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

[rockpond]

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?

I think he wants joy for all His children.

I haven't suggested that anyone is exempt from the rules, so I don't understand your second question.

[rockpond]

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.

All along I've been saying that I hope for more revelation from God on the subject.

[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.

Fine, label that as orientation if you wish. I don't care what you label it as long as you understand what I mean.

In my definition then "sexual orientation" is an infinite spectrum of uniquely developed sexualities. It is affected by the experiences we pass through and is mutable, but much more so when we are young than old.

If you think this is a good definition then we are in agreement.

Which brings me back at last to my original point. People's views on whether same sex marriage should be promoted (that's what a legally recognized marriage does) are strongly tied to whether they view sexuality as being mutable.

If you are right and a person's individual sexuality is innately eternal then legally recognized SSMs in Utah will have little to no affect on the general population (and should probably be promoted).

If I am right and culture is a strong driver of sexuality then the promotion of same sex marriage in Utah will influence more people to enter into it than would have otherwise.

Only time will tell. What percentage of the population needs to self-identify as "gay" before you will reconsider your position? I don't have any accurate numbers (nor does anyone) but qualitative the number appears to be increasing rapidly.

-guerreiro9

[CV75]

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".

If your question is really supposed to be about “understanding the role of prophets, apostles, and revelation,” then, yes, of course it is as appropriate to “learn from past and apply it to the future,” as it is to learn from the present and the future (the future in terms of prophecy and promises) and apply it to our recollection, perception and projection of events that we have, do, and will experience in each of the other respective reference points in time.

We don’t learn when we conflate revelation, scripture, theories, and doctrine while trying to understand whether or how the Church has or hasn’t done the same thing, and try to use that as a means to “understanding the role of prophets, apostles, and revelation.” That is like someone critiquing someone else’s conflation of apples and oranges while not being able to distinguish the differences himself.

 

For example, it would be appropriate to research how the Church’s doctrines concerning marriage evolved between the past and the present thus far, and where they have not changed. Or to research what the prophecies or promises in connection with these doctrines and the covenants indicate in the way of how these doctrines will look in the future. This could tell us something useful about the actual role of prophets, apostles, and revelation as they relate to marriage.

As an overall principle, I think it too impractical to assume that since doctrine (whether conflated with theory or not) can change in one area, it can change to suit one's personal hope or ambition in another area.

 

I also think that a) hoping for change and finding justification for it; b) not expecting change and finding justification for it; and c) looking at what the past, present and future actually say about a subject to formulate an understanding of it, are three different things. When questions and answers are exchanged between any of these non-aligned perspectives and approaches, problems obviously occur, and more especially if a) or b) are conflated with c).

 

I’d say the role of prophets is to keep that last approach © current through the keys of revelation.

[california boy]

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

I love posts like this.  Straight guys coming up with their own plan of how they too could be gay if they just worked hard enough at it.  It is just a theory for you.  You haven't actually tried the theory out to see if it would really work have you.  Would you be willing to continue your theory if you were thrown into prison for 20 years?  Would you be willing to continue your little experiment if one night walking away from a gay bar you were beat to an inch of your life?  Would you be willing to continue with your theory if your parents and brothers and sisters refused to ever see you again for the rest of your life?

 

The part of your theory that I agree with is that yes a straight person can learn to have gay sex.  And the opposite is true.  A gay person can learn to have straight sex.  But unfortunately orientation is not about sex at all.  Who you have sex with is just the manifestation of the orientation.

 

Unlike you, I have actually tested and lived this theory.  I knew I was gay when I was 12 years old.  There was nothing in my childhood that turned me gay.  I was raised in a conservative Mormon family.  No one I knew was gay.  No one knew I was gay. And like you, I formulated a plan on how I would learn to become straight.  I started pretending to be straight when I was in high school.  I found a girl that I could pretend to be my girlfriend. It wasn't hard pretending that we were a couple.  My environment conditioned me to really need a girlfriend.  I had a string of girlfirends like most boys my age.  I knew what was expected of me.  After serving a mission, I was told to get married.  I was promised that if I got married, I would learn to be straight.  It fit in with my plan on how I could learn to become straight.  So of course I did what was expected.  I was married for over 20 years.  20 years.  Doing everything I could to learn to become straight.  Is all I learned is to have straight sex.  I never learned how to become straight.  It was all a lie.  I never was straight.

