Is being gay a sin according to your religion?

[Norman]

If it was left to the religious to decide then black people would still have no rights and would not recognised as full human beings.

Norman: Hi dgirl1986, I understand your point, however, you just can' take religion out of this.

 

[Ingledsva]

Norman: I understand how you feel ingledsva, however, I still disagree.

The point being - it doesn't matter if you disagree.

Religion no longer dictates human rights!

Can I get a Hallelujah!

*

 

[Ingledsva]

Norman: Hi dgirl1986, I understand your point, however, you just can' take religion out of this.

Yes we can, - and will.

Just as with women's rights, slavery, etc., - religious dogma eventually gets kicked to the curb where it belongs, - and human rights come into play.

*

 

[Katzpur]

Norman: Yes it is.

It's a religious issue if you believe that there shouldn't be a separation between church and state. If you believe that all human beings are entitled to equal rights under the laws of the land, it's not a religious issue but a state issue. Furthermore, it's entirely possible to believe that intimacy between two people of the same sex is sinful, but to also believe that it's God's job to punish sin, not the government's.

 

[dgirl1986]

Yes we can, - and will.

Just as with women's rights, slavery, etc., - religious dogma eventually gets kicked to the curb where it belongs, - and human rights come into play.

*

Exactly

 

[JustCallMeNick]

Norman: Hi dgirl1986, I understand your point, however, you just can' take religion out of this.

Actually we can. Welcome to America, the world's first secular pluralistic democracy. Hope you enjoy your stay!

 

[Norman]

It's a religious issue if you believe that there shouldn't be a separation between church and state. If you believe that all human beings are entitled to equal rights under the laws of the land, it's not a religious issue but a state issue. Furthermore, it's entirely possible to believe that intimacy between two people of the same sex is sinful, but to also believe that it's God's job to punish sin, not the government's.

Norman: I do believe that there should be separation between church and state. However, not when it comes down to moral issues. Yes, I agree that we are all entitled to equal rights. Yes, being a homosexual or lesbian in our church is not the sin; acting upon those inclinations is the sin, as our church teaches. Man did not give us marriage, God did and he pointed it out very clearly in holy writ and thru ancient and modern day Prophets and Apostles. I stand with our Church leaders. Where do you stand with our church leaders katzpur?

Elder Robert D. Hales. “Some are offended when we bring our religion into the public square, yet the same people who insist that their viewpoints and actions be tolerated in society are often very slow to give that same tolerance to religious believers who also wish their viewpoints and actions to be tolerated. The general lack of respect for religious viewpoints is quickly devolving into social and political intolerance for religious people and institutions.” (185th Semi General Conference, 2015)

Elder D. Todd Christofferson. “Your love is your own private possession, but marriage is more than something personal—it is a status, an office. Just as it is the crown, and not merely the will to rule, that makes the king, so it is marriage, and not merely your love for each other, that joins you together in the sight of God and man. … So love comes from you, but marriage from above, from God.” (185th Semi General Conference, 2015)

L. Tom Perry. “ For whatever reasons, too much of our television, movies, music, and Internet present a classic case of a minority masquerading as a majority. Immorality and amorality, ranging from graphic violence to recreational sex, is portrayed as the norm and can cause those who have mainstream values to feel like we are out of date or from a bygone era.

“We want our voice to be heard against all of the counterfeit and alternative lifestyles that try to replace the family organization that God Himself established. We also want our voice to be heard in sustaining the joy and fulfillment that traditional families bring. We must continue to project that voice throughout the world in declaring why marriage and family are so important, why marriage and family really do matter, and why they always will.” (185th Semi General Conference, 2015)

Source:

Why Marriage and Family Matter—Everywhere in the World - By Elder L. Tom Perry

Preserving Agency, Protecting Religious Freedom - By Elder Robert D. Hales

Why Marriage, Why Family - By Elder D. Todd Christofferson

Restoring Morality and Religious Freedom - Ensign Sept. 2012 - ensign

 

[Norman]

Actually we can. Welcome to America, the world's first secular pluralistic democracy. Hope you enjoy your stay!

Norman: This country will never rule out religion in regards to same sex attraction or same sex marriage. Welcome to America where we still have religious freedom and a say in the public square.

 

[Norman]

Yes we can, - and will.

Just as with women's rights, slavery, etc., - religious dogma eventually gets kicked to the curb where it belongs, - and human rights come into play.

*

Norman: I guess we will have to wait to see when the U.S Supreme Court decides on the matter.

