What Comes Next Now Ssm Is Legal In Utah....

[rockpond]

No, I'm really just tired of you sidestepping all the reasons that are given for why the priesthood ban is irrelevant, and then keeping on asking the same invalid yes/no questions. So why don't you just come right out and be clear about specifically why you think the priesthood ban proves that the brethren are also somehow mistaken on the subject of SSM.

I didn't think I had sidestepped the reasons for the ban being irrelevant. I've tried to answer all of your questions. And I don't see my questions as being "invalid". I don't recall ever telling you that a question you asked me was "invalid" or "irrelevant". Have I?

What the history of the temple and priesthood ban tells us is that the Lord may allow His prophets and apostles the agency to be wrong about some teachings. They continued to speak and publish incorrect teachings regarding the ban for about a hundred years. Multiple men who we also regard as prophets seers and revelators. If they were wrong about that... If it can move from an inspired doctrine to a policy to something that we can't explain other than to say that it grew out of a time when there was "great racial division" then a century from now the same could be said regarding our policies and supporting teachings regarding homosexuality.

That's one of the potential applications that I was inferring. I've never said it "proves" anything.

[Storm Rider]

Rock, what is so challenging to buy into your position is that to accept it I must close my eyes to thousands of years of condemnation and rejection of the gay lifestyle.  It is repudiated entirely and without any shred of evidence that practicing that lifestyle is acceptable to God.  Further, I must also ignore scripture that condemns these acts. 

 

I can stand with you in being perplexed about how our Father will deal with each individual child that struggles with SSA.  This has been a struggle for individuals for thousands of years. It is not new and it is not novel.

 

All that has changed is that it is talked about openly and that for the past 30 years the Media has rammed the lifestyle down the throats of anyone that watches television or reads papers or magazines. Society has become accepting of almost anything; there is no sense of responsibility to the community because we worship at the idol of the individual; if it feels good, it must be good. There is no room for self-sacrifice, personal discipline, submitting to God's will, and understanding that God's love is infinite, but his commandments remain. 

 

I just cannot close my eyes, cover my ears, and say God has not spoken on this matter.  How many times does he need to speak before we listen?  If we continue to want it and continue to badger him, will we get what we ask for?  God forbid that that is exactly what will happen.

[Tacenda]

Rock, what is so challenging to buy into your position is that to accept it I must close my eyes to thousands of years of condemnation and rejection of the gay lifestyle. It is repudiated entirely and without any shred of evidence that practicing that lifestyle is acceptable to God. Further, I must also ignore scripture that condemns these acts.

I can stand with you in being perplexed about how our Father will deal with each individual child that struggles with SSA. This has been a struggle for individuals for thousands of years. It is not new and it is not novel.

All that has changed is that it is talked about openly and that for the past 30 years the Media has rammed the lifestyle down the throats of anyone that watches television or reads papers or magazines. Society has become accepting of almost anything; there is no sense of responsibility to the community because we worship at the idol of the individual; if it feels good, it must be good. There is no room for self-sacrifice, personal discipline, submitting to God's will, and understanding that God's love is infinite, but his commandments remain.

I just cannot close my eyes, cover my ears, and say God has not spoken on this matter. How many times does he need to speak before we listen? If we continue to want it and continue to badger him, will we get what we ask for? God forbid that that is exactly what will happen.

What about the commandments not to kill? And is allowed? Really there are all kinds of sins talked about more than SSA in the bible. And if the person isn't really born that way to their core I'd probably agree with you. Is this "the principle of the thing" going to be more important than human beings? Just because we've always thought one way?

[GingerRed]

Rock, what is so challenging to buy into your position is that to accept it I must close my eyes to thousands of years of condemnation and rejection of the gay lifestyle.  It is repudiated entirely and without any shred of evidence that practicing that lifestyle is acceptable to God.  Further, I must also ignore scripture that condemns these acts. 

 

I can stand with you in being perplexed about how our Father will deal with each individual child that struggles with SSA.  This has been a struggle for individuals for thousands of years. It is not new and it is not novel.

 

All that has changed is that it is talked about openly and that for the past 30 years the Media has rammed the lifestyle down the throats of anyone that watches television or reads papers or magazines. Society has become accepting of almost anything; there is no sense of responsibility to the community because we worship at the idol of the individual; if it feels good, it must be good. There is no room for self-sacrifice, personal discipline, submitting to God's will, and understanding that God's love is infinite, but his commandments remain. 

