Why You Are Gay

[Kenngo1969]

I'm gay because, heck, there's a lot to be happy about!

(Sorry; Couldn't resist!)

[blackstrap]

A relative of mine ( now passed on ) was Gay... because that was the name he was given. Such a name had no other meaning way back then. However, he grew up when the term changed meaning and eventually used his middle name exclusively. He never married,so who knows whether or not the name fit both ways.

[Damien the Leper]

Valentinus,

No, you were demonstrating common human behaviors. Whether those behaviors were done with with sinful appetites in mind is another question.

Exactly! They are HUMAN behaviors...that is the point! The message in the creation narrative in Genesis 2 isn't about procreation. Such an assertion should be dismissed. It is about aloneness. God created Eve as a help-meet (does NOT denote spouse) for Adam. IIRC, there is no mention of Adam and Eve ever having sex in the Garden. So it wasn't about sex! That is what is so revolutionary about the creation narratives is that we often overlook central themes that we wouldn't normally consider or give a second glance.

[thesometimesaint]

Valentinus:

Yes it is about reproduction. If it were about solely about companionship God could just have easily created another Adam.

[Kenngo1969]

Exactly! They are HUMAN behaviors...that is the point! The message in the creation narrative in Genesis 2 isn't about procreation. Such an assertion should be dismissed. It is about aloneness. God created Eve as a help-meet (does NOT denote spouse) for Adam. IIRC, there is no mention of Adam and Eve ever having sex in the Garden. So it wasn't about sex! That is what is so revolutionary about the creation narratives is that we often overlook central themes that we wouldn't normally consider or give a second glance.

While it is not good for man (or woman) to be alone, there are far worse fates that may befall someone. From my perspective, while "alone-ness" isn't all that great, I'm more concerned about the welfare of my Eternal Soul. If one considers himself to be a spiritual being who is here on Earth to have a mortal/physical experience, then that plays a role in how important it is that he satisfy certain needs in a way that I don't believe God sanctions. Alternatively, if one considers himself to be primarily a physical being who is only subject to occasional "spiritual" experiences, that, too, plays a role in how important it is to satisfy those needs.

There are short-term "antidotes" to the condition of being alone for which I could opt that I don't think God would sanction. I could attempt to assuage my "alone-ness" by temporary satisfaction of physical appetites (and no, I'm not necessarily drawing an equivalency here between same-sex and opposite-sex couples; I'm simply speaking of my own situation); or I could attempt to abridge someone else's moral agency (by, for example seeking out a particularly weak-willed adult female who, if she had a stronger will of her own, likely wouldn't opt for any relationship I might propose).

Are these needs part of being human? Sure. But there are a lot of things that are part of being human that I think God expects me to overcome (or at least, to deal with) as a primarily spiritual being. "The natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be forever and ever UNLESS ..." et cetera. There are some things about which, along with Nephi, I simply can only say, "I know not the meaning of all things. Nevertheless, I know that God loveth His children." Why would God give me this physical attribute/need/desire that I cannot satisfy or overcome in mortality? I don't know, but I do know that God loves His children. Why would he condemn me to have, for eternity, a love/desire/attribute that I won't be able to satisfy or to overcome? I don't know that He would. I have faith that, in fact, he wouldn't.

It's not easy to have an Eternal Perspective regarding these things. While it's hard enough for anyone, it is, in fact, very difficult, especially if a person considers himself primarily a mortal being who has occasional spiritual experiences, rather than an essentially spiritual being who's on this earth to have a mortal experience. I don't know what the ultimate answer will be for someone who is attracted to those of his or her own gender, but I believe the eternal reward for staying true to the Gospel of Jesus Christ will far outweigh any burden we're called upon to bear in mortality. And, while I don't believe that one's attraction toward one's own gender will be automagically removed upon leaving this life or upon being resurrected, I don't believe God will condemn anyone who remains faithful (or heck, even the majority of people who aren't faithful) to the Gospel fo Jesus Christ to a state with which he will be dissatisfied for eternity.

As Joseph Smith once said, "“All your losses will be made up to you in the resurrection, provided you continue faithful. By the vision of the Almighty I have seen it." Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith (1976), 296. I don't know how that will happen. I know some losses are much bigger and more unfair than other losses. But I do have faith that it will happen.

[Kenngo1969]

A relative of mine ( now passed on ) was Gay... because that was the name he was given. Such a name had no other meaning way back then. However, he grew up when the term changed meaning and eventually used his middle name exclusively. He never married,so who knows whether or not the name fit both ways.

You can be a faithful member of the Church and still be gay. This guy proves it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_C._Gay

[Damien the Leper]

Valentinus:

Yes it is about reproduction. If it were about solely about companionship God could just have easily created another Adam.

If it is about procreation, the cite to me chapter and verse where Adam and Eve had sex in the Garden.