 

[Norman]

Yes we can, - and will.

Just as with women's rights, slavery, etc., - religious dogma eventually gets kicked to the curb where it belongs, - and human rights come into play.

*

Norman: I don't think you understand something here, Ingledsva, this is old news but I think will give a greater understanding on this issue. You should be interested in protecting religious freedom. Please read. This is just parts of the whole address. You stated that "religious dogma eventually gets kicked to the curb where it belongs." Really? Preachers have been the prime movers in the civil rights movement from the earliest advocates of abolition.

Religious Freedom

Transcript of Elder Dallin H. Oaks speech given at BYU-Idaho on 13 October 2009. What is the special value of religious freedom? Surely the First Amendment guarantee of free exercise of religion was intended to grant more freedom to religious action than to other kinds of action. The greatest infringements of religious freedom occur when the exercise of religion collides with other powerful forces in society. Among the most threatening collisions in the United States today are (1) the rising strength of those who seek to silence religious voices in public debates, and (2) perceived conflicts between religious freedom and the popular appeal of newly alleged civil rights.

Noted author and legal commentator Hugh Hewitt described the current circumstance this way: “There is a growing anti-religious bigotry in the United States. . . .“For three decades people of faith have watched a systematic and very effective effort waged in the courts and the media to drive them from the public square and to delegitimize their participation in politics as somehow threatening.”[xi]

For example, a prominent gay-rights spokesman gave this explanation for his objection to our Church’s position on California’s Proposition 8: “I’m not intending it to harm the religion. I think they do wonderful things. Nicest people. . . . My single goal is to get them out of the same-sex marriage business and back to helping hurricane victims.”[xii]

Religious Freedom Diluted by Other “Civil Rights”

A second threat to religious freedom is from those who perceive it to be in conflict with the newly alleged “civil right” of same-gender couples to enjoy the privileges of marriage.

” After a significant majority of California voters (seven million — over 52 percent) approved Proposition 8’s limiting marriage to a man and a woman, some opponents characterized the vote as denying people their civil rights. In fact, the Proposition 8 battle was not about civil rights, but about what equal rights demand and what religious rights protect. At no time did anyone question or jeopardize the civil right of Proposition 8 opponents to vote or speak their views. The supporters of Proposition 8 were exercising their constitutional right to defend the institution of marriage — an institution of transcendent importance that they, along with countless others of many persuasions, feel conscientiously obliged to protect.

We must speak with love, always showing patience, understanding and compassion toward our adversaries. We must not be deterred or coerced into silence by the kinds of intimidation I have described. We must insist on our constitutional right and duty to exercise our religion, to vote our consciences on public issues and to participate in elections and debates in the public square and the halls of justice. We must insist on our freedom to preach the doctrines of our faith. Why do I make this obvious point? Religious people who share our moral convictions feel some intimidation. Fortunately, our leaders do not refrain from stating and explaining our position that homosexual behavior is sinful. Last summer Elder M. Russell Ballard spoke these words to a BYU audience:

“We follow Jesus Christ by living the law of chastity. God gave this commandment, and He has never revoked or changed it. This law is clear and simple. No one is to engage in sexual relationships outside the bounds the Lord has set. This applies to homosexual behavior of any kind and to heterosexual relationships outside marriage. It is a sin to violate the law of chastity. “We follow Jesus Christ by adhering to God’s law of marriage, which is marriage between one man and one woman. This commandment has been in place from the very beginning.”[xvi] We will continue to teach what our Heavenly Father has commanded us to teach, and trust that the precious free exercise of religion remains strong enough to guarantee our right to exercise this most basic freedom.

Source:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/oaks-religious-freedom

 

[Norman]

If it was left to the religious to decide then black people would still have no rights and would not recognised as full human beings.

Norman: History says otherwise, it was Preachers who have been the prime movers in the civil rights movement from the earliest advocates of abolition.

 

[Norman]

I don't believe Adam and Eve were the first people on earth so the "go and multiply" applies to those first created and then I believe only in a general sense for the purpose of replenishing the earth.

In other words I don't believe it is a sin to not have children unless God has directly commanded someone to do so.

Norman: Hi Muffled, According to Genesis, Adam and Eve were the first human beings on earth, was married by God, and commanded to have children. They are the parents of the human race.

 

[dgirl1986]

Norman: History says otherwise, it was Preachers who have been the prime movers in the civil rights movement from the earliest advocates of abolition.

Who?

