Identity = Child of God > Gay Man

[smac97]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

No. Wrong. Not a classic ad hominem.

Credibility is always relevant. Ad hominem attacks don’t hit at credibility. They hit at unrelated character flaws.

Wrong.

If you can show factual error in the article, have at it.

Frankly, the Daily Mail article was surprisingly light in terms of "editorializing."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

...............................I can't help but feel that we as a society are trying a bit too hard to shoehorn ourselves into categories as pertaining to sexual attraction. .............

..........  It may also reflect, well, the trendiness of the thing...................

Interestingly, the concept of sexual fluidity seems to be controversial . . . . in the LGBT community:

............, historically speaking, "gay" folks have been much put upon to conform to sociocultural expectations about sexual identity and expression, and yet now we seem to be seeing developments about sexuality becoming more about being potentially "fluid" and on a "continuum."  These ideas don't seem to mesh well with the "sexual orientation is fixed and immutable" concept espoused by "many within the LGBT community."  I wonder how much of this "fixed and immutable" concept has been driven by ideological / political / legal considerations.  

........... Bisexual Chic:............................

Another interesting phenomenon is that the concept of "bisexuality," which implies two genders, is given way to "pasexuality."  See, e.g., here (from 2019) :

Hmm.  This sounds more and more like "social and cultural influences" having a big influence.  It sounds like . . . a trend............................

Bisexual.  Pansexual.  Omnisexual.  Polysexual.  Queer.  Fluid.  Homoflexible.  Lesbiflexible.  Heteroflexible.  Bi-curious.  Bromantic.  Panromantic.  Bisensual.  Pansensual.  Bidyke.  Byke.  Bisexual-lesbian.  Ambisextrous.  Anthrosexual.  Multisexual, Gender-Blind.  Pomosexual.  "And many more."

......................"However, at the core of myself, I am not a gay man; I am a child of God, a priesthood holder, a husband, and a father. I am not denying my true self by living the tenets of the Church. I would be denying my true self by not living the gospel and leaving the Church to live a gay lifestyle."  And here: "'I decided essentially as soon as I realized I was gay that I would follow the law of chastity and not engage in a relationship with a man."  

See also here (from 2019) :.....................................

• "The concept of fixed, gendered sexual identities (both hetero- and homo-) is a late 19th-century social construct that has no historical preceden{t}."
• "{S}ame-sex sexual behaviour has been ubiquitous since the beginning of recorded history (along with opposite-sex and other behaviours too numerous to list), though it has been framed in a dizzying number of ways across both time and space."...........................................................................

He chooses to let his identity as "a child of God" predominate over his status as "a gay man."  He finds his "true self" in living the Gospel.  He committed to constraining his sexual behaviors to the parameters set by God.  

............................................... "actual knowledge that the course of life which one is pursuing is according to His will."  In other words: obedience.  Keeping covenants.  Repentance.  Enduring to the end.  Listening to the Lord and His servants more than to the cacaphony of alternative voices out there.............................................

Although it is true that both chimps and humans do create a tribal culture which anthropologists can define, and which varies from one group to another, the notion that everything is a social construction does have its limits.  It is, for example, not just a social trend or fad that can explain why biological male humans worldwide have been showing such a vast decrease in testosterone levels.

Quote

Gabriel Cho****, et al., “Secular trends in testosterone- findings from a large state-mandate care provider,” Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology, 18 (March 9, 2020):19,  doi: 10.1186/s12958-020-00575-2 .
Several studies from the US and Europe have shown a population-level decline in serum testosterone in men from 1970’s to early 2000’s.
.............
In a large population of Israeli patients referred for a testosterone blood test during the first and second decades of the twenty-first century, there was a highly significant age-independent decline in total testosterone. The decline was unlikely to be explained by increasing rates of obesity. These results are in accordance with previous studies which showed a secular decline in testosterone serum levels in earlier years (1970’s to 2000’s) in other countries (Table 2).

