Same Gender Attractions: A "Special" Adversity?

[Finrock]

Greetings anyone who so happens to read this! :)

I started this thread because lately I have been participating in conversations with people about the struggle some members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have dealing with same gender attraction. The threads were started by individuals who were seeking help, guidance, support, and answers to their questions. Instead of distracting away from the intent of their thread by turning the attention away from the individual who is suffering I wanted to start a new thread where anyone interested can debate their points of view and do so without distracting from the point of these other threads.

The title of this thread should give a clue as to what my point of interest is in this discussion. When speaking about same gender attraction within an LDS context I often see the following type of contention made:

"As opposed to heterosexual church members, homosexual church members have no hope of ever being able to have intimate physical relations while still maintaining the law of chastity. Therefore the struggle of an LDS homosexual is a unique or uncommon struggle."

I find this position to be problematic for the following reasons:

1. This position, in my experience, almost always leads to another false position that somehow homosexuality is a special condition and therefore exceptions should be made to accommodate it's uniqueness.

2. Such a position contradicts scripture. For instance in 1 Corinthians 10:13 we learn that, "There hath no temptation taken [us] but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer [us] to be tempted above that [we] are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that [we] may be able to bear it."

3. The idea that there is no hope for homosexuals to be able to enjoy intimate physical relations while maintaining the law of chastity is shortsighted and artificially hopeless. It preemptively denies the declaration that Jesus Christ made that, "...with God all things are possible" (Matt. 19:26).

4. It contradicts the counsel of our prophets and apostles. Please consider the following dialogue:

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: A little earlier, Elder Oaks, you talked about the same standard of morality for heterosexuals and homosexuals. How would you address someone who said to you, ‘I understand it’s the same standard, but aren’t we asking a little more of someone who has same-gender attraction?’ Obviously there are heterosexual people who won’t get married, but would you accept that they at least have hope that ‘tomorrow I could meet the person of my dreams.’ There’s always the hope that that could happen at any point in their life. Someone with same-gender attraction wouldn’t necessarily have that same hope.

ELDER OAKS: There are differences, of course, but the contrast is not unique. There are people with physical disabilities that prevent them from having any hope — in some cases any actual hope and in other cases any practical hope — of marriage. The circumstance of being currently unable to marry, while tragic, is not unique.

It is sometimes said that God could not discriminate against individuals in this circumstance. But life is full of physical infirmities that some might see as discriminations — total paralysis or serious mental impairment being two that are relevant to marriage. If we believe in God and believe in His mercy and His justice, it won’t do to say that these are discriminations because God wouldn’t discriminate. We are in no condition to judge what discrimination is. We rest on our faith in God and our utmost assurance of His mercy and His love for all of His children.

ELDER WICKMAN: There’s really no question that there is an anguish associated with the inability to marry in this life. We feel for someone that has that anguish. I feel for somebody that has that anguish. But it’s not limited to someone who has same-gender attraction.

We live in a very self-absorbed age. I guess it’s naturally human to think about my own problems as somehow greater than someone else’s. I think when any one of us begins to think that way, it might be well be to look beyond ourselves. Who am I to say that I am more handicapped, or suffering more, than someone else?

I happen to have a handicapped daughter. She’s a beautiful girl. She’ll be 27 next week. Her name is Courtney. Courtney will never marry in this life, yet she looks wistfully upon those who do. She will stand at the window of my office which overlooks the Salt Lake Temple and look at the brides and their new husbands as they’re having their pictures taken. She’s at once captivated by it and saddened because Courtney understands that will not be her experience here. Courtney didn’t ask for the circumstances into which she was born in this life, any more than somebody with same-gender attraction did. So there are lots of kinds of anguish people can have, even associated with just this matter of marriage. What we look forward to, and the great promise of the gospel, is that whatever our inclinations are here, whatever our shortcomings are here, whatever the hindrances to our enjoying a fullness of joy here, we have the Lord’s assurance for every one of us that those in due course will be removed. We just need to remain faithful.

