----->Homosexuality <------

[Nerezza]

Tom,

I understand what you are saying, and most likely you are right. We do not chose who we fall in love with and I think thats one of the beautiful things about life and because of that, labels are meaningless in this case.

Last post for the night, im tired.

[PeacefulWarrior]

Tom I have to disagree completely with you when you say, "There are even reasons to say that the differences between men and women are not absolute."

I think they are.  I know that emotionally we can be very similar, etc. but essentially there are HUGE differences between males and females.  There always has been and there will always be so.  I, for one, believe the differences are wonderful and part of a much deeper spriitual reality and plan than we can fully comprehend in mortality.

I do think there are a variety of reasons why the lines seem to become blurry: 1)some who emphasize the differences for selfish and evil gains 2) biological anomalies: for whatever reason, and I don't pretend to understand why this is so, people are born with certain tendencies.

This is a rough sketch of deeper ideas that need to be treated more carefully and thoroughly, but I did want to share this because, in my OPINION and my reality (timeless) this is the truth.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Below is an exerpt from a discourse that I personally find very informative, especially the factual data...everything else you can discard if you like, and I provide this simply for your information:

"In contrast to our doctrinal approach, many persons approach the problems of same-sex attraction solely from the standpoint of current science. While I am not qualified as a scientist, with the aid of scientific literature and with the advice of qualified scientists and practitioners, I will attempt to refute the claim of some that scientific discoveries demonstrate that avowed homosexuals and lesbians were "born that way."

We live in a time of accelerating scientific discoveries about the human body. We know that our inheritance explains many of our physical characteristics. At the same time, we also know that our behavior is profoundly influenced by psychosocial factors such as parental and sibling relationships (especially during the formative years) and the culture in which we live. The debate over whether, or the extent to which, specific behavior is attributable to "nature" or to "nurture" is centuries old. Its application to the subject of same-sex feelings and behaviors is only one manifestation of a highly complex subject on which scientific knowledge is still in its infancy.

Some scientists deny that behavior is genetically influenced. 8 Others are advocates of evidence or theories suggesting that "there is substantial evidence for genetic influence on sexual orientation." 9

We are, of course, aware of evidence that inheritance explains susceptibilities to certain diseases like some cancers and some other illnesses like diabetes mellitus. There are also theories and some evidence that inheritance is a factor in susceptibilities to various behavior-related disorders like aggression, alcoholism, and obesity. It is easy to hypothesize that inheritance plays a role in sexual orientation. However, it is important to remember, as conceded by two advocates of this approach, that "the concept of substantial heritability should not be confused with the concept of inevitable heritability. ... Most mechanisms probably involve interactions between constitutional predispositions and environmental events." 10

Wherever they fall along the spectrum between outright rejection and total acceptance of biological determinism of sexual orientation, most scientists concede that the current evidence is insufficient and that firm conclusions must await many additional scientific studies.

A study of 56 pairs of identical male twins in which one twin classified himself as "gay" reported that 52 percent of the co-twins also classified themselves as gay. 11 A similar study of female identical twins yielded approximately the same proportion of co-twins who classified themselves as gay (34 of 71 pairs, 48 percent). 12 If these studies show some inherited influence on whatever causes a man or woman to classify himself or herself as homosexual or lesbian, it is clear that this influence is not determinative. As a prominent scientist observed, "Even the identical twin of a gay man has a 50 percent or more chance of being heterosexual—even though he has the exact same genes and is reared by the same parents." 13 We should also note that the results of these studies (and others described below) are based on the subjects' self-classifications, a shaky foundation for scientific conclusions when "there is still no universally accepted definition of homosexuality among clinicians and behavioral scientists—let alone a consensus regarding its origins." 14

In any emerging area of knowledge, a new source of evidence is most welcome. In July 1993, Dr. Dean Hamer made worldwide headlines when he announced that he had found "a statistically significant correlation between the inheritance of genetic markers [an identifiable strip of DNA] on chromosomal region Xq28 and sexual orientation in a selected group of ... homosexual men and their relatives over age 18." In other words, "it appears that Xq28 contains a gene that contributes to homosexual orientation in males." 15 Putting the most positive interpretation on his discovery, Dr. Hamer's subsequent book concludes:

"We can make only educated guesses about the importance of Xq28 in the population at large. On the high side, the region couldn't possibly influence more than 67 percent of gay men, the proportion 'linked' to this region in our highly selected group of gay siblings. On the low side, if much of homosexuality is caused by environmental factors, or by a large number of interacting genes, Xq28 could account for as little as a few percent of the variation in male sexual orientation. The median range, taken from our linkage data and from the available twin and family studies, suggests that Xq28 plays some role in about 5 to 30 percent of gay men. The broad range of these estimates is proof that much more work remains to be done." 16

"Some role in about 5 to 30 percent" of self-classified "gay" men surely falls far short of justifying the claim that science has shown that "homosexuality" is "caused by" genetic inheritance. One eminent scientist identified two of the uncertainties:

"What evidence exists thus far of innate biological traits underlying homosexuality is flawed. ... Confirmation of genetic research purporting to show that homosexuality is heritable makes clear neither what is inherited nor how it influences sexual orientation." 17

In their impressive reappraisal of biologic theories of human sexual orientation, Drs. Byne and Parsons of Columbia University's Department of Psychiatry offer these important cautions and suggestions:

"It is imperative that clinicians and behavioral scientists begin to appreciate the complexities of sexual orientation and resist the urge to search for simplistic explanations, either psychosocial or biologic.

"Conspicuously absent from most theorizing on the origins of sexual orientation is an active role of the individual in constructing his or her identity. ... We propose an interactional model in which genes or hormones do not specify sexual orientation per se, but instead bias particular personality traits and thereby influence the manner in which an individual and his or her environment interact as sexual orientation and other personality characteristics unfold developmentally." 18

This observation, but one of many suggestions from scientists, is particularly persuasive because it takes account of the vital element of individual choice that we know to be a true principle of our mortal condition."
-Dallin H. Oaks
---------------------
For what it's worth, I have been happily married for about 9 months now to my young wife Sarah and I feel myself growing and becoming more in touch with my higher self...in fact my spiritual growth has sped up significantly since she came into my life.  I feel complete with her and get glimpses into eternity and what it will be like with her...and I know there is something divine about a man and a woman coming together.  Procreation in mortality offers us insight to what the future will be like.  

If you don't see this the way I do, fine, but I thought I would offer my viewpoint.

[goingslow]

I didnt even suggest homosexuality is going to "solve overpopulation".  I was saying not procreating is not an evil nor can it be suggested not procreating hurts society in any way.  Because of the population thing.

Plus you were saying there was no overpopulation..

And what does homosexuality have to do with selling goods and souls?

Tom..i really agree with you on that.  I dont think thats something that most people are going to accept.  Some people seem to think their sexuality is given to them by god and has nothing to do with what society says is right or wrong.

