Scriptures Against Homosexuality

[rockpond]

It is binding because the First Presidency and Twelve all endorsed it and proclaimed it. If that is not binding then nothing is binding,

It defines marriage and then states clearly that sexual activity outside of marriage is condemned. Since homosexual marriage is not in an "approved" marriage all homosexual activity is condemned.

 

My understanding was that for something to be binding it had to receive a vote of common consent, as has been done to establish our canon.  But to be clear, I don't have a problem with the Proclamation being binding... I live my life as if it is.

 

I don't see that the Proclamation "defines" marriage.  It says that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and essential to His plan.

[rick7475]

I would argue that Section 132 implicitly excludes homosexual unions. When it delineates the New And Everlasting Covenant, which is a lot more that polygamy, the only reference is to husbands and wives. If husbands and husbands were part of the plan, he could have included them.  

Seriously, why does this topic get brought up every month? It's grievous sin, we all know it is, the brethren have left no doubt, the Plan of Salvation excludes it from ever happening, And yet, some keep probing, looking for that loophole that would somehow make it acceptable. Isn't going to happen. 

 

Well, I brought it up because I was curious and conflicted. I was part of these boards years ago, then I came back. I appologize that I did not do a thorough review and check every single thread. Even though this topic and many others have been brought up over and over again, perhaps there might be a remote chance of new information, a different persective, or even greater insight. Maybe, just maybe, someone is reading these threads and like me haven't exhausted evenings abandoning their kids and family to ensure I have familiarized myself with everything on this board and has a question answered that has been dogging them.  

 

Now I have been guilty of saying the same thing (this topic again??) but I have since learned that sometimes new people join this board (gasp). Sometimes they are even smart and witty and have cool answers.

 

Anyway, that's what I hope for. This time it was successful because I learned something new, which is why I read the Book of Mormon over again once and a while.   

Edited December 5, 2013 by rick7475

[rockpond]

I would argue that Section 132 implicitly excludes homosexual unions. When it delineates the New And Everlasting Covenant, which is a lot more that polygamy, the only reference is to husbands and wives. If husbands and husbands were part of the plan, he could have included them.  

Seriously, why does this topic get brought up every month? It's grievous sin, we all know it is, the brethren have left no doubt, the Plan of Salvation excludes it from ever happening, And yet, some keep probing, looking for that loophole that would somehow make it acceptable. Isn't going to happen. 

 

I wouldn't expect section 132 to reference gay marriages since that wasn't really something anyone had addressed at that time.

 

I think it gets brought up so frequently because it's a division among church membership and while we have much in the way of statements from the Brethren, we don't have any revelation dealing specifically with the topic.

[california boy]

I don't have any issues with same sex marriage. I live in Ottawa, where men and women hold hands, women and men hold hands, men and men hold hands, and women and women hold hands. But there are scriptures in the New Testament and Old Testament that are pretty clear against homosexuality.

 

Leviticus 18:22

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

 

Since this one is part of the Mosiac Law, I can see how we can get past this one

 

 

However, Paul is preaching here. 

Romans 1:24-28

 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 alust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

 

 

I could see this as a form of fornication. But if there was a lawful marriage between two members of the same sex, would this verse still apply?

 

 

Are there other clear scriptures like these?

 

 

If you just go by what the scriptures say about homosexuality, then is all you have is the few scriptures in the Old Testament that also condemn eating shell fish, endorsing slavery, lending with interest and all of the other things that are included as abominations.  It is pretty difficult to use the Old Testament unless you are willing to also accept all the other sins that are covered.

 

You also have the writings of Paul who also condemns women who wear makeup, wear gold, pray in church, etc.  How does one pick and choose what of Pauls writings are his opinions or Gods word.  These are just letters he is sending to various cities.  Does every statement in every letter written by any apostle count as the word of God?  If that is the case, then we really should be collecting all the letters ever written by any apostle and following them as the word of God.  

 

Now lets look at the other side of the question.  Christ lived 3 years on the earth and never mentioned homosexuality as a sin.  All of the Gospels written by those who around Christ never condemn homosexuality.  The entire Book of Mormon never mentions homosexuality.  The entire D & C never mention homosexuality.  And the entire Pearl of Great Price never mentions homosexuality.  Yet those that are straight, insist that it is so evil that they are willing to prevent people from marrying because they are homosexuals.  Of ALL of the sexual sins, homosexuality is by far the least spoken about.  There are by far way more scriptures condemning lying for example, yet there is no push by those in the church to not allow those that lie from marrying.  

