The Recent Change In My View Of Homosexual Marriage

[california boy]

The reason why I use it at times is that it makes for a shorthand way of specifying attraction as compared to behavior.  If I just use "homosexual" I have to include "attraction" or "behavior"…SSA is tons faster to write.  If I am talking OTOH, it is more or less as long since I say the whole thing so I usually use "homosexual attraction".  If people understood what HMSA stood for, I probably would use that.  Would that be offensive because the abbreviations make it look clinical?

 

Does LDS make us look like we have a clinical disorder?

My question was, do you say people have OSA unless they have had sex?  Then do you start calling them heterosexuals?

 

And yes, there are many who would perfer not referring to the church members as LDS, including the church guidelines.

[Tacenda]

Lol Pop tart. Misery and relationship issues are not targeted at heterosexuals. It hits everyone of any sexuality.

Its called life. And gay and bi people come from all walks of life and have relationship issues within the same gender partner.

On a side note bi people tend to be more promiscuous.

I really dont care what people want to be. I need to focus on who I am. I really dont care who others choose to sleep with. And franklg militant homosexuals are one of the worse. They demand people accept them and want to stop anyone from having a different opinion. Kind of shows there not comfortable with themselves.

Nice to see you on the board again!

On what you said about gays or bi's, wouldn't you feel like they do if all you did was be born and people won't want to accept you? I'd be just a little militant also!

[california boy]

Lol Pop tart. Misery and relationship issues are not targeted at heterosexuals. It hits everyone of any sexuality.

Its called life. And gay and bi people come from all walks of life and have relationship issues within the same gender partner.

On a side note bi people tend to be more promiscuous.

I really dont care what people want to be. I need to focus on who I am. I really dont care who others choose to sleep with. And franklg militant homosexuals are one of the worse. They demand people accept them and want to stop anyone from having a different opinion. Kind of shows there not comfortable with themselves.

 

I agree with you that we should all be focused on our own salvation rather than the sins of others.  After all, that is what Christ taught.

 

But I think that those militant gays that you refer to who demand that people accept them are tired of having their civil rights witheld from them and are fighting for those rights to be recognized not their homosexuality.  It has nothing to do with not being comfortable with themselves.  Kinda stranged that you missed that.

[pogi]

But I think that those militant gays that you refer to who demand that people accept them are tired of having their civil rights witheld from them and are fighting for those rights to be recognized not their homosexuality. 

As long as there are people who hate gay people, as long as gays don't feel socially accepted, there will be militant gays.  I don't think it is just about civil rights.  I think this kind of thing is seen in minority groups who feel inferior.  Some people have a really difficult time feeling accepted, even when the majority of society accepts you.  They can't be happy until everybody likes them.  I think that does say something about their insecurity.  Then there are others who have no problem feeling accepted.  It's really a self-perception thing I think. 

[Tacenda]

As long as there are people who hate gay people, as long as gays don't feel socially accepted, there will be militant gays.  I don't think it is just about civil rights.  I think this kind of thing is seen in minority groups who feel inferior.  Some people have a really difficult time feeling accepted, even when the majority of society accepts you.  They can't be happy until everybody likes them.  I think that does say something about their insecurity.  Then there are others who have no problem feeling accepted.  It's really a self-perception thing I think. 

There is a problem in part of your analogy, IMO.  You seem to be talking about the heterosexuals who are treated badly because of their personality, tastes, choices, looks, etc.  But not because they breath and I include those that are treated unfairly because of race also.  I guess no one will really know unless they are in that predicament.  But as I type these words, I guess we as LDS have been treated unfairly at times also, or Christians or their counterparts.  So what I just said can apply to so many, which brings us back to your last sentence which is correct I guess.  Do you have a headache yet?   

[Calm]

My question was, do you say people have OSA unless they have had sex?  Then do you start calling them heterosexuals?

 

And yes, there are many who would perfer not referring to the church members as LDS, including the church guidelines.

Knowng me, if I was involved in a conversation that had to constantly differentiate between heterosexual attraction and behaviour, I would come up with some sort of abbreviation for it.

[Ahab]

Knowng me, if I was involved in a conversation that had to constantly differentiate between heterosexual attraction and behaviour, I would come up with some sort of abbreviation for it.

