Is being gay a sin according to your religion?

[Norman]

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: Hi A Disgruntled Sctsman, we are not trying to force our belief's on anyone. We are defending the institution of marriage between one man and one woman, that is all.

 

[Norman]

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.

Norman: Hi sojourner, being a homosexual is a sin, acting upon that inclination is the sin and that is what I believe and that is what my Church believes and teaches and I or my Church will not apologize for that. Again, it all comes full circle back to "Religious Freedom." What about this do you not understand?

 

[Norman]

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.

Norman: Hi gsa, Yes, if you feel that the statements of Elder L. Tom. Perry is derogatory, that is your right, I will not take that from you. However, I will not apologize for his statements.

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.

Norman: Yes, we practiced "Polygyny" that was then, this is now. You could look at it as racism, however, it was not. Well, I am not a bigot and my Church is not a bigot. Please, read about what
Religious Freedom really is. We believe in continuing revelation and today and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints believe that marriage is between one man and on woman. We are not
trying to force our belief's on anyone. Here is a little bit of information.

Some black men did hold the Priesthood before 1978! Such as in the case of Elijah Abel and his descendants, however, all men of Hamitic lineage (bloodline) were forbidden to hold the LDS Priesthood before 1978. However, there are black-skinned men of non-Hamitic lineages, like the Dravidians of India, the Aborigines of Australia, the Melansians of Fiji and Melanesia, and the Negritoes of the Philipines and Indonesia, all had a right to the Priesthood, and those who were worthy Members of the Church held it before 1978. Also, white-skinned Hamites could not hold the Priesthood or partake of the higher ordinances of Mormon Temples until 1978. There are black-skinned men of non-Hamitic lineages, like the Dravidians of India, the Aborigines of Australia, the Melansians of Fiji and Melanesia, and the Negritoes of the Philipines and Indonesia, and their are white-skinned Hamites in Africa. Mulatto (white-skinned and dark-skinned Brazilians with mixed European and African ancestry)

Now, this is just one theory and do not hold it as LDS doctrine gsa.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Norman: Hi A Disgruntled Sctsman, we are not trying to force our belief's on anyone.

By insisting that your religious definition of marriage remain the only legally recognised one that is exactly what you're doing.

We are defending the institution of marriage between one man and one woman, that is all.

It's sheer hypocrisy on the part of the LDS Church to take this position considering your church's history with polygamy. Your church is only interested in the "traditional definition" of marriage when it suits them. Indeed, Mormon Doctrine - a book written by a high ranking member of the Church called Bruce R. McConkie says that polygamous marriage is still a sacred institute and will be reinstated during the millennial reign of Christ.

 

[gsa]

Norman: Hi A Disgruntled Sctsman, we are not trying to force our belief's on anyone. We are defending the institution of marriage between one man and one woman, that is all.

Nonsense. First, the institution of marriage that exists today is an egalitarian one that is wholly unlike most religious marriages, including the polygamous marriages that the LDS originally supported. The "institution of marriage" or "traditional marriage" that you have been talking about in previous posts predates the existence of the US and is in fact unconstitutional. Coverture, for example, the legal doctrine that subordinated a woman's legal rights to those of her husband upon marriage, is a form of sex discrimination that did not survive the adoption and development of the Fourteenth Amendment. Similarly, laws banning interracial marriage were firmly rooted in the nation's history, and did not survive the adoption and development of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Indeed, let us look at Utah: In 1852, the territory legalized black and Indian slavery while simultaneously prohibiting interracial marriage. What did Brigham Young say about this at the time?

"I am as much opposed to the principle of slavery as any man in the present acceptation or usage of the term. It is abused. I am opposed to abusing that which God decreed, to take a blessing and make a curse of it. It is a great blessing to the seed of Adam to have the seed of Cain as servants, but those they serve should use them with all the heart and feeling, as they would use their own children and their compassion should reach over them and round about them, and treat them as kindly, and with that human feeling necessary to be shown to mortal beings of the human species. Under these circumstances their blessings in life are greater in portion than those that have to provide the bread and dinner for them."

Now the law banning interracial marriage in Utah was rescinded shortly before the Supreme Court decision in Loving v Virginia, in 1963. But Brigham Young, governor at the time the territory adopted this law, also had very firm views on this subject:

"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so. The nations of the Earth have transgressed every law that God has given, they have changed the ordinances and broken the covenant with the fathers, and they are like a hungry man that dreameth that he eateth, and he awaketh and behold he is empty." Journal of Discourses, Vol. 10, p. 110.

