Becomming Straight

[Daniel2]

After reading through this thread, the response that comes most to my mind, as a post-Mormon, now openly-gay man, is the example displayed in a passage from Luke 23:

[33] And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left.

[34] Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.

(Italics added)

[Joseph Antley]

Somehow I doubt the guy was ever really gay.

[Pahoran]

After reading through this thread, the response that comes most to my mind, as a post-Mormon, now openly-gay man, is the example displayed in a passage from Luke 23:

Who is it that you think needs to be forgiven for unknowingly doing something just as dreadful as crucifying Christ? Those who are so encompassingly evil as to believe that repentance is a good thing?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Son]

Trust me, this dude isn't a hero. He's just someone who changed their mind about their sexual orientation. He's called a hero by homophobes when he goes from gay to straight, but if he goes from straight to gay he's what? A pervert?

a sinner, on the road to darkness- just like us if we don't repent and overcome sin.

No doubt, he will convince you and like minded people.

For every ONE of him there's TEN THOUSAND, who had no choice or say about their sexual orientation when they were born.

Either way, if they live in United States of America or any part of Western World they have a chance to survive and live as productive decent human beings.

Homo-sex & decent ?

[Mighty Curelom]

A couple of points: first, sexuality isn't binary. Everyone falls somewhere in a continuum of sexual preference, with 100% gay and 100% straight at the extreme endpoints. If a person is somewhere in the middle, they could conceivably choose to be either straight, gay, or bisexual. For this reason, it's entirely possible that someone with a 3, 4, or even 5 on the Kinsey Scale could choose to switch from exclusively homosexual relations to exclusively heterosexual relations.

On the other hand, most of the "ex-gay" champions who've claimed to kick their gay tendencies don't actually become straight. They don't start having sexual relationships with persons of the opposite gender--they just stop having sex of any kind.

[Son]

A couple of points: first, sexuality isn't binary. Everyone falls somewhere in a continuum of sexual preference, with 100% gay and 100% straight at the extreme endpoints. If a person is somewhere in the middle, they could conceivably choose to be either straight, gay, or bisexual. For this reason, it's entirely possible that someone with a 3, 4, or even 5 on the Kinsey Scale could choose to switch from exclusively homosexual relations to exclusively heterosexual relations.

On the other hand, most of the "ex-gay" champions who've claimed to kick their gay tendencies don't actually become straight. They don't start having sexual relationships with persons of the opposite gender--they just stop having sex of any kind.

Hardly something to trust and believe.

We are given weaknesses to become strong, yes. Yet we are drawn away from our own lusts. God does not approve of Homosexual acts. He told me so. So you can believe it.

[Pahoran]

A couple of points: first, sexuality isn't binary. Everyone falls somewhere in a continuum of sexual preference, with 100% gay and 100% straight at the extreme endpoints. If a person is somewhere in the middle, they could conceivably choose to be either straight, gay, or bisexual. For this reason, it's entirely possible that someone with a 3, 4, or even 5 on the Kinsey Scale could choose to switch from exclusively homosexual relations to exclusively heterosexual relations.

I can't believe you are relying upon anything as thoroughly discredited as Kinsey's propaganda.

On the other hand, most of the "ex-gay" champions who've claimed to kick their gay tendencies don't actually become straight. They don't start having sexual relationships with persons of the opposite gender--they just stop having sex of any kind.

You may be right. And that is still better than the alternative.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Daniel2]

Who is it that you think needs to be forgiven for unknowingly doing something just as dreadful as crucifying Christ? Those who are so encompassingly evil as to believe that repentance is a good thing?

Regards,

Pahoran

No where did I say that anything was "just as dreadful as crucifying Christ."

However, there are an awful lot of judgements being thrown around in this thread, by individuals who apparently have little to no experience in trying to "change their sexual orientation." In making such sweeping judgements without firsthand knowledge of others' struggles, they committ the same kind of unwitting and ignorant judgements as the soldiers described in the Bible who unknowingly carried out orders of their superiors, without fully understanding the situation.

