Boycott Ender's Game?

[carlimac]

If you're looking for the good that comes from the worst examples of a particular group that you can find, don't be surprised when you don't find it.

Exactly! There's no good to be found. So maybe a more moderate and mature approach would work better for them. Actually, although I think this boycott is a little silly, it has made me aware of some of the things Card has said about homosexuals that even I am uncomfortable with. I can understand why they would be disenchanted with him. But it's too bad it's at the expense of missing a good movie.

Edited July 13, 2013 by carlimac

[Soulsearcher]

OK, those were some good examples, educational (although I don't know if it's completely trustworthy and without bias since it was written by gays themselves.) But still not clearly what I was asking for. I'm no expert on this but from my life experience (which was pretty sheltered but not completely so) it wasn't this "us against them" mentality of political Conservatives- the way we define them today against gays. From what I read, it was society in general vs gays. That lifestyle was mysterious and foreign to 97% of the population- political conservatives and liberals alike. There were things going on that struck fear in the hearts of straight people. Stonewall arose out of fear of AIDS...and probably for good reason. How many gay men died of AIDS? How many innocent non-gays ended up being affected? It was a scary deal.

I'm not excusing inhumane actions taken by law enforcement or anyone else against gay individuals or community. That kind of treatment of people is never OK unless there is some kind of violent uprising. But I am saying that gays need to realize that their minority, out of mainstream behavior is still going to be misunderstood by many. In the case of religious folks, it will never be accepted. They are entitled to their beliefs. So rather than this angry "storm the castle" approach, it would be nice if the LGBT community would take a lesson from history themselves and admit that getting even never really feels right and isn't going to bring about the best results. It's NOT going to make people like them or accept them any better. There is no excuse for the now LGBT community to be punishing and victimizing people who don't agree with their lifestyle. (Preachers beaten in the park) You really have to admit that many who are the most outspoken from that community demonstrate the most crude, antisocial behavior and use the most disgusting language. They are only perpetuating the negative stereotype. It's like the stereotype of black men. In order to break and dissolve it, they need to step up to their responsibilities and be more productive and take care of the children they sire rather than forever hailing back to the days of slavery and holding a grudge.. (Now don't call me a racist because I know many many fine, upstanding Black men whom I love and appreciate.)

I'm always sorry when I hear of people being mistreated or discriminated against. It's unfair and un-Christlike- if that matters to you at all. True we don't understand all there is to know about same sex attraction, about what is going through the minds of gay people. We should have compassion and give everyone the benefit of the doubt as we seek information. But is it really helping the case of the LGBT community to take on this victim mentality and to run ramshod over peoples personal and sacredly held beliefs, to punish them unnecessarily (I'm talking about the discrimination lawsuits) to destroy someone's livelihood simply because for centuries homosexuality has been a mystery? I don't think so. If gays were also giving back the same dignity and respect they are asking for, they would take the high road, leave well enough alone and just not go to the movie if it offends you, find a different photographer or baker, allow science to go forward, be honest in their assessments of what's best for children, etc., ad nauseum. Maybe that's simply too much to ask. But it would be nice.

The other little "it would be nice if" is not bashing reparative therapy and allowing those who really and truly don't want to be gay or live that lifestyle to change. Let them be. Even the APA recognizes they went too far with their little handbook in not allowing people to self determine what outcome they want to aim for.

a few things to point out. stonewall took place long before AIDS was even a blip on the radar. The riots were because of the harassing of gay bars and patrons mentioned in the articles. This was politically correct in those days, this was being PC. Remember you see a need to quote NARTH which is just as biased so if i'm supposed to take anything they say at face value you can't really discount research done by gay people on their history, even when you look at the massive sources quoted in the second link which are backed up by many non-gay sources.

The issue with saying we have to accept being the minority is that we did up til the late 60's, there was very little push back and look where it got us. Do you really honestly think that with out a forceful push we would have gotten any movement? Has it gone too far in how aggressive it is, to me yes it has, but with out it we'd still be scared and completely in the closet. Now as much as i agree that there is no need to be violent like it or not there are still gay bashing crimes in the news almost every week, the last while it's been even more, so while i saw the article on the preacher i don't rarely see anything about those assaults posted unless it's me doing them. As for the most vocal being crude i agree, on both sides. How many times on this site alone have gays been compared to either pedophiles or those who commit bestiality. ( with the excuse that it's only logical). It's not so much holding a grudge as going toe to toe, while you might not think both sides are equal in the amount of garbage being thrown you might be surprised.

