Same Gender Attractions: A "Special" Adversity?

[MarginOfError]

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.

The disconnect with your analogy being that drug addiction starts with the choice to take drugs, whereas same-sex attraction does not start with the decision to be attracted to the same sex.

[MarginOfError]

A drug addict can be intrigued with the idea of using drugs and convince himself that it is okay to do long before he ever touches drugs

No, he cannot, because he is not a drug addict before he uses drugs.

[MarginOfError]

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

Excuse me? Can you provide any evidence for this claim that is not anecdotal?

[MarginOfError]

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 would caution you against using sloppy speech in place of actual Church position. The Family: A Proclamation to the World states that "the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife."

It does not matter how many people say the homosexual sex is contrary to the commandments because it occurs outside of marriage. When you look at the source of Church doctrine, homosexual sex is contrary to the commandments because it is not heterosexual sex.

[MarginOfError]

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,

but they still had to make the choice to take the drug to become an addict. Whether or not the choice was sinful is irrelevant to the process of addiction.

children born to drug addicts are also addicted to the drugs their mothers used.

Technically these are not addicts. These individuals have a predisposition to drug addiction, meaning the child is at higher risk of drug addiction if he or she chooses to take the drug.

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

But addiction does not and cannot begin until they begin taking the drug.

[MarginOfError]

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.

Care to point out where I have said the opposite?

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

Care to point out where I have said the opposite?

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

Care to point out where I have said the opposite?

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.

Previously, I had asked what distinguished an acquired behavior from a cognitive behavior. You told me, "An acquired behavior is any cognitive behavior exhibited by an intelligent species." When I asked for further clarification, you responded with "all cognitive behaviors in intelligent species are acquired behaviors." So if I understand correctly, then acquired behaviors are cognitive behaviors in the subset of intelligent species.

To start, it's foolish to name a subset of behaviors defined by a subset of species. It'd make a lot more sense to say "cognitive behaviors in intelligent beings."

But based on your descriptions, I would have to disagree that same sex attraction is an acquired/cognitive behavior. It seems to fall more under the umbrella of those things we don't necessarily control, like breathing, and emotions--those things that happen, but which we have the ability to choose how we respond to them.

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"m afraid I don't see a flaw here. Your example of a non-cognitive behavior was breathing. Yet I am cognitively aware that I am breathing. I'm cognitively aware of who I am attracted to, yet I don't control who I am attracted to. It just happens, and I am left to choose my actions based on those impulses.

So would you care to describe how there is any flaw here?

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.

There are plenty of explanations for human sexual behavior. But not for human sexual attraction. you seem to like to confuse the two.

But you're not alone. Lots of people in the Church have confused the two for decades. Fortunately, we, as a membership, seem to slowly be coming out of the dark ages on this one.

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

And I offered my scientific explanation in the form of genetic predispositions. Perhaps you could offer a counter-hypothesis.

[Melissa569]

Hey, I'm not perfect, I've done plenty of things that are against christianity in general, and particularly moromonism. But just because I've done SOME wrong things, doesn't mean I'm supposed to just cut loose and allow absolutely everything.

Devine law cannot be changed simply by marching in protests, or making verbal statements, or by altering the nations laws, or by changing your own personal beliefs. It doesn't work that way. God's rules are God's rules, exactly as they have always been written. Just because someone disagrees with the rules or is miserable because of them, doesn't mean the rules are wrong or bad. It doesn't matter what laws and rules are laid out-- someone out there is always going to disagree, and think they are "unfair".

Its just like with our country-- If we revoked every law, just because somebody thought it was unfair, we would have no solid foundations anywhere. Yes, its sucks that some rules are a painful struggle on a daly basis. But if homosexuals think they are they only ones who's earthly bliss is disrupted by the rules, they are wrong. Heck, join the club, we've got jackets! lol.

Its just something we all have to tough out, and do our best with.

