Meridian Magazine: Can You Help Your Children Choose Heterosexuality? (Answer: Yes)

[Teancum]

I am not quite sure how to put this so its coming from heart and it might be torn apart by those to whom this just an intellectual discussion based on reason and logic.  I hope you all realize that souls and precious children are involved in this.  I am the dad of a 15 year old gay son trying as hard as I can to figure out how to raise him so that he can have a relationship with his Father in Heaven when there are almost no real answers about why or how he can live his life happily and fully in the Church.  I have had a member of the First Quorum of the seventy spend an afternoon in our house listening to our questions and at the end of the day tell us that the leaders of the Church just don't have many of the answers right now. They are praying constantly for guidance but it hasn't fully come.  This article is so full of half truths and insinuations that have been tossed at our family over and over again.  I have personally seen the damage that such articles and thoughts do to our gay members of the Church.  Such articles do not bring peace and the ideas presented simply do not work.  The writer has no real evidence that her ideas work.  She has never put them in practice.  it is simply her theory. I wish that before someone published such an article, they would take the time to really try to apply their theories and see if they work.  I understand the outrage voiced over this article.  It is so very clear that the writer has no real experience and is simply perpetuating so many myths that Mormon's desperately cling too because they simply cannot believe Heavenly Father would allow someone to be born gay.

 

 

I would suggest you ignore the article in its entirety.  What you choose to do as far as what the Church teaches on this is up to you.  If I had a gay child I would ignore much/most of that the church teaches about it as well. But I am considered pretty much apostate here so you should know that before you listen to me.

Edited September 30, 2015 by Teancum

[canard78]

The article's title is "Can You Help Your Children Choose Heterosexuality?"

I think it's misleading to say "the title says kids can choose heterosexuality." The article is considerably more nuanced in its treatment of this issue (emphases added):

We can be kind to gays, and we can grant them legal privileges, but we can’t combine their genetics and create a human being. Therefore, an individual who finds themselves attracted to members of the same sex must make a choice. “Will I choose this lifestyle that the world has made possible for me, the lifestyle that feels good, the lifestyle I feel I have a right to choose, even though I will be sacrificing an eternal family?”

When a young person understands (as well as is possible with their limited experience) the ramifications of choosing to live a homosexual lifestyle over a heterosexual lifestyle, one would imagine he would pause long and hard before choosing to give up an eternal family.

...

We, as a society, have made it far easier than it ever used to be for someone with homosexual inclinations to choose a gay lifestyle. We can, and must, make it easier for someone with homosexual inclinations to choose heterosexuality.

You will note that I have differentiated between same sex attraction or homosexual inclinations, and acting on same-sex attraction, or living a homosexual lifestyle. Our youth need to recognize that there is a difference between the two.

...

Choosing Heterosexuality

The biggest obstacle to those with same-sex attraction who wish they were heterosexual is the belief that they can’t change. Once they become convinced they are “born this way” they accept their situation and try to persuade everybody else to accept it too.

There is continuing debate about whether sexual preference is indeed something you are born with, or is something that you learn. It is impossible to determine how much of who we are is due to nature and how much is due to nurture. But whether we are 80% nature and 20% nurture, or just the opposite, it doesn’t matter. We are still responsible for our choices.

Individuals who are born with a “hot temper” still must learn to treat their family members in harmony with the Church’s teachings. Missionaries who are painfully shy commit to open their mouths and bear testimony of the restored gospel, as hard as it may be. We are here on earth to overcome the natural man, even if the natural man came with us from Heaven.

If we want our children to choose not to succumb to homosexual impulses, we must first teach them that they have a choice. Often we fear talking about such matters, because we fear they will make the wrong choice. We want them to think they have no choice but to go on a mission, or to marry in the temple. But they always have a choice. They also have a choice of whether or not they will give in to same-sex attraction.

