The Recent Change In My View Of Homosexual Marriage

[Daniel2]

Daniel,

I am not sure what 5 to choose.

I can say that on my best days and putting forth my best self, the top 3 roles are (not necessarily ordered, but ??):

Husband and Father and Son of my Heavenly Father.

I will await your thoughts!

Charity, TOm

I would presume that most people would include their relationship with their spouse in the top three labels/roles, as well... and certainly, all three of your top roles identify your family relationships. I believe that is normal, healthy, and desirable.

Although you claim not to self-identify as "heterosexual" or define yourself in terms of your "OSA," your relationship toward your wife--as that of husband--is entirely dependant on you embracing hetoersexuality (or "OSA," As you phrase it).

Attempting to define yourself as a heterosexual--making a choice to live a "heterosexual lifestyle"--is foundational to entering into a marital relationship with an opposite-sex spouse.

Said differently, opposite-sex marriage promotes heterosexuality, heterosexual intercourse, and the embracing of a heterosexual identity.

Therefore, I think it's innacurate for you to say that one of your most important self-identifying roles is that of "husband" in relation to your "wife," but then simultaneously assert that you don't "define" yourself as heterosexual.

Your status of husband in an opposite-sex marriage SHOWS you have chosen to self-identify as straight/heterosexual/OSAttracted.

Edited December 3, 2014 by Daniel2

[Ahab]

At the VERY least, I reject the idea that I must use a label for you that indicates that you are your desire. I am not presently aware of any label I would like to apply to any person that indicates they are one with a particular healthy desire.

Instead of desire let's use the word attraction, as in OSA or SSA, and see if that fits a little better.

I am a man plagued (okay well maybe not plagued exactly, but I feel the attraction often) to both men and women, so in my case I am what I am attracted to as well as being the opposite of my attraction. And I stand by my earlier statement that the attractions I feel are good and healthy so I have no problem with any of this as long as I deal with my attractions appropriately.

More importantly than any of this however is that before our culture became as sexualized as it is today, folks were not homosexuals or heterosexuals. These labels were not part of our vocabulary. My desire to not accept the common practice of calling folks homosexuals, heterosexuals, or bisexuals goes hand in hand with my recognition that the sexualization of our culture has polluted this dialogue to the point where it is less clear what the right/wrong side is (from a Christian perspective OR from a secular perspective). So as I reject aspects of the culture that most Christians and many secularlist can agree are negative (the use of female sexuality to sell beer or cigarettes), I also seek to reject other "symptoms" of the sexualization of our culture. When I do this the clarity with which I see these issues of SSM is GREATLY enhanced.

Regardless of when the words homosexual or heterosexual came into vogue, the conditions or attractions those words refer to have been around forever, with men attracted to other men because of their sexuality, and women attracted to women for their sexuality, and either attracted to his or her opposite, sexually. And none of that has ever been bad or unhealthy either, as long as people handle their attractions appropriately. It is only the inappropriate behavior that is bad, rather than the attractions or the conditions which inspire the attractions.

That is all I would like to say at this point. Many of your other comments have been spot on.

[Ahab]

I would presume that most people would include their relationship with their spouse in the top three labels/roles, as well... and certainly, all three of your top roles identify your family relationships. I believe that is normal, healthy, and desirable.

Although you claim not to self-identify as "heterosexual" or define yourself in terms of your "OSA," your relationship toward your wife--as that of husband--is entirely dependant on you embracing hetoersexuality (or "OSA," As you phrase it).

Attempting to define yourself as a heterosexual--making a choice to live a "heterosexual lifestyle"--is foundational to entering into a marital relationship with an opposite-sex spouse.

Said differently, opposite-sex marriage promotes heterosexuality, heterosexual intercourse, and the embracing of a heterosexual identity.

Therefore, I think it's innacurate for you to say that one of your most important self-identifying roles is that of "husband" in relation to your "wife," but then simultaneously assert that you don't "define" yourself as heterosexual.

