My Prop 8 (Counter) Proposal
This was originally a comment on FD’s post — but I decided she didn’t need anymore thread jacks. So here it is in it’s own right. One last chance to get your arguments in, then let’s move on 
Sometime I refrain from posting things because I’m a perma here. Especially things that encourage like say, more prop 8 discussions. But against my better judgment (and in spite of the fact that prop 8’s ad nausium discussion has kept me from finishing my “A. and Me” posts) I’m going to jump in the fray…..
I don’t think there is a viable compromise here. This is a civil rights issue and civil rights are things that don’t morally permit compromise. Segregation, miscegenation, apartheid, women’s rights, etc. etc. etc. We wouldn’t (now) say those people should have been forced to compromise with the majority that opposed their rights to own property, to have their kids in white schools, to have voting power, to marry someone of another race, to hold jobs and choose their communities and live their lives without fear. I guess being in the middle of it allows some to see this as ‘different’ from those other past issues. But 30 years gives a great deal of hindsight, and I think that will be true with gay righs as well.
So what do I wish for this whole mess?
First for Prop 8 supporters: I suggest humilty. You are going to lose this eventually. The demographic that is the most anti-gay marriage is old people, and they are dying off. So yes, maybe you think it’s a moral stand and maybe you need to make your views known. But someday gay marriage is going to happen, and those on the other side are going to remember. Humility in this fight will go along way towards healing the future.
To those against Prop 8: I suggest grace. When the vote came back against gay marriage, I called an old friend to apologize. His words were full of grace and forgiveness. He’s nearing 60 and can remember Stonewall and Harvey Milk and AIDS and Act Up (and all the dead) and Matthew Sheppard: all the history of Gay rights. His perspective is — thank you for the apology. We’ve come so far, and yes there will be setbacks. But we will get there (he is amazed at how far he’s come). And let’s get together this year sometime, I’d love to see you guys.
Yes rubbing your opponents face in ‘it’ feel so good. But after gay rights are won, we still need to live together in one nation. If you want a completely over the top, extreme example think of South Africa and Zimbabwe and how the different nations handled winning the war against apartheid. Grace in the winner is admirable and healing. Revenge is ’sweet’ but deadly in the long run.
And finally — one last thing to the gay community. Remember even the LDS aren’t monolithic. I am a ‘category A’ LDS person. I know some of my gay acquaintances wish i’d just quit this ‘evil’ church. (Some seemed to have stopped talking to me.) But this is where God wants me to be. And, well, i’d hope you’d rather have people like me in the church than not.
To those on the anti prop 8 side who think I can not be moral unless I renounce my membership — well, perhaps you hope by us doing so it would clear out the gray? Just the bigots would be left? And that would make the LDS church all that much easier to despise?
Black and white is easy; gray, not so much. So don’t assume we are all against you, we aren’t. But it gets really really hard to walk a line when both the members and my liberal friends think I should just leave. When no one has the grace or love or tolerance (on either side, btw) to see why I might find things to love and reasons to stay in this community: in spite of my own moral stand on this issue and because of it on so many others….
I love this post and agree with you 100%. Thanks so much for writing it. Grace is the key to everything good, including forgiveness and healing.
As one gay guy who strives to be like your 60 year old friend, I just want to say that I defend Mormon people a lot lately when anger about Prop 8 is being expressed. Because it’s true: In my personal experience active Latter-day Saints are some of the most loving, least hateful people I have known. One (mistaken?
) vote on a ballot proposition does not change that.
Comment by MikeInWeHo — November 26, 2008 @ 6:38 pm
Gray is becoming my all-time favorite color.
Really. It freed me when I realized there was a gray area and I wouldn’t be struck with lightning when I went there. It is a very difficult place to be in, though, and precisely because my other friends and family don’t see it as a good place to be.
I apologized to a gay friend of mine as well. He was very disappointed, but optimistic. He was the first to note (at least to me) that the gap was much, much narrower than it was 8 years ago.
And thanks - yes it will take some grace and humility, dare I say both sides will need both, to get through this thing.
Comment by LisaJ — November 26, 2008 @ 7:49 pm
I am all for moving on…not forgetting, but just moving on. What is it in Shakespeare…”Time gives it proof.”
Speaking of proofing, I have some cookin’ to do, so see ya later gals! Have a good Thanksgiving!
Comment by Katie — November 26, 2008 @ 7:57 pm
NO-
Thank you for going against your better judgement. Reading through this has helped me find words to explain how I feel to others.
This past Sunday I listened to a woman speak her spectrum of feelings over Prop 8 - a woman who is gay and has been in a long-term relationship (longer than my marriage). Initially of course she was mad and hurt and, like a lot of people, looked to someone to place blame.
As she looked at how far change has come for her in her life, she realized how much had changed already. When she spoke of how true change is formed, in the Christlike pursuits of charity, love and friendship, she felt an immense sense of hope.
She said it much more eloquently than I am here - but it gave me peace for where we are as a society and hope for the future.
Comment by Shelly — November 26, 2008 @ 8:09 pm
Not Ophelia and LisaJ, Thanks for your loving and thoughtful posts. You represent several of the LDS people in my life (though I’m not LDS, as I’ve mentioned before, a good chunk of my family is, and I probably wouldn’t be here posting about this if it weren’t for them and for the handful of LDS friends in my life — these people give me hope).
Please remember, too, when all you see are news reports about a protest outside a temple or the repetition of a few stories about a handful of people who do bad things in their anger over Prop 8: These few people do not by any means represent ALL gay people, or imply that ALL gay people “hate Mormons.”
Just as you recognize that there are many different people who wear the name “Mormon,” but hold a variety of opinions about gays and our civil rights, please try to remember that many gays are well aware of the same differences and distinctions. We are all at least as different from one another as you are distinct and different from other LDS people (probaby more so, considering that we are members of a variety of religions, cultures, ethnicities, socio-economic classes, and every other distinction you could imagine). We are no more monolithic than you, and certainly do not all hold the same opinions.
I dearly love my religious friends who treat me with love and respect, particularly those who support my family’s rights in spite of the official dictates of their religion. I would no more want to see them give up their religious beliefs than they would want me to give up my family. Just because I may consider that some (not all, by any means, but SOME) of the teachings of some religions may be misguided or based in thoughtless tradition, this doesn’t mean that I consider religions valueless.
I don’t want my friends to give up their religions or their religious beliefs. I just don’t want them to use those beliefs blindly to hurt others. And my friends don’t do that.
Comment by Lorian — November 26, 2008 @ 8:15 pm
Not Ophelia, I am totally in love with you in a totally appropriate (for various values of appropriate) way. Can I be your friend? Or, perhaps, wave at you from an opposite street corner? I promise I’ll be good, for very high values of goood. See, you can tell because extra vowels are involved.
Comment by djinn — November 26, 2008 @ 9:16 pm
Well said, N.O.
Black and white is easy; gray, not so much.
I learned a long time ago to accept that I see through my glass, darkly. I agree that gay marriage probably will be the norm in not too many years. I hope at that point I can behave as I’m asking others to behave now, since my feelings for others have never been based on their marital status.
Comment by Ray — November 26, 2008 @ 9:25 pm
Sorry, the second line obviously should have been a block quote.
Comment by Ray — November 26, 2008 @ 9:25 pm
Repeating the civil rights mantra over gay marriage does not make it a civil rights issue–no matter how many times you repeat it. To assume this conclusion is to confuse popular contemporary political causes constitutional construction, and the concept of fundamental rights.
Assuming your conclusion requires 48 other states and the entire federal judiciary likewise are conspiring to deny fundamental rights to a protected suspect class. There is a reason the gay rights advocates have steered clear of federal courts. They will lose the legal battle there. The reason is that no federal courts consider gay marriage a fundamental right and do not consider sexual orientation a suspect and protected class.
Your post assumes CA denies some basic fundamental rights, i.e., civil rights to an entire block of a powerless minority. That simply is not the case. Your assumption ignores all the statutory protections already in place for those of a different sexual orientation. That, on its face is not a denial of any civil rights. If you disagree, please identify with particularity all civil rights at issue here.
Comment by Guy Murray — November 26, 2008 @ 10:03 pm
Guy, you are incorrect. The reason legal groups representing gay civil rights issues have steered clear of the federal courts for the past few years is because George W. Bush has done a fairly good job of stacking the current US Supreme Court with some rather extreme conservative justices. If we still had the USSC as constituted in the 1990’s and early 2000’s, when laws criminalizing same-gender sex acts were declared unconstitutional, it is quite possible we’d be seeing some same-gender marriage cases working their way through the federal court system. The constitutional issues are quite clear to any fair-thinking person not blinded by an extreme religious-conservative bias, such as Scalia, Alito and Roberts. The US Constitution does not deny civil rights protections on the basis of sexual orientation, nor does it define civil marriage as solely a heterosexual institution. The Federal Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional as the constitution now stands, since it specifically denies gay and lesbian citizens the equal protection of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the constitution, which should obligate all 50 states to honor the gay marriages performed in Massachusetts, Connecticutt and California, just as all other marriages are honored equally from state to state.
As to your claim that denying marriage to gays is not denial of a civil right to a protected class, you are, again, incorrect. Marriage IS a civil right, as defined by the US Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia, and sexual orientation is protected class in California along with race, ethnicity, religion and gender. That being the case, California’s Equal Protections Clause justifies the claim that gays are now being denied a civil right (to whit: Marriage) which justly belongs to them and the guarantee of which was confirmed by the California Supreme Court in May of this year.
Amending the CA constitution to add the “definition” of marriage as “between a man and a woman” is not constitutional either, since you cannot amend the constitution to contradict what it already says. That is a revision, not an amendment, and revisions cannot be made by a simple majority vote on a ballot measure.
Comment by Lorian — November 26, 2008 @ 10:31 pm
Well, now that that issue is settled, we can move on.
Comment by Mark B. — November 26, 2008 @ 10:56 pm
Yes, Mark. We can.
Comment by Lorian — November 26, 2008 @ 11:06 pm
I was reflecting on things, I suspect the future will be different than any of us expect.
Comment by Stephen M (Ethesis) — November 26, 2008 @ 11:40 pm
Funny how it is the bigots who tend to repeat themselves.
Just the other day, I was reading very nearly exactly Guy’s argument, spoken regarding universal sufferage, more than a hundred years ago — and I have over the years found more than a few such quotes, regarding racial equality, mouthed by the Guy Murrays of the 1950s.
I hope, along with N.O., that thirty years from now the Guy Murrays of the world will have the good grace to be thoroughly embarassed about what they said in 2008, and that the next generation will have the good grace, through their astonishment that anyone could ever actually have said such a thing, to forgive them.
Comment by obi-wan — November 26, 2008 @ 11:47 pm
We just got back from seeing Milk. I suggest that anyone on either side of the fence should watch it. The scenes recounting the prop 6 vote and Anita Bryant were eerily reminiscent of some of the things that just went down with prop 8.
Comment by Shelah — November 26, 2008 @ 11:50 pm
I’m hoping to see it soon. I’ve already seen a wonderful clip of Harvey Milk’s “You’ve Got to Give Them Hope” speech (you can see it at: http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/52…_page_KEY=2309 )
which brings me to sobs every time I listen to it. Really worth the click and the couple of minutes it takes to watch, if you are so inclined.
Comment by Lorian — November 26, 2008 @ 11:54 pm
Along as the church still upholds the Proclamation on the Family, I don’t see much ground for compromise here. There was a time that I thought that this proclamation would become scripture.
Is it okay to legislate morality? We have laws restricting tobacco and alcohol and other harmful lifestyles.
In San Diego we observed that in many cases the No on 8 crowd were also holding up signs for No on D. Proposition D was a proposal to ban alcohol consumption on the beaches, but Prop D passed very overwelming people were upset that at all the crime and rowdy behaviour that followed this bad vice. The drunks are very upset that we took away their “right” to have a beer on the sand.
Comment by Roland — November 27, 2008 @ 12:26 am
Lorian #10
I, and the vast majority of appellate court justices all across the United States which have considered and opined on the constitutional issues? You will forgive me if I tend to side with the majority of appellate courts which have considered and clearly rejected the very arguments you propose here. But, please don’t pretend the weight of constitutional construction, law, and precedent support your position that this is a matter of civil rights. It is not. The law does not support it, and neither does the history of the civil rights movement or the Amendments to the United States Constitution that allowed the very decisions that supported and vindicated the real civil rights movement. Marching down Santa Monica Boulevard is not marching in Selma.
Really? Do you have any support for that claim?
Marriage is defined on the state level, and has been for over 200 years in the country. There is no federal case that has held that one civil statute that defines marriage as between man and a woman is unconstitutional. If you know of one, please provide the citation.
Please provide me the citation of one federal case that has so construed the DOMA. That act overwhelmingly passed the United States Congress–85 to 14, U.S. Senate, 342-67 House of Representatives. Is it your position that the vast majority of United States Senators and Representatives passed unconstitutional legislation by such wide majorities? And, if the did, where is the United States Supreme Court? Why has it not stepped in? Where are the gay rights activists on this issue? Why has it not been adjudicated in federal court?
Please provide me one citation of any federal case that has so held. Also, you should be aware that CA no longer honors or performs gay marriages, as of the day after Proposition 8’s passage.
Marriage is a fundamental right. Gay marriage is not. Loving did not so hold. Please quote the language in Loving that holds gay marriage is a fundamental right.
Amending the CA constitution to add the “definition” of marriage as “between a man and a woman” is not constitutional either, since you cannot amend the constitution to contradict what it already says.
Really, how about the 3/5’s compromise, and then the subsequent passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments?
How about prohibition and it’s subsequent repeal?
I guess we shall see.
Comment by Guy Murray — November 27, 2008 @ 12:29 am
obi-wan #14
That’s it? That’s the best you can do? Do you have anything of substance to say on the merits of my points other than to call me a bigot?
Impressive, indeed.
Comment by Guy Murray — November 27, 2008 @ 12:34 am
Roland, don’t be confused by legislation banning things you consider “immoral.” Legislation must demonstrate an actual harm to society or innocent parties, not simply claim that an activity is “immoral.”
Thus, legislation banning smoking in public places could not simply claim that smoking was an “immoral activity.” It was necessary to demonstrate that there was good cause to believe that second-hand smoke was harmful to others who patronized the restaurant, worked in the office, etc., where the smoker smoked, to show good cause why public smoking should be banned in those places. Otherwise, the bans might have been passed, but would have lost when challenged in the court system.
The alcohol on the beach ban to which you refer must show good cause, as well. This shouldn’t be too difficult, however, because public consumption of alcohol bans are fairly common in various municipalities and venues, and the means of clearly demonstrating the harm caused by the behavior is also well-established.
Where you run into trouble using this approach with gay marriage is that there is no demonstrable harm you can prove for society at large or against innocent 3rd parties, so all you are left with is your claim that “homosexuality is immoral,” which is not sufficient legal justification for banning homosexual behavior (per the US Supreme Court), and is therefore also not a valid reason for banning gay marriage.
Comment by Lorian — November 27, 2008 @ 12:52 am
Stephen M (Ethesis) #13
Except, perhaps for the Prophets, Seers and Revelators, who have been pretty much on target on this issue now for several years already–even before it was the most culturally popular political fad of the day.
Comment by Guy Murray — November 27, 2008 @ 12:56 am
Grace and humility, on both sides, I’d say. We all need a little Christ-like humility and grace to temper what we say to others, no matter our beliefs, as the above exchange clearly demonstrates.
Comment by stacer — November 27, 2008 @ 1:00 am
Since your “points” about civil rights and constitutional law are, frankly, silly, the best one can do with them is try to put them in historical perspective.
And since I really do know better than to feed the troll, from here on out, you’re on short rations.
Comment by obi-wan — November 27, 2008 @ 2:14 am
Guy —
You take the words ‘civil rights’ and put them in a very small box — the small box of an attorney arguing a case for his client — and expect the rest of us to engage you on that level. Yes civil rights has a specific constitutional meaning. But yes it also has other meanings in the larger society of non-lawyers; meaning that are obvious to most of us here.
If you take your narrow definition of civil rights, i.e. it takes the courts and the legistlature to recognize a minority’s rights before they have any, then blacks certainly had no civil rights for about 70 years after Plessy vs. Ferguson. Which I suppose is LEGALLY accurate (thought I’d still argue it remained a civil rights issue) But I’m not talking legal, I’m talking moral. And for me and many many other people in this country (the percentage going up as the age demographic goes down) these things we mean by civil rights are a moral imperative that has more to do with ‘natural law’ than it does with legislatures and SC decisions, and who the majority might think is worthy of respect or rights or franchise or protection under the law.
So you don’t like ‘civil rights issue’??? Fine. Call it a human rights issue if that will keep you from making us all offenders for a word.
But do try engage us honestly. I hope you are, and I apologize if I’m wrong. But I’m having a hard time believing you are doing much more than picking a fight over definitions: i.e. getting in a snit over my using the common non-legal definition of a word that is also a legal term of art.
Comment by Not Ophelia — November 27, 2008 @ 2:44 am
Yes, defined on the state level, but it is required of all 50 states to respect the “public acts, records, and judicial rulings” of the other states.
I’m guessing these questions of yours are purely rhetorical, and that you very well know that there have only been a handful of decisions handed down regarding DOMA. Thus far, all have been negative, which is not surprising considering that legal gay marriages have only been taking place in this country for a little over 4 years, and only in one state up until a few months ago, and in that state, Massachusetts, only for state residents. The US Supreme Court has thus far declined to deliberate on the constitutionality of DOMA, which is not at all the same as declaring DOMA constitutional.
Regardless of a few federal courts upholding DOMA, it clearly remains unconstitutional by its very nature, and on several constitutional bases.
Remember Brown v. BOA? Remember that it overturned earlier rulings of the USSC which had upheld segregation? A determination that a law is constitutional in the opinion of a federal court, and even in the opinion of the Supreme Court does not necessarily make it so in any true or lasting sense. If an unjust decision is made, while the effect is to permit an injustice to continue with a declaration of “constitutionality,” in factual terms, we know that the constitution never actually supported segregation — never supported “whites only” restaurants, schools, restrooms, drinking fountains, housing.
