Towards A Better Understanding Of Same Sex Attraction And Sin

[wenglund]

It's all good, Brother Englund. I know where and to whom to turn for sound doctrine. I'm quite comfortable in my beliefs and my relationship with God and the church.

 

It isn't my place to judge. My place is to simply sound a wake-up call to people who may be deluding themselves into believing that "bad" is "good," while proclaiming that "all is good." 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Brian 2.0]

What you suggest may be correct if one wishes to compare fidelity rates under specific relationship conditions (such as married vs unmarried); but the breakout isn't necessary in terms of committed relationships in general.

A "committed relationship" and a "marriage" can be very different things. And the graph actually just uses "current relationship" which is far from a marriage relationship.

They could have used "heterosexual males in committed relationships" as the other group to get a little closer (including those unmarried relationships).

Or... the subset of homosexual relationships are only those who indicated they are in a committed relationship "as if" they were married (because it was not an option in most places). That would also get you much closer.

But simply using "current relationship" for homosexual men and "married" for heterosexual men is too big a divide I make the data useful.

[Brian 2.0]

We are getting off point here. The idea that homosexual committed relationships include a large percentage where they have "open" relationships" is beside the point. There are heterosexual marriages that have similar arrangements, though admitted not as high of percentage, but does that mean they are not "married" or should not be able to get "married"?

Again... What is the evidence showing promiscuity even supposed to be used for? To what end are people posting about it here? Should be we outlawing promiscuity?

[wenglund]

A "committed relationship" and a "marriage" can be very different things. And the graph actually just uses "current relationship" which is far from a marriage relationship.

They could have used "heterosexual males in committed relationships" as the other group to get a little closer (including those unmarried relationships).

Or... the subset of homosexual relationships are only those who indicated they are in a committed relationship "as if" they were married (because it was not an option in most places). That would also get you much closer.

But simply using "current relationship" for homosexual men and "married" for heterosexual men is too big a divide I make the data useful.

 

This assumes that there is substantial difference in fidelity within committed married relationships as compared with committed non-married relationships. What is your basis for that assumption? I ask because from what I know of heterosexual relationships, there isn't all that much difference in fidelity between married and unmarried committed relationships--as born out in the links I supplied above.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

We are getting off point here. The idea that homosexual committed relationships include a large percentage where they have "open" relationships" is beside the point. There are heterosexual marriages that have similar arrangements, though admitted not as high of percentage, but does that mean they are not "married" or should not be able to get "married"?

Again... What is the evidence showing promiscuity even supposed to be used for? To what end are people posting about it here? Should be we outlawing promiscuity?

 

I am confused. You seriously don't see a relationship between fidelity and "open relationships"? Please tell me that you haven't bought into the inane redefinition of fidelity and monogamy--i.e. what some have come to call "manogamish."

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Tsuzuki]

I am confused. You seriously don't see a relationship between fidelity and "open relationships"? Please tell me that you haven't bought into the inane redefinition of fidelity and monogamy--i.e. what some have come to call "manogamish."

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You can have fidelity in open relationships.

 

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/fidelity

 

"Faithfulness to a person, cause, or belief, demonstrated by continuing loyalty and support:"

[Brian 2.0]

I am confused. You seriously don't see a relationship between fidelity and "open relationships"? Please tell me that you haven't bought into the inane redefinition of fidelity and monogamy--i.e. what some have come to call "manogamish."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

That not what I'm saying. Though there is a difference between a husband who's cheating on his wife behind her back and a husband who is engaging in relations with someone other than his wife because of an open agreement with his wife.

What I'm saying is... Let's grant you the the point that homosexuals are more promiscuous and show lower fidelity in there relationships when compared to heterosexuals....

So what? What's the next step here?

What if I showed you stats that a certain race population showed more promiscuity and less fidelity when compared to other races? Would you use that stat to justify anything?

[wenglund]

Again... What is the evidence showing promiscuity even supposed to be used for? To what end are people posting about it here? Should be we outlawing promiscuity?

 

As indicated in my blog:

 

Liberals have argued for same-sex marriage by claiming, in part, that it would encourage stable, longterm committed relationships among homosexual couples, thereby having a positive effect on social health and welfare--just as presumably with legal marriage for heterosexuals. (See HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE andHERE and HERE)

 

However, you are correct that this is tangential to the topic of the thread.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rockpond]

It isn't my place to judge. My place is to simply sound a wake-up call to people who may be deluding themselves into believing that "bad" is "good," while proclaiming that "all is good."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Sorry, with that phrase I wasn't literally saying "all is good". I just meant all is well with my belief system, testimony, and faith. No need for a wake up call here.

