Is being gay a sin according to your religion?

[Debater Slayer]

I have no religion, and I don't believe that being gay is wrong in any way, shape, or form. I strongly support LGBT rights.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

It appears that most of the people posting here do not believe in God or the Bible. Those who do believe, know that the Bible says if a man lies with another man they should both be put to death. This also shows where the Bible stands on the death penalty for all those who think God would be against the death penalty.

 

[Norman]

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.

Norman: You are ignorant of Hebrew aren't you. You have no idea what you are talking about. The only holes is the ones that you create.

 

[Norman]

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: You can make all the blanket statements, however, you really do not understand what religious freedom means. I don't really think you even care to know or find out. Yes, I will continue to fight for religious freedom and I will continue to voice in the halls of justice and in the public square.

 

[Norman]

I have no religion, and I don't believe that being gay is wrong in any way, shape, or form. I strongly support LGBT rights.

Norman: Hi Debater Slayer. Who is Ishtar? Are you an atheist? I have a religion and I believe that being gay is not the sin, acting on those inclinations is a sin according my Church. Having said that, I believe that LGBT people should not be discriminated against in housing, employment, they should not be bullied, harassed, insulted or embarrassed. I can tell you that I have two dear friends who are gay and I love them both very much. One is a woman and one is a man, If I saw them being bullied by a crowd or individual you can know that I would be the first with a baseball bat ready to defend and protect them. I think there just needs to be a compromise where both sides are happy instead a winner takes all situation which it will now be because it went to the Supreme Court of the land.

 

[Norman]

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.

Norman: Hi sojourner, you are correct, hate speech is not covered by the Constitution and rightly so. There should be no hate speech toward anyone no matter what there position in society is.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Norman: Hi sojourner, you are correct, hate speech is not covered by the Constitution and rightly so. There should be no hate speech toward anyone no matter what there position in society is.

Actually, the government isn't allowed to make laws banning hate speech because that would violate the First Amendment. We're allowed to say whatever nasty things about any group we want as long as it isn't a threat of violence or falls under libel or slander laws. That's a big difference between America and many other Western nations that don't have the equivalent of our First Amendment.

 

[sojourner]

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.

There is nothing for the law to teach, other than that human beings are human beings and should be treated equally -- as in other equal rights legislation.

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.

I think it's important for you to understand that homosexuality describes a completely normal facet of human sexual orientation and identity. Divorcing the term from the humanity it describes and relegating it to some faux-academic treatment does not erase the fact that some people simply are homosexual -- and that it's completely normal for them to be homosexual -- and to act responsibly within the parameters of their orientation.

[In my opinion I believe that homosexual feelings are controllable./QUOTE]
In the same way that it's possible to "control" heterosexual feelings.

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.

Heterosexuals "yield to temptation" in the same way, yet that's OK -- to the point, according to your church, that polygamy was considered completely normal, moral, legal, and acceptable. Yet, polygamy isn't an orientation or a sexual identity, as is homosexuality.

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.

Jesus seemed to be quite preoccupied with this particular "nano-second of our eternal existence," more so than he was with the hereafter. We are here, we are who we are, and we are who God created us to be -- souls that are human bodies with feelings, urges, identity and orientations. And we, each one of us, deserve the love, respect and equal treatment of our fellows, here and now.

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.”

I'm talking about real, tangible systemic violence -- the kind that dehumanizes and oppresses a minority group by labeling them as "sin." You can scratch the clay litter and cover up the feces of that violence with all the pretty legislation you like, but underneath, the feces will still be there, and those "protections" will still be largely a litter-box.

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.

Many religious people are trying to make marriage a matter of law and, thereby, impose their religious principles upon everyone.

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.

Just like MLK had to put the potato of equal rights on the fork of US legislation in the 1960s, and just like others put the potato of women' suffrage on the fork, and just like others put the potato of slavery on the fork. In my opinion, the LDS "opinion" represents complicity in the systemic violence perpetrated upon the LGBT+ community -- just like many churches were complicit in the systemic violence against blacks in the 1960s, etc.

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.

Oh, I understand all right. What you all seem to want to do is to foist your religious definition of marriage upon the rest of us, who don't necessarily share that POV.
And the foisting of one's religious principles upon others is patently not protected by the constitution.

are you saying you want to silence religious voices in public debates?