 

Your post is nothing more than a scientist proposing a theory and then declaring it a fact, never having actually tested his theory.  I could give you thousands of gays that have actually tried your theory and failed.  They have allowed others to do ANYTHING to try and change them.  Even BYU professors to administer shock therapy.  They have tried to marry.  They have lived a life of being rabidly homophobic.  And they have been willing to die for being gay.  

 

For you it is just a theory.  For me, it is the story of my life.  I can not express how much joy and relief that has come into my life when I finally gave up my little plan on how I was going to become straight.  

[california boy]

Only time will tell. What percentage of the population needs to self-identify as "gay" before you will reconsider your position? I don't have any accurate numbers (nor does anyone) but qualitative the number appears to be increasing rapidly.

-guerreiro9

I would say at least 50% would have to turn gay.  Because according to your thinking, the only reason people turn gay is because they like it better than being straight.  So if being gay is just as fun as being straight, half of the population should choose to be straight and half of the population should choose gay.

[rockpond]

Fine, label that as orientation if you wish. I don't care what you label it as long as you understand what I mean.

In my definition then "sexual orientation" is an infinite spectrum of uniquely developed sexualities. It is affected by the experiences we pass through and is mutable, but much more so when we are young than old.

If you think this is a good definition then we are in agreement.

Which brings me back at last to my original point. People's views on whether same sex marriage should be promoted (that's what a legally recognized marriage does) are strongly tied to whether they view sexuality as being mutable.

If you are right and a person's individual sexuality is innately eternal then legally recognized SSMs in Utah will have little to no affect on the general population (and should probably be promoted).

If I am right and culture is a strong driver of sexuality then the promotion of same sex marriage in Utah will influence more people to enter into it than would have otherwise.

Only time will tell. What percentage of the population needs to self-identify as "gay" before you will reconsider your position? I don't have any accurate numbers (nor does anyone) but qualitative the number appears to be increasing rapidly.

-guerreiro9

 

I do think that I understand what you are saying and I agree with the logic you are espousing in this post.  I'm not sure, however, that I agree with how mutable sexual orientation is as I believe that there are plenty of people who sit far on one end of the spectrum or the other and are unable to succeed in a relationship that is contrary to their orientation.

 

Certainly legalization of marriage for homosexual couples will cause more people to enter into those marriages.  They didn't even have the option before.

 

Also, greater tolerance and acceptance of homosexuality will cause more people to openly identify as homosexual.  I view that as a good thing in terms of mental health and happiness.

 

I don't believe legal recognition of gay marriage will cause a change in innate sexual orientation of individuals though it may affect outward expression.

 

And my position on marriage equality is reflective of deeply held personal beliefs and my faith.  So it seems unlikely that percentages of gay people would impact that position.

[rockpond]

If your question is really supposed to be about “understanding the role of prophets, apostles, and revelation,” then, yes, of course it is as appropriate to “learn from past and apply it to the future,” as it is to learn from the present and the future (the future in terms of prophecy and promises) and apply it to our recollection, perception and projection of events that we have, do, and will experience in each of the other respective reference points in time.

We don’t learn when we conflate revelation, scripture, theories, and doctrine while trying to understand whether or how the Church has or hasn’t done the same thing, and try to use that as a means to “understanding the role of prophets, apostles, and revelation.” That is like someone critiquing someone else’s conflation of apples and oranges while not being able to distinguish the differences himself.

 

For example, it would be appropriate to research how the Church’s doctrines concerning marriage evolved between the past and the present thus far, and where they have not changed. Or to research what the prophecies or promises in connection with these doctrines and the covenants indicate in the way of how these doctrines will look in the future. This could tell us something useful about the actual role of prophets, apostles, and revelation as they relate to marriage.

As an overall principle, I think it too impractical to assume that since doctrine (whether conflated with theory or not) can change in one area, it can change to suit one's personal hope or ambition in another area.

