As we have fearfully predicted, society’s increasing acceptance of homosexual behavior has led to increased same-sex experimentation among heterosexuals. In the latest CDC study on sexuality, three times more women report having same-sex encounters than ten years earlier. Fourteen percent of women ages 15-29, most of whom do not self-identify as lesbian or homosexual, have had sex with another woman, while self-reported sexual orientation and sexual attraction did not change. As I’ve worried before, this trend will probably continue as youth traveling the angst-ridden path to adulthood increasingly wonder if mistaken sexual orientation is the cause of their social anxieties. Lots of prey there will sadly be.
LDS Newsroom
- Upgrades to the Newsroom Site February 10, 2012
- Elder Maynes Called to Serve in the Presidency of the Seventy February 10, 2012
- 10th Anniversary of 2002 Winter Olympics Remembered February 8, 2012
- Church Representative to Address Affinity Fraud February 7, 2012
- Church Issues Statement on Appeals Court Prop 8 Ruling February 7, 2012
- Religious Freedom Series, Part 3: Why We Need Religious Freedom February 3, 2012
- Traditional Christianity and the Latter-day Saints February 3, 2012
- Mormon Missionary Experience Recounted by Journalist February 1, 2012
- Ancestry Easier to Discover Thanks to Worldwide Genealogy Volunteers January 31, 2012
- Church Representative Speaks at Poynter Institute January 27, 2012
Howard Stern is thrilled, no doubt
273 Responses to Howard Stern is thrilled, no doubt
Conferences and Events
- Exploring Mormon Conceptions of Apostasy
- Daniel C. Peterson: "Contemporary Connections between Middle Eastern Countries and the Church"
- Tammi J. Schneider: "Women in the Bible: The Past, Present and Future of Biblical Scholarship"
- LDS Tech Conference
- Newell Bringhurst and Craig Foster: "The Mormon Quest for the Presidency"
- Sunstone West
- Sunstone Kirtland
- Mormon Media Studies Symposium
- Untold Nauvoo Stories Symposium
- The Mormon Quest for the Presidency Before Romney and Huntsman
Calls for Papers
- Mormon Media Studies Symposium
- Sunstone Kirtland
- Sunstone West
- Sunstone Symposium: MORMONS AND MORMONISM AS A POLITICAL FORCE
- BYU Religious Education Student Symposium
- RESTORATION STUDIES SYMPOSIUM
- Claremont Mormon Studies Student Association
- Mormon History Association
- Church History Symposium
- Conference on the History of Mormonism in Latin America and the US-Mexico Borderlands
Matt, don’t you think it’s possible that this represents mostly more accurate self-reporting due to the decreased stigma? And you fail to explain why we should wring our hands more over homosexual experimentation than over heterosexual promiscuity.
Kristine, the report addresses the question of whether the increase is due to more honest reporting, and leans against that interpretation. One reason is that the increase in same-sex male activity is flatter though all forms of homosexuality have become increasingly acceptable.
And while we should be concerned with all forms of promiscuity, those forms that are forbidden categorically, like sexual behavior between siblings or those with the same-sex, are doubly troubling.
My personal supposition is that folks in one or two generations will look with bemusement upon today’s quaint hetero/homosexual definitions and debates. They will have discovered by then the freedom to take on anyone that’s compatible without considering the number of X chromosomes.
I think the difference in tone between this post and the series over at Nine Moons is instructive. Frankly, T&S, this is beneath you.
What Ned said.
those forms that are forbidden categorically
I thought all sexual activity outside of a marriage between a husband and wife was categorically forbidden in this church… Am I missing something?
“And while we should be concerned with all forms of promiscuity, those forms that are forbidden categorically, like sexual behavior between siblings or those with the same-sex, are doubly troubling.”
Why is that, exactly?
A better issue to engage as a result of this study might be: What is it about college men that creates what they call in the report LUGs (i.e., ‘lesbian until graduation’) out of women?
Homosexual acts are definitely sinful according to the Church, but I have seen no indication that they are more serious than pre-marital heterosexual acts. At least these girls won’t be getting pregnant, which will only hurt others (the potential infant(s)) for a choice they did not make.
3. Yeah, it will probably include their children, grandparents, and who knows what else…
We are in overdrive on the slippery slope.
Some of these storms and earthquakes will be “for real”.
Steve, Ned, get a grip here. Beneath T&S? Like, this is the first post about teh gay that you’ve ever read on this site? Face the facts: like it or not, for better or worse, this is T&S, or at least one aspect that shows no signs of changing any time soon.
Jonathan, maybe you’re right. But like you said: like it or not, for better or worse. This just happens to be one of those not like it/worse moments.
Ned & Steve -
complaining because someone laments an increase in immorality?
That seems beneath you.
Really.
LOL Ivan, fair enough. Lamenting because there’s an increase in immorality is appropriate, and something prophets have always done.
Steve –
There is a bit of information contained in the report (p.14) which, according to the report itself, may have a bearing on the different statistics:
There was a significant difference in the wording of the questions regarding female homosexual behavior. In 1992, the question asked was very specific – have you had 0ral s-x with another woman? The answer was 4.1% yes.
Ten years later, the question was “Have you ever had any sexual experience of any kind with another female? The answer was 11.5% yes.
The researches say, “although this is higher than in the other surveys, at least some of the difference may be because of the differences in the wording of the qustions on female same-sex sexual contact between the NSFG and the NHSLS.”
If you’re not asking the same questions, how can you accurately compare the answers?
Regarding the question of whether some sexual offenses are worse than others, the church draws distinctions between homo- and heterosexual sins in several ways. First, the First Presidency annotates the record only of members who are disciplined by the church for particular offenses. Among the offenses is “repeated homosexual activities (by adults).” Neither fornication nor adultery are on the list. Second, the Handbook of Instruction section on the church’s policy on Homosexual Behavior is broader than the section on Chastity. The first paragraph:
Third, pre-mission homosexual behavior is treated distinctly and more strictly than heterosexual behavior. The HOI section about worthiness for missionaries says:
The sins of fornication and adultery, on the other hand, are included in the general section about serious transgressions, which include heavy petting, drug misuse, and serious violation of civil law.
Matt,
I’m interested in your “homosexual promiscuity is worse” approach. Let me ask you to quantify it against other concerns. Suppose it could be shown empirically that society could achieve a decrease of 20% in out-of-marriage heterosexual sex, in exchange for an increase of 10% in homosexual sex. Is that a trade-off you would be willing to make? Why? (Why not?) Or suppose that I could demonstrate that a particular social program would cut the rate of out-of-wedlock heterosexual sex in half, but that it 1/4 of the decrease would be offset by an increase in homosexual sex. Do you accept that program?
Matt,
Isn’t it possible that the distinction, at least the mission prong, is based on deterrent motives rather than degree of sin?
LRC, wrong Evans — I think you are one of the few people to confuse us, actually.
Kaimi,
It’s an interesting question, but one I’m not qualified to answer. I’m drawing the distinction based on statements like those I quoted from the HOI, and none of them quantify the difference in severity of various sins.
Kaimi, Do you think that God does this social calculus? All sin is individual and it all must be rejected.
But back to your question. Premarital sex may be turned into marital sex and although that doesn’t constitute repentance it isn’t further sin. Do you think that homosexual acts have the potential to turn into something worthy?
Please, just call me old fashioned, but the fact that they stoned homosexuals to death in the OT seems to indicate that it was a _worse_ sin. But then again, let’s throw the angels/prophets/messengers to the whims of society. After all, it’s just a quaint (albeit Divinely approved) prejudice.
“Homosexual behavior violates the commandments of God, is contrary to the purposes of human sexuality, distorts loving relationships, and deprives people of the blessings that can be found in family life and in the saving ordinances of the gospel. Those who persist in such behavior or who influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline. Homosexual behavior can be forgiven through sincere repentance.”
Matt, in that quote you gave, you could easily strip out the “homo” prefix replace it with “extramarital” and you would have the same message. I see nothing particular to homosexuality in what you cite. It could just as easily be the case that homosexual behavior garners specific reference in order to make sure that people do not think that it is somehow acceptable. In other words, you’ve quoted distinctions that make no difference — certainly nothing to indicate that homosexual behavior is somehow worse than any other extramarital sexual behavior.
Degree of sin, deterrent motives…
These seem like pretty pharasaical parsings…
Is that the way it is with lawyers? The letter killeth, man!
“The Church’s stand on homosexual relations provides another arena where we offend the devil.” James Faust, Ensign, September 1995.
Congratulations on being so offensive, Matt Evans.
Re #18:
That’s not right, Matt — I confuse you with Steve all the time. Don’t go saying that I don’t!
lyle: “just call me old fashioned, but the fact that they stoned homosexuals to death in the OT seems to indicate that it was a _worse_ sin”
Lyle, they stoned adulterers too. How does that indicate homosexuality to be worse? Gosh though, maybe we shouldn’t have thrown the “Divinely approved prejudice” to the whims of society, and we should enact legislation to stone the adulterers and sodomites, eh?
Kaimi (Comment 17),
Yes, a deterrent motive probably explains part of the disparate pre-mission standard, but even if that’s the case, we should still lament that more people are behaving in a way that would impose additional barriers to their potential missionary service.
LRC (Comment 14),
Even if we assume there was no overlap between the groups who in 1992 reported oral or vaginal sex, the total is still only about 8%, significantly lower than it was ten years later when the questions were combined. Note too that despite their pointing out the different wording between the surveys, the researchers still state with confidence their conclusion that female bisexual behavior has increased substantially.
Mardell (comment 25), I stand corrected.
The church also treats homosexuality differently for investigators: someone who has “participated in a homosexual relationship” may not be baptized without a special interview with mission president.
I’m not sure that all this means that homosexual fornication is more sinful. But it does indicate that the church sees homosexuality as a unique and more serious problem for those involved. Which makes sense to me.
Today NPR asked and answered the question of reliability of teen sex surveys.
The short answer: The researchers build in “consistency” questions and other factors to determine if a survey-taker is lying. About 1 to 3 percent of surveys get thrown out before the statisics are run.
…may not be baptized without a special interview with mission president.
Unless, from my experiance, you are in France.
Why does eveyone try to point out that homosexual promiscuity is *no worse* than heterosexual promisuity when the overall “virtue” of homosexual relations is brought into question?
If you want to prove that heterosexual promiscuity is just as bad as homosexual promiscuity go over to the other thread that deals with adultery and fornica–
Oh! We don’t have one of those, do we? I guess everyone is settled on that question. Well, no need to start a thread were there’s no argument.
Re Jack in #32–
I cannot speak for ‘everyone’, but my fear is that maligning homosexual behavior as some sort of especially repugnant class of sin (as opposed to your garden variety fornication) may make it even harder for our sisters and brothers who struggle with it to stay in (or return to) the fold.
Take it up with the prophets, Julie in A.
Matt,
What we can say is ‘I told you so,’ but somehow it doesn’t taste very sweet in the mouth.
Julie,
To say that homosexual behavior is wrong is not to “malign” it. There are some who feel it’s worse than other sexual transgressions. Personally, I don’t. I think it’s more *problematic* but not necessarily worse. Be that as it may, it’s still a serious transgression.
Adam–
Every major, recent statement about homosexuality that I know of from the prophets includes an admonition to avoid hate, to encourage transgressors back into the fold, and to love those who struggle as children of God. This would suggest that adding to their burden by making them out to be some sort of class of supersinners would not be advisable. I have no beef with any of these statements that I need to take up with the prophets, Adam, but these statements do suggest that the prophets might have a beef to take up with those who would make repenting of homosexual behavior any more difficult than it already is in order to promote their own agendas.
Jack in #35–I agree with everything you say here: it is clearly wrong but no worse than the same act with the opposite gender would be. We seem to have lost the thread of my response to your initial comment, however. The ‘defense’ of homosexuality as ‘no worse’ does not imply (at least for me) any justification of the behavior, just a desire not to see it as any worse than other violations of the law of chastity.
That said, this whole ‘which is worse’ conversation (including my role in it) is starting to seem kinda stupid to me. The position of the Church is that homosexual behavior is clearly wrong. What are any of us adding to that?
Steve (Comment 22),
I thought the entry on homosexuality meaningful because of the differences with the entry on Chastity. Here’s the entire entry for Chastity and Fidelity:
Besides being included in the section under Chastity and Fidelity, homosexuality has it’s own entry, which adds to the Chastity section these phrases: “homosexual behavior . . . is contrary to the purposes of human sexuality, distorts loving relationships, and deprives people of the blessings that can be found in family life.” There are three more paragraphs in the homosexuality entry; paragraph two instructs leaders to help those with homosexual thoughts or feelings, and to help them apply gospel principles in their lives; paragraphs three and four say that professional counseling may be necessary, and refers to a booklet of the church on the topic.
I find the original statements by Ned and Steve condemning this post to be way off base.
Regardless of whether homosexuality is or is not worse than heterosexual immorality, the fact is that homosexual behavior IS a category of sin that now appears on the rise. What kind of moral person doesn’t view this trend with sadness?
Because, Ryan, it may not be on the rise–it may just be that women are now willing to talk about it or it may be that women have swapped male partners for female ones, in which case, I suppose, the ‘is it worse?” question is relevant.
Julie, I don’t think the objections raised were with the validity of the survey– at least not the ones I’m talking to.
As to your second point, don’t you think the burden of proof for that assertion would be on you?
Ryan, maybe I am not clear on the objections that you are raising, but the validity of the survey has been called into question repeatedly on this thread–see #1 and #14 for starters.
I think (correct me if wrong) by second point you mean that women are switching to female partners instead of male ones for their promiscuous behavior. If so, than the LUG phenomenon seems to suggest that I have met your burden of proof to some extent. I haven’t read the entire study, but I don ‘t think they addressed this issue directly.
What Matt Evans has added is that this CDC study shows that our society has provided a setting that makes this particular sin more of a problem for young women than it was a decade ago. It is something I will point out to my wife, who works with the youth of our ward, because it is good to keep track of whatever problems we currently have to work against. Decyphering how the trends of the day are currently leading into the broad path to destruction is a useful task. My wife has learned much that she didn’t expect about how current dating patterns cause different problems than the ones she experienced.
Is anyone glad or indifferent that this particular problem has increased? If Brother Matt had pointed out a rise in some other vice, would he have been denounced for insensitivity to those tempted by that vice? Do calls for more charity need to take into account the tender feelings of the uncharitable? It seems that the main problem is that Brother Matt is pointing to one of the devil’s snares with which those in some circles have a two-master problem.
Julie,
You may be right as to why some feel the need to point out that it is no more wrong than other sins. However, we have to remember that homosexuality nowadays is bolstered by a cultural movement which seeks to justify it by claiming it as a product of nature. The problem with this, as it relates to members of the church, is that said justification tends to work upon those with same sex attraction in such a way so as to instill in them a sense that they have a “right” to such sexual feelings. This causes one to assume that he/she has less accountability for their serious transgressions than they really do.
So, as much as I dislike saying this because of the tender feelings of those who are struggling with SSA–some of whom I greatly respect–we simply need to classify practiced homosexuality as sinful and as lacking in virtue as any other serious transgression.
That said, I agree with your sentiments re: not wanting to make it more difficult for gays because of a lack of sensitivity. However, on the other hand it’s important that anyone who is living in serious sin–be it hetero or homo–clearly understand that their behavior is sinful so that they may have the opportunity to repent.
“Is anyone glad or indifferent that this particular problem has increased? If Brother Matt had pointed out a rise in some other vice, would he have been denounced for insensitivity to those tempted by that vice?”
I’ll address this because it appears to be directed at me (if it wasn’t, ignore).
Again, this study appears to have generated more heat than light and whether this particular problem has increased is very much open to debate. If your wife were to base her teachings to the YW on the assumption that the problem has increased if it hasn’t, then that’s a problem.
I didn’t denounce him for ‘insensititity’ (again, I assume this was directed at me), although your description does make it easy to dismiss my concern as so much PC nonsense. I simply suggested that making those with temptations toward homosexuality into a category or supersinners may not be effective in stopping their behavior and certainly doesn’t meet the challenge of our prophets to love them as children of God and to encourage them to stay in (or return to) the fold.
It bothers me that many are more than happy to denounce sinful behavior but not terribly concerned about doing it in a way that leaves the door open for the penitent sinner to return to the fold.
Jack, I appreciate your latest comment. It is quite the challenge to provide a cultural corrective without overcorrecting. Our prophets are doing a fine job of it; our bloggers, less so.
Not to worry, Sister Julie, my wife isn’t going “to base her teachings” on a single data point. Pretty hyperbolic and a bit insulting to suggest that. Being wise as serpents requires building up our knowledge incrementally. When you quoted my use of the word “insensitivity” I thought at first that your were mocking a typo of mine and I had to go back to see that I hadn’t misspelled in the fashion you attributed to me.
Julie (#36): “[I]t is clearly wrong but no worse than the same act with the opposite gender would be.”
How can that be so? Then why the waste of column inches in the canon condemning homosexual conduct when it’s already completely proscribed and condemned as a subset of non-spousal sex? The fact that it’s pointed out at all as something different than garden-variety non-marital heterosex by those that instruct us on these things seems to conclusively prove that it’s something more grave. If it were worthy of only the same condemnation as all non-marital sex, then why ever waste apostolic breath on a sermon condemning homosexuality? It would be as if we were constantly told that it’s a sin to have sex with neighbors on the block to whom we’re not married, when presumably it’s no worse to have sex with a neighbor than it is with from someone out of state.
John Mansfield–
I didn’t suggest that your wife would change based on this single data point (reread #44, where I say that if your wife were to change *based on the assumption that the problem had increased*; and if you want to talk about ‘hyperbolic and a bit insulting’ we might start with your misreading of my position). You, however, did suggest in the original comment that your wife might change her message based on your ‘deciphering of the trends of the day,’ so the validity of this–or any other survey– is then relevant.
It was just a typo, John. Focus on the message.
gst–
Several commenters have already hinted at the idea that the reason we get apostolic breath on this topic is because of a social movement to condone the behavior. Similarly, I assume that if the National Association for the Promotion of Adultery with Your Neighbor ever gets the political and social traction that gay rights currently enjoys, then we’ll hear specific condemnations of that, too, although the behavior is no worse than adultery with any other partner. That’s apostolic breath; as far as canon, there is precious little about homosexuality per se in the canon; enough that many Saints and other Bible believers (and this would include me) would not feel comfortable condemning the behavior based on scripture alone. Good thing we have modern prophets! (not being sarcastic)
Julie, I just re-read your comment 36 and it occurs to me that you make an error in characterizing this debate as a “‘which is worse’ conversation.” Either homosexual sex is worse than regular extramarital sex or it is not. Is there any argument that heterosexual nonmarital is worse than homosexual sex, all of which is nonmarital by definition? So it’s not a question of whether one or the other is better, but rather whether one is worse or both are the same. To use a criminal law analogy, the issue is whether homosexuality is an aggravating factor when sentencing for extramarital sex.
gst, I’m not following you at all; at least I don’t think I am. Although I would answer ‘no’ to your analogy: the fact that a particular violation of the law of chasitity involved homosexuality isn’t an aggravating factor.
We covenant to refrain from sexual relations with anyone who isn’t our spouse. But the covenant doesn’t then list, in descending order, which are the worst and then not-so-terrible ways of violating that covenant. All covenant violation is bad, and to try (as Matt and others have) to say that violating the law of chastity with a same sex partner is worse than violating it with a member of the opposite sex seems unneccesary: What good does this position accomplish that justifies the risk that those who do struggle with same-sex attraction will feel further burdened by being a Grade AAA sinner?
