Review: No More Goodbyes: Circling the Wagons around Our Gay Loved Ones
13 years ago a random perusal through a Provo bookshop introduced me to Goodbye, I Love You, Carol Lynn Pearson’s memoir of her marriage to a gay man, their subsequent divorce, and her caretaker role as he died of AIDS. Reading it moved me deeply and prepared me for the many, many gay friends I’d meet in the next few years and who I might have approached with more judgment had I not read the book. In No More Goodbyes, Pearson returns both to the topic of homosexuality and to a format relying heavily on personal narrative, although not this time her own. The book consists primarily of vignettes told by or about gay and lesbian people of faith. While the majority are Mormon, Pearson reminds the adherents of all faiths that caring for each other is central to religious worship–and in so doing includes a panoply of faiths ranging from Muslim to fundamentalist Christianity.
The central metaphor with which she titles the book cuts both ways: historically, religious community has often perceived gay members as threatening and have thus “circled their wagons” into safe little knots which excluded gays and lesbians. Pearson asks her readers to reverse this practice by placing the former outcasts in the center of the protective circle while using love (familial, religious, etc.) as the wagons which shield them from aspersion. The vignettes she includes as well as her (usually brief) editorializing well establish the historicity of the metaphor’s sadder use. In particular, the section on gay suicides devastates the reader. I’m not sure how anyone, no matter how homophobic, could read without effect a young man’s tale of attempting to take his life outside a temple in the hopes that when he died he’d meet friendlier and more understanding spirits than he’d encountered during life. While I would have liked to see more statistical and sociological analysis added to the text, the strength of personal story shines.
For the most part, Pearson’s advice on how to circle around our gay loved ones is well done also. She includes examples which inspirationally show families overcoming difference, and the inclusion of perspective of straight family members offers a balance without which the book would seem facile. Empathy as a means to understanding couldn’t be foregrounded more in this text–and I’m one empathy-obsessed gal. Troubling, however, is Pearson’s lack of discussion regarding exactly how religious folks might fully embrace gay loved ones without discarding tenets of their own faiths. She rightly notes the softening in LDS rhetoric of late. She quotes General Authorities pleas for the general populace to treat our gay members with love and understanding. She splits fence-rails, however, when the final moment comes to tell believers how to make peace with things like the church’s anti-gay marriage stance and the notion of prophetic inspiration while still supporting the unions of their gay loved ones. Frankly, I’d hoped dearly that this book could help me parse the paradox, if it indeed is one. Instead, Pearson evades the specifics in favor of general council of support. And maybe that’s best, in the end, than trying to foist a specific agenda beyond love and respect for others’ free will. Maybe this book wasn’t intended for me so much as for the person I was 13 years ago, a passive bigot who needed a nudge to realize the breadth of what she didn’t know. I still remain ignorant of more than I understand, which is why I’d hoped for Pearson to do for me what my conscience will have to work out on its own.
The only other problem I see with this text lies with audience. Sure, the casual bookstore peruser will learn from it, but I can’t fathom how to convince people who adamantly insist on the elective nature of homosexuality or the benignity (even righteousness) of hatred to read this book, though I wish I did. It still holds a fine place on the bookshelf, however, even if it exists primarily as a comforting resource for religious gays or for those who struggle because their loved ones have recently come out. I think we’ll know we’ve truly made progress when we start to see our gay brothers and sisters as part of the mainstream wagon-holders rather than just those requiring either exclusion or protection. (Before someone accuses me of implying otherwise, I’ll note here that I don’t foresee the LDS church ever extending sexually active gays full fellowship but that I can and do imagine a church where members shrink neither from celibate congregants or those who’ve chosen to leave the church. Or even somewhere in between.) The active gay Mormons I know offer much to their congregations and don’t necessarily huddle out of the wind–but then, most people don’t know they’re gay. Books like No More Goodbyes can help facilitate and augment the much-needed understanding which leads not to circled wagons at all, but a wagon train moving firmly forward. Right now, the wind is still blowing, and Pearson’s wagon is much needed.
I recently worked with a gay man who was openly (and somewhat flamboyantly) gay. All I knew of his personal life was that he lived with his patrtner. Near the end of the time we worked together, though, he told me that he and his partner were not living as lovers–as devout Catholics they partnered in many things, but, as approved by their priest, did not engage in sex since marriage is currently unavailable to them, and they felt it would be sinful to do otherwise. I found this quite remarkable but must admit that I don’t see an LDS bishop endorsing the idea.
Comment by a spectator — February 27, 2007 @ 3:22 pm
Thanks so much for the book review. For me, reading Goodbye, I Love You when it first came out was such an eye-opener about how every life has a dark side and challenges to overcome. I had read her poetry and imagined that she must have the perfect life.
Our ward has dealt with this issue very well, I think. One of the families in our ward has parents who divorced when mom became a lesbian. She comes to church when one of the children speaks (as her returned-missionary child will in a few weeks) and she is always greeted with hugs and kind wishes. Her ex-husband is very positive about her cooperation with their joint custody arrangement and positive influence on their children.
But I wonder at your reference to people who “adamantly insist on the elective nature of homosexuality.” I am one of those people. I base that outlook on my experience as an alcoholic. I can accept that homesexuality has a biological component, just as alcoholism does. But I don’t have to give in to my urges to get high, and so I assume that homesexuals don’t have to act on their urges, either.
Comment by Naismith — February 27, 2007 @ 3:27 pm
Naia–thanks for your comments. I think there’s a difference between insisting on the election of orientation itself and the acts which one chooses to instigate based on that orientation. A celibate gay person remains gay, just as a celibate straight person remains straight. Of course, some lucky people are towards the middle of the Kinsey scale despite primarily identifying with a gay orientation, and those folks might have luck in a opposite-gender marriage. But I think it’s more likely to be far to one side or the other. The alcoholic analogy works here too, doesn’t it? You’ll always be an alcoholic, but you can be dry one :). Congratulations on your sobriety, btw!
Sure, though–a gay person can choose not to have sex. Although, like “a spectator’s” comment really points out, sexual orientation concerns more than just the sexual act. I didn’t marry my hubby just so I cold get laid (snort–if I did, I wouldn’t admit it :)); I craved companionship and partnering far beyond actual sex. So I think it might be possible for a gay person to remain celibate his or her whole life (though wow, what a thing to ask) doing so won’t erase his or her orientation. I worry about trying to live one’s life without even a religiously-sanctified possibility of love, like celibate straight people have in the church. The difficulties I see for gay members make me feel pretty understanding towards those who do partner-up. And I really really liked that the newish book from Deseret Book, In Quiet Desparation, noted that gay love contains virtue, too. Even if you believe the sex part is wrong (the person who wrote it does).
I actually think part of the reason the institutional church prefers the term “same sex attraction” over the terms “gay and lesbian” is because the former inherently indicates the ability to choose to act on ones orientation or not, a distinction I like. I don’t like, however, that the term “SSA” seems reductive, as though a longing to get jiggy were all there is to it :).
Comment by Janet — February 27, 2007 @ 3:46 pm
wow, I’m loving emoticons today.
Comment by Janet — February 27, 2007 @ 3:46 pm
Given the doctrine of our church, that sort of nod to free agency is essential.
I understand. It’s difficult, since the gay/lesbian semantics have been bound up in a rhetoric that denies agency, that speaks of “sexual orientation” as part of what people *are*.
I’m glad that the church has rejected the “lifestyle” term, since obviously, a faithful same-sex couple that raises kids has more in common with our “lifestyle” than either of us have in common with Hugh Hefner’s lifestyle.
The trouble is that identifying same-sex relationships as “marriage” would essentially neuter the definition of marriage as a union of two persons, which evicerates the basic meaning. Identifying “gay marriages” would force us to qualify real marriages in a reductive way, e.g. “traditional” marriage, “heterosexual” marriage, etc. which changes the whole focus of real marriage. Marriage is not about affirming our desires, it’s about channeling and harnessing our passions, that we might be full of love.
I do not like Dick Cheney politically, but I was incredibly impressed with how he “circled the wagons” in defense of his daughter when she came under attack from political opportunists from both the left and from the right.
Politics be damned. Cheney expresses his love for his daughter, his delight at having another grandchild … and makes clear that it’s not public business what environment that any one particular child gets raised. He basically flipped off the whole religious right. I won’t call him a great vice president, but as a father, I’m very impressed with how he handled that.
Comment by Christian — February 27, 2007 @ 4:18 pm
Did anyone mention yet that Taryn posted a review of this book earlier this month at BCC?
Comment by Geoff J — February 27, 2007 @ 4:23 pm
Nope–thanks for the link, Geoff J!
Comment by Janet — February 27, 2007 @ 4:31 pm
My RA from my freshman year ended up marrying the woman I was in love with, having a kid, then leaving her to announce he was gay. But aside from running off with the love of my 18 year old life, he’d been a good friend to me, a priesthood leader. He’d given me blessings of comfort and council, and helped me to prepare to go on a mission. What he’s done with his membership and his marriage is not my business, but he is my business. I ran into him a few years ago in a video store up in Utah. He was with some guy that was acting all protective of him, and I was with my wife. I could tell that he was trying to figure out whether I knew about the changes in his life, and his sidekick was trying as hard as he could to drop the hints with body language.
I wanted to thank him for everything that he did for me and for the other guys on the floor. That he was one of the first examples of selfless service that I’d seen, and that I was still trying to live up to what he’d shown me. Ever try saying something like that over a gulf of alienation and protective boy-toy? He looked at me and my wife like we were some sort of vipers.
I don’t think he heard a single word I said.
You can’t circle the wagons when someone’s already out of the circle, and firing on it.
Comment by Christian — February 27, 2007 @ 4:51 pm
But isn’t sexual orientation part of who we are? Heterosexuality isn’t something I just happened to choose, nor is it something that is exclusively manifest through or defined by outward actions. I didn’t suddenly become heterosexual the first time I went on a date or kissed a girl. Even during periods where I have had no romantic interactions of any kind (e.g., on a mission), I was still a heterosexual. Sexuality is a fundamental part of my being, much more deeply rooted than my identity as a Californian or a Democrat, or even as a Mormon.
I don’t think we can talk about sexual orientation as if it’s only something we do or choose, as if we can turn it on and off like a light switch or neglect it altogether. We are sexual beings. Of course, we must learn to channel, control, and express our sexuality wisely. But even for those who feel that homosexual actions are immoral, I don’t think it’s realistic or empathetic to insist that homosexuals’ sexuality is not a part of who they are. I think accepting that part of themselves (even if they don’t choose to live a homosexual lifestyle) is vital to mental health and self-esteem.
Comment by Steve M — February 27, 2007 @ 5:42 pm
Although I have some homosexual relatives, my closest story comes from a home teaching companion who told me of the time that he came home and found his wife in flagrante delecto with her girlfriend. He said, “You know, you always think that would be very exciting, erotically exciting. But it was just awful. It hit me in the gut like a cannonball.” They divorced, and she established a long term relationship with the girlfriend.
He eventually remarried and lives happily now.
I’m sympathetic to the challenges faced by those who feel the inclination to their own gender. But it comes down, in the final analysis to what HF says. At least for me it does. The bible seems to make clear, and LDS Church pronouncements seem to support the idea, that HF abhores homosexuality, at least among men. The bible prohibits “unnatural use” and men “laying” with men. Interestingly, all the bible language, as translated in English, are specific to male homosexuality.
My homosexual relatives have not discussed this with me yet. They might not like the black v. white take I have on it. But the bible is written in black and white and speaks pretty clearly. So I will hate the sin and love the sinner. And I don’t mean that except in the biblical way.
Comment by Trueheart — February 27, 2007 @ 6:21 pm
The first time I actually *got* homosexuality was when I saw a guy from one of my classes kissing his boyfriend. It shocked me because I always thought we were flirting during class, and I had no idea he was gay. But as I looked at these two men kissing – just a casual, loving kiss – I thought, “That’s beautiful. It’s just two people in love.”
It’s difficult to navigate the waters of being LDS and believing in gay rights. The only peace I can make in that difficult journey is the realisation that my only responsibility is to love my neighbour as myself, and that naturally includes my gay and lesbian neighbours too.
I’m also of the opinion – hotly contested in both gay and straight circles – that maybe we don’t fall in love with someone because of their gender, maybe we fall in love with someone because of who they are. I know many lesbians, especially, who never considered themselves lesbian before they started dating their girlfriend, and who will openly say that perhaps the attraction is specific to that one person. Maybe they were so far in the closet they were living in a suitcase. Or maybe sexuality and attraction are more fluid than we like to believe.
Comment by Quimby — February 27, 2007 @ 6:22 pm
That’s what we’re brainwashed to believe in secular culture. Is it true? I don’t know. Science hasn’t shown, and prophesy hasn’t said, so the honest in mind will wait for more definitive evidence.
I disagree. You’ve apparently chosen the label “heterosexuality,” even though it’s just a word used to mean “not homosexual.” It’s like a nonJew identifying himself as a “gentile” or a nonwizard identifying as a muggle.
Sounds like you’ve bought into the whole ideology of sexual orientation. Me, I’m not so sure. You don’t have to look to the right wing “cure for homosexuality” squad to see counterexamples, people and whole groups that don’t fit that neat little “sexual orientation” package.
That whole little tussle we had with national socialism in the 20th century made me a little suspicious of politics masquarading as science. Obviously the word “lifestyle” doesn’t apply: time and hopefully hard science will show whether “sexual orientation” is a coherent model despite its transparantly political origins.
Comment by Christian — February 27, 2007 @ 6:26 pm
Ok Trueheart, your last line made me laugh :). Let me reiterate that there’s difference between homosexuality and homosexual sex itself. To my knowledge, HF hasn’t declared any feelings besides love for homosexual people; it’s the sex part the scriptures castigate people for (though I doubt anyone made much distinction when it was written, and while I believe the scriptures to be divinely inspired I’d also wager that a good amount of historical and cultural bias crept in).
Interesting point about gender. It had never occurred to me that lesbian sex might be viewed differently than gay male sex in the eternal realm of things. I still think it probably isn’t, but rather that.the entire notion of female sexual desire was so culturally discomfitting in ancient times and in the 19th c. that it became conveniently invisible? Hmmm.
Glad to hear your friend is happy. I hope his ex is as well. I can’t imagine the pain of walking in on your spouse like that–nor can I imagine the pain of trying to enact a lie that you’re attracted to an entire sex which doesn’t interest you. Painful all ’round, I imagine.
Oh–and that you even WANT to love “the sinner” speaks well of you. I know plently of people who’d prefer lobbing rocks at gay peoples’ heads. Not not good.
Comment by Janet — February 27, 2007 @ 6:31 pm
A few months ago a sister in my ward shared in Relief Society that she had welcomed her homosexual brother into her home while he was dying of AIDS. People in her family and even some in her ward rejected him and refused to visit him. But, more importantly, many did reach out to him in love and compassion. I believe that this is really what “circling the wagons” is all about, and I hope we can have more of this kind of discussion in the church. I am also deeply torn on the issue of same-sex marriage. I have a number of friends who are Mormon and gay and have dealt with it in a variety of ways. Even though I feel in my heart that God feels one way about their sexual relations, I still love them and ache for the hard choices they have to make. I think for some of us the biggest challenge in our earth lives will not be things like same-sex attraction, but instead the challenge is to love others in a Christ-like manner. I’m still trying to figure out how to love my homosexual friends.
Comment by FoxyJ — February 27, 2007 @ 6:39 pm
Is that a serious question, or a rhetorical question? Have you really ever questioned it? I understand we’re not supposed to question it … but the are you aware that the science has yet to come back with a definitive answer?
“Heterosexuality” is a label that you’ve chosen to wear, despite the fact that it’s a label that simply means “not homosexual.” It’s kind of like a non-Jew deciding to identify himself as a “Gentile” and construct his whole identity around the word, or for one of us to self-identify as a “muggle” since we’re not one of Harry Potter’s wizards.
I agree. And I don’t think that we can talk about sexual orientation as something that exists, as a given. The church “attraction” model clearly does not tell the whole story, but then again, it at least doesn’t make claims that we can’t back up, like your sweeping claim that “sexual orientation is part of who we *are.*”
Clearly the whole “lifestyle” model doesn’t make sense. The “attraction” model doesn’t claim that anything is a choice, and doesn’t rule it out, either. That’s more honest. There are plenty of people and whole subcultures that don’t quite fit that politically convenient “sexual orientation” model.