Quote

Roberta Stringer, “Why are men’s testosterone levels decreasing?” Parla, June 17, 2021, online at https://myparla.com/decreasing-testosterone-levels/ .

Testosterone levels are decreasing in men – on a global scale............
...men’s testosterone levels have dropped at least 20% in the last 20 years with more and more younger men suffering the effects of low testosterone.

This is not a new trend. Seventy-year-old men in 1987-89 had an average testosterone level that was almost 100 points higher than even 55-year-old men in 2002-04. Meaning that the average 22 year old man today, has an average testosterone level roughly equal to that of a 67 year old man in 2000. Therefore, it’s likely that your testosterone levels are half of those of your father and undoubtedly significantly less than your grandfather.

It should therefore be no surprise that fertility rates have likewise taken a deep dive.  We have likewise never seen higher levels of anomie than today:  People are not only eschewing marriage, but they are simply not getting together, living together.  We now have the highest levels of people living alone than we have ever had.  Is that a socially constructed trend?  If so, why?  Or is it a biological trend with biological cause(s)?

Edited September 8, 2021 by Robert F. Smith

[MustardSeed]

20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

A few thoughts:

First, I would need to understand my role in or stewardship over adjudicating "someone leaving a marriage."  Perhaps you mean "approve" or "disapprove?"

Second, I feel that marriage is the single most important covenant/contract in a person's lifetime.  For me, emotional/romantic/sexual fidelity in marriage is one of the few absolutes in this world.

Third, for me marriage is about much, much more than romantic/sexual fulfillment.  So varied degrees of romantic/sexual satisfaction over a lifetime commitment would not be sufficient grounds to end that commitment.

Fourth, I see nothing unique or particular about a shift in sexual attraction that would justify it as a basis for ending a marriage.  A married person can develop any number of sexual interests that fall outside the parameters of the marital relationship, none of which justifies the breaking of the covenant.

Fifth, your question seems to not really address the issue of agency.  We are not animalistic, driven by primal urges beyond our control.  We have the capacity to choose.  To exercise self-control.  To constrain our appetites and passions.  This is, I think, a particularly relevant point to make in a Latter-day Saint paradigm.

Sixth, we as a society don't seem to have much tolerance or appreciation for a husband with a "wandering eye" (the trope traditionally pertains to men playing the cad, but I suppose women can also do this).  How many times have we heard stories, jokes, anecdotes about a man "trading in" his first wife for a "newer model?"  If a man in his forties finds himself sexually attracted to younger women, is that okay?  Can/ought he pitch his wife to pursue a younger woman (or women) and claim a justification of unfulfilled sexual needs?  Do those desires (which, I think, often arise over time through incremental behaviors) predominate over the importance of the marital union?  In my view . . . no.  The marital covenant is far more important than destroying it to accommodate an alteration in one of its constituent parts.

Thanks,

-Smac

I agree with ALL of this.  For this reason, I would hope a gay person would never give in to religious or social pressures to marry a straight person.  I have known MANY who have chosen this life, and it is a very painful road for all involved.  Rarely is it ALL painful, but it is painful nonetheless.

[MustardSeed]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Nicholas said: 'We're both really happy and I wouldn't change my decision. It's definitely a happy and normal marriage.

Who am I to decide if this couple is or isn't, or will or won't be happy.  My hope is that they are healthy and fulfilled.  I am assuming he is attracted to his wife - bisexual.  But what do I care?  Everyone has their road to travel.  Mine is hard enough without sitting in wait for one anecdotal situation to define what I would want for my gay children or loved ones. 

[Tacenda]

31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

A few thoughts:

First, I would need to understand my role in or stewardship over adjudicating "someone leaving a marriage."  Perhaps you mean "approve" or "disapprove?"

Second, I feel that marriage is the single most important covenant/contract in a person's lifetime.  For me, emotional/romantic/sexual fidelity in marriage is one of the few absolutes in this world.

