Josh Weed's manifesto

[Vort]

http://www.joshweed.com/2013/10/this-is-my-manifesto.html

 

I'm not a Josh Weed groupie. I have read a few of his essays, and I think he is a talented writer and a pretty funny guy. I'm well aware, as most of us are, of his "homosexual but married LDS" status. I came across this essay this morning. I think it's well worth the time for any Latter-day Saint to read. I'm not fond of a tone he sometimes brings to bear that I think of as "counselor-speak", as when he talks about conversations he has with his children. But that's a stylistic issue. In this case, I'm less concerned about his style than the substance of what he has written.

 

My thoughts:

 

(This response has turned into quite a personal introspection that I'm sharing. This is not the ideal setting for such an essay, given there are several here who dislike me. But there are others who are much friendlier and more tolerant of me. I guess I'm addressing these friends. If the others want to read and mock, I suppose that's their option.)

 

I appreciate Weed's testimony. It inspires me. I also appreciate his (and his father's) profound teachings about the weaknesses and imperfections of our leaders, and the ultimate irrelevance of those imperfections. (But only irrelevant because true revelation fills the gap.) Mostly, I appreciate a disturbing and at times heartbreaking look at what it means to "grow up gay" in the LDS Church.

 

I do think that homosexuality is a perversion, in the most literal sense of the word. If you believe that sex is a divine gift to bring husband and wife closer together and allow us to partner with God in creating life, I don't see how you can't think that homosexual actions are a perversion. But that is much different from considering a person a "pervert". I experienced plenty of bullying growing up, especially between 12 and 18, including my share of being called a "fag". How this has influenced my gut response to the idea of homosexuality, I don't know; but I can only imagine how much more horrible it would have been if I really had been experiencing feelings of same-sex attraction.

 

I don't know if I have ever crossed the line between identifying homosexual acts as "perversion" and identifying an individual as a "pervert". The former is true, but the latter is unacceptable. If I have ever done so on this forum, I pledge to try to do better. I feel that the homosexual "rights" advocacy we have witnessed in the last decade is an unprecedented attack on fundamental decency -- but that doesn't mean it is completely wrong in all it says, and it certainly does not mean that the individual human beings involved are "perverts".

 

Human sexuality is not a dichotomy, of course, nor is it even a two-dimensional continuum. It is a multidimensional space. In one sense, it is undoubtedly good that we learn to love and value those who, like Josh Weed, find themselves in one region of that space that does not fall easily or naturally into the nuclear-heterosexual-family area. But that is true not just for homosexuals; it is true for all, including (for example) so-called pedophiles. Why are pedophiles so harshly rejected and threatened? Well, for obvious reasons. But "obvious" does not mean "righteous" or "acceptable". The exact same reasoning that the homosexual camp uses (at least in LDS cirlces) for why homosexuals should be tolerated and loved applies 100% to pedophiles. That the pro-homosexuality camp would insist on such reasoning in the case of homosexuality and yet utterly reject it when applied to pedophilia (or any other sexual perversion) is open hypocrisy.

 

I find this entire topic disturbing. Perhaps even more disturbing is that I don't understand how the reality of homosexual drives (or other perverse sexual drives such as pedophilia etc.) fits in with what we are supposed to experience and learn in mortality. I understand the arguments from the pro-homosexuality camp, and I actually agree with many of them. I am all for treating our brothers and sisters, including those with homosexual drives, as children of God. I simply disagree with the insistence on societal normalization of a sexual perversion. It should not be normalized. People's sexuality is fluid, and telling young people that homosexuality is "okay" will undoubtedly lead many more to trying it out. Many tastes, including sexual tastes, are developed. All fornication is destructive to the human spirit; homosexual fornication can be no less destructive than its heterosexual counterpart. Since all good and Godly sexual interaction is by definition heterosexual, I see no profit to society or to individuals in exalting homosexual acts as morally equal with heterosexual acts.