I think we need to keep in mind here the emerging scientific consensus that orientation is largely if not exclusively an inborn, biological thing — it is certainly not “chosen”, and (except in rare cases) it cannot be “changed”. (I can provide some details here if anyone is interested). I for one am very thankful that I do not have to tread this very difficult path in life. At the least, we need to shed loathing, unchristian attitudes to people in this category.
I will analogize (though, n.b., not compare) to murder. All murder is bad. But murdering a judge is worse than most kinds of murder. We are not compelled to accept that a murder is a murder is a murder. Why believe that all adultery is equal? If one’s wife cheated on one with one’s father rather than with, say, her personal trainer, wouldn’t her sin be graver? All adultery is bad, but some adultery is worse. Asking out of curiosity, am I out of the mainstream on this?
By all means, DHB, please set out in full your argument that homosexuality is inborn. I foresee a comprehensive and thoughtful debate on the subject. Many on both sides will be illuminated. (I wonder if this has ever been discussed in an online forum before?)
gst–
I can accept that incest is worse than other types of fornication. But I haven’t seen any compelling evidence that homosexual violations of the law of chastity are any worse than any other violations. Matt deserves credit for trying to actually make the case based on some data points instead of just insisting that it is so, but (so far, at least) everything that he has produced can be explained by reasons other than the ‘it is worse’ argument.
Believe it or not, I am open to having my mind changed on this one, but I haven’t seen any reason to. I do see a danger in making the burden heavier for those who struggle by making them out to be a special category of sinner. As DHB points out, their burden is heavy enough. I have a lot of awe for the people I have known who have struggled with homosexual tendencies but have remained chaste and faithful. They have had a much heavier burden to carry than the rest of us, who generally assume that at some point we’ll get married and have a proper sexual outlet. They deserve our respect and admiration, not our scorn.
It is hard, as it stands, to get teenagers to keep from fornicating. One thing that helps is that they don’t understan each other very well and they generally don’t sleep in the same room. If homosexual activity becomes socially acceptable, I imagine that sexual sin as a whole will rise since the costs and barriers have fallen.
So, Julie, I think it is facile to expect that this trend, if it continues, will only be one of substitution of one sin for another. Without the social norm against homosexuality, it becomes a far more readily available temptation than heterosexual fornication.
Frank–
If Matt had started this discussion with the argument that you made in #56, I would have had nothing to say. (In fact, we should consider policies–such as sharing tents at girls camp or scout camp–that may be dangerous in light of what you note.) But he didn’t. What he said was, “youth traveling the angst-ridden path to adulthood increasingly wonder if mistaken sexual orientation is the cause of their social anxieties.” It seems to me that ‘mistaken orientation’ and ‘readily available temptation’ are two very different issues, with the former much more likely to involve substituting a same sex partner for an opposite sex one (with no net increase in immoral acts) but the latter more likely to result in increasing acts of immorality (in other words, I think your concern is a very valid one, and we should flesh it out more).
Julie,
I believe homosexual relations are categorically different from heterosexual relations. I cannot fathom that any church members really believe the prophet is indifferent as to which sex one has relations with, or that he would welcome men slow dancing together at church dances, or showing affection the way heterosexual couples do in singles wards. The prophets have said that the youth shouldn’t neck, but does anyone think that if someone’s going to neck, the partner’s sex doesn’t matter to the church?
The difference may be that the desires for homosexual relations (and all other relations forbidden categorically) can never be acted upon, and must be vanquished, while desires for heterosexual relations need only be harnessed.
As for the study itself, I don’t think there’s justification for your assertion that the study’s results are “very much open to debate” by virtue of a couple T&S commenters raising issues that were specifically addressed by the study’s authors.
“In fact, we should consider policies–such as sharing tents at girls camp.” How long before late-night TV-viewers will be plied with “Girls Camp Gone Wild” videos? Oh, the humanity.
I think the question “Which is the worse sin?” is the wrong inquiry to focus on as we contemplate the Church’s differential rhetoric about homosexuality and non-marital heterosexuality.
I suspect the Church’s “special” treatment of homosexuality, versus other sins, may be nothing more than a function of the implicit realization of Church leaders that those with same-sex attractions don’t have any appealing alternatives to their sexual behaviors. (This is not to argue about the virtues of celibacy, but simply to say that celibacy an alternative that is not “appealing.”) Church leaders are probably less concerned about heterosexual fornication/pre-marital sex, because the drive of the sinner to engage in these acts can be channelled, sooner or later, into marriage. Most of the homosexually-inclined, on the other hand, can’t be successfully transitioned into Church-sanctioned marital relationships, and that fact leaves them with no subjectively desirable options (assuming they intend to follow Church teachings). I assume that Church leaders see the hard road facing LDS homosexuals — a road that is not going to end with a happy straight marriage next month or year — and so they pump up the rhetoric against homosexual practices out of recognition that once the behavior is indulged in, there’s nothing to channel it into…
In other words, I think the reason for the Church’s comparatively harsh rhetoric on this subject is not that hard to fathom, even if I share Julie’s, Kristine’s and others’ concerns that the rhetoric is often not particularly helpful to the struggling LDS homosexual.
Aaron B
The reason homosexual sin is considered worse than heterosexual sin is that’s the way the Old Testament treats it.
“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” (Leviticus 20:13)
“If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.” (Deuteronomy 22:28–29)
In summary: Man having sex with man? Kill them both. Man having sex with woman? Force them to get married.
Julie,
Frank’s observation about *why* homosexual acts might be treated more strictly (an observation I agree with) answers a different question than the one I’m addressing: *why* are more people experimenting with homosexual acts now than before?
Another important factor to keep in mind from my original post is that most of those reporting homosexual acts didn’t consider themselves to be homosexuals — which would seem to deny them the potentially mitigating rationales we might consider for genuine homosexuals.
The biggest difference everyone seems to be dancing around is: heterosexual relationships (even adulterous ones) can become “approved” if those involved do certian things (get married, for example).
Homosexual relationships can never be “approved” by the church. Period. That indicates there is a difference between homosexual relationships and extramarital heterosexual ones.
Dallin H. Oaks once gave a GC talk (on a slightly different subject, Sunday Afternoon Session
3 October 1993) that made the following distinctions:
Some acts, like murder, are crimes because they are inherently wrong. Other acts, like operating without a license, are crimes only because they are legally prohibited. Under these distinctions, the act that produced the Fall was not a sin?inherently wrong?but a transgression?wrong because it was formally prohibited.
Using that framework, I see heterosexual “sins” as a transgression, and homosexual “sins” as sins – and I think the church’s position is similar, or else all the extra regulations the church has (as Matt and others have shown) make little sense.
But there are those who seem convinced that eventually the church will come around and allow for gay couples to be sealed in the temple. I don’t see that happening.
That said, we should keep in mind Julie’s reminder that love is important – we should avoid facile judgmentalism or condemnation. We all have our sins and we expect to be treated with love and acceptance in church (or we should expect that) and so we should treat everyone with the same love and respect.
I wish, I wish that talk of killing or stoning homosexuals would be left out of this thread. I realise that no-one is suggesting this as a course of action, but such rhetoric can only be hurtful to LDS homosexuals who certainly don’t need added pain.
Here’s a list of Old Testament capital crimes, in case anyone cares to bring them back or consider them a useful benchmark for judging the “seriousness” of sin. As you can see, a lot of us would be in serious trouble. They range from the arguably justified (murder), to the plain CRAZY (eating the wrong kind of bread on the wrong day). The point? There’s a reason Jesus fulfilled the Law. Argue for the special heinousness for homosexuality (if that’s what you want) with different evidence.
- sacrificing to other gods
- a stranger entering the temple
- proselytizing an Israelite
- black magic
- adultery
- temple prostitution
- bestiality
- fornication, of women
- rape, of engaged women
- prostitution
- murder
- kidnapping
- human sacrifice
- cursing parents
- striking parents
- mistreating animals
- “stubbornness and rebellion”
- blasphemy
- Sabbath breaking
- contempt of court
- perjury
- accidentally killing a pregant woman
- A male who was not circumcised
- Eating leavened bread during the Feast of Unleavened Bread
- Manufacturing anointing oil
- Engaging in ritual animal sacrifices other than at the temple
- Consuming blood. This would include eating rare meat.
- Eating peace offerings while ritually unclean
- Waiting too long before consuming sacrifices
- Sexual activity with a woman who is menstruating
- Going to the temple in an unclean state
- Persons teaching another religion
- A prophet whose prophecy does not come true
- Gluttony and excessive drinking
Per the publication Matt cited:
“homosexual behavior . . . is contrary to the purposes of human sexuality, distorts loving relationships, and deprives people of the blessings that can be found in family life.”
The “blessings” of family life, i.e. having and raising children, are _not_ found in homosexual relations. And no, the IVF, adoption, etc. argument doesn’t change this at all.
If you take teenagers, who are already confused as it is, and make it “ok” for them to “mess” around with either gender, you will get some of them socialized into homosexual behavior, and thus to non-celestial family life, and kids being raised in a non-celestial family life setting.
Yes, I can see it now: Missionaries go to the door, and no longer are doors slammed in their face, but they are openly mocked because they believe in two parent, male female families.
Oh well, the world is going to flames & flaming, one way or another, right?
Sexual relations between male and female is completely natural, albeit prohibited by the law of God outside of marriage. On the other hand, homosexual relations are not natural, and violate the laws of nature. Should we not be surprised then when nature steps up to the lecturn to complain?
On the matter of the HOI and homosexual sin- could it be that adult homosexuality could be a “gateway” to pediphilia? Just guessing. Hard as it may sound, Men who abuse little boys are homosexuals. While I realize that Men on boy violations are not the only child abuse, it certainly constitutes a larger portion than not. Thus, in an effort to protect children, who cannot defend themselves, homosexual sin is looked upon with greater deference.
Having been in the position of interviewing young men prior to missions, I can tell you that any sexual sin is looked upon with great scrutiny. Masturbation, for instance, requires a full year of repentance and abstinence before papers of missionaries can be submitted. Sexual relations with one of the opposite sex is the same, which puts a question mark on the validity of Matt’s statement “Third, pre-mission homosexual behavior is treated distinctly and more strictly than heterosexual behavior. The HOI section about worthiness for missionaries says:”
Using that framework, I see heterosexual “sins” as a transgression, and homosexual “sins” as sins
So heterosexual adultery is not inherently wrong, it just formally prohibited? Oh, the humanity, indeed!
Summarizing: All sins are equal (or equally bad, per D&C 1:31), but some are more equal than others. In the eyes of Church leaders, homosexual sins are particularly equal.
It’s worth noting that most senior LDS leaders have likely, over the course of their long LDS careers, counseled and disciplined many individuals who have engaged in homosexual practices, so they have a direct, if anecdotal, set of counseling experiences on which they base their views on the subject and contrast it with heterosexual sins. For example, Spencer W. Kimball served on some central church committee that worked with counseling LDS homosexuals, after which he seemed to regard homosexual transgression in an especially harsh light. I suspect LDS leaders (all male and, for the sake of argument, all heterosexual) can’t help viewing heterosexual transgression with just a bit of sympathy and understanding, if not forgiveness, while homosexual transgression is simply beyond the pale.
It’s also worth remembering that senior LDS leaders formed their personal views on homosexuality two generations ago, when public views on the subject were rather extreme. With increasing tolerance and public discussion of homosexual orientation and practices, I suspect the present LDS generation, while not sympathetic to homosexual practices in any general sense, is less likely to see it in harsh OT or Victorian terms, but merely as one of a host of sexual sins Mormons should avoid.
Last- technically, heterosexual adultery would span both: It is formally prohibited AND inherently wrong.
Dave, I believe it’s wrong to interpret God’s general intolerance of sin to mean that all sins are equally bad. All speeding is illegal, for example, but that doesn’t mean speeding 50-over is no worse than speeding 10-over. For that reason I think you can dispense with the Orwellian double-speak about scare-quote equality. God has never said or pretended that all sins are equal — only that they are all bad.
technically, heterosexual adultery would span both: It is formally prohibited AND inherently wrong.
And that makes it different than homosexual behavior how?
Dave: Good, albeit dangerous, point. So, we belong to a church where socializing plays a role in what is/isn’t sinful and what is/isn’t doctrine? This may be a good test case. In 20-40 years, if Church leadership on the issue hasn’t change (and they aren’t jailed for being so ‘discriminatory’), then you’ll have your answer.
Matt,
Thanks for pointing out a study that appears on its face jives with my anecdotal observations that younger women seem to be engaging in more and more lesbian experimentation as society gets more tolerant of homosexuality. (based on 4 years at University of Illinois in the late 1990′s, I was in shock it was even going on with institute attending young single adults) Thanks for having the courage to stand up for the Church’s stand on Chastity in the face on many fellow church members in the nacle who APPEAR to be a little more lenient or tolerant or winking and going along with the world in a greater acceptance of homosexual sin. I appreciate moral courage. Kudos
I think your twins have a great Daddy….
GST asked forevidence that orientation to be largely, if not exclusively, biological and inborn. Here is some that I am aware of.
1. A HS (hereafter abbrievated “HS”) orientation is at least partly genetic. Here are statistical correlations between different types of siblings:
Category HS Men HS Women
Identical twins 57% 50%
Fraternal twins 24% 16%
Non-twin siblings 9% 14%
Adoptive siblings 11% 6%
Conclusion: HS orientation has more than 50% genetic component.
In a related study, published in 2005, researchers found that by altering a single gene, they could induce a female fruit fly to pursue other females, using a courting sequence typical of males (tapping legs, playing song with wings, licking, etc).
2. A HS orientation may be partly due to stress on the mother, or even previous male children in the womb. In one study, conducted in part by LDS researchers, male rats whose mothers were subjected to stress on a certain day of gestation were significantly more likely to be disinterested in female rats and attempt to mount males.
3. HS have a slightly different brain structure than heteros. The volume of the brain structure “INAH-3” in HS men is significantly smaller (on average) than in hetero men.
4. HS men have a 34% greater probability of being left-handed than hetero men; HS women have a 91% greater probability of being left-handed than hetero women. Also, in hetero men, the ratio of fourth finger length to second finger length is significantly closer to unity than in females (on average); in HS, the ratios are reversed (on average).
5. HS appear to be different in fundamental cognitive areas. Hetero men prefer maps and compass orientation when navigating, whereas women prefer landmarks (on average, based on population studies); this difference has been linked to evolutionary specializations from hunter-gatherer days. In HS men and women, these preferences are reversed (on average). In a similar way, while hetero women tend to be more fluent with words in conversation than hetero men, in HS men and women these tendencies are reversed (on average). HS men lack a male-typical response to a visual dot detection test. HS men show an EEG pattern resembling hetero women while performing various verbal and spatial tasks.
5. HS have different responses to pheromones. Using a brain imaging technique, Swedish researchers have shown that HS and hetero men respond differently to two odors that may be involved in sexual arousal, and that the hetero men respond in the same way as most women (on average).
Kelly #65: why would homosexuality be a ‘gateway’ to pedophelia any more than heterosexuality would be? Pedophiles are sexually aroused by _children_. Please provide data on your assertion that most acts of child sexual abuse are perpetrated against boys. That was not my experience in several years of working with sex offenders.
I think a better explanation of the HOI re: pre-mission requirements is that these young are about to spend two years living with other young men.
DHB,
This was no more compelling than the last time you cited it here. The responses there suffice to answer here, so I’ll just cut and paste:
“Sexual desire in general has a nearly 100% genetic component. That did not stop Christ from telling us it is a sin to look on a woman to lust after her. Nor does it stop fornication from being a sin. Our predispositions are not judged, but rather our actions and, to the extent we control them, our thoughts and desires.
Also, if identical twins only have a .5 correlation then that would seem like a maximum genetic component, rather than a minimum. Of course you could say some twins are lying, but setting that aside, twins often have very similar environments, some of which as your data for non-genetic siblings shows, leads to correlation in homosexual tendency. Thus the .5 is both the genetic and the environmental correlation. The strictly genetic correlation would presumably be lower. “
The difference between adultery and homosexuality is that IF the adulterers divorce their spouses and marry each other, their sexual union from that point on is “approved.” That doesn’t mean they won’t have a helluva lot of repenting to do for all the misery they may cause – but active homosexuals never have the option of, in a Mormon setting, having their sexual union *ever* becoming legitimate.
Yes, orientation only has about a 50% genetic component. But other evidence I mentioned shows that the other 50% is also likely due to biological, inborn effects. In any event, even if orientation is only 50% biological and inborn, then we have to re-think the mindset that it a gay orientation is a “chosen” lifestyle, and we have to re-think any attitudes we may have towards persons in this unfortunate category.
Clearly there is still a difference between orientation and those who are “active”. In the Church, we believe that abstinence, in effect a celibate life, is the proper course for such persons. But let’s be understanding of the struggle that these people are making.
” Lots of prey there will sadly be”
In the absence of Christ’s extremely strong statements about the consequences of harming little children, what is there in the arguments about adultery/fornication or homosexuality being an equal sin that couldn’t be used by those so inclined to equalize (or de-emphasize the seriousness of ) those things with the seriousness of abuse of children? To me, any argument or action that increases in any way whatsoever the chance of even one child being harmed by sexual abuse is of the greatest concern.
As a young person who did not come up within the church – homosexual activity is definitely on the rise. There was a lot of social pressure “in the mission field” to have homosexual relationships in high school and college. Speaking only for women, you are viewed as a “prude” and a bigot if you aren’t just as willing to become involved with another girl as you are a guy. I don’t think men have the same pressure, at least not that I was privy to.
“But let’s be understanding of the struggle that these people are making.”
I agree. And no one has indicated otherwise.
“Yes, orientation only has about a 50% genetic component. But other evidence I mentioned shows that the other 50% is also likely due to biological, inborn effects.”
A. You are still stretching. 50% is the twins number, but that number is both genetic and environmental. And twins tend to face extremely similar environments.
B. What evidence that you presented shows this? The evidence you present all seems like it could be subsumed into the twins number of 50%. It is not evidence of seperate channels, just showing how twins have such a high correlation.
Ivan,
Adultery and fornication are sins–not merely trangressions. A sin is a sin is a sin.
The way I see it, is that life is black and white, and a transgression mixes the two to provide various shades of grey. The deeper the sin, the darker the grey becomes. Both sins are wrong, and to discuss which is worse is a complete utter waste of tyme. We should avoid “all apearences of evil” and know that when we sin, our sins may “be made white as snow” through the repentance process; whether it be homo/sin or hetro/sin. Know this, both are wrong, are they both the same shade of grey, or is one darker then the other? It is not for us to judge or put on a scale, read and understand the 13 articles of faith. We are responsible for our sins and teaching our children “correct principales” We will all be judged according to OUR sins, to debate the higher “importance” of one or the other if you will, is insane. Neither type of sin (or various lesser sins if you will) will allow entrance into eternal life. That and that alone should cause us to worry, not to teach the next gen. if you must sin, sin by the way of adultry or fornication or what have you becuse it is a lesser sin, but to abstain from ALL forms of sin. Remember, no unclean thing can enter into the kingdom of heaven, and a truly repentant gay/lesbian/adulterer/fornicator has the same rights to eternal life as a “straight” man or woman (and there will be both catigories in the kingdom of heaven, I hope this doesn”t scare you?). In the parable of the prodigal son, was there not sin in the hearts of both sons? One stayed home, and one came home. Repentance is a beautiful thing.
