Equality Ride Questions

[SlimPickens]

I attend BYU-Idaho and the equality riders recently visited our private university in an attempt to alter our views. I find this insulting... the impression I get from these forums, is that you only respect beliefs that coincide with yours. Our faith teaches that freedom of choice is fundamental to who we are as God's children and to following Christ. We can use our agency to put the kingdom of God and his comandments above ourselves, follow Christ and become righteous. We are also taught that Satan earned his place as the devil for trying to remove our freedom to choose.

We may not agree with your choices, but we do not try to take them away from you. But you are trying to take away our choices. Our honor code, which has come under attack, is there to express our beliefs and allow us to honor our creator and our savior. If someone doesn't agree with it, why would they want to attend this university? You are free to disagree, it is your divine gift... but why do you require that we change our views?

I have read through these forums quite extensively and have had many questions about your views answered. I will not bother you by asking the same old questions again. But I do have a question that I did not find an answer to. The first comandment God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We believe that God's commandment for His children to multiply and replinish the earth remains in force. We further believe that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between a man and a woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife. I am just curious what your view of this, the first comandment God gave to His children, is and how you respond to this interpretation.

[kara speltz]

I attend BYU-Idaho and the equality riders recently visited our private university in an attempt to alter our views. I find this insulting... the impression I get from these forums, is that you only respect beliefs that coincide with yours. Our faith teaches that freedom of choice is fundamental to who we are as God's children and to following Christ. We can use our agency to put the kingdom of God and his comandments above ourselves, follow Christ and become righteous. We are also taught that Satan earned his place as the devil for trying to remove our freedom to choose.

We may not agree with your choices, but we do not try to take them away from you. But you are trying to take away our choices. Our honor code, which has come under attack, is there to express our beliefs and allow us to honor our creator and our savior. If someone doesn't agree with it, why would they want to attend this university? You are free to disagree, it is your divine gift... but why do you require that we change our views?

I have read through these forums quite extensively and have had many questions about your views answered. I will not bother you by asking the same old questions again. But I do have a question that I did not find an answer to. The first comandment God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We believe that God's commandment for His children to multiply and replinish the earth remains in force. We further believe that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between a man and a woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife. I am just curious what your view of this, the first comandment God gave to His children, is and how you respond to this interpretation.

Well we certainly have procreated to the point where the earth can no longer sustain the population. Don't you think we can move on from that now? For those who believe in bible inerrancey, there must have only been two people on earth when God said that, Adam and Eve. Procreation was an absolute necessity. With 6+ billion people inhabiting the earth, I would say procreation is a bit down on the priority list in the year 2007. How about now focusing on what was God's very first commandment - Love your God with your whole heart, your whole soul and love your neighbor as yourself.

Believe me when I say that procreation is in no danger from LGBTs. Procreation could only cease, if everyone became gay. And that's like the rutabega theory. During the VN war people said if everyone planted rutabega there would be peace. Sounded silly right? But the idea behind it was what seemed to be necessary for peace was for people to agree. Now we all know that 100% of the people are never going to do anything together. We can't even agree to what the bible means on almost any single issue.

I seriously find this question about procreation, not to mention my own Roman Catholic Church's position on birth control, to be inane in this day and age.

[YoungTopper86]

I guess that answer's that question.

[SlimPickens]

I'm sorry if my question was unclear. The procreation was not necasarily the point of emphasis. The idea is that in this comandment God has set out his intention for our sexuality and preferance.

[YoungTopper86]

I guess that question wasn't answered.

[kara speltz]

I'm sorry if my question was unclear. The procreation was not necasarily the point of emphasis. The idea is that in this comandment God has set out his intention for our sexuality and preferance.

We further believe that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between a man and a woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.

Just because you believe that to be God's intention doesn't make it so. The LDS has been the leading proponent of the Federal Marriage Amendment, an attempt to deny equal rights to LGBTs. Our government, at least for the time being, is governed by a constitution that separates the powers of church and state. And yet the denial of marriage rights to gays, is clearly and absolutely based on religious beliefs.

At some point the courts are going to have to acknowledge this, unless, of course, the theocrats succeed in their attempt to have the Bible trump the Constitution.

kara

[u-dog]

I have read through these forums quite extensively and have had many questions about your views answered. I will not bother you by asking the same old questions again. But I do have a question that I did not find an answer to. The first comandment God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We believe that God's commandment for His children to multiply and replinish the earth remains in force. We further believe that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between a man and a woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife. I am just curious what your view of this, the first comandment God gave to His children, is and how you respond to this interpretation.