 

I just cannot close my eyes, cover my ears, and say God has not spoken on this matter.  How many times does he need to speak before we listen?  If we continue to want it and continue to badger him, will we get what we ask for?  God forbid that that is exactly what will happen.

 

Thats what I don't get, either. 

 

rockpond, the big difference between your comparrison of the priesthood ban and SSA, is sexual sin. It was never a 'sin' to be black.  The ban had nothing whatsoever to do with a sinful sexual act. There's really no comparrison! Homosexual acts are a sin and an abomination in God's eyes and that has never changed and never will.. You really expect God to suddenly say, thats not a sin anymore?  Well while He's at it, then He can't say just one sexual sin is okay, they would all have be okay. It's okay now to be a hooker, its okay to be an adulterer, it's okay to have sex without marriage,  etc etc.  Yeah I know you're going to say, well if gays can get married , then its not a sin, because the sex is within the 'bonds of marriage'.  (But unfortunatly, for many, they want to be married, but have 'open relationships' where they can have sex outside the marriage because both partners accept that. So in those cases, they are technically being unfaithful and are "sinning' against their spouse ) Where do you draw the line?

 

Red

[Tacenda]

Yet polyandry/polygamy is ok? When it seems to be adultery and God never, ever commanded or instituted it.

[Daniel2]

Editorial: Time to let gay marriage ban go, Utah

http://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile3/57354282-219/utah-marriage-sex-court.html.csp

Gay marriage is not going away

First Published Jan 05 2014 10:12 pm 

Last Updated Jan 05 2014 10:12 pm

   

Those wanting to bring back a ban on same-sex marriage in Utah should carefully consider the U.S. Supreme Court’s majority opinion when it struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act last year. The opinion, written by the court’s traditional swing vote, Ronald Reagan appointee Justice Anthony Kennedy, had this to say about DOMA:

"This places same-sex couples in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage. The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects. ... And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives."

It’s simply not logical to expect the same court to now say, "But all this is OK in Utah."

That is why U.S. District Judge Robert J. Shelby two weeks ago killed Utah’s same-sex marriage ban and declined to stay his decision when it was appealed. And it’s why the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals also denied a stay and gave no indication that Utah’s appeal would succeed.

If Utah’s leaders feel blindsided by those decisions, then they haven’t been paying attention. Same-sex attraction, far from being unnatural, has been around since the dawn of time, and in recent decades mainstream America has come to accept it as something other than deviant. The American Psychiatric Association has considered homosexuality a normal sexual variation, not a mental disorder, since 1973. The Supreme Court in 2003 made same-sex sexual activity legal in every state, and then last June the court took that step of saying same-sex couples have a due-process right to marry.

Younger people by and large take a more libertarian view of same-sex relationships, and that is what has fueled the nation’s shift since Utah passed its ban in 2004.

There are 32 states with laws still in effect banning gay marriage, but only one state has passed such a law since 2006. Since that time seven state legislatures have passed laws to allow same-sex marriage, and three more states did so through popular vote. Court decisions have struck down the laws in another seven states, including Utah. One of those states is California, where state officials stopped defending their same-sex marriage ban when it became obvious where the future lies.

Utah’s ban passed with 66 percent of voters approving it, but it’s a legitimate question whether it would pass today if another election were held. Even the LDS Church has gone from actively participating in the marriage wars to simply explaining its own beliefs and practices.

The tide has turned. It’s time for Utah to turn with it.

[california boy]

Rock, what is so challenging to buy into your position is that to accept it I must close my eyes to thousands of years of condemnation and rejection of the gay lifestyle.  It is repudiated entirely and without any shred of evidence that practicing that lifestyle is acceptable to God.  Further, I must also ignore scripture that condemns these acts. 

 

I can stand with you in being perplexed about how our Father will deal with each individual child that struggles with SSA.  This has been a struggle for individuals for thousands of years. It is not new and it is not novel.

 

All that has changed is that it is talked about openly and that for the past 30 years the Media has rammed the lifestyle down the throats of anyone that watches television or reads papers or magazines. Society has become accepting of almost anything; there is no sense of responsibility to the community because we worship at the idol of the individual; if it feels good, it must be good. There is no room for self-sacrifice, personal discipline, submitting to God's will, and understanding that God's love is infinite, but his commandments remain. 

 

I just cannot close my eyes, cover my ears, and say God has not spoken on this matter.  How many times does he need to speak before we listen?  If we continue to want it and continue to badger him, will we get what we ask for?  God forbid that that is exactly what will happen.

