Same Gender Attractions: A "Special" Adversity?

[GaySaint]

Local: Do you really think so more than anyone else? Most of the gay people I know who do end up abusing drugs or alcohol start with it because once they come out they feel they have to rebel against every teaching of the church, but most of the people I know and associate with don't do drugs at all, and only drink occasionally.

Maybe I'm just running with a better than average gay group of friends, but it seems to me that I know about the same amount of gay and straight people who have addictive personalities.

Now OCD? I swear every gay person (myself included) is a little, or a lot, OCD - which is interesting...

Edited April 8, 2010 by GaySaint
I can't type today.

[LocalFarms]

I'm totally OCD

[Elgama]

It is also interesting that people with ssa tend to have addictive personalities

Really? I am with GaySaint I find a split - although he is right about the OCD tendancies lol You may get a lot of gay people with addictions probably from the teenage torment some go through, that is just appalling its one thing I would never want to see my kids go through.

[MarginOfError]

Wow...I've really missed 7 pages of posts? Let's see if I can get caught up.

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

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.

I remain confused as you've defined an acquired behavior as a cognitive behavior. Why the need for two terms? What additional characteristics do acquired behaviors possess that cognitive behaviors do not?

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.

This bolded part is nearly exactly what I suspect. I've explained it twice now in other threads, but the details of what I have said can be found here.

However, it is clear that people are very aware of their sexual attractions. If they weren't, they could not act on them. But being aware of their sexual preferences doesn't always mean they have the ability to change them (nor does it necessarily mean they should be allowed to act on them).

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

I did not say I didn't want to discuss it. I said I didn't want to discuss it here. If it's still that important to you, then open a new thread.

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.

Yet, as has been pointed out by General Authorities, there will be people with same sex attraction that cannot overcome their attractions to honestly live in a heterosexual relationship.

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.

If I understand you correctly, you mean to say

1) Many think that something is okay if G-d does not condemn it == FALSE

2) If G-d does not command it, then it is a gross spiritual flaw to assume that it is a good or desirable thing == TRUE

This is something I would adamantly disagree with, as we are told in revelations that God does not desire to command us in all things. But I will admit that I find your statement here very hard to interpret due to severe grammatical short comings.

[LocalFarms]

In repsonse to homosexual attractions not being wrong. I know you don't believe in comparing homosexuality to drug addiction ( for the record I do), but can you agree that it is not a sin to be a drug addict, but it is a sin to use illicit drugs? We can further say that it is possible that drug addiction is a form of spirit possession. Now to think a step further, a drug addict can refuse to use drugs, even though they feel a strong compulsion to do so (i.e. spirit possession? you with me here?). Now they don't give in to this compulsion, therefore they don't sin, but they are still, in my theory anyway, possessed by the unclean spirit. Therefore it can still be said of these individuals "It is not a sin to be a drug addict" but it can also be true that they are harbouring an unclean spirit.

I knew that the point of this post would be missed. I was trying to show that where it is not a sin to be a drug addict it is still a sin to use drug. Likewise a person can have ssa and not be "in sin" per se, but this does not legitamize in any way the homosexual act, regardless of wether it is within the bounds of marriage.

[MarginOfError]

Good evening MarginOfError. I trust that you are doing well? :)

First, I think it is important you understand that although the discussion in the thread you linked to was the catalyst for this thread, I was not addressing this thread to any one particular person, but rather I was addressing a particular sentiment.

Instead of responding to particular points in your post I've decided to present my position in a more concise way. The reason why I am doing this is because many of your responses were missing the point. I'm operating under the assumption that I am at fault because I was unable to clearly express my position and this is what lead to the confusion.

Nope. I understood you just fine. Again, you seem to be missing the points that I am making.

So, here goes...

Here is sentiment S: "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."

As you've defined it, S can only be true if homosexuality is a binary state. I would like to think that our species and culture have developed enough intelligence to realize that this is not necessarily true. Refer to my explanations in other threads regarding my hypothesis of the origins of same sex attraction. If sexual preference is a spectrum with extremes from "strongly prefers the same gender" to "strongly prefers the opposite gender", then S is of little use because it fails to address those people who are attracted to both males and females; those who are attracted mostly to males, but occasionally to females; and those who are attracted to females, but occasionally to males.