The problem is that words or even descriptions don't convey the same ideas to everyone, so we need to use both our heart and our mind when trying to understand and describe someone.

For example, I am a man and I often see both men and women as sexually attractive in some way, whether it's their body or their mind or their personality that I find attractive, sexually. And when I say sexually I'm talking about how they present themselves, their sex being either male or female. So I often think in my mind if not saying aloud, that man is very attractive and I can see how any person, whether male or female, could enjoy his companionship and his attentions, sexually. And I often see women in the same way, although women are usually different than men in form and personality and behavior.

So what word or acronym or initials would you use to describe me or my sexual orientation? Would it help you to know that I'm happily married to a woman, even though I still often see men who I consider to be attractive? Or would it help you to know that I have had sexual relations with men, as well as women, even though I've been exclusively chaste with my wife for as long as we've been married? Or would it help you to know I see no problem at all with seeing either the same sex or opposite sex of myself as being attractive, although I see the same sex option as more limiting since it doesn't include someone of the opposite sex?

Frankly, I'm not totally sure about what I should call my sexual orientation, myself, whether bi or hetero sexual, although I wouldn't say homo because I am attracted to the opposite sex as well.

[LinuxGal]

Frankly, I'm not totally sure about what I should call my sexual orientation, myself, whether bi or hetero sexual, although I wouldn't say homo because I am attracted to the opposite sex as well.

 

Some people like cake, some people like ice cream, and some people like cake and ice cream.

[pogi]

So what word or acronym or initials would you use to describe me or my sexual orientation? 

 

BSA.  No not Boy scouts of America.  Both sex attraction. 

[Ahab]

Some people like cake, some people like ice cream, and some people like cake and ice cream.

We're talking about men and women here, which I see as the 2 most wonderful and beautiful creations of God in all of existence. Each different in their own way, but still the 2 greatest of all beings in all of existence. Even our Father is included amongst us, and one of the best examples of men in all of existence himself. I really can't imagine any good thinking person thinking he isn't sexually attractive as a man, with all of the best attributes that any man has and can have. And beside him there is also a woman, equal in splendor and glory and all of the best attributes that any woman has and can have.

I have trouble understanding why everyone doesn't consider both men and women to be attractive, sexually. It is obvious to me that both are, even though it's not the best thing to be limited to one's own sex or gender. We need both, with men having women and women having men, to be able to have the best kind of relationship we can have with ourselves, and to make more of ourselves, the best kind of being there is.

[pogi]

I have trouble understanding why everyone doesn't consider both men and women to be attractive, sexually. 

 

I think it is hard for anyone to understand how someone could have different attractions from oneself.  Even within the female sex, I am not attracted to all females, and I would venture to say that no two people have equal attractions.  Attraction is inexplicably personal. 

 

I can see how some guys are more attractive than others, but to consider them "sexually" attractive is an anatomic and physiologic impossibility in my mind.   Men are like dogs to me, they are my hairy buddies and that's it.  

[Ahab]

I think it is hard for anyone to understand how someone could have different attractions from oneself. Even within the female sex, I am not attracted to all females, and I would venture to say that no two people have equal attractions. Attraction is inexplicably personal.

I can see how some guys are more attractive than others, but to consider them "sexually" attractive is an anatomic and physiologic impossibility in my mind. Men are like dogs to me, they are my hairy buddies and that's it.

Try talking with and listening to other people who see others as "sexually" attractive when you have trouble seeing what they are attracted to in that person. It usually involves a whole lot more than "looks". It's very rare for me to not see something in someone that is attractive, sexually, although I can still usually see something about everyone that I don't like. Edited November 27, 2014 by Ahab

[Calm]

The question is if you are sexually attracted to them yourself, as opposed to being aware that they would be generally considered to be sexually attractive.  For example, I can understand why some find George Clooney sexually attractive, though I have never been attracted to him myself.  It is easy to see why men are attracted to many women and women attracted to various men, sexual cues that others like are well known by most people.

 

But being aware that someone is sexually attractive is not the same as being attracted to them yourself.

[poptart]

Lol Pop tart. Misery and relationship issues are not targeted at heterosexuals. It hits everyone of any sexuality.

Its called life. And gay and bi people come from all walks of life and have relationship issues within the same gender partner.

On a side note bi people tend to be more promiscuous.

