Gay Marriage Dilemma

[Danzo]

No. I have no idea what makes it innate.

But the sincere testimony of those with the actual experience of being homosexual, convinces me that it is innate.

These people who testified, know what makes something innate or not?

What did these people testify to (regarding innateness)

[rockpond]

Maybe.. But that personal problem is not really a factor for law.

I'm not following you... Are we moving away from the doctrinal discussion and back to the legal view of gay marriage?

Because, for me, immutability and lack of choice make a huge difference in whether or not gay marriage should be legally recognized.

[rockpond]

These people who testified, know what makes something innate or not?

What did these people testify to (regarding innateness)

That their orientation was not a choice. That it was a part of their soul before they even knew what the word homosexual was. That it was with them as long as their consciousness can recall.

[Danzo]

So lack of choice makes something innate

[CASteinman]

I'm not following you... Are we moving away from the doctrinal discussion and back to the legal view of gay marriage?

They are connected for some people you point out below

Because, for me, immutability and lack of choice make a huge difference in whether or not gay marriage should be legally recognized.

Makes no difference to me. We have other people with immutable innate problems that we treat harshly. Others that we do not favor in any way.

I see no good reason to treat people with same sex attractions in some special way that devalues Traditional Marriage -- a 5000 year old institution (at least) that, when done right, has had good results.

[CASteinman]

So lack of choice makes something innate

Perhaps a belief that you have no choice is sufficient to make it innate.

[EllenMaksoud]

You missed a couple. See also 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (modern versions like the NIV, NASB, NET, NAB, etc., are more accurate translations of the Greek here) and 1 Timothy 1:8-11, as well as the standard Leviticus 18:22. The stance of Jesus for marriage as God intended it from the beginning is male and female. The Greek very clearly states male and female in the text.

Please, no yelling at me? I just wonder how 1 cor 6:9-10 will stand up 100 years from now, in light of the advancement of science. Or maybe there will be a cure by then? I never hear it mentioned any more, but in 1987, The Gay Manifesto was published. I am not going to quote it hear, but the goals stated there are really sinister. And, where are GBLT folk now? They are psychologists, Lawyers, Politicians, Publishers and do any other job that will garner them influence in human culture. In America, the rise of humanism has been almost the strongest, right behind the UK and certain Scandinavian countries. In still other countries, they simply hang them or cut off their heads. In Iran, it was a choice for a while that a gay man could choose to have a sex change operation to avoid hanging. (GRRRR, could someone show me how to separate paragraphs? I know for sure that cutting the screen and moving the parts apart does not work)

Edited March 30, 2013 by EllenMaksoud

[CASteinman]

Was it innate before the belief or after the belief?

If the belief changes does the innateness change?

I don't know the answer to your first question, but I am pretty sure that if you believe something long enough it can change wiring in your head and your personal biochemistry. And I suppose if you change what is inside you... that becomes innate. At least I hope so.

Because I have read.. "as a man thinketh in his heart, so is he". And I keep hoping that will be true for me.

[Danzo]

That their orientation was not a choice. That it was a part of their soul before they even knew what the word homosexual was. That it was with them as long as their consciousness can recall.

Something was part of their soul that they later used the word homosexual.

I know that everyone has different experiences, but I was not attracted to any sex until probably around 11 or 12 years old.

[rockpond]

So lack of choice makes something innate

No. That wasn't what I said.

Edited March 30, 2013 by rockpond

[rockpond]

Something was part of their soul that they later used the word homosexual.

I know that everyone has different experiences, but I was not attracted to any sex until probably around 11 or 12 years old.

And how did that attraction come?

[Stone holm]

So, if the Father "created" all things... How did he "create" the spirits of animals?

Wow, I gave you a bump on that one because it is really a very, very interesting question. Do you have a proposed answer , that would make for a very good topic all on its own.

