Towards A Better Understanding Of Same Sex Attraction And Sin

[rockpond]

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-

I think you and now Rodeo have been given substantial freedom to express your thoughts, opinions, and ideas.

[Rain]

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.

I can see where that could put you on a tough place. What has your bishop or stake president said about it?

[why me]

I have obviously been accused of gay bashing. I just want to clarify I have never done any gay bashing. My heart goes out to those who struggle I do want to have abetter understanding of the issues but at the same time I do not want to fall nto the trap of calling that which is wrong to be right. Immoral behavior is always sin. There has been a push by the gay agenda to make homosexuality an alternative normal practice. It has crept into the church also amongst members and we even see many fall away over the myriad of issues. I do wonder though how much of this is due to Satan and his works. I found this talk to be helpful in my understanding-

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1995/10/same-gender-attraction?lang=eng&query=lesbian

At the same time in my study I also found this talk by Spencer W. Kimball- https://www.lds.org/ensign/1980/11/president-kimball-speaks-out-on-morality?lang=eng&query=homosexual+spencer+w.+kimball

So that I cannot be accused of gay bashing I want to quote Spencer W. Kimball which I feel truly represents our awful situation in the world today-

" This heinous homosexual sin is of the ages. Many cities and civilizations have gone out of existence because of it. It was present in Israel’s wandering days, tolerated by the Greeks, and found in the baths of corrupt Rome.

This is a most unpleasant subject to dwell upon, but I am pressed to speak of it boldly so that no youth in the Church will ever have any question in his mind as to the illicit and diabolical nature of this perverse program. Again, Lucifer deceives and prompts logic and rationalization which will destroy men and women and make them servants of Satan forever. Paul told Timothy:

“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

“And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be mined unto fables.” (2 Tim. 4:3–4; See also Moses 5:50–55.)

“God made me that way,” some say, as they rationalize and excuse themselves for their perversions. “I can’t help it,” they add. This is blasphemy. Is man not made in the image of God, and does he think God to be “that way”? Man is responsible for his own sins. It is possible that he may rationalize and excuse himself until the groove is so deep he cannot get out without great difficulty, but this he can do. Temptations come to all people. The difference between the reprobate and the worthy person is generally that one yielded and the other resisted. It is true that one’s background may make the decision and accomplishment easier or more difficult, but if one is mentally alert, he can still control his future. That is the gospel message—personal responsibility."

I am trying to understand the issue and I am constantly coming back to the same conclusion every time- The influence and acceptance of immoral behavior is just adding fuel to the fire in every facet which includes homosexual behavior.

I believe that homosexual acts may be condemned but we also need to have empathy and compassion for those who are homosexual. Now I say this for those who are gay and christian whose churches are against homosexual behavior. These homosexuals need our compassion because they are living inside a dialectic. On the one hand, the churches do not recognize gay marriage and yet, the people who are gay have natural impulses and urges too which include feelings for significant others.

Edited September 15, 2014 by why me

[Rodeo]

I believe that homosexual acts may be condemned but we also need to have empathy and compassion for those who are homosexual. Now I say this for those who are gay and christian whose churches are against homosexual behavior. These homosexuals need are compassion because they are living inside a dialectic. On the one hand, the churches do not recognize gay marriage and yet, the people who are gay have natural impulses and urges too which include feelings for significant others.

There is that fuzzy line there. Should we be sympathetic to their plea or call bluff by looking beyond the false front and expose the practice as what it really is?

[why me]

There is that fuzzy line there. Should we be sympathetic to their plea or call bluff by looking beyond the false front and expose the practice as what it really is?

We need to be compassionate because they are people on their own spiritual journey. Heteros need to be chaste too. And when they have sex outside of marriage it is wrong. But gays and lesbians are in a maze that may not be so easy to get out as they navigate chaste with no option of marriage. And this is where the compassion comes in from church members who are not gay. That being said, I do believe that all can be chaste with an occasional slip up because no one is perfect.

 

There is also a difference between civic law and god's law. And at times the two don't mesh with each other. So if one is gay, one can be married in certain states and yet, if they are having sex, some christian churches can take disciplinary action. I do believe that this would be the case in the lds church if the bishop decides to do so. Most gay couples would just go inactive.  

 

I have also found that a lds person's opinion can change if a son or daugher declares themselves to be gay. Suddenly, these members can become spokespeople for gay rights in the lds church and be very critical of the church's policy over gay issues. I suppose that this would be normal in such situations.

