gay marriage, male wombs, and Mormonism

[_Coggins7]

The church views homosexuality as an illness, plain and simple. They have programs in place to "cure" you of your gayness. Therefore, my point still applies.

Source? That's not what Elder Oaks has said about it. Where in official church sources or teachings is it termed an "illness"?

[Physics Guy]

The church views homosexuality as an illness, plain and simple. They have programs in place to "cure" you of your gayness. Therefore, my point still applies.

Source? That's not what Elder Oaks has said about it. Where in official church sources or teachings is it termed an "illness"?

The existence of Evergreen is one piece of evidence in favor of Scottie's argument. Evergreen, for those who don't know, is a sort of "re-education" camp in Salt Lake City which is designed, essentially, to "brainwash" homosexuality out of people. At these camps, "inmates" undergo exercises such as hugging men and practicing not getting aroused by doing so, etc. There are a decent number of married TBM men who have been through the Evergreen program. I have to wonder, again: If the LDS notion of "Celestial Perfection" is contingent upon the individual member's own definition, then why shouldn't a homosexual afterlife be a possibility? (I notice that Coggins replied with his usual litany of substance-free jokes, so I assume there isn't a good counterargument to this.)

Another bit of evidence in favor of Scottie's view were those old, Tuskeegee-esque tests which were conducted at BYU some time ago. I'm referring to the "aversion therapy" tests in which gay men were given electrical shocks while LDS researchers screened gay porn for them.

Anyways, doctrinally speaking, doesn't the Church sort of need to view homosexuality as an "illness"? If it is a legitimate choice, then banning it would be a Satanic act, which is defined as the removal of free agency.

[_moksha]

Coggins, any chance those Homosexuals were less valiant in the war in Heaven? If not, why could God not be merciful on this "complex of bio/psycho/social components" you describe?

[_Coggins7]

I have to wonder, again: If the LDS notion of "Celestial Perfection" is contingent upon the individual member's own definition, then why shouldn't a homosexual afterlife be a possibility?

What is your source for this doctrine?

(I notice that Coggins replied with his usual litany of substance-free jokes, so I assume there isn't a good counterargument to this.)

I reserve substance for those capable of its appreciation.

Another bit of evidence in favor of Scottie's view were those old, Tuskeegee-esque tests which were conducted at BYU some time ago. I'm referring to the "aversion therapy" tests in which gay men were given electrical shocks while LDS researchers screened gay porn for them.

Hardly Tuskeegee. Can't you ever be intellectually serious Scratch? Oh, that's right, you are being serious. That's what always throws me off.

[_Mister Scratch]

I have to wonder, again: If the LDS notion of "Celestial Perfection" is contingent upon the individual member's own definition, then why shouldn't a homosexual afterlife be a possibility?

What is your source for this doctrine?

What is the counter against my claim? Is there some doctrine stating that "perfection" cannot equal homosexuality? I'd be interested in seeing that.

(I notice that Coggins replied with his usual litany of substance-free jokes, so I assume there isn't a good counterargument to this.)

I reserve substance for those capable of its appreciation.

Here's an issue which has a real bearing on serious doctrinal interpretation, so it's no real surprise that Coggins is throwing in the towel.

Another bit of evidence in favor of Scottie's view were those old, Tuskeegee-esque tests which were conducted at BYU some time ago. I'm referring to the "aversion therapy" tests in which gay men were given electrical shocks while LDS researchers screened gay porn for them.

Hardly Tuskeegee.

I beg to differ, and think that the BYU "experiments" were utterly disgusting. That anyone would think they were worth defending is, of course, a horrible shock.

[_RAJ]

The church views homosexuality as an illness, plain and simple. They have programs in place to "cure" you of your gayness. Therefore, my point still applies.

Source? That's not what Elder Oaks has said about it. Where in official church sources or teachings is it termed an "illness"?

In "To The One" Packer describes homosexuality specifically as NOT a physical disorder but as an emotional disorder or psychological one. He also calls it a "condition." He mentions a "cure" numerous times and offers that this condition will be routinely corrected once its cause is discovered.

http://www.lds-mormon.com/tto.shtml

[_Mister Scratch]

The church views homosexuality as an illness, plain and simple. They have programs in place to "cure" you of your gayness. Therefore, my point still applies.