And regarding your ongoing dialogue with Brian... I'll just add that it's quite clear to me that allowing and encouraging marriage among homosexual couples is absolutely necessary to encouraging monogamy. Just as we, in the church, form our children's behavior by teaching them the importance of marriage and chastity, we must do the same for our gay and lesbian children.

[california boy]

This assumes that there is substantial difference in fidelity within committed married relationships as compared with committed non-married relationships. What is your basis for that assumption? I ask because from what I know of heterosexual relationships, there isn't all that much difference in fidelity between married and unmarried committed relationships--as born out in the links I supplied above.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Are you really suggesting that living together is just as good as being married unless you have a religious belief that sex outside of marriage is a sin?

[wenglund]

You can have fidelity in open relationships.

 

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/fidelity

 

"Faithfulness to a person, cause, or belief, demonstrated by continuing loyalty and support:"

 

It depends upon what one means by "faithful" and "continually loyal."

 

In some segments of pop culture (more particularly within the homosexual community), those terms in relation to committed romantic relationships have been redefined as limited to emotion faithfulness and loyalty, which then allows for the kind of non-emotional, though physically sexual unfaithfulness and disloyalty common to "open relationships." So, in a way you are correct.

 

In order to call "bad" behaviors "good" as prophesied, has necessitated redefining a number of terms, including marriage, fidelity, promiscuity, faithfulness, loyalty, monogamy, etc.. Word games have become the coin of the pop cultural realm in its pursuit of perversion..

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited September 16, 2014 by wenglund

[wenglund]

That not what I'm saying. Though there is a difference between a husband who's cheating on his wife behind her back and a husband who is engaging in relations with someone other than his wife because of an open agreement with his wife.

What I'm saying is... Let's grant you the the point that homosexuals are more promiscuous and show lower fidelity in there relationships when compared to heterosexuals....

So what? What's the next step here?

What if I showed you stats that a certain race population showed more promiscuity and less fidelity when compared to other races? Would you use that stat to justify anything?

 

See my post #358

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Are you really suggesting that living together is just as good as being married unless you have a religious belief that sex outside of marriage is a sin?

 

There is no rational way to draw that inference from what I said, or anything close to it. So, the answer to your inane question is an obvious NO.

 

Thanks -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Sorry, with that phrase I wasn't literally saying "all is good". I just meant all is well with my belief system, testimony, and faith. No need for a wake up call here.

 

I didn't interpret it literally or universally, though I am convinced that a wake up call is much needed, but will likely fall on deaf ears.

 

 

And regarding your ongoing dialogue with Brian... I'll just add that it's quite clear to me that allowing and encouraging marriage among homosexual couples is absolutely necessary to encouraging monogamy. Just as we, in the church, form our children's behavior by teaching them the importance of marriage and chastity, we must do the same for our gay and lesbian children.

 

There is a reason, among several, that sexual fidelity among heterosexuals is so important within the Church as well as the culture at large, which has absolutely no bearing on homosexual relationships, and it consists of the risk of extra-marital pregnancies that have a way of confounding and complicating matters to no small degree. Without that incentive, homosexuals have less of a need or an incentive against "open relationships"--which explains why they are disproportionately in favor of it.

 

This gets lost on those who have bought into the pop cultural nonsense about sex being predominately, if not exclusively about "love" and gratification and pleasure, rather than the primary purpose for which it was ultimately and divinely intended--i.e. procreation. Those who get that sex is primarily about procreation, and that marriage is about legitimate procreation, will also get that marriage isn't intended for homosexual relationships, and that the church has no reason to encourage sex between people of the same gender, committed or otherwise, and plenty of reasons to suggest otherwise.

 

It continues to amaze me that you can't see this.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited September 16, 2014 by wenglund

[Tsuzuki]

It depends upon what one means by "faithful" and "continually loyal."

 

In some segments of pop culture (more particularly within the homosexual community), those terms in relation to committed romantic relationships have been redefined as limited to emotion faithfulness and loyalty, which then allows for the kind of non-emotional, though physically sexual unfaithfulness and disloyalty common to "open relationships." So, in a way you are correct.

