460 thoughts on “Very Lengthy Public Affairs discussion of same-gender attraction”

1. This is awesome. It would be nice to get Q and A’s like this on a list of other hot topics too. I hope this is a new trend starting.

2. Thanks for pointing this out. It is, as you say, very thorough. I’m a bit bothered because it contradicts what was told to the General RS Presidency in the 1990s on civil unions, though it does leave some wiggle room. Also, I’m pretty sure that Elder Wickman abuses the term “begs the question” in a rather novel way. He seems to mean “sidesteps the question”:
   ELDER WICKMAN: Whether it is nature or nurture really begs the important question, and a preoccupation with nature or nurture can, it seems to me, lead someone astray from the principles that Elder Oaks has been describing here. Why somebody has a same-gender attraction… who can say? But what matters is the fact that we know we can control how we behave, and it is behavior which is important.
   Yes, I obsess over the usage of “begs the question”. Sue me.

3. Good post. Not surprisingly, I’m going be a straight talker on this one.

   I couldn’t get through all the quotes and I’m embarrassed for us. Not embarrassed by our church’s teachings, but by this presentation of it. As PR, it’s a generation out of date. There’s been a sea change regarding homosexuality in this country and this comes off as gay bashing.

   Here’s the crux of the matter and why the sea change occurred: If homosexuality isn’t a choice, and many can’t imagine how it could be, then a straight person preaching celibacy for life to the homosexual, a burden the straight person doesn’t carry and couldn’t possibly understand, is utterly bigoted. I’m fine with our temple recommend question regarding the LofC. But for practicing gay/lesbians and sexually active single heterosexuals who choose to be members, worship with us and forgo a temple recommend, I think we should mind our business and leave them alone regarding their private moments. From what I was reading, the implication was we are again encouraging homosexuals to marry heterosexuals and make the best of it. My kids (all hetero to my knowledge) deserve better.

4. Wait. Why is he bagging on being from Texas as being a silly definitive characteristic of someone’s life? He should be bagging on Utah… 😉

   Somehow, I don’t think the Church leadership cares too much about being labeled as bigots using a social standard for bigotry. I get the feeling that they probably won’t shy away from the label.

   I liked this quote from Oaks: “… [W]e do not accept the fact that conditions that prevent people from attaining their eternal destiny were born into them without any ability to control.”

5. Fortunately, the Kingdom of God is a republic, and not a democracy, and all the electors are in heaven and not on earth.

6. …in response to the idea of changing times changing mores. Vox populi vox Dei – I don’t think so. Vox exalti vox Dei is more like it.

7. Thanks for this post, Geoff.

8. “Gratefully, the answer is that same-gender attraction did not exist in the pre-earth life and neither will it exist in the next life. It is a circumstance that for whatever reason or reasons seems to apply right now in mortality, in this nano-second of our eternal existence.”

   How do we know same-gender attraction did not exist in the pre-earth life?

   I’ve been taught (usually in the context of word-of-wisdom problems) all my life that whatever addictions, thoughts, desires, weaknesses that plague us now will stay with us in the next life and we’ll still have the cravings for nicotine, etc. Why does this concept not apply to same-gender attraction in the next life?

9. I was going to ask the same question as the other “ed.”

   In chapter 45 of Gospel Principles manual, Joseph F. Smith is quoted as saying:

   Spirits carry with them from earth their attitudes of devotion or antagonism toward things of righteousness. They have the same appetites and desires that they had when they lived on earth.

   Of course, Wickmans’ statement makes sense if you think of SSA as a physical disability (a comparison explicitly made by Oaks). I’ve always been taught that physical disabilities would be removed in the resurrection.

10. The polarization of our society will only worsen. Steve EM is correct in post #3. I read the entire interview carefully, and would like to sit across the table from the two of them with my family (me, my partner, and our daughter) and look them in the eye. Oaks and Wickman are ‘utterly bigoted’ on this one and will ultimately face the consequences of that. I feel so badly for the shattered family relationships and suicides that one so often hears about vis-a-vis gays and Mormons. The section where they discuss shutting out a gay son’s partner was particularly chilling. Don’t really know what to do to help. I wonder if there needs to be some kind of Gay Mormon Evacuation and Healing organization to just get them out and help them start new lives in a non-LDS context. Psychologically, gay Mormons are kinda like Jews in Germany circa 1929.

11. Mike said, “The section where they discuss shutting out a gay son’s partner was particularly chilling.”

    I agree. This dialogue can only foster fear and exclusion:

    PUBLIC AFFAIRS: At what point does showing that love cross the line into inadvertently endorsing behavior? If the son says, ‘Well, if you love me, can I bring my partner to our home to visit? Can we come for holidays?’ How do you balance that against, for example, concern for other children in the home?’

    ELDER OAKS: . . . I can imagine that in most circumstances the parents would say, ‘Please don’t do that. Don’t put us into that position.’ Surely if there are children in the home who would be influenced by this example, the answer would likely be that. . . . ‘Yes, come, but don’t expect to stay overnight. Don’t expect to be a lengthy house guest. Don’t expect us to take you out and introduce you to our friends, or to deal with you in a public situation that would imply our approval of your “partnership.”

12. This is a fantastic interview. Whether or not one agrees with all the content, it is surely signficant that Elder Oaks and Wickman were willing to go on the record with all this, in such detail. I was particularly struck by how good the questions were that Public Affairs posed. The interview really covered all the hard questions, and didn’t sidestep any aspect of the issue, as my cynical self imagined that it might have. With Eric Russell, I certainly hope Church leaders will do more Q&A sessions like this one. (Wouldn’t it be great to have something like this on evolution, or NDBF?)

    Steve EM — Read the whole interview and you’ll see that Oaks is hardly saying that homosexuals should marry heterosexuals and just “make the best of it.” His response is more nuanced than a mere “yes” or “no” to the question of whether gays should enter heterosexual marriages, but your characterization is inaccurate.

    Also, one wonders if you have ever seen any real “bigotry” or “gay bashing” in your life. If you had, you would probably be able to distinguish it from the very different activity that Oaks and Wickman are engaged in here. I think one can disagree with the substance of their views without resorting to such sloppy, over-the-top accusations. I realize that opponents of the Church’s stand on homosexuality find discussions like these very distasteful, but I don’t think you further your cause by portraying Oaks’ and Wickman’s views in such hyperbolic language.

    Some additional thoughts:

    1. There were several places where I can easily imagine the “unconditional love” issue might have been raised. It wasn’t, and thank goodness. I am so grateful that Church leaders don’t seem to want to jump on the Elder Nelson bandwagon!

    2. The only part of the interview that leaves me slightly confused is Elder Wickman’s discussion of civil unions. The full text of the interview contains a fuller treatment than is cited in this post, but the full treatment still leaves me perplexed. Is Wickman opposed to same-sex couples having ANY of the rights that traditionally come with marriage, or is he only opposed to the full “bundle” of rights being had by gay couples (whether called marriage, civil unions, or whatever)?

    Aaron B

13. I agree with Aaron’s post above, especially his comment to Steve EM. And while I am sympathetic to Mike’s position in #10, he falls into an intellectual trap by calling an apostle and a 70 “utterly bigoted.” This is simply lazy rhetoric. The whole comparison to Jews in Germany is just way over the top and unlikely to convince anyone who doesn’t already hold such viewpoints. Oaks’ and Wickman’s answers show the true love of Christ in that they care about the eternal nature of souls, while Mike’s post appeals to outrage and the politically correct postures of the day.

    I too would like to see Mike, his partner and their child in a discussion with an Apostle and a Seventy. I have witnessed similar scenes, and they usually don’t turn out like the outraged person thinks they are going to. It is a humbling thing to encounter the pure love of Christ that emanates from true servants of the Lord.

    Post #11 distorts the apostle’s answer. Here is the entire text:

    PUBLIC AFFAIRS: At what point does showing that love cross the line into inadvertently endorsing behavior? If the son says, ‘Well, if you love me, can I bring my partner to our home to visit? Can we come for holidays?’ How do you balance that against, for example, concern for other children in the home?’

    ELDER OAKS: That’s a decision that needs to be made individually by the person responsible, calling upon the Lord for inspiration. I can imagine that in most circumstances the parents would say, ‘Please don’t do that. Don’t put us into that position.’ Surely if there are children in the home who would be influenced by this example, the answer would likely be that. There would also be other factors that would make that the likely answer.

    I can also imagine some circumstances in which it might be possible to say, ‘Yes, come, but don’t expect to stay overnight. Don’t expect to be a lengthy house guest. Don’t expect us to take you out and introduce you to our friends, or to deal with you in a public situation that would imply our approval of your “partnership.”

    There are so many different circumstances, it’s impossible to give one answer that fits all.

14. Re #3

    then a straight person preaching celibacy for life to the homosexual, a burden the straight person doesn’t carry and couldn’t possibly understand,

    You don’t think Sheri Dew could understand, having been heterosexual but celibate for more than five decades?

15. Unfortunately, this set of interviews actually revealed a great deal of INCONSISTENCY on the part of GA’s. Not only have they contradicted earlier statements in support of civil unions, they also have not quite figured out why they think that marriage should be limited to a man and a woman.

    Elder Wickman says: “One way to think of marriage is as a bundle of rights associated with what it means for two people to be married. What the First Presidency has done is express its support of marriage and for that bundle of rights belonging to a man and a woman.”

    But Elder Oaks says: “For openers, marriage is neither a matter of politics, nor is it a matter of social policy. Marriage is defined by the Lord Himself. It’s the one institution that is ceremoniously performed by priesthood authority in the temple [and] transcends this world.”

    Elder Oaks excplicitly argues against the argument that Elder Wickman has invoked here. Wickman says that marriage is a matter of “rights” (this is already a bad argument since now you have to argue that marriage “rights” should be denied to a certain class of people, which simply does not sound convincing in American rights’ discourse). However, Oaks argues that marriage is a religious institution and therefore (why exactly?) not a matter of rights. The problem here is that no one is asking that the priesthood be used for same sex marriages. Futher, Oaks later acknowedges the, uh, obvious fact, that marriage is a matter of public policy.

16. My impressions: a lot of pressure put on the distinction between inclination and action; a lot of effort to normalize homosexual sin as run-of-the-mill sin, not in a special class of its own; a lot of reliance on the “millennial” argument for traditional marriage (I find this intuitively persuasive, personally, but I’m not sure whether it’s a good argument or not).

    What I see as good news: emphasis on maintaining family and church relationships with gay men (no mention of gay women, interestingly); clear retreat from and repudiation of heterosexual marriage as a cure for homosexuality; clear admission that homosexual inclination is not chosen.

17. Rosalynde, those are great insights. Thank you.

18. re: 12 Yes to both, although thankfully no physical violence has ever come my way. I’ve had cars roar by with groups of young men yelling “F—–g faggots!” at me and my friends on numerous occasions. Much more hurt has been inflicted by conservative relatives who do things like send wedding invitations that say “Mike and Guest” even though my partner and I have been together for ages. Or they don’t get my stepdaughter a Christmas present when every other scattered 3rd-cousin-twice removed family member is acknowledged, etc. Oaks and Wickman fall into the latter group; I would not call them “bashers.” But from the perspective of someone who has been there: It is MUCH more painful to have your relationship rejected (in overt or subtle ways) by your family than to face hostility from strangers.

    re: 13 I agree that my last sentence was a cheap shot. It was late and I was tired. But even in the light of day, I believe it’s fair to assert that from a secular perspective (and there’s the rub, right?) their comments would be interpreted as bigoted. TT is correct that it’s riddled with inconsistency as well. I’ve often noticed this from the “love the sinner, hate the sin” crowd. It’s ultimately an incoherent position, trying to have it both ways.

    Odd, but it’s difficult to imagine Jesus telling a sinner: “Don’t expect to be a lengthy house guest. Don’t expect us to take you out and introduce you to our friends, or to deal with you in a public situation….”

    Or maybe that’s just me.

19. Isn’t it curious that some who raise their hands in conferences to sustain the members of the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency as Prophets, Seers, and Revelators do so until they come up against a position taken by one of those members that butts up against their particular “issue” – whatever that may be. Some argue passionately and sincerely that they will and do follow the Savior and those whom He chose to be His disciples/apostles and prophets in the “Bible”….Mormons claim the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price are latter-day scripture, yet, again, deny what they disagree with (smorgasboard “Christians” anyone?).
    There is NOTHING in the interview with Elder Oaks and Wickman on the subject of same-gender issues that disagrees with all that the Lord has revealed on this subject, in any of the books of scripture that I have read. The fact that they are speaking TODAY on an issue in which many are pushing their “issue” as normal and acceptable (and saying any who disagree are “bigots, homophobic”, etc.) is the difference here from what the Lord has said on the subject.
    I am old enough to have watched in real time the show “Phil Donahue”, until an episode in which I saw him for what he was….an “imp” gleefully pushing evil and presenting it as “normal”. We don’t have sin anymore, we have “diseases” – all diseases are not equal – leukemia and cancer are two of the most obvious examples of a “disease”, yet today many are pushing the notion that CHOICES are a “disease” – (I say this to bring up a point about language).
    I absolutely adore language – I take it apart, study it in its context, study the definitions – the language of scripture, the language of the Spirit and the true meaning of language as I was taught (okay, so many years ago) and I weep at the corruption of language today and excuses made for what the Lord has plainly defined as “sin” – such as “same-gender attraction”:homosexuality.
    I have several members of my family who are homosexuals – I know their story, I’ve lived through much of their story with them. By the same token, they know me – my “sins”, my foibles, my areas of weakness and we love each other and recognize we all struggle with areas of great temptation. That love does not ignore the fact that the Lord has definite defined sins, and said, “Thou shalt be perfect, even as I am perfect” – knowing it won’t come in this life, but we go on one day at a time.
    I really appreciate this blog – the issues that have been raised and the discussions that have evolved. Please keep up the good work!

20. Mike, you provide a much-needed perspective on the Bloggernacle, and I encourage you to keep posting.

    Having said that, I think that you need to do better than simply calling them “bigots” or implying that their comments were “bigoted.” What exactly did they say that was bigoted? Give me some clear examples. Provide alternate ways of saying it that would not have been bigoted. TT gives an interesting example in #14 of an apparent inconsistency. In such a lengthy Q&A format, it was very likely that apparent inconsistencies could pop up, but TT takes the right approach in using logic and reason rather than grand sweeps of emotionally-laden rhetoric.

21. I very much appreciated this interview. The questions were definitely not soft pitches and Elders Oaks and Wickman did a great job articulating meaningful, guiding answers in my opinion.

    I especially appreciated Elder Oaks’ treatment of the federal versus states’ rights issue in the debate over an amendment to chrystallize a marriage definition in a way that courts cannot reach.

    I am grateful to both of them for speaking up on these important issues.

22. PUBLIC AFFAIRS: On the issue of a Constitutional amendment prohibiting same-gender marriage, there are some Latter-day Saints who are opposed to same-gender marriage, but who are not in favor of addressing this through a Constitutional amendment. Why did the Church feel that it had to step in that direction?

    Great question.

    ELDER OAKS: Law has at least two roles: one is to define and regulate the limits of acceptable behavior. The other is to teach principles for individuals to make individual choices. The law declares unacceptable some things that are simply not enforceable, and there’s no prosecutor who tries to enforce them. We refer to that as the teaching function of the law.

    This could come back to bite him. Just which laws do we expect not to be enforced? Speeding? Marijuana? Pornography?

    The time has come in our society when I see great wisdom and purpose in a United States Constitutional amendment declaring that marriage is between a man and a woman. There is nothing in that proposed amendment that requires a criminal prosecution or that directs the attorneys general to go out and round people up, but it declares a principle and it also creates a defensive barrier against those who would alter that traditional definition of marriage.

    This is simply misdirection. My opposition to a constitutional amendment has nothing to do with the specter of criminalization, nor have I ever heard that argument made.

    There are people who oppose a federal Constitutional amendment because they think that the law of family should be made by the states.

    That’s more like it.

    I can see a legitimate argument there. I think it’s mistaken, however, because the federal government, through the decisions of life-tenured federal judges, has already taken over that area.

    On the contrary, decisions in support of same-sex marriage (and civil unions) have come solely from state courts. And what’s with this snide reference to “life-tenured judges?” It’s not like life tenure is some recent liberal plot. It was the founding fathers’ idea. Blame them.

    This Constitutional amendment is a defensive measure against those who would ignore the will of the states appropriately expressed and require, as a matter of federal law, the recognition of same-gender marriages — or the invalidation of state laws that require that marriage be between a man and a woman. In summary, the First Presidency has come out for an amendment (which may or may not be adopted) in support of the teaching function of the law. Such an amendment would be a very important expression of public policy, which would feed into or should feed into the decisions of judges across the length and breadth of the land.

    The federal Defense of Marriage Act has performed these functions quite adequately.

    The whole response makes much more sense as opposition to the Lawrence decision. Anti-sodomy laws could be justified as having a “teaching function,” but without the expectation that they would be enforced. Federal judges are, indeed, responsible for that decision, and it has been cited (inappropriately) in the aforementioned decisions by state courts in favor of same-sex marriage. But the constitutional amendment would not address Lawrence, so reasons to oppose Lawrence will not wash as reasons to support the amendment.

    And, being skeptical of prosecutors’ good faith application of the law’s “teaching function,” I still think Lawrence was correctly decided.