 

I also think that a) hoping for change and finding justification for it; b) not expecting change and finding justification for it; and c) looking at what the past, present and future actually say about a subject to formulate an understanding of it, are three different things. When questions and answers are exchanged between any of these non-aligned perspectives and approaches, problems obviously occur, and more especially if a) or b) are conflated with c).

 

I’d say the role of prophets is to keep that last approach © current through the keys of revelation.

 

I agree with your very last sentence here.  It's what I've been espousing all along.  The rest of your post just strikes me as more rational to avoid answering a simple question.  It doesn't make a lot of sense to me so I'll let someone else, who hopefully understands you, respond to it.

[Mystery Meat]

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.

 

Yes we do have it. 

[rockpond]

Yes we do have it. 

 

CFR

[Mystery Meat]

I can't be more clear than that.  

 

I appreciate your candor. The Lord, through His modern day prophets and apostles, has also been clear. Sexual intercourse with someone of the same gender is a sin whether it is within a "marriage" viewed as legal by the state or without. 

 

Elder Oaks says it best:

 

 

 

But man’s laws cannot make moral what God has declared immoral. Commitment to our highest priority—to love and serve God—requires that we look to His law for our standard of behavior. For example, we remain under divine command not to commit adultery or fornication even when those acts are no longer crimes under the laws of the states or countries where we reside. Similarly, laws legalizing so-called “same-sex marriage” do not change God’s law of marriage or His commandments and our standards concerning it.

 

An Apostle of the Lord can't be more clear then that.

[Mystery Meat]

CFR

 

I have already provided it. The problem is your definition of revelation is wrong. For example, what Elder Oaks said, what is said by Paul in the New Testament, definitions of marriage between man and a woman in modern day scripture and through modern day prophets in General Conference and in the Proclamation on the Family all count as God's revealed word.

 

You cannot accept it, but it is revelation. 

[rockpond]

I have already provided it. The problem is your definition of revelation is wrong. For example, what Elder Oaks said, what is said by Paul in the New Testament, definitions of marriage between man and a woman in modern day scripture and through modern day prophets in General Conference and in the Proclamation on the Family all count as God's revealed word.

 

You cannot accept it, but it is revelation. 

 

No, you have not provided it.

 

1. CFR that all of those references are revelations from God.
2. CFR that whatever an apostle says in general conference is a revelation from God.
3. CFR that Paul was speaking for God (hint, he wasn't).
4. CFR for a definition of marriage in modern day scripture.  CFR that the Proclamation is revelation (another hint, it's not).

 

And even if they were revelations, which one of them provides us with God's will for His homosexual children?

[Mystery Meat]

No, you have not provided it.

 

1. CFR that all of those references are revelations from God.
2. CFR that whatever an apostle says in general conference is a revelation from God.
3. CFR that Paul was speaking for God (hint, he wasn't).
4. CFR for a definition of marriage in modern day scripture.  CFR that the Proclamation is revelation (another hint, it's not).

 

And even if they were revelations, which one of them provides us with God's will for His homosexual children?

 

This is a pointless discussion. I have found on this board that when someone disagrees with an assertion they do a CFR (which is fine). When someone provides one, and it disagrees with their socio-political views, they claim it doesn't say what it does. I have provided all the references I am going to. Anyone who has been paying attention knows what the modern day prophets and apostles view as the will of the Lord on the matter. You may think they are wrong, and that is your right I suppose. 

 

But I am not retracting my statements as it is my opinion that every reference I have provided as a whole (and individually) constitutes God's revealed word and as such is revelation. If you don't like that, fine. But I believe that I have a very strong basis for that stance. Nothing short of a statement saying that "God loves his homosexual children and wants them to be married forever and ever" would satisfy you. 

 

If you don't like that you can report my posts and if the moderators disagree they can remove them. But it doesn't change the fact that the Lord has revealed his position on the matter through Prophets in virtually every dispensation. 

 

As to God's will for His homosexual children...why would it be any different from those of His heterosexual children? Obey God's law and serve him. Under God's law, as defined numerous times, marriage is between man and woman. Sex performed outside of this marriage is sin. This applies to homosexuals just as it does to heterosexuals. 

