Article on hetero marriage with SSA

[Soulsearcher]

Depends on if you're simply trying to teach people something they don't know AND if you have an interested audience or if you're trying to change their opinions and beliefs. Some Evangelical Christians will never listen to what I say. I've tried to tell some about the gospel but they rejected it so I leave them alone. They know where to find more info about the LDS Church if they want it. I don't hang around their forums and argue with them. That is counter -productive because it would only irritate them.

Missionaries go about it the same way- they are constantly searching for people who are ripe and ready to accept their message. If after a time, it's rejected, they move on. It's a waste of their time and effort to keep visiting if the person clearly has no interest in learning anymore or joining the church. Now perhaps another set of missionaries will find that person later and the attitude will have changed and the person will be open to the message.

The other thing missionaries don't do is go in and point out how wrong people are. They are instructed to NOT endlessly argue their points with people who don't want to listen or who are contentious. That can be entertaining but as far as I've ever heard, it's clearly against mission rules. They are to present the gospel in a positive light. They teach truths and the Holy Ghost confirms that truth to the person if they are ready for it. The Holy Ghost won't be present when there is contention or anger or criticism.

So you're dealing with an audience here that probably for the most part doesn't look too favorably on gay marriage. (I realize there are exceptions here. I don't understand that but I don't live in their minds nor have I had their life experiences. Whatever.) So the chances of your opinions being chased out of town are pretty high if you're arguing that gay relationships are good, sweet and wonderful. I'm pretty sure that's what happened to GaySaint. I was willing to listen to him till he said he believes Heavenly Father wants him to be married to his gay partner. How could he not expect LDS folks on this forum to balk at that. He grew up LDS and knew all there is to know about our doctrine. So to claim that on an LDS website is pretty risky. I'm sorry he's gone. He was a nice guy.

Anyway, I appreciate what you have taught us about SSA. I have gained insight from you. But there comes a point when you reach the end of the line. Gay relationships are where the trolley stops and you need to get off. If you have a problem with LDS viewpoints on gay marriage, take it up with President Monson and see if he can get the Lord to change the rules.

I'm not telling you to leave. You've been here longer than I have and I'm sure people like you more than they like me. I'm just saying, it's a real stretch to think you'll change any opinions here...says me anyway.

The only opinion i've ever wanted to change was the way people look at it. Show the same respect and acceptance you want others to have for your life style. You can't bemoan what the anti's say about the church, and the temple and eternal marriages and then turn around and do it to any one else. I have no problem with the views people hold. I don't ever expect LDS or the majority of christians to like or agree with gay marriage, but just like the LDS fought for and hated being told what to do by others concerning polygamy way back in the day people just want to be left to follow what they hold as right. If you have issues with people blasting what you hold dear and constantly making light of and dismissing it's value, you understand exactly why i say what i say. accept it's value to the people who hold that value dear instead of throwing words like unhealthy and such. The relationships can be good and sweet and very healthy for the people in them. They can bring as much happiness and joy as other relationships, you might not see it or want to see it, but it's there, it just doesn't sit right with you any more that temple marriages sit with a number of people. Saying i don't agree so it has no value and i don't need to see value is exactly why you have people actively attacking the church, it's exactly the same mentality. I didn't like seeing the kids i helped raise being part of the church, it lead to some less than desirable things and caused more than a few bumps that they didn't need to go through(not that it was the standard for the church, but leaders and priesthood holders let it or caused it and were able to because of "authority"), yet i almost never said a word against the church, i stated what i believed rarely and was there to offer what ever support they needed as they needed it. It went directly against all i believed yet i let them lead where they wanted and kept my disagreements to myself. People can divide a certain level of personal belief and respect for others and there have been a number of strong parents in the church who found that balance when dealing with this topic. All i ever tend to want to understand is why the golden rule doesn't seem to apply, why do some ask for what they won't give. If some one asks to just have the right to follow what they believe is right( and i know we'll get the usual rape murder ect arguments, but really that's such a side step it's silly) whether there are LDS, Muslim, Gay, Straight why any one class deserves less than the other?I've lost count of the amount of times i've heard the terms cult and brain washing and lies spoken about the LDS, does the fact people hold those beliefs as strongly as you hold yours make them just as right when they use the same bible to defend it, or does it mean there is just a willful blindness to something they just might not want to see. i don't particularly like the church and i have strong reasons, nothing to do with stance on gays, but i can see some good, i can see some kind of positives in it and choose to respect the members choices and them as people, does it make me weaker or wrong to see some good in that which i don't like and goes against all i believe or does that make me a better person? Should i just blindly follow my beliefs and not try to see any good that conflicts or should i admit there can be good but still hold true to myself? i think that's where some of the members are coming from that you don't understand, they still don't agree, but at which point does it cross a line for them.

