Why did Heavenly Father create people with same sex attraction?

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, danielwoods said:

And I don't think the article I linked to had that purpose or intention. It was an over view, and it linked to this article which stated:

"Eight major studies of identical twins in Australia, the U.S., and Scandinavia during the last two decades all arrive at the same conclusion: gays were not born that way." 

and

"In the identical twin studies, Dr. Whitehead has been struck by how fluid and changeable sexual identity can be.

“Neutral academic surveys show there is substantial change. About half of the homosexual/bisexual population (in a non-therapeutic environment) moves towards heterosexuality over a lifetime. About 3% of the present heterosexual population once firmly believed themselves to be homosexual or bisexual.”

“Sexual orientation is not set in concrete,” he notes."

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/2013/06/identical-twin-studies-prove-homosexuality-is-not-genetic/

 

Which still probably doesn't answer your question. However, it does answer the question of whether sexual identity is developed over time or is genetically determined. 

Well, this might explain why my now 90-year-old gay uncle eventually married a woman and has been with her for the past 10 years.  

Oddly enough, she was the wife of his gay partner who died from AIDS.

But aside from that, what of those gays who have never felt sexually attracted to women at all?  One of my first-cousins is this way.  Will he eventually turn hetero?

I do believe that there is way more to learn on this subject that most of us suspect.

[consiglieri]

10 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Thank you for sharing your experience, which provides a perfect illustration of why the 19th-century invention of homosexuality necessitated and entailed the simultaneous invention of heterosexuality.

So if I lived in the 18th-century, I would like boys?

[Hamba Tuhan]

19 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

But aside from that, what of those gays who have never felt sexually attracted to women at all?  One of my first-cousins is this way.

As one of the posters up-thread already noted, self reporting is not terribly accurate in many cases. When I was completing my master's study in America, one of my flatmates (already on his way out of the Church) brought home a report that was making some waves then because it claimed to demonstrate that the more 'homophobic' a man's verbal responses were in preliminary interviews, the more intense and sustained would be his sexual arousal when later exposed to male same-sex pornography.

(I'm not surprised by this evidence, by the way. In fact, I think it reinforces how much psychological and emotional damage the now-dominant homo/hetero discourse wreaks on all kinds of men.)

Buried deep in the data sets at the back of the report was the most important piece of information for me. I can't remember the exact number, but it was around 96% of men who self-identified as totally 'straight' in the study that experienced sexual arousal when exposed to 'gay' porn. I don't know about the remaining 4%, but I know that I have certain days when absolutely nothing could arouse me. Regardless, the study suggests that most-to-all men are perfectly capable of finding homosexual behaviour erotic regardless of what they may claim -- which only makes sense considering how fluid and opportunistic sexuality has been for most societies in the past and how fluid and opportunistic it remains for so many even now.

Edited January 14, 2016 by Hamba Tuhan

[Hamba Tuhan]

35 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

So if I lived in the 18th-century, I would like boys?

Exclusively? Probably not.

I used to live in a city where nearly all of the prostitutes were men, and the prevalent expectation was for unmarried young men to frequently enjoy the services of prostitutes. It has absolutely nothing to do with 'liking boys'.

You can talk about sexualised, gendered, fixed identities all you want in a place like that, but expect nothing more than blank stares ... though the aggressive penetration of Western 'entertainment' is slowly restructuring this reality, and not, in my opinion, for the better.

Edited January 14, 2016 by Hamba Tuhan

[Ahab]

42 minutes ago, Sanpitch said:

I had said:  "It always amazes me how those who love the opposite sex have so much advice for those who love the same sex."

Your are probably right from your point of view, that they will be rewarded a hundred or a thousand years down the road.  My view is that if they are banned from living from the one they love and they spend their life on this earth alone as far as a close companion goes.  They miss out on close physical relationships.  They are supposed to live alone, they can't live with the opposite sex and they can't live with the same sex generally.  Of course I'm not into old scriptures like most people are or new statements from church leaders that may be right and may be wrong.

