God's opposition to homosexual behavior. Why?

[BilliardsBall]

Yes, it is an error contained in the Bible. Like when it describes a circle that would have pi being equal to 3. It totally botches the behavior of ants. It erroneously claims that the Canaanites were destroyed. It claims the moon has its own light. It also says the moon is of the night ("rule the night") yet the moon is not visible on all nights and is often visible during the day.

In the words of Luke Skywalker, "Everything you just said is wrong."

 

[Mock Turtle]

I'm not a clinical, secular psychologist specialist. The one I heard from worked with gay men.

However, in my friendships and acquaintances and witnessing, yes, lesbians were in the same situation--plus, it's an oft-easy measured sliding scale. Meet a lesbian who has never had opposite sex desire or tried to be bisexual or experiment, and...

I'm no authority on lesbians either, but I would think that there are many who have never felt any desire for males and many who do to some extent.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Okay so all you really have to back up your very specific (and arguably slanderous) claim is anctedotal evidence and readily admit there is no real concrete unbiased academic evidence?
Why should I believe you then? What makes your claim verifiable?
You know/met a guy who told you something. So freaking what? That's not exactly impressive.

Christ, if I pulled that kind of crap on a high school research assignment even I'd be lucky not to get an F. (I'm only having fun, mate. But seriously, you might want to consider better sources for the future. Just saying.)

This is why we have an unbiased source of information (academia) to rely upon to back up our claims. Otherwise debates would be a chaotic mix of unsubstantiated claims unable to be actually verified by unbiased sources. Rendering them useless.

I mean I can just as easily claim that all Christians I know come from abusive backgrounds and according to the very low standards of evidence, which you yourself have abided by on this very debate, my claim would be true.

I think you avoided reading my first sentence, why, I'm unsure, I kept my prior post short: "I believe you and I both know that in academia, numerous theories have been proposed to explain the development of homosexuality, but there is so far no universally accepted account of the origins of a homosexual sexual orientation."

Apparently you are disturbed when someone shares a theory with you, based on anecdotal evidence? I don't say to my wife, "Only you say you love me that much, let's see some white papers, baby, some academic input!"

Do yourself a spiritual favor, talk to three gay friends or family, and say, "A guy I know has a crazy idea and I want to hear your response. Most gays and lesbians were molested as children by the same gender and/or had a broken relationship with the same sex parent. Tell me it isn't true."

 

[SomeRandom]

I think you avoided reading my first sentence, why, I'm unsure, I kept my prior post short: "I believe you and I both know that in academia, numerous theories have been proposed to explain the development of homosexuality, but there is so far no universally accepted account of the origins of a homosexual sexual orientation."

Apparently you are disturbed when someone shares a theory with you, based on anecdotal evidence? I don't say to my wife, "Only you say you love me that much, let's see some white papers, baby, some academic input!"

Do yourself a spiritual favor, talk to three gay friends or family, and say, "A guy I know has a crazy idea and I want to hear your response. Most gays and lesbians were molested as children by the same gender and/or had a broken relationship with the same sex parent. Tell me it isn't true."

First of all, if you already know that there is no real legitimate backing to your statement, why state it as if it were fact in the first place?
Secondly, you realise that ancetodal evidence is considered fallacious, right?
I don't care what "theory" a person tells me. If they can put their money where their mouth is, then I give them props and go from there. If not well I usually discard it as nothing but conjecture.
Your claims hold as much water as some rando coming on here and claiming that because I'm born after a certain year I'm more prone to abuse drugs because a doctor they once spoke to told them that in their experience a lot of addicts are of a certain age bracket. So what?
You seem adamant in ignoring basic debate etiquette. I might be a brash jerk, but I am merely trying to hold you to some form of standard, however silly and hyperbolic I may act at times.
I'm not upset or disturbed. Although claiming people are "insert sexual orientation here" specifically because of abuse is quite offensive to many actual abuse victims. So I might take issue when someone claims such a thing and I will take them to task if they cowardly back out of proving it with you know, actual goddamned evidence. That's just how debates tend to work.
Some random person with "qualifications" telling you something is not evidence. It's not proof, so your claims can't be taken as valid. Just FYI.

Oh and if I did tell at least 3 of my gay friends and/or family members what you just asked me to, I already know the response.
It will either be incredulity at such false accusations levied against their own family members who did nothing to hurt them or manic laughing at such a ridiculous notion put forth when they freely say with pride, nope not a single instance of abuse. I can report on their exact responses verbatim when I next speak to them, if you so desire. Although my family are prone to a very dark insulting sense of humour. So there might be a bleeped out word here or there thanks to RF rules. Just to let you know.

 

[Prestor John]

The issue with homosexuality isn't believing it's wrong.

No, the issue is believing that it’s acceptable.

It's when you start telling others it's wrong, and insisting the only thing right is to adhere to your beliefs.

Whoa. Wait a minute. Time out.