[Desertknight]

For what it's worth, Soulsearcher, one of the things I was trying to was offer a perspective that might show it in a different light and although I may oppose gay marriage, posit the idea of why it is a bit more complicated than what it may seem. I often hear people say they defend "traditional" marriage of one man + one woman, and so ask them define what "tradition" they mean. As I pointed out, around 50% of all American marriages contracted today, are not true marriages by the actual Christian tradition going back 2,000 years and would have never even been possible before the second half of the 20th century. I posted a link in an earlier post that details British divorce law history to offer that even in Protestant countries, divorce and remarriage are a relatively new phenomenon dating back only to the 19th century. It was inconceivable before that. If the answer to such history is, "Well, my Christian tradition changed from that historic one and allows divorce and remarriage.", then they are not arguing that the state support traditional marriage, but a much newer, more narrow and sectarian idea of marriage, as they or their religious tradition has now defined it. If that is the standard, then why should their religious perspective prevail over that of say, President Obama's church? He is actually a Johnny come lately among his co-religionist as his church has endorsed and performed same-sex marriages for some years now.

I don't know what answer would be acceptable to modern society and my personal view as a Catholic, is to try to hang on to what we can of the moral law, but I also can see why same-sex couples can become incensed, as with the example I gave, of a Rush Limbaugh railing against their efforts to push acceptance of "gay marriage" while he is on his fourth "marriage" that is a modern invention of the State he benefits from, that would have been considered a mortal sin and scandalous, by virtually every Christian tradition just a few short decades ago.

Edited May 31, 2012 by Desertknight

[Soulsearcher]

For what it's worth, Soulsearcher, one of the things I was trying to was offer a perspective that might show it in a different light and although I may oppose gay marriage, posit the idea of why it is a bit more complicated than what it may seem. I often hear people say they defend "traditional" marriage of one man + one woman, and so ask them define what "tradition" they mean. As I pointed out, around 50% of all American marriages contracted today, are not true marriages by the actual Christian tradition going back 2,000 years and would have never even been possible before the second half of the 20th century. I posted a link in an earlier post that details British divorce law history to offer that even in Protestant countries, divorce and remarriage are a relatively new phenomenon dating back only to the 19th century. It was inconceivable before that. If the answer to such history is, "Well, my Christian tradition changed from that historic one and allows divorce and remarriage.", then they are not arguing that the state support traditional marriage, but a much newer, more narrow and sectarian idea of marriage, as they or their religious tradition has now defined it. If that is the standard, then why should their religious perspective prevail over that of say, President Obama's church? He is actually a Johnny come lately among his co-religionist as his church has endorsed and performed same-sex marriages for some years now.

I don't know what answer would be acceptable to modern society and my personal view as a Catholic, is to try to hang on to what we can of the moral law, but I also can see why same-sex couples can become incensed, as with the example I gave, of a Rush Limbaugh railing against their efforts to push acceptance of "gay marriage" while he is on his fourth "marriage" that is a modern invention of the State he benefits from, that would have been considered a mortal sin and scandalous, by virtually every Christian tradition just a few short decades ago.

This is why i see a clear difference between government contract and religious institution. even if the religious institution has evolved with the time there, for now at least, is a limit to which they will and should evolve, but with even a number of christians having multiple marriages and not really taking them seriously i have little issue with drawing a line between gov and religion and ask that one side of the line be open to all and let the other be controlled by those who can bicker amongst them selves over just exactly what the tradition is and if anyone is really following what was said over 2000 years ago.

