Origins of Same Sex Attraction, Legal Marriage

[Anonymous]

Some thoughts:

– As I said before, my personal belief is that there are many that are pre-loaded with SSA traits from birth. I also believe there are many that arrive at SSA by their environment. I would not categorize either case as a “choice”, and certainly not as something that could be changed. IMO it’s not strictly genetic, or by the existence of some gene. Human psychology is significantly more complicated than whether you have attached or detached ear-lobes. The chemical cocktail present in the womb at various stages of development for the unborn is a major factor, and has little to do with genes.

– Our understanding of human psychology is imperfect and divided. Just because a professor has a particular view doesn’t mean that there isn’t another professor with a different view and a different study… and certainly doesn’t mean that either is even right. IMO, the best we can do is use our own experience to help guide us, and the SSA people I know did not choose this.

– But I also want to be clear that I do not believe that simply because a person has a faith transition and separates from the LDS Gospel-view to one degree or another, that they should be required to support same-sex marriage. A person’s views on same-gender issues belong to them, and not to a community. I like Ray’s comment about not taking a stance that “those who see things differently than you do are less evolved.” It’s a failure of many arguments in the political-religious realm. We see it all the time: “whatever I believe is right on it’s face, and there is no room for discussion.” I understand why some support same-sex marriage… I understand why others oppose it. Both have valid reasons. Attempting to undercut arguments by personal attacks is the norm on both sides, sadly. But there is no obvious right.

– However, from an LDS perspective, we must give each human being the benefit of the doubt in terms of dignity and respect when it comes to the things that they truly cannot control. So says the Gospel. According to the LDS beliefs, we are all children of our Heavenly Father and he has provided a Savior whose atonement is powerful enough to save us ALL. Our theology is very much one of equal access to God… and good thing too, because as Paul reminded the Romans, we were still sinners when Christ died for us. People are separated from God by their actions, not by the way they are… and in any case, it’s none of our business. LDS theology, above most others, is tolerant; every child of God will have a legitimate opportunity to accept or reject the Gospel. Therefore, I believe it is against the teachings of the (modern) church to treat SSA people with any less regard than we treat anyone else.

[NOTE: I didn’t mean in any way to imply that SSA is a sin, only that in LDS theology we are all able to access both God and the power of the atonement, so it’s wrong for us to be exclusionary about SSA individuals, whether in or out of the church, based on our doctrine.]

[Anonymous]

I’m not sure the root cause is ultimately a topic we can tackle in this community. From a theological perspective, I would also argue that the cause slips through the cracks of our paradigm:

1. If someone is biologically born this way, then God is going to have to give them a little slack (even if it is sin). The atonement is supposed to take care of “original sin.”

2. If it is environmental (and/or more specifically a learned behavior), then people with that orientation are being permanently wired that way BEFORE the age of accountability. That is a time period of development you can not undo (easily? often not at all). So God’s gonna have to give some slack on that too. The atonement is supposed to take care of sins we are not accountable for.

Theologically, I don’t think there’s a huge difference. And I would guess it is a combination of both — nature and nurture. Either way, it’s how people are by the time they come to this community seeking help to figure out how they will continue relating to our faith. That is something we can influence and affect — how we treat people. It’s beyond my capacity to know what causes it.

I would also add there are other types of “sins” ALL of us will fail to resolve before we die:

Quote:

“Don’t judge me because my sins are different than yours.”

-Elder Uchtdorf, General Conference, April 2012 “The Merciful Obtain Mercy.”

The atonement covers all that. All of it. Our place is to love and embrace our brothers and sisters, regardless.

Personally, I don’t view “sin” the same way anymore. So the whole argument falls apart for me anyways, not being very meaningful (to me). I didn’t just become more “liberal” about this topic over the course of my faith transition. I broke with the underlying premise there is a supernatural order to sins. My personal moral compass switched to evaluating actions based on harm or benefit — creating or alleviating suffering.

Let God sort out the rest. It’s a decision above my pay grade.

