The inevitability of the rise of gay-affirming Christianity

[TAO]

Homosexuality is not an idea or political philosophy. It is an orientation. It has something to do with brain anatomy, and you can't spread it to other people they way you can spread ideas. Medical science does not support your view.

Actually, in a sense, it is. Much as everything is. Consider free will. It is not something dug in our brain, though our brain's anatomy is built to like the idea of free will. But what actually makes us have free will, is the idea of free will itself. It creates it's own existence. The idea, that we have a choice, allows us, to have a choice. If we didn't know we had a choice, we wouldn't choose.

What are you are talking about is the inclination, and I don't consider those people fully 'gay'. Because just if you have the inclination doesn't mean you are part of the societal version of it. It's the same thing with Asperger's really. There is the physical Asperger's. And then there is the Asperger's which deals with society. I have the physical Asperger's (relate it to the inclinations), but I am fully capable of dealing with society and am not a complete social outcast (which means I don't have the full societal version of Asperger's).

In other words, we are not talking about a physical condition here (though a physical version exists that contributes), we are talking about a mental thought process, a way of doing things, a choice. And because it is a thought process, a way of doing things, a choice, it is as spreadable as any other idea.

I am not sure if you will agree with me in this post, but it's happened before with other people, so I won't be disappointed if you do or don't. I remember having a talk with someone about Autism on another forum, and they tried talking about Autism in relation to neurobiology. But, they totally ignored the psychological aspect of it, the thinking processes; why something is logically or non-logically acceptive to the brain of the individual. This, in my eyes, is far more interesting than the neurobiological aspect. The neurobiological aspect tells you, this causes this symptom, and that causes that symptom; it is useful in the development of medicine. The filed of psychology, on the other hand, says 'this is why this makes sense to that person, in their specified universe'; it is useful in the development of therapy and philosophy. I guess I like theory and philosophy over medicine, you could say XD.

[california boy]

You have to admit Cobalt, Tao is an interesting guy.

[elguanteloko]

Did you take sociology? If not, I assure you, EVERYTHING is contagious, to a degree. Some people are more free-thinking then most, but everyone is vulnerable to at least one aspect of society... at least a tiny bit. =).

Through society, ideas spread, and some, are far more virulent than even the worst plagues XD. Not that it's a bad thing all the time. Take the ideas of Locke... virulently spreading, and yet, they are the basis for our government, in a sense. =)

This should be easy for you to show through evidence. CFR for your claims that SSM leads to more homosexuality.

[elguanteloko]

Because just if you have the inclination doesn't mean you are part of the societal version of it.

"Being sexually attracted to those of your same sex" is half of the definition of being gay. The other half being that you aren't attracted to those of the opposite sex (if it's both then you are bisexual).

Of course things are more fluid than this but people here are speaking of inclinations.

But let's supposed for the sake of argument that same-sex attraction is (somehow) something that can be spread due to SS-marriage being legal (which, btw, you still have to respond to my CFR). How do you conclude from this that SSM should therefore be illegal? I ask because certain clothes women wear cause me to have 'dirty' thoughts about some women sometimes and I assume you consider entertaining those thoughts as immoral. (most men do the same, btw) Are you in favor of making mini-skirts illegal, too, for example? Bikinis? Are you in favor of making talking about sexual encounters with other people illegal since this puts 'temptation' on other people? What about in the media? Should we make promoting pre-marital sex illegal?

All this seems to follow from what you are suggesting here.

Edited September 28, 2011 by elguanteloko

[elguanteloko]

But in any case, I don't really view restricting mairrage as punishment.

No one is really saying restricting marriage without good reason is a punishment. An injustice may or may not be a punishment.

For one, those with the inclination have civil unions; it is one of the reasons I have left it open, so that the social construct of 'rights' may be fulfilled.

Here's the thing. Equal rights is a right and this right isn't being fulfilled.

In addition... I think that too much value is placed in government recognition. The government is just a system that's supposed to do 'things' we designate it to, and so I think that government recognition isn't really all that important.