 

What is the interface between our efforts to construct society as we think is right and our duty to love those whose beliefs, or in the present case their very psychological makeup, runs contrary to our efforts? I do not know the answer to this. It's a "feel-your-way" kind of thing, whereas I am much more comfortable in a "lay-out-the-parameters" situation. I can usually see issues clearly; my take on most societal situations tends to be correct in its fundamentals. But I am weaker when it comes to understanding how to proceed, given the lay of the land. I tend to want to take a straight-line course from A to B, even when a more circuitous route would be better-advised -- even when the straight-line course might not be possible. This topic looks to be a complicated route, indeed. I find myself paralyzed, bound to inaction because every path looks fraught with peril. So instead I cling to what I know and voice what I am sure is true. When I hear others saying blatantly false things, I tend to react with frustration. Perhaps I might do better to consider that they are trying out different paths, wrong ones, but at least they're trying to get to Point B.

 

Societal Interactions 101. That's what we need.

[The Folk Prophet]

Read through it. About 80% of what he says rings true and right, and the rest rings false and flat. Particularly, his general adamant expression that his experiences define reality and thereby he declares, resolutely, what is and is not "truth".

 

I know his heart is right. I know he means well. But in the end, he perpetuates the same victim culture that is common now, and adds to the great lie being drunk by the world at large. And why? Because what he "knew" to be true at 12 and 14 must be the truth? Really? Very little of what I believed to be truth about myself at 14 do I still hold on to.

 

I also appreciate his testimony and his pseudo-loyalty (unless he considers their teachings false based on his personal experience) to the brethren. But the end of what he is and does strikes me as, overall, harmful. Are there some in the struggles of same-sex attraction who might be helped by him? Yes. Is that worth the damage being done? Dunno.

Edited May 28, 2015 by The Folk Prophet

[Just_A_Guy]

I don't follow the Weeds closely, so I might be misreading him badly.  And of course, not having seen the post Josh alludes to (the one he wrote, then deleted), I'm at an even greater disadvantage.

 

But from the post Vort linked, Josh either seemed to be either hinting that the LDS leadership is wrong about the sinfulness of gay sex (but we need to follow them anyways, at least for now), or at least making a very noticeable effort to avoid saying that the LDS leadership is right.  I presume he does this so as not to hurt or alienate his following.  It may work, in the short term, and even keep some people in the Church for the time being.  But as time goes on and the Church doesn't start giving gay Mormons leave to go off and have sex, gay Mormons are going to have to make the choice that Josh seems to be trying to delay:  Will they stay, or will they go?

 

I wish the Weed family the best, and (for whatever my own judgment is worth, which is absolutely nothing) it does strike me that their hearts are generally in the right place.  But to me, Josh comes across as walking a very fine line between "follow the Spirit, take the course of action He dictates, accept that He may give others slightly different instructions, and trust God to sort it all out in the end" versus a morally relativist, "there are no wrong answers here" position.  I hope he stays on the right side of that line.

 

(I also believe that Josh was misreading/misapplying/over-personalizing most of Kimball's statements on homosexuality as they appear in Miracle of Forgiveness.  But as Josh didn't want to seriously engage on that topic, nor will I.)

Edited May 28, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

The impression I got from the blog post was about the leaderships' approach to the message on homosexuality and not necessarily the message that is wrong. Did I misunderstand it?

[bytor2112]

I struggle to understand how someone who is allegedly a devout Latter Day Saint can describe themselves as gay. Further, how does a woman marry a man that continues to label himself as such. IMO....it marginalizes the Atonement and states pretty loudly to me that Christ's Atonement cannot overcome all of our weakness. 

 

If I had committed adultery and still had intimate desires for women other than my wife ( and was actively struggling to overcome them) I would not describe myself as an adulterer. Surely that is a profound weakness for many men and women and as powerful as same sex attraction, yet it can be overcome and not seen as a descriptor unless one is engaging physically in this type of behavior.

