Choices

Remove all ads!

But overcoming sinful desires and aspiring to something more is exactly part of being human. Some uf us have a harder time of it than others, but it makes us less human to give in to such base desires.

So God is attacked because of what his servant said. What else is new?

I know that the LDS changed that after revelation received through prayer on the subject. Sometimes you do have to go to the source rather than just our own understanding on what's written...

I am not advocating such behaviour. The only situation where advancement or distancing would be required would be a religion that expressly forbids Homosexual acts. Having a person claim that homosexual acts are evil, but then engage in them privately is a hypocrite. To have credibility to preach the word of God requires a degree of obedience...

Matthew 7:1-2 basically states that same thing. But Jesus was also very straight forward when addressing the people. He, and His servants spoke plainly on matters of morals. God will judge, we don't. We only remind our fellows of the rules...

But how do you draw the line between protecting a group of people who are different by a choice that they make (the act itself, and identifying themselves as homosexual) and legitimizing their sins? It's not right that they should be beaten, killed or otherwise mistreated, but they should not be allowed to have the same rights as those who are righteous (assuming majority defined morality).

But Identifying themselves by that "difference" is a choice.

God gives no commandment save there is a way to fulfill it. Through faith and grace, any adversity can be overcome as long as your desires are righteous.

But They should be working to overcome their temptation, not trying to hide it...

With prayer and faith, they can not only overcome such attraction, but can become attracted to a member of the opposite gender.

Homosexual relations are not normal, natural or acceptable from a religious standpoint. If a refusal to tell them that they are good and that what they do is okay is discrimination, then I'll discriminate rather than be a hypocrite...

 

Funny that the prophet Joseph Smith, who spoke to the Angel Gabriel, had the opposite revelation......

 

Perhaps overcoming sins is moral, but it is certainly not human. Humans are by nature immoral, lazy, greedy, and hateful. It is not more human to overcome sins (whatever sins those may be).

Erm... you just said that people who are different and who make that known should have less rights than the majority... that is the same thing that racists, sexists, and religion-ists say: "They are different, they get fewer rights."

Praying to God will make you heterosexual? But I thought He created them homosexual (which you do not deny, you just say that their actions are their choices, but being homosexual is not), so why should He change them afterwards? I find your statement hard to believe. Very hard to believe.

How about from any other standpoint? You seem to look on issues like this black vs. white: They are homosexual, the bible says that is bad, so they are bad.
Can you find a reason other than religion that makes homosexuals worthy of your discrimination?

 

First, it was Moroni, not Gabrielle. Sexcondly, I have seen nothing official on what Joseph Smith said about Blacks. If you're going to speak like that, then back it up with sources.

Point one: To be a man is to desire to be God (or like Him)

Point two: The Natural Man is an enemy to God. (It's in the Book of Mormon)

Therefore, it is it goal of humanity to overcome it's shortcomings...

But the difference is that they CHOOSE to define themselves by something that Society does NOT have to condone. If having same sex relations is a sin, Society is not pbligated to legitimize this sin. They would have the same rights, but just not the rights they want. Besides, a criminal does not have the right to roam the streets free while he is sentenced to incarceration...

I did not say that God made homosexuals, but only that he gave us all vulnerabilities to certain temptations. Homosexuality is one such temptation. God will then help the faithful to overcome these temptations if they pray for strength to obey.

All the way along I have listed Homosexuality as a temptation. Giving in to temptation is bad. We don't discriminate against them because of their temptation, but for giving in to it and demanding the right to sin freely.

 

Two things:

First, In your previous post, you said they should not have the same rights:

Secondly, that is a poor comparison: since when (and how) is a homosexual similar to a criminal?

 

Both Criminals and those who have sex with others of the same gender are sinners.

Also, my more recent statement is an ammendment to what I said previous. A gay man has the right to marry any woman who will marry him, but I will never support the rights of two gay men to marry each other.

