A conversation with my son concerning sexual attractions

[Traveler]

I have a son that by profession is involved in the Hollywood seen (pun intended) and has many good friends involved in SSA. From time to time he brings such friends to our home. This is not so unusual in that Mrs. Traveler and I often have friends of our own involved in SSA as guests in our home. In our home there are no forbidden topics with our children, their spouses or their children. It has always been that way. My children are familiar with my difficulties and progress in dealing with individuals involved in SSA. My son had a most interesting and intriguing opinion that is different than mine.

My son challenged my point of view that sexual attractions are a learned or acquired behavior. He addressed my opinion with some very interesting points. His first point has to do with what is known to LDS as the “natural man”. He begins by interjecting that we are all born a “natural man” and that the things of G-d are in essence what is un-natural not what we were born to. He argued that we do not have to learn to be a “natural man” - that such things come about naturally by our birth. But to become a saint of G-d is very natural and is something that must be learned and disciplined. He contended that it is most difficult for a guy to have a marriage relationship with a lady. That if the natural inclinations of a natural man were followed, a marriage as defined by G-d would most certainly fail. He contended that those with SSA argue a valid point - and they are right when they insist that they were born with SSA. That it would be better that we accept and understand this notion rather than to attempt to convince otherwise.

But he went one step farther and said something that really surprised me but at the same time got me thinking. He gave his opinion that it is most difficult and near impossible for men and women to be on the same page sexually and that is one of the great paradoxes and challenges of traditional marriage. Hmmmmm - I think he is on to something.

The Traveler

[BadWolf]

Same page sexually, how so?

[BadWolf]

To continue/clarify...When I hear "not on the same page" I think maps & clocks being off.

Ignoring geography, which just requires a bit of cartography & paying attention to sort out:.

- There are both men & women with high libidos

- There are both men & women with low sex drive.

- There are both men & women who are visually stimulated.

- There are both... Et cetera.

IME&O ...

1) Sexual compatibility is just like compatibility in any other sphere of the relationship/marriage. Some couples are exceptionally compatible sexually, others are at loggerheads.

2) There's a baseline "normal" (drive, proclivities, etc.) and then there are the 5 great libido killers

A- Sleep Dep

B- Depression

C-Antidepressants

D-Hormonal Imbalance

E-Stress (particularly starvation: first libido crashes, then fertility)

Now... If you look at that list ... "New Mom" just kind of LEAPS out as having not only one, but even ALL 5 (sleep dep, PPD, antidepressants, pregnancy/nursing hormone flux, or thyroid tank... And then dieting because they don't want to be fat). With an average of 2 years for physiology to return to normal, and a new pregnancy every 18mo for 2+ kids... A lot of young families are looking at mom's libido needing a crash cart & ICU for at least 4 years.

HOWEVER... That ENTIRE list is fixable. And not in 4 years, but more like 4 weeks.

ALSO....(sorry for shouty capitals, Im on my phone & cants italic).

That list could apply to any husband in the new fam as well

- SAHD/ Working too long/ or has the baby at night = sleep dep

- Depression / meds

- Low testosterone (crazy common)

- dieting or over exercising/underconsuming (aka not on purpose dieting), or $, or whatevers.

<grin> FIXABLE lists. Of the top 5 libido killers.

But in most cases, only one person in the marriage (whomever has the kids at home, typically) gets "the list". Sometimes its in reverse, with the working parent stressed to the limit, but more commonly its the SAHP whose body starts shutting down, right?

If a couple was sexually compatible BEFORE kids, then "all" it takes is fixing the deficit to go right back to being sexually compatible.

So I get my knickers in a twist whenever the issue comes up, when one person is griping, but unwilling to go to the minimum amount of effort it would take for the other person's body not to be LITERALLY turned off (survival mode = no sex drive), 4:5.

But instead of getting sleep/ eating more/ et cetera... People fight biological systems (hours of foreplay needed, little blue pills, etc.), or just suffer with frustration vs resentment.

That assumes a baseline of compatibility, of course.

If one starts off incompatible, its going to be... Challenging.

But compatibility isn't gender specific.

Anyhow... Was that what you were going toward (frequency & readiness)... Or something completely different?

[carlimac]

Traveler, with all due respect to your obviously intelligent son, his theory is hogwash.

[NeuroTypical]

He contended ... That if the natural inclinations of a natural man were followed, a marriage as defined by G-d would most certainly fail.

