Raising Gay Children in the Church
by Mogaria
I am a 54 year old Mother who faithfully raised my children in the church and severely damaged my lovely gay son in so doing. We need need need to talk about sexuality issues and why not in RS. As John Byetheway said: “we’re all here so why can’t we talk about it”.
I sometimes sit in Relief Society and wander around the room wondering how many other mothers of gay children are there. They’re there - one has told me her story - but others are unaware and I worry that one little boy will grow up as mine did - with parents who had disdain for gays, who were ignorant about the facts, who were unapproachable, who did damage by doing what they thought was right.
Is there another little boy who will start praying about age eight that he won’t be gay, one who will try to do everything right so that God will grant him a miracle, one who will finally give up because his religion brings him no peace or happiness and he simply has to keep himself alive by looking for a different path.
How do I reconcile what I know in my heart is best for my son with church teachings. How is it that if we’re the true church and are so smart, that we have no reasonable, positive way of responding to this issue so that a significant number of our members and their families aren’t devastated. What kind of evil is it that creates a mind set in which the revelation of homosexuality is more devastating than death.
One mother I know said that the death of her son would have been so much easier; her husband cried for three weeks. Another mother cried as she revealed her son’s terrible secret to me even though she has known for fifteen years. My son went to sleep every night for years praying that he would not wake up. He once said that cancer would be merciful. Two counsellors reacted the same way when he told them he was gay and Mormon - that it is the most difficult problem they have to deal with. I have thought that my son was so damaged that he might not ever heal.
Fortunately, he is strong and good and smart and has full support of his family. How many don’t have those assets and what happens to them? How do I reconcile BKP’s statement about gays being one of the three greatest dangers to the church and his 1979 conference talk reducing homosexuality to a simple problem of selfishness? How about Sherry Dew’s statement about fighting homosexuality being as important as fighting nazi’s? (YIKES!)
Perhaps we should hearken more to Joseph Smith or Brigham Young who constantly warned about the two really dangerous weaknesses in the Mormon character through which Satan could enter most readily - covetousness and self righteousness. Even bettter let’s just get right down to the basics of Christianity - compassion for our brothers and sisters.
How do I rebuild my testimony? Do I even want to? Maybe this is a better place to be - where I recognize the human and cultural factors in the church and I allow no one to do my thinking for me?
My daughter once comforted me with this thought: “My generation doesn’t hate gays the way yours does and pretty soon you’ll all die off and it will be just fine for them!” Things are changing - even in our conservative church - but it might not be fast enough for at least a few of our gay brothers and sisters.
Well, it might be easier to reconcile Sister Dew’s statement if you quoted it properly: she didn’t compare “fighting homosexuals” to fighting Nazis–she compared “fighting homosexual activists” to fighting Nazis. (I think she’s grossly wrong, but the correct version of her statement is significantly less inflammatory. Wrong, but less inflammatory.)
I also wonder why you chose to focus on a 25 year old statement from President Packer instead of a year-old one from Elder Oaks:
There has been a significant change in the way that Church leaders speak of homosexuality in the last generation, and I think we ought give credit where credit is due. One way to help children struggling with this issue would be to let out-of-date counsel fade into oblivion and focus on what our leaders our telling us now.
“How do I rebuild my testimony? Do I even want to? Maybe this is a better place to be - where I recognize the human and cultural factors in the church and I allow no one to do my thinking for me?”
I think a mature testimony requires a recognition of human and cultural factors and refusing to allow anyone else to think for you. It isn’t an either-or–it is a sine qua non.
Comment by Julie M. Smith — July 20, 2007 @ 9:01 am
Julie, while it’s true that the Church has changed some if its teachings on homosexuality, the author of the post makes it clear that she is discussing her experience before these changes occurred. (note her last paragraph)
I think it’s fine to say that things are changing the Church, but not before we recognize the pain that many of these harmful teachings about homosexuality caused (and still do cause) families with gay sons and daughters.
Thanks for your post, Mogaria. I’m sorry to hear of your son’s and your struggles with this issue - I’ve seen similar struggles to reconcile faith in a Church that rejects them in the lives of my friends and it is truly devastating. I wish I had advice to give, but I wish you and your family the best.
Comment by ECS — July 20, 2007 @ 9:21 am
As far as I can tell (I’m a Gen-Xer), the new crop of kids coming up ain’t all bad, especially when it comes to letting go of attitudes with unintended consequences … they seem more capable of loving the family and friends they’ve got, rather than wishing for the family and friends they want. My folks didn’t contact me for two years after I transferred out of BYU to NYU, and there was not any particularly interesting backstory to the move, other than me wanting a change of scenery. I can’t imagine what they would’ve done if I’d come out on their watch … the horror
Comment by Chino Blanco — July 20, 2007 @ 9:34 am
Notwithstanding all the rhetoric about the importance of family, LDS leaders are pretty clear in their expectation that parents of gay children be loyal to the LDS church, rather than trying to love and understand their children. Aside from openly counselling parents of gay children to reject their gay children’s partners (which in effect, is also to reject their gay children!), Elder Lance Wickman and Elder Dallin Oaks have had a few things to say about parents who support their gay children:
From Elder Wickman:
“The only thing that I would add to what Elder Oaks has just said is that I think it’s important as a parent to avoid a potential trap arising out of one’s anguish over this situation. I refer to a shift from defending the Lord’s way to defending the errant child’s lifestyle, both with him and with others.”
From Elder Oaks:
“We feel great compassion for parents whose love and protective instincts for their challenged children have moved them to some positions that are adversary to the Church. I hope the Lord will be merciful to parents whose love for their children has caused them to get into such traps.”
Despite Oaks’ smooth words, his meaning is clear—-parents of gay children had better stand with the LDS church against their children, or god’s gonna get ‘em!
Comment by Nick Literski — July 20, 2007 @ 9:35 am
#1 Julie:
My first reaction is to accuse you of pulling a very small, limited section out of context from the Wickman/Oaks “interview.” Of course, you might accuse me of the same. Overall, the alleged interview (let’s face it—it’s not a real conversation, it’s a crafted statement) doesn’t show that much progress. It ultimately declares homosexuality a “birth defect” or “handicap.” (Well, technically, the statement denies there is any such thing as a homosexual person.) Notice that the change in LDS rhetoric on this subject isn’t unique. This change is precisely the same as that taking place in most protestant churches today. It’s opinions of men.
#2 ECS
I don’t think Mogaria said her son is “struggling” with anything at all. Despite having been put through hell in his earlier years, “he is strong and good and smart and has full support of his family.” The only homosexual persons who “struggle” are those who are being tortured by false religious teachings. Once they realize they’re not evil or broken, gays don’t “struggle” with their sexual orientation.
Comment by Nick Literski — July 20, 2007 @ 9:43 am
Mr. Oaks said that parents who choose loyalty to their children over their church are in a “trap”? Wow. Families are forever*
*if your child is gay, your family will not be forever. Results not typical, your mileage may vary etc
Comment by Phouchg — July 20, 2007 @ 9:44 am
Julie, that talk by Elder Packer was distributed to people looking for help with homosexuality by Church Social Services therapists as recently as 3 years ago… Some things have changed, but not as dramatically as one would hope.
Comment by Kristine — July 20, 2007 @ 9:46 am
Nick - I meant struggling through the part where her son wished he were dead. I also meant “struggling” to reconcile one’s sexual orientation with one’s faith in the Church. You can be completely confident in your sexual orientation (meaning, you know what it is and that it’s not going to change) and confident that the LDS Church is true. These conflicts can cause at least some dissonance - or struggle.
By the way, sometimes I get the impression that you present yourself as the spokesperson for all gay Mormons. I appreciate you sharing your experience with us on the blogs and I enjoy reading your comments, because it’s useful to hear your well-informed perspective. That said, it’s equally important to recognize that other gay Mormons have different experiences and perspectives from yours.
Which is why I disagree with this statement:
Comment by ECS — July 20, 2007 @ 9:52 am
sine qua non …
“without which it could not be”
I guess you mean, sine qua non, if there was no blind prejudice against our gay children there could be no “homosexual activists” …
Durned homosexual activists. The nerve.
Comment by Chino Blanco — July 20, 2007 @ 10:02 am
Read more closely, Chino: that paragraph was about testimony, not homosexuality and/or its activists. Without (1) a recognition of human and cultural factors and (2) refusing to allow anyone else to think for you, there cannot be a mature testimony.
Comment by Julie M. Smith — July 20, 2007 @ 10:18 am
Thanks for explaining further, ECS. I thought you were using “struggling” the same way that Oaks/Wickman do, which is much different than you’ve explained. I apologize for the misunderstanding.
I don’t pretend to be a spokesman for “all gay Mormons,” by any means. My only intent is to share a perspective from someone who actually *is* gay. You raise a good point, though. I think I am sometimes less than patient with those who really are “struggling” (in your sense). Part of that is due to the fact that I went through the same stages—very, very slowly. In hindsight, I wish I’d had enough integrity and wisdom to get to my present point faster (not that I’m at any “final destination,” mind you). Sometimes, I read particular comments, and my first thought is “Yeah…I thought the same thing, and I was full of crap at the time.” I tend to loudly proclaim the “crap” sometimes, rather than keeping in mind that everyone has to learn and grow as they are ready.
All that probably sounds more conceited than it is, but I hope you can understand how it’s actually meant.
Comment by Nick Literski — July 20, 2007 @ 10:21 am
I think that Julie has a good point, though. Even if the church hasn’t completely changed their views, they still have improved their statements. We have to recognize that change in the church is slow. So I think it is good to note the small changes they are making and be grateful for those changes. For example, at BYU, the honor code used to be much more harsh on “homosexual behavior.” Now it is much more accepting. I think it could still be improved, but I am so happy that it is in the process of becoming more accepting.
Mogaria, I definitely agree with your daughter! I think each generation will be more and more accepting. General Authority statements aside, I think you hit the nail on the head with mentioning the self-righteousness of members. I think this is one of those huge instances when you can’t judge another until you’ve walked a mile in his shoes (well– and you shouldn’t even judge them after that).
Comment by cmac / courtney — July 20, 2007 @ 10:33 am
I reed good, Julie.
I suppose I was waiting for that third part of what it means to have a testimony … i.e., an open declaration or profession of one’s beliefs.
1) a recognition of human and cultural factors — check
2) refusing to allow anyone else to think for you — check
3) professing one’s belief — uh oh, would that be considered ‘activism’ ??
Comment by Chino Blanco — July 20, 2007 @ 10:41 am
I don’t really mean to be inflammatory, but in my experience, “refusing to allow anyone else to think for you” is antithetical to what many active LDS consider a “testimony of the gospel.” Isn’t that what “follow the prophet” is all about? How about that other classic, “when the brethren [or the prophet, depending on which version you quote from] have spoken, the thinking is done.”
(Considering I was once a total iron-rodder who actually used that quote to shut down someone else’s opinion in one or more Sunday school and/or priesthood classes years ago, I feel entitled to mock it now—heh.)
Comment by Nick Literski — July 20, 2007 @ 10:56 am
Hi, Nick -
Thanks for your comment. I think it’s much easier for some people than it is for others to come to terms with their sexuality - regardless of their membership in a homophobic religion (although, membership in said religion makes accepting yourself that much harder).
Anyway, you seem to have successfully gotten through many of the rough spots, and so I’m sure your example is a strength to others facing similar issues.
Comment by ECS — July 20, 2007 @ 11:17 am
Nick,
While I’m sure you’re right that it’s antithetical to what many active LDS consider a testimony, it’s not to what others do. (Which I realize is implicit in what you’re saying.) I recognize the impulse to totally dismiss people in situations that I’ve been in and gotten through—meaning I tend to dismiss out of hand any adolecent or college struggle, until I reign myself in.
Your perspective and experiences are interesting to me, both as they relate to you and as they relate to your interaction with other LDS, in large part because I have (personally and subjectively) rarely seen the attitudes that you speak of.
Which I don’t really know the point of this, except to say that I’ve generally experienced a broader interpretation of what “follow the prophet” means than that which you’ve seen reflected in others.
Comment by Sam B — July 20, 2007 @ 11:23 am
Thanks, Sam. Yes, I realize that there are also many LDS members who reconcile following the LDS prophet with following their own conscience. I think Mormonism ultimately teaches a very individual approach—one that doesn’t just allow thinking for yourself, but requires it. Unfortunately, there is a strong current in modern LDS-ism which runs counter to that ideal.
I think you’ve described the “impulse to totally dismiss” rather well. I have the opportunity from time to time to hear the struggles of some very unhappy LDS gay men who have attempted heterosexual marriage, as they try to sort out what the future holds. They agonize over the complex choices which face them. At times, my inner reaction is that they simply need to “grow a pair,” and move forward with their lives, and I get frustrated at their inertia. Then I have to remind myself that it took 18 years for ME to “grow a pair.”
Comment by Nick Literski — July 20, 2007 @ 11:42 am
This is a personal issue for me, since my husband is gay (well lately he identifies as transoriented). I know that studies on the origins are inconclusive about genetic components, but I still sometimes look at my children and worry. Mostly because being gay and Mormon is very difficult. I have a variety of friends who are Mormon and gay in a variety of ways. Some have mixed-orientation marriages and are active in the gospel, some are single and active, some are single and inactive, some are married and inactive, some are inactive and in committed partnerships, some are active but in same-sex relationships. I think one important thing we can do as a church is to quietly show that all people are worthy of love and to recognize all the various ways that people live their lives. Not that we shouldn’t worry about the rhetoric coming from leadership, but most people’s experience with the church comes from their home and their local ward. For example, during a recent Relief Society lesson on compassion, a sister shared her story of taking in her brother who was gay and dying of AIDS. No one batted an eyelash about it, and afterwards a number of people gathered around her to share stories from their own families. In my experience, most people can only sustain prejudice as long as they don’t know anyone who is gay. The people I know who have the most hate are those who assume all gay people live in some little enclave in San Francisco knitting sweaters for their chiahuahas. Once they realize that homosexually attracted people are some of the people they know and care about, that usually helps. Not always, but often.
At the same time, I still haven’t resolved my feelings about church doctrine on the family and homosexuality. Right now I’m just happy with saying that I don’t know. I don’t have all the answers. There are a lot of things that are still not clear and need to be more defined. But I do feel like we’re getting a pretty clear message that we are to love all people, regardless of their choices. The best way to do that is to be an example in our spheres of influence. Whether that’s by tempering comments in classes at church, writing posts on our blog, talking to family members, etc. I am 29 years old and I can honestly say that I don’t remember ever hearing in my home or in a church meeting that homosexuals are evil or anything like that. But I know a lot of people have had different experiences. I hope my children know that they will always have my love, no matter what.
Comment by FoxyJ — July 20, 2007 @ 12:39 pm
Re: #1 and #7,
Last year, a woman in my ward was asked to give a sacrament meeting talk on Packer’s 1979 “To The One” talk. Isolated incident? Yeah, maybe. But I really think the talk–and many of the views espoused by Packer in it–still manages to pop up on occasion.
Comment by Steve M — July 20, 2007 @ 12:49 pm
Very important post.
FoxyJ-Wow. Thanks for your comments.
I completely agree with “In my experience, most people can only sustain prejudice as long as they don’t know anyone who is gay”. I don’t think that there are simple answers beyond the requirement that we show charity to all of our brothers and sisters. I have so many friends who have immediate family members who are gay. They all seem to deal with it differently. However, I don’t know of anyone who has dealt with it by abandoning that person (not that this doesn’t happen, I’m fully aware that it does).
Now that I am a mother, I have thought of the future possibility that a child of mine or one of my siblings or friends would be gay. I couldn’t reject that child. My respect is boundless for those who are navigating what appears to be a difficult journey.
Comment by Lupita — July 20, 2007 @ 12:58 pm
Boyd K. Packer’s take on the issue is still the take that is in youth manuals, pamphlets in the Scout closet and many many minds. I hope those who are reading here will take the initiative to share the more recent, mature teachings instead. And continue to hope (with me) for continued maturation.
Mogaria, the 15th anniversary of my brother’s coming out (via suicide attempt) is coming up this fall. My other brother came out almost four years ago. In our family we are finally starting to say, to he** with it (haha, fill in your “ll” or “ck” as you please) and TALK about our experiences and stand up publicly for the boys - now men - we love. I fear it’s too late for them to realize it. But I think your daughter’s right - the times they are a-changin’.
After I read Carol Lynn Pearson’s most recent book earlier this year, we actually had a Family Home Evening about how we never ever say “gay” meaning stupid, we never ever make fun of people because of who they love or fall in love with, and we will always love and support our children, no matter what. My boys are 8 and 6. I hope I made it age appropriate for them.
Comment by Ana — July 20, 2007 @ 1:42 pm
Here’s a breath of fresh air for both sides of this stuffy, arrogant discussion.
Your bibles and doctrines are human-created control devices, all centered around profit and self-perpetuation. Debating their intricacies as if they have supernatural consequences is a waste of time. Go feed a hungry person or give time/money to charity (NOT synonymous with church) if you want to do some good in the world.
You were born an atheist, and having never come in contact with these scams, you would have never been taken in to believe these half-baked scams. And as for homosexuality? I say, to each his own - who is to judge?
Comment by Drip — July 20, 2007 @ 1:49 pm
Drip, please take a moment to read our comment policies before you comment again. Atheists are welcome to join the discussion but you must mind your manners and follow the rules. Or this benevolent tyrant will becomes much less benevolent.
Comment by fMhLisa — July 20, 2007 @ 2:10 pm
Very well. Sometimes the truth in me gets a little rambunctious, I apologize.
Comment by Drip — July 20, 2007 @ 2:14 pm
I have enjoyed reading this post and the subsequent comments. In particular, I wanted to mention the interesting references to current counsel and old counsel. The issue with this distinction ends pretty quickly if one has no prior knowledge of past teachings. However, as Mormons, we are part of the institution and the institution is part of us. For those who study frequently (especially since LDS.org), we become carriers of a very vast institutional memory. Since the Church generally refuses to make retractions (have they ever?) it becomes very difficult to decifer whether counsel is in or out-of-fashion. Talk of old counsel being irrelevant is unproductive, because the counsel still exists, even if it is technically not applicable anymore–homosexual-haters can easily access old talks to defend their narrow viewpoints in what becomes a sort of spiritual violence.
On this blog, most are probably aware of the destructive tool of spiritual violence and how often it is used in the Church: from Zone Leaders, to Bishops, to Mission Presidents, and on up to the Quorum of the Twelve and First Presidency (although these three men are actually much more benign, especially in comparison to Elders Packer and Bendar, and to past first presidencies.) As I understand it, spritual violence is when an individual uses her or his authority (or the authority of another, you gotta love AP’s) to gain compliance from another individual by using lovely if-then statements, pity statements (or pseudo compassion), and other fear or guilt-inducing appeals. Perhaps we are so used to it that we don’t consider how violent the rhetoric is. Are the statements, “if you do this then you’ll go to hell and be torn from your family,” and “if you do this I’ll torture and kill you,” so different? Both are highly violent, but one, since it is masked in religion, seems somehow more acceptable.
On a personal note, I remember the first and only time I read “To the One,” it shook me up for days. Not only was I gay, but I was selfish for being such. I strongly dislike Elder Packer and his hateful rhetoric which he tries to “gently persuade” people into the kingdom of Heaven. (I was astonished as I watched “The Mormons” on PBS when I saw Elder Packer’s very brief appearance. After quoting his condemnation of intellectuals, gays and feminists, there was a brief shot of an Elder Packer nervously laughing and red in the face as he remembers the quote and tries to back track–unsuccesfully.)
I know this is long, but I wanted to end by echoing FoxyJ’s statement that as individuals come to know a gay individual, those stereotypes quickly fall. When I came out to my parents, it was very difficult for them I think, as there is definitely a learning curve. However, growing up with gay uncles and lesbian aunts, they already knew the issue, even though they really never had to think about it before as it related to their immediate family. My parents have been quite explicit that they can still love and support me and continue as members of the Church in good standing (my dad is a Bishop). They also said that when I choose to partner, my partner will always be welcome in their home and they will love and support him, too. I’m reminded of Emerson: “Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of week minds.” Granted, they would probably prefer that I stay celibate and just adopt, but they understand that it is my choice, and they support me in that. Lastly, I live in So. Utah as a student, and it is surprising how many of my friends’ very conservative families love me and how their attitudes have changed after getting to know a real gay man in comparison with the fake gay man they have imagined up in their heads based on societal and Church conditioning.
Comment by Ike — July 20, 2007 @ 2:23 pm
What good manners you have Drip, glad you’re here!
Comment by fMhLisa — July 20, 2007 @ 2:29 pm
Is “homosexual” a term that is still heard in polite society?
Comment by Chino Blanco — July 20, 2007 @ 2:46 pm
Though this topic has popped up many times before, I appreciate the fresh ideas and comments on this particular thread. It’s common that we lump these kinds of discussions in with the “why aren’t women treated as equals” and the “why was/is the church racist” discussions. But I wonder what a complete level of tolerance really is for this issue. For many feminists, it would be giving women every opportunity a man possesses in the church. For gays is it the FP stating that homosexual acts are no longer “a sin”? That same-sex couples can be sealed in the temple? There are so many ways in which we can accept and teach and learn from and love members of our community who are gay. But I guess I don’t see the church ever stating that is in accorance with God’s plan. Drip actually has a point. The teachings of our church and of other Christian, Muslim and Jewish faiths concerning homosexuality come first from the Bible/Torah/Qur’an. As Christians, is the the Bible accurate? If not, how much? Anyway, I guess I’m just trying to illustrate my great frustration with this issue. If I was not a LDS, I would certainly be a Bible believing Christian. On the other hand, when people I know tell me, “this is the way I feel” - I believe them.
Comment by cj douglass — July 20, 2007 @ 3:12 pm
I am a Bisexual. I am also married.
I have been struggling with it for a while.
It is interesting to note, that before Talmudic times.
Lesbianism was no more sinful than cussing.
( see judaism )
However, male homosexuality was punishable by death.
Not sure why that is so different.
Either way, i dont feel it is natural for me to be this way.
But that doesnt mean i should be hated for it.
Comment by Briseis of Troy — July 20, 2007 @ 5:00 pm
BKP’s talk wasn’t given in general conference, was it? And didn’t he basically gently reject his own position during “The Mormons” documentary?
And didn’t the Church recently release a statement that “just because a leader said it doesn’t make it doctrine”?
I find it hard to keep justifying its use to either support or attack any position. I think we just ought to let it alone. It’s apparent (to me) that he has.
Maybe we beat up BKP a bit much. He’s two heartbeats away from being President of the Church (an occurrence that would undoubtably cause membership to shrink in some circles).
Comment by queuno — July 20, 2007 @ 5:16 pm
But to put that into perspective, it is not uncommon for parents to feel that way, for a wide variety of issues. I went through things with my own children where I have thought (and continue to believe) that death would be easier.
Because death is final, and with other problems one has to worry about long-term consequences, a recurrence later on, or whatever.
Comment by Naismith — July 20, 2007 @ 5:24 pm
Re my own #30 -
lds.org has released an extended-length transcript of Helen Whitney’s interview with BKP and DHO. Here’s the interview with BKP, where she asks him about feminism/homosexuality, etc.
http://lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=7d7102f3914e3110VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=9ae411154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD
(I guess I wishfully thought he reneged on his own statement, when in fact he clarifies it a bit.)
Thoughts?
Comment by queuno — July 20, 2007 @ 5:44 pm
Thanks for sharing your family history, Mogaria. It takes a lot of courage to realize that the things that we hold most dearly are damaging our children.
When Galileo Galilei appealed to his Medici patrons for protection against the Holy Inquisition, he pointed out that God reveals Himself first of all in His creation.
In light of what we know about the nature of homosexuality in particular and gender in general, one can safely conclude that our obligations to our children are in harmony with God. People and authorities might disagree but ultimately they are in denial.
Jesus charged us to be on the narrow path and to value the one sheep.
Comment by Hellmut — July 20, 2007 @ 8:04 pm
queno,
I remember that, too–I believe the transcript is edited and that that comment was, for whatever reason, removed.
Comment by Julie M. Smith — July 20, 2007 @ 9:15 pm
I have never responded here.
But for someone to feel it would be better to loose a child in death is jaw dropping for me. I doubt someone who feels that way has actually lost a child to death. I haven’t, but I have several siblings who have lost their kids in car accidents, drowning, on missions, or to disease. It has left them devestated, and the gospel is very little comfort in the long bouts of grief.
I’ll take a gay child, a wayward child, a sassy child, a dishonest child anyday over a dead child. People change as they grow older and wiser. A naughty kid can learn from his mistakes and change into a good adult. A gay son can still do great things in society….regardless of his sexual choices in the privacy of his home. Even people in prison can serve others and give back to society by training service dogs, teaching reading, writing books.
I just can’t imagine wishing any of my kids dead.
Comment by Nurse in Black — July 20, 2007 @ 9:37 pm
Maybe we beat up BKP a bit much.
Thanks for this. I also wonder if we understand fully what he meant when he said what he said way back when.
I actually sense a lot of love for those in our midst who deal with these issues, either directly or indirectly. Rather than making the leaders out to be enemies on these topics, why not look at all they are saying that is positive?
I think there is somethign we can do as members and brothers and sisters and make church a place where someone like the author of this post can feel safe sharing the struggle. My hope is that we will also be more willing to talk about things like this more openly with each other, in real life, in our wards and branches. How sad that this woman doesn’t know any other parent she can talk to who is experiencing this. I wouldnt’ be surprised if there was one close by. I would love to see a day where it would feel comfortable to talk about more of our struggles, particularly those like this one that are charged. Empathy and sympathy are hard to share with an absence of knowledge. (This will require both those who struggle and those who might be apt to react in a stigma-driven way to open and soften their hearts a bit.)