Sometimes the courts decide things based upon their own prejudice. The justices are human beings, after all, and subject to the same faults as anyone else. The tendency, though, is towards equality and justice, just as the founders of this nation intended.
You are misinformed. While the state has ceased issueing marriage licenses to same-gender couples until the Supreme Court issues a decision on the constitutionality of Prop 8, the 18,000-ish same-gender marriages which took place in the interim still stand, as per Attorney General Brown. The Supreme Court is to issue a decision on this question at the same time as the Prop 8 decision, but the marriage are not yet invalidated, and probably will not be for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that they are not recorded with any information as to the gender of the parties, so there is nothing to readily distinguish them or allow for a “mass annulment” to take place. Don’t hold your breath waiting for California’s existing gay marriages to “go away.”
It is not necessary that Loving make a direct statement regarding sexual orientation. The CASC found that the Loving decision supported marriage as a civil right. Since the CA constitution forbids discrimination against citizens on the basis of sexual orientation, this includes discrimination in ALL civil rights, INCLUDING the right to marry.
Lawrence v. Texas found that citizens have a fundamental right to intimate consensual sexual conduct (incidentally, in so doing, overturning Bowers v. Hardwick, which had declared such laws constitutional — again we see that a Supreme Court decision declaring a discriminatory law “constitutional,” does not necessarily make it so in any real or lasting sense). The Lawrence decision did not need to declare that such intimate consensual sexual conduct was legal between persons of different races, or persons of opposite genders (even though such persons were, in many cases, also subject to prosecution under state sodomy laws — rare though such enforcement may have been). When a fundamental right is found to exist, whether human or civil, it applies to all citizens. If discriminatory statutes stand in the way of certain classes of citizens claiming the protection of that right (as anti-sodomy laws stood in the way of gays claiming the protection of their right to marry under Loving v. Virginia), that does not change the fact that those citizens have that fundamental right. It is simply being denied to them by means of the unconstitutional law.
Loving, itself, is proof of this fact. As I stated to someone else, earlier today, the decision of Loving did not require that new laws be written according blacks and whites the right to intermarry. Loving found that they already HAD that fundamental right, and that unconstitutional antimiscegenation laws simply stood between them and their basic civil right to marry. The right existed. It did not have to be created. It existed, but the couples were blocked from exercising it by unconstitutional bans.
Ah, see, you have misunderstood me — due, I’m certain, to my lack of clarity. You cannot amend the California State Constitution in a manner which substantially changes its fundamental meaning (which, in the case of gay marriage, has already been determined by the CASC as protecting the right of gays to marry). What you must do if you wish to create a fundamental change to the existing meaning of the CA state constitution is to “revise” it, rather than amend it. And while amendments can be made by a simple majority of the popular vote, revisions require a 2/3 majority of the state legislature prior to being put to the popular vote (or a constitutional convention).
Amending the US Constitution is, as you know, a much more complex and difficult process, far more like revision of the CA constitution. The US Constitution’s various amendments were not passed by a simple majority vote the people OR their elected representatives.
I cannot think of a single case in which either the US Constitution or the California Constitution has previously been amended to TAKE AWAY a civil right from a group of citizens (other than prohibition, which was, as you point out, repealed).
By the way, the congress which passed the federal DOMA was dominated by republicans. Obama supports its repeal, and has the democrat majority to do it.
As you say, we shall see.
Comment by Lorian — November 27, 2008 @ 2:45 am
It seems the way forward is a work of persuasion of our fellow Saints. In doing so let us keep in mind what the most effective tone may be. I believe policies change when the Saints are ready and that’s a cause we should undertake.
Comment by Steve Fleming — November 27, 2008 @ 2:56 am
Steve, perhaps that is true for changes within church policy. I hold no particular hope for changes with the LDS church’s policy on gay marriage, nor should that (in the long run) be of particular importance with regards to what I do care about, which is basic civil rights protections for myself, my spouse and our children.
The LDS Church can keep its policy unchanged towards gays and gay marriage eternally should it so desire. What I need are civil rights protections. And all I ask of the LDS Church is that it no longer act in a political manner to inhibit my right to those protections.
Since so many Mormons have, at the behest of their church authorities, seen fit to sway the political process to legislate their religious beliefs into state law (even, in many cases, in spite of their own personal doubts about the rightness of doing so), I approach individual members of the LDS Church, not from the perspective of attempting to tell them what to believe or even of asking them to try to change their Church’s teachings on the subject, but simply to pose a suggestion that, out of simple fairness, whatever the church hierarchy may ask for in the future, they consider refraining from using their political prerogative to vote as a means of depriving others of civil rights protections on the basis of a religious belief of their church.
There will certainly be many who will stand on their right to vote their own conscience as justification for voting to inhibit my civil rights. And they certainly do have the right to cast whatever vote they wish — no doubt about it. But I am asking people of fair mind and good faith to consider carefully in the future whether or not what they are being asked to do by their church, deprive people of civil rights protections, is really anything that their church should reasonably be asking of them.
It is difficult to get people to ask this question of themselves and their religious authorities when they exist within a framework which discourages the questioning of religious authority figures. But I do believe that it IS important for each of us to take personal responsibility for our decisions, and to remember that we have been given minds and spirits to properly discern right from wrong. When our conscience and our inmost spirit tell us that something is inherently wrong, such as interfering with the civil rights of children to basic legal protections, I feel we have a duty to listen to those proddings of our conscience and not to simply overrule them because we have been told to do so.
I cannot change what people have done or will decide to do in the future. All I can do is ask that they consider carefully before allowing the dictates of their own conscience to be overridden, if that, in fact, is occurring — something which each individual must, of course, determine for him or herself.
No offense is intended here, and if you supported prop 8 out of the convictions of your own personal beliefs in all good conscience, then I really have very little to say to you. I’ll argue the merits of your beliefs and ideas with you if you show a willingness to engage, but I’m not addressing you in this post.
I am addressing those who felt a pang of conscience about supporting prop 8 but did so anyway out of obedience to an outside authority figure or for some other reason of external inducement.
Comment by Lorian — November 27, 2008 @ 3:29 am
Lorian,
I voted against prop 8 as a result of spiritual promptings (which for Mormons is not exactly the same as conscience). Trying to get your “opponents” to empathize is the right way to go about it. Ask: “So why do you think gay people want to get married?” even if the initial answers may be hurtful. It’s still a question you want people to be milling over.
Comment by Steve Fleming — November 27, 2008 @ 4:06 am
Good point, Steve. And I had already surmised you voted against Prop 8. I am always encouraged when friends and acquaintances who are members of conservative religious groups are supportive of my family’s civil rights. It affirms my perception that things are changing, albeit gradually.
I like your approach. I generally find it unnecessary to ask people such a question, however, because generally they are more than ready to tell me their opinion on why I want to get married. And, as you say, it’s usually neither particularly pleasant nor particularly accurate.
But I’ve been down that road lots and lots of times and I’ve come to an understanding with more than one person about who I really am and why gay marriage is actually important to me, regardless of their original beliefs on the subject.
Comment by Lorian — November 27, 2008 @ 4:34 am
29 IS it the gravy boat?
Comment by crazywomancreek — November 27, 2008 @ 9:07 am
I went to a an ex-gay support group that strongly supports the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Addiction to gay sex is as bad as addiction to crystal meth. The human body is not designed to have sex with someone of the same gender. It really, really, doesn’t help to have LDS church members support this lifestyle. If someone in the church is straight/gay and is not married (man/woman), are they not required to be celibate, and if necessary, till their dying breath?
Comment by Phil Johnson — November 27, 2008 @ 10:59 am
As tiresome as these post are the tone has certainly gotten better. Only Obi-wan seems to want to scream rather than think.
I do see a lot of cultural changes in our society in regards to how we treat each other. I would point out though that according to a pew research poll this summer SSM is not necessarily favored among the youth. For those under 25 it shows about an even split with almost 20% undecided or nuetral. They are more open than baby boomers which I think was the point. Boomers were opposed by 70-80%. Another big difference is youger people like to wear their pants baggy with the belt closer to their knees where old people like the top of their pants closer to their nipples. Not saying these things are related.
Comment by Bob W — November 27, 2008 @ 11:22 am
N.O. #24
You take the words ‘civil rights’ and put them in a very small box — the small box of an attorney arguing a case for his client — and expect the rest of us to engage you on that level. Yes civil rights has a specific constitutional meaning. But yes it also has other meanings in the larger society of non-lawyers; meaning that are obvious to most of us here.
I didn’t frame the context of the marriage debate. It is a legal debate. It is a constitutional debate. The so called gay rights movement has defined the debate this way through their selective use of various state court systems to press their legal challenges. You can make the moral and ethical arguments as well; but, they don’t carry the force and mandate of constitutional law, which is the avenue chosen by the “gay rights” movement. So, it’s not I who has put “civil rights” into a small box. I’m simply engaging within the framework in which the debate was originally created.
If you want to read about fundamental rights, equal protection and the like, I’ve already posted on it, and there’s no sense it repeating it here.
Except the CA supreme court ruling in May of this year mandated the acceptance of a brand new fundamental right of gay marriage and a protected class. It was not arguing and ruling from a moral perspective. It’s ruling had the impact and force of constitutional law, and required all citizens of California to accept the viewpoint of four individuals who had a different interpretation of California’s constitution. And, it was a view rejected by most appellate courts all over the country.
Do you suggest to everyone who may have a difference of opinion with you that they are being dishonest?
Comment by Guy Murray — November 27, 2008 @ 11:30 am
I’m certainly not advocating unchaste behavior, all of which is addicting. There is a difference though between our standards for our own membership and those for everyone else, between persuasion and legal enforcement. On election day the school I’m at held “Sex on the Beach” day. Considering that 94-98 % of society is straight, I couldn’t help but think that we had missed the bigger problem. Gay people wanting to get married seems to be a very different matter.
Comment by Steve Fleming — November 27, 2008 @ 12:20 pm
#31 Phil Johnston: “If someone in the church is straight/gay and is not married (man/woman), are they not required to be celibate, and if necessary, till their dying breath?”
Yes, but straight people can:
-date
-hold hands
-kiss
-engage in affectionate/romantic non-sexual behaviour
-they can do all this openly, even on BYU campus, and remain a Mormon in good standing
Gay people can:
-do none of the above and remain a Mormon in good standing, as far as I know.
So, it’s not exactly the same thing.
Comment by TheFaithfulDissident — November 27, 2008 @ 12:26 pm
re: 31
Being gay is as bad as crystal meth addition….
Darn, I love this stuff sometimes. Please stick around, Phil. Neal seems to have already disappeared.
I would suggest that TFD, Not Ophelia and other who are concerned about reconciliation with your gay neighbors might start here: Become more assertive in confronting such overt bigotry in your own community. You know it’s there.
Almost every time these issues get discussed in the Bloggernacle, someone pops up and compares gays to drug dealers, murderers, pornographers, etc. It’s happening in many of your wards too.
Do you see how problematic that is?
Comment by MikeInWeHo — November 27, 2008 @ 1:28 pm
You are exactly right, Mike. That definitely is something we can do.
#31 - It is perfectly possible to support the Church’s Law of Chastity without comparing homosexuals to meth addicts - or talking incorrectly about what the body is naturally built to do and not do. The human body is built very much like the bodies of the rest of the animal kingdom, and there are all kinds of animals that engage in homosexual activities. If you approach restrictions on sexual activity from a scientific, “natural” basis, you lose; plain and simple, you lose.
Aside from that, making those statements is no different in tone than most of the anti-Mormon statements other religions make about us. If we complain about those statements, we shouldn’t make similar ones in other conversations. It simply isn’t civil or Christ-like.
Comment by Ray — November 27, 2008 @ 2:14 pm
re: 31
Being gay is as bad as crystal meth addition….
My words
Addiction to gax sex is as bad as addiction to crystal meth.
Comment by Phil Johnson — November 27, 2008 @ 3:25 pm
I admit, I’m glad there are anti-8 people staying in the church, because I think that will help the church in the long run. It takes a lot of courage and I commend them.
Comment by Amanda — November 27, 2008 @ 4:35 pm
Phil, “addiction” to any kind of sex, gay or straight, is as bad as any other sort of addiction. There is nothing inherent about “gay sex” which makes it less healthy or more harmful than any other sort of sex. But if one engages in sexual behavior indiscriminately, being non-monogamous, behaving in an exploitative manner, this is certainly harmful no matter what gender one’s partners may be.
On the other hand, engaging in a committed, monogamous, marital relationship with someone whom one has pledge to love, honor, care for and remain faithful to is neither dangerous nor harmful, no matter what the respective genders of the couple may be.
In fact, studies show that individuals living in committed partnership with other individuals live longer, healthier, more fulfilling lives than people living alone.
Phil, you have been sold a bill of goods by people with an ulterior motive. Please take care of yourself and be careful whom you trust in matters of such great and lifelong importance to your emotional and physical well-being. People who lie to you in the name of “trying to help you” do not have your best interests at heart. God bless you and keep you.
Comment by Lorian — November 27, 2008 @ 6:41 pm
Lorian, it doesn’t help to demonize everyone who makes such characterizations as “liars”. If we are going to ask that one side not engage in hyperbole, it is only right to ask it of both sides.
For example, there are aspects of male homosexual activity that are inherently more risky to one’s health than “standard” heterosexual activity. (I can be more clinical, if necessary, but I don’t think I have to be.) To state otherwise (”There is nothing inherent about “gay sex” which makes it less healthy or more harmful than any other sort of sex.”) could be labeled as “lying”. Let’s try to be equally civil on both sides, ok?
Comment by Ray — November 27, 2008 @ 8:50 pm
I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again. I *heart* N.O. Excellent post, in spite of the trolls and nit-wits that popped in to poop on your lovely sentiments.
Comment by Rich — November 27, 2008 @ 8:53 pm
re: 38
That’s still false and offensive. Normally I don’t respond to rank homophobia, but I have a lot of sympathy for people involved in ex-gay organizations. It’s a hard road to walk. Peace, Phil.
Comment by MikeInWeHo — November 27, 2008 @ 9:14 pm
Ray, it IS false, if for no other reason than the fact that there is nothing which gay people do in the bedroom which straight people do not also do (in the global sense — individuals who wish to except themselves from this statement may by all means consider themselves excepted). If we must be clinical, then we must also be honest. Any statement which condemns gay sex as “unhealthy” or “harmful” must specify the particular activity which is being condemned as such and condemn THAT ACTIVITY, regardless of the gender of the participants. There are many gay couples who never engage in “that activity” (lesbians would be an excellent and universal example
).
I am not demonizing ANYONE by characterizing those who make blanket accusations such as “gay sex is inherently unhealthy,” or “gays universally are less healthy than straights and die young,” or, as Phil stated in his OP:
There is nothing about the human body which in any way precludes sex with someone of the same gender, nor is there anything about “gay sex” which is comparable to crystal meth, nor is gay marriage comparable to “sex addiction” (of either the homo or hetero variety).
These ARE lies, Ray, and whoever told them to Phil, presumably in an attempt to discourage him from finding a loving relationship with another man, is a liar. It’s sad that Phil has been subjected to such lies. I feel pain on behalf of people like Phil who have had their emotional and relational lives so horribly and dishonestly disrupted.
Comment by Lorian — November 27, 2008 @ 9:37 pm
Ray, it’s true what Lorian just said. If you have any doubts about heteros enjoying oral or even anal sex play, go check out the LDS women blogging about it (some graphic content there, just a heads-up).
Comment by Rich — November 27, 2008 @ 10:14 pm
Phil, as Mike said, that’s still false and offensive.
Lorian, please, please read what I write carefully. I choose my words carefully in every comment I post; please read them just as carefully.
I don’t disagree with anything you said in your last comment, except the disagreement with things I simply didn’t say and one particular parenthetical I will mention in a moment. I am not going to defend what I don’t say. If you want to critique a comment of mine, please quote the exact part you are critiquing - so I can respond appropriately. Otherwise, just like the last time we realized we actually agree, you often will end up arguing against a stance I have not taken.
For example, you added a disclaimer that was EXACTLY what I said.
Your words were:
My words were:
You then went on to mention lesbians as an example of those who are excepted “universally” - which isn’t accurate, since there are tools that can be and are used by some lesbians to engage in anal sex.
We said essentially the exact same thing in those quotes, but somehow mine was dishonest? Actually, my version was slightly more accurate than yours, since you added the “universal” comment about lesbians which is not accurate “universally”. I’m not about to accuse you of lying in that case; I believe you simply misspoke. Please, take the time to read my words with the same care you would like me to read yours.
Finally, I understand your classification of “lying”, but I define “lying” as stating something which one knows to be false and untrue. All I said is that not “everyone” who makes incorrect statements is lying; some simply are speaking out of ignorance. I don’t see that as being a liar; I see it as being ignorant - and I don’t think it helps one bit to make the two synonymous. I believe that is engaging in hyperbole. I believe education is much better at eradicating ignorance than reviling and name calling, especially since many who make such statements are not “liars”.
The best example of this I can think of for this blog is the person who asserts adamantly that Mormons are not Christians. That is patently and ridiculously false, but the VAST majority of those who say it are not “lying” when they say it. They simply are ignorant. To call them liars defeats the entire purpose of communication with them. The only thing that possibly can change their minds is getting to know Mormons and realizing that what they have been taught is wrong. They won’t listen to someone who simply calls them liars; they might listen to someone who takes the time to educate them in a spirit of love and genuine concern.
Comment by Ray — November 27, 2008 @ 10:15 pm
#45 - Rich, that comment is simply condescending and unnecessary. Nothing I said in my comment implies that I am ignorant of that. Nothing in my comment implies whether or not I personally engage in either activity. I think it is fairly obvious that I don’t engage in anal sex, but it’s not explicit in my comment at all - and to assume I think heterosexuals should not engage in oral sex is ridiculous, since I have NEVER made any comment here or anywhere else that would lead someone to assume so.