Cool kid. I think he's correct.

He contended that those with SSA argue a valid point - and they are right when they insist that they were born with SSA. That it would be better that we accept and understand this notion rather than to attempt to convince otherwise.

I doubt we'll ever resolve all of the nature and nurture facets of how people come to be SSA. I also don't really know why people put so much emphasis on resolving the question "in their favor". It's not like being born gay disproves God. It's not like SSA being a learned mental issue means it can't be so deeply ingrained that it's permanent.

[applepansy]

Traveler, with all due respect to your obviously intelligent son, his theory is hogwash.

Not entirely.

I was trying to find all the scriptures I'm thinking about and came across the following:

NATURAL MAN

See also Born Again, Born of God; Carnal; Fall of Adam and Eve

A person who chooses to be influenced by the passions, desires, appetites, and senses of the flesh rather than by the promptings of the Holy Spirit. Such a person can comprehend physical things but not spiritual things. All people are carnal, or mortal, because of the fall of Adam and Eve. Each person must be born again through the atonement of Jesus Christ to cease being a natural man.

The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit:1 Cor. 2:14;

The natural man is an enemy to God and should be put off:Mosiah 3:19;

He that persists in his own carnal nature remaineth in his fallen state:Mosiah 16:5; ( Alma 42:7–24; D&C 20:20; )

What natural man is there that knoweth these things?: Alma 26:19–22;

Natural or carnal men are without God in the world: Alma 41:11;

Because of his transgression, man became spiritually dead: D&C 29:41;

Neither can any natural man abide the presence of God: D&C 67:12;

And man began to be carnal, sensual, and devilish: Moses 5:13; ( Moses 6:49; )

The point Traveler's son was making is valid. But I see it having nothing to do with SSA as much as it applies to all. I would like to see this discussion focus on the topic of the natural man. We have so very many discussions about SSA, it would be refreshing to discuss this topic without the emotions that get in the way when we throw SSA in the mix.

ADDITIONALLY:

We often get so hung up on talking about the sexuality issues of the natural man that we forget the other aspects of the natural man we need to overcome.

Edited April 8, 2013 by applepansy

[Traveler]

Traveler, with all due respect to your obviously intelligent son, his theory is hogwash.

And the better theory is ???????

The Traveler

[carlimac]

"He contended that it is most difficult for a guy to have a marriage relationship with a lady."

This is the statement I disagree with the most. Are all men born gay then and have to "learn" to be straight? Or are all of us born and would live like animals if we weren't taught otherwise? What about all of us being born with the light of Christ and the ability to know right from wrong? What about spiritual gifts that allow us to live "enhanced" lives rather than like Neaderthals? And speaking of Neanderthals...were they totally devoid of natural compassion? Did they just live to satsify their appetites or was there some human emotion going on? Did they have spiritual gifts, too?

[applepansy]

"He contended that it is most difficult for a guy to have a marriage relationship with a lady."

This is the statement I disagree with the most. Are all men born gay then and have to "learn" to be straight? Or are all of us born and would live like animals if we weren't taught otherwise? What about all of us being born with the light of Christ and the ability to know right from wrong? What about spiritual gifts that allow us to live "enhanced" lives rather than like Neaderthals? And speaking of Neanderthals...were they totally devoid of natural compassion? Did they just live to satsify their appetites or was there some human emotion going on? Did they have spiritual gifts, too?

We were just told in Conference this weekend that we are ALL born with the Light of Christ. :)

[RipplecutBuddha]

I think Badwolf nailed it. Let me see if I can restate what he's getting at.

Sexual compatability, or 'being on the same page' requires effort and focus on the part of both people involved. In fact that applies to every other area of compatability that a marriage deals with. Sure some couples seem to get on better with each other than others, but it depends on the individual's attitude towards the other, and the relationship in general. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with it; you either start out willing to do whatever is necessary for the best relationship with your spouse, or you are not. If you are not, the relationship suffers immediately.

Every relationship we can have in this life takes work on the part of both people involved, whether marital, professional, social, platonic, etc.

To blame sexual orientation for lack of compatability is to attempt an abdication of responsibility or accountability for the consequences of one's choices, desires, and actions.

I guarantee that won't fly far at the judgement bar of Christ.

[MrShorty]

He gave his opinion that it is most difficult and near impossible for men and women to be on the same page sexually and that is one of the great paradoxes and challenges of traditional marriage.