...but yet you oppose the Gov. letting some consenting adults into the marriage building but not others. BTW, SSM proponents are NOT in favor of SSM because they want the Gov. to tell them, "OK, we approve your union now". The primary reason for why SSM should be made legal is plain and simply because there is no reason to discriminate in this way. Those that oppose it are the ones that should justify this discrimination. The side of the imposition has the burden of proof, not us. You aren't guilty until shown otherwise; you are innocent until shown otherwise.

Edited September 28, 2011 by elguanteloko

[shalamabobbi]

This should be easy for you to show through evidence. CFR for your claims that SSM leads to more homosexuality.

Indeed..

Here you go Tao:

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=is01j3

[elguanteloko]

Indeed..

Here you go Tao:

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=is01j3

"Family Reasearch Council: Advancing Faith, Family, and Freedom"?

Don't you have something a little bit more reliable? I've also been checking on some of those references and some are pretty old (1980s and 1970s) and some of those studies have long been shown very faulty (exhibit A: http://psychology.uc...ron_survey.html ).

There are simply too many problems in that article of yours to mention here but a few will suffice. The article in the "Sexual Identity Confusion" subsection claims that, supposedly (I say supposedly because I can't look at the study), "A study in Developmental Psychology found that 12 percent of the children of lesbians became active lesbians themselves, a rate which is at least four times the base rate of lesbianism in the adult female population", but when you look at the abstract of the article used as reference it says that, "A longitudinal study of 25 young adults from lesbian families and 21 raised by heterosexual single mothers revealed that those raised by lesbian mothers functioned well in adulthood in terms of psychological well-being and of family identity and relationships. The commonly held assumption that lesbian mothers will have lesbian daughters and gay sons was not supported by the findings. (http://www.ncbi.nlm..../pubmed/7611338)" In other words, pretty much against what your article suggests.

This article you provided also claims in the same section that, "J. M. Bailey et al. found that 9 percent of the adult sons of homosexual fathers were homosexual in their adult sexual behavior: "The rate of homosexuality in the sons (9 percent) is several times higher than that suggested by the population-based surveys and is consistent with a degree of father-to-son transmission." using the following as source: J. M. Bailey et al., "Sexual Orientation of Adult Sons of Gay Fathers,". Now, the problem here is that in said article (which can be read here: www.apgl.fr/documents/sons.rtf ) the authors explicitly state that, "Comparison of our rates with those of the population-based surveys may be inappropriate, however. We have noted that our methodology probably inflated the rate of homosexuality among sons. In contrast, the population surveys may have underestimated the population rate of homosexuality, as a result of noncooperation or underreporting of gay and bisexual men (Fay, Turner, Klassen, & Gagnon, 1989)." They also go on to state in the implications of their study that,

"Inconsistent with environmental transmission, sexual orientation was not positively correlated with the amount of time that sons lived with their fathers. However, because there were only 7 nonheterosexual sons, this was not a statistically powerful test. If replicated in a larger sample, this finding would provide strong evidence against an environmental influence of gay fathers on their sons' sexual orientations. Although our results do not absolutely exclude the possibility of father-to-son environmental transmission, they suggest that any such influence is not large. As we already noted, conclusions from the present study may not apply to daughters of gay men or to children of lesbians.

[...]The available evidence, including this study, fads to provide empirical grounds for denying child custody to gay or lesbian parents because of concern about their children's sexual orientation. The fact that sons' sexual orientation was unrelated to the time lived with fathers is especially relevant, because that analysis represented a relatively direct test of the assumption that custody decisions affect children's sexual orientation."

I think this is enough to show your article is full of BS and isn't trust worthy at the most basic level. They misquote their sources which in these cases I've looked at say exactly the opposite of what they claim them to say, they use some very outdated data, etc.

Try again.

Edited September 28, 2011 by elguanteloko

[shalamabobbi]

Try again.

