Calling Thayne, Can I Help With NOM?

[_Mayan Elephant]

but then you could not post .... hehe

yeah. the dicks are welcome here venues are less and less common. guess that explains why we keep bumping into each other here, right?

[_Lemmie]

For a long time, the church has refused to baptize children of polygamy families. But there was no problem back then - nobody brought it up. So, that's an indication that people bringing this up - resigning over it etc. - are not really concerned about children as much as trying to look like someone who is NOT a "hater/homophobe" etc. It's another form of cult-mentality: "Believe as we do, or you're out! Believe as we do, or else we'll shun you and call you all kinds of names." Resigning for this illogical reason - and because everyone's doing it, is considered a "badge of honor" - reminds me of the cult.

Oh my. Well, this is a board where people are free to express opinions, so no one will censor your post, however, I would like to express an opinion also.

...So, that's an indication that people bringing this up - resigning over it etc. - are not really concerned...

It may be your opinion, which I respect you have the right to give, but no, your anecdotal remembered evidence does not adequately support the 'indication' you ascribe to it. People have been very forthcoming here about their actual resignations over this issue and the issues they considered in their decision-making process; you could search and read some first hand stories instead of making these statistically invalid assumptions.

2 people in my family and several friends have homosexual preferences - and I can tell you that they all have had negative experiences - either with abuse or sexual abuse.

I have no doubt you had these anecdotal experiences, or at least that you interpreted them that way. Again, statistically, 2 to 4 anecdotal experiences filtered through your mindset do not constitute evidence; would you consider doing some research? Or at least asking your family members directly if they consider their homosexuality to be something they were not born with? Or that their being homosexual is 'not good'?

Sadly, it's coming so that they cannot get help for that - but must pretend that they were "born that way" when biologically we know that's not true.

What is your evidence for this? Current research would suggest otherwise.

Even the obvious - trying to shove a man's part into another man's anus (or any anus for that matter) is known to cause anal fissures, anal cancer and colon rupture. Tell me, this is GOOD? This is healthy? People who pretend this is healthy remind me of people who pretend smoking is healthy.

[My bolding added.]

Your opinion is your right of course, but I don't think a discussion board would be doing you any favors if this statement was left to stand; certainly this discussion board is not a 'safe space' for saying things like that without anyone challenging your comments. Since this is a NOM thread for our visitors, I'll leave it at this: that is an unnecessarily offensive and egregiously uneducated comment to write about homosexuality, no matter how much you love your gay relatives. I can't even imagine the hurt they would feel if you said that to their faces. Your religious opinion is your own, I am not commenting on that, but please educate yourself on the facts, or at least be prepared for vigorous debate if you continue to express your biases as though they were factual.

I care about truth and it annoys me when people are too afraid to state FACTS -

I'm glad you feel that way, hopefully that extends to other people who state what they feel are facts and truth, even if it disagrees with what you consider to be facts and truth. It makes for some interesting debates here.

And may I note again, since this is a NOM thread (at least nominally!!) and I don't want to step on any toes: this is a disagreement with your ideas, not an attack on you.

[_Mayan Elephant]

And may I note again, since this is a NOM thread (at least nominally!!) and I don't want to step on any toes: this is a disagreement with your ideas, not an attack on you.

Perhaps the best lines of this entire thread. I am kinda laughing.

Why don't you say that to me when you're knocking the crap out of my ideas? My feelings!

Nice post by the way. On both parts. I'm on different sides of some of each of these posts and welcome the contrasts and comments.

[_Lemmie]

And may I note again, since this is a NOM thread (at least nominally!!) and I don't want to step on any toes: this is a disagreement with your ideas, not an attack on you.

Perhaps the best lines of this entire thread. I am kinda laughing.

Why don't you say that to me when you're knocking the crap out of my ideas? My feelings!

Nice post by the way. On both parts. I'm on different sides of some of each of these posts and welcome the contrasts and comments.

You've been here longer than me, ME, so I figured you just knew it, kinda like how you know you and your siblings love each other, deep down, well-- deep, DEEP down, even while you're beating the crap out of each other!!!

Sincerely, though, thank you for your kind comments. :)

[_Amore]

Lemmie,
You called my stating facts of anal sex "uneducated" - then you must consider most doctors and medical books "uneducated."
http://www.webmd.com/sex/anal-sex-health-concerns#1

You also brought up religion as the cause of my mentioning facts. YOU did - not me. You engage in another logical fallacy in straw man. Strawman are when you bring up something that doesn't respond, as a way to defer the fact that you have nothing better to share.

