Addressing lgbtq+ prior to coming out

[Meadowchik]

13 hours ago, Jamie said:

I'm curious to know how you see things then when people do not agree.  Do you not see any degree of separation between people who don't agree on the rules or laws we should live by?

I see an effort to teach or explain things but if after a while of that those people still do not agree on how people should live then I see one person or group distancing itself from the other.  Still visiting maybe sometimes but not living together.

I see a world of difference between separation and banishment or 🤢 execution.

[Meadowchik]

12 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

You keep asking this over and over. You are a former LDS, right? You know why LDS believe what they believe. It seems odd to me that you don't "get" the answers people are giving you. I'm not LDS and I get them.

You could say I am asking it exactly because of my experience as a believing LDS. As far as I can tell, there is something wanting here. As a believer I found that there was something wanting then, too, after years of wrestle with the church's position. When people make difficult choices based on spiritual reasoning, their faith might help them through. But as parents we cannot transfer our faith to our children. If, then we are guiding their choices, and--in such a case as this specific one--guiding them on a path which will be personally difficult for them, we cannot give them the strength of our own faith to get through the difficult choices we're expecting them to make.  We can try to cultivate faith, of course, but we cannot generate it for them.

Something we can give them is reason--when we have it--and a clear understanding of our reasons, whatever they are. 

 

[Meadowchik]

10 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

But believing this requires one to believe the gospel.  If you don't believe the gospel or the scriptures then there would be no way to define sin in the first place.

What about those who do believe the gospel but also believe that homosexual relationships can be good?  (Example of such a person at the link.)

[smac97]

20 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I didn't ask anyone to stop believing anything. I asked people explain why homosexual love and sex is a sin, without using the argument that it is because some people said it is. 

It's a sin because God says it is a sin.

Because God is the ultimate arbiter of morality. 

Because God is perfect and all-knowing, and therefore transcends our blinkered, finite view.

It's a sin because it contravenes the divinely-instituted purposes of sexual behavior.

It's a sin because it exceeds the boundaries of the Law of Chastity.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 15, 2021 by smac97

[smac97]

27 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

You could say I am asking it exactly because of my experience as a believing LDS. As far as I can tell, there is something wanting here. As a believer I found that there was something wanting then, too, after years of wrestle with the church's position. When people make difficult choices based on spiritual reasoning, their faith might help them through. But as parents we cannot transfer our faith to our children. If, then we are guiding their choices, and--in such a case as this specific one--guiding them on a path which will be personally difficult for them, we cannot give them the strength of our own faith to get through the difficult choices we're expecting them to make.  We can try to cultivate faith, of course, but we cannot generate it for them.

Something we can give them is reason--when we have it--and a clear understanding of our reasons, whatever they are. 

Your line of questioning/reasoning seems ultimately evasive and reductive.  "But why..." can be asked endlessly.  It becomes facile pretty quickly.

Hamba raised some pretty good points here.  Much of what you style as "difficult choices" are of very recent derivation.  And heavily politicized and agenda-driven.  

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[smac97]

On 5/13/2021 at 4:00 PM, Calm said:

Imo, the LGBT+ activists did themselves a disservice by going with “born that way” rather than “freedom of choice for all” as the sexual revolution was first promoted (or do my youth in San Francisco area suggested).

I think the "born that way" mantra arose largely due to legal necessity.  With the exception of religious affiliation, our system of laws is intended to protect categorizations and characteristics of people that create "classifications" that have real legal significance.  The concept is called "suspect classification."  See here:

Quote

In United States constitutional law, a suspect classification is a class or group of persons meeting a series of criteria suggesting they are likely the subject of discrimination. These classes receive closer scrutiny by courts when an Equal Protection claim alleging unconstitutional discrimination is asserted against a law, regulation, or other government action, or sometimes private action. When a law or government action affects a group that falls under a "suspect classification," courts apply the strict scrutiny standard in reviewing the constitutional validity of a law or action.

 

The US Supreme Court has mentioned a variety of criteria that, in some combination, may qualify a group as a suspect class, but the Court has not declared that any particular set of criteria are either necessary or sufficient to qualify.

Some of the criteria that have been cited include:

• The group has historically been discriminated against or have been subject to prejudice, hostility, or stigma, perhaps due, at least in part, to stereotypes.
• They possess an immutable or highly visible trait.
• They are powerless to protect themselves via the political process. (The group is a "discrete" and "insular" minority.)
• The group's distinguishing characteristic does not inhibit it from contributing meaningfully to society.

