Bsa Considering Ending Ban On Homosexuals

[california boy]

I agree, but I've rarely had someone other than God tell me how my sexual attractions are normal.

But why should it be thought a strange thing for someone to find someone else atractive, even if they are of the same sex? Why can't everyone just acknowledge that both men and women are attractive, at least to some people? Women find some men atttractive, so why shouldn't other men also be able to see how those men are attractive, at least to those women? We're not all attracted to the same things in people, but I think we should be able to at least understand how people can find other people to be attractive whether or not they are of the same sex. I've noticed women seem to have an easier time doing this than men do, in general.

Maybe the "fear" issue in regards to homosexuality needs to be looked at a little more in depth. Not that we should all be having sex with each other when we're of the same sex, but we should at least be able to understand and acknowledge some attraction.

If you think being gay is somone who mearly finds the same sex attractive, then you have absolutely no understanding to what being gay is.

[Hamba Tuhan]

So we have Hollywood to blame for the fact that people don't meander back and forth throughout their lives from heterosexual orientation to homosexual orientation and back?

No, there is simply no 'meandering' between identities when the categories themselves don't exist. But Hollywood has definitely played a role in spreading the Western conceptions of 'heterosexual orientation' and 'homosexual orientation' ... all of which has been part of the plan: 'The visual media, film and television, are plainly the most powerful image-makers in Western civilization ... , through which a Trojan horse might be passed. As far as desensitization is concerned, the medium is the message--of normalcy. So far, gay Hollywood has provided our best covert weapon in the battle to desensitize the mainstream'.

This is just a part of a broader process, of course, of Western imperialism on the discursive level -- one which can be traced via the fact that speakers of very many non-Western languages have had to borrow the terms 'homo' and 'hetero' to define constructs for which they have historically had no need.

And you have a reference (or two) to support the conclusion that prior to the 20th century most of people in the world did not identify with a single sexual orientation?

There are dozens of such references if you're genuinely interested, but here are a couple of quick ones, both of them very 'gay-friendly':

'Gendered Sexuality: The Privileging of Sex and Gender in Sexual Orientation': 'The social-constructionist approach has posed important challenges to ahistorical, essentialist accounts of sexual orientation and extended our understanding of the impact of culture on human sexuality. Most constructionist analyses have focused on homosexual identities, however, ignoring heterosexuality and bisexuality. By attending predominantly to homosexual identities, researchers may seem to support the notion that only "deviant" sexuality (i.e., homosexuality) is socially constructed as opposed to the more radical idea that all sexual orientations are constructed, or that the entire concept of a sexual orientation is itself a social construction. After all, heterosexuality as a sexual identity (rather than as a default behavior pattern) is a rather recent phenomenon in our society, only called into being by the existence of homosexuality'.

'Sexual orientation, according to this definition, has three constituents: First, it is a sexual attraction; second, it is gendered, meaning that it is defined by the gender of its object; and third, it is consistent over time and space. I will not dwell on the third quality, that of consistency, although there is considerable evidence to challenge the notion that sexual orientation is consistent over time and/or space. Instead, I wish to examine the first and second factors, those of sexuality and gender. I will claim that "sexual orientation" (as it is understood in modern Western culture) privileges both sexuality and gender as fundamental, biological categories of experience. By this I mean that the way in which sexual orientation is understood by both the mainstream culture and the scientific community has resulted in the assumption of sexuality and gender as basic and self-explanatory. Our cultural construct of sexual orientation focuses attention narrowly on sexuality and gender as the key elements of relationships instead of examining the wide range of human bonding preferences'.

'Perhaps sex-centrality was inevitable given the increasing discourse of sexuality in Western culture and the proliferation of a sexual zoology ... In addition to typologies of sexuality becoming more elaborate, Freudian theory increased the pervasiveness of sexual discourse by fostering the notion that no human bonding is free from sexuality. Thus not only were a variety of sexual categories available, but all human relationships( friendships, parent-child relationships) became imbued with sexuality, and emotional attachment came to be seen as linked with sexual desire'.