Comment by Ray — November 27, 2008 @ 10:20 pm
Oh, and Rich, to assume I believe homosexuals should not engage in oral sex is ridiculous, since have NEVER made any comment here or anywhere else that says so. Stop stereotyping and mis-characterizing what I say, please.
Comment by Ray — November 27, 2008 @ 10:25 pm
I always knew Ray was an anti…
Oh, you meant the person assuming was wrong!
Comment by crazywomancreek — November 27, 2008 @ 10:41 pm
Nice, cwc. Thanks for the laugh on Thanksgiving.
Comment by Ray — November 27, 2008 @ 11:00 pm
Ray, dude, chill! All my comment intended was agreement with this statement:
That’s all. Nothing else implied there.
Comment by Rich — November 27, 2008 @ 11:04 pm
Rich, there actually was much more implied in your comment, even if it was not intended - but I will take your word that you didn’t mean to imply that I “have (some) doubts about heteros enjoying oral or even anal sex play”. I will apologize for reading your words literally and chalk it up to my parsing nature. In that light, please understand why I reacted as I did to the unintended implications and accept my apology.
Comment by Ray — November 27, 2008 @ 11:10 pm
Apology accepted.
And I realize what Lorian said isn’t entirely correct. The one thing straight people can do in the bedroom>/i> that gays cannot is make babies (unless one happens to sleep at a fertility clinic).
Comment by Rich — November 27, 2008 @ 11:18 pm
And for the record Ray the parser, I actually did say “IF you have any doubts”, which implies nothing about whether or not you actually might.
Comment by Rich — November 27, 2008 @ 11:21 pm
#54 - Good point, Rich.
Comment by Ray — November 27, 2008 @ 11:25 pm
Ray, if you believe that I was anywhere accusing you of lying with respect to this issue, then you have misread my comments. I was specifically referring to the people in Phil’s “reparative therapy” organization who have convinced him that “gay sex” is inherently less healthy and more harmful that straight sex. They are lying, Ray. I’m sorry if you dislike that term, but reparative therapy organizations who teach their adherents things like “gay sex is unhealthy and will make you die young” are intentionally misleading impressionable, confused young people desperately seeking a way out of the painful and horrible place their sexual orienation, their family’s prejudice and their churches’ biases have put them in. These organizations like “NARTH” and “Exodus” and, I venture to say, “Evergreen,” too, though I’ve had less awareness of them up until recently, prey on vulnerable lgbt young people, feed them grossly distorted research such as Phil quotes above, and convince them that who they are is wrong and that they must become something completely other than who they are in order to be acceptable to God.
The result is often suicide, or, at best, severe depression and years of inability to form healthy, loving relationships.
Phil’s a grownup (I hope) and certainly has the right to make his own choices, and the obligation to bear responsibility for them, but I cannot help feeling pain for him that he feels the need to subject himself to the lies, distortions and emotional abuse of “reparative therapy” groups.
Incidentally, you wouldn’t believe (or maybe you would — I dunno) how many people I encounter who spew the pseudo-”research” published by Dobson’s Family Research Council (which is the basis of most of the disinformation used by these “reparative therapy” groups) as though it were gospel truth. They eat it up with a spoon, then regurgitate it everywhere they go, in spite of the fact that there is not a legitimate, peer-reviewed scientist anywhere who would support it. It is all stuff like Phil’s “Gay sex is unhealthy and will make you die young” (distorted from “Anal intercourse could, under some circumstances, cause damage and tearing, and, if engaged in promiscuously, have an increased risk of exposing an individual to STDs such as HIV, Herpes and HPV, no matter the gender of the participants”) or “Children raised by gays do more poorly than children raised by straights because research shows that children need both a mother and a father” (distorted from “Children raised by single parents (many of whom are also victims of traumatic divorce or abandonment) do more poorly as compared with children raised in intact, two-parent homes (most of which have a mother and a father). On the other hand, children raised in two-parent, loving, nurturing homes where the parents are both of the same gender do equally well as compared with children raised in homes with two loving, nurturing opposite-gender parents.”)
See? Lies. Lies with a purpose, even, to deprive people of civil rights protections. Even worse, in my book.
But I’m not accusing you of lying, Ray, unless you subscribe to the above distortions. I haven’t noticed you doing that. You seem like a generally fair person.
Comment by Lorian — November 28, 2008 @ 12:47 am
By the way, Ray, when I said lesbians were universally exempted from the group “Gays who participate in “x” behavior,” I was absolutely correct because I was referring to (sorry to get graphic, but I wasn’t the first to go here) penile-anal penetration. By definition, women who are strictly lesbians don’t do that.
Comment by Lorian — November 28, 2008 @ 12:50 am
Unless, of course, they find alternative uses for the paper cup and turkey baster.
It’s been done, you know.
Comment by Lorian — November 28, 2008 @ 12:58 am
Thanks for sharing your insights Lorian. Keep in mind that the friendly though not yet fully “converted” are your potential allies.
Thanks for the post N.O. I’m seeing what I can do to make some gay friends to apologize to since I don’t really have any (though you inspired me to send such emails to colleagues).
Comment by Steve Fleming — November 28, 2008 @ 1:14 am
#57 - “By definition, women who are strictly lesbians don’t do that.”
I understand what you mean by that, Lorian, but you might want to consider purchasing protection against those who consider themselves to be “strictly lesbian” and do that.
Btw, just so you know, I attended a very liberal college n the east with a classic “House system” - and lived in the “House” for the off-campus students. (I was the token married student, and nobody thought of allowing us to live in the married graduate students dorms. They hadn’t had a married freshman in nearly 20 years, so I can’t blame them for the oversight.) Many of my friends in that House lived off campus in order to be free of the restraints of on-campus House life, including sexual restraints, so many of my closest friends in college were homosexual. Also, I lived for two of those six years in what at the time was the town with one of the highest per capita lesbian populations in America.
My son attends a different eastern college with a wonderful theatre program and is studying to be a high school English and Drama teacher. I understand it is a bit stereotypical, but many of his best friends are homosexual - and at least 5 of them are completely inactive members of the Church. In fact, of the 7 LDS students of whom he is aware at the college, 5 of them are homosexual.
I only share that with you in case you are assuming for some reason that I have lived a sexually sheltered life in some Utah town.
Comment by Ray — November 28, 2008 @ 1:26 am
In California, roughly 18,000 gay couples wedded. Inferring about 36,000 committed same sex individuals.
The population of California is roughly 36,000,000 people.
Gays contend that roughly 10% of the population is homosexual. In California’s case, that would suggest a number in the range of 3.6 million people.
(Perhaps more given the State’s significance in these events.)
The percentage of monogamous gays in the most populous state of this country is roughly calculated at 1%. Not 1% of the general population, but rather 1% of the gay demographic in the State of California.
Think about that number for a second. Think about it long and hard.
No matter which way we wish to discuss this matter, the fact is that the vast, vast majority of Gays are not monogamous. They have no interest in the concept as the great California experiment clearly shows.
The nebulous nature of human sexuality, the corruptibility, the fluidity is not something that we can constitute as in society’s best interest. We can protect the right of the individual to live his or her life in the manner they wish so long as their desires do not impede on another’s right.
But anything more is blatantly unfair and shows that only money and influence are needed to gain approval for normative thought in our society.
To that end, in its simplest form, the anti-Prop 8 argument is demanding us to suspend our rational thought process and codify — or really normalize — a lifestyle choice.
And I will vehemently fight anyone who argues in support of what codifying lifestyle choices — along with many of my friends in the “younger generation — who have gay friends, who have seen a diverse array of lifestyles in actions and disagree profoundly with all the conclusions and generalizations lauded as fact.
We will wage an active and thoughtful conflict and we’ll do our best to remain calm in the fact of heated emotions. But we will not back down and we will not accept our perspective as being wrong, inferior, biased, bigoted, illegitimate or unacknowledged
We will never succumb to the apathy so many demand of us.
Comment by Christopher — November 28, 2008 @ 1:52 am
re: 61
One suspects the suspension of “our rational through process” may not entirely hinge on the passage of Prop 8.
18,000 gay marriages in CA suggests that 99% of homosexuals are non-monogamous? Impressive analysis.
Comment by MikeInWeHo — November 28, 2008 @ 2:23 am
re: 61
I would venture a guess that the vast, vast majority of Straights are not monogamous either, and they’ve got major societal expectations to get married and settle down.
If most straight guys (who have lots of cultural encouragement) wouldn’t get married and remain monogamous over their lifetime, why would we expect gays (who have little, if any,cultural encouragement) to be any different?
Comment by LRC — November 28, 2008 @ 2:57 am
re: 63
The latest social statistics (U.S. Census Bureau “American Community Survey” Oct 2006) would indicate that your assumptions are not entirely correct.
While married couples are now in the minority, they still comprise 49.7% of total U.S. households — that includes households with and without children.
Most Americans — including straight guys — eventually marry. Not surprising, unmarried women (53 million of them) outnumber unmarried men by more than 25% in the U.S.
Comment by Christopher — November 28, 2008 @ 3:27 am
This one’s for Christopher:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27yj4Ad9yb4
Not surprisingly, you’re not the only tough guy on the block.
Comment by Chino — November 28, 2008 @ 9:47 am
[…] My Prop 8 (Counter) Proposal. […]
Pingback by Noli Irritare Leones » Blog Archive » Blogwatch — November 28, 2008 @ 10:45 am
Lorian:
Gay copulation is devastating to the human psyche and body. Prophets ancient and modern have condemned the practice. Have you read The Miracle of Forgiveness by President Kimball?
Comment by Phil Johnson — November 28, 2008 @ 10:46 am
Christopher, you are missing the point of LRC’s comment. That comment didn’t say most straight people never get married; it expressed the belief that most straight people are not monogamous - defined in context, I believe, as only having sex with one person prior to marriage. I think LRC’s point is that if being monogamous prior to marriage is not the overwhelming norm within the straight population, and if straight marriage it being postponed to an increasingly later age (even though there are major “expectations” for straight people to marry), why would anyone assume a population like the gay community would be monogamous when there is no expectation to marry.
Again, I am not a proponent of gay marriage, but I think LRC’s question is a fair one. How can those in the straight population who don’t want the gay population to marry (or even be in recognized civil unions with full civil rights) be surprised when many homosexuals aren’t monogamous within long-term relationships? If an increading number of striaght people are rejecting long-term monogamy even with the incentives and expectations of our society, is it any wonder many gay people also do so? How can we hold one community to a higher standard than another community (or even the same standard, frankly) when the deck is stacked in favor of the other community?
I’m not arguing here that we shouldn’t have basic sexual standards that stress monogamous, long-term relationships. I believe deeply that we should. I just think LRC’s question is valid and insightful.
Comment by Ray — November 28, 2008 @ 1:14 pm
Phil Johnson, as one active Mormon to another, in the context of this post you are acting like a troll. There is no nuance whatsoever in what you have said here, and, while I appreciate that you might not see any nuance, hitting someone over the head repeatedly with the same blunt instrument simply isn’t an effective method of conversion, instruction, compassion, love, civility or anything else our prophets and apostles have asked us to employ as we discuss our beliefs with others.
To every “Miracle of Forgiveness” reference, people can counter with a Pres. Hinckley or Pres. Monson reference about love and accetpance and recognition of individual moral agency. I ask you to please consdier that, since the tone and spirit of your comments is not what Elder Packer and other modern apostles have encouraged in everything they have said. If you would like to see exactly what I mean, please read Elder Packer’s article in the Ensign: Sharing the Gospel Using the Internet. Hopefully, you will realize why I am saying to you what I am saying.
Comment by Ray — November 28, 2008 @ 1:23 pm
#68 correction: I meant monogamous is defined as only having sex with one person - reagrdless of marital status.
Comment by Ray — November 28, 2008 @ 1:25 pm
The lowest risk group to sexually transmitted disease are lesbian couples. Of course there are exceptions to all cases, but if you want to look at the (excuse the expression) bottom line. A good researcher who want to figure out what’s going on with sexually transmitted disease start with the numbers, then they try to figure out the reason. My research shows the high risk order to be this.
Highest risk group to lowest:
Drug users
Straight couples and Gay Couples (this group is equal to risk)
Lesbian Couples
So my point is this, if sexually transmitted diseases are proof of un-Godly behavior then Lesbians should be looked on as a group as favored quite favored by God.
Of course I don’t believe this personally, but I do have my theory’s of what is going on, I’d love to hear any of your thoughts on this.
Comment by Debbie — November 28, 2008 @ 1:43 pm
Chris,
I agree that the negative tone that emerges in these discussions is troubling; I will try to keep things friendly.
Getting right to the heart of the matter: “so long as their desires do not impede on another’s right.”
I like this quote from Todd Compton’s book, quoting John D. Lee
I really do believe that our concept of marriage is fundamentally different from the world’s. I think it dilutes our teachings to conflate two different systems. I know that gay people that remain in the church are wonderfully faithful, but it doesn’t work to legislate celestiality. What percentage of marriages, even in the church, fit the Joseph Smith’s idea of what true marriage is supposed to be?
The rancor of this debate, I fear, may cause us to see gays as adversaries, which would be unfortunate. Empathy is always important. I found
Comment by Steve Fleming — November 28, 2008 @ 1:48 pm
Oops, still getting use to the buttons, the first paragraph is the quote.
Comment by Steve Fleming — November 28, 2008 @ 1:54 pm
Ray, I don’t assume that you are sexually unknowledgable or sheltered. But I am confused by your statement above, since I have never known a woman who was exclusively lesbian who engaged in willing anal copulation with a man. I’d probably consider a woman who engaged in both lesbian sex and heterosexual anal sex “bisexual,” not lesbian. Those who are exclusively lesbian do not have anal sex with men. Kinda by definition, ya know?
Comment by Lorian — November 28, 2008 @ 2:04 pm
I have a gay son. I understand why he would want to be in a permanent relationship. However, I am a divorcee, and I know that despite attractions, one can remain relatively chaste, if one so chooses. Forever is a long, long time. I want to be happy in that forever, even if it means having some discomfort now.
Comment by Kim Reece-Lairson — November 28, 2008 @ 2:12 pm
This is just silly. You equate rushing to city hall for a marriage license with sexual monogamy within a long-term relationship.
My partner and I were together in a monogamous relationship for over 17 years prior to the legalization of gay marriage in CA last spring. We chose to get married as soon as it became available because we have two children and desired the chance to hopefully at some point have our relationship legally recognized at the federal level so that we could better protect our children with the federal benefits and protections that marriage provides (these benefits are still not available to any gay-parented family in this country, but we wished to signify our hope for the future).
But there are many monogamous gay couples who did not choose to marry for a variety of reasons. Some were not yet ready to get married (just as some straight monogamous couples wait for a while before marrying). Some were not willing to take the chance that their marriage would just be overturned a few months later (this is probably quite a large number). Some had been together for many, many years already, have no children, and did not care whether their relationship was “validated” by the state or not, since it was already validated by their covenant with one another, the only type of commitment traditionally available to gay couples. Some are simply young singles who have not found the right person with whom they want to settle down and commit their lives yet.
Did the straight people reading this board, the moment they became of legal age to marry, immediately grab the first person of the opposite gender they encountered, run down to the church, temple or city hall, and marry them, just because now they could? How ridiculous to assume that the number of people who would immediately be in a position to make such a huge commitment as marriage involves within the first 5 months it was available to them would be equal to the entire number of gay people who are or will be in a committed, monogamous relationship when they find the right person and can make adequate preparations for so solemn an event.
I am amazed at the many, many ways in which gay marriage is trivialized by some outside observers intent on destroying it by any means.
Comment by Lorian — November 28, 2008 @ 2:26 pm
Phil, this is just silly. I have known myself to be lesbian since I first reached maturity. I have been in a monogamous relationship with my partner for over 17-1/2 years. Nothing about our relationship has been devastating to me, physically or psychologically (other than bearing twins at the age of almost 40, which is a whole different issue!
)
What WOULD have been psychologically devastating to me would be if I had continued to deny my sexual orientation and engaged in fruitless, loveless (heterosexual-ish) relationships or marriage with a man. Or if I had tried to “therapatize” my sexual orientation away and forced myself into a life of celibate isolation and loneliness to which I am not called.
Don’t get me wrong — I believe some peole, both heterosexual and homosexual, are called to a life of celibacy. But I believe this is a specific “vocation” or manner-of-life to which these individuals are particularly suited, and I believe that it is usually best lived in community with other individuals who are also called to a life of committed celibacy. I do NOT believe it is a “normal” state for most human beings, and I believe that forcing it upon someone who is not innately suited for it IS EXTREMELY psychologically damaging. I think that we are made fo lives of intimate companionship. We can get by in solitude and even find ways to meet some of our needs for intimacy and companionship. But I do not believe that it is correct or beneficial to compel anyone to assume such an existence against their will or coerce them to do so with unsupportable threats of eternal damnation.
Comment by Lorian — November 28, 2008 @ 2:37 pm
But Kim, you choose this based upon a personal religious belief that doing so is better than the alternatives. Do you think it would be fair if this life of celibacy was forced upon you by the government? If, say, the government had laws forbidding divorced persons to remarry, and even though you found someone you wished to marry, you could not do so, not because you made a religious choice to abstain, but because the government would not issue you a marriage license?
Comment by Lorian — November 28, 2008 @ 2:41 pm
[shakes her head in disbelief]
thank you ray, lorian, mike,-you guys are way nicer than i am.
