PBS special and a homosexual question

[_truth dancer]

No disagreement here if you mean I can't understand how nature somehow played a trick on these people or that I don't know because I obviously never felt that way about another man. If you mean that I don't understand because my scope of morality should be broad enough to say it's fine for a person to choose someone of the same gender or opposite to pair up with than no, I think we just disagree. I think children need a mother and a father, not two moms or two dads. Number one because I think it's best when the children biologically related to both mother and father. If you're going to say that gay men abhor heterosexual sex just as I loathe homosexual sex and have no choice in the matter but were just made that way, than we must take up the issue of why there are so many bisexuals and why they seem to more often than not go both ways. I'll tell you why right now. It's because for most of them, it's just a choice and the product of a frenzied mind.

I'm saying you seem to not understand that there is more to an intimate relationship than sex. I don't know why you seem to focus exclusively on the sexual aspect of a relationship.

Quote:
Oooohhh best be careful here. The church has changed their stance on all sorts of thing... I'm 99% sure the church will change their stance on this at some point in the future. (OK, it may be a couple centuries down the road but it will happen). The church seems to be a few generations behind the mainstream so once the rest of modern culture is OK with homosexuality, the church won't be far behind.

At one point the official church doctrine, canonized in the D&C was that monogamy was of God and polygamy was NOT. It has changed a couple of times. The church did a big time change in disallowing then allowing black men to have the priesthood. The church has and will change its teachings regarding women. The temple ceremonies which were taught as set in stone have had numerous changes. You name it and it has been changed.


And to me those are some of the strongest arguments against it's truthfullness. As I was taught polygamy I don't believe it had changed. Polygamy was the higher law and we were forced to live a lower law, just as no divorce was the higher law but people were sealed and had sealings canceled several times over. Now for those active Mormons who contend that polygamy was just a sinful action by fallible leaders and not really a true principle I don't see where they have a leg to stand on in claiming the church is still true. I don't see how blacks and the priesthood changed the eternal picture because whatever oppurtunities denied to blacks in this life, they would have those in the next life. Now if you were to tell me that the Church believed that blacks would never have the priesthood and now they do, that would clearly mean the Church had flipflopped.

Again, you seem not to comprehend the history of what has gone on. The D&C (If I recall correctly, Book of Commandments section 101:4) ... canonized and official church doctrine, clearly stated polygamy was wrong. The church changed its stance, changed its scripture, and changed its teachings.

The idea that polygamy is the "higher" law is something added to church teachings after Joseph Smith's whatever... it was clearly in opposition to canonized scripture.

Because you don't have issues with the church's racism doesn't mean the church hasn't flip flopped on this issue. It clearly has. It was clearly taught that the blacks would not have the priesthood in this life.

I find it interesting... on the one hand you state that the fact that the church changes all the time is evidence of its truth and yet OTOH, you state that if the church changes its stance on homosexuality you will have problems. Hmmm...

Homosexuality has always been taught as wrong. I've never heard any doctrine of Old Testament prophets being gay or that God practices homosexuality. If the Church were to flip flop on this issue I think it would be much more staunch proof that it is not lead by God than any of the other flip flops you mentioned.

I suppose we all believe what works for us... you seem to have no problem with the church's former position that men can sleep with as many women as they want but have issues with men wanting an intimate relationship with another man.

You state that you would like to screw every woman that walks by (but must control yourself)... and somehow that is a good thing? (Or is God's highest law)? But a man who wants a nice relationship with another man, or a woman who wants a healthy relationship with another woman is evil?

Whatever...I don't mean to be rude, I just really don't get it at all. Which is why the church just didn't work for me. :-(

~dancer~

[_A Light in the Darkness]

How do these gay people keep populating the earth?

Right. Likewise, how do people will Down's syndrome keep populating the earth? Sure, some of them likely reproduce, but their odds of procreative success aren't very good. It makes no sense.

To answer your question, if homosexuality is caused by genetic predispostions or errors, prenatal conditions, environmental circumstances, and personal choices, then there simply might be a baseline susceptibility to it in the population. Much like alcoholism. You don't need to inherit "gayness." The evidence is overwhelming that it isn't as simple as that.

