Scriptures Against Homosexuality

[Rivers]

I agree that changing the very definition of marriage is a bit extreme. It is true that the institution of marriage has come in different forms throughout history but it has always been the union of the two sexes. Male and Female.

Edited December 6, 2013 by Rivers

[Hamba Tuhan]

Paul, from a historical perspective, would not have believed that all men and women were born heterosexual.

 

100% true. Because heterosexuality and, behind it, the whole notion of sexual identity are both social constructs dating to the late 19th century.

 

Which explains why they don't appear in scripture written before their invention. Just like how Ecstasy doesn't make an appearance in the Word of Wisdom.

 

Thankfully, though, we have living prophets and modern revelation.

[rockpond]

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

Agreed. We don't have scriptures that speak in favor or against homosexual unions. That's why I hope for additional revelation to provide answers to what we currently don't know rather than all the statements we see here about what we think just might be "implied".

[rockpond]

I agree that changing the very definition of marriage is a bit extreme. It is true that the institution of marriage has come in different forms throughout history but it has always been the union of the two sexes. Male and Female.

Not all of us see the legalization of gay marriage as changing the definition. I am a man, married to a woman (just to be clear) but I don't define marriage as the union of two opposing genders. I define marriage as a union established through love (including the romantic kind), eternal commitment, and promises made to each other and God. For me, that's the highest order of this institution.

So please, go ahead and legalize gay marriage... No definition change needed here.

[rockpond]

100% true. Because heterosexuality and, behind it, the whole notion of sexual identity are both social constructs dating to the late 19th century.

Which explains why they don't appear in scripture written before their invention. Just like how Ecstasy doesn't make an appearance in the Word of Wisdom.

Thankfully, though, we have living prophets and modern revelation.

But no revelation yet that specifically addresses marriage for God's gay children.

[rockpond]

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.

You accuse gays of trying to tear down and secularize all of the good practices and traditions of society. Then a few sentences later you state that gays shouldn't be ridiculed. Um, okay. Do you really not see the contradiction there?

[Hamba Tuhan]

But no revelation yet that specifically addresses marriage for God's gay children.

 

Why, this is a marvelous thing, that you do not know God's will; yet His prophets have spoken with one voice on this issue since its advent.

[Coreyb]

I feel like Gods Plan of Salvation isn't all about accommodating  everybody's sexual desires. If it was, there is a lot of things in the old Law of Chastity that would need to loosen up. That seems to be how all commandments are, and sometimes it really sucks 

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

[rockpond]

Why, this is a marvelous thing, that you do not know God's will; yet His prophets have spoken with one voice on this issue since its advent.

I've studied the words of the prophets and apostles on this subject over the past decades and I don't see them as having spoken with one voice on this issue.

[bluebell]

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.

You misunderstand me.

[Tacenda]

Bravo!!

[thesometimesaint]

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.

 

Again I see no legally consistent way to prevent it. The Church will never encourage divorce. If we use LDS Temple marriages as a template then yes God does put asunder some(few) marriages by divorce.

[thesometimesaint]

You misunderstand me.

 

Please explain.

[bluebell]

Not sure how that changes my point.  Bible or Book of Mormon, my statement still applies.

 

You mentioned people who have a testimony.  I was simply agreeing that simply having a testimony that the bible or the book of mormon is true doesn't mean that a person knows how to interpret what they read and understand it in the way that God wants us to.

[bluebell]

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.

 

You have a point.  I think trying to make scripture say things about homosexuality that they don't say certainly happens on both sides, and it doesn't really help any thing.

 

I had to read a book for a religious studies class (and I'm sorry, i don't remember the name of the book, and i donated all my books from that class after it was over so i no longer have it) written by a gay man where he used all sorts of scriptures to teach that the bible actually supports gay marriage.  Two of the stories that i remember that he used were David's relationship with Jonathan and he also makes the argument that Ruth and Naomi were in a lesbian relationship acknowledged by the book of Ruth.  

 

It was actually a very interesting book to read and was used to show how much our biases shape the way we read the Bible.

[bluebell]

Please explain.

 

See my explanation to rockpond.  

[The Nehor]

I had to read a book for a religious studies class (and I'm sorry, i don't remember the name of the book, and i donated all my books from that class after it was over so i no longer have it) written by a gay man where he used all sorts of scriptures to teach that the bible actually supports gay marriage.  Two of the stories that i remember that he used were David's relationship with Jonathan and he also makes the argument that Ruth and Naomi were in a lesbian relationship acknowledged by the book of Ruth.  

