Towards A Better Understanding Of Same Sex Attraction And Sin

[Daniel2]

I am heterosexual also. I chose this orientation once I came to that crossroads in my life. I have been happy with my choice.

Here http://www.queerbychoice.com/

This post explains the entire thread, and Rodeo's "choice" to be heterosexual.

have compassion for everyone you meet... you do not know what wars are going on, down where the spirit meets the bone...

[rockpond]

I am heterosexual also. I chose this orientation once I came to that crossroads in my life. I have been happy with my choice.

Here http://www.queerbychoice.com/

If you found males and females equally attractive prior to making your choice, then you probably were in the middle of the Kinsey scale as I understand it. I'm no expert. Are you married now?

I counted 46 profiles on that website. The first one that I randomly read said that it was NOT a choice. So I read the profile of the group's founder who obviously said it was a choice. Finally, one more random profile -- that guy didn't state either way. In any case, not a scientific sample but I have, nevertheless, acknowledged that it is a choice for some. But it does seem that they are a small minority.

[rockpond]

Just came to me-

Suppise I was to say that I didnt choose to be Mormon, I was just born into it and the only reason I am Mormon was because I was born this way. Would you believe it? After all, I cant remember a time when I didnt tjink the church was fake, I must have been born this way.

  

Maybe theres a "mormon gene" just like there must be a "catholic gene" and thats why some people are just born mormons and others born as catholics. Just ask them, none of them will ever remember actually choosing to be thst way.

I don't have the time to waste on this kind of nonsense. Believe whatever you want, I'm here for reasonably intelligent discussion.

Again, if you want to gain some perspective outside of these limited sources you keep citing, please go back to the link I provided earlier to Dr. Bradshaw's lecture. He's an active church member, BYU professor, former mission president, etc so you can listen without worry of being corrupted.

[Rodeo]

I don't have the time to waste on this kind of nonsense. Believe whatever you want, I'm here for reasonably intelligent discussion.

Again, if you want to gain some perspective outside of these limited sources you keep citing, please go back to the link I provided earlier to Dr. Bradshaw's lecture. He's an active church member, BYU professor, former mission president, etc so you can listen without worry of being corrupted.

I dont believe a lot of what Bradshaw had to say. He makes it out to be entirely out of our control on what our orientation is. Try telling that to the folks over at queerbychoice.com and they will disagree. Bradshaw of course doesnt represent the church and much of what he says is actually refuted by real life stories of mormons who changed their orientation over at mormonsandgays.org

[Tsuzuki]

I am heterosexual also. I chose this orientation once I came to that crossroads in my life. I have been happy with my choice.

Here http://www.queerbychoice.com/

Heterosexual and demisexual. I wish I could overcome my chaste nature and become more promiscuous, as that is more in line with my value system.

[rockpond]

I dont believe a lot of what Bradshaw had to say. He makes it out to be entirely out of our control on what our orientation is. Try telling that to the folks over at queerbychoice.com and they will disagree. Bradshaw of course doesnt represent the church and much of what he says is actually refuted by real life stories of mormons who changed their orientation over at mormonsandgays.org

You don't have to believe him but note that he is sharing the results of scientific research. Regarding Queerbychoice, as I said, in the three profiles I read, only one claimed choice in orientation and that was the founder. Further, those 46 people are not by any means a representative sample.

How many people at MormonsandGays claim to have changed their orientation?

I would caution you in assuming that all gay people are alike and that because one person can change that it is possible for all. The Holland quote I provides refutes that.

And finally, Rodeo, are you married? Divorced? Single?

Edited September 18, 2014 by rockpond

[rockpond]

Heterosexual and demisexual. I wish I could overcome my chaste nature and become more promiscuous, as that is more in line with my value system.

I hope you don't. I think that you will be happier in the long term if you live a more chaste life.