Comment by Christian — February 27, 2007 @ 7:33 pm
The bible prohibits “unnatural use” and men “laying” with men. Interestingly, all the bible language, as translated in English, are specific to male homosexuality.
Not all the references. Check out Romans 1:26. Also 2 Tim 3 refers back to Romans 1 in the footnotes, and mentions women as well.
I am guessing biblical referances to male homosexuality more than female homosexuality has more to do with the way women are referenced (or not referanced at all) than to the views of one being worse than the other. Women were hardly addressed. Also, when you move towards Greece as Christianity spreads, it seems to me that female homosexuality would become more apparent than in the Old Testament world, where yes, only men are mentioned.
I thought the documentary The Smith Family was good too.
I read Goodbye… many, many years ago when it first came out and CP was on Donahue. What I got out of the book was the need for true Christianity, for the love and service to all. Pretty simple.
Comment by mami — February 27, 2007 @ 7:40 pm
The direct bible references are arguably inapplicable when it comes to applying directly to consensual monogamous male and female homosexual relations.
But the following biblical doctrines are absolutely unambiguous cannot be discarded:
1. Marriage is between a man and a woman.
2. sex outside marriage is sinful.
Comment by Christian — February 27, 2007 @ 8:09 pm
Mami–Thanks for the specific references. And your note regarding Greece is well taken–I imagine the subject as a whole would’ve been more relevant as Christianity spread in that direction. Assuming I remember my Greek literature right, anyhow ;).
Christian–I’m intrigued by the definition of marriage you offer earlier (I’d be hurt if my husband said marriage was more about curbing desires than, say, companionship or whatever). It’s an interesting topic for a whole other thread, really–what makes marriage marriage. Surely man + woman + law = wedlock is too reductive to be entirely useful? But of course getting beyond that equation will lead to all sorts of disagreement (even that equation does, in current conversation). My SIL actively lobbies that marriage is really only about procreation, a view i find absurd because men would procreate a lot more if NOT married, I’d wager. But hey, I’m an infertile gal so of course I find such a definition dreadful–it dismisses the integrity of my union. I and imagine gay people want legal recognition of committed status exactly because they don’t like their love getting dismissed.
Ok, I’m threadjacking my own thread a little. It’s all about avoiding the work I’m *supposed* to be getting done!
Comment by Janet — February 27, 2007 @ 8:25 pm
Oh–Steve M’s question actually makes me wonder about the whole “gender is eternal” portion of the POTF, not to mention Mormonism’s renegade belief in the sexuality of Gods. Pretty hard to hand-wave around the import or essentiality of sex when you believe you will be a sexual being forever, isn’t it? Hmmm.
Comment by Janet — February 27, 2007 @ 8:27 pm
Though it is true that there is a genetic predisposition to alcoholism, addiction problems are different from sex.
Procreation is not a matter of volition in any species. Sex is a drive. The sex drive is a necessary characteristic for the survival of humans and any other species.
That’s why celibacy does not work, not even for Catholic priests. I have always believed that we were less in denial about sex than Catholics. I must admit that I am upset that we are now singling out a population for celibacy while we are encouraging everyone else to get married yesterday to escape sexual sin.
I have yet to meet a heterosexual person who can choose to prefer men. I cannot even imagine myself chosing to prefer men. It’s absurd. Of course, I might be overgeneralizing my own experience. If anyone feels different, I would be very interested in learning more about them.
The reparative therapists have not been able to publish a single case study to that effect. By contrast, there are dozens of cases of guys who had to admit that their “recovery” ultimately was a failure.
Christian, upon close inspection I am reading Cheney’s language different.
Cheney is circling the wagons against Wolf Blitzer so that he does not need to defend his daughter Mary against the attacks of his fundamentalist buddies. Notice, Blitzer himself is not expressing an opinion one way or another but merely cites Cheney’s allies. Instead of taking the side of his daughter Cheney sidestepped the issue by attacking Blitzer. That’s not a mark of courage.
Comment by Hellmut — February 27, 2007 @ 8:42 pm
I said “bridle” passions, not “curb.” (There’s a Book of Mormon reference there that I’d recommend). Do yo not see how companionship fits within my description of “bridled”/channeled passions?
Is “metareductivity” a word?
Sperm + egg = zygote sounds awfully “reductive” to describe reproduction, but I’m unaware of anyone making a baby without, say, an egg somewhere in the process.
Of course these days, getting “beyond” an idea usually means dismissing it and starting over tabula raza.
Is it reasonable for you to assume that the 2nd (italicized) phrase in any way contradicts the first?
Does “about” procreation necessarily mean “maximizing” procreation? I don’t think that’s a likely reading of what your SIL said. What is an SIL, BTW?
Comment by Christian — February 27, 2007 @ 8:46 pm
Of course if you did, you’d say that they must not really be heterosexual. That’s the problem with circular logic — it doesn’t really say anything.
You’re not in a situation that would open your mind in that way. If you spent ten years in ancient Sparta, working out nude with other men, in a society that idealized and worshipped the male body, you might imagine differently. Just as women that work in strip clubs which worship and idealize the female form, mostly end up bisexual or lesbian.
Here’s what Cheney said again, Helmutt, and I hope that you can filter it past political preconceptions:
His daughter was pleased with his defense of her. If you’re not, may I suggest that it’s possibly not his daughter that you wanted him to defend?
Comment by Christian — February 27, 2007 @ 9:01 pm
“Heterosexuality” is a label that you’ve chosen to wear, despite the fact that it’s a label that simply means “not homosexual.” It’s kind of like a non-Jew deciding to identify himself as a “Gentile” and construct his whole identity around the word, or for one of us to self-identify as a “muggle” since we’re not one of Harry Potter’s wizards.
A label I’ve decided to wear? Come on!
I don’t think of myself as simply being “not homosexual,” nor have I chosen to define myself around that “label.” Like most people, I began to feel a sexual attraction to the opposite sex in my early adolescent years, quite independent of any conscious choice or desire to wear the heterosexual label.
Have I questioned my own sexuality at times? Yes, of course. I think most of us to do at some point in time. However, if I were to have any kind of remotely sexual experience with another man, I would probably vomit. I don’t think this is due to social conditioning, a desire to conform to a specific image, or a “choice” I’ve made. It’s simply at odds with my sexual being.
For some of us, it’s the exact opposite. There are many who would feel the same nausea if engaged in sexual activity with a member of the opposite sex. And I don’t think we can reduce this to some choice on their part either. Otherwise, why would it be so difficult for gay Mormons to function in a heterosexual marriage?
Although, I do agree with you, Christian, that perhaps I was too extreme to begin with. Science has not yet shown that sexual orientation simply exists, independent of other forces. However, I think it’s equally (if not more) incorrect to act as if sexual orientation is a matter of agency or even social conditioning. That just doesn’t add up. There wouldn’t be faithful Mormons who envision a heterosexual marriage from the time they’re in primary ending up gay.
Comment by Steve M — February 27, 2007 @ 10:12 pm
That’s not what i asked. I mean, Have you questioned the label? The grouping? The assumptions that your identity is tied to the sex of the persons to whom you first felt attracted?
That doesn’t sound like a natural reaction to me. Sounds like the conditioning that we impose on infants to prevent them from playing with feces. You know, people would do that, like monkeys, if it were not for the little coercive conditioning script that we call potty training.
You think it’s “natural” — innate to your personal being to feel some sort of gag reflex upon even *thinking* of a sexual experience with another man? Do you think that a dog, or a man from a less homophobic culture would feel a gag reflex upon just *thinking* about homosexual relations?
If that’s what you think “heterosexual” means, then you just persuaded me that heterosexuality is a cultural construct.
Comment by Christian — February 27, 2007 @ 10:24 pm
I was using hyperbole; I doubt I would actually vomit. But to involve myself sexually with another man would be very difficult, and I don’t think it’s just because I’ve been conditioned to think that way. And I said nothing of how I might react if thinking of sexual experience with other men.
That’s not what i asked. I mean, Have you questioned the label? The grouping? The assumptions that your identity is tied to the sex of the persons to whom you first felt attracted?
Yes. But to be honest, not extensively. Discussions such as this have prompted such reflection, however.
Like I said earlier, it just doesn’t add up to classify sexual orientation as a product of personal choice or social conditioning. It doesn’t account for the occurrence of homosexuality in cultures where it is extremely discouraged and looked down upon (like Mormon culture). We also can’t reduce it to a choice or preference; if it was simply a matter of agency, then why couldn’t more homosexual Mormons choose to be straight?
Comment by Steve M — February 27, 2007 @ 10:45 pm
Christian,
Just curious, how do you feel that we ought to approach the question of sexual orientation?
Comment by Steve M — February 27, 2007 @ 10:50 pm
Yeah, I both know and like the scripture–bride your passions that you may be filled with love, right? I think my umbrage with your description of marriage stemmed rather from the idea that bridling passions was the foremost purpose of matrimony rather than a (necessary) component thereof. Our disagreement on the subject may just be semantical, and me suffering from wanting to hear happysappy marriage descriptions :). And as I mentioned regarding my SIL (that’s sister-in-law) my own “failure” to fulfill the marital role regarded as primary by many conservatives leaves me rather sensitive and, most likely, highly biased. But I simply can’t locate the center of marriage with procreation.
But we’re getting off topic, yes?
Comment by Janet — February 27, 2007 @ 11:06 pm
Nor do I. I prefer to defer judgment, let those that identify themselves as homosexuals to make their own decisions, and make no massive changes to our society (e.g. redefining marriage) until we have a better clue of what we’re dealing with. I think we have insufficient information to make permanent decisions, and that there’s altogether too much posturing on both sides of the political fence.
Is that what you meant to say?
I have no doubt that “sexual incompatibility” puts a strain on marriage. I’m curious though, how much of that strain comes from cultural programming that we’ve associated with being “gay,” (as opposed to particularly attracted to persons of the same sex) and the ideology and personal identity associated with “sexual orientation” as identity politics.
We could look back in time to the 1920s when being “ACDC” or even sexually homophyllic was more tolerated, and see if the divorce numbers held true. Unfortunately there are other factors like divorce laws that would make it hard to really assess whether protohomosexuality (i.e. the biology of homosexuality, separated from the modern cultural and political baggage) creates most or all of the marital conflict.
Another factor is that the expectations of marriage has probably changed, making it harder for gays to function within marriage … and I’m not sure I’d want to toss all of those developments.
I’ll be surprised if homosexuality does not involve some degree of genetics, free agency, and social conditioning. In fact, I cannot imagine any explanation that ruled out social conditioning.
Comment by Christian — February 27, 2007 @ 11:16 pm
BTW, the church flat-out admits that we don’t understand how sexual orientation works. The admission strikes me as admirable, and I’d add my own admission to it. I don’t know what exact combination of biology, sociology, etc. conspire in forming homosexuality–thought I do know there’s compelling evidence that biology at least plays a role. (DH is a scientist and has compiled research on it, but he’s on call. If people want some references I can drop them in when he gets home. I do know there’s a BYU bio. prof who has done a bunch of work on it–I’m spacing on his name though–ack!)
This sounds conjectural to me. Do you have any evidence to cite, and if there is a correlation, can we prove the causality works the way you imply it does? Or might the reverse be true?
Comment by Janet — February 27, 2007 @ 11:16 pm
Bill Bradshaw! That’s the BYU prof’s name! Yay, my memory isn’t totally dead!
Comment by Janet — February 27, 2007 @ 11:18 pm
In response to:
Janet writes:
Ooh! I volunteer to do the research on this issue.
[Kaimi — I’m telling Mardel :)]
Comment by Kaimi — February 27, 2007 @ 11:40 pm
Damn, the blockquotes didn’t work right in that comment. Um, can someone fix my blockquote — the second paragraph is Janet. (And the first is someone she’s citing.
Comment by Kaimi — February 27, 2007 @ 11:42 pm
Well Kaimi, I couldn’t get the “block quote” button to work in wordpress administration mode and my html skills suck, so now your comment really looks weird! Sorry about that! I’ll keep fiddling. :).
Comment by Janet — February 27, 2007 @ 11:46 pm
I wouldn’t deny that modern cultural perceptions of what it means to be “gay” and politics may play some role, but I’d be careful not to overstate things. Sexual intimacy is a human need (at least according to Abraham Maslow); not being sexually attracted to one’s spouse and having difficulty culturing romantic feelings with a member of the opposite sex is enough to strain a marriage, even without any other external influences.
As I conceded earlier, it’s probably incorrect to speak of sexual orientation without taking external forces (such as environment, culture, and society) into consideration. So I loosely agree with you on this one, although I think we frequently overstate the role that society and individual choice play in sexual orientation. I’ve said this numerous times, but I just don’t think you’d see much homosexuality in Mormon communities if cultural conditioning was a significant factor. I also suspect that ‘reparative’ therapy would have a greater success rate if conditioning and individual agency were key variables in determining which sex people are sexually attracted to.
Comment by Steve M — February 27, 2007 @ 11:47 pm
Christian, just because a hoplite engages into sex with another male does not mean that he would prefer sex with a female. Insofar as sex is about domination, conformism and pragmatic constraints, sexual orientation remains unaffected. The question is rather which gender does an actor prefer when sex is about lust.
Since sex happens in the brain, imagination can take you a long way. Studies of prison rapists, for example, show that they do not understand themselves as homosexual. Rather they describe their actions in terms of using another male in the absence of females. Likewise, males raised in all male boarding schools are much more likely to engage into homosexual activity during their youth but rarely become homosexual adults.
The Gamofite phenomenon shows that there are hundreds of gay fathers who manipulated themselves to have sex with women but could not overcome their preference for males. In fact, many of them were told by their priesthood leaders to rely on their imagination and to marry the first available female. Fortunately, President Hinckley has denounced that advice (I think in 1999).
It might be more productive, Christian, if you would refrain from personal remarks. Besides, you are repeatedly and consistently misspelling my name. So lets stick to the rules of common courtesy and the substance of the argument.
The fact is that Cheney criticized Wolf Blitzer but refused to criticize Focus on the Family who had actually attacked his daughter. Blitzer gave him the opportunity three times. Cheney passed three times and instead lashed out at Blitzer.
Notice, Blitzer had not said one negative word about Mary Cheney that was not a citation of Focus on the Family. Cheney’s outburst about being out of line only makes sense if he was angry for being put on the spot regarding his friends’ statements.
Encountering a person that used to be heterosexual and is now homosexual is an empirical problem. In light of the literature, I would be suspicious but that does not mean that I could not be persuaded by evidence.
Since you raised the issue of tautology (circular logic) that can happen to the best of us. So I checked my statements and I am pretty confident that they do not contain circular logic or any other tautology.
Notice that the recent research indicates that bisexuality merely exists in practice but not as an orientation. Therefore I would attempt to determine whether someone who displays bisexual behavior prefers one gender.
Of course, much of human sexuality is constructed. At its root, however, gender orientation appears to be a natural phenomenon that can then be implemented in a variety of different ways, some of which are culturally determined.
Zoologists have documented homosexuality in 1,500 species, in five hundred species well. While many species do have cultures, it is a much less complex phenomenon than among humans. It would be very complicated to reduce sexual orientation to a cultural phenomenon.
Comment by Hellmut — February 27, 2007 @ 11:48 pm
Well umber away, then, so long as you don’t read what I said reductively in order to say that I’m being reductive.
What aspect of marriage can you think of that doesn’t fit within my “bridled passion” rubric? Companionship certainly fits, since sexual love is obviously not the only kind of passion.
?? People actually consider you to have “failed” your marital role? How do they deal with the case after case in the Bible of virtuous good wives who were infertile?
You can’t? Even in the eternities, you don’t think of your marriage covenant as about making you a mother? Of bringing you into the blessings of Sarah, Rebeccah, and Rachel?
You find it “Troubling” that CPL does not discuss “exactly how religious folks might fully embrace gay loved ones without discarding tenets of their own faiths.”
If you really reject that marriage has anything to do with procreation, then why would this be an issue for you?
