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

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

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

Really? I think we've danced, tackled, beaten, and blown-up, but naturally I'll participate anyway ...

The reason they are banned is simple: they violate the law of chastity. The scriptures and the prophets have made it crystal clear: sexual relations between a man and a woman within marriage is ordained of God, and no other relations are.

Now if your next question is why God made such a commandment--why he doesn't smile on two men or two women getting together--I can't answer that, and I feel no great motivation to speculate. One might as well speculate why we weren't all made unisex, or why not three or four genders. Useful for a thought experiment I guess, but not very practical to the question at hand.

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

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.

In my opinion any similarities are very superficial, for what I think are obvious reasons.

And in reality, one could take any policy one disagrees with, and try to rationalize it by comparing it to blacks/priesthood.

[Black Diamond Bay]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

Ironically, everything stated above about homosexual relationships apply to many heterosexual relationships.....volatile, unfullfilling, falling short, etc..

Also, there are plenty of heterosexuals who are alone, have no hopes or prospects for marriage, and would make lousy spouses. That doesn't make heterosexuality flawed.

My gay friend spent most of his life trying to find fulfillment in sham hetero relationships....but he never found it until he partnered up in a gay relationship. Now he is very happy, been together for 2+ years, and finally has a soulmate.

Also, perhaps it is only my experience, but I find the notion that personality and gender difference will strengthen a relationship to be a flawed notion. If anything, they always seem to be the source of contention in the relationship. Again, could very well be unique to my experience, but I wonder...

I see your point, but in the opinion of this never married, single woman...so take it for what it's worth, a really great marriage would be the marriage where both partners learn to not just see differences as hurdles to be overcome, but learn how to utilize them to enrich the relationship. I think my grandparents were a great example of that. They were about as opposite as two people could be, and both lacking in areas where the other was strong, and by the time I was old enough to see what was going on, they had learned to rely on each other to help the other through weak areas, so together they were far stronger than they ever were apart. Admittedly I don't know any gay men that have had a long term relationship, and perhaps that's why it's especially difficult for me to see how that would work with two members of the same sex. I am sure that two members of the same sex could learn to get along, and have a close relationship, what I'm not sure of, is if they would have the same benefits of learning to use strengths and weaknesses that are inherent in members of the opposite sex to grow together, and to become better people as well. I'm not gay and I'm not married, so this is speculation on my part, but it makes sense in my head.

[Indy Coug]

The reason is because there are no celestial unions in the hereafter involving people of the same sex.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

The reason is because there are no celestial unions in the hereafter involving people of the same sex.

Link?






(Sorry, couldn't resist )

This is actually something that crossed my mind, as well. But do we really know enough about what is going to happen after this life to be able to say that?

That does bring up an interesting point. After a homosexual dies, does his attraction to men go away, and all of a sudden he is attracted to women again? (Assuming sexual attraction survives this life)

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

Link?






(Sorry, couldn't resist )

This is actually something that crossed my mind, as well. But do we really know enough about what is going to happen after this life to be able to say that?

That does bring up an interesting point. After a homosexual dies, does his attraction to men go away, and all of a sudden he is attracted to women again? (Assuming sexual attraction survives this life)

Is same-sex attraction genetic or not? Is our spiritual matter also subservient to genetic markers from our mortal parents? Is our immortal brain going to interpret visual/audio cues the same way?

[BYU71]

I think it is because it is against the natural order of things. To me any of the other reasons are results of that.

For instance, if it was just because it is against the law of chastity, why isn't the church in the forfront of having laws to ban people living together. Do you think the stigma of your child living with another person is the same whether it is a heterosexual or homosexual relationship.

Maybe someone could answer this. If a guy came to a high council meeting and admitted to having sex with another man, would his odds be higher that he will be ex'd over some guy having sex with a gal. It is my guess that in our male dominated culture, he would be treated harsher than a gal coming in and admitting sex with another gal.

As far as procreation goes. They can't procreate because it is against the natural order of things.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Is same-sex attraction genetic or not? Is our spiritual matter also subservient to genetic markers from our mortal parents? Is our immortal brain going to interpret visual/audio cues the same way?

It is genetic. As to your other questions, I don't know.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by BYU71

It is genetic. As to your other questions, I don't know.

The first question was rhetorical. The other questions were predicated with that premise.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

The first question was rhetorical. The other questions were predicated with that premise.

How was I supposed to know. I didn't know what your stance was on homosexuality being genetic or not. I think there are still some orthodox mormons that think it isn't genetic.

The other questions are tough. I just don't know why God would allow genetics to cause someone to have drives that were totally contrary to his will.

[SoCalCoug]

Here's something that's been on my mind.

If the prohibition agasint homsexual relations is based primarily on the mechanical nature (i.e., because anything other than vaginal intercourse is not appropriate), then I don't see how that could be overcome or changed in the future in order to allow for the church policy to change, other than maybe giving homosexuals vaginas.

However, it seems to me if any of the other premises are the primary underlying premise(es) for the prohibition, conceivably, God could change the rules, right?

So setting aside our own personal feelings (I know, impossible for certain of us), it's not inconceivable that one day the church could change its stance against homosexual relations, correct?