Gays Trying To Get Orson Scott Card Fired As A Comic Book Writer

[thesometimesaint]

The word perversion can have a perfectly objective meaning. It need not be an insult. The verb pervert is less narrow in reference than the related nouns, and may be used with no sexual connotations. It is used in English law for the crime of perverting the course of justice which is a common law offence. I take it as a perfectly useful word for describing what is done to the meaning of the word "marriage" by this "gay marriage" thing. It is a perversion of the word and concept of "marriage".

I am perfectly aware of what the word perversion means. My arguement still stands.

[thesometimesaint]

Although I appreciate your desire to appear tolerant and I view myself as a tolerant person, I will not pull a punch simply because I do not want to hurt your feelings. If there is a need for repentance and I was in a proper position, I would tell you the same thing without trying to hint that you needed a closer walk with God and then think all was well in Zion. Though I have some very close friends that are gay I remain clear that acting on those feelings is perversion of what our Father in Heaven has intended for his children. Society has become far too desensitized to the whole notion of SSA and what it means. It is the funny guy on television that is creative, happy, and full of love for everyone. The reality of this way of life most often leads to despair, heartache, loneliness, and a host of medical problems. We need to be more blunt about this way of life. I love my friends and I love their partners; I understand their choices; more importantly, I understand the consequences of their choices.

I have no desire to be a tolerant person. My entire adult life has been one of trying to help people establish clearly defined actions to promote their own welfare. while respecting the rights of others. Let me ask you. Was Jesus trying to be tolerant of adultery when he didn't accuse the woman taken in the act? However I do strive to be accurate. You'd be surprized at what I consider a sin. My arguement is that I neither have, nor want to have the authority to make laws that forces everyone to conform to my ideas about sin.

Is it any of society's business what you do between the bedcovers with your spouse, as long as you both consent?

Then deal with the despair, heartache, loneliness, and a host of medical problems. Homosexuals have no higher rate of incidents of these problems than do heterosexuals. Further even if they did, would that be any excuse to deal with them any differently than a heterosexual with the same problem(s)? Let me ask another question. Because heterosexuality is closely tied to social/medical problems. Could I counsel you out of being a heterosexual? What steps would you endorse to facilitate in changing you to a homosexual?

It is hard being a homosexual in this country. You can be fired, loose your place to live, face criminal charges in some states, have no access to loved ones for hospital visits, can be denied their loved ones pension/survivors benefits, and the list goes on and on. Let's leave aside the violence they experience at the hands of bigoted heterosexuals. It is doubly hard to be a homosexual in the Church. But some do manage it. I admire them for their efforts. They will be blessed. It is not my job to add to their burdens, but to help them shoulder them.

[Stargazer]

I am perfectly aware of what the word perversion means. My arguement still stands.

You may have it your way, as you wish.

But in my view, a heterosexual couple who cohabit without marriage are engaged in just as much perversion as any other. It may be the case that certain forms of perversion are more acceptable in society than others. But the perversion is to the use of sexuality, not the exact form of it. It is perversion in the eyes of God to have sex outside the bonds of heterosexual marriage. I have a son who is shacked up and by this definition he is engaged in perversion. In law, he has been together with his partner for long enough to count as common-law marriage, but they are not married. Gentle attempts to suggest to him that he ought to marry her have fallen on deaf ears (his partner is quite willing to marry him). I could have sworn that his mother and I taught him to know better, but he comes up with these specious arguments over how much a "piece of paper" doesn't matter, and blah blah blah. It's pathetic. Well, that's kind of off-topic, but I wanted you to know what I mean by perversion.

And my argument still stands.

[thesometimesaint]

You may have it your way, as you wish.

