DiscussMormonism.com

I just don't understand gay people at all. This man says he was 24 when he converted to the church and then went on a mission. He knows or finds out that he's gay. Well what exactly does that mean? Does that mean he's not sexually attracted to women? How do these gay people keep populating the earth?

He then goes on to say he tries to conform and marries, has children, etc. How does a man who is not attracted to women make babies? Then I'm guessing, he's in his forties he decided to act on his homosexual tendencies. Why? You're peak sex drive is done. He'd obviously gone without in his 20s. That seems a lot more difficult than going without in your forties.

I totally agreed with Tal Bachman when he said, "It doesn't matter if it's the greatest thing ever invented. If it's not what it claims to be, it's not worth it."

Some people say my motives of eternity and blessings are impure motivations for good behavior. Well what's so much more moral about a charlatan's trick, fabricated miracles, and made up story books done with the purpose of making people behave better?

It seems like that is where religion is heading. I get the impression that they want you to say, "Yeah, even if the afterlife, God, etc aren't really true, the Church is still worth it for people to go, sacrifice their time, money, etc. Sorry. It's not. Is this their way of trying to save face with people who don't believe in an afterlife currently calling them on their bluff? Are we going to be a Church of "atheist for Jesus" at some point? We rarely even talk about death or the next life in Church anymore. It's even rarer that we talk about blessings for righteous living. No Jesus really isn't alive now, but he or his successors played some valuable and important tricks on the people to make them behave and this is why we worship him.

Joseph Smith seems to have understood this. Not everybody liked him, but those who did would do anything for him. Maybe you wouldn't have agreed with everything Joseph said in a General Conference, but one things for sure. It wouldn't have been boring, not like the ones we have today. The current leadership seems to become so lukewarm with "mainstreaming" effort that I see fewer and fewer people liking them much at all. Fundamentalist don't like them, and the people they're trying to please by mainstreaming aren't going to like them either.

Hi Ajax... I'm not exactly sure what you are after so let me just respond to a few points. :-)

I just don't understand gay people at all. This man says he was 24 when he converted to the church and then went on a mission. He knows or finds out that he's gay. Well what exactly does that mean? Does that mean he's not sexually attracted to women? How do these gay people keep populating the earth?

Gay people are people.... doing their best to manage life just like everyone else. Not really too complicated.

He then goes on to say he tries to conform and marries, has children, etc. How does a man who is not attracted to women make babies? Then I'm guessing, he's in his forties he decided to act on his homosexual tendencies. Why? You're peak sex drive is done. He'd obviously gone without in his 20s. That seems a lot more difficult than going without in your forties.

As I stated, just people doing their best to survive in the world. Trying to please God, and manage life!

I totally agreed with Tal Bachman when he said, "It doesn't matter if it's the greatest thing ever invented. If it's not what it claims to be, it's not worth it."

Yes... this was a profound line! :-)

Some people say my motives of eternity and blessings are impure motivations for good behavior. Well what's so much more moral about a charlatan's trick, fabricated miracles, and made up story books done with the purpose of making people behave better?

Those who live so they can get blessings in the next life, are in my opinion, not impure but the motive seems sort of in opposition to holiness which seems to be more about releasing the ego, finding goodness in doing the right thing just because it is a lovely thing to do.

It seems like that is where religion is heading. I get the impression that they want you to say, "Yeah, even if the afterlife, God, etc aren't really true, the Church is still worth it for people to go, sacrifice their time, money, etc. Sorry. It's not. Is this their way of trying to save face with people who don't believe in an afterlife currently calling them on their bluff? Are we going to be a Church of "atheist for Jesus" at some point? We rarely even talk about death or the next life in Church anymore. It's even rarer that we talk about blessings for righteous living. No Jesus really isn't alive now, but he or his successors played some valuable and important tricks on the people to make them behave and this is why we worship him.

