Homosexuality and Religion

Remove all ads!

The critics of giving women the vote were wrong about women, but the nature of elections has changed to reflect the issues that concern women too. While in this situation I would challenge the use of the word undermine, it is a change. With Gay Marriage, it's not a change that I am prepared to support.

That will be answered difinitively later. But I'll be too busy mourning those of my friends that fall short of their eternal potential to gloat.

I'm talking about the unforgiving nature of society. We represented a minority that was drastically different from the majority. We basically hid in Utah until the rest of America outgrew the notion that we ought be erradicated. Likewise, I believe that Society in Gereral (Not Religiously dominated), can outgrow the notion that Homosexuals ought be beaten or killed. But they have as much right to ask the Law to recognize their marriage as we have to ask for a ban on Alcohol, Tobacco, Coffee and Tea. The right to live without being hunted down is one thing. The Right to set policy for a nation is another.

Can it be avoided?

Isn't that Democracy? Literally translated from Greek as "people rule". Basically, This Tyranny of the Majority is the downside of Democracy.

That's exactly why this happens. But because the Mother is busy in this regard, the Man has to do something. It's not about power, but about the Man taking some responsibility.

And if the Blacks didn't like that, the whites wouldn't shed many tears if they left. Apartheid ultimately fell because there was absolutely no legitimate reason to keep it. The difference is that the majority of the people in the US believe that there IS a legitimate reason not to support Gay Marriage...

From Pope Benedict the XVI (I think it's XVI): "When the Creator's divine plan is ignored, the truth about human nature is lost."

These scientific studies ignore God. If God really exists, and the Laws of the Bible are true, then that would mean that the scientific results of these studies are false.

However, if Homosexuality is really a Genetic Defect or other pathology, then gays who give in to this will be held to a lower degree of accountability than the rest of us.

Can some experiments or misconduct be dangerous? Further, some Christian faiths believe in Purgatory. Basically, that sounds like Spiritual detention.

Again, I don't buy into this "biologically deterministic" view of Homosexuality. That temptation started from childhood. In the abscence of teachings that said it was wrong, you saw no problem with that.

Arguementum ad homminem. Attacking the speaker, not the doctrine. I'm almost disappointed...

That's what makes that temptation harder to resist than others. We are commanded to love all others, but the covenent of marriage is reserved for Man and Woman.

They are, but that doesn't mean we're going to agree. On topics like this, it hits rather personal...

Exactly, a person's sins are between them and God. I don't want to know these things. But when the matter comes into debate, I am obligated to speak for my beliefs.

It's standing up for the Society as I believe it should be. Isn't that the point of Democracy?

But what if I don't want that knowledge?

But asking me to support their right to marry, openly or silently, is in direct contradiction of my religious beliefs which explicitly state that Marriage is between a Man and a Woman. To ask me to support a philosphy contradictory to that is asking me to commit blasphemy.

Actually I went through a period where I questioned my faith--including the stance on homosexuality. I spent 12 years of my life searching for some universal truth only to find it right where I arrogantly assumed I wouldn't find it. Because I was away from the Church and God, I didn't seek His counsel towards selecting a wife or a carreer, and the distractions of alcohol, drugs and immorality drew my efforts away from my studies. Now I'm 35 years old, still living in my Parents basement, with little relevent education, my health coming into question, never married and filled with 12 years of regret.

When I entertained that kind of thought, I sought out anything to numb my mind so I would not feel the distinct lack of purpose that sentiment seems to imply.

Please don't assume that I have foregone their use by following and promoting my religious beliefs. I believe that the intellect is imperative to truly understand them (and I still had to learn the hard way). I have found that as I have got with the program, it makes a lot more sense than people here give it credit for.

But I have found the opposite in my experience with my religion.

To us, that is presumed. If we are wrong, irrelevance is getting off lucky. To rip off a poker analogy, I've gone all in on my religion. I either hit the celestial jackpot or I bust out...

I tried to make that point, but as usual, I likely botched that.

