It is clear that acting on homosexual feelings is big no no in the lds chruch (as well as most other christian denominations). Given however that the Mormons do tend to be a little more modern or liberal in some regards, you would think that there would be good reasons to support the claim. So without resorting to "God said so", "the bible said so", or "Monson said so", why is it immoral or wrong to have a loving, committed, monogamous homosexual relationship? I know that scripture and revelation are a pivotal cornerstone to the lds faith, however many if not most commandments seem to have an obvious meaning or positive outcome. For example, no stealing, no cheating, no lieing, do unto others... , thou shalt not kill, the word of wisdom ext ext all are easy to justify. But what is the justification on this issue? Is there any obvious or modern reason why? (Without resorting to God said so)

It is as detrimental to the growth and normal functioning of a society as are broken homes, etc.
But you are asking a question about morality, which is not an independent concept, and refusing to allow any answers drawing from what this morality is based on. I know why you do so, of course, clever tactic.

//It is as detrimental to the growth and normal functioning of a society as are broken homes//

Evidence? or just an unsupportable claim comparing broken homes to monogamous loving homosexual partners?

Both do little to further the growth of society.

Of course, you have ignored the second part.

What is more, modernity is a fleeting concept. Back in BC 20, moldernity said you could put away your wife for spoiling dinner.

//But you are asking a question about morality, which is not an independent concept, and refusing to allow any answers drawing from what this morality is based on.//

So you are saying you can't justify not rapeing burning and plundering without God? Or Just the condemnation of Homosexuality? do expound.. :)

it would be like me asking you to explain why raping and killing is wrong, without resorting to we have individual rights..

//it would be like me asking you to explain why raping and killing is wrong, without resorting to we have individual rights..//

Wow... ...so I guess my point was a lot easier to make than I thought. The only justification you have for condemning homosexuality is "God said so".. ..but you can come up with other reasons to justify other commandments. I guess the LDS church should campaign under the banner of "Who needs a reason! God Said so!" next time they make an effort to sway peoples opinions on gay marriage.

I provided you with another reason. You didn't discuss it, merely employed a childish tactic of attacking an imagined equation. I just find the more pertinent reason is the one provided by the gospel. It isn't God said so and that is that, and you know it. You refuse to enter into a discussion of those terms, so you can crow over a victory. Sad.
God's purpose for families is to give his children bodies so they can undergo a mortal probation, without which there is no progression. Homosexuality frustrates this.
Also, sexual relations are for a husband and wife, wedded to each other. Any other use is wrong. It is immoral, just as stealing, raping, or killing are imoral, though not of course to the same degree. The consequences are destructive, but subteler.
I could also go into how a child needs both a father and a mother to build up a sense of worth and know how to conduct oneslef in society and with the opposite sex. We are speaking in general terms, I know an exception could be found. Hence my comparison with broken homes.

Im also waiting for you to explain why killing is wrong and imoral, without resorting to the rights of man.

So I guess Paul is saying there are lds commandments that modern man can rationalize and there are some lds commandments that modern man can't rationalize.

I guess stealing can be rationalized and homosexuality cant.

I wonder if there are other lds commandments that can't be rationalized.

I guess if my son doesn't understand why he's not allowed to drive at 13 yrs old, then he should be allowed to drive. Sure, he might hurt someone but then again, many older people hurt others when they drive.

I don't have an argument or answer yet, just some initial thoughts.

//I could also go into how a child needs both a father and a mother to build up a sense of worth and know how to conduct oneslef in society and with the opposite sex. We are speaking in general terms, I know an exception could be found. Hence my comparison with broken homes.//

Any evidence that in general people with same sex parents are worse off?

//Im also waiting for you to explain why killing is wrong and imoral, without resorting to the rights of man.//

//I could also go into how a child needs both a father and a mother to build up a sense of worth and know how to conduct oneslef in society and with the opposite sex. We are speaking in general terms, I know an exception could be found. Hence my comparison with broken homes.//

Answering questions with questions, and making statements without anything to support or back them up. Not looking too persuasive there Allen. But hey... ..I'll bite. If you don't believe in human rights (inform me if that is the case for you) then there is no reason not to burn pillage and murder. What you seem to be hoping to show is how important human rights are needed in justifying not killing. You have made your point, but it is quite a useless tangent indeed, at least for your case. If you are trying to relate this to why you can't support yourself without the felt cards of the plan o salvation, then you are just proving my point further. You cannot justify homosexuality as a being negative without bringing God into the equation, there is no good reason except "God said so". I sincerely wonder if there is any other Mormon commandments that are as difficult to explain or justify without God. A few come to mind, but I sincerely can't really find any that can even remotely compare the lack of justification for the idea that homosexuality is wrong...