I believe sentiment S to be problematic because:

1. Accepting sentiment S in my experience seems to lead people to believe that it is OK for homosexuals to break the law of chastity or they should be allowed to marry.

2. Sentiment S contradicts the scripture in 1 Cor. 10:13 which states that "[t]here hath no temptation taken [us] but such as is common to man..."

3. The idea expressed in sentiment S that there is no hope of homosexual individuals of lawfully experiencing intimate relations in the bonds of marriage is shortsighted and artificially hopeless.

4. Sentiment S contradicts what prophets and apostles have said about the struggle homosexuals experience.

Premise 1 is arguably anecdotal, but there seems to be some correlation between beliefs.

I would agree with you that people have a tendency to take perfectly logical and true statements and misinterpret them in a nefarious manner. Being a statistician, I see it all the time. What I don't understand is why you think we should avoid making true statements for fear that someone will use that true statement in order to make a fallacious conclusion. Perhaps you could explain that to me.

Premise 2 is true because 1 Cor. 10:13 tells us that no temptation we suffer is uncommon, including the temptation of homosexual individuals.

I never argued that homosexual temptation was uncommon. But be clear about what the temptation is. The temptation is to have sexual relations with people of the same gender. According to our doctrine, this is impermissible. The consequence of staving off the temptation, however, may not be so common, as is the case in homosexuals who never over come their strong attractions to members the same sex in favor of taking a partner of the opposite sex. So i think your application of your verse is being misapplied.

Premise 3 is true because reality has demonstrated that there are cases where people who suffer from homosexual tendencies have been able to resist acting on those tendencies and subsequently they have been able to find an opposite sex spouse whom they love and are attracted to and enjoy the blessings of marriage.

I've already discussed the flaw in S, and premise 3 assumes that S is true. If you apply the modifications to S that have been the basis of my statements throughout, then premise 3 has a truth value of "well duh!"

Premise 4 is true as demonstrated by the dialogue quoted between Elder Oaks and Elder Wickman. In answer to the question "aren’t we asking a little more of someone who has same-gender attraction" to remain celibate since they have no hope of getting married? The response was that their struggle to remain celibate despite being unable to marry is not unique.

The flaw in your logic here is that in stating that it is not unique, you are implying that it is common. It is not common, however. Homosexuals who cannot give themselves to a heterosexual partner are expected to live a celibate life. Heterosexuals who are unable to marry are expected to live a celibate life. Both those groups of people are being asked to do an awful lot. So while it is not unique to homosexuals, it isn't common to heterosexuals. And you, as a heterosexual married man, do not fully understand the frustration and sadness that causes for those groups of people.

Why is it important to reject sentiment S? Because in doing so one can accept that homosexual conduct falls under the umbrella of the law of chastity and it is not a special or uncommon temptation.

Rubbish. You could stand behind S (as flawed as it is) and still hold your ground that homosexual relations violate the law of chastity.

And when we recognize and accept the fact that homosexual conduct is in the same class of conduct as any other sexual sin

Exactly what I've been arguing. You don't have to reject S to recognize this.

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.

I repeat, You could stand behind S (as flawed as it is) and still hold your ground that homosexual relations violate the law of chastity. It is nonsense to run avoid stating truth just because someone might misinterpret the truth.

Furthermore, recognizing this should give same-gender attracted individuals hope that they do have a means to overcome their tendencies and find peace and happiness in living the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Regards,

Finrock

Except there will be same-gender attracted individuals who never overcome their sexual preference in this lifetime. What you've stated is that same-gender attracted people cannot find peace and happiness in living the gospel of Jesus Christ, which is entirely the opposite of what Elders Holland, Oaks, and Wickman have said.

So, by your arguments, rejecting S would lead us to reject the teachings of our General Authorities. Contraposition would state that accepting what the General Authorities have said means we need to accept S...at least by using your flawed logic.

[GaySaint]

Local: I think we got that point, and I definitely think that the plight of a drug addict who has quit and the plight of the homosexual in terms of emotional turmoil is similar, but I think we were just pointing out the differences, while you were trying to illustrate the similarities (and there is no denying the similarities, or the differences).

