Protest for gay rights outside Mormon church offices

[Soulsearcher]

True, it works better than the genetic craving of beer analogy that first popped into my head though.

I actually want to say thank you to Dravin and a few others, sorry if i don't remember all the names, but right now Dravin in the best example. Dravin asked. He came to me as a person and asked me. Didn't make a blanket statement, didn't assume, he asked me for clarification directly. Might seem small, but believe it or not, this is probably one of the most moving things.

As i mentioned earlier i read the letter to Elder Packer and it struck deep. I read that letter and it made me sad. I suffer from depression so i'm used to being down, but it's rare that my soul actually hurts, but that letter did it. The son that the father is talking about is me in so many ways. People have described me exactly the way that the father described his son for years, and when i was active in the Catholic church people were sure i'd be a priest because of my devotion and faith. Every struggle and experience in life was in that letter and it covers the fight i fought inside me for most of my life.

And then after that, after feeling what i felt after that letter, someone actually turned to me as a person. Thank you Dravin, not sure you know how much that really means.

[captmoroniRM]

A friend of mine shared this on facebook. I found it a great response to this whole debate:

(Gay) Mormon Guy: President Packer's Talk... From a (Gay) Mormon Perspective

[Soulsearcher]

A friend of mine shared this on facebook. I found it a great response to this whole debate:

(Gay) Mormon Guy: President Packer's Talk... From a (Gay) Mormon Perspective

I fully agree with the blog and as i've said before i might not agree with the point fully, but i had no issue with the talk because of who it was aimed at. It was aimed at LDS and kept with LDS doctrine. The only real issue is members who have read into what was being said more than was intended. Elder Packer doesn't have the best history when addressing homosexual topics and i was ready for a fight over his talk, but as i read it, i found nothing i could really argue from a doctrine stand point. Now if only members weren't seeing things that aren't there in this talk all would be good.

[Traveler]

Whenever I hear someone say "They CHOSE to be gay!" I always think "WHY on EARTH would someone CHOOSE that, especially someone born and raised in the church, knowing the immense challenges that come along with being gay in our current society?" Do they just get their kicks out of shocking people? Out of being looked upon with revulsion? Out of being spit on? Out of being bullied constantly at school? What on earth is the draw? Even drugs, eating disorders, and alcohol have their "perks" (the "high", being "skinny enough",etc.) What benefit is there in "choosing" homosexuality that makes all of the cr@p that comes with it worth it, unless it's being true to yourself? However a person came to be gay (birth circumstances, life circumstances, whatever) we need to show them compassion and support in their honest efforts to try and deal with the trial they've been given. Certainly the adulturous woman chose to commit adultry, but the Savior still extended His grace and mercy to her. Should we do any less for those who trials are perhaps not of their making?

One of the things that troubles me in these discussions concerning homosexuality is expressed in this post. I am concerned that it is argued that intelligent beings have no free will or agency - that they are slaves to forces over which they have no control – their only option is to surrender.

Every once in a while I run into someone that believes they are what they have strived to become; not as a default but as a shining light to the world what dedication, sacrifice and discipline can accomplish through taking control and being responsible. Not because it was the way most open or easy to them but the way that they chose.

However, one thing I have learned in life is that if someone believes they cannot make a choice – they are always correct.

The Traveler

[Soulsearcher]

One of the things that troubles me in these discussions concerning homosexuality is expressed in this post. I am concerned that it is argued that intelligent beings have no free will or agency - that they are slaves to forces over which they have no control – their only option is to surrender.

Then you have missed the point of many of the posts in this thread. The common statement made is not that they have no free will. Almost all the posts have said yes they can stop from acting on biological urges. Being born with an urge that others find wrong isn't a sin. People can stay celibate their entire life, i thinks that's been covered a few times. The argument isn't they can't control it, the argument is that in the past and currently members think it can just be turned off, and when it doesn't work that way they cast stones and call names.