I think though, that we have to aim for this culturally and not expect it doctrinally. In other words, openness about homosexuality may never mean acceptance of it in our doctrine. But that doesn’t mean that we can’t reach out to those whom this affects personally. Having had this hit close to home in my own family, and seeing too many of us struggle in silence with various trials that sometimes feel or appear too stigmatized to talk about, I’d love to see us all become more willing to reach out and open up. Of course there is a time and place, and we also can’t have the church being a free-for-all place, but so many of us struggle and need to know that we can make it in spite of the struggle and that our faith can get us through.
But again, I think a lot of this will be up to us as members, to try to create wards and branches where it’s safe to be vulnerable and where our faith binds us together in ways that make our differences not so threatening — where we can love without judging and reach out with genuine concern.
Comment by m&m — July 20, 2007 @ 9:48 pm
First of all, please note that nobody said it was “better” to lose a child to death. The orignal poster said “easier.”
I can understand those who think it is easier to lose a child to death, because at least the source of the grief is understandable by others. Everyone can understand that devastation, which #35 so poignantly described. People bring casseroles.
But many of the other sources of hell and devastation that parents go through are not so obvious and may not be understood by others. Perhaps they involve sins that in all propriety should not be discussed, or mental illness that is not obvious to casual observers, or a debilitating physical illness which has a social stigma (e.g. lung cancer), or sexual abuse, or drug addiction, or a host of other issues.
And basically the parents do not get much if any support, and may even be derided and blamed for the situation.
Then there’s the promise of the expess trip to the Celestial Kingdom for children who die under age 8, which adds a whole ‘nother aspect to this issue.
Comment by Naismith — July 20, 2007 @ 10:34 pm
Because validating anti-gay rhetoric compromises the health of our children. In light of the aggression against our children, it would be irresponsible to sit back.
Comment by Hellmut — July 20, 2007 @ 10:45 pm
Briseis of Troy: lesbianism=cussing, while male homosexuality=punishable by death? Dude. You’ve totally blown my mind!
Comment by kerry — July 20, 2007 @ 11:33 pm
Such a poignant issue.
Homosexuality seems to run in my family, giving anecdotal evidence that there may be inherited traits.
I’ve a nephew and a niece who are “out” about their orientation. I’ve got several nephews and three sons that haven’t dated, well into their twenties. Partly, that is a tendency of their generation, but these boys show no sexual or romantic interest in women. On the other hand, I don’t stick my nose into their business.
The bible has several verses condemning “the unnatural use.” Although that appears more clearly against male-male homosexuality, I think it appropriate to understand it universally. But it isn’t crystal clear about women-women.
I may well be that when righteous men had plural wives, and/or concubines, the women shared the bed with their husband, rather than scheduling turns. Thus women being involved in some way with other women, which could occur within a consecrated marriage, wasn’t as scandulous as men with men.
For one thing, G*d seems to be very strongly against any intimacy outside of marriage. Thus, if two unmarried women were to be intimate, it would seem to violate the scriptures intended to require marriage before intimacy. So, the real question comes up among poly wives. Are they prohibited from enjoying one another’s touch, particularly when they are there with their hubby? Who knows. I don’t.
As for my sons and nephews, they seem to doing what the church has recommended to homosexually leaning people: if you can’t overcome your feelings, then live celibate.
One might ask, where is the love in that counsel? I suppose it depends on the time span of your view. G*d always takes the eternal view, so maybe He can render better judgement to the celibate, than to the practicing homosexual. But again, I don’t know.
It can be hard, sometimes, to learn or understand the mind and will of G*d.
Comment by Trueheart — July 21, 2007 @ 9:56 am
Trueheart! First, women showering together, (comment 163) and now this?! You are SOOOOO not the dude in my ward I thought you were!!
Comment by kerry — July 21, 2007 @ 11:11 am
Jule (34) - Glad to see I’m not crazy. I still have the recording and will go back and listen for it.
Something that’s been cited here in this thread, and that makes me crazy, is the “Forever families should trump Church policy” meme (e.g., #6). Equal to that is the “The Church is destroying my children’s self-worth” meme.
Need I resort to primary songs to refute this?
Comment by queuno — July 21, 2007 @ 11:30 am
I should so look this up ’cause memory can be so undependable BUT — if I remember correctly sexuality is very cultually dependent. For example, the ancient Greeks had a view of sexuality that would render lesbianism impossible / incomprehensible: a passive [’receiving’] and active [um ‘penetrating’] partner kind of thing. So, men, women, little boys, and who-knows-what-else all could be [and were — anyone seen the pottery pic’s in Thomas Cahill’s ‘Sailing the Wine-Dark Sea: Why the Greeks Matter‘?] in the passive role. Two women — by definition both ‘passive’ — could never have sex. Wasn’t possible in that world view.
Don’t know if the Hebrews had similar views, but something similar could explain the cussing vs. death sentence dicotomy.
Comment by Not Ophelia — July 21, 2007 @ 1:31 pm
A good friend who lost her church job b/c of BKP once said to me, as I paced her office and fumed as she packed, “Oh Janet, he’s not the meanie you think he must be. He carves and paints wooden ducks.” He did look rather abashed in that documentary spot, didn’t he? I was impressed with her forgiveness if not entirely her logic. Anyhow, remember how Ezra Taft Bensen softened on a lot of his positions when he became prophet and his word became much more difficult to reconstruct as solely opinion? I imagine BKP would do the same…
Comment by Janet — July 21, 2007 @ 6:11 pm
Mogaria–NOTHING (including sexism) in the church pains me more than this particular issue. I appreciate all the thoughts here. I appreciate my gay LDS friends who’ve so patiently taken me with them on their spiritual journey to what extent that’s possible. I appreciate the softening rhetoric from Temple Square and I appreciate people like my mother, who used to believe all gays should be nuked (eeegads) but the millisecond she found out a loved one was gay became willing to stand between that woman and the angriest homophobe on the planet.
I have no anwers though. I used to worry myself sick about whether or not the Civil Rights Movement would’ve found me complacent inasmuch as my church seemed to come out on the racist side of the battle. Would I have been freedom rider or someone pouring sugar on tthe heads of people at a lunch couter sit in? Now I torture myself wondering what I should do with the Civil Rights Movement of my time. I believe in following the prophet, I do. And I do not believe that gay people are broken. Thus, a fractured soul for me.
That doesn’t answer your question at ALL, but at least you can count one more person who sincerely pains herself about the issue.
Comment by Janet — July 21, 2007 @ 6:19 pm
And I do not believe that gay people are broken.
Janet, do you believe the Church believes they are broken?
Comment by m&m — July 21, 2007 @ 7:27 pm
I’d like to give my two cents on this issue, FWIW. From much pondering and prayer, I believe that being gay is like being an alcoholic. A normal person can drink, and their body may get drunk, but then has no cravings. An alcoholic drinks, and their body craves it, to the point where the alcoholic drinks and drinks and with enough drinking, will die from drinking. The alcoholic did nothing to deserve a body that reacts to alcohol. Having this alcoholic body is just one of the trials (albeit sometimes painful and miserable) of mortality.
Being gay is like that, for me. I did not ask to have a body that is screwy, sexually. Having a body that reacts differently than straight bodies is just one of the trials (albeit sometimes painful and miserable) of mortality. My body (including its hormones and other chemistry) is mine to manage. I can choose to go in the direction that the world says is logical, even ethical. Or I can choose to go in the direction that I firmly believe Heavenly Father wants me to go. His path, frankly, sucks, especially at 2 a.m. and I am wanting nothing more than what he does not want me to have. However, when it is 2 a.m., I can choose to go to him in prayer and meditation, and when I do, and *every time* I have, the pain and misery is lessened. Not taken away. Lessened, to the point where I can manage it. *At that time*, when I feel his love for me, then his path is great, and joyful.
To respond to the original poster (”post-er?”), if I were the parent of any child, one I suspected was gay or not, I would teach him/her to access Heavenly Father in prayer, meditation, scripture reading, etc. in order to 1. recognize his path, 2. have the spirit of discernment so that s/he could weed out all the crap that church members (including GA’s, etc.) might spew out, and 3. have the strength to live, regardless of how difficult Heavenly Father’s path is for us.
FWIW, I do not believe that being gay is the worst thing that can befall a child. Many people (including myself) have found Christ, and the true meaning of the Atonement, thru it. Without being gay, what worse trial would we need to find Christ?
(P.S. In regards to the idea [by BKP? Sheri Dew?] that gay activists are a tool of satan–maybe there is some merit to this. I mean, I am definitely for *all* equal rights for *all*. But I don’t need some activist telling me that there is only one way to be *me*. Also, if there was no BKP, no Sheri Dew telling us [albeit in a perhaps too-harsh form] to not live the gay lifestyle, then I might have gone down that path, and I would not be where I am today, in my understanding of the Atonement. Which is a precious, precious gift, that understanding.
P.P.S. There are many, many of us LDS w/ SSA–I know there was a link to one woman’s blog on the sidebar of this website, I can’t remember if it is still there. People like her are true spiritual giants.)
Okay, let the flaming begin! :^)
Comment by e. — July 21, 2007 @ 8:18 pm
e., thanks for sharing your story, and for showing us how even with a difficult path like yours, faith can prevail. Funny how that can sometimes sound trite when we say it so often, but how really it is the core of the purpose of our existence, and is anything but trite (or even easy).
Your words remind me of the story of the handcart survivor who said that it was in their extremities that they came to know God, and they wouldn’t trade that for anything.
Wow. I’m just so moved by what you have shared. Thank you again.
Comment by m&m — July 21, 2007 @ 8:24 pm
N.O.– I could be wrong about this, but I believe that at some point in Ancient Greece, female homosexuality was acknowledged and practiced. Sappho, one of Greece’s most celebrated poets was bisexual at least, some conjecture that she may have had a daughter, but some of her poems are clearly written to a female lover. In fact, Sappho was from the island of Lesbos, which is where our modern word lesbian derives.
Comment by Lessie — July 21, 2007 @ 8:44 pm
M&M–I pulled “broken” from one of Nick’s comments, actually. Certainly some statements from church leaders of the years seem to reflect such a belief (or far far worse) but now the prophet himself says he’s no expert in these matters (I think those were his words) and that the church only comments on behavior. I find that far less upsetting than previous rhetoric on the subject.
e–thanks for sharing; it’s always encouraging to read that someone has found Jesus in their struggles. The alcoholic analogy seems slightly flawed, however, in that an alcoholic must first take a drink in order to crave the hooch–most gay people i know knew they were gay long long long before they had any sexual contact with a member of the opposite sex, and some of them never have engaged in any sort of sexual activity at all. This may have not been the case for you (mileage varies and all that).
I find more of a problem with Sheri Dew (or anyone’s) implication that there is a singular gay lifestyle than with her opposition to promiscuity, which I assume is what she was really talking about. As you know, different gays make different lifestyle choices just as do straight folk. You are still gay and yet I gather from your comment that your lifestyle is devoid of what Sister Dew so harshly condemned. So your lifestyle is in fact a “gay lifestyle.” A righteous and good one. I think once we stop acting as though there’s only one way to be gay it will become far easier for gays within the church to remain there. The current rhetoric–often from both the “gay activists” and the religious right–is so durned reductive it makes me grit my teeth.
Comment by Janet — July 21, 2007 @ 9:43 pm
e.,
I’m not about to flame you. I wish you well in your own path. I will say, however, that I distinctly remember being at the stage you are currently in. I remember holding such views. I believe quite differently now. The important thing is that you find a way to live with integrity–that you find a way to live without denial, without hiding, and true to yourself.
Janet,
Great comments regarding “the gay lifestyle.” I despise that phrase, to be honest. It’s almost universally used by people who condemn homosexuality. When they use it, they invariably are commenting on sexual behavior. They often use it to refer to other negative behaviors which they have been falsely led to associate with homosexuality, such as drug abuse and general misery. My “gay lifestyle” includes a monogamous relationship, a federal government job which serves individuals harmed in the service of their country, plenty of country-western dancing, opportunities for community service, civil rights activism, and many other positive activities. It would be nice if bigotted individuals could realize that there are as many “gay lifestyles” as there are gay people–just as there are as many “straight lifestyles” as their are straight people.
Comment by Nick Literski — July 22, 2007 @ 11:01 am
#48–thanks for the kind words–actually, whenever I read stories of pioneers who wouldn’t trade their frostbitten limbs for their testimonies, I inwardly scoff–”sure,” I think, “they *have* to believe their trade was a good one; the idea that they made a bad choice would be too horrible!” Thanks for opening my eyes.
#50–thanks for the input. Yes, I know the alcoholic analogy is flawed–the gay person does not need to commit any sort of sin to be gay. But I think there is merit to the analogy–like an alcoholic, I cannot do anything that would trigger any cravings (alcoholics must not go near bars, I cannot listen to certain music, for example). Like an alcoholic, I will always be this way. Like an alcoholic, I can make choices. Like an alcoholic, I must make these choices every day, sometimes every five minutes. Like an alcoholic, I must surrender my will to God. I can’t think of a better analogy–maybe someone with cerebral palsy, or a mental illness (note: I am NOT saying being gay is a disability or a mental illness)–these are trials that people have that are based on their bodies, bodies that are imperfect, and no sin was committed.
I agree–it would be nice to hear more about righteous, believing LDS folks with SSA–I’d like to hear about them from the LDS pulpit, and from the culture.
#51–thanks for your comments. I am glad that you live with a sense of integrity, too. I do also hate the term “gay lifestyle”–seems like a term that should be on a travel brochure (”Live the Gay Lifestyle at La Boca Vista!”). I also don’t like the idea that my life is one of delusion, or that I am somehow less evolved along the path of enlightenment and integrity than anyone else. (I am not saying that *you* said this. I am thinking of some people I have run into who give me the idea that my place is just a stage and as soon as I let go of my delusions, I can be happy. Bleh.)
Anyway. Thanks again, and sorry to threadjack from the original post.
Comment by e. — July 22, 2007 @ 1:18 pm
e and whoever else is interested, I’m not sure if you are aware of the group of Gay Mormon blogs out there.Keep Changing links to bunch (on the right under “moho blogs”). Northern Lights is a fairly new blog starrted as a forum for active Mormons who are gay. Both those sites provide links to a variety of blogs that I think show a variety of “gay Mormon lifestyles”. I also hate the terms “gay lifestyle” and “gay agenda” and hope that we can raise more awareness that those who are gay/same-sex attracted/homosexual–whatever you want to call it–have a variety of ways of living their lives.
Comment by FoxyJ — July 22, 2007 @ 2:32 pm
For some reason the second link didn’t work. It’s here:
Northern Lights
Comment by FoxyJ — July 22, 2007 @ 2:34 pm
Nick–when I was an undergrad I was asked to give a Sunstone symposium talk on the subject of “making a home for homosexuals at BYU.” It was a bit weird that a straight girl got the invite, and I didn’t know much either. I interviewed every gay student I knew at the Y, and one of them came up with a line that has stuck in my head ever since, “Since when do I have a ‘lifestyle’ and not a life?”
I have gay friends in all manner of Mormon orbits–some are celibate and fully active temple workers, some are psuedo active and in relationships, some excommunicated, etc. All of them appear about as happy with their lives as any one else I know, and all of them feel God has directed their paths. The pre-conceived notions with which I originally approached the subject (assuming all gay Mormons were somehow the same) got blown all to pieces once I bothered to listen to the gay people I knew.
e–no sweat. All analogies are flawed on some level after all :). I’m intrigued at how you locate your homosexuality in the body and am hoping you could speak a bit more to that. As a hetero person, I of course have heterosexual bodily urges; still, I would locate my sexual orientation as a condition of my whole soul (body + spirit) because I sought romantic relationships and then married not just to fulfill physical urges, but to fill other, much more difficult to articulate, longings of the spirit. Would you say that isn’t the case for you?
I’m not trying to pry and feel free to tell me to shove off. I ask because most of my gay friends tell me that sex isn’t the predominant sacrifice required by the LDS church, a notion which complicates the issue for me considerable.
(And hey, anyone else who wants to chime in, I’m interested!)
Comment by Janet — July 22, 2007 @ 4:15 pm
To be honest, this is the first time I’ve heard a rejection of the concept of a “gay lifestyle,” and it’s helpful for me to know that it’s offensive to some. But I wish we could give some benefit of the doubt to those who use such phraseologyt. I think the language with this topic is still rather strained, or at least reserved, perhaps moreso in the Church. I’ve always sensed that saying “gay lifestyle” was a simpler, softer way to say “gay sexual activity.” Now I understand what it can mean on the receiving end, and I myself commit to avoiding that usage anymore. But I don’t think there is malice involved from people like Sheri Dew. This is another one of those situations that requires a lot of patience and willingness to communicate so that there can be more understanding, IMO. Thanks to those who are helping me understand better.
Comment by m&m — July 22, 2007 @ 4:46 pm
Janet, your last question strikes a chord for me. I was married for 18 years before coming out of the proverbial closet. When I was younger, my homosexual desires were more sexual in nature, and IMO, easier to deny or fight. It was very different as I became older. The more I matured, the more those longings were emotional and relational in nature. THOSE were the feelings that finally brought me to a point where I couldn’t face living the rest of my life as it was. Did I want a physical relationship with a man? Yes, of course I did, but the emotional longing was far stronger than the sexual desire.
Comment by Nick Literski — July 22, 2007 @ 4:51 pm
Thank you, m&m, for your thoughtful and considerate message. When I’ve brought up my discomfort with the “gay lifestyle” phraseology, many straight individuals have insisted I was being overly sensitive. Your point is well taken that many may use that phrase without intending to raise the kind of associations I mentioned, and yes, the answer is education. (That said, I have to disagree regarding Ms. Dew—the context of her remarks were really quite over-the-top, and I think they made her intended meaning clear.)
Comment by Nick Literski — July 22, 2007 @ 4:57 pm
This hits home (in a roundabout way) with a struggle DH and I are facing. We believe that his brother, who happens to be gay, would be the best guardian for our child, should anything happen to us. DH’s family would be fine with that - after all, they know and love him. My family, on the other hand . . . I shiver just thinking about it. If he was straight, they wouldn’t have a problem with it; it’s only because he happens to be attracted to men and not women.
Comment by Quimby — July 22, 2007 @ 5:17 pm
Nick–thanks for sharing a bit more of your story. It jives with that of many of my friends. On the flip side, I have a gay friend who is older and who decided, after years of involvement with men, to marry. He and his wife entered the union with eyes wide open, and they are quite happy. I don’t want to pry and ask about what sort of emotional or sexual gaps might exist in their relationship, but it’s very very helpful for me to hear/read the honest accounts of different people. Nothing like diversity within a subaltern group to blast assumptions and bigotry, I say!
e—I forgot to add something to my inquiry for you regarding body/spirit. Since you do locate your sexual orientation primarily in the physical realm, does this make it easy for you to accept the notion that once you are resurrected you will no longer feel attracted to the same gender? Many of my friends struggle with the notion of their orientation being “fixed” (there’s that “broken” idea again) because even though they can’t fathom how to reconcile their gayness w/the plan of salvation, they also can’t fathom such a central part of their identity stripped away. Again, different perspectives = very helpful! Thanks for any insight you can offer.
Comment by Janet — July 22, 2007 @ 6:54 pm
M&M–I’m a huge believer in extending the benefit of the doubt regarding people’s intentions, since I’d like them to do the same for me, but even I have to admit that Sister Dew’s remarks were remarkably…..odd. Meridian Magazine seems to have removed it from their archives or I’d give you a link. But if context helps anything, she published the infamous article shortly before offering the invocation at an RNC convention, and the temporal proximity of events bolstered many people’s perception that the church itself things all gays are basically scum. It was unfortunate. Add to this her comment regarding a widely-circulated photograph of a gay couple–both returned LDS missionaries–holding their adopted twin baby girls while being civilly married as “disgusting” and it becomes rather difficult to keep one’s homophobia meter from screeching.
I’m not arrogant enough to judge her soul or anything, but her comments didn’t seem to correlate well with the church’s admonition for love and understanding.
Kaimi had a related thread a while back at T&S if you’re interested:
http://www.timesandseasons.org/index.php?p=1253
Comment by Janet — July 22, 2007 @ 7:00 pm
#53 & #54–thanks for the info–I will definately check them out!
#55–”I’m intrigued at how you locate your homosexuality in the body and am hoping you could speak a bit more to that. As a hetero person, I of course have heterosexual bodily urges; still, I would locate my sexual orientation as a condition of my whole soul (body + spirit) because I sought romantic relationships and then married not just to fulfill physical urges, but to fill other, much more difficult to articulate, longings of the spirit. Would you say that isn’t the case for you?”
Speaking only for me–I believe that one of the ways my body shows its imperfections is thru my sexuality. My sexuality is not just the physical, but the emotional and relational as well (I think this is what post #57 is referring to). Here is how I see it–being a human, I have needs to connect with people in an emotional and relational way. But my body, with its imperfections, doesn’t route those needs to the opposite sex, like it should. Instead, those needs get routed to the same sex. Like Nick said in #57, I can deal fairly well with the pure physical needs (cold showers, humming a hymn :^) ), but it is the need for emotional closeness that gets me. That is what the pain is about at 2 a.m., for me. I long to have someone to connect with. And connecting with a man just doesn’t cut it. Because that need to connect with someone is, as you mentioned, a need of the spirit. But my body misinterprets that spiritual need. All those love songs on the radio, all those weepy romance movies, none of them make sense to me unless you replace the man with a woman.
(I wish I could make this easier to understand; I just realized that my explanation is a little off.)
I believe that being SSA with God is kind of like the calling to be a ward pianist when you don’t know how to play the piano. If you accept the calling, you freak out, get stressed, then learn to play. And you suck at it until you get better. You’ll never be a great pianist, but you learned, not so much how to play, but to rely on God. I can go thru the motions of hetero sex, but there is no emotion there, no jolt of electricity, but the important lesson is to learn to rely on God. I can learn to have an emotionally meaningful relationship with a man, as far as I can, and I have to believe that Christ’s atonement will make up for my limits, and/or make my loneliness at 2 a.m. tolerable. I am convinced that I will never learn to be a straight in this life, but Christ’s atonement will make this life bearable, and then in the next life, when I have a normal body, then I can learn to be a great pianist (so to speak).
Sorry for the length–I hope I was fairly coherent, and answered your questions.
Comment by e. — July 22, 2007 @ 7:26 pm
e, I didn’t think you were incoherent at all. You articulated your understanding of your situation well, I thought. I’m actually rather intrigued by your characterization of sexual orientation as a calling….hmmmmmmm….
And the loneliness at 2 a.m. sounds horrible. I am so, so sorry. Loneliness sucks.
Comment by Janet — July 22, 2007 @ 7:46 pm
janet
the amount of love you have for people…simple and beautiful.
you’re my hero!
Comment by mfranti — July 22, 2007 @ 8:24 pm
I oft wonder if people who are homosexual (especially parents of a homosexual child) are to test other people than to be tested. To see if we’ll put our priority in still loving people who do happen to be homosexual and risking our own salvation by supporting them.
I’m glad about this subject being brought up as many mormons don’t like to talk about it. Especially since my dad is transgendered. (which I’m aware is very different from homosexuality, but still falls generally around the same category)
Comment by anon — July 22, 2007 @ 8:24 pm
Maybe *all* imperfections are a calling of some sort.
Comment by deepthinker — July 22, 2007 @ 8:27 pm
I’ve two friends who are both married; one to a man who is gay and they are working on things for their kids, no intention of divorcing, just dealing with it as they go. The other is married to a man who is difficult to love for a number of reasons, and yet she’s doing everything within her power to make the marriage work, even though he remains in ignorance about her efforts and she isn’t really “in” love with him (I told you he is difficult). She’s lonely at two a.m. as well, and sex is very very hard for her. But she too believes this “stage” of her eternal marriage to this man is temporary and hopes to be able to fulfill her calling to be his wife in this life, and either be released from him after death or find him to be the Prince Charming she thought she was marrying thirty three years ago.
I can’t imagine which marriage would be harder, but I see similarities.
Comment by Kristina — July 22, 2007 @ 9:14 pm
I think life sucks for most people, sooner or later, and gets better for most people sooner or later.
Useless wisdom. Or maybe useless uselessness.
Comment by hero — July 22, 2007 @ 9:15 pm
I think it’s sad you feel this way. Tell me one thing Christ said about homosexuality. He gave two great commandments: to love God and to love our neighbor like ourselves. He didn’t say, “Unless that neighbor is gay, then it’s okay to despise them.” We are commanded to love one another. Plain and simple. I think we risk our salvation in a much more real sense if we fail to support our gay and lesbian friends and family.
Comment by Quimby — July 22, 2007 @ 10:01 pm
Regarding Sheri Dew, I think I may have read what you are referring to. I don’t remember the specifics, so I can’t comment on them. But still, the specifics matter less to me in terms of giving her the benefit of the doubt. She’s not here to explain herself, she’s probably doing her best (as we all are), etc. Besides, I have felt a LOT of good from her on so many occasions that I am all the more inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt to. And then, if she goofed, then, well, don’t we all?
I also find it interesting that the person who did suggest that comments (possibly Sister Dew’s) about activists might have some merit is a gay person herself.
