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

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by 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?

It is inconceivable to me. I don't see the Church bending for this minority group. I see women receiving full administration of the priesthood, maybe in our lifetimes, but gays receiving full fellowship? No.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by 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?

Far be it for me to dictate to God what he should do with his church.

But I don't conceive it happening, no.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

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.

Boy, you're predictable, Tex.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

Boy, you're predictable, Tex.

Hey, you asked.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Black Diamond Bay

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.

Being single doesnt invalidate your opinion on marriage. Hey, I am hitting my 10th this summer and I am still figuring out how to do the marriage/relationship thing.

One thing for sure about inherent gender differences....I have seen firsthand that my wife has maternal instincts with our children that I simply do not have. I have often relied on her instinct or inspiration of whatever you want to call it when it comes to matters concerning our children. I am not sure if this is pandemic, maybe I just suck at being a dad. However, my "#1 Dad" coffee mug would shatter that assertion into smithereens.

[Flystripper]

Originally Posted by Black Diamond Bay

If they did, why would one member of the gay couple always be trying to act like a woman?

This may be true for some homosexual relationships but this is not always the case. In fact, this is often not the case.

[Goatnapper'96]

Originally Posted by Flystripper

This may be true for some homosexual relationships but this is not always the case. In fact, this is often not the case.

You mean they take turns......NOW THAT IS WHAT I AM TALKIN' ABOUT!!!!!!

[Flystripper]

Originally Posted by Goatnapper'96

You mean they take turns......NOW THAT IS WHAT I AM TALKIN' ABOUT!!!!!!

That made me laugh

[Mormon Red Death]

its funny as I was on a run this morning and this thread (and similar others) popped into my mind. Some people do their thinking on the toilet I do mine when I am on a run. Anyway I've been thinking about the gay marriage issue and especially this poll and here are my conclusions.

The church doesn't want same sex marriage because then people aren't sinning if they are married. If one makes the argument that its still a sin because its "against the natural order of things" that opens up a can of worms. Isn't birth control going against the natural order of things? Same for the tubes being tied and vasectomies. Is oral sex against the natural order of things?
One could make the argument... "people that are married to the same gender cannot have children naturally thus its a sin" this argument seems moot when one considers all of the heterosexual couples who can't have children naturally. They couldn't be sinning just because they are having sex and not reproducing.

Obviously for the time going forward the church will have a policy against homosexuality. I that is the way the brethren feel is the right way then it is their organization and they can do what they want. anyway just thought I would put in my 2 cents.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death

its funny as I was on a run this morning and this thread (and similar others) popped into my mind. Some people do their thinking on the toilet I do mine when I am on a run. Anyway I've been thinking about the gay marriage issue and especially this poll and here are my conclusions.

The church doesn't want same sex marriage because then people aren't sinning if they are married. If one makes the argument that its still a sin because its "against the natural order of things" that opens up a can of worms. Isn't birth control going against the natural order of things? Same for the tubes being tied and vasectomies. Is oral sex against the natural order of things?
One could make the argument... "people that are married to the same gender cannot have children naturally thus its a sin" this argument seems moot when one considers all of the heterosexual couples who can't have children naturally. They couldn't be sinning just because they are having sex and not reproducing.

Obviously for the time going forward the church will have a policy against homosexuality. I that is the way the brethren feel is the right way then it is their organization and they can do what they want. anyway just thought I would put in my 2 cents.

I don't think the poll was asking why the Church is against homosexual marriage.

It is asking why the Church is against homosexual sex. All the poll choices revolved around sex, not marriage.

Your answer, while certainly plausible, simply begs the question as to why married homosexual couples would be sinning were they to be married. Hence, back to the sex question.