Edited April 9, 2010 by Melissa569

[Dravin]

Melissa when you say homosexuality do you mean homosexual relations? As has been mentioned in the thread, according to LDS theology at least, the inclination is not a sin (no more than an inclination to lying or what have you), but the committing of the act. Also you may want to narrow your brush a bit even if that is what you mean, there are Christians, or if you prefer those who call themselves Christian (just so we can avoid a True Scotsman debate) who do not believe that homosexual relations are a sin.

Of course I disagree with them, but Christianity is pretty broad and what can be said of all Christians isn't very much due to the diversity in belief that is covered by that term.

[MarginOfError]

Good evening MarginOfError. Welcome back! :)

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

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.

I did not entirely reject S, only the binary nature of homosexuality that S assumed. It is common in logical arguments not to reject a statement, but to modify it so that correct conclusions can follow. Essentially, I am claiming that S is not true because I feel I can provide counter examples to disprove it. But with a mild modification to S (say, S') I can make it a true statement, from which your sentiments make no sense.

Here are some other things you posted that thoroughly confused 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 have stated a number of times my correction to S in a couple of threads, yet you continue to resort to S as you have written it. You seem more interested in perpetuating the ridiculous idea that homosexuality is a binary state. When you let go of that assumption, it's easy the logical flaws in many of the statements made by members regarding homosexuality.

Also, I did state that I had modified S to evaluate your sentiments, a statement you seem to have either missed or ignored.

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.

Now you're changing your terminology. You were claiming that the temptation was common. But now you want to say that the struggle to remain celibate, in other words, the consequence of choosing to fight those temptations despite the fact that there is little hope of fulfilling sexual expression, is just as common as sexual temptation. In fact, it is not.

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).

And again, you failed to comprehend the modifications to S

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 comparison was never made to other sins. The comparison was that living the law of chastity for a homosexual means living a celibate life, which is harder and more frustrating than what the vast majority of heterosexuals will face simply by virtue of the fact that heterosexuals at least have the hope of sexual expression within the limits of the law of chastity.

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.

The temptation toward sexual behavior is very common. The struggle to remain celibate with little hope of sexual expression within the law of chastity is not. Again, you've switched your terminology from "temptation" to "struggle" (I can only assume for the sake of sophistry).

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.

They're not out of context. They are solidly in context, but irrefutable, and thus your desire to scrub them from the record.

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.

You stated "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." One does not need to overcome same sex attraction to find peace and happiness in the gospel of Jesus Christ, yet what you've stated is that is exactly what must happen. It's both exclusionary and ludicrous.

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.

I suppose to understand this you would need some training in formalized logic.

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

Try reading it again, and this time, pay very close attention.

[MarginOfError]

Curse you Melissa and Dravin! I almost had a whole page of posts all to myself!

But I'm at least finally caught up.

[Seminarysnoozer]

I believe we will be judged by our fruits.

Oh my, bad play on words!

[MarginOfError]

I believe we will be judged by our fruits.

Oh my, bad play on words!

Typical guy. It's all about size.

[Traveler]

...

I"m afraid I don't see a flaw here. Your example of a non-cognitive behavior was breathing. Yet I am cognitively aware that I am breathing. I'm cognitively aware of who I am attracted to, yet I don't control who I am attracted to. It just happens, and I am left to choose my actions based on those impulses.

So would you care to describe how there is any flaw here?

....

Nothing just happens - If you cannot see the flaw in such logic - I cannot help you. BTW you do not need to be conscious or aware you are breathing to breath. Breathing does not just happen. There is something that makes it happen.

The Traveler

[MarginOfError]

Nothing just happens - If you cannot see the flaw in such logic - I cannot help you. BTW you do not need to be conscious or aware you are breathing to breath. Breathing does not just happen. There is something that makes it happen.

The Traveler

So let me help you out a little.

Exhibit A - When I was in college there were many males that would comment on how attractive this female was. I never saw it. Was never once attracted to her. She's even my type!

Exhibit B - This woman is not my type at all, nor do I see anything particularly outstanding about her, yet I find her very attractive.

I can't explain it. It's just how it is.

