Music For Marriage Equality Campaign

[Cobalt-70]

As explained in another thread, I have been exploring the issue of homosexuality ever since I was first repellingly propositioned on several occasions by several homosexuals in my mid teens. And, over the years, I have had several people close to me who were raped by homosexuals, one of whom I needed to assist through suicide watch. And, while I don't judge the entire homosexual community based on those few extreme cases, my explorations of homosexual issues and my interactions with homosexuals have since left me sensitive, cautious, and somewhat put off, though I have had a few favorable encounters with gays.

Wade, it's hard to have any influence on gay and lesbian people if you are repulsed by them. I'm very straight, but I'd be flattered if a gay man thought I was attractive and came on to me.

Edited October 12, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[MiserereNobis]

How could gay sex is a "sin against nature," if it is nature that makes some people gay? Maybe you don't believe that, but that there is some genetic or fetal-environmental component to homosexuality has been borne out pretty well by science. Plus, just in this last General Conference, Neil Anderson portrayed "same sex attraction" as a trial of faith given by God. Does God create that which is unnatural? Actually, refraining from gay sex is a fight against nature for gay and lesbian Mormons.

"Sin against nature" is the way Catholics understand it, primarily via St. Thomas Aquinas, as breaking the natural law. The idea is that the primary, but not sole, natural purpose of sexual intercourse is to reproduce. Since homosexuality cannot bring about reproduction, the act is a sin against the natural law of sexuality.

The issue of whether or not there is some sort of natural basis for same-sex attraction would ultimately be irrelevant as to whether or not homosexuality breaks the natural law of reproduction.

[mfbukowski]

"Sin against nature" is the way Catholics understand it, primarily via St. Thomas Aquinas, as breaking the natural law. The idea is that the primary, but not sole, natural purpose of sexual intercourse is to reproduce. Since homosexuality cannot bring about reproduction, the act is a sin against the natural law of sexuality.

The issue of whether or not there is some sort of natural basis for same-sex attraction would ultimately be irrelevant as to whether or not homosexuality breaks the natural law of reproduction.

I haven't read the rest of this thread- I just saw you commented and read your post. Honestly I am tired of these threads and pretty much don't post on them any more.

But I pretty much agree with you, and I also think that along this line of thinking I have a pragmatic way of seeing morality which goes somewhat along the lines you are suggesting, but using a different way of justifying the truth of these moral statements.

I see the continuation of the human race as the greatest good we humans can conceive- we are here to survive and reproduce ourselves if one wants to take it even in a Darwinian direction. Nearly all of what we as humans believe about morality can be seen in this light- we do not murder and it is "wrong" because a civilized society just cannot tolerate it- and humans need civilization to survive today.

Put a newborn baby out in the desert (mentally of course) and realize that without culture, without family, without language and civilization that baby would survive at most a few hours depending on how hospitable or inhospitable the environment was.

Based also on what your mothers might have said - "What if everyone did that?" or something like the Kantian categorical imperative and the golden rule combined- one might come up with a maxim something like "Act in such a way that everyone should act to achieve the highest ideals of humanity, based on how you would like to be treated yourself". Or something like that.

If every human acted soley on gay desires humanity would die. That's not good. I think all morals should be based on principles which one should be able to generalize to all humanity.

That is essentially just a secular way of saying what you said religiously.

If you want to call that a "sin against nature" I have no problem with it- but of course I see "nature" in terms of what is pragmatically good for mankind, since we invented the whole idea of what we call "nature" in the first place.

I see that word as fairly obsolete since whatever we do, since we ARE "nature" is "natural". The whole problem of defining "natural foods" for example points that out clearly. The word has become meaningless. Agriculture itself is not "natural" in the sense most people use the word, for example, if we oppose "nature" to what mankind has done. Most of what we eat, for example, did not exist as it does now in "nature" before there were people anyway.

[RobertAC]

"Sin against nature" is the way Catholics understand it, primarily via St. Thomas Aquinas, as breaking the natural law. The idea is that the primary, but not sole, natural purpose of sexual intercourse is to reproduce. Since homosexuality cannot bring about reproduction, the act is a sin against the natural law of sexuality.

The issue of whether or not there is some sort of natural basis for same-sex attraction would ultimately be irrelevant as to whether or not homosexuality breaks the natural law of reproduction.

I am curious, would this mean in the eyes of Roman Catholics and Mormons, a sexual same-sex relationship is worse -- or "more sinful"-- than a sexual opposite-sex relationship? I have heard of "sins against nature," but frankly I never really understand what the term referred to.

I can imagine that some sins are of lesser severity than others. Lying to one's boss is of a lesser degree than going into his office with a shotgun and wasting him. Where would heterosexual sex out of wedlock rank? And where would homosexual sex rank?

