Church attitude towards Gays.

[Soulsearcher]

Church response to the question of marriage:

“Marriage should not be viewed as a therapeutic step to solve problems such as homosexual inclinations or practices.” To me that means that we are not going to stand still to put at risk daughters of God who would enter into such marriages under false pretenses or under a cloud unknown to them. Persons who have this kind of challenge that they cannot control could not enter marriage in good faith.

On the other hand, persons who have 1) cleansed themselves of any transgression and 2) who have shown their ability to deal with these feelings or inclinations and put them in the background, and 3) feel a great attraction for a daughter of God and therefore desire to enter marriage and have children and enjoy the blessings of eternity — that’s a situation when marriage would be appropriate.

President Hinckley said that marriage is not a therapeutic step to solve problems."

This is from an interview with Elder Oaks. Can't find the year. I added bold and numbers to emphasize a few things.

Attraction was #3.

so according to the church the criteria are confession, no longer identifying as gay and being attracted to the to be spouse. Also the false pretenses are usually the outside factors I've been referring to that most don't tend to talk out loud about until it's too late, like after the kids are born. All I'm advocating is don't even bring it up. if you are right and it happens all on it's own with no factors other than a person just saying " i feel like marrying a girl to make me happy" then great, but even looking at the examples you gave that's not there, they all seem to reference religion and following gods plan. again i do respect them, and wish them and their families all the luck and happiness in the world, but they didn't just do it out of the blue and it's the huge number on the other side of the success stories that make me cringe every time i hear " naw it's still a good idea"

[carlimac]

so according to the church the criteria are confession, no longer identifying as gay and being attracted to the to be spouse. Also the false pretenses are usually the outside factors I've been referring to that most don't tend to talk out loud about until it's too late, like after the kids are born. All I'm advocating is don't even bring it up. if you are right and it happens all on it's own with no factors other than a person just saying " i feel like marrying a girl to make me happy" then great, but even looking at the examples you gave that's not there, they all seem to reference religion and following gods plan. again i do respect them, and wish them and their families all the luck and happiness in the world, but they didn't just do it out of the blue and it's the huge number on the other side of the success stories that make me cringe every time i hear " naw it's still a good idea"

I don't think it means that they self identify as "over" their attractions. But they are able to control them and not act on them. But if you mean the Church discourages them from self identifying as "Gay", that would be correct. The Church does encourage labeling it as "Same gender attraction" instead rather than saying "I'm Gay!" and then taking on all that "GAY" means in the world today. The Church encourages a different perspective- SGA just a part of their individual nature but not something that will control their actions- opposed to what the LGBTs would encourage them to do.

[Soulsearcher]

I don't think it means that they self identify as "over" their attractions. But they are able to control them and not act on them. But if you mean the Church discourages them from self identifying as "Gay", that would be correct. The Church does encourage labeling it as "Same gender attraction" instead rather than saying "I'm Gay!" and then taking on all that "GAY" means in the world today. The Church encourages a different perspective- SGA just a part of their individual nature but not something that will control their actions- opposed to what the LGBTs would encourage them to do.

I wonder if i've been going about this from the wrong point of view

A new member is baptized and makes covenants. This is usually a joyous thing and is much celebrated. Turns out this new member made the choice to get baptized cause he was in love with a girl and she made it clear he wasn't going to have a chance unless he was a faithful member. He's given the choice, keep the girl he loves and lie and hope he can someday follow the church which he admits probably will never happen, or loose what he holds dear but keeps true to his own beliefs? Do we celebrate people joining the church who have no intention of ever trying to gain a testimony but do it only to keep things easy for them?

also I think you still have a cloudy view of "gay" it's one word to sum up the three you use. I'm not sure what you think is included in "gay in the world today" It's a part of us we have topics we fight for, but we have lives outside that. One of the funny things I've noticed is that i find more straights that are obsessed with gays than gays are obsessed with themselves. It doesn't control anything, it influences as much as anyone's sexuality influences them.

