Gay but clean?

[LostSheep]

What does the church think of people who are openly gay, but not sexually active. For example...you have a boyfriend, but you do not do anything with him that would be considered immoral. Like kissing, hugging, etc. Because gay sex isn't the sin, fornication is.

[HappyNIL]

That is a hard one, I personally do not consider kissing and hugging to be fornication.

[Dravin]

Because gay sex isn't the sin, fornication is.

I think you've got a typo or some sort of mangled communication there.

[GaySaint]

I have known people to still run into church discipline problems in this regard. Recently, I asked a "church official" type friend of mine about this situation. I asked him, “In the church I was constantly told that the law of chastity applies equally to all people, gay or straight, and to all relationships, gay or straight. I have read articles from members of the seventy, and apostles, where they have stated something like 'homosexuality behavior is immoral for the same reason heterosexual behavior is immoral: because it is outside of the bonds of marriage.' If this is the case, why is the law of chastity applied unevenly in areas of dating, kissing, holding hands, etc? Why can't homosexual couples do the same thing heterosexual couples can do before marriage?"

We then delved into a rather lengthy discussion about whether there is some doctrinal sanction against homosexuals falling into celibate love, or whether current policy just prohibits it, and the reasons for both.

The conclusion was that it is an uneven application of the policy, most likely due to social norms found within the church, and the comfort level of the local leader with homosexuality as he proceeds with church discipline (or not.)

As I've said before - I have one friend who came out in a testimony meeting, and although he had never acted on his homosexual feelings, he lost his temple recommend (to the chagrin of certain leaders I have been involved with). I do know of one guy who claimed to enjoy full membership of the church while dating other men - but I think he simply didn't tell his bishop about any affection (as he kept it the same as any heterosexual couple would be allowed).

Whether or not that is honest is the question.

However, this friend of mine wasn't able to expound any doctrinal reason as to why gay men couldn't date if they remained abstinent. It is all going to come down to what your priesthood leader thinks, and his personal prejudices, or lack thereof.

[NeuroTypical]

The handbook is giving a very different take on things than "It's all the same"...

"Homosexual behavior violates the commandments of God, is contrary to the purposes of human sexuality, distorts loving relationships, and deprives people of the blessings that can be found in family life and in the saving ordinances of the gospel. Those who persist in such behavior or who influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline."

...

"Adultery, fornication, homosexual or lesbian relations, and every other unholy, unnatural, or impure practice are sinful. Members who violate the Lord's law of moral conduct or who influence others to do so are subjet to Church discipline"

So it's not a law of chastity unevenly applied thing, it's a Lord's law of moral conduct thing.

LM

[GaySaint]

LM: Even that statement is up to interpretation. What, exactly, is a homosexual relation? When I refer to "relations outside of marriage" for heterosexuals I'm not talking about holding hands...

From what I understand, the law of chastity is the only doctrine that governs relationships, and it is spelled out in its entirety in the temple covenant. The rest is up to interpretation, policy, and prophetic council, which is used to protect and help people KEEP the law.

I don't think anyone would argue that someone who wants to remain a member of the church should not form a gay celibate relationship - because it would be even more difficult to abstain forever than it would be for a celibate person to do the same.

[LocalFarms]

I think it'd be a better world if "straight" men could hold hands and kiss without being afraid of being labelled "homosexual"

[MarginOfError]

I have known people to still run into church discipline problems in this regard. Recently, I asked a "church official" type friend of mine about this situation. I asked him, “In the church I was constantly told that the law of chastity applies equally to all people, gay or straight, and to all relationships, gay or straight. I have read articles from members of the seventy, and apostles, where they have stated something like 'homosexuality behavior is immoral for the same reason heterosexual behavior is immoral: because it is outside of the bonds of marriage.' If this is the case, why is the law of chastity applied unevenly in areas of dating, kissing, holding hands, etc? Why can't homosexual couples do the same thing heterosexual couples can do before marriage?"

We then delved into a rather lengthy discussion about whether there is some doctrinal sanction against homosexuals falling into celibate love, or whether current policy just prohibits it, and the reasons for both.

The conclusion was that it is an uneven application of the policy, most likely due to social norms found within the church, and the comfort level of the local leader with homosexuality as he proceeds with church discipline (or not.)

