Coggins7 wrote:Here we go again. OK, listen up one and all, especially you Harmony, because you're beating a long dead horse and you need to get with the program if your going to make claims about empirical science. There is not a shred, not a particle, of evidence that homosexuality has any direct, causal connection to genes.
That's funny. I guess since it's so ephemeral and indirect, no serious professor with expertise in the area, especially one at BYU, would try to make such a connection. [/sarcasm]
Every single such study (the Simon Levay study being the most sensational) claiming to show such has been discredited
The APA disagrees with you. Do you grant that organization any authority in this area?
and homosexuality remains a bio/psycho/social phenomena involving a complex matrix of influences and biases of which genetics is only one
Even if this was true, couldn't you say the exact same thing about heterosexuality?
This is very true, but I don't see how it makes a difference to LDS theology.
You don't? I'd like to hear your view on this, since it seems that the obvious argument (playing devils advocate now) is that if homosexuality is inherited in the same since that eye color, hair texture, body composition, or organic neurological conditions such as Tourettes Syndrome, then the position of LDS theology that homosexuality is a sin and a serious one at that (in the important sense of human sexuality and its proper bounds and conditions), is false. In that case, LDS theology cannot possible be supported in this area. LDS theology must be wrong here, period (unless you are willing to consign homosexuals to the realm of 'the wicked" regardless of the fact that they have no control whatever of their "orientation", based, as it is, purely in biology). In this sense, disapproving of homosexuality is no different than disapproving of heterosexuality, and the disapproval can be understood only as the bigotry of the majority against a devient minority whos sexual predilections have been determined soley by genetic factors outside the reach of moral critique.
This is very true, but I don't see how it makes a difference to LDS theology.
You don't? I'd like to hear your view on this, since it seems that the obvious argument (playing devils advocate now) is that if homosexuality is inherited in the same since that eye color, hair texture, body composition, or organic neurological conditions such as Tourettes Syndrome, then the position of LDS theology that homosexuality is a sin and a serious one at that (in the important sense of human sexuality and its proper bounds and conditions), is false. In that case, LDS theology cannot possible be supported in this area. LDS theology must be wrong here, period (unless you are willing to consign homosexuals to the realm of 'the wicked" regardless of the fact that they have no control whatever of their "orientation", based, as it is, purely in biology). In this sense, disapproving of homosexuality is no different than disapproving of heterosexuality, and the disapproval can be understood only as the bigotry of the majority against a devient minority whos sexual predilections have been determined soley by genetic factors outside the reach of moral critique.
Yes. Homosexual fornication should be labeled a sin for the same reason heterosexual fornication is labeled a sin... and the same mechanism that allows for heterosexuals to indulge their sexual urges with the stamp of official church approval should be granted to homosexuals (marriage). But because the church is governed by men with limited vision and zippo amount of revelatory ability, I don't expect this to happen anytime soon.
This is very true, but I don't see how it makes a difference to LDS theology.
You don't? I'd like to hear your view on this, since it seems that the obvious argument (playing devils advocate now) is that if homosexuality is inherited in the same since that eye color, hair texture, body composition, or organic neurological conditions such as Tourettes Syndrome, then the position of LDS theology that homosexuality is a sin and a serious one at that (in the important sense of human sexuality and its proper bounds and conditions), is false.
I only state the obvious. Mormons don't have a monopoly on this position. The arguments made are made by much smarter persons than myself.
harmony wrote:They simply ignored the science and continued in their belief that homosexuality is a choice.
What is the best LDS source for your assertion that Church leaders ignore science and state that homosexuality is a choice? Last ten years would be preferable.
From everything I have read, the Church's view seems to be that homosexual tendancies are considered a trial placed upon individuals, and that the only way to combat these tendancies is to live the gospel. If a homosexual person is willing to not act on his/her tendancies, and live the gospel, then the Lord will remove this trial in His own time. The individual should be treated with compassion, but acting on homosexual urges is a definitive sin.
Have you ever read President Kimball's pamphlet on Homosexuality?
Ohhh but you are wanting something in the last ten years? Hmmm... why? Are you suggesting the statements of the prophets published in a church pamphlet by the church are no longer appropriate?
I still would like a cite which says that the Church teaches that homosexuality is not a genetic condition.
I don't have said pamphlet from Pres. Kimball. Why don't you quote the part where he takes on the genetic issue and says that it is not a genetic condition?
Hi P... if you are seriously interested in the pamplet I will dig it out from my attic... I don't think President Kimball had any clue about genetic anything. :-)
What he does make very clear is homosexuality is a choice and one is choosing to follow Satan.