But in my view, a heterosexual couple who cohabit without marriage are engaged in just as much perversion as any other. It may be the case that certain forms of perversion are more acceptable in society than others. But the perversion is to the use of sexuality, not the exact form of it. It is perversion in the eyes of God to have sex outside the bonds of heterosexual marriage. I have a son who is shacked up and by this definition he is engaged in perversion. In law, he has been together with his partner for long enough to count as common-law marriage, but they are not married. Gentle attempts to suggest to him that he ought to marry her have fallen on deaf ears (his partner is quite willing to marry him). I could have sworn that his mother and I taught him to know better, but he comes up with these specious arguments over how much a "piece of paper" doesn't matter, and blah blah blah. It's pathetic. Well, that's kind of off-topic, but I wanted you to know what I mean by perversion.

And my argument still stands.

You can scream perversion from your house top till you drop from exhaustion. It won't change a thing, except tire you out.

As a parent myself I do understand the heartache you are having with your wayward son. My heart goes out to you. Sometimes the best we can do is accept that our children have faults and foibles for which they will have to pay the price despite our best efforts. Keep on loving him, and praying for him. Someday he will return to your loving embrace.

[Stone holm]

You may have it your way, as you wish.

But in my view, a heterosexual couple who cohabit without marriage are engaged in just as much perversion as any other. It may be the case that certain forms of perversion are more acceptable in society than others. But the perversion is to the use of sexuality, not the exact form of it. It is perversion in the eyes of God to have sex outside the bonds of heterosexual marriage. I have a son who is shacked up and by this definition he is engaged in perversion. In law, he has been together with his partner for long enough to count as common-law marriage, but they are not married. Gentle attempts to suggest to him that he ought to marry her have fallen on deaf ears (his partner is quite willing to marry him). I could have sworn that his mother and I taught him to know better, but he comes up with these specious arguments over how much a "piece of paper" doesn't matter, and blah blah blah. It's pathetic. Well, that's kind of off-topic, but I wanted you to know what I mean by perversion.

And my argument still stands.

Yeah terms like pervert and bigot don't add much to a discussion mainstream Christianity in the 19th century thought our marriage habits perverted, and Southern Evangelicals still think our Christian views a perversion of Christianity. But they sure are provocative! I used to refer to the Midwest as the bigot belt just to watch certain members go red in the face.

[Calm]

. Homosexuals have no higher rate of incidents of these problems than do heterosexuals.

CFR

[california boy]

Society has become far too desensitized to the whole notion of SSA and what it means. It is the funny guy on television that is creative, happy, and full of love for everyone. The reality of this way of life most often leads to despair, heartache, loneliness, and a host of medical problems. We need to be more blunt about this way of life. I love my friends and I love their partners; I understand their choices; more importantly, I understand the consequences of their choices.

I guess if you convince yourself that this is true, it must help you justify your attitudes towards gay marriage. In your mind if you prevent gays from being married, then they will wake up and realize how unhappy their lives are. This kind of rationalization is the same as those that think Mormons are zombies trapped in a cult that they can't break out of. "If we can just save them from this cult, then they will find true happiness." By presenting Mormons as being brainwashed, they justify their own attitudes. "Mormonism most often leads to despair, heartache, loneliness. They are caught in a religion that prevents them from drinking, having fun and are sexually repressed." As proof, they point to high use of anti depressant drug use and high rates of pornographic viewing in Utah. Yet, I am sure as you look around you see some of the happiest people you know are members of the church. So how does it make you feel when people so distort what your reality of Mormons is? It is the same when you make these kinds of statements against gays.

And even if this was true, can you explain how preventing gays from marrying will give them less "heartache, loneliness, and a host of medical problems"? Maybe we should be encouraging everyone from marrying so that all will have less "heartache, loneliness, and a host of medical problems".

[Stone holm]

I guess if you convince yourself that this is true, it must help you justify your attitudes towards gay marriage. In your mind if you prevent gays from being married, then they will wake up and realize how unhappy their lives are. This kind of rationalization is the same as those that think Mormons are zombies trapped in a cult that they can't break out of. "If we can just save them from this cult, then they will find true happiness." By presenting Mormons as being brainwashed, they justify their own attitudes. "Mormonism most often leads to despair, heartache, loneliness. They are caught in a religion that prevents them from drinking, having fun and are sexually repressed." As proof, they point to high use of anti depressant drug use and high rates of pornographic viewing in Utah. Yet, I am sure as you look around you see some of the happiest people you know are members of the church. So how does it make you feel when people so distort what your reality of Mormons is? It is the same when you make these kinds of statements against gays.