 

And the magi who visited the young Jesus were gay, Paul was clearly gay, and so was Ezekiel. The writer of the book is clearly living in a world all his own. Imagine him as this guy and you will understand how delusional this stuff is:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUhOnX8qt3I

[CV75]

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.

Whine, whine whine...

I was answering the actual question, and the quote from an authoritative doctrinal source served my purposes in expressing myself. It is reasonable to me that "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."

Do you wish to pass laws that condone "behaviors contrary to God’s decrees about sexual morality and contrary to the eternal nature and purposes of marriage and childbearing"? How would you know or discover what those doctrines and decrees are? And so what if your discovery differs from mine, or if you don't take a doctrinal approach at all?

[california boy]

Obviously the Bible DOES prohibit relations between same gender individuals,

 

I think that is the point of my previous point on this subject.  It is not that obvious that the SCRIPTURES prohibit relations between same gender individuals.  Like I said previously.  You have the old testament and some letters Paul wrote.  I have the entire Book of Mormon, D&C, Pearl of Great Price, the words of Christ while he was actually on the earth, all the gospels written by those that actually lived when Christ was on the earth.  No prohibiting of same sex relationships.  You gotta ask, just how important to God is it?  If it was as important to God as it is to some on this board, than a simple 10 minute revelation to the prophet could clear this up don't you think?  Joseph Smith used to get regular revelations from God on much more trivial subjects than this on a regular basis.  

 

 

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 accommodate our particular problem.

 

 

Actually you are wrong.  Straights do ask the world to stand on it's head to accommodate your particular problem.  Unless you can name ONE thing that the gay person is asking for that straights haven't asked for, then your statement is incorrect.

 

 

 

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?  

 

 

Because we live in a country that doesn't believe in separate but equal.  And because gay marriage does not "tear down" marriage.  Marriage is secularized already.  It always has been.  It is government that has legally extended the right to marry to churches, not churches legally extending the right of marriage to government.  

 

 

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.

 

 

I agree.  But it is anomaly that has been on the earth as long as man has been on the earth.  It has never been a majority orientation, and never will.  That doesn't mean that the government should not provide gay citizens the same rights it does the straight citizens.  

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

There was a time when blacks would have been thrilled just not to be slaves.  Should we have just offered that to them but continued the discrimination that plagued this country for so long?  Your statement sounds exactly like what many southerners had about blacks, while they systematically abused them simply because they were black and a minority. (or anomaly if you prefer)

 

 

[danielwoods]

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.

 

There is no other form of marriage. All other human relationships are not marriages. There is but one that is defined by Christ as a marriage. You are correct that the topic of the passage was divorce, however, within that statement is the definition of what is a marriage. 

[california boy]

Whine, whine whine...

I was answering the actual question, and the quote from an authoritative doctrinal source served my purposes in expressing myself. It is reasonable to me that "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."

I was only pointing out that  your reference to Elder Oaks is not doctrine.  Sorry you find that whining.

 

Do you wish to pass laws that condone "behaviors contrary to God’s decrees about sexual morality and contrary to the eternal nature and purposes of marriage and childbearing"? 

 

No I do not propose such laws.  I fully support laws allowing for straight couples to marry and have children.  When did I ever say that I did not support such laws.

 

How would you know or discover what those doctrines and decrees are? And so what if your discovery differs from mine, or if you don't take a doctrinal approach at all?

 

Through reading the scriptures and what is actually doctrine rather than opinion.  Do you find it odd that I want to know the actual will of God rather than opinions of church leaders?  If we have learned one lesson over the years, it is that ONLY the word of God can be relied upon.  Church leaders have gotten the will of God wrong too many times in the past for that to be our sole basis for belief.

 

Look, I am not saying I know the will of God on this subject either.  What I am clearly pointing out is that NO ONE can say they know the will of God on this subject because it has NEVER been revealed.  Maybe if more people had confronted Brigham Young about his opinions of blacks, the church would not have a legacy of not allowing blacks to marry in the temple for 100 years simply based on the opinion of Brigham Young.

[thesometimesaint]

See my explanation to rockpond.  

 

I'm a little slow today. I can't find it. Would you please repost your explanation to rockpond.

[bluebell]

I really would, but the clipboard on my computer isn't working for some reason so I can no longer copy and paste. 

 

It's post #65 if that helps!

[thesometimesaint]

I really would, but the clipboard on my computer isn't working for some reason so I can no longer copy and paste. 

 

It's post #65 if that helps!

 

Thanx. I quite agree.