Edited September 15, 2014 by why me

[Storm Rider]

I am not claiming that gay men are not promiscuous.  And I don't think that you would claim that single straight men are not promiscuous.  The question I have and NO ONE has been able to show any solid study, is how do these two groups compare?  Are gay single men more promiscuous than straight men?  If so, by what percentage? 10% more? 20% more?  Are unmarried gay couples more promiscuous than unmarried straight couples?  How long are their relationships?  

 

We certainly know that married straight couples tend to be more monogamous than unmarried straight couples.  How about gay married couples?  Do they tend to be more monogamous that unmarried gay couples?

 

We have seen plenty of links to antigay sites on this subject, (such as the one you posted to Joseph Nicolosi, the founder and former president of NARTH.  A man who has made his livelihood preying on gays that desperately want to be straight even though several states have passed laws against reparative therapy for those under 18)  But what are the real numbers?  This seems to be a big deal to some of you like Rodeo and you, but you have YET to actually do a real side by side comparison.  It seems to me that if you and Rodeo are willing to rant about homosexual promiscuity, you should at least know the facts. It seems like you don't.  Until you can tell us how to gay single men compare with straight single men then you really have noting to go on and on and on about do you. Either provide the comparisons by a credible peer study, not what some antigay minister has to say or quit the rant.  Does that seem fair? 

 

The links I gave above have links to specific studies on gay promiscuity.  There are some comparative analyses between gay men and straight men, married and single, and their different levels of promiscuity.  It appears that even in gay couples the promiscuity is significantly greater than that found among straight couples.  I also linked the degree of promiscuity for straight couples to demonstrate that I am not attempting to portray either side as perfect or following the ideal.  

 

I have not read each of the studies, but have read synopses of each.  If you are going to portray the gay couple as the paragon of idealistic married devotion, then it might be beneficial for you to read them also; or as you say "know the facts".  It is quite apparent that you either do not know the facts or you do all you can to obfuscate and deny those same facts.  

 

I have given you links that do the comparison - gay men are far more promiscuous than straight men.  How can you say different?  What studies support your position?  I have noted several that demonstrate my statement.  Let's see your references!  

[rockpond]

There is that fuzzy line there. Should we be sympathetic to their plea or call bluff by looking beyond the false front and expose the practice as what it really is?

You talk as if you are referring to some political opponent rather than the gay members in your ward and stake.

Has studying these editorials you've linked to regarding the "promiscuity of gay men" helped you come to a greater understanding of the gay brothers and sisters you worship with each week?

Claiming a need to call their bluff and expose their false front does not strike me as compassionate. Have you really gotten to know them first?

[Daniel2]

The tendency in the past has been to ban me from the tread (often on the false claim of gay bashing

CFR on folded portion.

unite in raising a ruckus to silence me and others)

CFR.

the addendum on sensitive topics provides enough latitude to bias against opponents of SSM

CFR. Edited September 15, 2014 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

But the front put up is that you want the same thing as monogamous heterosexual marriages have.

No.

We want the same marriage rights as both monogamous AND non-monogamous heterosexuals have.

Can you please direct us to the monogamy test that heterosexuals are required to take to get civilly married...?

Edited September 15, 2014 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

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".

The sad truth though with polygamous relationships is that it isn't built or principled on true monogamy. You cant redefine marriage to mean "Infidelity agreement".

You know the saying: Mormons who live in glass houses...

By the way, if we're only marrying couples based on which are MOST monogamous, guess what kind of couplings would be....?

Edited September 15, 2014 by Daniel2

[rodheadlee]

Spewing your sacred seed of life up the waste system of another human being will NEVER be sanctified by God. This is an abomination before God. No matter how you look at it, it takes 1 part male and 1 part female to create a life therefore it also makes you desolate. SSM is the abomination that makes desolate.

 

This vulgarity has been copied for comment too many times to remove. You are banned from the thread.

[wenglund]

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.

 

Let's move away from the tangents of legalizing SSM and word games and get back to the topic by asking you point blank: do you believe that sex and sexual behavior between people of the same gender is sinful and/or immoral or not? What do you view as the truth and charity in that regard?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

CFR on folded portion.

CFR.

CFR.

 

Since I am banned from the threads in question, I am prevented from entering the threads so as to retrieve the relevant quotes, let alone provide links to those threads. In other words, I am prevented by the bans from comply with your CFR, though the fact that I am banned should speak for itself.

 

But, this is tangential to the topic anyway, so I will leave it at that.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Tacenda]

Spewing your sacred seed of life up the waste system of another human being will NEVER be sanctified by God. This is an abomination before God. No matter how you look at it, it takes 1 part male and 1 part female to create a life therefore it also makes you desolate. SSM is the abomination that makes desolate.

