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

1. Melanie: My comment about marriage was in the context of SSM — but of course I am always fee to clarify my point in any event. However, your cite above shows why SSM is not a fundamental right — gay marriage is not fundamental to our very existence and survival. Thus, it is not marriage per se that is a fundamental right (isn’t it obvious that not everyone has a fundamental right to marry just anyone?) but the right to marry for the purpose of insuring that what is fundamental to our very existence and survival is continued. Thus, your citation to Loving is misplaced in the context of SSM especially.

2. Jonathan: I agree that moral issues can and ought to be distinguished from legal issues. However, in my view it is naive to expect that legal implications ought to be ignored — just as it was for the Church and plural marriage when it was declared to be a crime. Do you really think it is illegitimate to recognize the consequences that the SSM debate may have for the ability of the Church to effectively carry out its mission?

3. Legally speaking, no right is binding, until Congress or the people say it is. The courts can’t go around inventing new rights, especially new absolute and unchallengable rights, that cannot be regulated by appropriate legislation. That is what the Constitution is for.

   The idea that Congress cannot pass laws regulating time, place, and manner, or the People pass even far more reaching amendments to the Constitution with regard to marriage, is completely untenable. That is why Reynolds (1879) was correctly decided.

   In any case, the “right” to marry has exactly one origin – divine legislation. God did not provide for males to marry males or females to marry females. Neither do we. To invent an absolute right to the contrary is to act higher than the body politic, indeed higher than God. Tyranny writ large.

4. 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.

   No, you did not read the court argument that says that same sex marrage can’t be condidered a fundamental right. The reasoning why the right to marry is upheld in the courts is because of the right to procreate. Gays CAN’T procreate, thus same sex marriage can’t be considered a fundamental right.

   For the gays to win in the courts they must show that sexual preference is on the same level as being male and female or being black or white. If they can’t convince this then there is no equality debate; everyone has the same rights, to marry someone of the opposite sex.

   Preference never dictated fundamental rights. The quality of being a male or female does dictate a right to procreate with someone of the opposite sex in an arrangement santioned by the state. Rights are not based on what we want.

   Let it be known:
   Sex in the confines of marraige between a man and a woman is a beautiful thing.
   Sex outside the confines of marraige between a man and a woman is ugly.

5. Mark, the U.S. Constitution invalidates legislation abrogating absolute and unchallengeable (and unlegislated) rights quite frequently. Lawrence v. Texas is one of my favorite examples of this. Now, with respect to your point about people amending the U.S. Constitution itself to abrogate these rights – let’s just say that I’m grateful for the high threshold that makes an anti-gay marriage amendment a pipe dream (although it certainly has helped conservative political action groups raise lots of money).

6. A childs right to be raised by a father and a mother, in the general case, outweighs any persons right based on sexual preference.

7. Come on, Blake. Read the Loving opinion again. The U.S. Supreme Court did not base its decision on marriage being a fundamental right because of procreation.

   In case you don’t have it on hand, here’s the holding:

   To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

   Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967)

8. In deciding the validity of legislation under the Due Process Clause, courts first inquire whether the legislation restricts the exercise of a fundamental right, one that is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” (Washington v Glucksberg, 521 US 702, 721 [1997], quoting Moore v City of East Cleveland, 431 US 494, 503 [1977] [plurality opinion]; Hope v Perales, 83 NY2d 563, 575 [1994]). In this case, whether the right in question is “fundamental” depends on how it is defined. The right to marry is unquestionably a fundamental right (Loving, 388 US at 12; Zablocki v Redhail, 434 US 374, 384 [1978]; Cooper, 49 NY2d at 79). The right to marry someone of the same sex, however, is not “deeply rooted”; it has not even been asserted until relatively recent times. The issue then becomes whether the right to marry must be defined to include a right to same-sex marriage.

9. From the Washington court

   Nearly all United States Supreme Court decisions declaring marriage to be a fundamental right expressly link marriage to fundamental rights of procreation, childbirth, abortion, and child-rearing.

10. addrax – fine, but where’s the link to procreation?

    This is what you said:

    The reasoning why the right to marry is upheld in the courts is because of the right to procreate. Gays CAN’T procreate, thus same sex marriage can’t be considered a fundamental right.

    Also, the same arguments above in #208 were used by Virginia to defend its racist laws in the Loving v. Virginia case. Namely, there was certainly no “deeply rooted” right for a white man to marry a black woman in 1967. The “deeply rooted” argument is a thin reed.

11. P.S. The statement that gays and lesbians can’t procreate is obviously false. (See Melissa Etheridge and Julie Cypher for one well-known example) So if your arguments are 1)”deeply rooted” and 2)procreation, well, you lose.

12. Washington’s decision to leave it up to the legislature here

    Search for what is between the quotes “Under a federal constitutional analysis”

13. Melanie: Nice sleight of hand. Gays and lesbians may be able to procreate, but not with each other and not as a couple. It isn’t a fundamental right to marry someone of the same sex any more than to marry your 1st cousin during child-bearing years. However, the continuance of not only society as we know it but the human race depends on the difference — the fact that men and women need each other to procreate: and it is a fact.

    Look, the Church has not done a good enough job to assure gays and lesbians who wish to be faithful and to be celibate that they are welcome. The interview with Oaks and Wickman is a step forward in that regard.

14. Melanie re: #207: You’re right, Loving had nothing to do with procreation; it had to do with whether difference in race of marraige partners could be a basis for denying the right to marry. It cannot be because it violates due process of law. Such a holding is a very logical extension of the 14th Amendment which in many ways was directed at racial discrimination on the basis of equal protection and due process of law. However, people of different races can procreate with each other. Gays cannot. It is for that reason that the holding in Love has little precedential value re: SSM.

15. Gay couples method of procreating can’t be and isn’t considered equal to heterosexual couples method for procreating. From the New York court here.

    First, the Legislature could rationally decide that, for the welfare of children, it is more important to promote stability, and to avoid instability, in opposite-sex than in same-sex relationships. Heterosexual intercourse has a natural tendency to lead to the birth of children; homosexual intercourse does not. Despite the advances of science, it remains true that the vast majority of children are born as a result of a sexual relationship between a man and a woman, and the Legislature could find that this will continue to be true. The Legislature could also find that such relationships are all too often casual or temporary. It could find that an important function of marriage is to create more stability and permanence in the relationships that cause children to be born. It thus could choose to offer an inducement — in the form of marriage and its attendant benefits — to opposite-sex couples who make a solemn, long-term commitment to each other.

    Also, this gives a good reason for why genderless marriage could be considered bad in this situation. Only one of the parents can be the true biological parent. Thus, from the childs birth, we have a marriage that is closely related to a biological parent/step parent family. Playing favorites, one feeling the child is really theirs, etc.

16. Yep. You’re missing my point, though. The Virginia legislature likewise took its cue from their racist constituents to legislate statutes prohibiting interracial marriages. I’m sure an overwhelming majority of the Virginia population supported the anti-miscegenation laws. For better or worse, we in the United States live under a federal constitution that serves as a check on invidious practices that certain segments of the population see fit to legislate into law.

17. Look, addrax and Blake – we obviously disagree on the very fundamental premise as to whether or not gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry. I say yes! You say no! We can all cite court holdings back and forth, but we’re not going to agree on this. To that end, the U.S. Supreme Court has made some very poor decisions in its long history (see Dred Scott, Plessy, etc.), but it has also made some very courageous, but unpopular, decisions (see Brown v. Board). While the U.S.S.C. is girding up their collective loins for the courage to decide this question once and for all, both sides need to tone down the rhetoric and love our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters for who they are, not who we want them to be.

18. I love the way the New York Court said it

    The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one. Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude.

19. Agreed that we disagree.

20. Ron Burgundy: I’m sorry, I was trying to impress you. I don’t know what it means. I’ll be honest, I don’t think anyone knows what it means anymore. Scholars maintain that the translation was lost hundreds of years ago.

    Veronica Corningstone: Doesn’t it mean Saint Diego?

    Ron Burgundy: No. No.

    Veronica Corningstone: No, that’s – that’s what it means. Really.

    Ron Burgundy: Agree to disagree.

21. LOL, gst! I usually find your comments incredibly annoying or in poor taste (or both), but that Anchorman quote was great! 🙂

22. Antonia Cook: Congratulations… Seriously.

    Steve Zissou: Thanks. I wish it didn’t require the “seriously,” but thank you.

23. Anyway …

    We should just all keep in mind that we sustain the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as “prophets, seers, and revelators” and the President of the Church as the only man authorized to speak for the entire Church. To date, the President of the Church has not made any statement contradicting Elder Oaks’ and Elder Wickman’s interview (and I’ll bet General Conference will be interesting).

    It doesn’t matter what SCOTUS says or any other court says. We may end up with SSM within the United States, but it won’t make it into the Church, until Congress passes a law (and the President signs it and SCOTUS signs off on it) saying that churches *must* accept SSMs as valid marriages within their church practices. Until that day happens, this is all an interesting academic discussion.

24. Melanie (#205), The U.S. Constitution does no such thing. In point of fact the U.S. Constitution does exactly nothing. The Supreme Court invalidates laws according to their interpretation of the Constitution. Whether their interpretation is legitimate is in some cases a matter of considerable debate. Penumbras and mystical rights to define one’s own existence and all that.

    It should be noted that the Supreme Court’s abuse of judicial authority is one of the key factors sustaining the Republican Coalition – if they were not so far and so ridiculously over-reaching in decisions like Roe and Lawrence, the Democrats might have more of a chance to have their legitimate ideas see the light of day. I happen to think the current administration of the FCC to be utterly wrong-headed, for example.

25. Blake (#203) I agree that we shouldn’t ignore the legal implications of SSM, but the problems arise because you want the State to recognize religious marriages. If we disentangle the two concepts of marriage, we avoid the threat to the Church.

    I just think it’s ineffective and counterproductive to argue against SSM on the grounds that the Church would be required to perform SSM or to recognize SSM or risk losing its tax benefits. Much better to let the State define its own marriages and let religions define their own.

    This system works in most other countries, and I don’t understand why we don’t adopt it in the U.S.

26. Jonathan: There is no chance that the Church can be required to perform or recognize SSM — what the government can do is refuse to recognize Church marriages (which is as unlikely as the States agreeing to distinguish religious from secular marriages) — but there is a substantial likelihood that if SSM were recognized as a fundamental right and the Church, for example, refused to allow students married in a SSM at BYU that it would lose the ability to have federal grant funds for its students, its tax exempt status may well be revoked and government grants could not be obtained by anyone affiliated with any Church school. In addition, it is more than likely that LDS Social Services would be required to place children with SSM couples or lose its State license to perform adoptions altogether as occurred in Massachussetts with Catholic Adoption Services. These are fairly alarming possibiliites.

    However, as I stated it appears that there is unanimity in the State courts at least that SSM is not a fundamental right. Thus, none of these untoward consequences is likely as the law is now being interpreted.

27. I think the importance of semantics has been largely overlooked in this discussion. Labels are tremendously important in shaping society’s general view of an issue. Elder Oaks’ and Wickman’s repeated use of “same-gender attraction” and “homosexual behavior” stands in stark contrast to general terms which have become so entranched in common vernacular. The notion that an accountable person always maintains control and responsibility of his/her actions gets lost when you label that person gay, and assume that means he/she was (a) born that way, (b) can’t help but engage in homosexual behavior, and (c) anyone who refuses to agree with your semantics is either ignorant, mean-spirited, homophobic, or a latent homosexual. Talk about prejudice…

28. “That pattern is the same for a person that covets someone else’s property and has a strong temptation to steal. It’s the same for a person that is born with a ‘short fuse,’ as we would say of a susceptibility to anger. If they let that susceptibility remain uncontrolled, it becomes a feeling of anger, and a feeling of anger can yield to behavior that is sinful and illegal.”

    The question is how to motivate people not to act on those feelings. Fear won’t stop it – despite fear of prison sentence or capital punishment, thousands of people every year murder. Likewise homosexuals will act on those feelings.

    I don’t for a moment think sexual preference is a choice. I say this simply because I know I could not change my sexual preference and I am sure other people are like me in this matter.

    As one ages in some ways it becomes less difficult to resist the urges. In other ways it becomes more difficult with age – realizing one only has a few youngish or middle-aged years left in which they might be considered reasonably attractive, thus their opportunity for romance of any sort wanes with age – the urgency one feels to have romantic encounters increases – before it is too late.

    Eventually romance is pretty much over – maybe that is the time they should concern themselves with repentance. I don’t think we can assume the Lord will reject people who repent at the age of 60 or beyond, … I mean after all we are told he will accept repentance beyond the veil (baptisms for the dead and all that sort) – so maybe they should save the repentence thing for old age. Those who have no such same sex urges and who have little sex urges at all can be your typical eunuchoid LDS elder.

    Can we over come our urges really? Of course we all have urges but I know a great many LDS who have never had the urge to smoke or drink nor engage in same sex (SS) encounters. I happen to be one of those that consider the idea of SS nauseating – luckily. I know many LDS who really have great desires to go on missions or do missionary work – perhaps this is genetic too.

    I have read research by experts, which actually made it into TIME magazine in the past year that there is a recently discovered genetic tendency for religion – so while many “good” LDS may smugly debate SS attraction and other weaknesses for which they have no desire themselves – they might do well to consider that there strong religous fervor is merely more genetics at play. They are simply the result of their DNA – no stronger or no weaker than the alcoholic, the felony assault criminal or the homosexual. They simply have urges and act upon them and for now, their religiosity is socially acceptable in some circles.

29. I myself am for SSM – to each his own. Love is very hard to find – most LDS straight marriages fail. So if someone finds it, more power to them.

    Also there are a ton of unadopted orphans. I have personally had 2 friends that were orphans. Growing up in a SSM would be better than growing up in an orphanage.

30. I hope the church can somehow modify its stance so that while it will never be really accepting of anyone that is not a conservative Republican heterosexual in society, it can somehow find a way to be tolerant enough to give them some freedom.

    By being so condemning of homosexuality, they drive it underground and that causes problems. The rock throwing makes them duck for cover.

    The problem with that can best be exemplified by what happened to some friends of mine. A young man I knew in Arizona, married a young woman in the AZ temple. They had 4 children. They were married 10 years before he admitted in a marital counseling session that he had struggled with SS attraction and over the 10 years of their marriage had numerous encounters of a SS nature. Of course they divorced – luckily she and he kids have tested negative for AIDS etc.

    However if the church had been perhaps a bit more tolerant he would have felt comfortable to admit this early on, and not wreck havoc on the lives of his wife and kids. I mean seriously, any of them could have been born with or gotten AIDS or something else.

    Instead because he knew the church hates (I am not going to mince words, sorry, we could say junk about how they hate the sin and love the sinner but the reality is Church hates homosexuals), and since he knew his very own people would hatehim and judge him he kept it a secret and tried to live the “perfect” Mormon life. This if course is impossible – and after a decade of faking it, he revealed himself as the closetted homosexual he was. How wonderful it would be if he had felt enough love and tolerance in the church that he could have been honest with himself and others, and kept all this heartache from happening by trying to fake a “good” marriage all those years.

    Ironically he seemed the perfect Mormon guy before marriage. Never had a law of chastity problem anyone knew of (but then again NCMO and the sort with Mormon girls was not a temptation). He never kissed his wife until they were at the alter in the temple – just like Spencer W. Kimball suggests in the book MIRACLE OF FORGIVENESS (makes you wonder about that admonition as well as Kimballs statement that tongue kissing is like unto fornication). Anyone who seems to perfect has something wrong with them – no doubt about it.

31. Any attempt to change the definition of marriage DOES affect me and my grandchildren:

    Marriage is the legal, social, economic and spiritual union of a man and a woman. One man and one woman are necessary for a valid marriage. If that definition is radically altered then anything is possible. There is no logical reason for not letting several people marry, or for eliminating other requirements, such as minimum age, blood relative status or even the limitation of the relationship to human beings. Those who are trying to radically redefine marriage laws for their own purposes are the ones who are trying to impose their values on the rest of the population. Those citizens opposed to any change in marriage statutes are merely defending the basic morality that has sustained the culture for everyone against a radical attack.

    When same-sex couples seek our approval and all the benefits that the state reserves for married couples, they impose the law on everyone. According non-marital relationships the same status as marriage would mean that millions of people would be disenfranchised by their own governments. The state or nation would be telling them that their beliefs are no longer valid, and would turn the civil rights laws into a battering ram against them.

    Law is not a suggestion, as George Washington observed, “it is force”. An official state sanction of same-sex relationships as “marriage” would bring the full apparatus of the state against those who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. I view this as outlawing traditional morality.

