The inevitability of the rise of gay-affirming Christianity

[Jaybear]

As I see it, there was no real discrediting, just you dogmatically sharing with me your biased opinion--for what little it is worth to me. Yawn.

Now you have gone from dogmatically sharing your opinion of what I said to dogmatically putting words into my mouth, and conflating it with fact.

There is little point in trying to engage a dogmatist, but even less when the dogmatist is intent on speaking for both sides. Feel free to carry on with your own imaginary conversation without me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Now I am confused.

Based on myriads of discussions, ...

I was under the impression that believe that God abhors sodomy. Is that not correct?

I was under the impression that you were a true believing Mormon. Is that not correct?

Don't imply that I have improperly characterized your position, then run away and hide. At least have the courtesy of explaining what I got wrong.

Btw, I notice that you have fallen in love with the word dogmatic. Is this your new way to insult someone, while pretending that its was merely an observation? If so, its suits you well.

[Sky]

According to Elder Oaks:

Applying the First Presidency’s distinction to the question of same-sex relationships, we should distinguish between (1) homosexual (or lesbian) “thoughts and feelings” (which should be resisted and redirected), and (2) “homosexual behavior” (which is a serious sin).

We should note that the words homosexual, lesbian, and gay are adjectives to describe particular thoughts, feelings, or behaviors. We should refrain from using these words as nouns to identify particular conditions or specific persons. Our religious doctrine dictates this usage. It is wrong to use these words to denote a condition, because this implies that a person is consigned by birth to a circumstance in which he or she has no choice in respect to the critically important matter of sexual behavior.

Feelings are another matter. Some kinds of feelings seem to be inborn. Others are traceable to mortal experiences. Still other feelings seem to be acquired from a complex interaction of “nature and nurture.” All of us have some feelings we did not choose, but the gospel of Jesus Christ teaches us that we still have the power to resist and reform our feelings (as needed) and to assure that they do not lead us to entertain inappropriate thoughts or to engage in sinful behavior.

[Cobalt-70]

Then why the heck call them gay or lesbian which to me define them by their homosexuality rather than a simple orientation that may or not be a significant part of their lives. If you say someone is gay you are immediately bringing forth a stereotypical image.

Does the word "African American" immediately bring to mind a stereotypical image as well? Either way, that's a problem, and I hope people stop thinking that way.

[HeatherAnn]

How would that conspiracy agenda about population control ever correlate with the associated drive to allow homosexual couples full rights to adopt, or have children with genetic donors?

Must I spell it out for you?

Ok... the way babies are created is by a sperm (from a man) & an egg (from a woman).

Parents who adopt children cannot procreate. They can only have children by the help of some type of heterosexual conception.

[Deborah]

Does the word "African American" immediately bring to mind a stereotypical image as well? Either way, that's a problem, and I hope people stop thinking that way.

Sigh. You just make no sense to me.

[Cobalt-70]

Honestly this sounds silly to me. That is like saying that calling someone diabetic is pretending she is just a nondiabetic person suffering from some curable disease. Of course if someone doesn't have diabetes they are not diabetic, but if they have diabetes they are....and since at this point it is not really all that curable (unless one already has transplants so one can get an islet transplant...they don't do those just on their own because the side effects of the immune suppressant drugs are worse than diabetes itself) saying "I am diabetic" is for life for the majority (and as a side note diabetes type 1 appears on average around the age of 12 while SSA is usually identified by the individual around the same age...or so said the last info I read about it).

The reason why I use SSA is to avoid confusion over talking about thoughts/inclination and external behaviour. As was obvious in the discussion involving Mitch Mayne where he describes himself as an "openly gay" individual there are those who assume that "gay" means "acting gay" as in sexual behaviour. Using SSA is a shorthand for "homosexual or lesbian inclinations"....three letters instead of 31 not including spacing. I like to use precise language, but I am also lazy and will take shortcuts if they are there. Come up with an equally short way of writing it that you don't find offensive and makes sense and will be understood by the majority of people involved and I will be happy to switch.

The diabetic analogy is not quite apt, because diabetes is clearly a disease rather than a population variation, and nobody disputes that.

As to "SSA" being a shortcut for "homosexual or lesbian inclinations," there are a couple of problems with that. First of all, homosexuality includes lesbianism. So saying "homosexual or lesbian" shows a lack of understanding by anyone who uses that phrase.

Second, if you want to get into counting letters, the word "gay" has three letters too, and only one syllable (compared to "SSA" which has three). The term "lesbian" has just as many syllables as "SSA." Both of these terms have the additional advantage that people unfamiliar with this pseudoclinical term don't have to go to Wikipedia to find out what it means.

[wenglund]

Now I am confused.

Based on myriads of discussions, ...

