rockpond Posted September 24, 2014 Posted September 24, 2014 It is not "becoming something else". Religiously speaking, there are no homosexuals and heterosexuals. We are all just God's children with our own traits and trials to work with. SSA is a trait (possibly born with, possibly acquired, doesn't really matter). It is NOT something unchangeable that they are and should be allowed to be. It IS something that is within in them whatever its source. I was born with or developed a foul temper when young. It took much time and prayer to cease acting upon it. It took recognizing those feelings as wrong. So am I someone who had a negative trait (anger) and fought against it until it usually doesn't tempt me to act on it. We expect people to overcome shyness. We expect people to overcome lust. We expect people to overcome jealousy. Why is it any different to expect people to overcome a sinful attraction? We expect people to overcome a sinful attraction to food (gluttony)? We expect porn addicts to overcome a sinful attraction to pornography? If someone is born with or develops an attraction for the same sex they are accountable not to act on it, just as I am with my temper. Just as the porn addict is with pornography. Just as the glutton is with food. They are accountable to recognize those feelings are wrong.Claiming that we are asking homosexuals to go against their natural feelings is a poor excuse. We are ALL expected to go against our natural feelings. That is one of the main goals of life. To overcome the natural man. Homosexuals don't get a free pass just because their natural trait has become more societally acceptable or because sexuality is considered a unique situation. It's no different than lust, anger, jealousy, gluttony, sloth or any other sinful behavior. I agree that everyone is accountable for their actions, regardless of sexual orientation. Your comments didn't really respond to what I wrote/asked.
Rodeo Posted September 24, 2014 Author Posted September 24, 2014 I can't dialogue with you if you won't actually answer questions. You are free to call "hand holding" between two gay people a sexual perversion and an abomination. I am not saying that you shouldn't be free to do that. But understand, that many will feel that is gay bashing. To you it may be "calling it for exactly what it is" but others do not see it that way. Does that mean you are suffering? I don't think so. As far as I'm concerned you still have not backed up your "suffering" claim. But I don't believe you have any interest in backing up your statements anyway. You, Wade, & Mola keep referring to Hollywood, pop culture, and some mysterious universal "gay agenda". You'll note that none of us on the other side of this discussion have cited such sources. Okay, I will spell it out for you- two gay people holding hands and kissing is gross and is a sexual perversion. Thats homosexual behavior. Even the church defines two members of the same sex holding hands and kissing "homosexual behavior" and as such it is an "abomination". Defining the facts is not gay bashing. Your side wants to redefine "gay bashing" to be anything that doesnt accept their behavior as equal and natural as heterosexuality. There definitely is a gay agenda pushed on us by pop culture and Hollywood.
Daniel2 Posted September 24, 2014 Posted September 24, 2014 If I don't fully accept the pop culture and what it accepts as good, then I am not really trying to understand anything. That seems to be what you are saying. What a shallow understanding.The above was in response to Tonie's recommendation to review and follow the church's website on the issue.Do you believe the church's website is "pop culture"?
Daniel2 Posted September 24, 2014 Posted September 24, 2014 (edited) Okay, I will spell it out for you- two gay people holding hands and kissing is gross and is a sexual perversion. Thats homosexual behavior. Even the church defines two members of the same sex holding hands and kissing "homosexual behavior" and as such it is an "abomination". Defining the facts is not gay bashing. Your side wants to redefine "gay bashing" to be anything that doesnt accept their behavior as equal and natural as heterosexuality. There definitely is a gay agenda pushed on us by pop culture and Hollywood.Same question I just posed to Mola:Do you, Rodeo, believe the church's recent website is "pop culture"?Is it "Hollywood"?The church's website is the only one I've noticed being repeatedly recommended to you by Rockpond, myself, and others, so I'm confused by the ongoing references to pop culture and Hollywood... Edited September 24, 2014 by Daniel2
Rodeo Posted September 24, 2014 Author Posted September 24, 2014 Same question I just posed to Mola: Do you, Rodeo, believe the church's recent website is "pop culture"? Is it "Hollywood"? The church's website is the only one I've noticed being repeatedly recommended to you by Rockpond, myself, and others, so I'm confused by the ongoing references to pop culture and Hollywood... The church website is in response to pop culture. It reaffirms the position of the church and clarifies where it stands in the midst of popular (pop) culture trends in society
rockpond Posted September 24, 2014 Posted September 24, 2014 Okay, I will spell it out for you- two gay people holding hands and kissing is gross and is a sexual perversion. Thats homosexual behavior. Even the church defines two members of the same sex holding hands and kissing "homosexual behavior" and as such it is an "abomination". Defining the facts is not gay bashing. Your side wants to redefine "gay bashing" to be anything that doesnt accept their behavior as equal and natural as heterosexuality. There definitely is a gay agenda pushed on us by pop culture and Hollywood.CFR: where does the church define two members holding hands to be "homosexual behavior" and an "abomination".
