The inevitability of the rise of gay-affirming Christianity

[jskains]

jskains,

I was raised Evangelical, and pretty hardcore anti-gay.Even when I joined the LDS Church, I kept my assumptions and position of anti-gay. It's been my personal experience with homosexuals, and critically searching the scriptures and scientific arguments that have led to a change over a significant period of time to my current position. I'm not gay. As far as I know, I don't have any gay family members. I don't have a horse in the race, so to speak.

I have been shown to have my position changed by experience and evidence, and have expressed my willingness to be changed on seeing better evidence.

I examined the evidence of the assertions that were presented here as ;legitimate concerns', and find them insubstantial, dishonest, and lacking of any convincing power.

There may be some legitimate reasons for being opposed to SSM. None have yet been substantially presented in this thread.

I do think the argument with the most potential would be a legitimate study showing that children who grow up with committed and honest gay parents are significantly emotionally disadvantaged from those who grow up with equally committed and honest straight parents. I would be very interested in seeing such a study. That would certainly be worth studying and considering. An assertion that this is fact is not enough. I would need to see data.

That's all great, but your comments seem just as hardened as you likely see mine. You dismiss what you don't like and sit on a high horse, nose in the air, commanding that no one has presented evidence that you approve of, as if you're some marker that we all aspire to appease.

Just commenting on my observations.

[jskains]

• Advocacy of Homosexuality is a conspiracy related to population control.
  
• Legalizing Gay Marriage encourages and enables the organizations trying to legalize pedosex
  
• Kids of Gay Parents are disadvantaged
  

Regrouping, what are the other non-religious / non-"I just don't like it" arguments still on the table?

EDIT: Found another:

• Allowing Gay Marriage will infringe on legal rights for the practice of opposing religions
  
• Allowing Gay Marriage will infringe on legal rights concerning public education
  

Are these groupings a form of mockery for you and your supporters or are you legitimately striving to understand our position?

JMS

[Deborah]

Suppose I categorized left-handed people as suffering from "Left Hand Compulsion (LHC)"? Do you think they wouldn't be offended by that?

No, but in any case the description wouldn't fit and isn't a compulsion. A person is left handed because of which side of the brain is stronger. Even if you say that a person's sexual orientation is purely biological, which it isn't in many cases and which is still up for debate in others, it is still a matter of one's attraction and not one's ability to act as many who are gay don't necessarily act on that. SSA is merely saying that is how they are oriented not how they must act.

[David T]

That's all great, but your comments seem just as hardened as you likely see mine. You dismiss what you don't like and sit on a high horse, nose in the air, commanding that no one has presented evidence that you approve of, as if you're some marker that we all aspire to appease.

Just commenting on my observations.

jskains,

The evidence that was presented didn't say what the links were presenting them as saying. Other assertions made had others present evidence that directly disproves the assersions.

It's possible I missed and did not address some substantial presentation of evidence here that is convincing to you. Could you please present it to me?

When the evidence does not back up the assertions, I feel justified in not accepting it. As I pointed out before, I did used to have a hardened position. The evidence changed my views. I'm open to having them changed back. You, on the other hand, have not expressed whether you're willing to recant your position (at least for some specific reasons for your opposition) if the evidence is shown not to add up.

[David T]

Are these groupings a form of mockery for you and your supporters or are you legitimately striving to understand our position?

JMS

I am legitimately striving to understand the position. Just as I read each article presented by Loran and presented my thoughts on them, I'm willing to explore others. If you're familiar with my posting here, I hope you'll recognize my habit of sincerity, reasoning, and general lack of mockery. Those also familiar with my posting here know that I am able to have my opinions shifted based on convincing arguments that are backed up.

the list is useful for recognizing what has been discussed, and what has not been. And perhaps for exploring arguments I have been missing, or did not consider.

Edited September 26, 2011 by nackhadlow

[Deborah]

In a way, Gay Marriage could possibly be viewed as a positive development - a way to create an option of harmony and reconciliation between homosexuals and the gospel, contrary to just something else trying to destroy it.

