Gay but clean?

[NeuroTypical]

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.

My original answer is still valid.

"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"

Gaysaint makes the point that "homosexual or lesbian relations" is up to interpretation, depending on how you define the word "relations". That's fine and dandy. The other phrase is "Homosexual behavior", and that's pretty straightforward.

Behavior - stuff you're doing.

Homosexual behavior - stuff homosexuals do.

In other words, if you end up in front of God, and He asks you to please explain to Him why a dude passionately kissing a dude isn't 'homosexual behavior', do you think any answer you give is gonna really get Him to say "oh yeah, I never thought of that - I guess it's not bad after all!"

LM

[GaySaint]

Hemi - In the last paragraph of your post above, Spencer W Kimball refers to "wholesome courting." Would the wholesome activities that occur during wholesome courting still be wholesome if they took place between two homosexuals (which, no doubt, would include "wholesome kissing" and "wholesome hand-holding")?

I think that is the question. I don't think that LostSheep is arguing that necking or petting is right, regardless of sexual orientation.

He wants to know if the exact same behavior exhibited by LDS heterosexual dating couples is wrong for LDS homosexual couples.

My ideology suggest that it is not technically wrong but that the brethren would still counsel against such behavior because it cannot lead to an outlet worthy of church endorsement (unlike a heterosexual marriage where the romantic bond and feelings can be expressed without sin).

[MarginOfError]

Hemi - In the last paragraph of your post above, Spencer W Kimball refers to "wholesome courting." Would the wholesome activities that occur during wholesome courting still be wholesome if they took place between two homosexuals (which, no doubt, would include "wholesome kissing" and "wholesome hand-holding")?

I think that is the question. I don't think that LostSheep is arguing that necking or petting is right, regardless of sexual orientation.

He wants to know if the exact same behavior exhibited by LDS heterosexual dating couples is wrong for LDS homosexual couples.

My ideology suggest that it is not technically wrong but that the brethren would still counsel against such behavior because it cannot lead to an outlet worthy of church endorsement (unlike a heterosexual marriage where the romantic bond and feelings can be expressed without sin).

Or, in other words, such conduct may follow the letter of the law, but violates the spirit of the law.

*****************

Interesting twist of a phrase there. Usually when we invoke the letter vs. spirit argument, it's for the purpose of saying that perhaps a less strict interpretation of the law ought to be applied. But in this instance, we're claiming that the spirit of the law requires the more strict interpretation.

[GaySaint]

Margin: I wouldn't be able to successfully argue that it violates the spirit of the law either (in fact, that phrase did run through my head but I purposely thought about it and chose not to use it) - unless the possibility of breaking of the letter of the law in the future is the definition of breaking the spirit of the law...

I'd prefer to say that for an LDS person trying to remain faithful to the church "no good will come of it."

Sort of like drinking coke HEHEHEHE.

[LostSheep]

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

You STILL misunderstand. I didn't say that. I said that gay sex isn't a sin, but fornication is. You can't have gay sex without committing fornication. Therefore, straight sex out of marriage is JUST as severe as gay sex.

[Dravin]

You STILL misunderstand. I didn't say that. I said that gay sex isn't a sin, but fornication is. You can't have gay sex without committing fornication. Therefore, straight sex out of marriage is JUST as severe as gay sex.

Your turn of phrase is confusing which is why people are scratching their heads. It'd be like saying sugar water isn't wet but water is. It would have been simpler to cut to the chase and say, "And it isn't an issue of fornication as kissing and hand holding aren't fornication."

[Just_A_Guy]

You STILL misunderstand. I didn't say that. I said that gay sex isn't a sin, but fornication is. You can't have gay sex without committing fornication.

Technically, in Massachusetts, you can. Therein lay my confusion.

[Mute]

If you want to know what is wrong or right and you are religious, why not just pray about it or go with your gut feeling? In my personal opinion premarital relations are not wrong but that is to just to me. Other people feel it is wrong. Do what you think is right.

[Gwen]

You STILL misunderstand. I didn't say that. I said that gay sex isn't a sin, but fornication is. You can't have gay sex without committing fornication. Therefore, straight sex out of marriage is JUST as severe as gay sex.

i asked my stake pres about this. if the law of chastity is stated to be sex only if legally married would making gay marriage legal somehow change things. his response was absolutely not, manipulating wording and man's laws does not change god's laws. he said he actually contacted the church about it himself.

some quotes

The Family: A Proclamation to the World.

marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God

We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.

Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan.

fornication (sex outside of wedlock) is a sin. gay sex is a sin (in or out of wedlock). sexual desire of any kind is not the sin. inappropriately (as defined by god) acting on sexual desire is.

that being said my personal opinion is that the law of chastity is the law of chastity. if a man and a woman unwed can participate in certain activities and still be 100% worthy to enter the temple then it's appropriate for anyone. i believe ppl need intimate (not sexual) contact with other ppl. it's one thing to ask someone to live their life celibate, it's another to ask them to live never having any kind of intimate relationship with another person. yes intimate relationships and actions tend to lead to sexual desire which tends to lead to sexual actions but that is true for anyone and it's up to the individual couple to decide how to navigate that.

[ronism99403]

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?

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?

I asked the same question a moment ago and was directed to this thread. I wasn't asking in order to find a loophole. I asked because I am currently in a relationship with a wonderful man, and wanted to know if I chose to step back a bit--making the relationship platonic--while still maintaining the relationship (because it is so much more than sex) then could a Bishop say to me, "That's good enough.", and could I re-obtain fellowship?

[MisterT]

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

I kissed my grandfather until the day he died.

In Germany I observed little gatherings of friends who would hold hands as they walked down the street. it didn't bother me in the slightest.

[Just_A_Guy]

I asked the same question a moment ago and was directed to this thread. I wasn't asking in order to find a loophole. I asked because I am currently in a relationship with a wonderful man, and wanted to know if I chose to step back a bit--making the relationship platonic--while still maintaining the relationship (because it is so much more than sex) then could a Bishop say to me, "That's good enough.", and could I re-obtain fellowship?

Whether you're gay or straight, sex drive is sex drive. Where there's sexual attraction combined with emotional intimacy, I'm extremely dubious that the relationship will remain platonic for long.

Edited June 10, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[Gwen]

Whether you're gay or straight, sex drive is sex drive. Where there's sexual attraction combined with emotional intimacy, I'm extremely dubious that the relationship will remain platonic for long.

i agree with this. however i do find the double standard interesting and a bit backward in thinking. the idea is gays should hold to a higher standard to not risk that temptation to cross those lines because there is no "acceptable outlet" they will ever be able to participate in. but it's ok for straight ppl to risk that temptation and push those lines? it makes more since to me to say, since gays can never go to the temple and aren't striving for that higher covenant it's "safer" for them to risk that temptation. if they mess up then what is really lost? however, straight ppl should be wanting to go to the temple and seek those higher covenants so they should say as far from that line as possible so as to not make any mistakes and mess up their chances at a temple marriage. so "logic" should be that gays can hold hands, kiss, etc and attempt to have a non sexual intimate relationship if they think they can navigate that. but straight ppl should keep it to hand holding and short hugging. kissing and anything more that presents temptation to go further should be strictly forbidden.

now i know there was a time this was the expected and there are some ppl that still live this way (the dugger's come to mind). so in my mind i'm asking, do we either need to lighten up on gays or do we need to be more valiant in our expectations of all ppl? maybe it's society that changed. kissing and pushing the line became acceptable and no one in the church protested to loudly because after all they weren't "breaking the law of chastity". maybe we all need to start rethinking the lines and live to a higher expectation?

(lol and i must admit that is sooooo much easier to say knowing i'm married and so it doesn't really apply to me )

[beefche]

now i know there was a time this was the expected and there are some ppl that still live this way (the dugger's come to mind). so in my mind i'm asking, do we either need to lighten up on gays or do we need to be more valiant in our expectations of all ppl? maybe it's society that changed. kissing and pushing the line became acceptable and no one in the church protested to loudly because after all they weren't "breaking the law of chastity". maybe we all need to start rethinking the lines and live to a higher expectation?

Gwen, help me out. I bolded the part that I'm confused about. Do you think that our leaders have advocated "pushing the line" in courting couples? If so, how/where? I could probably bring up a dozen GC talks or talks at BYU in which GAs tell them to be cautious and careful in dating to stay away from the edge or line to avoid mistakes.

[MichaelCraig]

I realize I'm a simple country boy and thank you LM and several others for doing a great job at trying to answer the original post, as confusing as it was, and as I've mentioned before I am not a Bible scholar but I do believe it mentions Adam and Eve......not Adam and Steve. For those who have the "if it makes you feel good, do it" mentality I would not like to be there when you are explaning that to Heavenly Father like LM said. Just my 50 cents. Love to all!

