David Archuleta's new single about he and (some in?) his family leaving the Faith

[ZealouslyStriving]

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

You are hiding behind terms like social construct.  Would you agree that there have always been people who were attracted to their same sex throughout the history of the world long before it was labeled as a social construct?  Being labeled gay may very well be a more modern term.  But the definition of being gay is to be attracted to the same sex in a romantic emotional and intimate way.  While formalizing that romantic and emotional connection may be new, the fact is, it has always existed.  

I think that is why you find yourself in the minority on this issue.  I also think that you are not really open enough to be convinced that you might be wrong. You have held tightly to this belief for quite a while.  I doubt very much that your views will change.  It kinda makes further comment pretty fruitless.  

I think the Bible is clear that there have always been people attracted to the same sex.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Or . . . "sexual identity" is a recent innovation with essentially no historical precedent, and one that was adopted in the pursuit of political objectives, and one that can be set aside or subordinated if the individual chooses it.

Until fairly recently, *nobody* thought of themselves as having a "sexual identity," including people who are attracted to others of their same sex.

This is objectively wrong. The words “homosexuality” and “homosexual” were invented by psychiatrists who hoped to cure it. Your fantasies about how and why terms came into existence are just that: fantasies.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

If Morgan Freeman can "choose" to set aside (or subordinate) the "identity" of "African American," and if Raven Simone can also set that identity aside (along with "gay"), then others can to likewise.

And? There are plenty of people I would call queer based on behavior who choose not to put a label on themselves. That is their call. It doesn’t have the impact you seem to think it will.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Or else I can reject the premise of "sexual identity."  It was created in the first instance in the latter part of the 19th century, and even then it's a Western societal construct.  

Nope, do you just like being wrong? That was when the identities we use now that spread far and wide came into use.

Other cultures have had sexual identities and gender identities that went beyond the binary. I find it sadly ironic that you are trying to throw the “WESTERN” label at me as if I am the one being provincial

The Maoli people of Hawaii had Mahu, priests who left the gender binary to become both male and female. The Ankole in Uganda elected a woman to become a man and act as a priest to a god. In the Sakalave people of Madagascar some little boys were raised as girls and were called sekrata. The Bugis of Indonesia recognized five genders. Some American Indian tribes have a concept often called “two spirited” which encompassed diverse sexualities and/or gender expressions. You have the femminielli of Italy. In Japanese culture you have “The Great Mirror of Male Love” a book about those with mixed relationships and those who chose exclusively male relationships (i.e. what we would call bisexual men and another category who we would call gay men). You have works in China and India that explicitly group those who chose exclusively male partners. Plato talks of men who only chose other male partners.

Have a few more:

https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/Discrimination/LGBT/FactSheets/UNFESexual_orientation_gender_identity_throughout_history.pdf

Many of these alternate sexualities and genders were weakened or outright destroyed by colonialism. Good job Christianity and Islam!

The Germans in the early 20th century were at the leading edge of what we would call research into gender and sexuality. There were early gender-affirming surgeries, books and research on sexuality, and a lot of institutional knowledge. Then the Nazis showed up and destroyed it all.

PUNCH NAZIS!!!!!!!!! Remember to punch behind the Nazi’s head. You want to go through the head when throwing the punch to maximize the pain and damage.

VENGEANCE!!!!!!!

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I think that most of humanity has not, and does not, conceptualize themselves using the "sexual identity" construct.

Yes, we call that majority the straight or heterosexual peoples in our culture. As I pointed out to you before when you are the default you don’t think about it a lot. Do you think that if your sexual and romantic attractions were radically different you might think about it a little bit more?

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

But a social construct need not be set in stone.  Even if not "consciously chosen," I submit that it can be consciously set aside or subordinated.

Have you tried the prescription you are writing for other people to see if you can make it work?

[smac97]

43 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

But a social construct need not be set in stone.  Even if not "consciously chosen," I submit that it can be consciously set aside or subordinated.

Have you tried the prescription you are writing for other people to see if you can make it work?

Setting aside or subordinating a "sexual identity"?  Yes.  Again:

Quote

I have never thought of myself as having a "sexual identity."

I am a child of God.  That is an identity, and the most important one.

I am a husband and father.  These are identities, and very important to me.

I am a brother and son.  These are important identities.

I am a friend and neighbor, and a citizen of the United States.  These are important identities.

I am a lawyer, and a resident of the State of Utah.  This are important identities, but not as much as the ones above.

"I am a heterosexual, sexually attracted to women"?  Nope.  I've never really thought of this as an "identity."  It's part of my relationship with my wife, but not an "identity."  

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

34 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Setting aside or subordinating a "sexual identity"?  Yes.

That is a really weird way of saying “no”.

[Calm]

39 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Setting aside or subordinating a "sexual identity"?  Yes. 

If you have never thought of yourself as having a sexual identity, how could you set it aside?

[smac97]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Quote

That "sexual identity" is something that is not etched in stone?  That is can be set aside or subordinated?

You are hiding behind terms like social construct.  

No.

• 'A central -- if not perhaps the most central -- element that has characterized modern homosexuality is the understanding of erotic same-sex attraction as a fundamental element of the individual's biological or psychological makeup. Homosexuality has thus been defined and constructed around the debate over the innate character of sexual identity, whether governed by nature or nurture, biology or culture, genetics or environment' (Robert Beachy, 'The German invention of homosexuality', Journal of Modern History, 82:4 [2010], 803-04).
• 'This idea of (homo)sexual personhood has a very recent history. The homosexual "species" emerged and took root in Germany after the mid-nineteenth century through the collaboration of Berlin's medical scientists and sexual minorities. This confluence of biological determinism and subjective expressions of sexual personhood was largely a German phenomenon, moreover, and it clearly underpins modern conceptions of sexual orientation' (ibid., 804).

From 2019: “Born That Way” No More: The New Science of Sexual Orientation

Quote

A new study adds to a growing body of evidence demonstrating that the dominant narrative about sexual orientation—that it is genetically determined—simply cannot be true. Instead, the science shows that a person’s sexual orientation and choice of partners depends heavily on the development and expression of personal autonomy regarding one’s own sexual possibilities. People with same-sex attractions should be legally and culturally free not to identify with or act on them.

"People with same-sex attractions should be legally and culturally free not to identify with or act on them."

I am surprised that this seems like a controversial statement.

