Wiggle room for changing church teachings on homosexuality

[Mordecai]

Do you think idol worship really will make you catch "the gay"?

I was simply explaining Paul. I never said I agreed with him on the cause of homosexuality. The point was, he was talking about homosexuality in itself, which was the whole point. Your claim was that in Greek, he was talking about homosexual prostitution. As you well know, that's absolute hogwash.

[Deborah]

And I've often found myself wishing that some, like Deborah (who I picture in my head as being a kind, caring, loving, and generous person) could have the potential to see the love I've felt as a gay man in the same way and fashion that I've experienced it.

Why do think that I don't? But that doesn't change anything. The law still holds.

Anyone of us can love someone deeply and passionately and yet know that to pursue that is wrong or can be dangerous to our eternal salvation. How many young men and women turn away from someone they love because that person isn't willing or able to go to the temple. Such sacrifices happen all the time. It's painful, it's hard and it's very lonely to have to make such choices. I know because I've been there. Once again you think that you are alone in such feelings when a heterosexual can experience the same thing. The fact that you would think your situation is unique shows that you think it's so easy to find love if you're a hetero when it can be just as hard and lonely a path.

[LeSellers]

Not in any material way as far as the rights, benefits, and privileges being sought.

Which is the issue as far as I am concerned.

Same-sex "marriage" is all about "rights, benefits, and privileges", it is not about marriage, per se.

Homosexuals want the goodies that go with marriage, but they (typically) do not want the responsibilities that come with it: Fidelity to the spouse, raising children of (and by) the spouse, providing for the spouse in her old age because she was unable to use her "productive life" to provide for herself because she was raising the children.

They want the (imaginary) tax benefits, the right to visit each other in the hospital, to decide who gets to be buried where, to inherit from each other tax-free, etc. All of these things and many more are possible without marriage (see a lawyer—I know how, but do not want to go to jail for providing free legal advice), so it is not these they really want. They want the goodies, as I said.

As a libertarian, you, of all people, should be reluctant to have even more people enter into a contract that the government controls, can change on a whim, and which the parties themselves are unable to control. More government is not the answer. I have said that the only people who benefit from same sex "marriage" will be the divorce lawyers. Someone kindly pointed out that this is not true. There is another class who will benefit: bureaucrats and politicians.

Diversity is not a requirement for marriage, in fact your religious teachings advise against too much diversity in marriage as being hazardous to a successful marriage.

"Diversity" is an integral part of the definition of "marry" and its derivatives. We say we marry things like "poetry" and "music"; like "art" and "science". We do not say we marry "art" and "art", because it simply makes no sense. The things married must be different, and the marriage must be for an external purpose, one that expands the range of the things married. Yet those things cannot be too diverse, either: we do not marry "planets" and "mustard". They must fit each other.

Marriage means something. Same-sex "marriage" would undermine that meaning to the point of destroying it.

Let them have "gameins" or "trodes", let there be "joinings". But leave the fundamental entity of societies from time immemorial alone. Grant them the "rights, benefits, and privileges" (which I would rather see eliminated anyway) that married couples have, but do not destroy what we have left of the basis for families: without families, there will be no society.

String families do not need much government, only weak ones do, that's why government does all it can (and pushes that envelope): government's primary goal is to become larger and larger, until it finally collapses under its own gargantuan weight, which it used to crush its subjects.

Lehi

[Sky]

Modern apostles and prophets speak their opinion all the time. I think we all know that. But without a specific revelation, it won't be anything more than opinion.

How do you know for sure that there hasn’t been a specific revelation regarding this matter? Were the prophets in the Bible who condemned homosexual actions merely expressing their opinion? How do you tell the difference when a prophet is speaking a revelation and when they are merely speaking their own opinion?

Does every word that a prophet speaks need to be canonized in scripture with the words ‘Thus sayeth the Lord’ in order to be considered an official revelation? I don’t think so. They can and do speak by the power of the Holy Ghost this very day. Otherwise, we can pretty much throw out every word that was ever spoken by any General Authority in any General Conference.

Furthermore, if we can throw out basically anything a prophet says that we do not like - the whole idea of having a prophet seems rather pointless to me in the first place.

[Sky]

In absence of a specific revelation on the subject, the prophet is at the same level as you or I. All they can express is their opinion.

Have you ever read The Miracle of Forgiveness? There's a reason why there's a disclaimer on it that it's not official doctrine:

"What is more, it [masturbation] too often leads to grievous sin, even to that sin against nature, homosexuality. For, done in private, it evolves often into mutual masturbation-practiced with another person of the same sex and thence into total homosexuality...."

That's not how homosexuality works, but that was his opinion. He was wrong. I hope you're not one of those inerrantists who thinks every word a prophet said is straight from the lips of God.

I know this was not directed at me, but as a matter of fact I have read The Miracle of Forgiveness. And I don’t recall there ever being a disclaimer on it saying that it is not official doctrine. But feel free to correct me if I’m wrong. For what it’s worth, the book even got a hearty endorsement from Elder Richard G. Scott in one of his conference talks in just the last 3-5 years (I think).

But regardless, The Miracle of Forgiveness is still widely distributed today by Bishops who are assisting their ward members with the repentance process for all different types of sins. This book carries a lot of weight for the many Church members who have had to repent for serious sins. It is not just the mere ramblings of some old man who happened to be the President of the Church in the 1970’s and early 1980’s.

