Australia seals it's fate, SSM vote 61% yes

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
User avatar
Elizabeth
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 11796
Location: East Coast Australia

Re: Australia seals it's fate, SSM vote 61% yes

Post by Elizabeth »

Daniel2, You can rationalise till the cows come home to no avail, as any decent person with even the slightest sense of morality, spiritual insight or common sense, knows that homosexual activity is depraved, disgusting, against eternal law and the commandments of God, is orchestrated by Lucifer and will lead to spiritual destruction, regression and to outerdarkness.

Todd
captain of 100
Posts: 460

Re: Australia seals it's fate, SSM vote 61% yes

Post by Todd »

Daniel2 wrote: November 17th, 2017, 11:28 am
Todd wrote: November 17th, 2017, 10:34 am
Daniel2 wrote: November 17th, 2017, 9:42 am
Todd wrote: November 17th, 2017, 8:53 am Good for you Daniel. May I ask a question? Did you have any kind of an intimate relationship with a man while you were still married to your wife?
While I didn't have a relationship with a man while I was still married to my wife, I regret that I was not faithful on more than one occasion, but never more than once with any given individual. That isn't something I'm proud of and had to repent of.
Thank you Daniel. I'm trying to understand the dynamics behind those who leave their wives for another man.

So, to be clear, during your unhappy/unatural marriage with your wife, you committed adultery multiple times with men, then subsequently went through the repentance process only to divorce her later. Is that correct?

Also, I want to be clear. Are you currently in a monogamous relationship with another man who you did not know before you divorced your wife?
No problem. It's certainly not a pleasant or proud moment of my life, but I try to be transparent so others can learn, despite the awareness that I open myself up to condemnation and judgment by many who don't understand or don't want to understand.

Yes, I was faithful to my wife for six years, and in the last two, I finally succumbed to temptation for a variety of reasons (not the least of which was the mismatch with my wife, but also the ongoing deterioration of our marriage for a variety of other reasons unrelated to my sexual orientation) and committed adultery in fleeting encounters with different men.

I subsequently went through the repentance process for a year after I told my wife (first) and then bishop (second), whom I met with for a year, about these encounters. And after a year, yes, I ultimately left my wife.

Several years later and in an entirely different state (Utah), I subsequently met my now-husband, and we share a committed, monogamous marriage.

Sadly, such misguided mixed-orientation marriages undertaken due to religious belief and/or social pressure have historically happened enough that there are quite a few resources on the topic:

Two of the best resources from a Latter-day Saint perspective are those by Carol Lynn Pearson:

It's my hope that with the advent of same-sex marriage as an option for gays and lesbians to choose an authentic relationship with one to whom they are naturally and effortlessly attracted, coupled with the LDS Church's more recent statements that marriage to a woman should not be viewed as a therapeutic step for gay men, the incidents of mixed-orientation marriages will dramatically decline, both to the benefit of the husbands, wives, and children involved.
Once again, thank for your openness and clarification.

My next question is, did you know you were gay or had you already had an encounter (sexual or otherwise) with another man before you married your wife. And if so, why did you marry her? Was it due to overt pressure from peers/parents/church or was it perceived pressure? Or a combo of both.

Also, did you serve a mission in the church (or were you ever a member) and if so how did that factor into your decision to marry a woman.

simpleton
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3074

Re: Australia seals it's fate, SSM vote 61% yes

Post by simpleton »

I'll answer the question... they can't ... hence why they need to recruit from the children of family's that have a mother/ father...

User avatar
Daniel2
captain of 50
Posts: 78

Re: Australia seals it's fate, SSM vote 61% yes

Post by Daniel2 »

Elizabeth wrote: November 17th, 2017, 12:13 pm Daniel2, You can rationalise till the cows come home to no avail, as any decent person with even the slightest sense of morality, spiritual insight or common sense, knows that homosexual activity is depraved, disgusting, against eternal law and the commandments of God, is orchestrated by Lucifer and will lead to spiritual destruction, regression and to outerdarkness.
Elizabeth,

I appreciate that you are passionate in your views, and respect your freedoms to believe and live your life as you see fit.

I can't imagine chastising someone by proclaiming that they and their family fall beyond the bounds of "even the slightest sense of morality, spiritual insight, or common sense" just because their beliefs and family differ from my own. To me, that's the height of hubris.

But I understand you feel differently. It certainly seems clear that nothing I say about my own experiences is likely to have any beneficial impact on you, so please know that my words aren't really directed at anyone displaying your level of closed-minded zealotry. As such, I invite you to feel free to ignore my comments further, at least in so far as responding directly to me on the matter. I understand very clearly where you stand. ;)

Thankfully, you are neither my maker, judge, nor jury, and I take great comfort in that knowledge that if a divine being will judge me based on my heart and it's intentions, I will be at peace.

I wish you and your family love, joy, and happiness, even as you refuse to acknowledge even the slightest morality in mine.

Peace be with you,
Daniel

Finrock
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4426

Re: Australia seals it's fate, SSM vote 61% yes

Post by Finrock »

Daniel2 wrote: November 17th, 2017, 11:13 am
Finrock wrote: November 17th, 2017, 10:32 am From a purely biological perspective homosexual relationships seem to be detrimental to the survival of the human species. There is no "life" in homosexual relationships. Human "life" only occurs based on heterosexual principles. No matter what scientific advances are made, in order to produce a human life, there must be at some point a "male" component and a "female" component.

Currently the human civilization has the luxury of entertaining same sex relationships due to our relative prosperity and how prolific our species is. However, imagine if our civilization were to experience a catastrophic event that nearly wiped out the species. In the aftermath of this hypothetical catastrophe, when eventually the surviving humans gather to rebuilt and to form a society, do you think it would be fair, moral, and ethical to expect a nearly extinct and struggling species/society to support homosexual relationships and provide the same privileges to homosexual relationships as they would to heterosexual relationships?