 

I believe that homosexual sex is a gross transgression and a perversion and a sickness of the mind. Blogs like this are less about "courage" as described by some of those that commented and more about perpetuation of falsehood and lies. The Adversary of our souls must be over joyed by the acceptance of homosexuality as normal, loving and just as valid as heterosexual relationships. Sadly, many in the church are drawn into believing that we shouldn't vote or encourage civil law based on our moral view point. Of course we should and have always done so and anyone that truly understands the Gospel plan of salvation would never want to see something as evil as SS marriage seen as normal and the law of the land. Why of why would we want to help our lost brothers and sisters continue to be lost and ultimately lead others astray for perhaps generations to come. 

 

The genie is out of the bottle now and it is not going back in. Choose wisely where you stand and with whom you stand. We will without question be held accountable for the keys, power and authority granted us in this life and also for our thoughts and deeds and those things which we supported. 

Edited May 28, 2015 by bytor2112

[Guest]

I struggle to understand how someone who is allegedly a devout Latter Day Saint can describe themselves as gay. Further, how does a woman marry a man that continues to label himself as such. IMO....it marginalizes the Atonement and states pretty loudly to me that Christ's Atonement cannot overcome all of our weakness.

See if this helps...

The difference in your logic from people such as Josh Weed is you equate "Gay" with "Adultery" - these are not on the same plane. Rather, Josh Weed equates "Gay" as more akin to "Autistic" or even "Artistic" or "Musically inclined"... An artistic kid may grow up and choose to become an Engineer, but he doesn't need to stop self-identifying as artistic. Make sense?

Edited May 28, 2015 by anatess

[bytor2112]

Accept that God doesn't have problems with the autistic or artistic, but he does with homosexuality, which is really what "gay" describes. 

 

I would feel differently if he described himself as once having had homosexual tendencies and had overcome them through Christ's Atonement. 

 

I am admittidly closed minded when it comes to these issues and will likely never change.

Edited May 28, 2015 by bytor2112

[The Folk Prophet]

Josh Weed equates "Gay" as more akin to "Autistic" or even "Artistic" or "Musically inclined"... An artistic kid may grow up and choose to become an Engineer, but he doesn't stop being artistic. Make sense?

 

I call foul on that in two regards. A) Source it. Does he really equate it thusly? It strikes me from reading this post that he equates "gay" with having sexual attraction for the same gender. B) It's malarkey if he or anyone does equate sexual interest with being artistic or musically inclined.

 

Sexual attraction = desire to engage in sexual activities with -- not "I like the color pink" or "I love musical theater" or "I'm good at something" or even, "I'm bad at math".

 

Not the same thing.

[Guest]

Accept that God doesn't have problems with the autistic or artistic, but he does with homosexuality, which is really what "gay" describes. 

 

I would feel differently if he described himself as once having had homosexual tendencies and had overcome them through Christ's Atonement. 

 

I am admittidly closed minded when it comes to these issues and will likely never change.

Being gay is not a sin. Having sex, or any of the steps tempting it, outside of marriage is a sin.

This is the same as:

Being autistic is not a sin. Throwing poop at your teacher because you're autistic is a sin (caveat: if your maturity level is at the point where you qualify for baptism).

Edited May 28, 2015 by anatess

[Guest]

I call foul on that in two regards. A) Source it. Does he really equate it thusly? It strikes me from reading this post that he equates "gay" with having sexual attraction for the same gender. B) It's malarkey if he or anyone does equate sexual interest with being artistic or musically inclined.

 

Sexual attraction = desire to engage in sexual activities with -- not "I like the color pink" or "I love musical theater" or "I'm good at something" or even, "I'm bad at math".

 

Not the same thing.

Soulsearcher has been trying to explain this to us for... I'd say years... yet nobody listens to him. My husband's best friend says the exact same thing Soulsearcher does. Josh Weed, from the way he talks about his being gay sounds the same. This is how they describe it.

You are heterosexual. If the Lord would have given the commandment that we can only marry those of the same gender as ours, do you think you will stop being attracted to women?