Another example: when I first started college I made a list of characteristics that I wanted my future spouse to possess. One summer, a sister who had been serving a missionary returned from her service. She was almost everything I had on my list. AND she was gorgeous. I had a few people telling me I should ask her out. Yet, I never did. The reason I never asked her out was that I simply wasn't attracted to her. I just didn't feel it at all. Despite being able to recognize all of her positive traits, both physical and non-physical, I didn't have the least bit of motivation to be with her. I can't explain it. That's just how it was. I even tried for a little while to force myself into attraction, but to no avail.

You can argue all you want that nothing "just happens." But the fact that an impulse or impetus has a cause doesn't mean that we have any power to control it, and if we can't control it, how is it any different than describing it as "just happening?"

[Traveler]

So let me help you out a little.

Exhibit A - When I was in college there were many males that would comment on how attractive this female was. I never saw it. Was never once attracted to her. She's even my type!

Exhibit B - This woman is not my type at all, nor do I see anything particularly outstanding about her, yet I find her very attractive.

I can't explain it. It's just how it is.

Another example: when I first started college I made a list of characteristics that I wanted my future spouse to possess. One summer, a sister who had been serving a missionary returned from her service. She was almost everything I had on my list. AND she was gorgeous. I had a few people telling me I should ask her out. Yet, I never did. The reason I never asked her out was that I simply wasn't attracted to her. I just didn't feel it at all. Despite being able to recognize all of her positive traits, both physical and non-physical, I didn't have the least bit of motivation to be with her. I can't explain it. That's just how it was. I even tried for a little while to force myself into attraction, but to no avail.

You can argue all you want that nothing "just happens." But the fact that an impulse or impetus has a cause doesn't mean that we have any power to control it, and if we can't control it, how is it any different than describing it as "just happening?"

I disagree - nothing can be controlled until we understand and address the cause. Any cause that is understood can be controlled. Jesus clearly taught that one cannot be free unless they have the truth of all things.

But you are correct about one thing - failure to recognize a cause does make you a slave to it.

The Traveler

[MarginOfError]

I disagree - nothing can be controlled until we understand and address the cause. Any cause that is understood can be controlled. Jesus clearly taught that one cannot be free unless they have the truth of all things.

But you are correct about one thing - failure to recognize a cause does make you a slave to it.

The Traveler

And now I see it so clearly! If the root cause of same sex attraction is genetic, then we just need to do more prenatal genetic testing and find a way to change those that show up with too many "gay genes."

Thank you so much for helping me see the light.

[Traveler]

And now I see it so clearly! If the root cause of same sex attraction is genetic, then we just need to do more prenatal genetic testing and find a way to change those that show up with too many "gay genes."

Thank you so much for helping me see the light.

Do you believe sexual attractions are completely 100% genetic – passed from ancestors to descendents? For the record – I do not believe any such thing. Is there a reason you are suggesting this?

BTW – there has been extensive research into the human brain and at what age the human brain is developed to the point of being capable of making what are called executive moral cognitive decisions. You can find this research highlighted in the March 2004 issue of National Geographic Mag. This relates directly to your “it just happens” theory.

I can see that you are passionate about this subject – but if you expect others to be reasonable – I strongly suggest that you lead by example.

The Traveler

[LocalFarms]

MoE you should investigate addiction in infants a little more. Did you know that they have to give cocaine to babies born to mothers who used cocaine, like wise the same with heroin or any highly physical addictive drug?

As to the statement that people with ssa tend to have addictive personalities, I made that statement from my own observations through years of being in the gay community, so yes it's purely anecdotal

Even if there's nothing similar with ssa and addiction that was not the point of my analogy as I have already stated, thank you

[Wingnut]

Do you believe sexual attractions are completely 100% genetic – passed from ancestors to descendents? For the record – I do not believe any such thing. Is there a reason you are suggesting this?

Genetic is not the same thing as hereditary.

[MarginOfError]

Do you believe sexual attractions are completely 100% genetic – passed from ancestors to descendents? For the record – I do not believe any such thing. Is there a reason you are suggesting this?