I think what you are saying is that there is not much to church these days? If so, I agree. It seems to be all about what to wear, obey the leaders, pay your tithing, go to the temple. It has been quite a while since I heard anything about "doctrine" (or teachings unique to the LDS church). Not saying this is good or bad just my observation.

Joseph Smith seems to have understood this. Not everybody liked him, but those who did would do anything for him. Maybe you wouldn't have agreed with everything Joseph said in a General Conference, but one things for sure. It wouldn't have been boring, not like the ones we have today.

Yep, I agree with you here!

The current leadership seems to become so lukewarm with "mainstreaming" effort that I see fewer and fewer people liking them much at all. Fundamentalist don't like them, and the people they're trying to please by mainstreaming aren't going to like them either.

Yes, I think this conflict is in the minds of leaders ... how much do you mainstream and dilute before you have nothing unique? On the one hand, it seems there has to be a move toward a more accepted life perspective (no racism etc.), but as some suggest if some of the more unusual ideas are not kept there is nothing left specific to the LDS church.

It will be interesting to see how it unfolds in the future. My guess... they will choose mainstreaming and being accepted over pecularity.

~dancer~

Ajax, I don't know where you got that idea that by the time you're in your forties you've "peaked out" on sex and need it less.

Quite honestly, my sex drive has gotten stronger, richer and, ahem, deeper, with every decade. Same for DH. (He's 41 and I'm 51, by the way.) Just from observation among people I know from ages late teens to fifties (and I guess I know a few people in thier 60's too), I don't see a lot of variation in amount or volume of "drives" and desires.

While it may be the case that the physical side of male sexual stamina is more robust in your teens and twenties (thus the need some men have for viagra) that doesn't at all equate with desire or drive. That just has to do with how quickly and how long you can get it up. And that's only a part of sexual activity.

Also, while I'm here I should probably add that homosexuality is not all about sex. Its also about loving and forming emotional attachments with the same gender, just like heterosexuality is with the so-called "opposite" gender.

Many of my older gay male friends (50 +) grew up in a time when it was less possible to live openly and there was much much more social, cultural, and even medical pressure to conform. Thus many of them have ex-wives and children. That's not at all an uncommon scenario among that age group.

And its not hard to understand how a gay man could father a child, is it? Basic biology. You don't need to be physically attracted to someone to have sex with them. I would venture to guess that many men, het or homo, can sport wood without even being in the physical presence of another person. In fact, I know they can.

I guess my point is that I think these so called gay men really are attracted to women as well. At some point it seems that they just decide that they would like to have sex with men as well.

Sorry for the crudeness but this is the way I see it. If he's married and at least has an outlet and isn't all backed up, than I think he's a lot better off than a young Mormon man with absolutely no outlet. Even if you're not attracted to someone, sexual release can make you happier and healthier.

Sometimes your wife becomes less attractive to you than when you married as well. That doesn't mean I should be able to sleep with younger women because they're now more attractive to me. So why should he be allowed to sleep with men if he finds them more attractive?

No it's not all about sex. It's true that there are things that men talk about amongst themselves that women aren't capable of understanding and I'm sure vice versa. That's why I have male friends, but I'm not going to try to have sex with them. I had a male friend hit on me once. We're not friends anymore. The fact was that he was a screwed up sloppy drug addict and couldn't get laid so he thought he had a better chance with a man. It was sad to see him like that but his bad choices seemed to just drive all the good people out of his life.

My point being that gay or not, the Church is either true or it isn't. If you're gay but the Church is true, it's just a cross you have to bear and I don't think it's impossible. Heck I had to do it till I was 28. The most difficult times were over when marriage finally became a possibility. Secondly changing the policy on gays or any of that would be blatant evidence to me that the leaders weren't inspired in the first place.

Those who live so they can get blessings in the next life, are in my opinion, not impure but the motive seems sort of in opposition to holiness which seems to be more about releasing the ego, finding goodness in doing the right thing just because it is a lovely thing to do.