Quote

Late last month, a team of MIT and Harvard scientists published a landmark study of the genetic basis for sexual orientation in the journal Science. The study, which was based on an examination of the genetic material of almost half a million individuals, definitively refutes the idea that being gay is an innate condition that is controlled or largely compelled by one’s genetic makeup.

The study contained two key findings. First, it found that the effect of the genes we inherit from our parents (known as “heritability”) on same-sex orientation was very weak, at only .32 on a scale from 0 (none) to 1 (total) heritability. This means that a person’s developmental environment—which includes diet, family, friends, neighborhood, religion, and a host of other life conditions—is twice as influential on the probability of developing same-sex behavior or orientation as a person’s genes are.

Second, rebutting decades of widespread belief, the study established that “there is certainly no single genetic determinant (sometimes referred to as the ‘gay gene’ in the media)” that causes same-sex sexual behavior. On the contrary, “the variants involved are numerous and spread across the genome.” Each of these genetic variants increases a person’s propensity for same-sex behavior by an infinitesimally small amount. In scientific terms, same-sex orientation and behavior are highly polygenetic.

The logic of these two results—low heritability and high polygenicity—clearly demonstrate that the dominant cultural narrative about sexual orientation—which sees homosexual persons as a distinctly bounded biological class of people who were “born that way”—simply cannot be true.

"Born that way" is, I think, still up for discussion and debate.  However, regardless of the outcome of that debate, the notion that an individual ought to have the autonomy to set aside "the dominant cultural narrative about sexual orientation," that it is an "identity" (buttressed by the notion of it "as a distinctly bounded biological class of people").

Quote

Could Rejecting Sexual Orientation Determinism Increase Tolerance?

The scientists behind the study do not mince words regarding this conclusion. The study’s first author, Andrea Ganna, stated to the New York Times, “it will be basically impossible to predict one’s sexual activity or orientation just from genetics.” An essay accompanying the study acknowledges that its results counter the “inclination to reduce sexuality to genetic determinism,” instead confirming that “sexuality is . . . shaped and regulated by cultural, political, social, legal and religious structures.” Other scientists involved in the study, who are themselves gay, publicly opposed its publication, voicing concern that the findings would be “misconstrued” to “advance agendas of hate.” These statements also express an awareness, albeit an unwelcome one, of the anti-determinist implications of the study’s findings.

"Sexual Orientation Determinism" seems to be an important component of maintaining "sexual identity" as a social construct.  If it (Determinism) is not what it seems to be, then perhaps neither is the "identity."

Quote

Commendably, the lead authors of the study, some of whom are also gay, resisted the impulse to suppress scientific evidence for the sake of political expediency. They are right to do so, for the decline of the idea of a false belief in determinism in sexual orientation and related behaviors may well lead to greater tolerance and acceptance.

That there exists such a potent "impulse to suppress scientific evidence for the sake of political expediency" is, for me, pretty good evidence for re-visiting the concept of "sexual identity" (which, it seems, is susceptible to being propped up by this "impulse to suppress").

Quote

In many parts of the world, as the accompanying essay points out, legal sanctions seek to impose heterosexuality on the unwilling. But in the United States and other liberal Western societies, we presently tend toward the opposite problem. In many such places, the struggle for freedom today is not primarily for people who want to identify themselves as gay or lesbian, but for people who want to avoid or resist such an identification for themselves.

"{T}he struggle for freedom today {in the West is} for people who want to avoid or resist such an identification {based on sexual orientation} for themselves."

I think this is worth some real discussion.

Quote

Previous Research Underscores the Malleability of Sexual Identity

In actual practice, sexual orientation and behavior exemplify the diverse identities people take on when they are free to explore a virtually unlimited range of erotic alternatives. Strikingly, the low heritability of sexual orientation found in the Ganna study is identical to that of another landmark genetic study—an exhaustive meta-analysis of virtually all twin studies ever performed, by a team of scientists led by Tinca Polderman—that was published four years ago in the journal Nature. Like the Ganna study, the Polderman study estimated the heritability of sexual orientation at only .32. The replication of the same weak result in two studies using very different methods and measures is remarkable. Both studies also found heritability to be somewhat higher for males than for females.

Following Polderman’s study, a team of prominent sexuality researchers interpreted the replicated low level of heritability to suggest that, while internal sexual attraction may not be socially malleable, the adoption of a sexual identity unconstrained by internal attraction—homosexual, heterosexual, or something else—is well within the range of development for most people. “It is, of course, possible,“ they write, “to change one’s public sexual-orientation identity, and one can certainly make choices about whether one will or will not engage in same-sex or opposite-sex sexual behavior or become celibate.” These kinds of choices and therapy to support them, they note, are most common among the religiously observant, and “likely explain claims by ex-gays and ex-lesbians that they are no longer leading a ‘homosexual lifestyle.’” For examples, they cite psychotherapist Lee Beckstead’s 2001 article, “Cures versus choices: Agendas in sexual reorientation therapy.” We could also add the books Jephthah’s Daughters and Changed: #Oncegay Stories, each of which presents dozens of accounts of persons who have transitioned away from homosexual identity and behavior.
...

The congruent findings of Ganna and Polderman sharply rebut the impulse to constrain or coerce such persons’ choices about same-sex identity and behavior. If gay and lesbian persons are genetically normal, what basis is there for prohibiting other genetically normal persons from refusing to engage in same-sex behavior? As these studies have both found, most persons with a genotype comparable to that of gay or lesbian persons end up, for various reasons of social environment or development or personal principle, not engaging in same-sex relations. Shouldn’t this majority have equal freedom and legitimacy to do so?

"{T}he Malleability of Sexual Identity."

"{T}he adoption of a sexual identity unconstrained by internal attraction—homosexual, heterosexual, or something else—is well within the range of development for most people."

"'{I}t is, of course, possible,' they write, 'to change one’s public sexual-orientation identity, and one can certainly make choices about whether one will or will not engage in same-sex or opposite-sex sexual behavior or become celibate.'"

"{D}ozens of accounts of persons who have transitioned away from homosexual identity and behavior."

"{T}he impulse to constrain or coerce such persons’ choices about same-sex identity and behavior."

These comments sure seem to merit some discussion.

Here's a 2023 article: Fixed or Fluid? Sexual Identity Fluidity in a Large National Panel Study of New Zealand Adults

Some excerpts:

Quote

Sexual orientation has been defined as an enduring aspect of the self, but emerging evidence reveals that people’s sexual attractions, behaviors, and identities can shift over time.