But anyway, the discussion continues to be interesting nevertheless. I agree with those who suggest that at some level, life is hard for each of us, less than ideal, challenging our faith in some way. I personally think that homosexuality is a particularly tough one, and I have the deepest respect for people like e. who are holding fast to eternal promises. It’s an inspiration to me. In the end, holding onto faith and eternal promises will likely have to get us all through something, and probably something fairly big at some point in our lives.
Comment by m&m — July 22, 2007 @ 10:23 pm
Tell me one thing Christ said about homosexuality.
Quimby, many believe that Christ is saying plenty about homosexuality through His prophets today. The commandment to love is still there, but love and support (which our leaders also encourage and are trying to demonstrate, IMO) doesn’t mean we can change what God’s laws are.
To me, this is part of what makes this issue so difficult and delicate in the Church. I ache to reach out in love and compassion (and I try to!), but I can’t condone homosexual behavior to do so, not in a doctrinal sense. I can respect others’ choices and love them regardless, but love doesn’t always mean agreeing with or condoning another’s choices. Christ loved all, but didn’t necessarily condone all behavior.
I’m interested to know what the original commenter meant by “risk our own salvation” in order to love our homosexual friends and family members.
Comment by m&m — July 22, 2007 @ 10:29 pm
Well, sure, we all goof. And our errors in one area do not negate other acts of good. I’m just saying we shouldn’t look to her as a role model of the church’s official stance. She seems to have some issues to work through on this one (at the least some linguistic ones). But that doesn’t mean she isn’t trying to do what’s right or that, if confronted with a gay loved one, she wouldn’t reach out with love. But we can judge a statement–and its deleterious effects–without judging a person.
Comment by Janet — July 22, 2007 @ 10:36 pm
I’m just saying we shouldn’t look to her as a role model of the church’s official stance.
I guess my thought is that I’m not sure she would disagree.
Comment by m&m — July 22, 2007 @ 10:38 pm
mfranti–right back at you, girl!
and you should come see the baby–he’s smiling now! It is so cute I could just melt into a big old puddle o’butter.
Comment by Janet — July 22, 2007 @ 10:38 pm
I agree with you - but I don’t see how we’re “changing God’s laws” by continuing to love and support our friends and family with same sex attraction. I think we’re “changing God’s laws” (of loving and not judging) when we automatically condemn or stop supporting someone just because they come out.
I’m not the judge. I’m not the person who gets to make the final decision, in the next life. And that’s fine with me; I hold too many grudges; I’d see that kid who pushed me over when I was 5 and I’d be like, “Okay, that’s it, you’re going to Outer Darkness because you didn’t say sorry. Learn some manners and then maybe we’ll talk.” As far as I can tell, my only job is to love my neighbor and to not judge unrighteously, and I’ve got enough on my hands trying to do those two things without having to make up check-lists of “right behavior” and “wrong behavior” and comparing people to the lists.
Comment by Quimby — July 22, 2007 @ 10:48 pm
Quimby,
I’m not sure we are in disagreement. My comment is dealing with those who want to say that in order to show love and support we need to condone homosexual relationships particularly to the point of including them somehow in our doctrine. i.e., that somehow holding to our doctrine is somehow not loving.
But let me be clear that I’m not advocating final judgments of any sort, and I hope that nothing I said communicated otherwise.
This reminds me of an experience I had. When my friend and I visited my gay family member as we thought he was dying of AIDS (he miraculously survived), my friend shared with me that he had the impression that the Lord would be merciful to him. (We can’t know for sure (can’t judge either way), but that was his feeling at the time.)
This man, though divorced from his wife, still receives a lot of love and support, even from extended family when we get a chance to see him, and particularly from his ex-wife and kids. (Nevermind the terrible pain he put them through, his ex-wife is one of the most loving people I know). I put his name on the temple roll almost every time I go, and he has expressed gratitude for that gesture. We try to show him love even as we don’t condone the choices he has made. It’s not judging unrighteously to believe in gospel standards. It’s judging unrighteously to condemn him and declare that we know he (or anyone) has no hope of any joy in the next life because of the choices he has made. There’s a big difference.
Comment by m&m — July 23, 2007 @ 12:20 am
No, I don’t think we are in disagreement.
I feel a great deal of conflict over the church’s attitude towards homosexuality. I don’t think it’s a choice, certainly not in the same category of, “Hmm, will I wear my boots or my heels today?” (Even in hetrosexual attraction/love/relationship, it’s only partially a choice: certainly I’m not attracted to all men.) If it’s not a choice - what then? Environment? Then how do you explain that most GLBT people, if they have siblings, have straight siblings? I think we have to accept on some level that it is innate, in-born; and if that’s the case, either God’s really unfair, or we are not doing the right thing by our GLBT friends and family. When given a choice between faulting God or faulting man, I tend to fault man. I find I’m much less likely to be struck by lightening that way.
Comment by Quimby — July 23, 2007 @ 12:45 am
Quimby, I think this is an issue that leaves many conflicted. It’s one I have pondered and struggled much over the past decade or so (actually longer if you consider the family situation I mentioned earlier). I think there is recognition that the attractions, etc. are often not a choice, but that’s not the kind of choice I was referring to. Just because something is part of one’s mortal makeup does not mean it is something that should be accepted doctrinally. We are here to submit our flesh to the will of God, and that struggle will take many, many forms. Life IS unfair if all we judge it by is mortality alone.
This is a key reason why I am so touched and inspired by e.’s personal example of faith. She sees herself as gay for life. She doesn’t see any way that that will change for her. And yet…. She faces this heartrending trial with faith that all will be granted, all that God holds for the faithful, if she complies with the commandments in mortality. While I personally think that homosexuality is one of the most difficult trials someone could have, I don’t think we can ignore that the specifics of our trials may look different, but they all ultimately serve the same purpose — to give us the opportunity to come to know and love and submit to God fully.
My feeling is that I don’t think we need to fault God or man (or genetics or environment, perhaps) about why this situation exists for some, any more than we need to fault Him or mortals for myriad other difficulties that exist as part of our mortal experience. God’s not unfair, life is unfair, but there is purpose in that. (Think of the Savior when He was asked who sinned to “cause” the blind person to be blind. His answer seems relevant: “Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.”) It’s why we are here — to struggle, and then to see if we will allow the works of God to be made manifest in us. (I sometimes wonder why on earth I agreed to that aspect of this plan, but in my heart I know it’s the only way we can come to know the Savior’s power, grace and love.)
Comment by m&m — July 23, 2007 @ 1:05 am
I have no problem accepting that God is really unfair. We all have different challenges. As a recovering alcoholic, I deal with a body that has cravings all the time.
In a 1996 Ensign article about same-gender attraction, Dallin Oaks put it this way:
And the thing is, despite the cravings, I haven’t actually had a drink in more than 30 years, although wrestles with prescription drugs, ordered by well-meaning physicians, have been more recent.
Susceptibility to alcoholism and other addictions clearly have an “innate” component. Here’s a recent reference:
Addiction. 2007 Aug;102(8):1320-5, Ishiguro H et al., “Variation in a bicarbonate co-transporter gene family member SLC4A7 is associated with propensity to addictions: a study using fine-mapping and three samples.”
So I have great sympathy for those trying to live the gospel and live with SSA. Applying principles on the ground must be tough. In graduate school, there was a woman in my class that I enjoyed looking at. I used to try to sit across from her just to enjoy being in her presence. Because I was married, there was no question about a sexual aspect to that pleasure. But how difficult those situations must be to those with SSA.
Comment by Naismith — July 23, 2007 @ 7:16 am
Not Ophelia, #43:
You’re spot-on in this observation, and the worldview wasn’t confined to ancient Greece. Lesbianism has “not existed” well into the 20th century. In the 19th and early 20th centuries there WAS something called a “Boston Marriage,” in which two unmarried women who were close friends lived together for most/all of their adult lives, but they were not considered lesbians and their relationship was not considered sexual.
Comment by Allyson — July 23, 2007 @ 8:20 am
“in which two unmarried women who were close friends lived together for most/all of their adult lives”
…like the first two General Presidents of the Primary, who were publicly and with no apparent prejudice called the “David and Jonathan” of Primary. Michael Quinn has written about other homosocial relationships in 19th- and early 20th-century Utah. I find his book less than persuasive on some points, but it is (of course!) exhaustively documented and a fascinating read. The book is titled (I think–I’m STILL moving and everything’s in boxes) _Same-Sex Dynamics among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example_
Comment by Kristine — July 23, 2007 @ 8:39 am
There was a time when I thought homosexuality was “my cross to bear,” or “my trial in life.” I spent a great deal of time trying to soldier on, in spite of my “terrible burden.” I piously endured my misery, “knowing” that at some future time, all would be rewarded. Yes, for a time I believed that I would be resurrected as a heterosexual. Yes, for a time I believed that I must be just trying to satisfy an emotional void left by a distant father figure, which needs I had “confused” with sexual desires. Yes, for a time I believed that my “domineering mother” had damaged me. Yes, I theorized that I may have been sexually abused by a daycare provider during my infancy. Yes, I believed that I was suffering from an “addiction,” which I would have to fight for the rest of my life, just like an alcoholic. Yes, I even believed that if I just prayed enough, fasted enough, obeyed enough, etc., deity would eventually “cure” me.
In short, I believed at various times in nearly every theory which had been put forth by the “ex-gay” movement and swallowed whole by LDS leaders and therapists. Yes, note what I just said—virtually none of what LDS leaders have said on the subject in the last 20 years has been original with them. It’s all come nearly verbatim out of the “ex-gay” groups, such as Exodus—including the disturbing article in this past week’s Church News. I highly recommend reading *Anything But Straight: Unmasking the Scandals and Lies Behind the Ex-Gay Myth* by Wayne Besen.
After many years of such suffering, I was finally cured—cured of the self-loathing and delusions that I was somehow broken or “disordered.” I learned, to my great surprise, that the guilt and shame I felt didn’t come from being gay. It came from trying to hide who I was. It came from trying to be something I wasn’t. Ending that charade was an amazing experience. I really had no idea how much energy I had been putting into this facade, until I ended it. The *real* burden was lifted. The sense of peace and relief was indescribeable.
I’ve learned to rejoice in the *blessing* of being a gay man, and to borrow Robert Frost’s words, “that has made all the difference.”
Comment by Nick Literski — July 23, 2007 @ 8:47 am
I have very close friends who are LDS and gay and I’ve been to funerals of those who’ve been gay and LDS and committed suicide. Most of my immediate family has left the church because of this, finding congregrations that are gay affirming and more inclusive. I stay because I think I’m doing the right thing and maybe I can help people become less ignorant.
In general I think its true that younger members of the church are less ignorant when it comes to gay issues. I was at BYU during CA Proposition 22, and it was so refreshing to hear people on the soapbox speaking out about it and voicing their opinion and their love for our gay friends and family. Now that I’m back in southern California, at least in Relief Society, I find the opposite is true. The older generation, at least in my ward, seems more compassionate on this and other issues - maybe because they’ve seen that the Church does progress and sometimes changes its stance. It’s those who are my age who seem the most bigoted and ignorant. During relief society, they were talking one time about the war against good and evil and wanted us to name examples and all everyone seemed to think about was the “attack against families” and “gays adopting children” and “gay marriage” and “gay legislation”. I left in tears. It was so heart-breaking. And the worst thing about it was that I knew that they probably just didn’t know better, but I did. But I was a coward and didn’t stand up and say something, and I should have. I hope and pray that I will next time.
Comment by tesseract — July 23, 2007 @ 10:28 am
Oh, and according to Wikipedia on Sheri Dew. She already had lost points in my book because she went on a few dates with my Dad (who I don’t get a long with) and then I read this: Anyone know more about this?
“Sheri Dew was embroiled in a controversy because of remarks she made in February 2004 at an event put together by a conservative religious coalition in Washington DC. Sheri Dew showed the audience a picture of a gay wedding; the photograph depicted two men getting married at the San Francisco city hall and holding their adopted infant twin daughters in their arms. “This is hard for me to stomach,” said Dew. “What kind of chance do these girls have being raised in that kind of setting?”
In the same speech Dew suggested a comparison between not having done anything to oppose the rise of Hitler and not doing anything to oppose the rise of gay families. “At first it may seem a bit extreme to imply a comparison between the atrocities of Hitler and what is happening in terms of contemporary threats against the family–but maybe not.””
Comment by tesseract — July 23, 2007 @ 10:36 am
The talk in question was given at the Washington D.C. Temple Visitor’s Center, tesseract. The transcript was posted on the Meridian website, but after shocked reactions to Ms. Dew’s over-the-top “those who don’t fight against gay rights are just like Nazi sympathizers” comments, the entire transcript was quietly removed.
I used to manage an LDS bookstore, and became personally aware of Ms. Dew’s business ethics—no, I don’t mean Deseret Book at large, I mean Ms. Dew in particular. Between that experience and reading Ms. Dew’s speech, I simply lost all respect for the woman. She’s horrible.
Comment by Nick Literski — July 23, 2007 @ 12:43 pm
Nick, what you say about losing shame in who you are reminds me of one of my friends. She’s actually a fully active LDS temple worker who has chosen to remains celibate for the rest of her life AND feel no shame in her sexual orientation. If there were a jpotion that would turn her straight, I think she’d ignore it. In fact, she talks about how her orientation offers her certain spiritual gifts, has enriched her life, and makes her better at her callings and generally as a person. (Before anyone assumes she’s asserting the inherently spiritual superiority of homosexuality over heterosexuality, she’s just talking about herself, not a general paradigm. She might argue that orientation is generally value nuetral, I don’t know).
I’ve always been impressed with how she’s embraced her orientation as a gift to enlarge her vision of the world and of God and of her abilities. I do feel sad that she’ll never had a partnership entailing all the great things in marital union, with either a guy or a girl, but dang. She’s more emotionally and spiritually together than most people I know. One of the great virtues to ditching the monothematic conception of a gay lifestyle is, in my estimation, how it can liberate people from self-loathing no matter what choice they make regarding sexual activity.
Comment by Janet — July 23, 2007 @ 2:38 pm
#86–Very interesting! Could you tell me more how, for her, SSA results in spiritual gifts, enrichment of callings, and makes her better at her callings and as a person? For personal reasons (obviously! :^) ), I am intrigued.
Comment by e. — July 23, 2007 @ 2:47 pm
….contrast that with a male friend who, despite years of trying to reconcile his identity with church activity, seemed destined for suicide so long as he showed up to church every week. (I think my DH saved his live, actually.) I’ve long since stopped assuming I can figure out what choices regarding sexual orientation will banish self-shame since our friends have chosen so differently despite all trying the same roads at some point or another. The commonality which remains is the conviction that God loves them (which obviously he does). Some only came to this conclusion after returning to church, some after leaving.
I’m thinking of a conversation about finding peace which is taking place on another thread and reflecting how the less I assume I know about this topic, the more peace God seems to grant me. I still agonize over the rift between my conscience and my beloved church, but since both tell me to love, I’m just sticking with that.
Comment by Janet — July 23, 2007 @ 2:51 pm
e–I promise I will try and articulate it, but right now I have an in-law coming to visit and have to cram some late lunch in my mouth first. It might be a few hours, but I swear i shall not forget! (And of course I’m not her, so my approximations will probably be flawed. I can vouch that the woman literally glows, though!)
Comment by Janet — July 23, 2007 @ 2:54 pm
Between that experience and reading Ms. Dew’s speech, I simply lost all respect for the woman. She’s horrible.
Janet, FWIW, this is the kind of thing I was getting uncomfy with. It’s one thing to disagree with someone’s ideas. It’s another thing to be judgmental and critical like this.
Nick, I think this is inappropriate. You don’t know her heart. I don’t agree with a lot of things you say (and even do), but it would be crossing lines to call you a horrible person. Let alone if you weren’t there to say anything to defend yourself.
Comment by m&m — July 23, 2007 @ 5:14 pm
In fact, she talks about how her orientation offers her certain spiritual gifts, has enriched her life, and makes her better at her callings and generally as a person.
What comes to mind is the idea of empathy, sympathy, compassion, ability to look at others’ hearts….. When you have a trial that is often misunderstood, it either breaks you or can make you a deeper, more caring person. Is that some of what what might be going on?
This was very interesting, BTW, so thanks for sharing, Janet.
Comment by m&m — July 23, 2007 @ 5:17 pm
What Mogaria describes in the original post is how compulsory heteronormativity places gay children in the church in nearly impossible circumstances. No matter how much the culture and the rhetoric has “softened” or how much parsing there is of official and non-official statements, a gay child too often does not fit in the “families are forever” mode of thinking.
When my returned missionary son came out and acknowledged his homosexuality in 2003, I became aware of how taboo the topic is and how that silence contributed to many of his feelings of anguish. He felt guilty even being in the temple although he was faithful and celibate.
The Stake President who tried to convince him to marry as a cure; the Bishop who dismisses gay members by saying the atonement will solve everything; the Relief Society President who believes his gayness is a choice; the hardline first cousins who no longer speak to him or will let their children be around him; the Priesthood, Sunday School and Primary lessons where he learned about the evils of homosexuality; all have led him to believe there is no place for him in the church. We have long-time friends who ask about all of our other children, but not our gay son. Ward members avoid asking about him as well.
The solution is love. His father and I know that is our only choice. Fortunately, most of our extended family have shown love for our son as well.
I often have more questions than answers and don’t know how I could have done things differently. I am grateful he served a mission. I am grateful for what I have learned from him. I am grateful he is who he is.
Comment by another mom of a gay son — July 23, 2007 @ 6:10 pm
m&m: I understand your concern. Please also understand that I have some first-hand experience concerning this woman. I’m not simply judging her entire character based on one speech. With that, I’ll gladly drop the subject of “the Divine Mz. Dew.”
Comment by Nick Literski — July 23, 2007 @ 7:03 pm
another man of a gay son–you had a Stake President who still considered marriage a “cure” in 2003? That is deeply terrifying. Much of your story is, really. I have fooled myself into believing most Mormons were more open-minded that you describe. Sigh. I’m glad the extended family has realized, as you say, that he’s still the same man they loved.
e–I haven’t forgotten. I’m just not sure I should try to explicate what my friend feels, at least not past the words she has used. I think M&M got to some if it; she knows she’s more compassionate and empathetic as a result of her struggles with sexual identity and her faith. But it’s more than that–she believes there are things INHERENT to her orientation which offer her certain gifts. Maybe I’ll send her a note and then email you when she gets back to me?
The only ting I recall in the way of details rather than adjectives is this: she believes that as a woman attracted to other women she understands women better than do men, and to some degree even straight women (I’m probably getting this wrong, argh) and thus understands how to help them in crisis. I probably mangled that. But she also believes that there are oodles of people in the world whose biological parents have nurtured them not at all, and that part of her calling in this life is to mother the motherless, unencumbered by her own children or spouse. And she mothers people who most would find very very difficult to nurture.
I’m sorry I am not able to better articulate this–but she hasn’t totally explained to me and I’m afraid I took the adjectives at face value without digging for explication. But I’ll ask her.
Comment by Janet — July 23, 2007 @ 7:34 pm
I’ve been watching this comment thread with interest (and was thrilled to see FoxyJ’s comment–I really love her and her family). I feel that perhaps it’s time to muddy the waters a bit more and add a different perspective.
I’m a woman who is gay/lesbian/homosexual/SSA (choose your preference, it’s all the same to me). I’m also a mother of three, sealed to my husband (who is a bishop), active member of the church. I’ve walked the path of same-sex relationships, atheism, self-harm and attempted suicide. I’ve lived in wards where people like me were named as the bane of all the earth, and even accused of being the catalyst of Armageddon. I’ve had bishops who were loving and helpful, and some who were blindingly ingnorent.
At one point I realized what would make me the happiest. I sought it out, and the Lord has helped me every step of the way. My goal now, is to help others learn to find joy in this life, and to love them in any instance. It’s what I would have wished for myself if I could have chosen one thing. The path I walked was always lonely. I believe that no one should have to be alone.
The dialogue here, with the different attitudes and ideas presented, is a good thing. Regardless of whether or not we agree, we need to talk and keep the conversation going. And regardless of your personal beliefs regarding the behaviors and choices of others, remember to love them. The only thing at risk, really, is that you may have to open your hearts and minds to a group of people who have lived in hiding for many many years, but have been enriching your community and wards for all your lives. You already love them–you just don’t know them.
Comment by Samantha — July 23, 2007 @ 11:56 pm
I’ve just spent some time plowing through these comments. I have to say that I truly don’t understand many of them. The PC seems thick as mud.
Of course we “love the sinner” and all that goes with that. But the only way I can reconcile some of the statements here is to assume that many here simply believe that all statements claiming homosexual sex to be sinful are simply misguided cultural artifacts. If that’s what you think, could you just come out and say so? I’ve spent four days with super sick kids and I’m not feeling so well myself and trying to interpret the implications is more than I can handle this week.
If, on the other hand, homosexual sex is something proscribed by God, then what are we advocating? That no one should ever mention the facts about God’s word, because someone might be uncomfortable with it? And we have to embrace not only the child, but all that goes with a sinful choice? (And, no, I’m not talking about BEING gay, I’m talking about engaging in unmarried sex.)
If I was feeling like my usual, obnoxious self, I’d take some of the comments made and simply replace the term describing a homosexual sinful act with a different act that we all actually agree is sinful (assuming we could find one).
A similar issue came up all the time in Florida. “Don’t tell the YW that God wants them to marry only in the temple, because most of their parents didn’t and it makes them feel bad.” And they wonder how my best friend got through six years of YW and married a nonmember because she didn’t really understand the significance of being sealed until after she had three children who weren’t.
Comment by Alison Moore Smith — July 24, 2007 @ 12:20 am
Adding I so appreciated the comments by e. and Samantha. The strength of character is such an example.
Comment by Alison Moore Smith — July 24, 2007 @ 12:23 am
I didn’t think I could be much clearer in saying precisely that. My liberalism may offend you; but I fail to see how the bedroom habits of two consenting adults is any of my business (unless one or both of those adults are me or my husband).
Comment by Quimby — July 24, 2007 @ 12:43 am
Quimby,
If “it’s not any of my business” means you don’t agree that homosexual sex is against the laws of God, then the agreement level between you and me just went down a big notch.
Comment by m&m — July 24, 2007 @ 1:58 am
all statements claiming homosexual sex to be sinful are simply misguided cultural artifacts
works for me
Comment by Chino Blanco — July 24, 2007 @ 3:16 am
If I was feeling like my usual, obnoxious self, I’d take some of the comments made and simply replace the term describing a homosexual sinful act with a different act that we all actually agree is sinful (assuming we could find one).
how about ‘polygamy’?
Comment by Chino Blanco — July 24, 2007 @ 3:34 am
“Sheri Dew was embroiled in a controversy because of remarks she made in February [1856] at an event put together by a conservative religious coalition in Washington DC. Sheri Dew showed the audience a picture of a [polygamous] wedding; the photograph depicted [polygamists] getting married at the [Salt Lake Temple] and holding their [thirteen children] in their arms. “This is hard for me to stomach,” said Dew. “What kind of chance do these [kids] have being raised in that kind of setting?”
In the same speech Dew suggested a comparison between not having done anything to oppose the rise of [slavery] and not doing anything to oppose the rise of [polygamous] families. “At first it may seem a bit extreme to imply a comparison between the atrocities of [slavery] and what is happening in terms of contemporary threats against the family–but maybe not.””
…
Also on the schedule for 1856, the new Republican party selected for it’s national platform a call to abolish the “Twin Relics of Barbarism: Slavery and Polygamy”.
Comment by Chino Blanco — July 24, 2007 @ 3:55 am
m&m, I’m really not convinced that homosexuality is a sin. But primarily, by “none of my business”, I mean that it’s not my concern. Even if it’s a sin - what can I do about it? Isn’t it a greater sin to go around passing judgement on people because of their sexuality? It’s not like I can “straighten out” a gay person. It’s not like they need my help, and if I just find the right thing to say or do, I can take this sexual orientation away from them. I can control how I treat a gay person. That’s the only thing that is in my control, and (I believe) that’s the only thing I’ll be judged for.
I don’t think my gay and lesbian friends and family are hurting me by being gay. I don’t think they’re hurting my family. I don’t think they’re hurting society at large. For the most part they’re great people. I’d rather save my condemnation for things that hurt me, my family, and society, like oil companies, dog fighters, and the neo-cons.
Comment by Quimby — July 24, 2007 @ 4:59 am
Yeah, I’m with Quimby and a few others. When you take away the stereotypes previously used to slander the GLBT community members, you’re left with mature adults who make decisions much the same as straight adults–usually based on the desire to have a fulfilling emotional and sexual relationship with a partner who fulfills this need. I’m not trying to say that e and Samantha are making unnecessary choices, they’re entitled to their agency and their happiness. But for others who haven’t made the same choices, let them find partners they love and get married so that they can share all the legal benefits that come with said institution. They aren’t hurting me, or my boys, or my marriage, or society at large–indeed they may even be more fully beneficial if awarded the same rights all the way across the board.
Comment by Lessie — July 24, 2007 @ 7:22 am
Oh, and I didn’t mean to put words into your mouth, Quimby. You didn’t specifically mention marriage, I just assumed that was the implication of your statements. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
Comment by Lessie — July 24, 2007 @ 7:24 am
Alison Moore Smith,
Yes, all statements claiming homosexual sex to be sinful are simply misguided cultural artifacts. They are primarily based on a faulty interpretation/translation of scripture, which even Joseph Smith disputed. Your argument condemning homosexuality as “sex outside of marriage” is problematic, considering the fact that homosexual marriage is illegal in 49 of 50 states.
