Is being gay a sin according to your religion?

[FTNZ]

Yes, I find the distinction between sexual orientation and sexual activity here to be pretty nonsensical, it's like an attempt to rationalise bigotry.

Would heterosexuals accept being told that their sexual orientation was acceptable provided they remained celibate? Of course they wouldn't, and it's a ridiculous position to adopt.

IMO the full and safe expression of sexuality is a human right. As long as a person is not harming themselves or others, they should be free to express and act on their sexual desires with judgment or condemnation from anyone else. Many religious people allow heterosexual married couples this treatment (more or less), and it's long past time that people of any orientation and any non/marital status were allowed the same treatment. Arbitrary constraints on sexuality leads to all kinds of problems.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Norman: Don't worry about our past and get you mind in the our present.

Oh ho, what was that? Did I touch a nerve there? Do you not like your sect's inconsistencies being revealed to others?

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.

Yes, now. But Mormons didn't in the past. That's my point: that your Church's hypocrisy stems from the fact that their religious definition of marriage has been subject to change and they are arguing that the legal definition of marriage be forced to remain consistent with a definition the Church itself has not always endorsed.

As for McConkie, his book may not be official Church canon but there is no denying that it was informed by Mormon teachings and perspectives; both official and unofficial.

 

[sojourner]

Since when are gay people said to be racially/biologically/genetically inferior?

It doesn't matter what kind of inferior they are. They are said to be inferior. They are said to be sin -- or expressing the fullness of who they are is said to be sin. The reason isn't the compelling factor here. The degree is, and the degree is the same, because the dehumanizing tactics are the same.

Since when are gay people thought to be inordinately prone to violence?

"If they are allowed to get married, it will destroy the fabric of our families" isn't inordinately violent to you? "We don't want 'them' teaching 'our' children and corrupting their little minds and hearts" isn't inordinately violent to you?

Since when are gay people believed not to have the ability to build and maintain complex civilizations?

Marriage is a huge part of a complex community. If they can't get married, they can't build such communities.

Since when were gay people forced to be separated from straight people on treat of violence?

"I won't bake you a cake, and I won't serve you pizza" is separation from straight (non-sin) people.

The experiences of gay people and black people are not similar as a whole.

Read Beverly Mitchell.

 

[sojourner]

My point is that racism is the not the same thing as not accepting sex between males or sex between females. Nor is not accepting gay marriage as marriage the same thing as racism. These comparisons are getting rather ridiculous.

Racism and anti-gayism are different in kind, but not in nature. Oppression and dehumanization are oppression and dehumanization.

 

[sojourner]

the conservatives/traditionalists argue that marriage is an institution for the rearing of children between a male and a female, who compliment each other. In that view, homosexual relationships don't pass muster because of simple biology, not least because of the perceived incompatibility of the sexual organs.

That's not a real argument, because that's not really the main point of marriage. There are plenty of hetero couples who are barren. Then again, there's your use of "simple biology" as a "reason" (which, BTW, is the same reason employed in discrimination against blacks).

 

[sojourner]

philosophical arguments against gay marriage (i.e. Natural Law arguments) have validity

No. They really don't. The arguments are all indefensible. "That's the way we've always done it" isn't a valid argument, as per the slavery issue. "God intended" is a religious belief and, therefore, not valid in a court of law.

 

[sojourner]

I do view racism as worse than homophobia because with racism, it doesn't even have anything to do with behavior, it's prejudice based on who a person is on the genetic level.

One's sexual identity is also who a person is.

Most people who disapprove of homosexuality are basing their disapproval around the sex acts.

Same as people saying that black people are inherently too stupid to govern themselves or too genetically violent to be around white people. It's an attempt to prevent the minority from expressing their full humanity.

I'd also like to add that not all people against gay marriage are anti-gay.

Jim Crow -- separate but equal.

There's gay people who are also against gay marriage.

There were blacks who were against full integration.

 

[sojourner]

So to be accepted gays must be celibate?

In that line of thinking, because it's based on behavior.

IOW, the denial of full expression of one's humanity. That's violence, my friend, same as blacks not being allowed to sit at the front of the bus.

 

[Norman]

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.

Norman: Hi sojourner, no one wants to stop LGBT people from being with each other. The issue is same-sex marriage. I do not see your argument of bringing up blacks and the civil-rights movement. Same sex marriage is not a civil right. You are mixing apples and oranges.

 

[Norman]

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.

