LDS resources and study on sexual orientation causes in the brain

[dianaiad]

No, IN THE OPINION OF KIDS WHO HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN THROUGH IT.



The resources exist specifically because people in the LDS community recognize how painful these situations are for gay kids.



And I'm sure the religious people who once taught that interracial marriage is sinful and "against God's plan" felt similarly.

That said, the reduction of a person's sexuality to mere "wants" and "preferences," as though it's not integral to their identity and is of no more import than them "preferring" chocolate over vanilla, is absurd and dehumanizing.



My opinion aligns with the actual experiences of the human beings who live through the repercussions what we're talking about. I've now explained repeatedly what I meant by calling your church's teaching sad. I can only re-explain it so many times. It's a teaching that causes pain, and it's a teaching that's unnecessary.



Gay children often don't have the choice to simply leave their families and the entire support network that has been built around them their whole lives. How are you not comprehending this?

How are you not even ATTEMPTING to comprehend my POV?

Because you are so wedded to your own opinion that you think everybody else must bow to it?

EVERYBODY has a choice. Everybody does. Gay children have those choices, too. They can leave, when they are old enough. Plenty do. Do NOT tell me that they have no choice, because that is simply not true.

Many people make choices where the consequences are extremely painful for them and their families. They make them anyway. That's called courage.

Nobody would coerce another; nobody would threaten another if that other were not able to make a different choice. The guy who ties a man's family to chairs and tells him that if he doesn't rob the bank he works at, his family will die...has a choice. There would be no need to threaten the man if he did NOT have that choice. The 'laws of God' all say 'do this or that will happen.' If we didn't have the choice to disobey, there would be no need to list consequences of disobedience.

There would be no need to pass ordinances defining the amount of fines imposed upon people who run red lights...if nobody could run red lights.

And there would be no need to threaten being disowned or the loss of support systems if the one being threatened had no choice as to whether to leave it.

BTW, it is very much against church teachings for families to do that sort of thing.

On the other hand, if...say...you belong to a choir that has grooming and dress standards, and requirements to attend rehearsals, and in return you get to sing with a group of REALLY good singers, get to associate with them on weekend barbecues and get help when you move from your fellow choir members......

Is it fair for you to demand all those perks if you refuse to attend rehearsals, or break the rules against beards, or wear a bright puce shirt when everybody else is supposed to be wearing blue choir robes?

You make your choices, and you take the consequences of those choices. Simple. Not EASY, certainly, but it's simple.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Their own choices.

That's what it comes down to for everybody. Sometimes those choices are happy ones. Sometimes...just necessary. Sometimes, sad. One chooses what one thinks is the best option for him/herself and others, and what is more important to him or her.

I think that all of us have had to make really difficult choices. Some more obvious than others, and some which take us in very different directions than the one we planned.

But this is a decision that one should make BEFORE one finds 'someone to love,' not after. If one is looking for someone, the decision has already been made, hasn't it?

I think you overlooked my questions.

Rather than choices, it's about how christian theology affects children. Since we are born with a sexual orientation regardless the physiological, biological, and psychological (PBP) nature of it, we can't choose anything right or wrong until we are older. If a child is conditioned that his PBP response needs to be geared one way (kind of like shaping clay by controlling the sides) there would be conflict if his PBP doesn't respond to what the christian parent is trying to "shape" him to be.

Children grow up with this mindset and stigma and are tortured inside. It's counterproductive to teaching about god and the "correct" PBP because it tries to change the attraction as if it has some connection with one's choices. As if being gay automatically means you will sin in the future so we must "change you now" type of thing.

That is the problem we are talking about here not one's choice who he or she wants to have sex with. Children can't make that choice and when they get to puberty the parents "shape them more" at a horrible time in their life when hormones misfire. That* is what is sad.

The other part, "before someone love", my question is how does sex determine the nature and spirit of love between two LDS christian couple?

My second new question is how do you show a teen whose sexual orientation (PBP) can't be changed (per LDS site) that he cannot touch the person he loves?

I know it says God-says-so and scripture confirms he said so, but what is the logistics behind it in your opinion?

 

[dianaiad]

I think you overlooked my questions.

