Mormon officials to meet with gay group

[IEatFriedPikmin]

After decades of silence, LDS Church officials have agreed to meet with a gay Mormon support group that has sought to forge understanding between the faith's leaders and its gay members.

In a letter received last week, leaders of Affirmation were invited to meet with Fred M. Riley, commissioner of Family Services for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Harold C. Brown, the agency's past commissioner.

"We're pleased the church is opening up the possibility for dialogue," said Dave Melson, Affirmation's assistant executive director. "Affirmation has tried five or six times over the past 31 years to meet with church leaders. This is their second response."

Affirmation has repeatedly invited church leaders to meet or attend the group's annual conference, but the only response was a letter last year declining the conference invitation, Melson said.

In February, just three days after 80-year-old Thomas S. Monson was named president of the 13 million-member church, Affirmation petitioned the new leader to meet and begin an unprecedented conversation about gays in the church.

Riley's letter, a copy of which was obtained by The Associated Press, says he and Brown were asked by President Monson to meet with Affirmation on his behalf.

"We believe that it is always important to have the opportunity to be given better understanding of your points of view so that the church can appropriately understand your organization and how best to be helpful," Riley wrote.

The meeting is scheduled for August, Riley confirmed Sunday in an e-mail to The Associated Press.

Among the specifics Affirmation wants to address: the historical treatment of gays by the church, including recommendations for aversion therapies to "cure" homosexuality; recommendations for more effective counseling methods; ways to avoid family break-ups; and a change in the Honor Code at church-owned Brigham Young University that can result in expulsion for sexually active gay students. The same standard applies to straight students.

"None of this requires a change in doctrine," said Melson. "They're good for both gays and the church."

Melson, who spoke with Riley on Friday, said he asked if the meeting would result in any change or was simply an effort to placate Affirmation.

"They said that there won't be immediate changes, but they are definitely interested in helping ... that they are sincere," he said. "We would like to start to a dialogue, even if it isn't immediately fruitful."

For Affirmation, which has about 2,000 gay, lesbian and transgender members worldwide, an official meeting with anyone from the church organization is unprecedented.

Founded in secret by gay students at BYU in 1977, Affirmation has traditionally been ignored by church leaders, Melson said.

Latter-day Saints are taught that gay sex is a sin. Gays can continue to hold church callings if they remain celibate. Those who act on what the church calls "same-gender attraction" have sometimes been excommunicated.

Valerie Larabee, executive director of the Utah Pride Center in Salt Lake City, is hopeful.

"Any time that two groups come together there's a possibility, and I hope the possibility can lead to more understanding, more acceptance and less isolation," said Larabee.

Many gay, lesbian and transgender church members seek support from the center after failing to find the help they need at LDS Family Services, she said.

"Part of the reason Affirmation does their work is to build bridges," Larabee said. "This is definitely the building of a bridge ... sometimes that process is long and arduous."
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695268144,00.html

I heard about the letter written to the leaders of the church, but didn't think much would come out of it.

I am interested in seeing what will happen. I hope something beneficial can come from both sides. I believe this meeting also shows the compassion my church has, as well as their willingness to be open about the issue.

[Khaos]

Well here's hoping. Eventually I hope that religious institutions will realize that being gay isn't a sin at all and neither is acting on your "same sex attractions" in a committed monogamous relationship.

[IEatFriedPikmin]

I don't think this will go as far as saying "acting on it is ok" or "same-sex marriage is ok." I really hope other gay Mormons don't expect that.

I think that even if it is a minor, small, step, it will be in the right direction. And with religion and homosexuality being huge conflicting issues, any little bit counts.

[D3adcell]

Well here's hoping. Eventually I hope that religious institutions will realize that being gay isn't a sin at all and neither is acting on your "same sex attractions" in a committed monogamous relationship.

Umm well if you have the same believes as the church then it is a sin. If not then don't be a member of the church. "Sin" differs from religion to religion, such as eating pork or drinking alcohol, to dancing. So you can't decide yourself what is a sin and what isn't.

[Khaos]

The general Christian faith's "list" of what constitutes as a sin or not has changed greatly over time. Don't you think it's wrong to advise gays to not "be a member of the church" just because they don't believe that their love they feel towards someone else is a sin? People wonder why gay people seem to be, usually, anti-religion. I think it's because a lot of religions treat gay people like their sub-standard filth living in sin and destined for hell. (I have to say, the whole UR GOIN 2 HELL! thing is the best example of this Christian God=Love belief.) Of course, you do have your gay Christian, Muslim, etc. groups, but those groups are constantly badgered by other Christian groups. It just amazes me how much Christian denominations try to discourage others from joining their religion.

[Teh Roxor!]

No religion has ever successfully legitimized their views of homosexuality being sinful. To say that it's not what God wants is no better than a "just because" answer.

[frosty]

^the same can be said for the opposite as well. However Christianity does state that the body is a temple, and therefore any lifestyle that is unhealthy can be considered sinful. Being that sodomy is not a healthy way of getting your rocks off, it too can be said to be sinful. Therefore, for a a Christian (or any of it's various sects) to be openly gay and not consider their lifestyle sinful is a contradiction. This same thing can apply to a smoker with no intention of quitting, or a drunkard, etc. All are lifestyles that are proven harmful to the body in one way or another, and should be discouraged. If one wants to accept the faith as their own, they should move towards accepting that certain aspects of their lives have to go rather than embracing them as wholesome and holy and thinking they can change the faith to fit their needs.