You know how Muslims teach (even though Mohammed didn’t actually say this) that Abraham took Ishmael rather than Isaac for sacrifice? The implication is that God would only have demanded that Abraham sacrificed his favorite, so the descendants of Isaac say it was Isaac, and the descendants of Ishmael say it was Ishmael. Here, I see the culture making the demand, and I see a number of church members that seem, well, almost eager to sacrifice their least-favorite doctrine.
I’m sure that we could find issues where I’m the one who is less gung-ho and more willing to sacrifice an annoying doctrine for the demands of the world; I’m not trying to be pious or holier-than-thou. I’m just asking, is it fortuity that a doctrine that you don’t like seems to be a stumbling block for someone else? Is this really about gays for you?
Comment by Christian — February 27, 2007 @ 11:50 pm
Come, Helmutt, let’s be serious here. Are you claiming that you or anyone you knew was even aware of FoF’s statements before Blitzer did them the favor of airing them on Prime Time national TV?
That’s pretty cynical, Helmutt. I find it more likely that Cheney was angry that Blitzer would give widespread publicity to a hypocrite bent on using his daughter as a political pawn. Note that Cheney has stated in public that he personally supports ssm, but that loyalty to the president is a higher value to him, and that since Bush is committed to the FMA, that Cheney’s pusing that. You may not like those priorities, but you cannot credibly argue that it fits the profile that you’ve offered.
Comment by Christian — February 28, 2007 @ 12:00 am
Christian, I’m not ignoring your further questions, but i am exhausted and really need to go to bed (I nanny early in the morning and didn’t get my nap). Here’s an attempt:
1. Our disagreement about marriage is more semantical than anything. I agree that marriage involves bridling passion. When I read your original comment i just responded poorly to the immediate stress placed on bridlement (is that a word?) rather than fulfillment. I don’t really think we’re disagreeing about anything right there other than language choice, honestly.
2. Sure, I think my eternal role as a wife will involve procreation. Durned well better! I just think there’s something else essential to my relationship with my hubby, something beyond the creation of offspring. That doesn’t mean I don’t value the procreation part–I do. And yeah, there are people who outright argue that infertile marriages are “failed.” Historically and presently. But they are clearly poopheads ;). I never said I don’t consider procreation a part of marriage–just not necessarily the “central part.” Maybe that clarification will render your next question answered?
Yeah, I knew about the other interp. of Abraham. Interesting stuff.
Ok, all, my brain is shutting down now (if it hasn’t already, as evidenced by my butchering of the html in Kaimi’s comment).
3.
Comment by Janet — February 28, 2007 @ 12:13 am
Janet, regarding the “orientation” of those in the skin trade, I’ve no links for you. It’s something I’ve gathered here in vegas as “common knowledge” from first hand accounts. A large number of my neighbors and fellow-students used to, or currently work as “exotic dancers” in the strip clubs. For what it’s worth, three of my fellow students (who worked in the club, and one of my neighbors (who takes a large snake to work with her) all concur that a most of their co-workers are lesbian or bisexual. I started asking after someone in my study group mentioned that fact in a discussion of ssm.
Do you know if the matter’s been studied?
I put together the “focus on the attractiveness of sweaty-naked bodies” with the naked attractiveness focus of the Spartan Gymnasium for men, and corresponding homosexual traditions.
Seems intuitively right that if someone focuses on something, that it’s going to affect their desires. Isn’t that one of the premises of LDS worship?
Note: obviously I’m not positing this factor as a sole cause of homosexuality. To me, it just suggests that most people can go either way.
So why don’t the “gay cures” work? Well, maybe it’s a one-way trip. There’s no reason to assume that so called “heterosexuality” operates as the perfect symmetrical counterpart of homosexuality. That’s not science; that’s political wishful thinking. I’d like to see more folks set aside political contingency and preconceptions, look at the facts, and (like the church) admit it when we’re ignorant.
Comment by Christian — February 28, 2007 @ 12:22 am
NO, You seem to be saying that a woman can become a lesbian by rejecting men, and that sounds even more like a combo of choice and environment than what I said. Choice of profession, environment of objectification, choice to reject. Really, it comes down to questioning the idea of “heterosexuality,” rather than of homosexuality.
_________________________
Welcome, Todd. I’m glad that Sister Pearson’s book has helped your relationship with your parents, and I’m glad that you still call at least one of us “Sister,” despite your membership status.
That’s the question that most interests me, and it may be my intellectual bias to seek truth at the locus of culture, logic, and biology. If you have any links on that topic, I’d be grateful.
Indeed, since otherwise the typical male would be considered gay from having sex with himself.
Comment by Christian — February 28, 2007 @ 12:31 am
test
{trying to fix blockquote}
Comment by Christian — February 28, 2007 @ 12:33 am
Christian–I really am going to bed, I swear!
But I think science (both hard and soft) not to mention the narratives of actual people suggest that most people don’t fall at the exact end of the Kinsey scale–and a very few fall close enough to the center that they can “go either way,” as you put it. Those people are lucky insomuch that they can choose and be happy either way. But I’ve never seen anything to suggest that most people get to choose–the church (in recent treatment of the subject), science, history, etc. I do have a theory that more women near the center of the scale recognize it, because women are already socialized to appreciate the bodies of other women. But I don’t have anything more concrete to prove my theory–like that of your friends in the sex industry, it’s just conjecture.
Comment by Janet — February 28, 2007 @ 12:49 am
While most of your neighbors’ co-workers may be lesbian or bisexual, that does not establish a cause-and-effect relationship. The co-occurrence of two phenomena does not indicate that one caused the other. Therefore, there’s no evidence that working in a strip club makes one gay or bisexual. It’s possible that these women already identified as lesbian or bisexual prior to working at a strip club.
Comment by Steve M — February 28, 2007 @ 12:56 am
Wow, where to start.
Thank you so much for this post, Janet. I especially loved the part about how you wish you could get some people that you know to read the book. I haven’t read it, but my mom has, and was impacted by it, though she still marched for prop 22 when it was going on in CA.
I’m a rather naive person sometimes; I just don’t believe that people that I love and am comfortable with could be narrow-minded and hateful toward a whole classifiable group of people, based upon things beyond their control (because I believe that orientation, whether it’s biological or environmentally influenced, is beyond or at least very difficult to control. But I’ve never been gay, so I guess I can’t say for sure that it’s true).
When I was 16, one of my Sunday School teachers ended the sodom and gomorrah lesson quoting all sorts of statistics about homosexual and lesbians being more likely to commit various crimes. I got so angry about it I talked to the bishop. I don’t know if he did anything or not. The thing that made me angriest was that my peers didn’t even notice the awful false doctrine that the teacher was preaching; instead they seemed to be willing to be spoon fed.
When I went to Ricks (back when it was Ricks and not BYU idaho) I had an AMAZING critical thinking professor who, to this day, I think about from time to time and re-read the books we read in that class. Anyway, he was a bishop of a ward that apparently had a lot of people who were SSA. He emphasized to our class, more than once, that being SSA does not mean you cannot get a temple reccomend. The reason why he kept bringing it up was that a segment of the class objected violently to this idea– that people who are attracted to others of the same gender can be found worthy to attend the temple. I was REALLY turned off to Mormon Culture for a while because of this, in addition to all the gay-bashing that my male friends, especially, would engage in, on occasion.
When I got to BYU, I took a current social problems class where we were divided up into groups. My group was assigned the topic, “genocide, hatred, and violence.” I volunteered to do the section on gay/lesbians and how they’re treated. I wanted to make it very personal for those in the class (probably partly because I was still and am still horrified by how mormon culture can treat others). By sheer luck, I was friendly with a girl who had an aunt who was willing to be interviewed.
She was wonderful. Very graciously answered all of my questions. Even went on to explain things that she didn’t have to, about her own life, and about how she and her partner lived together, how they raised her partner’s kids. She talked to me about how she felt she was treated by others in her community (better than I thought she would say) and why she thought there were so many negative stereotypes about gay people.
I learned so much from that experience. I just felt so much love for her, for her willingness to be so open with me, and her obvious loyalty to her partner, and her lack of bitterness over the way some people do treat her and react to her. She had a few stories, but she kind of made them funny, you know?
Anyway, I think that book will be next on my list. Sorry so long.
Comment by Sare — February 28, 2007 @ 12:59 am
Christian wrote:
Well, FWIW I’ve heard similar rumor but different causes — that women who’ve been objectified by men in the porn/exotic dancing industry reject men. i.e. it’s more about abuse than any “focus on the attractiveness of sweaty-naked bodies”.
And I think Cheney is an appalling hypocrite. Lots of us knew about the FoF’s statements before Blitzer said a word. Some on the left think it’s an American pseudo-aristocratic priviledge thing. The Cheneys are rich and powerful and able to ignore any consequences the Republican/Fundie alliance might bring about. It’s the majority of the gay/lesbian folks in country who can’t use wealth and power to overcome discriminatory laws that will really suffer– not the daughter of Dick Cheney .
NO
p.s. And just curious, but aren’t you some kind of law student? Who has to study hours and hours a day? I mean, I know we’re interesting and all that, but I’d hope our blog isn’t fatally depleting your case reading and paper writing and exam prep time . . .
Comment by Not Ophelia — February 28, 2007 @ 1:13 am
Of course not. What about consensual sex in prisons? The stuff about self-identification isn’t necessarily relevant, since that’s cultural baggage — are those involved in consensual homosexual sex in prisons, more likely to engage in the same when out of prison?
You’re not separating consensual from nonconsensual activity, and that’s suspicious, isn’t it?
Ach. This is a horrible tangent. Jumping back to Janet, and back towards the center of this thread:
In the eternal sense, I’m not sure how that’s a viable reading of the covenant.
It changes the question a little … but de-centering reproduction still qualifies as the sacrifice of a least favorite doctrine, does it not?
Comment by Christian — February 28, 2007 @ 1:25 am
Rejection of men might explain the lesbians, but hardly explains the number of bisexuals, NO.
Comment by Christian — February 28, 2007 @ 1:33 am
Welcome, Todd. (I’m theoretically sleeping but can’t, so I’m on a computer drive-by en route to the somnumbulant tub! Hurrah!
Anyhow, I appreciate what you’ve added, links and narrative, and want to formally say, “Howdy! Glad to have you here! And thanks for the good stuff!”
Me, Christian, and Steve and hellmut have been monopolizing, but it’s an open field m’friend!
Comment by Janet — February 28, 2007 @ 1:44 am
Hello FMH,
It’s my first time here, so by way of brief introduction, I’m a gay man, RM, BYU alum, ex-MTC instructor, and now ex-mormon. I was interested in this thread mainly because the book you’re all discussing, Caroline Pearson’s most recent, has had a powerful impact in my family. My mother and father have been reading the book together, and it is really opening up some doors for my mother to consider how she thinks about the church leadership and the structure of the institution vis-a-vis gay men and women in the church.
I left the church a couple years after graduating from BYU for intellectual and spiritual reasons. I didn’t come out until I was nearly 30 and had a good deal of time to sort through my feelings and my self-hatred. So my parents have had a good deal of time to deal with having a gay son, but this book is still reaching them. My mom I think for the first time is understanding what it was like for me when I was a missionary, at BYU, and later in Branch Presidency. I’m finding it difficult to express myself here, but just wanted to express some gratitude to Sister Pearson for her continued efforts.
As you all have discussed the relationship of homosexuality to the church, I’ve been somewhat disturbed by the conversation, especially in regards to “choice”. These are complicated issues, as are all issues of human desire and human behavior. But as some of you have noticed, they’re not as complicated as some are trying to make them out. (I have written about some of this extensively on my blog, so you’ll excuse some links to those pages.)
Desire v. Behavior: It is common practice in the study of human behavior to separate out desire/ideas/cognition from behavior. Humans have all kinds of reasons for having sex, ranging from love and reproduction, to control and violence; they use sex for pleasure, for social status, for money; to fulfil duties and obligations; to ’scratch an itch’; to fulfil the measure of their creation. So the relationship between sexual behavior and sexual desire is one fraught with complexity: how does the biological desire interact with the social and cultural?
Biology: The biological origin of sexual desire in general is relatively undisputed. A sexually reproducing species without sexual desire would simply die out. The question becomes why the universal presence of homosexual behavior among mammals and birds. The evidence from biology is quite overwhelming at this point that sexual orientation is a product of biology, mostly the interaction of genes, brain development, and fetal-uterine environment.
Evolution: It looks like depending on the species, homosexuality is a feature of the species for various reasons or for none at all.
Culture & Society: So overlaid upon a general biological orientation located in our brains are all of the social interactions and cultural meanings that our given community places on sexual behavior. Societies seek to regulate and control their members’ sexual acts; and they place meaning on specific acts. We reproduce and internalize these meanings in our own behaviors. These meanings both sanction and enable some acts, while disapproving and foreclosing others. The complexity of these meanings from culture result in all kinds of situations where individuals participate in (and may even derive pleasure from) sex acts that may or may not be a result of their orientation. In fact I would argue that very few people actually engage in sex at all because of their orientation. Rather, they engage in sexual behavior for all the social reasons you can think of or for sexual release (i.e., they’re horny); orientation is secondary to behavior in many regards.
However, because of the overlay of culture on top of biology, one must never conclude that there is a one-to-one relationship between orientation and behavior. In western cultures, where homosexuality has been tightly controled through fear and intimidation, it has only been in the past 120 years or so, since modern cultures have allowed for an egalitarian homosexuality, that gay men and women have been able to create lives that correspond with their orientations and desires.
Sorry for the length, but hope it might add something to some of the good thinking going on here.
Todd
Comment by Todd O. — February 28, 2007 @ 1:45 am
By decentering procreation I mean no denigration towards it. It’s not my least favorite doctrine, it’s just the one I’ve been the least successful at fulfilling!Good gracious, I’d love to succeed in that little b it of marital obligation, not toss the bathwater out with the (absent) baby. But that failure has helpfully lead me to investigate other potentially essentialist components of marriage (and you know us feminists, we tend to resist essentialism!). I imagine the church’s opposition to gay marriage may stem from the impossibility of reproduction, but at present I’m unconvinced that’s the only reason. If we even know the reasons, entirely.
Comment by Janet — February 28, 2007 @ 1:49 am
My understanding was that rejection anti-essentialism wasn’t essential to feminists (CLP being case in point) but that a male essentialist could not be a feminist, so I stopped self-identifying as such.
Nor I towards you for decentering it. I’m just pointing out that opposition to gender essentialism or desire to decenter procreation seems to be a more consistent predictor of who will support doctrinal ssm, than actual sympathy for gays. CLP has more sympathy than the rest of the world put together, but she self-identifies spiritually as woman and mother, so it does not surprise me that she avoids the topic in her book.
I imagine you’re right; gender essentialism and the whole biblical joining of man and woman has a history in the doctrine that goes back a long way before any talk of ssm came up. The Proclamation on the family does not actually propose any new ideas; it just nails a number of previous discussed ideas down as doctrine.
Comment by Christian — February 28, 2007 @ 2:29 am
ah yes, it all depends on what you’re being essential about! Seriously, though, French feminisms carries a lot of biological essentialism about, high on a happy torch of praise and gladness. I think anyone whose essentialism appears such to conflate sex and gender probably gets kicked off most feminist billboards, but I’m drugged (ambien you know) and am stating to feel like it’s a game of you say potato, I say potato. You know, a friend once heard a teenager compete at a singing thingamjig without ever having heard the song sung before. She pronounced all the words *exactly the same*. Poor, poor child. Ya just gotta hope people thought she was being ironic or clever.
This is why I do not ever finish my dissertation. Potato.
Off to try sleep again.
Comment by Janet — February 28, 2007 @ 2:44 am
Welcome, Todd. I’m glad that Sister Pearson’s book has helped your relationship with your parents, and I’m glad that you still call at least one of us “Sister.”
That’s the question that most interests me, and it may be my intellectual bias to seek truth at the locus of culture, logic, and biology. If you have any links on that topic, I’d be grateful.
Indeed, since otherwise the typical male would be considered gay from having sex with himself.
And yet it’s in these Western cultures that the whole ssm movement has taken root. Not in other cultures that have less or no tradition of tyrannical homophobia. And even homophylic cultures like the ancient Greeks never identified LTSSRs as a form of “marriage.” It makes me wonder how much of the whole package that we associate with homosexuality in the West is actually a cultural reaction against or adaptation to homophobia.
