Is Homosexuality Inherently Evil? Why?

[Sleeper Cell]

In 15 years of observing the church's efforts against SSM, I don't know that a solid explanation has been presented for what makes homosexuality inherently evil. The two most common attempts I've seen are:

1. Marriage between a man and woman is ordained of God. ...

Regarding the first explanation, logically, God ordaining one practice does not mean another is not or cannot be ordained by him. However, what i think advocates of this response really mean to say is "God said so." But God saying something is evil in no way explains the inherent evil of a practice. In addition, I don't know that such an explanation is adequate. Saying that something is evil solely because God said so would imply that certain practices would not be evil if God did not say so. 

 

 

No it doesn’t.  Logically, something may be inherently evil, even if God does not explain why.  At most, the lack of an explanation may imply that it might not be inherently evil.  It might also imply (for example) that, in our present state, we are incapable of understanding  the explanation.  

 

When it comes to matters of good and evil, I an inclined to take God’s word for it.

[smac97]

In 15 years of observing the church's efforts against SSM, I don't know that a solid explanation has been presented for what makes homosexuality inherently evil.

The Church's position is that homosexual conduct is sinful. "Homosexuality" would seem to encompass more than that.

 

The two most common attempts I've seen are:

1. Marriage between a man and woman is ordained of God

2. Homosexuality prevents exaltation.

I don't think I've ever seen the second item presented as a "front line" arguments against homosexual conduct. There are all sorts of things that can prevent exaltation, including prohibited and unrepented of heterosexual conduct such as fornication and adultery.

Here are a few thoughts:

1. Homosexual Conduct is Incompatible with Marriage: Marriage between a man and woman is ordained of God (and, as a corollary, sexual conduct outside of that union is per se sinful).  I have addressed this previously here:

 

 

You said: "Heterosexual behavior is privileged, and homosexual behavior is prohibited. This is not, I think, a point in dispute. What you do not seem to get, though, is that these standards are universal."

That's what I'm trying to get at. This universally applied standard privileges heterosexuals.

Smac97: Yes. That is the order of things (Edited to add: I think heterosexual behavior is privileged.). Heterosexual behavior is, within boundaries set by God, condoned, celebrated, endorsed, mandated.

Sexual fidelity within marriage is privileged, whereas sexual infidelity or promiscuity is not.

Consensual sexual behavior is privileged, whereas nonconsensual sexual behavior is not.

I'm not seeing your point here. God had commanded us to engage in certain behaviors (consensual heterosexual behavior within marriage) and prohibited us from engaging in other behaviors (adultery, fornication, homosexual behavior, rape, incest, etc.).

And you appear to be suggesting that this is ... bad?

 

 

2. Homosexual Conduct is One of Many Types of Sexual Conduct Prohibited by God: Homosexual conduct is prohibited by God (as are many other forms of sexual sin). In their 14 November 1991 letter concerning the importance of the law of chastity, the First Presidency declared: “Sexual relations are proper only between husband and wife appropriately expressed within the bonds of marriage. Any other sexual contact, including fornication, adultery, and homosexual and lesbian behavior, is sinful.”

 

I recognize that our current society, including some members of the Church, really really want to exempt homosexual conduct from the Law of Chastity.  There are all sorts of machinations which have been attempted, including radically re-defining the word "marriage," accusing the Brethren of hate-based bigotry for not toeing the currently trendy line of embracing and celebrating same-sex behaviors, and so on.  But I just don't think this will work.  I've commented on this previously here: 

 

 

As Smac has pointed out, the standard may be universal but the sacrifice being asked of homosexuals in this regard far exceeds that being asked of heterosexuals.

Smac97: So adherence to a universal standard is harder for some than for others. That is special or unique ... how, exactly?

I don't like the idea of creating martyrs out of homosexuals. Yes, they have a struggle. But so do others. Some struggle with adultery, or with fornication, or with pornography, or with substance abuse, or with violence, or with mental illness, and on and on and on. We, as a Church, are supposed to show compassion, patience, love and understanding to our brothers and sisters.

