Ten years of "gay marriage"

[semlogo]

Participating in the passive and/or active roles of a homoerotic relationship are listed among those practices that are considered outside the covenant community. The NRSV of 1 Cor. 6:9 reads "male prostitute" and "sodomite." The NET reads "passive homosexual partner" and "practicing homosexual." Based on what I've seen, the term is a bit more broad, though is applied also to male prostitutes.

See 1 Cor. 6:7-11 and Romans 1:25-32.

Right, so prostitution is bad. I agree.

[semlogo]

Um, how? Natural law theory is still discussed in academic circles of philosophy. It has made a bit of a resurgence since the demise of positivism.

A positivist account of the "nature of human sex" would say that there is no point to sex. It is just hardwired due to random biological mutations.

A natural law account of the "nature of human sex" would say that the ultimate purpose of sex is to procreate, thus allowing the continuation of the species.

One is teleological, the other is not. You'd have to make a case that the actual purpose of sexual activity is not procreation. And I'm not talking about the reasons people choose to have sex. I'm talking about the reason for sex at all.

So, I'm failing to see how the teleological paradigm of the natural order has been proven wrong.

Such paradigms are completely meaningless in the light of authentic science.

[semlogo]

I agree with semlogo on a fair amount of issues.

But it just seems like he accepted the "male prostitute" interpretation as soon as he read it. Yet, when presented with contrary evidence, he is dismissive of Paul altogether because of his cultural views on veils. And then he dismisses a philosophical notion as incorrect without explaining why.

I've had others elsewhere dismiss natural law theory assuming they knew what it was when they didn't beyond Wikipedia. There are various forms. The natural law of Cicero, Philo, St. Thomas Aquinas, and John Locke are not all the same.

While not traditional teleology, LDS scripture (particularly D&C 88) offers a teleological paradigm.

I'm sure I agree with you on other issues. But whatever Paul is talking about, it simply isn't a strong enough basis to conclude that homosexuality is a sin, even if every reference were to romantic, monogamous homosexual relationships (which seems unlikely). Especially since it is apparent that Paul didn't understand that nature of such relationships.

[WalkerW]

Such paradigms are completely meaningless in the light of authentic science.

Oh, ok. That explains everything.

I guess that I find such things as "authentic science" to be meaningless without such paradigms.

The irony is that the very practice of science itself, which involves the formulation of hypotheses, the weighing of evidence, the invention of technical concepts and vocabularies, the construction of chains of reasoning, and so forth

[Jeff K.]

Thank you for reinforcing my post with semilogo's very apt refusal to see anything beyond your own dogmatic position.

I disagree wtih Walker on most things, but his point is well made in regard to the historical aspects of scriptural interpretation. While Semilogo presents nothing of substance, his insistence in turn creates an empty rhetoric that undermines the credibility of his argument.

He will claim and cry sour grapes, but in the end, it really comes understanding the history. If one cannot understand it, one is doomed to being without credibility when debating it.

[WalkerW]

But whatever Paul is talking about, it simply isn't a strong enough basis to conclude that homosexuality is a sin, even if every reference were to romantic, monogamous homosexual relationships (which seems unlikely).

It seems that he held the common Jewish stance on homosexual practice. If you are defining homosexuality as the mere attraction, then that doesn't seem to be the case. The practice, however, is quite explicitly condemned in Romans 1 and 1 Cor. 6 (not to mention is listed with a group of those who will "not inherit").

Especially since it is apparent that Paul didn't understand that nature of such relationships.

I don't think there is enough information to determine whether Paul understood the nature of such relationships. Maybe, maybe not. I think you'd have to define what "nature" must be understood.

[semlogo]

I don't think there is enough information to determine whether Paul understood the nature of such relationships. Maybe, maybe not. I think you'd have to define what "nature" must be understood.

Of course Paul didn't understand the nature of them, since the nature of homosexuality has only started to be understood very recently.

[Jeff K.]

That is incorrect. I would point out that the nature of homosexuality was well understood since the time of the Greeks. Study you history.

[ELF1024]

Of course Paul didn't understand the nature of them, since the nature of homosexuality has only started to be understood very recently.

I, and many other people would disagree with that statement. I would say that homosexuality has been understood very clearly from the beginning of time, its only recently become misunderstood to the point where it is socially acceptable.

[semlogo]

Thank you for reinforcing my post with semilogo's very apt refusal to see anything beyond your own dogmatic position.

I disagree wtih Walker on most things, but his point is well made in regard to the historical aspects of scriptural interpretation. While Semilogo presents nothing of substance, his insistence in turn creates an empty rhetoric that undermines the credibility of his argument.