Whom would you suggest is "encompassingly evil"? I, for one, never made any such accusation. I personally would like to believe that no one is "encompassingly" evil.

In situations like this thread (even my interactions with you, Pahoran), I try to remember what I consider to be a very Christ-like quote by Millar Williams, who said,

"Have compassion for everyone you meet, even if they don't want it. What appears bad manners, an ill temper or cynicism is always a sign of things no ears have heard, no eyes have seen. You do not know what wars are going on down there where the spirit meets the bone."

(from "The Ways We Touch")

I think that is very much reflective of the teachings of Jesus. I believe we all would do well to be less hasty in picking up stones to throw at others, no matter what side of a debate we may find ourselves on.

Daniel

[Pahoran]

No where did I say that anything was "just as dreadful as crucifying Christ."

Then in what way can any participant here be meaningfully compared to His crucifiers?

However, there is an awful lot of judgements being thrown around in this thread, by individuals who apparently have little to no experience in trying to "change their sexual orientation." In making such sweeping judgements without firsthand knowledge of others' struggles, they committ the same kind of unwitting and ignorant judgements as the soldiers described in the Bible who unknowingly carried out orders of their superiors, without fully understanding the situation.

That's an awfully long stretch, Daniel.

Whom would you suggest is "encompassingly evil"? I, for one, never made any such accusation. I personally would like to believe that no one is "encompassingly" evil.

I'm most glad to hear it.

In situations like this thread (even my interactions with you, Pahoran), I try to remember what I consider to be a very Christ-like quote by Millar Williams, who said,

I think that is very much reflective of the teachings of Jesus. I believe we all would do well to be less hasty in picking up stones to throw at others, no matter what side of a debate we may find ourselves on.

That's very nice, or something.

But I'd just like you to know, Daniel, that when I see someone proclaiming that homosexual acts are not sinful, I really truly hope that they don't know what they are doing, too.

Regards,

Pahoran

[rufus]

Does a wheel stop being a wheel when it is not turning? I don't think he changed, he is just not functioning as he did before. Using the tricks of psychology, behaviour can be modified, but desire cannot be snuffed out. Also, no amount of electical shocks can light the fire of lust for the opposite sex.

Sorry about that.

Rufus

[rufus]

And for what it is worth, look for the new series "Rick and Steve" on Logo. I suspect it is going to cause quite a controversy.

Rufus

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

Ghandi is my greatest hero:

Two gay Englishmen came to Gandhi in the 1930s and asked him what he thought of their relationship. The Mahatma asked some questions and for a short time fell silent.

Then he said, â??The greatest gift God gives us is another person to love.â?

Placing the hands of each man in the otherâ??s, he quietly and with a smile asked, â??Who are we to question Godâ??s choice?â?

[Son]

Ghandi is my greatest hero:

Blasphemy.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

Blasphemy.

Christ was up there too. Ghandi really liked a lot of what he had to say...

[solomarineris]

And isn't that what Mr. Glatze is trying to do? Become a decent human being by repenting of his sins?

Regards,

Pahoran

What sins are you talking about?

The sexual feeling of homosexuals are no different than straights or bi-sexuals. They are born into those traits no fault of their own.

Theres no "rights" or "wrongs" about sexual orientation. One doesn't volunteer into it.

[Son]

What sins are you talking about?

The sexual feeling of homosexuals are no different than straights or bi-sexuals. They are born into those traits no fault of their own.

Theres no "rights" or "wrongs" about sexual orientation. One doesn't volunteer into it.

In your opinion.

God certainly has expressed that it is perverse, and an abomination and as far as I know the reason for evaporating a whole city. Correction 2 whole cities.

Oh, and it produces no fruit, is completely animal, and against natural affection.

But as long as you are saying it is okay, I am sure those that are so inclined will gravitate to that opinion, and have a long painful road ahead.

[Daniel2]

Ghandi is my greatest hero:

Thanks for sharing that, Renegade. I'd never heard that before.

In my opinion, Ghandi displayed a beautiful example of loving his neighbor as his self.

[Daniel2]

In your opinion.

