mfbukowski Posted June 22, 2014 Posted June 22, 2014 I wonder why you think the fact I pointed out that there are different levels of temptations means everything you mentioned above? The implication is that not all temptations are equal. Not all people face the same challenges. Not all people struggle with weight control,. Not all people are either gay or straight. Not all people have to deal with living in a society that tells them life long abstinence of their sexual drive is what God expects them to do, especially by people who don't face the same challenge. My wife struggles with her weight, I don't. So should I tell her that since I can maintain my weight she should be able to also? Should I mention that the Word of Wisdom says "all these to be used with prudence" & "nevertheless they are to be used sparingly"? "Hey look, there are skinny people over there, what's your problem?" I think the the level of temptation each person faces is an integral part of the issue. I am not advocating a level of temptation that cannot be controlled. I am saying that the comparisons you made paint the issue as black and white, which I do not think is correct. I am not advocating leaving a family because of sexual temptations, however I can see cases where divorce (just like the same argument for excommunication by the way) can be a process that can actually help a family heal in the long run. I can also see cases where staying together merely for the children is a really bad idea. My in laws were a great example of this. This thread asks if marriage between a gay person and a straight can be successful. Clearly such a relationship would start with a really big disadvantage but if two such people really wanted to get married why should they be any more or less able to control temptation than any other similar two people? The answer is they aren't. They are entering a marriage that will be very difficult, and as some of the statistics posted before indicate, has very little chance of success. We might also ask similar questions like: can a marriage between a devote Mormon and hardcore atheist be successful? Or how about a marriage between an partner with a strong sex drive and one who is sexually impotent? Sex does not equal all that marriage entails and not all temptations are created equal or affect people equally.We are not communicating. Thanks for the attempt.
USU78 Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 How so? Case 1: John disagrees with Bill, a homosexual, on the subject of nature vs nurture in homosexuality. Bill says to John, "You only say that because you are a homosexual yourself and hate me because you hate that part of yourself." John gets flustered, isn't sure why, and walks away from the argument, while Bill claims victory in the exchange. Case 2: John and Bill are talking about an incident of "gay-bashing" outside a biker bar in Fresno. John says, "Sure was stupid to wear chartreuse leg warmers and a black leotard while bumping into that hairy, inked-up guy in the German Army WWI helmet." Bill says, "That guy is a closeted homosexual whose repressed inner true self expresses itself in rage against the truth within by lashing out at the personification of that truth." German helmet guy, on the other hand, says, while clocking leg warmer guy, "**** you! Nobody spits on my hawg!" Now . . . how is it anything other than a personal attack and, therefore, ad hominem argument to claim that everybody who is anti-homosexual-political agenda is closeted? 1
USU78 Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 (edited) I think the point that seems to confusing everyone is you assume a gay person is marrying another gay person for the sex. That is really not the case. It is much more complexed than that, just as it is for any marriage. Being in love with someone, wanting to share a life together, having common goals, feeling a deep emotional connection with who you are with. It is what marriage is about for any couple. We don't choose who we marry simply because we want to have sex with them. I actually would put sex way down the list of what is important in a marriage. Like many have pointed out, there are many marriages that thrive even when sex is not a part of that marriage. But who you fall in love with is something that is paramount to marriage and staying in love with that person is the key, in my opinion to keeping a successful marriage. Gays only fall in love with someone of the same sex. Straights only fall in love with someone of the opposite sex. Would you have married your spouse if you never fell in love with them? Would you be willing to give up marrying the person you choose to marry just to be with someone of the same sex if that is what you were told to do? Do you think marriage is just finding a person to have sex with? Do gay members choose celibacy simply because they don't want to have sex with a woman or live in a marriage without sex? If you think the only reason a gay person chooses to marry is because they want to have sex, you are so far off base. Seriously, it is not hard to find someone to have sex with whether you are gay or straight. You don't have to be married to have sex. If that was the only reason for marrying then why would anyone bother unless they really thought they would go to hell if they have sex outside of marriage. And, of course, california boy misses my whole point: Just because it is presently useful to claim a clear and obvious line between the homosexual and the heterosexual in a kind of yin-yang 50/50 inapposition doesn't make that political usefulness reflective of reality on the ground. Fact is, if there is to be a taxonomy having general usefulness on the subject, most "homosexuals" who marry ought better to be referred to as bi- or omnisexual. Just because somebody follows a very familiar [and therefore not particularly reliable] narrative in explaining why he left his wife for the guy(s) does not mean we need to accept the narrative that "I was always this way, I just repressed my feeling while fathering 6 children in 4 years." Let's just be fair here. Edited June 23, 2014 by USU78 2
Gray Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 I don't know how you maintain your patience California Boy. How anyone can say they don't understand that gays falling in love is the same as heterosexuals falling in love, or act like they don't understand it by saying how they love another of the same sex and hang out or enjoy their company without ever having a sexual relationship. And why can't you or others that are gay do that? Well duh! The inability to understand that the "other" is really at heart the same as us is a very common human bias, and unfortunately is a driver for a lot of division and strife.
Gray Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 And, of course, california boy misses my whole point: Just because it is presently useful to claim a clear and obvious line between the homosexual and the heterosexual in a kind of yin-yang 50/50 inapposition doesn't make that political usefulness reflective of reality on the ground. Fact is, if there is to be a taxonomy having general usefulness on the subject, most "homosexuals" who marry ought better to be referred to as bi- or omnisexual. Just because somebody follows a very familiar [and therefore not particularly reliable] narrative in explaining why he left his wife for the guy(s) does not mean we need to accept the narrative that "I was always this way, I just repressed my feeling while fathering 6 children in 4 years." Let's just be fair here. Straight people engage in homosexual behavior in prison. Behavior and orientation aren't always aligned, depending on circumstance.
