Homosexuality and the LDS community [Archive]

bzcutah

13th March 2005, 11:19 AM

Since this issue has been tossed around so much, I thought that I would give my speculation on the topic.

It is known that Salt Lake City has a large homosexual population, comparitively.

In another thread, there was discussion of homosexuality in the animal kingdom.

This got me to looking for answers.

In a google search I found this link:

http://www.truth-and-justice.info/gay-animals.html

This is a quote from that link, that made a connection to my theory about the large population of homosexuality in SLC.

But what happens, when animals with such reproductive process find themselves in unnatural circumstances, such as captivity or domestication, where their behaviour is at the mercy of the humans?

Such as when 2 young men, at their most sexual peak in life, and their most neive and vulnerable stage in life are put "in-captivity" (so-to-speak) with one another, with another young male being their only companion, their room-mate, their confidoant.

I don't think that this forces them to be gay, but in a time when their instincts are driven by raging hormones, it certainly opens the possibility to homosexuality.

I've also read a study by a scientist named LeVay, that basically says that when humans are born, males and females are alike mentality, almost identically alike.
But on the 3rd day a natural occurance of testosterone floods the brain, and severs neuro-membrains that make the two alike. Thus making the boy more rough and rambunctious and opens up the brains ability to tell the glands to make more testosterone, continuously.

There are many occurances where the testosterone does not flood a boys brain as is typically should. Leaving the boys neuro-membrains connected in ways that girls are connected, and making him more feminine.

While femininity is not homosexuality, in the right circumstance, a boy who has been made to feel like a girl can find other males that are similar attractive, or atleast more emotionally stimulating.

So tens of thousands of boys leave Utah for their missions, to spend 2 years bunking up with another young man.

It seems like it makes perfect sense to me know, why Utah has so many homosexual men.

BTW- I know this is a sensitive topic, and Im announcing now, that I am not trying to cause any damage here. But I think that knowlege is the best remedy to prejudice, and there is no reason NOT to talk about this subject in a civil way.

I hope that you agree.

miss taken

13th March 2005, 11:39 AM

Since this issue has been tossed around so much, I thought that I would give my speculation on the topic.

It is known that Salt Lake City has a large homosexual population, comparitively.

In another thread, there was discussion of homosexuality in the animal kingdom.

This got me to looking for answers.

In a google search I found this link:

http://www.truth-and-justice.info/gay-animals.html

This is a quote from that link, that made a connection to my theory about the large population of homosexuality in SLC.

Such as when 2 young men, at their most sexual peak in life, and their most neive and vulnerable stage in life are put "in-captivity" (so-to-speak) with one another, with another young male being their only companion, their room-mate, their confidoant.

I don't think that this forces them to be gay, but in a time when their instincts are driven by raging hormones, it certainly opens the possibility to homosexuality.

I've also read a study by a scientist named LeVay, that basically says that when humans are born, males and females are alike mentality, almost identically alike.
But on the 3rd day a natural occurance of testosterone floods the brain, and severs neuro-membrains that make the two alike. Thus making the boy more rough and rambunctious and opens up the brains ability to tell the glands to make more testosterone, continuously.

There are many occurances where the testosterone does not flood a boys brain as is typically should. Leaving the boys neuro-membrains connected in ways that girls are connected, and making him more feminine.

While femininity is not homosexuality, in the right circumstance, a boy who has been made to feel like a girl can find other males that are similar attractive, or atleast more emotionally stimulating.

So tens of thousands of boys leave Utah for their missions, to spend 2 years bunking up with another young man.

It seems like it makes perfect sense to me know, why Utah has so many homosexual men.

BTW- I know this is a sensitive topic, and Im announcing now, that I am not trying to cause any damage here. But I think that knowlege is the best remedy to prejudice, and there is no reason NOT to talk about this subject in a civil way.

I hope that you agree.

I dunno, I'm just not sure about your hypothesis.
In the UK we have a lot of single sex schools. Yes, stuff goes on, but it doesn't make you 'gay'. I would assume that this is similar in some ways to a 2 year mission. I lived with a female companion for 19 months, did that make me gay, no. Didn't even cross my mind to look on another female in a sexual way. Though I am sure that there are psychological entrances into homosexuality, I have a pretty strong inkling that you are born that way. Too much pain to choose it for most people.
Mary

silverfox

13th March 2005, 11:56 AM

BTW- I know this is a sensitive topic, and Im announcing now, that I am not trying to cause any damage here. But I think that knowlege is the best remedy to prejudice, and there is no reason NOT to talk about this subject in a civil way.

I hope that you agree.

Yeah, no way on the missionary/church and gay thing...just because young men are sent on missions together? No way. What about the female gay populatino in the church? They spend too much time with their Young Women's leader or something? Doesn't make any sense.

The gay community is alive, well, and very healthy in many parts of the nation and world not just Utard. And within ALL religions, races, cultures, classes.

Knowledge or opinion? The research I have done has mostly returned only opinion (and most provided in a God's name) which can be debated endlessly.

IMHO, the people who have the knowledge regarding homosexuality are those who ARE homosexual. Who are we to debate them?

I am so impressed with our gay members here and their willingness to share their experiences, desires and goals and knowledge here with us. They have done that in many of our threads. I cherish the insight they have provided to us. That's enough research for me.
:)

bzcutah

13th March 2005, 12:09 PM

bzcutah

13th March 2005, 12:22 PM

This link:
http://www.truth-and-justice.info/gay-animals.html

Also mentions religion and the role that it takes in homosexuality. It's definately related to this subject.

Such as restricting sexual behavior doesn't slow the issue down, it only speeds it up.

It's like prohibition of alcohol in the 20s. Drunkeness only increased when alcohol was forbidden.

Same thing with homosexuality according to this article.
Prohibition seems to fuel the fire.

silverfox

13th March 2005, 12:29 PM

I have some great friends and a cousin who is gay.

All of those friends and relatives that I know who are gay, are the kindest, and most productive people that I know.

Im certainly not condemning gay people here.

But there is certainly a large population of homosexual people in SLC comparitively.

Anyway.. I was certainly just sharing my opinion. I've not claimed my hypothisis as a fact.

Hey, B, I appreciate your opinions and observations and your willingness to share them. I find them very interesting. And I understand completely that you have no intention on condemning anyone who is gay. I am sorry if my post may have reflected otherwise. It certainly was not my intention. Like you, I was only sharing my opinion.

I've never seen the research you are talking about regarding the gay community in Utah compartively.

Probably like most people, I always thought CA had the corner on that. :) (I should mention many of my coworkers live in San Francisco and many of them are gay - never Mos) Of course I have never seen any studies on it.

Jeff_Ricks

13th March 2005, 12:34 PM

Since this issue has been tossed around so much, I thought that I would give my speculation on the topic.

It is known that Salt Lake City has a large homosexual population, comparitively.

In another thread, there was discussion of homosexuality in the animal kingdom.

This got me to looking for answers.

In a google search I found this link:

http://www.truth-and-justice.info/gay-animals.html

This is a quote from that link, that made a connection to my theory about the large population of homosexuality in SLC.

Such as when 2 young men, at their most sexual peak in life, and their most neive and vulnerable stage in life are put "in-captivity" (so-to-speak) with one another, with another young male being their only companion, their room-mate, their confidoant.

I don't think that this forces them to be gay, but in a time when their instincts are driven by raging hormones, it certainly opens the possibility to homosexuality.

I've also read a study by a scientist named LeVay, that basically says that when humans are born, males and females are alike mentality, almost identically alike.
But on the 3rd day a natural occurance of testosterone floods the brain, and severs neuro-membrains that make the two alike. Thus making the boy more rough and rambunctious and opens up the brains ability to tell the glands to make more testosterone, continuously.

There are many occurances where the testosterone does not flood a boys brain as is typically should. Leaving the boys neuro-membrains connected in ways that girls are connected, and making him more feminine.

While femininity is not homosexuality, in the right circumstance, a boy who has been made to feel like a girl can find other males that are similar attractive, or atleast more emotionally stimulating.

So tens of thousands of boys leave Utah for their missions, to spend 2 years bunking up with another young man.

It seems like it makes perfect sense to me know, why Utah has so many homosexual men.

BTW- I know this is a sensitive topic, and Im announcing now, that I am not trying to cause any damage here. But I think that knowlege is the best remedy to prejudice, and there is no reason NOT to talk about this subject in a civil way.

I hope that you agree.

My comment is this: Just because someone writes an opinion with unsubstantiated claims and does it under the title "Truth, Honesty and Justice" doesn't make the opinions and claims true. Such controversial claims, as represented in your hypothesis and in the opinions stated in the links require, in my opinion, something of substance, such as references to papers and credible studies, to back them up. I'm not seeing any of that in the information offered.

Jeff :)

silverfox

13th March 2005, 12:41 PM

As forum manager and because this IS such a sensitive subject I am posting the following reminder for anyone who is considering participating in this discussion (including myself)

As our home page states, this forum does not support discrimination of anyone based on "creed, age, race or sexual orientation."

I don't anticipate any issues because all members who have particpated in this board thus far have shown nothing but respect and acceptance for each other. As a result of that I believe we have learned so much from each other.

However there are lurkers who may wish to "ruin the fun".

Anyone who does not support the forum's stand on discrimination is in jeopardy of having posts deleted and being banned from the forum. The thread may be locked or deleted.

With all that aside, let's proceed. :)

lsands

13th March 2005, 01:35 PM

As far as I know, while there are many theories about why people are inclined to be homosexual or heterosexual, no one knows anything for sure. The real question for me is, WHY IS IT IMPORTANT? If it is proven that being gay is biological (a view that I lean toward), will those who now think it is immoral change their minds? If it is proven that being gay is a choice, does it then follow that it is immoral? I think that the answer is No, and no.

Same-sex attraction IS, and always has been, a reality. I accept people for who they ARE without needing to figure out WHY they are that way (as if I could!) I believe it is the right of every human being to live the most fulfilling life that he or she can and experience and give the greatest amount of love possible. How they do that is up to them, not up to me.

Laraine

BTW, bzcutah, where do you get the information that there is a higher-than-normal rate of homosexuality in Utah? I've never heard that before.

bzcutah

13th March 2005, 02:13 PM

silverfox

13th March 2005, 02:23 PM

Here are some links that I found.

This link in particular concerns Utah and the LDS population in relation to the homosexual population.
http://www.ldsmag.com/familywatch/040903born2.html

I was suprised to find them reference LeVays research in this article.

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!! My eyes! My eyes! SOMEONE PLEASE HAND ME A TOWEL! My eyes!!!! Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! I CAN'T SEE, I CAN'T SEE!!!!!!!! AHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

Whew, okay, I'm better now. :)

I swore I would go blind before I EVER looked at Meridian Magazine again. (you should post a warning before posting links like that!) :D

Seriously, I have no respect for Meridian Magazine. On too many occassions when I have tried to validate some of their resources so much of the info they used was taken out of context. And so much is so opinionated. argh :Puking

bzcutah

13th March 2005, 02:28 PM

I didn't disguise the URL.... But sorry anyway.

Seriously, LeVay is a good resource, and is certainly not LDS.

silverfox

13th March 2005, 02:30 PM

Here are some links that I found.

This link in particular concerns Utah and the LDS population in relation to the homosexual population.
http://www.ldsmag.com/familywatch/040903born2.html

I was suprised to find them reference LeVays research in this article.

Here is information on the gay population in Utah.
http://www.xmission.com/~bradley/queer.htm

I haven't been able to find the actually numbers of the census for SLC's gay population. But I have seen it referenced many times to be comparible to San Francisco's gay population per capitate.

As for facts, I have referenced LeVay many times, and I didn't know specifically where to find information on the net, about the actual research. But the first article that I referenced here does have information about LeVay's scientific research.

As to "if it matters".. Sure it matters. I think that diversity is great, and so is tolerance. But ignorance is not always bliss. What people don't know leads them to be ignorantly biased one way OR the other. But knowledge can alliviate any prejudice or ignorance.

I remember reading not long ago that since the Olympics that Utard was now less than 50% Mormon. (it's just that the TBMS are LOUD I guess, thus they still have a lot of control)

I just don't see the significance...no proof of numbers stating that most gay Utahns are Mo.

For something so controversial where there is no proof either way (for those who NEED proof) I agree with Laraine. It doesn't matter. IMO, we are talking opinion vs. knowledge. Are opinions KNOWLEDGE? Not in my book. If so, hey, I'm pretty dang knowledgable cuz I got lots of opinions. :D

bzcutah

13th March 2005, 02:33 PM

bzcutah

13th March 2005, 02:44 PM

BTW- Im going to be out all day fishing. But I will catch up tomorrow with more sources.

I think that homosexuality is under-reported rather than over reported, exspecially in a place like SLC. That's why I referenced the site that I did, because the gay/lesbian events/activities/business is a better reflection of the gay population than census.

As for the scientist LeVay. I know there is something on the net somewhere (besides Meridian mag), so I will look for it and post it when I find it tomorrow.

The article I read, I think it may have been in TIME or Newsweek, was very un-bias and very well documented.
I will try to dig that article up again.

L8rz

silverfox

13th March 2005, 02:47 PM

There are numbers out there, and when I have time to look I will find them.

Sorry that you find my opinions offensive.

I did note a few credible references, even though you are offended by Meridiane mag, the scientific research listed there IS fact, and is credible, and is not LDS.

As for the gay population. At the gay/lesbian parade last year 15000 people showed up. Thats pretty significant for the size of SLC.

B, I don't understand why you think I find your opinions so offensive??????? I may not agree with you but hey, big deal!

I AM offended by Meridian Magazine-that is true but not by you. C'mon!!!!! Hey, I am starting to bond with you like you are my brother or something and we get to "banter" (for lack of a better word) with each other.

Can my kids call you Uncle "B"? :D

bzcutah

13th March 2005, 02:49 PM

Sorry, I miss-interpreted.

;)

Talk to you soon!

Jeff_Ricks

13th March 2005, 03:10 PM

There are numbers out there, and when I have time to look I will find them.

Sorry that you find my opinions offensive.

I did note a few credible references, even though you are offended by Meridiane mag, the scientific research listed there IS fact, and is credible, and is not LDS.

As for the gay population. At the gay/lesbian parade last year 15000 people showed up. Thats pretty significant for the size of SLC.

Here's my two bits worth...again. I guess that means I'm up to four bits now :cool:

I'm interested in the numbers when you have time to find them. BUT I think it should also be considered that it doesn't really matter what the ratio is in the grand scheme of things; it can be interesting information and should be noted, but not until it can be demonstrated that the high numbers have a negative effect on society, in this case Utah, does it begin to "matter". It should also be weighed against the obvious negative effect that the pervasive intolerance and judgmentalism that exists in Utah has on society in general.

Disclaimer:These are my opinions only.

Jeff

Born Free

13th March 2005, 04:05 PM

It is years nows since I saw some research findings out of Germany, which had looked at the incidence of homosexual offspring of mothers who carried babies at various periods during WW11. It concluded that there appeared to be a link between high stress levels and homosexual offspring. Offspring whose German mothers had conceived and carried during the Allied bombing phases were statistically more likely to be homosexual.

I am most conscious in quoting the above that this could be interpreted as saying "Homosexuality is a defect that can be cured by treating the high stress". That is just one of many interpretations that could be assigned to that finding, and I personally do not subscribe to the idea that homosexuality is a disease to be treated.

After a recent discussion about homosexuality and repression in Utard, I went looking to see if there is a high incidence of AIDS in Utard, and there was not. I was thinking along the lines that a repressive culture might produce more high-risk behaviour, even denial of homosexuality, whilst living in married (hetero) relationships. The AIDS results were not there, so that did not support my theory.

The depression data for women in Utard would suggest high levels of stress, which, if the German results have stood up over the 20 or so years since I read them, would provide one explantion why homosexuality is high in Utard, if it is.

My understanding is that the testerone 'rushes' come at several key stages in a persons development, and the first ones as I recall come in the uterus, but I will recheck that.

Daryl

ifitmakesuhappy

13th March 2005, 04:08 PM

:D you lot talk wayyyyyyy to much lol
i found bzcutah's theory on missionaries very interesting. It's true, they are at their sexual peak and locked up for 2 years with other guys in the same boat...its quite possible that could have some kind of effect on them. Sister missionaries? well us ladies are lucky enough to only hit our sexual peak in later years, when we're experienced enough to make the most of it :D ...anyway all that aside...i wont be the first to point out that sexuality is something that we're born with, although im certain there are many instances where circumstance just leads someone that way. Generally speaking, if a guy comes home from his mission with gay tendancies, he probably had them wayyyy before he went, even if he didnt realise it, or didnt admit to it, which is more likely.
As for all the links that have been posted...i cant be bothered with them lol n anyway u lot are far to intelligent for me to argue with :eek: so this is just my opinion...the way i see it...and like someone already said, nothing has been proved either way so this thread could go on forever!
But thats the great thing about post moism huh - we can have different opinions n not like each other any less

silverfox

13th March 2005, 04:44 PM

The depression data for women in Utard would suggest high levels of stress, which, if the German results have stood up over the 20 or so years since I read them, would provide one explantion why homosexuality is high in Utard, if it is.

My understanding is that the testerone 'rushes' come at several key stages in a persons development, and the first ones as I recall come in the uterus, but I will recheck that.

Daryl

This doesn't make sense to me. I am not arguing your observation, it just doesn't make sense at all to me. I was a very stressed mom - none of my kids are gay. I grew up with kids with major stressed out parents. (ever grow up in a ghetto?) None of them turned out gay. My parents were extremely stressed - none of us turned out gay. Depression and stress are everywhere. It just doesn't make sense to me.

silverfox

13th March 2005, 04:48 PM

Born Free

13th March 2005, 05:09 PM

This doesn't make sense to me. I am not arguing your observation, it just doesn't make sense at all to me. I was a very stressed mom - none of my kids are gay. I grew up with kids with major stressed out parents. (ever grow up in a ghetto?) None of them turned out gay. My parents were extremely stressed - none of us turned out gay. Depression and stress are everywhere. It just doesn't make sense to me.

