Jump to content

God made me that way...


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

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

of course you have your doubts, how could they think differently than you do? 

Edited by Danzo
Link to comment
Just now, The Nehor said:

This isn’t the convincing argument you imagine it to be. Lots of cultures have no words for things that happen within a culture.

I'll have to disagree with you there, I have found that they usually have a word for something they think is important, although often when something comes in that they are not familiar with, they go with the word used by the culture introducing it.

 

Link to comment
28 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I think a lot of people today and throughout history don't have a hope for to be with someone they are attracted to.  

Truth is, it isn't easy for them either.  Nor should we diminish their suffering as a "first world problem".   

There is also a difference in that gay people may be very eligible emotionally/spiritually/physically appealing as prospects for marriage but are required to make the sacrifice to avoid it.      I wonder how many of those people (which you claim there are "a lot" of) who have no hope of getting married who would willingly make the sacrifice of not getting married if they themselves were a highly eligible and appealing prospect for marriage by people they are also drawn to.   I bet that number would be just as small as the number of gay Mormons who commit to a life of celibacy.   It simply is a significant and enormous sacrifice and should not be diminished.  

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

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.

I agree that attraction is not the only factor to consider in eternal companionship, but it is not an insignificant one.  "I wouldn't marry you if I didn't feel that I had to" probably isn't the best way to start a healthy eternal marriage dynamic.  

Just curious, are you suggesting that gay Mormons should be trying to marry someone of the opposite sex?  Because it sounds like that is what you are suggesting.  If I remember right, that is not something the church encourages anymore after history taught them a lesson or two.  

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Danzo said:

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.  

Oh boy. So you want to discount the virtually universal acknowledgement that same sex sex has occurred in virtually every culture in human history that we have adequate records of because two relatively isolated tribes either didn’t have anyone with same-sex attraction or didn’t tell outsiders about it when asked? That is wishful thinking at its worst. If we could just eradicate the word gay the gay will go away!

We should do that with other things labeled as sinful. We could eliminate selfishness by crossing a few words out of the dictionary. Pride? Boom, gone. Misery…..misery will never see it coming. Why stick with half-measures? We can rebuild Eden by crossing out the words for good and evil.

You are being ridiculous.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, pogi said:

Truth is, it isn't easy for them either.  Nor should we diminish their suffering as a "first world problem".   

There is also a difference in that gay people may be very eligible emotionally/spiritually/physically appealing as prospects for marriage but are required to make the sacrifice to avoid it.      I wonder how many of those people (which you claim there are "a lot" of) who have no hope of getting married who would willingly make the sacrifice of not getting married if they themselves were a highly eligible and appealing prospect for marriage by people they are also drawn to.   I bet that number would be just as small as the number of gay Mormons who commit to a life of celibacy.   It simply is a significant and enormous sacrifice and should not be diminished.  

I agree that attraction is not the only factor to consider in eternal companionship, but it is not an insignificant one.  "I wouldn't marry you if I didn't feel that I had to" probably isn't the best way to start a healthy eternal marriage dynamic.  

Just curious, are you suggesting that gay Mormons should be trying to marry someone of the opposite sex?  Because it sounds like that is what you are suggesting.  If I remember right, that is not something the church encourages anymore after history taught them a lesson or two.  

I know many people who choose to marry people they were attracted to and the marriage failed miserably.  I know people who were married off as children as part of an arranged marriage who's marriages have succeeded. Attraction won't save marriages in trouble, and strong marriages will survive lack of sexual attraction. In the past (and still in many cultures) marriages were made because of economic necessity.  If one remains married long enough, their spouse will not remain attractive, at least not in the sexual sense.  Sexual attraction is important in our culture today, but it hasn't always been that way and I see no reason to expect it to be that way in the eternities. 

Of course, anyone who has made it to the celestial kingdom will be attractive to anyone both male and female for reasons that have nothing to do with sex.  If someone makes it there they will be the kindest, most pure hearted, courageous, faithful, compassionate person one could imagine (probably more attractive than we can imagine). Who wouldn't find that attractive.  Add to that perfected, restricted body.

 

To answer your last question, People who are willing and able to make covenants in the temple should be allowed to do so.  If someone identifies in a way that prevents them from making and keeping those covenants, then they should not make those covenants until they are ready.  That goes for anyone, regardless who they find attractive.  If they want to make these covenants, those covenants need to be more important to them than their physical urges.  That goes for hetrosexual urges as well as homosexual urges. 

 

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Danzo said:

but no word for it, interesting.

I am confused.  Are you suggesting that because there was no term for it, it didn't exist and is only a modern invention?

Quote

Down’s syndrome was first described by an English physician John Langdon Down in 1862.  IT was not until 1959 that it was discovered that trisomy 21 was the cause of Down syndrome. 

Hmmm...it must not have existed before it was first described and named in literature, right?  

 

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Oh boy. So you want to discount the virtually universal acknowledgement that same sex sex has occurred in virtually every culture in human history that we have adequate records of because two relatively isolated tribes either didn’t have anyone with same-sex attraction or didn’t tell outsiders about it when asked? That is wishful thinking at its worst. If we could just eradicate the word gay the gay will go away!