Keep in mind that for decades, religious leaders (including LDS apostles) adamantly argued that interracial marriage violated the word of deity. They also insisted that the Bible not only justified, but positively mandated, slavery.
Comment by Nick Literski — July 24, 2007 @ 7:59 am
The way I see it, if homosexuals aren’t allowed to marry, whether in a religious or legal context . . . isn’t that making things unnecessarily difficult? I fee like, at least in a religious context, they’re being forced to sin. Okay, I understand that they have a choice to remain celibate. But when heterosexual people fall in love, they get married, and can have sex without sin. If homosexual people fall in love, they cannot get married, and so their relationship never has that potential.
I don’t mean to offend anyone. It’s your belief system, so I’m not saying your religion should allow gay marriage; that’s not my argument to make. What I’m saying is that even the legal system has set it up so that, even if being gay in and of itself is not a sin, gay people still cannot have sexual relationships without sinning.
Comment by Allyson — July 24, 2007 @ 8:25 am
And a lot of times heterosexual people fall in love, but are already married to someone else.
Or the spouse they love has an illness that makes sex impossible.
Or their beloved spouse dies. Or gets sent away on work duties for up to a year at a time.
Heterosexual preference is NOT a guarantee against living a celibate life. I would even argue that within the church, more heterosexuals live in celibacy than those with SSA.
Comment by Naismith — July 24, 2007 @ 8:46 am
Bad luck is no excuse for bad policy.
Comment by Chino Blanco — July 24, 2007 @ 9:39 am
Naismith, #98:
You’re right that I didn’t take all variables into account and doesn’t prevent one from sin. My point was that there is, at the very least, legal policy in place that prevents homosexuals from committing some aspect of sin. If you divorce or are widowed/widower (neither a fate I would wish on anybody), remarriage is still legal (I’m not sure if it’s accepted in the Mormon tradition, but it’s allowed by law). I realize the whole thing gets really complicated when taking the separation of church and state into account. If Mormons want to forbid gay marriage, that’s the way it is. I’m just saying that legal policies are not making it easier for people.
Comment by Allyson — July 24, 2007 @ 9:55 am
Naismith, even Elder Marlin K. Jensen, in the recent PBS documentary, finally admitted that by directing celibacy outside marriage, the LDS church is holding homosexuals to a much more difficult standard than heterosexuals:
“And yes, some people argue sometimes, well, for the gay person or the lesbian person, we’re not asking more of them than we’re asking of the single woman who never marries. But I long ago found in talking to them that we do ask for something different: In the case of the gay person, they really have no hope. A single woman, a single man who is heterosexual in their thinking always has the hope, always has the expectation that tomorrow they’re going to meet someone and fall in love and that it can be sanctioned by the church. But a gay person who truly is committed to that way of life in his heart and mind doesn’t have that hope. And to live life without hope on such a core issue, I think, is a very difficult thing.”
When you suggest that more LDS heterosexuals live in celibacy than LDS homosexuals, that’s sort of a no-brainer, given that homosexuals are a small minority of the population, whether inside the LDS church or out.
Comment by Nick Literski — July 24, 2007 @ 9:56 am
Says you.
But is this about the truth of a principle, or the impact it has on an individual? Take this principle - that obesity is bad. What about the child who is overweight/obese and struggles with this. Lets even narrow it to the child who exercises regularly and has a healthy diet, but whose BMI is on the upper end of the scale. What about the social exclusion this person recieves? The implications about the character of the individual (slovenly, lazy, etc). What about the things this child missess out on?
Do we eliminate the principle, saying it is ok to be obese? To do so is counter to the very real health effects? No, we promote understanding, and discussion, and hope we can all not judge each other.
A stretch maybe, but it illustrates the perspective from which I view this issue.
Comment by ola senor — July 24, 2007 @ 11:24 am
Quimby,
I’m not sure that anyone would advocate making someone’s personal life their business per se (I don’t go around hunting down homosexuals to tell them that they are sinning, and I’ve never even said aything to my family member; he knows what I believe). But I teach my children what I believe to be God’s standards, and respond to my leaders when they ask us to act on this issue. And in discussions like this, I at least share where I stand.
Allyson,
Even if gay marriage were legal, homosexual sex would still be against the Church’s teachings. It’s part of what I think Elder Jensen is getting at. Homosexual sex is not sanctioned by the Church in any way, regardless of the legal status that could emerge. As Elder Jensen said, this makes the life of a homosexual in the Church difficult indeed.
Nick, I realize how you feel, but you have to realize that not you or anyone here has any authority to declare what God’s will is on this topic. Only our leaders have the authority to do that. Everyone can choose whether or not to agree with that, of course, but that won’t change what they have declared to be.
Another thought: Just because we don’t fully see or know how this issue could have an effect on society doesn’t mean that it can’t or won’t. To me, that ’s part of why we have prophets and seers: they see what we cannot. I’m particularly concerned with the effects of activism that have already born fruit that I’m not comfortable with. I also look at the prophetic teaching that children are entitled to a mom and a dad, and I am concerned about that aspect of things as well.
Besides, if we don’t at least hear what God’s will is, then like e. said, how would she know what we believe the Lord would have her do in spite of her natural inclination? I, for one, support her and others like her in her/their sacrifice because I believe it will be worth it. Will I love and care for others who choose otherwise? Of course. (I like what ola senor said about sharing the principle at least and then letting people choose what they want to do about it.)
And I will say again that this isn’t an easy topic for me, because my heart does go out to those who struggle with this, either personally or indirectly. It’s hard to take a position that I know offends some.
Comment by m&m — July 24, 2007 @ 1:03 pm
That’s fine, ola senor. Let’s lay religious differences aside, and talk about “the impact [homosexuality] has on the individual.” If I understand you correctly, you are trying to emphasize that true principles should not be denied on the basis of hurt feelings. That’s a fair enough statement, assuming of course that someone speaks and acts with some degree of tact.
I’ll grant that I’m extrapolating from your words, but it appears to me that you’re using “obesity is bad” as an example of a “true principle.” By implication—and correct me if I’m wrong—you are suggesting that it’s axiomatic that “homosexuality is bad” is also a “true principle.” If I understand your reasoning, you suggest that nobody should say it’s “okay” to be homosexual, because “homosexuality is bad” is a “true principle.”
If I understand you correctly, then only one question needs to be asked. We have legitimate, peer-reviewed, properly-conducted, published studies which demonstrate deliterious health effects which are specifically caused by obesity. Therefore, we can accept your “true principle.” Can you please provide us with legitimate, peer-reviewed, properly-conducted, published studies demonstrating negative health effects which are specifically caused by homosexuality?
I caution you in this, as there are a number of supposed “studies” of the health effects of homosexuality, which are repudiated outside of evangelical circles, because they are NOT legitimate, peer-reviewed, properly-conducted, published studies.
Comment by Nick Literski — July 24, 2007 @ 1:07 pm
Nick, I realize how you feel, but you have to realize that not you or anyone here has any authority to declare what God’s will is on this topic. Only our leaders have the authority to do that. Everyone can choose whether or not to agree with that, of course, but that won’t change what they have declared to be.
In turn, m&m, I understand that you believe that leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have divine authority, and inerrantly (or nearly so) understand the will of deity. Your religious belief, however, is just that–a belief, based on your personal faith. There is nothing to lead non-LDS to objectively share your belief. The same goes for your faith in the ability of LDS leaders to discern and/or predict the future.
You don’t offend me at all, but your declaration of faith really doesn’t put an end to all discussion, as you seem to believe it should.
Comment by Nick Literski — July 24, 2007 @ 1:17 pm
Families first. Love your children regardless of their attractions. If the people around you don’t like it, you can always get new friends and a new Church. If immediate family doesn’t like it, they can just email you at Christmas.
Those in the Chicago area can donate to the Center on Halsted.
“Nick, I realize how you feel, but you have to realize that not you or anyone here has any authority to declare what God’s will is on this topic.” Very convenient. There are many subjects on this website where individual bloggers are declaring God’s will even though it conflicts with the statements of church authorities.
Comment by SRM — July 24, 2007 @ 1:43 pm
Nick,
I know you said you wouldn’t mention Sheri Dew anymore, but I’ve got to ask especially since you’ve had direct dealings with her. Did you ever get the impression that she may be a homophobic lesbian? I have heard that rumor…
Comment by tesseract — July 24, 2007 @ 1:50 pm
tesseract, I have no reason to believe that Sheri Dew is a lesbian. While it’s common for deeply-closeted homosexuals to make loud condemnations of homosexuality (it’s a very normal human defense mechanism, applying to more than just this topic), not every person who does so is homosexual. Furthermore, it’s unfair for some to assume her never-married status is proof of any homosexual tendencies. I know plenty of LDS and former-LDS men who are gay, but who were married to women for a time. Some of them still are, in fact.
I think there’s more reason to believe she’s in a secret plural marriage with a general authority, than that she’s a lesbian.
Comment by Nick Literski — July 24, 2007 @ 2:27 pm
Nick,
This is the problem with analogies. I should have made it more clear. When I talked about the “impact on the individual”, i was referring to the mental and social feelings one has (not any health concerns). Separate categories.
On one hand we have the social/emotional/self esteem component. We should encourage this. Much of the argument presented here seems to say, “we shouldn’t say homosexual acts are sinful, because it makes a person feel bad”. The corollary would be “we shouldn’t say overeating and obesity is bad, because that will make a person feel bad”. I think these arguments are wrong and set a false choice.
On the obsesity issue, we can easily say ” overeating is something we should not do, and obesity is bad , but we don’t know the individual’s circumstance and should love those who struggle with this, not automatically believing they are lazy, indulgent, etc”.
Similar, we can simultaneously hold that homosexual acts are bad, while not shunning the individual, or labelling the person as a sinner or “bad”.
and Nick, I don’t need a peer-reviewed study to prove everything. I don’t even want to argue whether homosexuality is wrong or right with you. I have my position on the matter, as do you. The point of my comment was to illustrate that we need not simultaneously condemn the person and the act, nor is this the best course of action.
Comment by ola senor — July 24, 2007 @ 2:38 pm
Alison, remember that the way someone discusses a sin matters as well. I’ve made my cognitive dissonance on the issue quite clear, I think: I believe in following the prophet, but this is one of those few areas where my head and heart don’t seem to understand prophetic counsel, since I don’t see any true logical harm in homosexual sex (and I see much harm in homophobia) and I don’t feel any revulsion towards it such as I do towards, say, lying or not loving your neighbor. I accept the prophet’s counsel, but I’d be lying if I said it made much sense to me.
But even if I dismiss my cognitive dissonance, the words someone uses to describe it will still matter. I cannot imagine the prophet describing a person who lies as “disgusting,” or making analogies to the 3rd Reich, or arguing that a liar’s presence pollutes everyone around them, etc. etc. etc. Even people who are rock-solid comfortable with the idea that homosexual sex is sinful should, I would hope, find alarming and sinful the rhetoric used to describe those people who engage in it. Homosexuality ellicits more hate speech than any other moral issue I hear discussed–so you might want to consider that there’s a middle ground. People can find the sex sinful and still find the ways it is discussed by other incredibly offensive. I imagine the prophet does, inasmuch as he keeps telling us to knock it off.
Samantha–I’m really glad you have found happiness (as I’m glad for my friends who have found it, some in the way you have, some in other ways). I’m curious to know how your spouse feels about the knowledge that you aren’t fully attracted to him, though. it seems like such a difficult thing to navigate in a marriage, for both of you. You can tell me to back off, of course, but if you’re comfortable sharing I’d be interested to hear your thoughts.
Comment by Janet — July 24, 2007 @ 2:58 pm
You don’t offend me at all, but your declaration of faith really doesn’t put an end to all discussion, as you seem to believe it should.
My declaration of belief is not shared with the intent to end discussion.
Comment by m&m — July 24, 2007 @ 3:42 pm
Nick - Thanks for the info
When my Dad told me that he had gone on a few dates with her but informed the family that there was “no romantic interest,” I was reminded of the rumors and wondered.
For anyone interested in more about her controversial speech, I found a whole thread about it by Kaimi over on Times and Seasons from 2004. I don’t know how I didn’t hear about the speech before. wow.
http://www.timesandseasons.org/index.php?p=1253
Comment by tesseract — July 24, 2007 @ 4:26 pm
m&m, I never meant to imply that you would go about judging people because of their sexuality. I doubt very much you would; you’re far too polite. I doubt very much Naismith would; or just about anyone else would. I have met Mormons who seem to make it their life’s work to tell us every Fast and Testimony meeting that homosexuality is an abomination and gay people are wicked (yes, in so many words), but they seem to be a minority.
In real terms, though, I don’t know what we’re meant to do even if it’s true that homosexuality is a sin. It seems to be in a special category. Lots of things are sins, but most of them, we have to fight in ourselves. We can speak out against lying and stealing because I’m sure we’ve all been tempted to lie and steal, and because these things hurt people directly. But if homosexuality is a sin – well, let’s face it, I’ve been given a free pass on that one. I’m not tempted to suddenly become a lesbian. And being gay doesn’t hurt anyone. So if it’s a sin, what am I supposed to do about it, anyway?
Lessie – you drew the right conclusions, I have no problem with gay marriage.
Comment by Quimby — July 24, 2007 @ 4:50 pm
Janet,
Seeing as there have been quotes that weren’t quoted correctly, I tink it’s hard to discuss what was said without the original speech in front of us. There are plenty of ways to interpret what she said. For example, consider this comment from Geoff B in the T&S thread, and how he interpreted the Hitler comment:
“Sister Dew’s point is extremely valid — gay “marriage” is a bedrock values issue, just as Hitler’s rise was a bedrock values issue. Will Church members be fooled by the propaganda, just as millions of Germans were, or will they actually read what the scriptures have to say on the issue and follow what the prophet and the apostles have to say? Sister Dew is coming down on the side of following the prophet and the apostles.”
Rhetoric IS important, but IMO, so is rhetoric when interpreting or representing someone else’s words. I remember reading her talk and thinking it was forceful, but I can’t remember if I thought her comments on this vein came across as offensive. (Then again, if it was taken down, maybe it was concerning and others agree with you. I dunno.) I’d still like to leave room for teh possibility that not everyone viewed her words as homophobic and inappropriate and may have interpreted them differently 9e.g., the comment above). (Please note that I agree completely with you that how we say things matters, and it’s something I personally am constantly striving to improve — but thats’ part of my point– this is a process for all of us, even Sister Dew.)
I don’t see any true logical harm in homosexual sex
Don’t know if this helps at all, but it was in thinking about how the plan of salvation is laid out and what eternal life means that helped me see that the only logical position for the prophets to take is to speak out against homosexual sex and marriage because, according to our teachings, such a relationship cannot be continued into the next life. Considering their role to preach and uphold that plan, it would be counter to their prophetic mantle to encourage or uphold something that doesn’t provide for the highest of blessings. They have to preach what they believe is the ideal, what are the standards for the blessings of exaltation. When I made that connection, it helped their position make so much more sense to me, and made me want to uphold that position all the more. Do we care enough — even love enough — to at least share the commandments that can get us back to God with others? So in a sense, isn’t it our business, if we have been warned, to warn our neighbor as it were? Not to judge and criticize and condemn, but to love and share and teach?
On the flip side, I realize as Nick said that there are many who think that we have nothing but religious principles on which to share this point of view. I don’t know that I fully agree with that, but I do understand what he is saying and it does make it harder to communicate without boatloads of hands-down studies that can speak to the more intellectual at heart who feel that our sharing is nothing more than shoving religion down their throats. I think studies aren’t a source of truth, but I know that some do, and although I think there are some out there, getting into study wars (which always happens) doesn’t accomplish much anyway.
Comment by m&m — July 24, 2007 @ 5:08 pm
And being gay doesn’t hurt anyone.
See my comment above, but again, what if, eternally, living a gay sexual life does hurt our brothers and sisters? Even if it hurts no one else around (I don’t agree with this ultimately, but let’s ignore that idea for a minute), what if it does ulimtately (or maybe even mortally) hurt those of our brothers and sisters who have this as part of their lives? Your questions get to an important point: What do we do?
Perhaps we share the gospel as much as we can, and uphold these standards because we love, not as an antithesis to love. ??
It may be that people like e. and Samantha and Janet’s friend will be more able to do this, as people who understand first-hand what ti’s like to face this head-on with faith. It’s really not the same to have a heterosexual person say, “Well, just endure this life and then everything will be OK” when we could never fully appreciate what that means (ala Elder Jensen again).
(janet, perhaps this is some of what might be tied to your friend’s gifts that she feels are inherent with her orientation? Just a thought….)
Thoughts?
Comment by m&m — July 24, 2007 @ 5:19 pm
m&m,
Keep in mind that no revelation on homosexuality has ever been claimed, let alone recorded, in the LDS tradition. Considering the fact that the words of LDS leaders on this subject are nearly identical to those of other conservative christian groups, it should be acknowledged that the rhetoric is a matter of American christian tradition, and not something “revealed” to Mormon or LDS prophets. For that matter, LDS leaders essentially admit this today, when they note that they simply don’t know why some people are gay. No matter how strenuously they may speak on the subject, the fact remains they are parotting other christian churches, and relying on selective passages from the Bible—a book which Mormonism teaches is only true as far as it is translated correctly. Scholars debate the correct translation of these few passages, both Old and New Testament. It’s also frankly odd that religious conservatives pick most of these passages from the Old Testament, but ignore the surrounding commandments on the basis that the Law of Moses has been fulfilled. They pick and choose which Old Testament prohibitions they will try to enforce on others. It should be further noted that there is not a single mention of homosexuality in any of the scriptures brought forth through Joseph Smith.
I’ve been on both sides of this fence. I spent years of nearly fanatical Mormon belief (almost to the point of fundamentalism), during which time I stoutly resisted my normal longings, and even vocally condemned homosexuality on occasion. I’m a lot happier on the opposite side of the fence, and living with integrity in a way which is normal and healthy for me.
Comment by Nick Literski — July 24, 2007 @ 5:50 pm
This is very interesting. I hadn’t thought of it quite like this before.
Doesn’t this idea depend, however, on what “revelation” is, technically speaking? I mean, modern day prophets have been unified in speaking out about homosexuality (and feminism and intellectuals). When is this kind of united prophetic front against some - perceived - societal ill become a “revelation” against it?
Comment by ECS — July 24, 2007 @ 6:29 pm
We can’t be sure how of a “united prophetic front” there is, as LDS leaders were quite silent on the subject until the post-Stonewall gay liberation movement of the 1970s.
Of course, some would trump the Proclamation Against Some Families up to “revelation” status, but remember—it’s not canonized (yet).
Comment by Nick Literski — July 24, 2007 @ 7:17 pm
I mean, modern day prophets have been unified in speaking out about homosexuality (and feminism and intellectuals).
ECS, forgive my shock, but IMO this is completely and totally a misrepresentation of the Church’s position on 2 of the 3 of these different topics. The Proclamation (plus many other teachings through the decades) unites the prophets against homosexuality (hardly insignificant and IMO canonization is unnecessary to call it revelation), but I am beyond scratching my head to think that you will suggest that there is somehow a “united front” against feminists and intellectuals. (Where did that come from??? I don’t remember ever hearing the word feminist said by a leader, minus that one quote from Pres. Packer I’ve only read.) ) Such a suggestion is in my opinion is unfounded and quite misleading. Even unfair. I’m truly sorry you feel somehow vicitmized (targeted?) as a feminist and an intellectual in the Church (I assume that is why you make such a comment), but that seems like nothing more than a cheap shot. I’m stunned. (But comments like that could surely add fuel to the fire for those who are wary of such groups.)
Nick, prophets aren’t necessarily going to have to come up with something completely new to have it be true or to have it be solidified and taught as a result of revelation. Just because the Church’s teachings may resemble something else you have seen doesn’t negate the possibility of revelation. Nice try, though.
Comment by m&m — July 24, 2007 @ 8:34 pm
m&m,
You’ll need to pardon my shock. Is it possible that someone as well-versed in the statements various church leaders have made is unaware of the warnings they have given about feminism and intellectualism? You need look no further than elder Oaks’ interview with PBS for warnings against both, or to the current issue of the Ensign, where feminism comes in for is customary drubbing from elder and sister Hafen. The term “so-called intellectual” has been a running joke since it was coined by Harold B. Lee.
That statement doesn’t mean much in this context, given that the word “homosexuality” is not used in the Proclamation.
Comment by Mark IV — July 24, 2007 @ 9:15 pm
Before m & m gets totally attacked for #129:
It has occasionally happened that feminists, homosexuals, and intellectuals have been lumped together by church leaders as representing threats to the Church. So, m & m, you shouldn’t be shocked by that.
However: you can find plenty of official discourse approving of certain strains of feminist thought (i.e., in the same Elder Oaks’ interview, he talks about the advantages that feminism has brought to his daughters), whereas we never hear anything positive about the movement for gay rights. So, in that sense, m & m is right that we need to be careful when we lump them together, since one is seen as an unalloyed wrong and the other as a mixed bag.
Comment by Julie M. Smith — July 24, 2007 @ 10:04 pm
Mark,
In my mind, there is a big difference between comments here and there about some elements of intellectualism and feminism (while praising other elements!) and condemning homosexual sex and marriage outright (the Proclamation doesn’t have to say homosexuality to make the Church’s position clear.) A “united front” implies that all of the prophets speak repeatedly and consistenly against all intellectualism and feminism (not an interview here (which type of thing people are always very quick to point out isn’t an official representation of Church policy or doctrine when they don’t like what is said) and a comment there).
Part of my concern, too, is that these terms mean so many things to so many people. Education is part of intellectualism to a degree, and yet education is praised. Elder Oaks in his interview praises elements of feminism (as has, off the top of my head) Pres. Faust, not in so many words, but still). There are appropriate forms of intellectualism and appropriate, gospel-consistent elements of feminism. On the other hand, there is no element of homosexual sexuality or marriage that is praised or supported or recognized by our leaders. These concepts are of a different ilk, IMO.
Again, I’m not saying that nothing has ever been said about intellectualism and feminism, but I just don’t see it as the same “united front” in the same way as we see homosexuality addressed, directly and indirectly. Whittle the teachings down to General Conference addresses and the difference becomes all the more clear, IMO.
Comment by m&m — July 24, 2007 @ 10:06 pm
Julie, looks like our comments crossed paths in cyberspace. And you said it all more succinctly, so thanks. (And obviously with a little less of the shock factor affecting the emotion in your comment. Sorry for that, folks.)
Comment by m&m — July 24, 2007 @ 10:10 pm
what if, eternally, living a gay sexual life does hurt our brothers and sisters?
what if, temporally, condemning a gay sexual life does hurt our brothers and sisters?
If it’s a question of weighing Mogaria’s testimony of her temporal experience vs someone’s speculation about eternity, I’ll go with M’s testimony.
Even if it hurts no one else around … what if it does ulimtately … hurt those of our brothers and sisters who have this as part of their lives?
We need to be able to recognize misguided attempts to protect people from themselves. The struggle against slavery was absolutely right because it demanded the elimination of a non-consensual social arrangement. To the extent that polygamy was consensual, it should not have been lumped in with slavery back in 1856. That it was shows just how misguided otherwise well-intentioned folks can be.
Perhaps we share the gospel as much as we can, and uphold these standards because we love, not as an antithesis to love. ??
What meaning can love and fellowship have if our ears are shut to personal narratives grounded in experience?
Sorry, but your interest in the stories that “e. and Samantha and Janet’s friend” have to tell seems to be all about using their stories to reassure yourself about the rightness of your own thinking rather than a concern for their experience.
Hopefully, “e. and Samantha and Janet’s friend” are still writing their stories. What happens if one of their stories takes an unexpected turn that diminishes its usefulness to orthodox believers? If so, oh well, the orthodox will no doubt find new narrators to satisfy themselves with … can’t go allowing personal narrative to interfere with The Narrative, now can we?
Comment by Chino Blanco — July 24, 2007 @ 10:23 pm
m&m,
So, do you still think that ECS was taking a cheap shot?
I’ll still assert that there are plenty of references to feminism and intellectualism, even just limited to GC, and that over 90% of them are negative. We don’t say feminism much, but search for the word “liberation” on lds.org and you’ll find all kinds of condemnation and even ridicule which is pretty lame, imo. And often, on those occasions when intellectualism or feminism are mentioned in a somewhat positive light, it amounts to damning with faint praise.
Furthermore, we need to be a little more careful and not equate homosexuality with homosexual behavior. The behavior itself has been routinely denounced, but I have heard our leaders express appreciation and admiration for homosexuals who try to maintain their faith. In our eagerness and haste to condemn all those who engage in homosexual activity, we often make the road all the more difficult for those with SSA who nonetheless attempt to remain faithful. I think your comments 129 and 132 are prime examples.
Comment by Mark IV — July 24, 2007 @ 10:44 pm
Mark,
I’m fine with the possibility that it wasn’t a cheap shot, and now I see that might have been hasty. Sorry, ECS.
Mark, I still think you are overstating the emphasis though. (e.g., The search I did on “liberation” resulted in 10 talks, 3 of which had any relevance. “intellectualism resulted in two talks, one of which made the distinction about “inappropriate intellectualism,” which means there is an appropriate sort; “feminism” gave 0 results.)
I do agree with striving to make a distinction between homosexual activity and homosexuality, so where I missed that, it was not intentional. Please note that I have made that distinction, even in #132, as well as in other comments in this thread. I’m right there with you in my heart, so sorry it didn’t come through on these last two comments as you would have liked.
