Does the church believe people are "born gay?"

[Cali Coug]

That seems to me to be their position.

The church states that there is nothing wrong with being gay as long as you don't act on the impulses.

Presumably, choosing to be homosexual would be an immoral choice (so there would be something wrong with merely being gay).

Is it, therefore, their position that there is nothing wrong with being gay because the people did not ever make a choice to be gay?

If so, why all the animosity by so many members towards homosexuals? Why is homosexuality so much more horrible than any other impulse people are born with?

[Archaea]

Or could they be opting out of the discussion, not knowing, not caring as it doesn't make a difference as to one's responsibilities?

I believe the Church learned its lesson through evolution, not to weigh in on scientific matters, but to only discuss spiritual matters, as that seems the only thing the Lord is willing to reveal to Church leaders.

[Archaea]

It is so alien from what we experience ourselves. That's why it shocks us.

Church also abhor smoking. I don't hate most smokers, but I hate being in their presence due to the horrific smell.

Most crack addicts aren't fun to be around either.

Some alien experiences are fun, others are so otherworldly we tend to reject them. "Now if all alien stepmothers" were like that blond one, you wouldn't see so much revulsion to aliens.

A guy working in the field expects a man to be man. Men don't do those things. So after some edumashen, he learns some men do, but real men don't.

You did make the jump or quantum leap that the Church has opined. I challenge you to find the Church President giving its revealed opinion on the matter.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

It is so alien from what we experience ourselves. That's why it shocks us.

Church also abhor smoking. I don't hate most smokers, but I hate being in their presence due to the horrific smell.

Most crack addicts aren't fun to be around either.

Some alien experiences are fun, others are so otherworldly we tend to reject them. "Now if all alien stepmothers" were like that blond one, you wouldn't see so much revulsion to aliens.

A guy working in the field expects a man to be man. Men don't do those things. So after some edumashen, he learns some men do, but real men don't.

You did make the jump or quantum leap that the Church has opined. I challenge you to find the Church President giving its revealed opinion on the matter.

Are you asking me to show you where the church has said there is nothing wrong with being homosexual in and of itself? They have said that dozens of times. In fact, your bishop has been instructed on the topic as well. If that is what you are requesting, easy enough.

Beginning with the understanding that there is nothing wrong with being gay, you then have to ask, "why?" If it was a choice, presumably it would be wrong. Do you disagree? Or are you of the opinion that I could choose to be gay with no consequences as long as I didn't practice?

If there was no choice, then how did the person become gay? Were they born with it? Science has pretty clearly debunked the idea that you can "catch gay" from your environment. Abuse can lead to homosexual feelings, but quite clearly not all homosexuals (or even most) have been sexually abused.

That leads me to the conclusion you are born homosexual. You take the strange opinion that the church is just talking out of its butt and doesn't actually have any reason for its statement other than to be PC. This is funny on many levels:

1. Given the church's position on the SSM amendment, do you actually think being PC is a big deal to them?

2. If the church had no theological basis for its position, wouldn't it say so like it does on other issues? For example, with the SSM amendment they made it clear that it was not a doctrine of the church and no member would be punished for disagreeing. On evolution, they repeatedly say they have no official position. But for some reason, here they just say something with no support and don't clarify that they don't have an official position?

Really?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

Are you asking me to show you where the church has said there is nothing wrong with being homosexual in and of itself? They have said that dozens of times. In fact, your bishop has been instructed on the topic as well. If that is what you are requesting, easy enough.

You are twisting what has been discussed. Yeah there's some of that bullshit sensitivity training going on.

The standpoint is, we need to take the members where we find them. If a person experiences SSA, we're not to ostracize them and we're to make them feel welcome. That's not to say, it's okay to behave actively gay.

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

Beginning with the understanding that there is nothing wrong with being gay, you then have to ask, "why?" If it was a choice, presumably it would be wrong. Do you disagree? Or are you of the opinion that I could choose to be gay with no consequences as long as I didn't practice?