See also here:

Quote

In a story familiar to students of constitutional law, the Supreme Court opinion in United States v. Carolene Products (1938) famously gestured toward a “more searching judicial inquiry” in cases where legislation targeting unpopular groups reflects the sort of “prejudice against discrete and insular minorities” that also “tends seriously to curtail the operation of those political processes ordinarily to be relied upon to protect minorities.” In other words, the Court suggested that the very animosity catalyzing legislation that disfavors certain groups likely yields formidable hurdles as well to their use of political processes to seek and achieve equal treatment under law. 

Out of this recognition emerged the tiers of scrutiny that now organize equal protection analysis, to significant consternation.

Put another way, the more gays and lesbiants are designated as a category or classification under the law, they more they can argue that laws that have adverse effects on them as a group are like laws that adversely affect, say, African-Americans or women.  "Born that way," then, has greater utility in terms of affording more legal rights to LGBT people.

Conversely, the "freedom of choice" characterization allows individuals to enter and exit a classification through their choices, and thus lessens the cohesiveness of the "group" for legal purposes, and hence weakens the ability to seek legal protections and/or challenge adverse laws affecting gays and lesbians.  This 2019 law review article has some interesting thoughts:

Quote

Various legal formulae have evolved in an effort to demystify the U.S. Supreme Court’s class/classification-based approach to equality. Primarily, they take the course of the formula laid out in High Tech Gays v. Defense Industrial Security Clearance Office.   In High Tech Gays, the court held that suspect and quasi-suspect classes for purposes of equal protection analysis are groups that (1) have “suffered a history of discrimination”; (2) “exhibit obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics that define them as a discrete group; (3) “are a minority or politically powerless.”

No court seems to dispute that gays have been the subject of historical persecution; indeed, Bowers itself—particularly Chief Justice Burger’s vitriolic concurrence—settled that point.110 But many courts have denied gays suspect class status and strict scrutiny, holding sexual orientation (usually spoken of strictly as homosexuality) to be behavioral and, therefore, not immutable, or holding that gays do not lack political power in a way that renders them discrete and insular.

But at the heart of the immutability controversy has been the claim that sexual orientation is not a discrete factor by which gays may be identified as a group. Professor Bruce Ackerman, for example, explained it this way: 

Quote

As a member of an anonymous group, each homosexual can seek to minimize the personal harm due to prejudice by keeping his or her sexual preference a tightly held secret. Although this is hardly a fully satisfactory response, secrecy does enable homosexuals to “exit” from prejudice in a way that blacks cannot.

Thus, the argument proceeds that gays are not definable in the way necessary to attain suspect class status. Professor Ackerman concludes that gays may be even less politically powerful than more obviously insular and discrete groups, e.g., African Americans, and that equal protection should be most concerned with those groups where the members are anonymous and diffuse and where group detachment is easier.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Duncan]

I don't find it compelling when people say that say that homosexuality isn't inborn. That would suggest it's simply a choice, that any male can become homosexual. In order though to make a choice you have to have choices A or B or C  or D even. For heterosexual men there is only A (meaning women), you act on it or not act on it. For homosexual men you have choices you could be attracted to women or not, A plus B (or just B just meaning homosexual) and you can act on those attractions or not act. For whatever reason those men have some innate attraction to men that men like me don't have. My brother is asexual, he isn't attracted to anyone so his choice in life is nothing, he is void of sexuality, no no A or B or C. it's weird though his PB says that he'd have a wife and children but he'd have to be interested in women first for that to happen! So for men like him they don't have A or B or C any anything. I know a woman like that too, just no carnal bone in her body, not interested in men or women-I know, because she told me and she, like my brother, has never had a partner in life or has ever sought one out-I don't know what her PB says though!

Edited May 15, 2021 by Duncan

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

I understand the concept of spiritual reason, for sure. That is partially why I ask for a reason-based answer. 

If you have reason to justify your position, what is it? If your answer is justified by spiritual reasoning alone, just say so. It will be easier for everyone, I think, to navigate the present and the future if we are clear on what justifications we're using.

Please share your understanding of the concept of spiritual reason.

[CV75]

11 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I’m not sure what you are asking with your question.  And you seem to be suggesting that everything is relative. 