I couldnt picture a god who would allow you to be attracted to the same sex then judge you on it.  Gay Teenagers commit suicide 30 percent more than straight teenagers.  It isnt a lifestyle people would chose due to the fact they are so incredibly hated.  Why would gay teenagers just choose not to be gay instead of killing themselves if its a choice.  And if it isn't a choice why would God think its evil.

I dont understand people judging because they think god doesn't like it either.  "God will judge you"...  Its so weird to pretend we know what god thinks.  Its even weird for me to call god "he" and act like he's pretty much an advanced human...and he'll judge you because after all he's god and thats what god does.  I'd like to see a biography written by some of these people who know what goes against god and what doesn't "inside the mind of god".  Where he's sitting around shaking his head at homosexuals.. nodding at those who are pure.  Deciding the punishment for the ones who dont follow his obvious dislikes.

[goingslow]

Thats interesting peacefulwarrior because I have a girlfriend i've lived with for years and i love very much.  In fact she sometimes posts here and is the one who got me signed up.

When im with her what I see is the beauty of love.. I dont sit with her and think "how beautiful this heterosexual man woman thing is" I see it as two souls joining.  I guess thats the difference.  

Do you think a homosexual couple couldnt experience the love you feel?   Not the fact you feel it towards a woman but the love itself.

One more thing you keep talking about procreation as if its a cause.  Do you realize there are things that happen where couples cant have babies?  It seems you think because you found happiness and want to have kids thats the only way to be.  I guess thats just a limited perspective thing.  It explains a lot because instead of saying "this feeling is beautiful and love is beautiful." you seem to be only relaying it to your love as a man to the woman you're with and your future(or current kids).  Love comes in many forms and never really believe you're feeling it or experiencing it more than anyone else because ther's no way to ever know what other people are feeling.

[Anonymous]

Nowhere in a scientific paper will it show anything about the human soul's role in homosexuality. Whether homosexuality is a psychological disorder, a genetic defect, a fetish, etc., it is still wrong to discriminate against homosexuals. I don't care if people don't believe in it as long as they respect the views of others who do believe in it. Nobody said we had to like it. It is just like any other difference- it should be respected. We have no right to go around telling others what's right and wrong. We are each entitled to our own opinion. If that's your opinion, I respect it, though my own differs. I do not think we should act upon our opinions, however. We should act upon our goals in life.

[James S]

Goingslow,
Your last point is something I very much agree with, and believe to be central to this issue.

As I pointed out in another post, My wife and I have not been able to enjoy the pleasures of sex for the last 3 years. Despite this we still got married a little over a year ago. The reason is we love each other dearly. Love is the key element to a good relationship, not sex, and not procreation.

Nerezza's point that sex is abused by society is valid when you consider the whole homosexual debate is too deeply buried in the physical aspect of a relationship.
It seems somewhat ironic that there are people who claim to be seeking spiritual enlightenment, but they can't get past the physical aspects of this issue. I haven't yet seen any arguments against homosexuality based on purely spiritual reasons. Only physical, legal and moral, and moral arguments are the flimsiest of the lot because they're so very subjective.

On a spiritual level, Tom's comments seem to be the most valid. It is in the spirit world where the distinctions between gender become far more blurred.

To this point, who's to say that a female's spirit might not have an influence if she is reincarnated into a male's body?

That might be something worth thinking about, rather than looking only at the sin & science aspects.

James

[PeacefulWarrior]

Goingslow asked me: "Do you think a homosexual couple couldnt experience the love you feel?"
No, don't think a homosexual couple can experience love the way a heterosexual couple can.  But I also don't think a heterosexual couple could experience the kind of love a homosexual couple does.  

I do think the kind of love a heterosexual couple feels is different and superior.  To be able to create new life which reflects the couple's love is something unparalleled by anything else.  I have not yet experienced this, but I plan on it.  Everyone with whom I have spoken with who has children has told me this.  Unfortunately, many people who have children don't feel this way, or at least don't put the amount of love and time towards rearing their children and therefore don't reap the spiritual benefits of parenthood.

Regarding the question about those who cannot have children:
My wife and I are friends with a couple who is not able to have children.  More than anything else they wanted to start a family.  They adopted two children, one of which was born to parents who abused and neglected the child.  They are so very happy with those children and I believe they will be able to rear a family of their own in the future (not in this life).

[goingslow]

It must be interesting inside your mind.

Yeah I agree heterosexual love is superior and thats evident by the 70 percent divorce rate.  So amongst heterosexuals do youhave a breakdown?  do men feel it more or women?  Is there a difference amongst the races?  You obviously are able to decide who feels love strongest.

What a completely illogical and nonsense argument.  I would picture this amongst kids arguing if their love for pizza is superior to some other kids love for hamburgers.

what was your point about your friends?  So they adopted and they're happy with their adopted family but their real happiness and salvation comes from the hope they'll be able to have "their own" aka real kids in some other life.


I just cant comprehend how someone makes such incredibly illogical statements.  Then you say a homosexual cant feel the love  aheterosexual feels.. but try to say you're just being equal because vice versa is true.  But then you say one is superior.  So you mean heterosexuals cant feel the lesser love homosexuals feel either?

Are you by anychance a person who was thinking you might be gay and then now found a woman and are trying to convince yourself you're happier this way.  Im not saying thats your psychology or psychoanalyzing you but i cant logically think how a person can compare two loves unless they've felt them both and decided one is superior.

I find a lot of people are in love with the idea of being in love...and they want everyone to envy their love.  But you've been married for 9 months.. its not like you've been together a life time.  maybe its a little premature to be declaring your love superior.  

[goingslow]

I made the mistake of thinking you were a rational human being.  

I have no tolerance for ignorance...i dont even think its your fault.  Some of the statements you made make me think you're not able to see obvious flaws in your own logic.  I dont get how a person can say with a straight face one type of love is superior.  

Either way you've gotten too much attention and you obviously just think you're having a logical debate.  I get too annoyed with stupid arguments based on nothing but limited perception.  

have a good one

[Spirit_Gurl]

Originally posted by PeacefulWarrior:

I do think the kind of love a heterosexual couple feels is different and superior.  To be able to create new life which reflects the couple's love is something unparalleled by anything else.


oh, big supirior you.

How DARE you. I have 2 gay aunts, happilly married with a beautiful baby boy, 1 year old. For you to say that they don't LOVE eachother as much as 'normal' couples do,...........
How can you say that? do you have any right? so first you apologise, and then you come back with THIS!?
how can LOVE be any more or less different? How can you say that!? do you think that if it were possible for homosexual couples to have children the 'natural' way, they would say no? are you saying that the simple act of being physically able to conceive babies somehow makes the love more SUPIRIOR!?!?
what the hell would you know about this!? I admitt, I can't say much about my own expiriences because i haven't had a girlfriend yet. (but im still quite sure im gay. i just kinda know.) but NEITHER HAVE YOU.
oh, that's right. your not gay. so tell me again, how do you know that the love you feel is different han the love my aunts feel? is it more passionate? more fufilling? more wothwhile? more holy?
what the hell gives YOU THE RIGHT?
What makes YOU SUPIRIOR TO US!? ARE WE SO DIFFERENT? WHAT ON EARTH COULD POSSIBLY MAKE YOU THINK THAT LOVE IS DETERMINED BY THE WAY YOU HAVE BABIES TOGETHER!!!???

that being SAID, thank you, enderwiggin, for all the beautiful things you said. they made me cry. []


oh, and in reply to something else someone said, HUH? your honestly saying that being gay makes your body not worthy of recieving the holy spirit? what gives you the right to say that? are you the holy spirit? (as if i believed in the holy spirit anyway.) sorry if that was a little rude.

oh and people, I dont have any more or less right to talk about this than you guys do, because ive only known since.... December I think. Ill be more sure about it in high school when i can 'test the waters' or something like that...
anyway, thanks for all your support.
and peaceful warrior, if you somehow hoped not to offend me, then what the hell made you write THAT!? oh yes. I'm offended. (not being sarcastic.)