Norman: I understand what you are saying and it doesn't fit for this very reason. The free exercise of religion is threatened by those who believe it conflicts with "the newly alleged 'civil right' of same-gender couples to enjoy the privileges of marriage. Those who seek to change the foundation of marriage should not be allowed to pretend that those who defend the ancient order are trampling on civil rights However, it is a constitutional right to defend the institution of marriage. When you understand or accept sojourner that this is what the LGBT community is trying to do with trying to make same sex marriage a "newly alleged civil right" then you'll understand that it has nothing to do with the civil rights movement.

 

[Norman]

Oh ho, what was that? Did I touch a nerve there? Do you not like your sect's inconsistencies being revealed to others?

Norman: No nerve touched at all, the only thing concern I have is your ignorance and arrogance about something you do not understand. You may believe that digging into our past is helping your argument, however it is not. I have said before and I will say it again, we believe in continuing revelation. The heavens are not closed to us like other Church's who declare that the heavens are closed. This is a concept that you seem to want to ignore. We have a living Prophet and twelve apostles who receive revelation from God. When an occasion arises and the need for revelation is at the for-front, then that is addressed by our leaders.

Yes, now. But Mormons didn't in the past. That's my point: that your Church's hypocrisy stems from the fact that their religious definition of marriage has been subject to change and they are arguing that the legal definition of marriage be forced to remain consistent with a definition the Church itself has not always endorsed.

Norman: There is no hypocrisy, again, it is called revelation and abiding by the laws of the land of which we believe in. At one time in the history of my Church we practiced Polygyny, it was need then according to the revelation received. The laws of the land said to stop and we stopped and every since we have taught that marriage is between one man and one woman. This is what you need to focus on is the here and now. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day saints teach that marriage is between one man and one woman, that is it, period.

As for McConkie, his book may not be official Church canon but there is no denying that it was informed by Mormon teachings and perspectives; both official and unofficial.

Norman: I see that you intend to remain ignorant about Bruce R. McKonkie and his book. Again, this was his private book that He wrote with his own personal views. You are wrong again, it was never
accepted as you stated "official," to the Church. I have a copy of the book and I read it because I find it an interesting book, however, I do not teach from the book. The book is not allowed in Church to use in talks or lessons. Many of my Church leader's write books all the time and they are for anyone to read and not for Church instruction or doctrine. I see that you are into paganism, so why don't you stick with that and stay out of an area that you are qualified to participate in?

 

[Norman]

That's not a real argument, because that's not really the main point of marriage. There are plenty of hetero couples who are barren. Then again, there's your use of "simple biology" as a "reason" (which, BTW, is the same reason employed in discrimination against blacks).

Norman: sojourner, the reason for marriage is to procreate and have children, it has been that way for eons, where have you been? That is the main purpose and the bundle of rights that come with it belongs to the sacred institution of marriage between one man and one woman.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Norman: I see that you intend to remain ignorant about Bruce R. McKonkie and his book. Again, this was his private book that He wrote with his own personal views.

I don't think I said otherwise...

You are wrong again, it was never accepted as you stated "official," to the Church.

I didn't say it was. I said it was informed by official church doctrine, as well as prevailing social attitudes of the time.

I see that you are into paganism, so why don't you stick with that and stay out of an area that you are qualified to participate in?

I grew up in the Mormon Church, actually, so I am qualified to talk on the subject. I'm also deeply interested in it as my immediate family are mostly Mormons. Subjects like this help to remind me why I left. Posts like yours help too; it's always nice to see the result of mental conditioning that leads you to automatically assume I'm some passing outsider with an axe to grind. I know whence I speak.

 

[sojourner]

Hi sojourner, no one wants to stop LGBT people from being with each other. The issue is same-sex marriage.

You will notice I said "fully being with the one they love." Marriage is spiritually and fundamentally different from shacking up. Plenty of Christians want to stop LGBT+ people from being fully together with the ones they love. For one who seems to hold marriage in such high regard, you seem just as quick to dismiss it as important for gay people as compared to straight people.

I do not see your argument of bringing up blacks and the civil-rights movement. Same sex marriage is not a civil right.

Of course it is. When the understanding of the nature and value of homosexuality changes with cultural and scientific awareness, the definition of what constitutes marriage and family should change with it, just as the understanding of the nature and value of being black changed with cultural and scientific awareness.

 

[sojourner]

The free exercise of religion is threatened by those who believe it conflicts with "the newly alleged 'civil right' of same-gender couples to enjoy the privileges of marriage.

