Poll: Opinions on LGBT Issues And The Law Of Chastity

[Amulek]

On 3/12/2024 at 8:36 AM, Anonymous Mormon said:

A man has been sealed to his wife for 12 years. They have 4 children together. He [...] does describe her as a 'best friend' and they have a good relationship  [...]

1. The Law of Chastity / Eternal Marriage means the man should prioritize his eternal family and not worry about being completely emotionally and sexually fulfilled in this life [...]

Complete emotional and sexual fulfillment with four kids under 12 in the home? ROFL!!! 

[The Nehor]

15 hours ago, longview said:

Yes, the whole spectrum. Equally applicable to both sexes. You really cannot rule out actual homosexuals, a few that have come to fully embrace the truth of the Gospel, the beauty of the Plan of Happiness, and the affirmation of the Proclamation on the Family.

Those few may choose to live out the remainder of mortality being celibate. Or they can be courageous (being willng to trust God) and partner in the formation of the "Basic Unit" consisting of male husband, female wife, and hopefully children. Maybe one or both spouses may not feel much sexual attraction but they can al least have platonic love for each other. That love can progress to the Christlike love that I spoke of in my previous post. The higher law. The same applies for heterosexual couples. All wonderfully challenging and ultimately joyous.

I had a girlfriend whose parents were like this. He was gay. She was a lesbian. They married each other knowing this as each other’s “beards” for social reasons (they married in the 60s). They had two children. They are great friends.

 

Oh, they also both had sex with people on the side with their spouse being fine with it. Does that ruin the beautiful story?

Edit: And calling that decision courageous is insane. It is likely to end in heartbreak.

Edited March 14 by The Nehor

[The Nehor]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

I agree that bonding as a companion would be different even at the platonic level of attraction because of how one sees the relationship as blending of two persons, sharing oneself in ways one doesn’t share with others or just living side by side.  There is a difference in seeing oneself and one’s spouse as roommates, sharing resources and friendship and seeing oneself as a unit, two people becoming one.  Just the intent to do the latter will set up expectations that opens up a relationship to deeper connections, imo.

I have seen some romantic marriages fail because at least one spouse refused to treat the marriage as a reason to share themselves with the other.  They didn’t want to change and become something more together than they were independently, they just wanted the same romantic life as before marriage, only easier because they lived with their playmate and more fun because there was sex.

I admit I am possibly the person least equipped to understand this but I imagine even platonic bonding would be complicated by a lack of desire for each other. No kisses, no cuddling, no physical intimacy. Wouldn’t that make bonding on that level difficult bordering on impossible.

I am at least potentially attracted to everyone and my ideal fantasy relationship is an all-bisexual polycule so I don’t get it but I have been told it would be harder for straight and gay people to develop that level of interconnectedness with the gender they don’t want to be with.

[BlueDreams]

20 hours ago, Calm said:

 

I don’t know if I could learn to perceive a woman to be my marriage partner. I can see myself as romantically involved with women but that is the easy part of marriage in my view (at least till kids come along), but the idea of sharing souls (which is what marriage means to me) has been deeply programmed into me as meant to be male and female, so I am not sure I could shift that expectation and learn to communicate and take risks and make the necessary sacrifices in order to create the relationship I see as appropriate for a marriage with a woman.

Honestly, just to be a bit of a contrarian. It would be the exact opposite for me. Being romantically involved with a woman sounds creepy for me. Like completely antithetical to my general romantic desires. But sharing my soul with a woman doesn't. Sometimes I've pictured the ideal relationship if my husband were to die would just be me having a communal home with one of my female friends. I share my soul with them all the time. My husband's well aware that I need community to be fulfilled, not just him. So though it wouldn't be complete, It would be enough to satisfy me for the rest of my life as I feel like I've lucked out in finding a wonderful husband who I want to keep for eternity. I don't need another. 

If I never married and that were my only relationship ever, that would be hard. But it wouldn't be un-doable either. Personally, I like the model of attraction that focuses on quadrants of attraction or aversion that notes at least 4 areas of attraction: social, aesthetic, erotic, and romantic. I'm not erotically or romantically attracted to women and even a little averse to both (and thus why I consider myself straight), but I'm absolutely attracted socially and aesthetically. Which is probably why it's not a problem for me to picture that scenario. 