(sarcastic now.) You have every right to decide what I do or dont feel. after all, you've expirienced it all, and your huge intelligence is simply stupifying. I will now cease to be gay and live a happy normal life, have children, have real love, and god will look kindly on me. thank you so much for being that one more person I needed in my life to feel supirior over me. I needed that to make me see the truth.


as if.

[Spirit_Gurl]

sorry. i just had to say that. he's getting on my nerves.


thanks again people! []

[Anonymous]

"No, don't think a homosexual couple can experience love the way a heterosexual couple can. But I also don't think a heterosexual couple could experience the kind of love a homosexual couple does. "

Why is it you think this? Is it because of the differences between male and female? Let's assume for a moment that there are a few half-human/half-animal creatures walking around who are each in love with a human (for now, we'll just say the couples are of the opposite sex). Do you think the love there would be any different than regular male-female love? Why or why not?

"I do think the kind of love a heterosexual couple feels is different and superior. To be able to create new life which reflects the couple's love is something unparalleled by anything else. I have not yet experienced this, but I plan on it. Everyone with whom I have spoken with who has children has told me this. Unfortunately, many people who have children don't feel this way, or at least don't put the amount of love and time towards rearing their children and therefore don't reap the spiritual benefits of parenthood."

Ah, but I beg to differ. I've already decided that I want to adopt children if I decide to have any. There are many parents who obviously don't love their children and look where they end up. They need someone who can give them a home. What you refer to is the 30% of married couples who do not divorce. I'm not saying people can't marry, have kids AND adopt, I'm just saying that what this seems to imply is that they'd rather have their own children than adopt. I must bring up this one point: No matter who your parents are, you have free will and you are your own person. I'm a musician who has a family with no previous musical history. I don't think like my family and there are high tensions between my parents and myself. I have a father, a stepfather, and a mother. I disagree with each of their views for the most part. Think about this from a couple's point of view. Let's say they have a child who grows up to be a rebel. Then what? Is that a reflection of their love for each other?

I realize you have addressed this question somewhat, but I'm not clear as to what you meant by it. When you talk about the reflection of two peoples' love for each other, why should it have to be a child? Why not some sort of garden or collaboration of a major project, something that both have a passion for (writing a song or an orchestral piece, for instance)?

This must be a royal pain in the arse for you to be answering all these questions from all of us who beg to differ with your views, especially with such a vast opposition. I am not trying to be hostile, I just thought I would point that out. If I didn't ask questions though, then where would I be today? Not in college, not on this forum.

[Spirit_Gurl]

oy.

[Anonymous]

Booya, spiritgurl

[Spirit_Gurl]

huh?

[Anonymous]

Come to think of it, I've come across a sexuality far more obscure than homosexuality. The question I posted for Peaceful Warrior about the half-human/half-animal creatures is actually touching on it a bit. I find it no more wrong than anything else. Actually I look at this sexuality more from a racial viewpoint. The fact that the creatures are still part-human implies that they still have intelligence, which they would. It, to me, would be no different than an African dating a European. Throughout school, what I have learned in my history classes has taught me that eventually acceptance does come, however slowly. I don't see a reason for people to put up such barriers all the time. Society does this and they are knocked down anyway, after the ignorant and closed-minded people finally learn they are wrong to set up such barriers. Blacks and whites were once segregated in all aspects in America. Now they live side by side. Racism isn't completely gone, but it's going, and there's a lot less of it today than there was fifty years ago.

As far as homosexuality goes, it is certainly wrong to not allow them into the armed forces, and it is wrong for people to be opposed to them living their own lives and discriminate them in any way. Why would anyone be opposed to this stuff? I mean, when the Columbine incident happened, people blamed Maraly Manson and the Trench coat Mafia. So just because these kids listened to Maralyn Manson and wore trench coats they were going to kill people? I'm afraid not. Why couldn't people just tell the truth- they were just crazy anyway. People make such a big deal about "bad influence" when all along, it is the responsibility of parents to raise their kids right. You can't shelter your children from the world. Someday you'll be dead and they'll have to take care of themselves. The more experience and exposure to the world they have, the better. You can't stop them from choosing how to live. It is up to them. I was sheltered once. What did I do about it? I exposed myself to the world. I want to see the weirdest stuff in the world so I can come to understand it and learn how to deal with it. Our whole society is sheltered from the world. We are so uncultured. This is one of many things that contributes to the discrimination of homosexuals and anyone else who isn't "normal." You know what? I wear a trench coat. The other day my friends and I were walking in the mall and some guy came up to us and asked us if we were in the trench coat mafia. My friend and I said no and the other one said yes to be funny. I think the guy realized what an ignorant question it was. Would an incident like this stop me from wearing my trench coat? No way. Bring the opposition on. I'm not going to stop just because nobody else does it or thinks that people who wear trench coats are psychos. I'd be glad to avoid those people, and what better way than to wear a trench coat? See? Do something different and ignorant people will stay away from you.

[James S]

quote:posted by Enderwiggen
Booya, spiritgurl

In otherwords You Go Girl!!!

quote:posted by PeacefulWarrior
I do think the kind of love a heterosexual couple feels is different and superior. To be able to create new life which reflects the couple's love is something unparalleled by anything else.

Oh yeah. A quick bonk in the carpark, the guy does a runner and a teenage mum is left with a child she doesn't want. Yep! That's REAL love.

So I ask: Who here really believes that the ability to have sex and produce a child is the mark of REAL love? In fact who here thinks that REAL love is dependent on sex?

James.

[Anonymous]

Love cannot be categorized. Love is that one being who has created all and is all. Can you categorize that? Of course not.

Religious dogma is something to stay away from. There are too many interpretations of the bible and that is why dogma is dangerous and should be avoided. People take things out of context all the time and use them to justify their actions.

[goingslow]

James:  
To answer that here I dont think a baby is proof you love eachother.  People chose to have babies for whatever reason. Because they want a baby to love etc.  But some chose not to have babies because of many reasons too.  Examples being life isnt easy.. or a better one they realize there are plenty of children that need homes and they know they love eachother.  they dont need to have their "own" baby just to prove it.