I just still think the difference that in order for a drug addict to have that struggle requires a sinful action to begin with is important. Sure, one can be drawn to drugs, but that draw isn't as strong as it is in the addict. One doesn't experience what it is like to be an addict until the first action is taken...

I'm not sure that is how the pattern unfolds in homosexuality. If anything, I have found my desires to be LESSONED after acting on them.

I hope that helps clarify :)

[MarginOfError]

Finrock: Thank you for answering the question to the best of your ability. Good to meet you too!

Although I do think there are differences in our attractions (in that you are attracted to women, and I am to men – in the same way any LDS member who is homosexual would be), I do think that is where the difference ends. I just wanted to clarify that I am quite certain that I feel the same for my partner as you do for yours, and in that way, our attractions are the same. I’m certain you weren’t trying to suggest that your attraction is different from mine in that regard, but I wanted to clarify that for others who may misread what you said about that. If I’m wrong, and you did mean that, please expound on that point, if you will.

While I don’t disagree with the need to align out will with God’s, I think the fundamental difference is what we believe that will to be.

If you ask my mother, who disowned me, whether someone who is gay can become straight, she would tell you that if there was, I would have found it. I spent years and thousands of dollars trying to become straight. I obeyed every item of counsel and instruction from my priesthood leaders. I’m an RM, and spent from the age of 12 trying to make sense of and align my desires with what the church taught God wanted for me. I do think there are answers, and I’ve posted on this idea ad nausea, so I won’t repeat myself here other than to say that if you ask many of the gay LDS men and women who are now leading lives with a partner of the same sex, just about every one who had a real testimony of the church at one point in their life will tell you they also now have a testimony, earned through prayer the same way their testimony of Christ was, regarding what God wants from them and that that revelation is guiding their life as an out gay man or woman.

While I personally understand how that can happen, or why people feel that way, I also understand how someone with your perspective would see the revelation as contrary to the will of God. But with the thousands of testimonies about such revelations occurring, I don’t think they can easily be dismissed as deception.

My point, I suppose, is that it is all about perspective. If it is possible for homosexuality to not be a sin (as in still living the law of chastity because sex would occur within a homosexual marriage), as it is from my perspetive, then a lot of the perspective you have on the issue would change (of course, I see the reverse of this as well). For example, it WOULD be possible for a homosexual to align his will with Gods. Currently, the only way to do that for a homosexual is to deny, or ignore, his or her personal will altogether – because after 12 years of trying (personal experience), it just doesn’t change.

The change of heart I prayed for for so long ended up being my homosexuality seen as a blessing, instead of a weakness.

This, however, would contradict the doctrines and positions of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as set forth in both The Family: A Proclamation to the World and the temple ordinances.

[MarginOfError]

I do think there are answers, and I’ve posted on this idea ad nausea, so I won’t repeat myself here other than to say that if you ask many of the gay LDS men and women who are now leading lives with a partner of the same sex, just about every one who had a real testimony of the church at one point in their life will tell you they also now have a testimony, earned through prayer the same way their testimony of Christ was, regarding what God wants from them and that that revelation is guiding their life as an out gay man or woman.

While I personally understand how that can happen, or why people feel that way, I also understand how someone with your perspective would see the revelation as contrary to the will of God. But with the thousands of testimonies about such revelations occurring, I don’t think they can easily be dismissed as deception.

I can only say what I am going to say in a way that appears blunt. Please understand that I am not being malicious. If a testimony entails beliefs that are contradictory or contrary to scripture and the words of the living prophets, then it is a false testimony. Any personal revelation we receive must be measured up against the standard works and the words of the living prophets. We are not entiled to receive revelation in contradiction to what the scriptures and prophets say.

A person can actively live a homosexual lifestyle and still receive revelation that the Church is true. In fact, we are promised that all those, regardless of what sins they commit, may receive a witness from the Spirit when they ask in faith, with pure intent, blah blah blah....

But you're right, they will not receive a witness of the Spirit confirming things that go against what the prophets have revealed.

so it seems to me that you and GaySaint are discussing two very different types of revelation here.