Edited May 28, 2015 by anatess

[The Folk Prophet]

Being gay is not a sin. Having sex, or any of the steps tempting it, outside of marriage is a sin.

This is the same as:

Being autistic is not a sin. Throwing poop at your teacher because you're autistic is a sin (caveat: if your maturity level is at the point where you qualify for baptism).

 

Except being gay IS (for some reason people cannot seem to understand this) a DESIRE for sin. Being autistic "may" cause one to desire certain sins. It also may not. It is not the defining factor of it. It is, however, the defining factor of what homosexuality is. It is a desire for something sinful.

 

To make a truly compelling comparison, you'd have to use an example that sets someone up in a role where they have a desire for something sinful. Of course, as soon as you do that everyone calls foul and claims your comparing gays to this or that and how offensive and all that. But if you don't compare it that way, then the comparison doesn't work on any level, because having a desire for tomatoes is not the same thing.

 

Maybe an orthodox Jew's desire for bacon would work. 

[Guest]

Except being gay IS (for some reason people cannot seem to understand this) a DESIRE for sin. Being autistic "may" cause one to desire certain sins. It also may not. It is not the defining factor of it. It is, however, the defining factor of what homosexuality is. It is a desire for something sinful.

 

To make a truly compelling comparison, you'd have to use an example that sets someone up in a role where they have a desire for something sinful. Of course, as soon as you do that everyone calls foul and claims your comparing gays to this or that and how offensive and all that. But if you don't compare it that way, then the comparison doesn't work on any level, because having a desire for tomatoes is not the same thing.

 

Maybe an orthodox Jew's desire for bacon would work. 

I have IED. Just because I have it doesn't mean I am sinful.

[Just_A_Guy]

To make a truly compelling comparison, you'd have to use an example that sets someone up in a role where they have a desire for something sinful. Of course, as soon as you do that everyone calls foul and claims your comparing gays to this or that and how offensive and all that. But if you don't compare it that way, then the comparison doesn't work on any level, because having a desire for tomatoes is not the same thing.

 

Oh, there are plenty of such examples.  It's just that we usually categorize them as "psychological disorders".

 

I guess the way I look at it is, a predisposition to any behavior--even sin--is most certainly a "part of who I am".  I don't see any danger in acknowledging that per se--the problem is when we follow "it's who I am" with "and I can't/won't/shouldn't try to change it".

[The Folk Prophet]

You are heterosexual. If the Lord would have given the commandment that we can only marry those of the same gender as ours, do you think you will stop being attracted to women?

 

This entire philosophy is, in my thinking, based on twisted half truths and mistaken, trendy, political correct ideologies that I do not buy into at all.

 

It's also irrelevant, which is something else that seems to escape the modern atmosphere of what's considered rational thought on the matter. It's the argument (lie) that because something is natural it is justified. Of course with the whole "Mormon Gay" thing that justification is softened. It's only their desires they're justifying, rather than the blatant actions. But we know well that the natural man is an enemy to God, unless one puts off the natural man and becomes willing to submit to all things the Lord sees fit to inflict upon us. All things! (How offensive, right? An "enemy to God". What a rude scripture!)

 

So what, exactly, is the point being made then? It's setting up a meaningless hypothetical to get "straights" to emotionally admit that gay is okay because they find the idea of gay sex repellent. But that is the whole problem with emotional arguments. It doesn't matter how we feel about something if it is not in line with God's will.

 

Moreover, I do not believe for one stinking second that anyone who allowed themselves to go down certain paths could not develop sexual attraction for practically ANYTHING. Not for a second. We, as the corrupt, disgusting little perverted creatures we naturally are can learn any sort of depravity. In point of fact, I think it would be FAR, far easier for a straight person to develop gay or bi attractions than it, likely, for a gay person to develop straight attractions. Kind of like how it's easier to develop (oh no...here comes one of those offensive examples...) a lying habit than it is to break it, or how it's easier to start viewing pornography than it is to stop, or how it's easier to develop a road rage habit than it is to break it, etc., etc...