It's one thing to say you don't approve of unchrist like behavior and then go and say it never really happened or make it look less than it was. What was documented in the articles was pushed by christians, mostly catholics. This was gods will and had a lot of christian support, but now people want to push that aside and say only today matters, forgetting that this is why people are so wound up and don't think it's a good idea to back down an inch, just in case people fall back to old ways. You worry about people losing their livelihood these days, being destroyed for what the believe, but what about the thousands who lost everything in the not to distant past? I agree it's overboard, but with so many people saying " you never really had it that bad and you never really had anything done to you" can you at least come to grasp why it's gone as far as it has.

As for reparitive therapy i'll make you a deal. It's therapy so only doctors can give it. Only trained professionals with degrees. Those who listen to the patient, answer all questions, ask the right questions and then move forward without preconceived goals. Like a real therapist who only does what's best for the patient. Being more and more people who offer this therapy have changed their tune you'd think people might start asking if this was really ever what it said it was. i wish people who have never been through that therapy wouldn't speak like they know it so well.

[Soulsearcher]

I really don't know. Is it mine and my ilk's fault that we didn't understand? Seriously, I was probably in my early 20's before I even knew or could imagine that gays actually had sex with each other. I knew that some guys were effeminate and took some grief and I knew that some girls were more on the masculine side. That's what I thought gay meant. I knew they liked to hang out with each other but in my naivete, that's all I knew. The information just wasn't available because no one talked about it. I don't think you can blame the general public for the fact that people weren't coming out.

And this baffles me. Do you really think people kept quiet and hid for no reason? Why on earth are you going to come out when the general public has laws against you. There were laws about employment, laws about what you could do in your own home. there were laws about hanging out together and more. Do you not see a cause and effect? Why talk when anything you say could get you fined or jailed. If the majority of the general population was against these laws do you really think they would have lasted never mind implemented?

[prisonchaplain]

I don't remember any of that. I don't believe I ever heard anything as direct as "homosexuals are out to destroy us." I only remember hearing it's a sin to engage in homosexual relations.

I believe you. Since I've never been to an LDS ward I can only guess--but from what I've garnered here, the teachings probably stick pretty close to lesson plans, and there is probably very little "preaching" about the biblical take on social issues of the day. Further, it's unlikely that your presenters would get "anointed" and start waxing passionately about sinners and the threats they pose.

The big-time televangelists of that era probably said some of the things I was referring to. The song I cited was by Steve Green. That's why I used the broader term "Christian." The big issues of the late 70s and into the 80s were: abortion, 'the homosexual agenda,' pornography, and the ERA/women in combat. Also, I did hear that a significant number of LDS were supporters of the Moral Majority--and that Jerry Falwell took some heat for welcoming their participation.

Edited July 14, 2013 by prisonchaplain

[prisonchaplain]

As for reparitive therapy i'll make you a deal. It's therapy so only doctors can give it. Only trained professionals with degrees. Those who listen to the patient, answer all questions, ask the right questions and then move forward without preconceived goals. Like a real therapist who only does what's best for the patient. Being more and more people who offer this therapy have changed their tune you'd think people might start asking if this was really ever what it said it was. i wish people who have never been through that therapy wouldn't speak like they know it so well.

We will continue to see efforts similar to how Teen Challenge addresses drug addiction. Faith based programs have proven very successful. The centers are usually directed by ministers, and the counselors are most often recovered addicts who have been through religious-counseling training, and some theology. Of course, they also learn the program--most often first by going through it themselves. Nevertheless, many state and local governments recognize their effectiveness, and some courts even allow enrollment in them as an alternative to incarceration.

The number of sexual addiction centers are far fewer. Their success is not well documented at all. Nevertheless, it is likely the way that faith-driven clients will go. The centers will not claim psychological or psychiatric certification. Instead they will say, "Come, let us work together with God and see if you can be free from this temptation."

I understand there are some small studies that suggest current programs are modestly successful (nearly 1/3rd see a reduction in the intensity of SSA, and are able to live celibate lives. About 1/6th are find such a significant reduction in SSA that they feel they can find satisfaction in a heterosexual relationship). I'd have to dig to find the report--I believe Christianity Today had the article--and they tend to be pretty cautious in their reporting.

All this to say that there are still a significant number of people that value their religious tenants more than their sexual attraction. They are willing to pursue spiritual deliverance from their temptations. It doesn't seem reasonable to demand that psychologists or doctors administer such programs, anymore than it would be to require Teen challenge to have Drug Treatment Specialists at every center--or even to require evangelists to have M.D.s before they can pray for the sick.

[Soulsearcher]

We will continue to see efforts similar to how Teen Challenge addresses drug addiction. Faith based programs have proven very successful. The centers are usually directed by ministers, and the counselors are most often recovered addicts who have been through religious-counseling training, and some theology. Of course, they also learn the program--most often first by going through it themselves. Nevertheless, many state and local governments recognize their effectiveness, and some courts even allow enrollment in them as an alternative to incarceration.

