The Gay Appreciation Thread

[Vort]

Although a good thing to do, Irishcolleen's answer is not really the purpose of this thread.

The purpose of this thread is stated in the 2nd paragraph of the OP:

There has been a lot of threads lately on lds.net about gays. I've been involved in several of them. And I'm thinking, gays must be feeling beat up here and may forget that they are LOVED. Dearly.

So, if I notice that there are a lot of threads on lds.net that puts a lot of heat on Folks-Who-Have-Sex-With-Their-Dogs, I may start a Folks-Who-Have-Sex-With-Their-Dogs Appreciation Thread to remind them that they are dearly loved on lds.net. Or maybe I won't because I don't know a single person who have sex with their dogs and wouldn't have a story to tell.

Is that clearer now?

How do you know you don't know any dog sex enthusiasts? They tend to keep their sexual proclivities quiet, as homosexuals used to do.

I very seriously doubt you would have a dog sex enthusiasts' appreciation thread, even if those poor dog sex people felt picked on here. But maybe I'm wrong.

[carlimac]

I thought the OP was clear :

Why hijack the thread?

Anyhow, going back on topic my best friend is gay. I love her to pieces! She has been a great influence in my life, a wonderful human being and amazing friend. :)

Oh how we love to hijack threads!

I believe most of us could say good things about people who have embraced their same gender attraction and run with it. But...as LDS there will almost always be a caveat since it's such a serious detour from the lifestyle we champion, encourage and believe in.

[The Folk Prophet]

You're splitting hairs in such a way that makes it hard to tell what you're really saying. How can you struggle to control something if you don't "have" it in the first place? No one knows the source of these feelings. They're just there.

You really think all feelings just pop up out of nowhere? Like there are no influencing factors, internal or external. They just are. But I'm not sure what you're getting at either, frankly. I don't recall specifying anything about controlling something you don't have. Moreover, where the feelings come from is irrelevant.

The problem isn't that the feelings exist. The problem is cultivating and focusing on the feelings.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm only adding that simply not cultivating and focusing on the feelings is only part of the battle. Active effort to become perfect in all things is the commandment.

Really? You think Ty Mansfield's point of view that aligns squarely with the Church's is messed up? How? Have you even read his books?

I've not read everything from him. Of that which I have read, I do not see his ideas as aligning squarely with the Church's, and you saying they do doesn't make the case. But who cares. I could be wrong. I haven't read his books, just some stuff online by him. Regardless, Ty Mansfield does not dictate what is and is not gospel truth.

The church's position is much, much greater than mormonsandgays.org. Simplifying this issue, as many are wont to do, down to a simple sentence from the header of a website is insufficient. There is much greater understanding to be had of the natural man and how we, through the atonement of Christ, can overcome.

We can change who we are. In fact, we MUST change who we are. Any less is insufficient. Gay is irrelevant. Natural tendency is irrelevant. Imperfection is imperfection, and all imperfection must be purged. We are to sacrifice ourselves for the Savior, the church, and God's will. We are to change to become like Christ. It is simply not okay to be anything less than the example which Christ set for us. Anything short of this requires change. And, yes, I will maintain this includes a change of feelings and heart. As a man thinketh, so is he. What good does it do a man to give a gift begrudgingly?

Having gay feelings but not acting them it is not a "sin". No one is saying otherwise. That does not mean we shouldn't be working towards changing our feelings to align in perfect harmony with the truths of the gospel. It doesn't matter where the feelings come from. It doesn't matter if the tendency is a choice or not. But these things are not simply who we are. Who we are is children of God, sons of the Most High, within us the ability to inherit all that He has upon those conditions set by Him.

[Suzie]

The guy who hired me for my first-ever professional writing gig, a really friendly and nice person, had some effeminate mannerisms. I was privately convinced he was gay, until one day he mentioned something about his wife. Oops. So much for stereotypes. The same scenario played out years later (a year or so ago) with another work colleague.

Vort, there are gay people who are married (heterosexual relationship). Of course, I do not know the guy in question, but it is a possibly that he was gay, wife and all or yes a straight guy with effiminate mannerisms. The point I am trying to make is that being married does not exclude the person from being homosexual.

[Vort]

My husband is very sensitive and works through my feelings just fine. He's a good listener and communicator. He has absolutely no same gender attraction!

Are you sure? I dunno. Every single "effeminate" guy anatess has ever known has been homosexual. Every one of them.