Do you honestly not see your hypocrisy here? You really don’t see it?

How is my sharing my belief with others and trying to convince them of their truthfulness any different than what you are trying to do here with me?

Aren’t you sharing your beliefs concerning homosexuality and trying to convince me that your beliefs are correct?

Also, did you not repeatedly admit on this thread that you try to convince children, both in your family and among your clientele, that “religion is bad”?

How is that you not telling others that something is wrong and you insisting that they would be right in adhering to your beliefs?

You said in post # 181,

“Do you also thank god I work with kids, and influence them? Some of my nieces and nephews were able to abandon religion with my help. I have a way of priming young minds to ask serious questions, the sort of questions that religion tends to not survive.”

You proudly proclaimed that through your “help” and “influence” you convinced children (none of whom are your own) to abandon religion.

You did this without any regard for how their parents might feel about that.

It’s bad that you did that to your own family, but how much more disgusting are you for doing this on a professional level?

I’m an officer down at the border. You don’t think it would be inappropriate for me to try to convert those I question while they try to cross the border?

That would be extremely inappropriate, if not illegal.

You openly admit that you do this kind of thing with your clients. To impressionable children no less!

You are a huge unapologetic hypocrite with no defense.

I don't believe football is a good thing, but I'm not telling people they have to give it up or face these consequences of the divine.

Not at all comparable, but again, this is pure hypocrisy.

Don’t you consider my beliefs concerning homosexual behavior to be “wrong” and something that should be avoided?

You are now at this very moment trying to convince me that there is nothing wrong with homosexual behavior and you judge me negatively for having beliefs that disagree with your own?

In this case, I don't want kids. It's not comparable to what I think about the behaviors and choices of others, as it is my own decision.

No one said you had to have kids or that it was not your decision to make.

You didn't say it's fine, because you harped on about "eternal potential" or some other nonsense that just can't apply if it's in regards to something someone doesn't want that isn't necessary for their well being.

My response to your initial claim to not wanting kids was,

“That’s fine. Do what you want.” (post #159)

To understand my comments about “eternal potential”, look to what else I said in the very same post (#159),

“My remarks were in regards to having offspring in eternity, not in this life.

When we leave this life and come to remember our existence before coming to the Earth, we might come to feel differently.”

You keep trying to apply my comments about the “hereafter” to our temporal existence here on Earth.

How about actually reading my posts?

My life's joy does not include having kids. And if you noticed, I didn't say just potential but I also included actualized.

Again, my comments are about our existence throughout eternity, not just this life.

Needless to say (but I’ll say it anyway) I believe God knows more about what makes us joyful than you do.

After this life we will be able to attain joy and glory, yet if we have no eternal mate, we will realize that we can attain only so much joy and glory alone.

Having an eternal mate will increase our joy and glory.

Then being able to procreate with our mate will increase our joy and glory with each new child.

Being able to add to our posterity ad infinitum will cause a literal eternity of ever-increasing joy and glory.

Being alone, there is a limit to our joy and glory; being sealed to our eternal mate can bring limitless joy and glory.

It is not dissimilar to how God has children and each new child brings Him more joy and glory.

Your spiritual birth caused Him to gain more joy and glory.

 

[Prestor John]

When it comes to kids, it should be each and everyone's own decision. This social expectation that we have to have kids is a load of bull. If you don't want kids, it's ideal to not have them.

I said a similar thing in post #276,

“No one can force you to have kids and you definitely should not have them if you don’t want them and consider them to be “curses”.”

I have never once, though, made any comment about what society expects.

I do not use society as any measurement for what is good or bad.

I do not believe that homosexual behavior is sinful, or that we would find joy in having children, according to some societal expectation or standard.

Also, when I mention something being “ideal”, I am talking about how it was designed by God.

The ideal that God has designed is men and women pairing up in marriage and having children.

Not everyone does. By birth or accident, not everyone can produce offspring.

Yeah, again, my comments are not just in reference to this life, but eternity.

Seriously, the very comment you quoted and supposedly responded to said that very thing! I said,

“Technically, all of us have the potential to procreate and love our children, either in this life or the next.

We all have that potential. It all depends on the choices we make.” (Bold added)

True, because of the imperfect conditions of mortality, some people may be incapable of having offspring while in this world.

However, not only does this not stop people from becoming adoptive parents, but all the frailties of our mortal bodies will one day be remedied when we are Resurrected.

Therefore, if someone who could not have children in this life continues to live faithfully, keeping God’s commandments and making good choices, they can have children in eternity.

For me there would be no increased joy.

Again, you are limiting my comments to this life only.

Having offspring is the only process by which Eternal Beings can increase their joy. There is no other way.

You can attain only so much joy if you are alone, but by being sealed to your eternal mate, you can have an eternal increase of joy.

I will point out, however, that the attitudes we develop in this life will have an effect on our attitudes in eternity, so you may find contentment in being without an eternal mate and an eternal increase of joy.

