- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
wayfarer wrote:mormonheretic wrote:
I just did a post on Intersexuals, which is pertinent to the discussion about gender. See
http://www.mormonheretic.org/2012/04/29/gender-for-intersexuals/
troublemaker! don’t confuse religious ‘truth’ with the facts.EXACTLY!
Intersexuals are the best example, imo, of why we can’t say, “God wouldn’t create someone gay.” Evolution gets really wonky in lots of situations, and there’s no good explanation of intersexuality within traditional Christianity or current Mormon orthodoxy. It’s pretty easy to explain, imo, without doing any harm whatsoever to our theology – but it requires, at the very least, a recognition that sexuality (and I use that specific word – not others – intentionally) isn’t as simple or eternal as we assume. Old-Timer wrote:…there’s no good explanation of intersexuality within traditional Christianity or current Mormon orthodoxy. It’s pretty easy to explain, imo, without doing any harm whatsoever to our theology ….
What?
That is okay. We know each other pretty well by now.
🙂 Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome is another confounding phenomenon. I once heard someone say “God wouldn’t allow anyone to be born in a body of the wrong sex.” Nice wish for someone who doesn’t care to find out what really happens on this earth.
Ok, so if sexuality, sex, gender etc. etc. is not as eternal as so many like to think, and if the sexual aspect of marriage is a mortal thing as well, then why should the Church give an inch towards recognizing the validity of gay marriage? I imagine some would say: if it turns out that gender is so malleable or temporary, then why not let two people marry no matter what their gender?
It is unfashionable to talk about gender differences in terms of personality, but maybe another reason to stick with marriage between male and female (besides to control procreation) is to hold two opposites together in a state of tension that is necessary for development, and that a marriage between two of the same sex or gender would be too comfortable to afford that? The culture of the Church has really bought into the romantic ideal of marrying someone who you’re madly in love with and so on, but the attitude that you must find the one who you agree with and are most gratified to be with is what causes people to approach relationships with a kind of “enlightened” selfishness that must be hard to keep from sliding towards an adolescent selfishness. Mary Woolstonecraft wrote some good stuff on the nature of romantic love and its unsuitability as a foundation for marriage.
There are plenty of ways that someone can be born with conditions that would deprive them of reaching the norm of man-woman marriage, and not all of them have to do with sexuality or sexual orientation. And I know it’s popular among Mormons to believe that Jesus must have been married, but maybe we should focus more on Him as a freak: someone who had such a unique job to do that He couldn’t live the normal life we hold up as the standard. So if the Savior of the world was a freak, then maybe everyone else who lives a life unsuitable for the norm of marriage and family similarly has some kind of special job?
Is the promise that those who don’t get to marry (and by implication find true love) in this life will get to in the eternities just a nice wish too?
More unpopular thoughts: what about those whom God has made sociopaths?
Riceandbeans wrote:Ok, so if sexuality, sex, gender etc. etc. is not as eternal as so many like to think, and if the sexual aspect of marriage is a mortal thing as well, then why should the Church give an inch towards recognizing the validity of gay marriage? I imagine some would say: if it turns out that gender is so malleable or temporary,
then why not let two people marry no matter what their gender?…
😯 It just seems so so so easy and logical to me. That is why I get frustrated when others don’t.
Riceandbeans wrote:It is unfashionable to talk about gender differences in terms of personality, but maybe another reason to stick with marriage between male and female (besides to control procreation) is to hold two opposites together in a state of tension that is necessary for development, and that a marriage between two of the same sex or gender would be too comfortable to afford that?
I see your point R&B, but to outlaw certain forms of marriage because we believe that the participants might otherwise be denied certain benefits from not living the “ideal” form of marriage – is quite a stretch.
Take the TV show “the Bachelor” for instance. The show has me convinced that through a process of competitive scarcity and high priced “dream dates” one can manufacture something fairly similar to love. (At least by the end of the season everyone is proclaiming love.) Then at the end of the show you have two relative strangers that decided to go on TV for 15 min. of fame. And yet even though I believe this is a terrible way to start a life together they are perfectly free to get married (and divorce 3 months later, or have a child together and then divorce, or just skip the marriage and live together with or without having children). How can we take such an active opposition to Gay marriage and not work to stop any other less than ideal marriage or cohabitation situations.
Of course there are societal trends to think about. If we were to protest cohabitation, or children born out of wedlock, or people that marry too young or without getting to adequately know each other or without taking a required compatibility test, with the same fervor as Gay marriage – we would be marginalized to the fringe. Whereas, when we protest Gay marriage we are merely being conservative.
I would be inclined to agree that being homosexual or having homosexual tendencies is not the ideal (i.e. is not the preferred method to fit in and get through life in this heterosexually based society), I would also agree that being an intersexual or having Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome is not the best way to go either. But for individuals that find themselves in these situations/personal realities – what are we to do with them? or rather – how are we to treat these, our Brothers and Sisters?
Roy wrote:I see your point R&B, but to outlaw certain forms of marriage because we believe that the participants might otherwise be denied certain benefits from not living the “ideal” form of marriage – is quite a stretch.
