What Comes Next Now Ssm Is Legal In Utah....

[rockpond]

What if its both (nature and nurture), as I believe?

 

See: Mosiah 3:19.

 

 

We don't have it in the exact form requirements that you have stipulated be there in order for it to be valid, but you don't get to make the rules.

 

That doesn't mean God's will on the matter hasn't been revealed. 

 

I'm not making rules.  And I haven't stipulated "exact form requirements".  I'm saying that I sincerely hope for a revelation regarding God's will for His homosexual children.  We don't have it.  Yet.

[rockpond]

The argument of nature (my parents made me do it), or nurture (my parents(society, friends,etc)  made me do it), while interesting scientifically is irrelevant.

 

To live the gospel, we must overcome both our nature and our nurture if we are to get where we are going.

 

Otherwise we are just saying that some people do not have agency and are doomed to live the life they were programmed (by nature or nurture)

 

Well, with respect to sexual orientation, current church policy dictates that heterosexual members do not need to "overcome" their sexual orientation.  We just need to limit it within the bounds of marriage.

[rockpond]

There is a problem with touting the priesthood ban as a parallel to LDS teachings on marriage--many have discussed the specifics already so I won't.

 

Conflating a past ban with a current teaching that is not a ban, and conflating disavowed “theories advanced in the past” with actual scripture does not help anyone learn about how the Lord leads or will lead His Church through revelation. Using the common canon to study how scriptural doctrine evolved in the past between the various dispensations and up until now, and continues to evolve, will help avoid conflating personal socio-political observations with what is actually citable as doctrine, and avoid the problem of advancing theories, whether for or against Church teachings.

 

So is that a "yes, we should learn from past and apply it to the future" or a no?  I honestly can't tell.

 

But FYI... those disavowed "theories advanced in the past" were the official teachings of our prophets and apostles for over a century.  Teachings that, by the way, were supported, repeatedly, with "actual scripture".

[Danzo]

Well, with respect to sexual orientation, current church policy dictates that heterosexual members do not need to "overcome" their sexual orientation.  We just need to limit it within the bounds of marriage.

 

If I am "naturally" a violent person this means that I need to "overcome" this orientation.   If I am not "naturally" a violent person current church policy teaches that I do not need to "overcome" this orientation.

If I am "naturally" an alcoholic (and I have seen science that suggest it is genetic) the church teaches that I need to overcome my desire to drink. If I am not  "naturally" an alcoholic, the current church policy dictates that I do not need to "overcome" my alcoholic orientation.

 

Sexual "orientation" (something recently invented) is not a factor.

 

Sexual activity is to be limited to the bound of marriage as the lord has defined it.

 

"Orientation", "Attraction", "lust" (homosexual or heterosexual) Cannot be used as an excuse for adultery or  fornication.

 

the excuse "I am not attracted to my wife" has been used as an excuse for adultery (whether homosexual or heterosexual) since the dawn of time, but it doesn't make adultery ok just because "the other person was more attractive to me"

 

"I found the another guy that was more attractive to me than my wife" is a hollow excuse to break covenants, leave children without a father and a mother and her children without any support.  "I was made to sin and I can't help myself" is just a pathetic excuse for sin.  We all have to overcome our "natural" "Orientation" and submit our will to gods will. 

 

"We were just so much in love" has been an excuse for fornication, but it doesn't make it more OK just because you are attracted to the person.

[rockpond]

If I am "naturally" a violent person this means that I need to "overcome" this orientation.   If I am not "naturally" a violent person current church policy teaches that I do not need to "overcome" this orientation.

If I am "naturally" an alcoholic (and I have seen science that suggest it is genetic) the church teaches that I need to overcome my desire to drink. If I am not  "naturally" an alcoholic, the current church policy dictates that I do not need to "overcome" my alcoholic orientation.

 

Sexual "orientation" (something recently invented) is not a factor.

 

Sexual activity is to be limited to the bound of marriage as the lord has defined it.

 

"Orientation", "Attraction", "lust" (homosexual or heterosexual) Cannot be used as an excuse for adultery or  fornication.