However, remembering your experiences from before this life and witnessing others attaining these higher levels of joy and glory may cause you to regret the decisions you made in this life.

I'm not arrogant enough and my ego not over-inflated enough to think making someone in my image is important or a priority.

I’m not going to touch your obvious issues here, but you missed my point entirely.

I was merely pointing out that you have no right to “help” or “influence” other people’s children to abandon religion.

Since they are not yours, you have no right to try to make them in your image.

Also, procreation has been, and should be a priority to all species.

If I had kids, I'd rather they become their own image.

This is demonstrably false.

You have already admitted that you have a desire to “help” or “influence” other people’s children to believe as you do, ergo, to become more like you and your image.

This desire would only become stronger toward your own children.

It's often a judgement call.

No, it is not.

You have no right to “help” or “influence” any child who is not yours to abandon religion.

There is no profession that would require you to do that.

If you do that, you are operating outside the parameters of your job description.

Such as, one of my adult clients, he feels he has to act and behave in a certain way just because of his last name.

We are not talking about adults, but impressionable and naive children.

 

[Prestor John]

My title, as bestowed upon me by the state of Indiana, is Behavioral Health Professional. In a way, preaching is a part of the job.

No, it is not. That is not at all a part of your job.

If you insist that preaching against religion is a part of your job, would you mind referencing where, in your professional manuals or job description, that skill is listed?

Not religious preaching, but preaching about coping with stress, ways to manage your life, and preaching to motivate. But religion isn't something I bring up.

You claimed in post #181 that you “influenced” children and then said,

“I have a way of priming young minds to ask serious questions, the sort of questions that religion tends to not survive.”

Could you provide an example of such a question (which you claim destroys religion) that does not itself mention God or religion?

When everybody else in the family, who are religious, look down upon them for not being religious, yes, they needed someone in the family to extend them hand so they didn't drown in the negativity that people often give you when you have no religious or spiritual beliefs.

I smell confirmation bias.

My job description really doesn't include religion. But it mandates evidence-based practices. So, no, I'm not going to be bringing up or encouraging god as a solution.

As well you shouldn’t and I never claimed that you should.

Yet, your attempt to “influence” them to reject God and abandon religion is also not evidence-based.

If you can’t bring up or encourage God then you shouldn’t be able to bring up or encourage “anti-God” or the abandonment of religion.

Jeebers! I never knew I hated myself. Taking better care of myself, going to
(don't you realize the absurdity of insisting someone must hate themselves just because?)

Your comment seems to have been cut off. You were “going to…” where? What?

I am not saying this “just because”, but anyone who claims that children are a “burden” and a “curse” is directly claiming that they themselves are a “burden” and a “curse” because they are also someone’s child.

It reminds me of the mean old Principal lady in the movie “Matilda”, who claimed that she hated children and then said, “I’m glad I never was one.”

The irony is obvious.

That's because you aren't one the especially despised sinners.

No, you don’t get to do that. You are not a special victim.

Every single person on this planet is a child of God and each and every one of them commits sin.

God has declared that every single member of the human family of Adam (save Christ) is required to repent of their sins and rely on the grace of His Son.

You are no different than me or anyone else.

I have also been reprimanded by Priesthood authorities and the scriptures for my behavior.

I have been encouraged to change my behavior and better align my will with that of the Lord Jesus Christ.

I’m sorry if you’ve been mistreated by anyone, but that mistreatment is not justification for sin nor does it make you any different from me.

We are all in the same boat.

If I'm able to control my emotional outbursts, it means I am very capable in that regard. Working with kids is difficult. Lots of people can't do it or handle it. But I can do it and put to rest my emotional angst.

I’m glad to hear that.

I just hope that one of your methods for coping with your “emotional angst” does not involve trying to live vicariously through these children.

I understand that you had bad experiences with a religion, but that does not justify a warped sense of trying to “protect” these children from religion.

You “helping” or “influencing” any of your minor clients to reject God or abandon religion is wrong.

I helped raise 9 of them. From all stages, living at home with mom, at their own house, and here their, infancy into adulthood.

That still does not make them yours.

No one should ever describe children as “burdens” or “curses”.

 

[Prestor John]

I’m not sure why anybody needs to preside over anyone else.

The comments I made have been in reference to God, how He operates and how it applies to us.

God’s Kingdom is one of wisdom and order and there is no organization within His Kingdom that does not have a presiding authority, be it physical or spiritual.

God delegates His authority to those who “preside” in any given organization and our families are organizations within God’s Kingdom.

The ideal family in mortality, as designed by God, would always include a righteous husband/father who is worthy to hold His Priesthood.

In the story of Adam and Eve, it was Eve who first partook of the fruit, however it was Adam, who had the Priesthood authority and presided over the first human family, who bore the responsibility.

