268 replies to this topic

[Robert F. Smith]

ShawFanX, on 19 July 2012 - 04:29 PM, said:

It probably would have been better if you had used the non-politically correct (i.e., non-ideologically loaded) term "same-sex attraction" instead of the euphemistic "gay" to describe your subject, because "gay' implies not only "sexual orientation" or ideations, but an accepted and crafted identity (or sub-identity) within one's own mind and within the homosexual subculture, as well as a general philosophical perspective from within a "gay" framework.

There is much to what you say, Loran, and I am old enough to recall when "gay" had no homosexual overtones at all, so my understanding of the semantics takes in a lot more territory than you imagine.  However, I also think that it is important to be sensitive and kind to members of a group which feels oppressed.  Moreover, I don't think that being confrontational or blaming the victim is a positive policy, and probably not the approach taken by Evergreen International or the NorthStar Community.

I am interested in hearing about successful ways of dealing with the gay dilemma without pandering to blatant lust, just as I would be in other areas of therapy for any sort of addiction.  Perhaps you have some helpful ideas along those lines?

Quote

Dallin Oaks, in his now famous talk on the subject, made clear that same-sex attraction, in and of itself, is not necessarily a sin, at least in its fundamental form.  He was equally adamant that behavior is another matter entirely, and that no Latter day Saint should ever be found affirming or supporting the crafting or acceptance of a gay identity in any of God's children, or encouraging any sense that homosexual orientation is an innate aspect of the eternal spirit or genetically predetermined.

Pres Spencer Kimball said that there are "relatively few accidents of nature" (Ensign, Nov 1974, p. 8 ), thus admitting that such do occur.

Although I have spent a good deal of time over the years reading the literature, I don't know whether gender identity or SSA is innate, learned, or a real choice for those seeking a good time (perhaps all three are true for different people), and I am not sure that making it a matter of dogma is  wise (for either proponents or opponents).

I always ask myself the same question the disciples asked of Jesus:  "Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?  Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him."  John 9:2-3
Jesus then proceeded to heal that blind man:  

We can of course deny any genetic defect, or any sort of in-utero etiology for such problems, even though to do so is to deny science.  Jesus affirmed that a man could be born blind and that it was not the fault of the parents.  Such defects may simply be part of the natural order of things, and we must learn how to deal with such challenges.  It is likewise doubtful that the father of the Prodigal Son had done a bad job of raising that son, who of his own volition chose to be a wastrel.

The real question is, Can we find ways to help people who find themselves in such challenging situations?  And are we going to do it honestly?

Edited by Robert F. Smith, 20 July 2012 - 11:37 AM.

[wenglund]

Mudcat, on 19 July 2012 - 07:37 PM, said:

Oh I see. My mistake.

I suppose it depends on if Christ was being serious about sinning in your heart.

I think he was. So yes.

I thought of the same passage. However, I think there is an important difference between "lusting after" and being "sexually attracted," the former being a sin of the heart whereas the latter is not, otherwise heterosexuality would, itself, be a sin of the heart.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Valentinus]

Mudcat, on 19 July 2012 - 07:37 PM, said:

Oh I see. My mistake.

I suppose it depends on if Christ was being serious about sinning in your heart.

I think he was. So yes.

By that reasoning, the 'sinning in your heart' also applies to heterosexuals. Perhaps not from the perspective of being attracted to someone but from the perspective of lust.

[Valentinus]

wenglund, on 19 July 2012 - 07:51 PM, said:

I thought of the same passage. However, I think there is an important difference between "lusting after" and being "sexually attracted," the former being a sin of the heart whereas the latter is not, otherwise heterosexuality would, itself, be a sin of the heart.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You beat me to it...dang you Wade!

[halconero]

wenglund, on 19 July 2012 - 07:51 PM, said:

I thought of the same passage. However, I think there is an important difference between "lusting after" and being "sexually attracted," the former being a sin of the heart whereas the latter is not, otherwise heterosexuality would, itself, be a sin of the heart.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Agreed. Sexual attraction is a good, useful thing. It is appropriate within marriage, and yes, it is appropriate even before marriage if bridled carefully. Although I can't speak out of experience, I doubt that sexual attraction just appears out of nowhere on the wedding night.

