The inevitability of the rise of gay-affirming Christianity

[Deborah]

instead of one that is constantly telling them that they're a mistake, and that God hates how they inherently feel, and that the idea of Heaven being preached (a lifetime of heterosexual marriage) seems more like h***.

You really do not understand the gospel or the Atonement. God loves all his children and has given them commandments in order for them to reach their highest potentail. The Atonement was put in place because God recognized the difficulty that this would be in a world full of sin. "Heaven" is what it is; it's not a matter of how it's preached. There are specific requirements for exaltation. Those not willing to pay the price will find their own place in eternity but there is no marriage except between a man and woman. But if you think God will leave people to mourn their mortal longings you are mistaken. All unnatural and sinful feelings will eventually be done away with as the Atonement takes full effect.

[David T]

HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT A RACE!!! Stop comparing it to blacks!!! Being black is not a behavior! Being homosexual is not a RACE!

Ugh this comparison is so poor, I do not understand why it keeps getting repeated! It's insulting to African Americans.

If the day came when a statement like the above edited version of McConkie's was read over the pulpit, what would your reaction be? Would you prayerfully reconsider, or would you leave the Church? You don't have to answer here. I just want you to think about it.

This is a question open to any of those who are passionately against homosexuality in general.

Edited September 27, 2011 by nackhadlow

[jskains]

People seem to forget one of the key aspects of what Christianity is and what we, as Christians are supposed to do.

We are supposed to elevate ourselves beyond the natural instincts of Animals. We are not supposed to follow the drive of hormones and sexual desires. We are not supposed to act on rage and pure survival. We are supposed to part with those feelings and move forward.

I am a guy. I like pretty girls. I am married. Supposedly, we are not a monogamous species. We desire to mate with whatever we can. But we are not supposed to act on those instincts, we are supposed to be elevated. We are supposed to no longer follow the ways of the animals. That is why when people do us wrong, we don't just react and kill them.

But I see a lot of people reminding us that supposedly there is evidence of homosexuality in animals. So? That is completely against the point. Even if homosexuality is an instinct, an urge, a genetic construct, we are supposed to elevate ourselves above that.

In the Island of Doctor Monroe, when the animal/human hybrids lost control, they all started mating with each other regardless of... well anything. Humans under Christian ideology are not supposed to revert back to that type of state.

This is a very key component of Christianity that seems to be ignored. And I am confused why this is getting ignored.

JMS

[David T]

You really do not understand the gospel or the Atonement.

That's fine that you feel that way. Just know the feeling is mutual.

[jskains]

If the day came when a statement like the above edited version of McConkie's was read over the pulpit, what would your reaction be? Would you prayerfully reconsider, or would you leave the Church? You don't have to answer here. I just want you to think about it.

This is a question open to any of those who are passionately against homosexuality in general.

I would believe the Church has fallen under the spell of man-made doctrines and I would be forced to walk away and hope that God would bring forth a true prophet to replace the fallen one, or simply start the second coming.

Just being honest.

JMS

[volgadon]

As an HG Wells fan I must correct you, Dr. Moreau not Monroe.

[jskains]

That's not what Brigham Young or Bruce R. McConkie thought. They were sure they were on scriptural solid ground.

There is no position in the Bible that says clearly "And black men shall be an abomination, not to hold my priesthood".

It is not as clear as homosexuality being an abomination.

JMS

[jskains]

As an HG Wells fan I must correct you, Dr. Moreau not Monroe.

Yes, I apologize. I couldn't figure out how to spell it and OSX's auto-correction came up with that.

[David T]

I would believe the Church has fallen under the spell of man-made doctrines and I would be forced to walk away and hope that God would bring forth a true prophet to replace the fallen one, or simply start the second coming.

Just being honest.

JMS

So you would leave the Church rather than even consider that the Prophet received revelation that disagrees with your interpretation of scripture and tradition. Fair enough. It wouldn't be the first time official declarations overturning deeply held beliefs ,traditions, and policies led to splinter groups of dissenters seeking a New Restoration.

[jskains]

So you would leave the Church rather than even consider that the Prophet received revelation that disagrees with your interpretation of scripture and tradition. Fair enough. It wouldn't be the first time official declarations overturning deeply held beliefs ,traditions, and policies led to splinter groups of dissenters seeking a New Restoration.