God certainly has expressed that it is perverse, and an abomination and as far as I know the reason for evaporating a whole city. Correction 2 whole cities.

Oh, and it produces no fruit, is completely animal, and against natural affection.

But as long as you are saying it is okay, I am sure those that are so inclined will gravitate to that opinion, and have a long painful road ahead.

Son,

I certainly respect your right to believe that God has expressed his opinion on the matter of homosexual relationships.

There are many other people who happen to believe that God has a different view than the one you claim he has given, including your assertion that "two whole cities" were "evaporated."

I, for one, bear testimony that love produces an amazing amount of beautiful, life-affirming, uplifting 'fruit'--including the love expressed within homosexual relationships.

In addition, my experience with gay relationships provides me with a different understanding than yours: while sexuality in any orientation has the potential to be "animal" in some of it's manifestations, homosexual relationships are not "animal" by default any more or less than heterosexual relationships are.

Finally, while homosexual attractions may very well be against your "natural affection," they are very "natural" for those of us who experience them.

As long as individuals such as yourselfs ignorantly rail against something of which you have no first-hand experience in the name of God, eternal salvation, and the avoidance of divine condemnation, I also agree that those who are gay and simultaneously follow such philosophies will have a long, painful road ahead, as they continue to completely deny their own innate, god-given, and very natural affections.

Thanks for sharing your views,

Daniel

[Daniel2]

Blasphemy.

That which is "blasphemous" to one religion may be held as entirely "sacred" by another.

Just ask any Christian about God having a physical body, about man becoming like God, the idea of infant baptism, or any other numerous controversial creedal statements. ;-)

To each his own,

Daniel

[Pahoran]

What sins are you talking about?

The sexual feeling of homosexuals are no different than straights or bi-sexuals. They are born into those traits no fault of their own.

Theres no "rights" or "wrongs" about sexual orientation. One doesn't volunteer into it.

But as you perfectly well know, Lone Sailor, no-one was talking about "orientation." The sin consists in homosexual acts.

And Mr. Glatze has decided to repent of those he has committed.

Good for him.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Bach]

Pahoran, you're making it seem as if this Glatze guy is only denigrating homosexual acts, and not going further to disparage homosexual inclinations. That's not the impression I got when I read the article.

[Daniel2]

But as you perfectly well know, Lone Sailor, no-one was talking about "orientation." The sin consists in homosexual acts.

And Mr. Glatze has decided to repent of those he has committed.

Good for him.

Regards,

Pahoran

I likewise support Mr. Glatze's decision to "turn away" from whatever actions in life which cause him dissonence. Any such 'repenting' that brings more genuine peace within an individual should be welcomed, and each should be free to determine for him or her self which "turning away" will ultimately cause the most peace in his or her life.

Unfortunately, this oft-repeated mantra of "the sin consists in the homosexual acts" doesn't seem to jive with many LDS teachings concerning the fact that God will judge and reward mankind not only on their acts, but by their thoughts and desires of their hearts, as well. No where in scripture is this idea found--that homosexuals will only be held accountable for their acts, not their thoughts. In fact, the scriptures portray a very different idea:

But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.--Matthew 5:22

For our words will condemn us, yea, all our works will condemn us; we shall not be found spotless; and our thoughts will also condemn us--Alma 12:14

And it is requisite with the justice of God that men should be judged according to their works; and if their works were good in this life, and the desires of their hearts were good, that they should also, at the last day, be restored unto that which is good.--Alma 41:3 (italics added)

The one raised to happiness according to his desires of happiness, or good according to his desires of good; and the other to evil according to his desires of evil; for as he has desired to do evil all the day long even so shall he have his reward of evil when the night cometh.--Alma 41:5

Just to name a few...

Daniel

[Bach]

I really don't think Jesus is condemning people with sex drives with that quote, Daniel. It seems more like he's saying that consciously seeking after situations in which those thoughts are likely to present themselves is a castigable act.

Not that I really care about what Jesus said... but you know. Whatever.