This makes no sense at all if sexual orientation is a fixed and immutable and innate and intrinsic aspect of each individual.  However, it makes all sorts of sense if "sexual identity" is acknowledged for what it is: a social construct that "can shift over time."

Quote

Over seven years, 5.7% of participants changed sexual identities at least once. Change was bi-directional (i.e. toward and away from LGB+ identities) and most common in people who initially reported a plurisexual identity. Although women reported higher rates of plurisexuality than men, they were not more fluid in their identities, contradicting the notion of male fixedness and female plasticity in sexuality. Moreover, openness to experience was associated with increased odds of changing from a heterosexual to a plurisexual identity, while political liberalism and lower conscientiousness were associated with increased odds of changing from a heterosexual to a plurisexual identity and more identity changes over time. Overall, our study shows that sexual identity can be fluid into adulthood and has implications for how we understand contemporary human sexuality.

"Change was bi-directional (i.e. toward and away from LGB+ identities)..."

"{O}penness to experience was associated with increased odds of changing from a heterosexual to a plurisexual identity."

"{S}exual identity can be fluid into adulthood."

These findings sure seem to merit some discussion.

Quote

Sexual orientation is popularly defined as an enduring aspect of one’s self based on a pattern of attraction to men, women, or people regardless of gender (American Psychological Association, Citation2019). Indeed, the “master narrative” of sexual orientation posits static categories of sexual orientation that develop early and remain stable over time (Diamond, Citation2006). However, a growing body of literature reveals that sexual behavior, attractions, and identity do change over time (Diamond, Citation2016; Katz-Wise & Todd, Citation2022). Rather than categorizing sexual orientation as static categories, this alternative model of sexual fluidity argues that these dimensions can change in response to situational, interpersonal, and societal factors (Diamond, Citation2008b; Diamond et al., Citation2017). Since Diamond’s seminal work, sexual fluidity research has exponentially increased, with research across multiple populations and dimensions of fluidity (Katz-Wise & Todd, Citation2022).

"{T}he 'master narrative' of sexual orientation posits static categories of sexual orientation that develop early and remain stable over time ... However, a growing body of literature reveals that sexual behavior, attractions, and identity do change over time."  This makes sense when sexual orientation is acknowledged a social construct.

Quote

Another reason is sociopolitical; until recently, there were very few places where LGB+ people had adequate legal and social protections to report their sexual orientation openly and freely over time. Indeed, same-gender sexual behavior remains illegal across much of the world, and in nations that have decriminalized LGB+ orientations, other barriers to true social equality remain (see Mendos, Citation2019). This is an important consideration for the current research, as the greater legal and social oppression LGB+ people face, the more likely they are to suppress their identities (Charlton et al., Citation2016). Additionally, even if people do “come out,” societal stigma can affect how these identities are expressed and the extent to which people engage in same-gender sexual behaviors (Pachankis et al., Citation2017). Thus, an environment whereby people can freely express their sexual identity is needed to appropriately examine sexual fluidity, as more oppressive contexts may underestimate the prevalence of (a) stable LGB+ identities and (b) fluidity within and across LGB+ and heterosexual identities.

We are living in a time in which "people can freely express their sexual identity," which also allows us "to appropriately examine sexual fluidity."

"Sexual fluidity" sure seems more congruent with "sexual identity" as a social construct than as a fixed state of being.  Moreover, while I quite agree that "legal and social oppression {of} LGB+ people" is a real problem, I also think that there seems to be an oppressive element that seeks to "oppress" . . . sexual fluidity.  The notion that a person can choose to avail themselves to "sexual behavior, attractions, and identity {changing} over time" seems to be verboten in some circles.  I find that troubling.  Individuals ought to have the right to adopt changes in these things for themselves, for any reason or no reason at all.  And yes, those reasons could include the individual's desire to conform to religious doctrines.  If it's not compulsory, then let 'em do what they want.

Quote

Before outlining the relevant literature and our hypotheses below, we note that the idea that sexual orientation can change away from LGB+ identities has been controversial. So-called “conversion therapy” (often coercive efforts aimed at making LGB+ people “become” heterosexual) is not effective and instead can lead to psychological trauma and suicide (e.g., Alempijevic et al., Citation2020; Jones et al., Citation2022; Przeworski et al., Citation2021). Thus, it is essential to distinguish sexual identity mobility (or fluidity) from any externally directed “conversion” (Diamond, Citation2008b). Rather than a “conversion,” sexual fluidity refers to natural changes that happen in attractions and behaviors, and subsequently identity, in response to different situations, experiences, relationships, and social contexts (Diamond et al., Citation2017). The present study focused on one aspect of sexual identity – changes in how participants label and identify themselves. By doing so, we contribute to a growing body of literature on sexual identity fluidity that serves to understand how adult sexual orientation develops and changes over time.

"{I}t is essential to distinguish sexual identity mobility (or fluidity) from any externally directed 'conversion.' ... {S}exual fluidity refers to natural changes that happen in attractions and behaviors, and subsequently identity, in response to different situations, experiences, relationships, and social contexts."  This seems pretty sensible to me.  Coercive conversion therapies were problematic for a variety of reasons.  But "sexual fluidity" as "natural changes that happen in attractions and behaviors" makes a lot of sense, both anecdotally and scientifically.  

"The present study focused on one aspect of sexual identity – changes in how participants label and identify themselves. By doing so, we contribute to a growing body of literature on sexual identity fluidity that serves to understand how adult sexual orientation develops and changes over time."

Once more, with feeling: "The present study focused on one aspect of sexual identity – changes in how participants label and identify themselves."

I am in favor of letting people choose, including whether or not the entirely set aside the notion of "sexual identity," or else be "fluid" in it (including, notably, "toward and away from LGB+ identities").

The entire article here is worth a read.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Would you agree that there have always been people who were attracted to their same sex throughout the history of the world long before it was labeled as a social construct?  

Yes.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Being labeled gay may very well be a more modern term.  But the definition of being gay is to be attracted to the same sex in a romantic emotional and intimate way.

Okay.  Sexual attraction is something that one experiences, but I think it is not, or need not be, construed to be what one is.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

While formalizing that romantic and emotional connection may be new, the fact is, it has always existed.  