[Soulsearcher]

The thing here, Carli, is that if its legal they have logical reason to think it is acceptable so not a sin.

However how can they be married, other than legally, if marriage is between a man and a woman? If I call my rose a daisy its still not a daisy.

Just a minor reminder. A vast majority don't believe in sin or that it ever was a sin. The legality has no effect for us on the view of sinfulness. You have to remember that sadly the government took your word and tied it to fiscal and other protections. To a majority there's no such thing as being married other than legally. The ones that feel different have churches that say it's ok and it would between you and them to argue doctrine and why on christian is more correct than another, but as we've seen trying to show a christian they might have something wrong tends to be kinda pointless

[Guest]

the issue being and maybe it is a language thing, as in the past you have stated that it could be an issue. When people brought up the possibility you seemed to have a very strong reaction. I was not aiming nor was any of the people who brought it up at being intolerant, just posing a query. The strong reaction you seemed to have it what made it seem you were threatened in some way be the suggestion there could be more to the story. Just like when it comes to marriage you insist there is more to the story and are sure that what people say isn't what they want. You take the story, and you put in your experience and they you state what you think is true with a very strong statement of fact. So far everyone who's voiced an dissenting opinion on this thread has more asked a question rather than stated a fact. If asking questions to gain understanding is bad then how does one actually get to the truth?

Asking questions is not bad. I never said they were. But, you're not trying to gain understanding here. You're dismissing what we said. Because our dissenting opinion all of a sudden became - fear of the insinuation. You speculated, we rebutted pointing to specific texts in the article that doesn't support the speculation. We, all of a sudden, became fearful of your question. Whatever, dude.

[Soulsearcher]

Asking questions is not bad. I never said they were. But, you're not trying to gain understanding here. You're dismissing what we said. Because our dissenting opinion all of a sudden became - fear of the insinuation. You speculated, we rebutted pointing to specific texts in the article that doesn't support the speculation. We, all of a sudden, became fearful of your question. Whatever, dude.

I'm not sure where i dismissed anything? I never said anything about the article for sure. I posed a question and have not made a single sure judgment on the couple in the article. Why are you telling me what I'm doing, if i am or am not seeking understanding? It wasn't your dissenting opinion that became fear, it's how it was expressed. even other posters said you reacted a little strong in the way you approached a single question. the specific quotes you pointed out didn't clearly show anything as i pointed out later, they did for you and i can see why, and yet they didn't do that for others, not just myself. Then after this you again rather than calmly approach and look at why some people might see it the way they do and ask rational questions you react strongly again. Also being i wasn't the first person to mention this it's not "my" question, i can understand why this is directed at me, but notice it was also a few of your fellow saints that had the same question, not just the local gay guy, he just kept the conversation going.

[Guest]

I'm not sure where i dismissed anything? I never said anything about the article for sure. I posed a question and have not made a single sure judgment on the couple in the article. Why are you telling me what I'm doing, if i am or am not seeking understanding? It wasn't your dissenting opinion that became fear, it's how it was expressed. even other posters said you reacted a little strong in the way you approached a single question. the specific quotes you pointed out didn't clearly show anything as i pointed out later, they did for you and i can see why, and yet they didn't do that for others, not just myself. Then after this you again rather than calmly approach and look at why some people might see it the way they do and ask rational questions you react strongly again. Also being i wasn't the first person to mention this it's not "my" question, i can understand why this is directed at me, but notice it was also a few of your fellow saints that had the same question, not just the local gay guy, he just kept the conversation going.

The other non-gay guys didn't accuse us of fear of insinuation. That's my only beef with you. Bini never understood a thing I said. And that's what got me frustrated. Two completely different things.

I don't mind having different opinions. I mind having a different opinion simply because nobody understood each other.

Now you, I understand you loud and clear.

[carlimac]

“We want to help these people, to strengthen them, to assist them with their problems and to help them with their difficulties. But we cannot stand idle if they indulge in immoral activity, if they try to uphold and defend and live in a so-called same-sex marriage situation. To permit such would be to make light of the very serious and sacred foundation of God-sanctioned marriage and its very purpose, the rearing of families”

President Gordon B. Hinckley

"The prophets speak to us in the name of the Lord and in divine plainness."