And if you're with someone and you're not having sex that to me is actually a sign of deep love.  So many are in it for the sex or the relationships have a strong physical aspect.

[PeacefulWarrior]

I just want to say this: I never said because someone has a baby they have found true love...in fact, I don't think that getting married makes your love wonderful or real.  REAL love, however, in my OPINION happens between a man and a woman who dedicate themsleves to one another and to God.  Marriage is a sign of this love, but obviously, as someone pointed out, divorce rates are tragically high and kids are left hanging out to dry WAY too often...and that's just horrible.

The way life/existence works is that a male and a female can "mate" and produce offspring.  In the bonds of marriage this is called starting a family, or raising a family, and I don't care what you say, in my understanding (which is obviously not your understanding) this is the way we can truly come to realize our potential.  It's obviously not this straightforward and cut and dry, but I don't have the kind of time (at least this week) to share all of my ideas, nor do I think you really want to hear them...  

I know you hate more for saying this, and I know you think I am so simpleminded and cruel for sharing my ideas about this, which is sad, I am doing so.

Thank you for your ideas and I just hope "we can all get along" in the future despite our different takes on this.

What I find truly fascinating is the fact that if one of you were to start a pro-gay thread I might chime in but I definetly wouldn't get all worked up and angry like some of you obviously have been simply because I am not really worried about what others think in the sense that I don't feel strongly compelled to "come down" on others and "preach" my beliefs.  I simply like to share ideas and opposing view points.

Understanding others view points and allowing them to speak their mind can only help you come to understand and strengthen your own view point, right?

Until next time!

[MJ-12]

jk

[PeacefulWarrior]

Thank you for your level headed and open mind.  We all have the right to express how we feel without being attacked...I don't mean to offend people and I am not saying "This is the WAY IT IS...or anything like that".

Also, I am very sorry if it appeared that I started out with the idea to make things turn out the way they have.  I really did want to know what people think, I still do...I think this is a very important topic and I think EVERYONE who has shared their take on it has contributed something very important to it, including myself.

After I read what people were saying about this topic I found it appopriate to share what I think...I didn't want to start out the post by saying, "Hey, what do you think about this?" and then say "I think it's not good" because then I just would have seen the kind of responses that have been posted recently."  In fact I started this post simply to see what kind of constructive debates/ideas would be shared, but I have been a little saddened by some of the responses.

Timeless- thank you for your last post.  I understand what you are saying, I really do and I appreciate you putting yourself in my shoes, I really do...and yes, I have thought about what it would be like to be in a gay persons shoes and obviously it would be much different.



Like I said in the previous post (the one before this one), I think everyone has the right to an opinion...I don't see where people get off thinking "Hey you dumb, ingnorant fool...I don't agree with you and I think you are absolutely crazy and wrong..."  as you have seen, I have not responded this way ONCE in this post because I think that is a less effective way of sharing ideas and disagreeing.  

I know some people here disagree 100% with what I am saying and that's fine and no matter what I am not going to assualt their integrity or intelligence for it...that just makes me feel bad and I think that's wrong.  I really, geniunely try to respect people's right to choose one way or another what they believe.  

Life offers an infinite amount of subjective realities and despite the fact I believe in a firm, objective reality...a higher truth, I am not going to try to say that everything that is true for me is true for you simply because we are all on different levels.  Am I on a lower/higher level than you?  I am not going to venture to answer that because I cannot...does this make sense?

So, homosexuality...yes it's a touchy subject.  It comes down to this: are we going to tear eachother to pieces over it?  Well, I am not.  I am not going to go out and beat up a gay person because I disagree with what they are saying or believing.  In a way, though, people are doing just that to me...at least verbally.  Am I losing sleep over it?  Not at all.  But it does make me wonder how that can be justified.

I don't even know if what I am saying is making sense....ha ha!  I am sure a lot of you like when I say that because I know you don't think I make sense at all, at least regarding some issues...and that's fine!  That's my point!  It's my right and your right to say what we want, as long as we don't go around beating each other up about it or hurting one another.  
----------------------------------------------------------------------

ANYWAY---what I am pasting below will likely drive some of you crazy, but if you take the time to read it, it communicates most of my feelings regarding this topic in a way more clearly than I have the time to do so.
I would have provided a link, but I couldn't.  Please read this with an open mind and I promise I will continue to read your ideas and opinions with an open mind!  []

[][][][][][][][][][][]
This page will inevitably offend many people. After all, I am a heterosexual man telling gay men that being gay is bad. I recognize that the issue of sexuality cuts to the most sensitive parts of our nature. There is a lot of pain here, and I don't want to add to that. There is also a lot of bigotry among those who call themselves Christians. Let us get beyond that evil, and try to understand what homosexuality really is.

This page is based on theory and observation. If you want a web site from people who have actually been through it themselves, visit Evergreen International at

www.evergreen-intl.org/

Introduction: "I can't change the way I am"
I will always remember the first time someone told me this. The lady in question was a new member of the church. She felt that she had always been a particular way, and it was no use suggesting that she could change. I have heard the same sentiment many times since. But she was not referring to her sexuality. She was referring to another habit (I forget which) that some others disliked. I wonder if she had an "irritating habit" gene?

Attitudes are very hard to change, and it appears that sexual attitudes, being so deeply felt, are hardest of all. This page looks at whether or not someone should ever try to change their sexual attitude (or orientation – the word means a similar thing), particularly regarding homosexuality. Put bluntly, it asks:

Is anything wrong with being gay?
and
Is anyone born that way?
To answer the first question, we will need to look at sexual attraction in general.

Summary:
People are not "gay" or "straight." We are all more complicated than this, and have more freedom than we may like to admit. Some attitudes and habits are just more difficult to change than others. The main points of this page are as follows:

Heterosexuals are often guilty of cruel, ignorant, unkind and abusive language and behavior toward homosexuals. This is wrong, and heterosexuals need to repent. Sexual sin is very bad, but plain nastiness is also very destructive.
Homosexuality does lasting damage to family life, just as many other behaviors do.
The church strongly warns people away from homosexuality. Not because it is any worse than say, fornication, but because it appears to be extremely difficult to change once adopted.
This is not to say that homosexuals are inferior. Many homosexuals have good qualities that many heterosexuals lack. Sexuality does not determine a person's worth.
Scientists agree that, if there is any genetic element (which is still in doubt), it is far less significant than the choice to be homosexual.
The topic of the church and homosexuality is covered in two excellent articles at "All About Mormons." This page mainly deals with issues that are not directly addressed there. As with many pages on this site, this page reflects my own understanding, and is not an official statement of church policy unless stated.

