Treat gay people as a race.

[LittleNipper]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

Homosexuality is no more a choice than heterosexuality is.

 

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

Homosexuality is no more a choice than heterosexuality is.

Homosexuality is no more a choice than being a serial killer or a child molester or a rapist. It's a drive, a need, as it is for one who wishes to either dominate or be subjugated.... Think on that one... It doesn't change the correctness.

Edited April 25, 2018 by LittleNipper

[MormonMason]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I couldn't say.  

What do you think all the heterosexual members who desperately want to get married (such as Sheri Dew) but aren't able to and remain single for their whole lives are supposed to learn?  There has been a heterosexual member on this board who has talked about being in a great and loving relationship with a nonmember but ultimately had to break off that relationship and choose to be single because the nonmember did not ever want to get married but wanted to have a physical relationship.  What were they supposed to learn?

 

I was about to type something like that but you beat me to it. 

Some make themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 19:12).  Not a blessing will be denied to those who are faithful in Christ.  Those who are faithful in Christ are those who believe and live his teachings.  Mortality is less than but the blink of an eye compared to eternity.

Edited April 25, 2018 by MormonMason

[Calm]

I suspect if one goes by the typical percentages, in terms of sheer numbers there are more heterosexuals in the Church who have chosen to live the Law of Chastity and remained unmarried and see no chance of marriage in their mortal future if they continue to live the Law of Chastity than there are homosexuals who have done the same.

This is not to say the choice is identical, just that it isn't only gays that are currently living celibate, nonromantic lifestyles in the Church or being asked to because they have chosen to put what they believe are true Gospel principles first in their lives.

Edited April 25, 2018 by Calm

[ALarson]

14 minutes ago, MormonMason said:

There are only two biological genders, male and female.

Well, I definitely consider anyone who enters into a SSM to be legally and lawfully married, because they are.

[MormonMason]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Well, I definitely consider anyone who enters into a SSM to be legally and lawfully married, because they are.

All sorts of things were legal in ancient Sodom and Gomorrah and among the ancient Canaanites.  God thought otherwise.  So it is today.  Jesus himself stated that the time would come when it would be like the days of Noah and the days of Sodom and Gomorrah, and now we see that is now on the horizon.  Jesus himself, however, taught that marriage as ordained of God is between male and female.  I'll accept his definition regardless of what the laws of man say.

Edited April 25, 2018 by MormonMason

[Jeanne]

11 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

 

Homosexuality is no more a choice than being a serial killer or a child molester or a rapist. It's a drive, a need, as it is for one who wishes to either dominate or be subjugated.... Think on that one... It doesn't change the correctness.

I think your comparison is going a bit too far..

[ALarson]

15 minutes ago, MormonMason said:

All sorts of things were legal in ancient Sodom and Gomorrah and among the ancient Canaanites.  God thought otherwise.  So it is today.  Jesus himself stated that the time would come when it would be like the days of Noah and the days of Sodom and Gomorrah, and now we see that is now on the horizon.  Jesus himself, however, taught that marriage as ordained of God is between male and female.  I'll accept his definition regardless of what the laws of man say.

By your definition (in God's eyes....religious wise), then anyone who is not sealed or married in the temple, is not really married.  Is that what you believe?  I do know that some hold to that belief.

Otherwise anyone in a SSM has a marriage as legally binding as anyone married outside the temple who is civilly married.  So your reasoning makes little sense, IMO.

Those in a SSM are just as legally married as any heterosexual couple who are civilly married. 

Edited April 25, 2018 by ALarson

[MormonMason]

43 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I think your comparison is going a bit too far..

Not really.  There are those who think people like that may be born that way.  I know someone whose brother was evil from birth.  He would cry incessantly for spiritual music and Christmas music but would become calm whenever Black Sabbath was played.  He turned out to be a sociopath and was in and out of the juvenal and adult prison system from a young age.  He finally ended up shooting his best friend, putting two bullets in his friend's chest, two more in his friend's back, and two into his own head.  But then again, science may hold the answer for both situations.

Quote

David Featherstone and his team have discovered that sexual orientation in fruit flies is controlled by a previously unknown regulator of synapse strength. Armed with this knowledge, the researchers found they were able to use either genetic manipulation or drugs to turn the flies' homosexual behavior on and off within hours.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071210094541.htm

Edited April 25, 2018 by MormonMason

[MormonMason]

20 minutes ago, ALarson said:

By your definition (in God's eyes....religious wise), then anyone who is not sealed or married in the temple, is not really married.  Is that what you believe?  I do know that some hold to that belief.