Diathesis-Stress Syndrome

As stated, we don’t know how many individuals are homosexual because of a genetic anomaly, and how many are homosexual because of something that happened in their environment. Likewise, we don’t know what portion of sexual preference in any one individual is because of genetics and what portion is environmental. Although we can do little to affect a genetic anomaly, for those who have elected a homosexual lifestyle due to the influence of environmental factors, there is a lot we can do to help them choose heterosexuality.

...

Simplifying the Choice

For youth who do not have a genetic predisposition to homosexuality, but choose homosexuality for other reasons, we can help them choose heterosexuality if we simply make heterosexuality more appealing to them.

When the only heterosexual relationships available for an adolescent to model are miserable, a child or an adolescent may decide they want “anything but” that type of relationship.

When the only heterosexual relationships available for an adolescent to model are miserable, a child or an adolescent may decide they want “anything but” that type of relationship. As homosexuality is currently in vogue, particularly among adolescents, he or she may decide to experiment with this type of relationship. If a child is to choose heterosexuality, it is very helpful for him to have happy, loving heterosexual role models.

...

Clearly, it is not our role to judge what influences a person’s choice to embrace a homosexual lifestyle, nor to assess the magnitude of those influences. It is, however, our obligation as parents, to educate our children, to teach them about agency and accountability.

We must be brave enough to contradict the world’s instance that homosexuals have no choice. For that matter, we need to contradict anybody’s refusal to take responsibility for their choices. The notion that we cannot help ourselves is contrary to our essence as children of our Heavenly Father. Our agency is what makes us human, not robots, and not animals. We must not let anybody convince us, or our children that agency is a myth. Our choices are something over which we have complete control.

I don't really see anything significantly problematic with the article, either from an LDS perspective or from a secular, sociopolitical one.

Thanks,

-Smac

Yuk, yuk!

I feel sick reading this kind of bigoted biased garbage (the article I mean). People unqualified to comment on the lives and feelings of others should really keep their uneducated noses out of the discussion.

[BlueDreams]

Yuk, yuk!

I feel sick reading this kind of bigoted biased garbage (the article I mean). People unqualified to comment on the lives and feelings of others should really keep their uneducated noses out of the discussion.

Sad thing is, she's both a both a licensed MFT (marriage and family therapist) and MHC (mental health counselor)....doesn't mean she's qualified to talk about this topic....but still. You think she'd know at least a little better. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

In what way?

 

You wrote:

 

I don't think anyone believes you can choose your sexual orientation, except this author, it seems.

 

So I pointed out a couple of gay academics who agree with 'this author'. I apologise if I wasn't clear enough.

[jkwilliams]

You wrote:

So I pointed out a couple of gay academics who agree with 'this author'. I apologise if I wasn't clear enough.

I read them as saying sexuality is not necessarily binary. I agree with that. I didn't see them asserting that orientation is something you choose and can choose to change.

[Hamba Tuhan]

I read them as saying sexuality is not necessarily binary. I agree with that. I didn't see them asserting that orientation is something you choose and can choose to change.

 

You may want to read them again; I think you may be seeing what you want to see.

[jkwilliams]

You may want to read them again; I think you may be seeing what you want to see.

Or you could be.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Or you could be.

 

Sure!

[Scott Lloyd]

Seems like discussions on this topic always get so polarized.

 

I have a question, not by way of argumentation but in a sincere quest for clarification: Granting that there are some individuals for whom their homosexual orientation is altogether unalterable and absolutely not a matter of choice, are there not some who self-identify as "bi-sexual? Who find themselves somewhere along the Kinsey scale? Assuming that they are at some point along this continuum and not at either extreme end, would not such individuals have some degree of choice in the way they express their sexuality? Could they not, by suppressing their homosexual tendencies and nurturing their heterosexuality find happiness in a marriage to a spouse of the opposite sex and the progeny that would result from that relationship?

 

Even heterosexual folks, unless they totally give themselves over to promiscuity, must undertake some degree of suppression of their sexual inclinations. One who is determined to be absolutely faithful to his or her spouse must do so.

 

So, could it not be said that the Meridian article would have some useful message to convey to those who do have some choice in their sexual orientation, i.e. those who are at some point along the Kinsey continuum?