How does a man who is not attracted to women make babies?

The same way a man who is attracted to women does, one would presume. While the Lord has forbidden homosexual relations, I think it is important not to allow this knowledge to bias one into easy answers and unthinking condemnations. We need to realize that simply because we have been given enough light to know something is wrong, that doesn't mean any reason we supply for its wrongness is well-thought out. Prayer, patience, and study rather than lazy confusion is what is needed here.

[_harmony]

How do these gay people keep populating the earth?

Right. Likewise, how do people will Down's syndrome keep populating the earth? Sure, some of them likely reproduce, but their odds of procreative success aren't very good. It makes no sense.

To answer your question, if homosexuality is caused by genetic predispostions or errors, prenatal conditions, environmental circumstances, and personal choices, then there simply might be a baseline susceptibility to it in the population. Much like alcoholism. You don't need to inherit "gayness." The evidence is overwhelming that it isn't as simple as that.

How does a man who is not attracted to women make babies?

The same way a man who is attracted to women does, one would presume. While the Lord has forbidden homosexual relations, I think it is important not to allow this knowledge to bias one into easy answers and unthinking condemnations. We need to realize that simply because we have been given enough light to know something is wrong, that doesn't mean any reason we supply for its wrongness is well-thought out. Prayer, patience, and study rather than lazy confusion is what is needed here.

Whoa. Check your moorings, everyone. I actually agree with something Light said. It isn't simple at all.

Ajax talks about the "ewww" factor of homosexual sex. Well, while I'm perfectly comfortable with my own long-term heterosexual sexual relationship (also known as my Sweet Pickle), I have a decided "ewwww" reaction to descriptions of other people's heterosexual sex. I think society shapes these sorts of policies in the church; the policy about blacks and the priesthood was formed at a time when racism was socially acceptable. That changed when racism became unacceptable to the current society and the pressure society imposed on the church became overwhelming. I think the policy on homosexuality will change as soon as it changes in our society and the pressure to change the current policy becomes overwhelming.

[_ajax18]

Because you don't have issues with the church's racism doesn't mean the church hasn't flip flopped on this issue. It clearly has. It was clearly taught that the blacks would not have the priesthood in this life.

I said that the idea that blacks would hold the priesthood in the next life made the issue distinct from homosexuality which I've never heard would be practiced in the next life. The anti homosexuality law has been taught as eternal. The anti polygamy as far as I know was always taught as temporal. I'd be interested for you to show me where Joseph Smith said that polygamy was wrong in heavan as well as on earth. I know you said D&C 101:4. That obviously isn't in our current D&C. Where do you find this?

I suppose we all believe what works for us... you seem to have no problem with the church's former position that men can sleep with as many women as they want but have issues with men wanting an intimate relationship with another man.

First off polygamy doesn't mean a man can sleep with whoever he wants. That's true I don't have a problem with polygamy and I do have a problem with men marrying each other and adopting children, but that's not the question I was asking was it. It doesn't even really matter what I believe in relation to the church or what I think is right or wrong. Now if you can show me where Joseph Smith said that polygamy was wrong in this life and the next, then I'd be happy to hear your contribution. On the other hand, if you just want to read sweet posts where I pretend that I'm the type of man you envision as the ideal than I suggest you don't read my posts.

You state that you would like to screw every woman that walks by (but must control yourself)... and somehow that is a good thing?

I never said the natural man was a good thing. I just said that I've had those desires and can understand why some men act on them. I cannot for the life of me understand why one man would want to have sex with another. Really your post is turning into a personal attack on me and who I am. I've shared this personal information in an effort to answer my own questions, not because I think I'm good or want others to believe likewise. Let's try to stick to the issue. [/quote]

[_ajax18]

To answer your question, if homosexuality is caused by genetic predispostions or errors, prenatal conditions, environmental circumstances, and personal choices, then there simply might be a baseline susceptibility to it in the population. Much like alcoholism. You don't need to inherit "gayness." The evidence is overwhelming that it isn't as simple as that.

It still seems to me that if homosexuality were biological there would not be near as many gay people as we see now. I think choice plays a very large role in whether a pesron becomes gay in many cases. I still have another question that wasn't answered. Are these gay people attracted to the opposite sex as well or strictly their own gender?

