The Recent Change In My View Of Homosexual Marriage

[Ahab]

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.

I said and would still say "sexually" because I'm talking about being attracted to a person's sexuality, rather than their sex not being a factor in why and how I am attracted to that person. I'm attracted to men, when I am attracted to them, because of their "manly" attributes, whether it's their physical form or personality or behavior, and I'm attracted to women for their "lady like or feminine" attributes, whether it's their form or personality or behavior that I see as attractive. It's not as if their sex isn't a factor. I love both men and women and am especially attracted to certain types of each sex because of particular things I see as attractive in each of their sexes while realizing men are different than women.

[LinuxGal]

I said and would still say "sexually" because I'm talking about being attracted to a person's sexuality, rather than their sex not being a factor in why and how I am attracted to that person. I'm attracted to men, when I am attracted to them, because of their "manly" attributes, whether it's their physical form or personality or behavior, and I'm attracted to women for their "lady like or feminine" attributes, whether it's their form or personality or behavior that I see as attractive. It's not as if their sex isn't a factor. I love both men and women and am especially attracted to certain types of each sex because of particular things I see as attractive in each of their sexes while realizing men are different than women.

 

(Reply withdrawn, banning self from thread)

Edited November 29, 2014 by LinuxGal

[Calm]

So it is okay to speak of others' sexuality, but not your own?

[LinuxGal]

So it is okay to speak of others' sexuality, but not your own?

 

As you wish, I withdraw the question to Ahab.  Let this forum fill up with advocacy for such things.

[Calm]

It was the double standard you presented I was questioning.

There was nothing in my comment to suggest I personally advocated for discussion of sexuality, whether personal or someone else's.

Edited November 29, 2014 by calmoriah

[PtolemyGlenn]

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.

But it does show they are uncomfortable with themselves. Yeh if they want to fight for their right to marry fjeir own gender. That is fhdir choice. However they over step the mark when they attempt to gag and attack people from having an opposing ciew.

People have the right to express opposition without homosexuals demanding they change thsir view to suit their sinful lifestyle.

If they want to get married go ahead. But they have no right from suppressing people rights to disagree.

[PtolemyGlenn]

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!

Thanks being a very roller coaster year.

I would want my rights but I would respect the rights of others to disagree without labelling fhem homophobic and demanding they are not allowed to have an opposing view.

[california boy]

But it does show they are uncomfortable with themselves. Yeh if they want to fight for their right to marry fjeir own gender. That is fhdir choice. However they over step the mark when they attempt to gag and attack people from having an opposing ciew.

People have the right to express opposition without homosexuals demanding they change thsir view to suit their sinful lifestyle.

If they want to get married go ahead. But they have no right from suppressing people rights to disagree.

If it was that easy to just go ahead and get married, then you might have a point.  Unfortunately they have had to fight for the same right that you take for granted to marry. Those that support allowing gays their civil rights have just the same right as those who oppose them to stand up against those who would deny them their rights.  I have yet to hear some public figure be called out who says "let the gays marry if they want, I just don't want to marry someone of the same sex."  

 

Would you say that right wing christians are uncomfortable with themselves because they feel they have a need to attack the right of gays to marry????  Are blacks uncomfortable with themselves because they don't put up with racist comments?  Are Jews uncomfortable with themselves because they don't put up with anti semantic statements?  Try being a public figure and start making racists remarks.  See how that goes for you.  

[Daniel2]

...demanding they are not allowed to have an opposing view.

Who's being doing this...?

Can you give examples of such?

[Daniel2]

they over step the mark when they attempt to gag and attack people from having an opposing ciew.

Again... who's been doing this?

Please share examples.

they have no right from suppressing people rights to disagree.

Who's rights have been "surpressed" for disagreeing?

What rights have been surpressed?

Examples, please.

Edited November 30, 2014 by Daniel2

[TOmNossor]

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'.

Hamba Tuhan,

I wanted to thank you for this post and bring it forward (again). I started this before Thanksgiving, but thankfully I checkout out of the message board and am only now returning (I have thought about things some and even kept up a little on the posts). I am not sure if others might believe it enhances my ability to put forth the thesis I have put forth in this thread, but I generally think it does.

That the terms heterosexual and homosexual have been recently created is an interesting phenomena.

Much more important to this is that one's sexual behavior is a choice regardless of what choices or absence of choices is involved in ones attractions.

I know that I am attracted in ways that do not benefit me or society. The attractions I include in this are associated with sex, drugs, (maybe rock and roll), food, adventure sports, ... MANY things actually. I make conscious decisions to not partake or limit my indulgence in ways that USUALLY conform to a concept of benefit I have derived intellectually. And I can look back on all these (and more) areas and identify times when my intellect could and should have restrained my desires but it (I) did not. These instances IMO constitute sin or not living the life God desires for me.