Solution: Love everybody and find a nice opposite sex sexual companion to enjoy sex with.

People who limit themselves to loving only one person of the same sex forever have only themselves to blame for their own self imposed limitations. 

[Sanpitch]

4 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Solution: Love everybody and find a nice opposite sex sexual companion to enjoy sex with.

People who limit themselves to loving only one person of the same sex forever have only themselves to blame for their own self imposed limitations. 

The solution is so simple, why has no one thought of it before.  That would cure the problem.

[Hamba Tuhan]

8 minutes ago, Sanpitch said:

The solution is so simple, why has no one thought of it before.  That would cure the problem.

Actually, for most of human history, this was precisely how people thought. (Though they didn't really have to 'think' it; it was just how things were.) The question then becomes, why have we stopped thinking this way?

Edited January 14, 2016 by Hamba Tuhan

[Sanpitch]

14 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Actually, for most of human history, this was precisely how people thought. (Though they didn't really have to 'think' it; it was just how things were.) The question then becomes, why have we stopped thinking this way?

Because it doesn't work!

[Bob Crockett]

 

Quote

 

Consig:  Or you could just ask me what I think about things and why instead of guessing.

Funny that when you guess, you do so in the most demeaning way possible.

 

But I don't care what you "think."   I react to what you say.   You use phrases and expressions and adopt positions that do not grant Mormons the right to religious freedom to believe in unpopular views and instead hold those views up to the harsh light of popular opinion. 

It just is not popular for Mormons (or Catholics, Evangelicals, Witnesses or Muslims, for that matter) to say that one cannot be in fellowship with the saints, nor a communicant, and be a homosexual.  Now, if I were running the Church, I'd have a much different view.  I personally believe that one is born that way and that gays should be gay and do their own thing without condemnation or criticism.  But, I signed up for the priesthood and have made a commitment.  I don't have anything to do with keeping gays away from their civil rights but I do belong to a religion that forbids homosexual conduct.  You don't want to acknowledge that sort of religious freedom and instead browbeat the saints with the verbiage of political correctness and your deluge of posts which are disingenuous.  (What is the point of a disingenuous post, really.  Can't you see that such are easily discerned for what they are?)  

And then all your concern about the religious rights of children of gay married couples seems to reek of political correctness.  Where's the hue and cry for the children of polygamous households?   What is wrong with a religion dictating who can and cannot be a member?  After all, the LDS Church does not have a concept of original sin, so a delay in baptism is almost meaningless.   You may argue that such deprives the child of the influence of the Holy Ghost, but then you would deny the power of the Q12 to come up with this doctrine/policy under the inspiration of the spirit.  And since you don't believe in Jesus or the Holy Ghost, where's the beef?  They can come to church all they want!!!

Why, you Jew, are you eating that cheeseburger!!! Don't you know that not only is killing cattle evil, that what you're doing is not kosher!! How could you?

I'm not being demeaning.  You have a thin skin. 

Edited January 14, 2016 by Bob Crockett

[Hamba Tuhan]

17 minutes ago, Sanpitch said:

Because it doesn't work!

It doesn't work now because post-Christian Western society has by-and-large embraced a new discourse of sexuality, within the framework of which it can't work ... and those, like Ahab, who do make it work have to be disallowed, marginalised, and effectively silenced. The question still remains: why?

Edited January 14, 2016 by Hamba Tuhan

[Storm Rider]

I do think that human sexuality is fluid and can be molded.  If that is correct, why are the extremes of both ends of this argument so committed to the idea that sexuality is set in stone; that there is only one way to be?  Who is benefited by maintaining this extreme position?  For those that still believe in God and Satan, who would most want to support this extreme position?  Once you answer those questions then you have your answer why these two extremes maintain their position at all cost.

For those that approach the middle range it leaves enough room to be a committed disciple of Christ regardless of their church affiliation.  Sexuality is not the end all of one's existence, but it becomes an expression of our commitment to a single individual within the bounds that God has set for us as his disciples.

 

[Ahab]

2 hours ago, Sanpitch said:

Because it doesn't work!

