Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Understanding homosexuality


Recommended Posts

I thought of responding to the "wiggle room" thread, but decided to start a new topic.

I was particularly touched by Elder Scott Grow's conference talk. Going back to the wiggle room topic, I think that having an up and coming General Authority who happened to have a gay brother is a positive thing in building understanding.

I grew up with the Grow family, and in particular, his brother "G". I knew him since kindergarten. There is absolutely zero doubt in my mind that Elder Grow believes that his brother was born the way he was rather than chose that path. His brother was one of the kindest, most considerate people on the planet, but his brother was very unique and all of us who grew up around him knew that he was born differently long before we ever understood what "being gay" was. When "G" was just a small child he would talk girl playmates into taking their clothes off, not so he could peek like other randy little boys, but so he could put their clothes on. His three brothers were as boyish as they come and their house was full of boy toys, but "G" would go to girl's houses and play dolls. As a teenager, he grew orchids and got a waiver from the principle to attend girls home ec class. I know girls he dated in high school and he was respectful and gentlemanly but always wanted to talk about their hair, makeup, and fashion. I camped with him at a scout outing once and he confided in me that he didn't understand why he was different, he just knew that he was. I don't think he thought he was gay at that point, because I don't think he even really knew such a thing existed. I think he just felt like a girl trapped in a boy's body.

"G" had a powerful testimony and was a devoted Church member and student of scriptures. When I got slothful in my seminary attendance, he would chastise me. He saw me drinking Dr. Pepper once and freaked. He wouldn't have said "crap" if he had a mouthful. He was the straightest of straight arrows.

When "G" served a mission and later married, many in our group hoped that he had conquered his demons, but we all had our doubts. At times he seemed to be pretending to be something he wasn't. By that age, we all better understood what homosexuality was.

What Elder Grow described in his talk as a "hedonistic" turn was no exaggeration. "G" didn't just switch gears, he slammed into reverse and did a complete 180 degree turn culminating in a stint as a flamboyant leather clad bartender in the Castro district. You name it, he did it. (by his own admission). He lived a lifestyle that even many openly gay people find repulsive and dangerous. I remember seeing him once walking down the street. He was a walking skeleton with a cigarette in his mouth. The gleam in his eyes was gone. His teeth were falling out. Nevertheless, deeply sown seeds were re-emerging. Slowly but surely he came crawling back to what he knew all along was correct. He redemption in the Gospel was as dramatic as his fall.

I am quite conservative by nature. I don't believe that being born with an attraction is license to act upon those urges. Nevertheless, because of knowing "G" since young childhood, I never can believe that homosexuality is a chosen path, at least not for all. "G" was born the way he was and everyone who knew him knows that, especially, his family.

My life is better for having known the Grow family and especially "G". I pray the blessings of the Lord to attend his loved ones and I hope he gets to grow orchids on the other side.

Link to comment

What a beautiful and touching tribute, Widow's Son. Thank you for sharing it.

EDIT: Your attitude and words piqued my curiosity in Scott Grow's talk, and I just listened to it on lds.org. Although I follow a different path and continue to maintain different beliefs and views than Grow and his brother, and although I do share the same view of the atonement described by either of them, I appreciate that the brother Scott and you describe found a different path than mine, after making what sounds like painfully destructive choices. Although our responses to our individual sexual orientations differ, I support his choice to follow his heart, as he saw fit.

Thanks again for sharing.

Best,

Darin

Edited by Darin
Link to comment

I thought of responding to the "wiggle room" thread, but decided to start a new topic.

I was particularly touched by Elder Scott Grow's conference talk. Going back to the wiggle room topic, I think that having an up and coming General Authority who happened to have a gay brother is a positive thing in building understanding.