Your status of husband in an opposite-sex marriage SHOWS you have chosen to self-identify as straight/heterosexual/OSAttracted.

Having SSA is not a valid excuse for acting inappropriately with someone of the same sex, though, and loving someone of the same sex isn't either. In fact, loving someone of the same sex should motivate you to not act inappropriately with someone of the same sex, even while being attracted. Love involves doing what is best for the person you love, and having sexual relations with someone of the same sex isn't what is best in that case. And not even if you are "married".

You probably don't agree but that is true anyway. You just need to learn more about how to act appropriately with someone of the same sex when you feel an attraction.

[TOmNossor]

I respect your very thoughtful approach to this subject even though I disagree with your conclusions.

Thank you and I respect yours and most of the poster on this threads approach too. There was some fear in putting up this post, but things have gone reasonably well.

 

Your language choices are intriguing to me... Since you repeatedly refer to SSA as a "temptation" do you also consider OSA to be a temptation?

I quoted approvingly (while failing to use the quote function correctly) someone who used the term "temptation." I think that is the only time I used that term.

I believe it best to say that folks with SSA have a temptation to participate in extra-marital sex with folks of the same sex.

Folks with OSA have a temptation to participate in extra-marital sex with folks of the opposite sex.

The biggest difference of course is that the sexual relationship between a husband and a wife is a similar and beneficial (as defined divinely or evolutionarily) expression of this OSA; and if the position I espouse is correct, there is no similar and beneficial expression of SSA.

 

To add to your thoughts above I offer this: We do a wonderful job in the church of teaching our children about the value and beauty of family. We raise them to cherish familial relationships. We ingrain in them the understanding that our greatest joys and our most meaningful growth are derived from marriage and child rearing. We put forward that their highest achievements in life will surface through a loving union. Songs in primary. Temple pictures in the home and the cover of each booklet given to youth.

We excel at instructing our children and literally endowing them with these deeply held beliefs.

Before I respond to your next sentence let me say this. Actually, let me attempt to SHOUT this.

Society once excelled at doing what you claim the church does. But society is now POOR at this and the church is getting worse. The average age of marriage in and out of the church is rising. More and more men and woman in and out of the church are waiting and waiting to get married. There are unattached youths in their late 20's and 30's flitting through life with less purpose and more selfishness than was once common in this age group. As a non-member youth, I knew I never wanted to marry, but also knew I wanted a wife and family someday. Many kids I know now know they never want to marry and they see much less reason to want a wife and family someday than I did. I think my father's generation most all wanted to get married once they found the right person.

Many things in our society are contributing to this dearth of marriage, and I do not believe it is good. In many ways this is the enshrinement of SELF.

 

I'm sure you can imagine the anguish suffered by our kids when they come to the realization that they are homosexual and all of the above are ripped away from their futures.

I can imagine the anguish. Imagining it as anguish of KIDS (rather than anguish of homosexual rabble rousers on the news) is important too.

But... I believe you have bought into a lie when you suggest that folks with SSA have "all of the above ... ripped away from their futures."

I believe that some folks with SSA and other difficulties might be unable to have the wonderful things you outline for our children, but I do not believe this is true of all folks with SSA and maybe not even of many.

I have no idea how we could assess this, but I am invited to put myself in the position of the person with SSA. I have done this as a thought exercise many times and invited others to do it too. I am not convinced that I could not have a meaningful procreative same sex marriage were I to live in the world of the YouTube (All You Need is Love) video (Note: SSM didn't create children in the video and in this way it has already evidenced that it misunderstands sex, but if I edited the video and SSM produced children ...). Shunning connection to my fellow humans due to other aspects of my personality, I might welcome the opportunity to be celibate, avoiding all the confusion associated with the messy emotions of you people. Having OSA in YouTube world might be just the impetus to make this CHOICE. But, in YouTube world if I had a testimony of the divine call of Joan (the Pope), and the church called me to SSM, I believe I would succeed. Sex with my husband would likely cause much less conflict than would my head in the sky non-recognition of his feelings. But, if my husband were half the Christian my wife is, we would get along well enough.

