Towards A Better Understanding Of Same Sex Attraction And Sin

[rockpond]

If you were truly proud to have your name listed in support of perversion and in open rebellion against the leaders and doctrines of the Church, you wouldn't be posting anonymously.

I am proud to be doing the opposite, which is why I close each statement with my name.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I feel it is important to protect my identity online. But... I've shared my views with a previous bishop and with the bishop for whom I now serve as counselor. And my views are well known among my family and those who follow me on social media.

Edited September 18, 2014 by rockpond

[Rodeo]

Rodeo -- are you aware that church policy is NOT to recommend that gay people marry someone if the opposite sex?

Neither are they to reccomend not to marry. Their stance is neutral.

[wenglund]

The 14th Amendment is what prevents you from defining marriage in the way that you seem to prefer.

 

Neither the 14th or the 5th Amendments say anything about definitions, marriage or otherwise, let alone who gets to do the legal defining. The notion of prrotection under the law is not the same as legal definitions within the law, though the former is unavoidably dependent upon the latter, and not the other way around   One hopes that more members of the judiciary will finally figure this out, but in our upside-down world, that may be asking too much.

 

Either way, this is beside the topic of this thread.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[JLHPROF]

So are the Bhagavad Gita and the Book of the Law. Doesn't mean I have to swallow everything without thinking.

 

Very few of the unique Mormon scriptures actually say anything about sexuality. And I am a member of the church because I was born into it, and there are still enough things I like about it to preventing me from burning that particular bridge. I also have no problem living the law of chastity, though I hope that doesn't last long.

 

Um, check again.  There are God's views on sex in the D&C, PoGP, BoM and OT/NT.  Not to mention the teachings of his prophetic mouthpieces.

God speaks out against all manner of lust, fornication, adultery, prostitution, child abuse (pedophilia), homosexuality (although this is debated), and speaks about most other types of sex, polygamy, marriage, having children even to the point of the NT telling us it's better to marry than to burn (due to our lust).

 

God is VERY opinionated on our sex lives.  We just don't all agree on what God thinks and which parts are up for public discussion.

Edited September 18, 2014 by JLHPROF

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Neither the 14th or the 5th Amendments say anything about definitions, marriage or otherwise, let alone who gets to do the legal defining. The notion of prrotection under the law is not the same as legal definitions within the law, though the former is unavoidably dependent upon the latter, and not the other way around   One hopes that more members of the judiciary will finally figure this out, but in our upside-down world, that may be asking too much.

 

Either way, this is beside the topic of this thread.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Thanks Wade, you are of course correct and this speaks to exactly why those judges are corrupt.

[thesometimesaint]

Neither are they to reccomend not to marry. Their stance is neutral.

 

Not so much.

 

SEE http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/interview-oaks-wickman-same-gender-attraction

 

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: Is heterosexual marriage ever an option for those with homosexual feelings?

ELDER OAKS: We are sometimes asked about whether marriage is a remedy for these feelings that we have been talking about. President Hinckley, faced with the fact that apparently some had believed it to be a remedy, and perhaps that some Church leaders had even counseled marriage as the remedy for these feelings, made this statement: “Marriage should not be viewed as a therapeutic step to solve problems such as homosexual inclinations or practices.” To me that means that we are not going to stand still to put at risk daughters of God who would enter into such marriages under false pretenses or under a cloud unknown to them. Persons who have this kind of challenge that they cannot control could not enter marriage in good faith.

[Tsuzuki]

Um, check again.  There are God's views on sex in the D&C, PoGP, BoM and OT/NT.  Not to mention the teachings of his prophetic mouthpieces.

God speaks out against all manner of lust, fornication, adultery, prostitution, child abuse (pedophilia), homosexuality (although this is debated), and speaks about most other types of sex, polygamy, marriage, having children even to the point of the NT telling us it's better to marry than to burn (due to our lust).

 

God is VERY opinionated on our sex lives.  We just don't all agree on what God thinks and which parts are up for public discussion.

The unique Mormon scriptures actually say very little about sexuality compared to everything else, what they do say is sometimes conflicting (particularly with polygamy), and the door is open for further light and knowledge. Sexuality in early Mormonism is also confusing to me, and I would be interested in the evolution of the law of chastity in Mormon history. I know that over a hundred years ago, many Utah Mormons supported the legalization of prostitution, and the church even owned some brothels.

http://www.amazon.com/Prostitution-Polygamy-Power-Salt-1847-1918/dp/0252075927

[VideoGameJunkie]

We make covenants in the temple about sexuality though.