People range and are fairly dynamic when it comes to this. I think our biggest mistake can be assuming that since it wouldn't work for us, it wouldn't work for someone. 

 

With luv, 

BD 

 

[Tacenda]

del

Edited March 14 by Tacenda

[MustardSeed]

19 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Honestly, just to be a bit of a contrarian. It would be the exact opposite for me. Being romantically involved with a woman sounds creepy for me. Like completely antithetical to my general romantic desires. But sharing my soul with a woman doesn't. Sometimes I've pictured the ideal relationship if my husband were to die would just be me having a communal home with one of my female friends. I share my soul with them all the time. My husband's well aware that I need community to be fulfilled, not just him. So though it wouldn't be complete, It would be enough to satisfy me for the rest of my life as I feel like I've lucked out in finding a wonderful husband who I want to keep for eternity. I don't need another. 

If I never married and that were my only relationship ever, that would be hard. But it wouldn't be un-doable either. Personally, I like the model of attraction that focuses on quadrants of attraction or aversion that notes at least 4 areas of attraction: social, aesthetic, erotic, and romantic. I'm not erotically or romantically attracted to women and even a little averse to both (and thus why I consider myself straight), but I'm absolutely attracted socially and aesthetically. Which is probably why it's not a problem for me to picture that scenario. 

People range and are fairly dynamic when it comes to this. I think our biggest mistake can be assuming that since it wouldn't work for us, it wouldn't work for someone. 

 

With luv, 

BD 

 

Admittedly, I do not know what aesthetic attraction is, but I could certainly have a roommate as an old person after having had true love most of my life and probably be just fine as long as the roommate did not eat loudly 😅- darned misophonia- However, I would prefer either being alone, or being in love again. I love my alone time, and I love love.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Honestly, just to be a bit of a contrarian. It would be the exact opposite for me. Being romantically involved with a woman sounds creepy for me. Like completely antithetical to my general romantic desires. But sharing my soul with a woman doesn't. Sometimes I've pictured the ideal relationship if my husband were to die would just be me having a communal home with one of my female friends. I share my soul with them all the time. My husband's well aware that I need community to be fulfilled, not just him. So though it wouldn't be complete, It would be enough to satisfy me for the rest of my life as I feel like I've lucked out in finding a wonderful husband who I want to keep for eternity. I don't need another. 

If I never married and that were my only relationship ever, that would be hard. But it wouldn't be un-doable either. Personally, I like the model of attraction that focuses on quadrants of attraction or aversion that notes at least 4 areas of attraction: social, aesthetic, erotic, and romantic. I'm not erotically or romantically attracted to women and even a little averse to both (and thus why I consider myself straight), but I'm absolutely attracted socially and aesthetically. Which is probably why it's not a problem for me to picture that scenario. 

People range and are fairly dynamic when it comes to this. I think our biggest mistake can be assuming that since it wouldn't work for us, it wouldn't work for someone. 

 

With luv, 

BD 

 

I don’t know how to describe what I mean is different between bonding with my husband and bonding with my female friends, but a lot has to do with the purpose of sharing. I am highly transparent with my close female friends, it can definitely be labeled sharing of souls imo and I can imagine a very full and wonderful life living as you described in a communal companionship.

But I share my soul with my husband in a different way. Perhaps it’s more active in the sense I allow it to happen with my friends as it naturally comes, I don’t really think about it.   I figure if it happens, that is great; if it doesn’t, I may be disappointed but it’s not something I will push against, something I would refuse to accept. 

The intent is different with my marriage.  In fact I would say it is more of a struggle to share on this level with my husband, I am okay with that as I see it as having purpose and that is why I continue to struggle and even expect to struggle as I see that as not only creating this new thing between us, but it is pushing new inner growth in myself as well in areas that nothing else can.   

____

I know I am likely unusual with seeing myself as likely being able to be romantically involved with a woman if I opened myself up to it (I don’t see it as automatic, I would have to retrain my thinking of what is appropriate behaviour).  I am assuming I could based on my reactions to several things in my life, such as discussing with my daughter the people she is attracted to, that have led me to believe I am probably rather sexually fluid if I allowed myself to be.  It may be my cultural programming is too deep to move in that direction though.

Luckily I feel no need to explore that part of my mentality except to the point to help my daughter feel comfortable with her own situation.
 

“I think our biggest mistake can be assuming that since it wouldn't work for us, it wouldn't work for someone.”

