LDS Position on Homosexuality & "Eternal Gender"

[desirexnoel]

I don't believe anyone here has ever said such a thing. Please provide a source for such a baseless, vicious charge.

If what the bible says about homosexuals are about modern day homosexuals they "shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven".

And please don't assume something is baseless while asking for a source. Wait until you hear the reasoning before you attack it.

[bytebear]

If what the bible says about homosexuals are about modern day homosexuals they "shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven".

And please don't assume something is baseless while asking for a source. Wait until you hear the reasoning before you attack it.

That is not in the Bible. You are mixing it up with "The meek shall inherit the Earth."

[Seeker7]

VORT:

Hi there, VORT. Thanks for your response.

The same way that the fact that we are created in God's image, with two arms, two legs, one head, two eyes, etc. is not disproven by the existence of those with birth defects. Our present mortal being is imperfect clay.

I notice you chose to use the word "disproven". Just in case there has been some kind of misunderstanding, I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything here. I'm merely asking for a bit of clarification on the concept of "eternal gender".

That being said, I think you might have misunderstood me. I know that according to Christian/LDS beliefs, our present mortal bodies are imperfect. My question was not, "Why does God allow people to be born with birth defects?" (Although if it had been, you would've done a fair job of answering it.) It is not the "defect" (if it can be called that) of being born with hard-to-identify genitalia itself that bothers me. It is the fact that God apparently considers it a sin for people to defy their "eternal genders", and then allows people to be born with characteristics that cause gender confusion -- or in some cases, people simply feel like they're men or women trapped within the wrong bodies.

I find it difficult to believe that:

A.) Gender is specific and eternal

B.) If a person defies his/her "eternal gender role" by living a homosexual lifestyle, it is considered a sin

C.) But God sees no problem with making it hard or nearly impossible for some people to decide what their sexual identity is by allowing them to have ambiguous genitalia, or letting them feel like they're trapped within bodies of the wrong gender, etc.

GOD: "I'm going to punish you if you decide to defy your specific, eternal gender role -- the one that I, myself, gave you! If you go against what is expected of your own gender, it's a sin!"

KID 1: "But God, my body has both male and female characteristics. I'm confused and I don't know how to decide what I am!"

KID 2: "And God, you gave me a girl's body, but I think and feel like a boy! I don't know what to do either!"

Somehow, that doesn't strike me as something a fair god would do. But maybe I'm just hitting a mental block here.

Some people simply are neither male nor female, and some people are both.

This is a gross overgeneralization.

I'm sorry. How so?

If gender is truly "an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose", then why do some people have mixed or ambiguous genders? Why would God create them that way, if a clear-cut gender identity is so important?

I suppose for the same reason he "creates" people with no legs, no arms, or two heads.

Some people are born with birth defects. Okay, I get that. But as far as I'm aware, no one's saying that people's present physical forms have a "divine purpose" and are eternal. But it is being said that people's genders have a divine purpose and are eternal. And apparently, it's a sin to go against your gender role for that very reason. All I'm pointing out is that some people find it very difficult to identify their own gender roles -- especially people with intersexual characteristics.

Undoubtedly, those of indeterminate sex while in mortality will nevertheless be whatever sex they are spiritually, however their mortal genitalia may or may not have formed.

VORT, you clearly don't understand. I'm not just talking about mix-ups with "mortal genitalia". I'm talking about actual "spiritual" confusion (if you will) about gender roles. Sometimes people truly don't know how to sexually identify -- at least, not with any degree of certainty. This might be because of how a person's genitalia has formed, or it might not be. (Although, I can tell you that having ambiguous genitalia certainly doesn't help when it comes to deciding how to identify.)

I think you're making the issue out to be far harder than it actually is.

Well, it's an important issue to me, so forgive me for requesting clarification. If you think I'm making a mountain out of a molehill, you certainly needn't trouble yourself with any further replies.

BYTEBEAR:

If what the bible says about homosexuals are about modern day homosexuals they "shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven"...

That is not in the Bible. You are mixing it up with "The meek shall inherit the Earth."

1 Corinthians 6:9-11

"Do you not know that the unrighteous

will NOT inherit the Kingdom of God?

Do not be deceived.

Neither fornicators,

nor adulterers,

nor homosexuals,

nor sodomites,

nor thieves, ...

will inherit the Kingdom of God."