I won't fall into this battleground as you've, as usual, simplified then exaggerated.

My personal opinion, which is subject to change as I receive more information, is that it's more of a calculus problem than a second grade addition problem.

There biological factors at play. Sexual urges are in most instances at their root biological. However, how one acts upon those biological urges impacts and changes one's psyche.

It's not a question of choice or no choice. It's a question of multiple factors bearing down on an individual.

Do some people have biological factors that create some aberrational attraction to the same gender for purposes of sexual gratification? Apparently so.

But because sex is also "in the mind", there is an element of choice. People can control their thoughts. ONce I'm aware of something I can purposefully change my impressions of things through mental exercise. A crude example. I used to hate running up hills, until I developed a mental exercise that as I saw a hill I imagined the hill pulling me up. It wasn't really so, but it eased the mental burden of running up hills.

Biology, actions, external learning all bear upon sexuality

It is a calculus problem, not a simple, I feel gay, therefore I am gay. Biology is not that simplistic, neither is something as complex as human sexuality.

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

If there was no choice, then how did the person become gay? Were they born with it? Science has pretty clearly debunked the idea that you can "catch gay" from your environment. Abuse can lead to homosexual feelings, but quite clearly not all homosexuals (or even most) have been sexually abused.

That leads me to the conclusion you are born homosexual. You take the strange opinion that the church is just talking out of its butt and doesn't actually have any reason for its statement other than to be PC. This is funny on many levels:

1. Given the church's position on the SSM amendment, do you actually think being PC is a big deal to them?

Yes I do.

I understand the need for being PC, but it dilutes their message. There is constant barter at the top, give and take. It is also a huge bureaucracy, and bureaucracies by their very nature lead to diluted messages and very milk toast type approaches.

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

2. If the church had no theological basis for its position, wouldn't it say so like it does on other issues? For example, with the SSM amendment they made it clear that it was not a doctrine of the church and no member would be punished for disagreeing. On evolution, they repeatedly say they have no official position. But for some reason, here they just say something with no support and don't clarify that they don't have an official position?

Really?

Why should they express themselves in terms of no position. There never has been a position on homosexuality.

In terms of evolution, there have been confusing positions on evolution by various leaders, so it is necessary to state a lack of position.

Where there is no confusion by virtue of no official declaration there is no need. You're drawing uncompelled and unnecessary conclusions.

[creekster]

If the original question is whether the "church" has taken a side in the nature vs. nurture debate, the asnwer to my knowledge is "no." I am unaware of any official position taken by the church on this question. To my knowledge the position taken by the church is a recognition that some persons experience SSA and that such urges must be controlled and not acted upon.

Are you (Hoya or anyone) aware of any definitive statement wherein the church adopts something on the "nature" side of this question? If so, please direct us to it or explain what it is.

[RockyBalboa]

Archaea said to Homeboy: "You are twisting what has been discussed. Yeah there's some of that bullshit sensitivity training going on."


Homeboy do that? Nah. Never.

[Jeff Lebowski]

What the hey?

Where did this come from? Did you mean Hoya? I haven't fully engaged in one of these debates for quite a while.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by homeboy

What the hey?

Where did this come from? Did you mean Hoya? I haven't fully engaged in one of these debates for quite a while.

Collateral damage, one might guess.

Standing on the roadside minding your own business.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by creekster

If the original question is whether the "church" has taken a side in the nature vs. nurture debate, the asnwer to my knowledge is "no." I am unaware of any official position taken by the church on this question. To my knowledge the position taken by the church is a recognition that some persons experience SSA and that such urges must be controlled and not acted upon.

Are you (Hoya or anyone) aware of any definitive statement wherein the church adopts something on the "nature" side of this question? If so, please direct us to it or explain what it is.

No, I am not. If I haven't been clear enough, I am asking if the fact that they accept that there is nothing wrong with being homosexual means they accept people have no choice in being homosexual (i.e. are born with it).