Questing Beast Posted March 9, 2011 Posted March 9, 2011 Some things seem fixed into the category of "non negotiable". Homosexual "marriage" is one of them for the LDS Church; for fundamentalist Christians, et al. any religious persons who adhere to the Bible (or Quran) in a fundamentalist way.The most likely "best case scenario" I can imagine is: The laws are changed to apply to all the States (as marriages laws do), allowing something like a "domestic partnership" between any two consenting adults, period, end of discussion. Sex has nothing to do with it; family relationship has nothing to do with it (i.e. no consanguinity or incest is assumed to be part of it); "marriage" (as defined by the heterosexual majority) has nothing to do with it. A "marriage" is just one of the variety of "domestic partnerships" possible under the reworked laws. (This is how it is done in Tasmania, as I understand it.) To satisfy the clamor for "equal rights under the law", nothing short of this will work. If in this Nation we continue to uphold individual rights, then there must be an equality for all adults who wish to enter into a legally recognized partnership that affords all the same rights, protections and obligations that a "marriage" has always done.The religious perspectives vis-a-vis "marriage" have absolutely nothing to do with this civil rights case; anymore than the miscegenation laws did, which were overturned by the SCOTUS. And equally, no "domestic partnership" has any right to appeal to the laws to force any religion to accept/recognize their partnership as equal to "marriage" in the religion's view. Herein lies the enduring confrontation: just how far can either "side" force their agenda, beliefs, prejudices, upon the other through legal means....
a_little_taller Posted March 9, 2011 Posted March 9, 2011 I know that is an option. And in fact, I tried that option. I was married and have children. But for me it was more difficult living that lie where everyone thought I was straight. I didn't feel it was fair to my wife or family to let others know of my struggle. But on the other hand, I flet like I was not being honest in my life. In the end, I waited until the children were out of highschool and then came out. I still love and support the church. Glad my kids are in it. I just can't be a part of it. Like I said, the church doesn't offer anything for someone who is gay that feels he has to be honest.Sky, I certainly wish you all the love and hope that things work out for you.Consider this similar scenario:"I'm a father of 6 great kids. I have a great wife who is probably the most charitable person I know. But I struggle to control my lustful nature. It is frustratingly difficult for me not to take a second look at an attractive woman as she walks by or to keep my mind from running wild with lustful possibilities. I have even been propositioned a few times. I've never acted out on these feelings, but sometimes I feel like a hypocrite, as I hold a church calling and a temple recommend and have made covenants with God that involve my wife and children. Our sex life has always been rather stale, and I wonder if I wouldn't be happier and more at peace if I was true to my nature, left my family and the church, and followed my natural inclinations. At least I'd be honest and true to myself."Do you think this individual would be happier living up to his commitments and continuing to strive to overcome his natural inclinations? Or would he be better off being honest with himself and following his true nature? How would you counsel him?
Questing Beast Posted March 9, 2011 Posted March 9, 2011 Do you think this individual would be happier living up to his commitments and continuing to strive to overcome his natural inclinations? Or would he be better off being honest with himself and following his true nature? How would you counsel him?Promises mean everything or they mean nothing. If your "true nature" is to renege on promises made to your spouse, then your "true nature" is addictive personality disorder or something like it: you care about YOUR feelings more than those of your family and loved ones.You made your decision when you got married. That decision was reinforced when you had children. There is no turning back without you admitting that your "true nature" is to be an addict who doesn't care about anyone else....
Rivers Posted March 9, 2011 Author Posted March 9, 2011 We have such a long, long way to go, before society discontinues its angst over other people's sexuality: thousands of years of that angst have inbred such a genetic memory of "right and wrong" that I can hardly imagine what a society would be like, really like, to simply not care AT ALL what other people do sexually. We don't really care how others eat, or exercise, or think and feel; that's up to them individually. Yet we REALLY get bothered by sex. Why is that? Because RELIGION has so much to say about it; asserting all manner of metaphysical importance to a simple biological function; EVEN WHEN NO PROCREATION IS INVOLVED. I don't get this: the very act of sexual stimulation, one of life's three most natural pleasures (the other two being eating and sleeping), is somehow co-opted by religion into some forbidden act, if it is not all and only about making babies...It is the fact that sex brings babies into the world that sets it apart from eating and sleeping. The power of creating new human life is not something that should be taken lightly IMO. I believe this is the main reason religion says so much about sex. Now as to why forms of sex that don't cause reproduction can be wrong, I am not entirely sure. But if you look at that full picture of the LDS Plan of Salvation, the stance against homosexual acts makes some sense. Homosexuality is a deviation from our ultimate eternal goal. But I still am pretty sure practicing gays can have loving relationships like everybody else. One way to look at it is this: Why would somebody who is gay want to take part in exaltation with a spouse of the opposite sex?