We all have our faults. But elevating one form of temptation, SSA, over other types of temptation (which can be just as difficult to cope with as SSA) has no value. Zip. Nada. I think people like you only do it because the World has made a pet project of lionizing homosexuality and putting it on equal footing with heterosexuality (note your apparent indignation when I noted that the Restored Gospel privileges heterosexual behavior over homosexual behavior).

 

3. Severance from the Purpose of Sex: Homosexual conduct necessarily and always separates sex from its fundamental purposes: A) the strengthening of a union between husband and wife and B) procreation.  Elder Oaks put it this way:

 

Every Latter-day Saint knows that God has forbidden all sexual relations outside the bonds of marriage. Most are also aware of the Savior’s teaching that it is sinful for a man to look upon and lust after a woman (see Matt. 5:28; D&C 42:23; 63:16).

Attraction between man and woman was instilled by the Creator to ensure the perpetuation of mortal life and to draw husband and wife together in the family setting he prescribed for the accomplishment of his purposes, including the raising of children. In contrast, deviations from God’s commandments in the use of procreative powers are grave sins. President Joseph F. Smith taught:

“Sexual union is lawful in wedlock, and if participated in with right intent is honorable and sanctifying. But without the bonds of marriage, sexual indulgence is a debasing sin, abominable in the sight of Deity.”

4. All of Us Held to the Same Standard: Elder Oaks has spoken of the ongoing debate about "evidence or theories suggesting that 'there is substantial evidence for genetic influence on sexual orientation,'" about sexual behavior being "profoundly influenced by psychosocial factors such as parental and sibling relationships (especially during the formative years) and the culture in which we live," and how all of this is part of a "highly complex subject on which scientific knowledge is still in its infancy" and that "most scientists concede that the current evidence is insufficient and that firm conclusions must await many additional scientific studies."  The Church, having taken this into account, holds all members of the Church to the same standard of sexual conduct (see above).

 

I commented on this issue previously here:

 

 

We have been called upon to reach out in love and understanding. And yet, asking our homosexual brothers & sisters to be celibate will be interpreted by many of them as quite the opposite of love and understanding.

Smac97: ... People with same-sex attraction are asked to abide by the same standards as anyone else. There is no shortage of widowed, divorced, not-yet or never-married church members who are commanded to be celibate. Those who are married are commanded to confine their behavior to certain parameters.

All of these commandments come from God. Those who profess to be LDS, who define themselves by a belief system that entails confession of and belief in these precepts, cannot in good faith claim that church leaders counseling members to adhere to these voluntarily-accepted doctrines constitutes "quite the opposite of love and understanding."

 

 

More in the next post.

-Smac

Edited March 19, 2015 by smac97

[smac97]

Continued from the previous post:

5. Feelings are Not Determinative of Morality (Where God Has Spoken): I have addressed this issue previously here:

 

 

I'm not suggesting that desire overrides chastity. A married man doesn't get to have an affair simply because he desires it.

Smac97: Great! And a homosexual man doesn't get to have sex with another man simply because he "desires it."

Desire, you see, is not determinative of the standard. God has prohibited adultery amongst His children. God has also prohibited same-sex behavior amongst His children. It is true that some of His children want to (and do) engage in adultery. This is wrong. It is also true that some of His children want to (and do) engage in same-sex behavior. This is wrong. The same standard applies to all church members.

 

 
And here:

 

 

I'm not suggesting that "desire" is the standard.

Smac97: Well, it appears that is exactly what you are suggesting. Your entire premise is that homosexuals should be exempted from the same standards of sexual behavior that apply to everyone else because they want to engage in that behavior.

This thread is full of posts explaining how homosexual members are treated differently because they cannot fulfill their desires.

But if we take desires out of the equation, and simply look at the standard of behavior imposed on church members, we see that the same standard is applied across the board. Once we see that, all the various arguments presented in this thread, based as they are on homosexuals being downtrodden because of their unfulfilled desires, fall apart.