It has henceforth been called the Fall of Adam and has led later prophets to make such claims as, “For as in Adam all die, but even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” (1 Corinthians 15:22)

Those who preside are those who the Lord will call upon at the Final Judgment to give an accounting of the dealings of the organization they presided over.

Every family will one day be judged, individually and collectively, and the Lord will call upon the person who presided over that family to give their report.

Sorry about the ramblings, it’s just a very interesting topic to me.

In a relationship based on equality, one person doesn’t preside over another; rather, the two people share equal positions.

I understand where you are coming from, but I just wanted to say that I wouldn’t “base” my relationship on equality.

I would base it on mutual love, respect, trust, etc. Equality would be a natural product from what I had based my relationship on, but I don’t place it at the forefront of my thoughts.

“Equal” does not necessarily mean “the same.” I would say that we are equal, but different. We don’t do things the same way or always receive the same outcome.

The idea of “presiding” does not mean “ruling” or “owning” and it does not mean that the righteous husband is the “master” of his wife or the family unit.

Consider the Godhead, which is the highest organization in the Universe, and it is comprised of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. All three share the same power, glory and joy. Even though they are distinct and separate individuals, they are “one” in heart, mind, spirit and purpose.

The relationship of the Godhead should be the ideal of every married couple, however, this state of being can never be achieved in this life. This is one of the reasons why the marriage covenant is supposed to perpetuate beyond the grave, because many blessings that can be had by married couples cannot be achieved here in mortality.

Therefore, until the moment when a husband and wife literally become one in eternity; the Lord requires that there be one who “presides” and takes responsibility for work of the whole organization.

If there is no husband/father or the husband/father is not worthy of holding and officiating in His Priesthood, then the wife/mother may be called to be the “presiding” authority of the family.

It would be similar to how the Lord spoke to both Adam and Eve in the Garden after they had partaken of the fruit. They both gave their reports of what had happened, both shared in the consequences of what had happened, but Adam was the one who bore the responsibility of what had happened, because he presided over the first family.

This is one of the ways that the Lord operates and organizes the affairs of His Kingdom in mortality.

I just find this all very archaic and derived from a culture that is very far removed from where we are today.

This is a thread about God. You don’t get any more ancient than that!

Nevertheless, how He works does not change because He does not change and what is popular or considered “modern” has no bearing on Him.

We can’t change or fight against it. It just is and we need to accept it.

It’s not “my” household; it’s “our” household.

To preside over an organization is not claiming ownership of said organization.

All things, including our households and families, belong to God. We are just temporary caretakers.

If we handle what has been given unto us well, then He will allow us to keep what we have and He will add unto us even more.

 

[Prestor John]

Except that all men are supposed to focus on the same things and all women are supposed to focus on the same things, which are different things than the men are supposed to be focused on.

I don’t know where you got this from.

Of course we will have different focuses, because everyone has different circumstances and personal preferences. However, none of us are an island.

I mentioned what my wife likes to focus on, in regards to raising our children, but I also mentioned that I would help her to do those things under her direction.

We will all naturally be drawn into doing what we enjoy or are best suited for, but that does not mean that there will not be times when our partners will also need to do those things.

I tend to change most of the light bulbs, because I’m significantly taller than my wife, but if I’m not available she will get out the step ladder. My wife changes more diapers than I do, because she spends the most time with the children, but I have changed a good share of diapers.

At the Final Judgment, my wife and I will both give our reports to the Lord but because I am the Priesthood holder, I will be called to report on the status of our family and take responsibility for it.

Now, my husband and I obviously have different strengths and weaknesses but they don’t necessarily line up in accordance with this stuff you’re telling me the Bible says are supposed to be our strengths and weaknesses and I don’t see why they should have to.

As I said in my last post, I have been speaking in “general terms.” The scriptures often speak in “ideal” terms. Both are similar in this account.

Men “generally” operate a certain way different than women do and vice versa.

I don’t believe I said anything about things “having” to be a certain or particular way.

I was just talking about observed behaviors in general terms.

Some men are more nurturing than women, some women are stronger than some men, some women are better at “directing the affairs of the family” than men are, and on and on.

In my family, we work together so that we are both the “lubricant” and the “glue” and both of us teach and direct the affairs of the family.

In terms of “handling things” it’s not so much a man/woman difference as a person-to-person difference.

But you can’t say that all women react that way or all men react the way my husband does.

Okay, but on what basis can you generalize this to all other couples? I don’t think you can.

There are people raised in good Christian households with a mother and father that grow up to be serial killers. There are people that were raised in chaotic and abusive families that turn out to be decent, law-abiding citizens, and everything in between.

For all of these I just want to repeat that I was speaking “generally” or in “general terms”, which means to not speak specifically about each and every case.

Of course there are exceptions to every rule and not all men and women fall into the modes of behavior I have mentioned, but men and women generally do.

I will reiterate that husbands and wives are supposed to work together. I made mention of this when I described how my wife and I operate in raising our children. What we do often “blends” and “mixes” together, but there are also times when one of us “takes the lead”.