No I do not believe that sexual attractions are completely genetic, but I do believe that genetics are a very heavily weighted part of the equation.

What's more, I believe that this component is genetic and not hereditary as you describe it. There are a number of traits that are hereditary (eye and hair color, for example) and even a select number of genes that are hereditary (BRCA1, for example). But hereditary traits tend to involve relatively few genes and are heavily influenced by the combination of two alleles.

Genetic traits, however, are not necessarily hereditary. They can be expressed as the interaction of many, even a multitude of genes. Recent research I've conducted at my institution [... On second thought, I'm going to pull this section out as the results of this study are awaiting review prior to publication at the New England Journal of Medicine ...]

So again, maybe you should go back and look at the things I have said, because I've explained how this relates to homosexuality already and linked to it at least twice in this thread.

BTW – there has been extensive research into the human brain and at what age the human brain is developed to the point of being capable of making what are called executive moral cognitive decisions. You can find this research highlighted in the March 2004 issue of National Geographic Mag. This relates directly to your “it just happens” theory.

I can see that you are passionate about this subject – but if you expect others to be reasonable – I strongly suggest that you lead by example.

The Traveler

Well I'll take a look at the article and hopefully it will make a decent attempt at explaining your point instead of applying circular definitions and "well if you don't agree with me I can't explain it to you" logic.

Edited April 10, 2010 by MarginOfError
potential conflict with transfer of copyright.

[MarginOfError]

MoE you should investigate addiction in infants a little more. Did you know that they have to give cocaine to babies born to mothers who used cocaine, like wise the same with heroin or any highly physical addictive drug?

Just spent some time scanning the literature. I can't find a single scholarly article that makes reference to cocaine-addicted infants. There are lots of articles that make reference to cocaine-addicted mothers and the effects of their drug use on their cocaine-dependent infants. That's right! addiction and dependency are not the same thing.

And for the record, the literature I'm finding indicates that morphine is given to extremely cocaine-dependent infants to calm them enough to eat and wean them away from the dependency.

As to the statement that people with ssa tend to have addictive personalities, I made that statement from my own observations through years of being in the gay community, so yes it's purely anecdotal

I'm so happy to know that one man's experience can be so accurately extrapolated to a world population. Thanks for demonstrating that we can give up on objective science now.

Even if there's nothing similar with ssa and addiction that was not the point of my analogy as I have already stated, thank you

Great...so why'd you bring it up?

[Finrock]

Good afternoon MarginOfError. I hope you are doing well today. :)

I did not entirely reject S, only the binary nature of homosexuality that S assumed. It is common in logical arguments not to reject a statement, but to modify it so that correct conclusions can follow. Essentially, I am claiming that S is not true because I feel I can provide counter examples to disprove it.

*I have stated a number of times my correction to S in a couple of threads, yet you continue to resort to S as you have written it. You seem more interested in perpetuating the ridiculous idea that homosexuality is a binary state. When you let go of that assumption, it's easy the logical flaws in many of the statements made by members regarding homosexuality.

S, in logical terms, is not a statement. It is an expressed world view. It is, in logical terms, an argument. It is a conclusion based on reasons preceeding the conclusion. So, if you disagree with the argument expressed as S then you have no reason to debate this topic with me, because we both agree that the conclusion expressed in argument S is incorrect. On the other had, if you think S represents a sentiment or wolrd view that you subscribe to, then you might feel inclined to challenge my counter view with it's supplied reasons.

*But with a mild modification to S (say, S') I can make it a true statement, from which your sentiments make no sense.

OK, and you honestly think this makes sense in the context of this discussion? Consdier this for a moment. Essentially what your responses are saying is that it is sensible to change the worldview expressed as S to worldview S' and then say that the reasons given for worldview S are nonsense because they don't apply to worldview S'!

It's like I'm arguing the role of the United States in bringing about world peace, and then you come along and change the topic to the role of Russia in bringing about world peace, and then claim my arguments for the role of the United States in bringing peace are nonsense because they don't apply to role of Russia in bringing peace!

