LDS resources and study on sexual orientation causes in the brain

[Unveiled Artist]

This is somewhat of a thick read for someone who doesn't understand medical jargon. However, it isn't impossible. The gist is it compares sexual orientation and its causes in the brain when it comes to fetal development, sweat and urine odors and how they are processed in homosexual and heterosexual men and women's brains when they are around people they are attracted to. It gives an idea of transgenderism (I don't know the year but it refers to it as transexual-so don't mind that Freudian Slip).

I found this on the LDS site. They have very good resources for the LGBTQ Community.
https://www.listenlearnandlove.org/organizations

Dropbox - Sexual Orientation Not a Choice.pdf - Simplify your life

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Sorry if I seem hesitant and cynical, but words are not actions and their past actions give reason to question their words. At least, however, they are acknowledging this stuff as biological and not a choice.

 

[Left Coast]

"“Sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife. Any other sexual relations, including those between persons of the same gender, are sinful and undermine the divinely created institution of the family."

So sad.

 

[dianaiad]

"“Sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife. Any other sexual relations, including those between persons of the same gender, are sinful and undermine the divinely created institution of the family."

So sad.

Well, that's what we believe. If you don't like it and think it's sad, then don't be LDS.

Simple.

Or if you don't like it and think it's sad, but still believe in what is taught in the CoJCoLDS, then deal with it.

 

[Left Coast]

Well, that's what we believe. If you don't like it and think it's sad, then don't be LDS.

Simple.

Certainly simple for me, you're right. But I wasn't raised LDS, and have no LDS folks in my family. For a gay child raised LDS, telling them, "Don't be LDS," is not nearly so simple, and has potentially life-ruining consequences.

That's why it's sad.

 

[dianaiad]

Certainly simple for me, you're right. But I wasn't raised LDS, and have no LDS folks in my family. For a gay child raised LDS, telling them, "Don't be LDS," is not nearly so simple, and has potentially life-ruining consequences.

That's why it's sad.

Y'know, all of us have choices we must make according to the circumstances we find ourselves in. Some things may limit us, and make it harder to 'fit in' with the culture that surrounds us. These things may well be physical; things we struggle with. They do not have to DEFINE us, though.

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?

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. Why wouldn't it be? It was difficult for me, and nobody would have disapproved of me had I dated and married again. I, however, chose my life. According to my own beliefs, I was, and AM, married to Jim. Period. Not 'until death do you part,' but 'for time and all eternity." MY choice here.

Yes, for a gay child raised LDS, the choice is really hard. S/he can deny his/her self and marry someone of the opposite sex, potentially making everybody involved miserable. S/he can choose to remain celibate and participate fully as a single person in the church. Many do. Many people over the millenia have made the choice to be celibate and have lived happy, fullfilling lives. Sex is, believe it or not, NOT the end all and Be all of existence.

Or, if being gay does become the defining aspect of one's life, then....the doctrines upon which our faith is based must be weighed against one's personal choices and beliefs. It comes down to that...and it IS hard. As to losing one's family over it, there is a reason all those articles are on LDS.org. A child of mine who makes that choice isn't going to lose his or her family, and that's probably true of many, if not most, other LDS families.

Some of us have to make choices that really do involve great personal sacrifice when what we want conflicts with what we believe. In fact, I think that's one of life's biggest lessons. So one cannot act upon one's 'gayness' sexually....and be an active, observant Latter-day saint. It's a choice. I don't see it as any more difficult a choice than someone who discovers that one cannot be an active, observant Latter-day saint and be adulterous, or promiscuous, or have sex outside marriage bonds if one is heterosexual and marriage isn't possible.

Being chaste and celibate has nothing to do with what gender one is refusing to have sex with. It's about YOU, not whoever you may desire.

So, choose. Many people have left the church for lesser reasons. If you don't agree with the teachings, you need to find teachings with which you can agree, and live them. You have to decide what is more important to you, and then act on that.

 

[Left Coast]

Y'know, all of us have choices we must make according to the circumstances we find ourselves in. Some things may limit us, and make it harder to 'fit in' with the culture that surrounds us. These things may well be physical; things we struggle with. They do not have to DEFINE us, though.

