Gay conversion therapy?

[MrShorty]

On 1/25/2019 at 8:06 AM, The Folk Prophet said:

But, of course, you know that the path to true peace and happiness doesn't involve giving in to base sexual desire.

Yes, this I know. The difficulty is discerning between "base" sexual desires and -- to borrow from Elder Holland -- and "sacramental" sexual desires. Sure some of them are obvious (like desires towards indiscriminant promiscuity), but I also find large gray areas where I am not sure. Couple that with a little bit of cynicism born from prophets and apostles (ancient and modern) who maybe presented their own opinions as God's word, and I find that I am not entirely certain what God has declared to be sin and what man has declared to be sin in the name of God. Given my own difficulties in discernment, I find myself unwilling to tell someone else what they ought to believe God has said. Perhaps someday when I understand all of this better myself, then I will be better able to speak into others' experiences.

[NeuroTypical]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

My impression as a lay person is that there is a lot of evidence that homosexuality is somehow heritable. 

I've heard such notions off and on.  I haven't heard anyone grapple with the obvious question though.  Put ten thousand gay folks in a room and watch them pair up.  By definition, zero of them will have children, right?  Children take a parent with an inney and one with an outey, and when there are two inneys or two outeys, children don't happen.  (Hope to not have offended anyone with my graphic description here  )

So you're left with folk who were at one time practicing heterosexuals (at least practicing enough to reproduce), before they adopted their gay lifestyle.  And that's not many of an already small number.  One would think that the entire theory is bunk, but again, I haven't heard anyone who believes the theory grapple with this obvious reality.  I mean, you'll hear folks do their usual gut reaction "nuh-uh - cuz there's artificial insemination and stuff", but what percentage of gay folk do that?  Not very many.

Edited January 28, 2019 by NeuroTypical

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I've heard such notions off and on.  I haven't heard anyone grapple with the obvious question though.  Put ten thousand gay folks in a room and watch them pair up.  By definition, zero of them will have children, right?  Children take a parent with an inney and one with an outey, and when there are two inneys or two outeys, children don't happen.  (Hope to not have offended anyone with my graphic description here  )

So you're left with folk who were at one time practicing heterosexuals (at least practicing enough to reproduce), before they adopted their gay lifestyle.  And that's not many of an already small number.  One would think that the entire theory is bunk, but again, I haven't heard anyone who believes the theory grapple with this obvious reality.  I mean, you'll hear folks do their usual gut reaction "nuh-uh - cuz there's artificial insemination and stuff", but what percentage of gay folk do that?  Not very many.

Unfortunately, there is a response to that question which is hypothetically reasonable.  And there's the also common: That's because people were in the closet trying to make it work.

Well, if this second explanation is true, it sounds like a homosexual can live a heterosexual life successfully.

[MrShorty]

@NeuroTypical I don't know that no one is trying to address this. One of the great successes of Mendelian genetics was its ability to explain how traits could appear in a children that were absent in either parent (recessive genes). Again, if you are expecting final answers, we don't have them, yet. But, there seem to be many trying to understand how homosexuality could be heritable when neither parent exhibits the trait. It seems widely accepted that homosexuality is not inherited in simple Mendelian dominant/recessive single gene manner. It appears to be more of a complex interaction of genes and some even hypothesize in-utero factors post fertilzation that could contribute. We don't have all the answers, but some of what we can see suggests that, yes, homosexuality can be inherited even when neither parent exhibits the trait.

[carlimac]

5 hours ago, Carborendum said:

It doesn't really matter if one is born that way or not

Have you ever dyed/bleached your hair? Used lipstick? Makeup? Nail polish?

What do you think of transgenderism?

I'm not sure I like your comparison. Cosmetic changes are external/surface and can be changed at will on a daily basis without much moral implication.  Plus, changing one's hair color doesn't really change their hair color. It will always grow back it's natural color ( unless a person's physiology is altered somehow. Chemotherapy often changes the color and texture of hair that grows back after being lost.

