lds backlash from gay community cnn.com

[GaySaint]

Prince: Maybe I'm just a perfectionist Ok. I AM a perfectionist...

I don't know how to respond other than that without taking the topic further off course...

[Just_A_Guy]

You err, because they CAN BE ACCUSED!!!!!

Why?

Because they create a climate by their sermons that it makes homosexual impossible to lead a quiet and sure life.

The law--even secular law--creates a climate making it impossible for people of many different tendencies to "lead a quiet and sure life". Yeah, at one point humans need constant encouragement and praise for everything we do and we aren't expected to take criticism well.

But then, at some point we (to put it bluntly) have to grow up.

The glory of individuality is that individuals are willing to do what they want even if they're bucking social trends. Individuality with no risk of social opprobium, just like civil disobedience without the possibility of arrest, loses pretty much all of whatever moral force it initially had.

If religious leaders want to take over the USA as "a God's state"

The US was never exactly a bastion of religious tyranny, and turning back the gay-rights legislative clock to 1995 would not make it so. Let us please tone down the histrionics.

Edited October 14, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[GaySaint]

PC: I agree with your comments on celibacy, and do think it is the most viable option to the gay Mormon conundrum. But I do think I need to point out that there would undoubtedly is a difference in elective celibacy and expected celibacy. Even priests have the option to choose celibacy or not, depending on if they feel they are called to or capable of the celibacy calling. No one looks down on them for choosing to love instead. Even those who “ignore” the priesthood calling and choose to marry instead are not viewed as sinful.

ALL homosexuals are EXEPCTED to accept celibacy as their only solution (or marriage to a woman, I suppose, which I would argue is even worse and highly immoral – at least for me). Forced celibacy is a much different story, and I’m not sure it would have the same godly blessings that elective celibacy (in order to serve God and the church) would have.

Something about accepting a “gift” begrudgingly comes to mind :)

[PrinceofLight2000]

PC: I agree with your comments on celibacy, and do think it is the most viable option to the gay Mormon conundrum. But I do think I need to point out that there would undoubtedly is a difference in elective celibacy and expected celibacy. Even priests have the option to choose celibacy or not, depending on if they feel they are called to or capable of the celibacy calling. No one looks down on them for choosing to love instead. Even those who “ignore” the priesthood calling and choose to marry instead are not viewed as sinful.

ALL homosexuals are EXEPCTED to accept celibacy as their only solution (or marriage to a woman, I suppose, which I would argue is even worse and highly immoral – at least for me). Forced celibacy is a much different story, and I’m not sure it would have the same godly blessings that elective celibacy (in order to serve God and the church) would have.

Something about accepting a “gift” begrudgingly comes to mind :)

It's no different as how I'm expected to be celibate seeing as I'm not married, or that a married man must be celibate toward all but his wife, though. It's not so much about denying gay people the ability to have romantic relationships as it is about keeping Heavenly Father's plan and commandments in focus and trusting that He will bless us for doing so in the future.

I think that some ***KEY WORD*** homosexuals can overcome their biological tendencies and become straight. It doesn't happen with all of them though, nor is it a requirement. For most, that will happen after this life. As I've said before, I think it's a very intricate and complex combination of a. our faith b. our desires and c. Heavenly Father's will. And of course, it's relative to each homosexual's individual circumstances.

[GaySaint]

Prince: While I highly disagree that homosexuals are being asked to do the same thing as unmarried heterosexuals in the church (heterosexuals aren't asked to CHOOSE to be celibate or deny themselves any romantic connection or involvment - they are asked to keep looking), I do agree with your last paragraph.

Strangely, it seems like item C in your list is where gay members who are trying to change are lacking... it's also the one area over which they have no control. I think a lot of members of the church assume that gays who don't change are lacking in either A or B - and I think that's a gross misconception.

I would have loved to have seen President Packer address this issue (although it was addressed in God Loveth His Children).

[PrinceofLight2000]

Prince: While I highly disagree that homosexuals are being asked to do the same thing as unmarried heterosexuals in the church (heterosexuals aren't asked to CHOOSE to be celibate or deny themselves any romantic connection or involvment - they are asked to keep looking), I do agree with your last paragraph.