[GingerRed]

This post is sort of directed at no one in particular, and sort of to everyone, specifically.

Most often on the subject of homosexuality here on the board, I try to avoid emotional appeals, in part because I don't think most members of the church don't really recognize the love between spouses of the same sex, and they have a really hard time being moved by thought of loving intimacy between two husbands or two wives. Accordingly, I often try to stick to the shallower waters of the more emotion-less approach.

In some ways, that's kind of unjustly crippling to the whole discussion about same-sex dynamics. While the politics of 'family' can certainly be discussed on an intellectual level, I personally feel there's something profoundly absent when the subject of love, affection, and family are discussed purely in a stridently academic, emotionally-detatched fashion... I'd imagine that that self-imposed restriction on emotional aspects of same-sex affection, when trying to approach Latter-day Saints about what same-gender affection is like for me, would be sort-of like expecting a missionary to introduce the gospel with potential investigators without ever being able to share his thoughts, feelings, or personal 'testimony' on the subject.

With that acknowledgment out of the way, I'm going to wax into emotive territory for a moment...

The subject of homosexuality on this board is saddening to me on many levels. Usually because it devolves into an academic treatis (and often personal insults) on what Leviticus has to say in condemning some sex act; or whether or not a word meant "prostitution"; or the civil rights and politics of personal rights vs. religious rights; etc.

And I've often found myself wishing that some, like Deborah (who I picture in my head as being a kind, caring, loving, and generous person) could have the potential to see the love I've felt as a gay man in the same way and fashion that I've experienced it.

And then I realized that the missing element that doubtlessly-good people like Deb aren't seeing--and perhaps never will see--is the crucial element, from my perspective. That missing element that changes everything about one's perspective. It's exactly the element that I once recall Gordon B. Hinckley speaking of in a talk he once gave that still resonnates with me, today:

In my quotation of the above, I'm aware that many Latter-day Saints who read this post of mine will doubtless be immediately thinking of the scripture that says, "Wo unto them who call 'good' that which is evil"!!!

However, once one stands in the majesty, awesomeness and genuinely-tranformative power or Love--not just passion, or lust, or sex--but real, self-sacrificing, enobling, enriching, life-changing, I'd-give-everything-I-am-for-you Love---arguing over the semantics can seem so very... small, I suppose.

Arguments and debates over the morality of same-sex affection will continue to rage on. And most of you may never make the connection that the love and affection that I feel is just as real and tangeable and special to me as the love you feel for your husband or wife. In the midst of these debates, I'll remember with gratitude President Hinckley's words. They're a gentle reminder of how important, elusive, and special the "secret essence of love" truly is.

Darin

Darin

I DO believe you. I've known several gay men and seen it for myself. One in particular, Ron, passed away suddenly a few months ago. I used to see him almost every day as he worked in the grocery store I went into every morning to get my breakfast before work. He was so sweet and funny and a great guy and we talked and joked a lot....he shared with me his anguish when his partner was very sick and I prayed for him to get better. He even told me a Bishop gave him a blessing and he recovered. I felt much sorrow when I found out Ron was gone and cried....too soon and too young! I wasn't able to attend his funeral, but my bosses daughter, whom he worked with at the grocery store, went and told us how lost and devastated his partner was. My heart when out to him.. ....I still tear up thinking about it. ...heck if I could find a straight guy as good as Ron to marry I'd be one lucky woman! I had a gay couple in one of my dance classes in college in San Francisco. I saw they love they had. They were such fun guys! And sweet, too! You know what's funny? I always felt safe around gay men.....cause they don't try to 'hit' on you and talk dirty to you..hey baby want some NCMOS? LOL....what else I found out is gay men respect women very much. And I also noticed., at least among the gay men I knew...they all had really great relationships with their moms. ( One of my guilty pleasures? Watching reruns of Will and Grace! LOL I wish I had a "Will' in my life to hang out with! ) Oh and Ron knew I was LDS. It didn't matter. We never discussed 'politics'.

Anyway....the point I am trying to make...is although as a active LDS woman I do believe homosexuality is a sin and I don't support gay marriage...BUT I am not blind to the feelings they have for each other. Where some of my LDS friends go ewww! sick!...I get a little defensive because of Ron and others I was friends with. No I don't want to think about what they do behind closed doors, okay?....thats not my business. But when I think of Ron I certainly don't think eww sicko he will burn in hell...etc....I think of the sweet friend I lost.

Red

[AmorLibertas]

That's not exactly what I said. Way to distort my statement. I simply said, "No one is being arrested for homoesexual behavior," which is 100% true.

I suppose it all depends on the meaning of the word "is".

Mordecai wrote: When it comes to marriage? Not different at all.

Libertas: My point exactly, yet there was a time when some believed otherwise. What is common sense today wasn't always so.

Mordecai wrote: You suggested that a gay union is the same as a straight union. I'm simply asking a question. According to the consensus, they are different. The word "diversity" is the buzz word from the left to imply that differences are really important but also really good. Apparently, you can't answer a simple question. Is a man different from a woman? Yes or no.

