Jump to content

Is Homosexuality Inherently Evil? Why?


Recommended Posts

We're not talking about other worlds or other lives. We're talking about this life. To say that there is literal procreation in the afterlife is speculation upon speculation.

Not so much. Why do we do temple marriages? So that couples can be together in the next life and beyond into eternity. And why do they need to be together as couples? So that their seed continues on into eternity according to the D&C section 132. Literal procreation in eternity by gods is reality in LDS doctrine.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post

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.

 

As God is not speaking for Himself, we must always rely on subjective judgements and best guesses. 

Link to post

Pleasure? Fun? Expression of intimacy?

 

Evolved motivators to reproduction. But I'm not sure why we think that would carry on past this life (or for that matter, why it wouldn't). It's all speculation. 

Edited by Gray
Link to post

As God is not speaking for Himself, we must always rely on subjective judgements and best guesses. 

 

Oh, NOW I remember....we had a long debate on that.

Edited by JLHPROF
Link to post

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.

 

By that measure, does God need John Deere construction equipment to create worlds? 

 

Everything you said is speculative - there is no reason to suppose that any of that is true. And I don't think Occam's razor would really be useful in defending your approach, given what we know about evolution. 

Link to post

Evolved motivators to reproduction. But I'm not sure why we think that would carry on past this life (or for that matter, why it wouldn't). It's all speculation.

LDS do make covenants about sexual and intimate relations for not only this life but also in eternity. Thats one aspect of our beliefs not very many know about. Sexual relations within marriage is an eternal blessing, not just a mortal blessing.

Link to post

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.  

 

 

 

 

Yes, I mean condemnation of SSM is absent from the scriptures.  As Harold B. Lee said: ""If it is not in the standard works, you may well assume that it is speculation."

 

 

 

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

 

I guess that leaves those of us in "traditional" marriages out in the cold too. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post

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. 

 

Yes, which should tell us something about the nature of scripture 

Link to post

Not so much. Why do we do temple marriages? So that couples can be together in the next life and beyond into eternity. And why do they need to be together as couples? So that their seed continues on into eternity according to the D&C section 132. Literal procreation in eternity by gods is reality in LDS doctrine.

 

That's your interpretation, but I don't know of anything that says it explicitly. 

 

God organized the intelligences. That doesn't sound like reproduction to me. Which is good because you'd think that God would be rather more efficient than that. 

Link to post

LDS do make covenants about sexual and intimate relations for not only this life but also in eternity. Thats one aspect of our beliefs not very many know about. Sexual relations within marriage is an eternal blessing, not just a mortal blessing.

 

That language is not in any covenant. 

Link to post

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.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are not aware how offensive this statement is. All of this is just your opinion so I'm glad you recognize that.

 

Can you imagine the kind of spiritual feast a gay member would receive each week if this is the view of his "friends" at church. If your opinion is correct it seems to me that the church has absolutely nothing to offer gay people. So sad.

Link to post

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.

But to continue the Korihor analogy that means I have to continue until the party that is wrong gets struck deaf and dumb and then recants and is trampled to death. This could take a while.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post

I'm not even convinced heterosexual attraction (of the sexual erotic kind) continues, even if heterosexual procreation does in my opinion.

We are generally taught in the Church (in my experience at least) that God gave us in general a strong sexual drive to bring us together to create families, etc. It seems to me that when we are perfect and living in perfect relationships and environments such a drive is unnecessary and even counterproductive given its general application (we are not just attracted to one person with our sexual drive in most cases, but many though it can be our choice to deepen and strengthen this attraction so that we are committed to a sexual and family relationship with one individual). It would make sense that we no longer possess it to get pulled to others who we are not committed to nor should be. There wouldn't be any lessening of enjoyment in our loved one's company though because the unique attraction we've nurtured with them will be perfected and complete along with the rest of us.

