Towards A Better Understanding Of Same Sex Attraction And Sin

[Daniel2]

Are you seriously suggesting that marital laws weren't formulated with the intent to diminish illegitimate births and to encourage legitimate births?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I am absolutely asserting that it doesn't matter what marital laws were originally "formulated" for, because when it comes to civil marriage, any such sexual requirements have long been abandoned, in the United States of America (and most non-theocracies in the world, today).

Are you seriously suggesting otherwise....?!

Edited September 15, 2014 by Daniel2

[rockpond]

All I ever hear is how they just want this monogamous relationship because that is how they were born and that we shouldnt judge them and instead should support them and support the legalization of gay marriage. I do feel that there is a small (very small) percentage that truly want this but for most homosexuals its about the choice they made and feel that they should be justified in all their immoral behavior. By catering to the very few we have to cater to the greater masses who live in very sinful manners. I study these issues out, visit other folks, visit websites and I learn a lot of this issue over the years as it has effected my own family and I have tried to understand them. What I have learned is that it is almost entirely a false front they put up. They do not truly want what they claim. No good comes from the sexually perversion lifestyle of homosexuality, bisexuality or even promiscuous heterosexual lifestyle. We have became afraid of treating SSA and homosexuality and instead are caving in to the ideals of the gay agenda and being led down dark paths. We are sending the wrong message when we begin to accept the homosexual lifestyle as some kind of "natural" innate condition. Iwill wait and see where the church goes from here but I await in caution.

 

Well, you appear to have you mind made up.  But if the sources you've linked here are indicative of your study, then I would ask you to read up on some other points of view.  And, consider that the LGBT population is not a homogeneous group that can be characterized by one broad brush.  They are as varied as the heterosexual population.

 

Allow me to share some information about the gay people in my life...

 

One man, I'll call him Mark, is LDS.  A convert, actually.  He married a woman and had children because he felt that was what God wanted him to do.  He had told his wife he was gay before they married.  But after almost two decades he wasn't any less homosexual and the marriage was not working.  They divorced and he is now married in a monogamous, committed relationship with another man.  They share custody of his youngest child (the others are adults).

 

Another young man (who I mentioned previously on this thread) was raised in an active, strong, LDS family.  Went to BYU.  Got a mission call.  But, in the end, could not go through with it because he didn't know how to go out and teach people God's plan of happiness knowing that he couldn't come home and follow it.  Not feeling that there was any place for him in the church as a gay young man, he left.  He is in graduate school now but his goal is to marry another man and hopefully be able to raise one or more children together.

 

My aunts.  I have two lesbian aunts.  One recently married her long-time companion.  I have no reason to question their commitment and monogamy.  My other aunt has been in a committed relationship for 18 years.  Both my aunts and their wives are wonderful, kind, amazing people who do great things for each other and their communities.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

WHAT!?!?  This is so uncalled for... 

 

Besides, we could go on about heterosexuals sex life and it wouldn't even come close I bet. 

You see no difference between the 2? Really? Vaginal sex and **** sex are the same? Is that what you are saying? That they both serve the same purpose?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

There ya go... that's just the kind of welcoming, compassionate language that we need in the church.

0 attempts to actually understand what is being talked about. That is why those if us have a problem with it and your pipe dream that one day SSM will be in the temple.

[rockpond]

So, to clarify, in your mind, sex and sexual behaviors between married adults of the same gender, is not sin or immoral?

 

It is only sin or immoral outside the bonds of marriage?

 

In other words, to you, as long as adults are married, then consensual sexual behaviors of any kind are not sinful or immoral?

 

Correct on all three.

 

 

If that is true, and given that God is adamantly against sin and immorality, then why hasn't God commanded homosexuals to get married, so as to not sin, as he has with heterosexuals?

 

There are some homosexuals who personally feel that God has told them to marry.  But I think you are asking in a broader sense...

 

As to why the church has not received such a revelation -- I believe it's possible that we aren't ready.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I don't see why personal opinions would be irrelevant on a public discussion board specifically designed for people to express their personal opinions and is rife with expression of personal opinions.