I agree with you that there is much that we desire that we cannot act on.

Smac97: And yet here you are, proposing that homosexual members be given some sort of special dispensation. That they be allowed to engage in conduct prohibited to the rest of us, solely because they want to engage in that behavior. But such reasoning falls apart quickly. By your reckoning, adultery is A-OK as long as the adulterer wants to engage in that conduct, which is prohibited to others.

 

Regarding the first explanation, logically, God ordaining one practice does not mean another is not or cannot be ordained by him.

But that's not the way of things. Homosexuality has been specifically prohibited.
 

However, what i think advocates of this response really mean to say is "God said so." But God saying something is evil in no way explains the inherent evil of a practice.

I think it does. When God, who is perfectly righteous and all-knowing, declares something to be a sin, then that answers the question. God is the Ultimate Authority on such things. He is in a position to set such fundamental definitions.
 

In addition, I don't know that such an explanation is adequate. Saying that something is evil solely because God said so would imply that certain practices would not be evil if God did not say so. For example, I think most would regard rape as evil, regardless of god's condemnation of the practice.

But you haven't explained why rape is "inherently" evil. You've just asserted what you think about it. How is that any more definitive than the position taken by folks who assert that rape is "inherently" evil because God has said so?

I teach courses on the law at a local university. I teach a course on legal research every semester, which includes an extensive review of basic legal vocabulary. One of the terms I test on is "malum in se," a Latin phrase "used to refer to conduct assessed as sinful or inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct." It is often juxtaposed against "malum prohibitum," which refers to "conduct that constitutes an unlawful act only by virtue of statute."

Every semester I provide the above definitions and then, without any further instruction or prompting from me, I ask the class to give me three examples of conduct that is malum in se. Invariably, and I mean each and every semester, for the past four years, I have received the same three responses: murder, rape and theft. The terms sometimes vary ("killing" instead of "murder," "sexual abuse" instead of "rape," "stealing" instead of "theft," etc.), but the same three concepts are always volunteered by students.

I then ask my students to explain why these things are malum in se, and the response is generally "Well, they just are."

My personal opinion, never shared in class (it's a state school, after all), is that the legal concept of malum in se is one of the purest evidences of God, and of the Light of Christ. Try as we might, secularists just cannot explain away the innate sense of "right" and "wrong" that exists in all but the most depraved of us. We know, in our heart of hearts, that certain things are "wrong" or "evil," such as murder, rape and theft. We also know, in equally unprovable and unarticulated terms, that certain things are "good" or "right," such as the feeling a parent has when tucking blankets around his sleeping child (as I did last night).

Without God, "good" cannot exist. Just look at the definition of the term: "morally excellent; virtuous; righteous; pious." Good cannot be defined without morals, virtue, right and piety. These terms, without God, are left to the definitions of whomever has the most power. That is arbitrary.
 
So, is homosexual conduct "malum in se" or "malumn prohibitum?"  I think it's both.  I also think that fornication and adultery and other forms of sexual sin fall into both of these categories.
 
I see deviations from God's plan for His children to be a condition of this mortal probation. There are many ways people can struggle with matters of sexuality. Some people, including people in the LDS Church, struggle with abstaining from sex outside of marriage (adultery or fornication). Some struggle with pornography, lasciviousness, and so on. Some people conflate sexuality with violence. Some are sexually attracted to children, or family members, or inanimate objects, or animals. These are all variations on a theme. Some of us have struggles in other ways. Some struggle with chemical dependencies and addictions. Some eat too much. Some lack a work ethic. Some have difficulty controlling their temper and/or improperly resort to violence. Some are greedy. Some seek unrighteous dominion. Some are dishonest. Some are profane. Some shirk important responsibilities.

I could go on forever. King Benjamin pretty much nailed it when he said this: "And finally, I cannot tell you all the things whereby ye may commit sin; for there are divers ways and means, even so many that I cannot number them."