 

There is no revelation from God about gay marriage.  NONE is even claimed.  You have to distort and convolute scriptures and proclamations to present any kind of argument at all.

[california boy]

It is binding because the First Presidency and Twelve all endorsed it and proclaimed it. If that is not binding then nothing is binding,

It defines marriage and then states clearly that sexual activity outside of marriage is condemned. Since homosexual marriage is not in an "approved" marriage all homosexual activity is condemned.

If you are going to interpret the Proclamation on the Family as doctrine, then don't you also have to throw out polygamy as being a form of marriage that God from time to time has approved?  Don't you also have to stop widowers from marrying a second time in the temple since the proclamation clearly states that marriage is one man and one woman?  

[california boy]

take alook at this GC talk from Elder Oaks: http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/no-other-gods?lang=eng

"Our understanding of God’s plan and His doctrine gives us an eternal perspective that does not allow us to condone such behaviors or to find justification in the laws that permit them."

Are all conference talks now considered scripture?  Are all conference talks even considered official doctrine?  You can clearly state that this is Elder Oaks opinion, but you can't really state that this is doctrine can you.

[The Nehor]

If you are going to interpret the Proclamation on the Family as doctrine, then don't you also have to throw out polygamy as being a form of marriage that God from time to time has approved?  Don't you also have to stop widowers from marrying a second time in the temple since the proclamation clearly states that marriage is one man and one woman?

Nope. It says marriage between a man and woman is ordained of God. It does not limit each man or woman to one marriage only.

[california boy]

Jesus defined marriage:

 

Matt. 19:4  “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’^[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’^[b]? ⁶ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

 

This is not a definition of marriage, this is a statement from Christ about divorce.  No one is saying that marriage is not between a man and a woman, they are just saying it is not the only form of marriage.  So if you are going to follow this statement of Christ, there should be no divorce allowed, period.

[california boy]

Nope. It says marriage between a man and woman is ordained of God. It does not limit each man or woman to one marriage only.

You are correct.  I reread the proclamation.  It only states man and woman.  It also doesn't state that this is the only type of marriage God allows. 

[rockpond]

If you just go by what the scriptures say about homosexuality, then is all you have is the few scriptures in the Old Testament that also condemn eating shell fish, endorsing slavery, lending with interest and all of the other things that are included as abominations. It is pretty difficult to use the Old Testament unless you are willing to also accept all the other sins that are covered.

You also have the writings of Paul who also condemns women who wear makeup, wear gold, pray in church, etc. How does one pick and choose what of Pauls writings are his opinions or Gods word. These are just letters he is sending to various cities. Does every statement in every letter written by any apostle count as the word of God? If that is the case, then we really should be collecting all the letters ever written by any apostle and following them as the word of God.

Now lets look at the other side of the question. Christ lived 3 years on the earth and never mentioned homosexuality as a sin. All of the Gospels written by those who around Christ never condemn homosexuality. The entire Book of Mormon never mentions homosexuality. The entire D & C never mention homosexuality. And the entire Pearl of Great Price never mentions homosexuality. Yet those that are straight, insist that it is so evil that they are willing to prevent people from marrying because they are homosexuals. Of ALL of the sexual sins, homosexuality is by far the least spoken about. There are by far way more scriptures condemning lying for example, yet there is no push by those in the church to not allow those that lie from marrying.

There is no revelation from God about gay marriage. NONE is even claimed. You have to distort and convolute scriptures and proclamations to present any kind of argument at all.

+1 This is one of the most concise and clear statements regarding the lack of a scriptural basis for condemning homosexual relationships that I have ever read.

[thesometimesaint]

Oh, i think that Mormons have to learn how to trust the bible just as much as anyone else.

 

I sure hope not. We believe the Bible to be the word of God, as far as it is translated correctly would be the one of the first if not the first Article of Faith to go.

[Palerider]

This is not a definition of marriage, this is a statement from Christ about divorce.  No one is saying that marriage is not between a man and a woman, they are just saying it is not the only form of marriage.  So if you are going to follow this statement of Christ, there should be no divorce allowed, period.

 

I can tell by your writing that you have strong feelings regarding this topic and in many ways I am very sympathetic towards them.