Mormon aversion to interracial marriage is well-documented. It was once supposedly rooted in the law of God, who was thought to have instituted this separation (along with some other dubious principles). The Mormons of that day thought that they were defending the institution of marriage as well:

"I think I have read enough to give you an idea of what the Negro is after. He is not just seeking the opportunity of sitting down in a cafe where white people eat. He isn't just trying to ride on the same streetcar or the same Pullman car with white people. It isn't that he just desires to go to the same theater as the white people. From this, and other interviews I have read, it appears that the Negro seeks absorption with the white race. He will not be satisfied until he achieves it by intermarriage. That is his objective and we must face it."

Mark E. Petersen, LDS member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

These people also used religion as a shield. The people also lost, as will you.

 

[Norman]

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.

Norman: Hi Saint Frankenstein, you are correct on that. For this very reason, “hate speech” doesn’t have any fixed legal meaning under U.S. law. U.S. law has just never had occasion to define “hate speech” any more than it has had occasion to define rudeness, evil ideas, unpatriotic speech, or any other kind of speech that people might condemn but that does not constitute a legally relevant category.

 

[Norman]

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.

Norman: Hi sojourner, if you know Hebrew so well, it did not reflect in your post, that is all I am saying. I was a Jew before I joined the LDS Church and I am a stickler when it comes to the
Hebrew language. There are good resources on line to learn Hebrew or to translate it via scriptures with other resources. Yes, you are correct, I do not know you or what you know.

 

[sojourner]

Norman: Hi sojourner, being a homosexual is a sin, acting upon that inclination is the sin and that is what I believe and that is what my Church believes and teaches and I or my Church will not apologize for that. Again, it all comes full circle back to "Religious Freedom." What about this do you not understand?

So acting on who one is is a sin now. That constitutes oppression, which is also systemic violence. "You can be black, but, as a black, you can't ride in the front of the bus." All this is is Jim Crow wrapped up in a false blanket of "religious freedom." What you believe is no different from what the white supremacists believed in the earlier days of this country (and continue to believe). What about this do you not understand?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

So acting on who one is is a sin now. That constitutes oppression, which is also systemic violence. "You can be black, but, as a black, you can't ride in the front of the bus." All this is is Jim Crow wrapped up in a false blanket of "religious freedom." What you believe is no different from what the white supremacists believed in the earlier days of this country (and continue to believe). What about this do you not understand?

Please stop comparing finding gay sex immoral to being a segregationist in the Deep South. It's offensive to many people and a false equivalence. It's better to argue in favor of gay relationships on their own merit instead of comparing it to a person's race.

 

[sojourner]

Please stop comparing finding gay sex immoral to being a segregationist in the Deep South. It's offensive to many people and a false equivalence. It's better to argue in favor of gay relationships on their own merit instead of comparing it to a person's race.

It's. The. Same. Thing. It's a valid comparison, because 1) the rationale for the segregation is the same, and 2) the tactics used are exactly the same for American slavery, German Jewish oppression, and the gay issue of today in the USA.

 

[Maponos]

It's. The. Same. Thing. It's a valid comparison, because 1) the rationale for the segregation is the same, and 2) the tactics used are exactly the same for American slavery, German Jewish oppression, and the gay issue of today in the USA.

They aren't the same. Same-sex marriages are about two members of the same sex being married legally whereas racial segregation is segregating members of a specific race or races from certain places.

 

[Norman]

Nonsense. First, the institution of marriage that exists today is an egalitarian one that is wholly unlike most religious marriages, including the polygamous marriages that the LDS originally supported. The "institution of marriage" or "traditional marriage" that you have been talking about in previous posts predates the existence of the US and is in fact unconstitutional. Coverture, for example, the legal doctrine that subordinated a woman's legal rights to those of her husband upon marriage, is a form of sex discrimination that did not survive the adoption and development of the Fourteenth Amendment. Similarly, laws banning interracial marriage were firmly rooted in the nation's history, and did not survive the adoption and development of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Indeed, let us look at Utah: In 1852, the territory legalized black and Indian slavery while simultaneously prohibiting interracial marriage. What did Brigham Young say about this at the time?