[cofchristcousin]

Are there some statistics or speculation on the percentage of LDS who accept gltb and their unions/marriages? I would doubt there are polls, we don't have them either. I had heard that 30% of LDS or maybe cultural Mormons struggle or are against the current LDS position.

and seeker7, I like the link you have provided. Christianity is not of one mind on gltb issues. As Biblical and contextual scholarship enters the mainstream more and more I think we will soon be seeing more denominations dropping the barriers to the Sacraments. imo.

[desirexnoel]

Christianity is not of one mind on gltb issues. As Biblical and contextual scholarship enters the mainstream more and more I think we will soon be seeing more denominations dropping the barriers to the Sacraments. imo.

I completely agree and I look forward to it. n_n

[Vort]

That being said, I think you might have misunderstood me. I know that according to Christian/LDS beliefs, our present mortal bodies are imperfect. My question was not, "Why does God allow people to be born with birth defects?" (Although if it had been, you would've done a fair job of answering it.) It is not the "defect" (if it can be called that) of being born with hard-to-identify genitalia itself that bothers me. It is the fact that God apparently considers it a sin for people to defy their "eternal genders", and then allows people to be born with characteristics that cause gender confusion -- or in some cases, people simply feel like they're men or women trapped within the wrong bodies.

Suffering from "gender confusion" or feeling like an opposite-sex person "trapped in the body" of the "wrong sex" don't sound to me like sins. They sound like weaknesses of the flesh, unusual to be sure but not necessarily all that different from what every one of us deals with.

Looking beyond that: To me, the justification you offer above sounds similar to those who say, "God created some people with a strong sex drive/bad temper/lust for children/desire to overeat/taste for hominy grits, so therefore how can it be sinful for them to fornicate/beat people up/be a pedophile/eat themselves into morbid obesity/consume stuff with the taste and texture of kindergarten paste?" The argument sounds convincing, but it fails on a few levels:

• The fact that people have a propensity to act in certain ways does not justify that action.
• The fact that some people, through no fault of their own, are predisposed toward certain sinful behaviors does not absolve them of guilt if they sin.
• If an action is spiritually harmful, then it is a sin. This is true regardless of how pitiful or otherwise sympathetic the person engaged in the sinful activity might be.
• The fact that we cannot see the justice in a given situation does not therefore imply that the situation is necessarily unjust. It might simply be an artifact of our own limited understanding.
• People cannot always completely control their desires or impulses, but they can always control their actions if they so choose.

I find it difficult to believe that:

A.) Gender is specific and eternal

B.) If a person defies his/her "eternal gender role" by living a homosexual lifestyle, it is considered a sin

C.) But God sees no problem with making it hard or nearly impossible for some people to decide what their sexual identity is by allowing them to have ambiguous genitalia, or letting them feel like they're trapped within bodies of the wrong gender, etc.

Do you mean that you find each of these difficult to believe, or that you find the three together difficult to believe? I will assume the latter.

The number of people with truly ambiguous genitalia is vanishingly small, less than one in a thousand. I have great sympathy for such people, but I don't think we should be determining sexual morality (or for that matter basing our laws) on the experience of 0.02% of the population.

GOD: "I'm going to punish you if you decide to defy your specific, eternal gender role -- the one that I, myself, gave you! If you go against what is expected of your own gender, it's a sin!"

KID 1: "But God, my body has both male and female characteristics. I'm confused and I don't know how to decide what I am!"

KID 2: "And God, you gave me a girl's body, but I think and feel like a boy! I don't know what to do either!"

Somehow, that doesn't strike me as something a fair god would do. But maybe I'm just hitting a mental block here.

I understand your confusion. Justice often seems delayed or ignored in this life. I cannot speak to the idea of God's "fairness" or why people might be born with various handicaps.

Some people simply are neither male nor female, and some people are both.

This is a gross overgeneralization.

I'm sorry. How so?

Genotypically speaking, humans either have a Y sex chromosome or they do not. If the presence of a Y chromosome indicates maleness, then genotypic sex is always unambiguous. Phenotypically speaking, people usually develop either as male or as female. There certainly are cases of ambiguous genital development and even of true hermaphroditism, but even in the latter case, it is generally incorrect to say that the person is "both male and female". A more accurate description would be that the person is neither fully male nor fully female -- though it would be equally inaccurate to say that they "simply are neither male nor female".