    Eliminating one entire sex from an institution defined as the union of the two sexes is a quantum leap from eliminating racial discrimination, which did not alter the fundamental character of marriage. Marriage reflects the natural moral and social law evidenced the world over. As the late British social anthropologist Joseph Daniel Unwin noted in his study of world civilizations, any society that devalued the nuclear family soon lost what he called “expansive energy,” which might best be summarized as society’s will to make things better for the next generation. In fact, no society that has loosened sexual morality outside of man-woman marriage has survived. Analyzing studies of cultures spanning several thousands of years on several continents, Harvard sociologist Pitirim Sorokin found that virtually all political revolutions that brought about societal collapse were preceded by a sexual revolution in which marriage and family were devalued.

    When marriage loses its unique status, women and children most frequently are the direct victims. Giving same-sex relationships or out-of-wedlock heterosexual couples the same special status and benefits as the marital bond would not be the expansion of a right but the destruction of a principle. If the one-man/one-woman definition of marriage is broken, there is no logical stopping point for continuing the assault on marriage.
    If feelings are the key requirement, then why not let three people marry, or two adults and a child, or consenting blood relatives of any age?

    Marriage-based kinship is essential to stability and continuity. Child abuse is much more prevalent when a living arrangement is not based on kinship. Kinship imparts family names, heritage, and property, secures the identity and commitment of fathers for the sake of the children, and entails mutual obligations to the community.

    The US Supreme Court declared in 1885 that states’ marriage laws must be based on “the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization, the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement.”

32. Romney,
    If I understood your response correctly, you believe that changing the definition of marriage will negatively affect you and your children. Here are your points in a nutshell, as I read them.

    1. The government will require me to believe in SSM.

    You can’t be serious. Has this happened with abortion? Has the government required that you believe in abortion? Has LDS Social Services been compelled to facilitate abortions for its clients? What about the striking down of anti-miscegenation laws? Has the LDS church been forced to perform interracial marriages? Given quotas?

    2. Changing the definition of marriage will contribute to a loosening of sexual morality outside of man-woman marriage, which will result in the downfall of world civilizations.

    Honey, we’re already there. And we did it without SSM. But this is just a slippery-slope argument.

    3. Marriage will become a free-for-all leading to group marriage and incestual marriage.

    Slippery-slope, again.

    4. Child abuse is much more prevalent when a living arrangement is not based on kinship.

    Are you suggesting that all those homosexual couples, who cannot procreate, will be abusing their non-children?

33. 1. Exactly. The Newton Massachusetts schools demand that my children be taught that homosexual relationships are to be celebrated. If I want my children excluded from such teaching, I am arrested

    2. The rise of homosexuallity and the decline of marriage are happening concomitantly, just as occured in Rome, et al.

    3. I agree it is a slippery slope. Where would society stop? Group marriage is being explored in Europe.

    4. There has been only one study done on the topic. (What academic wants to become a pariah in the social sciences by studying the S-S abuse of children?) That study found that one third were being abused, compared with one in 10,000 for natural parents (who were not drug users).

34. 1. Catholic Social Services (the largest Massachusetts adoption agency) has stopped providing adoption services, because the state has said they MUST allow homosexuals to adopt children. Catholic Social Services believes that is morally wrong.

35. Dear Romney B.,

    I am sorry for the disrespect but the ending of your posting #231 made me laugh uncontrollably.

    Do you realize that the US Supreme Court declaration from 1885 that you quote was the justification the US government used for disenfranchising the latter-day saints, imprisoning the President of the Church and many of the Apostles, confiscating all the property of the church, forcing LDS men to abandon their polygamous families, and basically attempt to destroy the Lord’s Kingdom? That Supreme Court statement was explicitly directed to the Church. Don’t you see how your argument goes against the Lord’s directions in D&C 132? Oh, the irony of it all!

36. #226 Blake, this is what you’ve said before: “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.”

    Now you’re saying that “if SSM were recognized as a fundamental right and the Church, for example, refused to allow students married in a SSM at BYU that it would lose the ability to have federal grant funds for its students, its tax exempt status may well be revoked and government grants could not be obtained by anyone affiliated with any Church school.”

    Has there been a situation in which a church suffered these economic setbacks because of what it taught? Or because, say, it only allowed its own members to live in its dorms or attend its schools?

37. “Catholic Social Services (the largest Massachusetts adoption agency) has stopped providing adoption services, because the state has said they MUST allow homosexuals to adopt children. Catholic Social Services believes that is morally wrong.”

    This had nothing to do with SSM.

38. “The Newton Massachusetts schools demand that my children be taught that homosexual relationships are to be celebrated. If I want my children excluded from such teaching, I am arrested”

    Romney, if you complain about evolution being taught in public scools will the government arrest you?

39. 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.

    This is a normative statement, John, and so there’s not much to argue with, as it’s not really an argument. But I would point out that of all the arguments advanced on this thread, your post forces the theological argument feared the most by those who would have the Church change its stance on homosexuality: we believe that homosexual tendencies are exactly like any other sin. Indeed, we believe that homosexuality is the prototypical “natural man” sin. That is, we are asked to limit those impulses which seem inherent or rational or reflexive in favor of what God’s will apparently is. It is for that reason that homosexual tendencies are so often compared to other sinful behavior. To those who struggle with gambling or anger or alcoholism or lack of charity or lack of faith, the feelings are very real, usually fairly reflexive, and in many cases seem quite logical, yet are still against the admonitions of the Lord.

    Now, given that, if you can come up with some reason why I should put homosexuality in its own “special” category, let me know. Certainly it would have to be better than that you love someone or that it’s really hard.

40. I am sorry for the disrespect but the ending of your posting #231 made me laugh uncontrollably.

    Do you realize that the US Supreme Court declaration from 1885 that you quote was the justification the US government used for disenfranchising the latter-day saints, imprisoning the President of the Church and many of the Apostles, confiscating all the property of the church, forcing LDS men to abandon their polygamous families, and basically attempt to destroy the Lord’s Kingdom? That Supreme Court statement was explicitly directed to the Church. Don’t you see how your argument goes against the Lord’s directions in D&C 132? Oh, the irony of it all!

    Or the wisdom of God. Wouldn’t be the first time God tricked Satin.

41. This forums inability to keep comments in order is only overshadowed by my ability to spell. Try it again.

    Do you realize that the US Supreme Court declaration from 1885 that you quote was the justification the US government used for disenfranchising the latter-day saints, imprisoning the President of the Church and many of the Apostles, confiscating all the property of the church, forcing LDS men to abandon their polygamous families, and basically attempt to destroy the Lord’s Kingdom? That Supreme Court statement was explicitly directed to the Church. Don’t you see how your argument goes against the Lord’s directions in D&C 132? Oh, the irony of it all!

    Or the wisdom of God. Wouldn’t be the first time God tricked Satan.

42. Jimbob:

    In response to your post #237… My point–if there was one!–is that there is a difference between loving a human being and, say, loving gambling or loving liquor. Or, there is a difference between loving a human being (and being loved back by that same human being) and, say, raping or sexually molesting a person or a child. Also, I think comparisons with disabilities are not helpful because nobody in the medical world thinks gay people are disabled.

    My experience of my relationship with my partner has been an experience of redemption. Our relationship has had a positive effect on both of us–it has “saved” both of us in significant ways. I believe it has made both of us better people. Furthermore, as I have applied gospel principles of humility and sacrifice within that relationship, we have drawn closer as a couple and I have found myself drawing closer to God. To me this does not feel like sin. On the other hand, after having made a commitment to this man, and after 14 years of building our life together, abruptly cutting him off and abandoning the relationship in order to please straight people would feel like a sin.

    I acknowledge that what we “feel” may not always be what “is.” All the same, it is very painful to hear people compare my love for my partner to bestiality, child molestation, adultery, alcoholism, mental retardation, etc., etc. You know the list. I wish we could deal with these relationships on their own terms, and I wish we could use language to discuss such relationships that don’t amount to name-calling and that respects the reality that same-sex oriented individuals experience in these relationships. That’s all!

    John

43. Of course I understand what precipitated the 1885 Reynolds v U.S. Supreme Court decision. It is the law of the land, and if the present courts were to practice stare decisis (which the Democrats insisted on from the last two Supreme Court nominees), there never would have been a Lawrence v Texas decision, which continued the court’s slippery moral slope of “anything goes”.

    The court’s liberal majority now thinks morality is in the eye of the beholder – a far cry from the Reynolds 1885 decision. Do you think polygamy would be outlawed by those liberals? Justice Scalia doesn’t think so.

    By the way, today’s New York Times has an extensive article on pedophilia. Surprise! The N.Y. Times is opposed to it. Several quotes describe how kinship prevents abuse of one’s biological children. One pedophile married a woman, just so he could prey on her children.

44. John Gustav-Wrathall, and others who have had difficulty with the concept of comparisons, let us remember that because two things are similar in some ways does not mean they are similar in all ways.

    John said, “there is a difference between loving a human being [of the same sex, I assume] and, say, loving gambling or loving liquor.”

    That’s right. They are different. Different in some rather significant ways, I would imagine. However, they are also similar insofar as they all represent desires whose realization have been forbidden to members of the LDS church by God. I think jimbob is correct in saying that we have yet to be shown how SSA is fundamentally different than the others. “Love” doesn’t cut it. Love is still a desire, even if on a higher plane than the others.

    “Also, I think comparisons with disabilities are not helpful because nobody in the medical world thinks gay people are disabled.”

    For the record, there’s no indication that Elder Wickman thinks that either.

45. Dear Romney,

    I am still confused as to the point you are trying to make. You seem to be shifting towards a rant about politics and the Supreme Court instead of discussing the issue of same sex attraction as we have been doing. Are you saying that the Supreme Court determines the will of the Lord? If you are OK with the Supreme Court defining marriage as they did in their 1885 decision and rejecting our right to practice polygamy as the Lord commanded, why would you not also be OK with the Lawrence decision? You already gave the Supreme Court the authority to define marriage when you quoted the 1885 decision in support of your argument. It is not appropriate to now state that their current interpretations of marriage are incorrect. If you accept the Lord’s definition of marriage, then you must admit that the Supreme Court had no right to define marriage back in 1885 because the Lord had already defined it as the patriarchal order.

    Just looking for some consistency please.

    Thanks.

46. Jimbob:

    After rereading your post, I caught the point I missed in my first response.

    I agree with you that something “feeling” right to the natural man is not an argument that it is not a sin.

    However, I’m not talking about something feeling right to the “natural man,” I’m talking about something feeling right in the light of Christ, or in the light of conscience. I know what sin feels like because I’ve committed plenty of sins. I know what sexual sin feels like because I’ve committed sexual sins. I know how my conscience feels when I do those things, regardless of how satisfying an activity might be in the “natural” sense.

    What I experience with my partner in the context of our mutual commitment does not feel like any of that. I’m open to discussing why that might be, and exactly what that might mean…

    Part of the problem is that much of how gay folks experience their sexual orientation simply does not make sense within the framework most folks discuss it in the church. For instance, the predominant paradigm for decades was that we “chose” to be gay. Never, ever made the least bit of sense to those of us who experience it. Now, finally–and Elder Oaks and Elder Wickman’s interview is testimony to this–the church is finally actually listening to what gay folks have been saying for decades: we didn’t choose this.

    This is why drawing attention to language is important. Inappropriate analogies confuse the issue of exactly what homosexuality is; which in turn confuses discussion about what an appropriate response to it is. In addition to the fact that demeaning language hurts… It adds to an already heavy set of burdens the church expects gay folks to bear.

    John

47. John (246),

    I know you’re in a committed homosexual relationship, so please try not to take offense here, as none is intended: I’m willing to use whatever terminology you want to use so long as we don’t disguise the belief we’ve held for millenia that homosexual sex is sinful. I would hate for us to bend so far in our nomenclature so that that anyone could be confused about what standards of behavior we believe God is holding is to.

48. Eric:

    “Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will be done away with. Where there are various languages, they will cease. Where there is knowledge, it will be done away with. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part; but when that which is complete has come, then that which is partial will be done away with. When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I felt as a child, I thought as a child. Now that I have become a man, I have put away childish things. For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I will know fully, even as I was also fully known. But now faith, hope, and love remain-these three. The greatest of these is love.”

    I’m very interested in having a discussion about exactly how “love is just another desire, though on a higher plane.” Love is precisely why I think easy categorizations and sloppy analogies won’t do in discussing this difficult topic. Love is exactly why much of the sin discourse just doesn’t resonate with most gay folks…

    I have been drawn back to the LDS faith by the whisperings of the Spirit… I’ve published an account of this in the latest issue of Sunstone. The Spirit communicated to me a powerful sense of the love of God; that’s what’s made it possible for me to contemplate returning to a church in which I experienced so much anguish at one point that I almost committed suicide. As I have listened to and followed the Spirit, I have experienced a refinement of exactly what Christ-like love means in the context of my relationship with my partner. I have had a growing sense that the primary task of this existence–the task it will take most of us our entire lives to get right–is to discern the path that is most loving.

    That’s why I think when we are talking about love between two human beings; when we are talking about a love that has been put to the test in very significant ways, a love that has proven itself in spite of social stigma, hate, legal discrimination, and the harshest kinds of condemnation from high places; when we are talking about a love that, nevertheless, nurtures, gives hope, sustains people through trials and grows and evolves; that’s why YES, I think this calls us to pause and consider how a relationship that shares all of these characteristics doesn’t quite fit within the conventional framework of sin.

    As you say, saying something is “similar” is not to say it is the same. What I am saying is that the differences are worth discussing, because they are very, very important differences especially in the context of a faith that says love is the highest virtue.

    John

49. Jimbob:

    I appreciate your sensitivity.

    I find it helpful to focus on what we know about marriage based on scripture and church teaching. I acknowledge that the LDS church currently does not recognize same-sex relationships, no matter how committed, as valid. That kind of terminology is, I think accurate, without being hurtful.

    I also find it helpful to focus on people’s real-life experience. I think it is important to consider that much of what has been said about homosexuality in past discussions doesn’t fit very well with how gay people experience it. A lot of straight folks assume they know what we go through, and they don’t have a clue. So listening to what real people have to say is also very important.

    I acknowledge that even when we listen carefully and are sensitive about terminology, we won’t always agree. Though I hope that by opening discussion in this way folks can begin to find areas of agreement.

    For instance, I am still open to considering that–despite everything positive I get from my relationship with my partner–that it is not a relationship that can exist in the eternities. If that is the truth, the choices available to me are still very difficult. Even living a life of celibacy still means that I am not following church teaching that says marriage is the only way to prepare for exaltation. My point is that if you are gay, no matter what choices you make, you face some difficulty.

    One thing I’m interested in discussing is how do we MAXIMIZE faithfulness, regardless of where a person is in life? Celibacy will impossible for the majority. Most gay folks, faced with nothing but the prospect of celibacy have left the church in despair, feeling that there was no hope for them; this despair has in turn pushed folks into incredibly destructive behavior. Perhaps the most loving course for a person is to enter into a committed relationship that helps protect us from promiscuity and from disease. And then to strive in every other way to be as faithful as we can.

    Again, love is key… Love for real people who are trying to make difficult choices in their lives… As well as love between people. No one seems to want to acknowledge that the love between me and my partner is actually a good thing. I experience it as very good.

    John

50. My point is that if you are gay, no matter what choices you make, you face some difficulty.

    I would imagine it to be the hardest things to live with, except perhaps mental illness. Imagine not being able to control parts of your mind. Current theory is that genetics plays a large role in schizophrenia.

51. RAF (#77)–

    “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.”

    I came late to this thread, which is clearly nearing its end. But I still want to point out the following statement from Sheri Dew, which struck me at the time as being remarkably honest, and strikes me now as exactly what RAF is looking for:

    As someone who has remained unmarried two-and-a-half decades beyond a traditional marriageable age, I know something about the challenge of chastity. It is not always easy, but it is far easier than the alternative. Chastity is much easier than regret or the loss of self-respect, than the agony of breaking covenants, than struggling with shallow and failed relationships. This is not to say there are never temptations. Even at forty-six, having long ago decided how I wanted to live my life, I have to be careful all the time. There are things I simply cannot watch, cannot read, cannot listen to because they trigger thoughts and instincts that drive the Spirit away and that edge me too close to the moral line. But those supposed sacrifices are well worth it.

    You can read the entire speech here.

52. John, the scripture which you quote refers to agape. The love which you then begin to talk about is eros. Two entirely different things. One doesn’t need to have a personal, romantic feelings towards another in order to have agape love towards them, the love which Jesus commands of us and the love which Paul refers to.

    If agape and eros were the same thing, then Jesus’ command to “love one another” would be a rather difficult prospect.

53. Eric:

    I understand the difference between eros and agape… The kind of love I was speaking about in the context of my relationship with my partner is agape.

    We have all heard at least a thousand times about the difference between the love that draws a couple together (eros) and the love that keeps them together (agape); the difference between the love that is essentially self-centered and about fulfilling one’s own needs, and the love that is essentially other-oriented and that inspires to sacrifice. The Christian marital ideal says that in marriage these two types of love should be united.