He will claim and cry sour grapes, but in the end, it really comes understanding the history. If one cannot understand it, one is doomed to being without credibility when debating it.

When the entire basis for the sinfulness of homosexuality resides in a Jewish law that places homosexuality and a trip to Red Lobster on equal ground, and some ambiguous statements from a single apostle, then I can only conclude that it's not a sufficient basis to declare homosexual relationships sinful. If you've got some scripture from Nephi or Peter or Moroni to clarify the issue, I'm all ears

[semlogo]

I, and many other people would disagree with that statement. I would say that homosexuality has been understood very clearly from the beginning of time, its only recently become misunderstood to the point where it is socially acceptable.

So Paul understood why gay people are gay?

[ELF1024]

So Paul understood why gay people are gay?

There is no need to understand why someone behaves in a specific way to know that it's a sin. The cause of the behavior does not negate it's sinfulness.

And yes, I'm sure that Paul did understand why happy people were happy.

[sjdawg]

Uh... oh. I thought it was all rhetoric. Apparently, the "slippery slope" claim, in this case, isn't a fallacy at all.

It would be a shame if the marriage situation in Canada degraded to such a point that polygamy became acceptable. (although that is exactly why LDS pioneers came to Canada in the first place)

[semlogo]

There is no need to understand why someone behaves in a specific way to know that it's a sin. The cause of the behavior does not negate it's sinfulness.

And yes, I'm sure that Paul did understand why happy people were happy.

So, Paul didn't understand, then?

[ELF1024]

So, Paul didn't understand, then?

There isn't anything to understand. The cause of the behavior is irrelevant.

Or do you believe that someone who is born a kelptomaniac is not a sinner for stealing?

Or do you believe that someone who was born with a predisposition towards nymphomanica would not be a sinner if he/she engaged in adulterous affairs?

[sjdawg]

There isn't anything to understand. The cause of the behavior is irrelevant.

Or do you believe that someone who is born a kelptomaniac is not a sinner for stealing?

Or do you believe that someone who was born with a predisposition towards nymphomanica would not be a sinner if he/she engaged in adulterous affairs?

I find it hard to believe that either of those examples is analagous with homosexuality.

[zelder]

Was there ever a time when homosexuality condoned by God? When we look at polygamy we see clearly that it has come and gone according to the will of God. In looking at the negro/priesthood problem we see instances where negros were given the priesthood in the early days and also Brigham stated that negros would eventually get the priesthood. I'm not aware of any time where a prophet or servant of God stated that homosexuality is good and acceptabe in the eyes of God. It appears that it has always been considered evil. In my mind, the consistency in doctrine on this issue through the millennia count for something and suggests that the current policy is not a mistake being made.

[semlogo]

There isn't anything to understand. The cause of the behavior is irrelevant.

Or do you believe that someone who is born a kelptomaniac is not a sinner for stealing?

Or do you believe that someone who was born with a predisposition towards nymphomanica would not be a sinner if he/she engaged in adulterous affairs?

Totally irrelevant, huh? Maybe to you. Don't you think God cares?

[zelder]

I find it hard to believe that either of those examples is analagous with homosexuality.

The second example seems very analagous since it consists of strong sexual urges that are condemed. I believe there have been attempts by science to claim the a cheating disposition is genetic.

[semlogo]

Was there ever a time when homosexuality condoned by God? When we look at polygamy we see clearly that it has come and gone according to the will of God. In looking at the negro/priesthood problem we see instances where negros were given the priesthood in the early days and also Brigham stated that negros would eventually get the priesthood. I'm not aware of any time where a prophet or servant of God stated that homosexuality is good and acceptabe in the eyes of God. It appears that it has always been considered evil. In my mind, the consistency in doctrine on this issue through the millennia count for something and suggests that the current policy is not a mistake being made.

Is there a time where eating croissants was condoned by God? Or wearing green shoes?

[zelder]

Totally irrelevant, huh? Maybe to you. Don't you think God cares?

Of course he cares. Thats why he has provided prophets to tell us to stop it.

[zelder]

Is there a time where eating croissants was condoned by God? Or wearing green shoes?

No but was there ever a time when it was condemned?

[semlogo]

Of course he cares. Thats why he has provided prophets to tell us to stop it.

Why didn't God put that down clearly in the scriptures?

[semlogo]

No but was there ever a time when it was condemned?

Your argument appeared to be that if God didn't condone it, that was enough. That was the point of my response - God hasn't specifically condoned most things.

[zelder]

Why didn't God put that down clearly in the scriptures?

That's a good question. I don't know. Maybe he didn't want to give ideas about sins that were not enough of a problem at the time. Maybe bringing it to attention would have created more of a problem was existing.

edit: The word "homosexuality" didn't even exist in Joseph Smiths time.