Holding hands is sodomy? A kiss on the cheek is sex?
I do not think I said that. You asked if gays can have intercourse. Yes, they can. Sodomy.
I'm not sure it's cricket to condemn anyone to a life of never being touched, never being able to have a loving relationship with another human being of one's own choice.
It is a difficult isssue for anyone who tries to understand what being gay means and who believes being gay in usually not something someone chooses. The church actually seems to lean towards that position now but then says that we all have issues in life that challenge and test us so you still cannot act on your tendencies.
I think our church leaders are out to lunch on this one.
Maybe so
My temple vows were the 1971 variety. I promised to not have sexual intercourse with anyone but my lawful husband, but I can't have sexual intercourse with another woman... it's impossible to do so. I cannot be held to something I didn't covenant.
That may be but I think you are splitting hairs and am certain that were you to have any sexual activity with a women you would be excommunicated.
harmony wrote:The thread about gay marriage started me thinking about fornication, and by extrapolation, sexual intercourse.
Strictly speaking (which is how our LDS leaders speak as a general rule), is sexual intercourse is even possible for gays? Most of the definitions I found stated that in order for sexual intercourse to take place, the penis must be inserted into the vagina. Therefore, it seems to me there is no such thing as gay sexual intercourse. So if there is no intercourse, how can there be any fornication? And if there is no fornication and no sexual intercourse between unmarried participants, how can there be sin?
I think they might call it sodomy. Oral sex is also pretty taboo, even potentially among married folk!!!!
Really?
I think he is speaking as a Mormon.
Tubesteak is not an item on the bedroom menu of Mormons.
Runtu wrote:Well, then, I'm covenanted to the earlier law. Of course, I haven't violated it, either.
Each of us only made the temple covenants one time -- when we went through the first time. Every time since has been for someone else via proxy. So they can change the temple stuff all they want, but for those who went through the first time pre-1990, the covenant only relates to "sexual intercourse," not "sexual relations." I'm ready for some heavy petting!!!
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
Runtu wrote:Well, then, I'm covenanted to the earlier law. Of course, I haven't violated it, either.
Each of us only made the temple covenants one time -- when we went through the first time. Every time since has been for someone else via proxy. So they can change the temple stuff all they want, but for those who went through the first time pre-1990, the covenant only relates to "sexual intercourse," not "sexual relations." I'm ready for some heavy petting!!!
I think Jason is right, Rollo. No matter what we actually covenanted, the interpretation of what we covenanted would not be up to us.