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?

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. Why wouldn't it be? It was difficult for me, and nobody would have disapproved of me had I dated and married again. I, however, chose my life.

And that's the difference between you and a gay child. Gay kids didn't choose their life. Gay kids in LDS families will be "disapproved of" (what a euphemism) if they date and marry someone they love.

Yes, for a gay child raised LDS, the choice is really hard. S/he can deny his/her self and marry someone of the opposite sex, potentially making everybody involved miserable. S/he can choose to remain celibate and participate fully as a single person in the church. Many do. Many people over the millenia have made the choice to be celibate and have lived happy, fullfilling lives. Sex is, believe it or not, NOT the end all and Be all of existence.

No one claims "sex is the end all and be all of existence." Sexual orientation isn't the entirety of a person's identity, but it is certainly an undeniably important part. As a woman who married a man and had 5 kids with him, I would think that would be obvious to you. Your life would likely look very different if you were gay.

Or, if being gay does become the defining aspect of one's life, then....the doctrines upon which our faith is based must be weighed against one's personal choices and beliefs. It comes down to that...and it IS hard. As to losing one's family over it, there is a reason all those articles are on LDS.org. A child of mine who makes that choice isn't going to lose his or her family, and that's probably true of many, if not most, other LDS families.

Some of us have to make choices that really do involve great personal sacrifice when what we want conflicts with what we believe. In fact, I think that's one of life's biggest lessons. So one cannot act upon one's 'gayness' sexually....and be an active, observant Latter-day saint. It's a choice. I don't see it as any more difficult a choice than someone who discovers that one cannot be an active, observant Latter-day saint and be adulterous, or promiscuous, or have sex outside marriage bonds if one is heterosexual and marriage isn't possible.

Being chaste and celibate has nothing to do with what gender one is refusing to have sex with. It's about YOU, not whoever you may desire.

So, choose. Many people have left the church for lesser reasons. If you don't agree with the teachings, you need to find teachings with which you can agree, and live them. You have to decide what is more important to you, and then act on that.

Are all those "you's" directed at me? I really don't need a lecture from you on making hard choices in a conflict between faith and sexuality. Believe it or not, I have some extremely personal experience in that arena.

For a child whose entire life has been built around their religion, the choice is anything but "simple."

And that's why your religion's teachings are sad.

 

[dianaiad]

And that's the difference between you and a gay child. Gay kids didn't choose their life. Gay kids in LDS families will be "disapproved of" (what a euphemism) if they date and marry someone they love.

I didn't choose to be heterosexual, either, and I wouldn't have been able to 'date and marry' someone I loved after Jim died, even though society would have been fine with it, because of what I believe. So, after the first couple of years, when I realized the problem, I didn't go looking. I honestly do not see much difference here.

One weighs one's personal beliefs against what one wants, figures out which is more important, and one goes with that.

No one claims "sex is the end all and be all of existence."

Everyone who turns away from their personal, deeply held beliefs and culture in order to have sex says precisely that.

Sexual orientation isn't the entirety of a person's identity, but it is certainly an undeniably important part. As a woman who married a man and had 5 kids with him, I would think that would be obvious to you. Your life would likely look very different if you were gay.

Not really. Yes, I have five kids. I could have had them without Jim. My daughter, who is single, is planning to adopt kids as soon as her house is built. She's not gay, but she hasn't found anybody she wants to marry, either.

So how would her life, OR mine, be any different than they are right now if our desires were aimed at other women instead of men? Again, celibacy is about YOU, not about what you are giving up. It doesn't really matter, if one is celibate, what 'flavor' person one does NOT have sex with.

Are all those "you's" directed at me?

No. General 'you.' English doesn't really have a plural 'you...' and I do get tired of all the fiddling around one has to do when one uses the word 'one.'

I really don't need a lecture from you on making hard choices in a conflict between faith and sexuality. Believe it or not, I have some extremely personal experience in that arena.

For a child whose entire life has been built around their religion, the choice is anything but "simple."

And that's why your religion's teachings are sad.