It all depends on what we are doing and how we want it done.

That doesn’t sound ideal to me.

What exactly do you take issue with?

Gender isn’t all the relevant here.

I disagree wholeheartedly.

I believe that our spirits are engendered and our gender helps make up the core of what we are.

Men and women are different and they generally handle situations differently and live their lives differently.

I tend to freak out a bit when things go haywire, while my husband is able to stay slightly calmer and then calm me down.

At the risk of sounding sexist, I would say that these actions are generally expected of both men and women.

Hence, it depends on the person you’re talking about, moreso than the gender of the person you’re talking about.

I disagree and believe the opposite.

Gender is one of, if not the most important, aspect of our being.

Our being either male or female is how we were made in God’s image.

Our personalities and decisions may not always reflect God, but in our genders we always reflect Him, for being male and female we were made in His image, after His likeness.

 

[Prestor John]

I’m glad to hear the first part.

Homosexual behavior is acceptable now, in the society we now live in (at least in North America and most other advanced nations, anyway). So I don’t see a problem there.

What society deems acceptable is not relevant to God and how He operates, which is the focus of this thread.

Homosexuality frustrates the eternal destiny and purpose of His children and He has forbidden it.

It has not, nor ever will be, acceptable to Him because it ultimately hurts His children.

I think the “ideal family unit” is whatever works for that family.

I agree that every family should work best with what they have, but that does not negate the idea of an ideal family unit as designed by God.

What I mean by “ideal” is like saying “In a perfect world.”

So, ideally, there would be no sex outside of marriage or unwanted pregnancies and no one would suffer from same-sex attraction.

In a perfect world, the family unit is a mother and father who live their lives based on the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ and are sealed together in the marriage covenant.

God wants us to persevere through the imperfect conditions of mortality and live as closely to His ideal and perfect world as possible. His commandments to us reflect that desire.

What kind of person we become apparently has much more to do with environment than the sex of our parents or what relation they are to us.

The debate over nature or nurture is far from over, but I would personally agree that the gender of those who raise us is not as important as the environment we grow up in.

I will never make the claim that same-sex couples cannot make good parents.

I don’t believe that to be true.

It is acceptable in most modern, advanced societies.

Wow. Both “modern” and “advanced”!

Irrelevant, because God has forbidden it.

However, I do love your implication that anyone who believes in God or that homosexuality is unacceptable behavior is “old-fashioned”, “out-of-date” and “backward”.

Love the subtlety there.

Saying something should be a certain way doesn’t speak to the way things actually are though. And as we can see, what you have stated here is not actually the case in all instances.

This thread is talking about God, who claims that He is the same yesterday, today and forever.

God has claimed that the “natural man” is His enemy and He requires us all to repent and change our natures.

God designed us male and female so that we would be attracted to one another and make babies. That is part of the process of becoming more like Him.

The fact that people started operating contrary to how we were designed is irrelevant to the fact that we were designed for those intended purposes.

Just because someone uses a violin to paddle a canoe doesn’t mean that the violin was not originally designed to play music.

Homosexuality has been around for so long that I would say that it is part of the norm that a certain percentage of the population will be gay, bisexual, straight and everything in between. Because as Kinsey’s work taught us, sexuality falls more along a spectrum than just a strict black and white gay/straight differentiation.

You’re just observing the effects of the Fall of Adam.

All the conditions of mortality and the weaknesses of the flesh entered into Man when Adam fell.

There are people who are born with explosive/violent tempers. Does that mean we should accept their natural behavior or help them strive to overcome it?

Claiming that no one is perfect is not grounds to argue that we shouldn’t strive for perfection!

We have no evidence indicating such people ever existed at all.

Do you need evidence for everything that has happened in the history of the world, in order to believe it?

I never met my great great great great grandpa, but is it okay that I believe he still existed?

That wasn’t the argument being made though.

I was asking that poster how it is that homosexuality could be a conscious choice when we find it throughout the animal kingdom, as well as the human population (that’s not to say we aren’t animals, because we are).

First, I would argue that we are not animals.

Haven’t you seen “Zootopia”? No humans there!

Second, I would explain that the Animal Kingdom also lives under the effects of the Fall of Adam.

Then I would ask if you believe that animals are incapable of making choices?

I believe that they can and do.

So if it’s all just the same stuff, what’s the big problem?

One is damning while the other (within marriage) is not.

God has a plan for His children, which homosexuality frustrates.

One of our main purposes in this life is to find our eternal mate. Same-sex couples cannot mate.

Did you parents teach you how they have sex? Do you think most parents do this?

No, my parents did not and why do you ask if they did?

That’s kind of random.

And if I don’t believe your Lord exists?

I’ll continue to share my beliefs whenever and with whomever I desire?

Maybe you’re not doing it right?

Heh. I think my three boys are proof enough that I know what I’m about.

