More homosexual discussion

[SoCalCoug]

The thread on CB brought up for me one of the most troubling inconsistencies in LDS doctrine regarding homosexuality.

I think it's fair to conclude that in most cases (of course, there are likely some exceptions) people with homosexual orientation have little to no choice in the matter. Whether it's genetic or environmental (or both), I haven't seen any reasonable evidence which supports the premise that people choose to be homosexual.

It is one of the scriptural axioms that "Men are that they might have joy." What is joy to LDS? Isn't it "joy and rejoicing in your posterity"? We further view the family as the most important social unit. In fact, the raising of a family with an eternal mate is one of the main goals of LDS people.

However, while the church seems to have abandoned the encouragement of homosexuals to get married anyway, they're just left out of the equation entirely.

By saying they can have their homosexual tendencies, but they just can't act on them, it's saying more than they can't have gay sex. It's saying they can't have joy in this life. They can't seek out an eternal partner, they can't share the intimacy found in a marriage, and they can't have joy in their posterity. "Look at all the happy families around you. Too bad you won't have that in this life. Maybe in the next life you can."

So while we talk about joy and happiness and families, homosexuals are constantly reminded of what they can never have, if they follow the rules of the church that tells them they cannot have joy in this life.

If you truly believe the burdens of chastity on homosexuals are similar to those on heterosexuals, you are either ignorant or a fool.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

If you truly believe the burdens of chastity on homosexuals are similar to those on heterosexuals, you are either ignorant or a fool.

why are you ruling out those who are both ignorant AND foolish?

[scottie]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

The thread on CB brought up for me one of the most troubling inconsistencies in LDS doctrine regarding homosexuality.

I think it's fair to conclude that in most cases (of course, there are likely some exceptions) people with homosexual orientation have little to no choice in the matter. Whether it's genetic or environmental (or both), I haven't seen any reasonable evidence which supports the premise that people choose to be homosexual.

It is one of the scriptural axioms that "Men are that they might have joy." What is joy to LDS? Isn't it "joy and rejoicing in your posterity"? We further view the family as the most important social unit. In fact, the raising of a family with an eternal mate is one of the main goals of LDS people.

However, while the church seems to have abandoned the encouragement of homosexuals to get married anyway, they're just left out of the equation entirely.

By saying they can have their homosexual tendencies, but they just can't act on them, it's saying more than they can't have gay sex. It's saying they can't have joy in this life. They can't seek out an eternal partner, they can't share the intimacy found in a marriage, and they can't have joy in their posterity. "Look at all the happy families around you. Too bad you won't have that in this life. Maybe in the next life you can."

So while we talk about joy and happiness and families, homosexuals are constantly reminded of what they can never have, if they follow the rules of the church that tells them they cannot have joy in this life.

If you truly believe the burdens of chastity on homosexuals are similar to those on heterosexuals, you are either ignorant or a fool.

We're on the same page here SoCal. What do you think of Elder Oaks' answer to the question "So you are saying that homosexual feelings are controllable?" in this "LDS Newsroom" article?

http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/ind...vgnextfmt=tab1

He compares controlling homosexual feelings to a person who covets someone else's property and has a strong temptation to steal it? Compares it to a person who develops a taste for alcohol? Compares it to a person who is born with a 'short fuse'? Give me a break, as if those things are remotely comparable to controlling same-sex attraction.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

The thread on CB brought up for me one of the most troubling inconsistencies in LDS doctrine regarding homosexuality.

I think it's fair to conclude that in most cases (of course, there are likely some exceptions) people with homosexual orientation have little to no choice in the matter. Whether it's genetic or environmental (or both), I haven't seen any reasonable evidence which supports the premise that people choose to be homosexual.

It is one of the scriptural axioms that "Men are that they might have joy." What is joy to LDS? Isn't it "joy and rejoicing in your posterity"? We further view the family as the most important social unit. In fact, the raising of a family with an eternal mate is one of the main goals of LDS people.