USU78 Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 Straight people engage in homosexual behavior in prison. Behavior and orientation aren't always aligned, depending on circumstance. Who says they are? Orientation is precious tricky to see, isn't it? Do we believe what the person we're looking at tells us? If he says he's full of "X" orientation, are we required uncritically to accept that statement as TRVTH? Do we look at his behaviors? This is where the whole taxonomy, both "scientific" and political, breaks down: we are supposed to accept uncritically a taxonomic appellation of an individual, and treat that person like a special case, on the basis of his sometimes behavior and his subjective yammerings? This way lies chaos . . . as we observe. 1
california boy Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 And, of course, california boy misses my whole point: Just because it is presently useful to claim a clear and obvious line between the homosexual and the heterosexual in a kind of yin-yang 50/50 inapposition doesn't make that political usefulness reflective of reality on the ground. Fact is, if there is to be a taxonomy having general usefulness on the subject, most "homosexuals" who marry ought better to be referred to as bi- or omnisexual. Just because somebody follows a very familiar [and therefore not particularly reliable] narrative in explaining why he left his wife for the guy(s) does not mean we need to accept the narrative that "I was always this way, I just repressed my feeling while fathering 6 children in 4 years." Let's just be fair here. Well first of all, homosexuality is not a "new taxonomy" It has been around since the beginning of mankind. Throughout history gays have married and tried to fit in to social norms. That does not make them bi. You aren't me. You have not lived my life. So while you may have an opinion. it is based on your own issues. Few professionals would agree with you. I totally understand why you desperately want to take this position, but it is a false premise based on trying to fit your own religious beliefs into someone else's life. Nothing new for me. It is an issue I have been dealing with my whole life. I might also point out, I didn't leave my wife. It was her that filed for divorce. And it was the right decision for us. If I had not been lied to by my church leaders when they told me that if I just get married then these feelings would diminish and go away then maybe I would have never married. There is good reason why the church has backed off on this approach to therapy. Perhaps you should too. It is time to quit blaming the gay members that followed the counsel of their church leaders. There are no winners here.
USU78 Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 Well first of all, homosexuality is not a "new taxonomy" It has been around since the beginning of mankind. Demonstrably false. The word was invented in the Nineteenth Century: The term ‘homosexuality’ was coined in the late 19th century by a German psychologist, Karoly Maria Benkert. The behavior, on the other hand, has been known for a very, very long time indeed. 1
USU78 Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 If I had not been lied to by my church leaders when they told me that if I just get married then these feelings would diminish and go away then maybe I would have never married. Always somebody else's fault, isn't it? Fact is, you chose to act on those feelings rather than not act on them. Own it. Don't keep blaming other people for your volitional acts. Fact is, you didn't have to choose to get married. Own it. Don't keep blaming other people for your volitional acts. 1
Gray Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 Always somebody else's fault, isn't it? Fact is, you chose to act on those feelings rather than not act on them. Own it. Don't keep blaming other people for your volitional acts. Fact is, you didn't have to choose to get married. Own it. Don't keep blaming other people for your volitional acts. I'm not sure it's productive to blame an active, believing member of the church for following the counsel of his priesthood leaders.
Gray Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 Who says they are? Orientation is precious tricky to see, isn't it? Do we believe what the person we're looking at tells us? If he says he's full of "X" orientation, are we required uncritically to accept that statement as TRVTH? Do we look at his behaviors? This is where the whole taxonomy, both "scientific" and political, breaks down: we are supposed to accept uncritically a taxonomic appellation of an individual, and treat that person like a special case, on the basis of his sometimes behavior and his subjective yammerings? This way lies chaos . . . as we observe. I guess you can assume everyone is lying, but I don't find that productive.
USU78 Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 I guess you can assume everyone is lying, but I don't find that productive. In politics, I most certainly do. But we don't even have to go there: the rules of evidence were developed over centuries to limit litigants' ability to use unreliable evidence to prove or disprove a case. Expressions of present- or past-internal/emotional observations of the id have never been considered reliable: too many known and unknown agendas in both the ego and the superego, let alone the id, to sort through what we ought and what we ought not accept as reliable evidence. 1
california boy Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 Always somebody else's fault, isn't it? Fact is, you chose to act on those feelings rather than not act on them. Own it. Don't keep blaming other people for your volitional acts. Fact is, you didn't have to choose to get married. Own it. Don't keep blaming other people for your volitional acts. Look I understand your need to vilify me. Nothing new here. But let's not rewrite history and try and pretend church leaders did not routinely tell gay men to marry. It is not like I am the only one that was told this. And is it so hard to understand that I trusted those leaders and wanted to follow their counsel? I was a zone leader for over half of my mission. Do you not think that I valued the counsel I received from my leaders? I never said I blamed them for the failure of my marriage. I only blame myself for following their counsel. If that is a sin, then yes I am guilty.
USU78 Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 Look I understand your need to vilify me. Nothing new here. But let's not rewrite history and try and pretend church leaders did not routinely tell gay men to marry. It is not like I am the only one that was told this. And is it so hard to understand that I trusted those leaders and wanted to follow their counsel? I was a zone leader for over half of my mission. Do you not think that I valued the counsel I received from my leaders?I never said I blamed them for the failure of my marriage. I only blame myself for following their counsel. If that is a sin, then yes I am guilty.not vilifying you, just the positions you take. You know darn well, as well as I know, that the church leaders were following then best therapeutic opinion available to them. Who knew the condition would be so pesky.to call them liars however, is really beyond the pale.that is where you are really riling me. This has gotten personal, thread closed.
Recommended Posts