california boy Posted March 9, 2011 Posted March 9, 2011 Consider this similar scenario:"I'm a father of 6 great kids. I have a great wife who is probably the most charitable person I know. But I struggle to control my lustful nature. It is frustratingly difficult for me not to take a second look at an attractive woman as she walks by or to keep my mind from running wild with lustful possibilities. I have even been propositioned a few times. I've never acted out on these feelings, but sometimes I feel like a hypocrite, as I hold a church calling and a temple recommend and have made covenants with God that involve my wife and children. Our sex life has always been rather stale, and I wonder if I wouldn't be happier and more at peace if I was true to my nature, left my family and the church, and followed my natural inclinations. At least I'd be honest and true to myself."Do you think this individual would be happier living up to his commitments and continuing to strive to overcome his natural inclinations? Or would he be better off being honest with himself and following his true nature? How would you counsel him?So is this the little senerio straight Mormons sit around and talk about to justify that being gay is not so bad. How about this senerio.You are deeply in love with your wife and want to marry her, but a group of homosexuals tell you that you are not allowed to ever marry her or any other woman. In fact, they pass laws against you marrying your wife just to make sure you don't. And the church, your family and friends all expect you to marry another guy instead that you have no sexual interest in. But you want to do what they tell you God wants of you so bad that you do marry a guy thinking how bad can it be. You can't tell anyone that you secretly love your wife because when they find out it will distroy most of therelationships you have. Your Mormon friends will stop talking to you. Your siblings won't want you around. Your own father won't invite you to any family functions. So maybe eventually you will like being married to a guy. Do you think that would happen?Do you think this is all about sex? Do you want to trade places now? Do you think your little problem for lusting after women compares at all to not being able to ever being with your wife that you love so much EVER, And the church you love tells you to just live a lonely life with no possibilities of being in love with anything. It will all be worth it, cause when you die, you can be married to another man for eternity. And if you don't do what they say, you will be excommunicated. Yipe.
Jason Posted March 9, 2011 Posted March 9, 2011 It's still a straw man, California Boy. The Church doesn't tell you you can never love anyone.
SilverKnight Posted March 9, 2011 Posted March 9, 2011 It's still a straw man, California Boy. The Church doesn't tell you you can never love anyone.No they just say you can never act on that love.
sjdawg Posted March 9, 2011 Posted March 9, 2011 But suicide rates are higher in the gay community and the amount of partners a gay persons has is stagering. I'm don't have statistics but I my observations have led me to believe that suicide rates are higher for homosexuals raised in LDS homes and communities. I don't have a background of living in a community dominated by another staunch religion but I suspect Homosexual suicides would be higher there do. It is hard to value your life when everyone around tells you that something at your very core is wrong and against Gods plan.I have also know many heterosexual people who have had a staggering number of sexual partners. I'm not sure that particular malady is confined to the gay community in any way. It seems to be more of a current generational thing to me.
sjdawg Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 nackhadlow:As a Church we don't know the causes homosexual attraction any more than we know the causes of stealing is an attraction to some people. But only those who actually engage in homosexual behavior, and those that actually steal are held accountable by the Church.Are you comparing the two behavious?Are you heterosexual? At what age did you "decide" you were attracted to members of the opposite sex? I never made the decision to like women. It was part of me. Homosexuality wasn't an option.
california boy Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 It's still a straw man, California Boy. The Church doesn't tell you you can never love anyone.I know you like to throw out this straw man thing. but you seem to only do it when you have nothing to say. I am not talking about a love like a family relationship, I am talking about love like a companionship. The churches position is if you are gay, they don't want you dating someone of the same sex, because dating is intended to lead to marriage. The church feels like if you are dating and can not marry the person, then you will be more tempted to be intimate.The church also advises against having someone of the same sex as your room mate. It was explained to me as the same advice they give heterosexuals for not wanting them to room with members of the opposite sex. Too much familiarity in close living conditions.When I asked my church leaders if I could have a room mate that was of the opposite sex. They said no. It would not be proper either.So no dating, no room mate, no kissing (other than your mother) no companionship. And if you do all of that, while your life here on earth sucks, you get to marry a woman for eternity. Yipe. Hardly a straw man.