[Gillebre]

When someone breaks the law of chastity, whether they are homosexual or not, they have committed the same sins in doing so. There is not a special commandment for homosexuals to keep that isn't also to be kept by those who are attracted to the opposite gender.

Nothing is asked of them that isn't asked of their straight counterparts who live outside of marriage. Granted, if that homosexual couple married (in places where it is legal and lawful to do so), they would still be involved in serious sexual sins, because there is no condition wherein same-sex couples can be sexually active and remain in good standing as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

There may be a bit more stigma on sexual relationships between those of the same gender, as those of the opposite sex, both outside of wedlock...but I think that part of it stems from traditionally held views (which tie back into the whole marriage thing). Nevertheless, they are guilty of the same thing before God: fornication, primarily.

Edited October 13, 2012 by Gillebre

[changed]

It's such a hard issue, and my heart goes out to those who have homosexual tendencies. My aunt is gay - she had several failed marriages, and now is in a homosexual relationship which seems to be the most stable relationship she's ever had. We're friends on fb, she is sort of a Catholic. I told her that I supported the LDS stance on it through nothing more than faith, that Christianity is a religion of sacrifice - of the atonement - of "not my will, but thine be done". I recognize that what was being asked was akin to an Abrahamic sacrifice, a sacrifice of their hope of a family - that many Catholic priests and nuns had also sacrificed getting married and having a family in order to become closer to God. I think we are all asked to sacrifice something big somewhere within our lives, but that through that sacrifice, we gain a little of what Abraham did - we gain a relationship with God, and a deeper more personal understanding of His sacrifice for us. As a convert to the LDS church, I know what it is to live with, and without, faith in God. I was in a very dark place before I joined the church, and now that I am trying to follow God's commands I have peace and joy in my life. I know God asks hard things of us, but I also know of His great love for us, that He wants to bring us into a glorious realm of understanding that is only gained on the other side of faith/trust/experience. We each make our own personal decisions on how to vote, and what causes to support. Know that when I vote or support traditionally defined families, I do not do so through hatred or judgement, but with a heavy heart that is ever mindful of the great sacrifice that is being asked of some of dearest members of our community - that I love them, and my heart aches for them, as they are brought before their sacrificial alters.

[Cobalt-70]

If every human acted soley on gay desires humanity would die. That's not good. I think all morals should be based on principles which one should be able to generalize to all humanity.

If everybody acted as a blacksmith, then we would all die too. Same thing if every acted as a shoe salesman. But as a species we are all benefited by specialization and diversity. Nobody is useless to society solely because he or she fails to procreate.

[Cobalt-70]

I am curious, would this mean in the eyes of Roman Catholics and Mormons, a sexual same-sex relationship is worse -- or "more sinful"-- than a sexual opposite-sex relationship? I have heard of "sins against nature," but frankly I never really understand what the term referred to.

I can imagine that some sins are of lesser severity than others. Lying to one's boss is of a lesser degree than going into his office with a shotgun and wasting him. Where would heterosexual sex out of wedlock rank? And where would homosexual sex rank?

Gay sex is treated more harshly within the LDS church than straight sex. For example, unlike straight sex, a person who has had gay sex cannot be baptized unless they have a "searching" interview with a mission president. Plus, a single act of gay sex after age 16 will permanently disqualify you from being a missionary unless you have special permission from the First Presidency and you submit to an HIV test. On the other hand, it will be possible to go on a mission a year after having straight sex, unless you are promiscuous.

[Lamanite]

Gay sex is treated more harshly within the LDS church than straight sex. For example, unlike straight sex, a person who has had gay sex cannot be baptized unless they have a "searching" interview with a mission president. Plus, a single act of gay sex after age 16 will permanently disqualify you from being a missionary unless you have special permission from the First Presidency and you submit to an HIV test. On the other hand, it will be possible to go on a mission a year after having straight sex, unless you are promiscuous.

Nothing but hate and bigotry.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[wenglund]

Valentinus,

I very much appreciate the civil tone of your last post, and I think your perspective is of value to consider, and I will do my best to reciprocate in-kind.

Now regarding the actual topic of the thread...there is not substantial evidence to support the theory that homosexual relationships will in any way affect the relationships of heterosexuals, the lives of children who have either hetero or homosexual parents, etc. Homosexuality is not going to be the downfall of Western Civilization nor will it bring marriage and family fundamentals to their knees. That is presumptuous and often used as a fear tactic that has no real logical or reasonable basis.