-Finrock
Posing cataclysmic hypotheticals as helpful agents in determining the morality of same-sex relationships in real life isn't compelling. After all, if humankind were on the verge of extinction, I'd be happy to do my part to save the species by contributing to the reproductive gene pool.

But in such desperate times, morality likely wouldn't favor monogamous relationships with one partner, anyway. In such dire circumstances, it would likely be imperative to cross-pollinate (that is, provide optimal genetic diversity in the resulting human offspring by allowing every available male to impregnate every available female) in order to maximize our species survival. Additionally, just as Adam and Eve's children had to engage in incestuous relationships, such circumstances would likely require incest on some levels to help build the population. But surely, our current views of monogamy or incest isn't dependent upon those cataclysmic circumstances, so it's nonsensical to try to make our view of same-sex relationships dependent upon such. Again, as I quoted from Joseph Smith earlier in this thread: "that which is wrong in one circumstance may be right in another," even "things which would normally be viewed to be abominable," and the determining factors are the current "circumstances in which" we find ourselves.
From a purely biological perspective can you provide a hypothetical scenario where heterosexual principles would be inferior to homosexual principles? Unless you can, the given scenario is not nonsensical and it is useful to determine the relative value of each principle.

Also, the question was not would you be happy to contribute, the question was given the scenario would it be moral and ethical to expect society to support homosexual relationships?

In the end, the species relies on heterosexual principles but the same cannot be said about homosexual principles. Said another way, we can survive as a species without homosexual principles but we cannot survive as a species without heterosexual principles. Your argument wants to make this principle relative, but it isn't.

-Finrock
Last edited by Finrock on November 17th, 2017, 1:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Crackers
captain of 100
Posts: 584

Re: Australia seals it's fate, SSM vote 61% yes

Post by Crackers »

Daniel2 wrote: November 17th, 2017, 8:07 am
Crackers wrote: November 16th, 2017, 9:35 am Daniel2, You say that the Proclamation does not preclude homosexual relationships, and yet by its absence, it does just that. The Proclamation goes into great detail about the family, but makes no allowance for deviation. I suspect you would like to see more vulgar and explicit verbiage regarding the “sacred powers of procreation,” but a reasonable Christian does not read this to think it is intended to create an exception for sex other than between a married man and woman as long as life isn’t created. That’s a bigger stretch than I am willing or able to fathom. I appreciate the beautiful and accurate language the brethren chose; the fact that you find it vague reflects the vagaries of your own mind on this topic.

Your assertion that you feel “peace, love, joy and hope” in your relationship does not prove that it is good in the sight of God. My mother said those same things about her affair. Anyone could say that about their fornication. I might think it occasionally about Diet Dew or cheesecake. Satan loves it when we think we have found “fruits of the spirit,” when really we have only found some cheap (and immoral) counterfeit. That is enough to keep people from searching for the real deal because they think they already have it.

A side note on that: I would rather have a mediocre-seeming, or even difficult marriage that has been sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise than an easy, “love and joy” relationship that has no chance of continuation into the eternities. The former will continue and improve and increase eternally. The other ends with death, if not sooner. There is a place in the Kingdoms of God for those who practice homosexual behavior. It is called the Telestial Kingdom. Just wanting something really, really bad doesn’t make it so.
No, not really. The absence of same-sex families is called "plausible deniability." That way, when some future LDS prophet reveals God now accepts same-sex relationships, said future leaders can point out that nothing in the Proclamation prohibited same-sex marriage.

After all, if it's "absence" from the Proclamation precludes the possibility that God could ever sanction any given specific type/form of marriage, why doesn't the proclamation specifically mentioned polygamy--a form of marriage we KNOW is sanctioned by God, according to Mormonism? ;)

No, I wouldn't care to see more vulgar and explicit language---vulgarity and explicitness isn't necessary to specifcy physical intimacy between either opposite-sex or same-sex couples.

While I understand your point about your mother feeling her affair was inherently worthy, I can flat out tell you that having studied the entire issue probably a LOT more than you have, and having tried to live with an unnatural marriage with unnatural affections towards a woman, and then having experienced a relationship with someone to whom I am fully, naturally, spiritually, emotionally, physically, and intimately matched, I am FAR more prepared to listen to and believe my own heart, might, mind, and strength than I am the words of a dusty book and the biases of aging men who's minds and hearts are held captive by the prejudices of yesteryear. The only weapon they and people like you have is to convince me to not trust my own faculties in deference to others that allegedly know me better than I know myself.

I can honestly, truly, and earnestly say that I will be entirely at peace if I must stand before God and Christ at a judgment bar that I sincerely know that I lived the best life I knew how with the resources I've been given. Even though I know people like you who have judged me and the desires of my heart as having been "deceived by the devil" and possibly just wanting to have made excuses "to sin" in your eyes, I trust that if God is as good and just as you say, he truly will know the intent of my heart and can judge that my intentions were as sincere as they were well-intentioned. I am fully content knowing that God--and not all the posters here who spew vitriolic, anti-gay rhetoric at every turn--will judge me. :)
I don’t believe we know each other, so I find it interesting that you presume to classify me (who would “people like me” be???). I also don’t believe I am spewing vitriolic, anti-gay rhetoric. I am not trying to belittle you, your choices or your feelings. I am just trying to point out that your personal feelings don’t constitute doctrine. Period.

By the way, one could easily say that polygamy is included in the verbiage of the Proclamation, though I don’t take a side on that one way or the other.

User avatar
Daniel2
captain of 50
Posts: 78

Re: Australia seals it's fate, SSM vote 61% yes

Post by Daniel2 »

Todd wrote: November 17th, 2017, 12:18 pm Once again, thank for your openness and clarification.

