Is it even possible to end that sentence without proving that the first part is not true?
Today's lovely discussion with my supposedly open minded friends was how their sons can't take dance cause it will make them gay. While they will concede that some of homosexuality might be genetic, how could environment not influence it. And while they are ok with gay people, they are terrified of their sons being gay. And they have friends who are gay, so they totally aren't homophobic (sorry, if you are playing that card, it is a bit more convincing when you have something more recent then ten years ago your husband home taught-so church assigned friendship- a gay guy.
So, right now I am frustrated and annoyed and sick of hearing this crap. And tired of being polite. I didn't let the statments go without contradiction, but a part of me just wants to shake them and shout you homophobic idiots! Being in ballet does not mean your son will be gay, but the fact that you won't let your kid take the class does say that if your kid is gay, your probably going to make it a whole lot worse. And one of these individuals is in an authority position, so if you were gay LDS and in this area, you would probably be guilted into talking to him about your "sinful" desires.
Just want to scream and insult and shake these people. I know that won't do any good, but so sick of those statements and attitudes. I do believe my calm, reasonable, non insulting statements are more likely good in the long run, but I just want to rant. And I can't do it on facebook cause I am friends with some of these people.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
"I’m not a misogynistic and racist person...But I do find those jokes funny, so I say them." -- Daniel Tosh
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
"I'm not completely awesome, but..."
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
"...but I play one on TV."
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Why are you really upset? Is it because a) they don't want their son to be gay, b) they think that ballet lessons might influence him in that way, or c) they don't consider themselves homophobic?
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Let me get this straight, they think some guy who's in a room full of girls dressed mostly in tights, who gets the opportunity to grab and lift them to his hearts content, and do so in an activity that is more dangerous, exhausting, and prone to injury (other than wussy brain injuries) than football--may be gay? I think its the most macho thing imaginable.
I think the response is, "Oh, I understand that you fear turning your son gay. (many closeted gay men do) Why some of my best friends fear becoming homosexuals. I don't hold it against them any more than one should."
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I can't speak for scholarette, but there's a certain level of blatant ignorance that I find very frustrating. "I won't let my boy dance because of teh gay" definitely falls in that category.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Let me get this straight, they think some guy who's in a room full of girls dressed mostly in tights, who gets the opportunity to grab and lift them to his hearts content, and do so in an activity that is more dangerous, exhausting, and prone to injury (other than wussy brain injuries) than football--may be gay? I think its the most macho thing imaginable.
Are you saying that you think that ballet dancers are more likely to be heterosexual than the general population?
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I think I am annoyed cause my friends aren't supposed to be homophobic. And yet it looks like they are. And I don't like that.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
The only time I've ever heard anyone say "Now, I ain't no racist or nothin', but", it was immediately followed by "but I just can't get along with them damn Chinese. There's just somethin' about 'em."
Yes--there's something about an entire constellation of ethnic groups that prevents you from getting along with members of any of them. How could that possibly be construed as racist?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Not to possibly derail your thread here, but what exactly do you mean by 'homophobic'?
Hobbes Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Is it even possible to end that sentence without proving that the first part is not true?
Today's lovely discussion with my supposedly open minded friends was how their sons can't take dance cause it will make them gay. While they will concede that some of homosexuality might be genetic, how could environment not influence it. And while they are ok with gay people, they are terrified of their sons being gay. And they have friends who are gay, so they totally aren't homophobic (sorry, if you are playing that card, it is a bit more convincing when you have something more recent then ten years ago your husband home taught-so church assigned friendship- a gay guy.
So, right now I am frustrated and annoyed and sick of hearing this crap. And tired of being polite. I didn't let the statments go without contradiction, but a part of me just wants to shake them and shout you homophobic idiots! Being in ballet does not mean your son will be gay, but the fact that you won't let your kid take the class does say that if your kid is gay, your probably going to make it a whole lot worse. And one of these individuals is in an authority position, so if you were gay LDS and in this area, you would probably be guilted into talking to him about your "sinful" desires.
Just want to scream and insult and shake these people. I know that won't do any good, but so sick of those statements and attitudes. I do believe my calm, reasonable, non insulting statements are more likely good in the long run, but I just want to rant. And I can't do it on facebook cause I am friends with some of these people.
Perhaps you should get your friends to watch Billy Elliot. Great film.
I have heard the phrase, "I'm not homophobic but..." used by different people indicating two different things that did not make them homophobic.
1: They didn't have any homosexual friends,(edit: or indeed, any gay neighbors/coworkers) they'd just never encountered any in day to day course of events or at social encounters.