And then there are all sorts of additional afflictions which affect God's children: diseases which afflict body and mind, familial and social disfunctions, political and socioeconomic injustices, wicked combinations, and so on. These "external" afflictions likewise lead the children of God astray.

I can't speak, in this thread, as to all of the complexities surrounding same-sex attraction. It is a complex and difficult topic. However, I can speak to what the Restored Gospel has said about it, which is that acting on such inclinations is sinful and requires repentance. Likewise, those who succumb to inclinations to engage in behaviors which are likewise prohibited (adultery, fornication, improper violence, greed, etc.) are also committing sin and must repent.

I see no reason to privilege same-sex attraction and separate it from any of the other types of mortal predilections which, if acted upon, violate the commandments of God. I know that currently the socially popular and politically correct thing to do is capitulate to eroding social mores, ditch the scriptures and the prophets, and to instead go with what the Great-and-Spacious-Building tenants are telling us to do. Sadly, there are some Latter-day Saints are who are listening to these voices, but there are also those that are not, and who as a result are getting an earful of bigotry and hatred for clinging to the Iron Rod. Well, so be it. To finish up King Benjamin's instruction: "But this much I can tell you, that if ye do not watch yourselves, and your thoughts, and your words, and your deeds, and observe the commandments of God, and continue in the faith of what ye have heard concerning the coming of our Lord, even unto the end of your lives, ye must perish. And now, O man, remember, and perish not."

And on a somewhat more upbeat note, I'll end with this encouragement from our Lord: "These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world."
 

We are taught that exaltation is reserved for those who have been sealed. It has also been taught that given the equity of God, all will have the opportunity to marry (which seems fair since God likely created humans to become like him). However we know there are degrees within the celestial kingdom reserved for ministering angels who do not marry.

Yes.
 

It seems that we can conclude that these ministering angels choose not to marry and thus choose a path other than exaltation.

I suppose. If by "choose" you refer to the amalgamation of choices made while in this mortal probation. I think all of us will be given a fair shot at exaltation.
 

Why are they not condemned as homosexuals are?

Homosexuals are not condemned. Latter-day Saints do not believe this. You are making a false statement here. Bearing false witness. Please stop that.
 

Why can't a valiant homosexual individual who remains true to their partner all their life not enter the celestial kingdom?

We do not get to pick and choose the commandments we obey. Exaltation requires marriage between a man and a women. Exaltation requires repentance. Exaltation requires adherence to the Law of Chastity. All of these are implicated in the theoretical you propose above.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 19, 2015 by smac97

[HappyJackWagon]

 

No it doesn’t.  Logically, something may be inherently evil, even if God does not explain why.  At most, the lack of an explanation may imply that it might not be inherently evil.  It might also imply (for example) that, in our present state, we are incapable of understanding  the explanation.  

 

When it comes to matters of good and evil, I an inclined to take God’s word for it.

 

The real question is, are you willing to take a 10th hand account of what they think God's word might be about it?

 

In my life I've seen that evil hurts others. It takes something away from them in a selfish act. This is true of violence or theft, or gossiping/evil speaking, mockery, infidelity, etc. Evil hurts people.

 

A gay couple in a committed relationship, sanctioned through legal marriage, doesn't seem to be hurting any body except for the bigots who want to make sure they are viewed as lesser human beings.

[The Nehor]

If you want your arguments to be taken seriously then you must take others' just as seriously. No one here has said that they support SSM because they are uncomfortable going against popular thought. Their support derives from seeing actual SSMs, living alongside gay couples and families, and through experience and prayer coming to the judgment that such unions/families are good. If you want to have a productive discussion, that is what you have to confront. Not some strawman argument of political correctness. That's not any more fair than people who dismiss religous objectors to SSM as nothing more than bigots.

Quite bluntly I do not believe them when they say this is why. Where were these heartfelt LDS people 20 or 30 years ago who knew gay couples and saw the good they could do? I knew a few gay couples living on my street when I was in my teens and no one was rallying around how good they were and how their prayers led them to this conclusion.

