The Recent Change In My View Of Homosexual Marriage

[california boy]

Actually, I've been surprised at those who have taken issue with what I assumed was something very obvious.

 

A man is only straight if he doesn't engage in sex with other men. Once he does so - and it doesn't matter whether it's due to genetic or societal or environmental conditions - he is bi- or homosexual. That's by definition, if you look up the various terms. So sex with other men is very universally repugnant to straight males - until they cease to be straight males.

 

The interesting point that was brought up in connection with this is that homosexuality can be an acquired trait, according to Hamba's historical accounts. The general breakdown of moral strictures in society apparently leads to an increase in acquired homosexuality.

 

 

Definiton of homosexual

 

 

1.  

    

   ho·mo·sex·u·al/ˌhōməˈsekSH(əw)əl/

   adjective

   1. (of a person) sexually attracted to people of one's own sex.

   noun

   a person who is sexually attracted to people of their own sex.

    

    

    

    

   As you can see, it has nothing to do with who they marry or who they have sex with.  

    

[TOmNossor]

A man is only straight if he doesn't engage in sex with other men. Once he does so - and it doesn't matter whether it's due to genetic or societal or environmental conditions - he is bi- or homosexual. That's by definition, if you look up the various terms. So sex with other men is very universally repugnant to straight males - until they cease to be straight males.

A man is only straight if he doesn't engage in sex with other men. Once he does so - and it doesn't matter whether it's due to genetic or societal or environmental conditions - he is bi- or homosexual. That's by definition, if you look up the various terms. So sex with other men is very universally repugnant to straight males - until they cease to be straight males.

 

I think there is great potential to talk past one another due to the terms we use.

I am sure there are those who consider folks with SSA non-straight even if they do not yet (or ever) participate in homosexual sex.

 

I also think "repugnant" is an apt term for the feelings of most non SSA males but it is probably a little loaded with the condemnation that homosexuals feel.  And, I do not believe "universally" is correct.

I might mention that the term "straight" might be a loaded term too.  But, I really hope that our struggling with terms can be forgiven and not be a large part of this discussion.

 

SSA- Same Sex Attraction is a desire for bonding/coupling with the same sex that is largely or totally analogous to the feelings opposite sex people feel for one another.  Asexual folks might not understand what I refer to here, but there are few of those folks and I do not know what to do to make them understand.

 

Homosexual Sex- Is some sex act between members of the same sex.  I lean away from including kissing in this, but I am unsure the full ramifications of where the line of "sex act" is drawn.

 

SSM- Is the attempt to create a union for folks of the same sex that is analogous to "Traditional Marriage" (I hate the term "traditional marriage" - it is a loser.  "Pro-life," "Pro-choice," and "Marriage Equality" are winners in ways that "traditional marriage" is not).

 

 

 

The interesting point that was brought up in connection with this is that homosexuality can be an acquired trait, according to Hamba's historical accounts. The general breakdown of moral strictures in society apparently leads to an increase in acquired homosexuality

The interesting point that was brought up in connection with this is that homosexuality can be an acquired trait, according to Hamba's historical accounts. The general breakdown of moral strictures in society apparently leads to an increase in acquired homosexuality.

On one hand, the "general breakdown of moral strictures in society" fits my thesis.  Because sex is viewed as something to entertain, enjoy and entice in increasing aspects of our lives (TV, dating, high school, advertising, pornography, ...) the barriers to the normalization of homosexual sex are much lower.  That being said I do not think the majority (greater than 50%) of folks would experience SSA or choose to have homosexual sex in the least moral society imaginable. 

In all my exploration of this question I have come across folks who say that MANY adolescents have a same sex curiosity and thus in our society, that is aggressively normalizing homosexuality, a subset of these adolescents walk a path that leads to a homosexual lifestyle that only a tiny fraction of them might walk where they to live in 1950's small town America.  I lean towards this being true, but I really do not know.  I definitely believe that SOME small percentage of folks in 1950's small town American will have powerful SSA that does not abate like this "curiosity" purportedly does.  And within the theoretically moral 1950's small town America there are gross sins against those who have these powerful SSA.  I advocate for a balance where the "normalizing of homosexuality" is resisted, but that nobody is ever bullied (or shamed in general) like has happened.  Together with this I would advocate for a removal of sex as a tool to entertain and entice, but this IMO will not happen in any significant subset of society anytime soon.

 

Charity, TOm

Edited November 18, 2014 by TOmNossor

[CV75]

 

Definiton of homosexual

 

As you can see, it has nothing to do with who they marry or who they have sex with.  

 

Which is precisely why the LDS religious covenant between a man and a woman applies to all.

[TOmNossor]

What I wanted to talk about has to do with what you refer to as "purpose". It seems like you are suggesting that procreation is the primary purpose of sexual encounters? You ought to know that I am not opposed to this view. Do I understand you correctly?

 

It seems to me that if we assume that the state should refrain from exercising any authority over the definition of marriage, it would not matter what is the revealed purpose of sex, UNLESS you are suggesting that this truth about the primary purpose transcends religion, and is a legitimate natural truth that should be recognized by the state. Only If the primary purpose of sex is a truth that exists outside of religious claims, would it seem that your fellow Mormons could agree. As one who believe in an intimate connection between church and state, it works for me. SSM is out. I am not sure it works for Mormons who don't think the state can recognize religious truth. It seems like this has to be a non-religious truth if Mormons can accept it as something that should be legislated by the state.

What I wanted to talk about has to do with what you refer to as "purpose". It seems like you are suggesting that procreation is the primary purpose of sexual encounters? You ought to know that I am not opposed to this view. Do I understand you correctly?

 

It seems to me that if we assume that the state should refrain from exercising any authority over the definition of marriage, it would not matter what is the revealed purpose of sex, UNLESS you are suggesting that this truth about the primary purpose transcends religion, and is a legitimate natural truth that should be recognized by the state. Only If the primary purpose of sex is a truth that exists outside of religious claims, would it seem that your fellow Mormons could agree. As one who believe in an intimate connection between church and state, it works for me. SSM is out. I am not sure it works for Mormons who don't think the state can recognize religious truth. It seems like this has to be a non-religious truth if Mormons can accept it as something that should be legislated by the state.

