Is Being Gay A Sin? Does It Need Amelioration?

[wenglund]

You beat me to it...dang you Wade!

I had the unfair advantage of a huge head start. However, you can take solace in the old adage about great minds... LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Chaos]

. It is your way of deflecting your own understandable, yet correctable, self-loathing.

Thatsa threadban.

[sunstoned]

So for those who don't believe homosexuality is a sin, but rather the behavior, do you disagree with the policy of the BSA, supported by the LDS Church which bans gays from scouting, even celibate gays.

As a private organization, the BSA has every right to implement whatever policy they like. However, I believe this policy is discriminatory and without merit.

[sunstoned]

You would be wrong. The ban extends to "known or avowed" homosexuals. If it became "known" to the bishop that someone is "struggling with same sex attraction", even though he was not openly gay, he would not be allowed to participate in scouting.

If by that you mean I am not gay, that is true. However, I like to think that in this country people should not only be free, but have a civic obligation to speak out against this sort of rank bigotry.

I not only disagree, but I predict that in 20 years, they will have reversed the decision, and formally apologized for promulgating bigotry and discrimination against homosexuals.

I agree with the prediction.

[CV75]

Sounds like a rationalized avenue by which sin is legitimized.

Hence the unfortunataility of the situation! But lest we wax colloquial, "fortune" has nothing to do with it; misused agency does.

Edited July 20, 2012 by CV75

[CV75]

The real question is, Can we find ways to help people who find themselves in such challenging situations? And are we going to do it honestly?

Maybe I’ve responded to this question already in this thread. An honest way to help people deal with their struggles is to faithfully come unto Christ and fellowship them so as to encourage their attraction to Christ. The Spirit performs miracles. The solution is not always found in healing, but in dealing / managing with ones’ affliction(s) in an inspiring way.

I know this may sound too general, but people that apply the princple generally discover specific ways to help and to be helped.

Edited July 20, 2012 by CV75

[Jaybear]

Unfortunately our society has reached a level of sophistication where staying alive isn't the most important source of gratitude, but fulfilling non-procreative sexual desire is. That is why the subject is imbedded in virtually every economic and political message the popular media delivers.

Sheer hyperbole. You will note in these discussions its the religious conservatives that focus on the perceived immorality of the base sexual act, while the liberals express concern over broader issues such self worth, human dignity, equal rights, love, intimacy, family and commitments.

Sounds like a rationalized avenue by which sin is legitimized.

Your perception that others are engaged in rationalization, assumes a shared understanding of what behavior is sinful.

Most people used to believe that birth control was immoral. Only those that still do, would accuse those who use birth control of rationalizing sin.

[thesometimesaint]

Sheer hyperbole. You will note in these discussions its the religious conservatives that focus on the perceived immorality of the base sexual act, while the liberals express concern over broader issues such self worth, human dignity, equal rights, love, intimacy, family and commitments.

Your perception that others are engaged in rationalization, assumes a shared understanding of what behavior is sinful.

Most people used to believe that birth control was immoral. Only those that still do, would accuse those who use birth control of rationalizing sin.

Jaybear:

Those concerns are not mutual exclusive.

What is wrong with having a shared understanding of what is sinful?

Most people used to believe any number of things were sinful(lots depends on what you mean by most people), but depending on context is/isn't sinful. IE; Honey does this dress make me look fat?

[CV75]

Sheer hyperbole. You will note in these discussions its the religious conservatives that focus on the perceived immorality of the base sexual act, while the liberals express concern over broader issues such self worth, human dignity, equal rights, love, intimacy, family and commitments.

It is hard to argue against one’s perception of hyperbole, but I based my observation not on my religious convictions and “conservatism” but on the preponderance of scientific evidence for the sexualization of our society, and especially of youth (if you care to discuss, start a new thread).

How often do we see the following messages in media/entertainment, advertising, peer groups: our value comes primarily/exclusively from our sex appeal or behavior; physical attractiveness equates to being sexy; sexual objectification; promotion of age-inappropriate sexuality and imposing sexuality upon others. Not to mention the way-out-of-balance coverage and propagandizing of LGBT sexual issues and agenda.

The big lie is that this kind of sexualization is promoted and substituted for and accepted as key to self worth, rights, love, and intimacy--even by liberals!

[Jaybear]

Jaybear:

Those concerns are not mutual exclusive.

What is wrong with having a shared understanding of what is sinful?

Most people used to believe any number of things were sinful(lots depends on what you mean by most people), but depending on context is/isn't sinful. IE; Honey does this dress make me look fat?

There is a broad shared understanding of what is moral. Lying, stealing, murder, etc.

This is just not one of those matter that we share a common belief.

[CV75]

religious conservatives ...focus on the perceived immorality of the base sexual act

liberals express concern over broader issues such self worth, human dignity, equal rights, love, intimacy, family and commitments.

My, my is this the real problem?

When discussion of broader issues obfuscates the fundamental problem, the fundamental problem needs to be reiterated. Attack the relevance and validity of what is touted as the fundamental problem, don’t cover it up with co-opted principles everyone already agrees on (self-worth, human dignity, equal rights, love, intimacy, family and commitments).

If your problem is that LDS hold that homosexual behavior is immoral, prove how it is moral.