Paul, I asked for further examples of lds commandments that are difficult to justify. You say you can think of some. Would appreciate a list. Or is this discussion just between you and Allen? Sorry to butt in if it is.

I got this from the Primary Lesson Manual. I like what is says about agency. When it comes to push or shove, agency wins. Everyone is free to do whatever they want, with or without justification, with or without God. I dont think the LDS church takes a person's agency away, at least not intentionally.

"... Explain that following the prophet will not protect us from all suffering. Church members who did what the Prophet Joseph Smith told them to do still suffered persecution in Missouri, and the Prophet himself suffered greatly. Heavenly Father allows everyone to have agency and make choices, and sometimes we suffer because of the wrong choices of other people. However, following the prophet will help us avoid the suffering that may come from our own wrong choices. "

Ooops! I guess I brought God into the discussion but I hope in an acceptable way.

Enjoy.

Well, considering that there haven't been enough cases of children growing up in a homosexual partnership, I don't think any serious studies have been done.
I've outlined some of the issues, I'm not a sociologist, so I can't provide anything deeper.
It is quite obvious and logical that a child needs the example of both a maternal and a paternal role model. We learn much from observing our parents' interact. No matter how hard a homosexual couple tries, it is not the same.
Answering questions with questions is probably due to my cultural heritage, say what you will, it is effective.
And Paul, you know very well that at the heart of every commandment and every moral issue for LDS is God said so. Killing is wrong because we have individual rights, who gave us those rights?
I'm still unsure as to your purpose, is it to show us as blind, bigoted fanatics who are so ridiculous as to believe in God and to believe that he gives values?

While I do not believe that god has instilled the values on man I do agree with them.

And how do you know that two fathers or mothers could not be maternal and parental? Why can two loving people of the same sex not instill proper social and moral values on a child? Course this is just opinion but love is love no matter who you are in love with. And believing that being homosexual is detrimental to society is an outdated view. They contribute to society as much as any other member. Now Biologically homosexuals may not contribute to the whole but that is not what we are arguing.

Because a man is not a woman and a woman is not a man. Love is not everything, you could love the outdoors as passionately as you love a woman too. As they will probably be mothers and fathers too, children need to see both how their father and how their mother act around them, around each other, around others.

That is one of the detriments to society, it is subtler than the biological one, which is a huge detriment.

Call it an outdated view if you will, doesn't make it wrong. As I have pointed out, in the 1st century AD, the progressive, enlightened view was that a man could get rid of his wife over something as minor as spoiling dinner. That attitude led society to reverting back to an older view, and making it harder to just get rid of your wife.

Also, the 19th century theories of race and physiognomy were considered modern, enlightened and scientific.

What basic social interactions will kids be missing out on when they have homosexual parents?

Most of them in the home.

Like? I'm curious about this.

<<Now Biologically homosexuals may not contribute to the whole but that is not what we are arguing.>>

To me, that's the point. The fact you had to qualify biological homosexuals that "may" not contribute to the whole shows how artificial a homosexual "family" is. May not? You mean, cannot.

As I have said elsewhere, if you exclude religion from the discussion, specifically the Judeo-Christian rules of sexuality, then you are left with nature/evolution to explain how people become biologically confused and pair up with a same-sex mate with whom cannot procreate.

If you are consenting adults, then, by all means, pair up in this confusion, and enjoy your rights to privacy, freedom from molestation, and persecution. But don't demand to be recognized as normal. And don't demand to raise children and insist it is equal to heterosexual parentage. It is not normal. It is an inefficient way to propagate the specie, to say the least. And nowhere in the animal kingdom do you find two dads or two moms raising offspring as nurturing/loving parents, even if their homosexuality could have come later in life, after having procreated in heterosexual relations. Without artificial insemination, surrogacy, and or adoption, there is no family, as there will be no children, period. There is no maybe.

Even if you attempt to qualify homosexuality as a result of evolution, you are being ignorant of the progression evolution is supposed to bring. It really qualifies as DEvolution and degression, as its results are not passed on in nature.

As for basic things kids would miss in homosexual parenting, remember, male and female humans generally have different roles. Yes there are exceptions, both good and bad. But, by and large, mothers are more nurturing, providing more instruction on humanity/compassion and creating a sense of home, while fathers are more protective, educating their young how to survive and get along in society through social responsibility. When children grow up without one of the heterosexual parents, they miss out on that balance, and the power of control by the physically stronger father.