In some ways, I would say that he is on to something here. One thing I took from David Schnarch is that abnormal couples are naturally sexually compatible. The rest of us "normal" couples have to figure out how to deal with our sexual dysfunctions. I believe it was Laura Brotherson (in her book or on her blog, I can't recall) who said that just about every couple will have, to some degree or another, differences in how they approach sexuality and will, together, have to figure out how their joint sexuality is going to play out in their marriages.

In many ways this extends beyond sexuality. Couples have to figure out how they are going to deal with family traditions (whose house are going to for Christmas each year?), eating habits, religious and political differences, and I'm sure the list could go on and on and on. In many ways, it is important to recognize that it is a very rare couple who will naturally become "one flesh" (in all the nuances of that phrase) without a significant amount of work.

The main danger I see in the attitude behind this kind of comment is that it may prevent a couple from seeing things they share. For myself, I have come out of many a meeting or discussion that emphasized the "Mars vs. Venus" elements of relationships where I was completely frustrated and near giving up, because this "polarization" of the sexes sometimes makes me feel like these differences are so inherent in our gender stereotypes that maybe they cannot be overcome. I have read many experiences from women in sexless marriages (where she is the one who wishes for more) whose feelings and experiences and frustrations almost exactly echo my own. I sometimes feel like we overstate the importance gender (and gender stereotypes) plays in how we approach relationship, when we would be better served to emphasize that some of these things (both the good and the bad) are part of being mortal, fallen humans rather than men vs women.

[Traveler]

"He contended that it is most difficult for a guy to have a marriage relationship with a lady."

This is the statement I disagree with the most. Are all men born gay then and have to "learn" to be straight? Or are all of us born and would live like animals if we weren't taught otherwise? What about all of us being born with the light of Christ and the ability to know right from wrong? What about spiritual gifts that allow us to live "enhanced" lives rather than like Neaderthals? And speaking of Neanderthals...were they totally devoid of natural compassion? Did they just live to satsify their appetites or was there some human emotion going on? Did they have spiritual gifts, too?

It has nothing to do with being gay - it has to do with getting along and solving problems. I think you are reading way too much into this. Think of the movie "My Fair Lady" and the song that contained the word, "why can't a woman be more like a man". Maybe the forest is blocking the view of the trees here.

Here is an example from my son. While he was living in California it was not uncommon for various living arrangements. According to him when guys lived together it was common that they became closer and even after breaking up living together still considered former room mates trusted friends - but if a guy and a girl ever hooked up and co-habituated (roomed together) any friendship after a separation was very rare and bitter hatred was the norm. According to my son same sex friends and relationship are not near as difficult as opposite sex friends and relationships.

His observation is that guys get along just fine for the most part even when arguing - with some exceptions. But with marriage - he said that often just having a simple conversation about day to day things that were thought to been resolved yesterday is often a very difficult and frustrating problem. I think we has a point that is deeper than many are willing to consider.

The Traveler

Edited April 8, 2013 by Traveler

[applepansy]

It has nothing to do with being gay - it has to do with getting along and solving problems. I think you are reading way too much into this. Think of the movie "My Fair Lady" and the song that contained the word, "why can't a woman be more like a man". Maybe the forest is blocking the view of the trees here.

Here is an example from my son. While he was living in California it was not uncommon for various living arrangements. According to him when guys lived together it was common that they became closer and even after breaking up living together still considered former room mates trusted friends - but if a guy and a girl ever hooked up and co-habituated (roomed together) any friendship after a separation was very rare and bitter hatred was the norm. According to my son same sex friends and relationship are not near as difficult as opposite sex friends and relationships.

His observation is that guys get along just fine for the most part even when arguing - with some exceptions. But with marriage - he said that often just having a simple conversation about day to day things that were thought to been resolved yesterday is often a very difficult and frustrating problem. I think we has a point that is deeper than many are willing to consider.

The Traveler

So this thread is really about the differences between men and women?

[carlimac]

It has nothing to do with being gay - it has to do with getting along and solving problems. I think you are reading way too much into this. Think of the movie "My Fair Lady" and the song that contained the word, "why can't a woman be more like a man". Maybe the forest is blocking the view of the trees here.

Here is an example from my son. While he was living in California it was not uncommon for various living arrangements. According to him when guys lived together it was common that they became closer and even after breaking up living together still considered former room mates trusted friends - but if a guy and a girl ever hooked up and co-habituated (roomed together) any friendship after a separation was very rare and bitter hatred was the norm. According to my son same sex friends and relationship are not near as difficult as opposite sex friends and relationships.