As I've said before - I have one friend who came out in a testimony meeting, and although he had never acted on his homosexual feelings, he lost his temple recommend (to the chagrin of certain leaders I have been involved with). I do know of one guy who claimed to enjoy full membership of the church while dating other men - but I think he simply didn't tell his bishop about any affection (as he kept it the same as any heterosexual couple would be allowed).

Whether or not that is honest is the question.

However, this friend of mine wasn't able to expound any doctrinal reason as to why gay men couldn't date if they remained abstinent. It is all going to come down to what your priesthood leader thinks, and his personal prejudices, or lack thereof.

You know, I often appreciate your thoughts and contributions, but I have to say, if a "church official type" isn't willing to go on the record with the things you claim he's saying, then I'm not willing to give them much weight. In fact, I'm pretty much going to ignore them unless there's at least a name and a title associated.

That being said, on a personal level, I don't feel that what you have said is entirely without merit. However, I would be hesitant to force the distinction of "if we're not having sexual relations then it's okay." We have to remember that the general principles of the law of chastity are given to all but may not map on a one-to-one relation to the 3% of the population that identifies itself as homosexual.

Plus, there's also the question of when sexual relations begin. Elder Scott in "The Power of Righteousness" talks about chastity in terms of powerful emotions tied to the sacred, private parts of the body. The way he phrases it, anything that results in sexual arousal is suspect as a violation of the law of chastity. So then what kind of kissing, for example, is allowed.

After that, there's the matter of appearance. Just how much kissing and hand holding can be permitted before the image has been created that the LDS Church is tolerant of homosexual behavior?

I could go on more, but I'll just sum it up by saying that it's a bit more complex than has been presented and the application of policy has to be made on protecting the homosexual individuals, the heterosexual individuals, and the image of the Church. Is it unfair? probably. But I've said it before and I'll say it many times more in my life: we ask a lot of homosexual latter-day saints. If they live up to the expectations, they will be rewarded.

[GaySaint]

Margin: I haven't asked him for permission to print our conversations - and in fact I'm sure he would prefer I didn't. He works in the big tall building for church PR =), but you are right. In fact, I'm not sure how much weight I can give him since he doesn't speak authoritatively for Heavenly Father, and deals with a more legal aspect of things. The point was more to illustrate that there are differing viewpoints, and as far as I am aware, nothing official in this regard.

That said, you are correct. I didn't mean to say that "as long as we aren't having sex it's ok." While I believe the sin is sex (either heterosexual or homosexual), to disobey prophetic counsel that is meant to keep you out of trouble would be plain idiotic. There are many things that can LEAD to a breaking of the law of chastity that may not themselves be sinful, but that are dangerous nonetheless.

I would even understand if such things warranted church discipline from time to time, not to repent, but to deter... if that makes sense.

While I don't necessarily think that kind of discipline is "right," I certainly understand it.

I think the current way homosexuality is dealt with in the church leads to a lot of unnecessary hardships. In counseling (LDS social services or Evergreen, or other LDS approved counselors) we are told we are expected to live the same life a heterosexual is asked to live. While this seems to alleviate some difficulty at first, it doesn't take long to recognize that this isn't true. The ideas surrounding dating, as posed by LostSheep here, are a perfect example. I would rather the church simply state that the law of chastity is, in fact, different for gay people.

[Traveler]

My father taught and held to a very interesting philosophy he called maximum and minimum producers. Simply put it was given any assignment there are those that seek to complete the task with the least amount of personal effort and those that look to complete the assignment far beyond everybody else’s expectations.

In the world anyone can get by as a minimum producer – however, it is my understanding that a saint of G-d and a candidate for the Celestial world is more of the maximum producer type. The gospel teaches us that the structure of families is the basis of Celestial attainment. I do not think this is just a suggestion for those that feel so inclined. It is a defining principle.

The Traveler

[Hemidakota]

I think it'd be a better world if "straight" men could hold hands and kiss without being afraid of being labelled "homosexual"

I am hoping they are not 'swapping spit' with each other. Kimball talked against this for a wiser purpose.