Why Have a Page on Homosexuality?
Isn't this a web site about prophecy and science? Then why cover homosexuality? Well, there are three reasons:

Misunderstandings around this issue keep many people away from the gospel. That is unnecessary, and saddens me. This site was designed to bring all people to Christ.
I have read some very good materials on the topic, but none of them seem to do it justice. As one writer puts it (an LDS man with a gay son who died of AIDS): "conventional explanations don't adequately account for what is really happening to people."
Many people have not studied the topic, but reject the church because they see it as backward and small minded
Some people who use this web site search for this topic
My Qualifications:
What are my qualifications for writing this? Well, it is true that I have known a few gay men (or men who felt they might be gay). I have a very close female friend (we were engaged) who many years ago "came out" that she was lesbian. I have also served and continue to serve in high ecclesiastical positions within the church, which has imparted in me a certain sensitivity to people and their varied challenges, as I meet with and counsel them. But my main qualification is that, as far as I can see, homosexuality is no different from any other identity issue, and homosexual desire is not fundamentally different from any other desire.

Beyond that, I too have always felt I was different. I have never enjoyed sports, and felt alienated from mainstream society. I can also see that the gay community has a lot to offer. So I find a lot of the accounts I read to be familiar. But I think we all have a lot more freedom of choice than we are prepared to admit.

NB When I use the term "gay" or "gay man" I also mean lesbians, unless the context suggests otherwise.

Sexuality Within Society:
From a religious point of view, heterosexual marriage and fidelity were given by God because he knows what is best for us.

From a scientific point of view, heterosexual marriage is an institution that developed in order for a complex society to live together in relative peace and freedom.

From both points of view, homosexuality is counter-productive. These few pages just look at the scientific viewpoint. (The religious viewpoint is much simpler: God simply states "Don't do it.")

Is There Anything Wrong With Homosexuality?
What is Good About Homosexuality?

Homosexuals are all different, just as heterosexuals are. But many homosexuals reject the more predatory and hypocritical aspects of mainstream culture. If you reject loud mouthed idiots and are more able to speak with members of the opposite sex as human beings, that is a good thing. But you don't have to be gay to be sensitive. In fact, all the good things associated with homosexuality can be had without being homosexual. Homosexuality on its own, has no real benefits. (See the question about happiness and the section on 'what is sexuality,' below.)

In general, the individual problems are relatively minor. Together, they are enough to be significant. They are still not as serious as some other behaviors, so why make such a fuss? Because once a person has chosen this behavior (or allowed themselves to drift into it), it becomes extremely difficult to change – the damage lasts a long time. So being a homosexual is rather like having a leg missing. It is not the worst thing that can happen, but it is very difficult to fix, and even if a person is born that way, fixing it is still the best solution.

This section does not look at the eternal ramifications of homosexuality (e.g. eternal progression is built on the model of the family), but only on its effect in this life.

What is Bad About Homosexuality?

"Nothing – I know lots of good gay men and lesbians!"

This is usually the first response, so perhaps I should clarify some things:

Every individual is a mixture of many things.
If you are gay that does not mean you cannot be excellent in other ways.


The problems listed here are not as serious as some other things.
I am not claiming that gay men are psychopathic child abusers. The overall observable differences are probably not huge. I am just saying that they are real issues that will, if adopted in general, tend to have real (and negative) effects, even if those effects are minimized.


Gays and lesbians are a persecuted minority.
Any openly gay person is aware of being watched with (often groundless) suspicion. So a gay man is likely to try harder. For example, a gay couple who adopt children are more likely to be a model family. Some of the following points would only become significant if homosexuality became ordinary and commonplace.


Everyone says their own friends are good.
This is going to sound offensive, but we can never say "my friends are good and gay and therefore being gay is harmless" unless we know...
...what the same person would be like if they were not gay and had never had any gay feelings in their whole life, and
...that any difference can be attributed to their being sexual orientation. It is quite possible that a typical gay man is happier and more stable for reasons that are not directly related to sexual orientation – see below.
So what is wrong with being gay? I shall ignore the major theological issues for now...

In a Word, Childlessness:
By choosing homosexuality, you choose an affliction that many people (who never had the choice) spend millions of dollars trying to overcome. You cut yourself off from the most wonderful, fulfilling, and meaningful experience possible – having your own children. Some people are unable to have children for medical reasons, and they deserve every help and support. But to voluntarily cut yourself off from this experience is to forever limit the joy and growth you might have received. The fact that having children is important to homosexual persons is evident in the strong push for social acceptance of gay parents adopting children and lesbian couples desiring access to IVF technology. Why artifically cut yourself off from the way God designed for children to be created?

But there are other issues as well.


It Reduces Freedom of Action:
This is the smallest of the three problems.

I am not suggesting that homosexuality is a slippery slope to anarchy and the destruction of society (though this could be argued), but simply that social norms are a good thing. It is a fact (perhaps unavoidably) that when heterosexual men and women are together, they behave differently than when they are in a same sex environment. Why? Because sexual attraction is so powerful, and because roles (whether biologically or environmentally determined) mean that men and women are different. These differences are healthy.

There are times when same-sex groups are preferable. For example, girls perform academically better in same sex schools than in mixed schools. Or there are times when it is just fun to be yourself and talk to people who think the same. There are those who argue that male and female differences are significant in other ways too.

If homosexuality was common, it would be impossible to have a single sex group where there was absolutely no danger of sexual desire. This is not because homosexuals are weaker than heterosexuals. It would be just the same if a few heterosexual men were mixed into a group of heterosexual women. The women could not behave in quite the same way as before. Thus their freedom is limited. Even if the men always behaved impeccably, there is the possibility of misunderstanding, and a precedent is set for other men who may be more devious.

The usual answer to this argument is that people can learn to be self controlled. This is true. But there will always be some who have less self-control than others. Hence he problem can be reduced, but it cannot be eliminated.


It Avoids Variety:
Homosexuality is often portrayed as a form of variety. But there is generally less variety between two people of the same sex than there is between two people of the opposite sex. Homosexuality, in general, thus avoids the challenge of variety.

It could be argued that multiple partners (whether homosexual or heterosexual) provides that variety. But I would argue the opposite: multiple partners means avoiding variety. When one partner presents behavior that we cannot cope with, we just move on.

Living a whole life with someone who is fundamentally different is healthy. It forces us to become more understanding. Men and women in particular tend to have complementary strengths, and learning to live together in love is one of the great growing experiences of life.

You might respond, if heterosexuals are so understanding, why are so many so prejudiced?


Partly due to the sin of serial monogamy. As noted above, many people do not face up to difficulties, but just move on to another partner.
Partly because we often do not face up to our problems but just learn to live with being unhappy. Hence the popular idea that being single is fun, but being married is miserable. We choose to make them so by not facing up to challenges.


The wisest and most balanced, unselfish and nicest people I know are those are elderly married couples who have learned how to be in love their whole life.


It Weakens Family Bonds:

A gay couple cannot have their own children. They can (in theory) adopt, but the biological parent will be someone else. From what I know of adoption, the adopted child usually feels a link with their birth parent, just as a birth parent feels a bond with their child. Hence the gay couple family bond is weaker, being divided.

If we accept the conclusions of evolutionary theory, and these particular conclusions are backed up by numerous studies, we should not expect an adopted family to be as strong as a natural family. This is of course the average – many natural families are very weak, and many gay families will be very strong. But overall, there is a difference, and in a country of several million people, this translates into a few more unhappy and dysfunctional people.

