ROBERTS: If Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe, Sue could marry him and Tom can't. Why isn't that a straightforward question of sexual discrimination?


Guest

Recommended Posts

Guest MormonGator

Because the State doesn't recognize the friendship?

Nope. 

 

What I saw in my life was one person who was falsely called a "hater' and "homophobic" because they didn't support gay marriage. When they tried to explain you could love and accept someone but not have to agree with them, the accuser simply didn't understand. Both women haven't spoken to each other in years and they were once close friends.

 

I've heard people tell stories similar to that one. 

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope. 

 

What I saw in my life was one person who was falsely called a "hater' and "homophobic" because they didn't support gay marriage. When they tried to explain you could love and accept someone but not have to agree with them, the accuser simply didn't understand. Both women haven't spoken to each other in years and they were once close friends.

 

I've heard people tell stories similar to that one. 

 

Not to derail the thread but I'd rather lose a friendship over this than some of the petty stuff going on in my neighborhood and small town over a school bond. People are so edgy these days! Oye!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted · Hidden by pam, May 5, 2015 - No reason given
Hidden by pam, May 5, 2015 - No reason given

If the argument is "LOVE" then to deny multiple women's love for one man is hypocritical -- no matter the modern sophistry they use to condemn it (i.e. bondage to women, unless they chose it -- dang agency how dare you get in the way).

 

Godless' contempt against religion is obvious in his theocratic argument.  I would suppose he himself has been with multiple women (as the scriptures say "known them" or found "sporting") and he has problems with polygamy -- haha!  

 

Our society is interesting, a polygamous relationship (Ooh bad! Bondage to women -- brainwashing), but love them, sport them, leave them anytime -- ACCEPTABLE -- especially in adolescence and college life (it is just what you do).  I am guessing Godless knows the previous sentence by experience, although I could be wrong, but highly doubt it.

 

P.S. Sorry Pam, moderators if I went to far.  

Link to comment

Reading this thread I may have overlooked but didn't perceive much discussion aimed around Chief Justice Roberts' question itself (chosen as the thread's title) and how it seems to simply invoke existing sex discrimination laws to possibly support legalization of same-sex marriage.

 

His question seems straightforward and the answer seems so, too: If a man may marry a woman, but a woman may not marry a woman, then the women are being discriminated against on the basis of sex.  As I understand it reading about the court proceedings, a lawyer arguing against same-sex marriage claimed that it is sex discrimination only if the two sexes are treated differently, but (he argued) the bans place equivalent burdens on men and women.  

 

Although some people dismiss comparisons to historical debates about racial discrimination in order to evaluate same-sex marriage the lawyer's logic/argument seems to draw from that same source.  But the logic of the argument was rejected when it was used to support interracial marriage bans and Chief Justice Roberts' question seems to imply rejecting same-sex marriage bans on the same basis.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading this thread I may have overlooked but didn't perceive much discussion aimed around Chief Justice Roberts' question itself (chosen as the thread's title) and how it seems to simply invoke existing sex discrimination laws to possibly support legalization of same-sex marriage.

 

His question seems straightforward and the answer seems so, too: If a man may marry a woman, but a woman may not marry a woman, then the women are being discriminated against on the basis of sex.  As I understand it reading about the court proceedings, a lawyer arguing against same-sex marriage claimed that it is sex discrimination only if the two sexes are treated differently, but (he argued) the bans place equivalent burdens on men and women.  

 

Although some people dismiss comparisons to historical debates about racial discrimination in order to evaluate same-sex marriage the lawyer's logic/argument seems to draw from that same source.  But the logic of the argument was rejected when it was used to support interracial marriage bans and Chief Justice Roberts' question seems to imply rejecting same-sex marriage bans on the same basis.  

 

The question isn't whether anyone is being discriminated against. They are. Just as a person with no money may not walk out of a store with a loaf of bread, whereas a person with money may walk our (in exchange for said money). The person without money is being discriminated against.

 

The "discrimination is always bad" ideology is false.

