- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
When it comes to family units and childrearing situations, it’s easy to talk about the ideal, but not so easy to make it happen. Many people, gay or straight, live in less-than-ideal family circumstances; but they make it work the best they can. I really think, for example, that children who are abused, neglected, or orphaned can benefit from any adoptive family, whether gay or straight. I’ve seen several examples of this as a public school teacher. Regarding same-sex marriage, I think it’s important to recognize that whether we like it or not, America is not a Mormon theocracy. The very Constitution that we revere in the Church grants all American citizens rights and freedoms not to be infringed upon with impunity, even by Judeo-Christian religious institutions. Here is an example to chew on.
One of the reasons that the potential enforcement of shari’a law in the West is so frightening to many of us is that we are not Muslims—we haven’t made the choice to become Muslim, and by extension, we haven’t agreed to the terms of shari’a. If shari’a were to be enforced in America, our freedom would be bound by the religious dictates of Islam, whether we agreed to them or not. I would argue that many gays and lesbians who wish for the right to marry are in the same position vis a vis traditional Christianity in the U.S., and LDS teachings in particular. They haven’t made the covenants we have made. Most of them haven’t heard the Plan of Salvation. Many of them might not even believe in an afterlife–why would they live alone now in order to wait for a better situation later? It makes no sense. We should be careful not to enshrine our beliefs into laws that others, who do not share our religious beliefs, would be hard-pressed to live. I believe that God can and will sort it out.
Gays and lesbians are who they are, and the same jurisprudence that protects straight Americans’ rights to consensual sexuality should also protect them. It should also protect their rights to form legal unions. We can have freedom to live according to the dictates of our conscience (allowing others to do so as well), or we can have a theocracy of some kind, but we can’t have it both ways. If we as Mormons decide that we are going to campaign against reasonable rights of others, we should not be surprised when they come after our rights.
There are terrible possibilities and outcomes for children in ALL marriages and in all marital structures. There are bad consequences for my children being born to me and my wife. We experiment with marriage all the time, in all marriages. If we didn’t believe in experimentation, we would do MUCH more pre-marital training and have WAY more marital restrictions. I appreciate the freedom to experiment with regard to child rearing, or we wouldn’t have been able to have my children when we had them. Just saying.
Finally, the actual issue is gay marriage, NOT gay couples raising children. Personally, I don’t separate them into acceptable and not acceptable – but those two issues are very, very different issues. Conflating them is just like conflating sexual relationships and intimacy – and we as a people do that far, far too often.
cwald wrote:There is plenty of science and research that supports the opinion that SSA is biological.
cwald, just to be clear, you’re not suggesting ALL research makes it definitive, right? It is still all over the map, but some does support the theory it is biological, right?I think the church is softening its stance on the issue. That shows me they are trying to be loving. The church isn’t perfect, and awaits more revelation on the subject, but they try. I give them credit for that, and I think it is fair to call for more change to make it even more loving and accepting for LGBT mormons.
Heber13 wrote:cwald wrote:There is plenty of science and research that supports the opinion that SSA is biological.
cwald, just to be clear, you’re not suggesting ALL research makes it definitive, right? It is still all over the map, but some does support the theory it is biological, right?…Corrrect. At this time, there is no “fact” to this issue. [edited by moderator]
Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2
Roy, your example of how you deal with your son is far different from well-established models of family structure.
Old-Timer wrote:I think we have to be very careful about assumptions, especially when we don’t allow people to marry (or form legal civil unions) and then turn around and use unmarried and single parent situations as a basis for speaking about unmarried, dual parent situations.
Importantly, I think that’s true of BOTH sides of this particular issue. I understand that we shouldn’t assume no issues with gay marriage, but we also shouldn’t assume issues with gay marriages based off of faulty comparisons. After all, gay marriages are MUCH more similar in structure and composition to straight marriages than they are to single parenthood.
I side with Elder Oaks on this one.Quote:Regarding same-sex marriage, I think it’s important to recognize that whether we like it or not, America is not a Mormon theocracy. The very Constitution that we revere in the Church grants all American citizens rights and freedoms not to be infringed upon with impunity, even by Judeo-Christian religious institutions.
You are correct in that America is not a Mormon theocracy, but Mormons can certainly speak up on the matter and have an influence. Any person has the right to be with anyone else, but they do not have the right to have the rest of society sanction that relationship.turinturambar wrote:Regarding same-sex marriage, I think it’s important to recognize that whether we like it or not, America is not a Mormon theocracy. The very Constitution that we revere in the Church grants all American citizens rights and freedoms not to be infringed upon with impunity…If we as Mormons decide that we are going to campaign against reasonable rights of others, we should not be surprised when they come after our rights.
Let me provide the perspective of someone that used to be opposed to same-sex marriage, kind of supports it now, but who can find my enthusiasm waning sometimes. The reason that I mildly support it is that I believe it won’t hurt society to adopt a new norm, where we redefine marriage and allow for it in cases that were previously and commonly viewed as objectionable. In other words, I view it is a big cultural and social change that would benefit many and harm few (or none). But at the same time, what makes me pause is hearing proponents of same-sex marriage take the stance that marriage is a universal right and that Mormons, Catholics and Evangelical Christians have swooped in to take it away. Extremists (no one on this site) say that people that oppose it are next to Nazis in their zeal to oppress innocent people. But none of that is true to history. In the long history of mankind, the first nation to legalize same-sex marriage was The Netherlands… and that was just 12 years ago. Since then, only 10 other nations have legalized it (Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Iceland, Argentina, and Denmark).
