SSA (Same Sex Attraction)

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
CharlieZulu
Nursery
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2021 5:41 pm

SSA (Same Sex Attraction)

Post by CharlieZulu »

Can a distinction be made between homosexual desire and homosexual behaviors? I would describe homosexual behaviors as...[do I need to list them]? and homosexual desire as the inclination towards SSA (Same Sex attraction). If this distinction can be made, doesn't it offer us a way forward? I surmise that a person with SSA can live a completely sin and guilt free christian life and when a person adopts homosexual behavior, that behavior is problematic and held as sinful by the church. Is it possible that a person can be born with SSA or they can choose SSA? Making that distinction is important as well, isn't it?

Thanks.
User avatar
Gadianton
God
Posts: 3842
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2020 11:56 pm
Location: Elsewhere

Re: SSA (Same Sex Attraction)

Post by Gadianton »

Welcome to the forum, Charlie.

That just depends.

Boyd K. was clear that God doesn't "make people that way". The "Evergreen" culture of the Church certainly confirms this as the mainstream position -- at least for that time.

BYU in the 90s -- I don't remember the subject being discussed much, but I'd say it was generally assumed not to be innate. After finishing, I ended up going to a U of U ward for a while, and it was quite a hot topic. The position you advocate is exactly what was advocated there, that it was innate, it was okay to identify as gay, but not okay to practice. One Sunday, this guy came out at the pulpit, and assured us that he was on board with "single and celibate". Then, the stake president gave a talk about it. He was a psychology professor. He said that SSA is spectrum, and that even straight people have a degree of same-sex attraction, which makes friendships possible.

Anyway, the point is that back in the day, your position was the radical, liberal position, while now it seems to be the conservative position.

I wonder where the slippery slope ends?
User avatar
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 9568
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Playing Rabbits

Re: SSA (Same Sex Attraction)

Post by Res Ipsa »

Why limit your distinction to gay folks? Sure, we can distinguish between sexual attraction and sexual behavior. But I don’t think that moves us anywhere. Prohibiting certain sexual behavior as “sinful” sends a message that the desire to engage in the behavior is sinful as well. And, as we don’t generally experience sexual attraction as a choice, it also sends the message that the person is irredeemably bad.

I’ve never experienced sexual attraction as a choice. And I’ve never met or read about anyone that consciously decide who to be sexually attracted to.
he/him
When I go to sea, don’t fear for me. Fear for the storm.

Jessica Best, Fear for the Storm. From The Strange Case of the Starship Iris.
CharlieZulu
Nursery
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2021 5:41 pm

Re: SSA (Same Sex Attraction)

Post by CharlieZulu »

Res Ipsa wrote:
Sun Sep 05, 2021 6:19 pm
Why limit your distinction to gay folks? Sure, we can distinguish between sexual attraction and sexual behavior. But I don’t think that moves us anywhere. Prohibiting certain sexual behavior as “sinful” sends a message that the desire to engage in the behavior is sinful as well. And, as we don’t generally experience sexual attraction as a choice, it also sends the message that the person is irredeemably bad.

I’ve never experienced sexual attraction as a choice. And I’ve never met or read about anyone that consciously decide who to be sexually attracted to.
Perhaps your experience is somewhat limited. I have known people who; in consummating their heterosexual behaviors, have found that homosexual behavior is also enticing and (to them) desirable. I have also known people who were born with SSA or even No sexual attraction at all (we could call them "monosexuals") and never acted upon any of their sexual inclinations. Having SSA and acting upon these behaviors is NOT equivalent , except to say if you break part of the law you've broken the whole law.
CharlieZulu
Nursery
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2021 5:41 pm

Re: SSA (Same Sex Attraction)

Post by CharlieZulu »

Gadianton wrote:
Sun Sep 05, 2021 6:17 pm
Welcome to the forum, Charlie.

That just depends.

Boyd K. was clear that God doesn't "make people that way". The "Evergreen" culture of the Church certainly confirms this as the mainstream position -- at least for that time.

BYU in the 90s -- I don't remember the subject being discussed much, but I'd say it was generally assumed not to be innate. After finishing, I ended up going to a U of U ward for a while, and it was quite a hot topic. The position you advocate is exactly what was advocated there, that it was innate, it was okay to identify as gay, but not okay to practice. One Sunday, this guy came out at the pulpit, and assured us that he was on board with "single and celibate". Then, the stake president gave a talk about it. He was a psychology professor. He said that SSA is spectrum, and that even straight people have a degree of same-sex attraction, which makes friendships possible.

Anyway, the point is that back in the day, your position was the radical, liberal position, while now it seems to be the conservative position.

I wonder where the slippery slope ends?

