Gay but clean?

[LocalFarms]

I can't speak for others but the idea of being "married' to another man is repulsive to me. I think that for me personally I got tricked kinda into thinking I was gay. Because I rebelled aws a tennager and became sexually active, I got used to those sensations with a man and so that is what my body knows. I'm still attracted to the idea of a relationship with a woman but I'm physically drawn more to males. Does that make sense? I know this response is off subject and I'm sorry, but I wanted to but my situation in perspective.

[ronism99403]

I can't speak for others but the idea of being "married' to another man is repulsive to me. I think that for me personally I got tricked kinda into thinking I was gay. Because I rebelled aws a tennager and became sexually active, I got used to those sensations with a man and so that is what my body knows. I'm still attracted to the idea of a relationship with a woman but I'm physically drawn more to males. Does that make sense? I know this response is off subject and I'm sorry, but I wanted to but my situation in perspective.

Apart from being molested as a child, maybe you were not tricked into being gay.

[GaySaint]

I strongly believe that church policy and opinion regarding homosexuality has changed over the years. First, homosexuality was taught as being an entirely preventable and changeable condition (Spencer W Kimball). The church during this time engaged in reparative therapy at BYU that included electroshock and chemical therapy, and included pornography as part of the treatment.

It didn’t take long for the church to amend its position, and a new tolerant attitude began to be seen. Now, current policy is that it is science’s duty to come up with and understand the factors that cause homosexuality (Oaks/Wickman). It has also been stated that the attraction itself is not sinful (Hinckley) (and if it isn’t sinful and wrong to have the attractions, it would seem to me they are suggesting they, in and of themselves, don’t come from Satan).

The current church policy is to love homosexuals (Hinckley), and welcome all those willing to be celibate into full fellowship, and to reach out in love and understanding to all.

It may have been Kimball’s opinion that homosexuality was 100% preventable and changeable, but that doesn’t make his opinion doctrine. It may be the opinion of the church now that same-sex attractions are not sinful but the behavior is, but that doesn’t make that opinion doctrine.

The doctrine is the law of chastity – and there is nothing in the law of chastity or any interpretation thereof provided by a current prophet of God that condemns homosexuals for the attraction alone.

[MarginOfError]

Would you kindly point me the "scientific research" that has established a significant difference in the genes, chromosomes, etc. of heterosexuals and homosexuals. Thus far only "scientific research" that anyone I've seen relates to behavioral--not fundamental biological--differences. I'm asking for "scientific proof" that homosexuals are born that way--and that homosexuality is not a learned behavior.

----------

Back when I took geology in college "scientific research" said we were entering a mini ice age; now it says were in an era of global warming. Also only religious fanatics believe in plate tectonics--there was lots of "scientific research proving plate tectonics wrong. So forgive me when I say that I don't consider "scientific research" capable of answering these questions. Nor do I think it is able to establish what is morally right and wrong.

A simple pub med search produces dozens of articles that talk about associations of homosexuality with social, psychological, demographic, and genetic factors. The results are mixed. You're right, current science can't definitely prove that it's a biological condition. But science hasn't been able to prove that it's purely a learned behavior either. Science hasn't reached a conclusion yet, in large part because research methods and computational power aren't sophisticated enough to do it.

As for asking for a genetic link to homosexuality, you're going to have to wait a while. We can't even conclusively link a single gene to heart disease, which is very prevalent in our society. It would be enormously optimistic to think that such a link could be easily determined given the prevalence of homosexuality runs between 3 and 6 percent.

However, you seem to be of the persuasion that the lack of scientific evidence means that something must be false. It's quite clear that you don't understand the complexities of genetic research nor the limitation of current statistical methodologies or computational algorithms. The lack of evidence is not proof of your opinion. With the mixed results we are seeing, the best we can say is, 'we don't know.' Such questions don't gain scientific consensus until results can be replicated. Replication hasn't happened in either camp on this issue (largely due to sample size concerns, largely due to unethical research practices on both sides).

One thing is for certain, however. The research has shown that the question as to the origins of homosexuality is far more complex than was thought back in the 1970's.

[LocalFarms]

Apart from being molested as a child, maybe you were not tricked into being gay.

Even if I was "born gay" and that is how I am; the whole purpose for us being here is moving past the natural man and becoming more like G_d. I, however, don't believe that I was born gay. I think I convinced myself I was.

[GaySaint]

I’ve never understood the “nature vs. nurture” argument, or why it matters. Will knowledge that homosexuality is completely genetic or not influence whether or not the behavior is sinful?

If it is proven that it is genetic, how does that frustrate the plan of Heavenly Father any more than a choice would? Is someone less accountable if homosexuality is genetic? Does this somehow change how we should treat people?

