well, I guess the best place to start would be in the scriptural references to homosexuality.
(Gen 19:4) It was one of the sins of Sodom
Leviticus 18:22, 20:13
ok, so these are pretty clear in that homosexuality is a sin. And you are right, we all are sinners before God. We should love them and they should be able to do as they wish, I would never try to force them otherwise.
The problem isnt with homosexuality or homosexuals. The problem is in them wanted their behavior to be condoned by all, and accepted as "normal". Its even more then that, it is in what it will do to our society. Once same-sex marriage is allowed it will forever change our society, and not for the better. It will be taught in our schools as normal, and it will start to effect the nuclear family for the worst. While there is not yet the data to show the effects of children being raised in same sex homes, there IS data to show that not having a mother/father in a childs life DOES cause damage. My husband installed beds for a short time and met a young boy (about 5) who had two mommies. He was so desperate for male companionship that he clung to my husband and his coworker for over an hour while they were in his home.
As the prominent sociologist David Popenoe has said:
The burden of social science evidence supports the idea that gender differentiated parenting is important for human development and that the contribution of fathers to childrearing is unique and irreplaceable. (David Popenoe, Life Without Father (New York: The Free Press, 1996) p. 146.)
Popenoe explained that:
. . . The complementarity of male and female parenting styles is striking and of enormous importance to a child’s overall development. It is sometimes said that fathers express more concern for the child’s longer-term development, while mothers focus on the child’s immediate well-being (which, of course, in its own way has everything to do with a child’s long-term well-being). What is clear is that children have dual needs that must be met: one for independence and the other for relatedness, one for challenge and the other for support.
(Ibid., p. 145)
In today’s secular world, the idea of tolerance has come to mean something entirely different. Instead of love, it has come to mean condone – acceptance of wrongful behavior as the price of friendship. Jesus taught that we love and care for one another without condoning transgression. But today’s politically palatable definition insists that unless one accepts the sin he does not tolerate the sinner.
As Elder Dallin H. Oaks has explained,
Tolerance obviously requires a non-contentious manner of relating toward one another’s differences. But tolerance does not require abandoning one’s standards or one’s opinions on political or public policy choices. Tolerance is a way of reacting to diversity, not a command to insulate it from examination.
I have a hard time with the balnce between their right to live their life, and my right to protect my family, my children, and future generations of children. I will not make a peep about their choices in who they sleep with, but when asked my opinion (as on a ballot) I will certainly not condone the behavior or call it "normal".
My hubby is studying to be a neuropsycologist and will have some good info for you so I will star this.