However, while the church seems to have abandoned the encouragement of homosexuals to get married anyway, they're just left out of the equation entirely.

By saying they can have their homosexual tendencies, but they just can't act on them, it's saying more than they can't have gay sex. It's saying they can't have joy in this life. They can't seek out an eternal partner, they can't share the intimacy found in a marriage, and they can't have joy in their posterity. "Look at all the happy families around you. Too bad you won't have that in this life. Maybe in the next life you can."

So while we talk about joy and happiness and families, homosexuals are constantly reminded of what they can never have, if they follow the rules of the church that tells them they cannot have joy in this life.

If you truly believe the burdens of chastity on homosexuals are similar to those on heterosexuals, you are either ignorant or a fool.

It's no different than someone whose sexual tendencies are towards children, animals, or trees. They all have to straighten the sexual tendencies out or gut life out hoping for an eternal reward.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by scottie

We're on the same page here SoCal. What do you think of Elder Oaks' answer to the question "So you are saying that homosexual feelings are controllable?" in this "LDS Newsroom" article?

http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/ind...vgnextfmt=tab1

He compares controlling homosexual feelings to a person who covets someone else's property and has a strong temptation to steal it? Compares it to a person who develops a taste for alcohol? Compares it to a person who is born with a 'short fuse'? Give me a break, as if those things are remotely comparable to controlling same-sex attraction.

I think it's a bit of a cop-out. I wouldn't say he's absolutely wrong, because I guess that it is something that should (according to LDS doctrince) be controlled. But I think the answer gives short shrift to the true scope of the trial an LDS homosexual faces.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by jay santos

It's no different than someone whose sexual tendencies are towards children, animals, or trees. They all have to straighten the sexual tendencies out or gut life out hoping for an eternal reward.

What if it isn't the same? Are pedophiles born with an attraction to children? Aren't a lot of pedophiles married with children? Aren't most pedophiles attracted to both women and children (or men and children)? Is pedophilia a result of choices made along a path of deviant sexual behavior?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by jay santos

It's no different than someone whose sexual tendencies are towards children, animals, or trees. They all have to straighten the sexual tendencies out or gut life out hoping for an eternal reward.

With all due respect Jay, I think there is a world of difference between same-sex attraction and pedophilia or bestiality. In fact, I find such arguments to be overly simplistic and offensive.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by jay santos

It's no different than someone whose sexual tendencies are towards children, animals, or trees. They all have to straighten the sexual tendencies out or gut life out hoping for an eternal reward.

Seriously though, I highly empathize with the plight of homosexuals in the church. I know a gay man who was married and started a family, then all hell broke loose, and he ended up pursuing gay lifestyle for about a decade. He's remarried, rebaptized in the church, and says he's happy, though he'll never be more sexually interested in his wife than with other men.

One thing I truly believe about mortal life is that nearly everyone has ridiculously, difficult challenges to the point where if you learned everything you would say "that is unfair why would God ask so much of someone". Would you rather your trial be the death of a child, an addiction, homosexuality, a physical handicap, depression, cancer, a cheating spouse, financial instability, or other? The point is no one gets a pass, and they seem necessary to learn what we need to learn in this life. That said, having homosexual orientation might top them all. I would never try to minimize that challenge.

It sounds a little calloused and uncaring to tell a homosexual, too bad, you just got dealt a lousy hand, good luck with it. But that's probably how I would sum it up in a nutshell.

[Indy Coug]

Is there a genetic marker that if someone has it, they are 100% certain to have same-sex attraction? If it's less than 100%, then it's not simply a genetic, inborn condition and personal choice/societal factors come into play at some point.

I would venture a guess that same principle applies to pedophiles.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

With all due respect Jay, I think there is a world of difference between same-sex attraction and pedophilia or bestiality. In fact, I find such arguments to be overly simplistic and offensive.

You've been reading too much CB if you think that would be a serious response.