[MarginOfError]

While the prophets have come out against homosexuality, they do so with the justification that it breaks the law of chastity BECAUSE it falls under the category of sex outside of marriage. If gay marriage were to be made legal, I do think this justification disappears (which is why I think the church is against gay marriage). Of course, we then get into the legitimacy of civil marriage vs. eternal marriage… and that is a dead horse I’m not going to start beating again (although there is another topic with my feelings on this).

Are these justifications the result of revelation, or of the human prejudice of man (I AM NOT criticizing church leaders here, simply stating that there hasn't been a "Thus saith the Lord" in this regard)?

There are countries in the world where same sex marriage is legal, and homosexual relationships are still considered contrary to the law of chastity. The doctrine of the Church states that sexual relations are reserved for use by a man and a woman legally and lawfully married.

Please don't misinterpret what I am saying as insensitivity. But I cannot idly stand by when you make statements about Church policy and doctrine that are not correct.

[GaySaint]

Margin: I didn't mean to suggest that if gay marriage were legal the church would accept it, just that the reasons stated by the church for being against same sex marriage can't be the whole story (as the law of chastity issue can be satisfied by gay marriage as the law is currently written). Of course, I don't expect the church to actually accept gay marriage if it were to be legal, although I would appreciate a general authority giving more information as to what, exactly, the sin is.

Evergreen International has plenty of quotes along the line of "It is a sin BECAUSE it is sex outside of marriage." But that statement should be adapted in those areas where same-sex marriage is legal. And while I don't expect the church to have to justify any decision they make, it would be nice for those of us in this position to hear the doctrinal justification.

So please don't standy by idly if I have something wrong. I was simply running with what the church has already given, as current policy, for the justification as to the sinfulness of homosexuality.

To my knowledge, they have not extended that reasoning in areas where homosexuals are allowed to marry, and that, to me, is an issue. I realize it may not be for you, or many many others =)

[Seminarysnoozer]

Seminary: I think part of the problem might be that people outside of the church (or outside of religion in general) don't necesarily believe in a spirit. To them, their core IS their body.

In the church we are taught that the soul is the body and spirit combined. We are taught that with a perfected body, we will have no sinful desires. But, we are also taught by the church today that homosexual attractions are not sinful.

So assuming you are correct, and that homosexuality has nothing to do with the spirit at all, from the point of birth forward, we have a body to deal with. Maybe it would be true that I won't be gay when I die, but would again once resurrected (since homosexual attraction isn't sinful, I can't imagine why it would be removed)???

How would that play into your feelings on the subject? Am I doctrinally wrong here? Wouldn't removing non-sinful homosexual feelings be the same as removing your desire for pistachio ice cream? What would be the point?

Thanks for your response, I am learning a lot even though it may seem that you are saying things that are clear to you in your mind, sometimes it helps others to understand your point of view and I appreciate that.

My feeling is that we find ourselves in unique circumstances that are preparatory for the next life but may not be part of the next life. It is kind of like doing math questions in 7th grade, even though I never had to figure out "how long it took John to meet Jane going on a train traveling 50 miles an hour, making a stop lasting one hour to get from point A to B" doesn't mean that working through the problem is not helpful in my life now. I don't ever recall meeting a John or Jane on a train in "real" life after junior high but the lesson is still valid.

I believe our lessons here are for valid and purposeful reasons but some of which we won't learn about until the next life, like the 7th grader saying "why do I have to do my homework?" Or the 7th grader saying "I'm not going to do my homework because this is not real, I'll never use this in the real world."

I cannot tell you why God gave you a body with homosexual tendencies (if that is the case) any more than I could tell the next person why they were given a body with alcoholic tendencies or a propensity to eat a lot of food. We all have been given different challenges.

To me sexual drives are for three main purposes, to populate the world to allow for enough bodies for all of us to come here and to strengthen the bonds between a man and a woman that have the potential to be eternal partners and to have a little glimpse as to the importance God gives to having spiritual children. All of those things are not necessary after the lesson is over. In other words, all the spirits in the Terrestrial Kingdom that will not have the opportunity to procreate will not have a need for any sexual drive at all, they wont have an eternal partner, they won't need to strengthen any bond in that kind of relationship and their chance to learn the value of God's glory is over. The same can be said for those in the Telestial Kingdom. So, for most people there is no eternal need for sexual drive, it serves no purpose after this life just like the love of pistachio ice cream (I think) or love of cigarettes and alcohol etc. Even the heterosexual drive serves no purpose for those in those kingdoms and for me anything that serves no purpose God would not put into the equation for the "fun of it." All things are done with specific purposes.