What has been condemned throughout history is any sex outside the bonds of marriage.  This is the core principle of the law of chastity.  ANY sex both gay and straight outside the bonds of marriage have had the exact condemnation.  No one can point to any scripture that points to any difference between gay sex and straight sex outside the bonds of marriage.  There is no special condemnation in any scripture or in any revelation that says gay sex outside of marriage is any different than any other kind of sex outside  the bonds of marriage. 

 

The Lord allowing gay sex within the bonds of marriage is way more consistent with all of the scriptures.  That would be the consistent doctrine that has been the same for centuries.  Not allowing gay marriage is the relative new concept that the church leaders have come up with.  For no scriptural or doctrinal reason reason the church have decided that based on 6 scriptures, they interrupt that those 6 scriptures are talking about gay sex within the bonds of marriage.  There is not record to support that interpretation.  What there is a record of is unjust prejudice against gay behavior.  If there had not been such a prejudice against gays in modern time, perhaps the church would not have assumed that gay sex within the bonds of marriage was any problem at all.

 

You have no scriptural support for this principle being consistent throughout time.  The only scriptural support you have throughout time that is consistent is that sex outside the bonds of marriage is condemned by God.

 

When the priesthood band was lifted, the church statement went something like "We announce that now ALL of Gods children can hold the priesthood."  IF the prophet receives a revelation from God on this matter, the statement will probably read something like "We announce that ALL of God's children can now participate in temple marriage."  It doesn't sound like anything that counters ANY scripture or doctrine.  It only sounds like something changing the current policy of the church.  

 

In the past 30 years, the world has come to realize the unjust prejudice against gay people.  We have moved from a country that will willing to pass laws that prevented gay couples from their civil rights to a country that now supports those civil rights.  Virtually every poll that has been taken show the majority of Americans support the rights of all Americans to the blessings of marriage.  Virtually every court has upheld the legal right to gay couples.  When gay marriage in the church happens, I believe that the church membership will be just as ready to receive this doctrine as they were when the church stopped discriminating against blacks.  

 

Here is my prophecy.  The time will come when the majority of members will look forward to the day that the church  no longer discriminates against God's gay children."  As prejudice against gays decreases both within the church and without, treating all of God's children with the same love and the same expectation does not sound like anything that is against gospel principles.

[Daniel2]

Court stops Utah gay marriages

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/01/court-stops-utah-gay-marriages/

Posted Mon, January 6th, 2014 10:34 am by Lyle Denniston

The Supreme Court on Monday morning put on hold a federal judge’s decision striking down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage, thus stopping a wave of such marriages across the state. The Court’s order reinstates the state ban and will keep it intact until after a federal appeals court has ruled on it.

The order appeared to have the support of the full Court, since there were no noted dissents. The ruling can be interpreted as an indication that the Court wants to have further exploration in lower courts of the basic constitutional question of state power to limit marriage to a man and a woman. Had it refused the state’s request for delay, that would have left at least the impression that the Court was comfortable allowing same-sex marriages to go forward in the thirty-three states where they are still not permitted by state law.

Since the Monday order provided no explanation, it was not clear which of the arguments made by state officials had been convincing to the Justices. The state had argued, among other things, that U.S. District Judge Robert J. Shelby’s decision nullifying Utah’s ban had preempted the power of the Supreme Court to be the final arbiter on that question. The state also had contended that its interest in enforcing its ban would have been undercut by a refusal of a stay. And it had said that it would be difficult to untangle marriages that had occurred in the meantime, if the ban were ultimately upheld in the courts.

The state had asked for a delay from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who handles such emergency requests from the geographic region that includes Utah — that is, the Tenth Circuit. She referred it to the full Court rather than acting alone.

The Court appeared not to have labored over what to do with the request: it acted within a short time after the final written filing had been submitted by state officials, earlier in the day.

As a result of the new order, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, based in Denver, will go forward with an expedited review of Judge Shelby’s decision. The appeals court has ordered briefing to begin on January 27 and to be completed by February 25. It has indicated it is not likely to grant any extensions of time to file those documents. It has not yet set a hearing date.

With the Justices’ order in the case, it now appears almost certain that the question of state power to bar same-sex marriages will not be before the Justices during the current Term. A case on that issue would have to be granted this month to be reviewed before the Court is expected to finish this Term in late June.

With the postponement in Utah, the total of states where gays and lesbians are now allowed to marry stands at seventeen. A variety of lawsuits are proceeding across the country, attempting to advance that cause in other states. There will also be efforts in some state legislatures to clear the way for such marriages.

