OtterPop

MoE, I did misinterpret your comment, thinking you were referring to people rather than organizations. I apologize. (And, for the record, I'm actually quite fine with being a tare.:)) It's interesting to me, as I have quite often seen PP maligned in online discussions about abortion, how so many insist on portraying PP as evil. (This is the first thread I've seen on it here, but I've seen it on other sites in the past.) People seem very willing to focus solely on the fact that PP provides abortions, even when it is pointed out that providing abortions is not the majority of what they do. Anyone who doesn't want to support PP shouldn't do so, either in giving money or in using their services. But to say, categorically, that the organization is inherently evil and that no Christian should use their services is absurd. (I am aware that you did not say this; I'm talking about the premise of this thread.) Bytor posed the question above about whether PP contributes any good in an eternal sense. So I suggest the following situation (not just to MoE): Suppose I were a faithful and believing member of the LDS church. Suppose that PP is the only place I knew to get gynecological care I could afford when I was uninsured. Suppose I believed (as I did, when I was a beliving Mormon) that PP is about women's reproductive health, not just providing abortions. Suppose I'd had severe endometriosis, which can cause infertility. Suppose that I receive treatment at PP that enabled me to remain fertile so that I could have a baby when I got married years later. Would it have been a sin for me to seek gynecological care from PP? Would Jesus care that that's where I had been treated?

What a loving comment and so helpful in furthering this discussion. Anyone else now thinking of motes and beams? I assure you, in your belief system I'm definitely a tare, and I don't pretend to be anything else.

I'm just curious -- has anyone here besides me ever been to Planned Parenthood? Certainly, if you don't want to give money to Planned Parenthood, don't. If you don't want your tax dollars going to Planned Parenthood, by all means write to your representatives, try to generate support for your position, and participate in the democratic process to whatever extent you want. Criticize Margaret Sanger all you want. She said some very ugly things and was definitely in favor of social engineering through abortion, sterilization, etc. If you read Planned Parenthood's website, they acknowledge and reject these ideas. (Just as Mormons acknowledge and reject some earlier leaders' statements on race.) Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in this country. But have you ever stopped to consider that they also work very hard to prevent unplanned pregnancies? That they believe that preventing unwanted pregnancies is a better solution than aborting them? I've been to Planned Parenthood. I've had pap smears there, I've purchased birth control there, I've been treated for minor infections there -- all at affordable prices when I didn't have health insurance. A few years ago, I received a mailer from them informing me that they had started offering services for women beyond those connected with reproductive health. Services like basic physical exams, throat cultures, etc. I work for a large company that will likely have layoffs in the next few weeks. I need a pap smear in January because my last one in August showed some abnormal cells that bear watching. You can bet that if I don't have health insurance in January, I will be very grateful that Planned Parenthood exists. I think a good Christian can be fully capable of seeing that Planned Parenthood does plenty of good. I'm curious, too, about the idea that the LDS Church is "against" Planned Parenthood. I've never heard that, and I searched their website and found no statement about it. The LDS Church doesn't typically come out against specific organizations. Can someone provide documentation about this stance? I'd appreciate it.

But what if the prophet told you to? Couldn't happen? Don't forget that part of the endowment used to be to swear vengeance on the U.S.

I didn't mean to not acknowledge our agreement . . . and, since we do agree, it is obviously part of the very nature of Eternal Truth that parents are responsible for their children.

I think these can be very dangerous beliefs, in that they can encourage people to abandon responsibility for their own actions. Church leaders, even prophets, can be wrong. Have been wrong. (The JoD has plenty of statements that most people today believe are flat-out wrong.) And it's not always clear when they are speaking "as a prophet" vs speaking "as a man." I think it can set people up for a version of the "Nuremberg defense": I'm not responsible, because I was just following orders. When I was LDS, I believed that we would stand at the judgment bar alone. Accepting counsel is one thing. Assuming that one need not reflect on statements because the thinking has been done is quite another.

I get that you believe you are an eternal being. I believe that as well. But believing it doesn't give us a perspective beyond our mortal minds, and I don't believe that laws of the land should be grounded -- or, more accurately, ungrounded -- in anyone's belief in the afterlife. There is no evidence that your believe is correct, or that mine is correct, or that Judaism is correct, or that Islam is correct . . . you get the picture.

Generally, a father has to consent to an adoption, as well -- and he has the right to contest any adoption that took place without his consent.

Loss of rights and flat-out sexism ain't so fun when you're the victim, is it? The courts do have a prejudice in favor of women it comes to parenting -- and I agree that's wrong. You lost me here. The 5th amendment deals with due process, and is most well known for including the right against self-incrimination. The right to abortion is generally grounded in the privacy rights that the Supreme Court have determined to exist in Constitutional law, mainly in the 4th and 14th amendments. What rights of fathers do you think exist in the Constitution?

