I understand what you’re saying about the difficulty of living up to the Church’s ideal (which, I believe, is the Lord’s ideal) in a world where nothing is as neat and tidy as we would like it to be. The world is fallen and random and inhospitable and God is so quiet. It can be frustrating.

The gay community has long described homosexuality as being part of the great diversity of mankind. I have never been willing to totally accept the idea that a homosexual orientation is simply a varient of human makeup like being left-handed or having blue eyes. It just seems too “broken.” It doesn’t take a scientist to convince anyone that men and women are physically designed for sexual coupling with each other. Yet, it is clear that homosexuality does widely occur in the animal kingdom. And coupled with the estimates that between 5 and 10% of the human population is homosexual, it does suggest that it is a “natural” aspect of life on this earth.

I see homosexuality as “diversity” more akin to the idea of “opposition in all things,” which I don’t believe is strictly black and white. Homosexuality, like left-handedness, diabetes, mental illness, gray hair, imperfect teeth, or olive colored skin, is part of the wonderous and complex fabric of the human condition. Sometimes tragic, sometimes beautiful, sometimes plain, these things are all part of the rich experience that mortality provides. And what matters is how we intersect and interact with the variety of people and situations with which we come in contact.

If we seek a divine purpose for human sexuality, the model in Genesis seems to fit, where men and women are called to join together and multiply and fill the earth. LDS doctrine gives this model its ultimate expression. Yet not everyone can achieve this ideal state, nor fulfill the command to bear children. Some people find that they cannot pair with the opposite sex. Others discover that they are infirtile and cannot produce offspring. A portion of humanity, for whatever reason, finds itself outside of the norm, the ideal, the divine plan for mankind. Yet here too, we believe that there is divine purpose underlying the incongruities of life. When we sorrow for the childless couple, we hope that, somewhere in the grand plan of the Creator, there is meaning to the apparent deficiency. I believe that somewhere in the wisdom of God there is purpose behind what we might perceive as the homosexual’s broken existence.

Statements like this: “We are deceiving ourselves if we think we can do research without bias,” make me glad I study biology. They also make me distrust every word you crazy psychologists say ; )

By “Plan of Salvation” I am not referring to the command for men and women to multiply and replenish the Earth. I am referring to the opportunity that Heavenly Father has provided for us to attain exhaltation. In my comment posted on January 26, 2006 at 03:02 PM (why no comment numbers, Rusty?) I explained how I believe the Lord’s directive to not participate in sexual activity outside of man/woman marriage fits into the Plan.

I understand what you’re saying about the difficulty of living up to the Church’s ideal (which, I believe, is the Lord’s ideal) in a world where nothing is as neat and tidy as we would like it to be. The world is fallen and random and inhospitable and God is so quiet. It can be frustrating.

Inferential statistics test hypotheses. Descriptive statistics describe the data collected on the sample, but can say nothing about the larger populations we are actually interested in and cannot test hypotheses, etc. In other words, you can’t just ask a neutral question of the data in an attempt to find a trend or some generalized statement of the truth because you would be taking an unfair advantage of chance. The explanation would take nearly a whole course in inferential statistics.

And if you have a hypothesis, you have a bias. There are methodological and statistical controls for bias. All peer reveiwed papers are examined to make sure the rules of research have not been violated. The fact is bias will exist; but we don’t want falsified data and we want to be upfront with our bias. We are deceiving ourselves if we think we can do research without bias.

…Which further emphasizes my point.

Regarding homosexual activity as serious transgression is entirely consistent with the Plan of Salvation that has been consistently taught by the Church.

If, by the Plan of Salvation, you are referring to the command for men and women to multiply and replenish the earth, I would say that the Plan assumes a perfect world. The Plan and the Proclamation define a narrow ideal to which many people, for whatever reason, will simply never be able to conform. I have no problem with the Plan of Salvation as an ideal. It is wonderful. But to think that whatever does not fit neatly into that picture, because of some aberration, defect or handicap, to be inherently sinfull just boggles my mind!

That is true. But you will understand that I included that bit in my comment to heighten the contrast between what seems so inherently benign based on empirical evidence and that which is dividing churches and the nation.

Alma said all sexual transgressions are serious sins — not just homosexual activities.

President Hinkley’s statement to Larry King did not reflect any ambivalence on the subject of homosexuality. He made it very clear that he believes that homosexuals “have a problem” and that the Church wants to help them solve that problem. And he expressed no ambivalence on the question of gay marriage. What he said he doesn’t know about is the nature of how homosexuality arises, whether it’s something people are born with or it’s something that they cause themselves. And he was noncommital when questioned about civil unions.

Regarding homosexual activity as serious transgression is entirely consistent with the Plan of Salvation that has been consistently taught by the Church.

The Church doesn’t wait for scientific evidence or appeals to logic before they take a stand on any given issue.

Given all of the above, I see no reason to expect that the Church would have an ambivalent attitude on the matter of homosexuality.

If the “theological corner” that the church is painting itself into with the Proclamation is the corner of the truth, then I would say that that is unequivocally a good thing. Whether it’s the truth or not is entirely a question of faith.

While that is just cruel BKPish narrow minded hooey, I actually agree with the part about G-d didn’t make someone that way, but not for the reasons eunuchville thinks. I don’t know if some people are born gay or not, transsexual or not, but to preclude the possibility is to naively ignore the reality of our chaotic existence. Such dogma pretends that chaos is precluded in some areas of our existence, such as sexual orientation during fetal development, which is just nonsensical given all the other random chaotic birth defects we deal with. Related to orientation, are the likes of BKP even aware that some people are born intersexed? What sex was the intersexed person in the preexistence?

IMHO, the human mind is so complex, I wouldn’t be surprised if sometimes something happens during fetal development resulting in some born w/ same sex attraction, transsexuality, etc. But does it really matter to the person dealing w/ these issues? They are dealing w/ issues we reproductive heteros can’t possibly understand. If we accept chaos in some areas of fetal development, and I don’t see how anyone can’t, we then have to accept the possibility in all areas and not pretend to know the mind of G-d on this. If a biblical construct helps, paradise was lost with the Garden of Eden and we experience a lot of random crap here. Since mankind chose this existence under the same construct, if some are born gay, G-d had nothing to do w/ it.