    In fact, in marriage these two types of love are not just united, they are blended. In a marital relationship they become the same love. Agape, like eros, can be a love that yearns for the beloved; which is why the Song of Solomon works as a metaphor for the kind of love God experiences for us, and for the kind of love that we return to God. It is also why marriage is so frequently used in the Old Testament as a metaphor for the relationship between God and his people.

    This is also, for me, why the LDS concept of eternal marriage rings fundamentally true. Essentially in light of what Pauls says in 1 Corinthians 13 about the only thing enduring in the eternities being love. Even the greatest spiritual gifts in this life–tongues, prophecy, healings, etc.–will not endure, but love will. This is why it will not be enough for someone to be sealed in the temple for their marriage to be eternal. Unless their marriage is based on the eternal foundation of love it cannot last.

    I do not know if the love within a heterosexual couple feels the same to them as it does to me and my partner. Heck, I don’t even fully know how my partner experiences our love for each other. I only know what I personally feel. But what I can say is that when people talk in a Christian context about the ideal of Christian love within marriage, that those words ring true to me, they seem to describe the kind of relationship I have with my partner.

    On the other hand, when people speak about same-sex love and same-sex commitments as if there’s nothing but raw lust there–as if we somehow are capable only of eros but never of agape in our relationships, it simply does not ring true. That’s just not how my partner and I relate to each other! If it were, I don’t know how we would have managed to keep a 14 year commitment that we envision enduring at least until death. When folks characterize our relationship in this way as an excuse for discrimination, or to imply that we are somehow inherently flawed, evil, or inferior, it hurts us.

    John

54. Another thing that rings true, Eternal Judgement. We love the idea of mercy(I know I do), but for mercy to be even an issue the justice of God must be real. Living a life based on the idea of moral homosexual actions is shaky at best.

55. Just a note:

    jimbob wrote:

    …so long as we don’t disguise the belief we’ve held for millenia that homosexual sex is sinful.

    I found this wording to be interesting. Who’s the “we” who have believed anything for millenia? I’m willing to venture that few, if any, of those reading this board (with the possible exception of John the Beloved and the Three Nephites) has done anything for more than about a hundred years, let alone for millenia.

    I would hate for us to bend so far in our nomenclature so that that anyone could be confused about what standards of behavior we believe God is holding is to.

    As I understand John Gustav-Wrathall’s point, what we are discussing is precisely what the standards of behavior God will hold us to, and discussing it from the perspective of significant gospel themes, such as love and charity. Assuming the answer without engaging in discussion won’t lead to anything other than the predetermined answer. If you don’t want to discuss, okay. Don’t.

    I’m interested, though, in hearing John’s experience (and MikeInWeHo’s, and Chris Williams’, and D. Fletcher’s, and all of the experiences of my other friends and acquaintances who are gay or lesbian). It seems to me that condemning something without understanding it is a pretty unjust way of conducting myself.

    So I often prefer to gather more information — especially about situations where I’m asked by people I respect to take actions to prevent others whom I respect from achieving what they tell me would make them happy. I want to know why I should interfere with another’s pursuit of happiness. While I think that Elder Oaks and Elder Wickman admirably articulated a very different and much more healthy and non-harming stance toward gays and lesbians than the Church has promulgated previously, the position they have identified still entails blocking some people’s pursuit of happiness. And they didn’t really tell me why my pursuit of happiness would be compromised by allowing my brothers and sisters their pursuit of their own happiness.

    As I noted (a long ways) above, they identified no real harms to my happiness that would result from allowing same-sex marriage.

56. Catholic Social Services (the largest Massachusetts adoption agency) has stopped providing adoption services, because the state has said they MUST allow homosexuals to adopt children. Catholic Social Services believes that is morally wrong.”

    This had nothing to do with SSM.

    My understanding is that if sexual orientation wasn’t protected by the law in some way in Massachusetts, this would not have been an issue for Catholic Social Services’ adoption policies. Did you read that article? Maybe you could explain why you think that was unrelated to SSM so I can understand your point of view.

57. Even living a life of celibacy still means that I am not following church teaching that says marriage is the only way to prepare for exaltation.

    John, I appreciate you sharing your perspective. My heart goes out for you with the challenges of balancing your life and love with the doctrine we are taught in the Church.

    Might I just interject with the clarification that marriage is most certainly not the only way to prepare for exaltation. Church teachings are actually very clear on that. There are many, many people who don’t have the opportunity to marry in this life. What we are taught allows for exaltation is obedience to God’s law and righteousness.

58. Even living a life of celibacy still means that I am not following church teaching that says marriage is the only way to prepare for exaltation.

    John, I appreciate you sharing your perspective. My heart goes out for you with the challenges of balancing your life and love with the doctrine we are taught in the Church.

    Might I just interject with the clarification that marriage is most certainly not the only way to prepare for exaltation. Church teachings are actually very clear on that. There are many, many people who don’t have the opportunity to marry in this life. What we are taught allows for exaltation is obedience to God’s law and righteousness.

59. maybe balancing wasn’t the right word…reconciling? I dunno…I hope you know what I was trying to say…I appreciate you sharing the struggle as you think through what you feel and experience and also what the Church teaches. Best to you.

60. re: 233 Gays are 3000x more likely to abuse their children? Oh dear. It was bad enough that we destroyed Rome and reduced the legroom in coach. Now this!

    But seriously, such hate talk has no place in an interesting and useful conversation like this. There are some pretty grotesque things published by groups like United Families, and I’m disappointed that nobody has confronted Romney earlier in this string. As a gay parent, I will not sit back and let Romney and his ilk commit such libel without a vigorous response. It won’t stop them, of course, but it’s the right thing to do nonetheless. I hope that enough people of good will (regardless of opinion on SSM) shine light on them, so all can see they are in the same dank corner as the Holocaust-deniers, racists, and other fearful haters.

    Thanks for asking, greenfrog. Fortunately, Oaks and Wickman, et. al. have not been empowered by God or Law to block anyone’s pursuit of happiness. It’s easy enough to just ignore them. I’m saddened that my partner and I can’t be fully married here in CA yet (although our domestic partnership comes very close), but the truth is that there are large parts of the country where people like me can just ignore this debate and get on with life. I blog here because it keeps me sharp and reminds me that not everyone lives in a progressive enclave. My family and I are doing just fine! I do feel badly for these people in places like rural Utah, who often feel trapped and hopeless. Many believe that lie, and suffer needlessly.

61. M&M, “My understanding is that if sexual orientation wasn’t protected by the law in some way in Massachusetts, this would not have been an issue for Catholic Social Services’ adoption policies. Did you read that article? Maybe you could explain why you think that was unrelated to SSM so I can understand your point of view”

    Yes, you are correct that it was related to sexual orientation. But the culprit was not SSM, although the legalization of SSM brought gay couples into the spotlight and under the notice of the Catholic bishops, who felt that it was immoral to place children with homosexuals. The real reason that the bishops decided to halt adoptions was because of anti-discrimination legislation put into effect a decade earlier. SSM had no direct effect on the adoption agency. The Catholic Charities had been placing children with same-sex couples for many years, both before the anti-discrimination legislation and before SSM became legal in Massachusetts. Had SSM never been permitted in the state, the Catholic Charities, being licensed and funded by the state, would still have to comply with the anti-discrimination law. The Catholic bishops decided that they would rather cease adoptions altogether than place children with gay couples.

62. Greenfrog (255):

    I keep hearing that I in order to condemn I must understand, but I have no idea what that means. And I don’t think you do either. How much do I need to know about homosexuality before I agree with the prophets that it’s sinful? Do I need to be a sociologist in all cases in order to disagree with someone’s acts? Should I investigate every sin in such depth? Or, again, is homosexuality in a “special” category because many people love each other? Can’t I just condemn it because the Lord has asked me to?

    Moreover, this comment seems inappropriate on a board where we assume most know the doctrines of the restoration:

    I found this wording to be interesting. Who’s the “we” who have believed anything for millenia? I’m willing to venture that few, if any, of those reading this board (with the possible exception of John the Beloved and the Three Nephites) has done anything for more than about a hundred years, let alone for millenia.

    I assumed that most readers understood that we, as the Church, believe the Church is the resotration of the original church of Christ, and that therefore Elijah, Moses and Adam are also fathers of our Church, thus taking us back millenia. We also believe that this doctrine spans the whole of that time. All of that seems fairly rudimentary Mormon doctrine. Accordingly, if I didn’t know better, I would say you were playing dumb so as to make me an offender for a word. And I hope that’s not true, because it seems awfully petty.

63. Jimbob, I thought Greenfrog was pointing out the fact that many doctrines and ethical practices have changed over time, and thus disagreeing with the ‘millenia’ comment earlier. I don’t think he was trying to take a swipe at you or your comment.

64. I wouldn’t try to justify myself to anyone, just as I am not in a position to judge anyone else. The best any of us can do is to bring our petitions to God, and live the best we can according to our conscience and according to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. To the extent I have done so, I have received an outpouring of love through the Holy Spirit, and am content that the path I am on is the path I need to be on, even though that path is sometimes painful and clouded by doubt.

    I am not sure that it is our place to “resolve” these issues; that is delegated to the leaders–specifically the prophet and the 12 apostles–who are appointed to receive revelations for the whole church. My only hope is that by discussing issues and by listening to each other’s stories that folks have an opportunity to try to understand someone else in a way they might not have understood before.

    I can’t stress enough how painful this issue is for so many people–both gay folks and those nearest and dearest to them, parents, siblings, former spouses, children… Most of the folks labeled as outcasts and sinners are folks who have honestly and courageously tried to follow the church’s teachings and have simply not been able to. Suicide has taken a huge toll on gay Mormons, because none of the options presented to us leave us much hope. Life-long loneliness is not what I would call a “hopeful” option for most folks. Unthinking condemnation by members of the church leaves us feeling even more fragmented, heartbroken and hopeless…

    It’s hard for me to read a lot of the comments on this thread without a deep sense of pain. Too much condemnation and not enough understanding.

65. If LDS-ism continues to believe in additional revelation, then many here would do well to be open to that prospect, rather than pontificating about what has “always” been true, or what has been “believed for millennia.”

    While many here prefer to dismiss the words of church leaders as recorded in the Journal of Discourses, they would seem to be at least as valid as position statements of their time, as Ensign articles by general authorities today. Here’s an interesting statement by Brigham Young, about what has “always” been, and what “always” shall be “the law of God.”

    “Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.” (Journal of Discourses, Vol.10, p.109)

    Now, I don’t suspect that any active LDS are going to run out and start killing those involved in mixed-racial marriages. Why? Because you’ll dismiss Brigham Young’s words as provincial and as the product of his times.

    The question is, what makes you so certain that you won’t read the current “interview” in the same way, a few decades down the road, when it becomes an embarassment to the LDS church, and has to be downplayed as “not scripture?”

66. Nick,
    I am not sure. I guess I’m not as clairvoyant about the future and what the public view and necessary change has to be either.

67. Nick,

    I suppose your analogy would be more useful if you could show me where, since time immemorial, mixed-race marriages were banned as doctrine. To the contrary, I can think of at least a dozen important marriages of mixed race where the Lord furthered his purposes, suggesting that any such prohibition would be temporary in nature, and have a practical reason. Ruth comes to mind, for example.

    Conversely, I can’t think of even one homosexual union in scripture sanctioned or allowed by the Lord, ever (stretching back several “millenia”). And indeed, there is frequent “condemnation” (sorry John) of the practice throughout the Bible and modern revelation. In fact, I’ve never seen any wavering on the issue (although there have been changes on how to deal with it). Not to mention, if we changed this doctrine, we’d probably have to change several other bedrock doctrines of the Restored Gospel: the law of chastity, eternal marriage, and the definition of progression all come to mind.

    In sum, I think you’re using the example of a policy change as a suggestion that a doctrinal change is possible. I’m not arguing that it couldn’t happen–we do believe in continuing revelation–but I just can’t think of why the Lord would reverse field on what He seems to have established over and over and over again (over several “millenia” and dispensations). Can you? And if so, why spend so much effort establishing it as a doctrine?

68. The Moabites, of which Ruth was one, allegedly descended from Lot, a nephew of Abraham. Therefore, the marriage was not interracial. It was merely “intertribal,” for lack of a better term. An example of interracial marriage would be some of the later marriages of Solomon, to which were attributed much of his downfall.

    I think you are avoiding the discomfort of contradictory “revelations” by ascribing Brigham Young’s comment to the status of a mere “policy statement.” That’s one heck of a strong “policy statement,” if so!

    Notwithstanding certain semi-official statements to the contrary, a great deal of change has taken place in LDS doctrine (not just policy) over the past 176 years. A great deal of it took place in the 1890s. Now, we are seeing another “rush” of the same. For example, while Bruce R. McConkie had to travel to BYU and set students straight by telling them that LDS do *not* worship Christ, you can now find several LDS media sources (including the film of Gordon B. Hinckley now shown at the visitor’s center at Sharon, Vermont) which emphatically state “we worship Christ.” Plural marriage has become “not doctrinal,” rather than just suspended. “As man is, God once was” has become “just a little couplet, notwithstanding that Joseph Smith said it was true.

    Now, this “interview” adds yet another entirely new doctrine, which is odd, considering only the president of the church is supposed to have that authority. Show me a single revelation, authoritative statement, etc., that has EVER said before that homosexuality did not exist prior to this life, and will not exist in the life to come. You can stretch and twist the Proclamation on the Family to get there, but the Procolamation says that GENDER is eternal, not sexual orientation (both of which are entirely different issues, notwithstanding the “interview’s” repeated confusion between the two). This is not “policy.” This is “doctrine,” which is being authoritatively stated in a press release “interview,” by one who doesn’t happen to hold the keys to pronounce new doctrine. Interesting……

69. Nat,
    If you feel that my comment “denigrated” the Church or its leaders, then I think you misunderstood it entirely. I quoted Brigham Young. Granted, I quoted him making a statement that most LDS would find embarassing today. That was the point, however. Mormonism does *not* teach prophetic infalliability, regardless of what many may tend to think. Brigham Young made a statement that was either (a) the will of God which later changed, or (b) just plain wrong. I was pointing out, Nat, that someday, LDS may look at the current statements on homosexuality in much the same way. A revelation may change the doctrine, for example.

    Now, if you want to discuss “denigration,” perhaps you can explain why you felt a proper discussion tactic was to publicly accuse me of leaving my wife and the church to live a “gay lifestyle” (whatever the heck that cliche means). I most certainly DID leave an extremely dishonest, unloving, lacking in integrity, SINFUL situation. I most certainly DID choose to be true to myself, in spite of how I knew some would view my actions. As a result, I have greater peace of mind, and even joy, than I can ever remember. That doesn’t mean my life is perfect, but it is better.

    I understand that you believe I am a sinner, Nat, and that you believe, for whatever reason, that others should be warned of my wicked nature. Do you do the same thing in regard to adulterers? Do you “out” the heterosexual men who have had sex outside their marriages? Do you “out” the gay men who, having made the mistake of heterosexual marriage, are cheating on their wives (no, I didn’t)? Where is your line, Nat?

70. Nick (269),

    (1) In the sense you’re speaking of, we’re all different tribes and there is no interracial marriage, because we all descended from Adam. That’s really splitting hairs. If it makes you feel better, pick Moses’ marriage to the Egyptian (although that goes back to Noah, so maybe that’s too close for you). Apparently the Lord was okay with that, and even plauged Moses’ sister for critizing it.

    (2) I am ascribing BY’s statement as policy. Certainly David O. McKay thought so. And I agree it was a strong policy statement (although I’m not going to use an exclamation point to say so).

    (3) Your third paragraph seems to be more about semantical and definitional issues, rather than actual changes in doctrine. Moreover, I have yet to hear “plural marriage” as not doctrinal. In fact, I read from D&C 132 just last week in SS. Apparently we haven’t redacted it.

    (4) I think the real problem is not that you haven’t heard the things in your last paragraph, it’s that you want President Hinckley to state them in bullet-point fashion in conference before you’ll accept them. Maybe that works for you, but in Ward Conference last week I sustained E. Oaks as a prophet, so I’m not at liberty to do the same.

71. Again, Nat, you misunderstood what I was saying. The “anti-Mormon” use you refer to would be to say “Brigham Young said _____, therefore, Brigham Young was a false prophet.” I didn’t say that, did I? Nor did I say that it cast any aspersions upon later prophets. All I was trying to say, Nat, was that if you believe in continuing revelation, you have to be awfully careful how dogmatic you get about how things “always” have been and “always” will be. Some people, caught up in that trap, actually left the LDS church after the revelation allowing ordination of all worthy men without regard to race, because they were fixated on what “always” had been, and “always” would be.

72. Jimbob, you make some good points, particularly in regard to Moses’ marriage to an Ethiopian woman. I always took it that Miriam was cursed for criticizing Moses (in the sense that he was God’s anointed), but I can see your way of looking at it is also perfectly legitimate.

