Is Homosexuality Inherently Evil? Why?

[rodheadlee]

If you respond like this, you probably don't understand either. And how will I never understand?

Sorry for being rude this board is all SSM all the time and I'm over it, but I'll give it a shot. It's really very simple. Casting aside the gift of life is sin. It is a sacred gift from God to be able to produce life. Planting your seed in the waste system of another human being is a slap in the face of God. Spilling your seed on the ground or any other place other than it's intended garden is also a sin, Why do you think we counsel against masturbation? I don't know the whys from the female perspective. Perhaps a woman could explain it. 

[Buckeye]

Sorry for being rude this board is all SSM all the time and I'm over it, but I'll give it a shot. It's really very simple. Casting aside the gift of life is sin. It is a sacred gift from God to be able to produce life. Planting your seed in the waste system of another human being is a slap in the face of God. Spilling your seed on the ground or any other place other than it's intended garden is also a sin, Why do you think we counsel against masturbation? I don't know the whys from the female perspective. Perhaps a woman could explain it. 

 

Actually, the LDS church consistently teaches that sex between married heterosexual couples has a significant purpose outside of procreation. In fact, I've read statements suggesting that unity, not procreation, is the primary function.

[SmileyMcGee]

No, I answered the question. Homosexuality is evil because it cannot create life. Period.

And "ordained of God" refers to the revealing, not the origin. All ordinances existed before the foundation of the world according to Joseph Smith. God himself has no agency to change them.

Then you must address why there are celibate heterosexuals who won't create life in lower degrees of the celestial kingdom. How do they differ from a homosexual that wont create life?

[SmileyMcGee]

What exactly is a valiant homosexual?

There are many different degrees of evil but all evil comes down to a violation of the laws of God. Why can't a practicing homosexual enter the Celestial Kingdom? Because the very act is a violation of Celestial law. Every kingdom has a law and in order to obtain that kingdom, one must be in compliance with that law. Whether a homosexual is true to their partner or not really does not matter. God does not care about that anymore than God cares if an unmarried couple who live together their whole life are true to each other. We were put on this earth to see if we would keep the commandments of God. To see how obedient we are to the commandments. Life is not an exercise of seeing in what creative ways we can find a loophole around the commandments.

Jesus and Satan are polar opposites. Whatever Jesus is for, Satan is against and vice versa. So one this issue we can ask these two questions to arrive at our answer

1. What is Jesus views regarding homosexuality and SSM?

2. What are Satan views regarding homosexuality and SSM?

What celestial law is homosexuality violating that some in the celestial kingdom may also be violating?

[JLHPROF]

I am guessing that voluntary celibacy is evil because it cannot create life.  Period.

 

The OP asked for the doctrinal backing.  I provided it, whether the Church takes the same direct approach or not.

And yes, voluntary celibacy is also a direct violation of God's work/law/design/commandment, again, whether the Church takes the same direct approach or not.

 

 

So basically you are saying that the church teaches that homosexuals are evil no matter what they do.  Good to know.  

 

Is it ok with you if I post this message on my facebook page as Mormon belief concerning gays?  This is very helpful.

 

I would never presume to speak for the Church.  They can do that themselves.  All I did was provide an unofficial doctrinal answer to a doctrinal question.

And yes, you can quote it, but no, it is not something the Church has come out and said.

[JLHPROF]

So much for an all powerful God.

 

But in the place of an all powerful God we have humans who are so certain of their absolute correctness that they would not only speak for God but they would weaken him. The lack of humility is breathtaking.

 

The notion of an all powerful God that can give and violate law at his whim is not scriptural or part of Mormonism.

Sectarian notions of God still seem to creep into Mormonism from time to time.

I weakened nobody.  God himself says he is bound to follow law.  Scripture says law existed long before the foundation of the world.

 

So I say again, even God cannot change or violate eternal laws such as the law of life and death.

[JLHPROF]

What celestial law is homosexuality violating that some in the celestial kingdom may also be violating?

 

The law of life and death.  Pay attention.

[california boy]

Jesus said, "Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they twain shall be on flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder" (Matt 19:4-6). This statement is extremely plain.I hope you will not try and twist it to justify homosexuality. 

I am well aware of what Christ said about opposite sex marriage.  What I was asking about is what Christ said about homosexuality and/or SSM.  