TAO Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 So no dating, no room mate, no kissing (other than your mother) no companionship. And if you do all of that, while your life here on earth sucks, you get to marry a woman for eternity. Yipe.California Boy, dating doesn't matter. Room mates do not matter. Kissing doesn't matter. Companionship in this mortal life doesn't even matter. If you do all that, you get to be happy. And free.That's alot to ask, but that's alot to gain.I was born an Autistic and have Tourette's. I have no control over it. It is likely that while attempting a mairrage, something will go wrong and it will end up in a divorce statistically for people with my conditions.Does this stop me?No. I will defy the odds. I will overcome the challenges. I will make myself new and different and pure. I will not be like the rest. I will not fail. I will not fail.It doesn't take a miracle to overcome your temptations and challenges. It just takes a will. A really strong will. And there are people willing to help you with that. HF and Christ are right there, holding out there hands, waiting for you to grasp it, so they can help pull you along. All you've got to do is accept it, make the commitment, have a will.That's all. A choice, to have a will. A choice to overcome the odds. A choice to not submit to your desires, simply because they are desires. A choice to not fail. A choice to not fall.The world be a mixed up place.But we can do it. Every one of us can.
Jason Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 I know you like to throw out this straw man thing. but you seem to only do it when you have nothing to say. I am not talking about a love like a family relationship, I am talking about love like a companionship. The churches position is if you are gay, they don't want you dating someone of the same sex, because dating is intended to lead to marriage. The church feels like if you are dating and can not marry the person, then you will be more tempted to be intimate.The church also advises against having someone of the same sex as your room mate. It was explained to me as the same advice they give heterosexuals for not wanting them to room with members of the opposite sex. Too much familiarity in close living conditions.When I asked my church leaders if I could have a room mate that was of the opposite sex. They said no. It would not be proper either.So no dating, no room mate, no kissing (other than your mother) no companionship. And if you do all of that, while your life here on earth sucks, you get to marry a woman for eternity. Yipe. Hardly a straw man.You were making a strawman claim. "The Church won't let me love anyone" is unequivocally false. It is a strawman argument to criticize the Church for it because the Church never actually told you this."The Church counsels me that because of my stated sexual desires it is better to avoid putting myself into situations where I may be more tempted to engage in homosexual behavior (such as with a male roomate, or on dates with males)" is a much more correct account of their counsel to you, and thus not a strawman. As you noted, the Church gives similar guidance to the youth of the Church. No opposite-sex roommates, careful guidelines on appropriate dating practices and kissing, etc. It's not "companionship" or making you miserable that the Church is concerned with in issuing these guidelines, it is avoiding sexual sin - which will in the end make you more miserable despite any appearance of happiness you experience in the short-term.If you want the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom yes, you will have to marry a woman - there is no getting around that requirement, but there are lower degrees if, when you are out of mortality, you still cannot do it.
semlogo Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 Homosexuality is romantic and/or sexual attraction or behavior among members of the same sex or gender.You are not gay - no one is. You may very well engage in homosexual acts and have homosexual desires.
Questing Beast Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 Telling anyone that their aesthetics are screwed up, but oh well, just "endure to the end" and all will be well in the hereafter, is hollow comfort, imho.And telling anyone that their aesthetics sexually are just screwed up but not reality is tantamount to you claiming that you can climb inside their head and tell that they are just screwed up; they just don't "get it".What needs to be done is for everyone to just walk away from the subject; let it be one of those things that "don't compute"; and leave those who feel differently from yourself alone. If their very existence on the same planet is a problem to you, then that is not anyone's problem but YOURS. As long as what a person chooses to do, in response to their aesthetic desires, does not cause an injustice to others, then the Law won't concern itself: and if the Law does not concern itself then neither should we.This applies to everyone. Any agenda to change others is most assuredly wrong, if what you want to change is not harming anyone else in any shown way....
zelder Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 Are you comparing the two behavious?Are you heterosexual? At what age did you "decide" you were attracted to members of the opposite sex? I never made the decision to like women. It was part of me. Homosexuality wasn't an option.This is very difficult for me to believe.
semlogo Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 This is very difficult for me to believe.Why is that?