    With regard to Elder Oaks being the mouthpiece, and that you sustained him: Yes, each member of the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency are sustained as “prophets, seers, and revelators.” That does not make them equal in authority, however. If you do some checking, I believe you will find that the statements of members of the Twelve are only “authoritative” if made unanimously, by the quorum as a whole. The same goes for counsellors in the First Presidency. Only the president of the church holds the *active* keys to pronounce the doctrine of the church. In this particular case, something quite new in doctrine has been pronounced, and it has been done by an individual member of the Twelve. That is an unusual practice. Arguably, it is not binding, but it is still surprising that such a bold statement would be made in such a way. It’s not just restating existing doctrine. It’s new material.

73. Nick, as one of the permabloggers here, I would like to welcome you to the blog. We believe in free discourse and conversation, and so far nothing you have written deserves to be deleted. It is worth pointing out, however, that we do have a comments policy that is pretty different than other blogs. We’re really not interested in debating the foundational bases of the Church here. We take that as a given. If you would like to debate foundational issues, you are free to take those to one of the many (many!) other blogs that discuss those issues. I think that was the point Nat was trying to make.

    Nat, even though Nick’s sexuality may be open in other fora, it’s not something I know about (or really care about, frankly). I would ask you not to bring up such issues unless the poster makes it an issue (as some other posters have done on this thread).

74. Thank you, Geoff, for the clarification. It wasn’t my intention to argue foundational issues, but I can see how that could be the impression. Please accept my apologies to the extent I drifted beyond the established framework here.

    Don’t be too hard on Nat. He is well aware that I am publicly “out,” and quite unashamed about it. My comments to him were directed at his motive in raising it, not an objection to him doing so.

75. I’d like to take this opportunity to set to rest the old canard that anti-Mormons and ex-Mormons love to throw out there, which is to complain about all of the changes that have happened in the Church since 1830 and therefore claim the Church lacks true revelation and is just responding to societal pressures. This is an old game that antis love to play, but of course they look at the evidence very selectively. If you study the scriptures carefully, you will see that revelations from God change through time. Moses, for example, was given different revelations than Joshua. So, as a continuation of this practice, we have prophets in the 19th century who were given different revelations than prophets today. Let me give a few examples that anti-Mormons don’t like to notice because it hurts their argument. In the 19th century, you didn’t have to be a full tithe payer or obey the word of wisdom to go to the temple. Today, you have to. So in many ways the rules for membership have become more strict, not less, and in ways that go against societal trends rather than in favor of them.

    Anti-Mormons and many members of the bloggernacle love to claim that because the Church is not really revelatory, it is only a matter of time until it gives up its “antiquated” policies against the promotion of homosexuality and SSM. It is of course possible that a prophet may decide not to oppose SSM some time in the future, but to make such a specious argument you have to ignore the repeated pronouncements by the Church on this matter. If you actually study the history of this issue, you have to admit that Church is becoming more firmly against SSM and the promotion of homosexuality and not less so over time. This interview gives members a lot of talking points on the issue at a time when society is increasingly losing its way and accepting false arguments from deceivers. This interview, like all public affairs pronouncements, was almost certainly reviewed by the First Presidency before its placement on the official Church web site, http://www.lds.org.

    It is worth pointing out that the history prior to the 1978 revelation was very different than what we are seeing now. There was a clear decline in Church pronouncements on that issue before the revelation was released. There were certainly not a series of aggressive public releases affirming the priesthood ban before the 1978 revelation. It is clear, by comparison, that the Church is making its position extremely clear: the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is opposed to SSM and the promotion of homosexuality. This is the official position of the Church and this position has been made painstakingly plain.

    This is not to say that there are not small nuances of the Brethrens’ opinions that may have changed over time. Some of the posters above have noted areas where the Church may have supported civil unions in the past but now appears to be opposed. There are other examples.

    If I were a betting man, I would bet a lot of money that the Church will not be abandoning its opposition to SSM and the promotion of homosexuality anytime soon.

76. Nick and Nat need to take their interaction somewhere else. These last few entries are off-topic and border on inappropriate.

77. Nat, let me guess, you’re a lawyer, right?

    Let me be very, very clear. If you don’t stick to the topic of this thread rather than picking nits with me and Nick (say that five times fast, “picking nits with me and Nick,”), your comments will be deleted. Thank you.

78. #254 – “Living a life based on the idea of moral homosexual actions is shaky at best” and it is also not even close to Celestial the very least!

    Ok, time to rant here…anyone here that has tried to equate a life of moral homosexuality with actual “love”, or agape as some have preferred to use here, is full of what Elder Wickman refers to as ‘Sophistry’. Let’s face the facts that in terms of hindering God’s plan for all his children that we come to this earth through sacred procreative powers between a man and a woman, not ever a man and a man, or woman and a woman, homosexual relations ranks right at the top of those hinderers. Forget semantics, syntax, or finite mortal legal ease, it hinders God’s plan for his children. I am not sure if I care that it has seemed to ‘redeem’ some people by having a moral homosexual relationship, this is again ‘sophistry’ because no matter how much you try and justify this sort of thing as being right in your own eyes, you are still a hinderment to God’s plan for his children. I don’t think that trying to justify this entire correct moral homosexual behavior thing by telling us we need to listen to ‘real’ people and their stories works neither because the only thing real about these lives is that they hinder God’s plan through sacred pro-creative powers! So, let me tell you a real story of real people that are actualy real members of the church and that is that I love my wife and I know not only by the love of God for me and my wife, but because i feel the Spirit when Prophets and Apostles speak about temple marriage between a man and woman that this is right and the highest form of growth that we can have in this life! That is a real person’s story about moral heterosexuality and it works both in this mortal existence and in God’s presence just because he said so! Perhaps homosexuality works for some of you out here in this mortal existence, but if for one moment you think that God is going to grant you exaltation through mercy because “you were born that way”, or because “you couldn’t deny those feelings”, or for whatever reason, then you have caved into Elder Wickman’s sophistry once again! In closing, I would double Geoff’s bet that the church is not going to change their stance on this mess you’ve gotten yourselves into anytime soon and so continue on ranting and raving and kicking against the pricks because that’s the only church related success you will have in the future on this very nefarious and pernicious permissiveness!!

79. The huge problem here is divorcing sexual intimacy from procreation. An intimate relationship is God’s reward for raising children. (Don’t start all the arguments here for infertile couples, older people etc. they are tedious. ) If sexual pleasure is divorced from procreation then gays and singles certainly have some increased legitimacy in claiming a right to sexual fulfillment. I don’t argue against spacing children nor do I argue against a couple choosing the number of children they can raise -but procreate (or attempt to procreate) they must to legitimize their sexual intimacy.

    Married couples must keep their intimacy on a high plane. I am afraid that for many (especially men) intimacy is seen a a quick release of sexual tension and is frequently not congruent with the needs of their spouse.

    Finally every man and woman needs to enter marriage with the realization that intimacy could end the next day but that the legal union could endure for many years to come and that their chastity is required for the entire time. I believe that as couples age this becomes a reality for many and that our faithfulness in those years of no intimacy sanctifies the intimacy we experienced in the earlier years of our marriages.

80. 73 Mr. Barney You need sexual intimacy like you need air to breathe? Does your wife understand that if she is no longer able to participate in marital intimacy that you are going to suffocate? Is your marriage conditional upon her ability to participate?

81. Re 277:

    You know it’s an important point if lots of exclamation points are used, particularly when more than one are used at once.

82. …the only thing real about these lives is that they hinder God’s plan through sacred pro-creative powers…

    I’ll make a note to advise the Lord when I see Him next that He got His priorities wrong in the Sermon on the Mount.

83. georgeD #280, keep reading. I clarified what I meant in later comments.

84. greenfrog,

    Your comment implies you think the Sermon on the Mount was a priority list from the Lord. I do not think you can really say that.

    It is my understanding that the sermon on the mount is about denying oneself and living a higher law. Our will is what God wants us to sacrifice and replace with his will; the reward being a much better life and grace. The unwillingness to deny onself implies one is not fit for the kingdom.

    Instead of don’t do these physical actions, the message is don’t even do the actions of the heart that lead to those physical actions. Adultery and lust being an example, murder and anger without cause being another.

85. Is the view that sex is a “reward” for childrearing scriptural? Where does that notion come from?

86. I believe you will have great difficulty supporting your argument that according to LDS, sexual intimacy is a reward for raising children. That idea contradicts many statements by the leaders of the church, which have repeatedly stated that one of the very purposes of sexual intimacy is to strengthen the bonds between a couple, i.e. to increase intimacy.

    I realize that you find arguments about infertile couples and older persons “tedious,” but they are entirely relevant here. According to your view of the proper place of sexual intimacy, infertile couples should cease sexual intimacy, not having “earned” that “reward.” This is the same logical mistake that the Washington Supreme Court recently made, when it concluded that marriage was, in essence, a breeding program. Such a viewpoint, in order to be logical and consistent, must exclude infertile persons from marriage and sexual intimacy.

    Your theory would also necessitate that couples cease to have sexual relations during pregnancy, since such relations could not result in procreation, and would be “merely” for sexual pleasure.

    What does it mean, in your mind, for a committed couple to “keep their intimacy on a higher plane?” From your context, it would appear that you believe a couple must limit sexual intimacy to the purposes of procreation. Again, this directly contradicts the teachings of church leaders.

    Further, why would a time without sexual intimacy “sanctify” the sexual intimacy that preceded it? Sexual intimacy is sacred in itself, and need not be “sanctified” or “legitimized” by anything else. Sexual pleasure is holy. To think otherwise is to buy into false traditions that sexual intimacy is “dirty” or “a necessary evil.”

87. Geoff #275,
    I concur with you, but my take is a bit different. I think there are cases in all organizations when outside pressure/criticism generates internal reform, but when someone, like some antis, then criticize the reform they may have inspired, they are dealing from the bottom of the deck and reveal their true motivations. Jesus dealt with such duplicitous types frequently.

    I’ll also quibble with your apparent implication that “revelations” sort of drop from the sky in a vacuum and those who believe otherwise somehow lack faith. Putting aside whether the past priesthood ban was a bigoted and uninspired error (I think it was), in the case of a “revelation” reversing an earlier policy, it’s only after the present church authority(s) being frustrated by the old policy and having studied the matter and weighed possible courses of action and made some tentative decisions, that they present their intentions to the Lord and seek confirmation that the Lord is satisfied before executing the plan. The Lord gives them a green light or puts the breaks on things. Even after a green light, the authority might not move forward until unanimous consent among the apostles is achieved. In the case of lifting the priesthood ban, DOM got a red light from the Lord that the timing wasn’t right. JFSII and HBL probably never seriously inquired regarding the Lord’s will in the matter, as they had no issues with it. Later SWK got a green light and we can safely assume he lobbied some apostles to seek their own conformation and patiently prayed and waited for each apostle to come on board (not that SWK couldn’t have moved forward w/o the quorum). In short, such “revelations” usually don’t happen until the church authorities face a dilemma, formulate a path forward and seek the Lord’s guidance in the matter. To the point, just because I wish our leaders were a bit more proactive with such reforms and seeking “revelations” (really confirmation of plans), doesn’t in any way mean I have less faith than more content members.

    Back to topic, rephrasing what I and others have said, we are troubled by our church seemingly getting stuck in the mire taking positions that seem unlikely to meet the test of time. At the end of the day, gays/lesbians are a small fraction of the population and I don’t see any evidence that the gay population is increasing generation to generation (it’s just more open and accepted). It’s just a given that a certain percentage of offspring we breeders produce will be gay/lesbian. Most are hetero and fit enough to be breeders that can replenish and multiply, so it’s very unlikely the church authorities will ever face the level of frustration that would lead to them plan reform and inquiring of the Lord as they did in the case of polygamy or the priesthood ban. To their credit, our leaders have apparently wisely abandoned former misguided therapies to turn homosexuals hetero or encourage homo/hetero marriages. But while acknowledging that we don’t know what causes homosexuality and that homosexuals are very unlikely to change, they haven’t moved forward beyond slogans in making the church more gay friendly. As stated earlier, I’m aware Joe and Molly Mormon would freak at gay PDA at church and assume sexual goings on they wouldn’t assume with PDA between hetero singles, but that lay member bigotry isn’t the GAs’ problem that they don’t have to address it if they don’t want to. In practice, if a sexually active adult member, homo or hetero, forgoes a TR interview, the situation is effectively, don’t ask, don’t tell. So why are these apostles using rhetoric that make us appear more gay unfriendly and bigoted than we could be or are in practice, even under the present policies? Why present a face to the public that implies we go on witch hunts against some sinners? I think that’s the beef many of us have and why we viewed this Q&A as a step backward.

88. Steve makes some good points. I feel like I have to be extra-careful here, lest I be accused of having some agenda to destroy the church, but let me try to share something that truly disturbs me in regard to this interview.

    I live in Seattle. For some unknown reason, a rather sizeable portion of Seattle’s gay community is made up of former members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or those who remain “on the books” in name only. I am shocked to find myself continually running into men in this situation. Just in my limited experience, this issue is far more common among LDS than most would like to believe.

    Now, I think it’s safe to say that LDS leaders would like to see these men change their ways, and return to full fellowship in the church. One might even expect some sort of focused effort at reaching and reclaiming these individuals. Instead, I see actions and statements such as this interview.

    I personally know two men who have decided, as a direct result of this interview, to have their names removed from the records of the church. One has already sent his letter, the other is about to. Neither of these men felt driven to do so when the political letter was read, urging LDS to lobby for a constitutional amendment defining marriage. They shrugged that event off, but this interview hit both of them very, very differently.

    I could go through a laundry list of things that these men found irritating or offensive, but let’s cut to the chase—the one thing that both found truly shocking. Never before, in their experience with the church, had they seen an apostle counsel members of the church to reject family members over a breach of a particular LDS teaching. Yes, they understood that the statement was softened a bit by language that each situation was different, and required prayer. Still, they read Elder Oaks’ language, indicating that if your partnered gay son comes to visit, you must reject the partner (which in essence is to reject the son also)—you should not allow them to spend the night in your house, you should not “acknowledge” them in public or introduce them to your friends, etc. It’s fair to say that most LDS will read these words from an apostle as being direction on how deity would have them react in such a situation.

    They, and I, understand that the counsel was geared toward protecting younger children in the family from improper influences. Even from this perspective, however, it singles out one particular issue. If Uncle Howard had an affair, and he came visiting with Aunt Harriett, would you tell them they weren’t welcome to spend the night at your house, because Howard’s adultery would be a bad example? Would you no longer introduce Howard to those in your social circle? Would you cease to acknowledge him? Of course not. In fact, if Howard was a serial killer, you’d pray for him and visit him in prison. If he was GAY, however, you’re now supposed to cut him off?

    This is really troubling.

89. When I read the interview, I saw both positives and negatives. I agree that the acknowledgement that sexual orientation is not something that “many” (most people in the clinical community would admit “most”) people cannot change; and making it clear that marriage is not an acceptable response to homosexuality is very good.

    Apart from this, however, the whole thrust of the interview seemed defensive to me. Limit contact between the gay person and his or her family. And if the parents get infected with gay-positive attitudes, then try to contain this attitude from spreading to others in the church community. Ban gay marriage, because what happens down the street in someone else’s home could infect “our” home.

    The truth is–and this seems to be born out by sociological studies–positive attitudes toward gay folks are directly related to the contact with have with them. Once you get to know them, once you get to see their relationships, to begin to see them as “people like us.” This leads directly to compassionate attitudes, such as the belief that a gay man or lesbian should, for instance, have a “marital” type right such as the ability to visit an ailing partner in the hospital or help make key decisions about medical care for an incapacitated partner. The reason there is more acceptance of homosexuality in our society today is because more and more gay people are living out of the closet, and people are starting to realize that most of the negative attitudes they once held simply don’t hold up.

90. I’m a little confused is Nat jimbobs real name? Or were some comments deleted? It would be helpful if something was deleted to have an admin let us know so we can try to follow the conversation.

91. Good grief.

    Let’s say it yet again.

    Elder Oaks did not counsel anyone to “reject your gay son’s partner.”

    He specifically left that up to the family.

    Honestly, do people make a habit out of reading their own insecurities into everything the General Authorities say?

92. Nick,

    I am pretty sure that the Q12 is aware that their gay comments and policies will drive some more liberal members from the church over the years. I am pretty sure based on my observations of this issue in Christianity in the world that the outflow or total membership loss if the church went soft on homosexuality would be far far greater if they went “liberal”. I think that the Q12 holds this view as well based on my family connections to the hierarchy. I think we would be looking at losing a signifigant percentage of the most active TBM’s TR holders.

93. jjohnsen,

    I’m not smart enough to pull off two personas, ala Banner of Heaven. I am jimbob, and Nat–who apparently knows Nick personally–is someone else entirely.

    Of course, there’s always a chance those voices in my head are tricking me again.

