Wiggle room for changing church teachings on homosexuality

[Mike Richards]

Although you and I disagree above the morality of consensual same-sex romantic relationships and behavior, I think we're likely to both agree with and support the general rule that biological predispositions should not excuse the predatory, non-consensual sexual behaviors of rape or pedophilia. Unlike adults who mutually agree to enter into and engage in heterosexual or homosexual relationships and/or behaviors, both rape and pedophilia fail to meet the standard of consent, meaning one of the individuals becomes the "perpetrator"--the individual or adult who sexually forces him- or -herself on the other unwilling participant; while the other individual becomes the "victim"--the individual being raped, or the under-age child).

Darin,

I agree that there is a distinct difference between consensual homosexual behavior and forced sexual assault. For me the concern with "the slippery slope" of accepting sexual abnormality because it's genetic is that pedophilia has the potential of becoming an acceptable behavior because it's genetic (with the assumption that it is...as I said in an earlier post, I haven't read anything on it, just heard the podcast). Now, before anyone gets upset with that idea, let's be clear about what we mean when we say pedophilia. It's a sexual attraction to a prepubescent individual. The age of consent in many countries is sufficiently low (13 in Spain, for example) that pedophiles could legally do things that most of us (hetro and homosexual alike) would find unacceptable. The fact that these countries have these laws is indicative that the majority of the population in these countries do not find such acts repulsive. The concern then, is that as we move further and further along in what we're willing to accept because it's biological (again, the slippery slope), will we have the power to say, "enough" before we've gone too far? There are currently organizations in the US whose goal it is to lower the age of consent. I'm not saying I'm for one thing or another, I'm just bringing up an issue that I think is relevant. I don't have a problem with civil unions or people doing what they want in the privacy of their own homes. I do see a problem establishing firm lines when we continue giving on things, and this is part of the reason I just don't see the church accepting homosexual behavior.

[semlogo]

semlogo:

Good morning.

All those factors are well within the normal range of physical differences of individuals, and do not entail a proclivity to homosexual behavior. The Pygmy is no more homosexually orientated than the Watusi.

A friendly CFR to you, TSS!

[semlogo]

Darin,

I agree that there is a distinct difference between consensual homosexual behavior and forced sexual assault. For me the concern with "the slippery slope" of accepting sexual abnormality because it's genetic is that pedophilia has the potential of becoming an acceptable behavior because it's genetic (with the assumption that it is...as I said in an earlier post, I haven't read anything on it, just heard the podcast). Now, before anyone gets upset with that idea, let's be clear about what we mean when we say pedophilia. It's a sexual attraction to a prepubescent individual. The age of consent in many countries is sufficiently low (13 in Spain, for example) that pedophiles could legally do things that most of us (hetro and homosexual alike) would find unacceptable. The fact that these countries have these laws is indicative that the majority of the population in these countries do not find such acts repulsive. The concern then, is that as we move further and further along in what we're willing to accept because it's biological (again, the slippery slope), will we have the power to say, "enough" before we've gone too far? There are currently organizations in the US whose goal it is to lower the age of consent. I'm not saying I'm for one thing or another, I'm just bringing up an issue that I think is relevant. I don't have a problem with civil unions or people doing what they want in the privacy of their own homes. I do see a problem establishing firm lines when we continue giving on things, and this is part of the reason I just don't see the church accepting homosexual behavior.

I have a hard time believing that pedophilia could be accepted under any circumstances. Pedophilia, when acted upon, always involved victimization of children, by definition.

[LeSellers]

I have a hard time believing that pedophilia could be accepted under any circumstances. Pedophilia, when acted upon, always involved victimization of children, by definition.

Most pedophiles and all NAMBLA members disagree. They believe they are doing children a favor by their acts. And to a man (and a woman), they approve.

Lehi

[Vance]

I have a hard time believing that pedophilia could be accepted under any circumstances.

Well, OBVIOUSLY, those that do it believe it is acceptable. Some even take pictures to distribute to others who believe it is acceptable.

Pedophilia, when acted upon, always involved victimization of children, by definition.

By YOUR (and my) definition, but NOT by the definition of those who engage in it.

[Vance]

Homosexual BEHAVIOR, like heterosexual amorality, works directly against the purposes of God. You know that "to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man" thing.

Therefore, I don't expect any change in church policy or doctrine in regards to it.

[thesometimesaint]

Duplicate post

[thesometimesaint]

Semlogo:

To what is the CFR about?

[Mike Richards]

If it does turn out that pedophiles have some sort of genetic or other biological predisposition that is beyond their control, we would still consider that maladaptive, as opposed to homosexuality, which is neutral. As it stands now, I don't think there is enough information to come to a conclusion about pedophiles.