Otherwise anyone in a SSM has a marriage as legally binding as anyone married outside the temple who is civilly married.  So your reasoning makes little sense, IMO.

Those in a SSM are just as legally married as any heterosexual couple who are civilly married. 

Not by my definition.  By the definition of Jesus himself.  Yes, religious.  But still what he taught.

And again, legal definition is legal definition.  And again, lots of things were legal in ancient Sodom and Gomorrah, and ancient Canaan.  Doesn't make it right or make it something that God would support or condone.

Sure, civilly married.  But still a 'till death do you part' thing.  It does not hold a candle to an eternal marriage.  I've had both a civil marriage and a temple marriage.  I do not hold both as equal.  But still, in God's eyes marriage is between male and female.  That is what he would hold valid.  Jesus agreed.  You either believe Jesus taught that or you do not.  You either believe what Jesus taught or you do not.  I believe what he taught.  It is good that the Church which bears his name does the same, regardless of the cost.

[Storm Rider]

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

Except for the gay couples that live monogamously and raise children.

I can understand forming an opinion about homosexuality based on doctrine.  That's fair and reasonable in an LDS-themed forum.

But let's not form it based on stereotypes.  

I lived in West Hollywood for a year when my wife and I managed an apartment complex there.  Then we managed one near UCLA.  And stereotyping the "gay lifestyle" based on what you see a subset of them doing makes as much sense as framing heterosexuality based on what the UCLA fraternities were doing on Friday nights.

If promiscuity bothers you, then simply say "I object to homosexual promiscuity but support stable, monogamous relationships."  If you don't support either one, then don't pretend like it makes a difference.

It sounds like you are saying that the homosexual lifestyle is primarily monogamous; am I understanding you correctly?

I don't think it makes a difference; particularly when monogamy is the exception to the rule.  This is consistently the story that is swept under the rug and is not discussed; as if it is taboo or not polite for the general population to be aware of.  This behavior is directly related to serious health issues.

The criticism of the gay lifestyle is multi-layered. Yes, there is certainly a doctrinal moral position, but it is not the only position.  No, Christians are not limited to a single critique and it is odd that you would try to limit criticism.

[Calm]

"but would become calm whenever Black Sabbath was played."

A vacuum cleaner might have worked for him as well. Some babies sleep better with white noise and vibration, the bass in Black Sabbath probably provided both.

[Storm Rider]

4 hours ago, changed said:

Mathew 19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb...

Just as some are born as eunuchs, others are born gay - I have someone in my family that really and truly was born that way.  

 

Hello Changed, I don't really think there is a hard and fast way of thinking about this position within the LDS community.  The gayness or straightness of humans falls all along a rather wide range.  I have met some gay individuals that are so swishy and effete that they had to be at the far end of the range.  I have also met some who are at the other extreme.  Then there are individuals that fall at every degree in between the two extremes.  So, yes, I think some just come out of the womb "like that", but the rest I strongly believe it is a matter of choice.

I think this is one of the reasons I don't think it is healthy for society to have the gay lifestyle crammed down everyone's throat 24/7 on every form of media that exists.  It destabilizes society and it destroys lives.  When a boy or girl, the ones that find themselves in the middle of the spectrum, is put in a position to experiment there is nothing holding them back.  Everything they have heard is that it is okay, just fine, go for it and life.  All sexual immorality destroys - homosexuality is no different and in many ways I think it is much worse.  It takes the individual into direct conflict with the God's ultimate goal for each individual.

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

It sounds like you are saying that the homosexual lifestyle is primarily monogamous; am I understanding you correctly?

I don't think it makes a difference; particularly when monogamy is the exception to the rule.  This is consistently the story that is swept under the rug and is not discussed; as if it is taboo or not polite for the general population to be aware of.  This behavior is directly related to serious health issues.

The criticism of the gay lifestyle is multi-layered. Yes, there is certainly a doctrinal moral position, but it is not the only position.  No, Christians are not limited to a single critique and it is odd that you would try to limit criticism.