2: Indicated that for religious reasons they could not condone an active homosexual lifestyle, but they accepted that non-mormons should have just as much freedom as they did to live according to the dictates of their own conscience.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Nobody's ever homophobic. They will always insist that their own particular distaste for homosexuality is not in any way homophobic and can be explained away in ways which make it seem entirely unhurtful and fair to gays. Even if they would react in shock and horror if their own child announced that they were gay, they aren't homophobic. Even if they find homosexuality to be an unclean aberration and a moral wrong which should be suppressed or 'cured,' they're not homophobic. Even if they support laws for their discrimination against homosexuals based on any or all of these things, they're not homophobic.
Nearly nobody even admits being 'anti-gay.' Not even if they're solidly defined by all the above traits of people who are anti-gay.
Same thing with racism. Nobody's racist. Everyone's got the oft touted black friends or our own homegrown trotted-out examples of Jamaican neighbors. This guy even lets his black friends use his bathroom. He's not a racist, he said so himself! He just refuses to allow interracial marriage.
None of this is to say there's no improper labeling of people as racist or homophobic. But in most cases, yeah, they are. They would sure as the day get squicked out in certain circumstances involving gay people, and they usually are that way in a way which is paired with their discrimination against or hate for homosexuals.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
:shrug: By the most commonly used definitions, I'm definitely homophobic.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Samprimary: That runs contrary to my experience. I have certainly heard the phrase, "If that makes me a homophobe, then I guess I am."
I had friends who helped me come to terms with my homophobia, as well as helping me overcome it. Part of that was convincing me to admit that I was homophobic.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
It does take some serious getting used to, to be around gay people, especially when they kiss!
Gosh and golly, I thought I was so open minded about this kind of thing, until I saw two dudes making out at my college...whooo boy!
You did the right thing scholarette, for one, by not calling them idiots and hypocrites etc, and two by venting your frustration here.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
My views on the subject are not something that I feel a need to "overcome".
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
What exactly are your views m_p_h?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Pass.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Why do you feel the need to defend your views if you won't share them?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Pass.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Let me get this straight, they think some guy who's in a room full of girls dressed mostly in tights, who gets the opportunity to grab and lift them to his hearts content, and do so in an activity that is more dangerous, exhausting, and prone to injury (other than wussy brain injuries) than football--may be gay? I think its the most macho thing imaginable.
I think the response is, "Oh, I understand that you fear turning your son gay. (many closeted gay men do) Why some of my best friends fear becoming homosexuals. I don't hold it against them any more than one should."
I was going to point this out. Not to mention that most sports involve crashing into sweaty scantily clad men.
Mostly I find that stereotype to be a bit... well, silly, really. I don't think an activity or a colour has the power to change someone's sexuality. And again, you're a danger, living up GIRLS in scanty underwear! Dancing is where it's at if you want to meet nice girls.
And guys for that matter. But there's a lot of girls.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Why do you feel the need to defend your views if you won't share them?
I'm having trouble parsing this.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
How old are these boys we're talking about?
Most of the guys I knew who took dance were definitely not gay. They were...quite the opposite, which was a problem for some of them.
But most of the girls I knew who took ballet were definitely not nice, either.
:shrug:
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: My views on the subject are not something that I feel a need to "overcome".
You feel no need to become non-homophobic?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I feel no need to change my views and opinions in such a way that I would no longer be considered homophobic.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
I'm actually really annoyed with my cousin right now. He's only 19, and is incredibly racist. My own brothers are more racist than I would like, having spent far too much time with my increasingly intolerant grandfather, but this cousin is unbelievable!
For example, he says stuff like:
I'm not racist but.... all the black people in my classes are idiots.
I'm not racist but.... the black guys at UTSA always park in the handicap spots.
I'm not racist but... it's all the black people using food stamps to buy soda that are ruining this country.
I'm not racist but... the list goes ON and ON and ON.
What makes this worse is that this cousin and my brother had one other really close friend in highschool... a half hispanic/half black boy! He'll say this kind of stuff in front of this friend, who, for some reason doesn't come around as much anymore! It makes me so sick.
I correct him all the time, but I make no impact, because he's convinced himself he's not racist. I just don't know what to do anymore. I send my son out of the room anytime people get on these kicks, I chastise everyone (including my parents) every time anyone makes a racist joke or remark, but I'm terrified this sort of thing is going to "leak" into my son just from being around it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Is it even possible to end that sentence without proving that the first part is not true?
Today's lovely discussion with my supposedly open minded friends was how their sons can't take dance cause it will make them gay. While they will concede that some of homosexuality might be genetic, how could environment not influence it. And while they are ok with gay people, they are terrified of their sons being gay. And they have friends who are gay, so they totally aren't homophobic (sorry, if you are playing that card, it is a bit more convincing when you have something more recent then ten years ago your husband home taught-so church assigned friendship- a gay guy.