But not as an "identity."  That's the innovation under discussion.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I think that is why you find yourself in the minority on this issue.

This seems to be an appeal to the argumentum ad populum fallacy.  Just because something is popular does not make it true, nor does being unpopular make it false.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I also think that you are not really open enough to be convinced that you might be wrong.

This seems like argumentum ad hominem. 

I am here talking to people who disagree with me, including several who seem willing to impugn my character and/or intelligence for not falling in line with you and yours.  I don't much care for bullying.  I am willing to listen to what you have to say, in the end I have to make up my own mind about these things.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

You have held tightly to this belief for quite a while.  

Right back atcha.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I doubt very much that your views will change.  

Right back atcha.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

It kinda makes further comment pretty fruitless.  

Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Quote

If Morgan Freeman can "choose" to set aside (or subordinate) the "identity" of "African American," and if Raven Simone can also set that identity aside (along with "gay"), then others can to likewise.

Have they really?

I don't know Morgan Freeman at all.  I can only read or listen to his public statements.  Since he is speaking about his own opinion and his own mind, I will not second-guess him.  YMMV.

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Have they removed from their psyche the experiences of being African American and the programming (need better word here) that resulted in or have they just decided not to call them by that label or something else?

What if he chooses not to identify himself as "African American"?  What if that is merely a social construct that he is free to set aside, or subordinate, or not even adopt in the first instance?

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Serious question, not rhetorical.If they have I would love to know how because I have some childhood programming I would like to ditch completely.

I previously presupposed "sexual identity" as a thing.  Now I don't.  It's a social construct.  It's "programming."  I can choose to use it or not.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Since he is speaking about his own opinion and his own mind, I will not second-guess him. 

Maybe I am misremembering, but haven’t you second guessed trans women’s opinions of their own minds as women?  Aren’t you second guessing gays and others when they say they were born that way?  Why are you comfortable doing it for those you disagree but state you will not second guess someone when it just so happens to agree with your own position?

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Quote

I'm really not following you here.  "Sexual identity" is a social construct.  Social constructs are not etched in stone.  An individual can choose to adopt a "sexual identity," or to set aside the notion, or to adopt it but subordinate it to other, more important identities.

Race is another social construct.

Yes.  From ChatGPT:

Quote

Race is considered a social construct because it is not based on inherent biological differences but rather on socially defined characteristics. While there are certainly physical differences among human populations, these differences do not neatly fit into discrete categories of race. Instead, the concept of race has been constructed over time through historical, cultural, and societal factors.

Here are a few key points illustrating why race is considered a social construct:

1. Arbitrariness of Classification: The classification of people into racial categories varies across cultures and historical periods. What is considered one race in one society may be classified differently in another. This inconsistency demonstrates that racial categories are not based on objective biological criteria but rather on subjective interpretations.
2. Continuous Variation: Human genetic variation occurs along a continuum rather than in distinct racial categories. The genetic differences between individuals within the same racial group can often be greater than the differences between individuals of different racial groups.
3. Historical Context: The concept of race has been shaped by historical events such as colonization, slavery, and imperialism. Racial categories have been used to justify discrimination, oppression, and exploitation of certain groups by those in power.
4. Social Power Dynamics: Race is closely linked to power dynamics within societies. Racial categories have been used to allocate resources, determine social status, and justify unequal treatment based on perceived racial differences.
5. Fluidity of Identity: Racial identity is not fixed but can change over time and across contexts. People may identify differently with their racial or ethnic backgrounds depending on social circumstances, personal experiences, and cultural influences.
6. Intersectionality: Race intersects with other social categories such as gender, class, and nationality to shape individuals' experiences and opportunities. Understanding race as a social construct requires considering its intersections with other forms of identity and oppression.

In summary, while race may have real-life consequences and impacts on individuals' lives, its classification and significance are socially constructed rather than biologically determined. Recognizing race as a social construct is essential for understanding and addressing the complexities of racism and inequality in society.

 

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Do you see someone able to adopt being Black if not having been raised as a child in that worldview so that their experience of being Black is quite similar to those raised as Black?  Or Asian or European?

I don't know what you mean by "adopt being Black."  This speaks to the "Arbitrariness of Classification" issue noted above.  Barack Obama was raised in a white household, but he identifies as a black man.  Rachel Dolezal appears to have no African ancestry, but identified as black, and that was controversial.  LeVar Burton recently expressed shock when he learned that his great-great grandfather was a white Confederate soldier.  See also here: Biracial Celebrities Who Proudly Claim Black

I don't know what you mean by a "Black...worldview."  

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Do you see someone able to walk away from that worldview?  

What is this "Black worldview"?  Is it even a thing?  Is there a white "worldview"?  

3 hours ago, Calm said:

To turn off the reactions they developed as a Black man or Asian woman?

One thing I love about being a Latter-day Saint is that it gently compels us to transcend racial divisions.  Racial and cultural "identities" are subordinated to our greater unifying identity as common children of a Heavenly Father and as disciples of His Son, Jesus Christ.  Consider these 2012 remarks from then-Elder Oaks:

Quote

A Distinctive Way of Life

As a way to help us keep the commandments of God, members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have what we call a gospel culture. It is a distinctive way of life, a set of values and expectations and practices common to all members. This gospel culture comes from the plan of salvation, the commandments of God, and the teachings of the living prophets. It guides us in the way we raise our families and live our individual lives. The principles stated in the proclamation on the family are a beautiful expression of this gospel culture.

To help its members all over the world, the Church teaches us to give up any personal or family traditions or practices that are contrary to the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ and to this gospel culture. In this we heed the warning of the Apostle Paul, who said that we should not let anyone “spoil [us] through philosophy … after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ” (Colossians 2:8).

When it comes to giving up false traditions and cultures, we praise our younger people for their flexibility and progress, and we appeal to our older members to put away traditions and cultural or tribal practices that lead them away from the path of growth and progress. We ask all to climb to the higher ground of the gospel culture, to practices and traditions that are rooted in the restored gospel of Jesus Christ.

• "{T}he Church teaches us to give up any personal or family traditions or practices that are contrary to the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ and to this gospel culture."
• "When it comes to giving up false traditions and cultures, we praise our younger people for their flexibility and progress, and we appeal to our older members to put away traditions and cultural or tribal practices that lead them away from the path of growth and progress."
• "We ask all to climb to the higher ground of the gospel culture, to practices and traditions that are rooted in the restored gospel of Jesus Christ."