I do not claim to be an expert in the area. Most of my knowledge in this area comes from a genetics class I took at BYU 25 years ago, with a professor who sensitized his students to the issues confronting the "intersexed". Nothing simple about it. Perhaps because of that class, I'm unwilling to condemn those who "feel trapped" in a "wrong-sexed" body. But at the same time, I am certainly not willing to abandon the teachings of God regarding human sexuality.

Some people are born with birth defects. Okay, I get that. But as far as I'm aware, no one's saying that people's present physical forms have a "divine purpose" and are eternal.

Of course we say that. What do you suppose it means to have been created "in God's image"?

But it is being said that people's genders have a divine purpose and are eternal. And apparently, it's a sin to go against your gender role for that very reason.

I don't really understand your use of the word "sin". You seem to have a concept of sin that involves a long list of prohibited activities, and if you engage in one of those activities, God or an angel or someone else puts a check mark beside that sin and now you're on the hotseat. A "sin" is any activity that separates us from God. God has given us the gift of sexuality, along with some very strict instructions on how we are to use that gift. Inappropriate use of sex separates us from God very quickly and very effectively, and is thus a grave sin.

VORT, you clearly don't understand. I'm not just talking about mix-ups with "mortal genitalia". I'm talking about actual "spiritual" confusion (if you will) about gender roles. Sometimes people truly don't know how to sexually identify -- at least, not with any degree of certainty. This might be because of how a person's genitalia has formed, or it might not be. (Although, I can tell you that having ambiguous genitalia certainly doesn't help when it comes to deciding how to identify.)

I'm not sure what it is that I clearly don't understand. I believe I do understand what you've stated above. I confess I do not understand how that confusion might alter God's teachings or the definition of sin.

Well, it's an important issue to me, so forgive me for requesting clarification. If you think I'm making a mountain out of a molehill, you certainly needn't trouble yourself with any further replies.

Sorry if I offended you. It seemed to me that you were looking for complex reasons behind a straightforward law of sexual morality. Intersex issues might bring up some questions, but the fundamental principles won't change. That's all I was trying to say.

[desirexnoel]

That is not in the Bible. You are mixing it up with "The meek shall inherit the Earth."

I Corinthians 6:9 – “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders”

I think not.

[Vort]

Yupp. That is all I ever here. When it comes down to it, if you are gay, live a lie or go to hell.

I don't believe anyone here has ever said such a thing. Please provide a source for such a baseless, vicious charge.

If what the bible says about homosexuals are about modern day homosexuals they "shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven".

You didn't say "will not inherit the kingdom of heaven", you said "go to hell". Provide a source for this charge. Surely you know the two are not the same.

And please don't assume something is baseless while asking for a source. Wait until you hear the reasoning before you attack it.

I'm still waiting.

[desirexnoel]

Sorry. For Mormons it is Telestial, right?

I have a really hard time responding to you because you are so rude.

[Vort]

Sorry. For Mormons it is Telestial, right?

For Mormons, what is Telestial? I have no idea what you're asking.

I have a really hard time responding to you because you are so rude.

So here's the flow of conversation:

• You say: "Yupp. That is all I ever here. When it comes down to it, if you are gay, live a lie or go to hell."
• I challenge you to back up this baseless and vicious statement.
• You don't.
• I mention that you haven't backed it up yet.

End result: I'M the rude one.

Funny how that works.

[desirexnoel]

No. It is the way you said it. And you are still completely on the offensive. If I hurt your feelings or offended you in any way I apologize. Please stop and use some manners. I know it is the internet but that doesn't mean I don't have any feelings.

And where gays go. They go to the telestial, right? It hardly matters. I am sure you can all agree they aren't going to heaven because they are gay.

[desirexnoel]

You remind me of my father. He seems to think that the meaner and more aggressive he is the more likely I am to listen. I am hoping to block off all communication with him in the near future.

[Snow]

For the same reason God "creates" any other physically imperfect being.

Well?

[Snow]

So that I don't have to read the whole thread - or guess - can someone tell me what the bigot/nut quotient is so far?

It's usually fairly high on gay threads. How we doing here?

[FunkyTown]

Hey! I know this one! I'm so excited. Actually, I know this one because someone in my ward went through it.