Perhaps this attraction could be described as "mono sexual" in that we are only attracted to the one person we choose to be attracted to (if there is polygamy---polygyny and polyandry, it would mean that we can choose to be attracted to multiple men or women but that attraction would still not occur outside of covenanted relationships).

Edited by calmoriah
  • Upvote 1
Link to post

We are generally taught in the Church (I'm my experience at least) that God gave us in general a strong sexual drive to bring us together to create families, etc. It seems to me that when we are perfect and living in perfect relationships and environments such a drive is unnecessary and even counterproductive given its general application (we are not just attracted to one person with our sexual drive in most cases, but many though it can be our choice to deepen and strengthen this attraction so that we are committed to a sexual and family relationship with one individual). It would make sense that we no longer possess it to get pulled to others who we are not committed to nor should be. There wouldn't be any lessening of enjoyment in our loved one's company though because the unique attraction we've nurtured with them will be perfected and complete along with the rest of us.

 

Thank you Cal for expressing my thoughts better than I could. :)

 

Ok, no fair...I don't agree with the edit but you already got the rep point. ;)

Edited by JLHPROF
Link to post

Thank you Cal for expressing my thoughts better than I could. :)

Except for the addition at the end where I tried to give it a label...the addition of possible polyandry to eternal relationships which I think is a possibility given the identical nature of marriage sealings for men and women and multiple sealings being made for women...I know that will be a point of disagreement. :)

It is an interesting thought. Thanks for bringing it up. While gender is taught as eternal, the sex drive is taught as something given to mankind in this life so there is no need to assume it is part of our eternal nature and good reason now that I've considered it to assume it is not.

Edited by calmoriah
Link to post

There's a reason why a lot of homosexuals in the church wind up committing suicide. They are taught that they are abominations and their existence is questioned.

No, practicing homosexuals are sinners not abominations.

Mimes are abominations and if saying so drives them to suicide we need to say it loudly and clearly.

Link to post

There's a reason why a lot of homosexuals in the church wind up committing suicide. They are taught that they are abominations and their existence is questioned.

There is no evidence that I am aware of that homosexuals in the Church are more likely to commit suicide than outside the Church. Suicide is a complicated behaviour that may be a result of things an individual lacks awareness in as much as the things they focused on. The majority of gays in the Church (assuming at least the typical rate of 1-2% being born to LDS families) have not committed suicide or we would see a lot more deaths. Whether or not they have chosen to leave the Church is a different thing.

I believe the research shows that even with the significant drop of the suicide rate among those identifying as gay in their teen years among those who live in supportive families and environment, gay teens still have a higher suicide rate. (this is nonLDS research). If so, there may be other factors besides social acceptance just as there are for nonhomosexual suicides. And these factors may be much more important in determining likelihood than social acceptance. To assume all that is needed is social acceptance may end up doing more harm in the long run than good if this leads to neglect of other factors.

We are taught we are all children of God. If anyone is questioning a person's existence, they do not understand that doctrine.

To question the eternal nature of homosexual attraction is not to label someone an abomination or claim they wont exist eternally. A person's identity is not solely tied around sexual attraction, there is much, much more to people than just this.

There are plenty of forms of heterosexual attraction that if indulged in will lead to sin, even within a marriage. Sexual attraction must follow a very narrow and limited and controlled path in order to what is intended by God...as all physical attributes must be.

Edited by calmoriah
  • Upvote 1
Link to post

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?"

1. Something is either good or evil. The same exact thing can't be both good and evil at the same time. Good and evil are opposites.

2. Homosexuality and Heterosexuality are opposites. One involves having sexual relations with the opposite sex and the other involves having sexual relations with the same sex. And by "sexual relations" I'm talking about a particular connection of private body parts.

3. Based on 1 and 2 above, with homosexuality and heterosexuality being opposites and good and evil also being opposites, either homosexuality is evil or heterosexuality is evil, since opposites can't be both good and evil. Either the good type of sexuality is the type of sexuality where opposites come together in sexual relations or the good type of sexual relations is the type where the same sex comes together in sexual relations. Both types of secuality can not be good because the two types are opposites.