If discipleship requires "giving up" some aspects of a cultural identity, perhaps it might also require us to give up some aspects of a sexual identity.

Quote

Many African traditions are consistent with the gospel culture and help our members keep the commandments of God. The strong African family culture is superior to that of many Western countries, where family values are disintegrating. We hope the examples of love and loyalty among members of African families will help us teach others these essential traditions in the gospel culture. Modesty is another African strength. We plead with youth elsewhere to be as modest as most of the young people we see in Africa.

In contrast, some cultural traditions in parts of Africa are negative when measured against gospel culture and values. Several of these concern family relationships—what is done at birth, at marriage, and upon death. For example, some African husbands have the false idea that the husband rests while the wife does most of the work at home or that the wife and children are just servants of the husband. This is not pleasing to the Lord because it stands in the way of the kind of family relationships that must prevail in eternity and it inhibits the kind of growth that must occur here on earth if we are to qualify for the blessings of eternity. Study the scriptures and you will see that Adam and Eve, our first parents, the model for all of us, prayed together and worked together (see Moses 5:1, 4, 10–12, 16, 27). That should be our pattern for family life—respecting each other and working together in love.

Another negative cultural tradition is the practice of lobola, or bride price, which seriously interferes with young men and women keeping the commandments of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. When a young returned missionary must purchase his bride from her father by a payment so large that it takes many years to accumulate, he is unable to marry or cannot do so until he is middle-aged. This conflicts with the gospel plan for sexual purity outside marriage, for marriage, and for child rearing. Priesthood leaders should teach parents to discontinue this practice, and young people should follow the Lord’s pattern of marriage in the holy temple without waiting for the payment of a bride price.

Here Elder Oaks cites a cultural practice that conflicts with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  Discipleship invites - requires - us to choose one over the other.

Quote

Some other cultural practices or traditions that may conflict with gospel culture are weddings and funerals. I ask you not to make plans in connection with weddings and funerals that would cause you to go deeply into debt. Avoid extensive travel and expensive feasts. Excessive debt will weaken or prevent your ability to pay tithing, to attend the temple, and to send your children on missions. Make plans that will strengthen—not weaken—your future Church activity.

Good counsel, this.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't know what you mean by a "Black...worldview."  

And yet you speak of social constructs and identities. 

[Calm]

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

It's "programming."  I can choose to use it or not.

Not really.  You may be able to modify  early childhood and later childhood programming to a certain extent depending on how aware you are of the extent of it, what it is and how it affects you, but when you don’t recognize something exists, how can you choose to use it?

Edited March 31, 2024 by Calm

[smac97]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Quote

submit that it can be consciously set aside or subordinated.

If one is not consciously aware of all the impact of identity, how can one consciously set it aside or subordinate it?

By becoming aware of the impact, acknowledging the conflicting principle/behavior, then choosing to set it aside.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Rachel Dolezal appears to have no African ancestry, but identified as black, and that was controversial.

Do you believe that when she identified herself publicly as black, her inner experience mirror that of others who had identified themselves as black since children hood?  That the social construct of race was for Rachel Dolezal shared with others who identified themselves as though a family generation experience?

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

By becoming aware of the impact, acknowledging the conflicting principle/behavior, then choosing to set it aside.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

And how to you become aware of the impact of something you don’t recognize?

Edited March 31, 2024 by Calm

[smac97]

41 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

Since he is speaking about his own opinion and his own mind, I will not second-guess him. 

Maybe I am misremembering, but haven’t you second guessed trans women’s opinions of their own minds as women?  

I don't think so.  If a biological male thinks in his mind that he is a woman, and says as much, I will defer to that statement of thought/opinion.  What I will not do, though, is go along with the falsehood that he actually is a woman.  

41 minutes ago, Calm said:

Aren’t you second guessing gays and others when they say they were born that way?  

Second-guessing their subjective say-so?  Their statement of their own thoughts?  No. 

That said, there seems to be substantial scientific data that brings some of these "sexual identity" ideas into question:

“Born That Way” No More: The New Science of Sexual Orientation

Fixed or Fluid? Sexual Identity Fluidity in a Large National Panel Study of New Zealand Adults

Several of your recent posts have posited the notion that "programming" and whether the individual is "aware ... of the extent of it."  Is it possible that sexual orientation is, to some extent, a matter of "programming"?  That people’s sexual attractions, behaviors, and identities can shift over time?

41 minutes ago, Calm said:

Why are you comfortable doing it for those you disagree but state you will not second guess someone when it just so happens to agree with your own position?

I don't think I am second-guessing people's statements of their own subjective opinions/feelings.  But if someone makes a statement that goes beyond merely the expression of subjective opinions/feelings, then I think I am free to disagree with him.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 31, 2024 by smac97

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Quote

Setting aside or subordinating a "sexual identity"?  Yes. 

If you have never thought of yourself as having a sexual identity, how could you set it aside?

Because the notion has been imposed on me, or attempts at it.  Once I took the time to examine my perspective on this issue, and having given the matter some thought and study and introspection, I came to the conclusion that I had never thought of myself as having a "sexual identity," and that I would resist efforts to impose one on me.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

By becoming aware of the impact, acknowledging the conflicting principle/behavior, then choosing to set it aside.

And how to you become aware of the impact of something you don’t recognize?

Through learning, study, introspection, the normal stuff.

I grew up in Utah County, and the stupid juvenile pastime which today is called "Doorbell Ditching" had a different name.  I used this unfortunate name as a child.  Then, as I got older, realized that the name was offensive and stopped using it.  Today I regret and am embarrassed that I engaged in the stupid prank and that I called it by that terrible name.  I did not know better then.  I do now.

Similarly, "gay" and "fag" were, in my childhood, mindless and casual epithets.  Eventually I came to be aware of the problematic nature of these words and their usage, and I stopped using them.  I didn't recognize this at the time, but I eventually did and changed as a result.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Because the notion has been imposed on me, or attempts at it.  Once I took the time to examine my perspective on this issue, and having given the matter some thought and study and introspection, I came to the conclusion that I had never thought of myself as having a "sexual identity," and that I would resist efforts to impose one on me.

Thanks,

-Smac

Adopting a social construct provides you with a world view, a paradigm to understand the world in a certain way or at least some part of it.  In the case of sexual identity, that part is yourself, both your external behaviour and your internal behaviour as well as your relationships with others, including ones with a sexual component, but not only that.  The social construct informs your biases and provides you with many, including biases you are not aware of.