Monogamy may be becoming the rule, not the exception though:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/is-monogamy-among-gay-men-the-new-normal-a-new-study_us_58e317f9e4b02ef7e0e6e027

Quote

Respondents to their request for information included 632 monogamous couples, 152 “monogamish” couples, and 48 non-monogamous couples. Forty-two percent of the respondents were single, 50 percent were in monogamous relationships, and only 8 percent were in non-monogamous relationships. One of the big surprises: Ninety percent of the responding singles stated they were seeking monogamous relationships, and 92 percent of them expect to marry. Also, half of the men identified as being in long-term monogamous relationships, while other previous research that up to two-thirds of couples who have been together for five years or more are non-monogamous (Shernoff, LCSW, 2007).

In their 1984 book, The Male Couple, David McWhirter, M.D. and Andre Mattison, PhD., revealed that every one of the 156 couples they interviewed had incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity after five years of being together. Lowen and Spears’ study, with its preponderance of respondents in monogamous relationships and the expressed desire of single gay men to be in monogamous relationships, suggests an emerging cultural shift toward greater monogamy in younger gay men.

In fact, monogamy was equated with marriage by 58% of all respondents, while only 31% viewed non-monogamy as an option for a married couple, with 11% being unsure. In other words, the majority of interviewed younger men in monogamous relationships considered monogamy to be the norm.

 

[kllindley]

4 hours ago, changed said:

Temple marriage is a required part of salvation in the LDS faith - would you want to marry someone who was gay?  would you allow your children to marry someone who was gay?  Would you spend your entire life single?  With no family - because of how you were born?  LDS culture would like to deny LGBT people from having a family and being exalted... that is wrong.  

This is not an honest representation of what is taught. Are you saying you wouldn't want my family to be formed? Are you going to tell my wife or my children that they don't deserve their husband and father? 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

No, that's not my own definition.  It's the commonly accepted definition.  What does it mean to you when hear that a person in a heterosexual marriage has committed adultery?

I'll bet you use this same definition as well:

 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/adultery

A lot of “commonly accepted” things are not acceptable in the context of the commandments of God, marriage redefinition among the rest. That’s why the prophets and apostles defined it as an act of apostasy when engaged in by those who are under covenant. 

[ALarson]

36 minutes ago, MormonMason said:

Not by my definition.  By the definition of Jesus himself.  Yes, religious.  But still what he taught.

And again, legal definition is legal definition.  And again, lots of things were legal in ancient Sodom and Gomorrah, and ancient Canaan.  Doesn't make it right or make it something that God would support or condone.

Sure, civilly married.  But still a 'till death do you part' thing.  It does not hold a candle to an eternal marriage.  I've had both a civil marriage and a temple marriage.  I do not hold both as equal.  But still, in God's eyes marriage is between male and female.  That is what he would hold valid.  Jesus agreed.  You either believe Jesus taught that or you do not.  You either believe what Jesus taught or you do not.  I believe what he taught.  It is good that the Church which bears his name does the same, regardless of the cost.

I don't think you really know what Jesus taught about SSM, because he didn't speak of it.  So start with that maybe.  We don't even have any direct quotes of his (all words attributed to him were written years after the fact and some many, many years later).  No one was there writing everything down as he spoke.  So no, we do not know what he believed or taught regarding SSM.

Also, thanks for clarifying that you don't hold any marriage outside of a temple marriage as being "valid".  That helps me understand your line of reasoning (and I respect your right to believe as you wish).

But there's no question that a SSM is a legal, valid marriage.

[MormonMason]

29 minutes ago, Calm said:

"but would become calm whenever Black Sabbath was played."

A vacuum cleaner might have worked for him as well. Some babies sleep better with white noise and vibration, the bass in Black Sabbath probably provided both.

They tried that.  It did not work.  Only the Black Sabbath would work. That was the crazy thing.  His mother had had enough after few months of that and went to get her tubes cut and cauterized.  She never wanted another child after that.

[ALarson]

16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

A lot of “commonly accepted” things are not acceptable in the context of the commandments of God, marriage redefinition among the rest. That’s why the prophets and apostles defined it as an act of apostasy when engaged in by those who are under covenant. 

So, do you believe that only those who are sealed in a temple marriage can commit adultery?  (That it's technically fornication if someone is unfaithful in a civil marriage...)

Using your line of reasoning, that's what you're saying.  Because anyone entering into a SSM is just as legally and lawfully wed as any heterosexual couple who is married outside of the temple.  Or do you also not consider them (heterosexual couple) to be married as well?

