LDS resources and study on sexual orientation causes in the brain

[SoyLeche]

A consensus does not change facts or establish what is right or true.

When you are talking about definitions, yes it does.

 

[SoyLeche]

I meant the fact that I was forced to also have some sort of "civil" or "secular" contract does not matter to me.

But you care about whether others can have the same sort of "civil" or "secular" contract.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Marriage has always been between men and women.

That is blatantly false as our species more often and traditionally has practiced polygamy of various forms (typically one husband multiple wives, as featured in the OT).

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I meant the fact that I was forced to also have some sort of "civil" or "secular" contract does not matter to me.

Then why insert your religion into this secular contract? Why do you get to, but not a Wiccan, Satanist, or atheist?

 

[McBell]

Can you reference examples of same-sex marriages from the past?

Soyleche covered that in post #58

No - I have always been against the secular hijacking of marriage.

Religion gave up "control" of marriage long before you or I were even born.
So I have no idea what you are talking about here.

I was married when I was sealed to my wife in the Temple.

Congratulations.

Though I have no idea how it is relevant.

That is the only marriage I personally care about.

Yet here you are talking about hijackings and redifinings of marriage....

I have all of human history on my side. Sorry.

Except you don't.
But I suspect you wont let truth or facts get in your way.

 

[Left Coast]

So - if you are agree with my initial claim that you were deciding what was necessary or chosen - why did you dispute it in the first place?

It's a question of semantics. The notion of what's necessary or chosen isn't "up to me," implying that I all by myself defined the concepts. They're existing concepts that anyone with a functioning human brain can apply to given circumstances.

A couple of things I disagree with here on a fundamental level.

First - I do not believe that anyone is born a sinner (i.e. homosexual).

That is an idea contrary to the Word of God and the doctrines of the Church.

I frankly don't care if your religion disagrees, as I'm not part of it.

They may be born with an attraction to the same sex

That's what gay means.

Second - no one is defined by their sins (in this case sexual orientation).

You're begging the question by calling my sexual orientation a "sin," which you havent established. Sexual orientation isn't the entirety of a person's identity, but it is an obviously central and deeply influential aspect of a person's identity.

Someone not agreeing with your behavior does not mean that they do not love or accept you.

This depends entirely what "not agreeing" actually means, and what behavior we're talking about. There is nothing immoral or harmful in and of itself about two people of the same sex being romantically or sexually involved (assuming all is consensual, etc.), and we know that for most people, romantic and sexual relationships are a deeply important part of their lives that make them feel loved, bring them great joy, and help them create a family. To tell a person that their most deeply felt longings for such relationships are fundamentally "sinful," evil, unnatural, immoral, and so on, simply because of the sex of the people they are attracted to, is frankly anything but loving. At best it's horribly ignorant. At worst it's cruel.

Lastly - no one can choose which family they are born into - but they can choose whether or not a situation can be painful.

An LDS parent not agreeing with homosexuality does not - by itself - lead to a painful situation for a child who decides to act on their same-sex attraction.

I don't know how a person "chooses" whether a situation is painful, how does that work in your mind exactly? I wasn't raised LDS, but I was raised in a Christian home with similar conservative sexual ethics to the LDS. And I can tell you from quite personal experience that the situation is inevitably painful. What LDS parents can choose is to educate themselves about LGBTQ issues, realize their children did not choose to be gay, realize there is nothing wrong with being gay, and fully accept their children for the people they are.

It would be unreasonable for anyone to demand that someone would need to agree with everything that they do in order to love and accept them.

Not everything, no. A core part of their identity that there is nothing morally wrong with other than your church's say-so? Yes, that is quite unreasonable.

It is up to the child to decide how to react to that.

Depends what they're reacting to. If their parents kick them out of the house, tell them they're going to hell for eternity, tell them their sexuality is fundamentally f*cked up...children are mostly going to have a very predictable, and completely reasonable, negative reaction to such things. Why are we only talking about what's up to the kids? The parents are the ones who have much more agency in these situations than their children. Children are...children, after all. Parents need to educate themselves and respond to their children with empathy and understanding.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

Apparently you care enough about some guy's marriage to another guy to argue about it on the internet, so there's that...

You should read my comments in their proper context.

Mestemia accused me of hypocrisy and bigotry - claiming that I was complicit in the government's hijacking of marriage.

I never agreed with government taking over marriage.

You intentionally left out the first line of my comment - which was - "No - I have always been against the secular hijacking of marriage."

If you had included that then you would have read my comment in context.

I never said that I didn't care about the subject of marriage.

I was simply saying that I don't value my secular union as much as my Temple sealing.

History of same-sex unions - Wikipedia

Nothing in this link shares examples of same-sex marriages.