 

the excuse "I am not attracted to my wife" has been used as an excuse for adultery (whether homosexual or heterosexual) since the dawn of time, but it doesn't make adultery ok just because "the other person was more attractive to me"

 

"I found the another guy that was more attractive to me than my wife" is a hollow excuse to break covenants, leave children without a father and a mother and her children without any support.  "I was made to sin and I can't help myself" is just a pathetic excuse for sin.  We all have to overcome our "natural" "Orientation" and submit our will to gods will. 

 

"We were just so much in love" has been an excuse for fornication, but it doesn't make it more OK just because you are attracted to the person.

 

I certainly was not implying that sexual orientation be used as an excuse for fornication or adultery.

 

But if you think that sexual orientation is something that was "recently invented" (as opposed to recently named) then we are not even on the same page.

[Danzo]

So is that a "yes, we should learn from past and apply it to the future" or a no?  I honestly can't tell.

 

But FYI... those disavowed "theories advanced in the past" were the official teachings of our prophets and apostles for over a century.  Teachings that, by the way, were supported, repeatedly, with "actual scripture".

 

Your theory seems to be,

"everything is OK unless it is in the standard works." (well not any of the standard works, Old testament really doesn't count as a standard work, neither does the New Testament). 

"The lord has to reveal it to us specifically if it is wrong" (Well the prophets and apostles don't count, could just be their opinion, church policy doesn't count because it changes, proclamations don't count because they don't agree with me)

[rockpond]

Your theory seems to be,

"everything is OK unless it is in the standard works." (well not any of the standard works, Old testament really doesn't count as a standard work, neither does the New Testament).

"The lord has to reveal it to us specifically if it is wrong" (Well the prophets and apostles don't count, could just be their opinion, church policy doesn't count because it changes, proclamations don't count because they don't agree with me)

You must be confusing me with someone of something else. That is not my theory.

I have never said that everything is okay unless it's in the standard works.

I have never said that the OT and NT are not the standard works.

I have never said that the Lord has to specifically reveal to us that something is wrong.

Prophets and apostles teach us many great and wonderful things (that I spend much time studying). So of those things are "well informed opinions" and some are revelations from God.

Church policy is not necessarily revelation. I assume we agree on that.

And proclamations are not necessarily revelations. They are proclamations. We've had many of them throughout the history of the church. The 1996 proclamation on the family though beautiful and powerful is not revelation. It does not claim to be revelation. It was never presented to the church as revelation. But that doesn't mean it isn't true. I believe it's all true.

[Tacenda]

Guerreiro - I strongly believe that sexual orientation is inborn, as I have seen it in my own family and have spoken with many LGBT persons who have indicated as such for them. I have seen no evidence that it is brought on by cultural or environmental factors.  You mentioned (in a previous post)  that you could see yourself being sexually attracted to men if you had been raised in such a culture.  I can tell you - I cannot see myself EVER being attracted to men, no matter the environment or culture.  There was never a time where I "chose" my orientation.  I was born heterosexual. If sexual orientation can be molded by environment, then why was my brother-in-law not able to change his, even after fasting, prayer and therapy, yes - even 'shock therapy', at BYU no less? 

You are right.  Wish more on here would get a clue!

[guerreiro9]

I don't find nature vs nurture particularly important.  So I don't think that I'm really arguing the "side of nature".

 

I should have never used the labels "nature" and "nurture" they carry meaning with them that does not describe exactly what I mean.  The point I was making (and you agreed) is that our views on same sex marriage are largely dependent on whether we view sexuality as being inborn or not. (or maybe it's the other way around)?

 

You are arguing that sexuality is inborn correct?

 

-guerreiro9

[california boy]

This is fun.

It is much less fun if you are gay and have to deal with peoples prejudice against you.  It is much less fun when people claim there is scriptural support to not allowing gay marriage when there is none.  It is much less fun when people claim there is a revelation on gay marriage when there is none.  It is much less fun when church policies and not doctrine tell you that sex even within the bonds of marriage are against the law of chastity.  And they base that on what?  Mostly attitudes against gays.  Certainly not from scripture or from revelation.  