23. Thank you for making me aware of this. I am very glad that this was presented. I think it is unfortunate that so many feel that this was necessary. To me there is really not anything new here. Just stating what should have already been understood in a clear way.

24. Again, good post. Here are a few things to clarify where I’m coming from as there seems to be some confusion:

    1) I’m married, hetero, active and believing, but obviously not an apologist for the church, hence why I said I was going be a straight talker on this one.

    2) I am genuinely embarrassed for us. As PR it was so bad that, as I said, I couldn’t get through all the quotes in the post let alone go and read the whole interview. To expect the intended audience to do otherwise is what makes it terrible PR. In short, I’m not at all embarrassed by our church’s teachings on this subject, but by this presentation of it.

    3) From the little I read the implication was we are again encouraging homosexuals to marry heterosexuals and make the best of it. If it was or had to be clarified/nuanced later, again that’s bad PR as most people would never get that far. I’ve seen so many failed homo/hetero marriages and broken homes, that the church did encouraged in my generation, that I have a real short fuse on that. I would absolutely blow a gasket if it happened to one of my kids and I found church leaders had encouraged such a train wreck.

    4) I never said this was gay bashing but that it comes off as gay bashing. It does. As far as my use of the word bigoted, it all comes down to is homosexuality a choice? If it isn’t, and I can’t see how it could be, than stuff like this comes off as bigoted. BTW, if a gay member declines a temple recommend and doesn’t discuss their private life, aren’t they technically welcomed in the church even if there was gay PDA at church? I understand Joe and Molly Mormon would have a cow over it, but that’s not a GA’s problem. A simple statement such as gays are welcome in meeting houses, but sexual activity outside of marriage between a man and woman precludes participation in many callings and temple attendance.

    5) I really don’t care about individual GA’s sexual orientation. I will say that just by law of averages, it’s very likely some are repressed gay/lesbian. Some do seem that way, but it’s none of my business.

    6) Lastly, if hyperbole is poor practice in making a point in an LDS forum, don’t you have to throw out much of the Bible and BofM?

25. To me there is really not anything new here.

    Whoa. I have recently gone back and read the Homosexuality inserts into the Church Handbook of instructions from the 70’s and 80’s. This interview is a dramatic and revolutionary change in church policy form these decades. It would be good for every person in the church and especially those in Church leadership to read this interview in its entirety.

26. 5) I really don’t care about individual GA’s sexual orientation. I will say that just by law of averages, it’s very likely some are repressed gay/lesbian. Some do seem that way, but it’s none of my business.

    How much do you want to bet none of the GA’s are repressed lesbians? 😉

27. J Stapley, I was not a member then. Could you, without revealing anything you shouldn’t, refer to some areas where you think policy has changed? I see Rosalynde’s post above as a possible model for how you could do this.

28. The agnosticism of the Institutional Church toward treatment and cause of homosexuality (e.g., “Those are scientific questions — whether nature or nurture — those are things the Church doesn’t have a position on.” and “The Church rarely takes a position on which treatment techniques are appropriate, for medical doctors or for psychiatrists or psychologists and so on.”). I think that Oak’s castigation of abusive theraputic techniques is very important. Oak’s delineation of when heterosexual marriage is appropriate for someone with homosexual tendancies (emphasis added):

    On the other hand, persons who have cleansed themselves of any transgression and who have shown their ability to deal with these feelings or inclinations and put them in the background, and feel a great attraction for a daughter of God and therefore desire to enter marriage and have children and enjoy the blessings of eternity — that’s a situation when marriage would be appropriate.

29. Marriage is defined by the Lord Himself. It’s the one institution that is ceremoniously performed by priesthood authority in the temple [and] transcends this world. It is of such profound importance… such a core doctrine of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, of the very purpose of the creation of this earth. One hardly can get past the first page of Genesis without seeing that very clearly. It is not an institution to be tampered with by mankind, and certainly not to be tampered with by those who are doing so simply for their own purposes.

    Makes one wonder why the brethern aren’t as up in arms over divorce, encouraging amendments to the constitution and influencing the membership to vote in blocks.

30. This is just a nit pick, Stapley, but I think it’s an important one. Though you make a good point in #28, the latter half of #28, coupled with #25, seems to suggest that the Church Handbook of Instructions insert recommended abusive therapeutic techniques that are now being repudiated.

    Just for the record, the insert advises no such abusive techniques that I can find. Oaks’ formal repudiation of such techniques is a good thing – because it counters cultural overbeliefs that some members may have. But he is not contradicting what was formal church policy.

31. Picking up on the normalization of homosexual feelings that Rosalynde (#16) mentioned…

    I think one of the most important statements in this interview is Elder Wickman’s comment about his handicapped daughter, and the way he uses that to analogize to the situation of the homosexual in the church. Since it isn’t included in the excerpt above, let me paste it here:

    PUBLIC AFFAIRS: How would you address someone who said to you, ‘I understand it’s the same standard, but aren’t we asking a little more of someone who has same-gender attraction?’ Obviously there are heterosexual people who won’t get married, but would you accept that they at least have hope that ‘tomorrow I could meet the person of my dreams.’ There’s always the hope that that could happen at any point in their life. Someone with same-gender attraction wouldn’t necessarily have that same hope.

    ELDER OAKS: There are differences, of course, but the contrast is not unique. There are people with physical disabilities that prevent them from having any hope–in some cases any actual hope and in other cases any practical hope–of marriage….

    ELDER WICKMAN: There’s really no question that there is an anguish associated with the inability to marry in this life. We feel for someone that has that anguish. I feel for somebody that has that anguish. But it’s not limited to someone who has same-gender attraction….I happen to have a handicapped daughter. She’s a beautiful girl. She’ll be 27 next week. Her name is Courtney. Courtney will never marry in this life, yet she looks wistfully upon those who do. She will stand at the window of my office which overlooks the Salt Lake Temple and look at the brides and their new husbands as they’re having their pictures taken. She’s at once captivated by it and saddened because Courtney understands that will not be her experience here. Courtney didn’t ask for the circumstances into which she was born in this life, any more than somebody with same-gender attraction did. So there are lots of kinds of anguish people can have, even associated with just this matter of marriage.

    Add to that Elder Oaks’s immediate follow-up comment that “a person with these inclinations, where they’re kept under control, or, if yielded to are appropriately repented of, is eligible to do anything in the Church that can be done by any member of the Church who is single,” and this is what I conclude:

    If we are to take homosexual inclinations to be one of those physical/genetic tragedies that come with life, and if we are to take Elder Wickman’s daughter Courtney as an example of faithfully going forward despite the happiness which is not available to a person because of such tragedies, then one must assume that there is no shame whatsoever in having homosexual desires. Consider Courtney Wickman. I don’t know why she will “never marry in this life”; is she one of those, to use Elder Oaks’s words, someone without any “practical hope” of marriage, or is she one of those without any “actual hope”? Either way, when we look at her, we may feel sad–as she apparently does!–about the fact that she just can’t accomplish some or all of the physical and emotional tasks involved in marriage (or that no one is likely to be willing to put in the physical and emotional work to marry her), but we certainly don’t feel like her condition is shameful. It’s just….life. She does what she can in the church and in her daily life, and there it is. Given this analogy which Elder Wickham used, I can only assume that it is reasonable to conclude that if a person is unable to love a member of the opposite sex–cannot emotionally bond with them, is not sexually aroused by them, etc.–that’s similarly sad, but also just life. So long as one conforms to the commandments (for a gay man or woman, this means accepting the burden of celibacy gracefully; for Courtney, it means the same–not exploding in rancor or bitterness or self-violence or loathing at the injustice of it all), then you should be taken for who you are in this church, and be allowed to serve, and be expected to serve, as Rosalynde put it, “normally.”

    I look forward to the day when I can move into a new ward, introduce myself to the High Priest group leader, notice he’s not wearing a wedding ring, ask him “Are you married?”, and he’ll respond, “Oh no, I’m afraid not, I’m gay”….and that’ll be that last time it would ever come up.

32. “this interview is a dramatic and revolutionary change in church policy from these decades.”

    Thanks for pointing that out, J. Stapley, I think that’s a very important point.

    My question: if the teachings and policies have changed so much in the last couple of decades, what reason is there to believe they won’t continue to evolve? Should we believe we’ve heard the last word on this issue?

    And for those who say there was nothing new in this interveiw, I think the teaching that SSA will be removed after this life is new…at least I haven’t heard it from an official source before.

33. Steve EM,

    If it is known to the proper authorities that a gay member of the Church is actively engaged in sexual activity, and utterly refuses to stop, the proper course of action is for him or her to be excommunicated (cf. D&C 42:24-26,77).

34. On the political side of things, I have to also say that I think TrailerTrash (#14) highlights an important problem with what Elder Oaks and Wickman say in this interview. It’s not an irresolveable problem, but it is a problem nonetheless. If marriage is not a matter of politics or social policy, and finds it legitmacy solely through the Lord’s definition of such, but on the other hand marriage involves a bunch of rights that clearly reflect public interests, then you have a possible inconsistency. One way to resolve that inconsistency, of course, would be to say that the rights associated with marriage have been defined by God; they are “natural rights” in Catholic parlance, embedded in our Judeo-Christian civilization and thus are a collective “public interest” as well as a binding revelation. The fact that the interview, at the bottom as published on the LDS website, includes a link to Richard J. Neuhaus’s theoconservative Catholic journal First Things suggests that at least some of the people who have been major players in this discussion within the church leadership have accepted this kind of “civilizaional,” natural law morality as a way of defining political life. I’ve long suspected this (and have mixed feelings about it); unless someone else knows of an easy and obvious way to resolve the contradiction which TrailerTrash pointed out, I’m going to take this interview to be further evidence that my suspicion is correct.

35. What would have made Oaks’ repudiation of abusive therapeutic techniques even more impressive would have been a simultaneous regrettable acknowledgement on his part that the LDS Church’s flagship university used to lead the way in implementing such abusive techniques.

    Aaron B

36. Ed Johnson (#32), I have the same question about whether the policy may continue to evolve, and note that Elder Wickman has an opinion about this, which I found quite striking:

    “There is no such thing in the Lord’s eyes as something called same-gender marriage. Homosexual behavior is and will always remain before the Lord an abominable sin. Calling it something else by virtue of some political definition does not change that reality.” (emphasis added).

    It’s one thing to stand in defense of the clear statements of the First Presidency on present policy. It’s another to proclaim that things will always be that way. Given the source of that quote, and the many, many other times church officials have been wrong in making similar pronouncements, I think this has to be taken with the tiniest grain of salt. I say tiny because I think that this issue is far more likely to be an eternally consistent one than that of blacks and the Priesthood or polygamy. Still, based on how badly I feel when I see statements of authorities saying similar things with those policies, I think we need to be careful never to assume anything (besides the most basic principles and ordinances) will always be the same. I hope that doesn’t betray in me a great lack of faith.

37. This seems like a perfect opportunity to brag about the fact that I know Elder Wickman. He was my stake president in the 80s and sent me on my mission. (The fact that he was called to be a GA is evidence to me that God himself inspires such calls.)

    Carry on.

38. Re: #37

    Is it just me, or does E. Wickman remind you of Dana Carvey? When he came to our Stake Conference a few years back, I was just waiting for him to break out into an impersonation of George Bush Senior.

    anyway, sorry for the distraction to the real focus of this thread.

39. #31,

    I look forward to the day when I can move into a new ward, introduce myself to the High Priest group leader, notice he’s not wearing a wedding ring, ask him “Are you married?”, and he’ll respond, “Oh no, I’m afraid not, I’m gay”….and that’ll be that last time it would ever come up.

    Have you seen the videos posted yesterday at http://www.mormonstories.org about two gay Mormon men– maybe the day is a teeny bit closer than you think. Two Mormon men talking openly and frankly about their homosexuality, with their names given for everyone to see. I think that Marilyn and Stuart Matis have done a great work with their book too; however, it’s not nearly widely enough known.

40. J.

    I think Eric Russel spoke well in my defense in #30. Now I will say I am thrilled by this interview, personally I think it was spot on. But I do not find it surprising in the least. The biggest eyebrow lift I got was saying that there was no SGA in the pre-existence nor will there be in the afterlife. That is very interesting to me. But otherwise I don’t see this as much different from what GBH or particularly SWK had to say all along.

    Now, I can’t help if some bishops and Stake presidents, perhaps gave and received some well intentioned but bad advice about using hetro marriage as a therapy. Individuals should have prayerfully considered that advice. Perhaps we have leared some things about practice and teaching practice about certain things. But from a basic teachings and doctrines there does not seem to be much here that surprises anyone. The only interesting thing really will be how some individuals respond.

41. Ryan, #36, great comment, and welcome back!!! I for one missed you.

    Russell, you raise very interesting and thoughtful issues in both your comments. Thank you.

42. Russell,
    I think that the problem with analogizing homosexuals to people with physical/mental disabilities is that this is an analogy which is utterly rejected by many of those who identify as homosexuals. They don’t see themselves as sick, nor incapable of “practical” or “actual” hope for fulfilling relationships. Unless these analogies are only intended for the rhetorical effect they have on beleivers, they really should be abandoned.

    To invoke an analogy, this would be like telling short people how they are simply not statistically normal. We know that many short people cannot help it. Perhaps if they had only drank more milk when they were young… We simply cannot tolerate that short people should be allowed to marry. This would be to make a mockery of regular, tall marriage!

    The problem here is trying to impose a definition of “abnormality” on another group who does not want to be labeled and categorized as such. The church seems to have accepted this category of persons, but wants to impose its own definition on them.

43. Eric, to be more explicit, Eric Russell’s qualificaiton is the only thing not expressly taught by former church training materials of those items I listed. I added it as being ancillary, but there are three other points that are the core of the change. Eric doesn’t qualify those.

44. Russell, your #31 is such a good comment that I just had to comment on it. One of the most frustrating things about being a former liberal and a convert to the Church and also a convert to more conservative viewpoints is explaining my (and what I believe to be) the Church’s position on homosexuality. I too want to arrive at the day when people will not be condemned for their inclinations but for their actions. This is one of the reasons I found this interview so exciting because it puts into words things I have been thinking for a long time, namely that homosexual tendencies are one of a myriad of shortcomings that human beings are given and that we should understand that clearly and respond with love and respect to these people. I personally have a long list of shortcomings that are devastating to me. It just so happens that homosexuality is not one of my shortcomings, but I have others that I am trying to get under control and manage.

    So, from an eternal perspective, I don’t consider myself one ounce better than a gay person — to do so would be the height of hubris. If we look at it this way, it helps us be more understanding and loving in the way Jesus would want us to be.

    But this also helps us to understand that we as God’s church cannot participate in a culture that encourages people to celebrate their shortcomings, especially if those shortcomings will retard a person’s eternal progression. I can’t imagine us encouraging an “Alcoholic’s Pride” celebration, for example.

    So, if you take a step back and look at this issue from this perspective, suddenly people who seem to be bigots and homophobes (at least from the perspective of the liberal secular world) are really trying their best to act Christ-like. They have an understanding that Christ would be anxiously concerned about all of our eternal advancement and that passing and overcoming the tests of this world are crucial to our advancement.

45. I am having flashbacks to the David O. McKay biography — rise of modern Mormonism. Looks like there might be some fractures within the leadership on this?? Why Elder Oaks and Elder Wickman? Are they the current Elders Benson and McKonkie? Who is the current Sterling McMurrin on this issue? Who has more of the Prophet’s ear? Has the Lord unequivocally spoken (I think yes, but the McKay bio makes me wonder).

46. Trailer Trash — Your point is somewhat problematized by the existence of activist groups that reject the notion that, (to cite one example), deaf children should seek to hear again. Hard as it may be to believe, there are those who want deafness to be “normalized” and not perceived as a disability worthy of efforts at correction.

    Aaron B

47. 44
    The problem, of course, is that with alcoholism and adultery, the sinner can still have a family and be basically, if not perfectly (it’s all a matter of degree), part of the Lord’s design for happiness. Homos cannot. Comparing them to retarded children or single sisters seems incongruous, but I may be missing the point.

48. Looks like there might be some fractures within the leadership on this?? Why Elder Oaks and Elder Wickman? Are they the current Elders Benson and McKonkie?

    More like Tanner and Brown. We have recent testimony that the Church hierarchy is more unified than every it its history. If anything this interview represents the more progressive faction of the hierarchy. To have this inteview, they would need express permission from the First Presidency, the text of which was likely reviewed by the them and the Quorum of the 12, unlike the conservative speeches by former mavericks.

49. should be “more unified than ever in its history.”

50. TT, I have known many, many homosexuals in my lifetime, and all of them, without exception, say they wish they did not the feelings they have. All of them wished they could have heterosexual urges but for whatever reason they do not have these urges. So, Elder Wickman’s comparison is quite apt, and so is Russell’s #31.

51. Yes, I meant Tanner and Brown.

52. Geoff B, #50
    I am sorry, but I actually laughed out loud on that one. Apparently you and I know different homosexuals! Then again, my sample group is activists, professors, and university students.

    I don’t deny that some homosexuals will accept the categorization and analogy of being handicapped. But I am not sure that that proves anything. My point is that while this may work for beleivers who already have accepted a huge number of presuppositions required for this argument to make any sense, this argument is utterly unconvincing outside of that context.

