Members Excommunicated Who Enter Same-Sex Marriages?

[smac97]

What about action taken against church members having premarital sex?

What about it?

There is no difference between that and a gay couple having sex regardless of whether the government issues them a license to do so.

A person who purports to enter into a polygamous marriage is committing a sin by doing so (in addition to the sexual relations attendant to such an arrangement). The same goes for people who enter into a same-sex marriage.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 14, 2015 by smac97

[smac97]

As you likely know, several Federal and State Court's and several Courts of Appeals have cited the precident set in Loving as a reason to grant same-sex couples the equal right to marry, Smac, so there is ample actual legal precident that disagrees with your narrow, procreation-based interpretation of why Loving found a right to marriage.

I must admit my immediate familiarity with the decisions from "several Federal and State Court's and several Courts of Appeals" which have cited Loving as precedential grounds for same-sex marriage.  This Wikipedia entry on the subject gives the impression that the application of Loving has been somewhat limited.  Could you provide examples of what you are referring to here?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 14, 2015 by smac97

[california boy]

I think the more apt comparison of "afflictions" would be those who struggle with pornography, or adultery, or fornication, or prostitution, or other types of sexual sin. Which is to say that notwithstanding your marked sarcasm, people do have to work on overcoming such afflictions. And none of these people are justified in saying "But my sin is not like any of the others because I feel good about it." Feelings are not determinative when it comes to the Law of Chastity.

 

Sarcasm in lieu of substance.

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."

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Both you and Scott have exposed the problem with trying to fit existing doctrine into issues regarding homosexuality.  Unlike your examples of those who struggle with pornography, or adultery, or fornication, or prostitution, or other types of sexual sin, there is no repentance necessary for being homosexual.  If it is not a sin to be homosexual, then there is nothing to repent for.  I think you and Scott would agree with my understanding of the churches current position on homosexuality.  (Note: I am not talking about behavior here, just the attraction)

 

Since there is no reason to repent for being homosexual, then the position that Scott took that it is more like being blind, lame or some other kind of physical affliction seems more correct.  I think that you would agree that the churches position on these kinds of affliction is that they will magically disappear in the next life.  A blind man will not stay blind, a lame man will walk and according to Scott, a gay man will become magically straight.  Do I have this all correct?  Anyone having problems so far???

 

In all seriousness, and no sarcasm intended, so please follow the scenario as best I can put these two issues together.  If being gay is a physical ailment per Scott's assertion, then once a gay man is magically straight, there will be no temptation to have a sexual attraction to someone of the same sex.  So as I stated, repenting is pretty automatic.  The temptation goes away, the gay person no longer even wants to commit the sin.  So why worry about repenting while here on earth.  Wait until one dies.  It's a cake walk.

 

If being gay continues on to the next life, and something that must be overcome and repented of, then there will be homosexuals in the next life.  The way the church deals with homosexuals in this life is to tell them to be celibate.  Will homosexuals be required to be celibate throughout eternity?  And how does that fit in with the whole need to procreate?  Will they ever be "equal" to their straight brothers and sisters?  

 

Perhaps further revelation is needed?

Edited May 14, 2015 by california boy

[ERayR]

Both you and Scott have exposed the problem with trying to fit existing doctrine into issues regarding homosexuality.  Unlike your examples of those who struggle with pornography, or adultery, or fornication, or prostitution, or other types of sexual sin, there is no repentance necessary for being homosexual.  If it is not a sin to be homosexual, then there is nothing to repent for.  I think you and Scott would agree with my understanding of the churches current position on homosexuality.  (Note: I am not talking about behavior here, just the attraction)

 

Since there is no reason to repent for being homosexual, then the position that Scott took that it is more like being blind, lame or some other kind of physical affliction seems more correct.  I think that you would agree that the churches position on these kinds of affliction is that they will magically disappear in the next life.  A blind man will not stay blind, a lame man will walk and according to Scott, a gay man will become magically straight.  Do I have this all correct?  Anyone having problems so far???