If you did have the sexual identity of heterosexuality, how do you believe your paradigm of yourself, your biases would be different than they are now when you see yourself as lacking this identity.

Edited March 31, 2024 by Calm

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

No.

• 'A central -- if not perhaps the most central -- element that has characterized modern homosexuality is the understanding of erotic same-sex attraction as a fundamental element of the individual's biological or psychological makeup. Homosexuality has thus been defined and constructed around the debate over the innate character of sexual identity, whether governed by nature or nurture, biology or culture, genetics or environment' (Robert Beachy, 'The German invention of homosexuality', Journal of Modern History, 82:4 [2010], 803-04).
• 'This idea of (homo)sexual personhood has a very recent history. The homosexual "species" emerged and took root in Germany after the mid-nineteenth century through the collaboration of Berlin's medical scientists and sexual minorities. This confluence of biological determinism and subjective expressions of sexual personhood was largely a German phenomenon, moreover, and it clearly underpins modern conceptions of sexual orientation' (ibid., 804).

Okay, and? This insinuates that is wrong but so what?

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

From 2019: “Born That Way” No More: The New Science of Sexual Orientation

"People with same-sex attractions should be legally and culturally free not to identify with or act on them."

I am surprised that this seems like a controversial statement.

It is not a controversial statement. No one wants to force people to have sex. No one forces people to identify in a specific way. What strawman are you fighting?

Also that study is idiotic. It has long been discredited that there is one genetic indicator of homosexuality. It is almost certain that there is a genetic component as identical twins consistently have a higher tendency to have matching sexualities than would be expected from chance and above siblings.

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

"Born that way" is, I think, still up for discussion and debate.  However, regardless of the outcome of that debate, the notion that an individual ought to have the autonomy to set aside "the dominant cultural narrative about sexual orientation," that it is an "identity" (buttressed by the notion of it "as a distinctly bounded biological class of people").

"Sexual Orientation Determinism" seems to be an important component of maintaining "sexual identity" as a social construct.  If it (Determinism) is not what it seems to be, then perhaps neither is the "identity."

And now you move beyond the science and just start in on 

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

That there exists such a potent "impulse to suppress scientific evidence for the sake of political expediency" is, for me, pretty good evidence for re-visiting the concept of "sexual identity" (which, it seems, is susceptible to being propped up by this "impulse to suppress").

"{T}he struggle for freedom today {in the West is} for people who want to avoid or resist such an identification {based on sexual orientation} for themselves."

I think this is worth some real discussion.

"{T}he Malleability of Sexual Identity."

"{T}he adoption of a sexual identity unconstrained by internal attraction—homosexual, heterosexual, or something else—is well within the range of development for most people."

"'{I}t is, of course, possible,' they write, 'to change one’s public sexual-orientation identity, and one can certainly make choices about whether one will or will not engage in same-sex or opposite-sex sexual behavior or become celibate.'"

"{D}ozens of accounts of persons who have transitioned away from homosexual identity and behavior."

"{T}he impulse to constrain or coerce such persons’ choices about same-sex identity and behavior."

Junk hogwash that has nothing to do with the science.

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

These comments sure seem to merit some discussion.

Here's a 2023 article: Fixed or Fluid? Sexual Identity Fluidity in a Large National Panel Study of New Zealand Adults

Some excerpts:

This makes no sense at all if sexual orientation is a fixed and immutable and innate and intrinsic aspect of each individual.  However, it makes all sorts of sense if "sexual identity" is acknowledged for what it is: a social construct that "can shift over time."

"Change was bi-directional (i.e. toward and away from LGB+ identities)..."

"{O}penness to experience was associated with increased odds of changing from a heterosexual to a plurisexual identity."

"{S}exual identity can be fluid into adulthood."

These findings sure seem to merit some discussion.

"{T}he 'master narrative' of sexual orientation posits static categories of sexual orientation that develop early and remain stable over time ... However, a growing body of literature reveals that sexual behavior, attractions, and identity do change over time."  This makes sense when sexual orientation is acknowledged a social construct.

Fluidity in sexuality is well-accepted in the LGBT community. The 1990s called and they want their strawman back.

Of course we have no way of controlling said fluidity. I like that is seems to hint that we can by making sure people don’t experiment but that is ridiculous. People move from heterosexual identities after experimenting? Of course they do. That is a pretty normal ‘coming out of the closet’ experience. Hinting that the experimentation changing the attraction is silly.

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

We are living in a time in which "people can freely express their sexual identity," which also allows us "to appropriately examine sexual fluidity."

"Sexual fluidity" sure seems more congruent with "sexual identity" as a social construct than as a fixed state of being.  Moreover, while I quite agree that "legal and social oppression {of} LGB+ people" is a real problem, I also think that there seems to be an oppressive element that seeks to "oppress" . . . sexual fluidity.  The notion that a person can choose to avail themselves to "sexual behavior, attractions, and identity {changing} over time" seems to be verboten in some circles.  I find that troubling.  Individuals ought to have the right to adopt changes in these things for themselves, for any reason or no reason at all.  And yes, those reasons could include the individual's desire to conform to religious doctrines.  If it's not compulsory, then let 'em do what they want.

It is not verboten. It is normal. I talked to a guy who previously identified as gay and now identifies as bisexual earlier today. You know how much resistance he got? Some jokes from gay friends and that was it. You are creating this idea that fluidity is feared in LGBT (cute pulling the T out there) circles is a mirage of your imagination. It is a strawman from people still fighting the “born that way” narrative from decades ago.

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

"{I}t is essential to distinguish sexual identity mobility (or fluidity) from any externally directed 'conversion.' ... {S}exual fluidity refers to natural changes that happen in attractions and behaviors, and subsequently identity, in response to different situations, experiences, relationships, and social contexts."  This seems pretty sensible to me.  Coercive conversion therapies were problematic for a variety of reasons.  But "sexual fluidity" as "natural changes that happen in attractions and behaviors" makes a lot of sense, both anecdotally and scientifically.  

"The present study focused on one aspect of sexual identity – changes in how participants label and identify themselves. By doing so, we contribute to a growing body of literature on sexual identity fluidity that serves to understand how adult sexual orientation develops and changes over time."

Once more, with feeling: "The present study focused on one aspect of sexual identity – changes in how participants label and identify themselves."

