Is being gay a sin according to your religion?

[Muffled]

That's what I feel, how dare these people judge these people as being sinful, they should be taking the log out of their own eyes and not seeing the splinter in the other.

I believe I have no logs and judge as Jesus gives me the abiblity to judge so that it is righteous judgement.

 

[sojourner]

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.

Problem is that "free speech" doesn't include hate speech. But, if the hate speech is drug out into the open, it can be dealt with equitably.

 

[Muffled]

Problem is that "free speech" doesn't include hate speech. But, if the hate speech is drug out into the open, it can be dealt with equitably.

I believe it is iove speech. Some have labeled it as hate speech in order to suppress free speech.

 

[sojourner]

I believe it is iove speech. Some have labeled it as hate speech in order to suppress free speech.

I don't get it. Telling someone that who their very identity is sin, is a loving thing? Participating in rhetoric that perpetuates systemic violence against a minority group is loving speech?

 

[dgirl1986]

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

When I say there is no evidence, I mean scientific evidence rather than a book that says so.

 

[dgirl1986]

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.

Your constitution is not my constituion. I am in a different country. Sin only applies to those that follow the specific religion.

 

[dgirl1986]

I believe I have no logs and judge as Jesus gives me the abiblity to judge so that it is righteous judgement.

No one is perfect. To be free of sin and free of any logs or splinters you would have to perfect according to your own holy text. The text also points out that the paintbrush you use to judge other will be used to judge you so judge carefully.

 

[Izdaari]

I am a gay (pansexual) Christian. I'm also a little bit Zen and Taoist. Yes, I think God is ok with it, and so is my church (Episcopalian and ELCA Lutheran).

 

[Ingledsva]

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

Your religious dogma does not trump human rights!


*

 

[Ingledsva]

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

"Some" preachers were involved with the movement - others defended slavery as being Biblical! Nor were they the earliest movers!

*

 

[Ingledsva]

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.

BULL! No marriage. The selling of women to men, - the handing off of children to men, the rape of slaves by men, the buying of concubines by men, multiple women to scr*w, etc!

And no marriage! Just ownership and rape of females!

*

 

[Ingledsva]

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.

...

It does not say wife - it is WOMAN!

How interesting that you left out lines 2:19 - 20: where God makes animals for him to try-out for a helpmate. The Rabbis say he had sex with them = bestiality!


Gen 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.

Gen 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Gen 2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

*

 

[Norman]

Your religious dogma does not trump human rights!


*

Norman: Hi Ingledsva, The facts are, that God gave us marriage not man or any Government. You need to really take the time to understand religious freedom because it does and will effect you and everyone. The problem is some people do not take the time to do this and doesn't see the bigger picture. Same sex marriage belongs to each state and the people and there legislators, not in a court of law. You can't tell me that the LBGT movement does not have an agenda, they certainly do and I will not stop fighting against it. I am involved politically and in my religion. People and Government do not have the right to infringe upon human history of marriage between a man and a woman. You think religion has no right, well, I say it does and it is because of religion that we have marriage in the first place. I am tired of people trying to dance around this thing without taking the time to understand what they are talking about, it is just laziness.

 

[Ingledsva]

Norman: Hi Ingledsva, The facts are, that God gave us marriage not man or any Government. You need to really take the time to understand religious freedom because it does and will effect you and everyone. The problem is some people do not take the time to do this and doesn't see the bigger picture. Same sex marriage belongs to each state and the people and there legislators, not in a court of law. You can't tell me that the LBGT movement does not have an agenda, they certainly do and I will not stop fighting against it. I am involved politically and in my religion. People and Government do not have the right to infringe upon human history of marriage between a man and a woman. You think religion has no right, well, I say it does and it is because of religion that we have marriage in the first place. I am tired of people trying to dance around this thing without taking the time to understand what they are talking about, it is just laziness.

First - I did not say religions have no rights, - I said your religious dogma does not trump HUMAN RIGHTS.