Chino, clearly we se differently on the doctrinal issues. No need for sarcasm, though, just share your point of view and let me have mine. You clearly have no idea of the concern I do have. Please don’t make assumptions about my heart.
Comment by m&m — July 25, 2007 @ 12:33 am
m&m, it’s not just that what LDS leaders say has been said before. It’s also that it’s directly out of the evangelical “ex-gay movement” handbook. Last week’s Church News even held up NARTH (the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) as an expert source, for goodness’ sake! This group’s tactics and pseudopsychology have been roundly condemned by legitimate mental health professionals. Among other things, they pretend to “cure” homosexuality by teaching lesbians to apply makeup, and gay men to play basketball.
You may choose to consider the Proclamation Against Some Families as “revelation” if you wish, but Mormonism teaches that it’s *not* an accepted revelation binding upon members unless and until it is canonized.
Comment by Nick Literski — July 25, 2007 @ 12:45 am
m&m, I am quite sure you are well-intentioned, please accept my apology if you felt I suggested otherwise, and thank you for the opportunity to pull out my favorite Bushman quote:
“As long as we’re all polite to one another, there isn’t going to be true understanding.”
Mogaria suggested that we need need need to talk about sexuality issues and quotes John Byetheway asking: we’re all here so why can’t we talk about it?
I would suggest that one of the reasons Magoria might feel she can’t talk about it is that playing nice (whether here or in a church meeting) is so much more highly-valued than robust parlance. I was guilty of perpetuating this myself. How many times did I self-censor rather than bear a testimony of my true convictions? Plenty.
Anyway, niceties seem like no match for the kind of strong rhetoric gay Mormon kids are up against.
Comment by Chino Blanco — July 25, 2007 @ 3:02 am
ola señor and amigas …
#119: I don’t even want to argue whether homosexuality is wrong or right with you. I have my position on the matter, as do you.
#136: … just share your point of view and let me have mine.
But, I disagree with the position you’ve taken and don’t like your point of view, so now what? I thought staking out a position and sharing one’s POV usually happened at the start of a conversation, not at the end.
Comment by Chino Blanco — July 25, 2007 @ 6:16 am
m&m - I’m sure you’d win a “Battle of the GA Quotes” about this issue, but Mark IV clarified my comment nicely (thanks, Mark!). Feminists and intellectuals (usually preceded by the term “so called”) are routinely vilified by Church leaders as “threats” to the Church and to individual members’ testimonies. Which is not to say, as Julie pointed out, that GAs don’t recognize some of the benefits already secured by the feminist movement.
Whether the Church’s overwhelmingly negative discourse about feminists, homosexual behavior, and intellectualism represents a “united front” is a matter of perception, I guess.
By the way, your apology for my perceived victimization is I’m sure well meaning, but it isn’t necessary at all. I don’t feel persecuted or victimized in the least by my membership in the Church.
Comment by ECS — July 25, 2007 @ 8:05 am
Chino,
I understand that you disagree. I’m just asking you not to use sarcasm or try to suggest that I am simply trying to “satisfy myself” with stories that are somehow self-justifying. I have tried to make it clear that I’m not trying ot take some self-congratulatory position on this. It hurts me that people hurt because of this, and I want to do what I can to reach out, but I simply cannot pretend that I don’t believe what I do with regard to the Church’s standards and teachings.
ECS, if you don’t feel persecuted (and I’m glad you don’t), I guess I fail to see the point in bringing feminists and intellectuals into this discussion at all. It goes back to feeling like an unnecessary (or at least threadjacky) comment.
When the GAs set out a proclamation taking a stand on what is not feminist and not intellctual and when we hear something about these things from multiple people in nearly every conference, then let’s talk about a united front against these things. Until then, I think that they ought not be lumped together with the stand against homosexual behavior and marriage. It creates IMO a sense that the leaders are against intell. and fem. to the same degree and consistency and absoluteness that they teach about homosexual behavior and marriage, and that IMO is simply incorrect.
Comment by m&m — July 25, 2007 @ 1:01 pm
m&m, do a quick search on lds.org and you’ll find plenty of references to “so-called” intellectuals and the perils of feminism. Here’s one to get you started from Elder Boyd K. Packer in 1993:
Pres. Packer “lumps” feminists and intellectuals in with gays and lesbians, so whether _you_ feel that the Church views feminism and intellectualism in the same light as homosexuality is beside the point. Feminists and intellectuals have been (and are) criticized routinely by Church leaders. As I said before, whether one believes this criticism is a united front is a matter of perspective.
Comment by ECS — July 25, 2007 @ 1:31 pm
Here’s what I’d like to know: at what point does one graduate from being a “so-called” scholar or intellectual and become a real one? It’s such a bizarre little linguistic twitch.
Comment by Janet — July 25, 2007 @ 1:33 pm
‘Mogaria’ is an Indian surname, isn’t it?
So is ‘Gandhi’.
A fellow by that name said “we must be the change we wish to see in the world.”
Comment by Chino Blanco — July 25, 2007 @ 1:51 pm
“First they came for the gays, but I was not gay so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the feminists and the intellectuals, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the bloggers, but I had long since given up blogging so I did not speak out.
And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.”
Comment by Chino Blanco — July 25, 2007 @ 2:02 pm
You Know Everything About Same-Sex Marriage
… because you already know everything there is to know about same-sex marriage.
That’s right, you already know everything there is to know. There are no surprises anymore, so each side of the battle is really just waiting for the other to lose steam, change its mind, or age out and die.
In case you think I’m trying to avoid engaging the arguments, here are the major talking points from both camps:
Arguments against same-sex marriage:
(1) Marriage is an institution defined historically as the union between one man and one woman.
(2) Children are optimally cared for in homes with a mother and a father.
(3) The purpose of marriage is procreation and societal stability.
(4) Same-sex marriage is an untested and dangerous social experiment.
(5) Same-sex marriage is part of a slippery slope to universal depravity.
(6) Gay relationships themselves are immoral.
Arguments against the arguments against same-sex marriage:
(1) You don’t have a bit of evidence for any of that, and
(2) Please, quit being a jerk.
See? No surprises.
Now, I want to confess that I’m very gay, and the rest of this article will be biased appropriately. I also want to confess that I have no idea what marriage is. That’s ok, though, because if we had enough time and wine, I’m pretty sure you’ll discover that you don’t either. This should not prove any impediment to the conversation.
You might notice that the arguments against same-sex marriage seem to be more numerous than the arguments for it. There are two reasons for that: first, most of them aren’t actually arguments against; and second, arguments don’t get you very far in this sort of thing anyway.
Let’s start with that first part. Even though I put six things on the list, most of them aren’t arguments against same-sex marriage at all. Argument (1), for example, isn’t against same-sex marriage–it’s for the strengthening of hetero-sex marriages. Same with (2). Argument (3) is similar, except that given the now-public knowledge that men and women don’t have to be married or even in the same room to conceive a baby, it actually argues for extending marriage to anybody willing to raise a kid in tandem.
Two of them are just smoke screen distractions. Argument (4) has always sounded silly to me, because everything new is potentially dangerous, and same-sex marriage isn’t untested anymore; and Argument (5) is popular among juridical thinkers, but is equally a non-starter in the real world. Really it is: why can 5th cousins but not 4th cousins be married? Because we drew the line there. Why will allowing gays to marry not automatically allow people to marry patio furniture? Because we’ll draw the line there as well. Those who find themselves in a committed relationship with a wicker bistro set will have their own fight to fight. I will happily stand behind their right to love whatever they love. They, however, will be responsible for figuring out the tax implications of their blessed union.
That brings us to Argument (6): Gay relationships are themselves immoral. What can you even say to that? Nothing. That’s when you stop the debate and see if the person wants to grab dinner one night instead. Then you move in down the street a few years later, go shopping with them, watch their dog while they’re out of town, invite them over for Super Bowl parties, call them to gossip, swap turns carpooling the kids to school, and just live. It might take five or ten years, but they’ll figure it out, without you ever saying a word.
The nice thing about the “against same-sex marriage” list of arguments is that it isn’t getting any longer. They’ve had thousands of years to tell us why we’re broken, and about forty years to figure out why we can’t get married (the first American cases were in 1971, according to HRC). Based on what I’ve been hearing for the past 27 years of my own life, it sounds like they’ve run out of new ideas.
On the other hand, every committed same-sex couple is another argument for same-sex marriage. Every kid who comes out is another reason to quit being a jerk and let him dream of white picket fences and a family and love and all the stuff that other kids think they’ll have before they learn how the world really works.
I’m highly optimistic that over the next ten years we won’t need arguments anymore. There is no need to debate what you can plainly see: that it’s love that makes a family, and the energy and breath we waste fighting over who should be a family could be much better spent supporting and encouraging the families that continue to exist whether we legally recognize them or not. It doesn’t require even a minute of legal research, or a page of historical reference. It needs neither clever twists of equality doctrine nor the due process guarantee. To see that same-sex marriage should not be denied any longer takes only a single ounce of kindness.
–Robert Latham
Comment by Chino Blanco — July 25, 2007 @ 2:28 pm
ECS, I am aware of that quote, but it’s a bit of a tired argument to use that one, if you ask me. Again, I’m not saying nothing is said, but pointing out that the emphasis, consistency across leaders (united front to me means they all talk about it repeatedly), and extent of the alleged problem is different. Contextually, I think they are different ballgames as well.
Comment by m&m — July 25, 2007 @ 3:21 pm
Chino, I fear that with #145 you’ve invoked Godwin’s law, since that little ditty usually alludes to the 3rd Reich (which has been ghosting about this thread already but is nontheless ironic when we consider in just what sense it’s been ghosting).
I have no personal beef w/gay marriage, but implying that opposition to it is akin to being a Nazi? Come now. I struggle enough with my faith on this issue–thank goodness it’s not quite as dire as you imply.
On the flip side, please continue quoting Ghandhi. I even own a T-shirt with that lovely little quotation on it. I just wish fulfilling it were as easy as I envisioned at 16 :(.
The Latham article is good food for thought (and even has a laugh or two). I have some relatives who help run those (cough) pro-family organizations which so fondly assert some of the arguments Latham tackles. I wonder if they’d read it if I passed it along, or just burn me in effigy (cough, again, cough). Then again, I also wonder if there’s a point in arguing with organizations which also asserts that all gays are child molesters. Do you even engage those folks, or would you advocate just walking away? (I’m tired, can you tell? Exhaustion b reeds cynicism even in me.)
[Complete off-topic trivia: I’ve been reading your name as “Chico Blanco ” for days, thinking of you as “white guy.” I think I need a new prescription for my spectacles).
Comment by Janet — July 25, 2007 @ 3:22 pm
M&M–thank goodness it isn’t a consistent message coming from all our leaders! Seriously, then I’d just have to crawl into a little bitty hole and cry for a while.
I. Need.A. Real. Nap.
Comment by Janet — July 25, 2007 @ 3:25 pm
Janet, since they have recognized the good that is consistent with teh gospel, I’m not sure there is a need to hole up and cry.
But *I* will hole up and cry if all of this will cause someone to go to the extreme and suggest that all of feminism and intellectualism is hunky-dory. ECS and Mark have already made it clear that that’s not the message either.
Anyway, ECS, I’m ready to protest on the basis of equal rights. I share a quote to support my point and I get blasted. Even Chino and the author got to quote John Bytheway (!!) to support their points. (Not that I’m against talking about this issue.) Does that mean I get one quote? Just one?
Chino, if you have any interest in engaging people like me, you probably ought to stick to personal narrative.
Comment by m&m — July 25, 2007 @ 4:15 pm
Sorry, Janet. Most “cry rooms” have been eliminated from LDS chapels, since they’ve been deemed unneccessary.
Comment by Nick Literski — July 25, 2007 @ 4:29 pm
Nick–Oh, how I miss the elaborate couch arrangements in the BYU women’s bathrooms.
I did catch a magic 20 minutes at the end of baby’s nap. I feel much better. A Red Bull (clearly I am an evil-beverage consuming heretic) helped.
And now, if you can believe it, I’m on my way to the Church Museum of Art and History to pick up a painting I had reproduced. Non-schmaltzy, I assure you, for my little fellow’s nursery.
Comment by Janet — July 25, 2007 @ 4:35 pm
m&m, sometimes it’s easier to ask for forgiveness rather than for permission.
Duel by GA Quote is all fun and games until someone starts crying. Or shall we Duel “to the pain”?
Here, I’ll start:
Comment by ECS — July 25, 2007 @ 4:40 pm
M&M–I doubt anyone on the planet would argue that all intellectualism is good. It’s value-neutral (unlike feminism or the gay rights movements, which are both value-based, moral fights for something whether or not you agree with them). Intellectualism is a means to many many ends. To go all Harry Potter on you–it’s your choices that metter. So where someobyd goes with their smarts, that’s the thing.
But I am curious to know what BKP thought the admirable antithesis to intellectualism was–being an idiot? He must have been using the word far differently than I do..
Comment by Janet — July 25, 2007 @ 4:45 pm
ECS, believe it or not, I’m not actually into pain — experienceing it or inflicting it. And I’d rather not cry. You?
Comment by m&m — July 25, 2007 @ 5:11 pm
Janet, I suspect the antithesis is not contained in some other movement, it’s simply in not having the following attitude:
“the conviction that the Church somehow is doing something wrong to members or that the Church is not doing enough for them.”
Again, taking comments like his in context often helps a lot to see what he is getting at and why, IMO.
Comment by m&m — July 25, 2007 @ 5:14 pm
…not that that wasn’t obvious (except that I think it sort of misses the point to say that he must have had an actual antithesis to intellctualism in mind.) I sometimes feel like we get caught too much on words and don’t spend enough time getting to context and content associated with their use.
Comment by m&m — July 25, 2007 @ 5:17 pm
Sorry, m&m, that was supposed to be a joke from “The Princess Bride”. I’ve no interest in dueling with you, either.
Comment by ECS — July 25, 2007 @ 5:17 pm
Come to think of it, he might suggest that revelation might be a nice option. Perhaps not an antithesis, but it’s one of his favorite topics. Certainly a complement, no?
Comment by m&m — July 25, 2007 @ 5:21 pm
I think this statement is a tad insulting, honestly. There is a world of difference between thinking the Church is doing something wrong and thinking the Church is not doing enough, but by tacking on that last bit, it seems designed to make any oppposition to any policy seem selfish, self-centred, and shallow.
Comment by Quimby — July 25, 2007 @ 5:32 pm
Or maybe it’s as simple as a request for a bit more gratitude and a bit less criticism.
Comment by m&m — July 25, 2007 @ 5:41 pm
#148:
I was amusing myself with my #145 and your reply brought a chuckle as well, cheers. In any case, you can’t claim an instance of Godwin’s Law here, since Nazis were already mentioned in the initial post.
Do you even engage those folks, or would you advocate just walking away?
I’m still here commenting, aren’t I?
So, if you want my advice, chica: walk away and engage from a safe distance, preferably by posting anonymously on the Internets. I know that doing so makes me feel like a real profile in courage, but experience may vary.
Comment by Chino Blanco — July 25, 2007 @ 9:27 pm
Chino, if you have any interest in engaging people like me, you probably ought to stick to personal narrative.
Did I miss the part where you showed an interest in actually tackling the issue raised by the author’s post?
A discussion that begins like this:
I am a 54 year old Mother who faithfully raised my children in the church and severely damaged my lovely gay son in so doing.
Doesn’t end like this:
maybe it’s as simple as a request for a bit more gratitude and a bit less criticism
Unless you really think that the biggest problem with Mogaria’s post is that she forgot to say ‘Thank You’.
Comment by Chino Blanco — July 25, 2007 @ 9:52 pm
Chino–
Ah yes, I guess it does only count the first time, doesn’t it?
And hey now! I don’t think anyone here would argue something as malicious as “all gay people are child molesters”. So far as I can tell, nobody in this thread thinks gay people are bad people inherently. Thank goodness, because that’s more than I could take on a long and somewhat difficult day!
Sadly for me, I have a self-imposed policy against anonymity online so far as myself is concerned. I’ve been waging a many year-long campaign to get these relatives to see that their assumptions are easily disproven and don’t know if I’ve gotten an inch. Maybe your “safe distance” recommendation is quite a good one for me, since I appear to be changing nothing and hurting myself in the process because it rips my heart out with a spoon to hear such vile things said about people I love, by people I love.
And now to bed, in hopes of rosier spectacles tomorrow.
Comment by Janet — July 25, 2007 @ 9:56 pm
Janet-
The issue is not whether we think gay people are bad inherently.
The issue is that our rhetoric leads our kids to believe that they are bad inherently.
I would suggest we stop worrying so much about ourselves and worry a bit more about them.
Comment by Chino Blanco — July 25, 2007 @ 10:10 pm
Why I am both strident and optimistic (here comes that personal narrative you asked for, m&m):
My ancestry is European. My wife’s is Chinese. Our kids are, surprisingly enough, interracial.
Both sets of grandparents love our Taiwanese-American kids just as much and no differently than their other grandkids.
Life is good and I am grateful.
But what if my wife and I had met 50 years ago?
I suspect that our life would not have been so easy back then and that my kids would have been exposed to plenty of harmful rhetoric growing up. I imagine explaining to my son and daughter what the word ‘miscegenation’ means, and just the thought of that scene makes me angry.
Thankfully, we’ve mostly put that bit of ugliness behind us.
50 years from now, I suspect we will look back on these discussions about our gay children with a profound sense of regret and feel shame that we wasted so much effort on defending a transient belief and so easily forgot that, ultimately, the kids are more important than whatever it is we think we believe at this moment.
I am not Abraham.
Comment by Chino Blanco — July 25, 2007 @ 10:43 pm
My younger brother is gay - we are very close and it has been hard for me and for everyone else who loves him, to see him struggle to reconcile his sexual identity to his religious upbringing, which he tried desperately to hold on to. While his struggle is not something I would wish on anyone, it has changed me in ways I never could have imagined.
Growing up in a conservative religion in a conservative town, I probably would have been right on board with Ms. Dew’s controversial statement a decade ago - same sex attraction was something very foreign and sinful to me, and it never crossed my mind that it could have a direct impact in my life. Even when I found out that my brother was gay, I fasted and prayed for years that this burden would be removed from him, and that he would eventually be ‘cured.’ It took a long time for my family (including my brother) to realign our thinking on this topic, and be comfortable with loving and fully supporting a gay family member.
Like someone above, I feel a great deal of ‘cognitive dissonance’ here - I was raised to follow the leadership of the church, but so much of what is taught on this issue just doesn’t add up. On a local level, bishops I have talked to about my brother have shrugged it off as a passing phase, or suggested that “he’s probably just afraid of girls.” Counsellors at LDS family services told him that his feelings were just the “sexualization of his feelings towards his distant father” and that with a little therapy he could be happily married in the temple to a woman. Stake Presidents have offered material on the evergreen program, and one gave me a scathing lecture that began wigh “homosexuality is rooted in death…” (Not very helpful.)
On a more global level we have the words of various general authorities and former relief society general presidency members whose hard line on the issue often conceals any compassion or tolerance they might feel for individuals that struggle with same sex attraction.
The more I have dealt with well meaning priesthood leadership, the more I have come to realize that whether they are Apostles or Stake Presidents or Bishops or Mission Presidents or Zone leaders, they are just men (or boys in the case of zone leaders). Sometimes they’re inspired, sometimes their words are their own opinion, or a reflection of their upbringing or cultural circumstance. So when I hear statements like this
In response to 113
…I am a little bit wary. There is significant danger in letting the leadership of the church do all our thinking for us. The Lord has commanded us to be obedient, yes to our leaders, but also to the promptings of the spirit, and our own conscience. He has given us minds and the ability to think and act rationally. I have learned that wonderful as the leaderhip of the church is, I am still responsible to use my agency to decide how I will feel and think and behave. I claim no authority to declare what is and isn’t right for the whole church, but I do claim the authority to use the my mental and spiritual faculties to direct my path. Unlike the Catholic church with its problematic doctrine of “papal infallibility,” we as Latter-day Saints are entitled to think critically about what we are taught rather than accept blindly any and all words spoken from the pulpit, because just because a leader has declared something to be, does not always mean that it is so.
There are many other ways in which my brother’s unique life experience has changed me, but those will have to wait for another post.
Comment by Kathryn — July 26, 2007 @ 12:29 am
I am a 54 year old Mother who faithfully raised my children in the church and severely damaged my lovely gay son in so doing.
Doesn’t end like this:
maybe it’s as simple as a request for a bit more gratitude and a bit less criticism
Chino,
That particular sentence had NOTHING to do with the poster’s original post. It was specifically limited to Quimby’s comment and her comment alone. You are being grossly unfair by twisting my words and by taking them completely out of context.
Comment by m&m — July 26, 2007 @ 1:20 am
I know, but at least I succeeded in engaging you without sticking to personal narrative.
In any case, at this point, as far as personal narrative is concerned, I’m comfortable leaving it to folks like Kathryn, who tell it better than I ever could.
Comment by Chino Blanco — July 26, 2007 @ 1:52 am
m&m, by the way, did I really misread your #161?
You seem to be saying that this:
the conviction that the Church somehow is doing something wrong to members or that the Church is not doing enough for them.
is simply this:
a request for a bit more gratitude and a bit less criticism.
If so, I think you’re absolutely correct in your reading of the sentiment behind the statement.
I also think Quimby was exceedingly generous.
This statement is more than a tad insulting in just about any context.
It’s downright offensive sitting there below Mogaria’s post.
Comment by Chino Blanco — July 26, 2007 @ 2:52 am
There is significant danger in letting the leadership of the church do all our thinking for us.
Actually, Kathryn, I’ve spent a good part of the last decade thinking hard about this, and actually started thinking about it when it hit my own family when I was a teenager. I’ve spent a lot of time and energy on this topic in my own mind, heart and spirit. As much as I understand why you might assume so, please don’t assume that because someone has chosen to uphold the position the Church takes that it is done casually or without thinking. It IS possible for someone to think and struggle through this difficult issue and still come out on the side of what the prophets teach. Don’t automatically equate agreement with blind, mindless following.
I am sorry that you and yours have faced situations where people have said things that aren’t helpful. I do agree that this is a learning process for many in how to reach out in love and concern and sensitivity. Part of the reason I have spent hours and hours discussing this topic in forums such as this is because I do care and do want to understand better.
I do think people on both sides of the issue could do better in terms of kindness, compassion, love and seeking to understand, not assume or judge.
Comment by m&m — July 26, 2007 @ 3:03 am
… 1st line do-over … sheesh ….
You seem to be saying that BKP’s condemning of this:
Comment by Chino Blanco — July 26, 2007 @ 3:09 am
it hit my own family when I was a teenager.
People like me appreciate personal narrative, too, m&m.
If you want to talk about it, that is. I know I’m hardly the one to be making such a request, but it’s genuine.
Comment by Chino Blanco — July 26, 2007 @ 4:37 am
Although, I have to wonder how I would feel if I was young and gay and I heard one of my family members describe me as an “it” that “hit” the family? Noone wants their family to get “hit”. I’m guessing I’d feel extremely guilty for being that “it”.
Comment by Chino Blanco — July 26, 2007 @ 5:03 am
Look at me, I’m finally posting here again. I apologize to all of those who enjoyed my absence. I think the biggest problem with this conflict is terms like “sexual identity” and the concept that same sex attraction is sinful.
Firstly, who you are attracted to has nothing to do with your identity, truly. Unfortunately, many people involved in the homosexual dichotomy persist in defining themselves by their sexual orientation - on both sides of the issue.
Secondly, being attracted to anyone is not sinful; it is what you do with that attraction that is a sin. That is true for both homo- and heterosexual attraction. The difficult difference comes in marriage and the purpose for marriage, and deciding whether or not marriage is appropriate for a same-sex-attraction situation. The Lord has told us that sex outside of marriage is a sin, and that marriage is ordained only for a man and a woman. That means that acting on the impulse to indulge in same-sex attraction is a sin, and always will be a sin because it is outside of marriage, just as any sex outside of marriage is a sin.
This isn’t an easy truth to swallow who find themselves on the same-sex-attraction side of the equation, but it isn’t easy for me to swallow a great many things that I want to do, but have been told by the Lord I should not do. I don’t see how same-sex-attraction is any different than any other urge to act against the will of God. Therefore, the cast-the-first-stone law should apply to any wishing to condemn those suffering from it.
Comment by SilverRain — July 26, 2007 @ 5:03 am
Hasn’t it already been established that there are plenty of LDS leaders who don’t abide by the cast-the-first-stone law?
If so, what to make of it?
Comment by Chino Blanco — July 26, 2007 @ 5:13 am
I think I understand. It’s not an orientation, certainly not an identity, but more like two sides of an equation.
So, there must be something about me that I can add, subtract, multiply or divide by to get myself over to that side of the equation where the sum of my parts makes me whole in the eyes of the Church, shouldn’t there?
I think I’m getting too old for this new math
Comment by Chino Blanco — July 26, 2007 @ 5:29 am
There are two sides of the answer to your #176. Firstly, they are our leaders, and do have a responsibility to not condone sin. Their words condemning a sin do not necessarily translate to a behavior towards a sinner on a personal level. The gospel of Christ has always been one of love towards a sinner and lack of tolerance for sin. Although Christ supped with sinners, he never condoned the behaviors of usury, adultery, superciliousness or selfishness. In the few times I’ve met any leader of the general Church, I have never failed to feel an outpouring of love towards me as a person. I have never failed to feel the “pure love of Christ” from them. Everything they say must be seen through the lens of this love to be understood in its proper context. They do not condemn sin in an attempt to separate those who sin from those who do not (everyone sins!) They do so because they love us with Christ’s perfect love and they know that certain behaviors will not lead to happiness, in the end.