Libertas: The question wasn't simple when the context wasn't obvious. As to whether a man is different from a woman, the answer is, it depends on the context. When it comes to the marriage, I maintain that a man is no different from a woman in their ability to consent to a domestic partnership.

Mordecai wrote: If a man is different than a woman, historically, diversity has been a requirement of marriage.

Libertas: Now you're arguing semantics. The only requirement of marriage is two or more to be joined into one. Separateness, not diversity, is the requirement.

Mordecai wrote: Actually, job #1 at the Federal level is to protect the nation from enemies, foreign and domestic and #2 promote the public good.

Libertas: Such enemies include but are not limited to any individual or group destructive of individual rights and liberties. As for promoting the public good, that is a very broad concept that is all too easily rationalized into meaning anything the majority want it to mean. Job #2 is not to promote the public good, it is nowhere on the list. The "jobs" of the Federal Government are loosely defined in the Preamble to the Constitution, and "promoting the public good" is not one of those jobs; establishing justice is among the several states and territories is, ensuring domestic tranquility is, providing for the common defense is, promoting the general welfare (not the public good) is, securing the blessings of liberty is.

Mordecai wrote: Underpinning the Constitution was the principle that Providence and nature's God were above man, and that no government could be above that. The God given rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness can't morally be taken by man.

Libertas: Then all punishment of crime is immoral. What was maintained is that no one is justified in initiating the use of force to deprive another of their life, liberty, or the pursuit of their happiness. Such things may be deprived of another individual found guilty through due process of law of having or intending to so infringe upon the rights of others.

Mordecai wrote: The government is obligated to serve God by protecting God-given rights.

Libertas: Funny that nowhere in the Constitution does it mention such an obligation. Instead, it mentions that government is obligated to serve the people.

Mordecai wrote: Of course, reason and nature were also principles that should not be undercut by man, so it stands to reason that whims, like the idea that a gay union is the same as a marriage, should not be adopted by the gov't.

Libertas: Reason and nature are not undercut by affording homosexual couples the same benefits and protections as heterosexual couples, no matter how whimsical or irrational you might imagine it to be. Quite to the contrary, reason demands that for justice to be dispensed equally without prejudice, such benefits must be afforded any couple or group of individuals capable of giving informed consent to civil contracts.

Mordecai wrote: This is only a founding principle insofar as the definition of justice agrees with this. For example, the state does consider gender when it matters, e.g. with maternity leave.

Libertas: Does justice agree with this? I'm not convinced.

Mordecai wrote: They give preferential treatment to some behaviors over others, as they should. That is a founding principle.

Libertas: Oh? How is this a founding principle? Where is it illustrated or demonstrated in the Constitution?

Mordecai wrote: So an adult father can marry his adult daughter? Really?

Libertas: While you and I (and likely far and away the vast majority of society) appear to find such an arrangement repulsive, likely due in part to a physiological predisposition against near-kin sexual relationships, the State should have nothing to say on the matter for what two (or more) consenting adults agree to.

Mordecai wrote: The rationale in Loving v. Virginia involved determining whether marriage was a right or not and why.

Libertas: No. The rationale in Loving v. Virginia involved determining whether discrimination based on race was a violation of the due process clause of the 14th amendment in denying what was already presumed to be a basic civil right.

Mordecai wrote: The arguments had nothing to do with homosexuality but involved procreation and tradition, two things that are odds with homosexual unions being a right.

Libertas: No. The arguments had to do with discrimination based on racism and the attempt to uphold White Supremacy. A direct analogy may be drawn to discrimination based on sexual orientation and the attempt to uphold "Heterosexual Supremacy".

Mordecai wrote: Furthermore, the laws were designed to control reproduction. They represented eugenics, so it was a completely different issue.

Libertas: Not just reproduction, but the maintenance of an unjust system of racial oppression and marginalization.

Mordecai wrote: Again, gays are not being arrested for acting like gays.

Libertas: Not anymore. Just as Mormons aren't being arrested for being Mormons anymore.

Mordecai wrote: The Lovings were arrested simply for living together as husband and wife in the wrong state.

Libertas: No, they were arrested for being a mixed-race couple who violated state law by leaving the state for the sole purpose of getting married and then returning.

Mordecai wrote: Read the decision from Loving v. Virginia, where it discusses why marriage is a right. You'll see that legally, there are big differences. That you choose not to acknowledge doesn't change the obviousness of the differences.

Libertas: I've read the decision several times. I believe you're the one who is missing the point, as the decision had nothing to do with why marriage was regarded as a right but merely the fact that it was and some of the reasons (not the only reasons) why it was regarded as a fundamental right.

Mordecai wrote: I think a whole slew of judges and lawyers would disagree.

Libertas: I don't doubt it, but that wouldn't make them right.

Mordecai wrote: It's justice because the law is designed to cause people to fear to break the law. As they say, "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime." The idea is that society, as a whole, agrees to the laws and punishments and criminals are caused to be fearful of committing crimes.

Libertas: That says nothing about justice; only crime and punishment.

Mordecai wrote: Now, I will concede that when the gov't fails to scare criminals and educate them to stop them from committing crimes, that's an injustice.

Libertas: Again, it's not an injustice, it's merely ineffectual in preventing crime.