There is NO marriage in the Bible. Young girls are just handed off to ownership of other men, as broad mares.

The word that keeps getting translated as "wife" is actually "woman."

People were getting long-term hooked-up, "so called married," long before Tanakh was written.

Men have been marrying men since ancient Chinese, Egyptian, Indian, Roman, etc., times.

The right to marry does not belong to states, - it is a human right - with legal ramifications, property, death rights, tax benefits, etc.

Your religion doesn't like it? So what! Others do!

It is a human right - it is not up to your particular religious beliefs.

*

 

[sojourner]

Same sex marriage belongs to each state and the people and there legislators, not in a court of law.

Legislation, by definition, involves the courts.

You can't tell me that the LBGT movement does not have an agenda, they certainly do and I will not stop fighting against it.

Just like MLK had an agenda, and just as some in the South are still fighting against equal rights, opting, instead, for Jim Crow and "separate but equal." Anytime there exists systemic violence against a minority group (as in the effort to curtail equal rights for homosexuals), there must be an agenda to end that violence.

People and Government do not have the right to infringe upon human history of marriage between a man and a woman.

People and government do not have the right to continue the systemic violence against the LGBT+ community.

You think religion has no right, well, I say it does and it is because of religion that we have marriage in the first place.

Religion does have rights -- just not the right to legislate, nor the right to foist their beliefs upon everyone.

I am tired of people trying to dance around this thing without taking the time to understand what they are talking about, it is just laziness.

You should be first in line for the education.

 

[Norman]

It does not say wife - it is WOMAN!

Norman: No it does not, I quoted the Hebrew exactly in context in Genesis. The Hebrew name for wife is what I stated “ishshah” and it is exactly translated that way and is in context proper with these passages. Strong's Hebrew: 802. נָשִׁים (ishshah) -- woman, wife, female. In Hebrew one word can mean many things, however in this case it is “wife.” “Ishshah” means woman, wife, female and if you want to take the route and call it “Woman” then Eve was all three in this passage. Adam and Eve’s children were not fornicated into this world. I am not changing my response, so I will repost it again for you.

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 4:1HEB: 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

Please do some real research instead of just posting scriptures without commentary.

How interesting that you left out lines 2:19 - 20: where God makes animals for him to try-out for a helpmate. The Rabbis say he had sex with them = bestiality!

Norman: I never mentioned it because it had nothing to do with what I was posting. You quoted the Talmud, Yebamoth 63a. States that Adam had sexual intercourse with all the animals in the Garden of Eden. This is not only false but sick to even think this happened. The Hebrew does not support it and there is no mention of such a thing. The Talmud also says Jesus' mother was a whore. Read below and tell me where Adam had sex with animals? All he did was give the animals names, minus 1 for the Rabbis. There are different opinions offered by different rabbis concerning the same topics, so the Talmud contradicts itself in some areas. I don’t give much weight to the Talmud.

Genesis 2:19 And out of the ground the Lord‍ God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them‍ unto Adam‍ to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was‍ the name‍ thereof. 20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. (No bestiality going on here.)

You need to understand that by Jesus’ time Jewish rabbis had added to the law of Moses a complicated set of rules called the traditions of the elders (see Mark 7:5–9). These laws did not come from the Lord, and many appeared ridiculous

Source:

New Testament: Student Study guide Matthew 12: Pharisees Oppose Jesus

Gen 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.

Gen 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Gen 2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

*

Norman: I do not know what your point is here with these passages, however, I broke them down with the Hebrew as much as I could and I find no bestiality going on here.

Genesis 2:18 ¶And the Lord‍ God ('elohiym) said, It is‍ not good that the man (aw-dawm') should be alone; I will make him an‍ help meet (zr 'ezer) for him. 19 And out of the ground the Lord‍ God ('elohiym) formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them‍ unto Adam (aw-dawm') to see what he would call (Qara') them: and whatsoever Adam (aw-dawm') called every living creature, that was‍ the name‍ thereof. 20 And Adam (aw-dawm') gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam (aw-dawm') there was not found an help meet (zr 'ezer) for him.