 

But What is NOT said in scripture is sometimes just as forceful as what IS said. The scripture referenced here is the Savior reiterating what the state of marriage SHOULD be. Not what mankind always lives by.

 

So it must be noted that God made them male and female (as complimentary physicalities) and that they twain would be "one flesh". When he states "What God hath joined, let not man put asunder" he also states by implication, "What God hath not joined let not MAN bring together."

 

Before all else (although other reasons are important) the primary purpose of "intimacy" between a husband and wife is the bringing forth of children. That's why alternative unions are considered "confusion" to use a biblical term.

 

Personally I don't think we as a nation can dictate the morals of all people who live here. There are some laws that everyone can agree on that are egregious, such as murder, etc.     But in general I think laws regarding homosexuality are unenforceable anyway.

 

For this reason I somewhat begrudgingly accept the need for civil unions, but to re-define marriage is a step beyond where I can go. 

 

Alright.........I'm prepared for the slings and arrows.....go ahead......

[thesometimesaint]

I can tell by your writing that you have strong feelings regarding this topic and in many ways I am very sympathetic towards them.

 

But What is NOT said in scripture is sometimes just as forceful as what IS said. The scripture referenced here is the Savior reiterating what the state of marriage SHOULD be. Not what mankind always lives by.

 

So it must be noted that God made them male and female (as complimentary physicalities) and that they twain would be "one flesh". When he states "What God hath joined, let not man put asunder" he also states by implication, "What God hath not joined let not MAN bring together."

 

Before all else (although other reasons are important) the primary purpose of "intimacy" between a husband and wife is the bringing forth of children. That's why alternative unions are considered "confusion" to use a biblical term.

 

Personally I don't think we as a nation can dictate the morals of all people who live here. There are some laws that everyone can agree on that are egregious, such as murder, etc.     But in general I think laws regarding homosexuality are unenforceable anyway.

 

For this reason I somewhat begrudgingly accept the need for civil unions, but to re-define marriage is a step beyond where I can go. 

 

Alright.........I'm prepared for the slings and arrows.....go ahead......

 

Agreed.

[california boy]

I can tell by your writing that you have strong feelings regarding this topic and in many ways I am very sympathetic towards them.

 

But What is NOT said in scripture is sometimes just as forceful as what IS said. The scripture referenced here is the Savior reiterating what the state of marriage SHOULD be. Not what mankind always lives by.

 

So it must be noted that God made them male and female (as complimentary physicalities) and that they twain would be "one flesh". When he states "What God hath joined, let not man put asunder" he also states by implication, "What God hath not joined let not MAN bring together."

 

Before all else (although other reasons are important) the primary purpose of "intimacy" between a husband and wife is the bringing forth of children. That's why alternative unions are considered "confusion" to use a biblical term.

 

Personally I don't think we as a nation can dictate the morals of all people who live here. There are some laws that everyone can agree on that are egregious, such as murder, etc.     But in general I think laws regarding homosexuality are unenforceable anyway.

 

For this reason I somewhat begrudgingly accept the need for civil unions, but to re-define marriage is a step beyond where I can go. 

 

Alright.........I'm prepared for the slings and arrows.....go ahead......

I realize that you desperately want this scripture to be some statement of Christ saying what marriage should be, but you just CAN'T support that from what the scripture is talking about.  Christ is clearly talking about divorce not a definition of marriage.  He is saying when a couple comes together, they become one, and no man should separate them.  To try and convolute that it is about the definition of marriage has absolutely NO validity to what Christ is saying.  If He was defining marriage, it would have been very simple to simply state that.  But He didn't and instead it is you that is trying to state that for him.  We certainly don't put words into the Savior's mouth about other subjects do we?  Why do you think it is ok to do so on this scripture.

 

If I start to use scriptures to imply things for it to be the way I want, I could clearly point out that God himself said that "Man should not be alone"  So by implication God is approving of gay marriage.  See how this game works?

 

I am not denying that marriage is vital to bringing forth children.  I support straight marriage every bit as much as I do gay marriage.  Of course gay marriages can not bring forth children, but they can provide a loving home for those children that have been abandoned or have lost their parents through no fault of their own.  

 

I also noticed that you didn't comment on what the scripture IS about.  Do you think that the church should allow divorce?  Because that is clearly what is not allowing in this scripture.  If you allow for divorce, you are basically projecting what you want Christ to say about gay marriage while denying exactly what He is saying about divorce.  Does that really make any sense?