Strangely, it seems like item C in your list is where gay members who are trying to change are lacking... it's also the one area over which they have no control. I think a lot of members of the church assume that gays who don't change are lacking in either A or B - and I think that's a gross misconception.

I would have loved to have seen President Packer address this issue (although it was addressed in God Loveth His Children).

They are in terms of the parameters of marriage, though. For example, I'd love to be having sex with my girlfriend right now but I know I shouldn't be seeing as we're not operating under God's definition of marriage, so I CHOOSE to be celibate.

Agreed 100%.

I have a bit of a question, and of course my input on this will be very skewed because I'm straight, lol. But, I'll ask. Do you think that a gay person's preferences to the same sex, biological or otherwise, can be self-expanded to the point where they're attracted to the opposite sex as well? Or do they find the idea flat-out disgusting, as a heterosexual person would be toward their same sex?

Edited October 14, 2010 by PrinceofLight2000

[GaySaint]

Prince: I can only speak for myself, I supposed... and let's just say I've tried... I've tried a lot, and had lots and lots of girls fall in love with me. Could I sleep with them? Probably. Just like you could "probably" sleep with someone of the same sex if you really forced yourself to. It might even be enjoyable...

But being gay is more than just about sex. The church's most recent statement reiterated that sexuality is "deep[ly] emotional, social and physical" - and I would add spiritual. I found myself INCAPABLE of falling in love with a woman, just like you would be incapable of falling in love with a guy (and I'm talking romantic love, not friendly love in both cases).

Could I be physically intimate with someone I don't love? Sure. People do it all the time. But that isn't the point. The point is whether or not I could get that connection that results from being emotionally, spiritually, socially, and physically linked. As hard as I tried to expand myself to the point of making that work with a woman, it never worked. I would love to tell you why, but I don't know anymore than you would know why you wouldn't be able to do so with another man.

Hopefully that adds to the discussion, and doesn't detract from it...

EDIT: I should add that I know many gay men who are so physically repulsed by the idea of being with a woman that they get physically ill at the thought.

[carlimac]

Dorave, you seem to stand alone in your argument that being physically attracted to someone other than your spouse is sin. I too find that unreasonable. But perhaps we are all misunderstanding. Physical attraction is indeed biological. However, after about 30-seconds of thought it becomes meditation...it's intentional, and thus is lust.

The 30-second rule is arbitrary. However, you seem to suggest that even the initial thought is lust, and must be repented of. I'd suggest at least the first few seconds is temptation, and only when one consciously gives into the sinful, but enjoyable line of thought does it become lust. Your thoughts?

I know I'm coming into this part of the discussion a couple pages late, but I *think* I know what Dorave is talking about. When we are trying very hard to keep a commandment and become very practiced at keeping that commandment, it happens almost without conscious effort. Maybe Dorave has gotten to the point where he truly isn't consciously attracted to anyone but his wife. I think 30 seconds is too long. If we are allowing ourselves that much gratification, it's entering our conscious mind. And if we're aware of being attracted to someone to the point that physiological reactions are happening, we've consciously let it go on too long. The given amount of time should be about a split second. OK this will vary from individual to individual. But I really think we can get to the point of following commandments almost subconsciously. I don't have to even try to resist cigarettes, drugs, alcohol. Not a temptation at all- even when I'm around it. Using the name of God in vain isn't even remotely a part of my vocabulary. I do have a harder time with forgiving others and it takes a conscious effort on my part.

Anyway, I think it's possible to actually get to the point of NOT being attracted to someone in a sexual way. It takes mental and spiritual effort but I don't think Dorave is so far off.

Now apply that to homosexuality? I think living the commandment of sexual and mental purity can be done with some great effort- with help from the Lord. Real sincere desire is necessary first.

Edited October 14, 2010 by carlimac

[carlimac]

PC: I agree with your comments on celibacy, and do think it is the most viable option to the gay Mormon conundrum. But I do think I need to point out that there would undoubtedly is a difference in elective celibacy and expected celibacy. Even priests have the option to choose celibacy or not, depending on if they feel they are called to or capable of the celibacy calling. No one looks down on them for choosing to love instead. Even those who “ignore” the priesthood calling and choose to marry instead are not viewed as sinful.