[rockpond]

This is a pointless discussion. I have found on this board that when someone disagrees with an assertion they do a CFR (which is fine). When someone provides one, and it disagrees with their socio-political views, they claim it doesn't say what it does. I have provided all the references I am going to. Anyone who has been paying attention knows what the modern day prophets and apostles view as the will of the Lord on the matter. You may think they are wrong, and that is your right I suppose. 

 

But I am not retracting my statements as it is my opinion that every reference I have provided as a whole (and individually) constitutes God's revealed word and as such is revelation. If you don't like that, fine. But I believe that I have a very strong basis for that stance. Nothing short of a statement saying that "God loves his homosexual children and wants them to be married forever and ever" would satisfy you. 

 

If you don't like that you can report my posts and if the moderators disagree they can remove them. But it doesn't change the fact that the Lord has revealed his position on the matter through Prophets in virtually every dispensation. 

 

As to God's will for His homosexual children...why would it be any different from those of His heterosexual children? Obey God's law and serve him. Under God's law, as defined numerous times, marriage is between man and woman. Sex performed outside of this marriage is sin. This applies to homosexuals just as it does to heterosexuals. 

 

I agree, God's will for His homosexual children isn't likely to be different than His will for His homosexual children.  I believe that He probably does want them to be married.  To someone they love and can remain married to.

 

I don't know where God has defined marriage.  You seem to believe that men can put words in His mouth.  I don't.  Sorry.

 

You have not answered the CFR but I'm not going to report you.  Because that would be pointless.

 

Your response seems to be that whatever prophets and apostles say is the revealed word of God.  I wonder how you can feel that way.  You seem to have a very "low bar" for what is revelation.  I'll admit that when I was younger, I had a very similar mindset but it's not a view I can still logically hold onto.  So, I'll ask this question:  If it's true that whatever prophets & apostles say is revelation from God, then why do we often reject what prophets and apostles say in general conference (or other official forums) and conclude that they were wrong?  And, how is it that what they say can sometimes be revelation from God and sometimes be opinions or errors?

[Scott Lloyd]

Your response seems to be that whatever prophets and apostles say is the revealed word of God.

Correction: Whatever they say when moved upon by the Holy Ghost is the revealed word of God. It doesn't have to be canonized. It doesn't even have to be written down.

Your practice regarding whatever they say that doesn't suit you is to deny that they were moved upon by the Holy Ghost, regardless of how forcefully, unitedly and consistently they express it over time. That's your privilege, I suppose, and it's internally convenient for you, but it is not binding on others.

[rockpond]

Correction: Whatever they say when moved upon by the Holy Ghost is the revealed word of God. It doesn't have to be canonized. It doesn't even have to be written down.

Your practice regarding whatever they say that doesn't suit you is to deny that they were moved upon by the Holy Ghost, regardless of how forcefully, unitedly and consistently they express it over time. That's your privilege, I suppose, and it's internally convenient for you, but it is not binding on others.

 

"And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation."

 

There is nothing "convenient" for me about our policies & doctrines regarding homosexuality.  And there is nothing convenient for me in my beliefs on the subject.

 

So what do we do, Scott, when some members see their words as moved upon by the Holy Ghost and some do not?  Who gets to decide when leaders are making mistakes as we were recently taught that they do?

 

Why is it a bad thing for me to want a clear revelation on this subject that is obviously such a big issue for the church these days?

[guerreiro9]

I love posts like this. Straight guys coming up with their own plan of how they too could be gay if they just worked hard enough at it.

I am not a "straight" guy at least I don't self-identify as straight. Whatever your definition is for "straight" it probably does not accurately describe anyone and is most certainly different than another's definition of "straight". I never said anything about a plan of how to be "gay". I don't know what be "gay" means. The label is entirely ambiguous to me and whatever your definition of "gay" is (I am unsure what your definition is by the way) probably does not line up with others' definitions of "gay".

It is just a theory for you. You haven't actually tried the theory out to see if it would really work have you. Would you be willing to continue your theory if you were thrown into prison for 20 years? Would you be willing to continue your little experiment if one night walking away from a gay bar you were beat to an inch of your life? Would you be willing to continue with your theory if your parents and brothers and sisters refused to ever see you again for the rest of your life?