Maybe I’m not that bright, but I’m not following you. 

I just noticed that the Neil Young quote seems answer my first question for you. That situation is an interesting discussion on its own, relative to the Atonement of Christ.

I asked and answered the second question myself, as an example of one of innumerable omnipotent paradoxes and the like that are absolutely prohibited.

[Calm]

28 minutes ago, Duncan said:

 

I don't find it compelling when people say that say that homosexuality isn't inborn. That would suggest it's simply a choice, that any male can become homosexual. I

 

Language isn’t inborn, but children don’t choose to learn it or whether or not a particular language is their “native tongue”.  

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

What about those who do believe the gospel but also believe that homosexual relationships can be good?  (Example of such a person at the link.)

They simply don't understand the gospel.  Bottom line.

But people can twist scripture to whatever shape they prefer. Homosexuality simply goes against God's work, goals, and design.

Edited May 15, 2021 by JLHPROF

[Duncan]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Language isn’t inborn, but children don’t choose to learn it or whether or not a particular language is their “native tongue”.  

true, but sexuality isn't like language and you can't be excommunicated for speaking. You could learn multiple languages but I doubt someone could turn into a different sexuality than they were born with. My brother isn't going to turn heterosexual anytime soon, maybe in the next life

[MrShorty]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

It's a sin because God says it is a sin.

Because God is the ultimate arbiter of morality. 

Because God is perfect and all-knowing, and therefore transcends our blinkered, finite view.

I will agree, but, because all such revelation comes through a human intermediary, I would be more specific and say that prophets and apostles have said that God says it is a sin, and God is the ultimate arbiter of morality.

The problem is that there are too many historical examples of prophets/apostles claiming to know the mind and will of God, but hindsight clearly shows they did not know the mind and will of God. Sure we can say that they were right more often than they were wrong and such, but that doesn't really address those situations when they were wrong about God's will.

IMO, this is the hard part of all of the controversial issues -- what do we do when we believe the prophets/apostles/scriptures are wrong about the will of God? Pres. Oaks said that loyalty to the Church in its errors was somehow a virtue, and I wish he had explained more about what that loyalty looked like for him. So often it seems like loyalty means quietly wait patiently for God to correct the brethren, but that seems rather unsatisfactory to me.

So, I agree that God is the final arbiter of morality. Since God rarely speaks directly to people without intermediary, we have to somehow come to terms with the fallibility of those human intermediaries. As for the specific issue in question here, I agree with @Meadowchik, I don't see why same sex marriages should be deprecated, and I feel like some of that comes from the Spirit. But I cannot explain why the Spirit would tell me something different from what He tells @Maestrophil, but it is. We don't know how to deal with these kinds of disagreements in the Church, and so we go endlessly back and forth for internet pages on end debating them, but never coming to a satisfying conclusion.

[Kenngo1969]

12 hours ago, Duncan said:

You said that, "on homosexual acts is bound up in the centrality of family in God (the Father's) Plan for His Children, as expressed in the inspired and revelatory document The Family: A Proclamation to the World.)"

 

how can something be "bound up in" but is not "in the document"? That confuses me. Fornication isn't an orientation either. What is the point of prophets then if not to clarify and specify but also make things nuanced and ambiguous and we are no better off then before? if, as you say, we can read things into this then why do you have a problem with what I said? if it's all up for grabs then why bother. 

Whatever good comes out of same-sex intimate relationships (and I'm not arguing that no good comes out of them: if the participants didn't benefit from the relationship, they wouldn't engage in it; I'm not arguing that they cannot be loving, stable, supportive, and hence, valuable in that sense), without the biological intervention of a third party or parties, in the biological sense, would any families result from such relationships?  If, somehow, there were no heterosexual members of a species that is designed to reproduce through sexual reproduction, would any biological families result?  If the answer to each of those questions, and to both of them, is, "No," then you know why I said "that the position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as revealed by God to His Prophet, on homosexual acts is bound up in the centrality of family in God (the Father's) Plan for His Children, as expressed in the inspired and revelatory document The Family: A Proclamation to the World.)"

Thank you for the opportunity to clarify.

Edited May 15, 2021 by Kenngo1969

[jkwilliams]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I just noticed that the Neil Young quote seems answer my first question for you. That situation is an interesting discussion on its own, relative to the Atonement of Christ.