[Damien the Leper]

While it is not good for man (or woman) to be alone, there are far worse fates that may befall someone. From my perspective, while "alone-ness" isn't all that great, I'm more concerned about the welfare of my Eternal Soul. If one considers himself to be a spiritual being who is here on Earth to have a mortal/physical experience, then that plays a role in how important it is that he satisfy certain needs in a way that I don't believe God sanctions. Alternatively, if one considers himself to be primarily a physical being who is only subject to occasional "spiritual" experiences, that, too, plays a role in how important it is to satisfy those needs.

There are short-term "antidotes" to the condition of being alone for which I could opt that I don't think God would sanction. I could attempt to assuage my "alone-ness" by temporary satisfaction of physical appetites (and no, I'm not necessarily drawing an equivalency here between same-sex and opposite-sex couples; I'm simply speaking of my own situation); or I could attempt to abridge someone else's moral agency (by, for example seeking out a particularly weak-willed adult female who, if she had a stronger will of her own, likely wouldn't opt for any relationship I might propose).

Are these needs part of being human? Sure. But there are a lot of things that are part of being human that I think God expects me to overcome (or at least, to deal with) as a primarily spiritual being. "The natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be forever and ever UNLESS ..." et cetera. There are some things about which, along with Nephi, I simply can only say, "I know not the meaning of all things. Nevertheless, I know that God loveth His children." Why would God give me this physical attribute/need/desire that I cannot satisfy or overcome in mortality? I don't know, but I do know that God loves His children. Why would he condemn me to have, for eternity, a love/desire/attribute that I won't be able to satisfy or to overcome? I don't know that He would. I have faith that, in fact, he wouldn't.

It's not easy to have an Eternal Perspective regarding these things. While it's hard enough for anyone, it is, in fact, very difficult, especially if a person considers himself primarily a mortal being who has occasional spiritual experiences, rather than an essentially spiritual being who's on this earth to have a mortal experience. I don't know what the ultimate answer will be for someone who is attracted to those of his or her own gender, but I believe the eternal reward for staying true to the Gospel of Jesus Christ will far outweigh any burden we're called upon to bear in mortality. And, while I don't believe that one's attraction toward one's own gender will be automagically removed upon leaving this life or upon being resurrected, I don't believe God will condemn anyone who remains faithful (or heck, even the majority of people who aren't faithful) to the Gospel fo Jesus Christ to a state with which he will be dissatisfied for eternity.

As Joseph Smith once said, "“All your losses will be made up to you in the resurrection, provided you continue faithful. By the vision of the Almighty I have seen it." Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith (1976), 296. I don't know how that will happen. I know some losses are much bigger and more unfair than other losses. But I do have faith that it will happen.

Based on the Genesis narrative, it would seem you assume and assert too much. The Genesis account is about God and not (to Freud's dismay) about sex in any shape or form.

[thesometimesaint]

If it is about procreation, the cite to me chapter and verse where Adam and Eve had sex in the Garden.

They didn't. They were as little children. Little children don't normally seek out sex partners of either sex.

[Kenngo1969]

Based on the Genesis narrative, it would seem you assume and assert too much. The Genesis account is about God and not (to Freud's dismay) about sex in any shape or form.

Sorry for not obligingly jumping into your Little Genesis Box, Valentinus. The Book of Genesis does not the Whole Gospel of Jesus Christ make!

[Damien the Leper]

They didn't. They were as little children. Little children don't normally seek out sex partners of either sex.

I'll need a CFR for the children comment. Adam and Eve were grown adults. Not consciously deficient.

[Damien the Leper]

Oh please...Genesis 1-3 would be a small box if the message of the story were about procreation. Thankfully, Genesis is about God and His sovereignty and His will as it was done within the narratives. Fortunately for you, the Genesis box is too big for you.

[Tacenda]

I'll need a CFR for the children comment. Adam and Eve were grown adults. Not consciously deficient.

I think he said "as" children. Maybe you already knew this V.

[Damien the Leper]

I think he said "as" children. Maybe you already knew this V.

I caught that. What I'm saying is that the Genesis narrative in chapter 2 does not describe them as "little children". They were grown adults. What happened after the transgression is the result of disobedience and not a game changer.

[Kenngo1969]

Oh please...Genesis 1-3 would be a small box if the message of the story were about procreation. Thankfully, Genesis is about God and His sovereignty and His will as it was done within the narratives. Fortunately for you, the Genesis box is too big for you.

Whether it's about procreation or not, it is a small box because it does not the whole of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ make.

[Damien the Leper]

Whether it's about procreation or not, it is a small box because it does not the whole of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ make.

You are correct. It is one small part of a much bigger picture that is about God and not procreation.

[thesometimesaint]

I'll need a CFR for the children comment. Adam and Eve were grown adults. Not consciously deficient.

I didn't say they were little children, only as. Genesis 2:25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

[Damien the Leper]

I didn't say they were little children, only as. Genesis 2:25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

I didn't say that you did. I understood what you said but there is no concrete allusion to them being "as little children". Great! They were naked...who cares! That isn't even an issue.