A Response to Ryan
Following my August 26 post regarding Michael Crook and Mitch Mayne, I received a question in the comments. Strangely, I was not notified of its existence until just now, so I am now endeavoring to respond. Hopefully the author won’t be too unhappy with me.
The question was as follows:
I think I understand what you’re saying about the “subtle differences” to which you refer. If I’m getting your argument correctly, you’re saying that with most aberrant inclinations, it’s just a question of whether you have the inclination or not; but with respect to sexual attraction, it’s a question of how a given inclination—specifically, the desire for sex—manifests itself.
But is this really different?
Let us consider a two-dimensional graph, where the y axis represents a given person’s level of sexual attraction: a y-value of 0 is completely asexual (i.e. someone who doesn’t like sex at all); a y-value of 10 is completely sex-addicted (e.g. a nymphomanic on the prowl).
We will then use the x axis to graph the person’s preferred means of acquiring sex: an x-value of 0 is completely heterosexuous (i.e. someone who finds homosexuality to be repulsive); an x-value of 10 is completely homosexuous (i.e. someone who finds heterosexuality to be repulsive). No matter who you are, no matter what you feel, you will find yourself somewhere on this graph.
Now, let’s apply this to the other desire: instead of sexual desire, we shall analyze the desire for the aforementioned Twix bar. We will again consider a two-dimensional graph, where the y axis represents a given person’s level of—shall we say—Twixual attraction. A y-value of 0 is completely atwixual (i.e. those complete weirdos who don’t like Twix at all—you know who you are); a y-value of 10 is a Twixomaniac (i.e someone who loves Twix and is currently hungry for it).
We will then use the x axis to represent that person’s preferred means for acquiring Twix: an x-value of 0 is completely respectful of ownership (i.e. someone who finds the concept of theft to be repulsive); an x-value of 10 is completely kleptomanic (i.e. someone who finds the concept of actually paying for something to be repulsive). Again, no matter who you are, no matter what you feel, you will find yourself somewhere on this graph.
Now, is this analogy perfect? Probably not; so few things in life are. However, I think it demonstrates the point I am trying to make: no one would argue that having a high y-value on the Twixual attraction scale constitutes reasonable justification for a high x-value on the same graph. But many in our our society have decided that same-sex attraction is the one aberrant behavior wherein having a high y-value gives you liberty to have a high x-value on the same graph—a concept that, 30 or 40 years ago, was as laughable as a kleptomaniac having the “right to steal” because hey, he was “born that way.”
The point, as I have often stated, is that if we accept this argument, it must logically follow that all behaviors are acceptable, so long as the practitioner feels a strong enough desire to engage in said behavior. And that, Ryan, is quite literally the definition of anarchy.
The question was as follows:
Jeff, I appreciate that you've thought about the situation critically. That's awesome. That got me on a deep-think track about a few subtle differences between sexual orientation and the inclinations to which you've referred (e.g., to steal a Twix bar). You've basically asserted that all inclinations are basically on the same playing field. What happens, though, when God says to one person "You can act on this inclination" then turns to another person and says "I'm sorry, you can't act on this inclination"?Well, first of all, Ryan, my most sincere apologies that I have somehow missed this question until now. You’d think that Blogger would notify me when I have a new comment, ne? Let’s address your concern.
That's how I view sexual orientation in the LDS Church: God has told straight Mormons, Date! Hold hands! Kiss! Develop these powerful urges within you in a relationship (i.e., marriage) with someone you feel the urges for; God has told gay Mormons, Stay away from people you are attracted to! Don't think idle thoughts! Don't, under any circumstance, let these feelings grow and blossom!
I recognize that within that framework both gay Mormons and straight Mormons are asked to keep impure thoughts and desires at bay. But I can't help but also see the differences. It then makes sense to me that gay Mormons are at such a high risk for suicide: they have no outlet for the inclination they feel when their peers do have an outlet; Moreover, their straight peers are encouraged to develop those feelings and attractions.
I would love to know your thoughts and reactions.
Ryan
I think I understand what you’re saying about the “subtle differences” to which you refer. If I’m getting your argument correctly, you’re saying that with most aberrant inclinations, it’s just a question of whether you have the inclination or not; but with respect to sexual attraction, it’s a question of how a given inclination—specifically, the desire for sex—manifests itself.
But is this really different?
Let us consider a two-dimensional graph, where the y axis represents a given person’s level of sexual attraction: a y-value of 0 is completely asexual (i.e. someone who doesn’t like sex at all); a y-value of 10 is completely sex-addicted (e.g. a nymphomanic on the prowl).
We will then use the x axis to graph the person’s preferred means of acquiring sex: an x-value of 0 is completely heterosexuous (i.e. someone who finds homosexuality to be repulsive); an x-value of 10 is completely homosexuous (i.e. someone who finds heterosexuality to be repulsive). No matter who you are, no matter what you feel, you will find yourself somewhere on this graph.
Now, let’s apply this to the other desire: instead of sexual desire, we shall analyze the desire for the aforementioned Twix bar. We will again consider a two-dimensional graph, where the y axis represents a given person’s level of—shall we say—Twixual attraction. A y-value of 0 is completely atwixual (i.e. those complete weirdos who don’t like Twix at all—you know who you are); a y-value of 10 is a Twixomaniac (i.e someone who loves Twix and is currently hungry for it).
We will then use the x axis to represent that person’s preferred means for acquiring Twix: an x-value of 0 is completely respectful of ownership (i.e. someone who finds the concept of theft to be repulsive); an x-value of 10 is completely kleptomanic (i.e. someone who finds the concept of actually paying for something to be repulsive). Again, no matter who you are, no matter what you feel, you will find yourself somewhere on this graph.
Now, is this analogy perfect? Probably not; so few things in life are. However, I think it demonstrates the point I am trying to make: no one would argue that having a high y-value on the Twixual attraction scale constitutes reasonable justification for a high x-value on the same graph. But many in our our society have decided that same-sex attraction is the one aberrant behavior wherein having a high y-value gives you liberty to have a high x-value on the same graph—a concept that, 30 or 40 years ago, was as laughable as a kleptomaniac having the “right to steal” because hey, he was “born that way.”
The point, as I have often stated, is that if we accept this argument, it must logically follow that all behaviors are acceptable, so long as the practitioner feels a strong enough desire to engage in said behavior. And that, Ryan, is quite literally the definition of anarchy.
Comments
Post a Comment