More homosexual discussion
 

The thread on CB brought up for me one of the most troubling inconsistencies in LDS doctrine regarding homosexuality.

I think it's fair to conclude that in most cases (of course, there are likely some exceptions) people with homosexual orientation have little to no choice in the matter. Whether it's genetic or environmental (or both), I haven't seen any reasonable evidence which supports the premise that people choose to be homosexual.

It is one of the scriptural axioms that "Men are that they might have joy." What is joy to LDS? Isn't it "joy and rejoicing in your posterity"? We further view the family as the most important social unit. In fact, the raising of a family with an eternal mate is one of the main goals of LDS people.

However, while the church seems to have abandoned the encouragement of homosexuals to get married anyway, they're just left out of the equation entirely.

By saying they can have their homosexual tendencies, but they just can't act on them, it's saying more than they can't have gay sex. It's saying they can't have joy in this life. They can't seek out an eternal partner, they can't share the intimacy found in a marriage, and they can't have joy in their posterity. "Look at all the happy families around you. Too bad you won't have that in this life. Maybe in the next life you can."

So while we talk about joy and happiness and families, homosexuals are constantly reminded of what they can never have, if they follow the rules of the church that tells them they cannot have joy in this life.

If you truly believe the burdens of chastity on homosexuals are similar to those on heterosexuals, you are either ignorant or a fool.

why are you ruling out those who are both ignorant AND foolish?

We're on the same page here SoCal. What do you think of Elder Oaks' answer to the question "So you are saying that homosexual feelings are controllable?" in this "LDS Newsroom" article?

http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/ind...vgnextfmt=tab1

He compares controlling homosexual feelings to a person who covets someone else's property and has a strong temptation to steal it? Compares it to a person who develops a taste for alcohol? Compares it to a person who is born with a 'short fuse'? Give me a break, as if those things are remotely comparable to controlling same-sex attraction.

It's no different than someone whose sexual tendencies are towards children, animals, or trees. They all have to straighten the sexual tendencies out or gut life out hoping for an eternal reward.

I think it's a bit of a cop-out. I wouldn't say he's absolutely wrong, because I guess that it is something that should (according to LDS doctrince) be controlled. But I think the answer gives short shrift to the true scope of the trial an LDS homosexual faces.

What if it isn't the same? Are pedophiles born with an attraction to children? Aren't a lot of pedophiles married with children? Aren't most pedophiles attracted to both women and children (or men and children)? Is pedophilia a result of choices made along a path of deviant sexual behavior?

With all due respect Jay, I think there is a world of difference between same-sex attraction and pedophilia or bestiality. In fact, I find such arguments to be overly simplistic and offensive.

Seriously though, I highly empathize with the plight of homosexuals in the church. I know a gay man who was married and started a family, then all hell broke loose, and he ended up pursuing gay lifestyle for about a decade. He's remarried, rebaptized in the church, and says he's happy, though he'll never be more sexually interested in his wife than with other men.

One thing I truly believe about mortal life is that nearly everyone has ridiculously, difficult challenges to the point where if you learned everything you would say "that is unfair why would God ask so much of someone". Would you rather your trial be the death of a child, an addiction, homosexuality, a physical handicap, depression, cancer, a cheating spouse, financial instability, or other? The point is no one gets a pass, and they seem necessary to learn what we need to learn in this life. That said, having homosexual orientation might top them all. I would never try to minimize that challenge.

It sounds a little calloused and uncaring to tell a homosexual, too bad, you just got dealt a lousy hand, good luck with it. But that's probably how I would sum it up in a nutshell.

Is there a genetic marker that if someone has it, they are 100% certain to have same-sex attraction? If it's less than 100%, then it's not simply a genetic, inborn condition and personal choice/societal factors come into play at some point.

I would venture a guess that same principle applies to pedophiles.

You've been reading too much CB if you think that would be a serious response.

I love the liberal argument that we are born into sin, and never had a choice in the matter to begin with.

The whole...that's just the way it is argument and there's nothing they can do it about it argument. Such compelling stuff.

What a load of horseshit.

Let's face it, if you are homosexually oriented to a point where you cannot maintain a heterosexual relationship, have a strong libido, what does the LDS Church have to offer?