I asked and answered the second question myself, as an example of one of innumerable omnipotent paradoxes and the like that are absolutely prohibited.

I wouldn’t read that much into that quote. 

[rongo]

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

I don't find it compelling when people say that say that homosexuality isn't inborn. That would suggest it's simply a choice, that any male can become homosexual.

It's complicated. We all know people who seem to be gay from a very early age, and we also know people who seemed not gay until later in life. Molested children have a very high incidence of struggling with all kinds of sexual issues, including homosexuality, so this appears to be a major factor in many cases. 

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

In order though to make a choice you have to have choices A or B or C  or D even. For heterosexual men there is only A (meaning women), you act on it or not act on it. For homosexual men you have choices you could be attracted to women or not, A plus B (or just B just meaning homosexual) and you can act on those attractions or not act. For whatever reason those men have some innate attraction to men that men like me don't have.

In situations where there is no access to women (e.g., prison), homosexuality skyrockets among men who previously had no inclination. That would argue strongly that at least a significant number of incidences are choice, or dictated by circumstances (i.e., not inborn). 

What I'm seeing in my 20+ year career as a school teacher is: an explosion of teens identifying as gay in some way, many of whom aren't. Most of these are girls, more rarely, boys. It's much higher than what even the gay community thinks is the actual percentage of the population, and it's pretty clear to me that it is a social phenomenon, not a biological one. Media and wide acceptance factor in. Many either change their self-identification to "bi" or switch back. They are very confused about a lot of things, not just gender and sexuality. This is borne out, for example, in head-scratchers like self-identifying gay teens having much higher teen pregnancy rates than straight teens.

http://www.startribune.com/gay-teens-have-higher-pregnancy-rates-than-their-straight-peers/320842991/

We had a girl, a student of mine, who came out and had a girlfriend. Then, she started the discussions and decided to be baptized. She confessed in her baptismal interview that she was pregnant. She now has several kids and still lives here, and considers herself to be 100% straight (which is what I always thought she was, even when she was holding hands with and kissing girls in the hall to show she had "come out.").

It's easy and cavalier to just say, "Well, all of these kids are clearly bi," but that's just moving the goalposts. They are confused, and society, the media, their parents, and their culture are not helping them as they are tossed to and fro in a sea of confusion. 

 

Edited May 15, 2021 by rongo

[Meadowchik]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Please share your understanding of the concept of spiritual reason.

That's a broad topic. But I would say that my LDS understanding of it is to ponder in the mind and the heart with the companionship of the Holy Ghost, seeking an understanding from the Spirit.

Btw, I was definitely not asking questions in the form of infinite regress. All I did was ask for a reason--justifying opposition to homosexual relationships--beyond authority or exclusively spiritual reasoning.

Edited May 15, 2021 by Meadowchik

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Quote

It's a sin because God says it is a sin.

Because God is the ultimate arbiter of morality. 

Because God is perfect and all-knowing, and therefore transcends our blinkered, finite view.

I will agree, but, because all such revelation comes through a human intermediary,

This is largely true.  However, would you agree that personal revelation comes directly from the Holy Spirit to the individual, rather than "through a human intermediary?"

9 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I would be more specific and say that prophets and apostles have said that God says it is a sin, and God is the ultimate arbiter of morality.

Well, we could get even more specific than that: "Prophets and apostles have said that God says it is a sin, something I have confirmed for myself through personal revelation, and God is the ultimate arbiter of morality."

For me, there is a syllogism at work that goes back to the Book of Mormon.  In my youth I read, pondered and prayed about the Book of Mormon.  I asked God to help me understand if it is true.  I felt a spiritual confirmation that it was.  Since then I have, with much time and study and effort, extrapolated a number of things based on that experience:

• A) God lives,
• B) Jesus Christ is His Son and the Savior of the World,
• C) the Plan of Salvation outlines the purpose of this life and the steps we should take to exercise faith, repent, receive saving ordinances and do good works,
• D) the gospel of Jesus Christ was restored in its fullness through Joseph Smith, including the restoration of the priesthood, the authority to organize the Lord's Church, authority to administer saving ordinances, and so on,
• E) Joseph's prophetic mantle continues to be passed down, and is currently on the shoulders of one Russell M. Nelson, and
• F) the Church, while not perfect, will not collectively fall into apostasy.

My understanding of these things changes and grows over time, but these fundamentals are really standing up to scrutiny for me.

