carlimac

See, it really gets under your skin. So, one question...what would motivate any APA member to say it was a political move if it wasn't? Do you think NARTH is paying them?

What I'm saying and suggesting is that whatever emotional attraction there is between two gays isn't part of homosexuality. It's part of being human. It's because they have something in common. While some say "But SGA isn't just about sex..." and then go on to discuss the implications of having this incredible bond with their same gender, I believe they can have equally deep relationships/friendship/bonds, whatever you want to call it with the opposite gender, too. If they can't, that is most definitely a psychological issue and has nothing to do with simply being homosexual.

One of the most puzzling things for me is the notion that homosexuality isn't just a physical attraction. They claim it's emotional, too. Before I was married I had deep emotional bonds with my girlfriends. I still do actually but I'm not lesbian or bi-sexual. I had a few deep friendships with guys before marriage, but my best friend now is my husband- obviously a man. When taking sexual attraction completely out of the mix, I'd have an impossible time differentiating my emotional bonds by gender. In fact, if anything I had more and deeper bonds with women than with men. So that argument that homosexuality is not just sexual doesn't make sense. I asked my husband's opinion on this last night and he (who is most definitely heterosexual) said he has emotional attractions and bonds with "people" and that he isn't attracted more to one gender or another that way. Some of his mission companions were more emotionally/personality attractive to him than others. There were some he immediately formed friendships with. Others not. I'm not a psychologist nor have I studied the laws of attraction, but something tells me that the reason homosexuals have deep bonds with each other and are attracted to one another beyond sex is because they have SGA in common. I just don't believe that it's universally true that those with SGA can't form emotional bonds with the opposite gender.

Log2 I recommend some reading on the NARTH web site. Very enlightening. Members of the APA have come out and admitted that the decision was political. (Brace yourself for Soul and others to bash this organization. Here it comes...)

They actually haven't outlawed same gender attraction. Only homosexual relationships and intimacy. Those with SGA are encouraged not to label themselves as gay or lesbian but to look at their SGA as a challenge or imperfection to be overcome, such as they would tendencies towards getting very angry, abusing alcohol or tobacco, etc.

And you have echoed the exact sentiment of LDS church leaders in what you've just written about loving them. So anyone who is doing what you have described, casting them out of the family and whatnot isn't living the Gospel. We'll just have to look the other way with militant Christians who haven't learned from our prophet...yet.:) The other thing to take a closer look at is this...By your attitude, are you too harshly judging those who are unkind? This attitude of accepting the individual's SGA is fairly new and perhaps they are struggling with it. It's pretty hard to spin long held beliefs on a dime. We are allowed to stuggle with concepts aren't we?

I did ask her.

So give us an example of how we should be expressing our feelings on the issue.

I think my daughter was the ONLY one dressed modestly at her prom in MN. She's lined up for pictures with at least 10 other girls ALL in strapless dresses. I have to say, (no bias or anything ) my daughter was the most beautiful and radiant of the group.

Give me an example of a more loving proclamation. Not sure it could get any more loving or straightforward than what we have heard from our prophet and other general authorities. Smoking and drinking are behaviors that can be eliminated if thefamily members were to learn about and accept the gospel. A gay couple would have to separate or get divorced. What are the chances of that happening? That's a different and much more complicated and emotional scenario that giving up smoking and drinking.

But Gwen, does the child have any chance of being taught the gospel? Perhaps they come across it later in life. How do they then reconcile the fact that the two people who loved them and that hopefully they loved the most were living in sin? Like Travelor said, parents are supposed to teach by example. Two lesbians or two gays may be the most Christlike individuals, full of love and charity for all, but they are still living in sin. Wouldn't you agree that it would be near impossible for them to teach the law of chastity to their children? UNLESS homosexual marriage becomes legal through out the country and so by the laws of the land they aren't breaking the law of chastity. BUT they would still be breaking God's laws. What a tangled mess that child would have to figure out. Hypothetical- Is it better to be raised by two homosexuals outside of the gospel example or in foster homes or an orphanage where there is still the chance of learning about Heavenly Father's plan for families? One more thing, How do you figure Christ would be embarrassed by our trying to proclaim his gospel on these threads? Aren't we supposed to be a light on a hill?

I still don't agree with generalized stats being worth anything in this case. One "scientific" study of children of lesbian parents only asked their mothers how the kids were doing. Duh! Not terribly objective method. And that's the problem. The WHOLE notion of fit parenting is subjective. It always will be. What is great discipline to one person will be not great discipline to another. What is a "happy thriving child" to one person may not be to another. That's why I laugh at the APA's statement that gays and lesbians make equally good parents as straights. It's impossible to measure every aspect of the child's personality and life to find out how gay or lesbian parents might be affecting them. And I would bet that some of the most eternally important questions are never even asked. The real effect is buried under societal norms. So from there where do we go? The the Gospel of Jesus Christ- specifically to the direction from modern day prophets who have the latest info from our Father in Heaven. If HE who knows ALL says it's best for children to have a mother and father of opposite genders, I'm going to trust that. He obviously knows more than the APA. And for your other little exercise- List 1- that order would be my vote List 2- Biological mother and father together is tops (when genuinely attempting to parent the way Heavenly Father wants us to- the ideal). Adoptive, bio father alone or bio mother alone can't be put in any particular order because there are too many variables. Some adoptives would be better than single bios. List 3- Man and woman Single man or single woman Totally scratch the open marriage thing unless it's during a time when God has commanded polygamy Homosexuals None (this is interchangeable with homosexuals depending on the conditions of the orphanage)

Well at least the kids showed how to act when bullied. Just walk away. Don't whine and cry. Just turn your back on the bully. Some suggest the walkout was pre-planned. I don't know if it was or not. Either way, it was a peaceful way to protest what was going on.