I don't know about the downfall of Western civilization, but i believe a solid case can be made, both religious and secular, that homosexual behavior and relationships are deleterious to the individuals involved, their loved-ones, and to some extent the community at large. Setting aside the procreative aspect which is fundamental to existence and survival, I am sure you are aware of the troubling sociological studies that show a higher rate of promiscuity, infidelity, suicides, mental and emotional and physical health issues, and considerably lower rates of long-term committed relationships among homosexuals. For the sake of the people, these statistic need to at the very least be considered and added into the SSM debate equation, if not also addressed otherwise through public policy, and not brushed aside or dismissed. To me, love and compassion for our homosexual brothers and sisters, and the progress of our respective nations, demand it.

Even still, were one to grant, for the sake of argument, that homosexual behavior and relationships don't produce any or significant negative impact, individually or collectively, to warrant concern, this would at best give reason to argue for keeping the government out of the private business of homosexual.

Indeed, during the late 60's and on into the 80's, this was the prevailing hue and cry of homosexual advocates. They passionately argued that since no one was really hurt by homosexuality, and as long as it was between consenting adults, then whatever happened in the privacy of homosexual bedrooms, bars, and bath houses, was their business and not the governments.

It may come as a surprise to learn that while I disagreed about there being no harm, I didn't object to getting the government out of private homosexual matters, including the repeal and over-turning of sodomy and disparate age of consent laws.

And, were things left at that, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

However, gay advocates were not satisfied with being left alone. They later wanted the government to get somewhat back into their business in the form of not only legitimizing homosexual relations, but also giving its seal of approval and putting it on par with heterosexual relations. Civil unions and domestic partnerships were also not enough. Gays then wanted the government, through marital laws, to incur the sizable cost of promoting the relatively few committed homosexual relations just as the government had long done so with the many committed heterosexual relations. This would give gay advocates the leverage to demand things like homosexual relationships and associated family structures be as prominently and favorably mentioned in children's school books as those of committed heterosexual relations.

And, that is just the half of it. While the gay advocates wanted this limited government involvement in legitimizing homosexuality and putting their relations on par with heterosexuals, they didn't want to have to do what heterosexuals had to do in getting government the same sanctions. The gays didn't want to have to rationally demonstrate in the legislatures that, in terms of cost benefit, it was in the people's interest to selectively promote committed homosexual relations--let alone as much as it was in the peoples interest to promote committed heterosexual relationships. They didn't want to do this because they couldn't rationally make that case. And, so instead, they have tried a number of obfuscative work-arounds in the courts.

My intent has been to dispense with the fog of obfuscation and disinformation, and re-introduce reason into the discussion, and to logically and pragmatically require that if gay advocates wish to go beyond being left alone by the government, to now requesting that the government incur the sizable cost of discriminating in favor of committed homosexual relations and promote them equally with committed heterosexual relations, that they make a rational state interest case for legalizing SSM, and under the banner of "marriage equality," demonstrate not only that doing so wouldn't be harmful to the people, but that the benefits would outweigh the cost to the people equally as those derived from promoting committed heterosexual relations under the banner of traditional marriage.

This is the approach that made sense for the government getting involved with traditional marriage, and it is also the approach that now makes sense for those advocating for so-called marriage equality.

Again, good luck with that.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

How could gay sex is a "sin against nature," if it is nature that makes some people gay?

As explained, gay sex is considered to be against nature because it violates the divinely instituted ORDER of things, and not because it occurs in nature or may or may not occur because of nature. Do you not understand the important difference?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Wade, it's hard to have any influence on gay and lesbian people if you are repulsed by them.

I am not repulsed by gay people, and nothing I said could rationally be interpreted as suggesting that I am. Quite the contrary. Yet, somehow you managed it.

What I am repulsed by is the destructive homosexual behaviors and the inane arguments used to justify and encourage those destructive behaviors. Do you not understand the important distinction?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 13, 2012 by wenglund

[mfbukowski]

If everybody acted as a blacksmith, then we would all die too. Same thing if every acted as a shoe salesman. But as a species we are all benefited by specialization and diversity. Nobody is useless to society solely because he or she fails to procreate.

I think you missed the point.

MORAL PRINCIPLES should apply to everyone, not occupations.

[changed]

As explained, gay sex is considered to be against nature because it violates the divinely instituted ORDER of things, and not because it occurs in nature or may or may not occur because of nature. Do you not understand the important difference?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

No disrespect - yes, it occurs in nature, but it is not preferred by nature due to it's inability to produce offspring. There are many things that occur in nature - some animals are born missing one of their limbs, some are born with mental illnesses, there are many different types of imperfections and disfigurements, but that does not mean that they are a good thing. I'm not hateful to anyone who was born differently, my heart goes out to them, but saying "it's ok because it's natural" is wrong. There are many things that are natural that are not ok. It's not a perfect garden of Eden out there...

Edited October 13, 2012 by changed

[wenglund]

I am curious, would this mean in the eyes of Roman Catholics and Mormons, a sexual same-sex relationship is worse -- or "more sinful"-- than a sexual opposite-sex relationship?

