Spiritual Needs of Homosexuals

[Pintail]

Thanks for clearing that up.

[skippy740]

You can find all the Prop 8 threads for your reference here:

Preserving Marriage between a man and a woman - LDS Mormon Forums

It's an old and tired argument and debate.

I vote to close the thread because the useful conversation & posting has already been done.

Just my opinion.

[Maxel]

I don't disagree with skippy. This thread- because of a lack of direction- has wound up in prop 8 and the-morality-of-judging-homosexuality territory; both old topics.

[HEthePrimate]

Well, to get back on topic, I have a good friend who's gay and LDS. He's an RM and still has a testimony, but no longer attends church because his needs are not being met there. Actually, it's more than that. He kept hearing LDS people saying bad things about homosexuals and he got sick and tired of it. It didn't matter that he wasn't "living the lifestyle" and even had a temple recommend, people still marginalized him. Whether or not the Church develops any special programs for homosexuals, I think we, as individual members and families, should make a conscious effort to reach out to them, be their friends, and think about how what we say might affect others.

HEP

[Aesa]

Is this from experience? How did you come to this definite conclusion that gay men usually or sometimes develop "lisps" because they increasingly hang out with women?

What about the only boy in a family of all girls? That individual will be around these girls most of their lives. Do they have "lisps" as well? Should I be worried for my son because his two older sisters might cause him to develop a lisp during his early years of language development?

FYI-I have two friends who have lived in France (6 years) and Germany (15 years). Neither of them have "lisps" or even an accent when they speak english. Are you sure you don't want to re-think your hypothesis?

No, I don't. It's the environment at large that shapes our behaviour. One example does not refute the general occurance. I do agree with you in some way, though, in that I am not speaking in a one case fits all type of thing. Your boys may very well maintain a voice that is reflective of what you'd consider 'normal' for a male. However, you have to remember that I also stated that not all gay men speak in lisp.

I grew up not knowing what "gay" meant, born in 1960. I knew I was attracted to girls but had no idea that was an option. Most of the gay folk in my church had the same experience. Some figured it all out after they married and realized "this is just not going to work".

I can't claim to know your environment, but evidence all over the world would suggest that human behaviour is determined by the environment (so, my conclusion is that all people pick up who they are, from some source).

Not to dismiss environment on being a probable cause but ever increasing scientific evidence refutes your opinion on this.

Can you provide some peer-reviewed papers on this? I'm just going to dismiss this until you do.

No simple cause for sexual orientation has been conclusively demonstrated, and there is no scientific consensus as to whether the contributing factors are primarily biological or environmental.

I personally prefer to take the side that a humans behaviour is environmental, and therefore can be altered.

I personally believe that most of you believe that behaviour comes from the environment. If you have an alcoholic husband, you don't help them overcome that by keeping their favourite wine or beer in the home: you alter the environment. If you don't want your girls dressing like tarts, you moderate the media influences they're exposed to and any other area you may deem harmful (hanging around with the wrong people, etc,.) If you have a selfish child that thinks only for themself then perhaps you'll take them to a place where they can witness those going without and experience it intimately. If you have a friend with a sex addiction, you try and identify what (environment) is causing it.

Genetics may play a role, but I refuse to accept the ridiculous notion that our genetics control us totally. We have agency, and if we have that then genetics cannot be the total controllers of our behaviour because that implies that all our actions are pre-defined and we're about as free as a computer (which can only respond in a systematic way) and notions of agency just go out the window.

And what about when they had that Homosexuality story-book for kids in a school (California?) - people didn't want that in their children's environment? Why? Because it would give them a view that the parents didn't hold or consider appropriate.

To over emphasise genetics is as bad as the philosophically motivated geneticists who are looking for the "smoking gene" or the "gay gene" or the "republican gene" or the "musician gene."

Such things do not exist, and that is why they haven't been found.

(And I realise this is off topic, so please ignore this or we'll move it to another thread)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm actually surprised that the LDS church isn't providing for the needs of gay people morseo? I remember an interview with Hinckley saying "...We're reaching out to these people and trying to work with them..." Is the Church, or isn't it?

Edited May 14, 2009 by Aesa

[Ezequiel]

I just want to add my own thoughts on the issue. I think this is an important topic to talk about. It should concern all of us.

