Homosexuality and Homosexual Marriages: Why do Christians Care?

[Prestor John]

Probably could've put this in the last reply, but it is your responsibility how you frame the qualification that you readily admit that you didn't invent. Again, this is discrimination on your part, or anyone that agrees with it. Why be shy on this point? I don't get that. It may not be (legally) discriminatory, but it is discrimination. I infer from your words, such as those stated here, that you take some pride in such discrimination, in sense of 'understanding and choosing between right and wrong.'

The whole idea of marriage being between a man and a woman (only) is discrimination. Given how I understand God, the course of action that makes most sense is if we can't work this out, then perhaps no one ought to be allowed to (physically) marry. Then no one would be discriminated favorably in terms of marriage. I wonder how many Christians would be okay with that? Especially given the words "do not marry" are found in NT. I'd like to think a discerning Christian would be okay with this, but alas, I'm not so sure, and think instead that Christians would suddenly scream discrimination/persecution if man and woman were no longer able to be (physically) married.

I say physically married, cause this is just another one of those issues where the appearance of the concept (the idol) is being placed before the spirit of it (or the fact that in God's Reality, we are all already married to each other. Let no one separate what God has joined.)

God commanded the first husband and wife to be one flesh and to multiply and fill the Earth.

Since there has been to rescinding of said commandment, I do not see any reason to assume that they are not still in force today or that God would command no one to marry.

I've never heard of this idea that we are all married to each other, but if I take it at face value I would have to reject it because it conflicts with what I already have come to believe.

 

[Prestor John]

Keep in mind that this woman was, according to this narrative, a rib within Adam's physical self. Thus literally joined to his physical self until Lord God (not same exact God of Gen. 1) separated them, while Adam was asleep, likely dreaming (and of which there is no reference in Genesis to Adam waking).

So Adam married his (male) rib, (or if going with Genesis 1 logic, where male and female he created them/Adam), then Adam was already female, and perhaps Eve/Rib was the male that was then *physically* joined with in Gen. 2).

Anyway, I'm sure you have other reasons besides basing things on this silly narrative. I say silly cause if not treated as silly, then there's more to this tale than meets the eye, as I've alluded to, but seemingly is ignored in favor of other interpretations, most of which are not based on exact wording in the text.

I have sniffed out a few curious kernels of truth out of the Creation narratives.

All very interesting stuff.

 

[columbus]

Since there has been to rescinding of said commandment, I do not see any reason to assume that they are not still in force today or that God would command no one to marry.

Maybe there has been and you are too devoted to your human authorities and predilections to see it.

Maybe the uptick in homosexual orientation is God's way of saying, "Oy vey! Seven billions of you humans. You are messing up my Beautiful Creation. Enough with the be fruitful and multiply already!"

Tom

 

[Prestor John]

While insisting on keeping your special tax perks.

I want to tackle this first because you said something akin to this in another post.

It is perfectly legal and well within the confines of "tax exempt status" to lobby on a legislative matter.

The LDS Church spending donated (not Federal) funds on this endeavor should not affect their tax status.

But I also know that the LDS has very publically spent millions of dollars trying to get their religious beliefs encoded into law. From California's Constitution to SCOTUS, y'all have done this.

That is actually not entirely accurate. If this were true, then the LDS Church would be trying to get everyone sealed in our Temples. That is where we believe marriages should be performed.

The LDS Church was really just fighting the change to the definition of "marriage."

Like me, the LDS Church defines marriage as only between a man and a woman and resisted the SCOTUS efforts to change that definition.

 

[Prestor John]

Polygamy came before monogamy as well.
Tom

No, Adam had only the one wife, Eve.

 

[Prestor John]

I wasn't responding to you.

That doesn't invalidate his/her points.

 

[Prestor John]

But then the question is why the state is wrong in legalizing same sex marraige? Because that legality confers next of kin rights duties and privileges in law to such couples. What is objectionable about that?

My belief is that marriage is only between a man and a woman. The definition had to be changed in order to accommodate same-sex couples. I don't believe that is right.

The issuance of anything else, like a civil union, could have conferred all those duties and privileges. No one needed to go dabbling into an institution that many millions of people believe to be of divine origin.