 

 

 

 

So, to clarify, in your mind, sex and sexual behaviors between married adults of the same gender, is not sin or immoral? It is only sin or immoral outside the bonds of marriage?

 

In other words, to you, as long as adults are married, then consensual sexual behaviors of any kind are not sinful or immoral?

 

If that is true, and given that God is adamantly against sin and immorality, then why hasn't God commanded homosexuals to get married, so as to not sin, as he has with heterosexuals?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

WE just have not received revelation for it yet Wade. Jesus missed the boat, JS missed the boat. We just need to wait. In fact all of the prophets have missed the boat.

[rockpond]

0 attempts to actually understand what is being talked about. That is why those if us have a problem with it and your pipe dream that one day SSM will be in the temple.

 

Do you think that rodheadlee's statement that I quoted here was really an attempt to understand anyone?

[rockpond]

WE just have not received revelation for it yet Wade. Jesus missed the boat, JS missed the boat. We just need to wait. In fact all of the prophets have missed the boat.

 

Christ and Joseph Smith never taught anything about homosexuality.

[wenglund]

I'm asserting that it doesn't matter what marital laws were originally "formulated" for, because when it comes to civil marriage, any such sexual requirements have long been abandoned, in the United States of America (and most non-theocracies in the world, today).

Are you seriously suggesting otherwise....?!

 

Yes. I am suggesting that minimizing illegitimate births and encouraging legitimate births continues to be a significant state interest, and a primary interest behind marital and family laws, regardless of the form of government, even today. Outside of bearing and raising kids, the government has little or no substantial interest in marital/family laws. The government/people derive no more value from childless married couples as they do from platonic friends, and thus there is little or no incentive for them to encourage childless marriages as it would be to encourage marriage between platonic friends. To not know this is to be woefully ignorant.

 

But, again, this is tangential to the topic of the thread.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Daniel2]

Yes. I am suggesting that minimizing illegitimate births and encouraging legitimate births continues to be a significant state interest, and a primary interest behind marital and family laws, regardless of the form of government, even today. Outside of bearing and raising kids, the government has little or no substantial interest in marital/family laws. The government/people derive no more value from childless married couples as they do from platonic friends, and thus there is little or no incentive for them to encourage childless marriages as it would be to encourage marriage between platonic friends. To not know this is to be woefully ignorant.

But, again, this is tangential to the topic of the thread.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Of course, because here in America, we don't live in a theocracy and because we do value agency and individual liberties and freedoms, you're free to believe and attempt to convince others of your beliefs.

The most recent legislative, judicial, and democratic trends of all three branches of our government regarding civil marriage recognition for same-sex couples and their children indicate that the majority of Americans don't agree with your position, and your rationale has lost in the realm of public scrutiny and open debate.

Edited September 15, 2014 by Daniel2

[wenglund]

Christ and Joseph Smith never taught anything about homosexuality.

 

Why not? If God abhors sin and immorality, and if homosexuals can avoid sin and immorality by being married--as you suggest, then why hasn't God commanded, through Christ and Joseph Smith and others of his prophets of old and new, for homosexuals to get married, just as he has aplenty to heterosexuals throughout the ages?

 

The fact that God hasn't commanded such at any time or in any way, ought to tell you something about the untruth of your thinking on the matter, though I am doubt that it will. 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Do you think that rodheadlee's statement that I quoted here was really an attempt to understand anyone?

No it was an attempt to explain why it is an abomination unto God. There can be no understanding when some one thinks that something should be part of God's plan when it clearly is an abomination.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Christ and Joseph Smith never taught anything about homosexuality.

Sure they have, you just ignore it. We have conference talks all the time about the evils of homosexual behavior and the FPTW.

 

On another note, JS was so radical that he received revelation for polygamy and "married" others men's wives but missed the boat on gay marriage because of culture. I am sure that is your argument.

[rockpond]

Why not? If God abhors sin and immorality, and if homosexuals can avoid sin and immorality by being married--as you suggest, then why hasn't God commanded, through Christ and Joseph Smith and others of his prophets of old and new, for homosexuals to get married, just as he has aplenty to heterosexuals throughout the ages?