[Anonymous]

I spent years of scrupulous religious observance, therapy, and reading everything I could get my hands on to understand the source of my own same sex attractions—and never found an answer. Whether we will find an answer or not, we certainly don’t have one now. And debating it doesn’t get us any closer. I remember having same sex feelings long before the age of accountability. How could I choose it? Yet I beat myself up mercilessly for years and years, slowly but surely withdrawing from friends and family, getting more and more depressed, gaining weight, and doubting God’s love for me. And finally questioning the veracity of LDS truth claims. What I am is a threat to our theology. We have no answers except things like the stuff E Anderson trotted out last weekend

So what to do about it? Gays and lesbians are leaving the Church. They leave by physically leaving, they leave by distancing themselves from others while physically still being in the presence of the believers, and they leave by killing themselves. The self-loathing is immense. What could the Church do? How can we help them stay LDS?

The first thing we need to do is stop talking about SSA being a choice. It isn’t. Ask any of us. Do you think we would make this up? I’m a 38-year-old virgin! What do I have to gain by making this up? When we hear that it is a horrible sin that we must have chosen, it begins a cycle of self-hatred that threatens our emotional, spiritual, and physical health. Let’s stop the insanity! Some of us can benefit from therapy, and some of us can’t. Love us anyway! Stop insisting that we have a place in the kingdom without actually making one for us.

SSA is complex. It involved homo-emotional, homo-social, and homo-sexual feelings. It’s not just about sex. Help us to get our needs met. Currently, the church seems to kick people to the curb if they’re not married before they are 30. Make a place for us. This is going to take some imagination, but it’s possible.

IMO, as long as we pour our energy into fighting same-sex marriage (a battle I think has already been lost), we will continue to teach incorrect “facts” about SSA, and we will continue to drive away the tenderhearted gays and lesbians among us who only want to sup at the table with Christ and His other disciples.

[Anonymous]

turinturambar,

Amen, brother. I was particularly moved by your statement, “Stop insisting that we have a place in the kingdom without actually making one for us.”

I want you to know that I’m sorry for my past contributions to the cold shoulder that this issue has received among LDS people. I truly hope you are finding your needs met more and more at church. I have confidence that this will someday in the not-too-distant future, be relegated to the same category as the priesthood ban; something that the church once practiced, but no longer. The church and its people have a long way to go, but it seems that the possibility now exists, where there seemed to be no chance just a few years ago.

I want you to know that you are among friends here.

[Anonymous]

Featherina, I am so not aligned with your position that I simply won’t go down the route of arguing a position.

I have been on every side of this issue, and where I have landed is that is morally evil to enforce a specific cultural-religious viewpoint on human sexuality.

[Anonymous]

I think understanding the position of the Church regarding same sex marriage might help some stay LDS. Looking deeper into the issue has certainly helped me. I really like what Elder Oaks said last Saturday:

Quote:

Of utmost importance to the well-being of children is whether their parents were married, the nature and duration of the marriage, and, more broadly, the culture and expectations of marriage and child care where they live….Children are the first victims of current laws permitting so-called “no-fault divorce.”…Children are also victimized by marriages that do not occur….Unmarried mothers have massive challenges, and the evidence is clear that their children are at a significant disadvantage when compared with children raised by married parents. Most of the children born to unmarried mothers—58 percent—were born to couples who were cohabitating. Whatever we may say about these couples’ forgoing marriage, studies show that their children suffer significant comparative disadvantages. For children, the relative stability of marriage matters. We should assume the same disadvantages for children raised by couples of the same gender. The social science literature is controversial and politically charged on the long-term effect of this on children, principally because, as a New York Times writer observed, “same-sex marriage is a social experiment, and like most experiments it will take time to understand its consequences.” link

It sucks that children are guinea pigs in this experiment. It is sad that some people believe they cannot build a traditional family because they are told they will only ever be gay. I know all the jargon about acceptance and giving up dreams of marriage and children or the new lie, which is that same sex marriage and children is just the same. How many gay people really want a traditional family, but they have been told to settle for less and to give up the very dream they could have through the atonement and eternal promises? This dream is sacrificed for something that can never last and believing church members celebrate this in the name of love! It is possible to have a traditional family – just ask Josh Weed! I understand not everyone can make it work like this couple has, but perhaps it would be good to look to the Weeds as an example instead of listening to worldly advise.