9 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

The problem is that there are too many historical examples of prophets/apostles claiming to know the mind and will of God, but hindsight clearly shows they did not know the mind and will of God.

Well, not really.

9 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Sure we can say that they were right more often than they were wrong and such, but that doesn't really address those situations when they were wrong about God's will.

Actually, it does.  Once notions of perfection and infallibility are jettisoned, and if grace and mercy and foregiveness as contemplated in Mormon 9:31 is granted, and if the leaders of the Church do their job in holding themselves and each other accountable per the doctrines and policies and procedures of the Church, "the problem" largely goes away.

Consider, for example, Amasa Lyman, a prominent early leader of the Church, was excommunicated for repeatedly giving sermons "which all but denied the reality of and the necessity for the atonement of Jesus Christ" and for his association with apostates (Godbeites).  He was "wrong" in teaching such things, and was disciplined accordingly.

Also consider Richard R. Lyman (Amasa's grandson, as it happens), an apostle who was excommunicated for a long-term adulterous affair.  And Albert Carrington, an apostle who was excommunicated for misconduct.  

Of course, there are missteps and errors, even substantial ones, that took some time to resolve.  The Priesthood Ban is the most prominent example.  And there were personal flaws and failings as well.  J. Reuben Clark was apparently quite anti-semitic.  Mark E. Petersen perpetuated the "blacks were less valiant in the pre-existence" and other problematic race-based ideas.  These errors are genuinely unfortunate, even tragic.  These ideas understandably estranged many of our black brothers and sisters.  And yet the Church, despite these flaws and mistakes and missteps, continues to move forward and improve.

9 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

IMO, this is the hard part of all of the controversial issues -- what do we do when we believe the prophets/apostles/scriptures are wrong about the will of God?

I think this 1987 article by Elder Dallin H. Oaks provides an excellent framework for what to do.

9 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Pres. Oaks said that loyalty to the Church in its errors was somehow a virtue, and I wish he had explained more about what that loyalty looked like for him.

Could you provide a citation?

9 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

So often it seems like loyalty means quietly wait patiently for God to correct the brethren,

Ultimately, yes, but not completely.  See the above article.

9 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

but that seems rather unsatisfactory to me.

I would be interested in hearing you propose alternative courses of aciton that comport with the doctrines of the Restored Gospel.

9 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

So, I agree that God is the final arbiter of morality.  Since God rarely speaks directly to people without intermediary,

Again, that's not quite so.  I believe God "speaks directly to people" all the time.  That is one of the most singularly cool things about the Restoration, IMO.

9 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

we have to somehow come to terms with the fallibility of those human intermediaries.

I'm not sure this is a prospective problem.  I think we already have the terms (aptly, though not completely, summarized in the above article by Elder Oaks).

9 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

As for the specific issue in question here, I agree with @Meadowchik, I don't see why same sex marriages should be deprecated,

Because they are incompatible with the Restored Gospel.  

9 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

and I feel like some of that comes from the Spirit.

No doubt we should be kind and civil and respectful, in word and in deed.  There are many, many instances of the Church exhorting us to be able to "disagree" without being "disagreeable."  That concept is repeated over and over on the Church's website.

9 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

But I cannot explain why the Spirit would tell me something different from what He tells @Maestrophil, but it is.

As Elder McConkie put it: "Truth is ever in harmony with itself."  Thus individuals may be given different counsel to do different things at different times.  So I may have been prompted to not seek a career in the military, whereas my brother was so prompted.  But in terms of basic truths, I don't think Spirit would speak X to one person and Not X to another person.  

So what to do in such a circumstance?  Well, consider these remarks by Michael Ash:

Quote

Roman Catholics take a three-legged tripod-like approach to determining truth—Scripture, Tradition, and the Pope. I believe that we Latter-day Saints are asked to take a four-legged approach to truth, like the four legs of a stool. These would include: Scripture, Prophets, Personal Revelation, and Reason. By utilizing the methodologies for all four of these tools, we have a better chance of accurately determining what is true.

And these by Pres. Joseph Fielding Smith:

Quote

It makes no difference,” stated President Joseph Fielding Smith, “what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine.  “You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works.  “Every man who writes is responsible, not the Church, for what he writes. If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted” (Doctrines of Salvation, 3:203-4).

