another argument for gay marriage

[RedHeadGal]

Originally Posted by Tex

I'm willing to bet money that you can't define "neo-con" without a dictionary or Google.

Condescention is so unbecoming. I was sincere in saying that you offered a perspective I don't have. And I doubt I could offer a definition of anything, regardless of resources, over which you wouldn't quibble if you felt the need.

Originally Posted by Tex

A person that overwhelmed by his attraction for the opposite sex should not get involved in a heterosexual relationship with the expectation or hope that doing so will (by itself) change him. I think the church has made that pretty clear as well.

But, by the same token, I would say the same of a person who is unable to remain monogamous. Someone unable to control the "natural" (there's that word again) male urge to wander should not commit himself to a (semi-) permanent relationship, expecting that doing so will change him.

I never said anyone was trying to change their orientation, nor did I say anything about the level of SSA (are there levels? I don't really know). I don't understand your monagamy analogy at all.

[RedHeadGal]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Would I want my daughter to marry a gay dude? Hell no.

For gay Mormon men, many of them likely go through an awkward period of dating women, and being confused, and not knowing what to do.

How is it going to be clear to these young Mormon women that their boyfriends are gay? Esp. if most of them have chaste relationships?

The temptation to live a deception is intense. The temptation to maintain a deception is also intense.

However, I'm not at all certain that those temptations disappear if gay marriage is legal. Especially among LDS members.

I agree that in the Mormon context, it wouldn't matter so much about the legality so long as the practice is still not accepted (even if legal). Of course, we all know that legalizing gay marriage does begin to create problems for the church, which has been resting on the crutch that sex outside of marriage is wrong, and gays therefore can't live chaste sex lives. I suppose that's why the arguments about it simply being against God are being marshalled.

Which begs that question that this article spurred for me: what are those people do to? They can't marry, and they can't have sex. Are they to just be alone for their whole lives, no choice?

[RedHeadGal]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Just analyzing, it seems if legal acceptance creates greater cultural acceptance, it is possible that fewer instances of what you describe would occur. Whether it would be statistically significant, I don't know.

Within the LDS community, I don't believe national acceptance of gay marriage would somehow change cultural disfavor of the relationships, so you're likely to continue to see SSA men still go through the motions dating heterosexually. IOW, where the cultural resistance thwarts the legal acceptance, it may make little or no difference.

Any difference would probably happen over time. I agree with what you say here. Even so, we are certainly affected by the larger social context and accepted norms, so it's likely there would be an effect on the LDS community in time. Makes me wonder a bit whether my views on abortion, for example, have been affected because I grew up in a post-Roe world.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by RedHeadGal

I agree that in the Mormon context, it wouldn't matter so much about the legality so long as the practice is still not accepted (even if legal). Of course, we all know that legalizing gay marriage does begin to create problems for the church, which has been resting on the crutch that sex outside of marriage is wrong, and gays therefore can't live chaste sex lives. I suppose that's why the arguments about it simply being against God are being marshalled.

Which begs that question that this article spurred for me: what are those people do to? They can't marry, and they can't have sex. Are they to just be alone for their whole lives, no choice?

Theologically and practically, Mormons offer no practical answer. Abstain from sex which is not genetic, until the afterlife when you won't want it through a miracle of God removing something you didn't want any way.

At this juncture, the solutions of our culture are quite incomplete and unsatisfying.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Theologically and practically, Mormons offer no practical answer. Abstain from sex which is not genetic, until the afterlife when you won't want it through a miracle of God removing something you didn't want any way.

At this juncture, the solutions of our culture are quite incomplete and unsatisfying.

I don't know about that, I think genital shock therapy has some merit.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by RedHeadGal

Condescention is so unbecoming. I was sincere in saying that you offered a perspective I don't have. And I doubt I could offer a definition of anything, regardless of resources, over which you wouldn't quibble if you felt the need.

I don't doubt your sincerity, but if you're going to call it the "neo-con" perspective, you should at least know what that means. Maybe I don't consider myself one, eh?

Originally Posted by RedHeadGal

I never said anyone was trying to change their orientation, nor did I say anything about the level of SSA (are there levels? I don't really know). I don't understand your monagamy analogy at all.

I didn't say anything about changing orientation or SSA levels either. Not sure where you're going with that.

My point with the monogamy analogy is this: I don't consider homosexual urges any different than heterosexual urges as it concerns marital fidelity. If a person is so consumed with said urges that he cannot remain faithful, then that person should not marry. What does SSA have to do with it?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Theologically and practically, Mormons offer no practical answer. Abstain from sex which is not genetic, until the afterlife when you won't want it through a miracle of God removing something you didn't want any way.

At this juncture, the solutions of our culture are quite incomplete and unsatisfying.

Abstinence is impractical?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

Abstinence is impractical?

I assume, without knowing, you are married.

Be honest for one moment, would you want to live a life devoid of sexual congress?

It is contrary to the human species to abstain completely forever. Yes people do it, but I speculate those persons live unhappy and unfulfilled lives, feeling empty as a result of the lack of human connection created through conjugal union.

Yes a lifetime devoid of sex is impractical.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I assume, without knowing, you are married.

Be honest for one moment, would you want to live a life devoid of sexual congress?

It is contrary to the human species to abstain completely forever. Yes people do it, but I speculate those persons live unhappy and unfulfilled lives, feeling empty as a result of the lack of human connection created through conjugal union.

Yes a lifetime devoid of sex is impractical.

I guess it depends on how we're going to define impractical. If we're using impractical as a synonym for unreasonable or even impossible, well ... there are many people who do it, and still live fulfilled, meaningful lives.

If we're using impractical to mean unwise or ill-advised, well ... you do recognize it's a commandment, right? That this is in our theology? Our doctrine teaches than man will be happier in abstinence than in occasional indiscretion coupled with repentance. I.e., wickedness never was happiness, the atonement notwithstanding.

That's not to say abstaining is easy. Neither is chastity. Or a host of other sins, depending on the person. But that doesn't make them impractical.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

I guess it depends on how we're going to define impractical. If we're using impractical as a synonym for unreasonable or even impossible, well ... there are many people who do it, and still live fulfilled, meaningful lives.

If we're using impractical to mean unwise or ill-advised, well ... you do recognize it's a commandment, right? That this is in our theology? Our doctrine teaches than man will be happier in abstinence than in occasional indiscretion coupled with repentance. I.e., wickedness never was happiness, the atonement notwithstanding.

That's not to say abstaining is easy. Neither is chastity. Or a host of other sins, depending on the person. But that doesn't make them impractical.

It is easy to pen your words, but because you do not have to abstain, I think it is far easier for you to opine that others can live fulfilled lives than to know it.

I submit, you may or may not be willing to do it, if the situation were upon you, which I hope it does not come upon you, but this theoretical pontification is far from easy or light.

Losing passion loses an essence of life. Of course, I cannot begin to comprehend homosexual passion and don't really care to know much about it, but analogizing it to heterosexual passion, to be condemned to a life without it, would be a burden I would not wish upon anybody.

And, I actually thank you for your ability to say it without laughing, but deferring to the authority card, "it's a commandment" is of small consolation. There really is no equal value comparison to not sharing one's physical joy with another. It is natural, instinctive and necessary for the species, and for relationships. Drawing an analogy to anything else is unfair and mocks the conjugal act's value and worth.

"Yes you are commanded to have a miserable life."

"But I thought it was so I might have joy?"

"Well for others but not for you."

"Sigh."