Natural Urge Apologetics
Natural urge apologists argue people with aberrational sexual behavior should follow the urge cuz nature made them that way.
Although I do not believe the scientific evidenc is conclusive, because of the motivations extant by the researchers, I wondered if the general faith that hormonal imbalances in utero are the cause for aberrational sexual behavior extended to cures. For example, if we were able to diagnose the imbalance, would these proponents support abortion of that fetus? Furthermore, if hormone treatments could be developed, thereby eliminating the imbalance and possibly the aberrational behavior, would apologists support that? Amongst an LDS environment, my guess is the answer would be more uniform in support of a cure, as opposed to a more cosmopolitan group. It would be revealing to hear their answers. |
I think the Nazis did research in this arena. (I'm not kidding).
|
I have no idea what Nazi scientists may or may not have done. German scientists have typically been good, dependable researchers and theorists. It wouldn't surprise me that they made forays into this area, but when genetic research being very primitive at that time, I would imagine they didn't get far.
|
Re: Natural Urge Apologetics
Quote:
I'm totally with you on the standpoint that morality exists and just because you *want* to do something, that doesn't mean you necessarily should. OTOH, most of the comments I ever hear from LDS isn't that "gays are in a tough situation and we should try to help them out where possible", but rather "gays are WRONG and should be mocked and shunned and considered as though they're completely devoid of worthwhile human content". There are more than two ways to address the issue and it bugs me that people seem to want to choose up sides and form teams around the two extreme positions rather than address reasonable realities. Tja. o |
Re: Natural Urge Apologetics
Quote:
I grew up nonLDS with many redneck friends. I'm told, but can't verify it, because I did not participate, some of them went to gay bars to pick fights with them, because "it was fun." All of a sudden there is this social acceptance of something previously kept silent and hidden, to a nouveau acceptance, yeah a parading of something previously thought an embarrassment. Many of us still harbor the embarrassment part. It's something we can't understand. I can't see the point of it. And, I imagine, most of us are pragmatic, in that as far as we associate with gays for non-sexual purposes, we treat them based on their merits. However, I don't see anything positive to be gained by treating the gay aspect with respect. Treat them as physicians, accountants, engineers and other aspects with the respect earned for that position. But gay sex is not worthy of respect. It is intellectually repugnant to common sense, rejects the physical marital sacrament for which it is, and ignores the blessed differences communing betweeh the very delightfully different sexes. Even if one were to eliminate all religious componetry from the intellectual discussion, can you imagine how a man would ever become sensitive to another's needs if he didn't have a woman? The very neurological and emotional differences of the female are completely necessary for a man to become unselfish in sex. Two men? Yikes, it's unworkable and unimaginable to even think of. It's probably urban legends such the gerbel in your ass arose. |
Re: Natural Urge Apologetics
Quote:
You crack me up, Archea. |
Re: Natural Urge Apologetics
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If we're not limiting this to sex, then I'm not sure I understand how heterosexuality is necessary in order to understand the (non-sexual) needs of others. My real problem in watching the debate is that I don't understand why it's okay to "be mean" to people because they're different, and that seems to be what's happening (and it's not like that practice is the sole domain of the political/religious right). So long as a subset of humanity isn't getting in the way of my (or others') pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness, I don't feel like it's any of my business to criticize what it is they're doing. Guy-on-guy sex does not have any impact on me whatsoever. I own a gun which other people find repulsive, but so long as they don't have to be exposed to that, it's completely wrong of them to care. o |
Re: Natural Urge Apologetics
[quote="outlier"]
Quote:
Quote:
What do you mean by "being mean"? I do have interactions with lesbians, which has been most pleasant, as no sexual tension there, it was professional and we discuss matters of general interest. I render professional service, they pay and we move on. A great relationship. I sense a lesbian relations is less about sex and more about a relationship with somebody who emotionally anticipates another's needs. That part makes sense. I don't agree with it, but it makes a little bit of rational sense. You could have that without the sex. Being mean, that sounds like something my eight year old would say. The world is a mean place, and making nice is no longer vogue. |
Quote:
Quote:
Archaea, do you not see the inconsistency? Homsexuals are saying, "Let us get married and have committed relationships and families," while Mormons are saying, "Keep your sexual perversions to yourself!" It's not the right to have gay sex in the privacy of their homes that they're trying to get - they'll do that regardless, just like unmarried heterosexuals will do it, as well. Quote:
Quote:
Is anal sex between an unmarried man and woman any less of a sin than anal sex between two unmarried men? What about anal sex between a married man and woman? Between two married men? It's only the homosexuals who receive the derision and scorn. Simply because it's easier to discern that they must be doing it. Is that really fair or reasonable? Quote:
You can tell I have strong feelings about this - I have a gay brother, and I've seen the difficulties he's gone through as a direct result of the LDS attitude toward homosexuals - it's actually acted to drive him farther away from the church. It's destructive and un-Christlike, and I hate it. |
Re: Natural Urge Apologetics
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
o |
All times are GMT. The time now is 08:57 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.