[Storm Rider]

What about the commandments not to kill? And is allowed? Really there are all kinds of sins talked about more than SSA in the bible. And if the person isn't really born that way to their core I'd probably agree with you. Is this "the principle of the thing" going to be more important than human beings? Just because we've always thought one way?

 

So are you saying that because one sins it should be acceptable that another sins?  Fundamentally that is the argument you are making and it is a red herring. Sin is sin; it does not matter who is doing it. I am not nor have I attempted to quantify "how bad" any sin is. This is not a discussion on what degree of sin exists; the fact is that it exists and has existed for thousands of years. To all of sudden close our eyes to that history and say God has not spoken is disingenuous.  He has spoken clearly on the topic.

 

Now, if someone wants to discuss possibilities of God changing his mind regarding sin...then we can chase that rabbit down the hole, but it is unlikely.  What has changed is society; God remains the same.  

 

This may sound too cavalier; that is not my objective. I personally am perplexed by this whole topic. I don't understand the purpose of it; why it exists. However, I also don't understand a lot of things and I remain a disciple of Christ all the same. 

[Storm Rider]

Court stops Utah gay marriages

Posted Mon, January 6th, 2014 10:34 am by Lyle Denniston

The Supreme Court on Monday morning put on hold a federal judge’s decision striking down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage, thus stopping a wave of such marriages across the state.  The Court’s order reinstates the state ban and will keep it intact until after a federal appeals court has ruled on it.

The order appeared to have the support of the full Court, since there were no noted dissents.  The ruling can be interpreted as an indication that the Court wants to have further exploration in lower courts of the basic constitutional question of state power to limit marriage to a man and a woman.  Had it refused the state’s request for delay, that would have left at least the impression that the Court was comfortable allowing same-sex marriages to go forward in the thirty-three states where they are still not permitted by state law.

Since the Monday order provided no explanation, it was not clear which of the arguments made by state officials had been convincing to the Justices.  The state had argued, among other things, that U.S. District Judge Robert J. Shelby’s decision nullifying Utah’s ban had preempted the power of the Supreme Court to be the final arbiter on that question.  The state also had contended that its interest in enforcing its ban would have been undercut by a refusal of a stay.  And it had said that it would be difficult to untangle marriages that had occurred in the meantime, if the ban were ultimately upheld in the courts.

The state had asked for a delay from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who handles such emergency requests from the geographic region that includes Utah — that is, the Tenth Circuit.  She referred it to the full Court rather than acting alone.

The Court appeared not to have labored over what to do with the request:  it acted within a short time after the final written filing had been submitted by state officials, earlier in the day.

As a result of the new order, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, based in Denver, will go forward with an expedited review of Judge Shelby’s decision.  The appeals court has ordered briefing to begin on January 27 and to be completed by February 25.  It has indicated it is not likely to grant any extensions of time to file those documents.  It has not yet set a hearing date.

With the Justices’ order in the case, it now appears almost certain that the question of state power to bar same-sex marriages will not be before the Justices during the current Term.  A case on that issue would have to be granted this month to be reviewed before the Court is expected to finish this Term in late June.

With the postponement in Utah, the total of states where gays and lesbians are now allowed to marry stands at seventeen.  A variety of lawsuits are proceeding across the country, attempting to advance that cause in other states.  There will also be efforts in some state legislatures to clear the way for such marriages.

 

Marriage is one thing; civil unions are another. I find it nearly impossible to deny rights for one couple while providing them for another. The issue is not marriage; it is rights. I see no problem in allowing the rights of one couple to flow to all couples regardless of sexual orientation. 

[rockpond]

Thats what I don't get, either. 

 

rockpond, the big difference between your comparrison of the priesthood ban and SSA, is sexual sin. It was never a 'sin' to be black.  The ban had nothing whatsoever to do with a sinful sexual act. There's really no comparrison! Homosexual acts are a sin and an abomination in God's eyes and that has never changed and never will.. You really expect God to suddenly say, thats not a sin anymore?  Well while He's at it, then He can't say just one sexual sin is okay, they would all have be okay. It's okay now to be a hooker, its okay to be an adulterer, it's okay to have sex without marriage,  etc etc.  Yeah I know you're going to say, well if gays can get married , then its not a sin, because the sex is within the 'bonds of marriage'.  (But unfortunatly, for many, they want to be married, but have 'open relationships' where they can have sex outside the marriage because both partners accept that. So in those cases, they are technically being unfaithful and are "sinning' against their spouse ) Where do you draw the line?