[EllenMaksoud]

Please, no yelling at me? I just wonder how 1 cor 6:9-10 will stand up 100 years from now, in light of the advancement of science. Or maybe there will be a cure by then? I never hear it mentioned any more, but in 1987, The Gay Manifesto was published. I am not going to quote it hear, but the goals stated there are really sinister. And, where are GBLT folk now? They are psychologists, Lawyers, Politicians, Publishers and do any other job that will garner them influence in human culture. In America, the rise of humanism has been almost the strongest, right behind the UK and certain Scandinavian countries. In still other countries, they simply hang them or cut off their heads. In Iran, it was a choice for a while that a gay man could choose to have a sex change operation to avoid hanging. (GRRRR, could someone show me how to separate paragraphs? I know for sure that cutting the screen and moving the parts apart does not work)

For a long time, some people thought that I was part of that group, but finally Doctors found that my genes are khakis. I hate to see humanism creep into the church, neither do I want to see gay folk laying dead across fences, or dragged behind pickupsl Surely The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints can do a better job than others have done. Assigned reading for the test Tuesday. The Gay Manifesto. It is best you know what we face.

[rockpond]

They are connected for some people you point out below

Makes no difference to me. We have other people with immutable innate problems that we treat harshly. Others that we do not favor in any way.

I see no good reason to treat people with same sex attractions in some special way that devalues Traditional Marriage -- a 5000 year old institution (at least) that, when done right, has had good results.

Perhaps we shouldn't treat them harshly.

I see no reason to treat them in a special way either. Just an equal way.

I'm not aware of a "traditional marriage" definition that has remained unchanged for 5000 years.

[Danzo]

No. That wasn't what I said.

What makes it innate?

Not a trick question, I am just trying to understand it.

I am probably wrong but I can't seem to get a clear understanding for what is meant by Homosexuality (I guess I don't have it otherwise I would know what it is)

Here is what people are saying.

Apparently it is something unchangeable,

Cannot be controlled

Is not defined by behavior

Is only present when one says it it is

Is present since birth, before sexual attraction normally occurs

must be self identified.

Apparently it only exists in ones mind (I'm not say its not real)

Although it is internal, it is the same for everyone that has it.

[CASteinman]

Perhaps we shouldn't treat them harshly.

In some cases, I see no other option.

I see no reason to treat them in a special way either. Just an equal way.

This has already been accomplished. However, it is not sufficient. In addition to being treated equally, they also want a change in the laws that are at the core of successful social structures.

I'm not aware of a "traditional marriage" definition that has remained unchanged for 5000 years.

When Traditional Marriage is defined in terms of the single dominant aspect that has remained almost universally unchanged over time and across cultures -- yes, it has remained unchanged. By definition.

[CASteinman]

Wow, I gave you a bump on that one because it is really a very, very interesting question. Do you have a proposed answer , that would make for a very good topic all on its own.

You are aware that Mormon teachings do not say that God created Spirits?

[Daniel2]

You are aware that Mormon teachings do not say that God created Spirits?

Technically, I don't believe your statement above is correct--Mormon teachings DO say that God "created spirits"--the Biblical creation account in Genesis and the creation account attributed to Moses in The Pearl of Great Price both speak of two creations: first, God "created" all things "spiritually," and then afterwards, He created then "physically."

The reason for my question, of course, is likely obvious: if God, an exalted man, can create spirits (in this case, of animals) through a process that presumably isn’t procreative (I would presume that none would assert that God the Father, together with a Heavenly Mother, literally 'begat' the spirits of the animals that he/they 'created'), then there is a precedent for non-procreative creation of spirits, somehow—and I believe the assertions by some that same-sex couples could not “create” spirit children is based on a doctrinal approach that is not as definitive as such individuals assert.

However, perhaps Stone Holm's suggestion to move this aspect to it's own thread would be wise.

Edited March 30, 2013 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

Wow, I gave you a bump on that one because it is really a very, very interesting question. Do you have a proposed answer , that would make for a very good topic all on its own.

Thanks for the compliment.