As to them being wonderful people of course some of them are. I know wonderful people who drink but that does not invalidate the Word of Wisdom because they are wonderful. I know good people who fornicate but that does not invalidate the Law of Chastity because they are good. What makes SSM so special that it gets an exemption from this general rule? The timing makes it very suspicious. Why does this come up as soon as it becomes socially unacceptable to oppose it? Or do these people also question God about the Word of Wisdom when they meet a nice person who drinks socially or pray fervently to know if the Law of Chastity is still true when they meet a nice couple that lives together without being married?

[JLHPROF]

Considering all the excuses made why it's not wrong I'd like to know why we can't apply those same excuses to pretty much any sin?

Why is murder wrong?

Why is adultery wrong?

 

If you can show me why they are wrong but homosexuality is right I would be interested to read it.

You are the ones looking to have the established law changed. 

 

Why don't you prove to me that homosexuality is NOT doctrinally sinful and is perfectly in keeping with the laws and plans of God?

 

Still waiting...

[HappyJackWagon]

Considering all the excuses made why it's not wrong I'd like to know why we can't apply those same excuses to pretty much any sin?

Why is murder wrong?

Why is adultery wrong?

 

If you can show me why they are wrong but homosexuality is right I would be interested to read it.

You are the ones looking to have the established law changed. 

 

Why don't you prove to me that homosexuality is NOT doctrinally sinful and is perfectly in keeping with the laws and plans of God?

 

Still waiting...

Read my last comment #79.

 

Some behaviors hurt other people. Some don't.

[Gray]

I didn't ask if you found it moral or pleasing.

I asked for some doctrinal justification for the practice.

 

If we have to show that it is doctrinally wrong, please show that is doctrinally correct, in keeping with the laws and plans of God.

If doctrinal change is sought, please provide the justification.

 

I can find no doctrinal condemnation of the practice (from the perspective of canonized scripture), which according to at least one prophet, is certainly a good enough source to determine that there is no doctrine against gay marriage.

 

But I would argue that doctrine is far less important that the real world application of good moral principles - stretching ourselves and making our own judgments based on the best principles found in scripture. Would could be better practice for godhood?

[Gray]

Makes plenty of sense considering that this earth life is in the image of the eternities.

Unless you are planning on being resurrected like Ken and Barbie.

 

The mechanics of sexual reproduction are somewhat crude and an evolved characteristic, a quirk of earth-life necessity, as a means of improving adaptability to environmental change over generations. Of what use would that be in an afterlife?

 

And if you believe the D&C, spirits are organized from intelligences which are past-eternal, not "born" in any literal way. 

Edited March 19, 2015 by Gray

[The Nehor]

But I would argue that doctrine is far less important that the real world application of good moral principles - stretching ourselves and making our own judgments based on the best principles found in scripture. Would could be better practice for godhood?

I would argue that submission to the will of God would be much better practice. I would also suggest that comparing doctrine to "real world" principles with the hidden insinuation that doctrine is from some less real place is probably an indication the speaker is in spiritual peril.

[The Nehor]

The mechanics of sexual reproduction are somewhat crude and an evolved characteristic, a quirk of earth-life necessity, as a means of improving adaptability to environmental change over generations. Of what use would that be in an afterlife?

Pleasure? Fun? Expression of intimacy?

[smac97]

Read my last comment #79.

 

Some behaviors hurt other people. Some don't.

 

So fornication is acceptable in the eyes of God, as long as it doesn't "hurt other people?"

 

What about sanctioned adultery (open marriages)?  Is that acceptable in the eyes of God as long as it doesn't "hurt other people?"

 

What about prostitution?  Is that acceptable in the eyes of God as long as it doesn't "hurt other people?"

 

What about worshiping idols?  Is that acceptable in the eyes of God as long as it doesn't "hurt other people?"

 

What about praising Satan?  Is that acceptable in the eyes of God as long as it doesn't "hurt other people?"

