#49874 How many homosexuals are there at BYU?

[crmeatball]

To address your question Bismark, I don't know if there is a difference genetically, but I think there is an important point to make her. We all experience trials in our lives. In most people's lives, there will be what has been referred to as a trial of Abraham. I would classify same-sex attraction as such a trial, one that is extremely difficult to overcome, but also one which "proves them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them." In our current social climate, the idea of a trait being genetic seems to more be defining it as who we are, that it is insurmountable because it is part of our nature and we should embrace it instead of overcoming it. This logic is what the adversary would want us to believe, as it removes any possibility of agency in our lives.

Whether same-sex attraction is a genetic trait or not really is irrelevant. Part of the purpose of this life is for us to gain experience, so we can begin to learn to make decisions in a godly fashion. As we learn these godly attributes and characteristics, we will, albeit slowly, become like our Heavenly Father. This is not a process we complete in this earthly life. But it is here where we must learn to make correct choices and begin on the path which eventually leads to exaltation. In the 2007 BYU Women's Conference Sister Holland said:

"We are more divine than we are temporal and only the adversary would have us believe otherwise."

Our temporal bodies are not perfect, and we cannot allow those flaws to define who we are. My wife has a quote on her mirror from President Monson (quoting Pierre Teilhard de Chardin) which says “We are not human beings having a spiritual experience. We are spiritual beings having a human experience.” These flaws we inherit as part of our temporal existence are not fixed and insurmountable. In the October 1985 General Conference, President Benson said:

"The Lord works from the inside out. The world works from the outside in. The world would take people out of the slums. Christ takes the slums out of people, and then they take themselves out of the slums. The world would mold men by changing their environment. Christ changes men, who then change their environment. The world would shape human behavior, but Christ can change human nature. 'Human nature can be changed, here and now,' said President McKay, and then he quoted the following: ‘You can change human nature. No man who has felt in him the Spirit of Christ even for half a minute can deny this truth. … You do change human nature, your own human nature, if you surrender it to Christ. Human nature can be changed here and now. Human nature has been changed in the past. Human nature must be changed on an enormous scale in the future, unless the world is to be drowned in its own blood. And only Christ can change it.'"

The world would have us believe having same-sex attraction makes one "gay or lesbian." However, just as struggling with any temptation does not define us, dealing with same-sex attraction does not automatically make one a "gay" or "lesbian." Choosing to embrace those attractions is what would cause such labels to be applied, as it does with all other trials. Those who choose to overcome their physical trials are like Abraham, who as a result of overcoming his trials has been given all the Father hath. As Doctrine & Covenants 121 says:

"Thine adversity and thine afflictions shall be but a small moment; And then, if thou endure it well, God shall exalt thee on high; thou shalt triumph over all thy foes."

This is not to say overcoming such a trial is easy or does not require support. Quite the contrary. We, as a people, need to embrace those who struggle with such trials, lift them up and support them. As members of the Church, we have covenanted to "...bear one another’s burdens, that they may be light ... are willing to mourn with those that mourn ... comfort those that stand in need of comfort..." I mentioned before that this is like the Trial of Abraham. One thing to note is that Issac was not a young boy during this trial, but was approximately 30 years old and could have easily overcome his aged father. But Issac recognized the importance of supporting his father in the trial and submitted to his father. We must do the same and support our brothers and sisters in their trials.

[vorpal blade]

Excellent post, crmeatball!

[Katya]

Interesting post, crmeatball, but I don't know that it's quite what Bismark was getting at. Can you think of a philosophical difference between being genetically homosexual / SSA and other genetic traits, without referencing Church doctrine? (I.e., even without the Word of Wisdom, there's a qualitative difference in how alcohol and water affect our bodies.) I can think of some differences, but I'm curious to know what others think, if they want to respond first.

[crmeatball]

I think what I was trying to get at is that to analyze the same-sex attraction from a purely scientific / philosophical perspective without considering the Atonement is a frivolous exercise. Commonly, and especially in the academic world where the 100 Hour Board resides, there is a tendency to try and separate the religious from the academic or scientific. Due to some personal experiences in my life, I have learned that to do so does a disservice to both perspectives, that we need to always consider both, as both contain truth. For example, alcohol effects each individual differently due to their genetic makeup, just as same-sex attraction is different in each person due to their genetic makeup. From a "worldly" perspective, such knowledge would provide understanding and justify behavior. However, this paradigm is incomplete. By taking into account the Atonement, one can gain an understanding that such genetic traits are trials we have been given, and most importantly, trials that we can overcome. By centering ourselves on Christ, our understanding of all things will increase, not just our understanding of the gospel.

[vorpal blade]

Perhaps this quote from the previously cited interview might reinforce what crmeatball is saying.