You might as well be a pagan who wants to be Christian but is not willing to give up worshipping other gods as well. It's the same concept, trying to cut and paste various parts of a religion to "custom fit" your own. One has every right in the world to do so, but don't try to label yourself as another religion that doesn't support those ways if you choose that path.

There are some things that change over time, such as now being able to eat hooved animals due to improvements in refrigeration and such, but being gay now still exposes you to the same higher risk of STD's as it did then, so nothing has changed there. That isn't to say it is any worse than having an addiction. It isn't to say you should be shunned from the church instantly. What it does say is that you should move towards abandoning that lifestyle if you should choose to adopt that faith. otherwise, create your own or join up with a gay friendly faith.

[Bryan]

These queers just don't know when to stop, do they?

Damn the idea of everyone getting along! We need hate with our Jesus!

[Lucent Beam]

It's the same concept, trying to cut and paste various parts of a religion to "custom fit" your own. One has every right in the world to do so, but don't try to label yourself as another religion that doesn't support those ways if you choose that path.

What it does say is that you should move towards abandoning that lifestyle if you should choose to adopt that faith. otherwise, create your own or join up with a gay friendly faith.

Exactly. Don't expect an organized religion to change something the differs from your own belief just because you don't see the harm in it. It is not organized responsibility to condone any particular social action.

And in regard to Tex Roxor's "just because" comment.... pretty much everything in religion is "just because". Pretty much every rule, belief, etc is arbitrary... and so what? It's a person's right to decide to follow the religion and if you claim to be a follower then you are volunteering to abide by a set of arbitrary rules... and it's a person's right to not follow those arbitrary rules... but don't expect the organized religion to change it's mind along with you.

[Teh Roxor!]

Exactly. Don't expect an organized religion to change something the differs from your own belief just because you don't see the harm in it. It is not organized responsibility to condone any particular social action.

And in regard to Tex Roxor's "just because" comment.... pretty much everything in religion is "just because". Pretty much every rule, belief, etc is arbitrary... and so what?

Some have some practical worth, like the idea that killing is bad. My point was that rules against certain kinds of passion are not even on this level of having some practical use.

And no frosty, I don't buy the whole "homosexual activity is unhealthy" thing and the idea that being gay exposes you to more STDs is not at all sound. Even if it were true that homosexuals have more STDs than heterosexuals, that's not a result of their homosexuality. The real issue you should be worried about is reckless sexual promiscuity of any kind.

[frosty]

Fact: engaging in sodomy (as in anal sex) is a lot more likely to transmit a STD than vaginal intercourse.

proof?

well, after talking to a doctor about the subject a while back, they told me that it is pretty much impossible to have anal sex without the direct transfusion of blood taking place. reason being is, the anus was not designed for it. the tissues in there are far too fragile, and therefore always tear and bleed. now of course this doesn't apply to those who only do oral sex (as in lesbians), however there are also new oral variants of STD's that are now being detected in homosexuals and heterosexuals that practice oral sex often. these include ghonnorea (sp?) of the throat, as well as facial herpes.

fact is, no matter how you cut it, sodomy carries a higher risk of transmission of disease than vaginal intercourse. therefore having a lifestyle that revolves around it sexually is less healthy than those who rarely or do not at all practice it.

so, from a theological perspective, it would be a sinful way to live as described by many faiths, just like addictive drinking, drug use, over eating, etc. they're all in the same boat.

[Teh Roxor!]

Fact: engaging in sodomy (as in anal sex) is a lot more likely to transmit a STD than vaginal intercourse.

proof?

well, after talking to a doctor about the subject a while back, they told me that it is pretty much impossible to have anal sex without the direct transfusion of blood taking place. reason being is, the anus was not designed for it. the tissues in there are far too fragile, and therefore always tear and bleed. now of course this doesn't apply to those who only do oral sex (as in lesbians), however there are also new oral variants of STD's that are now being detected in homosexuals and heterosexuals that practice oral sex often. these include ghonnorea (sp?) of the throat, as well as facial herpes.

fact is, no matter how you cut it, sodomy carries a higher risk of transmission of disease than vaginal intercourse. therefore having a lifestyle that revolves around it sexually is less healthy than those who rarely or do not at all practice it.

so, from a theological perspective, it would be a sinful way to live as described by many faiths, just like addictive drinking, drug use, over eating, etc. they're all in the same boat.
A pair of monogamous homosexuals are not going to give one another STDs for the same reason a monogamous heterosexual couple won't, no matter how much blood is involved. You haven't made it clear to me why your (or perhaps, God's) problem isn't instead with reckless promiscuity than with sodomy. Also, if we're going to condemn activities based on how likely you are to get STDs then why isn't careful promiscuity with any variety of partner okay? If one is careful, the chances of contracting an STD go down quite a bit, yes?

I have no problem with people of faith holding certain beliefs, but you really can't explain some of these ideas with logic or practicality, and you cheapen your own faith by trying. Faith isn't based on logic or evidence, as you know.