Yep and this is really the only reason I bring this up here, just to show the range is there.  I don’t see any other reason for anyone to be interested in my unlikely to ever be investigated expandable gender identity and some that are probably not that happy I shared this info, lol

Edited March 14 by Calm

[longview]

12 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I had a girlfriend whose parents were like this. He was gay. She was a lesbian. They married each other knowing this as each other’s “beards” for social reasons (they married in the 60s). They had two children. They are great friends.

Oh, they also both had sex with people on the side with their spouse being fine with it. Does that ruin the beautiful story?

The "beautiful  story" would be in reference to the "few" that have deep conviction of the Plan of Happiness and excercise trust in God to set up their "basic unit" (as described in my previous post) in accordance with the Proclamation on the Family.

Your example might be considered to be one small step towards the "ideal" but they were only putting up a flimsy facade. They remain firmly mired in the telestial hedonism of fleshly pleasure and indulgence. Will they reconsider after passing on to the spirit world? Maybe. It is up to them.

Do you think it a miracle they had children?

12 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Edit: And calling that decision courageous is insane. It is likely to end in heartbreak.

I am confused. What decision are you referring to? The "few" that make the Celestial commitment? You can choose cynicism but I believe in the power of the spirit and deep conversion and joy in walking with God and having communion with the Holy Spirit. It DOES take courage to choose the Lord's Way and to persevere on the Covenant Path.

[Teancum]

On 3/12/2024 at 9:36 AM, Anonymous Mormon said:

I have been following this board for more than a decade.  In the last decade there has been a sea-change from the majority of posters (just by my informal count of people who post on the topic) who feel that the Law of Chastity as the church currently teaches it (no sex before marriage, only sex with spouse after marriage, marriage between a man and a woman) applies to everyone equally, to now more posters (by post count) feel that the law of chastity is harmful to LGBT individuals because it doesn't give them the emotional / sexual fulfillment they deserve / need. 

So I am curious to see people's opinion to the above poll on the Law of Chastity and LGBT issues. I am especially interested in those who believe in the Law of Chastity.

I may try running the same poll again in the future to see if things change.

Personally, I believe so the so called law of chastity is a human construct that primarily comes from the realm of religion.  I believe what consenting adults chose to do with their sexual life is their business and nobody else's.  So long as a person is not violating promises made to another and they sexual lives do not harm themselves, or others, I think what they choose is fine and proper.  

[LoudmouthMormon]

I couldn't answer the question, because of the word "expects".   I figure God lays down law/rules/best paths.  He hopes His kids follow them, but He expects pretty much all of 'em will go against them to one extent or another.  That's why the church spends so much time preaching repentance. 

[Ragerunner]

A question along the following line would have been nice.

“We currently lack clear understanding on how gay attraction fits into Heavenly Father’s plan and until we have clearer revelation on this issue we should tread lightly.”

The Church and its leaders have made many statements that it has already backtracked on. It feels like we are repeating many of the same mistakes that were done with the black priesthood and temple ban.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

15 minutes ago, Ragerunner said:

A question along the following line would have been nice.

“We currently lack clear understanding on how gay attraction fits into Heavenly Father’s plan and until we have clearer revelation on this issue we should tread lightly.”

The Church and its leaders have made many statements that it has already backtracked on. It feels like we are repeating many of the same mistakes that were done with the black priesthood and temple ban.

The questions are worded in a way that poisons the well pretty strongly for non traditional interpretations. 

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, longview said:

The "beautiful  story" would be in reference to the "few" that have deep conviction of the Plan of Happiness and excercise trust in God to set up their "basic unit" (as described in my previous post) in accordance with the Proclamation on the Family.

Your example might be considered to be one small step towards the "ideal" but they were only putting up a flimsy facade. They remain firmly mired in the telestial hedonism of fleshly pleasure and indulgence. Will they reconsider after passing on to the spirit world? Maybe. It is up to them.

Do you think it a miracle they had children?

I am confused. What decision are you referring to? The "few" that make the Celestial commitment? You can choose cynicism but I believe in the power of the spirit and deep conversion and joy in walking with God and having communion with the Holy Spirit. It DOES take courage to choose the Lord's Way and to persevere on the Covenant Path.

Their flimsy facade has done a lot better than a lot of temple sealed marriages.