 

In all seriousness, and no sarcasm intended, so please follow the scenario as best I can put these two issues together.  If being gay is a physical ailment per Scott's assertion, then once a gay man is magically straight, there will be no temptation to have a sexual attraction to someone of the same sex.  So as I stated, repenting is pretty automatic.  The temptation goes away, the gay person no longer even wants to commit the sin.  So why worry about repenting while here on earth.  Wait until one dies.  It's a cake walk.

 

If being gay continues on to the next life, and something that must be overcome and repented of, then there will be homosexuals in the next life.  The way the church deals with homosexuals in this life is to tell them to be celibate.  Will homosexuals be required to be celibate throughout eternity?  And how does that fit in with the whole need to procreate?  Will they ever be "equal" to their straight brothers and sisters?  

 

Perhaps further revelation is needed?

 

Nice straw man.  There is no repentance needed for being but repentance is required for actions and yes homo-sexual acts do require repentance.  

[carbon dioxide]

Both you and Scott have exposed the problem with trying to fit existing doctrine into issues regarding homosexuality.  Unlike your examples of those who struggle with pornography, or adultery, or fornication, or prostitution, or other types of sexual sin, there is no repentance necessary for being homosexual.  If it is not a sin to be homosexual, then there is nothing to repent for.  I think you and Scott would agree with my understanding of the churches current position on homosexuality.  (Note: I am not talking about behavior here, just the attraction)

 

That would be true for anything.  A person who is attracted to children are not sinning unless they act on it.  A person is is predisposed to stealing but keeps his actions in check has no reason to repent.  Same for an alcoholic and so on.

[Daniel2]

I must admit my immediate familiarity with the decisions from "several Federal and State Court's and several Courts of Appeals" which have cited Loving as precedential grounds for same-sex marriage. This Wikipedia entry on the subject gives the impression that the application of Loving has been somewhat limited. Could you provide examples of what you are referring to here?

Thanks,

-Smac

The Wikipedia article you quoted lists several (six) such rulings.

Edited May 14, 2015 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

Ah. So you're the wife, then.

Got it.

In case your comment was a genuine mistake: as two men who are married, neither my husband nor I considers or refers to the other as wife. We each refer to each other as husband.

Every other gay (male) couple I know likewise considers and refers to each other as husbands, and every married lesbian that I'm aware of considers and refers to her same-sex spouse as her wife.

I think you will find that concept to be fairly universal among married same-sex couples.

I suspect your comment was probably meant to be derogatory in some fashion.

[Bobbieaware]

In case your comment was a genuine mistake: as two men who are married, neither my husband nor I considers or refers to the other as wife. We each refer to each other as husband.

Every other gay (male) couple I know likewise considers and refers to each other as husbands, and every married lesbian that I'm aware of considers and refers to her same-sex spouse as her wife.

I think you will find that concept to be fairly universal among married same-sex couples.

I suspect your comment was probably meant to be derogatory in some fashion.

I'm wondering how will this arrangement work with what some LDS-oriented gays view as a potential future day when there will be gay temple sealings, when the scriptures clearly speak of marriage being only between husbands and wives?

[Tacenda]

In case your comment was a genuine mistake: as two men who are married, neither my husband nor I considers or refers to the other as wife. We each refer to each other as husband.

Every other gay (male) couple I know likewise considers and refers to each other as husbands, and every married lesbian that I'm aware of considers and refers to her same-sex spouse as her wife.

I think you will find that concept to be fairly universal among married same-sex couples.

I suspect your comment was probably meant to be derogatory in some fashion.

I watched HGTV's "Property Brothers" and it showed the cutest older ladies that at first I thought were sisters, but were actually a couple. They were probably married wife & wife. Not husband & wife, doesn't take a genius to figure that out.

[smac97]

Both you and Scott have exposed the problem with trying to fit existing doctrine into issues regarding homosexuality.

No, we haven't.

 

Unlike your examples of those who struggle with pornography, or adultery, or fornication, or prostitution, or other types of sexual sin, there is no repentance necessary for being homosexual.