[jkwilliams]

Sure!

Just read it again. The article was about how we classify sexuality and gender. The only thing even remotely touching on orientation as a choice was the statement that it may not be innate. I agree with that, unsurprisingly.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Just read it again. The article was about how we classify sexuality and gender. The only thing even remotely touching on orientation as a choice was the statement that it may not be innate. I agree with that, unsurprisingly.

 

And how orientation (both gay/straight/other) is a 'social construct' that was only called into existence near the end of the 19th century and only became normative towards the end of the 20th century?

[Hamba Tuhan]

Did you choose your orientation? Neither did I.

 

Before intensive Christian missionising c. 1980, boys in many parts of Melanesia were successfully socialised through a complex network of myth, ritual, narrative, and societal expectations to privilege male/male relations as the primary mode of sexual expression. How do you think they would have answered this question?

[Hamba Tuhan]

Are there not some who self-identify as "bi-sexual?

 

Before Karl-Maria Kertbeny, everyone was pretty much just 'sexual', a condition that largely remains in force in those parts of the world least colonised by the Western imagination. Thankfully, the discursive trajectory in the West seems to be bending back towards this position, with people who may still be reluctant to jettison the notion of an 'orientation' at least increasingly tolerant of 'fluidity'.

[BlueDreams]

Seems like discussions on this topic always get so polarized.

 

I have a question, not by way of argumentation but in a sincere quest for clarification: Granting that there are some individuals for whom their homosexual orientation is altogether unalterable and absolutely not a matter of choice, are there not some who self-identify as "bi-sexual? Who find themselves somewhere along the Kinsey scale? Assuming that they are at some point along this continuum and not at either extreme end, would not such individuals have some degree of choice in the way they express their sexuality? Could they not, by suppressing their homosexual tendencies and nurturing their heterosexuality find happiness in a marriage to a spouse of the opposite sex and the progeny that would result from that relationship?

 

Even heterosexual folks, unless they totally give themselves over to promiscuity, must undertake some degree of suppression of their sexual inclinations. One who is determined to be absolutely faithful to his or her spouse must do so.

Scott, 

On a 'scientific' note surrounding, people in the field are moving away from a kinsey version of a spectrum and more of a multiple dimensions to sexuality/expression. So for example, one thing I have seen is a 4 dimensional diagram to attraction (social, erotic, aesthetics, and romantic). Where as the kinsey would only note the Erotic or the traditional focus on sex. with each is a varying degree of attractions/repugnance based in each of those quadrants. There is also acknowledgment that, for women at least, there is some fluidity in sexuality (less so for men).

 

But this is a social science area....which means the "science" changes with the people. And just as this is a polarized issue in for those on this board or in life, so it can be in academic spheres. Personally, I don't find it much good ever to suppress apart of you...based on the stories I've read/heard and my personal experiences with other emotive or intrinsic concerns in my life. What happens is that it often begins spilling out in dysfunctional patterns elsewhere. That can include affect disorders, relational dysfunctions, isolation, rigidity in interactions, abusive experiences, emotional outbursts that feel out of control, erratic behavior, etc.

 

So, could it not be said that the Meridian article would have some useful message to convey to those who do have some choice in their sexual orientation, i.e. those who are at some point along the Kinsey continuum?

 

 

At what cost? For the ones who may have fluidity how many more of those who don't also read this article and feel dysfunctional for just existing? For those who do have fluidity, is this really a healthy outlook to sexuality and who they are? 

 

With luv,

BD

[Calm]

Could they not, by suppressing their homosexual tendencies and nurturing their heterosexuality find happiness in a marriage to a spouse of the opposite sex and the progeny that would result from that relationship?

Even heterosexual folks, unless they totally give themselves over to promiscuity, must undertake some degree of suppression of their sexual inclinations. One who is determined to be absolutely faithful to his or her spouse must do so.