Comment by mfranti — November 28, 2008 @ 2:45 pm
re: 72
Steve, I’m unfamiliar with the book you are referring to or either Compton or Lee. The passage you quote is intriguing; can you give some background on the book and individuals, please?
re: 76
Lorian, I entirely agree that far too many people trivialize homosexuals relationships, assuming that they are somehow less serious that heterosexual relationships, and that homosexuals are more prone to promiscuity. This prejudice stuns me. Whether or not homosexual activity is itself sinful in the eyes of God, how can we assume that the feelings of homosexuals are any different than our own? How is it we have the gall to assume that your commitment for your partner are any less deep than that of mine to my wife? Or that the yearnings of my coworker for a soulmate are any less serious than that of my single sister who wants a husband? How can we think any greater percentage of them are merely looking for physical gratification than are heterosexuals? That is nothing more than bigotry. We should recognize it for what it is.
Comment by Derek — November 28, 2008 @ 2:48 pm
re: 67
Your first sentence is just grotesque. I am fortunate to live in an environment where such overt bigotry doesn’t really exist) much less get publically expressed, so when comments like that pop up in here I’m always a bit taken aback. I know it’s out there, though. Yikes.
Can you all see why gay families are afraid and defensive?
re: 65
Thanks for the link to the Cleve Jones interview. He is a true hero.
Comment by MikeInWeHo — November 28, 2008 @ 2:57 pm
Over Thanksgiving dinner, my mother mentioned a movie she had recently seen. This film was a dramatization of a true story of a young Catholic girl whose only goal in life was to be a nun, and who overcame a lot of challenges to receive special dispensation to become a nun in her teens.
My mother bemoaned the plight of the girl. How sad that this girl would turn her back on the true joys of life, of the opportunity to find love and have a family. How sad that she would be lead by the incorrect practices of the Catholic Church to pursue this course contrary to the will and Gospel of God.
Oh the irony that she would see as so lamentable and tragic the celibate course which this girl had chosen–while at the same time she supported our Church in legally restricting a group of people, many of whom apparently feel the importance of family, to just such a lifestyle.
Comment by Derek — November 28, 2008 @ 2:59 pm
re: 67
I wonder what is more devastating to the psyche: for people to engage in intimate sexual experiences with consenting, committed, loving partners? Or people to be told that they are perversions of nature, and that they can only find acceptance by completely ignoring their desire for love?
Comment by Derek — November 28, 2008 @ 3:10 pm
#74 - Lorian, again, I chose my words very carefully. I never said there are women who consider themselves to be “strictly lesbian” who engage in actual heterosexual sex of one kind or another. I referenced lesbians who use tools to engage in heterosexual sex simulation - in all its varieties. (This comes from my comment #46, where I said, “since there are tools that can be and are used by some lesbians to engage in anal sex.” I explicitly mentioned tools lesbians use, and I wasn’t referring to men.)
Personally, I would classify that as heterosexual *activity* in a same-sex relationship, and I know lesbians who classify such activity as evidence that those who do so are bisexual, not “strictly homosexual”, but I’m not going to insist on either view.
My point is that people identify themselves all the time in opposition to a strict dictionary definition, and there are lesbians who consider themselves to be “strictly lesbian” who nonetheless simulate heterosexual sex. They would be highly offended at any suggestion that they weren’t “strictly lesbian”, since the only criterion they use for their definition is the sex of their partner.
The “protection” was a joke - a play on words.
Comment by Ray — November 28, 2008 @ 3:27 pm
#82 - Great point, Derek. That is irony of the highest order.
Comment by Ray — November 28, 2008 @ 3:28 pm
Derek,
I got the quote from Todd Compton’s In Sacred Loneliness about Joseph Smith’s wives. Page 15. John D. Lee was the one guy executed for Mountain Meadows. He wrote a memoir, but I haven’t looked at the quote in the original context.
Comment by Steve Fleming — November 28, 2008 @ 3:31 pm
Phil - you’re beahving like a troll. Go read our comment policy, then come back. For now, all your comments will be moderated until you can prove you can make your point without judging others righteousness, while professing your own righteousness (you should really read my recent post on pride. You’re the perfect example of it)
Comment by Rebecca — November 28, 2008 @ 4:49 pm
As a Prop 8 supporter:
1. Some of us don’t view this as a civil rights issue.
2. Some of us think that civil unions IS the compromise.
3. Just because we think it might be (maybe even probably is) a losing battle is not a good enough reason to quit.
4, I don’t know anyone who is gloating about the passing of Prop 8. I’m not in CA though.
Comment by jks — November 28, 2008 @ 6:05 pm
jks,
I agree with all four points.
But that probably makes me a bigot.
PS. Rebecca, is it OK to judge myself that way?
Comment by Jack — November 29, 2008 @ 12:36 am
Jack - judging yourself is totally fine. Questioning others righteousness (as clearly stated in our comment policy) is not. It’s been happening quite a bit, and I’m sick of it - so sue me!
Comment by Rebecca — November 29, 2008 @ 3:49 am
My Prop 8 Proposal:
Between now and the next anti-gay initiative, here’s one thing that needs to start happening:
Meet our Families Day
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=8437
Comment by Chino — November 29, 2008 @ 11:22 am
Ray - 84 - I’m afraid the original point of my first statement has been lost in this neverending series of “picking” posts you’ve made against it (your purpose? or just an accidental outgrowth of your love of picking?). The point, as best I recall it after all this time, was that the statement made that “gay relationships” are inherently physically damaging, harmful or unhealthy is quite patently false, with lesbians being an excellent example of that fact since we, as someone else pointed out earlier, contract fewer STDs than any other classification of people besides cloistered nuns. Not to mention the fact that ANYone in a committed monogamous relationship where both partners are monogamous and free of initial disease has a 0% chance of contracting a sexually transmitted disease from their sexual activity, no matter what their gender or sexual orientation may be.
So the lesson for me, here, is that next time you attempt to lead me on a merry chase away from my initial point, I’m not going. You can go by yourself.
Comment by Lorian — November 29, 2008 @ 12:42 pm
jks:
I understand that. There were plenty of people who didn’t view interracial marriage as a civil rights issue, either. They thought God did not want the races to intermix, and that doing so was a terrible sin and an abomination. They thought legalizing interracial marriage would be an offense against God which would result in the downfall of society.
And I am one of them, so long as ALL of us have our marriages converted to civil unions (you, too!) and marriages become strictly a sacramental blessing dispensed by, and according to the precepts of, each individual church or religious organization. Works for me.
But “separate but ‘equal’” does NOT work for me. That’s not how we do it in this country.
Hm. I have trouble seeing where you find the energy and motivation to proceed so wholeheartedly in your efforts to strip legal rights and protections away from children. I find it pretty saddening. There are lots of good causes to devote time and money and energy to, like feeding the hungry, clothing the poor, giving shelter to the homeless, visiting those who are sick and in prison. Maybe you do all of those things already, and are just pursuing taking rights away from the children of gay families as a hobby. I just think there are far more worthwhile ways to spend one’s time, money, talents and energy.
I do. I am in California. You wouldn’t believe how many times I’ve sat near or stood next to some unsuspecting stranger who was in animated conversation with a friend, saying something along the lines of “We won! They lost!!! Why can’t they just be good sports and get over it, already??? Gee whiz!!!” as though this was some kind of sporting event. You have no idea what it does to my insides that they could trivialize the welfare and protection of my children with such carelessness and disdain.
Comment by Lorian — November 29, 2008 @ 12:55 pm
Chino, great idea. Thanks for the link.
Comment by Lorian — November 29, 2008 @ 1:01 pm
re: 84
At the risk of extending a non sequitur threadjack, Ray, I don’t get why it matters regarding the nature of the sexual acts an individual enjoys. Bottom line, isn’t the determining factor on the hetero/homo continuum how much you are attracted to people of the same sex compared to how much you are attracted to people of the opposite sex?
Comment by Derek — November 29, 2008 @ 2:39 pm
“First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.” — Mahatma Gandhi
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain Unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” — The Declaration of Independence
Do we still really believe this?
—Prop 8 Winners and Losers—
Winners:
1, Protected the definition of the word “Marriage” to be for a man and a woman exclusively.
2. No other changes required – maintained status quo.
3. No need to educate children of the human diversities of our nation.
4. No need to teach tolerance and acceptance of people who are different from the majority.
5. Asserted that majority still has power over minorities.
6. Overturned Supreme Court decision protecting a minority group against discrimination.
Losers:
1, Right to marry was “removed” from a minority group through a popularity vote, after being granted that right by the Supreme Court.
2. Realized the majority views some people as NOT being “created equal” but are actually 2nd class citizens when it comes to Unalienable Rights and protections found only in marriage.
3. Lost the right to pursue a Life of Happiness in Marriage for Gay and Lesbian people.
4. Profound and deep sadness and uncertainty of future for thousands of gay couples already married, some with children.
The Winners should enjoy this temporary result. Passing of Prop 8 will only bring the issue of equality in marriage to the US Supreme Court, where they will act to protect all citizens, just like they did in 1967 for interracial marriages. So, thank you Prop 8 supporters. Without you the other states would have had to wait for years.
I still believe in America, especially the part about all people being created equal, as in the eyes of God. If you feel God is against same-sex marriage, I must say you don’t know God. He doesn’t create beautiful people only to deny them the right to pursue a life of happiness in love (and marriage). It’s man that does that.
Comment by Sid — November 29, 2008 @ 4:04 pm
As a LDS member, I am having a hard time understanding those members who are so outspoken about disagreeing with church leadership. Leaders of the Church—whom we revere as modern-day prophets, and sustain them as such—took an unequivocal position on Prop 8, urging members that, “Our best efforts are required to preserve the sacred institution of marriage.” (see here)
Church leader Harold B. Lee said:
The gay marriage issue will be just one of many polarizing issues that will sift the Church. Sooner or later, each one of us will be tested. The key to our protection will be a willingness to follow the Lord’s prophets. If we truly revere them as prophets, seers, and revelators we must trust that they know things that we do not. This was not a situation where church leadership was giving personal opinions. Their words were spoken clearly to the membership during regional conferences in California and in Arizona (which also passed a similar legislation).
The bottom line for the membership of the church is follow the prophet.
Comment by Sharon — November 29, 2008 @ 5:10 pm
In re Sharon’s post above…
And some of you wonder why gay people are so angry right now and focusing some of that anger on the LDS Church? It doesn’t get much more hurtful than this, that an organization the size of the LDS Church should make it its sworn corporate duty to come to my home and deprive my two little 7-year-old daughters of basic civil rights. Why are my children so important to the LDS Church (at the corporate level) that they must urge and motivate as many LDS members as possible to persecute my little girls?
It just doesn’t sound to me like something Jesus would do.
Comment by Lorian — November 29, 2008 @ 6:51 pm
Sharon,
As LDS doctrine teaches, the prophet and leadership are not infallible. Asking the entire church membership to follow their lead when some individual members can see and recognize the consequences of the decisions of the church leadership isn’t the easiest thing to do. I’m not saying that there aren’t times when questioning leadership simply stirs the pot, but there are times when people feel personally affected that they would rather follow the personal guidance they receive from the spirit. I personally believe they should have that right.
I don’t want to go on a tirade about organized religion, so here it is in a nutshell. I believe the LDS religion focuses on promoting a certain lifestyle revolving around the family, and providing for them in a loving and caring manner. I think sometimes though that they forget about the diversity that exists within the church itself. The Church claims 13 million people on its rolls from all over the world. They are all going to have different viewpoints, and I think religion is meant to unite them in a common good and working for a common peace. This is where I believe it may sometimes fail.
If a church claims to be the only true church on the planet, and it is seeking to save everyone on the planet, then it will need to accept that its authority will be questioned by its followers, as any church should be questioned. If people stop feeling uplifted by a religion, and cease finding peace within the walls of a church, then don’t they have the right to question the tactics used by the authorities in that church to make the place feel uncomfortable? This isn’t to say that the church should change its teachings, but that it should change its focus.
Personally, I tend to think that this may make some of the more progressive (meant in a political context) members of the LDS Church feel uncomfortable and leave the religion. However, like any religion or society, the LDS Church has changed over time, thanks to the people that have been willing to invest in it (meaning those doing missionary work and leading the church, not a reference to tithe payers).
I personally wonder what would have happened had Gordon B. Hinckley stayed alive through the end of this year. I tend to think that he would have handled the PR end of this much better than Pres. Monson, but that is neither here nor there…
So, my final thought is, religion is much like government. If you stop receiving the benefits from that church or government (such as the feelings the church brings, or the services the government offers), then it only rationally makes sense to me that you would either move on, or question their motives and try to change the system. Anyone who questions leadership but then decides that following blindly is the better position to take would seem to have very poor judgement, IMO.
Peace!
Nate
Comment by nategiggles — November 29, 2008 @ 7:05 pm
Let me make this crystal clear - then bow out of this conversation, as well:
My “nit-picking” comments were specifically directed at aspects of comments that called others liars and then made incorrect statements. The entire point was to ask for the same standard to be applied to those with differing perspectives.
Lorian, I have never tried to trivialize any conversation in which I have participated, and I have never tried to derail a discussion. Period. You made a very specific comment to which I responded - specifically because you said others (then I) were being dishonest. If I can’t contribute meaningfully to a conversation without having those contributions labeled as “dishonest” and “picking”, then so be it.
This is the 100th comment on this thread, and it generally is at this point where threads start to deteriorate into repetitive arguments. I’m not going there. This obviously has become your thread, so if you can’t see the validity of my comments, there is no reason to continue on this thread.
Not Ophelia:
I apologize for contributing to this outcome. It probably is time to let go of this overall topic and move on. Thanks for your original post.
Comment by Ray — November 29, 2008 @ 7:57 pm
Oh, and Lorian, I agreed with the general point you re-emphasized in the first paragraph of your last comment; I only pointed out one specific exception. That seems to have escaped your memory, but I actually agreed with you in general - which is why I am bowing out. If I can’t even agree with you without being “picking”, then there is no hope here.
Comment by Ray — November 29, 2008 @ 8:08 pm
Ray, you’ve said before on this thread that I called you a liar, and this is simply not the truth as far as I can see. Perhaps you took my comment about someone else and applied it to yourself, but I do not recall calling you a liar (nor is it something I would generally do towards someone with whom I am engaging in what I perceive to be a serious and thoughtful discussion). If we must do this again, then let me please attempt to clarify one more time:
The person I was accusing of lying (and this is VERY specific, and NOT to be generalized as an accusation towards anyone on this thread) are those persons who, calling themselves “therapists” engage in the practice of attempting to either “heal” gays of their homosexuality, or of attempting to convince homosexual persons that they must accept a solitary, celibate way of life as the only way to live their sexual orientation in a manner of which God will approve. In doing so, such people often invoke a set of tired and disingenuous arguments put forth by a small number of religious pseudo-scientific organizations, such as “Focus on the Family,” and it’s outgrowth, the “Family Research Council.” This set of tired and disingenuous arguments includes ideas such as that expressed by a poster on this thread that there is something intrinsic in “gay sex” which makes those who engage in it less healthy, physically or emotionally, than those who practice exclusively opposite-gender sexual acts.
I find these types of statements, which are unsupportable by any valid scientific methodology, to be richly deserving of the term “lies.” They are odious, and those who knowingly spread them are, in fact, liars. I feel sorrow and pity for those innocents who believe these lies and inflict harm upon themselves as a result.
That is all I ever intended to put forth, Ray. If you still draw from that some kind of conclusion that I am calling you a “liar,” which could not be further from my intent, I categorically deny it.
Sorry for the continued derail of this thread.
Comment by Lorian — November 29, 2008 @ 8:24 pm
Yes. You heard my statement regarding there being a “practice” engaged in by both heterosexuals and gay men which could cause increased risk of STDs, but which practice is not engaged in by those who are exclusively lesbians, and you chose to believe that this statement related not only to penile-anal penetration, but also to anal penetration with objects. I was referring only to the former, since the latter, when done in the context of a monogamous lesbian relationship, carries no risk of transmission of STDs (though
a minor risk of rectal damage). You took this ball and ran with it. I was never referring to the latter, but you believe that you could generalize my statement to lesbian couples who use anal “toys.” I was referring explicitly to anal sexual intercourse involving a penis. This excludes couples who are exclusively and monogamously lesbian.
Sorry again to those who really find this to be TMI. I never really wanted to go here, but apparently my attempts to refrain from explicit content only led to misinterpretation by some readers. My apologies.
Comment by Lorian — November 29, 2008 @ 8:30 pm
And, Ray, I am glad that you do agree with my major point. I wish it didn’t all have to get so prickly in the surrounding territory.
Comment by Lorian — November 29, 2008 @ 8:35 pm
Which highlights the difficulty of non-connected, internet communication. All we have to go by are words on a page, and those words often imply things not intended.
I never thought you were calling me a liar, and you never meant all who talk of there being some specific health risks for some specific sexual activities are liars. That clears up everything completely, and, again, we end up agreeing with each other.
There is a lesson in there for all of us.
Comment by Ray — November 29, 2008 @ 8:36 pm
Amen, Brother.
Comment by Lorian — November 29, 2008 @ 8:40 pm
Sid,
I’d put it this way:
Winners:
1, Protected the traditional definition of “Marriage”.
2. Maintained status quo. i.e. equal rights that are available to all whether legally married or joined by civil union.
3. Protect children from being instructed in human sexuality at too early an age.
4. Promoted tolerance by receiving the angst of activists with equanimity.
5. Asserted that minorities can make their voice heard at the voting booth.
6. Overturned Supreme Court decision that was passed into law with out any legislative process.
Comment by Jack — November 29, 2008 @ 9:28 pm
For Phil and other LDS members who don’t understand homosexuals:
Hello, I’m a faithful LDS member like yourself, but I’m a homosexual. Please allow me to clear up a few misunderstandings you may have about the subject:
1.) No one chooses to be a homosexual. It is NOT a choice for us, any more than you chose to be a heterosexual. The Church does not have an official position on why some people are homosexual. However, we are COMMANDED to love and respect all people. That commandment DOES NOT read “Love Thy neighbor as Thy self, unless they’re a homosexual.”
2.) Homosexual attraction is not a sin. I repeat, homosexual attraction is NOT a sin!! However, ANY sexual expression outside the bonds of marriage (heterosexual marriage) is considered a sin by the Church, including homosexual sex. Its important as a Church member to understand the difference.