[carlimac]

I wonder if i've been going about this from the wrong point of view

A new member is baptized and makes covenants. This is usually a joyous thing and is much celebrated. Turns out this new member made the choice to get baptized cause he was in love with a girl and she made it clear he wasn't going to have a chance unless he was a faithful member. He's given the choice, keep the girl he loves and lie and hope he can someday follow the church which he admits probably will never happen, or loose what he holds dear but keeps true to his own beliefs? Do we celebrate people joining the church who have no intention of ever trying to gain a testimony but do it only to keep things easy for them?

also I think you still have a cloudy view of "gay" it's one word to sum up the three you use. I'm not sure what you think is included in "gay in the world today" It's a part of us we have topics we fight for, but we have lives outside that. One of the funny things I've noticed is that i find more straights that are obsessed with gays than gays are obsessed with themselves. It doesn't control anything, it influences as much as anyone's sexuality influences them.

I'm still not following your line of thought in your first paragraph. Are you suggesting that these marriages we've been discussing are only to "keep things easy"?

I have a mostly media view of Gays. Google the word and it comes up with gay rights this and that and parades and bars and hook-ups and what not. I've read gays' responses on opinion pages and they seem to be fairly crude. Now I'm trying to rinse my mind of what I read. I have one GAY friend on facebook. He's a nice guy- one of my good friends from high school. Many of his posts are about homophobics. That's a direct jab (politically incorrect if I might add and one meant to incite ire) at those with OGA who don't condone his lifestyle, even though they may not have any fear (phobia) whatsoever of his choices. He is living with his partner and posts frequent pictures of himself drinking alcohol and living it up on vacations with his lover. It's pretty "in your face" for someone who grew up LDS. I still like him as a person (his talents, his funny personality, I can still hear his laugh in choir) aside from his lifestyle. He was the first boy I ever danced with at a Jr High dance. Another gay contact was a high school friend of my husband's, a returned missionary turned as bitter as one can get who has been so blatantly offensive and argumentative in his facebook posts that my husband finally deleted him.

There aren't many identifiable gays in the part of Idaho where I live, nor were there in the part of MN where we moved from. So yes, I get a highly concentrated view of that lifestyle from what I read online and see on the news.

Edited April 26, 2012 by carlimac

[john doe]

It's been said before, and I'll repeat it here. Anyone who joins a church, any church, just to gain the approval of a guy or girl, is doing it for the wrong reasons. It's not cause for celebration.

[carlimac]

It's been said before, and I'll repeat it here. Anyone who joins a church, any church, just to gain the approval of a guy or girl, is doing it for the wrong reasons. It's not cause for celebration.

What does this have to do with people with SGA entering a hetero marriage? It's already been well established by Church leaders that it's inappropriate unless certain conditions have been met. Why someone with SGA meets those conditions is simply not for anyone to judge but them and Heavenly Father. I trust that the ones I've given examples of are sincere in their desires to live the Gospel and they believe that this annoying attraction will be taken from them in the hereafter. I'd rather think good of these folks and be supportive than be synical and say "they're lying" or "it will never last"- which is what most of the responses are from the GAY community.

[Dravin]

What does this have to do with people with SGA entering a hetero marriage?

That's probably best asked of Soul. John Doe was responding to Soul's question/scenario:

A new member is baptized and makes covenants. This is usually a joyous thing and is much celebrated. Turns out this new member made the choice to get baptized cause he was in love with a girl and she made it clear he wasn't going to have a chance unless he was a faithful member. He's given the choice, keep the girl he loves and lie and hope he can someday follow the church which he admits probably will never happen, or loose what he holds dear but keeps true to his own beliefs? Do we celebrate people joining the church who have no intention of ever trying to gain a testimony but do it only to keep things easy for them?