Was it a case of him being repulsed by women and he just held his nose and jumped in because he felt like he was supposed to? Or did he really enjoy heterosexual sex and just decided one day later on that he wanted to sail in uncharted territory and see if he could find more fullfillment?

[_Runtu]

It still seems to me that if homosexuality were biological there would not be near as many gay people as we see now. I think choice plays a very large role in whether a pesron becomes gay in many cases.

Do you really think you could or would want to choose to be gay? I just don't see it.

I still have another question that wasn't answered. Are these gay people attracted to the opposite sex as well or strictly their own gender?

In my view, sexuality is a spectrum, so I would imagine that the degree of attraction differs from person to person.

Was it a case of him being repulsed by women and he just held his nose and jumped in because he felt like he was supposed to? Or did he really enjoy heterosexual sex and just decided one day later on that he wanted to sail in uncharted territory and see if he could find more fullfillment?

I think that question answers itself. Do you see yourself someday just deciding to have sex with someone of the same gender just to see what it's like?

[_A Light in the Darkness]

It still seems to me that if homosexuality were biological there would not be near as many gay people as we see now.

Why not? What if a gene caused one to be more attractive to the opposite sex in the majority of cases, but gave a much higher chance of developing into a homosexual? Homosexuality can be a developmental error, you know. Homosexuality need not be "weeded" out if it is just a errant byproduct of a successful biological strategy. Choosing to act on a sexual preference that is wrong, be it an attraction to members of the same sex or an attraction to children, is immoral regardless of the urge's source.

I still have another question that wasn't answered. Are these gay people attracted to the opposite sex as well or strictly their own gender?

Those who study human sexuality find multiple patterns of sexual orientation ranging from those exclusively attracted to one sex to myriad preferences inbetween.

[_truth dancer]

Hi Ajax... :-)

I'm not trying to be rude or attack you... I'm trying to show you that the reason you do not understand is becaue of your own issues.

To answer your specific question... I do not know the man of whom you speak so lets go with a general answer here.

There are some men who are totally repulsed by the idea of sex with a woman.

There are some gay men who can, through various means make sex happen with a woman if necessary.

I have yet to meet a gay man who said he decided to be gay... it is just as weird as if you said, one day you woke up and decided to be attracted to women.

That is not how sexuality is formed. It is complex for sure, but there is absolutely a genetic component to it.

To your question about the change in doctrine concerning monogamy....

From the official canonized scripture... the Book of Commandments, which was later named the D&C... sec 101:

Inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife; and one woman but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is as liberty to marry again.

This document was accepted in the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants (KDC) as Section 101, and now appears in the RLDS D&C (RDC) as Section 111. Section 103 in the 1835 edition (RDC Section 108A) states that this article on marriage was "accepted and adopted, and ordered to be printed in [the Doctrine and Covenants] by a unanimous vote".

Regarding the removal of the scripture declaring Monogamy doctrine...From LDS org, you have a very cleverly worded statement admitting the scripture was deleted in 1876.

After hearing the testimonies, the whole conference voted, first as quorums, then as a congregation, to accept the book as arranged. Our present section 134 [D&C 134] was also unanimously voted into the publication, as was a section on marriage penned by Oliver Cowdery which was deleted from the book in 1876 and replaced by section 132 [D&C 132] on the eternal marriage covenant. Members who could not attend the conference were informed by the publication of the high council minutes of 17 August 1834, in the Doctrine and Covenants itself, and in the Latter-day Saints Messenger and Advocate, their Kirtland newspaper. 8

Official canonized doctrine was changed.

~dancer~

[_The Nehor]

Was this Oliver Cowdery's Article on Marriage canonized at the same time as the Proclamation on Government?

We've taken stuff out of canon before. We don't claim an infallible canon. The Lectures on Faith were taken out long ago.

[_ajax18]

Inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife; and one woman but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is as liberty to marry again.

Does this preclude the idea of multiple wives in the hereafter? This looks very similar to something you might see come out of Church PR today.

What are you saying Nehor? Is she right? Did the Church actually once preach that there was no polygamy in the afterlife and then change it's stance through continuing revelation?