Third, for me marriage is about much, much more than romantic/sexual fulfillment.  So varied degrees of romantic/sexual satisfaction over a lifetime commitment would not be sufficient grounds to end that commitment.

Fourth, I see nothing unique or particular about a shift in sexual attraction that would justify it as a basis for ending a marriage.  A married person can develop any number of sexual interests that fall outside the parameters of the marital relationship, none of which justifies the breaking of the covenant.

Fifth, your question seems to not really address the issue of agency.  We are not animalistic, driven by primal urges beyond our control.  We have the capacity to choose.  To exercise self-control.  To constrain our appetites and passions.  This is, I think, a particularly relevant point to make in a Latter-day Saint paradigm.

Sixth, we as a society don't seem to have much tolerance or appreciation for a husband with a "wandering eye" (the trope traditionally pertains to men playing the cad, but I suppose women can also do this).  How many times have we heard stories, jokes, anecdotes about a man "trading in" his first wife for a "newer model?"  If a man in his forties finds himself sexually attracted to younger women, is that okay?  Can/ought he pitch his wife to pursue a younger woman (or women) and claim a justification of unfulfilled sexual needs?  Do those desires (which, I think, often arise over time through incremental behaviors) predominate over the importance of the marital union?  In my view . . . no.  The marital covenant is far more important than destroying it to accommodate an alteration in one of its constituent parts.

Thanks,

-Smac

What if it were for a new and improved younger man, instead of a new and improved younger woman? Is he a heterosexual, bisexual or gay after a life of hiding it? Don't believe I hear of this happening too often, this kind of fluidity, if he's heterosexual. 

IMO, Elder Bednar was wrong to say there are no gays in the church. Or not wanting to label. It goes right a long with your post Smac, trying to make it okay not to honor yourself, but sacrifice and deny yourself in order to live a life for a faith, and how do we know it's a true faith from God? 

To this day, I don't remember anyone on this board giving me an answer on if you as a man were told you should only love the same sex, how would it feel, would you do it, if you're heterosexual?

Edited September 8, 2021 by Tacenda

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Although it is true that both chimps and humans do create a tribal culture which anthropologists can define, and which varies from one group to another, the notion that everything is a social construction does have its limits.  It is, for example, not just a social trend or fad that can explain why biological male humans worldwide have been showing such a vast decrease in testosterone levels.

Yes, I've read about this a bit.

1 minute ago, Robert F. Smith said:

It should therefore be no surprise that fertility rates have likewise taken a deep dive. 

True.  Increased access to and use of effective birth control, and individual and social choices relative to procreation (often tied to career and/or financial considerations), also play significant roles.

1 minute ago, Robert F. Smith said:

We have likewise never seen higher levels of anomie than today:  People are not only eschewing marriage, but they are simply not getting together, living together.  We now have the highest levels of people living alone than we have ever had.  Is that a socially constructed trend?  If so, why?  Or is it a biological trend with biological cause(s)?

"And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold."  (Matthew 24:12.)  The causal bridge here is likely attenuated, and hence long enough to include along its length a variety of factors, including environmental, social, biological, etc.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I agree with ALL of this.  For this reason, I would hope a gay person would never give in to religious or social pressures to marry a straight person.

I agree.  The decision to marry should arise from the individual's personal convictions, and in the Latter-day Saint context is a matter between the individual, the prospective spouse, and the Lord.

5 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I have known MANY who have chosen this life, and it is a very painful road for all involved.  Rarely is it ALL painful, but it is painful nonetheless.

I know very many heterosexual pairings that have also been "very painful."  And yet the Lord commands us to marry...

Thanks,

-Smac

[bOObOO]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

This is a long post, as it reflects some of my attempt to address recent developments in society that end up intersecting with the Church's doctrines pertaining to sexual morality/ethics and marriage.

I came across this article this morning in the Daily Mail, in which a young Latter-day Saint man says some pretty important things:

Some excerpts:

A bit of a detour from the article for a moment...