I also think it helps to remember the following:

Quote:

The Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage neither constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility towards homosexual men and women. Protecting marriage between a man and a woman does not affect Church members’ Christian obligations of love, kindness and humanity toward all people….

Those who favor homosexual marriage contend that “tolerance” demands that they be given the same right to marry as heterosexual couples. But this appeal for “tolerance” advocates a very different meaning and outcome than that word has meant throughout most of American history and a different meaning than is found in the gospel of Jesus Christ. The Savior taught a much higher concept, that of love. “Love thy neighbor,” He admonished. Jesus loved the sinner even while decrying the sin, as evidenced in the case of the woman taken in adultery: treating her kindly, but exhorting her to “sin no more.” Tolerance as a gospel principle means love and forgiveness of one another, not “tolerating” transgression.

In today’s secular world, the idea of tolerance has come to mean something entirely different. Instead of love, it has come to mean condone – acceptance of wrongful behavior as the price of friendship. Jesus taught that we love and care for one another without condoning transgression. But today’s politically palatable definition insists that unless one accepts the sin he does not tolerate the sinner. link

I am quite tired of many people overlooking that part about tolerance and love. Jesus never encouraged or condoned sin in the name of love or agency.

[Anonymous]

Josh Weed and Eldon Kartchner both have/had successful heterosexual relationships as gay men in the LDS Church. Both of them said they would not recommend it to anyone else as a solution. They both expressed strong opinions about not using their personal life examples as a template for everyone else with the same issues.

[Anonymous]

I think we have to be very careful about assumptions, especially when we don’t allow people to marry (or form legal civil unions) and then turn around and use unmarried and single parent situations as a basis for speaking about unmarried, dual parent situations.

Importantly, I think that’s true of BOTH sides of this particular issue. I understand that we shouldn’t assume no issues with gay marriage, but we also shouldn’t assume issues with gay marriages based off of faulty comparisons. After all, gay marriages are MUCH more similar in structure and composition to straight marriages than they are to single parenthood.

“Gender” is not the same thing as “biological sex”, and if two people fill the traditional gender roles of “nurturer” and “provider” (or even the more modern gender roles of shared parenthood responsibilities with equal partners), it is hard to argue logically that such a situation isn’t preferable theoretically to single parenthood, regardless of the sex of the two people – and it is harder to argue logically that such a situation is analogous to single parenthood and unmarried “couplehood”.

[Anonymous]

This topic is one that is very near and dear to my heart; not because I am or know anyone personally with SSA, but because I have always been overly empathetic with the struggles of complete strangers. This is the issue that first prompted the change in my personal relationship with the church. I was as TBM as they come, solidly stage three, and knowing that homosexuality was “wrong” but not understanding why was very painful for me. It occurred to me, if the church could possibly be wrong about this one thing, then what else might they be wrong about? But I suppose that is beside the point 🙄

As far as the origins of SSA, I believe there are many. Many that we know of and many that we don’t. Certainly, no infant is attracted to the same gender (or the opposite), but that doesn’t mean that they weren’t “born” that way, so to speak. And environmental factors are also in play. I’m sure that any gay person you meet will be influenced by a unique combination of biological and environmental factors, just like any of us, and that in no way makes them responsible for those circumstances. Any study that you can name that points to any one cause (or result) of homosexuality is simply one of many studies, all of which are contradicted by other studies. If you want to back up your opinion using solid scientific “facts,” feel free to do so. Just remember that you are only accepting and presenting the proof that backs up your already formed opinions. Being unbiased in your search for the truth of the matter is admirable, but it is not possible, and if it were, you would still only have access to biased information.