Teach me, what is the eternal purpose of homosexual drives, if that is how you feel? If I can understand what the eternal purpose of a homosexual drive is in terms of God's plan of salvation and how it magnifies his goals, the eternal life and happiness of man than maybe I can accept it as being part of spiritual nature. But until then I only see it as a carnal feature, that is a part of this lesson, a very short brief aspect of our eternal lives, like the one hour lecture you had in the 7th grade about velocity equations.

[LocalFarms]

But a drug addict does not have to commit a sinful act to become an addict. There are many cases where people become addicted to prescription medication due to malpractice by their doctors, children born to drug addicts are also addicted to the drugs their mothers used. Someone can also be led astray by a false spirit into believing that using a particular drug (say marijuana) is okay and in fact needed for their health. Of course the way to dispute whether a personal revelation is true is to hold it up to the word of the prophets

[Traveler]

Wow...I've really missed 7 pages of posts? Let's see if I can get caught up.

You are amazing – I would never go through 7 pages to get caught up.

There are a number of things that concern me in our discussion.

1. Just because someone has difficulty doing something does not mean that it is impossible.

2. Just because most people fail at something does not mean that it is impossible for them.

3. There is a difference between not doing something and not being able to do something.

The reason I keep bringing up the relationship between acquired behavior and cognitive behavior is because it has been demonstrated by scientific experimentation (Pavlov and Skinner) that all cognitive behaviors in intelligent species are acquired behaviors. If you know of any scientific data to show that cognitive trigger are not acquired – I would be most interested.

When we speak of triggers to behavior of an intelligent species the triggers are cognitive. My question in the past to you was if you believe sexual triggers to humans can be non-cognitive. Do you believe they are not aware or anything when a trigger brings about a homosexual response. If you are paying attention you can see the obvious flaw. I was probing to see if you understand the flaw or not.

I am not sure how far to take this discussion. Many claim that there is no possible scientific explanation to human sexual behavior – be it homosexual, heterosexual, violent, directed towards children, monogamous or what-ever ala president Clinton. There is strong contradictions in our justice system on our approach to cognitive behaviors – in that for the most part and especially with those the oppose capital punishment – we design our justice system based on the possibly that cognitive behaviors can be changed.

I believe there are always scientific explanations when ever two things that are otherwise the same create some difference – but we must be willing to recognize why even if the whys are contrary to our belief, or personal agendas. From every scientific study I have seen – when there is a difference there is always a reason. So my question is – are we willing to look for that reason?

The Traveler

[GaySaint]

WHAT? No pistachio ice cream in heaven? Telling me that is definitely NOT the way to get me back to church hehe.

I guess I don’t believe that just because something isn’t necessary that it will be removed in the next life. I don’t think there is a lot of earthly knowledge that we will need (how to use a computer, for example), but that doesn’t mean that that knowledge cannot be applied somewhere else in the eternal worlds.

I also believe that our bodies are made in the image of God, and that a perfected body simply won’t lose a leg because as resurrected beings we’ll be able to fly (tongue in cheek example).

I cannot tell you whether or not homosexuality will exist as it does here in this life in the exact same form. I’ve said before: as I grow to understand the plan, and where these feelings I have fit in (which has not been revealed, I feel), there may be another reason for them and they may grow and change to fit into the plan that we DO have revealed. I don’t know, but I’m willing to accept such a revelation when and if I am granted access to it. I do not, however, believe that they will disappear. Just evolve… perhaps like my knowledge of computers will evolve to help me do SOMETHING in the next life, even if it is just the logic aspect of it (in example).