Mordecai wrote: But insofar as a perpetrator knew the law and knew what they were doing was wrong and knew there would be consequences, suffering those consequences is justice. They reaped what they sowed, basically.

Libertas: No, it is not justice, it is merely punishment, or vengeance.

Mordecai wrote: Don't use the word treatment next time, if you want to avoid absurdity. That's not in the Constitution and never was. Yet, every time I have this debate, people throw in that bonus word. It doesn't belong in this debate and has nothing to do with equal protection. It's you who doesn't seem to know the difference. I was correcting your absurd comment. I was mocking the absurdity of your use of the word. So stop.

Libertas: I never said it had anything to do with protection, and your assertion that I did is beating the wrong horse. It is not absurd to use the term "treatment" to refer to the privileges and benefits that don't fall under the term "protections" with respect to law.

Mordecai wrote: I don't think it's a minor injustice at all. It is a breach of the very basic principles of government to promote the public good and be representatives of the people, reason and justice. There are consequences to opening such a door, where the gov't begins to control language and in consequence, thought. We don't need Big Brother looking over our children's shoulder, "fixing" how they think by making adjustments to the language.

Libertas: A breach of the very basic principles of government because they have one of us go before the other on the arbitrary basis of the order of the alphabet and how our names are spelled? Perhaps you forgot what we were talking about here?

Mordecai wrote: I'm not a fan of prison either. I'm inclined to go with corporal punishment in some cases. Whatever causes people to fear committing crimes. I think prison is often counterproductive. That said, our society has laws that are agreed upon to prevent or punish criminals. When criminals commit those crimes, they know the consequences. They shouldn't commit the crime, if they don't want to do the time. In other words, they are, in that sense, reaping what they sowed. Not a perfect system by any means, but I can't say that sending a perpetrator to prison is an injustice.

Libertas: But it's not justice. It's merely punishment in most cases, and punishment is not justice.

[Mordecai]

As to whether a man is different from a woman, the answer is, it depends on the context. When it comes to the marriage, I maintain that a man is no different from a woman in their ability to consent to a domestic partnership.

How is that legally relevant, as opposed to the ability to naturally procreate? Why wouldn't that be relevant?

Job #2 is not to promote the public good, it is nowhere on the list.

Sorry, the wording is, "Promote the general welfare." I paraphrased but the word welfare was synonymous with good:

WEL´FARE, n. [well and fare, a good going; G. wohlfahrt; D. welvaard; Sw. valfart; Dan. velfærd.]

1. Exemption from misfortune, sickness, calamity or evil; the enjoyment of health and the common blessings of life; prosperity; happiness; applied to persons.

emphasis added. You could be forgiven for thinking that welfare meant something other than "good going," or, "exemption from... evil," as this dictionary puts it. But it's basically to promote the public good.

Funny that nowhere in the Constitution does it mention such an obligation. Instead, it mentions that government is obligated to serve the people.

It doesn't say it overtly, but the Declaration of Independence describes the founding fathers' philosophy on the matter. It is obligated to serve the people, which for Ben Franklin in particular, meant serving God. Jefferson apparently agreed, being the author of the DoI.

Reason and nature are not undercut by affording homosexual couples the same benefits and protections as heterosexual couples, no matter how whimsical or irrational you might imagine it to be. Quite to the contrary, reason demands that for justice to be dispensed equally without prejudice, such benefits must be afforded any couple or group of individuals capable of giving informed consent to civil contracts.

That makes no sense whatsoever. Again, so you're saying the gov't could give the same benefits to a father and adult daughter? Really? WHY? How about some common sense in government. They are supposed to be our representatives. How about they not be idiots and not promote what is almost universally agreed upon to be an evil. Again, the gov't ought to defer to reason. There is no reason to give any special recognition to an incestuous relationship. Maybe me and my split personality can form a union, too. That would be sexy.

The rationale in Loving v. Virginia involved determining whether discrimination based on race was a violation of the due process clause of the 14th amendment in denying what was already presumed to be a basic civil right.

I'm conflating Skinner v. Oklahoma (which is merely cited in the Loving case) with the Loving case. A central argument of the defense depended on prior rulings that determined that marriage was a right. If you look at those rulings like Skinner v. Oklahoma, you'll see why marriage is a fundamental right.

No, they were arrested for being a mixed-race couple who violated state law by leaving the state for the sole purpose of getting married and then returning.

No, because they were deemed married based on the evidence that they were "living together as husband and wife" in Loving v. Commonwealth.

That says nothing about justice; only crime and punishment.

Crime and punishment go along with your definition of justice, in fact. You included an example of two people fulfilling their obligations in a contract. The justice system (there's a reason it's called a justice system), provides a set of rules (as our representatives) that we as a society have adopted to help curb and control crime. The judicial branch of our gov't is obligated to keep up their end by imposing punishments to deter crime. We have our own responsibilities as citizens to keep up our end, which is to obey the law. It's mutually beneficial, and society as a whole "reaps what it sows" as do criminals.

No, it is not justice, it is merely punishment, or vengeance.

I would say it's a deterrence. As I said, justice is to reap what you sow. By that definition (and I haven't seen you prove that definition wrong), it is justice for a criminal to knowingly break the law and suffer the consequences, thereby reaping what they sowed.

It is not absurd to use the term "treatment"...

