God made me that way...

[MrShorty]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

A more complete quote of my post better represents my point: “I think God intentionally creates some of our individual attributes (for some people), we create some of them as pre-earthly spirits or as mortal souls, and some are a function of agency (including agency that impacts the agency and attributes of others) and chance in a fallen probationary world. I don't think sexual orientation [as an attribute] can be stamped, "Made By God." – meaning, I don’t believe that sexual orientation is made by God alone.

So, there are 4 creative sources for "me" -- 1) God Himself directly, 2) Random chance (mechanisms created by God??), 3) my own agency (mortal and premortal), and 4) others' agency (mortal and maybe premortal). I can see those. To clarify my use of transcend (I just cannot think of a better word for it), are any of these outside of God's control? Does God have "veto power" over the three that He does not directly control?

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

I had previously explained that orientation or attraction are not the same as capacity

I'm not sure I understand the distinction.

 

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Morals, not physiology. The proper moral channeling of our sexuality might be inferred from that talk.

Makes sense, though I think we are still at the, "how do we decide the morality" of different sexual activities or expressions. Or, perhaps as it might apply to the idea of "how we're made," what tendencies are towards sin and which are not (a variation on the "what is pathology" issue that psychology has dealt with vis-a-vis LGBT issues).

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Nofear said:

Very true. It's not the theology that I have any issues with, it's the approach that lacks clarity and how we minister to those that are struggling (themselves or by proxy).

One part does seem to be deny that being Christian is easy as many want to suppose that Christ's Gospel is easy and that all we have to do is love each other (and ourselves). "Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me." Nevertheless, I don't see it as a completely satisfactory answer. It dodges the question about why a homosexual person has a trial that would potentially deny them exaltation -- that they are "lesser" somehow. For example, californiaboy (if I recall correctly) has stated that if he can't spend eternity in heaven with his life companion, he wants no part of that "heaven".  How would the Savior respond to that? "Ok. Don't go to heaven."? That doesn't seem like that would be his response.

I quit caring about the Celestial Kingdom decades ago.  It really doesn't matter to me which kingdom I am judged to.  What does matter is that my companion and I are judged into the same kingdom.  We will be just fine in the Telestial Kingdom as long as we are together.  

[Danzo]

 

1 hour ago, pogi said:

We all have probably experienced rejection from a person we have wanted to be with at some point in our lives.  While that hurts, the hurt is dulled by the hope of finding someone else that we will be attracted to and want to be with.  There may be no such hope in the case of homosexual people. 

I think a lot of people today and throughout history don't have a hope for to be with someone they are attracted to.  Not being attracted to the person one is with is one of the most common excuse for divorce.   Luckily, being with someone you are attracted to is not one of the prerequisites for any gospel blessings.  as far as wanting to be with someone, that is a choice that, in the long run doesn't hinge on attraction.

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

The Greeks allowed it but only in heavily constrained ways. Attempting to live some kind of monogamous homosexual life in Ancient Greece would have been a source of shame to the practitioner except in very specific circumstances.

While the concept is new the predisposition behind it is very real.

yet such predisposition seemed to escape everyone's attention until the latter half of the 19th century. And still seems to escape some cultures attention today

[Tacenda]

38 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

I still believe there were “gay” people but because it was so taboo they wouldn’t have even thought to name their “team.” 

Or they'd be crucified, or jailed or beheaded.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/1999/13/matthew-shepard-199903

https://metro.co.uk/2019/04/27/five-men-beheaded-saudi-arabia-gay-according-confessions-extracted-torture-9328194/

https://slate.com/human-interest/2013/08/gay-people-are-still-being-arrested-for-having-consensual-sex-in-some-red-states-like-louisiana.html

[Danzo]

51 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

I still believe there were “gay” people but because it was so taboo they wouldn’t have even thought to name their “team.” 

In other words, you cannot believe other people in other times and places see things differently than you do. 

a "Gay " person is only "Gay" because they think they are.  If a person doesn't know what "Gay" means, they cannot be "Gay".

 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

“He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.”

A comment that some may be called to such a life but we are talking about what amounts to compulsion. If you can be celibate do that. The reply of many is:

“I can’t.”
”Well, then marry.”
”But I desire another man.”
”Oh, well then you have to do it even if you can’t.”

That scripture doesn’t fit. The only people in the greater LGBT community that can take solace in this teaching are some of the asexuals, those who don’t want sex or romance or the desire for them is so weak it is easily dismissed. 