frankenstein Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 Are you comparing the two behavious?Are you heterosexual? At what age did you "decide" you were attracted to members of the opposite sex? I never made the decision to like women. It was part of me. Homosexuality wasn't an option.the official statement from the mouth piece of God, concerning the origin of homosexual attraction is "we do not know". Do I think sexual activity is a choice, yes, because there is always a choice to act or not to act. Do I think the biological whatevers that tell our brains or activate our bodies are a choice, No I do not. The LDS Church does not take a position on why some people experience homosexual desire other than "we [The LDS Church] do not know". What I do know, is that of the males I know who live a homosexual lifestyle, they all tell me that at a very early age they realized they were attracted to males; however, these same males did at one point have girlfriends or have heterosexual premarital sex, and not too long afterward "came out" as homosexual. I see no reason why homosexual desire could not be someones Ether 12:27 weakness to help them be humble and come to God. I believe that Ether 12:27 was what Elder Packer was referring to in the last conference. God would not send us here with a personal trial we could not over come; this message is in both the Bible and Book of Mormon, this message was also the theme of the 70 who spoke at my stakes conference this past sunday.
semlogo Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 see posts #46, 47, 48, and 53Yeah. That still makes no sense, unless you're bisexual. I'm heterosexual and for me homosexuality has never been an option or a temptation. I am what I am.
Jason Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 I see no reason why homosexual desire could not be someones Ether 12:27 weakness to help them be humble and come to God. I believe that Ether 12:27 was what Elder Packer was referring to in the last conference. God would not send us here with a personal trial we could not over come; this message is in both the Bible and Book of Mormon, this message was also the theme of the 70 who spoke at my stakes conference this past sunday.On this we agree.
california boy Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 You were making a strawman claim. "The Church won't let me love anyone" is unequivocally false. It is a strawman argument to criticize the Church for it because the Church never actually told you this.Well I guess my definition of being in love is more than the kind of love looking at a movie magazine and fantasizing about what it would be like to actually meet a person. I would like to be able to do such simple things as dating them or rooming with them. How actually do you see even a relationship or love forming given the paramaters the church outlined to me about what was proper and what was not? I think a straw man is about all the church actually allows me to be with.
LeSellers Posted March 11, 2011 Posted March 11, 2011 How actually do you see even a relationship or love forming given the paramaters the church outlined to me about what was proper and what was not? In exactly the same way any unmarried Saint would live: celebate. It's not as if homosexuals are the only ones who are counseled to remain chaste. There are thousands of Saints in the later years of life who have lived chaste lives without a spouse. Homosexuals are not singled out for any punitive act by their being "denied" sexual relationships. Lehi
sjdawg Posted March 11, 2011 Posted March 11, 2011 This is very difficult for me to believe.I suppose I could could have mad the choice to engage in homosexual behaviour but that would not change the fact that I am a straight, straight man. Just like a gay man can make the choice to get married to a woman and have a family. It usually has disasterous results for all involved.
sjdawg Posted March 11, 2011 Posted March 11, 2011 the official statement from the mouth piece of God, concerning the origin of homosexual attraction is "we do not know". Do I think sexual activity is a choice, yes, because there is always a choice to act or not to act. Do I think the biological whatevers that tell our brains or activate our bodies are a choice, No I do not. The LDS Church does not take a position on why some people experience homosexual desire other than "we [The LDS Church] do not know". What I do know, is that of the males I know who live a homosexual lifestyle, they all tell me that at a very early age they realized they were attracted to males; however, these same males did at one point have girlfriends or have heterosexual premarital sex, and not too long afterward "came out" as homosexual. I see no reason why homosexual desire could not be someones Ether 12:27 weakness to help them be humble and come to God. I believe that Ether 12:27 was what Elder Packer was referring to in the last conference. God would not send us here with a personal trial we could not over come; this message is in both the Bible and Book of Mormon, this message was also the theme of the 70 who spoke at my stakes conference this past sunday.I guess you are referring the the statements by someone claiming to be the "mouthpiece of god". The veracity of that claim is disputable but isn't the point of this thread.It is very easy to sit and tell people that homosexuality is something they can overcome without ever having gone through that experience. I have kids, I have a wife. They are a major factor in my life and my happiness. I believe very few people would ever make a "choice" to be gay. Within the LDS church there is very little hope in this life for a gay person. (They can enjoy some judgement and condemnation though)
sjdawg Posted March 11, 2011 Posted March 11, 2011 In exactly the same way any unmarried Saint would live: celebate. It's not as if homosexuals are the only ones who are counseled to remain chaste. There are thousands of Saints in the later years of life who have lived chaste lives without a spouse. Homosexuals are not singled out for any punitive act by their being "denied" sexual relationships. LehiIt isn't the same. An unmarried heterosexual person always can have hope in this life. An unmarried heterosexual person can date, hold hands, kiss, pursue relationship and search for their soulmate. Gay people can't do that. Sexuality and intimacy is much more than just the physical act of sex.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.