[Traveler]

Then you have missed the point of many of the posts in this thread. The common statement made is not that they have no free will. Almost all the posts have said yes they can stop from acting on biological urges. Being born with an urge that others find wrong isn't a sin. People can stay celibate their entire life, i thinks that's been covered a few times. The argument isn't they can't control it, the argument is that in the past and currently members think it can just be turned off, and when it doesn't work that way they cast stones and call names.

I was not addressing the point of many of the posts of this thread. I was responding to a specific post.

However, since you asked - do you believe that anyone is born into mortality without any proclivity towards sin? (Other than perhaps Jesus the Christ – but he also was tempted was he not?)

For the record – I personally do not have any idea how to respond to a person that says – "I can’t"; when it is my understanding and belief that every person has been given the right by G-d to believe in their hart that they can.

The Traveler

PS. Perhaps you could tell me when it is wise and good to encourage a person to accept "what they are" (ie. the natural man to which they were born) and seek not to repent?

Edited October 10, 2010 by Traveler
added a PS

[curtishouse]

Then you have missed the point of many of the posts in this thread. The common statement made is not that they have no free will. Almost all the posts have said yes they can stop from acting on biological urges. Being born with an urge that others find wrong isn't a sin. People can stay celibate their entire life, i thinks that's been covered a few times. The argument isn't they can't control it, the argument is that in the past and currently members think it can just be turned off, and when it doesn't work that way they cast stones and call names.

How exactly would it be "turned off'? The important thing to remember is that the act of homosexuality is a sin and not necessarily being attracted to the same sex. If all members of the faith agree on this, that is a tremendous step forward and we should support those with this cross to bear just as any other who are single and are trying to overcome fornication, lustful thoughts and behavior.

[Soulsearcher]

I was not addressing the point of many of the posts of this thread. I was responding to a specific post.

However, since you asked - do you believe that anyone is born into mortality without any proclivity towards sin? (Other than perhaps Jesus the Christ – but he also was tempted was he not?)

For the record – I personally do not have any idea how to respond to a person that says – "I can’t"; when it is my understanding and belief that every person has been given the right by G-d to believe in their hart that they can.

The Traveler

LOL for what must be the 20th if not more time in the last week. The issue that has arisen is members are taking elder packers talk to say gays CAN NOT be born gay. This now and in the past has lead members to treat even celibate gays who still have attraction to the same sex as sinners and failures. They ARE NOT saying they CAN NOT stay celibate and follow the gospel, but they and i are tired of doing the right thing and still being accused of the sin and treated like we are sinning. The issue at hand is the MISUNDERSTANDING that members have of the OFFICIAL CHURCH STANCE on the issue and punishing people who can not live up to INDIVIDUAL instead of church expectations. Members have implied that people are not born with this temptation because god doesn't make people like that. I agree all people are born with the ability to be tempted, not all people are born hard wired for certain temptations, again this DOESN'T mean they CAN NOT control themselves and no one is saying "I CAN NOT" control myself. Even the thread you quoted didn't say this, the thread you were talking about was talking about hard wired behavior and peoples denial of it's possible existence.

[Soulsearcher]

How exactly would it be "turned off'? The important thing to remember is that the act of homosexuality is a sin and not necessarily being attracted to the same sex. If all members of the faith agree on this, that is a tremendous step forward and we should support those with this cross to bear just as any other who are single and are trying to overcome fornication, lustful thoughts and behavior.

Not all members agree is the entire point of this debate. lol I'm just going to start cutting and pasting because basically the answers to all of these were said in the first page or two. Members in the past and present have used the "it's a choice" stance to harm gay people when the attractions don't go away even if the gay person isn't acting on it and is living the gospel to the letter.

[Soulsearcher]

PS. Perhaps you could tell me when it is wise and good to encourage a person to accept "what they are" (ie. the natural man to which they were born) and seek not to repent?