[Tsuzuki]

We make covenants in the temple about sexuality though.

That doesn't apply to me, since I've never been through the temple, though I wonder when that started.

[VideoGameJunkie]

I think it's always been a part of the temple ceremony to make that sexual covenant.

[rockpond]

Neither the 14th or the 5th Amendments say anything about definitions, marriage or otherwise, let alone who gets to do the legal defining. The notion of prrotection under the law is not the same as legal definitions within the law, though the former is unavoidably dependent upon the latter, and not the other way around   One hopes that more members of the judiciary will finally figure this out, but in our upside-down world, that may be asking too much.

 

Either way, this is beside the topic of this thread.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Well, there appear to now be dozens of judges who disagree with your interpretation of the law.

 

Maybe you are looking at the world while standing on your head.  

[rockpond]

I am honestly trying to get to the bottom of the whole issue...

 

Are you really?  Because it feels more like you are looking to justify your current beliefs and dismissing any evidence to the contrary.

 

Long ago I made a personal commitment that I would not engage in (pointless) discussion with people who still hold to the belief that sexual orientation is largely a function of choice.  I probably broke my commitment with our dialogue because I was truly trying to understand where you stood on the issue.  I feel like I have a listened enough to have a feel for your position.  I would never expect you to agree with my thoughts on the matter but what surprises me is that you are even out of step with the most recent statements by the Church.

 

I honestly hope that you will spend less time with some of the propaganda and more time at the Church's MormonsandGays website (along with all of its resource links).  I don't agree with everything there (which should serves as a consolation to you) but what that site does is promote more compassion and empathy -- something we could all benefit from.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Are you really?  Because it feels more like you are looking to justify your current beliefs and dismissing any evidence to the contrary.

Some one in this thread is certainly "trying to justify their current beliefs and dismissing any evidence to the contrary". I am just not certain that person "gets it" yet.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Well, there appear to now be dozens of judges who disagree with your interpretation of the law.

 

Maybe you are looking at the world while standing on your head.  

Hence, corruption. Appeals to the number of people that agree with a certain position is a logical fallacy.

[rockpond]

Some one in this thread is certainly "trying to justify their current beliefs and dismissing any evidence to the contrary". I am just not certain that person "gets it" yet.

 

Propaganda by lobbying groups and anecdotal accounts are not evidence.  And in your apparent role as "cheerleader" for Wade/Romeo, you have not added any evidence either.

[rockpond]

Hence, corruption. Appeals to the number of people that agree with a certain position is a logical fallacy.

 

Not when those people are the experts in the subject matter (by both education & position).

[thesometimesaint]

Hence, corruption. Appeals to the number of people that agree with a certain position is a logical fallacy.

 

Not necessarily. IE; The vast majority of people believe in a round, like a ball, earth. It is a logical fallacy to use that belief as a statement of the fact it is round like a ball. It is not logical fallacy to point out that the earth really is round like a ball, and show evidence for such.

[california boy]

Hence, corruption. Appeals to the number of people that agree with a certain position is a logical fallacy.

 

If your definition of corruption is someone who disagrees with you on what guarantees the Constitution of the United States provides for it's citizens than you are right.  

 

Unfortunately for you every federal court composed of both very conservative and liberal judges has rule in favor of the rights of gay Americans to be married.  For you to claim you know and studied constitutional law more than ALL of these federally appointed judges is LAUGHABLE.

 

Certainly not worth debating.  Gay marriage will be legal in this country within a year.  And it will become legal because the constitution guarantees all of it's citizens equal protection under the law.  I know you would like it otherwise, but that includes gay Americans as well.

[Daniel2]

Dont believe it. To have feelings for a wife would include attraction. People do change.

I have never found any compelling reason to believe in something for which there is absolutely no evidence. People can make choices regarding actions, but not attractions or sexual orientation.

I recommend you look into the findings of penile plethysmograph studies that show that self-proclaimed "ex-gay" men and the most virulently homophobic men were belied though confirmable measurements to be the most sexually aroused by other men.

Having "feelings for one's wife" does not mean one has experienced a change in sexual orientation, or even sexual attraction.

I "have feelings" for a variety of things, including strong affection and even love, for which I could and would not ever even consider attempting to marry.

As others have said, the church discourages gays and lesbians from marrying with the expectation of any sort of change in one's sexual orientation. Even when entered under the best and brightest and most hopeful and faithful of expectations, statistically, such marriages are doomed to fail, and the emotional, spiritual, physical, and financial cost to the husbands, wives, and particularly the children has been too great a price to pay. I believe it was a very positive step that the LDS church recognized this and ultimately abandoned counsel for LDS homosexuals to heterosexually marry approximately 10 years ago.