 

It's always easier to become corrupt than it is to clean up from corruption. And the choice or not to become corrupt isn't really relative to that. Some people have extremely depraved psyches through no fault of their own whatsoever. And leaving that depravity behind becomes no easier because of that. But depravity is still depravity, imperfection is still imperfection, the natural man is still the natural man, and if we do not yield to the Holy Spirit and put off that natural man then we are enemies to God -- chosen or not. 

 

This is the same thing being asked of all of us.

[The Folk Prophet]

I have IED. Just because I have it doesn't mean I am sinful.

 

I was talking with my brother the other day about his A.D.D. kids and he made the comment, "Remember when we were kids and it was just called being bad?"

 

 

I kid (sort of) of course. But I really do have a problem with the whole "victim" society we live in nowadays. Nothing is ever our fault. And psychology plays right into that.

 

So as you don't think I'm making light of your disorder, I really, honestly, do have A.D.D. Diagnosed. For real.

 

But I sure don't plan on still being that way by the time I die. In point of fact, most who know me nowadays have no clue (and refuse to even believe) that I struggle that way. I would hope your efforts at overcoming what at first I thought was a sister-condition to IBD are along the same lines.

 

Wait. I thought it was way beyond PC to compare homosexuality to any sort of disorder!! 

[bytor2112]

Being gay is not a sin. Having sex, or any of the steps tempting it, outside of marriage is a sin.

 

 

I think continuing to describes one's self as being sexually attracted to someone of the same sex while  married to someone of the opposite sex is wrong.....don't you? Being gay is after all based on a desire to have sex with someone of the same sex. Despite the best efforts of many who claim otherwise, in the end ....that is what it is. 

Edited May 28, 2015 by bytor2112

[Bini]

The topic of homosexuality never becomes a dead horse around here.

 

From what I understood as an LDS, I agree with Anatess and her thought process, I believe a large majority of people sail in the same boat. Finding attraction of others, regardless of sexual orientation, is not sinful - however - acting upon it when (1) you are married or (2) you choose to engage in homosexual intimacy, then it becomes sin, in the eyes of the Church. So there is a difference.

[Just_A_Guy]

The topic of homosexuality never becomes a dead horse around here.

 

Ain't no such thing as a horse so dead it ain't worth killin' some more.

[Traveler]

My thoughts.

 

I think Anatess example of artistic would have been better served had she used instead alcoholism.  It is not sinful in my mind to admit one is an alcoholic - the problem is in being a drunkard.  There is, in my mind, a very big difference.  Unfortunately there is no such distinction with homosexuality.  The problem appears to me to be that terms mean different things at different times.  I think there should be a vast difference between same sex attraction and being a homosexual - similar to being a drunkard or an alcoholic.

 

Realizing that many do not make such distinction - I try to accommodate any individual trying to repent.  This is because there are things that I struggle with repenting.  When I think I have finely achieved a state where I can move on - I find that in some circumstance I fail.  But the particular things I fail and struggle with repentance is not the same as others.  For example as much as I try to put the lid down on the toilet - it somehow ends up being up and my mostly tolerant wife notices and reminds me.  This has been going on for over 40 years.  You would think I would have this problem solved - but I don't.

 

I like to point to others and say their struggles with sin or worse than mine - therefore they are not as righteous as me.  But that blame thing does not seem to help anybody repent.  I have tried pointing out faults to some posters on this forum - and I cannot think of a single time they thanked me for it - but I have a very long list of times it has ticked them off at me.  And of course I just blink and say to myself that I was only trying to help - therefore not only are they evil but they are also stupid.  But that only make the temptation to dislike them greater.

 

I also struggle with the concept of hate the sin but love the sinner - especially if I find the action of the sin directed towards me.  Some may find it flattering if someone is attracted to them.  Though I think it is fun for a lady to flirt with me - my wife does not like it any more than I like guys flirting with her.  So when a lady flirts with me I try to hide my enjoyment, repent and move on.  I find it awkward to congratulate a lady - especially if I find her attractive.  I am sure many ladies think I am a jerk (among other things) for not being more kind when I am trying to hide my attractiveness to them.