Notes:

1. Genesis 2:18, The Hebrew is) zr 'ezer, as in 'eben-ezer, 'stone of help' or Ezra 'help'. The LXX, Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, uses the word bohqos boêthos (Strong's 998) to translate 'ezer. Of its 45 uses, boêthos is used 42 times to refer to help from a stronger one, from a more secure or strengthened position, without need of reciprocal help. This strengthens the idea of 'help' as equal or superior rather than inferior.

2. Strong's Number: 0120, Original Word ~da Word Origin from (0119) Transliterated Word 'adam, TDNT Entry TWOT - 25a, Phonetic Spelling aw-dawm', Parts of Speech Noun Masculine
Definition: man, mankind, man, human being, man, mankind (much more frequently intended sense in OT) Adam, first man, city in Jordan valley

3. Genesis 2:18, “Man” is translated in Hebrew aw-dawm' (Adam) Strong's Number: 0120. So, Adam should not be alone.

4. Genesis 2:19, “Call” in Hebrew is (Qara'). To call, call out, recite, read, cry out, proclaim. Strong's Number: 07121

5. Strong's Number: 0430 'elohiym

Source:

'adam - Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon - King James Version

 

[gsa]

Norman: I do not know what your point is here with these passages, however, I broke them down with the Hebrew as much as I could and I find no bestiality going on here.

Genesis 2:18 ¶And the Lord‍ God ('elohiym) said, It is‍ not good that the man (aw-dawm') should be alone; I will make him an‍ help meet (zr 'ezer) for him. 19 And out of the ground the Lord‍ God ('elohiym) formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them‍ unto Adam (aw-dawm') to see what he would call (Qara') them: and whatsoever Adam (aw-dawm') called every living creature, that was‍ the name‍ thereof. 20 And Adam (aw-dawm') gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam (aw-dawm') there was not found an help meet (zr 'ezer) for him.

Notes:

1. Genesis 2:18, The Hebrew is) zr 'ezer, as in 'eben-ezer, 'stone of help' or Ezra 'help'. The LXX, Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, uses the word bohqos boêthos (Strong's 998) to translate 'ezer. Of its 45 uses, boêthos is used 42 times to refer to help from a stronger one, from a more secure or strengthened position, without need of reciprocal help. This strengthens the idea of 'help' as equal or superior rather than inferior.

2. Strong's Number: 0120, Original Word ~da Word Origin from (0119) Transliterated Word 'adam, TDNT Entry TWOT - 25a, Phonetic Spelling aw-dawm', Parts of Speech Noun Masculine
Definition: man, mankind, man, human being, man, mankind (much more frequently intended sense in OT) Adam, first man, city in Jordan valley

3. Genesis 2:18, “Man” is translated in Hebrew aw-dawm' (Adam) Strong's Number: 0120. So, Adam should not be alone.

4. Genesis 2:19, “Call” in Hebrew is (Qara'). To call, call out, recite, read, cry out, proclaim. Strong's Number: 07121

5. Strong's Number: 0430 'elohiym

Source:

'adam - Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon - King James Version

I am curious. If ishshah can mean wife in this instance, then the prohibition contained within Lev 18:22 and 20:13 could be similarly restricted. Which is to say, iysh is used in 20:13 paired with zakar , and the idiomatic expression (which is used only here) is juxtaposed with ishshah, which has the meaning elsewhere of wife. zakar elsewhere is usually paired with nĕqebah, not ishshah, as I recall. So it could be "If a male (ish) lies with a male (zakar) as he lies with a wife (ishshah and could also be possessive his wife given unique idiom...we'd never know), both of them have committed a transgression and they shall be killed their blood be upon them" etc. It could depend upon the relations or simply the form of the relationship, i.e., the reduction of man to a proprietary state. This would be far more consistent with the surrounding environs, particularly the loss of status that accompanied being penetrated in other cultures if you were an adult male with citizen standing.