If you're really interested, you can find facts yourself, for some reason you choose not to research. As babies, our brains are only 1/4 developed, so we can better adapt to environmental stimuli. Most genes that are purely inborn, that cause for a divergent expression, are expressed at birth. People develop problems like obesity-related heart disease and sexual preference, NOT at birth, but as they grow in response to environment (lifestyle, experiences etc).
Here's one of many links: http://concernedwomen.org/images/content/bornorbred.pdf

If you have any counter argument, provide legitimate facts to support it, as you've asked of me, otherwise, you will show again logical fallacy.

[_achilles]

I think one of the good things that has come of this discussion is the acknowledgment that at times NOM 1.0 may not have really lived up to its mission for some people in terms of allowing them to express relevant ideas without moderation/banning. I have no knowledge of this since I wasn't active on the board during the time in question. I think we can take this forward with a resolve to be/do better on NOM 2.0.

I'm happy to help out with moderation, though I have no experience.

Hi, Amore. I'm not sure this is a thread about homosexuality. We could start another, maybe? If it's really necessary (could be explosive!) I'm happy to offer my thoughts as a gay man. PM me if you like.

[_Maksutov]

Hi, Amore. I'm not sure this is a thread about homosexuality. We could start another, maybe? If it's really necessary (could be explosive!) I'm happy to offer my thoughts as a gay man. PM me if you like.

This is a great suggestion. A new thread would be appropriate. Not sure it belongs on the Mormon specific forums.

[_Amore]

Hi Achilles,
I didn't bring up this topic - 2 other people did. They asked how NOM/middle way was in relation to homosexual issues in the church. I simply responded. And I think it is relevant since this is why I got kicked off NOM. I stated facts, and one guy followed a link in my profile to a different forum and began harassing me with threats, anonymously. When he saw I posted them on NOM, to expose his bullying, he sent me one more harassing message and then quit. Exposing him was the way to make the bullying stop. But instead of supporting me, moderators kicked me off the forum. They said it was because I was posting pms. Yet, it wasn't applicable to forum rules because it was on a different forum and they were harassing messages. They supported bullying - and that's not the only time that's happened. Many have been bullied ironically by people claiming to hate bullying, simply for stating their beliefs. I like what you mentioned that freedom of speech should be honored, unlike what Lemmie wished.

Emotional reasoning logical fallacy is often used, as Lemmie did. She said stating facts of consequences of homosexual practices is hurtful and offensive. If someone was heading for a cliff, would it be more offensive to wave them on saying, "keep coming!" Or would it be more offensive to stop them (even if you risked getting hurt in the process) to warn them of the danger up ahead?

[_achilles]

Hey, Amore. I didn't know the history of your departure from NOM. These forums should definitely be free of harassment and stalking.

[_Lemmie]

You called my stating facts of anal sex "uneducated" - then you must consider most doctors and medical books "uneducated."
http://www.webmd.com/sex/anal-sex-health-concerns#1

No, I did not say your stating facts was uneducated. I bolded this part of your statement:

Tell me, this is GOOD? This is healthy? People who pretend this is healthy remind me of people who pretend smoking is healthy.

and then I said:

that is an unnecessarily offensive and egregiously uneducated comment to write about homosexuality,

Your reference, titled Anal Sex Safety and Health Concerns talked about facts, but did NOT offer an opinion about 'good' or 'healthy,' YOU did. Your conclusion that I 'consider most doctors and medical books 'uneducated' ' is a complete non sequitur and bears no relevance to the conversation at all.

You also brought up religion as the cause of my mentioning facts. YOU did - not me.

?? The only time I brought up religion was to say this:

Your religious opinion is your own, I am not commenting on that,

How more specific can I be that your religious opinion is not the issue?

re: the definition of straw man:

Strawman are when you bring up something that doesn't respond, as a way to defer the fact that you have nothing better to share.

Please look up the definition of the straw man fallacy, it doesn't mean what you seem to think it means (and also the definition of defer.) Here's a good starting place:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Straw_man

People develop problems like obesity-related heart disease and sexual preference, NOT at birth, but as they grow in response to environment (lifestyle, experiences etc).

Are you suggesting homosexuality is a 'develop[ed] problem....in response to environment'?

If you have any counter argument, provide legitimate facts to support it, as you've asked of me, otherwise, you will show again logical fallacy.

No, you made the assertion, it is your obligation to prove it, not mine to disprove it. RationalWiki can help in understanding the elements of debate; also, please look up the definition of 'logical fallacy,' your accusation here is irrational.

I can feel the anger coming off your post, so there is no point in continuing this. May I reiterate that if you post statements as you did about homosexuality, be prepared for vigorous debate. Your meltdown in this very first exchange indicates you may not be ready for this. All I can do is repeat what I said before:

And may I note again, since this is a NOM thread (at least nominally!!) and I don't want to step on any toes: this is a disagreement with your ideas, not an attack on you.