 

I do like your basic attitude towards gay marriage.  I hope my slings and arrows were met to open honest discussion and not hurt you in any way.

Edited December 6, 2013 by california boy

[Garden Girl]

My understanding was that for something to be binding it had to receive a vote of common consent, as has been done to establish our canon.  But to be clear, I don't have a problem with the Proclamation being binding... I live my life as if it is.

 

I don't see that the Proclamation "defines" marriage.  It says that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and essential to His plan.

 

The Proclamation also does not  state that any other type of marriage is ordained of God... nor essential to God's plan... nor are there scriptures that state such a thing...

 

GG

[Palerider]

I realize that you desperately want this scripture to be some statement of Christ saying what marriage should be, but you just CAN'T support that from what the scripture is talking about.  Christ is clearly talking about divorce not a definition of marriage.  He is saying when a couple comes together, they become one, and no man should separate them.  To try and convolute that it is about the definition of marriage has absolutely NO validity to what Christ is saying.  If He was defining marriage, it would have been very simple to simply state that.  But He didn't and instead it is you that is trying to state that for him.  We certainly don't put words into the Savior's mouth about other subjects do we?  Why do you think it is ok to do so on this scripture.

 

Unfortunately you cannot look at only the immediate purpose of the scripture. We also are forced to look at the FOUNDATIONAL scripture that the Savior is quoting from. By quoting the foundational scripture from Genesis 2:22-25 Christ in fact re-affirms it's legitimacy and power in that it is defining what the Lord has established as "marriage".

 

"And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a WOMAN, and brought HER unto the man. 23. And Adam said, THIS is now bone of my bonee, and flesh of my flesh:...24. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother and shall cleave unto his WIFE: and they shall be one flesh."

 

 

If I start to use scriptures to imply things for it to be the way I want, I could clearly point out that God himself said that "Man should not be alone"  So by implication God is approving of gay marriage.  See how this game works?

 

No game here........ When the Lord declares that "It is not good that the man should be alone", He also provides the answer and solution to that solitude by declaring that he will make "an help meet for him".  The old Testament meaning of "meet" is "appropriate", "suiting", "proper", complimentary.  And that appropriate help was female.....not another male. 

 

I am not denying that marriage is vital to bringing forth children.  I support straight marriage every bit as much as I do gay marriage.  Of course gay marriages can not bring forth children, but they can provide a loving home for those children that have been abandoned or have lost their parents through no fault of their own.  

 

I don't doubt that in some cases a loving home could be provided for children. Is it the ideal scenario?   

 

I also noticed that you didn't comment on what the scripture IS about.  Do you think that the church should allow divorce?  Because that is clearly what is not allowing in this scripture.  If you allow for divorce, you are basically projecting what you want Christ to say about gay marriage while denying exactly what He is saying about divorce.  Does that really make any sense?

 

If you had continued to read on the Savior gives a very insightful commentary on his previous remarks regarding divorce. See Matt. 19:11-12

 

"11. But he said unto them (speaking unto his disciples), All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. 12. For there are some eunuchs who were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. HE THAT IS ABLE TO RECEIVE IT, LET HIM RECEIVE IT.

 

This commentary isn't about "eunuchs". It is about the varying degrees of spiritual preparedness that exists among men. Some people are by nature more spiritual than others. Some come to God in a more round about way by learning the hard way of the world, Etc.

 

God "allows" numerous things that are not the ideal. He give us the ideal and hopes we will all strive for it even when we ourselves are not ideal and the circumstances in which we find ourselves are not ideal.   

 

I do like your basic attitude towards gay marriage.  I hope my slings and arrows were met to open honest discussion and not hurt you in any way.

 

I appreciate your honesty and sincerity and hope that you will see my defense as nothing personal.

 

Edited December 6, 2013 by Palerider

[Hamilton Porter]

These are the most common Mormon arguments against gay marriage:

 

1. God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

2. If we don't stop this right now, you'll be able to marry Fido later on.

3. Why do you keep asking me for arguments? Are you gay or something?

 

I don't know why we are digging in the Bible.

 

I'm opposed to SSM until the Brethren change the policy (which probably won't happen).