I can't help but feel that we as a society are trying a bit too hard to shoehorn ourselves into categories as pertaining to sexual attraction.  As our own @Hamba Tuhan has summed up:

I like the Latter-day Saint polish he puts on these observations.  As for rigid sexual categories, consider this 2018 article:

 

• "More open to the idea of fluid sexuality..."
• "Along a continuum..."
• "Women's sexuality can change throughout their life..."
• "More people identify themselves as 'mostly-but-not-completely heterosexual' thatn exclusively heterosexual."

This seems largely congruent with Hamba's observations, and seems to reflect the concept of sexual fluidity:

 

• "Changes is sexuality or sexual identity..."
• "Some research indicates that some people may experience change in their sexual orientation..."
• "Sexual identity can change throughout an individual's life..."
• "Sexual orientation . . . is {believed to be} caused by a complex interplay of genetic, hormonal, and environmental {that is, social and cultural} influences."
• "Sexual orientation can be at any point along a continuum..."

Interestingly, the concept of sexual fluidity seems to be controversial . . . . in the LGBT community:

It seems like, historically speaking, "gay" folks have been much put upon to conform to sociocultural expectations about sexual identity and expression, and yet now we seem to be seeing developments about sexuality becoming more about being potentially "fluid" and on a "continuum."  These ideas don't seem to mesh well with the "sexual orientation is fixed and immutable" concept espoused by "many within the LGBT community."  I wonder how much of this "fixed and immutable" concept has been driven by ideological / political / legal considerations.  

I also wonder how much of an individual's sexual orientation (aka sexual orientation identity) is attributable to, as noted above, "social and cultural influences."  See, e.g., this Wikipedia article about Bisexual Chic:

 

• "The 1920s was a decade of social experimentation, particularly with sex ... {and} heavily influenced by the writings of Sigmund Freud, who theorized that people would behave in any manner to satisfy sexual desire."
• "Sexual experimentation was widespread."
• "Women began to seek out sexual adventure.  Bixesuality became chic..."
• "The phrase ... can be used to assert that someone is free of taboos, experimental, in touch with both masculine and feminine aspects of themselves..."
• "This phenomenon has been criticised for its 'trendy' property..."
• "Bisexuality being chic is also deterimental to the bisexual movement as 'faux bisexuality'..."

Another interesting phenomenon is that the concept of "bisexuality," which implies two genders, is given way to "pasexuality."  See, e.g., here (from 2019) :

Hmm.  This sounds more and more like "social and cultural influences" having a big influence.  It sounds like . . . a trend.

See also here (from 2018) :

The author's disclaimer notwithstanding, it sure looks like "a fad."  Just take a look at the graphic accompanying the article:

Bisexual.  Pansexual.  Omnisexual.  Polysexual.  Queer.  Fluid.  Homoflexible.  Lesbiflexible.  Heteroflexible.  Bi-curious.  Bromantic.  Panromantic.  Bisensual.  Pansensual.  Bidyke.  Byke.  Bisexual-lesbian.  Ambisextrous.  Anthrosexual.  Multisexual, Gender-Blind.  Pomosexual.  "And many more."

And here (from June 2021) :

Yes.  It may also reflect, well, the trendiness of the thing.

See also here (from 2019) :

The foregoing articles are all pretty much laudatory of these trends.  This article provides a different point of view on them:

So this trend seems to be having a disproportionate effect on women.  More specifically, young women.  Read on:

Hmm.

 

• "As 16-year-old Jasper Swartz ... {put it}, all of her friends are 'queer in some way.'"
• "{Bisexual status} seems to better reflect a pop culture fad to be included in the LGBT spectrum in any way possible."
• "Grey-area identities may offer more social clout and sense of rebellion and uniqueness than traditional gay or transgender identities, but with less dramatic personal changes."
• "{Declaring} themselves non-binary or bisexual ... {results in} instant victimhood status and self-validation."
• "{T}he reality appears to be that LGBT identity is a highly desirable social status."