.... and actually enjoyed the whole process quite a bit! three great human beings notched on my belt ... but I also brought enormous amounts of pain and sorrow into an innocent persons life pretending to be what I was not.

but having said that? I am pretty confident that the straight people of the world are totally on top of the whole procreation thing! They seem to have no trouble being fruitful and multiplying without the gay people's help.

Gay people are also fruitful in other ways, such as art, music, healthcare, engineering, mathmatics, international relations, military service (shhh! don't tell), ministry, caring for aged parents, teaching school.

And most of us can multiply!!! (long division is problematic for some of us though).

seriously if there are only two people in the world they both pretty much have to do everything. When there are 6.5 billion? We can afford to specialize.

Dave

[andrewlittle]

I'm sorry if my question was unclear. The procreation was not necasarily the point of emphasis. The idea is that in this comandment God has set out his intention for our sexuality and preferance.

If you check on the thread below, there is quite a discussion that occurred on that very topic - at least it the most recent discussion about it.

You obviously don't have to, but I would appreciate it if you read the whole thread, since I ahve at least taken the time point you to it. That remains of course, up to you.

http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?p=26516#post26516

[Emproph]

Gay people are also fruitful in other ways, such as art, music, healthcare, engineering, mathmatics, international relations, military service (shhh! don't tell), ministry, caring for aged parents, teaching school.

And thank God that God no longer requires incest to be part of His divine original plan.

[BrentRichards]

... from a gay guy raising two kids whose straight parents couldn't be bothered to sober up and follow through on the results of their procreating.

Here's what I wrote in response to the "argument from creation order" as stated by Cedarville U, in prep for the Riders arrival:

The argument from the creation order is extremely common, and was frankly the one I relied on most heavily when I was on “the other side” of the theological “fence.” But it just doesn’t hold water. There are MANY things in creation that were not reflected in the original design: Just as one example, we must presume that racial diversity was absent from the original design, as was cultural diversity, language diversity, and the infinite variation of human appearance and personality. Are these things to be understood as
results of the fall? Presumably, one could here use the creation order as an argument against interracial or cross-cultural marriages, too.

The idea that God created (simple past tense) and then stopped creating (“Nothing new! Nothing that wasn’t in Chapter 1 and 2, thanks!”) is distinctly un-Christian. It is a much better fit with the “Watchmaker” model of deistic thinking ... God created and then stepped out for an extended lunch. There is much in creation that is not reflected in the “creation
order” of Genesis. If Genesis 1 and 2 were an exhaustive account of God’s design, the Bible would be much shorter, wouldn’t it?

Further, the Genesis account of the creation order would NATURALLY focus on the male/female relationship, since procreation was a central focus ... the account answers the question “how did we come to be here?” To say, “well, 2 men fell in love and adopted an unwanted child” seems to be a bit unsatisfactory as an answer there, no?

Discussion regarding covenantal (marriage) relationships certainly uses heterosexual language. This shouldn’t be surprising, since we all know that heterosexuality is the numerical “norm” ... but this does not automatically imply that it is “normative.”

[davidb]

I watched that same presentation on the "causes of homosexuality." I think the most accurate statement the dean made was the first one--"we don't know what the cause is." His attempts to explain the causes of homosexuality with psuedo-science and his list of obviously gay traits (OGT's) were completely laughable. The list of possible causes for this "sexual orientation crisis" are as follows:

1) Overprotective Mother/Absent Father

My mom would be classified as anything but overprotective, and my father came to every ball game, concert, etc., we went fishing, hiking, and boating together. Both my parents could not have been more involved.

2) Birth order

I am the oldest sibling.

3) Evidence of Molestation or Sexual Abuse

Nope. Never happened.

4) Size of index finger compared to ring finger (huh? this is science?)

My ring finger is oh so slightly longer than my index finger. Can't remember if that is an OGT or not.

[BrentRichards]

4) Size of index finger compared to ring finger (huh? this is science?)

My ring finger is oh so slightly longer than my index finger. Can't remember if that is an OGT or not.

Love that one, huh? Actually, I believe it's the middle/index finger being longer than the ring finger that's supposed to indicate homosexuality ... so you'll have to leave now. I've certainly never heard this cited as serious science. Egad.

Oh, and for those who can't find their glossary, "OGT" is an "obviously (or observable) gay trait." Mine are love of showtunes, complete disregard for sports, and a knack for interior decorating.

[davidb]

My OGTs are (in no particular order) my obsession with fashion (I dressed like Paul Lynde when I was in grade school), my love of the culinary arts and interior design, my inadequacies with sports, and--of course--i love disco.