[GaySaint]

LostSheep: To whomever this needs to go – the short answer is that no matter whether or not such behavior is sinful, doing so would be taking a step away from the church. I don’t think there is any arguing that…

[LocalFarms]

I am hoping they are not 'swapping spit' with each other. Kimball talked against this for a wiser purpose.

I am speaking about showing affection as between brothers or father and son, not lude behavior

[Moksha]

That is a hard one, I personally do not consider kissing and hugging to be fornication.

Good thing too or we would all have some 'splaining to do.

I have wished for some time that people at Church would hug each other as a generalized sign of fellowship. If thoughts of this throw members into a panic then they are way too insecure or standoffish.

[Mute]

What does the church think of people who are openly gay, but not sexually active. For example...you have a boyfriend, but you do not do anything with him that would be considered immoral. Like kissing, hugging, etc. Because gay sex isn't the sin, fornication is.

How do you have a girlfriend or boyfriend and not do any of that at all? Wouldn't they just be a friend if you don't do that? I like some of my friends more than other friends but they are still just friends. The most physical action people do with a friend is usually just hugging, shaking hands or the occasional kiss on the cheek. If someone is dating someone, it's because they find that person physically attractive and want to be more than just friends. You can be really open with good friends and still have a very close bonding experience with them. In dating though people want to kissing and romantic intimate experiences. There are "friends with benefits" that don't want to be in a long term relationship or have a bunch of strings attached. People who get married are usually looking for an attractive person who is also a great friend that is responsible and they can count on.

I may get totally flamed by saying all that but that's just my opinion. Also I know LDS believe as well as the Bible states it's a sin to look upon another and lust after them. Do what you think is right. If it feels right go for what you think is best. Good luck with that.

[Soulsearcher]

I know a great many LDS who date long term and keep the law of chastity. Doesn't mean they don't hug or kiss but they aren't married. There are guide lines for non-sexual intimacy for dating couples with in the church, and lost is asking if they apply universally or just to heterosexuals.

[Just_A_Guy]

Because gay sex isn't the sin, fornication is.

Do you really think that the Church's position is that it is morally right for gays to have sex as long as they've gotten themselves married in a jurisdiction where it is legal to do so?

For example...you have a boyfriend, but you do not do anything with him that would be considered immoral. Like kissing, hugging, etc.

How many people, gay or straight, have a relationship with someone they call a "boyfriend" or "girlfriend" that does not involve physical contact?

Are we talking about a real-life dilemma here? Or are we simply trying to conjure a loophole that would nullify the rule?

Edited June 2, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[Hemidakota]

I am speaking about showing affection as between brothers or father and son, not lude behavior

Thanks for the correction...this will be a latter topic in the week concerning lude behavior and why the church brethren are against it.

[Hemidakota]

Good thing too or we would all have some 'splaining to do.

I have wished for some time that people at Church would hug each other as a generalized sign of fellowship. If thoughts of this throw members into a panic then they are way too insecure or standoffish.

I do this to know their inner feelings. A hug is mere mechanism to process what the other is feeling within.

[Moksha]

I do this to know their inner feelings. A hug is mere mechanism to process what the other is feeling within.

Your touch sensors must be very keen indeed. Anyway, keep it up since more hugging will result in longer life for ward members if my interpretation of some health studies is correct. Probably help us retain more members too, even when we let go of the hug.

[Guest]

I don't undestand this thread.

Of course it is different for gays than for straights. What is the purpose of dating? Is it just to hang out and have a good time and that's it? Of course not! Dating is the prelude to marriage. There's no purpose to dating if the objective is not to look for that eternal companion! Obviously, this is not available to a homosexual couple by church standards.

What am I missing?

[Blackmarch]

What does the church think of people who are openly gay, but not sexually active. For example...you have a boyfriend, but you do not do anything with him that would be considered immoral. Like kissing, hugging, etc. ...

I hug brothers and friends all the time. People in other countries give greetings by hugs n kisses.

Hugging and Kissing the same gender does not necessarily equate to homosexuality...

Probably what one should take a look at are the feelings that are behind such actions, and perhaps how one does such actions.

If someone has romantic inclinations towards the same gender but does not act upon them, then I can't see any just reason to treat such differently from those who don't have those inclinations in the first place.

If someone has an inclination to lie, but does not, are they still a liar?

Because gay sex isn't the sin, fornication is.