It is when you're talking about the Constitution. Again, since the government is supposed to provide justice, Constitutionally speaking, there is a mandate to not treat people equally, unless people behave the same, which they don't. That's what justice is.

[AmorLibertas]

Which is the issue as far as I am concerned.

Same-sex "marriage" is all about "rights, benefits, and privileges", it is not about marriage, per se.

Homosexuals want the goodies that go with marriage, but they (typically) do not want the responsibilities that come with it: Fidelity to the spouse, raising children of (and by) the spouse, providing for the spouse in her old age because she was unable to use her "productive life" to provide for herself because she was raising the children.

Whether they want the responsibilities is immaterial. Many heterosexuals don't want the responsibilities either. It is not sufficient justification to continue discrimination.

They want the (imaginary) tax benefits, the right to visit each other in the hospital, to decide who gets to be buried where, to inherit from each other tax-free, etc. All of these things and many more are possible without marriage (see a lawyer—I know how, but do not want to go to jail for providing free legal advice), so it is not these they really want. They want the goodies, as I said.

Yeah, they don't want the convenience of having all these things without spending hundreds of dollars hiring a lawyer instead of signing a boilerplate document at the courthouse. Oh and never mind that legislation has been, is being, and likely will be put forth to prevent many of these from being possible even with a lawyer.

As a libertarian, you, of all people, should be reluctant to have even more people enter into a contract that the government controls, can change on a whim, and which the parties themselves are unable to control. More government is not the answer. I have said that the only people who benefit from same sex "marriage" will be the divorce lawyers. Someone kindly pointed out that this is not true. There is another class who will benefit: bureaucrats and politicians.

Well then the same must likewise be true for heterosexual marriage as well. Shall we discourage heterosexuals from marrying too in order to avoid enriching the divorce lawyers and bureaucrats? Somehow I don't think you'll sincerely be suggesting so.

"Diversity" is an integral part of the definition of "marry" and its derivatives. We say we marry things like "poetry" and "music"; like "art" and "science". We do not say we marry "art" and "art", because it simply makes no sense. The things married must be different, and the marriage must be for an external purpose, one that expands the range of the things married. Yet those things cannot be too diverse, either: we do not marry "planets" and "mustard". They must fit each other.

No. They needn't be diverse. They need simply offer something of mutual benefit to each other. Diversity may enhance the range of benefits, but it is not integral.

Marriage means something. Same-sex "marriage" would undermine that meaning to the point of destroying it.

Balderdash and Poppycock. Name a single heterosexual couples' marriage that would be destroyed by allowing homosexuals to marry, and how that destruction would be manifest.

Let them have "gameins" or "trodes", let there be "joinings". But leave the fundamental entity of societies from time immemorial alone. Grant them the "rights, benefits, and privileges" (which I would rather see eliminated anyway) that married couples have, but do not destroy what we have left of the basis for families: without families, there will be no society.

Oh please. Homosexual marriage will not destroy your families. Stop with the histrionics and scare-mongering already.

[california boy]

Wow no response. Not surprising. It is a little more difficult to answer these questions than bicker or the definition of marrriage huh.

Quote

True hermaphroditism is a genetic condition that even people like Dave cannot deny. Occasionally people are born with both ovaries and testicles. They are mosaics, probably due to fraternal twinning with a male and female morula which then merge into a single fetus which has both XY and XX cell lines.

Can a true hermaphrodite marry?--because no matter whom they marry, they are entering into both an opposite sex and a same sex marriage. Is it wrong for them to even have a crush on another teenager, since that would constitute same sex attraction? Can they get a temple recommend?-- because it's a bit confusing to know which side of the endowment room they should sit on. Can they be ordained to the priesthood and pass the sacrament with their male cells, or do their female cells preclude priesthood ordination? If they adopt a child, are they recorded as the mother or father on the genealogical record? I guess the true hermaphrodite just has to be celibate and single, and attend Relief Society and Priesthood Meeting on alternate Sundays.

There is a known case of conjoined twin girls who have two heads, two thoraces, but only one abdomen and one pelvis, with a single set of sex organs. They could not be surgically divided as infants, since both would have died, so the parents opted to let them both live in this bizarre conjoined state. Since the two girls are two distinct beings with different personalities and thoughts, if they marry, can they both marry one man, or is that polyandy? If they marry two different men, does the one twin commit adultery while the other has sexual intercourse with her legally and lawfully married husband? Both, by simple laws of physics, must be present, using their common sexual organs for any intimacy that would occur.

Does a kid with Tourette's syndrome who involuntarily blurts out profanity just need Jesus in his life, or are his actions really beyond his control? (Didn't Paul say he wouldn't be tempted beyond his ability to resist?) Is Tourette's a mental illness or is it just a person choosing to be wicked?

If a person is genotypically XY, but has androgen insensitivity and looks and appears like a woman, is she spiritually a woman or spiritually a man? Can she be ordained to the priesthood since she has a Y chromosome? Does spirit match genotype or phenotype? And back to the true hermaphrodite, since there were two eggs fertilized by two different sperm, are there two spirits in the same body (one male and one female)?