Comment by Christian — February 28, 2007 @ 4:51 am
That’s true, but I don’t see it has anything to do with the struggles of indivudals with sin. When it comes to refraining from taking actions that your body screams out for, I think they are similar.
I’m not sure that we can say celibacy was a failure among Catholic priests and nuns, since the vast majority have been faithful to their vows.
And I don’t think any population is being singled out. A lot of people in the church must remain ceilbate. How about widows, including my friend who was widowed in her 40s (which is when women’s sex drive peaks)? Those whose spouse is deployed for 18 months at a time, or whose spouse is ill and unable to be sexually active?
We are all expected to live the law of chastity, no matter what our particular situation.
Comment by Naismith — February 28, 2007 @ 7:43 am
Naismith - you are wise.
It’s hard to say there’s a natural cause for same-sex attraction when there is no natural reason for it. It’s evolutionarily unsustainable.
Comment by SilverRain — February 28, 2007 @ 8:42 am
And yet it occurs in most species in the animal kingdom? We can argue all day about whether or not we believe homosexuality is biologically inherent in humans and what other factors might come into play, but it’s scientifically specious to suggest homosexuality itself is “unnatural,” occurring as it does in so many other forms of life on earth.
Nai, I do recognize that many are expected to remain chaste in this life. I really admire those who manage it. What remains more difficult for gays is that their chastity must exist in a vacuum of hope, at least so far as LDS theology of love is concerned. A widow or a single person (or someone with a spouse who is away) can at least hold to the possibility of love’s appearance or return, and the couple’s full-hearted embrace in the gospel. I’m not saying the church is wrong to ask celibacy of its gay members, but I do think it’s important–hugely so–to recognize the difference in the sacrifice they make. The entire identity notion for eternity must be quite difficult too, as how do you parse “eternal gender” when you’re not really sure how it relates to sexual desire?
Comment by Janet — February 28, 2007 @ 9:45 am
BTW, I know a decent number of fully-active, celibate gay and lesbian members who do everything from serve in the temple to plan ward activities and whatnot. I admire them immensely. But I don’t feel dreadfully judgmental towards my gay friends who have left the church, either–because most of them were driven near to suicide trying to winnow out a characteristic that seemingly cannot be altered (again, let’s not conflate behavior and orientation). REading CLP’s book aids in understanding this terribly difficult choice–a lot of these people dearly love the church to this day. I applaud those who stay, but I’m not going to snark at the ones who leave to stay alive, either. And I dearly hope that as more members accept that a gay person can be celibate AND REMAIN GAY rather than just pretend their sexuality doesn’t exist, more will remain within the fold and more will come back. Sure, they’re responsible for their choices, but we’re responsible for the environment we create at church which may help inspire those choices. And as the GAs have made so clear in the last few years, we’re not doing very well in that area right now. As Chieko Okasaki said, “can’t [we] redouble [our] love?”
Comment by Janet — February 28, 2007 @ 9:52 am
Ok, I’m sorry if I sounded a little harsh there. It’s just that I wanted this thread to be about how we can make church more welcoming for those who struggle–how we can encourage people to stay and love those who don’t and use everyone’s talents (The things the book is about, really) and instead we seem to be having the old argument about whether or not homosexuality can be “fixed” as though it were a broken cup.
Emily made a great comment to me about being a “Deist blogger”–so maybe I should stop expecting the conversation to go where I want and just let everyone chat amongst themselves, seeing as how blogs are reasonably democratic and all. :). Still, if someone would like to talk about the topic suggested above, I’d be really grateful.
Comment by Janet — February 28, 2007 @ 9:55 am
And I don’t think any population is being singled out. A lot of people in the church must remain ceilbate. How about widows, including my friend who was widowed in her 40s (which is when women’s sex drive peaks)? Those whose spouse is deployed for 18 months at a time, or whose spouse is ill and unable to be sexually active?
I am getting heartily sick of hearing this argument, from Elder Wickman and from everyone else. It is so far removed from sense as to border on disingenuous.
There is a world of difference between being told that your sexual orientation is normal and acceptable so that when circumstances permit you will be able to act on your orientation — when you eventully marry, or you re-marry, or when your spouse returns home — and being told that your orientation is abnormal and unacceptable so that under no circumstances will you ever be allowed to act on it.
“Celibate” for heterosexual members is NOT “celibate” for homosexual members. The comparison isn’t fair and isn’t helpful.
Comment by diogenes — February 28, 2007 @ 10:29 am
The fact that homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom throws the whole “evolutionary sustainability” argument into doubt.
The “natural” argument was broken when the sectarians used it; it’s doubly broken when we use it, since we’ve been taught that the natural man is an enemy to God. Marriage is an unnatural state for creatures of our biology. Biologically speaking, monogamy is literally for the birds. But this is the state that God has chosen for us.
The teachings of the modern prophets cannot sustain the argument that homosexual relations are inherently more sinful than fornication and adultery, Fornication and adultery are natural. We should not posit Nature as the opposite of sin.
Comment by Christian — February 28, 2007 @ 10:40 am
I wonder if all humans “naturally” tend towards multiple sex partners. I guess there’s really no way to know, since our other natural anthropological evolution has developed stuff like social mores and all that. But I’ve always wondered if there’s more variance in humans than in, say, monogamous wolves or very non-monogamous kittycats. Free will and all, right? For instance, I couldn’t imagine having sex with someone I’m not committed to, but it’s impossible for me to say what degree of that is social conditioning and what degree is inherency.
And there’s me, jaunting off on a tangent!
But “nature” is a tricky term here, especially when we DO believe in eternal sexuality, and that sexuality itself has some inherent good. Otherwise it would banished as we banish the natural man, yes? ‘Cuz sexuality isn’t all about lust, now is it? I agree that we can’t posit nature as the opposite of sin, but nor can we posit all nature as synonymous with sin. It’s the great Pelagian inheritance we get to tustle with, and on many issues.
Comment by Janet — February 28, 2007 @ 11:32 am
“I wonder if all humans “naturally” tend towards multiple sex partners.”
I’ve seen it argued that the current plurality theory is that humans are genetically programmed to prefer serial monogamy, on a four year cycle. But hunter gatherers
“But I’ve always wondered if there’s more variance in humans than in, say, monogamous wolves or very non-monogamous kittycats. Free will and all, right?”
Not sure how Free Will would affect biological predisposition. Seems to me those are separate factors.
“For instance, I couldn’t imagine having sex with someone I’m not committed to, but it’s impossible for me to say what degree of that is social conditioning and what degree is inherency.”
Not that custom and law necessarily makes that situation better 
I think that what we can *imagine* is more a product of our cultural programming, although I believe that free will over time allows us to question, and while not really “think outside the box” so to speak, at least define and expands the confines of our cultural programming. And our choices are confined by our knowledge and imagination – we generally can’t choose to do something we can’t imagine. Another point is that *natural* sex does not always involve the free will of both parties
“I agree that we can’t posit nature as the opposite of sin, but nor can we posit all nature as synonymous with sin.”
… we should not take more than we need. To some extent we must overcome our nature, and the world, but God works with our nature, and forbids compulsion and unrighteous dominion.
I absolutely agree. I see marriage, the gospel, and God’s own great creation process an act of “tending the garden,” of harnessing nature for the good of his children. OK, metaphor sounds more gung ho industrialist than I meant – we should not go turning rain forests into a beef grazing, and making every square inch economically productive
What does that mean towards the nature of gays? I do not know, and I suspect that the rest of you don’t really know either. I think we need more science, and we need more revelation, and we need to be more kind and tolerating, we need to listen more and judge less. We should put reciprocal beneficiary, ssus, and other laws in place to protect the families of same-sex couples. That’s not “encouraging homosexuality.” That’s discouraging fraud and exploitation. Why should someone be able to walk away from someone that she promised to take care of for life, without paying a dime in child support, etc., when her lover agreed to carry a child that would be “theirs”? How does allowing encouraging homosexuals to be responsible, monogamous, and faithful “encourage homosexuality”?
(Obviously, I don’t think we should go overhauling marriage either legally or religiously until we’ve a better feel for the positives and negatives. This whole ssm movement is a leap off a cliff in the dark. The state has a particularly compelling interest in marriage because of the potential for offspring, and we need to keep that institution distinct from other types of relationships so that we can continue to adapt it to serve the social purposes that it was designed for. On the religious side of things, well, God’s spoken fairly clearly that marriage is the union of man and woman.)
On the modestly thread I excoriated a couple of people for what I thought was unfair condemnation of young males who can’t control their thoughts at the sight of cleavage. I think that we subvert the idea of free agency when we tell people they have a “choice” when there’s strong evidence to the contrary. If there’s some way to turn gays straight, no one’s produced it yet, and well-meaning people on both sides of this issue have destroyed lives by arrogantly asserting knowledge and expertise that wasn’t there.
Comment by Christian — February 28, 2007 @ 1:48 pm
Homosexuality (in my experience as an animal science major) in the animal kingdom is not as prevalent as some make it sound. Sure, it exists in a sense, but not often and not in an equivalent manner (and I’m not going to get graphic here, so I’ll not elaborate on exactly what I mean.) In that same sense, several things “exist in the animal kingdom” without being considered natural for humans - filicide and cannibalism, for example. In addition, even if proven, the premise that same sex attraction has a genetic base does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that it is a natural behavior. In that sense, genetic diseases would be considered natural as well. Moreover, I find it ridiculous to separate something like sex from it’s specific function. Very few species even seem to find pleasure in sex. For most, it is a biological drive rather like eating or sleeping. In same-sex attraction, the biological purpose of sex is nullified.
And I find nothing of value in saying “see, the animals do it, therefore, we should do it too.”
Note, I’m am not trying to say anything pro or con for same-sex attraction. I just feel that these common arguments for it smack of rationalization and fail to make a case to me.
Comment by SilverRain — February 28, 2007 @ 3:22 pm
In Abraham 1:26-27, we’re told that Pharaoh “being a righteous man … seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations …Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry.”
Abraham was friends with Pharaoh; he shared time and knowledge with Pharaoh; he respects him and refers to him as “righteous.” Like Abraham did with Pharaoh, I think that we should honor and acknowledge the *righteousness* of same-sex couples who seek to *immitate* the order of marriage. But we should not be “led away by their idolatry,” i.e. abandon our faith and laws for an entirely different scheme that strips sex, gender, and procreation from the essential concept of marriage.
I think that circling the wagons around our gay loved ones is the right metaphor her. I don’t think that it’s quite as simple as love the sinner, hate the sin, because where there is no free will there is no sin, and we don’t exactly *know* how much choice is involved in homosexuality. I also don’t think that it’s as simple as “accepting” homosexuality because that that’s also unrighteous judgment — charity does not require us to condemn that which we know is right.
Todd probably thinks I’m making this too “complicated,” but didn’t we get into this mess in the first place by dismissing key facts and making hasty judgments?
Comment by Christian — February 28, 2007 @ 3:27 pm
I am just beginning to read the book and with the way life looks for the next little while, it may take me a few weeks.
But Janet and others, here is what I think it means to circle the wagons around gay loved ones.
1. Let them know in no uncertain terms that you love them and are glad they are in your family or circle of friends. I had this conversation fairly recently with one of my brothers and it felt, to me, like a very powerful healing moment.
2. Acknowledge that their experience and point of view is different from yours (if you are straight). Let them know that you accept that difference and don’t judge it.
3. When others make hateful comments or inappropriate jokes, stand up for those you love who might be hurt by those words. If it is okay with your gay loved one, you should not be afraid to say, “my [brother/sister/cousin/friend] is gay” and kindly explain that their anti-gay words are offensive and inappropriate.
4. Encourage their spiritual journeys along whatever paths they find helpful. (Still wishful thinking on my part for my gay loved ones, as far as I know … but then again, sometimes this is a very private thing, so what I know may not be the whole story.)
5. Share your experiences with other people in the Church. Sometimes everybody whose experience isn’t ideal feels like they have to put up and shut up. (You know what I’m talking about … all you frustrated moms and single sisters! Can I get an amen?) It’s not constructive in any circumstance.
6. Welcome partners into your family circle and credit them for the joy they bring into your gay loved ones’ lives. I think it is possible do this while still maintaining gospel standards in your home. The key to this is being very open about your desire to include and your desire to maintain standards, and working together to come to an acceptable solution. Unmarried partners (same-sex or opposite-sex) who want to sleep together might feel more comfortable in a hotel than in an LDS home, anyway.
7. Put your faith into action on your gay loved ones’ behalf. When my brother’s partner learned he was HIV-positive, I asked if they would like me to place their names on the temple prayer roll. They accepted the offer and seemed grateful.
Okay, that’s a start.
Comment by Ana — February 28, 2007 @ 4:08 pm
Ana, THANK YOU! I love you list, and I love you for contributing it, too. I wish most of my gay friends had family as supportive and kind as you.
SilverRain–if you’re speaking about sexuality as solely the biological urge to mate, we’re actually talking oranges and apples a bit here. (Though I recognize that for some animals that’s all it appears to be–not so much in others and definately not in humans. If it were, would’nt gays in opposite-sex marriages manage to negotiate them with full fulfillment so long as they, I don’t know, went to a bathouse now and then? There’s something beyond sex that sexuality entails. The many narratives of human sexuality–and the science hard and soft–suggest human sexuality is quite complex. If I’m wrong about this (and hey, I’m often wrong) I don’t understand how sexuality works with eternal gender and is a celestial trait or all that. God’s with biological urges sounds a bit too reductive to make sex the sacrament it is in sacred literature.
And yes, I’d argue that genetic diseases are natural, if not normative. Which is what I’d say about homosexuality as well–but without the necessary prejorative assumption we make about disease. Variance is natural. But then, we’ll all go back ’round the circle of what “natural” means if I keep this up, so I’ll shut up. Much of our disagreement, it seems, is semantical.
Thanks again, Ana! I wish CLP had included just such a list in her book.
Comment by Janet — February 28, 2007 @ 7:22 pm
THANK YOU TO ALL CONTRIBUTERS, BTW: having bopped over to a few other sites reviewing CLP’s book and read the comments, I want to commend everyone here for maintaining a civil tone reflective of spirited engagement rather than vitriol. Seriously, I REALLY appreciate it. Disagreemnt = useful. Vitriol = ulcer (and that analogy format would’ve killed my SAT score, but you see what I mean. Thanks, m’dears. Really.
Comment by Janet — February 28, 2007 @ 7:30 pm
That seems to corroborate my “focus on sweaty bodies” theory. Would you recognize that a professional stripper is socialized more than the average woman to appreciate (or be jealous of) the bodies of other women? That the average Spartan in a gymnasium is more likely than the average modern man to appreciate the bodies of other men?
I’m unaware of any studies that looked for potential bisexuality. To my knowledge they only looked at surface behaviors. People that *did* go either way, not people that could be resocialized to.
People can choose their environments, to some extent. Choose their friends.
- - - - - -
I don’t think that word means what you think it means, Steve. If the facts that we’ve observed are accurate, they form relevant evidence but not conclusive evidence that working in a strip makes one gay.
It’s possible, if you accept the assumption that bisexual and lesbian women have more desire for money, are more attractive than, or more inclined to degrade themselves than “heterosexual” women. I’m dubious. Even if there was some truth to those premises it seems unlikely that they could factor in to the extent that *most* women working in the skin industry would end up lesbian or bisexual.
Comment by Christian — February 28, 2007 @ 7:50 pm
I don’t think so, since i’m arguing bisexual women are more likely to recognize a pre-existing orientation rather than actually change it.
The Kinsey study itself (long time ago, now) yes, focused more on behavior. There’s subsequent stuff–not to mention the monumental failure of repurative therapy (sp?). If altering your environment/friends/focus could make a definately gay person straight, repurative therapy would work, which it almost never does. I’d wager the times it succeeds are when the subject is closer to the Kinsey scale’s center.
I’m still not convinced of your assertion that MOST skin workers are lesbians. We lived in St. Louis for crimeny’s sake, and our inductive reasoning based on limited experience would’ve indicated the opposite conclusion. But both me and you–as people who were just around strippers and talked to them but haven’t actually seen studies or anything on the either the statistical significance of homosexuality within skin trades nor studies which would indicate the direction of causal flow–would still both be practicing faulty inductive reasoning, wouldn’t we?