Certainly struggling with same gender attractions is probably very difficult. But, it is but one struggle out of thousands of others that people must face and overcome. There is no temptation seized upon us but which is common to mankind. Those struggling with homosexual tendencies are not unique in their adversity because there are many heterosexual people who struggle with the same type of adversity. And just as any heterosexual who struggles with the same type of adversity can remain faithful and hope to have their righteous desires fulfilled so too can any homosexual do the same.

Why is this important to understand? Because when we recognize and accept the fact that homosexual conduct is in the same class of conduct as any other sexual sin then how we address this issue becomes more clear and we are less likely to try and justify or somehow make normal conduct that is not justified and not normal.

Regards,

Finrock

[LocalFarms]

I think each individual person on this planet deals with "special" adversity. We all have our own unique problems equally.

[crazypotato]

I completely agree with Elder Oaks and Wickham. We all have problems, but the tendency to be self-absorbed, have self pity and think that our lives are harder than our friends is a roadblock to understanding and using the Atonement. It blocks us from serving the Lord better, from thinking of others before ourselves. The more time we spend worrying about our own problems, the worse we feel, the less we do for others, the less we have the Spirit. It spirals down from there.

Satan is sooo cleverly leading people to think they are "gay" forever and that they are in a different class than the rest of us schmos. I never had SSA, but I went through infertility where I felt like a victim, felt very sorry for myself and it seemed like everyone else had babies coming out of their ears. From my immature and limited perspective, I thought my life was harder than all the fertile people. It sounds so silly to me now. A kind coworker gently told me one day that she had married at 16 because of pregancy, and had had 2 or 3 kids by the time she was 19 or 20, and how hard that was, that everyone has different problems but we all have them. She really helped me to wake up and stop feeling sorry for myself and stop being so self-absorbed.

Life is so much easier when we focus on the Lord and how can we serve him each day, rather than focusing on what is wrong with everything.

[Connie]

LDS.org - Ensign Article - Helping Those Who Struggle with Same-Gender Attraction

[Elphaba]

When speaking about same gender attraction within an LDS context I often see the following type of contention made: . . . .

I find this position to be problematic for the following reasons:

You may find it problematic, but Elder Jefffrey R. Holland does not. In the Ensign article Connie posted, he said:

As fellow Church members, families, and friends, we need to recognize that those attracted to the same gender face some unique restrictions regarding expression of their feelings. (Emphasis mine to demonstrate Elder Holland acknowledges the LDS homosexual does face a unique struggle.)

1. This position, in my experience, almost always leads to another false position that somehow homosexuality is a special condition and therefore exceptions should be made to accommodate it's uniqueness.

First, the statement is not a false position. The Church is very clear that marrying and having children should be the primary goal of its members. Yet, members with permanent same-sex attraction will not be able to do that, nor should they, according to President Hinckley. Thus, same-sex attraction is a unique struggle within the Church that values marriage and children so very highly.

Additionally, acknowledging such does not equate to insisting on special accommodations. I have seen people who are homosexual come to the board who do want these accommodations, but that is certainly not true in every case. Some of the time, they come to the board wanting to understand the Church’s position. Much of the time, they want to be able to talk about their homosexuality with Church members in a safe church-oriented setting. That does not equate to insisting on accommodating their homosexuality.

What I often observe is a major disconnect between the person who is homosexual and some of the members of the Church who respond to him. He is often trying to describe how it feels to be homosexual in the LDS Church, while those responding are often inferring he means the Church should change its policies, when that’s not what he’s saying at all. Rather, he’s usually trying to describe why it is so hard for him to remain a faithful member and be homosexual, but he is not demanding the Church change its doctrine.

2. Such a position contradicts scripture. For instance in 1 Corinthians 10:13 we learn that, "There hath no temptation taken [us] but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer [us] to be tempted above that [we] are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that [we] may be able to bear it."