[Palerider]

These are the most common Mormon arguments against gay marriage:

 

1. God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

2. If we don't stop this right now, you'll be able to marry Fido later on.

3. Why do you keep asking me for arguments? Are you gay or something?

 

I don't know why we are digging in the Bible.

 

I'm opposed to SSM until the Brethren change the policy (which probably won't happen).

 

 

"I don't know why we are digging in the Bible."

 

 

I suppose because not every "policy" that the "Brethren" have established has always been well founded in either "modern" or ancient revelation (i.e. Blacks and the priesthood).  

 

 And, since they insist that the four standard works are the only tried and true doctrine of the church and the Bible just happens to be one of those works, it seems a natural resource to help establish what is and isn't the Lord's position regarding marriage.

[california boy]

 

I realize that you desperately want this scripture to be some statement of Christ saying what marriage should be, but you just CAN'T support that from what the scripture is talking about.  Christ is clearly talking about divorce not a definition of marriage.  He is saying when a couple comes together, they become one, and no man should separate them.  To try and convolute that it is about the definition of marriage has absolutely NO validity to what Christ is saying.  If He was defining marriage, it would have been very simple to simply state that.  But He didn't and instead it is you that is trying to state that for him.  We certainly don't put words into the Savior's mouth about other subjects do we?  Why do you think it is ok to do so on this scripture.

 

Unfortunately you cannot look at only the immediate purpose of the scripture. We also are forced to look at the FOUNDATIONAL scripture that the Savior is quoting from. By quoting the foundational scripture from Genesis 2:22-25 Christ in fact re-affirms it's legitimacy and power in that it is defining what the Lord has established as "marriage".

 

"And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a WOMAN, and brought HER unto the man. 23. And Adam said, THIS is now bone of my bonee, and flesh of my flesh:...24. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother and shall cleave unto his WIFE: and they shall be one flesh."

 

 

If I start to use scriptures to imply things for it to be the way I want, I could clearly point out that God himself said that "Man should not be alone"  So by implication God is approving of gay marriage.  See how this game works?

 

No game here........ When the Lord declares that "It is not good that the man should be alone", He also provides the answer and solution to that solitude by declaring that he will make "an help meet for him".  The old Testament meaning of "meet" is "appropriate", "suiting", "proper", complimentary.  And that appropriate help was female.....not another male. 

 

I am not denying that marriage is vital to bringing forth children.  I support straight marriage every bit as much as I do gay marriage.  Of course gay marriages can not bring forth children, but they can provide a loving home for those children that have been abandoned or have lost their parents through no fault of their own.  

 

I don't doubt that in some cases a loving home could be provided for children. Is it the ideal scenario?   

 

I also noticed that you didn't comment on what the scripture IS about.  Do you think that the church should allow divorce?  Because that is clearly what is not allowing in this scripture.  If you allow for divorce, you are basically projecting what you want Christ to say about gay marriage while denying exactly what He is saying about divorce.  Does that really make any sense?

 

If you had continued to read on the Savior gives a very insightful commentary on his previous remarks regarding divorce. See Matt. 19:11-12

 

"11. But he said unto them (speaking unto his disciples), All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. 12. For there are some eunuchs who were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. HE THAT IS ABLE TO RECEIVE IT, LET HIM RECEIVE IT.

 

This commentary isn't about "eunuchs". It is about the varying degrees of spiritual preparedness that exists among men. Some people are by nature more spiritual than others. Some come to God in a more round about way by learning the hard way of the world, Etc.

 

God "allows" numerous things that are not the ideal. He give us the ideal and hopes we will all strive for it even when we ourselves are not ideal and the circumstances in which we find ourselves are not ideal.   

 

I do like your basic attitude towards gay marriage.  I hope my slings and arrows were met to open honest discussion and not hurt you in any way.

 

I appreciate your honesty and sincerity and hope that you will see my defense as nothing personal.

 

 

 

 

 

Unfortunately you cannot look at only the immediate purpose of the scripture. We also are forced to look at the FOUNDATIONAL scripture that the Savior is quoting from. By quoting the foundational scripture from Genesis 2:22-25 Christ in fact re-affirms it's legitimacy and power in that it is defining what the Lord has established as "marriage".

 

"And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a WOMAN, and brought HER unto the man. 23. And Adam said, THIS is now bone of my bonee, and flesh of my flesh:...24. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother and shall cleave unto his WIFE: and they shall be one flesh."