Hello Rory!

First let me say, I am saying a little more about the purpose of sex than what you relay above.  It is both the procreative and unitive aspect of sex that gives it purpose and it is to be used to create stable families lead by husband and wife through which children are born and reared (you probably just didn't want to type all that, but I wanted to include it).

 

 

I think the main point of my thread is to help those with religious convictions who have truly weighed these issues and found no clear winner outside the teachings of General Authorities or the Magisterium or outside a particular reading of the Bible.  I have come to believe that my swimming in a culture of sex for entertainment, for advertising, for advancement at work, for ... has polluted the way I weigh homosexual issues.  When I thought about these questions in light of this "cultural revolution," I found a much greater degree of clarity.

Now, more directly to your query, I believe there is something to the concept (a very Catholic concept) of "natural law."  I have also been influenced (by you and some others) to move some through the spectrum of separation of church and state away from as strict of separation as I once embraced.  At a minimum, I think it is absolutely appropriate for Christians to "vote their conscious."

 

Next, it is my attempt to have love for my fellow man that makes this question even a question.  It is when I step outside myself and try to walk in the shoes of someone who is told their SSA should not produce SSM or homosexual sex, that I see SOME strength in the position of the SSM advocates.  If the state is cold and business-like, I think there are advantages to opposite sex marriage that are lacking in SSM and that is enough to legislate against it (or keep the small incentives that exist for opposite sex marriage and not extend them to SSM).  I do not believe we live in a state that is cold and business-like.  I think all legislators care some and some legislators care a great deal about their constituents and the needs/wants of their constituents.  This is why the cold and business-like state will in a few years make SSM legal.  Not because SSM is of benefit to society in the same way opposite sex marriage is, but because of a desire to be fair and just and equal and compassionate (there is also a "liberal democracy" tenet that says the minority MUST not be oppressed by the majority and this tenet is embraced in a way that often elevates the needs and wants of the minority above the needs and wants of the majority based almost totally on the fact that it is the minority).

 

I am also not sure that Mormons "don't think the state can recognize religious truth."  I think instead there is a great amount of LDS on the Internet who have bought into the liberal democratic ideals of the "educated" society.  They then emphasize the scriptures that point to the need to let LDS have freedom of religion and neglect the scriptures that point to the importance of having a moral state.  I think both exist in our extra Biblical scriptures, and I think the "freedom of religion" scriptures are almost completely about preventing the punishment of heresy, embracing certain thoughts and ideas (most specifically the persecution of the early LDS) and not about leaving citizens free to engage in whatever kind of activity they may or may not desire, doing certain things (the practice of polygamy would likely be an exception to this broad principle).

 

 

 

Sorry to hear about your dad. I lost mine around five years ago. I was surprised at how broken up I was. Go figure. I don't know if there is a right and a wrong way. God made us all with different temperaments and ways of dealing with stress and tension and loss. Who says you have what must be considered a "disorder"? All of us have strengths and weaknesses according to the gifts and deficiencies of nature we receive or don't get. A touch feely generation is likely to define you as the one with a problem. But a different culture admires the "stiff upper lip". Nobody has it all.   It seems like every ball player, maybe I should say "bawl player", starts crying when he retires now. I don't like it. But I am older. Neither Joe DiMaggio nor Ted Williams did that. Now they do. Our culture has changed rapidly. Different cultures ask for different things from its members. I don't know what they say Asperger's is. My wife has seen my cry many times. I don't think I have ever seen her cry and she has lost both parents since we have been married. She is fine. She loves me. I love her. It wasn't the cry baby (me), but my wife, who visited everybody's graves for All Souls Day. Different temperaments. I don't need her to cry if I die first. I need her prayers and I know I'll have them. God makes us all different. If you have a truly problematic medical condition, fine. Seek medical aid. I believe in medicine.  But don't let anybody talk you into a universal appropriate response to death. As a Catholic, I believe in a primary and subsequent purpose for sex. I don't believe we all are supposed to react the same way to traumatic stimuli.

 

 

Thanks for your concern for my loss.  I am sorry about yours too.  We knew each other back then if I was sensitive I might have said sorry then <grin>.

The little I currently understand about Asperger's tells me it is not about being stoic in the face of loss but about being disconnected in general and thus less affected by loss.  I am increasingly aware that I am very willing to be disconnected from my fellow humans and occasionally run from connection with my wife or family.  I consider this something that it would be better for me to manage with my intellect than let my natural feelings and desires have their way.  Asperger's is an Autism Spectrum Disorder and thus might be called mild autism.  The way I interact with the world seems to be best labeled as mild Asperger's.  I am not all that upset about this.  Thinking about it as a lack of sensitivity to other's emotion, a lack of connectedness to others, a willingness to run to low connection interactions (like posting on the internet), ... helps me to look at how I want to change so I might have a richer and fuller life especially with my family.

 

All that being said, the reason I brought it up (aside from the fact that California Boy's "connection argument" screamed that I should); was that in treating Asperger's or mild Social Anxiety or ... professional therapist advocate uncomfortableness to move the "non-normal" towards normalcy.  I am again reminded that SSA receives some type of exception.  The DSM no longer lists SSA as something that is non-normal.  Professionals no longer ask that those with SSA make themselves uncomfortable in order to be more "normal."  I think much of the reason for this is that in our sexualized culture it is self-condemnation to say there is ANYTHING wrong with homosexual sex. 

 

I am personally quite comfortable with self-condemnation in some areas, I am a sinner (and in other areas I am in concerted and active denial, but I am working on it).  But, I came to believe that swimming in this sexualized culture made me insensitive to the reasons why sex should be between a man and woman who are committed to marriage for life.  Stepping back from the culture and thinking about sex like this made the opposition to SSM the more reasoned position (not just the position that involves "following the Prophet" or obeying the Magisterium).