We are talking statistical probability here. The data I am sure did not say "Increase stress x% and you will get a gay kid". Way too simple!

It stated that there was a meaningful statistical correlation between the higher stress period, and a rise (forget the %, but it would have to be higher than random chance), in the rate of homosexuality of resultant offspring. They would likely have worked to isolate the variables, but I was much less aware then of the design of good research.

BTW, I am speaking of a period when bombers droned in at 5-6 miles altitude night after night and rained relatively random destruction. That would be bad enough, but to be exposed to that whilst carrying a child, and hoping you would safely deliver it into a safe world must have been scary and ultra-stressful.

I stress I do not know how that research has stood up to the intervening 20 years.

You said "Depression and stress are everywhere." I beg to differ. Stress occurs at acute levels in measurable pockets, of which the biggest pocket is the industrial West. There is no question in medicine now that prolonged stress will produce depression in a significant percentage of people. Stress results from physical, mental or emotional trauma.

They are not rain that falls randomly upon all.

Daryl

PS: Silverfox, I am mindful of not trivializing your personal and family experience, so want to confirm that I hear you loud and clear.

PSS: OK, I went and rechecked the latest take on that research and found that teh findings could not be replicated, so the issue is laid to rest:

Abstract: "This study attempted to replicate a series of investigations by Gunter Dörner and his associates that concluded that more homosexual men are born in wartime than in times of peace. That conclusion is based on Dörner's belief that war induces stress in pregnant women and that stress causes a drop in fetal androgen levels which in turn leads to the development of a homosexual "orientation." The replication not only failed to support the Dörner conclusion but also found that even those cities that suffered the most severe bombing during World War II showed no evidence of increased numbers of homosexuals. The authors conclude that homosexual men can go on loving peace and getting involved in the peace movement."

lsands

14th March 2005, 02:53 AM

I appreciate the respectful attitude of all of those who are posting here. However, it seems to me that simply trying to find out what "causes" homosexuality implies that there is something wrong with it. After all, we're not trying to find out what causes heterosexuality, are we?

It could be argued that this is because heterosexuality is the "norm". Statistically this is true; my concern is that just because it is true statistically there is an assumption by some that this makes homosexuality "abnormal" in some assessment of acceptability or value. I reject this idea completely.

I feel particularly concerned with this discussion on a post-mormon board because Mormon gay men and lesbians have suffered so much over this issue. There are several people who have shared here the pain they have experienced because of both the teachings of the church and the attitudes and actions of church members. There is a high rate of suicide among gay Mormons [for more info. go to http://www.affirmation.org/suicides/suicides.asp] I do not want them to feel that anything here is less than welcoming and supportive of them in any way, or perpetuate the idea that we believe there is something 'wrong" with them.

As to "if it matters".. Sure it matters. I think that diversity is great, and so is tolerance. But ignorance is not always bliss. What people don't know leads them to be ignorantly biased one way OR the other. But knowledge can alliviate any prejudice or ignorance. bzcutah

bzcutah, I'm not clear on what "ignorance" you're talking about here. It seems that this issue is of great concern to you, and I wonder why that is. From your posts on this thread and others, it seems to me that the purpose of your discussion is critical of homosexuality and to show that it is "unnatural" or deviant morally. If I'm mistaken, then please correct me.

I am uncomfortable with this discussion because I fear that, no matter how carefully it is framed, it is ultimately disrespectful of gay men and women.

Laraine

p.s. Here is another link to an article on the Affirmation website, entitled: Homosexuality: A Psychiatrist's Response to LDS Social Services By Jeffery R. Jensen, M.D. http://www.affirmation.org/learning/homosexuality_a_psychiatrists_response.asp

bzcutah

14th March 2005, 03:17 AM

I would say that it concerns me, but is not a great concern to me.
When I was a kid, I used to go to raves. In that 'scene' I met a lot of gay people. Many I still consider friends.

You made a comment "After all, we're not trying to find out what causes heterosexuality, are we?"

I think it is obvious. It is natures law to preserve our species as it is with all creatures.
Without the drive to procreate, our species would have ended long ago. Thus the entire MEANING of sex.
Correct me if I am wrong.

Now just because I don't fully understand homosexuality, does not mean that I feel like punishing those who involve themselves with it, or who are homosexual.

Rather, I would just like to learn more about them. Not only as people, but as a lifestyle.

If natures law is to procreate, how does homosexuality fit into that?

Balance?
Population control?
Or.. Something else?

I am curious, because nothing is a mistake in the whole scheme of things, IMO.
Everything servers a purpose, everyone serves a purpose..

So to be blunt, those are my "concerns" for bringing this up.

Not to point a stinky fingure at someone. But to learn about something that plays a large role in todays society.

lsands

14th March 2005, 03:31 AM

I think it is obvious. It is natures law to preserve our species as it is with all creatures.
Without the drive to procreate, our species would have ended long ago. Thus the entire MEANING of sex. Correct me if I am wrong. If natures law is to procreate, how does homosexuality fit into that?

Dear bzcutah,
I don't know how homosexuality fits into that, but I don't have to know to accept it as different and relatively uncommon, but normal. You seem to be saying that if you can't understand or explain it, you can't accept it. I can't understand or explain God, either, but I believe in and accept His/Her reality.

And who says that procreation is the "entire meaning of sex"?

Laraine

Jeff_Ricks

14th March 2005, 06:54 AM

I would say that it concerns me, but is not a great concern to me.
When I was a kid, I used to go to raves. In that 'scene' I met a lot of gay people. Many I still consider friends.

You made a comment

I think it is obvious. It is natures law to preserve our species as it is with all creatures.
Without the drive to procreate, our species would have ended long ago. Thus the entire MEANING of sex.
Correct me if I am wrong.

Now just because I don't fully understand homosexuality, does not mean that I feel like punishing those who involve themselves with it, or who are homosexual.

Rather, I would just like to learn more about them. Not only as people, but as a lifestyle.

If natures law is to procreate, how does homosexuality fit into that?

Balance?
Population control?
Or.. Something else?

I am curious, because nothing is a mistake in the whole scheme of things, IMO.
Everything servers a purpose, everyone serves a purpose..

So to be blunt, those are my "concerns" for bringing this up.

Not to point a stinky fingure at someone. But to learn about something that plays a large role in todays society.

I recall from another thread that you said your were Christian and thought that homosexuality is a sin. Is that correct or not? You should also remember that according to the New Testament account Jesus' attitude was that disrespect in intolerance of differences was a sin. His enemies were the religious and he stood up for those who were the so called sinners in eyes of the Pharisees. So which is the greater sin in your eyes bzcutah? Homosexuality or intolerance? I think more harm has been inflicted in the world by disrespect and intolerance than anything else. I think the argument that homosexuality places our need to reproduce in jeopardy is weak. I think intolerance is a much bigger threat to the survival of our species, as well as overpopulation, don't you?

I frankly don't consider homosexuality a threat to the species anymore than I consider birth control a threat and I most certainly don't consider either a sin. Why do you? I'm sure that birth control is far more widely practiced than is homosexuality. Do you consider birth control a sin?

Jeff

miss taken

14th March 2005, 09:01 AM

I recall from another thread that you said your were Christian and thought that homosexuality is a sin. Is that correct or not? You should also remember that according to the New Testament account Jesus' attitude was that disrespect in intolerance of differences was a sin. His enemies were the religious and he stood up for those who were the so called sinners in eyes of the Pharisees. So which is the greater sin in your eyes bzcutah? Homosexuality or intolerance? I think more harm has been inflicted in the world by disrespect and intolerance than anything else. I think the argument that homosexuality places our need to reproduce in jeopardy is weak. I think intolerance is a much bigger threat to the survival of our species, as well as overpopulation, don't you?

I frankly don't consider homosexuality a threat to the species anymore than I consider birth control a threat and I most certainly don't consider either a sin. Why do you? I'm sure that birth control is far more widely practiced than is homosexuality. Do you consider birth control a sin?

Jeff

Jeff, let Bzcutah have his opinion. From my take on it, he is trying to understand rather than be intolerant and judge. You are sounding like one of the GA's!!!!
Mary

bigeddy

14th March 2005, 09:29 AM

I just finished reading this entire thread and all the links referred to by the various posters. I have some observations and opinions of my own that may be of value. (If not, just write it off to my need to yak.)

I have spent many years studying and working with this issue. I had stopped the intense studying for a couple of reasons that also may be of value; I have continued to read the research and etc. that comes my way (like this thread).

I believe this type discussion is important and is followed on several ex-mo, post-mo and anti-mo sites because it is a litmus test almost as to the validity of claims to know or represent god. I see this in Bzcutah's initial question. What effect does a mission have on increasing, maintaining or otherwise effecting the rates and numbers of gay men in the LDS culture? I read into this an interesting notion; that by the mission thing, the church is actually encouraging (causing) a practice they abhor. Cool, Bz gets to ask and wonder about this. (Personally, I have seen no numbers indicating a larger than normal percentage of gay/lesbian folks in Utah. If it is so, cool, we will deal with the implications of that.) I see the interest of other posters here grouping around that same importance as a litmus test for the authenticity of momo claims to represent god. This makes it an interesting and important topic. I also understand Lariane's concern, and I agree, that we must examine what it means that we are even asking the question. Do we imply here that homosexaulity is a problem. I believe it is no problem for the people who are gay/lesbian. I do believe it is a huge problem for momomism. Once they have taken a stand they must, on pain of admitting they were wrong (or that God changed her mind) continue to assert it. The more evidence that compounds that they are "wrong" pushes into the minds of others the idea that they cannot be trusted on other important matters either. So the GA's have an important stake (no pun intended) in this one (could we have a Gay Stake?). They may lose some power, and IMO that power and maintaining it is the sole passion and motivation (however hidden from their denial it may be) for their lives.

So, this is an important discussion that must be carried out knowing that its importance has nothing to do with the morality of any gay or lesbian person. My other thoughts are:

1. As far as scholarship on the question of the cause of homosexuality or its immutability, I see none. Either way (one of the reasons I stopped studying the topic intensely). To believe in the objective scholarship of any author I want to see a couple things. I want to see honesty about motives. With many studying the topic I see honesty to admit they are openly gay/lesbian. I do not see anyone researching this topic who honestly admits to being a homophobe at the outset of their writings (Byrd). At the same time they point to the fact that many researchers are avowed homosexuals and hint that this somehow means something, they (i.e. Byrd) do not admit, up front where they stand, even thought that stand becomes obvious as one reads. I would also like to see full treatment of the research that is extant. I have never seen a review of the literature that is what I would consider complete. On either side. Example, Byrd quotes 3 studies. Again, I am left asking "but what about ........ study and what about ......... study. Copies of which I have in my files. Those are ignored by Byrd. He presents, like all I have read, a "review" of the literature that is one-sided. Others, supporting of a pro-gay stance do the same thing.

As to the question of whether a sexual orientation can be changed. Byrd's stuff was an exemplar in everything I see on this topic. He stated "I should perhaps add to the introduction so that you can appreciate my perspective. You need to know that I am not much of an activist on this issue or any other issue. I direct a research organization, teach at the medical school, and manage to provide therapy for a unique population--men who are distressed by their unwanted homosexual attraction. . . . As I reflected on this patient population who I have treated for more than three decades,. What I find interesting is that he never mentions his successes with this population he has served for 30 years. When I talk about my dealing with sex offenders and whether treatment is effective I can point to tons of examples from my own experience that serve as examples, springboards for discussing techniques and etc. He mentions nothing from his personal experience. He quotes one study from others who are, even though they don't admit it, homophobes from the start. In a like way, anyone addressing this issue from a momo standpoint must, in order for me to take the writing seriously, deal--from the outset--with Boyd's statement that homosexuals are one of the three greatest threats to the church. (if that is not homophobia, I don't know what it would look like) Anyone from a momo stance would need to show me how she/he sees Boyd's shit and how he/she personally avoids the stink of it in order for me to take them serious at all. In essence, for me to take an article of any kind serious it would have to either present both sides fully, leaving out no serious study regardless of what it seems to show, and then deal honestly with the data--I have never seen this. OR a person would need to begin an article stating up front something like this (such as Byrd, for me to take him seriously)

"I am a homophobe, I stand for the principles espoused by the scriptures that homosexuality is a sin and anyone practicing it is in danger of death, hell and an endless torment. I agree with Elder Packer that homosexuality is a danger to the Church (and its members) [something Boyd never said] because it encourages acceptance of something God has clearly discouraged. Here is my review of the literature and my conclusions."

Or,

"I am a gay man and have been for many years. I do not support the idea that homomsexuality is a sin or that it is inherently a sickness. Here is my review of the literature and my conclusions."

The second one (a courageous one, to my mind) I have seen, the first example of honesty, I have never seen.

Sooooo, I quit researching intensely and am waiting. I wait for a couple of things. Until the polarity (good/bad, okay/evil, born with it/chose it) diminishes I don't think we will see objective scholarship. I don't think it will be possible. There are too highly charged emotions out there to allow honesty and objectivity. I think of the studies on reorientation. Men seeking reorientation therapy are so intent on becoming "normal" that I question their ability to honestly report on the outcome of that therapy. ALSO, until I see a study with a control group containing men who sought reorientation therapy to change from heterosexuality to homosexuality, and their results, I will remain suspicious of this entire issue. The fact that a man seeking reorientation FROM homosexuality is accepted willingly while one seeking reorientation TO homosexuality would not, makes the whole endevor entirely unscientific, biased and homophobic from the outset. I want Byrd to talk about how many men they have treated who successfully switched their orientation TO homosexuality before I can see this whole thing as anything more than a divisive, hurtful, prejudiced persecution of divine human beings.

Just my opinions.

Ed

bzcutah

14th March 2005, 09:38 AM

Dear bzcutah,
I don't know how homosexuality fits into that, but I don't have to know to accept it as different and relatively uncommon, but normal. You seem to be saying that if you can't understand or explain it, you can't accept it. I can't understand or explain God, either, but I believe in and accept His/Her reality.

And who says that procreation is the "entire meaning of sex"?

Laraine

I think that you are confusing my curiousity with intolerance.

I think that I have made it quite clear that I do vote, and that I don't vote against same sex marriage.
I have made it very clear that I am hetrosexual but that I have several homosexual friends, as well as a homosexual cousin, all of which I am fond of.

I think that the difference in our understanding of things is that you are putting me in a category of either I am for it or against it.

That is very black and white thinking, in my eyes, very narrow.

What it is, is that since I do believe it is a sin, I am trying to understand WHY. I don't believe it's a sin so that I can discriminate against anyone. Lord knows that I have PLENTY of my own sin.

But I evaluate my own beliefs I try to understand things better.

For example. Even though marijuana is against the law, I am totally in favor of legalizing it.

Or, even though beer is highly regulated in Utah, I am in favor of lessing the control.

Both could be argued that they are a sin, and both could be argued that they are allowed Biblically.

I try to think of things logically. Emotions come second for me usually. (not always) But I have made it a point to make logic come first.

For instance, I am in favor of legalizing marijuana. But I don't smoke.
So how does this benefit me?
Well, the strict regulations cost this country billions of dollars, and the restrictions seem to make the problem worse. The USA has 5% of the worlds population, but 25% of the worlds prison population.

Same thing with alcohol. Restricting these substances do not help minimize the problem. Instead it seems to have and adverse effect.

With homosexuality, I think that a lot of things can be alleviated with respectful conversation. Education is the key.

Tolerance doesn't automatically mean "I embrace it" or "I accept it". The meaning for the word tolerance means I tolerate it, I don't go out of my way to make life hard for homosexuals, I don't abhore it.
Tolerance is MUCH difference from acceptance.

For example. I am uneducated about the subject.

I liken it to a congress person who has never smoked marijuana.

If that congress person and his collegues would sit down and discuss the topic of marijuana for a few hours. Would it make a difference?

I think it would. They could see the many benefits of medical marijuana, they could compare our laws and effects to Europe in places that it is legalized, and see that ending prohibition lessens the usage and the crimes related to it.

So to discuss ANY contreversal topic, WITH RESPECT, can NOT be a bad thing.

That people are so afraid of the topic worries me.

Thus far, I have not been disrespectful, nor do I plan to be.

bzcutah

14th March 2005, 09:41 AM

Jeff, let Bzcutah have his opinion. From my take on it, he is trying to understand rather than be intolerant and judge. You are sounding like one of the GA's!!!!
Mary

Thank you. :D

Intolerance of supposed intolerance is still intolerance.
:confused:

Please sit back and look at my comments. I am not being intolerant Jeff.

~Ryan

Jeff_Ricks

14th March 2005, 10:15 AM

Thank you. :D

Intolerance of supposed intolerance is still intolerance.
:confused:

Please sit back and look at my comments. I am not being intolerant Jeff.

~Ryan

I guess you can say that this entire website and organization forming around it is founded on, among other things, intolerance for intolerance. I see nothing to apologize for in that.

Jeff

miss taken

14th March 2005, 10:25 AM

I guess you can say that this entire website and organization forming around it is founded on, among other things, intolerance for intolerance. I see nothing to apologize for in that.

Jeff

I see what you mean Jeff. But is it just intolerance, or is it an effort to understand the (often very deep and committed) experience of what it was to be a mormon.

I guess I can tolerate the more questionable idealogies of the church, but only from a safe distance!!!!
Mary

Jeff_Ricks

14th March 2005, 11:16 AM

Jeff, let Bzcutah have his opinion. From my take on it, he is trying to understand rather than be intolerant and judge. You are sounding like one of the GA's!!!!
Mary

Silverfox, and to some extent I, are charged with the difficult responsibility of maintaining the open, friendly tone of this forum while allowing all points of view to be expressed. This morning I’m monitoring this thread in her absence. She does a much better job in trying to see both sides than I do and is why I asked her to take on the role of forums manager several weeks ago. I apologize for my ineptness.