Wow, you just don't get it. Homosexuality or SSA or whatever you want to call it is only a condition of mortality. Accepting marriage of something that is neither in keeping with God's standards or will be eternal in nature is contrary to the purpose of the gospel which is to help people become Celestial beings. We don't help the alcoholic by aiding his habit and providing the very thing that will keep him from progressing. We set a higher standard. That doesn't mean you withhold love from someone who isn't living as they should, but neither do you do anything which won't be for their best interest in the long run.

[David T]

Also, for the record, my views on this are not something I actively publicly present and discuss. I do not bring this up in Church settings, or even on facebook or my blog. I view this as being a legitimate forum to discuss and explore mypresent thoughts, conclusions, and arguments, and have them substantially corrected, changed, or refined.

[Daniel2]

Wow, you just don't get it. Homosexuality or SSA or whatever you want to call it is only a condition of mortality. Accepting marriage of something that is neither in keeping with God's standards or will be eternal in nature is contrary to the purpose of the gospel which is to help people become Celestial beings. We don't help the alcoholic by aiding his habit and providing the very thing that will keep him from progressing. We set a higher standard. That doesn't mean you withhold love from someone who isn't living as they should, but neither do you do anything which won't be for their best interest in the long run.

Hey, Deb,

Can you point to anything doctrinally-authoritative that definitively states that it is official LDS doctine that homosexuality or "same-sex attraction" is, in your words, "only a condition of mortality"...?

Here's the main cannonical passage I've always understood to conflict with that assertion:

...after this day of life, which is given us to prepare for eternity, behold, if we do not improve our time while in this life, then cometh the ^dnight of ^edarkness wherein there can be no labor performed.

Ye cannot say, when ye are brought to that awful ^acrisis, that I will repent, that I will return to my God. Nay, ye cannot say this; for that same spirit which doth ^bpossess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world. (emphasis added)

Alma 34:33-34

As I've always read that passage, I understand the phrase beginning with "that same spirit" to mean that the personality attributes and attitudes we have in this life will remain the same, after we die (according to LDS belief)--we don't cease to be who we are, and tranform into someone else (which would seem to defeat the point of this life being some sort of mortal school/test/probation). Something as intrinsically personal as "whom and how one loves" would seem to be an integral--as well as eternal--part of the "'spirit' that possesses one's body." If familial love/affection and relationships aren't eternal, then the entire point of the LDS Plan of Salvation and Celestial Marriage would seem to be meaningless.

Daniel2

Edited September 26, 2011 by Daniel2

[David T]

Wow, you just don't get it. Homosexuality or SSA or whatever you want to call it is only a condition of mortality.

So your position is that after death, all gays will automagically be attracted and be able to fall in love with solely those of the opposite 'gender'?

Accepting marriage of something that is neither in keeping with God's standards or will be eternal in nature is contrary to the purpose of the gospel which is to help people become Celestial beings. We don't help the alcoholic by aiding his habit and providing the very thing that will keep him from progressing. We set a higher standard. That doesn't mean you withhold love from someone who isn't living as they should, but neither do you do anything which won't be for their best interest in the long run.

I don't understand Homosexual attraction and love being compared with Alcoholism, which is known to by definition as a substance abuse that results in physical and deep emotional harm, injury, and death to self, friends, family, and other innocent bystanders.

I think the point I made that you don't address is the nature of what constitutes progress in the Gospel, and what constitutes eternal love and commitment. Your position seems to be that the deep love and commitment homosexuals feel towards their partners will suddenly be removed at death. Is that how you see it?

Edited September 26, 2011 by nackhadlow

[David T]

For the record, believe it or not, I do have respect for a, "I am in opposition to it because I have a firm conviction and feel that God is against it, even though I don't understand it,". I can't really argue against that. Believe it or not, I can even respect that position. I once held that position.

But when specific reasons and justifications are given and cited as reasons to back it up, those are open to being analyzed and discussed.

The problem is, the former, while being a legitimate moral conviction, isn't a position that will hold up in a legal argument - which is what is at stake here. While we certainly have the right to go to the polls with a "God wants me to" reason, when the issue is being debated in courts, that simply isn't sufficient.

Edited September 26, 2011 by nackhadlow

[Calm]

This is the ultimate irony. I could say all homosexuals are deviant rapists who want to harm society. Your reaction would be the equivalent that pro-pedophilia people would have toward your believes on pedophiles.