I wonder why the Lord created homosexuality in the first place then.

That’s like asking if the Lord didn’t want us to murder, why did He create violence?

The answer is that He didn’t create violence. Due to the Fall of Adam, Mankind became carnal and often act on their baser feelings, like rage, which leads to violence.

God did not create homosexuality, but He did create Men and Women and He gave them sexual inhibitions and the freedom to act.

It is Mankind’s acting on their base desires that led to homosexual behavior.

I don’t know that many parents who teach their children how they have sex.

Are you implying that homosexual behavior is only about sex?

Would you make the same claim about heterosexual behavior?

Why should they have to? Aren’t they entitled to be just as happy as the rest of us?

It is my belief that there is no happiness without the Lord Jesus Christ.

He is the light and the life of the world. Any good or enjoyable thing we have has come from Him.

Sinful behavior can never bring happiness.

Married men and women have the opportunity to be sealed together as husband and wife throughout all eternity.

We, as a species, are destined to become like God, perfect and glorified. And like Him, we will be able to have children and gain an eternal increase of joy.

Same-sex couples cannot be sealed together, because they cannot increase their joy through creating offspring.

Therefore, upon death, same-sex partners can never be allowed to enjoy the same blessings of marriage as heterosexual couples and they will be alone for eternity.

I can be happy for homosexual couples now if they are happy, but I will also be sad that that happiness will not last.

It is destined to fail and cause untold misery and woe, which is why God is so adamantly against it.

 

[Prestor John]

But that is the absolute literal definition of homosexuality. Just FYI the opposite is true of the definition of heterosexuality.

This thread is focusing on God and on His opposition to homosexual behavior.

The world may love labels and may consider someone suffering from same-sex attraction to be “gay” or “homosexual”, but to God, you are not guilty of committing sin until you commit the sin.

God is perfectly Just in His dealings with Man.

One doesn't just turn gay or indeed straight because they've decided to stop being a virgin.

I believe you are too quick to apply labels like “gay” and “straight” to people and that this tendency to label others does them a disservice.

We are all multidimensional creatures, worth more than the sum of our parts. Worth significantly more than what we are attracted to.

I would agree with your comment if it were rewritten thus,

“One doesn’t just [become attracted to the same-sex] or indeed [become attracted to the opposite sex] because they’ve decided to [have consensual sex].”

I just cannot agree with the tendency to label people.

One can stay absolutely chaste and still have a sexual orientation. Otherwise we'd have to label every single virgin in existence as asexual. Sexual behavior =/= Sexual orientation.

Or just stop with all the labels?

According to God, there are those who keep His Laws and those that don’t.

In terms of sexual sin, there are those who operate within the parameters He has set (fidelity in marriage between a man and woman) and those that don’t.

Someone can suffer from same-sex attraction, yet resist and overcome it through the merits of Christ and live a happy and satisfying life with a spouse of the opposite gender.

They may never get over it completely, because we all have weakness, but it won’t have as much power or control over them as it once had.

Anyone with a passing familiarity with basic biology will tell you that.

They will tell me that a person who never once engaged in homosexual behavior is a homosexual?

How do you even define homosexuality if you're not including attraction? The very thing that defines every single sexual orientation as we know it today. I'm just baffled.

It’s about what you practice. You are what you eat.

I love eating vegetables. I think they are delicious and I want them in every meal. No matter how much I love vegetables, I will not become a vegetarian until I stop eating meat.

However, the moment I stop eating meat will be the moment I become a vegetarian.

I have many friends who were born into the LDS Church. They grew up going to Church and learning the same lessons I did. No matter how much time and energy they devoted to living by the standards of the Church in their youth, I could not claim they are members of the Church today, because they no longer live by or believe in the standards of the Church.

However, the moment they return to the Church with full purpose of heart they will once again be considered members of the Church.

A person who suffers from a same-sex attraction, yet never yields to that attraction and never engages in homosexual behavior is not a homosexual. Only by engaging in that behavior can they be considered a homosexual.

If, however, a person who has been engaged in homosexual behavior eventually desires to repent of those sins, they can overcome their tendencies through the merits and grace of Christ and put that behavior away, no longer being homosexual.

The problem with labeling people is that it does not take into account our ability to change.

Labeling someone a homosexual rules out the possibility that they could ever be attracted to the opposite sex, which does them a disservice because we all have the ability to change our desires and behaviors.

Makes him a potential rapist.

Exactly. This agrees with my point exactly.

You made the distinction here between a “potential rapist” and an “actual rapist” because rape is an extremely offensive crime that significantly hurts people.

We all have the potential or desire to commit sin, but it would not be Just to convict someone just because they had the potential or desire to commit the sin.

A person cannot be guilty of murder just for having the potential to commit the crime.

Sure, a particular person may have an explosive and violent temper, has been in fights in the past, and may even have claimed that he will kill someone, but until he actually commits the deed - he is not a murderer!