Having said that, I’ll attempt continue and hope that I don’t offend. I’ve seen so many forums degenerate into bickering and finger pointing and do not want to see that happen here. Based on past experience with other forums it has been more often than not those with a religious bias who stir up trouble in other former Mormon forums I’ve had experience with. I think this is because, by their very nature, theistic belief systems tend to be founded on what can be described as intolerance; intolerance for differences. Christianity for instance has divided itself into thousands of denominations. When one denomination differs from the other it’s obviously because they hold differing views and can't tolerate the differences of each other, so they split off. I watched the Christian church I was going to after I left Mormonism rip in two over a minor doctrinal issue and a new church was founded just down the street. This seems to go on constantly in theistic belief systems like a growing cancer. Mormonism’s denominations now number over 70.

Bzcutah, While you’re not directly expressing intolerance for gays in your posts, in my opinion you are doing so indirectly through your arguments and by announcing that you think it is a sin.

As far as I’m concerned one can hold and express whatever opinion they like, but when it’s at the expense of others who are trying to live fulfilling honorable lives (often in the face of great adversity) then I think the line has been crossed as far as where we need to draw the line in order to maintain this forum. So, what I’m saying is that I think this thread is pushing the envelope. I’m trying to monitor this thread and others the best I can today while also working my full time job, and admit that I haven’t had time to read every post. Please understand where I misunderstand anyone’s intent.

Jeff

miss taken

14th March 2005, 12:08 PM

Silverfox, and to some extent I, am charged with the difficult responsibility of maintaining the open, friendly tone of this forum while allowing all points of view to be expressed. This morning I’m monitoring this thread in her absence. She does a much better job in trying to see both sides than me and is why I asked her to take on the role of forums manager several weeks ago. I apologize for my ineptness.

Having said that, I’ll attempt continue and hope that I don’t offend. I’ve seen so many forums degenerate into bickering and finger pointing and do not want to see that happen here. Based on past experience with other forums it has been more often than not those with a religious bias who stir up trouble in other former Mormon forums I’ve had experience with. I think this is because, by their very nature, theistic belief systems tend to be founded on what can be described as intolerance; intolerance of differences primarily. Christianity for instance has divided itself into thousands of denominations. When one denomination differs from the other it’s obviously because they hold differing views and can't tolerate the differences of each other, so they split off. I watched the Christian church I was going to after I left Mormonism rip in two over a minor doctrinal issue and a new church was founded just down the street. This seems to go on constantly in theistic belief systems like a growing cancer. Mormonism’s denominations now number over 70.

Bzcutah, While you’re not directly expressing intolerance for gays in your posts, in my opinion you are doing so indirectly through your arguments and by announcing that you think it is a sin.

As far as I’m concerned one can hold and express whatever opinion they like, but when it’s at the expense of others who are trying to live fulfilling honorable lives (often in the face of great adversity) then I think the line has been crossed as far as where we need to draw the line in order to maintain this forum. So, what I’m saying is that I think this thread is pushing the envelope. I’m trying to monitor this thread and others the best I can today while also working my full time job, and admit that I haven’t had time to read every post. Please understand where I misunderstand anyone’s intent.

Jeff

Jeff, you have an extremely difficult job, and the fact that this board is as welcoming as it is, is pretty much down to you and the team. Thanks.

I'm just SO excited to be discussing things I hadn't dared to talk about for so many years, partly because of guilt I suppose, and not wishing to offend anyone who is still LDS, but also cause there is just plain no one here where I live who can relate within a 50 mile radius.!!!!

You are great!!!!! :o :o :o

silverfox

14th March 2005, 01:33 PM

[QUOTE=bzcutah]
That people are so afraid of the topic worries me.
QUOTE]

I wonder if people ARE actually afraid of the topic? IMO, it's not the fear of the topic but the fear that we may be offensive or hurt someone. I have felt through my postings on this thread that our gay members or lurkers may feel like we are off on the sidelines talking about them as if they are invisible as though we are the know it alls on the subject. (I am not saying this is true I am saying THIS is the fear I have) I don't want anyone to feel like that. And my apologies if this thread has been the result of that.

Many have already opened up and posted their stories, their experiences regarding their homosexuality. I have learned so much from their willingness to share. I have never been against homsexuality but being exposed to personal experiences has been amazing for me to see life through their eyes. We have their input already. THEY are the experts, in my opinion. (see again feeling like I am talking about them as though they are invisible. I don't like that)

I believe when one comes out and says, "it's a sin" (regardless of what they are talking about) whether or not it is intended to be harsh doesn't matter, those words can hurt. I am NOT saying that you are being disrespectful, discriminating, etc. Or that your intention was or is to hurt anyone. Or that you were wrong to share that with us.

I am only saying that other's reaction to those words may differ. I am NOT saying you are presenting yourself as sinless or that you were/are judging. My concern, again is only the fear of someone being hurt. And I am not pointing a finger at YOU - anyone can be hurt by anything any of us say about this very sensitive topic or by any topic for that matter. My concern is the words "it's a sin" threw up a red flag for some potential posters - ones who could REALLY help with your understanding of the topic.

This is my observation only - I am not saying this is true!

I completely respect your desire and intent on understanding homosexuality and have no issues with this at all. I don't think anyone has issues with that.

I am thrilled that you are trying to understand rather than resort to intolerance like so many do.

I hope you find the understanding you are looking for.

Jeff_Ricks

14th March 2005, 01:39 PM

Jeff, you have an extremely difficult job, and the fact that this board is as welcoming as it is, is pretty much down to you and the team. Thanks.

I'm just SO excited to be discussing things I hadn't dared to talk about for so many years, partly because of guilt I suppose, and not wishing to offend anyone who is still LDS, but also cause there is just plain no one here where I live who can relate within a 50 mile radius.!!!!

You are great!!!!! :o :o :o

Thank you Miss Taken. :)

silverfox

14th March 2005, 01:44 PM

Silverfox, and to some extent I, are charged with the difficult responsibility of maintaining the open, friendly tone of this forum while allowing all points of view to be expressed. This morning I’m monitoring this thread in her absence. She does a much better job in trying to see both sides than I do and is why I asked her to take on the role of forums manager several weeks ago. I apologize for my ineptness.

Having said that, I’ll attempt continue and hope that I don’t offend. I’ve seen so many forums degenerate into bickering and finger pointing and do not want to see that happen here. Based on past experience with other forums it has been more often than not those with a religious bias who stir up trouble in other former Mormon forums I’ve had experience with. I think this is because, by their very nature, theistic belief systems tend to be founded on what can be described as intolerance; intolerance for differences. Christianity for instance has divided itself into thousands of denominations. When one denomination differs from the other it’s obviously because they hold differing views and can't tolerate the differences of each other, so they split off. I watched the Christian church I was going to after I left Mormonism rip in two over a minor doctrinal issue and a new church was founded just down the street. This seems to go on constantly in theistic belief systems like a growing cancer. Mormonism’s denominations now number over 70.

Bzcutah, While you’re not directly expressing intolerance for gays in your posts, in my opinion you are doing so indirectly through your arguments and by announcing that you think it is a sin.

As far as I’m concerned one can hold and express whatever opinion they like, but when it’s at the expense of others who are trying to live fulfilling honorable lives (often in the face of great adversity) then I think the line has been crossed as far as where we need to draw the line in order to maintain this forum. So, what I’m saying is that I think this thread is pushing the envelope. I’m trying to monitor this thread and others the best I can today while also working my full time job, and admit that I haven’t had time to read every post. Please understand where I misunderstand anyone’s intent.

Jeff

Thank you Jeff for watching the board while I was away. Greatly appreciated!!!!!! And you have made some very valid points.

Jeff and I have both seen topics like this turn very ugly on other boards and possibly emotionally damaging to some members. Our goal is to avoid it if AT ALL POSSIBLE. And sometimes that means our understanding of someone's intent may be muddled.

We will do the best we can. To make this board of the community we are dependent on all members to feel they can bring their concerns to us. We have a board of members so that we can get all kinds of views and angles and input.

If any member is offended by a thread, a post, etc PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE don't hesitate to PM myself or Jeff. Your concerns will be kept confidential and will be handled appropriately.

We want to enforce that we are doing everything possible to ensure ALL members feel comfortable here. Please be patient with us. :)

Born Free

14th March 2005, 04:38 PM

Thank you Jeff for watching the board while I was away. Greatly appreciated!!!!!! And you have made some very valid points.

Jeff and I have both seen topics like this turn very ugly on other boards and possibly emotionally damaging to some members. Our goal is to avoid it if AT ALL POSSIBLE. And sometimes that means our understanding of someone's intent may be muddled.

We will do the best we can. To make this board of the community we are dependent on all members to feel they can bring their concerns to us. We have a board of members so that we can get all kinds of views and angles and input.

If any member is offended by a thread, a post, etc PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE don't hesitate to PM myself or Jeff. Your concerns will be kept confidential and will be handled appropriately.

We want to enforce that we are doing everything possible to ensure ALL members feel comfortable here. Please be patient with us. :)

I have a preference for keeping this type of discussion out in the open. My sense is that it is more unhealthy that letting it go underground, even it gets a bit messy and feels like treading on eggshells occasionally.

At the same time, I acknowledge that some of the gay members may feel as if they are being grilled, but I refuse to put them on, or countenance any process that would have them feel they have to justify. Firstly I note that we have a healthy percentage of active members who are gay, and that the majority of other actives are resolutely in support of them and extremely respectful of their painful experience with teh Church, so my sense there is little chance of this getting out of hand.

Daryl

bzcutah

14th March 2005, 05:09 PM

I have a preference for keeping this type of discussion out in the open. My sense is that it is more unhealthy that letting it go underground, even it gets a bit messy and feels like treading on eggshells occasionally.

At the same time, I acknowledge that some of the gay members may feel as if they are being grilled, but I refuse to put them on, or countenance any process that would have them feel they have to justify. Firstly I note that we have a healthy percentage of active members who are gay, and that the majority of other actives are resolutely in support of them and extremely respectful of their painful experience with teh Church, so my sense there is little chance of this getting out of hand.

Daryl

I have shared my story about my brother Justin who passed away in 2002. His pain was attributed to the way he was treated by LDS kids, who knew he did not like the LDS principles.

Since he was out of the cliche, he was socially hazed, and driven into a big empty hole of depression.

If this thread makes anyone feel bad, or offended.

Delete it. Please.

There is no room to hurt other people in my faith, and I strongly believe that Jesus loves everyone, even sinners like me.

I also feel horrible for anyone who has had to endure social, mental or physical abuse because of what lifestyle that they have chosen.

So, if this thread is offensive. Kill it..

I got a good reference to a good book about homosexuality in nature, and I plan on reading it.
I had other questions that didn't get answered. But I don't expect an answer, so no worries.

If this thread has reached it's lifespan, then you won't offend me by deleting it.

ifitmakesuhappy

14th March 2005, 05:38 PM

silverfox

14th March 2005, 05:46 PM

offended? how can anyone be offended cos u have an opinion that differs to most people here? uve as much right to urs as the rest of us n altho i dont agree with a lot of the points u have made (some i do) im not offended. I guess u thinkin that homosexuality is a sin or a flaw should offend me in some way. Ive not done the research u have, i can only disagree with you based on my own personal feelings and thats enough for me to feel happy and guilt free. To me at least what i feel inside is more proof than any of the research. growing up in moism gets u used to being different (in england anyway) and to people not understanding how u feel or why u feel the way u do about things, and disagreeing with how u choose to live. maybe thats why im not offened. you all carry on its somethin to read lol...

Your feedback and great sense of humor is greatly appreciated, thank you!

(every time I see your user name I get that song "If It Makes You Happy" stuck in my head - shoot, who sang that song? Now I have to research, thanks alot!?) :D

ifitmakesuhappy

14th March 2005, 05:51 PM

Your feedback and great sense of humor is greatly appreciated, thank you!

(every time I see your user name I get that song "If It Makes You Happy" stuck in my head - shoot, who sang that song? Now I have to research, thanks alot!?) :D

it was sheryl crow! i have very inappropriate and unhealthy feelings towards that woman :D :p ;)

bzcutah

14th March 2005, 06:30 PM

offended? how can anyone be offended cos u have an opinion that differs to most people here? uve as much right to urs as the rest of us n altho i dont agree with a lot of the points u have made (some i do) im not offended. I guess u thinkin that homosexuality is a sin or a flaw should offend me in some way. Ive not done the research u have, i can only disagree with you based on my own personal feelings and thats enough for me to feel happy and guilt free. To me at least what i feel inside is more proof than any of the research. growing up in moism gets u used to being different (in england anyway) and to people not understanding how u feel or why u feel the way u do about things, and disagreeing with how u choose to live. maybe thats why im not offened. you all carry on its somethin to read lol...

Glad your not offended, that wasn't my reach.

When I invited a relationship with Christ into my life, I didn't do it with the intention of "Im going to discriminate against as many people as possible".

Inviting Christ into my life was the total opposite of how and what I was raised with (Mormonism). It was a sense of freedom, and person satisfaction.

Now, just because I feel homosexuality is a sin. It is not my place to judge others or how they live. It just means that I myself have no intention of involving myself with that activity/lifestyle.

My curiousity and research has nothing to do with condemnation. It is simply curiousity. I like to figure things out.

silverfox

14th March 2005, 06:50 PM

My curiousity and research has nothing to do with condemnation. It is simply curiousity. I like to figure things out.

Thanks for the clarification, B. :)

My hope is that in the process of figuring this stuff out no one was offended including yourself.

As others have said it is refreshing to be able to voice our opinions without fear of being called into an interview with the bishop or worse, the stake prez (been there, done that) <shudder>

bzcutah

15th March 2005, 01:24 AM

miss taken

15th March 2005, 03:12 AM

I hope not too.

Obviously I have formed opinions. But my opinions aren't static. Education plays an important role in my life, and how I raise my children (1 so far).

There are going to be many questions in these young ones lives, and I want to be able to give the best answers possible.

Sorry if I seem nosey. But I was never given very good answers as a kid, and I don't want my children to feel that way as they grow.

Sincerely,
Ryan

Ryan, I never sensed anything in your opinion that was offensive, (life is so grey, as opposed to black and white), and you shouldn't change it because of peer pressure or because others may agree or disagree with you. In our age of political correctness many people feel afraid to say what they reallly feel. We have a big problem with this in the UK over Fanatical Islam (not the normal loving muslims but the fanatical extreme ones)
I thought Big Eddy made some very good points, and I love the concept of 'lack of growth' rather than sin, and that applies to all of us, gay or not. I think that we all have more in common than we have differences anyway.
We are all searching for truth, meaning, and to understand what we were taught as LDS, to analyse what we now think is good and also what we were taught that was not good, too simplistic, and almost certainly not the whole picture in all its glory, and that applies not just to homosexuality, but a whole host of other topics - polygamy, racism, elitism, arrogance, intolerance, judgement, suicide,(the list goes on)
I've waffled, and am really not very astute, but I am very interested in this topic and hearing all sides and lots of different opinions simply because again it is a little (but not totally) out of my own realm of experience.
And anyway, I believe that we are all ALL god's children and he loves us all, and I believe that more now than I ever did as LDS, perhaps my fault rather than theirs but that is how it is for me!!!!

silverfox

15th March 2005, 07:00 AM

Ryan, I never sensed anything in your opinion that was offensive, (life is so grey, as opposed to black and white), and you shouldn't change it because of peer pressure or because others may agree or disagree with you. In our age of political correctness many people feel afraid to say what they reallly feel. We have a big problem with this in the UK over Fanatical Islam (not the normal loving muslims but the fanatical extreme ones)
I thought Big Eddy made some very good points, and I love the concept of 'lack of growth' rather than sin, and that applies to all of us, gay or not. I think that we all have more in common than we have differences anyway.
We are all searching for truth, meaning, and to understand what we were taught as LDS, to analyse what we now think is good and also what we were taught that was not good, too simplistic, and almost certainly not the whole picture in all its glory, and that applies not just to homosexuality, but a whole host of other topics - polygamy, racism, elitism, arrogance, intolerance, judgement, suicide,(the list goes on)
I've waffled, and am really not very astute, but I am very interested in this topic and hearing all sides and lots of different opinions simply because again it is a little (but not totally) out of my own realm of experience.
And anyway, I believe that we are all ALL god's children and he loves us all, and I believe that more now than I ever did as LDS, perhaps my fault rather than theirs but that is how it is for me!!!!

Awesome, M.

I am amazed at how accepting and open my kids are naturally.

I remember when I was little and if I asked my parents (nevermo btw) any kind of question about anything I never got a good response. They were afraid. Fear screws up so much! So I went through life without the answers / information I desparately needed to form some opinions, ideas. Most of my opinions and ideas had to come later in life. And it was challenging.

I was raised a Christian. After my apostacy from "the" church my beliefs on Christianity went with it. I loved the security of being a Christian but now when I step back and look at the whole picture there are waaaaaaay too many unanswered questions. Yet some very pertinent ones have been answered and my reaction has amazed me! Never NEVER NEVER in the first 45 years of my life did I think I would ever NOT believe in the bible, Christ, etc, although I never agreed with a lot of it. (so many contradictions, IMO).

My point is - our opinions and ideas will take us down many roads and to complete one path or another our opinions and ideas have to change either by choice or by requirement. Usually knowledge as B has referred to can force a change in ideas/opinions. Or sometimes it's an experience or someone's example (good or bad).

Life is A W E S O M E. And when you step out of the Mo box, although somewhat frightening, life becomes, IMO, delightful and exciting because just when you think you know where life is taking you, it makes a sharp turn. And opportunity is there. Everywhere.....not big exciting ones all the time but small ones as we interact with people and expose ourselves and allow ourselves to grow.

bzcutah, Jeff, ifitmakesyouhappy, bigeddy, sturg, misstaken, lsands, EVERYONE who has participated - you've opened up to us and it is greatly appreciated. Taking the fear out of the equation, we can see life through each other's eyes. Regardless of any differences any of us may have - having that opportunity is priceless.