:bangcomputer: :bangcomputer:

What are they repenting from? Have you not read a single word that's been said in the entire thread? We aren't asking you to bless gays having sex. We are asking people to back off telling gays who are living the gospel to the letter, going through hell every day fighting what they are, and trying to hold their head up as members mock them and condemn them cause their biology isn't changing. Do you go to a straight member not having sex and say the deserve to burn in hell because they think a woman is attractive and does nothing to act or dwell on it? So why are people doing it to gay people who think some one is attractive and doesn't act on it? WHY are we repenting for controlling our selves? I really don't know how many more ways this can be said. We've used the entire thread to break this all down to a remedial level but honestly how do people want us to explain the same thing over and over and over?

And yes after repeating this for a week over an over in 3 threads and in the chat room I am getting just a touch frustrated. If i and the others are talking over peoples heads i really apologize.

Edited October 10, 2010 by Soulsearcher

[curtishouse]

Not all members agree is the entire point of this debate. lol I'm just going to start cutting and pasting because basically the answers to all of these were said in the first page or two. Members in the past and present have used the "it's a choice" stance to harm gay people when the attractions don't go away even if the gay person isn't acting on it and is living the gospel to the letter.

As this thread continues to get bigger and bigger, I think it would be a good idea to post what has already been covered thus far if one that has read this thread thoroughly is up to it. I know that I'm not going to go through six pages of posts before I write my opinion on the matter. This is solely my opinion but the "it's the choice" theory is a load of bunk. You have as much "choice" to choose the gender you're attracted to as the heterosexual does and that would be absolutely none. Also, why would those that love the Lord and are trying their hardest to do good "choose" to be attracted to the same sex if that was possible? That makes no sense whatsoever.

[dorave]

Not all members agree is the entire point of this debate. lol I'm just going to start cutting and pasting because basically the answers to all of these were said in the first page or two. Members in the past and present have used the "it's a choice" stance to harm gay people when the attractions don't go away even if the gay person isn't acting on it and is living the gospel to the letter.

Sometimes the truth hurts. However anyone with an intent of malice is in the wrong.

[Seminarysnoozer]

As this thread continues to get bigger and bigger, I think it would be a good idea to post what has already been covered thus far if one that has read this thread thoroughly is up to it. I know that I'm not going to go through six pages of posts before I write my opinion on the matter. This is solely my opinion but the "it's the choice" theory is a load of bunk. You have as much "choice" to choose the gender you're attracted to as the heterosexual does and that would be absolutely none. Also, why would those that love the Lord and are trying their hardest to do good "choose" to be attracted to the same sex if that was possible? That makes no sense whatsoever.

This is my understanding ... I think as with all tendencies and predispositions our body gives us, and this may be where the alcohol gene example (i.e the mu receptor modification) is the best thing we can liken it to, it becomes increasingly hard to "turn it off" the more we "turn it on". If I have the gene that predisposes me to have more pleasure from drinking alcohol than anyone else, the last thing I want to do is drink alcohol. Because the more I do it the more difficult it is for my spirit to overcome those urges from the body.

I agree that the urge cannot be "turned off" because it is likely genetic in nature, at least as a start but then magnified by behaviors. I don't know if I have the gene for alcoholism because I don't surround myself with alcohol. Likewise, the last people that those that might have tendencies for homosexuality should be around are other people with the same tendencies. For the same reason I don't want a bar on my street corner, I don't think the gay lifestyle should be promoted or invited or accepted as a normal part of society any more than I would want alcoholism to be a normal part of society. That is different from protesting it or calling people names or not showing supporting love. I realize it is in our society as is many detractors from the truth in many areas of our lives. But we are all trying to avoid them. I don't want my cousin, for example, that has that battle to face to have as much access to it anymore than I would a loved one who was an alcoholic live next to a bar. Why would we want to make the struggle more difficult.