Rather than choices, it's about how christian theology affects children. Since we are born with a sexual orientation regardless the physiological, biological, and psychological (PBP) nature of it, we can't choose anything right or wrong until we are older. If a child is conditioned that his PBP response needs to be geared one way (kind of like shaping clay by controlling the sides) there would be conflict if his PBP doesn't respond to what the christian parent is trying to "shape" him to be.

Children grow up with this mindset and stigma and are tortured inside. It's counterproductive to teaching about god and the "correct" PBP because it tries to change the attraction as if it has some connection with one's choices. As if being gay automatically means you will sin in the future so we must "change you now" type of thing.

That is the problem we are talking about here not one's choice who he or she wants to have sex with. Children can't make that choice and when they get to puberty the parents "shape them more" at a horrible time in their life when hormones misfire. That* is what is sad.

The other part, "before someone love", my question is how does sex determine the nature and spirit of love between two LDS christian couple?

My second new question is how do you show a teen whose sexual orientation (PBP) can't be changed (per LDS site) that he cannot touch the person he loves?

I know it says God-says-so and scripture confirms he said so, but what is the logistics behind it in your opinion?

Recognizing the situation, doing the research, and dealing with the issue. That's what all those articles on LDS.org are about.

As parents, we WILL goof. Our kids have myriad different needs from those we had when we were young...or the same needs and our parents didn't deal properly with them.

Personally, I would deal with my children the way I dealt with my daughter's friend, who is a huge part of their lives and is about as 'obviously' gay as it is possible to be. We let him be who he is, and though WE knew what his sexual orientation was before he left high school, so that his 'coming out' twenty years later was absolutely no surprise at all, it changed nothing in our relationship.

But we were not his parents, and they took a couple of years to deal with the issue. They did, eventually. It's HARD when you child lets you know that there is no chance for grandchildren because, well...he preferred men. It's HARD when you child, who you love, tells you that try as he might, he simply can't accede to the church teachings regarding this. Everybody is worried about the child here, and so they should.

Does nobody figure what this sort of announcement does to his family?

If you are an atheist, devoted to the idea of science only...and your kid tells you that he's about to join a Catholic monastery and become a monk, how would you feel? Not...would you still love him, but...how would you feel, personally, about his decision?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I think you're missing the point and what my other point kinda gears at.

I, for instance, am heterosexual. I loved sex with my husband, and I loved the kissing and stuff (though I was never sexually intimate) that I had with previous boyfriends. Jim died when I was 45, leaving me a single mother with 5 kids. I had chances to have sex with others. I had chances to date. I chose not to. I missed sex. I still do, after 25 years, but y'know what?

Sex and sexual orientation are two different things.

If you turned the tables, here is a scenario.

As a heterosexual, you were born in a homosexual world. Putting procreation aside in this analogy, these homosexual people are minding their business but when you were born they wonder why you're "not like them."

So, you hit puberty, and your hormones start to fire for the opposite sex; this is natural. You start to make choices you dislike and your homosexual parents punishes you for it. As christians, they tell you that god does not like you to be with someone of the opposite sex just the same sex.

and. everyone has choices, we (as homosexual parents) just want you to make the right and god choice by being with someone of the same sex.

If you're getting uncomfortable now, times that by 1000 and add indoctrination and miscommunication-do you see how this is torment for a child?

What you're talking about is you as a grown up choosing who to have sex with and the morality of it. This has nothing to do with the morality of sex in and of itself. Christians have issues about the subject of sex; but, the sake of this unfortunate discussion (which I was hoping it would not be in the resource area guys) you have to learn more about sexual orientation-what it is and what it is not.

Your personal example isn't related to what's being discussed.

I made my choices and I lived by them, and I'm happy with them. Do NOT tell me that same sex attraction is somehow more compelling, more irresistible, or more impossible to deal with than attraction to the opposite sex. I'm sure it's difficult to deal with.

This has nothing to do with sex. On your LDS site, it has this and other sites that talk about the nature of sexual orientation and how it isn't a choice and all of that.

The problem is conditioning a child that being gay is wrong as if that specific attraction will make him sin. The dynamics between straight children and gay children households are totally different and can't be compared by the choices you personally make by who you want or don't want to go to bed with.