 

It is clear from scripture that homosexual relations outside of marriage is forbidden by God just as heterosexual sex outside the bonds of marriage is forbidden from God.  We know that heterosexual relations within the bonds of marriage is approved and even encouraged by God.  What we don't know is if homosexual relations within the bonds of marriage is approved of God. You or anyone else on this board have not been able to answer this question.  And there is a reason for that.  There is none.  We are waiting for further light and knowledge.  But let's not pretend that we have had a revelation on this.  Let's not pretend that the scriptures have spoken concerning relations within the bonds of marriage for all of God's children.

 

I can't be more clear than that.  

[BlueDreams]

There is no spiritual precedence within any Judeo-Christian scripture for a number of things that we received as part of the Restoration.

 

Yes, I'll agree mostly. But that was only the tip of the iceberg, as I stated. It's not just the Bible or other traditional judeo-christian texts. It's the bible and the BoM and the D+C and the PoGP and the temple and every living prophet. And much of the later revelation were more, not less, specific as to what marriage is defined as. 

 

It's the fact that what has been restored and revealed in the fullness of time, doesn't go against what was in the past, it echoes many of these things (ex. I find plenty about the temple found in each book of scripture). It illuminates. Such a hypothetical revelation runs counter to all that has been previously given about marriage in the fullness of time. My point was with or without the Bible it is an extremely hard case to build to say that there is doctrinal room for gay marriage to be established as a similar covenant. There is no language, rhetoric, or exceptional cases that would fit this description to be found. I can't think of anything from the restoration that didn't have at least some precedence/connection to things in the past. In fact, I would say that's the point.    

 

 

With luv,

BD

[guerreiro9]

Guerreiro - I strongly believe that sexual orientation is inborn, as I have seen it in my own family and have spoken with many LGBT persons who have indicated as such for them. I have seen no evidence that it is brought on by cultural or environmental factors.  You mentioned (in a previous post)  that you could see yourself being sexually attracted to men if you had been raised in such a culture.  I can tell you - I cannot see myself EVER being attracted to men, no matter the environment or culture.  There was never a time where I "chose" my orientation.  I was born heterosexual. If sexual orientation can be molded by environment, then why was my brother-in-law not able to change his, even after fasting, prayer and therapy, yes - even 'shock therapy', at BYU no less? 

 

Hello Rock_N_Roll,

 

I, as all others, can only give my opinions based upon what I have experienced, and in my experience culture clearly has an effect on sexuality (hetero or homo).  Are you really arguing that your sexuality is not influenced by the culture in which you are raised or are you only arguing that "orientation" is not affected?  If all other aspects are affected why not whether you find men, women, or both sexually attractive?

 

The fact of the matter is if you had been born in certain cultures you would have engaged in and promoted homosexual acts whether you can see yourself engaging in them now or not.  That should not be surprising.  If you had been born in certain cultures you would have also engaged in and promoted cannibalism and infant sacrifice.  Please, Please do not assume that I am comparing homosexual acts with cannibalism and infant sacrifice I AM NOT.  What is true is that no matter how distasteful you may view something now, that distaste is entirely colored by your current culture and experiences.

 

Yes, I believe I could have developed sexual attractions toward men if things had been different, and I believe I could still develop them although it would become increasingly difficult with each passing year.  The argument "I did not choose my orientation" is a gross oversimplification which I did not make.  Sexuality is not something that can be turned on and off like a light switch but is something that is continually changing and forming over the course of a lifetime.  New sexual attractions do not replace old ones as they are developed but can augment and expand your sexuality.  Are you arguing that you cannot find new things sexually attractive as you age or only that you cannot develop attractions for a different sex as you age?  If you can continue to add attractions throughout your life then why can you not add an attraction for another sex?  Why is this one aspect different?

 

As with most things sexual attractions developed at a younger age tend to manifest themselves stronger than ones developed later.  This is true with nearly all aspects of our being, there is something special about our formative years that leave a lasting impression on us for the rest of our lives.  It is very difficult for us to change aspects of ourselves learned in our childhood (good and bad).  They can be changed, but it takes much more effort than it did in acquiring the trait to begin with.

 

I cannot speak for your brother, I truly feel sympathy for anyone who struggles with anything they wish to change, but are not able to accomplish.  I struggle with many things which I wish I could change.  Change does not come easy or quickly, but it does come.  I may struggle with some of my burdens till the day I die (or longer), but they are not impossible to overcome, I simply have not done so yet.