I also do not want to be labeled a heterosexual / homosexual, or a blond-lover / brunet-lover, or a chestman / legman, or a drug ADDICT / sex ADDICT / food ADDICT / adventure sports JUNKY. Some of those may have applicability in my life, but they are not WHO I AM.

I am comfortable sharing that my love for adventure sports has gotten me into places I should have choose to not go. My relationship with food is often unhealthy. And there are other things on that list that I am less comfortable sharing.

As I have thought about the request to be labeled a homosexual, I am saddened. I do not think those who request this are any more or less sex-crazed than I am (or than your average person is). Instead, I think there is a deep hurt that has come because of society's reaction to folks who have SSA. I am sorry for my part in causing this hurt.

That being said, I encourage those with SSA to not label themselves as homosexuals. I doubt such encouragement will do any good and here is why.

Before my change in thoughts about this issue that ultimately lead to me starting this thread, I had PARTIALLY bought into the label. Folks with SSA who respond to their attractions with the same restraint and acquiescence as most good Christians respond to their OSA simply are homosexuals (there are folks with SSA who respond with far greater restraint and they usually ask to not be called homosexuals). Since they are homosexuals and I am asked if I will call homosexual sex a SIN, I am really asked if I will condemn them (WHO THEY ARE) as sinners. This is very close if not absolutely condemning the SINNER rather than condemning the SIN. And I know I am not to do that (and I know I feel horrible when I condemn myself the SINNER or others condemn me the SINNER rather than just bad when I or others call my actions sinful). So, I think it is likely that folks who identify as homosexuals will continue to call themselves and ask to be called homosexuals. It makes their position stronger. I still think it is sad. And in my more reflective moments, I will not do it.

Anyway, Hamba Tuhan, thank you for bringing this to the discussion (and to my attention as much of it was unknown to me).

Charity, TOm

Edited December 2, 2014 by TOmNossor

[TOmNossor]

Jesus spoke against divorce in 3 Nephi 12, but you have to go back to Leviticus or to the writings of Paul (which the Nephites and Lamanites didn't have) to find a teaching against homosexual behavior. This doesn't mean Jesus would have approved, but it seems to indicate what his priority was for ordering his Church. Yet today homosexuality the hottest topic in Christianity, bar none, and some of the biggest critics are themselves on their second or even third marriage. Go figure.

I follow much of what Rabbi Sacks said. Many things celebrated by many if not most Christians have in fact contributed to the sexualization of society and we would be better without them.

"No Fault Divorce" is IMO one of the negative things that exist in our society that have created some of the problems we deal with that previous generations didn't (at least didn't to the extent we do). And contraception (at the very least indiscriminant use of contraception) has also contributed to some of the attitudes society has about sex.

Concerning the ORDER of sins: I think all sin separates us from God. In this respect sin is not gradated. That being said, there are sins that create more bondage for us in that some sins more easily trap and hold us. Sexual sins seem to be accompanied by more bondage than most others. In addition to this, the poor person who steals to feed their family and the rich person who steals for other reasons are also more or less culpable due to the different situations in which they find themselves.

I may have been too obscure in this post, but I actually think those who participate in opposite-sex sex outside of marriage are likely more culpable "due to the different situations in which they find themselves" than are those who participate in homosexual sex outside of marriage.

I believe that sex outside of marriage is wrong. Heterosexual who have pre-marital sex are in a better position to avoid pre-marital sex than are homosexuals and we are all judged upon the situations we find ourselves in so ...

I do not believe that calling homosexual sex sinful occurs more frequently PRIMARILY because those who do not have any desire to engage in homosexual sex feel the need to shout about it from the rooftops.

A small part of the reason it is discussed more MAY because folks fear being called hypocrites for saying do not have pre-marital sex, or do not masturbate. A hypocrite properly defined is not one who claims to believe something they fail to live, instead they are one who pretends to live something they fail to live. A hypocrite is an actor. Thus, all Christians are not hypocrites though all Christians embrace teachings they fail to live up to.

The main reason I think homosexual sex receives so much attention is IMO that there is an increasingly loud number of folks who claim that homosexual sex is not sin at all. The same is LESS true for premarital sex.

And there is no call to legitimize pre-marital sex by making it equivalent to sex within marriage. Those who have pre-marital sex have their fun (and the consequences) and that seems to be enough <grin>.

Finally, I will acknowledge that there are currents of condemnation for homosexual sex that are born of society's negative reaction to it. Some of this comes from folks who have SSA and hate this about themselves, and that is very sad. Some of it comes from folks who hate people who are different than they are, and that is very sad. Some of it comes from folks who do not understand because they live in a culture that does not understand. To the extent that folks condemn those with SSA (who have homosexual sex or celebrate their SSA) for these reasons, they are wrong.