I might mention that I have never felt aroused by a man. As such, I am surely on the far (though maybe not the extreme as I am not really repulsed) side of the Kinsey scale not some middle of the road fellow. I have a testimony of the church. I have a solid intellectual reason for my positions on SSM. Where my testimony to be of Joan and my intellectual reasoning align with youtube world, I still think I could make it work. Love and attraction as the basis for entering into marriage is nowhere near a timeless and universal principle (but marriage between a man and a woman -until the last 30 years- almost is). In addition to this, sex by many folks within marriage was once (and probably still is today in a much smaller number of cases) considered more of a duty than a response to arousal. ... Don't get me wrong, there are some benefits that I think are positive associated with marriage between folks who already love one another and sex within marriage in response to spontaneous and less spontaneous arousal; but neither of these are essentials for marriage.

Now one of the reasons I believe folks with SSA don't have FAR more successful OSMs than they might is that our sexualized society is busy telling them that they are homosexuals and cannot change. Society tells us that sex is for other things (even for other things primarily) than unity and procreation. Homosexual society tells us that homosexuals are unable to have truly fulfilling relationships without homosexual sex.

I know folks who have SSA who do not believe these things. These individuals I mention that have SSA (and previous same sex relations) are known by dozens of folks other than me and only a small handful of those folks know they have SSA. Folks with SSA who make homosexual choices in today's society are often vocal about it. Folks with SSA who have found meaning and fulfillment (and in one case I know about, love/marriage/family) seldom broadcast their SSA.

Let me mention again, I truly feel bad for those kids who are asked to shoulder a difficulty that they can tell their OSA friends do not shoulder. I would likely not tell them that their OSA friends may have diabetes, Asperger's, divorced parents, propensity toward anger/violence, food addictions, food allergies, ..., or any one of thousands of things some people never experience. Such a message when loving a child is seldom helpful, especially in their moments of extreme pain and vulnerability. But when they get some perspective I hope they will recognize that their challenge is just one among many, and dwelling on what they might like to be different is unhelpful. I also believe that deciding that challenges are not challenges if you re-vision the world is only helpful if the world is wrong. One day I may return to a more neutral stance in this debate (where I once was), but today my intellect tells me that SSM is not part of God's will (and even makes little sense from an evolutionary perspective) so for sake of feelings, I am not going re-vision this truth.

I just had a friend of mine tell me how proud he was that I had changed my view on homosexual marriage. I knew what he meant and I was only explaining where I had been when he said that. But I was not quite ready for the disappointment in his eyes when I made myself more clear. He attends church very infrequently at the local UU congregation, but has little contact with homosexuals. This is not personal for him, but he thinks I am truly backwards. It doesn’t feel good to be judged like this. But, I will not respond to such hurts by ignoring what I think is the intellectual strength of the position I now embrace. C.S. Lewis:

“No emotion is, in itself, a judgement; in that sense all emotions and sentiments are alogical. but they can be reasonable or unreasonable as they conform to Reason or fail to conform. The heart never takes the place of the head: but it can, and should, obey it.”

And (about a somewhat different subject that is interestingly related):

“Nobody can always have devout feelings: and even if we could, feelings are not what God principally cares about. Christian love, either towards God or towards man, is an affair of the will. If we are trying to do His will we are obeying the commandment, ‘Thou shall love the Lord thy God.’ He will give us feelings of love if He pleases. We cannot create them for ourselves, and we must not demand them as a right."

Charity, TOm

Edited December 3, 2014 by TOmNossor

[california boy]

Once again, a very thoughtful post.  I appreciate your attempts to understand and empathize with those that do not share your orientation.  I would like to give you my perspective on a few things that you bring up.

