It isn't so much that they are trying to use the Church to justify homosexuality as it is that they don't want people to judge them for taking a stand against it. So, instead of saying that it is wrong for people of the same sex to engage in sexual activity they try to down play it and say it is wrong just because the people aren't married. So, what they are saying is "hey we aren't judging you for being homosexual, we simply don't believe it is o.k. for anyone to have sex if they are not married. Nothing against homosexuality."
Now that it appears as though, in Massachusetts anyway, it will be allowed for homosexuals to marry, these members will need to decide if they want to continue to try to have everyone like them or stand up for a true gospel principal and say it is wrong to have a sexual relationship with someone of the same sex as you are, even if you are married. It is going to force some people, at least in my area, and I doubt we are alone in it, to look at the truth of the situation and deal with it honestly.
It seems to me that maybe we need to be judgemental. Not of individuals, but of societal trends, behaviours, and institutions. This race to show how "tolerant" we are of everything has led us, as a society, to embrace an awful lot of horrible things.
As JB pointed out, homosexuality is a form of compulsive/addictive behavior. Being subject to such types of behavior, I can tell you that it isn't easy to resolve them. Most people just accept them, and try to justify them. That is all the rush to homosexual marriage is about. If they can just get "married" then society will HAVE to accept them.
I can guarantee, once there is such a thing as a "civil" marriage for homosexuals, there will be lawsuits to force religious bodies to accept them. It might or might not start with the Mormons, but the Catholics will certainly feel the brunt of such lawsuits. There will be legal pressure like you wouldn't believe. It is likely the point will come where the Church is sued because there aren't enough homosexuals represented in the upper councils of the Church.
Having said this, I will not take a political stand on the "Defense of Marriage" amendments. While I don't believe that there is any allowance for the state to solemnize marriage between practicing homosexuals, at the same time I have a difficult time justifying the state defining what is, essentially, a religious institution (marriage).
This is made even more troublesome for me because all of the Defense of Marriage actions that are proposed interfere with the valid religious practice of polygamy or plural marriage.
NightHawk
QUOTE (Nighthawk @ Nov 24 2003, 10:56 PM) |
It seems to me that maybe we need to be judgemental. Not of individuals, but of societal trends, behaviours, and institutions. This race to show how "tolerant" we are of everything has led us, as a society, to embrace an awful lot of horrible things. |
QUOTE |
So, what they are saying is "hey we aren't judging you for being homosexual, we simply don't believe it is o.k. for anyone to have sex if they are not married. Nothing against homosexuality." |
QUOTE (tenaheff @ 19-Nov 03, 8:24 AM) |
Also, I have been told in the past that the Church maintains that their objection to sexual activity between members of the same sex is because the law of chastity forbids sex unless you are married. Â Since homosexuals couldn't marry the Church has asserted that they are simply holding homosexual couples to the same standard as they do men and women in relationships that aren't married. |
QUOTE |
After reading all of this and much more in my research I have come to the conclusion that homosexuality is not Natural, that it is overcomeable & forgivable, and that homosexual members of the Church who then go ahead and marry same sex partners should be excommunicated from the Church, just as President Kimball stated above. |
Over the years I have been amazed that this cannot be understood...
Lets keep in mind that there are those who practise the sacred rights of the Church and Priesthood while being physically involved with someone in this manner. They must understand that if they feel they were born this way or not that it is wrong and you cannot remain a member or missionary!
This sadly enough has been the cause of many following away. Imagine a new member coming to Church and being 'solicited' or let me use a lesser word, 'invited' for this kind of relationship by a priesthood holder, even if is not sexual it has a traumatic effect on the new member.
QUOTE (tenaheff @ 19-Dec 03, 1:30 PM) |
I am not sure about the term "Natural" because I believe some are born homosexual. |
QUOTE |
[Gospel Classics: The Origin of Man By the First Presidency of the Church From Improvement Era, Nov. 1909, 75-81] "God created man in His own image." This is just as true of the spirit as it is of the body, which is only the clothing of the spirit, its complement-the two together constituting the soul. The spirit of man is in the form of man, |