It's been a sensitive topic but I am glad, bzcutah, that you started the thread which has allowed us all the opportunity to see life through each other's eyes.

mutleydog

15th March 2005, 07:30 AM

....reading through this thread. I would have to agree with "ifyoumakesyouhappy".....the thread has not offended me one iota. Everyone is entitled to their feeling and opinion. I may be gay, but I do not profess to understand exactly why, all I can relate to is the fact I have been attracted to the same-sex for as long as I can remember. However, due to social pressures I know I kept firmly in denial until I couldn't live like it any longer!! Homosexuality is one of those lifes mysteries! I am not sure we will ever find out the whys and wherefores......in short it exists.....its one of lifes wonderful diversities. We may not be able to procreate in the conventional sense, but thats not the singular reason for sex. There are many more physical and psychological functions for why we participate in such activities and all mammals have those same tendencies....pleasure and procreation, whether gay or not. This comment is going to throw a stone in the works.......I have often had the notion that their is no b/w with respect to sexuality. I think there is a very long line between 100% hetero and 100% gay and this differs between men and women. For eg. you may have a completely hetero male at one end of the scale and a very effeminate gay male at the other. In between though you may have a effeminate male who seems to have tendencies because of his character, but who is hetero and the list goes on.....to tell you the truth I believe that to a certain degree everyone has gay tendencies whether they be very very low and unrecognisable to someone who has very very high tendencies, like me. I have a friend that would consider herself hetero, but totally fell hook line and sinker for another woman.....she put it down to being attracted to the 'whole' person rather than the fact she was a woman...if the same characteristics were in a guy she would have fell him also. Sexuality is a very interesting subject and is by no means b/w, but has always and will be embroiled with many facets, theories and atitudes......it will never be fully understood. What remains is the law of attraction and ultimately the love that follows......that is what truly matters. If two people are in love, so be it.....its no-ones right to question that love.

bigeddy

15th March 2005, 07:48 AM

If I may add to what Mutleydog said in the previous post, in recognizing that people are not light switches (on/off, gay/straight, good/bad, etc, etc,) it is important to add another dimension. Each of us, as M-dog stated, is on that continuum from absolutely exclusive hetero attraction at one end to absolutely homo attraction at the other end. But that is not all of the story. There is another dimension that must be graphed--another continuum, that of libido or need for sexual expression. So we can construct a cartesian coordinate type graph with the x-axis being the homo-straight continuum and the y-axis being the need for sexual expression, from very high to very low. Then, each of us can be graphed as to where on the graph we are. This way I can make more sense out of what I see in the world. A person who is highly homosexual but with low libido may remain in the closet forever, marry, have children and live with his/her sexual orientation unknown for an entire life. THis person, while being homosexual just doesn't have the higher sex drive that pushes for exploration and fulfillment. A person with just as strong same sex attraction but with a high need for sexual expression faces a completely different situation. Such a one will struggle to stay in the closet. So, when the shaming power of society is so high on this issue those who have a lower need for expression may never be identified, perhaps not even by themselves, as part of the same-sex attraction group. This skews the hell out of all data I have ever seen and mucks up every research effort I have ever seen (see my previous post on this thread). For example, lets say we are conducting research into the effectiveness of reorientation therapy (changing from homo to heterosexual) and we have people in our subject pool that are lower on the libido scale. Making the semblance of change--or a real change--will be easier for them to do than those with a higher need for sexual expression but with the same degree of same-sex attraction. I have never seen this dimension addressed in any study. Until it is, I cannot trust such studies. I think it is one factor researchers ignore so they can skew the data to fit their a-priori opinions (again, see my previous post).

Ed

miss taken

15th March 2005, 07:51 AM

bzcutah

15th March 2005, 08:21 AM

Jeff_Ricks

15th March 2005, 08:26 AM

Well, this may or may not come as an anomoly. But when I left home at age 14, I was taken in by my cousins friends and they were very racist. I grew up with very seperatist type of ideals, and at 14, I fit right in with that crap.

Since I was 17 I have been hanging out with rainbow gatherings, and I went to a few Grateful Dead shows before Jerry passed away.

That atmosphere compared to the narrow minded atmosphere that I grew up in has been very releiving to me. Christ helped me connect the dots also.

But, be aware. I am an opinionated person, and not educated on a lot of things.

I have not stopped seeking, and researching things since I have gained this new found independence.

Growing up Mo, was very similar to how I grew up with my seperatist friends. But I was never very happy closing myself off to the rest of the world..

So, this message board, along with many others that I have been too, have been very helpful in my growth.

Thank you everyone for your patience with me.

Sincerely,
Ryan

Ryan, as far as I'm concerned as I think all of us are, your participation in this forum is very welcome and needed. :D

Jeff

bzcutah

15th March 2005, 08:29 AM

Thanks! :D

darin

15th March 2005, 12:09 PM

Ryan, (and everyone else):

You made the point, and asked the question,

“It is natures law to preserve our species as it is with all creatures. Without the drive to procreate, our species would have ended long ago. Thus the entire MEANING of sex. Correct me if I am wrong… If natures law is to procreate, how does homosexuality fit into that?”

Here are some of the ideas:

http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/stalkers/em_homosexuality.html

http://www.times10.org/lorne_1.html

http://www.redel.com.br/~dennisww/homosexual.html

While the above three links are just a small sampling of some thoughts exploring the issue from an evolutionary standpoint, I would just make two comments: First, as a gay man, I don’t feel the need to defend “the biological naturalness” of my sexual orientation, in order to prove that it is not sinful. Such distinctions are irrelevant to me, though I understand they may be relevant to others. Second, I do not believe that if one is to support the idea that homosexuality is a normal variant of human sexual behavior, and that it has biological roots, one must do so “from an evolutionary point of view.

One may attempt to link ‘human affection/love,’ ‘sex,’ and/or ‘how genitals are used’ solely with ‘procreative purpose,’ but I do not believe human body parts and behaviors are so simple and/or limited. It is overly simplistic to assume the one exists solely—or even mainly—for the other. One may say that the purpose of “a hand” is “to hold things. What difference does it make, then, whether one is “right” or “left”-handed? Why should biology/genetics play a role in which hand is the dominant one an individual uses? I don’t know the answer to that question, but according to science, it does. In a similar fashion, I suggest that “genitalia” have other purposes than solely for reproduction, but for other, less apparent reasons. I think there are a great many ‘traits’ (such as ‘hand orientation’ or ‘sexual orientation’) which have biological and/or genetic triggers which would seem to contribute nothing towards the ‘survival of the fittest’ of the individuals in which they are manifested.

On a more personal note, and by way of observation… In my experience with the Church—and most Christian Churches I have encountered, ‘homosexuality’ in almost synonymous with ‘sexual behavior.’ As such, good, well-intentioned people such as yourself, Ryan, dilute an entirely complex group of individuals and their loving relationships to mere ‘sexual behaviors.’ It is just as erroneous to equate “homosexuals,” “homosexual relationships” (in all their complexity), and “homosexuality” with “homosexual acts” as it would be to equate “heterosexuals,” “heterosexual relationships (in all their complexity-including marriages), and “heterosexuality” with “heterosexual acts.” On gay Mormon author I read asked it this way: "Let me ask you something. How would you feel if I spoke about your relationship with your wife as just someplace you like to put your d***?" I would hope that none do.

(See: http://www.onegaymormon.com/essays/tiredOfSex.html --it’s DEFINATELY worth checking out this link… He’s much more eloquent than I am in explaining this. His other writings are likewise very informative, should anyone want further explore what it's like to be gay and Mormon)

It is difficult, in my experience, for heterosexuals to understand that gay people feel love for their ‘spouses,’ just as straight people do. Homosexuals are not merely the sum of their sexual actions—nor should their relationships be considered to be merely so. They are people who love each other, care for each other, support each other, dream together, share work and love and laughter and tears and time and joy and sadness together. It is a gross oversimplification to equate their lives together merely “as sin”—when it comes down to it, how we love and treat our spouse, it seems to me, is more important than making sure the gender of our spouse is different from our own. The realization that my emotions—the uplifting feelings of my heart—are more than mere ‘sinful sexual acts’—is what allowed me to recognize that I can be a moral being, including my gayness, rather than ‘in spite of it.’

P.S.—As another gay post-Mormons member, I am likewise not offended by anything I’ve read in this thread, and am appreciative of the thoughtful manner in which this is being discussed.

peter_mary

15th March 2005, 12:34 PM

It is difficult, in my experience, for heterosexuals to understand that gay people feel love for their ‘spouses,’ just as straight people do.

Darin,

Right there is where you nailed it. It is not possible for a straight person to know what it means to be gay, and likewise, therefore, it is irresponsible for a straight person to pass judgement or pass legislation on something about which they CAN NOT understand.

This was brought to my attention many years ago in a different, but similar context. I was visiting with an Hispanic man who was raised in a migrant farm family, but who put himself through college and got a BA degree in Accounting. He now works for the same Goverment agency I do. We are both the same age, about the same height, both married with children, making almost exactly the same amount of money.

It is easy, VERY easy, for me to assume that his experience in my world is roughly the same as mine. But it's not. He told me, for example, during the course of that conversation, that when he goes into a convenience store, the clerk watches him like a hawk. When I go into a convenience store, I can't find a clerk.

If he goes to purchase a car, he can't get a salesman to talk to him, and when they do, they want to stear him toward the old, used, and cheap cars because they assume that's what he can afford. They don't even want to dicker with him on a new car because they assume its a waste of time. One time, upon getting bank approval, the salesman looked at him and said, "buddy, I don't know what farmer you work for, but he must pay you pretty good!"

People assume he got his job in an effort to fill a diversity quota, and so he is never fully accepted until YEARS of hard work to prove himself BEYOND his white counterparts.

The point of all of that is that no matter how hard I try to sympathize, I cannot really know what it means to be brown skinned/black eyed/black haired in my community. Can't do it. And likewise, I cannot know what it means to be a gay man, what it feels like, how I would be motivated, how I would love. Can't do it.

And neither can any other straight person.

I'll stand by that one, too.

Paul

silverfox

15th March 2005, 12:48 PM

Darin, Paul,

THANK YOU!

That is the key point that has been missing in this exchange...the emotions involved. And the lack of understanding of them.

silverfox

15th March 2005, 12:53 PM

http://www.onegaymormon.com/essays/tiredOfSex.html[/url] --it’s DEFINATELY worth checking out this link… He’s much more eloquent than I am in explaining this. His other writings are likewise very informative, should anyone want further explore what it's like to be gay and Mormon)

It is difficult, in my experience, for heterosexuals to understand that gay people feel love for their ‘spouses,’ just as straight people do. Homosexuals are not merely the sum of their sexual actions—nor should their relationships be considered to be merely so. They are people who love each other, care for each other, support each other, dream together, share work and love and laughter and tears and time and joy and sadness together. It is a gross oversimplification to equate their lives together merely “as sin”—when it comes down to it, how we love and treat our spouse, it seems to me, is more important than making sure the gender of our spouse is different from our own. The realization that my emotions—the uplifting feelings of my heart—are more than mere ‘sinful sexual acts’—is what allowed me to recognize that I can be a moral being, including my gayness, rather than ‘in spite of it.’

P.S.—As another gay post-Mormons member, I am likewise not offended by anything I’ve read in this thread, and am appreciative of the thoughtful manner in which this is being discussed.

The following is from the above link. I love this link, Darin.

First of all, I didn't and don't see men as sex objects. One of my gay friends once asked me if, when I saw a guy I thought was good looking, I tried to imagine his equipment. With my best you've-got-to-be-kidding look, I told him, "No." I don't see a good looking guy walking down the street and think, "Oooo, I'd like a piece of that ass." I see a good looking guy and think, "Wow. He's cute. I'd like to meet him. I wonder if he'd be interested in meeting me." I've seen men good looking enough to make my stomach feel like it's suddenly sagging around my knees. Even then I was not imagining what it would be like to get him into bed. I do confess, however, that I sometimes wonder how he kisses.

But what about your friend's question? Wasn't he objectifying men? Of course he was. And here is my second problem with this idea of sex as the focus of homosexuality. I have yet to find anyone who can explain to me what objectifying individuals as mere sex objects has to do with being gay. No rational human being can suggest that only gay men objectify those upon whom their desires are focused. Have you ever heard of Sports Illustrated? What about park bathrooms, gay bars and bathhouses, usually among the first things that comes to the mind of many "God fearing" individuals when they hear the word gay? Fair enough, but then let's also talk about prostitution, singles bars and exotic dance clubs. Again, someone please explain to me how lasciviousness, promiscuity and sexual addiction are the hallmarks of homosexuality.

We are not in Baskin Robins. I am not sampling flavors of ice cream and deciding which is my favorite. As someone who has had sex with a man and sex with a woman, I'll let you in on a little secret. Aside from obvious differences in mechanics and execution, physical pleasure is physical pleasure. Sex is sex. What makes the difference is how you feel about who you are with. It is not about the act of sex. It is about who makes you twitterpated, who makes your stomach fall to your knees, who makes your heart beat faster, and who makes it skip a beat. It's about finding peace wrapped in the arms of another. It's about trust, love and companionship.

bzcutah

15th March 2005, 12:56 PM

Ryan, (and everyone else):

You made the point, and asked the question,

Here are some of the ideas:

http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/stalkers/em_homosexuality.html

http://www.times10.org/lorne_1.html

http://www.redel.com.br/~dennisww/homosexual.html

While the above three links are just a small sampling of some thoughts exploring the issue from an evolutionary standpoint, I would just make two comments: First, as a gay man, I don’t feel the need to defend “the biological naturalness” of my sexual orientation, in order to prove that it is not sinful. Such distinctions are irrelevant to me, though I understand they may be relevant to others. Second, I do not believe that if one is to support the idea that homosexuality is a normal variant of human sexual behavior, and that it has biological roots, one must do so “from an evolutionary point of view.

One may attempt to link ‘human affection/love,’ ‘sex,’ and/or ‘how genitals are used’ solely with ‘procreative purpose,’ but I do not believe human body parts and behaviors are so simple and/or limited. It is overly simplistic to assume the one exists solely—or even mainly—for the other. One may say that the purpose of “a hand” is “to hold things. What difference does it make, then, whether one is “right” or “left”-handed? Why should biology/genetics play a role in which hand is the dominant one an individual uses? I don’t know the answer to that question, but according to science, it does. In a similar fashion, I suggest that “genitalia” have other purposes than solely for reproduction, but for other, less apparent reasons. I think there are a great many ‘traits’ (such as ‘hand orientation’ or ‘sexual orientation’) which have biological and/or genetic triggers which would seem to contribute nothing towards the ‘survival of the fittest’ of the individuals in which they are manifested.

On a more personal note, and by way of observation… In my experience with the Church—and most Christian Churches I have encountered, ‘homosexuality’ in almost synonymous with ‘sexual behavior.’ As such, good, well-intentioned people such as yourself, Ryan, dilute an entirely complex group of individuals and their loving relationships to mere ‘sexual behaviors.’ It is just as erroneous to equate “homosexuals,” “homosexual relationships” (in all their complexity), and “homosexuality” with “homosexual acts” as it would be to equate “heterosexuals,” “heterosexual relationships (in all their complexity-including marriages), and “heterosexuality” with “heterosexual acts.” On gay Mormon author I read asked it this way: "Let me ask you something. How would you feel if I spoke about your relationship with your wife as just someplace you like to put your d***?" I would hope that none do.

(See: http://www.onegaymormon.com/essays/tiredOfSex.html --it’s DEFINATELY worth checking out this link… He’s much more eloquent than I am in explaining this. His other writings are likewise very informative, should anyone want further explore what it's like to be gay and Mormon)

It is difficult, in my experience, for heterosexuals to understand that gay people feel love for their ‘spouses,’ just as straight people do. Homosexuals are not merely the sum of their sexual actions—nor should their relationships be considered to be merely so. They are people who love each other, care for each other, support each other, dream together, share work and love and laughter and tears and time and joy and sadness together. It is a gross oversimplification to equate their lives together merely “as sin”—when it comes down to it, how we love and treat our spouse, it seems to me, is more important than making sure the gender of our spouse is different from our own. The realization that my emotions—the uplifting feelings of my heart—are more than mere ‘sinful sexual acts’—is what allowed me to recognize that I can be a moral being, including my gayness, rather than ‘in spite of it.’

P.S.—As another gay post-Mormons member, I am likewise not offended by anything I’ve read in this thread, and am appreciative of the thoughtful manner in which this is being discussed.

I liked the 2 links that worked, the other 2 didn't work.

The first one and the last one did.

The last one was very emotional, and the first very scientific.

While I don't know anything about the emotional part, in the mind of that person or any other person for that matter. The scientific stuff does interest me, and I can make a logical opinion about that.

While that article (about genes) seems to suggest the theory of genetic homosexuality. I feel that it is more of a birth oriented change. Before birth, during, and up to 3 days after birth all people are similar, boys and girls (acccording to many scientific studies). It is only after the boys brain floods with testosterone severing neuro-membrains that boys and girls begin to be different mentally.

While in my mind that is the start of the change for a person, I don't think that change ultimately determines the sexual preference.

I feel that the change either happens and makes boys like boys. Or doesn't happen as much, and the boy remains more connected like a girl does.

Whether that effects sexual preference or not. I don't know.

silverfox

15th March 2005, 01:12 PM

I feel that the change either happens and makes boys like boys. Or doesn't happen as much, and the boy remains more connected like a girl does.

Whether that effects sexual preference or not. I don't know.

The focus seems to be on male homosexuality.

What's your take on gay girls after the three days?

bzcutah

15th March 2005, 01:17 PM

The focus seems to be on male homosexuality.

What's your take on gay girls after the three days?

If I recall correctly. I may not be relating this information correctly though. So I will continue to look for the article.

The study suggested hormonal imbalance in either sex.
The focus on that imbalance was of testosterone.
I can only assume, that testosterone may be present in young baby girls in higher than normal amounts, making their brains work similar to boys.

But, in reality I don't know much until I re-read that article.

The suggestion in another thread about "homosexuality in the animal kingdom" is what sparked my interest, and lead me to recall that article.

I've posted information from that study on a different message board, so Im sure I can find it. I'll just have to look harder.