Attraction to one's own gender is not in and of itself a sin. Focusing on and unbridling (bridle, such a great word. Imagine a rampaging horse running around destroying fencing, the pasture and itself) that attraction is sin.

[wenglund]

Valentinus, on 19 July 2012 - 08:36 PM, said:

You beat me to it...dang you Wade!

I had the unfair advantage of a huge head start. However, you can take solace in the old adage about great minds... LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Chaos]

wenglund, on 19 July 2012 - 11:05 AM, said:

. It is your way of deflecting your own understandable, yet correctable, self-loathing.

Thatsa threadban.

[sunstoned]

Jaybear, on 18 July 2012 - 04:08 PM, said:

So for those who don't believe homosexuality is a sin, but rather the behavior, do you disagree with the policy of the BSA, supported by the LDS Church which bans gays from scouting, even celibate gays.

As a private organization, the BSA has every right to implement whatever policy they like.  However, I believe this policy is discriminatory and without merit.

[sunstoned]

Jaybear, on 19 July 2012 - 08:25 AM, said:

You would be wrong.  The ban extends to  "known or avowed" homosexuals.  If it became "known" to the bishop that someone is "struggling with same sex attraction",   even though he was not openly gay, he would not be allowed to participate in scouting.




If by that you mean I am not gay, that is true.  However, I like to think that in this country people should not only be free, but have a civic obligation to speak out against this sort of rank bigotry.



I not only disagree, but I predict that in 20 years, they will have reversed the decision, and formally apologized for promulgating bigotry and discrimination against homosexuals.

I agree with the prediction.

[CV75]

Valentinus, on 19 July 2012 - 06:41 PM, said:

Sounds like a rationalized avenue by which sin is legitimized.

Hence the unfortunataility of the situation! But lest we wax colloquial, "fortune" has nothing to do with it; misused agency does.

Edited by CV75, 20 July 2012 - 06:01 AM.

[CV75]

Robert F. Smith, on 19 July 2012 - 07:49 PM, said:

The real question is, Can we find ways to help people who find themselves in such challenging situations?  And are we going to do it honestly?

Maybe I’ve responded to this question already in this thread. An honest way to help people deal with their struggles is to faithfully come unto Christ and fellowship them so as to encourage their attraction to Christ. The Spirit performs miracles. The solution is not always found in healing, but in dealing / managing with ones’ affliction(s) in an inspiring way.

I know this may sound too general, but people that apply the princple generally discover specific ways to help and to be helped.

Edited by CV75, 20 July 2012 - 06:11 AM.

[Jaybear]

CV75, on 19 July 2012 - 06:10 PM, said:

Unfortunately our society has reached a level of sophistication where staying alive isn't the most important source of gratitude, but fulfilling non-procreative sexual desire is. That is why the subject is imbedded in virtually every economic and political message the popular media delivers.

Sheer hyperbole.  You will note in these discussions its the religious conservatives that focus on the perceived immorality of the base sexual act, while the liberals express concern over broader  issues such self worth, human dignity, equal rights, love, intimacy, family and commitments.

Valentinus, on 19 July 2012 - 06:41 PM, said:

Sounds like a rationalized avenue by which sin is legitimized.

Your perception that others are engaged in rationalization, assumes a shared understanding of what behavior is sinful.

Most people used to believe that birth control was immoral.   Only those that still do, would accuse those who use birth control of rationalizing sin.

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear, on 20 July 2012 - 06:23 AM, said:

Sheer hyperbole.  You will note in these discussions its the religious conservatives that focus on the perceived immorality of the base sexual act, while the liberals express concern over broader  issues such self worth, human dignity, equal rights, love, intimacy, family and commitments.


Your perception that others are engaged in rationalization, assumes a shared understanding of what behavior is sinful.

Most people used to believe that birth control was immoral.   Only those that still do, would accuse those who use birth control of rationalizing sin.

Jaybear:

Those concerns are not mutual exclusive.

What is wrong with having a shared understanding of what is sinful?

Most people used to believe any number of things were sinful(lots depends on what you mean by most people), but depending on context is/isn't sinful. IE; Honey does this dress make me look fat?

