- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I have been reading through this thread and find an underlying red thread — it seems many people feel sexuality is a fixed, black or white, condition. It really isn’t. I believe some people believe that if they are attracted to a member of the same sex emotionally or physically, or even entertain fantasies of intiate relations with a member of the same sex then they must be gay. However, in the case of women, if we say that a pure heterosexual woman must have never had relations with a woman, desired relations with a woman, entertained the idea of an emotional relationship with a woman or found the female body more appealing than the male then I believe that a great number of self-identified heterosexual women would have to reclassify themselves at least as bisexual. Now what about women who identify totally as lesbian? here is an interesting thing to ponder:
Quote:Bisexual lesbians
The study published in Explaining Diversity in the Development of Same-Sex Sexuality Among Young Women by Lisa M. Diamond and Ritch C. Savin-Williams involved interviewing 100 women over two years. The scientists found that two thirds of the 34 women who identified as lesbian reported periodic attractions to men.
One study is interesting but not terribly statistically significant; however, it’s not the only report to find that self-identified lesbians sometimes feel attraction to men. A separate paper published in 1994, for example, found that of the 4.4% of American women who reported experiencing same-sex attraction, 94% were also attracted to men.
So if lesbians are sometimes attracted to men, does it follow that straight women are sometimes attracted to other women? Yes. In fact possibly as many as 84% of heterosexual women experience same-sex attraction. However, as Lisa Diamond notes, “A reliable answer to this question is elusive, given the stigma that prevents heterosexual women from readily acknowledging same-sex attractions.”
But back up. What does this all mean? How can 66% of lesbians – let alone 95% – be attracted to men? That would make them bisexual for a start, not lesbian, surely? Well, no actually.
http://www.lesbilicious.co.uk/community/why-do-lesbians-hate-bisexuals/ I think readers can see the implications for such findings in this article.
Poppyseed wrote:Quote:People that are “born” gay can’t control their feelings, and they shouldn’t be expected to.
Really? REALLY?? Gay people can’t control their feelings? And Gay people shouldn’t be expected to? ……. Except when we give them the right to marry. THEN they can control themselves til marriage. Is that what you are saying? Not that the merits of Gay marriage are the purpose of this thread……
I am sorry I have to respectfully disagree with this. I get that biology could be a fixed variable in ones life. But I don’t see it as the only variable and I don’t think the church does either.
I should explain my statement a little bit better. By saying they shouldn’t have to control their feelings, I’m saying that they shouldn’t have to avoid intimate relationships with the people their attracted to their entire lives, just because Mormon theology thinks it’s wrong/bad/sinful. I’m not promoting promiscuity, but I’m also saying they shouldn’t expected to be celibate. Heterosexuals are provided an avenue–Marriage–that allows them to have “approved” sexual relationships. Why should gay people be denied an avenue for “approved” relationships? And if that avenue isn’t provided, then no, they shouldn’t be expected to never have the same kind of intimate relationships that married heterosexuals get.
If a gay couple gets married in Massachusetts, is the sexual relationship still bad? If so, why? If heterosexual sex is condoned once a couple is married, then what’s the difference? Plenty of couples either choose not to have kids, or can’t, so that can’t be the reason. So, why is it different and wrong, Poppyseed?
Poppyseed wrote:Hi Swim. I understand the feelings you are illustrating, but they aren’t necessarily representative of the true condition of a person or the position of the church.
I would slightly alter (my opinion only, of course) this statement and say it is an opinion of many in the church…certainly not all. And yes, many leaders have a position you refer to, but believe me, not all of them.
I don’t know how old you are, Poppyseed, but in my 52 years, I have seen dramatic changes in doctrines and teachings of the church. I’m actually pleased it IS as fluid as it is, because it is clear the leaders want to do the right thing; but what WAS the right thing 50 years ago may not be the right thing now. And change sometimes is a bit slow in coming for the simple reason that the succession of leaders leads to a relatively geriatric leadership. It is what it is. And as we all get older, change is more difficult (my father, 75, still doesn’t use a computer!). So many of your comments about what the scriptures say, or what some leaders say may be the general attitude today, but I’m fine with the hope that teachings may change in the future.