EDIT: To be sure there's no misunderstanding, I'm not trying to be inflammatory. This can be a touchy subject, but you need to know that I respect everyone here if not always everyone's ideas.

[Bryan]

I understand what frosty is saying. And medically, he is correct. Anal sex does have a higher rate of transmitting STIs than vaginal, manual, or oral.

But I think Rox does have a good idea of where it really becomes an issue; with promiscuity. Promiscuity, no matter what, will make you more likely to contract an STI -- Regardless of what kind of sexual contact you're having.

I think it is very possible that there are many monogamous homosexual couples of many varieties out there. I'm sure many of them, if not most, will never contract an STI of any type for that very reason.

On a side note, I also believe that it is very hypocritical of any Christian to look down on someone for being a heavy drinker, smoker, cocksucker, video game player, or whatever. Concern is one thing, but there's a fine line. That isn't what the Bible teaches, and I will not listen to incorrect interpretations of "turning the other cheek" without mentioning my piece on how arrogant that is.

Please also note that this sidebar is not directed to anyone specifically. It's just a pet peeve of mine, and it makes any Christian no more on the ball than any of the people that may fall into the aforementioned list. The Christian God is a forgiving, loving, and just god. Too often do many Christians slip into some weird fantasy that it is their position to make assertions and judgements of others based on the things that they do. It's bullshit.

Leave the judgement to the Judge.

[Khaos]

If you do have an STD, then yes, technically it can be transferred easier through anal intercourse than other types. But the church's real interest should be promiscuity. Being gay doesn't make you more at risk for STDs; being promiscuous does. A lot of gay people don't even have anal sex. Let's try this again:

the same can be said for the opposite as well. However Christianity does state that the body is a temple, and therefore any lifestyle that is unhealthy can be considered sinful. Being that promiscuity is not a healthy way of getting your rocks off, it too can be said to be sinful. Therefore, for a a Christian (or any of it's various sects) to be openly promiscuous and not consider their lifestyle sinful is a contradiction. This same thing can apply to a smoker with no intention of quitting, or a drunkard, etc. All are lifestyles that are proven harmful to the body in one way or another, and should be discouraged. If one wants to accept the faith as their own, they should move towards accepting that certain aspects of their lives have to go rather than embracing them as wholesome and holy and thinking they can change the faith to fit their needs.

You might as well be a pagan who wants to be Christian but is not willing to give up worshipping other gods as well. It's the same concept, trying to cut and paste various parts of a religion to "custom fit" your own. One has every right in the world to do so, but don't try to label yourself as another religion that doesn't support those ways if you choose that path.

There are some things that change over time, such as now being able to eat hooved animals due to improvements in refrigeration and such, but being promiscuous now still exposes you to the same higher risk of STD's as it did then, so nothing has changed there. That isn't to say it is any worse than having an addiction. It isn't to say you should be shunned from the church instantly. What it does say is that you should move towards abandoning that lifestyle if you should choose to adopt that faith. otherwise, create your own or join up with a promiscuous friendly faith.

See, I think your problem is that you are using gay as a synonym for promiscuity. Not all gays are promiscuous. Hell, many gays don't even have sex and choose to be involved in relationships that don't involve any sex at all. Being gay isn't just having gay sex. Being gay is having a emotional-sexual attraction to the same sex. And that's not a "lifestyle choice" you can make. It's something that you are either born with or develop as a small child (psychologists and biologists are still uncertain), and it is not possible to change it. It's stupid that the church condemns a group of people because of their sexual orientation who have no control over it and shuns them from the church. That's just like banning blacks from church on the grounds that being black puts you at higher risk for getting STDs. "But they should stop living the black lifestyle!"

EDIT: When it all comes around, the Christian faith's mission should be to go up against promiscuity, not being gay. Gay is something you are and cannot change, just like being black, left-handed, etc. If you think otherwise, you're just plain wrong. There's over 30 years of empirical psychological studies to back up that fact. If there was a correlation between left-handed individuals and promiscuity, the church wouldn't say "Well, being left-handed is a sin and not compatible with the Christian faith." No, they would condemn promiscuity. But the Christian faith is severly misled. And in that process, they automatically alienate 7-10% of the world population. I thought that, from a Christian perspective, turning someone away from Jesus was a grave sin. But because a lot of Christians don't understand what they're talking about, they rebuff the gay population away from their faith.

[IEatFriedPikmin]

^agreed.

But I think that gay people tend to be more promiscuous... however, I think if same-sex marriage were to occur, we would see lower rates in STDs and stuff

[kaphwan]

I'm trying to see how being homosexual and respecting my body are mutually exclusive.

I fucked around for a little while. I realised how hollow that existence is, so now I'm set for either out-and-out abstinence or exclusive monogamy with a partner I care about.

It just seems like in the eyes of most Christians, that's no different from barebacking regularly and with multiple anonymous partners, and that's really frustrating.

[Bryan]

It has to get to the point where you give up worrying about it, though.

[Daddy Tryptamine]

Sure, it could be said that you can't mold religion until it suits your particular convictions. But then how did it come about in the first place?

[frosty]

^depends on which religion you are talking about. the fact is, if you change a religion to suit your own needs, it is no longer that religion. it is a new creation based on that religion. so, therefore you cannot claim to be of that faith, because you have twisted it into your own if you make any modifications.