 

The question is not, nor should it ever be, whether there is discrimination in who can and cannot marry. There is. The question is whether that discrimination is right or wrong.

 

The -- it's discrimination so it's wrong -- argument is a simpleton's lie used to further agendas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question isn't whether anyone is being discriminated against. They are.  ... The question is not, nor should it ever be, whether there is discrimination in who can and cannot marry. There is. The question is whether that discrimination is right or wrong.

 

As a matter of your opinion that's fine.  But as a matter in the context of our Supreme Court Justices reviewing the case as it is presented to them, and listening to the arguments of both sides I beg to differ a bit from your opinion.  I believe Chief Justice Roberts' question wasn't whether discrimination was taking place.  I believe he asked it to help the court decide whether the discrimination is unconstitutional.  If, when you say "right or wrong" you mean constitutional or not, then I agree with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a matter of your opinion that's fine.  But as a matter in the context of our Supreme Court Justices reviewing the case as it is presented to them, and listening to the arguments of both sides I beg to differ a bit from your opinion.  I believe Chief Justice Roberts' question wasn't whether discrimination was taking place.  I believe he asked it to help the court decide whether the discrimination is unconstitutional.  If, when you say "right or wrong" you mean constitutional or not, then I agree with you.

 

If found "constitutional" it will be b/c of the 14th amendment.  I highly doubt those who passed the 14th ever intended it to be used the way it is today.  IMO the constitution is pretty much dead; people make it say whatever they want it to say rather than understanding what those who passed it meant it to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If found "constitutional" it will be b/c of the 14th amendment.  I highly doubt those who passed the 14th ever intended it to be used the way it is today.  IMO the constitution is pretty much dead; people make it say whatever they want it to say rather than understanding what those who passed it meant it to say.

 

This gives us something to talk with each other about.  :) I think those who passed the 14th Amendment did intend it to be used the way we are using it. I don't agree at all with the sentiment that our Constitution is dead. Besides, there was never a time that two people agreed completely on everything (or maybe even anything).  And even if those who passed it were not thinking of, say, same-sex marriage at the time it is because same-sex marriage wasn't an issue then. It is an issue now.That's (for me) the real beauty of the Constitution since I live now and "they" lived back then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't find the "constitutional" talk very compelling. So what if it is or is not constitutional? The constitution doesn't define right and wrong, good and bad. If we were to find a constitutional loophole that allowed for the free massacre of a people would we simply support it because it's "constitutional"? Of course not.

 

I am supportive of the constitution. But when the laws of the land start using the constitution to justify things that should not be justified, I'm not going to just tag along all hunky-dory because it's been declared "constitutional".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would feel far better about Constitutional interpretation of the Supreme Court justices were all as honest as Antonin Scalia. When you interpret the Constitution, it's not supposed to be done with an eye toward establishing a desired law; it's supposed to be done with an understanding of the intent of the lawmakers. If you don't like the law, get your lawmakers to make a different one. But when the Constitution is "interpreted" however the current political winds are blowing, that is the same thing as saying that there is no Constitution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question for Supreme Court nominees who have already been on the bench at a lower level:

 

When was the last time you felt that the Constitution, or existing statute, led you to make a ruling that you found personally repugnant?

 

Anyone who can't point to such an incident within the past two years, is unqualified for the Court.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading this thread I may have overlooked but didn't perceive much discussion aimed around Chief Justice Roberts' question itself (chosen as the thread's title) and how it seems to simply invoke existing sex discrimination laws to possibly support legalization of same-sex marriage.

 

His question seems straightforward and the answer seems so, too: If a man may marry a woman, but a woman may not marry a woman, then the women are being discriminated against on the basis of sex.  As I understand it reading about the court proceedings, a lawyer arguing against same-sex marriage claimed that it is sex discrimination only if the two sexes are treated differently, but (he argued) the bans place equivalent burdens on men and women.  

 

Although some people dismiss comparisons to historical debates about racial discrimination in order to evaluate same-sex marriage the lawyer's logic/argument seems to draw from that same source.  But the logic of the argument was rejected when it was used to support interracial marriage bans and Chief Justice Roberts' question seems to imply rejecting same-sex marriage bans on the same basis.  