So, right now I am frustrated and annoyed and sick of hearing this crap. And tired of being polite. I didn't let the statments go without contradiction, but a part of me just wants to shake them and shout you homophobic idiots! Being in ballet does not mean your son will be gay, but the fact that you won't let your kid take the class does say that if your kid is gay, your probably going to make it a whole lot worse. And one of these individuals is in an authority position, so if you were gay LDS and in this area, you would probably be guilted into talking to him about your "sinful" desires.
Just want to scream and insult and shake these people. I know that won't do any good, but so sick of those statements and attitudes. I do believe my calm, reasonable, non insulting statements are more likely good in the long run, but I just want to rant. And I can't do it on facebook cause I am friends with some of these people.
A couple things:
1. People often say "I'm not _______ but" because people are so damned sensitive and judgmental that they feel they need the qualifier before they make a comment on something. What follows is thus not automatically a racist or homophobic comment, it might just be a case of excessive preemptive qualifying.
2. Not wanting your son to be gay doesn't make you a homophobe any more than not wanting your son to be blind makes you hate handicapped people. You might scoff at the comparison, but the simple fact of the matter is that being gay likely means a more difficult life than a straight kid would have to go through. They'll have to deal with more identity issues and suffer more torment from less tolerant aspects of society. And while they would accept their child as gay, they don't want that suffering for him. That strikes me as perfectly natural.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:You did the right thing scholarette, for one, by not calling them idiots and hypocrites etc, and two by venting your frustration here.
Why would they be hypocrites given the information scholarette has shown?
quote:the fact that you won't let your kid take the class does say that if your kid is gay, your probably going to make it a whole lot worse.
I don't know, scholarette-- it's possible you're making this judgment based on things the rest of us don't have access to. I am not sure that what you've presented so far is indicative of making the problem "a whole lot worse."
This single data point is not convincing, to me.
But I understand your POV.
How do you think LDS parents should deal with a child with homosexual desires from within a context of their religion?
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: 2. Not wanting your son to be gay doesn't make you a homophobe any more than not wanting your son to be blind makes you hate handicapped people. You might scoff at the comparison, but the simple fact of the matter is that being gay likely means a more difficult life than a straight kid would have to go through. They'll have to deal with more identity issues and suffer more torment from less tolerant aspects of society. And while they would accept their child as gay, they don't want that suffering for him. That strikes me as perfectly natural. [/QB]
There's a big difference between "not wanting" your child to be gay and being "shocked and horrified" at the very idea that they might be gay.
I certainly don't WANT my son to be gay. It is a very hard life, and I'll never forget the internal torture one of my close friends as a teenager went through. It's one of the biggest reasons why I will never believe that being gay is a "choice" and it's also one of the biggest reasons why I really hope my son isn't gay. The child has enough social problems without having to tack that on.
I also, selfishly, would love to see my own, incredibly flawed, genes carried on into another generation. Since my son is my only child, that's another reason why I hope he isn't gay.
But I wouldn't feel any sort of shock, revulsion, or anything like that if it were to turn out, in another 5-10 years, that he is. I would be worried for him, but that's pretty much it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I don't know, scholarette-- it's possible you're making this judgment based on things the rest of us don't have access to. I am not sure that what you've presented so far is indicative of making the problem "a whole lot worse."
I do think it's likely that someone who fears sending his or her son to ballet lest that son become gay is particularly ill-suited to properly parenting a gay child, barring any remarkable epiphanies.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Lyrhawn, DDDash responded what I would respond.
Scott R- yeah, there is more that makes me feel this way but hard to write up without more context.
Regarding your question about how LDS parents should respond, I don't have a good answer but that is an excellent question.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I do think it's likely that someone who fears sending his or her son to ballet lest that son become gay is particularly ill-suited to properly parenting a gay child, barring any remarkable epiphanies.
I allow for epiphanies in general. It doesn't cost me anything but cynicism.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: 2. Not wanting your son to be gay doesn't make you a homophobe any more than not wanting your son to be blind makes you hate handicapped people. You might scoff at the comparison, but the simple fact of the matter is that being gay likely means a more difficult life than a straight kid would have to go through. They'll have to deal with more identity issues and suffer more torment from less tolerant aspects of society. And while they would accept their child as gay, they don't want that suffering for him. That strikes me as perfectly natural.
I once worked with someone who told me she hoped her son turned out to be gay, just so she could show how accepting she was of his lifestyle. Maybe it's just me, but I thought that was taking it a little far. That poor kid is probably sitting in his room right now, wondering how to break the news to his mom that he has a girlfriend.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Samprimary: That runs contrary to my experience.
Keep in mind that 'oh, nobody's ever an X' is a point of snark rather than a literal one. It discusses the tendency of those who are most obviously racist to have an absolute ignorance and inability/unwillingness to observe why they really are exactly what they say they are not.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: How do you think LDS parents should deal with a child with homosexual desires from within a context of their religion?