For me, if I have an idea that contradicts the prophets and apostles and the scriptures, then I am going to tread very, very carefully. 

9 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

We don't know how to deal with these kinds of disagreements in the Church,

Actually, I think we do (again, see the above article by Elder Oaks).  However, I think a real problem arises in how some individuals perceive the Church.  That is, some of us seem to view the Church as something akin to a political construct, one that is answerable to its constituency.   That is, that the leaders are somehow elected by the membership of the Church, that they are "answerable" to us in the sense of developing and promulgating teachings and practices that should conform to the expectations of self-selected agitators within the Church.  There is also quite a bit of encouragement of "factionalization," with agitators working to divvy up the body of the Church, and then pitting the subgroupings against each other (gender, age, race, sexual orientation, nationality, socioeconomic condition, etc.).  Consequently, some members feel at liberty to seize upon these tactics and rhetoric, which are normally used to pressure / coerce political leaders into taking a particular course of action, and deploy them against the Church and its leaders.  This tendency is destructive, divisive, and inappropriate. 

I think the foregoing tendency - deploying politically-derived tactics and rhetoric in and against the Church and its leaders and members - is very off-putting to most active Latter-day Saints.  Again, Elder Oaks' remarks are quite relevant to this issue.

9 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

and so we go endlessly back and forth for internet pages on end debating them, but never coming to a satisfying conclusion.

I think we can. 

Thanks,

-Smac

[Duncan]

46 minutes ago, rongo said:

It's complicated. We all know people who seem to be gay from a very early age, and we also know people who seemed not gay until later in life. Molested children have a very high incidence of struggling with all kinds of sexual issues, including homosexuality, so this appears to be a major factor in many cases. 

In situations where there is no access to women (e.g., prison), homosexuality skyrockets among men who previously had no inclination. That would argue strongly that at least a significant number of incidences are choice, or dictated by circumstances (i.e., not inborn). 

What I'm seeing in my 20+ year career as a school teacher is: an explosion of teens identifying as gay in some way, many of whom aren't. Most of these are girls, more rarely, boys. It's much higher than what even the gay community thinks is the actual percentage of the population, and it's pretty clear to me that it is a social phenomenon, not a biological one. Media and wide acceptance factor in. Many either change their self-identification to "bi" or switch back. They are very confused about a lot of things, not just gender and sexuality. This is borne out, for example, in head-scratchers like self-identifying gay teens having much higher teen pregnancy rates than straight teens.

http://www.startribune.com/gay-teens-have-higher-pregnancy-rates-than-their-straight-peers/320842991/

We had a girl, a student of mine, who came out and had a girlfriend. Then, she started the discussions and decided to be baptized. She confessed in her baptismal interview that she was pregnant. She now has several kids and still lives here, and considers herself to be 100% straight (which is what I always thought she was, even when she was holding hands with and kissing girls in the hall to show she had "come out.").

It's easy and cavalier to just say, "Well, all of these kids are clearly bi," but that's just moving the goalposts. They are confused, and society, the media, their parents, and their culture are not helping them as they are tossed to and fro in a sea of confusion. 

 

do any of them have gay sex you think? I think that would be the deciding factor if someone is actually gay if they go all the way so to speak. I know a lot of gay people and some have had terrible relationships with members of the opposite sex but maybe they did because they were actually gay-I can't say. I also know some folks who came out of the closet after having been married and kids and apparently they knew they were gay long before they met their spouse. Our temple president's brother was gay, he died of AIDS in the 1980's and my Mom said she he was gay long before he ever came out the closet. We had a YSA RS Pres. here who is now trans, again my Mom said you could tell she was different from her primary days so she wasn't surprised she came out of the closet.

[rongo]

14 minutes ago, Duncan said:

do any of them have gay sex you think? I think that would be the deciding factor if someone is actually gay if they go all the way so to speak. I know a lot of gay people and some have had terrible relationships with members of the opposite sex but maybe they did because they were actually gay-I can't say. I also know some folks who came out of the closet after having been married and kids and apparently they knew they were gay long before they met their spouse. Our temple president's brother was gay, he died of AIDS in the 1980's and my Mom said she he was gay long before he ever came out the closet. We had a YSA RS Pres. here who is now trans, again my Mom said you could tell she was different from her primary days so she wasn't surprised she came out of the closet.