Yes, people’s identities can shift. There is no known way of controlling said shift. Sometimes those shifts cause a change in the label people use for their identity. Thanks for catching up with the rest of the class.

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

I am in favor of letting people choose, including whether or not the entirely set aside the notion of "sexual identity," or else be "fluid" in it (including, notably, "toward and away from LGB+ identities").

The entire article here is worth a read.

Yes.

Okay.  Sexual attraction is something that one experiences, but I think it is not, or need not be, construed to be what one is.

I will leave that discussion to the experts and not someone who read two articles debunking outdated conclusions and thinks he has real insight about something he doesn’t experience and claims to find irrelevant in his own life.

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

But not as an "identity."  That's the innovation under discussion.

This seems to be an appeal to the argumentum ad populum fallacy.  Just because something is popular does not make it true, nor does being unpopular make it false.

You haven’t reached some reasoned conclusion from first principles. You are opining. Bringing up that fallacy doesn’t strengthen your argument.

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

This seems like argumentum ad hominem.

Saying you are inflexible isn’t such an attack. You fall back on the ad hominem defense a lot. May want to read up on that and figure out if you are actually using it properly.

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

I am here talking to people who disagree with me, including several who seem willing to impugn my character and/or intelligence for not falling in line with you and yours.  I don't much care for bullying.  I am willing to listen to what you have to say, in the end I have to make up my own mind about these things.

Don’t beat your chest too hard. You might bruise it.

[ZealouslyStriving]

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

This is objectively wrong. The words “homosexuality” and “homosexual” were invented by psychiatrists who hoped to cure it. Your fantasies about how and why terms came into existence are just that: fantasies.

And? There are plenty of people I would call queer based on behavior who choose not to put a label on themselves. That is their call. It doesn’t have the impact you seem to think it will.

Nope, do you just like being wrong? That was when the identities we use now that spread far and wide came into use.

Other cultures have had sexual identities and gender identities that went beyond the binary. I find it sadly ironic that you are trying to throw the “WESTERN” label at me as if I am the one being provincial

The Maoli people of Hawaii had Mahu, priests who left the gender binary to become both male and female. The Ankole in Uganda elected a woman to become a man and act as a priest to a god. In the Sakalave people of Madagascar some little boys were raised as girls and were called sekrata. The Bugis of Indonesia recognized five genders. Some American Indian tribes have a concept often called “two spirited” which encompassed diverse sexualities and/or gender expressions. You have the femminielli of Italy. In Japanese culture you have “The Great Mirror of Male Love” a book about those with mixed relationships and those who chose exclusively male relationships (i.e. what we would call bisexual men and another category who we would call gay men). You have works in China and India that explicitly group those who chose exclusively male partners. Plato talks of men who only chose other male partners.

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination... Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you..." (Lev. 18:22,24)

*Just because whole communities, societies, or nations agreed doesn't make a concept correct.*

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Have a few more:

https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/Discrimination/LGBT/FactSheets/UNFESexual_orientation_gender_identity_throughout_history.pdf

Many of these alternate sexualities and genders were weakened or outright destroyed by colonialism. Good job Christianity and Islam!

Yes, correcting skewed sexual morals was a good fruit of the spread of the Abrahamic regions. Although the intensity of some in stamping it out was not Christlike, but they will have to answer to God for any cruelty.

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

 

 

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Yes, we call that majority the straight or heterosexual peoples in our culture. As I pointed out to you before when you are the default you don’t think about it a lot. Do you think that if your sexual and romantic attractions were radically different you might think about it a little bit more?

Yes, I do and I have- and I choose God's commandments and the hope of a glorious future.

[Daniel2]

On 3/31/2024 at 12:14 AM, smac97 said:

No.

• 'A central -- if not perhaps the most central -- element that has characterized modern homosexuality is the understanding of erotic same-sex attraction as a fundamental element of the individual's biological or psychological makeup. Homosexuality has thus been defined and constructed around the debate over the innate character of sexual identity, whether governed by nature or nurture, biology or culture, genetics or environment' (Robert Beachy, 'The German invention of homosexuality', Journal of Modern History, 82:4 [2010], 803-04).
• 'This idea of (homo)sexual personhood has a very recent history. The homosexual "species" emerged and took root in Germany after the mid-nineteenth century through the collaboration of Berlin's medical scientists and sexual minorities. This confluence of biological determinism and subjective expressions of sexual personhood was largely a German phenomenon, moreover, and it clearly underpins modern conceptions of sexual orientation' (ibid., 804).

From 2019: “Born That Way” No More: The New Science of Sexual Orientation

"People with same-sex attractions should be legally and culturally free not to identify with or act on them."

I am surprised that this seems like a controversial statement.

"Born that way" is, I think, still up for discussion and debate.  However, regardless of the outcome of that debate, the notion that an individual ought to have the autonomy to set aside "the dominant cultural narrative about sexual orientation," that it is an "identity" (buttressed by the notion of it "as a distinctly bounded biological class of people").

"Sexual Orientation Determinism" seems to be an important component of maintaining "sexual identity" as a social construct.  If it (Determinism) is not what it seems to be, then perhaps neither is the "identity."

That there exists such a potent "impulse to suppress scientific evidence for the sake of political expediency" is, for me, pretty good evidence for re-visiting the concept of "sexual identity" (which, it seems, is susceptible to being propped up by this "impulse to suppress").

"{T}he struggle for freedom today {in the West is} for people who want to avoid or resist such an identification {based on sexual orientation} for themselves."

I think this is worth some real discussion.

"{T}he Malleability of Sexual Identity."

"{T}he adoption of a sexual identity unconstrained by internal attraction—homosexual, heterosexual, or something else—is well within the range of development for most people."

"'{I}t is, of course, possible,' they write, 'to change one’s public sexual-orientation identity, and one can certainly make choices about whether one will or will not engage in same-sex or opposite-sex sexual behavior or become celibate.'"

"{D}ozens of accounts of persons who have transitioned away from homosexual identity and behavior."

"{T}he impulse to constrain or coerce such persons’ choices about same-sex identity and behavior."

These comments sure seem to merit some discussion.

Here's a 2023 article: Fixed or Fluid? Sexual Identity Fluidity in a Large National Panel Study of New Zealand Adults

Some excerpts:

This makes no sense at all if sexual orientation is a fixed and immutable and innate and intrinsic aspect of each individual.  However, it makes all sorts of sense if "sexual identity" is acknowledged for what it is: a social construct that "can shift over time."