3.) Homosexual sex is not “addictive” any more than any other sex is addictive. That’s just propaganda.
4.) Homosexual attraction is as natural to us as heterosexual attraction is to you. Let me repeat that - to us it is TOTALLY NATURAL. Remember that when you’re tempted to cast a condemning comment our way.
5.) Ex-gay or “reparative therapy” groups are not endorsed by the Church. There is no hard evidence that this type of therapy helps more than a tiny percentage of homosexuals “overcome” their homosexuality and become “straight”. The recividism from these programs is appalling, and they are extremely hard on the psyche of people who attempt the programs. There are MANY failures, which many times leads to depression or even worse after-effects. Again the Church DOES NOT recommend these programs to anyone. They have an entirely neutral stance on the issue.
6.) Being a homosexual does not preculde someone from ANY blessings of the Gospel. We can hold the Priesthood, go on missions, partake of the sacrament, participate in the Temple, and hold any calling. I’ve personally served in Bishoprics, the High Council and the Stake Presidency.
7.) About 3-5% of the population is homosexual - both in and out of the Church. It is estimated that 25% of the Church either is a homosexual, has a homosexual family member, or is in some other way directly involved with a homosexual person. That’s nothing to sneeze at.
8.) The Miracle of Forgiveness is a completely out-dated work and is no longer used by the Church as a reference on the subject of homosexuality. If you would like to see recent comments by General Authorities on the topic, go to LDS.ORG and look up recent articles and talks by Elder Oaks, Elder Holland, Elder Wickman, and Pres. Hinckley. The Church also published a pamphlet called “God Loveth His Children” which addresses the issue of homosexuality and the duties and responsibilities of Church members towards homosexual people.
I hope this helps clear up some of the misconceptions you may have.
Neal
Comment by Neal — November 29, 2008 @ 10:22 pm
How odd. I was always under the impression that we are to follow the Savior.
And, no, its not always the same thing.
Comment by obi-wan — November 30, 2008 @ 1:03 am
Jack, your post sounds so smug, but it just spouts the party line without any apparent attention to the actual facts.
There is no such thing as a “traditional definition of marriage.” Marriage has meant a vast quantity of different things to different cultures and nations throughout history.
No matter what you might wish to believe, the same rights are NOT available to all. Only three states in the country have or have had civil marriage for gays and a handful of others some form of “civil union” or “domestic partnership,” many of which do not even begin to carry even the same state-level rights as marriage. NO gay couple in this nation has access to a single one of the over 1000 federal rights of marriage, regardless of whether or not they are legally married. Most gays in this country have NONE of the rights of marriage, state or civil, and, in fact, in 30 states of this nation, gays do not even have the most BASIC of civil rights, such as the right to not be refused employment or fired from a job, the right to equal access to housing and public accommodations, the simple right to not be kicked out of a restaurant or other public venue, simply because they are gay.
Gaining the right to CIVIL (not RELIGIOUS — merely CIVIL) marriage is a crucial step along the road to protecting families like mine, with little children like mine, from every day, down-and-dirty, bald-faced discrimination. Passing Prop 8 helped to insure that my two little girls, Ruth and Rose, will NEVER share in the same equal civil rights as your children enjoy, before they grow to adulthood and (hopefully) never need those protections.
Please don’t be so callous in your assertions that “nothing of importance” was taken from gay-parented families like mine by the passage of Prop 8.
This is simple and utter bologna. Children are not now, nor were they in the past, nor would they have been “instructed in human sexuality at too early an age.” Children are not taught about marriage in elementary school, and not even always in High School in this state. Prop 8 did nothing to change that fact, one way or the other.
Now, if children had been simply taught that “different” families exist, with different configurations of parents and/or care-givers, this is not a terrible thing, and is, in fact, important for schools to do to help keep chidlren from bullying or being bullied in school. And, quite frankly, if you think children in elementary school are unaware that families like mine exist, think again.
And, if any children in this state were unaware BEFORE Prop 8 that there were families with two mommies or two daddies, they certainly are not now. Prop 8 took care of that.
Now this statement upsets me terribly. This statement makes me want to cry because it is SO far out of the realm of reality and so opposite my own experience.
Whenever something like Prop 8 goes on the ballot and goes through the kind of public debate that Prop 8 did, all that it does is serve to reinforce the hatred of those who despise gay people and families like mine. Until you’ve stood on a street corner at a peaceful rally with your children at your side and had people drive by in cars and trucks with “Christian” symbols plastered all over them, screaming “f—— f—–” at you and your little children, please don’t talk to me about how Prop 8 “promoted tolerance.” That is utter crap. Prop 8 promoted nothing but animosity towards the gay community among most of the people who voted for it, particularly because of the lying commercials and propaganda circulated about it, most of which you are spouting forth yet again here on this board.
My family has lived peacefully and quietly within this community for over 4 years, and until 3 months ago, I never had someone scream “fa—-” or “pervert” at me, or say to my face that I deserved to have my children taken away. Please don’t talk to me about Prop 8 “promoting tolerance.”
Huh??? I have no idea what you mean by this.
You mean, subverted the decision the court made. The Supreme Court was doing exactly what it was designed to do — protect a minority from the propensity of the majority to deprive the minority of equal civil rights when there was no legitimate cause to discriminate against the minority. This is WHY we HAVE Supreme Courts. Please study our system of government. Not all law is made by the legislature. Judicial Precedent also functions as law in this country, and not just in matters of civil rights. Ask any insurance professional. There is a huge body of case law governing all kinds of civil matters, such as insurance claims, criminal justice, real estate, and just about anything else you could think of. Most issues of civil rights have been decided by the courts, not simply legislated.
Jack, you and/or people like you caused grave harm to families like mine this past November. You may, of course, think what you like about it, but please at least have the good grace not to keep patting yourselves on the back as though you did something wonderful.
Comment by Lorian — November 30, 2008 @ 1:08 am
Fear God, not man. Whatever position that leads to…
Comment by Nasamomdele — November 30, 2008 @ 1:40 am
Lorian, I want to thank you for all your efforts here. Your perspective and patience have been very gladly received. I’ve learned a lot from you, and I appreciate your civility, candor, and detailed explanations. I realize more fully the impact this has had on a real family, and it has more fully opened my eyes. I sincerely hope the final outcome of this whole mess is a measure of peace and happiness for you and yours.
Comment by Rich — November 30, 2008 @ 3:38 am
(…keeping my fingers crossed the courts rule the whole prop 8 madness unconstitutional come March…)
Comment by Rich — November 30, 2008 @ 3:42 am
I second Rich’s sentiment. You’ve clearly put a lot of thought and time into your comments, Lorian. It’s so important for gay families to come out in fora like these, and you’ve done a fantastic job of describing the way the Prop 8 debacle has affected your family.
Many Latter-day Saints live in an insular community where there simply are no open, self-affirmed gay individuals much less couples and families. Many gays want nothing to do with conservative religious people like Latter-day Saints. That’s a big problem.
I went and saw the movie Milk last week, and was struck by what a long struggle we are in but also how far we have come. Taking the long view has helped me cope with the Prop 8 situation. There have been so many political setbacks, but there is no doubt that full legal and social acceptance is inevitable as long as people like you and me are willing to come out and respond face-to-face to people who speak hurtfully about us. The vast majority of those who vote against us politically do so out of ignorance, not actual malice.
Comment by MikeInWeHo — November 30, 2008 @ 12:58 pm
5.) Ex-gay or “reparative therapy” groups are not endorsed by the Church. There is no hard evidence that this type of therapy helps more than a tiny percentage of homosexuals “overcome” their homosexuality and become “straight”. The recividism from these programs is appalling, and they are extremely hard on the psyche of people who attempt the programs. There are MANY failures, which many times leads to depression or even worse after-effects. Again the Church DOES NOT recommend these programs to anyone. They have an entirely neutral stance on the issue.
Neal, do you realize that the LDS church, while not officially “endorsing” Evergreen International, provides that organization with funding on an ongoing, annual basis (not to mention providing a general authority speaker for its annual conventions)?
Comment by Nick Literski — November 30, 2008 @ 1:22 pm
Good point, Nick. It’s inaccurate to say the Church does not support ex-gay groups, because it clearly does. I think we can see a certain ambivalence in the public statements these past few years, though.
Comment by MikeInWeHo — November 30, 2008 @ 1:53 pm
Mike and Rich, thank you. As my laundry piles up and I eye it guiltily, it means a great deal to know that my comments here are of value. I appreciate the feedback!
Comment by Lorian — November 30, 2008 @ 1:57 pm
Nick, yes. Evergreen actually references their ties to the LDS Church on their Home page. The exact reference is:
Neal, however, may be mincing words here, because he says:
…and I believe Evergreen’s focus is not so much on trying to “turn gay people straight” as it is on trying to convince gay people that, while their homosexual orientation is normal for them, to ACT on it would be sinful, and therefore they must accept and embrace a life of celibacy. Evergreen, from the little I’ve read about the organization, focuses on trying to help gay people “overcome” their “same-sex attractions” (SSA) and remain celibate.
That’s the point Neal is making when he condemns “reparative therapy” organizations which claim to “cure” same-gender orientation.
Comment by Lorian — November 30, 2008 @ 2:02 pm
Although, this page (http://www.evergreeninternational.org/why_ga_therapy.htm) from the Evergreen website on “gender-affirmative therapy,” while not specifically stating a goal of “making straight people out of gays,” certainly hints in that direction.
Comment by Lorian — November 30, 2008 @ 2:11 pm
#120 is a troll who is leaving these types of comments on various blogs. Please ignore him and don’t give him the firestorm he wants.
Admins, if you delete his comments, please delete this also.
Comment by Ignore the troll — November 30, 2008 @ 5:58 pm
“Just the bigots would be left.”
And that is where I lost you. See, you cannot agree to disagree, you insult.
I’m fine with your view point, but I don’t want you to pass it off as “the” moral viewpoint by fiat.
I’ve not bothered or worried about gay people and have been happy to let them do whatever it is that pleases them, as much as I may be saddened by the realization that it won’t bring them happiness.
But when someone tries to force a moral view point on myself and my children with the authority of the state I will stand up and do what I’m constitutionally allowed to do — vote.
You can disagree. Fine. But name calling? I’m a biggot because I think marriage should mean what it has always mean - the union of man and woman.
What marriage is not: two consenting adults who love each other and have sex in a relationship.
What marriage is: the union of man and woman, which does entail sex, and can include a family (if possible).
When you attempt to change the definition of marriage as the sexual relationship between two consenting adults, why it’s perfectly understandable why you’d be pissed off that I’d not allow that. Because I would allow it.
But it’s not marriage. Call it what you want, but it’s not marriage.
How does that make me a bigot again? Because I won’t give you the term you want because that term means something different to myself and every other individual who voted on it? (to say nothing about the thousand of years of history for which marriage has been husband and wife, man and woman.)
Please. Bigotry has nothing to do with it.
Comment by sam — December 1, 2008 @ 6:19 pm
Nick,
I didn’t read through everything in the comments, but it seems like you may be upset that the church may or may not (I don’t know) some how support groups that try to help people “overcome” same sex attraction.
Are you offended by this? If a person wants a certain lifestyle for themselves they can do what they want. I’d think gays of all people would be supportive of it.
Now it may hurt your feelings that someone would reject a lifestyle and believe they can choose to be different… but where’s the controversy in that?
I’m not condoning any particular group or their tactics here… just stating the obvious that if a gay person realizes that he wants to father a child with a woman, raise a family, etc etc. he would obviously have to give up being gay.
Two dads does not equal one mom and one dad. This says NOTHING about the quality of the individuals here. Obviously there are plenty of great gay people and terrible hetero ones.
Comment by sam — December 1, 2008 @ 6:27 pm
Lorian:
A woman marrying a woman or a man marrying a man is not a basic or fundamental civil right.
The debate is whether it *should* be considered a right. Just because you think it is just and would like it to be considered a right does not make it one and does not make LDS evil or bigots.
No one is denying you the ability to act on your desires/attractions.
Why you may think it’s unfortunate that so many of “us” are denying you rights. I think it’s unfortunate that you and others have presented this debate in terms of “rights” to be demanded under the guise of conflating your desires with the right of marriage.
Marriage = union with man and woman.
If you want to invent a new term to describe your gay relationship commitment, go for it.
But why must it be called marriage? Is it about being equal? Because obviously two women does not equal one man one woman. (again, not speaking to quality of individual here)
Comment by sam — December 1, 2008 @ 6:37 pm
Just to add… my point here is in this whole concept of “if you don’t agree with me its hurtful”.
Where does that leave dissent? I must agree or I hurt you. I must agree or I’m a bigot.
The truth is we can not call an apple an an orange. Although I do disagree with gay relationships I am stopping no one from entering one and I am stopping no one from creating some kind of contract/commitment between them.
I find it strange that the people tossing around “hurtful” and “bigot” statements only seem to care how they feel hurt and not that they are actually causing some hurt on the other side as well. If you expect me to feel sorry for your hurt you better demonstrate that you’re willing to feel the same way about me and not resort to insults simply because I disagree.
Comment by sam — December 1, 2008 @ 6:41 pm
re: 121
Sam, your martyr complex is entirely unjustified. Those who opposed Prop. 8 and other marriage restrictions were not trying to “force a moral view point on myself and my children with the authority of the state.” Quite the contrary, it is you, you and those who supported Prop. 8 who were forcing a moral viewpoint on others. Prop 8 is another in a long line of legal attempts to codify a particular religious viewpoint in law. There are religions and organizations which believe that it is morally acceptable to perform homosexual marriages. They want that right. But no, it isn’t enough for you that our faith won’t allow homosexuals to be married in the faith. You have to try to use the authority of the state to restrict others from exercising their freedom of conscience.
I’m really tired of the anti-homosexual marriage side pretending that they are the ones protecting freedom from government. It is a lie, and we need to recognize that.
Comment by Derek — December 1, 2008 @ 7:46 pm
Sam,
What Derek said.
In addition to what Derek said (
), I’d also like to add that I don’t give two flips whether your opinions are hurtful to me or not. What I care about is that your opinions (and the force of people who either share them or were scared by lies told in the media into voting as though they shared them) passed a law which ultimately hurts my children by depriving THEM of the equal civil rights which are their due in this society. The fact that you disagree with me, as their parent, being allowed to have and to raise my own children (which right, by the way, IS a basic HUMAN right guaranteed to me, and you and every other person in this nation — reproductive rights have been clearly established by the legislatures AND the courts as being inalienable human rights, not merely civil rights) is really beside the point.
The fact that I am permitted as a human being and citizen of this nation to conceive and bear children and raise them within the context of my relationship to my partner who, like myself, is a woman, means that my children, as equal citizens in this nation, deserve the same rights and protections as your children enjoy. Since many of those civil rights and protections for my children have been solely and sinularly attached to the institution to which we refer as “civil marriage,” then one of two things MUST take place: Either we grant gay-parented families such as my own full and equal access to that CIVIL institution which we call marriage, or we change the name of that CIVIL institution to something else and have ALL citizens obtain whatever that new CIVIL institution is to be called, equally and in full measure, in lieu of what we formerly termed “CIVIL marriage,” and leave “religious marriage” up to the churches to decide, with no civil rights attached to it whatsoever.
Comment by Lorian — December 1, 2008 @ 8:19 pm
Halfway through paragraph two, above, that would be “singularly,” not “sinularly,” however handy a Freudian slip it might seem.
Comment by Lorian — December 1, 2008 @ 8:21 pm
Crap; Lorian caught that one. (#127) I was going to have fun teasing her about it, and now I can’t. Oh, well.
Comment by Ray — December 1, 2008 @ 8:39 pm
Ray:
:phphphhtththhththhhh:
And I mean that with all due respect!
Comment by Lorian — December 1, 2008 @ 10:21 pm
Hello, I found this post as I was looking for information and quotes for an essay I am writing about feminism. I then became captured by what you were discussing. I am gay and I live in California. Prop. 8 turned my own world and so many of my friends world’s upside down.
I was raised to believe that marriage is the only acceptable way for two people to be together, and as I know that is not true, it is still the persona that society has placed on human relationships. By not allowing a minority to marry, society is telling us that our relationship isn’t accepted, which therefor opens us up as easy targets. I’m not alone in experiencing violence from people who don’t “accept” my sexuality. Prop. 8 only validates people who think that it’s ok to commit acts of violence and discrimination because something is different.
I am still having a very hard time with this. I find myself so many times just angry. Angry at religion, angry at churches, and businesses, but then I found your blogs. and I realized like so many people have done to me, I had stereotyped all mormons into a category of bigots simply because of a few, loud and very rich voices/wallets. For that I want to apologize and Thank you for your note. I am trying very hard to learn grace, it’s just not the easiest pill to swallow.
Comment by Jesse — December 1, 2008 @ 10:39 pm
You know its very interesting to see who is the wheat
Comment by David — December 1, 2008 @ 11:12 pm
I prefer to be the yeast and rise above it.
(See, I can be corny too.)
Comment by Quimby — December 1, 2008 @ 11:33 pm
Those comments really chaff me. :snicker:
Comment by Lorian — December 1, 2008 @ 11:58 pm
Quimby, I want to make a joke about yeast infections, but that probably wouldn’t be in good taste. *yeah, I know; groans are understood*
Comment by Ray — December 2, 2008 @ 12:23 am
Um, ew. Thank you for sparing us that one, Ray.
Comment by Stephanie — December 2, 2008 @ 12:24 am
I am absolutely disgusted that you think as a member of the church that you think that Prop 8 should have been rejected. The prophet of our church, the most righteous man on this earth, supported prop 8. And you think that you were influenced by the spirit to vote against it? I am shocked
Comment by Ayden — December 2, 2008 @ 1:14 am
Ayden,
I hardly think snide comments are appropriate here. If you would like to join the discussion with an open mind, we’d be glad to share opinions with you. However, if you feel that the people here don’t have the right, although I would actually call it an obligation, to question the authority of the leadership on an issue that hits close to home, then maybe you are visiting the wrong website. (Mods, I’m being a bit harsh here, but I don’t think these attacks are justifiable).