 Sexual identity obviously isn't like nail polish or make-up at all. I believe it's a mental/emotional/and even spiritual thing. I very much believe people are born with their gender that was decided at the moment of conception and along with that, their potential to pair and reproduce with the opposite gender. I cannot believe at all that babies are born gay or straight. That is nonsense.   But humans are born with certain tendencies in areas such as emotional sensitivity, athletic, musical, analytical abilities, etc. Those tendencies are molded, expanded, inhibited, colored, stretched, hidden...whatever, by our environment. Mostly by our life circumstances- who we live with, where we live, what we're exposed to, how we are taught and nurtured and treated as we grow and develop.  It's environment, circumstance and life experiences having an effect on tendencies (which ARE genetic) that determine whether one will end up with same gender attraction or not. This is my theory and the one that makes the most sense to me. 

It does matter how one was born because those parts of us are much harder to change once they have been established and rooted in someone's mind. Not at all like using nail polish remover to change one's nail polish color. Transgenderism is mostly like cosmetic changes although you start messing with hormones and it very much changes your temperament and perhaps even the way you think and behave.  

 

edit: It didn't look to me like it was posting. Can a mod just delete the two previous posts. Thx.

 

Edited January 28, 2019 by carlimac

[NeuroTypical]

22 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

 there seem to be many trying to understand how homosexuality could be heritable when neither parent exhibits the trait. 

Neither parent has green eyes, but one out of their eight kids do, 8% chance that black moths kids will be white, that sort of thing?   That makes sense.  I was thinking the notion was "If your parents were gay, you have a higher chance of being gay yourself", but sounds like that's not the notion.

Edited January 28, 2019 by NeuroTypical

[The Folk Prophet]

16 hours ago, MrShorty said:

The difficulty is discerning between "base" sexual desires and -- to borrow from Elder Holland -- and "sacramental" sexual desires. 

The notion that this is difficult is absurd.

16 hours ago, MrShorty said:

but I also find large gray areas where I am not sure

And two men getting it on with each other is one of these gray areas for you?

16 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Couple that with a little bit of cynicism born from prophets and apostles (ancient and modern) who maybe presented their own opinions as God's word, and I find that I am not entirely certain what God has declared to be sin and what man has declared to be sin in the name of God.

I understand what you're talking about (literally...I believe I know the exact things you are talking about) and it sounds to me, as it always does, like excuses being made to turn the simple into complicated in the name of carnal values projected as if they are eternal ones -- as if oral sexual activity or the like is important and has anything to do with true happiness.

16 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Given my own difficulties in discernment, I find myself unwilling to tell someone else what they ought to believe God has said.

Once again...the notion of comparing the so-called "gray areas" of appropriate behavior in heterosexual married sexual relationships to homosexuality in any regard is absurd.

16 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Perhaps someday when I understand all of this better myself, then I will be better able to speak into others' experiences.

It's about like saying -- since I don't know the exact line of when it's appropriate to take up arms in rebellion against tyranny I am unwilling to ever claim murder a sin.

Bull-oney.

[MrShorty]

8 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

And two men getting it on with each other is one of these gray areas for you?

It's a bit blunt, but, yes, this is one of those gray areas for me. I can see how promiscuous sexual behavior (heterosexual or homosexual) is on the "wrong" side of the line. But I do not understand the prohibition against monogamous homosexual activity in a committed marriage like relationship. Other than the assertions of ancient and modern prophets and apostles (who can make mistakes), I do not understand why monogamous homosexual sexual activity in a marriage like relationship is sinful.

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

It's a bit blunt, but, yes, this is one of those gray areas for me. I can see how promiscuous sexual behavior (heterosexual or homosexual) is on the "wrong" side of the line. But I do not understand the prohibition against monogamous homosexual activity in a committed marriage like relationship. Other than the assertions of ancient and modern prophets and apostles (who can make mistakes), I do not understand why monogamous homosexual sexual activity in a marriage like relationship is sinful.