They had a sex change operation, but were born with both male and female genitalia. The Doctor chose to make them female when they were born, but this person always 'felt' male and had a sex change operation.

They needed to get first presidency approval in that case. It's rare enough, but it happens.

People make mistakes. Environment can make a man a eunuch or a woman born with ambiguous genitalia. That doesn't mean that gender wasn't an important role.

Hi everyone! I recently posted a thread called "Curious About Mormonism" in which I asked several questions about the LDS faith. It's been a lot of fun to read everybody's answers! Before I came to this forum, I was really unfamiliar with LDS beliefs, but now I'm gaining a lot of understanding by reading what people have to say. I've also been checking out some of the websites that were suggested to me. Overall, it's proving to be a very informative experience!

Some of the websites I've been reading are: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Mormon.org - Home, Mormons - Information about the church and its people, and LDS - Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - Mormons.

While browsing through the About.com pages, I came across one entitled "The Church's Teachings on Homosexuality", found at this url. The page says:

I cannot help but be curious about these statements. It is a biological fact that some human beings are born with incomplete or ill-formed sexual organs, ambiguous genitalia, or even intersex anatomies. Gender is not always black-and-white, nor is it always easy to determine. Some children are born with characteristics from both sexes, and others seem to be born with characteristics that are completely unidentifiable and baffling to doctors. How does this fit in with the idea that gender is eternal, and that God created each of us "male and female" in his image? Some people simply are neither male nor female, and some people are both. If gender is truly "an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose", then why do some people have mixed or ambiguous genders? Why would God create them that way, if a clear-cut gender identity is so important?

The page says that we will retain our genders even after death, when we pass on into the Spirit World. Does this mean that intersex people will remain intersexual for all of eternity?

But gender is not just "male or female". Some people are both, and some people are neither. If gender is "divine" (it comes from God) and is an important part of our identity, then why would God create people who do not fall in either the male or female category?

Please help me understand. I welcome everyone's insights on this issue.

[Seeker7]

VORT:

Suffering from "gender confusion" or feeling like an opposite-sex person "trapped in the body" of the "wrong sex" don't sound to me like sins.

I'm glad to hear that, although it wasn't the feeling of gender confusion that I thought might be viewed as a sin; it was the idea of how someone might act as a result of that confusion. According to the websites I recently browsed through, Mormons place heavy importance on gender and family roles. It seems plausible to me that intersex or transgendered people might, in their struggle to identify themselves and take on functioning roles in society, commit some actions out of sheer confusion or indecision that constitute actual sins according to LDS doctrine. But I suppose if God is indeed just, he will judge all of his children individually according to their circumstances during life. (I have to admit, though, that based on what little I know of the Old Testament, God does not always act in ways that seem fair to the individual.)

To me, the justification you offer above sounds similar to those who say, "God created some people with a strong sex drive/bad temper/lust for children/desire to overeat/taste for hominy grits, so therefore how can it be sinful for them to fornicate/beat people up/be a pedophile/eat themselves into morbid obesity/consume stuff with the taste and texture of kindergarten paste?"

Not at all. I agree that, according to the Bible, things like fornication and gluttony are considered sins. Thus, it seems reasonable to me that the Christian god would deem such actions sinful. After all, he himself proclaimed them to be. But should imperfect human beings who are guaranteed to live sinful lives (and, in fact, cannot escape wrongdoing) be punished for succumbing to weaknesses that God personally instilled within them? Well, that's a difficult subject and is probably better left for a different thread. But just for the record, I will say it does seem unfair to me that human beings are supposedly born with sinful natures we cannot evade, which basically renders it impossible for us not to sin; and in addition to that, God ostensibly programs powerful sinful tendencies within each of us (like gluttony); and then when we sin, we are held responsible for those actions and punished for not leading flawless lives -- a goal that is unachievable for us in the first place.

The fact that some people, through no fault of their own, are predisposed toward certain sinful behaviors does not absolve them of guilt if they sin.

That's something on which we'll have to simply agree to disagree, because as I said before, such a discussion is better left for a separate topic.

I don't think we should be determining sexual morality (or for that matter basing our laws) on the experience of 0.02% of the population.

I would hope that God might individualize his judgments for even such a small percentage of his children. But as for basing our laws on the hardships experienced by intersex or transgendered people, I never said anything about that.

