Born this way

[Soulsearcher]

You are not answering the question. What determines addiction? Do you believe pornography (attraction to certain kinds of photos) can be an addiction? Yes or No? Let’s take alcohol addiction? If you are saying it is 100% behavior - what behavior? Drinking alcohol? What then is the difference between alcohol addiction and someone drinking alcohol that is not addicted?

The Traveler

The thing is in all your examples there is a behavior, an action. You've never addressed the non-action. That's why i'm not addressing your question. Yes i believe certain actions can be addictive, but that's not what we are talking about. You've stated simple attraction is an addiction but given nothing to back it up, instead you keep going back to an action. My body responds to males. It always has, I really don't act on it, but it responds to males and not females. You claim this is an addiction, a learned behavior, but still haven't explained how it was learned, how at a very young age i conditioned my body to respond to males instead of females. Pornography isn't an addiction if you have never looked at pornography. You can be predisposed to be an addict, but will never know unless you engage in the action.With out ever being with a man, i know i am attracted to them, i have known this from a very young age. Addiction requires a choice to begin the behavior, to engage in the activity. To drink, to do drugs, to look at pornography. You have stated that all sexuality the same as this. Not having sex, not any sexual behavior, ALL HUMAN SEXUALITY. You still haven't addressed this. Attraction does not equal sex acts. So please clarify how attraction and sexuality, completely separate from ANY action indicates addiction and learned behavior, with sources to back it up. This is where you keep having issues, you make claims with no backing and which go against any scientific standard. Hormones and physiology already dispute your claims.

[sensibility]

Rameumptom . . . mate . . . it's been a long time since Lamarck. Can we leave him in the past?

Traveler, I hope you didn't really recommend National Geographic for scientific research? National Geographic is not a scientific source.

Anyway, as a card-carrying clergy-recommended temple-married Mormon in good standing, can I please add my voice that my same-sex attraction was not acquired, learned, adopted, imitated or affected. I'm attracted to women. I have been for as long as I've known what attraction was. I'm married to a man, but my marriage is a miracle, and just like God doesn't see fit to heal every Saint who has an illness, God doesn't arrange a miraculous marriage for every Saint with SSA. If you are straight, that's great for you. Congratulations! Please don't try to teach those of us who are gay what is going on inside our heads, because I promise we know better than you do.

Soulsearcher, is patience your superpower?

[Traveler]

I can't agree with this at all, nor have I ever seen any real scientific evidence to support this.

What scientific data have you actually seen? I have referenced several eras of scientific research into acquired cognitive behavior. There is Pavlov’s dog, there are the Skinner experiments. Perhaps most profound are the “brainwashing” experiments by Joseph Goebbles that strongly indicate that any cognitive behavior in intelligence species can be modified.

I have referenced the National Geographical mag. (March 2004). And I have referenced research into various scientific studies into the lowest cognitive level of learning.

I have resorted to simple logic. What do you not believe about same sex attraction - that it is not cognitive (that people are not aware of their attractions). Are you saying that those that have same sex attractions are not intelligent and therefore not capable of learning and changing behavior? Are you aware that the scientific definition of intelligent is the ability to learn and change behavior?

So you are saying that since same sex is not an acquired behavior and since there are only two kinds of behaviors classified in science (learned or acquired or instinctive). So you are 100% sure that all information on this matter that you have ever considered proves to you that same sex is instinctive? If so please enlighten me.

I am posting because for all my research and everything I have considered using the scientific method and discarding personal bias - same sex and as well as all sexual behavior in an intelligent species is acquired.

The Traveler

[Soulsearcher]

I read a news article on a study years ago which said that the pituitary glad of women is normally smaller than that of men. The pituitary gland of homosexual men is closer in size to that of heterosexual women than to that of heterosexual men (the article did not mention anything about the size of the pituitary gland of homosexual women).

Also, there have been numerous studies of people who exhibit physical trait of both genders, and situations in which an individual has larger-than-normal amounts of the opposite sex hormones for their gender (we all have both estrogen and testosterone and normally women have more estrogen and men have more testosterone). Obviously, the physical factors of gender identity can be altered by genetics, hormones, etc. The pituitary study would seem to indicate that this is true for gender attraction as well. So I'd say there is plenty of scientific evidence that refutes Traveler's claim that sexual attraction is purely a learned behavior.