In the interview you reference below, Elders Oaks and Wickman state that same-sex attraction is not permanent; however, they acknowledge that for some it is permanent while mortal.

ELDER WICKMAN: One question that might be asked by somebody who is struggling with same-gender attraction is, “Is this something I’m stuck with forever? What bearing does this have on eternal life? If I can somehow make it through this life, when I appear on the other side, what will I be like?”

Gratefully, the answer is that same-gender attraction did not exist in the pre-earth life and neither will it exist in the next life. It is a circumstance that for whatever reason or reasons seems to apply right now in mortality, in this nano-second of our eternal existence.

The good news for somebody who is struggling with same-gender attraction is this: 1) It is that ‘I’m not stuck with it forever.’ It’s just now. Admittedly, for each one of us, it’s hard to look beyond the ‘now’ sometimes. But nonetheless, if you see mortality as now, it’s only during this season. 2) If I can keep myself worthy here, if I can be true to gospel commandments, if I can keep covenants that I have made, the blessings of exaltation and eternal life that Heavenly Father holds out to all of His children apply to me. Every blessing — including eternal marriage — is and will be mine in due course.

So, unless you are applying that scripture to mean the temptation might not be removed while mortal, and that homosexuality can, for some, only be overcome once the person has passed on, you are ignoring a significant portion of the interview, and thus, the Church‘s position on homosexuality.

I say this because I don’t get the sense you are applying the scripture in that way; rather, that you think no one is permanently homosexual while mortal. This is not the Church’s official position, and it is not true.

3. The idea that there is no hope for homosexuals to be able to enjoy intimate physical relations while maintaining the law of chastity is shortsighted and artificially hopeless. It preemptively denies the declaration that Jesus Christ made that, "...with God all things are possible" (Matt. 19:26).

Same answer as #2 above. Unless you acknowledge that for some, they will be homosexual during their entire mortal life, you’re not presenting the Church’s official stance regarding homosexuality correctly.

4. It contradicts the counsel of our prophets and apostles. Please consider the following dialogue:

I don’t understand what you’re trying to demonstrate here. What exactly does this excerpt demonstrate that contradicts the counsel of the prophets and apostles?

Those struggling with homosexual tendencies are not unique in their adversity because there are many heterosexual people who struggle with the same type of adversity.

There are literally no heterosexual people who struggle with the same type of adversity unless they are bisexual. They may struggle with the same degree of adversity, but not the same type.

And just as any heterosexual who struggles with the same type of adversity can remain faithful and hope to have their righteous desires fulfilled so too can any homosexual do the same.

True, though again, for many, not while they are mortal.

Why is this important to understand? Because when we recognize and accept the fact that homosexual conduct is in the same class of conduct as any other sexual sin then how we address this issue becomes more clear and we are less likely to try and justify or somehow make normal conduct that is not justified and not normal.

This subject has been discussed often here at lds.net, and this statement has been posted a gazillion times by now, especially in conjunction with the Elders Oaks and Wickman interview. It's been my observation that once someone comprehends that it is all about breaking the law of chastity, it’s then very easy to understand why homosexual sex is not allowed. It’s not necessarily easy for someone who is homosexual to do, but it is then easy for him/her to understand.

However, I am concerned that you appear to insist homosexuality is not a permanent state while mortal when the Church’s position is that in many cases it is, so much so that President Hinckley said men with same-sex attraction should not marry.

As they stand, most of your statements conflict with the Church's official position as defined by the Elders Oaks and Wickman interview.

Elphaba

　

[MarginOfError]

In another thread you made it clear that this thread is a response to a number of things that I sad (read here). Amusingly, in your post on that thread, you said that you'd read my comments and understood them. However, it is quite clear from the content of this thread that you didn't understand much of anything I have said. If you did, then you've grossly misrepresented it here.

I strongly recommend that you review the things that I've written and try to get a complete understanding of what I've said with regards to homosexuality. You'll find that everything I said is completely consistent with the words of the prophets and apostles on this matter.