 

The fact that God hasn't commanded such at any time or in any way, ought to tell you something about the untruth of your thinking on the matter, though I am doubt that it will. 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

The words of Christ do not provide many specifics.  He taught general principles and it is those principles that lead me to believe the way I do.

 

"For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant"

[rockpond]

Sure they have, you just ignore it. We have conference talks all the time about the evils of homosexual behavior and the FPTW.

 

On another note, JS was so radical that he received revelation for polygamy and "married" others men's wives but missed the boat on gay marriage because of culture. I am sure that is your argument.

 

Last I checked, Christ and Joseph Smith have not visited Gen Con recently.

 

I don't think that gay marriage was ever a part of the culture at the time of JS so there wouldn't really be a reason for him to seek a revelation or ask a question.  Polygamy on the other hand, was brought into their culture through both the church's missionary efforts as well as the study of Biblical prophets.

[rockpond]

No it was an attempt to explain why it is an abomination unto God. There can be no understanding when some one thinks that something should be part of God's plan when it clearly is an abomination.

 

Okay... if you want to take rod's comment seriously, I'll bite...

 

God designed women to only be fertile for a minority portion of every month.  The rest of the time if man & woman engage in intercourse, the "sacred seed of life" is being wasted.  Further, God designed men's bodies to automatically release this "sacred seed of life" at times during sleep cycles.

 

So, no, I don't see that as a valid explanation of why God views homosexual intercourse to be an abomination.

Edited September 15, 2014 by rockpond

[wenglund]

Of course, because we don't live in a theocracy and value individual liberties and freedoms, you're free to believe and attempt to convince others of your beliefs.

The most recent legislative, judicial, and democratic trends of all three branches of our government regarding civil marriage recognition for same-sex couples and their children indicate that the majority of Americans don't agree with your position, and have not been convinced of your rationale.

 

We haven't lived in a theocracy for hundreds of years, but that hasn't prevented our nation from long pursuing its secular state interest in diminishing illegitimate births and encouraging legitimate births through marriage and family law.

 

The fact that some laws are now being mangled in the last quarter century, in ways that are unmindful of state interest, does not alter why and what existed before and still remains somewhat today in the way of marriage/family law, though the shocking rise of illegitimate births, and the mounting burden to the state resulting therefrom, may some day impress itself on people's minds, though perhaps too late.

 

In other words, the majority, in their ignorance, may not now agree with me in certain respects, but they have throughout the vast majority of time of our nations existence, and they may yet one day come to their senses. At least that is my hope.

 

But, for now, inanity rules the day. So, you can be very proud to be in the current majority. :-/

 

That having been said, this is tangential to the topic, and so I shan't say more about it.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[cinepro]

Sure they have, you just ignore it. We have conference talks all the time about the evils of homosexual behavior and the FPTW.

 

On another note, JS was so radical that he received revelation for polygamy and "married" others men's wives but missed the boat on gay marriage because of culture. I am sure that is your argument.

 

Just because something is taught in conference doesn't mean it is "Official Doctrine" or that God specifically condones it.

 

And homosexuality doesn't appear to have been mentioned in General Conference since 1999.

 

Edited September 15, 2014 by cinepro

[wenglund]

The words of Christ do not provide many specifics.  He taught general principles and it is those principles that lead me to believe the way I do.

 

"For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant"

 

But, the commandment to get married has been very specific to heterosexuals, so your rationalization doesn't apply.

 

If it has been very specific to heterosexuals, then why not also to homosexuals?

 

If you were really interested in the truth as you claimed, rather than in appeasing pop culture, the answer would be obvious.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited September 15, 2014 by wenglund

[rockpond]

But, the commandment to get married has been very specific to heterosexuals, so your rationalization doesn't apply.

 

If it has been very specific to heterosexuals, then why not also to homosexuals?

 

If you were really interested in the truth as you claimed, rather than in appeasing pop culture, the answer would be obvious.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

I think the commandment is just to get married.  "Heterosexual" isn't actually used in scripture.