OK

http://www.aolnews.com/2010/10/17/study-gay-parents-more-likely-to-have-gay-kids/

[elguanteloko]

OK

http://www.aolnews.c...-have-gay-kids/

So... can you quote the study or not? Because if AOL-type reports are what we are using as references, then I might as well post this as a response: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wayne-besen/dangerous-new-antigay-sha_b_767507.html

...but I won't because that response is also BS.

Here's a hint, friend: news articles are NOT the place to look at the methodologies of studies but the studies themselves are. Bring the study, quote from it, and defend its methodology against the criticisms I'll bring to you (I won't buy it, sorry).

If you won't quote from it directly or provide the article, then I think we here are on safe ground in rejecting one study against the vast majority of studies that show radically different results. BTW, Schumm claims about 20% of sons of gay parents turned out gay.... doesn't it make you suspicious that previous studies didn't show this stunning number? Also, even from that AOL article you can see it isn't very serious:

"In Schumm's study, he quotes from the extant literature the stories of young women, describing how being gay was never frowned upon in their household, and so that "option" was available to them. That said, Schumm also finds evidence of gay mothers pushing their daughters, upset over a relationship with a man, to "try out women."

--Seriously? Anecdotes for what is supposed to be a thorough, extensive meta-analysis? Come on.

"But couldn't gay men also tell their sons this? Yes, but Schumm tells AOL News that most gay men have at some point been with a woman, so they understand why their sons might date them. Whereas the literature shows some lesbians "have a hatred of men that's intense," Schumm says."

-- Gee, I wonder how he got all that information that sounds more like stereotypes. "Some" lesbians have a hatred of men? Sure. How many and to what degree did this influence? "Most gay men have at some point been with a woman so [as to] understand why their sons might date them"? Sure.. what percentage of the sample and, did he conduct this research?

Again, this all seems extremely suspicious and I'm really trying to be generous here. I really can't understand how you can seriously believe the first thing that pops in a google search, shalamabobbi.

[wenglund]

I just have one question related to your point of view. Do you think it is valid to punish a group (not allowing gays the right to marry) who as you have pointed out would not change their morality and in fact might improve their morality in order to keep another group (straight people) from becoming more deviant? Aren't you focusing on the wrong group??

To me, and has been pointed out on numerous threads in the past, this question has things backwards. First, it is not a punishment to not selectively confer the right to marry to homosexuals any more than it is a punishment not to confer the right to drive automobiles to under-aged children. Not giving someone a gift (governmental sanctions) isn't the same thing as punishing them.

Second, the giving of the gift isn't based so much on having a basis not to give, but rather in not having a basis to give. Marital sanctions have been conferred by the government to heterosexuals because there has been demonstrated (via congregational hearings) that the costs to the state in conferrng the sanctions is far outweighed by the benefits. From my perspective, as delineated and supported on numerous other threads, homosexuals have yet to make that legislative case for themselves (though they have attempted to circumvent the legislative process by judicial fiat), and there is good reason to believe that the opposite is true--the costs of granting homosexuals marital sanctions outweigh the benefits.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Daniel2]

Your suggestion works on a personal level, but fails miserably at the collective level where we each get an equal vote as to where we want to go as a society and what we want our government to sanction. Sorry,

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I'm glad we agree that it works on a personal level.

Whether or not everyone should be able to have an "equal vote" on other citizen's choice of spouse is something you and I clearly disagree on, and is obviously at the heart of the current social issues of legalizing same-sex marriage in the various legal venues it's being debated on a national scale in the courtrooms and congresses accross America.

Daniel2

[Daniel2]

Except that it effects the fabrics of the society we live in. That is the problem, really =/.

Actually... it is the basis of sociology. How do actions of every single person effect every single other person. And the fact, is... none of us are immune to this. Even me with my Asperger's... I am still tied to society... not as much as others... but still tied, to a degree... by talking with people I know.

Considering that the law (currently) considers the fabric of sociology as a valid reason for objecting to something... Wade does have a point =P. If we don't stop this, it could effect how the law effects the church, and us, as individuals. Which gives us reason to care.

Indeed--society is affected by marriage, for good and ill.