Does someone who makes a choice because of their experiences make them any more or less in need of the atonement than someone who has a condition that is genetically predisposed? Is the atonement sufficient for one while not for the other?

I think we all know the answers to these questions – and I would bet we would all answer them the same.

[Suzie]

I strongly believe that church policy and opinion regarding homosexuality has changed over the years. First, homosexuality was taught as being an entirely preventable and changeable condition (Spencer W Kimball). The church during this time engaged in reparative therapy at BYU that included electroshock and chemical therapy, and included pornography as part of the treatment.

It didn’t take long for the church to amend its position, and a new tolerant attitude began to be seen. Now, current policy is that it is science’s duty to come up with and understand the factors that cause homosexuality (Oaks/Wickman). It has also been stated that the attraction itself is not sinful (Hinckley) (and if it isn’t sinful and wrong to have the attractions, it would seem to me they are suggesting they, in and of themselves, don’t come from Satan).

The current church policy is to love homosexuals (Hinckley), and welcome all those willing to be celibate into full fellowship, and to reach out in love and understanding to all.

It may have been Kimball’s opinion that homosexuality was 100% preventable and changeable, but that doesn’t make his opinion doctrine. It may be the opinion of the church now that same-sex attractions are not sinful but the behavior is, but that doesn’t make that opinion doctrine.

The doctrine is the law of chastity – and there is nothing in the law of chastity or any interpretation thereof provided by a current prophet of God that condemns homosexuals for the attraction alone.

Back in the 70's or earlier homosexuality was seen as repulsive, now days it's almost fully acceptable and damned if you do not accept it. We see performers of the same gender on stage kissing each other on the lips and people think it is so "cool", even People's magazine sometime ago had a poll of who was the best "kisser" between two female singers. Times definetely changed.

In my opinion, the only reason the church changed its view to a much more "soft" or acceptable" approach to homosexuality is social pressure, nothing else.

[pam]

I've never known the Church to bow to social pressure.

[Gwen]

i think if the church did things only for social pressure we could have skipped the whole prop 8 stuff.

[Suzie]

I've never known the Church to bow to social pressure.

In my opinion there are some issues that in my view seems to be out of social pressure:

1. Plural Marriage

2. Blacks and the Priesthood

3. Approach to Homosexuality (from an "abomination" to our present stance)

4. Illegals in the country

[Suzie]

i think if the church did things only for social pressure we could have skipped the whole prop 8 stuff.

Well, I didn't say only. I said a few issues. :)

[MarginOfError]

In my opinion there are some issues that in my view seems to be out of social pressure:

1. Plural Marriage

Try to imagine for a minute what the American idea of marriage and morality would be if plural marriage were still allowed?

2. Blacks and the Priesthood

Hugh B. Brown was putting pressure on Church leaders to end the Priesthood Ban in the 1940's. He was only a member of the First Presidency

3. Approach to Homosexuality (from an "abomination" to our present stance)

The church has never backed off of its position that homosexual activity is an abomination. What is has stated is that same sex attraction does not fall in the category of homosexual activity. If you think that's a softening, then so be it...but you're nuts.

4. Illegals in the country

I wasn't aware the Church ever had a position on this issue.

[Gwen]

what if the social issues and the church have nothing to do with the church but the ppl in it. if god wanted blacks to have the priesthood all along but the members had social upbringings that would not allow them to accept it then that may have been held back. once the ppl were ready (ie society changed) then the revelation was given. when the ppl were ready. we see this kind of pattern with moses. maybe the stance with gays isn't about bowing to social pressure but that the ppl are ready to hear it, the leaders are in a position due to society to actually ask the questions of the lord on what to do/say. as can be seen from this thread many members aren't ready to accept what has been said today and still cling to the past. which was also done when blacks were permitted to hold the priesthood.

[pam]

In my opinion there are some issues that in my view seems to be out of social pressure:

1. Plural Marriage

2. Blacks and the Priesthood

3. Approach to Homosexuality (from an "abomination" to our present stance)

4. Illegals in the country

1. Plural Marriage

I don't see that as bowing to social pressure. I see that as following the laws of the land which we are told to do.

2. Blacks and the Priesthood

This came about as new revelation was received.

3. Approach to Homosexuality (from an "abomination" to our present stance)

Again I don't see this as bowing down. I see it as a better understanding of the issues. They haven't bowed down to allowing homosexuality to go unchecked if acting on it.

4. Illegals in the country

I guess I am unaware of the stance on this one. Could you explain more?

[Suzie]

I don't see that as bowing to social pressure. I see that as following the laws of the land which we are told to do.