This is not to say that adopted parents are worse parents. At present people adopt because they have no choice. Hence many probably try harder, and this can easily make up for any increased biological risk. This is specially true in current gay families. Because of the adverse publicity and the small numbers involved, I would expect that each gay couple who adopts children would try extra hard to be perfect parents. But as more and more gay couples adopt children, the pressure to be exemplary disappears. Once gay couples are just ordinary couples, the effects of weakened bonds will become more apparent.

One solution is to not have children. But apart from reducing freedom of choice, this avoids all the benefits of having children. As with marrying someone who is different, learning to live with and love children has the effect of improving a person's understanding and unselfishness. (Which is not to say that this is automatic – we choose to bring up children well or badly, just as we choose everything else.)


It Creates Confusion, Which Creates Misery:
Because sexuality is so personal and so complex, it seems to have the unique ability to confuse and create misery.

Many people who "come out" as gay report initial confusion over their sexual nature. This generally makes them unhappy. I suggest that the confusion is not because they are "trying to be something they are not" but because they do not know what they are. Something has made them suddenly see homosexuality as an option (it could be a number of things) and now hey are confused.

Or consider the woman who has been raped. She knows it is not her fault, so why not get on with life and not worry about it? There is no logical reason to get upset, but people do get very, very upset. The worry seems to be "Did I encourage it somehow? Will I feel as happy about my body?" etc. It seems that any hint of doubt over your sexual nature creates confusion.

Or the example of the child who is sexually abused. Logically once they realize it is not their fault, they should be able to forget it. But of course they cannot. The feelings are apparently similar to being raped, but without the experience of an adult to guide them.

Sexual confusion is a damaging thing. It is a simple fact in any sphere of information that more information leads to more confusion. No matter how clearly we explain the options, more options will lead to more confusion. There is no compelling reason for more options (see the comments below about happiness), so why add to the pain?

There is also the fact that, once boundaries are blurred, it is easier to confuse ourselves, to miss he obvious, and to confuse others. Pedophiles, for example, benefit greatly from the boundaries of right and wrong being blurred, even though gay men would be the first to say that pedophilia is wrong (even if there is a pedophilia gene).

When the potential for pain is so great, and there is no compelling need to accept alternative sexual orientations, we should be very careful before adding to the potential for confusion.


The Genetic Argument Favors Adultery – and Worse:
As one writer put it, "The rationalizations presented for homosexual behavior... [such as 'it is not my choice'] are suspiciously identical to the rationalizations I have heard presented by child molesters and confirmed adulterers in the context of my work as an attorney." (Sunstone, Feb '89 p.4)

The usual response is to show the differences between homosexual behavior (consenting adults) and child molesting or adultery (which creates victims). But that response misses the point. We all accept that there are worse things in life than homosexuality. The point is that if we accept the argument for one, how can we reject the same argument when used for the other? For example, there is a very strong case for a genetic basis for adultery (e.g,. men are biologically programmed to spread their seed as far as possible). If we even begin to accept the argument for homosexuality, we will have to say that adultery is acceptable.
"But I am happier being gay than being straight!"
Hopefully, people who "come out" as being gay are happier than before – it would be sad to think that someone became gay and then became more miserable at the same time. But everything that makes a gay man happier being gay than straight can be traced to something other than being gay:

Acceptance from others.
Escaping an abusive environment.
Feeling vindicated in your beliefs.
No longer struggling.
Finding that you are different, special.
Release of tension, and perhaps more sexual opportunities.
Etc.
All of these things can be achieved in other ways, without deciding "I am gay."

And of course it does not help your happiness if you are struggling with self-control, and everyone says "you cannot control it! It is unhealthy to try! You were born that way!" That just creates internal torment.

"Where is the evidence for all this damage?"
I do not claim that these effects are dramatic – life is too complicated for that – but they are real. A person's sexuality is only a part of their life, and the fundamental differences between homosexuality and heterosexuality are easily swamped by other unrelated considerations. That is why I have concentrated on the theory rather than try to produce masses of statistics.

There will be many good gay men and many bad heterosexual men. But the evidence for the above points (as general principles) is clear. It is difficult to see how homosexuality could avoid contributing to these problems.

No doubt some readers will want to help me with this. (Chris stands back as his hotmail account is flooded with angry messages).

What is Sexuality, Anyway?
Before we can understand homosexuality or heterosexuality, we need to understand sexuality in general.

Biology is Not Specific – What You Think Makes All the Difference:
If you have experienced sexual desire, you will know that it is not a case of 'yes' or 'no.' It depends on how someone looks, how they behave, their age, what they say, their shape, height weight, how they dress... if your genes are able to pre-program all of these things, they are very clever indeed.

The genetic element of sexual attraction seems to be very malleable. Why is it that what was sexually attractive hundreds of years ago (e.g. white skin, lots of fat) or even last century (e.g. flat chested women in the 1920s) is generally considered less sexually attractive now? Do genes follow fashions? And what if you fell in love with a woman (or man) only to find that they were actually a man (or a woman) in disguise, as in some stories? It seems that you fall in how you think a person is, and not how they actually are.

"Homosexual activity may be observed in nearly every culture but the way in which it manifests itself varies widely. In some societies, it is an acceptable form of behavior for youth, who then are expected to 'graduate' to heterosexual activity. In medieval Japan many Samurai had male lovers, often in addition to wives, to whom lifelong devotion was the norm. In our culture, however, there is a much more rigid bifurcation between heterosexual and homosexual: gay people are consigned, as it were, to a separate ontological status as human beings, sometimes even to a separate existence. The peculiarities of a given culture doubtlessly color the self perceptions of its homosexuals, and a cross-culture sampling of these perceptions might yield somewhat different results." (Sunstone Review, April 83 p.40)

Biological Drives Are Routinely Re-directed:
Let us start with the assumption that there is a biological basis of sorts. What does it "make" us do or feel?

People seem able to be satisfied by all kinds of sexual experience.

Some people remain celibate because they are so obsessed with their career – they are "married to their work." Is there a gene for this?
We hear of fetishists – people who are 'tuned on' by shoes, leather, or whatever. Is there a gene for loving shoes, or leather? I doubt it.
Some people engage in sadomasochism. Is there a gene for this?
Some people grow to have sexual desires for children. Is there a gene for pedophilia?
If there are genes for these things, who is to say there are not genes for all kinds of other variations in taste? Does it follow that all should be treated equally?
History shows that human societies express sexuality in different ways. In some ancient societies it was normal behavior for men to have homosexual experiences when young, then become heterosexual later on. Is that because the genes suddenly changed? In some societies, homosexuality was the norm (the island of Lesbos was the classic example, hence the name Lesbian). Has normal genetic makeup changed so much since then?

Today, we often hear of people who saw themselves as heterosexual for many years, then decide that they are in fact homosexual. It works the other way too. (Though not as often, given that there are far more heterosexuals than homosexuals.) Some of the people who were once gay but have now become straight form groups (such as "The Evergreen Foundation" or "Exodus") and offer counseling and help to others who feel they may want to change. This fact seems to really annoy the homosexual lobby, though they don't mind if it is the other way around.