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: You’re saying the Church doesn’t necessarily have a position on ‘nurture or nature’

ELDER OAKS: That’s where our doctrine comes into play. The Church does not have a position on the causes of any of these susceptibilities or inclinations, including those related to same-gender attraction. Those are scientific questions — whether nature or nurture — those are things the Church doesn’t have a position on.

ELDER WICKMAN: Whether it is nature or nurture really begs the important question, and a preoccupation with nature or nurture can, it seems to me, lead someone astray from the principles that Elder Oaks has been describing here. Why somebody has a same-gender attraction… who can say? But what matters is the fact that we know we can control how we behave, and it is behavior which is important.

[Cognoscente]

I can't stand it any more, hiding who I am. I mean, at ten percent, with at least ten people posting here, one of us had to be one, right? So people, I'm coming out.

I'm... gay.



...



...



...



...



Ha! Just kidding. I looooooove the ladies. *lewd wink*

/not that there's anything wrong with that

[TheBlackSheep]

Sir, if I wasn't a fan of yours at the moment, I might assume you were, oh I don't know, teasing me. And then I might do something drastic, because, unlike most people here, I know who you are.

Actually, I laughed when I read that. Props.

[Imogen]

cogsie, stop being a creep. you're too nice for that. lewd winking is for ugly guys on the subway.

[krebscout]

When I was reading that to Sauron, he thought I'd said that Katya came out of the closet.

Which makes that post all the better.

[Tegan]

is there a difference between having the genetic makeup that makes a person be attracted to the same sex as there is to having the genetic makeup that makes a person white or black or brown or yellow or...?

edit: ok, yes, obviously there is a _difference_ but i mean in philosophical terms.. hmm, perhaps i don't know how to phrase my question so i will be back later with a better one.

I think that some would argue that there really isn't a difference between skin color and same-sex attraction in that neither is a choice. I know some would argue, but there are many people who have struggled for years trying to rid themselves of those feelings. Perhaps they will succeed in repressing them or "managing" them, but few would deny their continuing existence.

As for in philosophical terms, I'm not exactly sure what you mean, but I'll give it a try. If there isn't a difference between skin color and same-sex attraction, does that mean SSA is "natural" and thus acceptable? However, that would mean that natural = acceptable, which for many is absolutely not true. After all, it is natural for people to want sex, but many choose to control those natural urges and wait for marriage. Some argue that since SSA clearly seems to be not a choice for many, it must therefore be acceptable because a person with exclusively SSA shouldn't live a life bereft of satisfying emotional and sexual intimacy. However, in the Church, the attitude seems to be that even if it isn't a choice, it should be viewed more as a disability. Something an individual will have to live with and control for the rest of his or her life.

I'm not sure if that is philosophical, but that's my .02

[vorpal blade]

Thanks for joining, Tegan, and posting your comments. I think I mostly agree with you.

Here is my opinion, for what it's worth. I think there may be some element or characteristic which a person may be born with that makes him or her more susceptible to same-sex attraction. I've looked at scientific study after study trying to show a "gay gene" and I don't think the science supports it. But, the bottom line is it doesn't matter that much. It is what we do with our agency that matters.

In reading the life stories of dozens of people who struggle with same-sex attraction I'm amazed at how often these people were molested at a young age. History seems to show that people can be nurtured to enjoy homosexual behavior, if you start early enough. So, I think we can increase or decrease our same-sex attraction by thinking about it and dwelling on it, or refusing to think about it. I'm sure it is a very strong feeling in many people and very difficult to control.

Each of us is born with certain inherent strengths and weaknesses. Some have the genes for good reflexes, strong muscle development, height, and other traits which make up a good athlete for certain sports. Despite these genetic characteristics I doubt that they will become good athletes unless they exercise their muscles, eat properly, and otherwise develop their talents. Some are born with handicaps which prevent them from ever becoming an athlete in a particular sport.

You are born with the genes characteristic of your race, and we are in the habit of identifying people by their skin color. It isn't a good thing to do. We don't identify, however, a person as an athlete unless he develops his athletic abilities. So, there is this philosophical distinction. You are born with a certain skin color, and you are stuck with it. You may or may not be born with a tendency toward same-sex attraction, but that isn't a genuine way to classify a person, anymore than you would classify a person as an athlete who has no athletic abilities, merely potential.

Does that make any sense?

[Imogen]

of course the stories that get published are a bunch of people getting molested. that sells. but there is NO scientific evidence that being molested as a child makes someone more likely to be gay. most pedophiles wouldn't characterize themselves as "gay." they're pedophiles, it's totally different part of the brain that is stimulated for them. i don't know a single gay person (and i know many) who were molested as children. if being gay were something about how you're nurtured, then there would be no gay people because we live in a heteronormative society that prizes straight people over gay people. would you really CHOOSE to be part of an oppressed and discriminated against minority?