So all that time the early members were not following the laws of the land? Utah was threaten by the law, clearly.

This came about as new revelation was received.

The leaders of the Church in Brazil and other countries didn't know what exactly do with those members who were of mixed race with regards to the Priesthood. The pressure was high, very high. It was President Kimball who approached the Lord in several, several occasions over the issue.

Again I don't see this as bowing down. I see it as a better understanding of the issues. They haven't bowed down to allowing homosexuality to go unchecked if acting on it.

I agree. My point was about the change of words over the issue.

I guess I am unaware of the stance on this one. Could you explain more?

Well, we believe in being honest and sustaining the Law yes? The Church position on illegal immigrants is that they are not an immigration agency therefore they shouldn't get involved. We have illegal immigrants at the present time serving full time missions, we cater for those who have illegal status by allowing them to serve only in the US, we have illegal immigrants who are Bishops and Stake Presidents who also interview other members for Temple recommends and ask that question in the interview that states whether or not you have been honest with your dealings with your fellowmen.

It is clear in my opinion that the article of Faith dealing with sustaining the law is forgotten on this case. The number of Hispanic illegal immigrants is HUGE, and they have contacted already the First Presidency over this issue. The Church could lose thousands and thousands of its members if they decide to say it is wrong what they are doing and stop the whole support.

Again, in my view (entirely my opinion) is an issue of social pressure.

[MarginOfError]

So all that time the early members were not following the laws of the land? Utah was threaten by the law, clearly.

The Morill Anti-Bigamy Act didn't pass until 1862. It was fought in court until the Supreme Court upheld it in 1878. John Taylor refused to end its practice up to his death in 1887. The practice was officially rescinded in 1890.

The leaders of the Church in Brazil and other countries didn't know what exactly do with those members who were of mixed race with regards to the Priesthood. The pressure was high, very high. It was President Kimball who approached the Lord in several, several occasions over the issue.

There were many years that this issue was discussed. I was wrong earlier when I cited Elder Brown as advocating the end of the priesthood ban in the 1940's. It was the 1950's. And he almost got his wish in 1969. Even so, there are some indications around that the ban was rescinded in 1978 only because the move was nuclear optioned (the decision was made when those who were voting to oppose it weren't present at the meeting). I'm not nearly as convinced that it was social pressure as it was people realizing that zealotry is not a virtue when you're wrong.

I agree. My point was about the change of words over the issue.

Again, I see a big difference between changing your words because you're wrong and changing your words because of social pressure (using you in the general sense, not specifically at you)

Well, we believe in being honest and sustaining the Law yes? The Church position on illegal immigrants is that they are not an immigration agency therefore they shouldn't get involved. We have illegal immigrants at the present time serving full time missions, we cater for those who have illegal status by allowing them to serve only in the US, we have illegal immigrants who are Bishops and Stake Presidents who also interview other members for Temple recommends and ask that question in the interview that states whether or not you have been honest with your dealings with your fellowmen.

It is clear in my opinion that the article of Faith dealing with sustaining the law is forgotten on this case. The number of Hispanic illegal immigrants is HUGE, and they have contacted already the First Presidency over this issue. The Church could lose thousands and thousands of its members if they decide to say it is wrong what they are doing and stop the whole support.

Again, in my view (entirely my opinion) is an issue of social pressure.

I don't have a good answer for this one. For some of the issues you provide, the Church shouldn't have any need to know if a person is here legally or not (baptisms, callings, positions of authority, etc). Specifically, there is no law that requires that those who join and serve in the Church must have legal status.

However, regarding missionaries, you have a point. At that point they do need to know, and you're probably right-the Church probably shouldn't be sending members who can't legally obtain paperwork on missions.

At the same time, I also agree with Pam, that the Church shouldn't be an informant service. It should teach the gospel to everyone, regardless of immigration status.

Why would the Church do the things that it does? My guess it that the government just doesn't care. In fact, I'd hardly be surprised if the government was actively looking the other way in hopes that some of the Church programs would alleviate some of the strain illegal immigrants put on government services. Kind of twisted and amoral, but I've seen the Church work with governments like this before.

[Wingnut]

So all that time the early members were not following the laws of the land? Utah was threaten by the law, clearly.

The Morill Anti-Bigamy Act didn't pass until 1862. It was fought in court until the Supreme Court upheld it in 1878. John Taylor refused to end its practice up to his death in 1887. The practice was officially rescinded in 1890.

The early polygamist Saints that lived in Utah also lived in Mexico. Utah didn't become back of the USA until 1896. Though I'm not familiar with 19th century Mexican law, I'm willing to bet that they either allowed or didn't enforce a law against polygamy at the time.