@ khaos, I am not trying to swap out promiscuity with anything here, though the 2 together are a recipe for disaster. also, I am not talking exclusively about anal sex, as oral sex also has a high risk factor for transmittal of disease. however, you seem to have missed the point entirely. What I am getting at is, if it is a lifestyle that revolves around an activity that isn't exactly healthy and carries a higher risk for transmitting disease, it goes against treating the body as a temple. even in monogamous relationships, it still isn't good for you to take part in sodomy. Have I ever recieved a blow job? sure. I've even gone down on a couple chicks. I do not claim to be able to cast the first stone. however, I do realize that it is a riskier way of having sex and I wouldn't go so far as to base my sex life around such an activity. Homosexuals, unless they want to rely on hand jobs, have no choice.

Now, you can say they're always that way and can never change, but I totally disagree. I've seen straight people turn gay and the other way around, so I refuse to buy that for a minute. Even if it were true, the same psychs out there also say the same about serial killers or cleptomaniacs, saying they are naturally wired for such, though it doesn't in any way validate their actions. (and before you take that out of context, I'm not likening the two in any way, I'm simply pointing out that a natural inclination to behave a certain way doesn't in any way justify it).

In the end, if you want to believe in a king of the queens, go right ahead. but, don't call it christianity. Look at other variations of the religion. they don't even do that. we have jehova's witnesses and mormons, who both put their own spin on christianity, yet they do not identify themselves as such. that's what the whole point of this is. do not try to take a religion and custom fit it to your needs, then still say you follow that faith. you do not. you follow your (and others as well)'s faith. organize and create another faith, but don't masquerade as something you are not.

[Bryan]

I appreciate what you're saying, but that's a very rigid interpretation.

[frosty]

perhaps, but from a design standpoint, I see the human body as having been obviously designed for heterosexual intercourse. any other way is like trying to shove the square block in the circle hole... it may be possible, but it would have to be forced via unnatural means. as such, reliance on these means exclusively for sexual gratification seems blasphemous as it goes against the blueprint for the human body. Now this is of course a subjective interpretation, but in cases like this that's all we have to go by. As such, I do not claim to be right over anyone else in this thread, but I have to stick by my view of things as nobody else in this thread can claim to be right either. it's all about the individual's interpretation. if I designed a creature, and I gave it the gift of love and sex, and I saw those creatures using that gift in a way that wasn't intended and which carried higher health risks, I wouldn't be a happy camper. doesn't mean I'd banish them to burn for eternity... but I wouldn't exactly be willing to shower them with blessings either. this doesn't only apply to homosexuals, but the promiscuous as well. Even if I saw a straight couple that was shoving wine bottles up each other's asses and shaking them up as a means of getting their rocks off... I'd still be an unhappy god. Same applies for the people who fuck 5 different people a week. It isn't solely about homosexuality, it's simply taking what I view as a divine gift and abusing it... some who get desensitized to the point to where they have to rely on such abuse to even get off. the song stinkfist by tool touches on that subject...

"constant over-stimulation numbs me, but I will not want you any other way"

"how can this mean anything to me, if I can feel anything at all?"

"I'll keep digging, till' I feel something!"

"elbow deep within the borderline, this may hurt a little but it's something you'll get used to... relax, turn around and take my hand"

[Media]

It's your lumping of homosexuals with the likes of couples shoving wine bottles up each other's asses and whores that is (beyond arguability) wrong.

Do you consider marijuana smoke more healthy for you than oxygen? If you believe in a God, he designed the human body to eat, drink, breathe, and reproduce. The human body's layout, or "blueprint" as you would have it, indicates no natural inclination or need to smoke marijuana - or inahle any other non-atmospheric air, for that matter. Still, you and I both do.

I don't understand how one can so avidly defend one cause that completely defies the logic behind another cause he opposes.

[Media]

Also, I think you fail to understand that all code within religion is mortal interpretation, and therefore meant to breathe in the sense the Constitution does.

[frosty]

actually i prefer to eat or vaporize my bud when possible, but that is beside the point. as i said, i never claim to be able to cast the first stone. the difference being that i am willing to accept that i am doing wrong when i do things that put my health at risk, rather than try to pass it off as natural. then again, i could always claim i was born a pot smoker...that i didn't choose to take that first and every subsequent toke...but you and i both know that i'd be full of shit.

as for breathing room for religious code... sure, for things like eating pork since we have refridgerators now, but there is still the same if not greater health risk today as there always was for homosexuality, promiscuity, etc... so there is no need for acception.

that said, should you choose to worship with such an exception, go ahead. just make sure to align yourself with a faith that also does so rather than try to claim a faith you do not actually follow. that's the main point. all the rest is subjective interpretation which is useless to debate as neither side can produce definitive proof.

[Khaos]

It's still being studied extensively whether people are born gay or not (i.e. one current theory is hormone levels in the uterus affect sexual orientation), but one thing we do know is people have absolutely no conscious control over it. This thread isn't about gay sex (I've met many gays who don't practice anal sex, and some who are just celibate), but whether the Mormon church, and, indirectly, any church, should deny people the privelege of worshipping with other churchgoers simply because they have the "wrong" sexual orientation and are "practicing" it. These churches are denying 7%-10% of the population from becoming Christian because of something people cannot change. Of course, there are gay-friendly churches, but they have a very hard time actually attracting gay members, because so many gay people have been burned by the Christian faith that a lot of us are just extremely weary and wary of Christianity in general.