There was an interesting article about an experiment on mice last week done in China. By limiting the amount of serotonin in the brains of these mice, over half of them started seeking out male mates over female mates. The study was very careful to say it didn't draw any strong connections to humans, it was interesting to see how brain chemistry could play a factor. They indicated they might try and carry it further in the future but for now were going over all their current info on the mice.

[Soulsearcher]

What scientific data have you actually seen? I have referenced several eras of scientific research into acquired cognitive behavior. There is Pavlov’s dog, there are the Skinner experiments. Perhaps most profound are the “brainwashing” experiments by Joseph Goebbles that strongly indicate that any cognitive behavior in intelligence species can be modified.

I have referenced the National Geographical mag. (March 2004). And I have referenced research into various scientific studies into the lowest cognitive level of learning.

I have resorted to simple logic. What do you not believe about same sex attraction - that it is not cognitive (that people are not aware of their attractions). Are you saying that those that have same sex attractions are not intelligent and therefore not capable of learning and changing behavior? Are you aware that the scientific definition of intelligent is the ability to learn and change behavior?

So you are saying that since same sex is not an acquired behavior and since there are only two kinds of behaviors classified in science (learned or acquired or instinctive). So you are 100% sure that all information on this matter that you have ever considered proves to you that same sex is instinctive? If so please enlighten me.

I am posting because for all my research and everything I have considered using the scientific method and discarding personal bias - same sex and as well as all sexual behavior in an intelligent species is acquired.

The Traveler

Then please explain hormonal response, response to pheromones, sexual arousal response. Show me a teen boy who can control his body's responses and understand them before the birds and bee's talks and I'll be amazed. One of my favorite quotes.....

I'm reminded by the great opening West Wing scene which I lovingly refer to as the Religious Smackdown where the good Pastor says "Show the average teenage man a condom and his mind will turn to thoughts of lust." And Toby says "Show the average teenage male a lug wrench and his mind will turn to thoughts of lust!!!!"

[MormonMama]

What scientific data have you actually seen? I have referenced several eras of scientific research into acquired cognitive behavior. There is Pavlov’s dog, there are the Skinner experiments. Perhaps most profound are the “brainwashing” experiments by Joseph Goebbles that strongly indicate that any cognitive behavior in intelligence species can be modified.

I already listed the study I've seen. You can do a websearch and find more information if it suits you.

And your scientific research into acquired cognitive behavior is just that: research into acquired cognitive behavior. None of this research proves that ALL of our behavior is acquired cognitive behavior, as you seem to imply.

I eat when I get hungry. Is that a learned behavior? If so, then why are we born knowing how to do it?

Not all behavior or inclinations are learned. You have provided no proof whatsoever that sexual orientation is learned, nor do any of the studies you've listed even relate to sexual orientation.

Please stop trying to use apples to explain why fish swim.

[Soulsearcher]

Soulsearcher, is patience your superpower?

When i wonder why i bother i read this story.

GayMormon - Case Studies

[sensibility]

That's a terrible story.

I do wonder how often he went to Church, looking for solace, and was instead bombarded with people's theories of what gay people did wrong to become gay, or are failing to do that would cure them, or whatever other things straight people say to try to convince themselves that their sexuality is their reward for being inherently better than gays. Perhaps we were less valiant in the pre-existence? Who knows. But in all the theoretical shuffle, it is easy to forget that you are talking about real live children of God, and those theoretical discussions are deeply, deeply harmful.

It makes me think of this, from President Kimball --

God does notice us, and he watches over us. But it is usually through another person that he meets our needs. Therefore, it is vital that we serve each other in the kingdom. The people of the Church need each other’s strength, support, and leadership in a community of believers as an enclave of disciples. (emphasis added)

Many members of the Church who would be the first to leap up to support one another in illness, in bereavement, in poverty, have metaphorically washed their hands of the responsibility to support gay members. I don't think God will let them off that easily, and I do believe there will be a reckoning one day. But meantime, there are a lot of people whose needs are not being met, because the people who have a responsibility to meet them have turned away. And we wonder why gay members don't want to hang around?

[Soulsearcher]

And we wonder why gay members don't want to hang around?

1) cause they want to sin and feel good

2) cause they think it's too hard

3) because they want to rebel against god

4) satan got to them

5) they never really had a testimony

6) they are selfish and weak

It could never be because of how they are treated, because of the actions of others, it's their choice and while one or two members might be less than loving it's not enough to make it as bad as people keep saying. If they had real faith, and really believed they could stay no matter how they were treated, because after all the church is perfect, the people aren't.