 

"I think". They're just two little words, Gnarff. You need to learn to use them. I respect your opinion that all people who engage in homosexual activity are sinners. In the future, when making empirical statements about contested subjects, either use the words "I think" or make a true statement. For example, if you were to state "according to most traditions of Judeo-Christian theology (or just a simple "the bible says") all people who engage in homosexual activity are sinners" I wouldn't be making this post.....since that is an empirical fact.

 

Yet it is not a temptation, it's a nature. I'm tempted to beat the living crap out of bigots and homophobes but it's not in my nature. It is in my nature to eat, breathe, sleep, wake when the sun rises, seek the comfort of friends and to be a heterosexual among other things and these are NOT 'temptations' as far as the Bible is concerned.

Homosexuals don't choose to be homosexual, at least the majority don't, and frankly I don't think many people would choose to be homosexuals. Christianity has proven one thing for us that homosexuality is NOT a temptation. What person in their right mind would want to be considred a 'sinner' and a 'scorn to society' a 'fag' or a 'wierdo'? I don't think people are tempted into that type of social labeling. The other fact is that I am NOT tempted to be a homosexual. Whereas in order to resist a temptation there must be temptation in the first place. Why are some people tempted yet others aren't? Seems a bit unfair that someone is tempted and gives into temptation yet the other person is NOT tempted and is praised as a saint. It's like being called a war hero yet you never went to war and the other guy is just a casualty.

Homosexuality is NOT a temptation, it's part of some peoples' nature via genetics or upbringing.

However the point is moot since just because something is deemed a sin by a religion is no reason to deny that person any right or responsibility. Sex out of wedlock is a sin yet it's not illegal. Homosexuality is a sin yet it's not illegal. Homosexual civil-union (not going to use the term 'marriage' since its definition is a union between a man and woman) is NOT a sin, only homosexuality is. Are marriges recognised by the state yet not the church sins? I'm not 100% sure on this part but it's rampant today yet Christians aren't all up in arms about it so I assume it's not a sin.

Fact is there's no reason to stop homosexual couples from enjoying the same privlages and responsibilities as married couples since these privlages and responsibilities only affect the parties involved!

If you're upset about the state allowing such an action as saying that homosexuality is not harmful to society... guess what? They're probably right! It's your job to teach your children that according to you and your christian teachings that all those people out there who say homosexuals are just fine and dandy people are wrong/misguided/stupid or whatever.

Separation of Church and State: you don't like it? Go to Iran!

 

@Ab:
If I have learned anything from history, it is that human sexuality is one of the strongest and yet most maleable forces in human "nature".
I won't address the choice issue since there's no real evidence either way and it would end up being your word versus mine, but this:

This is just plain wrong. Early Christians were hunted, tortured, beaten, and killed for their beliefs. Early Muslims suffered much the same, as did Jews under the Selucids. Gypsies suffered such, Buddhists suffered such, orientals that came to America suffered such. There are plenty of people throughout history that have chosen to be treated MUCH worse than homosexuals in America today are. Many Orthodox Jewish families, if a son or daughter converts to Christianity, will hold a mock-burrial for them and declare them dead. Many hardcore Muslim families will try to hunt down and kill the person. Are we to suppose that religion isn't a choice, that were you move to isn't a choice, that what business you practice isn't a choice?
Also, no one's praising you as a saint, and they'd have to do a lot more than not give in to homosexuality for me to praise anyone as a saint.

 

NOG, I find your post illogical. If as you say homosexuality is a choice than why choose it and be beaten, killed, etc. And yes they are beaten, tortured and killed. I personally know of such happenings.

We do not choose our race. We do not choose to be born male or female. Yes we choose our religion but are you really equating a sexual preference to a religious preference?

Based on your other posts on this subject the above does not ring true to me. Perhaps you need to reword or explain it?