Either you believe that Marriage is designed as a foundation of Families that anchors the next generation or you don't.

Either you believe that Gender is not a component to Marriage - that is, Gender is interchangeable such that there is no distinction between a Female Mother or a Male Mother and no distinction between a Female Father or a Male Father that poses any societal disadvantage to the Family... or you do.

 

[The Folk Prophet]

2 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Other than the assertions of ancient and modern prophets and apostles (who can make mistakes)

This premise is ridiculous.

There is no "other than". There is God's will as given by ancient and modern prophets and apostles.

There is following, and there is rebelling against. There is faithfulness, and there is unfaithfulness.

There are covenants and there are the breaking of them.

The "they might be mistaken" nonsense in nonsense. A. Unlikely. B. Even if so it is irrelevant until God wills to make it known otherwise. There is still following or rebelling, faithfulness or unfaithfulness. Following, faithfulness, and the keeping of covenants leads to peace and happiness, rebellion, unfaithfulness, and the breaking of covenants leads to misery and destruction. Period. It's not complicated and nuanced. It's as straightforward as it can possible be, and those who take the simple and try to make it complicated and nuanced are embracing dishonesty.

2 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I do not understand why monogamous homosexual sexual activity in a marriage like relationship is sinful.

Then you don't understand eternal marriage, and the purpose of fidelity and commitment therein. You're under the impression, apparently, that sexual fidelity is a virtue in and of itself. It's not. Faithfulness in the marriage covenant is directly tied to the purposes of eternal marriage. Sex outside of marriage is a sin because of the importance of eternal marriage. Why else would it be? What could possible be wrong with an unwed young man and woman engaging in protected non-impregnating sex if it wasn't that sex was directly tied to the value of eternal marriage and commitment WITHIN that state? Take away the eternal marriage aspect and fidelity has no more meaning than a contract -- the breaking of which may have it's own sins (honesty being one of them), but the actual contract itself has no purpose. Why, with the removal of eternal families as the point, would there be value in committing sexually to a single individual?

There is none. There is no wholesomeness in the unwholesome. There is only man-made counterfeit pseudo-virtue masquerading as wholesome as a lie to further Satan's goals of destroying God's plan...which plan is eternal families.

Edited January 29, 2019 by The Folk Prophet

[Grunt]

2 hours ago, MrShorty said:

It's a bit blunt, but, yes, this is one of those gray areas for me. I can see how promiscuous sexual behavior (heterosexual or homosexual) is on the "wrong" side of the line. But I do not understand the prohibition against monogamous homosexual activity in a committed marriage like relationship. Other than the assertions of ancient and modern prophets and apostles (who can make mistakes), I do not understand why monogamous homosexual sexual activity in a marriage like relationship is sinful.

This astonishes me.  I don't even have words to describe it.

[mikbone]

This story really bothers me for a couple of reasons

1) Temple sealing covent blasphemy.

2) The fact that he made $$ off of his books and therapy sessions.

3) The way society treats him and others of his ilk as ‘brave’ trailblazers.

4) “I remember most of it with fondness and gratitude for the joy and growth it caused in me and many others. But I had stopped growing and was starting to die,” he said. “I wasn’t faking it all those years. I’m not renouncing my past work or my LDS faith. And I’m not condemning mixed-orientation marriages. I continue to support the rights of individuals to choose how they will respond to their sexual attractions and identity. With that freedom, I am now choosing to pursue life as a gay man.”

Edited January 29, 2019 by mikbone

[JohnsonJones]

The problem with biology is that, even if it were a recessive gene, or found in the recessive requiring two recessives, it eventually would breed itself out if it were relayed to pure homosexuality.  Perhaps with a bi-sexual component that indicates a way for it to move beyond a few generations, but on it's own, much like many other traits, it would be breeded out simply due to the nature that homosexual individuals do not have children. 