[carlimac]

That's probably best asked of Soul. John Doe was responding to Soul's question/scenario:

I did ask Soul, or at least told him I didn't get how it related to the topic. He hasn't answered yet. But John Doe referred to the topic of doing something for the wrong reason. Did I do something wrong in asking what he meant and how it related?

[Dravin]

Did I do something wrong in asking what he meant and how it related?

Yes you did, now it's off to bed with no supper for you, and extra chores tomorrow.

[Soulsearcher]

I'm still not following your line of thought in your first paragraph. Are you suggesting that these marriages we've been discussing are only to "keep things easy"?

I have a mostly media view of Gays. Google the word and it comes up with gay rights this and that and parades and bars and hook-ups and what not. I've read gays' responses on opinion pages and they seem to be fairly crude. Now I'm trying to rinse my mind of what I read. I have one GAY friend on facebook. He's a nice guy- one of my good friends from high school. Many of his posts are about homophobics. That's a direct jab (politically incorrect if I might add and one meant to incite ire) at those with OGA who don't condone his lifestyle, even though they may not have any fear (phobia) whatsoever of his choices. He is living with his partner and posts frequent pictures of himself drinking alcohol and living it up on vacations with his lover. It's pretty "in your face" for someone who grew up LDS. I still like him as a person (his talents, his funny personality, I can still hear his laugh in choir) aside from his lifestyle. He was the first boy I ever danced with at a Jr High dance. Another gay contact was a high school friend of my husband's, a returned missionary turned as bitter as one can get who has been so blatantly offensive and argumentative in his facebook posts that my husband finally deleted him.

There aren't many identifiable gays in the part of Idaho where I live, nor were there in the part of MN where we moved from. So yes, I get a highly concentrated view of that lifestyle from what I read online and see on the news.

I'm suggesting that many of the marriages are to keep things easy. I keep trying to tell you that so many if not most of them are entered into because of pressures that gays don't talk about until it's too late. They may say they are over their desires(and some very well maybe) but so many of them are just trying to keep life easy at the cost of them and the spouse they pretend to be alright with. I wish you understood the pressure that is out there in this area and you might not be so lost when you read some of my comments. i'm not talking hypothetical or maybe, these pressures are real and it's why the current problems with these marriages exist. If no one brought up marriage at all to gays and just left it alone completely, you'd probably seem more of the marriages you are cheering for(which is a good thing ) and less of the marriages that are happening(which cause so much harm)

You have to be careful about having a media only view of a class of people, i mean if we went only with a media view or online view of LDS that could be a very nasty thing indeed with such a mixed bag or information. Also you have to stop and look at the examples you give. While they can be in your face for being LDS most of it's tame unless the photos are highly sexual, it's a person and their romantic partner enjoying their lives together. I see lots of people who show vacation pictures and pictures of them just having fun, and most of them are straight. LOL and believe it or not i do a search every day for the word gay, it's how i follow topics in blogs and in the news and i've seen the order of things and it is sad, but it isn't the people. The bitterness from your friend while sad and misplaced is something to possibly ask about, were there people that didn't act like they should have, was he treated as he was supposed to be or was he treated as less. He shouldn't be as bitter or anti as you say even if he was mistreated, but it's a reaction many have.

Also on the topic of Homophobia, I'm not a fan of the word being thrown around a great deal. That being said there is a misunderstanding about what it means.

ho·mo·pho·bi·a

   [hoh-muh-foh-bee-uh] Show IPA

noun unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality.

So a fear or revulsion of homosexuality. This covers the acts as well, now the definition creates a fine line and seem to make it pretty hard to speak against gays and not be homophobic, which makes me uncomfortable. I think tone as well as content have to be measured before applying such judgments, but i also think it's needed by both sides because as seen with Carli's last comment it's easy to get a wrong impression from limited sources and have it stick.

[Vort]

So a fear or revulsion of homosexuality.

So anyone who finds homosexuality revolting (which it is, almost by definition) is a homophobe?

