The bottom line on homosexuality
 

can be boiled down to one thing. Is it wrong or not? The "enlightened" ones here don't think so and consider those of us who do backwards. So be it. But whichever side you fall on, if you don't at least understand the position someone is coming from, you will continue to just talk in circles.

I believe homosexuality is wrong. I have no idea if it is nature, nurture, choice, a combination of all of the aboe, whatever. But it really doesn't matter. I don't see it any differently than other challenges, trials, or (gasp) "disabilities" human beings come to this earth and have to face.

I will never say homosexuality is accepted, normal behavior. That does not mean I hate gays or think less of them as children of God. I have compassion for them and thank God I am not in their shoes.

What I do know is that God is both merciful and just and in the end, He wil sort it all out.

You have boiled a complex characteristic in moral terms.

Why not look at the characteristic in the other terms in which it can be analyzed?

First, you identified it as a trait, and connecting it with the activity. For you and me, heterosexuals, it's a difficult trait to understand, it's incomprehensible to us.

Good point. Maybe it's better if the Church just says to gay people: "We don't have a place for you in our Church. You're not wanted here. We think you're disgusting."

That's the truth, although the Church tries to pretend to a more charitable attitude ("You can stay as long as you adhere to the same rules as all other members. Uhhhh, except you can't get married like other members -- that's disgusting. How will we explain that to our kids?").

I'll be bashed for any comparison I could possibly make. Caveat that I am NOT saying these are the "same".

But ...

- pedophilia is incomprehensible to me
- suicide is incomprehensible to me
- suffering from mental defect that robs me of my intellect is incomprehensible to me
- dependence on a subsstnace such as drugs or alcohol is incomprehensible to me
- and on and on ...

I am completely separating the moral issue from the "trait". The moral issue is that the behavior is wrong, period. At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter WHY one acts as they do, whatever the sin might be.

If I have a bad temper that "runs in the family", that doesn't make it okay to beat my wife and kids. It's something that I have to deal with / overcome that some others do not.

As I have said before, it is the very definition of conundrum. What I do know is that the heterosexual family unit is sacred and eternal. That does not change. The closest thing I can comprehend is that SSA is a "cross to bear" that for whatever reason, some of the human race is afflicted with, most are not.

I can't boil homosexuality down when I don't even understand it. And since I cannot explain it nor understand it, I can't say whether it is right or wrong.

If we took this approach, then, when it all boils down to it, we are all sinners and homosexuality or heterosexuality is irrelevant. The sin of homosexuality is no different than the sin or lusting after a woman in your heart or whatever other sin we want to pick. I have no list that ranks sin, but I do know that God looks upon sin with the least degree of tolerance.

I think I will put homosexuality on simmer for awhile until we learn more. Until then, I choose to not worry about boiling it down.

I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with FM's talke, btw. Just adding my 2 euros (I converted my thought currency recently as a hedge against the falling dollar).

You exchanged 2 cents for 2 euros? Somewhere, a Frenchman is crying.

I don't understand it either. But there are lots of things I don't understand. In fact, if it weren't for the Spirit bearing witness to things, I would probably be an atheist for this reason. But there are an awful lot of things that go into the bucket of "I don't understand it now ... someday it will be revealed".

What I do know is that Thomas S. Monson is a prophet of God and if he says it's wrong, it's wrong. I don't need to know the "why" for everything.

Perhaps the "top line" would have been better. I'm NOT trying to simplify this because it's not simple. I'm just saying that for us to understand each other, we have to realize that some of us think homosexual behavior is wrong and is a sin, regardless of the "why" someone is gay. Others think that it is normal behavior. We havet o agree to disagree and let discussions go from there.

Can't those on both sides of that still engage in thoughtful dialogue about things like the role of gays in society, what constitutes "rights", the question regarding choice vs. nature vs. nurture, etc.?

To be clear, whether or not behavior is a sin or whether or not nayone finds it disgusdting was not what prop 8 was about, at least not for me.

I agree with that as well. But the discussion (at least here) has become much broader than that ... I'm referring to the topic at large.

I get your point but it doesnt help me. I guess I don't get what to do next. And that is what is confusing. I dont disagree that the Church has made it clear that homosexual behavior is a sin.

OK, so gay is wrong. Fine.

Now what? What do we do with all the gays? You have made your point...gay is wrong, bottom line. So what? That does little to nothing other than state the obvious (in relgious terms, anyhow).

The Church, perhaps through no fault of its own, has no good explanation for gays, why they exist, where they come from, what are we supposed to do with them, what is their role in society, etc...As such, nobody really knows what to do, other than to beat our chests to emphasize the fact that it is wrong.