I grew up with the Grow family, and in particular, his brother "G". I knew him since kindergarten. There is absolutely zero doubt in my mind that Elder Grow believes that his brother was born the way he was rather than chose that path. His brother was one of the kindest, most considerate people on the planet, but his brother was very unique and all of us who grew up around him knew that he was born differently long before we ever understood what "being gay" was. When "G" was just a small child he would talk girl playmates into taking their clothes off, not so he could peek like other randy little boys, but so he could put their clothes on. His three brothers were as boyish as they come and their house was full of boy toys, but "G" would go to girl's houses and play dolls. As a teenager, he grew orchids and got a waiver from the principle to attend girls home ec class. I know girls he dated in high school and he was respectful and gentlemanly but always wanted to talk about their hair, makeup, and fashion. I camped with him at a scout outing once and he confided in me that he didn't understand why he was different, he just knew that he was. I don't think he thought he was gay at that point, because I don't think he even really knew such a thing existed. I think he just felt like a girl trapped in a boy's body.

"G" had a powerful testimony and was a devoted Church member and student of scriptures. When I got slothful in my seminary attendance, he would chastise me. He saw me drinking Dr. Pepper once and freaked. He wouldn't have said "crap" if he had a mouthful. He was the straightest of straight arrows.

When "G" served a mission and later married, many in our group hoped that he had conquered his demons, but we all had our doubts. At times he seemed to be pretending to be something he wasn't. By that age, we all better understood what homosexuality was.

What Elder Grow described in his talk as a "hedonistic" turn was no exaggeration. "G" didn't just switch gears, he slammed into reverse and did a complete 180 degree turn culminating in a stint as a flamboyant leather clad bartender in the Castro district. You name it, he did it. (by his own admission). He lived a lifestyle that even many openly gay people find repulsive and dangerous. I remember seeing him once walking down the street. He was a walking skeleton with a cigarette in his mouth. The gleam in his eyes was gone. His teeth were falling out. Nevertheless, deeply sown seeds were re-emerging. Slowly but surely he came crawling back to what he knew all along was correct. He redemption in the Gospel was as dramatic as his fall.

I am quite conservative by nature. I don't believe that being born with an attraction is license to act upon those urges. Nevertheless, because of knowing "G" since young childhood, I never can believe that homosexuality is a chosen path, at least not for all. "G" was born the way he was and everyone who knew him knows that, especially, his family.

My life is better for having known the Grow family and especially "G". I pray the blessings of the Lord to attend his loved ones and I hope he gets to grow orchids on the other side.

I agree as well we cannot choose who we are attracted, to and attraction is not a sin. Everyone is attracted to people for various reasons, but what we can choose is to have sexual relations outside of a marriage.

That is a choice that we can all make regardless of sexual attraction, I can choose to have relations outside my marriage, there is nothing that will make me do this, only I can choose to engage in sexual acts, no attraction can make me or any other person engage in a sexual act.

Whether gay, straight, lesbian, bisexual, single or married, engaging in sexual acts is always a choice and never forced upon anyone.

Edited by LDS Guy 1986
Link to comment

I agree as well we cannot choose who we are attracted, to and attraction is not a sin. Everyone is attracted to people for various reasons, but what we can choose is to have sexual relations outside of a marriage.

That is a choice that we can all make regardless of sexual attraction, I can choose to have relations outside my marriage ... only I can choose to fornicate, no attraction can make me fornicate.

Whether gay, straight, lesbian, bisexual, single or married, fornication is always a choice and never forced upon anyone.

I agree with everything written, above (though I would personally substitute "engage in sexual behaviors" instead of "fornicate" or "fornication").

Darin

Link to comment

I agree with everything written, above (though I would personally substitute "engage in sexual behaviors" instead of "fornicate" or "fornication").

Darin

I understand and will even edit out of consideration of the offensive nature of the word fornicate, thank you for bring this to my attention!

Link to comment

I don't think the issue is whether someone is born that way or not. I don't question that some are. But I also know of situations where it is a choice, particularly with young women who have been abused or had otherwise bad experiences with men.