Yes the part about developing sexual attractions to men is a theory for me, I haven't tried it. I have tried it with women and it worked in a similiar fashion. My attractions to women (including my wife) were not inborn. Some of the attractions I do not remember developing as they were part of the culture I grew up in. Other attractions I can specificially remember being exposed to for the first time. Sometimes the first exposure was not pleasant, but over time I came to be more comfortable with them, and eventually to find them very attractive.

I am very sorry for the pain you have gone through, there is no excuse for people to behave towards you in the manner you described. Your question is interesting and I have thought deeply about it. I cannot answer it with respect to men, but I can answer it with respect to women. As I have now been married for well over a decade and have developed strong love and attractions toward my wife, I cannot imagine anything that would cause me to willingly leave her side (even unto death).

The same could not be said if you had asked me 20 years ago. If you had told me that if I pursued a heterosexual relationship I would never be able to see my family again, would be thrown in prison, and would be beaten I probably would have given up the pursuit on the spot. I had not yet developed the strong heterosexual attractions and love for my wife I have now.

The part of your theory that I agree with is that yes a straight person can learn to have gay sex. And the opposite is true. A gay person can learn to have straight sex. But unfortunately orientation is not about sex at all. Who you have sex with is just the manifestation of the orientation.

I don't know what you mean by "orientation" I would like to hear your explanation. I will come back to this.

Unlike you, I have actually tested and lived this theory. I have tested it, I simply had not developed homosexual attractions before I developed heterosexual ones.

I knew I was gay when I was 12 years old. What does that mean to know that you are "gay". I don't know what it means to know that I am "straight", and I have been married for a long time. I certainly cannot imagine "knowing' at 12.

There was nothing in my childhood that turned me gay. I was raised in a conservative Mormon family. No one I knew was gay. No one knew I was gay. And like you, I formulated a plan on how I would learn to become straight. I started pretending to be straight when I was in high school. I found a girl that I could pretend to be my girlfriend. It wasn't hard pretending that we were a couple. My environment conditioned me to really need a girlfriend. I had a string of girlfirends like most boys my age. I knew what was expected of me. After serving a mission, I was told to get married. I was promised that if I got married, I would learn to be straight. It fit in with my plan on how I could learn to become straight. So of course I did what was expected. I was married for over 20 years. 20 years. Doing everything I could to learn to become straight. Is all I learned is to have straight sex. I never learned how to become straight. It was all a lie. I never was straight.

I cannot speak to your childhood, every person, even those living in the same household goes through unique experiences that help shape them as a person. Do I believe that anyone who passed through your exact same experiences would respond to them in exactly the same way as you have? Absolutely not! Many people, maybe even most would not have developed homosexual attractions in the environment you did, but I can contrive of other environments where you would not have developed homosexual attractions either.

I am not sure what it is you think us "straight" guys are doing in heterosexual marriages that you think you "gay" guys are unable of doing. I really do not understand this, you have already admitted that even people who self-identify as "gay" can learn to have "straight" sex. So what is it that "gay" men cannot do?

Can "gay" men not enjoy spending time with women?

Can "gay" men not serve women?

Can "gay" men not love women?

Do "gay" men not find women confusing? "Straight" men certainly do.

Do "gay" men not relate easier to men than women? "Straight" men have a very difficult time relating to women. I share much more in common with many guy friends than I do with my wife. When we have family gatherings I usually take the side of the brothers--in-law in debates while my wife usually takes the side of the sisters-in-law.

I am not sure what you think us "straight" guys are doing in heterosexual marriages, but it is a very difficult to live with women at times (I am sure most women would say the same about men). It is also the most rewarding, benficial, loving, and important thing I have done in my life, and the differences between man and woman cause both of us to change and to take upon us some of the attributes of the other which is wonderful.

Your post is nothing more than a scientist proposing a theory and then declaring it a fact, never having actually tested his theory. I could give you thousands of gays that have actually tried your theory and failed. They have allowed others to do ANYTHING to try and change them. Even BYU professors to administer shock therapy. They have tried to marry. They have lived a life of being rabidly homophobic. And they have been willing to die for being gay.