JLHPROF Posted September 24, 2014 Posted September 24, 2014 I agree that everyone is accountable for their actions, regardless of sexual orientation. Your comments didn't really respond to what I wrote/asked. You asked:"When a homosexual overcomes "same sex attraction" what does he or she become? Asexual?" I answered:"It is not "becoming something else". Religiously speaking, there are no homosexuals and heterosexuals. We are all just God's children with our own traits and trials to work with." And I proceeded to explain why in my opinion we need to stop classifying people as homosexual/heterosexual, ie, because the sexual attractions we have are traits, and when a trait is a negative one we should not embrace it.I don't believe that homosexuals/heterosexuals/asexuals exist except as sociological constructs: we are all just sons and daughters of God with different characteristics. And all of us are accountable to recognize our incorrect feelings as something to overcome (regardless of source).
rockpond Posted September 24, 2014 Posted September 24, 2014 Okay, I will spell it out for you- two gay people holding hands and kissing is gross and is a sexual perversion. Thats homosexual behavior. Even the church defines two members of the same sex holding hands and kissing "homosexual behavior" and as such it is an "abomination". Defining the facts is not gay bashing. Your side wants to redefine "gay bashing" to be anything that doesnt accept their behavior as equal and natural as heterosexuality. There definitely is a gay agenda pushed on us by pop culture and Hollywood.Here are the questions I asked...So can you understand how declaring a gay couple holding hands and kissing to be a "sexual perversion" and an "abomination" might be considered gay bashing by some? Does that make sense to you? Or, not at all? Also, can you see how calling it "gross" and teaching your kids that it is "gross" (which they are likely to repeat) could also contribute to situations like in the Hardy letter where gay kids have to flee their community to feel safe?
rockpond Posted September 24, 2014 Posted September 24, 2014 (edited) You asked:"When a homosexual overcomes "same sex attraction" what does he or she become? Asexual?"I answered:"It is not "becoming something else". Religiously speaking, there are no homosexuals and heterosexuals. We are all just God's children with our own traits and trials to work with."And I proceeded to explain why in my opinion we need to stop classifying people as homosexual/heterosexual, ie, because the sexual attractions we have are traits, and when a trait is a negative one we should not embrace it.I don't believe that homosexuals/heterosexuals/asexuals exist except as sociological constructs: we are all just sons and daughters of God with different characteristics. And all of us are accountable to recognize our incorrect feelings as something to overcome (regardless of source).Realistically speaking there ARE homosexuals and heterosexuals. I know that might seem like a relatively new concept for some Mormons seeing how the Church just recently decided to acknowledge their existence. Edited September 24, 2014 by rockpond
USU78 Posted September 24, 2014 Posted September 24, 2014 Realistically speaking there ARE homosexuals and heterosexuals. I know that might seem like a relatively new concept for some Mormons seeing how the Church just recently decided to acknowledge their existence. Because in the XIXth Century, when the terms (at least the former term) was/were invented, they knew more than anybody ever did at any time prior to that day? Your knee-jerk acceptance of the taxonomy is puzzling.
rockpond Posted September 24, 2014 Posted September 24, 2014 Because in the XIXth Century, when the terms (at least the former term) was/were invented, they knew more than anybody ever did at any time prior to that day? Your knee-jerk acceptance of the taxonomy is puzzling. It's not a "knee-jerk acceptance" of anything. I don't care much about the taxonomy. Call them "blue" & "yellow". I just know that the sexual orientations actually exist (for lack of a better word).