WHAT!?!?  This is so uncalled for... 

 

Besides, we could go on about heterosexuals sex life and it wouldn't even come close I bet. 

[rockpond]

Spewing your sacred seed of life up the waste system of another human being will NEVER be sanctified by God. This is an abomination before God. No matter how you look at it, it takes 1 part male and 1 part female to create a life therefore it also makes you desolate. SSM is the abomination that makes desolate.

 

There ya go... that's just the kind of welcoming, compassionate language that we need in the church.

[wenglund]

WHAT!?!?  This is so uncalled for... 

 

Please explain why you think so. I ask because I see it as quite the opposite.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[california boy]

The links I gave above have links to specific studies on gay promiscuity.  There are some comparative analyses between gay men and straight men, married and single, and their different levels of promiscuity.  It appears that even in gay couples the promiscuity is significantly greater than that found among straight couples.  I also linked the degree of promiscuity for straight couples to demonstrate that I am not attempting to portray either side as perfect or following the ideal.  

 

I have not read each of the studies, but have read synopses of each.  If you are going to portray the gay couple as the paragon of idealistic married devotion, then it might be beneficial for you to read them also; or as you say "know the facts".  It is quite apparent that you either do not know the facts or you do all you can to obfuscate and deny those same facts.  

 

I have given you links that do the comparison - gay men are far more promiscuous than straight men.  How can you say different?  What studies support your position?  I have noted several that demonstrate my statement.  Let's see your references!  

 

Sorry, but I didn't find a study that has the same criteria comparing gay men with straight men.  Perhaps you can highlight the quote that shows the comparison.  It would be VERY helpful.

 

I am not, nor have I ever put gay men up as the paragon of idealistic married devotion.  If I were to guess, I would guess that they are more permiscuious.  Is all I am asking for is a peered reviewed study that shows the exact percentages.  I doubt that you are willing to put up straight men as the paragon of idealistic married devotion either given the percentage of marriages that end in divorce due to unfaithful actions.  

 

This is an issue that neither side can throw stones at glass houses.  THAT IS MY POINT,  And it is irrelivent in deciding who should allowed to marry and who should not be allowed to marry. In this country, we have no worthiness interview when marriage licenses are issued.  My gripe is more from those that want to continually blast gay men about their worthiness when they have NO idea how they compare to straight men.  In our society, there seems to be very little that come to the alter as virgins or even with someone who has been their only sex partner.   So those that want to continually harp on the worthiness of gay men to marry have absolutely no ground to stand on.  Sin is sin.  God doesn't say that you are allowed to have sex outside of marriage 5 times or 10 times or 50 times before it is a sin.  Neither should we.  

[rockpond]

Let's move away from the tangents of legalizing SSM and word games and get back to the topic by asking you point blank: do you believe that sex and sexual behavior between people of the same gender is sinful and/or immoral or not? What do you view as the truth and charity in that regard?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

I don't think that my personal opinions are going to be all that relevant to the thread but I will answer your question (even though I think you already know my views).

 

I believe that sex outside of marriage has been defined as being sinful.  That is something I see as truth.  For me, charity means that gay people should be able to marry and enjoy committed, covenant relationships in the same way that heterosexual people do.  I don't believe that God considers that immoral.

[Rodeo]

You talk as if you are referring to some political opponent rather than the gay members in your ward and stake.

Has studying these editorials you've linked to regarding the "promiscuity of gay men" helped you come to a greater understanding of the gay brothers and sisters you worship with each week?

Claiming a need to call their bluff and expose their false front does not strike me as compassionate. Have you really gotten to know them first?

All I ever hear is how they just want this monogamous relationship because that is how they were born and that we shouldnt judge them and instead should support them and support the legalization of gay marriage. I do feel that there is a small (very small) percentage that truly want this but for most homosexuals its about the choice they made and feel that they should be justified in all their immoral behavior. By catering to the very few we have to cater to the greater masses who live in very sinful manners. I study these issues out, visit other folks, visit websites and I learn a lot of this issue over the years as it has effected my own family and I have tried to understand them. What I have learned is that it is almost entirely a false front they put up. They do not truly want what they claim. No good comes from the sexually perversion lifestyle of homosexuality, bisexuality or even promiscuous heterosexual lifestyle. We have became afraid of treating SSA and homosexuality and instead are caving in to the ideals of the gay agenda and being led down dark paths. We are sending the wrong message when we begin to accept the homosexual lifestyle as some kind of "natural" innate condition. Iwill wait and see where the church goes from here but I await in caution.