    Aaron B, I am not sure how that example problematizes my point. Actually, I think it proves it. Most of the activists that you mention are deaf or family members of deaf people who actually quite like thier identity. Once “abnormal” people are given a choice to voice thier own point of view, one finds that the kind of good intentions of the majority look more like tyranny than benevolence. Haven’t you ever seen X-Men?

53. Geoff(#50),
    As a pediatric neurologist, I have a little experience with the disability rights movement. Yes, deafness, Autism, and a whole host of disorders have movements that insist that their condition is part of who they are and does not need to be “cured.” However, they also proclaim the non-disabled public to generally consider their condition shameful. They also see pity as lesser form of prejudice that keeps them from being independant. However, I’m sure as enlightened Latter-day Saints, we should certainly be above any such behavior and see any disabled or same sex attracted member as a Child of God as encouraged strongly by this Q&A.

54. TT(#52),
    Ah yes, I saw X-men. I also saw that rogue made a perfectly legitimate choice for her personal wants and desires by seeking out the “cure” for her condition. She did this in the face of others like her taunting her and strongly objecting, taking personally.

55. Geoff(#50),
    As a pediatric neurologist, I have a little experience with the disability rights movement. Yes, deafness, Autism, and a whole host of disorders have movements that insist that their condition is part of who they are and does not need to be “cured.” However, they also proclaim the non-disabled public to generally consider their condition shameful. They also see pity as lesser form of prejudice that keeps them from being independant. However, I’m sure as enlightened Latter-day Saints, we should certainly be above any such behavior and see any disabled or same sex attracted member as a Child of God as encouraged strongly by this Q&A.

56. Ryan, #36:

    I think that this issue is far more likely to be an eternally consistent one than that of blacks and the Priesthood or polygamy.

    Brigham Young and many others thought the issues of polygamy and blacks and the Priesthood were eternal in nature. You shouldn’t feel bad if it turns out that your view is wrong as well.

57. The biggest challenge for the church on this issue will come if more and more people come know gay couples who appear to be happy, productive, and well functioning members of society. Why should gays be asked to suffer in secrecy and lonliness, when a happier life is within their reach?

    Oaks and Wickman don’t directly address this question. They don’t really deny that happiness can be found inside a gay relationship, although in general the church teaches that “wickedness never was happiness.” Perhaps they believe that the gay person must simply sacrifice happiness in this life in order to avoid eternal punishment in the next. Or perhaps they think that allowing gay couples will destroy the rest of society, so gays need to just “take one for the team.”

    I also wonder if church leaders see any moral difference between promiscuous homosexual behavior, and sex within a long-term, committed homosexual partnership.

58. JM (#38) — No it is not just you.

59. Eric (#30)–While abusive practices were never recommended by the Handbook of Instructions, they were part of officially sanctioned practice at BYU. Moreover, the church (until at least very recently) regularly referred people to groups like Evergreen and endorsed treatment methods by the now widely discredited “father” of reparative therapy, Joseph Nicolosi. I wish Elder Oaks had carefully distinguished between what used to be called “aversive” therapies like those used at BYU in the 70s and early 80s (involving gay porn and electric shock or nausea induced by syrup of ipecac) and the less violent “reparative” therapies which church social services practitioners endorsed later. I’d really love to see if there’s an update to the Social Services manual on Helping Members with Same-Gender Attraction (and for the love of Pete, can we at least just say same-*sex* attraction, if we’re talking about biological sex rather than culturally mediated “gender”?)

60. (#45) Why Elder Oaks and Elder Wickman?

    Well I believe it probably is related to the fact that they are two of the top legal minds among the brethren and in the church. If I remember correctly, Elder Wickman is the church’s General Counsel and Elder Oaks was on the Utah supreme court.

61. Kristine, the Same-Gender Attraction is chosen purposely to avoid mentioning the word “sex”. Stuart and Marilyn Matis explained in a presentation that they gave at a retreat this year that they prefer using the term to remove all overtones that the sex act defines, um, people who are gay or lesbian. I’m assuming that the term was chosen in discussion with leaders of the church because they have spent time with several leaders, especially Brother Holland, talking to them about the church’s position on, um, people who are gay or lesbian. I’m sorry, I just can’t come up with a good term here because I think that “Same-Gender attraction” is silly. I do think that the Matis’s book is a good thing, because, like this interview, it rejects the idea that homosexuality is a choice, and clearly rejects the anti-gay bigotry that is a part of the culture of many church members; however,there are some parts that are just silly, like the Same-Gender Attraction.I noticed that even Fred Matis had a hard time remembering to say SGA rather than Gay or Homosexual while he was talking. I wonder if “Same-Gender Attraction” has a history with fundamentalist Christians, or some other far -right group, but haven’t had the chance to look for it.

62. I haven’t read the entire thread.

    Steve EM, Mikeweiho,

    My suspicion is that the reason you can’t see this interview as anything other than “gay-bashing” is because you have bought-into the conventional view that “homosexuality” is the the entire person.

    For you, sexual orientation seems to be the paramount attribute any living being can possess. Either that, or sexuality is so important as to cause all other human traits to pale by comparison.

    I disagree and think you are dehumanizing these people. They are not “homosexuals,” they are people. Spirit children of Heavenly Father first and foremost. I feel like you have, in effect, for the purposes of this argument, annihilated any humanity from the homosexual population other than their sex drive. Under that viewpoint, yes – the interview was a personal attack against that which is precious above all else in a homosexual’s identity (i.e. their sexual attraction). I don’t see any other way that you can make the arguments you were making. The paradigm I see emerging in your statements does a great deal of violence to the human identity and I think you ought to reconsider it.

    Sexual orientation is not what humanity is primarily about. I refuse to define people by their sex-drive. I refuse to believe that I cannot condem “homosexuality” without automatically condemning those people who have homosexual feelings. People are not their impulses.

    I see your statements as far more degrading to the identity of homosexuals than anything Elder Oaks or Elder Wickman said.

63. RE: #10 & 11

    I did not get that impression at all. I thought Elder Oaks was saying that the parent should have compassion for their children. If a son’s problem were something besides homosexuality, ie: word of wisdom, stealing, law of chastity (heterosexual), what would be the problem with a parent inviting a child home for dinner and saying “but don’t do drugs here; don’t steal anything; or don’t bring your live-in honey that you’ve been having ilicit sex with”?

    I think a parent can say those things. So if a parent says not to bring a gay lover, why is that bigoted?

64. Re: Steve EM #26,

    Also note that Elder Oaks emphasized very strongly that those Bishops who are encouraging homosexuals to marry as a form of therapy are misguided and wrong. He also stated that a homosexual man should not marry a woman unless he has sufficiently dealt with his own inclinations to where he can be a good husband to her. And she has to enter into it knowing what his feelings and tendencies are. Never marry a homosexual as a form of therapy was a take-home message of the interview.

    Your venting about failed hetero marriages, with a homosexual in the marriage, encouraged by Bishops is misplaced and could have been avoided if you’d read the entire interview (which you admited you did not).

    You might also have noticed the part where both GAs noted that there are only a handful of callings in the Church that require you to be married. As far as I know, the only positions are members of the Bishopric and Stake Presidency, and that’s it (anyone know of any others?). They left the field wide open for a future “homosexual Apostle” as far as I’m concerned.

65. That Elders Oaks and Wickman compare homosexual identity to Texas pride or an affiliation with the armed forces indicates a general lack of understanding and prescience on the topic. Can you imagine heterosexuals analogizing their sexual identity to their affinity for the Boston Red Sox or the Utah Jazz?

    And I find it particularly tragic that Elder Wickman chose to compare his handicapped daughter to homosexuals. Homosexuals are not handicapped or disabled, and they should not be taught by the Church or anyone else to view themselves this way.

    I predict that the next generation will cringe when they read this interview – not unlike President Packer’s cringeworthy analogy to “little factories”.

66. I was recently told that single men over 30 were not allowed to be temple workers. Also, I don’t think they can be seminary or institute teachers. I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for a single GA.

67. Melanie,
    I was waiting for the disabled analogy indignation. I just want to go on the record that I find it tragic that you find the disabled analogized to anyones natural tendencies cringeworthy.

68. Re Wes #63:

    I would add that they left a lot of leeway in this area for family dynamics. In some cases, the family situation is such and the personalities of those living at home is such, that allowing the gay partner into the home would, in fact, be tantamount to endorsing the homosexual behavior.

    But in other households, there probably is no need to exclude the partner from family events and worries of “moral contamination” are unjustified. Such worries would be unjustified in my family as presently constituted. But that doesn’t mean one size fits all. Some families may need to make a statement on this in a way that others don’t.

    If it were my son, I’d actually want a working and friendly relationship with the boyfriend, or girlfriend if it were my daughter. I care about my child. Therefore I want to be a part of the people who are most important to them, regardless of lifestyle. Just from a mere practical standpoint of wanting to know who to call in case of emergency I think it’s important to have a good relationship with the “partner.” But I’d want it anyway, for more reasons than that.

    As far as staying the night in my home with the partner … I would hope that my children had been raised with the manner not to ask. I would hope they were considerate enough not to put me in that position. In any case, I would hope I could discuss it with my daughter without embarassing anyone or making a scene. Hopefully, I would have already discussed the eventuality with my daughter beforehand.

    But I don’t have any basis for saying that a stance that would work in my home is appropriate for anyone else’s home. Elder Oaks admitted that he doesn’t know either and therefore left enough wiggle room for families to personalize their own responses in accordance with their own situations.

69. I finally had a chance to read the interview. My thoughts are as follows:

    1. I’m glad that they did this, and I agree with J. that this shows a more progressive view compared with a generation ago.

    2. I agree with EO that I don’t much like the term “homophobic,” if it is defined to mean, as I’ve seen it defined, that a person is secretly homosexual and is projecting. That’s just plain stupid. I think a better word would be antigay, analagous to anti-Mormon. You can’t assign a self-loathing motivation to every person who hates gays!

    3. EW twice used the expression “gender orientation,” which I thought very odd. I can understand “same-gender attraction,” but I agree with the poster above that this attempt at avoiding any derivative of the word “sex” is just plain silly. But to me gender orientation is not the same thing as sexual orientation; it smacks of transgenderism. I think it’s a linguistically flawed formulation.

    4. The feelings/action dichotomy is probably the best the Church can do given its scripture and doctrine, and its a step up from past rhetoric. But for me personally, sexual intimacy is on another level. If I were forced to choose between that and the Church, I’d choose sexual intimacy, no contest at all. Church leaders don’t have a lot of moral authority in telling someone to be satisfied with a life of celibacy when they can go home and slip into bed with their beautiful wives. I’m reminded of a divorced sister who visited with our bishop, complaining that she hadn’t had sex for years. His response was, “Is that a problem?” Easy for him to say; for her it was a very real problem. (I suppose a Catholic priest might be able to advise lifelong celibacy with more moral authority than a happily married hetero LDS church leader can muster.)

    5. In the part where Elder Oaks says marriage is ok with desire for a woman, I would add with full and frank disclosure beforehand. I think it’s a terrible idea, but if a woman wants to try it she needs to know what she’s getting into.

    6. The notion that homosexual feelings are not eternal is mere assertion. In the Mormonism of my youth, we were taught that there is a continuity between this life and the next, and if you die with a nicotine addiction, you’ll still crave the stuff in the hereafter.

    7. On dealing with one’s gay children, I’ve been watching a new Bravo series called Workout. It stars an LA gym owner named Jackie, with really hot, killer abs. She is gay. A couple of weeks ago there was an episode where her Mormon mother came to visit. I was embarrassed by the mother’s behavior. If my child were gay and in a relationship, I would be much more accepting.

    8. EW said people need to read their Bible more carefully, but he may need to follow his own advice (witness the BCC thread on what the Bible really says about homosexuality by Ronan and Ed Snow).

    9. I do think there is a profound irony that Mormons are so gung-ho monogamists in the light of our historic practice of polygamy. I was glad this question was raised near the end. EO’s response did nothing to lessen the irony in my estimation.

    10. I didn’t buy EW’s definitional argument for why gay marriage would harm hetero marriage. EO was on firmer ground (but ultimately I didn’t buy his argument either.)

    11. To answer Aaron’s question, I understood EW to be saying that civil unions are not ok if they are a mere semantic substitute for marriage with another name, but they might be ok (the Church has taken no position) if they convey fewer and lesser rights than traditional marriage.

70. Why is it tragic to consider homosexuals disabled?

    Is it because you see nothing wrong with homosexual sex?

    Or is it because you feel the disabled are so contemptible that being compared with them is an insult?

71. Kevin, your #4 (in comment #69) strikes me as very odd.

    If I were forced to choose between that and the Church, I’d choose sexual intimacy, no contest at all. Church leaders don’t have a lot of moral authority in telling someone to be satisfied with a life of celibacy when they can go home and slip into bed with their beautiful wives. I’m reminded of a divorced sister who visited with our bishop, complaining that she hadn’t had sex for years. His response was, “Is that a problem?” Easy for him to say; for her it was a very real problem.

    The Church is very clear on the issue of sexual intimacy outside of marriage — we’re against it. Your comment above seems to imply that you oppose the Church advocating celibacy in all cases. Am I missing something here?

72. Doc – luckily there is enough tragedy to go around for everyone. My point was that, in the non-PC vernacular, being handicapped or disabled is considered to be a negative, a defect. Elder Wickman loves his daughter, but he acknowledges her defects as a disabled woman in that he says that she would be much happier if she weren’t disabled. I don’t have to be a psychiatrist to say unequivocally that if a teenage boy is taught by his Church leaders that he is irredeemably defective and that he is condemned to live a life of singlehood and celibacy, these teachings will negatively impact his emotional development and self-image severely.

73. Geoff, yes, I know that the Church is against sexual intimacy outside of marriage. But I simply couldn’t live my life without sexual intimacy. So if I were gay (and thus marriage were not an option), I would leave the Church. I love the Church, but I need sexual intimacy like I need air to breathe. Is that clearer?

74. TrailerTrash (#42)

    “I think that the problem with analogizing homosexuals to people with physical/mental disabilities is that this is an analogy which is utterly rejected by many of those who identify as homosexuals. They don’t see themselves as sick, nor incapable of ‘practical’ or ‘actual’ hope for fulfilling relationships.”

    I’ve no doubt it’s rejected by the overwhelming majority of homosexuals; the gay people that I’ve known wouldn’t accept it. However, Oaks and Wickham aren’t addressing the majoriy of homosexuals; they’re addressing those who are or at least could be receptive to LDS teachings about morality, presumably because they believe in at least some other LDS claims. I can’t imagine Oaks and Wickham actually believe this would be a plausible argument in pluralistic context, which I assume is probably why they imply that bans on gay sexual relations and other ways for such people to seek “fulfilling relationships” are unenforceable. But within the church, talking to people who want to have marriage and happiness and ecclesiastically sanctioned sexual relationships but also want to stay faithful to the church, an analogy like this works.

    Ed (#57),

    “Perhaps they believe that the gay person must simply sacrifice happiness in this life in order to avoid eternal punishment in the next.”

    You put this fairly crudely, but is essentially correct: as far as this interview suggests, it’s about obedience. Courtney Wickham can’t marry or can’t find someone to marry her in this life; that’s tragic, and means she misses out on a certain amount of happiness, but it wouldn’t justify, in terms of her standing before God, her hiring an escort of take care of sexual needs. Similarly, if a given gay man or woman just can’t pull off a temple-worthy sexual relationship with a member of the opposite sex, that’s also tragic, and also has the result that said gay person misses out on a certain amount of happiness; but to the extent that gay person accepts the current standards of the church, seeking the happiness they lack through other means is not a possibility.

    (I should add that if we take this analogy seriously, then we ought to begin to think again about how we assume God will judge gay persons; to borrow from popular Mormon folk doctrine–which I’m not endorsing, just bringing up as a possibility–might it not be the case that people who struggle with homosexual desires were the most valiant in the pre-existence, and willingly took on the heaviest possible burdens in mortality? We’ve all heard feel-good stories about how those who struggle with terrible physical and mental handicaps may have just needed a body and are really here to test us; again, I’m by no means endorsing such doctrinal twinkies, but turn it around, and it poses the question: maybe those who really need to repent are all of us who have made it so hard for homosexuals to stay faithful and seek a decent life for themselves in the midst of prejudice and constant, harsh, cruel judgments.)

75. Seth R. – I’m not interested in a debate over how wonderful and what a blessing handicaps and disabilities are. As I stated above, when people hear the words “handicapped” or “disability”, they negatively associate these words with something bad. Right? So, because a young man (or woman) is born a homosexual, he is born “bad” or defective. This teaching is devastating, particularly to those people struggling to develop a healthy self image. Let me ask you (and others) – do you think after reading this interview homosexual members would feel better or worse?

76. Kevin, and apparently so do most GAS who remarry quickly after a first spouse passes on.

    Yes, Oaks and Wickman are preeminent lawyers, but my question is, do they speak for a united quorum on this issue?

77. Kevin (#69)

    “If I were forced to choose between that and the Church, I’d choose sexual intimacy, no contest at all. Church leaders don’t have a lot of moral authority in telling someone to be satisfied with a life of celibacy when they can go home and slip into bed with their beautiful wives. I’m reminded of a divorced sister who visited with our bishop, complaining that she hadn’t had sex for years. His response was, ‘Is that a problem?’ Easy for him to say; for her it was a very real problem. (I suppose a Catholic priest might be able to advise lifelong celibacy with more moral authority than a happily married hetero LDS church leader can muster.)”