My next question is, did you know you were gay or had you already had an encounter (sexual or otherwise) with another man before you married your wife. And if so, why did you marry her? Was it due to overt pressure from peers/parents/church or was it perceived pressure? Or a combo of both.

Also, did you serve a mission in the church (or were you ever a member) and if so how did that factor into your decision to marry a woman.
Great questions, Todd. Thank you for asking.

I've known since I was five years old that I was more drawn to men than women. Prior to puberty, I (like other children with no sexual experience of their own) had no mental frame of context to understand what 'sexual attraction' was, but I remember, as a child, seeing male bodies and finding them beautiful in ways that I didn't feel when looking at women. Namely, when my father and four older brothers and I went to the gym to play sports, I was drawn to watching the male form (I’m referring to watching grown men at the gym that were NOT my brothers nor my father—I was never attracted to any of my own family members). Over the years, I had many ongoing, reoccurring dreams of snuggling up to a warm, hairy-chested body and feeling a sense of profound peace and contentment as I ran my fingers through the hair (neither my father nor brothers are hairy-chested, and I'm unaware of any male figures from my childhood with whom I had personal contact with who have that physical trait. Never had I seen porn of any sort, and I was never abused physically, sexually, or otherwise, having had a great relationship with both parents and all my siblings). I had always assumed it was an animal when I was younger--but as my body transformed during puberty, the body came further into shape, and I realized it was a man that I was snuggled up together with. I loved the sense of peace, security, and pure love that emanated from our shared, entwined nakedness (which actually wasn't sexual in nature, at first, but ultimately became more so, throughout my teenage years).

Throughout my elementary school years, I had crushes on several of my fellow (male) classmates, but due to a few 'close calls' of expressing too much affection, I learned that the term 'gay' and '@#$%@!' (neither of which I had ever identified as, since I didn't even know what they meant) were socially repugnant and were associated with boys expressing affection for other boys. I learned carefully to hide any of my feelings of affection for my fellow boy classmates/friends/acquaintances, and, like most other kids learning to navigate the social norms, had 'girl friends' by passing notes in class (the sort that read, "Will you go out with me? check the yes box for yes, check the no box for no'), and went as far as <gasp> sitting NEXT to my "girlfriends" at lunch or holding hands at recess.

The only encounter I had with a boy, sexual or otherwise, was when I was 11-years-old. I had hit puberty early (at age 10), and a fellow classmate and I were assigned to share a tent at Boy Scout camp one weekend. He wasn't LDS, and was by far more aware of sex than I was. As we stripped to our underwear before bed. It became clear we were both interested in exploring each others' bodies, and we ended up playing 'doctor,' of sorts, that included some mutual touching. Since that time, both two Bishops and two different LDS therapists I've counseled with through LDS Social Services have assured me that that type of interaction was/is fairly common around puberty, and that boys in close quarters will often engage in same-sex touching/play as a means of comparison/learning about their bodies. In the days that followed that incident, however, I was SO mortified that I ended up bearing my testimony to this other boy that I knew that what we had done was wrong, and I hoped he didn't think ill of Mormonism or the LDS church because we actually didn't believe in behaving in such ways and I hoped he would someday consider joining.

After that, masturbation was the only sexual outlet I had for several years, until I was 17. At that time, I decided I had better stop in order to prepare for my mission (as the youngest of 5 sons raised in the mission field overseas and holding great (non-sexual) love and respect for the missionaries who were always regulars at our Sunday dinner table, I never questioned that I would serve a mission). I had heard that the rules at the time suggested 19-year-olds who don't serve missions had had to abstain from masturbation for at least 12 months prior to serving, and since I knew I had made an even worse sin of fooling around with another boy, I figured I'd double that period and abstain from masturbation for at least two years, so that when I met with my bishop I could hopefully show him my sincerity by saying it was all in the past.

I loved my first semester at BYU, but I knew I would have to confess to the bishop and would likely have to spend more time in the repentance processes than other boys due to eventually having to confess not only the years I'd masturbated, but also that one same-sex encounter, so I went several months earlier than my peers to talk to my bishop about getting prepared. Through tears and anguish, I told him everything, including the details of what the other boy and I had done, my ongoing attractions to men and not women, and most of what I've revealed here. Even at that time, I eschewed the title of 'gay' and considered myself straight with the problem that I was attracted to men, not women. My bishop was patient and loving, and he told me that he was inspired by my faithfulness and example of true penance. He promised me, "in the name of the Lord," that I had repented and my sins were as white as snow. He told me that the Lord not only forgave me, but it was as though my sins were washed away in the Atonement. He said, as a Judge appointed in Israel, and with the authority of his holy calling, that I never needed to speak of this again with anyone, and promised, that as I served a mission and followed the path the church recommended, that I should take a beautiful daughter of our Heavenly Father to the temple and that the Lord would bless me with 'natural' affections and that my same-sex attractions would be no more.

I left his office lighter than I had ever felt before. I served a worthy mission, and loved the time I spent in service of the church and spreading the gospel. I was successful and brought many people to join the church. I consumed the scriptures, Doctrines of Salvation, Gospel Doctrine, Mormon Doctrine, Jesus the Christ, A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, The Miracle of Forgiveness (ouch!), and every issue of La Liahona (especially the conference ones). I cross referenced my scriptures and became known as the missionary that knew the gospel forward and backward; if other missionaries were teaching Catholics, Evangelicals, or even Jehovah's Witnesses, they would come to me with questions about scriptures. So long as I was clothed entirely in the ideals of the mission, I wasn't bothered by attractions to men, and my struggles with masturbation weren't an issue.