The point is and always has been not to do those things which are contrary to the laws of morality as established by God. I too know many gay men and women who are kind and generous people. Many of them are fun to be with. All that is important. I believe that such challenges will be taken into consideration by a just and loving God. However, those who can overcome desires and inclinations contrary to holiness in this life will be so much further ahead, and that goes for all of us who struggle with desires that are against eternal laws. The Atonement after all is to help all of us get beyond where our best efforts take us.

Link to comment

Even as more people talk about friends and family that are Gay or that have homosexual tendencies, we are simply looking from the outside. We never will truley understand what it is like on the inside. There are many things like this. That's why we shouldnt judge, we simply dont know all the facts. Im not saying we, as members, shouldnt keep the gospel principles, I'm just saying that there's a lot of room for understanding. Clearly, we have a long way to go.

Edited by Messenger
Link to comment

I agree that being born with certain desires or tendencies is not justification to commit sin.

In discussions with gay co-workers I've mentioned that I was born an adulterer yet I have never committed adultery.

Nevertheless, I don't think that someone not born with an innate same sex attraction or confused gender identity can fully appreciate the internal struggles of those who were.

Compassion and empathy start with recognition.

Edited by Widow's Son
Link to comment

I don't think the issue is whether someone is born that way or not. I don't question that some are.

Born one way or another is an important issue. Often heard is that "homosexuality is a choice", the persons making such statements do take the time to clarify. Is homosexual desire a choice or does the speaker mean engaging in homosexual conduct is a choice. So knowing if people are born one or another, would make the rhetoric quite different and more focused. Can I choose not the find the many many coeds in my neighborhood attractive, I doubt it, a person with sight can not help but notice what is around. However, can I choose not to lust, or act on the attraction, I surely can choose not too. I think all would agree that engaging in an activity is the choice but desire/attraction is quite a different animal will no real answer in sight.

Link to comment

Born one way or another is an important issue. Often heard is that "homosexuality is a choice", the persons making such statements do take the time to clarify. Is homosexual desire a choice or does the speaker mean engaging in homosexual conduct is a choice. So knowing if people are born one or another, would make the rhetoric quite different and more focused. Can I choose not the find the many many coeds in my neighborhood attractive, I doubt it, a person with sight can not help but notice what is around. However, can I choose not to lust, or act on the attraction, I surely can choose not too. I think all would agree that engaging in an activity is the choice but desire/attraction is quite a different animal will no real answer in sight.

Yeah... the thing to be careful about.... is that some thoughts are actions... the ones that are hard to control, that are instinctual... those are the one's that we aren't at fault for. The ones we choose to indulge on, those become our problem though. =P

Link to comment

Not to make things more complicated, but are there not some logical consequences to this discussion?

1. If one considers that homosexual behavior is "natural" and not a choice or a lifestyle then one must surely reason that it is a detrimental biological condition. Genetically speaking it would be a defect. The natural kingdom is reliant on heterosexuality for progress and survival. The minority occurrence of homosexuality in the natural world would also support it as a biological deficiency.

2. Freud once considered homosexuality to be a natural step in normal human sexual development, but considered a homosexual adult as having suffered a retardation in this natural development, thus if homosexuality is not a physical condition and it is a psychological one, then it must be also be a defect. What possible objective reasoning, in the natural world, would homosexuality serve? (this may bring about a deeper topic about self and pleasure)

3. If one considers homosexuality to be a choice, then one must concede that such a choice is of little benefit to society as a whole. We have seen examples of this by how our particular society rewards and punishes certain choices as a means to define its values and vices. Look also at Supreme Court cases such as Skinner v. Oklahoma where marriage and procreation are linked inextricably to the "survival of the human race". Society has a vested interest in survival and in perpetuation its population. The homosexual denies that social virtue and thus is unable to qualify for the rewards due to one who would be in support.