It's definitely in opposition to releasing the ego. To me that's one reason the gospel gives meaning to life. If you release the ego, then what is left? What value is a community without your ego?

Hi Ajax... :-)

I guess my point is that I think these so called gay men really are attracted to women as well. At some point it seems that they just decide that they would like to have sex with men as well.

Sounds like you haven't had many discussions with gay men. :-(

Sorry for the crudeness but this is the way I see it. If he's married and at least has an outlet and isn't all backed up, than I think he's a lot better off than a young Mormon man with absolutely no outlet. Even if you're not attracted to someone, sexual release can make you happier and healthier.

I think that would be like saying you would be better off as a man, married to a man then a young Mormon man with no outlet.... ya know?

Sometimes your wife becomes less attractive to you than when you married as well. That doesn't mean I should be able to sleep with younger women because they're now more attractive to me. So why should he be allowed to sleep with men if he finds them more attractive?

I think you completely misunderstand the reality for a gay man.

If you had to live in a homosexual union, would you be ok with that because everyone told you you had to? Or because someone told you God said you had to? It is not just about sex...

My point being that gay or not, the Church is either true or it isn't. If you're gay but the Church is true, it's just a cross you have to bear and I don't think it's impossible. Heck I had to do it till I was 28. The most difficult times were over when marriage finally became a possibility. Secondly changing the policy on gays or any of that would be blatant evidence to me that the leaders weren't inspired in the first place.

Oooohhh best be careful here. The church has changed their stance on all sorts of thing... I'm 99% sure the church will change their stance on this at some point in the future. (OK, it may be a couple centuries down the road but it will happen). The church seems to be a few generations behind the mainstream so once the rest of modern culture is OK with homosexuality, the church won't be far behind.

At one point the official church doctrine, canonized in the D&C was that monogamy was of God and polygamy was NOT. It has changed a couple of times. The church did a big time change in disallowing then allowing black men to have the priesthood. The church has and will change its teachings regarding women. The temple ceremonies which were taught as set in stone have had numerous changes. You name it and it has been changed.

I guess I just don't see what is the big deal about homosexuality.

Now, personally I do find it odd that someone who is gay, who believes the church is the one and only true church, directed by Jesus, will live a gay lifestyle. I don't get it. If you believe you are going to hell by living a particular lifestyle it seems to me one would hold to the teachings but I guess others do not see it this way.

~dancer~

ajax18 wrote:I guess my point is that I think these so called gay men really are attracted to women as well. At some point it seems that they just decide that they would like to have sex with men as well.

Hi, Ajax. These are some good, thought-provoking notions. However, I cannot help but feel that you are rather underinformed not only on what it means to be a gay man, but on human sexuality in general. Could it be, for example, that you are "really attracted to men as well"? If a man began touching you in a certain way, would you become aroused? The fact of the matter is that sexual response is often merely a reflex. For example, female rape victims can experience the physical manifestations of arousal. One's sexual preference is not a "choice." I doubt very much that you woke up one day and simply "decided" to be attracted to women. Sexuality is a lot more flexible and a lot less black-and-white than Church leaders would have us believe.

Sorry for the crudeness but this is the way I see it. If he's married and at least has an outlet and isn't all backed up, than I think he's a lot better off than a young Mormon man with absolutely no outlet. Even if you're not attracted to someone, sexual release can make you happier and healthier.

You are overlooking a couple of things. 1) Masturbation. 2) If "an outlet" is better off than being single, then why not a homosexual relationship? Your logic does not make any sense.

Sometimes your wife becomes less attractive to you than when you married as well. That doesn't mean I should be able to sleep with younger women because they're now more attractive to me. So why should he be allowed to sleep with men if he finds them more attractive?

No it's not all about sex. It's true that there are things that men talk about amongst themselves that women aren't capable of understanding and I'm sure vice versa. That's why I have male friends, but I'm not going to try to have sex with them. I had a male friend hit on me once. We're not friends anymore. The fact was that he was a screwed up sloppy drug addict and couldn't get laid so he thought he had a better chance with a man. It was sad to see him like that but his bad choices seemed to just drive all the good people out of his life.