Source? That's not what Elder Oaks has said about it. Where in official church sources or teachings is it termed an "illness"?

In "To The One" Packer describes homosexuality specifically as NOT a physical disorder but as an emotional disorder or psychological one. He also calls it a "condition." He mentions a "cure" numerous times and offers that this condition will be routinely corrected once its cause is discovered.

http://www.lds-mormon.com/tto.shtml

Here's another instance, this time within the context of a rather "official"-sounding document, issued by LDS Social Services, entitled "Understanding and Helping Individuals with Homosexual Problems" (1995). You can read a scholarly review of it here:

http://www.lds-mormon.com/hldsss.shtml

In it (as you can read in the link), these LDS authors assert that: "It is in the three-way relationship between the parents and the child that the homosexual's family background is commonly dysfunctional. Homosexuality is, in part, a symptom of some type of relational deficit” (LDS-SS, p. 11) In other words, they lay the blame on family dysfunctionality. (I guess...) In any case, it seems quite clear that they are treating it as a form of "illness."

[_RAJ]

Here's another instance, this time within the context of a rather "official"-sounding document, issued by LDS Social Services, entitled "Understanding and Helping Individuals with Homosexual Problems" (1995). You can read a scholarly review of it here:

http://www.lds-mormon.com/hldsss.shtml

In it (as you can read in the link), these LDS authors assert that: "It is in the three-way relationship between the parents and the child that the homosexual's family background is commonly dysfunctional. Homosexuality is, in part, a symptom of some type of relational deficit” (LDS-SS, p. 11) In other words, they lay the blame on family dysfunctionality. (I guess...) In any case, it seems quite clear that they are treating it as a form of "illness."

Yes and some LDS parents got tired of the Church slamming their children and their parenting and said so. (Read the letter to Packer at the end of the "To The One" link.) The Church has since backed away from the above mentioned thinking.

[_Coggins7]

I have to wonder, again: If the LDS notion of "Celestial Perfection" is contingent upon the individual member's own definition, then why shouldn't a homosexual afterlife be a possibility?

What is your source for this doctrine?

What is the counter against my claim? Is there some doctrine stating that "perfection" cannot equal homosexuality? I'd be interested in seeing that.

Countering your claim is easy, from an LDS doctrinal perspective, but I'm still wondering where you get the idea that our exaltation is somehow personally and subjectively constructed?

Here's an issue which has a real bearing on serious doctrinal interpretation, so it's no real surprise that Coggins is throwing in the towel.

Actually, as you well know Scratch, the scriptures mention really bad stuff...like Hell, damnation, the lake of fire and brimstone, suffering the wrath of almighty God in eternity etc., for unrepentant homosexuals, as well as similar adulterers, fornicators, and other practitioners of this kind of gross wickedness, so concocting a flagrantly ludicrous "issue' out of whole cloth in this manner belies, on your part, a real absence of any original 'issues" with which to beat the Church.

There cannot be a homosexual exaltation for the same reason, conceptually, there can be no intelligible thing such as "Gay" marriage: the Gospel of Jesus Christ precludes homosexuality as a condition of exaltation.

Now, another question. If homosexuals can have their own "designer heaven", what about transsexuals, dominatrixes, pedophiles, and people into animals, sado-masochism, and incest? Where do you draw the line, especially if genetics are at the root of all these fetishes and proclivities?

[Dr. Sunstoned]

In it (as you can read in the link), these LDS authors assert that: "It is in the three-way relationship between the parents and the child that the homosexual's family background is commonly dysfunctional. Homosexuality is, in part, a symptom of some type of relational deficit” (LDS-SS, p. 11) In other words, they lay the blame on family dysfunctionality. (I guess...) In any case, it seems quite clear that they are treating it as a form of "illness."

You can't save your point here RAJ, so cease the attempt. Your interpretation only works within a throughly medicalized, and especially Freudian framework, but nothing above leads to that conclusion. Family dynamics, and "dysfuntionality" are not medical terms or concepts and need not be understood as such. There are other psychotherapeutic modalities that use these term quite without the medical connotation of "illness'.


Grade: F