 

Did Christ make being gay the horrible sin that everyone else seems to make it out to be?  Did Christ say that if you can't procreate, there was no room for you in His kingdom?  Did Christ even call homosexuality a sin?  I get that the Mormon church teaches all these things.  But the words of Christ?  Not so much.  You gotta wonder just how important of sin was this to the One whose opinion really matters.  Because Christ was pretty clear about how we should treat children and what He thought about divorce.

Edited March 19, 2015 by california boy

[Gray]

No, I answered the question.  Homosexuality is evil because it cannot create life.  Period.

 

 

 

Neither can marriage between senior citizens. Also evil?

[Gray]

The natural man's morality derives from what repulses him. Hence the focus on purification rituals and historic views of menstrating women being unclean. Homosexuality has been viewed as evil because the majority of people are repulsed by homosexual sex. That's not the entire answer, but it is the core of the answer.

 

As for God's morality, there really is not much scripture on point. The most common LDS argument revolves are an inability to have spiritual procreation, but IMO that is nothing more than an extrapolation of this life's limitations into the next life.

 

Great observations!

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Neither can marriage between senior citizens. Also evil?

Huh? That is irrelevant. The nature of the gay relationship is that no life can come from it. Are you going to being up those couples that can't have kids because they are infertile as being evil too? 

 

I am just going to give you a rep point just because I don't really want to see the other side. Any thing for the gay agenda.

[california boy]

The OP asked for the doctrinal backing.  I provided it, whether the Church takes the same direct approach or not.

And yes, voluntary celibacy is also a direct violation of God's work/law/design/commandment, again, whether the Church takes the same direct approach or not.

 

 

I would never presume to speak for the Church.  They can do that themselves.  All I did was provide an unofficial doctrinal answer to a doctrinal question.

And yes, you can quote it, but no, it is not something the Church has come out and said.

 

 

I gave you a rep point.  Because you have come to the same conclusion that I have come to.  No matter what I do, I will not enter the Celestial Kingdom.  And if I choose to be celibate, which as you point out, until recently was also against church doctrine, I would be facing eternity married to a woman.  That prospect gives me no hope of happiness.  If I could be happy married to a woman, I would be married to one here on earth.  There is no plan of happiness for God's gay children.  I am sure God will have something for me.  I will just have to wait and see.  The heavens seem to be silent on this subject since the beginning of time.  It is better to find happiness in this life than be celibate and alone in these life.  The results are the same either way.  As you point out, I am wicked no matter what I choose.

[JLHPROF]

Neither can marriage between senior citizens. Also evil?

 

Like infertility, a completely different issue as the situation is temporary.

[Gray]

Huh? That is irrelevant. The nature of the gay relationship is that no life can come from it. 

 

Ditto for the nature of relationships between people who marry after 50. 

[Gray]

Like infertility, a completely different issue as the situation is temporary.

 

People don't get more fertile as they age, unfortunately. 

[JLHPROF]

Then you must address why there are celibate heterosexuals who won't create life in lower degrees of the celestial kingdom. How do they differ from a homosexual that wont create life?

 

In that they do not violate the law of life by using the gift of life in a way that prevents life.

Instead they choose to limit the amount of light and truth they are willing to live by.

 

They loose out on the same blessings - eternal increase and Godhood.  But they choose only to not partake in a blessing of God, not to use it in a corrupted fashion.  They are like the person who refuses to wear the garment of the priesthood and thus looses out on the attached blessing.  As opposed to someone who takes the garment and dishonors it.

 

However in both cases, as Joseph Smith said to Fanny Murray - "you talk very foolishly, you do not know what you will want."

The weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth will be from those who passed up blessings they could have achieved, every bit as much as those who commit a sin.

[JLHPROF]

People don't get more fertile as they age, unfortunately. 

 

Ditto for the nature of relationships between people who marry after 50. 

 

They do in the resurrection, where men are still resurrected as men and women are still resurrected as women, with all the same body parts intact, and fertility (of a sort) restored to those perfected bodies.

[Buckeye]

They do in the resurrection, where men are still resurrected as men and women are still resurrected as women, with all the same body parts intact, and fertility (of a sort) restored to those perfected bodies.