EDIT** lol i also finally heard the song a few times at the clubs this weekend, not a huge fan of it over all i didn't enjoy dancing to it quite as much as some of her other ones, but it was nice to finally hear it lol.

Edited April 3, 2011 by Soulsearcher

[sensibility]

I've heard them all.

Like I say, I do think there will be a reckoning. And I think God will compensate those who were failed by the Church members who should be acting in His name. But that doesn't stop the harm it does now.

[Soulsearcher]

I've heard them all.

Like I say, I do think there will be a reckoning. And I think God will compensate those who were failed by the Church members who should be acting in His name. But that doesn't stop the harm it does now.

For the most part i just looked at the majority of responses around me and said if these are gods chosen i'm better off without. I think people see me as angry at god, where as i'm more indifferent towards what ever deity is out there, it's the followers in any faith that usually do the harm, not their god.

[sensibility]

"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ." -- Gandhi

It is really, really painful to be gay in the Church. I'm in a straight marriage, so I'm positively swimming in straight privilege. I have the easiest situation imaginable. And I still find discussions of homosexuality deeply painful, so I can only imagine how much worse they are for most gay members.

I'm sorry for what you've experienced, and I hope that we can see the Church membership move towards greater charity in our lifetimes. I think we're headed that way, at a rate approximately on level with continental drift . . . but that's where we're going. Hopefully the Saints will continue to become more worthy of the God and the Gospel we represent.

Edited April 6, 2011 by sensibility
I *do* know how to spell Gandhi's name

[Soulsearcher]

"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ." -- Ghandi

It is really, really painful to be gay in the Church. I'm in a straight marriage, so I'm positively swimming in straight privilege. I have the easiest situation imaginable. And I still find discussions of homosexuality deeply painful, so I can only imagine how much worse they are for most gay members.

I'm sorry for what you've experienced, and I hope that we can see the Church membership move towards greater charity in our lifetimes. I think we're headed that way, at a rate approximately on level with continental drift . . . but that's where we're going. Hopefully the Saints will continue to become more worthy of the God and the Gospel we represent.

I've always loved that quote.

Also i do see the membership slowly moving to embrace the newer teachings, but as you said it's slow, and for the time being it really doesn't serve a purpose to remain in a toxic environment. I was amazed at president Hinckley and was really saddened when we lost him, he was the one prophet that really seemed to get it, he was amazing and i value him on the same level i value pope john paul the second. I do hold out hope, but know it won't come in this generation so while i have no problem with casual conversations, i know going back to the fold won't happen, it is what it is.

[MormonMama]

I think one problem a lot of straight people have with homosexuality is just not knowing for sure how to deal with it. Teachings of the Church and the world at large for so many years have been conflicting, confusing and contradictory. People are quick to latch onto Biblical teachings that homosexuality is sinful while ignoring Biblical teachings that ALL sexual immorality is sinful (as they badmouth a gay man, then go home to sleep with their unmarried, but heterosexual, partner or worse, their neighbor's wife, for example).

For what it's worth, unwed mothers used to be treated pretty shabbily as well, but now they're celebrated on shows like Teen Moms. I can't say I necessarily think that's a good thing, but I have to say I'm very grateful that when I was an unwed mother I received nothing but love and compassion from everyone at church (you should have seen me, pregnant in the Singles' Ward!). I knew darn well no one was condoning what I'd done. I'd like to see homosexuals treated the same way.

I always had gay friends growing up and I thought I was a compassionate person in that regard, but I admit that when my teenage daughter admitted to me that she thought she might be bi-sexual my first reaction was panic. I didn't know what to do or how to feel. So I just told her that I loved her and always would and would do what I could to help her figure out how she really felt (knowing there was probably nothing I could do, it was something she'd have to sort out on her own). But in all honesty, I didn't know what I could or even SHOULD do at that point.

As someone who had kids out of wedlock, I've known for years that I have no business pointing any fingers at anyone else for what I perceive to be their sins. We all sin, so I don't know what gives anyone the right to somehow think their sins are somehow not as bad as another's.

[cofchristcousin]

That's a terrible story.

I do wonder how often he went to Church, looking for solace, and was instead bombarded with people's theories of what gay people did wrong to become gay, or are failing to do that would cure them, or whatever other things straight people say to try to convince themselves that their sexuality is their reward for being inherently better than gays. Perhaps we were less valiant in the pre-existence? Who knows. But in all the theoretical shuffle, it is easy to forget that you are talking about real live children of God, and those theoretical discussions are deeply, deeply harmful.