As further evidence of the accuracy of my post in both capturing the Church's official position toward homosexuality, and in capturing the struggles and frustrations of LDS homosexuals, I direct you toward the thanks that I received for that post from Soulsearcher. Soulsearcher is an active reader of these boards, and a member since 2007. In the three years that he has participated on these boards he has offered up all of three thanks. He does not give them lightly.

"As opposed to heterosexual church members, homosexual church members have no hope of ever being able to have intimate physical relations while still maintaining the law of chastity. Therefore the struggle of an LDS homosexual is a unique or uncommon struggle."

I find this position to be problematic for the following reasons:

1. This position, in my experience, almost always leads to another false position that somehow homosexuality is a special condition and therefore exceptions should be made to accommodate it's uniqueness.

It should be noted that I never said this. It should also be noted that I said the complete opposite. While I can see your concern, the possibility of individuals inappropriately extrapolating the truth to push their own agendas is a poor excuse to ignore the truth. Rather, we should embrace the truth, teach the truth, and stand firm in the truth.

2. Such a position contradicts scripture. For instance in 1 Corinthians 10:13 we learn that, "There hath no temptation taken [us] but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer [us] to be tempted above that [we] are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that [we] may be able to bear it."

Such a position does not contradict scripture. You of your own admission have made it quite clear that homosexuals are held to the same standard of chastity as heterosexuals. The proper application of the quoted scripture is that every homosexual member of the Church has the ability to remain chaste and not that every homosexual member of the Church has the ability to miraculously become heterosexual.

3. The idea that there is no hope for homosexuals to be able to enjoy intimate physical relations while maintaining the law of chastity is shortsighted and artificially hopeless. It preemptively denies the declaration that Jesus Christ made that, "...with God all things are possible" (Matt. 19:26).

For starters, I seem to recall stating that homosexuals had little (as opposed to no) hope of physical relations while maintaining the law of chastity, and that remaining chaste was a more frustrating challenge for them. Both are statements that I will stand by. Also, as Elphaba pointed out, that isn't a unique declaration when you read the literature from the Church on homosexuality.

4. It contradicts the counsel of our prophets and apostles. Please consider the following dialogue:

It does nothing of the sort. In fact, the way in which you present this argument reassures me of the accuracy of the statement that I made:

But alas, being a married heterosexual man, while you may not be able to act on your attractions to other women (or men), you do have an appropriate and approved outlet for your desires for physical intimacy. That is something a homosexuals who are following the law of chastity do not have, nor do they have much hope of ever having. So I don't think your play on empathy is really as good as you think....

But again, those who have attraction to the opposite gender have an appropriate outlet for those very real physical desires (or at least the hope that they can have that outlet). The way you describe what homosexuals experience as being no different than what heterosexuals experience completely ignores the fact that homosexuals must face down their physical desires without the comfort that they may someday be able to express them within the bounds the Lord has set.

While the situations may seem similar on the surface, we should be honest enough to admit that those attracted to the same gender have a much more frustrating task assigned to them when we ask them to live the law of chastity.

You're now trying to counter my statement by counter example. In short, by providing one example of a heterosexual who has little hope of marriage and physical intimacy in mortality, you are trying to discredit my entire statement. So I have to ask this: are you more interested in understanding what homosexual members of the Church are being asked to face, or are you more interested in being right?

Because from what I've seen in your posts, your attempts at empathy are more of a logical exercise than they are reaching out to uplift and inspire those with same gender attraction to fully access the Atonement in their lives.

Finally, I'd like to ask a personal favor: if you start any new threads based on my comments and opinions posted on these boards, would you please be considerate enough to accurately and correctly present my positions?

[MarginOfError]

I completely agree with Elder Oaks and Wickham. We all have problems, but the tendency to be self-absorbed, have self pity and think that our lives are harder than our friends is a roadblock to understanding and using the Atonement. It blocks us from serving the Lord better, from thinking of others before ourselves. The more time we spend worrying about our own problems, the worse we feel, the less we do for others, the less we have the Spirit. It spirals down from there.