Even if it stuck around, the percentage that it is exhibited, compared to the percentages that we supposedly have in our population, should be MUCH smaller.  In essence, intersex individuals would be a better representation of the ideas that we may be looking at with how this idea works, and yet, there are those who are intersex (sometimes inherited traits that are increased by other things to turn one in such a way, and sometimes just the randomness of biology) that somehow actually have children by their own desires, as opposed to what a purely homosexual individual would be put upon to do.  If it was purely inherited, I would imagine that the homosexual population may be smaller than those of the intersex population percentage.

That does not mean there are not biological components to it, and in fact many scientific theories point to the idea of biological factors influencing homosexuality in individuals. Unfortunately we do not understand completely how these things work or interact.  It may be that there are various other factors we have not isolated yet that combine both inherited traits that predispose someone to be homosexual or more likely to turn that way, that when combined with other biological instances and/or social situations can create the right formula to have people be homosexual instead of heterosexual.  Whatever the cause, there are more homosexual individuals than most other types of non-heterosexual groups that live among us. 

It's involved with areas of science that we are only just beginning to understand.  We have a long way to go in understanding all there is understand in these areas and there probably will be great discoveries over the next century dealing with the genetics and biology of this and other aspects of our gender, orientation, and sex.

If I were homosexual I would be disgusted with the guy mentioned in this thread.  If I were part of the group that were trying to be changed in my orientation by him, I would feel betrayed and hurt.  If I were one of those who disagreed with what he was doing, I'd be disgusted with his own hypocrisy.  He spent years telling others to do the exact opposite of what he decided was best for him to do now. 

Hopefully he can find happiness, but I think both sides may rear their opinions towards him sooner or later and they will be unavoidable walls that will reflect their own disgust at his actions.  It may be that he will be able to overcome it, or he may come to a bitter end of his own accord when faced with the reality of those he has betrayed as well as those who hate him all the more now that they feel they are proven that he is a hypocrite.  I don't see either side welcoming him with open arms after this.

He may, after that reflect on what he has lost...or he may somehow find his own path to happiness in his own mind, at least temporarily while living his life here on earth. 

The biggest thing is I just can't see any group that he wants to associate with now actually being happy with him.  In this move he's basically made his enemies that hated him already be more convinced they were right and he was evil, and many others really disliking what he's said and feeling a deep sense of hurt and betrayal. 

If anything I think I feel more sad for him and about his situation than anything else.  I think he is going to have a rough time going forward, at least for the near future.  Maybe further into the future people will forget and won't hold things against him.

Edited January 29, 2019 by JohnsonJones

[Guest]

On 1/27/2019 at 9:19 PM, carlimac said:

I'm not sure I like your comparison. Cosmetic changes are external/surface and can be changed at will on a daily basis without much moral implication.  Plus, changing one's hair color doesn't really change their hair color. It will always grow back it's natural color ( unless a person's physiology is altered somehow. Chemotherapy often changes the color and texture of hair that grows back after being lost.

That's kind of my point.

On 1/27/2019 at 9:19 PM, carlimac said:

 Sexual identity obviously isn't like nail polish or make-up at all. I believe it's a mental/emotional/and even spiritual thing.

I absolutely believe that as well.  So, Christ's Atonement is to help us change the spiritual.  If it cannot change the spiritual, what's the point.

On 1/27/2019 at 9:19 PM, carlimac said:

Transgenderism is mostly like cosmetic changes although you start messing with hormones and it very much changes your temperament and perhaps even the way you think and behave.

Yes, "like".  But it goes much deeper than mere cosmetics.  It goes into hormones (as you said) and it sometimes goes to surgery.  These are not things that you can easily reverse.  And some things cause irreparable harm.

They're perfectly happy going in for surgery to change something that is usually thought of as unchangeable.  But they are absolutely adamant that one cannot change one's sexual preference.  This shows a cognitive disconnect.

The reason I brought all this up is that you said it was "cruel" to try to change the way someone is born.  Since that is usually an argument from the LGBQT side, I assumed you were saying that we can't change "gay".