Whether people "go all the way" and have gay sex is a good way to weed out the "fellow traveler" phenomenon (those who are embracing "gay" because of social phenomena rather than actually being gay). Look at all of the in all other ways hetero- people who self-identify as "queer" --- it's just a woke way of showing solidarity and common cause. In my experience, the vast majority of the young people self-identifying are of this type. As you note, they rarely go beyond hand-holding or maybe kissing (usually, not even that). I also find that self-identified "bi" youth almost always manifest straight in their actions --- I think this is a form of showing common cause, akin to saying you're queer. If anyone says, I though you were gay, when you're PDA-ing with the opposite sex, you can just say, no I'm bi. 

This shrinks the field considerably.

Like I said, there have always been people who are gay. While I know this is offensive to those who are gay and their advocates, I view this as a defect that will be fixed in the next life ("the body in its perfect form"), and akin to other physical defects that people are born with. Theologically, I don't believe that these defects existed in the spirit world; they are a trial given to or chosen by people. I mean no offense in believing this, although I know that offense will be taken. I cannot believe that orientations beyond the binary male-female were in created spirit children of our heavenly parents. 

As far as self-identified bisexual people, since they are admittedly attracted to the other sex, they could deny themselves and focus on the plan of salvation course. That would be no different than people with pedophile or pederasty tendencies (many of whom are married with children) not giving in to these tendencies and resisting them. No one (other than NAMBLA) bats an eye at encouraging that. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

sexuality isn't like language

It may well be in some significant ways. There is an inborn tendency to use language, develop language skills, but the specifics of how the need to communicate are expressed are learned to a great extent without conscious knowledge. 
 

The data on sexual fluidity is very strong. Diamond was not predisposed to support it as she identifies as lesbian and is politically active for LGBTQ+ rights. She drew data from a number of massive and in-depth different studies worldwide. 
 

You won’t get excommunicated for having sex with your spouse. Does that mean in your eyes there is nothing significantly similar between gay marriage and straight marriage?

Edited May 15, 2021 by Calm

[Duncan]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

It may well be in some significant ways. There is an inborn tendency to use language, develop language skills, but the specifics of how the need to communicate are expressed are learned to a great extent without conscious knowledge. 
 

The data on sexual fluidity is very strong. Diamond was not predisposed to support it as she identifies as lesbian and is politically active for LGBTQ+ rights. She drew data from a number of massive and in-depth different studies worldwide. 
 

You won’t get excommunicated for having sex with your spouse. Does that mean in your eyes there is nothing significantly similar between gay marriage and straight marriage?

I don't see much difference in heterosexual or homosexual marriage, one can reproduce and the other can adopt. Like it says in the good book, it's not good for man to be alone

[Calm]

On 5/15/2021 at 7:43 AM, smac97 said:

I think the "born that way" mantra arose largely due to legal necessity. 

I definitely agree. But language frames understanding and may even block how we can perceive some concepts. Think of how what the historians on the board are documenting about the lack of sexual orientation in the past and so few appear to be processing that if I am correctly interpreting the assumptions in their posts (the main unsubstantiated assumption is there were LGBT+ and straights in the ancient past, they just weren’t labeled that way...that is like saying there were Americans in the past, they just weren’t labeled that name when what is meant by American didn’t exist in the past, those who lived here did not partake of the qualities that makes one American, including how they perceived themselves).

Because the language “born that way” is imo creating a cultural perception that neglects a very significant and socially important quality of sexual behaviour (fluidity), I think in the long run if this perception is not corrected, greater confusion about what sexuality is and how such works for them over a lifetime will occur for many. 
 

What is legally beneficial may not be always emotionally or socially beneficial overtime. A more comprehensive paradigm of sexuality would help people understand themselves and have realistic expectations of their own behaviours and others.  Realistic expectations are essential Imo to mental and social health. 

Edited May 16, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I don't see much difference in heterosexual or homosexual marriage,

So the rationale that because sex can get you excommunication and what language you speak won’t means they are not analogous enough to have similar development patterns is an inaccurate claim, correct?

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Duncan said:

doubt someone could turn into a different sexuality

Changing sexuality is not an informative  interpretation of the data imo.   I need to go refresh my memory of how Diamond phrases what fluidity is, but there is significant evidence that for many people who they are attracted to may change over a lifetime. I am not claiming here that means the attraction is a choice. I don’t believe the data addresses that sufficiently unless something recently.