JMS

Just because reasoning is wrong in one case and should be dismissed does not mean it should be dismissed in all cases. It is the additional factors that demonstrate the appropriateness in the one and the lack in the other. Ignoring the additional factors and treating them as equivalent is a logical fallacy.

Edited September 26, 2011 by calmoriah

[Deborah]

Hey, Deb,

Can you point to anything doctrinally-authoritative that definitively states that it is official LDS doctine that homosexuality or "same-sex attraction" is, in your words, "only a condition of mortality"...?

You are forgetting that the Atonement will play a part. It is through the Atonement that we overcome all the physical proclivities that keep us from perfection, even after this life. I suggest you re-read Pres. Oaks talk, http://lds.org/liaho...UALITY+ETERNITY or any other discussions on this issue. Acting on SSA is considered a sin, subject to repentance. Celestial marriage is between a man and a woman. There is no indication in any scriptural of reference that it will ever be anything else. Given that all will be made perfect (or made whole) through the Atonement then such desires that are not in keeping with the commandments of God will eventually be overcome.

I'm sorry if you don't like the idea, but I don't see how it can be seen any other way. The idea some have expressed, ie nackhadlow, that because those same feelings and desires follow us that somehow they will be accepted is just not doctrinal. No these feelings will not be "suddenly removed at death" but the repentance process continues up to the resurrection. As one begins to understand more of what eternal life means he will put aside those things that do not contribute to what God has planned for him.

I can tell you as someone who has a number of years of experience, that many of the desires I had as a young person simply are not permanent and because as we grow we understand some things just don't matter in the long run, why would this be any different in the Spirit World.

[Deborah]

I don't understand Homosexual attraction and love being compared with Alcoholism, which is known to by definition as a substance abuse that results in physical and deep emotional harm, injury, and death to self, friends, family, and other innocent bystanders.

You obviously are not aware that alcoholism can be linked to genetic influences: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19062348. Does that mean we should allow people to continue to abuse it. No we actually have programs to help people overcome it.

[Calm]

Try as you might, they have an agressive set of arguments that sound a LOT like they are out of the pro-gay playbook.

That someone uses an argument inappropriately does not exclude an argument from ever being appropriate.

This would be a guilt by association fallacy, I think (could be wrong, never have been that great with getting the labels right).

Edited September 26, 2011 by calmoriah

[Calm]

If you're going to claim to be doing your own homework, perhaps you ought to actually do some.

http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/587ba2826ef77905.pdf

This is not a government site. What is there to prevent someone from 'forging' a government pamphlet and posting it as if it was real?

[Ares]

A timely reminder: This topic is of great sensitivity to many posters. Please keep the tone respectful and avoid linking inflammatory resources or stories.

This discussion should be about church and religious relations with homosexuals and homosexuality NOT side discussions about the politics of homosexuality. It is a fine line I know- but given the sensitivity of this topic I must insist on respectful dialogue and not wandering off topic.

[jskains]

I don't understand Homosexual attraction and love being compared with Alcoholism, which is known to by definition as a substance abuse that results in physical and deep emotional harm, injury, and death to self, friends, family, and other innocent bystanders.

Alchoholism is the single best comparison. Homosexuality and Achoholism are conditions that result in a behavior. Both are considered to have a genetic component. Both are currently rejected by society.

JMS

[Calm]

Is that good enough homework for you, Loran?

thank you for taking the time to translate it.

[Damien the Leper]

Propogating the stance that homosexuality is a form of disorder or condition is at best...naive. What is absolutely surprising is that the scriptures are silent on the matter. Lev. 18:20, Romans 1:26-27, 1 & 2 Timothy, etc. are not in context support for a conservative position. The Bible is not a book about sex it is a book about God and how He relates to His creation.

The two words in the Greek manuscripts, malakoi and arsenokoitai, do not denote the traditionally conservative sense. They more specifically describe a personal affliction and offense against oneself or possibly used as adjectives.

This issue will continue to be a topic of debate so long as religionists pit the conservative theology against liberal theology. Perhaps Moderate Theology is a more appropriate road that allows for the greatest commandment ever given to be put in full effect. LOVE. God is LOVE. Jesus is LOVE. LOVE is what we should be and strive for and be an example of.