 

In order to call "bad" behaviors "good" as prophesied, has necessitated redefining a number of terms, including marriage, fidelity, promiscuity, faithfulness, loyalty, monogamy, etc.. Word games have become the coin of the pop cultural realm in its pursuit of perversion..

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I'm not sure what you mean by "pop culture", but you don't seem to understand polyamory or open relationships. You can have committed relationships with more than one person, and faithfulness and loyalty to all involved. Faithfulness basically means that you keep your promises, and if your partner(s) are encouraging you to seek other relationships, that is not being disloyal or unfaithful. As a Mormon, you should already understand this. The only difference is that I also allow for eternal polyandry, and I have no problem with purely sexual relationships, as long as everyone is honest and not breaking any promises.

[rockpond]

I didn't interpret it literally or universally, though I am convinced that a wake up call is much needed, but will likely fall on deaf ears.

 

 

 

There is a reason, among several, that sexual fidelity among heterosexuals is so important within the Church as well as the culture at large, which has absolutely no bearing on homosexual relationships, and it consists of the risk of extra-marital pregnancies that have a way of confounding and complicating matters to no small degree. Without that incentive, homosexuals have less of a need or an incentive against "open relationships"--which explains why they are disproportionately in favor of it.

 

This gets lost on those who have bought into the pop cultural nonsense about sex being predominately, if not exclusively about "love" and gratification and pleasure, rather than the primary purpose for which it was ultimately and divinely intended--i.e. procreation. Those who get that sex is primarily about procreation, and that marriage is about legitimate procreation, will also get that marriage isn't intended for homosexual relationships, and that the church has no reason to encourage sex between people of the same gender, committed or otherwise, and plenty of reasons to suggest otherwise.

 

It continues to amaze me that you can't see this.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I believe that God designed us with these sexual abilities for more than just procreation. It allows a special intimacy, bonding, and closeness that is beautiful. For my wife and I, our procreative years have been less than half of our total marriage.

Further, she is my helpmeet. And I am hers. That part of our relationship extends far beyond procreation.

[Brian 2.0]

 

Those who get that sex is primarily about procreation, and that marriage is about legitimate procreation, will also get that marriage isn't intended for homosexual relationships, and that the church has no reason to encourage sex between people of the same gender, committed or otherwise, and plenty of reasons to suggest otherwise.

 

It continues to amaze me that you can't see this.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

While I agree that the church has no reason to encourage sex between people of the same gender under it's current doctrine... marriage is about a lot more than "legitimate procreation".  Else why would plenty of elderly church members (apostles included) remarry after becoming windows and long after child bearing years are over?  What is the reason for that?  And could that reason apply to why homosexual couples desire to be married?

[rockpond]

While I agree that the church has no reason to encourage sex between people of the same gender under it's current doctrine... marriage is about a lot more than "legitimate procreation". Else why would plenty of elderly church members (apostles included) remarry after becoming windows and long after child bearing years are over? What is the reason for that? And could that reason apply to why homosexual couples desire to be married?

Exactly. And "current doctrine" being the operative word. Someday the "current doctrine" will accept gay marriage. I have no doubts. Unfortunately, that seems to really bother Brother Englund.

p.s. One reason those older men in the church remarry late in life is to have additional wives in the eternities. Which, as it so happens, is the opposite of monogamy. Hmmm.

Edited September 16, 2014 by rockpond

[wenglund]

I'm not sure what you mean by "pop culture", but you don't seem to understand polyamory or open relationships. You can have committed relationships with more than one person, and faithfulness and loyalty to all involved. Faithfulness basically means that you keep your promises, and if your partner(s) are encouraging you to seek other relationships, that is not being disloyal or unfaithful. As a Mormon, you should already understand this. The only difference is that I also allow for eternal polyandry, and I have no problem with purely sexual relationships, as long as everyone is honest and not breaking any promises.

 

The term "pop culture" is short for "popular culture."  A good working definition can be had HERE.

 

I get the notion of multiple committed relations (as formally in the case of polygamy). However, the notion of "open relationships" doesn't necessitate that relationships outside the marriage be committed, formally or otherwise, and quite often consist otherwise--as with swinging.. 

 

And, young people, like yourself, often don't have a problem with purely sexual relationships because they lack the maturity and/or may be lost in the dense fog of raging hormones to recognize the degrading and devaluing and potentially destructive and hurtful nature of such meaningless behaviors. That is why it may not be wise to look to the youth when formulating public policies or mores. Unfortunately, that is precisely what pop culture does.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Tsuzuki]

And, young people, like yourself, often don't have a problem with purely sexual relationships because they lack the maturity and/or may be lost in the dense fog of raging hormones to recognize the degrading and devaluing and potentially destructive and hurtful nature of such meaningless behaviors. That is why it may not be wise to look to the youth when formulating public policies or mores. Unfortunately, that is precisely what pop culture does.