I should also point out that asexuals in the Church do great in their teens. They will wait way beyond 16 to date. Then in their 20s they start getting pressured to date and tell everyone they aren’t interested and get told they will find someone they want. Then they get to their 30s and the pressure ramps up from a lot of people.

Just didn’t want to give the impression that asexuals have it easy in the church. No one in the LGBT community does.

Gays and lesbians get a life of celibacy or the boot.

Transgender people usually get the boot.

Bisexuals seem to have it easy but more then most they tend to have specific types they are interested in and finding someone they are attracted, of the non-excommunicable sex, and in the church means they often never find anyone. God help them if they try to be honest and tell their potential spouse they are bi. Outside of the church bi men are considered to be gross and/or slutty and bi women are either gross or viewed as slutty with a ticket to threesomeville. Both are expected to be incapable of monogamy. Add in that they are viewed as sinful and potential spouses often run.

Asexuals, see above.

Semibisexuals get smacked upside the head. As they should be. Idiots.

[california boy]

I love these kinds of threads.  It lays completely bare why The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is NO place for someone who is LGBT.  If you don't understand why a gay person would not want to have anything to do with this, just read this thread from their point of view.  If you don't get it the first time, just keep reading.  Eventually you will come to understand why anyone who is LGBT should stay away, very far away, from this Church

Once you understand that after reading this thread from their perspective why a gay person would not want to be a part of the Church, perhaps you will also understand why parents with LGBT children often leave the Church.  And why younger people who have LGBT friends are leaving the Church in bigger numbers than ever before.  

If you haven't watched "Mormon No More" on Hulu, and actually want to understand a gay point of view, I would suggest that you watch it.  I think you will learn a lot.

[Peacefully]

9 minutes ago, Danzo said:

In other words, you cannot believe other people in other times and places see things differently than you do. 

a "Gay " person is only "Gay" because they think they are.  If a person doesn't know what "Gay" means, they cannot be "Gay".

 

I think people were fearful, and saying they had feelings for someone of the same sex would have brought shame to their family and punishment for them, so it wasn’t an option. They probably couldn’t fathom a world where it would be permissible, which makes me sad for them. 

[Buckeye]

Gay marriage supporter here. I agree that the argument ‘God made me this way’ is weak. The argument that a living God requires very hard things of his children is also correct. But as with so much surrounding the gay marriage debate, these are side arguments that never address the real issue - whether gay marriage is good. 
 

I support gay marriage for the same reason I support heterosexual marriage. I’ve seen the fruit and it’s good. That’s the simple truth for every other gay marriage supporter I know - both in the church and outside. 
 

God does expect all his children, gay and straight, to change from their natural selves. And He asks us all to do very difficult things. Changing my view to support gay marriage was one of those difficult things. But peace always comes in choosing to embrace and nurture the good.
 

That’s why there continues to be such turmoil in the church on this issue. It’s hard to continue kicking against the pricks - the ‘pricks’ in this case being the constant demonstration of how beautiful, blessed, and downright good are families led by loving same sex couples. 

[california boy]

13 minutes ago, Danzo said:

In other words, you cannot believe other people in other times and places see things differently than you do. 

a "Gay " person is only "Gay" because they think they are.  If a person doesn't know what "Gay" means, they cannot be "Gay".

 

I will add this comment to the list of must read for anyone who is Gay inquiring about the Church.  You just have to wake up from this dream life you have invented because being gay is soooo cool.  Who wouldn't want to think they are gay?

 

[The Nehor]

10 minutes ago, Danzo said:

In other words, you cannot believe other people in other times and places see things differently than you do. 

a "Gay " person is only "Gay" because they think they are.  If a person doesn't know what "Gay" means, they cannot be "Gay".

 

They were called sodomites.

[Peacefully]

Just now, The Nehor said:

They were called sodomites.

And Sapphites

[SeekingUnderstanding]

4 hours ago, Nofear said:

. For example, californiaboy (if I recall correctly) has stated that if he can't spend eternity in heaven with his life companion, he wants no part of that "heaven".  How would the Savior respond to that? "Ok. Don't go to heaven."? That doesn't seem like that would be his response.

Quote

I don't know how to speak about heaven in the traditional, lovely, paradisiacal beauty that we speak of heaven. I wouldn't know how to speak of heaven, without my wife or my children. It would not be heaven for me.
 

-Elder Holland

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, california boy said:

I will add this comment to the list of must read for anyone who is Gay inquiring about the Church.  You just have to wake up from this dream life you have invented because being gay is soooo cool.  Who wouldn't want to think they are gay?