I really dont care what people want to be. I need to focus on who I am. I really dont care who others choose to sleep with. And franklg militant homosexuals are one of the worse. They demand people accept them and want to stop anyone from having a different opinion. Kind of shows there not comfortable with themselves.

Teehee thanks I try. 

Yeah, I've heard that too, bi people are more promiscuous and well, take the easier option.  I remember hearing once something along the lines of you can't handle a strong independent woman, my response, you're just jelly I can get better looking guys lol 

[poptart]

I agree with you that we should all be focused on our own salvation rather than the sins of others.  After all, that is what Christ taught.

 

But I think that those militant gays that you refer to who demand that people accept them are tired of having their civil rights witheld from them and are fighting for those rights to be recognized not their homosexuality.  It has nothing to do with not being comfortable with themselves.  Kinda stranged that you missed that.

Bingo, this guy gets it.  Sure, the militant gays can be kinds mean, but hey we're still a terribly opressed minority in the USA.  People in general do like to marginalize people and gays have been a favorite target for quite some time now.  Life lesson, if you want something it almost always involves a long, hard and ugly fight. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

I'm clearly not Tom, but since he was responding to one of my posts, I hope it's OK if I respond to the questions you posed to Tom.

 

Do you think that someone is heterosexual only if they have had sex with someone of the opposite sex?

 

No, I don't think any such thing as a heterosexual exists full stop, though acts which could accurately be labelled 'heterosexual' do.

 

 Did you consider yourself OSA before you were married or did you consider yourself heterosexual?

 

I'm not married yet, but I do not now nor have I ever considered myself a heterosexual for the reason stated above. I also don't consider myself OSA since I don't define myself by my attractions and also because my attractions are not necessarily sexualised or gendered.

 

Maybe you should ask yourself why you need to make such a distinct difference only when it comes to gays.

 

I think Latter-day Saints make similar distinctions with pretty much any situation they consider sinful. The difference is that there are very few social movements wherein people insist on labelling themselves -- and importantly, others -- by their inclinations.

Edited November 27, 2014 by Hamba Tuhan

[Hamba Tuhan]

Frankly, I'm not totally sure about what I should call my sexual orientation, myself, whether bi or hetero sexual, although I wouldn't say homo because I am attracted to the opposite sex as well.

 

The simple solution -- and the historically accurate one -- is simply to be Ahab and altogether dispense with trying to squeeze yourself into someone else's off-the-rack definitions.

[Ahab]

The question is if you are sexually attracted to them yourself, as opposed to being aware that they would be generally considered to be sexually attractive. For example, I can understand why some find George Clooney sexually attractive, though I have never been attracted to him myself. It is easy to see why men are attracted to many women and women attracted to various men, sexual cues that others like are well known by most people.

But being aware that someone is sexually attractive is not the same as being attracted to them yourself.

I was suggesting that if or when you don't see how someone is or could be sexually attractive for yourself that you listen to others who see that person as sexually attractive so that maybe then you would see how they are sexually attractive.

To me it's usually pretty easy to see that others are sexually attractive in some way, though some more than others to me. It's just a matter of seeing that and then deciding whether or not to act on the attraction, or how to act with it.

It's not like I went blind when I got married, and it's also not like I feel that I should act on every attraction.

[Hamba Tuhan]

I have trouble understanding why everyone doesn't consider both men and women to be attractive, sexually.

 

Except that there's no reason to add 'sexually' to the end of your statement. Freudian psychology led to the sexualisation of attraction, but we need not accept this. As an example, I am strongly attracted to one of my former bishops. For six years, I was either his advisor (as president of the priests quorum) or his counsellor, and I loved every second I had to spend time with this man. I still do. I am quite literally 'drawn toward' him -- the very definition of 'attraction'. His love for me and others, his Christlike kindness, his good nature, his wisdom, his simplicity -- all draw me. When I go to high priests group on Sunday, I always sit next to him if there's an empty chair. I go out of my way to talk to him and share things with him, and he does the same with me. I attribute much of what I've grown to become the past few years to his care for me. If we both lived in 19th-century Melanesia, it's entirely possible that our shared attraction would become sexualised, but we're both Latter-day Saints, so it isn't. And once attraction no longer is bound by the artificial restrictions of sexualisation, it no longer makes sense to gender it either.

