Mormonsandgays

[CV75]

Honestly, how would we respond if we were told we would have to give up our spouses, our families, and everything that includes, in order to have the holy ghost and be good in the sight of God?

This is the whole point of Luke 12:49-53 and Matthew 10:31-42, and some do have to sacrifice in this way, gay or not. Many can say this from as personal experience as can you as a mother.

[rockpond]

We know that sexual attractions aren't eternal, but are subject to change. At the very least, we all experience a change from childhood, where we had no sexual attraction, to young adulthood where we tend to have ample sexual attraction.

That's why I was trying to communicate that one's sexual orientation goes beyond just sexual attraction.

[thesometimesaint]

How would we know about the percentage of homosexuality over history when no one was keeping track of such things and many time periods such would result in prison or worse?

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

[rockpond]

It only says "gender." Surely you aren't equating "gender" with "sexual orientation?"

Do you really think, "honor bright" (as B. H. Roberts used to say) that any of the Brethren, past or present (or future) would include "sexual orientation" as one of our "essential characteristics of premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose?" I know you will counter that I can't know that some future Brethren might not do just that, but that isn't a very good apologetic foundation to argue from for you, is it?

Isn't that one of the principle subjects of this thread and the new website, that heterosexual orientation is a part of our eternal identity while homosexual orientation is just a handicap of our mortal existence?

And, yes, honor bright, I do believe that the many of brethren consider sexual orientation to be an essential characteristic of eternal identity. Just as long as its heterosexual orientation. Consider how the brethren use gender in place of orientation in the following examples:

Elder Oaks: "There are many political, legal, and social pressures for changes that confuse gender, deemphasize the importance of marriage or change its definition, or homogenize the differences between men and women that are essential to accomplish God’s great plan of happiness. Our eternal perspective sets us against such changes."

Elder Bednar:

"Satan works unremittingly to confuse understanding about gender, to promote the premature and unrighteous use of procreative power, and to hinder righteous marriage..."

...

"More recently the devil has attempted to combine and legally validate confusion about gender and marriage."

Elder Ballard: "Let me say again that the family is the main target of evil’s attack...

It does so by attempting to disregard the law of chastity, to confuse gender..."

The term "sexual orientation" does not show up in searches of general conference. Whereas the concept of gender confusion shows up repeatedly. Sure, they could be talking about transvestism but that doesn't seem likely given the context.

But more importantly, if we know and preach that heterosexual orientation is part of our eternal identity, for me it only follows that homosexual orientation is as well. Though I know you'll disagree with my opinion on that.

[halconero]

This is such a laughable line of argument. There are societies that didn't ban gay behaviour and somehow managed to provide a second generation. Are you serious about this or are you simply baiting.

I presume your second sentence is about Sodom & Gomorrah? This argument is also limited and does not accept the reality. A group of men wanting to gang rape/assault/humiliate some angels are not a relevant comparisson to gay people. Given comparisons to criminal behaviour has already been banned you should walk that line carefully.

So, CFR that Sodom & Gomorrah was destroyed due to sexual sins (ideally canonized).

I'll start:

Ezekial 16:49 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

I find it an irony that people use Sodom as an argument against homosexuality but breeze over the fact that Lot offered his virgin daughters for sex with the crowd and walked out of the city unpunished. A bit sick really. In other words, sex wasn't the issue. Sodom became a scriptural story representing the punishment in store for those who are inhospitable to and reject the word of God's messengers. Even Jesus made this comparison:

Matthew 10:14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. 15 Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

(As stated previously, I accept the brethren's current position on gay marriage but object to the agressive negativity towards it from some members and posters)

7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. (New Testament, Jude, Jude 1)

Cheers!

Also, here is the JST clearing Lot's name.