No. It isn't. No one is forcing religious heterosexuals to marry homosexuals against their will or to remain celibate against their will. "Free exercise of religion" doesn't include "free ability to foist beliefs on others," meaning that you don't get to determine what constitutes marriage based upon some archaic religious belief.

Those who seek to change the foundation of marriage should not be allowed to pretend that those who defend the ancient order are trampling on civil rights

No one's seeking to change the foundation of marriage. Marriage remains a legal and spiritual joining of two consenting adults in a relationship intended for mutual support and comfort that provides the foundation for family. That can (and does!) include homosexual marriages as well as heterosexual marriages.

However, it is a constitutional right to defend the institution of marriage.

Which is what progressives are doing: defending the institution of marriage for all people who wish to enter into it, regardless of their orientation.

When you understand or accept sojourner that this is what the LGBT community is trying to do with trying to make same sex marriage a "newly alleged civil right" then you'll understand that it has nothing to do with the civil rights movement.

When you understand and accept, Norman, that this is what the LGBTQ+ community and their supporters are trying to do with trying to make marriage a reality for all consenting adults, then you'll understand that it has everything to do with the civil rights movement.

Nothing is changing about the concept of marriage, as you allege. What is changing is the concept of the intrinsic human value of homosexual orientation and how that might be better served by opening marriage to all. What has changed is the fact that homosexual as well as heterosexual orientations are both normal and acceptable.

 

[sojourner]

sojourner, the reason for marriage is to procreate and have children, it has been that way for eons, where have you been?

The Book of Common Prayer says that marriage "is
intended by God for their mutual joy; for the help and comfort
given one another in prosperity and adversity; and, when it is
God's will, for the procreation of children and their nurture
in the knowledge and love of the Lord."

The 1549 Prayer Book puts it this way:
"One cause was the procreacion of children, to be brought up in the feare and nurture of the Lord, and prayse of God. Secondly it was ordeined for a remedie agaynst sinne, and to avoide fornicacion, that suche persones as bee maried, might live chastlie in matrimonie, and kepe themselves undefiled membres of Christes bodye. Thirdelye for the mutuall societie, helpe, and coumfort, that the one oughte to have of thother, both in prosperitie and adversitie."

455 years is a long time -- and I'm sure that the concept of "mutual joy, help and comfort" goes back much further.

Procreation is a reason, but not the reason -- never has been. Again, you're conveniently ignoring the fact that, over the centuries, many married couples have been barren or have chosen to not have children, and their marriages are no less valid.

That is the main purpose and the bundle of rights that come with it belongs to the sacred institution of marriage between one man and one woman.

And now we have expanded our awareness to include the sacred nature of all loving relationships -- both heterosexual and homosexual.

 

[Sundance]

The Book of Common Prayer says that marriage "is
intended by God for their mutual joy; for the help and comfort
given one another in prosperity and adversity; and, when it is
God's will, for the procreation of children and their nurture
in the knowledge and love of the Lord."

The 1549 Prayer Book puts it this way:
"One cause was the procreacion of children, to be brought up in the feare and nurture of the Lord, and prayse of God. Secondly it was ordeined for a remedie agaynst sinne, and to avoide fornicacion, that suche persones as bee maried, might live chastlie in matrimonie, and kepe themselves undefiled membres of Christes bodye. Thirdelye for the mutuall societie, helpe, and coumfort, that the one oughte to have of thother, both in prosperitie and adversitie."

455 years is a long time -- and I'm sure that the concept of "mutual joy, help and comfort" goes back much further.

Procreation is a reason, but not the reason -- never has been. Again, you're conveniently ignoring the fact that, over the centuries, many married couples have been barren or have chosen to not have children, and their marriages are no less valid.

And now we have expanded our awareness to include the sacred nature of all loving relationships -- both heterosexual and homosexual.

Sojourner, I don't wish to make a blind assumption, so I'll ask: Are you an Episcopalian?

 

[sojourner]

Sojourner, I don't wish to make a blind assumption, so I'll ask: Are you an Episcopalian?

In my former life, yes. I was a candidate for Holy Orders.

 

[Sundance]

In my former life, yes. I was a candidate for Holy Orders.

What happened?

 

[sojourner]

What happened?

In the end, I needed a more progressive theology and structure. The ECUSA is great, and I have a great deal of love and respect for the church, but I needed to serve somewhere else.