 

Red

 

It's not a sin to be homosexual either.

 

And I draw the line at sex outside of marriage.  It's a line we established some time ago, is defined as the law of chastity, and certainly seems like the right thing to me.

 

There are heterosexual couples with open relationships as well.  And yet we still allow opposite gender marriage.  Divorce is legal but I definitely don't look upon it as a good thing.

[rockpond]

Rock, what is so challenging to buy into your position is that to accept it I must close my eyes to thousands of years of condemnation and rejection of the gay lifestyle.  It is repudiated entirely and without any shred of evidence that practicing that lifestyle is acceptable to God.  Further, I must also ignore scripture that condemns these acts. 

 

I can stand with you in being perplexed about how our Father will deal with each individual child that struggles with SSA.  This has been a struggle for individuals for thousands of years. It is not new and it is not novel.

 

All that has changed is that it is talked about openly and that for the past 30 years the Media has rammed the lifestyle down the throats of anyone that watches television or reads papers or magazines. Society has become accepting of almost anything; there is no sense of responsibility to the community because we worship at the idol of the individual; if it feels good, it must be good. There is no room for self-sacrifice, personal discipline, submitting to God's will, and understanding that God's love is infinite, but his commandments remain. 

 

I just cannot close my eyes, cover my ears, and say God has not spoken on this matter.  How many times does he need to speak before we listen?  If we continue to want it and continue to badger him, will we get what we ask for?  God forbid that that is exactly what will happen.

 

Thousands of years of condemnation?  By that you are referring to a verse in Leviticus and the letters of Paul?  I have a tough time seeing those as "thousands of years of condemnation and rejection of the gay lifestyle".

 

There is nothing about homosexuality in the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, Articles of Faith, and Doctrine & Covenants.

 

No mention of committed unions between gay couples anywhere in scripture.

 

Nobody can point me to an actual revelation in which God gives His will for his homosexual children.

 

I am grateful however, that you can at least relate to my struggle to understand how Heavenly Father will deal with his homosexual children.  Thank you for expressing that.

 

You lament that "There is no room for self-sacrifice, personal discipline, submitting to God's will, and understanding that God's love is infinite, but his commandments remain."

 

I see gay marriage as homosexual couples making the commitment to enter into a committed union that requires self-sacrifice and personal discipline.  For those homosexuals who are God-fearing and believe in a "law of chastity" they may very well be wanting a legal marriage to show that they are willing to keep sex within the bounds of marriage.

[Buzzard]

Breaking-The Supreme Court just issued a stay, blocking further SS marriages until the 10th Circuit Court can hear the case.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865593614/US-Supreme-Court-puts-same-sex-marriage-in-Utah-on-hold.html

[thesometimesaint]

What about the commandments not to kill? And is allowed? Really there are all kinds of sins talked about more than SSA in the bible. And if the person isn't really born that way to their core I'd probably agree with you. Is this "the principle of the thing" going to be more important than human beings? Just because we've always thought one way?

 

A few verses later the command was to utterly destroy. So is that allowed? Actually we can't take any verse in the Scriptures in isolation. The command is not to kill, but we kill plants, and animals when we eat them. Also there are conditions under which killing another human being is justifiable. IE; self defense. A better interpretation of that verse would be Thou shalt not murder. The illegal taking of a human life.

 

The Bible doesn't say a word about the attraction. It does say somethings about the act, however. We do have to be very careful in what we make as laws to be enforced by law.

[Tacenda]

TSS, nice video clip.  I never watched that show, maybe I should have.  Thank you for sharing it, because it points to a lot of scripture that doesn't apply to all but maybe whomever the prophet or scribe wanted to see it at that time.  I was listening to a podcast about the real Jesus today.  They commented that He is different with the each of the scribes in the bible, IOW, how they saw Him.  Could this be the case?  What is the situation in our day and age?  Not Sodom and Gomorrah times, but now?  People were stoned to death for different things unheard of in our day.  The Saviour came so that those laws would be put away.  What is He saying, now that science has shown that being homosexual is possibly genetic?  Maybe we need to take a look at it that way.  Let the Same Sex Attracted make that choice.  If they are wrong, they will pay the consequence.  If they are right, do we as a society need to pay a consequence?              