USU78 Posted September 24, 2014 Posted September 24, 2014 It's not a "knee-jerk acceptance" of anything. I don't care much about the taxonomy. Call them "blue" & "yellow". I just know that the sexual orientations actually exist (for lack of a better word). Do they? Are they static? Are they inborn? Are they immutable? This need to make a yin/yang out of everything is really just so much fuzzy and entirely too lazy thinking. This homo/heterosexual taxonomy is bad science, bad sociology, and a terrible basis upon which to pin social policymaking. Guy marries, has 6 kids, has affairs with men, pitches his wife, catches HIV, gets AIDS, moves back home to his wife, dies. Is he homosexual or heterosexual? Answer: Yes. And No. And his story, with variations, is all too common. You can only define him by his behavior today, not last week or next week, if at all. You are what you do, and that's all we can really measure. 1
JLHPROF Posted September 24, 2014 Posted September 24, 2014 It's not a "knee-jerk acceptance" of anything. I don't care much about the taxonomy. Call them "blue" & "yellow". I just know that the sexual orientations actually exist (for lack of a better word). And how do you define the "sexual orientations" outside of the feelings a person has? Because as I've said several times now, feelings that are wrong should not be indulged. What makes these "orientations" so unalterable as opposed to any other emotional trait - lust, anger, jealousy, shyness.
rockpond Posted September 24, 2014 Posted September 24, 2014 Do they? Are they static? Are they inborn? Are they immutable? This need to make a yin/yang out of everything is really just so much fuzzy and entirely too lazy thinking. This homo/heterosexual taxonomy is bad science, bad sociology, and a terrible basis upon which to pin social policymaking. Guy marries, has 6 kids, has affairs with men, pitches his wife, catches HIV, gets AIDS, moves back home to his wife, dies. Is he homosexual or heterosexual? Answer: Yes. And No. And his story, with variations, is all too common. You can only define him by his behavior today, not last week or next week, if at all. You are what you do, and that's all we can really measure. Do they exist? Yes. Are they static? It seems to me that for most, they are. Are they inborn? The evidence I've read/heard strongly suggests that they are inborn. Are they immutable? Again, the evidence I'm familiar with says yes -- immutable. Official church position agrees on this point "for some". Is the man in your example heterosexual or homosexual? It depends on those feelings and drives within him. What I would consider to be the most likely answer in the scenario you described is that the man was always homosexual... he married a woman because that's what he was taught to do... did his best to make it work (including having kids) but couldn't suppress those innate desires... so they came out in the worst possible way (cheating on his wife). Mixed orientation marriages have a dismal success rate which is probably why the Church has counseled to avoid looking at them as a cure. You accuse me of "lazy thinking" but you are proposing we define people by strictly by their "behavior today". Telling a gay man that he can just marry a woman and behave heterosexually is horrible advice. 1
rockpond Posted September 24, 2014 Posted September 24, 2014 And how do you define the "sexual orientations" outside of the feelings a person has? Because as I've said several times now, feelings that are wrong should not be indulged. What makes these "orientations" so unalterable as opposed to any other emotional trait - lust, anger, jealousy, shyness. Orientation appears to be more than an emotional trait or a feeling. I don't know how to really explain sexual orientation -- everything I try to write seems to fall short. I'd suggest reading the accounts of homosexual people coming to understand their orientation. That's one of the reasons I asked the question I did... A gay person can refuse to indulge the "feelings" they have. They can refuse to act on those gay inclinations. But that doesn't make them heterosexual. It doesn't make them capable of a successful long-term relationship with someone of the opposite sex. Refusing to indulge doesn't make them desire a relationship with someone of the opposite sex. It just makes them celibate.