The more I review and consider this matter, the more I find Hamba's summary to be apt, accurate and reasonable:

• "The concept of fixed, gendered sexual identities (both hetero- and homo-) is a late 19th-century social construct that has no historical preceden{t}."
• "{S}ame-sex sexual behaviour has been ubiquitous since the beginning of recorded history (along with opposite-sex and other behaviours too numerous to list), though it has been framed in a dizzying number of ways across both time and space."
• "{I}t is perfectly normal to experience various kinds of attractions to both males and females."
• "{A}ll these things are fluid because humans are dynamic."
• "God, aware that sexuality is powerful, has provided guidelines to keep us safe and happy and help us to become most like Him."
• "{W}e are currently in a historically unique time that presents a number of complications for Saints, so don't worry if you feel confused at times."
• "{Y}ou are going to screw up in one or more areas of the Law of Chastity."
• "{D}on't panic when you find yourself in a headspace that doesn't fully match your eternal desires; this is a perfectly normal part of discipleship, which is why we have so many scriptures about it."
• "NEVER listen to someone who wants to place you in a box and keep you there; the whole point of the gospel is to free us from such limitations."
• {I}t is essential that we are all nice to each other since we're all works in progress."

In other words, Hamba point is to acknowledge the complexities of sexuality in this life, and then transcend them by looking to and following the commandments of God.  Very good stuff.

With that context, let's go back to the first article about Nicholas and Jordan Applegate:

Wow.  The wheel is always turning.  It seems that not too long ago Nicholas would have been excoriated for his choice, as it would have been seen as a betrayal or denial of his "fixed and immutable" category of "homosexual."

They sound happy.  I hope things work out for them.

The article quotes his Facebook post in its entirety: Pic 1, Pic 2, Pic 3, Pic 4, Pic 5.  He addresses Elder Holland's remarks to some extent, but overall I was more impressed with him expressing in words concepts that I feel often do not get sufficient attention and emphasis:

First, Nicholas is saying something that often does not get sufficient attention or emphasis: He values his membership in the Church, so much so that "he's happy to make the sacrifice if it means he can remain part of" it.  He wants to "fully participate in the church" because it "means a lot to" him.  Just so.  If the Church is what it claims to be, then joining it and remaining in it will often entail some very real sacrifice, which efforts result in blessings and joy.  In that sense it's like marriage.  Lots of sacrifice and commitment, but lots of blessings too.  Fully participating means a lot to us.

Second, Nicholas is acknowledging the plain reality that is often overlooked or glossed over: Being a member of the Church is more than just a social or nominal thing.  It means obeying the commandments and keeping covenants.  Again, like a marriage.

Third, Nicholas "comes out" in a very Latter-day Saint way: "I am a gay man married to a wonderful wife, and I openly support The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, its doctrines, and its leaders."  And here: "However, at the core of myself, I am not a gay man; I am a child of God, a priesthood holder, a husband, and a father. I am not denying my true self by living the tenets of the Church. I would be denying my true self by not living the gospel and leaving the Church to live a gay lifestyle."  And here: "'I decided essentially as soon as I realized I was gay that I would follow the law of chastity and not engage in a relationship with a man."  

Beautiful stuff. 

He chooses to let his identity as "a child of God" predominate over his status as "a gay man."  He finds his "true self" in living the Gospel.  He committed to constraining his sexual behaviors to the parameters set by God.  

I have great affection and love for our gay brothers and sisters.  I cherish my friendships and relationships with them.  I also cherish my relationship with Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ.  These days there seems to be a lot of tension and disputation as to matters of sexual identity, expression, behavior, and so on.  I am therefore grateful to have the Restored Gospel, to have living prophets and apostles who, though themselves flawed and imperfect, are providing us with cumulative and coherent and clear guidance on these important matters.  I am reminded of this quote by Joseph Smith:

I believe Heavenly Father actually exists.  I believe we have an incomplete, but nevertheless correct (in our limited sphere) idea of His character, perfections, and attributes.