    While I’m not sure I’d choose sexual intimacy over the church, I think you’ve touched on a terrifically important point here. The implications that I, at least, am (I hope charitably) reading into Elder Oaks’s and Elder Wickham’s words massively outstrip church practice today. If the church leadership is going to build up a serious theological argument that turns upon, among other things, the occasional sacrifice by some people of mortal sexual fulfillment, then it had better start finding space ecclesiastically and institutionally for unmarried and celibate persons, as opposed to rhetoric about how the unmarried and unsatisfied states will be satisfied in the eternities. We need to see celibate leaders, and need to hear them talk about their condition explicitly. We need to see models of this possibility on ward and stake levels. Most importantly, we need to talk about how God might work through celibacy, and at the very least, strive mightily to scale back the at-times overwhelming emphasis in the church on how faithful membership = fruitful (in every sense!) marriage relationships. I agree that Catholics definitely have a leg up over Mormons in this regard.

78. “We need to see celibate leaders, and need to hear them talk about their condition explicitly.”

    Russell, do you forsee this happening any time in the near future? As I mentioned in comment 66, I don’t think single men over 30 are even allowed to be temple workers, let alone bishops or stake presidents.

    I suspect that one reason we don’t see this is a belief that homosexuals are likely to be child molesters or such.

79. Russell, thank you so much for your last comment. The kinds of sweeping statements in the interview above invariably come from married, white males whose life circumstances are completely out of touch with the people they are chastising and exhorting to act just like them. Before the Church can reasonably defend against accusations of homophobia, we need to have homosexual leaders in prominent positions saying the same things that Elders Oaks and Wickman are saying.

80. I agree: Russell’s #77 gets to the absolute heart of the matter.

81. Kevin,

    I think I read EW’s take on civil unions the same way you do, but I must confess I wasn’t sure. Also, with you, I didn’t come away from EO’s discussion of irony convinced that the LDS position is any less ironic.

    I also want to second what Seth R. says at #68. It is virtually impossible for me to imagine shutting out my child’s gay partner (assuming I had a child with a gay partner). I understand the tricky issue of what kind of message one opposed to homosexual behavior might be sending if one accepted the partner in one’s midst, but I would probably always find the risk of sending a potentially mixed message of homosexual lifestyle endorsement preferrable to the risk of sending a message of social ostracism toward my homosexual child.

    Aaron B

82. #69 point 4

    Kevin, you seem to be suggesting that being married precludes an authority from advocating celibacy. Do you think this applies to just gays, or should those who are married not be able to advocate celibacy to single heterosexuals? What about our youth?

83. LOL, Aaron #81. If your child grows up in the current Church climate, you’ll have to do more than tolerate your child’s gay partner to mitigate the messages of social ostracism sent towards your child. Prepare to spend thousands of dollars on therapy.

84. TT (#42), Re imposing precise definitions of right and wrong, normativity, and normality. Isn’t that exactly what God does, indeed one of his very purposes? If we cannot rely on the Spirit to tell right from wrong, what can we rely on?

    If we resort to our own opinions in all things, we end up not with a Church, but with chaos. God is not going to force anyone to obey his higher laws, but it is hard to see how anyone can be sanctified without such obedience. Unremmitted SGA (or DGA) is technically idolatry, because it is contrary to the plan of salvation. I do not understand how the cult of the self attracts so very many followers.

    So they have to suffer and sacrifice a little in mortality to be saved – So what? Is that too much to ask for eternal life? I have been mortifying my passions for thirty six years, and I certainly plan to continue indefinitely if the alternative is falling from grace. My relationship with God far outweighs any mortal friendship.

85. Ed (#78) and Melanie (#79),

    I’m doubtful that popular church practice will catch up with the (better) implications of what Elders Oaks and Wickham are saying anytime soon. Which is really unfortunate. I mean, the whole reason that I want to take the analogy Elder Wickham made seriously (and for all I know, maybe he just tossed that one off without much thought!) is because I think it’s fairly crucial to maintaining a compassionate reading of what the church stands for. (Which is what I want to do, obviously.) Of course handicapped people unfortunately often get a sense of themselves as damaged, limited, second-rate, etc. But when we are at our best, we deny the legitimacy of such labels; we insist that the blind person–well, sure, they can’t drive a car or see a sunset and that’s miserable, but it doesn’t mean they should feel at fault or in any way embarrassed about their condition. The same holds for a gay person. They’ve got some heavy issues to deal with, but so do I, and our standing in the church and in the eyes’ of our fellow members shouldn’t be at all conditioned upon what difficulties or handicaps we may or may not have. However, every time church policy and practice (whether official or otherwise) marginalizes or stigmatizes the life-long single sister (“she can teach Relief Society, of course, but we can’t have her as an example to the Young Women”), or the life-long single brother (“he’s a fine ward clerk, of course, but for heaven’s sake keep him away from the Boy Scouts or Primary”), then we’re losing references examples that will help us all get to the point where homosexuality doesn’t “stand out” as some special cateogry, as Rosalynde originally put it back in #16.

86. “The notion that homosexual feelings are not eternal is mere assertion”

    How do you know that this is the case, Kevin? Are you sure? (i.e. if pushed are you willing to claim either inspiration or a compelling theological argument to that effect?)

    It seems to me that sexual feelings of the type we are concerned with are an aspect of the body. Now why in the world would the Lord resurrect someone such that their bodies have an eternal impediment contrary to the plan of happiness?

    Also, I agree that it is not particularly tenable that a person will crave nicotine, per se, after death. However, it is certainly possible that they will crave something to cover up the hole in their souls, or whatever spiritual weakness they resorted to drugs to mitigate. One of the advantages of keeping the Word of Wisdom is that you have to deal with your problems head on, leading to early solutions, and general strength of character.

87. Russel #74,
    I agree that the logic of the analogy b/t homosexuality and being handicapped works for those who accept certain assumptions in the church (as I stated in the original post which you didn’t quote and later in #52). However, if we really want to make this analogy useful, and not come accross as prejudiced, we need to be clear about what we are analogizing.

    If we are saying that homosexuality is like a disease, being handicapped, or being an alcoholic, I think that these analogies will either be increasingly unconvincing to modern LDS, or worse offensive to those who struggle with thier homosexuality and church membership, or even worse, perpetuate discriminatory behavior. To live one’s life thinking that you are disabled because of your sexual attraction is psychologicall damaging at the least. As I said before, these comparisons are widely discredited outside the church, and I think that they will become increasingly suspect inside the church as well.

    If, however, we are analogizing the status of the homosexual in the church as comparable to other classes of people who cannot marry and must endure this burden, I think that we are on safer ground. The key difference here is that homosexuals are not compared to other “defective” groups as such, but they share a similar condition of a life of chosen celibacy. We compare life choices instead of ontological conditions. In this case, homosexuals don’t marry because they are sick, but because they choose to live a life inside the church. Handicaped people, single adults, and others outside the church are not expected to live a celibate life by the church, but those who choose to stay in the church do have that expectation.

    I do think that one can find examples of both kinds of comparisons, but unforutnately the nuance of the latter is much more rare, and the danger of the former much underestimated.

88. I agree that the interviewer asked pretty good questions, even if I disagree that s/he asked all of the hard questions. But it’s worth taking a close look at the responses, since they aren’t as good as the questions.

    From my perspective, the “hard question” that was asked is the last sentence in this section:

    PUBLIC AFFAIRS: You talked about the harm that could come on society by redefining marriage. What would you say to those people who declare: “I know gay people who are in long-term committed relationships. They’re great people. They love each other. What harm is it going to do my marriage as a heterosexual to allow them that same ‘rite?’

    The beginning of a non-answer:

    ELDER WICKMAN: Let me say again what I said a moment ago. I believe that that argument is true sophistry, because marriage is a unified institution. Marriage means a committed, legally sanctioned relationship between a man and a woman. That’s what it means. That’s what it means in the revelations. That’s what it means in the secular law. You cannot have that marriage coexisting institutionally with something else called same-gender marriage. It simply is a definitional impossibility. At such point as you now, as an institution, begin to recognize a legally-sanctioned relationship, a committed relationship between two people of the same gender, you have now redefined the institution to being one of genderless marriage.

    As we’ve mentioned in answer to other questions, [genderless marriage] is contrary to God’s law, to revealed Word. Scripture, ancient and modern, could not be clearer on the definition that the Lord and His agents have given to marriage down through the dispensations.

    Any argument can be attacked as sophistry, including this one, but let’s lay that aside. So far, Elder Wickman’s “answer” boils down to “no harm, just definitions.”

    But perhaps that was just a preface. He continues:

    But it has a profound effect in a very secular way on everybody else. What happens in somebody’s house down the street does in very deed have an effect on what happens in my house and how it’s treated.

    Profound effect? Ok. What effect? What harm? Answer so far: “None that I’ll specify.”

    To suggest that in the face of these millennia of history and the revelations of God and the whole human pattern they have the right to redefine the whole institution for everyone is presumptuous in the extreme and terribly wrong-headed.

    The concluding sentence, instead of explaining what the harm is, reverts to what the definition of a word should be and who gets to decide it. So for Elder Wickman, the answer to the hard question is “There isn’t any identifiable harm,” or “there is identifiable harm, but I’m not saying what it might be.”

    Let’s see what Elder Oaks adds:

    ELDER OAKS: Another point to be made about this is made in a question. If a couple who are cohabiting, happy, and committed to one another want to have their relationship called a marriage, why do they want that? Considering what they say they have, why do they want to add to it the legal status of marriage that has been honored and experienced for thousands of years? What is it that is desired by those who advocate same-gender marriage?

    This, note, is not a detailing of the harm to my heterosexual marriage that results from my gay friends getting married –- it’s a question.

    If that could be articulated on some basis other than discrimination, which is not a very good argument, it would be easier to answer the question that you have asked, and I think it would reveal the soundness of what we’ve already heard.

    This, also, is not a harm to my marriage that will result from allowing gay marriage. So answering Elder Oaks’ question won’t undergird what Elder Wickman hasn’t said yet. Note – I think it would have been productive for the interviewer to pick up the obvious lead to let Elder Oaks elaborate what he thinks the answer might be to his question, but the interviewer didn’t. I think that there are reasonably innocuous-sounding answers to the question – such as granting a life partner the right to determine medical power-of-attorney issues for her/his medically-disabled partner, sharing of health insurance arrangements, inheritance upon intestacy, taxation questions, and lots of others. But, again, such a discussion ranges rather far afield of answering “What harm to my marriage will result from allowing gay marriage?”

    There are certain indicia of marriage — certain legal and social consequences and certain legitimacy — which if given to some relationship other than marriage between a man and a woman tend to degrade if not destroy the institution that’s been honored over so many thousands of years.

    This is the same “there are some harms, but I won’t specify them to you” answer that Elder Wickman provided. What are the harms? What is “degraded” in my marriage by allowing gay marriage? What is “if not destroyed” in my heterosexual marriage by allowing gay marriage?

    So far, we have no answer to the question.

    In addition, if people want to legalize a particular relationship, we need to be careful if that kind of relationship has been disapproved for millennia.

    Woops. We just slipped back to definitions and who gets to decide them, rather than harms to my heterosexual marriage.

    Suddenly there’s a call to legalize it so they can feel better about themselves.

    Suddenly? How long of a wait should be required for raising a question like this? How many years is an unseemly short period? If it’s substantively right to take this step, is it procedurally wrong to do take less than fifty years to do so?

    That argument proves a little too much.

    Accommodating competing desires within a community is complicated. But D&C 88 suggests that it is at the very core of human interaction. Rather than say that “it proves too much,” I’d suggest that “the goods and ills should be weighed in the balance,” or “by their fruits, ye shall know them.” So far, Elder Oaks has identified as the only “pro” to gay marriage, the accommodation of the desires of those who wish to enter into it. I can think of other potential candidates for the weighing, but so be it. What is weighed against those desires as the “con” that justifies the conclusion? – what is the harm to my heterosexual marriage that allowing gay marriage presents?

    Again, we haven’t been told that yet. Let’s see, though, if they’ve saved the response for the finish:

    Suppose a person is making a living in some illegal behavior, but feels uneasy about it. (He may be a professional thief or he may be selling a service that is illegal, or whatever it may be.) Do we go out and legalize his behavior because he’s being discriminated against in his occupational choices or because he doesn’t feel well about what he’s doing and he wants a ‘feel good’ example, or he wants his behavior legitimized in the eyes of society or his family? I think the answer is that we do not legalize behavior for those reasons unless they are very persuasive reasons brought forward to make a change in the current situation.

    Curiously, in this summation paragraph in response to the question of what harm gay marriage will have on my heterosexual marriage, the answer is “I haven’t specified any harm at all that will result.”

    Hard question? Yes.

    Solid answer?

89. Elder Wickman: “One hardly can get past the first page of Genesis without seeing that [marriage is the very purpose of the creation of this earth] very clearly.”

    Is this proof that the General Authorities don’t use the standard LDS study bible? The first page of Genesis in my LDS Bible doesn’t get anywhere near this far in the narrative.

90. He said “hardly”.

91. Greenfrog,
    What if Elder Oaks had said:

    “I don’t know what specific harm it will do to marriage. But as a quorum we have prayed extensively about this and feel strongly that in the long term gay marriage would weaken, even destroy, traditional marriage, though I cannot tell you how. I’m sorry, the Lord has not seen fit to reveal the details to us, that’s where your faith in us as prophets comes in.”

    I’m not saying that’s why he gave a non-answer but it’s a possibility don’t you think?

92. gomez, that would have been an interesting response, but he didn’t give it.

    In fact, I’ve never heard any GA say that they’ve “prayed extensively” about this issue…after all, the scriptures already give us the answer (or so we are told), so perhaps they see no need to pray about it.

93. Yeah, the first page of Genesis is the creation of the primal androgyne…

    This does raise questions about the exegetical moves that take place in this interview. The use of Mt 19:6, Jesus saying on divorce, was a curious example. The verse couldn’t be any more clear that Jesus opposes divorce in all circumstances. Of course, this (rightfully) unpopular teaching is completely ignored by the Church when it comes to allowing divorce, you know, that thing that actually puts assunder the unity of a man and a woman… However, in this interview this obvious inconsistency is completely ignored. The Church can ignore the Savior’s saying, but don’t let the gay’s who are not members of our church get away with it!! Um, let me count the ways that this scripture is misused…

94. Kevin Barney write: “If I were forced to choose between that and the Church, I’d choose sexual intimacy, no contest at all.“

    Did you cross your fingers when you made your temple covenants?

95. “Getting married to have sex is like booking an airline flight for the free peanuts.

    If it’s peanuts you want, there are easier and cheaper ways to get them.”

    Wish I remember who said that.

96. Boy! I royally messed up the html tags in that one. Hopefully the interlineation of text and my comments are clear, despite my failure to present them clearly.

    Gomez,

    Your hypothetical answer would certainly merit a different response than the one I’ve presented here.

97. There was a time in much of South America when divorce was illegal, and spouses who were abandoned or abused could not remarry. Many of those individuals entered into long-term stable committed heterosexual relationships (often with many children) that could not be legalized as “marriage,” because it was not possible to obtain a divorce from the first spouse.

    I have heard, but do not have independent knowledge, that there was a time in the Church when such couples were permitted to be baptized and even be sealed in the temple, even though they were not “legally and lawfully married.”

    If this is true, it seems inconsistent with the notion that those who are unable to marry should stay celibate, rather than enter into attempted unions that are not marriage.

98. Re #97

    Couples in such relationships were allowed, in Argentina prior to 1987 at least, to be baptized but weren’t able to go to the temple either to be sealed or to take out their endowments.

    As for Chile, I’ve heard different stories from different missions about whether couples living together as you described were allowed to be baptized. My wife, who is a native Chilean, says they weren’t allowed to be baptized, while returned missionaries have told me they did indeed baptize couples living together. In any event, they weren’t allowed to go to the temple.

99. Chris #94, note the contrary-to-fact condition and the subjunctive mood.

100. Trailer Trash #93, I agree that the Mt. verse chosen was a little problematic. A more direct and useful verse would have been the one promoting celibacy (different forms of eunuchs), but the Church is loathe to accept the import of that verse that celibacy is a high form of devoting one’s life to God.

101. Gomez #82, within the context of the Church they have all the religious authority they need to advocate celibacy. But, along the lines of Russell’s comment, the counsel would have more moral force if there were actual celibates urging it and serving as role models.

     This reminds me of the Stake President who would call in the young single adult men and urge them to marry one of the very large single women in the ward. It was easy counsel for him to give, considering that he had a very beautiful and slender wife waiting for him at home.

102. Kevin, re your #73, you certainly have the choice to do as you like about your sexuality, but your comment is not just talking about your sexuality. You are calling into question the Church’s entire take on celibacy. I don’t agree that just because GA’s or other Church leaders are married means they cannot talk about celibacy. Some of them have lost their wives and been celibate for years (before they marry again). Almost all of them went on missions and were presumably celibate until their 20s when they married (I don’t claim to know all of the GAs’ sex lives, but I think this is a safe statement to make). I would venture to guess that ALL GAs have spent part of their lives celibate and have learned to control their sexual desires in one way or another. The same applies to most bishops and stake presidents I know. So, they are on very solid ground in terms of giving advice on sexual abstinence. It’s worth pointing out that I have known many heterosexual Latter-day Saints, men and women, who for one reason or another maintain their temple recommends for decades but never married. I am sure there are probably many homosexual Latter-day Saints who do the same thing.