Edited January 23, 2014 by Vort

[Vort]

As a child I told myself I would have fought the Nazi's and marched with Dr. King.

As an adult, I can do no less.

Who are the Nazis or the racists in your equivalence, Quin?

And WHEN did it okay on this forum to call people swine, coons, or dog rapers to marginalize their humanity???

As far as I know, it's not allowed. Do you have some examples of such things? Or are you just spouting off?

[Vort]

Vort, there are gay people who are married (heterosexual relationship). Of course, I do not know the guy in question, but it is a possibly that he was gay, wife and all or yes a straight guy with effiminate mannerisms. The point I am trying to make is that being married does not exclude the person from being homosexual.

No, but it's a pretty good indicator.

[carlimac]

Are you sure? I dunno. Every single "effemitate" guy anatess has ever known has been homosexual. Every one of them.

Quite sure!

[The Folk Prophet]

...and to be just as much of a "perversion" (his term) as bestiality.

That is not true. Vort was comparing usefulness of threads, not severity of sin. You see this sort of response in discussions like this a lot. Someone invariably says, "should we legalize *horrendous sin* because it's popular" and someone else cries foul! "How dare you compare homosexuality to *horrendous sin*?" But comparison of sin graduation is not the point at all. Popularity being the criteria for legalization was.

Moreover, what sin could be used for comparison that wouldn't offend the homosexual rights supporter? None, of course. Because they are fairly adamant that it is not a sin. I even used adultery the other day and got the same kind of response. Adultery is worse because it's disloyal! How dare you compare a committed homosexual relationship to an adulterous one... Etc., etc... Well, once again, not my point.

Actually grading sins is not our purview, beyond recommending visiting a bishop vs. not. Accidentally dropped a swear? Probably just watch your mouth. Accidentally made out with someone of the same gender...yeah...might want to get to your bishop right quick.

[carlimac]

You really think all feelings just pop up out of nowhere? Like there are no influencing factors, internal or external. They just are. But I'm not sure what you're getting at either, frankly. I don't recall specifying anything about controlling something you don't have. Moreover, where the feelings come from is irrelevant.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm only adding that simply not cultivating and focusing on the feelings is only part of the battle. Active effort to become perfect in all things is the commandment.

I've not read everything from him. Of that which I have read, I do not see his ideas as aligning squarely with the Church's, and you saying they do doesn't make the case. But who cares. I could be wrong. I haven't read his books, just some stuff online by him. Regardless, Ty Mansfield does not dictate what is and is not gospel truth.

The church's position is much, much greater than mormonsandgays.org. Simplifying this issue, as many are wont to do, down to a simple sentence from the header of a website is insufficient. There is much greater understanding to be had of the natural man and how we, through the atonement of Christ, can overcome.

We can change who we are. In fact, we MUST change who we are. Any less is insufficient. Gay is irrelevant. Natural tendency is irrelevant. Imperfection is imperfection, and all imperfection must be purged. We are to sacrifice ourselves for the Savior, the church, and God's will. We are to change to become like Christ. It is simply not okay to be anything less than the example which Christ set for us. Anything short of this requires change. And, yes, I will maintain this includes a change of feelings and heart. As a man thinketh, so is he. What good does it do a man to give a gift begrudgingly?

Having gay feelings but not acting them it is not a "sin". No one is saying otherwise. That does not mean we shouldn't be working towards changing our feelings to align in perfect harmony with the truths of the gospel. It doesn't matter where the feelings come from. It doesn't matter if the tendency is a choice or not. But these things are not simply who we are. Who we are is children of God, sons of the Most High, within us the ability to inherit all that He has upon those conditions set by Him.

Yes these thoughts can most definitely come out of nowhere. Of course we need to try to minimize negative or impure thoughts. I never suggested we shouldn't. But suppose a young man or woman who is doing absolutely everything in their power to live the gospel, to focus on good and wholesome things in their lives, who serve and love their neighbors and families, who attend the temple,...what if that person just happens to get a little unbidden ping in their heart when they look at an attractive person of their same gender? What is wrong with that? If they don't focus or dwell on that ping, then there is no harm done. They "have" the attraction in every sense of the word. But it isn't their fault that they have it. I'm afraid that if you start blaming these people for thoughts that just come but aren't sought after in any way, you're going to inspire frustration and resentment. You absolutely can't tell me that men- even general authorities don't "notice" attractive people outside their own marriages. Do they dwell on it? NO, I hope not. But you can't just pray away or repent away or by sheer force will away something that is part of being a human being. These thoughts were meant to happen. I'm afraid none of us would even exist if they didn't.