"I am as much opposed to the principle of slavery as any man in the present acceptation or usage of the term. It is abused. I am opposed to abusing that which God decreed, to take a blessing and make a curse of it. It is a great blessing to the seed of Adam to have the seed of Cain as servants, but those they serve should use them with all the heart and feeling, as they would use their own children and their compassion should reach over them and round about them, and treat them as kindly, and with that human feeling necessary to be shown to mortal beings of the human species. Under these circumstances their blessings in life are greater in portion than those that have to provide the bread and dinner for them."

Now the law banning interracial marriage in Utah was rescinded shortly before the Supreme Court decision in Loving v Virginia, in 1963. But Brigham Young, governor at the time the territory adopted this law, also had very firm views on this subject:

"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so. The nations of the Earth have transgressed every law that God has given, they have changed the ordinances and broken the covenant with the fathers, and they are like a hungry man that dreameth that he eateth, and he awaketh and behold he is empty." Journal of Discourses, Vol. 10, p. 110.

Mormon aversion to interracial marriage is well-documented. It was once supposedly rooted in the law of God, who was thought to have instituted this separation (along with some other dubious principles). The Mormons of that day thought that they were defending the institution of marriage as well:

"I think I have read enough to give you an idea of what the Negro is after. He is not just seeking the opportunity of sitting down in a cafe where white people eat. He isn't just trying to ride on the same streetcar or the same Pullman car with white people. It isn't that he just desires to go to the same theater as the white people. From this, and other interviews I have read, it appears that the Negro seeks absorption with the white race. He will not be satisfied until he achieves it by intermarriage. That is his objective and we must face it."

Mark E. Petersen, LDS member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

These people also used religion as a shield. The people also lost, as will you.

Norman: Well, I tried to warn you, my first person that I am putting on ignore, have a good life, bye

 

[Norman]

By insisting that your religious definition of marriage remain the only legally recognised one that is exactly what you're doing.

Norman: Marriage has been around since Adam and Eve. The Latter Day-Saints did not invent it. We just embrace it, one man one woman, it is that simple.

It's sheer hypocrisy on the part of the LDS Church to take this position considering your church's history with polygamy. Your church is only interested in the "traditional definition" of marriage when it suits them. Indeed, Mormon Doctrine - a book written by a high ranking member of the Church called Bruce R. McConkie says that polygamous marriage is still a sacred institute and will be reinstated during the millennial reign of Christ.

Norman: Don't worry about our past and get you mind in the our present. We believe in continuing revelation. So, get it straight, we believe in marriage between on man and one woman. Mormon doctrine was Bruce R. McConkie's own book. It had nothing to do with the Church and was never accepted by the Church. His own private interpretations. However, it is a good read.

 

[Norman]

So acting on who one is is a sin now. That constitutes oppression, which is also systemic violence. "You can be black, but, as a black, you can't ride in the front of the bus." All this is is Jim Crow wrapped up in a false blanket of "religious freedom." What you believe is no different from what the white supremacists believed in the earlier days of this country (and continue to believe). What about this do you not understand?

Norman: Why are you bringing up the blacks for?

 

[sojourner]

They aren't the same. Same-sex marriages are about two members of the same sex being married legally whereas racial segregation is segregating members of a specific race or races from certain places.

But the tactics used by the segregating body are the same. For example, one of the tactics universally used in both Nazi Germany with the Jews and in antebellum America with the slaves was separation of people from family and support systems. This is exactly what is going on when people speak up against gay marriage. They are effectively separating homosexual people from fully being with the ones they love.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

It's. The. Same. Thing. It's a valid comparison, because 1) the rationale for the segregation is the same, and 2) the tactics used are exactly the same for American slavery, German Jewish oppression, and the gay issue of today in the USA.

No, it's not the same. People who oppose gay sex acts and gay marriage do so because of ontological views on sex and the nature of marriage. In other words, it's an argument about behavior (acts) and what marriage is or should be. Although we can certainly debate about such things, they do have valid philosophical arguments that we should pay attention to. Otherwise we're going to say things like denying people the "right" to plural marriage is akin to racial segregation. It's a nonsensical argument based solely on emotion rather than reason.

Racism, opposition to interracial relationships and segregation are based on keeping groups of people physically separate through forming social and pseudo-scientific hierarchies and blunt groupings based on physical attributes that are immutable and cannot be hidden. You can choose to be closeted, on the "down low" or celibate as a gay person, but you can't hide that you're black and neither will your DNA.