To me, this is where the discussion turns interesting--not because I disagree with you, but because when we start talking about things being maladaptive and neutral we are using criteria for making those determinations. My concern is who gets to establish those criteria and who gets to be the judge of the data. I don't know a whole lot about the data, but I'll pretend like I do to illustrate my point: Just as some of the negative consequences of being homosexual are not a result of being homosexual (perhaps, for example, a higher suicide rate), but of being in a society that disapproves of homosexuality, couldn't a pedophile argue that the negative impacts of childhood sexual encounters are a result of society's aversion to such things? Couldn't they argue that if everyone was free and open about sexual contact, there would be no stigma and those apparent negative consequences would vanish? Just as the disease transmission among homosexuals went down (again, I'm making up stuff, I don't know if this is true) as it became more acceptable to have a public relationship and thus reduced the sexual encounters with strangers, wouldn't the negative consequence associated with predatory child molestation go down if it were okay with everyone to have sexual contact with children? If children were raised in a society where it was normal to have sexual encounters, there wouldn't be any negative consequences from it happening.

Now, I'll say again, I don't agree with any of the arguments I brought up. But, once we acknowledge that there are values that we are basing our decisions on, we have to ask who gets to decide which values to use. Certainly we can all (at least I hope we all can) agree on our values today that say that the results of children being exposed to sexual contact is a bad thing, but what happens (if/) when the majority of people no longer agree with this?

[Daniel2]

Jumping in late: studies have been done to show that one's thoughts can also change their DNA (collaborative investigation by Benson-Henry Institute for Mind/Body Medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital and the Genomics Center at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, for example).

I've heard that thoughts can have the ability to affect some aspects of our physical form... but this is the first time I've ever heard that thoughts can change DNA...

What's the link to studies done by the Benson-Henry Institute and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center?

Darin

[CV75]

I've heard that thoughts can have the ability to affect some aspects of our physical form... but this is the first time I've ever heard that thoughts can change DNA...

What's the link to studies done by the Benson-Henry Institute and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center?

Darin

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0002576

This is just one study. I've seen others and will try to search for them as well, including how changes in the DNA can in turn change brain chemistry and structure.

[CV75]

Note the "monkey" study in particular (Wall Street Journal)

http://psyphz.psych....-07_begley.html

a quickie from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroplasticity

[thesometimesaint]

Darin:

We do know that what we think effects our brain chemistry, but I too would be interested in any information that what we think effects our DNA.

[Daniel2]

Darin,

I agree that there is a distinct difference between consensual homosexual behavior and forced sexual assault. For me the concern with "the slippery slope" of accepting sexual abnormality because it's genetic is that pedophilia has the potential of becoming an acceptable behavior because it's genetic (with the assumption that it is...as I said in an earlier post, I haven't read anything on it, just heard the podcast). Now, before anyone gets upset with that idea, let's be clear about what we mean when we say pedophilia. It's a sexual attraction to a prepubescent individual. The age of consent in many countries is sufficiently low (13 in Spain, for example) that pedophiles could legally do things that most of us (hetro and homosexual alike) would find unacceptable. The fact that these countries have these laws is indicative that the majority of the population in these countries do not find such acts repulsive. The concern then, is that as we move further and further along in what we're willing to accept because it's biological (again, the slippery slope), will we have the power to say, "enough" before we've gone too far? There are currently organizations in the US whose goal it is to lower the age of consent. I'm not saying I'm for one thing or another, I'm just bringing up an issue that I think is relevant. I don't have a problem with civil unions or people doing what they want in the privacy of their own homes. I do see a problem establishing firm lines when we continue giving on things, and this is part of the reason I just don't see the church accepting homosexual behavior.

Hi, mjr,

Good to know we’re in agreement concerning the distinction between consensual behavior and forced sexual assault.

In fact, I further agree that none of us should accept any particular sexual attraction or sexual behavior merely on the basis that any such attraction is biologically-determined.

The science that indicates that homosexuality is biologically-based are not sufficient reason to justify homosexual behavior, any more than the fact that heterosexuality (or even sexual promiscuity, on the part of males) is biologically-based would be reason to justify rape, for example.

Science concerning the immutability of sexual orientation helps inform treatment methods and expectations for change in inward sexual attractions—BUT sexual orientation sometimes IS related to and sometimes has NO relation to the justification of whether or not any given behavior should be engaged in.

Excuses of “my genes/hormones/biology made me do it” would be inappropriate and should be condemned, from my perspective, when attempting to mount any sort of compelling defense if sexual assault is concerned—regardless of the genders of the perpetrator and the victim, and most especially when the victims are children (whether or not the children gave verbal consent, which is certainly not the same as legal consent).