That is why I said earlier that I am not interested in "boiling it down." I already know that God views the behavior as sinful. My question is, ok...so what do you want me to do now? It is sinful. Great. Now what?

With blacks, we at least had interesting stories to explain their origins....curse of cain, less valiant in the pre-existence, etc....growing up out of the Church, but basically being raised on those teachings, it was something I could at least grasp. "OK, that black guy was less righteous in the pre-existence, so that is why he is black."

With gays, we don't even have that as a guidepost to deal with the issue on a day to day basis....for people in our very own families. From my perspective, that is what is frustrating.

I don't need to know the "why" for everything, either. No active LDS person does, since we havent been given the "why" for everything and yet we remain active and believers, loving the Church and its leaders.

This has become a pointless discussion here, FM. What I have learned the past couple of days:

- Being gay is irreversible, unchangeable, permanent, from birth. People who at one time were gay and now live a straight lifestyle are denying who they are. Suggesting otherwise is offensive.

- There is no reason anyone would ever at any time choose to be gay. There is no logic, no appeal, no attraction to becoming gay, other than you were born that way. Suggesting otherwise is illogical and offensive.

- There is no struggle that anyone deals with that is in any way similar to being gay. It stands alone among all conditions, weaknesses, character traits, or states of being. Comparisons to any other type of struggle are offensive.

- Because it is permanent, any discussion of curing is offensive. Any discussion of changing is offensive. Any discussion of therapy is offensive.

- The homosexual lifestyle should be normalized, accepted, and tolerated.

- The foregoing points are indisputable.

- If you disagree with any aspect of the foregoing you are ignorant, uncaring, or bigoted, or all three.

- If you disagree with any of the foregoing, you must not know any gay people.

Some will say this is an exaggeration, but these points are an accurate summary of the conversations I've participated in here today and yesterday.

There is no room for discussion. There is no room for understanding. There is no gray.

Cheers.

I guess that's kind of my point. So much energy is spent on trying to convince that it is "right" or "not a sin" that could be much more productively used on answering your questions above.

Let's face it, Mormonism is a tough place for ANYBODY that doesn't fit the mold. Singles, part-member families, single-parent families, and yes ... gays. Fix that problem and then maybe there is a place for gays in the Church. If we as a people coud come to grips that not EVERYONE is going to get married and have a family (at least not in this life), that would go a long way. Why shouldn't a celibate gay fully participate in the Church?

i think that may come with time.

Currently, celibate open gays likely feel very uncomfortable at church.

For example, many folks believe that gays are pedophiles. How would you feel sitting in the pew knowing that many looked at you that way?

I think that is part of the mixed messages we send. "We love you, also your lifestyle is an abomination" That sort of thing. There is no easy answer. if someone on your mission were to have said, "hey, I think Mormons are cool, I just think they are going to hell," it kind of waters down the original statement a bit.

My guess is that in another generation or two, gay will be more mainstream within the Church.....that is to say, not everyone will be assuming that gays molest kids, that gays have AIDS, etc....it takes time to break down the stereotypes. Just like with blacks. I am not saying homosexuality will no longer be considered a sin, but that gays will continue to increase their levels of socialization amongst us and we will all realize that most of these folks are not sex-addicted promiscuous predators.

As with race and gender, there will still be those that, in 20 years, still won't have anything more of value to add to the conversation beyond "but it is a sin!" yawn. we have already covered that point, thanks.

I agree with you, but I think it points to issues within our culture bigger than just gays. The 40 year old divorcee feels pretty darn uncomfortable at church too (especially if they are childless). I realize it's not the same but you get my point ...

Not the same at all, but at the same time, culturally, almost exactly the same. I definitely get your point.

One time in PEC, Bishop said something that was really moving. We were going through the membership rolls and giving updates about people. One guy chimed in and said something to the effect of, "that person is not in our ward boundaries so let's forward that one to so and so in the Corona del Mar ward."

Bishop stopped the meeting, paused for a long time, and asked simply, "what are we doing here? why are we even here?"

He wasn't angry, but really moved by the Spirit to point out that within the Gospel, the letter of the law has a very great and important place. Yes, this person was not within our ward boundaries. But the Spirit of the law also has its place. The Bishop went on to lament the loss of several YSA that were in limbo because we do not do a great job of articulating their roles. We focus so much on the ideal (man/woman/temple marriage) that we often overlook the less than ideal (single parent/YSA/divorced). The only time they get a nod is when the Ensign article is saying, "hey, dont be sad, life aint so bad."

I have no answer for this, just agreeing with you. I really learned a lot from that Bishop. He was really big on asking tough rhetorical questions.....it has shaped a lot of my current views....I have a totally inactive FIL, my family is all non-LDS, my wife's mom is divorced and re-married.....all less than ideal circumstances. And all wonderful people.