Uh, yeah, it does. I am proof.

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, Sanpitch said:

Because it doesn't work!

Well, we could try it.

3 hours ago, Ahab said:

Uh, yeah, it does. I am proof.

I think we need a larger sample size.

[Ahab]

18 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

 

I think we need a larger sample size.

That's all I need now is someone encouraging me to gain weight.  Probably should not though.

[california boy]

6 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

I do think that human sexuality is fluid and can be molded.  If that is correct, why are the extremes of both ends of this argument so committed to the idea that sexuality is set in stone; that there is only one way to be?  Who is benefited by maintaining this extreme position?  For those that still believe in God and Satan, who would most want to support this extreme position?  Once you answer those questions then you have your answer why these two extremes maintain their position at all cost.

For those that approach the middle range it leaves enough room to be a committed disciple of Christ regardless of their church affiliation.  Sexuality is not the end all of one's existence, but it becomes an expression of our commitment to a single individual within the bounds that God has set for us as his disciples.

 

Because I think there are some that are on the extremes and are far less moldable than others might be.  I really tried to make a marriage with a woman work.  I don't want to get too personal here, but there was a connection that never happened in over 20 years of marriage.  It was more like living with a room mate.  I just can not connect with a woman in the way sexual attraction is suppose to work.  I have been with my boyfriend for 6 years and the relationship is completely different.  It has been that way from day one.  

 

It isn't about the sex, but it is about the physical connection.  Perhaps that is difficult for some to understand.  And I get that.  People want to fit other people into what is true for them. In reading through this thread, is all I get out of it is straight people trying to figure out a way for gay people to fit into their paradigm.  Statements like people are not born gay can be true for them because that is not how they were born.  So gay people must choose to be gay.  People saying that God wouldn't create gay people because that doesn't fit their religious paradigm.  They want people to be just like them but making bad choices to explain the difference.  

 

This board seems to be addicted to gay threads.  As soon as one is locked two more pop up.  Most try to blame the gays for those things that gays do that are not like the choices they have made.  They can't believe that a gay person would have a spiritual connection with God.  All spiritual connections come from living like they live, believing like they believe, following God like they follow God.  For them, there is no other path.  It's human nature.  

 

[Sanpitch]

9 hours ago, Ahab said:

Uh, yeah, it does. I am proof.

I had said "Because it doesn't work."  I'm not sure what I was arguing about.  I better stay out of it till I know what's going on.

[Storm Rider]

10 hours ago, california boy said:

Because I think there are some that are on the extremes and are far less moldable than others might be.  I really tried to make a marriage with a woman work.  I don't want to get too personal here, but there was a connection that never happened in over 20 years of marriage.  It was more like living with a room mate.  I just can not connect with a woman in the way sexual attraction is suppose to work.  I have been with my boyfriend for 6 years and the relationship is completely different.  It has been that way from day one.  

It isn't about the sex, but it is about the physical connection.  Perhaps that is difficult for some to understand.  And I get that.  People want to fit other people into what is true for them. In reading through this thread, is all I get out of it is straight people trying to figure out a way for gay people to fit into their paradigm.  Statements like people are not born gay can be true for them because that is not how they were born.  So gay people must choose to be gay.  People saying that God wouldn't create gay people because that doesn't fit their religious paradigm.  They want people to be just like them but making bad choices to explain the difference.  

This board seems to be addicted to gay threads.  As soon as one is locked two more pop up.  Most try to blame the gays for those things that gays do that are not like the choices they have made.  They can't believe that a gay person would have a spiritual connection with God.  All spiritual connections come from living like they live, believing like they believe, following God like they follow God.  For them, there is no other path.  It's human nature.  

 

I acknowledge there are those on the extreme ends; I just happen to think that they are very small minority of humanity.  When I read your comments about your relationship what I am struck with is that you are human just like the rest of us.  I don't think your relationship with your boyfriend feels any different than everyone else's relationship. 