 

 

Who is discriminating here? Is Joe unconstitutionally discriminating for proposing to Sue over Tom? I would certainly hope not! If that's the case, then the precedent (something supreme courts consider alongside constitutionality) is set for HR-style lawsuits because my proposal to Jim Richman was denied, but not any of the advances of Shirley, Jane, or Sue. It's systematic with him, and the evidence is clear that I've been robbed of a lobster dinner at the least, and a lavish lifestyle at most.

 

Or is it the state that's discriminating based on gender? Not entirely. The State is considering the couple as a pair. They are, if you will, an unlicensed corporation seeking State recognition and benefits. If we want to play the discrimination game, the state should turn down any request for a marriage license that is not comprised at least 50% of women (although these rules on the corporate level are usually driven by regulation - not law or constitution). This is great for gay women but not for gay men women seeking marriage. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who is discriminating here? Is Joe unconstitutionally discriminating for proposing to Sue over Tom? I would certainly hope not! If that's the case, then the precedent (something supreme courts consider alongside constitutionality) is set for HR-style lawsuits because my proposal to Jim Richman was denied, but not any of the advances of Shirley, Jane, or Sue. It's systematic with him, and the evidence is clear that I've been robbed of a lobster dinner at the least, and a lavish lifestyle at most.

 

I agree.  One of my favorite hypotheticals re sexual-orientation-based discrimination in commerce--and one that, as far as I know, no gay rights activist will engage--is, what do you do in a jurisdiction where prostitution is legal?  Can a female prostitute legally offer her services to a male, whilst denying them to a female?

 

"Born that way" has gotten a lot of mileage for those who have been trying to get legal protection for homosexual behavior; but once they've outlawed marriage discrimination and commercial discrimination--look for them to start demonizing private discrimination.  The "consensus" will shift away from the idea as homosexuality as an inborn, genetic, immutable trait.  Rather, it will become common wisdom that sexual orientation is actually highly flexible and that experimentation with gay sex--even by self-described "straight" adolescents and young adults--is actually a normal, healthy, and perhaps even necessary part of the sexual maturation process.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree.  One of my favorite hypotheticals re sexual-orientation-based discrimination in commerce--and one that, as far as I know, no gay rights activist will engage--is, what do you do in a jurisdiction where prostitution is legal?  Can a female prostitute legally offer her services to a male, whilst denying them to a female?

 

"Born that way" has gotten a lot of mileage for those who have been trying to get legal protection for homosexual behavior; but once they've outlawed marriage discrimination and commercial discrimination--look for them to start demonizing private discrimination.  The "consensus" will shift away from the idea as homosexuality as an inborn, genetic, immutable trait.  Rather, it will become common wisdom that sexual orientation is actually highly flexible and that experimentation with gay sex--even by self-described "straight" adolescents and young adults--is actually a normal, healthy, and perhaps even necessary part of the sexual maturation process.

You bring up an interesting point, but i wonder if you realize how much the flip side is already practiced.  How many people insist that if gay people just try straight sex they will be cured.  How do they know they are gay if they have never been with the opposite sex.  How many gay people have felt forced into straight sex to pacify others.  How many times have we seen people suggest a straight marriage can be good for gay people.

 

As i've said before i have seen different "types of gays".  The confused who don't know, the rebels who are acting out and the mainstream who just are.  With adolescents and young adults it's never been rare to find confused and rebels who will seek experiences that may not be them on their way to finding themselves or escaping who they are.  I've had the misfortune of dating some of these and it's not a good experience for them or the person they are dating.  The one thing to consider is just because people experiment doesn't make orientation fluid.  Experimentation is just that, with many things it will come about by peer pressure, confusion, curiosity or rebellion but it doesn't tend to make statement on orientation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You bring up an interesting point, but i wonder if you realize how much the flip side is already practiced.  How many people insist that if gay people just try straight sex they will be cured.  How do they know they are gay if they have never been with the opposite sex.  How many gay people have felt forced into straight sex to pacify others.  How many times have we seen people suggest a straight marriage can be good for gay people.