Secondly, they are children of our Heavenly Father who have been called by Him to lead. This means that they are in the process of being instructed by Him in how best to lead; they are learning and progressing just as we are. If we seek to fill ourselves with the love and light of the Spirit, we will see them through the same lens of Christlike love, and give them the same benefit of the doubt, tolerance and love we continually seek from them.
Comment by SilverRain — July 26, 2007 @ 6:43 am
So, if Mogaria feels that she damaged her gay son by raising him in the church, what she needs to do is learn greater tolerance of an imperfect leadership?
Comment by Chino Blanco — July 26, 2007 @ 8:15 am
#179–Absolutely.
Comment by e. — July 26, 2007 @ 8:43 am
#180–That would seem to create space for a middle in this discussion. If the leadership can be sustained in their state of imperfection, it would allow Mogaria to faithfully ignore their bad advice and damaging rhetoric, wouldn’t it?
Comment by Chino Blanco — July 26, 2007 @ 8:59 am
# 139 - But, I disagree with the position you’ve taken and don’t like your point of view, so now what? I thought staking out a position and sharing one’s POV usually happened at the start of a conversation, not at the end.
Chino, Apparently it isn’t enough to try and find a middle ground with you. It is a given that the position of Nick, You and I is different regarding the sinfulness of homosexuality. I don’t feel a compulsion to hit you over the head and engage in contention regarding this. I pray for you, and hope that you strengthen your testimony of Jesus Christ. I think instead of just pulling together (or pushing apart), we should all walk towards Christ, and see where the path takes us. My position, and point of view, is that our principles should be informed by our testimony of Christ. Given that, we should be as kind, generous, giving and christlike to others as we can.
Christ’s acceptance of the sinner was genuine and complete, but did not include an acceptance of the sin. We should act likewise.
Comment by ola Senor — July 26, 2007 @ 10:43 am
One way to help children struggling with this issue would be to let out-of-date counsel fade into oblivion and focus on what our leaders our telling us now.
If Mogaria can safely exclude from her testimony all that prior counsel that has been rendered inoperative by the passing of time, can she not also include in this same testimony all her beliefs regarding the nature of the new counsel that the future must necessarily bring?
Perhaps a way to solve the problem of maintaining her testimony, but not particularly useful in the repair of her son, unless he might benefit from knowing that Mom’s rejection of all damaging past and present counsel and practice has now become an important component of her testimony.
Comment by Chino Blanco — July 26, 2007 @ 10:57 am
#182: What is a given today, may not be tomorrow. One can always hope. Some even manage to believe. But even the strongest of beliefs may change with time. Yes, even the belief that there is something wrong with our gay brothers and sisters. The children of interracial marriages have certainly benefited from miscegenation getting knocked off most people’s list of sins, and I would hope the same could happen for those who don’t love someone of a different color but rather someone of the same sex. Unless you want to shut your eyes to all the changes in doctrine, counsel and practice in the church, I don’t see how you can view a testimony as anything but a work-in-progress, which is how I view the church as well. Once people stop seeing it that way, well, you get stuck with a lot of intractable problems and charity, love and understanding get sacrificed in the effort to prove that what we believe today, right now, is in fact, the whole story.
Comment by Chino Blanco — July 26, 2007 @ 11:17 am
i have resisted your oh so intelligent comments for long enough!
Thank you for saying what I cannot.
Comment by mfranti — July 26, 2007 @ 11:32 am
Thanks, mfranti, I appreciate FMH letting me hang out in this thread for so long. I guess I’ve been hoping the discussion would develop into figuring out a possible framework or maybe just some ‘how-to’ tips for actually going about Raising Gay Children in the Church … sure sounds like a good title for a guidebook, maybe it already exists. I’m not someone who’d be aware of what’s currently available for LDS parents of gay children unless I were to hear about it here. Anyway, now I’ll have to re-read the thread and see if maybe I just missed all the good pointers because of my own silly rush to get in the odd zinger here and there.
Comment by Chino Blanco — July 26, 2007 @ 11:57 am
184 - That is exactly why we should look to Christ, immovable and perfect, as our guide and star, rather than the progress of those around us.
That is also why we should treat each other with respect, kindness and love, and not condemnation, ridicule or rudeness.
As to change, just because some things change, does not mean that all things will. In the meantime, we have the guidance of Christ and modern day prophets. I have a testimony of the above, and choose to live my life accordingly.
I don’t think we need to treat children or people substantively different based upon one aspect of their character. I am offended if someone treated me differently based upon only one aspect of my person. Raising blond children in the church? Short children? Heavy Children? Raising children who like bannanas?
We should instead, base our treatment of others on an individual basis. Chino, you are not a “gay person”, you are a person and child of god. That is the most important thing to understand.
Comment by ola Senor — July 26, 2007 @ 12:11 pm
ola, are you serious?
if only it were that easy. you don’t think that being gay makes someone “different” in lds culture? their entire human existence is condemned, regardless of how they actually live their lives.
“love the sinner and hate the sin” that platitude just pisses me off.
how can you compare ssa attraction to any other sinful act when being homosexual is about identity?
Comment by mfranti — July 26, 2007 @ 12:50 pm
Do we really want to get into a discussion of Christ’s teachings about homosexuality? If so, please go first and I’ll try to follow along.
I’m all for respect, kindness and love … except when these words become the spoonful of sugar meant to sweeten the bitter pills of condescension, hypocrisy and prejudice.
I think I’ve laid out my case above for how an individual’s testimony might include beliefs in truths that have not yet been revealed. Without this, it would seem we are stuck parsing and stitching together the writings of our favorite prophets until we finally arrive at what we feel is a correct testimony based only on those prophetic utterances that we happen to consider valid. This approach displaces the notion of personal revelation that would seem to be central to the Mormon faith, and replaces it with something like prophetic precedent, leaving us with nothing but a quasi-legalistic framework for figuring out how and why it is that my testimony seems to be so different from your testimony. Then it’s back to those duelling prophetic utterances and on and on we go …
As a young boy, I never lay awake at night wondering if, God forbid, I might wake up in the morning and find I suddenly liked bananas. It’s not the sort of predilection that would have carried any negative consequences for me one way or the other. As to my orientation, however, I can report that, as a young boy, I felt immense relief when I finally realized that I most certainly liked girls. Maybe too many of us forget that we didn’t always know how we were going to turn out, we just knew that we hoped to turn out in certain ways. You might want to consider asking one of your gay friends to share his or her story with you about when and how they came to know they were gay.
Anyway, thanks, I know I’m not gay. I thought I posted my little personal narrative up top. I’m not here discussing this because of my own sexual orientation, but rather because I think the post we’re commenting under deserves some thoughtful consideration.
…
Switching gears for a moment, I really respect this and it’s what I’d hoped we’d see more of:
After I read Carol Lynn Pearson’s most recent book earlier this year, we actually had a Family Home Evening about how we never ever say “gay” meaning stupid, we never ever make fun of people because of who they love or fall in love with, and we will always love and support our children, no matter what. My boys are 8 and 6. I hope I made it age appropriate for them.
Comment by Chino Blanco — July 26, 2007 @ 1:21 pm
Chino, I did not mean to comment as to which gender you were attracted to, but rather I meant you as in the generic.
Mfranti,
I agree that a person who is attracted to the same gender might be considered “different”. I disagree that “their entire human existence is condemned”. that aside, my comment might be better read as “solely”. I don’t think we should divide people into monolithic uniform groups based solely upon one aspect of their person. Whether that is race, gender, sexual attraction, weight, geography or some other characteristic. People inside these groups are often more alike with those outside the grouping than those within.
Comment by ola Senor — July 26, 2007 @ 2:55 pm
i can’t count the number of times i’ve heard homosexuals and homosexuality referred to as immoral and sinful and against Gods will without taking into account that the individual is a shining example of humanity.
how does language like this NOT make our homosexual children or friends feel condemned? this is the heart of the issue. we talk about “It” as if it is a cancer with no regard that “it” actually is a fundamental part of an individuals existence. you and many other’s can’t see or feel that because you take your gender attraction for granted. you like women, i like men and there you have it, nobody says anything because we are “normal”
ay! #%^&
can’t go on…
Comment by mfranti — July 26, 2007 @ 3:07 pm
#175 SilverRain”
The Lord has told us that sex outside of marriage is a sin, and that marriage is ordained only for a man and a woman. That means that acting on the impulse to indulge in same-sex attraction is a sin, and always will be a sin because it is outside of marriage, just as any sex outside of marriage is a sin.
Let’s be honest here, and percise in our language. What you really mean is that certain members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe that a deity has directly communicated to mortal leaders of said church, that said deity disapproves of homosexual relationships BECAUSE they are not married, and at the same time, has communicated to those leaders that they should oppose the very act of commitment which would supposedly legitimize their sexual relations.
To expect that your belief puts an end to the question for all of humanity is naive at best, and arrogant at worst. Stating your personal faith is not the unquestionable determination which you seem to think it should be. Furthermore, seeking to impose the rules of your particular faith (a very small faith group, btw, compared to many others) upon an entire society is an act of unimagineable hubris.
Comment by Nick Literski — July 26, 2007 @ 3:15 pm
nick,
i have tried to make that argument a thousand times and they just don’t get it.
“but it’s still wrong” or the “truth is the truth” or “the prophet said and he’s the prophet to the whole world” i hear. i come back with, we are only accountable for what we know to be the truth to the particular god that we believe in.
in other words, live your own damn life the way your god said to and and let the next guy live his life they his god said to.
invoking religion as reasons for policy is bad bad bad
Comment by mfranti — July 26, 2007 @ 3:24 pm
wooops!
i didn’t want to post that.
Comment by mfranti — July 26, 2007 @ 3:25 pm
want me to take it down?
Comment by EmilyS — July 26, 2007 @ 3:26 pm
If you want to talk about it, that is. I know I’m hardly the one to be making such a request, but it’s genuine
You are genuine but then completely misrepresent what I said again. Hm. It’s hard to want to share when you keep doing that. (Also note that I have shares some of this above. Have you read my others comments?)
Just to clarify, “it” referred to “this issue” not a person. Do you really think I’m that insensitive? (Is it possible for you to give me the benefit of the doubt here? You aren’t helping your position at all, nor are you helping the discussion, IMO. Respect and kindness need to go both ways on this, Chino. Both ways.)
Comment by m&m — July 26, 2007 @ 3:53 pm
their entire human existence is condemned
mfranti, In my mind this kind of IMO misrepresentation of the Church’s position on homosexual behavior and marriage only adds to the pain or problem. If we are going to help those in the Church, I think we should start by being clear about what the teachings are. This kind of hyperbole is really unfair to all involved, from the gays and their families to the Church and it’s leaders and members. Is their existence difficult? To be sure. Elder Jensen did a great job acknowledging that. But to say their whole existence is condemned seems like unnecessary overkill.
Aren’t we here to learn to need more than what mortality has to offer, to turn to the Savior and find Him? If we find Him, life can and will have meaning. We simply cannot reduce this issue to mortality alone, or we will address it in a shortsided way. I’m NOT trying to minimize the heartrendingly difficult nature of this challenge, but what good is the gospel and a knowledge of God’s eternal plan if we don’t look to it when things really get tough?
Comment by m&m — July 26, 2007 @ 4:02 pm
again, it goes back to language used to describe. wasn’t I specific when i said that?
Comment by mfranti — July 26, 2007 @ 4:05 pm
this is what I said. now, how is that hyperbole? am i not speaking the truth?
Comment by mfranti — July 26, 2007 @ 4:10 pm
A few more thoughts (because I clearly hasn’t said enough..ha ha):
We each need to leave room for the other to follow what they believe to be true. There is clearly a kind of us vs. them mentality that creeps in, and doesn’t help anyone. It’s highly unlikely that anyone will change anyone else’s mind here. . Since we are at an impasse there, all we can do now is try to respect each other and learn to communicate in kindness and love.
What is sobering, IMO, is that we can’t all be right. And by definition this tests us in a different way, tests our charity, tests our ability to love, tests our ability to respect agency and still try to do what we believe to be right. On “both sides” this looks different, and means that we sometimes end up head-to-head. Tough times.
(This is why, for me, having prophets makes all the difference, because I believe they help us cut through to the core of what is true about God’s plan. However, I realize that again, we come head-to-head in a sense because others believe that it’s possible they are wrong on this and so hedge their bets that way.)
Is it possible to stand side-by-side even as we stand head-to-head? What would that look like, I wonder? If it’s possible to stand side-by-side, I don’t think we are there yet. We have to all want that as much as (if not more than) we want to be right. And yet we have to do what we think is right, even if the consequences are hard. No easy answers here.
Comment by m&m — July 26, 2007 @ 4:16 pm
m&m,
If we are going to help those in the Church, I think we should start by being clear about what the teachings are.
Do you really think that gay members of the LDS church aren’t clear on what the teachings of the LDS church are in regard to homosexuality?
Aren’t we here to learn to need more than what mortality has to offer, to turn to the Savior and find Him? If we find Him, life can and will have meaning.
So, all the BILLIONS of non-christians, let alone non-LDS in the world have meaningless lives? Wow. I’m sure they’d be surprised to learn that. (And we wonder why a few extremists among them want to kill christian Americans….)
Comment by Nick Literski — July 26, 2007 @ 4:19 pm
You can believe whatever you like, m&m about “sin” and “righteousness.” In fact, I’ll defend your right to believe it. Just don’t make the mistake of using your religious belief as an excuse to deny my civil rights. If you do make that mistake, I am duty bound to oppose you, not just for myself and other homosexuals, but for the safety of the U.S. Constitution.
Comment by Nick Literski — July 26, 2007 @ 4:25 pm
i like nick!
Comment by mfranti — July 26, 2007 @ 4:28 pm
mfranti, we HAVE to be able to talk about what is right and what is wrong without the assumption being made that we are condemning others’ humanity or worth or value. This is,IMO, a total misrepresentation of the words of the prophet!
How does that violate their humanity? It upholds God’s standards while appreciating these people and individuals, as children of God, and people with potential. He teaches the same things for all of us — that we can reach our greatest potential by following and keeping God’s commendments. We can each decide if prophets really do teach the commandments as they are, but you can expect nothing less from them and those who believe in what they say as they feel it their duty to encourage people toward the path to eternal happiness, not simply mortal fulfillment.
I suspect we all felt condemned when Elder Holland spoke to us plainly this last Conference. Hving sinful behavior condemned by God’s prophets is a sign of their love and desire to help us come to Christ and enjoy God’s blessings more fully, not as an attempt to cause us to cower in a paralysis of discouragement and self-doubt. Elder Holland said as much — He LOVES us. They LOVE us. We can’t equate love with quiet acceptance of behavior. It’s not what love is.
But again note Pres. Hinckley. NONE of us is justified in being unkind or abusing those who sin, for as someone pointed out, we all sin. But there is a difference between abuse and holding to one’s beliefs and standards.
Comment by m&m — July 26, 2007 @ 4:31 pm
the words of the prophet only have meaning to those that believe he is the prophet. they don’t have any meaning to the rest.
Comment by mfranti — July 26, 2007 @ 4:42 pm
Okay, this is what I don’t get: If we’re being accurate to Christ’s word, we’re taught that if you look at a person with sexual thoughts, it’s the same as committing the act. But the church tries to do the whole “hate the sin love the sinner” thing by saying it’s okay to have same-sex attraction, just not to act on it. You can look at a person of the same sex and have the thoughts, and that’s okay. But they don’t say the same thing to straight people, that you can look at a person of the opposite sex, and have the thoughts, and that’s okay. So are they just playing with semantics to try to keep people happy?
Comment by Quimby — July 26, 2007 @ 4:51 pm
i must be a heretic because I like to let those that don’t share my religious belief practice their own. and I must not be a true believer if i think that implementing policy based on current religious ideals is wrong and directly attacks a group of people.
i wonder how we would raise our homosexual children if there was no god to tell us that homosexuality was immoral.
Comment by mfranti — July 26, 2007 @ 5:04 pm
Just don’t make the mistake of using your religious belief as an excuse to deny my civil rights.
Nick, I know this is where things get so hard, but if my religious belief is that gay marriage is about more than just you, if I believe that there is more to consider than just “live and let live,” if I believe things that I can’t even explain in a forum such as this, and these beliefs demand that I act, according to the dictates of my own conscience, to do all I can to lawfully protect traditional marriage as an institution, then you can’t deny memy rights (religious and otherwise) to act accordingly.
This is why I talked about coming head-to-head. This for me isn’t about hate, intolerance or lack of love or concern for individuals and their lives and feelings. It is a very hard issue to take such a stand on in many ways because of my concern for people and how my actions and beliefs can be misinterpreted. But I violate my own self, my own sense of right and intergrity and faith, if I do nothing.
Given what I have read from you and what you have shared about your own journey (which has helped me understand you better, so thanks), you would deem it wrong for me to ask you to leave your partner and live a celibate life; you have made your choice. Not even your love for close family members (And friends?) who disagree with your choice and have withdrawn from you can make you change your mind. You love them, you care about them, but you feel you must do what you feel is right and true for you, even if they take offense (which was their choice, right?) I can only imagine it’s difficult no matter what you do, but you do what you feel is best.
I, too, must do what I fell is right and true, even if it hurts people I want to show love to. They have to choose whether or not to accept me as I am and try to be friends and neighbors and family anyway, or judge me as intolerant and unkind and walk away from the relationship. I would hope for the former, but I understand it’s hard, no matter what. But the need for tolerance and respect do go both ways.
Does that help you understand where I am coming from a little more?
And, so, I ask again the general question: is there a way to live side-by-side with such a formidable impasse? We can’t force each other to believe differently; it’s pointless to try. We can’t convince each other to act differently; we each do what we feel is right, according to that which we believe is true. There is no philosophical or political solution that I can see that upholds everyone’s beliefs and integrity and sense of self. Someone’s world will feel violated in some way, no matter what is done with this issue.
However, there is more to consider here than just the issue itself (as is so often the case). How do we improve relationships even as our positions are so diametrically opposed in many ways?
Comment by m&m — July 26, 2007 @ 5:16 pm
“t unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others”
this is where is get even more tricky
Comment by mfranti — July 26, 2007 @ 5:24 pm
oh yeah…
doctrine and covenants 134:4
Comment by mfranti — July 26, 2007 @ 5:26 pm
#192 Nick - you would be right, were this not an LDS-oriented post on a LDS website. I wouldn’t use that same language in a post on a site without that premise.
Unless you are talking about that religion’s policy, which we are. With the main post in mind, I was not aware we were discussing civil rights. That is, indeed, a different matter.
Quimby - to attempt to explain my understanding of your question, I don’t think the gospel is two-sided about this. For a man to look on a woman and lust after her is a sin. For a man to look on a man and lust after him is a sin. If a man finds a woman attractive, it is not a sin. If a man finds a man attractive, it is not a sin. The difference is in intent and in deliberate dwelling on those thoughts.
As an interesting exercise, I have substituted “overweight” for homosexual in many of the previous posts. Overeating, though not labelled a sin per se, is definitely not righteous behavior. Overeaters are castigated by society. Overweight people are often “damaged” emotionally and mentally. Body size is definitely heritable (as opposed to theoretically heritable) so is definitely genetic and not purely environmental. Inherited body size traits can be exacerbated by behavior. It may be difficult and nearly impossible to overcome the urge to overeat. I find the parallels interesting, as I am certainly not underweight myself.
Comment by SilverRain — July 26, 2007 @ 5:33 pm
silverrain… GREAT! confirmation that my midnight binges are, indeed, a sin against God.
Comment by G — July 26, 2007 @ 5:37 pm
g.
where have you been?!!??
Comment by mfranti — July 26, 2007 @ 6:03 pm
G., no no no. We Mormons celebrate the body. We’re hip. (Not coincidentally, we have hips, too.) We’re casting off the Victorianisms of shame and Melba toast and daily weigh-ins.
We need to help our youth understand that their urges to subsist entirely upon vats of processed goo are fundamentally wholesome parts of the plan of salvation design to facilitate their [ahem] growth. But these desires properly receive their full expression only within the bonds of sacred matrimony. Washing down an entire bag of Cheetos and with glasses of chocolate milk while watching sappy junk TV is a very special bonding experience that the Lord has designed to bring a married couple closer together.
Comment by Eve — July 26, 2007 @ 6:21 pm
I believe that junk food has a sacred place in the Plan of Salvation.
All those preservatives do just that – preserve. Our bodies, when we die, will lay in a state of near-perfect preservation from all of the junk food we have consumed, that when it is time for us to be resurrected, the Lord’s work will be made easy.
By denying our bodies the good, wholesome, preservative-filled food God and Nabisco’s have provided for us, we are, in effect, telling our Heavenly Parents that we don’t care for the bodies they have created for us. Is that really the message you want to send? Do you really want to appear ungrateful?
Comment by Quimby — July 26, 2007 @ 6:29 pm
G I missed you!
Comment by ss — July 26, 2007 @ 6:45 pm
m&m #204:
Here’s the problem with your Hinckley quote. It’s all very lovely that he expresses such nice things to gay members of the church. He does that, however, in the context of proclaiming the LDS church’s position that it’s okay to seek to impose LDS doctrine on homosexuality upon the rest of American society. I understand that LDS like to think that their president is “prophet” to the entire world. Heck, Joseph Smith and Brigham Young (and possibly John Taylor) were actually *crowned* as “king of the earth.” That doesn’t mean that anyone outside the LDS church recognizes their supposed authority. They *only* have authority over those who grant it, and they have no business trying to force the rest to obey their opinion on the will of deity.
Comment by Nick Literski — July 26, 2007 @ 7:38 pm
Quimby #206:
Yes, and they’re pulling that rhetoric directly from the evangelical “ex-gay” movement. Heck, the most recent Church News even cited NARTH, an organization of less than 1,000 supposed mental health practioners, whose quackery (i.e., claims to turn gays into straights through unethical “therapy” gimmicks) have been roundly condemned by the 140,000 member American Psychological Association.
Basically, these folks figured out they should find a “nicer” way to be anti-gay, because society was beginning to figure out that gays weren’t the monsters that OLDER anti-gays made up stories about.
Comment by Nick Literski — July 26, 2007 @ 7:42 pm
“t unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others”
But my point is that suggesting that I can’t act on issues that concern me or interest me (for religious and other reasons — this isn’t all a religious isse for me — I have concerns about rights myself, actually) infringes on my rights and liberties in it’s own way. I see no way to approach this issue that will protect everyone’s “rights.”
Comment by m&m — July 26, 2007 @ 7:44 pm
m&m #208:
I think you misunderstand. I would never infringe upon your right to proclaim your views. I would oppose you, and vigorously, if you try to promote government denial of my civil rights, based on your beliefs. That doesn’t negate your right to hold those beliefs, nor to speak them.
Comment by Nick Literski — July 26, 2007 @ 7:47 pm
Nick,
I don’t feel like you are listening.
IMO, your rhetoric should be able to stop envirnomentalists (some of who act in part on the basis of their religion) from enacting laws to protect forests and the air or whatever else; or people to want to act against (or for) abortion, or immigration or etc. etc. etc. And yet, people still get to voice their views on these issues that have moral implications in many (most?)people’s minds.
We ALL act according to a belief system, religiously and/or otherly based; in fact, in a sense, whenever we take a side on any issue and act on or defend it, we are trying to “impose our beliefs” on other people. It’s particularly part of the democratic process and something we all have the right to participate in.
So note that you are trying to “impose your beliefs” by trying to legalize gay marriage and to convince others that your choices and beliefs are nothing but positive and completely harmless. You appeal to your own authorities to support your position (e.g., the APA (with whom, BTW, I disagree on several things, and to yourself as well). BUT, you have as much right to do these things as I, as anyone. So we respect that right for each other and allow the process to run its course.
And my other point is that we ought to try to be kind and respectful to each other along the way.
BTW, FWIW, there are more reasons than just religious that I want to legally protect traditional marriage. So the accusation that this is simply about my religion is wrong.
Comment by m&m — July 26, 2007 @ 8:25 pm
m&m
Try inserting the words ‘race’ and ‘miscegenation’ into your arguments and perhaps you’ll have a better understanding of Nick’s concern vis-a-vis religious beliefs vs. civil rights.
Denying someone basic legal protections is very different from other forms of political activism. And to tell you the truth I’m pretty dumbfounded you don’t [can’t?] see the difference.
And I really don’t get this:
Is this just the whole ‘let’s be nice’ thing again?
First of all, I don’t see anybody being rude or mean or inappropriate. And just out of curiosity, how kind and respectful would you be if someone was campaigning to take away your civil rights? Especially by constitutional amendment? Not that you should beat them up or call them names, but wouldn’t sharp and pointed dialogue be pretty appropriate? Even necessary?
Comment by Not Ophelia — July 26, 2007 @ 9:00 pm
yes, please, be nice while I work to deny you the same rights I enjoy …
what a bunch of coded gay-bashing nonsense …
Comment by Chino Blanco — July 26, 2007 @ 9:09 pm
m&m,
you will have to prove that an individuals sexual preference actually harms _your marrage to your husband_ for me to buy your argument.