Unfortunately, I cannot tell you what the eternal purpose of homosexuality is. I’ve been praying on that… a lot. Pretty much all I can tell you is that I feel that there is a purpose, but Heavenly Father is not going to reveal it at this time. I don’t exactly know what that means, but I felt blessed to have even felt like I was getting that answer. At least I’m not being ignored

Some thoughts? God needs servants. There needs to be resurrected angels to do his work. Maybe we are destined to do that for a time. Or maybe the challenge is to learn to love above all else, to choose family even when it appears you won’t have one. Maybe the middle portion of the celestial kingdom is set up for homosexual couples for some unknown purpose (it obviously HAS some unknown purpose, otherwise that purpose would have already been revealed to us). None of this is doctrine of course, so perhaps it doesn’t matter, but you asked what I thought…

Edited April 8, 2010 by GaySaint
I seriously can't type today

[GaySaint]

Traveler: I'm interested in what you think triggers homosexuality, and makes it seem to be a congnative behavior. Even if it is aquired - science has also pointed to such a possibility - it would have to be at a very young age.

What non-sinful, mundane event could have happened that made me gay? If you have a theory I'd be interested in hearing it :)

[Seminarysnoozer]

.... to add to that question about sin. To me, we are not judged so much on a book of laws that say, this activity is sin and this is not. Rather, we are judged by what is in our hearts as we obeyed the laws. If I was forced to go to church and live a chaste obedient life by a forceful father that would punish me if I didn't that would be different than me going to church because I love God and his plan and understand who I am and where I am going. And this is what allows for the multiple grades of righteousness. It isn't a pass/fail system. We all pass (for the most part), it is more like taking the SAT, (except the test is not standardized or compared to others, and God will individually apply the grading curve based on too many variables and things we can't see.) This will determine what is best for us for eternity. If one does not wish to participate in the same joys that God finds pleasing that is their choice. We are all given basic guidelines to qualify for a fullness of blessings which is the gospel. But, if one wants only part of the blessings so be it, they are still blessings just not the fullness. I wish everyone could have the fullness of blessings as much as I want it for myself, so I discourage sin. But if they don't want it themselves that is their choice.

I think it is healthier to look at the commandments as steps to reach that goal of a fullness of happiness, not as laws to which happiness can be taken away from you.

If God intended for you to, despite what seems like overwhelming force against it, procreate and have offspring and experience that part of life and you don't then you miss out on a growing experience that can never be regained. ... and that is sin.

[GaySaint]

Seminary: I love that last post, but by the same example, if I miss out on the chance to fall in love and get all of the peace, joy, and happiness that results, isn't that also a growing experience that can never be regained, and therefore, also a sin?

I think you verbalized quite nicely one of the reasons I chose the path I did, actually.

[Seminarysnoozer]

I also believe that our bodies are made in the image of God, and that a perfected body simply won’t lose a leg because as resurrected beings we’ll be able to fly (tongue in cheek example).

This is where you and I differ too. The perfected bodies of Adam and Eve were made in God's image. Then they were corrupted and fell from their perfect state. Resurrection is to bring it back to it's perfect state, not one hair lost etc. But it won't be brought back to a corrupted state which we find our bodies in now. They will be remade as to God's original creation, not the Satan's dominion version.

[LocalFarms]

I believe we will be judged by our fruits.

[Finrock]

Good evening MarginOfError. Welcome back! :)

Nope. I understood you just fine. Again, you seem to be missing the points that I am making.

Judging from your response it is seems that we aren't able to communicate in a way that the other can understand.

As you've defined it, S can only be true if homosexuality is a binary state. I would like to think that our species and culture have developed enough intelligence to realize that this is not necessarily true. Refer to my explanations in other threads regarding my hypothesis of the origins of same sex attraction. If sexual preference is a spectrum with extremes from "strongly prefers the same gender" to "strongly prefers the opposite gender", then S is of little use because it fails to address those people who are attracted to both males and females; those who are attracted mostly to males, but occasionally to females; and those who are attracted to females, but occasionally to males.

To me, this quote makes no sense in the context of my post. Sentiment S is an example of a position that some people have. I've see and heard, in various different ways, that general sentiment expressed many times. The whole purpose of my thread is to explore whether or not sentiment S is true. I gave reasons why I think sentiment S is false. In this quote of yours you seem to think that sentiment S is false also. Well, then we agree!