Charity, TOm

Edited November 18, 2014 by TOmNossor

[rockpond]

Professionals no longer ask that those with SSA make themselves uncomfortable in order to be more "normal."  I think much of the reason for this is that in our sexualized culture it is self-condemnation to say there is ANYTHING wrong with homosexual sex.

 

Do you think that it could be because after decades of asking them to make themselves uncomfortable, they realized that by and large it wasn't making them any more heterosexual?

[california boy]

Which is precisely why the LDS religious covenant between a man and a woman applies to all.

The definition of homosexuality has NOTHING to do with LDS religious views on marrige.

[Hamba Tuhan]

A man is only straight if he doesn't engage in sex with other men. Once he does so - and it doesn't matter whether it's due to genetic or societal or environmental conditions - he is bi- or homosexual.

 

That's something of a linguistic trap that you've laid there ... and one that (inadvertently?) furthers the movement I think you think you are resisting.

 

That's by definition, if you look up the various terms.

 

Terms that were first coined and defined less than 150 years ago and which still have not fully penetrated the entire world despite the West's persistent and well-financed attempts to fully colonise the global imagination.

 

The interesting point that was brought up in connection with this is that homosexuality can be an acquired trait, according to Hamba's historical accounts.

 

All labelled sexuality is an 'acquired trait'. That's the whole point. Over the course of the past 145 years, forces in the West have slowly sexualised attraction, then gendered it, and then, only in the past few decades really (in large part as a conscious ally to the gay-rights agenda), fixed it as something inherent and unalterable. But this is all a social construct unique in the world's history, and the historians and anthropologists I work with all know this because in our part of the world, it's blindingly obvious. People in previous generations simply didn't have sexual identities, and many people outside of the overly sexualised, psychologised, Hollywoodised West still don't.

 

For a queer-friendly and historical discussion on this point, see 'The invention of the heterosexual'.

 

For a Christian-friendly and anthropological discussion, see 'The invention of homosexuality ... and heterosexuality'.

Edited November 19, 2014 by Hamba Tuhan

[poptart]

That's something of a linguistic trap that you've laid there ... and one that (inadvertently?) furthers the movement I think you think you are resisting.

 

 

Terms that were first coined and defined less than 150 years ago and which still have not fully penetrated the entire world despite the West's persistent and well-financed attempts to fully colonise the global imagination.

 

 

All labelled sexuality is an 'acquired trait'. That's the whole point. Over the course of the past 145 years, forces in the West have slowly sexualised attraction, then gendered it, and then, only in the past few decades really (in large part as a conscious ally to the gay-rights agenda), fixed it as something inherent and unalterable. But this is all a social construct unique in the world's history, and the historians and anthropologists I work with all know this because in our part of the world, it's blindingly obvious. People in previous generations simply didn't have sexual identities, and many people outside of the overly sexualised, psychologised, Hollywoodised West still don't.

 

For a queer-friendly and historical discussion on this point, see 'The invention of the heterosexual'.

 

For a Christian-friendly and anthropological discussion, see 'The invention of homosexuality ... and heterosexuality'.

Some food for thought, I think many people are more or less bi, and that can fluctuate.  I know for me when I look at the misery many of my hetrosexual friends are in due to stress from their significant others I am overjoyed I don't have to deal with that.  I'm technically bi, but man I look at a lot of the women my age here in the USA and cringe.  So many have kids so young, let their kids run wild, and just carry on in ways that has to be very unatractive to most hetrosexual men (I think).

Mom wasn't from here and the few girls I dated weren't from the USA anyway, and when I look at the options I would face if I was hetrosexual I would be a miserable alcoholic by now. 

Praise The Lord I like men! lol

 

Also, before anyone hates on me to be fair my mom was a single mother for a while but despite a psychotic father who went out of his way to try ruining my life mentally and legally all of her kids made it to adulthood, finished college and had no illiegitimate kids.  Also the older two are straight.

Edited November 19, 2014 by poptart

[CV75]

The definition of homosexuality has NOTHING to do with LDS religious views on marrige.

Which is precisely why the LDS religious covenant between a man and a woman applies to all.

[poptart]

Which is precisely why the LDS religious covenant between a man and a woman applies to all.

 temple content removed

[california boy]

Which is precisely why the LDS religious covenant between a man and a woman applies to all.

Can you explain why the LDS religious covenant between a man and a woman applies to all?  And does that mean the church can dictate what others are required to believe or follow?

 

While I support the idea the LDS religious beliefs can be what ever the membership and leadership agree it should be, I am at a loss why those teachings even on marriage should be binding or followed by everyone else.  Love to hear your justification for such a viewpoint.

[TOmNossor]

Do you think that it could be because after decades of asking them to make themselves uncomfortable, they realized that by and large it wasn't making them any more heterosexual?

Rockpond,

Is that what you think?

I think the removal of homosexuality as a disorder from the DSM included a lot of lobbying and politics.  I do not think the primary arguments for removal were associated with the rate at which SSA feelings are "cured."   The question asked was, are those with SSA mentally ill.  My understanding is that those with SSA find themselves in psychiatric care more frequently than do those without, but that the pro-removal from the DSM crowd argues that this is a product of societal factors associated with the way society relates to homosexual individuals NOT a product of mental illness.

 

I also think that it is WICKED hard to get reliable data on what is really going on.  Some studies draw conclusions unwarranted by the data collected for both sides of this debate from my reading of the subject.

 

Today if you go to 90%+ of therapists claiming to have SSA and not wanting to have SSA you will be treated for what amounts to a self-loathing.  I think the language is something like great distress associated with sexual orientation.  I lean towards the view that therapy has been largely unsuccessful at causing folks with SSA to cease to have SSA almost as spectacularly a failure as curing autism.  That being said I think there are functioning individuals who have SSA and for various reasons choose to not participate in homosexual sex.  There are certainly therapeutic successes for those who have such a desire. 