As accurate as this is, I feel it is important that we recognize that historically, the way that members of the Church have spoken of homosexuality has been negative enough to make it an incredible psychological challenge to bear. The goal should be to redefine the dialog in ways that makes it easier to bear and not harder.

Satan is sooo cleverly leading people to think they are "gay" forever and that they are in a different class than the rest of us schmos.

I will let this stand so long as we can recognize that for some unknown percentage of homosexuals, their homosexual preference will be irreversible in mortality.

I never had SSA, but I went through infertility where I felt like a victim, felt very sorry for myself and it seemed like everyone else had babies coming out of their ears. From my immature and limited perspective, I thought my life was harder than all the fertile people. It sounds so silly to me now. A kind coworker gently told me one day that she had married at 16 because of pregancy, and had had 2 or 3 kids by the time she was 19 or 20, and how hard that was, that everyone has different problems but we all have them. She really helped me to wake up and stop feeling sorry for myself and stop being so self-absorbed.

Life is so much easier when we focus on the Lord and how can we serve him each day, rather than focusing on what is wrong with everything.

But let us also remember that being able to focus on the Lord sometimes requires that we be able to understand what is wrong with everything.

[Maya]

Sometimes I think of ALL those unmarried people in the Church... they have NO chanse to love anyone physically either, without doing wrong. I am sure they have special feelings thowards some people, but are not allowed these feelings, as the person is not available. Question is do you want to be strong and hold on to what you know is true, or not.

[marts1]

Good post Finrock.

[Connie]

Helen (aka Dash's Mom): Everyone is special, Dash.

Dash: Which is just another way of saying no one is.

-The Incredibles

[Traveler]

Marginoferror: May I approach you and your opinion? I wish to explorer some of your ideas; for several reasons. You seem to carry a keen eye and a compassion that I find commendable. You also present ideas with both boldness and logic. This inspires me to look deeper into your concepts and motivations.

This statement has drawn my attention and I wish to drill down and explore this concept with you.

...

I will let this stand so long as we can recognize that for some unknown percentage of homosexuals, their homosexual preference will be irreversible in mortality.

....

Do you believe that this is also true of a great number of cognitive dependent behaviors that also include other “acquired” behaviors such as various sexual behaviors, substance dependencies, phobias and a vast array of obsessive compulsive dependencies?

The other item of interest to me is you concern about labels such as “weakness” or may I say spiritual weakness? I believe that every good thing comes as a gift from G-d (Moroni 3:18). All other “things” are weaknesses and lead a person away from G-d. Therefore, that which is not a strength and entices a person to be a light and example unto the world – is indeed a weakness. Is this doctrine what you believe to be a worthwhile definition or means to determine that which is a weakness?

The Traveler

[AintNoCityBoy]

Homosexuals want nothing more than attention.

I give them none.

[Gwen]

people who make posts on threads where they can obviously add no value (aka trolls) want nothing more than attention.

it's best to give them none.

[AintNoCityBoy]

Im sorry, I must have offended you. Why don't you interrupt my day by having a parade where you can show off the deviant things you do infront of children and passerbys.

Homosexuality is disgusting, and I hope that all of those that suffer from it can push on without falling into their sin.

My prayers go out to you all.

[Elphaba]

Sometimes I think of ALL those unmarried people in the Church... they have NO chanse to love anyone physically either, without doing wrong. I am sure they have special feelings thowards some people, but are not allowed these feelings, as the person is not available. Question is do you want to be strong and hold on to what you know is true, or not.

The difference is, for many of the unmarried people in the Church, there is the chance they will one day meet and marry a person, though I acknowledge this is not true for all unmarried people.

Nevertheless, that does make your example, in many cases, different from the "unique restrictions regarding expression of their feelings" as Elder Holland called it, that a member who is homosexual faces.

Elphaba

[Gwen]

Im sorry, I must have offended you. Why don't you interrupt my day by having a parade where you can show off the deviant things you do infront of children and passerbys.