Genotypically speaking, humans either have a Y sex chromosome or they do not. If the presence of a Y chromosome indicates maleness, then genotypic sex is always unambiguous. Phenotypically speaking, people usually develop either as male or as female.

Thank you, but I was already aware of this.

There certainly are cases of ambiguous genital development and even of true hermaphroditism...

Yes.

...but even in the latter case, it is generally incorrect to say that the person is "both male and female". A more accurate description would be that the person is neither fully male nor fully female -- though it would be equally inaccurate to say that they "simply are neither male nor female".

I suppose I should've been more lucid in my wording. I wrongly assumed that everyone would correctly interpret what I was trying to say because it seemed apparent to me. Obviously, having characteristics from both sexes doesn't make one both fully male and fully female -- at least, not in a biological sense. I was referring to people's sexual identities, which may or may not derive from their biological characteristics -- and yes, it is quite possible to identify as both male and female, or indeed as neither. I'll try to be clearer from now on.

Some people are born with birth defects. Okay, I get that. But as far as I'm aware, no one's saying that people's present physical forms have a "divine purpose" and are eternal.

Of course we say that. What do you suppose it means to have been created "in God's image"?

But our present forms? I was merely pointing out that these flawed bodies we currently inhabit are not said to be eternal. Certainly, according to what I've read of LDS beliefs, we'll have eternal bodies to house our souls after we die, but they won't be these bodies. Our genders, however? Apparently, they will be with us in the premortal existence, the mortal existence, and the Spirit World after death -- and they will remain the same during each stage, not like our physical bodies. This seems a rather trivial point, though, so I'll let it rest.

You seem to have a concept of sin that involves a long list of prohibited activities...

Doesn't it?

A "sin" is any activity that separates us from God.

And he's given us lists of moral rules which, should we violate them somehow, would constitue a sin... hasn't he? (Ten Commandments, anyone?)

I'm not sure what it is that I clearly don't understand. I believe I do understand what you've stated above.

Your previous post didn't seem to acknowledge the fact that I was speaking of gender confusion in additon to gender-related birth defects. Your most recent one, however, has remedied that situation.

Sorry if I offended you. It seemed to me that you were looking for complex reasons behind a straightforward law of sexual morality. Intersex issues might bring up some questions, but the fundamental principles won't change. That's all I was trying to say.

Thanks for the apology, but rest assured that you haven't offended me. It's just that your statement "I think you're making the issue out to be far harder than it actually is" seemed to convey a general tone of annoyance, which made me wonder why you had bothered to respond to my question anyway. But no harm done.

[Gatorman]

Seeker - You just made a very bold statement that I must question. You stated that Heavenly Father created people who 'had to' sin. Why? I have not seen anything by the church that suggests that same gender attraction or the ambiguous cases we have discussed are sinful. We try to control or feelings/thoughts and that is still important in this case. But, being attracted to the same gender is not inherently sinful. It is acting on those thoughts/feelings that are. Acts are, by nature, choices. So, the sin is when one chooses to act on those feelings. Exactly the same as when someone who is attracted to kids is sinning when they act upon them.

[Vort]

Hey! I know this one! I'm so excited. Actually, I know this one because someone in my ward went through it.

They had a sex change operation, but were born with both male and female genitalia. The Doctor chose to make them female when they were born, but this person always 'felt' male and had a sex change operation.

They needed to get first presidency approval in that case. It's rare enough, but it happens.

This is fascinating. Tell me, has "Denise -> Dennis" been ordained to a Priesthood office since the operation? (Or before?)

[Justice]

God did not instill any weaknesses in anyone.

Ether 12:

27 And if men come unto me I will show unto them their weakness. I give unto men weakness that they may be humble; and my grace is sufficient for all men that humble themselves before me; for if they humble themselves before me, and have faith in me, then will I make weak things become strong unto them.

[KrazyKay]

Ether 12:

27 And if men come unto me I will show unto them their weakness. I give unto men weakness that they may be humble; and my grace is sufficient for all men that humble themselves before me; for if they humble themselves before me, and have faith in me, then will I make weak things become strong unto them.