The part tripping up the Latter-day Saints seems to be that third point: "actual knowledge that the course of life which one is pursuing is according to His will."  In other words: obedience.  Keeping covenants.  Repentance.  Enduring to the end.  Listening to the Lord and His servants more than to the cacaphony of alternative voices out there.

So thank you, Nicholas, for your thoughts.  And thanks again to Hamba for his summary.  

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

Everything Hamba says on issues like this is 100% correct so just put me down on your list as someone who is in total agreement with him on issues like this.  And the more you quote him on what he says on issues like this the more I will like you for doing that.

[MustardSeed]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I know very many heterosexual pairings that have also been "very painful."  And yet the Lord commands us to marry...

Of course.

But the heterosexual pairings are not very painful "because" of the orientation.  All of the problems (reasonably) experienced by heterosexual pairings are also piled on top of the mixed pairings. That is  - a. lot. to contend with, and imo, too much. 

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Quote

Sixth, we as a society don't seem to have much tolerance or appreciation for a husband with a "wandering eye" (the trope traditionally pertains to men playing the cad, but I suppose women can also do this).  How many times have we heard stories, jokes, anecdotes about a man "trading in" his first wife for a "newer model?"  If a man in his forties finds himself sexually attracted to younger women, is that okay?  Can/ought he pitch his wife to pursue a younger woman (or women) and claim a justification of unfulfilled sexual needs?  Do those desires (which, I think, often arise over time through incremental behaviors) predominate over the importance of the marital union?  In my view . . . no.  The marital covenant is far more important than destroying it to accommodate an alteration in one of its constituent parts.

What if it were for a younger man, instead of a woman.

That was rather my point.  If it is wrong for a man to destroy his marriage to pursue a younger woman, it would likewise seem wrong for a man to destroy his marriage to pursue a younger man.  Or an older man.  Or anyone else.

4 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Is he a heterosexual, bisexual or gay after a life of hiding it?

Well, this presupposes sexual "identity" categories.  In the OP I am questioning the utility and propriety of these things.

4 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Don't believe I hear of this happening too often, this kind of fluidity. 

More study seems to be in order.  Unfortuately, this would likely be a "third rail" kind of topic.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 minute ago, MustardSeed said:

Of course.

But the heterosexual pairings are not very painful "because" of the orientation.  

No.  They are painful for a variety of reasons, some of which are genetic/hormonal (beyond our control), some that are environmental/cultural/social (somewhat within our control), and some that are matters of personal autonomy (within our control).

1 minute ago, MustardSeed said:

All of the problems (reasonably) experienced by heterosexual pairings are also piled on top of the mixed pairings. That is  - a. lot. to contend with, and imo, too much. 

I would like to see more data on the longevity and quality of life of "mixed orientation" marriages.

Thanks,

-Smac

[MustardSeed]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No.  They are painful for a variety of reasons, some of which are genetic/hormonal (beyond our control), some that are environmental/cultural/social (somewhat within our control), and some that are matters of personal autonomy (within our control).

All things that a mixed marriage has to carry as well, as you know. 

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

What if it were for a new and improved younger man, instead of a new and improved younger woman? Is he a heterosexual, bisexual or gay after a life of hiding it? Don't believe I hear of this happening too often, this kind of fluidity, if he's heterosexual. 

Again, you are presupposing the sexual "identity" categories that may, in the end, not work very well.

16 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

IMO, Elder Bednar was wrong to say there are no gays in the church. Or not wanting to label. It goes right a long with your post Smac, trying to make it okay not to honor yourself, but sacrifice and deny yourself in order to live a life for a faith, and how do we know it's a true faith from God? 

The same way we know most things: faith, study, pondering, prayer, obedience.

16 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

To this day, I don't remember anyone on this board giving me an answer on if you as a man were told you should only love the same sex, how would it feel, would you do it, if you're heterosexual?