Quote:In my own situation, I have plead for relief. The blessing havn’t been granted. So..what are my choices? I could choose bitterness and poor me thinking. Been there done that. I could choose to stop having faith in Christ and his healing and leave the hollow church promises with a huff. Been there too. The trial of faith is so much more than asking and getting. There is much in the way of healing that happens inside our attitudes as we apply ourselves to submission and obedience and sometimes simply changing the way we look at things. I am not sure there is much spiritual healing to be found when one abandons the coming to Christ process thru indulgence.
Again, just a possibility, because what is deemed “coming to, or having faith in Christ” may be different for different people. I know I’ve said this nauseatingly too much, but I think the reason many of us are here at this site is that our own experiences (spiritual, etc.) indicate to us that it is possible to interpret scriptures differently than the average TBM. When one is open to the possibility that even a church leader may be incorrect in his opinion, it allows greater peace to the individual. IOW, if a leader contradicts what you may believe strongly, it is okay — you are both doing the best you can, and I think God recognizes that. Where there is the greatest suffering is where a member believes that a leader SHOULD be perfect, then makes mistakes and faith is lost. That’s where the attitude adjustment to allow humanity, including church leaders, to be imperfect…which brings acceptance of life’s events to each of us without so much grief.
Ok, I have said that I was going to critique Elder Hafen’s speech, not as a General Authority speaking for God, but on the scientific basis only. Here goes my second critique.
There is some evidence of harm in “conversion therapy”. This is NOT proven, but not disproven. Unfortunately, all treatment must be considered unsafe until proven safe, not the other way around.
Modern Science has proved that males are XY genotype. Unfortunately, the Y chromosome is a small chromosome, lacking a mate. If it is damaged (as DNA sometimes is) it is the only chromosome that cannot repair itself using the “blueprint” of its complementary chromosome. The Y chromosome has a different method of repairing itself. It is designed as a palindrome, reading exactly the same forward to backward and backward to forward. If it is damaged, it must fold unto itself and use the complimentary, palindromic sequence to repair itself. Sadly, there is one stage in cell replication where it cannot do this. If the Y chromosome is damaged at exactly that moment, it has absolutely no way to repair itself – the baby born is born with a damaged Y chromosome. Boys born with damaged Y chromosomes can survive. Children born without any Y chromosome can survive (girls). The Y chromosome is NOT necessary for survival, but the Y chromosome is essential for human reproduction.
Now, if a young homosexual man, does in fact have a damaged Y chromosome, he can live a perfectly healthy life. If he decides to “convert” or force himself to have sex with woman, he could potentially pass on that damaged Y chromosome to his son. Although nature may not be able to repair the Y chromosome as the other autosomes (chromosomes other than the sex chromosomes), nature does have one secret weapon – KEEP THAT DAMAGED Y CHROMOSOME FROM BEING INHERITED TO THE NEXT GENERATION. The is natures way of insuring that damaged DNA does not reappear in the next generation – shut down a man’s attraction to women, shut it down completely and that defective Y chromosome will be deleted from the gene pool forever. I know that nature is no so kind to men as she is to women. Little boys suffer from far more genetic conditions than little girls.
This does not mean to imply that homosexual males with damage to their Y chromosomes are in any way defective human beings. Human being don’t need a Y chromosome to survive. Fifty percent of all human beings have NO Y chromosome and WE ARE NOT DEFECTIVE. Again, these men a whole human beings, complete people and loved by our Heavenly Father. It only means that in Human Evolution, there is natural selection and certain genes have a higher probability to being passed on. Evolution selects for men with a higher sex drive and good reproductive functioning, that way, only the undamaged Y chromosomes are passed to the next generation. Can you see God’s brilliance at work?
So why try to force these men with damaged Y chromosomes to change sexual orientation and father children? Why bring a new generation of young men into the world who have to deal with this painful personal and spiritual dilemma? Why not let nature take it’s course and let those damaged Y chromosomes naturally disappear from the gene pool? Are we certain that men who undergo forced sexual orientation have been properly informed of the risks to their offspring (if there are any risks). Right now, we don’t know if there are or are not risks, these are just theories, but who are we to tempt fate?
MWallace, What is the evidence that men with damaged Y chromosomes become gay? I have never heard this before. This sounds like pseudoscience. Please provide a peer-reviewed reference for this theory.