President Dieter F. Uchtdorf

"One of the greatest and most valuable lessons we can learn in mortality is that when God speaks and a man obeys, that man will always be right." President Thomas S. Monson

"We regard it as not only our right but our duty to oppose those forces which we feel undermine the moral fiber of society... God-sanctioned marriage between a man and a woman has been the basis of civilization for thousands of years. There is no justification to redefine what marriage is. Such is not our right, and those who try will find themselves answerable to God. " President Gordon B. Hinckley

"Association with those of the same gender is natural and desirable, so long as you set wise boundaries to avoid improper and unhealthy emotional dependency, which may eventually result in physical and sexual intimacy. There is moral risk in having so close a relationship with one friend of the same gender that it may lead to vices the Lord has condemned.

Pamphlet "God Loveth His Children" 2007

"Open communication between parents and children is a clear expression of love, and pure love, generously expressed, can transform family ties. But love for a family member does not extend to condoning unrighteous behavior. Your children are welcome to stay in your home, of course, but you have every right to exclude from your dwelling any behavior that offends the Spirit of the Lord."

Elder Jeffrey R. Holland

"A number of Latter-day Saints with same-gender attraction are moving forward with their lives by carefully adhering to gospel standards, staying close to the Lord, and obtaining ecclesiastical and professional help when needed. Their lives are rich and satisfying, and they can be assured that all the blessings of eternal life will ultimately be theirs."

From "God Loveth His Children"

Edited May 31, 2012 by carlimac

[Soulsearcher]

The other non-gay guys didn't accuse us of fear of insinuation. That's my only beef with you. Bini never understood a thing I said. And that's what got me frustrated. Two completely different things.

I don't mind having different opinions. I mind having a different opinion simply because nobody understood each other.

Now you, I understand you loud and clear.

then what do you understand? the fact i never said anything definitive about the man in the article? the fact i had questions that were not answered by the quotes you provided? the fact i considered your reaction to such question as a bit over the top and was trying to understand why there was such a reaction? To come down so harsh on just asking questions means it evoked some kind of emotional response.

[Soulsearcher]

“We want to help these people, to strengthen them, to assist them with their problems and to help them with their difficulties. But we cannot stand idle if they indulge in immoral activity, if they try to uphold and defend and live in a so-called same-sex marriage situation. To permit such would be to make light of the very serious and sacred foundation of God-sanctioned marriage and its very purpose, the rearing of families”

President Gordon B. Hinckley

"The prophets speak to us in the name of the Lord and in divine plainness."

President Dieter F. Uchtdorf

"One of the greatest and most valuable lessons we can learn in mortality is that when God speaks and a man obeys, that man will always be right." President Thomas S. Monson

"We regard it as not only our right but our duty to oppose those forces which we feel undermine the moral fiber of society... God-sanctioned marriage between a man and a woman has been the basis of civilization for thousands of years. There is no justification to redefine what marriage is. Such is not our right, and those who try will find themselves answerable to God. " President Gordon B. Hinckley

"Association with those of the same gender is natural and desirable, so long as you set wise boundaries to avoid improper and unhealthy emotional dependency, which may eventually result in physical and sexual intimacy. There is moral risk in having so close a relationship with one friend of the same gender that it may lead to vices the Lord has condemned.

Pamphlet "God Loveth His Children" 2007

"Open communication between parents and children is a clear expression of love, and pure love, generously expressed, can transform family ties. But love for a family member does not extend to condoning unrighteous behavior. Your children are welcome to stay in your home, of course, but you have every right to exclude from your dwelling any behavior that offends the Spirit of the Lord."

Elder Jeffrey R. Holland

"A number of Latter-day Saints with same-gender attraction are moving forward with their lives by carefully adhering to gospel standards, staying close to the Lord, and obtaining ecclesiastical and professional help when needed. Their lives are rich and satisfying, and they can be assured that all the blessings of eternal life will ultimately be theirs."