So, does this mean that homosexuals should be condemned? i don't think so, condemnation is above my pay-grade. However, when it comes to society extending means to support homosexual behavior, i do not think one can logically support that. While i can live my life and allow someone to be homosexual in the privacy of their own life, i surely can not be expected to extend social support to such a detrimental behavior (for example - qualification for marriage licensing and benefits).

Link to comment

Not to make things more complicated, but are there not some logical consequences to this discussion?

1. If one considers that homosexual behavior is "natural" and not a choice or a lifestyle then one must surely reason that it is a detrimental biological condition. Genetically speaking it would be a defect. The natural kingdom is reliant on heterosexuality for progress and survival. The minority occurrence of homosexuality in the natural world would also support it as a biological deficiency.

2. Freud once considered homosexuality to be a natural step in normal human sexual development, but considered a homosexual adult as having suffered a retardation in this natural development, thus if homosexuality is not a physical condition and it is a psychological one, then it must be also be a defect. What possible objective reasoning, in the natural world, would homosexuality serve? (this may bring about a deeper topic about self and pleasure)

3. If one considers homosexuality to be a choice, then one must concede that such a choice is of little benefit to society as a whole. We have seen examples of this by how our particular society rewards and punishes certain choices as a means to define its values and vices. Look also at Supreme Court cases such as Skinner v. Oklahoma where marriage and procreation are linked inextricably to the "survival of the human race". Society has a vested interest in survival and in perpetuation its population. The homosexual denies that social virtue and thus is unable to qualify for the rewards due to one who would be in support.

So, does this mean that homosexuals should be condemned? i don't think so, condemnation is above my pay-grade. However, when it comes to society extending means to support homosexual behavior, i do not think one can logically support that. While i can live my life and allow someone to be homosexual in the privacy of their own life, i surely can not be expected to extend social support to such a detrimental behavior (for example - qualification for marriage licensing and benefits).

Given this line of reasoning, what benefit to society are heterosexual individuals who are physically unable to reproduce (or those who choose not to, for consistency with your "choice" scenario)? I assume you support extending the "social support" you speak of to them, do you not? Yet theirs is just as much a biological or psychological defect, to use your terms.

Our species is not harmed by supporting a small percentage who can't or won't reproduce. If the species were in jeopardy of extinction due to underpopulation, that would be a concern, but it isn't. Therefore, the "vested interest in survival" is not an issue, either now or in the foreseeable future. However, there is a clear benefit in making sure all are treated with fairness and equality.

Thankfully, there is much more value in human relationships than just the ability and desire to reproduce.

Link to comment

Given this line of reasoning, what benefit to society are heterosexual individuals who are physically unable to reproduce (or those who choose not to, for consistency with your "choice" scenario)?

I think the point of subgenius' post was that we don't do things to reward or give additional benefits to those who do not contribute to the continuation of society, as in the form of procreation. And we don't with heterosexuals. Look at the tax breaks for dependents. Once my children were grown and gone I no longer got to take them as deductions. This was in a sense a penalty in the form of higher taxes.

Sub specifically said they should not be condemned and I think we all agree on that, because even older people like me who are no longer procreating still contribute to society. What is interesting is how the homosexual community likes to make everything about them when we can see by looking at the big picture it's about anyone who is not in the same category as those to whom we give special consideration.

Economically societies cannot survive without future generations. We've already seen the effect of drop of birth rates in Europe where immigrants have to fill the spaces of the population to keep the industrial economy going. Here is a very interesting article regarding that. Note this is not one person's opinion but I've seen this argument for years. declining birth rates

This is why we must encourage families who have children and give them extra protections. It's why for generations we've heard the shout in danger "save the women and children first."

Link to comment

2. Freud once considered homosexuality to be a natural step in normal human sexual development, but considered a homosexual adult as having suffered a retardation in this natural development, thus if homosexuality is not a physical condition and it is a psychological one, then it must be also be a defect. What possible objective reasoning, in the natural world, would homosexuality serve? (this may bring about a deeper topic about self and pleasure)

Interesting post, and I largely agree.