"Suppression" is not the best word to use for a healthy psychological approach due to the nuances attached to it, you probably mean something more like "control". Edited September 30, 2015 by Calm

[Bobbieaware]

Bobbie, I really do not want to derail the thread and it was an analogy or parallel. Not a perfect reference point. So lets not go too far down this road. My bio-dad and step-mom are both immigrants to the U.S. and I believe both are citizens. I've also had the opportunity to know a lot of first/second-gen immigrants that range with the american experience. From what I can see they do not "leave behind" their former customs and cultures. If you were to see my dad/step's place it looks like a mini-nigeria. They have their house painted in bold colors, have tons of african art, have tropical fake trees in the house, have their own garden, buy local goat (he dislikes most american store-bought meat), eats fufu and fried plantains and nigerian stews, etc. My bio-dad states the main reason he finally got his citizenship was because he got tired of waiting in lines at the airport...ie. it made life easier. He's here because his children are here, jobs are here, and his life is here. The decision to stay here is often not an easy one and no where near as glowy or patriotic as is often discussed. My parents appreciate the U.S. But it had costs....they just decided the benefits were worth it...or they got used to it; one of the two. Either way, they certainly didn't shirk off who they were to become citizens. They became nigerian-americans and their culture and customs still resonate through their life.

 

Also for reference, the "hypothetical" I gave was not too far off to what happened to my step-dad. Except he was always a u.s. citizen (as were his parents) and the circumstances were more extreme/hostile. He basically had a choice: his culture or economic upward movement. He chose the latter.

 

 

No. America isn't in any way equivalent to God's kingdom. And likewise heterosexuality is not the ultimate way of being God's child or on His errands. I have read and listened to several LDS people who do not fit the heteronormative experiences and are converted to their faith. Doing so has convinced me that their attractions are in no way a lesser road but a different one. One when accepted and navigated with God have often led to some of the most powerful testimonies of Christ I've had the privilege to hear. They didn't get it from ignoring their attractions. They didn't get it from "choosing to be heterosexual." They got there by accepting and submitting themselves unto the Lord and His ways. I view who they are as a beautiful way to exhibit more of Divinity in all its colors and aspects. These do not come from just learning the culture of the gospel just like everybody else, but allowing who they are and all their experiences culminate in a relationship with God. Few if any of them follow a straight forward path to their faith journey.

 

IMHO, we are not all to become proverbial "english speakers" for Jesus

 

With luv,

BD

It used to happen in America all the time. And since when is an analogy a literary device meant to draw strict equivalence?

Are the folks you speak of in your last paragraph practicing homosexuals? If not, they must have great faith.

[BlueDreams]

It used to happen in America all the time. And since when is an analogy a literary device meant to draw strict equivalence?

Yes it did....didn't make it right or exemplary. Don't understand your question (rhetorical?)...could be my migraine kicking in though. 

 

Are the folks you speak of in your last paragraph practicing homosexuals? If not, they must have great faith.

 

 

Many were for at least parts of their lives. Most have fairly diverse lives so I feel ill at ease as labeling them as "practicing homosexual" or not. But yes, they often had great faith. 

[Scott Lloyd]

"Suppression" is not the best word to use for a healthy psychological approach due to the nuances attached to it, you probably mean something more like "control".

Seems like po-Tay-toh vs. po-Tah-to to me, but if <control> is the more apt word, by all means let's go with it.

I'm just saying no one can give free reign to his/her sexual inclinations and be obedient to the law of chastity at the same time. And that's just as true with heterosexuality as with homosexuality. And this is where the matter of choice comes in.

[Bobbieaware]

Yes it did....didn't make it right or exemplary. Don't understand your question (rhetorical?)...could be my migraine kicking in though. 

 

 

Many were for at least parts of their lives. Most have fairly diverse lives so I feel ill at ease as labeling them as "practicing homosexual" or not. But yes, they often had great faith.

I vacillated between using literary or rhetorical and chose literary. I am not an expert in the ins and outs of the English language. Your last paragraph is one of the most adroit nonanswers I've ever seen.