Comment by Janet — February 28, 2007 @ 8:08 pm
Janet (#66) With your first paragraph, I’d agree. There is more to human sex than biology. I would add, however, that one can either argue biology or emotion, not both. I can see how there might be an emotional same-sex attraction, but I can’t understand the “biological” or “natural” arguments for it. They just don’t make sense when the action they are discussing has no biological or natural purpose. Beyond that, I really don’t understand, not having struggled with that particular thing.
Comment by SilverRain — February 28, 2007 @ 8:30 pm
But doesn’t emotion have significant biological componants? (My scientist hubby actually likes to point this out to me because it makes me crazy, seeing as how I want to believe my emotions are *totally* under my own control–hah! I wish :)). Why can’t they be integrative?
Some Native Americans tribes saw significant “natural” purposes for homosexuality, believing that gays were set apart for other specific functions. But those were what we’d call cultural functions–indeed, some of the ones gay people often fill now within the arts–and western thinking doesn’t like to mesh nature and culture. Yet, for humans, culture is itself a natural development–albeit a zillion different cultures can develop. Still, homo sapiens do seem to form them. It all gets really messy when we try to parse science apart from everything else, I guess.
I don’t really understand either–I doubt any off us who haven’t struggled with homosexuality have perfect empathy on the topic. But CLP’s book is a good inroad into understanding, at least of the emotional stuff (not so much the hard data). Plus, it’s a reasonably enjoyable (at times painful) and extremely easy read. I’d recommend it! I read it in one or to tub soaks, so it won’t take up much time, either.
Comment by Janet — February 28, 2007 @ 8:55 pm
Christian,
I am surprised that you did not notice how widely the Focus on the Family attack was covered in the media. Personally, I had read about it in the Washington Post, the New York Times, and on Andrew Sullivan’s blog. There was also a story on All Things Considered, the evening news on NPR.
You can check this on news.google.
There was a lot of coverage. It was appropriate that Wolf Blitzer gave Vice President Cheney the opportunity to reject the hateful language of Focus on the Family. It is sad that Cheney refused to take his friends to task for what they had done to his daughter.
Comment by Hellmut — February 28, 2007 @ 10:55 pm
Janet, you said you disagreed with me because –
But that’s exactly my argument, Janet: socialization does not “change orientation,” but can open an existing window (recognition of innate bisexuality), or can close a door (e.g. your theory that some strippers close themselves off from men because of their experiences).
Good, because I did not assert that. I said most are *either* bisexual *or* lesbian. Actual lesbians remain a minority, as do heterosexuals, with bisexuals. Here I’m operating on only one source, a fellow student who worked at two strip clubs over a 5 year period before and during part of law school; the others were not so specific) the plurality. Of the four I spoke of, three are openly bi, one is hetero and married. I appreciate that this isn’t serious data, but it’s enough to make me want to see serious research on the topic. If I were using the data to draw conclusions of fact, you might say that I was using faulty inductive reasoning, but I don’t think that’s an issue when I’m simply calling for further study and explaining why such study would be useful.
Janet, you said you didn’t want this thread to be about whether homosexuality can be “fixed,” but you keep raising that topic with me:
I agree, which is why I’m far more suspicious of the word “straight” than the word “gay.” Environment seems to make a self-identified “straight” person more likely to recognize gay or bisexual desires, but not vice-versa. That suggests that the neat little symmetrical “sexual orientation” model is unrealistically homocentric. Please set aside the assumption that I’ve got some ulterior motive to promote “fixing” homosexuals and consider what’s probably an argument you haven’t considered before. You can call it the “accidental Goebbels” theory:
I’ve seen you explain liminality in more clear terms than I can generate. Homosexuals are more than just one more in a long line of persecuted “others” – homophobia is a strange hold-out in a culture that’s rejected irrational hatreds. With Phelps and some others, the hatred reaches levels only comparable to 19th and 20th century anti-Semitism, the sort of “root them out and exterminate them wherever they go” sort of hatred. Such extreme hatred is “illogical, irrational, and stems from unconscious forces” (Max Dimont, Jews, God, and History, p320-332, distinguishing anti-Semitism of the 19th & 20th century from other examples of lesser “anti-jewishness” such as the inquisition!) This extreme sort of hate is born when some incredible deep-seated fear or insecurity finds an “other” to blame. German “frayed white-collar” worker needed someone to blame for their crumbling economy latched onto the Jews, based on the myth that Jews were somehow prospering at the country’s expense. I know it sounds like an extreme analogy but hear me out. Post WWII economics killed the extended family, and the sexual revolution’s put the nuclear family in jeopardy, and I think that gays have presented a convenient target. Anti-Semitism was stirred up by master propagandists who were trying to create nationalist identities in order to motivate and control people. In contrast I think that the “otherness” of gays has been exacerbated by theories of well-meaning social scientists. The very last folks that would want to stir up hate have blundered into a dangerous combination of messages. People have known of homosexuals throughout history, under one word or another, but it’s only recently that we have hammered into us that we are “heterosexual.” While sexual identity has focused on marriage for thousands of years, now we’re told to reconceived our sexual identity as the opposite of what gays are. And it’s not even a working model for us. So right at a time that social structures are in jeopardy, someone comes along and gives us a new identity, in opposition to an “other,” the homosexual. And it certainly doesn’t help things when a few judges and social scientists start pitting the civil rights of gays against our definition of marriage and other core beliefs.
- Edward Sobota, Equality Practice: Liberal Reflections On The Jurisprudence Of Civil Union,” citing T.F. Pettigrew & R.W. Meertens, Subtle and Blatant Prejudice in Western Europe, 25 Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 57 (1992).
That’s why I strongly support Ana’s ideas in #65, and why I’m glad that Sister Pearson did not promote the poison pill argument that accepting our gay loved ones requires us to change our core values, or to change the definition of marriage. Marriage, family, and other aspects of “heterosexual” identity are in crisis. Insecure and broken people tend to look for scapegoats. This is a time to draw them into our family circle, like Sister Pearson said – not to call the circle into question. While the scholars and politicians fight over whether a child really needs a father and a mother, we can remember that our gay relatives really do have fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters – and we should act like it. What a hypocritical world we live in when an organization called “Focus on the Family” would try to pit a father against his daughter. That’s the *wrong* sort of focus on the family! And the other side’s extremists are no less prone to using your family as human shields in their crusade for change, Janet.
The family needs to be a shelter in this storm. Recent general conference talks are increasingly emphasizing that protecting the family does NOT mean excluding or shaming gay family members. I think that we can help repeat this message, and make sure that it sounds in all the right ears.
Comment by Christian — February 28, 2007 @ 11:01 pm
Silverrain–another thought on whether or not biology and emotion are connected. My doctors have recently put me on steroids and whoo-boy, my usually overt “nice girl” persona keeps getting her stuffings beaten upon by an attitudinal bitch who wants to yell, stomp, and generally castigate the world for all things, worthy and unworthy. I have a new sympathy for people whose brains produce more of whatever the heck this chemical is, because I really dislike the emotional fallout. I have the agency to try and control it, but goodness, it’s harder these days. I shall never tell my DH that “patience is just something you do–it has nothing to do with who you are” ever, ever again. :).
Comment by Janet — February 28, 2007 @ 11:02 pm
Janet, my response on this thread just failed to post. It starts “Janet, you said you disagreed ” and ends “sounds in all the right ears.” I’d appreciate if you could post it and then delete this request. Thank you!
Comment by Christian — February 28, 2007 @ 11:04 pm
True - you might say emotions are not totally under your control, but how you act on those emotions is. Since I’m arguing against the line of reasoning that a biological cause necessarily means natural or right, it really doesn’t matter whether emotions effect biology or biology effects emotions. My point is they are trying to use science to disprove a moral argument, and it doesn’t mesh. The fact remains that the main biological purpose of sex is reproduction, and that purpose isn’t filled through same-sex attraction. Though sex may have other side purposes such as closeness and emotional fulfillment, all of those other purposes (that I can think of) can be filled in other ways. You can feel close to someone without sexual attraction. You can feel emotionally fulfilled without being sexually fulfilled. The pleasure and/or drive for sex is to make us want to do something otherwise rather unpleasant, but necessary for propagation.
I suppose it depends on your meaning of “natural.” I was trying to use it in the sense that I think most proponents of same-sex attraction use it, ergo, that “natural” equates to “intrinsically acceptable” or “right.” “Natural” could also mean “logical,” I suppose - which is the way I think you’re using it here. In that sense, from a purely biological point of view, it also makes no sense. In order to justify a need for homosexuality under that mode of thinking, one must separate humans from animals. In that case, you can’t logically use an “animals do it, so we should do it, too” sort of argument.
If we are completely controlled by biologically-based emotions, than there are no morals. Nothing is right or wrong, it is all simply “natural.” Murder is okay, because the anger that sparks it is out of our control. Sex with children is okay, because the emotions that attract people to little children are natural. Either we have choice, or we don’t. We are either at the mercy of biology, or we are something more, with control over our own behavior. If we are at the mercy of biology, spirituality is an illusion. If not, than we are supposed to exert control despite our biology over our spirituality and emotions, whatever those may be.
I’m just not convinced that the arguments commonly used to argue for same-sex attraction are anything but a transparent attempt at rationalization. It sounds to me that many people with same-sex attraction are saying “I can’t help myself.” That, I just don’t buy. I believe that humans are more than animals.
Comment by SilverRain — February 28, 2007 @ 11:11 pm
In the animal kingdom, when homosexuality occurs, isn’t it often because there is a surplus of males? I would think that if the alternative was fighting for the few females available, pairing up in same-sex partners would add to the overall harmony of the group. So in that sense, isn’t it logical?
(Note: I’m not saying we should draw straight analogies (no pun intended) between the animal kingdom and human behaviour. Nor do I really know what I’m talking about, I’m just repeating something I think I heard somewhere. About the only expertise I have in homosexuality in the animal kingdom comes from trying to reign in my slutty gay dog, and watching cows bull each other.)
Comment by Quimby — February 28, 2007 @ 11:48 pm
SilverRain–I was being somewhat flip about my out-of-control emotions. Sorry to have conveyed that i was making a serious argument–it was just supposed to be funny.
Yes, we’ve certainly parsed that “natural” has many meanins, though I’ve yet to see anyone pursuing adamantly the recommendation that all natural desires should be indulged in willy-nilly. In fact, I don’t know a single gay person who believes that, either. Only sociopaths believe that.
Your last few lines, though, are again conflating orientation with action. That’s really not fair–especially considering your own wise refusal to conflate biology and action in the human realm elsewhere. Has anyone here argued that gays can’t “help” having sex, that it’s not a choice to *act*(except when it’s not a choice for any of us, and that would be rape)? I guess I just don’t see the “arguments commonly used to argue for same-sex attraction” as intrinsically advocating promiscuity. They argue something about identity–which, again, is complex. Certainly I’ve never argue anything as facile as you’re suggesting is the common line for those who view SSA sympathetically.
Maybe we’re just talking “past” each other?
Comment by Janet — February 28, 2007 @ 11:55 pm
Of course, I (and others) have suggested that the existence of homosexuality in the biological animal kingdom DOES render the argument that “being gay is intrinsically biologically aberrant and is an invention of the confused human mind” silly. But then, I don’t think you’re disagreeing with that.
Comment by Janet — February 28, 2007 @ 11:59 pm
Christian–your comment will probably pop up. I can’t find it awaiting moderation, though, so I don’t know what’s going on. Yesterday the order of comments got all snarled as well. Too bad technology and I are not fast friends…
Anyone else have any good ideas like Ana, on how best to actually treat the gay loved ones in their lives while still upholding our belief in prophetic inspiration? Takers? Cause the rest of this debate really means nothing if we can’t keep our families and religious communities from hating each other over (obviously difficult and not totally understood) differences.
Comment by Janet — March 1, 2007 @ 12:02 am
Dude, pay attention.
It’s Hellmut.
Unless you’re deliberately trying to be rude, in which case we’ll have to start calling you Crustacean.
Comment by Rich — March 1, 2007 @ 12:20 am
I would say to just treat your gay loved ones in the same manner you’d treat your straight loved ones. In real-life terms, that means when I invite a gay friend or family member over for dinner, I also include that person’s partner. It means I refer to my daughter’s Uncle Charlie’s partner as Uncle Joe to show his inclusion in the family. It means if someone makes a disparaging comment about homosexuals, I stand up for my loved ones.
Comment by Quimby — March 1, 2007 @ 12:22 am
Quimby, the next time elections come up for Mother Nature, I’ll pencil you in, since your nature platform sounds a lot more logical and benign than the way that the current nature administration does things.
The current Mother Nature dabbles in that sort of cooperative logic at the microscopic level, with bacterial gene-swapping and endosymbiosis and such, but AFAIK, when it comes to the multicellular level, she gives thumbs down and tells us fight it out. There are some examples of selfless behavior, but I’m strained for examples of males selflessly taking themselves out of the reproductive competition, for the sake of group harmony.
I’ve seen claimed that homosexuality increases in cities but haven’t found credible sources for this. If shown true, that *could* support your harmony theory, by saying that that it’s a population reduction safeguard that kicks in when there’s crowding. Trouble is that the only direct sources that I’ve seen for that assertion were questionable, possibly anti-gay. (I’m also suspicious because the idea fits too nicely into the old “rural=natural=good,” “urban=unnatural=bad” cliché.) Todd mentions the fetal-uterine environment as one of the factors that affects homosexuality, and I wonder if fetal-uterine environment is affected by crowding or any other situation that would make population reduction advantageous.
Someone asked earlier about the “natural” sexual behavior of humans. I saw some interesting info in an Economist article a few years ago; let’s see if I can google it. Ah. Helen Fisher, evolutionary Anthropologist, concludes that humans are “built to have our children four years apart” and that a “drive to pair up and stay together at least four years evolved … to rear a single child through infancy.” Fisher observes that “People around the world tend to divorce during and around the fourth year of marriage,” positing that there’s a drive to find a new partner after that period, to add variation to the gene pool. Here’s Helen Fisher’s paper.
Comment by Christian — March 1, 2007 @ 12:38 am
Okay, I thought that was what had happened with some bird species in zoos (I think it was penguins at Central Park Zoo), although, of course, if I’m going by what happens in zoos, that’s hardly a natural environment, is it? Or I could just be remembering wrong. It was several years ago.
Comment by Quimby — March 1, 2007 @ 12:44 am
Hmm. I thought that moderation required someone to check it off.
Here’s the first part:
Janet, you said you disagreed Janet, you said you disagreed with me because –
But that’s exactly my argument, Janet: socialization does not “change orientation,” but can open an existing window (recognition of innate bisexuality), or can close a door (e.g. your theory that some strippers close themselves off from men because of their experiences).
Good, because I did not assert that. I said most are *either* bisexual *or* lesbian. Actual lesbians remain a minority, as do heterosexuals, with bisexuals. Here I’m operating on only one source, a fellow student who worked at two strip clubs over a 5 year period before and during part of law school; the others were not so specific) the plurality. Of the four I spoke of, three are openly bi, one is hetero and married. I appreciate that this isn’t serious data, but it’s enough to make me want to see serious research on the topic. If I were using the data to draw conclusions of fact, you might say that I was using faulty inductive reasoning, but I don’t think that’s an issue when I’m simply calling for further study and explaining why such study would be useful.
Comment by Christian — March 1, 2007 @ 12:45 am
Suspicious of what, Christian? Remember, you initiated this argument by claiming that people can choose different sexual orientations. As a response, I discussed the most prominent cases of males who pursue sex with varying gender.
Notice that I did not discuss the behavior of the victims of prison rape because they do not choose engage into homosexual behavior.
It is unfortunate that you continue to personalize matters when I question your position rather than to engage the matter on the merits. That is not a sign of strength.