His observation is that guys get along just fine for the most part even when arguing - with some exceptions. But with marriage - he said that often just having a simple conversation about day to day things that were thought to been resolved yesterday is often a very difficult and frustrating problem. I think we has a point that is deeper than many are willing to consider.

The Traveler

So these differences between the way men and women approach life is an excuse for living the gay lifestyle? Of course it's easier to "get along" in certain circumstances with your same gender, but that doesn't justify having a sexual relationship with them. In fact, if that is the reason so many are in same gender relationships it's a very poor excuse. "It's just too hard to get along with women." Or, "Men just dont understand me.":(

My son never said anything about this while on his mission, but after he got home he admitted that there were only about two out of 10 or so companions that he really got along with. The rest bugged the cr** out of him. I found it to be the same on my mission. So maybe we're the exceptions, but if not- there goes that theory.

[MrShorty]

According to him when guys lived together it was common that they became closer and even after breaking up living together still considered former room mates trusted friends - but if a guy and a girl ever hooked up and co-habituated (roomed together) any friendship after a separation was very rare and bitter hatred was the norm.

How much of this is due to the gender of the people involved, and how much of it is due to some other fundamental difference in these kind of relationships. In particular I'm thinking right now of questions around exclusivity and commitment.

Roommate relationships carry very little commitment. Sure a roommate is expected to pay his/her fair share of the bills and do his/her fair share of the housework. There may be a term on the lease/rental contract (month, semester, school year, annual, etc.). Beyond that, a roommate relationship carries no commitment. In fact, it is expected that the relationship will likely end at the end of the lease term. Roommate relationships also do not carry any sense of exclusivity. If your roommate says something nice about another person, there is no jealousy or similar, because there is nothing in your relationship about being exclusive. If a husband uses pornography, his wife feels betrayed -- maybe inadequate, because her expectation for the relationship involved certain commitments to sexual exclusivity that are violated by pornography use. If a roommate uses pornography, you may think less of him as a person, you may worry about certain legal issues, but his porn use does not reflect on you personally nor do you feel threatened by it.

Maybe it is saying the same thing over again, but I would suggest considering the type of relationship (roommate vs romantic relationship) rather than the gender of the people involved. Perhaps rather than comparing male-male roommate relationships to male-female romantic relationship, a better comparison would be male-male roommate with female-female roommate and (if he knows any) male-female roommate relationships.

[BadWolf]

It has nothing to do with being gay - it has to do with getting along and solving problems. I think you are reading way too much into this. Think of the movie "My Fair Lady" and the song that contained the word, "why can't a woman be more like a man". Maybe the forest is blocking the view of the trees here.

Here is an example from my son. While he was living in California it was not uncommon for various living arrangements. According to him when guys lived together it was common that they became closer and even after breaking up living together still considered former room mates trusted friends - but if a guy and a girl ever hooked up and co-habituated (roomed together) any friendship after a separation was very rare and bitter hatred was the norm. According to my son same sex friends and relationship are not near as difficult as opposite sex friends and relationships.

His observation is that guys get along just fine for the most part even when arguing - with some exceptions. But with marriage - he said that often just having a simple conversation about day to day things that were thought to been resolved yesterday is often a very difficult and frustrating problem. I think we has a point that is deeper than many are willing to consider.

The Traveler

Not saying his anecdotal evidence is wrong, merely that its polar opposite to 60degrees north of my anecdotal evidence!

I'm exMilitary.

And a convert.

Which means that the sexual culture I lived in was wildly different.

Not only (is this chick) still friends with guys/girls I lived with or had sex with... But so are most people I know.

That's the real bias, right there:

The people your son & I both know.

In the birds of a feather category.

There were times when Id have LOVED to act in a certain way (bratty, childish, obnoxious), and I was instructed that it was the wrong way to act. So I changed my parameters to fit in with my cohort group. Until those actions are now my "knee jerk" reactions in how to behave around exes of all kinds.

Had I been elsewhere, Im sure Id have been counseled differently (encouraged in my tantrums, or told to cut off contact, or told to be cool & reserved, or, or, or.).

Its sounds like your sons cohort group instructs women to be DefConHarpies.

Yikes.

Not uncommon, but also not normative.