I was under the impression that believe that God abhors sodomy. Is that not correct?

I was under the impression that you were a true believing Mormon. Is that not correct?

Don't imply that I have improperly characterized your position, then run away and hide. At least have the courtesy of explaining what I got wrong.

Btw, I notice that you have fallen in love with the word dogmatic. Is this your new way to insult someone, while pretending that its was merely an observation? If so, its suits you well.

I don't know if you intended your ironic quip about courtesy to be funny, but it was to me. Even so, let me know when you have finally developed the basic skills of effective social discourse and are willing to listen and let me speak for myself. Until then, I am fine with you imagining whatever you wish about me.

BTW, if it walks like a dogmatist and barks like a dogmatist it is not insulting to call it a dogmatist.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited September 27, 2011 by wenglund

[Calm]

The diabetic analogy is not quite apt, because diabetes is clearly a disease rather than a population variation, and nobody disputes that.

Diabetes is also a way of life unfortunately. If you aren't sure about this, trust me on this one. I have personal knowledge.

Substitute autism if you want. Or deafness.

Edited September 27, 2011 by calmoriah

[Calm]

First of all, homosexuality includes lesbianism. So saying "homosexual or lesbian" shows a lack of understanding by anyone who uses that phrase.

Or it shows someone who has been scolded by lesbians for using a gender specific term to describe someone not of that gender (much like using 'mankind' when speaking of 'humankind'). Yes, I know that "homo" means "same" and not "man" but not all lesbians in my experience want to be identified by that term and they do identify it as meaning male behaviour only.

Edited September 27, 2011 by calmoriah

[HeatherAnn]

...Both of these terms have the additional advantage that people unfamiliar with this pseudoclinical term don't have to go to Wikipedia to find out what it means.

Probably the most appropriate term would be "Those with homosexual preferences." But "Same Sex Attraction" may be easier to say.

The terms, "gay," "lesbian, or even "homosexual" seems to imply that it's who they are, when it's really a preference - a small part of their psychology.

Yet, maybe for convenience in commercials etc... they just say, "Gay Cruise," "Gay Bar," "Gay Travel."

How would those with homosexual preferences respond to "Heterosexual Cruise" etc.?? lol

[Calm]

The diabetic analogy is not quite apt, because diabetes is clearly a disease rather than a population variation, and nobody disputes that.

As to "SSA" being a shortcut for "homosexual or lesbian inclinations," there are a couple of problems with that. First of all, homosexuality includes lesbianism. So saying "homosexual or lesbian" shows a lack of understanding by anyone who uses that phrase.

Second, if you want to get into counting letters, the word "gay" has three letters too, and only one syllable (compared to "SSA" which has three). The term "lesbian" has just as many syllables as "SSA." Both of these terms have the additional advantage that people unfamiliar with this pseudoclinical term don't have to go to Wikipedia to find out what it means.

Using "gay" however does not solve the problem of isolating inclination from external behaviour.....which is my primary reason for using SSA in the first place as I clearly indicated above.

If I were to ever use the term in an audience that I am not sure of them being familiar with the term, I would be sure and stated what the acronym stood for before using it, much as I do when I use LDS among nonLDS. If someone does not know what "same sex attraction" is just from the name, I think they will have more problems with any discussion than just what to do with the usage of the term "SSA".

Edited September 27, 2011 by calmoriah

[Nathair/|\]

Must I spell it out for you?

Ok... the way babies are created is by a sperm (from a man) & an egg (from a woman).

Parents who adopt children cannot procreate. They can only have children by the help of some type of heterosexual conception.

My grandparents adopted some of my aunts and uncles whose original parents could not care for them. They also procreated other children, including my father.

[Ares]

Reminder: The topic is "will Mormonism follow the trend of gay-affirming Christianity".

It is not about each others posting style.

It is not about the use of various terms to describe homosexuality.

It is not about who has the right to be offended.

[HeatherAnn]

My grandparents adopted some of my aunts and uncles whose original parents could not care for them. They also procreated other children, including my father.

Nathair, I assumed people would read into the context.

I was responding to Nackhadlow's comment, "How would that conspiracy agenda about population control ever correlate with the associated drive to allow homosexual couples full rights to adopt, or have children with genetic donors?"

Homosexual parents cannot procreate (conceive) children.

Edited September 27, 2011 by HeatherAnn

[Daniel2]

Then why the heck call them gay or lesbian which to me define them by their homosexuality rather than a simple orientation that may or not be a significant part of their lives. If you say someone is gay you are immediately bringing forth a stereotypical image.

I'm assuming the quantity of gays you know may be somewhat limited, Deborah, if all that spring to your mind is a stereotype when you hear the word "gay."