 

As i've said before i have seen different "types of gays".  The confused who don't know, the rebels who are acting out and the mainstream who just are.  With adolescents and young adults it's never been rare to find confused and rebels who will seek experiences that may not be them on their way to finding themselves or escaping who they are.  I've had the misfortune of dating some of these and it's not a good experience for them or the person they are dating.  The one thing to consider is just because people experiment doesn't make orientation fluid.  Experimentation is just that, with many things it will come about by peer pressure, confusion, curiosity or rebellion but it doesn't tend to make statement on orientation.

 

With respect, the above seems to contain quite a bit of doubletalk.

 

It is self-contradictory to insist that repressive social mores about sexuality make it more difficult for (for lack of a better term, and I don't mean this as a pejorative) "confused" youths to engage in the sort of experimentation you seem to think necessary in order for them to find themselves and figure out who they really are; while similarly arguing that these same "confused" youths are already experimenting sexually with the same frequency that they would if those social mores were to be completely eradicated.

 

It is also self-contradictory to make arguments that reduce to "we would never do that--but when we do do it, you'll totally have it coming."

 

And frankly, the gay rights movement seems to have been much more interested in validating homosexuality as behavior rather than homosexuality as an orientation.  That, I think, is why Josh Weed, and that "My Husband is Not Gay" show, and the entire concept of homosexuals who remain celibate or even reconcile themselves to straight relationships, elicit such scorn even when the homosexuals involved are clearly happy with their lives--because, in the eyes of the movement, the life choices of homosexuals are only valid if those choices lead towards certain actions. 

 

It's not about gay people.  It's about gay sexual relationships--and what the broader society is and isn't allowed to do, say, or think about them.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With respect, the above seems to contain quite a bit of doubletalk.

 

It is self-contradictory to insist that repressive social mores about sexuality make it more difficult for (for lack of a better term, and I don't mean this as a pejorative) "confused" youths to engage in the sort of experimentation you seem to think necessary in order for them to find themselves and figure out who they really are; while similarly arguing that these same "confused" youths are already experimenting sexually with the same frequency that they would if those social mores were to be completely eradicated.

 

It is also self-contradictory to make arguments that reduce to "we would never do that--but when we do do it, you'll totally have it coming."

 

And frankly, the gay rights movement seems to have been much more interested in validating homosexuality as behavior rather than homosexuality as an orientation.  That, I think, is why Josh Weed, and that "My Husband is Not Gay" show, and the entire concept of homosexuals who remain celibate or even reconcile themselves to straight relationships, elicit such scorn even when the homosexuals involved are clearly happy with their lives--because, in the eyes of the movement, the life choices of homosexuals are only valid if those choices lead towards certain actions. 

 

It's not about gay people.  It's about gay sexual relationships--and what the broader society is and isn't allowed to do, say, or think about them.

I think you might have misunderstood my direction on some of this.

 

I'm not advocating the experimentation, just saying it happens, and really has been advocated by both sides.  It can lead to as much confusion as it can help resolve and can lead to hurting themselves and others.  I don't care if it's straights advocating gays experiment with being straight or gays suggesting it doesn't hurt to experiment with gay sex to make sure you aren't repressed, i don't think either argument bares any merit and can be dangerous and insulting.

 

As for the behavior vs orientation comment, it can be hard to seperate the two.  You bring up people like Josh weed and the show and why it elicits the reaction is does.  There are people who don't care if others are celibate, others who don't care if a gay guy marries a woman.  The concern and reaction comes from a few different places.

 

Look at the coversation we've had about polyamy in this thread.  Now some of the comments have been " it doesn't happen by free choice, young girls are forced into it, it's oppressive" ect ect.  Now look at the reactions to those comments.  Members here with family history of polygamy and with faith in the church can take exception to this and see different sides to the issue.  Ask some of the young women who were married off in the FLDS church or were to be married off and you might here a different side.  Perspective might play a role in what you see.