94. No, they didn’t outright say “reject your child,” but the examples they gave of how parents should deal with gay children were pretty rejecting, that’s the point. Most folks that I know with gay children have gone through a rejecting phase; which they gradually grew out of, once they realized what it would mean for their relationship with their child. Telling a child that they can’t bring their same-sex partner to visit, or to family events (such as family reunions, etc.) will usually mean gay kids stop coming to visit or participating in family events.

    Most families of gay people gradually come to realize that their children are good people who want the same good things in their life that everyone else wants–a loving partner, social stability, a loving network of family and friends, etc. They gradually realize that putting these kinds of restrictions on contact means that they will lose any real relationship with their kids. Most choose not to (though some do, I’ve witnessed those cases, and it’s usually pretty sad).

    The truth is, based on what I’ve seen in most other cases, that most folks who pray to God about this and make their own decisions based on their “unique” circumstances will end up disregarding the examples that Elder Oaks and Elder Wickman gave for how to deal with this. They will find that hewing to such a course to the letter ends up not changing a thing, causes needless pain, and is just plain lacking in common sense and compassion.

95. 286

    1. Why strengthen the bonds of the marriage if it isn’t for the real purpose of marriage: raising children? I won’t withdraw that statement. A unified mother and father are necessary for raising children.
    2. Not all sex in marriage is sanctified. People who impose their wills on their spouses do it unrighteously and their behavior is unacceptable to God. Use of pornography etc. is not in any anyway sanctified. The bed is sanctified for those who are righteous in the relationship. Righteousness also includes heeding the commands of the Lord to multiply and replenish the earth. I don’t need to specify chapter and verse.
    3. It may be less than accurate to say that fidelity when intimacy is no longer possible sanctifies the marital intimacy that went on before. However, it it is an evidence of the genuineness and authenticity of the love that was previously manifest in marital intimacy.

96. John Gustav-Wrathall,

    You will notice after they talked about the examples, Elder Oaks mentioned the recent first presidency directive to reach out. It almost felt as if they had a pondering moment.

97. In my experience, most LDS are loving, compassionate, caring people. When faced with real people and real situations, like most people, they follow their heart and try to do what seems right, regardless of what they think the “rules” are supposed to be. But isn’t that what Christianity is supposed to be all about?

    I agree that the directive to reach out, to be prayerful about one’s actions, to consider each case based on its unique, individual merits, is good solid advice. In practice, I believe that is the instinct for most LDS. But I am sure that some of the other things they said may feel many parents feeling conflicted, feeling like if they don’t do the things specifically mentioned in the interview that they must be doing something wrong.

98. GeorgeD:

    I know you feel you “don’t need to specify chapter and verse,” but it would be very helpful to me if you did.

    When I read Genesis, I notice that the first thing God says after creating Adam is: “It is not good for man to be alone.”

    This statement by God is not a commandment or a directive, it is a simple observation. And out of compassion for Adam (for man), God creates a mate for Adam. To me this suggests that companionship and intimacy is a gift that God gives us, that God sees us as entitled to by virtue of the fact that we are human.

    It is not until quite a bit later in the story that God presents the commandment to “multiply and replenish the earth.”

99. John,

    You can’t prevent misguided people from reading rules and guidelines into GA statements that simply aren’t there. That happens no matter how careful the GAs are in their statements.

    Just like you can’t prevent touchy people from leaving the church over imagined insults in statements GAs never made.

100. John Gustav-Wrathall,

     You seem to be implying that the commandment to “multiply and replenish the earth” is secondary to “It is not good for man to be alone”.

     So I assume you mean to suggest that God wants those with a preference for homosexual sex to engaged in such?

101. Addrax:

     My point was, first of all, that God’s statement “it is not good for man to be alone” was not a commandment at all, it was an observation. This observation that God made is pretty evident to most of us… It indeed is not good to be alone. While some of us have no choice but to be alone, most of us do everything possible to get out of the state of singleness. Right or wrong, that is a basic component of human nature. Indeed, that is how God created us. And God created us ALL that way–gay and straight. None of us finds it good to be alone.

     My second point is that, again, God provided Adam a mate. Again, this was not a commandment. God did not say to Adam: “I command you to pair up with Eve.” Eve was created as a mate for Adam, and the two of them were naturally drawn to one another. Again, to me this suggests that the need to find intimate companionship is a fundamental, basic aspect of the human condition. It is what we are.

     I do find it problematic that we recognize this fundamental truth for heterosexuals, but not for gay people. Indeed, in this discussion, it seems that everyone acknowledges that it is never desirable for heterosexuals to be alone, and that we accept aloneness only when some extreme form of physical or mental disability prevents it.

     Again, I’m trying to refrain from making moral judgments one way or the other about this; and I understand what the church’s policy is and have personally accepted it, along with its consequences. But what this means in practicality is that most gay folks will find themselves forced to leave the church in order to find something that for everyone else is acknowledged as fundamental and basic.

102. This, by the way, struck me as another odd thing in the interview… I was VERY interested to read the answer when the interviewer asked the question: how does a parent respond when their gay child approaches them and says that he or she intends to enter into a committed same-sex relationship.

     Instead of answering this question in terms of how the parents should respond, Elder Oak and Elder Wickman launched into their very theoretical statement about the campaign to ban same-sex marriage. There was absolutely no discussion about how to minister to or reach out to gay folks who are seeking or who are living in committed same-sex relationships–which, by the way, will be the situation of the vast majority of gay or lesbian LDS (or ex-LDS). It’s as if we drop of the map, and the church’s sole concern for us after that is to ensure that our relationships will never have legal recognition. We cease being human beings, and become an abstract legal problem.

103. Seth (#291),
     As I’m sure you are aware, human beings interpret the world around them through the lens of their own experience. Therefore, it is understandable that you might read Elder Oaks’ advice to parents of partnered gays differently than I do.

     As they mature, human beings also typically develop empathy—the ability to “put themselves in someone else’s shoes,” and understand how others might perceive a given set of circumstances.

     In my own experience, Seth, many, if not most, active LDS would take these words from an apostle as “wise counsel,” if not directly inspired. Those who consider an apostle’s words as such are, in fact, likely to act accordingly, even to the point of strict compliance. While you clearly don’t buy into that viewpoint as to these comments, I would find it surprising if you don’t know any LDS who *would* take them as nearly on the order of commandments.

     An example of this phenomenon would be President Hinckley’s “invitation” (his word) last year to read The Book of Mormon through during the second half of 2005. This “invitation” was referred to by others, including leaders, as a “challenge,” and yes, even as a “commandment.” In my own ward, the bishop directed home teachers to obtain a full report of who had, and who had not, read The Book of Mormon during the second half of 2005. References to this “commandment” were made often, with strong wording as to the importance of “following the prophet.”

     When members reacted so strongly to what the president of the church called an “invitation,” it is easy to see how members might also take the words of Elder Oaks in this interview as “the Lord’s way” of handling gay family members and their partners.

     I hope this helps you understand my perspective better.

104. John Gustav-Wrathall,

     I do find it problematic that we recognize this fundamental truth for heterosexuals, but not for gay people.

     If sexual preference/orentation is on the same level as being male or female, then you are right it would be “problematic that we recognize this fundamental truth for heterosexuals, but not for gay people.”

     Your comments require sexual preference/orentation to be at the same level as being male or female. Why?

     If sexual preference/orientation is purely choice, well, then its a choice and not inherent in the person. Being male or being female is inherent to the person.

     If we accept that the idea the sexual preference/orientation is biological, easy to do for me. I feel I was hardwired to be attracted to the opposite sex. This is mortality, things don’t always work out right, its easy for me to believe that the hardwiring can go wrong. If this is true, than the resurection is going to take care of this.

     If we accept that sexual preference/orientation is on the same level as being male or female, then you have something.

     Nothing has convinced me, in any way, that sexual preference/orientation is close to the being on the same level as being male or female.

105. George,
     On what basis do you determine that the “real purpose” of marriage is raising children? If this is true, then infertile persons should never be allowed to marry. Persons past childbearing age should never be allowed to marry.

     While a home led by two loving parents may be the ideal, how is it “necessary” to raising children? I’ll grant that children from single-parent homes have greater challenges, but they can be successfully raised. From stories I’ve heard President Monson tell, I get the impression that his father passed away when he was young–he is always talking about interactions with his mother, as if his father was not available. He seems to have turned out okay, don’t you think? President Hinckley was, for a time, a child in a single parent home, after his mother passed away. Was he raised wrongly?

106. Addrax:

     If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you deny us companionship, do we not experience pain and loneliness? That’s my only point…

     The doctrinal question of whether God intended heterosexuality to be the norm is separate from the basic, fundamental human reality that we all experience a need for intimacy and companionship, and the best I can tell, that need is no less powerful in gay people than it is in straight people.

107. #281 – !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, there is that better, does that get the point across, does that make it less, moer, somewhat, overly, important, answer says what?!?!?!?!?!

     #301 – “My second point is that, again, God provided Adam a mate. Again, this was not a commandment. God did not say to Adam: “I command you to pair up with Eve.” Eve was created as a mate for Adam, and the two of them were naturally drawn to one another. Again, to me this suggests that the need to find intimate companionship is a fundamental, basic aspect of the human condition. It is what we are.”

     Ummm, yes, he did when he told them to multiply and replenish the earth, and in fact if you read scripture or if you “could” go to the temple it is clear that they had been given in marriage of God and that when Eve presents the fruit to Adam knowing that she would be kicked out of the garden the rational is there that Adam would have been a lone man in the garden of Eden which means he would not have been provided a male mate or another femal emate for that matter. In fact thinking through this a little more, Eve was the mother of all living and she was a female, Adam named her, and Adam was a man indicating the sacred procreative poweres were to stay between a man and a woman.

     It may be what we are, but when it goes outside the bounds the Lord has set, and he sets them very clearly in the story of Adam and Eve, then yes, you may have a so-called moral and commited relationship, but it is outside the bounds the Lord has set and again is not Celestial is it? Go figure…

     Now, lets discuss the ‘aloneness’ thing…did you notice that when God declares that it is not good for man to be alone that he goes ahead and fixes this problem, but he does not provide Adam with another Adam, but with an Eve, a woman, a female, and that is and was God’s solution to the aloneness thing. Go figure…

     Funny how we have been able to address all of your self-justifications again through use of the doctrine…hmmm, what does that really say, but that you are again fooling yourself if you think God is accepting of your actions. Oh yes, there is need for human intimacy, for human interactions, and youmay feel that it comes from SSA, but that really outside the bounds that the Lord has set and is not very Celestial.

     #305 – it is necessary if you want the best potential arena for a childs and family’s growth. Does it always work out that way? Of course not, but the potential for the greatest growth is there and to accept anything different than that is selling yourself short.

108. John Gustav-Wrathall,

     If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you deny us companionship, do we not experience pain and loneliness? That’s my only point…

     Given the context of the quote, I would assume you are labeling me a bigot. You think I feel you are somehow less of a person.

     I am saying you are the same as me, a human male created in the image of God. You have every right that I have. No one is to esteem one flesh above another.

     But wait, you say I have the right to marry someone I love. That is not true, I have the right to marry a woman I love, same as you.

     But wait, you say I have the right to marry someone from the opposite sex. That is true, you have the same right.

     But wait, you say I have the right to marry someone from the gender I sexually prefer. OK, you are right, but for this to be relevant sexual preference must be at the same level as being male or female.

109. Outside of the bloggernacle, I think most orthodox (even politically conservative) Mormons are more compassionate and tolerant of GLBT loved ones than might be expected.

     15 years ago, before SSM became a burning issue, and before most of my large number of politically conservative and “iron rod” aunts and uncles (with two exceptions) passed away, they gathered to celebrate what would have been the 100th birthday of my grandfather. One uncle was openly gay and in a committed relationship. While he did not attend the temple, both he and his partner were welcomed to all of the other family celebration events, including the testimony meeting, and I heard not one word explicitly or implicitly criticizing either of them (or even a warning to more impressionable family members), and I sensed only love and compassion for both.

     The experience was the same five years ago on the Wasatch front when my wife’s grandmother passed away, and her openly gay cousin, along with his partner, attended and participated in all family events (an “iron rod”, politically conservative family) associated with the occasion.

     As Nephi said, “[N]evertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things.” I do know that I am counseled to love all my brothers and sisters, including those of us who are sinners (of whom, to quote Paul, I am chief).

     John, I truly enjoyed and was moved by your presentation at Sunstone, along with Bill Bradshaw’s response. Thank you.

110. David:

     That has been my experience. It is easy to condemn someone you don’t know–to assume that you know everything you need to know, and launch off into judgment based on what you think you know. The Internet can be an ugly place that way. It is harder to be in relationship with a real flesh-and-blood human being, and not be confronted with the fact that life is more complicated than any of us know. I try to share some of the complexities in this on-line format, but clearly something gets lost in translation.

     I have found my home ward a nurturing place, and my bishop a loving, caring person who is genuinely concerned about me and is willing to counsel with me whenever I need counsel. He and others in my ward keep me coming back, keep me wanting to stay connected, and help me feel the warmth of the Spirit. I pray for other gay LDS to find similar connections.

     I found many things in the interview that is the subject of this blog painful, some things troubling. But I do believe that Elder Oaks and Elder Wickman meant the things they said in love. And I also understand that their role is not necessarily pastoral… Part of what they are charged with doing is setting limits, and limits are often painful. It is our bishops and wards who are called to that ministry. I pray that other bishops and other wards will be as faithful in this calling as mine.

     John

111. I wish I could find a ward like yours, John. Maybe I just need to look.

     re: 292 You’ve made that argument before, bbell, and maybe the leadership is thinking along those lines. It’s an over-simplification. The options aren’t only towing a hard right-wing position (constitutional ammendment, excommunication of non-celibate gays, etc) or becoming the Episcopalians. The Catholic church holds to very traditional doctrine and morality is more flexible in day-to-day practice. Ditto the Evangelicals. The average gay Catholic has it a heckuva lot easier than his LDS counterpart, that’s for sure. Your argument also breaks down in practice: The Church takes these conservative positions and real growth is stagnant at best. Inactivity and dropout rates are very high. (We can debate those two sentences in another thread sometime!)

     So I think you’re wrong on this one. The status quo is not working.

     That said, anecdotally the Church does seem to produce an inordinate number of gays. Nick’s comment in 288 holds true in California as well. One pundit friend observed: “The Mormon Church is the most homosexogenic organization on earth! Let’s hope they never accept us!”

112. My closest friend is a non-practicing non-Mormon homosexual. He rejects homosexual behavior. He also rejects the following oxymoron.

     Committed homosexual relationship — studies have shown that a miniscule number of homosexual partners live in a truly monogamous relationship. Read Andrew Sullivan on this subject. Sullivan is a loud proponent of homosexual marriage but he rejects exclusive monogamy as inconsistent with “gayness”. He is not alone. My friend says that this is absolutely so.

     So if your son brings his rommmate home and wants you to acknowledge their relationship ahat do you acknowledge? That they have sex with multiple partners but they share a bar of soap?

     I am sorry but one of the toughest parts of love is letting a person dear to you know that you reject all aspects of their behavior that are inconsistent with God’s will and that you are not able to acknowledge socially, behaviors that you reject spiritually.

113. GeorgeD:

     Andrew Sullivan does not speak for the gay community. He is a loud proponent of his own idiosyncratic views. Most gay folks will tell you so.

     I know very many committed, monogamous, same-sex couples, many of whom have children and work very hard and are good, conscientious parents. Those of us who have learned the blessings of commitment share a good deal more than ‘a bar of soap,’ more than you are likely ever to know.

     Why would you not want to encourage same-sex couples to be committed to each other and monogamous? Do you want us to be promiscuous?

114. #313 – Andrew Sullivan may not speak for the gay, sorry I didn’t capitalize that, community, but he doesn’t have to, you speak for yourselves and to generally say that you know something of commitment that perhaps we heterosexual types do not just because we do not live your lifestyle is absolutely ludicrous for the simple reverse argument that you have no idea about commitment from a heterosexual POV because you do not live that life and in my opinion, you are then missing ‘more than you are likely ever to know’. Go figure!!

     GeorgeD is not saying that he wants you to be either celibate or promiscuous, but he is pointing out the simple facts of scientific studies (many of which you are likely to base your gayness anyways, and not that it is acceptable before God) that it is highly likely that ‘gayness’ has tendencies toward promoscuity of which many people, gay or otherwise, would agree. It almost seems shameful to you to admit that this is probably true, why? Because it fits all stereotypes of the ‘gay’ lifestyle, or that it would bring fear into your ‘moral homosexuality’ that it could happen to you, or that perhaps, just perhaps, there would then be a reason that God said ‘No!’ to this very lifestyle and you would have to face up to that. Your life is one complete round of ‘Sophistry’ and any attempt at justification through rationalized morality will eventually bring you to a state of denial of God because that is the one eternal concept and persona, constant and eternal, that you cannot escape while the debate rages about your supposed morality, EVER, by the way.