I believe in hind sight, when we leave this world and we meet our loved ones face to face that struggle with homosexuality, they are going to look at some of us and ask, "Why did you give into it so easily? Why didn't you make it harder for me to not give into my body's desire? Why did you just accept it and not help me through it?" The same questions an alcoholic would ask of their loved ones if they just accepted it and put up no resistance. To show resistance to that tendency is to show love and compassion for their eternal welfare. That is how I see it.

[Soulsearcher]

This is my understanding ... I think as with all tendencies and predispositions our body gives us, and this may be where the alcohol gene example (i.e the mu receptor modification) is the best thing we can liken it to, it becomes increasingly hard to "turn it off" the more we "turn it on". If I have the gene that predisposes me to have more pleasure from drinking alcohol than anyone else, the last thing I want to do is drink alcohol. Because the more I do it the more difficult it is for my spirit to overcome those urges from the body.

I agree that the urge cannot be "turned off" because it is likely genetic in nature, at least as a start but then magnified by behaviors. I don't know if I have the gene for alcoholism because I don't surround myself with alcohol. Likewise, the last people that those that might have tendencies for homosexuality should be around are other people with the same tendencies. For the same reason I don't want a bar on my street corner, I don't think the gay lifestyle should be promoted or invited or accepted as a normal part of society any more than I would want alcoholism to be a normal part of society. That is different from protesting it or calling people names or not showing supporting love. I realize it is in our society as is many detractors from the truth in many areas of our lives. But we are all trying to avoid them. I don't want my cousin, for example, that has that battle to face to have as much access to it anymore than I would a loved one who was an alcoholic live next to a bar. Why would we want to make the struggle more difficult.

I believe in hind sight, when we leave this world and we meet our loved ones face to face that struggle with homosexuality, they are going to look at some of us and ask, "Why did you give into it so easily? Why didn't you make it harder for me to not give into my body's desire? Why did you just accept it and not help me through it?" The same questions an alcoholic would ask of their loved ones if they just accepted it and put up no resistance. To show resistance to that tendency is to show love and compassion for their eternal welfare. That is how I see it.

With no offense intended, this is a very good example of what members don't understand. Do you compare your love and attraction to your spouse as an addiction? They are the exact same feelings and desires. I know it's easier for members to compare to addictions that are against their faith, but really you must compare it to the attraction and feelings you have towards the person you are dating or have married. I've struggled all my life and i haven't given in per say, but it hasn't lessened anything. The years it was strongest were the years i denied it most. Again, instead of people guessing and wondering, just ask us, you might not like some of the answers, but as someone who is a smoker i know what an addiction is and trust me, there is a very marked difference between my attraction and my addiction.

[Soulsearcher]

has this been posted yet?

A call for civility following Mormon Apostle Boyd K. Packer’s address | Deseret News

A call for civility following Mormon Apostle Boyd K. Packer’s address

In recent weeks, media sources across the country have covered several suicides by young people wrestling with same-gender attraction. These heartbreaking accounts have brought national attention to the anguished lives of youths confused by strong feelings that can put them at odds with the expectations of friends, family, community or church. What has made these stories particularly horrifying is the brutal and belittling behavior that preceded each suicide.

To any affected by such tragedy, we express sorrow and we condemn the incivility that violated the dignity of these youths.

This week, activists for the lesbian, gay, bi-sexual and transgender (LGBT) community have attempted to raise our community's consciousness about the challenges facing LGBT youths. This consciousness raising has been styled as a reaction to a talk by President Boyd Packer, president of the Quorum of the Twelve of The Church of Jesus-Christ of Latter-day Saints, given at the church's 180th Semiannual General Conference last Sunday.

This focused attention on the LDS Church is deeply ironic given the church's shared condemnation of hate and violence toward gays and lesbians, its mutual support of anti-discrimination laws for gays and lesbians and its compassionate ministry to LDS Church members who have same-gender attraction.