'Sexual Orientation and Mental Health': 'Historically speaking, sexual orientation is a fairly new construct. Although heterosexual and homosexual behaviors are ubiquitous across human societies, notions of “the homosexual” and “the heterosexual”—as well as the very idea that individuals can be defined in terms of their sexual attractions and behaviors—emerged in medical discourse only in the nineteenth century. They are usually traced to Karl Maria Benkert's use of “homosexuality” in 1868 in a German-language pamphlet. Benkert also introduced the term “heterosexual” in 1868'.

I unfortunately can't recall the title of the book, but a historian who was then working at the University of Wisconsin-Madison published a monograph on this topic in the late 1990s in which he did a thorough job of tracing the genealogy (in the Foucauldian sense) of the construction of the notion of sexual orientation in Western thought.

Beyond all this, my academic focus is Island Southeast Asia and the Pacific. I work in a research school which covers the fields of anthropology, history, and linguistics. It's a simple reality for every one of us that conceptions of 'homosexuality' and 'heterosexuality' (and even 'bisexuality') were introduced into these areas by means of Euro-American colonialism and in many cases remain foreign though increasingly domesticated ideas. If you're interested, there's an extensive literature on the widespread prevalence in numerous Melanesian societies of boys being 'socialised' by older males into primarily same-sex behaviour via elaborate mythic and ritual complexes, though of course they also married and bore children. The penetration of Christianity throughout the region has nearly obliterated this phenomenon, but it was still happening only a few decades ago. I've lived in parts of Indonesia where male prostitutes are as common as female ones, and men simply don't distinguish between the two. As one of my close friends once said to me in response to a query, 'Sex is sex'.

A historically ubiquitous understanding which absolutely has to be denied if one's political agenda rests upon a foundation of communicating 'that gays are victims of fate'.

Edited January 30, 2013 by Hamba Tuhan

[Hamba Tuhan]

I agree, but I've rarely had someone other than God tell me how my sexual attractions are normal.

Perfectly normal, especially once one steps outside of the prisonhouse of contemporary* Western discourse. One of the real risks we now face, of course, is that youth who don't understand that all sexuality is 'attractive'** will find themselves trapped in an off-the-rack 'gay' identity just because they've experienced some of the same-sex variety.

*Remember that one of the foundational texts of early Western civilisation is bookended by Achilles's refusal to fight upon losing his female lover (Briseis) and Achilles's return to battle upon losing his male lover (Patroklus).

**Studies which have demonstrated that those who express genuinely homophobic attitudes tend to respond quickly to sexually explicit 'gay' imagery have fortuitously also provided us with the evidence that virtually all men experience a sexual response to such imagery. Unsurprisingly, there is something inherently sexually arousing about sex.

Edited January 30, 2013 by Hamba Tuhan

[rongo]

Well, one thing is for sure. Those who think there is the remotest chance that the Church will ever stop distinguishing between SSA and active homosexuality are sadly mistaken. That the gay community ostensibly doesn't is sad. There are SSA people who don't act on it, and don't want to act on it, even though the attraction exists. Are they considered to be "not really gay" within the the gay community.

Josh Johannson's FAIR Conference talk cited surprising research that indicated that most gay people *never* act on it. Are they "not really gay" because "SSA is a silly distinction religious fundamentalists resort to?"

[california boy]

I agree with you that those who want the church to condone homosexual relationships will be sadly mistaken. But I doubt the gay community has any interest in what the church chooses to believe or not believe. It is not like they are waiting to join the church. So nothing to be sad about.

I have never heard someone who chooses to not have sex as not being really gay in the gay community any more than someone who is straight that is still a virgin is not considered heterosexual. But not everyone thinks the exact same thing, so who knows, maybe there is some gay person out there that thinks you have to have sex to be gay. Seems a bit ridiculous to me.