I hope you realize that when I say some gay parents would be better than hetero parents, I'm talking about individual parenting skills and know-how when dealing with kids. Some gays are excellent with kids and have superior parenting/nurturing/teaching kid skills. That's why it seems so disappointing to me that they allow themselves to indulge in their same gender attraction, thereby making themselves not fit to be the kind of parents our Father in Heaven has in mind. I believe He has given them the talents and gifts to pass along- to help develop excellent qualities to the next generation, but their "gayness" is hampering that effort. I think that is one reason why the adversay (I almost feel like it's "He who must not be named") is rejoicing in the rise of homosexuality. He wants to prevent goodness in the world from flourishing. He wants all mankind to be miserable like himself. By selfishly indugling in homosexuality, men and women, although they may be temporarily ennlivened by it, are going down a path to destruction not only of themselves but of what could be in the next generation of their offspring.

There are some gay individuals who without a doubt would be better parents than some straight individuals. There are without a doubt some gay couples who would be more dedicated to the children they aquire than some natural straight parents. So to try to apply statistics to this seems useless. Parenting skill is highly individual depending on the personality and experience of each person. The generalizations and claims coming from certain organizations saying "they rate the same as traditional couples" really aren't relevant (or believable, in my opinion) what we should be focusing on. Since this is an LDS forum and supposedly we are to be expressing LDS doctrine and beliefs, what we should be looking at is what we believe our Heavenly Father's view is on this issue. That is that children do best and deserve to have two parents, one from each gender wherever possible. To intentionally deny a parent of one gender in the home (as would be the case in a same gender marriage or union) goes directly against His plan. And gay parents living together are in direct opposition to the law of chastity. The ideal scenario of course would be that those hetero parents (sealed in the temple) and who choose to have or adopt children, be completely dedicated to their families and to raising them in light of the gospel, teaching, loving, providing a positive example to them daily. This is an ideal that I believe is reachable. But there are all levels of ability and desire, even within LDS members to reach this level of successful parenting. So no, this ideal isn't always reached. But (again stats are not terribly useful) my guess is that a good percentage of families within the church- at least half or more are trying to raise families this way. So if we're aiming for the ideal, there is no place for gay couples in our Heavenly Father's plan.

While what you state is true, the part I bolded seems extraneous and unnecessary to the conversation. Rape of any kind doesn't help the argument for either side.

Here is yet another example of what I'm talking about. Anti-Bullying Speaker Curses Christian Teens | FOX News & Commentary: Todd Starnes Apparently he's the instigator of the "It Gets Better" movement. I wonder if he realizes that what he did in that convention isn't going to help things get any better for himself or any other gay youth. I want to ask, "What was he smoking?"

Ok but I still don't think it's a very smart way to argue the point. Even as a hetero it comes across to me as an extreme and unnecessary example- one that would offend and distract more than illustrate a point.

Then the leaders were wrong to make a stink if he was only questioning but hadn't really declared himself aetheist or agnostic. But then again, if BSA has a no aetheist policy they get to call the shots, like it or not.

Ok I just read it and yes it was wrong of the leaders. But is any kid who wonders about his faith going to be treated the same way by the BSA or was this an isolated incident?

How does it punish them for asking questions? Again I can't see the connection. And the cold medicine has worn off now. They are going to ask questions regardless of who their scout leaders are or aren't as the case may be.

I agree with everything except the bolded part. There is nothing beneficial about heterosexual rape. Yes a child might come of it but the price is just too high. The worth of life of that child should never ever be tied to the circumstances in which it was concieved. One should never say..."well at least I got a baby out of it."

Speaking of agenda, as well as attitudes and behavior of this group who so desperately want to be set apart and protected, I wonder how this is supposed to garner support from the conservative faction. Making a big stink and fussing generally doesn't earn one any respect. She should realize she is dealing with a private organization who can write their own rules. If she is really sincere about wanting to do volunteer work with kids there are a host of other organizations she could put her energy to that don't have the same restrictions. I just see this as more of that same junk agenda- trying to get the world to say her lifestyle is A-OK.

Got it. Sorry. I was reading it in the middle of the night with cough/cold medicine on board. I couldn't add 2 + 2 at that point. Interesting line of thought. For safety of the boys, that's probably the best combo of leaders. But then they have to define "safety" and what they are trying to keep safe. I think they'd want to keep all aspects of these kids lives "safe"- physical (although that could be debated after hearing stories from my boys and husband ), emotional, spiritual, moral...the whole ball of...chewed up bubble gum.

Just have to put this out there and I don't suggest looking it up (because the evidence it puts out is fairly disturbing) , but in an article called "Crafting Gay Children" (that has been so handily dismissed by a few posters here) it's writer shows that the official mascot of a gay slang dictionary is a picture of a Boy Scout. Just saying...