I have been told I should only love my wife, and to remain completely faithful to her for the entirety of our married life together.  However, there are segments of society who would tell me that "open marriages" are fine and dandy, that a little bit of extramarital hanky-panky is harmless, that "swinging" is awesome, and on and on and on.

For me, I choose to listen to the counsel of prophets and apostles, as confirmed and ratified by the Spirit in various and sundry ways.

Thanks,

-Smac

[MustardSeed]

Swinging and open marriages seem rampant right now - no CFR, only personal and professional experiences telling me that it's a "thing."  

[Tacenda]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, you are presupposing the sexual "identity" categories that may, in the end, not work very well.

The same way we know most things: faith, study, pondering, prayer, obedience.

I have been told I should only love my wife, and to remain completely faithful to her for the entirety of our married life together.  However, there are segments of society who would tell me that "open marriages" are fine and dandy, that a little bit of extramarital hanky-panky is harmless, that "swinging" is awesome, and on and on and on.

For me, I choose to listen to the counsel of prophets and apostles, as confirmed and ratified by the Spirit in various and sundry ways.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm asking you how would it feel if you were told you must only marry a same sex individual, not the opposite sex and that is the norm. I just want to know, if you're heterosexual, if that would be doable? But I've not received an answer yet.

[smac97]

26 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I'm asking you how would it feel if you were told you must only marry a same sex individual, not the opposite sex and that is the norm.

I'm not big into "what if" imponderables.

I believe God has ordained marriage between a man and a woman.  This generally comports with the biological compatibility of the two sexes.  So it's not a matter of heterosexual pairings being "the norm."  It's a matter of them being biologically arranges for procreation, and also of marriage being ordained of God.

I also believe that God has constrained sexual behaviors to within boundaries He has set.  

Also, nobody is told these days that they "must" marry anyone.  So the choice for an observant Latter-day Saint who exclusively sexually attracted to those of his same sex is to enter into a "mixed orientation" marriage or else remain single and celibate.

26 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I just want to know, if you're heterosexual, if that would be doable? But I've not received an answer yet.

Your question has too many unspoken assumptions, I think.  Who is telling me this?  What does "must only marry" mean?  By what authority is this counsel being given?  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 8, 2021 by smac97

[Vanguard]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

To this day, I don't remember anyone on this board giving me an answer on if you as a man were told you should only love the same sex, how would it feel, would you do it, if you're heterosexual?

Was I raised with two loving same-sex parents? Was I taught that one of these parents would bring into this life siblings that I would develop an indelible bond to for the rest of my life? Did I love and respect my grandparents for creating my own parents? Did I witness my cousins and other friends also coming into this life from other same-sex households - aunts & uncles who I also loved and respected? Did I develop a conviction about wanting to bring children into this world in the same manner? Was I taught that my God endorsed this nuclear family arrangement? And more importantly, was this something I also fervently believed?

Who knows what I would do? Even if these afore-mentioned scenarios were the case, I seriously question whether I could follow through with it. Knowing myself as I do, however, I wonder if by not following the same pattern would I spend the rest of my life questioning whether I had sacrificed something even greater...

I respect all who have to make such difficult decisions. I also respect those (i.e., the young couple and others) who dare to explore arrangements that still fall within the parameters our Father-in-Heaven has given despite the fact that so much of their natural sexual inclination leads them in a different direction.  

Edited September 8, 2021 by Vanguard

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

See also my quote of Hamba Tuhan in the OP.  I think the idea of sexual "identity" may be problematic.  Sexual attraction that is "fluid" and/or on a "continuum" doesn't seem to jibe with the categorical identities that, as Hamba notes, are of fairly recent vintage.

Hamba says the  idea of sexual identity is a late 19th century covention.  But  that does not mean much to me.  A lot of things were out of the norm for a long time.  Interracial marriage for example. How many Americans viewed black people as inferior and so on.  We progress we learn.  Also I am not sure what expertise Hamba has on this subject.  He may have it but I don't know.  So why is it problematic?  