13 And Lot said, Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, plead with my brethren that I may not bring them out unto you; and ye shall not do unto them as seemeth good in your eyes;

14 For God will not justify his servant in this thing; wherefore, let me plead with my brethren, this once only, that unto these men ye do nothing, that they may have peace in my house; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

15 And they were angry with Lot and came near to break the door, but the angels of God, which were holy men, put forth their hand and pulled Lot into the house unto them, and shut the door. (Joseph Smith Translation, JST, Genesis, JST, Genesis 19)

[rockpond]

PS: this is part of the problem as well. Are not men with their fathers, brothers, children and other male relatives and friends in eternity, and women likewise with female relatives and friends? People stunt themselves when they limit their view of eternity as being with only one person, and one who meets their every need and with whom they share intimate relations. While this is important, the eternal focus is on how one enjoys all their relationships and relations within the bounds the Lord has set, while at the same time being very powerful, independent individuals.

I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment. But, I don't think it takes away from the fact that most of us can't imagine an eternity without our spouse or chosen companion.

[Walden]

If it is of any help, try researching the history of the social stigma for children born out of wedlock. And, if you understand the strong correlation, if not causation, between social morays and civil laws, you may get a sense for where I and the courts and the legislatures are coming from.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yes, I do understand the correlation of social morays and civil laws, and thus it causes me great joy to see that four states recently voted for allowing SSM in the most recent national election in the US, and the Supreme Court will very likely rule that federal benefits will now be granted to same sex couples in states where SSM is allowed. Now that the electorate is coming around regarding the acceptance of SSM, the courts will follow.

Though I respect your will to fight against SSM, it is the fight of a minnow against a tsunami. Given the recent election results regarding SSM, how many states do you think will accept SSM by 2020? How about by 2040?

[Mark Beesley]

You can start with Loving v. Virginia and Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U. S. 535, 316 U. S. 541 (1942), from whence is derived the famous quote cited in numerous subsequent cases: "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival." (Civil rights are rights conferred by the state through the enactment of civil laws.)

That's interesting, because the Bill of Rights establishing our basic civil rights doesn't confer rights by legislation. It recognizes the existence of those rights and prohibits the government from enacting legislation to deprive us of those rights.

Sorry to torpedo your argument, but your premise is faulty. As soon as you go down the rabbit hole of accepting Loving v. Virginia in describing marriage as a civil right, you lose the argument that gays should not be allowed to marry.

Edited December 13, 2012 by Mark Beesley

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

The effort "to help Church members respond sensitively and thoughtfully when they encounter same-sex attraction in their own families, among other Church members, or elsewhere" is extremely commendable, and I'm very glad that the leadership is recognizing that "individuals do not choose to have such attractions" and emphasizing that we must "not have families exclude or be disrespectful of those who choose a different lifestyle" because "attraction to those of the same sex [...] should not be viewed as a disease or illness."

On the other hand, the ideas that "God’s law is not ours to change" and "there is no change in the Church’s position of what is morally right" are based on the premise that opposing homosexuality is God's law in the first place. But as soon as we say definitively that a given understanding "is not changing", I think we've gone against the ninth Article of Faith, which teaches us to never be comfortable with our current understanding.

I have viewed or read through the transcript of every video there; while the website acknowledges that it is not intended to be a comprehensive discussion of all aspects of the issue, I found it to be a rather glaring omission that the doctrinal side was simply not addressed in detail, when it seems to me that digging into the roots of our scriptures and separating what is and is not doctrine is where the answer is going to be found. I understand that we have living teachers and do not have to rely on old scriptures, but I find that those teachers are themselves often acting on their paradigmatic understanding of those old scriptures, or the cultural mores in a very specific time and place which coincide with those particular passages condemning homosexuality as illegitimate.

[media=]

Here is very well spoken...he spoke a few times on having a family. The God of Nature has already passed judge this issue. Two men or two women cannot raise of family....somewhere or someways others my be brought into the mix.

[Calm]

http://en.wikipedia....i/Homosexuality

Would you point to a particular paragraph or section that deals with percentages of homosexuality through history please, not just that it was present, but percentage of population.

[RobertAC]

Here is very well spoken...he spoke a few times on having a family. The God of Nature has already passed judge this issue. Two men or two women cannot raise of family....somewhere or someways others my be brought into the mix.

I enjoyed listening to the video. He makes an interesting case for a pro-gay position in the Christian religion.

From my non-Christian, secular point of view the issue of religious texts' position on homosexuality is a red herring.