Where that voice seeks to perpetrate violence against minority groups, yes I do.

Are you trying to tell me that the LGBT does not have an agenda to try and get a new civil right?

Of course they have such an agenda -- just as women had such an agenda in the early part of the 20th century, and just as blacks had in the 1960s. Are you trying to tell me that such agendas aren't either necessary or acceptable??

These are the reasons why the public square must be open to religious ideas and religious persons.

Yes -- so long as those persons do not perpetrate violence and hate speech.

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.

I don't see how it could possibly be a threat to religious freedom any more than the Mormon establishment of plural marriages was in past years. No one's forcing anyone to be married to anyone they don't want to be married to. Except that some religious people want to prevent some from marrying those whom they love and to whom they are attracted.

This is not about civil rights, but about what equal rights demand and what religious rights protect.

I don't see marriage as a "religious right." It's a civic right.

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.

So were slavery and subjugation of women.

You and others should not be allowed to pretend that those who defend the ancient order are trampling on civil rights.

You and others should not be allowed to pretend that you are not trampling on civil rights when you defend an "ancient order" that dehumanizes and oppresses a group -- again, just as some defended the ancient orders of slavery, subjugation of women, forced conversions of natives, and violence against Jews.

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?

When a majority group has coerced and perpetrated systemic violence against a minority group for years, that violence and coercion must be silenced. Claiming their rights for what they are and naming the systemic violence of oppression and dehumanization for what it is isn't "intimidation." It's called "truth."

And this isn't an "I hate Mormons" thing. I have a great deal of respect for the LDS, as Katzpur will be happy to tell you. I have defended the LDS against all kinds of nastiness in this forum, and I defend your right to be called "Christians," and your right to practice your religion as you see fit. But I draw a line with your religion -- and any religion -- when it perpetrates systemic violence against minority groups in the name of "defending the faith." That simply doesn't wash with me, any more than such acts against blacks, women, Jews, and natives have in the past.

 

[sojourner]

Norman: You are ignorant of Hebrew aren't you. You have no idea what you are talking about. The only holes is the ones that you create.

You have no idea who I am or what I know. Underestimating one's opponent has gotten very many contenders in lots of hot water.

 

[Frolicking_Fox]

Well, in Hellenism, gay is not considered a "sin". In fact, same-sex love (gay and lesbian) have been part of several myths in Greek Mythology.
In Buddhism, one is taught to not have sexual desire, since the whole point of Buddhism is to reach enlightenment. To reach enlightenment, you must get rid of all your desires. I hope this helped.

 

[sojourner]

Norman: Hi sojourner, you are correct, hate speech is not covered by the Constitution and rightly so. There should be no hate speech toward anyone no matter what there position in society is.

Asserting that a person is sin is hate speech. When you assert that homosexuality (which is an identity) is sin, you're saying that the person who identifies as such is sin.

 

[gsa]

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

Please read Saul Olyan. He is one of the most compelling sources that I have read on the subject. I am ignoring your derogatory language; I expect it from your kind, but it is entirely unwarranted here. I have nothing more to say to you.

 

[JustCallMeNick]

Norman: You can make all the blanket statements, however, you really do not understand what religious freedom means. I don't really think you even care to know or find out. Yes, I will continue to fight for religious freedom and I will continue to voice in the halls of justice and in the public square.

Oh please, Norman, give me a break. You have been duped into believing that you are a martyr for religious freedom. It's a classic move when a bigoted majority who has been discriminating against a minority starts to lose power and feels afraid - try to turn the tables by playing the victim card. The other side is simply removing you from the position of privilege you have always enjoyed without even thinking about it and demanding equality for themselves, and so you interpret that as "persecution." "Religious freedom" is simply the Right's newest iteration of the same thing - it's a euphemism for the "right" to unfairly discriminate.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Those who do believe, know that the Bible says if a man lies with another man they should both be put to death.

How? Stoned? Crucified? Hanged? Or put to sword? In a village square or on a hill? One can't take chances with the word of God. :suitably afraid:

 

[Norman]

Please read Saul Olyan. He is one of the most compelling sources that I have read on the subject. I am ignoring your derogatory language; I expect it from your kind, but it is entirely unwarranted here. I have nothing more to say to you.