We should do that with other things labeled as sinful. We could eliminate selfishness by crossing a few words out of the dictionary. Pride? Boom, gone. Misery…..misery will never see it coming. Why stick with half-measures? We can rebuild Eden by crossing out the words for good and evil.

You are being ridiculous.

 

Pride and misery have been in most languages for  a long time (how many languages do you speak anyway, you seem to know a lot about how other languages work)

Same sex sex has been here as long as sex has, but the idea that there is some absolute, eternal, gendered attraction that is the most important part of ones existence. that is a recent cultural phenomenon. 

Heterosexuality and Homosexuality are very recent inventions which can be fairly easily traced. 

It is interesting that you assume what exists in our culture must exist everywhere because . .   because.

This whole thread is about what is going to happen to people with sexual attractions that when acted upon, violate the commandments of God.  People think that their attractions and acting on them is so important they should forgo the covenant path to fulfil their "needs"

 I just don't think fulfilling sexual needs is going to be all that important in the celestial kingdom.   

That people in our time culture think otherwise says a lot about us and very little about the Celestial Kingdom.

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Attraction won't save marriages in trouble, and strong marriages will survive lack of sexual attraction.

From what I have seen roaming sexology/sex therapy/sex self-help groups, most sex therapists and sexologists would probably agree with the first half, but would disagree on the second half. I think many would say that a marriage without sexual attraction is probably not as strong as it looks from the outside, or they would say that it may survive but will not likely thrive. In many ways, this might be a core part of this discussion -- trying to figure out exactly what the proper and appropriate place and role of sexuality in our lives and marriages.

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, pogi said:

I am confused.  Are you suggesting that because there was no term for it, it didn't exist and is only a modern invention?

Hmmm...it must not have existed before it was first described and named in literature, right?  

 

Surely you must have evidence for gendered sexual identity that predates the mid 19th century? 

Perhaps we should hear your research in how sexual identity was viewed in the past.  How common it was, how important it was.

There is plenty of physically testable evidence for downs Syndrome.   Lets discuss the evidence for fixed,  gendered sexual attraction.  Since you view it as an eternal attribute, part of the human condition, there should be plenty of evidence.  Not everyone was Christian, you know, some cultures regularly practiced same sex behavior. They can't all have failed to notice this  thing, most important above all other things that is so powerful that it dooms part of humanity to misery if they can't consumate this desire.

 

Edited by Danzo
Link to comment
8 minutes ago, Danzo said:

This whole thread is about what is going to happen to people with sexual attractions that when acted upon, violate the commandments of God.  People think that their attractions and acting on them is so important they should forgo the covenant path to fulfil their "needs"

As I see it, before we can talk about what happens to people who violate commandments of God, we have to come to some consensus as to what God has commanded. It seems to me that most of the debate distills down to, "Someone said that homosexual behavior is against the commands of God." to which someone replies, "That might be his/her opinion, but I don't think it is against God's commands." And so we spiral round and round people's differing opinions about what exactly is and is not a command of God.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

From what I have seen roaming sexology/sex therapy/sex self-help groups, most sex therapists and sexologists would probably agree with the first half, but would disagree on the second half. I think many would say that a marriage without sexual attraction is probably not as strong as it looks from the outside, or they would say that it may survive but will not likely thrive. In many ways, this might be a core part of this discussion -- trying to figure out exactly what the proper and appropriate place and role of sexuality in our lives and marriages.

Are you saying that marriages of people above a certain age, where the plumbing isn't working correctly are weak marriages?

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

As I see it, before we can talk about what happens to people who violate commandments of God, we have to come to some consensus as to what God has commanded. It seems to me that most of the debate distills down to, "Someone said that homosexual behavior is against the commands of God." to which someone replies, "That might be his/her opinion, but I don't think it is against God's commands." And so we spiral round and round people's differing opinions about what exactly is and is not a command of God.

I view the covenant in the temple about the law of chastity to be a commandment from God.   For me it is a matter of faith.  

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Are you saying that marriages of people above a certain age, where the plumbing isn't working correctly are weak marriages?

Oh no, definitely not.

1) Just because the physical plumbing doesn't work, attraction can still exist.

2) The plumbing isn't the only sexual organ. It is often said that the brain is the largest sexual organ (following closely by the skin). There are plenty of ways to enjoy sensual/sexual pleasure and intimacy even when the plumbing isn't working right.

In cases where the plumbing isn't working, most sex therapists recommend broadening our idea of what constitutes "having sex" and figure out what the "new normal" is going to look like. The real problem scenarios when plumbing stops working is those cases where one or both spouses then retreats into themselves and won't do anything sexual.

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Are you saying that marriages of people above a certain age, where the plumbing isn't working correctly are weak marriages?

That sure seems like an implication that naturally results from many of the arguments against same-sex coupling. 

I don't agree with it, but if you prioritize procreation *that much*, then there you have it.