Nurture trumping Nature*

____________

Okay, for the record, as an anthropologist... I have to add.... In nearly all cases, when the question is posed "nurture or nature" the answer is YES. Nurture interacts with nature. In the same way that if something is psychological, its physiological. I'm NOT saying that the messages we get from our culture/subculture ALWAYS overrides our natural inclinations. There will always be those who somewhat to stridently disagree with whatever is culturally normal.

In MY case, there was obviously strong resonance towards my cohort teaching. Not only did I adopt it, but I still practice it (and instruct others in it) LONG outside of the military. There are OTHER military sex culture things that I no longer espouse.

KWIM?

[Guest]

I have a son that by profession is involved in the Hollywood seen (pun intended) and has many good friends involved in SSA. From time to time he brings such friends to our home. This is not so unusual in that Mrs. Traveler and I often have friends of our own involved in SSA as guests in our home. In our home there are no forbidden topics with our children, their spouses or their children. It has always been that way. My children are familiar with my difficulties and progress in dealing with individuals involved in SSA. My son had a most interesting and intriguing opinion that is different than mine.

My son challenged my point of view that sexual attractions are a learned or acquired behavior. He addressed my opinion with some very interesting points. His first point has to do with what is known to LDS as the “natural man”. He begins by interjecting that we are all born a “natural man” and that the things of G-d are in essence what is un-natural not what we were born to. He argued that we do not have to learn to be a “natural man” - that such things come about naturally by our birth. But to become a saint of G-d is very natural and is something that must be learned and disciplined. He contended that it is most difficult for a guy to have a marriage relationship with a lady. That if the natural inclinations of a natural man were followed, a marriage as defined by G-d would most certainly fail. He contended that those with SSA argue a valid point - and they are right when they insist that they were born with SSA. That it would be better that we accept and understand this notion rather than to attempt to convince otherwise.

But he went one step farther and said something that really surprised me but at the same time got me thinking. He gave his opinion that it is most difficult and near impossible for men and women to be on the same page sexually and that is one of the great paradoxes and challenges of traditional marriage. Hmmmmm - I think he is on to something.

The Traveler

Traveler, with all due respect to your obviously intelligent son, his theory is hogwash.

I completely disagree with carlimac and completely agree with your son. Completely. This is what I teach my children.

When you have a predisposition to rage like I do, it is easy to understand how the condition of my natural man is given to me as a challenge that my spiritual self have to continually overcome. Day in and day out, from birth to death. My rage is as natural to me as breathing. It is not something I "learned" or "acquired". I cannot remember a time when I did not have it. I threw a knife at my sister when I was only 8. It is my spirit that has to exert control over it.

Same sex attraction is no different. My first grade classmate in Catholic School was effiminate. Everybody knew this in first grade. He just acted and behaved like a girl. So that, even though his family are devout Catholics and he is in a school of devout Catholics, it wasn't a surprise that he developed SSA as he grew older. He was open about it and his parents already knew there was something different about him so even though they were disappointed that the Catholic teachings did not "prevent" SSA, their relationship did not suffer for it. He had a hard time of it in high school as we moved to a different school and some of the boys avoided him like he carried the plague. He tried to follow the Catholic moral code but then he moved to London... He is now officially a girl complete with a husband.

The concept of SSA as natural is the same concept with sex as natural. Sexual release is natural. It is our desire to follow the spiritual covenant of sex as an expression of love within the marriage covenant that controls our desire for sex. Masturbation, therefore, however natural it may be, is not in line with God's will as it is deprived of that expression of love - whether within a marriage or outside of it. Any other sexual expression that is not an expression of love for the spouse (e.g. the spouse does not want it, the spouse is uncomfortable with it, the spouse is not in it) is the natural man controlling the spirit instead of the other way around. It doesn't matter therefore, how compatible you and your spouse is sexually. Sex is not for your own pleasure. It is for your spouse's pleasure. Your pleasure is secondary and is not required because love ALWAYS pours out of self - not into self.

The concept of SSA as natural, like my rage, is the same concept with any other predispositions in existence. There are people who have a natural weakness of self-control so they are predisposed to alcoholism and drug addiction. There are people who are predisposed to depression. There are people who are born cliptomaniacs, saddists, controlling behaviors, etc. etc. These things are natural tendencies and not necessarily a "learned" behavior.

The natural man is an enemy to God... so just because we are born with SSA does not mean that we have to have sex with someone of the same gender. It is merely another one of the myriad of challenges that we have to face in this mortal probation.