From "God Loveth His Children"

again, as long as you accept people who use scripture and words from their leaders that direct the same kind of attitudes towards your church i'm fine with it. However you yourself have said how little you like people taking that attitude towards the church. So again, if you want people who don't agree to show respect and accept your way of life has some value, are you or are you not just as willing to return it to others? I could(but won't due to site rules) post just as much scripture and quotes that highlight what a vast number of christians think is wrong with your faith, does it make it ok for them to attack or belittle what you hold dear, or do you want more from them as people even if they disagree? Again one doesn't have to change their views to stop insulting and belittling the views or lifestyles of others.

[Guest]

then what do you understand? the fact i never said anything definitive about the man in the article? the fact i had questions that were not answered by the quotes you provided? the fact i considered your reaction to such question as a bit over the top and was trying to understand why there was such a reaction? To come down so harsh on just asking questions means it evoked some kind of emotional response.

I understand that you are baptized LDS who is gay and had personal spiritual revelation that having a sexual relationship with another man is just fine for you. That's what I understand. So, of course, I understand that you have an inherent bias for seeing Ty's spiritual experience at General Conference as anything but a true conversion.

An LDS and a Catholic can look at the entirety of the Bible and one sees the Godhead while the other sees the Trinity.

The difference is - I see where you're coming from, just like I understand completely how a Catholic would see the Trinity while completely believing in the Godhead. You, on the other hand, refuse to see the answers in the quotes I provided from my side of the fence just like a Catholic that refuse to see the references to a Godhead in the Bible. Instead you point to it and say - oh, she's just fearful of the insinuation.

And that's all I have to say about that.

[carlimac]

again, as long as you accept people who use scripture and words from their leaders that direct the same kind of attitudes towards your church i'm fine with it. However you yourself have said how little you like people taking that attitude towards the church. So again, if you want people who don't agree to show respect and accept your way of life has some value, are you or are you not just as willing to return it to others? I could(but won't due to site rules) post just as much scripture and quotes that highlight what a vast number of christians think is wrong with your faith, does it make it ok for them to attack or belittle what you hold dear, or do you want more from them as people even if they disagree? Again one doesn't have to change their views to stop insulting and belittling the views or lifestyles of others.

The truth is harder to bear when one is living in opposition to it. A person is more likely to be offended by God's commandments when they aren't following them.

I roll my eyes at some of the garbage people come up with about the church. For instance the complaints by a commenter that said a woman in the 1950s was denied medical care because her father was a polygamist- blaming her crooked arm on the church. (Duh!) There is an endless supply of rumors and false information out there about the church. It's frustrating but I'm not deeply offended unless there is some kind of vulgar threat such as gay supporters urinating on the temple grounds or loud Baptist protesters at the prophet's funeral.

I know there is nothing about the church to be ashamed about. I feel very secure in my testimony. I believe with all my heart that what is taught from our leaders is true. If people don't like the church, so be it. When I say homosexual relationships are inherently unhealthy, I believe it's true. I feel it's OK for me to voice that on an LDS forum. I would not, on the otherhand venture into a gay forum and say that. Bad form. But I feel it's perfectly acceptable to echo the words of our prophets and leaders on lds.net.

[Soulsearcher]

I understand that you are baptized LDS who is gay and had personal spiritual revelation that having a sexual relationship with another man is just fine for you. That's what I understand. So, of course, I understand that you have an inherent bias for seeing Ty's spiritual experience at General Conference as anything but a true conversion.

An LDS and a Catholic can look at the entirety of the Bible and one sees the Godhead while the other sees the Trinity.

The difference is - I see where you're coming from, just like I understand completely how a Catholic would see the Trinity while completely believing in the Godhead. You, on the other hand, refuse to see the answers in the quotes I provided from my side of the fence just like a Catholic that refuse to see the references to a Godhead in the Bible. Instead you point to it and say - oh, she's just fearful of the insinuation.

And that's all I have to say about that.