Exactly. We put our trust in God. We are taught that He is the creator, and thus knows best.

If we trust someone, can their insight into the consequences of these actions be rationally factored into these decisions?

My solution to this, prayer and faith in Jesus Christ and his ability to help us change, has been disregarded.

Gay Marriage is one such moral issue. I advocate politicians that best reflect my own morality.

I have disagreed with that point. Morality is not situational. It is a true show of faith to maintain that standard in the face of a crisis as you have described. If you would eschew your morals under duress, how strongly committed are you?

Man is that they may have Joy. I believe that the tennets of my faith are the best route to that Joy.

But this was done by Divine power and supervision. This from a Perfect God.

I don't know them for sure because I am Canadian. I know that Utah was one of them, so you have something of a point, but still that's 22% of the Senate, and more that would get the hint...

 

The 'temptation' didn't start as a kid, there was no 'temptation'. Like I said, as a child I did not know any better, I did not have any sexual interest in boys, I just liked them the way a girl would like a boy, or the way a boy would like a girl.

And I wasn't attacking you, I was attacking your religion and its 'abomination' beliefs it had upheld claiming they were from 'God'. I was simply implying you should not brag about being something that isn't perfect. If your 'God' can change its mind on the stance of blacks being prohibited from the priesthood, then everything your 'God' says could be lies too. From what you are saying, God does not change his mind on his laws, yet he changed the laws that prohibited blacks from being ordained into the priesthood, and he changed his mind about polygamy, and he changed his mind between the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants concerning his very nature. So, if your 'God' changes his mind so much about crucial doctrine, surely the same God could change his mind about literally anything. Afterall, isn't LDS supposed to be the most correct religion in the history of the world? If so, therefore God has a habit of changing his mind when pressured by outside sources, therefore he is not as unchanging as you claim him to be.

Mormon doctrine has changed like the wind. Have you ever read the 1830 version? It has common gramatical errors that someone living in Joseph Smith's time would have made, showing that it was not inspired by God at all. Changes are obvious, such as "The Lamanites went a marching up the road" being changed to "The Lamanites went marching up the road." Once again, I am not attacking you, Gnarff, I am simply illustrating that your supposed rock solid beliefs are not as rock solid as you would like to think or say they are.

Lastly, feel free to attack Hinduism, I wont care, because I realise that despite my beliefs, they are not always right. There are no universal truths, and anyone claiming such is a liar.

 

Hey!

 

Of course it is. Homosexuals are doing precisely that, standing up for themselves and what they believe in. But if you had your way, you'd stifle their dissent and all would be as you wish it with the discussion ended then and there. That's hardly democratic.

Well, tough sh*t - that's life. Sometimes we have to respect the differences of others and live with something we dislike or are uncomfortable with. Evidently you'd like to live in a world where no one has to accept or even tolerate ideas with which they disagree. But no such fantasy world exists.

No one is asking you to support anything. I didn't say support - I said respect. I really, really don't like the idea of two morbidly obese people having hot sweaty sex - but it's not my place to stop them just because the thought of it makes me nauseated. I don't condone a person's support George W. Bush, but I certainly respect that it's their right and their personal choice to do so.

Support vs. respect. Can't you understand the difference? No thumbs up, no thumbs down, just simply abstain and live your OWN life. Is that so much to ask for you to do? Mind your own damn business?

There is absolutely a purpose to that sentiment, Gnarff: it's called humility. It's called empathy. It's called coming down from off your perch of moral absolutism for five minutes and attempting to put yourself in the shoes of those with whom you disagree. If you see a lack of purpose in that, it's only because your allowing your dogma to block your view.

No one is asking you not to follow and promote your beliefs. That's everyone's right. But every faith on earth is 100% convinced that their faith is the real deal, above all others. Your inability to see any truth other than your own is where your sense, reason and intellect seem to be cast aside in order to meet the far-from-universal standards of a far-from-perfect faith. You can't simply say "this is what I believe, but I respect your right to believe something else and wish you well." It's your way or the highway, and you feel obliged to impose your morals onto those who don't share them.

