Mormon and gay. Where are we going?

[lostinwater]

15 minutes ago, Fether said:

the same people that claim gender dyspeptic and homosexuality is natural are the same people that claim that claim there is no God.

Thanks @Fether

i agree that lots of people think this.  But i can tell you i know many people this is absolutely false for.

It's certainly a common notion that everyone who is part of the LGBT community is a pedophile/pervert that marches in gay pride parades in flamboyant clothing in between their attempts to desegregate bathrooms, have homosexuality taught at the public schools, and deliberate attempting to destroy the institution of marriage between a man and a woman.

It's also a common notion that mainstream Mormons actively practice polygamy, engage in evil masonic rituals in their temples, worship Joseph Smith as a God, do not believe in the Bible, and are not Christians.

i'd suggest that both are false, and an indication that respectful exposure to the actual people involved, rather than the demons one makes them out to be, could prove helpful.

This really is worth the time to read, for all engaged in this issue.

https://mormonlgbtquestions.com/

[BJ64]

I think there is a difference between same sex attraction and homosexual behavior. I think a person could choose to participate in homosexual behavior for pleasure without same sex attraction. I don’t think same sex attraction is a prerequisite for homosexual behavior. 

Same sex attraction on the other hand is as we are told not a sin. Acting upon it is a sin. While homosexual behavior may be a choice I don’t think same sex attraction is a choice nor do I believe it is learned. I think our sexual identity is fixed by the time we are born. I don’t think it’s something we learn and decide as we’re growing up. 

[Fether]

7 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

@Fether can answer for himself and correct me if I am wrong, but his concept for this question was specifying survival (I believe survival of species). If we placed only homosexual partners on an island in 60 years or so the human population on that island would not survive. Not that other people experiencing same sex attraction would not be born. He never specified they are a species of themselves, I am pretty sure Fether understands this.

Ya, if you put 1,000 homosexual humans on an island, I’m sure they would realize “if we want to survive, we need heterosexual matings happening. My arguement against homosexuality is that it isn’t conducive of survival and is just as “natural” as being born w/o sex organs. We all saw what happened to the pandas, they almost went extinct, why? Because (besides getting their homes cut down) they didn’t want to reproduce, they had no desire or drive to.

Edited July 18, 2018 by Fether

[BJ64]

7 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

@Fether can answer for himself and correct me if I am wrong, but his concept for this question was specifying survival (I believe survival of species). If we placed only homosexual partners on an island in 60 years or so the human population on that island would not survive. Not that other people experiencing same sex attraction would not be born. He never specified they are a species of themselves, I am pretty sure Fether understands this.

Yes, I see I misread his comment. 

[BJ64]

8 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

Thanks @Fether

i agree that lots of people think this.  But i can tell you i know many people this is absolutely false for.

It's certainly a common notion that everyone who is part of the LGBT community is a pedophile/pervert that marches in gay pride parades in flamboyant clothing in between their attempts to desegregate bathrooms, have homosexuality taught at the public schools, and deliberate attempting to destroy the institution of marriage between a man and a woman.

It's also a common notion that mainstream Mormons actively practice polygamy, engage in evil masonic rituals in their temples, worship Joseph Smith as a God, do not believe in the Bible, and are not Christians.

i'd suggest that both are false, and an indication that respectful exposure to the actual people involved, rather than the demons one makes them out to be, could prove helpful.

This really is worth the time to read, for all engaged in this issue.

https://mormonlgbtquestions.com/

It has been my observation that there are the flamboyant effeminate type gay men and also very manly gay men whom you would never suspect were gay. 

[Fether]

6 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

It has been my observation that there are the flamboyant effeminate type gay men and also very manly gay men whom you would never suspect were gay. 

And there are also flamboyant men that are straight  I was somewhat like that. I made better friends among girls in highschool (I didn’t enjoy making fun of each other, using crude language, watching R movies, or sneaking out at night to spray paint an x-girlfriends lawn). I was accused of being gay when I most definitely was not

[BJ64]

23 hours ago, lostinwater said:

@BJ64

This is absolutely amazing.  Saying thank-you doesn't even come close to being adequate. 