This is incorrect. People who struggle with and succumb to indulging in pornography, or adultery, or fornication, or prostitution, or other types of sexual sin must repent, whereas those who struggle with these temptations and succeed in resisting them do not. Likewise, those who struggle with same-sex attraction and succumb to indulging in homosexual behavior must repent, whereas those to struggle with this temptation and succeed in resisting it do not.

Homosexual inclinations are not materially different from any other type of sexual inclination which God has forbidden.

 

If it is not a sin to be homosexual, then there is nothing to repent for.

It's a sin to engage in homosexual behavior just like it's a sin for heterosexual people to engage in extramarital sex.

 

I think you and Scott would agree with my understanding of the churches current position on homosexuality.  (Note: I am not talking about behavior here, just the attraction)

Sort of. See above. But I disagree that the sin of homosexual behavior is materially distinguishable from any other type of sin based on sexual behavior (fornication, adultery, prostitution, etc.).

 

Since there is no reason to repent for being homosexual, then the position that Scott took that it is more like being blind, lame or some other kind of physical affliction seems more correct.

Well, now you're distorting the Church's position. There is no analog between blind "behavior" and homosexual "behavior."

And I reject the across-the-board comparison between sexual inclinations and other attributes (being black, being blind, etc.). Nobody commits a sin by acting in accordance with being black or blind. But everybody commits a sin by engaging in homosexual behavior.

 

I think that you would agree that the churches position on these kinds of affliction is that they will magically disappear in the next life.

Putting aside the pejorative use of "magically," I will generally agree with that.

 

A blind man will not stay blind, a lame man will walk and according to Scott,

Yes and yes.

 

a gay man will become magically straight.  Do I have this all correct?  Anyone having problems so far???

I am not sure. I reject the notion that "being" gay is a purely immutable trait. I think it is a combination of genetic predisposition, environmental factors and individual choice (this is why an across-the-board comparison to "being blind" is problematic). And then there's Alma 34:34 to consider ("Ye cannot say, when ye are brought to that awful crisis, that I will repent, that I will return to my God. Nay, ye cannot say this; for that same spirit which doth possess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world.").

So yes, I have a problem with your comparison. It falls apart very quickly in the LDS paradigm.

 

Perhaps further revelation is needed?

Perhaps listening to the revelation we already have, and to today's prophets and apostles, is needed.

Here's a sincere question: If the Brethren presented a new revelation that down the line prohibited homosexual marriage and homosexual behavior, and if that revelation were presented to the body of the Church and accepted as a revelation and included in the canonized body of scriptures, would you heed it? It seems more likely that the same people who are presently evading and circumventing and rejecting and defying the Proclamation and other plain and clear teachings from prophets and apostles would do the same to "further revelation." Are the folks who are in the Church and advocating against its teachings about homosexual behavior genuinely interested in "further revelation?" Or do they want capitulation? I don't really see much effort to discerning the will of God in this matter (else there would be more attention paid and heed given to the counsel from the Brethren, including the Proclamation).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 14, 2015 by smac97

[Mystery Meat]

And you understand her to be saying that it was revealed from God?  On what basis would Sister Oscarson make such a claim?

 

And if you are right that it was a revelation from God, you should ask the Brethen who signed it to stop taking credit as its authors.

 

Are you implying that the proclamation was written by attorneys?

[JLHPROF]

It all hinges on how marriage is defined for the law of chastity, right?  I think that's why the Brethren have made repeated statements about the legal definition of marriage not changing our definition of marriage within the Church.  They are saying:  living the law of chastity requires that you use man-woman marriage as the only valid definition of marriage, what the state defines as legal is not relevant to the law of chastity.

 

They should have kept the original wording of the law of chastity, then there would be no question.

[Russell C McGregor]

In case your comment was a genuine mistake: as two men who are married, neither my husband nor I considers or refers to the other as wife. We each refer to each other as husband.

Every other gay (male) couple I know likewise considers and refers to each other as husbands, and every married lesbian that I'm aware of considers and refers to her same-sex spouse as her wife.

And yet, a husband is someone who is married to a wife, while a wife is someone who is married to a husband.

That's how marriage works, you see.

That's what marriage is.

 

I think you will find that concept to be fairly universal among married same-sex couples.

While it is unknown among actual married couples.