The number of sexual addiction centers are far fewer. Their success is not well documented at all. Nevertheless, it is likely the way that faith-driven clients will go. The centers will not claim psychological or psychiatric certification. Instead they will say, "Come, let us work together with God and see if you can be free from this temptation."

I understand there are some small studies that suggest current programs are modestly successful (nearly 1/3rd see a reduction in the intensity of SSA, and are able to live celibate lives. About 1/6th are find such a significant reduction in SSA that they feel they can find satisfaction in a heterosexual relationship). I'd have to dig to find the report--I believe Christianity Today had the article--and they tend to be pretty cautious in their reporting.

All this to say that there are still a significant number of people that value their religious tenants more than their sexual attraction. They are willing to pursue spiritual deliverance from their temptations. It doesn't seem reasonable to demand that psychologists or doctors administer such programs, anymore than it would be to require Teen challenge to have Drug Treatment Specialists at every center--or even to require evangelists to have M.D.s before they can pray for the sick.

The problem being that as much as people keep associating SSA with addiction it's far from being the same thing. Most times this therapy, even when administered by religious groups costs money. Many groups start with a promise of a cure and then very early on pull a bait and switch saying there is no cure. The religious based therapies tend to place blame on the individual if these attractions don't go away. You aren't praying hard enough, you're faith isn't strong enough ect ect. People have spent 10s of thousands of dollars, spent every waking moment trying praying having faith and not changing and then told by their spiritual leaders it's all their fault. At no time is it mentioned this might actually be a biological part of the person they might not be able to get rid of, it's just a faithless person who sees no results. Another things is the amount of people who do not enter this therapy of their own complete free will. Parents or family that force their children, yes even grown children in to this therapy with out understanding that the results might not be what they expect. In the end you end up with a lot of gay people hating themselves feeling worthless because they've been told it's 100% their fault they are still gay, even if many have never been active because of their faith, they are still to blame. The high depression, self harm and suicide rate related directly to these therapies is staggering, but there's no way to hold them accountable for their part in it because it's not really considered therapy if administered by a religion and so doesn't answer to the same medical ethics, even though they are doing something that has strong psychological effects. Look into why exodus closed down and how they now admit they really had no answers and resorted to lying about results to keep going for so long. They've admitted the harm they did and how they ignored it for years just to keep the religious standard.

[Soulsearcher]

I believe you. Since I've never been to an LDS ward I can only guess--but from what I've garnered here, the teachings probably stick pretty close to lesson plans, and there is probably very little "preaching" about the biblical take on social issues of the day. Further, it's unlikely that your presenters would get "anointed" and start waxing passionately about sinners and the threats they pose.

The big-time televangelists of that era probably said some of the things I was referring to. The song I cited was by Steve Green. That's why I used the broader term "Christian." The big issues of the late 70s and into the 80s were: abortion, 'the homosexual agenda,' pornography, and the ERA/women in combat. Also, I did hear that a significant number of LDS were supporters of the Moral Majority--and that Jerry Falwell took some heat for welcoming their participation.

There were some pretty strong and off base talks given by some of the higher ups in the church into the late 70's early 80's. Again it's the difference between what some of the old guard hear and what others hear when they look back. Higher ups that congratulate a missionary for hitting a gay missionary kinda sent up warning flags.

[carlimac]

I really have no idea why this topic has me in it's clutches but I feel the need to take myself out of this game because it's dragging me down.

But before I do I just wanted to link one website that I found very fascinating, heart warming and confirms my own notions and what I feel are spiritual answers to the questions I've had about homosexuality. It also supports the LDS church's position, as well as PC's opinions and experience.

Voices-of-Change

The Church's Mormons and Gays is also inspiring.

Some of the stories are sad to read (the abuse or neglect that they experienced as children plus the hurt they experienced as teens or adults) but the success of these individuals of becoming master over these inclinations is heartwarming. There are a few videos. The one that captured my attention most was the one by Becky Dymond. The video taping is horrible- not edited at all. But that's good, I guess, because you can recognize the authenticity of it. She tells a fascinating story about overcoming lesbianism. I googled her and found that she has gone on to accomplish some really good things in her life and now runs a home for human trafficking victims.