I know you weren't asking me, but I'd just love to share my opinion.
I think parents should put the happiness of their child first.
They should take a very critical look at responses and methods employed by those in the church in similar situations, and how they influence the happiness of the child.
They should find out what the child wants. This is likely to take a long time, because the child is not going to be able to easily separate what he has been taught he SHOULD want from what he actually wants.
Then they should by now realize that they need to let their kid figure it out, and try not to coerce him in ways that will make him miserable, and help him think clearly enough about the natural consequences of his actions - the ones independent of the religious beliefs - so that his (possible) despair over hypothetical spiritual consequences doesn't too heavily impair his judgment when he decides to act on his desires.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Basically, you're saying that in this instance, LDS parents should put aside their religious beliefs.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:I also, selfishly, would love to see my own, incredibly flawed, genes carried on into another generation. Since my son is my only child, that's another reason why I hope he isn't gay.
I know several homosexual couples that have managed to pass their genes on.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: My views on the subject are not something that I feel a need to "overcome".
I'd be willing to bet our views are not far removed from each other, but I definitely had a hostility issue with gay people when I was much younger. That certainly needed to be overcome.
scifibum: Porter's take on your approach is how I am parsing your suggestion.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Basically, you're saying that in this instance, LDS parents should put aside their religious beliefs.
I'm reading it that way too.
Posted by shadowland (Member # 12366) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Basically, you're saying that in this instance, LDS parents should put aside their religious beliefs.
No, I think it's more an issue of not enforcing your beliefs on others rather than putting aside your own religious beliefs. Although, I admit that it does get tricky when it involves children, age, and the line separating coercion and informing.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I'm not sure what religious beliefs you think you might have to put aside in order to treat your gay child with love and respect in a manner that doesn't promote self-loathing or irresponsible behavior.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: I'm not sure what religious beliefs you think you might have to put aside in order to treat your gay child with love and respect in a manner that doesn't promote self-loathing or irresponsible behavior.
Oh I'm fairly certain we need only start with the concept of God's will being more important/correct than our own.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: 2. Not wanting your son to be gay doesn't make you a homophobe any more than not wanting your son to be blind makes you hate handicapped people. You might scoff at the comparison, but the simple fact of the matter is that being gay likely means a more difficult life than a straight kid would have to go through. They'll have to deal with more identity issues and suffer more torment from less tolerant aspects of society. And while they would accept their child as gay, they don't want that suffering for him. That strikes me as perfectly natural.
There's a big difference between "not wanting" your child to be gay and being "shocked and horrified" at the very idea that they might be gay.
I certainly don't WANT my son to be gay. It is a very hard life, and I'll never forget the internal torture one of my close friends as a teenager went through. It's one of the biggest reasons why I will never believe that being gay is a "choice" and it's also one of the biggest reasons why I really hope my son isn't gay. The child has enough social problems without having to tack that on.
I also, selfishly, would love to see my own, incredibly flawed, genes carried on into another generation. Since my son is my only child, that's another reason why I hope he isn't gay.
But I wouldn't feel any sort of shock, revulsion, or anything like that if it were to turn out, in another 5-10 years, that he is. I would be worried for him, but that's pretty much it. [/QB]
I didn't see anything in the OP about "shocked and horrified" or "revulsion."
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
Does the fact that I like Xenocide make me xenophobic?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Then they should by now realize that they need to let their kid figure it out, and try not to coerce him in ways that will make him miserable, and help him think clearly enough about the natural consequences of his actions - the ones independent of the religious beliefs - so that his (possible) despair over hypothetical spiritual consequences doesn't too heavily impair his judgment when he decides to act on his desires.
This is the portion of your answer that makes me think that MPH's response is correct.
I'm not sure how-- if you're a believing Mormon-- you can remove religious beliefs about the consequences of sin from a discussion about behavior that the religion considers sinful. If you are a believing Mormon, then doing so is a bit monstrous, actually.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Indeed.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I'm not sure how-- if you're a believing Mormon-- you can remove religious beliefs about the consequences of sin from a discussion about behavior that the religion considers sinful.
Practice?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
What if the religion changed its mind due to... well, changing times and facts and such?
It's not like it hasnt' happened before.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Lyrhawn- you are right that nothing I posted specifically goes to shock/horror being the response. During the conversation, it seemed more shock horror response. I will try to be more charitable and assume it was shock horror about all the conflicts and pain their child will have.