Charity, TOm

Edited December 2, 2014 by TOmNossor

[Daniel2]

Hamba Tuhan,

I wanted to thank you for this post and bring it forward (again). I started this before Thanksgiving, but thankfully I checkout out of the message board and am only now returning (I have thought about things some and even kept up a little on the posts). I am not sure if others might believe it enhances my ability to put forth the thesis I have put forth in this thread, but I generally think it does.

That the terms heterosexual and homosexual have been recently created is an interesting phenomena.

Much more important to this is that one's sexual behavior is a choice regardless of what choices or absence of choices is involved in ones attractions.

I know that I am attracted in ways that do not benefit me or society. The attractions I include in this are associated with sex, drugs, (maybe rock and roll), food, adventure sports, ... MANY things actually. I make conscious decisions to not partake or limit my indulgence in ways that USUALLY conform to a concept of benefit I have derived intellectually. And I can look back on all these (and more) areas and identify times when my intellect could and should have restrained my desires but it (I) did not. These instances IMO constitute sin or not living the life God desires for me.

I also do not want to be labeled a heterosexual / homosexual, or a blond-lover / brunet-lover, or a chestman / legman, or a drug ADDICT / sex ADDICT / food ADDICT / adventure sports JUNKY. Some of those may have applicability in my life, but they are not WHO I AM.

I am comfortable sharing that my love for adventure sports has gotten me into places I should have choose to not go. My relationship with food is often unhealthy. And there are other things on that list that I am less comfortable sharing.

As I have thought about the request to be labeled a homosexual, I am saddened. I do not think those who request this are any more or less sex-crazed than I am (or than your average person is). Instead, I think there is a deep hurt that has come because of society's reaction to folks who have SSA. I am sorry for my part in causing this hurt.

That being said, I encourage those with SSA to not label themselves as homosexuals. I doubt such encouragement will do any good and here is why.

Before my change in thoughts about this issue that ultimately lead to me starting this thread, I had PARTIALLY bought into the label. Folks with SSA who respond to their attractions with the same restraint and acquiescence as most good Christians respond to their OSA simply are homosexuals (there are folks with SSA who respond with far greater restraint and they usually ask to not be called homosexuals). Since they are homosexuals and I am asked if I will call homosexual sex a SIN, I am really asked if I will condemn them (WHO THEY ARE) as sinners. This is very close if not absolutely condemning the SINNER rather than condemning the SIN. And I know I am not to do that (and I know I feel horrible when I condemn myself the SINNER or others condemn me the SINNER rather than just bad when I or others call my actions sinful). So, I think it is likely that folks who identify as homosexuals will continue to call themselves and ask to be called homosexuals. It makes their position stronger. I still think it is sad. And in my more reflective moments, I will not do it.

Anyway, Hamba Tuhan, thank you for bringing this to the discussion (and to my attention as much of it was unknown to me).

Charity, TOm

Tom,

Your point seems to be that it's preferable to eschew labels that identify us as either straight/heterosexual or gay/homosexual.

Assuming you are male and married to a woman:

Do you self-identify as a "husband"?

Do you identify the woman to whom you are married as your "wife"?

Whether or not you're personally married:

Are those designations you embrace, support, and promote and share with others as worthy, wholesome, worthwhile, and uplifting?

Would you say those designations and/or labels are "healthy/positive/constructive," or "unhealthy/negative/destructive"?

Daniel

Edited December 2, 2014 by Daniel2

[TOmNossor]

I have really enjoyed reading your posts and think you are sincere in trying to work all of these gay issues out in your mind. It is because of that I would like to give you something more to think about.

Do you think that someone is heterosexual only if they have had sex with someone of the opposite sex? Did you consider yourself OSA before you were married or did you consider yourself heterosexual? Just curious how your mind works. I just have never heard someone who is straight refer themselves as opposite sex attracted. And frankly I have never heard someone who is gay refer themselves as same sex attracted. Like the dictionary states, a homosexual is someone who is attracted to the same sex. It has nothing to do with whether they have had sex or not. If I told one of my kids they had OSA, they would probably ask me how long they had to live. lol.

I really don't care how members call gay people, but it is a bit comical and alphabet soup that few people really understand. Most people think that SSA refers to the Social Security Administration and has nothing to do with virginity. It all sounds very twisted terminology used so Mormons can decide who to be respectful of (anyone with SSA) and those who they can destain as sinners (homosexuals).

Maybe you should ask yourself why you need to make such a distinct difference only when it comes to gays. Should it affect how you treat them one bit???? Is it really something you need to judge them on? Do you look at each and every ward member and determine whether they have OSA? And whether they are still virgins? And if they are not virgins, do you start referring to them now as heterosexuals??