This past week, the LDS Church re-emphasized "that there is no room in this discussion for hatred or mistreatment of anyone." This is not new — it mirrors, for example, how the LDS Church helped to champion a Salt Lake City ordinance banning discrimination of gays and lesbians in housing and employment. And it is consistent with how the LDS Church has ministered to members with same-gender attraction.

In a 2007 article in the LDS Church's Ensign magazine, Elder Jeffrey R. Holland relates a conversation with a self-described gay member of the LDS Church: "You are first and foremost a son of God, and He loves you. What's more, I love you. My Brethren among the General Authorities love you."

It's been posted, however unfortunately if i'm reading it right the Church missed the point on what the protest was about and didn't really clarify the issue at hand.

[Guest tomk]

I found it interesting that during his talk, Elder Packer never once said "homosexuality".

Also, Church Leaders have never stated that it is wrong or a sin to have these kinds of feelings. It is only a sin to cultivate them, dwell upon them and then finally act upon them.

The Lord has defined marriage as the joining of man and woman. So a marriage between same sex partners is not recognized by the Lord and never can be, no matter what the laws of man may try to impose.

And the Lord has also stated that sexual relations outside of the bonds of marriage are wrong and are a serious sin. This would apply to men and women as well as same sex sexual relations outside the bonds of marriage.

There is just no where to go with this line of thinking. No way to make it "okay" in the eyes of God.

Our Church leaders are simply restating what the Lord has been saying since Adam and Eve were first placed upon the earth. It is not new. And it cannot be altered to suit our personal preferences. As hard as it might seem sometimes, I would not want a God that would change his commandments because of peer pressure.

[Soulsearcher]

So, what was the protest about?

The protest was about what seems a change in stance by the church on biological vs choice. As has been said from the start of this thread over and over. For over a decade the church has not ruled out a biological possibility and instead has focused on what we do what with we are born with. Some people inside and outside the church saw Elder Packer change that stance and state once and for all that there can be no biological factors. When this was the stance in the past it lead to members mistreating gay members and those outside the church even if they were not acting on their desires because members saw the fact that simply having these desires was selfish and lack of progress showed a weak person who was lost to satan and unworthy, even if they were living the gospel to the letter.

Edited October 10, 2010 by Soulsearcher

[Soulsearcher]

I found it interesting that during his talk, Elder Packer never once said "homosexuality".

Also, Church Leaders have never stated that it is wrong or a sin to have these kinds of feelings. It is only a sin to cultivate them, dwell upon them and then finally act upon them.

The Lord has defined marriage as the joining of man and woman. So a marriage between same sex partners is not recognized by the Lord and never can be, no matter what the laws of man may try to impose.

And the Lord has also stated that sexual relations outside of the bonds of marriage are wrong and are a serious sin. This would apply to men and women as well as same sex sexual relations outside the bonds of marriage.

There is just no where to go with this line of thinking. No way to make it "okay" in the eyes of God.

Our Church leaders are simply restating what the Lord has been saying since Adam and Eve were first placed upon the earth. It is not new. And it cannot be altered to suit our personal preferences. As hard as it might seem sometimes, I would not want a God that would change his commandments because of peer pressure.

It's funny Tom cause i wasn't hugely worried about this talk until members started saying to me "See we told you you weren't born this way now drop the excuses and change or just admit you're selfish." I'm still not against the talk in the context it was meant, i don't agree with the stance, but it's the stance of the church delivered to members of the church and on that merit it's not a bad talk and actually made me a lil less concerned about Elder Packer considering some of his comments in the past.

[Soulsearcher]

from "Love languages" - Chapman.

Chapter 3: Falling in love

Pg 30: the average life span of a romantic obsession is two years.

“in love” state gives us the illusion that we have an intimate relationship. The “in love” experience should not be called love

1. falling in love is not an act of the will or a conscious choice.

2. it is effortless, no discipline or conscious effort, instinctual animal nature, not selfless, no sacrifice, no thought or will in it.