I was just going to post some links on oxidative damage to the Y chromosome and prostate cancer. http://www.mailman.columbia.edu/epi/News-events/articles/Harlap1-2-07.pdf http://www.ncs.rutgers.edu/~lcrew/whitepaper.html http://www.ncs.rutgers.edu/~lcrew/whitepaper.html So what are we to make of males? Males, by contrast to females, have only one copy of this X chromosome, not two. The other chromosome of the pair in males is called the Y chromosome and is much smaller than the X. Biologists thought until very recently that the Y chromosome had only a few active genes. Because there is no other Y to serve as a pairing partner in meiosis, most of its genes had been thought to have decayed, the victims of Muller’s ratchet, leaving the Y chromosome a genetic wasteland with only a very few active genes surviving on it.
One of the few genes documented to be on the Y chromosome (it’s inherited, seen in families that carry it in all males and no females) causes very hairy ears.
Another gene known to reside on the Y chromosome is a key sex determination gene. For the first 40 days after conception, all human embryos develop in much the same way. Then, a sex-determining gene on the male’s Y chromosome called SRY (for “Sex-determining Region of the Y chromosome”), comes into play. The product of the SRY gene converts the gonad cells of the early human embryo into testes, which in turn triggers development of male sexual organs. If expression of SRY is blocked, the embryo’s gonad cells go on to become ovaries and female sexual organs develop. In other words, all human embryos will develop into females unless they are masculinized by the product of the SRY gene.
This view of males as females with an extra gene has a profound implication — that there is very little genetic difference between the sexes, just a gene or so. All the “Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus” differences, although real enough, are in this view the result of hormonal differences. Said suscintly, males are what testosterone makes them. Due to such hormone differences, as many as 15% of mammalian genes are more active in one sex than the other.
We now know this view to have been way too simple. In June of 2003, researchers reported the full gene sequence of the human Y chromosome, and it was nothing like biologists had expected. The human Y chromosome contains not one or two active genes, but 78! Some like SRY are concerned with male development, most of the others with sperm production and fertility. A few, like “hairy ear,” have no obvious role in sex. One of this later group makes a component of ribosomes (complex tiny engines in the cell which assemble proteins), meaning that every ribosome in a man’s body is slightly different from those in a woman’s.
Taking all these genes into account, geneticists conclude that men and women differ by 1 to 2 percent of their genomes — which is the same as the difference between a man and a male chimpanzee (or a woman and a female chimpanzee). So we are going to have to reexamine the basis of the differences between the sexes. A lot more of it may be built into the genes than we had supposed.
The sequence of the Y chromosome gives us the answer to another question that has plagued biologists: Why are the X and Y chromosomes so different? The Y chromosome is much smaller than the X, and can only pair up with the X at the tips. Thus there can be no close pairing between X and Y during meiosis, the sort of pairing that allows the proofreading and editing discussed above. We can now see that there is a very good reason evolution has acted to prevent the close pairing of X and Y — those 78 Y chromosome genes. Because close pairing allows the exchange of large segments as well as small ones, any association of X and Y would lead to gene swapping, and the “male-determining” genes of the Y chromosome would sneak into the X, making everybody male.
One mystery remains. If the Y chromosome cannot pair with the X chromosome, how does it make do without copy-editing to prevent the accumulation of mutations? Why hasn’t Muller’s ratchet long ago driven males to extinction? The answer to this question is right there for us to see in the Y chromosome sequence, and an elegant answer it is. Most of the 78 active genes on the Y chromosome lie within eight vast palindromes, regions of the DNA sequence that repeat the same sequence twice, running in opposite directions, like the sentence “Madam, I’m Adam,” or Napoleon’s quip “Able was I, ere I saw Elba.”
A palindrome has a very neat property: it can bend back on itself, forming a hairpin in which the two strands are aligned with nearly identical DNA sequences. This is the same sort of situation — alignment of nearly identical stretches of chromosomes — which permits the copy-edit of the X chromosome during meiosis. Thus in the Y chromosome, mutations can be “corrected” by conversion to the undamaged sequence preserved on the other arm of the palindrome. Damage does not accumulate, Muller’s ratchet is avoided, and males persist.
©2003 Txtwriter Inc.
Txtwriter Home Page | BACKGRO
Hi Rix. You are being so patient and gentle with me. I appreciate that. I have seen changes in the church too. I am not sure I see the changes so much in the core doctrines. Mostly I see changes in how we are directed to act with regards to this and that. I see practices and policies change and you will get no argument from me that the people of the church need to change in certain aspects so that people don’t get hurt or feel such self reproach. I felt so comforted by the remarks of Oaks and Wickman and that is why I posted them. I am hoping that these attitudes trickle down.