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Hamba says the  idea of sexual identity is a late 19th century covention. 

Yes.  

7 minutes ago, Teancum said:

But  that does not mean much to me. 

Okay.  It means a lot to other people.  

7 minutes ago, Teancum said:

A lot of things were out of the norm for a long time.  Interracial marriage for example.

"Interratial marriage" is not comparable.  People of different ethnicities have been marrying each other for time out of mind.  Legal constraints on interracial marriage were very much an exception, not the rule.

7 minutes ago, Teancum said:

How many Americans viewed black people as inferior and so on.  We progress we learn.  Also I am not sure what expertise Hamba has on this subject.  He may have it but I don't know.  So why is it problematic?  

I think viewing sexuality through the lens of categorical identities has all sorts of downstream ramifications (excuse the mixed metaphor).

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Chum said:

4 hours ago, Calm said:

 

I'm not clear how this applies.  I'm not assigning some genetic ability to modern youth. I'm comparing reality against reality. The world is harder by the hour and young people now routinely navigate a state of mandated & increasing complexity that didn't exist before.

I am just using an anecdote that provides a different perspective, students are dropping out of his classes more now than when he started when they can’t handle the organic nature of his teaching. 
 

Basically I think I am agreeing with Katherine. 
 

I believe there are higher rates of students dropping out for mental health reasons too. This could be because students are more intelligently recognizing and seeking help for problems that always existed or that they are less equipped for independence at college age or that the world is way more stressful. My view is it is likely a combination of the above.  I don’t think childhood and young adulthood are structured that great to teach independent these days. I see a lot more parental involvement in structuring kids’ lives with extracurricular lessons plus easy, couch potatoes time filling leisure activities rather than free time that needs effort to not be boring (riding bikes to libraries to get books to read or calling up friends to organize baseball games, for examples).  Anecdotally, I see less after school or summer jobs with many kids from middle to higher income turning down opportunities to make decent money because they are focused on a particular desired job.  There appears to me less expectation for kids to pay for their own missions (I don’t think it is a bad thing to get the community involved).

Comparing capabilities when culture itself has changed so much causing the skill of independence not to be so valued seems inappropriate. Better to measure how successful youth was in dealing with the culture they were given, how well they adapt to that culture. Choosing an absolute measure like home ownership by a certain age to judge success rates overtime is unwise when the possibility and expectation of owning one’s own home has changed dramatically over the past 100+ years.

Edited September 9, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Is that a socially constructed trend?  If so, why?  Or is it a biological trend with biological cause(s)?

Or a combo? (Most likely imo)

[Calm]

2 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

I agree with ALL of this.  For this reason, I would hope a gay person would never give in to religious or social pressures to marry a straight person.  I have known MANY who have chosen this life, and it is a very painful road for all involved.  Rarely is it ALL painful, but it is painful nonetheless.

I don’t think straight people should give into religious or social pressure to marry as well. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

I am assuming he is attracted to his wife - bisexual.

If he defined himself as gay with an attraction to only one woman, would you still use the label bisexual for him?

[MustardSeed]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

I don’t think straight people should give into religious or social pressure to marry as well. 

Definitely!  Thats imo even more difficult to recognize when it's happening IMO. Ugh. That's a whole entire other ball of wax. 

[MustardSeed]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

If he defined himself as gay with an attraction to only one woman, would you still use the label bisexual for him?

I think I would.  ? I'm learning still. 

I'm only attracted to my husband, and that doesn't make me asexual to not be attracted to other men or women.  (Not sure that my logic fits here. ) 

The assumption that I made which you quoted is certainly assumption.  He claims he is in a healthy relationship which I believe includes sexual health.  I assume he's attracted to his wife and is fulfilled sexually based on his assertion that they have a healthy relationship.  Of course his definition of healthy is certainly likely to differ from mine!

 

Edited September 9, 2021 by MustardSeed