For age, my daughter is 4 so parents of 3-5 year olds. My daughter is also really into gymnastics, so the conversation has actually come up repeatedly--I mention tumbling or tryouts or whatever she is doing, other parent says, that sounds so much fun- but I have a son so we can't do any dance. I say, until this year (preteam) the classes were mixed gender and there has always been several boys in her class. There is a boys class too that is the same level as my daughter. And then other parent says, oh, but I don't want my boy to be gay. So, it isn't just this one group or one time. Perhaps it is an indicator I talk too much about bin's tumbling class (but she is super talented and amazing and we spend 3 days a week at the gym).
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
If its contrary to your religious beliefs for a parent to be supportive of a homosexual child, what's the alternative?
Tell them to suppress their sexuality and live a life of chastity? Instruct them to ignore their homosexuality and marry a woman anyway? Send them to a re-conditioning camp to "fix" them? I honestly don't know what LDS parents are supposed to do in this situation.
I understand that asking you to ignore your religion is unacceptable to you, but anything less than being supportive of their sexuality seems guaranteed to inflict psychological harm on the child, so we seem to be at a rock-solid impasse.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
To be fair, Syne, I think the answer to that is, "If the religion changes its mind, the leadership will tell us."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't see what is wrong about changing religious beliefs that are harmful. I see plenty wrong with not changing those religious beliefs.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I kind of wish they'd do that... It's unlikely though. I think this is one of the reasons why I am a heathen. I can't really see being gay as immoral but not supporting a child that is gay who needs all the support they can get because the world still insists on bothering gay people.
I reckon it will change soon, though.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: To be fair, Syne, I think the answer to that is, "If the religion changes its mind, the leadership will tell us."
It is actually a tough question in an LDS context. It is not outside our religion to be supportive of a gay child. My goodness, but inferring that smacks of willful ignorance. Our primary responsibility is toward the welfare of our children. An LDS parent is not going to love his child any less or simply give up on him over being gay. We are not simply going to let go of our kids over this. Where we differ is the values we expect our kids to continue to live by--in some instances values that conflict with those accepted by the gay community, such as it is. We have high hopes for our kids that are tough to give up--like wanting to see them married in the LDS fashion and continue strong in the church. For a gay child, that does create quite a conflict, I'm sure a tough psychological one in some cases, that I don't think most LDS parents would know how to navigate very well.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: ... like wanting to see them married in the LDS fashion and continue strong in the church. For a gay child, that does create quite a conflict ...
What does that mean from an LDS perspective though? Is a life of chastity preferable or is a marriage where one spouse is in the closet preferable? (Or something more creative, I have come across a few other less likely ideas)
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Is there a such thing as "dance-aphobic"?
Seriously, I think that fear of (or repulsion from) effeminacy is something that isn't identical to homophobia. The two are often associated and sometimes confused, but they aren't the same. One can be completely comfortable with homosexuality, yet find effeminacy repulsive. I know gay men who are turned off by effeminacy.
distinct something I've been wondering about for a while.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
From the LDS perspective, a life of chastity is preferable for everybody. That means no sexual relations outside of marriage. (Naturally, between a man and woman.)
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
You probably know Mucus meant celibacy and/or abstinence, not chastity.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
To be clear, I meant chastity in the stricter sense of no sex period, rather than only sex within a marriage.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I figured. But you asked for the LDS perspective, and from that perspective, that's what chastity means.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Ok, I wasn't asking for the LDS perspective on semantics, I was asking about the LDS perspective on what gays should do.
So let's use unambiguous terms.
So from what I understand: 1. No sexual relations outside of marriage 2. Same-sex marriage disallowed
So gays have two options, enter a marriage anyways, but enter in-the-closet or remain unmarried with no sexual relations. Which option is preferable?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
That would have to be a personal decision.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I think both options do a great deal of psychological damage (in general, if not for every specific case).
Do you disagree, or do you think that this damage is less important than the spiritual damage of giving in to what you consider a sin?
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I think you can admit you would rather be in a homosexual relationship freely and openly, you just can't be in a homosexual relationship. So, not sure if technically you would still be in the closet since you admit your sexuality, just don't act on it.
ETA- Xavier, LDS generally believe that the damage will come in later, during the eternities. Having a homosexual partner will keep you from being able to progess and so it will be a long term problem, wheras the damage from having to supress sexual desire while painful in this life will instead be a strength, kinda like the pain of a bootcamp workout.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Under that view, during the eternities, does having a homosexual partner impede progress more than having no partner at all though?
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
A single person will be able to find a partner. Presumably a gay couple would not be able to swap out for one of the right gender though- the ties of family and marriage in this life are considered pretty strong. Honestly, this is one of those vague areas where doctrine has not answered.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I'm not sure how-- if you're a believing Mormon-- you can remove religious beliefs about the consequences of sin from a discussion about behavior that the religion considers sinful.
Practice?