First point, I don't believe homosexuality is binary, "you are or you aren't", but it appears to be a spectrum analysis of a complex set of orientations.

Second point, if you wish to act upon your sexuality, I can't see any reconciliation possible within the three religions of the Book. Do you want a "Don't Look, Don't Tell" policy?

My advice would probably be, and nobody is likely to ask for it, if you're certain your predominant sexual orientations are homosexual, leave and find happiness in whatever you can, but avoid religion. Find it in art, nature, and whatever.

How could I compare the restraint issue to something completely alien? Apparently, a gay can get aroused by a female, as a number have children with women, so I don't quite get it. They can but don't want to.

What do we have to offer such a person? I can't see anything.

Care to elaborate?

Yeah...I don't believe that a person is born devoid of choice in regards to their sexual preference.

It's 100% pure bullshit. The biggest justification of convenience for that kind of behavior ever perpetrated by Lucifer. Shows just how easy it is for him to put bullshit it peoples heads and then let the others run with it. Let's keep on justification abhorrent behavior and turn it into a politically correct form of communication so that anyone who argues against it is branded a bigot and close minded. I honestly have a hard time finding fewer things that have been woven with a web of deception to justify that more than this issue. Certainly a sign of the times. And I don't mean in a progressive way either.

People who believe that choice have been taken away from them in that regard are irresponsible, unaccountable and have been duped.

So if you are truly born into it, then it is not a sin, because infants are sinless?

Right?

My point is you aren't truly born into homosexuality. Thought that was pretty clear. And yes I see the reverse psychological ploy you're trying here and it's not going to work.

I'm asking you a question. IF they were born into it, then it would not be a sin, right?

But they aren't born into homosexuality. I already answered the question. Makes your question moot.

Based on your own scientific study? Or has that question been decided somewhere that I'm not aware of?

Whether or not being gay is inborn, homosexual sex is still a sin. The source of the desire to sin is irrelevant.

Perhaps you can then explain to us why in recent years the LDS church has made it explicitly clear that simply having same sex attraction is not a sin? Or why it is that someone with same sex attraction can get a temple recommend as long as they stay celibate?

See Also God, Plan of Salvation, Proclamation of the Family, etc...etc...etc....that is if you believe in that.

I never said having same sex attraction is a sin.

I said that those who are presuming they are BORN WITH THE ATTRACTION are saying they didn't have that choice,,,and I'm saying that is pure bullshit.

And here we see the problem. The real issue (the contradiction in the church's view of happiness and families, with the church's stance on homosexuality) is being ignored, while homophobes argue about whether homosexuality is a choice or not.

That way, nobody has to deal with the apparent contradiction, right?

Irony.

Yep,,,the good old fashioned because someone doesn't believe in the deception of THEY ARE BORN WITH BEING GAY....then of course that person is automatically a homophobe.

The hypocrisy of the "open minded."

Well, if it's just a simple matter of choice, then why wouldn't same sex attraction be considered a sin? You are talking out of both sides of your mouth.

So you're saying you're one of the "closed minded"?

I think this is an important point. To say you're born one way or the other (regardless of the veracity of the theory of genetic predisposition) is overly simplistic.

It doesn't necessarily make you a homophobe. Just remarkably ignorant.

No I'm not. You guys are deliberately trying to get me to say one thing, and then say something else to contradict myself and obviously I've done no such thing.

Nice try though.

Ahh...the 2nd phase.....if they aren't a homophobe, then of course they have to be ignorant.

Do you guys ever have any fresh material ever?

And I thought Sunday School was repetitive.

No, but you obviously knew what I meant, unless of you course you need a scientific analysis of that.

Well at least we know Robin's secret about you now.

Look if you want to get personal and dirty on this we can. It's entirely up to you Mike.

Nobody else thinks it's important they'd rather pack fudge with Rocky.

I really, really do not understand homosexuality at all. However, the sexual sentiments are apparently complex for some, especially for women. Yet it appears to be a composite of many feelings.

Did Mike just get propositioned?

And remember you let the first personal attack on go on this thread.

No different than you bumjugging the memories of the dead soldiers and their families in Iraq.

Sadly, SoCalCoug tried to be sane about this issue, but then it become a fudgepacking mess.

Does anybody at all agree with my solution, or is it just a cop out?

Yeah it does, if you call bumjugging actions.