I think Hamba Tuhan has responded well.

I have seldom said, "I am a heterosexual." I will also be more careful in the future as it is clear to me that defining myself based upon the attraction I feel is a trap.

In addition the person who is/was addicted to heroin, Hamba speaks of, I can add a little.

I have shared with fellow LDS sins I have committed and my struggles with them. Not the "I must love my neighbor more" sins, but ugly things I don't speak about frequently. I have NEVER felt condemned or judged. I have condemned myself and ... and ultimately learned that that was natural, but not helpful. It is clear to me that most LDS celebrate the repentant sinner. It is the sinner who celebrates their sin we don't know how to handle.

What would you do if a man you were attracted too told you about how he was able to seduce some other man (or a man you were not attracted to told you about seducing a woman) and then moved on without looking back, breaking the heart of the man (or woman) he seduced who thought it was about more than sex? My guess is you would lose respect for this man. You may even tell him such an action is sinful. I think it is the same. Some folks celebrate sexual conquests, claiming there is no sin in such things; but I am guessing you and I are not among them. Some folks claim there is no sin in committed same sex relationships that include sex. You claim this, but I do not.

For a little more see my previous response to LinuxGal.

You said, "It all sounds very twisted terminology used so Mormons can decide who to be respectful of (anyone with SSA) and those who they can destain as sinners (homosexuals). "

I hope you do not feel I have been disrespectful to you or that I have disdain for you. I am trying to use these terms to delineate that having SSA is not a sin. Just like being having OSA is not a sin. Having sex outside of marriage is a sin AND marriage is between a man and a woman. Still, I do not wish to treat those who have sex outside of marriage with disdain. I hold far more disdain for my own sins than I do for the sins of others (even when my sins are not loving my neighbor enough and theirs are seducing vulnerable children of God).

I also want to echo something Hamba Tuhan said. I know this is not some abstract discussion for you and I am sorry. It is easy for me to separate this from the lives it impacts. But I am sorry for the challenges you would incur were you to agree with me AND the challenges that exist for you because many do not agree with you (and some are very disagreeable in their disagreement).

Charity, TOm

[TOmNossor]

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.

Focusing on our own sins is much more important than discussing the sins of others. I agree.

I am not quite as convinced as you are that this is all about civil rights.

We will see.

The sexualized culture that we live in will be normalizing SSM and homosexual sex over the course of the next 20 years. I believe the arguments I have made here are persuasive, but they involve a conscious and deliberate divorce from the natural ideas we have developed about sex in our society to even begin to change minds. The appeal for love and acceptance you offer will win the day in this culture and would even be compelling in other cultures.

So, transport yourself to 2034, when some news person interviews some professed Christian (maybe the patriarch of Duck Dynasty II) and asks for their opinion on the sinfulness of SSM. Will this be a trap (like it was recently)? Will said Christian star be condemned for his views even though SSM is the law of the land in 2034? Will said Christian star be compared to racists?

Truth is, I do not know. Maybe those who have SSM in 2034 will be content. It seems likely to me that opposition to SSM is likely to be viewed as backwards just like racism it backwards in 2034.

I think this is about much more than the legalization of SSM.

Here might be a good time to mention, that it is my intellect that leads me to the position I embrace. God did not appear to me (but I do follow the church leaders). I once thought the question was very evenly balanced pro-and-con. Now I think the position that SSM is something that should not be part of our society is a much stronger position than the alternative. But, I do not know how I will weigh these issues in 2034 or 2054. I suspect that my culture will continue to impact my thoughts on this for good and ill. And if there are not huge negative consequences for sharing my opinion in 2034 or 2054, I may share it and explain how I got to wherever there is.

Finally, let me say that I do not believe that we have civil rights to seduce consenting adults reeling from a bitter breakup just like we do not have civil rights to define marriage as a union between consenting adults. We do not have civil rights to declare that families with 3 children are to be preferred to families with 2 or 4 children. Individuals cannot declare that this or that position is a matter of civil rights. I agree with the Catholics that there are natural laws and that the worth of souls is great and .... Or as the Constitution says, we have "inalienable rights." But I do not believe that the right to have my relationships labeled "marriage" by society is among those.

Charity, TOm

[TOmNossor]

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.

I will say that many straight couples are fixated upon sex. That sex outside of marriage is inappropriate and that sex within marriage can be very disordered depending upon the attitude of those who participate (let me say again it is about the ATTITUDE of the individuals that makes sex within marriage disordered sometimes).

I do not believe that gay couples are only about sex.