[MarginOfError]

So anyone who finds homosexuality revolting (which it is, almost by definition) is a homophobe?

... and I'm a Mormon!

[carlimac]

... and I'm a Mormon!

Where's the laugh button?

[annewandering]

Phobia means unreasonable fear, aversion, or hatred. Homophobia would be an UNREASONABLE fear, hatred or aversion of homosexuality. Being against it is not homophobia. If we were screaming and burning and killing etc then yes that is homophobia. Of course the homosexual community has changed the meaning of gay and rainbow so not doubt they wont hesitate to change the meaning of homophobia.

[carlimac]

I'm suggesting that many of the marriages are to keep things easy. I keep trying to tell you that so many if not most of them are entered into because of pressures that gays don't talk about until it's too late. They may say they are over their desires(and some very well maybe) but so many of them are just trying to keep life easy at the cost of them and the spouse they pretend to be alright with. I wish you understood the pressure that is out there in this area and you might not be so lost when you read some of my comments. i'm not talking hypothetical or maybe, these pressures are real and it's why the current problems with these marriages exist. If no one brought up marriage at all to gays and just left it alone completely, you'd probably seem more of the marriages you are cheering for(which is a good thing ) and less of the marriages that are happening(which cause so much harm)

You have to be careful about having a media only view of a class of people, i mean if we went only with a media view or online view of LDS that could be a very nasty thing indeed with such a mixed bag or information. Also you have to stop and look at the examples you give. While they can be in your face for being LDS most of it's tame unless the photos are highly sexual, it's a person and their romantic partner enjoying their lives together. I see lots of people who show vacation pictures and pictures of them just having fun, and most of them are straight. LOL and believe it or not i do a search every day for the word gay, it's how i follow topics in blogs and in the news and i've seen the order of things and it is sad, but it isn't the people. The bitterness from your friend while sad and misplaced is something to possibly ask about, were there people that didn't act like they should have, was he treated as he was supposed to be or was he treated as less. He shouldn't be as bitter or anti as you say even if he was mistreated, but it's a reaction many have.

Also on the topic of Homophobia, I'm not a fan of the word being thrown around a great deal. That being said there is a misunderstanding about what it means.

So a fear or revulsion of homosexuality. This covers the acts as well, now the definition creates a fine line and seem to make it pretty hard to speak against gays and not be homophobic, which makes me uncomfortable. I think tone as well as content have to be measured before applying such judgments, but i also think it's needed by both sides because as seen with Carli's last comment it's easy to get a wrong impression from limited sources and have it stick.

So do you have any suggestions of how I am to interact with gays and lesbians on a regular, casual everyday basis? I don't know any nearby. There really isn't any other way to view them aside from what I hear and read in the media. I agree that much of it is tainted so that it will sell. FYI, I don't see people with SGA as anything but human. I know full well that they have good traits, wonderful qualities, annoying idiosyncrasies, etc just like every other human being on the earth. If they are standing out in a crowd and drawing negative attention to themselves, it's because they want to. They are trying very hard to get noticed. That's all well and good until it gets offensive. I have a lower tolerance for that kind of thing than maybe some others do. Some would call me a prude. I just think I have higher standards for what people make public of their private lives. I have no qualms with you are anyone doing what they want behind closed doors. It's when we have to suffer through all the PDA and "look at us" kinds of stuff that I get downright homophobic if we must use that term. Same with heteros who whine that life is unfair or who are all over each other in public. Can't we raise our standards a little?

You seem like the more decent of the bunch by the way. I appreciate that.

[PeterVenkman]

So anyone who finds homosexuality revolting (which it is, almost by definition) is a homophobe?

Yep. Generally the term is used to denote someone who feels threatened by the presence of homosexuality around them. Feeling fear/threatened does not necessarily mean that you are afraid a gay person is going to attack you or overwhelm you, it means that your actions towards them derive from your revulsion. Anytime you place a group of people into the category of the "abject", one consequence is abuse and violence. After all, we have a tendency to want to be as far away from the abject as possible.