[Gwen]

Gwen, help me out. I bolded the part that I'm confused about. Do you think that our leaders have advocated "pushing the line" in courting couples? If so, how/where? I could probably bring up a dozen GC talks or talks at BYU in which GAs tell them to be cautious and careful in dating to stay away from the edge or line to avoid mistakes.

i don't think they have encouraged it directly. though i don't think they speak enough about it. all the focus is on where the line is, when you cross it. i don't think the things that take you to that line are talked about or discouraged enough.

they do somewhat as youth, group date till 16, avoid steady dating, etc. but why do we have so many that come to the forum for clarification on what the rules are? the leaders keep using terms like petting and necking but kids today don't know what that means, they use words like levi lovin, etc. it's clear it's not been focused on enough when even the leaders don't understand. you have situations like yw's leaders poking fun at yw who turn 16 and have never been kissed. and yes it happens, it happened to me. every month they celebrated bdays and when i turned 16 i had leaders making comments "oh, sweet 16 and never been kissed" with this tone, i can't describe it but i can still hear it. now i don't think they meant it the way it came out but the end result was the same none the less. the other girls who talked all the time about the boys they kissed picked up on it, it persisted in other ways at other times. i would think being 16 and never been kissed would be something to be celebrated in the church not teased about. i think i've mentioned it before but when my husband was a ysa his bishop gave him a love seat for the apartment cause there was no where to sit with the girls. they weren't going to get married if they didn't do more kissin'. became dubbed the "makeout couch" as it got passed from one group of guys apartment to another. what message are we sending with that kind of thing? not only is it not against the law of chastity but you should be doing those things.

i'm saying i see a double standard. which direction it needs to change in i'm not sure. given what we are taught with other things it should be in the direction of the higher law not lower?

[Gwen]

that being said my personal opinion is that the law of chastity is the law of chastity. if a man and a woman unwed can participate in certain activities and still be 100% worthy to enter the temple then it's appropriate for anyone. i believe ppl need intimate (not sexual) contact with other ppl. it's one thing to ask someone to live their life celibate, it's another to ask them to live never having any kind of intimate relationship with another person. yes intimate relationships and actions tend to lead to sexual desire which tends to lead to sexual actions but that is true for anyone and it's up to the individual couple to decide how to navigate that.

and just for the record before anyone teases me lol i know that my last post seems to be a contradiction to this one i made before.

but i don't really think it is. my point (and issue) all along has been the double standard, the rules are the rules and should be the same for everyone. i think the standard (and what i will try to teach my kids) is the line is really somewhere in the middle of the "anything but sex is ok" and the "no kissing or touching of any kind ever" ends of the spectrum. i think kissing and hugs and hand holding are important aspects of developing a relationship. i also think it goes way to far to often. 5 mins of holding and kissing while standing on the front porch to say goodnight is very different than going in and spending 2 hours on the sofa to say goodnight. i think that difference needs to be talked about more often in official settings.

i would also like to say i'm really glad for these conversations. they help me to figure out what i do think and where the flaws in my thinking are. so i do know what i want to teach my kids when the time comes.

Edited June 10, 2010 by Gwen

[MarginOfError]

I don't think that your posts are contradictory, Gwen. I do think that this is an issue that is difficult to cover in a Church that tries to teach principles.

Remember for a second that the Church stresses the need for teaching general principles and not going into specific exceptions. Exceptions are supposed to be determined at more local levels. With that concept in mind, isn't it safe to assume that when the law of chastity was given, it wasn't given with the intent of it apply to homosexual couples? Can we accept that it was given with the 97% of the population that is attracted to the opposite gender?

I'm not saying that the Lord doesn't expect homosexuals to live the law of chastity. In fact, I think it's quite clear in our religion that homosexuals are expected to live it. But by trying to explain the sinfulness of homosexual activity by applying the law of chastity is a very imperfect approach. It is fairly cut and dry around marriage, but what about courtship, dating, friendship, etc. It becomes much more obscure around these activities, and applying the law of chastity standard makes it difficult to understand what is and isn't acceptable homosexual behavior.

I'm going to toss this out there and other can poke holes in the argument if they like-I've not put a lot of thought into it yet. But is framing this issue solely in terms of the law of chastity too narrow? We can already identify several issues for which more than one gospel topic is applicable, and not even things like faith, repentance, and baptism are mutually exclusive.

What if we framed this in terms of chastity and in terms of marriage. Specifically, sexual relations are authorized by the Lord for use in marriage, and marriage is ordained of God to be between a man and a woman. Applying the marriage standard helps to incorporate courtship and even some dating. If we agree that some physical activities are acceptable within dating and some within courtship, then we could agree to relegate those activities to those realms of socialization. Could we then say that some activities ought not to be approached by homosexuals because they are in the realm of courtship, which purpose is to lead to marriage?