 

[Left Coast]

How are you not even ATTEMPTING to comprehend my POV?

You know, Diana, the irony of you asking for empathy and understanding, given what you're saying in this thread, is pretty astounding. But it tells me you're at least capable of trying to understand others, since you yourself want to be understood. So I hold out hope.

Because you are so wedded to your own opinion that you think everybody else must bow to it?

EVERYBODY has a choice. Everybody does. Gay children have those choices, too. They can leave, when they are old enough. Plenty do. Do NOT tell me that they have no choice, because that is simply not true.

And how about when they're not old enough?

When I say, "they have no choice," I am not saying they literally have zero agency. I am saying that the choice is not viable, because it would potentially ruin their life.

Many people make choices where the consequences are extremely painful for them and their families. They make them anyway. That's called courage.

You don't need to tell me about courage, Diana. LGBTQ people are acutely aware of the courage required to come out when they are surrounded by conservatives, and the risks of doing so.

Nobody would coerce another; nobody would threaten another if that other were not able to make a different choice. The guy who ties a man's family to chairs and tells him that if he doesn't rob the bank he works at, his family will die...has a choice. There would be no need to threaten the man if he did NOT have that choice. The 'laws of God' all say 'do this or that will happen.' If we didn't have the choice to disobey, there would be no need to list consequences of disobedience.

There would be no need to pass ordinances defining the amount of fines imposed upon people who run red lights...if nobody could run red lights.

And there would be no need to threaten being disowned or the loss of support systems if the one being threatened had no choice as to whether to leave it.

Great, so gay children, "have a choice," it's just a coerced one.

BTW, it is very much against church teachings for families to do that sort of thing.

I'm glad to hear that.

On the other hand, if...say...you belong to a choir that has grooming and dress standards, and requirements to attend rehearsals, and in return you get to sing with a group of REALLY good singers, get to associate with them on weekend barbecues and get help when you move from your fellow choir members......

Is it fair for you to demand all those perks if you refuse to attend rehearsals, or break the rules against beards, or wear a bright puce shirt when everybody else is supposed to be wearing blue choir robes?

You make your choices, and you take the consequences of those choices. Simple. Not EASY, certainly, but it's simple.

Again, you reduce and dismiss gay people's sexuality like it's nothing more than a hobby. Another example of something that is unnecessary and painful as a result of your church's teachings.

So yes Diana, I do understand your POV - everyone has a choice, so make it. I also appreciate that you see that it's cruel for parents to disown children who come out.

What I hope you can try to understand is that a) for children, the choice to come out is not always viable in the way it's viable for you and me, and b) sexual orientation is about more than sex. We don't just come out to satisfy some fleeting, animalistic urge to f*ck. Our love lives are as complex, deep, nuanced, messy, and love-filled as yours. Please try to recognize that.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I read this and I get what you're saying.

But we were not his parents, and they took a couple of years to deal with the issue. They did, eventually. It's HARD when you child lets you know that there is no chance for grandchildren because, well...he preferred men. It's HARD when you child, who you love, tells you that try as he might, he simply can't accede to the church teachings regarding this. Everybody is worried about the child here, and so they should.

It's hard because it's different but you still can have grand children. It's just not in the manner in which you'd prefer. For example, I have a lesbian friend with two beautiful children. Their biological father is 100% a part of their life, so as the biological mother, and the woman she wants to marry. Her family takes care of the child as well as the children's father. This dynamic sounds like confusion to a christian but we're not in cookie cutter relationships-man/women, straight boy and girl, dog, christian, in a single family home. I mean, that's ideal for some people-my mother included-but its unrealistic.

It is hard and at the same time without understanding the nature of the issue it's hard to address it and what to feel about it.

If you are an atheist, devoted to the idea of science only...and your kid tells you that he's about to join a Catholic monastery and become a monk, how would you feel? Not...would you still love him, but...how would you feel, personally, about his decision?

This is actually a greater example because it doesn't have the trigger words.