And even if this was true, can you explain how preventing gays from marrying will give them less "heartache, loneliness, and a host of medical problems"? Maybe we should be encouraging everyone from marrying so that all will have less "heartache, loneliness, and a host of medical problems".

Careful about spouting inconvenient truths , bubble busting is frowned upon.

[thesometimesaint]

CFR

Those problems are universal to our species.

[Sleeper Cell]

Those problems are universal to our species.

This really doesn’t address Calmoriah’s CFR. The question was not whether “these problems” [despair, heartache, loneliness, and a host of medical problems]. are faced by all groups of people (or even whether every person faces these problems at some point in his/her life). The question was whether or not homosexuals have “a higher rate of incidents of these problems than do heterosexuals.” Frankly, I don’t know. If you do know, I would appreciate a reference, if possible.

[thesometimesaint]

http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx

No, lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations are not disorders. Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding. Therefore, these mainstream organizations long ago abandoned classifications of homosexuality as a mental disorder.

[Stone holm]

http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx

No, lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations are not disorders. Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding. Therefore, these mainstream organizations long ago abandoned classifications of homosexuality as a mental disorder.

Ah but they threaten the psyche of conformists so they need to be seen as mental disorders, it is so much more thoughtful than considering them sinners.

[Storm Rider]

http://www.apa.org/h...rientation.aspx

No, lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations are not disorders. Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding. Therefore, these mainstream organizations long ago abandoned classifications of homosexuality as a mental disorder.

Exactly how long ago was that? Long ago sounds like 200 years ago or at least 100 years ago. When you speak in such definitive terms and yet they have no basis in reality, it undermines your entire position. Just for clarity's sake, it was not until 1987 that all disorders related specifically to homosexual feelings/behaviors were removed from the publication of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders III. You are talking about something that did not change except in the last 26 years. This is not "long ago"; in fact it was in the very recent past. In addition, these are completely subjective positions taken by members of the APA. This is the type of exaggeration that puts everyone on edge; essentially you lie to aggrandize a weak position. It is far more honest to just admit that this has been, was, and remains a controversial topic. Just because the APA identifies it as "normal" (whatever that means) does not mean it is normal. The most you can say is the APA has determined that homosexual behavior is not currently identified as a mental disorder. I would add that nothing I have said demeans or belittles our brothers and sisters that have SSA. To the contrary, I believe they are exactly the way our Father in Heaven created them and I still view all sexual activity outside of marriage and between anything other than a man and a woman as a perversion of God has dictated to man. If individuals feel free to ignore God that is their choice and they will suffer the consequences of rejecting the will of God just like anyone else would.

[Kevin Christensen]

http://www.apa.org/h...rientation.aspx

No, lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations are not disorders. Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding. Therefore, these mainstream organizations long ago abandoned classifications of homosexuality as a mental disorder.

A few weeks ago I read up on on Wikipedia on the history of the decision to abandon disorder classifications. It was around 1974, voted on by five people during a period of high profile activism by people who knew who those five people were, and justified on the basis of a single study done in the early 1960s. The study involved the results of three tests being given to a set of psychologists to determine which of a selected group of well-adjusted people were homosexual. The psychologists doing the blind reading could not do so. One of the tests, I recall, was the Rorschach, which strikes me as a rather silly approach to a person's sexuality. Why not just ask directly? Why suppose a mystery to be decoded?

Here's the thing. At that time when the tests were performed, and the voting was made, sexual addiction was not recognized as a psychological disorder. So neither the testers nor the tests either looked for, or would recognize that particular disorder. Carnes had not studied, let alone published. Brain scans showing the changes that addictions cause in the brain, nor the healing that 12 step recovery provides, could not be considered because they did not exist.