[thesometimesaint]

CV75:

"The big lie is that this kind of sexualization is promoted and substituted for and accepted as key to self worth, rights, love, and intimacy--even by liberals! ".

Sexuality sells. It always has from the fetish's of prehistoric man, to Victorian Era ideas that table cloths were designed as means by which the "shaft" of the table legs could be hidden, to "Toddlers in Tiara's". But I'm not that Freudian.

[Jaybear]

It is hard to argue against one’s perception of hyperbole, but I based my observation not on my religious convictions and “conservatism” but on the preponderance of scientific evidence for the sexualization of our society, and especially of youth (if you care to discuss, start a new thread).

You view society through a religious conservative lens. Cue grumpy old man: "Kids these days have no respect .....

How often do we see the following messages in media/entertainment, advertising, peer groups: our value comes primarily/exclusively from our sex appeal or behavior; physical attractiveness equates to being sexy; sexual objectification; promotion of age-inappropriate sexuality and imposing sexuality upon others. Not to mention the way-out-of-balance coverage and propagandizing of LGBT sexual issues and agenda.

The big lie is that this kind of sexualization is promoted and substituted for and accepted as key to self worth, rights, love, and intimacy--even by liberals!

Freedom means allowing people to do things you disaprove of.

I hate seeing someone wearing his pants around his knees, but I prefer it so seeing women forced to wear burkas by legal decree.

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear:

There is a broad shared understanding of what is moral. Lying, stealing, murder, etc.

This is just not one of those matter that we share a common belief.

Only when we speak in general terms would even lying, stealing, murder to we have shared understandings.

More's the pity.

Edited July 20, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[Jaybear]

If your problem is that LDS hold that homosexual behavior is immoral, prove how it is moral.

That is not my problem. If you believe that homosexuality is immoral, then don't engage in homosexual behavior. Or do, and feel guilty about it. I really don't care.

Its you life, not mine.

My problem is when people use their personal moral views to justify their efforts to control the behavior of others who don't share that same moral belief.

[CV75]

You view society through a religious conservative lens. Cue grumpy old man: "Kids these days have no respect .....

Tell that to the APA (who many view as "liberal"), which publishes quite a bit on the subject I'm talking about.

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear:

You view society through a religious conservative lens. Cue grumpy old man: "Kids these days have no respect .....

Freedom means allowing people to do things you disaprove of.

I hate seeing someone wearing his pants around his knees, but I prefer it so seeing women forced to wear burkas by legal decree.

Even us grumpy old men are right every once in a while.

I never said anything about not allowing people to do things I personally disagree with. But I do object when told I'm some type of homophobic moron if I don't agree to changing the definition of marriage. If someone wants go around naked it is no concern of mine, except here in the northern hemisphere we might talk about things like sunburn and frostbite in delicate areas of anatomy.

[CV75]

My problem is when people use their personal moral views to justify their efforts to control the behavior of others who don't share that same moral belief.

This is not what is being done by the BSA or the LDS Church. They do not control people's decisions to engage in homosexual behavior. They have standards designed to control (not always successfully) people's membership in their organizations. In the case of the Church, it sets standards and invites members to keep them. This is not controling.

If you're looking to argue with people that try to control other's sexual behaviors, I haven't seen any evidence or support of that kind of control in this thread.

[CV75]

Sexuality sells.

It sure can multi-task!

[thesometimesaint]

CV75:

Maybe it's me, but I don't see where equating homosexuality with mental illness as a liberal or conservative stance.

[CV75]

CV75:

Maybe it's me, but I don't see where equating homosexuality with mental illness as a liberal or conservative stance.

I agree, but my point wasn't the APA's stance on that issue, but on its publications reasearching and reporting on the pathological sexualization in our culture.

It hearkens to an earlier post where I said about the LGBT agenda items (such as the need to be sexually accepted by the public at large): "Unfortunately our society has reached a level of sophistication where staying alive isn't the most important source of gratitude, but fulfilling non-procreative sexual desire is. That is why the subject is imbedded in virtually every economic and political message the popular media delivers."

Edited July 20, 2012 by CV75

[Jaybear]

Jaybear:

Even us grumpy old men are right every once in a while.

I never said anything about not allowing people to do things I personally disagree with.

Grumpy old men always think they are right.

But I do object when told I'm some type of homophobic moron if I don't agree to changing the definition of marriage. If someone wants go around naked it is no concern of mine, except here in the northern hemisphere we might talk about things like sunburn and frostbite in delicate areas of anatomy.

I don't recall anyone here calling you that name. If you speak out against gay rights in other public forums, then you probably need to develop a thicker skin, because you will be called name.

[Jaybear]

This is not what is being done by the BSA or the LDS Church.

Not all boy scouts believe that homosexuality is immoral. So yes, the BSA is trying to impose the moral values of the majority of those on the leadership committee to influence the behavior of those who don't share its moral beliefs.

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear:

I don't know too many people. grumpy or not, that go around claiming to be wrong all the time.

Fortunately I do post to other sites under a different screen name.

[Mudcat]

I thought of the same passage. However, I think there is an important difference between "lusting after" and being "sexually attracted," the former being a sin of the heart whereas the latter is not, otherwise heterosexuality would, itself, be a sin of the heart.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I don't see the difference Wade. To be attracted to someone sexually, seems fairly explicit to having a desire to have sex with a person. How is that not lust?