Edited January 23, 2014 by carlimac

[Just_A_Guy]

That is not true. Vort was comparing usefulness of threads, not severity of sin.

I wasn't talking about the "severity of sin" either; I was talking about whether or not something is a perversion--i.e. a twisting and/or misuse of that which is "normal"; and I was responding to the last sentence in Vort's post. It's a subtle distinction, and I apologize for failing to articulate it better.

Otherwise, I think we very much agree: it seems what some people get up in arms about is religious folks' open willingness to call something a "sin" in an impolitic way (is there a "politic" way to denounce sin, really?). Po-tay-to, po-tah-to.

Actually grading sins is not our purview, beyond recommending visiting a bishop vs. not.

I'm not sure I agree with that, in theory; but that would be another threadjack altogether.

[prisonchaplain]

I do appreciate those gays who, because of their allegiance with the gospel, resist temptation, even though it may mean celibacy. Their burden is great, and I appreciate that the choose to call upon the one who can grant them the strength to endure.

[carlimac]

I do appreciate those gays who, because of their allegiance with the gospel, resist temptation, even though it may mean celibacy. Their burden is great, and I appreciate that the choose to call upon the one who can grant them the strength to endure.

I even appreciate some characteristics and personality traits about those who don't resist temptation. But acting on their attractions isn't one of them. And totally embracing the lifestyle and becoming militant about everyone else embracing and agreeing with it is downright difficult to appreciate. Sometimes it simply becomes too big of an elephant to see around. But I suppose that's my problem, not theirs. To be truly Christ-like we should be able to find the good in every soul.

[Bini]

Though it's not a person but a group, I'm appreciative and grateful for programmes that have been started to aide and house GLBT teens that have been abandoned by their families. I think it's wonderful that there are safe houses where kids can go when nobody else wants them, and they can receive help and meet others that have been in their shoes.

[The Folk Prophet]

Yes these thoughts can most definitely come out of nowhere.

Disagree. Nurture or nature, choice or chance, doesn't much matter. Something caused them.

what if that person just happens to get a little unbidden ping in their heart when they look at an attractive person of their same gender? What is wrong with that?

Depends on what you mean by "wrong". I've had those pings of attraction for women other than my wife. I've always felt it best to cross myself along the lines of, "Whoa...nope. That's wrong. Don't go there." (How well I've succeeded at that is none of your business).

If they don't focus or dwell on that ping, then there is no harm done. They "have" the attraction in every sense of the word. But it isn't their fault that they have it. I'm afraid that if you start blaming these people for thoughts that just come but aren't sought after in any way, you're going to inspire frustration and resentment.

Blame? Who said anything about blame. That's a typical defensive response that has no validity in regards to my comments. I didn't blame anyone for anything, nor is it my place. As to the "no harm done," I disagree. Minor harm perhaps, but harm nonetheless. The same is true of the ping I had for the other woman above.

Any response to these sorts of temptations except, "I WILL NOT GO THERE!" is a problem, IMO.

You absolutely can't tell me that men- even general authorities don't "notice" attractive people outside their own marriages. Do they dwell on it? NO, I hope not. But you can't just pray away or repent away or by sheer force will away something that is part of being a human being. These thoughts were meant to happen. I'm afraid none of us would even exist if they didn't.

You most certainly can pray, repent, and sheer-force-of-will changes to your feelings and thoughts. Believing otherwise is childish. I respond VERY different in my own thoughts and feelings to attractive women than I did even five years ago. And it is not just because I'm getting older and my libido is waning...I hope...:) heheh. I have made serious, conscious effort to that end, and will continue to do so.

I want to learn to see these women as daughters of God, not potential sexual conquests. When and if my feelings are the latter, even unbidden, there's something wrong and I should be working to change it.

We're not talking about libido. We're talking about feeling, tastes, desires. Our sex drives aren't going to stop running because we're righteous, nor should they. But if we cannot change our natural feelings, tastes and desires, then we're all in BIG trouble. We CAN though, if we yield to the enticing of the Holy Spirit and put off the natural man through the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

You can debate this all you want, but all you will ever have is anecdotal evidence. Even a billion people claiming something does not truth make. I'll look to God for my understanding of truth.