Comment by Hellmut — March 1, 2007 @ 12:46 am
Janet, you said you didn’t want this thread to be about whether homosexuality can be “fixed,” but you keep raising that topic with me:
I agree, which is why I’m far more suspicious of the word “straight” than the word “gay.” Environment seems to make a self-identified “straight” person more likely to recognize gay or bisexual desires, but not vice-versa. That suggests that the neat little symmetrical “sexual orientation” model is unrealistically homocentric. Please believe me this time when I say I’m not promoting schemes to “fix” homosexuals and consider what’s probably an argument you haven’t considered before:
…
Comment by Christian — March 1, 2007 @ 12:48 am
Awwww, the gay penguins! I’d forgotten about them! They were so cute, and I think they even raised an orphaned egg the zoo “gave” them.
Quimby–I like your suggestions and they’re what I try to do. The only problem is that when I defend my gay loved ones, the loved ones doing the initial criticism usually feel that I’m attacking them, and then I wind up mending to do elsewhere. It’s hard. It reminds me of when I try and gently suggest to my grandparents that they not use the “n” word or assume people of color are less worthy than they are. They feel attacked because they thought their initial comment was fine. And I couldn’t silently let it pass. I have a relative who really thinks I’m quite the sinner because I have gay friends. I want to have a good relationship with this person, but I’m not sure I can without violating my own integrity.
The only HUGE reservation I have would be having a same-gender couple (married or no) sleep over if I had little kids. It seems a harder thing to parse than explaining that Aunt Mary might drink, but that’s her choice and we stick with our own beliefs without judging hers. It’s harder in part because Aunt Mary could probably give up drinking more easily than than Aunt Linda might give up the love of her life.
Then again, I have no kids so that simplifies things for me at the moment. See, infertility has it’s silver lining!
Comment by Janet — March 1, 2007 @ 12:58 am
That begs my actual question of why you imagined that victims of prison rape could be remotely relevant to the argument that you seemed to be trying to rebut.
Suspicious that someone may have overlooked something, Helmutt. I’m not personalizing this. I’ve written and graded research papers, and I don’t recall anyone ever thinking that I was getting “personal” when I said that an argument or stat seemed “suspicious.” I’ll defer my observation of the problem in your “empirical” argument above until we’ve got this misunderstanding cleared up. You’ve misunderstood me.
Comment by Christian — March 1, 2007 @ 12:59 am
Janet, you said you didn’t want this thread to be about whether homosexuality can be “fixed,” but you keep raising that topic with me:
I agree, which is why I’m far more suspicious of the word “straight” than the word “gay.” Environment seems to make a self-identified “straight” person more likely to recognize gay or bisexual desires, but not vice-versa. That suggests that the neat little symmetrical “sexual orientation” model is unrealistically homocentric. Please believe me this time when I say I’m not promoting schemes to “fix” homosexuals and consider what’s probably an argument you haven’t considered before:
I’ve seen you explain liminality in more clear terms than I can generate. Homosexuals are more than just one more in a long line of persecuted “others” – homophobia is a strange hold-out in a culture that’s rejected irrational hatreds. With Phelps and some others, the hatred reaches levels only comparable to 19th and 20th century anti-Semitism, the sort of “root them out and exterminate them wherever they go” sort of hatred. Such extreme hatred is “illogical, irrational, and stems from unconscious forces” (Max Dimont, Jews, God, and History, p320-332, distinguishing anti-Semitism of the 19th & 20th century from other examples of lesser “anti-jewishness” such as the inquisition!) This extreme sort of hate is born when some incredible deep-seated fear or insecurity finds an “other” to blame. German “frayed white-collar” worker needed someone to blame for their crumbling economy latched onto the Jews, based on the myth that Jews were somehow prospering at the country’s expense. I know it sounds like an extreme analogy but hear me out. Post WWII economics killed the extended family, and the sexual revolution’s put the nuclear family in jeopardy, and I think that gays have presented a convenient target. Anti-Semitism was stirred up by master propagandists who were trying to create nationalist identities in order to motivate and control people. In contrast I think that the “otherness” of gays has been exacerbated by theories of well-meaning social scientists. The very last folks that would want to stir up hate have blundered into a dangerous combination of messages. People have known of homosexuals throughout history, under one word or another, but it’s only recently that we have hammered into us that we are “heterosexual.” While sexual identity has focused on marriage for thousands of years, now we’re told to reconceived our sexual identity as the opposite of what gays are. And it’s not even a working model for us. So right at a time that social structures are in jeopardy, someone comes along and gives us a new identity, in opposition to an “other,” the homosexual. And it certainly doesn’t help things when a few judges and social scientists start pitting the civil rights of gays against our definition of marriage and other core beliefs.
- Edward Sobota, Equality Practice: Liberal Reflections On The Jurisprudence Of Civil Union,” citing T.F. Pettigrew & R.W. Meertens, Subtle and Blatant Prejudice in Western Europe, 25 Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 57 (1992).
That’s why I strongly support Ana’s ideas in #65, and why I’m glad that Sister Pearson did not promote the poison pill argument that accepting our gay loved ones requires us to change our core values, or to change the definition of marriage. Marriage, family, and other aspects of “heterosexual” identity are in crisis. Insecure and broken people tend to look for scapegoats. This is a time to draw them into our family circle, like Sister Pearson said – not to call the circle into question. While the scholars and politicians fight over whether a child really needs a father and a mother, we can remember that our gay relatives really do have fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters – and we should act like it. What a hypocritical world we live in when an organization called “Focus on the Family” would try to pit a father against his daughter. That’s the *wrong* sort of focus on the family! And the other side’s extremists are no less prone to using your family as human shields in their crusade for change, Janet.
The family needs to be a shelter in this storm. Recent general conference talks are increasingly emphasizing that protecting the family does NOT mean excluding or shaming gay family members. I think that we can help repeat this message, and make sure that it sounds in all the right ears.
Comment by Christian — March 1, 2007 @ 1:00 am
Dang it, Janet, what I just tried to post addressed that exact question, and it went back into moderation.
Comment by Christian — March 1, 2007 @ 1:03 am
(please note that I’m not the one raising the topic of “fixing” gays and that’s not my agenda!}
Comment by Christian — March 1, 2007 @ 1:10 am
I agree, which is why I’m far more suspicious of the word “straight” than the word “gay.” Environment seems to make a self-identified “straight” person more likely to recognize gay or bisexual desires, but not vice-versa. That suggests that the neat little symmetrical “sexual orientation” model is unrealistically homocentric. Please believe me this time when I say I’m not promoting schemes to “fix” homosexuals and consider what’s probably an argument you haven’t considered before:
I’ve seen you explain liminality in more clear terms than I can generate. Homosexuals are more than just one more in a long line of persecuted “others” – homophobia is a strange hold-out in a culture that’s rejected irrational hatreds. With Phelps and some others, the hatred reaches levels only comparable to 19th and 20th century anti-Semitism, the sort of “root them out and exterminate them wherever they go” sort of hatred. Such extreme hatred is “illogical, irrational, and stems from unconscious forces” (Max Dimont, Jews, God, and History, p320-332, distinguishing anti-Semitism of the 19th & 20th century from other examples of lesser “anti-jewishness” such as the inquisition!) This extreme sort of hate is born when some incredible deep-seated fear or insecurity finds an “other” to blame. German “frayed white-collar” worker needed someone to blame for their crumbling economy latched onto the Jews, based on the myth that Jews were somehow prospering at the country’s expense. I know it sounds like an extreme analogy but hear me out. Post WWII economics killed the extended family, and the sexual revolution’s put the nuclear family in jeopardy, and I think that gays have presented a convenient target. Anti-Semitism was stirred up by master propagandists who were trying to create nationalist identities in order to motivate and control people. In contrast I think that the “otherness” of gays has been exacerbated by theories of well-meaning social scientists. The very last folks that would want to stir up hate have blundered into a dangerous combination of messages. People have known of homosexuals throughout history, under one word or another, but it’s only recently that we have hammered into us that we are “heterosexual.” While sexual identity has focused on marriage for thousands of years, now we’re told to reconceived our sexual identity as the opposite of what gays are. And it’s not even a working model for us. So right at a time that social structures are in jeopardy, someone comes along and gives us a new identity, in opposition to an “other,” the homosexual. And it certainly doesn’t help things when a few judges and social scientists start pitting the civil rights of gays against our definition of marriage and other core beliefs.
- Edward Sobota, Equality Practice: Liberal Reflections On The Jurisprudence Of Civil Union,” citing T.F. Pettigrew & R.W. Meertens, Subtle and Blatant Prejudice in Western Europe, 25 Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 57 (1992).
That’s why I strongly support Ana’s ideas in #65, and why I’m glad that Sister Pearson did not promote the poison pill argument that accepting our gay loved ones requires us to change our core values, or to change the definition of marriage. Marriage, family, and other aspects of “heterosexual” identity are in crisis. Insecure and broken people tend to look for scapegoats. This is a time to draw them into our family circle, like Sister Pearson said – not to call the circle into question. While the scholars and politicians fight over whether a child really needs a father and a mother, we can remember that our gay relatives really do have fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters – and we should act like it. What a hypocritical world we live in when an organization called “Focus on the Family” would try to pit a father against his daughter. That’s the *wrong* sort of focus on the family! And the other side’s extremists are no less prone to using your family as human shields in their crusade for change, Janet.
The family needs to be a shelter in this storm. Recent general conference talks are increasingly emphasizing that protecting the family does NOT mean excluding or shaming gay family members. I think that we can help repeat this message, and make sure that it sounds in all the right ears.
Comment by Christian — March 1, 2007 @ 1:10 am
I agree reparatory therapy rarely works, which is why I’m far more suspicious of the word “straight” than the word “gay.” Environment seems to make a self-identified “straight” person more likely to recognize gay or bisexual desires, but not vice-versa. That suggests that the neat little symmetrical “sexual orientation” model is unrealistically homocentric.
Comment by Christian — March 1, 2007 @ 1:12 am
Environment seems to make a self-identified “straight” person more likely to recognize gay or bisexual desires, but not vice-versa. That suggests that the neat little symmetrical “sexual orientation” model is unrealistically homocentric.
Comment by Christian — March 1, 2007 @ 1:13 am
I’ve seen you explain liminality in more clear terms than I can generate. Homosexuals are more than just one more in a long line of persecuted “others” – homophobia is a strange hold-out in a culture that’s rejected irrational hatreds. With Phelps and some others, the hatred reaches levels only comparable to 19th and 20th century anti-Semitism, the sort of “root them out and exterminate them wherever they go” sort of hatred. Such extreme hatred is “illogical, irrational, and stems from unconscious forces” (Max Dimont, Jews, God, and History, p320-332, distinguishing anti-Semitism of the 19th & 20th century from other examples of lesser “anti-jewishness” such as the inquisition!) This extreme sort of hate is born when some incredible deep-seated fear or insecurity finds an “other” to blame. German “frayed white-collar” worker needed someone to blame for their crumbling economy latched onto the Jews, based on the myth that Jews were somehow prospering at the country’s expense. I know it sounds like an extreme analogy but hear me out. Post WWII economics killed the extended family, and the sexual revolution’s put the nuclear family in jeopardy, and I think that gays have presented a convenient target. Anti-Semitism was stirred up by master propagandists who were trying to create nationalist identities in order to motivate and control people. In contrast I think that the “otherness” of gays has been exacerbated by theories of well-meaning social scientists. The very last folks that would want to stir up hate have blundered into a dangerous combination of messages. People have known of homosexuals throughout history, under one word or another, but it’s only recently that we have hammered into us that we are “heterosexual.” While sexual identity has focused on marriage for thousands of years, now we’re told to reconceived our sexual identity as the opposite of what gays are. And it’s not even a working model for us. So right at a time that social structures are in jeopardy, someone comes along and gives us a new identity, in opposition to an “other,” the homosexual. And it certainly doesn’t help things when a few judges and social scientists start pitting the civil rights of gays against our definition of marriage and other core beliefs.
- Edward Sobota, Equality Practice: Liberal Reflections On The Jurisprudence Of Civil Union,” citing T.F. Pettigrew & R.W. Meertens, Subtle and Blatant Prejudice in Western Europe, 25 Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 57 (1992).
That’s why I strongly support Ana’s ideas in #65, and why I’m glad that Sister Pearson did not promote the poison pill argument that accepting our gay loved ones requires us to change our core values, or to change the definition of marriage. Marriage, family, and other aspects of “heterosexual” identity are in crisis. Insecure and broken people tend to look for scapegoats. This is a time to draw them into our family circle, like Sister Pearson said – not to call the circle into question. While the scholars and politicians fight over whether a child really needs a father and a mother, we can remember that our gay relatives really do have fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters – and we should act like it. What a hypocritical world we live in when an organization called “Focus on the Family” would try to pit a father against his daughter. That’s the *wrong* sort of focus on the family! And the other side’s extremists are no less prone to using your family as human shields in their crusade for change, Janet.
The family needs to be a shelter in this storm. Recent general conference talks are increasingly emphasizing that protecting the family does NOT mean excluding or shaming gay family members. I think that we can help repeat this message, and make sure that it sounds in all the right ears.
Comment by Christian — March 1, 2007 @ 1:14 am
Yay! I beat the filter! No idea what words it was freaking on.
Comment by Christian — March 1, 2007 @ 1:15 am
Diplomacy is not my strong-suit, Janet, so I really can’t give you any advice. It’s easier if the person who makes the comment in the first place, knows a gay person that you know, too. Then you can say, “Is that what you think about Charlie?” and it effectively shuts them up.
There are a couple of ways to avoid a double-standard on the issue of same-sex couples sharing a bed in your home. The easiest is to get a really small home that simply won’t accommodate overnight guests. You can also use the (somewhat ethically dubious) excuse that you don’t allow unmarried couples to share a bed in your home
Comment by Quimby — March 1, 2007 @ 1:20 am
My guess Janet is that your “defense” of your gay loved ones contains statements that unnecessarily throw marriage and other identity issues of your non-gay loved ones into question. That you use words like sexual orientation, heterosexual, or similarly ideologically loaded words that you probably don’t consider ideologically loaded.
Angels speak to men in their own language. If you want to teach tolerance and peace and love, teach it to people in their own language, their own set of assumptions. Don’t use alternate meanings for their core value words, and expect them to not feel like they are under attack.
If you were trying to teach feminist principles in a sacrament meeting talk, would you preach to them about the evils of “patriarchy”? You’d find another word, wouldn’t you?
Comment by Christian — March 1, 2007 @ 1:27 am
Quimby:
?? When did I say “homosexual” was loaded?
As explained in #15, #24, #39, and #90, “Heterosexual” puts people’s sexual identity in a homocentric context. It’s as loaded as referring to non-Jews as “Gentiles.” If you were talking about Jews (or LDS) to someone who was prejudiced against Jews (or LDS), you should obviously avoid words like “Gentile,” unless you’re actually trying to inflame existing prejudice. And like I said in #90, this identity stuff happens on an unconscious level. The worst sort of prejudice “stems from unconscious forces” related to personal identity.
——-
actually felt as though I’ve been “bitchy” on this thread, which DH says is ridiculous.
DH is right. I’d never presume to tell you anything about diplomacy, Janet. Given your question, I assumed the problem isn’t an issue of diplomacy.
But I’m usually so careful not to hurt people.
That’s certainly been my observation. If the issue is what I think it is, you’re challenging their world view without realizing it – and without their recognizing it. Culture, rhetoric, world view sort of stuff.
Still, no matter how conciliatory or rhetorically flexible I try to be on this particular issue, the response from certain people I know remains, “all people who are attracted to people of their same gender are pedophiles, God hates them, and they are going to hell.”
But maybe not. Who are those people, and where are they coming from?
Well, it may be too late for the ones that are gone that far.
Which is of course a remarkably idiotic thing to say. Yet I never call the person an idiot, even though I’ll admit it’s been tempting.
I’d avoid bigot too, because in their situation it’s an unwarranted compliment that just confirms their position. I had an argument with one sick old lady (thank heavens I didn’t marry into that family!) that actually got mad that I *didn’t* call her a bigot, because that was my line on her script, if you know what I meant. “Go on – call me a bigot!” She actually said it three times. So I said (without realizing it was the most devastating thing I could have said) “why do you want me to call you a bigot?” Her: “because that’s what you’re thinking.” Me (honestly): “No, I’m trying to understand you. Why do you think that I think you’re a bigot?” Silence. Me: “do you think you’re a bigot?” It was like handing a vampire a mirror.
I believe that at the heart, irrational murderous hatred is really about self-hatred.