If I'm mistaken in that interpretation, I guess we agree.  If that was a correct interpretation, then I'd ask you to consider how you just contradicted yourself.

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

That's kind of my point.

I absolutely believe that as well.  So, Christ's Atonement is to help us change the spiritual.  If it cannot change the spiritual, what's the point.

Yes, "like".  But it goes much deeper than mere cosmetics.  It goes into hormones (as you said) and it sometimes goes to surgery.  These are not things that you can easily reverse.  And some things cause irreparable harm.

They're perfectly happy going in for surgery to change something that is usually thought of as unchangeable.  But they are absolutely adamant that one cannot change one's sexual preference.  This shows a cognitive disconnect.

The reason I brought all this up is that you said it was "cruel" to try to change the way someone is born.  Since that is usually an argument from the LGBQT side, I assumed you were saying that we can't change "gay".

If I'm mistaken in that interpretation, I guess we agree.  If that was a correct interpretation, then I'd ask you to consider how you just contradicted yourself.

Wait... leftist ideals don't make sense!?!

The shock! Mind blown. No way! Holy cow!

You mean...like being against capital punishment but for abortion? You mean like being against intolerance but for oppressing Christianity? You mean like being for women's rights and also somehow pro women-oppressing cultures? You mean like being against racial prejudice but for affirmative action?

And here I thought it was the party of science and logic.

My world view is destroyed!

[MrShorty]

15 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Then you don't understand eternal marriage, and the purpose of fidelity and commitment therein.

Guilty as charged.

[carlimac]

On 1/29/2019 at 8:14 AM, Carborendum said:

That's kind of my point.

I absolutely believe that as well.  So, Christ's Atonement is to help us change the spiritual.  If it cannot change the spiritual, what's the point.

Yes, "like".  But it goes much deeper than mere cosmetics.  It goes into hormones (as you said) and it sometimes goes to surgery.  These are not things that you can easily reverse.  And some things cause irreparable harm.

They're perfectly happy going in for surgery to change something that is usually thought of as unchangeable.  But they are absolutely adamant that one cannot change one's sexual preference.  This shows a cognitive disconnect.

The reason I brought all this up is that you said it was "cruel" to try to change the way someone is born.  Since that is usually an argument from the LGBQT side, I assumed you were saying that we can't change "gay".

If I'm mistaken in that interpretation, I guess we agree.  If that was a correct interpretation, then I'd ask you to consider how you just contradicted yourself.

This is what I said: "And yet this seems to be the pat answer from the LGBT community- It's cruel to try to change what someone is, what they have always been from birth."  Draw an arrow from the word "this" to the phrase past the  dash (which probably should have been in quotation marks.) In other words, the battle cry from LGBTs is that "it's cruel to change what they have always been from birth." I personally don't believe any baby is born gay. Their belief, not mine. Does that make sense now? I wasn't contradicting myself at all. 

 

Edited February 2, 2019 by carlimac

[NightSG]

On 1/27/2019 at 4:27 PM, MrShorty said:

they have failed to find a "gay gene", for example.

Just imagine the day after they identify a GLBTQEIEIO gene that can be detected in-utero.

As soon as people start making the connection between identifying the fetus and abortions being readily available and societally accepted as birth control...

Edited February 6, 2019 by NightSG

[Just_A_Guy]

This didn’t seem worth a new thread, but it seemed worth noting somehow:

 

Edited February 14, 2019 by Just_A_Guy

[Just_A_Guy]

On 2/6/2019 at 2:23 PM, NightSG said:

Just imagine the day after they identify a GLBTQEIEIO gene that can be detected in-utero.

As soon as people start making the connection between identifying the fetus and abortions being readily available and societally accepted as birth control...

Aren’t researchers starting to think that something called “epigenetics” may play a role?

[NightSG]

7 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Aren’t researchers starting to think that something called “epigenetics” may play a role?

So, we either hook up a sub-channel decoder to the gene sequencer, or just get 4chan to convince all the gullible ones that it's already been done.