 

From your description of your Brother's experience it sounds as if this happened a number of years ago correct?  From my experience sexuality has been viewed incorrectly for a long time, and we are slowly beginning to understand it more fully.  For a long time homosexuality was treated as a disease to be cured.  The attempt was made through shock treatments no less to instantly change your brother's sexuality into something else.  This had no more chance of succeeding than would administering shock treatments to instantly change your brother's native language to something else.

 

In fact I feel that language while not perfect makes a good analogy to sexuality.  When we are young we learn a native language dependent upon the culture we live in and the experiences we pass through.  The language we learn is not something we choose, and in fact we can learn multiple languages natively or none at all.  Something happens though as we age that makes it increasingly difficult to learn an additional language.  It doesn't matter how intelligent we are or how much we work at it, any language not learned in our youth will almost always be spoken with an accent.  Learning a new language at an older age will never replace your native language.  Coming from someone who is learning their fourth language, your native language can become rusty but will never be forgotten.  The same cannot be said for languages you learn later which can be forgotten almost entirely (to my chagrin).

 

I believe that those who self identify as "gay" or "straight" can acquire sexual attractions to a previously unattractive sex if they so desire.  Let's take religion completely out of the picture and just imagine someone who has not previously developed an attraction for a particular sex.  They decide for whatever reason (maybe just experimenting) that they would like to experience something new.  Do you honestly believe that it would be absolutely impossible for them to find such an experience enjoyable?  If they find the experience enjoyable does that mean their sexuality has completely changed?  No not in the least, but they have added a new experience to the sum total that makes up their sexuality.  Does that mean they are attracted to this new activity in the same way as their previous attractions?  Absolutely not, they may have spent years developing previous attractions some since childhood.

 

Most things in life which we say we cannot do are artificial limitations we place on ourselves.  The labels "gay" and "straight" are artificial labels that we have developed in our culture (and are meaningless in others) that are restrictive as much as they are descriptive.

 

You may disagree, but this is what I have seen and experienced.

 

-guerreiro9

[rockpond]

I should have never used the labels "nature" and "nurture" they carry meaning with them that does not describe exactly what I mean. The point I was making (and you agreed) is that our views on same sex marriage are largely dependent on whether we view sexuality as being inborn or not. (or maybe it's the other way around)?

You are arguing that sexuality is inborn correct?

-guerreiro9

I believe that sexual orientation is innate. And eternal. Or at least that it can be eternal.

[rockpond]

Hello Rock_N_Roll,

I, as all others, can only give my opinions based upon what I have experienced, and in my experience culture clearly has an effect on sexuality (hetero or homo). Are you really arguing that your sexuality is not influenced by the culture in which you are raised or are you only arguing that "orientation" is not affected? If all other aspects are affected why not whether you find men, women, or both sexually attractive?

The fact of the matter is if you had been born in certain cultures you would have engaged in and promoted homosexual acts whether you can see yourself engaging in them now or not. That should not be surprising. If you had been born in certain cultures you would have also engaged in and promoted cannibalism and infant sacrifice. Please, Please do not assume that I am comparing homosexual acts with cannibalism and infant sacrifice I AM NOT. What is true is that no matter how distasteful you may view something now, that distaste is entirely colored by your current culture and experiences.

Yes, I believe I could have developed sexual attractions toward men if things had been different, and I believe I could still develop them although it would become increasingly difficult with each passing year. The argument "I did not choose my orientation" is a gross oversimplification which I did not make. Sexuality is not something that can be turned on and off like a light switch but is something that is continually changing and forming over the course of a lifetime. New sexual attractions do not replace old ones as they are developed but can augment and expand your sexuality. Are you arguing that you cannot find new things sexually attractive as you age or only that you cannot develop attractions for a different sex as you age? If you can continue to add attractions throughout your life then why can you not add an attraction for another sex? Why is this one aspect different?

As with most things sexual attractions developed at a younger age tend to manifest themselves stronger than ones developed later. This is true with nearly all aspects of our being, there is something special about our formative years that leave a lasting impression on us for the rest of our lives. It is very difficult for us to change aspects of ourselves learned in our childhood (good and bad). They can be changed, but it takes much more effort than it did in acquiring the trait to begin with.