Marriage and civilization is held in place by such fragile artificialities, that when we run into someone that exists outside that structure that keeps us under control, that we see our darkest self-image. The Supreme Court of Indiana’s ruling on ssm was the only one I’ve seen that seems to understand that Homosexuals don’t threaten civilization, “Heterosexuals” threaten civilization. Homosexuals aren’t the ones with inclinations that would lead them to breed like cave men or animals and people the world with children who cannot operate in society. The marriage ideology is what keeps people like *me* from bringing the whole thing down. Ever since I was a kid I’ve been brainwashed for the safety of society, told that being a father is important, to wait until marriage to make babies. That’s not natural. Without the marriage ideology, “fatherhood” would not even be a word. I’d not even grasp my relation to these children that just happened to come out of a woman that I’d had sex with. Telling us to conceive of our core identity as our biological desire … “heterosexuality” … that’s seditious. More dangerous than yelling fire in a crowded theater. And the danger is within “heterosexuality.”
We can’t reasonably expect people – particularly Americans who don’t even recognize that they have a culture, let alone a cultural frame of reference that shapes their perceptions — to acknowledge and confront their self-doubts, self-fear, self-contempt, and self-hatred, at a time when the world as they knew it is crashing down around them. The most natural thing in the world is to project all that stuff onto a convenient scapegoat.
I’ve also been accused of hiding my rampant sinfulness behind a facade of kindness
I don’t know much about you but I *know* that’s false. I hope that it wasn’t someone that you take seriously that said such a thing.
Now *that* is idiotic.
I suppose I just have to try my best and accept that I can’t always make peace–nice little Jesus complex I’ve got going on, eh?
Jesus complex? I hope it’s contagious.
#90–interesting. Have you read Lacan and Derrida, Christian?
I’ve read a little of Jonathan Culler’s explanation of Derrida, but unlike the rest of the class I found it harder to read than Derrida himself, although Culler had some interesting insights that I don’t remember. I’ve not read Lacan, although I remember two of my literature profs referring to him frequently.
I’ve read Derrida’s original exchange with John Searle, in “Limited Inc,” although others assure me that I don’t understand it when I say that I found it amusing and very useful.
Your comments on the “other” and the potentials perils of binary systems remind me of them.
I caught the part where I talked about the other, but I must have missed the part about potentials perils of binary systems. It could be that the ideas I discussed have been detailed in Lacan or some part of Derrida that I haven’t read.
Ah. I don’t always understand everything that I say.
I cited Cheney as an example of how to backhand a conservative that attacks family in the name of “family values.” NO and Helmutt don’t feel that Cheney made an adequate argument, and I can only conclude that they don’t understand that in the language of conservatives, that Cheney *reamed* FoF precisely by not mentioning FoF, and by speaking of his daughter and granddaughter unapologetically, in the way that any father and grandfather should. I’m *delighted* that Mary is having a grandchild. For anyone to suggest otherwise is *inappropriate.* Just like Quimby suggested above, “just treat your gay loved ones in the same manner you’d treat your straight loved ones.”!! Cheney wasn’t trying to impress NO and Helmutt. He was putting FoF in its place, denying it the chance to use his daughter as a pawn for its politicking, showing FoF’s followers how their leader had shamed their own beliefs about the family. The message is, “This is my daughter. Don’t you dare say anything hurtful about her. Don’t you dare suggest that I should be ashamed of her or my grandchild.” Put love over politics.
Comment by Christian — March 1, 2007 @ 1:32 am
Quimby:
?? When did I say “homosexual” was loaded?
As explained in #15, #24, #39, and #90, “Heterosexual” puts people’s sexual identity in a homocentric context. It’s as loaded as referring to non-Jews as “Gentiles.” If you were talking about Jews (or LDS) to someone who was prejudiced against Jews (or LDS), you should obviously avoid words like “Gentile,” unless you’re actually trying to inflame existing prejudice. And like I said in #90, this identity stuff happens on an unconscious level. The worst sort of prejudice “stems from unconscious forces” related to personal identity.
Comment by Christian — March 1, 2007 @ 1:34 am
FWIW, I don’t have a problem with letting my same-sex couple friends share a bed in my home. My child is a baby now so she wouldn’t think anything of it, but I imagine when she’s 5 or 6, she’ll just think they’re having a sleepover. I don’t have to tell her what they do in bed, just like I don’t have to tell her what a straight couple does in bed. Maybe this is an ostrich approach, but my feeling is, if my daughter grows up knowing Uncle Charlie and Uncle Joe, and knowing them as a unit that goes together, just like her Uncle Mike and Aunt Vicki are a unit that go together, just like Mom and Dad are a unit that go together, we won’t have to sit down and have a big discussion that Uncle Charlie and Uncle Joe are gay. After all I wouldn’t sit down and tell her that Uncle Mike and Aunt Vicki are straight. (Funnily enough, when Charlie’s sister sat her kids down and told them the big news that Uncle Charlie was gay, all her kids said, “Yeah, we kind of figured it out, Mom, we’re not dumb” – like she was a bit thick for thinking they had to have the discussion in the first place.)
Comment by Quimby — March 1, 2007 @ 1:37 am
Where is the loading in terms like “heterosexual” and “homosexual”?
Comment by Quimby — March 1, 2007 @ 1:39 am
Agh! Wordpress is putting posts out of order again.
I thought they weren’t appearing, so I reposted part of a message.
I bet you that the overambitious “cowboy” messages are linked to this same problem — the time measurement software says
Comment by Christian — March 1, 2007 @ 1:39 am
Actually, I try very hard to do this when in situations like I mentioned. Diplomacy has always been one of my strong suites, I’m told–so much so that I’ve been stuck in the middle of more fights than I like to recall. I’ve actually felt as though I’ve been “bitchy” on this thread, which DH says is ridiculous. But I’m usually so careful not to hurt people. Still, no matter how conciliatory or rhetorically flexible I try to be on this particular issue, the response from certain people I know remains, “all people who are attracted to people of their same gender are pedophiles, God hates them, and they are going to hell.” Which is of course a remarkably idiotic thing to say. Yet I never call the person an idiot, even though I’ll admit it’s been tempting.
I’ve also been accused of hiding my rampant sinfulness behind a facade of kindness :(. I suppose I just have to try my best and accept that I can’t always make peace–nice little Jesus complex I’ve got going on, eh?
#90–interesting. Have you read Lacan and Derrida, Christian? Your comments on the “other” and the potentials perils of binary systems remind me of them. As for your link–ack! Ack! My home state! The pain!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
#94 Quimby–good point. I don’t feel the need to foreground straight sexuality to anyone.
Comment by Janet — March 1, 2007 @ 1:52 am
Re Moderation: we got spammed, it looks like, with a bunch of gay sex stuff so that’s probably why things have gotten all weird. What I don’t get is why that stuff shows up in the moderation or spam file, but legitimate comments just don’t show up for a while. Beats me!
Comment by Janet — March 1, 2007 @ 1:53 am
No, Hellmut, I said no such thing. I said that at some point, choice and socialization appear to be involved in a few specific cases, but that gay people almost certainly cannot choose to become “straight.”
Thank you Rich for correcting my spelling and for hinting that my misspelling might be what’s causing Hellmut to draw sinister inferences and personal attacks from everything I say. I’ll be careful how I spell “Hellmut” and hope that clears up the problem.
Hellmut, if you want to see what it looks like when I’m being deliberately rude, look at how I talk to Rich on Times and Seasons. Transposing a double consonant is a very common mistake when dealing with an unfamilliar name or word; I assure you the mistake was not intentional. In my more immature moments on other forums, I have occasionally intentionally misspelled someone’s name, but only when there’s some irresistable wordplay at stake. I don’t think I could get away with that here, despite the fact that Janet knows Derrida.
Comment by Christian — March 1, 2007 @ 2:01 am
And now, for a quick diversion from the depth of this stimulating conversation, consider taking a peak at these three short ads, prepared by Young & Rubicam for EqualMariage.org. The intent, I think, is to convey to the public the message that homosexuals and gay marriage are perhaps not as different or threatening as some might have imagined.
Comment by Steven B — March 1, 2007 @ 2:21 am
Ah, m’dears, I cannot spell. In fact, I’d been reading “hellmut”–a nice zippy handle as “helmet” because I’m sort of safety obsessed.sorry for envisioning your as safety device, hellmut! My bad!
Derrida story: a woman was just starting her studies at Oxford and a very pretentious professor turned to her during her first diner and said, “so, how do *you* read Derrida?” She brought her fork to her mouth, paused,and dryly replied, “like fiction.” I actually like the dude for a lot of things but I like that story even better.
Comment by Janet — March 1, 2007 @ 2:24 am
The coding’s too specific, SteveB. I can’t get any of them to run in Explorer7 or in Mozilla Firefox, using WinXP pro, and that’s a pretty broad range of users.
Might you imagine that it’s the *similarities* that make it most threatening?
I got the most out of Derrida when I stopped paying attention to what he was saying and focused on how he said it. He’s better at demonstrating the principles than he is at describing them.
Comment by Christian — March 1, 2007 @ 2:40 am
BTW Janet, #98 posted out of order, above the posts from you and Quimby that I was replying to.
Comment by Christian — March 1, 2007 @ 2:45 am
I can’t get any of them to run in Explorer7 or in Mozilla Firefox, using WinXP pro, and that’s a pretty broad range of users.
Hmmm, and I thought we Mac users suffered from minority software.
Might you imagine that it’s the *similarities* that make it most threatening?
Well, I have always considered SSM to be simply the counterpart of OSM — marriage for people who are gay. I suppose that the similarities might actually be a threat to some people. But for most, to see that homosexual individuals and couples are not really that “other” would reduce people’s fears.
Keep in mind that recent Pride parades (in countries that are granting gay rights) are celebrations of diversity, and do not portray the average GLBT person any more than Mardi Gras represents the typical citizen of New Orleans or Sån Paulo.
Comment by Steven B — March 1, 2007 @ 4:39 am
And that’s a problem. That “counterpart” construct snuffs out any aspects of marriage that doesn’t fit that rigid symmetry. It displaces the importance of a child needing a mother and father. It displaces the whole idea of marriage as an essential union of the sexes. Sure, everything else is very similar, which makes it all the more impossible to communicate the ideas that came before once you reduce what’s left of what used to be marriage down to “opposite sex marriage.”
Some of us were still hoping to undo some of the damage that had accrued through the sexual revolution, (without bringing back the bad old stuff, obviously), the culture of irresponsibility, refocusing marriage on children, firing all the idiots that took the focus off “unwed pregnancy” and focused it all on “teen pregnancy,” as if a pregnant 19 year old married woman was worse off than a single 20 year old woman. Healing the cultural genocide wrought by slavery and Jim Crow, and revitalizing the idea of marriage in the inner city. It’s not gays’ fault that we have these problems. And SSUS allow us to give same-sex couples the legal tools that they need, without blocking the fixup work we need to do on the marriage institution.
Neutering the idea of marriage and reductively treating real marriage as “OSM”, the counterpart of SSM, tosses all of those hopes right out the window. It feels like tossing the baby and keeping the bathwater.
That’s not the issue; I’m not concerned with gay behavior here. The state’s involved with marriage in order to regulate *reproduction,* by encouraging people to postpone reproduction until they have made a commitment for life with someone of the opposite sex; the idea’s to maximize the proportion of children raised by a man and woman. (Please let’s not dance with the nonsensical Goodridge argument that the fact that the state doesn’t use coercive means somehow proves that giving kids mommies and daddies isn’t a purpose. We don’t like coercive means. We prefer a system of incentives.)
The problem is coopting our whole identity to symmetrically mirror this new concept of ssm. Presently people put off having children until marriage, because that’s what marriage is about. If we make marriage some sort of “affirmation” of our “sexual orientation,” that’s broken its most useful function for society. Society has an interest in promoting gay monogamy, and SOME but not all of those interests overlap with the interests for society’s involvement in marriage. Making them “counterparts,” and using the same name for them, changes both the definition and purpose of marriage as far as government’s concerned, which over time will drastically change its function as far as hetero couples are concerned.
Comment by Christian — March 1, 2007 @ 5:19 am
Christian, Not to discount all that you have written concerning marriage, I won’t debate your thoughts on the matter, as that would clearly move the conversation away from the topic. I think that the dialogue on sexual orientation, which has been the focus of your comments, is a critical foundation to address how to deal with gay people in the church. When discussions about homosexuality seem to always break down to “talking past each other,” it is usually because one side speaks of sexuality as “what you do” and the other side uses “sexuality” in terms of “who you are.”
Comment by Steven B — March 1, 2007 @ 12:35 pm
I know you believe that, and most folks who support ssm think that. I think that belief is exactly the construct that turns this whole argument into a zero-sum game. Your “critical foundation” for the discussion requires razing the foundation of everything that sexual identity and meaning is for us. In fact, the “foundation” that you’re laying for ssm is exactly what I think that the plurality of reasonable Americans reject. Most Americans oppose ssm, and yet most Americans support SSUs. Why? That’s not enmity to gays. If this was simply about rights, same-sex couples would have won the argument already. People simply refuse to accept the vocabulary and world view changes that you’re unnecessarily bundling into the whole “acceptance” package.
Why should we have to completely reconceive who we are in order to accept someone else as a family member, as a friend, or as a member of the community? Seems to me that those who tell us that we essentially have to change our religion and world view in order to be “accepting” are the ones not being accepting. This emotional extortion to make us change our sexual identity and accept the “orientation” frame of reference is no at least as violent and misguided as the attempts to “cure” gays.
Marriage is a sexual identity, and in a marriage culture, it’s an identity that we take on before we marry. The idea that we will someday marry (God willing) profoundly affects the behavior of people socialized in the marriage culture, even before we marry. How we date, who we date, choice to have sex (when/where/with whom) – the simple idea of marrying someday affects these behaviors in ways that strongly benefits society, and helps our own lives as well. That’s a sexual identity based on choice, and it’s an idea that the “orientation” model puts under erasure.
I’ve seen that some of the time. More often, I find myself talking past someone who seems to assume that I’m making arguments that ssm opponents are *expected* to make. I find it very difficult to get anyone to acknowledge an argument that they were not anticipating, and even harder to get the point through that I’m not making the same old “lifestyle” arguments that ssm proponents anticipate.
Comment by Christian — March 1, 2007 @ 1:30 pm
You’re right, I was. I suppose because the arguments to which I am referring are primarily used to justify the action, not the desire. I’m not arguing against same-sex attraction itself, but just the arguments for indulging it.
Other comments (in/out of order) have confused me to the point where I have nothing more to say.
Comment by SilverRain — March 1, 2007 @ 1:41 pm
Steve, I have a brother in law whose narrow definition of Christianity excludes me. He refuses to hear any talk about the LDS church, refused to see the movie “Brigham City” because it had the word “Brigham” in the title. He’s still my brother in law, loves us, treats us with respect, and we get along fine with him so long as we don’t talk about religion. Should I stick the issue in his face and say that he doesn’t accept me for who I am because he refuses to acknowledge that I’m a Christian? Should I hold his ability to see his nephews hostage to coerce him to change his narrow definition of Christianity? I’d would never stoop to such extortion. He’s my family, and he has the right to his own world view, just as I do.
Comment by Christian — March 1, 2007 @ 2:12 pm
Hey folks, I’m holed up in a hotel to actually *work on the dissertation* for a weekend (and how sad is it that I have to actually alter my routine in order to do this–but also drive to a better library). The internet connection here isn’t all that great (though it’s free, so yay!). Thus, I probably won’t be around.
I promise I’m not dismissing anyone! I actually keep saving up something to ask Hellmut and then getting distracted, and as SilverRain notes, the weird computer antics have made this conversation a little, uh, Derridian–hah!
So, carry on. Just didn’t want anyone thinking I was bailing on y’all out of spite or something. I shall now sequester myself in the bowels of the BYU law library (which has remarkable amounts of stuff relevant to 19th c. rape cases, and if you want to see oddly constructed sexuality, take a gander at slave states back then!).
Cheers–your happy moderator gal.
Comment by Janet — March 1, 2007 @ 4:09 pm
Seems to me that those who tell us that we essentially have to change our religion and world view in order to be “accepting” are the ones not being accepting. This emotional extortion to make us change our sexual identity and accept the “orientation” frame of reference is . . . at least as violent and misguided as the attempts to “cure” gays.
