest contempt you can possibly imagine. What they are doing to this country, what they are doing to our finances – there is not a criminal in any federal prison, state prison, city or county jail, with respect to financial crimes of any sort who collectively could have done the kind of damage that Barack Obama and Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and YES, willing, timid, gutless Republicans have done to this country! To your future, to your children and your grandchildren! What they are doing is with malice and with forethought….

What the hell does the Democrat party stand for today? The destruction of America? And what the hell does the Republican party stand for today? To sit there with their thumbs in their mouths while it’s going on?

Any politician with an ounce of common sense should be getting on any soap box imaginable and screaming from the top of their lungs that these policies are destroying America!"

So, these are the folks that are telling us what is moral, right vs. wrong? Not in my book.

I get that it's a sin in our religion, but calling sexual relationships between monogamous hetero partners moral and gay partners immoral doesn't make much sense. Same as drinking--yes it's a sin in our religion but I wouldn't call non member drinkers immoral.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

cornhole153 wrote:I get that it's a sin in our religion, but calling sexual relationships between monogamous hetero partners moral and gay partners immoral doesn't make much sense. Same as drinking--yes it's a sin in our religion but I wouldn't call non member drinkers immoral.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Exactly - it's not a sin - unless you read the scriptures and listen to the Prophets down through the ages. Other than that, it's all subjective and a matter of perspective.

cornhole153 wrote:I get that it's a sin in our religion, but calling sexual relationships between monogamous hetero partners moral and gay partners immoral doesn't make much sense. Same as drinking--yes it's a sin in our religion but I wouldn't call non member drinkers immoral.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

It makes perfect sense. The two are NOT synonymous. If you actually believe in the Church, then things just aren't a sin "in our religion." They're a sin, period. It is wrong. Period. Drinking is immoral. Period. regardless of you religious affiliation. Eternal law doesn't change based on one's religious preferences.

SpiffCoug wrote:I didn't mean to imply being gay was a chastisement. I meant that maybe preaching all this acceptance is removing chastisement from the equation of being delivered from temptation?

I agree with this.

Schmoe wrote:

cornhole153 wrote:

SpiffCoug wrote:

cornhole153 wrote:

Schmoe wrote:
I don't think that same sex attraction is a major and defining characteristic of a person unless they choose to act upon it. I, therefore, don't consider someone "gay" unless they are choosing to live the lifestyle,.

What if they just hold hands, or kiss a little?

Sounds like acting upon it to me.

Is it immoral?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Yes, acting on homosexual feelings is immoral.

Is this your view or is this from the handbook or other source? I've looked to see what immoral homosexual action is and cannot find anything more specific than one cannot engage in homosexual conduct. We of course teach heterosexuals that they cannot engage in sexual relations outside marriage but I do not think holding hands qualifies, although that might be viewed as acting on heterosexual feelings. I honestly want to know and am not trying to troll