[Rodeo]

You don't have to believe him but note that he is sharing the results of scientific research. Regarding Queerbychoice, as I said, in the three profiles I read, only one claimed choice in orientation and that was the founder. Further, those 46 people are not by any means a representative sample.

How many people at MormonsandGays claim to have changed their orientation?

I would caution you in assuming that all gay people are alike and that because one person can change that it is possible for all. The Holland quote I provides refutes that.

And finally, Rodeo, are you married? Divorced? Single?

Iam happily married to my wife. I am glad I chose to be heterosexual and married her.

[Rodeo]

The problem I see in a lot of these gay support groups in Utah is they center around this belief of Dr. Bradshaw that change is not possible and attempts at it are dangerous and damaging. Then, they also promote the gay marriage agenda. They all play right into the devils hand.

[Daniel2]

The problem I see in a lot of these gay support groups in Utah is they center around this belief of Dr. Bradshaw that change is not possible and attempts at it are dangerous and damaging.

Every mainstream professional medical and mental health association holds the view that attempts to change individuals' sexual orientation is not possible, and that therapy aimed at attempting to do so is dangerous and damaging, and several states are moving in the direction of banning such conversion therapies for minors.

Then, they also promote the gay marriage agenda.

What's the difference between "supporting gay marriage," vs. "supporting the gay marriage agenda"? Aside from scary-sounding wording, I mean...?

They all play right into the devils hand.

Hmmm. I thought the devil wanted to force people to salvation, and that Father supported agency. Did they switch sides...?

Edited September 18, 2014 by Daniel2

[Rodeo]

Every mainstream professional medical and mental health association holds the view that attempts to change individuals' sexual orientation is not possible, and that therapy aimed at attempting to do so is dangerous and damaging, and several states are moving in the direction of banning such conversion therapies for minors.

What's the difference between "supporting gay marriage," vs. "supporting the gay marriage agenda"? Aside from scary-sounding wording, I mean...?

Hmmm. I thought the devil wanted to force people to salvation, and that Father supported agency. Did they switch sides...?

 

Hum...mormonsandgays seems to promote that change is possible. The devil just wants people to be wicked. He doesnt want to save anyone.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

This post explains the entire thread, and Rodeo's "choice" to be heterosexual.

have compassion for everyone you meet... you do not know what wars are going on, down where the spirit meets the bone...

Dan,

You need to know that I do have compassion for you I don't hate you and I don't think you are evil. We all have our issues. I think the real problem I have is with the agenda behind it and the near use of force for me to accept via political correctness and corrupt circuit judges. There seems to be a lot of propaganda for this agenda too, that I am not really a fan of.

 

Is it really any different when trying blue cheese as a kid and not liking it because, who knows, and then later in life your tastes change and now you do like it. I have seen people go both ways on this. First they were not gay then they were, or they were gay and then chose not to be. There are even books about "How do you know if you gay, have you tried it yet".

 

The reality though is that if you want to be gay, go do it, I really don't care, that is your deal, just don't force me to accept it.

[rockpond]

Hum...mormonsandgays seems to promote that change is possible. The devil just wants people to be wicked. He doesnt want to save anyone.

 

Change in behavior or change in orientation?  For some or all?  How?

[rockpond]

Dan,

You need to know that I do have compassion for you I don't hate you and I don't think you are evil. We all have our issues. I think the real problem I have is with the agenda behind it and the near use of force for me to accept via political correctness and corrupt circuit judges. There seems to be a lot of propaganda for this agenda too, that I am not really a fan of.

 

Is it really any different when trying blue cheese as a kid and not liking it because, who knows, and then later in life your tastes change and now you do like it. I have seen people go both ways on this. First they were not gay then they were, or they were gay and then chose not to be. There are even books about "How do you know if you gay, have you tried it yet".

 

The reality though is that if you want to be gay, go do it, I really don't care, that is your deal, just don't force me to accept it.

 

How are you being forced to accept "it"?