What you fail to understand is that your particular "program" is not universal. None of them are. The Mormon "program" works for you. Great, fantastic, swell...but that's YOU. It does not, and WILL not, work for everyone. You have to respect that, or at least humble yourself enough to make the attempt. I certainly give faith it's due credit, believe me - I just think you do your faith and yourself a disservice by being so judgemental and obtuse. That's why so many theologians throughout history have referred to faith as a journey, not a destination. Truth cannot exist in a vacuum.

[ October 09, 2006, 10:37: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

 

Sorry Abomination, I was'nt meaning you haha! I'm very sick at the moment and I fear my posts will be incoherent...

 

@Nataraja: Hold up, think clearly for a second. I can tell you are a bit pissed reading your post but can you realy condemn an update in the "way" speech is used more than a hundred years ago?

"The Lamanites went a marching up the road" being changed to "The Lamanites went marching up the road."

My own holy book has modern english versions and I'm sure yours does too. Don't forget the topic and attack the book.

 

No no no, I put the ... in there for a reason was just making a jibe

 

I have a question for those that argued that homosexuallity was a temptation just like heterosex.
As a Christian who identifies herself as lesbian and has chosen to live a celebite life rather than offend God. What would you suggest I do to *cure* myself of these urges. If this is my cross to bear it is one that God has not seen to take from me over the years as I have struggled with it and tried to turn it over to him. I cannot give myself to a hetero partner with out eithere violating my faith and fornicating or getting married, and I will not get married until I know I can give a husband all of me. My mother has argued that sex is not everything in a marriage but I cannot resign myself to a partnership where I do not in the least desire my spouse. I agree with your position and would like to hear what you would tell someone in mine.

 

I realize the debate has moved past which 11 states had referenda involving gay marriage and civil unions, but I did find this poll from June 2006, so fairly recent:

Demographic/Marriage/Civil union/No recognition

All 28% 29% 40%

Republicans 13% 33% 53%

Democrats 32% 28% 36%

Independents 37% 27% 33%

18-29 years 43% 32% 25%

30-44 29% 25% 44%

45-64 26% 29% 41%

65 & older 12% 32% 51%

Northeast 35% 31% 33%

Midwest 26% 23% 47%

South 23% 26% 48%

West 31% 36% 28%

The percentages don't add up to 100%, because there were some that were undecided or chose not to answer for whatever reason. In general the principle is true that more people are supportive of same sex marriage in the northeast and west coast than in the south or the middle of the country. It also appears that support for gay marriage decreases with age, with the youngest segment of the voting population most in favor of legalization.

It's also important the way the question is worded. In the referenda, you were given a yes/no chioce. Here you are given three choices - marriage, civil union, or no recognition. When presented with the third option, you see a lot of people will go for that. Still, the percentage of people supporting gay marriage never goes much beyond 1/3, with under 30 and in the northeast being the exceptions. However, no recognition is still a plurality in nearly all segments.

 

I was shocked to discover yesterday that Wisconsin is one of the states where the majority (51%) supports no recognition. But rest assured I'll be voting against that come November 7th (provided I can remember that long).

 

@Abomination:

How is adultry bad? How is polygamy bad? The Bible doesn't explain why God forbid things, just that He did and He knows more than us and loves us, so we should trust Him (if you believe the Bible).

And if there is room for society to play a role, then there is room for choice, which means it is a choice and not something pre-determined for you.

Again, compare it to polygamy on this issue. Do you support polygamy? Do you march in protests to make it legal? I'm assuming you don't, though I may be wrong. The next question, then, is why not? Three people can definitely be in love, and it doesn't seem to hurt anyone, so why aren't you fighting for their right to marry multiple people?

Gnarf:

I have to disagree with you here. What is being ignored is that nature and nurture are both mechanisms for an action to happen, not the original cause of it. Science studies the gears and how they turn and how one turning affects the others. Religion and philosospy asks questions of the person pulling the levers (you, by the way).