ALL homosexuals are EXEPCTED to accept celibacy as their only solution (or marriage to a woman, I suppose, which I would argue is even worse and highly immoral – at least for me). Forced celibacy is a much different story, and I’m not sure it would have the same godly blessings that elective celibacy (in order to serve God and the church) would have.

Something about accepting a “gift” begrudgingly comes to mind :)

Isolating celebacy on it's own without all the other aspects of being an LDS homosexual, how is it different than for singles who will never marry. It is absolutely expected for them.

Edited October 15, 2010 by carlimac

[Dravin]

And if we're aware of being attracted to someone to the point that physiological reactions are happening, we've consciously let it go on too long.

Physiological reaction can happen sans any conscious thought. In fact one can find such physiological reactions a complete surprise when they are noticed, or even confusing because no conscious thought of ," I want to/it would be nice/she is nice..." has entered one's mind.

Edit: Keep in mind physiological reactions include things such as hormone changes, pupil dilation, blood pressure and other sympathetic (IIRC) nervous system reactions. We just don't notice these like some of the more obvious ones such as the one that causes teenage boys the world over embarrassment.

Edited October 14, 2010 by Dravin

[PrinceofLight2000]

Prince: I can only speak for myself, I supposed... and let's just say I've tried... I've tried a lot, and had lots and lots of girls fall in love with me. Could I sleep with them? Probably. Just like you could "probably" sleep with someone of the same sex if you really forced yourself to. It might even be enjoyable...

But being gay is more than just about sex. The church's most recent statement reiterated that sexuality is "deep[ly] emotional, social and physical" - and I would add spiritual. I found myself INCAPABLE of falling in love with a woman, just like you would be incapable of falling in love with a guy (and I'm talking romantic love, not friendly love in both cases).

Could I be physically intimate with someone I don't love? Sure. People do it all the time. But that isn't the point. The point is whether or not I could get that connection that results from being emotionally, spiritually, socially, and physically linked. As hard as I tried to expand myself to the point of making that work with a woman, it never worked. I would love to tell you why, but I don't know anymore than you would know why you wouldn't be able to do so with another man.

Hopefully that adds to the discussion, and doesn't detract from it...

EDIT: I should add that I know many gay men who are so physically repulsed by the idea of being with a woman that they get physically ill at the thought.

This is a sufficient answer. Thanks. :)

I know I'm coming into this part of the discussion a couple pages late, but I *think* I know what Dorave is talking about. When we are trying very hard to keep a commandment and become very practiced at keeping that commandment, it happens almost without conscious effort. Maybe Dorave has gotten to the point where he truly isn't consciously attracted to anyone but his wife. I think 30 seconds is too long. If we are allowing ourselves that much gratification, it's entering our conscious mind. And if we're aware of being attracted to someone to the point that physiological reactions are happening, we've consciously let it go on too long. The given amount of time should be about a split second. OK this will vary from individual to individual. But I really think we can get to the point of following commandments almost subconsciously. I don't have to even try to resist cigarettes, drugs, alcohol. Not a temptation at all- even when I'm around it. Using the name of God in vain isn't even remotely a part of my vocaublary. I do have a harder time with forgiving others and it takes a conscious effort on my part.

Anyway, I think it's possible to actually get to the point of NOT being attracted to someone in a sexual way. It takes mental and spiritual effort but I don't think Dorave is so far off.

Now apply that to homosexuality? I think living the commandment of sexual and mental purity can be done with some great effort- with help from the Lord. Real sincere desire is necessary first.

Except that all it takes for physiological reactions to start occurring is in a split second. The very moment you realize that they are physically attractive is when that happens.

I think we can too, in fact I think I have with my girlfriend as well. I acknowledge that girls are pretty without being sexually attracted. That's the distinction dorave needs to make. He seems to think that simply finding someone cute/pretty/attractive is lust in and of itself, as opposed to entertaining those thoughts to the point where they can be considered such.

[prisonchaplain]

ALL homosexuals are EXEPCTED to accept celibacy as their only solution (or marriage to a woman, I suppose, which I would argue is even worse and highly immoral – at least for me). Forced celibacy is a much different story, and I’m not sure it would have the same godly blessings that elective celibacy (in order to serve God and the church) would have.