You mean hypocrisy? Well, okay...if that's what you really want...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm not a big fan of hypocrisy, but I'm less of a fan of sexual repression and emotional trauma. If one can help reduce instances of the other, without any visible negative effects on the observable universe, I suppose I'm for it.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
A few notes.
Mr. Port, I think option two would be preferred as it is more truthful. Living closeted is living a lie.
However there is a strong requirement to have children in LDS beliefs. So an argument has been made that one should live that lie in order to expand the church through children. I find that distasteful personally. Creating more lives for God is not a reason to have two people turning their lives into lies.
Someone asked if I thought that most male ballet dancers were actually homosexuals. I don't know any ballet dancers. I don't know. I do know there is nothing in ballet that requires or suggests one need be homosexual. In fact, if most male dancers were gay, that means that the straight female dancers are more desperate to meet a straight male, so that makes ballet dancing even better for a macho man.
The only reason one could connect the prevalence of homosexuals to ballet as an excuse to avoid children taking ballet is if you were afraid that they would contaminate or convince your child to be gay. That was not what the people in question complained about. (I don't believe that is anything you should fear either, but that is another debate)
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Living closeted is living a lie.
Living closeted sucks, but it should be added that the partner of the closeted individual can have it pretty crummy too, if not worse.
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Presumably a gay couple would not be able to swap out for one of the right gender though- the ties of family and marriage in this life are considered pretty strong.
One other option that I've heard of is for a gay and lesbian friends to enter a marriage for the purposes of children, but have "real" same-sex partners outside of marriage with the full knowledge of their partners.
That was without the context of "eternity" though. I wonder if that arrangement is preferable to having no partner at all though.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Ultimately the gay person will have to choose for himself how he will live his life. The parents should let him make that choice, and then still love him and support him to the fullest extent possible afterwards. I don't see it as right in any way for LDS parents to coerce or guilt-trip their child to try to ignore or live past his homosexual nature; that would merely add to the psychological burden of the situation, IMO. I think the reason there is no general rule for this in the church is that every case must be worked out individually by those involved.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:So an argument has been made that one should live that lie in order to expand the church through children.
This is both a false and an uncharitable recount of LDS beliefs.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
If I had a gay son or daughter I would not stop loving them. I would not agree with their lifestyle, but I would support them in other facets of their life. If my son wanted to bring his boyfriend over for dinner or for Christmas I would be fine with that. If I had other children I would ask however they do not spend the night.
Children sometimes do things you may not agree with or approve of. If I had a daughter that got pregnant in high school, I would still love and take care of her. I wouldn't agree with her actions, but that doesn't change the fact she is my child.
Mucus, in 1991 the First Presidency of the Church released this:
quote:
“The Lord’s law of moral conduct is abstinence outside of lawful marriage and fidelity within marriage. Sexual relations are proper only between husband and wife, appropriately expressed within the bonds of marriage. Any other sexual conduct, including fornication, adultery, and homosexual and lesbian behavior is sinful. Those who persist in such practices or influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline.”
The leadership of the church has stated that you can participate in the church, teach, hold callings, and serve missions regardless of sexual orientation. Chastity is expected of all members of the church regardless of sexual orientation. That being said, I recognize that the churches stance on SSM does put those that are homosexual at a disadvantage.
I think that all religious people struggle with things that are contrary to their churches belief system. For some it may be drugs, drinking, pornography, etc. For others it may be related to sexual orientation. I'm not one that believes homosexuality is a defect, disorder, or handicap, it just has to be extremely difficult for someone brought up in a traditional LDS household to reconcile their feelings with their beliefs.
As far as homosexuals entering into hetersexual marriages as a cure or therapy or just because they think that is what they are supposed to do, the church has counseled against this as well.
Elder Oaks said:
quote:
We are sometimes asked about whether marriage is a remedy for these feelings that we have been talking about. President Hinckley, faced with the fact that apparently some had believed it to be a remedy, and perhaps that some Church leaders had even counseled marriage as the remedy for these feelings, made this statement: “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.
President Hinckley said that marriage is not a therapeutic step to solve problems.
I don't think your friends are homophobic, they just dread the difficulties their son and family would go through if their son were gay.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Good for Hinckley
The thing is, your live will be difficult even if you are heterosexual. It is the nature of life to be challenging for us all. Plus it's easier for gays if they can be open and be themselves and not be tormented for being gay
I'd like to create a world like that.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Well put, Geraine.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
Geraine, I second that. I'm not LDS, but that pretty closely mirrors my thoughts on the matter.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Then they should by now realize that they need to let their kid figure it out, and try not to coerce him in ways that will make him miserable, and help him think clearly enough about the natural consequences of his actions - the ones independent of the religious beliefs - so that his (possible) despair over hypothetical spiritual consequences doesn't too heavily impair his judgment when he decides to act on his desires.