 

 

I believe it best to say that folks with SSA have a temptation to participate in extra-marital sex with folks of the same sex.
Folks with OSA have a temptation to participate in extra-marital sex with folks of the opposite sex.
The biggest difference of course is that the sexual relationship between a husband and a wife is a similar and beneficial (as defined divinely or evolutionarily) expression of this OSA; and if the position I espouse is correct, there is no similar and beneficial expression of SSA.

 

I am going to have to disagree with your position. Like you, I also have someone in my life.  Without him, my life would have a big enough hole in it to drive a Mac truck through it.  Every day, I am blessed to have him sharing my life.  If the biggest difference between a OSA couple and a SSA couple is that the OSA couple can most times have a natural birth, then the difference between the two types of relationships is really not that big.  There are far too many marriages where procreation is not a part of that marriage.  You don't have to be straight to want to share your life with someone you love and are devoted to.  Your position is not correct.  There are indeed very similar beneficial expression in a SSA relationship.  And that is why gay people pare up just like straight people do.  Whoda thought.

 

Before I respond to your next sentence let me say this. Actually, let me attempt to SHOUT this.
Society once excelled at doing what you claim the church does. But society is now POOR at this and the church is getting worse. The average age of marriage in and out of the church is rising. More and more men and woman in and out of the church are waiting and waiting to get married. There are unattached youths in their late 20's and 30's flitting through life with less purpose and more selfishness than was once common in this age group. As a non-member youth, I knew I never wanted to marry, but also knew I wanted a wife and family someday. Many kids I know now know they never want to marry and they see much less reason to want a wife and family someday than I did. I think my father's generation most all wanted to get married once they found the right person.
Many things in our society are contributing to this dearth of marriage, and I do not believe it is good. In many ways this is the enshrinement of SELF.

 

 We all see this trend happening in society.  While there are many reasons for this trend, I think one of the principle reasons for less marriage is the position that many churches have taken towards the institution of marriage.  We constantly hear that marriage is a religious tradition.  That it was instituted by God.  Gays should not marry because God himself doesn't want gays to marry.  It is better for gay couples to shack up together than to get married.  (a position the church took away the right for gay couples to marry)  We are told that (as you yourself have stated) the purpose of marriage is to have children.  Well what if you are not religious (which more and more of the population is trending.  A whole other thread could be devoted to why people are leaving religion in huge numbers).  What if you are not sure you want children, as you were when you were younger?  Answer me this.  Why would that group marry??  You have not given them ONE REASON to marry that you can not also give a gay couple.  Yet you are adamant that gay couples not marry.  You also have to be adamant that straight non religious couples who don't want children not get married either.  

 

Your position is part of the reason for this trend.  If you don't like this trend, you should be telling people that all can benefit from being married.  That it provides more stable relationships, and legal protections that shacking up does not provide.

 

I can imagine the anguish. Imagining it as anguish of KIDS (rather than anguish of homosexual rabble rousers on the news) is important too.
But... I believe you have bought into a lie when you suggest that folks with SSA have "all of the above ... ripped away from their futures."
I believe that some folks with SSA and other difficulties might be unable to have the wonderful things you outline for our children, but I do not believe this is true of all folks with SSA and maybe not even of many.

I have no idea how we could assess this, but I am invited to put myself in the position of the person with SSA. I have done this as a thought exercise many times and invited others to do it too. I am not convinced that I could not have a meaningful procreative same sex marriage were I to live in the world of the YouTube (All You Need is Love) video (Note: SSM didn't create children in the video and in this way it has already evidenced that it misunderstands sex, but if I edited the video and SSM produced children ...). Shunning connection to my fellow humans due to other aspects of my personality, I might welcome the opportunity to be celibate, avoiding all the confusion associated with the messy emotions of you people. Having OSA in YouTube world might be just the impetus to make this CHOICE. But, in YouTube world if I had a testimony of the divine call of Joan (the Pope), and the church called me to SSM, I believe I would succeed. Sex with my husband would likely cause much less conflict than would my head in the sky non-recognition of his feelings. But, if my husband were half the Christian my wife is, we would get along well enough.