Something about accepting a “gift” begrudgingly comes to mind :)

Alcoholics have no choice but to become tea-totalers. Not an equivalency, I admit. Alcohol, even to the alcoholic, is not universal to the human nature, as sex is. If you were pentecostal, I would suggest that you "pray through," and ask God to deliver you from temptation, even if "one day at a time," for now. We'd agree together until you sensed a permanant "deliverance." BTW, I tend to agree with you that "fake it til you make it" would be highly immoral in this realm.

By the way, the following book (and author) have a unique perspective. He does not target homosexuality in particular, but rather the whole realm of sexuality, including porn addiction. His is not so much a psychological or therapeutic approach, but rather a spiritual one. I have offered it to several inmates struggling with sexual issues, including attraction to minors. Amazon.com: At the Altar of Sexual Idolatry (9780970220202): Steve Gallagher: Books

Edited October 14, 2010 by prisonchaplain

[GaySaint]

Carli: Let me quote two people, and see if it is enough explaination:

Tony Collette: "God wants you to choose to be single, not just accept the fact that you happened to remain single."

Sneakers in Sacrament (blog): "Single people are not asked to sacrifice, they are asked to keep looking."

[Soulsearcher]

An interesting response on celibacy from a Bishop and father of a gay son in the lds church from a letter posted by one of the members here.

We do not knowingly give homosexuals important callings – especially not with our youth or children who would be at risk of being infected and recruited. We forbid them ever to flirt, to date, to get crushes, to fall in love, to have a legally-recognized monogamous relationship. The image of a Tri-Stake Gay and Lesbian Gold-and-Green Ball is amusing. We ask them to be chaste – forever. No hope at all. The question of sexual intimacy aside – can you imagine having being denied the ability to become attracted to, flirt with, get a crush on, hold hands with, steal a kiss from, or fall in love with you wife? With all trace of romantic love and emotional intimacy denied you, with what would you fill the void to hold at bay a life of loneliness, emptiness, and despair?

We do have at least one historic example to look to. The Catholic Church has attempted to enforce celibacy on its clergy throughout the ages with success at some level (although we will never know what level). With what did they replace the emotional void? They had the love and adulation of the church membership, and authority and power. They were, in fact, the Bishops, Stake Presidents, and General Authorities. They were held next to deity – and their record is less than stellar. Imagine the celibacy success rate of a group defined by a loathsome and abominable “condition.”

Imagine also, for a moment, if you were to stand up in front of the freshman class at BYU and announce that everyone present was being given a special calling to live a celibate life from then on. How many do you think would really be able to do it? How many empty and guilty lives and suicides would result? The Church has never taught the principle of celibacy. As a parent, I don’t have the slightest idea how to begin teaching it. There are no manuals, no courses, no “For the Strength of Celibate Youth” cards to carry. There are no Priesthood, Relief Society, Sunday School, or Primary lessons on celibacy. On the other hand, following the teachings of the Church, we have raised our children in a home filled with open love, intimacy, loyalty and commitment between a couple

Also to chime in on the question from prince and answered by Saint.

While i was trying to hide i was involved with a number of women. Engaged to two and had relations. Was i sick from it, no, it was just an "accepted" way to meet certain physical needs, but there was never a really deep connection. I've found a deeper more meaningful connection holding hands with a guy than i did sleeping with a woman, also sadly slightly more physically satisfying. Can we do these things, yeah we can, but at the end of the day for most of us it's just a shell of what it should be and we and the women we'd be lying to deserve much better.

[carlimac]

It sounds lke a whole host of psychological stuff to me. Every relationship is like that homo or heterosexual. There are some guys I would get physically ill having to holding hands with let alone anything else. There are times I don't want any physical affection from my husband. There are some women- my daughters, that I can hold hands with or give backrubs to and it means something totally different than if they were just other women in general.

What about massage therapists or doctors that can touch same gender without being wierded out or opposite gender without it being anything sexual?

I guess I still don't "get it" eh?

Sorry got to run pick up kids at school.

Edited October 14, 2010 by carlimac

[Soulsearcher]

It sounds lke a whole host of psychological stuff to me. Every relationship is like that homo or heterosexual. There are some guys I would get physically ill having to holding hands with let alone anything else. There are times I don't want any physical affection from my husband. There are some women- my daughters, that I can hold hands with or give backrubs to and it means something totally different than if they were just other women.