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I view the covenant in the temple about the law of chastity to be a commandment from God.   For me it is a matter of faith.  

And for others, their love fulfiled in a same sex relationship is faithful, too, and definitely not a departure from God's path.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Oh no, definitely not.

1) Just because the physical plumbing doesn't work, attraction can still exist.

2) The plumbing isn't the only sexual organ. It is often said that the brain is the largest sexual organ (following closely by the skin). There are plenty of ways to enjoy sensual/sexual pleasure and intimacy even when the plumbing isn't working right.

In cases where the plumbing isn't working, most sex therapists recommend broadening our idea of what constitutes "having sex" and figure out what the "new normal" is going to look like. The real problem scenarios when plumbing stops working is those cases where one or both spouses then retreats into themselves and won't do anything sexual.

Attraction still exists, but not as much in a sexual way.

As I get older, there will always be newer models that are more attractive to me in a purely sexual way, however as I grow older, being attritive in a sexual way just isn't as important is it used to be.   

This is one of the reasons I don't really think sexual attraction will be that big a deal in the life to come.  Already in my life it is becoming less important.  

I am much more attracted to my wife's "celestial" attributes (Kindness, love selflessness generosity) than her "Sexual" attributes.

Just my experience. 

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I view the covenant in the temple about the law of chastity to be a commandment from God.   For me it is a matter of faith.  

Indeed so. Nonetheless, the question remains how the Savior would respond to a practicing homosexual?

Link to comment
Just now, Nofear said:

Indeed so. Nonetheless, the question remains how the Savior would respond to a practicing homosexual?

I think the Savior's would respond the same way as he would to a practicing heterosexual.

Come, Follow me

Take my yoke upon you

Repent and be baptized. 

He would have us be saved from our sins, not in our sins. 

 

Overall, trust in him, for he is mighty to save. 

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Attraction still exists, but not as much in a sexual way.

As I get older, there will always be newer models that are more attractive to me in a purely sexual way, however as I grow older, being attritive in a sexual way just isn't as important is it used to be.   

This is one of the reasons I don't really think sexual attraction will be that big a deal in the life to come.  Already in my life it is becoming less important.  

I am much more attracted to my wife's "celestial" attributes (Kindness, love selflessness generosity) than her "Sexual" attributes.

Just my experience. 

Likewise a same sex couple can have a similar experience, where there is less emphasis on sexual attraction and other lovely attributes become most attractive.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, MrShorty said:

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?

I'm not sure I understand the distinction.

 

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).

I think that all four involve a negotiation process (Grand Council). We sustain 1 and 3, and submit to 2 and 4 since there are protective boundaries with the Atonement.

My understanding is that orientation and attraction to a subject arise from the basic physical and mental capacity the person has concerning the subject. Any of the four factors above can impact capacity, resulting in variable orientation and attraction.

This is only one aspect of the juncture of individual/private and community/public morality, but I think the convenience/genius of making voluntary, law-observing covenants such as baptism and Church membership is that we (individuals and the group) can adopt a workable sense of morality in their keeping. We get and keep that ball rolling through agency, so not everyone will universally confess that such-and-such is the way to go and not everyone will confess the same tomorrow as they do today in either direction. I also think God understands our variations in tendency to sin (I always go back to Abraham 3:19 for that) and does everything in His power to help us overcome it to His level.

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Danzo said:

however as I grow older, being attritive in a sexual way just isn't as important is it used to be. ...  I am much more attracted to my wife's "celestial" attributes (Kindness, love selflessness generosity) than her "Sexual" attributes.

I'm glad that is working for you. The same sense of grace and tolerance that leads me to accept same sex marriages as being just as worthy as my own also leads me to accept marriages where the couple is happy to be less sexual or even Platonic.

I'm finding as I'm getting older (about half a century now), that my attraction to my wife's celestial attributes is just as strong as it has always been, and my attraction to her sexual attributes is just as strong as it has ever been. I think we need to be careful not to assume that one cannot be attracted to both sexual and celestial attributes -- that it is some kind of dichotomy or zero sum game. I don't know, either, what sexuality looks like in the next life. I know many LDS who believe that sexuality gets a boost in the Celestial Kingdom rather than fading into oblivion, and many of them would cite their continually increasing attraction to their spouse as their relationship thrives. Sometimes I wonder if St. Augustine was ultimately correct -- that, within Celestial perfection, our ability to choose attraction and sexual function and activity and whatever will become perfected. As a couple, we can perfectly choose how much (if any) and what type and everything else about our level of attraction and desire and sexual activities. The point is, I think we need to be careful not to create a false dichotomy in this estate between sexuality and spirituality (I hear rumblings that Jennifer Finlaysen-Fife is working on a book with the intended thesis of breaking down the false dichotomy between sexuality and spirituality).

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

CFR that anyone has ever expressed this

I think that actually in the LDS context attraction really is de-emphasized, which results in people not understanding it, and understanding same-sex attraction even less.  How can same-sex sexual attraction be legitimate when the culture places relatively little value on all sexual attraction in the first place?

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...