Edited November 27, 2014 by Hamba Tuhan

[Daniel2]

If a man engages in..... self-abuse.... does that mean he's either homosexual (or, at least bisexual) because he's has sex with someone of his same gender...?

[california boy]

I'm clearly not Tom, but since he was responding to one of my posts, I hope it's OK if I respond to the questions you posed to Tom.

 

 

No, I don't think any such thing as a heterosexual exists full stop, though acts which could accurately be labelled 'heterosexual' do.

 

 

I'm not married yet, but I do not now nor have I ever considered myself a heterosexual for the reason stated above. I also don't consider myself OSA since I don't define myself by my attractions and also because my attractions are not necessarily sexualised or gendered.

 

 

I think Latter-day Saints make similar distinctions with pretty much any situation they consider sinful. The difference is that there are very few social movements wherein people insist on labelling themselves -- and importantly, others -- by their inclinations.

 

I pretty much disagree with this statement.  I think a lot of Latter-day Saints have a fixation on the sin of gay sex.  While it is not that uncommon for a straight couple to have sex before marriage, I don't ever see members referring their friends as having OSA and stating they are only heterosexuals if they have had relations with the opposite sex.  I never hear members wanting to label themselves as OSA, unless they have had relations with the opposite sex.  

 

 I have also heard plenty of members lecture me on their belief that gays are only about sex and refusing to believe that gay couples can be attracted to each other and want to be married for a reason other than just sex.  We have had posters say that the only reason gays want to be married is because they feel bad about themselves or feel guilty for being gay.  Seriously.  Never heard a member say a lot of straight couples are fixated on sex and their relationship is based solely on them wanting to have sex.

 

It is as if members want to be all loving, charitable, and kind to a gay person unless they think they are actually in love with a person of the same sex.  Then they are free to call them sinners, deny them the right to that relationship, pass laws against their ability to marry and call them abominable.  That word seems to be reserved for those that are gay, and never used for straight couples who have sexual relations outside of marriage.  

 

Do you really think  Latter-day Saints make similar distinctions with pretty much any situation they consider sinful?  Cause I am not seeing it.  For members, it is all about the label.  Does he suffer with SSA or is he a homosexual.  Somehow they need to know just who they are talking about.  One they tolerate, the other they feel free to villianize.

[sjdawg]

I pretty much disagree with this statement.  I think a lot of Latter-day Saints have a fixation on the sin of gay sex.  While it is not that uncommon for a straight couple to have sex before marriage, I don't ever see members referring their friends as having OSA and stating they are only heterosexuals if they have had relations with the opposite sex.  I never hear members wanting to label themselves as OSA, unless they have had relations with the opposite sex.  

 

 I have also heard plenty of members lecture me on their belief that gays are only about sex and refusing to believe that gay couples can be attracted to each other and want to be married for a reason other than just sex.  We have had posters say that the only reason gays want to be married is because they feel bad about themselves or feel guilty for being gay.  Seriously.  Never heard a member say a lot of straight couples are fixated on sex and their relationship is based solely on them wanting to have sex.

 

It is as if members want to be all loving, charitable, and kind to a gay person unless they think they are actually in love with a person of the same sex.  Then they are free to call them sinners, deny them the right to that relationship, pass laws against their ability to marry and call them abominable.  That word seems to be reserved for those that are gay, and never used for straight couples who have sexual relations outside of marriage.  

 

Do you really think  Latter-day Saints make similar distinctions with pretty much any situation they consider sinful?  Cause I am not seeing it.  For members, it is all about the label.  Does he suffer with SSA or is he a homosexual.  Somehow they need to know just who they are talking about.  One they tolerate, the other they feel free to villianize.

 

 

I could not agree more with what you are saying

[Rain]

I pretty much disagree with this statement. I think a lot of Latter-day Saints have a fixation on the sin of gay sex. While it is not that uncommon for a straight couple to have sex before marriage, I don't ever see members referring their friends as having OSA and stating they are only heterosexuals if they have had relations with the opposite sex. I never hear members wanting to label themselves as OSA, unless they have had relations with the opposite sex.

Some of that is a percentage problem. If a majority of people are OSA then there isn't much need to distinguish oneself.

Another is that whether acting on OSA is a sin or not changes. The action is fine when one is heterosexual and married to the one you are acting with. For the purpose of my explanation there is no need to go into whether it is a sin or not - what matters is the perception of the people you are talking about.