Edited April 9, 2013 by anatess

[carlimac]

I completely disagree with carlimac and completely agree with your son. Completely. This is what I teach my children.

When you have a predisposition to rage like I do, it is easy to understand how the condition of my natural man is given to me as a challenge that my spiritual self have to continually overcome. Day in and day out, from birth to death. My rage is as natural to me as breathing. It is not something I "learned" or "acquired". I cannot remember a time when I did not have it. I threw a knife at my sister when I was only 8. It is my spirit that has to exert control over it.

Same sex attraction is no different. My first grade classmate in Catholic School was effiminate. Everybody knew this in first grade. He just acted and behaved like a girl. So that, even though his family are devout Catholics and he is in a school of devout Catholics, it wasn't a surprise that he developed SSA as he grew older. He was open about it and his parents already knew there was something different about him so even though they were disappointed that the Catholic teachings did not "prevent" SSA, their relationship did not suffer for it. He had a hard time of it in high school as we moved to a different school and some of the boys avoided him like he carried the plague. He tried to follow the Catholic moral code but then he moved to London... He is now officially a girl complete with a husband.

The concept of SSA as natural is the same concept with sex as natural. Sexual release is natural. It is our desire to follow the spiritual covenant of sex as an expression of love within the marriage covenant that controls our desire for sex. Masturbation, therefore, however natural it may be, is not in line with God's will as it is deprived of that expression of love - whether within a marriage or outside of it. Any other sexual expression that is not an expression of love for the spouse (e.g. the spouse does not want it, the spouse is uncomfortable with it, the spouse is not in it) is the natural man controlling the spirit instead of the other way around. It doesn't matter therefore, how compatible you and your spouse is sexually. Sex is not for your own pleasure. It is for your spouse's pleasure. Your pleasure is secondary and is not required because love ALWAYS pours out of self - not into self.

The concept of SSA as natural, like my rage, is the same concept with any other predispositions in existence. There are people who have a natural weakness of self-control so they are predisposed to alcoholism and drug addiction. There are people who are predisposed to depression. There are people who are born cliptomaniacs, saddists, controlling behaviors, etc. etc. These things are natural tendencies and not necessarily a "learned" behavior.

The natural man is an enemy to God... so just because we are born with SSA does not mean that we have to have sex with someone of the same gender. It is merely another one of the myriad of challenges that we have to face in this mortal probation.

Sigh!! I don't have a problem with the idea that we fight against the natural man (or woman) every day of our lives. I just don't think the "natural man" theory explains homosexuality nor does it apply or excuse it. Many have a godly marriage modeled for them by their parents and they learn in church that marriage and sexual relations should only be between man and woman but they still choose to live a gay lifestyle. If we're going to blame homosexuality on 1) the natural man and 2) the natural incompatability of the sexes, then it proves even further that they are simply choosing their lifestyle or that they are unwilling to "deal" with the differences between men and women, especially if they have been taught the right way. So it's up to straights to fight against the natural man but gays don't have to? Ridiculous.

[Guest]

Sigh!! I don't have a problem with the idea that we fight against the natural man (or woman) every day of our lives. I just don't think the "natural man" theory explains homosexuality nor does it apply or excuse it. Many have a godly marriage modeled for them by their parents and they learn in church that marriage and sexual relations should only be between man and woman but they still choose to live a gay lifestyle. If we're going to blame homosexuality on 1) the natural man and 2) the natural incompatability of the sexes, then it proves even further that they are simply choosing their lifestyle or that they are unwilling to "deal" with the differences between men and women, especially if they have been taught the right way. So it's up to straights to fight against the natural man but gays don't have to? Ridiculous.

You did not understand what I wrote. I don't think you even read it.

The son was talking about SSA. Same Sex Attraction. Not gay sexual relations nor gay marriage. SSA, like my rage problems, can be from the natural man. You don't have to "choose" to have SSA. Did you choose to be attracted to a guy? Not necessarily. You're just born having that predisposition. The choice is not "having SSA". The choice is what you do with it.

Nowhere in Traveler's account of his son's analysis of SSA nor in my post as I explain it through my experience do we say that "So it's up to straights to fight against the natural man but gays don't have to?". Please read both the OP and my post again. It is clear in my post, seconded by the accounts of that gay man (Ty?) who married a girl, that having SSA is a challenge stemming from the natural man that our spirits have to face every single day. Just like I have to face the challenge of my rage issues every single day just like I mentioned in my post. So yes. Please read it again so you can understand what I'm trying to say.