Gays and lesbians have spent our entire lives affected by the marriages and divorces and relationships and non-relationships of our straight family, friends, business associates, fellow students, etc.

Straights have spent their entire lives affected by the marriages and divorces and relationships and non-relationships of your straight family, friends, business associates, fellow students, etc.

In the interests of equality, society has progressed to the point that straights will soon have to face and deal with the rammifications of the marriages and divorces and relationships and non-relationships of your gay family, friends, business associates, fellow students, etc.

The saying goes that "your right to swing your fist ends at where another's nose begins." I may not like the fact that you're standing near me, waving your fists in the air--and I could accurately complain that you're "affecting" me---but as far as I'm aware, protection from merely "being affected by" someone else's behavior is not a cause championed in our constitution.

Daniel2

[Jaybear]

.... and there is good reason to believe that the opposite is true--the costs of granting homosexuals marital sanctions outweigh the benefits.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You keep making this vague, unsupported allegation, but you then you refuse to say what those societal "costs" are, and their rational connection to gay marriage.

You said it. Now tell us what are those cost, and what is the connection between gay marriage and those "costs."

Please, just this once Wade, don't respond by insulting me. Don't claim that its answered before, and run away. Just answer the question that the highly paid legal advocates hired to defend Prop 8 at trial, where they were required to introduce witnesses and evidence, were incapable of answering.

[shalamabobbi]

Again, this all seems extremely suspicious and I'm really trying to be generous here. I really can't understand how you can seriously believe the first thing that pops in a google search, shalamabobbi.

I feel your generosity..

From the comment section of the previous article this about sums it up..

Captian Obvious to the rescue.

Let’s see, if we have Gay parents - in the biological sense; then we have a pre-disposition to the birth-defect that is homosexuality. Just like a cleft-palet, a deformed appendage, or other deformity - there is some gene that is just not working right.

If the Gay parents adopt, then we have the environment. If the child is raised in a home where homosexual love is the role model the child is exposed to; then heterosexual love will be both alien and unnatural to the child.

Thus, the kid is screwed in both the arenas of Nurture and Nature.

If there isn't anything else besides nature and nurture then that's a wrap..

It should be rather easy for you to prove that the percent of the population that is gay is a constant then shouldn't it?

[elguanteloko]

I feel your generosity..

From the comment section of the previous article this about sums it up..

...and you've just gone from bad to worst. Now a comment section on a BS article is what you take to be reliable? Did you even take the time to think this through?

if we have Gay parents - in the biological sense; then we have a pre-disposition to the birth-defect that is homosexuality.

This doesn't help your cause since you were supporting an extremely different proposal (then one I asked the CFR for and I haven't gotten a response from TAO). Namely, that homosexuality is 'contagious' through culture. This stupid comment only says gay parents tend to have offspring that are more likely to be gay, something I need evidence for but even if it were true, this doesn't even touch the issue of whether or not same-sex attraction is spread culturally or through allowing SS-marriage. And, if this were true... so what? Are you in favor of having same-sex attracted people's reproductive rights restricted?

It should be rather easy for you to prove that the percent of the population that is gay is a constant then shouldn't it?

No for three simple reasons: 1) I never claimed the rate of same-sex attracted people is the same for all demographic groups and, 2) whether or not this rate is constant will not show WHY it is different. A whole host of things could be taking part including genetic variation, cultural environment under which the pregnant mother gestates so as to potentially change fetal environment, etc. Lastly, 3) you are not even getting the issue here. We are NOT speaking of the biological offspring of homosexuals in the first place... If homosexuals get married amongst themselves then you don't have to worry about this because they will more than likely NOT reproduce at all (if they haven't done so, of course). The issue is marriage which, supposedly, should be followed by gay adoption.

You only got the issue completely backwards.

I also have to clarify that there would be nothing wrong with homosexuality being a choice or being culturally 'spread-able'. As I've mentioned, lots of things are much more easily identified as culturally promoted (styles of clothing, for example) which may lead more easily to what you Mormons would call "immoral acts" such as premarital sex but I seriously hope you are not in favor of making those things illegal... So, by itself, saying SSM will spread homosexuality out like a 'virus' tells me nothing of importance so as to seek to make it illegal.