 

I am told people in the lgbt community are just doing it to show off and feel special. I mean, who amongst us can honestly say that we wouldn’t have sex with a bunch of people we have no interest in because we desperately want a used tire salesman in HogPiss Alabama to get upset at “the gays” existing?

[SkyRock]

Don't we have the same spirit we had in our pre-mortal lives?  Weren't we "organized" into existence in some fashion?  Didn't we have different experiences from each other in the pre-mortal existence?  Didn't one third choose to rebel against God?

Why should we blame God for our natures?  What evidence do we have that he caused us to be so different from each other?  

Instead, why isn't just that God gave us a path to grow beyond our innate spirits?  Perhaps our bodies and family situations were uniquely caused by God.  Perhaps our challenges in this life were specifically chosen by God.  Or maybe not.   

Maybe only some of these things are given to us from God.  God can turn all things for our good.  All trials, tribulations, and temptations, no matter the source, can be used by God to help us grow. 

[Danzo]

15 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

They were called sodomites.

 

14 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

And Sapphites

I don't think those to words were used to designate people who were exclusively attracted to the same sex

 

 

Middle English sodomyte, sodomit "one who practices a culturally stigmatized form of sexual intercourse," borrowed from Anglo-French & Late Latin; Anglo-French sodomite, borrowed from Late Latin Sodomita "inhabitant of Sodom, one who practices a culturally stigmatized form of sexual intercourse," borrowed from Greek Sodomítēs "inhabitant of Sodom," from Sódoma SODOM + -itēs -ITE entry 1

Edited July 18, 2022 by Danzo

[The Nehor]

37 minutes ago, Danzo said:

yet such predisposition seemed to escape everyone's attention until the latter half of the 19th century. And still seems to escape some cultures attention today

No, it didn’t escape their attention. Those with the predisposition were deprived in silence, kept it secret, found a socially acceptable method to gratify it (openly or covertly), etc.

[Danzo]

17 minutes ago, california boy said:

I will add this comment to the list of must read for anyone who is Gay inquiring about the Church.  You just have to wake up from this dream life you have invented because being gay is soooo cool.  Who wouldn't want to think they are gay?

 

I didn't say you made a conscious choice to be gay, I said it exists in your mind.

If you don't tell me you are gay, How will I know? is there a blood test? Tissue Samples? 

 

[Danzo]

Just now, The Nehor said:

No, it didn’t escape their attention. Those with the predisposition were deprived in silence, kept it secret, found a socially acceptable method to gratify it (openly or covertly), etc.

but no word for it, interesting.

[Danzo]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

No, it didn’t escape their attention. Those with the predisposition were deprived in silence, kept it secret, found a socially acceptable method to gratify it (openly or covertly), etc.

Did you read the article?

[ttribe]

3 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I didn't say you made a conscious choice to be gay, I said it exists in your mind.

If you don't tell me you are gay, How will I know? is there a blood test? Tissue Samples? 

 

Wow. Tell me, when did you consciously choose to be attracted to the opposite sex?

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, Danzo said:

 

I don't think those to words were used to designate people who were exclusively attracted to the same sex

 

 

Middle English sodomyte, sodomit "one who practices a culturally stigmatized form of sexual intercourse," borrowed from Anglo-French & Late Latin; Anglo-French sodomite, borrowed from Late Latin Sodomita "inhabitant of Sodom, one who practices a culturally stigmatized form of sexual intercourse," borrowed from Greek Sodomítēs "inhabitant of Sodom," from Sódoma SODOM + -itēs -ITE entry 1

Of course not. Some (quite possibly the majority) were what we call bisexual. Some used sodomy for specific cultural purposes without attraction. When a practice is forbidden nuance tends to be lost. When someone was called a sodomite the punisher was unlikely to question the defendant and ask him if he has an interest in women too.

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Did you read the article?

Yep, and I have my doubts that there was no same sex sexual activity going on in those tribes.

[Danzo]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

Of course not. Some (quite possibly the majority) were what we call bisexual. Some used sodomy for specific cultural purposes without attraction. When a practice is forbidden nuance tends to be lost. When someone was called a sodomite the punisher was unlikely to question the defendant and ask him if he has an interest in women too.

Yet you make the assumption that they must have categorized themselves the same you categorize them.  They must have same fetishes, attractions and categorizations of those attractions that our culture has today. They must have been bi or homo or whatever because it is not imaginable that cultures in the past were obsessed with sexual classification the way we are today. 

Of course, we must discount the way they saw themselves because that couldn't have been right, if only they were more enlightened, like we are today, then they would agree with us.  Because we have everything figured out and that makes us better.