     [This section was edited for comments that provide Too Much Information after being taken down to the station by the TMI police — see comment below].

103. J:

     What list?

104. That’s a citation for you, Mr. Barney. And Mr. Biddulph, I’m going to need you to come with me down to the station.

105. Re #97,

     There were other instances (not just those exception policies you’ve mentioned) when the church had a policy of temple sealings that did not correspond to civil marriages. You can see this particularly in the early days of the church.

     One of the first lines of defense when the church and its leaders were being brought to court for polygamy was to abandon the requirememt of legal marriage. Bigamy prosecutions required proof of two or more legal marriages. And so church leaders and members, to avoid prosecution, began avoiding civil marriage.

     Husbands would still be sealed to plural wives in the temple. However, the couple would not marry legally, and would remain unmarried from a legal perspective. This was a defense to bigamy — basically, “no, this isn’t my second wife, she’s just a live-in girlfriend according to the law. There’s no marriage certificate.”

     This was the regular practice for decades, as church leaders and church members sought to avoid the legal problems caused by legally marrying one’s plural wives. The government was not amused, and over the next several years a series of unlawful cohabitation laws were passed that allowed polygamy prosecutions to continue apace.

106. Kevin:

     Your point in #99 escapes me. Our covenants are, among other things, prospective. We covenant to do certain things if called about to do so. If I covenant to do X if called upon to do so, the fact that I have not yet been called upon to do X doesn’t somehow make the statement “If I were called upon to do X, I would not do so” compatible with that covenant.

     And if you think the scenario of a married person like yourself being called upon to be sexually abstinent is so unthinkable that there is nothing dissonant between covenanting a life of sacrifice and consecration and simultaneouly maintaining that you would not make *that* sacrifice, then your circle of acquaintances must be freer of widows and invalids’ spouses than mine is.

107. I am sure the Church would make the appropriate exceptions under exigent circumstances, but clearly it does not want to have to, for a long list of very good reasons.

108. Come on, you guys. This thread is turning into quite the self-congratulatory celebration of pious heterosexuality. How can you be so certain you’d be able to live a life of complete celibacy as a homosexual in the Church (which would also include listening to regular doses of vocal condemnation and living with general social ostracism based on one of your innate characteristics)? You have no idea what you’re talking about.

109. Another observation about “Same-gender Attraction”– a friend pointed out to me that this keeps the wording similar to the Proclamation on the family, whether conscious or not, even though the use of gender here is a bit unusual. I think it’s mostly motivated by the desire to not use the word “sex”.

110. Kevin Barney: This reminds me of the Stake President who would call in the young single adult men and urge them to marry one of the very large single women in the ward.

     Come on, Kevin. Fat bottomed girls make the rockin’ world go round.

     Melanie B: This thread is turning into quite the self-congratulatory celebration of pious heterosexuality.

     Would you prefer that this turn into a self-congratulatory celebration of sleazy heterosexuality? Since I love to talk about chicks, and since I’ve recently been dubbed a “skanky man-slut” by Kaimi’s wife, I think I’m just the person to effect such a change should you find it desirable. What do you say?

111. Chris, I’m not gay, and so I will never be gay in this life. At this point it’s not a possibility. I’m talking about more than mere abstinence, but lifelong abstinence without any hope of a sexually intimate, romantic relationship, such as I would face if I were gay. It’s a completely hypothetical situation vis-a-vis me. If you think one’s attitude about a hypothetical constitutes a violation of temple covenants, your view is more punctilious than mine.

112. Steve EM: You’re just don’t seem to get it. Neither Oaks nor Wickman insist that feelings, proclivities and attractions must be a matter of choice — they do insist that we can control our sexual urges. We can keep our pants on. Further, they made very clear the merely having an attraction or proclivity is not sinful. What is sinful is behavior to succumbs to sexual urges outside of the marital relation.

     Kevin: Your choice of sexual intimacy over the church is interesting — and absurd. So do we tell our teenagers that they need sexual intimacy like they need air — so go for it! Or we say to the heterosexual singles, look, we know you’re not married right now, but you need sex like you need air, so there is no sexual immorality outside of marriage.

     Also, the Church’s conern about SSM is well-founded to the extent SSM is deemed to be a fundamental right. The courts of New York, Washington and Georgia have declared the marriage is the prerogative of the State and that it is not a fundamental right. That eases the concern somewhat. If SSM is a fundamental right, then when bishops and apostles and prophets teach that homosexual activity is sinful, they violate fundamental rights and government grants, tax status and student loans can be denied to the Church and its schools.

     I also thought that the question was an excellent one: what do gays really gain by having the State baptize their marriage?

     MikeHo: You make the same (bad) argument here you have made elsewhere. “If I’m doing it, it has to be OK and divinely sanction.” Just not so.

113. A shout-out to DKL #110 for quoting Queen lyrics in a very funny and contextually-proper way. I’m cleaning spit off my laptop display after an explosive laugh. (No, really.)

114. My impression is that the vast majority of gay Latter-day Saints leave the Church. That’s not an accident; there’s a reason for that. I’m just trying to be honest that if I were in that position, I would do the same. There is a profound difference between being temporarily celibate because a teenager or a single and being consigned to a lifetime of celibacy with no hope whatsoever of ever in this life having a meaningful romantic relationship. I’ve done the former and would do it again if put in that position; I know myself well enough to know I wouldn’t be able to do the latter. You can consider it a failing on my part if you like, but that’s the way I see it.

115. Russel re: #31: If you were in my ward and met my former HP group leader, a single man who is celibate, your dream would have alread come true. I love this man for his steadfast and humble faith.

116. Greenfrog (#88),

     I also find it frustrating that most conservative assertions of the alleged harms to heterosexual marriage by homosexual marriage are rarely backed up by concrete examples of what those supposed harms actually are. That is true not only in this interview, but in almost all other essays that I’ve read on the question.

     For a somewhat interesting essay that sort of tries to answer the question, see:

     http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/005244.html

     Aaron B

117. Kevin: I agree with you that life-long celibacy would not only be difficult, it would be hell. But it can be done.

     I am a bit surprised that Elders Oaks and Wickman give a sheer grace to speak openly and honestly about their views of SSM and homosexuals who can remain in full faith and good standing in the Church regardless of inclincation — and the grace is seen as analogous to Hitler’s attitude toward the Jews by Steven EM and others. Even the pureset grace can be rejected.

118. Mike Parker, Thanks for the kind words.

119. Thanks, Treehouse. Your comment brings a level of clarity to the same-sex marriage and homosexuality debates that had been sorely lacking.

     Aaron B

     [Mod Edit: The Spam referred to was deleted]

120. Aaron, ROTFLMAO. My thoughts exactly.

121. I read this entire Q&A and as a divorcing gay man, I found myself particularly troubled by the counsel to keep the gay son and his partner away from the children and don’t let them spend the night.

     My former wife has left the church, but had she stayed, I wonder how this counsel might be applied to me should I find myself with a male partner at some point. Would I be expected to keep my partner away from my children? Should I be expected to never spend the night with him in the same house as my kids? It is not a stretch for me to see such an application if this counsel is taken to heart. Fortunately, this will never be an issue for my wife and me. And my former in-laws, faithful Latter-day Saints, have already told me that I will always be welcome in their home, even with a partner. They give me faith that Mormons really do believe in the family even when its leaders do not.

122. Chris Williams, you’re wrong to take it as a sign of gay-bashing that most Mormons would be more reluctant than your in-laws to expose children to the sleepover’s you have you with your gay lover. The truth is that most Mormons would have the same attitude about non-gay lovers. Specifically, they’d object to having sleepovers with non-gay lovers while the child was around just as much as they object to sleepovers with gay lovers.

     Honestly, Chris, I sighed when I read your comment. You seem to be pretending that because you’re gay and morally indignant about some treatment that you’re receiving at the hands of non-gays, that you have some moral high-ground. You must know, just because you or I have some moral conviction doesn’t justify our using it as a basis to publicly judge others.

123. ‘ve been taught (usually in the context of word-of-wisdom problems) all my life that whatever addictions, thoughts, desires, weaknesses that plague us now will stay with us in the next life and we’ll still have the cravings for nicotine, etc. Why does this concept not apply to same-gender attraction in the next life?

     Haven’t come close to reading all responses, so forgive if this is repetition, but I believe that our doctrine is that if we exert our effort to not give into sin, the Atonement will make us whole and heal us. We aren’t defined by our weaknesses unless we choose to succumb to them. This is why they talked about working to overcome feelings, IMO. How we exert our agency is our test, and will determine how much mercy can come into play. If we act and are not acted upon, that is “all we can do.” To me, this is one of the most wonderful aspects of the plan of salvation and the atonement. If we don’t overcome — or strive to overcome — we will be faced with our struggles in the next life. But the atonement can help our natures change. Notice that they talked about the principle of inclinations in general…that the key is to work to overcome them and not give into them…and that they CAN be overcome.

124. My thoughts were parallel to Kevin’s in #69, except for #4. I have no idea how I would respond if I were gay, and I suppose there are some who would go the abstinence route and more who wouldn’t. But it does seem like the inverse of the problem of having celibate Catholic priests counsel couples about marriage. Kevin’s response to Blake in #114 clarified his position and makes good sense to me.

     I wonder as well about the concept that only our actions matter. Alma said that our thoughts will also condemn us. Evil thoughts are frequently condemned in the scriptures. We are frequently admonished to replace evil thoughts with good ones, but the sense I’m getting here is that as long as evil thoughts are not acted upon, they are okay. I hope that’s not what was meant, but that is what was said.

     Kevin’s #6 referred to Elder Wickman assertion that homosexuality did not exist in the preexistence nor will exist after mortality. This is the type of question that it would be very helpful to have actual revelation about, but the way it was phrased makes it unclear whether it is an interpretation of scripture, a personal opinion, or an announcement of a new revelation. What would be the condition of those who, as described in Section 132, are to “remain separately and singly” to all eternity? Is this an analogy to the life we are expecting homosexual people to live in mortality?

     I find the legal arguments on the Constitutional Amendment issue unpersuasive and a bad idea, if only because the tide could change quickly on this or other issues and setting a precedent of adopting a Constitutional Amendment as a teaching device is frightening. Lots of activity that we consider sinful is currently legal; we already have to teach our kids that most of society is wrong when people drink coffee and alcohol, smoke, sleep together, don’t serve one another, don’t attend church, etc. That’s not to say let’s open the floodgates, but it does say that we don’t have to accept gay marriage even if society does. What do the LDS in Canada and Europe do now, anyway?

125. Oaks and Wickman’s Q&A attempted to reduce homosexuality simply to a bunch of “tendencies” and “inclinations” to be resisted or overcome. What they fail or refuse to understand and admit is that homosexuality is about a lot more than sex. It is about whom one looks to for love, affection, touch, emotional connection, bonding, intimacy, nurture, and life partner. As long as LDS church leaders continue to treat gay people as defective, compare them to the disabled, and reduce their sexual orientations to sinful inclinations, gay people will continue to depart from the church. This new response from the church will do nothing to improve the situation for our gay brothers and sisters.

126. Completely OT, but…
     Does it wear anyone else out to read the gray text on the LDS Newsroom website? It is like a bad photocopy. I tried to change my IE browser color settings (Tools > Internet Options… > Colors…), but it looks like the site’s CSS overrides this.
     I guess I’ll just paste it into Word and change the font color there.
     I can’t figure out why they would pick such a bad color scheme for a text-heavy site. Maybe they are trying to save on ink/toner costs for the people who print their articles?

127. I see a progression in Elder Wickman’s approach to this issue. When he assumed responsibility for SSM issues several years ago, he scaled back dramatically the lobbying efforts for man/woman marriage in various states. Reflecting his legal background, he also declined to state a position on “domestic partnerships”. I’m glad to see his thinking has evolved.

     There is no denying that fidelity is next to impossible with SSM relationships (zero to 5 percent fidelity). See Elder Craig Cardon’s United Families International documentation.
     If we can’t be faithful in family relationships, how can we be demonstrate our faith in Jesus Christ and our Father in Heaven? A celebate person has a more difficult journey in life than those who are not, and will be rewarded in eternity.

     The “Utah” approach to partnerships recognizes that a daughter/grandmother have as much right to legal/hospital etc. decision-making as do any other “partnerships”. To give special status to Same-Sex partnerships, as the Brethren state, gives implied governmental approval.

128. Chris, it is sad you characterize yourself as “apostate” and that your wife left the church as well. The entire story you tell is sad and seems to inform all of your posts. I wish you more hope and less apostacy.

129. Kevin writes: “I’m talking about more than mere abstinence, but lifelong abstinence without any hope of a sexually intimate, romantic relationship“

     Then you shouldn’t confuse matters by, in the very same paragraph, discussing the woeful plight of a divorcee. And have you forgotten all those “very large single women” you mentioned in #101 as examples of undesirable marriage partners? Are you now saying that they all have realistic hopes of fulfilling marriages in this life?

     “If you think one’s attitude about a hypothetical constitutes a violation of temple covenants, your view is more punctilious than mine.“

     “Attitude” and “violation” are the wrong words. I think a public declaration that sex has precedence over the Church of Christ constitutes a renunciation of temple covenants.

130. It is important to remain non-judgmental of those with Same-Sex attraction. For example, the pharmaceutical companies sell about a half-billion dollars annually of female hormones (Estrogen, Progesterone) to stimulate lactation in cows and egg production in chickens. (They also sell ED drugs to counteract them!) Also, some herbicides have been found to produce androgenous frogs.

     I believe homosexual activists confuse genetics with exogenous causes of homosexuality. And “nurture” certainly does play a major role.

131. I think this whole thread is reason #19874 why the mainstream members of the Church pay little attention to the Bloggernacle.

     We just had an apostle and a 70 give a pretty detailed Q&A on one of the major questions of our time — seriously, this is groundbreaking from a COB communication standard — and half of the list is devoted to finding fault with their statements, parsing their language, and questioning their motivations and authority.

     It’s apparent that Oaks and Wickman are speaking to the average ‘nacler as part of their target audience…

132. OK, the timing is off in the ordering of the posts, but I meant to say in #121 …

     It’s apparent that Oaks and Wickman are NOT speaking to the average ‘nacler as part of their target audience…

     Sorry for the missed NOT.

133. Please don’t confuse me with others. I never invoked Hitler here or even hinted these GAs were promoting violence against gays. Seth nailed where I’m coming from. To me, if you’re preaching against homosexuality, you might as well be preaching against a race, or some other attribute the individual didn’t choose. That’s bigotry.

     And Melanie #65 nail it too. The whole presentation is an anachronism that can’t possible meet the test of time. Hence my embarrassment for us and why I couldn’t make it through the whole thing. We have simple non-preachy statements on this subject that are fine. This was a step backward.

     And yes, sex is just as important as food, air, water, etc. as it’s essential to life. To think it’s any less essential and important for homosexuals, even though their sex isn’t essential to life, is both ludicrous and insensitive.

134. I understand why the analogies to disability or illness are offensive to some gay people and their supporters, and I’ve spent some time trying to come up with a better possibility. It’s not easy to do, and the truth is that any analogy that falls short of unqualified approval of homosexual orientation and behavior will offend many. Given the state of our doctrinal understandings of God and social exaltation, I imagine that the general leadership feels very constrained on this topic, and that unqualified approval will not be forthcoming. Most of those who object to the disability/illness analogy, then, probably have their real beef with the doctrinal position itself, and will object to any analogy that reflects it.

     BUT anyway, here’s the best I could do: a man or woman born with homosexual orientation (or the proclivity to develop that orientation) is like a child born with six fingers. There’s nothing inherently shameful or disgusting about the feature, but it does not, by an accident of genetics or physiology, mirror God’s image; it’s physiologically abnormal but morally neutral; and it will probably make some aspects of life more difficult but will also probably give a special facility for others. This analogy could help explain the assertion that homosexual orientation will be not be a feature of resurrected bodies, since we believe that all bodies will be restored to God’s perfect image.

     All analogies have their limits, of course, and the HUGE problem with this one is that sexual orientation is a vastly more definitive feature of identity than is the number of fingers. But I think this also helps explain why EO and EW repeatedly encourage gay members to develop other ways of defining themselves, rather than falling back on Freud’s legacy to modernity, that is that sexuality IS the self.

135. Weird, I just posted a comment, but it put me upstream a little?

136. Steven EM #123: To me, if you’re preaching against homosexuality, you might as well be preaching against a race, or some other attribute the individual didn’t choose. That’s bigotry.

     You’re still not getting. Simply assume (contrary to fact) that it has been shown definitively that certain persons are born with homosexual genes or something of the sort. Oaks and Wickman never said that was sinful and affirmed that such a fact would not preclude them from full faith in the Church. What they said is that they are just as accountable for their sexual behavior as single heterosexuals. They can control their behavior and it is behavior that is sinful, not proclivities or genetic predispositions. It’s not bigotry, it’s moral accountability. Confusing the two is to simply deny that sexual conduct or behavior cannot possibly be immoral — which is patently absurd.

     I have a great deal of empathy for those who have homosexual tendencies. After all, I am hetersexual and I couldn’t change that if I went thru every therapy known. However, there is such a thing as moral accountability and it cannot be escaped by arguing

137. Romney, in comment #130, you say: There is no denying that fidelity is next to impossible with SSM relationships (zero to 5 percent fidelity). See Elder Craig Cardon’s United Families International documentation.
     If we can’t be faithful in family relationships, how can we be demonstrate our faith in Jesus Christ and our Father in Heaven? A celebate person has a more difficult journey in life than those who are not, and will be rewarded in eternity.