However, I consider Freud to be a poor source of insight. I have serious doubts that he knew anything at all about human psychology, despite having invented all kinds of theories in the discipline.

Link to comment

Today, when searching out some comfort for my Son who has serious ADHD, I ran accross this talk by Dallin H. Oaks. Its titled He Heals the Heavy Laden. Its from the October 2006 General Conference. What I learned from this is that we ALL have imperfections, physical, mental and some are heavily laden. But in all of that, it is the Savior who is the great equalizer, who turns our weakness into strength. We never really know why we have these issues, but they are there, and we must learn from them. It takes a great amount of courage to do what is right in the face of such a great challenge.

He says many things to those that are heavy laden including this ...

When the Savior appeared to the righteous in the New World, He called for persons to come forward who were lame or blind or had other physical ailments. He extended the same invitation to those “that are afflicted in any manner” (3 Nephi 17:7). “Bring them hither,” He said, “and I will heal them”. The Book of Mormon tells how the multitude brought forward “all them that were afflicted in any manner”. This must have included persons with every kind of physical or emotional or mental affliction, and the scripture testifies that Jesus “did heal them every one”

Although the Savior could heal all whom He would heal, this is not true of those who hold His priesthood authority. Mortal exercises of that authority are limited by the will of Him whose priesthood it is. Consequently, we are told that some whom the elders bless are not healed because they are “appointed unto death” (D&C 42:48). Similarly, when the Apostle Paul sought to be healed from the “thorn in the flesh” that buffeted him (2 Corinthians 12:7), the Lord declined to heal him. Paul later wrote that the Lord explained, “My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness”. Paul obediently responded that he would “rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me … for when I am weak, then am I strong”.

The people who followed Alma were in bondage to wicked oppressors. When they prayed for relief, the Lord told them He would deliver them eventually, but in the meantime He would ease their burdens “that even you cannot feel them upon your backs, even while you are in bondage; and this will I do that ye may stand as witnesses … that I, the Lord God, do visit my people in their afflictions” (Mosiah 24:14). In that case the people did not have their burdens removed, but the Lord strengthened them so that “they could bear up their burdens with ease, and they did submit cheerfully and with patience to all the will of the Lord”

A man wrote a General Authority about how the power of the Atonement helped him with his problem of same-gender attraction. He had been excommunicated for serious transgressions that violated his temple covenants and his responsibilities to his children. He had to choose whether to attempt to live the gospel or whether to continue a course contrary to its teachings.

“I knew it would be difficult,” he wrote, “but I didn’t realize what I would have to go through.” His letter describes the emptiness and loneliness and the incredible pain he experienced from deep within his soul as he sought to return. He prayed mightily for forgiveness, sometimes for hours at a time. He was sustained by reading the scriptures, by the companionship of a loving bishop, and by priesthood blessings. But what finally made the difference was the help of the Savior. He explained:

“It [was] only through Him and His Atonement. … I now feel an overwhelming gratitude. My pains have been almost more than I could bear at times, and yet they were so small compared to what He suffered. Where there once was darkness in my life, there is now love and gratitude.”

He continues: “Some profess that change is possible and therapy is the only answer. They are very learned on the subject and have so much to offer those who struggle … , but I worry that they forget to involve Heavenly Father in the process. If change is to happen, it will happen according to the will of God. I also worry that many people focus on the causes of [same-gender attraction]. … There is no need to determine why I have [this challenge]. I don’t know if I was born with it, or if environmental factors contributed to it. The fact of the matter is that I have this struggle in my life and what I do with it from this point forward is what matters” (letter dated Mar. 25, 2006).

Source link: http://lds.org/general-conference/2006/10/he-heals-the-heavy-laden?lang=eng&query=dallin+h+oaks

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...