Labels can be either self-limiting or self-empowering things. Those that presume stereotypes may simply lack enough experience to fully appreciate the depth beyond the employment of one of many, yet-still-significant, self-defining labels.

"Mormon" or even "Latter-day Saint" might bring forth a stereotypical image to those who are ignorant an inexperienced about the diversity of Latter-day Saints--and it likely isn't "the only" label that is important to those who self-identify as such; yet that does not diminish either term's value or importance to Latter-day Saints.

The same is true of those of us who use the word "gay." I know a WIDE variety of gay men. Some are extremely masculine, burly, stoic, and macho (reserved, unemotive, hardned cowboys, sports jocks, and gym rats), others are flamboyantly effeminate, artistic, and emotive (dancers, artists, emos, and goths). Like Latter-day Saints, our diversity is wide--but we all lay claim to a a variety of personally-empowering and significant self-labels--in our case, one of them happens to be "gay."

Daniel2

[Deborah]

I'm assuming the quantity of gays you know may be somewhat limited, Deborah, if all that spring to your mind is a stereotype when you hear the word "gay."

I actually know quite a number of gays; some have been good friends and some are family members. And I know how different they can be. However, the stereotype is what comes to mind when the term is thrown around and tv shows and movies help preserve the stereotype. Some of my friends have fit the stereotype, others you wouldn't know were gay unless you knew them well. When speaking of SSA in a general sense it is addressing the inclinations some may feel, not who they are.

I just find it quite perplexing that someone gets offended at the designation of SSA over gay or lesbian, which to many people have very negative connotations.

[KevinG]

Sometimes what is adventageous to us as children of God is not readily obvious to us. Sometimes what makes us temporally happy is in opposition to what will bring us eternal joy. I believe this is one meaning of "the natural man is enemy to God".

Many people have strong drives and passions that are not condusive to living the Gospel as it has been revealed to us. All people have drives and temptations to do things they ought not. Acceptance by society in general should have no bearing on our efforts to live God's law. Tradition should likewise not be the sole reason we do things in the Church.

With homosexuality there is the huge challenge that unlike heterosexual chastity there is no church sanctioned time or place to express physical intimacy. I can empathise to a point, but I cannot completely put myself in the shoes of someone who is attracted to the same sex yet trying to be a Latter-day Saint. It must be horribly difficult and for that reason I try to be understanding of their struggles.

Ad for my opinion on the Church ever becoming gay-affirming... The "what if God" questions are frought with danger and second guessing so I'm cautious with my responses. As to my current understanding I suspect homosexual behavior and the lack of a "marriage" outlet in LDS doctrine stems from the eternal nature of family, the nature of Man and Woman as complementary beings and the joy that eternal progression and procreation will bring us. Of course honoring marriage and parental covenants and responsibilities more faithfully would provide more temporal evidence of that joy and less hypocricy on the part of the religious.

In the end we do not know all that God knows, for example there is not enough longitudinal evidence about Gay parents effect on children for me to give an informed answer. And an honest answer to the question is- I do support the notion of traditional marriage (and polygyny when commanded) because God has commanded it. In my experience Heavenly Father knows best.

Edited September 27, 2011 by DaddyG

[california boy]

Must I spell it out for you?

Ok... the way babies are created is by a sperm (from a man) & an egg (from a woman).

Parents who adopt children cannot procreate. They can only have children by the help of some type of heterosexual conception.

I don't think you have to spell out were babies come from. What you have to spell out is how preventing gay's from marrying and or adopting will decimate the population of the world. Or do you think that being gay is contagious and eventually everyone will be gay?

[Cobalt-70]

Diabetes is also a way of life unfortunately. If you aren't sure about this, trust me on this one. I have personal knowledge.

Substitute autism if you want. Or deafness.

Autism is a little better analogy than diabetes, but both of them aren't very good. Sexual orientation is not, itself, a way of life. Gay and lesbian people can and frequently do live lives that are identical to straight people (including straight marriage, etc.), but they are still gay or lesbian. And while gays and lesbians have different brain structure like autistic people, homosexuality does not affect cognitive abilities.

I think the best analogy to homosexuality is left handedness.

[Damien the Leper]

I think ignoring the possibility that they are disorders is at best naive, at worst moving forward for Satan to further move people away from God.

And how is "A man shall not lie with another man as he would a woman for that would be an abomination" silent on the matter? It is even further clarified in a list of sexual sins. It's only silent if you don't have ears.

JMS

The simple fact that you have quoted an OT statement without divulging what abomination meant to those of the time is extremely telling.

To'evah- Hbr for abomination. More accurately defined as not part of typical ritual. The Holiness Code provided by the writer of Leviticus and part of Numbers was addressing a living statute that was meant for the Israelites who were the audience.