A miracle? You know where babies come from right? And people have sex with people they aren’t attracted to all the time for all kinds of reasons. I would share their description of how it happened but it is kind of vulgar.

”joy in walking with God” as the marriage collapses as it seems to almost always do? Your advice was the Church’s advice and it generally went to bad places.

[Ragerunner]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The questions are worded in a way that poisons the well pretty strongly for non traditional interpretations. 

Agree and I think he/she knows that. Which is a shame as it creates an orthodoxy leaning survey that wishes to take the approach we know all we need to know on this topic from a revelation/doctrine point of view.

Which just isn’t true as the Church has and continues to modify and even walk back many of its positions on this topic. 

Edited March 15 by Ragerunner

[BlueDreams]

21 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Admittedly, I do not know what aesthetic attraction is, but I could certainly have a roommate as an old person after having had true love most of my life and probably be just fine as long as the roommate did not eat loudly 😅- darned misophonia- However, I would prefer either being alone, or being in love again. I love my alone time, and I love love.

Lol! Aesthetic attraction is finding something pretty basically. I joke that women for me are like a nice flower arrangement: Pretty to look at but not to consume(mate). I usually paint and like the aesthetic appeal of women, but I find men sexually my thing. 

 I love my husband deeply and absolutely. I hated the process to find my husband. I'd rather not repeat it with people with a lot more baggage if I become widowed when I'm older. Besides I can't really imagine a better partner for me and he's quite an oddball on so many fronts. So I'd probably have a hard time with not comparing anyone else to him. I can't really picture a better fit. Most guys I dated prior were super short lived relationships (minus one dysfunctional on-and-off thing).

I vacillate between liking my alone space and wanting company. I'm happy when I have a balance in both. So sometimes I picture myself in a small/tiny place by my lonesome, painting away and plotting trips. Sometimes I picture myself with a close friend. But I have a really really hard time picturing myself open to marrying again. But who knows. I'll cross that bridge if I ever get there. 

 

With luv,

BD

 

[BlueDreams]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

I don’t know how to describe what I mean is different between bonding with my husband and bonding with my female friends, but a lot has to do with the purpose of sharing. I am highly transparent with my close female friends, it can definitely be labeled sharing of souls imo and I can imagine a very full and wonderful life living as you described in a communal companionship.

But I share my soul with my husband in a different way. Perhaps it’s more active in the sense I allow it to happen with my friends as it naturally comes, I don’t really think about it.   I figure if it happens, that is great; if it doesn’t, I may be disappointed but it’s not something I will push against, something I would refuse to accept. 

The intent is different with my marriage.  In fact I would say it is more of a struggle to share on this level with my husband, I am okay with that as I see it as having purpose and that is why I continue to struggle and even expect to struggle as I see that as not only creating this new thing between us, but it is pushing new inner growth in myself as well in areas that nothing else can.   

I think that makes sense. I definitely don't see it as a complete replacement with the sort of soul-sharing I have with my husband. Just one that it would be enough for me till I can have him again. Thinking about my closest friendships, I'm more myself with them than just about anyone. The only exception is my husband. Having him is the only thing that made me question my dismissiveness around the idea of soulmates. He's felt like my best friend from about a week into our relationship and I knew I knew him from before...as did he. We are like yin and yangs of each other. Super different in a lot of aspects, but we value the difference, have similar core values, and rely on both to make a whole. I would say it's easier to be myself with him than anyone else, even though my girlfriends will usually "get me" more innately. I feel beyond lucky that I found him. So I do get what you mean in my own way. 

I also feel super lucky that I have such great close friendships and a large web of relationships outside my marriage. Nowadays that seems to be a growing rarity. 

10 hours ago, Calm said:

____

I know I am likely unusual with seeing myself as likely being able to be romantically involved with a woman if I opened myself up to it (I don’t see it as automatic, I would have to retrain my thinking of what is appropriate behaviour).  I am assuming I could based on my reactions to several things in my life, such as discussing with my daughter the people she is attracted to, that have led me to believe I am probably rather sexually fluid if I allowed myself to be.  It may be my cultural programming is too deep to move in that direction though.

Luckily I feel no need to explore that part of my mentality except to the point to help my daughter feel comfortable with her own situation.
 

“I think our biggest mistake can be assuming that since it wouldn't work for us, it wouldn't work for someone.”