-my 2 cents worth
I find that most discussions of the relative gravity of particular sins lack big picture perspective from the Plan of Happiness. Why is it bad to sin? Is it because it offends Heavenly Father when we don’t obey him? Because it makes Him mad? I don’t think so. I think sin is bad because it impedes our progress (and/or the progress of others). It makes us unable to enter the presence of God. We repent so that through christ we can be purified and made worthy to dwell with our Father.
So the relative gravity of a sin, I think, can be judged based on how severely it impedes our progress (or that of others). With regards to hetero- vs. homo- sexual transgressions, repentance and course correction is easier in the hetero case, in my opinion. When one engages in homosexual behavior and finds pleasure and gratification therein, he or she walks a path that will not lead to marriage, procreation, and all of the temporal and eternal blessings that they bring. I think that’s good reason for the Church (and brother Matt Evans) to treat homosexual transgression in a different class from heterosexual transgression.
Given Frank’s suggestion that it is the lower barrier to entry (no pun intended) that is leading to an increase in homosexual behavior and the constant assertions here that homosexual activity is worse than unmarried heterosexual activity I propose that BYU change its housing policy to require all students to have roommates of the opposite sex in order to lower the rates of homosexuality! Surely such a change will lead to an overall decrease in EVIL on campus.
#73 and those pertaining to it……
I have had 3 friends in the church who were/are gay, that I know of, (two of them confided in me) none were twins, all were right handed. One decided being gay wasn’t his thing and went straight, one changed and went on a mission, then upon his return went gay again, and the other just liked boys, period. Let me tell you, it ruined his family, absolutly ruined it.
I am not a twin, I was born left handed and forced to be right handed by my second grade teacher, and thus I am now ambidextrious (and a poor speller:), are there any statistics for “that enviroment” on probability of being gay? I have a wife, 4.5 kids, no boyfriends (yet!) (LOL) and I think my family has the right to know what my chances are of going south. Oh, isn’t there a passage in the new testament that says “There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape (either self control or repentance), that ye may be able to bear it. 1st Cor 10:13. It might be genetics, a twin thing a chemical imbalace or just plain curiosity, it is a sin that no matter where it derived from can be overcome with humility, a sincear desire to change, prayer and heavenly help.
I think I’m up to 3 cents and I’m none the richer!
#79,
This jives with my experiences at University of IL. Its become not uncommon from my life experiences for high school and college aged girls to experiment with lesbianism.
I have a close friend who graduated from an affluent high school north of Chicago in 1998 and joined the church the next year and she has told me that most of her female friends in HS experimented with lesbianism. I graduated in 1992 from a High School in the same area and can tell you that I never heard of such a thing in the early 1990′s.
Something happened in my opinion in the 1990′s
I am with Julie.
Extramarital sex is serious sin, whether it is with a partner of the same or a different sex. The list of factors in the Handbook for church discipline for adultery, for example, does not take into account whether the violation was a homosexual or heterosexual one. Forgiveness is available to all through our Savior.
There has been a gradual change in Church rhetoric. In 1990, the Strength of the Youth pamphlet stated, “Homosexual and lesbian activities are sinful and an abomination of the Lord (see Romans 1:26-27, 31). Unnatural affection including those toward persons of the same gender are counter to God’s eternal plan for his children.” In 2001, this section was changed by eliminating the reference to “abomination” and “unnatural affection”, and now reads “Homosexual activity is a serious sin. If you find your-self struggling with same-gender attraction, seek counsel from your parents and bishop. They will help you.”
Deseret Book recently published In Quiet Desperation which treats in an honest and compassionate way the struggles of families and individuals with respect to same sex attraction.
Some may think that the changes in rhetoric represent a politically correct softening of the Church’s position. I think it represents inspiration consistent with God’s love for all His children. I hope it will reduce the self-loathing some members feel who struggle, sometimes successfully and sometimes not, with same sex attraction.
Ronin,
You are mis-reading #73. He isn’t saying that being a twin makes one more likely to be homosexual, he is saying that if one twin is homosexual there is a 50% chance that the other one is.
I am thrilled!
I think the objection that Ned was raising way, way above isn’t that we shouldn’t object to homosexual activity or think that it’s wrong, but that the sort of attitudes that this post and comments are likely to tap into are more judgmental and less lamenting. I don’t think that’s the basis of the original post, but I do think that what we got nearly immediately speaks to the truth of what happens when we get overly focused. The two big things that stand out to me:
1) The attempts to marginalize the idea that SSA can come from biology. Does that make homosexual activity ok? Of course not, no more than being susceptible to alcoholism makes it ok to drink. But no less conservative and pro-Church a source than the Ensign has conceded much of this point. Let’s stop defending a wicket that’s long since gone. Homosexuality is not a product of rational-choice theory operating in a world where nobody has any natural inclinations. And, hey, even if it is due to environment, is that necessarily the homosexual’s fault? Agency has a role here, but it’s a lot more similar to the agency that applies to heterosexual attraction than this “absolute freedom to be homosexual” perspective.
2) The attempt to make homosexual activity worse than “regular” fornication. This is inherently suspect to me. I’m all about splitting hairs, but what does this get us? Is this an attempt to create an honest taxonomy of sins, or is it just what one does to make homosexuality and homosexuals a second class? I know that when I split hairs like this, I usually do it to cover or reduce the importance of my own sins. I’m not saying that’s what’s going on here, but this has the feel of one of those Sunday School lessons where the teacher is basically saying “I’m just so thankful that I was created to obey the Word of Wisdom, while those dirty nonmembers slave away in their depravity”. I think that as we consider matters in this way, we make ourselves less likely to consider our own weaknesses or to forgive people in the sin that we condemn.
By “overly focused” in the first paragraph above, I mean overly concerned with drawing sharp distinctions between heterosexuals and homosexuals. I must have inadvertently deleted something in there……
Jack -
Okay, let me be more specific. I was focusing merely on the sexual component in adultery. Much like the way a multi-joint compound weight exercise such as power clean and jerk exercises many muscles (whereas biceps curls primarily targets just one muscle), committing adultery and extramarital sex contain a whole host of sins and trangressions (mind, I’m also explicitly operating under Oaks’ framework to avoid equivocation).
Committing adultery, for instance, involves betrayal of sacred covenants and promises. The sex act is merely one portion of a larger whole, and probably the least of it.
The reason I say this is because, in a gospel context, heterosexual sex is inherently a good – it’s a good thing, intended by God to be used and enjoyed. Therefore, under Oak’s framework it is not “inherently wrong.” Heterosexual sex is inherently good – therefore, the times it becomes a wrong are the times it is forbidden for specfic reasons.
Homosexual sex, on the other hand IS inherently wrong. Period. It has no chance of ever, ever becoming legitimate. Murder is inherently wrong (which is why people saying SSM would bring “more virtue” to homosexual relationships vaguely sounds to me like saying reinstituiting the wereguild would bring more morality to second-degree murders).
Adultery is a sin, yes. But the sexual part of it is a transgression (I won’t say “mere transgression” since there’s nothing “mere” about adultery). The sins come from betraying the marriage vow, which is “inherently wrong” (I won’t go into my view that men/women who value their work above their wives/husbands and family, for example, are comitting sin – but that should give you and idea of where I stand).
Ivan,
I think your murder analogy is quite flawed. Honestly, I think it undermines your argument. Killing has a chance to become legitimate — in war, self defense, et cetera. Murder is like unto heterosexual sex in that under certain conditions, killing is justified. Under certain conditions, heterosexual sex is justified and right.
The larger issue I have with your claim is that in the case of heterosexual fornication, the conditions that would make it legitimate are by definition not present. The fact that the biological act could at some point be justified bears little relation to the judgment of the act as it was performed, any more than the fact that cutting an old woman to shreds is justified by the idea that she COULD be an enemy combatant, in another country, in another context, in another situation. The fact that there are possible mitigators does nothing to excuse the transgressor for whom those mitigators are not present.
D-Train -
I used murder because Dallin Oaks did. Actually, I think killing is inherently wrong. Just as some things that are inherently good can be made bad (transgressions) I think some things that are inherently bad can be momentarily allowed and mitigated. Who had the higher morality – the Anti-Nephi Lehites who refused to fight back or the Nephites fighting in self-defense?
But that does not mean all evil/inherently wrong/sinful acts can get a pass, just like not all righteous/inherently good/nice acts can become wrongs (transgressions).
So, yeah – I think adultery is one of the worst sins one can commit. I also opposse the death penalty and think war is an absolute last resort, since I think killing, even when justified or done in self-defense, damages the soul. I understand there are reasons for it, but in those cases it’s just a temporary mitigation.
I don’t see any mitigations for homosexual behavior (though there may be cases where a specific person will not be held accountable – but that’s different from saying the act itself is okay).
“‘In fact, we should consider policies–such as sharing tents at girls camp.’
How long before late-night TV-viewers will be plied with “Girls Camp Gone Wild” videos? Oh, the humanity.”
Come on, no one’s going to bite on that? That’s some of my better work.
Davis Bell -
perhaps it’s an example of the common advice to writers: Kill Your Darlings
;-)
“…although girls are significantly more likely than
boys to be victims of child sexual abuse.26 The incidence of sexual
abuse is approximately two to seven times higher among girls than
among boys depending on age.25
http://www.girlsinc.com/ic/content/GirlsandViolence.pdf#search='sexual%20abuse%20%20more%20to%20girls%20than%20boys?‘
Thanks for backing me up, D. Fletcher. And although this data doesn’t show it, the vast majority of the abusers are men, therefore the vast majority of child sexual abuse is not homosexual in nature.
There is evidence of under-reporting sexual abuse in boys, though. And ironically, it does seem to be that sexual abuse of boys is OVER-reported by the media — it’s more newsworthy than what happens to the girls, which is why people think boy pedophila is more prevalent than it is.
# 70 Last– My bad, should have been homosexual relations, not hetero.
#74 Claire- I’m off to the preverbial potluck dinner for Ward conference. When I get back I will see what I can do for you.
> A. You are still stretching. 50% is the twins number, but that number is both genetic and environmental. And twins tend to face extremely similar environments.
The 50% correlation in orientation is pretty much the same whether the twins are raised together or raised separately from birth (ie one or both were adopted).
> B. What evidence that you presented shows this? The evidence you present all seems like it could be subsumed into the twins number of 50%. It is not evidence of seperate channels, just showing how twins have such a high correlation.
The other evidence I cited establishes that the brains and bodies of gays are physically and measurably different. These differences are noted from puberty on. I can give literature citations if you really want to read them.
Even LDS psychologists and counselors are acknowledging the reality that orientation is innate and hardly ever can be changed. One counselor who has seen and counseled hundreds of LDS persons over the past ten years or so reports that of the roughly 200 single gay or bi men who she has seen for a year or more, in an effort to change orientation, only 21 were able to do so, and of these only one was initially classified as truly gay (the other 20 were classified as bi). It is more likely, frankly, the that one solitary exception was misclassified at the start.
Please stop using Leviticus.
I speak here as a Jew. As mentioned above the quoted scriptures about Homosexuality are in the middle of a “laundry list” of laws (both positive and negative), which include prohibitions (such as the mixing of fabrics) and penalties that much less than 1% of the american populace would support and prohibited and worthy of the punishments mentioned in Leviticus.
And why should the crime be quoted from leviticus and followed *without* supporting the punishment as written. Do the LDS church support the punishment as written in Leviticus (Death)?
Romans 1:26, 1 Corinithians 6:9 & 1 Timothy 9-10 may be valid to discuss though. Of course *that* gets into a discussion of exactly what arsenokotai is. 1/2 :) (Arsenokotai is the greek term used in both 1Cor6:9 & 1Tim9-10.)
DHB: It seems far more likely that God works miracles.
DHB,
“The other evidence I cited establishes that the brains and bodies of gays are physically and measurably different. These differences are noted from puberty on.”
Fine but presumably those are differences that are also present in twins who are homosexual. Thus these biological effects you cite are not picking up _additional_ genetic factors besides the twin study. They are merely reiterating them. At which point, the correlation will not rise above .5.
To put it another way, two twins, with identical genetics and likely identical environments, and identical trauma to the mother during pregnancy, and probably similar brain development, do not have the same outcome 50% of the time. Thus at most 50% is biological.
“The 50% correlation in orientation is pretty much the same whether the twins are raised together or raised separately from birth (ie one or both were adopted).”
Well that is certainly very informative. but 1) what is “pretty much” and 2) just how big of a sample of seperated-at-birth gay twins are these researchers working with, anyway? Biologists can often have large samples, but sometimes (especially in some studies of homesexual tendency) researchers try to get away with way too few observations. At which point the estimate is extremely imprecise.
To further define imprecise:
If you have too few samples, your results have to have increasingly larger margins of error. For political polls, it is usually between +/- 3-5%; i.e. the results are pretty sure, but may range between 6-10% off from what is reported. That is with hundreds, a few thousand in the sample size.
If you are working with twins, separated at birth,…how big could the sample size be? 10? 50? in which case the margins are probably something like +/-25%; i.e. not even worth reporting.
Kelly, how ya doing? Where’ve you been? You know, if you would post every day, people would probably come to your blog more often. That’s my opinion. You don’t post often enough. Because you do post interesting things when you post. People would get in the habit (as I do) of checking.
There is plenty of quality research available or underway that suggests a significant correlation–and perhaps cause–between biology and sexual orientation (genetic and/or events in the womb). Does anyone know of ANY good science produced to support the old theories tying homosexuality to upbringing or post-natal environment? ANY research program aimed at measuring cause and not just effect of observable traits?
My biggest objection to homosexuality is that a disproportionately high percentage of homosexuals are pedophiles. While it is true that pedophiles are more likely to be heterosexual than homosexual, the percentage of homosexuals who are pedophiles is much higher than the percentage of heterosexuals who are pedophiles. Anybody who molests children, heterosexual or homosexual, is a pervert. And it is more prevalent among homosexuals than among heterosexuals. That is why those Roman Catholic priests were molesting boys instead of little girls.
Not a bigot, but not PC,
John W. Redelfs, jredelfs@gmail.com
Greg, check out DHB’s early post where adopted siblings showed a 6-11% correlation in homosexual tendency. This would be the sort of place to start looking for non-genetic environmental effects, if that is of interest to you.
Greg,
Also, the old view might have been a little more about _behavior_ being environmental, whereas the new research is about desire having a hefty biological compnonent. Thus, just look at the top of the thread to see that lots more girls are engaging in homosexual encounters, presumably because of the environment since they are not homosexually oriented. One would also look at prison behavior or other environments where lots of such behavior is manifest.
#75 Claire- Perhaps the following quote will be of some assistance: “For example: In 1987, Dr. Stephen Rubin of Whitman College conducted a ten-state study of sex abuse cases involving school teachers. He studied 199 cases. Of those, 122 male teachers had molested girls, while 14 female teachers had molested boys. He also discovered that 59 homosexual male teachers had molested boys and four female homosexual teachers had molested girls. In other words, 32 percent of those child molestation cases involved homosexuals. Nearly a third of these cases come from only 1-2% of the population.
Dr. Judith Reisman, in her book, Kinsey, Crimes & Consequences, describes the research done by Dr. Gene Abel. This researcher compared the molestation rates of self-confessed homosexual and heterosexual child molesters. In a sample of 153 homosexual molesters, they confessed to a total of 22,981 molestations. This is equivalent to 150 children per molester. Self-admitted heterosexual molesters admitted to 4,435 molestations. This comes to 19.8 victims per molester. Dr. Abel concluded that homosexuals “sexually molest young boys at an incidence that is occurring from five times greater than the molestation of girls.”
Granted, Claire, this study does not necessarily state that boys are violated more than girls, except among the homesexual ranks, and except for the apparent fact that homosexuals accout for 1/3 of all molestations and only 2 percent of the society. Staggering!
#107 anne- I appreciate your kind words. I have to take a break now and then and focus on things that really matter. T&S is more a diversion from the reality of work and family, and so I am wont to not get too caught up in the discussions.
The statistics about child molestation are interesting. But I still have two important questions:
1) Is homosexual pedophilia a form of conventional homosexuality, in that it usually goes along with attraction to adults of the same sex? I could imagine that it’s just a different category altogether…perhaps most of the men molesting boys are attracted to adult women.
2) Does society’s more accepting attitude towards consensual homosexual behavior lead to an increasing rate of child molestation? It’s not clear that it does. In fact I could imagine it going the other way…people with no legitimate outlet for their homosexual urges may be more inclined to prey on naive, innocent young people.
3) In answering both these questions, it would probably make sense to distinguish between molestation of pre-pubescents and molestation of teenagers.
I don’t know the answers to these questions, but I think we would need the answers before we use the incidence of male-on-male child sexual abuse to form our attitudes towards homosexuals.
Who says homosexuals comprise only 2% of society? Try 10%.
The 10% figure is a myth. Urban legend. Whatever you want to call it.
Greg: You won’t find any. Why? Because anyone who tried to do such research would be fired, wouldn’t get tenured, and wouldn’t be able to publish their findings. Same story on the aftereffects of an abortion, or anything that would paint abortion in a negative light.
#115 & #116
marvin -
well, if the initial report that prompted this thread is accurate, it may have been 2% 10 years ago and 10% may be the figure today.
As for lyle’s comment – I’m not so sure that people might get fired for trying to find someting out like that – I just wonder if it would even be possible to prove. It may be true (or not) that there is some real, definete connection between homosexuality and pedophilia, but how could that be proved with any real certainity?
10% versus 2% . Most of the good work on the percentages makes it clear that the 10% figure is anyone who shows physical reaction (blood flow to appropriate areas) to appropriate pictures of the same gender (moving or still). And most of this reaction is hard-wired into the brain. Now a decent size chunk of that 10% are people who *also* react in the same way to pictures of the opposite gender. And the numbers are also tilted toward more women having same sex reaction than men.
The number of open homosexuals *is* going up. There are simply fewer families in this country where a child coming out as gay is likely to get them cut off by their relatives. BTW, this also makes me suspicious about studies showing that Gay parents are no more likely to raise children who are gay than Straight parents. I would expect a certain number of Straight parents in the survey to be significantly negative on the idea of a gay child which would to supress the numbers.
Kaimi, Do you think that God does this social calculus?
Actually, there is a great deal of evidence that God does social calculus from the directions he has given prophets. Social calculus seems to explain a lot.
Every commandment casts a shadow of activity, on both sides (too strict and too lax) that results in those in the shadow being off-track. You can plot the shadows and look at the reasons why some shadows seem to be better than others, it is what caused me to start thinking of the Church being more like a sail driven collection of barges on the ocean than a car being driven down a straight road.
I need to finish the post on homosexuality I’ve been working on.
However, I do need to note that there have been very active groups preaching that homosexual sex isn’t really sex, and so it is ok. I remember that being brought up by a general authority visiting my mission as a part of a series of assignments, where they were rebutting, heck, call it an heresy, that was spreading about. That particular teaching comes up everysooften and is one that the Church leadership responds to, and has been responding to, since the 1970s when it first surfaced.
As for being gay being a pathway to pedophilia, it is easy to wonder where such a counter-factual belief came from. (There are a lot of datapoints. Not that there are not gay pedophiles, Albert Walles, the famous Utah prison guard, comes to mind, but they are actually less common than straight ones).
The answer is fairly straightforward.
First http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=820 and the like — the author of “The Kinsey Report” was a homosexual pedophile. In what is one of the sadder parts of the story, he enabled the abuse of some children and then blocked their access to the records he kept of what happened to them.