As far as homosexuality being a choice, I’m going to go ahead and say that almost no one that you could ever meet has chosen to be gay. I say ‘almost’ because I’m sure that there are exceptions in the world. And even if someone has made a conscious decision – IMHO that’s their call. In the past few years, I have definitely seen a lot of progress being made, both in and out of the church, in abandoning the thought that SSA is a choice. The church has made great strides in moving away from that teaching, and I have high hopes for the future of the church and society in general. I also think that it is worthwhile to point out that many people who oppose homosexuality can’t help their feelings about it either. Straight people with straight desires have no natural ability to understand SSA desires, and this makes them inherently uncomfortable with it. When that is reinforced by family, society and spiritual leaders (and therefore ‘God’) telling us that it is against nature, that will naturally lead to a moral opposition to it. Trying to forcibly change someone who strongly feels that homosexuality is wrong can be just as harmful as trying to forcibly change someone who feels that it is not wrong. Tolerance, respect and acceptance must be shown on all sides here.

As far as gay marriage, it is my personal opinion that it should be legal. People should be able to marry people that they love, that they are compatible with, and that they are attracted to. I don’t think that this would have negative outcomes for children so long as their financial and emotional needs are both met. A big fear in the church is that if gay marriage were legal, it would affect temple marriage. That is a legitimate concern. My solution is this: gay couples should be able to get married AND any religious institution should be able to refuse to marry any couple, for whatever reason. We (mankind) shouldn’t reject an individual’s rights to be with those they love, and we (mankind) shouldn’t force a group or religion to change their practices and beliefs for the convenience or comfort of any group. This is America, for heaven’s sake.

I don’t claim to have all the answers; I don’t think that anyone has all the answers. I just want everyone to love everyone, dangit.

[Anonymous]

Meoclew wrote:

I just want everyone to love everyone, dangit.

Now that’s called Polygamy! 😆 i.e. Poligyny = one man – multiple women, Polyandry = one woman – multiple men, Polygamy = multiple partners.

(just couldn’t help myself – Where else but here can you get away with a bad pun/polygamy joke?)

[Anonymous]

Brian Johnston wrote:

Josh Weed and Eldon Kartchner both have/had successful heterosexual relationships as gay men in the LDS Church. Both of them said they would not recommend it to anyone else as a solution. They both expressed strong opinions about not using their personal life examples as a template for everyone else with the same issues.

They are examples, nevertheless.

[Anonymous]

Nephite wrote:

Brian Johnston wrote:

Josh Weed and Eldon Kartchner both have/had successful heterosexual relationships as gay men in the LDS Church. Both of them said they would not recommend it to anyone else as a solution. They both expressed strong opinions about not using their personal life examples as a template for everyone else with the same issues.

They are examples, nevertheless.

I believe that it is fine to quote examples, and as Josh has pointed out, being in a homosexual relationship currently prevents you from having biological children together. I think if you do this pointing out then you must also point out all the spectacular failures of people who tried to be something they were not and all the suffering that resulted – including suicide. In my opinion Josh says it best. After explaining himself, he answers the question of “Should all gay people who are LDS or Christian choose to marry people of the opposite gender?” In part he says:

Quote:

If you know and love somebody who is gay and LDS (or Christian), your job is to love and nothing more. Let go of your impulse to correct them or control them or propel them down the path you think is right for them. Do what you need to do to move past that impulse. Do not condemn the choices your loved one makes. Love. Only love. Show your love in word and deed. Embrace them, both literally and figuratively. I promise they need it—and they need to feel like they can figure out this part of themselves in a safe way without ridicule and judgment. It’s what Christ would do. It’s what your loved one needs. Accept them. Love them. Genuinely and totally.

I think this is true on so many levels and I think it is this love that allowed Josh to come out to his parents as a teenager, plot his own course and be responsible for his own destiny.