Boys who grow up in fatherless homes are often overprotected by their mothers and are less likely to develop into responsible men. Their sisters are often taught, usually by bitter mothers who are abandoned by similarly-raised adult males--not men, that they don't need a man, since they are likely to create a family only to abandon it. Males who grow up under such maternal rule are more likely to mistreat women because when they reach the age where they don't have to take their mother's nagging crap any longer, usually by age 14, they show no respect and are more likely to become abusive. And since they don't have a dad around to engrain a real sense of manhood through good example, that real men don't abuse women, and a strong hand to discipline such a boy to keep them in line until they understand such behavior is not acceptable, they are more likely to develop and keep such bad habits of abuse into seniority.

And, for protecting families, even as strong, muscular, and not-so-feminine as Martina Navratilova is for a woman, she was not a father figure that could protect her lesbian lover's teenage daughter from teenage boys through physical intimidation to respect the daughter. God help the boy who messes with my daughter in any abusive way!

Having been in Law Enforcement for 23+ years and having had to intervene in the dynamics of families all that time, I think I have a pretty good perspective of what an imbalanced home lacks for ideal child-rearing.

I cannot claim any authority with regard to scripture on this issue, however it is generally seen across most denomintaions that follow Christ that homosexuality is forbidden. That has been relaxed in certain cases, and a growing number of nations and churches are permitting homosexual partnerships, occasionally using the term marriage for this phenomenon, often camoflaguing it with other terminology.

One thing that I would point out, regardless of personal feelings towards this issue one way or the other, is that heterosexual partnerships and marriages are not perfect either. They may fall under the bracket of what is considered to be normal, but they are not faultless. Personally, I would prefer to see children growing, maturing and developing under the guidance of a loving, caring, 'well balanced' and happy homosexual couple than under the influences of heterosexual parents that are not providing the child with a harmonious and happy environment.

Regrettably homosexual individuals still suffer a significant amount of prejudice in today's society. Personally I find this deplorable, but I can also understand the motivations of people who object to such relationships. I will say that from my own experience, I have known homosexual individuals and couples, and in my experience I have never considered that they would be unable to provide a child with as much love, education and nurturing as a heterosexual couple. I have also found that having survived the trials and tribulations of 'coming out' that they exhibit a very great degree of compassion and dignity, which are characteristics that are admirable in parents.

In addition to previous comments, I feel that it should be pointed out that theft, rape, murder and other such acts have an important distinction from homosexuality. Homosexual monogamous relationships are a phenomenon that is shared between two consenting adults, the same cannot be said of the other acts mentioned.

Is because God said so really bad reason to believe something? I kinda just trust that he knows more than me so that we he tells me to do something I don't understand I do because I figure he'll let me know. I know its not what you want for the conversation, but I don't think that it is a bad reason to follow this or any other commandment. For those of faith at least, I mean if you are a latter day saint then you have faith in Christ and his servants so while you must continually gain knowledge and eventually understand all things, here and now we have to trust that God knows what is best for us and move forward based on that.

Joseph smith was a homosexual or he was at least in the closet cause everyone is a homosexual that is just part of life is becoming a homosexual

Haha.

Accepting homosexuality is important for the moral development of a free society. Human beings are not identical and there are variations along the continuum in many areas of human development. Disparaging certain members or groups is detrimental to all members and groups in a society as it promotes division, hatred, bigotry, retards the acceptance of science and fact, and creates an acceptable springboard for disparaging acts of discrimination.

Liberalism has always prevailed and always will. The conservative movement or traditionalists are mired in fear and judgment that has resulted in the torture, rape and murder of many people who do not fit the parochial model. Sadly.

And progressive movements haven't really lessened it. if you claim I am generalising, yes i am, but so are you.

Liberal societies are the ones that die out. Once liberal-minded men ran governments of the past, their societies deteriorated from strong, healthy systems to weak, amoral societies with no cohesion. Name one passivist society that has ever survived any more than one generation. In liberal society, torturers, rapists, and murderers are treated as victims of environment and are "rehabilitated" to be reintroduced in society where they maim, rape, and kill again, to the astonishment of liberals.

I accept homosexuals having the right to perform their biological confusion in the privacy of their lives. But it is not a normal alternative to heterosexuality. In Judeo-Christianity, it is sin. In nature, it is an abhorration, as it does not lend to promoting the specie. Reproduction requires both ova and spermatozoa, not either or.