 

The reason i bring this up is you here some gays who are skeptics to the marriages and the chastity but a lot of it comes from their personal experiences.  At the end of the  day gays can't ever have a real relationship they would desire in the eyes of most christians.  Marry the opposite sex or just never be with anyone is really the only way to make christians happy.  A lot of us do those things because it's expected or for the sakes of others and it for many it causes pain and damage.  For a great many they remember the why of why they did it and limits them from seeing some might make the choice for themselves 100%, it what they want to do because its what they want.  It doesn't make their lashing out right, but it doesn't come from a simple place.

 

part of being gay is part of the sexual relationships. just like being straight is part of the sexual relationships.  Straights don't get called out nearly as much for their sexual sins.  Straights have a sexual outlet that is allowed and triumphed.  Are their other aspects to the people yes, but i don't think for the most part Christians are against much of the gay asspect other than the sex.  I honestly hear more from the religious right about graphic gay sex than i do my gay friends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 At the end of the  day gays can't ever have a real relationship they would desire in the eyes of most christians.  Marry the opposite sex or just never be with anyone is really the only way to make christians happy.  A lot of us do those things because it's expected or for the sakes of others and it for many it causes pain and damage.  For a great many they remember the why of why they did it and limits them from seeing some might make the choice for themselves 100%, it what they want to do because its what they want.  It doesn't make their lashing out right, but it doesn't come from a simple place.

 

part of being gay is part of the sexual relationships. just like being straight is part of the sexual relationships.  Straights don't get called out nearly as much for their sexual sins.  Straights have a sexual outlet that is allowed and triumphed.  Are their other aspects to the people yes, but i don't think for the most part Christians are against much of the gay aspect other than the sex.  I honestly hear more from the religious right about graphic gay sex than i do my gay friends.

 

I think gays feel picked on by the doctrine and morality of Christians. I bolded your statement which I think are the sentiments of most gays who aren't religious. The ones that are religious just change up the nature of God in their own minds and say He is pleased with their gay relationships. (Well, everyone is entitled to their own beliefs but those are fabricated as far as I can tell. I've never read or heard of anywhere that God has condoned those pairings. Just because Jesus never said anything about it specifically in the bible or Book of Mormon doesn't mean He's all for gay marriage.)

 

The point I was going to make though, is that gays don't have a corner on the frustration of not having a "God favored relationship". What about single people who are never able to find a marriage partner. They aren't supposed to have sex either. Christians (less so now days) aren't in favor of sex out side of marriage, and yet you don't see single people trying to change the doctrine of churches or laws of the land so that they don't have to "suffer" a celibate life. No one is supposed to have sex outside of marriage. Actually, unsatisfying, unfulfilling relationships could even apply to those who ARE married  to the opposite sex but don't have a rip roarin sex life like they want. We don't  see marrieds trying to change church doctrines to make adultery OK. 

 

I think gays need to just develop some self discipline and say, OK so I'm not especially attracted to the opposite sex. These are my choices- celibacy or marrying someone of the opposite sex. I will make the best of whichever of those two choices I make. A great sex life is NOT a civil right. My country nor my church nor society owe me a great sex life. 

 

I think the reason you hear more about gay sex from religious people is because the sex is what we (and God) are opposed to. Having a deep loving and emotionally intimate relationship with someone of the same sex is OK. It's the physical intimacy that makes it wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think gays feel picked on by the doctrine and morality of Christians. I bolded your statement which I think are the sentiments of most gays who aren't religious. The ones that are religious just change up the nature of God in their own minds and say He is pleased with their gay relationships. (Well, everyone is entitled to their own beliefs but those are fabricated as far as I can tell. I've never read or heard of anywhere that God has condoned those pairings. Just because Jesus never said anything about it specifically in the bible or Book of Mormon doesn't mean He's all for gay marriage.)