[webbles]

Personally, I don't find it much good ever to suppress apart of you

BD,

I'm curious about this particular piece in your post. Aren't there some parts of each us that are inherently wrong and should be suppressed? We talk about how we need to overcome the natural man and become more like God. How is that not a form of suppression?

[Calm]

Suppression simply is refusing to deal with a part of oneself, attempting to shut it down, which means one cannot change what needs to be changed and ultimately it bubbles back to the surface, sometimes even stronger, but definitely out of control.

What you want to do instead is recognize that part of yourself and find a way to shape that aspect into something positive.

Think of it like the difference between a geyser and a steam engine. The first is destructive with its power while the second is constructive.

Edited September 30, 2015 by Calm

[Bobbieaware]

President David O. McKay said that some of the evils we find in ourselves are jealousy, hatred, envy, and animosity. Of them he said: “All such evils you must overcome by suppression. That is where your control comes in. Suppress that anger! Suppress that jealousy, that envy! They are all injurious to the spirit” (Gospel Ideals [1954], 356).

Suppression of wicked impulses by the power of the Spirit is transformative. Paul likens it to crucifying the natural man.

24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. (Galatians 5)

Edited September 30, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[The Nehor]

Suppression simply is refusing to deal with a part of oneself, attempting to shut it down, which means one cannot change what needs to be changed and ultimately it bubbles back to the surface, sometimes even stronger, but definitely out of control.

What you want to do instead is recognize that part of yourself and find a way to shape that aspect into something positive.

Think of it like the difference between a geyser and a steam engine. The first is destructive with its power while the second is constructive.

 

Many evil impulses can be turned to good. I know one sister who confessed once that she used to be a gossip and alienated everyone in a bid for attention. Then one day she realized she could use her gossiping powers for good and started spying out the good in others and sharing it. She said not only was it more fun she also got to be trusted and liked.

 

Others just have to be killed. While there are kinds of repression that are injurious I find that if I acknowledge the problem or temptation openly to myself that is all I need do and then shove it away, exorcise it, kill it. Some parts of me just need to die.

[Bobbieaware]

Many evil impulses can be turned to good. I know one sister who confessed once that she used to be a gossip and alienated everyone in a bid for attention. Then one day she realized she could use her gossiping powers for good and started spying out the good in others and sharing it. She said not only was it more fun she also got to be trusted and liked.

 

Others just have to be killed. While there are kinds of repression that are injurious I find that if I acknowledge the problem or temptation openly to myself that is all I need do and then shove it away, exorcise it, kill it. Some parts of me just need to die.

That's why Paul said of himself, "I am crucified with Christ."

[BlueDreams]

I vacillated between using literary or rhetorical and chose literary. I am not an expert in the ins and outs of the English language. Your last paragraph is one of the most adroit nonanswers I've ever seen.

that's what I give when I feel uncomfortable representing the position of a group i'm not actually apart of nor want to misspeak for several individuals with diverse experiences...adroit nonanswers

 

BD,

I'm curious about this particular piece in your post. Aren't there some parts of each us that are inherently wrong and should be suppressed? We talk about how we need to overcome the natural man and become more like God. How is that not a form of suppression?

 

What cal says....I'm a little tired, so this part may not make sense...if so feel free for clarification. I don't think what is intrinsically us is inherently wrong, but inherently good. The parts of us that equals the "natural man" are not permanent fixtures into our divine natures.  But even that, I don't feels like it's an act of suppression. The words used in scriptures include overcome, put off, and yields to the spirit. All assume a level of self-mastery. Suppression, in common day vernacular is probably closest to therapeutic ideas such as white knuckling it. It isn't actually conquering something. Even for things that are inherently wrong, such as addictions, the steps for healing aren't generally about pushing the addiction down but yielding the addiction up to a higher power and recognizing one is not in control.

 

I think sometimes when we talk about overcoming we give way too much credit at our own capacities to alter ourselves or our circumstances. People who "overcome all" have only mastered one thing above all else IMO: accepting dependency and need of our Savior. 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited September 30, 2015 by BlueDreams