 

But I am very much a hypocrite - I do not deal with guys the same way I deal with gals.  If a guy indicates in any way that they find me attractive -  I will not hide in embarrassment.  Because of past experiences, I confront the expression and go to great lengths to  make absolutely sure they do not make that mistake ever again.  But this is not because I hate them but entirely a defense mechanism and my outright judging them as a predator.  

 

I will shake hands with anyone - but please no hugs!  If you are offended - I am truly sorry but do not push the issue.  I can deal with those with same sex attraction or I can deal with homosexuals - but only on my terms.  Again sorry to all others that disagree with my terms - but while we are being honest be glad that I will not be your judge on that great day of judgment but know - I have some struggles myself.  Maybe someday I can deal with homosexuals on their terms - but not today.

Edited May 28, 2015 by Traveler

[classylady]

In the next life I hope all our questions about same sex attraction will be answered.  I have no answers to any of this.  But, I do wonder, and maybe because I'm a woman this is how I react, if/when I'm attracted to a man, that doesn't necessarily mean I want to have a physical relationship with them.  Maybe for men it is different?  If they are attracted to a female or male, do they just go to the physical desire aspect of it?  Because, I don't always see attraction as a physical desire, I don't look at it as a sin.  I look at it as an innocent feeling where no physical desire is necessarily involved.  But, yet, it's definitely a heterosexual attraction.  Is it just me?  Women in general?  I don't know.  Maybe I'm naive.

[Guest]

This entire philosophy is, in my thinking, based on twisted half truths and mistaken, trendy, political correct ideologies that I do not buy into at all.

It's also irrelevant, which is something else that seems to escape the modern atmosphere of what's considered rational thought on the matter. It's the argument (lie) that because something is natural it is justified. .

I'm going to just end the quote right on that sentence because the rest is irrelevant.

NOTHIING in my post makes even a small attempt at justification. My post merely ends in definition. Particularly what the word Gay definitively implies.

[Guest]

I was talking with my brother the other day about his A.D.D. kids and he made the comment, "Remember when we were kids and it was just called being bad?"

I kid (sort of) of course. But I really do have a problem with the whole "victim" society we live in nowadays. Nothing is ever our fault. And psychology plays right into that.

So as you don't think I'm making light of your disorder, I really, honestly, do have A.D.D. Diagnosed. For real.

But I sure don't plan on still being that way by the time I die. In point of fact, most who know me nowadays have no clue (and refuse to even believe) that I struggle that way. I would hope your efforts at overcoming what at first I thought was a sister-condition to IBD are along the same lines.

Wait. I thought it was way beyond PC to compare homosexuality to any sort of disorder!!

Here again is why Bytor can't understand Josh referring to himself as being gay. For some reason, just using the word gay to call one's self somehow gets understood by you as "justification" or "victimization". It is nothing of the sort. It is simply a word one uses to describe one's self.

Ok, direct juxtaposition. I have IED. No, I have not changed enough that I'm free from it. Now, if society somehow comes up with a word to label someone who has IED... Like, say, Sprocket.... Then when I'm writing a blog about Sprockets or posting on a forum about Sprockets, it is but natural to call myself Sprocket. "At 14, I bullied kids because I'm Sprocket", "My husband has to be amazing to be married to me being Sprocket"....

Nothing about me calling myself Sprocket indicates in any way, shape or form what I believe is the morality of being a sprocket nor has I justified my being a sprocket or that I have every intention to remain a sprocket or doing my absolutest best so that one day I can finally say, Hello World! I'm not Sprocket anymore!!!!

Now go back to that paragraph and imagine Josh Weed saying all that replacing Sprocket with Gay.

Now, if you think I should stop calling myself Sprocket when I'm talking about IED or anything related to it, then okay, Josh should stop calling himself Gay. As it stands, I don't see what's wrong with saying I'm Sprocket and how that makes me sinful.