I think the church is an incredible institution. While there are many within the church who are very intolerant of those who struggles with SSA, there are many who arent. The spiritual needs of those people are being met. There is tons of help being offered. The struggler (in this case, I like to refer to them as 'warriors' instead), just needs to work up the courage to open their mouths and ask for that help. I think there is the huge misconception when we think of homosexuality and same gender attraction. One who has a same sex orientation is not a sinner - and can still receive all the blessings of the gospel, as long as they live by the commandaments. If we could all be more educated in this topic though, I think less people would be afraid to cry out for help, and there would be fewer suicides.

I agree that there isn't as much aid in this topic as there are of other topics, but the bit that there is, is quality and valuable information, and very helpful. We just need to stop looking for a reason or origin of the problem, and focus on rightous living. Afterall, the goal of a faithfull lds is not heterosexuality, but holiness!

here is an interesting site put up by a few members of the church - anyone who deals with this issue should read their articles and join their message boards. Its a group of very faithfull Latter-day saints who deal with this issue!

http://www.lds-ssa.org

[bytor2112]

Well, to get back on topic, I have a good friend who's gay and LDS. He's an RM and still has a testimony, but no longer attends church because his needs are not being met there. Actually, it's more than that. He kept hearing LDS people saying bad things about homosexuals and he got sick and tired of it. It didn't matter that he wasn't "living the lifestyle" and even had a temple recommend, people still marginalized him. Whether or not the Church develops any special programs for homosexuals, I think we, as individual members and families, should make a conscious effort to reach out to them, be their friends, and think about how what we say might affect others.

HEP

I am confused by this.....how are his spiritual needs not being met there? Do the members know he has same sex attraction? Or has he been out spoken on the issue? Just curious.

I have often wondered how someone can be homosexual if the are not involved in any sinful acts. Isn't it the sinful act that makes someone homosexual? We all fight against some kind of temptation, it is in yielding to the temptation that makes one a liar, fornicator, thief, adulterer, homosexual, etc.....no?

[john doe]

I think Bytor brings up a good point. Is it correct to call someone a homosexual if they do not act upon their same-sex attraction?

[cofchristcousin]

I think Bytor brings up a good point. Is it correct to call someone a homosexual if they do not act upon their same-sex attraction?

Yes. It's correct. If a person looks in the dictionary it means that a person is attracted to the same sex. It gives our language some continuity to aid in communication. Religious talk makes a distinction between acting and feeling. I don't know what word would be best for that religious area of the discussion. In my world we say celibate or active. Some use the term "openly gay" to mean someone is sexually active. That is probably not accurate. Many gltb are open about their attraction, but are celibate.

[Dravin]

I think Bytor brings up a good point. Is it correct to call someone a homosexual if they do not act upon their same-sex attraction?

Is it correct to call me a heterosexual? I'm not acting on that attraction. If somebody considers themselves bisexual is this incorrect until they've had sexual relations with somebody of both sexes? It's a descriptor of who you are sexually attracted to, not who you've engaged in sexual behavior with.

That's my $500 in Monopoly moneys worth.

[Guest Apostate]

Oh...please...how far beyond Blue Velvet are certain people going to make this laughable subject?

[bytor2112]

Yes. It's correct. If a person looks in the dictionary it means that a person is attracted to the same sex. It gives our language some continuity to aid in communication. Religious talk makes a distinction between acting and feeling. I don't know what word would be best for that religious area of the discussion. In my world we say celibate or active. Some use the term "openly gay" to mean someone is sexually active. That is probably not accurate. Many gltb are open about their attraction, but are celibate.

So, if I am sexually attracted to Ms. California and would like to marry her......I am an adulterer and a polygamist....just not active???

[cofchristcousin]

So, if I am sexually attracted to Ms. California and would like to marry her......I am an adulterer and a polygamist....just not active???

LOL! Yep, just like Jesus said.

More seriously, I admit my limitations in communicating in a foreign religion or maybe, culture. I had no idea how much until I came here. If there is to be cross cultural and cross religion discussion of this public and political issue, then we need a common language. I believe the LDS in their publications has adopted this common language.

I think they might also be trying to reduce the horror and self and other destruction that can come when one believes being a homosexual is worse than death. It brings the word back down to earth, takes the destructive power out of the word and defines it more clinically, and for what it is, an attraction to the same gender. Carrying the "label" homosexual is not a sin in your church, nor mine.

Edited May 14, 2009 by cofchristcousin

[interalia]

I prefer to think of it in terms of a condition rather than a statement of identity. For instance, I struggle with feelings that I'm in the wrong skin, thus I have GID (Gender Identity Disorder). Someone who feels sexually attracted to the same sax has SSA or SGA (Same Sex/Gender Attraction).