I’m unfamiliar with the laws governing the age of sexual consent in other countries. My impression has been that, throughout the course of history, the more educated a country becomes, the greater emphasis it places on safeguarding the sexual and reproductive aspects of individuals (for example, I understand things like teen pregnancy, sexual slavery, the subjugation of women as property, and male/female circumcision rates are much higher in Third World countries). As far as consent is concerned, it seems to me that the more educated and medically-advanced a country becomes, the age of consent rises (primitive people who were focused on survival of the tribe—including the American frontier, for example--tended to encourage pair-bonding and procreation at much earlier ages, both to perpetuate the group, as well as providing a more stable future for one’s children).

I think most of us that are parents couldn’t think of anything worse than an adult mentally coercing and then physically harming or sexually forcing themselves on one of our children. It certainly rings true that for one who harm “one of these little ones, it would be better that a millstone were tied around their necks and they were drowned” (And that’s speaking kindly, IMO).

Yes, there are currently organizations in the US who’s goal it is to lower the age of consent. It seems unlikely to me that such organizations will gain much traction, long term, merely because (from my perspective) the trend of history, in keeping with protecting rights (including the trends of the mainstream LGBT pro-equality movement), is to RAISE the age of consent, not lower it. I suppose it’s possible that I’m wrong, and that society could go back to more tribal-mind-think that adult/pre-teen relationships are socially OK—however, that seems very unlikely, given the trends of protecting children, rather than diminishing them.

For me, the line of defending children as citizens not yet ready to enter into a consensual, legal, sexual relationship is backed by science, medicine, psychology, psychiatry, and pediatrics. Those are the same foundational Professional organizations and principles that also agree with the importance of the legalization of equal marriage rights for LGBT couples.

I don’t see any conflict between giving LGBT couples equal rights and preserving and protecting the mental, physical, and emotional health of all of our children through the enforcement of the concept of legal consent and accountability of adult citizens who would take advantage of an unwitting child.

Though any of us will have and may offer our opinion on the matter, whether or whenever or not the LDS church would eventually sanction some types of homosexual behavior within the confines and structure of a committed, consensual marriage-type institution is entirely up to them, and only time will tell.

My view,

Darin

[CV75]

Darin:

We do know that what we think effects our brain chemistry, but I too would be interested in any information that what we think effects our DNA.

Please see #161 and 162 above, plus:

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=40 (“By encouraging repeated thoughts and repeated motor actions, we can actually re-wire the physical brain to some extent. We can monitor some of these changes with neuroimaging studies.”)

NPR interview: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7131130 (“(the brain) changes in response to is what's so interesting, namely that it changes in response to the experiences you have, the life that you lead, the thoughts that you think.”)

And of course there are number of lettered gurus out there pushing the idea in behavior modification, life coaching, and self-improvement services, which someone could point to and say, “hogwash.”

These changes have a relationship with the underlying DNA. Related to Neuroplasticity study is Epigenetics, studies based on the observation that non-genetic factors (including thought) often cause an organism's genes to be expressed differently.

[Daniel2]

...couldn't a pedophile argue that the negative impacts of childhood sexual encounters are a result of society's aversion to such things? Couldn't they argue that if everyone was free and open about sexual contact, there would be no stigma and those apparent negative consequences would vanish?

NAMBLA and other pedophilic organizations may very well try to assert what you're saying, and in doing so, would invite scientific scrutiny to their attempts to back up such claims.

As I mentioned in my previous post, I believe science, medicine, pychology, psychiatry, and pediatric organizations are united in their assertions that sexual behaviors between adults and underage children is both physically, mentally, and sexually-harmful to children (all of which I believe is well-documented and backed up by concrete scientific data).

Any correlation or concern that NAMBLA or similar organizations may try to piggy-back acceptance onto the same arguments being made by the pro-gay equality movement miss what I believe is a significant difference: Pro-LGBT, Marriage-equality advocates are working in full agreement with decades of research by medical and mental-health communities that consensual homosexual relationships are the result of a natural, normal, and most-importantly, victim-less sexual orientation. The NAMBLA movement would be working diametrically OPPOSED to the medical and mental-health movements and data, which says otherwise. I've seen NO indication that modern, professional medical and mental health organizations seem to agree or even remotely support that sexual contact between adults and minors is healthy.

In fact, I believe professional scientific, medical, and mental health organizations' attitudes towards groups like NAMBLA are more akin to professional scientific, medical, and mental health organizations' attitudes toward groups like EXODUS and Evergreen, which also attempt to assert a dogma contrary to scientific evidence, and are exactly the opposite of your slippery slope concerns.