It wasn't until I returned to BYU and started trying to date girls that my difficulties returned. No matter how hard I tried, I couldn't find attraction to women. I got along GREAT with many of the women I dated; we had lots of fun, it was always easy to talk, but when it came to even the most chaste kiss or even holding hands, my palms were cold and I always felt a slight revulsion. It felt 'wrong.' As I was working through all of this (along with frequent temple attendance, at least once a week if not more) and daily scripture study and prayer, one morning I was in the shower, and as I used the shower head, I became stimulated enough to the point I couldn't stop myself, and I climaxed. Mortified, I believed (as I had read and studied on my mission) that if one repents and returns to one's sin, then ALL the former instances of sin return upon one's head. Desperate, I knew I had to re-confess all that had happened again. So I went to my (now new) BYU bishop and recited to him all that I have recounted here with the greatest of anguish and all the torment which wracked my soul. Once again, this second bishop listened with time and patience, asked a few questions, and virtually repeated, almost word for word, what the first bishop had promised; my sins were forgiven, I never needed to tell anyone about this again, I should find a good woman and take her to the temple and the Lord would bless me and all of this would 'go away' once I started having 'relations with my wife.' He added that he believed that Satan was trying to get ahold of me because I was one of the great and faithful ones in the pre-mortal existence spoken of in the Pearl of Great Price, and that the devil knew this was the way he could get my soul. This second bishop also added one additional important detail; not only did I never have to bring this up again, he said, but he recommended I avoid bringing this up to the woman I would someday marry... "The Lord remembers this no more, and you have repented. If you were to tell this to her, it would unnecessarily burden your relationship together; it would likely only cause her pain and cause her to question her womanhood... This is now in your past, and I bless you that you will move beyond it as you seek to love the Lord." Again, I walked away feeling lighter, but still unsure.

Several months of maintaining church activity and immersing myself in scriptures, prayer, temple attendance, and dating, I continued to struggle with feelings of attraction towards any of the girls I was dating, certainly not enough to ask one to marry me. It was then that The Daily Universe (BYU's newspaper) ran a weekly ad in the personals that said, "Do You Struggle with Unwanted Same-Sex Attraction? Call Jeff at ***-***-****". I had been avoiding that weekly ad for some time now, believing that if I called, it would show a lack of faith on my part in what the bishops had promised. But I finally decided through thought and prayer that perhaps that ad was an extension of and answer TO some of the promises of what my bishops had blessed me with. One fateful night, I called and spoke with Jeff. Turns out he was a graduate student at BYU who was running the local Evergreen chapter. Evergreen was an unofficial, though closely affiliated, group aimed at providing group 'Reparative Therapy" for men who "struggled with same-sex attraction." He offered to meet with me and see if I would be a good fit. Over the next 6 months, I meet weekly with Jeff Robinson, who's psychological specialty was counseling "SSA-attracted" men to help them "overcome their unwanted SSA." We delved into the very fabric of my emotional life and development. But over six months, we could find none of the alleged triggers that 'cause' homosexual attractions; in stead, I was raised in a loving family with a present father, a non-overbearing mother, four great older brothers, no sexual abuse, no porn exposure, no effeminate mannerisms or isolation from my peers because of feeling different, was good and engaged in sports, well liked and accepted at school, etc. After six months, Jeff said he couldn't really find anything that would account for my same-sex attraction other than the devil trying to delude me, and that if I stayed faithful, he was confident that the Lord would bless me and encouraged me to find a good woman, get married, and follow "The Great Plan of Happiness."

That night, I went home and as I was reading my scriptures, I came across that missionary one that says, "Out of the mouths of two or three witnesses shall every world of the Lord be established." Two or three witnesses. Two bishops... one therapist.... I tried to convince myself, despite any misgivings, that I had had my witnesses of what God wanted me to do. My misgivings were surely Satan. I had to follow their counsel as if the Lord himself had given it to me; I would find a woman, get married, and never tell her or anyone else about my past sins, which, though they had been as scarlet, were now as white as snow and the Lord remembered them not. And so, I did.

And that's how I ended up in a dysfunction, dishonest, and tragic marriage 8 years later. I don't blame the bishops... I have forgiven them for their well-intentioned but horrifically-misguided counsel. They were doing what they believed to be right and likely speaking form their heart, as Elizabeth and some others likely are here. I have accepted that I alone and responsible for my actions, and that if I had had the wherewithal to be open to asking different questions, I would have. In the words of one philosopher, "If I had known better, I would have done better." But I simply didn't have a frame of reference to question the authority figures in my life that I believed spoke the mind, heart, and will of The Lord. The best I could ultimately do, in the circumstances, was be accountable, come forward and tell my wife everything, and try to make restitution as best I could.

Hope that helps, Todd.

Best to you,
D
Last edited by Daniel2 on November 17th, 2017, 3:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Daniel2
captain of 50
Posts: 78

Re: Australia seals it's fate, SSM vote 61% yes

Post by Daniel2 »

Finrock wrote: November 17th, 2017, 1:18 pm From a purely biological perspective can you provide a hypothetical scenario where heterosexual principles would be inferior to homosexual principles? Unless you can, the given scenario is not nonsensical and it is useful to determine the relative value of each principle.

Also, the question was not would you be happy to contribute, the question was given the scenario would it be moral and ethical to expect society to support homosexual relationships?

In the end, the species relies on heterosexual principles but the same cannot be said about homosexual principles. Said another way, we can survive as a species without homosexual principles but we cannot survive as a species without heterosexual principles. Your argument wants to make this principle relative, but it isn't.

-Finrock
Finrock,

People engage in a variety of behaviors that aren't ideal from "a purely biological perspective."

"Pure biology" isn't the basis of morality for a whole host of behaviors... altruism, for example.

However, in answer to your question, yes, there are several biological theories as to how homosexuality contributes to the perpetuation of our species. The mistake you are making is applying this "biological morality" to individuals, instead of to a group.