There are over 100 stories of authentic change. I know and understand how threatening these stories might be to those who are entrenched in the gay lifestyle. I understand the defensiveness that pops up every time the topic of reparative therapy and the possibility of change comes up. It may be subconscious but I imagine that they might be thinking " If it's really possible to give this up my very nature and direction in life may be invalid." That's got to be scary!! It's similar to the defensiveness I feel when I hear the "born that way" stories . They are a threat to my testimony of the eternal nature of man and woman and families, of premortal and earthly gender and even of the nature of God. And this testimony is so deeply engrained into my heart and soul that for anything to threaten that is also very scary. I have to echo those famous words of Elder Packer. "Why would God do such a thing?" And so I tend to hold fast to the approach the Church has taken, especially lately that these inclinations are just that, inclinations that can be mastered and that don't have to define the individual or take control of their lives if they don't want them to. Whether it was something a person was born with or not isn't what's important. It's how the individual will handle the challenge. First and foremost in controlling the impulse and eventually diminishing the attraction is desire. The desire to live as our Father in Heaven would want them to. Or if one isn't religious, the desire to no longer live this lifestyle. If the desire isn't there, no therapy or spiritual effort in the world will help the person change.

Anyway, I'm grateful to a loving Heavenly Father who I know is there to assist these individuals with a challenge so difficult I can hardly imagine it. I've tried to imagine it, to walk in their shoes mentally at least, and I just cant get my mind to really go there. I also appreciate the few I've known who have mastered their desires and impulses. They are a wonderful example of faith and sacrifice, of selflessness.

I'm sorry for any offense I've caused. I really am just trying to understand.

And now how to tie my post back to the OP. Uh...I have no idea. ;D

Edited July 14, 2013 by carlimac

[prisonchaplain]

The problem being that as much as people keep associating SSA with addiction it's far from being the same thing. Most times this therapy, even when administered by religious groups costs money. Many groups start with a promise of a cure and then very early on pull a bait and switch saying there is no cure. The religious based therapies tend to place blame on the individual if these attractions don't go away. You aren't praying hard enough, you're faith isn't strong enough ect ect. People have spent 10s of thousands of dollars, spent every waking moment trying praying having faith and not changing and then told by their spiritual leaders it's all their fault. At no time is it mentioned this might actually be a biological part of the person they might not be able to get rid of, it's just a faithless person who sees no results.

Even Teen Challenge put out a 95% success rate for females and 75% for males. This means that after a one-year discipleship program one in four men would have a relapse. So, even with addiction, the results are not guaranteed. The study I cited related to SSA showed much lower success rates. So, all I can do is agree with you that these centers should not promote false hope. Also, guilt over prayers that don't get answered as we wish is problematic in many areas. Why weren't you healed? Why have you gotten a job? Why does God not answer your prayers? Is there sin in your life? Something unconfessed? If centers are blaming their residents for continuing temptations then their theology is flawed.

Another things is the amount of people who do not enter this therapy of their own complete free will. Parents or family that force their children, yes even grown children in to this therapy with out understanding that the results might not be what they expect. In the end you end up with a lot of gay people hating themselves feeling worthless because they've been told it's 100% their fault they are still gay, even if many have never been active because of their faith, they are still to blame. The high depression, self harm and suicide rate related directly to these therapies is staggering, but there's no way to hold them accountable for their part in it because it's not really considered therapy if administered by a religion and so doesn't answer to the same medical ethics, even though they are doing something that has strong psychological effects. Look into why exodus closed down and how they now admit they really had no answers and resorted to lying about results to keep going for so long. They've admitted the harm they did and how they ignored it for years just to keep the religious standard.

I take all of this information as a call for higher standards, more compassion, and for church people to learn to walk with our brothers/sisters who struggle with patience and humility. We must learn how to do this well. If God has indeed declared L/G sex to be sin, then He must have a loving compassionate means for us to help those so-attracted to overcome.

As for the biology, since I believe God has condemned this kind of sex, how else can a view SSA, but as an addiction--a predisposed temptation to be overcome? Scripture speaks of people being "given over" to this.

Certainly, our efforts must be about helping, supporting, encouraging and 'walking with'--not about blaming.

[prisonchaplain]

And now how to tie my post back to the OP. Uh...I have no idea. ;D

You say something like, "I'm still going to watch the movie." OR "I was never going to watch the movie anyway."

[Soulsearcher]

I really have no idea why this topic has me in it's clutches but I feel the need to take myself out of this game because it's dragging me down.

But before I do I just wanted to link one website that I found very fascinating, heart warming and confirms my own notions and what I feel are spiritual answers to the questions I've had about homosexuality. It also supports the LDS church's position, as well as PC's opinions and experience.

Voices-of-Change

The Church's Mormons and Gays is also inspiring.

Some of the stories are sad to read (the abuse or neglect that they experienced as children plus the hurt they experienced as teens or adults) but the success of these individuals of becoming master over these inclinations is heartwarming. There are a few videos. The one that captured my attention most was the one by Becky Dymond. The video taping is horrible- not edited at all. But that's good, I guess, because you can recognize the authenticity of it. She tells a fascinating story about overcoming lesbianism. I googled her and found that she has gone on to accomplish some really good things in her life and now runs a home for human trafficking victims.