 

I was only commenting on the logic presented previously that, 'since people are persecuted because of it, they obviously aren't choosing it as no one would choose to be treated so'. This is blatently wrong, as I pointed out. There are plenty of instances where people have chosen to be persecuted rather than change their choices.
Why did protestors against Vietnam choose to be jailed (and frequently beaten during the protests) rather than just stay quiet? Why did the North Koreans choose to face a militarily superior nation in a traditional theatre of war instead of withdraw from South Korea?
These are all choices, some good, some bad, but people made them knowing they would suffer for them, or at least refused to change after they started to suffer.
I still believe that homosexuality is a choice.

 

Do I understand you correctly?

Because you believe homosexuality is a choice they would choose a lifestyle that causes pain and suffering, even death over a nice, socially accepted, reasonable comfortable relationship?

It just doesn't compute for me. If you can choose who you fall in love with why choose the one which is the hardest?

Now love is a powerful thing. We will sacrifice for love. For example a parent will endanger her own life for a child but I believe that this is considered instinctual. The person doesn't think "my child is in danger, if I try to save him I will endanger my own life so should I or not?" It is a reflex action.

If I understand you correctly your are saying that a man or woman thinks something like this:

"I can fall in love with a person of the same gender or I can fall in love with a person of the opposite gender. If I choose the same gender society will penalize me. If I fall in love with the opposite gender society won't care and even approve. So I choose to fall in love with a person of the same gender and therefore suffer penalties for it."

Now if this is what you are saying certainly it can be equated with say a religious choice.

There are two religions which are equally appealing to me. One is accepted by society and the other is not. Being a rebellious person I might choose the one which is not accepted by society but I bet 9 out of 10 people will choose the one that is. Can't prove it; just my opinion.

If by some chance you are referring to the mere act of sex , maybe the fact that I am a woman influences me but I can say only one thing.

 

I agree with Abomination's last post, and certainly with Nakia's post(s). Love is irrational, powerful, and dominating (not necessarily in a bad way). It controls you, not the other way around. If you fall in love with someone who is the same gender, why try and stop that love?


And in response to the initial response of Abomination's post: Being homosexual usually includes being berated, mocked, discriminated against, etc. But, they do not choose that way of life. They fall in love with the same gender, and they don't try to stop it, despite the fact that they will be pushed around (to understate it). Love is love, and despite what you (I think this is directed to NOG) may feel about homosexuality being a choice, love is not easily stopped.


My point? Don't say they choose a life of torment to be rebellious, or whatever you feel they choose it for. They choose that lifestyle because what they feel is not a choice.

 

To eat is natural, but to overindulge or choose your diet poorly are sins (Gluttony is a sin, and we are accountable for the maintainance of our bodies). To breathe is natural, but to voluntarily breathe intoxicants (tobacco or marijuana smoke for example) is a sin. Sleep is necessary, but too much sleep is Sloth (another sin). Heterosexuality is natural, but adultery and fornication are sins.

History is filled with times where people have chosen to defy social norms, and were hated, hunted and killed for their differences.

All are subject to some form of temptation, only some are subject to one form, others are subject to other forms. But all of us will be tempted in some way or another.

If the marriage (heterosexual) is legal under local law, then it is recognized by my church.

It's a question of definition. I prefer the traditional definitions of Marriage and Family. I resent attempts to change it seeing as Marriage and Family are Sacred.

Separation of Church and State simply means that one religion is not favoured over another by state. It also means that the State has no business sticking their nose in moral matters. By that, the State has no business in this debate, so I'd prefer that they stay the hell out of it.

 

They make laws regarding moral matters (such as crime...), thus, they must be involved. The church and religion are not the only two who get to play the morality game.

 

The "traditional" marriage and family are inventions of the past few hundred years, stemming in large part from the industrial revolution. They certainly weren't common to our ancestors among the peasantry.

 

What is considered a 'traditional' definition of marriage and family? (I am not being sarcastic or anything, I would just like to know what they are)

 

But people here keep telling me that's not a moral issue...

Actually, the Bible shows that structure from the beginning.

Man and woman, legally married, raising their children. Allowances can be made to cover for deaths (in the union or of children introduces from outside the marriage).

 

Homosexuality, laws, crime, or...? What are you referring to?