Norman: I have made no derogatory statement, and you said "I expect if from your kind." There you go again!!! So here is a list in your own words about my Church. You bashed the DIR"s. You dare to try and cover up your dis-respectful and childish comments? Your false statement of what you think my Church teaches and so on. What's wrong.? Now you want to run from me? Now you want to make me out to be the bad guy.?Have a nice day. God Bless you. Show some respect and learn how to debate.

Homophobia causes the problems, not homosexuality. Discussion in 'North American Politics' started by columbus, Dec 11, 2014.
Post #81 gsa, of that scoundrel Joseph Smith, a man that the LDS church itself acknowledges seduced children into his polygamist cult.
Post #172 gsa, only an idiot would ignore the outsized influence of the acolytes of Joseph Smith.
in the wholly indefensible claims of Smith and his successors.
Post #237, gsa, What we are discussing is the irrational nature of your beliefs,
Post #249, gsa, I want to make something clear to you regarding Mormonism: But I believe that Mormonism was founded by a charlatan, that the religion is clearly and demonstrably false, and that the church is a largely oppressive force in the state of Utah

Should We Avoid Criticizing or Satirizing Minority Religious Doctrines? Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by gsa, Apr 13, 2015.
Post #70, gsa, Just to be clear, Mormonism is fair game to me because I think it is not true, even absurd
Post #44 gsa, Similarly, people who hate blacks, Mormons

"The Book of Mormon" vs. Charlie Hebdo. Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by leibowde84, Apr 13, 2015.
Post #18 gsa, One possible correction: Not so sure that you are guaranteed similar real estate (i.e., your own planet to implement your own plan of salvation). Given the missionary zeal of the LDS and their desire to be considered actual Christians, the avoidance is understandable, It also helps explain the relative unwillingness to discuss "heavenly mother" and her role as a god(dess). The Book of Mormon accounts are about as historical as, say, the Book of Joshua, and just as morally abhorrent. The LDS as heretics and scoundrels. And I can't help but notice the similar cultic origins of Mormonism,
Post #25, gsa, Many Mormons want their little enclave and some modicum of respect, This perhaps explains why dissidents, liberals and nonbelievers avoid the DIR like the plague. You only want to discuss your beliefs in a "safe zone," free from inquiry and debate on the part of the non-initiated. No one interested in actual dialogue insists on those preconditions, in my opinion.
Post #30, gsa, I provided a correction on the planet belief in this thread, but you have no interest in discussing it one way or another. What's the point in engaging Mormons in DIR, when all they want to do outside it is disclaim popular misconceptions without saying anything positive about their beliefs?
Post #42, gsa, The "as Man is God once was, as God is man may yet become" quote is what throws people off, I think, along with the suggestion that the concept was embraced by Jo smith
Post #83, gsa, But your church and its beliefs? I extend no such respect

 

[gsa]

Norman: I have made no derogatory statement, and you said "I expect if from your kind." There you go again!!! So here is a list in your own words about my Church. You bashed the DIR"s. You dare to try and cover up your dis-respectful and childish comments? Your false statement of what you think my Church teaches and so on. What's wrong.? Now you want to run from me? Now you want to make me out to be the bad guy.?Have a nice day. God Bless you. Show some respect and learn how to debate.

Homophobia causes the problems, not homosexuality. Discussion in 'North American Politics' started by columbus, Dec 11, 2014.
Post #81 gsa, of that scoundrel Joseph Smith, a man that the LDS church itself acknowledges seduced children into his polygamist cult.
Post #172 gsa, only an idiot would ignore the outsized influence of the acolytes of Joseph Smith.
in the wholly indefensible claims of Smith and his successors.
Post #237, gsa, What we are discussing is the irrational nature of your beliefs,
Post #249, gsa, I want to make something clear to you regarding Mormonism: But I believe that Mormonism was founded by a charlatan, that the religion is clearly and demonstrably false, and that the church is a largely oppressive force in the state of Utah

Should We Avoid Criticizing or Satirizing Minority Religious Doctrines? Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by gsa, Apr 13, 2015.
Post #70, gsa, Just to be clear, Mormonism is fair game to me because I think it is not true, even absurd
Post #44 gsa, Similarly, people who hate blacks, Mormons