 

[dgirl1986]

Norman: Hi Muffled, According to Genesis, Adam and Eve were the first human beings on earth, was married by God, and commanded to have children. They are the parents of the human race.

There is no evidence to support this. Also, I do no recall the verse about god marrying them.

 

[Katzpur]

Norman: I do believe that there should be separation between church and state. However, not when it comes down to moral issues.

If not on moral issues, then on what???? It is precisely on moral issues that the separation of church and state is most critical. I believe that each one of us has the right and the responsibility to make moral choices pertaining to our own lives. I do not believe we have the right to impose our moral values on people who do not share them. Why do you believe that you have that right?

Yes, I agree that we are all entitled to equal rights.

Clearly, you believe there are some rights some people are not entitled to.

Yes, being a homosexual or lesbian in our church is not the sin; acting upon those inclinations is the sin, as our church teaches. Man did not give us marriage, God did and he pointed it out very clearly in holy writ and thru ancient and modern day Prophets and Apostles. I stand with our Church leaders. Where do you stand with our church leaders katzpur?

Maybe it's just me, but this sounds an awful lot like you're saying, "I'm a better Mormon than you are!"

I think I've already made it quite clear where I stand, Norman. On matters of doctrine, I fully support the brethren. On political issues, I don't always agree with them. I don't know whether you saw my thread on My Recent Temple Recommend Interview or not, since you didn't post on it. You might want to read at least my OP. I talked to my bishop about my stance on this issue and he had no problem issuing me a temple recommend. He told me he was confident that the stake president would support him in that decision.

Just a little over a month ago, Elder Todd Christofferson reaffirmed that "Mormons who support gay marriage are not in danger of losing their temple privileges or church memberships — even though the Utah-based faith opposes the practice." He said that the only thing a member could be in trouble over was "supporting organizations that promote opposition or positions in opposition to the church’s." He said that backing marriage equality on social media sites “is not an organized effort to attack our effort, or our functioning as a church. There hasn’t been any litmus test or standard imposed that you couldn’t support that if you want to support it, if that’s your belief and you think it’s right."

I support my conscience. It has never failed me before.

 

[JustCallMeNick]

Norman: This country will never rule out religion in regards to same sex attraction or same sex marriage. Welcome to America where we still have religious freedom and a say in the public square.

Your religious freedom is not impacted one iota by my sex life or married life. There are probably thousands of people legally married in America right now whose unions you wouldn't personally approve of. Good try though.

 

[Norman]

There is no evidence to support this. Also, I do no recall the verse about god marrying them.

Norman: Adam and Eve were married and there was no one else around but them and God. In the scriptures below it mentions "wife" It is apparent to me that God married Adam and Eve and they had children together according to the scriptures and information that I have provided below. This is really not a complicated issue dgirl1986, I know you are looking for "God married Adam and Eve," however, it is not stated that way in the 1611 King James Bible that I use.

Genesis 2:18 ¶And the Lord‍ God said, It is‍ not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an‍ help meet for him. 23 And Adam said, This is‍ now bone of my bones, and flesh‍ of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 24 Therefore shall a man‍ leave his father‍ and his mother, and shall cleave‍ unto his wife (ishshah): and they shall be one‍ flesh.

Genesis 3:20 And Adam called his wife’s (ishshah) name Eve; because she was the mother‍ of all living. 21Unto Adam also and to his wife (ishshah) did the Lord‍ God make coats‍ of skins, and clothed‍ them.

Genesis 4:1And Adam knew (yada) Eve his wife; (ishshah) and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord. 2And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper‍ of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground. (And she again bare his brother Abel - Literally, She added to bear "vattoseph laledeth" ) his brother. (In my opinion I believe that from the very face of this account it appears evident that Cain and Abel were twins (Clarke).

Notes: 1. In most cases where a subject of this kind is introduced in the Holy Scriptures, and the successive births of children of the same parents are noted, the acts of conceiving and bringing forth are mentioned in reference to each child; here it is not said that she conceived and brought forth Abel.

2. In regards to the word “Knew.” We may say that we "know" someone but simply mean we "know" of his or her existence but, in Hebrew thought one can only "know" someone if they have a personal and intimate relationship. In Genesis 18:19 God says about Abraham "I know him" meaning he has a very close relationship with Abraham. In Genesis 4:1 it says that Adam "knew Eve his wife" implying a very intimate sexual relationship.

3. Adam and Eve were the first human beings on the earth. They are our first parents, the parents of the human race. Adam and Eve bore children together.

