rpn Posted May 2, 2013 Posted May 2, 2013 (edited) There have been teens of both genders who have ssa involved in lds youth activities for many years, and IME not a single incident of ssattracted teen assaulting the person they were with. We send ssattracted youth on missions, and they are glued to someone of their same gender for that time frame, without incident. I posit that this sudden fear is just that.Group M or p'ing contests are the stuff of stupid boys (and occasionally stupid girls), who haven't learned either morality, or how to stand for the right even when it might get you ostracized in your preferred group, NOT because of ssattractedness. I AM aware of plenty of abuse and bullying, not uncommonly of a sexual nature or referring to it, from teens who are not ssattracted at all. In my view we need to help our young people understand that misbehavior and sexual activity outside of marriage is not okay (not that you just can't help yourself if you are attracted you are going to have sex); And it won't matter what their sexual orientation is, when we adequately teach and expect adherence to LDS standards second, after love of God and desire to serve Him.. Edited May 3, 2013 by rpn 1
USU78 Posted May 2, 2013 Posted May 2, 2013 It saddens me when lds folk say that gay youth should not be a part of boy scouts because the scout oat mentions being morally straight. That term is then taken out of context in the light that according to current lds doctrine simply being gay is not a moral weakness. That is why the church allows gays to go on missions, have church callings, temple reccomends, etc. I know of lots of mormons that fit that criteria. As long as they obey the same laws of chastity that are commanded of straight couples, then their good to go in the eyes of god according to current revealed lds doctrine.And yet, at the end of the day, "if you say you are, you did."That remains true.
USU78 Posted May 2, 2013 Posted May 2, 2013 Yep -- I think that the Scout Oath (with it's "morally straight" promise) has been around a lot longer than "straight" has been a euphemism for heterosexual.As for gay and straight scouts sharing tents... statistically it's been happening in nearly every troop since the BSA began, whether we knew about it or not. And it'll continue that way except that now it's possible for more scouts to be open about it.Morally straight was and is, indeed, more than sexual orthodoxy.But don't kid yourself that, when the oath, etc, were adopted, they didn't know about the behaviors and considered them decidedly NOT part of moral straightness. 1
USU78 Posted May 2, 2013 Posted May 2, 2013 There have been teens of both genders who have ssa involved in lds youth activities for many years, and IME not a single incident of ssattracted teen assaulting the person they were with. We send ssattracted youth on missions, and they are glued to someone of their same gender for that time frame, without incident. I posit that this sudden fear is just that.The kids in roper's story were not doing that for ssattractedness, but because group M or p'ing contests are the stuff of stupid boys (and occasionally stupid girls), who haven't learned either morality, or how to stand for the right even when it might get you ostracized in your preferred group. I AM aware of plenty of abuse and bullying, not uncommonly of a sexual nature or referring to it, from teens who are not ssattracted at all. In my view we need to help our young people understand that misbehavior and sexual activity outside of marriage is not okay (not that you just can't help yourself if you are attracted you are going to have sex); And it won't matter what their sexual orientation is, when we adequately teach and expect adherence to LDS standards second, after love of God and desire to serve Him..It must be very nice in a world like that.
Stone holm Posted May 2, 2013 Posted May 2, 2013 It must be very nice in a world like that.Yeah about as close as I got to that was between the age 1 and 15 after that the hormones kicked in.
rockpond Posted May 2, 2013 Posted May 2, 2013 Morally straight was and is, indeed, more than sexual orthodoxy.But don't kid yourself that, when the oath, etc, were adopted, they didn't know about the behaviors and considered them decidedly NOT part of moral straightness.Yes, I've always assumed that it meant modesty and chastity before marriage, regardless of one's sexual orientation. I wasn't trying to suggest otherwise.
USU78 Posted May 2, 2013 Posted May 2, 2013 Meaning?It's an old armed forces truism, before "don't ask -- don't tell." If somebody said he was homosexual, he was presumed to have engaged in homosexual acts. Like "cui bono" analyses, it was a useful tool in determining what happened in court martial proceedings to separate admitted homosexuals from military service.In practice, most officers, when they were told about suspected behavior, would just tell the individual to keep it off base and off the streets, and nobody need know and nobody need face court martial.
rockpond Posted May 3, 2013 Posted May 3, 2013 It's an old armed forces truism, before "don't ask -- don't tell." If somebody said he was homosexual, he was presumed to have engaged in homosexual acts.Fortunately that "truism" is both antiquated and false.
Stone holm Posted May 3, 2013 Posted May 3, 2013 Fortunately that "truism" is both antiquated and false.Well, I can see why it came about though, the cultural antipathy towards gays was such that it would make little sense back in the day for a man to "come out" unless he had actually done something -- I mean what would have been the point. Now, I can see it as people trying to work around a societal induced internal sense of gult for the urges regardless of whether actually consumated, or as a hip fashion statement, but back a few decades that would not have been the case.
USU78 Posted May 3, 2013 Posted May 3, 2013 Fortunately that "truism" is both antiquated and false.And we are supposed to trust this assertion . . . exactly why?
USU78 Posted May 3, 2013 Posted May 3, 2013 Well, I can see why it came about though, the cultural antipathy towards gays was such that it would make little sense back in the day for a man to "come out" unless he had actually done something -- I mean what would have been the point. Now, I can see it as people trying to work around a societal induced internal sense of gult for the urges regardless of whether actually consumated, or as a hip fashion statement, but back a few decades that would not have been the case.This assertion presupposes that "nature" is at play and is both inevitable and inexorable.I've seen nothing that makes me think that's the case.Accordingly, since all we know is what we can observe, if you say you are, you did.
rockpond Posted May 3, 2013 Posted May 3, 2013 And we are supposed to trust this assertion . . . exactly why?Nope. Go ahead and believe what you want.But, I'm gonna believe all those thousands of sincere folks out there who have said: yeah, I knew that I was gay long before they even knew what "gay" meant. I have no reason to doubt those sons & daughters who, in anguish of soul, "came out" to a trusted loved one about their innate & undesired attractions long before ever acting upon them.But, I think each person needs to follow their heart, mind, the promptings of the Holy Spirit to find the truth of this issue.
Recommended Posts