 

The point I was going to make though, is that gays don't have a corner on the frustration of not having a "God favored relationship". What about single people who are never able to find a marriage partner. They aren't supposed to have sex either. Christians (less so now days) aren't in favor of sex out side of marriage, and yet you don't see single people trying to change the doctrine of churches or laws of the land so that they don't have to "suffer" a celibate life. No one is supposed to have sex outside of marriage. Actually, unsatisfying, unfulfilling relationships could even apply to those who ARE married  to the opposite sex but don't have a rip roarin sex life like they want. We don't  see marrieds trying to change church doctrines to make adultery OK. 

 

I think gays need to just develop some self discipline and say, OK so I'm not especially attracted to the opposite sex. These are my choices- celibacy or marrying someone of the opposite sex. I will make the best of whichever of those two choices I make. A great sex life is NOT a civil right. My country nor my church nor society owe me a great sex life. 

 

I think the reason you hear more about gay sex from religious people is because the sex is what we (and God) are opposed to. Having a deep loving and emotionally intimate relationship with someone of the same sex is OK. It's the physical intimacy that makes it wrong. 

First off while it might seem easier to think that the gays who have the issues aren't religious it's not right.  Also the assumption that the majority of the ones who are have in mind that their relationship is ok with god is also wrong.  It creates a lot of stress in their life having to decide between a relationship or following the tenants of their faith to the letter.  Though i do dwell on your comment about fabricated beliefs.  Isn't that what most different sects of Christianity accuse each other of constantly?  How many doctrines of the LDS church do other Christians say are just made up, or complete misinterpretations?

 

Singles who don't get married still can for the most part hold out hope.  There's that chance it might still happen.  I've seen so many members of the church who have never been married my age or older who still talk like they have a chance, bemoaning being single and holding out for their day in the temple.  They have hope.  Some have followed the law of chastity, some haven't.  Also above and beyond we aren't talking about changing church doctrine here, no one has mentioned it in this thread at all.  Not one thing about this topic has been about church doctrine, it's about the Courts and law, which are separate from doctrine much to the sadness of some people.

 

How many posts do we see on this site about sexless or un fulfilling marriages.  People recommend books, people recommend ways to spice things up.  Very few say just sit back and take it accept it and like it.  Will every marriage have great sex? Nope.  Will every same sex marriage have great sex, Nope.

 

I do laugh at the self discipline comment.  Look at the posters on this site.  So many of them are revolted and horrified at the though of male on male sex, it provokes a very deep reaction both mental and in some cases physical.  Ask Vort, Folk Prophet, PC, Travler if they could develop enough self discipline to commit to that type of sexual relationship and find happiness.  I have no doubt a few people could and make it work, but there are those who just couldn't for any reason.  A great sex life might not be a civil right, but i believe the court ruling in 2003 said that ability for homosexuals to seek one is.

 

One last thing.   I had asked so many times if what you say is possible.  An emotional loving relationship with someone of the same sex, and most members here said absolutely not. Such a relationship violates the spirit of the law of chastity because it can never progress so there for it shouldn't happen. The funny thing is same sex relationships are no different from others, over time sex isn't as big a deal as just having someone to come home to, it's just nice to have on occasion.  Heck most of my dates involve just cuddling up on the couch watching a movie or playing video games rather than sex, it's nice to just have someone to share my life with.  And honestly if you can find willing straight members on this site who would be as willing to enter a same sex marriage as they are a traditional marriage we can talk about it being a good solution.  Being it's only a matter of self discipline it shouldn't be too hard right? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you might have misunderstood my direction on some of this.

 

I'm not advocating the experimentation, just saying it happens, and really has been advocated by both sides.  It can lead to as much confusion as it can help resolve and can lead to hurting themselves and others.  I don't care if it's straights advocating gays experiment with being straight or gays suggesting it doesn't hurt to experiment with gay sex to make sure you aren't repressed, i don't think either argument bares any merit and can be dangerous and insulting.

 

OK, thanks for the clarification.  I would note, though, that Mormonism isn't demanding that gays "experiment with straightness".  It is arguing for celibacy--more on that below.

 

 The reason i bring this up is you here some gays who are skeptics to the marriages and the chastity . . .