Sexuality isn't tidy, no matter what BKP or anyone else in the church believes. For every "normal" you can provide me, I can provide you with a counterexample within the range of human genotype and phenotype. BKP seems to think that "God would never make you that way. How could he? He loves you!" But God makes the conjoined twins and the true hermaphrodites. So he must not love them, because according to BKP, they wouldn't be "born that way" if a loving God had anything to do with it.

The church hierarchy clings to their 'scriptural science' even when real science disproves their claims. When the papyri from which the facsimiles from the Pearl of Great Price were copied were actually found and translated (yes, they still exist), we learned that they have nothing to do with Abraham, but in spite of irrefutable scientific proof to the contrary, the church still believes that Joseph's 'translation' of the book is accurate, even when his very translations can be proved to be inaccurate. We concoct circumnavigations around the truth in order to keep believing the story which scripture tells us. Like the medieval church, we insist that the earth is the center of the universe and charge Copernicus with heresy for saying otherwise.

The beauty of the LDS faith is that some day in the not too distant future, a man who is 20 or 30 today will become the prophet, and with the ease of a single proclamation, declare that God now blesses monogamous same sex relationships and awards those righteous individuals their place in the second degree of the Celestial Kingdom. A few curmudgeons will spew and rant and leave the church, but the majority will secretly rejoice, just as we did with the revelation about blacks and the priesthood, and the church will go on, stepping along nicely as always, only a few short decades behind reality.

[Daniel2]

Why do think that I don't?

Do you believe that familial love between same-sex spouses "is a gift of God?" And that such love "cannot be forced, love cannot be coaxed and teased. It comes out of heaven, unasked and unsought"? And that love between same-sex spouses is also "the very essence of life; the pot of gold at the end of a rainbow; the beginning, and from it springs the beauty that arches across the sky on a stormy day; the security for which children weep, the meat and drink of youth, the adhesive that binds marriage and the lubricant that prevents devastating friction in the home; it is the peace of old age, the sunlight of hope shining through death," and that "those who lack it" are impoverished," and that "those who have it" are rich...?

Anyone of us can love someone deeply and passionately and yet know that to pursue that is wrong or can be dangerous to our eternal salvation. How many young men and women turn away from someone they love because that person isn't willing or able to go to the temple. Such sacrifices happen all the time. It's painful, it's hard and it's very lonely to have to make such choices. I know because I've been there. Once again you think that you are alone in such feelings when a heterosexual can experience the same thing. The fact that you would think your situation is unique shows that you think it's so easy to find love if you're a hetero when it can be just as hard and lonely a path.

This paragraph is indicative of why I presume that you don't see the love between same-sex spouses in the same light as you do the love between opposite-sex spouses.

I presume you don't believe the love that same-sex couples share for one another is a gift from God, given your view that it's "dangerous to our eternal salvation." As such, I imagine it's completely foreign to you that God would actually be the author of such love, and would want his gay sons and lesbian daughters to experience a full, intimate, enriching, self-sacrificing, loving same-sex relationship.

No... you have it wrong that I feel like "I'm alone in such feelings" or that "my situation is unique"--in fact, my point and message is EXACTLY the opposite: that our desire to love and be loved is universal and the same, whether we are straight or gay; homosexual or heterosexual; but apparently many straight folks feel that the approval that God feels for their relationships--and even "the gift of the love they feel for one another"--is uniquely-different from gay love, which love is apparently either a counterfeit or possibly a test.

Darin

[Damien the Leper]

Clearly, you are the guy we should have running the Church. Obviously. Why have confidence in those 15 men whose lives have been dedicated to serving the members of the Church with love, raising children, working successfully at various vocations, when we can have you? How awesome would you be? Who needs 15, when we could have Valentinus telling the members what Jesus Christ wants of us? Definitely the guy to do it.

Nice attempt at pointless antagonism. I never suggested that I run the church. I'm better off without it. The church will always have a place in my heart but it no longer determines the strength, meaning, depth of my relationship with Jesus or God.

[Deborah]

I imagine it's completely foreign to you that God would actually be the author of such love, and would want his gay sons and lesbian daughters to experience a full, intimate, enriching, self-sacrificing, loving same-sex relationship.

You are right I don't believe that God would want that. I do understand that gay people may feel that it is, but that doesn't make it so. I also don't believe that God is the author of "love" among heterosexuals. God is the author of commandments and expects obedience. Love thy neighbor as thyself is a commandment, but don't confuse that with mating with someone who is not appropriate. God also condemned Israel on many occasions for marrying outside the faith, and I bet some of those people really loved their spouses.

Love is something that we should have for all others and I think too often we confuse romantic love with the God-like (not God-authorized) love we should have for our spouses, our children and our neighbors.

[Damien the Leper]

Oh, I don't know that the word "homosexuality" is any where found in scripture. But then again "homosexuality" is likely a modern word.

But hey, there is this.

Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

And I am sure you can and will produce a flimsy explanation as to why I should believe that this doesn't mean what it says.

Perhaps some education on the context is needed. Paul wasn't condemning homosexuality in these verses. Paul was addressing temple prostitution and using sex for pagan idolatry. Bruce Metzger, Raymond Brown and Bart Ehrman know this and have addressed it.

Here is a link for terminology and a discussion of malakoi and arsenokoitai.