"The Book of Mormon" vs. Charlie Hebdo. Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by leibowde84, Apr 13, 2015.
Post #18 gsa, One possible correction: Not so sure that you are guaranteed similar real estate (i.e., your own planet to implement your own plan of salvation). Given the missionary zeal of the LDS and their desire to be considered actual Christians, the avoidance is understandable, It also helps explain the relative unwillingness to discuss "heavenly mother" and her role as a god(dess). The Book of Mormon accounts are about as historical as, say, the Book of Joshua, and just as morally abhorrent. The LDS as heretics and scoundrels. And I can't help but notice the similar cultic origins of Mormonism,
Post #25, gsa, Many Mormons want their little enclave and some modicum of respect, This perhaps explains why dissidents, liberals and nonbelievers avoid the DIR like the plague. You only want to discuss your beliefs in a "safe zone," free from inquiry and debate on the part of the non-initiated. No one interested in actual dialogue insists on those preconditions, in my opinion.
Post #30, gsa, I provided a correction on the planet belief in this thread, but you have no interest in discussing it one way or another. What's the point in engaging Mormons in DIR, when all they want to do outside it is disclaim popular misconceptions without saying anything positive about their beliefs?
Post #42, gsa, The "as Man is God once was, as God is man may yet become" quote is what throws people off, I think, along with the suggestion that the concept was embraced by Jo smith
Post #83, gsa, But your church and its beliefs? I extend no such respect

What are you doing, keeping a dossier on me? BTW, it would be helpful, when cutting and pasting de-contextualized quotes, to provide the link so that we can ascertain the full context. For example, you were actually select quoting this post, not the one you claimed:

The Mormon church (alternatively the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) has proposed adding sexual orientation to the list of prohibited forms of discrimination, in states that currently allow that discrimination, with one major caveat: Discrimination on the basis of religious beliefs would be written in as an exemption to the law. The net effect of this proposal would be that you could not refuse to employ/serve gay people because they were gay and you hate gays, but you could refuse to employ/serve gay people because of your religious-based hatred of gays.

Similarly, people who hate blacks, Mormons, Jews, Muslims, and other groups would be able to cite the religious motivation for this hatred in discriminating against them. Currently, there are exemptions from religious discrimination laws for religious institutions, which are free to hate and discriminate as they see fit. But as it stands, a Catholic boss can't fire a Jewish employee because of his religion. If this passed, that would be possible.

Should religious people be given an exemption from federal and state anti-discrimination laws?

So what exactly is the problem with this quote? If you recall, it was in relation to this story, in which a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles was quoted as saying that services to gay couples should be something people can refuse on religious grounds, even in the private marketplace. As the Mormons noted, the Utah compromise legislation simply sidestepped this area:

Most notably, none of the three aforementioned bills addresses the provision of goods and services in the marketplace. This is a complaint that has been voiced both by those in the LGBT community and by their political opponents. It is an area that is simply too divisive to find a middle ground at this time.

Now, you are correct: I do not care for your church, I think it is a bigoted and irrational institution. So what? I also think that there are plenty of good people who are Mormons, Muslims, Catholics, etc. Love the worthy Abrahamic, despise the Abrahamic religions. Now that should sound familiar to you, should it not?

 

[Norman]

Oh please, Norman, give me a break. You have been duped into believing that you are a martyr for religious freedom. It's a classic move when a bigoted majority who has been discriminating against a minority starts to lose power and feels afraid - try to turn the tables by playing the victim card. The other side is simply removing you from the position of privilege you have always enjoyed without even thinking about it and demanding equality for themselves, and so you interpret that as "persecution." "Religious freedom" is simply the Right's newest iteration of the same thing - it's a euphemism for the "right" to unfairly discriminate.

Norman: Hi JustCallMeNick. Call it what you want, you may want to take the time to research and learn what “Religeious Freedom” really is. Once you do this, you will understand what all the fuss is about. My Church has not and does not discriminate against anyone. You call us bigots, that if fine with me, I have been called worse. It’s not The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints 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 meat on the plate. They are 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 my Church has elected to take the matter into the legal arena or into the political arena. It’s already there. Now, the fact is forced by the LGBT community, and now, the best way is to assure that a definition of marriage as it now stands continues and is to put it into the foundational legal document of the United States, in the Constitution. Again, that is where the LGBT 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 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints have chosen. However, it has been established and we have little choice but to express our views concerning it, which is really all that my Church has done.