Then fine. Don't be LDS. You don't have the right to decide FOR us whether our teachings are 'sad.' They are what they are. And that, Left Coast, was a personal 'you.'

 

[columbus]

And that's why your religion's teachings are sad.

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

 

[Unveiled Artist]

"“Sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife. Any other sexual relations, including those between persons of the same gender, are sinful and undermine the divinely created institution of the family."

So sad.

It is. My best friend (a former ex) is a christian and has two beautiful children (a full time job, a nice home, and...) and her girlfriend both want to get married. I'll be her bridesmade. What I also like about her is that her friend is also the children's biological father and they have been friends for years. The children aren't confused about who is who. There is no lying or any of that. They all have christian foundations. She always had "fire for the lord" I don't even bring it up half the time.

What's interesting is when we talk to each other we talk about each other's lives as if male and female weren't a default. Just a part of life. It's kind of refreshing to think of myself as a gay woman talking about these things as a part of life that I knew no other way to be. I wasn't around guys, never wanted to date them, never had that feeling I should, and never...

I'm kinda proud of that, to tell you honestly.

Anyway, I know everyone has their beliefs. If it didn't affect others, I really wouldn't care.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Well, that's what we believe. If you don't like it and think it's sad, then don't be LDS.

Simple.

Or if you don't like it and think it's sad, but still believe in what is taught in the CoJCoLDS, then deal with it.

It's not about your belief or theology (in my opinion) but how christian theology as a whole affects children. LDS has a great website of resources etc. The thing is, what happens to LGBTQ when they find someone they love?

Theology aside (the "god said so" aside for a minute) what about one's sex determines the spirit of love versus lust between two people who believe in god?

Logistics?

 

[Left Coast]

Everyone who turns away from their personal, deeply held beliefs and culture in order to have sex says precisely that.

No, they don't. That's just a straw man.

Not really. Yes, I have five kids. I could have had them without Jim.

No, you couldn't have. You could have had 5 other kids, but not the 5 kids you actually have.

My daughter, who is single, is planning to adopt kids as soon as her house is built. She's not gay, but she hasn't found anybody she wants to marry, either.

So how would her life, OR mine, be any different than they are right now if our desires were aimed at other women instead of men?

You most likely wouldn't have married the guy you married. Which means you wouldn't have the 5 kids you actually have. You probably wouldn't live in the same house. You probably wouldn't have the same relationship with your family, or the same relationship with your church. If you dont think those things are part of your identity, you're kidding yourself.

You think your marriage (which you define as the only licit circumstance for sex) is so important to God's plan that it extends beyond your physical death, on to eternity. But when it comes to the love lives of gay people, we're to believe that we somehow put too much emphasis on them, and they're just negligible, unimportant parts of ours lives, interchangeable with anyone else's, and we'd be just as happy without them.

Please see the double standard in your thinking. I'm confident you won't, but at least pause and give it thought before you instantly phrase a response.

Then fine. Don't be LDS. You don't have the right to decide FOR us whether our teachings are 'sad.' They are what they are. And that, Left Coast, was a personal 'you.'

I'm not deciding "for you." You decide for yourself, as you made clear. Unfortunately, minors' choices are constrained by their unchosen life circumstances (beyond their sexual orientation). Which is what makes the situation of gay LDS kids sad.

 

[dianaiad]

It's not about your belief or theology (in my opinion) but how christian theology as a whole affects children. LDS has a great website of resources etc. The thing is, what happens to LGBTQ when they find someone they love?

Theology aside (the "god said so" aside for a minute) what about one's sex determines the spirit of love versus lust between two people who believe in god?

Logistics?

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?

 

[dianaiad]

No, they don't. That's just a straw man.



No, you couldn't have. You could have had 5 other kids, but not the 5 kids you actually have.



You most likely wouldn't have married the guy you married. Which means you wouldn't have the 5 kids you actually have. You probably wouldn't live in the same house. You probably wouldn't have the same relationship with your family, or the same relationship with your church. If you dont think those things are part of your identity, you're kidding yourself.