[Questing Beast]

Same sex attraction means exactly what it sounds like. It's an attraction to someone of the same sex. I'm both, the way I figure, because I'm attracted to both men and women, if I find the person's character and appearance attractive. What would you call someone like me, based on that information I just gave you? Am I both gay and "straight", in your opinion? Does it matter to you whether or not I have ever had sexual relations with someone of the same sex that I am? If it does, then to save time I'll go ahead and tell you I have had sexual relations with people of both sexes in the past, although I'm currently married to someone of the opposite sex now and have remained chaste with her while we have been married. Now what would you call someone like me, based on what I've told you? I consider myself to be straight right now, although I'm still sometimes attracted to someone of the same sex. And it may also interest you to know that I consider sexual relations with someone of the same sex to be an evil act, and I'll flat out tell anyone that it's evil while telling people they should avoid acting on those impulses if they have them.

This is an honest contribution to a simple, not complex subject. Nothing is simpler than sexual attraction, it is what it is. Just like feelings they come and are real, we don't invite them.

Now, it is just daft to make a policy allowing men to mentor young, pubescent girls in some "scouting" program. I don't see this issue as any different whatsoever. When it is known that a man has a thing for boys his sexual orientation is just as tempting and fraught with possible consequences as when we allow men to shower with girls, etc. What is so hard to understand about any of this? It's as flat as a pancake, to quote the man himself....

[Saints Alive]

Now, it is just daft to make a policy allowing men to mentor young, pubescent girls in some "scouting" program. I don't see this issue as any different whatsoever. When it is known that a man has a thing for boys his sexual orientation is just as tempting and fraught with possible consequences as when we allow men to shower with girls, etc. What is so hard to understand about any of this? It's as flat as a pancake, to quote the man himself....

While I don't support a change in BSA policy I don't follow your logic. Should we also keep men from teaching high school because of all the budding young women? Or what about coaching girls teams? Are men to be excluded from that too?

[ERayR]

But I doubt the gay community has any interest in what the church chooses to believe or not believe.

I agree with you here as it has been my observation that the homosexual community's interest lies in furthering their own agendas and could care less about any church as long as said churches stay out of their way.

Edited January 30, 2013 by ERayR

[Calm]

Homosexual attraction doesn't equate into "a thing for boys" anymore than heterosexual attraction equates into a "thing for girls".

Making generic, global accusations are not the way to go about attempting to prevent abuse. Realistic use of actual data about specifics will be much more successful in meeting needs.

Edited January 30, 2013 by calmoriah

[rockpond]

I agree with you here as it has been my observation that the homosexual community's interest lies in furthering their own agendas and could care less about any church as long as said churches stay out of their way.

I think it's overly simplistic to act as if there is a single "homosexual community" with a coordinated and unified interest. My observation has been that there are homosexual communities who are very much tied into their religious faith & churches.

[gkearney]

I would point out that most of the worlds scouting programs, even those in conservative islamic nations are today coed. I was the LDS chaplain at the Australian jamboree a few weeks ago. 40% of the scouts there were girls. We did not have men "showering with the girls" or anything like that. Some people need to get their mind off of sex and not talking about homosexuals either.

[Scott Lloyd]

I mean both if you want to separate them into two groups

Then I reject your premise. Same-sex attraction is a term that many are acquainted with, and many are apt to use it to search for the Church's website on that subject. I myself tried a Google search using the terms "same-sex attraction" and "LDS." The Church site was the first on the list of hits.

Edited January 30, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[DavidB]

Something Elder Oaks said is instructive, he spoke about judging others and stated sometjing along the lines that you wouldnt leave you children with a known pedophiles. But to suggest that a particular group of people are pedophiles by association is simply wrong and bad reasoning.

[Ahab]

If you think being gay is somone who mearly finds the same sex attractive, then you have absolutely no understanding to what being gay is.

You're not putting much thought into your response to me. Did you even read the other post I wrote where I asked you to tell me what you would call me after telling you about my sexual attraction to both sexes? Your response tells me a little bit about how you think about this, though. You seem to think someone isn't "gay" unless they act on their sexual attraction to someone of the same sex. I have acted on it in the past, but now that I'm married to someone of the opposite sex I no longer act on it because I am now chaste with the one I chose to marry.

[Damien the Leper]

I'm still waiting for a good response to your Ezekiel question.