Anyway, just a thought.

[carlimac]

since gays can never go to the temple and aren't striving for that higher covenant it's "safer" for them to risk that temptation.

Did you really mean that? Gays can go to the temple as long as they are worthy.

On another note, I believe the wording we need to think about is "sexual relations". I think we and the Lord know when we've crossed the line into sexual relations. The boundary is not going to be in the same place for everyone. That's probably why the church leaders don't spell it out, aside from the broad brushstrokes of necking, petting , etc. . We need to determine our feelings and intentions and not allow ourselves to get into physical relations that take us past those boundaries.

And on another note without quoting the whole paragraph, your examples of a leader calling you "sweet 16" and the "makeout couch" have nothing to do with the church. Those are simply examples of people being imperfect and insensitive human beings. The church doesn't instruct it's leaders to say or do those things. Gotta separate out what is "the church" and what isn't.

Edited June 10, 2010 by carlimac

[carlimac]

To GaySaint- (I'm on your case again ;-)

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.

Why is that? Do gays also lack a "stop" button that heteros have? Once the horse is out of the barn, "Whoa Nellie" doesn't work?

Edited June 10, 2010 by carlimac

[beefche]

i don't think they have encouraged it directly. though i don't think they speak enough about it. all the focus is on where the line is, when you cross it. i don't think the things that take you to that line are talked about or discouraged enough.

they do somewhat as youth, group date till 16, avoid steady dating, etc. but why do we have so many that come to the forum for clarification on what the rules are? the leaders keep using terms like petting and necking but kids today don't know what that means, they use words like levi lovin, etc. it's clear it's not been focused on enough when even the leaders don't understand. you have situations like yw's leaders poking fun at yw who turn 16 and have never been kissed. and yes it happens, it happened to me. every month they celebrated bdays and when i turned 16 i had leaders making comments "oh, sweet 16 and never been kissed" with this tone, i can't describe it but i can still hear it. now i don't think they meant it the way it came out but the end result was the same none the less. the other girls who talked all the time about the boys they kissed picked up on it, it persisted in other ways at other times. i would think being 16 and never been kissed would be something to be celebrated in the church not teased about. i think i've mentioned it before but when my husband was a ysa his bishop gave him a love seat for the apartment cause there was no where to sit with the girls. they weren't going to get married if they didn't do more kissin'. became dubbed the "makeout couch" as it got passed from one group of guys apartment to another. what message are we sending with that kind of thing? not only is it not against the law of chastity but you should be doing those things.

i'm saying i see a double standard. which direction it needs to change in i'm not sure. given what we are taught with other things it should be in the direction of the higher law not lower?

Obviously, I should have clarified--"leaders" is General Authority leaders to me (at least in my previous post).

Here's one problem as I see it. Way too many people rely on church leaders (both GA and local) to teach kids the Gospel and standards. The Church is there to support the parents in their teachings--not be the primary source. So, although I can understand and sympathize with your experiences (and I do know that it happens to others on a too frequent basis), it is ultimately up to the parents to correctly teach the doctrine and principles and guide their children into making correct decisions.

And now, I've taken this thread off topic. Back to the topic........

[MarginOfError]

Could you please please please please learn to use the quote function. Context can make a huge difference in interpretation and it makes it a lot easier to determine what context you're reading if we can get back to the post you are quoting.

since gays can never go to the temple and aren't striving for that higher covenant it's "safer" for them to risk that temptation.

Did you really mean that? Gays can go to the temple as long as they are worthy.

Since I can't look at the context, I can't determine what the original author means by going to the temple. If they mean to be sealed, then your statement barely applies. Yes, you'll claim that gays can be sealed in the temple to a member of the opposite sex, but that has no practical value to the discussion and is just a sophistry for cheap debate points.

On another note, I believe the wording we need to think about is "sexual relations". I think we and the Lord know when we've crossed the line into sexual relations. The boundary is not going to be in the same place for everyone. That's probably why the church leaders don't spell it out, aside from the broad brushstrokes of necking, petting , etc. . We need to determine our feelings and intentions and not allow ourselves to get into physical relations that take us past those boundaries.

The whole thread has been about sexual relations. Not everyone has used it every time, but it was established very early on that sexual relations involved more than sex.