I will also say that I reject something you essentially offered earlier, "those with SSA are either alone or in a same sex relationship with sex."  This position you argue for as being obvious contributes to the idea that this is largely about 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.

I "want to be all loving, charitable, and kind to ... a person" if they are in love with a person of the same sex and having sex, if they are in love with a person of the same sex and not having sex, if they are in love with a person of the opposite sex and ..., if they hate themselves because they have SSA, if they celebrate their SSA and beat the crap out of folks who refuse to celebrate with them, if they wear socks that do not match, or ....

I seek to call no one a sinner other than that we are all sinners.

I do not believe they have a "right" to marry and I do not believe this "right" should be created in our society, but I expect it will be.

No person is abominable.

Having sex outside of marriage is a sin. It separates us from God and is thus abominable. We all can repent however and this restores our relationship with God. Most LDS are in a relationship with God despite their sins and many are in relationship with God as avowed unrepentant sinners concerning certain sins they refuse to give up. All LDS (and non-LDS) folks could be closer to God if they repented and if they recognize their unrepented sins are sins and repent of them too (instead of self-justifying through elaborate arguments which is what I do with many of my unrepented sins).

 

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 do. You already heard about the repentant person who was/is addicted to Heroin. I a HUGE fan of that person not saying, "I am a Heroin addict in recovery." Instead they should say, "I am addicted to Heroin and am in recovery." To say one is an addict is about what they are to say one is addicted is about what they do and what compulsions they feel. I am not sure if this has permeated all the AA and NA and ... groups, but it should IMO.

I hope to love those with SSA and those who have homosexual sex in response to their SSA. I hope to label neither person a SINNER because of this or that because that is about what they ARE. Instead, if you me if your SSA is a sin, I will boldly say "no." If you ask me if your homosexual sex is a sin, I will attempt to sensitively say "yes." And if you do not ask, I you might not ever know my opinion on all this at all.

I think you have been hurt by the LDS community. I am sorry. Nobody should be told they are abominable. I hope reading this thread can be as painless as possible for you.

Charity, TOm

[TOmNossor]

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.

I think this is well said and accurate.

 

I personally hope to do a little better than this in the future.

I would say that folks who have decided that on account of their SSA they should live homosexual lifestyles BELIEVE that there is little or no choice. 

They are products of their culture and to the extent they believe wrong we should try to say this is not a correct belief.  Having sympathy is probably still a good response though.

 

The church for a long time has taught that men who claim it is the woman's responsibility to say no to sex because men just want it, are deeply flawed in their reasoning.  But I think we can muster a little sympathy for a 15 year old who tells you this AND certainly a 15 year old in 1965 who said this after hearing it so many times.

Charity, TOm

[rockpond]

 

 

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.

 

I think this is well said and accurate.

 

I personally hope to do a little better than this in the future.

I would say that folks who have decided that on account of their SSA they should live homosexual lifestyles BELIEVE that there is little or no choice. 

They are products of their culture and to the extent they believe wrong we should try to say this is not a correct belief.  Having sympathy is probably still a good response though.

 

The church for a long time has taught that men who claim it is the woman's responsibility to say no to sex because men just want it, are deeply flawed in their reasoning.  But I think we can muster a little sympathy for a 15 year old who tells you this AND certainly a 15 year old in 1965 who said this after hearing it so many times.

Charity, TOm

 

So are you celibate or did you choose to act on your temptation of OSA?

[TOmNossor]

Tom,

Your point seems to be that it's preferable to eschew labels that identify us as either straight/heterosexual or gay/homosexual.

Assuming you are male and married to a woman:

Do you self-identify as a "husband"?

Do you identify the woman to whom you are married as your "wife"?

Whether or not you're personally married:

Are those designations you embrace, support, and promote and share with others as worthy, wholesome, worthwhile, and uplifting?

Would you say those designations and/or labels are "healthy/positive/constructive," or "unhealthy/negative/destructive"?

Daniel

I am a husband, an engineer, a father, a member of the CoJCoLDS, a ....

These are labels that are a product of things I have done (one might even emphasize CHOICES). A husband is a married man. An engineer is a little ambiguous in that it could be someone who has an engineering job or an engineering degree (I have both).

I am aware of the titles "alcoholic," "heroin addict," "sex addict," or .... I am opposed to these titles as they label someone based upon their desire (universally agreed upon as an UNHEALTHY desire) for alcohol, heroin, or sex. I have already explained that these titles should not be part of recovery from alcoholism, heroin or sex addition, or ....

I can think of healthy desires that could be used as labels, but at the moment I cannot think of any that are common.

At the VERY least, I reject the idea that I must use a label for you that indicates that you are your desire. I am not presently aware of any label I would like to apply to any person that indicates they are one with a particular healthy desire.