Greek Terminology

[Vance]

Perhaps some education on the context is needed. Paul wasn't condemning homosexuality in these verses. Paul was addressing temple prostitution and using sex for pagan idolatry. Bruce Metzger, Raymond Brown and Bart Ehrman know this and have addressed it.

Paul is condemning homosexual BEHAVIOR in those verses, the circumstances behind that behavior, in context, are irrelevant.

[Mordecai]

The churchno longer determines the strength, meaning, depth of my relationship with Jesus or God.

That's not a very Christian way to be a Christian:

Eph 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;//Eph 4:12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ://Eph 4:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ://Eph 4:14//That we [henceforth] be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, [and] cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

I mean, unless you we've finished forming a unity of faith and knowledge of the Son of God, "unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ."

You believe you know better than the apostles, which doesn't speak well for your level of faith in the scriptures, which are "the power of God unto salvation."

[Mordecai]

Oh please. Homosexual marriage will not destroy your families. Stop with the histrionics and scare-mongering already.

I'm with Lesellers on this. It's not about adults suddenly changing due to government policy. It's about the idea of marriage being torn down into something unrecognizable for future generations. If kids are so easily influenced to do dumb things like smoking and doing drugs, it shouldn't be hard to also influence them to believe marriage has nothing to do with having children, that biological parenthood means nothing, that children don't need a father or perhaps they don't need a mother and that natural procreation is just a side-note in human history, nothing to be grateful for or valued.

You tear down the basic tradition central to the building up of civilization, the primary place from which human beings derive strength against all the evils of the world and what do you have left? Without the traditional family, everything we know that is good deteriorates and will eventually be destroyed. What do you think is wrong with our society today? I guarantee that further weakening the family will hasten the process of producing a society full of hedonistic, ignorant, immature, irresponsible, hate-filled narcissists.

This isn't just speculation:

The above represents some basic behavioral science.

Fill in the blanks for an environment that teaches that marriage is only about adults and that biological parenthood is irrelevant, which feeds back into...

Thoughts coming from absent father and nihilistic messages coming from the government: "Perhaps my father doesn't love me, because he left, and people around me believe his absence is irrelevant including the gov't." This feeds into...

Physiology: anxiety/depression cause deteriorating health and impaired judgment. This feeds into...

Actions/behavior resulting from thoughts: Addictive behavior to avoid negative feelings. Abandon family, isolate self to avoid abuse issues stemming from having an abusive step father. Rebel against nihilistic government and society via anti-social behavior.

Give this anti-family dogma a few generations to fester, allow people to develop more anger toward such an irrational and corrupt government and see if this kind of stuff doesn't become more widespread than it already is. Which part of this can't possibly occur due to gov't dogma that a gay union is the same as a marriage? The implications of "gay marriage," if adopted as truth by society, are incredibly destructive, if behavioral science has anything to say about this debate.

If children had real power, like an interest group, you can bet that they'd be fighting for simple things, like having both of their biological parents around. The U.N. children's bill of rights, apparently, is a step in the right direction. The French government cites that as the reason they have rejected "gay marriage."

[Damien the Leper]

That's not a very Christian way to be a Christian:

I mean, unless you we've finished forming a unity of faith and knowledge of the Son of God, "unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ."

You believe you know better than the apostles, which doesn't speak well for your level of faith in the scriptures, which are "the power of God unto salvation."

Don't be presumptuous. I know what is right for me because of the confirmations I receive from God through prayer. The apostles are good guys but not the good guys I need to be listening to. There is only one good guy that deserves all my praise and who is fully qualified to counsel me.

[Damien the Leper]

Paul is condemning homosexual BEHAVIOR in those verses, the circumstances behind that behavior, in context, are irrelevant.

Context is everything. Circumstance provides understanding. We have ignoramuses running amock and spreading the lie that Sodom was destroyed because of homosexuality. The prophet Ezekiel had this to say:

“This is the sin of Sodom; she and her suburbs had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not help or encourage the poor and needy. They were arrogant and this was abominable in God’s eyes.”

Ezekiel 16:48-49

From Rev. Mel White:

PASSAGE 4

ROMANS 1:26-27

NATURAL AND UNNATURAL

What does Romans 1:26-27 say about God?

For our discussion, this is the most controversial biblical passage of them all. In Romans 1:26-27 the apostle Paul describes non-Jewish women who exchange “natural use for unnatural” and non-Jewish men who “leave the natural use of women, working shame with each other.”

This verse appears to be clear: Paul sees women having sex with women and men having sex with men, and he condemns that practice. But let’s go back 2,000 years and try to understand why.

Paul is writing this letter to Rome after his missionary tour of the Mediterranean. On his journey Paul had seen great temples built to honor Aphrodite, Diana, and other fertility gods and goddesses of sex and passion instead of the one true God the apostle honors. Apparently, these priests and priestesses engaged in some odd sexual behaviors — including castrating themselves, carrying on drunken sexual orgies, and even having sex with young temple prostitutes (male and female) — all to honor the gods of sex and pleasure.

The Bible is clear that sexuality is a gift from God. Our Creator celebrates our passion. But the Bible is also clear that when passion gets control of our lives, we’re in deep trouble.

When we live for pleasure, when we forget that we are God’s children and that God has great dreams for our lives, we may end up serving the false gods of sex and passion, just as they did in Paul’s time. In our obsession with pleasure, we may even walk away from the God who created us — and in the process we may cause God to abandon all the great dreams God has for our lives.