 

My limited research into this (before and after your question) produces data that fits well with the thesis I started this thread advocating.  Those who lobbied for homosexuality's removal from the DSM (both professionals and non-professionals) put pressure upon the APA.  These efforts began early in the 1970's as the "sexual revolution" was firmly underway.  Reading accounts of this produces wildly different conclusions depending upon the source of the account.  Some emphasize studies that point away from pathology and briefly mention politicking and the existence of conflicting studies.  Some emphasize politicking and studies that point toward pathology and briefly mention conflicting studies.  One thing that is clear is that the "empirical studies" did not point in a single direction (toward or away from homosexuality as a disorder).  Another that is clear is that there was much non-scientific pressure/politicking that was part of this change.  If as I suggest my personal confusion regarding these questions was a product of my post "sexual revolution" childhood and adulthood, then the events involved in the APA decision fit quite well with this CHANGE in societal norms.

 

I am not sure if I have mentioned in the thread, but I think I will now.  It is possible that society is moving to a better place with respect to our view of sex.  Maybe the oppression of homosexual feelings and the suppression premarital sex and ... should be a thing of the past. 

 

But, I have long ago concluded that sex for advertising, sex for entertainment (prime time TV sex and hardcore pornography), sex for fun (hooking up or ...), and .... are bad for society and not in accordance with God's design for human sexuality.  It is the clear linkage of societies changing views on homosexuality with these views that have tipped my conclusions on homosexuality strongly towards the recognition that REASON dictates this is sin.

 

And lest someone forget what I already said, we are all sinners and we are called to love the sinners (without loving the sin - though I love my sins for a season sometimes).

Charity, TOm

[rockpond]

Rockpond,

Is that what you think?

I think the removal of homosexuality as a disorder from the DSM included a lot of lobbying and politics.  I do not think the primary arguments for removal were associated with the rate at which SSA feelings are "cured."   The question asked was, are those with SSA mentally ill.  My understanding is that those with SSA find themselves in psychiatric care more frequently than do those without, but that the pro-removal from the DSM crowd argues that this is a product of societal factors associated with the way society relates to homosexual individuals NOT a product of mental illness.

 

I also think that it is WICKED hard to get reliable data on what is really going on.  Some studies draw conclusions unwarranted by the data collected for both sides of this debate from my reading of the subject.

 

Today if you go to 90%+ of therapists claiming to have SSA and not wanting to have SSA you will be treated for what amounts to a self-loathing.  I think the language is something like great distress associated with sexual orientation.  I lean towards the view that therapy has been largely unsuccessful at causing folks with SSA to cease to have SSA almost as spectacularly a failure as curing autism.  That being said I think there are functioning individuals who have SSA and for various reasons choose to not participate in homosexual sex.  There are certainly therapeutic successes for those who have such a desire. 

 

My limited research into this (before and after your question) produces data that fits well with the thesis I started this thread advocating.  Those who lobbied for homosexuality's removal from the DSM (both professionals and non-professionals) put pressure upon the APA.  These efforts began early in the 1970's as the "sexual revolution" was firmly underway.  Reading accounts of this produces wildly different conclusions depending upon the source of the account.  Some emphasize studies that point away from pathology and briefly mention politicking and the existence of conflicting studies.  Some emphasize politicking and studies that point toward pathology and briefly mention conflicting studies.  One thing that is clear is that the "empirical studies" did not point in a single direction (toward or away from homosexuality as a disorder).  Another that is clear is that there was much non-scientific pressure/politicking that was part of this change.  If as I suggest my personal confusion regarding these questions was a product of my post "sexual revolution" childhood and adulthood, then the events involved in the APA decision fit quite well with this CHANGE in societal norms.

 

I am not sure if I have mentioned in the thread, but I think I will now.  It is possible that society is moving to a better place with respect to our view of sex.  Maybe the oppression of homosexual feelings and the suppression premarital sex and ... should be a thing of the past. 

 

But, I have long ago concluded that sex for advertising, sex for entertainment (prime time TV sex and hardcore pornography), sex for fun (hooking up or ...), and .... are bad for society and not in accordance with God's design for human sexuality.  It is the clear linkage of societies changing views on homosexuality with these views that have tipped my conclusions on homosexuality strongly towards the recognition that REASON dictates this is sin.

 

And lest someone forget what I already said, we are all sinners and we are called to love the sinners (without loving the sin - though I love my sins for a season sometimes).

Charity, TOm

 

I think that if you went to a therapist today and said you had "SSA", 90% of them would probably ask if you mean "homosexuality".  

 

In any case, if you re-read my post you'll note that I wasn't talking about the DSM change, I was referring to your comment about psychologist asking gay people to make themselves "uncomfortable" in order to be heterosexual.

 

There was a time when I, like you, delved into all those studies in an attempt to make sense of science and the church's position.  Since the church has backed away from change therapy, it seems that they don't see compelling evidence that it works.

 

But in the end, among the actual people that I interact with, it seems that gay people can live happy, fulfilling healthy lives as gay people.  And that, for me, makes it not a "disorder".

[thesometimesaint]

Official Statement Concerning Homosexuality from the National Association of Social Workers

The National Association of Social Workers (NASW) has stated the following:

 

Social workers are guided by the NASW Code of Ethics which bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. . . NASW believes that non judgmental attitudes toward sexual orientation allow social workers to offer optimal support and services to lesbian and gay people. NASW affirms its commitment to work toward full social and legal acceptance of lesbian and gay people. The profession must also act to eliminate and prevent discriminatory statutes, policies, and actions that diminish the quality of life for lesbian and gay people and that force many to live their lives in the closet. (National Association of Social Workers: Lesbian and Gay Issues. Washington, DC, NASW Delegate Assembly, 1993.)

"Reparative Therapy"

The National Association of Social Workers in its Policy Statement on Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Issues: "endorses policies in both the public and private sectors that ensure nondiscrimination; that are sensitive to the health and mental health needs of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people; and that promote an understanding of lesbian, gay, and bisexual cultures. Social stigmatization of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people is widespread and is a primary motivating factor in leading some people to seek sexual orientation changes." [Haldeman, D.C. (1994). The practice and ethics of sexual orientation conversion therapy. Journal of Counseling and Clinical Psychology, 62(2), 221-227.]