I am a scientist (well more of an engineer currently), so it does not surprise me that you view my post as a scientific theory. I am not sure what part of my theory you think failed. The main thesis of my theory is that those who do not currently have homosexual\heterosexual attractions can develop them and you agreed that this is possible. The second part of my thesis is that our sexual attractions are influenced by our culture which is kind of implied by the first part and you have not addressed this directly.

For you it is just a theory. For me, it is the story of my life. I can not express how much joy and relief that has come into my life when I finally gave up my little plan on how I was going to become straight.

I think the difficutly we are having is that you are placing huge value on the labels "straight" and "gay" and I don't know what you mean by them. I would be interested in hearing your explanation.

-guerreiro9

[guerreiro9]

I do think that I understand what you are saying and I agree with the logic you are espousing in this post.  I'm not sure, however, that I agree with how mutable sexual orientation is as I believe that there are plenty of people who sit far on one end of the spectrum or the other and are unable to succeed in a relationship that is contrary to their orientation.

 

Certainly legalization of marriage for homosexual couples will cause more people to enter into those marriages.  They didn't even have the option before.

 

Also, greater tolerance and acceptance of homosexuality will cause more people to openly identify as homosexual.  I view that as a good thing in terms of mental health and happiness.

 

I don't believe legal recognition of gay marriage will cause a change in innate sexual orientation of individuals though it may affect outward expression.

 

And my position on marriage equality is reflective of deeply held personal beliefs and my faith.  So it seems unlikely that percentages of gay people would impact that position.

 

Why would you want to place this limitation on people?  Certainly some people will have more difficulty with relationships than others, but to say it is impossible is to erect artificial barriers that are not there.

 

I still don't know what you mean by "orientation".  Our sexual attractions are not our "orientation".  Our sexuality acts are not our "orientation".  What is it?  It appears to be some indescribable etheral quantity that I have no clue what you mean.

 

People have the option of entering into a marriage whether that marriage is legally recognized or not.  I'm sure if you asked the Brown's from sister wives if they were married they would answer yes, even though until a few weeks ago not only was plural marriage not recognized in Utah it was a punishable violation of the law.  I think you seriously undervalue marriage when the criteria you use for validation is whether it is government approved and whether you receive tax benefits or not.

 

Promotion of same-sex marriage, I believe, will encourage people to engage in it who would not have wanted to otherwise, regardless of whether it had been legally recognized.

 

The problem with encouraging people to openly indentify as homosexual is what does that mean?  Do you believe everyone who self-identifies as homosexual has exactly the same attractions or "orientation" as you put it?  No, encouraging people to openly accept a label that shoe horns them into a box is of no more value and possibly more dangerous than keeping your attractions to yourself.  The healthy thing to do would be for people to accept the attractions they have, and realize that they are unique to them.  It would be healthly for none of us to be slapped with a label and to assume that any deviance from the label is undesired.  It would be healthy to share your attractions, your wants, and desires with those closest to you who can help you develop the attractions you wish to develop and minimize the attractions you wish to minimize.

 

Fair enough, you are certainly entitled to your deeply held position on marriage equality.  As for me I think I am giving myself about 20 years.  If the number of people in the country who wish to enter into a same-sex marriage has not substantially increased in the next 20 years because of its promotion, then I will abandon my theory and pursue another.

 

I am fairly confident that this will occur.  If you were to take an accurate measurement (how you do this is unknown) of our current poplulation, I believe you would find a substantially higher percentage of young people who self identify as "gay" than you would older people.  Even if everyone were being completely honest, I believe the number would be higher amongst the younger generation and is only going to increase.

 

-guerreiro9

[guerreiro9]

I would say at least 50% would have to turn gay. Because according to your thinking, the only reason people turn gay is because they like it better than being straight. So if being gay is just as fun as being straight, half of the population should choose to be straight and half of the population should choose gay.

I actually believe that 50% is probably about where it will settle out.

I will repeat myself again I do not believe people "turn gay", I don't even know what this means, and we certainly don't develop attractions only because we want them.