Homosexuality is disgusting, and I hope that all of those that suffer from it can push on without falling into their sin.

My prayers go out to you all.

it sounds like you have met some rather vigilant ppl in (or taken what you have seen on the news too personal) your area. however that is not the point of this thread. i don't think that small group represents everyone. just as there are homosexuals that give the rest a bad name the same is true for blacks, whites, southerners, northerners, baptists, mormons, etc.

please stay on topic, if you can't discuss this subject civilly then don't read or post in them.

[Saturnfulcrum]

I may just be looking for attention with this post, but now that I know I am disgusting, I think I'm glad that you are not God AintNoCityBoy.

I may be disgusting, but I know God loves all of his children. That includes those who parade down the streets. I believe it includes those who create pornography, do the right things, slander, insult, build up others, murder and all others who have sins, weaknesses, temptations and strengths.

I know that I deserve God's love just as much as you do, even though sometimes I don't feel like it. I have feelings towards the gender that doesn't agree with God's plan, but I guess God trusted me with this attraction, so I have to deal with it because God knows I can.

And I'm sorry if this post offends you, because after all, I am disgusting and just want attention.

[Connie]

I don't think it's contradictory or inaccurate to call any adversity both "unique" and "common."

[LocalFarms]

Im sorry, I must have offended you. Why don't you interrupt my day by having a parade where you can show off the deviant things you do infront of children and passerbys.

Homosexuality is disgusting, and I hope that all of those that suffer from it can push on without falling into their sin.

My prayers go out to you all.

I understand your frustration with and abhorrence to those that promote the homosexual agenda. However may I suggest that in the tone of your posts you can try to show more compassion for the sinner; even though you hate the sin.

[crazypotato]

Well, all sin is disgusting, really. I am not struggling with SSA, but I have some very disgusting sins. The problem is, I have expected special sympathy from others at times, I have felt picked on, I have felt like few people understood what I was going through.

I guess what I am trying to emphasize, is that when people label themselves with a condition and want extra compassion for it, in a way they are only hurting themselves. I have hurt myself many times by thinking that my life was harder than others, or that my circumstances were not understood except by others going through the same thing. It is a self-centered thought process.

This line of thinking hurt myself because I wasn't focused on the Savior's gifts to me. I wasn't thinking about others with as much compassion and understanding as I should. I was wanting them to feel compassion for me, while at the same time I wanted to think that they had things easier than me because they were fertile and I wasn't. This blocked the Holy Ghost from helping me. It also blocked my understanding of the Savior and his love towards us all. It blocked me from actively helping others.

That's why I think we should be compassionate towards people with SSA, but not anymore than anyone else. I used to work with people with special needs, such as mental retardation. They had hormones and feelings towards the opposite sex. They had girlfriends or boyfriends, but usually they were never allowed to marry or have children, but had to go through their lives wanting that. In addition to that, they wanted to be independent and live on their own, but that wasn't an easy possibility. In addition to that, they were largely ignored by "normal" people in the community, treated like outcasts. Or people with perfect cognitive ability but no physical control over their body. Or people who never marry because they were born unattractive physically and have a harder time making friends with people of any gender. Or large populations of babies in South Africa with no mother or father because they are dead from Aids and one grandmother has 10 kids in her house that she is trying to raise all by herself. Do I really need to go on and on?

[Saturnfulcrum]

your right crazypotato. Forgive me for my outburst AintNoCityGuy.

[Misshalfway]

Are people who struggle with SSA "special"? Absolutely. But that doesn't mean that there aren't a whole host of other problems and circumstances that have their own unique and "special" challenges or configurations.

Each person who deals with sexual issues has so many factors to consider: biology, interpersonal,cultural, and psychological. And then you add religion to the mix and it can really confuse and complicate things. Religion can even get in the way of healing.

