A frank discussion on Homosexuality.

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
_keene
_Emeritus
Posts: 10098
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 7:05 pm

Re: A frank discussion on Homosexuality.

Post by _keene »

asbestosman wrote:
keene wrote:God is love.

Two people in love have sex.

How is this a sin? How is it bad? I just don't get it. Enlighten me, and let the discussion begin.

A man loves pork.

He eats bacon.

How is this a sin? How is it bad? Why would God have ever forbidden it?

I don't know, but apparently that's the way it was. If you don't believe God commanded it, then that's your privilege. I'm not one to wish that the legal system be bogged down by such rules. I won't even bother the people who disagree. Just don't expect me to think God must not have ever made such rules.


There is an answer I can agree with.

If you live and let live, then all is well. :)
_keene
_Emeritus
Posts: 10098
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 7:05 pm

Post by _keene »

bcspace wrote:
There is no GOD okay so no rules....Okay


That's one way to look at it, but it's not okay....

And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away. 2 Nephi 2:13


The flaws in logic are bolded.

Happiness occurs, whether the act is righteous, sin, or neutral. I would even go as far as to say happiness is the natural state of man, regardless of what else there be.
_Bond...James Bond
_Emeritus
Posts: 4627
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 4:49 am

Re: A frank discussion on Homosexuality.

Post by _Bond...James Bond »

keene wrote:
asbestosman wrote:
keene wrote:God is love.

Two people in love have sex.

How is this a sin? How is it bad? I just don't get it. Enlighten me, and let the discussion begin.

A man loves pork.

He eats bacon.

How is this a sin? How is it bad? Why would God have ever forbidden it?

I don't know, but apparently that's the way it was. If you don't believe God commanded it, then that's your privilege. I'm not one to wish that the legal system be bogged down by such rules. I won't even bother the people who disagree. Just don't expect me to think God must not have ever made such rules.


There is an answer I can agree with.

If you live and let live, then all is well. :)


Isn't "live and let live" blown out of the water by being politically active concerning gay marriage?

Bond
"Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded."-charity 3/7/07
_keene
_Emeritus
Posts: 10098
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 7:05 pm

Post by _keene »

bcspace wrote:
You know that isn't necessarily true, right?


Knowing that God exists, I know that it is necessarily right.

And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness.

Prove that one to me. I think I have a lot of happiness but it would not be considered "righteousness" by Mormon standards.So if any part of "Nephi"'s reasoning is wrong...are his conclusions possibly wrong?


Nephi's reasoning is not wrong as you must include all his reasoning in context. For example, 2 Nephi 28:7-10 shows that he believes this happiness you speak of is at best transitory (and likely not true happiness at all) and therefore, what you feel is happiness says nothing at all about Nephi's reasoning.

I don't know why TBM's only label homosexuality as a sin. According to the Bible they should be doing much more.


I don't know why you would say that as LDS label many things as sin, such as fornication and adultery (homosexuality always falls under one of those).

I've read my Bible and certain parts always stick out. Shouldn't people being following the Bible CORRECTLY?

Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.


If you really had read your Bible, you would know that the law of Moses has been fulfilled and superceeded by gospel law.


Gospel law, absolutely.

Now, show me the new testament statement that homosexuality is wrong. If it deals with fornication or adultery, then the only reason homosexuality is wrong is because they're not married. Let them get married, and it's no longer a sin. Huzzah!
_keene
_Emeritus
Posts: 10098
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 7:05 pm

Post by _keene »

bcspace wrote:
Homosexuality is wrong because it doesn't provide both gendered role models for children.


One of the main reasons homosexual marriage should not be recognized by the state.

No wait, that would make a widow raising children without remarriage evil too.


Not at all. There is a proper role model in this case because she has not engaged in a homosexual relationship.


Wait wait wait.

BOTH GENDERED role models. Meaning, one male influence, one female.

Widowers would be only female. How is that a proper role model? Theres no male influence.

How is it a bad influence to have homosexuals as parents? Especially if they love and respect eachother enough to stay faithful to eachother their entire life (something most married couple's can't say.)
_keene
_Emeritus
Posts: 10098
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 7:05 pm

Post by _keene »

bcspace wrote:
One of the main reasons homosexual marriage should not be recognized by the state.

I agree. Marriage should not be recognized by the state. Let religioun define what marriage and let individual people decide what relationships they wish to recognize as special or not.


I have no problem with that. However, I also have no problem with the state recognizing and encouraging the ideal as it benefits society.


Then you better be able to prove that "the ideal" actually DOES benefit society.
_MormonMendacity
_Emeritus
Posts: 405
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 12:56 am

Post by _MormonMendacity »

bcspace wrote:Spoken like a true dilettant.

The believer in imaginary MagicMen calls me a dilettant. Very ironic oh Great Name Caller! How about some substance?

Oh right. If you don't have your MagicMan to speak for you you have nothing to say.

Got it!
"Suppose we've chosen the wrong god. Every time we go to church we're just making him madder and madder" --Homer Simpson's version of Pascal's Wager
Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool.
Religion is ignorance reduced to a system.
_Gazelam
_Emeritus
Posts: 5659
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:06 am

Post by _Gazelam »

Before you answer the question, answer this:

What is the purpose of Celestial Marriage? Why is it exalting? Why has God given us the Law of Chastity?

Gaz
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. - Plato
_MormonMendacity
_Emeritus
Posts: 405
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 12:56 am

Post by _MormonMendacity »

Gazelam wrote:Before you answer the question, answer this:

What is the purpose of Celestial Marriage?

There is only a purported purpose...and that is important. Since it is purported to seal a man and a woman for eternity then whether it happens one year or just five minutes after the legal wedding would not really matter that much, would it?
Gazelam wrote: Why is it exalting?

It can't be exalting if people can lie to get in and fake it. I personally knew people who did it -- unworthy -- just because it was culturally expected of them. If they can do it then why not just remove the requirement to privacy? Why couldn't President Hinckley just allow a justice of the peace to perform them on the steps of the temple and then go inside to do the sacred part?
Gazelam wrote:Why has God given us the Law of Chastity?
God didn't. People claiming to be his oracles did. Of course, they haven't provided any more evidence for their authority than did the priests of Muhammed or Zeus, so they probably don't have it either.

Thanks for interviewing me!!!
Last edited by Nomomo on Fri Dec 08, 2006 5:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Suppose we've chosen the wrong god. Every time we go to church we're just making him madder and madder" --Homer Simpson's version of Pascal's Wager
Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool.
Religion is ignorance reduced to a system.
_asbestosman
_Emeritus
Posts: 6215
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:32 pm

Post by _asbestosman »

Gazelam wrote:What is the purpose of Celestial Marriage?

In part it is a continuation of the seeds (D&C 132). However, couldn't really smart and powerful people figure out how to genetically engineer things to work between two males or two females? They could probably even do it with just one.

Now I'll grant that I think heterosexual marriage is what God inteded. Even so, I don't see what that has to do with the role of government--to protect property and promote freedom and peace.
Why is it exalting? Why has God given us the Law of Chastity?

I don't know why it is exalting. Do you know why? Certainly there is something special about having children, but even infertile couples can adopt and experience much of that joy.

I don't know why we have the law of chastity. I mean if we're all brothers and sisters in the spiritual sense, then aren't we all related anyhow? And what about remarriage? I think Chastity helps provide for more stable homes on Earth for children. Chastity also helps stop the spread of certain diseases.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy.
eritis sicut dii
I support NCMO
Post Reply