I've already prayed about this issue, and I feel my position is clear and Biblically sound. Again, we are not talking about someone's skin color. We are talking about a behavior clearly condemned by God.

JMS

[David T]

Alright. I think I'm done with this thread now. I think anything further I say will just be repetition. Carry on, but don't expect any further responses from me here in this thread.

Edited September 27, 2011 by nackhadlow

[jskains]

Alright. I think I'm done with this thread now. Carry on, but don't expect any further responses from me here in this thread.

http://lds.org/scriptures/nt/1-cor/6?lang=eng

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effeminacy

JMS

[Ares]

People seem to forget one of the key aspects of what Christianity is and what we, as Christians are supposed to do.

We are supposed to elevate ourselves beyond the natural instincts of Animals. We are not supposed to follow the drive of hormones and sexual desires. We are not supposed to act on rage and pure survival. We are supposed to part with those feelings and move forward.

I am a guy. I like pretty girls. I am married. Supposedly, we are not a monogamous species. We desire to mate with whatever we can. But we are not supposed to act on those instincts, we are supposed to be elevated. We are supposed to no longer follow the ways of the animals. That is why when people do us wrong, we don't just react and kill them.

But I see a lot of people reminding us that supposedly there is evidence of homosexuality in animals. So? That is completely against the point. Even if homosexuality is an instinct, an urge, a genetic construct, we are supposed to elevate ourselves above that.

In the Island of Doctor Monroe, when the animal/human hybrids lost control, they all started mating with each other regardless of... well anything. Humans under Christian ideology are not supposed to revert back to that type of state.

This is a very key component of Christianity that seems to be ignored. And I am confused why this is getting ignored.

JMS

Merged with the "inevitability..." topic.

[The Nehor]

People seem to forget one of the key aspects of what Christianity is and what we, as Christians are supposed to do.

We are supposed to elevate ourselves beyond the natural instincts of Animals. We are not supposed to follow the drive of hormones and sexual desires.

So I can give up on the whole marriage thing and the holier you are the less likely you are to have children. Logically the most active and devoted LDS would have smaller families and.....hey, wait a minute.

We are not supposed to act on rage and pure survival. We are supposed to part with those feelings and move forward.

There aren't many who act just on those in any case. There are a few but they are mostly in asylums where they belong.

I am a guy. I like pretty girls. I am married. Supposedly, we are not a monogamous species. We desire to mate with whatever we can. But we are not supposed to act on those instincts, we are supposed to be elevated. We are supposed to no longer follow the ways of the animals. That is why when people do us wrong, we don't just react and kill them.

True, and you're not advocating celibacy obviously. You have something they cannot lawfully have. This is not unique to homosexuality. It applies to the handicapped who want to walk, the greedy who want to hoard, the wrathful who are commanded to have charity, etc.

It's just instead they are dealing with a much more powerful urge. They deserve sympathy.

But I see a lot of people reminding us that supposedly there is evidence of homosexuality in animals. So? That is completely against the point. Even if homosexuality is an instinct, an urge, a genetic construct, we are supposed to elevate ourselves above that.

This is true in a way but you can't reverse-generalize from "homosexual behavior is a sin" to "natural urges are sins". See above.

Rather then saying we are supposed to "elevate ourselves above" I would say instead that we are to prioritize the spiritual over the natural. A feast is a good thing but sometimes fasting is better. Love of God is better then love of a dog but love of a dog is not excluded. Prayer may be holier then sex but sex has its place.

In the Island of Doctor Monroe, when the animal/human hybrids lost control, they all started mating with each other regardless of... well anything. Humans under Christian ideology are not supposed to revert back to that type of state.

I question whether this is reverting as most animals don't do this.

[jskains]

So I can give up on the whole marriage thing and the holier you are the less likely you are to have children. Logically the most active and devoted LDS would have smaller families and.....hey, wait a minute.

Pretty weak. I think you spent too much time trying to be funny.

I question whether this is reverting as most animals don't do this.

Expert on animal behavior, are we?

[Calm]

A minor nitpick that has nothing to do with the argument...