More importantly than any of this however is that before our culture became as sexualized as it is today, folks were not homosexuals or heterosexuals. These labels were not part of our vocabulary. My desire to not accept the common practice of calling folks homosexuals, heterosexuals, or bisexuals goes hand in hand with my recognition that the sexualization of our culture has polluted this dialogue to the point where it is less clear what the right/wrong side is (from a Christian perspective OR from a secular perspective). So as I reject aspects of the culture that most Christians and many secularlist can agree are negative (the use of female sexuality to sell beer or cigarettes), I also seek to reject other "symptoms" of the sexualization of our culture. When I do this the clarity with which I see these issues of SSM is GREATLY enhanced.

In this thread I have been invited to reject the intellectual reasoning I have used to arrive at these conclusions and instead empathize with the person who has SSA, believes they are a homosexual, and .... I think empathizing with others is important, but throwing reason out in favor of a solely empathetic response will lead to all kinds of poor decisions for society and all kinds of non-Christian conclusions.

Since I have not said it recently, the sexualization of my culture IMO created an ambiguity that needn't exist in this question. Sex has a unitive and procreative function towards the bringing up of children in a stable (united) home with a mother and a father. Recognizing that sex is for this purpose and the unitive and procreative aspects combine to produce a result beneficial for society and/or in accordance with God's design is IMO strong evidence against the pro-SSM position. That those who have sex within a marriage seldom talk about the unitive and procreative sexual relationship they have AND those who have sex for fun, use sex to sell products, use sex to entertain, and ... CONTINUALLY thrust their ideas of sex into my consciousness obscured the unitive and procreative (ORIGINAL) function.

Again, I have sympathy for the position of those with SSA. For those who have decided that the only response to SSA is to enter into a homosexual relationship. And for those who having entered into a homosexual relationship find love and fulfillment that they never had before this. I do not think my attempts at rational arguments are going to move them much, but I believe there would be VERY few of these folks if our culture hadn't forgotten why sex exists to begin with.

If we could roll back the culture 150 years and put genuine Christians (in other words not me or the folks at Westboro) in charge, I believe most folks with SSA would be loved and find meaningful connections in alignment with God's will (or the evolutionary benefits of sex in our species). I am not sure such is possible absent some miracle now though. I even think it possible these folks would be better accepted and integrated than folks with various attachment disorders, social anxiety, or ..., but of course that is speculation (and real Christians can help the socially awkward too).

Charity, TOm

Edited December 3, 2014 by TOmNossor

[TOmNossor]

So are you celibate or did you choose to act on your temptation of OSA?

I have experienced time of celibacy during my married life and before my married life.

An example might be my 6 month long deployment in the Navy. I had two of these and on one I didn't see my wife for the whole time. On the other I saw here once and I can remember looking forward to seeing her, but sex was NOT something that I remember making our first priority.

Are you suggesting that celibacy for all of this 6 months was a mistake. I should have found the company of someone I found sexual attractive? We pulled into a number of ports and I was not a member of the church then. Still, I disagree with this.

I am not so ruled by my OSA, that in the absence of my wife I seek someone else with which to satiate my desires. I am not sure what your point is exactly.

Perhaps you are inviting me to recognize that those with SSA tell me that they will be alone and celibate FOR AN ENTIRE LIFETIME if they choose to believe and act upon the belief that homosexual sex is not something in which we should "engage" (and they are correct in this telling)?

If a genetic marker and a biochemical chain were discovered that made it irrefutable that 5% of the population is born in a way that makes any semblance of opposite sex marriage totally unworkable, I would consider this unfortunate. But I would still not believe that Christians or society in general should make SSM equivalent to marriage between a husband and wife. I would also reject the idea that without homosexual sex the folks with this genetic marker would be isolated and unfulfilled in their lives. Sex is not IMO worthy of such a high enshrinement.

Charity, TOm

[rockpond]

I have experienced time of celibacy during my married life and before my married life.

An example might be my 6 month long deployment in the Navy. I had two of these and on one I didn't see my wife for the whole time. On the other I saw here once and I can remember looking forward to seeing her, but sex was NOT something that I remember making our first priority.

Are you suggesting that celibacy for all of this 6 months was a mistake. I should have found the company of someone I found sexual attractive? We pulled into a number of ports and I was not a member of the church then. Still, I disagree with this.

I am not so ruled by my OSA, that in the absence of my wife I seek someone else with which to satiate my desires. I am not sure what your point is exactly.

Perhaps you are inviting me to recognize that those with SSA tell me that they will be alone and celibate FOR AN ENTIRE LIFETIME if they choose to believe and act upon the belief that homosexual sex is not something in which we should "engage" (and they are correct in this telling)?