 

What about blaspheming God?  Is that acceptable in the eyes of God as long as it doesn't "hurt other people?"

 

What about suicide?  Is that acceptable in the eyes of God as long as it doesn't "hurt other people?"

 

I'm just trying to sort out the parameters of your proposed moral paradigm here.  Hedonist theories like "if it feels good, do it" and "as long as you don't hurt anyone else, do it" really take God out of the equation.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[JLHPROF]

The mechanics of sexual reproduction are somewhat crude and an evolved characteristic, a quirk of earth-life necessity, as a means of improving adaptability to environmental change over generations. Of what use would that be in an afterlife?

 

And if you believe the D&C, spirits are organized from intelligences which are past-eternal, not "born" in any literal way. 

 

Once again I refuse to speculate on Celestial turkey basters.  Ockham's razor - the simplest explanation is best.  God created us in his image.  We have reproductive genitals.  So does he.

 

God and Mary conceived Christ, who presumably (to be fully human as the scriptures say) had chromosomes from his mother and father like anyone else.

 

And I believe that the organization of intelligences into spirit bodies was a procreative act.  It is wilder speculation to suppose some alternative.

[Buckeye]

Quite bluntly I do not believe them when they say this is why. Where were these heartfelt LDS people 20 or 30 years ago who knew gay couples and saw the good they could do? I knew a few gay couples living on my street when I was in my teens and no one was rallying around how good they were and how their prayers led them to this conclusion.

As to them being wonderful people of course some of them are. I know wonderful people who drink but that does not invalidate the Word of Wisdom because they are wonderful. I know good people who fornicate but that does not invalidate the Law of Chastity because they are good. What makes SSM so special that it gets an exemption from this general rule? The timing makes it very suspicious. Why does this come up as soon as it becomes socially unacceptable to oppose it? Or do these people also question God about the Word of Wisdom when they meet a nice person who drinks socially or pray fervently to know if the Law of Chastity is still true when they meet a nice couple that lives together without being married?

 

The moment you dismiss people as liars the conversation is over. Otherwise we can just discount your statements as the hallucinations of a deranged lunatic and thereby avoid grappling with what you actually say.

 

20-30 years ago, many of these people were in primary. And those who weren’t lived in a day and age where many were sheltered from actual open gay partnerships.

 

As to the WOW and other such issues, I have friends who smoke and drink. I get to the effects of those actions directly. Generally, the results are not as bad as often described in Sunday school, but I’ve yet to see any good effects. In these situations, gaining evidence has largely confirmed to me the truthfulness of the church’s teachings, though I still hold out the possibility that some non-forbidden substances (wine, low alcohol content beer) could be permitted in the eternities. The difference with SSM, though, is that the fruit of such relationships is good (again in my limited judgment). That’s why I do not merely tolerate SSM (as I do somewhat with smoking and drinking), but I support it.

[The Nehor]

The moment you dismiss people as liars the conversation is over. Otherwise we can just discount your statements as the hallucinations of a deranged lunatic and thereby avoid grappling with what you actually say.

 

20-30 years ago, many of these people were in primary. And those who weren’t lived in a day and age where many were sheltered from actual open gay partnerships.

 

As to the WOW and other such issues, I have friends who smoke and drink. I get to the effects of those actions directly. Generally, the results are not as bad as often described in Sunday school, but I’ve yet to see any good effects. In these situations, gaining evidence has largely confirmed to me the truthfulness of the church’s teachings, though I still hold out the possibility that some non-forbidden substances (wine, low alcohol content beer) could be permitted in the eternities. The difference with SSM, though, is that the fruit of such relationships is good (again in my limited judgment). That’s why I do not merely tolerate SSM (as I do somewhat with smoking and drinking), but I support it.

It is hard to have a conversation with someone you believe to be lying. I do not believe it is an overt lie in the sense that they are trying hide their true motives consciously. I think they latched onto it as a kind of popular justification and now they believe it.....like Korihor did.