I think it divides and polarizes to presume that same-sex marriage is an inalienable right, just as it divides and polarizes to presume that God hates it.
I think the best way to move it forward is not to talk about trampling rights, oppressing, persecuting, but to recognize same-sex marriage as something new and that it is the prerogative of a modern society consciously to change its ways for the better. We don’t have to be stuck with the old ways, just like we have (largely) rejected racism and sexism. It’s exciting to have the ability to do so. It shows the strength of a free society. It shows that we can self-evolve.
For the record, I am not currently opposed to SSM, but I wouldn’t go out and advocate for it, either. I like the idea of civil unions. I can see, however, that many gays and lesbians see civil unions as unequal–as yet another instance of millenia’s old persecution and discrimination against homosexuals. Just last month, two young men were beaten on the campus where I teach for being gay. It was only fourteen years ago that Matthew Shepard was beaten to death in Wyoming. The radical gay activists aside, when a whole group of people continues to live in fear, I think it is reasonable to expect them to continue to talk about “trampling rights, oppressing, persecuting”. I believe that the anger of some same-sex marriage proponents is fueled by legitimate dissatisfaction with thousands of years of beatings, murders, and other persecutions. America provides an environment in which true equality and brotherhood of man can be achieved, if we want it. I like this idea: On Own Now wrote:I believe it won’t hurt society to adopt a new norm, where we redefine marriage and allow for it in cases that were previously and commonly viewed as objectionable. In other words, I view it is a big cultural and social change that would benefit many and harm few (or none)…We don’t have to be stuck with the old ways, just like we have (largely) rejected racism and sexism. It’s exciting to have the ability to do so. It shows the strength of a free society. It shows that we can self-evolve.
The Church is certainly not a bunch of “Nazi’s” (BTW I hate the “Nazi card”. It’s so unreasonable). However, I’m sure it has been said before, but I truly believe the Church’s involvement in Prop 8 was a complete disaster for the Work. What may have begun as a legitimate exercise in democracy turned into something very ugly. Some members of the Church felt justified in saying horrible and inaccurate things about gay people under the aegis of prophetic authority, and others silently allowed it. The Law of Chastity aside—the lie that being gay is a choice, and is amenable to agency, has done incalculable damage to thousands of men and women, and their loved ones. The Church is quietly distancing itself from this “teaching”, perhaps too quietly (witness the recent hullabaloo over Josh Weed). Millions of members of the Church still believe this untruth; an untruth that whips otherwise good people up into hatred, into abandoning the pure love of Christ, and into rejecting their covenants to “bear one another’s burdens, that they may be light.” The effect is that gays and lesbians who may have accepted the fullness of the gospel have now been hardened into enemies. They and their loved ones leave the Church, and will now never have space in their hearts for it. Meanwhile, gays and lesbians in the Church continue to learn to hate themselves and know that they only have four choices: leave the Church and find a partner, undergo therapy and enter into a potentially disastrous mixed-orientation marriage, live alone for the rest of their lives, or suicide. The Church will pay for this in bad PR and disaffection of members for decades to come. It makes me very sad.
The following is a link to resources that I think might be helpful for others as they try to stay LDS and learn about how the Church now views homosexuality and same-sex attraction:
turinturambar wrote:I truly believe the Church’s involvement in Prop 8 was a complete disaster for the Work.
Absolutely true. I think not only how the church is perceived from without… but I think it inadvertently made Church members more open, in spite of the stance of the Church. In fact, it was the Church’s backing of Prop 8 that forced me to re-evaluate and then change my position on SSM to a more accepting posture.
I hope that I can speak as freely about how I feel as others are about how they feel. I hope that this forum is more about staying lds, than about supporting only homosexuality.
[Yes, Featherina, you can, as long as you follow the rules of etiquette of the site – and this site has never been “about supporting only homosexuality”. In fact, this thread hasn’t been focused on “supporting homosexuality”. It’s been about the focus of the thread topic – the origins of same sex attraction and legal marriage. The fullness of “homosexuality” hasn’t been a topic of discussion in this thread. Ray]
turinturambar wrote:I remember having same sex feelings long before the age of accountability.
Turinturambar,I understand & believe you when you say you have feelings for the same sex.
Yet, I also am aware of human physiology & human development.
Normally children at the “age of accountability” – 8 years old – are not sexual & having no sexual feelings before 8 years old.
Boys and girls up until at least 10 usually think the opposite sex have cuties & mostly keep with their own gender friends.
Newborns for several months cannot even distinguish between themselves & others, let alone between genders.
Then as they approach the teen years, they start to notice the opposite sex more.
Children are not born with any sexual feelings – homosexual, nor heterosexual – but they develop, & sometimes when abuse or some type of sexual experienced is involved with children, they may develop sexual feelings prematurely.
