What is the primary premise underlying the LDS church's ban on homosexual relations?
 

First off, this is a serious question, designed for those who really want to explore the topic. If you come to this thread with the idea that there's one right answer, and everyone else is wrong, because it is impossible to know the mind of God, without being willing to consider other viewpoints, then, frankly, I'm not interested in your opinion. I'm sure you'll share it, anyway.

I happen to believe that God is a God of reason, and that for those wishing to understand the premise behind the principle, it is possible to seek for that premise. In fact, it would seem that if we truly understand the premise behind the principle, it could, in fact, serve to strengthen our conviction of that principle.

I think we've kind of danced around this issue, but I'm not sure we've really tackled it head-on.

Obviously, some of us are exploring whether the church's previous stance on blacks receiving the priesthood (and civil rights and segregation) could possibly be analogous to the church's current stance on homosexuality, particularly in light of the recent developments in the church's stance. I think fundamental to that exploration is to try to identify the primary premise (if any) underlying the ban on homosexual relations.

I am not saying that there is an analogy. It may be that I am persuaded that the situations are not analogous, and therefore the chances of any substantial changes to the stance in the future are not very good. But I think it's worthwhile to at least explore the topic.

So I figured a good discussion of what we think the most significant (yes, I know there may be more than one, but let's try to distill it down as best we can. If it appears there is some sort of a consensus, or clear favorites, then maybe we can look at those more specifically.

If you choose "none of the above", please post any thoughts of alternative premises. I am allowing for multiple choices. If you made multiple choices, please specify them, if you wish. The poll is not public (nobody can know what you selected unless you disclose in the thread).
Thoughts?

All of the below:

Sexual relations with someone of the same sex is inherently immoral

Homosexual relations undermine the structure of the family

Homosexual relations contradict the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth

Wow. I never saw that one coming.

First, you must ask yourself why homosexuality results from creation. I'm uncertain, but I postulated that while God as creator knows the forces, he doesn't get to pick and choose how these forces manifest themselves.

Thus, once these forces are set in motion, some anomalies result and one of them is the orientation to homosexuality.

Second, how the Church organization works and its "Plan of Salvation." We believe, or the bulk of us believe we are the one true way, just like many organizations are. But speculating here, what if for those who receive the witness this is the one true way and for those who don't, another way might be provided through the grace of God.

And the Church's "control" over this issue is but one way we can be "blessed" while those who are beset by nature's anomalies have other ways provided.

I'm uncomfortable how it's been articulated by me, but I'm trying to understand how something so emotionally damaging happens within nature. So that's a rank speculation with no authoritative appeal.

If you pulled your head out of your ass once in a while, you would see lots of things.

We the Cadre are so grateful for your meaningful and insightful comments.

My guess is the commandment to multiply and replenish. The other two: family and sex within gender, are really just subsets of the main basic commandment to multiply and replenish.

The family unit is the social construct within which we are to multiply and replenish.

Same gender sex precludes reproduction.

No matter how much time passes, homosexual sex will never allow for reproduction, therefore it is considered an abomination.

This is simply my guess, of course.

The right answer is that only God knows. The Church as we know it today did not corner the market on prohibtions of homosexuality. That has been around since the Thick Book was written.

Because it leaves members of the opposite sex alone, denied the opportunity to be in a relationship with someone who possesses the strengths and weaknesses that will inherently compliment their own. Instead there's just a slew of volatile relationships between people of the same sex, trying to fill the role that would ordinarily fall to a member of the opposite sex, and generally falling short of the task. At the end of the day a butch woman is still a woman, and feminine man, is still a man. I've yet to see a gay man that I believed really thinks like a woman, or a lesbian that thinks like a man. Even the transgender in SD, for all her claims that she was really a man, had all the thought processes of a woman.

Never mind. I can't believe I even started responding to this. I'm too flabbergasted to know where to start.

There is no premise behind it, but there is a simple explanation: Social groups (including Mormons) define themselves and their standards, and then they reject those that don't fit in. I think it all hearkens back to our instincts and tribal origins.

Why is it that humans are capable of judging beauty? Why do humans have a naturally adverse reaction to people that are different or ugly? It is our instinct to reject things that don't fit the norm. It is also an instinct to make ourselves "fit in" with a social group or tribe (which is why some gay mormons get married and stay in the closet).

We Mormons have "dress standards" (white shirts, etc.) for the very same reasons--maintaining tribal identity, fitting in, etc.