EDIT: I am recently reminded of a conversation me and my mother were having the other day. At one point, she condemned the general Christian view on gays saying "How dare they turn others away from the Christian faith and cause them to stumble!" She went on to explain that if a Christian person does something to cause a gay person to turn away from Christianity, they're responsible for that person if they go to Hell, because that person had a chance to know Christ but was turned away simply because of their gender preference. Here in Pensacola, recently there was a gay Christian couple who wanted to attend services at one of our big churches. Many people in the congregation got in a big uproar over it, speeches were made, even some filthy specific words were said, and the couple left that church after a couple services. That congregation better hope that the couple is attending another Christian church (we have only one gay-friendly church in the area), because, by their beliefs, they may be responsible to their god for turning that couple away in hate and fear.

[kaphwan]

Cue a reply about how letting gays into your church is like letting murderers, paedophiles etc into church and something about how "because you can't choose it doesn't mean that it's morally correct".

This topic gets old rly quickly.

[Media]

actually i prefer to eat or vaporize my bud when possible, but that is beside the point. as i said, i never claim to be able to cast the first stone. the difference being that i am willing to accept that i am doing wrong when i do things that put my health at risk, rather than try to pass it off as natural. then again, i could always claim i was born a pot smoker...that i didn't choose to take that first and every subsequent toke...but you and i both know that i'd be full of shit.

as for breathing room for religious code... sure, for things like eating pork since we have refridgerators now, but there is still the same if not greater health risk today as there always was for homosexuality, promiscuity, etc... so there is no need for acception.

that said, should you choose to worship with such an exception, go ahead. just make sure to align yourself with a faith that also does so rather than try to claim a faith you do not actually follow. that's the main point. all the rest is subjective interpretation which is useless to debate as neither side can produce definitive proof.

On the subject of faith, I worship with none. I think that gives me a bit of a more objective view on such subjects as this one, and I'm telling you your arguement is flawed based on your history. I've seen you passionately defend your marijuana use, and whether or not you're casting the second, third, or fourth stone, you're still demonstrating hypocrisy. As such, you really have no right to call yourself a Christian either (based on your rejection of "exceptions".)

Even if you were to be right, and homosexuality was a moral wrong and sin against the church, you'd still be no Christian in your rejection of the major Forgiveness principle. Murderers are allowed in the church.

[frosty]

You are wrong. I have never once said homosexuals should not be welcome in the church. Nor have I ever said marijuana use should keep me from it. Let me explain...

For a homosexual to come into a church and take on the faith is fine. However, it isn't fine for them to take on the faith and not recognize their lifestyle as sinful. That would be changing the faith into something completely different. Now, I on the other hand actually recognize that smoking harms my body and is sinful, which is why I keep it to a minimum (as I said before, my preferred method is eating or vaporizing, however they both aren't exactly cost effective. and since we live under prohibition, I can't always afford to not smoke and pay street prices for the drug). Also, I smoke very little, to the point to where I probably do more damage to my lungs driving to work breathing in pollution per day than I do smoking. I know that I sin all the time, every day, several times a day, just like every other christian, priest, etc. does. Smoking a joint is no more harmful than eating a big mac, yet I still understand that I don't live in accordance with god's word at all times and I occasionally take the time to acknowledge that fact via prayer and ask for forgiveness.

That's what I'm getting at here. It isn't about them or anyone else not being welcome in the church, otherwise christ wouldn't have ran around with a bunch of murderers and prostitutes. That isn't what the faith is about. What it is about is TRYING your best to follow it's word, and asking forgiveness when you do not. If you take on a faith, follow it. don't try to custom mold it to your liking and still say you follow the faith.


And kappy... I gotta agree with you man. No matter what, as I said in my last post, neither side can claim to hold any objective truth, as we as humans only know in part and therefore have to form opinions based upon our experiences in life. It's far too much of a "gray area" for anyone to even bother debating. Whether or not homosexuality is morally correct isn't even what this debate is about, though some can't see it that way. What it is about is whether or not you can mold a faith to your liking. It would be like joining the military, but on the condition that you did not have to shoot anyone because you didn't believe in war. Regardless, when you join up you sign over the right to make such a decision, and if Uncle Sam wants you on the front lines, that's what he gets. Get what I'm saying here? If you want to be a Christian, by all means do so. But just be sure to actually follow the faith's beliefs unconditionally.

[kaphwan]

And kappy... I gotta agree with you man. No matter what, as I said in my last post, neither side can claim to hold any objective truth, as we as humans only know in part and therefore have to form opinions based upon our experiences in life. It's far too much of a "gray area" for anyone to even bother debating. Whether or not homosexuality is morally correct isn't even what this debate is about, though some can't see it that way. What it is about is whether or not you can mold a faith to your liking. It would be like joining the military, but on the condition that you did not have to shoot anyone because you didn't believe in war. Regardless, when you join up you sign over the right to make such a decision, and if Uncle Sam wants you on the front lines, that's what he gets. Get what I'm saying here? If you want to be a Christian, by all means do so. But just be sure to actually follow the faith's beliefs unconditionally.