I cannot speak for your brother, I truly feel sympathy for anyone who struggles with anything they wish to change, but are not able to accomplish. I struggle with many things which I wish I could change. Change does not come easy or quickly, but it does come. I may struggle with some of my burdens till the day I die (or longer), but they are not impossible to overcome, I simply have not done so yet.

From your description of your Brother's experience it sounds as if this happened a number of years ago correct? From my experience sexuality has been viewed incorrectly for a long time, and we are slowly beginning to understand it more fully. For a long time homosexuality was treated as a disease to be cured. The attempt was made through shock treatments no less to instantly change your brother's sexuality into something else. This had no more chance of succeeding than would administering shock treatments to instantly change your brother's native language to something else.

In fact I feel that language while not perfect makes a good analogy to sexuality. When we are young we learn a native language dependent upon the culture we live in and the experiences we pass through. The language we learn is not something we choose, and in fact we can learn multiple languages natively or none at all. Something happens though as we age that makes it increasingly difficult to learn an additional language. It doesn't matter how intelligent we are or how much we work at it, any language not learned in our youth will almost always be spoken with an accent. Learning a new language at an older age will never replace your native language. Coming from someone who is learning their fourth language, your native language can become rusty but will never be forgotten. The same cannot be said for languages you learn later which can be forgotten almost entirely (to my chagrin).

I believe that those who self identify as "gay" or "straight" can acquire sexual attractions to a previously unattractive sex if they so desire. Let's take religion completely out of the picture and just imagine someone who has not previously developed an attraction for a particular sex. They decide for whatever reason (maybe just experimenting) that they would like to experience something new. Do you honestly believe that it would be absolutely impossible for them to find such an experience enjoyable? If they find the experience enjoyable does that mean their sexuality has completely changed? No not in the least, but they have added a new experience to the sum total that makes up their sexuality. Does that mean they are attracted to this new activity in the same way as their previous attractions? Absolutely not, they may have spent years developing previous attractions some since childhood.

Most things in life which we say we cannot do are artificial limitations we place on ourselves. The labels "gay" and "straight" are artificial labels that we have developed in our culture (and are meaningless in others) that are restrictive as much as they are descriptive.

You may disagree, but this is what I have seen and experienced.

-guerreiro9

Long post and I can't respond to all of it but I'd like to point out something that you said in your second paragraph: sexual acts that may be accepted or even expected in certain cultures are a very different thing than one's orientation.

[guerreiro9]

I believe that sexual orientation is innate. And eternal. Or at least that it can be eternal. 

 

Long post and I can't respond to all of it but I'd like to point out something that you said in your second paragraph: sexual acts that may be accepted or even expected in certain cultures are a very different thing than one's orientation.

 

Please elaborate.  You have a definition in mind for sexual orientation that is distinct from sexual attraction (if I am understanding you correctly) and I would like to hear your explanation.

 

-guerreiro9

[rockpond]

Yes, I'll agree mostly. But that was only the tip of the iceberg, as I stated. It's not just the Bible or other traditional judeo-christian texts. It's the bible and the BoM and the D+C and the PoGP and the temple and every living prophet. And much of the later revelation were more, not less, specific as to what marriage is defined as.

It's the fact that what has been restored and revealed in the fullness of time, doesn't go against what was in the past, it echoes many of these things (ex. I find plenty about the temple found in each book of scripture). It illuminates. Such a hypothetical revelation runs counter to all that has been previously given about marriage in the fullness of time. My point was with or without the Bible it is an extremely hard case to build to say that there is doctrinal room for gay marriage to be established as a similar covenant. There is no language, rhetoric, or exceptional cases that would fit this description to be found. I can't think of anything from the restoration that didn't have at least some precedence/connection to things in the past. In fact, I would say that's the point.

With luv,

BD

Yeah, it doesn't really surprise me that there is no scriptural support for gay marriage. That's kinda the issue... Mortal prejudices, majority culture, and all that.

I think we're meant to overcome that stuff. Move above and beyond.

For me, it's my belief in the plan of salvation and Heavenly Father's love for us that leads me to feel that He wants something more than a life of celibacy for His homosexual children. I know not everyone feels that way, but it is where my position comes from.