It's just instead they are dealing with a much more powerful urge. They deserve sympathy.

There are individuals for whom the sex drive is not all that powerful, some for which it is even nonexistent.

[The Nehor]

Pretty weak. I think you spent too much time trying to be funny.

You were the one who wanted to rise above animal behavior yet I don't see you choosing a monastic lifestyle and despising the pleasures of the flesh to gain holier joys.

I'm pointing out that the general command is not to despise the pleasures of the flesh or to escape being an animal. It's to become fully human which will include the joys of eating, sex, the smell of the sea, and many other sensory pleasures.

Expert on animal behavior, are we?

Enough to know that most animals are not continually engaged in orgies. It's telling that you referred to Dr. Moreau (fiction) and not Animal Planet.

[The Nehor]

There are individuals for whom the sex drive is not all that powerful, some for which it is even nonexistent.

Quite right. I should have included that proviso. An interesting point though because generally they are the ones who are perceived as flawed (in a non-sinful sense) by members of the Church and even by God. If rising above animal desires was the goal they would have a leg up on the rest of us.

[jskains]

You were the one who wanted to rise above animal behavior yet I don't see you choosing a monastic lifestyle and despising the pleasures of the flesh to gain holier joys.

I'm pointing out that the general command is not to despise the pleasures of the flesh or to escape being an animal. It's to become fully human which will include the joys of eating, sex, the smell of the sea, and many other sensory pleasures.

Enough to know that most animals are not continually engaged in orgies. It's telling that you referred to Dr. Moreau (fiction) and not Animal Planet.

Yes it is telling. Because Animal Planet has not become a reality show cesspool catering to popular culture in order to make a buck...

[The Nehor]

Yes it is telling. Because Animal Planet has not become a reality show cesspool catering to popular culture in order to make a buck...

Now who is trying to be funny?

It's true though that most animals don't copulate much more then they need to to reproduce. Some do more then others of course but humans are more sex-obsessed then pretty much any animal so I don't think we can equate human sexual desire with animalism or 'natural desires'.

This is shown most clearly in the following clip which may also be what you are glad Animal Planet has not become:

Edited September 27, 2011 by The Nehor

[TAO]

All I can say is, wow.

Based on your analysis, perhaps you can tell us when the Mass court, which legalized gay marriage in 2003 will overturn a conviction for statutory rape applying the same due process analysis. For that matter, any court that has started down this slippery slope of yours.

Nah, my friend, I cannot tell you when. I can only tell you it is likely based on the social situations the current world is in.

The courts, believe it or not, are effected by society too. It is why court cases that go against 'popularly strong' moral beliefs at the time rarely (but occasionally) go against those beliefs. However, as soon as the pressure that gives it 'popularity strength' starts to lighten, it becomes much easier to pass litigation that destroys these values. Why? Because people realize that these values are a Point of View, and they realize they don't have to hold that point of view if they choose not to. Thus it is, when society starts to see a certain 'case' as a point of view, you will be much more inclined to see court cases in that direction.

A good example of this would be the case of polygamy that is going on in Canada. As long as polygamy was not considered a point of view, and was popularly opposed, it was unlikely to get ratified in court. However, as soon as the pressure lightened, we began seeing court cases, particularly when similar points may be argued between polygamy and gay mairrage.

In other words... I guess you could say I am a big supporter of Kantian ethics and logic. Kant said, "Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." That is... you take your ideology... your concept... and apply it to all sorts of scenarios and people... and then ask yourself... do you believe it. Here, when we apply the logic of 'people should be allowed to marry who they want' to pedophilia, it is giving some people hesitation, which means the logic they are using to pass gay mairrage isn't as strong as it needs to be.

Hopefully that clears up what i mean. Perhaps I wasn't clear in the beginning.

As for the rest of this thread... I see the dilemma people have. Perhaps I don't have that problem because I view the act as having a physical part to it. But nobody knows for sure, so what can I say. But I think the true problem here, is where we are drawing the arbitrary line. The church says the arbitrary line should be here, others say it should be elsewhere. The others pressure the church. It is our job... I guess you could say... to make sure the arbitrary line stays where it is, and doesn't move somewhere else =P. We will have to stand for our ethics... and our morals... because by doing that, we will be determining the society that our children will live in.

