Towards A Better Understanding Of Same Sex Attraction And Sin

[Tacenda]

I made no mention of SSA in my post. In fact, I didn't even explicitly mention homosexual BEHAVIORS. I was speaking generally about the causes of suicide, and cautioning generically against the manipulative use of suicides in dysfunctionally justifying bad BEHAVIORS. Please go back a read my post, and this time for comprehension.

 

Now, there is the possibility that homosexual suicides may be the exception to the general rule, or it may also be possible that you have been duped by the manipulative use of homosexual suicides to justifying bad SSA BEHAVIORS. I am open if you are to putting both to the test, though on another thread where it isn't tangential to the topic. Let me know.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

wengland: In short, instances of suicide ought to give us cause to correct the deleterious thinking and behavior of people with suicidal tendencies, and it ought not be cause for cultures to call bad behaviors good. Yet, the opposite seems to be the case with contemporary pop culture. 

 

I quote you above because this was in answer to Jeanne's post about her stepson who was gay and committed suicide.  And you link a site for reasons that one might do that that excluded SSA.  I think you were getting the point across that suicide by SSA is not because of that but for other reasons.  If we're being honest.   

[wenglund]

Wade, over the years we have heard you go on and on about how unworthy gay couples are of marriage.  Now Rodeo has taken on your little crusade.   I want to take the self serving opinion out of both sides and see what the facts are.  It is not me making these often repeated claims of how badly all gay men behave, so therefore they should not be allowed to be invited into our holy sacred god-given rite of marriage.  And it is not me defending the promiscuity of gay men OR straight men.  I just want to know how gay men compare with those that you feel should be invited into your own personal definition of marriage.  After all, how many posts have you done on this issue.  Yet not ONE peer reviewed study to support your claim?  Maybe it is time to back down on your crusade or find something to support it.  How can that not be fair?

 

You are spouting blatant falsehoods. My claims have been well documented, whether you accept the reasoning/findings or not.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[california boy]

You are spouting blatant falsehoods. My claims have been well documented, whether you accept the reasoning/findings or not.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

So you are NOT claiming that straight men are less promiscuous than gay men????

[wenglund]

wengland: In short, instances of suicide ought to give us cause to correct the deleterious thinking and behavior of people with suicidal tendencies, and it ought not be cause for cultures to call bad behaviors good. Yet, the opposite seems to be the case with contemporary pop culture. 

 

I quote you above because this was in answer to Jeanne's post about her stepson who was gay and committed suicide.  And you link a site for reasons that one might do that that excluded SSA.  I think you were getting the point across that suicide by SSA is not because of that but for other reasons.  If we're being honest.   

 

If you were being honest and reasonable, you would accept that I know better than you what I meant and said.

 

Again, I made no mention of SSA in my post. In fact, I didn't even explicitly mention homosexual BEHAVIORS (not to be confused with ATTRACTIONS as you mistakenly assumed). Nor, for that matter, the article I linked to doesn't even specifically mention SSA or homosexuals, and thus doesn't exclude SSA or homosexuality (as you also mistakenly assume). I was speaking generally about the causes of suicide, and cautioning generically against the manipulative use of suicides in dysfunctionally justifying bad BEHAVIORS. 

 

Granted, my generic comment was made in response to Jeanne's post, which was about a homosexual who committing suicide.

 

However, my generic comment was also couched within the context of my own experience learning about a heterosexual suicide.

 

This was Intentional so as to give place for a general rule (supported by the documentation), and leave the reader to determine whether it applies to homosexuals and their BEHAVIORS or not (the default position would logically be that it does, and proof to the contrary would be required to establish homosexuality and homosexual BEHAVIORS as the exception to the rule)..

 

[Edited to add: this does not mean that social pressure isn't a contributing factor in certain suicides, but even so, none of this gives justification for homosexual BEHAVIORS.]

 

Please go back a read my post yet again, and this time for comprehension. And, if you wish to offer criticism, then feel free to reasonably do so by respond to what I have actually said, and not to words you have mistakenly put into my mouth.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited September 14, 2014 by wenglund

[wenglund]

So you are NOT claiming that straight men are less promiscuous than gay men????

 

Who's on first?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited September 14, 2014 by wenglund

[california boy]

Who's on first?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Whatever.  I can see you don't want to answer that question.

[rockpond]

For me, the promiscuity argument is irrelevant. I look at it and think, would allowing legal recognition of gay marriage encourage or discourage monogamy & committed relationships (which I view as a good thing).

I also look at it from a religious freedom perspective. Does it support freedom of religion?

I think the answers are clear and thus my support of legally recognized gay marriage.

[Tacenda]

If you were being honest and reasonable, you would accept that I know better than you what I meant and said.