     I do have a question for you though: what is your plan at the judgement day? rationalize everything away and yet face a God of truth and eternal consequences, that could be interesting.

115. “A Farcical View:”
     John never said that homosexuals know more about commitment than do heterosexuals. What he said was simply that committed homosexual partners share much more than George is likely to ever understand. After all, it was George who said that the only thing homosexual partners share is “a bar of soap.” If George thinks the only thing that homosexual partners are capable of sharing is a bar of soap (and yes, I think most people here caught his inappropriate sexual inuendo), then I agree—he is unlikely to understand the depth and breadth of committment that exists between many homosexual partners.

     Further, George did not point out any scientific studies at all. He merely asserted that “studies show…” If I merely asserted that “studies show that homosexuality is genetically based,” you would be quick to challenge my lack of specifics. As an educated person, you might even be wise enough to ask questions, such as who sponsored these “studies,” and what their methodology was.

     The vehemence of your post certainly speaks loud and clear. You seem to have strong emotions of anger attached to this subject. Elders Oaks and Wickman had strong views, but they certainly didn’t express them with such anger. Perhaps you would do well to look inside, and ask yourself why you react so strongly? Do you react with such rage when you perceive “sin” of any other kind, or do you save it for this particular topic?

     Finally, as you clearly have strong ideas of “constant and eternal” right and wrong, why do you post under a pseudonym? It seems incongruous to loudly proclaim what you believe to be true, while at the same time hiding your identity.

116. Glad you’re so up on Andrew Sullivan’s musings, georgeD. Might want to read up on Roy Cohn too. You blog entries reminded me of him.

     Sorry you get so upset up over all this, that much anger must be a heavy burden. We’re not going away, so get used to it.

     Please keep blogging, though. I really enjoy all this and a little nastiness keeps me on my toes.

117. I suppose I invited this by talking about my personal life.

     But this is part of the dilemma: gay and lesbian folks are constantly subjected to a barrage of statements about their lives and their relationships that we know to be patently false. Often the only way we can respond is to say, “Look, I’m gay and this is not what my life is about.”

     Then folks get enraged and want to lecture us about what our lives are really like. It’s a lose-lose situation.

118. Well said, John.
     It’s really much like the critic of the LDS church who has read a few pamphlets put out by other critics, and then insists on telling LDS people what they believe, no matter how grossly inaccurate. The LDS person can try to correct the misconceptions until they’re blue in the face, yet this particular kind of critic just won’t budge. They already have their opinion, and don’t want to be confused with the facts.

119. “The Mormon Church is the most homosexogenic organization on earth!………..”

     You guys might want to check this post I did some time ago on that subject. Warning, it’s not PC and plays on the irony of a homophobic church full of effeminate men.

120. Steve EM,

     I don’t know which BYU you saw. Judgeing by the number of newly married couples and baby births at BYU, there is more heterosexual sex going on there than anywhere in the US. I hardly would call them effeminate men.

121. Addrax,
     With respect to M* and to avoid a threadjack, I suggest you make your comment regarding my blog at my blog.

122. Yeah, let’s take this one over to SteveEM’s blog, which is fascinating. “Is the Church full of big ol’ screaming queens? Discuss amongst yourselves.”

     One more thought: My sense is that most red-state type Mormons have very poor gaydar. It’s like visiting the Liberace museum in Vegas (right near an LDS chapel, btw) and hearing all these old ladies murmuring “It’s so terrible that they called him gay. How could they say that about him? He was such a handsome man!”

123. 261
     Steven B,
     Thanks for the clarification.
     Even though I was wrong about the direction connection between SSM and discrimination laws in Massachusetts, I still think, across the board, if SSM becomes accepted, that will bring the discrimination issue to the forefront and there will be people pushing to make SSA and behavior something that cannot be spoken against, left out, etc. The article I read that talked about Catholic Charities was looking toward future impacts of SSM (if I remember correctly), or at least the normalization of homosexuality in concept.

124. Re 311:

     Until today, I’d never seen the word “homosexogenic.” Google doesn’t know what it means either. The context seems to be that genetic heritage causes or influences homosexual tendencies. Am I right?

     I think the better explanation for the seemingly disproportionate amount of mormon homosexuals you see is found in the observer, not the group. I think you’re just more likely to notice people who fit that category. For example, the other day I bought a car. One of the things that attracted me to the car is that not very many people drive the one I wanted to buy. As soon as I bought it, I must have seen 20. I think that’s what’s going on here. You’re attuned and looking for it, because it’s relevant to your experience.

125. I made the word “homosexogenic” up, jimbob. It was actually just me being snarky. You might be right about observer bias. Who knows.

126. Re 323:

     Although we cannot look to the Massachusetts Catholic Charities as a case of SSM forcing a policy change in an adoption agency (afterall, it was the four bishops who forced the change in policy), it does raise the issue that adoptions are an interest of the state and agencies handling adoptions are typically required to be licensed by the State. So such a situation surely seems quite probable, considering that these same gay couples, who would be forbidden to adopt, also pay state taxes.

     I still think, across the board, if SSM becomes accepted, that will bring the discrimination issue to the forefront and there will be people pushing to make SSA and behavior something that cannot be spoken against, left out, etc.

     We may already be getting to that place, without SSM. There is no way around the fact that homosexuals are no longer willing to live lives of secrecy, shame and dishonesty, but are more and more open and vocal about their sexual orientations. As Europe, Canada and the United States continue to be concerned with political correctness and liberal attitudes towards minorities and oppressed groups, we are seeing more and more concern with who is spoken against and what is taught.

     We live in an open, free society. So, we do need to have some tolerance of people and lifestyles that may differ from our own. At the other end of the spectrum are the theocratic societies of the Middle East, where religious clerics demand that homosexuals be thrown off buildings or burnt to death. Mostly in Bagdad, they are simply being rounded up and shot. Neighbors and family members may murder homosexuals with impunity.

127. 316 Ha ha ha on the Roy Cohn allusion. This is a trite sniveling snark to close off debate on homosexuality. Sorry no takers here.

     Homsexual behavior is a perversion and a gross sin.

     Also, there may be a few monogamous homosexual women but I invite all the homosexual men who have been posting here to “come-out” and tell us about your “monogamy”. (Don’t worry, your “monogamous” partner isn’t monogamous either so don’t be concerned with what he may see.)

128. georgeD,

     I’ll admit that, privately, I have many of the same views you do.

     My suspicion is that practicing homosexuals are, for whatever reason, much more likely to be promiscuous than monogamous and that homosexual “committed relationships” almost always fail within a few years. I also think, that most of the homosexual movement has a strong tendency toward emotional instability.

     Those are my suspicions (or predjudices if you like).

     However, I realize that I have absolutely zero evidence to back that up. It’s based entirely on gut instinct which may or may not be proven true in time. Since I have no data to share, I typically keep those suspicions to myself. And I remain open to being proven wrong on that score.

     Certainly, I consider monogamous homosexual practice an improvement over promiscuous or uncommitted homosexual practice and would be happy to hear that this is indeed a common occurence in the community. I would also be happy to hear that these relationships are a lot more stable than I have been giving them credit for.

     Time will tell I suppose.

129. For those of you citing stats and studies of gay behavior, I’ll note that racists do the same thing. Sterotypes are based on general truth and observation; that’s what makes them funny. When attributed to and assumed for all individuals in a group, that’s bigotry.

     In response to #327 specifically, I too was once grossed out by and unaccepting of male homosexuality (I understand lesbians, so they were always ok in my book.). What mellowed me out was preachy bigots like you always bashing gays while ignoring the far greater deleterious impact of heterosexual sin, in which I was unfortunely a former participant. The hate you’re promoting has no place in the church or elsewhere.

130. GeorgeD, I really think your #327 is over the top. Way, way up in this thread I warned MikeInWeHo to avoid emotional charges and just argue based on the facts. I would really encourage you to do the same.

     If we are going to get into a name-calling game here, I will close down comments on this thread. I hope it doesn’t come to that because they are real issues to discuss. Let’s try to harmoniously and filled with the spirit of Christ find some areas of agreement and, if we can’t do that, concentrate on the facts.

131. I also tend to be suspicious the surveys and studies I do see on this issue (whichever side they seem to be supporting).

     When you have an issue as politically, religiously, and socially charged as homosexuality, the likelihood of biased or skewed reporting seems very high.

132. For those of you citing stats and studies of gay behavior, I’ll note that racists do the same thing.

     You know who else cites studies to prove their point? Everyone on the planet.

133. Thanks, Geoff. If the tone here is not respectful, I really would prefer not to participate.

     I appreciated what Seth R. has to say about encouraging committed relationships being desirable over promiscuity.

     I am curious to hear what folks think about the logic of condemning gay folks for being promiscuous, but then when we form monogamous commitments we are condemned for that. When we ask for some of the kinds of social supports that strengthen such commitments–such as marriage or, if marriage is considered unacceptable, civil unions–we are denied and told that we are undermining marriage. Are gay folks the only ones who see this as a Catch 22?

134. John, I think the answer by most LDS people to your #333 is to refer back to this interview which is saying, in effect, that people who have same-sex attraction should not act on those feelings. So, the answer is that they should remain celibate until they overcome these feelings. And if that means remaining celibate their entire lives, then so be it. I know that is not what you want to hear, and I appreciate that there is a moral difference between monogamous homosexuals and promiscous ones, and I think there will be blessings for people who are monogamous and committed, even in homosexual relationships. But the blessings will be much, much greater for those who are celibate.

     As for the marriage issue, this has been discussed to death here and elsewhere. I would encourage you to re-read the interview, which discusses this at length.

135. 330 Geoff B you say that 327 is over the top?

     Choose one or more of the following

     a. that allusions to Roy Cohn (in the context they were raised) are sniveling snark?
     b. that homosexual behavior is a gross perversion?
     c. my challenge to homosexuals to declare the exclusivity of their relationships?

     Please let me know.

136. 333 Respectful tone

     Do you think Elijah spoke in a respectful tone to the priests of Baal? The problem is that every Christian can love sinners but no Christian can respect sin and still be a Christian. We must adamantly condemn homosexual behavior as a sin. Its that or our Christianity.

137. re: 335

     a. Snark, yes. Sniveling, no. Apt, utterly.
     b. No. It has been documented in over 300 vertebrate species.
     c. You discount those who much such declarations. Clearly we exist. What do you want, TV cam in my bedroom? (Please see a., above)

     In your last sentence you tell everyone here they are not Christian if they don’t share your ‘adamancy,’ which sounds an awful lot like rage (anger? hatred?). I suspect most will choose to ignore the moral gaunlet you throw down.

     Ciao. I think this string has pretty much run its course.

138. OK. I will dare to tread into the fire. As a gay man that spent ten years of his life out of the church and exploring my “gayness” I can only base my opinions upon my observations and experiences.

     I truly wanted to find a nice man with which to spend my life in a committed, monogamous relationship. I joined Frontrunners, went to MCC (a Protestant church catering to gays and lesbians), got involved in political causes, service projects and, of course, the bar scene.

     During my ten year period, I can honestly say I was made acquainted with all the good and bad aspects of “gay culture”.

     While I would like to support John in his viewpoints that gay men want to be recognized for stable and committed relationships, my experience has shown me otherwise. The large majority of people I met, dated, and made friends with were more likely to want one-night stands with multiple conquests and were more likely to have some type of addiction (drinking, drugs or smoking) than is found in the general public. Those persons in long-term relationships (and there are quite a few that I am familiar with) did try to stay monogamous but, many times, they eventually ended up in “open” relationships in order to keep the relationship together.

     That is not to say they were all evil people. Most of them were good-hearted and they gave lip service to the idea of committed relationships and healthy living. But actions speak louder than words and my idealized view of coming out of the closet ran smack up against the realities of the culture.

     As I have grown older and the need for indiscriminate sex has subsided I found myself longing for the joys of the gospel and I went through the painful process of repentance and return to the Church.

     I tend to now think that Andrew Sullivan is right – gay culture promotes and idealizes the wrong things.

     However, I do find myself getting very angry at breeders who use these things as a blanket condemnation of all gays and lesbians when their own statistics with divorce, adultery, and lack of parental responsibility greatly outweigh the harm done by us homosexuals. When they get serious about cleaning up their own house first and remove the log from their own eye, then they can turn to help me with my mote. Until then, they have no moral authority upon which to comment.

     Just my thoughts.

139. John Gustav-Wrathall,

     In the interview, they seemed to leave the idea of civil unions with the benefits of marriage minus(big minus) adoption.

     – State –
     In a sense, society could approve/encourage the friendship and commitment part of such a union with no bearing on the sexuality of the union. Those who are lifelong friends and want a state santioning of their commitment would also benefit.

     Since singles can adopt, this would probably mean the state would not allow children of that union, only children of a specific parent.

     – Church –
     I am not sure what your thoughts are on the children thing, hope I haven’t offended. I do not think it has been mentioned, but the whole born in the covenant thing seems very important to church leaders.

     Also, if any homosexual sex is sin, then living in such a relationship seems like a bad idea. If homosexual sex in a state santioned union is ok with the Lord, then being in such a relationship would probably be good – although the covenants issue is still problematic. I have a hard time believing in moral homosexual sex.

140. My rebuttal to #327 (now #328) became #327. That sucks.

141. Michael:

     I won’t disagree with your assessment of gay culture. I have a couple of observations, though.

     The Andrew Sullivan types are out there. I think there is a lot of anger and frustration in the gay community about the fact that no matter what we do–even when we strive to live moral, committed, monogamous relationships–we are still hated and condemned as sinners; we are excluded from churches, we are discriminated against in employment, we are targets of violence, etc. So one attitude that I often hear expressed is: “Why should we adopt the institutions of our oppressors.” I see this as a form of internalized oppression. People are unable to rationally consider the merits of monogamy and commitment because of their anger about being excluded from the possibility of marriage. So legalizing marriage–or something like marriage–would be a big step forward toward helping send a message to gay folks that they have a stake in the values of the broader society.

     I also acknowledge that not all of the relaxed attitudes toward promiscuity in the gay community are the result of external pressures and prejudice. Many in the gay community have bought into the ideals of the sexual revolution, i.e., “if it feels good and it’s mutually consensual, it’s ok…” From the viewpoint of the “natural man,” this kind of argument seems reasonable. But the only way to rescue folks from this kind of mentality is to invite them into a relationship with God, and encourage them to seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit. In other words, gay folks need to be made to feel welcome in our churches–all our churches, Mormon, Methodist, Baptist, whatever. Instead, what we see is the intense kind of hatred and prejudice that I’ve seen in some earlier posts in this web site. We are actively driven out of the church, and we are given no stake in civil society.

     Some of us have on our own come to recognize the civil and social merits of commitment, and the spiritual merits of applying the principles of chastity to our relationships. We also feel the need of communion and fellowship within the church. If those of us who embrace a morality and a relationship with God are even and still rejected and told we have no place in the church and in society, what message does that send to everyone else? I’d suggest the messsage it sends is: “You are right not even to bother.”

     I know it is worth the bother, even if my faithfulness inspires nothing but hatefulness and exclusion, because I have a relationship with God. That’s what keeps me grounded.

     Once we are invited to be a part of the community, then perhaps there are possibilities for deeper, more meaningful discussions about what is the highest good. I believe that if we believe in the power of the Holy Spirit, then we should also believe that if we invite people to enter into a relationship with the Holy Spirit that they will grow and gradually be able to discern whether celibacy or something else is the highest good for them in this life. I have a deep respect for and I support those of you who have made a commitment to celibacy in order to have good standing in the church. But I would not like to see us use the fact that some people have chosen and are able to be celibate as a whip or a two-by-four to clobber those who are doing the best they can under other circumstances.

     I’d like to add–since I’ve heard heterosexuals say more or less the same thing in other settings–maintaining a monogamous commitment requires struggle and sacrifice. Marriage does not remove temptation. We should applaud the efforts of gay folks to maintain such commitments and we should celebrate their ability to maintain such commitments in the face of social pressure–both internal and external to the gay community.

     I hope that members and leaders of wards will consider the good that can be accomplished if they engage in a pastoral ministry of encouraging all of to do the best we can, to strive for the best good we are capable of, even if it is not something the church considers to be the “highes” good.

142. Here is the LDS reality on this topic. All the smoke over this in the bloggernacle is non-representative of where the active TR holding LDS really are….

     SSM probably is the most controversial topic here in the bloggernacle. Its non controversial in my exp living amongst LDS people. Over the pulpit here last year here in Dallas the stake told us to go out and vote against SSM. So everybody did. No controversy. My wife and I and our 4 kids walked in to the local polling station and kid you not 50% of the voters inside were LDS with all the kids in tow. There was even a LDS guy outside the polling station with a anti-ssm sign. Even the lone Democrat (ward clerk) in our ward voted against SSM.

     A woman pulled up with a rainbow sticker on her car and a wedding ring on. Based on how she looked I would say she was a hetero. I watched her carefully cause I am curious that way. She was shooting major nasty looks at all the LDS families in line. Knowing that with all those kids they were voting against SSM.