 

I suspect your comment was probably meant to be derogatory in some fashion.

Derogatory? Do you think "wife" a derogatory term?

 

That says a lot.

 

[rockpond]

They should have kept the original wording of the law of chastity, then there would be no question.

 

Where is the original wording found?

[JLHPROF]

Where is the original wording found?

 

Not that I approve of temple content online, but it's around, usually under 1931 endowment.

The key issue is that the law at that time was given to men and women separately, men were under covenant concerning wives, women concerning husbands, and in addition to being lawful, the spouse also had to be given by the priesthood.

[rockpond]

Are you implying that the proclamation was written by attorneys?

 

No, not at all.

 

"We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim..."

 

And then it is signed by those 15 apostles & the prophet.  It would seem that they are the authors. 

[rockpond]

Not that I approve of temple content online, but it's around, usually under 1931 endowment.

The key issue is that the law at that time was given to men and women separately, men were under covenant concerning wives, women concerning husbands, and in addition to being lawful, the spouse also had to be given by the priesthood.

 

I looked it up.  I don't think the 1931 language is any clearer than current language.

[JLHPROF]

I looked it up.  I don't think the 1931 language is any clearer than current language.

 

If men are put under covenant to only have relations with WIVES GIVEN BY THE PRIESTHOOD how does that allow for SSM at all?

The current phrasing puts both men and women under the same covenant simultaneously - that they will not be with a husband or wife to who they aren't legally wed.  I find that more ambiguous.

[rockpond]

If men are put under covenant to only have relations with WIVES GIVEN BY THE PRIESTHOOD how does that allow for SSM at all?

The current phrasing puts both men and women under the same covenant simultaneously - that they will not be with a husband or wife to who they aren't legally wed.  I find that more ambiguous.

 

It puts men under covenant to not have sex with "any of the opposite sex" save their legal and lawful wife.

 

If one were looking for a loophole for homosexuals, the 1931 wording provides a rather big one.

[Calm]

Since there is no reason to repent for being homosexual, then the position that Scott took that it is more like being blind, lame or some other kind of physical affliction seems more correct.  I think that you would agree that the churches position on these kinds of affliction is that they will magically disappear in the next life.  A blind man will not stay blind, a lame man will walk and according to Scott, a gay man will become magically straight.  Do I have this all correct?  Anyone having problems so far???

 

There is no reason to repent for being initially attracted to someone who is not your spouse as long as you don't act upon it to encourage those feelings and even engage in adultery.

 

How is that different than what you are describing the law as applied to gays?  (I realize that with heterosexual as long as there is  husband and wife in marriage, sex is allowed)...I am talking about how you structured the reasoning as if other sins had to be repented for even having the attraction to it existing, while homosexuality was an exception to the rule.  I don't see any actual exception...temptation exists not because we don't have attractions but then intentionally seek after something, but because the attraction to something opens the door to being tempted.  Turning our back on temptation leaves us with nothing to repent of no matter the sin and gives us the opportunity to seek God's help in removing even the temptation through altering how we are attracted to others.

 

Sexual attraction may or may not be the same in the next life (will we have sexual attraction when we are spirits given how much is based on how we are interpreting our physical reactions?) or post Judgment in our perfect resurrected bodies, but being perfect and without sin as we all will be even those who are in the telestial kingdom given the divine law that nothing unclean can be in the presence of God and God will be present in all three kingdoms), I see it highly unlikely that such attractions will not be under our total conscious control (as probably most other things we see as instinct or unconscious drives and possibly even physical metabolism such as digestion of food and maybe we will even have control over how our muscles and bones grow so we can alter our shapes to fit whatever activity we prefer to participate in...though it might take time, but what is time in eternity?)  If attraction is under our concious control and we can turn it off and on ourselves and given how we will be perfected godly beings in exaltation where each of us have all one needs to be fully attractive to anyone who desires to be attracted to us, I speculate that we may choose our eternal mates based on other things besides sexual attraction (possibly because we have mortal history with them so that many or most of those who are sealed together will choose to continue that sealing, possible if they were strangers to us in mortality, because of shared interests or passions for a particular type of service for others such as missionary work among postmortals or maybe there are those who love working teaching the premortal spirits, or those who prefer to help creation of physical worlds to be homes for our extended families or whatever other currently unimaginable opportunities to create and teach and nurture there are out there) and it will be after that choice is made, that we then covenant or confirm our previous covenant to be fully one with our spouse and in doing so we allow our attraction to interact with another and to be fully focused on only those we are sealed eternally to.  So those who saw themselves as hetero or homosexual in this life (this paradigm is relatively a new one in human society as has been discussed elsewhere on the board...doesn't mean sexual attraction is not extremely powerful influence in people's life, just that the causes and function are likely more malleable than we currently experience) are not either but rather monosexual---attracted to one person only (or if plural marriage exists in the eternities, polysexual in the sense of having a limited set of spouses that one shares sexual attraction with).