But, wait...your post then confuses me because it seems that in the end you don't agree that S is false.

Here are some other things you posted that thoroughly confused me:

I would agree with you that people have a tendency to take perfectly logical and true statements and misinterpret them in a nefarious manner. Being a statistician, I see it all the time. What I don't understand is why you think we should avoid making true statements for fear that someone will use that true statement in order to make a fallacious conclusion. Perhaps you could explain that to me.

My reasons for why S is false are quoted and then followed by this paragraph. I would gladly explain to you if I honestly understood what you are referring to. I really do not know how your quote applies to what I'm saying. I'm sorry...

I never argued that homosexual temptation was uncommon. But be clear about what the temptation is.

I haven't made this claim either. I have tried to be clear about what I'm speaking to. The struggle I've been speaking to is the struggle to remain celibate even when there is little hope of heterosexual marriage.

The consequence of staving off the temptation, however, may not be so common, as is the case in homosexuals who never over come their strong attractions to members the same sex in favor of taking a partner of the opposite sex. So i think your application of your verse is being misapplied.

Here is an example of something you've stated that makes it appear that you believe S is true (even though in your first paragraph you state that it is false).

But, anyways, in the end the, whether one overcomes their homosexual tendencies or not, the struggle is one of obeying the law of chastity. It may be true that for homosexuals it is much harder to live the law of chastity than for some people. But the fact that some temptations may be harder for some than it is for others is still common. How can anyone claim that the struggle to live the law of chastity for homosexuals is harder than anything else that others might struggle with? Breaking the law of chastity isn't the only sin and though some may not struggle with this sin, they may struggle with other sins, that for them are possibly just as hard or harder to keep than it is for homosexuals to keep the law of chastity. And yet, everyone, regardless of how hard the struggle is for them is expected to obey God's laws.

The struggle to remain celibate even when there is little hope of heterosexual marriage falls in to a common category of God's law and how difficult or how easy it is to live this law falls in to the common principle of variance that individuals experience here in life.

I won't quote anymore but the last two paragraphs of your post because the other parts of your response I simply do not understand them. They are out of context. They seem to be treating my reasons as conclusions. Anyways, I couldn't see how they fit in to what I was saying. Again, I'm sorry.

Except there will be same-gender attracted individuals who never overcome their sexual preference in this lifetime. What you've stated is that same-gender attracted people cannot find peace and happiness in living the gospel of Jesus Christ, which is entirely the opposite of what Elders Holland, Oaks, and Wickman have said.

I have not stated what you claim. I have always stated and believe with all my heart, that all people, including homosexuals, will find peace and happiness in living the gospel of Jesus Christ. It doesn't matter who you are or what you do, the sooner you stop making exceptions to your conduct and decide to strictly obey God's words as recorded in scripture and proclaimed by the mouths of His prophets, the sooner you will find yourself on the road to true peace and true joy.

So, by your arguments, rejecting S would lead us to reject the teachings of our General Authorities. Contraposition would state that accepting what the General Authorities have said means we need to accept S...at least by using your flawed logic.

I have no idea how you came to this conclusion. I can find no justification for your conclusion in your post, so I must assert that your conclusion here is nonsensical.

This has been a very bizarre post for me to read and try and understand how it fits in to what I'm saying. I do not know you but I do know of my fallibility and my tendency to make mistake after mistake, so I will conclude that, as a result of my weakness, I am unable to understand and communicate with you in a way that makes sense.

Kind Regards,

Finrock

Edited April 9, 2010 by Finrock
Added emphasis and supposed "clarity"

[Finrock]

Good evening GaySaint. I hope my post finds you happy and well! :)

Margin: I didn't mean to suggest that if gay marriage were legal the church would accept it, just that the reasons stated by the church for being against same sex marriage can't be the whole story (as the law of chastity issue can be satisfied by gay marriage as the law is currently written). Of course, I don't expect the church to actually accept gay marriage if it were to be legal, although I would appreciate a general authority giving more information as to what, exactly, the sin is.

Evergreen International has plenty of quotes along the line of "It is a sin BECAUSE it is sex outside of marriage." But that statement should be adapted in those areas where same-sex marriage is legal. And while I don't expect the church to have to justify any decision they make, it would be nice for those of us in this position to hear the doctrinal justification.