My responses are only supposed to make sense in context to the sentiments/worldview expressed in S. Obviously if you change S to S' then likely my reasons against S will no longer apply to S'. But that isn't how issues are debated. If you want to debate a different worldview, then express it and give the other parties a chance to respond to worldview S'. But to say that my reasons are nonsensical because they don't apply to S' when they are supposed to apply to S is an extremely useless way to contend.

In the end your arguments against my position have relied on a logically fallacious form of reasoning, namely, the Straw Man argument:

Definition - "The Straw Man is a type of Red Herring because the arguer is attempting to refute his opponent's position, and in the context is required to do so, but instead attacks a position—the "straw man"—not held by his opponent. In a Straw Man argument, the arguer argues to a conclusion that denies the "straw man" he has set up, but misses the target. There may be nothing wrong with the argument presented by the arguer when it is taken out of context, that is, it may be a perfectly good argument against the straw man. It is only because the burden of proof is on the arguer to argue against the opponent's position that a Straw Man fallacy is committed. So, the fallacy is not simply the argument, but the entire situation of the argument occurring in such a context" (Source).

And, even by your own admission*, this is precisely what your arguments have been doing.

Now you're changing your terminology. You were claiming that the temptation was common. But now you want to say that the struggle to remain celibate, in other words, the consequence of choosing to fight those temptations despite the fact that there is little hope of fulfilling sexual expression, is just as common as sexual temptation. In fact, it is not.

Please note the name of the thread I started. A "special adversity", which is another name for struggle. Please revisit my initial post. It is quite clear that I am speaking to the "struggle" of remaining celibate. Read any of my other post on this thread. My position has been consistent through-out. Your accusation of sophistry on my part is unfounded.

You stated "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." One does not need to overcome same sex attraction to find peace and happiness in the gospel of Jesus Christ, yet what you've stated is that is exactly what must happen. It's both exclusionary and ludicrous.

Your quote is equivocating. You are misapplying my meaning of "overcome their tendencies" to mean exclusively that they are "cured" of their homosexuality, when in fact this isn't the position that I hold or have held. My position has been consistent through out. I have used "overcome their tendencies" to most often mean they have overcome them by not giving in to them and in the rare occasion that they have been "cured." In either case, peace and happiness can be found in the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Furthermore, "finding peace and happiness in the gospel of Jesus Christ" analytically includes the notion that one most obey the commandments of Jesus Christ, which includes living the law of chastity. So even if I hadn't consistently made my position clear, your rewording of my argument would still be unjustified because your incorrect conclusion of my statement would not follow from taking my line of reasoning to it's logical conclusion. But, if nothing else, you could have simply asked for clarification on what I mean instead of assuming a meaning that is inconsistent with the position I have consistently held in my responses.

Insofar as irrifutable arguments go, well, I saw no argument in the parts I didn't quote that has been irrifutable and thus I've made no attempt to "scrub them from the record." What I saw were arguments that were irrelevant to my position. That is generally the case when arguing a straw man. Your accusation against my integrity are thus unfounded.

Concluding my post I want to make one more observation. I don't understand the necessity or purpose of the belittling and ad hominem remarks you have directed at me. Is this normal conduct for you or have I done something to you personally that has warranted your desire to attack my intelligence, my integrity, and my intellectual honesty? In any case, it isn't necessary and it add nothing to the discussion.

Regards,

Finrock

Edited April 9, 2010 by Finrock
Fixed grammar, spelling, took out extra words, and added words to clarify.

[Saturnfulcrum]

I'm feeling slightly guilty for posting my 'coming out' thread now...

From a person who really wants to marry and have a family of her own, yes, I feel that being homosexual is a special struggle because I am physically able to have children, it just grosses me out to think of me having sex with a man. There has only been one man that I felt like I could actually have sexul relations with, but that is no longer in the picture.

I want to be married in the temple, sealed to a man for time and all eternity and have my own children. But as much as I want, pray, kick, scream and plead with my heavenly father to be attracted to men, it just hasnt happened. It would not be fair if I married a man who I was not attracted to, and then try to have kids with him. It would really damage our relationship because I could not enjoy the one act that is supposed to bring us closer together.