Bytor, my statement was completely fair. You disputed whether men should have financial responsibility for any children that they father whom they don't want to raise. I have pointed out that unchosen fatherhood is an assumed risk of sexual intercourse. You have made it very clear that, if you had your druthers, women would have to carry every pregnancy to term (except in cases of rape and threat to the mother's life). Why can't you apply that same logic to men? You have argued many times that pregnancy is a risk that woman assume by consenting to sex. There's a direct parallel here. That's fine that you have your beliefs about eternal life, but you don't actually have an "eternal perspective." You are a mortal being living a mortal life, just like everyone else. As an American, you have the right to try to have your beliefs codified into law -- as do I. Just as surely as you believe fertilized eggs are people, I have no doubt that they are not. So of course we don't see eye to eye on abortion. And, may I point out, allowing any parent to reject their financial responsibility toward their offspring is hardly a Christ-center value, either.

Yep. I didn't say it was fair. It isn't, and there's no way to make it "fair," because only women bear children. I absolutely object to any law or policy that gives men formal control over women simply because of gender -- which is the case if men can decide whether a woman carries a pregnancy to term. After a child is born, yes, I believe it has the right to financial support from both parents, regardless of gender. It isn't "fair" that women assume all the risks and suffering of bearing children and -- still -- the bulk of child rearing. It isn't "fair" that men don't get to control whether they have a child after the act of intercourse. But why should that bother you? You have no problem with requiring women to go through pregnancy just because they have sex.

Men and women do not and cannot have equal rights in regard to pregnancy and childbearing. Men do not get pregnant and do not bear children. This is a fact -- whether natural or divine, it doesn't matter. The Supreme Court has extended the right to privacy (that they have found to exist in the 4th amendment) to include the right of a woman to make decisions about her own pregnancy. That's why men don't have rights to determine what happens in pregnancies, even if they are the father. Nor should they. There is an interesting question I haven't seen anyone address: How do you know for sure who the father of the baby is? To determine that for sure, you have to do an amniocentesis, which carries some risks for the baby. After a child is born, I think fathers and mothers should have equal rights and responsibilities. In other words, if the mother doesn't want to raise the baby, the father should not only have the right to raise the child (as he already does under the law), but the right to child support as well.

From what I've read, you are right that Elder Oaks has not changed his stance on this: he neither endorses nor rejects biological causes of homosexuality.

Hemidakota, the recommendations from LDS general authorities about homosexuality certainly have changed over the years. The emphasis currently is on "enduring to the end" by choosing actions in alignment with LDS values, rather than on overcoming such feelings by getting married, which is what the advice was not long ago.

Hemidakota, I am going off the more recent statement by Elder Oaks from the LDS church's website. I'm assuming that since you believe in living prophets, that the more recent information is considered more salient. Fiannan, I have never said that the LDS church endorses a biological cause of homosexuality. I have only said that they acknowledge it is possible, and that they don't know the causes. I have not "fused" anything. In your most recent post, you are actually agreeing with what I have been saying this whole time. Why do you keep arguing with me? I have also said that I personally think the genetic case for cause of homosexuality is relatively weak. To say that it has biological roots is not the same as saying it's genetic. The statement -- not "official" church doctrine, but as close as it gets without being doctrine -- that for years stood as the standard on homosexuality was that in SWK's book The Miracle of Forgiveness. I don't have a copy and I haven't read it in years, but I know the statement is much harsher than more current statements on homosexuality, and that many gay people have thought that they would be better off dead than gay, even if they weren't acting on it. Current statements by LDS leaders also acknowledge that the previous advice that gay people should get married is not a solution. They also acknowledge that not all people with SSA can overcome those feelings in this life. They make a clear and compassionate distinction between feelings and actions, and that didn't used to be the case. This is a step forward in understanding SSA. It is a more nuanced and less simplistic view. But I'm sure Fiannan will find a way to argue with this as well.

Quote: Originally Posted by OtterPop unixknight, How exactly do you know who is having sex with whom? Why would I need to? Why are you asking me this? Because who one has sex with is how you lazily defined the "gay lifestyle." It was meant to point out that simple definitions don't work well in this issue.

You are the only one who has attempted to twist statements by general authorities and by me to suit your own "arguments." I have acknowledged a number of times that the LDS church requires that members in good standing not engage in sex outside marriage, regardless of the genders involved. I have neither misrepresented nor criticized that view. My point in citing Elder Oaks has only been to refute your misinformation about the LDS stance on the causes of homosexuality. You seem to enjoy citing Elder Packer on this issue. However, since it is Elder Oaks's (and someone else, whose name I don't remember) statements that appear on lds.org under "Public Issues," I'm assuming these are the statements that the general authorities have determined are most accurate in describing the church's current view. My reason for for addressing this issue is that I have a significant background in working with young gay LDS men. Any member of the LDS church who is gay who is dedicated to living the LDS standards fully deserves both compassion and deep respect for the effort that this takes. Choosing not to express one's sexuality in any way is not the equivalent of choosing not to drink or to steal. In arguing that sexual orientation has biological roots and emphasizing that even the LDS church no longer claims it is merely a "choice," my goal is not to give "permission" for gay Mormons to sin; it is to encourage in Mormons a deeper understanding of the situation these members face. The LDS church has indeed become "more accepting" of homosexuality in acknowledging that it is a real struggle for gay Mormons, not a moral weakness that is easily overcome. The LDS church is not becoming more accepting of gay sex, and I have never suggested that it is. Please stop trying to twist my words and arugments to fit your accusations. You are behaving dishonorably.

unixknight, How exactly do you know who is having sex with whom?