This is the portion of your answer that makes me think that MPH's response is correct.
I'm not sure how-- if you're a believing Mormon-- you can remove religious beliefs about the consequences of sin from a discussion about behavior that the religion considers sinful. If you are a believing Mormon, then doing so is a bit monstrous, actually.
Well, it was an attempt to describe a way that sincere LDS beliefs - that the whole point of our existence is happiness, and that different degrees of glory other than exaltation exist and are way better than burning in hell forever - could be expressed more strongly than they are in the general orthodox attitudes that tend to lead to coercive methods that impose misery and suffering here and now.
Perhaps it is a pointless effort. Perhaps failure to achieve exaltation is sufficiently tragic, in any acceptable evaluation of LDS beliefs, that it's more important to reify the suffering that sin is supposed to cause than to let the person sort it out with God after they are dead.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: The only reason one could connect the prevalence of homosexuals to ballet as an excuse to avoid children taking ballet is if you were afraid that they would contaminate or convince your child to be gay. That was not what the people in question complained about. (I don't believe that is anything you should fear either, but that is another debate)
I did not post the whole conversation, but that point was actually explicitly made- that being in ballet, with lots of homosexuals, their currently straight child would be sucked in to that life. Like I said, I did not post the whole conversation so kinda not fair to add that detail in now, but they did state that belief.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Is there a such thing as "dance-aphobic"?
Seriously, I think that fear of (or repulsion from) effeminacy is something that isn't identical to homophobia. The two are often associated and sometimes confused, but they aren't the same. One can be completely comfortable with homosexuality, yet find effeminacy repulsive. I know gay men who are turned off by effeminacy.
distinct something I've been wondering about for a while.
I think that the above is a very good point, and one that it would be a shame to see lost in the general hubub of the thread. I've observed people expressing this same horror of effeminacy on the part of men, Rabbit, some of whom have been fine with homosexuality itself.
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: ETA- Xavier, LDS generally believe that the damage will come in later, during the eternities. Having a homosexual partner will keep you from being able to progess and so it will be a long term problem, wheras the damage from having to supress sexual desire while painful in this life will instead be a strength, kinda like the pain of a bootcamp workout.
That's interesting. It brings to mind, for me, the predicament faced by Western physicians trying to provide effective treatment to Hmong immigrants in this country as related in Anne Fadiman's The Spirit Catches You And You Fall Down.
The specific example it calls to mind for me is the case of a child with cancer that was, at the time he saw a doctor, confined to one eye. Removing the eye would have removed the cancer before it had the opportunity to spread to the rest of his body. The Hmong traditionally believe in reincarnation, however, and further believe that damage done to the body carries over from one incarnation to another. From the parents' perspective, the loving thing to do was leave the eye in place. The child would die of cancer, but in future incarnations he would have both eyes. If the eye were removed, he'd live out his natural lifespan in this incarnation, but in all future incarnations he'd only have one functioning eye. From the parents' perspective, going with the option that seemed obvious from the perspective of conventional Western wisdom would have inflicted great harm on the being under their care in the long term, though it would provide benefit in the short term.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: As far as homosexuals entering into hetersexual marriages as a cure or therapy or just because they think that is what they are supposed to do, the church has counseled against this as well.
Well, at least that much is laudable. Thanks for clear answer.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Many people have severe reactions to seeing a man in a submissive, unmasculine attitude. Less-than-burly habits of dress, speaking or confrontation are enough to elicit scorn from others, much less sexual habits.
Gay male sex means that at least one of the men must be "receiving," and therefore less than a man, and icky besides. Women are supposed to be on the recieving end, so there's no visceral problem with two of them getting together since obviously they're just killing time until a man wanders in. (Note that the Old Testament specifically prohibits men laying with men, but apparently girl-on-girl is OK.)
That's just for two feminine women, you understand. Lesbians who look or act like men are, of course, unnatural.
I've given up being surprised by this attitude, but it can still sadden me.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:That being said, I recognize that the churches stance on SSM does put those that are homosexual at a disadvantage.
And has put many homosexual or bisexual teens in traumatically abusive sexual correction programs and camps.
The more reform the church is prodded into on this front, the less of a severe moral wrong comes of it, particularly.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:And has put many homosexual or bisexual teens in traumatically abusive sexual correction programs and camps.
I'm interested in your numbers.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I am interested in your sources.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I'm actually also interested in the numbers and sources, not because I don't believe you but because I want to actually be able to cite them when necessary.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Also, the line of causation that directly attributes the action to the church. Considering what you are claiming goes directly against the public counsel from the church, just LDS members doing it won't cut it.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
If two men being together is gay then two girls being together must be ecstatic.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Also, the line of causation that directly attributes the action to the church. Considering what you are claiming goes directly against the public counsel from the church, just LDS members doing it won't cut it.