Atheist are not devoted to science only.
(Just as people who are gay aren't automatically programmed to have gay sex)

Two loving atheist parents would not indoctrinate their child to not be religious. A lot of parents without religious beliefs support their child even if they don't understand how their child feels about god. If that child's belief doesn't harm others, harm himself, and everyone is treated with respect, one's belief or lack of belief is besides the point.

On the other hand, though, the comparison is kind of crude.

Atheism has nothing to do with science
Sexual orientation has nothing to do with sex
LGBTQ are not different than straight people
Atheists aren't different than christians (we are people)

So, if the parents love their child for who they are, atheist, christian, gay, or straight, then all will be fine. But if you indoctrinate the children because they don't want to believe in science or they don't want to touch someone they do not love, that's the problem.

The thing is, many atheists parents love their children but I don't see many christian straight parents loving their gay child in the same manner without the bias and misunderstanding attached to it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

As for Prop 8, you are 100% WRONG. Proposition 8 did not attempt to remove any rights from homosexuals.

Bull! You even admit it redifined marriage to fit your own religious definition, and it did bar further gay marriages. And domestic partnerships? Heres a quick history lesson. The Supreme Court has already ryles that separate but equalnis unconstitutional. It was hate that stripped the right of marriage for no other reason than your religious bigotry.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It's HARD when you child lets you know that there is no chance for grandchildren because, well...he preferred men. It's HARD when you child, who you love, tells you that try as he might, he simply can't accede to the church teachings regarding this. Everybody is worried about the child here, and so they should.

Thats nit called concern for the kids. Its called being selfish. Or, else, it wouldn't be hard necause you wouldn't be putti g what "I" want up so high that it's now "hard" when someone doesn't give you what you want. It's wanting what YOU want and not putting the childs well being first, as a parent properly should. No grandkids? Oh well. The kids are under zero obligation to give you any.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

doesn't have the trigger words.

Trigger words?

If you are an atheist, devoted to the idea of science only...and your kid tells you that he's about to join a Catholic monastery and become a monk, how would you feel? Not...would you still love him, but...how would you feel, personally, about his decision?

Oh well. It's their life. Not mine. I'm not fond of the Catholic church, but I'd wish my child well anyways because it's my child amd their well being comes first.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Trigger words?

Oh well. It's their life. Not mine. I'm not fond of the Catholic church, but I'd wish my child well anyways because it's my child amd their well being comes first.

Oh. Words like homosexuality and atheist tend to spark up christians "trigger finger" for scripture and repeated defense arguments without self-critical thinking of one's argument.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Oh. Words like homosexuality and atheist tend to spark up christians "trigger finger" for scripture and repeated defense arguments without self-critical thinking of one's argument.

So? If someone can't handle words it's on them. Sticks and stones. If words get them worked up or break their bones they have issues to work out.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

So? If someone can't handle words it's on them. Sticks and stones. If words get them worked up or break their bones they have issues to work out.

It helps get my point across. They'd be arguing with themselves and the conversation goes nowhere.

 

[dianaiad]

Bull! You even admit it redifined marriage to fit your own religious definition, and it did bar further gay marriages. And domestic partnerships? Heres a quick history lesson. The Supreme Court has already ryles that separate but equalnis unconstitutional. It was hate that stripped the right of marriage for no other reason than your religious bigotry.

i REPEAT. Bull. I DARE you to find a single right that Prop 8 removed from gays. They didn't have 'separate but equal' rights. They had EXACTLY THE SAME RIGHTS. More; it was against the law to discriminate against them because they were gay in matters of real estate or jobs, because of their relationships, but it was NOT against the law to discriminate against married people because someone didn't like THEIR spouses.

Example: a 'domestic partner' (that's not what California called it...I forget the term) did not sign 'separate but equal" contracts when purchasing a house. The signed THE SAME contracts. Exactly the same ones. They didn't give 'separate but equal' information on job applications. They were the SAME applications. A real estate contract, at the signature level, read "spouse or domestic partner." Nobody was allowed to ask whether it was a 'spouse' or a 'domestic partner." That's where you signed.