It makes me think of this, from President Kimball --

God does notice us, and he watches over us. But it is usually through another person that he meets our needs. Therefore, it is vital that we serve each other in the kingdom. The people of the Church need each other’s strength, support, and leadership in a community of believers as an enclave of disciples. (emphasis added)

Many members of the Church who would be the first to leap up to support one another in illness, in bereavement, in poverty, have metaphorically washed their hands of the responsibility to support gay members. I don't think God will let them off that easily, and I do believe there will be a reckoning one day. But meantime, there are a lot of people whose needs are not being met, because the people who have a responsibility to meet them have turned away. And we wonder why gay members don't want to hang around?

I think the gay folk that hang around in Churches and boards engaging the hard questions have a special calling... To do as your President Kimball states in the quote. In many ways the gays are serving with their stories to bring Kingdom-level challenge and support to the whole. Holding their struggle and brokenness and bewilderment with love-seeking-understanding transforms conjecturing and speculating into authentic compassion. A religion's beliefs might not change, but hearts do come to see and hold the other closer.

[Traveler]

The thing is in all your examples there is a behavior, an action. You've never addressed the non-action. That's why i'm not addressing your question. Yes i believe certain actions can be addictive, but that's not what we are talking about. You've stated simple attraction is an addiction but given nothing to back it up, instead you keep going back to an action. My body responds to males. It always has, I really don't act on it, but it responds to males and not females. You claim this is an addiction, a learned behavior, but still haven't explained how it was learned, how at a very young age i conditioned my body to respond to males instead of females. Pornography isn't an addiction if you have never looked at pornography. You can be predisposed to be an addict, but will never know unless you engage in the action.With out ever being with a man, i know i am attracted to them, i have known this from a very young age. Addiction requires a choice to begin the behavior, to engage in the activity. To drink, to do drugs, to look at pornography. You have stated that all sexuality the same as this. Not having sex, not any sexual behavior, ALL HUMAN SEXUALITY. You still haven't addressed this. Attraction does not equal sex acts. So please clarify how attraction and sexuality, completely separate from ANY action indicates addiction and learned behavior, with sources to back it up. This is where you keep having issues, you make claims with no backing and which go against any scientific standard. Hormones and physiology already dispute your claims.

You are misrepresenting my posts. I did not say that simple attractions are addictive - what I said is that they are cognitive and not instinctive. If you think that is what I said and you are arguing that point - then I recount that and wish to clarify. All cognitive behaviors are acquired and learned in higher intelligent species. I have stated that any cognitive behavior can be modified and changed. I have referenced scientific studies that relate how the brain changes and in essence wires itself as we learn behavior. The example I used is reading brail or playing the violin.

Attractions are cognitive by the very definition of attraction. I also submitted that all addictive behaviors are initiated by cognitive triggers. In other words if an individual does not recognize a cognitive trigger there will not be an addictive response - period. I have shown from scientific experiments how cognitive triggers are acquired - even without the subject being aware that they are being programmed. The reference was to Pavlov’s dog. I also stated that when endorphins or endorphin like substances (drugs) are involved and associated with cognitive triggers that addiction often results or is likely.

You say you are attracted to males - all males? Are you so attracted and equally attracted whenever you are near a male because of instinct you were born with? I really do not think so. In fact I would submit that if you do not cognitively recognize someone as being male (recognize from something you have learned) you will not be attracted - why is that? Because you have acquired (learned) to recognize something that causes an attraction reaction in a similar manner that Pavlov’s dog learned to salivate because of a light. Otherwise you would be attracted to men when you are not even conscious. You have many physical reactions that will continue when you are not conscious - those actions (sympatric nervous system) are geneticly acquired.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

I already listed the study I've seen. You can do a websearch and find more information if it suits you.

And your scientific research into acquired cognitive behavior is just that: research into acquired cognitive behavior. None of this research proves that ALL of our behavior is acquired cognitive behavior, as you seem to imply.

I eat when I get hungry. Is that a learned behavior? If so, then why are we born knowing how to do it?

Not all behavior or inclinations are learned. You have provided no proof whatsoever that sexual orientation is learned, nor do any of the studies you've listed even relate to sexual orientation.

Please stop trying to use apples to explain why fish swim.

You are correct - not all reactions are cognitive. Please understand that we are talking about intelligent species - not fish - which BTW all swim the same because of instinct. Also note that every individual gets hungry - there is no variation - which is another sign - variations being a strong indication that something caused a difference in the behavior to be acquired - I submit that in intelligent beings - a variation of behavior in genetically similar individuals and populations is strong proof and evidence indicating acquired (learned) response.

