More homosexual discussion

[SoCalCoug]

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.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

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?

[scottie]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

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.

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.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by scottie

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.

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.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

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.

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.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by Archaea

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

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.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

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.

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.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

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.

Sorry to ignore the Rocky fight, but I think Archaea sees the issue that troubles me: the LDS church has nothing to offer a homosexual. No chance at temporal happiness, family, or real inclusion into the LDS community. It is in the family relationships that we have that we find our true happiness on earth. Does anyone really disagree with that?

We are telling homosexuals that if they want to be part of the church, they can't participate in the common goal of joy in this lifetime. They have to be patient and wait. Meanwhile, everyone around them gets to experience it (or actually seek it).

I think the question of what causes homosexuality is not important to this issue.

My point is, I don't think heterosexual LDS really appreciate the dilemma facing homosexuals. And frankly, until something changes, they're either going to leave the church or commit suicide. There really are no other palatable options for them.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

Sorry to ignore the Rocky fight, but I think Archaea sees the issue that troubles me: the LDS church has nothing to offer a homosexual. No chance at temporal happiness, family, or real inclusion into the LDS community. It is in the family relationships that we have that we find our true happiness on earth. Does anyone really disagree with that?

We are telling homosexuals that if they want to be part of the church, they can't participate in the common goal of joy in this lifetime. They have to be patient and wait. Meanwhile, everyone around them gets to experience it (or actually seek it).

I think the question of what causes homosexuality is not important to this issue.

My point is, I don't think heterosexual LDS really appreciate the dilemma facing homosexuals. And frankly, until something changes, they're either going to leave the church or commit suicide. There really are no other palatable options for them.

Can you find a way to reconcile our understanding of the Cosmos and Homosexuality?

We have the historical tradition of simply ignoring it, a la the Primary Presidency of Louise Felt and Mae Anderson, or Heber J. Grant's meeting with a BYU student, but that really didn't address the issue.

I agree with your general characterization that we have it difficult to understand, though I offer there are other discreet groups who may experience similar distress, the homely persons with no chance of marriage, the marriage with the completely frigid partner, the person with dysfunctional genetalia and so forth. So gays are not alone, but that doesn't make their plight easier.

[Black Diamond Bay]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Can you find a way to reconcile our understanding of the Cosmos and Homosexuality?

We have the historical tradition of simply ignoring it, a la the Primary Presidency of Louise Felt and Mae Anderson, or Heber J. Grant's meeting with a BYU student, but that really didn't address the issue.

I agree with your general characterization that we have it difficult to understand, though I offer there are other discreet groups who may experience similar distress, the homely persons with no chance of marriage, the marriage with the completely frigid partner, the person with dysfunctional genetalia and so forth. So gays are not alone, but that doesn't make their plight easier.

That's true. I have a friend that literally has not been asked out on a date in 8 or 9 years. I don't see her challenges in life as being all that much different than being gay, with the notable exception (that ironically she pointed out to me) that at least the other single women in the church do not ostracize her like many of the single men do with the guys they suspect are gay.