It also hurts when people say "it is selfish to not have your own kids when you are able to" I know that this is not directed at me completely, but it still hurts. Once again, I can physically have children, but I'm not physically, emotionally or mentally attracted to men. I may have a selfish desire to want to be with a woman, but does that still make me selfish if I want my own kids but it grosses me out to be with a man? I want to do the right thing, but would it be right to marry a man just to have kids?

is being homosexual a struggle? yes. Is it a special struggle? Yes. Are there other speicial struggles out there? Yes. Obviously God allowed me to experience this struggle because He feels I can handle it. I just wish He didn't trust me so much.

I really hope that one day I'll be able to be married and sealed in the temple to a loving husband who I love back. Right now that's all I can do: hope. This may never go away. It hurts to think that I might never experience a family setting of my own in this life, but I really do have to trust the Lord. Everyone does when they reach that struggle in their life when it seems too much to bear. As much as I want to be straight, I am learning a lot about myself that I wouldn't have otherwise.

[GaySaint]

Margin: I have to say that I was unable to get the source of the quote that homosexual sex is only a sin because it is sex outside of marriage (which was sloppy of me). I have the article at home tucked away in a desk, and wanted to respond in a timely manner. I'll look it up and get you an exact reference.

It should also be noted that while the Proclamation to the Family is an official document of the church stating church policy, and a document that affirms doctrine, the document itself is not cannon, and is not a doctrinal document in and of itself. Therefore, affirming doctrine using a non-doctrinally-canonized document is also a bit sloppy.

The point, I suppose, is that the talk I got my quote from, and the document you quote from, are both equal in terms of delineating policy.

I don’t think anyone would argue with you that intimacy between a man and a woman is currently the only church policy (and it could easily be argued that this is doctrinal using the D&C), but it may be more difficult to EXCLUDE intimacy between gay couples as a point of DOCTRINE. The only way to do so is to conclude that the current doctrine excludes gay people as a matter of course, but I don’t necessarily think that is true (and I realize there are many many many who will disagree, haha).

In other words, IF the church WANTED to accept gay people, I think the doctrine COULD allow such a happening. Whether or not that happens, however, is not up to you or me, but to God. I at least hope we agree there.

And if that is the case, I would further conclude that my position may be against current church policy, but whether or not it is against church doctine is debatable.

Edit: By the way, I must say I find the arguments and the way you present yourself on this subject to be quite refreshing, logical, and well presented. Even when we don't agree, I think you understand a lot about the issue, and I thank you for being willing to discuss it so openly.

[MarginOfError]

Good afternoon MarginOfError. I hope you are doing well today. :)

S, in logical terms, is not a statement. It is an expressed world view. It is, in logical terms, an argument. It is a conclusion based on reasons preceeding the conclusion. So, if you disagree with the argument expressed as S then you have no reason to debate this topic with me, because we both agree that the conclusion expressed in argument S is incorrect. On the other had, if you think S represents a sentiment or wolrd view that you subscribe to, then you might feel inclined to challenge my counter view with it's supplied reasons.

Except you offer your sentiments as the evidence that S is not true. You are using the logical structure of P => Q (read P implies Q) to establish the error of S. Now, let's explore the process under which this works. We'll let P and Q be statements. Each can either be true or false, and the implication can be either true or false. The corresponding truth table is

P | Q | P => Q

T | T | T

T | F | F

F | T | T

F | F | T

So, when we assume P is true, to show P => Q is true, we must show that Q is true. When P is true, showing that Q is false is sufficient to prove that P => Q is false. Whenever P is false, P => Q will be true (you can always reach a true conclusion if you start at a false assumption).

Now, you've attempted to use S => people will argue that homosexual relations are justified. This is a true statement. However, it's meaningless, because S is not true. Specifically, I challenge the part of S that requires that homosexuality be a binary condition.