Please help me - this thread has over a thousand posts - if you have referenced scientific studies - I missed it. Please indicate the post # or provide the link or other reference.

The Traveler

[sensibility]

Traveler, I'm not going to try to argue the basis of homosexuality with you, as frankly I can't even wrap my mind around comparing human sexuality to a Pavlovian response. What I'm wondering is this: let's pretend that we all suddenly saw the light and agreed with you. Absolutely, homosexuality is learned, at some point that no actual gay people can remember or influence!

The fact remains that it cannot be unlearned, despite your protestations to the contrary. Many people more qualified than you have tried and resoundingly failed to "retrain" homosexuals. Everything from prayer to counselling to severely unethical aversion therapy has failed. So why does the origin of the homosexuality matter so profoundly? What would it change about the discourse? What meaningful purpose does this question serve?

[Traveler]

Traveler, I'm not going to try to argue the basis of homosexuality with you, as frankly I can't even wrap my mind around comparing human sexuality to a Pavlovian response. What I'm wondering is this: let's pretend that we all suddenly saw the light and agreed with you. Absolutely, homosexuality is learned, at some point that no actual gay people can remember or influence!

The fact remains that it cannot be unlearned, despite your protestations to the contrary. Many people more qualified than you have tried and resoundingly failed to "retrain" homosexuals. Everything from prayer to counselling to severely unethical aversion therapy has failed. So why does the origin of the homosexuality matter so profoundly? What would it change about the discourse? What meaningful purpose does this question serve?

Very good question. I will try to answer the best I can. Who is greater than G-d to bring positive and good influences for "good" behavior. Yet, Lucifer and a third part of the most enlightened society to ever exist could not be turned - even by G-d.

There are two things we can learn. The first is that all men have agency and regardless of what-ever outside influences there are - that man is what they will to become - not what something else makes of them. In truth I admire Soulsearcher. I admire him because he struggles to do what he believes to be “right”. He has not given up because his course is difficult. What I am not sure if that he understands is that all struggle with attractions to things that can and will lead to their eternal destruction. We all have a “natural man” that is an enemy of G-d. We all have acquired behaviors that we must overcome by repentance. Jesus said that who-so-ever looks upon another a lust after them (is attracted) has already committed adultery in their heart. I am attracted daily to things that will ruin my marriage and in over 37 years of marriage I have not been cured and though I have not committed my behavior to my fantasies - though my love is strong and my attraction to my wife governs my behavior - I still struggle with attractions I know are wrong.

The second thing we can learn is that we acquire who and what we are. We are born innocent and pure into a world of sin. Many things we acquire are not our fault or of our doing. This is why during our mortal life we are allowed the opportunity to repent - to change what we acquire. If all things we are “attracted to” were because of something that has already determined such that we cannot change then repentance would be a waste of time and the plan of salvation a lie. We are the sons and daughters of G-d and as such are destined to overcome the world. That is our true destiny. That is why we are here. We were born to overcome not to be overcome. This is the message I have been given and I am sticking to it.

The Traveler

[MormonMama]

Please help me - this thread has over a thousand posts - if you have referenced scientific studies - I missed it. Please indicate the post # or provide the link or other reference.

You did see it because you responded to that post! It's only a couple of pages back. I'm sure you can find it if you bother to look. I also told you that you could do a simple websearch and find examples. I had no problem doing that.

My point is that you have provided NO proof whatsoever to back up your claim that sexual attraction is learned. The studies you have listed do not prove this at all and from what I can see most or all of them don't even reference sexual attraction. You are using studies of cognitive behavior to try and prove your theory when the studies you provide don't do anything of the sort! That's like using studies of how fruit grows to try and prove theories of how fish swim. Hence my previous statement, which you obviously completely misinterpreted.

[sensibility]

I see what you're saying, and I appreciate that it comes from a place of deep faith in the Plan of Salvation and the Atonement. I applaud that, because, obviously, I believe those things too.

But again, I see that you're assuming that an unconscious physical reaction (sexual attraction) is on par with a conscious behavioural decision, and I simply can't agree with that. I see that you consider any physical attraction -- to anyone but one's spouse, I assume -- to be lust, a sin. I personally strongly disagree with that. Sexual attraction is instinctive, God built it into us to inspire holy marriages and lots of babies. Lust is when we misuse that attraction by choosing to dwell on or fantasise about inappropriate people. I'm attracted to women; however, I dismiss those thoughts when they come to me. Because of that, I don't in any way consider that I am guilty of the sin of lust. My conscience is completely clean in this matter.