There are over 100 stories of authentic change. I know and understand how threatening these stories might be to those who are entrenched in the gay lifestyle. I understand the defensiveness that pops up every time the topic of reparative therapy and the possibility of change comes up. It may be subconscious but I imagine that they might be thinking " If it's really possible to give this up my very nature and direction in life may be invalid." That's got to be scary!! It's similar to the defensiveness I feel when I hear the "born that way" stories . They are a threat to my testimony of the eternal nature of man and woman and families, of premortal and earthly gender and even of the nature of God. And this testimony is so deeply engrained into my heart and soul that for anything to threaten that is also very scary. I have to echo those famous words of Elder Packer. "Why would God do such a thing?" And so I tend to hold fast to the approach the Church has taken, especially lately that these inclinations are just that, inclinations that can be mastered and that don't have to define the individual or take control of their lives if they don't want them to. Whether it was something a person was born with or not isn't what's important. It's how the individual will handle the challenge. First and foremost in controlling the impulse and eventually diminishing the attraction is desire. The desire to live as our Father in Heaven would want them to. Or if one isn't religious, the desire to no longer live this lifestyle. If the desire isn't there, no therapy or spiritual effort in the world will help the person change.

Anyway, I'm grateful to a loving Heavenly Father who I know is there to assist these individuals with a challenge so difficult I can hardly imagine it. I've tried to imagine it, to walk in their shoes mentally at least, and I just cant get my mind to really go there. I also appreciate the few I've known who have mastered their desires and impulses. They are a wonderful example of faith and sacrifice, of selflessness.

I'm sorry for any offense I've caused. I really am just trying to understand.

And now how to tie my post back to the OP. Uh...I have no idea. ;D

The question i ask if that for every hundred have you read the thousands that don't work out that way. For all the inspirational stories there are so many more that don't end that way.

To Be Gay — And Mormon - Newsweek and The Daily Beast

This is by no means a unique story, there's a memorial on line for gay lds with similar stories, right now it's between 30-40 names and it's by no means comprehensive. and that's just the worst case stories, the number of other stories is much much higher, and they dwarf the feel good stories. One thing i might point out if you go to the sites that promote all these therapies and practices, how many stories do you read from those it didn't work for? not stats, not random numbers, how many stories do they tell about their failure? i mean it's therapy so we know there must be some, so why not share the good and the bad?

I'm not scared or threatened by stories of change, i'm happy it works for some. I'm more worried about them because i've lived and seen the results of this type of thinking. I'm fine with the churches that require celibacy, it's hard and it hurts more than most know but it's do able. It's those that promote change or even require it that do bother me. Not one person i've talked to wanted to change just for the sake of change. "my god won't accept me as i am" " my family hates me" "It's the only way i can be true to god" I'm sorry but not one of those is a good reason. "i want to change for me because it's right for me" is the only good reason to me that shows the right mindset and opens a person up for the real hard road ahead. It's one thing to trumpet the great heartwarming stories that support your ideas, but with the rarity of them in relation to the whole numbers might you start to look at the others and say how high a price do we pay to save so few at the cost of so many. Let therapy be offered by professionals who have training from professionals, leave churches out of it and let those who want it to seek it and let the therapist see it the patient can change of just needs to redirect energies to remain celibate. So many people on this site say bishops and such aren't really equipped to give therapy and they are right, so why do we support people with the same similar qualifications and training handle something so complex?

LOL and to tie it to the opening post. To look for a middle ground lets take a look at the idea of the therapy. People think gays need to be cured, to change who they are to fit the majority's ideal. The left has started to come to think religion is similar. More and more people are starting to think religion is a mental defect. Now while some might think either argument has value, as long as one side really supports either argument do we really see a place for the middle ground?

[Soulsearcher]

Even Teen Challenge put out a 95% success rate for females and 75% for males. This means that after a one-year discipleship program one in four men would have a relapse. So, even with addiction, the results are not guaranteed. The study I cited related to SSA showed much lower success rates. So, all I can do is agree with you that these centers should not promote false hope. Also, guilt over prayers that don't get answered as we wish is problematic in many areas. Why weren't you healed? Why have you gotten a job? Why does God not answer your prayers? Is there sin in your life? Something unconfessed? If centers are blaming their residents for continuing temptations then their theology is flawed.

I take all of this information as a call for higher standards, more compassion, and for church people to learn to walk with our brothers/sisters who struggle with patience and humility. We must learn how to do this well. If God has indeed declared L/G sex to be sin, then He must have a loving compassionate means for us to help those so-attracted to overcome.

As for the biology, since I believe God has condemned this kind of sex, how else can a view SSA, but as an addiction--a predisposed temptation to be overcome? Scripture speaks of people being "given over" to this.

Certainly, our efforts must be about helping, supporting, encouraging and 'walking with'--not about blaming.