And if the statistics that I've seen are correct, I wonder whether it is particularly perceptive and rational to see normal human bonding in a population in which a very high percentage of the population has from 500 to 1000 partners. Is that really human bonding? Are a honeymoon and an encounter with a hitchhiker who is never seen again both examples of the experience of normal human bonding?

Patrick Carnes has noted a sequence of biochemical associations with different phases of courtship, from noticing, flirting, through to physical and emotional intimacy, afterglow, and beyond. Much sex addiction, he suggests, correlates with a person being stuck at a particular phase, that is, addicted to the biochemical sensations at a particular phase, and unable to move on to a normal bonding because of an addiction to a phase. (Or, I should add, having their attempts at normal human bonding regularly compromised because of addiction to a phase.)

And there is the issue of defining normal in terms of "everyone is doing it" and therefore, it is normal. If all or most of a population smokes, or gets drunk or high, is that normal? It is more perceptive to look at a group in which everyone behaves one way, and another group in which everyone behaves a different way, and looking at the consequences of the differences. I recently saw an account of an attempt to study the effects of pornography on college males, which initially ran into the difficulty of finding a control group who did not use it. Later, they did find a useful control group of former users who decided that what they were doing was bad for them, and formed support groups to help each other stop. It was then, with a real control group to compare against, that the consequences of use became apparent. "Normal" could be defined in light of consequences rather than in terms of popular social convention.

My point, once again, is not that gay or lesbian behavior is necessarily sex addiction, but rather that an insistence that such behavior is normal does not mean that addiction does not factor crucially into behavior and life consequences. And without addiction to provide compulsion, behavior is optional despite orientation, not irresistible, not in need of an enabling society for support.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Visiting Lawrence, KS

[Stone holm]

A few weeks ago I read up on on Wikipedia on the history of the decision to abandon disorder classifications. It was around 1974, voted on by five people during a period of high profile activism by people who knew who those five people were, and justified on the basis of a single study done in the early 1960s. The study involved the results of three tests being given to a set of psychologists to determine which of a selected well-adjusted people were homosexual. The psychologists doing the blind reading could not do so. One of the tests, I recall, was the Rorschach, which strikes me as a rather silly approach to a person's sexuality. Why not just ask directly? Why suppose a mystery to be decoded?

Here's the thing. At that time when the tests were performed, and the voting was made, sexual addiction was not recognized as a psychological disorder. So neither the testers nor the tests either looked for, or would recognize that particular disorder. Carnes had not studied, let alone published. Brain scans showing the changes that addictions cause in the brain, nor the healing that 12 step recovery provides, could not be considered because they did not exist.

And if the statistics that I've seen are correct, I wonder whether particularly perceptive and rational to see normal human bonding in a population in which a very high percentage of the population has from 500 to 1000 partners. Is that really human bonding? Are a honeymoon and an encounter with a hitchhiker who is never seen again both examples of the experience of normal human bonding?

Patrick Carnes has noted a sequence of biochemical associations with different phases of courtship, from noticing, flirting, through to physical and emotional intimacy, afterglow, and beyond. Much sex addiction, he suggests, can correlated with a person being stuck at a particular phase, that is, addicted to the biochemical sensations at a particular phase, and unable to move on to a normal bonding because of an addiction to a phase.

And there is the issue of defining normal in terms of "everyone is doing it" and therefore, it is normal. If all or most of a population smokes, or gets drunk or high, is that normal? It is more perceptive to look at a group in which everyone behaves one way, and another group in which everyone behaves a different way, and looking at the consequences of the differences. I recently saw an account of an attempt to study the effects of pornography on college males, which initially ran into the difficulty of finding a control group who did not use it. Later, they did find a useful control group of former users who decided that what they were doing was bad for them, and formed support groups to help each other stop. It was then, with a real control group to compare against, that the consequences of use became apparent. "Normal" could be defined in light of consequences rather than in terms of popular social convention.