So yes, it's a false equivalence and it's quite offensive to those who have had to live with racism and to the memories of those who have suffered under race-based chattel slavery and Jim Crow. You are downplaying their struggles and sufferings. If all black people had to go through was trying to get legally married, then the American historical record would be quite a shining one. So I'd advise you to not use that argument because it's offensive and illogical. Better to argue for the validity of gay relationships on their own merit instead of trying to tack it onto African-American civil rights.

 

[sojourner]

Norman: Why are you bringing up the blacks for?

Because the dynamics and arguments are exactly the same in both racial and homosexual discrimination. But I guess you don't get that. or don't want to.

 

[sojourner]

No, it's not the same. People who oppose gay sex acts and gay marriage do so because of ontological views on sex and the nature of marriage.

People who oppose integration of blacks (and other groups) do so because of ontological views on racial equality and the nature of interaction.

Although we can certainly debate about such things, they do have valid philosophical arguments that we should pay attention to.

I don't think they do. Not one argument I've heard has been based on anything other than misinformation, an inadequate exegesis of scriptural text, an appeal to tradition, and fear. Much like racist arguments.

It's a nonsensical argument based solely on emotion rather than argument.

That's precisely what any argument for inequality is based upon. Such as the racial and gender arguments of yesterday.

Racism, opposition to interracial relationships and segregation are based on keeping groups of people physically separate based on forming hierarchies and blunt groupings based on physical attributes that are immutable and cannot be hidden.

Actually, sometimes they can be hidden -- especially in the case of Jewish and sometimes Native segregation. They're also based on dehumanizing and denying minority groups equal treatment. you're actually supporting Jim Crow with your argument here.

You can choose to be closeted, on the "down low" or celibate as a gay person, but you can't hide that you're black and neither will your DNA.

One can hide the fact that one is Jewish, and one can be "non-practicing." The point is that one shouldn't have to do those things in order to prevent discrimination.

So yes, it's a false equivalence and it's quite offensive to those who have had to live with racism and to the memories of those who have suffered under race-based chattel slavery and Jim Crow.

Again, the tactics used to dehumanize all these groups are exactly the same.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

People who oppose integration of blacks (and other groups) do so because of ontological views on racial equality and the nature of interaction.

I don't think they do. Not one argument I've heard has been based on anything other than misinformation, an inadequate exegesis of scriptural text, an appeal to tradition, and fear. Much like racist arguments.

That's precisely what any argument for inequality is based upon. Such as the racial and gender arguments of yesterday.

Actually, sometimes they can be hidden -- especially in the case of Jewish and sometimes Native segregation. They're also based on dehumanizing and denying minority groups equal treatment. you're actually supporting Jim Crow with your argument here.

One can hide the fact that one is Jewish, and one can be "non-practicing." The point is that one shouldn't have to do those things in order to prevent discrimination.

Again, the tactics used to dehumanize all these groups are exactly the same.

Repeating basically what I've said and just changing the groups isn't an argument. You're going to have to try better than that. The first thing you can do is understand the differences between sexual acts, race/ethnicity and religion. When you do that, then you'll be able to have a decent discussion comparing the different types of bigotries/oppression. But not before.

 

[sojourner]

Repeating basically what I've said and just changing the groups isn't an argument.

It is if the dehumanization is of the same type.

You're going to have to try better than that.

You have yet to show that dehumanizing a group based upon what one believes about that group, or based upon one's biases is fundamentally different from one oppressed group to the next. If the differences in dehumanization between, for example, American slaves and German Jews are so marked, how come the tactics used by slave owners and Nazis were exactly the same? And how come those tactics used against the LGBT+ community are also the same?

The first thing you can do is understand the differences between sexual acts, race/ethnicity and religion.

There are differences in those things, of course, but not in the way those groups are dehumanized and discriminated against.

When you do that, then you'll be able to have a decent discussion comparing the different types of bigotries/oppression.

systemic violence in the form of dehumanization is systemic violence in the form of dehumanization. If you want to discover the fundamental uniformity, read Beverly Mitchell's Plantations and Death Camps. Here is an excerpt from the Good reads review:

"Historical theologian Beverly Mitchell probes some of the most egregious assaults on humans in the modern era to divine not only the root of racial and ethnic oppressions but also the unassailable heart of human dignity revealed in that suffering. Mitchell's work looks at the parallel oppressions that were visited upon African Americans in the slave era and upon Jews in the Nazi era. Even apart from the many similarities in their respective plights, Mitchell finds a deeper commonality in the underlying religious and ideological justifications for their oppressions and the underlying, dynamic theological features of each."

Additionally, these similarities extend also to the plight of the LGBT+ community.