[The Folk Prophet]

"Actually grading sins is not our purview, beyond recommending visiting a bishop vs. not."

I'm not sure I agree with that, in theory; but that would be another threadjack altogether.

Not our purview by way of recommendations to others? Hmm. I'll think through it. Not sure it qualifies as "worth discussing" enough to generate another thread.

[Guest]

I am as pro-Family-Proclamation as anyone, but I do feel compassion for people with SSA. I think there is definitely a nurture component in a lot of cases, but I also believe some are born farther on that end of the spectrum. I think it is a terrible, difficult thorn to have to bear in this life. Especially to one committed to living the LoC.

[Vort]

There was a time in the recent past where we were urged not to classify people by their sexual preference. Rather, we were to recognize them as children of God and treat them as such. But of course, the homosexual movement insisted, and insists, on defining themselves by how they like to use their genitals, so such a course is all but impossible in public conversation.

I find it surreal, and a bit amusing, to consider having an "appreciation thread" for those who indulge in certain specific sins. I cannot imagine having an "adulterer appreciation thread" or a "child molester appreciation thread" or even a "shoplifter appreciation thread". There may well be people who indulge in such activities whom we nevertheless find admirable in some way or another, but it's laughable to think we would say, "You know, my wife's uncle Fred sexually abused all of his daughters from their infancy, and I've gotta tell you, that guy really cooks a mean omelet!"

(Note: If "daughter rapist" is just too severe for you, substitute "guy who exposes himself in public" or "arsonist" or "vandal" or whatever other sin you find less repulsive.)

Thus, I find it amazing and even appalling that we would dedicate a thread to celebrating the good acts or facets of specifically those people who enjoy indulging in fornication with their own sex. It seems a transparently superficial and false effort to say, "Look, we really love homosexuals!" That such a sentiment is (or should be) true is beside the point.

I would feel much less like that if we already had threads that said, for example, "Look, we really love child molesters!" Because, as with homosexuals, that sentiment is (or should be) true. But we don't have any such threads, because they would be considered absurd by most of the list. That this thread may not likewise be considered absurd by most of the list is a possibility I find disturbing.

[carlimac]

Disagree. Nurture or nature, choice or chance, doesn't much matter. Something caused them.

Depends on what you mean by "wrong". I've had those pings of attraction for women other than my wife. I've always felt it best to cross myself along the lines of, "Whoa...nope. That's wrong. Don't go there." (How well I've succeeded at that is none of your business).

Blame? Who said anything about blame. That's a typical defensive response that has no validity in regards to my comments. I didn't blame anyone for anything, nor is it my place. As to the "no harm done," I disagree. Minor harm perhaps, but harm nonetheless. The same is true of the ping I had for the other woman above.

Any response to these sorts of temptations except, "I WILL NOT GO THERE!" is a problem, IMO.

You most certainly can pray, repent, and sheer-force-of-will changes to your feelings and thoughts. Believing otherwise is childish. I respond VERY different in my own thoughts and feelings to attractive women than I did even five years ago. And it is not just because I'm getting older and my libido is waning...I hope...:) heheh. I have made serious, conscious effort to that end, and will continue to do so.

I want to learn to see these women as daughters of God, not potential sexual conquests. When and if my feelings are the latter, even unbidden, there's something wrong and I should be working to change it.

We're not talking about libido. We're talking about feeling, tastes, desires. Our sex drives aren't going to stop running because we're righteous, nor should they. But if we cannot change our natural feelings, tastes and desires, then we're all in BIG trouble. We CAN though, if we yield to the enticing of the Holy Spirit and put off the natural man through the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

You can debate this all you want, but all you will ever have is anecdotal evidence. Even a billion people claiming something does not truth make. I'll look to God for my understanding of truth.

This thinking is flawed. I must not be understanding you or you me. I'm talking biological reactions that just come that one does not have any control over. I just think you're demanding a level of perfection that isn't required and that goes beyond what even the leaders of our church have said about it. Maybe you should read up on it again.

Edited January 24, 2014 by carlimac

[Guest]

Are you sure? I dunno. Every single "effeminate" guy anatess has ever known has been homosexual. Every one of them.

Terminology clarification:

Gay - attracted to the same sex.

Homosexual - the same thing.

Gay/Homosexual are not limited to those who have had sexual relations with the same gender.

Okay, now, I may not be using the word effiminate properly. There's effiminate and then there's the guy who... say... wouldn't play sports in recess or PE or likes to play with my Barbie dolls (my neighbor!). They're not the same.