Second the strongest organized group, and one that shared printers and space with some gay groups in the early days when both were outcasts, is the Man-boy, etc. They have created a great deal of sematic contamination by using almost all of the same arguments used by gays. (Which is proof merely that the arguments are strong arguments regardless of context, nothing else).
So, gays are not more likely than straights to be pedophiles, but it is very easy for people to believe that, based on a few datapoints that are misleading.
http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/bless/kinsey.htm has the chart where Kinsey was insisting that four or five orgasms in a day wasn’t that unheard of in four year old males.
See also http://home.att.net/~r.s.mccain/kinsey.html and http://www.holysmoke.org/fem/fem0257.htm
And it is more prevalent among homosexuals than among heterosexuals. That is why those Roman Catholic priests were molesting boys instead of little girls.
Actually, those Roman Catholic Priests were atypical in a number of ways.
Most pedophiles, and this is just weird, are attracted to pre-adolescents. Those that all of us here would find completely without any sexual attractiveness at all. They are not involved with teenagers (there is an entirely different class of men in their twenties who date girls in their middle to late teens — but they all prefer the most developed of that group, it is a matter of emotional immaturity, not attraction to physically immature humans).
The priests, as a group (with a significant sub-group that was “typical” rather than part of the deviance), tended to be attracted to teens. One result is that the Catholic Church kept treating it as a breach of celibacy rather than as pedophilia. Big mistake, and one that is still working through the system.
A terrible tragedy, but not one that leads to much enlightenment for those trying to understand the dynamics in society at large.
#113 ed- Those descrbed in the statistics I quoted were “self-confessed” homosexuals. This would lead be to believe that they engaged in adult sexual relations in addition to pedophilia.
#114 D Fletcher- The 10 percent you quote is the number used by the gay and lesbian community in an effort to gain acceptance and create a sense of normalcy. However, statistics simply do not bear this out.
Stephen- It would appear that statistics can be had in either direction, depending on the side of the aisle one chooses to sit. The study I quoted in #112 indicates that, while actual numbers of molestations by homosexual men might be less, as a percentage of the homosexual group, they are significantly higher. In this particular instance, percentages offer greater insight than do numbers.
Kelly Knight — very true.
Randolf: “The number of open homosexuals *is* going up.”
Are you suggesting more people (%) publically reveal their homosexually oriention now than in the past, or that more people accurately report their homosexual orientation to researchers, or that more people engage in homosexual experimentation (and/or are more likely to report experimentation) regardless of their homo, hetero, or bi-sexual orientation, or simply that global population is still on the upswing and more people means more of every orientation?
Maybe the percentage of honest people is going up?
Randolf: “There are simply fewer families in this country where a child coming out as gay is likely to get them cut off by their relatives.”
Fewer than what? Fewer than 10, 20, or 50 years ago or fewer than in other countries? Is there more homosexual behavior or more people with a homosexual orientation in places more accepting of diverse orientations? I can see how family pressure might keep some people with homosexual orientations in the closet and discourage homosexual experimentation among some others with less well-defined orientations. But can you direct me to any evidence that suggests there that greater acceptance of those with homosexual orientations actually induces homosexual orientation in more people?
Randolf: “BTW, this also makes me suspicious about studies showing that Gay parents are no more likely to raise children who are gay than Straight parents. I would expect a certain number of Straight parents in the survey to be significantly negative on the idea of a gay child which would to supress the numbers.”
Are you suspicious of the studies because of poor science? Do we have even decent anecdotal evidence to seriously question these studies? Where can I find it? Parental pressure can channel any number of childrens’ tendencies. I have no cause to doubt that more acceptance of some people’s homosexual orientation may lead to more homosexual behavior–and even perhaps greater experimenation among some heterosexuals, but I’ve seen no evidence that acceptance causes orientation (though beneficial trade-offs may include less angst, fear, depression, and suicide).
I haven’t followed this thread at all, but I just wanted to point out that the Greg on this thread is not me. But the Greg on the healthcare thread is. That’s what I get for not using my last name consistently when I post.
Here’s an up-to-date journalistic (so take it with a little salt) round-up of the research on the topic: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2005/08/14/what_makes_people_gay/?page=full
Seems to revise the 50% twins figure downward to 20%, and places more emphasis on childhood gender conformity (which itself has genetic and environmental factors). The fact is, though, that the state of the research is rather inelegant to date, and there’s no coherent front-runner in the race to find the etiology of homosexuality.
John #109, that is one of the most ignorant statements I’ve ever heard. Where do you get your statistics? I know many homosexuals and not one is a pedophile. In fact, they would never harm a child in any way.
I am not defending homosexuality as a lifestyle. I do think it is aberrant behavior, I do not think homosexuals are born homosexual, as a rule. But neither do I think they are blanket evil. No more than us other sinners.
I’m just going to fan the flames a little by suggesting that if, in fact, homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles it may be because their homosexual orientation (over which they apparently have no control, even if they can and should control their behavior) causes them to violate one social taboo, it may be easier for them to violate another (i.e., sex with children). Is it possible that social acceptable of homosexuality could lead to a decrease in pedophelia among homosexuals? I have no data, of course, but since very few other people on this thread feel compelled to back up their speculative arguments with data, why should I?
If the seriousness of sexual sins were ranked strictly by how society has traditionally perceived them (leaving aside the argument of whether this perception is true or not) the list might look something like this from least to worst:
fornication
adultery
homosexuality
incest
child sexual abuse
So as social acceptance increases going down the list, has the behavior increased or decreased? And is that likely to hold true until the abuse of children is, if not acceptable at least tolerated?
A study by Randall Sell, James Wells and David Wypij at Harvard School of Public Health (1994), found that 6.2% to 20.8% of American men and 3.3% to 17.8% of women could be considered “incidentally homosexual”. The higher percentages are based on admitted homosexual behavior or attraction since age 15. The lower percentages are admissions of actual same sex behavior in the last 5 years. Again the true % of actual same sex behavior is probably much higher, but the admission rate is greater than past studies. 7% to 10% homosexuals in a population is really a conservative estimate, and 1% is truly inaccurate.
As to whether homosexuals are more likely to abuse children, it is a ludicrous and unfounded assertion. Many more girls are abused by men, up to 7 times more, than boys. I’m just guessing that as homosexuals represent 10% of the population, homosexual child-abusers represent 10% of all child-abusers.
I have a dream: someday, on T&S, someone will write a thoughtful post about the difficult questions that the existence of children of God who are homosexual poses for Mormon theology and Mormon culture. Discussion will ensue, in which people will argue passionately, but civilly, articulately, and with great compassion for their brothers and sisters who are gay. The words “incest,” “bestiality”, and “pedophilia” will not occur because all of the commenters will realize that those deviant behaviors are extremely rare among homosexuals, as they are among heterosexuals, and that trying to judge an entire group by the behavior of its outlying members is likely to lead to hideously unkind rhetoric and really stupid arguments.
The problem with all the discussion is the problem of “me”. Christ calls us to be one in him. But we all want to reserve our sex drive. It is, for many, their essential “me”. But giving it to God doesn’t always mean giving up sexual fulfillment. It means using it as he directs and in no other way. My suspicion is that many LDS men struggle with this. They may have lawful access to sexual expression but they still haven’t surrendered their drives to God. They can’t imagine a prolonged separation from their spouse, her death or incapacity and their continued continence. Holiness requires the surrender of these instincts to God. It requires us to acknowledge that we could live a lifetime without sexual fulfillment if our circumstances made that impossible and that we can be happy.
Giving our sex drive to God does not mean repressing it. There is a big difference between unhealthy unhealthy denial of our appetites and offering them to God. When the priesthood of the Church can look inward and know that they have made “an offering in righteousness” of this part of their selves then we will be able to stand before the world with great power and authority and ask men (and women) to give up their same sex urges, the pornographic fixations, their adulteries and fornications and all their unrighteous desires.
These blog debates would cease.
I agree Kristine. You are, perhaps, the right person to start such a thread.
One of the preceding comments focused on whether or not a person is born homosexual. As a point of reference for any interested in the subject, I found at least five of the Bretheren who have outright denounced such a notion. For your viewing pleasure just go to LDS.org and see for yourself. “Same Gender Attraction,” Dallin H. Oaks, Liahona, Mar. 1996,4; When a Loved One Struggles With Same Sex Attraction,” A. Dean Byrd, Ensign, Sept. 1999, 51; “First Presidency Message–Serving the Lord and Resisting the Devil,” James E. Faust, Liahona, Nov. 1995, 3; “President Kimball Speaks Out on Morality,” New Era, Nov. 1980, 39; and “Ye are the Temple of God,” Boyd K. Packer, Ensign, Nov. 2000, 72. If anyone is interested I also have six talks given by Prophets or Members of the Twelve outright rejecting Evolution (I thought it necessary to research that since someone posted the idea that Adam may have been the first humanoid with a soul–a subject specifically addressed and rejected).
The CDC report on sexual behaviors that Matt cites includes data regarding self-identified sexual orientation. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad362.pdf It indicates that, among males ages 15-44, 90% consider themselves heterosexual, 2.3% homosexual, 1.8% bisexual, 3.9% something else (whatever that means), and 1.8% declined to answer. The percentages among females are similar. In terms of actual behavior, the study indicates that 6% of males have had sexual relations with another male at least once, and 2.9% have had such relations in the last 12 months. Among women, it states that 11% have ever had a sexual experience with another woman, and 4.4% have done so in the last 12 months.
“3.9% something else (whatever that means)”
/scratches head
Ryan Black–
I looked at your reference to the Elder Oaks’ article and found this:
“Feelings are another matter. Some kinds of feelings seem to be inborn. Others are traceable to mortal experiences. Still other feelings seem to be acquired from a complex interaction of “nature and nurture.” All of us have some feelings we did not choose, but the gospel of Jesus Christ teaches us that we still have the power to resist and reform our feelings (as needed) and to assure that they do not lead us to entertain inappropriate thoughts or to engage in sinful behavior.”
Seems to argue the opposite of what you said, doesn’t it?
(What he does denounce is those who say that orientation is inborn *therefore* they have no choice but to engage in their behavior.)
Well, I figured I might as well look up the rest of your sources, Ryan Black:
from When a Loved One Struggles With Same Sex Attraction:
“What is clear is that homosexuality results from an interaction of social, biological, and psychological factors. . . . Though homosexual attraction may not result from conscious choices, the divine gift of agency does provide us with choices in responding to such attraction”
President Faust’s article denounces the idea that feelings cannot be changed. It does allow, however, for the scenario where someone is born with homosexual feelings but can repent of and change them.
Presdient Kimball doesn’t directly address the issue of it being inborn, but he does say this:
“Temptations come to all people. The difference between the reprobate and the worthy person is generally that one yielded and the other resisted. It is true that one’s background may make the decision and accomplishment easier or more difficult, but if one is mentally alert, he can still control his future.”
This at least suggests that some people have a background making resisting homosexual urges more difficult for them.
The closest Elder Packer gets to the issue is this;
“If you consent, the adversary can take control of your thoughts and lead you carefully toward a habit and to an addiction, convincing you that immoral, unnatural behavior is a fixed part of your nature.”
In other words, if you engage in sin, Satan may convince you you cannot change. This is not the same thing as saying that your original feelings were not inborn.
To sum, Ryan, not a single one of the articles that you cited says what you implied. Several directly state the opposite. I would encourage you to reread them.
This is important: when you pervert the teachings of our leaders (in this case, to make it out as if they have taught that some desires are not inborn) then you have put a stumbling block in the path of our brothers and sisters who struggle with homosexual feelings. If they think that you are accurately reporting the words of our leaders, they will know (if their own sense is that their feelings are inborn) that our leaders are wrong. This may destroy their confidence in the prophets and cause them to give up on the counsel of those leaders to flee from temptation. This means that you will bear some responsibility for their sins because you led them astray. Please don’t teach false doctrine here.
Ryan you should also check into evolution a little more, the recent book on David O. McKay contain many examples of members of the Twelve and the prophet that believed in evolution, and were upset when other members of the Twelve came out against it.
An Apostle who believs in evolution? Heaven forbid. Face it folks evolution means that there was no God involved in the creation. Any Apostle who believes that would be a heretic.
On the other hand if an Apostle saw God’s hand in an earlier stage of the creation than another Apostle then there is room for discussion… but don’t confuse that with evolution. No evolutionist would give that thought the time of day. Evolution is man’s attempt to explain creation without God. Anything else isn’t evolution. It may be intelligent design it may be Creationism or whatever….just don’t call it evolution.
Well, George, lots of people think of “evolution” as inherently excluding God, but lots of people publicly insist that it doesn’t. This sort of point comes up a lot lately, in fact, because of the debate about what schools should teach.
Wikipedia ,a href=”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis”>says,
The theory underlying the modern synthesis has three major aspects:
-The common descent of all organisms from a single ancestor.
-The manifestation of novel traits in a lineage.
-The mechanisms that cause some traits to persist while others perish.
This sort of understanding leaves open the possibility that sometimes novel traits may have been introduced by God.
There are some LDS blogs that have collected resources on evolution. Two main hubs are LDS Science Review and Mormons & Evolution blog. They’re at http://ldsscience.blogspot.com/ and http://mormonevolution.blogspot.com/ . There’s also a little discussion on T & S, at http://www.timesandseasons.org/index.php?p=226 .
The short answer is that there are a lot of sometimes conflicting statements from different church leaders on the subject. At least some church leaders, including Bruce R. McConkie and Joseph Feilding Smith, condemned evolution in strong terms. Others, particularly James E. Talmadge, argued that evolution was not incompatible with church belief.
In my own defense, I never meant to imply that people are not born with certain weaknesses toward temptation. What I was merely attempting to show is that people are not born homosexual–that is, it is not a natural state to which those people are doomed to succomb. I am certainly aware of people that struggle with the temptation, just as one may be predisposed to alchoholism or obesity. I think all of the articles I have read support that. President Oaks, if I am remembering the article correctly, vehemently challenged the idea that people could not help being homosexual because “they were born that way.” I never attempted to twist our church leaders’ words, which is exactly why I gave the sources I did. Anyone who wants to condemn me for the way I portrayed these statements needs to reread the articles in the spirit they were written because I am sure they state what I purported them to say–people do have a choice, homosexuality does not occur by biological design. If you don’t like it, take it up with them. As far as evolution goes, I’ll give you the sources and let you decide for yourself where the church stands on it. Pay particular attention to the proclamation given by the First Presidency in 1909. “Magnificence of Man,” Russel M. Nelson, New Era, Oct. 1987, 44; The Pattern of our Parentage,” Boyd K. Packer, Ensign, Nov. 1984, 66; “Gospel Classics: The Origin of Man,” Improvement Era, Nov. 1909, 75-81 (Also Ensign Feb. 2002, 26); “The Caravan Moves On,” Bruce R. McConkie, Ensign, Nov. 1984; “The Book of Mormon is the Word of God,” Ezra Taft Benson, Ensign, May 1975, 63; “Great Things Required of their Fathers”, Ezra Taft Benson, May 1981, 34.
Ben H I am sure that there are many who believe in some sort of evolutionary mechanism that was kicked off by God but these people are not evolutionists except by some misguided self-declaration. Real evolutionists are determined to find a natural (i.e. godless) mechanism for everything including all the first causes. Real evolutionists label anyone else as a creationist, an “Intelligent Design” believer etc. If Talmage claimed that evolution wasn’t inconsistent with the gospel it was only his miunderstanding or co-opting of the term that made him able to say so. There are no ancient or modern apostles who believe in a godless creation ergo there are no evolutionist Apostles.
Ryan–perhaps you have a different definition of homosexuality that many others. Because when you say even here in your “clarification” that “homosexuality does not occur by biological design” I think that statement itself contradicts the quotes Julie gave above–which acknowledge to varying degrees that homosexual desires can be inborn. True, sexuality of any kind does not “occur” by biological design, we act in response to our drives, but we are designed with drives that encourage various behaviors over others (like fight or flight when stressed, or nurturing a newborn vs abandoning that child). It’s great when natural drives help us in our missions here. It is really challenging when they do not.
Kristine: someday, on T&S, someone will write a thoughtful post about the difficult questions that the existence of children of God who are homosexual poses for Mormon theology and Mormon culture.
Kristine, what questions does homosexuality pose for Mormon theology and culture that aren’t answered by Mosiah 3:19 and Mosiah 18:9?
Ryan,
I don’t understand your point if you did not mean to imply that homosexual orientation may not be an inborn trait. You clearly state that ‘people are not born homosexual — that is, it is not a natural state to which those people are doomed to succumb. But aren’t certain tendencies or orientations natural if people are born with them?
I understand, and agree with, your broader point that tendencies may be channeled and that much sexual behavior is controllable (you know, overcoming the “natural” man and all). But as Julie in Austin points out, common sense and several of the articles you reference clearly allow a role for biology that is, “nature” in determining our sexual orientations (such as, “What is clear is that homosexuality results from an interaction of social, biological, and psychological factors,” or “Some kinds of feelings are inborn”).
The disconnection appears to be that you consider someone homosexual only if they engage in homosexual sex, and that orientation is not a fundamental characteristic of identity. Am I wrong?
From this perspective, many of us commenting here were not heterosexual until marriage. I, for one, was very aware of my heterosexuality long before then and I think it’s reasonable to assume that many homosexuals are likewise aware of their early, and likely inborn, orientation at a relatively young age.
Matt,
I can’t speak for Kristine, but one challenge for Mormon culture is how to better apply Mosiah 18:9 and enable children, youth, and adults to overcome or channel natural tendencies without making them feel like perverts.
Lisa, your comment on my definition of homosexuality is very perceptive. You are right that I don’t categorize homosexuals as anyone with same sex attraction. To me a person is not a homosexual unless engaged in homosexual activity, just as a person is not an alcoholic just because he/she is predisposed to alcoholism. Everyone has to learn to deal with the temptations as they come, and should not be labeled just becaus they happen to be tempted in a certain way. As to Julie’s quote, if you read it carefully you can see that President Oaks points to other things in conjunction with biology as factors determining homosexuality. Thus, homosexuality is not defined by biology alone. I only bring this up to combat the evil saying “They can’t help it because they were born with it.” No–they were born with a tendency they can control, not with a natural desire–look to President Packard’s statement–“If you consent, the adversary can take control of your thoughts and lead you carefully toward a habit and to an addiction, convincing you that immoral, unnatural behavior is a fixed part of your nature.â€?
Obviously, President Packard feels that homosexuality is an unnatural part of someone’s behavior.
145. Amen Matt. But the problem isn’t Mormon theology. That is sound and unshakeable. The problem is the culture that claims that our sexuality is something that we can hold back from God. The homosexuals claim that heterosexuals don’t have to give up their sexuality and a lot of heterosexuals, unfortunately, do hold theirs back even in lawful marriages. We all have to consecrate our sexual desire to God and take back only what he gives us. This is not easy. It would probably be easier to be completely celibate than to exercise a sexual desire that is fully consecrated to God.
“We all have to consecrate our sexual desire to God and take back only what he gives us. This is not easy. It would probably be easier to be completely celibate than to exercise a sexual desire that is fully consecrated to God.”
GeorgeD, I can’t follow you. Could you clarify your statement for me? How do we consecrate our sexual desires? How do we take back our sexual desires? And why isn’t it easy?