[stemelbow]

Iam happily married to my wife. I am glad I chose to be heterosexual and married her.

And if you were attracted to men you might not feel the same.

[california boy]

I have read enough of Rodeo's posts to know that he isn't searching for an answer on whether being gay is a choice.  He started this thread as a ruse to push his agenda about gays and choice.  Everyone knows the internet is full of information and information.  When you are willing to ignore scientific information the AMA and AmericanPsychological Association if favor of right wing organizations who stated reason for their existence is antigay, then you are not really looking for truth.  And if you are not looking for truth you will not find it.  

 

If Rodeo could answer this ONE question, then I could believe that while wrong, he might be sincere.  Even though I have asked this repeatedly, he has NEVER answered it.  So one last time.

 

Why do members of the church who are gay choose to be celibate and live alone their entire lives without any companionship if being gay is just a choice?  Would you be willing to give up your life with your wife and family just so you could say you were gay?  Would anyone?

 

Now if Rodeo can not answer that question, then it is pretty obvious, he isn't really trying to seek understanding, and we  should all probably move on.

[california boy]

Dan,

You need to know that I do have compassion for you I don't hate you and I don't think you are evil. We all have our issues. I think the real problem I have is with the agenda behind it and the near use of force for me to accept via political correctness and corrupt circuit judges. There seems to be a lot of propaganda for this agenda too, that I am not really a fan of.

 

Is it really any different when trying blue cheese as a kid and not liking it because, who knows, and then later in life your tastes change and now you do like it. I have seen people go both ways on this. First they were not gay then they were, or they were gay and then chose not to be. There are even books about "How do you know if you gay, have you tried it yet".

 

The reality though is that if you want to be gay, go do it, I really don't care, that is your deal, just don't force me to accept it.

 

 via political correctness and corrupt circuit judges.?  You really believe that every federal court in this country does not understand the constitution and is corrupt?  Let me repeat.  EVERY federal court????? Because every federal court judge has ruled that laws banning gay marriage goes against the 14th amendment.   Even the federal judge in Utah that was Mormon ruled against banning gay marriage laws.

 

Tell me you don't have an agenda.

[thesometimesaint]

They never quote the prophets and apostles from the Ensign either. So who would you believe- what man has to say or actual prophets and spokesmen of God? The study wasn't conducted by the FRC anyway so whats the point?

 

LDS Apostles and  Prophets have repeatedly said they don't know the reasons for homosexuality. That the Saints should not discriminate against our homosexual brothers and sisters in law, work, housing, inheritance, and medical desisions. Your FRC does advocate for discrimination for all those all things and more.

 

You are the one whom linked to the FRC.

[thesometimesaint]

 

delete

Edited September 18, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[thesometimesaint]

Which portions do you disagree with? In other words, which study do you find faulty?

Would you mind quoting the portion of Wikipedia (or preferably actual studies) that you believe refutes the idea that there is a genetic component to sexual orientation...?

 

I'm not saying they are faulty. I do not believe enough research has been done to corroborate the study yet.

[Rodeo]

And if you were attracted to men you might not feel the same.

Truthfully, whem I was going through puberty I was afraid that I was attracted to little girls. Scared me so bad I permanantly threw up an impenatrable series of stops mentally so I would never go there. It is now a great strength and I realize now it was just a temptation that Satan uses.

Edited September 18, 2014 by Rodeo

[Daniel2]

I'm not saying they are faulty. I do not believe enough research has been done to corroborate the study yet.

A reasonable answer I can respect----and I knew we'd eventually clarify enough to find that common middle ground. I have great respect for you, as always, Sometimesaint. Thumbs up.

[Daniel2]

I have read enough of Rodeo's posts to know that he isn't searching for an answer on whether being gay is a choice. He started this thread as a ruse to push his agenda about gays and choice. Everyone knows the internet is full of information and information. When you are willing to ignore scientific information the AMA and AmericanPsychological Association if favor of right wing organizations who stated reason for their existence is antigay, then you are not really looking for truth. And if you are not looking for truth you will not find it.