As am I. Ezekiel has made it clear what the sin of Sodom was. It seems, to me, anachronistic to place homosexuality as the sin within the Sodom narrative and construct.

[ERayR]

I think it's overly simplistic to act as if there is a single "homosexual community" with a coordinated and unified interest. My observation has been that there are homosexual communities who are very much tied into their religious faith & churches.

I was responding to California Boys post where he treats it as a single community. I agree that there is diverse groups within that community as there are in any community but when presented as a common community it needs be addressed as such.

[Scott Lloyd]

Something Elder Oaks said is instructive, he spoke about judging others and stated sometjing along the lines that you wouldnt leave you children with a known pedophiles. But to suggest that a particular group of people are pedophiles by association is simply wrong and bad reasoning.

I think I am acquainted with the talk to which you refer.

I just scanned through it again and did not see the specific point which you are endeavoring to paraphrase here. The closest I could come was this paragraph:

Some personal decisions must be made before we have access to all of the facts. Two hypotheticals illustrate this principle: (1) If a particular person has been arrested for child sexual abuse and is free on bail awaiting trial on his guilt or innocence, would you trust him to tend your children while you take a weekend trip? (2) If a person you have trusted with your property has been indicted for embezzlement, would you continue to leave him in charge of your life savings? In such circumstances we do the best we can, relying ultimately on the teaching in modern scripture that we should put our “trust in that Spirit which leadeth to do good—yea, to do justly, to walk humbly, to judge righteously” (D&C 11:12).

Nothing in there about pedophiles by association. Only the caution that some personal decisions must be made before we have access to all the facts. It doesn't endorse branding people by association, but neither does it forbid making personal decisions in one's own best interest or that of loved ones when guided by the Spirit.

Edited January 30, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Damien the Leper]

I'll take a stab at it.

I don't see how the things mentioned in Ezekiel 16:49 preclude sexual sin, especially considering verse 50, which refers to "abomination" and cross-references to Jeremiah 23:14, which mentions adultery in the context of Sodom and Gomorrah.

But I'm not prepared for a scholarly discussion on Old Testament text, nor do I wish to derail this thread with one.

You need to understand that abomination in scripture is NOT the same as how we perceive it. To'ebah, תועבה , as my Hebrew Bible professor explained to me means "not part of this particular culture's practice". Volg, can correct me if I'm wrong. The connection that you seem to want to connect between Ezekiel, the Sodom story and Jeremiah is a sexual sin. Was sexual sin evident in Sodom? Yes. But that isn't the reason for its destruction. Jeremiah draws moreso on the connection that there are many sins taking place. Jeremiah is NOT claiming that sexual sin was the reason for the destruction.

Edited January 30, 2013 by Valentinus

[Ahab]

As am I. Ezekiel has made it clear what the sin of Sodom was. It seems, to me, anachronistic to place homosexuality as the sin within the Sodom narrative and construct.

What was the question? I didn't see one, but I did see you make a good point.

[Scott Lloyd]

You need to understand that abomination in scripture is NOT the same as how we perceive it. To'ebah, תועבה , as my Hebrew Bible professor explained to me means "not part of this particular culture's practice". Volg, can correct me if I'm wrong. The connection that you seem to want to connect between Ezekiel, the Sodom story and Jeremiah is a sexual sin. Was sexual sin evident in Sodom? Yes. But that isn't the reason for its destruction. Jeremiah draws moreso on the connection that there are many sins taking place. Jeremiah is NOT claiming that sexual sin was the reason for the destruction.

Ultimately, I believe sins can be and often are interrelated. That wrongdoing facilitates further wrongdoing. I'm not asserting that sexual sin was the sole reason for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, but neither am I willing to rule it out as a contributing factor, even a significant one. The scripture I cited from Jeremiah does include adultery among the sins of Sodom.

But as I said, I'm not prepared to argue this from a scholarly perspective --I don't have the background that you and Volgadon evidently do -- and I'm not disposed to derail this thread with it in any case.

Edited January 30, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Damien the Leper]

What was the question? I didn't see one, but I did see you make a good point.