Edited September 18, 2014 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

Hence, corruption. Appeals to the number of people that agree with a certain position is a logical fallacy.

Appealing to the number of judges who have agreed on this issue is simply an acknowledgement of a legal reality.

You may continue to disagree with same-sex marriage till the cows come home, pigs fly, or Jesus' Second Coming. You can vilify judges with allegations of corruption all you want. Both are certainly within your right. You never have to accept that same-sex marriages are legitimate in any personal or religious sense, and remain free to preach, decry, convince, prophesy, and warn others of your beliefs that same-sex behaviors are sinful and perverse. And perhaps the best part is no one will EVER force you to marry someone of your same gender, or, assuming you are a good parent, forcibly remove your children to be raised by same-sex parents.

However, the reason why people keep bringing up the landslide of judges' rulings is the simple fact that whether or not you personally accept the legitimacy of same-sex marriage, it is undeniably already a legal reality.

Edited September 19, 2014 by Daniel2

[Rodeo]

I have never found any compelling reason to believe in something for which there is absolutely no evidence. People can make choices regarding actions, but not attractions or sexual orientation.

I recommend you look into the findings of penile plethysmograph studies that show that self-proclaimed "ex-gay" men and the most virulently homophobic men were belied though confirmable measurements to be the most sexually aroused by other men.

Having "feelings for one's wife" does not mean one has experienced a change in sexual orientation, or even sexual attraction.

I "have feelings" for a variety of things, including strong affection and even love, for which I could and would not ever even consider attempting to marry.

As others have said, the church discourages gays and lesbians from marrying with the expectation of any sort of change in one's sexual orientation. Even when entered under the best and brightest and most hopeful and faithful of expectations, statistically, such marriages are doomed to fail, and the emotional, spiritual, physical, and financial cost to the husbands, wives, and particularly the children has been too great a price to pay. I believe it was a very positive step that the LDS church recognized this and ultimately abandoned counsel for LDS homosexuals to heterosexually marry approximately 10 years ago.

There certainly seems to be plenty of people on the web who claim to have both chosen their orientation and chose to change it. Maybe they are all part of a conservative conspiracy to work against same sex marriages.

So what about my family member in prison who changed to a lesbian while in there and says she isnt going back to heterosexuality?

[Rodeo]

Are you really?  Because it feels more like you are looking to justify your current beliefs and dismissing any evidence to the contrary.

 

Long ago I made a personal commitment that I would not engage in (pointless) discussion with people who still hold to the belief that sexual orientation is largely a function of choice.  I probably broke my commitment with our dialogue because I was truly trying to understand where you stood on the issue.  I feel like I have a listened enough to have a feel for your position.  I would never expect you to agree with my thoughts on the matter but what surprises me is that you are even out of step with the most recent statements by the Church.

 

I honestly hope that you will spend less time with some of the propaganda and more time at the Church's MormonsandGays website (along with all of its resource links).  I don't agree with everything there (which should serves as a consolation to you) but what that site does is promote more compassion and empathy -- something we could all benefit from.

Sounds like you have a double standard. You want me to visit the church site and become more like what they teach even though you yourself dont agree with them yourself. I happen to generally agree with the church site. I just question choice. I think people have a choice.

[Brian 2.0]

I just question choice. I think people have a choice.

ALL gay people can choose whether or not to be attracted to their same sex?

Or SOME gay people can choose whether or not to be attracted to their same sex?

[Rodeo]

ALL gay people can choose whether or not to be attracted to their same sex?

Or SOME gay people can choose whether or not to be attracted to their same sex?

I believe people can choose to be gay or be hetero, bi, trans, etc. Attractions are an interesting thing and we can condition ourselves to be attracted to a myriad of things.

[rockpond]

Sounds like you have a double standard. You want me to visit the church site and become more like what they teach even though you yourself dont agree with them yourself. I happen to generally agree with the church site. I just question choice. I think people have a choice.

Reading things that you don't agree with (and encouraging others to read them as well) isn't a "double standard" it's called gaining perspective and expanding your horizons. I encouraged you to study MormonsandGays because you have indicated that the Church's stand is important to you. So it seems like something worth spending your time on. I also feel that it promotes a kinder and more balanced view than what you are advocating here. You will likely disagree with that assessment but I still think the website and the resource links will be useful study for you.

What's interesting here is that I, like you, generally agree with the church site though I hold one disagreement. I guess you and I are alike in that sense.

Edited September 19, 2014 by rockpond