 

[Katzpur]

I don't have a religion and being gay is fine by me. What about you guys??

"Being gay" is not a sin according to my religion, any more than "being straight is." Actually engaging in sexual intimacy with someone of the same sex is. On the other hand, drinking coffee is also a sin according to my religion, as is not paying a full tithing. WIth that in mind, I figure it's up to God to punish as He deems appropriate. I try to live my life in accordance with the set of values I believe in and am willing to allow others to do the same. In other words, I don't believe in discriminating against either gays, coffee drinkers, or non-tithe payers, if you get my drift.

 

[Norman]

Legislation, by definition, involves the courts.

Norman: This is what I am talking about, the legislative branch of state government is responsible for creating state legislation that can become state law. This also includes the elected representatives of that state. The states use a bicameral system, which means each state has two legislative chambers, state senators and state house of representatives. Law has at least two roles: one is to define and regulate the limits of acceptable behavior. The other is to teach principles for individuals to make individual choices. The law declares unacceptable some things that are simply not enforceable, and there’s no prosecutor who tries to enforce them. We refer to that as the teaching function of the law. For example ignoring the will of the states appropriately expressed and require, as a matter of federal law, the recognition of same-gender marriages or the invalidation of state laws that require that marriage be between a man and a woman. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has come out for an amendment (which may or may not be adopted) in support of the teaching function of the law. Such an amendment would be a very important expression of public policy.

Just like MLK had an agenda, and just as some in the South are still fighting against equal rights, opting, instead, for Jim Crow and "separate but equal." Anytime there exists systemic violence against a minority group (as in the effort to curtail equal rights for homosexuals), there must be an agenda to end that violence.

Norman: Well in this situation there are all kinds of agendas, however, with an agenda there must be an under lying understanding of that agenda. I know you won’t agree with me on this but I am going to state it anyway. I think it’s important for you to understand that homosexuality, is not a noun that describes a condition. It’s an adjective that describes feelings or behavior. In my opinion I believe that homosexual feelings are controllable. Perhaps there is an inclination or susceptibility to such feelings that is a reality for some and not a reality for others. But out of such susceptibilities come feelings, and feelings are controllable. If we cater to the feelings, they increase the power of the temptation. If we yield to the temptation, we have committed sinful behavior according to my Church. I believe that same-gender attraction did not exist in the pre-earth life and neither will it exist in the next life. It is a circumstance that for whatever reason or reasons seems to apply right now in mortality, in this nano-second of our eternal existence.

Dallin H. Oaks has stated, “we’re not talking about a unique challenge here. We’re talking about a common condition of mortality. We don’t understand exactly the ‘why,’ or the extent to which there are inclinations or susceptibilities and so on. But what we do know is that feelings can be controlled and behavior can be controlled. The line of sin is between the feelings and the behavior. The line of prudence is between the susceptibility and the feelings. We need to lay hold on the feelings and try to control them to keep us from getting into a circumstance that leads to sinful behavior.” Your comments are welcomed.

People and government do not have the right to continue the systemic violence against the LGBT+ community.

Norman: Is this a metaphor or are you talking proper of violence and if you are let me share this. Leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints participated in a news conference March 4, 2015, with Utah Democratic and Republican lawmakers and leaders of the LGBT community where a bill was announced that provides robust religious freedom protections while also extending protections for LGBT people In areas of housing and employment. Other community leaders, including senior representatives of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, attended the conference and spoke in support of Bill 296, titled “Anti-Discrimination and Religious Freedom Amendments.”

Source:

Church Issues Statement to Bill Balancing Religious Freedom


Religion does have rights -- just not the right to legislate, nor the right to foist their beliefs upon everyone.