But have you formed a deep emotional connection as well with your husband? Something beyond sex? Something that goes so deep that it makes other relationships pale in comparison? Now combine that with the physical connection and ask yourself honestly if you could go out today and find it with a woman. Casually people can form all kinds of relationships with their own and the other sex, but the deep connections that set aside casual from "the one" is very different.

[PrinceofLight2000]

What about massage therapists or doctors that can touch same gender without it being anything sexual?

I think it still happens even with these to a very small degree although they've tempered themselves very effectively against it given the nature of their occupation.

[pam]

Can we not use the word homo? That is a pejorative term for homosexual.

Sorry just a thing with me. Now I'm being nit picky.

[Wingnut]

I'm guessing that carlimac meant homo- or heterosexual, not intending to use the pejorative. But I do agree with you in general, pam.

[PrinceofLight2000]

Can we not use the word homo? That is a pejorative term for homosexual.

Sorry just a thing with me.

It's all about the context, pam. This would be akin to asking someone to not read the passages in the Bible where the word "ass" is used.

But I agree, if you're going to use it make sure people know you're not using it as a slur. Homo and hetero are abbreviations/prefixes in this case, and that is all.

Edit: GS, would you kindly check your inbox?

Edited October 14, 2010 by PrinceofLight2000

[Surehand]

I think until there is a workable solution that is honestly discussed (celibacy, being one possibility), and until it is very clear that homosexuals aren't inherantly evil (something that is taught and assumed too often by religious leaders, and taken even further by their followers), yes, suicide becomes a workable solution. Is it the leaders fault if their congregants are left with only this one workable solution because no other has been presented? I think partially, yes.

I agree with this statement. But it isn't fault of this leaders alone. Their leaders did only what they think is right and aree with the word of God (no matter wer it stood). But, if the would read e.g. the Bible with unterstanding, they would understand, that they was never ever an interpretation possible which allowed to condemn homosexual people. And, Pam, "homo" ist a nasty word for homosexuals (such as "Fag", "Dyke" or "Sissy"), and people who want to use it shown a lack of understanding and charity.

[Surehand]

It is my opinion that a person committing suicide is having mental issues and because they are dead we may not know why they committed suicide.

You may believe what always you want to believe, regardless of facts and personal experiences. If you want to think that the moon is made with Swiss cheese, you can believe this.

I have tried twice in my life to commit suicide. Both times I did not know any more further because the people whom I loved and should love me (parents, brothers and sisters, friends, priests)excluded me because of my lesbian feelings and refused to me their love and support. The first time I was 16 years old, with the second attempted suicide more than thirty. My parents wanted to make me homeless. They meant, I can live only with them under their roof if I was "normal. I suppressed my feelings, said them, it would be a mistake (there I was 15 years old). A year later I undertook an attempted suicide because I did not stand the conflict any more, between my feelings and the demands of my parents. I married even, and got children. I tried to adapt myself. But this was off sick me, and to escape, I fled in affairs with other women for which I felt guilty because of the norms of my church. The pressure of family, church and society was off sick me, and I committed, after I had become dependent on tablet, my second attempted suicide. I began a therapy, and recognised the internal connections, and which I had a right on my sexual identity to live also, this. I said husband, children, parents and priest what I had found out in the therapy, and the psychic pressure already started. But this time I was strong enough to fight for MYSELF. I lost everything: Family, friends, children, marriage, church and my job. But I also won a lot: Freedom, tolerance, sympathy, a "combative" Christianity which is there for the weak and outsiders of the society, and not least also my first big love: A former JW.

[prisonchaplain]

Also I estimate the right at free speech high. But to be allowed to say something, does not tell to have to say something. In the German history there were several times where the freedom of speech was limited, or was forbidden. We know Germans about that words can heal, but can also kill. This is why we handle responsibly with this high property of the freedom of speech. Here nobody would effect with impunity racist, sexist or homophobic statements. Just because we know around our responsibility. As already uncle Ben said in Spiderman 1: "With a lot of power a big responsibility is also tied together".

I understand this line of reasoning. Let me restate it though, to be certain...in order to protect the freedom of speech, we must restrict it. If free speech is allowed to stir up hatred, and perhaps violence, then, in order to protect the rest of free speech, we will restrict that dangerous, violence-inducing kind.