[rockpond]

Please elaborate. You have a definition in mind for sexual orientation that is distinct from sexual attraction (if I am understanding you correctly) and I would like to hear your explanation.

-guerreiro9

Not necessarily distinct from attraction. Orientation is however distinct from sexual acts. Isn't that what allows a gay man to have sex with his wife? Or for someone who is raised in a culture that expects gay sexual acts be performed, they might perform those acts while still identifying as a heterosexual based on the innate feelings and attractions that they have.

In other words, my understanding is that while sexual acts may be indicative of one's sexual orientation, they do not necessarily create or control it.

You could also think of it this way: what is the sexual orientation of a celibate young man, perhaps an LDS missionary? There are no sex acts to "define" his orientation but we still assume that he has one, right?

[BlueDreams]

Yeah, it doesn't really surprise me that there is no scriptural support for gay marriage. That's kinda the issue... Mortal prejudices, majority culture, and all that.

I think we're meant to overcome that stuff. Move above and beyond.

For me, it's my belief in the plan of salvation and Heavenly Father's love for us that leads me to feel that He wants something more than a life of celibacy for His homosexual children. I know not everyone feels that way, but it is where my position comes from.

 

I'm uncomfortable chalking it up to mortal prejudice/majority culture, etc.

 

But I can appreciate your feeling. Mine comes from knowing that God expects much from His children and will ask us to give up any and everything including our desire for preserving our lives/loved ones if and when it is needed. It's a gospel of sacrifice and tears with the promise that such will exalt and be dried by Christ. It's not of ease/comfort in answers to our conflicts, quite often. But it is one that transforms us and forges our souls when we yield to the refiner's fire.

 

I feel that stating the stories I've listened to/people I've met who are navigating their own paths and their attractions within the Church would definitely be defined as having something more than a life of celibacy, whether they're currently single or married. Many of them have something more than I could possibly imagine and their own light have inspired my own walk as well. 

 

With luv,

BD

[rockpond]

I'm uncomfortable chalking it up to mortal prejudice/majority culture, etc.

But I can appreciate your feeling. Mine comes from knowing that God expects much from His children and will ask us to give up any and everything including our desire for preserving our lives/loved ones if and when it is needed. It's a gospel of sacrifice and tears with the promise that such will exalt and be dried by Christ. It's not of ease/comfort in answers to our conflicts, quite often. But it is one that transforms us and forges our souls when we yield to the refiner's fire.

I feel that stating the stories I've listened to/people I've met who are navigating their own paths and their attractions within the Church would definitely be defined as having something more than a life of celibacy, whether they're currently single or married. Many of them have something more than I could possibly imagine and their own light have inspired my own walk as well.

With luv,

BD

I too have met gay church members who inspire me. I've also witnessed a lot of pain that seems, to me, unnecessary and not part of His plan.

[guerreiro9]

You could also think of it this way: what is the sexual orientation of a celibate young man, perhaps an LDS missionary? There are no sex acts to "define" his orientation but we still assume that he has one, right?

I don't think orientation exists. I think at any point in time our sexuality is the combined sum of our culture, experiences, choices, DNA, expectations, etc, etc. So a young missionary is a unique combination of whatever he was before his mission, plus whatever he experiences during his mission.

While serving a mission I began to view the people amongst whom I was serving as being much more attractive than I had previously. This is not uncommon. Many returned missionaries become attracted to and find spouses amongst the people they served. They and I would not have viewed the people as being so attractive had we not served among them.

Even while serving an "obedient" mission your sexuality is affected.

-guerreiro9

[guerreiro9]

Not necessarily distinct from attraction. Orientation is however distinct from sexual acts. Isn't that what allows a gay man to have sex with his wife? Or for someone who is raised in a culture that expects gay sexual acts be performed, they might perform those acts while still identifying as a heterosexual based on the innate feelings and attractions that they have.

In other words, my understanding is that while sexual acts may be indicative of one's sexual orientation, they do not necessarily create or control it.

I think trying to attach a label to everyone's sexuality is making the situation more complicated than it needs to be.