The answer to your question is "kin selection." Rather than looking at evolutionary adaptations at only the individual level, sometimes it's necessary to consider how collective reproduction applies to the tribe or group, since humans aren't solitary beings. Because we evolved as social beings who live in groups, having competing males for a limited amount of females is counterproductive, especially when males fight over females.

Science shows that the more older brothers a man has, he's exponentially more likely to end up gay. The theory is that as the mother's body moves from pregnancy to pregnancy, her uterine environment changes to retain an antibody to protect her developing son from being attacked as a foreign body. As more and more of these antibodies build up from each successive male pregnancy, her body--having evolved with an evolutionary adaptation to avoid overcrowding her successive generation from competing, breeding males--begins to feminize successive male pregnancies (and by feminize, I don't mean effeminate, per se, but feminizing the brain so as to develop more female-related traits, less aggression, increased creativity and special problem solving, etc., all of which are traits which can help contribute to the tribe's survival).

When a man has an increasing number of older brothers, his changes of developing in a uterine environment which triggers his epigenetic triggers cause him to be born male, but without the higher levels of testosterone or the orientation to mate with females. Thus, instead of competing for the females, he pursues other romantic interests and can help with not only group survival, but also rearing of others' children. Instead of becoming a useless dreg on the group, he can help contribute in non-reproductive ways. His brain is different than his heterosexual brothers, but his ableness and gifts come in other ways... nurturing children, food gathering and preparation, and ultimately, even the expression of culture through art, music, science, healing, medicine, etc. In all the meaningful ways that non-reproductive yet still contributing members of a society can and do contribute.

That's your answer; and it's only one of many. If you're interested, I encourage you to Google more on "The Evolutionary Advantages of Homosexuality." This is just one of many theories.

Best to you,
D

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12983

Re: Australia seals it's fate, SSM vote 61% yes

Post by Fiannan »

Science shows that the more older brothers a man has, he's exponentially more likely to end up gay.
One study that was never replicated.

Also, correlation does not imply causation. Often the true variables are overlooked.

User avatar
Daniel2
captain of 50
Posts: 78

Re: Australia seals it's fate, SSM vote 61% yes

Post by Daniel2 »

Crackers wrote: November 17th, 2017, 1:20 pm I don’t believe we know each other, so I find it interesting that you presume to classify me (who would “people like me” be???). I also don’t believe I am spewing vitriolic, anti-gay rhetoric. I am not trying to belittle you, your choices or your feelings. I am just trying to point out that your personal feelings don’t constitute doctrine. Period.

By the way, one could easily say that polygamy is included in the verbiage of the Proclamation, though I don’t take a side on that one way or the other.
In answer to your question of "who would 'people like you' be?", I specified exactly what I meant by 'and other people like you' in the very sentence you took that snippet from--people who judge and condemn me. Specifically, I said: "Even though I know people like you who have judged me and the desires of my heart as having been "deceived by the devil" and possibly just wanting to have made excuses "to sin" in your eyes..."

That matches the explicit words you wrote in your post I was responding to, in which you admonished me that my homosexuality (again, using your words) "ends with death, if not sooner." and that "There is a place in the Kingdoms of God for those who practice homosexual behavior. It is called the Telestial Kingdom."

Do you mean to imply you don't see that as any form of judgment or condemnation....? You don't believe those words are "anti-gay"? If not, I guess we'll have to disagree on that point. I will say, though, that the adjectives "spewing vitriolic" weren't directed at you, but at other posters. ;)

I appreciate your clarification that you aren't trying to belittle me, my choices, or feelings. Strange way of going about it, though.

And I also agree that my feelings obviously aren't LDS doctrine. Yet. ;) But if I implied otherwise, I'm happy to admit as much.

I appreciate your input and clarifications.

Best to you,
D

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12983

Re: Australia seals it's fate, SSM vote 61% yes

Post by Fiannan »

However, in answer to your question, yes, there are several biological theories as to how homosexuality contributes to the perpetuation of our species. The mistake you are making is applying this "biological morality" to individuals, instead of to a group.
Almost as if trying to mix sociology and biology. Just trying to speculate in order to fit the bias that there must be some reason some are born this or that way so thus, although no genetics have been found to cause homosexuality, we just pretend there is and then frame a hypothesis on why then it must have been an advantage and survive through the generations.

User avatar
Daniel2
captain of 50
Posts: 78

Re: Australia seals it's fate, SSM vote 61% yes

Post by Daniel2 »

Fiannan wrote: November 17th, 2017, 2:25 pm
Science shows that the more older brothers a man has, he's exponentially more likely to end up gay.
One study that was never replicated.

Also, correlation does not imply causation. Often the true variables are overlooked.
Your sources are obviously out of date. These studies and more have been replicated in multiple studies across multiple countries and in multiple specialties.

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12983

Re: Australia seals it's fate, SSM vote 61% yes

Post by Fiannan »

And you never answered the question Daniel2. Is there a moral basis for denying same sex relations and marriage between relatives - i.e. a mother and grown daughter?

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12983

Re: Australia seals it's fate, SSM vote 61% yes

Post by Fiannan »

Daniel2 wrote: November 17th, 2017, 2:31 pm
Fiannan wrote: November 17th, 2017, 2:25 pm
Science shows that the more older brothers a man has, he's exponentially more likely to end up gay.
One study that was never replicated.

Also, correlation does not imply causation. Often the true variables are overlooked.
Your sources are obviously out of date. These studies and more have been replicated in multiple studies across multiple countries and in multiple specialties.
Please list them.