Homophobia/heterosexism is a product of a sexist society. We can see sociological support for this in today's world. Some of the most homophobic areas in the world are located in Africa and Asia where there are few members of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions. Certainly no religious texts in Hinduism, Taoism, Confucianism, and the smaller shamanic religions that are present in that part of the world prohibit homosexuality. Many do not even bring up the subject, or if a homosexual person is mentioned in the texts, it's in a neutral way.

Yet homophobia is prevalent. So too is a general viewpoint that women are subservient to men.

Compare modern western societies where women have been given full rights and are achieving economic parity with men. In these countries, homosexuality is not such a big deal.

In other words, religion has little to do with homophobia. It merely reflects the broader homophobia in society. It always has. When society treats GLBTs with the same respect it does straight people, it will not be due to a reinterpretation of biblical text, but rather a fundamental change in society as a whole.

[CV75]

I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment. But, I don't think it takes away from the fact that most of us can't imagine an eternity without our spouse or chosen companion.

Myself included—but many things do happen that will keep some from realizing this. The righteous, or those whose heart is in te right place, will adjust and have no blessing withheld. Fortunate are those who can envision overcoming all things, and who are encouraged to envision overcoming all things.

[canard78]

7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. (New Testament, Jude, Jude 1)

Cheers!

Also, here is the JST clearing Lot's name.

13 And Lot said, Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, plead with my brethren that I may not bring them out unto you; and ye shall not do unto them as seemeth good in your eyes;

14 For God will not justify his servant in this thing; wherefore, let me plead with my brethren, this once only, that unto these men ye do nothing, that they may have peace in my house; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

15 And they were angry with Lot and came near to break the door, but the angels of God, which were holy men, put forth their hand and pulled Lot into the house unto them, and shut the door. (Joseph Smith Translation, JST, Genesis, JST, Genesis 19)

Cheers indeed. So if we take all the scriptures collectively S&G was guilty of pride, lack of charity, selfishness, fornication and going after strange flesh.

It doesn't say it was destroyed for homosexuality anywhere. And to presume that was the only thing is ignoring all the others.

But I'm glad Lot's in the clear - good old Joseph Smith 'Translation'

[california boy]

Isn't that one of the principle subjects of this thread and the new website, that heterosexual orientation is a part of our eternal identity while homosexual orientation is just a handicap of our mortal existence?

And, yes, honor bright, I do believe that the many of brethren consider sexual orientation to be an essential characteristic of eternal identity. Just as long as its heterosexual orientation. Consider how the brethren use gender in place of orientation in the following examples:

Elder Oaks: "There are many political, legal, and social pressures for changes that confuse gender, deemphasize the importance of marriage or change its definition, or homogenize the differences between men and women that are essential to accomplish God’s great plan of happiness. Our eternal perspective sets us against such changes."

Elder Bednar:

"Satan works unremittingly to confuse understanding about gender, to promote the premature and unrighteous use of procreative power, and to hinder righteous marriage..."

...

"More recently the devil has attempted to combine and legally validate confusion about gender and marriage."

Elder Ballard: "Let me say again that the family is the main target of evil’s attack...

It does so by attempting to disregard the law of chastity, to confuse gender..."

The term "sexual orientation" does not show up in searches of general conference. Whereas the concept of gender confusion shows up repeatedly. Sure, they could be talking about transvestism but that doesn't seem likely given the context.

But more importantly, if we know and preach that heterosexual orientation is part of our eternal identity, for me it only follows that homosexual orientation is as well. Though I know you'll disagree with my opinion on that.

Are you saying that the general authorities think that being gay is the same thing as being confused about your gender? If that is true, then maybe I am not gay. Gay people have no confusion about their gender.

[wenglund]

If it is of any help, try researching the history of the social stigma for children born out of wedlock. And, if you understand the strong correlation, if not causation, between social morays and civil laws, you may get a sense for where I and the courts and the legislatures are coming from.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yes, I do understand the correlation of social morays and civil laws, and thus it causes me great joy to see that four states recently voted for allowing SSM in the most recent national election in the US, and the Supreme Court will very likely rule that federal benefits will now be granted to same sex couples in states where SSM is allowed. Now that the electorate is coming around regarding the acceptance of SSM, the courts will follow.