Why some of us are gay is a non sequitur - the fact is that some of us are gay and most of us are not.  Trying to answer the why does not assist anyone with dealing with the now - who I am, where I am going, and who do I want to be.  These questions are fair and reasonable regardless of gender or sexual expression.  For those who seek to follow Christ, I think they are vital in our discipleship. 

Falling and staying in love is not an event, but a process that takes effort whether it is conscious or unconscious.  All relationships demand attention and work to make them function well and to remain healthy.  

When I consider that scripture teaches us, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind" I interpret that on many levels.  I view my relationship with him to be paramount and my first priority.  I also understand that my eye must be single to his glory.  As disciples of Christ and being human I understand that none of us achieves this level of commitment completely or fully; however, that does not excuse any of us from not pursuing that end.  

It is clear to me that anyone, regardless of their choices, their sins, their humanity, can and will feel to varying degrees the spirit of God.  I also believe that the Holy Spirit can attend us in varying degrees of strength depending upon our personal desire for virtue and holiness as well as our attainment through God's grace of virtue and holiness.  Bluntly, if God can forgive me and be active in my life than he can forgive anyone else and be active in their life.

I believe that once an individual is convicted of his own sins in his own mind then the path before him/her is clear.  In this acknowledgement we each will find ways to return to God and embrace him.  If we seek to be fully committed to being disciples then each of us will abandon our sins and do whatever it takes to follow him and remain in his grace as much as possible.  This path is full of failure and just as full of repentance.  Again, it is not an event; it also is a process of a lifetime.  

It remains a choice.  It will always be about a choice regardless of our particular sins and our desire for those sins.  Who will I be?  All must answer that question.  

Edited January 14, 2016 by Storm Rider

[Calm]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

Because I think there are some that are on the extremes and are far less moldable than others might be.  I really tried to make a marriage with a woman work.  I don't want to get too personal here, but there was a connection that never happened in over 20 years of marriage.  It was more like living with a room mate.  I just can not connect with a woman in the way sexual attraction is suppose to work.  I have been with my boyfriend for 6 years and the relationship is completely different.  It has been that way from day one.  

 

It isn't about the sex, but it is about the physical connection.  Perhaps that is difficult for some to understand.  And I get that.  People want to fit other people into what is true for them. In reading through this thread, is all I get out of it is straight people trying to figure out a way for gay people to fit into their paradigm.  Statements like people are not born gay can be true for them because that is not how they were born.  So gay people must choose to be gay.  People saying that God wouldn't create gay people because that doesn't fit their religious paradigm.  They want people to be just like them but making bad choices to explain the difference.  

 

This board seems to be addicted to gay threads.  As soon as one is locked two more pop up.  Most try to blame the gays for those things that gays do that are not like the choices they have made.  They can't believe that a gay person would have a spiritual connection with God.  All spiritual connections come from living like they live, believing like they believe, following God like they follow God.  For them, there is no other path.  It's human nature.  

 

Seems to me you yourself are reading a lot into others' comments because your mind is already made up.  Such as ignoring concepts about the historical and cultural contexts of sexual fluidity.

[TOmNossor]

On 1/13/2016 at 10:50 PM, VideoGameJunkie said:

Since it's such a serious sin to engage in homosexuality, and since we know people can't choose whether they're gay or not, why did God create gay people to go through such a challenge in life that if they acted on their natural instinct they'd be apostates.  Before you bring up the question why did God create the disabled, malnourished, etc none of those things prevents salvation, in fact those challenges help for a better chance at salvation. Homosexuality doesnt.

 

I am not sure if you are male or female.  I am not sure it matters.  Have you had any desire to have sex with someone you are not married to?  Without revealing too much, I can say that I like virtual every person I have ever met had a "natural instinct" to have premarital sex before I was married.  And if we are talking about "natural instinct" I suspect it is quite common if not almost universal to experience some extra-marital sexual "natural instinct."