Actually i've never had spiritual revelation about anything really. I consider my self both ex LDS and ex catholic. The question i have concerning Ty do originate though from living a life similar to his, just going a different direction. I don't refuse to see answers in the quotes, i just don't see the crystal clear answers you do. I've said i see how you can see them as crystal clear and i haven't said anything negative about the fact you do see them as crystal clear. what i don't get is the seeming hostility. I haven't questioned that he's dealt with same sex attraction, that he's moved on and got married or anything vital to the article. So when you've show the level of emotional response to some what valid other responses then yes it makes me question why. No different if i lashed out emotionally in this article because it claimed changing orientation could happen. the emotional response would raise more eyebrows and make people take me less seriously. you might have to accept there is nothing more to my words that what i say, curiosity coming from someone who tried for over 20 years and had a completely different outcome and wondering if there's a reason it worked for one and not the other, rather than the common " Soul just didn't have enough faith or was too weak". no spite or anything, just honest curiosity.

[Soulsearcher]

The truth is harder to bear when one is living in opposition to it. A person is more likely to be offended by God's commandments when they aren't following them.

I roll my eyes at some of the garbage people come up with about the church. For instance the complaints by a commenter that said a woman in the 1950s was denied medical care because her father was a polygamist- blaming her crooked arm on the church. (Duh!) There is an endless supply of rumors and false information out there about the church. It's frustrating but I'm not deeply offended unless there is some kind of vulgar threat such as gay supporters urinating on the temple grounds or loud Baptist protesters at the prophet's funeral.

I know there is nothing about the church to be ashamed about. I feel very secure in my testimony. I believe with all my heart that what is taught from our leaders is true. If people don't like the church, so be it. When I say homosexual relationships are inherently unhealthy, I believe it's true. I feel it's OK for me to voice that on an LDS forum. I would not, on the otherhand venture into a gay forum and say that. Bad form. But I feel it's perfectly acceptable to echo the words of our prophets and leaders on lds.net.

i tend to think if you wouldn't say it everywhere, you shouldn't say it anywhere. If it's what you believe it's what you believe no matter where you are or who you are with. If it's bad form to belittle peoples beliefs and lives to their face or on their boards, one would think it's worse form to do it behind their backs. again you'll notice i can speak my reservations about the church in a respectful enough way with out breaking the rules of this site, and try very hard not to offend people who have the faith i do not. It is possible to hold a belief and still be respectful in how you speak. When i am in person with my gay friends and straight friends who've had bad experiences with the LDS i could quite easily join in and make the jokes and laugh and tell some of the bad stories i have, but i don't, i admit there are some bad apples but for the most part the church has some saving graces and even though i can't deny the bad experiences i ask they tend to look past that and try to see that aside from the issues we have they tend not to be bad people. they look at me like i'm crazy or just plain stupid, but i've kept respectful despite what i believe about the church.

[carlimac]

i tend to think if you wouldn't say it everywhere, you shouldn't say it anywhere. If it's what you believe it's what you believe no matter where you are or who you are with. If it's bad form to belittle peoples beliefs and lives to their face or on their boards, one would think it's worse form to do it behind their backs. again you'll notice i can speak my reservations about the church in a respectful enough way with out breaking the rules of this site, and try very hard not to offend people who have the faith i do not. It is possible to hold a belief and still be respectful in how you speak. When i am in person with my gay friends and straight friends who've had bad experiences with the LDS i could quite easily join in and make the jokes and laugh and tell some of the bad stories i have, but i don't, i admit there are some bad apples but for the most part the church has some saving graces and even though i can't deny the bad experiences i ask they tend to look past that and try to see that aside from the issues we have they tend not to be bad people. they look at me like i'm crazy or just plain stupid, but i've kept

respectful despite what i believe about the church.

The difference is that I'm not being disrespectful, joking, laughing and telling bad stories. I'm not using crass language or aiming smokebombs at gay bars. I'm simply saying in a very serious tone, from a spiritual, physical and psychological standpoint, I believe (as do my church leaders and I believe God feels this way, too) that gay relationships are unhealthy. They may have healthy aspects to them- provide fun and security. But the bottom line is that anything that breaks the commandments is unhealthy in some way.