[california boy]

I don't think anyone is going to convince anyone else of anything on this thread.  It's really just yet another excuse for the same old back and forth.

 

Smiley asked for the doctrinal reason homosexuality is wrong.  I provided one.

 

Considering all the excuses made why it's not wrong I'd like to know why we can't apply those same excuses to pretty much any sin?

Why is murder wrong?

Why is adultery wrong?

 

If you can show me why they are wrong but homosexuality is right I would be interested to read it.

You are the ones looking to have the established law changed.  Why don't you prove to me that homosexuality is NOT sinful and is perfectly in keeping with the laws and plans of God?

 

Well like I said, and you have stated before.  Since homosexual is wrong and wicked, then there is no plan of happiness if you are gay.  Period.  That is just an unlucky break for those children of God.  Even murder and adultery can be repented from.  But how can you repent of something you are born with.  If you are celibate, you are also wicked.  And when you die, the only solution is for you to be paired with a woman.  Yipie.  Like I said, no plan of happiness if you are gay.  There is no reason for a gay member to be faithful in this life because they will not receive what they desire in the next anyway.  

[Storm Rider]

I can find no doctrinal condemnation of the practice (from the perspective of canonized scripture), which according to at least one prophet, is certainly a good enough source to determine that there is no doctrine against gay marriage.

 

But I would argue that doctrine is far less important that the real world application of good moral principles - stretching ourselves and making our own judgments based on the best principles found in scripture. Would could be better practice for godhood?

 

I think you mean that you find no direct, explicit condemnation of SSM. I assume that you acknowledge there is a rather extensive support for male - female marriage and relationships?  What you propose is that if God did not explicitly condemn SSM then he obviously must support it, which is hard for me to understand as a viable method of understanding God's will or teachings.  

 

Practice for godhood....certainly does not include bowing to carnal desires.

[The Nehor]

Well like I said, and you have stated before.  Since homosexual is wrong and wicked, then there is no plan of happiness if you are gay.  Period.  That is just an unlucky break for those children of God.  Even murder and adultery can be repented from.  But how can you repent of something you are born with.  If you are celibate, you are also wicked.  And when you die, the only solution is for you to be paired with a woman.  Yipie.  Like I said, no plan of happiness if you are gay.  There is no reason for a gay member to be faithful in this life because they will not receive what they desire in the next anyway.

Then have faith that God can make you happy as he promised if you do the best you can.

Or you can do the self-pity thing. Whatever makes you happier.

[JLHPROF]

Since homosexual is wrong and wicked, then there is no plan of happiness if you are gay.  Period.  That is just an unlucky break for those children of God. 

 

I never said that, and I don't agree.

I have said on many other occasion that homosexuality is an improper attraction.  This likens it to addictions, gluttony, jealousy, anger, etc.

 

I think those with SSA who live worthily without sinning (abstain) in this life will no longer remain homosexual in the next.  Just my opinion, not church teaching.  And they will have the opportunity to be completely happy.  For God to allow someone to keep their SSA for eternity and not be allowed to act on it would be cruel.  I don't think that that will happen at all.

 

I know you call this the "magic wand".  Call it what you like, but I believe SSA will be overcome like any other negative personal trait.  I don't believe SSA continues into the next life.  I'm not even convinced heterosexual attraction (of the sexual erotic kind) continues, even if heterosexual procreation does in my opinion.

[Storm Rider]

Well like I said, and you have stated before.  Since homosexual is wrong and wicked, then there is no plan of happiness if you are gay.  Period.  That is just an unlucky break for those children of God.  Even murder and adultery can be repented from.  But how can you repent of something you are born with.  If you are celibate, you are also wicked.  And when you die, the only solution is for you to be paired with a woman.  Yipie.  Like I said, no plan of happiness if you are gay.  There is no reason for a gay member to be faithful in this life because they will not receive what they desire in the next anyway.  

 

I don't agree with the position you are presenting.  I don't thinking being celibate is evil or wrong.  I also don't think you or any other mortal has a handle on who or what they are or will be in the eternities.  