The thing is, nobody then, and nobody now, has any problems with, or any intention of, forcing the Catholic church to accept and/or solemnize marriages between previously divorced people whose ex-spouses still live. The STATE accepts those marriages, but nobody is worried that the Catholic church does not. You tell me; what is the difference between this and other religions not recognizing gay marriages? What is the difference between not forcing Catholic priests to perform such marriages, or giving communion to those who enter into those relationships, and churches which refuse to solemnize weddings between same sex couples?

All you are doing here is making hysterical charges and rants. I dared you to show a SINGLE right that married couples in California had that domestic partners did not have, that didn't involve forcing a religion to recognize their marriage eclesiastically. Which is supposed to be against the constitution.

You didn't. You can"t...because there weren't any. No 'separate but equal' there. bub. No different doors, water fountains or schools. The SAME rights. Same paperwork. Same contracts. Same everything. In fact, on paper there was no way of telling which relationship was heterosexual marriage and which was 'domestic partnership." None. BECAUSE THEY HAD EXACTLY THE SAME RIGHTS AND PROTECTIONS. There was NO way to tell the difference, legally.

Except for the word. Except for the idea that religions were not required to solemnize or recognize such relationships within their own faith systems.

But you go ahead. Find me a SINGLE difference. ONE right heterosexual married people had that gay couples did not have. ONE piece of paper or contract that was worded differently for one relationship than the other. ONE protection one group had that the other didn't...that wasn't in the favor of gay couples, that is.

Your problem here is, in spite of your claims and hysterical rant, that you can't do that, because none exist.

And I am done here. I won't post on this thread again.

I didn't then, and don't now, have a problem with gay marriages or weddings. Go. get married, have a nice life. Enjoy all the civil rights the government hands married people. I'll bake your cake.

But do not attempt to use the state to force a religion you don't belong to or one you disagree with to accept that marriage ecclesiastically, or to change it's doctrine, to accept gay marriage if it doesn't want to.
LIke divorced Catholics who remarry, just go and do it and accept the results within the church or find another church that DOES accept you. There are plenty out there.

but the second you try to force this change by law, you are smashing the first amendment to smithereens. I object to that. I would object to that no matter what change anybody proposes to make to someone else's faith.

For instance, It would be NICE if the Catholics recognized the remarriages of divorced people. My faith does. the state does. Most religions do. But if anybody files a law suit or attempts to force things, I will come down, loudly, on the side of the Catholic church.

Remember; the First Amendment was not written to protect the freedom of worship, or of free speech, only of the folks with whom we agree. It was written, SPECIFICALLY, to protect those freedoms for those with whom we disagree.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I DARE you to find a single right that Prop 8 removed from gays

MARRIAGE!
California Proposition 8, the "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry" Initiative (2008) - Ballotpedia

Prop 8, officially titled Proposition 8 - Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry
..
Before it passed, same-sex marriage was a constitutionally-protected right in California

Read it carecully. What you're daring me to find is so obvious and easy to find it's in the title of the bill.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

Not just sad.

It's quite psychologically damaging. Child abuse.
But you can't explain that to religious people, because they are confident that they are God's spokesmen. No matter how evil their beliefs, they'll go back to "But God said...".
Then they'll shut up, ignore you, and go back to the church that taught them that.
Tom

You want to eliminate religious freedom by labeling religious teachings as "child abuse".

That is what's sad and damaging.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

They're sad because they create an unnecessary and unchosen painful situation for a child. You seem to be going out of your way to not understand my point, which is fascinating, if not telling.

What is necessary is not up to you.

What is chosen is not up to you.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

Or we oppose it so no one who is LGBT has to suffer from such hate again (especially self hate).

There's nothing hateful about it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

There's nothing hateful about it.

Demanding rights be revoked amd stripped is very hateful amd spiteful. A truly wicked and malicious deed that is most foul and obscene.

 

[Left Coast]

What is necessary is not up to you.

What is chosen is not up to you.

I never claimed either were "up to me." I simply identified them.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

Demanding rights be revoked amd stripped is very hateful amd spiteful. A truly wicked and malicious deed that is most foul and obscene.

No one has the right to redefine marriage.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

I never claimed either were "up to me." I simply identified them.

But you "identified" them as unnecessary and unchosen.

Meaning - you believe yourself capable of claiming what is or is not necessary or chosen.