Comment by mfranti — July 26, 2007 @ 9:22 pm
i am having slow computer issues. i get one letter every 30 seconds
Comment by mfranti — July 26, 2007 @ 9:26 pm
by the way, the term “united front” is used to describe a kind of tactical political alliance between ‘mainstream’ and ‘hardcore’ constituencies … it’s a tactic employed to co-opt the middle in order to obtain extreme objectives … actively working to deny a specific group of people their rights would be offensive to too many decent-minded folks, hence the value of a “united front” approach …
Comment by Chino Blanco — July 26, 2007 @ 9:29 pm
(aside) hey mfranti and ss… I’ve missed you too! glad to be back
okay, back on topic…
Comment by G — July 26, 2007 @ 9:36 pm
#196: I caught your plea for personal narrative, and some of us chipped in with ours, but I’ve yet to read anything like a personal narrative from you. If I’ve simply missed it, please let me know which of your comments up top included it, thanks. I’m really keen to read at least one first-person account or story that might help me better understand where you’re coming from on this issue.
Comment by Chino Blanco — July 26, 2007 @ 10:02 pm
Cheney Stakes Out Stance on Gay Marriages
In a political season marked by Republican efforts to outlaw gay marriage, Vice President Dick Cheney on Tuesday offered a defense of the rights of gay Americans, declaring that “freedom means freedom for everyone” to enter “into any kind of relationship they want to.”
Probably the only thing Dick Cheney and I agree on, but I can appreciate and respect why he feels the way he does.
Got gay kids? No? Well, how about listening to the parents of gay kids for their take on the issue before going off on some crusade to ‘rescue’ something that nobody’s attacking …
Comment by Chino Blanco — July 26, 2007 @ 10:17 pm
You aren’t helping your position at all, nor are you helping the discussion, IMO.
Nicely put, #196. Thanks.
Comment by Chino Blanco — July 26, 2007 @ 10:31 pm
Chino,
I’ve pretty much given up on sharing personal experience with you. You seem bent on accusing me of behavior that I find offensive.
Mfranti,
I don’t expect you to buy into my point of view, so I find little value in trying to convince you of anything. And btw I never said anything about gay marriage harming my marriage to my husband. You put words into my mouth there. That’s actually not on my list of reasons why I take the position I do. I personally think that comeback is often (not always) a straw man that misses a lot.
NO,
Since my position is based also on concerns about rights and not just religious belief, I still feel it’s not unreasonable for me to take the position that I do. I also can understand why you feel incredulous at my position, though. It’s not like I haven’t run into that before. What I find is that no one really wants to listen to understand, though. Not to listen to change their minds, but just to try to appreciate that there may just be different ways of looking at this issue and respect that.
And yeah, I think things like accusations about comments being judged as nothing but “coded gay-bashing nonsense” is crossing the boundary of niceness. And is completely unproductive. I would love sometime to have a productive, both-sided discussion on this issue, because I think that would be helpful for all involved. I have appreciated some of what I have gleaned, here, but it seems the blood pressure is rising and the tone has changed.
Look, folks, as long as the position the Church and others take is judged (!!) as nothing more than old-fashioned, gay-bashing, unreasonable, unfair, unChristlike, unconstitutional behavior, then we really don’t have much basis to have discussion, do we? (This is more of what I was getting at when I talked about respectful discussion. Far too many assumptions are made about those who don’t support gay marriage, and that’s wrong. It’s also detrimental to any progress being made at all in communicating about this tough issue IMO.)
Comment by m&m — July 27, 2007 @ 12:29 am
I also can understand why you feel incredulous at my position, though. It’s not like I haven’t run into that before.
Yes, I would imagine you run into that quite a lot. Although, I’d expect you’re downright inured to incredulity at this point. If only people would listen, right? Oh well, reward yourself an ‘A’ for effort and don’t sweat the folks who’ve not achieved your level of understanding.
Oh dear, that was mean. Oh well, so are your politics and I don’t mind modulating my tone to match.
Comment by Chino Blanco — July 27, 2007 @ 1:12 am
If only people would listen, right?
The only reason at this point I would care for people to listen is if they actually cared about understanding why my position is as it is. But I am sensing that that is not reality, so there’s not much point in me saying anything more.
Comment by m&m — July 27, 2007 @ 1:18 am
You use words like ‘narrative’ yet never tell any stories …
You mention your ‘concerns’, but never really delineate what they are …
If you would deign to share anything other than your disapproval, you might be surprised at how much others do care to understand your position …
Comment by Chino Blanco — July 27, 2007 @ 1:29 am
And, BTW, a huge reason why I care about dialogue on this issue is for the very reason that gays at church struggle. But if one bites the hands that are actually in heart trying to reach out through dialogue or however else (meager effort though it may be compared to what one wishes would happen (a change in beliefs altogether)), IMO, then one is a part of the problem.
Comment by m&m — July 27, 2007 @ 1:31 am
Chino,
Why don’t you take some time to read some of my earlier comments. I shared a brief experience and some hopes and thoughts I have that I hoped could be productive and positive. I responded positively to something I learned and showed an effort to use different language so as not to offend. I’m bone weary of you jumping on everything I say without making an effort to try to see my thoughts in a bit more context and with a bit more charity. Frankly, I find little motivation to share anything personal with you at all when experience suggests I’m likely to just get bitten.
I am sorry I have offended you. I fear, though, that nothing I say or do will be able to change that, so I’d best be done.
Comment by m&m — July 27, 2007 @ 1:40 am
Grrrrr, growls the ungrateful cur …
Comment by Chino Blanco — July 27, 2007 @ 1:43 am
M&M,
I have read all of your comments. Really, truly, I have. When this thread comes out in book form, I do hope you’ll be gracious enough to sign my copy.
I am also sorry if you feel you’ll get bitten if you open up. I suspect that Mogaria, her son and many here also feel that way about opening up in a church context. Are you really so confident that everything you’ve written here would be helpful to someone like Mogaria, or would she see it as further proof that it’s best to keep one’s inner thoughts to one’s self if they happen to run counter to current doctrine and practice?
Comment by Chino Blanco — July 27, 2007 @ 2:00 am
Chino and Nick,
Before I walk away from this conversation, I’d like to ask a sincere question, back to the original topic and expanding just a bit. In your view, what DO you think would help gays feel more welcome/comfortable in the Church? I’d really like it if you could share thoughts and ideas not trying to change the beliefs (let’s just work with where we are). I honestly do care about doing what I can within those boundaries, if indeed there is anything. I do believe we have things we can improve on, but I’d rather get that point of view from you, if you are willing to share.
And here’s a deal: I won’t respond (except maybe with a followup question, if that’s OK). I’ll just listen. I realize I could have asked more questions and done more listening along the way, and I’m sorry about that.
And Chino, now I see your last comment (which was one where I felt more respect from you, so thanks)…and part of why I want to finish with this comment (question) is to get back to the original post and to try to direct things back to it specifically. (But also bear in mind that a lot of the conversation got away from the original post, which is why some of what I said likely wouldn’t help the original poster…we sort of went many different directions)…
So, anyway, again, if you have anything to add, I am listening.
Comment by m&m — July 27, 2007 @ 2:27 am
p.s. e., Samantha, others, of course please chime in too.
Comment by m&m — July 27, 2007 @ 2:30 am
If members were regularly heard expressing sentiments like ECS’s comment #2, and dispensing advice like Ana’s comment #21, I expect Church might feel a lot friendlier to gay members.
Comment by Chino Blanco — July 27, 2007 @ 3:35 am
Knowing that fellow members weren’t actively working to block progress on issues important to gays might help to.
Comment by Chino Blanco — July 27, 2007 @ 3:47 am
, too.
Comment by Chino Blanco — July 27, 2007 @ 3:49 am
I realize I could have asked more questions and done more listening along the way, and I’m sorry about that.
What shall your punishment be for this high crime?
I propose that you must now go back and re-read the entire thread.
The quiz comes later.
Comment by Chino Blanco — July 27, 2007 @ 4:08 am
On the off chance that you’ve not “walked away” just yet …
Since my position is based also on concerns about rights and not just religious belief, I still feel it’s not unreasonable for me to take the position that I do.
But it’s interesting how the two dovetail so neatly, isn’t it?
The political and the religious: where does one begin and the other end?
A little tension between the two suits me just fine.
It’s the absence of any such tension — a “united front” — that troubles me.
Comment by Chino Blanco — July 27, 2007 @ 6:12 am
Chino Blanco
First, pointed dialogue and sarcasm aren’t the same thing. Please avoid the sarcasm.
and second —
do you ever sleep?
Comment by Not Ophelia — July 27, 2007 @ 6:38 am
No, which accounts for the fuzzy boundaries … trust me, I do know they’re there, ‘cuz I keep bumping into ‘em.
Comment by Chino Blanco — July 27, 2007 @ 6:53 am
re #231
ok m&m i will rephrase,
you will have to prove that an individuals sexual preference actually infringes upon your rights and liberties for anyone to buy your argument.
and…
if you’re not trying to convince me (or anyone here) of your position, why waste so much time defending it? isn’t the point of your argument to prove to heretics like me that I am in direct opposition the prophet and God by condoning homosexual behavior? Aren’t you trying to prove that you position is the superior one because is Gospel based?
and…
sorry you don’t like that comeback but it is an issue. folks so concerned with denying the rights and liberties to one group of people use the argument that “gay marriage harms the traditional family” well, prove that it actually harms your marriage and maybe someone will listen?
Comment by mfranti — July 27, 2007 @ 7:20 am
chino,
if i recall, now is about bedtime for you and in about 7 hrs, you will wake up and grace us with your presence again?
i had a client who lived in china and it would freak me out when he would place a trade a 7am and tell me good night then call me around 3pm to see how the market finished up.
sweet dreams
Comment by mfranti — July 27, 2007 @ 7:48 am
#249: Are you kidding? In 7 hrs it’s Saturday morning, my weekend begins, and no way am I spending my weekend hanging out here. I have a life!
notwithstanding all evidence to the contrary
Comment by Chino Blanco — July 27, 2007 @ 8:15 am
by the way, you mentioned that your kids are half chino, mine daughter is too. mexican, chinese with a little caucasion mixed in for color. the kid has a golden tan all year long.
(wait til your daughter hits adolescence, you wont be able to sleep at night)
Comment by mfranti — July 27, 2007 @ 8:25 am
#231:
Look, folks, as long as the position the Church and others take is judged (!!) as nothing more than old-fashioned, gay-bashing, unreasonable, unfair, unChristlike, unconstitutional behavior, then we really don’t have much basis to have discussion, do we?
(1) It’s not old-fashioned. The current LDS rhetoric on homosexuality is directly lifted from a political strategy hatched in the mid 1990s by NARTH, Focus on the Family, and the Republican Party, after the three groups found that outright attacks were beginning to backfire with the American public.
(2) It is gay-bashing. Depending on which general authority does the talking, the LDS church currently either pretends that homosexuality does NOT EXIST (just “homosexual feelings”), or that homosexuality is essentially a “birth defect.” In either case, the LDS church argues that homosexuality is wrong BECAUSE it is sex outside of marriage, and then conveniently spends millions of dollars in an effort to deny equal civil rights to homosexuals, including marriage—the very thing they PRETEND is their issue with homosexuality. As a result, their reasoning for homosexuality being wrong rings hollow. (Again, they lifted this rhetoric from NARTH, Focus on the Family, and the Republican Party.)
(3) It is entirely unreasonable, and entirely unfair.
(4) I see no evidence of Jesus of Nazareth attempting to legislate his teachings (not that he ever said a single word on the subject of homosexuality during his ministry), or deny civil rights to those who did not accept his teachings. Ergo, those who do such a thing are, by definition, “unchristlike.”
(5) It is unquestionably unconstitutional. If it wasn’t, then people like you wouldn’t be trying to CHANGE the constitution to get your way.
Comment by Nick Literski — July 27, 2007 @ 8:41 am
#235:
And, BTW, a huge reason why I care about dialogue on this issue is for the very reason that gays at church struggle.
Okay, so let me get this straight (no pun intended). You want to be sure my civil rights are denied, AND you want to pretend that by expressing my opposing views I’m interfering with YOUR civil rights, AND you want to “dialogue” about how to make me feel good about that? Hmmm….good luck with that.
Comment by Nick Literski — July 27, 2007 @ 8:45 am
#236:
responded positively to something I learned and showed an effort to use different language so as not to offend.
Yes, you did, and I thank you for it.
Comment by Nick Literski — July 27, 2007 @ 8:46 am
#239:
Before I walk away from this conversation, I’d like to ask a sincere question, back to the original topic and expanding just a bit. In your view, what DO you think would help gays feel more welcome/comfortable in the Church? I’d really like it if you could share thoughts and ideas not trying to change the beliefs (let’s just work with where we are).
The single biggest thing that would make homosexuals feel more comfortable in the LDS church, is for the LDS church to stop spending literally millions of dollars in tithing funds in an effort to prevent ALL homosexuals (not just LDS) from enjoying the same civil rights as other Americans. This isn’t just a matter of marriage. It’s also a matter of housing, employment, protection against hate crimes, and many others.
If you don’t believe me, m&m, look at the case of Stuart Mattis. He was active LDS, gay, and celibate. Unfortunately, he also lived in California, where the LDS church was spending millions of dollars and giving members actual callings to promote a voter proposition which would specifically ban any state protection for the civil rights of homosexuals. This situation drove Stuart Mattis to suicide–while he was still celibate and “worthy” according to LDS standards. His suicide note, together with the location where he committed suicide, made this very clear.
Comment by Nick Literski — July 27, 2007 @ 8:57 am
Nick,
Your basic premise that the LDS church is trying to impose its own beliefs on society does not hold water. Prop 22 got 61% of the vote in CA. Showing that most Americans in CA in fact agree with the churchs position and do not agree with yours. Putting tradional LDS beliefs in the mainstream and yours not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_22_%282000%29
Comment by bbell — July 27, 2007 @ 9:17 am
Hot off the presses: the Church has a new pamplet out about “same gender attraction”.
See an article here. http://www.deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,695195383,00.html There’s a link to the text of the pamphlet in the Deseret News article.
Comment by nolongerin — July 27, 2007 @ 9:30 am
Well bbell, a more accurate interpretation might be that the majority of people who cared enough to vote on the issue agree with ‘traditional LDS beliefs’.
I still am bothered that anyone’s civil rights should be subject to popular prejudice or up for a vote. We [LDS] might lose that one too. Big time.
oops. I guess we already did.
Comment by Not Ophelia — July 27, 2007 @ 9:41 am
OTOH, I’m supposed to be on vacation.
I bid you all happy arguing.
See you in a week or so.
Comment by Not Ophelia — July 27, 2007 @ 9:47 am
bbell,
It is certainly true that there are some non-LDS who agree with the LDS position on this topic. (Polls show that this number has been dwindling since the passage of Prop 22, btw.) The proposition passed, due in part to LDS campaigning in favor of it.
However, this does not change the fact that the LDS campaign on this issue was an effort to impose LDS beliefs on non-LDS.
Let me give you an example. In certain countries, the majority of citizens happen to believe it is immoral for a woman to show her body in public. As a result of this belief, adherents prescribe the wearing of burkhas, covering everything but a woman’s eyes and hands. In some of these countries, however, the majority in power has passed the wearing of burkhas as a civil legal requirement—for non-Muslim women, as well as Muslim women.
Does the fact that the majority approves of the burkha law mean that it is NOT being imposed on non-Muslim women? Our own American government decried this as part of the “liberation” of Iraq, not so long ago.
Comment by Nick Literski — July 27, 2007 @ 9:55 am
I am all for being Christ-like to one another, being kind to each other, and showing genuine compassion and love towards one another. I know that Christ would have showed love and compassion for everyone, despite race, who people are attracted to, etc.
However, the Church has the right to take whatever stance they want to on a subject. We have been told time and time again (Proclamation, etc.) that marriage is for a man and a woman, children should be raised with a father and a mother, etc. I know that this presents difficulties for those with same-gender attraction, and it must seem cruel to not be able to have it. But, that’s what we have been commanded, and while showing love towards everyone, I don’t think that it’s wrong for the church to spend money for or against propositions.
Comment by kaiakapero — July 27, 2007 @ 10:17 am
kaiakapero,
Certainly the LDS church has the right to take a stand on a subject. I’ve not said otherwise. This, however, is completely different from actively fighting to deny civil rights to those who happen to believe differently, and who do not live according to the LDS understanding of deity’s will.
The LDS church is actually rather out-of-character on this issue. For example, the LDS church expressly takes NO position on legislation regarding abortion, and it certainly doesn’t spend millions of dollars to interfere with the civil rights of those who have had an abortion. You’d think that abortion would be a bigger sin, since LDS leaders have classified it as “like unto murder,” yet the LDS church avoids the issue entirely in the public sphere.
Comment by Nick Literski — July 27, 2007 @ 10:33 am
248
Mfranti,
To briefly respond, I have been trying to explain, not convince. (I feel my position is misunderstood. I have also seen that trying to explain is itself misunderstood. So I am not going to do that anymore here.) I have addressed some of my concerns on my blog. I might do more there. Maybe.
I’m still listening, though..
Comment by m&m — July 27, 2007 @ 12:39 pm
You’ve repeatedly stated that my act of opposing your campaigning against equal rights for homosexuals is somehow denying your rights to engage in that campaign, m&m. That’s simply not true.
Comment by Nick Literski — July 27, 2007 @ 12:50 pm
Nick, I’m not going to engage in this conversation anymore. I also regret even having the discussion turn toward political things. Too much baggage and emotion to have a productive discussion.
But I’m still listening if you want to respond to 239.
Comment by m&m — July 27, 2007 @ 1:52 pm
Nick–I’m not an attorney and it’s been an embarrassingly long time since i reviewed anything that was juridical rather that philosophical in nature regarding what constitutes a “right.” You sound well-read (and if you don’t know maybe obi-wan or one of the other attorneys around here will know): from a legal standpoint, what constitutes a right? Is marriage–for anyone–actually a right?
I have yet to hear a logical explanation of how gay marriage would hurt anybody, and denying gays the opportunity to marry does strike me as hurtful, but I’m still not completely comfy with the notion of any marriage (including my own) as a civil right, either, simply because it seems so, um, frivolous compared to stuff like voting or the fair wages and equal opportunity employment. (I’m not saying marriage is itself frivolous. It just seems legally different to me in terms of securing societal equality than does voting. The benefits of marriage which aren’t emotional seem dependent upon juridical constructs embedded in artificial rules about wills and taxes and foo-foo like that, whereas the other stuff i think of as “rights” are more elemental. I am not, however, legally trained.
Comment by Janet — July 27, 2007 @ 3:04 pm
nolongerin–thanks for the link regarding the new church pamphlet. It sounds like the discussion therein still elides aknowledgment that sexual orientation concerns anything more than sexual desire. Sigh. I’d really love to chat with a church leader about that, because I have never seen any of them even sidle up to the subject. Still, the tone looks preferable to the old “to the one” rhetoric…
Comment by Janet — July 27, 2007 @ 3:08 pm
Janet, don’t be so shy about showing off your innate acumen on legal matters - you’ve just nicely summed up most Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence.
The U.S. Supreme Court has indeed bestowed fundamental right-hood upon civil marriage. The tricky question now is to determine whether that fundamental right to marry as enshrined in the U.S. Constitution includes the right to marry someone of your same sex. Those answering yes to this question typically point out that that the U.S. Supreme Court has held that states cannot prevent interracial couples from marrying, so states cannot deny the same privilege to same sex couples. Those answering no to this question, well, they can speak for themselves. Where’s Guy Murray when you need him?
Comment by ECS — July 27, 2007 @ 3:46 pm
The U.S. Supreme Court has indeed bestowed fundamental right-hood upon civil marriage.
Well, sort of. I think Loving says that if the state institutes civil marriage, it must do so on a non-discriminatory basis. I don’t think the USSC has said that anyone has an affirmative right to civil marriage if the state didn’t choose to institute it. We could presumabley do away with it altogether (an option that I actually kind of favor).
Comment by obi-wan — July 27, 2007 @ 3:57 pm
obi-wan - I just skimmed the Loving opinion and didn’t find support for your proposition that states are free to abolish civil marriage (that’s not to say that it can’t be implied, however.).
In any event, the USSC has been consistent in defining the right to marry as fundamental:
Zablocki v. Redhail
Comment by ECS — July 27, 2007 @ 4:04 pm
ECS and obi-wan: Yay for free legal consults! Woohoo! I offer copious thanks. And another question: is there a lovely and searchable clearinghouse of cases I can look at, like pubmed or medline exists for medicine? I have shepardized cases for my dissertation before (all 19th c. cases, no less), but it required trudging my lazy hiney to a law library and primarily digging through dusty tomes which made me sneeze.
obi-wan: I believe Canada keeps entertaining the idea of doing away with marriage as a civil institution. The arguments I’ve heard on NPR got my synapses all fiery–it’s an intriguing proposition, and perhaps both the impetus behind church opposition to the gay marriage fight AND the solution.
Oh, and ECS–do judges usually wax that eloquent in rulings? ‘Cuz some wig out there had his euphony on in Z v. R!
Thanks again, counselors!
Comment by Janet — July 27, 2007 @ 5:49 pm
Janet - www.findlaw.com is a great resource for searching for cases using key words, and - if you know the name of the case - most of the time you can google and it will pop right up. As for Shepardizing, it’s all online now, but you have to pay for it (unless someone has found a free service?).
And yes, judges (and their clerks) typically get carried away using fanciful language in their opinions. Yet another indication that most lawyers are frustrated writers who sold out to make a living.
Comment by ECS — July 27, 2007 @ 6:04 pm
Part of the problem, Janet, lies in framing the question. The U.S. Supreme Court has indeed established that marriage is a fundamental right. On this basis, the Court found that it was unconstitutional for a state to prevent interracial marrriage. However, in a fancy legal trick, anti-gays have convinced some courts to BYPASS this established principle, by asking a different question.
Rather than answering the question of gay marriage based on the established principle that marriage to the person of your choice is a fundamental right, these anti-gays have convinced some state courts to ask a different question. They lead politically and religiously-motivated justices to ask whether there is a fundamental right to marry a person of the same sex. By this semantic trick, the courts are able to say NO, because “marriage to a person of the same sex” lacks long-standing historic tradition—an element of finding a “fundamental right.”
The Loving court recognized that this was improper. As a result, the plaintiffs won. If the Supreme Court had played this nasty little game of asking whether “marriage to a person of another race” was a fundamental right, the laws against interracial marriage would have been found constitutional.
Comment by Nick Literski — July 27, 2007 @ 6:06 pm
mfranti - I’m responding to this because I think it is quite telling about much more than the discussion at hand. I, for one, share (defend?) my opinion for a few reasons, none of them are to prove anything, let alone the superiority of my opinion. I have taken a long hiatus (and considered a permanent abstinence) from this site because most people who disagree with what they consider mainstream Church thought assume that those who agree with it have these motives in mind, and then subsequently attack them for these presupposed motives. I think that if people on any side of an issue were able to step down and give the other person the benefit of the doubt, more real information would be exchanged and people would feel free to reconsider their opinions. It is supremely difficult to examine one’s own opinion whilst one is under attack for it. If someone wants to change another’s opinion, they would do well to stop thinking of the other as trying to prove superiority and start thinking of them as people who are trying to learn, grow and progress, whether or not this is actually true. I think such a paradigm shift would do more to advance the cause of mutual tolerance than any other mode of behavior.
Comment by SilverRain — July 27, 2007 @ 7:09 pm
ECS — I hope we are not talking past one another. But the penumbral privacy rights are negative rights, not affirmative rights. The state cannot prevent you from using birth control, but has no obligation to supply you with contraceptives. The state cannot prevent you from terminating a pregnancey (mostly) but has no obligation to supply abortion services.
I think it pretty clearly follows from Loving and the other Griswold progeny that the state similarly cannot intefere with your choice of whom to marry (mostly; miscegenation rules are off-limits but but cosanguity rules seem to be okay), but that nothing requires the state to provide for marriage in the first place.
Put differently, if I lived in a state that had made no provision for marriage, I don’t think I would have any constitutional standing to demand that it do so, based on Loving or anything else.
Comment by obi-wan — July 27, 2007 @ 9:48 pm
mfranti — #251: why I already don’t get much sleep …
http://pantaohui.blogspot.com/
Comment by Chino Blanco — July 28, 2007 @ 4:43 am
obi-wan - oh, sure. I was generally replying to your statement that Loving might stand for the proposition that state marriage statutes are optional.
I think in the case of marriage, however, the affirmative/negative rights distinction has no real practical application - unlike access to birth control/abortion. So states abolish civil “marriage”. Then what? Presumably then couples would rely on contract law to structure their relationships. But states wouldn’t be allowed to discriminate against same-sex couples in enforcing these contractual obligations, so the practical effect would be the same as if the U.S. Supreme Court officially extended the right to “marry” to gay couples. The only difference being striking the word “marriage” from the law books and replacing “marriage” with something else (i.e., a bundle of contract rights).
Actually, one practical effect I see with the abolition of the word “marriage” by state governments is that religious institutions would then own the definition of “marriage” and could decide who should and who should not be allowed to “marry”.
But then what would we do about polygamy? Reynolds would be out the window.
Comment by ECS — July 28, 2007 @ 6:02 am
Times & Seasons gets topical
Comment by Chino Blanco — July 28, 2007 @ 10:38 am
Now with links that work
Comment by Chino Blanco — July 28, 2007 @ 10:45 am
Well, no, I don’t think your analysis follows. I don’t want to turn this into a legal discussion thread. But even granting your scenario, the right to contract isn’t fundamental in the way that rights of marriage and procreation are. There is, additionally, no state action in contracting, unless you are willing to adopt a really far-out reading of Shelly v. Kramer. So I don’t see any basis for your constitutional substitution argument.