[vorpal blade]

of course the stories that get published are a bunch of people getting molested. that sells. but there is NO scientific evidence that being molested as a child makes someone more likely to be gay. most pedophiles wouldn't characterize themselves as "gay." they're pedophiles, it's totally different part of the brain that is stimulated for them. i don't know a single gay person (and i know many) who were molested as children. if being gay were something about how you're nurtured, then there would be no gay people because we live in a heteronormative society that prizes straight people over gay people. would you really CHOOSE to be part of an oppressed and discriminated against minority?

Do you have scientific proof that it is a totally different part of the brain that is stimulating them?

It COULD be coincidence that EVERY "gay" person I've talked to about his or her past remembers being molested. Your friends may be different. Not everyone is willing to talk about past traumatic experiences, or remembers them. Also, not every molestation leads to same-sex attraction. I've read many who describe themselves as homosexual remark about how odd it is that so many of his "homosexual" friends were molested as children.

I've heard the argument that if homosexual behavior was dependent on how you were nurtured then no one would have a same-sex attraction because our society "prizes straight people over gay people." If we applied this argument to everything else society prizes then there would be no alcoholics, no drug addicts, no thieves, no liars, no adulterers, no stupidity, no weaklings, no old people. People often don't turn out with the characteristics society values. At least, not society as a whole.

I disagree that "gay" people are oppressed and discriminated against. They are often very successful in their careers. They usually have many friends.

No one is saying that people with a same-sex attraction choose to have it. However, my ancestors did choose to be a part of the Mormon church, which was oppressed and discriminated against. You can't predict behavior on what is "logical" to you. Many people who call themselves gay feel more comfortable around people who are like them, and choose to associate with them.

In several discussion a self-described homosexual told me that he longed for the golden days of ancient Greece, when 100% of the people practiced homosexual behavior. I challenged him on this. If it were purely something we were born with, how could 100% of the people be "gay?" He insisted it was true according to several books he had read. Then I looked into it. I found that in several of the ancient Greek cities all of the free men practiced homosexual behavior. I found that when a boy was about six years old he was taken from his family and made to live with older boys and men. Men would woo the boy with presents, poetry, attention, and affection. You had to accept one of the men as your "tutor," who would instruct you in all you needed to know to succeed in their civilization. The boy would be used for homosexual gratification by the tutor, and the tutor would express his love for the boy. The boy grew up thinking this was natural, and did the same thing to boys in his turn. Apparently every one of us could have grown up thinking we were "gay" had we been indoctrinated early enough.

[Cognoscente]

I disagree that "gay" people are oppressed and discriminated against.

...What? Seriously?

I mean, you make some valid points, and there is scientific evidence that early childhood abuse can and does warp development. But seriously, that line is just flat out... stupid.

[vorpal blade]

I disagree that "gay" people are oppressed and discriminated against.

...What? Seriously?

I mean, you make some valid points, and there is scientific evidence that early childhood abuse can and does warp development. But seriously, that line is just flat out... stupid.

I'm sorry, you are right. What was I thinking? We are all oppressed and discriminated against. Sometimes men are oppressed and discriminated against because they are men, and sometimes women are oppressed and discriminated against because they are women. The same is true of rich and poor, conservatives and liberals, young and old, Christian and non-Christian, stupid and brilliant, sensitive and insensitive, ugly and beautiful, tall and short, college-educated and high school dropout, black and white, Asian and Caucasian, the sick and the well. Sometimes non-gays are oppressed and discriminated against because they are not gays. All of us feel oppressed and discriminated against in various circumstances because we are all different and fall into categories because of those differences.

You are right. Why should gay people feel any different from the rest of us? That is stupid. But of course we still might choose to belong to an oppressed and discriminated against minority for some personal reasons. Anyway it would seem that we will be oppressed and discriminated against by someone or other no matter what we choose.

[Cognoscente]

You're being deliberately obtuse, and it's beneath you.

Of course discrimination exists, and is a fact of life. That doesn't mean certain demographics don't have a harder time than others, which you seem loathe to concede.

[vorpal blade]

You're being deliberately obtuse, and it's beneath you.

Of course discrimination exists, and is a fact of life. That doesn't mean certain demographics don't have a harder time than others, which you seem loathe to concede.

I originally was thinking of civil rights when I read Imogen's words “oppressed and discriminated against.” I don't believe “gay people” are lacking in any civil rights.

But then, as a result of your comments I got to thinking that “oppressed and discriminated against” could be interpreted in a much broader sense. In that broader sense I have no doubt that “homosexuals” are oppressed and discriminated against. Saying that was the purpose of my last post.

Let me try to be a little less misunderstood. I believe that if a person has a same-sex attraction they should control their feelings and they should not practice homosexual behavior. If they did what they should do then others would not know of their inclinations and people with a same-sex attraction would not be discriminated against. The only oppression would be the knowledge that what they are tempted to do is sinful and socially unacceptable to a significant portion of our society. That kind of oppression is a good thing, though it does make life harder for them.