Lol. This exemplifies how clumsy the English language is. The Greeks had three different terms for love, and this was a huge advantage in clarifying things like this. We are commanded to agape all others (or love them like God loves them), not to eros all others (or love them as a husband loves a wife).

Mmm, sort of agree with that. Morality is situational in that every situation should be handled and considered uniquely, but it is also absolute in that there is one absolute right answer for each situation and all others are wrong for that situation. God gave us a spirit (conscience) to guide us on a case-by-case basis, but He also gave us His laws, which are patters. For example, 'Thou shalt not commit murder' means that, for all situations, murder is a wrong option.

@Nataraja:

This is a common logical falacy, as 'there are no universal truths' is a claim to a universal truth itself. To treat it otherwise means to claim that there may be some universal truths. The only way you can accurately present that sentiment is to claim 'This is the only universal truth' which opens a whole can of worms in and of itself.

@DR:

Unless he's right, in which case it is the only one that will work, and it would work for everyone that tried it properly. Just as I can't logically prove to you that my way is the only way, you can't logically prove to me that it isn't, or that it won't work for everyone. So lets not make unconditional claims like that.

@dferiante:
It is not given to all of us to marry. Maybe God doesn't want you to marry, maybe He has another purpose for you. Maybe He does want you to marry and this temptation is just something He is allowing to build your character. We all face temptations all our lives, some stronger than others. As a guy, I promise you I will always have to battle on some level with lusting after beautiful women. God will not take that away from me until I die, but I grow stronger by battling it. It is possible God will take it away, or teach you how to get rid of it yourself, when the time is right. It is also possible you will have to deal with it your entire life, just like I will have to deal with mine. All I can say is stay strong, stay in the Word, stay in fellowship with other believers, and trust in God.

 

@Old One; wasn't so much 'pissed off', more that I was sick and feeling a bit too touchy about things...conlvusions due to food poisoning and feverish dellusions...

 

@ NOG,

Since there are indeed gay people in the world who will never stop being gay, and since you and Gnarff are obviously unwilling to include, understand or even respect the gay viewpoint, then I think we've logically proven that it won't work for everyone. You two are the ones making unconditional claims.

 

1st: NOG thank you for your message it was helpful.

2nd: Death rabbit I disagree with you.
Gnarf and NOG do understand and respect the gay view point it's just that their and my religion tell us it's wrong. I have many gay friends and identify myself as a celebite Mormon gay. At one point I was living the full gay life style with my girlfriend and wished there was someway to make our union binding and legal. I have since repented but can still sympathize living that life. While I understand their desire to marry, and do support them gaining some partner rights, I have never and will never support their right to call their unions marraiges that is the heterosexual term for a union between a man and a woman and they have no right to force the redefinition of a term that is thousands of years old and the magority. I do not understand why they cannot find another term to label their union. I personally have no problem with gay having certain rights : the right to a union, the right to live free of persecution, the right to not have others life styles pushed on them. The problem I have with them as a whole, because I do call several of them friends, is that they wish to redefine my union instead of getting their own, and are actively advocating their life style to the point where I it passes from peaceful coexistence to having it shoved down our throats. We live in a predominently Christian country and I strongly object having to monitor what is taught my ten year old sister in school and trying to counter it at home. I object to all the lifesyle crap being taught our children though not just the "homo" part. They should just teach them to stay celebite until HS and then tell them to use condoms if they do something ANYTHING straight or gay.

 

While most would be perfectly happy with civil unions (providing they actually get the same rights as marriages, which isn't happening most places either), others see a different term as a way of making their union 'less than' a marriage. A way of saying, "It's not legitimate." Personally, I find that a tiny bit...paranoid, I guess, but there are extremists in any group.

 

Right. So God puts beautiful women in front of us to build our characters? Fantastic! That is a God I can live with. I think my character could do with some more building up, so I'm looking forward to plenty of beautiful women walking past me today. I might I even see if I can get some 'character building' magazines to read. God rules!