 

 

 

 

Once again, I am not proposing that marriage between a man and a woman is not of God.  I fully support such marriages.  And yes, when a man and a woman come together they should become one flesh.  No disagreement with that.

 

No game here........ When the Lord declares that "It is not good that the man should be alone", He also provides the answer and solution to that solitude by declaring that he will make "an help meet for him".  The old Testament meaning of "meet" is "appropriate", "suiting", "proper", complimentary.  And that appropriate help was female.....not another male. 

 

 

 

For a gay man, that help meet is another man.   If that help meet was a woman, then he wouldn't be gay, he would be straight.  Your last comment "And that appropriate help was female.....not another male. " is appropriate for you.  But not for a gay man. It is also something that the Bible does not say nor comment on.  Once again, you are seeing the scripture from your perspective.  It is not a wrong perspective for you, but it clearly would be a wrong perspective for a gay man.  It is why the church advising gay men from not trying to use marriage as therapy.  For them, marriage to a woman would be wrong.

 

 

If you had continued to read on the Savior gives a very insightful commentary on his previous remarks regarding divorce. See Matt. 19:11-12

 

"11. But he said unto them (speaking unto his disciples), All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. 12. For there are some eunuchs who were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. HE THAT IS ABLE TO RECEIVE IT, LET HIM RECEIVE IT.

 

 

I am sorry, but Christ is talking about eunchs.  He is saying there are different ways to becoming an eunch.  So if you want to tie these scriptures to the previous one about marriage, you could more easily say that people come to marriage in different ways.  Some may be born gay so marriage for them would be different.  HE THAT IS ABLE TO RECEIVE IT, LET HIM RECEIVE IT, should carefully consider this aspect of marriage.  You can not assume that everyone comes to marriage in the exact same way.

 

To a large extent this proves exactly what I was talking about.  When you start pushing scriptures to fit your own agenda, there is an endless inturpetation that can prove just about anything you want to prove.  So unless Christ says, "This is my definition of marriage," then we can not assume that a scripture talking about divorce is some kind of definiton of all marriages.  And I think you are right here.

 

God "allows" numerous things that are not the ideal. He give us the ideal and hopes we will all strive for it even when we ourselves are not ideal and the circumstances in which we find ourselves are not ideal.   

 

Gay marriage may not be "the ideal".  But certainly in ALL of the scriptures,  there is no scripture that forbids gay marriage.

[Tiki]

 

 

Gay marriage may not be "the ideal".  But certainly in ALL of the scriptures,  there is no scripture that forbids gay marriage.

 

 

Really?

There is no scripture forbidding the use of cocaine. That's why we have a Living Church with continual revelation for our day.

[Rivers]

I would argue that Section 132 implicitly excludes homosexual unions. When it delineates the New And Everlasting Covenant, which is a lot more that polygamy, the only reference is to husbands and wives. If husbands and husbands were part of the plan, he could have included them.

Seriously, why does this topic get brought up every month? It's grievous sin, we all know it is, the brethren have left no doubt, the Plan of Salvation excludes it from ever happening, And yet, some keep probing, looking for that loophole that would somehow make it acceptable

. Isn't going to happen.

It keeps being brought up because it is an extremely difficult issue for a lot of people. This teaching really sucks for those who have same-sex attraction. People commit suicide because of the impossible predicament they are put in.

It makes one wonder why a loving God would impose such a restriction.

[katherine the great]

And rob them of the chance to serve as a bad example?

Oh Bluebell...  

[Storm Rider]

Even for those who have a testimony... saying that we must broadly interpret and apply this scripture against homosexuality while ignoring these other scriptures written by the same person becomes difficult to swallow.

 

For those with itching ears the pleasing word is all that is desired. They purposely close their eyes and shut their ears to the word of God. How does personal apostasy develop?  When does one's heart begin to turn from God and his teachings?

 

Where you have become a a stalwart advocate I find myself to be comfortable with position that some things we just don't know about. I don't know why there are gay people and I don't know God's will for them. It is undeniable that there are thousands of years of teachings that condemn homosexuality completely and without question.

 

When a society becomes so liberal that all behaviors are acceptable; when there is a strong reticence to condemn anything that appears a personal choice; I worry what the future will bring that society. No pun intended, but I doubt it will be all rainbows and happiness.  