Anyway, now I'm going to say something which is deeply offensive to much of the mainstream gay community, but which I personally believe: homosexuality is a physical abnormality. There is something wrong with my body which means that I'm not driven to mate with those I can actually reproduce with.

One study found that lesbians tend to have longer ring fingers than index fingers; the researchers suggested that both could be caused by exposure to high levels of androgens in the womb. My ring fingers are longer than my index fingers, as it happens; I didn't choose that. Shock therapy can't cure that. It's a physical phenomenon, and this study suggests that my sexual orientation could come from the same thing. In the next life, I expect a perfect body which doesn't have the abnormality of homosexuality, and who knows, maybe I'll get a more feminine finger length ratio as well. But for this life, I am in an imperfect body, and I am limited by its imperfections.

Homosexuality is a physical state of being. It isn't a behaviour.

Anyway, these conversations are always very upsetting to me, as I've indicated previously, so I'll be bowing out now. But as I do, I would like to suggest to all my lovely straight brothers and sisters in the Gospel that conversations on this track do much more harm than good, especially at Church. You may feel very safe having these conversations at Church, surrounded by the bright-eyed faithful, but I promise you that some of those bright-eyed faithful have SSA, and this sort of thoughtless pontification hurts them. When you tell us that SSA can be cured by faith, you're setting up an enormous false dichotomy: we can either be sufficiently faithful, or we can be gay.

We can't stop being gay. Almost without exception, we will be gay for the rest of our lives. And if that means we can never be sufficiently faithful, then what is the point of staying in the Church?

That's the message this conversation sends to gay members every single time it comes up. I would respectfully ask that you stop sending it.

Over and out.

[Seminarysnoozer]

I do wish people could kind of understand better. Comparing sexual attraction to sweets, and diets and ect really shows that there is a large lack of understanding. Most heterosexuals can't even pinpoint when or why their attraction took hold, it's always been there and it's part of them, ask them when they decided and they tend to look and you blankly and ask why that is important. The fact people keep seeing the "born this way" as an easy out, an unwillingness to live the gospel shows no one is trying to get it. It's not saying "WE GIVE UP" and give in. IT IS NOT TRYING TO MAKE THE SEXUAL BEHAVIORS OK IN ANY WAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What it is saying is that, for many after years and years and money and energy invested, there is no change in the desires and urges, maybe just maybe it's who i am and i have to make the choice of living a celibate life to align with the gospel or live a different life. Not once have i said born with way leads to giving in to sexual urges, or following the natural man. It's beyond frustrating that people seem to be missing the entire point. I tried with all my energy to change for 30 years, i gave it everything i had, we've seen other members on this site talk about wishing for nothing more than to get rid of the attractions, going through counseling, missions, hour upon hour of prayer, and not one little bit of change. I've had friends dragged out of their home and thrown in camps run by other churches with the sole intent of changing homosexual desires, heck BYU used shock and drug therapy to try and get them to change. NOTHING WORKS!!!!!!!! The professionals can only show an 8-10% success rate with over half of them admitting in the end it didn't really work they just were tired of being punished and ridiculed and lied about the change. It has nothing to do with giving it, it's trying to get people to treat us like the diabetic. I have never seen a church member go to a diabetic and say " well you made the choice to be diabetic, stop being diabetic right now or you are selfish and evil and i'll cast you out", i have seen this with gays and this is why accepting the biological is important, but being I've said this over and over and people still don't see why it might make a difference i don't know how else to say it. Accept a person is different, it's part of them on this earth, and let them work towards the gospel, don't say they have to cut out a part of them they might not be able to and make that a condition before you support them.

I wish you could understand better!!!!! I never said cut it out. If anything, I have been agreeing with you that you can't cut it out.

This is why I have been saying that is the wrong focus. It is not to cut it out, it is to control it, just like all carnal passions that pull away from spiritual influences.

You keep saying that you have tried to cut it out and you can't, I believe you, I support that idea for most. It is to me, the way for me to understand it, is to liken it to things that we understand a little better. It is like someone who has diabetes, there is rarely a complete reversal of the problem, at best a person is left to try to control it the rest of their life.