 

Again, I made no mention of SSA in my post. In fact, I didn't even explicitly mention homosexual BEHAVIORS (not to be confused with ATTRACTIONS as you mistakenly assumed). Nor, for that matter, the article I linked to doesn't even specifically mention SSA or homosexuals, and thus doesn't exclude  SSA or homosexual (as you mistakenly assume). I was speaking generally about the causes of suicide, and cautioning generically against the manipulative use of suicides in dysfunctionally justifying bad BEHAVIORS. 

 

Granted, my generic comment was made in response to Jeanne's post, which was about an homosexual who committing suicide.

 

However, my generic comment was also couched within the context of my own experience learning about a heterosexual suicide.

 

This was Intentional so as to give place for a general rule (supported by the documentation), and leave the reader to determine whether it applies to homosexuals and their BEHAVIORS or not (the default position is that it does, and proof to the contrary would be required to establish homosexuality and homosexual BEHAVIORS as the exception to the rule)..

 

Please go back a read my post yet again, and this time for comprehension. And, if you wish to offer criticism, then feel free to reasonably do so by respond to what I have actually said, and not to words you have mistakenly put into my mouth.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You concluded your post to Jeanne and said:  "Consequently, I was motivated to search deeper into the causes of suicide--which I learned has much to do with the warped mindset of suicidal people, and little if anything to do with public stigmas against bad BEHAVIORS. (See HERE)

 

In short, instances of suicide ought to give us cause to correct the deleterious thinking and behavior of people with suicidal tendencies, and it ought not be cause for cultures to call bad behaviors good. Yet, the opposite seems to be the case with contemporary pop culture."

 

 

Public stigmas against bad behaviors:  back lash against gay life styles or SSA

 

Cultures to call bad behaviors good:  SSM promoters, sympathizers & supporters or acting on SSA supporters, sympathizers..

 

 

I may be up in the night, and may have read your post completely wrong.  But the bold and underlined portions I deciphered below it is what I thought you meant.  My apologies if they weren't. 

 

Edited September 14, 2014 by Tacenda

[wenglund]

Whatever.  I can see you don't want to answer that question.

 

What's on second?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[VideoGameJunkie]

A question that gets asked is why would God create people who are gay if they can't get married or can't act on how they are?

[Rodeo]

Actually it is irrelevant to the legalization of gay marriage.  We don't issue marriage licenses in this country by giving temple interviews.  The courts have made it perfectly clear that gay marriage is a civil right under the 14th amendment and has NOtHING to do with how the Mormon church or any other church views their relationships.  

 

Now if your agenda is to start issuing marriage licenses based on worthiness, then there are going to be a lot of straight couples that won't be getting married any time soon either.

The sad truth though with male homosexual relationships is that it isnt built or principled on true monogamy. You cant redefine marriage to mean "Infidelity agreement".

[wenglund]

For me, the promiscuity argument is irrelevant. I look at it and think, would allowing legal recognition of gay marriage encourage or discourage monogamy & committed relationships (which I view as a good thing).

I also look at it from a religious freedom perspective. Does it support freedom of religion?

I think the answers are clear and thus my support of legally recognized gay marriage.

 

I think I see what you are saying.

 

If one equates promiscuity with the risk of producing illegitimate births (as was the case with traditional marriage), then given that promiscuous same-sex relationship wont result in illegitimate births, let alone any natural births at all, then promiscuity in that regard isn't relevant to SSM..

 

Also, if one defines promiscuity in emotional and not physical terms, as many in the homosexual community do, then promiscuity is only relevant to SSM in so far as it retains emotional monogamy and commitment. Physical promiscuity, in that sense, is irrelevant to SSM. People are free to have unemotional and uncommitted sex outside of marriage. 

 

In other words, by mangling the definition of marriage to include same-sex relationships, also necessitates mangling the definitions of "promiscuity" and "monogamy" and "commitment", thereby rendering the later irrelevant to SSM.

 

And, while the mangling of these words may make sense to some people, it doesn't make sense to others of us, myself included. We don't see any net benefit to society in seriously diluting and warping these terms. Indeed, we see potential harm, and as such we view legalizing SSM as quite inane. 

 

But, to each their own.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rodeo]

For me, the promiscuity argument is irrelevant. I look at it and think, would allowing legal recognition of gay marriage encourage or discourage monogamy & committed relationships (which I view as a good thing).

I also look at it from a religious freedom perspective. Does it support freedom of religion?

I think the answers are clear and thus my support of legally recognized gay marriage.

We may be getting to the heart of the issue here. If we properly define marriage as a compketely monogamous covenant how many gay married couples would really want marriage? If male homosexuality is built on promiscuos behavior how would marriage benefit gays? Is this why so few male gay couples actually get married and stay truthfully monogamous?

