It seems necessary to point out that pedophilia, bestiality and necrophilia all do not involve two consenting adults and secular society has matured to the point where we have provided laws to protect those with no voice. Homosexuality is nothing to do with this.
But who says “consenting adults” is the standard God uses to determine if something is acceptable to him? In a secular society where homosexuality is protected by law, homosexuals are free to do what they wish. God has spoken on the issue, both anciently and in our day. The standard thus is laid down by the Lord, not man.
Let’s look at the Bible and think about what it talks about and who has interpreted it ( for example I'm fairly certain there is no specific word for homosexuality in the original authors languages so later translators have added in what they think it says.) The Bible authors’ various cultures saw women as property and child marriage as the norm. Instructions for men to not lie with men as with women are more likely to refer to the selling of sex than a blanket ban on homosexual behaviour (if you must apply your narrow definition then you at a sweep liberalise lesbian behaviour.
Paul said in his epistle to the Romans: “And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet. ” (Romans 1:27) And to the Corinthians, he wrote: “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.” (1 Corinthians 6:9)
Sodom seems to portray a story where the men would be happy to rape anyone (so bisexual), the biblical reference to men and women leaving their natural affections seems more apt as a condemnation of heterosexual orgies than a large group of exclusive homosexuals and then there is a whole world of the Catamites that you may be aware of (pederasty) that could have been the subject of so called anti-gay scriptures. While remaining on the Bible don't forget God is happy to use incest as the basis of the foundational family unit (twice, Eden and Noah)....
The genetic structure of the human population had not been corrupted to the extent it is now, where genetic mutations are common in incest. Starting the human population sometimes requires it. People used to think that marrying one’s first cousin was incestuous; however, it’s being made legal in many states. (It’s a little too close for me, but it’s been done with no genetic mutations.) In the days before the flood, people were larger and lived longer. Their genetic status was more pure.
Regarding the nations where men kept catamites for entertainment, such as the early Greek, Etruscan, and Roman cultures, yes, I’m sure the Lord would have had problems with that. But recall that the Lord’s harsh treatments of some of the cultures the Israelites met were based on the gross ignorance of the people. The Lord wasn’t using Israel to punish or destroy all those who were living profligate lifestyles at the time. He was leading them to a promised land—a land that was to be made pure and could not, therefore, pollute the Israelites. Along the way, Moses and Joshua did not destroy all the cultures and cities in his way. But he did destroy all five of the Midianite kings, all save their females. And he spared some kings who made peace and slaughtered others. The deciding issue tended to be how entrenched moral denigration happened to be. If a culture were primitive, mean, degrading to its women and young boys, and if it erected altars where infants were burned upon the fires of Moloch, yes, those cities were always swept from the land.
The righteous man Lot has an incestuous relationship with his daughters, Mary is likely to be a child (by our laws) when God impregnates her, David and Jonathon's story seems a clear portrayal of a gay relationship ...
Let’s keep these posts on topic and perhaps we could debate the Law of Moses’ additional sexual issues some other time. As far as Lot was concerned, he was made drunk by his daughters, who then had sex with him. They did this because they thought the Lord had destroyed the world when he destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. Not wanting the Earth to remain uninhabited, they felt abusing their father was the only answer. As for David and Jonathon, there is absolutely no evidence of any improper relationship, but rather, a close friendship. Are all very close friendships sexual in nature? Mine aren’t. I have friends I’d do anything for, but we’re like brothers, not lovers. I think you’re dancing on a moonbeam on that one. As for Mary, why make her an issue? We don’t know how old Mary was, but we do know she was betrothed to another man, so she was old enough. Besides, isn’t God the arbiter of what’s right and what’s wrong? What gives us the right to judge God? And by whose standards? If we don’t use God’s, then whose standards do we use?
Homosexual behaviour is genetic in origin , but like all sex, it is nurtured and trained by culture and environment. Religion tries to put artificial boundaries on natural processes ascribing arbitrary rewards and punishments that shift the balance of power to favour those in power. Joseph Smith introduced polygamy to allow himself and later his trusted supporters sexual access to woman under their spiritual care. Did god reveal that a woman could select multiple males with her as head of the home? Of course not. God(s) always favour the ruling elite.
If homosexuality is a genetic behavior, then aren’t pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia and other deviant urges? Again, consent doesn’t have anything to do with it. In most cases, adultery is consensual, but that doesn’t make it right. But where the other urges are deviant, adultery is an appendage of heterosexuality, though it can infringe on homosexuality and is more an issue of fidelity.
Now I know Mormons who believe homosexuality is morally wrong and must be repented of before one can enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but who also believe from a Libertarian standpoint that homosexual marriage is a state issue. And there are Republicans who believe that it should be a federal issue, as problems would result otherwise if a homosexual married couple moved from a state where it was legal moved to a state where it was illegal. Still others believe it can be worked out between both states and feds. Since God instituted marriage, I’m not too quick to change that. If people wanted to change that to meet social and financial needs, it would be beneficial to homosexual couples. But more troubling are the social issues facing members of the church who are finding it difficult, if not impossible, to change in this life.
What one of the most fascinating things from within the LDS church will be is that if homosexual marriage does become the law of the land, as I’m convinced it will be, how will that affect churches like mine that denies homosexuals the sacrament of marriage? Such churches also would include the Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist, and, in fact, most other strong Bible based churches. When marriage, an ordinance created by God, is polluted and debased as some are intending to do, what could happen to a church that denied it to its gay members? Loss of tax exempt status?
Much heartache could probably be avoided by calling it something other than marriage, but the LDS church, for one, will never be bullied into attempting to bind two homosexuals for time and all eternity.