143. bbell,

     Do you know of any gay or lesbian members of your ward or stake, active or less active? How would your ward members respond if a gay investigator or less active openly gay member came to church? From the Church’s standpoint, do you believe is it better for a less active openly gay member to stay away from meetings so as to avoid frightening the anti-SSM members of the Church?

144. bbel,
     I’d find it “controversial” that your stake leadership told you how to vote. Even the recent political lobbying by the First Presidency didn’t technically tell members to support a constitutional amendment redefining marriage. Instead, their letter stated the First Presidency’s position (one which happened to bastardize today’s LDS descendants of polygamy, but that’s another issue), and then urged members of the church to make “their views” known to their senators. I know active, temple-recommend-holding LDS who followed the First Presidency’s dictate to “make their views known,” by writing their senators and urging them to vote AGAINST such an amendment.

     In fact, I would go so far as to say that if your stake leadership told stake members how to vote, they were acting in violation of the policy of the church, however well-intentioned they may have been. I had been a stake executive secretary for two and a half years at the time I came out and discontinued my membership, and I can guarantee that my stake presidency, even as conservative as they were, would never, ever have told local members how to vote.

     Also, I certainly hope that the LDS person holding up a sign outside your polling place was observing the laws governing such behavior, by keeping at least the proper (i.e. legally required) distance from the polling place. If he was standing directly outside, as your post seems to suggest, he should have been removed or arrested.

145. re: 338 and 341. Thanks for such articulate and thoughtful comments. Very impressive. I agree with both of you. Michael, I would add this: You assume that there is some perfectly homogenous “gay culture” but my experience suggests otherwise. It’s all over the place, just like for heterosexuals. Also, I’ve observed the subculture changing a lot over the past couple of decades. Would never have predicted so many people raising kids, for example. That has been a huge shift. I’m sorry you never found a partner, but sure hope things go well for you back in the Church. It’s a difficult road either way.

     Just want to apologize for losing my cool with georgeD. I know better than to engage in dialogue with such an extreme position, but sometimes I give in to the temptation and blast away. Comparing him to Roy Cohn was particularly inappropriate.

     I suspect bbell is correct in 342, alas.

     Would be interesting to hear what Andrew Sullivan had to say about the way he is being referenced here. It’s ironic to see people using his ideas to support draconian anti-homosexuality positions.

146. MikeInWeHo,

     Can you be more specific on draconian anti-homosexuality positions? Is the position of Elder Oaks and Wickman in this interview draconian anti-homosexuality positions?

147. Most of the Andrew Sullivan quotes have been taken out of context by religious right polemicists, and then have been represented as if this was what the gay community thinks. (As if we all have the same brain.) Sullivan is himself a polemicist, who enjoys taking extreme positions just to provoke people. Thus, general hilarity ensues…

148. In my exp I have never seen a openly gay investigator or member be open about their orientation in a ward. Even when I lived in Chicago. In order to get not well received the gay member or investigator would have to be open about their orientation and disdainful of the LDS mainstream position publicly. Similar to how a conservative LDS person would be recieved at a Unitarian congregation if they were open about how they felt about the topic.

     The best man at my wedding was an in the closet gay former comp of mine who goes in and out of sexual activity. He still attends from time to time and leans on me to keep him going. He says that he would never openly in his home ward “come out” but his Bishop and HT’s know as do a lot of his mission buddies.

     If they were openly campaigning against SSM in CA why not TX?

149. George may be over the top but he is on to something and he may not even realize it.

     I see this topic as challenging the very core of Christianity in a sense.

     George says: “Its that or our Christianity.”

     If Christians have taught that for 2000 years that any sex including homo sex outside of hetero marriage is sinful then what do do about this topic in our modern age?

     The question is…. Can the Atonement overcome the urge by the homosexual individual to engage in homosexual conduct and become chaste and cleansed of his sins?

     1.The conservative churches teach that yes repentance for these individuals is possible and they can live a chaste life by relying on Jesus.

     2.In contrast our modern secular world and liberal churches teach that the homosexual individual is exempt from the requirement to be chaste in a traditional sense and needs no repentance on the chastity standard whatsoever and that the atonement is not needed for this individual on this topic. Furthermore the atonement of Jesus cannot overcome the urge to act out on this individuals orientation in the first place. (FWIW they think this about hetero’s to a degree as well).

     So what is it? #1 or #2

     Who else sees this contrast and challenge to traditional christianity and our LDS understanding of the atonement? Mikeinweho what is your take? I am really interested. This gets to the heart of the matter.

150. re: 346 Addrax, by ‘draconian’ I was referring to georgeD’s comments starting around 312, not the original Oaks/Wickman interview. I’m not exactly thrilled with what they had to say either (see my previous comments). I wonder if they’re not just sugar-coating exactly the same sentiments as georgeD’s. I like his comments because, as bbell says, perhaps it gets to the heart of the matter.

     bbell I think you’re oversimplifying history, which leads you to conclude it’s either “#1 or #2.” There’s a great book called “Living In Sin” by John Shelby Spong that explores the history of Christianity vis-a-vis sexuality. His writings have influenced my thinking considerably over the years. It’s not as if contemporary LDS romance/marriage/family patterns have been the norm for the past 2000 years, until the gays came along and mucked everything up. There have ALWAYS been homosexuals and even homosexual couples. The questions are about how they are treated.

151. 350: Mike in West Houston

     What is sugar coating about saying that homosexual behavior is a sin? That is what Oaks and Wickham did and I haven’t said anymore than that.

     Homosexuals call that hateful, disrespectful, draconian, extreme.

     Mike, I love you man, but I cannot accept homosexual behavior. If you are a practicing homosexual please stop for the sake of your eternal soul.

152. 339 I agree that society as a whole needs to clean up their sexual behavior, divorce etc. We need to put procreation in its equal position with strengthening a union and not push it to the backburner.

     I think that the LDS do a better job than most on this score. I can say for myself that I have been faithfully married to my only spouse for over 20 years and that she and I came to our marriage chaste. We are raising a larger than average size family. I’ll admit that I have a male imagination that must be constantly (self) supervised and that I must forever be on my guard. My faith has been a powerful and undeniable force to help me in this journey.

153. geaorgeD,
     Please, a few of us fellow breeders found some of your comments hateful too. I’m glad you’re backing off of them. I slept on this and realize now exactly why I’m trouble by the church not going beyond slogans to become more gay/lesbian friendly in a day and age when even most apostles acknowledge that homosexuality isn’t a choice. If the church isn’t welcoming to all on this journey we call faith, it’s really not welcoming to any because it means we’re all one thought or act away from some bouncer not letting us in the door.

154. f the church isn’t welcoming to all on this journey we call faith, it’s really not welcoming to any because it means we’re all one thought or act away from some bouncer not letting us in the door.

     That’s poetic, Steve, but rather silly. Of course we could be welcoming to one person and not another. Whether we should is another question, but that has nothing to do with your quote.

155. 353 Hateful?

     I haven’t backed off of a thing I have posted here and nothing I have said is hateful. I will not succumb to accusations of hatefulness. They are weak and desperate utterances of people who do not have the courage to engage in discusssions that challenge their wills.

156. Presumably you’re referring to me, georgeD.

     The tone and language of many of your comments is easily (mis?)construed as hateful by the subjects of your arguments, whether you see it that way or not.

     Your words: perversion, gross, sniveling, weak, desperate, (no) courage……

     All these aspersions cast toward people you don’t even know. You’re not Elijah and I’m not a priest of Baal.

     There are plenty of people in here (bbell comes to mind) who probably hold similar views as yours, but who present them in a way that does not come across as hateful.

157. Michael, John G-W, and Nick L., I do not care that you think my comments are filled with anger because they most likely aren’t, I feel no anger toward any of you. I will say this, that my feelings are very strong that as a worthy TR holder, your lifestyle is as John G-W put it, a lose-lose situation. You all seem to want to promote acceptance of your lifestyle within the church when it is just not acceptable to God and takes away from what the church teaches that the Family consisting of a man and woman as husband and wife is ordained of God, and that anything outside these bounds that the Lord seems to have set in the Garden of Eden many millenia ago still stand today. The gay lifestyle is not acceptable to God and yet you are his children, he loves you, but he, in all of his justice and mercy, cannot tolerate the behavior you show by living within these ‘unordained’ relationships.

     You must have forgotten this, but the church is in the business of promoting a higher standard and not an acceptance of second rate “moral” relationships to justify your causes and whining because you “are not accepted”. Amen #355! This may be construed as hate-mongering, but what is it in your gay makeup that does not allow us to challenge your life and will, you seem to want to challenge us with what we do not feel a need to accept and get all whiny and gay on us when we stand up say, “That’s just wrong!” “Why don’t you accept me, I am alright as i am?” Ummm, no, don’t want to, don’t have to and not going to, carry on, as you were, all gay and that — it’s just complete nonsense to think that being gay is alright just because God did not strike you dead when you shared a ‘bar of soap’!

     If you are all so hell bent on this concept of having equal rights to marry, tell us why this is an absolute necessity to have this? Why, you’re not producing any children, you claim to have good stable relationships already, what and why do you need to have this form of equality? Is it going to get you closer to God? Is it going to allow you to marry in the temple and have God change his mind and alter his eternal doctrines? what in the gay agenda requires you to have gay marriage? C’mon quit with the secret combinations already and confront the truth here! there is no need for SSM, it proves nothing except again a completely wasted desire to be accepted as equals with us.

     Have you literally ‘walked and talked’ with God about your lifestyles? If you believe there is a God out there and you have an interest in truth, go talk with him, and see what he thinks, or is the obvious answer so obvious that a complete denial of anything god-like, including true doctrine, is your only resort?

     Racism, bigotry, hate-mongering, or whatever you want to call this, doesn’t bother me because again to challenge your wills seems to be out of the question, when in fact it is always the question here. Are you asking that I go through hoops to try and understand your lifestyle and livelihood so that I can be tolerant of this and accept this? And waste my time? No. Bring it on, people, i am just not afraid. BTW, Nick, to address your request for a name because you think I am hiding behind a shroud of ‘fear and loathing’ about this shtick…Peter Hall…is that better, does that make you feel more accepted? Go figure…

158. I don’t recall a single post commenting on the observations on the nuclear family by these academics:

     . Marriage reflects the natural moral and social law evidenced the world over.

     As the late British social anthropologist Joseph Daniel Unwin noted in his study of world civilizations, any society that devalued the nuclear family soon lost what he called “expansive energy,” which might best be summarized as society’s will to make things better for the next generation. In fact, no society that has loosened sexual morality outside of man-woman marriage has survived.

     Analyzing studies of cultures spanning several thousands of years on several continents, Harvard sociologist Pitirim Sorokin found that virtually all political revolutions that brought about societal collapse were preceded by a sexual revolution in which marriage and family were devalued.

     The quote by Dr. Sorokin (Chairman of Harvard University’s Sociology Department) was written in the 1950’s. Unwin and he are saying that an “Adam Smith” observation applies to societal conduct: Nuclear families acting to improve life for their children, in concert with others, improve our Civilization. Homosexuality and the concomitant devaluation of marriage act to degrade our Civilization.

159. By not studying the historical lessons of the past, are we destined to repeat the decline of this Civilization?

160. Nuclear families acting to improve life for their children, in concert with others, improve our Civilization. Homosexuality and the concomitant devaluation of marriage act to degrade our Civilization.

     The existence of same-sex relationships and their families does nothing to devalue the nuclear family. Heterosexuals, who breed outside of wedlock or devorce after bearing children devalue the nuclear family. Nor does SSM devalue marriage, it supports it. Let’s be rational here.

161. Romney,

     Even more alarming, I think, are studies that show definitively that no society has ever survived more than a few decades after the establishment of a Designated Hitter rule in baseball. There are absolutely zero (0) societies in history that have lasted long after embracing such a pernicious evil. We are in uncharted waters, here! We must repeal the Designated Hitter rule, asap. Our society’s future may depend on it.

162. Rationality clearly took the A train out of here at about comment #10 by Nazi hyperbole rule (I forget the name).

163. Hey Doc, don’t blame me for the irrationality on display in this string! Maybe some of the hyperbole…. : )

     Most of us have been round-and-round this topic in the Bloggernacle before. Here’s what I have concluded: It’s an intractable moral conflict. I see no resolution in our lifetime. Pat Buchanan has concluded the same thing and has called for a form of political detente. I find the idea intriguing.

     Anybody else here see the situation the same way?

164. If the detente means that I can’t say anything disapproving of homosexual behavior then “no!”. Detente would be surrender and that will not be happening.

165. A Detente sounds good to me. I can agree to disagree. I found the message hopeful in that I saw a strong emphasis on the fact that those with SSA are still children of God and as such deserve respect. Obviously, there was much in the message that the opposing view will take issue with, but heated arguments seem likely to only intensify and polarize both sides. So here, here to a cease fire.

166. What would a cease fire look like to you, Doc?
     I don’t mean rhetorically in the Bloggernacle (that’s easy), I mean politically in society.

     My thoughts on it would certainly allow you to keep saying whatever you darn well want, wherever you want, georgeD. If it were mine to decide, I’d concede on gay marriage but not on domestic partnership protections, for example.
     Haven’t given it much thought beyond that, but it’s an interesting idea.

     That would make for a great string in the Bloggernacle, actually: Cease fire negotions. I’d take the lead on the pro-gay side. Would ask for bbell on the other side. georgeD could play the role of Nasrallah leading the Hezbollah. : )

167. Oh, believe me,

     I’d love for homosexuality to be a political non-issue. Personally, I consider our nation’s health care mess to be a more urgent problem than homosexuality.

     I’d love to simply pass a law giving similar legal protections to all human relationships (not just marriages). Then I’d like to pretty much ignore the debate and move on to the real issues confronting our society.

     But neither the antis or the pros on the gay question seem to be willing to do that. So on it goes, dumbing-down our political discourse with wanton abandon.

168. My cease-fire would be similar to what Dobson proposed in Colorado a couple months ago.

     Gay couples get essentially all the legal rights that married couples get. The law wouldn’t be limited to gay couples only either. It would also cover two elderly sisters living in the same house and taking care of each other, and any other committed relationship where people place themselves in a position of trust/vulnerability to each other.

     But you don’t call it “marriage.”

     I think that’s about the best we can really hope for at this point.

     Personally, I’d like to pass a Constitutional Amendment that government is not permitted to even legally recognize “marriage” per se. Rule marriage licenses unconstitutional… Something like that.

     Then simply apply the legal framework I described above, across the board regardless of religious sensibilities.

     But an amendment like that really isn’t politically feasible, I think. So we’ll have to settle for a generic framework protecting relationships that isn’t linked to “marriage.”

     Neither side will be happy with that, of course. Thus the word “compromise.”

169. Peter,
     First, thank you for identifying yourself. We should all have the courage to stand up for what we believe, whether others agree or not.

     You have stated your position quite clearly. I would invite you to look back in history a bit, however. You will find that many of the same things were said, and deity was invoked, to rationalize legal prohibitions which banned marriage between persons of different racial backgrounds. Religious persons insisted that it was an “eternal” law of deity, that the races didn’t mix in such a way. I have already cited a rather extreme statement of Brigham Young on the subject, but frankly, what he said was quite common for the conservative element in his time. I don’t think anyone would say he was speaking from revelation.

     Likewise, the civil rights movement drew religious ire. Ezra Taft Benson, as an apostle speaking in general conference, stated that the civil rights movement was a Communist plot, designed to bring about revolution in America (and shed the blood of duped African-Americans in the process). Again, you can see that the same thing was being said at that time by Billy Graham and other religious leaders. While we now see Benson’s comments as extreme and erroneous, they were typical of the conservative element in his time. I don’t think anyone would say that Ezra Taft Benson, in that instance, was speaking from revelation.

     I will always admire Elder Bruce R. McConkie, who adamantly stated that persons of African descent would “never” obtain the priesthood, until the last possible descendant of Abel would otherwise have done so—i.e. until the millenium. He spoke what had always been taught in the church up to that time. Then, a revelation came, and look how he responded. He said to FORGET all that he had said before, and that he (and Brigham Young, he noted) had been speaking with LIMITED light and understanding, which had been superceded by further revelation.

     Neither you nor I have any idea what may or may not be announced as a revelation from the president of the church at some future time. Ultimately, we don’t know if the president of the church has asked for revelation on the subject, or merely taken traditional interpretations as sufficient. In the case of the priesthood revelation, circumstances such as the impending dedication of the Sao Paulo Brazil Temple (in a country where nearly everyone has *some* African ancestry, and can rarely prove that they don’t) contributed to prompt the president of the church to ask–even beg?—for a revelation on the subject.

