- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I just want to express one feeling. There have been several very prominent Latterday Saints who have spoken out quit harshly on homosexuality. I will not mention them here, but I would like to give one example:
http://www.bluemoonprod.com/pdf/The_Alarm_Is_Sounding_36_Mormon_FINAL.pdf I pray about this a great deal. I truly believe that we should NOT make this issue a political, cultural or even a spiritual war. Rather, I submit that the correct way to deal with this is to do the following:
Protect all children from sexual abuse – pay very close attention when you suspect something is wrong. [Address sub-issues as separate issues, instead of wrapping everything into one gigantic bogeyman enemy.]
Protect children from prenatal exposures to synthetic and natural estrogens (in large amounts) and amphetamines. Monitor expectant mothers who are receiving synthetic or natural thyroid hormone replacement. These medications can cause gender orientation disorders in the development fetuses. Screen all newborns for congenital adrenal hyperplasia – treat immediately. CAH can cause gender orientation disorders. Diagnose, treat and monitor all children with disorders of sexual development and differentiation. [Identify and address medical / scientific causes.]
Don’t blame all moral problems on the “Gay Agenda”. [Don’t over-generalize issues and shift blame exclusively to others.]
Lastly and most importantly – Live the Law of Chastity and be an example to your children and others. [Be proactive in setting the example you want others to follow.]
[This is Ray. We have never edited comments like I have done throughout this thread, but it was beginning to spiral into a war over homosexuality instead of the unique topic the title suggests. We have other threads dedicated to homosexuality as the core issue; we don’t need another one. Therefore, I am redirecting this thread to address not making issues cultural wars – and editing the comments accordingly.
I know MWallace addressed homosexuality as a prime example, but let’s move this to a more general discussion of war rhetoric.Please understand, MWallace – and everyone else.] [Deleted: Personal attack only] I think the key to Cromar’s attack is that he automatically assumes that homosexual unions can never be faithful. To a certain extent, under the current social conditions, living as a gay couple must have an enormous number of pressures that would not be there if society were more accepting and understanding. From the few couples that I know they are just as faithful and “together” as the best heterosexual marriages that I know of. My “sample size” is quite small but if I extend it to couples that I have information about through the web, podcasts etc. it becomes quite a number of very faithful, obviously loving couples. [So, assumptions might be wrong, thus motivating war rhetoric.]
[Deleted – for reasons articulated in Ray’s comment further in the thread.]
So thanks MWallace this is an excellent post. BUT sorry, it looks like it is a culture war. It is just too easy to equate homosexuality with child molesting and moral decay and all the other ugly stuff in Comar’s little essay. As Comar happily points out, incorrectly but with great energy, Greek and Roman civilization fell from “rot within”. I believe the rot wasn’t homosexuality it was a combination of the pursuit of personal greed above all other values and a total falling away from civic responsibility in favor of personal gain.
[So, you are saying mis-characterizing something leads to battle rhetoric; properly characterizing something is a way to address that type of rhetoric.]
I just read Cromar’s article, and I don’t even know what to say–I’m honestly stunned. That was 4 pages of nonsense, hateful nonsense. After my mind has recovered from the beating it just took, I’ll write a longer post, but I need to calm down so I don’t say anything over the top or anything that sounds too angry. I caution myself against becoming too “alarmed” by those who cry wolf. I respect Cromar’s opinion and right to say what he wants. I cringe to see him use quotes from church leaders about broad subjects, and then he seems to apply it to specific situations as his discretion.
I don’t think we need to be provoked into war.
I did not know that thyroid meds could cause that. I have been on Armour thyroid the past 5 years for an under active thyroid. I was 35 when I had my gay son but was not on it then. But, I did have a lot of problems with that pregnancy and my lympathic system was on overload. You know, there was a time when I believed all that stuff in that article. I was heavy into ex-gay change ministries and had all sorts of fears about the gay lifestyle. I read books on the diseases my son could get and how awful gay sex was. It could literally scare a mom to death. Thank goodness my Danish doctor friend, who did live a very promiscuous gay lifestyle for 15 years, was able to teach me the facts and understand homosexuality so much better. Diseases among straights, and child abuse among straights is even worse he showed me.
So, I totally agree with you on protecting our children from child abuse and other things. We must be constantly vigilant. Bridget
My views probably differ from most here but that’s really not important. I would say, with respect to MWallace, that it’s really wishful thinking to assume that this issue will not become a political, cultural, and spiritual war. There are embedded feelings (or prejudices if you like) in the Church against homosexuality that will take much longer to purge than it has for mainstream society.
I will agree, however, that the Church will necessarily have to become more and more lax on this issue.
There is much more scriptural condemnation for homosexual behavior than there ever was for, say, blacks in the priesthood. Also, blacks had been integrated and accepted into society for much longer than gays have.