This article only talks about LGBT, but i feel it applies to biologically intersexed people also.  

Seriously though, this is required reading.  

I forwarded your comment to the author and he replied thanking you. 

[Traveler]

4 hours ago, lostinwater said:

Thanks @Traveler

Honest question - where do you draw the line between the innate and the learned, and what is the justification for placing it there? 

Really, it's just soliciting an opinion - not meant to be argumentative at all.  

There are a number of scientific definitions.   Mostly by what area of the brain has control and activity in determining the behavior.  Another observable indication of innate verses acquired behavior with intelligent species is diversity of behavior - always (I have never countered a single exception in any study) diversity indicates learned - where innate behaviors are more associated with non diverse behaviors.  This is because innate behavior being preset based in determined genetics will always display limited diversity in responses.  Example - insects and other lower intelligence species indicate little if any diversity beyond replication error limits and are very predictable from individual to individual.

 

The Traveler

[person0]

Why does it matter whether homosexual attraction is an innate or learned characteristic?  I believe there are likely people who fall into both categories.  Regardless, it is against the commandments of God, plain and simple.  Gambling and alcohol addictions can be both innate and learned as well, both of these also go against the commandments, plain and simple.

[askandanswer]

7 hours ago, MormonGator said:

You can deny who you are for a long period of time, but eventually it'll catch up to you. 

None of us should stay who we are. We should all always be engaged in a constant process of deliberate change.

[BJ64]

46 minutes ago, person0 said:

Why does it matter whether homosexual attraction is an innate or learned characteristic?  

I believe it matters because I think it will change how a person is judged. For example people who are born with mental disabilities are judged differently from those who aren’t. If same sex attraction is something you are born with then I think you would be judged differently from those who weren’t born with such attraction. 

[Guest MormonGator]

20 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

None of us should stay who we are. We should all always be engaged in a constant process of deliberate change.

So if you are a good person who doesn't lie, cheat, steal-you should change? 

[person0]

41 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

I believe it matters because I think it will change how a person is judged. For example people who are born with mental disabilities are judged differently from those who aren’t. If same sex attraction is something you are born with then I think you would be judged differently from those who weren’t born with such attraction. 

I don't see how it would affect the way someone is judged.  Someone who learns the behavior could have had it inflicted upon them due to no fault of their own just like someone who was born with the inclination toward the behavior.  There are way too many possible scenarios for someone to be judged differently based on nature vs nurture; nurture can be just as bad or worse than nature.  Each person is an individual and Christ will judge each person as an individual, taking all factors into consideration.

[Guest MormonGator]

1 hour ago, BJ64 said:

I believe it matters because I think it will change how a person is judged. For example people who are born with mental disabilities are judged differently from those who aren’t. If same sex attraction is something you are born with then I think you would be judged differently from those who weren’t born with such attraction. 

Many people who are sympathetic to those with SSA believe it's something they can't change anymore than someone can change their skin color. Therefore, they find it difficult to accept that someone should be treated differently in some way for something they cannot change. 

Edited July 18, 2018 by MormonGator

[BJ64]

55 minutes ago, person0 said:

Each person is an individual and Christ will judge each person as an individual, taking all factors into consideration.

Yeah, that’s pretty much what I was saying. 

[BJ64]

52 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Many people who are sympathetic to those with SSA believe it's something they can't change anymore than someone can change their skin color. Therefore, they find it difficult to accept that someone should be treated differently in some way for something they cannot change. 

The church has pretty much decided that it’s something that can’t be changed. They no longer recommend treatments to chance people nor do they recommend heterosexual marriage. Now the stance pretty much is it’s not a sin to have same sex attraction, just stay sexless your entire life and keep the commandments and everything will be fine in the next life. 

So while there is acceptance that change may not be possible, there is no allowance for companionship and intimacy.  

[askandanswer]

2 hours ago, MormonGator said:

So if you are a good person who doesn't lie, cheat, steal-you should change? 

Of course. You should become a better person who doesn't lie, cheat or steal. 

[askandanswer]

Mormon and gay - where are we going? Where ever the Prophet leads us I hope. If not, it's the wrong direction. 