Norman: sojourner, this is what you don’t understand, please, you need to understand this in my opinion. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and other religions are not trying to impose our beliefs on anyone.. It’s not the Church that has made the issue of marriage a matter of federal law. Those who are vigorously advocating for something called same-gender marriage have essentially put that potato on the fork. They’re the ones who have created a situation whereby the law of the land, one way or the other, is going to address this issue of marriage. This is not a situation where the Church has elected to take the matter into the legal arena or into the political arena. It’s already there. The fact of the matter is that the best way to assure that a definition of marriage as it now stands continues is to put it into the foundational legal document of the United States. That is in the Constitution. That’s where the battle has taken it. Ultimately that’s where the battle is going to be decided. It’s going to be decided as a matter of federal law one way or the other. Consequently it is not a battleground on such an issue that we Latter-day Saints have chosen, but it has been established and we have little choice but to express our views concerning it, which is really all that the Church has done.


You should be first in line for the education.

Norman: Well, that could be, however let me educate you on this topic that you really do not understand. What Religious freedom really is and how important it is even to the LGBT community. I maintain that this is a political fact, well qualified for argument in the public square by religious people whose freedom to believe and act must always be protected by what is properly called our ‘First Freedom,’ the free exercise of religion.” For the rights and protection of all flesh the United States Constitution includes in its First Amendment the guarantees of free exercise of religion and free speech and press.

The guarantee of the free exercise of religion is the first expression in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. This pre-eminent place identifies freedom of religion as a cornerstone of American democracy. Religious freedom was deliberately placed first in the nation’s Bill of Rights. So it is that our national law formally declares: The right to freedom of religion undergirds the very origin and existence of the United States. This is especially important to unpopular minority religions who are dependent upon a constitutional guarantee of free exercise of religion and this includes the LGBT community as well.

The fact of the matter is that the First Amendment guarantee of free exercise of religion was intended to grant more freedom to religious action than to other kinds of action. So, sojourner, are you saying you want to silence religious voices in public debates? Are you trying to tell me that the LGBT does not have an agenda to try and get a new civil right? A gay atheist activist said in regards to my Church “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.” (Paraphrased.) What in the world would you call this if not an agenda? Aside from the obvious fact that this objection would deny free speech as well as religious freedom to members of my Church and its partners of other religions. These are the reasons why the public square must be open to religious ideas and religious persons.

Now, back to the LGBT community. The LGBT agenda wants to re-define marriage as genderless (You can dance around this all you want) but, the fact remains that this is a threat to religious freedom and is from those who perceive it to be in conflict with the wanted newly “civil right” of same sex couples who want to enjoy the privileges of marriage. This is not about civil rights, but about what equal rights demand and what religious rights protect. Another fact is the marriage union of a man and a woman has been the teaching of the Judeo-Christian scriptures and the core legal definition and practice of marriage in Western culture for thousands of years. You and others should not be allowed to pretend that those who defend the ancient order are trampling on civil rights.

The LGBT community in my opinion is trying to deter or coerce religious people into silence by all kinds of intimidation. Do you think this is right? Do you think that two wrongs make a right?

Dallan H. Oaks said: “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. These are the rights of all citizens and they are also the rights of religious leaders. While our church rarely speaks on public issues, it does so by exception on what the First Presidency defines as significant moral issues, which could surely include laws affecting the fundamental legal/cultural/moral environment of our communities and nations.” Your comments are welcomed.

Source:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org

 

[Norman]

I am curious. If ishshah can mean wife in this instance, then the prohibition contained within Lev 18:22 and 20:13 could be similarly restricted. Which is to say, iysh is used in 20:13 paired with zakar , and the idiomatic expression (which is used only here) is juxtaposed with ishshah, which has the meaning elsewhere of wife. zakar elsewhere is usually paired with nĕqebah, not ishshah, as I recall. So it could be "If a male (ish) lies with a male (zakar) as he lies with a wife (ishshah and could also be possessive his wife given unique idiom...we'd never know), both of them have committed a transgression and they shall be killed their blood be upon them" etc. It could depend upon the relations or simply the form of the relationship, i.e., the reduction of man to a proprietary state. This would be far more consistent with the surrounding environs, particularly the loss of status that accompanied being penetrated in other cultures if you were an adult male with citizen standing.