Sexual orientation conversion therapies assume that homosexual orientation is both pathological and freely chosen. No data demonstrate that reparative or conversion therapies are effective, and in fact they may be harmful. [Davison, G.C. (1991). Constructionism and morality in therapy for homosexuality. In J.C. Gonsiorek & J.D. Weinrich, Homosexuality: Research implications for public policy. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications; Gonsiorek, J.C., & Weinrich, J.D. (1991). Homosexuality: Research implications for public policy. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications; Haldeman, D.C. (1994)]. NASW believes social workers have the responsibility to clients to explain the prevailing knowledge concerning sexual orientation and the lack of data reporting positive outcomes with reparative therapy. NASW discourages social workers from providing treatments designed to change sexual orientation or from referring practitioners or programs that claim to do so. [Policy Statement: Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Issues. Approved by Delegate Assembly, August 1996. Social Work Speaks, 4th ed., NASW, 1997]

[TOmNossor]

I think that if you went to a therapist today and said you had "SSA", 90% of them would probably ask if you mean "homosexuality".

That sounds possible <grin>.

In any case, if you re-read my post you'll note that I wasn't talking about the DSM change, I was referring to your comment about psychologist asking gay people to make themselves "uncomfortable" in order to be heterosexual.

There was a time when I, like you, delved into all those studies in an attempt to make sense of science and the church's position. Since the church has backed away from change therapy, it seems that they don't see compelling evidence that it works.

I see. Part of why I might have missed it is that I called it uncomfortable to be "more normal."

I lean toward the view that in the large majority of cases there is no known treatment that changes folks with SSA to folks without SSA.

Parents of the autistic vacillate between hoping for more effective treatments to allow their children to life more productive lives AND hoping for treatments that "cure" autism. But, there is no cure for autism and there may never be. That does not change the fact that it is part of the DSM.

I am suggesting that those who have difficulties interacting in social situation (social phobia, Asperger), those who have OCD, and ... are given tools to cope by therapists. There are drugs that can help, but I do not know of "cures." Folks with OCD are asked to recognize their compusions and reject them while simultaneously celebrating their ability to focus on details or ... that often comes with some of this.

I am unaware of what "coping" therapies might have been offered to those with SSA. What I hear about is the spectacular failure of reparative therapies.

So, I think there are many folks who live with SSA and are married, happy, and productive (or single, happy, and productive). I am unaware of how much their SSA affects their daily walk through life as I am not them. I believe that coping therapies exist and/or could be devised. However, MUCH of the reason there is little effort in this area (and likely why there is less success than might be) is that a tenet of today's society is that homosexuality is to be considered normal/fine. If you review the change in the DSM from both the pro-SSM side and the anti-SSM side, it is obvious that there was much that had nothing to do with empirical data.

It is easy for me to see how the sex-soaked culture affected my personal views on SSM, and almost as easy for me to see how this same cultural wave affects the DSM, psychiatry, Christians for SSM, atheists for SSM, and homosexuals for SSM. Since I believe much of this sex in the culture is a negative for society (in a non-theistic way) and negative in the eyes of God (in a completely theistic way), this colors my view of SSM now.

But in the end, among the actual people that I interact with, it seems that gay people can live happy, fulfilling healthy lives as gay people. And that, for me, makes it not a "disorder".

This is one of the pro-SSM anti-DSM ideas that bears consideration. I am unsure how universally true it is, but to the extent it is true this points towards SSA being something that should not be in the DSM AND even is a point (though a weak one IMO) on the side of the SSM crowd.

I would say that in my personal interactions most folks (though not all) who have SSA seem well adjusted from my observation (an observation very insensitive to many indicators of distress, but this is still a truism).

I have not thought and do not think this overcomes the weight of the evidence on the other side, and it will be many years before we will be able to determine if homosexuals seeking mental help are a higher percentage than heterosexuals seeking mental help solely due to the effect of negative societal pressures upon homosexuals absent for heterosexuals.

I wanted to mention, that California Boy's first post was a good "feelings based" contribution. I am of the opinion that this "feelings based" argument is what moves most people out of a sense of compassion and love for our homosexual brothers and sisters. This is not unimportant, but I tried to explain why this considerations (which I had already incorporated) didn't alter my new found position.

So, the " that gay people can live happy, fulfilling healthy lives as gay people ... makes it not a disorder" to the extent it is true/universal is more than a feelings based contribution. Time will give us more data on this.

Charity, TOm

[rockpond]

That sounds possible <grin>.

I see. Part of why I might have missed it is that I called it uncomfortable to be "more normal."

I lean toward the view that in the large majority of cases there is no known treatment that changes folks with SSA to folks without SSA.

Parents of the autistic vacillate between hoping for more effective treatments to allow their children to life more productive lives AND hoping for treatments that "cure" autism. But, there is no cure for autism and there may never be. That does not change the fact that it is part of the DSM.

I am suggesting that those who have difficulties interacting in social situation (social phobia, Asperger), those who have OCD, and ... are given tools to cope by therapists. There are drugs that can help, but I do not know of "cures." Folks with OCD are asked to recognize their compusions and reject them while simultaneously celebrating their ability to focus on details or ... that often comes with some of this.

I am unaware of what "coping" therapies might have been offered to those with SSA. What I hear about is the spectacular failure of reparative therapies.

So, I think there are many folks who live with SSA and are married, happy, and productive (or single, happy, and productive). I am unaware of how much their SSA affects their daily walk through life as I am not them. I believe that coping therapies exist and/or could be devised. However, MUCH of the reason there is little effort in this area (and likely why there is less success than might be) is that a tenet of today's society is that homosexuality is to be considered normal/fine. If you review the change in the DSM from both the pro-SSM side and the anti-SSM side, it is obvious that there was much that had nothing to do with empirical data.

It is easy for me to see how the sex-soaked culture affected my personal views on SSM, and almost as easy for me to see how this same cultural wave affects the DSM, psychiatry, Christians for SSM, atheists for SSM, and homosexuals for SSM. Since I believe much of this sex in the culture is a negative for society (in a non-theistic way) and negative in the eyes of God (in a completely theistic way), this colors my view of SSM now.