One of the main end results of the therapy through religious organizations is " it's your fault it didn't work" You're not faithful enough, you didn't pray hard enough, you are dirty, you didn't try hard enough, you didn't pay enough. so after committing your life to this, paying lets say the average of $50,000 for a few years. subjecting yourself to holding therapy, sports therapy, blaming your parents for turning you gay, varying levels of aversion therapy( from elastic bands, inducing vomiting, and at point in the past shock therapy), you are told it's completely your fault none of it has worked. No lets not ask why no clinical therapy was actually provided or anything that has shown real results, because that has nothing to do with it, it's your fault. it's sad but it's true. This is the higher standard sadly, this is after years and years for calls to change of get it actually only handled by professionals. As long as people think it's an answer and a good idea this is really the best we can hope for by leaving it in unprofessional hands.

I wish more say it like you do PC, but read he story i linked to carli and know those feelings of hopelessness and self loathing are the most common result. That's how i was for years and finally it was either do something different or end up like him. After so many years of blaming it all on me i finally said enough is enough and i walked away from god and let me tell you, i may be damned but i don't want every day to be my last anymore, i actually look forward to waking up in the morning instead of saying "well god you couldn't help me change, couldn't you at least kill me in my sleep"

[prisonchaplain]

There are no easy answers to this. Old and New Testaments tell us that this kind of sex is forbidden. Very sincere Christian souls (some specifically LDS ones as well) say they've tried to change, or at least resist, and have come to believe it is impossible to do so--that this drive must be biological and all but irrevocable.

I'm going to go out on a limb with an idea...purely speculation on my part. Paul speaks of a "thorn in the flesh" that he struggled with. We also know that he lived a celibate life (yes there are a few who argue against this--though most scholars agree with me). Some have speculated that Paul's "thorn" was homosexual urges. Let me be clear that there is no proof of this. Mere speculation. When I first heard the idea I was upset by it. However, what if this was his burden? If so, the scripture passages in which he wishes others could be celibate, like him could make sense. Maybe he's suggesting that those burdened with this temptation would do best to live celibate, and whole-heartedly give themselves over to the kind of church callings that only single people can do.

Then I think of the Catholic priests who willingly give up the hope of sexual fulfillment in order to serve their church with total dedication. While some want to argue that this is unnatural, unscriptural, and that it is the probable reason for the scandals of late, there is little evidence to support the charges. I frankly doubt that the RATE of pedophilia is any higher amongst priests than amongst the general population.

This is not a cross I have to bare. I wouldn't wish it on anyone. However, I have to believe that if it were, God would give me the strength to live a dedicated celibate life. Perhaps I could turn my frustration into rigorous service in ministry fields where families are hinderances, and singleness would offer the liberty to serve with abandon.

My speculation--I'm no expert--is that religious centers meant to help those with SSA would do best if they focused on discipleship and redirecting sexual tension towards the spiritual disciplines. No one should be blamed for the cross they bare. Anyone who desires to serve God well is my brother/sister. Who am I to condemn or downplay or degrade anyone for the journey they find themselves on?

[AnthonyB]

Biology generally occurring factors come in a ranges not neat on/switches, even with gender the most bipolar of genetic traits, there are people who are biologically indeterminate. I think there are multiple factors involved but lets just for example simplify it to two, gender attraction and libido. Someone who is exclusively SSA but has a very low libido would probably find it easier to divert their attraction then someone with a high libido.

[Soulsearcher]

There are no easy answers to this. Old and New Testaments tell us that this kind of sex is forbidden. Very sincere Christian souls (some specifically LDS ones as well) say they've tried to change, or at least resist, and have come to believe it is impossible to do so--that this drive must be biological and all but irrevocable.

I'm going to go out on a limb with an idea...purely speculation on my part. Paul speaks of a "thorn in the flesh" that he struggled with. We also know that he lived a celibate life (yes there are a few who argue against this--though most scholars agree with me). Some have speculated that Paul's "thorn" was homosexual urges. Let me be clear that there is no proof of this. Mere speculation. When I first heard the idea I was upset by it. However, what if this was his burden? If so, the scripture passages in which he wishes others could be celibate, like him could make sense. Maybe he's suggesting that those burdened with this temptation would do best to live celibate, and whole-heartedly give themselves over to the kind of church callings that only single people can do.

Then I think of the Catholic priests who willingly give up the hope of sexual fulfillment in order to serve their church with total dedication. While some want to argue that this is unnatural, unscriptural, and that it is the probable reason for the scandals of late, there is little evidence to support the charges. I frankly doubt that the RATE of pedophilia is any higher amongst priests than amongst the general population.