I think most important is self acceptance. And that doesn't mean that we don't need to change or improve or grow. Acceptance of ones circumstances or struggles doesn't mean we give into them or we get an exemption on personal responsibility. It just means that we choose to deal with our "stuff" in kindness. And I think half the battle with SSA and how one reconciles it against the church, is how that person thinks about all the different aspects. I don't know all the answers. I am not sure if I had answers one set would fit everyone perfectly. What I do know is that nothing is too impossible for the Lord. And I know also, because of my experience, that sometimes God leads us to thinking outside the box. Thinking inside the box doesn't always let enough light in.

Edited April 4, 2010 by Misshalfway

[MarginOfError]

your right crazypotato. Forgive me for my outburst AintNoCityGuy.

I would neither apologize nor ask forgiveness for your post. It was spot on and tactfully handled. I had to refrain from responding because I might not have been invited back if I had.

[MarginOfError]

Marginoferror: May I approach you and your opinion? I wish to explorer some of your ideas; for several reasons. You seem to carry a keen eye and a compassion that I find commendable. You also present ideas with both boldness and logic. This inspires me to look deeper into your concepts and motivations.

This statement has drawn my attention and I wish to drill down and explore this concept with you.

Do you believe that this is also true of a great number of cognitive dependent behaviors that also include other “acquired” behaviors such as various sexual behaviors, substance dependencies, phobias and a vast array of obsessive compulsive dependencies?

I'm afraid that you're going to have to explain your use of "acquired behaviors" first. Because I'm not sure that substance dependency and same sex attraction fall under the same "acquired behavior" umbrella.

The other item of interest to me is you concern about labels such as “weakness” or may I say spiritual weakness? I believe that every good thing comes as a gift from G-d (Moroni 3:18). All other “things” are weaknesses and lead a person away from G-d. Therefore, that which is not a strength and entices a person to be a light and example unto the world – is indeed a weakness. Is this doctrine what you believe to be a worthwhile definition or means to determine that which is a weakness?

The Traveler

I'm not going to argue the semantics here, as it will only serve to detract from the meat of the discussion. If you want to have this discussion, do it in another thread.

[Traveler]

I'm afraid that you're going to have to explain your use of "acquired behaviors" first. Because I'm not sure that substance dependency and same sex attraction fall under the same "acquired behavior" umbrella.

I'm not going to argue the semantics here, as it will only serve to detract from the meat of the discussion. If you want to have this discussion, do it in another thread.

An acquired behavior is any cognitive behavior exhibited by an intelligent species. A cognitive behavior is a behavior to which the individual is explicitly aware of – thus cognitive. In scientific terms – humans are capable of two kinds of responses. Cognitive responses, in which the individual is aware and “sympathetic” responses that can take place even when the person is not conscious – like breathing or immune responses to infections.

Most cognitive behaviors that are difficult to change or alter are usually classified as addictive behaviors. Sexual addictions appear to me to fall into this category – AKA Tiger Woods and other sexual attractions which include children or various other things. Do you believe that same sexual attractions do not involve cognitive awareness or that a person can easily change at will? If so I do not know why we are having this thread.

I am sorry that you do not want to discuss “weakness” based on spiritual understanding as defined in scripture (this may be the most important notion in discussions such as this) – it appeared to me from your previous post that this was a topic you wished to discuss in this thread – sorry for my miss read.

The Traveler

PS. I wanted to add the line of thinking that just because many fail to achieve something does not mean that it cannot or should not be attempted. The scriptures clearly indicate two things - first that the "Way to eternal Life" is not achieved by everybody - in fact we are told that few will find it.

The second thing is that any man (individual member of mankind) that follows their "natural" inclinations (what the scriptures indicate as the "natural man") they are an enemy to G-d. I assume that there are no exceptions - including homosexuals and heterosexuals. Many think that something is okay if G-d does not condemn it but the opposite is true – If G-d does not command it – then it is a gross spiritual flaw to assume that it is a good or desirable thing in the eternal scheme of things – or even in the short term.

Edited April 5, 2010 by Traveler
Added a post script