[Danzo]

TSS, nice video clip.  I never watched that show, maybe I should have.  Thank you for sharing it, because it points to a lot of scripture that doesn't apply to all but maybe whomever the prophet or scribe wanted to see it at that time.  I was listening to a podcast about the real Jesus today.  They commented that He is different with the each of the scribes in the bible, IOW, how they saw Him.  Could this be the case?  What is the situation in our day and age?  Not Sodom and Gomorrah times, but now?  People were stoned to death for different things unheard of in our day.  The Saviour came so that those laws would be put away.  What is He saying, now that science has shown that being homosexual is possibly genetic?  Maybe we need to take a look at it that way.  Let the Same Sex Attracted make that choice.  If they are wrong, they will pay the consequence.  If they are right, do we as a society need to pay a consequence?              

 

There is no genetic cause, otherwise identical twins would always be the same orientation. (identical twins are always the same genetically)

[Daniel2]

There is no genetic cause, otherwise identical twins would always be the same orientation. (identical twins are always the same genetically)

This is incorrect. Genetic triggers in identical twins do not always manifest identically, since other biological factors also come into play during fetal development. However, twin studies support higher incidents of homosexual orientation, thereby supporting that there is a genetic component to how sexual orientation is determined.

[Mystery Meat]

I think the next step is try and discourage people from labeling homosexuality as sinful behavior. Call it a sin and you can expect to be called a bigot. But hey, at least you will be in the company of the Lord's anointed.

[Mystery Meat]

I used to think it would be to force church's to perform weddings. I think it would be easier to discourage, nudge, pressure people to stop labeling it as sin and then the whole church performing gay weddings issue kind of takes care of itself.

[CV75]

I meant doctrine in the sense of official church teachings. Did the Lord allow His servants the latitude to promulgate false teachings regarding those of African descent for about a century or are we to disregard the gospel topics article on LDS.org which now disavows and condemns those teachings?

However you mean it, it has nothing to do with the supporting the idea of the Church disavowing its teachings on marriage between a man and a woman some 100 years hence. Of greater relevance, there has never been the teaching of a ban against SS”M” to disavow some 100 years hence!

[CV75]

should we not all minister to those in our stewardship using personal revelation?

Yes, but personal revelation is an irrational basis for suggesting what the Church should do, or alleging what the Church might do in light of prophetic and scriptural justifications for its doctrine--whatever the topic.

In addition, when it comes to Church stewardship, using such a personal revelation in light of prophetic and scriptural justifications to the contrary is very problematic.

[rockpond]

Yes, but personal revelation is an irrational basis for suggesting what the Church should do, or alleging what the Church might do in light of prophetic and scriptural justifications for its doctrine--whatever the topic.

In addition, when it comes to Church stewardship, using such a personal revelation in light of prophetic and scriptural justifications to the contrary is very problematic.

 

CV -- You are also alleging what the Church might do when you say that it won't ever authorize SSM.  We're both speculating.

 

And I follow church teachings and policies in my calling & stewardship.

[rockpond]

However you mean it, it has nothing to do with the supporting the idea of the Church disavowing its teachings on marriage between a man and a woman some 100 years hence. Of greater relevance, there has never been the teaching of a ban against SS”M” to disavow some 100 years hence!

 

I have no idea what you mean by that.  But I recognize your unwillingness to answer the question.

[Danzo]

This is incorrect. Genetic triggers in identical twins do not always manifest identically, since other biological factors also come into play during fetal development. However, twin studies support higher incidents of homosexual orientation, thereby supporting that there is a genetic component to how sexual orientation is determined.

 

A genetic influence is not the same as a genetic cause.

 

If you are postulating a genetic cause then you would be able to tell if someone is gay by using a blood sample (or hair sample, etc).

[thesometimesaint]

TSS, nice video clip.  I never watched that show, maybe I should have.  Thank you for sharing it, because it points to a lot of scripture that doesn't apply to all but maybe whomever the prophet or scribe wanted to see it at that time.  I was listening to a podcast about the real Jesus today.  They commented that He is different with the each of the scribes in the bible, IOW, how they saw Him.  Could this be the case?  What is the situation in our day and age?  Not Sodom and Gomorrah times, but now?  People were stoned to death for different things unheard of in our day.  The Saviour came so that those laws would be put away.  What is He saying, now that science has shown that being homosexual is possibly genetic?  Maybe we need to take a look at it that way.  Let the Same Sex Attracted make that choice.  If they are wrong, they will pay the consequence.  If they are right, do we as a society need to pay a consequence?              

 

Whether it is genetic, or a learned behavior, or a combination of the two(my personal favorite), it makes absolutely no difference to God. We as Saints have agreed not to participate in those actions. They as well as I have more than enough things to repent of I don't need to add even one more. What we do through the laws we enact is another question which I think is addressed in that Link.