 

Assuming that, there still remains the question of what purpose sex serves for old couples in this life. Shouldn't couples, once menopause sets in, set an example of celebacy to support their gay and single brothers/sisters? Or is there some other purpose to sex than procreation?

[Bobbieaware]

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

2. Homosexuality prevents exaltation.

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. For example, I think most would regard rape as evil, regardless of god's condemnation of the practice.

In response to the second, I would say that the church would then need to preach against celibacy and the refusal to be sealed as harshly as it does against homosexuality. 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. It seems that we can conclude that these ministering angels choose not to marry and thus choose a path other than exaltation. Why are they not condemned as homosexuals are? Why can't a valiant homosexual individual who remains true to their partner all their life not enter the celestial kingdom? Perhaps these are better questions than "what makes homosexuality inherently evil?"

If giving into homosexual sexual impulses prevents a man or woman from obtaining the highest degree of glory in the celestial kingdom, that cannot be a good thing, even if one wants to believe homosexuality isn't inherently evil.

[JLHPROF]

Shouldn't couples, once menopause sets in, set an example of celebacy

 

 

Some have.

Brigham Young had his own bedroom separate from his wives.

Lorenzo Snow only lived with his wife who was still having children after the manifesto.

 

At certain points in Church history any relations incapable of producing a child were frowned upon.  Never outright called sin, but definitely frowned upon.

[SmileyMcGee]

The law of life and death. Pay attention.

Assuming this isn't some law that you just made up, explain why violating this law would preclude a homosexual from entering the celestial kingdom when heterosexuals who violate this law can enter lower degrees of that kingdom.

[SmileyMcGee]

If giving into homosexual sexual impulses prevents a man or woman from obtaining the highest degree of glory in the celestial kingdom, that cannot be a good thing, even if one wants to believe homosexuality isn't inherently evil.

This is just circular reasoning and in no way addresses why homosexuality prevents entrance into the celestial kingdom.

Edited March 19, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[JLHPROF]

Assuming this isn't some law that you just made up, explain why violating this law would preclude a homosexual from entering the celestial kingdom when heterosexuals who violate this law can enter lower degrees of that kingdom.

 

Already did.

And so did rodheadlee.

[HappyJackWagon]

Some have.

Brigham Young had his own bedroom separate from his wives.

Lorenzo Snow only lived with his wife who was still having children after the manifesto.

 

At certain points in Church history any relations incapable of producing a child were frowned upon.  Never outright called sin, but definitely frowned upon.

Are you suggesting that BY was celibate after 50? Surely not.

Lorenzo Snow kicked all of his old wives to the curb to keep with one who could bare children. Sounds loving.

And yes, any relations incapable of producing children has been frowned upon in the past. That doesn't make it doctrine, sin, or even correct.

 

 

In that they do not violate the law of life by using the gift of life in a way that prevents life.

Would this be the same argument against contraception among hetero's?

 

It is the belittling and dismissal of an entire population that actually draws more people to their defence. The reason race and the priesthood is brought up so much as a comparison is because of the biggotted rhetoric surrounding gay marriage is so similar to racial rhetoric of the past. The more biggoted the rhetoric is the more people will rally to the defense of their LGBT brothers and sisters, even if they don't have a "dog in that fight".

 

So just be aware that the harsh judgement will rally others to the defense of the underdog.

[SmileyMcGee]

In that they do not violate the law of life by using the gift of life in a way that prevents life.

Instead they choose to limit the amount of light and truth they are willing to live by.

They loose out on the same blessings - eternal increase and Godhood. But they choose only to not partake in a blessing of God, not to use it in a corrupted fashion. They are like the person who refuses to wear the garment of the priesthood and thus looses out on the attached blessing. As opposed to someone who takes the garment and dishonors it.

However in both cases, as Joseph Smith said to Fanny Murray - "you talk very foolishly, you do not know what you will want."

The weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth will be from those who passed up blessings they could have achieved, every bit as much as those who commit a sin.

I think you need to define "misuse" in this context. Reproductive systems are made for reproduction, so it could be argued that sex for pleasure or any reason other than procreation is misuse. However, the church does not preach against sex for non-procreative purposes. you'll have to explain how the non-reproductive intent of homosexual sex differs from the non-reproductive intent of heterosexual sex. Also, is refusal to use procreative powers misuse? Doesn't Jesus condemn the non-use of gifts in the parable of the talents?