I agree that sexual orientation is not the "equivalent" of race. However, I also believe that sexual orientation should be a protected class, like gender, race, ethnicity, religion, diability, etc. If someone is looking for a good comparison, I think Jewishness is a better one. It's not chosen, it's not instantly recognizable, but it is, rightly, a protected class. And I'm curious to know, what exactly is the gay lifestyle?

Even though I am pro-choice, I don't like this scenario at all, but I accept it as a possibility. This is not the only trait that people who are inclined to "design" their baby would select against. I've heard people talk about the desirability of aborting fetuses that have the "fat gene." This is the ugly side of cutting-edge biology.

The Mosaic Law also calls for capital punishment for fornicators. By your logic, sexuality itself cannot be an inborn characteristic, because that would make god is sadistic. You've accused others of misrepresenting the LDS church's position on the cause of homosexuality -- and here you are projecting onto them your person opinions. If they wanted to say that, don't you think they would? Fiannan, you are free to hold you opinion about the causes of homosexuality and ignore both the biological evidence and the statement of the LDS church, but why do you keep trying to legitimize your opinion through either religion or solid science? It's not working.

amtrak, I wish you luck in your search for truth. I want to add, respectfully, that not everyone who asks in faith, believing in Jesus Christ, having a genuine intent receives the same answer. If you don't get the witness people here speak of, I encourage you to examine why. If you believe that you haven't done the things that Moroni 10 asks you to do, by all means, clarify your preparation and intent and try again. If you have done the things Moroni 10 asks and don't receive the witness spoken of here, do not conclude that there is something missing in you. Pray for clarification to know if Mormonism is the way for you.

Being gay is not a sin, even in Mormonism, as being gay is not an action. Gay sex is considered a sin. I think whether it is viewed the "same" as fornication or adultery depends on the member's individual priesthood leader. I suspect that some bishops see it as comparable to unchastity between a man and a woman, and I suspect that some think it is a "worse" sin.

I certainly do get the point (and I do find this concept irrconcilable with my understanding of God) -- yet this is exactly what the lds.org statement says. It says that homosexual orientation is not eternal, but that the LDS church does not have a position on its causes here in the mortal existence. I'll quote from lds.org again, with some comment of mine: What’s more, merely having inclinations does not disqualify one for any aspect of Church participation or membership, except possibly marriage as has already been talked about. . . . This acknowledges that some people in mortality may not be able to marry. [H]omosexual feelings are controllable. Perhaps there is an inclination or susceptibility to such feelings that is a reality for some and not a reality for others. . . . An acknowledgment that, though the feelings may be real, people can still choose to live the law of chastity. We’re not talking about a unique challenge here. We’re talking about a common condition of mortality. We don’t understand exactly the ‘why,’ or the extent to which there are inclinations or susceptibilities and so on. . . . An acknowledgment that we mortals don't know why homosexuality occurs. No, we do not accept the fact that conditions that prevent people from attaining their eternal destiny were born into them without any ability to control. Addresses your concerns above, and again acknowledges that the law of chastity is in effect for everyone. . . . The Church does not have a position on the causes of any of these susceptibilities or inclinations, including those related to same-gender attraction. Those are scientific questions — whether nature or nurture — those are things the Church doesn’t have a position on. Can he be any clearer in regards to the LDS church's position on the causes of homosexuality? Fiannan, you don't seem to get that you are arguing against your church's own position. For the life of me, I don't see why. I still think an apology for your accusation that I have misrepresented the LDS church's position is in order -- but I'm not holding my breath.

Bytor, I think you are a kind man and a genuine disciple of Christ, and I mean that as a sincere compliment. I have no doubt that you treat people with dignity, regardless of whether you agree with their choices. The "homosexual issue" matters a great deal to those LDS who have to deal with it -- in themselves, their children, their spouses, their siblings, anyone they care deeply about. It can be one of the most heart-wrenching realities of mortal life for believing Mormons. With genuine respect, I say to you that it's irrelevant to you only if you don't have to deal with it directly. The LDS church has clarified, deepened, and softened their position on same-sex attraction significantly in the past 20 years. Twenty years ago, the advice was to ignore it, get married, be faithful to all your covenants, and the problem would take care of itself. That was bad advice, and I am grateful that the LDS church has changed their approach. Lots of LDS still need to understand what the church's position on homosexual orientation really is.