I support my Church leader’s and I quote Elder Tom L. Perry of The Quroum of the twelve Apostles.

“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

 

[gsa]

Yes, claiming that gay couples are among the "counterfeit and alternative lifestyles that try to replace the family" is not at all derogatory. Calling for a constitutional amendment to cement anti-gay beliefs in the fundamental organizing document of the US government is not at all derogatory.

But point to the reality of Joseph Smith and his polygamous beginnings? To the Mormons' racist theological beginnings, not corrected until the late 1970s (1978 to be precise)? Point, in other words, to true things long denied? Why that is bigotry and opposing religious freedom.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Norman: You can make all the blanket statements, however, you really do not understand what religious freedom means. I don't really think you even care to know or find out. Yes, I will continue to fight for religious freedom and I will continue to voice in the halls of justice and in the public square.

Religious freedom: The ability to safely practise one's religion and apply its teachings and principles in one's own life. Gay couples from non-Mormon religions getting married does not prevent you from practising your religion - be it via going to church, singing hymns, praising Christ, taking the sacrament, performing temple ordnances (like marriage), going on a mission, raising a family of your own and securing celestial kingdom blessings - no matter how much you might think it does. There is no 'freedom' to force one's own beliefs on to others which is what the LDS Church (and other Christian Churches) are doing via the amicus brief by saying that the current Christian-based definition of marriage should be applied to everyone including non-Christians.

 

[Norman]

What are you doing, keeping a dossier on me? BTW, it would be helpful, when cutting and pasting de-contextualized quotes, to provide the link so that we can ascertain the full context. For example, you were actually select quoting this post, not the one you claimed:

The Mormon church (alternatively the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) has proposed adding sexual orientation to the list of prohibited forms of discrimination, in states that currently allow that discrimination, with one major caveat: Discrimination on the basis of religious beliefs would be written in as an exemption to the law. The net effect of this proposal would be that you could not refuse to employ/serve gay people because they were gay and you hate gays, but you could refuse to employ/serve gay people because of your religious-based hatred of gays.

Norman: It is not the Mormon Church and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day-Saints is not an alternative name. The official name is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Similarly, people who hate blacks, Mormons, Jews, Muslims, and other groups would be able to cite the religious motivation for this hatred in discriminating against them. Currently, there are exemptions from religious discrimination laws for religious institutions, which are free to hate and discriminate as they see fit. But as it stands, a Catholic boss can't fire a Jewish employee because of his religion. If this passed, that would be possible.

Norman: Latter Day-Saints do not hate blacks.

Should religious people be given an exemption from federal and state anti-discrimination laws?

So what exactly is the problem with this quote? If you recall, it was in relation to this story, in which a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles was quoted as saying that services to gay couples should be something people can refuse on religious grounds, even in the private marketplace. As the Mormons noted, the Utah compromise legislation simply sidestepped this area:

Most notably, none of the three aforementioned bills addresses the provision of goods and services in the marketplace. This is a complaint that has been voiced both by those in the LGBT community and by their political opponents. It is an area that is simply too divisive to find a middle ground at this time.

Now, you are correct: I do not care for your church, I think it is a bigoted and irrational institution. So what? I also think that there are plenty of good people who are Mormons, Muslims, Catholics, etc. Love the worthy Abrahamic, despise the Abrahamic religions. Now that should sound familiar to you, should it not?

Norman: No, I am not keeping a, as you said "What are you doing, keeping a dossier on me?" You accused me of as you said " I am ignoring your derogatory language." So, I thought I would remind you of who really was stating "derogatory language." I selected and quoted for the sake of having not to post at least a three page post. It really doesn't matter anyway, I selected the meat of your comments and that is what matters. You said " I have nothing more to say to you." When I listed your dirty laundry, now you come back and try to butter it up. I would suggest to you, to learn the forum rules.
I have been a member of this Church for thirty years and I am not an idiot. I was a Jew before I joined the LDS Church. I will not ignore anyone, if you want to continue to talk with me that Is fine, but please do not try to define what my Church believes if you do not know for certain. You can go to the LDS DIR and ask all the questions you want, that is what the DIR's are for. I can handle criticism and harsh comments, I have no problem with that. You just went a little to overboard that's all.