"Change was bi-directional (i.e. toward and away from LGB+ identities)..."

"{O}penness to experience was associated with increased odds of changing from a heterosexual to a plurisexual identity."

"{S}exual identity can be fluid into adulthood."

These findings sure seem to merit some discussion.

"{T}he 'master narrative' of sexual orientation posits static categories of sexual orientation that develop early and remain stable over time ... However, a growing body of literature reveals that sexual behavior, attractions, and identity do change over time."  This makes sense when sexual orientation is acknowledged a social construct.

We are living in a time in which "people can freely express their sexual identity," which also allows us "to appropriately examine sexual fluidity."

"Sexual fluidity" sure seems more congruent with "sexual identity" as a social construct than as a fixed state of being.  Moreover, while I quite agree that "legal and social oppression {of} LGB+ people" is a real problem, I also think that there seems to be an oppressive element that seeks to "oppress" . . . sexual fluidity.  The notion that a person can choose to avail themselves to "sexual behavior, attractions, and identity {changing} over time" seems to be verboten in some circles.  I find that troubling.  Individuals ought to have the right to adopt changes in these things for themselves, for any reason or no reason at all.  And yes, those reasons could include the individual's desire to conform to religious doctrines.  If it's not compulsory, then let 'em do what they want.

"{I}t is essential to distinguish sexual identity mobility (or fluidity) from any externally directed 'conversion.' ... {S}exual fluidity refers to natural changes that happen in attractions and behaviors, and subsequently identity, in response to different situations, experiences, relationships, and social contexts."  This seems pretty sensible to me.  Coercive conversion therapies were problematic for a variety of reasons.  But "sexual fluidity" as "natural changes that happen in attractions and behaviors" makes a lot of sense, both anecdotally and scientifically.  

"The present study focused on one aspect of sexual identity – changes in how participants label and identify themselves. By doing so, we contribute to a growing body of literature on sexual identity fluidity that serves to understand how adult sexual orientation develops and changes over time."

Once more, with feeling: "The present study focused on one aspect of sexual identity – changes in how participants label and identify themselves."

I am in favor of letting people choose, including whether or not the entirely set aside the notion of "sexual identity," or else be "fluid" in it (including, notably, "toward and away from LGB+ identities").

The entire article here is worth a read.

Yes.

Okay.  Sexual attraction is something that one experiences, but I think it is not, or need not be, construed to be what one is.

But not as an "identity."  That's the innovation under discussion.

This seems to be an appeal to the argumentum ad populum fallacy.  Just because something is popular does not make it true, nor does being unpopular make it false.

This seems like argumentum ad hominem. 

I am here talking to people who disagree with me, including several who seem willing to impugn my character and/or intelligence for not falling in line with you and yours.  I don't much care for bullying.  I am willing to listen to what you have to say, in the end I have to make up my own mind about these things.

Right back atcha.

Right back atcha.

Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac

Interesting. 

This post (and the rest of yours in this and other threads) indicate to me that you definitely spend a LOT more time and energy centered around  “sexual identities” than I do. 

The more I read your words and how you frame things, the more I’m convinced that by your definitions, I’m actually NOT gay or homosexual, because those you describe as having chosen to identify as having “a sexual identity” don’t resonate with me or describe my life at all. 

According to how you see and define yourself and your wife, I’m just a non-sexually-identity-self-identifying guy that simply happens to be happily married to my husband.

Two genuine questions:

if you don’t believe you have/have accepted or embraced any socially-constructed sexual-identity yourself, what DOES it specifically look like/mean when someone accepts/embraces having a socially-constructed sexual identity—either straight, gay, or bi?

Conversely, what specifically does it look like/mean to reject accepting/embracing any of these allegedly “socially constructed sexual identities”? From what I understand, you don’t self-identify with any sexual identity, even though you’re happily married to your wife. Is that right?

Edited April 1, 2024 by Daniel2

[Teancum]

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

It is also a fairly vague comment.

I don't.  Hence my request that you elaborate.

I have my flaws, but feigning misunderstanding or obtusity is not one of them.

Nevertheless, you have no obligation here.  If you don't want to explain yourself, I won't press the point and just ignore your statement.

Thanks,

-Smac

No it was not vague. It was in direct response where you expressed hope that Archuleta had a "change of heart" and put aside his decision to live out his life without restrictions imposed on him by the church.  I said maybe you and others who feel are the ones who need a change of heart.  Perhap you and yours are the ones who are wrong and need the change. Understand now?

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination... Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you..." (Lev. 18:22,24)

*Just because whole communities, societies, or nations agreed doesn't make a concept correct.*

Yes, correcting skewed sexual morals was a good fruit of the spread of the Abrahamic regions. Although the intensity of some in stamping it out was not Christlike, but they will have to answer to God for any cruelty.

 

Yes, I do and I have- and I choose God's commandments and the hope of a glorious future.

The Bible and incest too, it's full of it, you take this one scripture and forget all it entails. The Bible is actually not a good thing to study in these cases, almost gives some the idea that it's okay, and as President Carter once mentioned, the Bible causes women to be abused to this day. Here's the wiki article that is eyeopening, at how human sexuality has evolved. I'd be more concerned about it being okay for a father to have sex with a daughter by far.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest_in_the_Bible#:~:text=The relationships prohibited by Leviticus,stepmother (Leviticus 18%3A8)

And here's the article about Jimmy Carter's thoughts on the Bible: https://theelders.org/news/words-god-do-not-justify-cruelty-women

[ZealouslyStriving]

12 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

The Bible and incest too, it's full of it, you take this one scripture and forget all it entails. The Bible is actually not a good thing to study in these cases, almost gives some the idea that it's okay, and as President Carter once mentioned, the Bible causes women to be abused to this day. Here's the wiki article that is eyeopening, at how human sexuality has evolved. I'd be more concerned about it being okay for a father to have sex with a daughter by far.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest_in_the_Bible#:~:text=The relationships prohibited by Leviticus,stepmother (Leviticus 18%3A8)

And here's the article about Jimmy Carter's thoughts on the Bible: https://theelders.org/news/words-god-do-not-justify-cruelty-women

Those other unauthorized sexual acts are not the subject of this thread. Had they been I would have addressed them.