User avatar
Daniel2
captain of 50
Posts: 78

Re: Australia seals it's fate, SSM vote 61% yes

Post by Daniel2 »

Fiannan wrote: November 17th, 2017, 2:30 pm
However, in answer to your question, yes, there are several biological theories as to how homosexuality contributes to the perpetuation of our species. The mistake you are making is applying this "biological morality" to individuals, instead of to a group.
Almost as if trying to mix sociology and biology. Just trying to speculate in order to fit the bias that there must be some reason some are born this or that way so thus, although no genetics have been found to cause homosexuality, we just pretend there is and then frame a hypothesis on why then it must have been an advantage and survive through the generations.
It's clear that attempting to harmonize the findings of two bodies of science, both operating in tandem according to scientific principles, is easier than trying to harmonize science with theology/mythology and make the two conform according to your bias.

User avatar
Daniel2
captain of 50
Posts: 78

Re: Australia seals it's fate, SSM vote 61% yes

Post by Daniel2 »

Fiannan wrote: November 17th, 2017, 2:32 pm
Daniel2 wrote: November 17th, 2017, 2:31 pm
Fiannan wrote: November 17th, 2017, 2:25 pm
Science shows that the more older brothers a man has, he's exponentially more likely to end up gay.
One study that was never replicated.

Also, correlation does not imply causation. Often the true variables are overlooked.
Your sources are obviously out of date. These studies and more have been replicated in multiple studies across multiple countries and in multiple specialties.
Please list them.
I have. No one wanted to invest the time in listening to the four hours of discussion about it I posted previously. But here's two links again:

http://www.mormonstories.org/byu-profes ... sexuality/

https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/gay ... 02025?mt=2

Now, assuming you decide you won't listen to them: if you won't take the time or effort to educate yourself, why should I?
Last edited by Daniel2 on November 17th, 2017, 2:42 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Daniel2
captain of 50
Posts: 78

Re: Australia seals it's fate, SSM vote 61% yes

Post by Daniel2 »

Fiannan wrote: November 17th, 2017, 2:32 pm And you never answered the question Daniel2. Is there a moral basis for denying same sex relations and marriage between relatives - i.e. a mother and grown daughter?
In all honestly, can't think of a secular reason why it should be denied. Can you, other than "God said no"?

But then again, presumably, sometimes God says "yes" to incest, as he did multiple times in The Bible:
In ancient times, tribal nations preferred endogamous marriage – marriage to one's relatives;[1] the ideal marriage was usually that to a cousin, and it was often forbidden for an eldest daughter to even marry outside the family.[1] Marriage to a half-sister, for example, is considered incest by most nations today, but was common behaviour for Egyptian pharaohs; similarly, the Book of Genesis portrays Sarah as marrying Abraham, her half-brother, without criticising the close genetic relationship between them,[2] and the Book of Samuel treats the marriage of a royal prince to his half-sister as unusual, rather than wicked.[1]

One of the most notable features of all the lists is that sexual activity between a man and his own daughter is not explicitly forbidden. Although the first relation mentioned after the Levitical prohibition of sex with "near kin" names that of "thy father",[10] it must be taken into account that the Hebrew original text only addresses male Jews with regard to their female relatives.[11] The talmud argues that the absence is because the prohibition was obvious, especially given the proscription against a relationship with a granddaughter,[12] although some biblical scholars have instead proposed that it was originally in the list, but was then accidentally left out from the copy on which modern versions of the text ultimately depend, due to a mistake by the scribe.[13] The second list in the Holiness code noticeably differs from the first by not including the closer relatives, and it might be assumed that obviousness is the explanation here as well.[1] One might argue that the explicit prohibition against engaging in sexual activity with a woman as well as with her daughter,[14] implicitly forbids sexual activity between a man and his daughter. However, the rationale might suggest otherwise (the original text is unclear here), since it mentions only that "they" (i.e., the woman and the daughter) are related.[15] John Calvin did not consider the father-daughter-relation to be explicitly forbidden by the bible, but regarded it as immoral nevertheless.[16]

Apart from the case of the daughter, the first incest list in the Holiness code roughly produces the same rules as were followed in early (pre-Islamic) Arabic culture;[1] in Islam, these pre-existing rules were made statutory.[13] The rules in this list are, however, ignored in several prominent cases in the Torah – Jacob is described as having married his first wife's sister,[17][18][19] and Abraham as having a father in common with Sarah[2] (rather than a mother, which would have been permitted by the list).

Ezekiel implies[13] that, in his time, marriage between a man and his stepmother, or his daughter-in-law, or his sister, were frequent.[20] This situation seems to be the target of the Deuteronomic version of the incest prohibition, which only addresses roughly the same three issues[1][13] (though prohibiting the mother-in-law in place of the daughter-in-law). Early rabbinic commentators instead argue that the Deuteronomic list is so short because the other possible liaisons were obviously prohibited, and these three were the only liaisons difficult to detect, on account of the fact that, in their day, a man's stepmother, half-sister, and mother-in-law usually lived in the same house as the man (prior to any liaison).[21]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest_in_the_Bible
Not to mention the children of Adam and Eve, who would have had to have entered into incestuous marriages to people the earth, if one believes the scriptural account... and let alone that many Latter-day Saints have historically taught that Elohim had relations with his daughter, Mary, in order to beget their son, Jesus (thus making him Mary's half brother/half son). So..... maybe religion isn't always consistent, either... Oh, bother! ;)

Todd
captain of 100
Posts: 460

Re: Australia seals it's fate, SSM vote 61% yes

Post by Todd »

Daniel2 wrote: November 17th, 2017, 2:05 pm
Todd wrote: November 17th, 2017, 12:18 pm Once again, thank for your openness and clarification.

My next question is, did you know you were gay or had you already had an encounter (sexual or otherwise) with another man before you married your wife. And if so, why did you marry her? Was it due to overt pressure from peers/parents/church or was it perceived pressure? Or a combo of both.