The issue here isn’t whether what the prophet teaches is correct, but whether the church should become so politically involved, even given that it legally can. There are a myriad of opinions held on this issue including faithful LDS Church members, and I believe they have a right to believe what they want. Also, they question whether SSM will impact the Church in a negative way as has been suggested by Church leadership, the media, and the Protect Marriage campaigners.
Personally I look at it this way:
If anyone on here isn’t aware, there is a lawsuit pending against Prop 8 in California by the California Council of Churches. The Council represents 51 denominations with combined memberships of 1.5 million people, including the Presbyterians, the Episcopalians, the Greek Orthodox Church and the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. To me, there are a few reasons why this is particularly surprising: First, some of these denominations are somewhat conservative; second, they didn’t file a friend of the court brief in one of the existing cases, they filed their own because it was of such import; third, this Council recognizes that threatening the rights of any minority diminishes the ability of any other minority to speak out when they are being persecuted.
I know some people don’t believe this is a civil rights issue, but the question is, have those people actually studied the movement, and the history that has preceded Prop 8. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Peace!
Nate
Comment by nategiggles — December 2, 2008 @ 1:41 am
I did not understand the fight against proposition 8 until I studied enough about it. In fact I feel domestic partners should have access to health plans and such. However where it got interesting to me was in the long term legal ramifications.
Allowing for gay marriage now is allowing for equal treatment of gay marriage with regular marriage. IT would have to be taught equally, have to be treated medically equally and by all businesses equally. That means that reproductive doctors loose the right to say no to gay couples and wedding photographers would get fined for refusing to photograph a gay wedding and so forth. Some even estimate that in the long term religions would loose the right to speak out against acting on homosexuality at the pulpit.
Basically, I don’t care if they marry, but I do care if their marriage is protected legally, because then I lose some of my freedom to practice in my field by my moral compass.
Comment by roundbelly — December 2, 2008 @ 1:49 am
The Court Ruling by the California Supreme Court clearly stated that Religious organizations remain the right to refuse doing marriages because everyone is entitled to believe what they want. Also Marriage isn’t even taught in schools. I’ve lived in California all of my life as have almost everyone I know and no one I’ve ever talked to learned what marriage was in school. It has always been left up to the parents to decide that. As for reproductive Dr.’s refusing service to lesbian couples, that is already illegal in California under the state civil rights act’s prohibition on discrimination based on sexual orientation.
“I don’t care if they marry, but I do care if their marriage is protected legally…”
This is just another contradicting statement in a long list of contradictions from the “Yes on 8″ side. I urge you research what you are talking about, and remember a famous, famous scripture, “Do unto others, as you would have others do unto you.”
Comment by Jesse — December 2, 2008 @ 2:16 am
roundbelly: I lose some of my freedom to practice in my field by my moral compass
I think what you mean here is that you fear you will lose the right to refuse service to people you disdain.
During Christ’s mortal life, if a gay man had walked into his carpentry shop and requested that Jesus build him a bookcase, do you think the Savior of the world would have refused? I assume that His gift of discernment would have allowed him to know the truth of the man’s condition.
Comment by Mark N. — December 2, 2008 @ 3:11 am
how come one assumes because we feel what they are doing is wrong that we automatically dislike them. I don’t know about you, but as a mother and wife I often feel what my children or spouse is doing could be wrong, but I still love them.
Loving someone does not mean helping them do what you know is wrong.
Comment by roundbelly — December 2, 2008 @ 8:52 am
roundbelly,
I think that there is a difference between loving someone unconditionally, and loving them subjectively. You say that
But I can’t help but feel that you are somewhat misdirected. It sounds like your love is subjective to how you feel about a person’s actions, and that if they aren’t acting a certain way, they aren’t deserving of your love.
Shouldn’t we love people because of the joy they bring to our lives?
Whether or not you find the particulars of a persons life to be acceptable, it is unfair to believe that you have a right to dictate their life to them and how they should live. Someone else had stated prior to you that gay people won’t be able to find happiness in their lives because of the choices they make, or something to that effect. I find these suggestions rather presumptuous.
In effect, you have the right to believe what you want, but if someone finds what you believe offensive and thinks that you don’t like them, don’t be surprised.
Peace!
Nate
Comment by nategiggles — December 2, 2008 @ 9:01 am
Roundbelly, I’m not particularly concerned about whether people “like me” or not. It’s not in the least about whether YOU like me or approve of me or even love me. Maybe you do, maybe you don’t. It’s simply not the issue. You don’t have to like me, nor do you have to approve of who I am.
What it is about it the basic civil rights that we all share as citizens of this country. The photographer you refer to in your earlier post who was fined for refusing to photograph a gay commitment ceremony? That had nothing to do with legalizing gay marriage or passing Prop 8. What it had to do with was the basic civil right known as Equal Access to Public Accommodations.
The state of New Mexico does not have legal gay marriage, nor was the couple in question getting married. They were having a private “commitment ceremony” of their own devising. This ceremony did not confer upon them any of the rights of marriage, state or federal. It was simply an expression of their love and commitment for one another in the company of their family and friends.
The photographer was engaged to photograph the ceremony, but when she heard that her prospective employers were lesbians, she refused them service. Had this been a question of a black family walking into a restaurant and being refused a seat because they were black, you and I would not even be having this discussion.
Civil rights protections outside the area of those attached specifically to marriage seem less controversial to most people. The idea that every citizen has the right to equal consideration in the areas of Employment, Housing and Public Accommodations — the right to not be fired or refused a job, not be denied the purchase or rental of a home, not be refused service by a business establishment — because of one’s skin color or religious beliefs or gender, does not seem outrageous, does it? And yet, gay and lesbian people have had a great deal of difficulty in even gaining these most basic of civil rights protections in this country. We are not protected in these areas by federal law, and only 20 of the 50 states have provided any state-level protections of gay and lesbian people which guarantee us the right to not be fired from a job for being gay, or not be refused service in a restaurant because we are gay.
In New Mexico, though they have not seen fit to protect our rights as families, they have at least granted protection of our civil rights to equal Employment, Housing and Public Accomodations. The photographer who refused service to this lesbian couple violated that civil rights protection — again, nothing to do with gay marriage. Had she refused service to a black couple or a Mormon couple, she would have suffered the same penalty.
Very true, Roundbelly, but again, that is not what is at issue here. What is at issue is equal rights and protections for families. You certainly don’t have to help gay people have sex. We are quite capable of engaging in intimate relationships all on their own.
You certainly do not have to help gay people form committed, monogamous relationships. Again, we’re managing to do that just fine with no outside assistance.
You certainly do not have to help gay people have children. We DO have children. We are raising our children which we have conceived within our own relationships by fertility medical interventions (which right in California is guaranteed to us with no reference to legalization of gay marriage — Prop 8 did not take away that right from us; it is guaranteed to us by the right to equal access to Public Accommodation). Some of us are raising children we have adopted because they were cast off by straight people who didn’t want them. Oftentimes, gay couples are only able to adopt children with serious problems, illnesses or deformities, children that straight couples may not have wanted. Many gay couples adopt children with HIV or AIDS.
You do not have to help us find relationships, cement them in bonds of love and commitment, or have children. But because we do those things, we qualify to receive the same societal rights, benefits and protections for our spouses and children which are guaranteed to you, your spouse and your children by way of CIVIL marriage. We don’t want to force your church to marry us in your churches or temples. That’s not the goal here. This isn’t in the least about forcing churches to grant sacraments to people they think are sinners. This is about protecting children who lose a parent. This is about protecting elderly people when they lose their spouse. Basic, simple, loving things that we as a society do to support other citizens in times of need, whether we particularly like them personally or not, whether we approve of everything they do or not, whether we think they are sinners or not.
You may not approve of people divorcing and remarrying, either (though I know your church does not specifically forbid it). Does that mean that you want the children born to couples who divorce and remarry to have fewer legal protections than those of couples who do not divorce? You may consider couples who do not believe in God to be sinners. Does that mean you don’t want their children to be protected by the same laws which protect your children in the event of one of their parents dying?
Roundbelly, you don’t have to like me or approve of me, but why do you want to punish my children by depriving THEM of equal civil rights protections?
Comment by Lorian — December 2, 2008 @ 12:55 pm
I absolutely love you Lorian. Well said!
Comment by Scully — December 2, 2008 @ 7:37 pm
Thanks, Scully.
Comment by Lorian — December 3, 2008 @ 1:27 am
The slippery sloap arguement that roundbelly is using just doesn’t hold up under sound logical reasoning. It is a scare tactic utilized by those that have run out of effective arguments.
Comment by Denae — December 3, 2008 @ 4:27 pm
In reference to Mark N.’s comment that Jesus would have built a bookcase for a gay man (well, books didn’t exist yet, but he could have built him a scroll-holder) there’s scriptural support:
viz:
Matthew 19:10-12: Jesus heals a Centurion’s “pais,” (boyfriend or son) who was also (Luke 7, passim) his “entimos doulos” (honored slave) Boyfriend. Jesus healed this guy’s boyfriend without much of a fuss. So, if Jesus didn’t care, why do you all? Bad Greek? The devil made you do it?
Comment by djinn — December 3, 2008 @ 10:35 pm
Oh, and a comment for whomever it applies to: Marriage is a civil right by DEFINITION. All the rights of Marriage granted by the state of CA for those few brief months, were, by definition, granted BY THE STATE. Civilly. Civil rights. See? This is why you get a lawyer when you get divorced, not, uh, a Bishop (acting in his Bishop capacity.) You don’t get your own Facts. You can have your own opinions, even without my permission. But Marriage rights are CIVIL; tax code? Probate? Immigration rights? Who are these granted by?
Comment by djinn — December 3, 2008 @ 10:40 pm
Oh, and roundbelly, that sort of “love” that you advocate is excruciatingly painful for the “lovee,” as I, unfortunately know from experience. No one likes being condescended to. (And yes, I get to end my sentences with a preposition because I know the year that this fake rule entered the English language. So there. All you grammar nazis. Besides, Fowler agrees with me.)
Comment by djinn — December 3, 2008 @ 10:49 pm
djinn, you might want to cite the correct passage - and focus on the most likely meaning.
It’s Matthew 8: 5-13 - and the Greek means “child, servant, son”.
I would like to see a translation that claims “pais” in this verse must mean “boyfriend” - since every single reference I remember (and every single link I just found through a standard Google search) references “son” or “servant” - not “boyfriend”. There is an involved, multi-step interpretation that could be read as “boyfriend” (or, more accurately, “male lover”) - but it requires that the interpreter use a secondary meaning for multiple words and add contextual suppositions that aren’t aren’t clear in and of themselves. Significantly, of all the sites I just searched (since I didn’t want to rely solely on memory from Divinity School classes nearly 20 years ago), the only ones that reached the “boyfriend” conclusion were written by homosexual authors - and every one of them admitted that the passage “could be read” (not “clearly means”) as “male lover”.
I’m not saying you are wrong, and I don’t really care either way, but you really can’t make the claim that “Jesus healed this guy’s boyfriend without much of a fuss” based on the actual account. He might have, but it’s not the most logical interpretation. It’s probably about the third possibility on a list of options.
Comment by Ray — December 3, 2008 @ 11:08 pm
Djinn, you mean “I know the year in which this fake rule entered the English language.”
Comment by Derek — December 3, 2008 @ 11:09 pm
Sorry, Derek, the “in which” is optional. Nyaaa Nyaaaa.
And Ray, it’s not just the “pais” of Matthew, it’s also the “honored slave” phrase of Luke, which means, you know, not a son. The sexual orientation of the translators is completely irrelevant. Sexuality was so different in the ancient world, pre-neo-platonist Pauline Christianlty, it’s difficult to line these things up with our modern experiences. C’mon, you’ve seen the wind chimes recovered from Herculaneum? Plus David and Jonathan seemed pretty friendly. According to my Hebrew-fluent Cantor friend. And yes, I’m a firm believer in sentence fragments. Implied bits all around.
Comment by djinn — December 3, 2008 @ 11:46 pm
Rethinking. The account in Matthew/Luke is suggestive but not dispositive. You’re right, Ray. Bad habit you have. But still…..
Comment by djinn — December 3, 2008 @ 11:48 pm
*bows, while grinning wickedly and sticking out his tongue as a symbol of brotherly love*
Comment by Ray — December 4, 2008 @ 12:59 am
(well, books didn’t exist yet, but he could have built him a scroll-holder)
Well, at least I didn’t make the request a TV stand for his flat screen HD TV…
(And besides, the word “book” first shows up in Chapter 5 of Genesis. And don’t give me any nonsense about how the King James translators just decided to use the word “book” to substitute for some other word…)
Pbthtththth.
Comment by Mark N. — December 4, 2008 @ 2:13 am
Enough already! What happened to Christlike attitudes and actions?
The crux of this matter comes down to one thing; Do you believe homosexuals (people who are sexually “attracted” to people of the same sex) should be treated the same as heterosexuals (people “attracted” to the opposite sex)?
If you feel homosexuals are unworthy of equal treatment as human beings, then you will support anti-gay issues. If you truly believe homosexuals are to be treated as equals to other humans, then you should support gay rights. It is really that simple.
It isn’t about defining a word. That is such a lame excuse.
It isn’t about protecting children from learning about differences in our society (something they should learn as soon as possible).
It isn’t about saying “Gays have most of the same rights as straights so that should be enough.”
It IS about equality. Period!
Christ’s commandment to “do unto others” is very applicable here. Would you feel OK about being treated the same way gays are being treated? Be honest!
Stop hiding behind God and your prophet and start acting like the person whose name is on your church. Please!
Christ taught to love and accept all people as they are. It isn’t your job to stop someone from sinning. That is up to them (and to them it may not be sinning). Gays have hurt no one. They contribute to our society. They are wonderful neighbors and co-workers. They are great parents too. Nearly every gay person I meet is caring, accepting of others, talented and extremely creative, and will go to great lengths to help someone in need.
Reminds me of the Good Samaritan parable. Ask yourself, which person are you being in that parable when you speak out against others who are different and hated by many? Wouldn’t it make God proud to have you stand up for those how are often society’s outcasts?
God made gay people special. Do you really think God would now call his creations abominable? Man has come up with that one! It is time for man to be more like Christ (God).
Wake up people! This test is for the self righteous who believe they are better than someone else. God is not disappointed with gays, but he is certainly disappointed with how they are being treated!
Comment by Sid — December 4, 2008 @ 11:25 pm
Good point, Sid. Jesus didn’t say, “Do to other Jews what you would have them do to you,” or “Do to those who are my followers what you would have them do to you.”
Comment by Lorian — December 5, 2008 @ 1:59 am
First off, that’s the crux of the argument, not over equal treatment. The question is whether or not an LDSaint believes in the prophet. I know plenty of people who only voted because they were asked to. It can be an uncomfortable issue because it leads to being attacked.
Christ didn’t just teach about accepting everyone. He was constantly correcting behavior, and the rest of the New Testament is made up of letters admonishing both Christians and the world at large. You can’t pretend that Christ is okay with every kind of behavior. There is a line, and homosexuality crosses it.
Comment by Jon — December 5, 2008 @ 4:21 am
There is a line, and homosexuality crosses it.
There is a line, and any sin at all crosses it. Without repentance, everybody has crossed the line, and nobody returns home to Heavenly Father.
Comment by Mark N. — December 5, 2008 @ 9:21 am
re: 158
You’re right, that is one of the crucial issues: whether or not we have the right to force people to live by the precepts of any given faith. Free agency says no. While our Church teaches that homosexuality crosses a line, there are plenty of other faiths–including Christian faiths, because Christ was curiously silent about the issue during his mortal ministry (interesting, eh?)–which disagree. And since there is no evidence that homosexual relationships cause any material harm to society (ridiculous arguments about reproductivity aside), the government has no place taking a side.
Comment by Derek — December 5, 2008 @ 11:08 am
Yup. And isn’t it funny that he never once thought to “correct” the behavior of same-gendered persons wanting to make a lifetime commitment to one another and raise their families in peace?
And before you say that he must have said it but not everything he said got written down, stop and think for a moment. If it was so hugely important that it has become one of THE TWO BIGGEST MORAL ISSUES that some churches focus their energy and time and money on, wouldn’t it make sense that Jesus, being God, would have made sure it got into the Biblical accounts of what he said? Nice and clear and easy to understand, like his statement about divorce and remarriage?
Comment by Lorian — December 5, 2008 @ 11:20 am
Lorian,
Your last comment is really a stretch there, I’m afraid. Let’s put the shoe on the other foot, shall we? Please find ONE scripture that condones gay sex. I can save you some time and tell you that there isn’t any. Not one.
Christ indeed made plenty of comments about morality. The Helenistic influences in the society of his day had caused many Jews to deviate from The Law. Some Jews had stopped circumcision, because they were ridiculed and singled out at Gymnasiums built by their Roman opressors. Gymnasiums were a place for nude sports, and of course if you were circumcised it was pretty hard to hide the fact. So you have Christ often referring to the “uncircumcised of heart” when he condemned the hypocrisy of his day. And casual gay sex was part of the Gymn scene in those days.
Also, Christ clearly defined marriage as between a man and a woman.
” And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh.”
Remember, Christ - as Jehovah in the Old Testament, gave very concise laws, which included the clear and unmistakable condemnation of homosexual sex. Paul also gave clear warnings about gay sex and every other kind of sex outside marriage.
So scripturally speaking, there is NO support for the idea that gay sex is “OK”. And from the LDS perspective, there is even less, since the very reason we have modern prophets is to give us reveleation for our time. There isn’t a single statement from a single Prophet or General Authority condoning gay sex or same-sex relationships. There are a multitude, however, which pronounce it a sin.
So if you’re looking for justification from scriptural sources, you’re fishing in a VERy dry well..
