Byu Prof & Homosexuality

[sgallan]

" A BYU professor presented biological scientific evidence and testimony discounting popular Latter-day Saint belief that homosexuality is an acquired tendency and lifestyle.

In a lecture Thursday, March 25, 2004, William Bradshaw, a professor of micro and molecular biology, discussed evidence that homosexuality is a result of biological orientation.

"Biology absolutely has a role in causing homosexuality," Bradshaw said.

To prove his statements, Bradshaw offered various scientific data ranging from clinical evidence, brain anatomy, birth order and genetic studies."

Here is the link.....

http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/49488

I wonder how long he's going to have a job at BYU?

Kudo's to BYU newsnet for printing it.

[Mahonri]

Interesting.

It doesn't fly with the revealed word of God as found in the Proclamation on the Family.

It's a choice. (period)

Are there tendancies? No doubt about it. 3 or 4 older brothers is environment, not genetics. Left handed folks are more creative and creative folks many times find themsleves in an ENVIRONMENT where homosexuality is promoted.

It's a choice.

There are folks with the gene for Alcoholism but if they never make the choice to take a drink, they won't become alcoholics. It's a choice.

Sad that a professor of Biology could be so misinformed and so wrong.

M

[sgallan]

Actually, I think you are confusing acting on it, with the biology involved. Sure it's a choice to live with another man (or women as it were) in an intimate relationship. But even if you don't; you are no less homosexual. You still prefer and are attracted to people of the same sex. You have just chosen to remain celibate.

**** Left handed folks are more creative and creative folks many times find themsleves in an ENVIRONMENT where homosexuality is promoted. ****

(sigh). I'm left handed and neither particularly creative, nor homosexual. I wonder where my parents went wrong. (sigh)

So what about his position at BYU. Does the fact he brought science (he is a scientist afterall) into this issue mean he should get the ol' resume' updated?

[Guest TheProudDuck]

I don't think Bradshaw has too much to worry about. No less an authority than an apostle (Dallin Oaks, I think) has said essentially the same thing -- that some people seem predisposed to homosexual desires, and that there is probably a biological component.

Mahonri is right, of course, that acting on a homosexual desire (like acting on any desire) is ultimately a choice.

[sgallan]

**** Mahonri is right, of course, that acting on a homosexual desire (like acting on any desire) is ultimately a choice. ****

I know.

There is not a lot of good choices for the homosexual in this church to be sure. If you stay, you are a lonely celibate person, who the majority consider deviant, even if you do not act on your very nature. If you leave, you leave the religion you have grown up with, and was pretty much your entire cultural existance up to that point in time. But at least with the latter you can eventually move on with your life.

[Kevin]

Originally posted by sgallan@Mar 29 2004, 11:00 AM

If you stay, you are a lonely celibate person, who the majority consider deviant, even if you do not act on your very nature.

Your statement requires that the "majority" know of the person's "deviancy." It is your opinion that that many people do know?

[Guest Starsky]

Also, I have wondered about 'praying for the desire'....I have seen cases where a women wasn't in love with her husband....but wanted to keep the family together...etc...and she prayed to have her desire to be to her husband...and she was given 'the desire'.

Why, following this principle, couldn't one faithful man/woman who had no disposition to have a desire towards the opposite sex, pray and receive the 'desire'...

IOW, why stay celibate...why not work with the Lord to 'change' the situation. Miracles happen every day....why not in these cases?

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Mar 29 2004, 10:51 AM

I don't think Bradshaw has too much to worry about. No less an authority than an apostle (Dallin Oaks, I think) has said essentially the same thing -- that some people seem predisposed to homosexual desires, and that there is probably a biological component.

But unlike Oaks, Bradshaw departs from traditional religious thinking here:

<<Bradshaw said many of those people who have experienced success with these methods for a period eventually revert to homosexual tendencies. He said it is virtually impossible for these people to change their orientation, despite their righteous lifestyle.

Bradshaw referred to an article in the "Ensign" that says the atonement is a sufficient means to resolve the problems of this world.

Bradshaw said though he is absolutely committed to the atonement of Jesus Christ, he feels this attitude is detrimental to those who will suffer with homosexuality for the remainder of their lives.>>

I think he has a lot to worry about from the brethren. Mainly, his job.

btw: My great grandfather was a Bradshaw. I wonder if he's a relative!

[sgallan]

Peace:

Could you be happy and content and in-love (in that way) with a member of the same sex? I couldn't.

[sgallan]

*** Your statement requires that the "majority" know of the person's "deviancy." It is your opinion that that many people do know? ****

Kevin -

They don't have to know about the person. The homosexual has ears to listen with. They can hear the sentiments. I was there. I am not homosexual but I heard the sentiments as well. Many many times. I hear them on this very board regularly. I found them offensive because I have family. The in-laws with the homosexual son found them so offensive they walked out the door and never returned the first time they attended church after baptism.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by sgallan@Mar 29 2004, 12:25 PM

Peace:

Could you be happy and content and in-love (in that way) with a member of the same sex? I couldn't.

If it was what the Lord wanted for me...and I prayed for the desire....and I received the 'desire'...

I know those who aren't physically gay...who desire it because they are living a life style which is conducive to it....

Some are bi-sexual...because they were in a group that brought that 'spirit' of things into a desirable thing....