My point, once again, is not that gay or lesbian behavior is necessarily sex addiction, but rather that an insistence that such behavior is normal does not mean that addiction does not factor crucially into behavior and life consequences. And without addiction to provide compulsion, behavior is optional despite orientation, not irresistible, not in need of an enabling society for support.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Visiting Lawrence, KS

And there you have it folks, WikiPedia to the rescue!

[Calm]

Those problems are universal to our species.

Universal does not mean same rate for all subgroups. CFR still stands if you meant to say they have the same rate, I would very much like to see that research.

[Calm]

http://www.apa.org/h...rientation.aspx

Studies please. Didn't see that in the article that you linked to, may have missed it. I have not claimed that gender orientation is a disorder, just want to see the stats on the rates of depression etc. that you claimed were the same.

[Storm Rider]

I guess if you convince yourself that this is true, it must help you justify your attitudes towards gay marriage. In your mind if you prevent gays from being married, then they will wake up and realize how unhappy their lives are. This kind of rationalization is the same as those that think Mormons are zombies trapped in a cult that they can't break out of. "If we can just save them from this cult, then they will find true happiness." By presenting Mormons as being brainwashed, they justify their own attitudes. "Mormonism most often leads to despair, heartache, loneliness. They are caught in a religion that prevents them from drinking, having fun and are sexually repressed." As proof, they point to high use of anti depressant drug use and high rates of pornographic viewing in Utah. Yet, I am sure as you look around you see some of the happiest people you know are members of the church. So how does it make you feel when people so distort what your reality of Mormons is? It is the same when you make these kinds of statements against gays.

And even if this was true, can you explain how preventing gays from marrying will give them less "heartache, loneliness, and a host of medical problems"? Maybe we should be encouraging everyone from marrying so that all will have less "heartache, loneliness, and a host of medical problems".

This is a rather tiresome discussion and we have a few members who feel compelled to turn all threads into a discussion about being gay, their trials and tribulations, and gosh wouldn't the world be better if we just woke up to the "facts" that gay relationships are just peachy-keen and as healthy as every other relationship in humanity. I will repeat, I am against the Government being in the marriage business. Marriage is a religious sacrament, an ordinance; it has nothing to do with politics or government. I am not against civil unions for anyone. If a guy has a thing for dogs, go for it. If a man has a thing for his car, knock yourself out. If a woman has a thing for tall oak trees, great. Regardless, not one of those forms of unions has anything to do with marriage in a religious context as far as the Church of Jesus Christ is concerned. It does not matter what the government is forced to do to keep things "equal" and to satisfy every member of our society that has a penchant for creating a new form of civil union. A civil union is not a marriage and never will be. Governments have every right to control civil unions, but they have no right to control a religious sacrament or ordinance such as a union. The moment the government focused solely on individual rights and tossed the rights of the community out the door is when this entire argument was tossed out the window. Society and community has zero rights and everything has devolved to the individual. It is this incessant destruction of the community in the fight for every silly individual to "feel" good about themselves that destroys a society. It will be interesting how this little experiment ends up; it will be a very bumpy ride. Today's Russia is a good example of exactly how dangerous things can become when people feel pushed to accept something that others feel is so very wrong. This little soap box tires me.

[rockpond]

This is a rather tiresome discussion and we have a few members who feel compelled to turn all threads into a discussion about being gay, their trials and tribulations, and gosh wouldn't the world be better if we just woke up to the "facts" that gay relationships are just peachy-keen and as healthy as every other relationship in humanity. I will repeat, I am against the Government being in the marriage business. Marriage is a religious sacrament, an ordinance; it has nothing to do with politics or government. I am not against civil unions for anyone. If a guy has a thing for dogs, go for it. If a man has a thing for his car, knock yourself out. If a woman has a thing for tall oak trees, great. Regardless, not one of those forms of unions has anything to do with marriage in a religious context as far as the Church of Jesus Christ is concerned. It does not matter what the government is forced to do to keep things "equal" and to satisfy every member of our society that has a penchant for creating a new form of civil union. A civil union is not a marriage and never will be. Governments have every right to control civil unions, but they have no right to control a religious sacrament or ordinance such as a union. The moment the government focused solely on individual rights and tossed the rights of the community out the door is when this entire argument was tossed out the window. Society and community has zero rights and everything has devolved to the individual. It is this incessant destruction of the community in the fight for every silly individual to "feel" good about themselves that destroys a society. It will be interesting how this little experiment ends up; it will be a very bumpy ride. Today's Russia is a good example of exactly how dangerous things can become when people feel pushed to accept something that others feel is so very wrong. This little soap box tires me.