This is one of the pro-SSM anti-DSM ideas that bears consideration. I am unsure how universally true it is, but to the extent it is true this points towards SSA being something that should not be in the DSM AND even is a point (though a weak one IMO) on the side of the SSM crowd.

I would say that in my personal interactions most folks (though not all) who have SSA seem well adjusted from my observation (an observation very insensitive to many indicators of distress, but this is still a truism).

I have not thought and do not think this overcomes the weight of the evidence on the other side, and it will be many years before we will be able to determine if homosexuals seeking mental help are a higher percentage than heterosexuals seeking mental help solely due to the effect of negative societal pressures upon homosexuals absent for heterosexuals.

I wanted to mention, that California Boy's first post was a good "feelings based" contribution. I am of the opinion that this "feelings based" argument is what moves most people out of a sense of compassion and love for our homosexual brothers and sisters. This is not unimportant, but I tried to explain why this considerations (which I had already incorporated) didn't alter my new found position.

So, the " that gay people can live happy, fulfilling healthy lives as gay people ... makes it not a disorder" to the extent it is true/universal is more than a feelings based contribution. Time will give us more data on this.

Charity, TOm

 

Regarding your POV above, I think the difficulty from the psychiatric treatment perspective that you highlight is this:  What do homosexuals need to deal with via "coping strategies"?  What is it that they need to cope with?

 

The autism spectrum disorders you mention, generally speaking, negatively impact the individual's ability to live a full, happy, and productive life.  So those who treat such disorders develop strategies & techniques to help counter or overcome those negative impacts.  I don't see the corollary for homosexuality.

[TOmNossor]

Regarding your POV above, I think the difficulty from the psychiatric treatment perspective that you highlight is this: What do homosexuals need to deal with via "coping strategies"? What is it that they need to cope with?

The autism spectrum disorders you mention, generally speaking, negatively impact the individual's ability to live a full, happy, and productive life. So those who treat such disorders develop strategies & techniques to help counter or overcome those negative impacts. I don't see the corollary for homosexuality.

Rockpond,

There is no doubt that homosexuals are more likely to be uncomfortable with their sexual identity than are heterosexuals. Such was still documented in the DSM-III and I think is still in the DSM. It is also clear that they are more likely to injure themselves, attempt/succeed at suicide, and have depression.

All of these issues call for "coping strategies." I am sure you agree.

Now, where we are likely to disagree is in some of the guidance advocated in these coping strategies.

The person with Asperger's will be told that they have a disorder that makes it more difficult for them to connect with others. They will be offered strategies to increase connection, learn social queues, .... The engagement with the professional therapist will ALSO provide a framework through which the patient can understand their experiences and how they differ from the majority of the population.

The person with SSA will be better served by one of two overarching therapeutic directions:

1. They will be told that they have SSA, it is experienced by between 2-20% (the numbers are not important and they are one of the many things it is hard to know because of the charging of this issue). That they can form healthy same sex bonds/marriages. Can participate in safe sex (with at the very least some different considerations than those heterosexuals typically require). Must not believe they are bad or evil. And that much of their problems are a product of society being bigoted and wrong (but "IT GETS BETTER!" And ...

2. They could be told that they have SSA, and it is experienced by between 2-20% of the population. They can form healthy same sex and opposite sex bonds. They can marry a man or a woman (the opposite sex) and enjoy much of the same benefits and joys enjoyed by those without SSA. That homosexual sex and relationships are unhealthy (in the same way that withdrawing to Internet-only interaction for the person with Asperger's would be unhealthy) but are sometimes engaged in by those with SSA. And ...

To advocate #2 is to be subject to political pressure that I condemn, though not as vehemently as I condemn the horrors offered in the "All You Need is Love" video.

It is impossible for me (and I suspect impossible for anyone) to de-convolute the causes of the mental health problems experienced by SSA people.

A similar situation exists in that the data that shows that if woman have pre-marital sex they are more likely to divorce (though societal pressures are only much less present for this rather than totally absent).

Anyway, I do not know folks with SSA who are not wonderful people. I am aware of some who seem well adjusted and demonstrate no problems. I am aware of some who struggle.

I suspect we all struggle with one thing or another, it is charting the course through our struggles that I think has the greatest potential to create barriers (though not insurmountable barriers IMO) to our relationship with God.

Charity, TOm

[california boy]

If I may jump into this discussion again, I would like to relate my experience as a gay man.  I can agree with much of what you write and think.  But perhaps there are different reasons why I agree with what you wrote.  If I may, perhaps I can give some insight.

 

Yes, I did have a very difficult time coming to grips with the fact that I was gay.  I am not going to list all of the pain, insults, judgements, shunning, and emotional attacks that comes when others find out you have this deep dark secret.  I think most people have some idea of what that is like.  The "All You Need is Love" video nailed it.  That is exactly what it is like growing up gay.  It brought back some very deeply buried feelings.  I got very good at pretending I was straight.  But I always knew it was a performance so that others will love you.  Because I knew they could not love me if they knew that I was gay.  Unfortunately for the most part, I was right.  But it does get better.

 

It may be true that gay men do seek professional therapists more than the average person.  But maybe not for the reasons you believe.  When I first came out, I too met with a psychologist.  I have gay friends that have also met regularly with therapists.  But it had nothing to do with their own acceptance of being gay, but rather in helping them deal with how others dealt with them being gay. In my case, the therapist was a well known Mormon psycologist that specialized in working with gays.  He did help me a lot in understand and dealing with difficult family situations as a result of being gay.  When he started to try reparative therapy on me, I quit going.  It was a joke and not helpful to me at all.  I certainly can see why reparative therapy has been discredited as a therapy that has any merit.

 

About half of my friends are straight and the other half are gay.  For me, there seems to be no difference between the two groups on living well adjusted lives.  Both groups fall in love.  Some in each group find companionship.  Some marry.  Some remain single, still looking for that special someone to come along. Some in each group loose their jobs.  Some have children.  Some choose not to.  Seriously, other then who they are attracted to, there is very little difference between the two groups.  I think this is what most people find out when they have friends that are both straight and gay. It is harder to villains someone who is much more like you than they are different.  Those opposing SSM try their hardest to paint gays as being very different from the straight population.  But those stereotypes are quickly discarded by those that actually meet and become friends with gays.  It is why equal rights for gays was always going to happen eventually.  