In sum, Germany in general, and Europe as well, have declared a broader range of speech to be "yelling fire in a movie theater." You err on the side of restriction, whereas Americans err on the side of liberty.

Is called freedom of worship that religions have the right to preach hate (Fred Phelps) or denied others their civil rights?

Yes to Fred Phelps. We believe that by allowing him to spread his venom unfettered, he will expose himself as foolish. If we restrict him, he becomes a kind of martyr...persecuted by the state.

By the way, we have no religion sponsored by the state. The state enters only Church-expensive by order of the churches, something what wants to change the German parliament. If somebody is neither Catholic nor Protestant, he maybe belongs to one of many free churches (the Baptists belong to it, e.g.), or to the sects (like JW) if he is not a Jew, Muslim or Buddhist. On the idea that somebody belongs to a cult nobody would come. The missionary has told rubbish.

The missionary was telling me his impression of how most Germans think, not telling me what the law is. Also, am I wrong in the understanding that some clergy are employees of the government?

You err, because they CAN BE ACCUSED!!!!! Why? Because they create a climate by their sermons that it makes homosexual impossible to lead a quiet and sure life. And this, although the Bible does not condemn the homosexuality of homosexual people. Besides, "homosexual actions" are called, e.g., in Leviticus 18 & 20 not as a moral sin if one uses the original word for abomination", but as a ritual impurity (Levitical holyness code). You as a priest should know this. Read up once in Kittel's. If you are too decayed in addition, here a link.

If you argue that everytime a minister condemns a sin, people are incited to violence and persecution against those sinners (despite their activities being legal), I say you give far too much credit to ministers' power, and far too little credit to the discernment of most church-goers. I have never persecuted, belittled, or harrassed a homosexual, though I have often been taught that their activities are sin.

As for abominations being mere ritual uncleanness, the opposition to homosexual activity is far too prevalent and consistent for that interpretation to hold. The modern gay-Christian interpretations are historic revisionism. They proffer polemic views meant to justify behavior. They are not pure interpretations discovered during pure Bible study. They were discovered by those who went to scripture seeking to defend their behavior.

If religious leaders want to take over the USA as "a God's state",

We don't. The major groups of the last 30 years, the Moral Majority and the Christian Coalition have largely diminished already. Further, they never promoted a political party, only advocacy groups seeking specific policies (opposition to abortion, pornography, and gay marriage). I've heard a few foolish officials try to claim that Al Qaida and the Christian Coalition are equivalent. Such comparison demonstrate intentional ignorance, and absolutely no sense of nuance.

they will experience not only the opposition of the homosexuals and women, also those of the dissidents and atheist. The civil rights, and the constitution are valid for ALL CITIZENS of the USA, not only for white fundamentalist heterosexual men.

I note your last line about whites--ah the race card. Do be aware that Proposition 8 passed in California (prohibiting gay marriage), largely because African-American Christians were over 70% for it. Of course, the bigots went after LDS instead, because they saw the group as more vunerable.

[Surehand]

Some postings spoke of the fact that homosexual should live in celibacy. How heterosexuals before marriage. Only, a marriage is forbidden for homosexuals in the US of A, a lifelong celibacy is required by them, similarly, how with the Catholic priests (who often do not keep to it).

The celibacy can be a good thing if two people learn know themselves and to love. The point of view is laid by the sexuality on the interpersonal respect and relationship. So, in principle, I would be for abstinence before the marriage if three points were also valid for homosexual people who are natural rights for heterosexual people:

1. The right to marry. All the same how one calls it: marriage, registered partnership, domestic relation, etc., with it the same rights and duties are connected like in a heterosexual marriage.

2. The right to live a partner sexuality responsibly (after the marriage ceremony no affairs, common responsibility for relationship and possible children)

3. The right to educate children as foster parents, adoptive parents or bodily parents. As sociological investigations pointed worldwide, the children can be only conducive, nevertheless, they thereby learn tolerance, sympathy and self-confidence, things which they partially do not learn in heterosexual families.

However, thus long as a church or society applies double standards, a society will never find peace in itself.

[Just_A_Guy]

. . . nevertheless, they thereby learn tolerance, sympathy and self-confidence, things which they partially do not learn in heterosexual families.

It begins . . .