4. What you like isn't what determines whether something is good, just as what you don't like is not what determines whether something is evil. Good and evil are not determined on a subjective basis.

But you can pick whatever type of sexuality you like to engage in. The choice is yours. Just realize that one type of sexuality is good and the other is evil.

Link to post

We are generally taught in the Church (in my experience at least) that God gave us in general a strong sexual drive to bring us together to create families, etc. It seems to me that when we are perfect and living in perfect relationships and environments such a drive is unnecessary and even counterproductive given its general application (we are not just attracted to one person with our sexual drive in most cases, but many though it can be our choice to deepen and strengthen this attraction so that we are committed to a sexual and family relationship with one individual). It would make sense that we no longer possess it to get pulled to others who we are not committed to nor should be. There wouldn't be any lessening of enjoyment in our loved one's company though because the unique attraction we've nurtured with them will be perfected and complete along with the rest of us.

Perhaps this attraction could be described as "mono sexual" in that we are only attracted to the one person we choose to be attracted to (if there is polygamy---polygyny and polyandry, it would mean that we can choose to be attracted to multiple men or women but that attraction would still not occur outside of covenanted relationships).

I think this is very wrong but my thoughts on the subject would probably get me branded as a heretic.

Link to post

1. Something is either good or evil. The same exact thing can't be both good and evil at the same time. Good and evil are opposites.

2. Homosexuality and Heterosexuality are opposites. One involves having sexual relations with the opposite sex and the other involves having sexual relations with the same sex. And by "sexual relations" I'm talking about a particular connection of private body parts.

3. Based on 1 and 2 above, with homosexuality and heterosexuality being opposites and good and evil also being opposites, either homosexuality is evil or heterosexuality is evil, since opposites can't be both good and evil. Either the good type of sexuality is the type of sexuality where opposites come together in sexual relations or the good type of sexual relations is the type where the same sex comes together in sexual relations. Both types of secuality can not be good because the two types are opposites.

4. What you like isn't what determines whether something is good, just as what you don't like is not what determines whether something is evil. Good and evil are not determined on a subjective basis.

But you can pick whatever type of sexuality you like to engage in. The choice is yours. Just realize that one type of sexuality is good and the other is evil.

That is quite possibly the stupidest logical chain I have ever seen constructed outside of a political blog or a YouTube comment. Let us change the inputs to see if it always holds true.

1. Something is either good or evil. The same exact thing can't be both good and evil at the same time. Good and evil are opposites.

2. Male and Female are opposites. One involves having a Y chromosome and one does not.

3. Based on 1 and 2 above, with male and female being opposites and good and evil also being opposites, either men are evil or women are evil, since opposites can't be both good and evil. Either the good type of gender is the type of gender where you have a Y or the good type of gender is the type where you do not have a Y. Both types of gender can not be good because the two types are opposites.

4. What you like isn't what determines whether something is good, just as what you don't like is not what determines whether something is evil. Good and evil are not determined on a subjective basis.

But you can pick whatever type of gender you like to believe is not pure evil. The choice is yours. Just realize that one type of gender is good and the other is evil.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post

It is an interesting thought. Thanks for bringing it up. While gender is taught as eternal, the sex drive is taught as something given to mankind in this life so there is no need to assume it is part of our eternal nature and good reason now that I've considered it to assume it is not.

 

And in the absence of the sex drive SSA vs Heterosexuality will no longer be an issue, and the eternal family structure will not seem like an imposition on anyone.

People will be able to form close relationships with each other (brothers in the priesthood for instance) and raise a family with the opposite sex without physical sexual attraction causing any inappropriate feelings.

 

As an interesting derail, you should read some of the descriptions of priesthood brotherhood (and for that matter sisterhood) by some of the brethren.  They describe a closeness that is very unique.  Wonder if I can remember where to find some of those...

Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...