It would not be Just to label a person “rapist” if they had never committed rape or “murderer” if they had never murdered someone.

Therefore, since homosexual behavior is a crime (according to God) it would not be Just for Him to label anyone “homosexual” who never once engaged in homosexual behavior.

If he desires to have sex and do so against her will, that is quite literally the definition of a rapist actually.

No, as you said above, that would be the definition of a “potential rapist.”
​

He could not be considered a rapist until he actually committed the crime of rape.

 

[Prestor John]

The hell are you trying to say, man?

An urge does not equate to behavior and we should stop labeling people.

Yes, yes he is. Again that is the literal definition of a pedophile. WTF? A pedophile is still a pedophile even if he or she never acts on their desires.

Oh, so then you rescind your above use of “potential rapist” and claim that any man who has those desires should be convicted of rape even if he never committed the crime and there never was a victim?

Why did you label the above “potential rapist” and not a rapist then?

You would paint those who have sexual desires for children (but never acting on that behavior) and those who embraced and acted on their sexual desire for children with the same brush?

You would slap them both with the “pedophile” label even though one fought against it every second of every day and never faltered while the other indulged themselves and took advantage of little children?

Otherwise what the hell would we even label them???

I wouldn’t label them at all. They need repentance just like everybody else.

Just because they suffer from a different weakness than you or I do, that doesn’t mean they should be “labeled” any differently.

Unless, of course, they actually commit the crime.

Christ even the vernacular usage describes someone with desires specifically, who may or may not engage in such behaviors. Vernacular usage.

Correct. Christ was going over the key differences between the Mosaic Law and the Higher Law.

Of course having sinful desires is bad and we should be working on changing our sinful nature, but committing sin in your heart is a lot different than physically committing sin.

God is not a fan of pornography and masturbation, but that is not the same as saying He considers them to be equal with fornication or rape.

Before anyone can dream of living by the Higher Law, they must first be able to live according to a Lower Law. Milk before meat.

Those who have sinful desires, yet never acted on them, will receive a better judgment than those who indulged themselves in sinful behavior.

Sexual paraphilias and sexual orientations are NOT defined by sexual behavior. No one in any modern scientific scenario would ever argue such a point. Otherwise we are all asexual until we have sex. It doesn't actually work like that mate.

This argument from authority, which authority does not matter at all to God, is just as irrelevant now as it was when you used it before.

This thread is about discussing God and how He operates and why He opposes homosexual behavior.

We will be Judged according to our works, not our unfulfilled sinful desire.

Like what messed up out of date dictionary are you even using?

It’s mostly common sense mingled with scripture.

It is not healthy to place labels on people which discourages their ability to change their behavior.

Whoa, what kind of messed up things are you into? I mean I make no judgment, but damn dude, what fantasies are you having?

Nice attempt at a red herring. Attack my character to distract from the argument?

How immature.

I have had desire, from time to time, to clean someone’s clock for them, which would have resulted in my being arrested for Assault and Battery.

However, even if I had the desire, my refusing to act on it means I am not guilty of those crimes.

No they are not. As previously mentioned sexual behavior =/=sexual orientation. Many straight people have had gay encounters. Sometimes as mere experiments. Maybe they were even drunk. If they did not enjoy the experience, then I fail to see how it makes them gay. Bi curious maybe, but who the hell even defines their sexual orientation as specifically behavior?

This is a good example.

I would say that they have committed sin and would need to repent of it.

I would say the same thing to a person who proclaimed to be “gay” for several years and had one or many sexual partners.

The same sins are being committed and both individuals would need to repent.

Of course, one may find the repentance process easier than the other, but both would need to change their behavior.

Although, the drunk one may need to repent of his/her abuse of alcohol as well, so who is to say which is more difficult?

Sexual orientation manifests as early as prepuberty.

It would stand to reason that sexual sins would begin to manifest when we begin to sexually mature.

I doubt all gay and straight people were having sex in primary/elementary school.

I would hope not, but I don’t know why you believe that my use of the term “homosexual behavior” is in reference to only sex.
​

I never said that.

 

[Prestor John]

Again maybe some as part of experimentation or even abuse (or mimicking abuse as a sort of coping mechanism.) Not really true of every gay straight or bi person though.

Such experimentation would be considered sin and would need to be repented of.

Did you seriously never in your life have a specific preference for males or females or both until you had sex?

No. I also never claimed that homosexual behavior began the moment a person had sex with a member of the same-sex.

It is our attraction, either to the opposing or same sex, that causes us to engage in particular behavior.

A boy holding a girl’s hand with any sort of romantic intent, for example, would be displaying heterosexual behavior.

A girl holding another girl’s hand with any sort of romantic intent would be displaying homosexual behavior.

I don’t know where you got the idea that I was saying that a person needed to have sex before knowing what behaviors to exhibit.

I’m looking back and trying to see where I said that. Could you please show me where I said that because that is not what I’m saying at all.