So, in that context... everyone I know personally who are effiminate are gay. How do I know? Because - it is a normal thing in high school to ask them if they are. And every one of them that I know said they are. And the people who does my hair and makes my clothes are. How do I know? Because it's common knowledge in town. It's not common in the Philippines for effiminate gays to hide in closets. It's not necessary. They're not castigated more than somebody who isn't. They have their own niche in society. Now, the non-effiminate gays do - usually because there's no point in telling people they are gay. Now, we are talking about the Philippines (in my time - I've been living in the US for 20 years so it may have changed by now) where sexual relationships outside of marriage carry a heavy social stigma so much so that people who have boyfriends/girlfriends in high school are looked down upon - worse than the druggies! So, gay or straight - there's no difference. So unless you're effiminate, people don't bother asking. And the reason people ask is mainly out of curiousity... it is common for Filipino parents to try to "un-gay" their effiminate children which leads to family conflict - which, in high school is always the drama... Talking about how "My parents hate me" or "I hate my parents" is a high-school pass time as I was growing up - straight or gay.

Note: High School in the Philippines is 12/13-15/16 years old.

Edited January 24, 2014 by anatess

[Guest]

Can we go back on topic now? There are many other current threads out there where all these stuff y'all are arguing about are being discussed...

[The Folk Prophet]

This thinking is flawed. I'm talking biological reactions that just come that one does not have any control over. I just think you're demanding a level of perfection that isn't required and that goes beyond what even the leaders of our church have said about it. Maybe you should read up on it again.

Ah yes. I am not well read enough. Of course.

What, exactly, do you think the church teaches about "be ye therefore perfect"?

"Biological reaction" is entirely un-provable. I'm not about to turn my back on long taught truths based on a bunch of people's "I can't help it" arguments.

Here, instead of arguing who needs to read more on what the church says about it:

Same-Gender Attraction

Specifically note point 9.

As for Perfection, search for the term on lds.org. Read a couple of the conference talks that come up. I'll do the same. Then we'll talk more.

[Suzie]

There was a time in the recent past where we were urged not to classify people by their sexual preference. Rather, we were to recognize them as children of God and treat them as such. But of course, the homosexual movement insisted, and insists, on defining themselves by how they like to use their genitals, so such a course is all but impossible in public conversation.

I find it surreal, and a bit amusing, to consider having an "appreciation thread" for those who indulge in certain specific sins. I cannot imagine having an "adulterer appreciation thread" or a "child molester appreciation thread" or even a "shoplifter appreciation thread". There may well be people who indulge in such activities whom we nevertheless find admirable in some way or another, but it's laughable to think we would say, "You know, my wife's uncle Fred sexually abused all of his daughters from their infancy, and I've gotta tell you, that guy really cooks a mean omelet!"

(Note: If "daughter rapist" is just too severe for you, substitute "guy who exposes himself in public" or "arsonist" or "vandal" or whatever other sin you find less repulsive.)

Thus, I find it amazing and even appalling that we would dedicate a thread to celebrating the good acts or facets of specifically those people who enjoy indulging in fornication with their own sex. It seems a transparently superficial and false effort to say, "Look, we really love homosexuals!" That such a sentiment is (or should be) true is beside the point.

I would feel much less like that if we already had threads that said, for example, "Look, we really love child molesters!" Because, as with homosexuals, that sentiment is (or should be) true. But we don't have any such threads, because they would be considered absurd by most of the list. That this thread may not likewise be considered absurd by most of the list is a possibility I find disturbing.

Vort, I really have a hard time trying to understand the connection of homosexuality to rape, incest, stealing, arson, vandalism, etc. Raping someone isn't just a "sin", it is also a crime punishable by law. Same for the rest so how exactly is homosexuality thrown in the middle?

[Guest]

One more time...

Can we go back on topic now? There are many other current threads out there where all these stuff y'all are arguing about are being discussed...

[The Folk Prophet]

Terminology clarification:

Gay - attracted to the same sex.

Homosexual - the same thing.

Terminology correction:

Gay - sexually attracted to the same sex.

Homosexual - the same thing.

Not just being a pill. I think the distinction is quite important.

...where sexual relationships outside of marriage carry a heavy social stigma so much so that people who have boyfriends/girlfriends in high school are looked down upon - worse than the druggies!

Uh...where is this the case?