But what I had more in mind was jettisoning civil marriage and instead granting a bundle of benefits based on child-rearing. It’s not at all clear to me what benefit society gets from encouraging couples just to live as couples. I do see benefits from creating stable environments for child-rearing. So instead of granting couples a bunch of benefits so that they might produce children, grant benefits to care-givers — couples, singles, grandparents, whatever — who actually are raising children.
Child-rearing aside, couples could live together or not, as they chose, or as their religious beliefs dictated. I don’t see any particular reason why the state needs to privelege certain religious relational preferences.
Comment by obi-wan — July 28, 2007 @ 10:51 am
I don’t want to turn this into a legal discussion thread.
Why not? I, for one, find it interesting.
Comment by Chino Blanco — July 28, 2007 @ 11:20 am
Hmm. I wasn’t being clear. Of course there’s no fundamental right to contract, but the state couldn’t prevent same sex couples from entering into contracts that heterosexual couples could enter into - regardless of whether these marriage-like contracts were to facilitate child rearing (but especially in the instance of child rearing - which implicates constitutionally protected parental interests).
Comment by ECS — July 28, 2007 @ 11:33 am
Chino, the kiddos on your blog are gorgeous!!!!
It being Saturday, that’s the extent of my commenting for today.
Comment by Janet — July 28, 2007 @ 1:19 pm
Thanks, Janet, have a great weekend.
Comment by Chino Blanco — July 28, 2007 @ 1:34 pm
Why not? Declare them void for public policy, like contracts to sell organs or hire hit men. Since no fundamental right is at stake, there’s nothing to prevent the state from doing so.
Comment by obi-wan — July 28, 2007 @ 1:47 pm
Void for public policy because of the sexual orientation of the contracting parties? That’s not going to pass the rational basis smell test.
Check out Romer v. Evans.
From wikipedia’s summary of Romer:
Comment by ECS — July 28, 2007 @ 2:11 pm
Again, I think we are getting very far afield. Having said that 1) all the legislature needs to get past rational basis is to articulate findings as to why such contracts are not in the public interest, not difficult to do for the kind of contracts you are positing, 2) you’re not going to get strict scrutiny for sexual orientation, 3) we’re not talking about the kind of amendment under consideration in Romer so the too narrow/too broad analysis doesn’t apply, 4) in this case I don’t think you’d get Kennedy and obviously you wouldn’t get O’Connor so the voting equilibirium has shifted.
Comment by obi-wan — July 28, 2007 @ 3:14 pm
obi-wan - 1) the Massachusetts SJC struck down discriminatory marriage laws using rational basis review despite legislative findings showing why same-sex marriage is not in the public interest, 2) there’s no need to even get to strict scrutiny review(see #1), 3) I pointed out Romer because it applied rational basis review to legalizing intentional discrimination of a “class” of citizens - homosexuals. Demonstrating again that we don’t need to apply strict scrutiny to strike down discriminatory legislation/Amendments targeting homosexuals, 4) absolutely, but then again Kennedy has some explaining to do for his Lawrence opinion. I see the USSC waiting until this issue plays out in the states before it weighs in anyway.
Comment by ECS — July 28, 2007 @ 3:24 pm
the Massachusetts SJC struck down discriminatory marriage laws using rational basis review despite legislative findings showing why same-sex marriage is not in the public interest
I’m not quite certain what your point here might be, since I am sure you wouldn’t seriously suggest that we take that extreme outlier of an opinion as even remotely suggesting how any other court would (or should) apply rational bais jurisprudence . . . .
Outside of that, your reading of Romer is so far divorced from anything that I think the case can fairly be said to stand for, that we should probably just let it drop.
Comment by obi-wan — July 28, 2007 @ 10:09 pm
obi-wan - I’d be interested in hearing why you think I’m so far off with Romer. While it may be an outlier, Justice Marshall’s opinion in Goodridge illustrates how rational basis review can be sufficient to strike down discriminatory legislation. Strict scrutiny is not required.
Going back to my original point, state laws enacted specifically to prevent homosexuals from forming private contractual relationships based solely upon their sexual orientation would not pass rational basis muster. What would the rational basis be for such a law? That adult homosexuals are incompetent/incapable of assenting to contracts? That homosexuals - especially ones who wish to enter into private contracts - are a danger to the public?
The “void for public policy” argument cannot serve as a rational basis for legislation prohibiting homosexuals from entering into private contracts - even in this current ultra-conservative judicial climate.
Comment by ECS — July 29, 2007 @ 7:46 am
I thought of all people Chino would know that tone can hurt. I can’t believe that after all the condescending, hurtful, and holier-than-thou things people have said to you, you’re doing it right back to someone else. You think that someone is wrong and making society a worse place, and you condemn them and judge them, say what they’re saying is gay-bashing. You use sarcasm and are short with them probably much in the same way that people have treated you because you’re gay. Do you feel welcome with someone if they say,
“If you would deign to share anything other than your disapproval of homophobes, you might be surprised at how much others do care to understand your position …”
“Yes, I would imagine you run into people incredulous that you support gay rights quite a lot. Although, I’d expect you’re downright inured to incredulity at this point. If only people would listen, right? Oh well, reward yourself an ‘A’ for effort and don’t sweat the folks who’ve not achieved your level of understanding.
“Oh dear, that was mean. Oh well, so are your politics and I don’t mind modulating my tone to match.”
“What a bunch of coded gay-loving nonsense …”
“And just out of curiosity, how kind and respectful would you be if someone was trying to prove something true that you believed to be false? Not that you should beat them up or call them names, but wouldn’t sharp and pointed dialogue be pretty appropriate? Even necessary?”
You said those things. Do they sound nice if someone used them to you instead? You should understand about words and tone by now, about feeling unaccepted!
Why would you think someone would feel loved and welcome with you when you use the same tone and lack of trying to understand with them? You worry about rhetoric hurting gays, causing them to despair. Your words cause despair, too. After reading this thread, I feel like going and cutting. I’m one of those ones that thinks that any sex outside of a marriage between a man and a woman is a sin. But I know you think that just because I believe that, I’m a gay-basher, a gay-hater, a homophobe. You probably wouldn’t want to take the time to be my friend. Because if you were my friend, you wouldn’t ever say something like that about a friend even if you disagreed. You’d be kind a patient with them if you thought they were wrong. I feel despair, unaccepted, misunderstood, and I don’t want to be around you because I’m scared of what you think of me. I want to be around someone who accepts me, even if I have opinions that they disagree with.
Comment by doleo — July 30, 2007 @ 12:48 pm
I don’t know if anyone’s still reading this post, but I’ve finally read through it all and want to make my first FMH post:
I’ll say this for being a gay Mormon, we do get to feel special that so many people have such strong opinions about our lives. And it’s always a great conversation starter and parties telling people you’re gay…and a Mormon, though you do have to have pretty tough skin to enjoy some of the consequences of such an admission.
Not that that helps this discussion. To me, all of this boils down to the worry(or hope) that the prophets are wrong about homosexuality just as they were about miscegenation. If a parent believes the leaders are wrong about this, what should he or she do: leave The Church, make sure to teach their kids early on not to take for granted that everything the leaders say is true and to maybe even vote in ways that the leaders discourage, do nothing in case the leaders have got this one right and we don’t want to risk fighting against The Lord’s work?
If we lived during the time church leaders spoke of miscegeny as evil, but as far as we could reason, miscegeny wouldn’t hurt marriage as an institution or even be evil in the sight of The Lord, what should we have done? Some people think that we should be trying to change The Church’s stance on gay marriage, just as I’d argue would have been the righteous course of action when church leaders spoke of other races as lesser than and not fit to marry those of the “white” race.
I think m&m said at one point that it’s hardly likely that we’ll influence each others’ beliefs on this issue, but I’m not so pessimistic, and I think that’s what these forums are for. I’m constantly learning new perspectives and changing or at least adapting my views on issues because of stories and arguments made here on FMH.com. I want to hear the arguments from all sides. I don’t think m&m ever told us what his or her non-religious reasons for opposing gay marriage were, and though I can’t speak for any one else, I would genuinely like to know. I always want to have my mind expanded, and in turn genuinely hope to expand others’ minds when I can.
Also, e., I was wondering how old you are, and I’ll be honest about my reason. It’s not really that I assume you’re 16-18 because you’ve said and believe exactly what I did at that age and think that I must be wiser and more correct in my current beliefs since I’m 20 and think I have a more developed understanding of the world (I mean, how predictable is it that I’d go to college and become a liberal and a feminist and leave The Church? Maybe I’m just going through a pattern). I wonder how old you are because I wonder about the pattern I think I see gay Mormons go through. Do we tend to say and believe what you do at 17, only to completely change our minds at 19, only to go all conservative and Mormony again at about 30 (another age you might well be)? Or are you 20 or 43 or something? I know it’s one of my greatest strengths and weaknesses that I interpret the nature of patterns prematurely, so this pattern could easily be a product of my foolishness.
Comment by Arielle — July 30, 2007 @ 6:18 pm
I don’t think m&m ever told us what his or her non-religious reasons for opposing gay marriage were, and though I can’t speak for any one else, I would genuinely like to know.
I might post more on this on my blog. I have already posted a about some of my concerns. (here, for example). This article also summarizes some of my concerns regarding the potential problems with others’ rights.
And, Arielle, if you are interested in more discussion on this off-blog, you can email me. mulling_and_musing at hotmail (dot com). I don’t really want to discuss anymore here.
Comment by m&m — July 30, 2007 @ 7:01 pm
Thanks, m&m.
Comment by Arielle — July 30, 2007 @ 8:16 pm
doleo,
I’m a middle-age dad reading your comment in an airport lounge halfway round the world from you. How cool is that?
Pretty cool, but it also means that you and I are never going to be around each other. All the same, I’d be willing to bet that you are already around people every day who think like me. Are they to blame, too?
There is nothing in this thread worthy of your despair, and you are not what is wrong with this world. Don’t ever punish or hurt yourself just because this is not the place you thought it would be or people aren’t the way you think they should be.
Comment by Chino Blanco — July 30, 2007 @ 11:24 pm
Anyone have a take on Canada’s Civil Marriage Act?
Or the Notwithstanding Clause of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
I’m admittedly already in way over my head as far as all things juridical are concerned, but in the world-according-to-Wikipedia that I live in, I do wonder if the way this has played out Up North is on anyone’s mind?
Comment by Chino Blanco — July 31, 2007 @ 4:03 am
Arielle,
Your first post rocks. And your optimism is well-founded.
Comment by Chino Blanco — July 31, 2007 @ 4:16 am
fwiw, m&m, I’m having trouble reading that Weekly Standard article as a summary of your concerns regarding “the potential problems with others’ rights.”
otoh, I hope everyone reads it. I particularly liked this part:
“…the majority ruled that only animus against gay people could explain why anyone would want to treat opposite-sex and same-sex couples differently.”
Comment by Chino Blanco — July 31, 2007 @ 5:24 am
But, far and away, my favorite line from that Weekly Standard article was:
How could Adam and Steve’s marriage possibly hurt anyone else?
Simply for the fact that Who made Steve? is such pure Internets gold.
Comment by Chino Blanco — July 31, 2007 @ 6:36 am
300!!
And now, because we’re halfway to 600, a little Tennyson to calm our nerves …
“Forward, the Light Brigade!”
Was there a man dismay’d?
Not tho’ the soldier knew
Someone had blunder’d:
Their’s not to make reply,
Their’s not to reason why,
Their’s but to do and die:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
Comment by Chino Blanco — July 31, 2007 @ 6:49 am
[…] More at Feminist Mormon Housewives… Filed under Mormon, Blogs, Uncategorized | […]
Pingback by The Feminist Mormon | Raising Gay Children at The Mystery Is The Truth — July 31, 2007 @ 9:00 am
Hi - me again - mogaria - which, by the way, is a reduction of the oxymoron MOrmon GAy RIghts Activist. I sometimes wonder if I am an oxymormon. I appreciate the interest and comments but I’m still worried about all those little boys like my son who have mothers like I was and isn’t it time we started talking about this in relief society where we are supposed to be learning to be good mothers and compassionate people? Can we somehow start demanding that we address real world issues ? does anyone else feel their mind going numb in RS?
Comment by mogaria — July 31, 2007 @ 2:28 pm
Haha that’s why my mother goes home and cooks dinner during many RS meetings. I think it’d be really cool for mothers to talk about real stuff like that in Relief Society; I know my mother feels like she has this secret that she has a gay daughter that she can’t tell too many people about and feels a lot of guilt about her parenting (not that that isn’t somewhat warranted…).
I dunno how much that’d be acceptable in church though because when I came out to my bishop he told me I needed to not tell anyone else about my “SSA” or talk about it in church. That was one of the things I hated the most, I was supposed to go through the hardest battle of my life alone in case it would confuse people out of their testimonies? I feel like it’s like that a lot of the time that The Church doesn’t us to talk about these troublesome things in case it might be damaging to some people’s testimonies, when for many of us who search, study, ponder and pray this kind of dialogue might strengthen our testimonies. Sometimes I think there should be separate wards for simple minded people and the more intellectually inclined. *sigh*
Comment by Arielle — July 31, 2007 @ 6:35 pm
That was one of the things I hated the most, I was supposed to go through the hardest battle of my life alone in case it would confuse people out of their testimonies?
FWIW, if your mom was in my ward, I’d want her to be able to talk about this and if you were in my ward, I’d want you to be able to share your struggle as well, as long as you also showed respect for the Church and its standards (I can understand a bishop concerned about someone who wanted to cast the Church standards aside and counter the prophets (different from someone who honsetly struggles to understand them and follow them)). I personally think the Church wants to open up dialogue more on this issue, so I hope you and your mom won’t lose hope.
Comment by m&m — July 31, 2007 @ 7:02 pm
[…] Also, in July, the Mormon Matters podcast featured a discussion that included the topic of “Raising Gay LDS Children,” based on a blog post on Feminist Mormon Housewives. […]
Pingback by Northern Lights » Blog Archive » Bloggernacle Report and North Star Website Update — September 6, 2007 @ 10:10 am
#292–To answer your question, which is:
“Also, e., I was wondering how old you are, and I’ll be honest about my reason. It’s not really that I assume you’re 16-18 because you’ve said and believe exactly what I did at that age and think that I must be wiser and more correct in my current beliefs since I’m 20 and think I have a more developed understanding of the world (I mean, how predictable is it that I’d go to college and become a liberal and a feminist and leave The Church? Maybe I’m just going through a pattern). I wonder how old you are because I wonder about the pattern I think I see gay Mormons go through. Do we tend to say and believe what you do at 17, only to completely change our minds at 19, only to go all conservative and Mormony again at about 30 (another age you might well be)? Or are you 20 or 43 or something? I know it’s one of my greatest strengths and weaknesses that I interpret the nature of patterns prematurely, so this pattern could easily be a product of my foolishness.”
I am 40 years old. Since you are asking about patterns: like everyone says, I have always known I was different. I was always a tomboy. I remember having crushes on girls in my 3rd and 5th grade classes. I could never relate to “normal” girls–they seemed to foofy, silly, or something. In high school, I never went out on a date. I was probably pretty unattractive, but I’m sure I sent out a vibe that the boys picked up on. I desperately wanted to be normal, to date boys and go to proms. Toward high school graduation, I remember journaling that it was good I was LDS and going to an LDS college, because my inner desire was to escape to a nearby large city and live the gay life. In college, I had relationships with women, that had we not been active LDS, would have become full-fledged gay relationships. No sex, but everything else. I am not going to write more about the rest of my life (due to anonymity), but I have always known two things about myself: I was “different” and the LDS doctrine is true.
Now, later in my adult years, I had to learn the very difficult lesson that not everything said in church and/or by LDS leaders (from YW leader to RS pres to bishop to even prophet) is true. I see it this way–God has certain truths. He asks humans to teach those truths. Being human (and imperfect), humans make mistakes. Even church leaders who try to teach those truths. Even prophets, because they are human, see the truth thru eyes veiled by their own culture, upbringing, society, etc. So they teach the truth as best they can, and because they are prophets with prophetic gifts, they generally do a pretty good job, but sometimes mistakes are made. It is our responsibility, as children of God, to live our lives in such a way that we can receive truth from God, as pure as possible.
So, when I was taught that just having gay thoughts is a sign of sin and weakness, I kind of believed it, but after enough prayer and meditation, I understood what church leaders are saying now: that having a thought pop into your head is not the issue. What you do with those thoughts is. So I’d hear those lessons in church and, eventually, learned to take them with a grain of salt. I’m not saying that I was/am more spiritually advanced than church leaders, but that the knowledge I received worked for me.
I do believe that on areas like interracial relationships, church leaders were clearly wrong. Church leaders were obviously going along with their culture. But I also believe that same-sex relationships are wrong. Are church leaders just going along with their culture on this one–I don’t think so. I’ve prayed about it, and I have a testimony of it.
Also to answer your question, I am not a conservative LDS. Or conservative anything. When I attended Ricks, I thought more conservative thoughts, but got over it when I left Rexburg. (I feel much better now!) Underneath, though, I have always been, and still am, pretty liberal. I do not think it is impossible to be a believing LDS and be liberal. (And I do not think it is impossible to be believing LDS, liberal, and queer as a 3 dollar bill.)
Sorry this is so long. And sorry to be so long in answering your question–I pretty much lost interest once the discussion got snarky and/or political. Hope this helps.
Comment by e. — September 6, 2007 @ 11:43 am
#303–”That was one of the things I hated the most, I was supposed to go through the hardest battle of my life alone in case it would confuse people out of their testimonies?”
This is why I actually have few LDS friends. Either they really ARE stupid and weak, or they are pretending to, to fit into a mold of either the culture or their own imaginings.
My ward currently has an active AA member who, every month in testimony meeting, bears a beautiful testimony of the grace of God. This person is very open about being a drunk and trying to stay sober. I’m sure that many members cringe at this, but I love it. Screw the dorks.
Comment by e. — September 6, 2007 @ 12:10 pm
Hello Everyone,
I was reffered to this thread by Ty Mansfield, co-author of ‘In Quiet Desperation.’ I belong to his new North Star families group and we were discussing some of the things you have talked about on this group. I have very much appreciated all of your comments and there is much we can learn from each other. Perhaps my experience and story will add more perspective. My name is Bridget Night and I have a 25 year old son who has left the church and is gay. We have a very unusual story that I know had the hand of God in it. Here is a link to a preview of it:
www.1stbooks.com/bookview/12053 God truly works in such mysterious ways and uses everything for His glory and good.
As a hairdresser and beauty school teacher I had worked with many gay people. Even though I did not approve of gay sex, I loved these people and they loved me. Then I served a mission for the church in Austria and had a companion hit on me sexually. It was a very frightening experience, but I handled it well and loved this companion in a healthy way until she died a few years ago. All, this must have prepared me for my son. When I was trying to figure out how to end my book I had a very powerful spiritual experience. I felt the Holy Ghost flood my whole being with the greatest joy I have ever felt. The spirit told me to see my son as in the story of the blind man in the bible. In Jesus day it was thought that the blind person or his parents had sinned. So, when Jesus was asked whose fault it was that this man was born blind, Jesus answered no ones, but to show forth the glory of God.
Is it good to be blind or have a same-sex attraction? Not in the eternal perspective, but I believe God uses everything for his wise purpose. How people treat those who are blind or have ssa is a test for them. When I first discovered my son’s same-sex attraction, I was devestated. The first 2 years I did nothing but cry and worry about him. When he attended a gay prom at 17 and had his first sexual experience, he contracted an std that almost killed him. Now after 7 years of finding out about his ssa, I have come to see that all I have gone through has turned to blessings. My son and our experiences have brought such growth to our family and has had a ripple effect that has blest so many lives.
I met the parents of the Matis son at the last evergreen conference. They taught the most marvelous class for the parents and what the atonement meant. I also found out that Prophet Kimball had told his son that he regretted his harshness about homosexuals in his book, ‘the miracle of forgiveness’. I heard that Hinckley apologized for his prejudice against blacks at one time. Growth is a process and even prophets have their hang-ups. I mean, I still can’t get over that the only righteous people God could find in Gommorah was Lot and his family and Lot had sex with his daughters and his wife turned to a pillar of salt. This is why I believe we must recieve our own personal revelation and have a personal relationship with God.
Comment by Bridget Night — September 6, 2007 @ 5:30 pm
Hopping on the bandwagon 2 years later…but someone mentioned wanting to know a nonreligious reason for not supporting gay marriage. I was on the fence, but then read a book by a doctor–don’t have it anymore–which claimed that homosexual sex is the cause of many diseases, that it shortens gay people’s lifespan by up to 30 years, and that in fact could wreck a person’s health as much as alcoholism.
In other words, don’t touch anal sex.
Are there any arguments against this? I must say, that after reading this book my opinion took a whole different direction, and that is that popularizing and politically supporting gay sex through allowing benefits from marriage may be a burden on the health system.
Trust me, I’m open to arguments on either side.
Comment by Annon 2 — October 29, 2009 @ 1:46 pm
The arguments against it are that it simply isn’t true for a host of reasons. Reason 1: Heterosexuals have anal sex. Reason 2: Just because someone is homosexual doesn’t mean they have anal sex. Reason 3: That business about gay people’s lifespan being shortened by gay sex (without the reference I can’t say) probably refers to AIDS, which is a virus that anyone can catch. Reason 4: Gay marriage has nothing to do with anal sex, any more than straight marriage has something to do with anal sex. Sheesh. Rather it grants married couples specific tax rights, insurance rights, probate rights, and the like. No sex involved.
I’m tempted to say something snarky here, such as “concern troll is concerned,” but, please, I will assume you’re simply misinformed.
Comment by djinn — October 29, 2009 @ 2:17 pm
Annon 2 - djinn is exactly correct. I’m a lesbian in an almost-19-year partnership with another woman. We are monogamous and committed to one another for life. We have two children together.
I’ll let you in on a little secret…We have never once had anal sex. It’s just not on our “to-do” list.
Lesbians have no higher death-rates than the general population, nor do gay men who do not engage in promiscuous sex or IV drug usage. And fact is, straight people who DO engage in promiscuous sex and/or IV drug use have a MUCH higher risk of premature death than do committed, monogamous gay couples of EITHER gender.
And, since marriage is ALL ABOUT the committed, monogamous thing, allowing gays to marry is more likely to LOWER death rates caused by promiscuity than to raise them, wouldn’t you say?
Gay marriage has nothing to do with whether or not promiscuous people will be “a burden on the health system,” beyond the fact that it encourages more people to make commitments to monogamous, committed relationships. Those people, straight or gay, who choose to behave promiscuously will do so whether gay people are allowed to marry or not, and will be just as much a burden on the healthcare system whether or not my wife and I and our two children have the rights of marriage, both state and federal. How does it make sense to punish committed, monogamous couples like us and families like ours because some idiots (gay AND straight) choose to behave promiscuously and make stupid choices in their lives?
In other words, the book you read presented a pretty darned insane argument against gay marriage.
Comment by Lorian — October 29, 2009 @ 4:23 pm
Thanks for the answers guys. I wanted to have a counterargument to the book I read, but when I googled it I didn’t find much.
Thanks for not being snarky. I really am just trying to become more informed.
The health problems listed ranged from cancer to liver failure to just about anything else listed under the sun when fecal matter enters the bloodstream.
The gist of the book was this: actually, lesbians weren’t found to have any more health problems. This book was only about homosexual males, and promiscuous ones at that. Anal sex is across the board, yes, but the book was making the claim that in most instances, gay men are more promiscuous. In the study performed, not a single homosexual male had sex only with his partner, even if they were in a committed relationship for four years or more.
The book was making the (harsh) claim that most homosexual male partnerships don’t last long as monogamous, even when committed.
While I have many gay friends, and have attended a gay marriage, I’m too young as of yet to see them last in a long monogamous relationship. So I didn’t really have any personal examples to compare it to.
And YES, I have to agree, that allowing gays to marry would help to halt the problem of promiscuity, not encourage it.
Comment by Annon 2 — October 29, 2009 @ 9:58 pm
Thanks for being openminded and interested, Annon2.
I would say that anal sex has its complications, but there is nothing exclusive to the gay community about that fact, since, as djinn pointed out, anal intercourse is hardly the exclusive property of gays. Many, many straight couples engage in it, some quite routinely. And many other human beings do other damaging things to their rectums, including excessive enemas, insertion of objects for their own…er…pleasure, and so forth.
Anyone who outlines an argument against gay marriage in terms of the risks of anal penetration is pushing some other agenda beyond one of “simple concern for the public health.”
I’m glad the book you read at least had sufficient intellectual honesty to exclude lesbians from their gross generalities. Most anti-gay groups don’t even have that much honesty.
As to men’s ability to be monogamous, I think most people would agree that men, as a group, have more trouble with monogamy that women, as a group (individual results will vary, of course). But does that mean that gay men do not engage in committed monogamous relationships of a lasting nature? No, no more than it means that straight men do not engage in committed monogamous relationships of a lasting nature. Of course they do. And anyone who makes universal claims about the inability of gay men to have lasting monogamous relationships, again, is grinding some other kind of axe.
And since the book admitted that lesbians have no more health issues or promiscuity than the general population, arguing that gays and lesbians across the board do not deserve marriage rights on the basis of what the book puts forth as “gay male issues,” hardly makes reasonable sense, does it? They might just as well argue that because straight males are, as a rule, more promiscuous, less monogamous, than straight females, straight couples should not be allowed to marry.
Nonsensical, really.
Comment by Lorian — October 29, 2009 @ 10:19 pm