 

Some?  That seems like a bit of an understatement, based on the reaction I saw.  I realize that the press and internet chatter can present a distorted view of reality, but I'm genuinely curious--Can you name ten gay people who publicly stated that they no problem with the relationships (not the gaudy, sensationalized presentation of the relationships, but the relationships themselves) in that TV show?

 

Can you name five?

 

 At the end of the  day gays can't ever have a real relationship they would desire in the eyes of most christians.  Marry the opposite sex or just never be with anyone is really the only way to make christians happy.  A lot of us do those things because it's expected or for the sakes of others and it for many it causes pain and damage.  [Emphasis added]

 

Again, allowing for the distortions of media and internet echo chambers:  The reactions I've seen to Weed, and that TV show, and idea of reorientation therapy (regardless of the method used), and celibacy generally; go far beyond loving concern for others borne of sad experience.  It is a shrieking demand for immediate acquiescence and an utter contempt for actual discussion, rather akin to what I hear when my three-year-old thinks I'm about to take away her dessert.

 

Now, I'm not going to pretend that a life of celibacy is easy.

 

On the other hand:  there is an idea out there--an idea hatched in the Sexual Revolution, and freely disseminated nearly universally (but certainly not exclusively) by most gay rights advocates of which I am aware--that a sexless life is a life not worth living; and that celibacy--or even chastity for a limited period of time pending marriage--is per se abnormal, unnatural and unhealthy. 

 

That idea is frankly silly, dismissive to the richness of the broader human experience, and utterly debasing to humanity.  And--to be blunt--it didn't come from us. (And in this instance I use "us" to describe not only Mormonism, but the Christian Right and social conservatives generally.)

 

This wave of gay suicides and clinical psychological disorders is not caused by Christians who claim (as they have consistently done for two thousand years) that a person can, and in some cases should, live without sex.  It's caused by the intelligentsia, the media, and the political classes who have begun claiming, within the last five decades, that a person can't.

 

And, I would also note that the mere possibility, for a straight person, that he might be able to indulge in sex a year, or five, or ten years in the future; isn't as much of a balm in the here-and-now as one might think.  Ask any teenaged boy.

 

 part of being gay is part of the sexual relationships. just like being straight is part of the sexual relationships. 

 

I would rather say that part of being human is a sexual relationship--it is, as I've already conceded, a big deal. 

 

But we are not less human if we abstain from such relationships.  This idea is being promulgated all over the social policy arena, and I submit that it is far more inherently painful to those (not just gays) who face a life of celibacy, than is the idea of a consecrated life that is celibate but nonetheless full of friendship, service, education, and culture.

 

And of course, gays and straights aside, there are other categories of people out there whose sexual proclivities are harmful to others, and so they will never know what they would categorize as a "meaningful" sexual relationship. This isn't to say that gay relationships are as horrifying or evil as some of those other types of relationships.  It is, however, to suggest that lifetime celibacy is not a form of martyrdom unique to Christian homosexuals.

 

 Straights don't get called out nearly as much for their sexual sins.  Straights have a sexual outlet that is allowed and triumphed.

 

Mormonism, at least, calls straights out for their sexual sins quite a bit.  ;)

 

And theologically, within Mormonism and many other Christian sects, unmarried straights do not have an approved sexual outlet--except for (straight) marriage.  But, here's the problem:  Marriage isn't just about sex.  If I'm single, and no woman in the pool of potential partners meets my criteria for emotional/mental health, or life plans, or attitudes on children and family life, or criminal history, income/career, or religion, or education . . . for all practical purposes, I'm just as "stuck" as I would be if I were gay.  I can either stay single--and celibate--in hopes that if I wait long enough, an opportunity will present itself for a relationship that meets all of my standards, or I can start to compromise. 

 

But now we've got the gay rights advocates insisting on coming into media, schools, the mental health professions, and--increasingly--religion; and insisting that while it's perfectly okay to lower your standards in a mate with regard to education, or religion, or criminal background or whatever--the one standard for a potential marriage partner that is sacrosanct and must never be compromised, is sexual identity.  Unless, of course, you're straight--because experimentation is normal, and look at all those straight guys in prison who form gay relationships in the absence of women, and--who knows?--you might actually like it.