 

So those who have experienced gay attraction in this lifetime, even to the extreme where they have never experience any form of heterosexual attraction (which really would have to amount not liking to be around the opposite sex ever which would be viewed as dysfunctional by many) will have essentially the same experience as those who are currently defining themselves as heterosexual, they all will need to put aside their instinctual natural man reactions when it comes sexual attraction and instead create an eternal love that is based on an attraction that is far more emcompassing, far more aware of the other, a true oneness...not just the impossibly hopeful attempts of this life, that will then also include all the positive forms of attraction that we have experienced in this life--friendships, shared interests, admiration, physical, sexual and likely many more as well.

 

So no need to be cured of gayness or an overactive heterosexual libido or anything else in that format, it will just follow that because of what exaltation means that we will all be looking for partners that will be able to fulfill what it means to be a Divine Pair, whatever that actually means and many imo will find that the ones they desire to shape their lives into glory with will be ones they would not have given a first, let alone second thought to in mortality or even been repulsed by them.

 

There are plenty of sexual attraction qualities that both draw us and repulse us in this lifetime that may seem totally illogical and even some that seem frivolous to others, but are as strong in some as gender attraction.  Does it make sense that those who would be repulsed at being touched or loved by someone of a lower social status, someone of less education and intelligence, someone who is too tall or too short, have too little or too much hair, is from a country that one just knows is full of the worse people whose culture has bred one to disdain, the wrong colour skin...what qualities that in this life has led someone to gag at the thought of having sex with a particular individual....does it make sense that people will still have those revulsions in the next life or will such things disappear and people turn instead to focus on qualities such as personality, interests, and other internal attributes, seeing people as much more than just their physical appearance?  If such attractions that rule sexual choice in mortality are seen as just sensible to be removed...to be irrelevant, then perhaps the currently apparent automatic drive to seek homosexual partners will be the same (as well the current physical drive to seek heterosexual partners) and it will be another attribute or internal functional, fundamental to all people's natures that will cause us to seek a partner for eternity among the opposite genders.

 

So having thought what I wanted to say though that rigmarole...in essence I am saying the sexual attractions that occur between anyone in mortality are likely part of the aspects of the natural man and with the removal of the veil of what we were and knowledge of what we can become and our understanding of what God is and what being part of God's family means (we will see others and ourselves as we are seen by God now) and the purification and justification of our souls, some eternal, inherent quality will be allowed to flourish and assume a much greater part of our motivations for choice and that will be why we choose our eternal partners, not because we were attracted to our spouses for a particular reason in this life.

 

If so, then the mechanism for both those who define themselves as homosexual and those who define themselves as heterosexuals and all other selfidentifications in between, will be identical.  There is nothing wrong with gays that will need to be fixed...well, at least nothing more than the same sort of "fixing" or purification that occurs among heterosexuals and any other version of sexual behaviour that we have assumed for ourselves due to external and internal pressures.  We will all need to be "cured" of our natural man tendencies that cover up our eternal potential and once that is done, there will be no need for a God given sexual drive to encourage us to link up and which may cause us to link up with individuals that are not appropriate for us (hetero or homosexual) because there will be something in us that is purer, more knowledgable and infallible making that choice to love another in that way; something that is a part of our eternal nature but just either asleep or buried deeply in mortal baggage so it is probably more observing and learning than moving upon us to act (but I would assume like other things godly in us, that our seeking God can awaken it and nuture it to some extent to be a greater part of our choices even in mortality).