Sure one could call me a transsexual and one could call the other a homosexual and it would be correct - however those words bring with them connotations that one is also acting on these impulses.

[bytor2112]

LOL! Yep, just like Jesus said.

More seriously, I admit my limitations in communicating in a foreign religion or maybe, culture. I had no idea how much until I came here. If there is to be cross cultural and cross religion discussion of this public and political issue, then we need a common language. I believe the LDS in their publications has adopted this common language.

I think they might also be trying to reduce the horror and self and other destruction that can come when one believes being a homosexual is worse than death. It brings the word back down to earth, takes the destructive power out of the word and defines it more clinically, and for what it is, an attraction to the same gender. Carrying the "label" homosexual is not a sin in your church, nor mine.

Do we agree that to act upon these inclinations (g/l) are a sin? If so, then why would one wish to be identified by a term also used to describe a sexual sin? I wouldn't want to describe myself as an adulterer or polygamist for having the thoughts I described regarding Ms. California. If one has no intention of acting upon a proclivity or temptation, then why wouldn't they want to distance themselves from the sin or any descriptive term of the sin as they could.

Edited May 14, 2009 by bytor2112

[cofchristcousin]

I prefer to think of it in terms of a condition rather than a statement of identity. For instance, I struggle with feelings that I'm in the wrong skin, thus I have GID (Gender Identity Disorder). Someone who feels sexually attracted to the same sax has SSA or SGA (Same Sex/Gender Attraction).

Sure one could call me a transsexual and one could call the other a homosexual and it would be correct - however those words bring with them connotations that one is also acting on these impulses.

I have trouble with the language too. Many gltb reject the word homosexual because it was a mental illness diagnosis. That was struck down 30 some years ago and they don't like to align with the language that harmed them so much.

The general public also frequently believes bisexual means orgy. It doesn't, not even close. But bi's are judged on that definition. These are part of the reason why I think using the dictionary definitions are important.

[Guest Apostate]

Bytor...If you got the hots for Carrie...Well, I'd say you got good taste in women...jajajajajajajaja

On second thought, take a number and get in line, I'm calling Hitch to get me a date...jajajajaja

[cofchristcousin]

Do we agree that to act upon these inclinations (g/l) are a sin? If so, then why would one wish to be identified by a term also used to describe a sexual sin?

No. I believe acting irresponsibly sexually is a sin. Outside the LDS and evangelical churches, less so with lay Catholicss, it is not universally considered to be a sin to be partnered with someone of the same sex.

[bytor2112]

No. I believe acting irresponsibly sexually is a sin. Outside the LDS and evangelical churches, less so with lay Catholicss, it is not universally considered to be a sin to be partnered with someone of the same sex.

What do you mean irresponsibly sexually? Is g/l sex ever not a sin?

[bytor2112]

Bytor...If you got the hots for Carrie...Well, I'd say you got good taste in women...jajajajajajajaja

On second thought, take a number and get in line, I'm calling Hitch to get me a date...jajajajaja

Yes, unfortunately for her, I am already taken.....but she can dream.

[Misshalfway]

Yes, unfortunately for her, I am already taken.....but she can dream.

Does someone have a fire hose????

[spiritseeker]

:lol::lol::lol:

[cofchristcousin]

I have tried to avoid discussing the religious part of this. I respect your place to discuss what you believe. I try to stay in the civil law/government part of the discussion. I forget sometimes. :)

But, I'll answer just this once.

Outside of the LDS and Catholicism there is a huge debate going on about whether gltb marriage is ok. Even in Evangelicalism there are movements to look again, or at the very least be more merciful and compassionate, and repentant of the times our religions acted in fear, hate, and ignorance.

Personally, I believe gltb can have sacred marriages in the eyes of God.

[Misshalfway]

I think the best thing that we can do is to seek to understand each other better. Problem is we are too threatened by each other and we humans desperately need to be "right" or justified some how. I see condemnation being thrown from both sides of this issue.

I suppose that is part of being human and mortal and flawed. But perhaps it is an opportunity to learn HOW the Savior loved even with all the imperfection and sinfulness. Judging another person.....even condemning another person just isn't our job! And requiring that people come to truth or repentance on our time schedule isn't either. What we are to do is to invite and then let each other choose. God takes care of the rest.

Can the LDS church and its members understand SSA better? Yes. But I don't think it should have to compromise its values to do so.

[Ezequiel]

Personally, I believe gltb can have sacred marriages in the eyes of God.

how so!? under whose authority???