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

[SoCalCoug]

I deliberately split out the mechanics of a same-sex relationship from the inherent immorality, because it has seemed to me that the justification for the immorality of a same-sex relationship hinges on the mechanics; i.e., the thingamabob is meant to go in hole # 1, not hole # 2.

If the inherent immorality is not based on the mechanics of sex, on what is it based?

Perhaps my poll was a little inartful, but I think it's a really complex issue.

[Colly Wolly]

I don't know if this angle has been discussed, but I'll throw it out there.

Jeffrey Holland made the comment that sexual union between a man and a woman is a sacrament of the highest order. Exaltation, godhood, whatever is a celestial order of family creation and expansion. We are exalted through family relationships and sex, and homosexuality is a perversion of that sacrament, just as the golden calf, the tower of babel, and other abominations are/were perversions of, or attempts to cheat, "the natural (or celestial) order of things".

I know that sounds crazy as hell, but am I on to something here?

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

If the inherent immorality is not based on the mechanics of sex, on what is it based?

Perhaps my poll was a little inartful, but I think it's a really complex issue.

In other words, you want to know if it's OK to go up the hershey highway?

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Black Diamond Bay

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.

Perhaps this could be valid in general, but what about on an individual basis. If it's based purely on an emotional basis, could there be people of the same sex who complement each other as strongly as people of different sexes do?

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by MudphudCoug

In other words, you want to know if it's OK to go up the hershey highway?

I'm actually surprised nobody's check the box for anal sex being inherently immoral. Maybe I'm too simplistic in my thinking, but I would have thought that the major stumbling block for people would be the premise that the rectum was not designed as a sexual organ, and therein lies the inherent perversion in homosexual sexual relationships.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

I'm actually surprised nobody's check the box for anal sex being inherently immoral. Maybe I'm too simplistic in my thinking, but I would have thought that the major stumbling block for people would be the premise that the rectum was not designed as a sexual organ, and therein lies the inherent perversion in homosexual sexual relationships.

It's just something which I can't understand. The fact that it exists for some reason due partially or mostly to natural causes confounds me.

Biologically, the sexually practices of homosexuals make no sense, but many hetero couples also engage in such practices, though if you ask candidly, most guys will say, "yeah, I tried it, but I can do without it."

The Church may use the concept of defiling the sacrament of sex, and that makes some theological sense.

But in the end, it may be a "mystery", which truly inexplicable.

[Black Diamond Bay]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

Perhaps this could be valid in general, but what about on an individual basis. If it's based purely on an emotional basis, could there be people of the same sex who complement each other as strongly as people of different sexes do?

I don't think that people of the same sex compliment each other as strongly. If they did, why would one member of the gay couple always be trying to act like a woman? It's like they're trying to create a mock hetero relationship.

...and I think it's pretty obvious that the differences between men and women extend far beyond emotional differences, so no, it's not just on an emotional basis. IMO the fact is that men and men are not a match anymore than women and women are a match. I know it's not very PC to say that women aren't exactly like men aside from obvious physical differences, but anyone that can see lightening and hear thunder should be able to acknowledge that the differences go far beyond that.

[ute4ever]

Originally Posted by Black Diamond Bay

I don't think that people of the same sex compliment each other as strongly. If they did, why would one member of the gay couple always be trying to act like a woman? It's like they're trying to create a mock hetero relationship.

If same-gender attraction is a genetic, biological issue, I too have wondered why so many gay men clap their hands and say "yaaay!!!" like my 3-year-old daughter does when her play-doh turtle doesn't rip. If they are "naturally" attracted to the physical man, why do they try to attract other men by outwardly acting so feminine?

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Colly Wolly

I don't know if this angle has been discussed, but I'll throw it out there.

Jeffrey Holland made the comment that sexual union between a man and a woman is a sacrament of the highest order. Exaltation, godhood, whatever is a celestial order of family creation and expansion. We are exalted through family relationships and sex, and homosexuality is a perversion of that sacrament, just as the golden calf, the tower of babel, and other abominations are/were perversions of, or attempts to cheat, "the natural (or celestial) order of things".

I know that sounds crazy as hell, but am I on to something here?

Wasnt this in "Of SOuls, symbols, and sacraments" For some reason, this is ringing a bell for me, but from years ago.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Black Diamond Bay

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.

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...