However, if a person continues in behavior that is seriously sinful then there will be consequences. Life will be harder because of what they choose to do. Some of the consequences are right and proper, such as not being allowed to attend BYU. Other consequences will come from the unchristian behavior of others. Anyone who is unchristian will need to answer to God for his or her behavior.

[Imogen]

You're being deliberately obtuse, and it's beneath you.

Of course discrimination exists, and is a fact of life. That doesn't mean certain demographics don't have a harder time than others, which you seem loathe to concede.

I originally was thinking of civil rights when I read Imogen's words “oppressed and discriminated against.” I don't believe “gay people” are lacking in any civil rights.

But then, as a result of your comments I got to thinking that “oppressed and discriminated against” could be interpreted in a much broader sense. In that broader sense I have no doubt that “homosexuals” are oppressed and discriminated against. Saying that was the purpose of my last post.

Let me try to be a little less misunderstood. I believe that if a person has a same-sex attraction they should control their feelings and they should not practice homosexual behavior. If they did what they should do then others would not know of their inclinations and people with a same-sex attraction would not be discriminated against. The only oppression would be the knowledge that what they are tempted to do is sinful and socially unacceptable to a significant portion of our society. That kind of oppression is a good thing, though it does make life harder for them.

However, if a person continues in behavior that is seriously sinful then there will be consequences. Life will be harder because of what they choose to do. Some of the consequences are right and proper, such as not being allowed to attend BYU. Other consequences will come from the unchristian behavior of others. Anyone who is unchristian will need to answer to God for his or her behavior.

no one should have to stop doing anything because someone else says so if it's not hurting people. plus, there are plenty of things people use to excuse discrimination that can't be changed. i can't change that i'm a black-iranian-straight-catholic-woman. those things won't change. my religion MIGHT change, but nothing else will. but people still treat me badly because of those things. oppression of any kind is bad.

and, i can't say this enough, we live in a country where people have so many different beliefs it boggles my mind. you find homosexuality sinful. i do not (despite my own religion's teachings on the matter). you think you're right, i think i'm right. wouldn't the BEST solution be to treat everyone equally IN ALL RESPECTS AT ALL TIME NO MATTER WHAT and let our personal beliefs guide our own lives, rather than trying to force our beliefs on others? if i didn't believe in gods of any kind, and i don't think i'll have anything to answer for, why do you care? why is it any of your business who i choose to have sex with or spend my life with?

[Nanti-SARRMM]

I originally was thinking of civil rights when I read Imogen's words “oppressed and discriminated against.” I don't believe “gay people” are lacking in any civil rights.

Actually, that's not entirely true. In California, for example, Homosexual couples enjoy all the same civil rights that hetero couples do, that the state can provide. In Utah, for example, no such protection exists legally yet. On a federal scale, married tax cuts/benefits only apply to hetero couples, so things like veterans rights that apply to married couples on a federal level and all that do not apply to same gendered couples.

And each state is a little different in what their laws say in regard to equal civil rights. So depending on the location, same gendered couples do lack some civil rights.

[vorpal blade]

I originally was thinking of civil rights when I read Imogen's words “oppressed and discriminated against.” I don't believe “gay people” are lacking in any civil rights.

Actually, that's not entirely true. In California, for example, Homosexual couples enjoy all the same civil rights that hetero couples do, that the state can provide. In Utah, for example, no such protection exists legally yet. On a federal scale, married tax cuts/benefits only apply to hetero couples, so things like veterans rights that apply to married couples on a federal level and all that do not apply to same gendered couples.

And each state is a little different in what their laws say in regard to equal civil rights. So depending on the location, same gendered couples do lack some civil rights.

Sam, I can see your reasoning. You think that if a heterosexual couple enjoys certain rights, then in order to be equal same-gender relationships should be treated the same as heterosexual marriages. I disagree.

Please try to understand my point of view. Everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, is entitled to exactly the same civil right to marry a person of the opposite sex, subject to the laws relating to marriage. The fact that someone does not have an interest in such a marriage neither lessens nor increases his civil rights. Any right, privilege, or obligation that the law grants to a same-sex relationship is an additional benefit to the civil rights we all have. These additional benefits are not bringing them up to the same level of civil rights the rest of us share, it is creating new rights not previously known to the world. If I want a relationship with my car, and I want to call it marriage, and I want all the tax benefits and veteran benefits that come to married couples to come to me as a result of my desire to form a union with my car, the state is under no obligation to grant me these benefits. It is not out of a lack of fairness. It is not out of prejudice. A same-sex relationship is fundamentally not equivalent to marriage.

Any benefits of law specifically given to a same-sex relationship is over and above the rights given to every citizen.