I think it's time, once and for all, that we reach a consensus point.

I completely agree with what you're saying here about the faith. Even if it were shown that homosexuals can't change their orientation, you can still define a behaviour as a sin. From what I understand, restricting yourself to either complete celibacy or, as you put it, rely only on handjobs (unsure whether you think that's sinful since- similar enough to masturbation to be considered healthy or is it the fact that you're gratifying yourself without conceptual powers that makes it sinful?), and being in a homosexual relationship aren't mutually exclusive. It's difficult, but if you want to be a Mormon, and being a Mormon means no buttsecks olol, then no buttsecks olol.

The love without sex, I'm not sure whether or not you consider it a sin. You've presented some good arguments for the sex, but I think we've always skirted over the love. So you don't have to answer, but if you want to, I'm interested since I'm now looking to see exactly where you're coming from and try to understand it.

We conflate the issue of whether homosexual acts in and of themselves are sinful with the issue of whether faith is malleable to human will sometimes. So onto the former in that sentence. I agree to agree to disagree here. With regard to TRYING your best to follow the code, basically in my example I've taken on celibacy, which I guess is what you'd have me do. The fact that when I can be with a guy to whom I'd commit nothing short of a lifetime, the behaviour becomes okay to me is where we part company. Since making that vow, I've fallen short a few times, but I've taken out time to ask for forgiveness and really just think about how I can prevent it from continuing. Realising that you're not perfect but doing your honest-to-goodness darndest to be as perfect as mortally possible isn't just how I see a Christian's idea of moral goals, it's a big attraction to the religion in the first place.

Something else is the question of whether one interpretation of Scripture is better than another. The faith is based on the books of divine revelations, and if how we see the books is mistaken and it can be shown, then the faith must change since it logically follows from the seeing. The idea that calls into question the "being a Mormon means no buttsecks olol" above. I'm just not gonna touch this, since we already agree on the gray areas being gray areas. I'm not sure if it's grey or gray. *shrug*. What one must really be careful about here is that the objections pointed out in scriptural interpretations are well-founded objections to do with consistency, historical evidence and comparable works at the time (especially in the realm of translation), instead of just being the "mold the faith" fallacy above.

Your beliefs aren't the same as mine, and I don't think either of us are really that bothered by that fact.

I think that if we'd spent as much time in a guitar thread as we've spent in threads about faggotry over the years, we'd have gotten a lot more out of it. :P

[frosty]

well, my views on the love end of it goes as such...

take the 3 types of love:

philios - brotherly love
agape - unconditional love
eros - erotic love

there is no sin whatsoever, no matter what the religion, of loving someone via the first 2 types. it's the last one where the debate lies.


I agree about the guitar part...


honestly a person's sexuality matters very little to me. what does piss me off is someone looking at me as a bad or ignorant person because I feel the way I do about sexuality, especially since they cannot prove their side any more than I can mine. it's simply one of those things that just can't be debated, it has to be left to individual interpretation. that is why I've always been against law regulating sexuality (as long as it's between 2 adult humans, it's their business).

[Media]

What I can prove is that homosexuality isn't a choice (save those types of people that 'give up' on the opposite sex, but that's just stupid), and should therefore not be regarded anymore of a sin than being born black (you're at a higher risk for sickle cell anaemia if you're of African descent). Neither of these are choices, and even still shouldn't be regarded as blotches on a person's mind and/or spiritual health. They are not sinning.

You can go ahead and say that homosexuals who have sex before marriage are sinners, fine. But those who don't are not committing any sort of sin, and therefore sexually active homosexuals (confined to marriage) shouldn't be persecuted for being such.

You completely missed my point about religious code being meant to breathe. During the very primitive societal times in which they were originally concieved, homosexuality was not yet recognized as a normalcy. You have to accept that some words in the Bible reflect the authors' view of what sort of society would please their God. You're a Christian, not a Jew, and you should recognize/abide by the New Testament a lot more than you are.

[Khaos]

It should also be pointed out that even the New Testament is very vague on homosexuality. The words that are usually translated to homosexual in English Bibles are actually words that, put into historical context, probably spoke against pederasty or something quite different. The Bible says nothing at all about homosexual relationships, but only mentions specific acts where sex, whether gay or straight, is unacceptable.

So by these arguments, at the strictest point, gay couples are not banned by the Bible if, A) they are celibate or B) they restrict themselves to handjobs. Regardless, a congregation cannot determine what the gay couple is doing in their private lives, so should a church that has no biblical basis for banning gay couples do so? (value/moral argument here) I guess what I am speaking against is a blanket ban on all gay people simply for being gay. Sure, if their individual church teaches gay sex is wrong, that's fine (I would definitely have a problem with that [double standard], but it's a step forward). But for a church to ban members because of a quality they cannot change, that's wrong.

[frosty]

You cannot prove homosexuality is natural. Don't even try to say you can. You can reference studies that may show that a person may be more inclined to show homosexual behavior than another, but you CANNOT prove that someone is born gay. Period. In 1993, Dean Hamer of the National Cancer Institute claimed to have found a genetic link to homosexuality. Yet in 1999, the results of an intensive study by the University of Western Ontario found that Hamer was in error. The fact is that after all the attempts to show a genetic cause for homosexuality, no such genetic cause has been found.