Comment by Neal — December 5, 2008 @ 10:31 pm
Neal, the same scriptures in Paul that condemn gay sex (possibly, depending on the specific meaning of the Greek terms) also condemn straight sex except for procreation. Yet, that is not a current belief of the Mormon church. The geh Translation for the specific Greek term is somewhat in doubt and was interpreted, for example, in Martin Luther’s day as meaning masturbation,
God condemns Homosexuality in the OT (actually two men sleeping in the bed of a woman, whatever that means, Other OT scholars interpret it as not allowing sex with temple prostitutes) using the same language with which he condemns Shrimp. Eeek. Do you eat Shrimp? Do you, heavens! mix cotton and linen in your clothing? Sinner! Segueing sloppily back to the NT, do you somehow fail to condemn opposite sex couples that have non-procrative sex? Shame shame shame on you.
You poor thing. Will you be disinherited by your entire family if you have the chance to live a full life (i.e., have a partner?) Poor thing. That’s all I can say.
Comment by djinn — December 5, 2008 @ 11:33 pm
Oh, and Neal, the Jews were polygynous during Jesus’ time. They were polygynous until the 11th century in Europe and until, well, today, in Yemen. So, Jesus was not declaring marriage to be between a man and a woman, but rather that you shouldn’t toss out the old wife when you replaced her with the younger, fresher copy. You must understand that the NT must be read in the context that Jews were polygynous. K?
Plus, Gay sex was endemic in the ancient world. The Greeks (I refer you to any number of vases) which were around participated in it heartily. So did the Romans, to a somewhat lesser extent. These guys weren’t Christians, which didn’t actually exist yet, and so didn’t have any idea of our particular sexual mores.
So Jesus certainly was exposed to Gay sex; yet he did not feel the necessity to condemn it. Think about that for a minute.
Comment by djinn — December 5, 2008 @ 11:45 pm
Plus Paul was way pro-slavery. Does this mean that you are also pro-slave, as it is clearly approved in the NT? Can I purchase you? Anyone you want to buy?
Comment by djinn — December 5, 2008 @ 11:50 pm
Neal, live your life as you were created. I’ve survived being called the antichrist, etc. You can do it to. Just be happy. Find someone to love; your existence makes me sad. You really think God is that cruel?
Comment by djinn — December 5, 2008 @ 11:57 pm
I don’t understand something. If we are to respect everyone and their life choices, then why not respect Neal’s choice? Why pity and belittle him over his choice?
Comment by Stephanie — December 6, 2008 @ 12:29 am
I’m sorry if I came across as belittling him, he can make whatever choice he wants. He clearly is determined and sincere. But, but, but, Celibacy, from all available evidence, doesn’t work out so well for us humans. Plus, I love being in an actual relationship and feel that such things shouldn’t be denied to anyone. This isn’t Neal’s choice, he’s attempting to fit himself into a mold determined by someone else.
Comment by djinn — December 6, 2008 @ 12:43 am
OT concise laws? Pay a fine if you raped an engaged slave? (no such fine if she were unengaged.) Kill your kids that mouthed off? The whole slavery thing? Genocide, if not efficient enough, gets you into serious trouble? Lots of nice laws we’ve found inconsistent, illogical ways to get around.
Comment by djinn — December 6, 2008 @ 12:47 am
I don’t think this gives Neal enough credit for being a thinking, reasoning human being. You don’t know his life experiences. You don’t know how he got to where he is. Just because he is making a choice that you wouldn’t want to make and don’t understand doesn’t make it a less valid choice.
Comment by Stephanie — December 6, 2008 @ 12:55 am
Why do Mormons say “The bible says (fill in the blank) about homosexuality.” when they clearly believe it isn’t translated entirely correctly? It makes you look like fools, believing only the things that support your position. djinn points out many flaws (laws) that you don’t seem to want to follow.
If homosexuality is of such importance to God, as many of you seem to think, why is nothing mentioned in the other scriptures you believe in - the ones your church controls? You go to great lengths to quote from your weakest source. I find that very strange, which leads me to think that you really don’t have this figured out at all.
I seriously doubt those people who are so against gay marriage or homosexuality in general have true friends who are gay. It would certainly be of benefit to get to know some of these people. They are wonderful, often more Christlike than most other people. They are gifted and intellectual, and rarely will they do anything that would harm another. They are some of the most caring and compassionate people on earth.
Please ponder this: If God created gay people to be such gifted and loving people, why would He now say His creations are an abomination to Him? Could it be that it is MAN who has a problem with gays (including your prophet)?
Comment by Sid — December 6, 2008 @ 1:14 am
Did I miss something? Last I saw, Neal was making a case that homosexuality isn’t morally acceptable based on an interpretation of the scriptures. How did this become an issue of his choices or lifestyle?
BTW, Neal’s claim that “casual gay sex” was part of the gym scene isn’t really accurate. Homosexual behavior was much more widely accepted in Greece, but it was largely in the context of a formalized relationship (the teacher and pupil, or master and apprentice–in many ways it could be considered more an issue of pederasty than homosexuality). Casual sex wasn’t really any more a part of that culture than it has been throughout history.
Comment by Derek — December 6, 2008 @ 1:19 am
Re: 158
Jon, you wrote…
First off, that’s the crux of the argument, not over equal treatment. The question is whether or not an LDSaint believes in the prophet. I know plenty of people who only voted because they were asked to. It can be an uncomfortable issue because it leads to being attacked.
So we can assume by your comment that you put the lives, rights and freedoms of others subject to your prophet’s will. I would like to ask you (and other members) just how far you would go in “following the prophet”.
Would you be willing to give up a family member if asked to?
Would you kill an enemy of the church if asked to?
My guess is that many members would say “YES”, and that frightens me. It should frighten you too.
In order to feel comfortable with these statements, those same members would likely want to add something like…
“But the prophet will never ask me to do these things.”
Well, don’t be so sure. A lot of bad things have been done in the name of God, even within your own church.
Jon further commented,
Christ didn’t just teach about accepting everyone. He was constantly correcting behavior, and the rest of the New Testament is made up of letters admonishing both Christians and the world at large. You can’t pretend that Christ is okay with every kind of behavior. There is a line, and homosexuality crosses it.
Christ DID teach about accepting all people - AS FAR AS YOU AND I ARE CONCERNED. He pointed out bad behaviors, but He never corrected or forced anyone into compliance with His will.
No one is saying YOU need to be okay with homosexual behavior. What they are saying is that it is none of your concern. Take care of yourself and let others do the same! It’s not your job to fix anything but yourself.
The crux IS all about equality, not whether your prophet approves of anything at all!
REMEMBER: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain Unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” — The Declaration of Independence
Does your prophet believe these words? Do you follow him even when he destroys another person’s agency.
Wasn’t there someone else whose plan was to destroy the agency of man? Seems like I have heard something like that before. Hmmm.
Comment by Sid — December 6, 2008 @ 2:13 am
Neal, a lot of your comment has been addressed already, but I’d really like to look specifically at your comment that Jesus “defined marriage as between a man and a woman” in Matthew 19:5 (as well as in Mark).
I’ve noticed that people on your side of this discussion are often fond of quoting the Bible completely out of context in order to attempt to “prove” a particular point. I think it is always important to examine Biblical texts in their literary, social, historical and textual context. In this case, just a little peek at the rest of Matthew 19 is quite sufficient to contradict your claim that Jesus was in this passage “defining marriage as between a man and a woman.”
Here is the passage in context:
Jesus is answering a question from the Pharisees testing him regarding the fact that Moses allowed men to divorce their wives and remarry. Jesus answers them with a clear, distinct and unequivocal statement that if a man marries a woman, he must not divorce her because the two of them have become one flesh.
The question is NOT, “Jesus, who qualifies to marry whom?” The question is, “Once you are married, can you get divorced and marry someone else? Because Moses said you could! Are you going to contradict Moses?” Jesus answers the question by saying that if a man divorces his wife and marries another, he commits adultery. (Hm… Whatever happened to that ballot measure to criminalize remarriage after a divorce? I guess it must not have gotten the overwhelming support from religious groups that Prop 8 got. How sad that all those people will now be allowed to commit this terrible sin without ever knowing about it, huh? We shoud amend the constitution.)
Comment by Lorian — December 6, 2008 @ 2:24 am
djinn,
Your comments prove your character, or lack thereof.
And you still have not shown me ONE scripture that gives approval for gay sex. Please show me just ONE.
Lorian,
Although Jesus was addressing the issue of divorce, he clearly described what marriage was (between man and woman). More importantly, he described it as a divine institution.
My point is that there is NO scriptural evidence that gay sex is acceptable, and there IS scriptural evidence that it is NOT. And from the perspective of modern reveleation, there are crystal clear pronouncements that it is indeed a sin. So if you want to have a same sex partner, you have no scriptural basis to justify that decision. You can do it, of course - you have your free agency, but if you try to explain it as something acceptable to God then you’re making gross rationalizations.
For those who claim to be able to read my mind and delight in passing judgement, may I direct you to Ether 2:12.
Neal
Comment by Neal — December 6, 2008 @ 7:27 am
Steph,
Thanks for coming to my defense, but you must understand that a lot of gay people get completely uncomfortable when “one of them” doesn’t march in step.
The Gay Community wants everyone to think that being Gay is completely inborn and un-changeable. Only then can they support the claim that they are a true minority. The fact is that we really don’t understand human sexual attraction and all the mechanisms and factors there are that go into the creation of our sexual identity. If you’re familiar with the Kinsey Scale, there is Gay on one end, Straight on the other end, and many shades of gray inbetween. Some people seem to slide from one side of that scale to the other during their lifetime. This is frightening to those who want to define Gay as something absolutely black and white; unchangeable, inborn.
Derek,
Thanks for the clarification on the Gymn scene.
Neal
Comment by Neal — December 6, 2008 @ 7:52 am
Sid,
You know NOTHING of our Church! The members don’t follow half the things the Prophet has told them to do already - like have Family Home Evening, pay a full tithe, get their food storage, or do Home and Visiting Teaching - so what makes you think they would suddenly start killing people if the Prophet asked them to?? That’s just alarmist propaganda.
Stop painting us as blind sheep - we’re anything but!
The reality is this - where moral issues collide with governance, religion will wind up being in the middle. So you can have your opinions and speak up on it all you want, but WE CAN TOO! Don’t try to tell me to back into a corner just because my opinion is a religious one! Its just as valid as yours. And that’s the whole problem with the Gay reaction to the LDS Church involvement in the gay marriage issue. You can have a difference of opinion and have marches and spend your money to rally your cause in any way you please, but you cross the line when you say the Church or members of the Church DON’T HAVE THE SAME RIGHT. That’s a double standard.
Comment by Neal — December 6, 2008 @ 9:16 am
re: 175
The scriptural canon doesn’t specifically endorse a lot of things. If we were to assume that anything not specifically endorsed is verboten, we would be in a lot of trouble.
And Sid is right; fascinating that the “most true of any book” never once mentions or condemns this sin that we seem to consider to heinous.
Now maybe the modern prophets have received revelation specifically addressing and clarifying the matter. You can well make that point. But since you are the one who brought up scripture to support your position, you open yourself up to these very legitimate critiques which Sid, Lorain, and Djinn have made.
re: 177
It would indeed be a double standard if the pro-homosexual marriage side were trying to force all organizations, including our own, to accept and perform homosexual marriage (ie, trying to use the law to force their moral beliefs upon us). They are not doing so. They were simply trying to protect their right to follow their own moral beliefs–a right which our Church, along with several others, was trying to remove from them. Considering the fact that we demand that right for ourselves, it is our Church which is promoting a double standard.
Comment by Derek — December 6, 2008 @ 10:10 am
David on the death of Jonathan “II am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.” (2 Sam. 1:26).
When David and Jonathan parted: “And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded.” the “exceeded,” though given benign translations in various English translations has somewhat meaning in the actual Hebrew. Feel free to google the original hebrew phase “ad higdil;” It means, more or less, “large,” in the physical sense, which is pretty interesting as one finds scholars saying things like “This doesn’t make any sense.” Well, one can imagine a scenario where it does. It also has much more explicit connotations as well.
According to the various scholarly sources, there is quite a bit of romantic undertone in the relationship of David and Jonathan, which includes clearly romantic phrases and words when used in other contexts (Songs of of Solomon seems to be cited often). It’s not surprising that the Christian translators would use the most benign possible translation for each of these words
However, even the most determined “It was only Platonic, boys” scholars have a great deal of difficulty talking their way out of that first verse I quoted, “thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.”
Comment by djinn — December 6, 2008 @ 12:14 pm
So Neal, there is an example of a homosexual relationship in the Bible that was not only not condemned but implicitly allowed, as David did get in trouble with G-d for his sexual shenanigans later, you may recall.
Sorry about the typos in my previous post. Must try to do better.
Comment by djinn — December 6, 2008 @ 12:18 pm
Yes, Neal, I would also point to djinn’s example of David and Jonathan as a pretty clear presentation of a gay male couple.
As to your claim that:
…I beg to differ. Jesus was answering the question in the same terms in which it was asked. The question was about a man marrying and then divorcing a woman. This is the question Jesus answered.
Also, as to your claim that gay marriage cannot possibly be acceptable because it was never addressed in the Bible, then I guess that flying in an airplane should also be taboo. And circumnavigating the globe. And watching television. And joining the navy. And skiing. And riding a bicycle. And playing hopscotch. And blogging on a computer. And playing baseball. And biting your fingernails.
And as to your claims that same-gender committed monogamous relationships are forbidden by scripture, they aren’t. There is not one scripture which refers to same-gender monogamous committed relationships. Not one. There are, on the other hand, a number of scriptures which expressly forbid divorce and remarriage. I ask you again, why are you not devoting your time, energy and resources to passing constitutional amendments prohibiting divorced people from remarrying?
Comment by Lorian — December 6, 2008 @ 2:06 pm
djinn, What about Romans 1? It is a letter written by Paul to the Saints in Rome. It seems fairly clear and straightforward. Verse 18 says, For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Verses 19 and 20 clarify that God did reveal the truth, so there is no excuse to misunderstand or misinterpret:
The rest of the verses talk about various sins, many of which are related to sex. Verses 26 and 27 say:
I can’t really think of another way to intepret that other than Paul condemning gay sex.
Comment by Stephanie — December 6, 2008 @ 2:25 pm
Stephanie, Paul also told women to keep their hair long, their heads covered, and their mouths shut!
Comment by Rich — December 6, 2008 @ 2:59 pm
Stephanie, verses 21-25, which you neglected to quote, shed a great deal more light on the topic which Paul was discussing:
What Paul was discussing here was a group of people who became Christians (verse 21 - they “knew God”), but then who turned away from God, back to their pagan temple idolatry and religious orgies, in which people not only had indiscriminate sex with people of the opposite gender, but people who were not homosexually oriented had indiscriminate sex with their own gender and with temple prostitutes of either gender.
This passage is a clear condemnation of pagan temple orgies. It is, in words I once read, not a “description of homosexual people behaving badly, but of heterosexual people behaving attrociously.”
This passage, again, says absolutely nothing about committed, monogamous relationships between same-gender-oriented people.
Comment by Lorian — December 6, 2008 @ 3:00 pm
Well, Stephanie, in those scriptures Paul is also condemning women having sex without the express purpose to get pregnant. This was clearly understood in the early Christian church, where the preferred marriage was as between brother and sister, that is, no sex at all. Start attacking birth control, or any sort of non-procreative sex with the same vehemence as Homosexuality is attacked and I’ll take those verses seriously.
Comment by djinn — December 6, 2008 @ 3:34 pm
Lorian, I didn’t “neglect” to quote verses 21-25. I said, The rest of the verses talk about various sins. I don’t see how those added verses somehow negate verses 26-27. Yes, Paul was discussing people who had become Christian, then turned away from God back to wickedness, and his description encompasses verses 21-32. I’ve read papers that say that this refers to “pagan temple orgies”, but that seems to be a stretch. The list of sins is long and also includes fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness, full of envy, murder, debate, deciet, malignity, whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenant breakders, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful.
All of these sins only pertain to pagan temple practices?
Look, Lorian, I don’t think the discussion around Prop 8 and gay marriage even needs to include anything about whether gay sex is a sin or not. In our country, we don’t legislate “sins” (anymore). We legislate against things that hurt others. Whether or not legalized gay marriage actually “hurts” others is what the issue is over, and you’ve done a good job of showing how your gay-parent family does not “hurt” anyone else. But, since everyone is arguing about whether or not the Bible has verses that condemn gay sex, I think, yes, Romans 1 is the most clear example I can find.
Comment by Stephanie — December 6, 2008 @ 3:38 pm
djinn, I’ve read that some poeple interpret them that way, and I am just not seeing it.
Comment by Stephanie — December 6, 2008 @ 3:39 pm
15 Reasons why Romans 1 isn’t about temple prositution.
Comment by Stephanie — December 6, 2008 @ 3:51 pm
You know this post has been threadjacked beyond all recognition. I’m not one to close comments or delete posts but i’m getting very very grumpy……………
Comment by Not Ophelia — December 6, 2008 @ 3:58 pm
Not Ophelia, I greatly appreciated your OP, more than I can say. As a Christian, though, who has done a great deal of soul-searching in the past 30 years since I began to consciously realize that my primarily sexual and emotional attractions and bonds were with women, I take exception to those who get in my face and tell me that God condemns me for fully living out the sexual orientation God gave me.
As a young person growing up in the Assembly of God Church, which has, if anything, an even more closed attitude towards homosexuality than the LDS Church, when I realized I was one of those awful gay people I’d heard so much about, I was consumed with the self-hatred of internalized homophobia. I struggled to be anything else BUT gay. I converted to Episcopalian so that I could join an Anglo-Catholic convent, partly so that I could avoid the issue altogether, but I found that one escapes nothing by entering a convent, because one brings oneself along.