You think your marriage (which you define as the only licit circumstance for sex) is so important to God's plan that it extends beyond your physical death, on to eternity. But when it comes to the love lives of gay people, we're to believe that we somehow put too much emphasis on them, and they're just negligible, unimportant parts of ours lives, interchangeable with anyone else's, and we'd be just as happy without them.

Please see the double standard in your thinking. I'm confident you won't, but at least pause and give it thought before you instantly phrase a response.



I'm not deciding "for you." You decide for yourself, as you made clear. Unfortunately, minors' choices are constrained by their unchosen life circumstances (beyond their sexual orientation). Which is what makes the situation of gay LDS kids sad.

In other words, LDS beliefs about this are 'sad,' not because they are actually sad, but because you don't agree with them.

No problem. you be who you are, teach your children your beliefs, and don't mess with mine.

I am, after all, not insisting that you comply with mine, even though you do not share them.

 

[Left Coast]

In other words, LDS beliefs about this are 'sad,' not because they are actually sad, but because you don't agree with them.

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.

 

[dianaiad]

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.

They "create an unnecessary and unchosen painful situation for a child..." IN YOUR OPINION. It does not in mine....or did you completely ignore all the resources regarding this issue on LDS.org?

In MY opinion, it is 'sad' that any child should be raised to think that his/her own wants and preferences are more important than anything at all, and that all cultures, religions and states MUST bow to his opinion, changing THEIR teachings and beliefs to match his if he has a problem with any of them.

Isn't that what you are saying, basically, when you claim that a belief system you disagree with is 'sad?' Because that's not how YOU think? Not..."I don't agree with the LDS on this issue and I think differently," but "the LDS teachings are sad' as if your opinion trumps all others.

Sorry, left coast, but our beliefs are indeed our beliefs. We do not behead those who disagree with us and leave. We don't sue them, or fine them, or imprison them. We do not force them. It is entirely their choice as to what to do about the beliefs they were taught in their childhood. Plenty of people make those choices, as well. If they choose to leave and follow other paths, fine. Their choices. It seems more than a little intrusive of you to insist that we teach our children to agree with YOU, when you don't agree with us.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Well, that's what we believe. If you don't like it and think it's sad, then don't be LDS.

Simple.

Or if you don't like it and think it's sad, but still believe in what is taught in the CoJCoLDS, then deal with it.

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

 

[Shadow Wolf]

They "create an unnecessary and unchosen painful situation for a child..." IN YOUR OPINION. It does not in mine....or did you completely ignore all the resources regarding this issue on LDS.org?

In MY opinion, it is 'sad' that any child should be raised to think that his/her own wants and preferences are more important than anything at all, and that all cultures, religions and states MUST bow to his opinion if he has a problem with any of them.

Isn't that what you are saying, basically, when you claim that a belief system you disagree with is 'sad?' Because that's not how YOU think? Not..."I don't agree with the LDS on this issue and I think differently," but "the LDS teachings are sad' as if your opinion trumps all others.

Sorry, left coast, but our beliefs are indeed our beliefs. We do not behead those who disagree with us and leave. We don't sue them, or fine them, or imprison them. We do not force them. It is entirely their choice as to what to do about the beliefs they were taught in their childhood. Plenty of people make those choices, as well.

No, its a fact. Such religious teachings do have parents disowning children, does cause people to hate and disapproval, and does lead to self shame and hate, and a host of mental illnesses, lack of confidence, and it decimates self esteem. The Mormon church is so demented in this area that it pushed prop 8 to strip homosexuals of rights and enforce legally enforce their religious bigotry as law, all so they can tell homosexuals their love is sinful and their marriage not real.

 

[dianaiad]

No, its a fact. Such religious teachings do have parents disowning children, does cause people to hate and disapproval, and does lead to self shame and hate. The Mormon church is so demented in this area that it pushed prop 8 to strip homosexuals of rights and enforce legally enforce their religious bigotry as law, all so they can tell homosexuals their love is sinful and their marriage not real.

Such actions are very much against church teachings. Families which disown their children are going very much against church teachings.