     The incidence of infidelity in opposite-sex relationships (OSM) is not fully established, but various studies put the rate at between 20% and 50%. This is among people who are able to marry the partner of their choice, willing to marry, encouraged to remain married and faithful, and the failure rate is still very high. The incidence of infidelity in SSM is even less well documented than OSM. For one thing, the number of same-sex marriages in the world is likely less than 1/10 of a percent of OSM. If you actually meant infidelity in same-sex relationships (rather than marriages), that would make more sense, because at least there is a possibility there might be some data to draw on. However, society provides no incentive or model for gays to find and remain in faithful relationships, and even provides quite a few disincentives, and yet even without being able to marry, most gays in a relationship are still faithful to their partner (trust me, it’s true). That data which says the rate of 5% is not just wrong, it’s invented because no reliable study has ever been done.

     Add to that the messy issue of what fidelity means. Ask Bill Clinton. Rates of infidelity are anecdotal both for OSM and SSM. It also isn’t relevant. If SSM were allowed and encouraged just as OSM is, then in a few years time you would have data to make your case. But SSM is prohibited in 49 of 50 states. In Virginia, there are laws preventing two people of the same sex from buying property together, naming each other in their wills, etc., with the stated intended goal that same-sex couples are to be prevented by law from forming stable relationships.

     Russell Arben Fox (#77) I think has the right idea: If the church leadership is going to build up a serious theological argument that turns upon, among other things, the occasional sacrifice by some people of mortal sexual fulfillment, then it had better start finding space ecclesiastically and institutionally for unmarried and celibate persons, as opposed to rhetoric about how the unmarried and unsatisfied states will be satisfied in the eternities. We need to see celibate leaders, and need to hear them talk about their condition explicitly. We need to see models of this possibility on ward and stake levels.

138. Rosalynde’s point is very well articulated. But if homosexuality is “only” a disability, then let’s welcome homosexuals with open arms, just as we’d welcome any six fingered person (as long he didn’t kill anyone’s father). As Russell Fox has already stated, until Church members treat homosexuals as we would someone with any kind of minor disability (or embarrassing affinity for the NY Yankees, say), then these platitudes of acceptance and love expressed in the interview ring very hollow indeed.

     (P.S. my comment swam upstream, too)

139. I just have a few things to say. I feel okay about the interview, however, being strongly involved in the Disability Rights movement, I hate the analogy given. Just because a person has a disability does not mean that they will tragically never marry. Some may, some may not. Having a disability is a lot more complex than people make it. Most disabled people hope to be married, and see it as a possibility. There are disabilities that make sexual intimacy and marriage an impossibility, but not all disabilities are that way.
     I also am almost ashamed and embarrassed about the sexual intimacy comments. Really, sex is like air? So, if something happened to your wife, and she became ill, so ill that sex became impossible, you would have to move on? You could not continue to love and support your wife? I actually know people in these situations, where sex really is no longer an option. Does that mean the wife should tell the husband, you need sex like you need air, so go find someone else. Can we really not control our impulses at all? If the wife dies, will the man quickly go and find someone else, because sex is needed more than mourning time of the one lost? To me, the sign of true love for a person is being willing to stay, even if sex is not an option. Love, and marriage, and life, is not all about sex. I was single for a long time by Mormon standards, and celibate. So was my husband. I did not feel like I was suffocating. Whether a person chooses to follow the teachings of the church and stay celibate all their lives is their own business, but it is not impossible. I find it very poor form to express that we as human beings cannot learn to control our impulses and urges.

140. Steven EM #123: And yes, sex is just as important as food, air, water, etc. as it’s essential to life. To think it’s any less essential and important for homosexuals, even though their sex isn’t essential to life, is both ludicrous and insensitive.

     Such statements are just false. One doesn’t have to have sex to survive. I know all kinds of single folks, both hetero and homo-, who have been abstinent. So not only is it not ludicrous and insensitive to suggest that homosexuals have a particular burden to carry given their sexual attractions, so do many heterosexuals. It is simply not true that sexual conduct is inevitable and just as necessary as air to live. There is a vast distinction between “essential to life” and “important”. It is important to me that I have a lot of money; that doesn’t mean I get to steal it. However, it is essential that you have food and you am entitled to have support from others to get it if necessary.

     That said, I agree with Steven B. in # when he says: “homosexuality is about a lot more than sex. It is about whom one looks to for love, affection, touch, emotional connection, bonding, intimacy, nurture, and life partner.” I am not homosexual, but I cannot imagine that I wouldn’t look for affection and bonding and intimacy with my wife. However, it is not necessary to engage in sexual activity to achieve. Intimacy is not sex but seeing into each other and sharing life. What Wickman & Oaks are saying is that if one man were attracted to another, if they shared their lives and bonded non-sexually, that is not a sin. Heck, I have plenty of male friends with whom I have bonded, we are intimate in the sense of being open and vulnerable to each other, and we share a great deal of affection for each other, but it is not sexual.

     It is obvious that this interview will not back homosexuals who insist on being sexually active in a same sex relationship. Such sexual activity is contrary to God’s commandments. What it will do is open a door for those who have homosexual desires and inclinations who are willing to do what the Church teaches its single heterosexual members must do — remain sexually abstinent.

141. Blake, yes, sexual activity is reserved for heterosexual marriage, and you don’t NEED sex to live. But what if a homosexual wanted to hold hands with his boyfriend during Sacrament Meeting or a Church activity? The Church’s position is that if you are homosexual, you cannot engage in ANY physical intimacy. More importantly, the interview explicitly encourages the social ostracism of gays (gay family members, even!). So as long as you’re content to sit in the back quietly by yourself knowing that most of the people in the room think you are disabled at best, or disgusting and inhuman at worst, homosexuals are welcome in the LDS Church.

142. Maren, I did not mean to offend with my “sex is like air” comment. In my early comments I was using “sex” as a stand-in for the full range of emotional intimacy between two people (which includes, but is not limited to, sex). This range of romantic, emotionally intimate feelings and behaviors was better articulated by Steven B.

143. Folks, I have no idea why comments briefly went upstream. But it appears to be fixed. Sorry.

144. No, sex is not “like air.” Not even close.

     It seems some of the commenters have been watching too many music videos.

145. My comments are a bit harsh, but it’s important to note that there are many other religious communities that consider homosexual adults to be fully functioning, rather than disabled, people. Since the LDS Church is labelling homosexuals as “disabled”, why not start labelling people who can’t have children “disabled”? Or the fat and ugly single women who can’t get a date “disabled”? Or how about the incorrigible ward gossip monger “disabled”?

146. Rosalynde (#124): rather than falling back on Freud’s legacy to modernity, that is that sexuality IS the self.

     It also happens to be Joseph Smith’s legacy to Mormonism, of course, for whom sexuality defines exaltation and divinity.

     And why is that? Not to defend Freud per se, but let’s not pretend concern with the centrality of sexuality is some groundless theoretical and cultural fantasia of moderns only. It goes much, much deeper in our natures than that. If Joseph’s theology is not sufficient proof of it, contemporary Mormonism’s very overt and strict concern—one might even say obssession–with a particular vision of sexual purity certainly is.

147. Um, I think that’s a bit too much reading into Joseph. I don’t think one can say he said sexuality defines divinity.

148. Kevin,
     Thank you for clarifying for me. Sorry to fly off the handle.
     Melanie,
     I know you are just playing on “un-PC” veiws of disabled, but just because a person rides in a wheelchair does not mean they are not “fully functioning”. I work with a man who is a quadriplegic, married, has a PHD, and runs an assistive technology center. I see no reason to call his life less than “fully-functioning” and hate the fact that people with disabilities are viewed as less than whole. We all have challenges that we have to overcome, and being called disabled is NOT AN INSULT!!!!
     I am not sure that I agree with the label of homosexuality=disability, but I do not agree in any way that having a disability makes a persons life not worth while. The same attitude you are fighting about homosexuality, others fight about disability. The person in the back row does not need pity any more than the homosexual.

149. I meant to say the person in the wheelchair on the back row.

150. Clark (#147), perhaps one should say procreation instead of sexuality, but how else is the following supposed to be read:

     …to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the kseeds forever and ever. Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue…

151. Blake,
     Heterosexual sex is essential to life of a sexual species, which includes humans. You or I wouldn’t be here without sex. Our bodies are dead ends without sex. It’s just as important as food, air, water, etc. To think homosexual sex is any less important to a homosexual, even though thier sex isn’t essential to life, is insensitive.

152. Rosalynde #124,
     See my #87 for an alternative to these analogies. I don’t have a problem at all with the church asking homosexual members to remain celibate, but this doesn’t require that we compare them to sick people or people with physical irregularities. Besides, the analogy that you give doesn’t make any sense. We don’t ask people with “neutral” physical irregularities like having six fingers to give up a potential life of love and companionship.

153. Melanie,

     The term “disabled” probably is unfortunate. But the in-your-face confrontational posture of the homosexual movement has been just as much to blame for that label as Elder Oaks and company.

     Personally, I’d rather focus on other things. I’d really rather not go through life thinking “oh look! A gay guy!” I’d rather focus on treating people as people.

     But it makes it kind of hard when the homosexual advocates themselves are so adamant about reductionistically portraying themselves as cariacatures of themselves. It’s almost like the gay pride movement is hell-bent on making sure that I never see anything more than a “gay person” when I encounter such people.

     Typically, it’s simply impolite to discuss personal matters with people you don’t know well. Nor is it polite to make nosy inquiries about other people’s lives. I would never label a homosexual person as “disabled” simply because I feel like there is so much more to their identity than that. Besides, I’ve got my own disability. And ultimately, everyone is disabled in some way. Why should I go out of my way to slap that label on someone I don’t know.

     Well, frankly it’s because they’ve demanded that I make a decision on their private conduct and private thoughts.

     Why do I call homosexual impulse a “disability?” Well actually, I don’t. I prefer the word “challenge.” But why do I take the time to make a value judgment on this condition?

     Because our society has demanded that I do so. Gay advocates have demanded that I make a value judgment here, and they’ve demanded that I make that judgment in very broad and stereotypical fashion.

     Operating under these ridiculous constraints, I’d have to say that yes, “practicing homosexuality” is “bad.”

     Happy?

     Well, neither am I. But you asked for it.

154. Yes, what Clark said. You could well argue that Joseph Fielding Smith taught it, but I don’t the case is there for Joseph.

155. “sexual orientation is a vastly more definitive feature of identity than is the number of fingers”

     I think the point Elder Oaks was trying to make was that orientation doesn’t have to be the definitive feature if you don’t want it to. If I were a single Saint, the point is that I am not having sex. Whether I would prefer to have sex with men or women is really kind of irrelevant–I’m not supposed to have sex with anyone! (‘Sex’ here being a stand in for the entire range of the relationship.)

     Re #138: I agree with you–but the fault is with the members, not the leaders. We should welcome people with SSA in the way you describe.

156. Maren – yes, I’m playing off the non-PC conceptions of disabilities being negative, because that’s how Elder Wickman uses the term in this context. He states that his daughter’s disability is bad because her disability excludes her from participating in very important earthly activities.

     On a positive note, a major step forward in LDS discourse would be to separate homosexual _acts_ from homosexual people. This interview is a step in the right direction, but Elders Wickman and Oaks draw the distinction so faintly that I wonder if there _can_ be an appreciable difference between “acting” as a homosexual and being a homosexual as viewed from an LDS perspective.

157. Beat this topic to death yet?

158. 66, 78,
     I know a single man close to 40 who is a temple worker. Most callings are callings singles can have, and do have. As Elder Wickman said, there are very few callings that require the person to be married.

159. Please don’t confuse me with others. I never invoked Hitler here or even hinted these GAs were promoting violence against gays. Seth nailed where I’m coming from. To me, if you’re preaching against homosexuality, you might as well be preaching against a race, or some other attribute the individual didn’t choose. That’s bigotry.

     I am so glad someone finally said this because as it turns out, I’m a compulsive gambler. I’ve always been a compulsive gambler. I can’t remember a time in my life when I didn’t want to gamble. I never chose to be a compulsive gambler; it simply has always been a part of me, and I think science has proven that I have an inherent disposition towards it. From as long as I can remember having the opportunity, I simply saw gambling as something I needed to do. (And really, gambling is a victimless problem-who am I hurting besides myself?) So when I hear people preaching against gambling, I know that they’re simply preaching against something I didn’t choose and are therefore bigots.

160. To me, the sign of true love for a person is being willing to stay, even if sex is not an option.

     I was married in the temple to a gay man. After we had been married for about a year, he told me he had begun to doubt whether he would ever again be able to act sexually on the deep feelings of love he felt for me. We then worked very hard but unsuccessfully in couples therapy for two years. At that point, he felt absolutely certain that sex with me was just impossible for him, and he tearfully asked for a divorce.

     I responded with the analogy you used. I offered to treat him the way I would treat him if he had been injured in a way that would make sex impossible–I would stay with him and treasure his love and companionship. His answer was that if sex were totally impossible for me, then he would certainly stay with me as a companion, too. However, *both* he and I were capable of entering into a committed relationship that worked on all levels: spiritually, emotionally, intellectually, and sexually. We simply couldn’t have that relationship with each other. (Also, he couldn’t have that relationship in a faithful LDS context, but my point here is simply that we divorced for reasons other than supposedly not loving each other enough.)

     I find it very poor form to express that we as human beings cannot learn to control our impulses and urges.

     I am not saying that either he or I is incapable of controlling sexual impulses. Neither of us is promiscuous. What I’m saying is that the sexual aspect of the marriage was very psychologically painful for both of us, despite true emotional love that lasts to this day and best efforts including professional therapy, priesthood blessings, prayer, and scrupulous faithfulness. We both ended the marriage suffering from depression because we had worn ourselves out psychologically trying so hard, and we were so sad that we had been unable to prove naysayers wrong about the wisdom of our decision to marry. There is a limit to how narrowly we have to control our impulses and urges; I honestly do not think that either of us was called to sacrifice any more of our wellbeing trying to corral “round” urges into a “square” marriage.

     On the other hand, persons who have cleansed themselves of any transgression and who have shown their ability to deal with these feelings or inclinations and put them in the background, and feel a great attraction for a daughter of God and therefore desire to enter marriage and have children and enjoy the blessings of eternity — that’s a situation when marriage would be appropriate.

     Advice from priesthood leaders along exactly these lines caused my ex-husband and I to believe that our love for each other could reasonably lead to marriage. My ex had completed the repentance process as well as therapy for overcoming SSA before we even met. And he did indeed feel sexually attracted to me as we dated and were engaged, and during only the very first part of our marriage. I have a very firm conviction gained through painful experience that our marriage was NOT appropriate. While mixed-orientation marriage can work for some very few people, this policy of waiting till you think you’re pretty sure you’re “cured” before you marry is going to have very nearly as much collateral damage as the previous policy of marrying for a “cure.”

161. 88
     Here’s my take on this “how it will affect my heterosexual marriage” thing. I think if you look at their comments about the “genderless marriage” that might get to some of the harm that can be done. If the concepts of male and female don’t matter in marriage, then most of the Proclamation principles are ignored. Without a male and a female in a marriage, titles of husband and wife, father and mother lose meaning and purpose. God is a husband and a father. His ultimate hope for each of us is to become a spouse and parent. Same-sex marriage waters down the different roles that we are taught are God-ordained; they lose meaning and no longer matter. If we take something that is fundamental to the plan of salvation and make it a free-for-all, saying that any two people who care about each other or want an intimate relationship can be “married” then marriage ends up meaning nothing. If it can mean anything, it means nothing. Since marriage is so fundamental to the plan of salvation and also to the health and well-being of nations and civilizations (as told us by our prophets), we simply cannot mess with it. We have been told that the disintegration of the family — as God has defined and designed it — will bring upon us calamaties and destruction. That affects not just my marriage, but our very existence at the community, national and even world-wide level.

     And, of course, it has eternal consequences. We are told the earth would be smitten with a curse if sealings couldn’t happen. Sealings cannot happen between same-sex couples. The entire purpose of the earth is to link families together. Same-sex marriage is a non-link in a chain; it simply can’t be linked. It is against the nature of a role of a prophet to allow for such things, because such would be detrimental in an eternal way.

     This isn’t related to heterosexual marriage per se, but they also made the point that our leaders may very well be punished legally for preaching about heterosexual marriage and against homosexual relationships if gay marriage becomes the norm. This is something predicted by even non-religious experts. They can see that free speech rights of those against gay marriage will be restricted. That will also indirectly affect my marriage if my leaders are imprisoned, because their words are a foundation of my marriage and family relationships!

     I tend to think that the answers to your question about how same-sex marriage is damagine were all throughout this interview, and are present in talks and in the Proclamation. Our leaders address this idea a lot, but I don’t think we always make the connections. I understand you wanted more direct answers, but you also have to hear what they ARE saying.

     #92
     In fact, I’ve never heard any GA say that they’ve “prayed extensively” about this issue…after all, the scriptures already give us the answer (or so we are told), so perhaps they see no need to pray about it.