JLHPROF Posted September 24, 2014 Posted September 24, 2014 Orientation appears to be more than an emotional trait or a feeling. I don't know how to really explain sexual orientation -- everything I try to write seems to fall short. I'd suggest reading the accounts of homosexual people coming to understand their orientation. That's one of the reasons I asked the question I did... A gay person can refuse to indulge the "feelings" they have. They can refuse to act on those gay inclinations. But that doesn't make them heterosexual. It doesn't make them capable of a successful long-term relationship with someone of the opposite sex. Refusing to indulge doesn't make them desire a relationship with someone of the opposite sex. It just makes them celibate. Ok, I REALLY don't want to compare homosexuals with pedophiles (because I don't think that's fair or pleasant at all). But your explanation kind of makes it impossible to avoid providing the counter-argument.So let me just insert the word into your argument and see how little water it holds: "I'd suggest reading the accounts of pedophiles coming to understand their orientation. That's one of the reasons I asked the question I did... A pedophile can refuse to indulge the "feelings" they have. They can refuse to act on those pedophilic inclinations. But that doesn't make them attracted to adults. It doesn't make them capable of a successful long-term relationship with someone of their own age. Refusing to indulge doesn't make them desire a relationship with someone their own age. It just makes them celibate." So, while I don't equate homosexuality with pedophila (due to the law of agency) you can see that the argument ought not to be applied to sexual attraction as an excuse for allowing wrong feelings. I could have used other sexual attraction terms as well I suppose, but the term used really is irrelevant.Indulging an inappropriate sexual attraction, especially one that our religion has denounced as sinful, is no more correct for homosexuals than it is for pedophiles, even if one condition is more harmful than the other.Both are sinful weaknesses that need to be overcome.
toon Posted September 24, 2014 Posted September 24, 2014 Okay, I will spell it out for you- two gay people holding hands and kissing is gross and is a sexual perversion. Thats homosexual behavior. Even the church defines two members of the same sex holding hands and kissing "homosexual behavior" and as such it is an "abomination". Defining the facts is not gay bashing. Your side wants to redefine "gay bashing" to be anything that doesnt accept their behavior as equal and natural as heterosexuality. There definitely is a gay agenda pushed on us by pop culture and Hollywood. I understand how the Church views homosexual behavior. Yet, I cannot imagine the Church coming out in this day and age and directly calling the holding of hands and kissing "gross" and an "abomination." That may be a logical inference to be drawn, and is likely the underlying doctrinal conclusion (at least with regard to the behavior being considered an abomination*). But I still can't see the Church actually saying it. Because it would also be viewed as insensitive if not hateful. It's certainly not something I'd expect from someone who was sincerely seeking a dialogue about same sex attraction and sin. To address the abomination/gross comment further: Sin, whatever it is, is an abomination in God's eyes. Whether something is doctrinally a sin is a question of fact. And as parents, we have an obligation to teach or children what sin is. Whether something is gross is a question of opinion.