 

I think the reason we haven't heard about God's will specifically for homosexuals is likely the same reason that it took us until 1978 to allow black members to receive saving ordinances in this life.

 

The restoration isn't over.

[Brian 2.0]

Spewing your sacred seed of life up the waste system of another human being will NEVER be sanctified by God. This is an abomination before God. No matter how you look at it, it takes 1 part male and 1 part female to create a life therefore it also makes you desolate. SSM is the abomination that makes desolate.

I assume you also believe that oral sex between a heterosexual married couple is an abomination then.

[Rodeo]

I don't think that anyone is claiming  gay men are monogamous.  I don't think that anyone is claiming that straight men are monogamous.   If that is your beef, then there is no argument.  

 

The CFR that you have been asked for, and refused or are unable to provide is a study that shows exactly what the difference between straight men and gay men is.  In other words, how big of difference between the two groups is there.  Because you spend a heck of a lot of posts condemning gay men as if they are the only group that is having sex outside of marriage with multiple partners but not much on condemning straight men for their multiple sex partners.

Its kind of an impossibility you are asking for. For instance, I do not recognize same sex marriage just as the church does not recognize it either. So, we are left with single people of all different kinds, same sex couples, heterosexual couples, and married heterosexual couples. It is true that a certain amount of promiscuity happens in heterosexual singles, heterosexual couples, and even married couples. These are however not generally classified as being highly promiscuous peoples in general as compared with homosexual males. For instance- I considered myself kind of wild growing up and fooled around a bit in my teenage years, perhaps an average heterosexual lifestyle by worldly standards. In my 35 years of sexual activity I have had 3 different people I have had sexual relations with all of which happened before I was married. I have been married over twenty years and have had 1 sex partner and it is with my wife. We typically have a traditional Christian monogamous relationship where absolutely no physical intimate relations exist for either of us outside of our marriage covenant. We do not flirt with others, we do not go on dates with others nor is it an "open" marriage in any way shape or form. Natural healthy heterosexual couples gravitate towards this condition in my opinion.

Gay couples on the other hand, especially for male homosexuals, do not view fidelity and monogamy with Christian standards. The vast majority of gay couples are not monogamous over extended lengths of time. There might be a few % of gay couples able to keep complete fidelity with each other and stay away from porn but it is very few. A study I read stated that around 75-80% of heterosexual couples stay together in an anogamous relationship with each other for at least 5 years. Amongst same sex couples that % is less than 5% and upon reaching year 20 or greater that number drops down to around 2%! As for gay homosexual couples there are pretty much no monogamous relationships that remain for a lifetime. These are just the facts of that lifestyle.

[rockpond]

Its kind of an impossibility you are asking for. For instance, I do not recognize same sex marriage just as the church does not recognize it either. So, we are left with single people of all different kinds, same sex couples, heterosexual couples, and married heterosexual couples. It is true that a certain amount of promiscuity happens in heterosexual singles, heterosexual couples, and even married couples. These are however not generally classified as being highly promiscuous peoples in general as compared with homosexual males. For instance- I considered myself kind of wild growing up and fooled around a bit in my teenage years, perhaps an average heterosexual lifestyle by worldly standards. In my 35 years of sexual activity I have had 3 different people I have had sexual relations with all of which happened before I was married. I have been married over twenty years and have had 1 sex partner and it is with my wife. We typically have a traditional Christian monogamous relationship where absolutely no physical intimate relations exist for either of us outside of our marriage covenant. We do not flirt with others, we do not go on dates with others nor is it an "open" marriage in any way shape or form. Natural healthy heterosexual couples gravitate towards this condition in my opinion.

Gay couples on the other hand, especially for male homosexuals, do not view fidelity and monogamy with Christian standards. The vast majority of gay couples are not monogamous over extended lengths of time. There might be a few % of gay couples able to keep complete fidelity with each other and stay away from porn but it is very few. A study I read stated that around 75-80% of heterosexual couples stay together in an anogamous relationship with each other for at least 5 years. Amongst same sex couples that % is less than 5% and upon reaching year 20 or greater that number drops down to around 2%! As for gay homosexual couples there are pretty much no monogamous relationships that remain for a lifetime. These are just the facts of that lifestyle.