It has to happen for growth to occur, of course, but I certainly expect a bit of a war.
My opinion only….
How can we help others focus their energy on finding solutions to real problems (such as incest, child abuse, substance abuse) rather than blaming a segment of the population for what they perceive as the problems of society? How can we, ourselves, help others with their struggles through both sides of these difficult problems?
The whole point, to me, is that focusing on “gays” and blaming them for the downfall of society is misplaced and unhelpful. It seems to me that discriminating or being hateful towards any group only adds problems to the situation.
I’m not sure that I really understand the purpose of this thread. Hopefully my comments are in line with the original intent. I’m going to pass on reading the linked article.
Quote:The whole point, to me, is that focusing on “gays” and blaming them for the downfall of society is misplaced and unhelpful. It seems to me that discriminating or being hateful towards any group only adds problems to the situation.
AMEN!!
deleted Gosh borninit…that’s hardcore but understandable. I wish sometimes that the scriptures were a little more vague on the subject.
The only way I can try to empathize with our gay brothers and sisters is to imagine that back in my teens and twenties (with the hormones raging) someone had told me that the gender I’m attracted to (females by the way) is a sin and I should remain celibate and that God considered my participating in any physical contact with them an abomination. Would I have done it anyway?
It’s very uncomfortable to say that “Hey bud…your most powerful inclination is wrong and it’s up to you to suppress it”, when I don’t have that inclination myself.
However, (and there’s always that “however”) God has spoken on the subject for millennia and I don’t think he stuttered.
[So, how do we avoid battle rhetoric no matter what our perspective is?]
My opinion only…
Wish I was wrong but can’t see it…
[Moderator comment]: 1) This thread is NOT about homosexuality at its root. It is about how we handle topics like homosexuality without resorting to battle verbiage – without making a war out of it. There are other threads that deal directly with homosexuality as the central issue. Comments on this thread that don’t deal directly with the issue of battle rhetoric will be deleted.
2) We do not try to enforce or regulate any particular view on topics of discussion, but I draw the line on one particular “doctrine” – a bright line that will not be crossed unless there is a topic that addresses it directly. That line is consigning people to Hell. Current Mormon theology establishes “Outer Darkness” as the only end result comparable to the mainstream Christian conception of Hell – and only the most intentional and rebellious sinners end up there according to that theology. Comments consigning others as a broad group to Hell are not acceptable and will be deleted.
I hope everyone understands these points and respects them.
Dealing with how to disagree without reviling and resorting to war rhetoric, I wrote the following posts on my personal blog: Recognizing and Removing the Roots of Reviling (
http://thingsofmysoul.blogspot.com/2008/11/learning-from-proposition-8-recognizing.html Proposition 8 and the Presidency: A Week of Reviling (
http://thingsofmysoul.blogspot.com/2008/11/proposition-8-and-presidency-week-of.html Wow, seeing how hard Ray is struggling to keep this thread in its proper context just shows how difficult it is for us to separate our thoughts on the subject. So in response to the original post: I think it’s probably impossible to approach the subject of homosexuality from a single place. My personal feelings about it have nothing to do with any scripture. Does anyone here judge homosexuality based purely on scripture? Do you ignore your own thoughts if they contradict the stance of the church? Is that what the church wants?
I think morality (church) is just one color that is used to paint the whole picture. It is so hard to ignore science, psychology, anthropology, statistics, life experience, personal feelings etc…I think they are all valuable in the argument.
I think the war comparisons are rampant, particularly in that special breed of political creature we call “Christian Conservative”. But, it also gets hijacked by the left as well. “War on poverty”, “war on drugs”, “war on terror”, etc. And, of course, adding the BoM to canonized scripture added another copious amount of war rhetoric to the “meaning of life” paradigm.
Look at the hymn book, for heaven’s sake. Replete with war references.
I feel similarly about this topic as I do any time anyone uses fear to motivate. It’s abusive and inappropriate. There, I said it. And that includes the scriptures, imho.
Why use war to sell an idea when you could use love instead? Because fear is easier to use. Politicians fall into this trap constantly. It’s like they’re addicted to the fear option.
Parents struggle with this as well. How easy is it to just threaten your kid to coerce obedience?
War rhetoric plays on the basest of human emotions: fear, sense of urgency, survival instinct. All’s fair in love and war: means you can have a black/white view of the topic, end of discussion.
How many times do you hear, “Because God said so”. That’s the discussion ender. No more conversation, it’s been decided. Like the commander-in-chief: push the button, make the call, don’t ask questions and don’t apologize.
It all feels so un-Christ-like. I know Christ used a war analogy once, can’t remember the exact scripture but I did a talk on it years ago. It was unique in that it wasn’t a metaphor for urgency, fear, or survival.
I know this is a vicious ramble but it’s something that gets my blood pumping, again due to my political and “spiritual” leanings.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.