 

For me the entire gay question is a conundrum.  I don't think we are "born" that way; I just don't know.  It may be that we are born that way or it may be something that happens after conception, but before birth, or in the formative years.  What I know is that we have brothers and sisters who deeply feel SSA.  

 

I don't know what God's plan is completely, but I feel strongly that he is a loving God and will remove the scales from our eyes so that we will see more clearly one day.  Our understanding is extremely limited here on earth.  

 

We have been on this earth for thousands of years.  Behaviors associated with SSA have been condemned by God's chosen people for the entire period until now.  Now we have an open rebellion against God and his teachings.  A group has commenced by shutting their eyes to scripture and to history and demand that if God did not explicitly condemn SSM then he must support it.  I find this both troubling and dangerous.  Troubling because it sets a precedence where some may feel the need to be commanded in all things, which I think leads to a weak people and ready for slavery.  Dangerous because these people and those that support them do not know what the impact will be socially.  We do not know where this path leads and I fear it will not be a land of rainbows and full of love.  I think it leads to a decadent, weak, prurient culture that leads to destruction. 

[Sleeper Cell]

The real question is, are you willing to take a 10th hand account of what they think God's word might be about it?

 

In my life I've seen that evil hurts others. It takes something away from them in a selfish act. This is true of violence or theft, or gossiping/evil speaking, mockery, infidelity, etc. Evil hurts people.

 

A gay couple in a committed relationship, sanctioned through legal marriage, doesn't seem to be hurting any body except for the bigots who want to make sure they are viewed as lesser human beings.

 

A 10th hand account?  So much for personal revelation, let alone living prophets.  And it sure beats taking someone else’s word for it or deferring to the popular consensus.

 

It might be argued that infidelity doesn’t hurt anyone, as long as one’s spouse doesn’t find out. (The evil is not the infidelity, but failure to take sufficient precautions to avoid getting caught).   It also might be argued that not all violence is a selfish act.  Or, for that matter, that sometimes doing good hurts people.  

 

“A gay couple in a committed relationship, sanctioned through legal marriage doesn’t seem to be hurting anybody …?”   Neither does a gay couple in a non committed relationship. Or a straight couple for that matter.

 

But, more to the point, absent the word of God, how can we possibly know the eternal consequences of our actions?  

[Buckeye]

It is hard to have a conversation with someone you believe to be lying. I do not believe it is an overt lie in the sense that they are trying hide their true motives consciously. I think they latched onto it as a kind of popular justification and now they believe it.....like Korihor did.

 

Again, that's fine. But at least state that and acknowledge the conversation is over. You can't reasonably continue a discussion with someone if you're going to dismiss their actual words because you have already concluded that they are lying or delusional.

[pogi]

 But how can you repent of something you are born with.

 

Am I missing something here...you were born having sex with another man? 

[stemelbow]

Well like I said, and you have stated before.  Since homosexual is wrong and wicked, then there is no plan of happiness if you are gay.  Period.  That is just an unlucky break for those children of God.  Even murder and adultery can be repented from.  But how can you repent of something you are born with.  If you are celibate, you are also wicked.  And when you die, the only solution is for you to be paired with a woman.  Yipie.  Like I said, no plan of happiness if you are gay.  There is no reason for a gay member to be faithful in this life because they will not receive what they desire in the next anyway.

Why would God do that to someone? He wouldn't, says Packer. What you say here is exactly what makes this whole issue seem misunderstood by the Church.

[Sleeper Cell]

I can find no doctrinal condemnation of the practice (from the perspective of canonized scripture), which according to at least one prophet, is certainly a good enough source to determine that there is no doctrine against gay marriage.

 

Perhaps the reason the canonized scriptures do not condemn the practice of “gay marriage” has something to do with the fact that “gay marriage” did not exist until recently.  It is bad enough to change the definition of marriage to mean something it has never meant before -- but to do it retroactively?