And by the way, the boundary is going to be in the same place for everyone in the same circumstances. The whole premise of the question was that people that are dating have different boundaries than people who are courting have differing boundaries than people who are married. What we're trying to discuss is how the guidelines we're given apply to those with same sex attraction.

And on another note without quoting the whole paragraph, your examples of a leader calling you "sweet 16" and the "makeout couch" have nothing to do with the church. Those are simply examples of people being imperfect and insensitive human beings. The church doesn't instruct it's leaders to say or do those things. Gotta separate out what is "the church" and what isn't.

Again, mere sophistry. Any reasonable person would understand that would be able to understand from this context that Gwen was referring to cultural behavior among members of the Church. If you want to make substantive contributions, it helps to read what people are intending to say instead of parsing sentences to find faults in the discussion. Doing so is extremely distracting and counter productive.

[MarginOfError]

To GaySaint- (I'm on your case again ;-)

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.

Why is that? Do gays also lack a "stop" button that heteros have? Once the horse is out of the barn, "Whoa Nellie" doesn't work?

You've lost me here. I haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about now.

[Soulsearcher]

Obviously, I should have clarified--"leaders" is General Authority leaders to me (at least in my previous post).

Here's one problem as I see it. Way too many people rely on church leaders (both GA and local) to teach kids the Gospel and standards. The Church is there to support the parents in their teachings--not be the primary source. So, although I can understand and sympathize with your experiences (and I do know that it happens to others on a too frequent basis), it is ultimately up to the parents to correctly teach the doctrine and principles and guide their children into making correct decisions.

And now, I've taken this thread off topic. Back to the topic........

Problem is beef that the standard for parents to teach are set by past and current leaders, both through talks and interactions they've had with leaders through their life time. If leaders (at any level) send out unclear or mixed messages then what are parents going to teach their kids? The same mixed or unclear messages. I've seen members who will follow a bishop without question cause he's the head of the ward and was put there with divine reason, so you don't question him. I've seen adult messed up beyond belief because of someone like an institute leader teaching from a personal perspective and then infecting all student they taught because he was a leader. Somethings such as law of chastity might be something that should be made much clearer being it's on recommend questions and asked of all young men and women when they are interviewed by the bishop. I'm reminded of a story. One of the boys was going to his first dance. He met with the bishop to get his dance card and the bishop was happy to give it but put the stipulation that the boy needed a hair cut. Night of the dance we went and he got a hair cut. He was a typical emo/punk boy, so very long curly hair. He got "a lil off the back" and that was that and he went ot the dance. The next day at church he was interviewed by the bishop to become a teacher, first thing the bishop said was " i thought i asked you to get a hair cut?" The boy responded that he did and i told the bishop he did. The bishop wasn't overly happy until i pointed out " You can give a vague instruction to a teenager and in the end blame them for not doing it exactly the way you want, or you can remember they are teenagers and be exact and remove the possibility for misunderstanding." The bishop laughed and admitted it was something he often did and he shouldn't be surprised by the results. Moral of the story, if you leave things wide open to individual interpretations you can't be surprised when you end up with no one on the same page and you can't really fault them.

I agree that it's up to the parents, but where do the parents get their info and how crystal clear is it, is it clear enough they can teach kids a set standard or it the standard fluid and able ot shift enough for the children of parents to become confused or on different levels of understanding?

[Gwen]

would a gay person with a boyfriend/girlfriend that they maintained the same standards as a straight person be allowed to go to the temple? though they have not broken the law of chastity i'm betting they would not get a recommend. a gay person that denies it can go to the temple. i don't mean denies in that they lie to the bishop or stake pres but denies it as part of their life.

i agree parents should be the ones to teach. i didn't grow up in ut where there are 3 and 4 generations lds. most my leaders were converts and did not grow up in the church, my parents were converts. they don't necessarily "know" where the lines are, it's no sex. they were all married so it didn't really apply to them. unlike my leaders who could not say they were virgins on their wedding day i can say that to my kids, i do know what it was like to be a teen with such standards, i have experience that allows me to teach my kids differently.

as for the experiences i mentions the sweet 16 and makeout couch that has everything to do with the church. the thing that happened to me was in a yw's meeting on a wed night. if i had injured myself the church would be "responsible" how is that any different? the other was from leadership in that position.

never have i said that anyone should be having sexual relations outside of wedlock. but the kind of kissing i do with my husband during sexual relations is very different than what we do in front of our kids, it's different from how i kiss my kids, it's different from how i kiss my brother or mom. that's the kind of kissing i'm talking about, appropriate kissing for the nature and setting of the relationship, not sexual relations.

now back on topic? lol