But, once we acknowledge that there are values that we are basing our decisions on, we have to ask who gets to decide which values to use. Certainly we can all (at least I hope we all can) agree on our values today that say that the results of children being exposed to sexual contact is a bad thing, but what happens (if/) when the majority of people no longer agree with this?

As I've been explaining, I don't believe "values" are necessarily the foundation that is required to prove that a certain behavior should be illegal or sanctioned (after all, I think we can all agree that some things which are immoral aren't illegal, and somethings which are moral aren't legally required; even if we wouldn't necessarily all agree on which is which).

I believe a key difference is that science, medicine, and mental health bear out the notion that pedophilic behaviors and relationships are destructive and damaging to the victims involved, just as rape is, just as battery is, just as murder is, etc.

My view,

Darin

[semlogo]

Most pedophiles and all NAMBLA members disagree. They believe they are doing children a favor by their acts. And to a man (and a woman), they approve.

Lehi

Almost universally, everyone else rejects that, no matter their religious affiliation or lack thereof. Let's keep this reality-based.

[semlogo]

Homosexual BEHAVIOR, like heterosexual amorality, works directly against the purposes of God. You know that "to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man" thing.

Therefore, I don't expect any change in church policy or doctrine in regards to it.

How so?

[semlogo]

Semlogo:

To what is the CFR about?

That "All those factors are well within the normal range of physical differences of individuals, and do not entail a proclivity to homosexual behavior."

[Vance]

How so?

You really don't know?

[semlogo]

To me, this is where the discussion turns interesting--not because I disagree with you, but because when we start talking about things being maladaptive and neutral we are using criteria for making those determinations. My concern is who gets to establish those criteria and who gets to be the judge of the data. I don't know a whole lot about the data, but I'll pretend like I do to illustrate my point: Just as some of the negative consequences of being homosexual are not a result of being homosexual (perhaps, for example, a higher suicide rate), but of being in a society that disapproves of homosexuality, couldn't a pedophile argue that the negative impacts of childhood sexual encounters are a result of society's aversion to such things? Couldn't they argue that if everyone was free and open about sexual contact, there would be no stigma and those apparent negative consequences would vanish? Just as the disease transmission among homosexuals went down (again, I'm making up stuff, I don't know if this is true) as it became more acceptable to have a public relationship and thus reduced the sexual encounters with strangers, wouldn't the negative consequence associated with predatory child molestation go down if it were okay with everyone to have sexual contact with children? If children were raised in a society where it was normal to have sexual encounters, there wouldn't be any negative consequences from it happening.

Now, I'll say again, I don't agree with any of the arguments I brought up. But, once we acknowledge that there are values that we are basing our decisions on, we have to ask who gets to decide which values to use. Certainly we can all (at least I hope we all can) agree on our values today that say that the results of children being exposed to sexual contact is a bad thing, but what happens (if/) when the majority of people no longer agree with this?

You ask some interesting questions, but I would answer simply that predatory behavior of pedos victimizes and traumatizes children, even when children are completely ignorant about the subject itself other than having experienced it. The direct psychological harm caused to children due to sexual abuse is well documented.

Whereas the "harm" caused by homosexuality relies not on data or psychology or any sort of victimization, but on religious dogma, based on Old Testament ideas and consequences in an afterlife, rather than in life. And that's fine, but that's no basis for law or for clinical evaluation of maladaptive vs neutral.

[semlogo]

Yes, there are currently organizations in the US who’s goal it is to lower the age of consent. It seems unlikely to me that such organizations will gain much traction, long term, merely because (from my perspective) the trend of history, in keeping with protecting rights (including the trends of the mainstream LGBT pro-equality movement), is to RAISE the age of consent, not lower it.

Totally agreed.

[semlogo]

Please see #161 and 162 above, plus:

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=40 (“By encouraging repeated thoughts and repeated motor actions, we can actually re-wire the physical brain to some extent. We can monitor some of these changes with neuroimaging studies.”)

NPR interview: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7131130 (“(the brain) changes in response to is what's so interesting, namely that it changes in response to the experiences you have, the life that you lead, the thoughts that you think.”)

And of course there are number of lettered gurus out there pushing the idea in behavior modification, life coaching, and self-improvement services, which someone could point to and say, “hogwash.”

These changes have a relationship with the underlying DNA. Related to Neuroplasticity study is Epigenetics, studies based on the observation that non-genetic factors (including thought) often cause an organism's genes to be expressed differently.

Very interesting. It doesn't seem relevant to this topic, but it's definitely a fascinating idea.

[semlogo]

You really don't know?

I thought you might be referring to reproduction, but I don't want to make an assumption.

[Vance]

I thought you might be referring to reproduction, but I don't want to make an assumption.

Well, reproduction is ONE aspect.

Do you not know of others?