If Rodeo could answer this ONE question, then I could believe that while wrong, he might be sincere. Even though I have asked this repeatedly, he has NEVER answered it. So one last time.

Why do members of the church who are gay choose to be celibate and live alone their entire lives without any companionship if being gay is just a choice? Would you be willing to give up your life with your wife and family just so you could say you were gay? Would anyone?

Now if Rodeo can not answer that question, then it is pretty obvious, he isn't really trying to seek understanding, and we should all probably move on.

CB, while I share many of your views, I urge caution and consideration in choosing the language that we use.

Accusing Rodeo of "pushing an agenda" to counter his claims that we are "pushing an agenda" is as unhelpful to dialogue as the back-and-forth accusations of "intolerant!" that often accompany these arguement.

Rodeo has openly expressed his desire to only accept evidence from organizations that align with the church. He had asserted that he "chose" to be heterosexual. If one reads between the lines, it seems clear why Rodeo is seeking confirmation of choices he asserts he has made.

I get that. I used to do the same.

My quotation of "having compassion for everyone" was not a plea to have compassion for myself---it was a reminder to have compassion for everyone, including people like Rodeo.

I may not agree that Rodeo actually made a choice to "be" heterosexual (based in large part because I believe our sexual orientation is not determined by the sexual choices we make, and that our sexual behaviors are often not truly indicative of our inward sexual orientation), but I respect and have compassion for his choice to live in an opposite-sex marriage relationship, regardless of what his inward sexual orientation is.

The ONLY problem I have with Rodeo's actions are any attempts to use false information to legislate against same-sexual couples' ability to make marital choices as they see fit, to unjustly discriminate against us in the public realm, or to force emotionally harmful therapies on minors.

Beyond that, I accept Rodeo just as he is. His choices are his own, and only he can say whether they work for him, or not. I cannot say that they aren't or would not or will not work, just as he cannot say the same about me.

Edited September 18, 2014 by Daniel2

[wenglund]

You wrote quite a bit about the topic, but I don't think you really "addressed" it.  You wrote:

 

 

Procreation is also removed from the sexual and marital equations of infertile couples, so why does it have anymore value in the eyes of the state? Sure, HF might factor in the concept of eternal increase, but the state can make no such measurement.  So why should my marriage be valued over the marriage of two (equally infertile) gay men?

 

I can think of one reason that you might appreciate -- it aids in the stability of our FAMILY.  Well, how is my situation any different from that of the two lesbians who have four children?  The state should be willing to overlook our "carnal and sensual" actions in exchange for the benefits of a stable household in which to raise children.  Of course, we've gone round and round about that part before.  So let's get to the real point, which you summed up perfectly:

 

 

Let's face it, Wade.  You find sex between gay men really icky.  And trust me, I understand.  But let me fill you in on a little secret.  Some of the people sitting next to you in the pews are doing very similar things in their bedrooms (and maybe even "worse").  To my knowledge, I don't think the Church has taken an official stance on what is out of bounds in the bedroom between a married man and his wife.  That means that your home teaching companion and his wife could be doing "the profane."  The same thing applies to your bishop, stake president, etc.

 

Now, as your online bestie, let me give you a clue as to how to keep your testimony of the Church now that you realize how much "profane" might be in your midst.  DON'T THINK ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE'S SEX LIVES.

 

I have never ONCE even tried to imagine how and in what ways my bishop and his wife express their love for one another.  It's none of my business.  And quite frankly, I know just enough about human sexuality to know that I don't WANT to know.  And perhaps, if you can avoid thinking about the sexual activities of the beloved saints, you can also avoid thinking about those activities as they relate to HF's gay and lesbian children.  Instead of seeing them as a "mismatched" set of sex organs, you could see them as you see straight couples -- two unique individuals made in the image of God, who share a love for one another.