Also in the Boyd K quote you cite it says this: "The church has also moved away from that language. In 1995, Elder Dallin H. Oaks stated that “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.”[8] Elder Packer gave a talk in 2010 suggesting that God would not let individuals be born gay, but the print version retracted that claim.[9]
User avatar
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 9568
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Playing Rabbits

Re: SSA (Same Sex Attraction)

Post by Res Ipsa »

CharlieZulu wrote:
Sun Sep 05, 2021 7:41 pm
Res Ipsa wrote:
Sun Sep 05, 2021 6:19 pm
Why limit your distinction to gay folks? Sure, we can distinguish between sexual attraction and sexual behavior. But I don’t think that moves us anywhere. Prohibiting certain sexual behavior as “sinful” sends a message that the desire to engage in the behavior is sinful as well. And, as we don’t generally experience sexual attraction as a choice, it also sends the message that the person is irredeemably bad.

I’ve never experienced sexual attraction as a choice. And I’ve never met or read about anyone that consciously decide who to be sexually attracted to.
Perhaps your experience is somewhat limited. I have known people who; in consummating their heterosexual behaviors, have found that homosexual behavior is also enticing and (to them) desirable. I have also known people who were born with SSA or even No sexual attraction at all (we could call them "monosexuals") and never acted upon any of their sexual inclinations. Having SSA and acting upon these behaviors is NOT equivalent , except to say if you break part of the law you've broken the whole law.
I think you misunderstand. When it comes to sexual attraction, the homosexual/heterosexual binary fails to describe reality. I do not agree that people come neatly packaged into hetero and homo sexual boxes. Like most attributes of human beings, sexual attraction is complicated, messy and not divisible into two black and white categories.

If you step outside of religious bubbles and watch how young people who are not taught that they must fit into one of these two boxes, you’ll notice a broad spectrum of sexual attraction and identification. But they do not experience their attraction, whatever it is, as a choice. They experience it as a part of who they are.

by the way, you don’t have to invent a word for people who don’t experience sexual attraction. Asexual is the term used by and about these folks. A quick google of the term will show you what I mean.

Finally, I’m not saying that you can’t distinguish between attraction and behavior. I’m saying that you can’t label the behavior as sinful without sending the message that the person who feels the attraction is a less worthy person. While such an approach may salve the conscience of those who identify as straight, it is unlikely to be much comfort to those who are forcibly deprived of having spouses and families, both of which are central aspects of Mormonism.
he/him
When I go to sea, don’t fear for me. Fear for the storm.

Jessica Best, Fear for the Storm. From The Strange Case of the Starship Iris.
CharlieZulu
Nursery
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2021 5:41 pm

Re: SSA (Same Sex Attraction)

Post by CharlieZulu »

Res Ipsa wrote:
Sun Sep 05, 2021 8:09 pm
CharlieZulu wrote:
Sun Sep 05, 2021 7:41 pm


Perhaps your experience is somewhat limited. I have known people who; in consummating their heterosexual behaviors, have found that homosexual behavior is also enticing and (to them) desirable. I have also known people who were born with SSA or even No sexual attraction at all (we could call them "monosexuals") and never acted upon any of their sexual inclinations. Having SSA and acting upon these behaviors is NOT equivalent , except to say if you break part of the law you've broken the whole law.
I think you misunderstand. When it comes to sexual attraction, the homosexual/heterosexual binary fails to describe reality. I do not agree that people come neatly packaged into hetero and homo sexual boxes. Like most attributes of human beings, sexual attraction is complicated, messy and not divisible into two black and white categories.

If you step outside of religious bubbles and watch how young people who are not taught that they must fit into one of these two boxes, you’ll notice a broad spectrum of sexual attraction and identification. But they do not experience their attraction, whatever it is, as a choice. They experience it as a part of who they are.

by the way, you don’t have to invent a word for people who don’t experience sexual attraction. Asexual is the term used by and about these folks. A quick google of the term will show you what I mean.

Finally, I’m not saying that you can’t distinguish between attraction and behavior. I’m saying that you can’t label the behavior as sinful without sending the message that the person who feels the attraction is a less worthy person. While such an approach may salve the conscience of those who identify as straight, it is unlikely to be much comfort to those who are forcibly deprived of having spouses and families, both of which are central aspects of Mormonism.
Thanks for reminding me about "asexual" and yes human sexuality is not binary; instead, it is a multiple spectrum encompassing a vast array of feelings and behaviors. But perhaps we can focus on two perspectives; those with some kind of SSA and those who do not. Of course, I am limiting the discussion but taking into account the variety of human experience is far more than we can accomplish here. Is it inaccurate to say that there are, in a general sense, these two perspectives? If so, the expressions of one perspective, no matter how well intentioned can be hurtful to the other perspective. But I feel it goes both ways and we spent quite a bit of time focusing on how one side harms the other through their language. My point was that if we differentiate between SSA and behavior it may pave the way for a discussion that denigrates neither party. That was my hope anyway.
User avatar
Moksha
God
Posts: 5810
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:13 am
Location: Koloburbia