I don’t have a proposed answer—other than to suggest that, from my perspective, “we don’t know” is likely the best answer, not only to that question, but also to the question of whether or not same-sex couples could achieve exaltation together and ultimately ‘create’ spirit children of their own in the next life.

Daniel2

[rockpond]

What makes it innate?

Not a trick question, I am just trying to understand it.

I am probably wrong but I can't seem to get a clear understanding for what is meant by Homosexuality (I guess I don't have it otherwise I would know what it is)

Here is what people are saying.

Apparently it is something unchangeable,

Cannot be controlled

Is not defined by behavior

Is only present when one says it it is

Is present since birth, before sexual attraction normally occurs

must be self identified.

Apparently it only exists in ones mind (I'm not say its not real)

Although it is internal, it is the same for everyone that has it.

I wouldn't conclude that it is the same for everyone.

To answer you, I'm going to assume that you are heterosexual. I apologize if I am mistaken.

As a heterosexual, do you have any control over your attractions? Note that I'm not saying "impure thoughts" nor am I suggesting that you can't control your responses to those attractions. I'm just asking if you have the ability to NOT be attracted to the opposite sex.

Were you aware of your attraction to the opposite sex prior to any sexual behavior?

When you first felt a desire to kiss someone, were they the same gender as you? Or the opposite gender?

If you are heterosexual, I think the best way to understand homosexuality is to imagine everything you feel with respect to the opposite sex and imagine feeling that for your same gender.

Not necessarily an easy task.

Edited March 30, 2013 by rockpond

[rockpond]

In some cases, I see no other option.

This has already been accomplished. However, it is not sufficient. In addition to being treated equally, they also want a change in the laws that are at the core of successful social structures.

When Traditional Marriage is defined in terms of the single dominant aspect that has remained almost universally unchanged over time and across cultures -- yes, it has remained unchanged. By definition.

It was actually the anti gay marriage activists who sought to change the law in CA with prop 22 and then prop 8.

Being able marry the person of your choosing would be equality.

The definition that the Church currently defends isn't even the same definition we subscribed to slightly over 100 years ago.

Number of participants. Consent. Race of participants. Ownership. Rights. These are significant changes.

[Daniel2]

What makes it innate?

Not a trick question, I am just trying to understand it.

I am probably wrong but I can't seem to get a clear understanding for what is meant by Homosexuality (I guess I don't have it otherwise I would know what it is)

Here is what people are saying.

Apparently it is something unchangeable,

Cannot be controlled

Is not defined by behavior

Is only present when one says it it is

Is present since birth, before sexual attraction normally occurs

must be self identified.

Apparently it only exists in ones mind (I'm not say its not real)

Although it is internal, it is the same for everyone that has it.

I highly recommend the book, "Born Gay: The Psychobiology of Sex Orientation." It thoroughly examines the issues you raise, above, based on years of research by numerous scientists from many countries. One thing that really helped me understand the issue is that sexual orientation (or innate attraction) does not always match sexual behaviors (whether those behaviors are celebate, or even behaviors directed at individuals towards whom one is not sexually-attracted); and sexual orientation often does not match one's professed sexual attractions, and that there are physiological (physical) ways of measuring sexual orientation that belie (or expose) individuals who proclaim their sexual attractions are one way, but in reality are not (specifically, by measuring the physical manifestations of sexual arousal when exposed to certain types of sexual activities). Edited March 30, 2013 by Daniel2

[CASteinman]

Technically, I don't believe your statement above is correct--Mormon teachings DO say that God "created spirits"--the Biblical creation account in Genesis and the creation account attributed to Moses in The Pearl of Great Price both speak of two creations: first, God "created" all things "spiritually," and then afterwards, He created then "physically."

The concept of "creation" is altered a bit in Abraham to "organizing" already existent material. Which is related to the notion that Spirits -- or perhaps "Intelligences" always existed -- they are eternal and not created.

D&C 93:29

Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

History of the Church, 6:302-317

The mind or the intelligence which man possesses is co-equal [co-eternal] with God himself…. I am dwelling on the immortality of the spirit of man…. The intelligence of spirits had not beginning, neither will it have an end…. There never was a time when there were not spirits; for they are co-equal [co-eternal] with our Father in heaven.