So I see no reason to suppose that sexual orientation is not subject to free choice. The only unique feature seems to be that changing orientation seems to be extraordinarily difficult or traumatic. This is to be expected, as it involves so many issues that are vitally important to the individual.

Biology is Only One Small Part:
Sexuality is "the quality or state of being sexual: a) the condition of having sex; b) sexual activity; c) expression of sexual receptivity or interest esp. when excessive." (Webster's Dictionary) Thus, sexuality is a general term for anything covering numerous feelings, behaviors, and attitudes:

feelings of identity in terms of biological gender, self-worth and purpose
beliefs regarding personal identity, biological facts
desires to explore and grow, and for physical stimulation
external physical characteristics, others' opinions
beliefs regarding what is normal, healthy, moral or right
peer group standards of desirability
purpose and goals regarding family and relationships
attitudes to friendship, lust, duty, etc.
desire to fit in, be accepted, feel important, wanted, needed, liked
desire to be different
etc., etc.
It may be helpful to divide all these feelings and beliefs into those we are born with and those we learn. Here I have erred on the side of biology – I am assuming that many things are

Nature
(what we are born with) Nurture
(what we learn)
the need to be loved
the need to feel significant as an individual
the ability to enjoy physical stimulation of many kinds
the appreciation of beauty (a sunny day, a healthy body, etc.)
the desire to learn and experiment
physical appearance
the need to procreate
etc.
some things are forbidden by society (and thus become desirable)
other people expect certain things
goals and ambitions
what gives power
what gains approval
who cares
etc., etc.


Many of these needs and attributes can be satisfied through physically intimate contact with, or intellectual identification with, another human being at an intimate level. We call that sexuality. But it is just an umbrella term for something more complex.

Any complicated experience, if we dwell on it enough or practice it enough, will eventually becomes a feeling, or a habit. That is, we do not think it through each time. Some behaviors start so young, and have so many influences, that it is extremely difficult (if not impossible) to identify where they came from.

In truth, of course, all feelings are learned. We learn to interpret feelings in just the same way that we learn to interpret any other stimuli. New born babies, for example, take a while before they can make sense of the messages they get from their eyes.

Breaking Sexual Orientation Into Manageable Pieces
Changing from liking women to liking men (for example) would be a huge step for anyone. But is such a step necessary?

Breaking it Down Into its Component Parts:

Is it wrong to have good friends of a particular sex? Of course not. (It may not be sensible to spend time alone with someone if you have a problem with temptation, but that is a relatively small price to pay.)
Is it wrong to find someone of a particular sex physically beautiful? No – after all, I am very definitely heterosexual, but I can admire a male athlete as well as anyone. A man does not have to be gay to find Michelangelo's "David" beautiful. At the most, this just requires a subtle shift from "sexually beautiful" to just "beautiful."
Is it wrong to behave in a masculine or feminine way? That is a pretty meaningless question, as no behavior is uniquely masculine or feminine. We all need to be firm yet sensitive at all times, and adjust the balance according to need. No fundamental problems here.
What about the sexual act itself? Stripped of all the other layers, it is purely physical. Forgive me being crude, but your nerve endings do not know if your partner is male or female.
So, what is the problem? Just that "I do not love people of that sex." This can be overcome. We love what we know and care for. If we spend time getting to know someone, and see things from their point of view, we grow to love them. If that person is already a good friend, and someone you like being with, it is so much easier.
But perhaps it does not feel right? Then we need to identify where we get our ideas of right and wrong. Perhaps we think something is ethically wrong? Perhaps our friends would not approve? Perhaps we have always done things a certain way? Whatever the problem is, we can address it and overcome it.
And so we can go on. Divide and conquer – whatever is the problem, it can be addressed in some way.

What is it you love about the people you do love (male, female, or whatever)? Let's say you are a man, and you find men more attractive than women. Why? List the reasons. Perhaps you like dominant people? There are dominant women. Perhaps you like muscular people? There are muscular women. Perhaps you like people with beards? Come on, now we are being silly. Whatever a man can provide, a woman can provide the same. So we come down to the last line of defense, which is "I don't know – I just do!"

Let us have a look at that concept. That is the key. It is easy to identify the issues, but eventually we have to face up to the decision – do we want to?

The Key:
This is the point where I make my stand. If I am being offensive to gays and lesbians, I suppose that this is the big issue, the crux, the key to the whole matter. I believe that "I don't know" is not acceptable as an excuse. We cannot afford to allow our lives to be tossed about by mysterious circumstances. We are not slaves to mysterious forces. We can learn what those forces are, or we can ignore them.

There is already a perfectly simple explanation for sexual preference – it is largely motivated by, and wholly controlled by, learned behavior and attitudes. Any genetic element is routinely controlled by these attitudes, whether conscious or not. Unless something dramatic is discovered by science (which seems highly unlikely), these are facts we need to accept if we want to live in the real world.

It's All About the Fall of Adam:
It's the same old story: consciousness, free will, choices, knowledge, independence – call it what you will. We can choose to be controlled by mysterious forces, or we can learn about those forces and take control ourselves. That was the whole point of the fall of Adam. Before the fall (as far as I can see), mankind existed for untold ages as a victim of circumstances, unable to understand or do anything about his life. After the fall, mankind began to take control of his life – and responsibility for it – for good or for ill.

"Man is not the creature of circumstance. Circumstances are the creature of man."

I once knew a man who was very interested in the church, but would not join, and would not get married either, because he once (many years ago) had a homosexual experience. He did not know if he perhaps would again, so his life was on hold. Instead of controlling his life, and deciding "I will not do this" or "I will do this" and living accordingly, he was letting his life control him.

This must sound very "holier than thou," coming from someone who does not have any particular homosexual desires (though I am sure I could develop them if I chose – as a male, I find a lot to admire in other males). But I do have experience of this principle at work in other areas of my life. We all do. It is a common problem. It is perhaps the universal problem in all walks of life. We all choose to let our lives control us in some ways, instead of taking charge.

I often read (in newspapers mainly) of people who have broken up a family because they just felt attracted to someone else, or people who do something bad and then try to blame someone else for effectively controlling them. I have had people tell me "I hope I don't do this or that thing again, but you can never know for sure." Well actually you can know for sure. If something is important enough, you make a decision and stick to it. And if you think you might be tempted to break that decision, you find ways to reduce or avoid those temptations. It is not easy to take control of your life – if I could manage it in every area myself, I would be perfect – but it is possible.

Giving up, on the basis of "I don't know why, I just do," is not an acceptable reason for destructive behavior.

How to Make it Easier:
I realise that, no matter how we "divide and conquer," some changes will still be very difficult. It seems to me that the simplest thing we can do is to stop listening to people who tell us we have no free will. We do have free will. Telling ourselves that we are weak tends to make us weak.

The Bottom Line
When we look closely at homosexuality, it looks just like any other feeling or behavior – influenced by genes, but subject to free will.