 

I would like you to explain on thing you wrote.

 

That homosexual sex and relationships are unhealthy (in the same way that withdrawing to Internet-only interaction for the person with Asperger's would be unhealthy) but are sometimes engaged in by those with SSA. And ...

 

 

Why do you think that homosexual sex and relationships are unhealthy?  I guess I find nothing unhealthy about my relationship with my boyfriend.  We have a very happy healthy, and productive life together.  There is nothing inherient about our relationship that I find destructive.  Perhaps you could tell me what you think is unhealthy about my relationship with him?

[rockpond]

Rockpond,

There is no doubt that homosexuals are more likely to be uncomfortable with their sexual identity than are heterosexuals. Such was still documented in the DSM-III and I think is still in the DSM. It is also clear that they are more likely to injure themselves, attempt/succeed at suicide, and have depression.

All of these issues call for "coping strategies." I am sure you agree.

Now, where we are likely to disagree is in some of the guidance advocated in these coping strategies.

The person with Asperger's will be told that they have a disorder that makes it more difficult for them to connect with others. They will be offered strategies to increase connection, learn social queues, .... The engagement with the professional therapist will ALSO provide a framework through which the patient can understand their experiences and how they differ from the majority of the population.

The person with SSA will be better served by one of two overarching therapeutic directions:

1. They will be told that they have SSA, it is experienced by between 2-20% (the numbers are not important and they are one of the many things it is hard to know because of the charging of this issue). That they can form healthy same sex bonds/marriages. Can participate in safe sex (with at the very least some different considerations than those heterosexuals typically require). Must not believe they are bad or evil. And that much of their problems are a product of society being bigoted and wrong (but "IT GETS BETTER!" And ...

2. They could be told that they have SSA, and it is experienced by between 2-20% of the population. They can form healthy same sex and opposite sex bonds. They can marry a man or a woman (the opposite sex) and enjoy much of the same benefits and joys enjoyed by those without SSA. That homosexual sex and relationships are unhealthy (in the same way that withdrawing to Internet-only interaction for the person with Asperger's would be unhealthy) but are sometimes engaged in by those with SSA. And ...

To advocate #2 is to be subject to political pressure that I condemn, though not as vehemently as I condemn the horrors offered in the "All You Need is Love" video.

It is impossible for me (and I suspect impossible for anyone) to de-convolute the causes of the mental health problems experienced by SSA people.

A similar situation exists in that the data that shows that if woman have pre-marital sex they are more likely to divorce (though societal pressures are only much less present for this rather than totally absent).

Anyway, I do not know folks with SSA who are not wonderful people. I am aware of some who seem well adjusted and demonstrate no problems. I am aware of some who struggle.

I suspect we all struggle with one thing or another, it is charting the course through our struggles that I think has the greatest potential to create barriers (though not insurmountable barriers IMO) to our relationship with God.

Charity, TOm

So am I understanding you correctly that your suggested coping strategy for homosexual individuals is to encourage them to marry someone of the opposite sex and have a family?

[poptart]

So am I understanding you correctly that your suggested coping strategy for homosexual individuals is to encourage them to marry someone of the opposite sex and have a family?

LOL!  Yeah, that would work out real well.

[Tacenda]

Reading through TOM's comments, it's the sex part that bothers him most, and he even (you TOM) mention something about it being needed for procreation only. Forgive me if I read that wrong or read between the lines. I want to challenge heterosexual couples then, to only have sex when procreating, cuz anything else is icky.

[rockpond]

Reading through TOM's comments, it's the sex part that bothers him most, and he even (you TOM) mention something about it being needed for procreation only. Forgive me if I read that wrong or read between the lines. I want to challenge heterosexual couples then, to only have sex when procreating, cuz anything else is icky.

 

Interestingly, God designed a woman's body to have NON-procreative sexual relations about 75% of the time.  It would seem that God is in favor of sex for purposes other than procreation.

[Calm]

Reading through TOM's comments, it's the sex part that bothers him most, and he even (you TOM) mention something about it being needed for procreation only. Forgive me if I read that wrong or read between the lines. I want to challenge heterosexual couples then, to only have sex when procreating, cuz anything else is icky.

I think he specified it is also to bind them together as a couple that cares for their creation as well, iirc.

[TOmNossor]

California boy,

Thanks again for your response and the tone.

I want to offer an apology/explanation (which makes it a weak apology at best). It is super easy for me to view all questions from a cold analytical point of view. It is probably easier for me to view SSA from this frame than some other questions as I do not experience SSA. I recognize that this question is MUCH more than a cold analytical question for you, and I apologize for pain and frustration I cause as I address this (and the pain you experienced from the video). It was dialogue like this that led me to my previous position of mostly neutrality on this question (and I think the advocates of SSM will win the day and it will be because of dialogue like this NOT because of retaliation and attempts to silence those opposed to SSM). Lastly, I am certain I am not God and I am certain I lack all the answers.

Your position on difficulties associated with SSA experienced by those with SSA is that it is a product of society's reaction to (and societal norms associated with) homosexuality. Correct? This is very difficult if not impossible to de-convolute from underlying difficulties that may have evolved or been created by God.

I am confident if society connected much more superficially than they do, cold disconnected conversations like ones often found on the internet between strangers would be the norm. Failure to recognize emotional clues or body language might be the state of virtually all humans so there would be much less discomfort for those who fail to recognize.... But, either because of evolution or God's creation, most humans connect with each other on a level much deeper than experienced on the Internet. As such the minority of folks who do not connect like this can either withdraw or employ strategies to cope and even connect. (Let me say that the problem I speak of here has much less "morality" in it, though I assure you that there are moral judgments imputed upon folks who do not connect with others normally just to a MUCH lesser degree than upon homosexuals).

Two things lead to my willingness to put up a post that opposes SSM.