Here, I am trying to put it into terms that are understandable by most and you fire back with "I wish people could understand it better". ... this is the way to understand it better is to liken it to other carnal drives that pull away from spiritual influences. But, here is something for you to understand, a person with carnal drives that pulls away from spiritual influences is EVERYONE IN THIS WORLD!!!!!!! ... not just you, or anyone who suffers with homosexuality.

You talk as if nobody could possibly understand that unless they have the same problem. That is false. Jesus understands it all without having to live it all.

How do you know that suffering from type 2 diabetes is any less of a struggle than homosexuality. It may very well be more. I have had patients that have committed suicide with type 2 diabetes after his kidneys failed from the diabetes and he couldn't go on any longer with one more complication. "Nothing worked", just because nothing stopped the diabetes is not a reason to stop trying to control it.

I would be irresponsible if I had one or many patients kill themselves over diabetes and then with every new diabetes case tell them, "forget about trying to control it, that is the way you were born and you can never stop it, don't even put up a fight." The focus should be controlling it, not stopping it, I agree with that.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Homosexuality is a physical state of being. It isn't a behaviour.

Behaviors, though, can make the test impossible to pass.

I tend to agree with the first part of this statement but I think it is spiritually irresponsible to give the message that is isn't spiritually marring by behaviors. We are all fallen beings by our physical state, this is true. Some are fallen in different ways. We know this as a truth of the gospel. Each is given a different test. Our test is not to figure out how to get rid of the test. The sooner one understands that this is a test, the sooner one will understand the importance of passing the test. Passing the test is not trying to find a way to beat the test or getting around it but by realizing there is only one name in which the test is passed, through Jesus Christ. Behaviors can make the test harder though. Why make it harder for yourself?

If someone has a predisposition to alcoholism, it is a physical state, you would probably agree that it is not a good idea for that person to work at a bar.

I truly do not understand how making homosexuality more of an accepted practice is somehow making the burden lighter and the test easier. Yes, we should all see it as a test that the person had no part in bringing it on themselves, they were born with the test. I agree that that is where there is prejudice amongst the members of the church even. Some don't see that. Even then, once it is understood, it is like taking the pack of cigarettes away from the smoker, that may seem cruel but with the right perspective, that is an act of love. Of course, we all need to work on the approach better than labeling and blaming and demanding an immediate change. For all I know, homosexuality is the toughest test there is, but even if it is, we shouldn't come close to preaching that it is okay to give into it and make it more accessible and accepted. I realize that might seem harsh. But if one wants to preach "give into it" then that person should be partially responsible for all those affected by that preaching who would have otherwise passed the test but then made the test insurmountable by their behaviors thinking it was acceptable behaviors. Behaviors can make the test impossible to pass.

............

How could one do a study on all the individuals who would have been "homosexual" and genetically have a predisposition for it, but never called themselves that because they never gave themselves the opportunity to participate in such behavior that would label them that way?

You would probably say, there is no such thing, that all who have a predisposition to it are by definition homosexual. How could you know that, you wouldn't. Maybe one could say those are all those that have same sex attraction, but even then you wouldn't for certain find all those people unless they volunteered that information themselves. How could one find all the SSA who don't express that outwardly?

That would be like asking, how could I do a study on all those that have a genetic predisposition for alcoholism, or would love to have a drink if they could but lived by their faith that said never to be around alcohol and therefore never touched the stuff and never became alcoholics. How would find those people, you couldn't.

How could you find all the people that would have developed diabetes because it is in their genetic predisposition to get diabetes but didn't because they lived a very healthy lifestyle of diet and exercise their whole lives and never suffered from the outward problems from it. You couldn't find those people and label them that way.

Likewise, until science finds the genetic marker for such (which I believe exists) we are not going to be able to find the factors that make it easier to battle against such influences other than the faith based guidelines which we have to avoid carnal influences of all kind. So, for now, the best we have is to follow those faith based guidelines. Please do not encourage people away from those guidelines, you or anyone who does that will have to answer why they encouraged people to give up before they tried. .... that is worse than being ignorantly prejudice.

Edited April 4, 2011 by Seminarysnoozer

[Soulsearcher]

I wish you could understand better!!!!! I never said cut it out. If anything, I have been agreeing with you that you can't cut it out.

This is why I have been saying that is the wrong focus. It is not to cut it out, it is to control it, just like all carnal passions that pull away from spiritual influences.

You keep saying that you have tried to cut it out and you can't, I believe you, I support that idea for most. It is to me, the way for me to understand it, is to liken it to things that we understand a little better. It is like someone who has diabetes, there is rarely a complete reversal of the problem, at best a person is left to try to control it the rest of their life.