cinepro Posted September 24, 2014 Posted September 24, 2014 Ok, I REALLY don't want to compare homosexuals with pedophiles (because I don't think that's fair or pleasant at all). But your explanation kind of makes it impossible to avoid providing the counter-argument.So let me just insert the word into your argument and see how little water it holds: "I'd suggest reading the accounts of pedophiles coming to understand their orientation. That's one of the reasons I asked the question I did... A pedophile can refuse to indulge the "feelings" they have. They can refuse to act on those pedophilic inclinations. But that doesn't make them attracted to adults. It doesn't make them capable of a successful long-term relationship with someone of their own age. Refusing to indulge doesn't make them desire a relationship with someone their own age. It just makes them celibate." So, while I don't equate homosexuality with pedophila (due to the law of agency) you can see that the argument ought not to be applied to sexual attraction as an excuse for allowing wrong feelings. I could have used other sexual attraction terms as well I suppose, but the term used really is irrelevant.Indulging an inappropriate sexual attraction, especially one that our religion has denounced as sinful, is no more correct for homosexuals than it is for pedophiles, even if one condition is more harmful than the other.Both are sinful weaknesses that need to be overcome. Men who are attracted to young boys aren't analogous to men who are attracted to other men. They are analogous to men who are attracted to young girls. 2
JLHPROF Posted September 24, 2014 Posted September 24, 2014 (edited) Men who are attracted to young boys aren't analogous to men who are attracted to other men. They are analogous to men who are attracted to young girls. Completely besides my point. My point relates to using the "impossible to overcome my feelings without being celibate and lonely so why should I" defense. If the attraction is sinful, it must not be accepted, regardless of whether it's to same gender, children, animals, food, violence, my best friend's wife, or a glossy magazine. Making the excuse that "Refusing to indulge doesn't make them desire a relationship with someone of the opposite sex. It just makes them celibate." is a justification for same sex relationships just doesn't work. It's not an excuse for homosexuality any more than it is for pedophilia. Edited September 24, 2014 by JLHPROF 1
rockpond Posted September 24, 2014 Posted September 24, 2014 Ok, I REALLY don't want to compare homosexuals with pedophiles (because I don't think that's fair or pleasant at all). But your explanation kind of makes it impossible to avoid providing the counter-argument.So let me just insert the word into your argument and see how little water it holds: "I'd suggest reading the accounts of pedophiles coming to understand their orientation. That's one of the reasons I asked the question I did... A pedophile can refuse to indulge the "feelings" they have. They can refuse to act on those pedophilic inclinations. But that doesn't make them attracted to adults. It doesn't make them capable of a successful long-term relationship with someone of their own age. Refusing to indulge doesn't make them desire a relationship with someone their own age. It just makes them celibate." So, while I don't equate homosexuality with pedophila (due to the law of agency) you can see that the argument ought not to be applied to sexual attraction as an excuse for allowing wrong feelings. I could have used other sexual attraction terms as well I suppose, but the term used really is irrelevant.Indulging an inappropriate sexual attraction, especially one that our religion has denounced as sinful, is no more correct for homosexuals than it is for pedophiles, even if one condition is more harmful than the other.Both are sinful weaknesses that need to be overcome.Are pedophiles exclusively attracted to children with no desire for companionship from adults?Either way, I don't endorse any relationship in which one party is victimized by the other. And I've never suggested that homosexuals should have sexual relations outside the bonds of marriage. And the marriage covenant requires two consenting adults.
JLHPROF Posted September 24, 2014 Posted September 24, 2014 (edited) And the marriage covenant requires two consenting adults. No, the marriage covenant requires a man and a woman. If you doubt it, check the wording of the marriage covenant. Edited September 24, 2014 by JLHPROF 1
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted September 24, 2014 Posted September 24, 2014 No, the marriage covenant requires a man and a woman. If you doubt it, check the wording of the marriage covenant.Well, some one told Rockpond other wise. I will leave it up to each of you to figure out who that someone is.
cinepro Posted September 24, 2014 Posted September 24, 2014 (edited) Completely besides my point. My point relates to using the "impossible to overcome my feelings without being celibate and lonely so why should I" defense. If the attraction is sinful, it must not be accepted, regardless of whether it's to same gender, children, animals, food, violence, my best friend's wife, or a glossy magazine. Making the excuse that "Refusing to indulge doesn't make them desire a relationship with someone of the opposite sex. It just makes them celibate." is a justification for same sex relationships just doesn't work. It's not an excuse for homosexuality any more than it is for pedophilia. With all due respect, I won't be taking moral advice from someone who lists "children" and "food" in the same category of "attraction". Edited September 24, 2014 by cinepro 1
JLHPROF Posted September 24, 2014 Posted September 24, 2014 (edited) With all due respect, I won't be taking moral advice from someone who lists "children" and "food" in the same category of "attraction". Really? Come on Cinepro, you don't need to resort to cheap shots, especially against a valid point. Any biological attraction, if sinful, should not be embraced. That's all I said. Edited September 24, 2014 by JLHPROF
rockpond Posted September 24, 2014 Posted September 24, 2014 No, the marriage covenant requires a man and a woman. If you doubt it, check the wording of the marriage covenant.Are they not consenting adults?
Recommended Posts