[Daniel2]

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?

Which CIVIL benefits of CIVIL marriage between straight couples are CONDITIONAL on straight couples' proof to the government of ongoing monogamy...?

Do you believe that monogamy is "properly" included in the government's "definition" of civil marriage for straight couples?

If so, please point out where it is?

The double standard of accusing gays of failing to meet some sort of civil "monogamy-test"-----which CLEARLY is NOT requires of opposite-sex couples, is obvious.

Edited September 15, 2014 by Daniel2

[cinepro]

Spewing your sacred seed of life up the waste system of another human being will NEVER be sanctified by God. This is an abomination before God. No matter how you look at it, it takes 1 part male and 1 part female to create a life therefore it also makes you desolate. SSM is the abomination that makes desolate.

 

So if someone has a vasectomy they're good to go? 

 

I can understand the personal repulsion heterosexuals feel towards homosexual acts (since I feel it too), but honestly, some of the stuff that gets made up to try and justify that repulsion is really weird.  Your theory about the "sacred seed of life" is absurdly silly any way you look at it. 

 

If you multiply the number of men in the world by the number of "sacred seed of life" that are produced and unused over the course of a week, the number is in the quadrillions.  If God cares about this going to waste, than the human body and reproductive system is a very, very poor design.  Same with females and their eggs.  The human reproductive system has been extremely effective over the years, but it is not an efficient or conservative system.  So the idea that a specific act is objectionable because it "wastes" some of the reproductive resources is obviously absurd.

 

Heck, for some reason the human body and reproductive system was designed so that even after a woman gets pregnant, there is a 10-25% chance of miscarriage within the first 13 weeks! 

 

Epic fail.

Edited September 15, 2014 by cinepro

[wenglund]

I don't think that my personal opinions are going to be all that relevant to the thread but I will answer your question (even though I think you already know my views).

 

I don't see why personal opinions would be irrelevant on a public discussion board specifically designed for people to express their personal opinions and is rife with expression of personal opinions.

 

I believe that sex outside of marriage has been defined as being sinful.  That is something I see as truth.  For me, charity means that gay people should be able to marry and enjoy committed, covenant relationships in the same way that heterosexual people do.  I don't believe that God considers that immoral.

 

So, to clarify, in your mind, sex and sexual behaviors between married adults of the same gender, is not sin or immoral? It is only sin or immoral outside the bonds of marriage?

 

In other words, to you, as long as adults are married, then consensual sexual behaviors of any kind are not sinful or immoral?

 

If that is true, and given that God is adamantly against sin and immorality, then why hasn't God commanded homosexuals to get married, so as to not sin, as he has with heterosexuals?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[california boy]

All I ever hear is how they just want this monogamous relationship because that is how they were born and that we shouldnt judge them and instead should support them and support the legalization of gay marriage. 

I don't think that anyone is claiming  gay men are monogamous.  I don't think that anyone is claiming that straight men are monogamous.   If that is your beef, then there is no argument.  

 

The CFR that you have been asked for, and refused or are unable to provide is a study that shows exactly what the difference between straight men and gay men is.  In other words, how big of difference between the two groups is there.  Because you spend a heck of a lot of posts condemning gay men as if they are the only group that is having sex outside of marriage with multiple partners but not much on condemning straight men for their multiple sex partners.

[Daniel2]

All I ever hear is how they just want this monogamous relationship because that is how they were born and that we shouldnt judge them and instead should support them and support the legalization of gay marriage. I do feel that there is a small (very small) percentage that truly want this but for most homosexuals its about the choice they made and feel that they should be justified in all their immoral behavior. By catering to the very few we have to cater to the greater masses who live in very sinful manners. I study these issues out, visit other folks, visit websites and I learn a lot of this issue over the years as it has effected my own family and I have tried to understand them. What I have learned is that it is almost entirely a false front they put up. They do not truly want what they claim. No good comes from the sexually perversion lifestyle of homosexuality, bisexuality or even promiscuous heterosexual lifestyle. We have became afraid of treating SSA and homosexuality and instead are caving in to the ideals of the gay agenda and being led down dark paths. We are sending the wrong message when we begin to accept the homosexual lifestyle as some kind of "natural" innate condition. Iwill wait and see where the church goes from here but I await in caution.

Rodeo, let me be clear:

In America today, there is NO civil marriage benefit, right, or responsibility that is granted based on any sexual behavior.

Let me repeat that.

In America today, there is NO civil marriage benefit, right, or responsibility that is granted based on any sexual behavior.