Words of Joseph Smith, p. 9; quoted in Maxwell, But for a Small Moment, p.92

The spirit of man is not a created being; it existed from eternity and will exist to eternity. Anything created cannot be eternal; and earth, water, etc.—all these had their existence in an elementary state from eternity.... The Father called all spirits before him at the creation of man and organized them.

2008-9 lesson manual Teaching of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, Chapter 17 - The Great Plan of Salvation:

In April 1844, the Prophet taught: “I have another subject to dwell upon, which is calculated to exalt man. … It is associated with the subject of the resurrection of the dead,—namely, the soul—the mind of man—the immortal spirit. Where did it come from? All learned men and doctors of divinity say that God created it in the beginning; but it is not so: the very idea lessens man in my estimation. I do not believe the doctrine; I know better. Hear it, all ye ends of the world; for God has told me so; and if you don’t believe me, it will not make the truth without effect. …"

“I am dwelling on the immortality of the spirit of man. Is it logical to say that the intelligence of spirits is immortal, and yet that it has a beginning? The intelligence of spirits had no beginning, neither will it have an end. That is good logic. That which has a beginning may have an end. There never was a time when there were not spirits."

Now of course all of these quotes pertain mainly to mankind, because Joseph had them at the top of his mind , but the belief is not logically limited to mankind, particularly if you take D&C 93 literally at its word in conjunction with other things said by the Prophet.

Edited March 30, 2013 by CASteinman

[Daniel2]

The concept of "creation" is altered a bit in Abraham to "organizing" already existent material. Which is related to the notion that Spirits -- or perhaps "Intelligences" always existed -- they are eternal and not created.

D&C 93:29

History of the Church, 6:302-317

Words of Joseph Smith, p. 9; quoted in Maxwell, But for a Small Moment, p.92

2008-9 lesson manual Teaching of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, Chapter 17 - The Great Plan of Salvation:

Now of course all of these quotes pertain mainly to mankind, because Joseph had them at the top of his mind , but the belief is not logically limited to mankind, particularly if you take D&C 93 literally at its word in conjunction with other things said by the Prophet.

Re: D&C 93: "Intelligence" is not synonymous with a "spirit" in LDS scripture or doctrine.

Unlike the scriptural accounts I mentioned in Genesis and Moses, your subsequent quotations are, at best, non-canonical and not authoritative, and at worst, vague. I learned on my mission (when I read Parley P. Pratt's "Key to the Science of Theology", not to mention Joseph Fielding Smith's "Doctrines of Salvation" and Bruce R. McConkie's "Mormon Doctrine") that early and contemporary leaders of the church issued many statements that are viewed as opinion, rather than doctrine, on this matter.

Daniel2

Edited March 30, 2013 by Daniel2

[CASteinman]

It was actually the anti gay marriage activists who sought to change the law in CA with prop 22 and then prop 8.

When I said "Change the Law" I was not kidding around the way you are. If you know the history you know that Prop 22 was not a "change" of law, it was simply an assertion of what had already been understood.

Your slight of hand in the conversation is not appreciated.

Being able marry the person of your choosing would be equality.

I guess. And that would pertain to choosing to marry a girl 11 years old or to marry my sister -- or to marry both of my daughters. That would be equality to you.

The definition that the Church currently defends isn't even the same definition we subscribed to slightly over 100 years ago.

No.. It is the definition we had slightly over 100 years ago. It is even the definition we had in 1854, much longer ago than 100 years. This is obvious by an inspection of the marriage registers were men and women were routinely married -- often without being members of the Church and usually without any plural marriage. It was STILL marriage, despite that.

You are being silly now. And I do not appreciate it.

Number of participants. Consent. Race of participants. Ownership. Rights. These are significant changes.

Irrelevant to the definition of Traditional Marriage as I specified.

Edited March 30, 2013 by CASteinman