This is not a cross I have to bare. I wouldn't wish it on anyone. However, I have to believe that if it were, God would give me the strength to live a dedicated celibate life. Perhaps I could turn my frustration into rigorous service in ministry fields where families are hinderances, and singleness would offer the liberty to serve with abandon.

My speculation--I'm no expert--is that religious centers meant to help those with SSA would do best if they focused on discipleship and redirecting sexual tension towards the spiritual disciplines. No one should be blamed for the cross they bare. Anyone who desires to serve God well is my brother/sister. Who am I to condemn or downplay or degrade anyone for the journey they find themselves on?

That's not the first time i've read that particular view of Paul and i often wondered about it myself. Personally i have no issue if this was the focus most faiths decided to have with homosexuals in their midst. If this is where they put their energy to help them and support them.

Now as I've said myself in the past. i was on the path to being a catholic priest for years, it wasn't til just before my 20th birthday i finally gave up on this for good. The celibate life of service just wasn't for me. i didn't see joy coming from it, and being i'd spent so much time with the notion god could cure me and it didn't happen i'd lost my faith and become a bit hostile toward a loving fatherly deity.

While i personally wouldn't advocate a life of celibacy and service to faith i wouldn't mock or belittle any one who chose it and would gladly support them and stand with them through their long road.

[bytor2112]

I have never thought or even heard the notion that Paul was gay. In 1st Corinthians I thought he was counseling to marry if sexual urges cannot be contained. Paul in his ministry may have thought it his duty to remain unwed and celibate as part of his calling. Perhaps in asking for the thorn to be removed he was asking to wed or perhaps he was celibate because he was impotent and an unconsummated marriage is not marriage at all.

Just a thought..

[prisonchaplain]

Bytor, the idea is not that common. And truly, no one knows for sure. Certainly Paul did say that those who burn should marry--though he obviously had heterosexuals in mind. My suggestion is that those who find themselves sorely tempted by this type of sex that is forbidden might find their best hope in seeking to lessen the temptations and seek a life of spiritual service and singleness. Since Paul said his choice was a superior one (very likely because it allows for more rigorous and single-minded service of God and church), then he'd likely endorse it for those facing SSA.

[Blackmarch]

I have never thought or even heard the notion that Paul was gay. In 1st Corinthians I thought he was counseling to marry if sexual urges cannot be contained. Paul in his ministry may have thought it his duty to remain unwed and celibate as part of his calling. Perhaps in asking for the thorn to be removed he was asking to wed or perhaps he was celibate because he was impotent and an unconsummated marriage is not marriage at all.

Just a thought..

Considering the penchant for "critics" to go after (and generally skew) the sexuality of those they hate i'd be very surprised if such notions are not injected into society somewhere on a regular basis.

One of the good things I think of the Catholic church was instilling a reverence for the early church leaders into society.

[prisonchaplain]

When I first heard that suggestion that Paul's thorn in the flesh might have been homo-erotic feelings I was appalled. But why? Do we not face temptations to sin? Do we not all have desires we must battle against? Are those temptations sin, in and of themselves? No, we say, it is the behavior, not the inward feelings that are sin. So, why are we offended at the suggestion that this was Paul's cross?

Here is an excellent treatment on the idea--one with very traditional recommendations: http://www.narth.com/docs/100907Abbott.pdf

The author is a Christian psychologist who argues that the temptation should be overcome, that God makes the way of escape, that we should get rid of anything that tempts us in that direction, etc. Yet, this PH.D. sees that same-sex attraction could easily be interpreted as a thorn in the flesh. Whether it was Paul's or not, it certainly is for about 3% of us.

Edited July 16, 2013 by prisonchaplain

[bytor2112]

When I first heard that suggestion that Paul's thorn in the flesh might have been homo-erotic feelings I was appalled. But why? Do we not face temptations to sin? Do we not all have desires we must battle against? Are those temptations sin, in and of themselves? No, we say, it is the behavior, not the inward feelings that are sin. So, why are we offended at the suggestion that this was Paul's cross?

Because, it is really a stretch to suggest that Paul had homosexual tendencies because of the scripture we have available today. It fuels "that" agenda and makes most of us uncomfortable. I would rather not think of Paul or any the "special witnesses" as having this struggle to overcome.

The competing messages now make it okay because God made them that way and they have no need to change, overcome or bear the cross....save voices that are considered bigoted and hateful by the swells.

[Just_A_Guy]

Because, it is really a stretch to suggest that Paul had homosexual tendencies because of the scripture we have available today. It fuels "that" agenda and makes most of us uncomfortable. I would rather not think of Paul or any the "special witnesses" as having this struggle to overcome.

The competing messages now make it okay because God made them that way and they have no need to change, overcome or bear the cross....save voices that are considered bigoted and hateful by the swells.