Compare homophobia with the concept of heteronormativity. Homophobia is literally a fear of gay people. That fear can manifest in a variety of ways. Heteronormativity is a more subtle assumption that heterosexual sex/culture is "normal" while anything that falls outside that paradigm is deviant. In my opinion, heteronormativity as it exists today is a relatively new (and pervasive) social force that sets the stage for homophobia. The two are interrelated.

[carlimac]

Phobia means unreasonable fear, aversion, or hatred. Homophobia would be an UNREASONABLE fear, hatred or aversion of homosexuality. Being against it is not homophobia. If we were screaming and burning and killing etc then yes that is homophobia. Of course the homosexual community has changed the meaning of gay and rainbow so not doubt they wont hesitate to change the meaning of homophobia.

I have a real problem with the rainbow thing, especially since I have little girls who love to draw them.

[PeterVenkman]

I have no qualms with you are anyone doing what they want behind closed doors. It's when we have to suffer through all the PDA and "look at us" kinds of stuff that I get downright homophobic if we must use that term.

As a note, this line of thinking is a textbook example of the interplay between heteronormativity and homophobia.

The whole, "gay people in public are icky and shouldn't do it why should I have to explain to my child why two women are kissing at a basketball game" so perfectly illustrates the concept that this line is used by queer theorists all the time to show/explain the concepts.

[Gwen]

Phobia means unreasonable fear, aversion, or hatred. Homophobia would be an UNREASONABLE fear, hatred or aversion of homosexuality. Being against it is not homophobia. If we were screaming and burning and killing etc then yes that is homophobia. Of course the homosexual community has changed the meaning of gay and rainbow so not doubt they wont hesitate to change the meaning of homophobia.

A phobia is an unreasonable fear not an unreasonable reaction to that fear. Someone can scream or kill someone and not have a phobia of that person.

A person may have a phobia of dogs and run around in a panic whenever they are around them. Another person may have a phobia of dogs and become paralyzed to move or speak around one. Both have the same phobia. The reaction does not determine the phobia. (I'm not comparing gays to dogs but explaining phobia from a different perspective )

So if someone is afraid of homosexuals because they are afraid they will "contaminate their kids and turn them gay" then they have a phobia. It's an unreasonable fear. They may stand there and smile and be polite to them but they still have a "phobia".

Phobia's aren't always "bad". What makes a phobia bad is when it disrupts normal life and function. If I have such a great fear of dogs that I can't leave my home then it's a problem. If I have such a fear of dogs that I want all dogs exterminated and no one should be allowed to have a dog for fear that I might be around one that's a problem.

If I am generally afraid of (or don't like) gays but I can be nice to them and work with them and be around them then it's not really a problem. Like many with the attitude that "I can work with them and be nice but I won't have them visit my home for dinner." Right or wrong you have that choice. Ppl make that choice about all kinds of ppl based on religion, race, etc. The problem becomes when someone says "because I don't like you then you don't have the right to go to the grocery store, have a job, live in this neighborhood, live your life because I might have to see you." Then it becomes a problem.

[PeterVenkman]

The problem becomes when someone says "because I don't like you then you don't have the right to go to the grocery store, have a job, live in this neighborhood, live your life because I might have to see you." Then it becomes a problem.

Or, to put it another way: "You don't have a right to marry your loved one because I might have to see it or recognize it." Then it becomes a problem.

[carlimac]

Or, to put it another way: "You don't have a right to marry your loved one because I might have to see it or recognize it." Then it becomes a problem.

Honestly, I don't think this is what's going on. Your statement doesn't accurately reflect the problem. There is no way people who feel negatively about homosexuality are going to stop homosexuals from being together. They can already legally live together, shack up, devote their lives to each other and no one can stop them. They have every opportunity to share their lives if they want to. Those who don't like the idea of homosexuals getting together have already lost that battle. We already DO have to see it and recognize it. The government doesn't have the right to legislate people's personal lives- specifically their sex lives- aside from sodomy and incest.