None of the ancient cultures mentioned officially accepted same-sex unions as marriages.

 

[McBell]

Mestemia accused me of hypocrisy and bigotry - claiming that I was complicit in the government's hijacking of marriage.

When did i do this?

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

Soyleche covered that in post #58

You and he certainly think so.

Religion gave up "control" of marriage long before you or I were even born.
So I have no idea what you are talking about here.

Thank you for admitting that marriage is a religious institution.

Your comment makes no sense.

Slavery in the West also ended long before I was born - but I still have strong opinions about the practice.

Just because secular governments hijacked marriage long before I was born does not mean I have to agree with it.

Congratulations.

Though I have no idea how it is relevant.

I was expressing my personal view on the value of secular unions.

Yet here you are talking about hijackings and redifinings of marriage....

Your comment lacks context.

Except you don't.
But I suspect you wont let truth or facts get in your way.

I have all the truth and facts.

Marriage has always been between men and women.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

When did i do this?

In Post #52. You said,

"ROTFLMAO
Religion lost whatever imaginary hold it had on the word marriage back when religion let government take over the marriage contract.
So, several hundred years ago.
That all of a sudden now, you want it back does not mean you get to redefine the word to suit your bigotry."

You implied that I was "okay with" the government hijacking of marriage (when I never was) and you then used that false narrative to claim that I was somehow going back on what I initially believed in order to "suit [my] bigotry".

You claimed that I was a hypocritical bigot.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

When you are talking about definitions, yes it does.

I have been talking about "[changing] facts or [establishing] what is right or true."

Marriage has always been between men and women.

Any attempt to redefine marriage is an attempt to change the facts or establish what is right or true about marriage.

I don't know if you know much about the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - but things like gender and marriage are crucial to our perspective of Mankind's eternal identity, purpose, salvation and eventual exaltation.

We are going to defend what we believe to be true. Especially when history and science support what we believe.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

But you care about whether others can have the same sort of "civil" or "secular" contract.

I don't remember saying that.

People can enter into whatever "civil" or "secular" contract they desire.

You just can't call that contract a "marriage" if it isn't between a man and a woman.

A marriage has always been a contract between a man and a woman.

 

[McBell]

Thank you for admitting that marriage is a religious institution.

I did no such thing.
At best you could say that religion was....

Your comment makes no sense.

Only because you are in complete denial.

Slavery in the West also ended long before I was born - but I still have strong opinions about the practice.

Good for you.
No idea how that is relevant.

Just because secular governments hijacked marriage long before I was born does not mean I have to agree with it.

Never made any claim that you do.
Just pointing out the fact that your preferred definition is a redefining of the word.[/quote]

I was expressing my personal view on the value of secular unions.

Fair enough.

Your comment lacks context.

So you are claiming that you are not complaining about the definition of marriage?

I have all the truth and facts.

Marriage has always been between men and women.

Thank you for making my prediction come true.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

That is blatantly false as our species more often and traditionally has practiced polygamy of various forms (typically one husband multiple wives, as featured in the OT).

Polygamy is multiple marriages between one man and multiple women.

None of the women in a polygamous relationship are married to each other.

They are only married to the one man.

Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. A group of women sharing the one man does not change that fact.

 

[McBell]

In Post #52. You said,

"ROTFLMAO
Religion lost whatever imaginary hold it had on the word marriage back when religion let government take over the marriage contract.
So, several hundred years ago.
That all of a sudden now, you want it back does not mean you get to redefine the word to suit your bigotry."

You implied that I was "okay with" the government hijacking of marriage (when I never was) and you then used that false narrative to claim that I was somehow going back on what I initially believed in order to "suit [my] bigotry".

You claimed that I was a hypocritical bigot.

You seriously need to work on your reading comprehension skills.

 

[McBell]

You just can't call that contract a "marriage" if it isn't between a man and a woman.

except that it is...

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

Then why insert your religion into this secular contract? Why do you get to, but not a Wiccan, Satanist, or atheist?

You have got it all backwards.

It is the secular nation that is inserting itself into a religious contract.

A marriage is a life-long contract or commitment between a man and a woman.

No one needs to be a member of any particular religion to get married.

They do - however - need to be a member of a particular sex to get married.

Otherwise it is not a marriage. It's something else.

They are free to have that "something else". They just can't claim that that "something else" is a marriage.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

You seriously need to work on your reading comprehension skills.

Do you have anything to offer other than an ad hominem?

 

[McBell]

They are free to have that "something else". They just can't claim that that "something else" is a marriage.

Except for the fact that is in fact called "Marriage"....

 

[McBell]

Do you have anything to offer other than an ad hominem?

You also need to do some learning as to what an ad hominem is....