Yep and this is really the only reason I bring this up here, just to show the range is there.  I don’t see any other reason for anyone to be interested in my unlikely to ever be investigated expandable gender identity and some that are probably not that happy I shared this info, lol

Same on my end. I'm glad you can help your daughter with your mental capacity. 

 

With luv,

BD

[BlueDreams]

On 3/12/2024 at 7:36 AM, Anonymous Mormon said:

I have been following this board for more than a decade.  In the last decade there has been a sea-change from the majority of posters (just by my informal count of people who post on the topic) who feel that the Law of Chastity as the church currently teaches it (no sex before marriage, only sex with spouse after marriage, marriage between a man and a woman) applies to everyone equally, to now more posters (by post count) feel that the law of chastity is harmful to LGBT individuals because it doesn't give them the emotional / sexual fulfillment they deserve / need. 

So I am curious to see people's opinion to the above poll on the Law of Chastity and LGBT issues. I am especially interested in those who believe in the Law of Chastity.

I may try running the same poll again in the future to see if things change.

Full disclosure, I didn't answer the poll. I felt uncomfortable answering any of these. I'll try to be brief about why by question:

1.) I believe the church and our currently understanding of the LoC would expect that. I think the general principle underlying the LoC is a true one. I generally believe that monogamous relationships are more stable. I believe there's value in learning to bridle one's passions and match said passion and desire to one's values and commitment in a relationship. I also believe there's essential importance in seal relationships/balance between a man and a woman. But I don't believe the LoC was framed or fleshed out as an idea with others that are not heterosexual in mind (or at least not well suited for a straight marriage). I think there's some major gaps in our etiology and understanding of the next life, the CK especially, and the value and meaning of fullness in other roles that are not these sealed marital relationships. I don't know if that may grow and shift in a way that allows more comfortable space for those that it's best they not enter into a heterosexual marriage. I hope it does.

 

2. ) I think this is the closest one that I initially would say yes. My only caveat is the language of "sexual activity" before marriage. Since I define sexual activity as anything from handholding with a significant other to intercourse, I obviously don't think all sexual activity shouldn't happen before marriage. 

3.) I don't want to be the judge as to what is best for this person. I would hope that they would way the concerns of themselves, their spouse, their children, and their values in whatever choice they make in this. No one should be forced to stay in a marriage. No one should also make a a quick or blanket decision on what one does to their families.

 

With luv,

BD

[Calm]

48 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I would say it's easier to be myself with him than anyone else, even though my girlfriends will usually "get me" more innately

This describes my relationship with my husband.  It was probably easier to feel safe with my women friends in terms of worry over saying something that caused hurt or conflict for them and them for me, but I have always known nothing I say will cause my husband to give up on us (not saying there aren’t somethings that wouldn’t make him walk, just that I will never feel inclined to say them being me).

And as a side remark..I never had the sense I knew someone before, but I have had a few friendships that were deep and exciting like at first sight as if it was an instinctual bonding.  At that point I feel like I have known them forever because it usually takes a long time to get to that point.

Edited March 15 by Calm

[Calm]

56 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I also feel super lucky that I have such great close friendships and a large web of relationships outside my marriage. Nowadays that seems to be a growing rarity. 

I never thought I would find friends like I have now through this board.  I am so grateful. 

 

[Anonymous Mormon]

13 hours ago, Ragerunner said:

...The Church and its leaders have made many statements that it has already backtracked on. It feels like we are repeating many of the same mistakes that were done with the black priesthood and temple ban...

 

 

...Which just isn’t true as the Church has and continues to modify and even walk back many of its positions on this topic...

Curious on what the Church has walked back on this topic?

I can think of lots of policy changes the church has made on this and other topics (i.e., kids getting baptized, usage of the terms LGBT, etc.). I can't think of any changes in position regarding doctrine (i.e., greater acceptance of the idea that same-sex relationships are morally acceptable, less emphasis on the Proclamation on the Family, etc.).

Do you see any modifications and walk backs from the church's doctrinally on this? 

Edited March 15 by Anonymous Mormon

[Teancum]

On 3/13/2024 at 9:51 AM, longview said:

Those few may choose to live out the remainder of mortality being celibate. Or they can be courageous (being willng to trust God) and partner in the formation of the "Basic Unit" consisting of male husband, female wife, and hopefully children. Maybe one or both spouses may not feel much sexual attraction but they can al least have platonic love for each other. That love can progress to the Christlike love that I spoke of in my previous post. The higher law. The same applies for heterosexual couples. All wonderfully challenging and ultimately joyous.