 

Just a thought ...

 

But, I am not thinking about what may or may not be happening in other people's bedrooms, homosexual or otherwise. Unlike with you, I tend not to want to stick my nose, or the nose of the government, where it doesn't belong. Rather, I have been speaking generally to LDS beliefs/doctrine and public policy.on the matter.

 

I have been very clear about my belief that the government has no business sticking its nose in homosexual bedrooms and bathhouses and bars. What homosexuals do in privacy is their business. Instead, what I object to here and elsewhere is not only their making their private sexual behavior public, but even more so their sustained efforts to normalize their immoral behaviors and to get government endorsement and encouragement for their immoral behavior, and this in part by way of mangling and degrading the definition of marriage.

 

In this thread, where the doctrines and beliefs of the Church are relevant (I have attempted not to bring religion into the mix in debates on SSM where possible), I don't believe the Church has any business prying into the sexual affairs of homosexuals or heterosexuals except in so far as it is necessary in determining spiritual worthiness to remain members and to officiate in the priesthood and Church callings and receive higher ordinances. My objection here is not only to the attempts by former and current members to equate (make morally equivalent) homosexuality with heterosexuality in relation to the Church, but even more so their countenancing and encouraging gay sex by way of holy matrimony, and worse yet, pretending this is all in accordance with the will of God--as if God welcomes profanation of the sacred

 

So, you couldn't be more wrong.

 

As for your canard, you are correct that the promise of eternal increase isn't the only reason your current familial circumstances doesn't render my point moor regarding procreative sex--thereby making your objection a canard, though it is significant in terms of the Church (which is the context of this discussion), but not pertinent to the secular state (which wasn't pertinent to what I was saying at that time). There are other reasons in addition to the one you suggested and somewhat misapplied (see below).

 

In terms of the gospel, sex within the bonds of marriage is important to keeping families together. However, in the eternal scheme of things, gay and lesbian couples, including those with children, are not considered "families." Not only isn't there a genetic link to speak of that makes the couple "one", but God hasn't joined the couples together to make them "one." At best, they merely imitate eternal families. There is nothing beyond the grave for meaningfully keeping homosexual couples together, any more than there is for keeping good friends together. Even during mortal life there isn't a reason to keep homosexual couples together, particularly not through sex, since, as previously explained, gay sex is immoral, period, and it is not made moral through imitating heterosexual marriage. Accordingly, there is a spiritual and eternal reason not to keep gay couples together through sex since doing so would immerse them in immorality and sin.

 

The opposite is true for married heterosexual (see below). There is good reason to keep them "one" through sex and otherwise

 

Furthermore, in terms of the gospel, and in regards to the creation/temple symbolism of heterosexual intercourse (as opposed to gay sex), sex between husband and wife is a way of ritualistically honoring their multifaceted "oneness" if not also a way of renewing their new and everlasting covenants regardless whether procreation occurs or not. Think of it sacredly as like unto the priest attending the temple often. The same in no way applies to gay couples.

 

While the points above may not relate to secular public policy, there are a variety of good reasons for governments to promote procreative sex, or heterosexual sex, within the bonds of marriage even in cases of heterosexual couples who are no longer able to procreate (thus further rendering your objection a canard), whereas there isn't good reason to promote gay sex. Aside from the inanity of using exceptions to disprove the rule, and equating the heterosexual exceptions with the homosexual rule, as well as ignoring the impracticality of legislating and administering out heterosexual exceptions, there is an excellent article that speak well to the subject. It was published in the Harvard Law Review, and is called "What is Marriage." See in particular section D.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[stemelbow]

Truthfully, whem I was going through puberty I was afraid that I was attracted to little girls. Scared me so bad I permanantly threw up an impenatrable series of stops mentally so I would never go there. It is now a great strength and I realize now it was just a temptation that Satan uses.

So are you attracted to women?