I guess I’d better state clearly that I don’t see much if any point of trying to outlaw gay marriage where human laws are concerned; I think the horse has kind of left the barn on that one. I’m dealing with the matter strictly in terms of what the Church would recognize and seal in the Temple.
Quote:If we were to protest cohabitation, or children born out of wedlock, or people that marry too young or without getting to adequately know each other or without taking a required compatibility test, with the same fervor as Gay marriage – we would be marginalized to the fringe. Whereas, when we protest Gay marriage we are merely being conservative.
It would be nice if the Church leadership made the volume equal on their protests against each of these. I have seen plenty of protest against cohabitation and unwed parenting, but I grant it might not be as strong as the protest against gay marriage lately. And it would be quite refreshing to hear more against marrying too young etc. Personally, I wish we had the collective nerve to marginalize ourselves to the fringe. The way we always hear about “the world’s standards change but we won’t budge” then all the PR stuff to try to get everyone to like us really looks to me like wanting to have it both ways.
Quote:for individuals that find themselves in these situations/personal realities – what are we to do with them? or rather – how are we to treat these, our Brothers and Sisters?
I repeat: if Jesus could live a life of freakishness where the sexual norm is concerned, then we should be able to find places for others who also must for different reasons. Is it our lingering anti-Catholicism that creates the feeling that asking people to live celibate lives is subjecting them to evil persecution? Or is it our Mormon fondness for crying “persecution!” whenever someone gives us a hard time? Maybe if Buddhism continues to be so popular in American society then celibacy will lose its reputation as such a horrible thing . . . no, that would take Buddhism being adopted more seriously rather than as a hipster affectation.
Quote:if Jesus could live a life of freakishness where the sexual norm is concerned
Fwiw, I don’t believe he did. I don’t believe that he was celibate, and I believe he probably was married. Count the days of his life of which we have a record of any kind. It’s interesting and instructive. We know next to nothing of his life outside of his ministry – and very, very little of it even within the three years of that ministry.
I also think there is a very good argument to be made that Paul was a celibate homosexual – that being attracted to other men was the “thorn of his flesh” to which he referred. Yes, that’s blatant speculation and absolutely heterodox, but I don’t think it’s an unreasonable guess. I certainly wouldn’t preach it or try to get others to believe it, but it’s hard to say it’s an impossibility – and it makes as much sense as just about any other option.
Here is the link to the official church statement on same-sex attraction: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/official-statement/same-gender-attraction Just to be accurate technically, the link in Bridget’s comment is to an interview in 2006 with Elder Holland and Elder Wickman about homosexuality. The Church’s current position about homosexuality (published in 2007) is at the following link: Thanks for that Ray. Old-Timer wrote:I believe in the concept and principle of continuing revelation. I’m open to lots of things happening that would shock many members.
Yeah, that.
Replying after two months — hope that doesn’t get me too many boos. Old-Timer wrote:I don’t believe that he [Jesus] was celibate, and I believe he probably was married. Count the days of his life of which we have a record of any kind. It’s interesting and instructive. We know next to nothing of his life outside of his ministry – and very, very little of it even within the three years of that ministry.
I also think there is a very good argument to be made that Paul was a celibate homosexual – that being attracted to other men was the “thorn of his flesh” to which he referred. Yes, that’s blatant speculation and absolutely heterodox, but I don’t think it’s an unreasonable guess. I certainly wouldn’t preach it or try to get others to believe it, but it’s hard to say it’s an impossibility – and it makes as much sense as just about any other option.
I have at times believed very strongly that Jesus was married, and I know it’s a pretty popular (what to call it? folk tenet?) within the Church, at least from where I see. There’s that famous Gnostic gospel which I’m too lazy to look up about Him kissing Mary M. I’m ok with the idea, but I’m also ok with the notion that His superhuman mission could have kept Him celibate.
And I still give a lot of credit to the idea about Paul; it makes sense to me.
I know other threads have touched on celibacy in the context of SSA and been locked, and I don’t know if it would be useful to start a thread focusing purely on celibacy. It seems to me that Mormons have been pretty smug about not believing in celibacy, looking down our noses at those Catholics who don’t respect sex. But might it not be more supportive of those with SSA who do choose to live celibate lives to recognize a virtue in celibacy and praise it?
(I suddenly recall visiting a celibate couple: a Carmelite monk and a Sister of Mercy who lived together in Mexico helping political refugees. They were old, but had lived together for a long time. Their neighbor thought they were married!)
I’ve come to the conviction that the attitude that everyone has the God-given inalienable right — maybe even duty — to find someone to swive is a product of an affluent and spoiled generation that feels entitled to more than its rightful share of Lehi’s famous joy. I browsed a book about celibacy and one of the authors reported how people who honestly choose celibate lives often get a lot of flak for it — and I don’t remember it saying anything about SSA Mormons. I wish I could remember more clearly a quote from someone who gave support to people who wanted to live celibately: “you don’t ever have to ****. Don’t ever let anyone tell you differently.”
The FAQ at asexuality.org is an interesting read with this in mind.
Now, if there were more sincere and open admiration and praise in the Church for celibacy as a choice that anyone can make — if there were open praise for those who take it up by preference, then those who feel they must take it up as a cross could also feel better supported in that.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.