Edited September 28, 2011 by elguanteloko

[wenglund]

I'm glad we agree that it works on a personal level.

Whether or not everyone should be able to have an "equal vote" on other citizen's choice of spouse is something you and I clearly disagree on, and is obviously at the heart of the current social issues of legalizing same-sex marriage in the various legal venues it's being debated on a national scale in the courtrooms and congresses accross America.

Daniel2

To me, you have it backwards. The question isn't about having equal votes in making the specific choice about of your "spouse", but rather about having equal vote in making the general determination about what kind of spouses the government will sanction (promote). You are free to chose someone of the same sex or opposite sex or an animal or plant or inanimate objects as your so-called spouse. We, as a society get to choose whether we sanction such choices.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Ahab]

You keep making this vague, unsupported allegation, but you then you refuse to say what those societal "costs" are, and their rational connection to gay marriage.

You said it. Now tell us what are those cost, and what is the connection between gay marriage and those "costs."

Please, just this once Wade, don't respond by insulting me. Don't claim that its answered before, and run away. Just answer the question that the highly paid legal advocates hired to defend Prop 8 at trial, where they were required to introduce witnesses and evidence, were incapable of answering.

He said the costs of granting homosexuals marital sanctions outweigh the benefits.

What do you think of when you hear that? To me it's pretty obvious. The costs of granting homosexuals marital sanctions, whereby we say it's okay or good for them to get married, outweighs the benefits of us sanctioning that act.

Do you even know what the benefits would be if all of us santioned that act?

What do you think would be the benefits if all of us on Earth said it was okay or good for homosexuals to marry?

I can't imagine any benefits if we all were to do that, other than we would all be saying it was okay.

Seriously. What good would that do? Do you not realize that God is against it, and that anything God is against will not stand, in the end? The costs of us doing that would be what we would become if all of us thought it was okay to do that.

Edited September 28, 2011 by Ahab

[Ahab]

Something I wrote, long long ago.

The worst thing about being homosexual

There are a lot of disadvantages to being homosexual. If you’re homosexual:

1) You’ll never truly know the opposite sex, or even the full extent of your own sex.

Sexuality is classified as being either male or female. While some people have some traits that are both masculine and feminine, only a male has all of the traits of a male, and only a female has all of the traits of a female, therefore, only a male can truly know what it is to be male, and only a female can truly know what it is to be female unless a member of one sex shares their life with a member of the opposite sex while getting to know each other better and better until they get to know each other completely. People who are homosexual are depriving themselves of that opportunity. Persons who are homosexual may think they can assume the sexuality of the opposite sex from the limited knowledge they have of the opposite sex or their own sex with one homosexual acting more male or female than the other, but a female acting like a male will never truly know what it is to be male or even a complete female, and a male acting like a female will never truly know what it is to be female or even a complete male. Instead they will attain only a portion of what they could have been otherwise.

2) You’ll never have children.

It is impossible for people who are homosexual to have their own children. If a homosexual goes through the procreation experience with a member of the opposite sex, any child they have is the child of that male and female, and not the child of homosexual parents. Two homosexuals may assume the role of parents, if given the opportunity such as when adopting or fostering a child, for example, but that opportunity will not always be given and even when it is the homosexual partners will still never have a child of their own, and instead they will only be something like babysitters that don’t understand either their own sex or the opposite sex.

3) You’ll never have all the blessings that are available to children of God who are obedient to God in all things.

There is only one path to perfection, and that path is marked by obedience to the counsel of God, our Father in heaven. When God gives us counsel, God’s intent is to help us become as perfect as he is, and if we ignore God’s counsel we won’t become like God and we won’t receive all of the blessings and privileges that come from being like God. Being homosexual is in opposition to God’s counsel, so you can’t become like God if you are homosexual.