Those who have SSA do have the added challenge of finding somebody to marry and have sex with whom they are NOT physically attracted to. Of course, it happens in the straight crowd as well, so we are familiar with how you look at the spiritual characteristics of a person despite their physical characteristics in looking for an eternal companion and all that stuff. But, that is always easier said than done. Just like telling me to stop flying off the handle when I get angry. Of course I only have one choice - the right choice - to face that monster and fight it everyday. Not an easy task, I tell you. So I can sympathize with the challenges of SSA. And denying the fact that we are born with it is not going to help us face that challenge. Your acknowledgement that it is a REAL challenge that we face every single day not because we "choose to be gay" or we "choose to have rage issues" but because we are born with this flawed body is one step closer to your understanding of what we have to face every day of our lives. And that one glimmer of understanding and compassion may just be that small difference that could help us have hope of redemption. Because then, you will stop telling me "Don't choose to be Angry!" (or "Don't choose to be gay!"). Instead, you will help me understand why it is not good to give in to that natural tendency. Understanding the wrongness of giving-in to the rage is easy - the abusive effects of my rages are undeniably evil. Anybody, regardless of religious affiliation can see that. Understanding the wrongness of giving-in to same-sex attraction is not as easy. It requires an amount of faith to understand the negative effects of that choice as it is not physically apparent.

I am lucky that I have a husband that, although he doesn't understand my condition, at least he accepts it as a reality. Without his patience and long-suffering, there is no way I would have been able to have an eternal companion. I am an abusive person. Even my own mother will tell you that. No ifs or buts about it. Anybody in an abusive situation is always adviced to leave their abusive spouses.

Edited April 9, 2013 by anatess

[Vort]

You did not understand what I wrote. I don't think you even read it.

The son was talking about SSA. Same Sex Attraction. Not gay sexual relations nor gay marriage. SSA, like my rage problems, can be from the natural man. You don't have to "choose" to have SSA. Did you choose to be attracted to a guy? Not necessarily. You're just born having that predisposition. The choice is not "having SSA". The choice is what you do with it.

Nowhere in Traveler's account of his son's analysis of SSA nor in my post as I explain it through my experience do we say that "So it's up to straights to fight against the natural man but gays don't have to?". Please read both the OP and my post again. It is clear in my post, seconded by the accounts of that gay man (Ty?) who married a girl, that having SSA is a challenge stemming from the natural man that our spirits have to face every single day. Just like I have to face the challenge of my rage issues every single day just like I mentioned in my post. So yes. Please read it again.

But those who have SSA do have the added challenge of finding somebody to marry and have sex with whom they are NOT physically attracted to. Of course, it happens in the straight crowd as well, so we are familiar with how you look at the spiritual characteristics of a person despite their physical characteristics in looking for an eternal companion and all that stuff. But, that is always easier said than done.

Are all cases of diabetes caused by obesity and eating too much sugar? No. So therefore, NO cases of diabetes are caused by obesity and eating too much sugar -- right? Absurd.

That some cases of homosexual attraction have genetic roots does not therefore imply that all cases of homosexual attraction are rooted in genetics. In fact, it does not even imply that the people involved had no choice in the matter, or that they might not have had heterosexual feelings if not for certain life experiences.

Yet this is precisely what the homosexual lobby would have us believe: Homosexuals are completely helpless before their urges and at the mercy of their same-sex attraction, so therefore it would be cruel to deny them legal sanction and approval of their unholy desires. For that matter, even calling the desires "unholy" is cruel and should be punishable by imprisonment.

[Guest]

Are all cases of diabetes caused by obesity and eating too much sugar? No. So therefore, NO cases of diabetes are caused by obesity and eating too much sugar -- right? Absurd.

That some cases of homosexual attraction have genetic roots does not therefore imply that all cases of homosexual attraction are rooted in genetics. In fact, it does not even imply that the people involved had no choice in the matter, or that they might not have had heterosexual feelings if not for certain life experiences.

Yet this is precisely what the homosexual lobby would have us believe: Homosexuals are completely helpless before their urges and at the mercy of their same-sex attraction, so therefore it would be cruel to deny them legal sanction and approval of their unholy desires. For that matter, even calling the desires "unholy" is cruel and should be punishable by imprisonment.

