Does A New Scientific Report on Gender Identity Support the Church?

[guerreiro9]

2 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

If you are not interested in the medical definition. Then why insert your opinion? It's about as useful as being uninterested in lung cancer and claiming that lungs don't exist.

I made my living counseling people, and was good at it. Can I talk you into becoming a homosexual?

The actual medical definition is of limited value in discourse if another meaning is intended.  Sexual orientation is a label used to describe sexual attractions and behaviors.  The problem with using it though is that it is no longer used to describe sexuality, it is used to limit it.  Behaviors, attractions, and desires and how they are developed is something I find worthy of discussion.  This can be done most effectively without forcing them into a specific orientation.

If you were of any value as a counselor you should recognize that you cannot talk someone into changing anything.  It is something they must do themselves by the choices they make and the experiences they pass through.

At this point in my life it would very difficult for me to find my wife unattractive.  We have passed through too many experiences together, and I have made too many connections in my brain which associate her with pleasure.  This hasn't always been the case though.  Attractions are much pliable when we are younger, as we get older we become more curmudgeonly and stuck in our ways.

If when I was younger I had been born in a different culture and passed through different experiences I could have developed the same feelings for a man that I now reserve for my wife.

-guerreiro9

Edited August 26, 2016 by guerreiro9

[guerreiro9]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

All evidence points to you not really wanting to understand.  I'm out.

Well that's disappointing.  I'm not sure why you feel this way, the questions I asked appear to be pertinent follow up questions to your responses.

I guess you don't have any desire to understand a different view point either...

-guerreiro9

[guerreiro9]

43 minutes ago, rockpond said:

If socialization is a significant determining factor in sexual orientation, you'd think we'd have very few gays or lesbians among active LDS members.

We did for a very long time, and would continue to do so were we not part of a larger society where its acceptance is increasing.

Many societies have had substantially higher rates of same-sex relationships than our western society including nearly complete homosexual participation among some cultures.

Do you believe that the increase in homosexual behavior in these cultures was independent of societal influences?

-guerreiro9 

[Guest]

On August 22, 2016 at 10:35 PM, Teancum said:

If you don't have you admittedly don't know much about this and you don't have much to say about it why start a thread about it?

I would think because that is what we do here, ask difficult question in hopes that the comments of others might contribute to understanding what other believe. As for Transgender's, even the hospital who pioneered the very first sex change operation, stopped doing so because it has lead to countless persons to depressions and patients taking their own lives. Also since "Prop 8" and the Church opposing it (along with other Churches) we have become the biggest target. Because of this, it has become a common target of this website. I would think this is why he posted the tread here. Other Christian website shut this type of thread down if anyone disagrees with the Christian view. 

[bcuzbcuz]

19 minutes ago, guerreiro9 said:

The actual medical definition is of limited value in discourse if another meaning is intended.  Sexual orientation is a label used to describe sexual attractions and behaviors.  The problem with using it though is that it is no longer used to describe sexuality, it is used to limit it.  Behaviors, attractions, and desires and how they are developed is something I find worthy of discussion.  This can be done most effectively without forcing them into a specific orientation.

If you were of any value as a counselor you should recognize that you cannot talk someone into changing anything.  It is something they must do themselves by the choices they make and the experiences they pass through.

At this point in my life it would very difficult for me to find my wife unattractive.  We have passed through too many experiences together, and I have made too many connections in my brain which associate her with pleasure.  This hasn't always been the case though.  Attractions are much pliable when we are younger, as we get older we become more curmudgeonly and stuck in our ways.

If when I was younger I had been born in a different culture and passed through different experiences I could have developed the same feelings for a man that I now reserve for my wife.

-guerreiro9

It's simple enough to solve. Take a number of children, place them in conditions where one group experiences heterosexual culture, one where the children experience homosexual culture and one where the cultural, sexual influences are neutral. The outcomes will tell the difference (provided the number of children in each group  can rule out mere chance).

And whether your attractions to your wife would have been different had you had earlier childhood experiences is merely conjecture, and therefore unprovable.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

If socialization is a significant determining factor in sexual orientation, you'd think we'd have very few gays or lesbians among active LDS members.