[wenglund]

How will "following the trend" enable the Church to better meet its purpose in bringing us to Christ and enabling us to become like him and one with he and the Father.

In other words, how would "following the trend" help us on the path of progression and in fulfillment of the plan of salvation?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Propogating the stance that homosexuality is a form of disorder or condition is at best...naive.

What is the basis for this claim?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[KevinG]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not a club or fraternal organization. While the church has social components it is not democratic in the sense that other organizations are and in a position to change doctrine and practice to suit its environment.

In some respects it is an advantage to have this as a fortress against the whims and fads of society. On the other hand being a "peculiar people" can be a liability when it comes to getting along with our neighbors and even our brothers and sisters.

Church membership is voluntary - and it requires an attitude adjustment for anyone who seeks to be fully active. For some it is dietary. For others financial. For others sexual. But all are required to give up the natural man in order to seek the spiritual gifts of the Gospel.

This should not cause church members to put more weight on one kind of struggle or sin more than others. A flaw we should fight against. For example: sisters treating a visiting smoker like a leper.

On the other hand we should not excuse some behaviors becuase they are deeper or harder struggles than others, or less socially acceptable. For example: I am not in favor of easing the restrictions on youth dating because it is socially conservative or causes our youth to be teased and bullied.

As far as the use of terms like Same Sex Attraction. The only times I have seen that term used is to distinguish it from homosexual behavior. The first being considered a temptation or weakness, the latter a sin according to our church laws.

[Damien the Leper]

What is the basis for this claim?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Because the person's individual experience is the over-riding factor. There isn't a diagnosis for homosexual behavior because that denotes a medical or psychological condition.

If you want a highly laughable and grossly regurgitated understanding of conservative ideas on the subject check out Michael Brown's book A Queer Thing Happened to America.

As a homosexual and in my experience of God, I believe that God transcends sexual orientation, gender, race, etc. They are non-issues because God is more than any of that. God is not to be subjected to finite characteristics but to be understood to be outside the human concepts of 'forever' and 'eternal'.

[Daniel2]

You are forgetting that the Atonement will play a part. It is through the Atonement that we overcome all the physical proclivities that keep us from perfection, even after this life. I suggest you re-read Pres. Oaks talk, http://lds.org/liaho...UALITY+ETERNITY or any other discussions on this issue. Acting on SSA is considered a sin, subject to repentance. Celestial marriage is between a man and a woman. There is no indication in any scriptural of reference that it will ever be anything else. Given that all will be made perfect (or made whole) through the Atonement then such desires that are not in keeping with the commandments of God will eventually be overcome.

I'm sorry if you don't like the idea, but I don't see how it can be seen any other way. The idea some have expressed, ie nackhadlow, that because those same feelings and desires follow us that somehow they will be accepted is just not doctrinal. No these feelings will not be "suddenly removed at death" but the repentance process continues up to the resurrection. As one begins to understand more of what eternal life means he will put aside those things that do not contribute to what God has planned for him.

I can tell you as someone who has a number of years of experience, that many of the desires I had as a young person simply are not permanent and because as we grow we understand some things just don't matter in the long run, why would this be any different in the Spirit World.

Deb,

I've said nothing about liking or disliking your idea--and my reaction really isn't the point. What you say above is all fine and good, as an explanation of your personal feelings and private belief on the subject of the atonement, celestial marriage, etc, but it doesn't really answer the question I posed:

Can you point to anything doctrinally-authoritative that definitively states that it is official LDS doctine that homosexuality or "same-sex attraction" is, in your words, "only a condition of mortality"...?

(As I've learned many times through FAIR and here on MD&D, talks in The Ensign aren't cannonical sources).

Daniel2

Edited September 26, 2011 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

Alchoholism is the single best comparison. Homosexuality and Achoholism are conditions that result in a behavior. Both are considered to have a genetic component. Both are currently rejected by society.

JMS

Responsible consumption of alcohol by adult citizens isn't "rejected by society." It's actually sanctioned and regulated, as any responsible behavior may be. As in all things, any virtue taken to an extreme may become a vice; but many things in moderation may be lovely, praiseworthy, and of good report.

A similar comparison could be made for the case of sexual behavior, as well as of marriage, itself.

Daniel2

Edited September 26, 2011 by Daniel2