A person is gay regardless of the sex or lack thereof they are having. Same is true of heterosexual people. I am not my behavior, that's just insulting (I'm straight in case you were wondering.) If I never had sex until the day I died, I would still be heterosexual.

If you never did anything hinting at heterosexual behavior, you’d judge others harshly for having their doubts?

So, if a person is not their behavior, as you claimed, then if a person claimed to be heterosexual, yet behaved as though they were homosexual (by engaging in homosexual behavior) - they should still be considered heterosexual?

Is that like a man who now claims that he is a woman was somehow always a woman?

I don’t think I ever made the claim that “behavior” meant only “sex.”

If you died a virgin, yet you lived a life full of heterosexual behavior, I would believe you were a heterosexual. A rather unlucky heterosexual.

I dunno. Ask them.

No, you are the one forcing labels on them, so you should be able to show me when they made the decision.

You can't control desires (well, maybe if you were the next Buddha or something) but we can control behaviors sure.

I believe that we all can learn to control our desires through applying the Atoning Sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ to our lives and living according to His Gospel Plan.

Which is why we don't define sexual orientations or even sexual paraphilias by behavior specifically. Such a thing is overtly simplistic and inaccurate to reality. Also we couldn't accurately define homosexuality, bisexuality or even heterosexuality if we did that.

This is just people “missing the mark” or, in other words, making something simple overly complicated.

Like I said before, to God, we are either living by His Law or not.

We are either guilty of committing a sin or not.

Just like how you claimed a man filled with a desire to take women by force, yet never does, is a “potential rapist”, those who have other desires, yet do not act on them, are merely “potential sinners”.

I think it is wrong to label people and put them into these unchanging, unforgiving, categories.

We are all sinners. We all just sin differently. We all need repentance. We all rely on the same God.

Good for you.
So do you let others have theirs in peace, or are you not one for the golden rule?

I would want to be free to express my opinions concerning religious, moral and spiritual matters whenever and to whomever I wished.

I encourage everyone else to do the same.

What I wouldn’t want to do is to try to make someone look bad simply because I disagreed with them.

I guess we both handle ourselves differently.

Again, I dunno, why don't you ask them?

Again, you should be able to tell me because you are the one who wants to put them into the same box as those who actually acted on their lewd desires.

Okay? So?

The entire premise of this thread is to talk about why God opposes homosexual behavior.

Are you lost?

If both are forbidden and as bad as each other, why is it I constantly see protests against gay people but not unmarried couples?

I believe both acts should be condemned, but perhaps it is because no one is having “Fornicator Pride Parades”?​

 

[Prestor John]

Yes, it is an error contained in the Bible. Like when it describes a circle that would have pi being equal to 3. It totally botches the behavior of ants. It erroneously claims that the Canaanites were destroyed. It claims the moon has its own light. It also says the moon is of the night ("rule the night") yet the moon is not visible on all nights and is often visible during the day.

You're so ridiculous.

But to get technical, rabbits actually do "chew the cud", albeit it much different than ruminants.

They don't regurgitate the food, but they do eat their own cecotropes, which are pellets that evacuate along with their "bunny berries".

It is essentially the same process as "chewing the cud", only they re-eat what comes out of their backside.

As to the other stuff. You are just ridiculous.

 

[Skwim]

.

You're so ridiculous.

But to get technical, rabbits actually do "chew the cud", albeit it much different than ruminants.

They don't regurgitate the food, but they do eat their own cecotropes, which are pellets that evacuate along with their "bunny berries".

It is essentially the same process as "chewing the cud", only they re-eat what comes out of their backside.

As to the other stuff. You are just ridiculous.

Obviously you missed post 413, and

Obviously​

THIS..is not the same thing as..THIS​

................See Post 413​

.​

 

[shmogie]

Leviticus 11 3-6 and Deuteronomy 4 7

I would not call chewing on your own poop "chewing one's cud".

The cow continually chews itś food, so does the rabbit, the poop is an added bonus.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The cow continually chews itś food, so does the rabbit, the poop is an added bonus.

You don't seem to understand the difference between a cow and a rabbit. A cow regurgitates its food and chews it again. A rabbit eats it and poops it out and chews that. Not quite the same thing.

 

[Prestor John]

.

Obviously you missed post 413, and

Obviously​

THIS..is not the same thing as..THIS​

................See Post 413​

.​

Yes, I did miss that.

It is very similar, if not the same.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, I did miss that.

It is very similar, if not the same.

Really? I tell you what, the next time that I have a problem with some food coming back up I will swallow it. To support your claim you know what you will have to do.

 

[Prestor John]

Really? I tell you what, the next time that I have a problem with some food coming back up I will swallow it. To support your claim you know what you will have to do.

This is not really relevant because ruminants chewing on their cud is not a problem.

In your absurd scenario, you would be the one who would need to eat your own excrement. Not me.

You just love making yourself look immature and unstable, don't you?