I might mention that I have never felt aroused by a man. As such, I am surely on the far (though maybe not the extreme as I am not really repulsed) side of the Kinsey scale not some middle of the road fellow. I have a testimony of the church. I have a solid intellectual reason for my positions on SSM. Where my testimony to be of Joan and my intellectual reasoning align with youtube world, I still think I could make it work. Love and attraction as the basis for entering into marriage is nowhere near a timeless and universal principle (but marriage between a man and a woman -until the last 30 years- almost is). In addition to this, sex by many folks within marriage was once (and probably still is today in a much smaller number of cases) considered more of a duty than a response to arousal. ... Don't get me wrong, there are some benefits that I think are positive associated with marriage between folks who already love one another and sex within marriage in response to spontaneous and less spontaneous arousal; but neither of these are essentials for marriage.

Now one of the reasons I believe folks with SSA don't have FAR more successful OSMs than they might is that our sexualized society is busy telling them that they are homosexuals and cannot change. Society tells us that sex is for other things (even for other things primarily) than unity and procreation. Homosexual society tells us that homosexuals are unable to have truly fulfilling relationships without homosexual sex.
I know folks who have SSA who do not believe these things. These individuals I mention that have SSA (and previous same sex relations) are known by dozens of folks other than me and only a small handful of those folks know they have SSA. Folks with SSA who make homosexual choices in today's society are often vocal about it. Folks with SSA who have found meaning and fulfillment (and in one case I know about, love/marriage/family) seldom broadcast their SSA.

Let me mention again, I truly feel bad for those kids who are asked to shoulder a difficulty that they can tell their OSA friends do not shoulder. I would likely not tell them that their OSA friends may have diabetes, Asperger's, divorced parents, propensity toward anger/violence, food addictions, food allergies, ..., or any one of thousands of things some people never experience. Such a message when loving a child is seldom helpful, especially in their moments of extreme pain and vulnerability. But when they get some perspective I hope they will recognize that their challenge is just one among many, and dwelling on what they might like to be different is unhelpful. I also believe that deciding that challenges are not challenges if you re-vision the world is only helpful if the world is wrong. One day I may return to a more neutral stance in this debate (where I once was), but today my intellect tells me that SSM is not part of God's will (and even makes little sense from an evolutionary perspective) so for sake of feelings, I am not going re-vision this truth.

I just had a friend of mine tell me how proud he was that I had changed my view on homosexual marriage. I knew what he meant and I was only explaining where I had been when he said that. But I was not quite ready for the disappointment in his eyes when I made myself more clear. He attends church very infrequently at the local UU congregation, but has little contact with homosexuals. This is not personal for him, but he thinks I am truly backwards. It doesn’t feel good to be judged like this. But, I will not respond to such hurts by ignoring what I think is the intellectual strength of the position I now embrace. C.S. Lewis:

“No emotion is, in itself, a judgement; in that sense all emotions and sentiments are alogical. but they can be reasonable or unreasonable as they conform to Reason or fail to conform. The heart never takes the place of the head: but it can, and should, obey it.”

And (about a somewhat different subject that is interestingly related):

“Nobody can always have devout feelings: and even if we could, feelings are not what God principally cares about. Christian love, either towards God or towards man, is an affair of the will. If we are trying to do His will we are obeying the commandment, ‘Thou shall love the Lord thy God.’ He will give us feelings of love if He pleases. We cannot create them for ourselves, and we must not demand them as a right."