The scientists name was LeVay in any case..

bzcutah

15th March 2005, 01:26 PM

http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~kripston/homosexuality/Biological.html

Here is one article.

miss taken

15th March 2005, 01:29 PM

Ryan, (and everyone else):

You made the point, and asked the question,

On a more personal note, and by way of observation… In my experience with the Church—and most Christian Churches I have encountered, ‘homosexuality’ in almost synonymous with ‘sexual behavior.’ As such, good, well-intentioned people such as yourself, Ryan dilute an entirely complex group of individuals and their loving relationships to mere ‘sexual behaviors.’ It is just as erroneous to equate “homosexuals,” “homosexual relationships” (in all their complexity), and “homosexuality” with “homosexual acts” as it would be to equate “heterosexuals,” “heterosexual relationships (in all their complexity-including marriages), and “heterosexuality” with “heterosexual acts.” On gay Mormon author I read asked it this way: "Let me ask you something. How would you feel if I spoke about your relationship with your wife as just someplace you like to put your d***?" I would hope that none do.

(See: http://www.onegaymormon.com/essays/tiredOfSex.html --it’s DEFINATELY worth checking out this link… He’s much more eloquent than I am in explaining this. His other writings are likewise very informative, should anyone want further explore what it's like to be gay and Mormon)

It is difficult, in my experience, for heterosexuals to understand that gay people feel love for their ‘spouses,’ just as straight people do. Homosexuals are not merely the sum of their sexual actions—nor should their relationships be considered to be merely so. They are people who love each other, care for each other, support each other, dream together, share work and love and laughter and tears and time and joy and sadness together. It is a gross oversimplification to equate their lives together merely “as sin”—when it comes down to it, how we love and treat our spouse, it seems to me, is more important than making sure the gender of our spouse is different from our own. The realization that my emotions—the uplifting feelings of my heart—are more than mere ‘sinful sexual acts’—is what allowed me to recognize that I can be a moral being, including my gayness, rather than ‘in spite of it.’

P.S.—As another gay post-Mormons member, I am likewise not offended by anything I’ve read in this thread, and am appreciative of the thoughtful manner in which this is being discussed.

I really appreciate you writing this Darin. My relationship with my husband is so much more than just the physical aspect, and I think that you are right that there is a tendency to 'box' people. I have known enough gay people (including cousins and fellow teaching colleagues) to know that what you are saying is spot on.
Mary

bzcutah

15th March 2005, 01:46 PM

I agree about relationships on the note that it isn't all phsyical. I hope that I haven't suggested that.

Because my wife is not only my mate, but my best friend, and my business partner.

;)

lsands

15th March 2005, 09:41 PM

Dear BZC,
I appreciate so much your attitude and desire to continue learning and understanding, which I share, and i respect you for it. I appreciate all of the participation and comments that everyone has made here. I think it's great that, by continuing the discussion, we were able to understand each others' intentions and attitudes better. I can't think of a better example of what post-Mormonism is all about---thinking, exploring, expressing, listening, clarifying, owning differing opinions, examining information pro and con, being open to changing our perceptions---Wow! The rewards of post-Mormonism! :D

What it is, is that since I do believe it is a sin, I am trying to understand WHY. I don't believe it's a sin so that I can discriminate against anyone. Lord knows that I have PLENTY of my own sin.

I think one concept I am reacting to here is the entire idea of "sin". Due to my Mo background, that immediately has negative connotations of impure, unworthy, judgment, imperfect, going to hell, shame and guilt. Perhaps that is not what it means to you. I no longer see God in these terms. I realize, however, that the word "sin" has different meanings to different people. I just know that my guard immediately goes up when I hear this word.

One question I have about your desire to understand WHY homosexuality is a "sin", in your paradigm: Can the answer be found in science? What is "sin" or not seems to be a moral judgment based on religious teachings (for many, the Bible.) Wouldn't the answer to your question come from examining the moral code it is based on?

(Now I'm trying to understand YOU, BZC.)

Born Free

15th March 2005, 10:20 PM

One question I have about your desire to understand WHY homosexuality is a "sin", in your paradigm: Can the answer be found in science? What is "sin" or not seems to be a moral judgment based on religious teachings (for many, the Bible.) Wouldn't the answer to your question come from examining the moral code it is based on?

(Now I'm trying to understand YOU, BZC.)

I continue to wrestle with what is my definition of "evil", which I closely correlate with "sin".

Sin is usually associated with a B&W view of life and issues, which sits closely with a "evil/good" view.

I like to keep up with my readings on new developments on understandings of the functioning of the brain. Since the arrival of MRI technology and its wide embrace by mental health to better understand how the brain functions, whole new answers and dilema open up.

We used to live comfortably in the belief that sociopaths were 'evil'. We now know that their brains function quite differently to the majority of us. I just read something on the weekend that said new research shows whereas we (the 'normal' we) "process emotionally charged words almost instantaneously, sociopaths react as if they have been asked to work out an algabra problem."

So if a person behaves in a socially abberant manner, but we establish that this is because their brain is abnormal from birth or through neurologial damage, is it helpful to use the word "evil" to describe their behaviour? What is gained? Sure, we get an emotionally loaded label that we can spray around as some form of emotive shorthand, but what does that achieve?

Related to that issue, I have read and still wrestle with M Scott Pecks People of the Lie, which explores the area of "evil" in a post-modern world.

I have stated elsewhere that years ago I was introduced to the idea that the word sin was an Old English word for an arrow that missed the bull-eye in archery. That insight offers a more useful way to relate to having room to "raise our game".

So, for me, I now watch very closely for a visceral reaction to certain words and concepts, and ask myself "Where does that come from? It that based upon rationality or superstition, fear or outdated information?"

I have come to discover that my urgency to use labels like 'sin' and 'evil' frequently correlates with my desire to avoid my own duality: the coexistence of both the potential for good and bad within me.

But I find it very valuable to explore, and suspect I will still be doing that the day I die.

Daryl

peter_mary

15th March 2005, 10:37 PM

I think one concept I am reacting to here is the entire idea of "sin".

Laraine hit it for me, too. In fact, while I was out running errands tonight, I kept thinking about this thread and what it was that was bugging me, and I realized this was it. I came home to write about it, and Laraine and then Daryl had already done so!

Anyway, I too struggle with labeling homosexuality as a "sin". But then again, I struggle labeling very much at ALL as a sin. If you've read much of what I've written in other threads (which I won't repeat here, don't worry!) I tend to favor the notion of skillful versus unskillful, where skillful behaviors move you toward fulfillment in life, while unskillful ones move you away from that fulfillment. A person who is genuinely happy in the arms of a person of the same sex, who finds fullfillment in that relationship, who derives the greatest pleasure from that relationship, is in my mind living skillfully.

Like Laraine said, the idea of sin is an idea of judgement. We really cannot honestly say out of one side of our mouths that we aren't judgeing people who are homosexual, and then out of the other side of our mouth say, "but it is a sin."

So that's the way it seems to me, way out here in the sticks... :)

Paul

bzcutah

16th March 2005, 12:41 AM

Originally Posted by lsands

One question I have about your desire to understand WHY homosexuality is a "sin", in your paradigm: Can the answer be found in science? What is "sin" or not seems to be a moral judgment based on religious teachings (for many, the Bible.) Wouldn't the answer to your question come from examining the moral code it is based on?

(Now I'm trying to understand YOU, BZC.)

I think that it comes down to the notion that someone brought up in another thread, to justify the nature of homosexuality.

Someone spoke of how an LDS bishop was unaware of homosexuality amongst animals in the wild.

Maybe some people are unaware of the killing that animals do, in senseless battles for territory, or for females, or for whatever...

We consider a lot of things that animals do a sin, or if nothing else a punishable crime.

If we, like a wolf pack, blatantly killed the weakest member of the pack, on the basis of showing dominance in the pack. Well, it would be a short ride to the police station, and then a long stay in prison before we considered how wrong we had been.

I am not saying that this testifies of the nature of homosexuality. Only that there are certain things in the animal kingdom that humans can agree is criminal.

So comparing human behavior to animal behavior IS very interesting, but not really relevant.

Although, I still have not found a scientific study that says there are animals that are born gay, stay exclusively gay, and seek a gay partner throughout their entire lives. Though some have eluded that such a thing exists, I have not found it.

As for "can science determine sin?". It has determined crime. So if you don't believe in sin, it seems crime would be the next comparible element.

As for what I decern as sin, or immoral.. Im sure that relates to the world around me, how I was raised, and my faith. I can imagine if I grew up as a wolf boy in an wolf pack, I would see things much differently.

It is laws of Christianity I personally believe that set our system of morals up, otherwise, killing the weakest link of the pack would not be criminal in our society.
Or stealing the kill (food) from a weaker member of the pack. Or randomly humping other females in the pack, whilst you are mated to a particual female. (speaking metaphorically)

As murder is a crime for humans but not for animals, in some people's mind (I would say most), and in most faiths of the world. Homosexuality is criminal in the eyes of their supream being / creator also.

But, if you believe in a different creator or no creator at all. Then what matter is it if I believe my God sees it as a sin? ?

If you don't believe in my God, then my belief of what is sin or not (designated by my God) doesn't effect you.
(unless I am trying to force laws on you to discriminate against your freedom, which I am not).....

silverfox

16th March 2005, 06:27 AM

I think that it comes down to the notion that someone brought up in another thread, to justify the nature of homosexuality.

Someone spoke of how an LDS bishop was unaware of homosexuality amongst animals in the wild.

Maybe some people are unaware of the killing that animals do, in senseless battles for territory, or for females, or for whatever...

We consider a lot of things that animals do a sin, or if nothing else a punishable crime.

If we, like a wolf pack, blatantly killed the weakest member of the pack, on the basis of showing dominance in the pack. Well, it would be a short ride to the police station, and then a long stay in prison before we considered how wrong we had been.

I am not saying that this testifies of the nature of homosexuality. Only that there are certain things in the animal kingdom that humans can agree is criminal.

So comparing human behavior to animal behavior IS very interesting, but not really relevant.

Although, I still have not found a scientific study that says there are animals that are born gay, stay exclusively gay, and seek a gay partner throughout their entire lives. Though some have eluded that such a thing exists, I have not found it.

As for "can science determine sin?". It has determined crime. So if you don't believe in sin, it seems crime would be the next comparible element.

As for what I decern as sin, or immoral.. Im sure that relates to the world around me, how I was raised, and my faith. I can imagine if I grew up as a wolf boy in an wolf pack, I would see things much differently.

It is laws of Christianity I personally believe that set our system of morals up, otherwise, killing the weakest link of the pack would not be criminal in our society.
Or stealing the kill (food) from a weaker member of the pack. Or randomly humping other females in the pack, whilst you are mated to a particual female. (speaking metaphorically)

As murder is a crime for humans but not for animals, in some people's mind (I would say most), and in most faiths of the world. Homosexuality is criminal in the eyes of their supream being / creator also.

But, if you believe in a different creator or no creator at all. Then what matter is it if I believe my God sees it as a sin? ?

If you don't believe in my God, then my belief of what is sin or not (designated by my God) doesn't effect you.
(unless I am trying to force laws on you to discriminate against your freedom, which I am not).....

So what I understand from your posts is that you want to understand WHY YOU feel it is a sin. IMHO, I believe you answered that in your posts. The God you believe in feels it is a sin, so that seems good enough for you???? (and I support that, not criticizing you at all, just thinking out loud) The "scientific" research you choose supports that belief. There is other "scientific" research supporting other ideas. So it is up to us since still nothing, IMO, is proven to choose what we are most comfortable with and what tends to support our moral beliefs.

Laraine and Paul hit it right on, IMO.

If I am understanding correctly, it appears that you have your answers as to why, IMO. Or idoes it now come down to why does your God feel it is a sin?

It appears (and again this is just my opinion) that you may be looking for solid scientific research that will override your God?? (again, thinking out loud) In which case such research I don't think exists.

I've tried but I can't equate animal behavior to human behavior in a deep enough sense that it will form my opinions. IMO, their intelligence and emotional levels are way too different from humans for me to be able to, in my mind, connect the dots between us and them.

ifitmakesuhappy

16th March 2005, 07:15 AM

....Sexuality is a very interesting subject and is by no means b/w, but has always and will be embroiled with many facets, theories and atitudes......it will never be fully understood. What remains is the law of attraction and ultimately the love that follows......that is what truly matters. If two people are in love, so be it.....its no-ones right to question that love.

you're so right, if you tell me that you are in love with someone i have no rights at all to question it. How can loving another consenting adult who loves you back possibly be a sin? IMO it cant!! To bring a more personal touch to my point, take for example my relationship with my girlfriend of 2 years (and i'm sure everyone else here can apply the same theory to their own relationships).

No one i have met in my life has made me feel the way she does...and she would say the exact thing same about me. No one makes me laugh so hard, cry so hard, turns me on like she does. No one knows me, understands me or believes in me like she does. I dont believe that people are made for each other, or that there is only one person who could make you happy. But I do believe that when you do meet someone who does those things for you, and you for them, frankly IMO and since theres a lot of talk of 'sin', I believe it would be a SIN to walk away from that relationship purely because the other person is of the same sex. We are here to live life and be happy. To enjoy the bodies we have in what ever way we get enjoyment. (obviously as long as no one is getting hurt). I make my girlfriend happy, i know i do, and i make a difference in her life - thats never gonna be wrong! If i were to listen to the people who told me it was a sin, and walk away, that would be wrong, SO WRONG.

Jeff_Ricks

16th March 2005, 07:39 AM

you're so right, if you tell me that you are in love with someone i have no rights at all to question it. How can loving another consenting adult who loves you back possibly be a sin? IMO it cant!! To bring a more personal touch to my point, take for example my relationship with my girlfriend of 2 years (and i'm sure everyone else here can apply the same theory to their own relationships).

No one i have met in my life has made me feel the way she does...and she would say the exact thing same about me. No one makes me laugh so hard, cry so hard, turns me on like she does. No one knows me, understands me or believes in me like she does. I dont believe that people are made for each other, or that there is only one person who could make you happy. But I do believe that when you do meet someone who does those things for you, and you for them, frankly IMO and since theres a lot of talk of 'sin', I believe it would be a SIN to walk away from that relationship purely because the other person is of the same sex. We are here to live life and be happy. To enjoy the bodies we have in what ever way we get enjoyment. (obviously as long as no one is getting hurt). I make my girlfriend happy, i know i do, and i make a difference in her life - thats never gonna be wrong! If i were to listen to the people who told me it was a sin, and walk away, that would be wrong, SO WRONG.

Wow! Very well said! Thank you for posting that.

Jeff

mutleydog

16th March 2005, 08:04 AM

you're so right, if you tell me that you are in love with someone i have no rights at all to question it. How can loving another consenting adult who loves you back possibly be a sin? IMO it cant!! To bring a more personal touch to my point, take for example my relationship with my girlfriend of 2 years (and i'm sure everyone else here can apply the same theory to their own relationships).

No one i have met in my life has made me feel the way she does...and she would say the exact thing same about me. No one makes me laugh so hard, cry so hard, turns me on like she does. No one knows me, understands me or believes in me like she does. I dont believe that people are made for each other, or that there is only one person who could make you happy. But I do believe that when you do meet someone who does those things for you, and you for them, frankly IMO and since theres a lot of talk of 'sin', I believe it would be a SIN to walk away from that relationship purely because the other person is of the same sex. We are here to live life and be happy. To enjoy the bodies we have in what ever way we get enjoyment. (obviously as long as no one is getting hurt). I make my girlfriend happy, i know i do, and i make a difference in her life - thats never gonna be wrong! If i were to listen to the people who told me it was a sin, and walk away, that would be wrong, SO WRONG.

Thank you! I feel the same about my gf too!! Its awesome and no-one can tell me its wrong!! :D

bzcutah

16th March 2005, 10:32 AM

So what I understand from your posts is that you want to understand WHY YOU feel it is a sin. IMHO, I believe you answered that in your posts. The God you believe in feels it is a sin, so that seems good enough for you???? (and I support that, not criticizing you at all, just thinking out loud) The "scientific" research you choose supports that belief. There is other "scientific" research supporting other ideas. So it is up to us since still nothing, IMO, is proven to choose what we are most comfortable with and what tends to support our moral beliefs.

Laraine and Paul hit it right on, IMO.

If I am understanding correctly, it appears that you have your answers as to why, IMO. Or idoes it now come down to why does your God feel it is a sin?

It appears (and again this is just my opinion) that you may be looking for solid scientific research that will override your God?? (again, thinking out loud) In which case such research I don't think exists.

I've tried but I can't equate animal behavior to human behavior in a deep enough sense that it will form my opinions. IMO, their intelligence and emotional levels are way too different from humans for me to be able to, in my mind, connect the dots between us and them.

Why does my God think its a sin?

I can only speculate. While I don't understand what makes a person homosexual, I do not fully understand who and why God is.

But I can speculate.

So many talk about how gay people are suicidal, hurt, distressed.

Maybe God wanted to give guidelines to avoid that pain.

Or maybe it does have something to do with his plan to continue the species of mankind in the rapid way that we are producing offspring. It could be that he wants us to be in very close quarters so that we will be in a position to live like a family, or close enough that we can't avoid it?

Or maybe there is a completely different purpose.

I can only speculate.

But I can say for sure that I wouldn't want my children to have to endure the pain that comes with homosexuality. I wouldn't persicute them for it if they ended up being gay later in life, but I will certainly give them guidance as to how to live a life pleasing to the Lord, in hopes that they have a similar happiness to what I now have.

Before having the Lord in my life, I was unhappy. Now, life is good.

Q. Do I accept the guidelines that my God has given me, just because he gave them to me?

A. Yes. It has proven to be a successful attempt at living a happy life for me.

Q. Do I have any right to force it on other people?

A. No, I don't think so

I think that Gods guidelines in humanity serve many good purposes. Without the rules of God: murder, theft, adultery, ect... Would all be "ok"...
Though I am not much of a law maker, I do like rules.

Jeff_Ricks

16th March 2005, 10:59 AM

Why does my God think its a sin?

I can only speculate. While I don't understand what makes a person homosexual, I do not fully understand who and why God is.

But I can speculate.

So many talk about how gay people are suicidal, hurt, distressed.