 

Now, if when you say "serious sin" you are implying that extra-marital (and for the purpose of this let me say say more clearly, "sex outside of the union of a man and woman in a marriage") sex that is between same sex partners is a more serious sin than extra-marital sex between opposite sex partners; then I vehemently disagree.  I would actually lean weakly in the other direction, both are sinful (and seriously sinful), but the challenges before same-sex attracted individuals are daunting and such is recognized by the God of the universe.

 

I also disagree with your contention that volumes of difficulties (including and like) the ones you mention do not "prevent salvation."  EVERYONE has challenges in life and everyone can make choices that inhibit choosing God over sin.  Stealing, pain killer addiction, withdrawing from family or church or everything, ... are all responses to challenges available to folks.  For some reason society almost universally feels empathy for the person who steals due to lack of food, who becomes addicted to pain killers because of pain/disability, who withdraws because it was so painful to engage with others.  But most of society falls into one of two camps when it comes to homosexual sex.  Many celebrate and claim that sex is natural, beautiful, and enjoyable and homosexual sex is just the same.  And many condemn with little empathy those who engage in homosexual sin.  I believe God's feelings concerning the addict or subsistence thief and the practicing homosexual are quite similar.  

 

Folks who have no same sex attraction have for centuries treated folks who engage in homosexual sin egregiously such continues today.  Folks who seem to have accepted that for them homosexual sex is desirable and no sin in recent decades seem quite willing to condemn the character (condemn the individual) who claims homosexual sex is a sin.  In fact I am sure there are many who consider or who would consider my suggestion that empathy is the proper response to folks who engage in homosexual sin to be evidence of lack of love (ie sin) in me.  I believe that as a 21st century American, I along with everyone I know swim in a sexualized culture that so perverts how we see sex that it is very difficult to hold God's views (whatever God's views happen to be).  Most LDS who favor same sex marriage can still acknowledge that selling products through sex is wrong, engaging in sex acts solely for the reception of pleasureful endorphin is wrong, being entertained by sex (be it prime time TV or pornography) is wrong, engaging in prostitution (as the provider or receiver) is wrong, ....  It is my belief that swimming in this sexualized culture strongly influences our response to the question of same sex marriage.  I know it influenced (and continues to influence) my response.

 

Finally, let me further suggest that if a society was transformed into a "utopian" society with respect to its ideas, attitudes, and the bulk of its practices concerning sex (and nothing else changed); I believe there would be folks with same sex attractions.  But, I believe the most healthy way of coping with these attractions would not be homosexual sex inside or outside a committed monogamous relationship.  The most healthy way of dealing with Asperger syndrome is not withdrawing to Internet message boards rather than real human interaction even though real human interaction may be uncomfortable.  Why must we believe the most healthy way of dealing with same sex attraction involves doing what those with same sex attractions desire.  As we do not live in a utopian society in any respects, I recognized that abstinence from homosexual sex for those with SSA has not lead to healthy lives in most cases; but at least today engaging in monogamous homosexual relationships has also not lead to healthy lives in most cases.  What the "healthy lives" statistics would say if the "utopian" society I envision happened or if the "utopian" society the SSM advocate envisions becomes a reality I cannot say.  But, I lean (lean strongly) in the direction the church leans.  May God heal us all.

 

Charity, TOm

 

 

Edited January 14, 2016 by TOmNossor

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

I acknowledge there are those on the extreme ends; I just happen to think that they are very small minority of humanity.  When I read your comments about your relationship what I am struck with is that you are human just like the rest of us.  I don't think your relationship with your feels any different than everyone else's relationship. 

Why some of us are gay is a non sequitur - the fact is that some of us are gay and most of us are not.  Trying to answer the why does not assist anyone with dealing with the now - who I am, where I am going, and who do I want to be.  These questions are fair, reasonable regardless of gender or sexual expression.  For those who seek to follow Christ, I think they are vital in our discipleship. 

Falling and staying in love is not an event, but a process that takes effort weather it is unconscious or conscious.  All relationships demand attention and work to make them work well and to remain healthy.  