It's interesting that you would say that, because Paul also writes about his choice to be celibate. If his thorn in the flesh really was homosexuality, then the take-away must surely be that repressing that trait is entirely appropriate and perhaps even necessary.

It's the same reason I didn't really mind when J.K. Rowling announced that Albus Dumbledore was supposedly gay--because, in the end, he realized his urges were destructive (though not exactly for traditional reasons) and suppressed them for the greater good. If I were a gay-rights activist, I'd have been livid at the announcement.

[bytor2112]

But he doesnt really say why he is celibate. I posted early that perhaps he is impotent and can't consummate...a thorn to be sure. I was hoping for some commentary from LDS scholars but note the chapter heading in 1st Corinthians only says, " Paul answers special questions about marriage among those called on missions—Paul praises self-discipline."

Lifted this from LA Times:

7 Clues Dumbledore is gay:

1. His pet. "Fawkes, the many-colored phoenix, is 'flaming.'"

2. His name. "While the anagram to 'Tom Marvolo Riddle' is 'I am Lord Voldemort,' as my good friend pointed out, 'Albus Dumbledore' becomes 'Male bods rule, bud!'"

3. His fashion sense. "Whether it's his 'purple cloak and high-heeled boots,' a 'flamboyantly cut suit of plum velvet,' a flowered bonnet at Christmas or his fascination with knitting patterns, Dumbledore defies the fashion standards of normative masculinity and, of course, this gives him a flair like no other. It's no wonder that even the uppity portrait of former headmaster Phineas Nigellus announced, 'You cannot deny he's got style.'"

4. His sensitivity. "Leaders like Cornelius Fudge, Rufus Scrimgeour and Dolores Umbridge (yes, even a woman) who are limited by the standards of normative masculinity could not fully embrace where Voldemort was weakest: in his capacity to love. Dumbledore understood that it's tougher to be vulnerable, to express one's feelings, and that one's undying love for friends and for life itself is a more powerful weapon than fear. Even his most selfish moments in pursuing the Deathly Hallows were motivated either by his feelings for Grindelwald or his wish to apologize to his late sister."

5. His openness. "After she outed Dumbledore, Rowling said that she viewed the whole series as a prolonged treatise on tolerance. Dumbledore is the personification of this. Like the LGBT community that has time and again used its own oppression to fight for the equality of others, Dumbledore was a champion for the rights of werewolves, giants, house elves, muggle-borns, centaurs, merpeople -- even alternative marriage. When it came time to decide whether the marriage between Lupin the werewolf and Tonks the full-blooded witch could be considered natural, Professor Minerva McGonagall said, 'Dumbledore would have been happier than anybody to think that there was a little more love in the world.'"

6. His historical parallel. "If Dumbledore were like any one in history, it would have to be Leonardo DaVinci. They both were considered eccentric geniuses ('He's a genius! Best wizard in the world! But he is a bit mad, yes'); both added a great deal to our body of knowledge (after all, Dumbledore did discover the 12 uses of dragon's blood!); both were solitary, both were considered warm, loving and incredibly calm; both dwelt in mysterious mystical realms; both spent a lot of time with their journals (Leonardo wrote his backwards while Dumbledore was constantly diving into his pensieve); both even had long hair! And, of course, a popular thought among many scholars is that the maestro Leonardo was gay."

7. The fact that so few of us realized he was gay. "No matter how many 'clues' I can put down that Dumbledore was gay, no matter how many millions of people have read these books again and again, Rowling surprised even the most die-hard fans with the announcement that Dumbledore was gay. And in the end, the fact that we never would have guessed is what makes Dumbledore being gay so real. So many times I have encountered friends who are gay that I never would have predicted. It has shown me that one's sexual orientation is not some obvious 'lifestyle choice,' it's a precious facet of our multi-faceted personalities. And in the end whatever the differences between our personalities are, it is time that our world heeds Dumbledore's advice: 'Differences of habit and language are nothing at all if our aims are identical and our hearts are open.' Today as I write this, I believe that it's time for our aims to be loyal to what the greatest wizard in the world would have wanted them to be: love."

[prisonchaplain]

Because, it is really a stretch to suggest that Paul had homosexual tendencies because of the scripture we have available today. It fuels "that" agenda and makes most of us uncomfortable. I would rather not think of Paul or any the "special witnesses" as having this struggle to overcome.

The competing messages now make it okay because God made them that way and they have no need to change, overcome or bear the cross....save voices that are considered bigoted and hateful by the swells.

People will use information as they wish. It's just as easy for me to conclude that if one of the apostles lived a victorious Christian life, in spite of an SSA temptation, then is that not the ultimate testimony? The cross is a heavy one, but with Christ's help it can be borne!

[Lakumi]

I donno, I never thought Dumbledore was gay, Gandalf on the other hand...