The first was the recognition that either through evolutionary forces or through God's design, sex performs two functions for humans. The unitive function creates a bond between a man and a woman designed to weather internal (men and woman and indeed any two individuals think differently) and external (life has many problems) challenges. The procreative function brings forth new humans (either to replenish the race or to fulfill God's purposes). This unitive and procreative aspect of sex makes raising children in a home with a mother and father more likely than if the unitive function was absent OR procreations occurred via different means. This is why sex exists (also the genetic sharing involved in sex has evolutionary benefits and as such aligns with God's purposes too). This "unitive and procreative purpose of sex" explains the myriad of problems pro and anti SSM folks both recognize. Illegitimate births, dangerous and abusive sexual behaviors, the volumes of disadvantages experienced by children raised in broken homes or by single parents, ....

The second was related. As I weighed SSM and found the pro and anti arguments balanced, I was swimming in a culture that had taught me from age 10 (or younger) to middle age that sex was for entertainment, fun, .... The plea for compassion that I see as I speak to my friends, attend LBGT events, and read from you came to me as I was in this sexualized fishbowl. If I reject my cultures way of viewing sex this question becomes much clearer even as my heart (as well as possible for me) goes out to folks who experience SSA. And more clear to me than the problems with SSM are the problems with our sexualize culture, so it should be rejected and reasoning should be performed from outside of its pollution as best we can (ask me about the smell of a bouquet of a flowers over yonder when we are in the city dump???).

You asked:

I would like you to explain on thing you wrote.

That homosexual sex and relationships are unhealthy (in the same way that withdrawing to Internet-only interaction for the person with Asperger's would be unhealthy) but are sometimes engaged in by those with SSA. And ...

Why do you think that homosexual sex and relationships are unhealthy? I guess I find nothing unhealthy about my relationship with my boyfriend. We have a very happy healthy, and productive life together. There is nothing inherient about our relationship that I find destructive. Perhaps you could tell me what you think is unhealthy about my relationship with him?

If I could only answer with a single sentence, I would say, "I don't know."

...

But, I have a lot of thoughts that point me in that direction just nothing conclusive or specific (and I certainly cannot say much about YOUR relationship so let me say that to the extent possible I am not talking about you).

So in general why are homosexual sex and relationships unhealthy?

There is an evolutionary biologist centered answer that I think carries some weight and there is a God the creator centered answer that I think carries some weight. I suspect you can fill out both of those based on things I have already said.

In addition to those, I will offer a little more which can also fit into either a theistic or atheistic worldview. Some folks would be less uncomfortable in their skin if they were to post on the Internet, evaluate data, send emails about manufacturing process, and avoid relationships. Some similar folks might be able to interact with like-minded individuals via analytical discussions and intellectual debates. Some similar folks might be able to include still others (beyond those who are like-minded) who were willing to set aside their natural desire to connect and meet these folks on their playground for analytical discussion and intellectual debates. All three of these groups of folks would experience great distress if they traveled in circles of folks who connect normally, expect such connection from them, and would consciously or subconsciously demonstrate that the absence of this connection is problematic. IMO, there is greater joy in the world of connectedness than there is in these isolated circles even though these folks experience discomfort they wouldn't if they stayed in isolated circles. I suggest that seeking to normal levels of connectedness for these individuals is superior from an atheistic (evolutionary biology) or theistic (in the eyes of God fulfilling His purpose for our lives) point of view.

Choosing to spend most of ones time in a community of folks who celebrate SSA is analogous to what connectedness challenged folks might do. It will absolutely remove most if not all discomfort experienced by those with SSA, but it will not be good from an evolutionary biologist perspective (and as best my flawed concept of God can determine it is not in alignment with God's plan for us).

You also spoke of the initial difficulties you experienced that is now gone. This piece of data is consistent with your thesis that your initial difficulties were produced because society and you as a member of society had wrong views of SSA and homosexuality. In my cold disconnected way let me point out that this piece of data is also consistent with a phenomena with which I think most people are familiar. In my life as I have initially partaken of sin, it was difficult for me. Over time, I was able to leave behind much of the shame and discomfort I initial felt and focus on the fun I had through sinning. This I think is commonly the way of sin.

So, I do not know how your relationship is unhealthy. It is not even something that I would bet my life on as I am not sure about what I am saying here. But, the preponderance of the evidence I have been able to gather points me towards the conclusion that there is in fact something unhealthy about homosexual relationships. And the preponderance of the evidences as I am able to weigh it suggests to me that if some day there is no societal negativity associated with homosexuality, there will be more problems for the members of society (homosexual and non-homosexual) than there would be in a society where folks with SSA are loved and respected but taught to cope with their SSA and not have homosexual sex.

Let me restate two things. As long as you can present your plea for compassion as you have and other like you do the same, you will win the day. You may not change all minds, but the heart is yours for the asking. To hold my view one must reject our culture AND put emotion into a place that I think it belongs. And, I am offering my best read of this issue. I could be wrong. I don't think I am and I will invite folks to "reject our culture AND put emotion into a place it belongs," but when I stand before Christ and we talk about this (provided we have an eternity for me to get past my sins I actually have) He may pat me on the head and tell me I was confused.

May God love us sinners!

Charity, TOm

Edited November 21, 2014 by TOmNossor

[TOmNossor]

So am I understanding you correctly that your suggested coping strategy for homosexual individuals is to encourage them to marry someone of the opposite sex and have a family?

I am most comfortable saying that the proper coping strategy is to recognize that having SSA does not make them bad/broken/evil ..., but that homosexual relations are not a path to happiness.

Instead, they should seek connectedness and healthy relationships which MAY include opposite sex marriage and families.

They may ALWAYS have SSA that makes their experience of this life different from the majority of other humans, but that this does not define them.

As I have mentioned before, I know someone who has SSA, struggles, and is in a happy marriage with children. I have not mentioned, but ... I also know someone who has (or had) SSA, struggles, and is single. And I also know more than one someones who have SSA and are dating, together with the same man for 20+ years, together with the same woman for 5+ years, and ....

Charity, TOm