Did these priests and priestesses get into these behaviors because they were lesbian or gay? I don’t think so. Did God abandon them because they were practicing homosexuals? No. Read the text again.

In our Soulforce video, There’s a Wideness in God’s Mercy, the Rev. Dr. Louis B. Smedes, a distinguished Christian author and ethicist, describes exactly how the Bible says these promiscuous priests and priestesses got into this mess. Once again it has nothing to do with homosexuality:

SMEDES: “The people Paul had in mind refused to acknowledge and worship God, and for this reason were abandoned by God. And being abandoned by God, they sank into sexual depravity.”

SMEDES: “The homosexuals I know have not rejected God at all; they love God and they thank God for his grace and his gifts. How, then, could they have been abandoned to homosexuality as a punishment for refusing to acknowledge God?”

SMEDES: “Nor have the homosexuals that I know given up heterosexual passions for homosexual lusts. They have been homosexual from the moment of their earliest sexual stirrings. They did not change from one orientation to another; they just discovered that they were homosexual. It would be unnatural for most homosexuals to have heterosexual sex.”

SMEDES: “And the homosexual people I know do not lust after each other any more than heterosexual people do… their love for one another is likely to be just as spiritual and personal as any heterosexual love can be.”

Thank you, Dr. Smedes. (To get a copy of the video featuring Dr. Smedes, There’s a Wideness in God’s Mercy, visit www.soulforce.org.)

Getting to know a lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender person of faith will help you realize that it is unreasonable (and unjust) to compare our love for each other to the rituals of the priests and priestesses who pranced around the statues of Aphrodite and Diana. Once again, I feel certain this passage says a lot about God, but nothing about homosexuality as we understand it.

You’ll also note that Romans 2 begins with “Therefore, [referring to Romans 1], you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself…” Even after he describes the disturbing practices he has seen, Paul warns us that judging others is God’s business, not ours.

Fortunately for us, modern revelation doesn't contradict historical context and historical fact is maintained.

[Damien the Leper]

You tear down the basic idea of marriage, the central tradition to the building up of civilization, the primary place from which human beings derive strength against all the evils of the world, you destroy civilization and all that is good. Without the traditional family, everything we know that is good deteriorates and will eventually be destroyed. What do you think is wrong with our society today? I guarantee that further weakening the family will hasten the process of producing a society full of hedonistic, ignorant, immature, irresponsible, hate-filled narcissists.

And those dang heteros have done a bang up job with marriage all on their own. Don't need the filthy homos to make an already bad statistic worse! Stop with the regurgitated slop coming from the pulpit.

[Mordecai]

I know what is right for me because of the confirmations I receive from God through prayer.

Through prayer but while simultaneously ignoring the scriptures, which are the word of God.

The apostles are good guys but not the good guys I need to be listening to.

That's not what the scriptures say.

There is only one good guy that deserves all my praise and who is fully qualified to counsel me.

So the Lord's servants aren't qualified to counsel you? According to Jesus, if you reject his servants, you reject Him. You publicly recommended people stop listening to them, actually, so this isn't just about your personal life.

[Mordecai]

And those dang heteros have done a bang up job with marriage all on their own. Don't need the filthy homos to make an already bad statistic worse! Stop with the regurgitated slop coming from the pulpit.

Did you even read what I said? Apparently not. I never mentioned homosexuals being the cause of anything. I mentioned the gov't confusing what a marriage is, resulting in impressionable young people being harmed. And you call me presumptuous? Why so angry and assuming? Sounds like you're angry at heterosexuals, too. I never said heterosexuals are doing a great job. But of course, just because people aren't doing a good job as it is, does that mean we should just give up and throw everything away by allowing the gov't to adopt left-wing-extremist marriage dogma? That will make things worse than ever and hasten the process of corrupting society.

[Rivers]

And those dang heteros have done a bang up job with marriage all on their own. Don't need the filthy homos to make an already bad statistic worse! Stop with the regurgitated slop coming from the pulpit.

I really like the quote you have written at the bottom of your messages.

[Acris Venator]

I agree with LeSellers. If this were really about civil rights, then civil unions would be the goal. Because all of the rights of visitation, inheritance, co-ownership, tax breaks, Etc. can be written into the law regarding civil unions.

But this fight is not about civil rights. It is about changing the meaning of a word. That is why the church will ultimately not budge on this issue.

Marriage is not just an ordinary word, it is perhaps the most important word. It is simultaneously the Lord's sealing covenant and the grand symbol for Christ's atonement: the marriage of the Bridegroom and the Bride.

So then the question becomes: Why do homosexuals require that word when civil unions can grant them all the civil rights they seek?

[Sky]

Perhaps the Government should get out of the marriage business altogether and let it be solely a religious ceremony. Those religious denominations that sanction same-sex unions could continue to do so, and the ones that sanction only man-woman unions could also continue to do so. They could call it whatever they want. At least in theory, this could keep all the anti-Government Libertarian types and the pro-gay marriage people happy. But somehow, I don’t think it would play out like this - the issue is much more complex than that. Unfortunately, I don’t think there is a solution that would keep everybody happy.