I'm a thirty-something year old guy from Southern Alberta. My family has been in the church since 4 February 1844. I'm disillusioned and "less-active" since 2002.
View all posts by Jeff Milner
16 thoughts on “Scientists Discover “Cure” For Same Sex Attraction”
I guess my response to this article would be in the form of a question.
How would people react if there was a similar procedure to eliminate the chance of getting a female baby (or male for that matter)?
I wonder how many high schools will have to change their mascots now that Rams are out of the closet. I can just see it now “Madison High School – Home of the Gay Rams”.
How would people react if there was a similar procedure to eliminate the chance of getting a baby with a different birth defect? Why single out homosexuality as the untouchable handicap?
Why call it a handicap?
Is your heterosexuality a handicap to you?
Please provide a meaningful and accurate definition of the word “handicap” that doesn’t apply to homosexuality.
“A physical or mental disability.”
“A physical, mental, or emotional condition that interferes with one’s normal functioning.”
Both of those apply in obvious ways to homosexuality.
How precisely is homosexuality a physical disability?
What normal functioning is unavailable to the homosexual?
I don’t think it’s as obvious as you seem to think it is, ltbugaf. I am with, rick on this: how are homosexuals disabled and unable to function normally because they are gay?
One of the normal functions of any biological entity is to produce offspring. Attraction to members of the same sex makes this function either more difficult or impossible. Anything that makes a a normal function either more difficult or impossible is a disability.
From a gospel perspective, one of the things men and women need to do to fill the measure of their creation is to enter eternal marriage with a member of the opposite sex and become parents. Anything that makes that more difficult or impossible is a disability.
Actually there are several biological adaptations which serve no good to the individual, but benefit the group as a whole.
Evolution will favour groups who exhibit this behaviour over other groups that do not.
In that sense, the adaptation is actually an advantage to the group of genes rather than a disability.
I can’t really comment on being ‘spiritually disabled’ since I’m not even sure what that means.
“…there are several biological adaptations which serve no good to the individual, but benefit the group as a whole.”
If this has some relevance to the current discussion, I hope you’ll try to point it out.
“I can’t really comment on being ‘spiritually disabled’ since I’m not even sure what that means.”
Maybe you should ask whoever used that term. Whom are you quoting?
“One of the normal functions of any biological entity is to produce offspring.”
But homosexuality does not make one unable to produce offspring. They are technically still able to function as normally as any heterosexual in this regard.
Kim, people with missing feet are still able to walk, too. But the walking is made significantly more difficult—just as the reproduction is.
Obviously you realize that sexual reproduction requires a certain enthusiasm for at least one party. Same-sex attraction makes that more difficult. It’s a disability.
I agree with Itbugaf (to an extent). Whether or not homosexuality is a disability, I don’t know. But I do know that it is a sin. Therefore, “if we are to be preserved we must abhor them (meaning immoral behaviors), shun them, not practice the least of them, for they weaken and enervate, they kill a man (or woman) spiritually, they make him unfit for the… presence of God.†(Gospel Doctrine, 5th ed., pp. 275-276.)
“But I do know that it is a sin”
How do you know that?
Is this doctrinal knowledge or something else?
I guess my response to this article would be in the form of a question.
How would people react if there was a similar procedure to eliminate the chance of getting a female baby (or male for that matter)?
I wonder how many high schools will have to change their mascots now that Rams are out of the closet. I can just see it now “Madison High School – Home of the Gay Rams”.
How would people react if there was a similar procedure to eliminate the chance of getting a baby with a different birth defect? Why single out homosexuality as the untouchable handicap?
Why call it a handicap?
Is your heterosexuality a handicap to you?
Please provide a meaningful and accurate definition of the word “handicap” that doesn’t apply to homosexuality.
“A physical or mental disability.”
“A physical, mental, or emotional condition that interferes with one’s normal functioning.”
Both of those apply in obvious ways to homosexuality.
How precisely is homosexuality a physical disability?
What normal functioning is unavailable to the homosexual?
I don’t think it’s as obvious as you seem to think it is, ltbugaf. I am with, rick on this: how are homosexuals disabled and unable to function normally because they are gay?
One of the normal functions of any biological entity is to produce offspring. Attraction to members of the same sex makes this function either more difficult or impossible. Anything that makes a a normal function either more difficult or impossible is a disability.
From a gospel perspective, one of the things men and women need to do to fill the measure of their creation is to enter eternal marriage with a member of the opposite sex and become parents. Anything that makes that more difficult or impossible is a disability.
Actually there are several biological adaptations which serve no good to the individual, but benefit the group as a whole.
Evolution will favour groups who exhibit this behaviour over other groups that do not.
In that sense, the adaptation is actually an advantage to the group of genes rather than a disability.
I can’t really comment on being ‘spiritually disabled’ since I’m not even sure what that means.
“…there are several biological adaptations which serve no good to the individual, but benefit the group as a whole.”
If this has some relevance to the current discussion, I hope you’ll try to point it out.
“I can’t really comment on being ‘spiritually disabled’ since I’m not even sure what that means.”
Maybe you should ask whoever used that term. Whom are you quoting?
“One of the normal functions of any biological entity is to produce offspring.”
But homosexuality does not make one unable to produce offspring. They are technically still able to function as normally as any heterosexual in this regard.
Kim, people with missing feet are still able to walk, too. But the walking is made significantly more difficult—just as the reproduction is.
Obviously you realize that sexual reproduction requires a certain enthusiasm for at least one party. Same-sex attraction makes that more difficult. It’s a disability.
I agree with Itbugaf (to an extent). Whether or not homosexuality is a disability, I don’t know. But I do know that it is a sin. Therefore, “if we are to be preserved we must abhor them (meaning immoral behaviors), shun them, not practice the least of them, for they weaken and enervate, they kill a man (or woman) spiritually, they make him unfit for the… presence of God.†(Gospel Doctrine, 5th ed., pp. 275-276.)
“But I do know that it is a sin”
How do you know that?
Is this doctrinal knowledge or something else?