 

All this, of course, redounds to what I was hinting at in my earlier post here: that much of the gay rights movement to date has not actually been about people, in all their complicated, many-faceted, multi-dimensional glory.  It's about sex, and--in my opinion--merely one aspect of a larger social trend regarding sex generally that in practice doesn't really result in sexual autonomy or fulfillment so much as it results in making sure that certain preferred groups get sex in the way and with the frequency that they desire.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the gay rights movement to date... [is] about sex

 

I'd claim understatement, throw out "duh" and "no kidding" sort of sarcastic remarks, and generally point out the obviousness of this thought but, sadly, in today's blinded-by-the-mists-of-darkness world, this, for some unfathomable reason, is apparently not obvious at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

One last thing.   I had asked so many times if what you say is possible.  An emotional loving relationship with someone of the same sex, and most members here said absolutely not. Such a relationship violates the spirit of the law of chastity because it can never progress so there for it shouldn't happen.

 

 

I guess if you look at it as  a hetero having a deep emotional relationship with someone of the opposite sex that they arent married to, I see what you mean.  It may not look or seem right but it does and can happen without ever violating the law of chastity. there have been a few guys (non relatives) in my life who I've been very close to but I'm not physically attracted to at all.  And the thing I still don't get is that I, as a hetero woman do have those close relationships with women. But it never crosses my mind to want to be involved physically with them beyond a hug.  So when you say that after a while, the sex in a gay relationship isn't all that great, why not just hold out for a woman, then, if the emotional part is just as important? Or is it impossible to be emotionally close to someone of the opposite sex, as well as physically?  I'm obviously showing my lack of intelligence on this topic. It just always sounds like double speak to me coming from you.          

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I confess I don't understand Soulsearcher's statement, the same sentiments of which I have heard expressed many times before, that Latter-day Saints claim that "An emotional loving relationship with someone of the same sex [is] absolutely not [possible]."

 

I have four sons. There is no one on this planet that I love more than them. Yet I have never had sex with any of them, and never will. My oldest sons are young adults, and the older they get, the more "equal" we will become. My love for them will not diminish. And even so, we will never engage in sexual relations of any sort. I have also on (admittedly pretty rare) occasion had very close male friends whom I loved, and who loved me, yet it never crossed our minds to engage in sexual relations of any sort with each other.

 

In my experience, what Soulsearcher says is simply untrue. Mormons very much understand and value "emotional, loving relationship with [those] of the same sex". We just think it's wrong to have sex with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I confess I don't understand Soulsearcher's statement, the same sentiments of which I have heard expressed many times before, that Latter-day Saints claim that "An emotional loving relationship with someone of the same sex [is] absolutely not [possible]."

 

I have four sons. There is no one on this planet that I love more than them. Yet I have never had sex with any of them, and never will. My oldest sons are young adults, and the older they get, the more "equal" we will become. My love for them will not diminish. And even so, we will never engage in sexual relations of any sort. I have also on (admittedly pretty rare) occasion had very close male friends whom I loved, and who loved me, yet it never crossed our minds to engage in sexual relations of any sort with each other.

 

In my experience, what Soulsearcher says is simply untrue. Mormons very much understand and value "emotional, loving relationship with [those] of the same sex". We just think it's wrong to have sex with them.

 

I wish I could double-like this post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see where you're going, Vort, and I think you're semantically right.  But I would also grant what I think is SoulSearcher's intended point, which I interpret as being that sexual intimacy "spills over" into every other aspect of a relationship.  The sort of emotional intimacy I share with my daughters, my sisters, and my mother, is vastly different than the sort of emotional intimacy I share with my wife.

 

As Latter-day Saints, we are asking our same-sex-attracted brothers and sisters to give something up.  Where I disagree, is with the suggestion that the sacrifice we're requesting is impossible, unparalleled, and/or unjustified.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...