[Guest MormonGator]

18 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

The church has pretty much decided that it’s something that can’t be changed. They no longer recommend treatments to chance people nor do they recommend heterosexual marriage. Now the stance pretty much is it’s not a sin to have same sex attraction, just stay sexless your entire life and keep the commandments and everything will be fine in the next life. 

So while there is acceptance that change may not be possible, there is no allowance for companionship and intimacy.  

The church is making progress. I'm optimistic they'll continue to do so in my lifetime. 

[BJ64]

Something I have studied a lot and have a lot of personal experience with is that of sex hormones. Hormones play a huge roll in who we are and how we act. Many people think they are in control of themselves when it’s actually hormones that are controlling them. 

A man with a very high testosterone level is going to have a tremendous sex drive. A man with a very low testosterone level is going to have a very low sex drive. Each is expected to maintain the same standard of sexual purity but the low testosterone man is going to have an easier time of it and he will pay himself on the back and admire his self control. The high testosterone man may struggle a bit and may need to repent more and will be thought of as the weaker individual when it was his hormones, something he has no control over which caused him to have the bigger struggle. 

When a man reaches middle age or older and had overcome all desire for sexual sin and pats himself on the back and congratulates himself that his scripture study, prayer, spirituality and righteous living has allowed him to gain complete self control over all sexual desire, in fact it was merely his low testosterone which allowed his self control. 

I am on testosterone and I can tell from my own experience that I had a lot of temptation to be inpure when I was young as I got older I lost much of the desire for sex but now in my fifties my drive is as high as it has ever been and controlling myself is just as hard as it was as a teenager. I believe that people who have not experienced this for themselves don’t understand the power of hormones. 

[lostinwater]

16 minutes ago, Traveler said:

There are a number of scientific definitions.   Mostly by what area of the brain has control and activity in determining the behavior.  Another observable indication of innate verses acquired behavior with intelligent species is diversity of behavior - always (I have never countered a single exception in any study) diversity indicates learned - where innate behaviors are more associated with non diverse behaviors.  This is because innate behavior being preset based in determined genetics will always display limited diversity in responses.  Example - insects and other lower intelligence species indicate little if any diversity beyond replication error limits and are very predictable from individual to individual.

  

The Traveler

Thank-you @Traveler

Here's a heavily cited one that claims a linkage of some sort.  But no doubt, there are dozens of refutations of this study and other studies cited nearly as often that say exactly the opposite.  i sometimes think that about all studies ever prove is that we are capable of seeing things how we want to (if we haven't experienced what's being studied), or how we need to (if we have).  Regardless, i don't know much about a genetic component of homosexuality.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/261/5119/321

But i know quite a bit about the genetics of various intersex conditions.  It's not nearly as rare as a lot of people think.  Talking 1.5-2% of the population.  And it's certainly not limited to one's chromosomes.  You'll not find me using that concept as a hammer with which to turn gender stereotypes into powder - hopefully that doesn't disappoint anyone.  Actually, if anything, i think gender stereotypes are something society uses to turn these people into powder.  Part of society wants to stick their label on you parade you around as a mascot, and the other prefers to forget that you ever existed.  You are either an inconvenient truth, or an exploitable one.

And there's just about every sort of variation you can imagine.  There's the aneuploidys like Klinefelters or Turner Syndrome.  But i think most people believe it stops there.  Actually, any break or abnormality in the steroidogenesis pathway - assuming it doesn't kill you - cause intersex conditions.  Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia/21-Hydroxylase Deficiency or 5-Alpha Reductase Deficiency, etc.,

These are sometimes not found out until puberty when a person who is phenotypically one sex begin to develop sexually into the other as the amount of hormones increase (sex reversal).  Or if they are found out at or near birth, doctors routinely commit the same/similar acts of physical mutilation without the person's consent that society at large turns back in horror and righteous indignation at when done later in life,  with consent (ie T in LGBT).  And all that is typically covered up on a person's birth certificate/hidden from them.

If you've got any one of a number of point mutations in your estrogen or androgen receptor genes, you can have all the hormones in the world, but their impact in the cells will be either greatly reduced (mild or partial), or eliminated altogether (complete) - Estrogen Resistence or Androgen Insensitivity.  Just about anything that upsets the hormonal axis and it's associated feedback mechanisms turns the whole thing on it's head.