     I am simply saying, Peter, that while your comments certainly do represent the current official understanding of the church, you would be well served to remain open to further revelation. Your post seems to discount that possibility entirely, which is rather counter to the spirit of Mormonism. If a revelation were announced on gay marriage today, which countered your statements, would you embrace new light on the subject, or would you be like those members of the LDS church who LEFT the church when the priesthood revelation was announced, because they just knew that the doctrine could “never” change on that subject?

     Please understand, Peter, that we’re all human. We are all trying to do the best we can, given the circumstances we find ourselves in. You and I may not agree about what constitutes “the best we can,” but I won’t be accountable for your choices, nor will you be accountable for mine. I spent 18 years, if not more, fighting exactly the kind of fight that you recommend. I finally chose not to continue that fight, and frankly, I’m much happier as a result. In the end, however, if I am faced with a deity who stands ready to condemn me for giving up that fight, I will be able to look him in the eye, in good conscience, and tell him I made one hell of an effort.

170. While I haven’t read the details (and have no respect for the wiley and congenitally disingenuous Dr Dobson), I suspect I’d be fine with something along those lines as long as no constitutional ammendments were involved. It could potentially protect today’s gay/lesbian families from some terrible legal and financial problems they now occasionally face, and put out the current political fire. The UK recently took a similar path and it seems to be working out well. My family does not need the word marriage or anyone’s moral validation.

     Then let history judge whether or not we were preserving the sanctity of marriage, or creating a new separate-but-equal situation. I suspect the latter, you the former. Neither of us will be on earth long enough to know for sure.

     So anyway, I disagree that neither side is willing to compromise.

171. From my own anecdotal observation, it is a small minority of GLBT persons who are hung up on the word “marriage.” Most are far more concerned with the many legal rights associated therewith, than they are about what the relationship is called in legal parlance. I know long term companions who call their partner a “husband,” regardless of the lack of a “wedding.” I think you would find the vast majority of GLBT persons today would be willing to compromise by legally calling their recognized relationships “civil unions,” instead of “marriages.” It is, as Mike says, a “separate but equal” answer, which is not the best, but it’s a workable solution.

172. AFV (367) and GeorgeD (seriatim):

     I think you and I are on the same side of the issue here and you’re still driving me nuts.

     Once, on my mission, I got put in an area where no one had baptized anyone for years. One day, the MP called up and told us that if there wasn’t a baptism soon, he’d shut down the area. My comp took that as a sign that we should try “new” methods to bring people to Christ, namely by standing on the street corners and calling (yelling really) people to repent, as he thought Paul and Alma once did. Not only did no baptisms result of his tactics (I was trying to hide myself in the shadows at the time), when word got around the small town we couldn’t even get in doors for the rest of the time we were there.

     My point? Pick your forum and methods better. I’m not saying you’re not right, just that you aren’t doing your cause any favors by the comments made.

173. This seems to bne a good forum to tell people to repent.

     1. There are people here who believe that homosexual behavior is justified for themselves
     2. There are others here who think that it is justified for others but they wouldn’t do such things themselves
     3. There are people here who believe the scriptures and the prophets and believe that homosexual behavior is a sin

     No on the other hand if I went over to a gay rights web site or blog I would concede that perhaps your analogy might apply — not the right forum.

174. You’ve missed my point George. I’m not arguing that your comments aren’t germane, just that they’re ill-advised.

175. jimbob,
     You’re one of the hardliners. I don’t get it?

     georgeD,
     We all sin and fall short of the glory of G-d. Why pick on homosexuals, many of whom relate here they’re doing the best they can with an issue you or I don’t have to deal with?

176. Steve,

     You’re equating my position on this issue (which to someone like yourself probably seems hardline) with a willingness to say it in the way georgeD has. With no offense meant, my post made that pretty clear.

177. I have had 2 friends who grew up in orphanages. one grew up in an orphanage in Harlem in the 50’s and 60’s. It was rough.

     My feeling is that growing up the adopted child of a gay couple is waaayyyyyyy better than growing up in a ghetto orphanage.

     Let them marry and adopt.

178. By the way, is it too late to nominate MikeInWeHo’s comment 356 for the M* sidebar? “You’re not Elijah and I’m not a priest of Baal” is just a great line.

     Hmm, speaking of sidebars . . .

179. Thanks for the compliment, Kaimi. I really do try to put some thought into my blog comments (occasional snarky outbursts — see 316 — notwithstanding).

     Re: #374: “Tell people to repent” does not seem consistent with the M* comments policy. Maybe instead, convince people to change their opinions (or sinful lifestyle) by the strength of your arguments??

     re: 377 We already adopt in many places, and marry in a few. Soon enough you’ll be able to ask and study the thousands of adult children raised in these households how it worked out for them.

180. 375 Stephen EM

     So what are you saying? — we all sin so let’s give sin a chance…?

181. John and Nick:

     If you’re willing to share your experiences, I’m curious about what limits are imposed on your Church activity when you choose to be active both as a Latter-day Saint and a homosexual and how you respond to those. It seems to me that you might be the subject of Church discipline and its consequences (e.g., you wouldn’t have a temple recommend and your bishop might restrict you from being the voice in prayers, holding callings or taking the sacrament). This, it seems, might have the effect of making you feel less welcome or less fully a part of the ward community. In addition, ward members might be uncomfortable around you, perhaps for the same reasons Elder Oaks said parents may not want to publicly associate with their gay children.

     I admire your willingness to participate in the Church when your doing so may be significantly restrained and you face the real possibility of rejection or embarassment.

182. Grant,
     IMHO, the issue is much bigger than a homosexual one. Until the church becomes more sinner friendly, reaches out and gathers the flock, I think we’ll continue to shrink. When I was a sexually active hetero single, I self excommunicated knowing there was no place in the church for sinners like me. When I asked my LDS wife-to-be to marry me, she dragged me back to church to confess. Most sinners aren’t so lucky. I’m sure the situation is much worse for gays not feeling welcome.

     I don’t have any issue with the TR questions, but I do have issues with treating adults like children, prying into the lives of those who forgo TR interviews, but who still wish to worship with other believers, whatever thier sins happen to be. We also need to accept homosexuality, gay PDA, etc just like we accept single hetero PDA. This Q&A was a step backward.

183. Grant:

     My participation in the church is limited to attendance. I was excommunicated (at my own request) in 1986. While I would like to be rebaptized, I have been informed by my bishop that I cannot be unless I were essentially to divorce my partner of 14 years.

     As I have said already elsewhere, I am extremely grateful even for this minimal participation. It has been a source of great joy and comfort to me. I have found a great richness in daily study of the scriptures, in personal prayer, in sharing my testimony with others, and in every other way that I can in living the principles of the gospel.

     I frequently experience great sadness about not being able to participate fully in the church, but as I have also said elsewhere, I understand and accept the limits that have currently been set by the leadership of the church.

184. That’s a very interesting situation, John. Where in the world do you live, anyway?
     I haven’t attended Sacrament Meeting in a LONG time but hope to do so soon, although I’m not really sure why. It’s not as if I’m going to abandon my family just to gain ecclesiatic approval from SLC. I’d like to sing the hymns again, I think. It’s really a bummer that our daughter can’t be involved in the Young Women program. That would be great for her.

     BTW, I’m not sure you were “excommunicated” if you asked to have your named removed from the membership rolls in 1986, but I suppose that’s splitting semantic hairs. How does your partner view your Church attendance? Why do you “accept” the current situation established by the leadership?

185. But you don’t call it “marriage.”

     I personally think marriage is a good thing. Good for gays, good for straights and good for society. If we provide only legal protections and perks for couples and their families (civil unions) we fail to emphasize many of the commitments traditionally associated with marriage: fidelity, love, nurturing and permanence. Marriage would help to provide a model of behavior for the homosexual community that civil unions never could, behavior that is in the interest of the state, the church and society.

     Once civil unions are available, why get married? The availability of a “civil union” option will do more to threaten the institution of marriage, than allowing homosexuals to marry. Conversely, calling it “marriage” will encourage fidelity and permanence for all partners.

186. Re 383: “I frequently experience great sadness about not being able to participate fully in the church, … “

     Apparently not sad enough. The only sorrow that counts with God is the sorrow that leads us to repent. The church isn’t about some cozy environment where songs are sung and scriptures are read. It is an organization that asks us to bend our wills to God and Christ through the Apostles. (See John 17) We are to become united in will with the Father, the Son and the Apostles. The Apostles said that we cannot participate in homosexual behavior. If we can’t agree with that then we cannot be members of the church.

     It is that easy. There isn’t any nuance here.

     The “blogosphere” keeps pulling hard against this but it is pure vanity and pride (enmity) to think that the church is somehow going to turn their direction. I am a human being so I know the pain of having a body and a will that wants me to do one thing and a Father who wants me to do another.

     Repent we must.

187. MikeInWeHo:

     I live in Minnesota. There is a small but very committed and growing LDS community here. Like you, I feel it would be wrong to abandon my family in order formally to join the church. My decision to return to the church was led by the Holy Spirit, and I’ve specifically sought guidance about how to deal with my family situation and have specifically been guided to remain faithful to my partner.

     I know that there have been procedural changes such that now, if you request your name be removed from the records, it is done as an an administrative procedure. Either my bishop in Massachusetts did it wrong, or the changes weren’t instituted until after I left, but yes, I was formally excommunicated.

     My partner is not overjoyed by my attendance at the LDS church. I think it is mainly because he fears that members of the church will pressure me to leave him. None in my ward have; they are very respectful of my situation. But obviously, just read further up this thread and you will see his fears have some basis in reality. Nevertheless, I have a very strong sense from the Holy Spirit that it would be a sin for me to abandon him, in light of the commitments I have made to him before our families and before God.

     So that brings me to your last question… I accept the current situation because I have a testimony that the Lord is leading the church. I have received countless reassurances from the Spirit that I just need to trust and be obedient to the guidance I have received and everything will work out for me.

     If you feel drawn to go back to church, I hope you will go. Attending has been a powerful blessing in my life.

188. If any comment should go on the sidebar, it should be the first half of #386.

     MikeInWeHo’s Baal/Elijah comment was pithy but also a non sequitur. Kaimi seems to like it because he has more sympathy for Mike’s position than those who don’t.

189. I do not, by the way, expect that the church’s policies will change in my lifetime, if ever. I do not know how things will ultimately work out. I do trust in God and in the Spirit’s assurances to me for the remainder of this life, and for the life to come.

190. George,

     Personal revelation and direction of the Spirit continue to direct me to remain with my same-sex partner. We are both believing LDS and have been together 20 years. Do I ignore the voice of God to me personally to align with the view of The Apostles, who still think homosexuality is some kind of “gender confusion?”

191. While not advising it as an acceptable option for anyone, are any of the other branches of Mormonism more sinner friendly?

192. I think it is important to differentiate between the guidance we individually receive from the Holy Spirit, and the guidance the church leaders receive in order to lead the church. I would never generalize from my personal experience to say that my path should be a “rule” for all gay folks. (And by the way, just so it’s clear, I’m not saying that howller is implying that the personal revelation he has received should be generalizable either. Though it wouldn’t surprise me if other gay LDS have received similar guidance.)

     I believe that, for reasons I may not be able to understand, that it is good and necessary for there to be certain rules in the church, and we are well advised to follow them. For those gay folks who are not in a committed and who can do so, I would say it is advisable to follow the rules of the church.

     It is necessary to be VERY CAREFUL here though… The decision to commit to a life of celibacy–in a church which historically has viewed celibacy with extreme disfavor–could be a choice to live a life of EXTREME loneliness and isolation. Unless you have strong support from family and community, this could lead to fatal depression.

     Many, far too many, gay LDS have committed suicide. Utah has the highest rate of suicide in America among young men aged 18-24, the age that most young men typically come to terms with being gay, and other studies confirm that a large proportion of these–as many as around one third or more–are gay men. I don’t see a lot of evidence that folks in the church at large understand us or are sympathetic to us, regardless of our personal situation and struggles. Faced with a hostile church community, it may be a better choice for certain individuals to leave the church and find a community that will be supportive.

     I believe there are many factors that need to be taken into consideration in making these kinds of VERY DIFFICULT decisions. With all due respect to others on the web site who repeatedly feel obliged to shame us and call us to repentance, you are not called to live our lives and you are not entitled to receive revelation on our behalf. That is for us to do.

193. Grant,
     I appreciate you asking for my perspective, but I need to clarify that I am no longer a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. When I came out and divorced, I also had my name removed from the records of the church.

     I did so in part because I knew I was making decisions which were incompatible with LDS membership, but that was actually a fairly minor aspect of my decision. I had long felt frustration with the sharp contrast between the Mormonism of Joseph Smith, vs. modern LDS-ism. Even in the short 26 years I spent in the church, doctrines (not just policies) were changing. I watched as worship of the Father *through* the Son, turned into “We worship Christ,” contradicting even quite recent prophetic and apostolic teachings. I watched as the initiatories were stripped from the Endowment, and replaced by something more reminiscent of a Catholic baptism. (Some here may know that I was a very active proponent of Temple worship in the past, but the fact is, I never went back to the Temple after that dramatic change took place–it was far worse than the 1990 changes.)

     I had also reached a point, Grant, where I could no longer accept the basic model of “sin” and “atonement” upon which Jesus-centered religions are based, including LDS-ism. I could no longer believe in a Father who kicked his kids out of the house if they upset him–something that I, as a mortal and very imperfect father would never do. I could no longer believe in a deity who figuratively at least, employed a panel of celestial accountants, eagerly calculating my debt each time I made a mistake, so that in the end, they could present me with the bill UNLESS some other person happened to get stuck paying it for me. (If you don’t think LDS-ism teaches that, you need to read Boyd K. Packer’s “parable” regarding the atonement, or watch the church film based on that “parable,” which shows that the model is correlation-approved.) It no longer made sense to me that LDS would trumpet their rejection of “orginal sin” on the basis that a just deity would not punish you and I for Adam’s transgression, while at the same time celebrating that a just deity would punish a carpenter-turned-rabbi for our transgressions.

     During this time of deep thought, my research for a book I am writing led me to the sermons of the Reverend Hosea Ballou. Ballou was a Universalist minister in Vermont, and happened to be the minister to the Smith family at the time Joseph Smith Jr. was born. Ballou taught, among other things, that it was impossible for finite man to offend an infinite god. Without listing all his ideas out in this blog, suffice it to say that what he said resonated with me.

     So, when I left the church, it was really over far more foundational issues, rather than because I happened to be gay. I still maintain an interest in Mormonism from a historical and sociological perspective. I still have many LDS friends. In terms of my own life, however, I have reached a point where I believe in personal responsibility and natural consequences. I don’t need to pretend that someone else’s physical and mental anguish makes it okay for me to grow and change for the better. I can learn from my mistakes, and move onward without this sense of “payment” being required by some sort of uber-capitalist heavenly economy. I make mistakes daily, of course, but I have no more need to beat myself up over them. I can learn from them, and strive to do better.

194. Steve,
     The Community of Christ (formerly the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and still such for legal purposes) is much more “sinner-friendly,” as you call it. However, those who believe in the Mormonism of Joseph Smith would be very hard pressed to accept the CofC version as “authentic,” for lack of a better term.

195. By the way, I see the Oaks/Wickman interview as a step toward promoting the kinds of attitudes in the church that might make a choice to live a life of celibacy more feasible/liveable. I know the church certainly wasn’t there 20 years ago when I was coming to terms with this.

196. On the other hand, John, I can also see this interview as a step toward promoting the kinds of attitudes in the church that might make members openly ostracize men like yourself who seek to participate to the degree they are able. Given the counsel they gave to parents, I can see many who are unrelated feeling justified in shunning gays who try to attend church meetings, etc.

197. I am concerned about that as a possible consequence. However, the interview at least begins to acknowledge some realities related to being same-gender oriented that hopefully will promote greater understanding of everyone who struggles with this, not just those striving to live up to the church’s ideal.

198. Wow, that’s very charitable and optimistic of you John. I tend to agree with Nick though. Have you ever taken your partner to Church with you?

199. I for one am grateful that those commentators like mikeinweho, and John Gustav have emerged in this debate. I enjoy hearing from them.

200. My partner has on very rare occasions been with me to church–literally a handful of times when we were visiting my parents, and he and I accompanied them to church. Years ago on one such visit, he and I briefly held hands in church, and this apparently caused an enormous brouhaha, and he has been afraid to come to church with me since then.

     I have invited him to come, and assured him that it would probably be fine as long as there were no more PDA’s. Perhaps some day he will, but for now he is (understandably) wary. He and I have had the missionaries over, and a member of the ward and her husband have invited me and my partner over to dinner.

     What complicates things is that my partner is of African ancestry. So he is convinced that the church discriminates against him not just because he is gay. There are actually a fair number of African American and African immigrant members of our ward–many more than in the whitebread Protestant congregation he and I have attended together for years, and I have pointed this out to him. But the UCC has a long history of combatting slavery and racism, while the LDS church has a bit different of a history in this regard. So again, his wariness is understandable.

     I hope the church will look for more ways to make people of all types feel more welcome.

Comments are closed.