I think it helps to realize that all of us are eternal, in the sense that all of us will go on living forever in some way. It may not seem like much to go through our mortal lives here on this Earth as homosexuals, but to never know and understand the opposite sex, and to never have my own children to enjoy my life with me or to help them enjoy their own lives, and to never know what it is like to be like God would make my life in heaven pretty boring and one of the worst things I can imagine, especially considering that I will see other people in heaven who are becoming or who have already become exactly like our Father in heaven.

[wenglund]

You keep making this vague, unsupported allegation, but you then you refuse to say what those societal "costs" are, and their rational connection to gay marriage.

Wrong. It is supported, and I have said many time...in the "numerous threads I posted on in the past." I have reproduced my efforts several times over when previously challenged by you and others. It is not reasonable or necessary that I do so now that you ask yet once again. Sorry.

You obviously don't agree with my conclusions or support, no matter how often it is repeated. I am fine with that, and am happy to leave it at that, even if you aren't.

Truth is, I hesitate participating on threads such as this because it may suggest that I am giving the issue more importance than it is due. The homosexual agenda has happily fallen far from front page news, and has lost considerable significance relative to matters of real import like the dismal state of the economy. For me, I can barely muster enough energy to briefly answer simple and general questions or correct misperceptions, let alone reproduce my extensive efforts of the past. It just isn't going to happen. Suffice it for me to point people in the direction of the myriad of old threads if they wish to wallow in the mire of iterated and reiterated arguments.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Ahab]

Wrong. It is supported, and I have said many time...in the "numerous threads I posted on in the past." I have reproduced my efforts several times over when previously challenged by you and others. It is not reasonable or necessary that I do so now that you ask yet once again. Sorry.

Some things are better grasped the more they are repeated, so maybe you'd like to consider saving a response to cut and paste into a thread whenever this question comes up again, and again, by whoever raises the question.

Truth is, I hesitate participating on threads such as this because it may suggest that I am giving the issue more importance than it is due. The homosexual agenda has happily fallen far from front page news, and has lost considerable significance relative to matters of real import like the dismal state of the economy. For me, I can barely muster enough energy to briefly answer simple and general questions or correct misperceptions, let alone reproduce my extensive efforts of the past. It just isn't going to happen. Suffice it for me to point people in the direction of the myriad of old threads if they wish to wallow in the mire of iterated and reiterated arguments.

The way I feel about this subject is pretty much the same way I feel about porn, whenever that subject comes up, again and again.

I usually just tune it out because I don't like thinking about it, but every once in a while I feel like sharing a thought or two just in case it might help some people. Even if it doesn't, I feel good that I at least gave it a shot.

[David T]

2) You’ll never have children.

It is impossible for people who are homosexual to have their own children. If a homosexual goes through the procreation experience with a member of the opposite sex, any child they have is the child of that male and female, and not the child of homosexual parents. Two homosexuals may assume the role of parents, if given the opportunity such as when adopting or fostering a child, for example, but that opportunity will not always be given and even when it is the homosexual partners will still never have a child of their own, and instead they will only be something like babysitters that don’t understand either their own sex or the opposite sex.

Is it honestly your position that parents who cannot biologically have children and adopt an infant are not real parents, but mere babysitters? Really? You're going there?

Because of a surgery related to cancer, my wife is no longer capable of bearing children. We're going through the process of adoption right now. The child will be in no way genetically related to us. There's a good chance the child we adopt will even be of a different race. Is it really your position that will not really be legitimate parents to that child, but just mere babysitters pretending to be parents to that child? Really?

Edited September 28, 2011 by nackhadlow

[shalamabobbi]

...and you've just gone from bad to worst. Now a comment section on a BS article is what you take to be reliable? Did you even take the time to think this through?

The idea stands or falls on its own merits. Where it appears has no bearing upon its validity. Argue the statement not its source.

The CFR is that allowing homosexuality will cause more homosexuality. You CFRed that idea. There are only nature and nurture that can possibly contribute to homosexuality. What am I missing?