Greg,
I think you’re right that finding ways to help each other overcome the natural man is incredibly difficult, but that challenge exists for all the “divers ways and means” (to again cite Mosiah) our natures lead us to commit sin, and has nothing to do with homosexuality particularly. It’s not like the church has silver bullets for dealing with abuse, alcoholism, slothfulness, fornication, adultery, pride, pornography, vainglorying, gossiping, or the three behaviors Kristine doesn’t want mentioned here, but is all thumbs when it comes to dealing with homosexuality. Everyone who has worked with people struggling with these tendencies (and all other “divers ways and means”) acknowledges that helping people change is difficult and soul wrenching. These facts reduce Kristine’s question to “Why did God make life difficult instead of easy?” And while that is of course one of the fundamental metaphysical questions, I believe most people have come to grips with the answer: God fills life with problems to help us learn and grow.
Well said, Matt. I think your tone is just the sort Kristine recommended.
JJohnsen,
I’ll decline the invitation to do further research on evolution. I think the person who wrote the book on David O’ McKay might want to check their sources and make sure they quoted them correctly if they assert that the bretheren believed in evolution. The sources I quote came from doing a simple search on evolution in the gospel archive on LDS.org. Of the 67 or so results that came up, none of the bretheren ever approved of evolution, and the First Presidency in a 1909 proclamation specifically denounced the idea that man evolved from lesser beings–(not to mention Boyd K. Packer, Russell M. Nelson, Bruce R. McConkie, and Ezra Taft Benson rather candidly remarking on the falsity of evolution). Now the question arises, when the bretheren gave these talks were they giving personal opinion or speaking as mouthpieces for the Lord. Personally, I don’t like to go down that road because it is a slippery slope to apostasy, but I believe if you read the talks cited below in the spirit they were given, it will be evident that these bretheren were speaking as mouthpieces for the Lord. Each of the sources quoted came from talks the bretheren gave, and I do not believe that they would be so reckless as to interject there personal opinion without so stating.“Magnificence of Man,” Russel M. Nelson, New Era, Oct. 1987, 44; The Pattern of our Parentage,” Boyd K. Packer, Ensign, Nov. 1984, 66; “Gospel Classics: The Origin of Man,” Improvement Era, Nov. 1909, 75-81 (Also Ensign Feb. 2002, 26); “The Caravan Moves On,” Bruce R. McConkie, Ensign, Nov. 1984; “The Book of Mormon is the Word of God,” Ezra Taft Benson, Ensign, May 1975, 63; “Great Things Required of their Fathers”, Ezra Taft Benson, May 1981, 34. Furthermore, the Pearl of Great Price emphasizes that Adam was the first flesh on the earth. Finally, the science (or should I say pseudo-science) of evolution is flawed. Besides violating the second law of thermodynamics–(things of a lower order do not become a higher order without some outside energy introduced), anyone just thinking about evolution can see the lunacy. Let me paint the picture– Once upon a time there was a pool of ooze. How did it get there? No one knows, but it was there. And in that pool of ooze lightning struck creating single celled animals that knew how to reproduce in order to sustain the life they had just happened to gain. Then one day the single celled animals got sick of hanging out in the pond and decided to leave. A corpus convention was held and an cells lobbied for their part in the new body that would carry them out of the primordeal ooze. “I want to be a heart,” some shouted. “I want to be the brain.” And so it happened. The single celled animals combined to become animals that would eventually walk out of the pond. Not content to be land creatures, some sprouted wings. Others became plants so that they could be digested for the animals. I’ll stop there as I haven’t worked out all the details for my evolutionary script, but I think I’ve beat the horse to death. No one has yet found one missing link (and don’t come to me with the story of LUCY– the ankle bone that supposedly proved she walked upright was found over 100 feet deeper and 1 KM away from the rest of the skeleton). No one has explained why if we evolved from monkeys out of necessity, monkeys are still around but the missing links are not. No, one has explained to me how mutant things reproduce, since supposedly they are sterile. No one has explained to me why humans have an appendix since natural selection is only supposed to pass on qualities that help a species survive. And frankly, no one has ever explained why Heavenly Father would create man in his own image by way of monkey and then make up a story about being created from clay and breathing life into him. Sorry, I think I have had quite my fill of evolution and those who attempt to make an unproven theory into law. It is my guess that sometime in the future people will look back and laugh that they ever believed in such lunacy, just as with other scientific explanations e.g the world is flat and the center of the universe. No, what the bretheren have said in a proclamation to the world and in talks given to Latter-Day Saints is good enough for me.
Ryan #153 – I, too, am not convinced that sufficient evidence has been presented for the case of evolution. That having been said, prepare yourself for the onslaught of responses.
Matt, one difference, for starters, is that the church has a proven record of helping people change and repent of the behaviors you mention, and there is precious little evidence of anyone with homosexual orientation ever being able to change their orientation (although they can, of course, manage their behavior). I think that is a serious theological problem for a church that believes that the perfected form of human beings involves not just their souls, but their bodies and desires. It’s not an impossible problem, but I think it’s thorny and, so far, not adequately addressed (at least not publicly).
I’m not interested in debating evolution, but I will provide a link to a talk recently given at a BYU devotional by an entomologist, Michael Whiting. What makes this interesting, I think, is that it isn’t pro-evolution for the sake of being pro-evolution but rather pro-evolution in a way that uses that theory to allow us to learn more about God. This is an important contrapoint to those who (wrongly) assume that everything about evolution is designed to lead away from God.
http://speeches.byu.edu/?act=viewitem&id=1459
Kristine,
I suspect that most repentance involves managing our behaviors and only infrequently results in a revolutionary purging of our natural desires. Most people who repent of gluttony or pornography, for example, probably retain their natural desires, and control the temptation by not acting on it. Even Gandhi probably never rid himself of the natural tendency to worry first for oneself, and was selfless only by training himself to think of others’ needs as readily as nature led him to think of his own. I suspect his physiological, psychological and otherwise “natural” need for food was never killed, even during a 25-day fast.
I think we’ll be disappointed if we expect God to take away our desires that make it hard to be like him.
Julie,
I don’t think that everyone who believes in evolution is evil or uses it to lead away from God. I also believe in evolution within a species–white moths become grey moths and all that jass. Certainly evolution was not designed for evil purposes. Many forget that besides a naturalist, Charles Darwin was quite the Christian. However, many people in main stream media have used evolution to explain away the need for God. They use the THEORY as a FACT to show that we didn’t need GOD to come into being. That is truly evil, and probably why President Benson encouraged parents to ask what their kids are learning in school in order to combat false teachings–such as the teachings of evolution–”We have seen introduced into many school systems false ideas about the theory of man’s development from lower forms of life, teachings that there are no absolute moral values, repudiation of all beliefs regarded as supernatural, permissiveness about sexual freedom that gives sanction to immoral behavior and “alternative life-styles” such as lesbianism, homosexuality, and other perverse practices.
Such teachings not only tend to undermine the faith and morals of our young people, but they deny the existence of God, who gave absolute laws, and the divinity of Jesus Christ.
See “Great Things Required of their Fathers”, Ezra Taft Benson, May 1981, 34
Unfortunately my typing needs to evolve–I meant jazz, not “jass.”
Wow, Matt (151), very well put. I never quite thought of it that way.
Kristine’s counterpoint is about as apropos as can be. But I wonder how much we really know about this. Seems to me there are jillions of people who are no longer active in the church or who have been exed due to WoW problems, pornography, adultery, etc. What is our recovery rate on these sins? The fact that there are a few people who get up in testimony meeting and testify of the power of the Spirit to change them on these points, and we haven’t seen that in the case of homosexuality, may simply be a matter of sampling, the sheer number of cases of the others, and our being more used to talking about them in the first place. Also, none of these have been spun into matters of “identity”, rightly or wrongly.
A point of much of Neal Maxwell’s preaching was that a lot of our sinfulness does get spun into matters of identity.
True, John. To a much smaller degree tho.
Matt, Mosiah 5:2, Alma 5 …seems to me that changing desires is exactly what God promises to do if we repent. “Managing our behaviors” seems like a poor shadow of “a mighty change of heart,” doesn’t it? The fact that one would need to soft-pedal God’s power to change us in order to explain away his apparent unwillingness to do so for many (most) gays ought to make us ask more questions.
I think that there is a message in society that makes people worry if maybe the could possibly have such tendencies. On a sitcom with a man who is clearly attracted to his wife, they introduce a few doubts in his head that just maybe he was born to be…. I used to like to read a lot of psychology abstracts and read one where women who self-identified as being lesbian some years later no longer identified in such a way. The studied sited by Matt seems to show people who do not identify in such a way experimenting. I wonder if there is any peer pressure to do such.
I mischacterized the study by Matt. Those who experimented seemed to not have the inclination of same sex attraaction from their self reporting.
Theologically speaking I think Kris is quite right. The rest of Mosiah 5:2 which she references above says that the “change of heart” is so powerful that the repentant have “no more dispostion to do evil.” Repentance is a dispositional change, not just a behavioral change.
Matt writes, “I suspect that most repentance involves managing our behaviors and only infrequently results in a revolutionary purging of our natural desires. Most people who repent of gluttony or pornography, for example, probably retain their natural desires.” This seems like a mistaken understanding of both sin and repentance. Sin is not primarily about behavior. It is about the state of one’s heart and mind. Repentance is getting one’s heart and mind right with God. Of course, there is a complex dialectic between the state of one’s heart and one’s behavior but I think “managing behavior” is an inadequate, and even misleading understanding of sin.
Your comment also makes it seem like gluttony and pornography are “natural desires” that can’t be purged and so must merely be managed instead. Eating and sex may be “natural” (although no one yet has defined natural that I’m aware of) but overeating and pornography are not. The examples you list are distortions of physiological needs which result from a prior problem in the heart and mind.
Julie in Austin, #136-7,
I must admit that upon reading your posts I felt upset that I may have misinterpreted what the bretheren had written on the subject, and frankly, I was at work and did not want to spend my time looking it all up. Now that I am home and have reread the talks I posted, I am shocked at your audacity to claim I misrepresented what was said. Take a look for yourself and you will see that the Church does condemn the idea that people are born being gay. I hope you will read the articles more carefully and openly instead of trying to think of ways to pull the statements out of context to support your own opinion. It is sad that there were some who seemed to support your position without reading the articles I posted for themselves. Intellectual laziness is a common problem in the church–take what one person says without looking it up for yourself, and seeing if it was in context. Hopefully you will recant your position in light of the bretheren’s unequivocal stand on being born gay. Like you said, “when you pervert the teachings of our leaders then you have put a stumbling block in the path of our brothers and sisters who struggle with homosexual feelings. This may destroy their confidence in the prophets and cause them to give up on the counsel of those leaders to flee from temptation. This means that you will bear some responsibility for their sins because you led them astray. Please don’t teach false doctrine here.”
Here are the quotes you overlooked:
“Some Latter-day Saints face the confusion and pain that result when a man or a woman engages in sexual behavior with a person of the same sex, or even when a person has erotic feelings that could lead toward such behavior. How should Church leaders, parents, and other members of the Church react when faced with the religious, emotional, and family challenges that accompany such behavior or feelings? What do we say to a young person who reports that he or she is attracted toward or has erotic thoughts or feelings about persons of the same sex? How should we respond when a person announces that he is a homosexual or she is a lesbian and that scientific evidence “proves” he or she was “born that way”? How do we react when persons who do not share our beliefs accuse us of being intolerant or unmerciful when we insist that erotic feelings toward a person of the same sex are irregular and that any sexual behavior of that nature is sinful?. . .
We should note that the words homosexual, lesbian, and gay are adjectives to describe particular thoughts, feelings, or behaviors. We should refrain from using these words as nouns to identify particular conditions or specific persons. Our religious doctrine dictates this usage. It is wrong to use these words to denote a condition, because this implies that a person is consigned by birth to a circumstance in which he or she has no choice in respect to the critically important matter of sexual behavior.
Feelings are another matter. Some kinds of feelings seem to be inborn. Others are traceable to mortal experiences. Still other feelings seem to be acquired from a complex interaction of “nature and nurture.” All of us have some feelings we did not choose, but the gospel of Jesus Christ teaches us that we still have the power to resist and reform our feelings (as needed) and to assure that they do not lead us to entertain inappropriate thoughts or to engage in sinful behavior.
While I am not qualified as a scientist, with the aid of scientific literature and with the advice of qualified scientists and practitioners, I will attempt to refute the claim of some that scientific discoveries demonstrate that avowed homosexuals and lesbians were “born that way.”
We are, of course, aware of evidence that inheritance explains susceptibilities to certain diseases like some cancers and some other illnesses like diabetes mellitus. There are also theories and some evidence that inheritance is a factor in susceptibilities to various behavior-related disorders like aggression, alcoholism, and obesity. It is easy to hypothesize that inheritance plays a role in sexual orientation. However, it is important to remember, as conceded by two advocates of this approach, that “the concept of substantial heritability should not be confused with the concept of inevitable heritability. … Most mechanisms probably involve interactions between constitutional predispositions and environmental events.”
Wherever they fall along the spectrum between outright rejection and total acceptance of biological determinism of sexual orientation, most scientists concede that the current evidence is insufficient and that firm conclusions must await many additional scientific studies.
Dallin H. Oaks, “Same Gender Attraction,” Liahona, March 1996, 14.
‘“God made me that way,’ some say, as they rationalize and excuse themselves for their perversions. ‘I can’t help it,’ they add. This is blasphemy. Is man not made in the image of God, and does he think God to be ‘that way’? Man is responsible for his own sins. It is possible that he may rationalize and excuse himself until the groove is so deep he cannot get out without great difficulty, but this he can do. Temptations come to all people. The difference between the reprobate and the worthy person is generally that one yielded and the other resisted. It is true that one’s background may make the decision and accomplishment easier or more difficult, but if one is mentally alert, he can still control his future. That is the gospel message—personal responsibility.
Spencer W. Kimball, “President Kimball Speaks out on Morality,” New Era, Nov. 1980, 39.
“Family members and friends often experience shock and confusion when they learn that a loved one struggles with homosexual attraction. How do they manage their conflicting feelings and balance love and compassion with the Lord’s declaration that homosexual relations are sinful? Much of society has strayed from gospel truths on this issue. Many claim that homosexuality is biologically determined and that individuals are “born that way.” What should family and friends know about homosexuality? How should they respond to those who struggle with same-sex attraction? . . .
First, it is important to understand that homosexuality is not innate and unchangeable. Research has not proved that homosexuality is genetic. Even more important, many researchers whose studies have been used to support a biological model for homosexuality have determined that their work has been misinterpreted. What is clear is that homosexuality results from an interaction of social, biological, and psychological factors. These factors may include temperament, personality traits, sexual abuse, familial factors, and treatment by one’s peers.
Developmental factors aside, can individuals diminish homosexual attraction and make changes in their lives? Yes. There is substantial evidence, both historical and current, to indicate this is the case. Jeffrey Satinover, M.D., a former Fellow at Yale University and a graduate of MIT and Harvard, concludes:
“The fact that not all methods of treating those who struggle with homosexual attraction are successful, and that no method is successful for everyone, has been distorted by activists into the claim that no method is helpful for anyone. … The simple truth is that, like most methods in psychiatry and psychotherapy, the treatment of homosexuality has evolved out of eighty years of clinical experience, demonstrating approximately the same degree of success as, for example, the psychotherapy of depression.”
Other researchers note treatment success rates that exceed 50 percent, which is similar to the success rates for treating other difficulties.
A. Dean Byrd, “When a Loved One Struggles with Same-Sex Attraction,” Ensign, Sept. 1999, 51
“There is some widely accepted theory extant that homosexuality is inherited. How can this be? No scientific evidence demonstrates absolutely that this is so. Besides, if it were so, it would frustrate the whole plan of mortal happiness. Our designation as men or women began before this world was. In contrast to the socially accepted doctrine that homosexuality is inborn, a number of respectable authorities contend that homosexuality is not acquired by birth. The false belief of inborn homosexual orientation denies to repentant souls the opportunity to change and will ultimately lead to discouragement, disappointment, and despair.
James E. Faust, “First Presidency Message–Serving the Lord and Resisting the Devil,” Liahona, November 1995, 3.
In closing, those suffering with same sex attraction need to realize that it is only a temptation–God did not make them that way. The New Testament clearly states that God will not suffer us to be tempted above that which we are able to bear, so it is something they can overcome with God’s help.
“Eating and sex may be “natural” (although no one yet has defined natural that I’m aware of) but overeating and pornography are not.”
The concept of nature is of course key here. Mormons reject the traditional doctrine of original sin and so we tend not to follow the traditional teaching about fallen nature. But we should accept much of it, for two reasons: one, it’s in modern scripture, at least in the Book of Mormon; two, what’s the alternative? Usually the Enlightenment view of human nature where nature is either good or morally neutral.
The view which asserts that eating and sex are natural, while extreme, disordered versions of them like gluttony and pornography are not, seems to assume that nature is either morally neutral or good. But it doesn’t seem to be so from the scriptures. Nature is spoken of as being in opposition to God, “carnal” even “devilish”. Nature isn’t indifferent to God’s plan, in important ways it’s downright opposed to it.
Of course this understanding of nature shouldn’t be interpreted in strictly physicalist or biological terms. “Nature”, as well as “the flesh” spoken of by Paul is in religious terms a spiritual thing of which the biological is only one element.
But I think that we should also avoid the ‘mentalist’ mistake of interpreting sin as purely a result of ‘heart’ or mind which can be changed, as it were by a single act of grace (or worse, by sheer willpower). Nature has a way of creeping in again and again. We sometimes fall into the trap of trusting the virtue of the converted to an unwise degree; the Mormon experience tells this story again and again. Having a mighty change of heart and having no more disposition to do evil is not obviously the same thing as never having to deal with temptation again. If the source of sin were purely physical or spiritual, purely in the will or purely in the flesh, then some of us might have figured out how to stop doing it. Paul wrote of ‘a thorn in the flesh’, a temptation or struggle he obviously had no desire to have, and believed God could remove, but which he admitted nevertheless remained with him. We could attribute a continuing struggle with some particular sin as a lack of faith, an attempt to “soft-pedal God’s power”, or we could realize that saints throughout history have struggled desperately with the natural man, despite having been touched by Jesus’s love.
I hate to be a schoolmarm, but any causal explanation, up to and including the LDS perspective on the origin of man, is a theory. The existence or nonexistence of God is a matter of fact. How He has led men and women to his gospel is a theory. The idea that God created Adam, the first man, through some process outside of natural evolution and that this is relevant to our existence today is a theory. That you believe it to be true is insufficient to grant it the status of fact. Sorry, I just hate it when people use the word “theory” to deride an opinion with which they do not agree.
Sin is a matter of our identity because, to the extent that we allow it to be part of our lives, it is relevant to who we are. I do not have the title of “prideful” in the same way that those that are attracted to the same gender have the title “homosexual” (at least in our society), but it is a part of my identity. And what’s more, it’s right that it is.
I think that the sensitivity about this is largely based on the idea that identity can’t change. I’d prefer to change that idea than to assert a concept of identity that doesn’t differentiate among individuals.
And Julie is dead right about the idea that the Brethren have accepted the idea that one may struggle with same-sex attraction for biological or other factors beyond one’s control. Ryan, you’re arguing with a straw man that uses this concept as justification for sin, rather than a legitimate reason for struggle.
I wholeheartedly support Julie’s argument that this denial of any same-sex attraction or temptation outside of one’s control can only serve to alienate homosexuals within the Church and without. Ryan, please consider the idea that “outside of one’s control” does not mean that behavior is predestined, but simply that there are many faithful brethren and sisters that struggle with a problem that isn’t their fault. Even if it is, what is gained by hammering them constantly?