     I am confident the Proclamation required a great deal of prayer and pondering. All fifteen voices were unified to declare what marriage is (and therefore declare what marriage is not), to define gender as eternal, to state that a marriage between man and woman is fundamental to God’s plan…. The Proclamation really has delineated the Church’s stand on this issue since 1995, and I don’t think they needed to explicitly say they prayed about it. That should be obvious, IMO, seeing as all fifteen men felt they could sign their names to it as doctrine. It’s as close to canonized scripture as we will get.

162. Beijing, from what I’ve read and from your sharing here, it strikes me that it’s not the controlling of homosexual impulses that is the biggest problem–that is indeed possible (albeit extremely difficult) for a believing and disciplined Latter-day Saint. But the ABSENCE of heterosexual desire is a huge impediment to both marriage, and to the contemplation of marriage in the eternities. And, while reparative therapies have shown some success in helping people modulate their sexual activity, almost no one reports having successfully inculcated heterosexual desire in homosexuals (as opposed to self-described bisexuals).

163. Seems like same old, same old, to me. Love the sinner, hate the sin, don’t force your parents to accept your partner, gay desire/sex is a disease akin to alcoholism. What’s new here? Until one of the Apostles has a child who returns from a mission and discovers their homosexuality, our determinedly heterosexual and older elders will never soften on this issue; maybe not even under those circumstances. Someone who hasn’t had a gay child simply can’t pronounce the proper way to deal with the situation.

164. We are frequently admonished to replace evil thoughts with good ones, but the sense I’m getting here is that as long as evil thoughts are not acted upon, they are okay. I hope that’s not what was meant, but that is what was said.

     I asked the same question of my husband, but he pointed out that thoughts and inclinations are not necessarily the same thing. Nurturing thoughts with the intent of getting something from them are actions in and of themselves. Elder Oaks also talked about controlling feelings so they don’t lead to actions, so I think self-discipline in the non-behavior arena was also addressed.

165. Bejing

     And he did indeed feel sexually attracted to me as we dated and were engaged, and during only the very first part of our marriage

     I’m so sad that did not last.

166. 160
     I am truly sorry to come accross as insensitive to individual situations such as yours. As I said (I think) in one of my posts, I have yet to receive a complete answer and/or understanding on this issue. My rant, if you will, about sex was directed more to those who were claiming that sex was essential as air or food. As the human race, yes, sex is essential for propegation of the species. But an individual can and does live without sex. I don’t know that I would advocate for a mixed orientation marriage, and don’t deny that it would be extremely emotionally and psychologically difficult. I guess I just feel that there are more important things in life than sex, and that I personally would hope that my husband would love and be committed to me, even if sex were not an option. I did, in fact, in my college years, date someone who confessed that he was a homosexual to me. I truly cared for this person. We discussed marriage, but decided not to choose that path. He has since left the church and become openly homosexual. I cannot and do not condemn him for his actions. But I will say that when I eventually married, it was for love, and although I am attracted to my husband sexually, I would still love him if sex no longer was an option. You are right to point out that it is emotionally hard, and no one can know how they would react until they live through it. I just wanted to say that love and committment to me are just as important as sex, and that I do not see sex as essential as food and water.

167. Bejing, I think I know you, but I’m not sure. Could you email me privately? fledee@yahoo.com

168. Its been very interesting to read all of these posts and comments. Like most of you have expressed, I’m very glad that the church is starting to have these QA’s and I wish they would have more in the future. If anything to just raise the level of discussion between us members. I’ve learned a ton from just reading this post.

     With that said, I would like to offer my own two cents. Homosexuality to me is a sin just like having sex before marriage is. I’ve made aconvenant to live the law of chastity, which embodies both hetero and homosexual relationships involving sex before marriage. If anything, I feel like we as a body of the church have become more lax with sins of heterosexual fornication. I understand that the world has contributed to this greatly. But to me, its still just as great as a sin as homosexuality. For example, I have an uncle who is a sex addict. He served a full-time, faithful mission, has had numerous church callings, was married in the temple and has two beautiful children. But he has cheated on my aunt, broken their marriage convenants, and is constantly working on repenting and restitution to his family and the church. My aunt did not leave him. She loves him and wants to make their marriage work. My family is in full knowledge of what he’s done and the pain and sorrow his choices and actions have caused his family. But never once has the idea been voiced that we shouldn’t associate with my Uncle anymore. My siblings and I and my cousins are all still welcome to stay at his house, spend time with his family, etc. etc. My grandparents still go and visit he and my aunt. He’s broken his temple convenants, the law of chastity and much of my family’s trust. But we still love him and hope that he’ll be able to overcome his “weakness.” So my question ultimately is: Why can’t this be the way we treat gay issue? Why does it seem like there is a different standard with this? Is being gay more abominable to the Lord than having a heterosexual affair?

169. Melanie (#145),
     You refuse to believe that anyone, even a parent of his own child whom he obviously loves and adores could make the reference to “disabled” without it being a slur. This attitude is just pitiful. I think you need to take a look inside your own heart at your own prejudices before you lash out at those you see in everyone else.

     Here is what the real point, the one you refuse to see, is about. How can we be put in circumstances that may preclude our ever marrying if it is essential to our eternal progression. The analogy may not be perfect, but the point is valid. Even if you have same-sex attraction that may proclude you from ever getting married in this life, that does not mean God has consigned you to a lower kingdom of heaven no matter what you do. The argument is ONLY valid to those who feel as the twelve have unanimously stated, that eternal marriage between a Man and a Woman is a requirement for our salvation in order to receive all that God has. If you do not accept this point, as most the world does not, it really does not apply as council to you.

170. Melanie (#145),
     You refuse to believe that anyone, even a parent of his own child whom he obviously loves and adores could make the reference to “disabled” without it being a slur. This attitude is just pitiful. I think you need to take a look inside your own heart at your own prejudices before you lash out at those you see in everyone else.

     Here is what the real point, the one you refuse to see, is about. How can we be put in circumstances that may preclude our ever marrying if it is essential to our eternal progression. The analogy may not be perfect, but the point is valid. Even if you have same-sex attraction that may proclude you from ever getting married in this life, that does not mean God has consigned you to a lower kingdom of heaven no matter what you do. The argument is ONLY valid to those who feel as the twelve have unanimously stated, that eternal marriage between a Man and a Woman is a requirement for our salvation in order to receive all that God has. If you do not accept this point, as most the world does not, it really does not apply as council to you.

171. mullingandmusing wrote:

     Here’s my take on this “how it will affect my heterosexual marriage” thing. I think if you look at their comments about the “genderless marriage” that might get to some of the harm that can be done.

     I believe the reason that this argument wasn’t offered in the Q&A to the specific question is that those aren’t things that affect my marriage to my wife. Whether others’ marriage is “genderless” (as though such a thing were possible!) or not, mine isn’t. It is comprised of my wife (a female) and me (a male). My lesbian neighbors getting married isn’t going to convert my wife and I into anything genderless, nor will it change our relationship.

     If the concepts of male and female don’t matter in marriage, then most of the Proclamation principles are ignored.

     I don’t see it this way. It seems to me that concepts of male and female are sufficiently biologically instilled in most humans, that even if we were to abolish marriage altogether, the concepts of male and female would still matter a lot to a very large fraction of the humans born into the world.

     Still, if your point is that gay marriage is inconsistent with the Proclamation, I agree with you. But that, too, isn’t a harm to my marriage. My marriage occurred before the Proclamation existed. It would be meaningful and unharmed even in the absence of the Proclamation.

     Without a male and a female in a marriage, titles of husband and wife, father and mother lose meaning and purpose.

     I disagree with your assertion about the loss of meaning in same-sex marriages, but even if you’re right, again, that doesn’t really affect my marriage with my wife. She is a wife and mother. I am a husband and father. My neighbors’ relationships are different. Even in my ward, there is a wide variety of relationships within marriages that don’t harm my marriage to my wife.

     God is a husband and a father. His ultimate hope for each of us is to become a spouse and parent.

     I think that becoming a spouse and parent are steps along the path to becoming. I don’t think they’re the endpoints. But setting that potential difference of opinion between us aside, it still doesn’t identify a harm to my marriage that results from letting my neighbors get married.

     Same-sex marriage waters down the different roles that we are taught are God-ordained; they lose meaning and no longer matter.

     I understand this to refer to the Proclamation’s description of roles allocated by gender to marriage partners. I agree that gay marriage is inconsistent with a number of aspects of the Proclamation. I disagree that society allowing others to live in ways inconsistent with the Proclamation will harm my marriage to my wife. Most of my neighbors, even the currently married ones, live their lives in ways inconsistent with the Proclamation. Their actions don’t harm my marriage.

     If we take something that is fundamental to the plan of salvation and make it a free-for-all, saying that any two people who care about each other or want an intimate relationship can be “married” then marriage ends up meaning nothing.

     I take my marriage covenants and vows quite seriously. I chose to be married in an LDS temple, in a ceremony that is decidedly different from any of the wedding ceremonies of anyone else I knew. I don’t understand the basis for your assertion that the existence of different kinds of marriages (which occur everday outside the LDS temples) will corrupt my marriage and covenants to my wife and render them meaningless. Indeed, I’m not at all clear how refusing to respect and honor life-long interpersonal commitments by two people doesn’t actually cut the other way, but perhaps we disagree on that score.

     If it can mean anything, it means nothing.

     I don’t see marriage becoming devoid of meaning as a result of affording it to gay or lesbian couples. Marriage means lots and lots, as many have noted already on this thread. As a first approximation, it means (1) lots of automatic legal consequences, (2) it means commitment to providing another person with unqualified support and love, (3) it means laying one’s own wants and desires and preferences onto a table alongside the companion’s, and then forging a mutual vision of mutual desires, (4) it means interacting with society not as an individual, but as a part of something larger (and greater) than an individual.

     Nothing? Everything.

     Since marriage is so fundamental to the plan of salvation and also to the health and well-being of nations and civilizations (as told us by our prophets), we simply cannot mess with it.

     While I recognize you have offered this point in the context of your larger post, this statement is, itself, so general as to be meaningless. It identifies no harm at all, though, like Elder Oaks’ and Elder Wickman’s statements, it asserts that there are such harms.

     We have been told that the disintegration of the family — as God has defined and designed it — will bring upon us calamaties and destruction. That affects not just my marriage, but our very existence at the community, national and even world-wide level.

     I agree that we’ve been told this. I’m suggesting (1) that I don’t see any harm to “family” that results from allowing those who desire to form families to do so, (2) that I don’t see how the disintegration of the family (which I readily acknowledge is a bad thing) results from allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry and form families, and (3) that its a pretty good thing to allow those who understand God differently than I to live in accordance with those understandings of God. I don’t think God is set to erase or abandon God’s children living in civilizations that reach different conclusions about gay marriage.

     God’s world-wide wrath? God allowed the crucixion of Jesus by the Romans; yet God continued to interact with the citizens and non-citizens of Rome alike. God allowed Joseph Smith to be murdered; yet God continued to deal with the Saints, leading them to the promised land. God allowed the Holocaust; yet God continued to touch the hearts of God’s children in Germany and in Poland. God allowed the Cambodian killing fields; yet God continued to touch the hearts of God’s children in Cambodia. I see God as much less interested in punishing groups than in blessing individuals who open themselves, by their thoughts and their conduct, to divine revelation.

     And, of course, it has eternal consequences. We are told the earth would be smitten with a curse if sealings couldn’t happen. Sealings cannot happen between same-sex couples.

     For this statement to make sense contextually, one must first accept your conclusion that allowing gay marriage will eliminate (or prohibit) all marriage. That just seems wrong to me. How does allowing more marriage prohibit any marriage? My temple marriage and sealing to my wife occurred. I’m quite confident that it would have occurred even if gay marriage had been lawful at the time in the jurisdiction where we were married. Just as sealings cannot (at present — we do believe in continuing revelation) happen between same-sex couples, neither Elder Oaks nor Elder Wickman suggest that prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying is going to increase the number of heterosexual marriages. Indeed, both of them took great pains to urge caution and restraint before anyone with an attraction to a person of their own gender even considers heterosexual marriage. Their responses go exactly the opposite direction from encouraging gays and lesbians to marry heterosexually.

     The entire purpose of the earth is to link families together. Same-sex marriage is a non-link in a chain; it simply can’t be linked.

     Even if that is the way we are to view same-sex marriages, it is no different than the outcome Elders Oaks and Wickman propose — that the gay son or lesbian daughter are treated as if they had never married when it comes to preparing pedigree charts and family group sheets. Again, Elders Oaks and Wickman are distinctly not proposing that gays and lesbians marry anyone. As children of God, they are still either born into the covenant or they are sealed to their parents — they become a part of the web of relationships, just as other unmarried people do. My spinster (and, so far as I know, celibate) aunt who died last year is a part of that web of persons to whom I am, directly or indirectly, sealed. So, too, will my children be, even if they turn out to be gay or lesbian. Whether they marry where such actions are permitted, or not.

     It is against the nature of a role of a prophet to allow for such things, because such would be detrimental in an eternal way.

     Saying it would be detrimental is not showing how it would be detrimental.

     This isn’t related to heterosexual marriage per se, but they also made the point that our leaders may very well be punished legally for preaching about heterosexual marriage and against homosexual relationships if gay marriage becomes the norm.

     This is something predicted by even non-religious experts. They can see that free speech rights of those against gay marriage will be restricted. That will also indirectly affect my marriage if my leaders are imprisoned, because their words are a foundation of my marriage and family relationships!

     Yes. I saw the assertion in the Q&A. I heard approximately the same thing said ten years ago when I worked to oppose the efforts of many groups (including the Church) to legalize housing and employment discrimination against gays and lesbians in my home of Colorado. The argument went, as I recall, something along the lines of “if we don’t legalize discrimination against gays, we’ll have to let gays become bishops of the ward.” My reaction then — and now — is to remind people that in the US, we are the beneficiaries of a First Amendment Free Exercise of Religion Clause that shows no particular sign of weakness or decrepitude, and that I was pretty confident then — and am still confident now — that efforts to prosecute preaching will readily be found to violate the Constitution. So far, at least, the LDS Church hasn’t been required to include a quota of gay bishops.

172. Doc – we’re talking past each other here, and you’re proving my point. I’m sure Elder Wickman loves his daughter, but he and she both view her disability as a negative. An unqualified negative. In fact, he refers to her disability as “anguish“. Calling someone “disabled” is not a slur, but being disabled is seen as a less than ideal circumstance by most people, and this is the way Wickman is using the term “disabled”, nes pas? Furthermore, it’s clear from the context that I doubt many homosexuals are catching the warm fuzzies Elder Wickman may be sending them by comparing them to his daughter and referring to them as “disabled”.

     I have not used the word “disabled” as a slur on this thread, and I would appreciate it if you would stop misrepresenting my position.

173. greenfrog,

     The Proclamation is a reflection of eternal principles and guidelines from God. The idea that you where married before the Proclaimation doesn’t matter.

     Also, society as a whole has an obligation to protect children born into this world. “Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.” This of course would be in the general case.

     Last month, the highest court in the state of New York essentially said the same thing. link.

174. Kristine, my ex was a “success story” in one of those very few case studies that claimed success in inculcating heterosexual feelings in him (a homosexual at the extreme end of the Kinsey scale); actually, I think they claimed to bring his natural heterosexual feelings to the forefront. After years of therapy, he did begin to feel sexual attraction to women he met. Later, when he met me, he felt sexually attracted to me. Personally, I think what happened to make him feel that was kind of like what happens to some straight men in prison. My ex was celibate for so many years that what was naturally unattractive to him but was his only available option started to look attractive. But it was not a real change in the nature of his sexuality, as he and I discovered to our sadness.

     Maren, in case I did not make this clear:

     • I think there are more important things in life than sex.
     • I married for love, just like you did.
     • I still loved my then-husband, when sex was no longer an option.
     • I still love him now, even though neither sex nor marriage is an option.
     • He likewise loved and loves me.
     • Although we divorced because he is gay and I am straight, our decision to divorce was not about either of us wanting to greedily feed carnal desires as often as we breathe or eat, and not about thinking sex acts are more important than love or commitment.

     I will not read any more comments about how you would hypothetically react to a situation I actually experienced.

     D., yes, you know me from online.

175. Nice responses, greenfrog #171.

     With respect to leaders being imprisoned for anti-gay remarks and discriminatory actions, as far as I can tell, the LDS Church wasn’t legally forced to extend priesthood privileges to Blacks. And the LDS Church continues to discriminate against women in flagrant violation of federal (and some states’) law. The alleged threat of imprisonment is more than a red herring, it’s a dangerous, inflammatory prevarication that completely disrespects the religious freedoms fundamentally guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

176. Are there any documented cases of LDS men, gay or straight, going the eunuch route to facilitate living the LofC? I’m not saying such people are well, but I’m wondering if any LDS have taken that extreme step?

177. Beijing,
     Again, I am sorry. I was not saying I had any idea how I would respond, or that you did anything wrong. I never thought you said that you divorced for bad, worng, or carnal reasons, or that you did not love your husband. I was referring to others in the post who said comments about sex and its essentialness, not you.

178. MikeHo: Your rant about the Church having no basis for legal concerns us misdirected. In recent months, several state courts have held that marriage is not a fundamental right and thus no fundamental right exists to marry nor is equal protection breached by making distinctions based on a rational basis rather than a compelling interest test. However, in each of those cases there were gay advocacy groups arguing otherwise. Their agenda was and remains precisely to make SSM a fundamental right. If the Church or anyone else violated fundamental rights by refusing to recognize or grant equal protection, they would be subjected to loss of federal funds, loss of rights under the law to be recognized by law and so forth.