As an example let's look at African Americans in the United States.

Per capita African Americans commit more violent crimes in the United States than any other race (whatever race means, its almost as meaningless as the sexual labels you keep throwing around).

Is this because African Americans are innately more violent than other races? I vehemently deny this.

Is this because African Americans choose to have a more violent nature? I also vehemently deny this.

It is because of the environment and culture that they are growning up in that they are developing these characteristics. If you placed any "race" in exactly the same enviroment and culture the outcome would be similar.

In my experience sexuality is very similiar. Just because you have sexual attractions does mean you chose them, and just because you did not choose them does not mean they are innately inborn.

-guerreiro9

[CV75]

I agree with your very last sentence here.  It's what I've been espousing all along.  The rest of your post just strikes me as more rational to avoid answering a simple question.  It doesn't make a lot of sense to me so I'll let someone else, who hopefully understands you, respond to it.

My answer to your simple question was a qualified "yes": it is appropriate to learn from the past (scriptural canon) and apply it to our understanding (projection) of the future of revealed doctrine (the provision of revealed doctrine being the role of prophets, apostles and revelation), and it is equally as appropriate to learn from the present (the Lord's annointed) and the future (prophecies and promised blessings) to apply to our understanding (recollection) of the past and our understanding (experience) of the present.

 

If what we have learned is appropriate (or even better, actually true), it is about becoming like Christ (always has been), which has nothing to do with getting frustrated over leaders' weaknesses, lulled by their strengths,  or in either case tapping them to reveal that which the Lord hasn't found expedient to reveal.

 

I think that if you want to minister with people who struggle with any aspect of marriage, help them to do the best they can with what they've got to become like Christ, and He will without fail help them.

[rockpond]

I am fairly confident that this will occur.  If you were to take an accurate measurement (how you do this is unknown) of our current poplulation, I believe you would find a substantially higher percentage of young people who self identify as "gay" than you would older people.  Even if everyone were being completely honest, I believe the number would be higher amongst the younger generation and is only going to increase.

 

-guerreiro9

 

Quite possible... but is that because an increased number of young people are actually of a homosexual orientation or just because an increased number feel less pressure from society to remain closeted?

[guerreiro9]

Quite possible... but is that because an increased number of young people are actually of a homosexual orientation or just because an increased number feel less pressure from society to remain closeted?

Again I don't know what "orientation" means to you, but I believe there is actually a higher percentage of people amongst the younger generation who have developed homosexual attractions than amongst the older.

-guerreiro9

[Mystery Meat]

Well the Church (the organization we esteem as the only true and living church) just issued a statement on recent events. You can read it here:

 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-instructs-leaders-on-same-sex-marriage

 

Most notable to this conversation:

 

 

 

Changes in the civil law do not, indeed cannot, change the moral law that God has established. God expects us to uphold and keep His commandments regardless of divergent opinions or trends in society. His law of chastity is clear: sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife. We urge you to review and teach Church members the doctrine contained in “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.”

 

There you have it. That should (but it won't) settle the issue for faithful members of the Church. Not only does an official announcement from the Church clearly say that the law of chastity says sexual relations are proper  only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded, it also refers to the Proclamation as doctrine, which has been the topic of much debate here. 

 

I know the responses will be something to the effect of this changes nothing or does not constitute revelation, yada, yada. But the Church cannot be more clear than that. If you want to rely on the fact that some leaders of the church issued statements about blacks and the priesthood that proved untrue, go for it. But you might be walking on dangerous ground.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

No, you have not provided it.

 

1. CFR that all of those references are revelations from God.
2. CFR that whatever an apostle says in general conference is a revelation from God.
3. CFR that Paul was speaking for God (hint, he wasn't).
4. CFR for a definition of marriage in modern day scripture.  CFR that the Proclamation is revelation (another hint, it's not).

 

And even if they were revelations, which one of them provides us with God's will for His homosexual children?

Actually he did. You just refuse to accept it because if goes against this notion and idea that one day it will be ok and God will reveal it in the future. Sorry but you are just wrong and your bias is preventing you from seeing the trees.