OK, and you honestly think this makes sense in the context of this discussion? Consdier this for a moment. Essentially what your responses are saying is that it is sensible to change the worldview expressed as S to worldview S' and then say that the reasons given for worldview S are nonsense because they don't apply to worldview S'!

It's like I'm arguing the role of the United States in bringing about world peace, and then you come along and change the topic to the role of Russia in bringing about world peace, and then claim my arguments for the role of the United States in bringing peace are nonsense because they don't apply to role of Russia in bringing peace!

My responses are only supposed to make sense in context to the sentiments/worldview expressed in S. Obviously if you change S to S' then likely my reasons against S will no longer apply to S'. But that isn't how issues are debated. If you want to debate a different worldview, then express it and give the other parties a chance to respond to worldview S'. But to say that my reasons are nonsensical because they don't apply to S' when they are supposed to apply to S is an extremely useless way to contend.

In the end your arguments against my position have relied on a logically fallacious form of reasoning, namely, the Straw Man argument:

Definition - "The Straw Man is a type of Red Herring because the arguer is attempting to refute his opponent's position, and in the context is required to do so, but instead attacks a position—the "straw man"—not held by his opponent. In a Straw Man argument, the arguer argues to a conclusion that denies the "straw man" he has set up, but misses the target. There may be nothing wrong with the argument presented by the arguer when it is taken out of context, that is, it may be a perfectly good argument against the straw man. It is only because the burden of proof is on the arguer to argue against the opponent's position that a Straw Man fallacy is committed. So, the fallacy is not simply the argument, but the entire situation of the argument occurring in such a context" (Source).

And, even by your own admission*, this is precisely what your arguments have been doing.

This is not a strawman argument at all. A strawman argument would more likely occur if I took a true premise and replaced it with a false one. Essentially, my statement boils down to this: Your sentiments are irrelevant in the context of S because S is not true. If you modify S to be a true statement S', then your sentiments are false, so we may as well abandon the sentiments entirely.

Please note the name of the thread I started. A "special adversity", which is another name for struggle. Please revisit my initial post. It is quite clear that I am speaking to the "struggle" of remaining celibate. Read any of my other post on this thread. My position has been consistent through-out. Your accusation of sophistry on my part is unfounded.

But your premise 2 focuses on temptation and not on adversity. The temptation of homosexuality is sexual relations with the same gender, but the adversity of resisting the temptation is the unlikelihood of having sexual relations within the law of chastity. The temptation and the adversity in Premise 2 are fundamentally different.

Your quote is equivocating. You are misapplying my meaning of "overcome their tendencies" to mean exclusively that they are "cured" of their homosexuality, when in fact this isn't the position that I hold or have held. My position has been consistent through out. I have used "overcome their tendencies" to most often mean they have overcome them by not giving in to them or in the rare occasion that they have been "cured." In either case, peace and happiness can be found in the gospel of Jesus Christ.

In this case I have misinterpreted your comments and for that I must apologize. Please disregard my statements against this.

Furthermore, "finding peace and happiness in the gospel of Jesus Christ" analytically includes the notion that one most obey the commandments of Jesus Christ, which includes living the law of chastity. So even if I hadn't consistently made my position clear, your rewording of my argument would still be unjustified because your incorrect conclusion of my statement would not follow from taking my line reasoning to it's logical conclusion. But, if nothing else, you could have simply asked for clarification on what I mean instead of assuming a meaning that is inconsistent with the position I have consistently held in my responses.

Insofar as irrifutable arguments go, well, I have saw no argument in the parts I didn't quote that has been irrifutable and thus I've made no attempt to "scrub them from the record." What I saw were arguments that were irrelevant to my position. That is generally the case when arguing a straw man. Your accusation against my integrity are thus unfounded.

Concluding my post I want to make one more observation. I don't understand the necessity or purpose of the belittling and ad hominem remarks you have directed at me. Is this normal conduct for you or have I done something to you personally that has warranted your desire to attack my intelligence, my integrity, and my intellectual honesty? In any case, it isn't necessary and it add nothing to the discussion.

Regards,

Finrock

I'll finish later, I have to leave now and have run out of time.