It's in the same boat with fornication, adultery, necking, petting, etc...

[LostSheep]

For example...you have a boyfriend, but you do not do anything with him that would be considered immoral. Like kissing, hugging, etc. Because gay sex isn't the sin, fornication is.

I just realized where people are misinterpreting this statement. Allow me to rephrase:

For example...you have a boyfriend, but you do not do anything with him that would be considered immoral, like having sex, but RATHER you are still kissing, hugging, holding hands, etc. Because gay sex isn't the sin, fornication is, and kissing is NOT fornication.

Edited June 2, 2010 by LostSheep

[Just_A_Guy]

I just realized where people are misinterpreting this statement. Allow me to rephrase:

For example...you have a boyfriend, but you do not do anything with him that would be considered immoral, like having sex, but RATHER you are still kissing, hugging, holding hands, etc. Because gay sex isn't the sin, fornication is, and kissing is NOT fornication.

I appreciate the clarification, but I still take issue with your assertion that gay sex is not sinful per se.

[Hemidakota]

Necking, Petting, Fornication

I will begin with a true story. The characters are real.

He was well-proportioned and, like King David, "ruddy, and withal of a beautiful countenance, and goodly to look to." (1 Samuel 16:12.)

With him at his side was a lovely girl, slight of frame and beautiful of face and form. It was obvious that they loved one another, for as they sat together across the desk from me, he reached quietly for her hand and there were meaningful glances.

The melodious voice was hesitant and a bit choked with emotion as he introduced his girl friend, and there was pleading in their eyes. "We are in difficulty, Brother Kimball," he said. "We have broken the law of chastity.

We prayed and fasted and agonized and finally came to the conclusion that we must try to make adjustments.

"That junior prom date was a turning point. It started out a very special date. But as I see it now, it turned out to be a tragic one, the beginning of our troubles. When I saw her coming downstairs that night, I thought no girl was ever so beautiful and so sweet. We danced through the evening; and then when we sat in the car, long and silently afterward, my thoughts became unruly as we became more and more intimate.

"Neither of us dreamed what was happening to us," he continued, "but all the elements were there to break down resistance. We did not notice time—the hours passed. The simple kisses we had often exchanged gradually developed into petting. We stopped at that. But there were other nights—the bars were down. We loved each other so much that we convinced ourselves that it was not so wrong merely to pet, since we sort of belonged to one another anyway. Where we ended one night became the starting point for the next night, and we continued on and on, until finally it happened—almost as though we could not control ourselves—we had intercourse. We had even talked about it and agreed that whatever else we did, we would not go that far. And then when it was late—so late, so everlastingly late—we woke up to the meaning of what we had done."

Immorality does not begin in adultery or perversion. It begins with little indiscretions like sex thoughts, sex discussions, passionate kissing,

petting, and such, growing with every exercise. The small indiscretion seems powerless compared to the sturdy body, the strong mind, the sweet spirit of youth who give way to the first temptation. But soon the strong has become weak, the master the slave, spiritual growth curtailed. But if the first unrighteous act is never given root, the tree will grow to beautiful maturity, and the youthful life will grow toward God, our Father.

"Can we be forgiven, Brother Kimball?" the young couple asked.

"Yes," I replied, "the Lord and his church can and will forgive, but not easily. The way of the transgressor is hard. It always has been and it always will be. The Lord said: 'I tell thee, thou shalt not depart thence, till thou hast paid the very last mite.'" (Luke 12:59.)

I went on to tell them that in his goodness he provided for us a way to forgiveness. One may do as he pleases, but he cannot evade responsibility. He may break laws, but he cannot avoid penalties. One gets by with nothing. God is just. Paul said, "Be not deceived; God is not mocked; for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." (Galatians 6:7.)

Serious as is the sin of fornication (sexual intercourse by the unmarried), there is forgiveness upon condition of total repentance. But first, one must come to a realization of the seriousness of his sin. Since the beginning there has been in the world a wide range of sins. Many of them involve harm to others, but every sin is against ourselves and God, for sins limit our progress, curtail our development, and estrange us from good people, good influences, and from our Lord.