[Rodeo]

A question that gets asked is why would God create people who are gay if they can't get married or can't act on how they are?

This is one teason I dont believe people are born and have no choice. I remeber when I was a teenager and had all kinds of weird thoughts and attractions. Perhaps even I had a few of those gay moments. However, I "chose" not to pursue those attrations. I chose to be heterosexual.

[rockpond]

The sad truth though with male homosexual relationships is that it isnt built or principled on true monogamy. You cant redefine marriage to mean "Infidelity agreement".

And you are qualified to speak for all homosexual relationships, how?

By the way, between you and Wade I believe this thread is on the fast track to being closed.

[rockpond]

I think I see what you are saying.

No, you didn't see what I was saying.

[Rodeo]

And you are qualified to speak for all homosexual relationships, how?

By the way, between you and Wade I believe this thread is on the fast track to being closed.

I just read the studies and reports. The majority of male homosexuals are very promiscuous. One doent need to be qualified to know this truth.

[rockpond]

We may be getting to the heart of the issue here. If we properly define marriage as a compketely monogamous covenant how many gay married couples would really want marriage? If male homosexuality is built on promiscuos behavior how would marriage benefit gays? Is this why so few male gay couples actually get married and stay truthfully monogamous?

You started this thread by indicating that you've been wrongfully accused of gay bashing. Can you objectively look at some of the statements you are making and understand why you may have been so accused?

[wenglund]

A question that gets asked is why would God create people who are gay if they can't get married or can't act on how they are?

 

People may also ask why God created philanderers if they can't stay married while still acting on how they are?

 

They may also ask why God created little children if they can't get married while still acting on how they are?

 

Some may even ask why God created people with incestuous orientation if they can't get married or can't act on how they are?

 

What about people who are sexually oriented towards animals? Why would God create them if they can't get married or act on how they are?

 

Such questions can be endless, but in terms of human progression and the will of God, they are the wrong questions to ask. 

 

The correct question to ask, in my estimation, isn't whether or why God created us in certain ways or not given his moral laws and the laws of the land, but rather what sexual BEHAVIORS will progress us as individuals and people and bring us closer to God, and should thus be promoted within the Church if not also through the laws of our respective lands?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

By the way, between you and Wade I believe this thread is on the fast track to being closed.

 

The tendency in the past has been to ban me from the tread (often on the false claim of gay bashing, when in truth the supporters of SSM can't handle opposing views even when stated matter-of-factly and reasonably, and unite in raising a ruckus to silence me and others) rather than closing the thread.

 

I have said nothing on this thread that violates board rules. But, the addendum on sensitive topics provides enough latitude to bias against opponents of SSM and grease the squeaky wheels.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

No, you didn't see what I was saying.

 

Okay. Let me rephrase that. I see what pop cultural is say that you are here parroting perhaps somewhat unaware.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rain]

Is there any scriptural support for declaring that hand holding or love note writing between homosexual persons is breaking the law of chastity?

Not that I know of. Which is why I put question marks at the end of what I asked and mentioned that question was harder to answer. The only quotes which I saw from the website did not make that clear.

The only thing I could go on was,"acting on" SSA is a sin. Depending on how you interpret that it could be ANY time you act on it or it could mean only when you act on it in the same ways it would be a sin for a heterosexual.

Edited September 15, 2014 by Rain

[Rain]

A question that gets asked is why would God create people who are gay if they can't get married or can't act on how they are?

As a type 1 diabetic I stopped asking this question long ago. Why does God create down syndrome people when they don't have the mental capability of multiplying and replenishing the earth? That and 100s of other similar questions could be asked.

The answer I finally came up with was God didn't give me diabetes, but did know I would be born with a mortal body that would have it. Mortal bodies are not perfect, which is why He created the atonement plan Then he gave me gifts and responsibilities that match the body, family, time, place etc that I would be born with.

Edited September 15, 2014 by Rain

[rockpond]

Okay. Let me rephrase that. I see what pop cultural is say that you are here parroting perhaps somewhat unaware.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

There was a time when pop culture agreed with your position. Either way, I am only interested in the pursuit of truth and charity. I can't control if pop culture at times is wrong, at times is right, and at times agrees with me.

[rockpond]

Not that I know of. Which is why I put question marks at the end of what I asked and mentioned that question was harder to answer. The only quotes which I saw from the website did not make that clear.

The only thing I could go on was,"acting on" SSA is a sin. Depending on how you interpret that it could be ANY time you act on it or it could mean only when you act on it in the same ways it would be a sin for a heterosexual.

I agree. It is a question. And being in a position of performing temple recommend interviews, I still don't have a clear answer other than what the spirit tells me. I can't look to the scriptures for a definition of "homosexual behavior" nor is it contained in the CHI1.