Edited May 14, 2015 by calmoriah

[carbon dioxide]

It puts men under covenant to not have sex with "any of the opposite sex" save their legal and lawful wife.

 

If one were looking for a loophole for homosexuals, the 1931 wording provides a rather big one.

People who look for loopholes for justify a certain behavior know that the behavior is wrong.  They are simply trying to find a way to make it possibly right so they can have a good conscience.  It is a common thing people do for a variety of things that extend beyond just the law of chastity.  People look for loopholes all the time.  That does not mean they should as they may deceive themselves that they found a loophole where none really existed.

[california boy]

That would be true for anything.  A person who is attracted to children are not sinning unless they act on it.  A person is is predisposed to stealing but keeps his actions in check has no reason to repent.  Same for an alcoholic and so on.

 

 

Nice straw man.  There is no repentance needed for being but repentance is required for actions and yes homo-sexual acts do require repentance.  

 

I wasn't making an argument for the "strawman".  I was only affirming what church doctrine was on homosexuality not being a sin, only acting on it.  Which you both have agreed.  I agree completely with both of your comments.  Unfortunately that was not the question.  The thing you missed is the implications of that. 

 

This is the part I am interested in getting your opinions on.

 

In all seriousness, and no sarcasm intended, so please follow the scenario as best I can put these two issues together.  If being gay is a physical ailment per Scott's assertion, then once a gay man is magically straight, there will be no temptation to have a sexual attraction to someone of the same sex.  So as I stated, repenting is pretty automatic.  The temptation goes away, the gay person no longer even wants to commit the sin.  So why worry about repenting while here on earth.  Wait until one dies.  It's a cake walk.

 

If being gay continues on to the next life, and something that must be overcome and repented of, then there will be homosexuals in the next life.  The way the church deals with homosexuals in this life is to tell them to be celibate.  Will homosexuals be required to be celibate throughout eternity?  And how does that fit in with the whole need to procreate?  Will they ever be "equal" to their straight brothers and sisters?  

 

Perhaps further revelation is needed?

 

 

 

any thoughts?

[smac97]

This is the part I am interested in getting your opinions on.

 

In all seriousness, and no sarcasm intended, so please follow the scenario as best I can put these two issues together. If being gay is a physical ailment per Scott's assertion,

First, I'm not sure you are accurately representing "Scott's assertion." I'll let Scott speak to that.

Second, "being gay" is too simplistically described solely as "a physical ailment." Genetic predisposition may play a role, but then so too can environmental influences, individual experiences and choices, and so on.

Third, to the extent Scott was presenting an analogy (as I think he was), that analogy - like any other - has limits to its application. While the cause(s) of homosexuality may have a genetic component (comparable to someone being born blind due to a genetic variance), there is no moral/spiritual analog between a blind person "acting" on his blindness (by, say, learning to read braille) and a person with SSA "acting" on that attraction (by engaging in homosexual behavior). The two conditions (blindness and SSA) have no comparative value in that regard.

then once a gay man is magically straight,

I note the repeated pejorative use of the work "magically." It undermines your claim to be speaking "in all seriousness, and no sarcasm intended." Please stop it.

there will be no temptation to have a sexual attraction to someone of the same sex. So as I stated, repenting is pretty automatic.

First, there are some serious defects with your presupposition ("If being gay is a physical ailment...").

Second, nobody - and I mean nobody, has claimed that a person with SSA has committed a sin. The Church's teaching is that homosexual behavior is sinful.

Third, if there is no behavior, there is no need for repentance. Repentance is not "automatic" for a person who has but resists SSA. Repentance is simply not necessary for such a person.

Fourth, if a person with SSA succumbs to temptation and engaged in homosexual behavior, then repentance is required. But there's nothing "automatic" about it.

The temptation goes away, the gay person no longer even wants to commit the sin. So why worry about repenting while here on earth. Wait until one dies. It's a cake walk.

