Homosexuality, British study finds...

[_Roger Morrison]

We can use the New Testament no problem, because the law didn't change, just the punishment.

Rom. 1:21-32

Homosexuality is against everything the gospel stands for, and is second only to murder, in that it is a breach of the law of chastity, and against common social decency.

Gaz, thanks for your efforts on this subject. i respect your good-intention. however, a few points you might not have considered, some probably more relevant than others:

The term "abomination" is used 22 times in the Old Testament, once in each of the New Testament, Book of Mormon, & the D&C. Suggests the 'word', and its useage has been replaced by others more appropriate to advancing language development. Recall McConky's use of it in Mormon Doctrine, getting him into deep trouble?

Luke (16:15) uses it to describe the Pharisees' 'heart-content' in summary of v 13 & 14, to include things of no sexual nature whar-so-ever. By extension, suggesting that you and I might be engaged in some "abominables"? Some thing to think about...

Rom 1:21-32, does provoke thought. 23, for example: "...changing God into an image like unto man..." Seems that's the view of LDSism. Something else to think about... v30 & 31, Paul's rancor is redirected to include such every-day-evils as, "...despiteful, proud, boasters, without understanding & natural affection--many families might dwell there, eh--implacable, unmerciful..." You say:

Homosexuality is against everything the gospel stands for, and is second only to murder, in that it is a breach of the law of chastity, and against common social decency

A very narrow view of what, "...the gospel stands for..." IMSCO. As i understand the "Good News" it has to do with grace, forgiveness, mercy, joy, serving "God" and humanity as instructed and exemplified by the man who taught such "strange doctrine" for his time. Then died because he wouldn't retract from it.

I think there are many things more "...against common social decency..." such as: political and corporate corruption; child and spousal abuses of any type; prejudce re ethnicity, religious choice, gender, sexual orientation; deceit, crimes against humanity and property et al, than is hmosexuality.

Homosexual relationships are free-will between consenting adults; as are heterosexual relationships. That either might be found offensive is so feebly evidenced as to be nothing more than opinion based upon misinformation and culturalism.

IF/WHEN we understand the all encompassing ramifications of (John 8:3-11) "...casting the first stone..." then, i think that "charity", spoken of by Paul, might better temper our condemnation of others, however, and by whomever, they might be judged... Warm regards, Roger

Paul, in 1 Cor 13, i think summarizes the value priorities that ideally were/are meant to live by. First and last "Charity" is meant to encompass every principle, precept, thought, and deed we live by.

[_guy sajer]

We can use the New Testament no problem, because the law didn't change, just the punishment.

Rom. 1:21-32

Homosexuality is against everything the gospel stands for, and is second only to murder, in that it is a breach of the law of chastity, and against common social decency.

And it doesn't at all bother you that the punishment at one time WAS death? As a moral person, Gaz, does this not in the least disturb you? To cause you to question the God of the Old Testament? (Oh, and by the way just for reminder's sake, in Mormon theology, the Jehova, the God of the Old Testament, was Jesus Christ--you know, the kind, gentle, loving man who said lots nice things; well, he had blood on his hands, and lots of it.)

Can you think of ANY moral justification for killing someone for his/her sexual orientation?

I mean, that's what Hitler did, and we revile him for it.

But God when God does it, it's all hunky dory.

[_Some Schmo]

It's so painfully obvious that when a religious nut starts quoting antiquated scribbling of a long dead society to support their argument that there's something somehow wrong with homosexuality, what they're really doing is grasping at straws in order to support their own prejudice, simply because the idea of something is uncomfortable to them. There's no need for logic, reason or evidence; it's enough for these mentally challenged Neanderthals to quote outdated BS to smugly make their point and expect everyone to lie down in the face of it.

If religious people would like to lose their reputation for being stupid, they should quit saying stupid things.

[_Roger Morrison]

As i've said before, "You's Some Smart Schmo, Bro!" Warm regards, Roger

[_John Larsen]

We aren't accountable as sinning for random thoughts. I think it was President McKay who said "you can't stop the seagulls from flying overhead, but you don't have to let them sit on your shoulder." Flying overhead a sin? No. Sitting on the shoulder a sin? Yes.

Charity, I think you left two "h"s out of your post.

John

[_krose]

We aren't accountable as sinning for random thoughts. I think it was President McKay who said "you can't stop the seagulls from flying overhead, but you don't have to let them sit on your shoulder." Flying overhead a sin? No. Sitting on the shoulder a sin? Yes.

Charity, I think you left two "h"s out of your post.

John

'ilarious!