Also, did you serve a mission in the church (or were you ever a member) and if so how did that factor into your decision to marry a woman.
Great questions, Todd. Thank you for asking.

I've known since I was five years old that I was more drawn to men than women. Prior to puberty, I (like other children with no sexual experience of their own) had no mental frame of context to understand what 'sexual attraction' was, but I remember, as a child, seeing male bodies and finding them beautiful in ways that I didn't feel when looking at women. Namely, when my father and four older brothers and I went to the gym to play sports, I was drawn to watching the male form. Over the years, I had many ongoing, reoccurring dreams of snuggling up to a warm, hairy-chested body and feeling a sense of profound peace and contentment as I ran my fingers through the hair (neither my father nor brothers are hairy-chested, and I'm unaware of any male figures from my childhood with whom I had personal contact with who have that physical trait. Never had I seen porn of any sort, and I was never abused physically, sexually, or otherwise, having had a great relationship with both parents and all my siblings). I had always assumed it was an animal when I was younger--but as my body transformed during puberty, the body came further into shape, and I realized it was a man that I was snuggled up together with. I loved the sense of peace, security, and pure love that emanated from our shared, entwined nakedness (which actually wasn't sexual in nature, at first, but ultimately became more so, throughout my teenage years).

Throughout my elementary school years, I had crushes on several of my fellow (male) classmates, but due to a few 'close calls' of expressing too much affection, I learned that the term 'gay' and 'sodomite' (neither of which I had ever identified as, since I didn't even know what they meant) were socially repugnant and were associated with boys expressing affection for other boys. I learned carefully to hide any of my feelings of affection for my fellow boy classmates/friends/acquaintances, and, like most other kids learning to navigate the social norms, had 'girl friends' by passing notes in class (the sort that read, "Will you go out with me? check the yes box for yes, check the no box for no'), and went as far as <gasp> sitting NEXT to my "girlfriends" at lunch or holding hands at recess.

The only encounter I had with a boy, sexual or otherwise, was when I was 11-years-old. I had hit puberty early (at age 10), and a fellow classmate and I were assigned to share a tent at Boy Scout camp one weekend. He wasn't LDS, and was by far more aware of sex than I was. As we stripped to our underwear before bed. It became clear we were both interested in exploring each others' bodies, and we ended up playing 'doctor,' of sorts, that included some mutual touching. Since that time, both two Bishops and two different LDS therapists I've counseled with through LDS Social Services have assured me that that type of interaction was/is fairly common around puberty, and that boys in close quarters will often engage in same-sex touching/play as a means of comparison/learning about their bodies. In the days that followed that incident, however, I was SO mortified that I ended up bearing my testimony to this other boy that I knew that what we had done was wrong, and I hoped he didn't think ill of Mormonism or the LDS church because we actually didn't believe in behaving in such ways and I hoped he would someday consider joining.

After that, masturbation was the only sexual outlet I had for several years, until I was 17. At that time, I decided I had better stop in order to prepare for my mission (as the youngest of 5 sons raised in the mission field overseas and holding great (non-sexual) love and respect for the missionaries who were always regulars at our Sunday dinner table, I never questioned that I would serve a mission). I had heard that the rules at the time suggested 19-year-olds who don't serve missions had had to abstain from masturbation for at least 12 months prior to serving, and since I knew I had made an even worse sin of fooling around with another boy, I figured I'd double that period and abstain from masturbation for at least two years, so that when I met with my bishop I could hopefully show him my sincerity by saying it was all in the past.

I loved my first semester at BYU, but I knew I would have to confess to the bishop and would likely have to spend more time in the repentance processes than other boys due to eventually having to confess not only the years I'd masturbated, but also that one same-sex encounter, so I went several months earlier than my peers to talk to my bishop about getting prepared. Through tears and anguish, I told him everything, including the details of what the other boy and I had done, my ongoing attractions to men and not women, and most of what I've revealed here. Even at that time, I eschewed the title of 'gay' and considered myself straight with the problem that I was attracted to men, not women. My bishop was patient and loving, and he told me that he was inspired by my faithfulness and example of true penance. He promised me, "in the name of the Lord," that I had repented and my sins were as white as snow. He told me that the Lord not only forgave me, but it was as though my sins were washed away in the Atonement. He said, as a Judge appointed in Israel, and with the authority of his holy calling, that I never needed to speak of this again with anyone, and promised, that as I served a mission and followed the path the church recommended, that I should take a beautiful daughter of our Heavenly Father to the temple and that the Lord would bless me with 'natural' affections and that my same-sex attractions would be no more.

I left his office lighter than I had ever felt before. I served a worthy mission, and loved the time I spent in service of the church and spreading the gospel. I was successful and brought many people to join the church. I consumed the scriptures, Doctrines of Salvation, Gospel Doctrine, Mormon Doctrine, Jesus the Christ, A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, The Miracle of Forgiveness (ouch!), and every issue of La Liahona (especially the conference ones). I cross referenced my scriptures and became known as the missionary that knew the gospel forward and backward; if other missionaries were teaching Catholics, Evangelicals, or even Jehovah's Witnesses, they would come to me with questions about scriptures. So long as I was clothed entirely in the ideals of the mission, I wasn't bothered by attractions to men, and my struggles with masturbation weren't an issue.