A friend adopted some foster-care kids who had been sexually abused – both were obviously more mature sexually, than most & even physically matured faster than most children.
Quote:So what to do about it? Gays and lesbians are leaving the Church.
As Oaks, said, it’s more truthful to call someone who prefers homosexual fettishes, as such preferences, instead of labeling them as if they themselves are the fettish.People who have others sexual fettishes are leaving the church too – what should we do about them?
Why are homosexual fettishes any more special than other fettishes, or other concerns that people have?
What should we do about the many who leave the church because somebody offended them?
What should we do about the many who leave the church because their preferences in church music include drums and guitar?
What should we do about the many who are so depressed, for various reasons, so they hide out & isolate themselves?
Part of it is up to them to reach out, love & realize that no group is perfect & to take the good & leave what they consider bad.
Part of it is up to us to reach out & love whoever is in our sphere of influence… & by love, mean to strive for what is best.
wayfarer wrote:I have been on every side of this issue, and where I have landed is that is morally evil to enforce a specific cultural-religious viewpoint on human sexuality.
And I believe that it is morally evil to enforce a specific sexual fettish on CHILDREN, yet that is exactly what is being done in public schools where same-sex marriage has been legalized…
Just a few examples:
*Freshmen were told not to tell their parents about a pro-gay seminar & were required to sign a confidentiality agreement (Derrfield, Illinois Mar. 2007).
*In March, 2007, a Massachusetts high school banned parents from attending a seminar for students on how they can know they are homosexual.
*In October, 2008, First graders (6 year-old students) were taken on a field trip to watch their lesbian teacher’s wedding.
*In Oct 2008, a Hayward CA public elementary school celebrated “Coming Out Day.”
Also, others’ rights have been infringed upon in favor of supporting gay rights.
*In April 2008, an Albuquerque photographer was fined over $6,000 for refusing to be hired to photograph a lesbian couple’s commitment ceremony.
*In May, 2008, a black administrator was fired from the U of Toledo, Ohio, for writing an editorial objecting to the comparison of black discrimination to same-sex marriage.
*An intolerant opponent of Proposition 8 even violently attacked & injured a Proposition supporter in Oct. 2008.
*On November 19, 2008, eHarmony, a Christian-based matching service was forced by New Jersey’s Division on Civil Rights to provide website matching services for homosexuals.
Nephite wrote:Any person has the right to be with anyone else, but they do not have the right to have the rest of society sanction that relationship.
I agree.And they already have many rights, if they bother to write up contracts like common law marriage and cohabitation agreements.
Legal marriage’s main societal purpose is to ensure the well-being of future society: children.
Although not all heterosexual couples have children, all children come from heterosexual unions.
Therefore, society & lawmakers have a vested interest in making sure children are brought up to be good tax-paying citizens, & ideally not wards of the state.
Couples with homosexual preferences can never have children & do not represent the scientifically based, ideal mother and father parenting team which children need, therefore there is no reason for them to redefine marriage as it has been defined & applied in functional ways for centuries.
Mothers are important. Fathers are important. To deny the importance of either is to deny the importance of both in how we each came to be conceived.
LDS leaders attempt to encourage healthy behavior, as responsible lawmaker’s aim is to support laws that encourage healthy people within the society.
Michael Glatz, ex-gay rights leader who previously had homosexual preferences but overcame them, said, “Homosexuality is death and I choose life.” Homosexuality is NOT what we want to teach children (despite it being taught in some schools now), especially considering that statistically, according to the US CDC, homosexual practices present risks… since homosexuals switch partners often, they are more likely to get STDs & AIDS (2 friends of mine died from AIDS).
http://www.cdc.gov/stdconference/2000/media/stdgay2000.htm http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm We also know that anal sex is risky (for anal fissures, colon rupture, bacterial infection & anal cancer), even in 2 healthy individuals.
“1. No research has found provable biological or genetic differences between heterosexuals & homosexuals that weren’t caused by their behavior.
2. In 2 large studies conducted… Homosexuals overwhelmingly believed their feelings and behavior were the result of social or environmental influences.
3. Older homosexuals often approach the young
4. Early homosexual experiences influence adult patters of behavior
5. Sexual conduct is influenced by cultural factors – esp. religious convictions
6. Many change their sexual preferences
7. There are many ex-homosexuals”
Environmental factors may influence sexual orientation
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2006/oct/06102608 To me, this testifies that God/GOoD advises us to avoid homosexuality & to live & teach only heterosexuality under marriage between a man & a woman, not just “because he says so” – but for many reasons it is health & life-promoting.
Sorry Featherina, but you just put whole new meaning to the term “strawman.” Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2
cwald wrote:Sorry Featherina, but you just put a whole new meaning to the term “strawman.”
Please logically explain exactly what I stated that you took to be a “strawman,” instead of just randomly calling out a name, otherwise you are presenting your own strawman logical fallacy.
This thread does nothing to help folks staylds…and only insults and demeans many of our members. It should go away. IMO. Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2
- The topic ‘Origins of Same Sex Attraction, Legal Marriage’ is closed to new replies.