Hetero sex and sexual relations aren't intrinsically sinful. It only becomes a sin when practiced outside the bonds of holy matrimony.

Gay sex and gay relationships are intrinsically sinful, though same-sex attraction is not--that is, unless it is indulged.

This is why, as explained, it doesn't make any sense from a religious perspective to advocate for SSM, because it profanes the sacred and encourages and confirms people in their homosexual sins.

Thanks, -Wade Eng;und-

[wenglund]

No disrespect - yes, it occurs in nature, but it is not preferred by nature due to it's inability to produce offspring. There are many things that occur in nature - some animals are born missing one of their limbs, some are born with mental illnesses, there are many different types of imperfections and disfigurements, but that does not mean that they are a good thing. I'm not hateful to anyone who was born differently, my heart goes out to them, but saying "it's ok because it's natural" is wrong. There are many things that are natural that are not ok. It's not a perfect garden of Eden out there...

Please read my post more carefully. I wasn't suggesting that homosexual behavior and relationships are "okay" because they occur in nature. Rather, I explained that these are sins, and thus not okay, in spite of their occurring in nature. As you rightly suggest, occurrence in nature isn't, itself, a determining factor for what is sin or okay or not.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

If everybody acted as a blacksmith, then we would all die too. Same thing if every acted as a shoe salesman. But as a species we are all benefited by specialization and diversity. Nobody is useless to society solely because he or she fails to procreate.

This is as good an example of the fallacy of equivocation and the fallacy of irrelevant analogy as I have seen in some time. To see why, yourself, please try and explain how procreation is a function of specialization and diversity, particularly in relation to homosexuality. Please do so in your own mind and not here, since I don't wish to see this productive thread get shut down because of too much talk about sex.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

I would suggest that trying to define what is or is not "natural" is a difficult thing to do as has been shown in the entire controversy about what constitutes a "natural" food. The word "natural" is about as ambiguous as they come, and I think that fact is leading to problems here.

[mfbukowski]

No disrespect - yes, it occurs in nature, but it is not preferred by nature due to it's inability to produce offspring. There are many things that occur in nature - some animals are born missing one of their limbs, some are born with mental illnesses, there are many different types of imperfections and disfigurements, but that does not mean that they are a good thing. I'm not hateful to anyone who was born differently, my heart goes out to them, but saying "it's ok because it's natural" is wrong. There are many things that are natural that are not ok. It's not a perfect garden of Eden out there...

I agree completely- clearly the criteria we are looking for here has to do with survivability and also reaching the creature's highest potential- and golly gee, surprise, surprise, we have a perfect phrase already given to us to express just this idea and it is "filling the measure of one's creation and having joy therein".

Those born with "disabilities"- as incidentally we all are to one degree or another, since such are the results of mortality itself- must still do the very best they can with what they have to indeed fill the measure of their creation. We all have talents and abilities in some areas and are not so talented in others- these are not "disabilities" unless one chooses to define them as such for oneself.

The entire LDS system is based on the idea of us doing our very best to do that- to become ideal human beings.

That is the basis of having exaltation as our goal, and to become like our Father himself, and is reflected in the admonition to "be ye therefore perfect", which actually means to be "complete".

To be complete is to fill the measure of one's creation and do the absolute best one can do within the limitations we all have.

And ultimately this is where the LDS system intersects with humanism, insofar as humanism is also about each person fulfilling their highest potential in a free and open society.

For me this includes using one's body for the purposes for which it was clearly and obviously designed, keeping healthy and being good stewards of that body.

This to me, is a better way of defining the issues on this thread rather than worrying about the term "natural" and what that means or does not mean.

Just as pitcher is designed to hold water and pour well - that is its purpose- the human body is designed, among other things, to reproduce, and intentionally using it to preclude reproduction, is, to me, a misuse of the body.

Edited October 13, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Just as pitcher is designed to hold water and pour well - that is its purpose- the human body is designed, among other things, to reproduce, and intentionally using it to preclude reproduction, is, to me, a misuse of the body.

Unless of course you live in Utah, and in that case, a pitcher is something you carry in your wallet to remember your kids.

[wenglund]

I would suggest that trying to define what is or is not "natural" is a difficult thing to do as has been shown in the entire controversy about what constitutes a "natural" food. The word "natural" is about as ambiguous as they come, and I think that fact is leading to problems here.

You are right about defining it in a way that has widespread acceptance. However, I think it entirely appropriate to use the word in practical ways, particularly if there is sufficient follow-up clarification of meaning--which is at least what I and misererenobis have done here.

The good news is, the term "natural" was only briefly and incidentally related to the over-all discussion.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 14, 2012 by wenglund

[Skylla]

Nothing but hate and bigotry.

Big UP!

Lamanite

This thread is done.

Skylla