Re: SSA (Same Sex Attraction)

Post by Moksha »

What if this sexual behavior has been provoked by an angel with a drawn sword? Surely some leeway is granted in those cases when explained to the BYU Honors Committee.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
User avatar
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 9568
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Playing Rabbits

Re: SSA (Same Sex Attraction)

Post by Res Ipsa »

CharlieZulu wrote:
Mon Sep 06, 2021 3:08 am
Res Ipsa wrote:
Sun Sep 05, 2021 8:09 pm


I think you misunderstand. When it comes to sexual attraction, the homosexual/heterosexual binary fails to describe reality. I do not agree that people come neatly packaged into hetero and homo sexual boxes. Like most attributes of human beings, sexual attraction is complicated, messy and not divisible into two black and white categories.

If you step outside of religious bubbles and watch how young people who are not taught that they must fit into one of these two boxes, you’ll notice a broad spectrum of sexual attraction and identification. But they do not experience their attraction, whatever it is, as a choice. They experience it as a part of who they are.

by the way, you don’t have to invent a word for people who don’t experience sexual attraction. Asexual is the term used by and about these folks. A quick google of the term will show you what I mean.

Finally, I’m not saying that you can’t distinguish between attraction and behavior. I’m saying that you can’t label the behavior as sinful without sending the message that the person who feels the attraction is a less worthy person. While such an approach may salve the conscience of those who identify as straight, it is unlikely to be much comfort to those who are forcibly deprived of having spouses and families, both of which are central aspects of Mormonism.
Thanks for reminding me about "asexual" and yes human sexuality is not binary; instead, it is a multiple spectrum encompassing a vast array of feelings and behaviors. But perhaps we can focus on two perspectives; those with some kind of SSA and those who do not. Of course, I am limiting the discussion but taking into account the variety of human experience is far more than we can accomplish here. Is it inaccurate to say that there are, in a general sense, these two perspectives? If so, the expressions of one perspective, no matter how well intentioned can be hurtful to the other perspective. But I feel it goes both ways and we spent quite a bit of time focusing on how one side harms the other through their language. My point was that if we differentiate between SSA and behavior it may pave the way for a discussion that denigrates neither party. That was my hope anyway.
Why should we choose those two perspectives? You and I agree that sexual attraction encompasses a wide spectrum. Yet you then want to divide it into two arbitrary categories. Why is it reasonable to divide into categories at all? Why divide into two? Why not three? Or five? And if it must be two, why draw the line in that place? We could divide human sexuality into two groups using a near infinite number of lines. Why is the one you propose reasonable?

And I don’t understand what you mean by the “it” that you think goes both ways. To my recollection, criminalizing sexual behavior based on the sex of the participants only went one way. Physical beating and murder based on sexual orientation murder only went one way. Deprivation of the legal right to marry based on sex only went one way. What went the other way was, almost entirely, criticism of these things that went one way. So what is this “It” that went both ways?

Let me propose a similar division between religious belief and acting on religious belief. Do you think it would advance the conversation for me to say that I am happy to let you have any religious beliefs you want, but that you are prohibited from practicing them because I think they are “evil.” Somehow, I don’t think that would be conducive to a conversation in which neither “side” denigrates the other. In fact, one could make a credible argument that my labeling the practice of your religion as “evil” is denigrating to you as a person.

So, can you explain to me why you think your approach is reasonable and does not denigrate people whose sexual attraction is different than yours?
he/him
When I go to sea, don’t fear for me. Fear for the storm.

Jessica Best, Fear for the Storm. From The Strange Case of the Starship Iris.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: SSA (Same Sex Attraction)

Post by Shulem »

CharlieZulu wrote:
Sun Sep 05, 2021 5:59 pm
Can a distinction be made between homosexual desire and homosexual behaviors? I would describe homosexual behaviors as...[do I need to list them]? and homosexual desire as the inclination towards SSA (Same Sex attraction). If this distinction can be made, doesn't it offer us a way forward? I surmise that a person with SSA can live a completely sin and guilt free christian life and when a person adopts homosexual behavior, that behavior is problematic and held as sinful by the church. Is it possible that a person can be born with SSA or they can choose SSA? Making that distinction is important as well, isn't it?

Thanks.

The joining of homosexual desire with homosexual behavior is both beautiful and fulfilling for those who are joined together in expressing love. Sadly, the "church" is at fault in condemning love and love is love no matter who you are loving when it's performed between consenting persons who come together to express a bond. Homosexual behavior and love is just as rewarding and just as important as heterosexual behavior. Everything is dependent on the code of sexual orientation that is programmed for the infant in mother's womb. The genetic code for sexual orientation is the light in which every person is guided in exploring their sexual lives. It is a sin when one chooses to deny who they are and deny their true sexual orientation. It's also sinful when religious people preach against love and attempt to shame homosexual love.
Post Reply