Charity, TOm

 

 

 

I am just going to say, you are completely wrong.  It does matter who you marry.  It does matter if you are attracted to your spouse. There is real evidence that your theory when put into practice doesn't work for most people.  The church used to give this same advice to members who had SSA.  Just find someone to marry and everything will be alright.  And the church has changed it's position on the "Just marry someone" solution to gay members.  There is a reason for the church changing it's position. The vast majority of times it does not work.  I once read a study reported in the Sunstone magazine by a BYU phycologist who was assigned to work with gay BYU students in the 70's.  He counseled and monitored 300 gay members who married someone of the opposite sex.  After 5 years all but 10 of those marriages ended in divorce.  It doesn't work.  And the church has acknowledged that fact.  They no longer counsel gay members to "try marriage".

 

 I don't believe for a moment that if the church asked you to divorce your wife and marry a man you would not have real problems dealing with that idea.  Yet that is exactly what the church is asking me to do.  I remember a quote from Joseph Smith who said that if his wife was sent to hell for not accepting polygamy then he would go to hell after her.  I feel similar about my boyfriend.  If God is going to send me to hell for loving my boyfriend, then so be it.  Yeah I love him that much.  Is that so hard to understand?

[Pahoran]

I read statements like this and am so glad I no longer have to go through the contortions of believing in an image of god that you, and many others in Mormonism, have created.

 

While it no doubt makes you feel superior to express such disdain, it adds nothing at all to any discussion.

 

Unless you'd like to support your disputable assertions.  So: CFR that anyone "in Mormonism" has "created" an "image of god[sic]."

 

Regards,

Pahoran

[rockpond]

I have no idea how we could assess this, but I am invited to put myself in the position of the person with SSA. I have done this as a thought exercise many times and invited others to do it too. I am not convinced that I could not have a meaningful procreative same sex marriage were I to live in the world of the YouTube (All You Need is Love) video (Note: SSM didn't create children in the video and in this way it has already evidenced that it misunderstands sex, but if I edited the video and SSM produced children ...).

 

Well, the data for reparative therapy and failure rates of mixed orientation marriages is one way to assess it.  If you haven't already, you could study up on those dismal numbers.

 

The problem I have with your conclusion here is that you are reducing marriage to being only about procreative sex.  But marriage is so, so much more than that.  As God designed it to be.  And when you see the "more" part then you start to see why SSM can make sense, even from a divine perspective.  My wife and I have four beautiful kids but this means we only had "procreative sex" for less than half of our 16 year (so far) marriage.  Somehow we still have an amazing marriage.  How is that if marriage is only about procreative sex?

 

That's a rhetorical question.  Please don't feel the need to answer.  I might need to drop out of this thread because I'm not sure how much more I can take reading your posts about our brothers and sisters "with SSA" as if it is some type of affliction.  I understand that that kind of terminology makes sense to you but it hurts my heart.

[USU78]

 Please don't feel the need to answer.  I might need to drop out of this thread because I'm not sure how much more I can take reading your posts about our brothers and sisters "with SSA" as if it is some type of affliction.  I understand that that kind of terminology makes sense to you but it hurts my heart.

 

How very open-minded of rockpond.

 

/sarcasm

 

[rockpond]

How very open-minded of rockpond.

/sarcasm

I didn't suggest that it was open minded. And, in the very same sentence, I acknowledged that his choice of terminology makes sense to him.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Your language choices are intriguing to me... Since you repeatedly refer to SSA as a "temptation" do you also consider OSA to be a temptation?

 

Absolutely.

 

'Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other' (2 Nephi 2:16, emphasis added).

[Daniel2]

Having SSA is not a valid excuse for acting inappropriately with someone of the same sex, though, and loving someone of the same sex isn't either. In fact, loving someone of the same sex should motivate you to not act inappropriately with someone of the same sex, even while being attracted. Love involves doing what is best for the person you love, and having sexual relations with someone of the same sex isn't what is best in that case. And not even if you are "married".

You probably don't agree but that is true anyway. You just need to learn more about how to act appropriately with someone of the same sex when you feel an attraction.

From my perspective, I don't "have SSA."

I am gay (among many other labels/roles by which I self-identify).