The commandments are given to us for our safetly and protection. To break them is to take an unhealthy risk. If that offends you...maybe that's a good thing. At least you're not past feeling. I'm saying it with respect to homosexuals- with care and concern. I also believe smoking, adultery, fornication, abuse, killing, lying, cheating, etc, etc are all UNhealthy and will lead to ultimate unhappiness.

My wish for you would be for you to allow yourself to find happiness in a hetero relationship, but if that is impossible (which I know it is for many) then to find happiness and fulfillment as a single person, active in the church, enjoying frindships with other members and family. I've seen many people do this. Not discounting their lonliness. But to live a single life is better than in a homosexual relationship. If you feel it's disrespectful to say that...don't read what I write. I'm not going to compromise my standards for you. I'm not going to sit here and smile a false smile and say gay relationship are good.

I've tried really hard to put myself in your shoes. (Not an easy thing to do but I've tried) Honestly, if I were lesbian, no ties to the church, didn't think there was anything wrong with having a lesbian lover, I'd probably just ignore anyone who didn't agree with me rather than get my feathers ruffled. In fact I'd EXPECT them to say my relationship was unhealthy if that's their belief.

[Bini]

.....

...

..

.

*Nom nom nom*

[carlimac]

.....

...

..

.

*Nom nom nom*

Agreed! I'm REALLY done now. Going camping with the fam! Ta Ta!

[Wingnut]

I read this thread when it first started, but wanted to share something to it now. Forgive me if it's already been posted here, but I just don't have the mental energy to look through 10 pages to see. :)

I found this blog post linked from a friend's Facebook page today. I don't know the author or his wife at all, but I found it touching and wanted to share. In doing so, please don't misunderstand and think that I'm in the camp of "see, it can be done! More people should try it!" I'm simply sharing an inspiring tale that I hope others will enjoy.

The Weed: Club Unicorn: In which I come out of the closet on our ten year anniversary

A few people questioned the author of the article in the OP, whether he was actually homosexual or really bisexual. The author of this blog addresses that issue, in part by saying the following (under question #4):

Some might assume that because I’m married to a woman, I must be bisexual. This would be true if sexual orientation was defined by sexual experience. Heck, if sexual orientation were defined by sexual experience, I would be as straight as the day is long even though I’ve never been turned on by a Victoria’s Secret commercial in my entire life. Sexual orientation is defined by attraction, not by experience.

[Wingnut]

(There are a lot of great comments, too, if you feel inclined to skim through them.)

[iinarihoudai]

I just wanted to say that as someone who is bisexual and LDS I have NEVER had to go through anything like Ty did. I was attracted to women and men, okay. But women were not an option so I never went there. I directed my romantic relationship radar toward men only. Problem solved.

[ruthiechan]

I just read a story about a heterosexual in a homosexual relationship. We've all likely heard of women who get so burned by men that they "go lesbian". It seems easy to believe such stories of people being hurt or "deceived by the devil" into homosexual behavior, but when it's the opposite people question the gay man's sexuality? That seems wrong to me. A gay friend said that orientation does not change but behavior does. Isn't that what we Mormons have been saying all along? That we can choose to live our lives differently than our bodies tell us to?

[annewandering]

I read this thread when it first started, but wanted to share something to it now. Forgive me if it's already been posted here, but I just don't have the mental energy to look through 10 pages to see. :)

I found this blog post linked from a friend's Facebook page today. I don't know the author or his wife at all, but I found it touching and wanted to share. In doing so, please don't misunderstand and think that I'm in the camp of "see, it can be done! More people should try it!" I'm simply sharing an inspiring tale that I hope others will enjoy.

The Weed: Club Unicorn: In which I come out of the closet on our ten year anniversary

A few people questioned the author of the article in the OP, whether he was actually homosexual or really bisexual. The author of this blog addresses that issue, in part by saying the following (under question #4):

I read this the other day. Very interesting blog and useful advice for anyone. Gay or not. We make our choices. Not our body. Even though our body can be very persuasive we are still the one to decide. I also like the part where he says we all make choices that have sacrifice of one sort or other. We have to decide which choice we prefer to not sacrifice.