As for Prop 8, you are 100% WRONG. Proposition 8 did not attempt to remove any rights from homosexuals. The entire text of it is something like "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California" No rights that homosexuals had were abrogated in this. In fact, gays could, and did, enter into domestic partnerships had EVERY right that heterosexual married couples had...and a few that married gays in other states did NOT have; for instance, Califorina domestic partnerships were recognized as such everywhere, but gays married in other states might not be recognized, even as domestic partnerships, in some places.

In other words, NO right that California extended to married couples in California was removed, or even addressed, by Prop. 8.

You know what Prop 8 was about? I was there. I KNOW this stuff, which you obviously do not. I was hip deep in a whole bunch of debates with gay marriage advocates about this. They COULD NOT argue that Prop 8 was going to take any of their rights away, because of course it wasn't. Their arguments were simple. They wanted their relationships to be recognized as MARRIAGES by churches, and to force clergypeople to perform weddings, recognize them in all ways, and to allow gay married people full ecclesiastical privileges in their belief system.

As for me, I was all for Prop 8. Not because I was against gay marriage. Frankly, I didnt, and don't, have a problem with it. I was for it BECAUSE of the stated goals and aims of those who opposed it so vehemently. The ONLY right that Prop 8 would have 'taken away' was the right for them to force religions to recognize their unions ecclesiastically....the right to ask a Catholic parish priest to marry them in a local parish and force him to do that--or be punished civilly.

that is why the Catholics (far more than the Mormons, btw) and other churches wanted it. We didn't give a hoot whether a 'domestic partner' had the same civil rights a married couple had. WE (the LDS) certainly had no opposition to those. We just didn't want the state to dictate religious marriage views TO US.

Had the gays who were so up in arms against it been reasonable in their demands, I honestly do not think we would have had a problem with gay marriage in California. In other words, it wasn't about what we 'wanted to do to gays' it was what the gays wanted to force US to do.

As to why Mormons were so determined, along with the Catholics and others, to get this on the ballet....remember, though the gays SAID (sometimes) that there is no way that any clergyman would be forced to marry gays, we of all groups knew better. We used to be polygamists, remember? Such marriage customs as that were between consenting adults, nobody forced non-members to observe or approve of it, but the USA kicked us entirely out of the country (to the tune of over 3,000 dead) and not content with that, sent half the nation's armed services after us BECAUSE OF OUR MARRIAGE customs. So we KNOW that the gays COULD get their way, and the state COULD force us to accept gay marriage, ecclesiastically. It wasn't a 'scare tactic' or 'propaganda' for us. It was history. It happened--and it happened again the same year prop 8 was being proposed and fought. We KNEW what could happen, because it had happened.

So you are claiming that we were attempting to remove 'rights,' do you? Exactly what 'right' did we attempt to remove? I DARE you to list one...that did NOT involve forcing religions to change their doctrines to accommodate gay couples.

Remember. In California gay couples had EVERY SINGLE RIGHT that married couples did. Every single one, plus a couple married people did NOT have. Don't mention social security and taxes; that was a federal problem and had the feds extended those rights to domestic partnerships, the Californian domestic partners would have had those, and WE wouldn't have had any problems with them, either.

 

[Left Coast]

They "create an unnecessary and unchosen painful situation for a child..." IN YOUR OPINION.

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

It does not in mine....or did you completely ignore all the resources regarding this issue on LDS.org?

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

In MY opinion, it is 'sad' that any child should be raised to think that his/her own wants and preferences are more important than anything at all, and that all cultures, religions and states MUST bow to his opinion, changing THEIR teachings and beliefs to match his if he has a problem with any of them.

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.

Isn't that what you are saying, basically, when you claim that a belief system you disagree with is 'sad?' Because that's not how YOU think? Not..."I don't agree with the LDS on this issue and I think differently," but "the LDS teachings are sad' as if your opinion trumps all others.

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.

Sorry, left coast, but our beliefs are indeed our beliefs. We do not behead those who disagree with us and leave. We don't sue them, or fine them, or imprison them. We do not force them. It is entirely their choice as to what to do about the beliefs they were taught in their childhood. Plenty of people make those choices, as well. If they choose to leave and follow other paths, fine. Their choices. It seems more than a little intrusive of you to insist that we teach our children to agree with YOU, when you don't agree with us.

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?