You can have sex genes translocate to different chromosomes - Swyer and De La Chapelle Syndrome.  

And who knows the various Asperger's/Autisim-like equivalents that probably account for the level at which a boy or girl expresses typically feminine or masculine traits, and the huge variety of secondary sexual characteristics that one sees.

And that's just the cookbook.  Actually, just 2% of the cookbook.  The other 98% of the genome they're just figuring out what it does.  DNA is nothing until it is expressed (translated and transcribed into proteins) - and heaven only knows the things that affect that.  Genetic imprinting or methylation, etc.,  And then you add a spirit into that body on top of that.

It's really sad.  Movements don't offer a process of democratic election when selecting the people who represent them.  It's pretty much whoever screams the loudest and most newsworthy (clickbait-able) stuff defines the movement.  And then people who have not considered it worth their time to make an attempt to reconcile their fears of what you are with who you actually are foist their fears about what little they know about the movement on you as an intention to destroy what they care about.  Many of the people grouped into this movement don't even identify with it.

There's one quote in one of CS Lewis' books to the effect of,  "That horrible thing that cannot be, and yet somehow is" that i think describes a prevailing viewpoint.  

Anyways, sorry, this is quite the diatribe - and i hope you don't take it personally.  i know you are talking about behavior, and above is largely about physical reality.  i'm talking about the fringe and you're talking about the larger constituency.  But i just don't see how it's possible to take generalized observations about the whole and based on those to attempt to separate the mesh of untold interactions between the physical, mental/behavioral, and spiritual aspects of the fringe and then proceed to classify the fringe's various actions cleanly into one of the three bubbles, based on one's (or one's preferred Prophet) interpretation of a God who is beyond the comprehension of mortal mind, all while claiming total objectivity.  

And if one were to question what my point of writing this is, i am not sure.  Not asking for anything.  No agenda.  No demands.  Perhaps just to listen to my own words in the sea of voices that say differently.  Really though, if your present course is giving you happiness, by all means, carry on!  i think what many  have realized is that real peace is only found when you stop letting others create the glasses you see yourself through.  i think when you do that, you begin to see that you don't need to find someone who is willing to sell your own direct relationship to God back to you, in exchange for your obedience to their ideals.  Regardless, God and Jesus are looking out for people on the fringe - and those in the middle.  And that's all any of us can hope for - and more than all of us deserve.

[Anddenex]

22 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

Something I have studied a lot and have a lot of personal experience with is that of sex hormones. Hormones play a huge roll in who we are and how we act. Many people think they are in control of themselves when it’s actually hormones that are controlling them.

Well, I guess all us males we should just toss out moral agency then if we are being controlled by our testosterone levels. 😮

[BJ64]

12 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

Thank-you @Traveler

Here's a heavily cited one that claims a linkage of some sort.  But no doubt, there are dozens of refutations of this study and other studies cited nearly as often that say exactly the opposite.  i sometimes think that about all studies ever prove is that we are capable of seeing things how we want to (if we haven't experienced what's being studied), or how we need to (if we have).  Regardless, i don't know much about a genetic component of homosexuality.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/261/5119/321

But i know quite a bit about the genetics of various intersex conditions.  It's not nearly as rare as a lot of people think.  Talking 1.5-2% of the population.  And it's certainly not limited to one's chromosomes.  You'll not find me using that concept as a hammer with which to turn gender stereotypes into powder - hopefully that doesn't disappoint anyone.  Actually, if anything, i think gender stereotypes are something society uses to turn these people into powder.  Part of society wants to stick their label on you parade you around as a mascot, and the other prefers to forget that you ever existed.  You are either an inconvenient truth, or an exploitable one.