Americans don't get even a SINGLE benefit from marriage if they are having MORE sex, or LESS sex; no marriage benefits for MORE sex with one person, nor more marriage benefits for LESS sex with other people, nor more marriage benefits for NO sex at all, nor more marriage benefits for MORE sex with everyone.

Civilly-speaking:

Marriage itself isn't conditional on ANY type of sexual relationship with one's spouse.

Old people who don't have sex get married.

Medically-based sexually non-functioning individuals get married.

Barren and infertile individuals get married.

Incarcerated multiple-life-sentance-serving convicts (murderers and the like) who are "denied conjugal visits" (in other words, "are denied the ability to EVER have sex") get married.

Heterosexual civil marriage rights are ENTIRELY unrelated, and not dependent, on ANY sexual behavior.

And gays had NOTHING to do with that lack of civil expectation---------the Constitution is responsible for it------NOT gays.

Can you imagine living in a civil (secular) government that gave out marriage rights only to sexually active and reproducing couples...?

Can you imagine how personally intrusive such a government would be---demanding that citizens keep record of, account for, and/or PROVE that they are only having sex according to the government's regulation?

Can you imagine government terminating civil marriage rights because a given couple violated the sex that government decreed as "worthy"?

Can you imagine how religious freedom in such a state would be intolerable?

Religion may reward and encourage and promote whatever sexual behaviors it wishes.

However, in America, we also have personal freedoms, religious freedoms, and a plurality of beliefs.

And government "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

It sounds like your argument is with the First Amendment, so it sure would be nice if you would give credit where credit is due, instead of scapegoating gays for religions' failure to convince everyone of a single, universal sexual code of conduct.

Incidentally, as a devout Mormon, I was always taught that it was America's Constitution, which respects individual rights and allows for the freedoms of religion, speech, assembly, etc. that allowed the blessing of the Restoration of the (LDS) Gospel to even occur.

According to LDS belief, these freedom to make choices (even choices contrary to Heavenly Father's will, that would damn his children)--also called "agency"--was sanctioned by God the Father, and SO important that he cast out a third of his children who rejected the agency He approved and gave them:

That Satan, whom thou hast commanded in the name of mine Only Begotten, is the same which was from the beginning, and he came before me, saying—Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor.

But, behold, my Beloved Son, which was my Beloved and Chosen from the beginning, said unto me—Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever.

Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down;

And he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and to blind men, and to lead them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken unto my voice.

Edited September 15, 2014 by Daniel2

[wenglund]

Rodeo, let me be clear:

In America today, there is NO civil marriage benefit, right, or responsibility that is granted based on any sexual behavior.

Let me repeat that.

In America today, there is NO civil marriage benefit, right, or responsibility that is granted based on any sexual behavior.

Americans don't get even a SINGLE benefit from marriage if they are having MORE sex, or LESS sex; no marriage benefits for MORE sex with one person, nor more marriage benefits for LESS sex with other people, nor more marriage benefits for NO sex at all, nor more marriage benefits for MORE sex with everyone.

Civilly-speaking:

Marriage itself isn't conditional on ANY type of sexual relationship with one's spouse.

Old people who don't have sex get married.

Medically-based sexually non-functioning individuals get married.

Barren and infertile individuals get married.

Incarcerated multiple-life-sentance-serving convicts (murderers and the like) who are "denied conjugal visits" (in other words, "are denied the ability to EVER have sex") get married.

Heterosexual civil marriage rights are ENTIRELY unrelated, and not dependent, on ANY sexual behavior.

And gays had NOTHING to do with that lack of civil expectation---------the Constitution is responsible for it------NOT gays.

Can you imagine living in a civil (secular) government that gave out marriage rights only to sexually active and reproducing couples...?

Can you imagine how personally intrusive such a government would be---demanding that citizens keep record of, account for, and/or PROVE that they are only having sex according to the government's regulation?

Can you imagine government terminating civil marriage rights because a given couple violated the sex that government decreed as "worthy"?

Can you imagine how religious freedom in such a state would be intolerable?

Religion may reward and encourage and promote whatever sexual behaviors it wishes.

However, in America, we also have personal freedoms, religious freedoms, and a plurality of beliefs.

And government "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

It sounds like your argument is with the First Amendment, so it sure would be nice if you would give credit where credit is due, instead of scapegoating gays for religions' failure to convince everyone of a single, universal sexual code of conduct.

 

Are you seriously suggesting that marital laws weren't formulated with the intent to diminish illegitimate births and to encourage legitimate births?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-