3. one who is in love is not genuinely interested in fostering the personal growth of the other person. Our purpose is to terminate our own loneliness and ensure result through marriage – does not focus on our own growth or on the growth and development of the other person, instead feel like you are at the apex of life’s happiness and our only desire is to stay there….

We can recognize the “in-love” experience for what it was – a temporary emotional high, and now pursue “real love” with our spouse. Real love – a love that grows out of reason and choice, (not instinct) effort, and discipline. We choose to be kind, generous – this is real love.

And the point is?

[captmoroniRM]

The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage - The Tech -- here's an interesting look at the issue of gay marriage. It talks about how marriage is about more than just "I love this person."

[Soulsearcher]

Marriage is not about who you are physically attracted to.

Let me tell you a story about a married couple I know. The guy in this couple was really popular, everyone loved him, he was a bit of a party animal. When it came time for him to marry, there were 3 girls he had to choose between. One girl was drop dead gorgeous, I mean a 10/10 knockout but a real b****, the second girl was cute too, really really fun, nice, a total party animal. The third girl was not so pretty, she was born without one ear, and her face was partially deformed. Girl #3 was not a party animal, she was studious, smart, responsible…. My dad picked girl #3, because girl #1 was mean, and girl #2 – they would have both drunk themselves to death. He chose, not who he was attracted to, but chose with his mind, with his will. I love my mom, my dad chose wisely.

Again, none of the protest was really against the stance on marriage. If you have read the entire thread, and i know you have, because joining a debate at the end without actually listening to the points makes no sense and would be a lil silly, you'll see the entire issue is what i stated in my earlier post, nothing to do with marriage. Also it's not a debate that it's a choice to act on the feelings and desires we are born with. I'll concede that every time, yes i don't have to act on it, I'm a big boy and i can control myself just like all other humans. The issue is that members have used the wrong teachings to go after people making the choice to follow the gospel only because they still have desires. They aren't acting on them, they are living the right life, they are living the gospel and yet members treat them as if they are fornicating. That's why the protest, to clarify that it's only the sexual actions that are the issue and that members need to stop guessing as to why and focus only on those who are actually committing sin, not those who are just different.

[Dravin]

And yes after repeating this for a week over an over in 3 threads and in the chat room I am getting just a touch frustrated. If i and the others are talking over peoples heads i really apologize.

Honestly I'm surprised you keep at it. There are several topics I tend to avoid, and some I regret getting involved in as soon as I do.

[Soulsearcher]

Honestly I'm surprised you keep at it. There are several topics I tend to avoid, and some I regret getting involved in as soon as I do.

Saint's never stop teaching the truth no matter how much opposition they come up against right, truth is truth and if we don't stand for it then it holds no value

[Dravin]

Saint's never stop teaching the truth no matter how much opposition they come up against right, truth is truth and if we don't stand for it then it holds no value

True, but you can't make a horse drink. On my mission we learned, if someone isn't interested move on and find someone who is. Though I suppose on the boards there is a lot of lurkers who may be interested but aren't commenting.

[Saldrin]

I think people tend to use genetics as a cop out to justify their behavior. There have been no sicentific study's that I have seen that says same sex attraction is genetic. I do not believe it is genetic but a choice. In genetically identical twins, one is homosexual, there is only about a 50% chance the other will be also. So if it were based on genetics there would have to be a 100% chance because there genetic make up is supposedly the same.

And I noticed that anyone taking the stance that is not genetic seems to be getting attacked automatically, Justice its comments like yours that cause division, i can read those links and still come away and say 100% that no one is born gay and say the gay lifestyle is a sin. your proceeding from a false assumption that i have to accept some part of homosexuality be it feelings or whatever when I and people who have the same stance and opinion as I do, really do not. God does not make us homosexual, that is a corruption man puts on himself. Those attacks are pointless because at the end of this day at the end of this thread you still will not have changed my mind. Sorry not genetic in my unhumble opinion.