 

Denying marriage to gay men because they are promiscuous makes about as much sense to me as denying an umbrella to someone caught in the rain... because they are wet.

[Rodeo]

Rodeo, let me be clear:

In America today, there is NO civil marriage benefit, right, or responsibility that is granted based on any sexual behavior.

Let me repeat that.

In America today, there is NO civil marriage benefit, right, or responsibility that is granted based on any sexual behavior.

Americans don't get even a SINGLE benefit from marriage if they are having MORE sex, or LESS sex; no marriage benefits for MORE sex with one person, nor more marriage benefits for LESS sex with other people, nor more marriage benefits for NO sex at all, nor more marriage benefits for MORE sex with everyone.

Civilly-speaking:

Marriage itself isn't conditional on ANY type of sexual relationship with one's spouse.

Old people who don't have sex get married.

Medically-based sexually non-functioning individuals get married.

Barren and infertile individuals get married.

Incarcerated multiple-life-sentance-serving convicts (murderers and the like) who are "denied conjugal visits" (in other words, "are denied the ability to EVER have sex") get married.

Heterosexual civil marriage rights are ENTIRELY unrelated, and not dependent, on ANY sexual behavior.

And gays had NOTHING to do with that lack of civil expectation---------the Constitution is responsible for it------NOT gays.

Can you imagine living in a civil (secular) government that gave out marriage rights only to sexually active and reproducing couples...?

Can you imagine how personally intrusive such a government would be---demanding that citizens keep record of, account for, and/or PROVE that they are only having sex according to the government's regulation?

Can you imagine government terminating civil marriage rights because a given couple violated the sex that government decreed as "worthy"?

Can you imagine how religious freedom in such a state would be intolerable?

Religion may reward and encourage and promote whatever sexual behaviors it wishes.

However, in America, we also have personal freedoms, religious freedoms, and a plurality of beliefs.

And government "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

It sounds like your argument is with the First Amendment, so it sure would be nice if you would give credit where credit is due, instead of scapegoating gays for religions' failure to convince everyone of a single, universal sexual code of conduct.

Incidentally, as a devout Mormon, I was always taught that it was America's Constitution, which respects individual rights and allows for the freedoms of religion, speech, assembly, etc. that allowed the blessing of the Restoration of the (LDS) Gospel to even occur.

According to LDS belief, these freedom to make choices (even choices contrary to Heavenly Father's will, that would damn his children)--also called "agency"--was sanctioned by God the Father, and SO important that he cast out a third of his children who rejected the agency He approved and gave them:

A nice little history lesson using your scriptures shows that the institution of marriage was solely a religious experience between man and woman. Religious holy men alone held all rights to marry and divorce. It was a function of the church. A lot has happened since then and in my opinion one of the worst things we ever did was get government involved with our religious rights, the marriage covenant being one of them. Why do you think the church fights so hard to end or stop gay marriage? Its because we are allowing secular humanism policies to take over what should be religious rights and privileges only. Agency was fought over basic right and wrong. Satan wanted wickedness and justification for it, God wanted rules, responsibility, rewards and punishment. That same fight continues today with Satan still at the reigns fighting for immoral behavior and justification for it. When he wins he strips our agency from us. What freedom is there in a life of sin and immorality? None!

[Brian 2.0]

Its kind of an impossibility you are asking for. For instance, I do not recognize same sex marriage just as the church does not recognize it either. So, we are left with single people of all different kinds, same sex couples, heterosexual couples, and married heterosexual couples. 

 

 

Wait, wait, wait... hold the phone...

 

Are you saying that because you don't accept SSM as moral or sanctioned by God or the church, that you also do not accept that Same Sex Marriages exist?!?

 

SSM are legal in a lot of different states and in a lot of different countries.  If a study came out that said promiscuity in Same Sex Marriages is on par with promiscuity is heterosexual marriages... would you not accept it?  Because you don't believe there is such a thing as a same sex marriage?

 

Am I really reading you right here?