Maybe God wanted to give guidelines to avoid that pain.

Or maybe it does have something to do with his plan to continue the species of mankind in the rapid way that we are producing offspring. I could be that he wants us to be in very close quarters so that we will be in a position to live like a family, or close enough that we can't avoid it?

Or maybe there is a completely different purpose.

I can only speculate.

But I can say for sure that I wouldn't want my children to have to endure the pain that comes with homosexuality. I wouldn't persicute them for it if they ended up being gay later in life, but I will certainly give them guidance as to how to live a life pleasing to the Lord, in hopes that they have a similar happiness to what I now have.

Before having the Lord in my life, I was unhappy. Now, life is good.

Q. Do I accept the guidelines that my God has given me, just because he gave them to me?

A. Yes. It has proven to be a successful attempt at living a happy life for me.

Q. Do I have any right to force it on other people?

A. No, I don't think so

I think that Gods guidelines in humanity serve many good purposes. Without the rules of God: murder, theft, adultery, ect... Would all be "ok"...
Though I am not much of a law maker, I do like rules.

Why does my God think its a sin?

I don't want to seem nitpicky but I'm only trying to make a point. Don't you really mean, "Why do I think my God thinks it is a sin?" If God exists I don't think you can speak for her/him. You might refer to the Bible as your proof that God thinks it is a sin, but still it comes back to, why do you think the Bible accurately represents what God thinks? It all seems to me to come down to your faith, which really means your personal choice to accept these things a true. Which brings it back to you. It is really you who thinks that it is a sin, is it not?

Without the rules of God: murder, theft, adultery, ect... Would all be "ok"...
Though I am not much of a law maker, I do like rules.

I also want to point out that millions of murders have been committed in the name of God as have wholesale abuse of millions of people, and billions of dollars of theft (through deception) has occured all in the name of God. So it seems to me we could get along just fine without God muddying up the waters and live by rules of common sense, i.e., Treat others decent and they're more likely to treat you decent.

Jeff

bzcutah

16th March 2005, 11:11 AM

Jeff_Ricks

16th March 2005, 11:23 AM

I also want to point out that millions of murders have been committed in the name of God as have wholesale abuse of millions of people, and billions of dollars of theft (through deception) has occured all in the name of God. So it seems to me we could get along just fine without God muddying up the waters and live by rules of common sense, i.e., Treat others decent and they're more likely to treat you decent.
-----------------------------

Humans do act like animals sometimes, don't they.
It's never a good thing. Or should I say "it's never a God thing"..

They did it because they claimed they knew what God thought and that he thought they should do it. God was their rationalization to do it. So my point being there's danger in thinking that you know what God thinks. So I don't think you can speak for God by saying that God thinks homosexuality is a sin. It is really you who thinks it is a sin, is it not?

Jeff

miss taken

16th March 2005, 11:52 AM

They did it because they claimed they knew what God thought and that he thought they should do it. God was their rationalization to do it. So my point being there's danger in thinking that you know what God thinks. So I don't think you can speak for God by saying that God thinks homosexuality is a sin. It is really you who thinks it is a sin, is it not?

Jeff

Okay, I am in muddy water here. The way I see it, is the bible record is pretty clear on fornication, homosexuality and so forth. Having said that the bible is also full of taboo subjects, ie. having your child sacrificed in the name of God, having sex with your parent (Noah), having sex with your maidservant (Hagar). All pretty much tied up with culture. In the New Testament, Paul is pretty outspoken about the role of women, there also seems to be a culture where 'sickness' is looked on as 'possession by an evil spirit'. I think that what we moderners tend to forget is that the bible both old and new testament is a cultural document, and they had their cultural reasons for arguing a certain position on a certain subject.

On my many visits to Greece what has always fascinated me is the way that they seemed to celebrate sex, including homosexual relationships, those same taboos didn't seem to exist outside of the Judaic/christian/islamic traditions.

Perhaps there were health reasons for a lot of the taboos, we all know that disease can be spread through particular foods (pork in particular if not salted) as well as through sex. So, in many ways the advise seems good and is protective rather than oppressive.??

I do think though, that we have the fall out of a lot of unhealthy attitudes directly from the judaic/christain/islamic traditions. We got the good, but we also got the bad too, and it is up to us to use our brains and to sift between that which was edifying and that which was/is not.

Have waffled.
Mary

bigeddy

16th March 2005, 12:03 PM

To echo Jeff, maybe Jung was right in that we construct God to help understand and deify our Self. The ancients did the same thing by deifing each part of the Self, or the committee of Self by having a set of gods, each reflecting a self of them that was part of the Self.

I find that we create god in our image. We hold affectively to an image of god that is the same as the image we hold of our highest Self. As that image of the Self changes so does our image of god. I began to see that the mormon kids I taught had different images, affective images of who god is. I began to see that their parents did also and then began to see that authorities were not immune to this process. I began to wonder where each person gets their affective image of god. I found it in their image of authority figures who sat in what I call "god position" in their lives at various times. We then affectively look about to find a comercially produced (someone's pre-packaged image of god that usually enriches the authority monetarily or gives them power over other people) god that fits our image. So on we go making god so that we can understand the Self or make the Self godly so we can feel good about who we are being in the world.

SO, I echo Jeff in that we are free to choose various images of god and we usually (IMO and experience) choose a god image that represents who we are. Since we cannot know what god thinks we constantly relate to the image of god we hold in our heads, not to any objectively real image of a god who exists.

From this process comes our opinions of sin and evil. Usually, I find, these represent also parts of the Self (or selves) that we have cast into the shadow of our personality and are trying to rid ourselves of. I find this process to never work because we cannot kill a self that is part of our Self. We can deny it and cast it into the shadow of our personality and it will sneak up and nail us in the butt.

Ed

bzcutah

16th March 2005, 12:12 PM

bzcutah

16th March 2005, 12:23 PM

Q. Do I think God condones or instructs homosexuality?

A. I have not seen any teaching or instruction from Him that does.

On the other hand I do see "man shall leave his mother and father and cleave to his wife"

"shall be the husband of one wife"

"the two (male and female) shall become one flesh".

Jesus refers to the sin of sodom and gamorrah, which was homosexuality.

So, do I interpret all of that as my God instructing hetrosexuality? Yes.
Do I see instruction or acceptance of homosexuality?
No.

Do I see Him saying homosexuality is immoral?
Yes.

The teachings that I and most other Christians, Muslims, ect, learn from says that homosexuality is immoral, and should be avoided.

Between Christians, Jews, and Muslims, there really is very little variation of anything else. So most of the teachings in the world agree that homosexuality is a sin.

I believe that there are good reasons for teaching that, and I described those reasons in an earlier post.

bzcutah

16th March 2005, 12:37 PM

It is really you who thinks it is a sin, is it not?

It really is me in the situation who is saying that homosexuality is a sin. I think that I have made that quite clear.

But in reality what it comes down to, is that you don't have to believe what I or others believe. You can believe what ever you would like.

Jeff_Ricks

16th March 2005, 12:45 PM

I am saying this. I have not seen Jesus instruct murder, crusades, genecide, in any of His teachings or writings.

The Old Testiment as Jesus put it, was "unprofitable" and is why He fulfilled the law of Moses.. But in Christ's teaching (Christ IS who I follow, not Moses).. Never have I seen any justification for what you speak of.

But, in nature, and even in humans outside the laws of God, we see the same activity.

It seems like there were many crusades and wars between native american tribes WAY before the white man came with his religion.

My wife is Cherokee and I am part Mohawk so I am not discriminating against NAs, please don't misunderstand me there.

I am simply saying that human nature, is not God nature.
The closer I get to God nature and the teachings of Christ, the better I am/feel.

Still, in your posts you are make a number of claims or at least assumptions about what God thinks, says, what his nature is, what his laws are etc., as if you speak for God. For example, when you say "I am simply saying that human nature, is not God nature", I have to respond with, "So you say." I would rather see you phrase your statement as, "I am simply saying that human nature is not what I think is God's nature." Otherwise you are claiming in a sense to be God's mouthpiece. Don't you think?

When you say what Jesus did, said, taught you're making assumptions too about the historic accuracy of the Bible, and that Jesus spoke for God. As I see it, all any of us can do is make assumptions. No one speaks for God or knows God's intentions or even knows if God exists. Whether religious or not when it comes right down to it we're all in the same boat trying to figure things out. No one has the scoop on the truth. To borrow from our home page, "truth is freely available to any honest, diligent seeker regardless of creed, age, race or sexual orientation" and "loving one's neighbor begins with giving up the claim to have special access to truth." And I have to admit that the home page statement is based on assumptions too, but assupmtions that I think move humanity in a better direction. We're the ones in the boat that say, "We're tired of rowing in that direction, it seems to cause too much trouble for us. Let's row in this direction for awhile." ;)

Jeff

silverfox

16th March 2005, 01:09 PM

It really is me in the situation who is saying that homosexuality is a sin. I think that I have made that quite clear.

But in reality what it comes down to, is that you don't have to believe what I or others believe. You can believe what ever you would like.

I am still confused on the intent of this thread. I understood that your intent was to understand why you feel homosexuality is a sin. But I don't see the thread going in that direction on your part, IMO. Did I misunderstand? Please clarify.

For the record, I have no issues with the thread as I no longer fear it's direction. Quite frankly I don't see it going anywhere (as far as my understanding of it's intent is) because I am still confused about it's intent. But it's hard to say. I could be very wrong.

However, IMO, just because it hasn't gone in a "anticipated" direction doesn't mean there haven't been priceless comments and observations made that I will take with me and use in my day to day life. Thanks everyone for that.

bzcutah

16th March 2005, 01:25 PM

I am still confused on the intent of this thread. I understood that your intent was to understand why you feel homosexuality is a sin. But I don't see the thread going in that direction on your part, IMO. Did I misunderstand? Please clarify.

For the record, I have no issues with the thread as I no longer fear it's direction. Quite frankly I don't see it going anywhere (as far as my understanding of it's intent is) because I am still confused about it's intent. But it's hard to say. I could be very wrong.

However, IMO, just because it hasn't gone in a "anticipated" direction doesn't mean there haven't been priceless comments and observations made that I will take with me and use in my day to day life. Thanks everyone for that.

Well.. The direction is certainly a destination of learning.

I don't know if anyone has learned from what I have posted, but I have learned a few things from others.

I have anticipated resistance to my opinions. Thats nothing new.

The approach of "its your god" or "its your incorrect interpretation".. Well, what can I say, we are all former Mormons. I expected that too.

But. I like the links to the gaymormon website. It reminds me of the relationship that my cousin has with her girlfriend.

My cousin who is gay is a really sweet person. She has been through a lot. She went through several foster homes 2 of which she was severly molested as a young girl (pre-teen and teen years)..

She is a survivor with a strong heart, and a beautiful relationship with her companion.

She has a kid from her married relationship prior to her gay relationship. Her kid is awesome, and they are pretty good to her.

They are highly motivated, successful, home owners, and parents..

She is also a post Mormon, and that is something that we have in common, other than we grew up together from the time we were little (my grandma adopted us both).

Her and I agree to disagree on the homosexual issue, and I don't hold it against her (or any other gay person)..

Like I have said, it is not my place to condemn someone for who they are or how they live. My goal is to be a shinning light in their life, expressing Christ through my new life.

Just because I believe homosexuality is immoral (again) is not my place to force someone to live another way, or to vote against their lifestyle, or to hurt them.

When I was on the streets as a kid in Seattle, I used to gather change from people on Capitol Hill. It was mostly a homosexual community, but the people there were very generous. I had/have several gay friends from living there.

So yes, I am still looking for answers to unanswered questions. I may never find them. But I am learning about other prospectives in the process.

bzcutah

16th March 2005, 01:30 PM

I understood that your intent was to understand why you feel homosexuality is a sin.

I guess that may be one part to the whole idea. But I actually am posting to understand homosexuality in general.

In another post, someone explained that homosexuality is prevailent in nature.

That was the tip of the iceburg. I had to understand that better. Then, after that question, I proposed my idea on homosexuality in the LDS community.

All of these questions, comments, and answers all form an idea for this topic in general.

1. What is homosexuality
2. Is it natural
3. Is it sin
4. Is there negatives to it
5. Is there postives to it

I think all of those questions have been spoke about, and thank you all for that. I like to know other people's opinions.

silverfox

16th March 2005, 01:54 PM

Well.. The direction is certainly a destination of learning.

I don't know if anyone has learned from what I have posted, but I have learned a few things from others.

I have anticipated resistance to my opinions. Thats nothing new.

The approach of "its your god" or "its your incorrect interpretation".. Well, what can I say, we are all former Mormons. I expected that too.

But. I like the links to the gaymormon website. It reminds me of the relationship that my cousin has with her girlfriend.

My cousin who is gay is a really sweet person. She has been through a lot. She went through several foster homes 2 of which she was severly molested as a young girl (pre-teen and teen years)..

She is a survivor with a strong heart, and a beautiful relationship with her companion.

She has a kid from her married relationship prior to her gay relationship. Her kid is awesome, and they are pretty good to her.

They are highly motivated, successful, home owners, and parents..

She is also a post Mormon, and that is something that we have in common, other than we grew up together from the time we were little (my grandma adopted us both).

Her and I agree to disagree on the homosexual issue, and I don't hold it against her (or any other gay person)..

Like I have said, it is not my place to condemn someone for who they are or how they live. My goal is to be a shinning light in their life, expressing Christ through my new life.

Just because I believe homosexuality is immoral (again) is not my place to force someone to live another way, or to vote against their lifestyle, or to hurt them.

When I was on the streets as a kid in Seattle, I used to gather change from people on Capitol Hill. It was mostly a homosexual community, but the people there were very generous. I had/have several gay friends from living there.

So yes, I am still looking for answers to unanswered questions. I may never find them. But I am learning about other prospectives in the process.

Thanks for sharing that, b.

darin

16th March 2005, 02:16 PM

I think that it comes down to the notion that someone brought up in another thread, to justify the nature of homosexuality.

Someone spoke of how an LDS bishop was unaware of homosexuality amongst animals in the wild…

So comparing human behavior to animal behavior IS very interesting, but not really relevant.

Ryan,

In quoting the above exchange, I know you were responding negatively to the idea that ‘homosexuality in the animal kingdom makes it natural,’ so this comment isn’t directed ‘at you,’ so much as in response to this particular manifestation of this facet on the subject. This argument—“homosexuality appears in the animal kingdom, therefore it’s natural”—is often used by well-meaning individuals to support homosexual rights among people—and for that, I appreciate the intentions—and I can see some of their point, as well.

However, I just want to point out, yet again, that by saying “Homosexuality appears in the animal kingdom,” what one often is doing, once again, is reducing ‘homosexuality’ to ‘homosexual acts.’ The fact that animals of the same gender sometimes engage in sexual practices in the wild is not the foremost reason to condone or condemn ‘a mature, committed, loving, caring, care-giving relationship between two same-gendered human adults,’ (the ideal that many human homosexuals long for), any more than the observation that male and female animals procreate in nature should be the reason we accept or reject ‘marriage between a man and a woman.’

At the risk of sounding like a broken record (for which I apologize!), but hoping to allow others to see common comments in perhaps a different light, ‘homosexual behavior’ is NOT the same thing as ‘a homosexual’ or ‘homosexuality.’ In addition, I do not believe ‘homosexual relationships’ be reduced solely to ‘homosexual behaviors’—which seems to be the end assumption when one says “homosexuality can be observed in the animal kingdom.”

Just because I believe homosexuality is immoral (again) is not my place to force someone to live another way, or to vote against their lifestyle, or to hurt them.

It sounds as if the overriding reason you believe “homosexuality is immoral” is because “you believe God says homosexuality is immoral.” Is that accurate?

Apologies if I get too graphic with the following list—I do so with a purpose. Note to Moderator: if I am crossing the lines of decency, please edit the following paragraph:

If not, what about ‘homosexuality’ do you believe is immoral—which aspects? In the following list, is there a line that separates ‘sin’ from ‘non-sin’?: Anal sex between two men? Oral sex between two men? Hugging between two men? Hand-holding between two men? French kissing between two men? Cheek kissing between two men? Verbal expressions of love between two men? A romantic, non-sexual, loving, long-term relationship between two men? Two men setting up household together? Two men taking care of each in a familial relationship? If this is uncomfortable to answer, don’t feel compelled to—I’m just curious as to where you draw the line—how you classify sin.

I’d like to take a stab at a couple of your questions:

Is homosexuality natural?

To that, I can only answer this: For homosexuals, homosexuality is “natural”. For heterosexuals, heterosexuality is “natural.” Homosexuality is JUST as “unnatural” to heterosexuals as heterosexuality is to homosexuals.

Is homosexuality sinful?

I believe “sin,” best defined, is “to know ‘good’ and not do it.” In the case of 'sexuality' (which I use broadly, to include the range of non-physical relationships to fully physical, sexually-active relationships), what is “good” for each individual depends on his or her own natural, ‘god’-given sexual expression. Therefore, what is “sinful” for one individual may be just the opposite for another. It would be “sinful” for a heterosexual to force himself to live in a homosexual relationship—“leaving the natural” (or ‘god’-given) “expression” or “use” of his sexuality. It would likewise be “sinful” for a homosexual to force himself to live in a heterosexual relationship—“leaving the natural” (or ‘god’-given) “expression” or “use” of his sexuality.

Are there negatives and/or positives to one’s sexuality?

To me, this question is kinda like asking, "Are there negatives to using a screwdriver?" and "Are there positives to using a screwdriver?" The answer to both questions is the same: A screwdriver is not intrinsically 'good' or 'bad'--but we need to understand the context in which the questions are being asked in order to make such value judgements. Only once we identify the task that needs to be accomplished--the 'common ground,' if you will, will the answers of what is 'postive' vs. 'negative' have any meaning. For example, if you want to "screw in a screw," a screwdriver is 'positive'. If you want to "drive in a nail," a screwdriver is 'negative.'

The role that human sexuality plays in our lives is MUCH too complicated to be strictly distilled down to a single purpose, and, as such, these two 'black and white' classifications seem woefully inadequate.