It this tires you, I'm not sure why you'd feel the need to write an offensive post that is just gonna rile people up.

[Stone holm]

This is a rather tiresome discussion and we have a few members who feel compelled to turn all threads into a discussion about being gay, their trials and tribulations, and gosh wouldn't the world be better if we just woke up to the "facts" that gay relationships are just peachy-keen and as healthy as every other relationship in humanity. I will repeat, I am against the Government being in the marriage business. Marriage is a religious sacrament, an ordinance; it has nothing to do with politics or government. I am not against civil unions for anyone. If a guy has a thing for dogs, go for it. If a man has a thing for his car, knock yourself out. If a woman has a thing for tall oak trees, great. Regardless, not one of those forms of unions has anything to do with marriage in a religious context as far as the Church of Jesus Christ is concerned. It does not matter what the government is forced to do to keep things "equal" and to satisfy every member of our society that has a penchant for creating a new form of civil union. A civil union is not a marriage and never will be. Governments have every right to control civil unions, but they have no right to control a religious sacrament or ordinance such as a union. The moment the government focused solely on individual rights and tossed the rights of the community out the door is when this entire argument was tossed out the window. Society and community has zero rights and everything has devolved to the individual. It is this incessant destruction of the community in the fight for every silly individual to "feel" good about themselves that destroys a society. It will be interesting how this little experiment ends up; it will be a very bumpy ride. Today's Russia is a good example of exactly how dangerous things can become when people feel pushed to accept something that others feel is so very wrong. This little soap box tires me.

Uhm, wasn't this thread about Orson Scott Card being "victimized" by gays? Does the door only swing one way?

[halconero]

Studies please. Didn't see that in the article that you linked to, may have missed it. I have not claimed that gender orientation is a disorder, just want to see the stats on the rates of depression etc. that you claimed were the same.

This is completely anecdotal, but I can say that from personal experience all of the gay friends that I currently or in the past have associated with that most of them struggle with mental health issues. This is not an attack on their character, nor a claim that said mental health issues are a result from their sexual orientation. What it is is an acknowledgement that the rate of mental illness within the homosexual community is fairly high.

My roommate, an active gay member, struggles with anxiety and depression. He actually had to step out in the middle of the movie Inception because he got to into it and started having trouble breathing.

My companion who I served as an assistant with, same thing. He deals with anxiety concerning relationships, but not about his attraction to men. That doesn't bother him at all, or cause him stress. But relationships, and the thought of them (heterosexual or homosexual) cause him a lot of mental anguish.

My graduate practical leader. We became quick friends and after a while he told me that he was gay. Currently he is in a relationship with another male. Same struggles with anxiety and depression.

Recently rebaptized friend. He used to live with a male partner for a number of years before desiring to rejoin the church. He told me later that he experienced massive depression before, during and after the relationship.

Lesbian member of my ward. Depression and cutting, both before and after her baptism.

In all of these incidents only one of them, my roommate, said that their mental anxiety was related to their attraction to their own sex. He further clarified that it wasn't even the major cause, but something ancillary that came up from time to time. In the other cases the mental health issues weren't caused by any worry, stress, bullying, oppression, suppression or guilt with regards to homosexual acts or orientation, they had just had those mental health issues for a long time.

I do not think that the belief that all homosexual behaviour or thought leads to mental health issues, but I also think that its silly and uncompassionate to ignore mental illness among those with said orientation.

[california boy]

This is completely anecdotal, but I can say that from personal experience all of the gay friends that I currently or in the past have associated with that most of them struggle with mental health issues. This is not an attack on their character, nor a claim that said mental health issues are a result from their sexual orientation. What it is is an acknowledgement that the rate of mental illness within the homosexual community is fairly high.