With regards to changing doctrine…..especially on this topic…..(hopefully this will answer you, WS) I think such a change (gay marriage, SSA behaviors, etc) would undermine the entire foundation of the church. It would be like pulling the string on a knitted scarf. Where exactly do you stop? I see Wordsleuth what you really meant and I was hoping that your wording was different than your intent. I can’t answer your questions in terms of the churches position. You, along with the rest of us, can either agree with the church or move on. I honestly don’t think the church is going to change its position. I think it will continue to help people in the best ways they can find to stay with the church in obedience. If the Lord came in a profound revelation and said that SSA was a correct way and had been all along, I think that would shake Judeo Christianity from the beginning. I do have trouble with the church on a few things. But I still, in my heart of hearts, believe that the Spirit will teach me what I need to know. I felt the Spirit when I read Oaks remarks. I feel the spirit when I consider that people can find healing thru Christ even if that healing doesn’t look like I think it should.
I know you disagree with me, WS. That is ok. I respect and sympathize with your position. It seems logical. It really does. Really. Perhaps I sound unsympathetic. You’ll just have to forgive me on that count as I don’t have much sympathy for victimhood mentality. Cultivating such for anyone, imo, isn’t loving.
I want to understand peoples pain better and to make myself apart from any LDS painful patterns. And I want to align my opinions and understandings to the will of the Lord at the same time. That is my only desire. I want to understand my brother better. Sadly, he won’t speak to me. But I think about him all the time and I want him to find safety with me and return to being a support in my life too. Sadly, I don’t know if he is capable. And I don’t want to have to compromise my values in order to have a relationship with him. This issue is so complex and sadly, so divisive. It literally breaks my heart in multiple ways and for people on both sides. Well, I have already posted my feelings on that before.
I still think that people have lots of capacity for change. And I think when you add Christ to the equation, then I see the possibilities increase exponentially. I know the church gets labeled as being unloving and unChristian. But what could be more Christian than the promise that pain can be healed and blessings re-established. Perhaps we have different ideas of what it means to be Christian……but those are theological differences not necessarily the state of ones heart.
I know that I am posting a whole bunch of stuff – sorry, I don’t mean to clutter the board, but others ask where I get my info. I buy some of my books from Amazon.com. I also work in one of the Nation’s largest Endocrinology Laboratories and I help myself to the library and shelf of books. Here is a quote that I copies and pasted. I wanted to share it with you:
Gay change” therapy is just spiritualized denial., October 1, 2005
By Vince
Whether drawing from my own very personal journey into, and then out of, the Evangelical Christian closet…OR from five years of doctoral studies in clinical psychology (Psy.D.) and theology (M.A.)…OR from conducting over 30,000 hours of psychotherapy with my clients, I could passionately and authoritatively write volumes to repudiate the many sad layers of ignorance in this book.
However, I want to make just one point very clear:
No “gay change” therapy has ever changed any gay person’s sexual orientation. If any group claims to have succeeded in this bogus “therapy”, it’s due to one or more of these three reasons:
1) they have not defined sexual orientation beyond mere behavior patterns to include all facets of sexual orientation (such as interest, attraction, arousal, and emotional bonding).
2) they have not done detailed (see #1), long-term follow-up beyond one year following their “therapy.”
3) they are lying due to religious/political motives (and probably due to lying to themselves via projecting their own unresolved sexual orientation issues).
A recent magazine article highlighted this point. It told of a gay man who had been brain-washed into thinking he’d changed from gay to straight, but who finally accepted nothing had changed after five years of pretense. Several years later, comfortably at peace with himelf as a gay man, this man was shocked to see an old photo of himself included with others who were proclaiming in a “gay change” ad, “We changed and so can you!” Outraged, he pointed out that if these organizations really had a steady stream of success stories, they wouldn’t be digging back into the archives for 7-year-old photos of those who had long-ago had seen through all the distorted theology, false promises and bad science offered by the “gay change” therapies.
“You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free”
— Jesus
“I don’t judge people–if you judge people, you don’t have time to love them!”
— Mother Teresa (responding to a question about gays)
END OF COPY AND PASTE
I do not mean to imply that we have absolute proof that homosexual males have damage to the Y chromosome. Lots of males have damage to the Y chromosome and are perfectly heterosexual. What we need is time to study these associations thoroughly so as to rule out any danger to unborn children, (i.e. sons of homosexuals who have oxidaztive damage to regions of the Y chromosome) We need to research this so as to insure that these children are not born with an inherited risk to diseases such as prostate cancer.