4. 2 Wife (woman belonging to a man, usually construct or suffix) Genesis 2:24, 25; Genesis 3:8, 17; Genesis 4:1,17 + often; of one betrothed (ארשׂ)

5. yā·ḏa‘ Genesis 4:1 HEB: וְהָ֣אָדָ֔ם יָדַ֖ע אֶת־ חַוָּ֣ה NAS: Now the man had relations with his wife KJV: And Adam knew Eve his wife; INT: now the man had Eve his wife

6. ishshah: woman, wife, female

7. Original Word: נָשִׁים
Part of Speech: Noun Feminine
Transliteration: ishshah
Phonetic Spelling: (ish-shaw')
Short Definition: wife

Source:

Genesis

Strong's Hebrew: 802. נָשִׁים (ishshah) -- woman, wife, female

Hebrew Language Studies

 

[sojourner]

Norman: Adam and Eve were married and there was no one else around but them and God. In the scriptures below it mentions "wife" It is apparent to me that God married Adam and Eve and they had children together according to the scriptures and information that I have provided below. This is really not a complicated issue dgirl1986, I know you are looking for "God married Adam and Eve," however, it is not stated that way in the 1611 King James Bible that I use.

Genesis 2:18 ¶And the Lord‍ God said, It is‍ not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an‍ help meet for him. 23 And Adam said, This is‍ now bone of my bones, and flesh‍ of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 24 Therefore shall a man‍ leave his father‍ and his mother, and shall cleave‍ unto his wife (ishshah): and they shall be one‍ flesh.

Genesis 3:20 And Adam called his wife’s (ishshah) name Eve; because she was the mother‍ of all living. 21Unto Adam also and to his wife (ishshah) did the Lord‍ God make coats‍ of skins, and clothed‍ them.

Genesis 4:1And Adam knew (yada) Eve his wife; (ishshah) and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord. 2And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper‍ of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground. (And she again bare his brother Abel - Literally, She added to bear "vattoseph laledeth" ) his brother. (In my opinion I believe that from the very face of this account it appears evident that Cain and Abel were twins (Clarke).

Notes: 1. In most cases where a subject of this kind is introduced in the Holy Scriptures, and the successive births of children of the same parents are noted, the acts of conceiving and bringing forth are mentioned in reference to each child; here it is not said that she conceived and brought forth Abel.

2. In regards to the word “Knew.” We may say that we "know" someone but simply mean we "know" of his or her existence but, in Hebrew thought one can only "know" someone if they have a personal and intimate relationship. In Genesis 18:19 God says about Abraham "I know him" meaning he has a very close relationship with Abraham. In Genesis 4:1 it says that Adam "knew Eve his wife" implying a very intimate sexual relationship.

3. Adam and Eve were the first human beings on the earth. They are our first parents, the parents of the human race. Adam and Eve bore children together.

4. 2 Wife (woman belonging to a man, usually construct or suffix) Genesis 2:24, 25; Genesis 3:8, 17; Genesis 4:1,17 + often; of one betrothed (ארשׂ)

5. yā·ḏa‘ Genesis 4:1 HEB: וְהָ֣אָדָ֔ם יָדַ֖ע אֶת־ חַוָּ֣ה NAS: Now the man had relations with his wife KJV: And Adam knew Eve his wife; INT: now the man had Eve his wife

6. ishshah: woman, wife, female

7. Original Word: נָשִׁים
Part of Speech: Noun Feminine
Transliteration: ishshah
Phonetic Spelling: (ish-shaw')
Short Definition: wife

Source:

Genesis

Strong's Hebrew: 802. נָשִׁים (ishshah) -- woman, wife, female

Hebrew Language Studies

Problemm is, ishah doesn't mean "wife." It's the female deriviative of ish, which means "human." In Genesis, there are "holes" in the stories that were are very tempted to "back fill." Back-filling is a real bad practice, because it makes an assumption about the text that may not be intended, and can change meaning based on an exegetically untenable premise.

 

[Muffled]

People can believe it is a sin as long as they do not voice this to the general public and make it an issue.

I believe that means you do not believe in free speech which is guaranteed by our constitution. Sin does not become OK just because it is swept into a closet.

 

[Muffled]

That would make contraception sinful too.

I believe that is the position of the Roman Catholic Church but not because of the unnatural issue. My belief is that contraception doesn't do anything perverted but provides a more responsible way to procreate in view of the fact that the world has ample population.