This grossly oversimplifies the dynamics of growing up with a Mormon background and plays into the naive stereotype that Mormon children all live sheltered lives.

That said, I don't know whether active Mormons are disproportionately more or less apt to have SSA or about the same as the general populace. I've not seen any numbers or statistics, much less reliable ones.

Finally, even if it is a "significant determining factor," it still might be only one among many.

[rockpond]

17 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This grossly oversimplifies the dynamics of growing up with a Mormon background and plays into the naive stereotype that Mormon children all live sheltered lives.

That said, I don't know whether active Mormons are disproportionately more or less apt to have SSA or about the same as the general populace. I've not seen any numbers or statistics, much less reliable ones.

Finally, even if it is a "significant determining factor," it still might be only one among many.

My thought had nothing to do with whether or not LDS children are sheltered and everything to do with how/what they are taught regarding homosexuality.

Your previous statements implied that Lesley Gore would have otherwise been heterosexual had she not been "socialized" into a life as a lesbian by the feminism at her university.  I take it that what you really meant is that the influences at her university were just one among many factors that may have contributed to her being gay.

[guerreiro9]

42 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said:

It's simple enough to solve. Take a number of children, place them in conditions where one group experiences heterosexual culture, one where the children experience homosexual culture and one where the cultural, sexual influences are neutral. The outcomes will tell the difference (provided the number of children in each group  can rule out mere chance).

And whether your attractions to your wife would have been different had you had earlier childhood experiences is merely conjecture, and therefore unprovable.

This experiment has already been completed.  There have been in history a number of cultures where homosexual relations were encouraged and the participation rates were substantial higher than what is seen in our western culture.

My belief that my attractions would have been different with different childhood experiences is no more conjecture than a gay man's belief that his attractions are inborn.  Neither can be proven with certainty...

-guerreiro9

Edited August 26, 2016 by guerreiro9

[bcuzbcuz]

17 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This grossly oversimplifies the dynamics of growing up with a Mormon background and plays into the naive stereotype that Mormon children all live sheltered lives.

That said, I don't know whether active Mormons are disproportionately more or less apt to have SSA or about the same as the general populace. I've not seen any numbers or statistics, much less reliable ones.

Finally, even if it is a "significant determining factor," it still might be only one among many.

I think you're right. 

I do, however, remember a Mormon family wherein one of three sons was homosexual. That son finally succumbed to the pressure, and entered into a heterosexual marriage, which ended badly. All three sons were raised equally, yet one was not heterosexual. 

If the social, familial, cultural factors were the only influences, then no heterosexual family would have homosexual children.

[guerreiro9]

16 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said:

I think you're right. 

I do, however, remember a Mormon family wherein one of three sons was homosexual. That son finally succumbed to the pressure, and entered into a heterosexual marriage, which ended badly. All three sons were raised equally, yet one was not heterosexual. 

If the social, familial, cultural factors were the only influences, then no heterosexual family would have homosexual children.

It's not the only factor, but it is a contributing factor.

edited to add:

As a parent I find the statement "All three sons were raised equally" to be preposterous.  Despite your best intentions, all your children are not raised in the same way.  Even though they are raised in the same home they pass through their own unique experiences.

-guerreiro9

Edited August 26, 2016 by guerreiro9

[rockpond]

And here we've arrived at what I believe this propaganda piece (disguised as a metastudy) hoped to accomplish.

It falsely creates just enough doubt so that those who want to believe that people are in control of their sexual orientation (for religious or political reasons) can feel justified in doing so.

[ksfisher]

16 minutes ago, guerreiro9 said:

 

As a parent I find the statement "All three sons were raised equally" to be preposterous.  Despite your best intentions, all your children are not raised in the same way.  Even though they are raised in the same home they pass through their own unique experiences.

 

Agreed.  I have four children and there is no way that I would ever say that they were raised equally.  Not even the two boys who are three years apart.  Each one is there own person.  Goes through their own experiences.  Has their own likes and dislikes.  We, as parents, respond to each child differently. 

[Scott Lloyd]

41 minutes ago, rockpond said:

My thought had nothing to do with whether or not LDS children are sheltered and everything to do with how/what they are taught regarding homosexuality.