So tell me, what part of to'evah are you NOT getting?

[Damien the Leper]

So you are all for men who get sexual surgery and pretend to be women too, right? That's the next step. Gender fraud.

That is an area of identity that I'm not familiar with and I wouldn't feel right addressing it.

[Daniel2]

To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

If only "to each their own" were the mantra in how to approach civil marriage equality--if you don't like the same sex, get married to someone of the opposite gender; if you don't like someone of the opposite gender, marry someone of the same gender. Sorta like--if you believe in Mormonism, join the LDS Church; if you believe in Catholicism, join the Catholic Church. It's really that simple.

Daniel2

[Damien the Leper]

Your failing to consider things on a macro basis. Such labels and diagnosis are useful for crafting beneficial public policy as well as appropriate Church policies, etc.

Could you please point out the specific distinct situation you spoke to because I couldn't see it anywhere indicated in your post that I responded to.

Be that as it may, while you may have intended to speak specifically, my point was intended to speak more generally. I did so, not because of what I assumed about you (your mistaken assumption to the contrary notwithstanding), but because of a point I wished to make of myself.

You are entitled to your opinion, as am I. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade,

Thank you for your responses. There is nothing I can do to relate how personal one's own sexual orientation is and how the individual copes or what the reality is for that individual. Our lives are a case to case type situation. Generalizations can be made but they do not speak for personal thought, feeling, or experience.

I simply agree to disagree with you.

[Cobalt-70]

Using "gay" however does not solve the problem of isolating inclination from external behaviour.....which is my primary reason for using SSA in the first place as I clearly indicated above.

If I were to ever use the term in an audience that I am not sure of them being familiar with the term, I would be sure and stated what the acronym stood for before using it, much as I do when I use LDS among nonLDS. If someone does not know what "same sex attraction" is just from the name, I think they will have more problems with any discussion than just what to do with the usage of the term "SSA".

Here's how you separate "inclination" from "external behavior," using correct, non-controversial terminology:

1. "gay" and "lesbian" (or "homosexual," which includes both but probably not appropriate in a non-psychological discussion) are sexual orientations. They have nothing to do with behavior. You can call them "inclinations" if you want, but they are more than that. There is a biological component. A gay man could have no behavioral difference whatsoever from a straight man, except for their orientation. Unlike in times past, gays and lesbians are not denied temple recommends for their sexual orientation.

2. "masculine" and "feminine" are descriptions of gender, which is a behavior. A gay man may be feminine, and a straight man may also be feminine. There is a statistical correlation sex, gender, and sexual orientation, but we don't know much about the mechanism for this correlation, and why some gay men are masculine, while other gay men are feminine. Unlike sexual orientation itself, there may be a strong cultural element that at least partially-defines gender. There is nothing sinful in Mormon theology about being a feminine man, or a masculine woman. A woman will not be denied a temple recommend for liking wrestling, growing armpit hair, and wearing no makeup.

3. "gay sex" and "straight sex" are sex acts. Sex acts are not the same as sexual orientation, and are not the same as gender. A feminine gay man may be celibate, or may even have an intimate relationship with a woman and be married. That doesn't make him non-gay, and it doesn't make him masculine. It is only this last element that has any real relation to Mormon policy. This is what could prevent you from getting a temple recommend.

The use of terms like "homosexual behavior" confuses #2 with #3. The use of terms like "homosexual inclinations" confuses #1 and #2. If Mormons wanted to minimize the extent to which they marginalize and guilt-trip their gay and lesbian brothers and sisters, they would simply say that "homosexuality is not a sin, but gays and lesbian Mormons should avoid gay sex." The sole focus of groups like Evergreen International should not be to help them "overcome homosexual behaviors" (which with the addition of the term "overcome" confuses #1, #2, and #3) but rather on helping gay and lesbian Mormons to avoid gay sex.

[TAO]

Autism is a little better analogy than diabetes, but both of them aren't very good. Sexual orientation is not, itself, a way of life. Gay and lesbian people can and frequently do live lives that are identical to straight people (including straight marriage, etc.), but they are still gay or lesbian. And while gays and lesbians have different brain structure like autistic people, homosexuality does not affect cognitive abilities.

I think the best analogy to homosexuality is left handedness.

Actually, Autism is a near perfect analogy, imo. And I have Autism =P.

The one lesson we have to learn in Autism is that just because we have to do more work than others to 'fit in' doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. In other words... we have to put in the extra effort... and then other people will come to meet us. We have to make the choice 'yes, we are going to do our best to fit in'... and then... things turn out to not be that bad. In fact... they turn out to be better =). Because in coming to try to fit in... we learn to understand other people. Which is amazingly useful!