The path for homosexuals in LDS theology

[cald22well]

People have gone on about nature vs nurture with homosexuality for a long time (the answer, as with all nature/nurture arguments, is some of both), and I just don't see why it matters all that much. It shouldn't change anything about how we see or treat people, and it shouldn't change anything about whether or not homosexual sex is sinful. From the LDS perspective, the entire purpose of the gospel is to help us overcome harmful behaviors that are natural.

I agree that the reason why shouldn't change how we treat people, and thus, regardless of religious beliefs same sex marriage should be legal. As far as not changing whether it is a sin or not, I disagree.

First off, many theologists make arguments as to why homesexual sex is not a sin but the scriptures that mention it deal with other issues. It can be argued that homosexual sex is fine, but some things that come with it in these modern days are not. I.E. it should be treated as heterosexual relations with sex before marraige, infidelity, etc being bad.

Second, if it is accepted that people do not choose to be gay-they were created that way, then it raises the question, why would God create someone as a sinner? If they are true to themselves, they sin. To not sin, they can't be true to themselves. Personally, I don't beleive that God would create someone with inherant sin wired into them. Nurture goes a long way into how open a person is with their sexuality and the lifestyle they choose to live, but it doesn't determine what you're attracted to.

[Scratch]

why would God create someone as a sinner?

I may be splitting hairs here, but God creates everyone as a sinner, with inherent sin wired into them. I certainly know that's the case with me.

[jrj84105]

I may be splitting hairs here, but God creates everyone as a sinner, with inherent sin wired into them. I certainly know that's the case with me.

That's not true in Mormon theology. I think that Mormons view people as intrinsically divine yet intrinsically corruptible. I actually like that take better than the original sin one. I think it's the reason why Mormons are so fixated on this issue, because it speaks to an intrinsic "defect" rather than corruption by "choosing" to sin.

Otherwise I find it incredibly perplexing that so many people here are so fixated on something that really shouldn't have such priority in their minds. At least this is the only way it made sense to me other than assuming it's a reaction formation phenomenon.

Isn't it time to move along? Calling this board a Utah sports forum is like calling Brokeback Mountain a ranching movie. You have to ignore a lot of gay sex to get there.

[Ma'ake]

Isn't it time to move along? Calling this board a Utah sports forum is like calling Brokeback Mountain a ranching movie. You have to ignore a lot of gay sex to get there.

That's funny. Well done. lol.

I think the reason people care is because everyone knows somebody who's gay, and the pivot in understanding, from thinking they must have made some horrendously bad choices, to now recognizing that many didn't choose that predicament, to possibly thinking they may achieve full parity, is fascinating, and compelling.

(For me, personally, I can relate, because of my marriage and my bi-racial kids, and my memories when I was kid wondering what exactly black people had done wrong to deserve being on God's bad side.)

Now that we're in August, there are bigger fish to fry, for sure.

[wuapinmon]

but it doesn't determine what you're attracted to.

I don't know about you, but I don't remember choosing to notice how soft Susan Granger's hands were one day in 6th grade gym class when she got assigned to me for a game of "Down Down, Baby." I just knew that that was the first time I had ever felt any kind of sexual attraction to another human being, and she was a girl, and I've never deviated from my sincere and pure appreciation and lust for the female form since that time. I don't remember it being a choice. It just was for me. I didn't choose to be straight.

[LA Ute]

If a Catholic physician refuses, as a matter of religious conscience, to perform an elective abortion, has he or she violated the prospective patient's rights? If the same physician refuses, on the same grounds, to artificially inseminate a lesbian mom, and there are other physicians who are willing to perform that procedure, has he or she discriminated against the prospective mother? It's not an easy question, in my opinion.
California's Supreme Court ruled against the physician in the artificial insemination case, based on the state's Unruh Civil Rights Act. So in my state, a physician in that situation is legally required to provide the fertility service. My guess is that the church's leaders are aware of that case and don't want to see similar legislation popping up. (That will never happen in Utah, of course.)

Of all the amendments in the Bill of Rights, the First may be the one that the Supreme Court has wrestled with the most, and the tension between the Free Exercise clause and the Establishment clause is probably the most challenging of any two provisions in the Constitution.

[concerned]

Of all the amendments in the Bill of Rights, the First may be the one that the Supreme Court has wrestled with the most, and the tension between the Free Exercise clause and the Establishment clause is probably the most challenging of any two provisions in the Constitution.

Moreso than the due process and equal protection clauses, which have much broader application?

[LA Ute]

Moreso than the due process and equal protection clauses, which have much broader application?

Notice how I hedged -- I said "may be" and "probably." Dr. Scanland taught me that.

It's just my impression. I took a First Amendment class in law school and was really struck by the knottiness of the issues raised by the Free Exercise-Establishment tension.