Prop 8: A Fork in the Road For Modern Latter Day Saints I

[_Droopy]

Droopy

I have not read much on the nature vs. nurture for homosexuals. But I did listen to this recently:

http://mormonstories.org/?p=1158


Would you be willing to listen to this and give me your opinion? This BYU professor seems pretty certain that the evidence shows it is a nature not a nurture thing.

Well, this is pretty old and its been hashed out farily well over at the MADboards over the last several weeks, at least.

I'll just repeat what I've said on several threads there, and that is that Bradshaw has added nothing to the argument. All he's done is rehash the same traditional material (twin studies, identical twin studies, homosexual brain structure differences, lesbian finger length etc.) that's been around for 20 years, and none of this is anything approximating serious scientific evidence for a core, biological cause of homosexual orientation as a fully expressed "gay" identity and sexual preference.

[_MrStakhanovite]

While an idiosyncratic movement of its own with its own specific agenda and points to make, the homosexual marriage movement can also be seen as the relative culmination of a half century of sexual radicalism, beginning with the work of Alfred Kinsey and his associates and blossoming in the "sexual revolution" of the late 60, and early 70s, that has sought, in conjunction with other allied concerns, to overthrow the entire conceptual basis of normative sexual ethics and behavioral boundaries for a society of what many on the cultural Left would understand, with leading late 20th century leftist intellectuals such as Michel Foucault or Judith Butler, as a society of "self crafting" involving the liberation of the self from all, what are considered to be artificial and imposed cultural constraints upon sexual identity construction and expression.

CFR for your bibliography and all citations of Michael Foucault used to support this sentence.

[_Jason Bourne]

I'll just repeat what I've said on several threads there, and that is that Bradshaw has added nothing to the argument. All he's done is rehash the same traditional material (twin studies, identical twin studies, homosexual brain structure differences, lesbian finger length etc.) that's been around for 20 years, and none of this is anything approximating serious scientific evidence for a core, biological cause of homosexual orientation as a fully expressed "gay" identity and sexual preference.

Why? I mean the man is a scientist. Microbiology I believe. Did you listen to it? He concluded stating that there is still a lot out there to learn but one thing we do know, he says, is that homosexuality is something someone is born with. It is not a choice. I am really interested to know why I should believe your unsupported claim above rather than what this fellow says, and he seemed to provide at least some evidence.

He also discussed hormonal levels, the lack of one hormone (I forget what it is called) that triggers testosterone development in males. There was a lost of other stuff as well.

Have you ever had to counsel an LDS who thinks, claims, says they are homosexual? I cannot imagine anyone consciously choosing this path. I mean it means essential doom for an LDS person. It means a life as an faithful LDS person with no hope of an intimate relationship. It means viewing yourself as essentially broken and in need of a major repair in the eternities. Now I know we all need repair in one way or another but this seems to go deep and to the core of what someone is really.

Or the homosexual LDS person has another choice and that is to reject the Church that they seem to love. They face rejection by family, friends, their tribe.

I mean really, there are easier ways to sin as an LDS person if one wants too. Heterosexual sins are more readily forgiven. To be LDS and gay and to choose that? I don't thing so.

Of course there could be other factors. But the instances I am personally aware of, well the person came from a very stable active LDS home that from what could be seen, was a fairly decent home.

[_Droopy]

Why? I mean the man is a scientist.

This means nothing. This makes him an expert, neither on the "cause" of homosexuality, nor it various manifestations.

He concluded stating that there is still a lot out there to learn but one thing we do know, he says, is that homosexuality is something someone is born with. It is not a choice.

There is not a shred of empirical evidence backing up such a exaggerated claim. None.

I am really interested to know why I should believe your unsupported claim above rather than what this fellow says, and he seemed to provide at least some evidence.

Its not unsupported. Go to NARTH, probably the best clearinghouse of critical scholarly study of homosexuality and the homosexual movement, and read everything there under the "born that way" theory. There is a great deal of counter-evidence.

It is also not supported by the teachings of the gospel, which is paramount.

Have you ever had to counsel an LDS who thinks, claims, says they are homosexual?

Yes, my son.

I cannot imagine anyone consciously choosing this path.

I can. People have and continue to choose even crazier, more destructive life paths all the time. That's called the human condition.

I mean it means essential doom for an LDS person. It means a life as an faithful LDS person with no hope of an intimate relationship.

Why do you here deny the power of the Atonement?

It means viewing yourself as essentially broken and in need of a major repair in the eternities.

We are all "essentially broken" through the Fall, which, unless we remedy through the Atonement, we remain "enemies to God" forever.

Now I know we all need repair in one way or another but this seems to go deep and to the core of what someone is really.

No more than any addiction, preoccupation, obsession, or psychological fixation. Homosexuality is an accretion of mortality. The idea that it is a primary inherent characteristic is question begging; it is an assumption, not a known reality.

I mean really, there are easier ways to sin as an LDS person if one wants too. Heterosexual sins are more readily forgiven. To be LDS and gay and to choose that? I don't think so.