As for the bible, it is pretty specific about men who lay with men and women who lay with women not inheriting god's kingdom, so I don't buy that either. The only translation issue you reference is soddom and gomorrah, where the mob of men asked for some dudes to be turned over to them so they could "know" them, and that (among other things) is what caused god to destroy the cities. the word know is debated as to it's meaning, but it is hardly the only mention against homosexuality.

The men of Sodom and Gomorrah were the first recorded in the Bible to face punishment for their sexual perversion. In Genesis chapter 19, we find two angels that pay a visit to Lot’s home in Sodom. In verse four, we find that “all the men from every part of Sodom” surrounded Lot’s house, and told Lot to bring out his visitors “so that we can have sex with them.” The pro-homosexual revisionist argues that the wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah was that the residents wanted to commit an act of rape. That the rape would have been homosexual is not an issue, according to their argument. However, Jude 7 indicates that Sodom and Gomorrah’s punishment was due to their sexual perversion. Their sin was not simply one of violence (rape) but of sexual immorality (homosexuality). As further evidence of the sinful nature of homosexuality, Leviticus 18:22, and 20:13 both describe homosexuality as “an abomination.”

Contrary to the opinions of some, the Old Testament is not the only place in the Bible that condemns homosexuality. We previously mentioned Hebrews 13:4, where Paul exhorted us to honor the marriage bed and keep it pure. In Romans 1:26-27 Paul is very specific, “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.” In 1 Corinthians 6:9, Paul wrote, “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.” The Greek word from which the King James Bible gets the word “effeminate” is malakos, which literally means something soft to the touch, but is used as a negative metaphor to refer to a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man. The “abusers of themselves with mankind” are those men who engage in unnatural sexual relations with other men – homosexuals. That is also how the NASB, the NKJV, and the NIV translate that verse. Also in the New Testament is verse 7 from the book of Jude, defining exactly why Sodom and Gomorrah were punished – homosexuality.

Fact is, Christians follow ALL of the bible, not just the new testament. However, you have to use your own judgment to decide which laws still apply and which do not (such as eating meat from hooved animals). If there is a valid logical reason for the law to not be followed anymore, such as refrigeration allowing for the safe consumption of those meats, then one can choose to not follow it. However, in the case of homosexuality, there is no such reason, so it still stands if you choose to follow the faith.

[Viper]

Frosty, why the hell would someone choose to prefer a gender that would cause them great social and personal harm when, as you suggest, they can prefer their opposite gender instead? Why would so many millions over the years accepted persecution, excommunication, pain, suffering....death when such an obvious alternative and simply choosing to like the opposite gender supposedly exists?

To proclaim people aren't born with specific preferences is to suggest your own preferences as being that of your own choosing. I didn't choose to prefer certain colors over others, or choose to have a certain personality traits over others, or choose to desire brunettes over blondes....I just do.

You can't choose to desire men anymore than gay men can choose to desire women.

[Media]

I hate to say this, but I have a lot more proof that men and women are born with a homosexual preference than you have that every single word in the Bible is God's word. Undress the most attractive woman, spread her legs open, and hold her in front of a gay man. No erection will ensue. I can't just choose to no longer find a woman attractive. It is my human nature, as a straight male, to have a physical attraction towards women. Physicality is hardly arguable, and if a man has no sexual response to a woman but does to a man, he is gay. That sounds like a physical inclination to me.

Also, I never said that you, as a Christian, should only follow the New Testament. I was telling you that you, as a Christian, obviously need to look at which parts of the Bible you're picking and choosing from. Much of the New Testament contradicts the Old Testaments, almost in the form of corrections or updates. (e.g. Old Testament - "I am a jealous god, thou shalt not...", New Testament (eight evil thoughts which were revised by the church as Seven Deadly Sins) includes "envy"). Jesus taught forgiveness and loving his neighbor, as opposed to the strict, bureaucratic God of the Old Testament. That's why Christianity and Judaism have a thicker line between them than one being the other with "more added on". The New Testament essentially revises some aspects of the Old Testament. I understand you referenced very short, middle-of-the-paragraph type of vague lines from the New Testament, but even at that point, I still maintain that the Bible is written by men, and is meant to inspire a more simple, overall sort of guideline and belief in God to it's believers. It is a fact that the Bible has been more than tampered with through translation over time. Every single little detail does not damn it's some-few-thousands-of-years later followers for contradicting a few of its words beyond their control, especially those who are the exact type of PEOPLE (the type of person you are is not defined by who you fall in love with) that the Christian faith encourages us all to be.

[IEatFriedPikmin]

I agree that there is no real evidence that people are born with it, but I do know that it is not a choice at all for most. There can be several factors and combinations that can cause it. A lot of religious organizations (including Mormonism) are starting to see this and agree with it, although most are against acting on the feelings.

[goku2057]

I agree with most of you. Homosexuality is not a choice. You are, or you aren't. It's not learned.