Rob Osborn said this:

Being forced into a no win situation. I dont see why BSA doesn't just keep the same standard in place they have always had. Must every organization be swayed to the lack of principle that Sodom and Gomorrah had?

This was my response to him:

What did the prophet Ezekiel say was the sin of Sodom (Hint: Ezk 16:49)?

Volgadon stated this:

I'm still waiting for a good response to your Ezekiel question.

To which Scott Lloyd replied:

I'll take a stab at it.

I don't see how the things mentioned in Ezekiel 16:49 preclude sexual sin, especially considering verse 50, which refers to "abomination" and cross-references to Jeremiah 23:14, which mentions adultery in the context of Sodom and Gomorrah.

And I then gave my response to Scott in my post above (#218).

[go_utes01]

Ultimately, I believe sins can be and often are interrelated. That wrongdoing facilitates further wrongdoing. I'm not asserting that sexual sin was the sole reason for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, but neither am I willing to rule it out as a contributing factor, even a significant one.

But as I said, I'm not prepared to argue this from a scholarly perspective --I don't have the background that you and Volgaden evidently do -- and I'm not disposed to derail this thread with it in any case.

Regardless of the reason for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (whether primarily because of sexual sin or having little to do with sexual sin, let alone homosexuality being that sexual sin), modern prophets have been clear that homosexual behavior (as opposed to being homosexual, gay, or SSA) is sinful. Can we agree on that? Now, you could argue that modern leaders are incorrect in their pronouncements (just like you could argue that ancient prophets/church leaders were incorrect in their pronouncements or interpretations), but the Church's position on the subject is clear (at least to me).

Edited January 30, 2013 by go_utes01

[Scott Lloyd]

Regardless of the reason for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (whether primarily because of sexual sin or having little to do with sexual sin, let alone homosexuality being that sexual sin), modern prophets have been clear that homosexual behavior (as opposed to being homosexual, gay, or SSA) is sinful. Can we agree on that? Now, you could argue that modern leaders are incorrect in their pronouncements (just like you could argue that ancient prophets/church leaders were incorrect in their pronouncements or interpretations), but the Church's position on the subject is clear (at least to me).

Indeed. Ancient scripture, to be of full value, must be examined in the light of modern revelation.

[Ahab]

You need to understand that abomination in scripture is NOT the same as how we perceive it. To'ebah, תועבה , as my Hebrew Bible professor explained to me means "not part of this particular culture's practice". Volg, can correct me if I'm wrong. The connection that you seem to want to connect between Ezekiel, the Sodom story and Jeremiah is a sexual sin. Was sexual sin evident in Sodom? Yes. But that isn't the reason for its destruction. Jeremiah draws moreso on the connection that there are many sins taking place. Jeremiah is NOT claiming that sexual sin was the reason for the destruction.

Thanks for your summary in another post to me, as it helped me to see what I missed. Now how about if you tell me why you think that wasn't the reason for their destruction? I know it wasn't the only reason, but it was part of the reason, and that abomination still applies to that sexual act between people of the same sex because of the culture that is doing the talking.

In other words, an abomination is anything not part of the culture of heaven. You sin, you pay the price, in God's culture.

[Damien the Leper]

Indeed. Ancient scripture, to be of full value, must be examined in the light of modern revelation.

I disagree. I allow scripture to stand on its own. I allow the different books to stand on their own rather than to be dependent on each other. I don't read the Hebrew Bible in light of the New Testament and likewise I don't read the New Testament in light of the Hebrew Bible.

An evidence of anachronism:

A Psalm of David. The LORD says to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.” Ps. 110:1

Most Christians would read this to point out that LORD is God and Lord is Jesus. But to the Psalmist, this would be illogical and make no sense considering the fact that 1) according to Jews, Jesus is not the Son of God nor the Messiah and 2) the Psalmist knew nothing about Jesus and was not actually prophesying.

Modern revelation and contemporary theology are not the arbiters of what is historically and textually correct ideology. At best, they are interpretations used to promote an existing opinion and standard which draw on history to validate their perceptions.