After my bitter and shattering divorce, some 30 years ago, I became an alcoholic, went to clubs, danced, partied, and chased woman. I choose to do that, but are you really claiming that I chose that lifestyle because it was easier than anther sinful lifestyle that I might have chosen, but was forgone because the bad consequences of the one were not as bad as those of the other? Do you have any idea where alcoholism led me?

I chose it because I wanted it at that time. I chose it because I wanted to live that way. People don't choose to break the commandments of God on a scale in which they consciously weigh the consequences of one sinful lifestyle against another as "bad" and "worse"; they choose certain lifestyles because they feel driven and motivated to choose them, for their own reasons, at that stage of their lives.

And so it is with homosexuality, in its various forms.

[_MrStakhanovite]

While an idiosyncratic movement of its own with its own specific agenda and points to make, the homosexual marriage movement can also be seen as the relative culmination of a half century of sexual radicalism, beginning with the work of Alfred Kinsey and his associates and blossoming in the "sexual revolution" of the late 60, and early 70s, that has sought, in conjunction with other allied concerns, to overthrow the entire conceptual basis of normative sexual ethics and behavioral boundaries for a society of what many on the cultural Left would understand, with leading late 20th century leftist intellectuals such as Michel Foucault or Judith Butler, as a society of "self crafting" involving the liberation of the self from all, what are considered to be artificial and imposed cultural constraints upon sexual identity construction and expression.

CFR for your bibliography and all citations of Michael Foucault used to support this sentence.

[_Jason Bourne]

Why? I mean the man is a scientist.

This means nothing. This makes him an expert, neither on the "cause" of homosexuality, nor it various manifestations.

Perhaps I should have been more expansive. He is a microbiologist, has done studies on this topic, has written about is, etc. Did you listen to the podcast? You can read more here:

http://www.ldsresources.information/profession ... shaw.shtml


I mean really Droopy, the man seems to know what he is talking about. Why should I believe you over him?

He concluded stating that there is still a lot out there to learn but one thing we do know, he says, is that homosexuality is something someone is born with. It is not a choice.

There is not a shred of empirical evidence backing up such a exaggerated claim. None.

Yes there is. For you to say there is not a shred really destroys your credibility entirely on this issue. I did not say it was conclusive at all but there certainly is a lot of evidence that points to homosexuality being biological.

I am really interested to know why I should believe your unsupported claim above rather than what this fellow says, and he seemed to provide at least some evidence.

Its not unsupported. Go to NARTH, probably the best clearinghouse of critical scholarly study of homosexuality and the homosexual movement, and read everything there under the "born that way" theory. There is a great deal of counter-evidence.

I will take a look.

It is also not supported by the teachings of the gospel, which is paramount.

This seems to really be the crux of your argument. And certainly you have a right to argue it in any civil way you wish too. But don't be surprised when those who do not accept your religious views don't buy it just because the LDS Church thinks God says so.

I cannot imagine anyone consciously choosing this path.

I can. People have and continue to choose even crazier, more destructive life paths all the time. That's called the human condition.

Well I can't.

I mean it means essential doom for an LDS person. It means a life as an faithful LDS person with no hope of an intimate relationship.

Why do you here deny the power of the Atonement?

Do I? How so? My point really was their choice it to either leave the LDS Church or live a life of celibacy as a member.

You seem to imply that someone who is homosexual can become heterosexual. I don't think even the Church believes this anymore.

It means viewing yourself as essentially broken and in need of a major repair in the eternities.

We are all "essentially broken" through the Fall, which, unless we remedy through the Atonement, we remain "enemies to God" forever.

Sure I understand the idea that we all sin and need redemption through Jesus Christ. The question really is whether or not homosexuals are broken as well whether religious teaching should be used to limit civil liberties.

Now I know we all need repair in one way or another but this seems to go deep and to the core of what someone is really.

No more than any addiction, preoccupation, obsession, or psychological fixation. Homosexuality is an accretion of mortality. The idea that it is a primary inherent characteristic is question begging; it is an assumption, not a known reality.

Some of what you state there may be biological as well. If so I believe God will be very merciful towards those with behaviors that are a result of such dispositions.

I mean really, there are easier ways to sin as an LDS person if one wants too. Heterosexual sins are more readily forgiven. To be LDS and gay and to choose that? I don't think so.

After my bitter and shattering divorce, some 30 years ago, I became an alcoholic, went to clubs, danced, partied, and chased woman. I choose to do that, but are you really claiming that I chose that lifestyle because it was easier than anther sinful lifestyle that I might have chosen, but was forgone because the bad consequences of the one were not as bad as those of the other? Do you have any idea where alcoholism led me?

I have no idea where alcoholism led you at all. Destructive behavior is never good. But yes I am saying if homosexuality is a choice is there are "easier" ways for LDS to sin. Even with the behavior your describe above I do not think that you as a LDS person would have ever experience the ostracism that a homosexual may from their "tribe."

And so it is with homosexuality, in its various forms.

Sorry I really don't think homosexuals choose to be so any more than you do to be heterosexual.