So, one of my core (most important) self-identifiers is that I am oriented to love and form a romantic partnership with someone of my same gender, instead of someone of the opposite gender. The relationship I have with my spouse, followed by the relationship I have with my children, are THE most important aspects of my life. They give me a sense of meaning, identity, purpose, and peace. The self-sacrifices I make on behalf of seeking to place their needs above my own bring out the best in me. The reciprocity and complimentary-ness that I experience with my fiance brings balance and fulfillment that I have previously not known in any romantic relationship (especially when compared to that of my former wife).

I agree that "Having SSA/loving someone of the same sex is not an excuse for acting inappropriately."

Having OSA/loving someone of the opposite sex isn't an excuse to act inappropriately, either.

And I agree that loving someone (regardless of whether you're straight or gay) should--and for me, does--motivate me to not act inappropriately with my fiance (soon to be husband).

I also agree that loving him does mean doing the best for him, the person I love.

Where we disagree and must part paths is your assertion that "having sexual relations with someone of the same sex isn't what is best in that case. And not even if you are "married."

I understand that may be true for you, and that you and others don't believe it's ever appropriate for two men to become romantically and sexually involved with one another.

So my advice to those of you that hold such beliefs is simply this: don't have a romantic same-sex relationship. ;-)

My truth is different from your truth.

I accept that the type of relationship my husband and I aspire to, which is right and good and worthy for us, isn't right for everyone. To me, it is good, lovely, praiseworthy, of good report, and as such, I seek after it. It yields fruit that is white and delicious and desirable above all other fruit, because the fruit it bears is love.

It is said that the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, and peace, whose fruit was desirable to make one happy. It is most sweet, above all that has ever before tasted.

As I have partaken of such fruits of the Spirit, it filled my soul with exceedingly great joy; wherefore, I began to be desirous that my family should partake of it also; for I knew that it was desirable above all other fruit.

And if I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic power to know all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.

For Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away.

So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love. And those who do not love do not know God, for God is love.

That is my experience, my truth, and my testimony.

I'm not threatened by those who choose to live other paths. Everyone should live the truth that resonates within themselves.

As the saying goes, "Peace is the result of retraining your mind to process life as it is, rather than as you think it should be."

Edited December 4, 2014 by Daniel2

[Tacenda]

From my perspective, I don't "have SSA."

I am gay (among many other labels/roles by which I self-identify).

So, one of my core (most important) self-identifiers is that I am oriented to love and form a romantic partnership with someone of my same gender, instead of someone of the opposite gender. The relationship I have with my spouse, followed by the relationship I have with my children, are THE most important aspects of my life. They give me a sense of meaning, identity, purpose, and peace. The self-sacrifices I make on behalf of seeking to place their needs above my own bring out the best in me. The reciprocity and complimentary-ness that I experience with my fiance brings balance and fulfillment that I have previously not known in any romantic relationship (especially when compared to that of my former wife).

I agree that "Having SSA/loving someone of the same sex is not an excuse for acting inappropriately."

Having OSA/loving someone of the opposite sex isn't an excuse to act inappropriately, either.

And I agree that loving someone (regardless of whether you're straight or gay) should--and for me, does--motivate me to not act inappropriately with my fiance (soon to be husband).

I also agree that loving him does mean doing the best for him, the person I love.

Where we disagree and must part paths is your assertion that "having sexual relations with someone of the same sex isn't what is best in that case. And not even if you are "married."

I understand that may be true for you, and that you and others don't believe it's ever appropriate for two men to become romantically and sexually involved with one another.

So my advice to those of you that hold such beliefs is simply this: don't have a romantic same-sex relationship. ;-)

My truth is different from your truth.

I accept that the type of relationship my husband and I aspire to, which is right and good and worthy for us, isn't right for everyone. To me, it is good, lovely, praiseworthy, of good report, and as such, I seek after it. It yields fruit that is white and delicious and desirable above all other fruit, because the fruit it bears is love.