[Buzzard]

Well, like I said, same song 32nd, verse. And I realize,  California Boy-and others-that you desperately want a way for your deepest desires, both physical and emotional, to be accommodated into the Plan of Salvation. So you reject all the evidence to the contrary as either archaic, or inconsistent, or non-canonical. But it's not there. God loves you and wants you to be happy, but he knows, even if you don''t yet, that obedience to his plan is the only way to be happy for eternity. This applies to all sins, especially sins of sexual morality, but same-sex relationships don't get a special pass.

And this has been reiterated many times, and you and others have said that we cannot possibly understand how you feel, and of course, that is true. But God understands exactly how you feel, and wants you to come home to him. But you cannot do it outside of his plan. And his plan is clear. And I don't know how much more clear the church can be about that. But I don't think the church has come to this stance flippantly, or vengefully, but out of concern for your eternal happiness.

I really don't know how much more I can say about that, since you would reject it out of hand, anyway.

[Palerider]

 

 

 

Once again, I am not proposing that marriage between a man and a woman is not of God.  I fully support such marriages.  And yes, when a man and a woman come together they should become one flesh.  No disagreement with that.

 

 

 

For a gay man, that help meet is another man.   If that help meet was a woman, then he wouldn't be gay, he would be straight.  Your last comment "And that appropriate help was female.....not another male. " is appropriate for you.  But not for a gay man. It is also something that the Bible does not say nor comment on.  Once again, you are seeing the scripture from your perspective.  It is not a wrong perspective for you, but it clearly would be a wrong perspective for a gay man.  It is why the church advising gay men from not trying to use marriage as therapy.  For them, marriage to a woman would be wrong.

 

 

 

I am sorry, but Christ is talking about eunchs.  He is saying there are different ways to becoming an eunch.  So if you want to tie these scriptures to the previous one about marriage, you could more easily say that people come to marriage in different ways.  Some may be born gay so marriage for them would be different.  HE THAT IS ABLE TO RECEIVE IT, LET HIM RECEIVE IT, should carefully consider this aspect of marriage.  You can not assume that everyone comes to marriage in the exact same way.

 

To a large extent this proves exactly what I was talking about.  When you start pushing scriptures to fit your own agenda, there is an endless inturpetation that can prove just about anything you want to prove.  So unless Christ says, "This is my definition of marriage," then we can not assume that a scripture talking about divorce is some kind of definiton of all marriages.  And I think you are right here.

 

Gay marriage may not be "the ideal".  But certainly in ALL of the scriptures,  there is no scripture that forbids gay marriage.

 

 

 

Sorry but the Savior is no more talking about Eunuchs here, than he was telling Peter to feed his livestock when he said, "Feed my sheep".  Or when he said, "I will make you fishers of men".  It is a valid analogy that the Lord has used to describe the spiritual preparedness of different people. Some are ready for a higher law.....some aren't.

 

And for those who aren't, another way is sometimes given in preparation for that higher law or as a period of grace until men become more righteous.

 

As the Savior said, "Moses (not God) because of the hardness of your hearts, suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so."

 

God turned a blind eye to divorce in general (for a time, not for always) but in the specific, he held men personally accountable as he always does.    

 

Similarly I see civil union in the same way I see divorce. 

 

Obviously the Bible DOES prohibit relations between same gender individuals, so to say that it doesn't exclude same sex marriage is like saying, " we don't approve of vodka but heroin or coke are fine........" 

 

I'm sure I can't comprehend being attracted to someone of the same gender as a gay person would, but then they don't fully comprehend perfectly the problems that the rest of us are born with either. And yet we don't ask the world to stand on it's head to accomodate our particular problem.

 

In some cases there should be and are allowances made, but my question would be, "Why aren't civil unions enough?" Why must the gay agenda be to tear down and secularize all of the good traditions and practices (tried and true over thousands of years) that have made our society (although not perfect) one of the best in the history of man?  

 

Same gender attraction is an anomoly. No matter how sympathetic one may be towards it, it is not normative. So don't try to teach people that it is.

 

Should gays be ridiculed? No! Restricted from housing or employment or whatever? No! 

 

But marriage is one of those interesting areas where civil government and culture/religion come together for mutual benefit. In this particular area we cannot change one without offending the other and creating a detrimental polarization in our society rather than something that will bind us together.

 

I think civil union is a good compromise. 25 years ago gays would have been thrilled to have it.

Edited December 6, 2013 by Palerider