[goingslow]

Wow that person sounds a lot like you.  Right down to his obviously sincere concern that he doesn't offend any homosexuals.
[]
I think my favorite part of that was the gene thing. I mean its true there is no gene that makes a man want to have sex with children.  Therefore, its only logical homosexuality is a learned behavior.

I wonder why he didnt make the point "there is no gene which makes a man want to be with a woman".  Guess it wouldnt have made his point like the leather fetish thing.  

I dont know if im relieved or a little disturbed those ideas you were putting up weren't your own.  Either way thanks for the entertaining read.  Circular logic 101.  

[seekenergyaz]

Hello.

I mean no disrespect to anyone's beliefs, but what I am about to say problably will offend some who consider the key members and writers of certain organizations as people to be revered.  

I have to say that I am suspicious of these articles by groups like the one whose article is quoted at length above (FRC).  It looks to me like "statistical spin."

Certain male child molesters molest boys. Since they are male and the boys are male, they can then be considered "homosexual" entered into the statistics as a percentage of the homosexual population at large, as if they were a group homogenous with the rest of the homosexual population.  How much does this say about what they really have in common with the rest of the homosexual population?  No case has been made that the animus behind the one (male molesting of a male child) is the same as that which is behind the other (two male adults engaging in a consensual sex act).  Might not real qualitative differences exist here?  Defining the whole of a group can be very arbitrary.  From what I can see it is an oversimplification of a more complex issue for some purpose, problably religio-political.  

How many of these men who molested boys always engage in sex with women in their sexual relations with adults?  This in itself would constitute a major qualitative difference between such men and other "gay" men.  They would not seem to be "classic type" homosexuals.  Are the statistics taking this into account?  Of course, one could then take this as technical license to call these rotten fellows "bisexuals" and enter them into the statistics as a percentage of the bisexual population.  Again no case has been made that the animus behind what these guys do is the same as that which is behind what the others do.  Inevitably, it seems, the bisexual and homosexual populations are then simply mentioned together and the statistics so garnered passed on to the populace and to politicians, again for some purpose.

Now, before someone starts in with "How dare you accuse holy men of God with spinning statistics" let me say that I suspect that this is all a product of strong belief and possibly emotion driven statistical reasoning that resulted in the spin, rather than craven, intentional deception (not that some still won't be offended). Still, better and more honest to treat the issues separately, I think.

All of this said, I am convinced that both pro- and anti-homosexual groups have been guilty at one time or another of manipulating statistics.  I am not just picking on the anti- crowd in this matter.  Unfortunately, I believe that truly objective study of this subject is in short supply.

I did post subject matter some time back in the matter of homosexuality and negs.  That thread seems to have disappeared, perhaps through disuse.  I have come to no firm conclusions on that matter.

The idea that this is patently a "chosen affliction," even the statement doesn't make sense.  It's like saying "I'm tired of being blessed with good health, I think I'll get a wasting disease today, that sounds cool."  I just cannot buy that any but a very few already mentally ill individuals would think that way, and it doesn't jive with countless life accounts.  

If you look at it more closely, I believe you will find MANY homosexuals who were neither sexually abused nor became homosexually inclined only after they got "bored" with everything else.  Most problably had inklings of homosexuality before they had much or even any sexual experience at all, let alone had a chance to "try it all," or hobnob with the intelligentsia.  (One might better ask a man about his history than tell him.)  Whether that means that they were born that way I cannot say.  Evidence from childhood of these individuals does tend to suggest however, at the very least, that the tendency was present, for whatever reason, early in life.  Again I would say that among these I believe you will find many that were not sexually abused.

Pertinent to this forum, neg (spirit) abuse or influence, often subtle and pernicious, is sometimes, in one form or another, invoked to explain orientation.  If this is true in some cases, ways of ferreting this origin out in those cases, or eliminating it as a cause in others might be helpful.  

Other forms of abuse (as physical violence or verbal) would be found common, not just by parents, but by peers as well (perhaps even more so by peers).  This has led to theories involving sexuality and peer/parent relations (as by Dr. J. Nicolosi and others).  The problem with these, in my view, is that they become a chicken or egg issue: Which came first, the troubled peer/parent relations or the sexual tendency (or its precursor)?  I have not seen that this issue has been resolved.  

On a side note, another thing that I find interesting is that many "change therapists" will state that a percentage of homosexuals will not convert to the point where a heterosexual relationship is realistic and that "successful celibacy" is the thing to shoot for.  Perhaps these guys and the religio-political commentators who support them should get on the same page.  If they did, the commentators might be less inclined to rub that old "You will never have children, and you are so missing out" statement in their face every chance they get (and I have so often seen and heard this said).  This is hardly a helpful statement if they are going to be childless anyway.  To me there also seems to be a very strong vein of condescending attitude in a lot of the commentaries and articles that I've seen in various places.  Others to their credit take pains to avoid this.

Thank you.

[James S]

I had to laugh when I read seekenergyaz's comment about "statistical spin". I was reminded of something an old maths teacher of mine told me when we were studying statistics and probabilities:
"Statistics have proven undeniably that most people have more than the average number of legs."

Seekenergyaz's thoughts about statistics are the reason I tend to ignore such information. Like Bible interpretations they can be manipulated to reinforce just about any point you want to make.

I actually read through the lengthy excerpt in PW's last post. Two little problems I had with this that I believe will have tainted this guy's observations:

quote:The topic of the church and homosexuality is covered in two excellent articles at "All About Mormons." This page mainly deals with issues that are not directly addressed there. As with many pages on this site, this page reflects my own understanding, and is not an official statement of church policy unless stated.

This tells me that the writer's views will reflect the views of the LDS doctorine. We know that this doctorine, like most others, has a rigid bias against homosexuality.

quote:What are my qualifications for writing this? Well, it is true that I have known a few gay men (or men who felt they might be gay). I have a very close female friend (we were engaged) who many years ago "came out" that she was lesbian. I have also served and continue to serve in high ecclesiastical positions within the church, which has imparted in me a certain sensitivity to people and their varied challenges, as I meet with and counsel them.

Oh yeah, this guys a real expert. Knows all about it!

I no longer wish to make any further comments regarding what I think about homosexuality. I think I've already indicated my position clearly enough.

What I do believe is worth commenting on is the ammount of energy some people put into trying to prove something is wrong or bad. I really believe that this ends up having a negative impact on those people.

As an example - Recently I have looked at the merits of many different beliefs and spiritual ways, searching for my own path, and decided which ones are not for me based on what my intuition tells me. I have not made that decision by investigating what is wrong with a particular belief. I have absolutely no doubt that I could find a great deal of "factual" information as to why a particular belief is wrong, evil, perverted, whatever. I'm not interested! I don't want to become some bitter person being ever critical of the beliefs of others. I'd rather think that the beliefs I've dismissed are all good, just not for me.

Acceptance of homosexuality isn't Ten Commandments stuff. It isn't going to mean the end of the world as we know it. If it is not right for you, then so be it. There is no need to expend energy trying to prove to people why it should not be right for them also.

James.