 

Interesting stats there, Aldeth. It's nice to see the younger proportion of the population aren't so 'brainwashed' by religous doctrine. It's interesting to see the only age catagory that the majority don't want any recognition is 65+. I guess it shows how the world is changing. Would be interesting to see how the US compares with other countries.

Different politcal culture, I think NOG. Living 20 minute walk from New Zealand's Parliament buildings, I can tell you that protest marches are a rare thing here. I've seen two in the time I've lived here - one which was against US's Iraq 'war' and the other was a bunch of... weird people waving "Down with the Commie Government" banners... So in answer to your question, I go in as much gay right protest marches as I do polygamy right ones.

Nothing against polygamy. People's sexual preferences is honestly none of my business. If some people wished to make it legal, I would see no harm there, but then I haven't looked at the facts closely.

Oh, and fwiw, I think Fel hit the nail on the head with his post just above. As long as civil unions carry the same rights as marriages, I've got no problem with just making marriage just the term for a civil union between hetrosexual partners.

 

Rotku - you must have missed the Hikoi Land March and the Destiny Church Enough is Enough March, but your point is valid that protest marches are not the definition of somebody's opinion. Only workshy layabouts have enough spare time to wander around protesting.

 

Why? That's only based on religion. The schools aren't allowed to preach religious doctrine because other parents don't want it shoved down their kids throats. Schools have to teach things based on scientific study and/or fact and there's nothing wrong with intercourse before marriage apart from offending a god or two.

 

First off the claim of spirit world sins making them black is an opinion of some LDS members, but is not endorsed by the leaders. As for the original decision to keep the priesthood from them it was majorly drawn into the fact that it was agaist the law for any faith to baptise a runaway slave and this was the LDS way of safeguarding agaist that as recieving the priesthood requires baptisism. Also it wasn't too strongly enforced as one of the first people to recieve the preisthood after it was restored to earth was a black man, and more were given the preisthood as well. It is much the same as the mormon "extermination order" in Missourri where it was legal to kill mormons untill 1976. They weren't officially renounced, but for the most part in practice they were.

It was punishment for the Lamanites sins, which included pride, inside which included pride in their appearence. God 'cursed' them because he knew it would humble them (among many other things). Racism? It is our human discriminations that make it racism. Especially as one of the purposes of the BoM was to educate the Native Americans on their ancestors. God wouldn't have gone through the trouble if he thought they were lower.

The same way experts on the Egyption symbols recognized those on the original manuscript, and many others have since with the fascimiles that can be found inside the book of Abraham.

Can God make a rock so big he can't lift. If so he can't do everything because he couldn't lift it. If he can't make such a rock he can't do everything either. God isn't perfect either in my opinion, so this whole snippet is not worth anything to me.

Kudos to Dendri... Exactly as I thought I may have tried to express earlier. There is no point in trying to be rational about it, as this is a subject manner which requires that we not try to rationalize everything. Some condemn homosexuality, some don't. There's no point attacking a religon's dissaproval to homosexuality or the opposite as the only way to change that view (for the most part) is to change all their beliefs.

The reason someone would care is they're compassionate and thinking ahead... they don't want others to suffer damnation

Well the Abrahamic religions condemm homosexuality so yes. As members of those faiths are trying to convert people (and the fact that God is 'the man')

Agreed.

Which many would claim is much worse than attacking someone. I would rather someone attack me than my motha' Regardless, I'm sure Gnarf (and many others) would regard them as undescrimitable as religion is a major part of who we are... For instance it gives us views on homosexuality

Just because I want pizza and later decide chicken sounds good doesn't mean it was a lie that I wanted pizza.

He didn't say anything about not changing his mind. As far as mormons are taught homosexuality is a sin. If it ever was unmade a sin then it doesn't effect that it is a sin now. This won't happen though as homosexuality directly opposes the mormon plan of hapiness.

Or that humans make mistakes. It also is way more advanced than anyone who had no formal education could 'write'.

After trying once (and probably for the last time) I have decided that this long post thing is good fun Because it bears repeating (again)...

-Dendri