I'm in my late 30s, and most of the people I know in the open relationship community are older than me and have families. I don't think you know what you are talking about.

[wenglund]

While I agree that the church has no reason to encourage sex between people of the same gender under it's current doctrine... marriage is about a lot more than "legitimate procreation".  Else why would plenty of elderly church members (apostles included) remarry after becoming windows and long after child bearing years are over?  What is the reason for that?  And could that reason apply to why homosexual couples desire to be married?

 

Yes, there are other reasons behind marriage, but they are a distant second to legitimate procreation. This applies no less to elderly church members or impotent couples, and this because of the promise of eternal increase.

 

However, If one removes procreation from the sexual and marital equations (as with homosexuality), then sex is reduced from the divine and sacred (creator/pro-creator) to the carnal and sensual, rendering such relationships no more of value in the eyes of God, if not in the secular interest of the state, than dear and long-term friendships. 

 

This is an eternal principle. There is no substantial or eternal/divine reason that the Church will ever encourage sex or marriage between people of the same gender. While men may benefit from deep and abiding friendships with other men, which they can well acheive and have done as friends, there is no progression towards Christ that may be derived by men putting their generative parts where other men evacuate their bowls, or anything of the sort. In fact, the very thought profanes the sacred.

 

Whereas, even with infertile heterosexual married couples, sexual intercourse is a type and shadow of the sacred (creator/procreator), and a kind of ritualistic preparation and progression towards the godly state of Fathers and Mothers with the promise of eternal increase, thereby bring one closer to Christ, and is thus a very good reason for the Church, if not also in the interest of the secular state, to encourage marital sexual relations between men and women.

 

So obvious does this seem to me that I would be baffled having to explain it were I not to know that we live in an upside-down and relatively blind world.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I'm in my late 30s, and most of the people I know in the open relationship community are older than me and have families. I don't think you know what you are talking about.

 

While my comments mostly applied to youth in the chronological age sense of the word, it also applies to those who haven't properly developed and matured and are still juvenile in their thinking (call it Peter Pan Syndrome or Pee Wee Herman Tendencies). These are people, such as yourself and the open relationship community, who need to, but have yet to fully grow up. These are people who, in their immaturity and ignorance, mistakenly assume that they have it figured out and assume that mature people don't know what they are talking about.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rockpond]

I'm in my late 30s, and most of the people I know in the open relationship community are older than me and have families. I don't think you know what you are talking about.

  

While my comments mostly applied to youth in the chronological age sense of the word, it also applies to those who haven't properly developed and matured and are still juvenile in their thinking (call it Peter Pan Syndrome or Pee Wee Herman Tendencies). These are people, such as yourself and the open relationship community, who need to, but have yet to fully grow up. These are people who, in their immaturity and ignorance, mistakenly assume that they have it figured out and assume that mature people don't know what they are talking about.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You see, Tsuzuki, it's actually very simple... Only those who agree with Wade are "grown up" and free from the grasp of pop culture.

[Brian 2.0]

While my comments mostly applied to youth in the chronological age sense of the word, it also applies to those who haven't properly developed and matured and are still juvenile in their thinking (call it Peter Pan Syndrome or Pee Wee Herman Tendencies). These are people, such as yourself and the open relationship community, who need to, but have yet to fully grow up. These are people who, in their immaturity and ignorance, mistakenly assume that they have it figured out and assume that mature people don't know what they are talking about.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wow. Not even the winky at the end can compensate for the blatant judgment going on in that post.

You really covered your bases. You accused him of being juvenile, immature, ignorant, and he needs to grow up.

[Tsuzuki]

While my comments mostly applied to youth in the chronological age sense of the word, it also applies to those who haven't properly developed and matured and are still juvenile in their thinking (call it Peter Pan Syndrome or Pee Wee Herman Tendencies). These are people, such as yourself and the open relationship community, who need to, but have yet to fully grow up. These are people who, in their immaturity and ignorance, mistakenly assume that they have it figured out and assume that mature people don't know what they are talking about.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I know quite a few grandparents who have led successful lives, so yeah, you don't know what you're talking about.