Frosty, how can they prove that being heterosexual isn't genetic? Does everyone choose to not be gay? I'm prety sure I didn't wake up one morning and say, "Hey, I think i'll like women sexually today."

[LaLiLuLeLo]

I understand what frosty is saying. And medically, he is correct. Anal sex does have a higher rate of transmitting STIs than vaginal, manual, or oral.

But I think Rox does have a good idea of where it really becomes an issue; with promiscuity. Promiscuity, no matter what, will make you more likely to contract an STI -- Regardless of what kind of sexual contact you're having.

I think it is very possible that there are many monogamous homosexual couples of many varieties out there. I'm sure many of them, if not most, will never contract an STI of any type for that very reason.

On a side note, I also believe that it is very hypocritical of any Christian to look down on someone for being a heavy drinker, smoker, cocksucker, video game player, or whatever. Concern is one thing, but there's a fine line. That isn't what the Bible teaches, and I will not listen to incorrect interpretations of "turning the other cheek" without mentioning my piece on how arrogant that is.

Please also note that this sidebar is not directed to anyone specifically. It's just a pet peeve of mine, and it makes any Christian no more on the ball than any of the people that may fall into the aforementioned list. The Christian God is a forgiving, loving, and just god. Too often do many Christians slip into some weird fantasy that it is their position to make assertions and judgements of others based on the things that they do. It's bullshit.

Leave the judgement to the Judge.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v368/Lalilulelo/gifs/247e0c8881aa752c189b6cf337b4.gif

[Omega]

I believe that participating in the homosexual lifestyle is a sin and I base that belief on scripture that I believe to be the inerrant Word of Y'hovah. But we humans tend to rank sins on a scale of mild to evil. According to scripture, all have sinned and come short of the glory of Y'hovah.

Master Y'shua taught "but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart." (Mt 5:28)

This teaching as well as others indicate that our sins originate as intentions in our heart. And we can decide to either act/dwell on those intentions or to turn away.

Based on this teaching, I am a chronic adulterer. And I am no better or no worse a sinner than someone participating in homosexual acts. I am also guilty of a multitude of other sins. But I cannot expect to change people's beliefs in the Way of Y'shua to fit my sins. I cannot expect to seek justification for my actions this way.

Some may be prompted to debate me on the authenticity of scripture or the authenticity of Y'shuan beliefs and philosophy but that is another topic for another time.

I think its great that the Mormon church is reaching out like this instead of shunning it. As long as they don't compromise their beliefs (based on scripture) they are doing the right thing by reaching out.

Is there no such thing as reciprocal tolerance? Its a double-standard to demand tolerance from conservative perspectives without affording tolerance for their beliefs as well.

If anyone would like to discuss this with me further or would like to see scriptural references please send me a private message.

[Khaos]

I just don't understand how people can claim that the Bible is obvious and clear on its condemnation of homosexuality. You guys just don't study your Bible very well, I suppose. The English translation[/b] does have some clear words when dealing with homosexuality, but please do some research on the original Greek and Hebrew words used in those passages that are thought to condemn gays. The truth is, such passages are unclear and vague. Scholars aren't even 100% sure of what some of the words actually mean. But of course, translators and biased Bible scholars have taken unclear words and translated them according to their will.

Sure, you can believe that the Word of God is inerrant, but read the original Word of God. Don't read some error-full, human translated document and take it as 100% truth. Humans aren't perfect; we cannot possibly preserve every exact meaning and intention of the Word when it is translated into a different language and "improved" upon.

Unless you can prove to me 100% that the words used in those passages undoubtedly refer to monogamous homosexual relationships (not homosexual rape, etc), I will pass off your [i]absolute conviction that the Bible condems gays as homophobia. I'm not perfect; maybe I am wrong. But if I am mistaken, explain it to me with clear evidence.

Another point also: If homosexual behavior is condemned in the Bible, what about gay relationships in which both participating adults are celibate?

And frosty, by referring to a "quality which cannot be changed" I never necessarily said homosexuality is natural. The problem with calling things natural or unnatural is just the vagueness of the definition of naturalness. So I stay away from using this very vague term. I cannot claim homosexuality is any more natural than you can claim it is unnatural.

Is there no such thing as reciprocal tolerance? Its a double-standard to demand tolerance from conservative perspectives without affording tolerance for their beliefs as well.I tolerate many beliefs of others that I don't necessarily believe in myself, but I require that other views I tolerate are atleast backed by some evidence or pure conviction and are certainly not some form of belief made to justify some sort of hate or discrimination.

[Omega]

but I require that other views I tolerate are atleast backed by some evidence or pure conviction
That doesn't sound very tolerant.

[IEatFriedPikmin]

A long-term celibate relationship? I don't see that working, but I guess that is possible. It's something I have desired in the past, I'll admit.

[Khaos]

That doesn't sound very tolerant.

It sounds very tolerant to me. Maybe you aren't understanding me. For example, I will tolerate Creationist beliefs for example, since the religious text does seem to use clear language in its original language to describe Creation. I won't tolerate, however, a view that says, for example, the world will end in 2000 because "God told me so." It's obviously dumb. My requirement is that you hold your view sincerely, without some ulterior motive, and that your view is backed by some form of source (purely convicted), whether it be the Bible or a scientific text. People who make crap up and hold it as fact don't fall under that.