The problem is simply in the description of what's going on. Homosexual relationships are not nor will ever be marriage in (no matter how the government defines the relationship) in the traditional sense of the word. It would be helpful if homosexuals recognized that disinction and came up with their own unique word for their union so that it doesn't blur and dilute the meaning of what marriage has meant since the beginning of time.

It's not that heteros want to intentionally deny anyone the right to be with the one they love. I'm all for hospital visitation, inheritance rights and all that for homosexuals. But call it something different if you must. Make it so completely different from hetero marriage that there is no question- mostly for the upcoming generation of children who are confused enough as it is- just what this union is and consists of. The offense to heteros comes when gays and lesbians want to steal the sacred meaning of marriage and make it their own. Biologically they cannot reproduce offspring-(partof the original purposes of marriage). The puzzle pieces just don't fit the proper way and they never will no matter how hard they try. ( And let's leave that whole debate about infertile hetero couples and older people who marry and gays who can adopt out of the discussion. Let's boil it down to the basics. Two men or two women cannot reproduce. Simple as that.)

This isn't just an attack on homosexuals. Do you think LDS members approve of sexual relations before marriage or adultery any more than they do homosexual relations? No! They are both sins. They are both wrong. We don't like to see and recognize either scenario. We wouldn't call an adulterous relationship "marriage" either, even if a man loves his mistress more than his wife. They simply don't have the right to call their relationship "marriage" just to get the benefits.

I think gays tend to way oversimplify the problem and accuse the hetero world of things we don't think or feel. The very use of the word "homophobia" is an example of that. It's meant to offend and hurt when flung at someone. The accusations of "you're not being fair","you're denying me my rights", are meant to inflame. And this one " you're keeping me away from the one I love" is such a silly exxageration. It sounds like a 3 yr old tantrum. If you want to be together, have at it. No one can stop you, but just don't expect us to change the rules to make you feel better about yourself or to say it's totally acceptable and no longer a sin. Just because you want to do this doesn't change fundamental truth.

It would be nice if both sides took a step back, took a look at what they are saying and doing and apply the Golden Rule. I am in total agreement that there are some who are just as offensive on the conservative, religious side. They need to clean up their act, too. We all need to step back and regroup and re-think this thing without all the mudslinging and emotion.

Edited April 26, 2012 by carlimac

[circusboy01]

That's not true. You can go to the Celestial Kingdom if you're not married. You do have to be sealed to be exalted.

You're right. you can go to the Celestial Kingdom if you're not married. Because there are different degrees ( I guess you'd call them) in the celestial Kingdom. I'm sorry I should have made that known in my statement. But I'm sure everyone saw the point I was making Brother Ray

[circusboy01]

I have a real problem with the rainbow thing, especially since I have little girls who love to draw them.

The Rainbow is Heavenly Father's promise, to us, that he will never flood the earth again. I wish they would find another symbol for themselves. Brother Ray

[circusboy01]

Thanks you guys. You really made these threads interesting. There's a lot more to say about " The Churches Attitude towards Gays." then I ever thought. Brother Ray

[annewandering]

A phobia is not ' I dont want you around me" kinda thing. There are lots of things I dont want around me but they dont revolt me and they dont scare me.

We seem to have downgraded this particular word to mean a lot less than a phobia.

Honestly the arrogance of changing words around to their satisfaction is one of the things I really get ticked off about. Go have your sex in your house but leave me alone. Leave things I love like rainbows alone. Leave psychiatric definitions alone. And to have taken a word meaning very happy to apply to an unnatural act is just beyond arrogant. If the homosexual population had given any concern to anyone besides themselves they would not have done this. I just dont care one way or other how perverted someone is if they leave my life alone.