The early apostles and prophets mention numerous sins that are reprehensible. Many of them are sexual sins—adultery, being without natural affection, lustfulness, infidelity, incontinence, filthy communications, impurity, inordinate affection, fornication. They include all sexual relations outside marriage—petting, sex perversion, masturbation, and preoccupation with sex in one's thoughts and talking. Included are every hidden and secret sin and all unholy and impure thoughts and practices. One of the worst of these is incest. The dictionary defines incest as "sexual intercourse between persons so closely related that they are forbidden by law to marry." The spirituality of one's life may be severely, and sometimes irreparably, damaged by such an ugly sin. The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve have determined that the penalty for incest shall be excommunication. Also, one excommunicated for incest shall not be baptized again into the Church without the written permission of the First Presidency.

Conscience tells the individual when he is entering forbidden worlds, and it continues to prick until silenced by the will or by sin's repetition.

Can anyone truthfully say he did not know such things were wrong? These unholy practices, whatever may be their unmentionable names with all their approaches and numerous manifestations, are condemned by the Lord and his church. Some may be more heinous than others, but all are sin, in spite of statements to the contrary of those who falsely pretend to know. The Lord's prophets declare they are not right.

The world may have its norm; the Church has a different one. It may be considered normal by the people of the world to use tobacco; the Church's standard is a higher plane where smoking is not done. The world's norm may permit men and women social drinking; the Lord's church lifts its people to a norm of total abstinence. The world may countenance premarital sex experiences, but the Lord and his church condemn in no uncertain terms any and every sex relationship outside of marriage.

Paul lashed out against these unholy evidences of the vulgar mind and of uncontrolled passion and desire: "Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves." (Romans 1:24.)

Since courtship is prelude to marriage and encourages close associations, many have convinced themselves that intimacies are legitimate—a part of the courting process. Many have cast off bridle and harness and have relaxed the restraints. Instead of remaining in the field of simple expressions of affection, some have turned themselves loose to "necking," with its intimate contacts and its passionate kissing. Necking is the younger member of this unholy family. Its bigger sister is called "petting, with fondling of the private parts of the body for the purpose of sexual arousal." When the intimacies have reached this stage, they are surely the sins condemned by the Savior:

"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:

"But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." (Matthew 5:27-28.)

Who would say that he or she who pets has not become lustful, has not become passionate? Is it not this most abominable practice that God rebuked in his modern reiteration of the Ten Commandments:

"Thou shalt not steal; neither commit adultery, nor kill, nor do anything like unto it"? (DC 59:6.)

What, may I ask you, is like unto adultery if it is not petting? Did not the Lord recognize that this heinous sin is but the devil's softening process for the final acts of adultery or fornication? Can a person, in the light of the Lord's scriptures, pursue the path of petting with clear conscience? Can anyone convince himself that this is not deep sin?

We must repeat what we have said many times: Fornication with all its big and little brothers and sisters was evil and wholly condemned by the Lord in Adam's day, in Moses' day, in Paul's day, and in our own day. The Church has no tolerance for any kind of perversions. The Lord has indicated his lack of tolerance, stating: "For I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance." (DC 1:31.)

I believe the youth of Zion want to hear the clear and unmistakable tones of the trumpet, and it is my hope that I can play the tune with accuracy and precision so that no honest person will ever be confused. I hope fervently that I am making clear the position of the Lord and his church on these unmentionable practices.

When the scriptures are so plain, how can anyone justify immoralities and call them love? Is black white? Is evil good? Is purity filthiness?

That the Church's stand on morality may be understood, we declare firmly and unalterably that it is not an outworn garment, faded, oldfashioned, and threadbare. God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and his covenants and doctrines are immutable. And when the sun grows cold and the stars no longer shine, the law of chastity will still be basic in God's world and in the Lord's church. Old values are upheld by the Church not because they are old, but rather because they are right.

I would add a suggestion for avoiding undue temptation. Young men and women, not yet ready for marriage, should be friends with many others, but they should not engage in courting. Immaturity makes them susceptible to temptation. We want them to grow up clean, with a life plan for missions, then wholesome courting and eternal marriage in the holy temple. It is timing that is vital. The sexual relationship that is wrong before marriage is right and beautiful as part of the union encouraged by God. Friendship, not courtship, should be the relationship of teenagers. ('President Kimball Speaks Out', by Spencer W. Kimball)