If a genetic marker and a biochemical chain were discovered that made it irrefutable that 5% of the population is born in a way that makes any semblance of opposite sex marriage totally unworkable, I would consider this unfortunate. But I would still not believe that Christians or society in general should make SSM equivalent to marriage between a husband and wife. I would also reject the idea that without homosexual sex the folks with this genetic marker would be isolated and unfulfilled in their lives. Sex is not IMO worthy of such a high enshrinement.

Charity, TOm

I was inviting you to acknowledge that we, as a church, honor and celebrate your choice to act on your OSA temptation. It's nice isn't it?

[Daniel2]

I am a husband, an engineer, a father, a member of the CoJCoLDS, a ....

These are labels that are a product of things I have done (one might even emphasize CHOICES). A husband is a married man. An engineer is a little ambiguous in that it could be someone who has an engineering job or an engineering degree (I have both).

I am aware of the titles "alcoholic," "heroin addict," "sex addict," or .... I am opposed to these titles as they label someone based upon their desire (universally agreed upon as an UNHEALTHY desire) for alcohol, heroin, or sex. I have already explained that these titles should not be part of recovery from alcoholism, heroin or sex addition, or ....

I can think of healthy desires that could be used as labels, but at the moment I cannot think of any that are common.

At the VERY least, I reject the idea that I must use a label for you that indicates that you are your desire. I am not presently aware of any label I would like to apply to any person that indicates they are one with a particular healthy desire.

 

 

 

So, you embrace your own label as "husband."  And yes.... there's a whole bunch of other labels/roles you self-identify with ("engineer," ":father," "member of the LDS church," etc).

 

Labels are merely a way of describing ourselves and how we relate to others, or our environment, or our inner-most being... they are expressions of what or who we believe our "true" self to be.  Steven Covey described them as "roles."

 

What would you say are your top 5 most important/treasured/valued labels/roles you self-identify as, in this life....?

 

In other words, what 5 relationships do you have--what 5 roles do you play--are the most meaningful, valuable, important, that identify your true nature/identity/purpose....?

Edited December 3, 2014 by Daniel2

[TOmNossor]

I was inviting you to acknowledge that we, as a church, honor and celebrate your choice to act on your OSA temptation. It's nice isn't it?

Rockpond,

I see better what you are asking, I think.

If you want a simple answer, ALL things being equal, I would rather live in this world where my OSA does not create an additional difficulty for my life and the CoJCoLDS teaches that OSA for my OS wife has more ways in which it can be appropriately expressed than if it was SSA.

I am not sure what life you lead, but based on your question I am tempted to imaging it is all sunshine and roses. I know this cannot be the case. I do not know, but perhaps you love deeply someone with SSA. I can feel compassion for that challenge.

I long ago heard taught a certain principle/parable. I have always thought it was regularly taught in the church, but I am really not sure. But here it is:

I am granted perfect knowledge for a brief minute and then placed before a large table upon which ALL problems/challenges/... that ALL humans face were laid. I am then told I have first choice as to which problems I would heft upon my back. With this perfect knowledge I would walk right to the pile of my current problems, pick them up and return to the slog.

I have wasted time wishing my problems were different, but I think I was wrong to wish this (and it did me no good).

I have also thought a great deal about what it would be like to have OSA in a world where SSA was the seemingly celebrated norm. I choose to explore these thoughts so that I might empathize with those who experience this. As best I can tell it would be quite difficult.

In my dark moments with my imperfect knowledge, I am not sure I wouldn't imprudently change places with many/most/all folks with SSA so that I could carry their problems rather than mine (just call me Ellen or maybe Anderson or ???).

It seems to me that I am trying to offer impassionate arguments as to why marriage is either God designed or evolutionarily created in a certain way. This way involves marriage between a man and a woman who form unitive bonds through which they procreate and then raise children in a stable home with a mother and father.

In response I get pleas to FEEL compassion for those who are different than I am. The only reason I once thought these question were balanced is because I tried to muster all the compassion I could find and could see how tough it would be.

When I weigh the difficulties I know would be experienced by those with SSA in a world where they were loved and respected but choose to not have homosexual sex, against my new found clarity concerning marriage; I do not think these difficulties tip the scales such that I should acquiesce and support SSM.

I am advocating that folks with SSA should not be so ruled by their passions that they disregard the dual function of sex. It would be inconsistent if I were so ruled by my passions (compassions) that I disregard the dual function of sex. I invite you to not be ruled by your compassions either. I do not know your situation, but I assure you that you can love folks with SSA and not support SSM. You can have love/passion/compassion for those with SSA and not reject the clear dual function of sex and its impact upon the question of SSM.