[The Folk Prophet]

I'm going to just end the quote right on that sentence because the rest is irrelevant.

NOTHIING in my post makes even a small attempt at justification. My post merely ends in definition. Particularly what the word Gay definitively implies.

 

I'm not sure how this > "If the Lord would have given the commandment that we can only marry those of the same gender as ours, do you think you will stop being attracted to women? " < is in any way a "definition" of homosexuality. And I'm not sure how you cannot see that this sort of a statement is an attempt at justification. But I believe you if you say it wasn't your intent. Intent aside, however, pointing out that it would be ridiculously hard for a straight person to turn gay if the church commanded it holds all sorts of implications, and one of them is clearly some level of justification.

 

I'm also not sure how my fairly flatly stating that I do believe a straight person could go gay (or develop any other tendency) if it was commanded is irrelevant to what you said, as it is a direct response to what you said.

[Guest]

I'm not sure how this > "If the Lord would have given the commandment that we can only marry those of the same gender as ours, do you think you will stop being attracted to women? " < is in any way a "definition" of homosexuality. And I'm not sure how you cannot see that this sort of a statement is an attempt at justification. But I believe you if you say it wasn't your intent. Intent aside, however, pointing out that it would be ridiculously hard for a straight person to turn gay if the church commanded it holds all sorts of implications, and one of them is clearly some level of justification.

I'm also not sure how my fairly flatly stating that I do believe a straight person could go gay (or develop any other tendency) if it was commanded is irrelevant to what you said, as it is a direct response to what you said.

Again... Definition or labeling.

If God ever says it is a sin to have sex with someone of the opposite gender, I will not all of a sudden not be heterosexual anymore. Because, I'm attracted to men. I'm still heterosexual. That's who I am right now. When the time comes that I stop being attracted to men and start being attracted to women, then I can stop calling myself hetero and start calling myself gay. That's why I asked the question. Because you, as a hetero, can relate to being attracted to a certain gender and so you can probably imagine what it would be like if who you are attracted to is abominable to God... would you grow up then being attracted to men or would you still be attracted to women? Calling yourself hetero then, doesn't mean you are making justifications... it is simply a definition, a label of who you are at the moment.

Now, flip that into the true gospel that sex can only be hetero... and think of Josh Weed as still attracted to men. He is still gay even if he is doing his very best, every single day, to not be attracted to men anymore. So, just because he is gay doesn't make him a sinner especially since he is working diligently to overcome it.

I really don't know how else to explain this to be any clearer.

Edited May 29, 2015 by anatess

[The Folk Prophet]

Again... Definition or labeling.

If God ever says it is a sin to have sex with someone of the opposite gender, I will not all of a sudden not be heterosexual anymore. Because, I'm attracted to men. I'm still heterosexual. That's who I am right now. When the time comes that I stop being attracted to men and start being attracted to women, then I can stop calling myself hetero and start calling myself gay. That's why I asked the question. Because you, as a hetero, can relate to being attracted to a certain gender and so you can probably imagine what it would be like if who you are attracted to is abominable to God... would you grow up then being attracted to men or would you still be attracted to women? Calling yourself hetero then, doesn't mean you are making justifications... it is simply a definition, a label of who you are at the moment.

Now, flip that into the true gospel that sex can only be hetero... and think of Josh Weed as still attracted to men. He is still gay even if he is doing his very best, every single day, to not be attracted to men anymore. So, just because he is gay doesn't make him a sinner especially since he is working diligently to overcome it.

I really don't know how else to explain this to be any clearer.

 

I think you're perhaps conflating my responses with bytor's somewhat. I have no qualms with the fact that Josh Weed is gay, by definition. I do tend to agree that it's a mistake for him to proclaim it to the world, shout it from the rooftops, so-to-speak, and self define as such as a primary variable of who he is. But I have no doubt that he is sexually attracted to people of the same sex -- the definition of "gay".

Edited May 29, 2015 by The Folk Prophet