It is said that the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, and peace, whose fruit was desirable to make one happy. It is most sweet, above all that has ever before tasted.

As I have partaken of such fruits of the Spirit, it filled my soul with exceedingly great joy; wherefore, I began to be desirous that my family should partake of it also; for I knew that it was desirable above all other fruit.

And if I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic power to know all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.

For Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away.

So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love. And those who do not love do not know God, for God is love.

That is my experience, my truth, and my testimony.

I'm not threatened by those who choose to live other paths. Everyone should live the truth that resonates within themselves.

As the saying goes, "Peace is the result of retraining your mind to process life as it is, rather than as you think it should be."

Thanks for enlightening me on the incorrect usage of the term "SSA" Daniel2!

[mfbukowski]

  I just have never heard someone who is straight refer themselves as opposite sex attracted.  And frankly I have never heard someone who is gay refer themselves as same sex attracted.  Like the dictionary states, a homosexual is someone who is attracted to the same sex.

Coming back into the thread late in the game, but I really can't figure out what the objection here is.

 

Are you arguing with the dictionary?  Is that the point?

[mfbukowski]

The reason why I use it at times is that it makes for a shorthand way of specifying attraction as compared to behavior.  If I just use "homosexual" I have to include "attraction" or "behavior"…SSA is tons faster to write.  If I am talking OTOH, it is more or less as long since I say the whole thing so I usually use "homosexual attraction".  If people understood what HMSA stood for, I probably would use that.  Would that be offensive because the abbreviations make it look clinical?

 

Does LDS make us look like we have a clinical disorder?

Yeah, but I am still trying to figure out who Otoh is. 

[mfbukowski]

If a man engages in..... self-abuse.... does that mean he's either homosexual (or, at least bisexual) because he's has sex with someone of his same gender...?

Heterosexual men are not aroused by their own genitals, I cannot speak for gay men.  But I think that if they were, that would be a significant fact to know.

 

The very thought that masturbation could be considered "sex with someone of his own gender" is highly revealing, I think.

Edited December 5, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Ahab]

Thanks for enlightening me on the incorrect usage of the term "SSA" Daniel2!

That was his perspective, not the correct usage. Anyone who has an attraction to someone of the same sex, particularly a "sexual" attraction that is attributable to that person's sex, has a same sex attraction which we abbreviate as SSA.

I thought you knew tbat already.

[Ahab]

Heterosexual men are not aroused by their own genitals, I cannot speak for gay men. But I think that if they were, that would be a significant fact to know.

If that's true, that a man isn't classified as heterosexual if he is aroused by his own genitals... that seeing or touching them doesn't arouse him... then the correct classification would be either homo or bi sexual. Just so you know.

 

The very thought that masturbation could be considered "sex with someone of his own gender" is highly revealing, I think.

What did you think the term masturbation referred to???

 

And on this tasteless note the thread is closed.

[california boy]

Coming back into the thread late in the game, but I really can't figure out what the objection here is.

 

Are you arguing with the dictionary?  Is that the point?

 

My point was, this whole distinction between SSA and  being a homosexual is nothing but nonsense.  According to the dictionary, if you are attracted to the same sex, then by definition you are a homosexual.  There is no distinction between whether you have had sex with someone of the same gender.  That is all a made up concept pushed mostly by the Mormon church.  Those who try and push that idea go AGAINST what the definition of a homosexual is according to the dictionary.  It is like saying you are not straight unless you are having sex with someone of the opposite sex. Why someone would make such a distinction is beyond me.  Are members afraid to have homosexuals attending church, but they are comfortable with SSA members?  Ridiculous.

 

Websters definition

 

 

¹ho·mo·sex·u·al adjective \ˌhō-mə-ˈsek-sh(ə-)wəl, -ˈsek-shəl\

: sexually attracted to people of the same sex

: based on or showing a sexual attraction to people of the same sex