Poppyseed, I may disagree with you, but I respect your faith and sincerity. One thing I’ve wondered about this, is why is it so hard to fathom two men married for eternity? It’s not the traditional thought, but we have no detailed knowledge or understanding of how we will supposedly create worlds and people in the afterlife. It’s commonly assumed that this abnormality will be “fixed” after the resurrection. Why does it need to be fixed? If two men feel the same level of personal satisfaction from their relationship as I do from mine, then why would they want that to change? Maybe they would still be able to “create” things in the next life. Maybe, as laws continue to change, these couples would be eternal families with the children they adopt here on earth. Of course there are lots of gay Mormons that badly want to change, but that is because they’ve been taught their entire lives that their feelings are unnatural, wrong, evil if acted upon, perverse. When they reveal their feelings publicly, they are shunned and ostracized by lots of people that just can’t stand or respect gays. They are often told they can change if they exercise enough faith–amen Elder Hafen–when there is no evidence that is true. Even though they can’t change their natural sexual attraction to the same sex, they try and try, because they have faith in their leaders. When they see no change, their depression and self-loathing often worsens. Suicide rates among gay Mormons are much higher than they are for the general population. Some of these gay Mormons force themselves into heterosexual relationships, getting married, having kids, and the whole time, they are miserable and unhappy.
An Anthropology professor at Utah State, Richard Crapo, has studied gay Mormon’s that are married for over two decades. In private interviews–he would never reveal names–he’s had plenty of married gay men, some Stake Presidents and Bishops, that go to public parks for gay sex and they live this double life just to save face. Of course I’m not condoning risky promiscuity or cheating on one’s wife, but it goes to show that SSA doesn’t change. BYU tried extensively in the 50’s and 60’s to change SSA with gay students. They would have these gay students watch heterosexual porn while using electrical shocks to try and get them to change. Of course it didn’t work–there are numerous first hand stories from students that participated in these studies–and it is just one more example of the unchanging nature of SSA. I could be subjected to every form of torture, therapy, etc. and I would never find myself attracted to other men. There is no reason, or evidence, for me to believe gays are any different.
The Church needs to accept the fact that SSA attraction isn’t “fixable” and realize that the “doctrines” that condemn sex relationships are wrong. They used to teach that birth control was an abomination; they used to believe interracial marriage was sinful, etc. There are numerous examples like this that I don’t need to list, but things that were considered set in stone doctrine have been changed, and they will continue to change. I see no reason why it won’t eventually happen with gay relationships as well. I really believe the Church could marry gay couples in Temples someday. I’m sure most people will disagree with me on that, but that’s my call. I also see no reason why these marriages wouldn’t be eternal. Maybe SSA is a result of the fall and it will go away after the resurrection, but even if this is the case, they do wedding ceremonies for time only in the Temple–they could do that for gay couples. 20 years from now, Elder Hafen’s talk will be right there with McConkie’s strong statements about blacks and the priesthood–imo.
Poppyseed wrote:Hi Rix. You are being so patient and gentle with me. I appreciate that… I have seen changes in the church too. I am not sure I see the changes so much in the core doctrines.
Thanks PS…I have no need to argue, but hope it is helpful for all of us to express our thoughts here.
I have seen HUGE changes in core doctrines in the church. I’m not one to cut and paste words of prophets, but I’m quite confident that if Joseph or Brigham showed up today, they wouldn’t recognize the “church” they belonged to. And I think that’s okay.
Quote:Mostly I see changes in how we are directed to act with regards to this and that. I see practices and policies change and you will get no argument from me that the people of the church need to change in certain aspects so that people don’t get hurt or feel such self reproach. I felt so comforted by the remarks of Oaks and Wickman and that is why I posted them. I am hoping that these attitudes trickle down.
With regards to changing doctrine…..especially on this topic…..(hopefully this will answer you, WS) I think such a change (gay marriage, SSA behaviors, etc) would undermine the entire foundation of the church.
I don’t. It certainly is a stretch today to imagine it, but I know many that were extremely shocked when the blacks received the rights to the priesthood ( my grandfather for one…). Frankly, in my mind, the “foundation of the church” is simply LOVE. Whatever gets us closer to living that law is progress.