So please don't standy by idly if I have something wrong. I was simply running with what the church has already given, as current policy, for the justification as to the sinfulness of homosexuality.

To my knowledge, they have not extended that reasoning in areas where homosexuals are allowed to marry, and that, to me, is an issue. I realize it may not be for you, or many many others =)

I responded to this concern/sentiment of yours earlier. Perhaps you missed it. If so, I'll post my response again.

Essentially, the law of chastity is tied to marriage. Marriage is something that God has instituted. Because God instituted marriage He defined marriage to only be between man and woman. God and subsequently His church, does not recognize any marriage union outside this fundamental condition. This is what justifies the Church's position against homosexuality even in states where same sex couples can legally marry. Even though they are legally married in a secular sense, the marriage is not valid to the Church. Therefore, even the secular legally married homosexual couple is fornicating.

Does this make sense (not do you agree with it, but does what I've typed make sense)?

Regards,

Finrock

[MarginOfError]

Overcoming something requires the atonement. I beleive the love can endure with someone of the same sex, as love for a brother or sister respectively. I beleive that one that is homosexual, can find love,with one of the opposite sex, and create an eternal family. (My brother-in-law taught a homosexual man on his mission. The man repented and married a woman he loved and got sealed in the temple. I don't know what his status is now.) So its possible.

But this is not a one-size-fits-all solution, nor is it a solution we should toss around lightly. The fact that something is possible makes it neither likely nor ideal.

[MarginOfError]

My intentions weren't to offend. But you choose to be offended. And you choose to feel worthless. Theres not if's ands or buts. The prophets have said what the Prophets have said. The lord has laid out the plan.

An unwillingness to change is an unwillingness to change. It's like giving the heroin addict more heroin instead of the alternative, or the alcholic more alcohol. It helps a symptom rather than being a cure. (although being gay isn't disease i'm not saying that, i'm just making a point.)

Remember, you "came to your decision". You made your choice. The feelings are there, sure, but you chose to heed them. It is a choice, despite what many homosexuals might think.

I am being insensitive, its a fault of mine, and I apologize, but I don't want to tread lightly here like most people do on the issue because it's so unpopular.

The facts are, it is a struggle that many have. It is a struggle that can be overcome. It cannot be overcome by prayer alone, but by commitment and the atonement (like any struggle.) It could take years to overcome. Accepting that you have the feelings isn't the same as accepting the feelings.

Its probably something you need to keep at. You might humble yourselves and get answers at one point, but theres also a point where you give up. (i'm saying this out of my own experience with my own issues. I'm not gay, but i do have my own struggles.) We don't want to accept the hard answers. Thats when you just want it so you can be with a partner of the same sex. And want marriage. Thats a cop out.

Again sorry if this upsets you, i know you're struggling. I do have a small idea of what you're struggling through, but not on the same level I imagine. There is only one way through it. I have already illustrated that. And I'm not the authority on it either. Its my POV.

You would do well to read the articles referred to throughout this thread. It has been made abundantly clear that not every homosexual will be able to "overcome" same sex attraction in this life.

And while it is agreed by all that pursuing homosexual relations is a choice made by the individual, it is much less clear if being attracted to the same gender is as much of a choice as you make it out to be.

Your unfamiliarity with the statements by Church leaders makes your tactless and flawed explanation rather offensive.

[MarginOfError]

Seminary: Thank you for your thoughtful post.

I agree that appetites and passions need to be controlled, no matter the context. In marriage, I believe the phrase that used to be thrown around quite often was to “bridle your passions.”

But I think it would be wrong to state that a gay person who is in a relationship that is fulfilling emotionally, spiritually, and yes, physically, is incapable of doing so himself. In fact, I would wager that a gay person in a committed relationship (like me) is in the exact same situation as a man who is married.

I don’t think a man in a heterosexual relationship is giving into his “natural man” and becoming an enemy to God simply because he desires his wife. The same can be said about a gay person in a committed relationship.

And your thoughts here are in contradiction with the position of the Church.

We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife. (The Family: A Proclamation to the World)