[CV75]

Jaybear, on 20 July 2012 - 06:23 AM, said:

Sheer hyperbole.  You will note in these discussions its the religious conservatives that focus on the perceived immorality of the base sexual act, while the liberals express concern over broader  issues such self worth, human dignity, equal rights, love, intimacy, family and commitments.

It is hard to argue against one’s perception of hyperbole, but I based my observation not on my religious convictions and “conservatism” but on the preponderance of scientific evidence for the sexualization of our society, and especially of youth (if you care to discuss, start a new thread).

How often do we see the following messages in media/entertainment, advertising, peer groups: our value comes primarily/exclusively from our sex appeal or behavior; physical attractiveness equates to being sexy; sexual objectification; promotion of age-inappropriate sexuality and imposing sexuality upon others. Not to mention the way-out-of-balance coverage and propagandizing of LGBT sexual issues and agenda.

The big lie is that this kind of sexualization is promoted and substituted for and accepted as key to self worth, rights, love, and intimacy--even by liberals!

[Jaybear]

thesometimesaint, on 20 July 2012 - 06:55 AM, said:

Jaybear:

Those concerns are not mutual exclusive.

What is wrong with having a shared understanding of what is sinful?

Most people used to believe any number of things were sinful(lots depends on what you mean by most people), but depending on context is/isn't sinful. IE; Honey does this dress make me look fat?

There is a broad shared understanding of what is moral.  Lying, stealing, murder, etc.
This is just not one of those matter that we share a common belief.

[CV75]

Jaybear, on 20 July 2012 - 06:23 AM, said:

religious conservatives ...focus on the perceived immorality of the base sexual act

liberals express concern over broader issues such self worth, human dignity, equal rights, love, intimacy, family and commitments.

My, my is this the real problem?

When discussion of broader issues obfuscates the fundamental problem, the fundamental problem needs to be reiterated. Attack the relevance and validity of what is touted as the fundamental problem, don’t cover it up with co-opted principles everyone already agrees on (self-worth, human dignity, equal rights, love, intimacy, family and commitments).

If your problem is that LDS hold that homosexual behavior is immoral, prove how it is moral.

[thesometimesaint]

CV75:

"The big lie is that this kind of sexualization is promoted and substituted for and accepted as key to self worth, rights, love, and intimacy--even by liberals! ".

Sexuality sells. It always has from the fetish's of prehistoric man, to Victorian Era ideas that table cloths were designed as means by which the "shaft" of the table legs could be hidden, to "Toddlers in Tiara's". But I'm not that Freudian.

[Jaybear]

CV75, on 20 July 2012 - 07:27 AM, said:

It is hard to argue against one’s perception of hyperbole, but I based my observation not on my religious convictions and “conservatism” but on the preponderance of scientific evidence for the sexualization of our society, and especially of youth (if you care to discuss, start a new thread).

You view society through a religious conservative lens.  Cue grumpy old man:  "Kids these days have no respect .....

Quote

How often do we see the following messages in media/entertainment, advertising, peer groups: our value comes primarily/exclusively from our sex appeal or behavior; physical attractiveness equates to being sexy; sexual objectification; promotion of age-inappropriate sexuality and imposing sexuality upon others. Not to mention the way-out-of-balance coverage and propagandizing of LGBT sexual issues and agenda.

The big lie is that this kind of sexualization is promoted and substituted for and accepted as key to self worth, rights, love, and intimacy--even by liberals!

Freedom means allowing people to do things you disaprove of.
I hate seeing someone wearing his pants around his knees, but I prefer it so seeing women forced to wear burkas by legal decree.

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear:

Jaybear, on 20 July 2012 - 07:32 AM, said:

There is a broad shared understanding of what is moral.  Lying, stealing, murder, etc.
This is just not one of those matter that we share a common belief.

Only when we speak in general terms would even lying, stealing, murder to we have shared understandings.

More's the pity.

Edited by thesometimesaint, 20 July 2012 - 08:06 AM.

[Jaybear]

CV75, on 20 July 2012 - 07:37 AM, said:

If your problem is that LDS hold that homosexual behavior is immoral, prove how it is moral.

That is not my problem.  If you believe that homosexuality is immoral, then don't engage in homosexual behavior.  Or do, and feel guilty about it.  I really don't care.
Its you life, not mine.

My problem is when people use their personal moral views to justify their efforts to control the behavior of others who don't share that same moral belief.