I genuinely do not understand your argument here. The whole point is that homosexual desires are not sinful, but that homosexual behavior is. So the only time repentance comes into view is when someone succumbs to SSA and engages in homosexual behavior.

Adhering to the Law of Chastity in today's oh-so sexualized world is pretty tough. And yet you seem to be trying some sort of sleight-of-hand mumbo jumbo by characterizing it as a "cake walk." I don't get it.

If being gay continues on to the next life,

That's a highly debatable point.

and something that must be overcome and repented of, then there will be homosexuals in the next life.

I seriously question that. This may be where Scott's comparison becomes apt. To the extent SSA is an inborn/genetic "trait" (akin to a physical ailment like blindness or some such thing), then what will happen in the hereafter? Resurrected bodies will be perfect (blindness will not exist, for example). But what about mental/emotional desires/predelictions? Will they remain in place after the resurrection? Will people who struggle with pornography or desires to commit adultery or fornication or any other sexual sin still struggle with such things? Or will they be "fixed" along with blindness and other types of ailments?

The way the church deals with homosexuals in this life is to tell them to be celibate.

The way the Church deals with people with SSA in this life is to tell them to adhere to the Law of Chastity. That is the exact same standard to which heterosexual members are held.

Will homosexuals be required to be celibate throughout eternity?

I think this statement encapsulates whole swaths of unreasonable and incompatible-with-LDS-soteriology assumptions about "eternity" and about God's dealings with His children. The equation calculating the worth of the children of God is not reducible to sex. Eternal increase is about so, so much more than the physical act upon which some folks are apparently fixated, along with the fleeting physical pleasures associated therewith. Eternal increase is about creation. We experience some small portion of that while in this mortal probation when we utilize procreative powers to have children, but only within parameters set by God. And the parameters for using those procreative powers exclude homosexual behavior (for a variety of reasons, I suspect, not the least of which is that such behavior by definition has absolutely nothing to do with procreation and strengthening the bond between husband and wife). Other types of sexual behaviors which are incongruous with God's plans for His children, and which are also severed from the two foregoing objectives (procreation and strengthening the bond between husband and wife) are likewise prohibited (adultery, fornication, prostitution, etc.).

And how does that fit in with the whole need to procreate?

My sense is that what we think of as "procreation" (a mortal man having sex with a mortal woman to beget offspring) is a type and shadow of things to come, of what is often described as "eternal increase." I think this is why celestial marriage (between, obviously, a man and a woman) is so intertwined with increase in scriptures like D&C 131:1-4 and 1 Corinthians 11:11 and Gen. 1:28 and Ps. 127:3, and why sexual behaviors which have severed the connection between sex and procreation/parenting (fornication, adultery, prostitution, homosexual behavior, and so on) are prohibited by God.

Will they ever be "equal" to their straight brothers and sisters?

People with SSA will have every opportunity to achieve exaltation in the Kingdom of God. This is where Scott's comparison becomes apt again. There is no eschatalogical distinction between "gay" and "straight" children of God. All can be saved through faith on the Lord Jesus Christ. Part of that faith entails obedience to commandments of God and repentance of sins. This is where Latter-day Saints advocating for endorsing/celebrating homosexual behavior and SSM really go off the rails. Homosexual conduct is prohibited by God (as are many other forms of sexual sin). 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 these efforts will work. Kicking against the pricks never has.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Stargazer]

I think of my aunt, who was in her younger days a beautiful woman (seriously) but never married. In her late 50's now, she confides to my mother of the bouts of terrible lonliness she sometimes feels. She faithfully attends church and is a temple worker.

 

 

I find myself very curious about this.  Why didn't she marry?  Being attractive, she must have had suitors, and if so, were they all unsuitable?  Or she couldn't choose between them?

[Storm Rider]

I read an article today that I found worthwhile and addresses some of the lines of thinking on this page.  It was in Crisis magazine and was entitled "The Protohomosexual".  The author builds a case that modern day social choices and decisions created the environment where the current situation could exist.  I recommend that you read it, http://www.crisismagazine.com/2015/theprotohomosexual.