Amen to Kristine (163) and Melissa (166). And while I have a long way to go, for my part I have experienced enough of this type of transformation, where my desires just changed, thank God! that I can’t help but think more of this is what God intends for everyone.
: ) What a fun group of bloggers where I can so completely (sort of?) agree with Matt and Kristine and Melissa, even when they are completely disagreeing with each other!
Jeremiah, how many texts do you have in mind here, to root this idea of nature in? The statement in Mosiah about the “natural” man’s being an enemy of God is reminiscent of 1 Corinthians 2:14, and other passages in 1 Corinthians use “natural” likewise to mean something like “carnal” or “fallen”. However, passages in Romans (1:31, 11:21-24) use “natural” in a quite opposite way to refer to what is appropriate and right, and “unnatural” is also sometimes used to refer to the carnal or perverted.
So it seems to me at worst the status of nature in the scriptures is mixed. But I think what we are looking at here is not ambivalence about one thing, but equivocation: using the same word with quite different meanings. Sometimes “natural” means “fallen” or “unredeemed”; sometimes “natural” means “fitting”, “right”, or “appropriate. Hence, I think Melissa’s use of “natural” to refer to desires for food and sex, but not excess, is quite harmonious with scriptural treatment of nature.
Ryan Black, I think that what you are missing is this: the Brethren have clearly denounced the following lines of thinking:
I was born a homosexual, therefore I cannot be expected to control my behavior.
I was born a homosexual, therefore my desires are acceptable.
I was born a homosexual, therefore I should embrace that lifestyle.
I was born a homosexual, therefore I cannot change.
etc.
I think where you are getting confused is that the Brethren are *not* denouncing the first part of the sentence (although based on their preferred language, they’d want it modified to “I was born with homosexual desires”), they are denouncing the ‘therefore” clause as a necessary conclusion of the first clause. How else, Ryan Black, would you explain Elder Oaks’ “Some kinds of feelings seem to be inborn.”?
I would explain that you are taking the sentence out of context. The statement merely says that the feelings “SEEM” to be inborn. However looking at the whole text, President Oaks uses this statement as an introduction to the false idea that people are born gay, which he later refutes. President Oaks states “While I am not qualified as a scientist, with the aid of scientific literature and with the advice of qualified scientists and practitioners, I will attempt to refute the claim of some that scientific discoveries demonstrate that avowed homosexuals and lesbians were “born that way.”
How do you explain President Faust’s characterization in talking about being born gay? “No scientific evidence demonstrates absolutely that this is so. Besides, if it were so, it would frustrate the whole plan of mortal happiness. Our designation as men or women began before this world was. In contrast to the socially accepted doctrine that homosexuality is inborn, a number of respectable authorities contend that homosexuality is not acquired by birth. The false belief of inborn homosexual orientation denies to repentant souls the opportunity to change and will ultimately lead to discouragement, disappointment, and despair.”
James E. Faust, “First Presidency Message–Serving the Lord and Resisting the Devil,” Liahona, November 1995, 3.
Or President Kimball’s remark on claiming “you are born gay” being blasphemy? He clearly states “God made me that way,’ some say, as they rationalize and excuse themselves for their perversions. ‘I can’t help it,’ they add. This is blasphemy. Is man not made in the image of God, and does he think God to be ‘that way’?”
I am sorry if you cannot take the plain meaning of the text for what it is and continue to pull things out of context to support your own personal feelings. Unfortunately, no matter how hard you stare at the sun and say it doesn’t shine–guess what–it still shines. Likewise, these quotes, to anyone with a decent level of reading comprehension, clearly state the position of the church–that people are not born gay. They merely suffer from temptation just like the rest of us.
150: Greg
I’ll say what I think it means for a man to consecrate his sexual desire. I think it is similar for a woman.
1. He acknowledges J. Reuben Clark’s statement that sex is an appetite that may never find an opportunity for expression and he lives accordingly
2. He expresses his love for his wife in ways that meet her needs not in ways that selfishly meet his needs at the expense of hers. There are never impositions.
3. He rears children
4. He knows and recognizes that at any time his wife’s capacity to enjoy intimacy may end due to her disability but he resolves that he will stay with her faithfully for her entire life
5. He never uses pornography and he never uses his sexual capacity outside of its lawful purpose.
6. He never withholds himself from his wife when she desires his love and affection. (emotionally, spiritually, and physically).
7. He teaches his children and (if he is a leader of youth) other youth all the true principals of godly manhood and restraint.
Ryan,
Your reading of Elder Oaks makes nonsense out of “All of us have some feelings we did not choose.”
I’ll repeat what I said of Pres. Faust the first time:
“President Faust’s article denounces the idea that feelings cannot be changed. It does allow, however, for the scenario where someone is born with homosexual feelings but can repent of and change them.”
You then write:
“Or President Kimball’s remark on claiming “you are born gay” being blasphemy? He clearly states “God made me that way,’ some say, as they rationalize and excuse themselves for their perversions. ‘I can’t help it,’ they add. This is blasphemy. Is man not made in the image of God, and does he think God to be ‘that way’?””
Ryan, THIS IS WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG. He is not denouncing inborn-ness; he is denouncing it AS A RATIONALIZATION AND EXCUSE. You keep missing the second part of that clause.
You have still not shown a single quotation that suggests that the inborn tendencies are what the Brethren denounce. What they are denouncing is using inborn tendencies as the first part of a ‘therefore’ statement, where what follows is, as Pres. Kimball said, “a rationalization and an excuse” for sin.
I also notice that you have ignored my citation from the article you mentioned When a Loved One Struggles With Same Sex Attraction:
“What is clear is that homosexuality results from an interaction of social, biological, and psychological factors. . . . Though homosexual attraction may not result from conscious choices, the divine gift of agency does provide us with choices in responding to such attraction”
Ryan Black, what do you do with the word “biological” in that sentence?
Kristine and Melissa,
I believe a “change of heart” is more an increased desire to follow God than it is a purging of our natural desires. The reason people have “no more disposition to do good” is not that they are no longer natural men with natural desires but because their determination to follow God is so great that they feel as though they will never again sin, just as young romantics pledge their endless love.
Given that people who have experienced a change of heart still have need to repent — some with “no more disposition to do evil” from Mosiah 5:2 were led to “commit many sins” and fall away in Mosiah 26:6, and that Alma 5 is addressed to people who have already had a “change of heart” but must be challenged to again “feel” changed (Alma 5:26+), I believe their failures stem from waning motivation to do righteously because I can’t imagine God turning their natural desires back on.
For that reason it seems the “changed” really are like young romantics — forever boundlessly and endlessly loyal, at least until they’re not.
Matt, Kristine, and Melissa–
It’s a thrill to see your conversation on this subject. Meaningful, important, polite, reflective, actually going somewhere—hard to believe we’re talking about something related to homosexuality.
A few more thoughts for Ryan Black:
This is from “Compassion for Those Who Struggle,” Ensign, Sept. 2004, 58:
“Ours is often a hidden conflict for fear of being seen as “deviants” who have chosen these attractions. For most Latter-day Saints who struggle with this challenge, nothing could be further from the truth. As one author has written: “Why would someone who has a strong conviction of the divine origins of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints choose to engage in a wrenching conflict with that testimony … ? Same-sex desires create a very difficult challenge for Church members and are seldom chosen. The trial befalls even the valiant ones.” Our choice is in deciding whether to defy or succumb to temptation, not in whether to have the temptation itself.”
I cannot imagine how that could have made it past the GAs who review the Ensign if they were convinced that homosexual tendencies were never inborn.
Julie (177): Shhhh! I was just about to call Matt a poo-poo head!
Julie in Austin, once again your reading comprehension needs some work. Look at President Kimballs quote when he said “that way” the second time, as in “Does he think God to be that way?” refers to the statement “God made me that way” which he says is blasphemy, along with the statement that “I can’t help it.” Both to think one is born gay and to say they cannot help it is blasphemy in the eyes of President Kimball. President Faust could not be clearer in the evil that comes from believing one is born gay–”The false belief of inborn homosexual orientation denies to repentant souls the opportunity to change and will ultimately lead to discouragement, disappointment, and despair.” I don’t know why you feel being born gay is more comforting to one suffering from same sex attraction than just saying that they suffer from temptation like everyone else. In any event, as said before, if you read the articles in context they clearly show disfavor by the bretheren concerning the idea that people are born gay. Read the entire aricle before you comment, Please.
As for the footnote that I didn’t address, the whole article “When a Loved One Struggles With Same Sex Attraction” talks about how the science of being born gay is inconclusive at best. Please read the whole article. It states: “Research has not proved that homosexuality is genetic. Even more important, many researchers whose studies have been used to support a biological model for homosexuality have determined that their work has been misinterpreted.”
Ryan,
I appreciate the research that you put into the articles. I read most of them and feel that you did a good job in clarifying doctrine that many members have problems understanding. I think it gives hope to people who feel they have that tendency: to know that a loving God would not create them that way. I also feel the temptation is a very real temptation, but that is all it is, just like any other temptation. It is easy to confuse such an addictive temptation with being an in-born trait. I feel it is Satan who tempts people with homosexual feelings and God allows it because it is part of the plan to be tempted and overcome temptation.
Ryan–
The antecedant of the ‘it’ in the Pres. Kimball quote is ‘perversion’, not ‘tendency.’ Of course they can help the behavior or perversion, but our leaders have said repeatedly that the tendency itself is not a perversion, only the acting on it.
The Faust statement explains itself: it is that position that denies the possibility of change that is a false belief. He doesn’t, as I mentioned initially, take up directly the inborn tendency.
You wrote, “I don’t know why you feel being born gay is more comforting to one suffering from same sex attraction than just saying that they suffer from temptation like everyone else.”
I don’t know why you think I think this. I think it perfectly reasonable to equate the phrase “born gay” with “suffering from temptation.” It is important to recognize, however, that a person with SSA didn’t choose that temptation any more than I chose the temptations that I face.
You wrote, “In any event, as said before, if you read the articles in context they clearly show disfavor by the bretheren concerning the idea that people are born gay. Read the entire aricle before you comment, Please.”
I have read every single article that you have mentioned. I have repeatedly asked you to provide a single statement denying inborn tendencies (and not denouncing the fruit of acting on those tendencies) and you have not.
You wrote, “As for the footnote that I didn’t address, the whole article “When a Loved One Struggles With Same Sex Attraction” talks about how the science of being born gay is inconclusive at best. Please read the whole article. It states: “Research has not proved that homosexuality is genetic. Even more important, many researchers whose studies have been used to support a biological model for homosexuality have determined that their work has been misinterpreted.””
Yes, and then after discussing the fact that the science is unclear, that much is misinterpreted, etc., here is their CONCLUSION:
“What is clear is that homosexuality results from an interaction of social, biological, and psychological factors. . . . Though homosexual attraction may not result from conscious choices, the divine gift of agency does provide us with choices in responding to such attraction”
Once again, Ryan Black, what do you do with the word “biological” in that sentence?
Sigh.
Always, the debate reverts to biological/no-choice vs. temptation/choice, and what the brethren say about that (which is admittedly, ambiguous and full of mixed-messages). I can only ask the question, knowing that no one really has the answer: why is it wrong to love someone your same gender? If you love them, and they love you, why is it wrong? How is it against God’s plan for two people to find each other and find love, and express it with physical affection? The temptation of same-sex attraction is intrinsically different from alcoholism or some other physically destructive behavior, because it isn’t destructive or disabling, except from the guilt and pain caused by its disapproval. Is it wrong simply because God says so? or am I missing something here…? If the purpose of life is to learn how to love, can’t one do that with somebody who is the same gender? Why not?
D. Fletcher–
I’ll bite. The purpose of mortality is not “to learn how to love.” Let’s start at the beginning. Pres. Kimball explained that when God creates man, it is a complete ‘man,’ (I’d have preferred a gender neutral term, but oh well) husband and wife. Then, they are separated into two parts (the rib story, which Pres. Kimball explains is figurative). Then, they Fall and are further separated with gender roles and responsibilities that divide them. The entire purpose of mortality is, through Christ and his atonement, to overcome the effects of the Fall. Which means, in short, to reclaim the unity lost between the two genders, not in some abstract sense, but as we come to love, understand, appreciate, and serve a spouse as if s/he were part of me, because s/he is.
From that perspective, I think we can see why a homosexual relationship won’t further God’s plan in any way. That’s why it *is* destructive and disabling.
That said, without debating percentages, very few Church members struggle with SSA. Their test in this matter will be to enact the call by Pres. Hinckley and others to love and to invite into the fold and not to alienate those who struggle. Many comments on this thread show a failure to do that.
Matt,
I don’t disagree that our dispositions can change. We must accept that proposition if we are going to take seriously the doctrine of repentance. When we repent we aren’t only sorrowful for our actions but for the internal state of enmity towards God that produced those actions. Scripture and experience teach us that dispositions may change not only in a positive direction, but also in a negative direction. This, I assume, is an uncontroversial claim. However, neither backsliding nor growing indifference (as in the case of your “young romantics”) are necessary conditions to explain this change. There are young romantics who feel as though they will always be “boundlessly and endlessly loyal” and then, in fact, are true to each other for life—-never straying. While their youthful passion may simmer over time their real affection and devotion (i.e. loyalty) doesn’t diminish but grows. The only options aren’t adoring adolescent infatuation or promiscuous adultery. One can have no more disposition to do evil (generally) and literally have desires for certain sin expunged from one’s heart (i.e. one can like the idea of being loyal, pledge loyalty and then actually practice loyalty). But that doesn’t mean that one is suddenly sinless. Not at all. There are diverse ways and means whereby we can commit “sin.” As we grow in light and truth we see with increasing clarity that which yet keeps us from God. That doesn’t mean that a disposition to do evil has necessarily returned but that we become ever more aware of the distance that remains to become like God.
Part of the problem we are having in this discussion (besides the sloppy way we are using “natural”) is the careless way we are using “sin.” It is possible to read the scriptures in a dualistic way that distorts the concept of sin as though-people are either carnal, sensual and devilish, or they are virtuous and valiant. But, I don’t think this does justice to the process involved in our becoming who God has in mind for us to be. Using the concept of “sin” is perhaps the central problem because we tend to think of sin as a violation of a concrete commandment—-something one does or refrains from doing. But, if we think of “sin” as anything that keeps us from relationship with God then it beccomes clear that this is not a black and white proposition. The fact that we continue to have need of repentance doesn’t mean that after a change of heart/disposition we’ve just reverted back to old ways (although that can and does happen). One can have a change of disposition and still require many new dispositional alternations to continue to make progress.
Matt, I’m going to press you for a careful definition of “natural.” The way you oppose “natural desire” with “change of heart” seems to indicate that you define “natural” to refer to that which is contrary to God. Of course we learn from King Benjamin that the “natural man” is an enemy to God,” but “natural” in that passage (as Ben so ably pointed out) seems to be synonymous with “carnal” “sensual” and “devilish.” There are, of course, many other possible definitions for “natural” (some of which are scriptural). There is also much that is natural—-fatigue and hunger are obvious examples—–that would not be construed as sinful. But, I assume you mean more than “biological” or “physiological” by the term “natural” since sexual desire seems like it belongs broadly in this category. Can you say more about what it is that you do mean?
Julie,
I wish I had time to engage the comment you just posted, but I’ve already overspent my blogging budget today. I will say that I think you offer a very curious reading of scripture (including the Temple). I disagree with it strongly. Perhaps I’ll get back to this in a day or so or write a post on it myself (I’d rather not have this discussion on a thread with Howard Stern in the title).
M.
Melissa–
I look forward to your post, and admire your restraint in not further overspending your blog budget.
Yes, I understand the Atonement and its purpose. But I disagree fully that overcoming the effects of the Fall is the purpose of mortality. This makes pawns of all human beings, simply sent here to fulfill some vast organization plan, and I think earth life has more meaning than that.
The purpose of mortality, of receiving a body in a temporal existence filled with temptations, is to learn, to progress, to grow, to understand what love is. To learn how to love. To choose love. To learn how to choose love. It was something we weren’t able to do in the pre-existence, in a purely spiritual state. We needed mortal temptations to make the learning process happen. The Atonement comes from a loving God who knew, beforehand, that mortal life is nearly impossible and many (if not all) would not be able to choose correctly — the Atonement is a “leg up.”
And though the brethren have repeatedly said that genders are eternal, any obstetrician can tell you, there are very gray areas when it comes to gender. I contend that two people of the same gender might in fact be separate entities of that original “man” created by God, that they have that same eternal connection and symbiosis of which you have spoken, and their limitation (in this life) is that they won’t be able to reproduce. But many male/female couples have a similar problem of reproduction, and we believe that they’ll be given this opportunity “in the next life.” Why not the same consideration shown to a same-gender couple?
I just don’t believe (recognizing that this is not Church policy) that same-sex attraction is something to be changed or ignored, if one wishes a healthy life. One should go searching for that person, for symbiosis — same-sex attraction is just the first clue as to where to look.
Julie,
I only included the article “When a Loved One Deals With Same Sex Attraction” because it says that the science does not back up the assertion that people are born gay–not because it is an authoritative statement of doctrine from a church leader. Notice that it was not written by a prophet. All I can do is assert what the Prophets and Apostles have said on the matter–”It is blasphemy”–President Kimball; It is false doctrine (“false belief of inborn homosexual orientation”)–President Faust; “While I am not qualified as a scientist, with the aid of scientific literature and with the advice of qualified scientists and practitioners, I will attempt to refute the claim of some that scientific discoveries demonstrate that avowed homosexuals and lesbians were “born that way.” –President Oaks.
After looking through 67 or so results on the church website about homosexuality, only four articles discussed the in-born theory of homosexuality, and all four discredited the theory. At this point I will have to respectfully bow out of the discussion because it has been reduced to a “Show me– I did– That’s not what it means– Yes it is.” argument. Therefore, I invite those who were not failed by George Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” policy, to read the articles and decide for themselves:
“Same Gender Attraction,” Dallin H. Oaks, Liahona, Mar. 1996,4; When a Loved One Struggles With Same Sex Attraction,” A. Dean Byrd, Ensign, Sept. 1999, 51; “First Presidency Message–Serving the Lord and Resisting the Devil,” James E. Faust, Liahona, Nov. 1995, 3; “President Kimball Speaks Out on Morality,” New Era, Nov. 1980, 39.
There are several items that haven’t been discussed here.
The APA (American Psychiatry Association) in the 1970′s changed it’s stance on homosexuality. Many believe that change was due to PC pressures, and not on any science. Prior to that change, the thinking was that things that happened during someone’s early childhood created or fostered homosexual attractions. I don’t remember the exact events but there were some basic family and parental dysfunctions that were correlated with homosexual tendencies in the children.
The second item is one that hardly anyone wants to discuss, and is vigorously denied when it is brought up. Many homosexuals do recruit. They recruit teenagers and young adults who are confused or unsure of their sexuality, or are tardy in social development. Those who may have tendencies or attractions are especially targeted to be brought fully into the homosexual camp. This is aside from instances of homosexual molestation victims growing up becoming homosexual molesters themselves. I’ve heard seduction and “grooming” stories that made me sick. If the seducer can provide a physically pleasureable homosexual experience prior to the target’s development of a proper heterosexual relationship, the victim can be convinced they are gay, when in fact they were merely a little delayed in their ability to develop proper relationships with the opposite sex.