Now maybe you or someone reading is not moved by the intellectual arguments I have tried to offer and Rabbi Sacks offered so clearly? But so far I have seen from folks advocating SSM an almost total neglect of these arguments. Instead, I am invited to follow my passion/compassion and support SSM. I do not believe God is served or society is served when we follow our passions to the exclusion of our intellect. Do you?

Charity, TOm

Edited December 3, 2014 by TOmNossor

[TOmNossor]

So, you embrace your own label as "husband." And yes.... there's a whole bunch of other labels/roles you self-identify with ("engineer," ":father," "member of the LDS church," etc).

Labels are merely a way of describing ourselves and how we relate to others, or our environment, or our inner-most being... they are expressions of what or who we believe our "true" self to be. Steven Covey described them as "roles."

What would you say are your top 5 most important/treasured/valued labels/roles you self-identify as, in this life....?

In other words, what 5 relationships do you have--what 5 roles do you play--are the most meaningful, valuable, important, that identify your true nature/identity/purpose....?

Daniel,

I am not sure what 5 to choose.

I can say that on my best days and putting forth my best self, the top 3 roles are (not necessarily ordered, but ??):

Husband and Father and Son of my Heavenly Father.

I will await your thoughts!

Charity, TOm

[rockpond]

Rockpond,

I see better what you are asking, I think.

If you want a simple answer, ALL things being equal, I would rather live in this world where my OSA does not create an additional difficulty for my life and the CoJCoLDS teaches that OSA for my OS wife has more ways in which it can be appropriately expressed than if it was SSA.

I am not sure what life you lead, but based on your question I am tempted to imaging it is all sunshine and roses. I know this cannot be the case. I do not know, but perhaps you love deeply someone with SSA. I can feel compassion for that challenge.

I long ago heard taught a certain principle/parable. I have always thought it was regularly taught in the church, but I am really not sure. But here it is:

I am granted perfect knowledge for a brief minute and then placed before a large table upon which ALL problems/challenges/... that ALL humans face were laid. I am then told I have first choice as to which problems I would heft upon my back. With this perfect knowledge I would walk right to the pile of my current problems, pick them up and return to the slog.

I have wasted time wishing my problems were different, but I think I was wrong to wish this (and it did me no good).

I have also thought a great deal about what it would be like to have OSA in a world where SSA was the seemingly celebrated norm. I choose to explore these thoughts so that I might empathize with those who experience this. As best I can tell it would be quite difficult.

In my dark moments with my imperfect knowledge, I am not sure I wouldn't imprudently change places with many/most/all folks with SSA so that I could carry their problems rather than mine (just call me Ellen or maybe Anderson or ???).

It seems to me that I am trying to offer impassionate arguments as to why marriage is either God designed or evolutionarily created in a certain way. This way involves marriage between a man and a woman who form unitive bonds through which they procreate and then raise children in a stable home with a mother and father.

In response I get pleas to FEEL compassion for those who are different than I am. The only reason I once thought these question were balanced is because I tried to muster all the compassion I could find and could see how tough it would be.

When I weigh the difficulties I know would be experienced by those with SSA in a world where they were loved and respected but choose to not have homosexual sex, against my new found clarity concerning marriage; I do not think these difficulties tip the scales such that I should acquiesce and support SSM.

I am advocating that folks with SSA should not be so ruled by their passions that they disregard the dual function of sex. It would be inconsistent if I were so ruled by my passions (compassions) that I disregard the dual function of sex. I invite you to not be ruled by your compassions either. I do not know your situation, but I assure you that you can love folks with SSA and not support SSM. You can have love/passion/compassion for those with SSA and not reject the clear dual function of sex and its impact upon the question of SSM.

Now maybe you or someone reading is not moved by the intellectual arguments I have tried to offer and Rabbi Sacks offered so clearly? But so far I have seen from folks advocating SSM an almost total neglect of these arguments. Instead, I am invited to follow my passion/compassion and support SSM. I do not believe God is served or society is served when we follow our passions to the exclusion of our intellect. Do you?

Charity, TOm

 

I respect your very thoughtful approach to this subject even though I disagree with your conclusions.

 

Your language choices are intriguing to me... Since you repeatedly refer to SSA as a "temptation" do you also consider OSA to be a temptation?

 

To add to your thoughts above I offer this:  We do a wonderful job in the church of teaching our children about the value and beauty of family.  We raise them to cherish familial relationships.  We ingrain in them the understanding that our greatest joys and our most meaningful growth are derived from marriage and child rearing.  We put forward that their highest achievements in life will surface through a loving union.  Songs in primary.  Temple pictures in the home and the cover of each booklet given to youth.

 

We excel at instructing our children and literally endowing them with these deeply held beliefs.

 

I'm sure you can imagine the anguish suffered by our kids when they come to the realization that they are homosexual and all of the above are ripped away from their futures.