Here, I am trying to put it into terms that are understandable by most and you fire back with "I wish people could understand it better". ... this is the way to understand it better is to liken it to other carnal drives that pull away from spiritual influences. But, here is something for you to understand, a person with carnal drives that pulls away from spiritual influences is EVERYONE IN THIS WORLD!!!!!!! ... not just you, or anyone who suffers with homosexuality.

You talk as if nobody could possibly understand that unless they have the same problem. That is false. Jesus understands it all without having to live it all.

How do you know that suffering from type 2 diabetes is any less of a struggle than homosexuality. It may very well be more. I have had patients that have committed suicide with type 2 diabetes after his kidneys failed from the diabetes and he couldn't go on any longer with one more complication. "Nothing worked", just because nothing stopped the diabetes is not a reason to stop trying to control it.

I would be irresponsible if I had one or many patients kill themselves over diabetes and then with every new diabetes case tell them, "forget about trying to control it, that is the way you were born and you can never stop it, don't even put up a fight." The focus should be controlling it, not stopping it, I agree with that.

The issues is though you seem to keep thinking that we are saying we are born this way so we don't need to control it, or at least that's been the tone of your posts to me.

"Nothing worked", just because nothing stopped the diabetes is not a reason to stop trying to control it.

"forget about trying to control it, that is the way you were born and you can never stop it, don't even put up a fight."

These quotes along with many show that there's still misunderstanding. Not once have i said it's an excuse to give up fighting the urges, in fact in most every post in this thread it's said the exact opposite and yet you keep bringing up quotes like this, which is where i get confused.

The entire point behind the thread is " born this way" People keep thinking it's used as an excuse to not have to control things, and all i've been saying is no, that's not what it's saying, it's saying that" this is a part of me, i can control it, but you have to accept it's part of me and not just give up because i can't get rid of it completely"

So if you understand my point, why do you keep commenting on the need for controlling the urges which was said with in the first page or two of the thread and repeated over a hundred times over?

[Soulsearcher]

If someone has a predisposition to alcoholism, it is a physical state, you would probably agree that it is not a good idea for that person to work at a bar.

Agreed, but it's also counter productive to surround yourself with people who swear a predisposition to alcoholism with out ever touching a drink is a sin.

I truly do not understand how making homosexuality more of an accepted practice is somehow making the burden lighter and the test easier.

And there it is, the magic bullet. Not one person has said anything about making the actions more acceptable. Not one person has said anything about condoning the behavior or practices. This is where the misunderstanding of this whole thread comes from. No one is saying anything about the part of this the church considers a sin. For some reason everyone keeps thinking asking people to not judge a passive biological condition gets confused with condoning the actions. I'm still really confused as to how anyone has gotten " give in to it" from my many many many many many times saying " a member who wishes to keep to the gospel and follow the church's stance should do just that". So exactly where are people getting anything about condoning the behaviors or giving in, or not putting up a fight because it hasn't come up as advice or request from a single one of my posts.

You would probably say, there is no such thing, that all who have a predisposition to it are by definition homosexual. How could you know that, you wouldn't. Maybe one could say those are all those that have same sex attraction, but even then you wouldn't for certain find all those people unless they volunteered that information themselves. How could one find all the SSA who don't express that outwardly?

That would be like asking, how could I do a study on all those that have a genetic predisposition for alcoholism, or would love to have a drink if they could but lived by their faith that said never to be around alcohol and therefore never touched the stuff and never became alcoholics. How would find those people, you couldn't.

I can make one comment. I lived by my faith, I still have never been with another man, i know i am homosexual. All of the gays i know and talk to knew they were homosexual before engaging in any act that goes against the current church standards. That's the difference between the addictive predisposition arguments. They require a catalyst event, taking an action to cross that line and know for sure. homosexuality/SSA doesn't. We don't have to engage in anything to confirm it.

Please do not encourage people away from those guidelines, you or anyone who does that will have to answer why they encouraged people to give up before they tried. .... that is worse than being ignorantly prejudice.

Again if you think this has been said even once, you are not reading what's being said. I have supported the church's stance so many times i can't even count. I have supported celibacy for faithful members time and time again. So where have i encouraged people away from the guidelines of their faith? Asking members to stop trying to change a possibly genetic condition because they think it's doable, it a far cry from telling someone to give in to their desires. The fact it's taken this many pages, and people still can't read the basic message says a lot to me and is rather disheartening even from those who say they get it, but prove they still miss the point.