No offenses to anyone,

TAO

Edited September 27, 2011 by TAO

[california boy]

Gee, that doesn't come across as a trapped statement.

We know. That's the problem.

JMS

Looks like you were unwilling or unable to answer my questions and instead offer some deflection on the core of what I asked. And it also looks like NO ONE can answer my questions. I find it incredible that no one can explain why they are fighting this "noble" cause. Here is the post again if you would like to honestly answer what I ask.

nackhadlow, on 26 September 2011 - 09:56 AM, said:

Jskains,

Really, the only honest reasons I've heard people express as to why homosexuality shouldn't be allowed are:

a) They personally are revolted by the idea (the same many homosexuals are revolted by the idea of heterosex)

b) They believe God hates it with a burning passion.

I completely agree with your statement. It is only reinforced by virtually ever post on this site about homosexuality. Anything other than these two statements immediately slide into just "weird science". Gays don't really care whether they were born this way or how they caught this disease. WE DON'T CARE. Is all we know is that we have no attraction to the opposite sex and people who do seem to freak out over that. Straight people can beat us with bats, murder us, execute us, burn our houses down, throw rocks through our windows, bully us to the point where suicide seems like a good option and we are still attracted to the same sex.

So here are a few things coming from a gay man who used to be Mormon.

Why are some posters on this site so focused on this one sin?

Do you think that your campaign of justifying the marginalization of homosexuality will some how wipe it off the face of the earth? Or even make any significant difference on preventing homosexuality? Homosexuality has existed since the beginning of humans. It has always existed. It will continue to exist. It will continue to exist just as adultery, fortification and other "God condemned sins." You live your lives with all of these sins around you. WHY do you feel the need to somehow try and control homosexuality? Can anyone specifically tell me how homosexuality has effected their lives personally in any different way than any other sin that exists in the world?

Do you think this fixation on not allowing gays to marry will somehow make them form more stable relationships? Or do you think it will help them form relationships with the opposite sex? Seriously, what do you expect stopping gays to marry will accomplish? And if you think it will accomplish something, will you be putting this same effort in eradicating other sins? Are you hoping that there will be laws making homosexuality a crime?

Mostly I want to know what the heck you are trying to accomplish by putting so much effort into marginalization homosexuality. Specific goals would be appreciated rather than continued rants and questionable rationalizations. .

[The Nehor]

Really, the only honest reasons I've heard people express as to why homosexuality shouldn't be allowed are:

a) They personally are revolted by the idea (the same many homosexuals are revolted by the idea of heterosex)

b) They believe God hates it with a burning passion.

May I offer another:

c) It is forbidden by God.

I am not personally revolted by the idea (though I also have no interest) nor do I believe God hates it more then he does any other violation of his commandments.

If the prophet were to change the position of the Church then there would obviously need to be some doctrinal clarifications. Can it be an eternal sealing (I would doubt it)? Could it just be that those who deal with same-sex attraction will be allowed to marry for time only? Maybe.

I'm not saying any of these things are probable. I doubt they'll happen. I won't leave the Church if they do. I haven't sought a spiritual witness regarding homosexual behavior and don't plan to as it is really not my concern.

I should add that even if things are changed there won't be any retroactive adjustments making it less of a sin now. I feel nothing but sympathy for those who will never find romantic love in this life but those dealing with homosexuality in the LDS faith are not the only ones dealing with that burden. I would suggest that heterosexuals imagine what it would be like if things were reversed and our relationships were forbidden but we were still stuck with the desire for it. Imagine the pain, the longing, the questioning. Can't you feel any sympathy for that?

We're having our say in the political and social battlefield over this and will continue to do so. If they are our enemies our standing orders are clear: pray for them.

[Libs]

I'm not saying any of these things are probable. I doubt they'll happen. I won't leave the Church if they do. I haven't sought a spiritual witness regarding homosexual behavior and don't plan to as it is really not my concern.

Not sure how you can say it's not your concern, while opposing it. Why would you oppose something that is not your concern?

[Storm Rider]

I wonder how being forbidden by God was left off the list? It does seem to be rather obvious; of course, it is not nearly as dramatic as the other two.