Quote:It would be like pulling the string on a knitted scarf. Where exactly do you stop? I see Wordsleuth what you really meant and I was hoping that your wording was different than your intent. I can’t answer your questions in terms of the churches position. You, along with the rest of us, can either agree with the church or move on I honestly don’t think the church is going to change its position..
But are you sure? I think there really is another position…that the church may change, as it has in the past. I thing the church is much more in resonance with the gospel of love than it has been in the past. Logic tells me the evolution will continue.
Quote:I think it will continue to help people in the best ways they can find to stay with the church in obedience. If the Lord came in a profound revelation and said that SSA was a correct way and had been all along, I think that would shake Judeo Christianity from the beginning.
…And that would be just fine. If it means we will be able to accept and love ALL of God’s children, as He made them, that is great!
Quote:I do have trouble with the church on a few things. But I still, in my heart of hearts, believe that the Spirit will teach me what I need to know. I felt the Spirit when I read Oaks remarks. I feel the spirit when I consider that people can find healing thru Christ even if that healing doesn’t look like I think it should.
Maybe the “healing” you are really referring to is with US, not the gays. Maybe it is US that needs to change our thinking, to forgive ourselves and our previous leaders for our incorrect judgments towards the gays. I think Christ will help us do that.
Quote:I know you disagree with me, WS. That is ok. I respect and sympathize with your position. It seems logical. It really does. Really. Perhaps I sound unsympathetic. You’ll just have to forgive me on that count as I don’t have much sympathy for victimhood mentality. Cultivating such for anyone, imo, isn’t loving.
Consider the possibility that WE are the ones that need to open our hearts…not the gays.
Quote:I want to understand peoples pain better and to make myself apart from any LDS painful patterns. And I want to align my opinions and understandings to the will of the Lord at the same time. That is my only desire. I want to understand my brother better. Sadly, he won’t speak to me.
I shed a tear when I read this. I can only imagine how this happened (since my sister apparently had the same journey in my family). For me, it was simple. She (and the other LGBTs I know are quite spiritually enlightened, IMHO) only had to hear me say “I love you as you are…you are perfect as you are, and you do not need to change a thing.”
We are very close today.
Quote:But I think about him all the time and I want him to find safety with me and return to being a support in my life too. Sadly, I don’t know if he is capable.
Are you?
Quote:And I don’t want to have to compromise my values in order to have a relationship with him.
If your values are love-based, you don’t need to.
Quote:This issue is so complex and sadly, so divisive. It literally breaks my heart in multiple ways and for people on both sides. Well, I have already posted my feelings on that before.
It’s only as complex as you make it. Jesus said to love others. There are no conditions. Really quite simple when you think about it and forget what you’ve been taught differently.
Quote:I still think that people have lots of capacity for change. And I think when you add Christ to the equation, then I see the possibilities increase exponentially.
Yes, so I hope many will feel the love of Jesus and change to accept our gay brothers and sisters…without man-made conditions.
Quote:I know the church gets labeled as being unloving and unChristian. But what could be more Christian than the promise that pain can be healed and blessings re-established. Perhaps we have different ideas of what it means to be Christian……but those are theological differences not necessarily the state of ones heart.
It is only viewed as unChristian if it doesn’t teach love. At its core, I believe it does,
wordsleuth23 wrote:20 years from now, Elder Hafen’s talk will be right there with McConkie’s strong statements about blacks and the priesthood–imo.
Mine too.
We did say that to my brother over and over. My father even talked about the science and the biology and completely accepted that these parts might not change. No one put any pressure on him to change these things! None of us. My father even suggested many scenerios including finding a life partner….albeit a nonsexual partner. I talked about meeting his friends and having them over. I guess my point is we all went as far as we could go to let him know that we loved him and that the disagreeing parts wouldn’t stop that. We tried to think outside the box and listen and understand. My brother couldn’t meet us with the same reaction. He is too wrapped up in shame and fear and he simply won’t discuss anything but the weather and work. I don’t even know where he lives. He told me that I was only allowed to call his cel or email him. He won’t return my emails. He is choosing NOT to deal. Its a sad situation as it holds us all hostage. Its ok though. I hand his life to him and the rest to God. And truthfully, I am trying to go as far as I can to meet you Rix and others here as far as I can. I honestly can’t go where you want me to. I know I am a minority here. I hope you’ll let me stay and rub shoulders with you anyway.