You are right that the gay community is asking people to consider a different world view. And that may seem drastic, even subversive. I think it is at the root of the issue in the current culture war.
Christian, my professional commitments don’t permit me to spend any time participating in this thread. I’ve enjoyed reading what you have written and appreciate your articulate responses.
Comment by Steven B — March 1, 2007 @ 4:25 pm
I strongly agree with you that the “different world view” is at the root of the culture war, Steve. I don’t think that we’ve been asked to “consider” that world view, though; you’re the only pro-ssm person that I’ve ever seen acknowledge that “sexual orientation” was part of a new world view. Others simply offer it as a premise-which-must-not-be-questioned. We’re supposed to accept it uncritically.
Comment by Christian — March 1, 2007 @ 5:25 pm
re: 119
I disagree with that completely. The gay community is basically asking to be left alone, when you get right down to it. Don’t fire us from our jobs, don’t tell us who we can marry, don’t penalize us economically, don’t beat us up, etc.
The notion that this represents some subversive, Alice In Wonderland-esque world view altering agenda that will destroy society doesn’t hold up. These arguments seem to exist to justify what’s really going on: Lots of ordinary people really, really dislike and fear homosexuals.
Fear. It boils down to a feeling.
Fascinating thread. You might want to check out my recent post on the topic over at LDS Liberation Front:
http://ldsliberationfront.net/?p=181
Comment by MikeInWeHo — March 1, 2007 @ 11:29 pm
@121: you might want to check context. Steve and I were talking about ssm. Neither I nor Steve was saying that employment antdiscrimination rules or hate crime laws were “subversive.” We’re talking about specifically about redefining the word and concept of “marriage.” And Steve actually supports ssm.
There are a number of gays that actually oppose ssm, and another bunch that would be happy with SSUs, others that would settle for SSUs. In my experience, most of those who are the most gung ho for SSM and no compromise come hell or high water are either heterosexual “straight but not narrow” politicos or promiscuous activist gays with no intention of adopting a monogamous lifestyle.
What’s “subversive” is the way you force your definition of marriage on us in a string of otherwise reasonable demands:
basically asking to be left alone, when you get right down to it. Don’t fire us from our jobs, don’t tell us who we can marry, don’t penalize us economically, don’t beat us up, etc.
“don’t tell us who we can marry” is not an honest representation of what you’re asking, since marriage to us means a union of man and woman. What you ask would require society, law, and probably eventually religion as well to change our entire definition of marriage. That’s a big bloody overhaul, and it’s subversive to slip it in like that, as if it were nothing.
Reminds me of some kid that was staying at our house a few years ago, asks me “can I have a soda.” Sure, I say – if there’s any in the fridge, take some. “Well I want Mountain Dew,” he says. Turns out “can I have a soda” meant he wants me to leave my house, drive down to the store, violate my religion by going shopping on a Sunday afternoon, buy him his stupid Mountain Dew. So I said, “you asked me if you could have a soda.
You want to be “let alone,” and that’s fine with me. We won’t tell you who you can marry, and you don’t tell us how to define marriage, and who we have to recognize as married. That’s what being left alone means: the rights you rightfully gained in Lawrence v. Texas.
But trying to pass off a massive change in our whole concept of marriage as “leaving you alone” is subversive.
Comment by Christian — March 2, 2007 @ 1:17 am
#121 - Mike - I wish you weren’t right, but you are. It does often come down to fear. And that makes me incredibly sad.
Comment by Rebecca — March 2, 2007 @ 1:53 am
Actually, Christian, if you read my other bloggernacle comments you’ll see that I advocate a political solution which accepts SSU. No constitutional amendments, no SSM. The UK seems to have figured this out recently. Let our grandchildren decide this one. We can’t.
From my perspective, I’m already married. From yours (and the federal government’s), I am not. We can still all get along. I would prefer we all faced the same tax burden and could belong to the same church, but apparently we can’t.
It’s ironic, though, that the descendants of polygamists wring their hands at the prospect of a “massive change in our whole concept of marriage” !!!
Comment by MikeInWeHo — March 2, 2007 @ 2:16 am
MikeInWeHo–your tax burden comment reminded me of something i saw in *Mother Jones* the other day. I’ll have to put it up when I get home from my trip. It had a statistical breakdown of how much money the gov’t would save on certain stuff if members of gay unions had the same tax burden and other economic stuff as married straight folks, I’ll admit, i’d never thought of that angle of things. (Being a pinko commie liberal spendthrift, I rarely consider saving the gov’t money, heh heh.)
I have to agree on the polygamy irony. It’s bugged me for a while. i haven’t looked into the legal ramifications Christian is talking about and don’t really know enough about the law to intelligently represent it anyhow, but I do know that marriage has not always been defined as 1 woman + 1 man, and certainly not with consent from both sides (in some cases either side). The nuclear family model we tout as “natural” (and it’s a model I admit i quite like since i don’t want to live with 27 extended family members or be used as a peace negotiation tool with a foreign country, or have other people raise my eventual kids because I am too middle class to breastfeed or something) is a relatively recent historical invention. (History much easier than law. Law hard.)
I’m not doing very well at staying away from my computer to study. Bad me.
Comment by Janet — March 2, 2007 @ 2:37 am
Oh look, I found yet another meaning for “natural.” Apologies all ’round–we’d gotten away from that little devil and here I am, trotting the fellow back onto the screen.
As for fear? Yes. Sad. Fear and xenophobia–which I think could be alleviated if people would do things like get to know each other or even read the personal narratives in CLP’s book. See how I brought it back to the possibly good effects of her book? Ain’t I tidy that way?
I am straight, but when at BYU a bunch of teenagers threw a large rock at me and my (platonic) girlfriend because, so far as I could tell, we were wearing boots, had short hair, and had linked arms. It was a big rock, and they aimed for the head. I cannot imagine living in fear of that sort of thing every day of my life. I cannot imagine the fear that would compel those boys to try and injure people they’d never met. I’m with Rebecca. It is too sad for reckoning.
Comment by Janet — March 2, 2007 @ 2:42 am
Mike, I agree with you that it’s about fear, but it’s not you I fear. It’s some fellow law students I’ve heard gloating about the orgy of civil rights litigation that they plan to be part of once SSM passes, suing employers and businesses that refuse to use the word “Marriage” to refer to an SSR.
It’s not that ironic, when you consider that the last time that northeasterners started tweaking with the definition of marriage, that they nearly dismantled the church, and threw a lot of good LDS people in prison for refusing to comply. Now there was a people who just wanted to be left alone.
The UK’s solution works for them because their House of Lords has power to overrule their highest court. Lacking that protection from the likes of Margaret Marshall, we need a national amendment
I advocate a national amendment that requires state recognition of SSUs and reserves the word marriage as between man and woman. If our grandchildren think we’re wrong, they can repeal as they did prohibition. Same tax burden, right to adopt, but no right to sue adoption agencies that use kid’s need for a mom and dad as one of several factors in a contest for a given kid.
If you want to talk about change our concept of marriage as a nation, then frame it that way. People are angry because it’s been brought in through stealth and coercion, bypassing any honest discussion or democratic process. Goodridge starts the so-called discussion with the question of whether “gays have the right to marry,” bypassing the whole question of why we should redefine marriage in the first place.
As for the same church … believe it or not, I hear you, and I don’t have any smug easy answer. If I’m wrong about this like Brigham Young was wrong about blacks and the priesthood, I pray that God will lift the scales from my eyes.
Comment by Christian — March 2, 2007 @ 2:57 am
I am straight, but when at BYU a bunch of teenagers threw a large rock at me and my (platonic) girlfriend because, so far as I could tell, we were wearing boots, had short hair, and had linked arms. It was a big rock, and they aimed for the head.
And these hateful attacks continue. One recent, hateful attack just makes you just want to weep.
A reader’s comment from the last link: “I remember seeing Mr. Anthos, using his own cleaning materials, spending many days on a ladder cleaning and polishing the bronze plaque on the side of the building in Lansing where the original Capitol building was, so people could read it again.
I remember seeing him in his stars and stripes clothes campaigning for his cause. It does not matter that his cause was not adopted, only that he did his honorable best for it. He was a citizen model for us all.”
Comment by Steven B — March 2, 2007 @ 3:42 am
Did a recent post about “how much (I) love sex” recently disappear? Because it makes me incredibly sad–well, angry, really–that a bunch of self-satisfied Mormon women can yammer on about how sumptuous your sex lives are while denying gays the right to do the same. Shame on you!
Comment by AFN — March 2, 2007 @ 6:09 am
I don’t think anyone here, however, argues that people with same-sex attraction should be physically harmed or socially castigated. I would certainly hope not, because it goes against the #2 tenet of Christianity - Love your neighbor.
At the same time, I don’t think people who choose to stand for something - who choose to have opinions or beliefs about the rightness or wrongness of a particular behavior - should be physically harmed or socially castigated, either.
Comment by SilverRain — March 2, 2007 @ 7:56 am
AFN, I can see why you’d be sad and angry, but if you read carefully I think you’ll notice that nobody on this thread (at least not that I’m aware of) advocates illegalizing gay sex. Some may morally oppose it (as well as any number of other sexual things) but there’s a GIGANTIC breach between believing something is immoral and arguing for its legal ban. There’s also a huge difference between opposing gay marriage, opposing legal status for SSU, and opposing someone’s actual sex life. You’re lumping things together which are not so easily lumped, really.
Personally, my main moral objections to anything sexual would be 1) if anyone is coerced–in which case I’m also, obviously, in favor of illegality as well, and 2) if people of any orientation are acting irresponsibly promiscuous since that endangers not only their health but that of each partner as well. I don’t think you can reasonably illegalize that, however.
If one of my gay friends got married or had a commitment ceremony, I’d go, I’d bring a lovely gift, I’d wish them all the happiness committed unions bring. I’d rejoice in their choice for monogamy, too! But I also have great respect for those gays who choose celibacy in accord with their religious beliefs–just like I respect straights who choose celibacy as a part of a religious vow.
Comment by Janet — March 2, 2007 @ 10:33 am
SilverRain, certainly people DO take moral stances for which they should be socially castigated–since almost any stance is at its heart a moral one. There’s a political party in Europe which advocates for the recognition of pedophilia as a healthy choice for both adult and child, for instance. I would NEVER physically harm one of these people unless I caught them hurting a kid, but I’m quite willing to stand up and castigate their “moral stance.”
The fervency of a belief cannot logically stand as a magical prima facia defense.
That said, I don’t think anyone’s rhetoric in this thread merits such as strong term as “castigation”–certainly you’ve been cautious and polite and I think others have as well. AFN seems to want to castigate us all, it’s true, but it doesn’t appear that (s)he has actually read the thread since (s)he accuses us of something nobody has–to my knowledge–actually suggested.
Comment by Janet — March 2, 2007 @ 10:40 am
The Church sends out a double-message toward gays, imo. On the one hand you have clear condemnations of violence, statements that everyone is a child of God, etc. On the other, you have some remarkably offensive comments (echoed by SilverRain, et. al.) even challenging the ways gays choose to describe themselves: “So-call gays….,” “people struggling with SSA” etc.
It’s really tough to get around the fact that the Church clearly implies that in Zion, gay people would not to exist at all. At the bottom line, we’re lumped in with prostitutes, drug dealers, etc. Worthy of Christ-like compassion, sure, but ultimately destined to change or be divinely penalized somehow.
re: 127 If they put us in charge, Christian, we’d have this wrapped up real fast. I could definitely accept what you propose in your middle paragraph.
So-Called MikeInWeHo
Comment by MikeInWeHo — March 2, 2007 @ 10:46 am
Speaking of cultural changes and a “different world view,” that’s exactly the framework I placed this issue in when discussing it on my own blog: Discrimination against homosexuals: why? why? why???
Comment by C.L. Hanson — March 2, 2007 @ 11:38 am
You and I do not form a majority, but our position could prove the dominant plurality. I’m writing a letter to my senator, Harry Reid, proposing the compromise FMA that we spoke of. Every poll I’ve seen on the matter shows that most Americans oppose ssm, and yet most Americans would support ssus. If you care to join me, and if you know any like-minded individuals, please email me at logicblackbelt at yahoo dot com. I think it’s time that we moderates took the steering wheel back from the extremists.
Mike, you are right to take offense when people challenge “the ways gays choose to describe themselves.” Unfortunately, academics and media link what you call yourselves to the “sexual orientation” model which seeks to redefine *our* identities. There’s a reason that SilverRain feels under attack, and people say things like that not to attack your identity but to protect our own. I think fewer people would challenge your story if the dominant “sexual orientation” theory did not frame your story in a way that challenges our story. I described this earlier in ## 15, 24, 39, 90, & 101. People like you, (meaning those gays who care more about their rights than about imposing their ideology) will ultimately be more persuasive when you tell your own story, than the others who try to tell us our own story. Unfortunately both sides are battle-hardened and it’s hard for moderates to recognize each other in the thick of a cultural war.
Comment by Christian — March 2, 2007 @ 1:20 pm
#132 Janet - You’re right, I should have said “as long as those stances neither hurt nor deny anyone their legal rights.” Castigating a stance is different than castigating a person.
#133 MikeInWeHo - I believe that “Worthy of Christ-like compassion, sure, but ultimately destined to change or be divinely penalized somehow” fits everyone. We all have to change. There are many things I do that other people feel are wrong. Some even feel I am destined for hell for some of the things I do. Ultimately, that is between me and my Savior alone. Ultimately, your sins are between you and your Savior.
I believe that sexual intercourse with someone of your own sex is one of many sins. As long as it doesn’t hurt the innocent, I also find no need to deny you your choice. I also have no need to rank sins. A sin is a sin, great or small. I am sorry if my opinion offends you, because it is not my intent to offend, but as long as my beliefs don’t hurt the innocent, you should have no need to deny me my choice in beliefs. I don’t throw stones at anyone, I don’t believe in denying anyone of legal rights. I don’t believe in castigating someone because of their beliefs (as long as they don’t hurt the innocent.) I also don’t apologize for my opinions, but I do feel sorrow that they cause rifts. It is the same for you to require me to change my opinion of homosexuality as a sin and for me to require you to change yours.
Comment by SilverRain — March 2, 2007 @ 1:52 pm
Responding to Janet’s legal question in #125: Until the Netherlands’ recent social experiments, the definition of marriage always involved a lifelong union of 1 woman + 1 man. Other elements such as exclusivity, severability, and consent change from culture to culture and also over time.
I’m not inclined to tell the bride how to run her own wedding.
Exclusivity: In Tibet and Mongolia, this commitment was not exclusive for the woman, so she could enter multiple simultaneous marriages, each to a different man. The fact that LDS plural marriage officially required consent of the first wife does not contradict the fact that the second marriage was a separate marriage.
Severability: Jurisdictions that make divorce easy, tend to make annulment easier, but it still is a very different philosophy of marriage.
Consent: “Shotgun weddings” under our laws today could be nullified at the option of the person coerced. Ironically many Americans still preserve the ceremonial vestiges of coerced marriages, with the father of the bride “giving” her away. I’ve even seen this at a LDS marriage reception, which seemed a little apostate since it contradicts the temple ceremony.
You are right that we’ve changed a lot of bad things about marriage, so “traditional” marriage cannot adequately describe the union of man and woman. If we neuter the meaning of “marriage” the original concept disappears from public understanding. The story of extended families validates my concern about cultural genocide. Family relationships that seemed indispensable in the 1940s were forgotten vestiges by the 1970s. Of course you should be able to opt out of living in a commune, but losing the idea of how it worked – that was no trivial loss!
Some gay groups have accused city government of neglect, homophobia, and even genocide, for *failing* to shut down certain bath houses. I think they have a point. Since anal sex has four times the HIV transmission rate as vaginal sex, gay men are disproportionately harmed by the government’s failure to discourage public anonymous promiscuity. If someone wants to bring strangers into her own home for anonymous sex, that’s her right under Lawrence v. Texas. But we require seatbelts and helmets, so it’s clear that outside the home, the state has a duty to regulate self-destructive behavior.
Comment by Christian — March 2, 2007 @ 2:26 pm