Another oft-denied but true item is the desire of many homsexuals to score points by getting a straight adult to experiment just for the perversion or kink aspect of a homosexual encounter, similar to how heterosexual men want to put another notch on their belt or on the bedpost with the seduction of women.
Ok, I am sorry about the “No Child Left Behind” jab. I repent. I couldn’t resist the temptation because I was born that way.
D. Fletcher–
You are right to call me on the carpet for suggesting that this unity with the other gender is the only purpose of mortality. Clearly, not so. I was emphasizing it because it is, obviously, germane to our discussion. Obviously there are many other lessons for mortality yada yada yada.
Ah, where it gets interesting is that this oneness, as you suggest, could be attained with two women or two men. From all that we have had revealed, this is not part of God’s plan. I can say nothing more than that. You contend it, as you say, but I say there is no evidence that such a thing could be possible, but rather plenty to the contrary.
Ryan Black–
“I only included the article “When a Loved One Deals With Same Sex Attraction” because it says that the science does not back up the assertion that people are born gay–not because it is an authoritative statement of doctrine from a church leader. Notice that it was not written by a prophet.
Ah, abandoning your own cite because you realize that it doesn’t support your position. (And, by the way, it doesn’t completely dismiss the science–see again the concluding statement with the word BIOLOGICAL in it.) If you want to deny what’s in the Ensign, that’s your business.
“All I can do is assert what the Prophets and Apostles have said on the matter–”It is blasphemy”–President Kimball;
Once again: check the antecedent of ‘it’: it is ‘perversion’, not ‘tendency’
” It is false doctrine (“false belief of inborn homosexual orientation”)–President Faust;
Once again: The idea that being inborn means that it cannot be changed. Once again, you are ignoring the fact that the prophets are condemning the ‘therefore’ clause and not its antecedent.
“While I am not qualified as a scientist, with the aid of scientific literature and with the advice of qualified scientists and practitioners, I will attempt to refute the claim of some that scientific discoveries demonstrate that avowed homosexuals and lesbians were “born that way.” –President Oaks.
I think the key word here is ‘avowed’, as in “1. To acknowledge openly, boldly, and unashamedly; confess: avow guilt. 2. To state positively.” Once again, what is being refuted is ‘born that way’ WHEN IT IS USED TO CONCLUDE that the condition cannot be changed.
Once again, what do you do with his “some feelings appear to be inborn” from the same article, Ryan?
“After looking through 67 or so results on the church website about homosexuality, only four articles discussed the in-born theory of homosexuality, and all four discredited the theory.”
Are these the four articles that we are discussing, or are they new ones that you have found? If they are new, I’ll read them and get back to you. Please provide the citations. If they are the ones that we are discussing, they teach no such thing.
Ryan, you are right at this point to bow out unless you are willing to engage the following arguments which I have been making for the last zillion comments and you have not responded to:
(1) What to do with Elder Oaks’ “All of us have some feelings we did not choose.” and “Some kinds of feelings seem to be inborn.”?
(2) What to do with “What is clear is that homosexuality results from an interaction of social, biological, and psychological factors.” besides decide that you don’t like the source after all?
(3) Refute my idea that they are denouncing the ‘therefore’ statements that often come after “I was born that way” and not the statement itself, which, as shown in (1) and (2), our leaders seem to have no problem with. (See my comment #172 for a more thorough explanation of this.)
D. Fletcher – Are you serious?????
“Sometimes “natural” means “fallen” or “unredeemed”; sometimes “natural” means “fitting”, “right”, or “appropriate. Hence, I think Melissa’s use of “natural” to refer to desires for food and sex, but not excess, is quite harmonious with scriptural treatment of nature.”
I don’t think that there necessarily is a equivocation. Perhaps there is equivocation in the use of terms but in the case of the Bible you have to go to the original languages. In Hebrew Old Testament the word for nature never appears (though it does appear in the KJV). In Romans you do have a standard use of the Greek physis. This seems to run counter the teaching of depravity elsewhere in the New Testament and the Book of Mormon. But rather than simply saying there is an equivocation why not examine some traditional teachings on the matter? For example the Catholic view that there is a residual teleology in nature but nature is also corrupted. Human nature leads us toward our natural end (though not our supernatural end), but does so imperfectly. In this sense it is perfectly sensible to say that nature is depraved or fallen and yet at the same time normative.
Melissa connects nature to “physiological needs”–calling them *needs* makes this use is normative (especially since she speaks of “distortions” of needs), and so while her use clearly goes beyond merely equating nature with what is fitting or proper, it may in this sense be similar to the use of nature in Romans (though Paul doesn’t restrict nature to physiology). But her suggestion that “distortions” of our proper (or “natural”) end can only be rooted in a ‘prior problem in heart and mind’ seems scripturally unjustified to me. Indeed the scriptures, ancient and modern, seem to indicate clearly that distortions of what is fitting or proper are indeed related to nature.
Besides, it won’t do to defend Melissa’s use of nature based on a scriptural equivocation, when she doesn’t give Matt the benefit of the same equivocation. She says that ‘distortions’ of proper ends cannot have anything to do with nature. But this ignores one half of the equivocation you identify.
#194 directed primarily to Ben.
Anon (#190) “Many believe that change was due to PC pressures, and not on any science.”
I once heard a lecture about the history of that 1973 APA decision, and one of the festering soars underlying the decision was the memory of the use of lobotomies to “cure” homosexuals. Call it political correctness if you will.
“Many homosexuals do recruit. They recruit teenagers and young adults who are confused or unsure of their sexuality,”
I am not surprised that it is “vigorously denied.” This is just plain malicious, contemptible and unfounded.
“Another oft-denied but true item is the desire of many homsexuals to score points by getting a straight adult to experiment just for the perversion or kink aspect of a homosexual encounter, similar to how heterosexual men want to put another notch on their belt or on the bedpost with the seduction of women. ”
So your point is that homosexuals are similar to heterosexual men. I guess that makes them all pretty bad.
Alma 30:29
“Now when the high priest and the chief judge saw the hardness of his heart, yea, when they saw that he would revile even against God, they would not make any reply to his words. . .”
Jeremiah J,
The reason why I jumped into this discussion in the first place was because I thought Matt’s comment that repentance had to do with “purging our natural desires” was odd without some precedent in the discussion of what we are taking “natural” to mean. I have not intended to connect “natural” with physiological needs. What I have been doing is asking questions of Matt to press him about his conception of “natural” and offering possible options to him as I went along because this seems to be a key point in any discussion on this topic.
If you want to engage in some serious exegesis of scripture in the original languages on this topic, I am more than happy to oblige if you can really go there. I think it deserves a post of its own though and I can’t write it for a few days.
Melissa, will you define “physiological needs” when you make your post? Will sex rank with calories and water?
Ryan Black (#197). Poor form, my friend. Poor form.
I’ve never been much for form over substance anyway.
Ryan,
Is it your normal M.O. to snidely compare people who disagree with you to Korihor? Your comment comes very close to the line of calling her personal righteousness into question, which is explicitly against our comment policies.
It’s also a bit of overkill, no? “You disagree with me about interpretation of a few talks by church leaders on whether same-sex attraction is genetic. Therefore, you deserve to be treated like the antichrist.”
Take a deep breath, read over hymn 235 and 336 — God cares about your form, buddy — and think twice before calling someone hardhearted. Especially on this board.
Melissa,
I’ve been using natural desires to be something like “carnal desires stemming from our human natures,” the desires that place natural man in opposition to God. I do not believe God removes these desires from us when we change and repent, even when we align our hearts and minds (and not just our behaviors) with God. Alcoholics are taught to consider themselves permanent alcoholics because their predilection for alcohol is not taken from them, even when they repent, and for the same reason I think we should all consider ourselves to be natural men with carnal desires even after we’ve experienced a “change of heart.” If God took away our natural desires when we repented there would be no recidivism — it God took away the repentant alcoholics desire to drink, or made them averse to alcohol like they’re averse to rotten-egg soup, none would ever drink again. But we know that significant numbers do drink again. That some repentants relapse and some remain faithful seems to show that some are able to keep their determination to follow God greater than their natural desires. Those who fail to nurture their commitment see that commitment erode, exposing again their natural desires, and relapsing.
So you are defending comment #197 on substantive grounds? Seriously? You bow out of the conversation, refusing to engage Julie’s questions, comparing her to the antichrist along the way, and then, when called on it, have the audacity to retort that you’ve never been much for placing form over substance?
I stand by my assessment: poor form.
If you’ve read the threads taken over the last two days, Ryan did address Julie’s arguments. The fact that she is set in her ideas makes it hard for him to debate any further. I think his arguments are plainly clear and he’s actually researched his opinions (which you might want to look into on lds.org). She also took the first stab at personal righeousness when she accused him of preaching false doctrine and said the sins of homosexuals would be on his head. He agreed to disagree… she persisted. Maybe his comment on Korihor was in bad taste but I don’t think it should be taken seriously.
I agree with JLK. I apologize for using the reference to Korihor. It wasn’t meant to be taken seriously, but obviously it was poor judgment on my part. I will just agree to disagree with Julie on the subject of whether or not people are born gay. Sorry for any offended feelings.
“If ye are not one, ye are not mine.”
I have observed over the past several years that the general Church membership has become increasingly divided over moral issues. The gay issue, and in particular gay marriage, has only strengthened and heightened our disunity as a community of believers.
I do believe that Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ are unified on this particular issue. It begs the question why we as “Latter Day Saints” are not.
Julie and Ryan Black: It seems to me that your disagreement has crystallized around what is apparently a shift in attitude on the Brethren’s part (although that phrase may be misleading; I think it entirely plausible that there may be differences of opinion on this matter in the leading councils). That such a shift would occur over the past decade or so should not be troubling to faithful Saints, since Elder Oaks rather explicitly grounds his approach in the relevant scientific literature—and it’s only been in the last ten years that the laboratory methods for measuring the genetic and/or neurological bases of sexual orientation have been developed. It seems to me that the Brethren are adopting a cautiously open approach to the question of inborn-ness and simultaneously moderating their tone toward homosexuality, while standing firm on bedrock doctrinal issue.
#207,
Michael,
I my experience the advocates of homosexuality and SSM are few and far between in the church. (at least among active members) I would say that most of the commentators here even the liberal ones are not really advocates of homosexual sin and SSM.
But we have been threadjacked here. The original post was about a study of how it appears that lesbianism was on the rise among younger women. It would be nice to get back to that original idea and have a decent discourse on this narrow topic.
I for one believe that the original post was right on and jives with my personal exp. As society gets more tolerant of sin then more sin will occur. The heterosexual community had a sexual revolution about 40 years ago. Hetero sin became more tolerated and more widespread. The same is occuring with Homo sin now.
A case can be made that a more tolerant attitude of Homosexuality can lead to more Homo sin. Discuss……
Michael Towns,
This is a totally off-topic nitpick!
“begs the question” does not mean “raises the question”. If you don’t know the technical meaning of “begs the question” you should probably simply never use the term.
I think Melissa is right to point out that the ideological keyword “nature” is hopelessly vexed—-but I think she’s wrong if she thinks that a rigorous reading of scripture will clear things up (and maybe this isn’t what she’s suggesting). It seems to me that, particularly if one includes restoration scripture along with the Old and New Testaments, “nature” comes in for as muddled a canonical treatment as it has received a philosophical treatment. For what it’s worth, I’ve always felt that Benjamin is something of a theological outlier among BoM prophets (though, to be sure, a rather fantastic and perpetually rewarding outlier): the particular form of charismatic communal worship that he fostered seems not to have persisted in Nephite liturgical culture, nor are his teachings on the “natural man” adopted into the mainstream of Nephite teaching.
Beg The Question
“Take for granted or assume the truth of the very thing being questioned. For example: Shopping now for a dress to wear to the ceremony is really begging the question she hasn’t been invited yet. This phrase, whose roots are in Aristotle’s writings on logic, came into English in the late 1500s. In the 1990s, however, people sometimes used the phrase as a synonym of “ask the question” (as in The article begs the question: “What are we afraid of?”).”
“But we have been threadjacked here.”
My sincerest apologies. You know, ever since I started chiming in on Times and Seasons, people haven’t exactly welcomed my participation or my input. If expressing thought and opinion and generating conversation isn’t the point here, then please enlighten me as to what is.
I believe that some people are born with chromosome problems. Well, I know they are. But I think perhaps more are born that way than we realize, people who are born without their sexual genes clearly defined. I know that isn’t a scientific statement, but I don’t know how to state it scientifically. But I’m sure it happens.
And I don’t know where God’s going with that. Are we supposed to learn tolerance? It seems so unfair. But so do other “accidents of birth.”
I do not think there is one specific cause of homosexuality. I think there are numerous things that affect sexuality, one thing is abuse as a child. All the homosexual people I know were abused as children. That’s got to be a factor.
So maybe since we can’t figure it out, we shouldn’t figure it out. Maybe it’s just for us to live our own lives and let others live theirs, all of us doing the best we can.
“It seems to me that the Brethren are adopting a cautiously open approach to the question of inborn-ness and simultaneously moderating their tone toward homosexuality, while standing firm on bedrock doctrinal issue.”
The Dalai Lama seems to believe that a person’s thought actually shapes their biology, and not the other way around. His “Art of Happiness” goes into some interesting detail on that particular point. Neuroplasticity in the brain is a hot topic among neuroscientists, and there has been some research in recent years that give clear indication to the brain’s ability to “re-wire” its patterns and change and grow over time. Even elderly people have levels of neuroplasticity.
What this seems to indicate is that people really can change their inclinations via the power of human thought. And in line with the Dalai Lama’s opinion, our biology can be shaped by our choices and thoughts. For example, if you examine the brain of a mass murderer and it appears different than a “normal” brain, how do we know that the brain became that we BECAUSE of evil thought, and not the other way around.
I don’t believe in biological determinism, because it’s really contrary to the entire concept of agency. How can we be free agents with the power to choose if we’re already determined?
207. Michael Towns: I quite agree. The only way we can be one as members of the church is to be one with Christ. But we can’t let those who want to dumb down morality be the ones who claim the high ground in the unity argument. Our unity cannot be the unity of the world which is based on a moral relativism that condemns no sin but it must be based on the standard of “if ye love me keep my commandments”. .
Michael Towns:
I’m not sure whom your quoting regarding the increasing misuse of the term “begs the question,” but sloppiness by others in the use of the language is hardly a reason for others to join them in being sloppy.
“Beg the question” has (or should I say “had”) a precise meaning that made it useful in intelligent conversation. Now it’s approaching meaninglessness, and only the yahoos (who never understood the term anyway) are the only ones satisfied.
I agree that moral relativism is a very serious issue. Right on George. Moral relativism has led to an increase in Lesbianism among younger women per the study mentioned in the opening statement in this thread.
““Beg the question” has (or should I say “had”) a precise meaning that made it useful in intelligent conversation. Now it’s approaching meaninglessness, and only the yahoos (who never understood the term anyway) are the only ones satisfied.”
Ok. But why is it necessary to be a snooty about it? I speak four languages, so does that make me a “yahoo” because my English isn’t up to your standard?
Michael,
It’s nothing personal. That’s just a favorite pastime around here. See here and here.
Steven B:
Me: “Many homosexuals do recruit. They recruit teenagers and young adults who are confused or unsure of their sexuality,�
You: I am not surprised that it is “vigorously denied.� This is just plain malicious, contemptible and unfounded.
My response: It’s true nonetheless. Not all homosexuals are recruited/groomed/seduced, but it is a regularly occuring thing. We had a young adult investigator who told his story about a friendship over a period of years with an older man who finally seduced him. It happened so gradually that he thought it was just a growing friendship, but he was obviously groomed over that time period. One young adult that I home taught was targeted by a group of homosexuals who gave him a place to stay for a while when he was homeless.
There was a time when I was involved in local online clubs, with multiline amateur bulletin board systems. Some general oriented, and some adult-oriented. One adult system had a gay section and a straight section, two sets of clientele, and two sets of events. But there were some social activities which both the straights and the gays sometimes attended. Both online and at the parties, sometimes the gays would let out some of their insider secrets that are generally withheld from outsiders. Some would tell about their initiation and you could tell that they had been targeted by older men. That’s where I also learned about the prevalence of drugs, domestic violence, and the correlation to mental/emotional problems.
Not just public acceptance of homosexuality, but homosexuality itself, is a CAUSE for many homosexuals. Many of them expend much effort in that cause, both recruiting, grooming, and trying to reduce opposition by getting as many young people as possible to experiment.
However, the big eye-opener to me was that the public face of the homosexual lifestyle, especially by openly gay celebrities and high profile people, is quite different than the reality of the vast majority. It’s a case of the emporer having no clothes. The reality of the semi-hidden majority does not match what the newsmakers are pretending it is.
Those who have pointed out the decadent underbelly of that lifestyle have been publicly ridiculed as fundamentalist, extremist hate-mongers and homophobes, and of pointing only to the exceptions. Most of the high profile finger-pointers indeed have been hate-filled extremists. But my brief contacts with those in that lifestyle have shown me that, unfortunately, the finger-pointers are generally more correct about the true nature of that lifestyle, than what the newsmakers would have us believe.
Monogamous or even serially-monogamous homosexuals are in the minority. Look at CDC figures for average number of lifetime sex-partners among active homosexuals. It’s astounding now, but it was so high (close to 1,000) it was unbelievable prior to the AIDS crisis. Look at figures for STDs, domestic violence, mortality, gay-on-gay violent crime, and even gay-on-gay murder. Homosexuals are murdered by other homosexuals more often than by homophobes.
The public-face newsmakers notwithstanding, the homosexual lifestyle is just plain miserable and deadly.
GeorgeD,
I for one really appreciate your comments on this thread.
Matt and Melissa–
Would it be terribly simplistic of me to suggest that some people will have their natural desires removed as a result of their obedience and others will continue to fight those desires for their entire lives? I can see in my own life evil desires that have been purged and others which I continue to fight (temptation to spend too much time blogging perhaps being #1 on the list . . . too bad I can’t claim I was born that way ;) ).
Rosalynde–
There has probably been a shift in thinking (to the extent that the subject is thought about much at all: the Brethren are, for obvious reasons, far more concerned with the future of a person than her or his past), although since all of the material that Ryan and I were discussing is very recent (possible exception: Pres. Kimball quote), I don’t think the shift really plays into the debate here.
Sure you can, Julie. Those of us born with obsessive tendencies blog more.
(This is the point where some of you need to rise up and accuse LisaB of ‘recruiting’ me. . .)
Jeremy (194), you give a helpful clarification of the equivocation I had in mind. I didn’t mean that there is no relationship between the two meanings. Though Melissa (198) is cautious about the role of physiology, I don’t mind saying that physiology is usually a substantial part at least of either kind of “natural” desire. But sometimes the physiology is off-kilter (distorted), distorting desire, and sometimes the physiology is more or less normal, but misinterpreted–self-understanding is off-kilter or just lacking. Being hungry, you may think what you need is a Snickers, when in fact that is a poor substitute for the lunch you skipped or whatever, and which would really satisfy that desire.
So sometimes ‘nature’ refers to ‘pure, proper (nature)’, sometimes it refers to ‘corrupt, distorted (nature)’, and sometimes (this seems more of a modern thing) it refers to a third thing ‘nature’ that can exist in either a pure and proper state or in a distorted state (or degrees in between, etc.). Similar equivocations in Greek philosophy.
Wish it didn’t take a (yet another somewhat overwrought) thread on homosexuality to get us to have this quality of discussion of desire and its purification : )
Oh but Julie, you recruited me! I learned about the bloggernacle from you!