The majority of such marriages fail.  And it is not courageous. It is stupidity, Even the leadership of the church does not encourage this anymore.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

5 minutes ago, Teancum said:

The majority of such marriages fail.  And it is not courageous. It is stupidity, Even the leadership of the church does not encourage this anymore.

And when they so predictably fail, where is the blame? The church for pushing such marriages? No never. The blame is always with the member who despite trying for decades, wearing out their knees in prayer - it’s their fault. 

Edited March 15 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Anonymous Mormon]

As I stated, the reason I did this survey is because over the last decade as I read this forum, I have found that there are less and less voices & responses in support of the Law of Chastity as it is currently taught by the church with regards to LGBT issues. Just going off number of board posts opposed to the church's traditional teachings of the Law of Chastity versus those that defend it, I have began to wonder if the vast majority of board members do not believe in the traditional Law of Chastity any more.

My goal was to see if I really was in the minority in being okay with the LoC, and I honestly tried my best to set up a poll that would NOT be offensive or biased, but would allow all board members the ability to answer their views on the Law of Chastity and LGBT issues, to see if they agreed with it or not. Evidently, I failed because the feedback from those who are not members of the church any more (and a few who still are but thought it wasn't nuanced enough answers) is that the survey was untakable. Again, if someone is better suited to the task they can try again with better, more nuanced answers.

That said, if you only consider this a survey of those who are not offended by the questions / answers, which means primarily active members, I am surprised at the results. Just based upon board participation, I would have expected that the vast majority of board members feel like the Law of Chastity is not relevant to LGBT members of the church. It's actually the opposite. There seems to be a large, silent contingent (maybe majority?) of those on this board who are not offended by the Law of Chastity in relation to LGBT folks.

This makes me think there is a dearth of 'conservative' viewpoint being expressed on this issue on this board. I know for me, I personally have stopped posting as much on LGBT topics because:

1. Volume - It feels like a LARGE percentage of threads descend into debates about LGBT issues. It's like in church we have been counseled that all topics should be centered on Christ and the Atonement, on this board it feels like all topics are centered around LGBT issues and everything has to come back to this (which is not at all how why I go to church - I go to church to connect with God & Christ)
    
2. Tone - I feel the LGBT topic threads are more hostile in tone towards posters who agree with the traditional Law of Chastity. When someone comes on and tries to defend traditional views of the Law of Chastity, their responses are picked apart as hate filled (in the last thread it was the phrase 'pot of pottage' and 'same-sex-attraction' that started this) and from there the topic descends into name calling and meanness
    

So I guess my survey was unintentionally biased. But it did at least let me know that I am not alone in my traditional interpretation and acceptance of the Law of Chastity. I think there must be others who feel as I do, but also are gun shy about posting because of the tone of responses they will get.

Thanks to all those who participated in the survey and also to those who didn't participate but still voiced their thoughts as to why and gave their answers in post-format.

[MustardSeed]

18 minutes ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

So I guess my survey was unintentionally biased. But it did at least let me know that I am not alone in my traditional interpretation and acceptance of the Law of Chastity. I think there must be others who feel as I do, but also are gun shy about posting because of the tone of responses they will get

In this case your survey fulfilled its purpose. 
 

LGBT discussion does tend to get a handful of posters here pretty active.  

[Teancum]

On 3/13/2024 at 12:22 PM, Maestrophil said:

I admit I have some strong feelings about this due to a complicated and hurtful past with sexuality - but, I get upset when I hear members of the church place so much emphasis on the importance of being sexually fulfilled - I think this is a more modern view, and it does not align with what I feel God has always asked of His people - to be willing to sacrifice everything. I was always prepared to go a whole life without sexual fulfillment if that was required of me.  Now I understand proponents of SS relationships will say that is not the same for me because I at least had the 'possibility' of one day being sexually fulfilled.  But even when I entered into a marriage plagued with issues, I still was prepared to stay in it for eternity - until my -ex decided to seek fulfillment elsewhere.  

I feel we are giving too much to fulfilling an appetite - love can exist without sexual fulfillment.  

I appreciate your couching your comments in how you feel and such rather than with certainty. It is refreshing.