So my resounding answer is YES!

[sgallan]

Peace -

I also know of several cases where the marraige, and 'fake it to you make it', was attempted. Just to have it all come crashing down. With the consequences to the family, kids, extended family, and so forth, being far worse than if it was never attempted in the first place. The Gay men I know (I don't know about lesbians) find the whole concept of sex with a women as disgusting and revolting.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by sgallan@Mar 29 2004, 12:34 PM

Peace -

I also know of several cases where the marraige, and 'fake it to you make it', was attempted. Just to have it all come crashing down. With the consequences to the family, kids, extended family, and so forth, being far worse than if it was never attempted in the first place. The Gay men I know (I don't know about lesbians) find the whole concept of sex with a women as disgusting and revolting.

I never stated anything about faking it...

Of course it would come down around their ears if they were faking it...

A change of heart is exactly that....Christ can change this person's 'desires', if that person is humbly and submissive to Christ.

Not to mention...that anyone who is 'so revolted' has other issues...to deal with...he needs counseling..

[sgallan]

So my resounding answer is YES! ****

Okay. That is a consistant postion. But you'll never actually have to test that will you?

One thing is certain; the homosexual who was raised in the religion has choices to make. None on the face of it are very good. I would suspect most leave and then move on with their lives.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by sgallan@Mar 29 2004, 12:37 PM

So my resounding answer is YES! ****

Okay. That is a consistant postion. But you'll never actually have to test that will you?

One thing is certain; the homosexual who was raised in the religion has choices to make. None on the face of it are very good. I would suspect most leave and then move on with their lives.

I guess we must put them in the same boat as the 'rich' man who couldn't give up all his riches in order to follow Christ...

[sgallan]

Not to mention...that anyone who is 'so revolted' has other issues...to deal with...he needs counseling.. ******

But I thought you have stated homosexual sex is revolting to you. Well if it is; then it's only natural that heterosexual sex is revolting to the homosexual. Either that or you need counseling (me too for that matter) as well.

[sgallan]

I guess we must put them in the same boat as the 'rich' man who couldn't give up all his riches in order to follow Christ... *****

And I would add; I don't blame them. I wouldn't want to follow this Christ either.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by sgallan@Mar 29 2004, 12:41 PM

I guess we must put them in the same boat as the 'rich' man who couldn't give up all his riches in order to follow Christ... *****

And I would add; I don't blame them. I wouldn't want to follow this Christ either.

That is totally your choice.

[sgallan]

Well I don't believe in any of it. But if I did; that indeed would be the choice I'd make. Your heaven would be my h*ll. I think many a homosexual would say the same.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by sgallan@Mar 29 2004, 12:47 PM

Well I don't believe in any of it. But if I did; that indeed would be the choice I'd make. Your heaven would be my h*ll. I think many a homosexual would say the same.

More than likely.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by sgallan@Mar 29 2004, 12:40 PM

Not to mention...that anyone who is 'so revolted' has other issues...to deal with...he needs counseling.. ******

But I thought you have stated homosexual sex is revolting to you. Well if it is; then it's only natural that heterosexual sex is revolting to the homosexual. Either that or you need counseling (me too for that matter) as well.

Not necessarily. A person who finds homosexual sex "revolting" might be revolted by the uncomfortable association, in one common male homosexual practice, between body parts designed for procreation on the one hand and for excretion on the other. Since many people find excretion a yucky subject generally, it doesn't necessarily follow that it's the same-sex nature of the encounter that's revolting in itself. Heterosexual sex doesn't involve that uncomfortable association, and so a homosexual who was "revolted" by heterosexual sex would have to be revolted by the whole concept of opposite-sex coupling.

I've read that some of the traditional religious disfavoring of the *practice in question* has to do with the association of procreation, which symbolizes life, with elimination, which symbolizes corruption and death. That tradition applied whether a same-sex or an opposite-sex couple was involved. Of course, any relations outside of marriage implicated a completely separate issue of chastity in general.

[sgallan]

Heterosexual sex doesn't involve that uncomfortable association, and so a homosexual who was "revolted" by heterosexual sex would have to be revolted by the whole concept of opposite-sex coupling. *****

I may not have done all that well in biology and/or anatomy but I could have sworn the bodyparts used in heterosexual sex had something to do with excretion as well.....

[Rodney]

Like the poor, homosexuals will always be with us. The trick is to keep them from becoming a source of unrest.

[Kevin]

Originally posted by sgallan@Mar 29 2004, 12:29 PM

*** Your statement requires that the "majority" know of the person's "deviancy." It is your opinion that that many people do know? ****

Kevin -

They don't have to know about the person.

They do to think such of that particular poerson. Your comment was "If you stay, you are a lonely celibate person, who the majority consider deviant." The majority couldn't have such thoughts about a particular individual without knowing of that individuals perversion. Yes, the majority could have such thoughts generally.

[sgallan]

The majority couldn't have such thoughts about a particular individual without knowing of that individuals perversion. Yes, the majority could have such thoughts generally. ****

Semantics. The homosexual knows they are homosexual. That person also hears what others think of homosexuals (which they are). Which of course tends to be fairly uncomfortable. Kind of like walking into a room while people are talking about you without knowing you are there. You find out what they 'really' think. Sometimes this is good. But not generally in this case.