The last difference I see is that I never hear someone with OSA say, "I can't help it. This is the way I was made" and have active church members agree and say the action is ok for someone like this.

So it makes sense that members would differentiate between the two.

I have also heard plenty of members lecture me on their belief that gays are only about sex and refusing to believe that gay couples can be attracted to each other and want to be married for a reason other than just sex. We have had posters say that the only reason gays want to be married is because they feel bad about themselves or feel guilty for being gay. Seriously. Never heard a member say a lot of straight couples are fixated on sex and their relationship is based solely on them wanting to have sex.

They don't understand. I used to think it was just a physical thing. I still think there is a huge physical component to it, but I understand the idea of falling in love and loving people can happen with anyone.

But then I also believe falling in love is ALWAYS a choice unlike it seems 99% of the rest of the world believes including church members. I just think it happens step by step and most don't recognize it.

For members, it is all about the label. Does he suffer with SSA or is he a homosexual. Somehow they need to know just who they are talking about. One they tolerate, the other they feel free to villianize.

That isn't my perception. My perception is that when people tell of a temptation and their struggle to avoid it and recognize there is a choice to act then members have sympathy. When people people identify themselves as the temptation and say there is no choice but to act on it then there is little sympathy.

Edited November 27, 2014 by Rain

[Hamba Tuhan]

Thanks for your comments, california boy. I've intentionally avoided interacting with you in the past because it's difficult for me to want to discuss in the abstract something that I know for you is personal. Please forgive me if I do a poor job.

 

While it is not that uncommon for a straight couple to have sex before marriage, I don't ever see members referring their friends as having OSA and stating they are only heterosexuals if they have had relations with the opposite sex.

 

Agreed. At this point in our history, most members in the West have unconsciously followed the cultural crowd and embraced the late 19th-century social construct of (gendered and fixed) sexual identity despite numerous suggestions from our leaders that we not define people that way. Problematically, though, they have in large part adopted only half of the paradigm, without realising that to reify what they perceive as 'their' heterosexuality is inevitably to reify the homosexuality of the 'other', creating a huge inconsistency that undermines most rhetoric on this topic.

 

Never heard a member say a lot of straight couples are fixated on sex and their relationship is based solely on them wanting to have sex.

 

I've said it many times. And in various ways I've heard others say it. It often takes the form of stating that the sole/primary reason someone married was because s/he couldn't handle being chaste outside of marriage. Beyond that, I've repeatedly said (and observed) that one of the main consequences of the oversexualisation of contemporary Western culture (and the saturation of 'entertainment' by sexual images/topics) is to create a fixation on sex that is rather unique in human history.

 

That word [abominable] seems to be reserved for those that are gay, and never used for straight couples who have sexual relations outside of marriage.

 

For what it is worth, whenever I have been tasked with teaching on the topic of chastity, I have consciously emphasised that all unchaste acts are equally abominable in God's sight. The gender of the participants simply doesn't matter. I think the message has got through because, for example, I've heard a number of my former Young Men repeat this point in conversations.

 

Do you really think  Latter-day Saints make similar distinctions with pretty much any situation they consider sinful?

 

Yes, I do. In fact, if anything, I think the Saints tend to heroise the person who is known to be successfully 'denying him/herself of all ungodliness'. As an example, we have a new member in our stake, baptised earlier this year, who has been very open about his past life and the current struggles he faces now as a Church member to keep the covenants he has made. This has made him something of a 'superstar' amongst my LDS Facebook friends here. Every post he makes about how much joy he is finding in daily conquering his urges receives dozens of 'likes' and comments of adulation. I think in large part this is because every faithful Latter-day Saint is engaged in a similar situation. The path of discipleship is delineated by the daily, often hourly, decision not to do what one wants but knows is wrong.

 

So the youth Sunday school teacher in our ward is not defined by his past heroin use. Instead, he is celebrated for his choice not to define himself by his cravings. This celebration, however, is made possible only because we know that he is HA (heroin attracted).

Edited November 28, 2014 by Hamba Tuhan

[LinuxGal]

If a man engages in..... self-abuse.... does that mean he's either homosexual (or, at least bisexual) because he's has sex with someone of his same gender...?

 

At least he's doing it with someone he loves!