     You may well be right that in America, these untoward results are avoided. However, the fact that religious belief is protected under the First Amendment must also recognize that religious practices enjoy much lesser protection. I agree that 1st Amendment free exercise rights would likely trump any attempt to stifle religious speech by a minister or bishop; I believe it would be otherwise if the issue were student grants, tax exempt status and the right to have the State recognize one’s own marriage ceremonies as valid. However, these consequences are most certainly avoided by the rulings of various state courts against the gay SSM agenda that have held that marriage is a protection of certain relationships that the State has an interest in fostering, and thus subject to State discretion, rather than a fudamental right. In fact, that is what I have been arguing all along. I’m glad that the courts of virtually every state (now including Mass. which recently ruled that the voters of the State can adopt an amendment to ban gay marriage if they so choose) has adopted the view I have been suggesting all along.

179. I have a brother who (before he passed away) was (you pick) [disabled|handicapped|retarded|challenged].

     I have heard all four terms used almost interchangeably by governmental and social organizations. Our family preferred, of the four, the term “disabled”.

180. Melanie #141: More importantly, the interview explicitly encourages the social ostracism of gays (gay family members, even!).

     Boy, I sure read what they are saying in the interview than you do. They were not suggesting ostracism but asking for understanding by gays of those Church members who may not feel comfortable having an openly sexual relationship of which they disapprove in their home around their children. That is true whether that relationship is between unmarried hetero- or homo-sexuals. On the other hand, I agree that more openness to gays who choose to remain celibate is called for. That is what I see the interview being about as well.

181. I think we’ve reached the point where those who are predisposed to thinking the GAs are idiots will continue to think so, and those who are predisposed to accepting their counsel and guidance will continue to do so.

     A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.

182. I find myself getting highly emotional about this topic. The main thing that drives me into emotional frenzies: I’VE NEVER BEEN GAY!

     I have no idea what it is like. I know that one of my “short comings” as it’s been called or temptations is drugs. I’ve struggled with not taking them and have had to completely change my life in order to avoid the use of drugs. I am happily married in the temple and hold a calling in the Young Women’s organization. I’m doing a great job not giving in to my temptation and there are NO negative side affects. In essence we are saying to gay people, “You will not give in to temptation and live a celibate and single life. So, avoid the temptation and live with the consequences.” It’s not the same for a single, straight man at 40 as it is for a single, homosexual man at 40. For one the hope, no matter how small is there and righteous. For the other the hope is non-existent and unrighteous if acted upon.

     I know that my opinion is all gut reaction. It just makes so much sense that we have no right to tell them to disregard all the urges they have towards a love interest because we told them it’s wrong.

183. greenfrog,
     I think perhaps we are operating with different assumptions and will probably talk past eash other on this. In my mind, anything that runs counter to the Proclamation simply cannot be embraced. I hear a clarion call from our leaders to defend marriage and family as God has designed them to be. HIS purposes are what should matter, not our personal whims or opinions. You can analyze all you want, and frankly, I don’t think it matters if one’s individual marriage is affected (although I still think watering down a God-ordained, age-hold foundation to society can’t be a good thing). The effects I tried to suggest were more at a general level than individual, although I still believe our culture will be affected, children will be affected, and institutional and spiritual underpinnings of our nation will be further undermined. Such things would affect us all. As far as I see it, given prophetic warnings in scripture and in our day, we ought to take seriously what we are told matters to God. This simply matters to Him.

     Some more general thoughts:
     We might look to Massachusetts to see what kinds of things have popped up: people who oppose gay marriage are being silenced (because you can’t discriminate on orientation); teachers are being expected to interject their curriculum with homosexual themes and heroes (deliberately having to focus on homosexuality and also being forced to enforce anti-discrimination as defined by the new laws); parents have lost rights in what their children are exposed to; children are being taught things contrary to our values (why is it OK to teach liberal values but not conservative ones?); religious institutions are being shut down (for example, Catholic Charities stopped doing adoptions because they would have been required to provide adoptions to gay parents — what would our LDS adoption agency have to do?). These already-existing examples say to me that changing the definition of marriage can easily put us at risk for exposing ourselves and our children — our society — to further institutionalization and propogation of evil. It will provide more forces that run counter to the plan of salvation, giving the adversary more of a stronghold. And I think it can potentially create problems for what the Church will be able to do (due to tax-exempt status, for example, or even performing marriages) — not to mention just having that much more against the plan of salvation to work against.

     It is my opinion that those who are pushing the gay marriage agenda don’t only care about getting the rights of marriage. Collectively (not necessarily individually), this movement wants to make acceptable that which is sinful and often damaging. It is trying to mainstream that which has never been mainstream. It wants to expose children to homosexuality at young and tender ages — adding more “nurture” into the mix that will add more confusion to young, tender, impressionable hearts. It introduces lies — for example, that you are your sexuality, that sexuality defines you (I loved what our two leaders said about this concept!) Or that what two people do in their bedroom doesn’t affect anyone else but them. I have family members who would beg to differ. Clearly, what people do in their personal lives has already affected us all significantly. If not so, we wouldn’t have anything to talk about, would we? People who want to still can do what they want in the privacy of their own homes. They don’t need a marriage to do that. (And gay marriage would not remove the sin of gay sex.) They have already made what happens in their personal lives a national issue.

     What affects society affects us all individually. Look at the hold pornography has on many members of the Church. No matter how hard we try, the institutionalization and acceptance of evil permeates all of our lives. Babylon is already beating too much on our shortes. Look at how careful we have to be, even if we are doing all we can to shield our children and ourselves from the evils of our day. The concept of gay marriage is simply based on evil acts. (I don’t dismiss that realy challenge of the need for non-sexual intimacy, and the lack of that would surely be a cross; nevertheless, we can’t call black white or white black. The doctrine is clear on this.) Why would we choose to legalize and support sin? We are fooling ourselves if we think we can turn a blind eye to what others do and think it can’t (or won’t) have far-reaching affects on us now and on generations to come. I don’t want my children and grandchildren to have any more confusion and sin paraded as normal and fine and OK. What we deal with now is bad enough!

     Lest I be misunderstood, I hope that we will be able to find ways as individuals and as a church to be aware of and sensitive to those who have this struggle. Perhaps as continued awareness and acknowledgement of the difference between tendency and action filters down, more people will feel OK opening up a little about their struggles. And we can be on the lookout for those who may need an extra measure of love and sensitivity. Not that we become busybodies or judgmental jerks, but that we create a place where those who, with hope and faith in their eternal future — will find love and support and acceptance. I sense our leaders are teaching us doctrine that can change behavior — not only with those who struggle with homosexual attractions, but those who have wrongly judged them. I, for one, am committed to such sensitivity and reaching out, even with all my rants above. My firm commitment to the prophetic teachings on this does not prohibit or justify any lack of love or concern or compassion for those with this cross. I care deeply about these people and want them to find a safe haven with their brothers and sisters in the faith. Let’s all make the Church a safe place for those who so struggle!!!

184. Mike Kessler #139: “Even without being able to marry, most gays in a relationship are still faithful to their partner (trust me, it’s true).”

     Why should we trust you? How do you know this is true? And by “faithful,” do you honestly mean that most homosexual men in long-term relationships are *sexually* faithful? It is widely known within the gay community that sexual fidelity is not highly valued, at least among men. How many gay couples do you know who have remained together longer than 10 years and have been completely monogamous? Here’s a quote from Charles Panati, author of “Faithful in Our Fashion,” published in the June 23, 1998, Advocate: “Two gay men, after years of fidelity, may open up their relationship to occasional affairs yet regard themselves as a couple for life. My lover and I are such a pair. For our gay friends in relationships of 15 years or more, monogamy without fidelity is the rule, not the exception.”

     I recommend that everyone check out this essay for some illuminating insights into the gay-activist agenda:
     http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3650 – 90k –

185. I have to say, I find it almost unbearable to hear repeated, ad nauseum, how homosexuality is something like “X” (you fill in the blank: disability, alcoholism, gambling addiction, or some person’s pet unnamed temptation), and that the only thing homosexuals have to do is buck up and be celibate for the rest of their lives. It is even more unbearable to hear people who engage in this kind of rhetoric then congratulate themselves on how compassionate they are being toward homosexuals.

     For me, being gay is most concretely expressed in the love I share with another human being, and in the love he returns to me. We have been in a committed relationship with each other for 14 years now, and we both anticipate this commitment lasting until death or beyond. I don’t see the appropriateness of any kind of analogy between love shared by two human beings and any kind of disability or sin.

     I am simply not capable of sharing the kind of love I share with my male partner with a woman. At a certain point, I desperately wished it were otherwise, to the point of almost committing suicide after many, many years of struggle.

     I think Elder Wickman’s and Elder Oaks’ statements on this subject DO represent a step forward. I hope that Latter-day Saints will continue to seek understanding about this, and that LDS wards will increasingly become places where gay and lesbian folks feel embraced and loved, regardless of where they are in their spiritual journeys (whether they are trying to be celibate, or whether they have given up on celibacy and are just trying to be happy in a relationship that is as faithful and loving as possible).

     I am grateful, by the way, that my parents love and embrace BOTH me and my partner, and that he is always completely welcome in their home and at all family reunions and events. I can’t imagine any other behavior being truly Christian.

     My parents understand that if my partner and I could be married we would, but we can’t. In that way, our situation is NOT analagous to the situation of an unmarried, cohabting heterosexual couple.

186. 163

     163 Beat this topic to death yet?

     New to the Bloggernacle?

187. Melanie,
     Talking past only because you refuse to look outside your own point of view.

     “when people hear the words “handicapped” or “disability”, they negatively associate these words with something bad. Right?”

     Only if their minds are so small as to have given that a negative connotation. Everyone is disabled in some way. I only know of one perfect being to have walked the planet. Mot only that, but there exists a very active disability rights community that would take serious issue with your quote above. They embrace their differences, not unlike the homosexual community. If I state ” when people hear the words “homosewual” or “gay”, they negatively associate these words with something bad. Right?” You become upset, and yet, this is essentially your point of view and you cannot even begin to see past it.

     They also used the less “inflammatory” Short fuse analogy. They are trying, and I grant you imperfectly, to find a neutral comparison which you insist on dragging your closed perspective into without really trying to understand what they are saying. Would most homosexuals be offended by the analogy. Probably, they are as prone to prejudice as the next person. But the analogy is not meant for the Non believing homosexual who does not hold the Proclamation on the Family to be a divine mandate. They are not the intended audience. So while you can certainly stir up muck by taking the analogy out of the spirit and context which it was made, I have an issue with anyone who does so.

188. I was impressed at how tough the questions were (even if I wasn’t always impressed with the answers). I was NOT impressed that EO tried to shift the responsibility for PM from JS to BY. BY “had it revealed” to him? Sure, by JS.

189. I guess that shift helps reinforce the illusion that PM was an aberation — a fleeting moment in our otherwise faithful-to-western-civ history. We are a bastion of the traditional family and so was our founding prophet with his beloved Emma. Things got a bit wierd there for a few years, but then we returned to the mainstream…where we lived happily and ever after.

190. I will never understand why so many members of the church are so concerned about how others perceive us. As long as we are acting in accordance with the commandments and in charity and love, does it matter if others take it the wrong way? I think that’s all Elder Oaks and Elder Wickman are saying.

191. Blake – I think you might be mistaking me for Mike. I was the one ranting about the false threat of imprisonment for religious leaders expressing their views on gays. I think you need to get your facts and history straight here. Mormons have a long history of indulging in anti-black, anti-woman rhetoric with abandon. No one is breaking down Elder Faust’s door for writing this month’s lead article in the Ensign, for example. With respect to BYU, although this institution barely skirts the line of legality with its discriminatory employment practices, BYU still receives its share of federal funding.

     Let’s not add to the paranoia about gays marrying ushering in the apocalypse. I’m sure the same thing was said about Mormons and their strange and illegal marital practices just over a century ago, but we’re still here!

192. Melanie: It’s a matter of legal precedent and how the law works — both of which apparently escape you. Since I wasn’t addressing history but looking at current legal issues as they traverse their way thru the courts, perhaps you mught read more carefully as well?

193. That’s fine, Blake. But the equal protection precedent that marriage is a fundamental right you were referring to has been settled for years (see Loving and Zablocki), so I was confused by your statement that state courts have recently been deciding that marriage is not a fundamental right – in direct contradiction to U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

194. Blake, you often refer to “the right to have the State recognize one’s own marriage ceremonies as valid.” Why should we care what the State thinks about how we perform marriages? We didn’t care when we performed polygamous marriages in our temples.

     Why not treat temple marriages the way we do baptisms, ordinations, and other religious ceremonies, and avoid State involvement altogether? We can still get married civilly as the Saints do in most other countries.

     Your arguments about tax exempt status and educational grants reflect a focus on economics that, IMO, undermines the public policy argument.

     I happen to agree with you that homosexual marriage would be a bad public policy, but your financial and State recognition arguments seem to support the claims of those who assert that churches are focused on money and power. I don’t think finances and State recognition of religious ceremonies should have any relevance to the discussion.

195. Jonathan N,

     Elder Wickman, “Marriage means a committed, legally sanctioned relationship between a man and a woman. That’s what it means. That’s what it means in the revelations. That’s what it means in the secular law.”

     The state has everything to do with marriage and that is how God wants it. The state has everything to do with marriage because of children.

196. The basis for marriage being a fundmental right was based on the right to procreate.

197. Melanie: I don’t know where you get your propaganda, but Loving and Zablocki don’t stand for any such proposition. See this case for a good discussion from the Washington Supreme Court as to why SSM marriage is not a fundamental right: http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.opindisp&docid=759341MAJ

     You can see the New York decision holding the same thing here: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/ctapps/decisions/jul06/86-89opn06.pdf#search=%22loving%20v.%20%20zablocki%20marriage%20New%20York%22

     Same for Georgia: http://www.gasupreme.us/pdf/s06a1574.pdf#search=%22same%20sex%20marriage%20georgia%22

     And of all places, Massachussetts which held SSM could be subject to a vote to amend the State’s
     Constitution and thus not a fundamental right guaranteed under the U.S. Const.:http://www.masslaw.com/signup/opinion.cfm?page=ma/opin/sup/1011806.htm

198. Jonathan re: # 194. I am open to the possiblity of the State getting out of the marriage business altogether and defining marriage as solely as a religious institution. That’s about as likely to happen as states deciding that no one is really responsible for what they do so there will be no punishment at all, just education. It just isn’t a pragmatic possibility.

     I agree that the primary motivation for the Church’s stand is and ought to be the importance and sanctity of marriage itself, but it doesn’t follow that there aren’t also other important concerns. The notion that the church could exist in a vacuum and simply ignore the temporal necessities of being effective and exercising influence is a simple denial of pragmatic reality — again.

     What is the value of SSM to the State? Why do gays care whether the State blesses their union? I believe that what they really want is legitimization of their relationship and to force everyone to agree that homosexual conduct is not sinful or they must be silenced by the law. I suspect that what gays really want is a statement by the Church saying that there is nothing sinful or wrong with homosexual conduct. I hear the argument incessantly that God couldn’t possibly give us sexual urges and then ask us to control them. Or another argument that He couldn’t have us fall in love with another person and ask us to refrain from expressing that love sexually. These are just a bad arguments. Sexual conduct is a responsibility and has moral dimensions that cannot be avoided. Adulterous sex with another woman is sinful even if one falls in love with another woman or all women in general. The notion that if we have sexual urges that God gave us it means he intended us to use them is simply in error.

199. #195 and 198: I don’t think anyone is suggesting that marriage become a purely and exclusively religious institution. My point isn’t to get the State out of the marriage business, but to make a distinction between religious and civil marriage–as most other countries do. We already decline to recognize marriages recognized by other religions, such as Muslim polygamous marriages (or the early Mormon polygamous marriages), so the concept of recognizing religious marriage is of questionable benefit, anyway. We’re left with the State dictating what form of religious marriage will be recognized. What if the State decided not to recognize any marriage that was declared to last for eternity? I think we would prefer not to have the State tell us what is a legitimate marriage in the eyes of God. I realize we already fought that battle and lost in Reynolds, but why are we so intent on fighting it again?

     In no other function does the State recognize a religious practice as binding on the State.

     It seems to me that gays want exactly what Blake uses as arguments against SSM: power and money. Clearly the state confers power and money on people becaues of their marriage status. To the extent that we assert money and power as rationales for our position, we are emphasizing the importance of those values as a matter of public policy, which helps make the case for SSM.

     The moral issues are separate from the legal issues, in my view, just as they are for other illegal but immoral practices. The Church can teach the Canadian saints that SSM is immoral and sinful, even though it is legal.

200. Blake – thanks for the lecture, but these are your own words:

     In recent months, several state courts have held that marriage is not a fundamental right and thus no fundamental right exists to marry nor is equal protection breached by making distinctions based on a rational basis rather than a compelling interest test.

     The U.S. Supreme Court in Loving: “Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. State of Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 1113, 86 L.Ed. 1655 (1942).”

     You did not qualify the word “marriage” with “SSM”. The U.S. Supreme Court has indeed already determined marriage to be a fundamental right. This is settled case law. Now we’re just haggling over which test to apply to exclude gays and lesbians from enjoying this fundamental right.

Comments are closed.