Norman: I do not know why I am talking to you, given your adolescent behavior in other posts with disparaging comments about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I do not know what exactly is the point you are trying to make? With all due respect I can see that you really do not know what you are talking about. It appears to me that you just copied and pasted from a couple or one website without taking the time to read and try to understand the Hebrew words that you used. However, I will set the record straight for you and put it plainly, because it is simple and plain. I will give you a lesson here with the research I did and the research that you in laziness did not bother with. I am not going to bother with Leviticus 20:13 because it is 99% identical. It would be also appropriate in a debate to list your sources.

I read the 1611 King James Bible and used James Strong’s concordance witch is specifically for the King James Bible. In Hebrew one word can mean different things, so it is important to watch the context in a passage (s). In this case, I have researched in the Hebrew the meaning of this passage (Leviticus 18:22). Of course everything is open for disagreement, so, I would encourage you to read what I have posted and respond if you would like if you disagree?

Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie (“Shakab”) with (“Mishkab”) mankind, (“Zakar”) as withwomankind: (“'ishshah”) it is abomination (“Tow`ebah”)

(I only mention in Hebrew the key words that is important and the terms that you used. This is what this passage is in the Hebrew). I think you were looking for bestiality in this passage, am I correct? If, so, there is no bestiality in this passage as far as I am concerned. This of course can be argued in this passage. Just take time to read my notes below and pay attention to the roots and the word origins.

Notes:

Lie: Strongs number: 07901, Transliterated “Shakab” Definition: to lie down, to lie (of sexual relations). (Niphal) to be lain with (sexually) (Pual) to be lain with (sexually) (Hiphil) to make to lie down (Hophal) to be laid


With: Strong’s number 04904, Transliterated word “Mishkab” Definition: a lying down, couch, bier, lying down (for sexual contact) act of lying couch, bed act of lying, lying down or sleeping room, bedroom, Word origin: 07901 “Shakab” Definition: to lie down, (Qal), to lie, lie down, lie on, to lodge, to lie (of sexual relations), to lie down (in death), to rest, relax (fig), (Niphal) to be lain with (sexually), (Pual) to be lain with (sexually), (Hiphil) to make to lie down, (Hophal) to be laid

Mankind: Strong’s number 02145, word origin from 02142, Transliterated word “Zakar” Definition: male (of humans and animals) male (of humans) word origin: Definition: to remember, recall, call to mind, (Qal) to remember, recall (Niphal) to be brought to remembrance, be remembered, be thought of, be brought to mind


Womankind: Strong’s number 0802, Transliterated “'ishshah” Parts of Speech, Noun Feminine, Definition: woman, wife, female, woman (opposite of man), wife (woman married to a man), female (of animals), each, every (pronoun) Word Origin: 0376, “ 'iysh” contracted for (or perhaps rather from an unused root meaning to be extant (in existence, still existing, not destroyed or lost) Parts of Speech noun Masculine, Definition: man, man, male (in contrast to woman, female), husband, human being, person (in contrast to God), servant, mankind, champion, great man, whosoever, each (adjective). Strong’s Number 0582, Transliterated “'enowsh” Parts of Speech: Noun Masculine: Definition: man, mortal man, person, mankind, of an individual, men (collective), man, mankind.

Abomination:Strong’s Number 08441, Transliterated “Tow`ebah” Parts of Speech: Noun, Feminine: Definition: a disgusting thing, abomination, abominable, in ritual sense (of unclean food, idols, mixed marriages) in ethical sense (of wickedness etc). 08581, Transliterated “Ta`ab” Word Origin: a primitive root. Definition: to abhor, be abominable, do abominably, (Niphal) to be abhorred, be detested, in the ritual sense, in the ethical sense, (Piel) to loathe, abhor, regard as an abomination, 1b in the ritual sense, 1b in the ethical sense, to cause to be an abomination, (Hiphil) to make abominable, do abominably, in the ritual sense, in the ethical sense.

Source:

Tow`ebah - Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon - King James Version

Extant | Definition of extant by Merriam-Webster