When I consider that scripture teaches us, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind" I interpret that on many levels.  I view my relationship with him to be paramount and my first priority.  I also understand that my eye must be single to his glory.  As disciples of Christ and being human I understand that none of us achieves that completely or fully; however, that does not excuse any of us from pursuing that end.  

It is clear to me that anyone, regardless of their choices, their sins, their humanity, can and will feel to varying degrees the spirit of God.  I also believe that the Holy Spirit can attend us in varying degrees of strength depending upon our personal desire for virtue and holiness as well as our attainment through God's grace of virtue and holiness.  Bluntly, if God can forgive me and be active in my life than he can forgive anyone else and be active in their life.

I believe that once an individual is convicted of his own sins in his own mind then the path before him/her is clear.  In this acknowledgement we each will find ways to return to God and embrace him.  If we seek to be fully committed to being disciples then each of us will abandon our sins and do whatever it takes to follow him and remain in his grace as much as possible.  This path is full of failure and just as full of repentance.  It is not an event; it also is a process of a lifetime.  

It remains a choice.  It will always be about a choice regardless of our particular sins and our desire for those sins.  Who will I be?  All must answer that question.  

Now that feels like the gospel of Christ.   I gave you a rep point. Something I don't do very often these days. I think each of us, when we are honest with ourselves know where we stand with God and it is not based on what any other human tells us about what we are suppose to do. 

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Seems to me you yourself are reading a lot into others' comments because your mind is already made up.  Such as ignoring concepts about the historical and cultural contexts of sexual fluidity.

Historical concepts about sexuality are of little significant to me. Different times had different views on how humans should live their lives to be accepted. Those that didn't found different ways in dealing with who they were. Most did it by deceiving others. Others by deceiving themselves. But this I know. When honesty with yourself is paramount in your life, there is a peace that flows through your whole being. God leads us if we let him.  I trust in Him more than than any man living or dead. No disortation. No philosophy of man. No judgement of others will move me away from that peace within my soul. I am not without sin, but being gay and deeply connecting with another soul to walk through this life with is not one of my sins. 

[Robert F. Smith]

On 1/13/2016 at 8:50 PM, VideoGameJunkie said:

Since it's such a serious sin to engage in homosexuality, and since we know people can't choose whether they're gay or not, why did God create gay people to go through such a challenge in life that if they acted on their natural instinct they'd be apostates.  Before you bring up the question why did God create the disabled, malnourished, etc none of those things prevents salvation, in fact those challenges help for a better chance at salvation. Homosexuality doesnt.

Jesus addressed your question directly at John 9:1-3,

Quote

 

1 . . . as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth.
2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?
3 Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.

 

Jesus then cures the blind man, which creates a controversy, "that the works of God should be made manifest."

Your problem is that you assume the etiology is creation by God, rather than some other human biological malfunction.  Humans are designed by nature as male and female, even though there is a broad spectrum of maleness and femaleness in the amount and types of hormones inside a person, as well as in the actual physiognomy of some people (who can be normal or even hermaphroditic).  Sometimes these anomalous conditions are corrected early via surgery, and sometimes much later via transgender assignment surgery and hormone therapy.

Many of our biological problems, defects, or failures are genetic and in utero.  Some are learned.  We mustn't play the blame game.  That simply wouldn't be fair.

[RevTestament]

 

Calm: "Hormonal variations in the pregnancy environment, for one off the top of my head."

I am not an MD, but I really wouldn't expect much hormonal variation in the pregnancy environment of identical twins. The point of the article was that the variation of SSA attraction among identical twins shows that it really is not a genetically determined trait. If it were, both twins would be homosexual or not. They weren't really trying to prove what did cause the trait although they strongly suggested that environment is the main causative factor. I personally strongly believe sexual preferences are wired in the brain after birth. What all goes into that process, I am not sure. But I do note that 2 gay authors wrote about the strong tendency for homosexual males to have narcissitic traits and narcissism is usually regarded as a psychosocial disorder.

[Calm]

You need to understand how in utero differences can occur and cause significant differences.  Thus while I have little doubt that environment has an affect, there would still be possibly strong tendencies triggered by biological causes.