“Negative” and “Positive” are subjective terms—depending on what criteria “the judge” is using to answer the question—what “goals” are intending to be accomplished. There will ALWAYS be “positives” and “negatives” to ANYTHING in life, IMO, but the benefits/drawbacks are enumerated will depend entirely on the paradigm/values of the individual who is answering the question at the time.

bigeddy

16th March 2005, 02:21 PM

In the same spirit of inquiry and true wondering I ask the following:

1. What is heterosexuality?
2. Is it natural?
3. Is it a sin?
4. Does it have advantages?
5. Does it have disadvantages?

Ed

bzcutah

16th March 2005, 02:41 PM

1. What is heterosexuality
2. Is it natural?
3. Is it a sin?
4. Does it have advantages?
5. Does it have disadvantages?

I guess that is really the opposite of the thread, or at best a contrast to the topic.

So lets try this anyway:

1. What is heterosexuality

Sexual orientation to persons of the opposite sex

2. Is it natural?

If it weren't humans would not exist

3. Is it a sin?

Again, refer to my last answer

4. Does it have advantages?

Presevervation of the human race.

5. Does it have disadvantages?

Several

Kinda vague, but since it's not really the topic at hand, I didn't think that I would go into a major tangent.

darin

16th March 2005, 02:58 PM

1. What is heterosexuality

Sexual orientation to persons of the opposite sex
What is “Sexual Orientation”?

2. Is it natural?

If it weren't humans would not exist
What does “natural” mean?

3. Is it a sin?

Again, refer to my last answer
What is “sin”?

4. Does it have advantages?

Presevervation of the human race.

5. Does it have disadvantages?

Several
See the last post of mine on this page.

One more question of my own:

Do you feel the need to find one, universal answer demonstrating that one form of "sexual orientation" has more value than any or all others for all people? Why, or why not…?

darin

16th March 2005, 03:05 PM

1. What is homosexuality?

Sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.

2. Is it natural?

If it weren't homosexuals would not exist.

3. Is it a sin?

Again, refer to my last answer.

4. Does it have advantages?

Depends on the criteria being used to judge.

5. Does it have disadvantages?

Depends.

;)

bzcutah

16th March 2005, 03:09 PM

What is “Sexual Orientation”?

What does “natural” mean?

What is “sin”?

See the last post of mine on this page.

One more question of my own:

Do you feel the need to find one, universal answer demonstrating that one form of "sexual orientation" has more value than any or all others for all people? Why, or why not…?

www.dictionary.com

darin

16th March 2005, 03:14 PM

bzcutah

16th March 2005, 03:18 PM

2. Is it natural?

If it weren't homosexuals would not exist.

I can see your logic there.

But if it weren't for hetrosexuality homosexuals wouldn't exist, nor would hetrosexuals. No one would exist.

As for what is natural in that regard.

We have murders, rapists, terrorists, ect...

Lots of natural things I suppose. Not all "good" but certainly natural.

How do their activities benefit mankind based on the criteria listed?

Lets be positive, and even politically correct here:

Murderers = Population control

Rapists = Umm.....

Terrorists = Population control

Negatives:

Murders = Pain for the victims and their families and society in general

Rapists = Enough said

Terrorists = Pain for their victims and society in general

I guess what I am saying is that conversation can go on for a long time.

bzcutah

16th March 2005, 03:21 PM

ah, www.dictionary.com --the fount from which all answers to life's greatest questions flow. ;)

I guess you don't need to ask your questions for discussion here, then, if you already can point to where you can receive black and white answers........?

I'm confused, Ryan.... You asked the questions.... Are you interested in discussing them, or just finding pat answers...?

Really what it was, is that I wanted to give you a clue as to where to find the answers to your patronizing questions, because that is where I would have gave you answers from.

Language is GOOD. But having a standard of definitions is REALLY good..

I don't need to give you my interpretation of what your questions mean. Because I agree with the standard in the Websters dictionary about what those words mean.

If you feel that there is a variation to what those words mean compared to Websters, then your answers would be much more interesting than mine.

~Ryan

bzcutah

16th March 2005, 03:28 PM

I'll give you a clue as to my predictability.

I have two standards in communication and understanding life.

1. The Holy Bible (NKJV)

2. Websters

If Websters disagrees with the NKJV version of the Bible, then I revert back to the Bible.

Of course, I use logic in decerning those things, and I like to be educated and know other prospectives.

BUT, I am very predictable.

darin

16th March 2005, 03:32 PM

But if it weren't for hetrosexuality homosexuals wouldn't exist, nor would hetrosexuals. No one would exist.

What you say above is true, and I freely admit that homosexuals are dependant upon the heterosexual interaction of their parents exist. I am grateful for my father and mother, for bringing me into the world. I am not sure what this has to do with whether or not homosexuality is a natural variation of human sexuality. What does it have to do with that?

As for what is natural in that regard.

We have murders, rapists, terrorists, ect...

Lots of natural things I suppose. Not all "good" but certainly natural.

What you say above is true. I never made the case that “natural automatically equals good,” just answered your question whether or not “homosexuality is natural.”

Are you intending to suggest that “value” is somehow linked to “things which are naturally occurring”? Again—you raised the question of “natural,” not me.

How do their activities benefit mankind based on the criteria listed?

Lets be positive, and even politically correct here:

Murderers = Population control

Rapists = Umm.....

Terrorists = Population control

Negatives:

Murders = Pain for the victims and their families and society in general

Rapists = Enough said

Terrorists = Pain for their victims and society in general

I thought we were discussing sexual orientation—specifically, homosexuality. How did we get on the subject of “murderers, rapists, and terrorists”…?

bzcutah

16th March 2005, 03:33 PM

I guess you don't need to ask your questions for discussion here, then, if you already can point to where you can receive black and white answers........?

That couldn't be further from the truth. I have opinions, and standards, ideals and beliefs. But you are already acustom to those, since they are common standards and related to common definitions.

My questions and discussion isn't necessarily to find out what I think. It is to find out what others think.
If you don't like my answer "www.dictionary.com" then just disregard it. But in relation to the definitions that you asked for, I agree with websters on those definitions. There is no need for me to go pull them out and paste them one by one.

bzcutah

16th March 2005, 03:34 PM

I thought we were discussing sexual orientation—specifically, homosexuality. How did we get on the subject of “murderers, rapists, and terrorists”…?

I guess it's the same way that we got on the tangent of heterosexuality.

But I was awefully confused when that came into this conversation too. Since we are discussing homosexuality.

So I thought that I would make my own comparisons to the comment about "natural" behaviors.

darin

16th March 2005, 03:41 PM

Really what it was, is that I wanted to give you a clue as to where to find the answers to your patronizing questions, because that is where I would have gave you answers from.
WHOA!!!!! Hang on there. “Patronizing”? Ryan, in all honesty, I seriously thought there was (and is) some great, thought-provoking questioning going on—questions that hopefully cause us all to reexamine our preconceived notions. I did not intend “to patronize.” Sometimes, I can be wickedly sarcastic (the “fount of all answers” comment was just such a tongue-in-cheek reference to what still remains a favorite hymn of mine. Sorry that my humor didn’t translate well to the message board medium. I’ll try and reign it in). I have been seriously giving thought to your questions—I hope you go back to the previous page and comment on my original, longer answers that I gave before I mimicked your more brief ones. Even the answers in brevity have proved thought-provoking, to me—and my answering by asking further questions, such as “what is sin,” or “what is natural” were meant seriously—not patronizingly.

Language is GOOD. But having a standard of definitions is REALLY good..
I agree—which is exactly why I wanted to raise the questions of what YOU mean by “sin” and “natural” within the context of this discussion. Reading my original, longer post will hopefully help you see how these shorter answers are extensions of my trying to focus on a common frame of reference for us to communicate, rather than simply providing a link listing standardized answers that are still inadequate for the complexity, or depth, if you will, of this discussion.

I don't need to give you my interpretation of what your questions mean. Because I agree with the standard in the Websters dictionary about what those words mean.

If you feel that there is a variation to what those words mean compared to Websters, then your answers would be much more interesting than mine.
I hope you can see by my answers above I was not intending to be glib for glibness’ sake, despite my occasional lapse into humor. I’ll try to refrain from it from now on, so as not to confuse the issue.

Darin

bzcutah

16th March 2005, 03:45 PM

No problem. I just wanted to give you understanding about how I think. I suppose I am very dry.

Communication is a HUGE part of my life.

I have done technical support for 7 years.

Relating technical phrases to my customers who are less than computer savvy, makes life difficult.
I have to keep things VERY simple at all times.

As I said, I use common standards as a basis of communication. That way the issue does not get confused.

Jeff_Ricks

16th March 2005, 03:47 PM

I guess that may be one part to the whole idea. But I actually am posting to understand homosexuality in general.

In another post, someone explained that homosexuality is prevailent in nature.

That was the tip of the iceburg. I had to understand that better. Then, after that question, I proposed my idea on homosexuality in the LDS community.

All of these questions, comments, and answers all form an idea for this topic in general.

1. What is homosexuality
2. Is it natural
3. Is it sin
4. Is there negatives to it
5. Is there postives to it

I think all of those questions have been spoke about, and thank you all for that. I like to know other people's opinions.

My answers to the questions:

1. What is homosexuality

See Websters.

2. Is it natural

What is natural? Is praying natural? Given the number of species that pray it would appear that praying isn't natural. Is upright walking natural? Given the tiny number of bipeds in the world it would appear to be unnatural. Is wearing clothes natural? You get my drift.

3. Is it sin

I would rephrase the question to, is it immoral, because the word sin implies going against the laws of God and no one knows for sure if God exists so no one knows for sure if there is really such a thing a sin. Your question therefore appear to be mute. As far as is it immoral, Webster defines immoral as "conflicting with generally or traditionally held moral principles." So it appears that whether something is immoral or not is up to popular vote! I'm just calling it as I read it folks. So who votes that homosexuality is immoral? I'm not really asking for a vote, just making a point.

4. Is there negatives to it

Yes. There are negatives to everything.

5. Is there postives to it

Yes. There are positives to everything.

Jeff

darin

16th March 2005, 03:49 PM

I guess it's the same way that we got on the tangent of heterosexuality.

But I was awefully confused when that came into this conversation too. Since we are discussing homosexuality.

So I thought that I would make my own comparisons to the comment about "natural" behaviors.

Are you familiar with Alfred Kinsey, Ryan? He suggested that sexual orientation is not a mere question of ‘gay’ vs. ‘straight’, but a spectrum, along which all individuals fall, ranging from “strictly heterosexual, to bisexual, to strictly homosexual.” It is difficult to isolate homosexuality from heterosexuality when one views them as different manifestations along the same spectrum.

(See: http://www.lgbtcampus.org/resources/training/kinsey_scale.html )

Murder, rape, and terrorism may be viewed as “sins along the sin spectrum” by you, which, I’m guessing, is why you brought them up. Given that we were discussing “homosexuality” and how it differs from “heterosexuality,” I didn’t think it was too much of a stretch for bigeddy to raise the questions he did, in response to your thoughtful questions.

Can we (myself included) all just take a few big breaths, calm down a little, and try to put our tendencies to get offended aside so we can thoughtfully discuss this issue? I hope so—it has been a fruitful discussion thus far…

bzcutah

16th March 2005, 03:50 PM

3. Is it sin

I would rephrase the question to, is it immoral, because the word sin implies going against the laws of God and no one knows for sure if God exists so no one knows for sure if there is really such a thing a sin.

You may be right in the regard that you don't know if God exists, but I do know that God exists, and I was asking the question, or proposing the idea for my own benefit.

Although, I see your point. Not everyone understands or accepts the idea of "sin".

~Ryan

Jeff_Ricks

16th March 2005, 03:52 PM

My answers to the questions:

1. What is homosexuality

See Websters.

2. Is it natural

What is natural? Is praying natural? Given the number of species that pray it would appear that praying isn't natural. Is upright walking natural? Given the tiny number of bipeds in the world it would appear to be unnatural. Is wearing clothes natural? You get my drift.

3. Is it sin

I would rephrase the question to, is it immoral, because the word sin implies going against the laws of God and no one knows for sure if God exists so no one knows for sure if there is really such a thing a sin. Your question therefore appear to be mute. As far as is it immoral, Webster defines immoral as "conflicting with generally or traditionally held moral principles." So it appears that whether something is immoral or not is up to popular vote! I'm just calling it as I read it folks. So who votes that homosexuality is immoral? I'm not really asking for a vote, just making a point.

4. Is there negatives to it

Yes. There are negatives to everything.

5. Is there postives to it

Yes. There are positives to everything.

Jeff

Hmmm... come to think of it, wearing clothes negatively impacts our rate of reproduction, so wearing clothes must be a sin. I don't think it's as simple as you seem to want it to be Ryan.

Jeff

bzcutah

16th March 2005, 03:54 PM

Hmmm... come to think of it, wearing clothes impacts our rate of reproduction, so wearing clothes must be a sin. I don't think it's as simple as you seem to want it to be Ryan.

Jeff

Simple? That is exactly my point of saying "this conversation could go on for a long time"..

I noted a couple of things in nature that are NOT acceptable in our society, gay or straight, or inbetween, or black while, purple blue WHATEVER... But in nature it is acceptable.

When saying "homosexuality is natural because homosexuality exists" is what I was commenting to.

darin

16th March 2005, 03:56 PM

Repost--

I think that it comes down to the notion that someone brought up in another thread, to justify the nature of homosexuality.

Someone spoke of how an LDS bishop was unaware of homosexuality amongst animals in the wild…

So comparing human behavior to animal behavior IS very interesting, but not really relevant.

Ryan,

In quoting the above exchange, I know you were responding negatively to the idea that ‘homosexuality in the animal kingdom makes it natural,’ so this comment isn’t directed ‘at you,’ so much as in response to this particular manifestation of this facet on the subject. This argument—“homosexuality appears in the animal kingdom, therefore it’s natural”—is often used by well-meaning individuals to support homosexual rights among people—and for that, I appreciate the intentions—and I can see some of their point, as well.

However, I just want to point out, yet again, that by saying “Homosexuality appears in the animal kingdom,” what one often is doing, once again, is reducing ‘homosexuality’ to ‘homosexual acts.’ The fact that animals of the same gender sometimes engage in sexual practices in the wild is not the foremost reason to condone or condemn ‘a mature, committed, loving, caring, care-giving relationship between two same-gendered human adults,’ (the ideal that many human homosexuals long for), any more than the observation that male and female animals procreate in nature should be the reason we accept or reject ‘marriage between a man and a woman.’

At the risk of sounding like a broken record (for which I apologize!), but hoping to allow others to see common comments in perhaps a different light, ‘homosexual behavior’ is NOT the same thing as ‘a homosexual’ or ‘homosexuality.’ In addition, I do not believe ‘homosexual relationships’ be reduced solely to ‘homosexual behaviors’—which seems to be the end assumption when one says “homosexuality can be observed in the animal kingdom.”

Just because I believe homosexuality is immoral (again) is not my place to force someone to live another way, or to vote against their lifestyle, or to hurt them.

It sounds as if the overriding reason you believe “homosexuality is immoral” is because “you believe God says homosexuality is immoral.” Is that accurate?

Apologies if I get too graphic with the following list—I do so with a purpose. Note to Moderator: if I am crossing the lines of decency, please edit the following paragraph:

If not, what about ‘homosexuality’ do you believe is immoral—which aspects? In the following list, is there a line that separates ‘sin’ from ‘non-sin’?: Anal sex between two men? Oral sex between two men? Hugging between two men? Hand-holding between two men? French kissing between two men? Cheek kissing between two men? Verbal expressions of love between two men? A romantic, non-sexual, loving, long-term relationship between two men? Two men setting up household together? Two men taking care of each in a familial relationship? If this is uncomfortable to answer, don’t feel compelled to—I’m just curious as to where you draw the line—how you classify sin.

I’d like to take a stab at a couple of your questions:

Is homosexuality natural?

To that, I can only answer this: For homosexuals, homosexuality is “natural”. For heterosexuals, heterosexuality is “natural.” Homosexuality is JUST as “unnatural” to heterosexuals as heterosexuality is to homosexuals.

Is homosexuality sinful?

I believe “sin,” best defined, is “to know ‘good’ and not do it.” In the case of 'sexuality' (which I use broadly, to include the range of non-physical relationships to fully physical, sexually-active relationships), what is “good” for each individual depends on his or her own natural, ‘god’-given sexual expression. Therefore, what is “sinful” for one individual may be just the opposite for another. It would be “sinful” for a heterosexual to force himself to live in a homosexual relationship—“leaving the natural” (or ‘god’-given) “expression” or “use” of his sexuality. It would likewise be “sinful” for a homosexual to force himself to live in a heterosexual relationship—“leaving the natural” (or ‘god’-given) “expression” or “use” of his sexuality.

Are there negatives and/or positives to one’s sexuality?

To me, this question is kinda like asking, "Are there negatives to using a screwdriver?" and "Are there positives to using a screwdriver?" The answer to both questions is the same: A screwdriver is not intrinsically 'good' or 'bad'--but we need to understand the context in which the questions are being asked in order to make such value judgements. Only once we identify the task that needs to be accomplished--the 'common ground,' if you will, will the answers of what is 'postive' vs. 'negative' have any meaning. For example, if you want to "screw in a screw," a screwdriver is 'positive'. If you want to "drive in a nail," a screwdriver is 'negative.'

The role that human sexuality plays in our lives is MUCH too complicated to be strictly distilled down to a single purpose, and, as such, these two 'black and white' classifications seem woefully inadequate.

“Negative” and “Positive” are subjective terms—depending on what criteria “the judge” is using to answer the question—what “goals” are intending to be accomplished. There will ALWAYS be “positives” and “negatives” to ANYTHING in life, IMO, but the benefits/drawbacks are enumerated will depend entirely on the paradigm/values of the individual who is answering the question at the time.

But if it weren't for hetrosexuality homosexuals wouldn't exist, nor would hetrosexuals. No one would exist.