[Anonymous]

Ciasiab wrote:

I believe that it is fine to quote examples, and as Josh has pointed out, being in a homosexual relationship currently prevents you from having biological children together. I think if you do this pointing out then you must also point out all the spectacular failures of people who tried to be something they were not and all the suffering that resulted – including suicide. In my opinion Josh says it best. After explaining himself, he answers the question of “Should all gay people who are LDS or Christian choose to marry people of the opposite gender?” In part he says:

Quote:

If you know and love somebody who is gay and LDS (or Christian), your job is to love and nothing more. Let go of your impulse to correct them or control them or propel them down the path you think is right for them. Do what you need to do to move past that impulse. Do not condemn the choices your loved one makes. Love. Only love. Show your love in word and deed. Embrace them, both literally and figuratively. I promise they need it—and they need to feel like they can figure out this part of themselves in a safe way without ridicule and judgment. It’s what Christ would do. It’s what your loved one needs. Accept them. Love them. Genuinely and totally.

I think this is true on so many levels and I think it is this love that allowed Josh to come out to his parents as a teenager, plot his own course and be responsible for his own destiny.

I don’t see that Josh Weed is trying to be something he is not. He isn’t pretending he is not gay: “I am sexually attracted to men. I am not sexually attracted to women.” Yet, he wrote:

Quote:

I knew that I was gay, and I also knew that sex with my wife was enjoyable. But I didn’t understand how that was happening. Here is the basic reality that I actually think many people could use a lesson in: sex is about more than just visual attraction and lust and it is about more than just passion and infatuation. I won’t get into the boring details of the research here, but basically when sex is done right, at its deepest level it is about intimacy. It is about one human being connecting with another human being they love. It is a beautiful physical manifestation of two people being connected in a truly vulnerable, intimate manner because they love each other profoundly. It is bodies connecting and souls connecting. It is beautiful and rich and fulfilling and spiritual and amazing. Many people never get to this point in their sex lives because it requires incredible communication, trust, vulnerability, and connection. And Lolly and I have had that from day one, mostly because we weren’t distracted by the powerful chemicals of infatuation and obsession that usually bring a couple together (which dwindle dramatically after the first few years of marriage anyway).

I also have not seen where Brother Weed said he would NOT recommend traditional marriage to any gay person. What he DID write is:

Quote:

I want to make it very clear that while I have found a path that brings me profound joy and that is the right path for me, I don’t endorse this as the only path for somebody who is gay and religious. I will never, ever judge somebody else’s path as being “incorrect” and I know many people who have chosen different paths than myself.

So he said there only that he doesn’t endorse it as the only path. Obviously, he could have said something more elsewhere and I would like to know if that is the case. Yes, our job is love everyone – it is the second great commandment. I am not saying that every gay man should be like Josh, but I am saying that he is an awesome example of making a traditional marriage with children work.

Meoclew wrote:

As far as gay marriage, it is my personal opinion that it should be legal. People should be able to marry people that they love, that they are compatible with, and that they are attracted to. I don’t think that this would have negative outcomes for children so long as their financial and emotional needs are both met. A big fear in the church is that if gay marriage were legal, it would affect temple marriage. That is a legitimate concern. My solution is this: gay couples should be able to get married AND any religious institution should be able to refuse to marry any couple, for whatever reason. We (mankind) shouldn’t reject an individual’s rights to be with those they love, and we (mankind) shouldn’t force a group or religion to change their practices and beliefs for the convenience or comfort of any group. This is America, for heaven’s sake.

There is no way we can know that there are no negative outcomes for children and I believe they should not be experimented on this way. We are NOT rejecting any individual’s right to be with those they love, and I have not seen or heard anything that indicates the Church is trying to do that.

[Anonymous]

Nephite wrote:

There is no way we can know that there are no negative outcomes for children and I believe they should not be experimented on

As far as children go…from someone whose 4 year old son is being kicked out of pre-school. We have offered a reward for good school days and restrictions of privledges for bad school days. We do a chart for stickers for him to see the progress. He is so different than his older sister. We love him and support him – but we are just guessing and trying things and doing our best and “experimenting” AKA parenting.

[Anonymous]

There is plenty of science and research that supports the opinion that SSA is biological.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2

[Author]

Posts