We... or at least I... was talking about Traveler's son's analysis of SSA. Not some idea of SSA promoted by some homosexual lobby. The all or nothing absurdity is a double-edged sword that can be applied to both sides of this discussion. It is better to eliminate it from the conversation and deal with what is evident in reality.

Here is the reality I face: I am completely helpless before my chemical imbalance that leads to rages. I never once in my life believed that it is cruel to deny me the legal sanction and approval to beat up somebody.

Edited April 9, 2013 by anatess

[norah63]

Have the mind of Christ. We travel this way to learn what we were created to be.

If we have been born with or into, a sin nature, or inclination, then we put that to death at the cross. We don't try and 'think' or 'reason' it to death.

Train up a child in the way they should go, not the way the world goes.

This world has two things on its collective mind, at this time. Abortion and homosexual.

Neither fits the plan of our Heavenly Father. No amout of evolution or justification can change that. Man only wearys the soul tryiing to do so. imco.

[Soulsearcher]

Are all cases of diabetes caused by obesity and eating too much sugar? No. So therefore, NO cases of diabetes are caused by obesity and eating too much sugar -- right? Absurd.

That some cases of homosexual attraction have genetic roots does not therefore imply that all cases of homosexual attraction are rooted in genetics. In fact, it does not even imply that the people involved had no choice in the matter, or that they might not have had heterosexual feelings if not for certain life experiences.

Yet this is precisely what the homosexual lobby would have us believe: Homosexuals are completely helpless before their urges and at the mercy of their same-sex attraction, so therefore it would be cruel to deny them legal sanction and approval of their unholy desires. For that matter, even calling the desires "unholy" is cruel and should be punishable by imprisonment.

As anatess suggested in her reply to this post what you are saying is a bit of a double edged sword.

I actually agree that there are different causes, or as i've referred to them as types, of gay people. I think in the end more people on this site would agree with me than either black and white argument delivered from either side. The problem is for so long the heterosexual side only saw it as black and white. you are this way because of this reason, there is no wiggle room you made a choice, you are a selfish little pervert and we know it's parenting and abuse that lead you to this. Look back through the last 100 years and see exactly how much willingness there was to even wonder if there could be more to it, and of course rather than wonder they just put legal sanctions on it. So yes the ultimate response, which in my opinion is just as dumb as the original heterosexual response, is just as absolute. I keep saying the gay lobby has learned to much from the heterosexual lobby and both sides have only tended to pick up the worst tactics from their opponents.

i do see some of the conversation on this thread missing the point of the original conversation. I feel that traveler's son is on the right track. I might disagree at the final end point of the conversation as has been pointed out by some people here, but being the conversation was more about origin of attraction and impulse and nothing more i feel that the son was pretty much bang on.

[carlimac]

You did not understand what I wrote. I don't think you even read it.

The son was talking about SSA. Same Sex Attraction. Not gay sexual relations nor gay marriage. SSA, like my rage problems, can be from the natural man. You don't have to "choose" to have SSA. Did you choose to be attracted to a guy? Not necessarily. You're just born having that predisposition. The choice is not "having SSA". The choice is what you do with it.

Nowhere in Traveler's account of his son's analysis of SSA nor in my post as I explain it through my experience do we say that "So it's up to straights to fight against the natural man but gays don't have to?". Please read both the OP and my post again. It is clear in my post, seconded by the accounts of that gay man (Ty?) who married a girl, that having SSA is a challenge stemming from the natural man that our spirits have to face every single day. Just like I have to face the challenge of my rage issues every single day just like I mentioned in my post. So yes. Please read it again so you can understand what I'm trying to say.

I think we're talking around in circles and actually agree with each other. I did read your post and the OP a couple times before posting. What I would suggest in response to this statement of yours "Nowhere in Traveler's account of his son's analysis of SSA nor in my post as I explain it through my experience do we say that "So it's up to straights to fight against the natural man but gays don't have to? is taking your ideas a step further- that the natural man covers a host of attractions and addictions including straight people being attracted and having feelings for more than one person. Adultery is shamed in this country (as it should be) but homosexuals get a free pass (not within our church obviously) to act on their "natural man" feelings. I got the feeling that Traveler's son was trying to explain and justify SSA- and the accompanying actions of many with the natural man theory and a few others that don't seem to make sense...to me anyway. Is it OK if I have a differing opinion? I admit I could have missed the point he was trying to make. One of the risks of internet communication.

Edited April 9, 2013 by carlimac