It wasn't until I returned to BYU and started trying to date girls that my difficulties returned. No matter how hard I tried, I couldn't find attraction to women. I got along GREAT with many of the women I dated; we had lots of fun, it was always easy to talk, but when it came to even the most chaste kiss or even holding hands, my palms were cold and I always felt a slight revulsion. It felt 'wrong.' As I was working through all of this (along with frequent temple attendance, at least once a week if not more) and daily scripture study and prayer, one morning I was in the shower, and as I used the shower head, I became stimulated enough to the point I couldn't stop myself, and I climaxed. Mortified, I believed (as I had read and studied on my mission) that if one repents and returns to one's sin, then ALL the former instances of sin return upon one's head. Desperate, I knew I had to re-confess all that had happened again. So I went to my (now new) BYU bishop and recited to him all that I have recounted here with the greatest of anguish and all the torment which wracked my soul. Once again, this second bishop listened with time and patience, asked a few questions, and virtually repeated, almost word for word, what the first bishop had promised; my sins were forgiven, I never needed to tell anyone about this again, I should find a good woman and take her to the temple and the Lord would bless me and all of this would 'go away' once I started having 'relations with my wife.' He added that he believed that Satan was trying to get ahold of me because I was one of the great and faithful ones in the pre-mortal existence spoken of in the Pearl of Great Price, and that the devil knew this was the way he could get my soul. This second bishop also added one additional important detail; not only did I never have to bring this up again, he said, but he recommended I avoid bringing this up to the woman I would someday marry... "The Lord remembers this no more, and you have repented. If you were to tell this to her, it would unnecessarily burden your relationship together; it would likely only cause her pain and cause her to question her womanhood... This is now in your past, and I bless you that you will move beyond it as you seek to love the Lord." Again, I walked away feeling lighter, but still unsure.

Several months of maintaining church activity and immersing myself in scriptures, prayer, temple attendance, and dating, I continued to struggle with feelings of attraction towards any of the girls I was dating, certainly not enough to ask one to marry me. It was then that The Daily Universe (BYU's newspaper) ran a weekly ad in the personals that said, "Do You Struggle with Unwanted Same-Sex Attraction? Call Jeff at ***-***-****". I had been avoiding that weekly ad for some time now, believing that if I called, it would show a lack of faith on my part in what the bishops had promised. But I finally decided through thought and prayer that perhaps that ad was an extension of and answer TO some of the promises of what my bishops had blessed me with. One fateful night, I called and spoke with Jeff. Turns out he was a graduate student at BYU who was running the local Evergreen chapter. Evergreen was an unofficial, though closely affiliated, group aimed at providing group 'Reparative Therapy" for men who "struggled with same-sex attraction." He offered to meet with me and see if I would be a good fit. Over the next 6 months, I meet weekly with Jeff Robinson, who's psychological specialty was counseling "SSA-attracted" men to help them "overcome their unwanted SSA." We delved into the very fabric of my emotional life and development. But over six months, we could find none of the alleged triggers that 'cause' homosexual attractions; in stead, I was raised in a loving family with a present father, a non-overbearing mother, four great older brothers, no sexual abuse, no porn exposure, no effeminate mannerisms or isolation from my peers because of feeling different, was good and engaged in sports, well liked and accepted at school, etc. After six months, Jeff said he couldn't really find anything that would account for my same-sex attraction other than the devil trying to delude me, and that if I stayed faithful, he was confident that the Lord would bless me and encouraged me to find a good woman, get married, and follow "The Great Plan of Happiness."

That night, I went home and as I was reading my scriptures, I came across that missionary one that says, "Out of the mouths of two or three witnesses shall every world of the Lord be established." Two or three witnesses. Two bishops... one therapist.... I tried to convince myself, despite any misgivings, that I had had my witnesses of what God wanted me to do. My misgivings were surely Satan. I had to follow their counsel as if the Lord himself had given it to me; I would find a woman, get married, and never tell her or anyone else about my past sins, which, though they had been as scarlet, were now as white as snow and the Lord remembered them not. And so, I did.

And that's how I ended up in a dysfunction, dishonest, and tragic marriage 8 years later. I don't blame the bishops... I have forgiven them for their well-intentioned but horrifically-misguided counsel. They were doing what they believed to be right and likely speaking form their heart, as Elizabeth and some others likely are here. I have accepted that I alone and responsible for my actions, and that if I had had the wherewithal to be open to asking different questions, I would have. In the words of one philosopher, "If I had known better, I would have done better." But I simply didn't have a frame of reference to question the authority figures in my life that I believed spoke the mind, heart, and will of The Lord. The best I could ultimately do, in the circumstances, was be accountable, come forward and tell my wife everything, and try to make restitution as best I could.

Hope that helps, Todd.

Best to you,
D
Thank you for your candor Daniel.

You mentioned your loving family. How did they react to you when you came out as a gay man? Was it when you were leaving your wife? Was your family supportive or did they react negatively?

Also, you mentioned that you left your wife after confessing to her and the bishop that you cheated on her multiple times. Did she still want to make the marriage work? Was she willing to stay with you? Or did you file the divorce paperwork and force her hand because you couldn't do it anymore? Or was it a mutual falling out?

I know that marriage is challenging even under the right conditions. Do you feel like your marriage would have been different if you were able to not cheat on your wife? I'm curious about this because it is not just a gay issue. One of my friend's wife cheated on him because she felt no attraction to him any more. She said their relationship was unnatural and "dead to her." My friend tried to make the marriage work, but in the end she had zero attraction to him (after 22 years of marriage). This was her justification to divorcing him and "moving on" -- Which entailed eventually marrying her old high school boyfriend.

One last thing. You mentioned that you had no problems with masterbation or same sex attraction while you were on your mission. That you were the model missionary -- completely clothed in the ideals of the mission. Why do you think you were not bothered by same sex attraction or had a desire to masterbate?

User avatar
creator
(of the Forum)
Posts: 8237
Location: The Matrix
Contact:

Re: Australia seals it's fate, SSM vote 61% yes

Post by creator »

Locking this thread. LDSFF is not a forum for advancing a pro-homosexual agenda.

Recommended reading:
The Family
A Proclamation to the World
https://www.lds.org/topics/family-procl ... g&old=true

Locked