Though I respect your will to fight against SSM, it is the fight of a minnow against a tsunami. Given the recent election results regarding SSM, how many states do you think will accept SSM by 2020? How about by 2040?

Yes, it is quite difficult to fight against mass stupidity--part of which is the assumption that SSM advocacy is primarily about benefits. The California Supreme Court put that myth to rest when it struck down Prop. 22, thereby prompted Prop. 8.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

That's interesting, because the Bill of Rights establishing our basic civil rights doesn't confer rights by legislation. It recognizes the existence of those rights and prohibits the government from enacting legislation to deprive us of those rights.

Sorry to torpedo your argument, but your premise is faulty. As soon as you go down the rabbit hole of accepting Loving v. Virginia in describing marriage as a civil right, you lose the argument that gays should not be allowed to marry.

You need to understand that there are different kinds of rights. Some are inalienable, some natural, and some are conferred. Once you understand the difference, you may realize that you in no way torpedoed my argument. Rather you fired a dud/scud missile that was well off the mark.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rockpond]

Are you saying that the general authorities think that being gay is the same thing as being confused about your gender? If that is true, then maybe I am not gay. Gay people have no confusion about their gender.

No, I'm suggesting that it appears as if the GA's substitute the terminology of "gender confusion" for being gay. At least that appears to be the case within the context of General Conference addresses. I agree with you that the gay people I know are not confused about their gender.

[Mark Beesley]

You need to understand that there are different kinds of rights. Some are inalienable, some natural, and some are conferred. Once you understand the difference, you may realize that you in no way torpedoed my argument. Rather you fired a dud/scud missile that was well off the mark.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Must not have been a complete dud since you felt the need to fire back.

You might perhaps re-examine the breadth of your statement to which I was responding before adopting a needlessly condescending attitude. Then you can apologize for insulting me.

[wenglund]

Must not have been a complete dud since you felt the need to fire back.

You might perhaps re-examine the breadth of your statement to which I was responding before adopting a needlessly condescending attitude. Then you can apologize for insulting me.

The breadth of my comment was appropriately limited by the context of the discussion.

And, since I merely reflected your attitude back to you, then if you are looking for apologies you might begin with the man in the mirror.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Walden]

Yes, it is quite difficult to fight against mass stupidity--part of which is the assumption that SSM advocacy is primarily about benefits. The California Supreme Court put that myth to rest when it struck down Prop. 22, thereby prompted Prop. 8.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yes, maybe if we stupid masses were as bright and intelligent as you Wade, we would have the brainpower to suitably justify why our own, personal religious beliefs and biases should be applied to the masses and obliterate the line between church and state.

[Mark Beesley]

Yes, maybe if we stupid masses were as bright and intelligent as you Wade, we would have the brainpower to suitably justify why our own, personal religious beliefs and biases should be applied to the masses and obliterate the line between church and state.

I'll apologize for Wade since he is seemingly incapable of such action himself.

[Mark Beesley]

The breadth of my comment was appropriately limited by the context of the discussion.

You are apparently incapable of any type of discussion that extends past a single post. Sound bite mentality. Enjoy.

[canard78]

Here is very well spoken...he spoke a few times on having a family. The God of Nature has already passed judge this issue. Two men or two women cannot raise of family....somewhere or someways others my be brought into the mix.

Married straight couple unable to have children can still consider themselves to have a family.

[wenglund]

Yes, maybe if we stupid masses were as bright and intelligent as you Wade, we would have the brainpower to suitably justify why our own, personal religious beliefs and biases should be applied to the masses and obliterate the line between church and state.

At the very least, one hopes that people would exhibit enough intelligence as to realize that, to a point, it isn't problematic, but rather advantageous, to mingle certain religious-based beliefs with state. In fact, it would be good were they intelligent enough to realize that the free exercise clause inadvertently allows, if not necessitates, some mingling between the two.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

You are apparently incapable of any type of discussion that extends past a single post. Sound bite mentality. Enjoy.

False projection. Take care.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-