Your previous statements implied that Lesley Gore would have otherwise been heterosexual had she not been "socialized" into a life as a lesbian by the feminism at her university.  I take it that what you really meant is that the influences at her university were just one among many factors that may have contributed to her being gay.

Didn't say "were." I said they might be. 

And I don't know how many other influences there were or could have been. As I've indicated, the late '60s were a time of great social upheaval among the young, especially in the entertainment world and especially in popular music. 

Edited August 26, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Didn't say "we're." I said they might be. 

And I don't know how many other influences there were or could have been. As I've indicated, the late '60s were a time of great social upheaval among the young, especially in the entertainment world and especially in popular music. 

So the 60's are also to blame for homosexuality?

[Scott Lloyd]

34 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said:

I think you're right. 

I do, however, remember a Mormon family wherein one of three sons was homosexual. That son finally succumbed to the pressure, and entered into a heterosexual marriage, which ended badly. All three sons were raised equally, yet one was not heterosexual. 

If the social, familial, cultural factors were the only influences, then no heterosexual family would have homosexual children.

Oh, I definitely agree with that. I'm just saying those influences can't be ruled out. 

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Didn't say "we're." I said they might be. 

And I don't know how many other influences there were or could have been. As I've indicated, the late '60s were a time of great social upheaval among the young, especially in the entertainment world and especially in popular music. 

How about just accepting that she was born gay?  Why go to such extremes to try to prove otherwise?  This just seems ridiculous to me.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Agreed.  I have four children and there is no way that I would ever say that they were raised equally.  Not even the two boys who are three years apart.  Each one is there own person.  Goes through their own experiences.  Has their own likes and dislikes.  We, as parents, respond to each child differently. 

This resonates with me as a father of four. My advice to prospective parents: Don't rely on cookie-cutter methodology in rearing your children. 

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So the 60's are also to blame for homosexuality?

Heh. You do love to twist and caricaturize my words. 

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, ALarson said:

How about just accepting that she was born gay?  Why go to such extremes to try to prove otherwise?  This just seems ridiculous to me.

 

Because the reality might be far more complicated than that. 

As much as you would like your assumptions to be accepted without question, ALarson, things are often not that simple. 

[rockpond]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Heh. You do love to twist and caricaturize my words. 

Feel free to clarify what you were trying to say... because that's the way it came across.  You're blaming not only feminism at her university but also the 60's culture.  It's laughable.

[rockpond]

21 minutes ago, ALarson said:

How about just accepting that she was born gay?  Why go to such extremes to try to prove otherwise?  This just seems ridiculous to me.

 

Once one accepts that a person can just be gay (without any element of choice or societal influence, and often without the ability to change) it generally becomes more difficult to hold to current LDS doctrine/policy.

[Scott Lloyd]

18 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Once one accepts that a person can just be gay (without any element of choice or societal influence, and often without the ability to change) it generally becomes more difficult to hold to current LDS doctrine/policy.

Conversely, once one realizes that a combination of factors might be at play, it generally becomes more difficult to deny the reality that one is empowered to a degree to determine his/her own destiny and thus is more or less personally accountable for his/her sexual behavior.

Ching-ching. Your move.

Edited August 26, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Feel free to clarify what you were trying to say... because that's the way it came across.  You're blaming not only feminism at her university but also the 60's culture.  It's laughable.

My, you've gotten testy all of a sudden. I had no idea there was such rancor simmering beneath the surface.

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

My, you've gotten testy all of a sudden. I had no idea there was such rancor simmering beneath the surface.

Nope...not testy and no rancor here.  If you are feeling that than it is probably time to end the discussion.

Edited August 26, 2016 by rockpond

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Conversely, once one realizes that a combination of factors might be at play, it generally becomes more difficult to accept the reality that one is empowered to a degree to determine his/her own destiny and thus is more or less personally accountable for his/her sexual behavior.

Ching-ching. Your move.

A change of goal posts.  Okay.

I agree, each individual IS empowered to determine his/her own destiny and is accountable for his/her sexual behavior.  Never have I argued otherwise.