What you say above is true, and I freely admit that homosexuals are dependant upon the heterosexual interaction of their parents exist. I am grateful for my father and mother, for bringing me into the world. I am not sure what this has to do with whether or not homosexuality is a natural variation of human sexuality. What does it have to do with that?

As for what is natural in that regard.

We have murders, rapists, terrorists, ect...

Lots of natural things I suppose. Not all "good" but certainly natural.

What you say above is true. I never made the case that “natural automatically equals good,” just answered your question whether or not “homosexuality is natural.”

Are you intending to suggest that “value” is somehow linked to “things which are naturally occurring”? Again—you raised the question of “natural,” not me.

Apologies for the repeat...

darin

16th March 2005, 04:00 PM

Ryan (or any of us):

Do you feel the need to find one, universal answer demonstrating that one form of "sexual orientation" has more value than any or all others for all people? Why, or why not…?

bzcutah

16th March 2005, 04:02 PM

Are you intending to suggest that “value” is somehow linked to “things which are naturally occurring”? Again—you raised the question of “natural,” not me.

Well with hetrosexuality, there would be no nature for humans without it. Human nature can do without homosexuality and still survive as a species. But without hetrosexuality all of these years, our species wouldn't be here to even discuss the issue.

So I guess what it comes down to is "how essential is it"?

What role if any does it play in nature?

Jeff_Ricks

16th March 2005, 04:02 PM

You may be right in the regard that you don't know if God exists, but I do know that God exists, and I was asking the question, or proposing the idea for my own benefit.

Although, I see your point. Not everyone understands or accepts the idea of "sin".

~Ryan

Okay, I have to comment on this one. You "know that God exists"? I think it would be more accurate to say that you think you know that God exists. As I said before, no one has the inside track on this. They might think they do, but that's as good as it gets.

Jeff

bzcutah

16th March 2005, 04:03 PM

No Jeff, I know God exists.

darin

16th March 2005, 04:06 PM

I noted a couple of things in nature that are NOT acceptable in our society, gay or straight, or inbetween, or black while, purple blue WHATEVER... But in nature it is acceptable.

When saying "homosexuality is natural because homosexuality exists" is what I was commenting to.

Just wanted to reiterate: I'm the one who first said "homosexuality is natural because homosexuals exist" in this thread, I believe. It appears this was erroneously taken to mean that I was actually implying, "Homosexuality is natural because homosexuals exist, and anything that exists in nature is just fine by me."

Like you, Ryan, I can see plenty of things in the natural world which I consider to be objectionable. I was merely answering your question. As you can see, a deceptively simple word such as "natural" seems to imply different things to different people, and somehow carries with it a load of nuanced meanings, despite the simplicity it would appear to have--even in Webster's.

bzcutah

16th March 2005, 04:12 PM

Like you, Ryan, I can see plenty of things in the natural world which I consider to be objectionable. I was merely answering your question. As you can see, a deceptively simple word such as "natural" seems to imply different things to different people, and somehow carries with it a load of nuanced meanings, despite the simplicity it would appear to have--even in Webster's.

True, refer to post #109 for clairification.. Thanks for pointing that out.

Jeff_Ricks

16th March 2005, 04:19 PM

I respect your firm belief that you know, but I don't think anyone can know.

Jeff

peter_mary

16th March 2005, 04:24 PM

WARNING: This rambles a bit...sorry...I'm just thinking here, and exploring an area I'm not qualified to talk about, but I nevertheless have an opinion about.

The reality of nature is that it is messy. There is a dynamic about it that ebbs and flows, sometimes working, sometimes not, but it is constantly moving. Just because something might not contribute in the here and now to the propagation of the species doesn't mean that it can't happen naturally in the natural world...it only means it isn't going to pass along those genes.

Albinism (is that a word? In case it isn't, I'm speaking of Albinos), does nothing to contribute to the species, yet it periodically expresses itself quite naturally. It seems to be built into the genetics of vertibrates to sometimes produce an albino. But an albino is not "wrong" for being different.

Some people are geniuses, some are average, some are way below average...none is more righteous than another, they just are. Nature creates them all, even though clearly a genius passes along more desirable genes than a fool.

I have a yard full of aspen trees. Some of them seem impervious to the borers that infest others. Some of them pop their buds quite predictably before the last frost of the season and get their tender leaves frozen off, while others are slow to leaf and almost never have to produce a second batch. They are different, even though they are the same species. None are right or wrong, they just "are".

It seems to me that the argument that homosexuality may not be "natural" is like saying shortness is not natural, but rather a choice, or the product of environmental circumstances. Well, maybe sometimes it IS the product of environmental circumstances, but it still IS. And most times it's just the way some of us come packaged.

Being fat is not an advantage biologically, but it is natural for me to be so :rolleyes: . There is tremendous variability in the metabolisms of people...some can eat whatever they want, some can eat a single apple and put on 5 pounds. It's not wrong to be that way, it's just the way some people are made.

So why is it such a stretch here to recognize the same variability in nature when it comes to sexual orientation? Sexual preference is as variable among heterosexual people as it is among homosexual people (which is good, or else only about 5% of us would ever get to reproduce!). What I mean is, though I am heterosexual, I find some women attractive and others not so much so, but another man might find he prefers just the opposite. Some people are more attracted to people with dark skin, others to light skin, and most of us are homopigmental (another made up word from the lexicon of Paul) i.e. we prefer people of the same or similar skin color, but others are heteropigmental (why stop now :D ) and are more attracted to people with a different skin color. Some people like 'em a little on the chunky side (which means I get a fulfilled marriage), others prefer them underfed (which keeps the modeling industry in a perpetual eating disorder).

When we speak of systems, especially natural systems, there is a great deal of activity at the "boundaries," between chaos and order. In fact, it is at that boundary that life exists. Subsequently, life is constantly, CONSTANTLY, CONSTANTLY, experimenting with new potentials. It is the very fuel that drives the engine of evolution. Because systems are always on the edge of chaos, you always have things happening in the system that promote growth, and others that promote falling apart or nothing at all. It's a human projection that identifies that "falling apart"or "nothing at all" as "bad." In fact, it's just the way systems evolve, experimenting, dabbling, and periodically bursting forth with a new forumula for previously unknown success, or crashing down on something that doesn't work any more (like dinosaurs).

Hitler and Ghengis Khan and the Crusaders and Suicide bombers are part of the system where it doesn't work. So is the IRS, SuperMax prisons, and the Mormon Church :D . If you can take off the lenses of judgement and stand back, WAY back, and just watch the system work, you can see it pulsate and spin and move, sometimes getting out of balance, and almost always being brought back into balance. It's the way systems work. Tsunamis, earthquakes, hurricanes and volcanoes also seem "bad," but not from the perspective of the system of the planet. Only from an egocentric, me-centered perspective wherein I am injured does it seem bad. From the planet's perspective, it's just what planets do.

It's neither good nor bad, it's just natural.

And no, I don't think you can sit back smugly and watch Hitler gas jews...it's the recognition that the system is broken that brings it back into balance, and defeats the Hitlers of the world. We are a part of that system that keeps it from getting out of balance.

But sometimes we fight to keep the system stagnant, when the most healthy thing would be to allow it to express itself in it's natural course. Homosexual rights and recognition has reached it's time. It's time to quit fighting, and start understanding. It's time to quit judging and start talking.

So for me, I don't care if there are other animals that express homosexual tendencies or not. There are people who do...lots of them...good, honest, hard-working, educated, sincere people. It's clear enough to me that it is "natural" even if it doesn't provide a biological reproductive benefit. Neither does my being short, fat and balding. :) Are there some people who are acting out unhealthy homosexual behaviors? Sure, just like there are people who are acting out unhealthy heterosexual behaviors, or any other behavior.

Bzcutah, please don't assume this is intended to be a "pounce" on you...I'm just thinking out loud on this sounding board of a forum that I've found useful for this kind of thing.

Peace.

Paul

Jeff_Ricks

16th March 2005, 04:27 PM

No Jeff, I know God exists.

I once knew that God exists too. I thought I had irrefutable proof that God exists, but I've since learned that there's more than one way to explain the cause of such "proof". I'm speaking of deep personal experiences where one seems to come in contact with something greater than Self. I've had such experiences; profound experiences to me. I still hold them sacred, or at least they still have significant meaning to me, but I've since some to realize that there are more rational explanations for such experiences... and they don't necessarily reduce their significance. But such experiences do not in my experience prove that God exists.

Jeff

Born Free

16th March 2005, 05:13 PM

WARNING: This rambles a bit...sorry...I'm just thinking here, and exploring an area I'm not qualified to talk about, but I nevertheless have an opinion about.

Paul
Paul,

If that was your rambling worst, I'm hanging around for when you get sharp and eloquent.

I loved it; made the hairs on the back of my neck stand up.

May your chunky, balding, rambling genes find a niche on the chaotic fringe for many eons to come!

Daryl

bzcutah

16th March 2005, 05:18 PM

It seems to me that the argument that homosexuality may not be "natural" is like saying shortness is not natural, but rather a choice, or the product of environmental circumstances. Well, maybe sometimes it IS the product of environmental circumstances, but it still IS. And most times it's just the way some of us come packaged.

Paul, that was probably the best post that I have read of yours.

As to the nature of homosexuality relating to albinos, or short people.

I have not been convinced that the homosexual persuasion is that genetically engrained..

I'll have to take your word for it.

bzcutah

16th March 2005, 05:19 PM

I once knew that God exists too. I thought I had irrefutable proof that God exists, but I've since learned that there's more than one way to explain the cause of such "proof". I'm speaking of deep personal experiences where one seems to come in contact with something greater than Self. I've had such experiences; profound experiences to me. I still hold them sacred, or at least they still have significant meaning to me, but I've since some to realize that there are more rational explanations for such experiences... and they don't necessarily reduce their significance. But such experiences do not in my experience prove that God exists.

Jeff

Cool Jeff..

bzcutah

16th March 2005, 05:32 PM

Paul, that was probably the best post that I have read of yours.

As to the nature of homosexuality relating to albinos, or short people.

I have not been convinced that the homosexual persuasion is that genetically engrained..

I'll have to take your word for it.

I started a new thread "Is homosexuality permanent?"

Apparently homosexuality isn't like being short, because people can't help but to always be short (unless of course prostetics or something is used in the place of natural limbs)..

But there are thousands of stories of people who were formally gay, and are now aware that their choice was choosable, and they choose instead to be happily/exclusively heterosexual.

Born Free

16th March 2005, 06:27 PM

I started a new thread "Is homosexuality permanent?"

Apparently homosexuality isn't like being short, because people can't help but to always be short (unless of course prostetics or something is used in the place of natural limbs)..

But there are thousands of stories of people who were formally gay, and are now aware that their choice was choosable, and they choose instead to be happily/exclusively hetrosexual.
I will buy into this here, because I would prefer like minded subjects be quarantined.

I believe that there is a trap in seeing homo/hetero etc as tight silos that are somehow mutually exclusive. If one starts from that paradigm, and filters or accepts data based uppon whether it supports that model, then one winds up missing important parts of the picture.

(If you want a lesson in the danger of working from rigid paradigms, look at the Swiss watch industry who laughed at the quartz movement invention, because they owned the dominant mechanisal movement paradigm. In 5 years their industry was decimated. This occurred not because they failed to know it was there. No, they were offered it, and rejected it becasue of the filters they had in place!!)

Let me put out some personal experiences I have had over the years:

A few years ago, I caught up with a graduate from my Office Training Unit, who in post military life has joined the police force and risen to quiet senior ranks in the New South Wales Police Force. He shared that in Sydney western suburbs, where this is a significant pacific islander population, police had to take particular precautions when placing drunken Islander men into lock up (overnight detention) for drunken behaviour. They were far more likely to sexually assault other inmates while under the influence than Caucasian men were.

It is fairly well know that (long term) incarcerated men will engage in 'homosexual' behaviour while in prison, then return to hetero sex after release, and be in huge denial of what they did in prison.

I have a good friend who has been involved in men's work for over 30 years (a pioneer on Oz). He has for many years been active in peer-counselling. He observed that many women engage in peer counselling labelling themselves upon entry as 'lesbian'. During the course of healing and recovery, a percentage move to re-engage and enjoy hetero relationships. He stated that many of those women had been severely abused by males, and while that abuse was still a major (unhealed) impact upon their life, they felt too anxious to enjoy sexuality or even relating on any deep level with males.

So what do I take away from that?

First, inspite of the 3rd example would suggest strongly to me that a percentage of women reject heterosexual relationships because they have been abused, does that mean that all lesbians are such, because they have been abused? I firmly reject that. I am strongly of the opinion that a percentage of the population are born and raised, without significant trauma, to be primarily or exclusively attracted to their own sex.

So for me the paradigm I currently work from goes something like:

Human beings are sexual beings, first and foremost.

Many/most will happily engage in monosexuality (there's a new one, I think) either to supplement their other-sexual activities or in the absence of same. Now it could be asked "What is the procreative worth of monosexuality? Surely the very existence of it, creates room to justify homosexuality!" And on the surface that sounds like a trump card! But if you read a book like Sperm Wars, and the research underpinning that, you might take from it that (for males) keeping the an optimal mix of 1. fertilising sperm, 2. killer sperm, and 3. blocking sperm ready for the next mating, does enhance your procreative chances. (Is that news for a few??? Wow, scientific proof that wanking is just 'fine-tuning teh mix!') There is BTW, a female equivalent that optimises her reproductive system.

The majority are some combination of hetero and mono-sexual.

Some smaller percentage are exclusively homosexual (but I assume they are just as likely to engage in the odd bit of monO! :)

Another percentage are bisexual.(In fact if you look at the overall life experience, most 'homosexuals' have been hetero (or have engaged in hetero activity) either through choice or coersion at some point, and that stage enhanced the survival of their genes. (Sperm Wars covers this issue specifically)

Etc., etc as we move to smaller and smaller numbers/percentages.

Now, I also know a few women who have left "the sisterhood" of angry (unhealed) feminist lesbians, and let me assure you that that shift can produce just as much intolerance, fear, loathing and even violence, as people moving from hetero to homosexual. Heteros do not have any monopoly on fearful, ignorant, nasty behaviour! It is a myth that even some gays like to maintain, that gays are nice, well adjusted supremely tolerant people.

So, if I can suggest another paradigm that might make all this easier to handle and integrate, try starting from - humans are sexual beings first. And try on Sperm Wars! It offers a very different paradigm.

Daryl

PS: As I reread this I realised I had not challenged you on what I see as a potentially filtering paradigm-based statement:

"But there are thousands of stories of people who were formally gay, and are now aware that their choice was choosable, and they choose instead to be happily/exclusively hetrosexual"

Let me use that statment to illustrate a filter you MAY have in place:

But there are thousands of stories of people who were formally hetero, and are now aware that their choice was choosable, and they choose instead to be happily/exclusively homosexual

Jeff_Ricks

16th March 2005, 06:59 PM

elder_nomo

16th March 2005, 07:18 PM

my feeling is that the closest analogy to being gay, is being left-handed. we don't know why people are left-handed. it seems that you are born with a propensity to it. it serves no apparent purpose but causes no apparent harm. you can force yourself (or be forced) to use your right hand. you might even get pretty good at it. but your natural inclination is to your left hand. not by choice.

there was a time when children who picked up a pencil with their left hand got smacked for it. there was a time when scripture was used to villify left-handedness (ie "sitting at the left hand of god"). the word "sinister" even has its roots in the latin for left side.

today left-handed people still have to struggle a bit to get by in a world made for right-handers. but the thought of "curing" left-handedness seems ridiculous. and as a gay man, the thought of "curing" my sexual orientation seems equally absurd.

Jeff_Ricks

16th March 2005, 07:30 PM

Born Free

16th March 2005, 07:51 PM

I have to be honest with you Ryan. It It appears to me that your purpose in starting this thread and the other one on homosexuality is not for you to learn about homosexuality but for you to promote your forgone conclusions about homosexuality to the forum. I've locked the other thread you started and this one continues to push the envelope as far as I'm concerned. Silverfox and I are both uncomfortable with where it seems to be going.

Jeff

I am in agreement that there is an awkward tension in this issue and the way the to and fro has staggered forward.

So here is my aloud wondering!

If one starts from an assumption that "hetero is normal", then they assume, whether presenting that argument nicely or nastily, that the onus of proof lies upon others to prove where homosexuality, or any other sexuality fits in the picture in any way. That will also provide room for one to meet and accept gay individual people and feel OK, but still feel at odds with homosexuality in principle. Like people are people, but concepts live inside paradigms.

If one starts from the assumption that "sexual is normal" and anything and everything that passes along genes is what got us to where we are today, then mono, hetero, homo, transexual etc., etc., can all be perfectly OK, as part of the wonderful variety of strategies that life uses to make sure life goes on. I see Daryl as just part of 'Life'. 'Life' does not give a schmo whether I live or die, but it does care to keep life moving on.

Just step into plant life and you will find life forms that can do 'it' by themslves. That form of procreation carries certain advantages and disadvantages. Much easier that dating for instance, never get a knockback, but it renders the offspring a much easier target for disease. (I, Bishop of XXXX, and empowered by the Law of the Land hereby marry you Peter Plant to yourself, for Time and All Eternity, in the Holy Instituion of Matrimony :) )

So I can see that if one works out of paradigm 1, then this all is a win/lose game, goodies and baddies, I can make sense of this lot, or my paradigm collapses into a meaningless mess, if I concede what others present here. Further, if anyone insists on working from paradigm 1, then this thread could run for all eternity, and no one ever feel more settled. Any stated desire to gain insight or understanding would prove unhealpful in reaching resolution.

If however, something like paradigm 2 is employed, whilst suffering the transitional pain/discomfort of letting go of one framework of meaning (which was getting a bit high-maintenance anyway, what with all these bits that didn't fit any more), it does encompass (IMHO) a model where all the new pieces of information fit, where they don't have to wait outside, hovering on hold in teh cold, so I can maintain my existing paradigm. (Sound familiar at all?)

So I can see why this underlying static exists, and question why it has to exist?

It's a paradigm thunnnnnngggggggggggggg!

Daryl