 

[Watchmen]

That doesn't invalidate his/her points.

I wasn't trying to invalidate his points.

 

[Prestor John]

Wrong. Other racists will shop there and we'll end up with segregation again.

Incorrect.

Segregation happened because they were written as laws and enforced as such.

I said nothing of forcing the business to hire. I said it is wrong if the employer denies employment because of race. Do you understand the difference?

Yes.

I agree that it would be wrong to deny someone employment due to their race, but I also believe that a business owner should be able to decide how to run his/her business.

If they decide to be racist, they can be racist.

 

[Prestor John]

Maybe there has been and you are too devoted to your human authorities and predilections to see it.

Maybe the uptick in homosexual orientation is God's way of saying, "Oy vey! Seven billions of you humans. You are messing up my Beautiful Creation. Enough with the be fruitful and multiply already!"

Tom

Heh. I kinda hope He talks that way.

Anyways, according to men who I believe are modern-day prophets, the command is still in force.

My hands are kinda tied here.

 

[Prestor John]

I wasn't trying to invalidate his points.

You weren't taking them into consideration either.

 

[columbus]

It is perfectly legal and well within the confines of "tax exempt status" to lobby on a legislative matter.

Which I think should be changed.
As long as Mormons talk to other Mormons about how to live I don't care. It's when they advocate putting their beliefs into law for the rest of us that I call "theocracy".
The LDS should already have lost their tax status and registered as a Political Action Committee. But Christians find following the rules other people must follow persecution.
Tom

 

[columbus]

according to men

That's the bottom line. You believe in human authorities.

My hands are kinda tied here.

No they are not. You just think that they are.
Tom

 

[Prestor John]

Which I think should be changed.
As long as Mormons talk to other Mormons about how to live I don't care. It's when they advocate putting their beliefs into law for the rest of us that I call "theocracy".
The LDS should already have lost their tax status and registered as a Political Action Committee. But Christians find following the rules other people must follow persecution.
Tom

Naw bro, its totally legit.

I found this website informative on the matter,

Churches and Political Lobbying Activities - Freedom From Religion Foundation

If I got to bite the bullet on the "same-sex marriage" thing then you need to bite down on this.

 

[Prestor John]

That's the bottom line. You believe in human authorities.

Well, God has always called human representatives to speak to the people.

That ain't new. It's in the Bible and stuff.

No they are not. You just think that they are.

I'm going to be straight up with you.

I know that these men are prophets and that the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ has been restored. I know that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is true. I may not understand everything, but I know that.

I am more sure of that than literally anything else in my life and it has shaped me. I am who I am because of it and I believe that it has shaped me for the better.

 

[columbus]

Well, God has always called human representatives to speak to the people.

This is exactly why I am not religious. Around here, religious people can't distinguish between God and the humans who claim to speak for Him.

Let me ask you this. If it weren't for the humans telling you what God thinks would you still have the same attitude towards gay people like me?
Tom

 

[Prestor John]

This is exactly why I am not religious. Around here, religious people can't distinguish between God and the humans who claim to speak for Him.

Let me ask you this. If it weren't for the humans telling you what God thinks would you still have the same attitude towards gay people like me?
Tom

Hey now. I believe these men to be prophets because the Holy Spirit confirmed it to my heart and mind.

I have nothing against homosexuals. It's just the changing of the definition of marriage that irritates me.

 

[Kirran]

Hey now. I believe these men to be prophets because the Holy Spirit confirmed it to my heart and mind.

I have nothing against homosexuals. It's just the changing of the definition of marriage that irritates me.

How is the definition changed? It's just a broadening of who can legally access the civil institution.

You may use words as you like, their meanings are only what we agree on them being anyway.

 

[Jainarayan]

Everything I was talking about was based on my personal opinion.

I never said that the Supreme Court's ruling should be challenged.

I never said that we did not live under laws based on the Constitution.

Why do you feel the need to mention claims that I never contested?

Am I not allowed to have my beliefs and express my opinion?

People express their opinion by saying it's their opinion. Read the line I was responding to.

 

[Jainarayan]

If it would change you mind I would try to find it. Since it wont, I have better things to do.

I see. So there is no source.