My roommate, an active gay member, struggles with anxiety and depression. He actually had to step out in the middle of the movie Inception because he got to into it and started having trouble breathing.

My companion who I served as an assistant with, same thing. He deals with anxiety concerning relationships, but not about his attraction to men. That doesn't bother him at all, or cause him stress. But relationships, and the thought of them (heterosexual or homosexual) cause him a lot of mental anguish.

My graduate practical leader. We became quick friends and after a while he told me that he was gay. Currently he is in a relationship with another male. Same struggles with anxiety and depression.

Recently rebaptized friend. He used to live with a male partner for a number of years before desiring to rejoin the church. He told me later that he experienced massive depression before, during and after the relationship.

Lesbian member of my ward. Depression and cutting, both before and after her baptism.

In all of these incidents only one of them, my roommate, said that their mental anxiety was related to their attraction to their own sex. He further clarified that it wasn't even the major cause, but something ancillary that came up from time to time. In the other cases the mental health issues weren't caused by any worry, stress, bullying, oppression, suppression or guilt with regards to homosexual acts or orientation, they had just had those mental health issues for a long time.

I do think that the belief that all homosexual behaviour or thought leads to mental health issues, but I also think that its silly and uncompassionate to ignore mental illness among those with said orientation.

From the anecdotal information you provided, I would say that a gay person trying to live a life within the church boundaries may be causing some stressful issues with your gay riends. Pretty understandable given church policy. Some gay people may have a difficult time following this life choice. I guess there is something to "It is not good for man to be alone." I have way more gay friends outside the church then the handful in your life, and none seem to be having mental health issues. Still, it is a choice each person has to make for themselves. Those that do find strength and fulfillment staying in the church, I wish them well. There is much good to be found in that choice as well.

[Calm]

I do think that the belief that all homosexual behaviour or thought leads to mental health issues, but I also think that its silly and uncompassionate to ignore mental illness among those with said orientation.

I assume you mean you "do not" think since that makes better sense, I would agree. For one thing, correlation is not causation. If homosexuality has a biological base, it is possible that whatever caused homosexuality might lead someone to be prone to certain disorders (if the data supports this), iow both may be caused by the same thing in the individuals it appears in but homosexuality itself may have no affect on such disorders themselves.

For example, while 10% of the population is left handed, 20% of schizophrenics are dominant lefthanders. It is highly unlikely that being lefthanded has caused their disorder.

[halconero]

From the anecdotal information you provided, I would say that a gay person trying to live a life within the church boundaries may be causing some stressful issues with your gay riends. Pretty understandable given church policy. Some gay people may have a difficult time following this life choice. I guess there is something to "It is not good for man to be alone." I have way more gay friends outside the church then the handful in your life, and none seem to be having mental health issues. Still, it is a choice each person has to make for themselves. Those that do find strength and fulfillment staying in the church, I wish them well. There is much good to be found in that choice as well.

Except only one of those (my companion) was a life long member. The others experienced their mental health issues outside of the church, either as non-members or non-members.

My lesbian friend was recently baptized. My graduate friend is not a member. All of the people I mentioned experienced a ton of love and support from friends and family. Only the one, my roommate, experienced an anxiety related to their orientation.

While discrimination, suppression of feelings, etc is a factor, I don't think we can rule out a biological cause either.

[halconero]

I assume you mean you "do not" think since that makes better sense, I would agree. For one thing, correlation is not causation. If homosexuality has a biological base, it is possible that whatever caused homosexuality might lead someone to be prone to certain disorders (if the data supports this), iow both may be caused by the same thing in the individuals it appears in but homosexuality itself may have no affect on such disorders themselves.

For example, while 10% of the population is left handed, 20% of schizophrenics are dominant lefthanders. It is highly unlikely that being lefthanded has caused their disorder.

Sorry, you're correct. I was typing this out on a phone, and I think I missed the "no."

I think there is association, but not causation.