Edited April 25, 2018 by ALarson

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, MormonMason said:

They tried that.  It did not work.  Only the Black Sabbath would work. That was the crazy thing.  His mother had had enough after few months of that and went to get her tubes cut and cauterized.  She never wanted another child after that.

Sorry, but no baby is born evil. 

[MormonMason]

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I don't think you really know what Jesus taught about SSM, because he didn't speak of it.  So start with that maybe.  We don't even have any direct quotes of his (all words attributed to him were written years after the fact and some many, many years later).  No one was there writing everything down as he spoke.  So no, we do not know what he believed or taught regarding SSM.

Also, thanks for clarifying that you don't hold any marriage outside of a temple marriage as being "valid".  That helps me understand your line of reasoning (and I respect your right to believe as you wish).

But there's no question that a SSM is a legal, valid marriage.

True, we know what he taught some years after the fact.  That doesn't mean it is completely unreliable.  He did not speak of SSM because it did not yet exist.  But he was clear that marriage as ordained of God is between male and female.  No need to address any other kind of marriage once those words were set in writing.  But then we are not stuck only on the words as recorded in the Bible.  That is what latter-day revelation is for.  And we have Jesus's apostles who also upheld the same view thereafter.  But, keep in mind that some portions of what we have in the Gospel books also have other sources.  The Gospels or Mark and Matthew share a common tradition older than themselves.  Mark is the first Gospel written that we now have.  It was written probably no more than 30 years after his ministry and is based on eyewitness testimony from Peter.  It still comes down to the fact that either Jesus taught that or he did not.  It is up to you to prove that he did not.  I've seen no evidence of that from the perspective of the manuscripts.  I cannot say the same regarding other portions of the Bible but those portions of Jesus's teaching that specifically say "male and female" have no differences among them that affect the sense.  But also keep in mind that there were no temple marriages being performed at the time Jesus said what he did.

I also never said that any and all marriages outside of the temple aren't valid.  That is your twisting of my remarks.  I stated that in the eyes of God only marriage between male and female is valid.  Now, as to exaltation, only a temple marriage is valid for that, whether performed in this life or the next before the resurrection.  After that it is too late.  No civil marriage or marriage outside of the temple by the authority and keys of the priesthood is valid enough to bring that about.  Period.

No one (at least not I) said otherwise than that in the eyes of man, in the eyes of the laws of man, SSM is a valid, legal marriage in whatever countries recognize such unions.

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, MormonMason said:

True, we know what he taught some years after the fact.  That doesn't mean it is completely unreliable.  He did not speak of SSM because it did not yet exist. 

So you really do not KNOW what Jesus felt or taught regarding SSM.  You should be more clear about that when you state you do.

[MormonMason]

18 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Sorry, but no baby is born evil. 

Maybe not but his parents swear otherwise.  That kid would attack other children without provocation.  When he was learning to use a fork, he tried to thrust out the eyes of his own mother!  Like I said, his parents would swear otherwise.  But if no one is born sociopathic, maybe no one is born anything else, either.  Food for thought?

[MormonMason]

Just now, ALarson said:

So you really do not KNOW what Jesus felt or taught regarding SSM.  You should be more clear about that when you state you do.

I never said he taught something about SSM.  I stated that he taught that marriage as ordained of God is between male and female.  You twisted my words into something else during reading.

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, MormonMason said:

I never said he taught something about SSM.  I stated that he taught that marriage as ordained of God is between male and female.  

What are you quoting?  Did he actually state that in the words you're attributing to him?  A marriage between male and female can be ordained of God.  But that doesn't mean that we know how Christ felt regarding SSM.  He never spoke of it and if he had, he may have stated something similar regarding it.  We simply do not know.

Edited April 25, 2018 by ALarson

[kllindley]

16 minutes ago, ALarson said:

 

17 minutes ago, ALarson said:

So, do you believe that only those who are sealed in a temple marriage can commit adultery?  (That it's technically fornication if someone is unfaithful in a civil marriage...)

Using your line of reasoning, that's what you're saying.  Because anyone entering into a SSM is just as legally and lawfully wed as any heterosexual couple who is married outside of the temple.  Or do you also not consider them (heterosexual couple) to be married as well?

Getting into an argument about whether same sex marriage is adultery is beyond silly. Up until 20 years ago the only definition of marriage was male/female. So adultery could only be a violation of that covenant.