My point being that gay or not, the Church is either true or it isn't. If you're gay but the Church is true, it's just a cross you have to bear and I don't think it's impossible. Heck I had to do it till I was 28. The most difficult times were over when marriage finally became a possibility. Secondly changing the policy on gays or any of that would be blatant evidence to me that the leaders weren't inspired in the first place.

Many TBMs said this about Blacks and the priesthood, too.

You are overlooking a couple of things. 1) Masturbation. 2) If "an outlet" is better off than being single, then why not a homosexual relationship? Your logic does not make any sense.

How are you dealing with the fact that masturbation is strictly verboten? I'm just saying that having no outlet is worse than not being able to do what you'd like to most. In my case that would be getting it on with every girl I could. In his case that would be engaging homosexual relationships. I still can't have everything I want sexually but I'm a lot better off now than I was before. The most difficult times are clearly in the past.

Many TBMs said this about Blacks and the priesthood, too.

Yeah I was thinking the exact same thing. The fact that I wasn't around for the blacks in the priesthood change might pose some interesting questions into how the church can evolve without people losing confidence in the leadership as led by God directly. The fact that I wasn't born and didn't hear the attitudes and what was said from the pulpit before helps make it much more palatable to me and many other younger people.

Sounds like you haven't had many discussions with gay men. :-(

Then why do they keep having sex with women and repopulating the earth with gay people? Is engaging in heterosexual sex just as repulsive to these people as I find homosexual sex?

I think you completely misunderstand the reality for a gay man.

No disagreement here if you mean I can't understand how nature somehow played a trick on these people or that I don't know because I obviously never felt that way about another man. If you mean that I don't understand because my scope of morality should be broad enough to say it's fine for a person to choose someone of the same gender or opposite to pair up with than no, I think we just disagree. I think children need a mother and a father, not two moms or two dads. Number one because I think it's best when the children biologically related to both mother and father. If you're going to say that gay men abhor heterosexual sex just as I loathe homosexual sex and have no choice in the matter but were just made that way, than we must take up the issue of why there are so many bisexuals and why they seem to more often than not go both ways. I'll tell you why right now. It's because for most of them, it's just a choice and the product of a frenzied mind.

Oooohhh best be careful here. The church has changed their stance on all sorts of thing... I'm 99% sure the church will change their stance on this at some point in the future. (OK, it may be a couple centuries down the road but it will happen). The church seems to be a few generations behind the mainstream so once the rest of modern culture is OK with homosexuality, the church won't be far behind.

At one point the official church doctrine, canonized in the D&C was that monogamy was of God and polygamy was NOT. It has changed a couple of times. The church did a big time change in disallowing then allowing black men to have the priesthood. The church has and will change its teachings regarding women. The temple ceremonies which were taught as set in stone have had numerous changes. You name it and it has been changed.

And to me those are some of the strongest arguments against it's truthfullness. As I was taught polygamy I don't believe it had changed. Polygamy was the higher law and we were forced to live a lower law, just as no divorce was the higher law but people were sealed and had sealings canceled several times over. Now for those active Mormons who contend that polygamy was just a sinful action by fallible leaders and not really a true principle I don't see where they have a leg to stand on in claiming the church is still true. I don't see how blacks and the priesthood changed the eternal picture because whatever oppurtunities denied to blacks in this life, they would have those in the next life. Now if you were to tell me that the Church believed that blacks would never have the priesthood and now they do, that would clearly mean the Church had flipflopped.

Homosexuality has always been taught as wrong. I've never heard any doctrine of Old Testament prophets being gay or that God practices homosexuality. If the Church were to flip flop on this issue I think it would be much more staunch proof that it is not lead by God than any of the other flip flops you mentioned.

An excellent scripture on homosexuality is found in Romans 1:21-32