And there's just about every sort of variation you can imagine.  There's the aneuploidys like Klinefelters or Turner Syndrome.  But i think most people believe it stops there.  Actually, any break or abnormality in the steroidogenesis pathway - assuming it doesn't kill you - cause intersex conditions.  Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia/21-Hydroxylase Deficiency or 5-Alpha Reductase Deficiency, etc.,

These are sometimes not found out until puberty when a person who is phenotypically one sex begin to develop sexually into the other as the amount of hormones increase (sex reversal).  Or if they are found out at or near birth, doctors routinely commit the same/similar acts of physical mutilation without the person's consent that society at large turns back in horror and righteous indignation at when done later in life,  with consent (ie T in LGBT).  And all that is typically covered up on a person's birth certificate/hidden from them.

If you've got any one of a number of point mutations in your estrogen or androgen receptor genes, you can have all the hormones in the world, but their impact in the cells will be either greatly reduced (mild or partial), or eliminated altogether (complete) - Estrogen Resistence or Androgen Insensitivity.  Just about anything that upsets the hormonal axis and it's associated feedback mechanisms turns the whole thing on it's head.

You can have sex genes translocate to different chromosomes - Swyer and De La Chapelle Syndrome.  

And who knows the various Asperger's/Autisim-like equivalents that probably account for the level at which a boy or girl expresses typically feminine or masculine traits, and the huge variety of secondary sexual characteristics that one sees.

And that's just the cookbook.  Actually, just 2% of the cookbook.  The other 98% of the genome they're just figuring out what it does.  DNA is nothing until it is expressed (translated and transcribed into proteins) - and heaven only knows the things that affect that.  Genetic imprinting or methylation, etc.,  And then you add a spirit into that body on top of that.

It's really sad.  Movements don't offer a process of democratic election when selecting the people who represent them.  It's pretty much whoever screams the loudest and most newsworthy (clickbait-able) stuff defines the movement.  And then people who have not considered it worth their time to make an attempt to reconcile their fears of what you are with who you actually are foist their fears about what little they know about the movement on you as an intention to destroy what they care about.  Many of the people grouped into this movement don't even identify with it.

There's one quote in one of CS Lewis' books to the effect of,  "That horrible thing that cannot be, and yet somehow is" that i think describes a prevailing viewpoint.  

Anyways, sorry, this is quite the diatribe - and i hope you don't take it personally.  i know you are talking about behavior, and above is largely about physical reality.  i'm talking about the fringe and you're talking about the larger constituency.  But i just don't see how it's possible to take generalized observations about the whole and based on those to attempt to separate the mesh of untold interactions between the physical, mental/behavioral, and spiritual aspects of the fringe and then proceed to classify the fringe's various actions cleanly into one of the three bubbles, based on one's (or one's preferred Prophet) interpretation of a God who is beyond the comprehension of mortal mind, all while claiming total objectivity.  

And if one were to question what my point of writing this is, i am not sure.  Not asking for anything.  No agenda.  No demands.  Perhaps just to listen to my own words in the sea of voices that say differently.  Really though, if your present course is giving you happiness, by all means, carry on!  i think what many  have realized is that real peace is only found when you stop letting others create the glasses you see yourself through.  i think when you do that, you begin to see that you don't need to find someone who is willing to sell your own direct relationship to God back to you, in exchange for your obedience to their ideals.  Regardless, God and Jesus are looking out for people on the fringe - and those in the middle.  And that's all any of us can hope for - and more than all of us deserve.

This is why I would say let them choose which path is best for them and let God be the judge. 

[BJ64]

3 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

Well, I guess all us males we should just toss out moral agency then if we are being controlled by our testosterone levels. 😮

You are being controlled by your testosterone level. That doesn’t exempt you from obeying the commandments but it makes it either a lot harder or a lot easier as the case may be. I think most men don’t realize what power testosterone has on them. 

[Anddenex]

1 minute ago, BJ64 said:

You are being controlled by your testosterone level. That doesn’t exempt you from obeying the commandments but it makes it either a lot harder or a lot easier as the case may be. I think most men don’t realize what power testosterone has on them. 

Ok, if you say so. My testosterone level doesn't control me, but if you want to use the excuse of testosterone level controlling you, that is your choice. I kept chaste because I was in control. I keep chaste because I am in control. If my testosterone level controlled me I wouldn't be chaste. The temptation not to obey the commandment isn't controlling, it is a temptation, otherwise Satan would be the most controlling person, but we no he has no control but can surely tempt.