Comments on: What makes it different?

By: johnny

johnny — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 11:34:13 +0000

ovLQg2 Thanks for good post

By: Crystal

Crystal — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 20:19:00 +0000

Yes, we are to love one another, but we are not to condone sin. This does not equate hate, intolerance or bigotry. Many religions state that homosexuality is a sin. Does that mean that every person who adhere’s to the teaching’s of their religion are extreme right wing wackos or crazy fundamentalists? I think not. I would challenge that position. It means they have codes of morality that they are following. Intolerance is being directed towards them. How do you love somebody that is practicing a sin? Well, we are all sinners. Let’s not lump homosexuality as the only sin to touch this world. There is adultery, divorce, fornication, theft, murder, and the list could go on endlessly. My point is, nobody is in a position to judge another’s sin. Where this should stop is having the sin taught as right to our children. SB777 seeks the right of the gay community to teach morality to California’s children. They are not qualified to do that. I, as an American, celebrate their right to choose their lifestyle. I, as a Christian, draw the line when they want access to the public school system to teach all children their code of morality.

By: lamonte

lamonte — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 02:00:06 +0000

Can I just state that the initial premise of this post had nothing to do with the rightness or wrongness of homosexual behavior but rather it was a suggestion, with evidence , that we (meaning Mormons, or Christians or straight people or whomever) sometimes have a double standard for practicing the Lord’s commandment to “Love one another.”

By: Mark B.

Mark B. — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 23:41:29 +0000

That church leaders in discussing homosexual behavior rely on the “no sex outside marriage” standard should provide some corrective to the discussion in the high priests group–that standard puts all sex acts outside marriage (whether heterosexual or homosexual) in the same category, but doesn’t reserve a hotter ring in hell for homosexual rather than heterosexual acts. (Those hotter rings appear to be reserved for those whose actions also include the breaking of covenants, whether the endowment or marriage.)

It’s quite a leap, however, to suggest that a decision by Canada or the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is the harbinger of a change in the church’s understanding of marriage, and that a failure by other jurisdictions to follow their leads is somehow the “enemy” that prevents gays from marrying and therefore keeping the commandment.

By: Chris Williams

Chris Williams — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 22:07:35 +0000

Rusty,

Got it. Thanks.

By: Rusty

Rusty — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 21:23:46 +0000

In other words, if you’re the kind of person that will say bigotted things about homosexuals in church then you’re also likely to be the kind of person that thinks everyone (in the church and out) agrees with your definition of sin.

By: Rusty

Rusty — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 21:17:42 +0000

Chris,
I know where you (and others) stand on this. What I was saying is that in the eyes of the person saying these things the homosexual isn’t admitting their sin.

By: Chris Williams

Chris Williams — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 21:04:28 +0000

Rusty: In other words, these men have compassion on the person who wants to change their ’sinful’ behavior but when someone doesn’t even admit that their behavior is sinful then it’s more difficult to have ‘compassion’ on that person.

I’m late to this discussion, but I wanted to react to this by pointing out that when you say that homosexuals won’t even “admit” that their behavior is sinful, you are suggesting that we know it is, but just don’t want to ‘fess up. In fact, many of us who are gay genuinely believe that homosexual behavior is no more inherently sinful than heterosexual behvior. In other words, we have nothing to admit.

By: Nick Literski

Nick Literski — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 19:00:20 +0000

#57 bbell:
Over the past several years, LDS leaders have consistently claimed that homosexual intimacy is wrong specifically because it falls under the category of sex outside marriage. Mormonism further teaches that we will not be held accountable for obedience to a commandment, when obedience is prevented by our “enemies.” At the present time, committed same-sex partners are prevented from legally marrying in the United States, unless they are existing residents of the Commonwealth of Massachussetts. If committed same-sex couples travel to a foreign country (such as Canada) and are legally married in that jurisdiction, their marriage is not legally recognized in most U.S. jurisdictions.

The situation is not as “black and white” as you might suppose. My former wife served a mission in Ireland, during a time when the Catholic-inspired civil law completely prohibited divorce. It was quite common to find heterosexual couples who cohabitated without the benefit of marriage for many years, because one or both partners had a previous marriage, which could not legally be dissolved, thus the “new” couple could not legally marry. It may surprise you to know that the LDS church routinely allowed the baptism of these persons, realizing that the couple remained unmarried (and yes, sexually intimate) only because they were legally prohibited from marrying.

Here in the U.S., I am personally aware of at least one situation where a gay member of the LDS church, who attends regularly but does not hold a calling or temple recommend, was threatened with disciplinary action, based upon his intimate relations with his partner of several years. He and his partner happen to have travelled to Canada to be legally married in that jurisdiction, quite some time ago. This presents a challenge, of course, to the LDS reasoning that homosexual intimacy is wrong due to the lack of marriage between the partners. If disciplinary action is taken, this will “put the lie” to that reasoning, making it appear insincere, at best. Further, the situation has garnered a certain amount of publicity. As you may know, stake presidents routinely request and receive guidance from higher authorities in unusual situations. It is significant, therefore, that the matter has been quietly dropped.

I really do understand your commitment to the teachings of LDS leaders, bbell. I was once at least as militant as you are, and even more so. With age and experience, however, I learned that few things are as clear and unquestionable as they initially appear.

By: bbell

bbell — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 17:15:16 +0000

Tracy,

I regret to inform you that your understanding of the LOC is wrong. Who taught you this? “The LOC arguement doesn’t hold up with me- my uncle is breaking the LOC with his partner of over a decade because he is not legally allowed to make his partnership legal. I’m not interested in opening the SSM can of worms, however, it is a fact, if they could be legally bound, they would be. Then, the LOC arguement would be mute.” This is simply false.

Any homosexual sex is a violation of the LOC whether between Massachussetts married Lesbians and 2 guys in a bathhouse who never met before.

Its that simple.