[Daniel2]

I really don't think Jesus is condemning people with sex drives with that quote, Daniel. It seems more like he's saying that consciously seeking after situations in which those thoughts are likely to present themselves is a castigable act.

Not that I really care about what Jesus said... but you know. Whatever.

Hi, Bach,

It's interesting to me that one could read words speaking about "lusting for a woman in his heart" and draw the conclusion that it isn't a condemnation of a sexual drive... but I guess anything could be open to interpretation.

Even if such an analysis that such a statement isn't about a SEX drive was correct, the desire for a gay man to enter into a relationship with someone to whom he is romantically, emotionally, intellectually, and spiritually attracted to is far greater (though obviously encompasses) mere "sex drive." As such, the way I always understood it, the scriptures I quoted condemn anyone who, for any length of time, has desires in their heart to form a homosexual relationship contrary to what the LDS scriptures decree as "heterosexual"--whether that is solely based on the sexual, or encompasses it as something far greater than the whole.

While I understand that Mormons have a desire to appear more compassionate in this recently emerged teaching that "the sin lies in the act, not the desire," such a non-scriptural-based teaching is not consistent with my understanding of established Christian and LDS cannonical scripture.

Mormonism condemns homosexuality in any form, and someone who's natural, heart-felt desire is to have a gay relationship--and who dwells on that for any length of time--will not receive a "righteous" reward based on thsoe desires.

My view,

Daniel

[selek]

I find it fascinating that even among putative Christians (pot-stirring athiests such as MC don't count), we can't have a rationale discourse on this matter. The invariable demonizing is both mystifying and heart-rending.

Glatze has renounced behavior that most religions have always considered sinful, at best.

He has turned away from a practice and a behavior that is demonstrably unhealthy, and that for a variety of reasons is destructive to its practitioners both physically and morally.

Had Glatze been a crack addict and done precisely the same things- including the condemnations of the lifestyle- no one here would be condemning him.

But because this involves one's intimate choices and challenges the rationalizations heaped up to justify them, Glatze is subject to scorn and ridicule.

Glatze's primary sin in the eyes of the homosexual lobby (as opposed to those merely practicing the behavior) is that his is yet another voice raised to defy the idea that homosexuality is innate and immutable.

Those two characteristics are the lynch pin of the current propoganda war and agenda. If they fail, the whole campaign fails. And by serving as living proof that the behavior and practice can be changed, he is a threat to their agenda.

And that is unforgiveable to the militant fringe.

Daniel, I want to quibble with you on a single point: We are condemned not for mere thoughts, but for indulging in thoughts that lead to sinful behavior.

If you are walking down the avenue and see a particularly nice backside heading in the opposite direction, your first action is likely to be stopping (figuratively speaking) to admire the view. This is natural, and not the least bit sinful.

If, on the other hand, having taken in the view, you procede to fantasize and indulge yourself in savoring the view, that's something else again. George Carlin had a bit that he did that covered the idea fairly well, if without a lot of reverence.

It's not the desire that's innately sinful, but rather the planning, scheming, and indulgence.

I agree with Bach- "lusting in one's heart" is not a quick peek at a passing fanny- it's far more involved.

For the record, the science on the issue of homosexual desire is far from settled- and barely in the same solar system with the propoganda pronouncements being made by both sides of the argument.

I agree with the teachings of the Church that the behavior is immoral, and inherently sinful. I'm not willing to extend such classifications to those who feel the attractions.

The complaints I hear most often from my friends in that lifestyle deal with being both demonized and dehumanized (facets of the same poisioned gem).

That is my main problem with the current push. By proclaiming that the behavior is both innate and immutable- that those in the lifestyle cannot choose for themselves and in many instances cannot help themselves- adherents to this line of thought are stripping people of their agency- of everything that separates them from the beasts of the field.

The argument itself dehumanizes those it purports to help.

Homosexual desire may indeed be innate, just as alchoholism, certain types of obesity, and many other physical afflictions are. Immutable is considerably more problematic- as people like Glatze demonstrate.

The idea that it is unavoidable is altogether nonsensical, dehumanizing, and debilitating.