As someone implicated in LisaB’s recruitment to this obsession (I’m tracking the handle change, right?), I would be tickled to think she had helped cement you into it, Julie : )
Well, let’s see if nine moons will run my guest post. If they do, I might write some more.
Anon: “Many homosexuals do recruit.”
Of course they do. And they get a toaster oven for every person they bring in!
Anon, I wonder if your term “a group of homosexuals” was a group of like-minded friends living together that the individual in question was simply drawn to; for instance, if a number, say four, of Mormons were roommates, and allowed a non-Mormon to bunk with them, would someone else call them “a group of Mormons” who recruited?
This just in…
A new study confirms that the pious are highly inclined to lament and decry publicly the sins against which they experience little personal struggle.
Okay, there wasn’t a study. But, you all know it’s true.
Matt, I’m going out on a limb here and suggesting that homosexuality has never really been a strong temptation for you. Feel free to correct me on this one. ;) And no, I am not gay.
The same CDC study cited in this post also indicated an increase in sexual (especially oral) activity among teenagers *generally*. I find it interesting that concern for this troublesome trend (applying to teens *across the board*) is apparently eclipsed by, or at least less worthy of mention and lament than, the homosexual experimentation findings.
Regarding armchair judgment calls on the validity of “born with”-ness or inherent biological tendency in homosexuality: Umm, Matt – and really everyone here who isn’t homosexually inclined, – you really have no idea what in the hell you’re talking about.
“Degree of sin, deterrent motives… These seem like pretty pharasaical parsings…” Ahh, GeorgeD – interesting you should mention pharasaical…Here’s what Brigham Young had to say on the subject:
——-”When the books are opened, out of which [we] are to be judged, how disappointed the professedly sanctified, long-faced hypocrites and smooth-toned pharisees will be, when the publicans and harlots enter into the kingdom of heaven before them; people that appeared to be full of evil, but the Lord says they never designed to do wrong; the Devil had power over them, and they suffered in their mortal state a thousand times more than you poor, miserable, canting, cheating, snivelling, hypocritical pharisees… You have fared sumptuously all your days and you condemned to an everlasting hell these poor harlots…Are you not guilty of committing an evil with that poor harlot? Yes, and you will be damned while she will be saved.”
Just food for thought. We might not want to re-institute stoning adulterers and gays afterall, eh?
would someone else call them “a group of Mormons” who recruited?
Or at least a group that should be recruiting.
Peing,
Of course I’m not tempted to experimenting with lesbianism, not least of all because I’m not a woman. But it’s silly to suggest that only those who struggle with bisexual lesbianism have the right to lament its increase. We all regret increased sinfulness, whether or not we are tempted by the sin. When we’ve discussed other trends that show society’s moral freefall, I’ve lamented those too, even when they hit closer to home.
You should also note that I haven’t questioned a biological component to same-sex attraction. I suspect there is, and that’s why I think the church should address homosexuality as one more facet of the ‘natural man’ that must be overcome.
This thread bothers me on so many different levels. It repulses me, it frightens me, it makes me defensive for my homosexual friends, it makes me defensive for society in case it’s true.
I wish you’d never brought up the subject.
And I think if you experiment with same sex attraction, you’re no longer heterosexual.
Does it make you want to defend your faith?
Only in the pure love of Christ.
I suppose I should feel guilty about that, but I don’t.
I feel more guilty for the pain this conversation might cause my good (as in Christ-like, but also close) friend, who is gay and one of the kindest, gentlest people on earth.
I know, on my periphery, a few awful people who are gay, but I think they would be awful if they were heterosexual.
I don’t understand why homosexuality exists, but I am not ready for blanket condemnation. I have to choose for myself how I will act and put the actions of others in God’s hands only.
That sounds so damn pious, and I am not a pious person, but I cannot easily explain this.
I can rely on church interpretation only to a point, because it seems ever evolving. The lack of charity applied to a problem that is not only moral, but painfully human and perhaps, I believe, often a result of society’s problems in terms of abuse of children, is something I can’t stomach.
And that is abuse of children by mainly heterosexual parents and/or relatives. In my informal meditation on the topic.
That evil underground spoken of in the topic post is something I know nothing of. Would I shun it? Yes. Would I judge all gay people by it? No.
” I can rely on church interpretation only to a point, because it seems ever evolving.”
That’s why we’re supposed to rely upon the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Peing,
Then I’ll see you in hell.
Ah,
I always say something impulsive and then I have to back peddle in to an apology. Sorry, Peing.
But, please don’t think that a man with five daughters should have no concern for their sexual well being Whether they are “seduced” by heteros or “recruted” by homos it’s all the same to me. I’ll take them both out behind the woodshed and beat the living by-god out of them.
” I can rely on church interpretation only to a point, because it seems ever evolving.”
Ever evolving church interpretation, of course, is a good thing. It is a sign of a true and living church not a false and dead church. At least, Bruce R. McKonkie made a statement to that effect.
And maybe the evolution of interpretation and doctrine hasn’t yet ground to a complete halt.
I admit I’m confused about many of the responses here. On one hand, they say that gays should remain celibate, abstinent and pious until death so they can be good examples to others and obedient sons and daughters of God.
On the other hand, who among them would trade places? If tomorrow there were a revelation that heterosexual relations were wrong, who would jump at the bit, divorce their spouses, and live like monks for the rest of their lives?
Any homosexual person who doestn’ seek a happy, partnered fulfilled life with a significant other is probably a lot like the sad sack hetero singles who lament that they can’t find anyone out of the millions of other singles worldwide: they’re just afraid of intimacy and afraid to grow up and afraid to be happy.
Jack, that trip out to the woodshed could be the very thing that would make your daughter swear off men for life.
annegb,
The “both” I’m speaking of are the heteros who seduce and the homos who recruit. They both are equally worthy of a severe lashing. The “behind the woodshed” bit–though it conjures up images of a father punishing his own children–is meant to convey the idea that if such were to take advantage of my own, it’s going to get personal regardless of whatever “decorum” is expected because of the imposition of lawful procedures.
The underlying assumption behind Matt’s original threat, as well as Anon’s assertion of “recruiting” is that sexual preference can be altered merely by engaging in homosexual experimentation. However, what we have been hearing both from the “experts” as well as from the gay community itself is that sexual preference is set very early in life, some say as early as age 3.
If a person could so easily change from straight to gay, it would be assumed that the inverse would also be true–that gay people can simply “repent” and switch to a heterosexual orientation. But we are seeing that that rarely happens, if at all. So I wonder about the validity of the basic assumption that impressionable youth, simply by same-sex experimentation, are led down a path to a life of behavior contrary to their ‘natural’ desires.
Just in case anyone’s interested. An article from today’s NYTimes (you must be registered to read it).
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/21/nyregion/21cruise.html
Michael Towns,
I didn’t mean to offend you or make you feel unwelcome. I’m sorry that I did in fact do that. That said, if someone told me that I was abusing a term of art then I would be anxious to go an learn the proper usage and count myself as being better off because of it. That might cost me a little pride, but it is a price I am happy to pay. The alternative is to continue in error.
Random John:
I totally disagree with you. Language, and in particular rules of usage, is never static but always in flux. Shall I criticize you for not always writing and speaking like Charles Dickens or Edgar Allan Poe? Language never stays the same, and what is considered the “rule” today changes tomorrow.
That being said, I refuse to concede that my use of “beg the question” was in error. Grammars hold (at least the ones I’ve found online) that the phrase *can* be used in the manner that I used it up above. It’s not an issue of pride…I guess I’m just not an “Elements of Style” Nazi.
I will concede that my studies of Greek, Hebrew, Arabic, and Aramaic have had a negative impact on my English spelling, though.
Wouldn’t it be great if the prophet and apostles were all, or mostly, celibate single men (gay or straight) in the prime of their lives who could *truly* be examples of self-abnegation? Isn’t it hypocritical of them and most of us to demand a life of abstinence for their normal, healthy brothers and sisters who happen to be gay (or long-term single)?
“Isn’t it hypocritical of them and most of us to demand a life of abstinence for their normal, healthy brothers and sisters who happen to be gay (or long-term single)?”
Not really.
I realize that I’m not very articulate, but I’m also hard to offend. So could someone please tell me if the reason that my take on this post seems to be different from everyone else’s is just because I’m not so bright and I’m missing the point?
I don’t see much basis in this post for argument for or against “born that way?” What I see is that the reason Jack should be concerned for his 5 daughters is not only danger from seduction or recruitment, but also danger from the nice kids next door and the college-age babysitter and their own friends (male and female) as same-sex experimentation becomes tolerated, then accepted by their peer group.
Not really? Why not? Even Jesus is supposed to be straight and married. Who are gays supposed to look up to to prove that life-long celibacy is possible, and healthy? The Holy Ghost?
Opin Yonated:
I guess as long as people with “same sex attraction” continue to label themselves with society’s terms (gay/lesbian) they will continue to struggle with self-identity. I don’t think that Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ refers to any of His children as gay or lesbian, but as sons and daughters.
IF you have faith that Jesus atoned for you and bore your pains, struggles, sins, and sufferings, then you can gain the grace and the power necessary to accomplish ANYTHING of spiritual importance. I do know this is true from my own personal experience. Either Christ atoned for YOU or He didn’t. I would put faith and trust in the Atonement before anything else. In fact, nothing else really matters…because everything good in the universe depends on that at-one-ment.
Michael,
I am sorry that you feel that your knowledge of other languages has any bearing on your improper use of the term in question. It does give you an air of intelligence though, which is quickly dispelled when you plug your fingers in your ears and refuse to learn. I’m willing to give up this threadjack now if you are and we can each go on our merry ways convinced that the other is a prideful idiot.
Yeah, Ben, it’s still me. Actually, I first learned about T&S (& from there, FMH) from Julie linking to it on Exponent II’s listserve. I returned to the bloggernacle more regularly after you also mentioned FMH. I doubt I’ve actually had any influence on Julie’s participation. (Julie?) I think above she was just noting my giving her the “in-born” excuse
C Jones,
You’re absolutely right. My over the top response was directed at this kind of silliness:
“Umm, Matt – and really everyone here who isn’t homosexually inclined, – you really have no idea what in the hell you’re talking about.”
Who cares if I do or don’t understand? If there’s an increase in lesbian activity among teenagers why shouldn’t that be of some concern to me–a father of five daughters? My point about seduction versus recruitment is that I don’t care where the harm is coming from–it’s all bad. I don’t need to get a Ph.D in homosexual studies to know that it is unhealthy for my children to be sexualized outside of the boundaries the Lord has set.
So if some guy is going to holler from his front porch that the rest of the neighborhood should be focusing on their own backyards–that’s fine. Just don’t tell me what I can or cannot let into my own backyard.
“I will concede that my studies of Greek, Hebrew, Arabic, and Aramaic ”
What program are you in, and where?
LisaB–
Yeah, it was just a recruiting joke.
Ben S:
I’m in the Michael W. Towns Autodidactic School of Linguistics. My desk at home is littered with various textbooks and grammars of Near Eastern languages. It’s challenging but very fun.
Steven B.: The underlying assumption behind Matt’s original thread, as well as Anon’s assertion of ‘recruiting’ is that sexual preference can be altered merely by engaging in homosexual experimentation . . . So I wonder about the validity of the basic assumption that impressionable youth, simply by same-sex experimentation, are led down a path to a life of behavior contrary to their ‘natural’ desires.
This is incorrect. The study I cited showed that heterosexuals were experimenting with same-sex behaviors, and did not suggest this permanently alters their primary sexual orientation. I’m not particularly worried that people who experiment with same-sex behaviors will become full-fledged active gays or lesbians, only concerned that too many people are doing something they shouldn’t be doing (experimenting with same-sex behaviors is a sin in itself), and regretful that society’s moral decline has led to this increase in experimentation.
“But, please don’t think that a man with five daughters should have no concern for their sexual well being”
I truly and honestly have no idea how you derived this from my comment. I neither suggested, nor would I suggest, such a thing. It reminds me of how so many people cannot or will not make the distinction between truly self-defensive battle against aggression and the aggressive/preemptive invasion of enemy soil (no, I’m not suggesting a perfect analogy here – and I don’t want to hijack this thread into an Iraq discussion). But, just for illustration: it is slightly analoguous to “You think it was wrong to invade Iraq !?! How dare you suggest we shouldn’t protect our families against terrorists!!!” That’s kinda lame, isn’t it?
Also, maybe you *would* care a little more about the nature of homosexuality if you were struggling with it as a member of the church with a testimony. Or, perhaps you would if one of your daughters was struggling with “same-sex attraction,” and you wanted to assist her with the challenges that accompany it. Or not?
Having concern for your daughters and beating the crap out of them if they stray are two different things. And probably two different results.
Jack, perhaps I misunderstood you. I thought you threatened to take your daughters and beat them. I understand the feeling that you would want to beat up someone who was corrupting them,but it didn’t come off that way.
Kristine wrote in # 130:
I have a dream: someday, on T&S, someone will write a thoughtful post about the difficult questions that the existence of children of God who are homosexual poses for Mormon theology and Mormon culture. Discussion will ensue, in which people will argue passionately, but civilly, articulately, and with great compassion for their brothers and sisters who are gay. The words “incest,” “bestiality”, and “pedophilia” will not occur because all of the commenters will realize that those deviant behaviors are extremely rare among homosexuals, as they are among heterosexuals, and that trying to judge an entire group by the behavior of its outlying members is likely to lead to hideously unkind rhetoric and really stupid arguments.
—
Kristine, homosexuals may not engage in incest, bestiality or pedophilia. But it is a perversion all the same, just as those other deviant behaviors are. I think that is the whole point. One perversion is as good or bad as another. What makes homosexuality especially desireable? The currently faddish drive in our society to make homosexuality acceptable is no more legitimate than would be a drive to make bestiality or pedophilia socially acceptable.
John W. Redelfs,
Let’s put aside your feeling that homosexuality is a perversion for a second, just long enough to examine your sentence, “One perversion is as good or bad as another.” Can you honestly believe that?
I mean seriously, do you really consider necrophilia, pedophilia, and sado-masochism as equally deviant and depraved as a monogamous same sex relationship between adults?
I hope you don’t, but if you do, just knowing that you see things that way disturbs me deeply. Wow.
I invite you to clarify your meaning if I’m mistaken.
I know it is PC to talk about escalation and one bad behavior leading to even worse behaviors but legitimizing homosexual behaviors has led to an increase in other perversions and has given legitimacy to organizations that advocate even worse perversions. San Francisco has a gay pride parade and if it doesn’t now, in years past, the National Man Boy Love Association, an organization that wants the legitimization of pedophilia, has marched in the parade. Sin begets more sin. It always has and always will. Sin desensitizes us. The toleration of sin turns tendencies into behaviors.
GeorgeD, how can I believe your words at all if you can’t even get NAMBLA right?
Peing,
Yeah, maybe my respeonse is kinda lame, but until you can offer a reasonable solution to the problem–instead of merely telling those who have a legitimate concern that they “don’t know what in the hell [they're] talking about”–you’re going to get a lame response. And futhermore, I don’t think your cry of “insensitivity” is any less “knee-jerk” of a response. I’m a theater guy, you know. I’ve had plenty of association with gay friends, and I’ve always tried to be careful not to judge rashly when dealing with individuals. But let me tell you–I’ve been in the heart of San Fransico, I’ve been in the heart of Seattle and it ain’t a pretty picture. As I’ve said before, I don’t think homosexual sin is greater than heterosexual sin, but the problem is the gay movement tends to cordon off homosexuals from legitimate criticism by claiming that no one understands them. Or as you so aptly put it “you don’t know what in the hell you’re talking about.”
That said, your “Iraq” example has some merit–unless, of course, a preemptive invasion is the right thing to do and (!) unless, of course, the “invasion” isn’t necessarily preemptive.
I doubt I’ve actually had any influence on Julie’s participation. (Julie?) I think above she was just noting my giving her the “in-born” excuse
with future implications not to be underestimated! ; )
Jack,
I concede that I probably should not have used the “don’t know what in the hell you’re talking about statement” since, 1) It does have a “knee-jerk” element (but it was intended to be rather lighthearted – I swear; literally ;)), and, 2) It seems to have distracted you to the point of being unable to distinguish the “gay” issues that I raised from issues that I did not raise.
Like your response before, you’re going after a straw man here. Case in point: “but the problem is the gay movement tends to cordon off homosexuals from legitimate criticism by claiming that no one understands them. Or as you so aptly put it “you don’t know what in the hell you’re talking about.”” Whaa? Read the context of my offensive statement again. My statement was illustrating the wrongheadedness and futility of a bunch of heterosexuals on a blog solving the problem of homosexual desire. I did not use it to support the proposition that homosexuality is completely off limits from any “legitimate criticism,” nor to assert that “no one understands them.”
Furthermore, Matt – The statement (well, a nicer version) applies no matter what your (or my) particular formula is. I’m not more convinced that you or I knows what the HECK we’re talking about merely because you concede there may be some kind of physiological/biological element. We still don’t know what we’re talking about. That’s just the reality, plain and simple. We can only try to help those struggling with the challenge in the most non-judgmental way possible, and try to understand along the way. I just don’t see how most of the lamenting that’s been done in this thread does that in any way.
Oh, and Jack, you said, “your “Iraq” example has some merit–unless, of course, a preemptive invasion is the right thing to do and (!) unless, of course, the “invasion” isn’t necessarily preemptive.”
—Actually, that would not change the merit of the example at all. Think about it. Even if objectively, preemptive invasion is the right thing, or the invasion isn’t necessarily preemptive – a person who opposes the invasion on good faith belief that it is wrong or bad is not *suggesting* that you shouldn’t protect your family from terrorists. They are *suggesting* that your approach to protecting your family/nation, a worthy goal, is the wrong approach, or will have the opposite effect (even if they’re wrong). You’re conflating their “correctness” with their “intent.”
Peing,
It is widely known that I’m the king of vagueness around here. I’m really not very good at formulating well thought out arguments. However, I think your counter-arguments are sliding off the original premise. My statement about the gay movement cordoning off homosexuals from legitimate criticism is not a strawman argument. It was meant to point out that your claim that heterosexuals don’t know what their talking about is a manifestation of that very thinking that tends to place gays beyond the reach of reasonable judgement and criticism. And notice, I’m talking about “legitimate” criticism–not blind bigotry. It’s getting to the point where the mere mention that “inborn-ness” may not yet be a proven fact is considered to be a wholesale rejection of gays as human beings. I think that’s sad.
I think the same holds true with your “Iraq” analogy (i.e., sliding off the original premise). You say that I’m conflating the critics’ correctness with their intent. That’s not the way I see it. Im saying that the critics are wrong to summarily dismiss the concerns of those who are most likely to be affected because forsooth they lack understanding as to why wars are waged. That’s like saying, “you have no right to judge that innocent animal as a man-killing monster,” when the real concern is, “if you don’t get to high ground that giant hungry lizard might just have you for lunch.”
Matt,
Thanks for clarifying. When you said, “Lots of prey there will sadly be,” I thought it implied both a victim and preditor, which would be grossly unfair to homosexuals in general. But it seems you meant that many would “fall prey to temptation,” which instead relates to individual promiscuity.
GeorgeD, I think your comments represent the highest law. Instead of joining in and arguing the minutia, you simply state the way it is (only if you’re mormon some may argue) in a way that doesn’t (or shouldn’t) offend anyone on any side of the argument. Thank you.