Either nurture contributes to homosexuality wherein children raised in that environment will statistically be influenced into that lifestyle or nature contributes to homosexuality wherein same sex couples that have children via surrogate mothers or sperm donors will increase the genetic incidence of homosexuality in the general population.

Seems you may be the one not thinking things through..

And I see your standard tactic employed again. If someone argues against your position you declare that they do not understand what it is you are stating. 'Gets old el guano..

I also have to clarify that there would be nothing wrong with homosexuality being a choice or being culturally 'spread-able'.

Except that placing a child into that environment may be perceived by some as child abuse. I would not desire if I had the choice to go back in time and find myself placed in a *home* consisting of gay or lesbian parents. And a child does not get to make a knowledgeable choice about the matter.

One's right to swing their fist ends at the point of my nose..

[Ahab]

Is it honestly your position that parents who cannot biologically have children and adopt an infant are not real parents, but mere babysitters? Really? You're going there?

That's a mischaracterization of what I said, so No, that is not my position. You are very close, though.

My position is that there is only 1 way to have children that are actually our own, and that way is to actually create our children with our spouse as our Father in heaven does. There is no other way to have our own children, regardless of how you feel about any children you may adopt or foster or babysit or spend any amount of your time with. You can love them, but they are not your own children. They are the children of our Father in heaven.

Because of a surgery related to cancer, my wife is no longer capable of bearing children. We're going through the process of adoption right now. Is it really your position that will not really be legitimate parents to that child, but just mere babysitters to that child? Really?

Let's put it this way. Even if you are somehow sealed to your children which you did not procreate... not create but procreate, biologically... those children are still not your own children because you did not procreate them. Your role as a parent may be set in stone with them forever, with him giving you the stewardship over those children forever and ever as he honors your sealing ordinance, but they're not really your own children and instead they are the literal children of our Father in heaven and those who had a part in procreating them.

I wouldn't feel too bad about the current state of your wife's biological functions at this time, because none of us are creating our own children on this planet, yet, and none of us will be able to do that until we are exalted like our Father in heaven while having a spouse with whom we can create our own children. Homosexuals can't do that now, and they never will.

Edited September 28, 2011 by Ahab

[David T]

That's a mischaracterization of what I said, so No, that is not my position. You are very close, though.

My position is that there is only 1 way to have children that are actually our own, and that way is to actually create our children with our spouse as our Father in heaven does. There is no other way to have our own children, regardless of how you feel about any children you may adopt or foster or babysit or spend any amount of your time with. You can love them, but they are not your own children. They are the children of our Father in heaven.

Let's put it this way. Even if you are somehow sealed to your children which you did not procreate... not create but procreate, biologically... those children are still not your own children because you did not procreate them. Your role as a parent may be set in stone with them forever, with him giving you the stewardship over those children forever and ever as he honors your sealing ordinance, but they're not really your own children and instead they are the literal children of our Father in heaven and those who had a part in procreating them.

You give biology and genetic lineage far more weight and legitimacy in true family relationships than the Savior ever did.

Of course, I also hold to Joseph Smith's view that we are Eternal Intelligences/Spirits that were found, adopted and gathered by the Father, not sexually procreated. And even if I'm not his literal genetic spiritual offspring, I still feel that God is my legitimate Father, and I am his Son, and that he's not just Heavenly Babysitter.

Same with being adopted a Son of Jesus Christ through the covenant. He's not the biological father of my spirit either, but that doesn't make him just a make-believe babysitter father to me, either.

Edited September 28, 2011 by nackhadlow

[Ahab]

You give biology and genetic lineage far more weight and legitimacy in family relationships than the Savior did.

Heh, you think so, do you. I'm sure he understood perfectly where babies actually come from.

And I hope and pray you are never placed in a position to counsel those who are going through the adoption process while you still maintain that mindset.

Adoption is great, and being in the role of a parent is great. Just understand that those who you "adopt" aren't really your own children, which is the reason you're having to go through the "adoption" process.

If they were yours you wouldn't have to go through all of that and you and your wife could instead just create them by propagating your own species, yourselves.