What do I call someone who is attracted to men, but is sexually active with his wife? I call him someone who is attracted to men, but is sexually active with his wife.

Something interesting about sexual attraction is that we can be attracted to certain things about specific people while not being attracted to those certain things in general.

I find my wife to be extremely attractive when she is pregnant, but I don't in general find pregnant women to be attractive (my apologies if any pregnant women read this).

I also in general find women in their early 20s to be attractive because my wife and I were in our early 20s when we married. That was the last time I was window shopping if you will so I developed an attraction for women of that age in general.

I don't find women the age of my wife and I to be attractive in general, but I find my wife to be more attractive now than on our wedding day and we waved goodbye to our twenties along time ago. If something should happen to my wife which put me back on the market I am confident that I could develop attractions for women of a more appropriate age.

A man who is attracted to men in general can develop a strong attraction for a specific women while not being attracted to women in general.

Read Joshua Johnson's 2012 fair presentation for his perspective. http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2012-fair-conference/2012-navigating-the-labyrinth-surrounding-homosexual-desire

Be careful with labeling people. It's never accurate and in many cases the label becomes a driving force behind people's behavior rather than a descriptor of it.

-guerreiro9

[Kenngo1969]

Yeah, it doesn't really surprise me that there is no scriptural support for gay marriage. That's kinda the issue... Mortal prejudices, majority culture, and all that.

I think we're meant to overcome that stuff. Move above and beyond.

For me, it's my belief in the plan of salvation and Heavenly Father's love for us that leads me to feel that He wants something more than a life of celibacy for His homosexual children. I know not everyone feels that way, but it is where my position comes from.

Does He want something more than a life of celibacy for his single, heterosexual children who likely will never marry?  Or am I "exempt from the rules," too?

[Kenngo1969]

I too have met gay church members who inspire me. I've also witnessed a lot of pain that seems, to me, unnecessary and not part of His plan.

Their plight is between them and God, your plight is between you and God.  I would be exceedingly wary of any proposition that suggests, implicitly or explicitly, that you would do things differently ... if only you were God.

[rockpond]

I don't think orientation exists. I think at any point in time our sexuality is the combined sum of our culture, experiences, choices, DNA, expectations, etc, etc. So a young missionary is a unique combination of whatever he was before his mission, plus whatever he experiences during his mission.

While serving a mission I began to view the people amongst whom I was serving as being much more attractive than I had previously. This is not uncommon. Many returned missionaries become attracted to and find spouses amongst the people they served. They and I would not have viewed the people as being so attractive had we not served among them.

Even while serving an "obedient" mission your sexuality is affected.

-guerreiro9

In your first paragraph you say that you don't think sexual orientation exists but then you proceeded to give a good possible definition of sexual orientation.

I mostly agree with what you are saying.

[rockpond]

I think trying to attach a label to everyone's sexuality is making the situation more complicated than it needs to be.

What do I call someone who is attracted to men, but is sexually active with his wife? I call him someone who is attracted to men, but is sexually active with his wife.

Something interesting about sexual attraction is that we can be attracted to certain things about specific people while not being attracted to those certain things in general.

I find my wife to be extremely attractive when she is pregnant, but I don't in general find pregnant women to be attractive (my apologies if any pregnant women read this).

I also in general find women in their early 20s to be attractive because my wife and I were in our early 20s when we married. That was the last time I was window shopping if you will so I developed an attraction for women of that age in general.

I don't find women the age of my wife and I to be attractive in general, but I find my wife to be more attractive now than on our wedding day and we waved goodbye to our twenties along time ago. If something should happen to my wife which put me back on the market I am confident that I could develop attractions for women of a more appropriate age.

A man who is attracted to men in general can develop a strong attraction for a specific women while not being attracted to women in general.

Read Joshua Johnson's 2012 fair presentation for his perspective. http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2012-fair-conference/2012-navigating-the-labyrinth-surrounding-homosexual-desire

Be careful with labeling people. It's never accurate and in many cases the label becomes a driving force behind people's behavior rather than a descriptor of it.

-guerreiro9

Yes, I also agree that labels can be tricky. Perhaps dangerous. So in real life with real people I try to avoid labeling. But in terms of these conversations here, I feel it's necessary to use labels as a simple matter of expression.