Approaching SSA: Questions of Doctrine and Charity

[_Droopy]

The truth is Loran, the Church's position has evolved on SSA over the years as new scientific information has become available. I see no reason why this wouldn't be the case 5 years from now as more scientific evidence on SSA becomes available.

Then I'm sure you can adduce an argument with supporting evidence showing this to be the case.

I know of no scientific evidence available now than was available decades ago giving rise to any clear, conclusive statements regarding the origins of SSA.

[_Droopy]

Ether, is explicit that weakness is given to man by God, to help man turn to God. Thus, for some, it is quite relevant that any homosexual desire they may have is their weakness given of God.

How are you interpreting the term "given" here?

What Elders Oaks, Elder Packer, and the Book of Ether are saying is that even if something is inborn, that does not mean you can not overcome it. I think you suggest the same. So the verse in Ether is entirely relevant.

The Book of Mormon mentions nothing regarding this issue in any clear sense, and Oaks speaks only of predispositions and propensities, not fully developed and formulated properties, let alone complex psychological dynamics of the kind driving SSA and its attendant subculture.

[_Droopy]

Droopy,

Oaks essentially says that all sexual feelings can be overcome outside of marriage. He further states that sex is only for those married. If a man is married to a man, legally, in Canada, there seems to be an implication that the church must recognize that those two men have a divine right to engage in sexual activity.

Perhaps you can elaborate on this interesting loophole.

H.

I have no need to, as the massive logical gaff here, given core LDS doctrine, is too egregious to warrant serous refutation.

[_Droopy]

I think that more sex could bring about world peace.

This is one of Hugh Hefner's stranger beliefs.

You should still, I think, be careful of the company you keep.

[_Droopy]

I think that more sex could bring about world peace.

I think you are confusing sex with love.

I think you're right.

A very common theme among the contemporary (and historic, for that matter) Left in its above the neck preoccupation with everything below the waist.

[_Droopy]

Nope, I'm not confusing the two. I think both would help.
I know a lot of people who are a lot easier to get along with after they've gotten laid..

I see, intellectual seriousness is just beyond you. But, as this is the Celestial room, I'd like to at least have intellectually substantive discussions on the topic at hand. Take the throwaway pop cultural verbiage to a lower room.

[_Droopy]

Sex is a normal part of human development. Any adult who purposefully abstains from consensual, desired sex is engaging in an unhealthy and unnatural practice.

Are you on the editorial staff at Hustler Buff? I didn't know you had literary ambitions.

[_JohnStuartMill]

On being gay, a percentage of the Animal Kingdom exhibits gay behavior just as a percentage of mankind does. Are you sure it is 'abberant behavior' or maybe just a variation that should be acceptable as normal?

There is no such thing as "Gay" behavior in the animal kingdom. One male dog simulating sexual intercourse on another male dog is not homosexual behavior; its masturbation driven by the intense chemical stimulation of a nearby female dog presently in heat. A human leg will do just as well.

This is really silly. You could similarly characterize heterosexual behavior in dogs as mere "masturbation."

Unluckily for your position, dogs humping is not the sum and substance of the evidence for homosexuality in animals. Our closest relatives, the bonobo, are fully bisexual -- it's actually rare to see an individual that doesn't exhibit at least some same-sex behavior. Moreover, sexuality is an important component of bonobo socialization -- contrary to your assertion, same-sex behavior in this animal is not just the reduction of an indiscriminate biological drive. Chimps, orangutans, and gorillas have all been observed in same-sex acts, though with lesser frequency than bonobos. A substantial percentage of male sheep will only copulate with other male sheep. When you say there's no such thing as "gay" behavior in animals, you're contradicting the consensus of ethologists -- you're putting yourself above the true experts.

The evidence that homosexuality in humans is not a choice is overwhelming. The brains of male homosexuals are measurably different than heterosexuals (specifically, the hypothalamus is shaped differently), and this difference is consistent throughout development. Biologists have stimulated homosexuality in rats by giving them treatment that changes the hypothalamus. How could any of this be true if homosexuality were a choice?

Using animals as proxies for human conduct is a very slippery slope in the first instance, but the Gay rights lobby propaganda from which you are drawing your claims must slip into the anthropomorphization of animal life to make its point, and attempt what would appear to be impossible: the psychological analysis of animal life in an attempt to determine what an animal's motives and self perception are when engaging in homosexual or, perhaps more properly, homosexual-like activity.

No. Gay rights activists wouldn't have had a reason to bring up animal behavior if social conservatives weren't constantly bashing them as "unnatural." Homosexuality in animals disposes of that argument rather quickly (not that it was a strong argument to begin with -- see [urlhttp://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mill-john-stuart/1874/nature.htm]this essay[/url] to understand why all such arguments are fallacious).

Calling a penguin that pairs off with another male penguin for a time in which breeding does not occure "Gay" is a gross misuse of language. "Gay," as pointed out many times before, is not just "homosexual behavior," but a plethora of social, cultural, and psychological attributes, including a sense of core self identity.

I'll have my eyes open for a penguin gay bar next time I'm up near Baffin Bay, but I'm doubtful of ever seeing one. Nor do I consider lemmings as "suicidal" when they stampede over cliffs and kill themselves so as to prevent overbreeding. They are not suicidal; they are animals responding to inherent genetically based instinctual drives. Human beings "commit suicide." Animals do not. Human beings come to see themselves as "Gay." Animals sometimes engage in homosexual-like behavior as a matter of instinctual programming and in response to intense stimulation in their environment. This is not "homosexuality" in the human sense, however. At least, there is no evidence that it is.

Animals also engage in heterosexual behavior as a matter of instinctual programming and in response to their environment. By your logic, this means that animals are not heterosexual, and heterosexuality is therefore unnatural.

Fully developed homosexual desires and its various ritualized behaviors and mannerisms (among certain subgroups of, particularly, homosexual males) are neither instinctual nor innate, save in the sense of predispositions, biases, and sensitivities, and much of it is culturally learned and practiced in the adoption of a certain identity or role within certain kinds of homosexual relationships.

Sexuality indeed has a large cultural component, but the best science available points to it being unchangeable. A recent study shows that the brains of women and homosexual men process an odor compound found in male sweat differently than the brains of homosexual men, and that this is linked to the hypothalamus differences which were already determined to be innate (a similar phenomenon was discovered with respect to lesbian women). You are wrong as a matter of science.

[_just me]

Nope, I'm not confusing the two. I think both would help.
I know a lot of people who are a lot easier to get along with after they've gotten laid..

I see, intellectual seriousness is just beyond you. But, as this is the Celestial room, I'd like to at least have intellectually substantive discussions on the topic at hand. Take the throwaway pop cultural verbiage to a lower room.

Oh, I am very serious.

Many of the men and women I know (who, by the way, are in hetero monogamous relationships, not that that matters) claim to feel more at ease, happier, more affectionate and are easier to get along with when they are having frequent sex with their partner. Frequent sex with your partner helps strengthen the relationship. It releases certain chemicals responsible for pair bonding. There are lots of studies that show having sex 3x a week or more makes a person healthier than those who have sex less than 3x a week. Actually, I think that for optimal prostate health men are supposed to release 6x a week (yikes).

I have never met a man who denies feeling more content, happy and easier to get along with when their sexual needs are being met.

[_Buffalo]

Sex is a normal part of human development. Any adult who purposefully abstains from consensual, desired sex is engaging in an unhealthy and unnatural practice.

Are you on the editorial staff at Hustler Buff? I didn't know you had literary ambitions.

Not at all. I'm just striving toward normalcy after years of holding aberrant Mormon beliefs.