😳 And thank you wordsleuth for your views. I am not sure I understand it all either. I am trusting my gut.
Poppyseed wrote:And truthfully, I am trying to go as far as I can to meet you Rix and others here as far as I can. I honestly can’t go where you want me to. I know I am a minority here. I hope you’ll let me stay and rub shoulders with you anyway.
😳 ABSOLUTELY! That is what this is all about. Dialogue triggers heartfelt soul searching…and that brings wisdom. PLEASE continue! For you…and your brother’s sake.
I’m going to say a few more things. PLEASE know that this is my experience and belief — I don’t presume it to be true for everybody. This seems true for me, but that’s all I really know….
I often hear “love the sinner, hate the sin.” I haven’t found that to be very realistic in the church. Most LGBTs I know are extremely wise, and see through this false veil. You see, a person’s passions reflect his very soul…and a love for another — even if the same sex — project who he is. So if you can’t accept his love for another man, you really can’t accept, and truly love him. By your comments, I assume this is where your brother is. Now, I know history is difficult to change, and many “minorities” take on a victim attitude. It’s hard to get past that, and you can only do your best to tell him you REALLY accept him…and his behaviors, with sincere love. I hope you can do that — for both your sake. Family is so important, and your capacity to reunite your family may be the most important thing you do in your life. IMHO.
Quote:And thank you wordsleuth for your views. I am not sure I understand it all either. I am trusting my gut.
That is all you can do. But I hope you can keep your heart open enough to let love win the battle. Whatever that is for you.
I sincerely wish you the best!
My brother Bill accepted his sexuality early on. He came out to my parents upon graduation from high school. My dad paid for a month’s rent in a motel and told him to find his way (alone) in the world. The next we knew he was in Holly wood & the gay life style became his norm. He found love eventually & spent 25 years with his companion. He was very much involved in the caregiving of our folks in their old age (though dad never spoke of his sexuality). He died at age 51 (possibly AIDS). I told my folks at their front door early one Sept. morning. They were crushed. His companion (who only I knew well), led the family in his Catholic funeral mass (he’d converted). We wept together. My brother Len never accepted his sexuality. He joined the service & took language training in Japan. He returned, married, fathered 3 children. He has lived underground in his sexuality always, even after his marriage ended. He fled to a distant city and lived the bar/one night stand life. Finally he moved to NY and found a companion. They were together for seventeen years. Our folks never knew of his lifestyle, or never acknowledged it. He didn’t come home for holidays. Today I have brought him back to our area. I have become his partial caregiver. We talk and spend one day a week together. He is my brother forever. He is an atheist now.
I don’t know if unconditional love toward both of them would have changed anything. I just know my folks missed out on much not really knowing how special they both were. And speaking of special, my gay son in Santa Fe. How proud I am of his activist stance in civil and social rights, his concern for the environment, his amazing spirituality (exLDS RM), and his concern for his birth family. If he someday marries a friend, I’ll pay for the wedding. And If he doesn’t gain Heaven, I will join him in Hades. He is my son.
The following is a copy and paste: MALE HOMOSEXUALITY IS LINKED TO X CHROMOSOME.
How much of human behavior is genetic? This controversial question has recently been raised with regard to homosexuality, because of twin studies and reported structural differences in the brains of homosexuals (see Journal Watch accession number 910917008).
A team at the National Institutes of Health took family histories from 114 gay men and noted that the men tended to have gay relatives on the mother’s side of the family, but not on the father’s side. This tendency, confirmed in interviews with relatives, suggested a trait passed on by mothers exclusively, which in turn suggested a gene on the X chromosome. Using genetic mapping, the team found that a set of five genetic markers at the tip of the long arm of the X chromosome were identical in 33 of 40 pairs of homosexual brothers. This finding indicates with more than 99 percent certainty that a gene associated with homosexuality lies in that area of chromosome X.
Comment: This research should be easy to confirm or dispute. If a gene is identified, a host of questions arise: What is the function of this gene and the protein it encodes? How likely is a male carrying the gene to be homosexual, and what fraction of gay males carry it? Does the gene affect females? The race is on for the answers.
— ALK
Published in Journal Watch General Medicine August 6, 1993
Citation(s):
Hamer DH et al. A linkage between DNA markers on the X chromosome and male sexual orientation. Science 1993 Jul 16 261 321-327.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.