I had been thoroughly indoctrinated with the misinterpretations of scripture to which those who cling to “traditional” translations of the Bible cling so tightly. I confessed, I prayed, I studied the Bible, I tried to find a boyfriend, I begged God to change me or let me die. I considered suicide, and then became a “cutter.” When I was overwhelmed with pain of conflicting emotions — knowing that what I felt was the most natural thing in the world for me, but knowing that others rejected and hated me for who I was and what I felt, and that my church said that God condemned me to hell for who I was and what I felt, I would release the intense pain I felt by externalizing it through cuts on my body.
Finally, though, I began to study and to learn. For one thing, I learned that the interpretations of scripture I’d been taught growing up had very little to to with what the Bible really said on the subject of same-gender relationships. More importantly, though, I learned to accept what I had really always known, that God made me as I am, and did not expect or want me to deny the way I was made at my very core of being. I learned that there really, truly, actually was a special person God had destined for me to meet who would instantly become my soul mate, my best friend and the love of my life.
With God’s help, I pulled myself out of the black depression which had been my existence growing up, and realized that I truly am a worthwhile, lovable, good and holy person, and that the world in which I live and the God in whom I believe are not the teeny, tiny, constrained objects which the religion of my childhood had made them appear to be.
So, my point here (and I DO have one!
) is that no matter what people like Neal and Stephanie and others might believe, I know that I am a child of God, and that God loves me as the person I was made to be, and that God not only approves of my marriage to my partner, Darcie, but that God gave her to me and fashioned us to be one another’s helpmeet and the true joy of one another’s heart.
Regardless of what any church teaches, those things will remain true for me and my partner and our beautiful children. I neither want nor need any given church’s approval.
The only thing I seek for my family beyond what we already have is the set of mundane, workaday civil rights protections (social security, tax codes, inheritance, health insurance benefits taxation, yada, yada, zzzzzzzz — how can anyone even think about such mundane things without getting sleepy, let alone get worked up enough to expend the effort to take them away from other people?) which other families essentially just like mine take for granted.
Comment by Lorian — December 6, 2008 @ 5:07 pm
Lorian, thanks for sharing your very personal story. This is issue creates a lot of tension in my spiritual world. If God is love, if his Gospel is about learning to love unselfishly, why would he reject love like yours, love which are every bit as genuine as that I share with my wife? Why would he reject the deep bonds of sacrifice and giving you share with your partner and children? Why would he ask you to live a life of emotional isolation when he’s told us the importance of the deep emotional and spiritual intimacy of finding a partner?
Because I’ve a spiritual conviction about the Gospel, I try to trust our prophets even when I don’t understand. But stories like yours, of which I’ve heard several, have made it very difficult to trust them on this issue.
(Sorry, NO, but I needed to share that with Lorian)
Comment by Derek — December 6, 2008 @ 7:08 pm
Thanks, Derek, and thanks, NO, for the opportunity to discuss this.
Comment by Lorian — December 6, 2008 @ 7:18 pm
Lorian,
There are many of us out there who understand your pain and struggles. Please remember that God gave you the same desires and needs for love, intimacy and companionship as every other human He created. God loves you just as you are. In fact, I believe you are working with God to give others the opportunity to overcome bias and intolerance, for through you the goodness of God is sometimes manifested, though not always as evidenced by some of the posters on this thread. It is ALL about loving and forgiving others.
THAT CONCEPT, MY FRIENDS, CAN BE FOUND IN ALL OF OUR SCRIPTURES.
I encourage you to keep your spirits high. I believe the church will come around in due time (later than they should have, however), as they have done many times in the past. A new revelation is forth coming - mark my words.
President Monson has received his wake up call thanks to Prop 8. Now he will begin to inquire of the Lord what is best for gays in the church, something he has yet to do. There was no need for him to ask for guidance because he believed he already had the truth. When the prophet starts to ask the hard questions, we will all realize that you, and others who have been tormented by the same members you used to call your ward family, were right all along. You are not evil, but you ARE different from most. Sadly, that shouldn’t be enough to be vilified and scourged by fellow members.
Gays have a very important purpose on earth, and there is a plan of happiness for you and your family. Do not be swayed to believe anything else. God loves you as you are. Stay strong.
Re: 177
Neal said,
You know NOTHING of our Church! The members don’t follow half the things the Prophet has told them to do already - like have Family Home Evening, pay a full tithe, get their food storage, or do Home and Visiting Teaching - so what makes you think they would suddenly start killing people if the Prophet asked them to?? That’s just alarmist propaganda.
Stop painting us as blind sheep - we’re anything but!
Actually I am a member of the church who has a gay son whose life was nearly destroyed by the cruel things he was taught (evil, going to hell, abomination to God, unlovable - need I go on?).
It is a sad commentary that you use “members are not following the prophet by not having FHE, not paying tithing, home teaching, etc” as your evidence that you are NOT sheep. Sounds like you are just describing the less faithful members to me - perhaps you?. What about the true blue Mormons who will do anything he says? Seems like a lot of members chose to get involved in a fight to take away freedoms that were legally granted to a minority group that has had to fight for those rights and freedoms for a long time.
Neal, there are members who will do anything for the prophet, including hurting others. And they ARE sheep!
Neal also said,
You can have a difference of opinion and have marches and spend your money to rally your cause in any way you please, but you cross the line when you say the Church or members of the Church DON’T HAVE THE SAME RIGHT. That’s a double standard.
Please show me where I said you and the church don’t have the same rights to protest as gays. How did I cross the line? Where is the double standard in my post?
Sounds more like you are frustrated because you are fighting a losing battle and that irks you.
Neal, I don’t mean to get personal, but I am wondering how old are you? Do you have kids of your own? If so, how old are they? Time has a way of softening our judgments, especially when we see our own children suffer unnecessarily at the hands of those who are suppose to love and help them - not condemn them. Just my personal observation.
TO EVERYONE ELSE, if you are Mormorn, please stop using the bible (which we know was not translated correctly) as your evidence. Try the Book of Mormon, particularly 3 Nephi, as your ammunition against gays. See what Christ has to say about your behavior toward them. If you can show me anywhere that your actions and attitudes are justified, then you will really have something. Until then, just do what Jesus would do - LOVE ALL PEOPLE EQUALLY!
Comment by Sid — December 6, 2008 @ 8:28 pm
Sid, don’t be angry with Neal, though I see that this is very personal for you. You’re right, proposition 8 has given us all a lot to think about, which is always a good thing. I was inclined to vote for it, but our leaders told us to pray about it and I got the answer to vote no. Let’s trust our leaders to do the right thing even if change occurs slowly.
Thanks for being patient will all of us Lorian.
Comment by Steve Fleming — December 6, 2008 @ 8:51 pm
Well said, Steve.
Comment by Sid — December 6, 2008 @ 9:29 pm
OK, Stephanie: The rest of Romans 1:
Even assuming that your interpretation is correct (which I do not personally believe, but am not up to explicating at the moment) take a look at the rest of Romans 1. Gossiping. Backbiting. “Whisperers,” Being proud. Homosexuality. All equally bad. However, out of this laundry list of sins, from which we all suffer, you and Christianity at large has chosen to pull out one. I say, if you gossip, no marriage license for you. Because Paul said so. Or rather he condemned gossipers and whisperers to the same punishment as Homosexuals, neatly and cleanly in verse 32.
So, if you gossip or whisper, no marriage for you, by the same logic you apply to Homosexuals.
Comment by djinn — December 6, 2008 @ 9:35 pm
This is exactly what the scripture was talking about when it says people were “wresting the scriptures to their own destruction”. I have never seen a more twisted interpretation of scriptures EVER in my entire life! But that’s OK, just keep on believing the fantasy…
Neal
P.S. For a more accurate interpretation of any and all of the aforementioned scriptures, please go to LDS.ORG and reference the myriad articles and other materials there. Please also pick up a copy of ‘Jesus the Christ’, by James E. Talmage (you might want to take a college level vocabulary course before tackling this one). And while you’re there, please look up “homosexuality” in the reference section and read the MANY statements by modern prophets that completely condemn homosexual sex - monogomous or not - as sin. Period.
Comment by Neal — December 6, 2008 @ 9:59 pm
Then, Neal, don’t cite the Bible as a reference. As you don’t really care what it says. Fine; if you would have mentioned this earlier, none of this conversation would have been required. You are certainly aware, that many of the prophets also condemned full membership in the church for black people in the same terms. You’re just giving up? You don’t even want to consider the implications of Romans 1:32? What else about the Bible do you feel free to cast, gaily, away?
Comment by djinn — December 6, 2008 @ 10:15 pm
I wonder if any people in the mormon church spoke up during, oh, let’s say the service, and said what they really felt about Prop 8 and how they felt about their Church’s support of it? We need more people like that, who are unafraid to speak about the injustices that happen in the church hierarchy. I think this is the only way we are going to stop them from happening.
By the way, I am not a mormon but I do believe that people of faith - any faith, need to speak out when their religion crosses the line.
Comment by Jessica Sideways — December 6, 2008 @ 10:17 pm
I also take it, Neal, that you didn’t do any of your own research on David and Jonathan. Look some stuff up. Pretty interesting, and chilling. There’s some Saul verses concerning David that are pretty distressing. But, I guess you, what? just use the Bible as a prop?
Comment by djinn — December 6, 2008 @ 10:41 pm
Sid wrote:
Sid, I’m in my fifties, actually, so there isn’t a shred of naivete about me.
I’ve been working with homosexual Church members for about 4 years now, so I know all about what goes on in the Church regarding treatment of homosexuals. I’ve been the recipient of some negative things too, but have had far more positive experiences than negative ones. My Church leaders all know of my homosexuality and love me just as they would anyone else. The Church does not hate Gay people, and in fact is much more tolerant and loving than many Christian denominations. Its taking a while for indiviiduals to overcome their prejudices, but that is happening over time. I’ve seen a huge change in the last few years.
The rest of these arguments really get down to faith. Do you believe in the Church and the Brethren? Is this the restored Gospel? Are we led by men of God and modern Prophets? If so, the direction is clear, and the Lord’s voice has been heard on this subject. If you’re unclear, then pick up a copy of the Proclamation on the Family, which was signed by all 15 Prophets and Apostles and publised to the entire world as a statement of truth. If you DO have that faith and that testimony, then you’ll follow the Lord and his Prophets and, like Steve, recieve a spiritual confirmation of their counsel. If you do not follow the Prophets or try to justify yourself in sin, then you will reap the consequences thereof - the Lord alone knows what they will be.
I will continue to work and to pray that all those who wander away from the Iron Rod may somehow find their way back. I just read the story of an on-line acquaintance who recently got out of a homosexual relationship and now has a wiife and kids. Here’s an excerpt:
I also know many other homosexual people who have had positive experiences with the Church, but who never left it and who have remained true to the Gospel. Gay is not the only way, you see? That’s my message to you.
Comment by Neal — December 6, 2008 @ 10:49 pm
Oh, and those reference to modern prophets show an evolution from out and out hatred of homosexuals outside of any actual homosexual acts (electroshock therapy! You could get kicked out of BYU, Exed, etc. for just feeling that way with no behavioral component) to the current “it’s ok as long as, uh, you know, don’t do anything about it.” With the implied “please don’t kill yourself on the church steps just because we have been acting as if we hate you, cause we don’t anymore. We just hate that part of you.” Huge change.
Comment by djinn — December 6, 2008 @ 10:51 pm
djinn,
Perhaps you’re the one using the Bible as a prop. If that story is all you’ve got, its pretty sad.
Comment by Neal — December 6, 2008 @ 10:52 pm
Neal, I have no idea what you’re talking about; a few more words on the subject, please?
Comment by djinn — December 6, 2008 @ 10:54 pm
djinn,
Bitter, spiteful, hateful, sarcastic, backbiting, evil speaking - I’m trying to find something positive about you but your posts include no evidence to the contrary…
Comment by Neal — December 6, 2008 @ 10:56 pm
Jessica,
In July of this year I spoke up as a High Priest instructor about how I felt it wasn’t right to reject people who we consider sinners and take away their legal rights to marry. And I even shared my experience with my son’s life in hell as a Gay Mormon RM. I honestly felt my church had crossed the line by joining the fight to pass Prop 8.
However, because I shared sentiments that were contrary to the prophet’s instructions on Prop 8, my bishop notified the stake president and I was released the following week from my HP teaching position that I had held for most of 9 years. I haven’t been back to church since (over 55 years of faithful service).
I don’t know how other members feel about this, but is seems eerily similar to the kind of actions that are taken in churches like the FLDS and other radical extremist religions.
I assume most members will say I am a loser and deserve whatever discipline I get from the brethren. But I truly believed the men in my class, who heard my story and the pain we have caused so many people, would help them to rethink their own positions. It didn’t work, but some of the men came up to me after the lesson to offer sympathies toward my son.
At this point I am concerned because local leaders have been given the charge from SLC to handle Prop 8 dissenters at the local level. So, I don’t know what will ultimately happen to me. I do know that my beliefs have changed some over the last few years, culminating this past month when the church told the world that my son was less of a human being because he is gay.
Some how I just don’t think that is what Jesus had in mind for us to do. The church shouldn’t be about discrimination and exclusion. We are suppose to love and serve others, especially the outcasts. If we Christians won’t do it, then who will?
I will continue to try to help those who are hurting, and I will lend my voice of support to anyone who will listen.
Comment by Sid — December 6, 2008 @ 11:03 pm
Sid, such a sweetheart; your position and range of choices strikes me as heartbreaking. I am so thrilled that you actually valued your son over, well, you know. You give me hope.
Comment by djinn — December 6, 2008 @ 11:10 pm
re: 201
Neal said:
Okay, did I misread Steve’s comment? Didn’t he say that, after prayer, the Spirit told him not to support Prop 8?
Comment by Derek — December 6, 2008 @ 11:20 pm
Neal,
I didn’t realize you were gay. But that does explain some of your hostilities toward other posters. Some gay people who haven’t been able to process their orientation are so repulsed by their homosexual desires that they have an unconscious need to respond with hostilities toward other gays or gay sympathizers.
Now I am even more convinced that you have chosen the wrong church (institution) to help you deal with your homosexuality. Look what it has turned you into.
Your 205 post to djinn:
Bitter, spiteful, hateful, sarcastic, backbiting, evil speaking - I’m trying to find something positive about you but your posts include no evidence to the contrary…
You are calling djinn all these things without realizing that is exactly how you are acting. You are completely opposite of the hundreds of gays people I know and work with who are full of love and compassion.
And you must be delusional if you think the Mormon church is gay friendly. It almost sounds from your comments that you are willing to say you are gay (even though you may not be) just to prove your points.
Neal, I hope you don’t take offense at my words, for there is none intended. I would like to help you, as would many of the posters on this thread. But I am afraid our offer to help will not be accepted.
Can I assume that you don’t have children? Because if you do and they are gay, I think you would feel completely different about how the church was treating your own flesh and blood. When 9 out of 10 gay members end up leaving the church, I would hope any rationally thinking person would conclude that the church’s system for “helping” gay members isn’t working.
Plain and simple: the church doesn’t have this one figured out, and they never will as long as they continue to believe gays are broken and need to be fixed. The church will need a radical change in their gay paradigm before they will be able to love and accept gays as they are. And that should be their goal - to love as God loves.
Comment by Sid — December 6, 2008 @ 11:29 pm
Sid,
I’m sorry you’ve been hurt by these events. But I would ask you in all candor to step back and look at things for a moment. Do you think the Church should let someone teach a class that is telling people to reject counsel given by the Brethren? It doen’t matter what the situation or topic of discussion is, but I can tell you they won’t. I teach the HP group in my Ward, and if I stood up and said I thought abortion should be leaglized, or that Polygamy should be allowed, or that it was OK to drink a little wine now and then, should I be surprised if they released me from my calling? You say you told the class that the Church had “crossed the line”. Perhaps you crossed a line too?? I’m not being condemning or callous here, just asking you to put the shoe on the other foot and see if it still fits. Obviously we weren’t in the class with you and don’t know everything that was said. And I have seen local leaders do some pretty bone-headed and inappropriate things in my time. When that happened to me and I was the recipient of the inappropriateness, I had to ask myself if I was going to let someone else’s ignorance deny me of the blessings of the Gospel? The answer was no, and I kept right on going. Things worked out.
Regards,
Neal
Comment by Neal — December 6, 2008 @ 11:30 pm
Sid,
Hostility? Maybe I’m abrupt and outspoken at times, but hostile? I think you need to re-read some of the other posts here if you want to find examples of hostility. You’re making a lot of assumptions about me that just aren’t true. I’m perfectly happy with my life and the Church. As for the other psych stuff, you’re just plain ole off the mark my friend. But no offense taken.
And 9 out of 10 gays leave the Church!? Where did you come up with a number like that? Maybe you’re entagled with one of those “affirmation” groups? It does’t matter. There are more of us than you think who don’t do the Gay thing. Lots more. And we think YOU’RE the people who need help!
Comment by Neal — December 6, 2008 @ 11:46 pm
Um, I should have said “most of the time when I disagree with what’s being said I bite my tongue…”; I don’t go around biting my tongue all the time at church…
Comment by Rich — December 6, 2008 @ 11:48 pm
Derek,
You were right about Steve’s comment. Sorry Steve.
I’ve ordred new eye-glasses but they haven’t come in yet!
Comment by Neal — December 6, 2008 @ 11:51 pm
Pres. Hinckley once said “You can believe anything you want, so long as you don’t go around teaching it to others”, or words to that effect. Sid’s example illustrates why most of the time I bite my tongue at church, because censure is real and the church abides no dissent.
I was grateful that a woman in my ward tearfully shared a story of her granddaughter who was in a SS relationship following a very abusive marriage (the same for her partner) in regards to prop 8 comments that were brought up, and how none of us should judge others. I know everyone in the room was deeply touched, and no one disagreed openly. It was great. Any time people can put a real face and a real story against abstract fear-mongering, positive change can happen. I’m very grateful for Lorian and others that have put a real face and a heartfelt story up against centuries of fear and prejudice.
Comment by Rich — December 6, 2008 @ 11:55 pm