I am living proof of this scripture. During the few years I was very inactive and sexual involved with a few men, I also started experience very strong same-sex attraction. However, I never did act on the same-sex attraction physically (just mentally, which is bad enough). Then when I returned to the church during my pregnancy, I prayed and prayed for Heavenly Father to help me overcome the same-sex attraction. It took a few years, but I did mostly over-come it. Now, occasionally I do get that same feeling - but when I do, I say a small prayer for Heavenly Father's help to make that feeling go away, then after the prayer I start humming my favorite hymn: The Spirit of God. Immediately that same-sex attraction feeling goes away.

So it is true, God gave us weaknesses and once we humble ourselves before Him, then our weaknesses are no longer weaknesses.

If God did not give us weaknesses, then He wouldn't make our weaknesses become strengths when we pray for His help.

[Seeker7]

GATORMAN:

Seeker - You just made a very bold statement that I must question. You stated that Heavenly Father created people who 'had to' sin. Why?

Perhaps I am wrongly inserting mainstream Christian beliefs into LDS doctrine. If so, I apologize. (Please forgive my scant familiarity with the subject; I simply was never taught anything about the Mormon faith.)

But maybe you can help me out.

Do you believe it's possible for human beings other than Jesus to live sinless lives?

Do you believe that human beings are inherently sinful?

Do you believe in the concept of original sin?

I have not seen anything by the church that suggests that same gender attraction or the ambiguous cases we have discussed are sinful...It is acting on those thoughts/feelings that are.

Yes, I understand. Thank you. I never said that same-sex attraction or the state of being of indeterminate gender might be considered sinful. Above, I wrote, "...it wasn't the feeling of gender confusion that I thought might be viewed as a sin; it was the idea of how someone might act as a result of that confusion...It seems plausible to me that intersex or transgendered people might, in their struggle to identify themselves and take on functioning roles in society, commit some actions out of sheer confusion or indecision that constitute actual sins according to LDS doctrine." I think that explains my point well enough.

But to put it simply:

-> If a person is born with ambiguous sex organs and grows up in a state of confusion (not knowing whether to identify as male or female, and not knowing whether to be attracted to women or men),

--> and as a result of their confusion, this person "experiments" with living both masculine and feminine lifestlyes

---> and dates both men and women,

----> has the individual sinned?

Thanks for your reply.

CHANGED:

Hello again, CHANGED. Thank you for the response.

God did not instill any weaknesses in anyone.

What JUSTICE said. :)

KRAZYKAY:

Thanks for telling your story.

[Seeker7]

GATORMAN:

Also...

-> If a person is born with the body of a male, but grows up thinking and feeling like a female,

--> and this person is attracted to men and wishes desperately to be a woman,

---> so, as a result, the person acts and dresses like a woman, and dates men,

----> has the individual sinned?

What if the person gets a sex change? Is that a sin, or would it make dating men and living a feminine lifestyle not a sin?

What do you think?

[desirexnoel]

But to put it simply:

-> If a person is born with ambiguous sex organs and grows up in a state of confusion (not knowing whether to identify as male or female, and not knowing whether to be attracted to women or men),

--> and as a result of their confusion, this person "experiments" with living both masculine and feminine lifestlyes

---> and dates both men and women,

----> has the individual sinned?

As far as I was taught... yes and needs to repent take no further actions toward anyone of the same sex.

Besides, if they are attracted to both men and women, they are bisexual and that is considered a sin as well...

[desirexnoel]

GATORMAN:

Also...

-> If a person is born with the body of a male, but grows up thinking and feeling like a female,

--> and this person is attracted to men and wishes desperately to be a woman,

---> so, as a result, the person acts and dresses like a woman, and dates men,

----> has the individual sinned?

What if the person gets a sex change? Is that a sin, or would it make dating men and living a feminine lifestyle not a sin?

What do you think?

This is more a transgendered issue and not so much a homosexual one...

And I am not sure sex changes are allowed in the church...

[Gatorman]

If that person is righteously married to their partner, then no, not a sin. But, I would assume in such a case, they have also sought out righteous authority to assist in the process. But, in the end, it is not for me to judge.

GATORMAN:

Also...

-> If a person is born with the body of a male, but grows up thinking and feeling like a female,

--> and this person is attracted to men and wishes desperately to be a woman,

---> so, as a result, the person acts and dresses like a woman, and dates men,

----> has the individual sinned?

What if the person gets a sex change? Is that a sin, or would it make dating men and living a feminine lifestyle not a sin?

What do you think?