Not just "LDS members." General authorities, past and present, have been directly involved with Evergreen International - a SLC-based reparative therapy operations that claims to operate according to LDS doctrine.
While the church may not positively advocate for reparative therapy, it doesn't explicitly condemn it either.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
"many", "traumatically abusive" and "the church"
Prove it.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Xavier, LDS generally believe that the damage will come in later, during the eternities.
I disagree with this.
quote:However there is a strong requirement to have children in LDS beliefs.
I also disagree with this. Having children is pretty core aspect of our beliefs, having a child is not a requirement for anything.
[ March 10, 2011, 04:13 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Mr. Port, I think option two would be preferred as it is more truthful. Living closeted is living a lie.
It depends on what you mean by "closeted". Who or what I am attracted to is nobody's business but me and my wife. No dishonesty is required to not share that sort of thing with the world.
I do think that it would be a terrible idea, though, to marry somebody while keeping that sort of thing secret from your spouse.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:I do think that it would be a terrible idea, though, to marry somebody while keeping that sort of thing secret from your spouse.
Terrible doesn't even come close. It would be a massive betryal and horrible instance of using another human being. It's a monstrous thing to do to someone - it's setting the marriage up for failure (even if it stays together) and deprives her of marrying someone who is actually compatible with her. It's not only lying but stealing someone's future.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: "many", "traumatically abusive" and "the church"
The transparently Mormon institution of the Utah Boys Ranch, under the leadership of Chris Buttars for over fifteen years. Traumatic, abusive, and could not have operated (and continued to operate) without being sanctioned by the church. If they truly disagreed with the practice and did not want to see it continue, this and the church's involvement in organizations like Evergreen International would cease.
You should now post the public counsel that you are referencing, because I want to take their direct statements that you speak of and compare them against what actions the church takes or does not take when it comes to Mormons practicing within or operating these facilities and taking in Mormon children from Mormon families due to "alignment crisis".
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:could not have operated (and continued to operate) without being sanctioned by the church.
Nope. That's the part you can't prove and keep saying without support. It's also the part that's baloney. Your evidence for support is that it hasn't been shut down? There are so many fallacious and horrendous assumptions in there I don't know where to start, starting with how the church doesn't operate a Secret Police.
Keep googling desperately.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I'm reminded of this joke someone told.
You'd have to be pretty tough to do... that... like really tough.
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Many people have severe reactions to seeing a man in a submissive, unmasculine attitude. Less-than-burly habits of dress, speaking or confrontation are enough to elicit scorn from others, much less sexual habits.
Gay male sex means that at least one of the men must be "receiving," and therefore less than a man, and icky besides. Women are supposed to be on the recieving end, so there's no visceral problem with two of them getting together since obviously they're just killing time until a man wanders in. (Note that the Old Testament specifically prohibits men laying with men, but apparently girl-on-girl is OK.)
That's just for two feminine women, you understand. Lesbians who look or act like men are, of course, unnatural.
I've given up being surprised by this attitude, but it can still sadden me.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote:could not have operated (and continued to operate) without being sanctioned by the church.
Nope. That's the part you can't prove and keep saying without support. It's also the part that's baloney. Your evidence for support is that it hasn't been shut down? There are so many fallacious and horrendous assumptions in there I don't know where to start, starting with how the church doesn't operate a Secret Police.
Keep googling desperately.
While the charge Parkour is researching and presenting is a very serious one katharina, there's no reason to goad and taunt when you feel they are coming up short. Just point out the inadequacies without going all Elijah on him. I think civility can do a lot to stave off useless bickering that inevitably develops when two people care more about manipulating each other's feelings than discussing ideas.
Not saying you are trying to go in that direction, but your previous post struck me as being a bit too eager to ball up fists and have at it. I'm of course not acting as moderator, this is just my opinion. I'd very much like to see this point definitively framed.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Take off the "desperately."
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Sorry if I sound dense but are you asking me to edit your post, or just saying pretend you didn't write that?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
We have already done this and talked about this exact same issue, exact same organization, and exact same complicity with the church, and i seriously expect mountains to move before Katharina accepts practically any poor-seeming complicity, tolerance, or affiliation on the part of the church towards Buttars' cure-the-gay gulag.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: You'd have to be pretty tough to do... that... like really tough.
(The wide wide range of reactions to things like cross-dressing and drag has always interested me. Particularly since there are so many more cases of cross-dressing in both directions in Hong Kong cinema)
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Does aversion therapy that was pioneered and practiced by a BYU professor on the BYU campus count as "sanctioned by the church"?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
People imagine that the church has a secret police and underhanded, disingenuous methods of perpetuating policies under the table. That's just wishful thinking, because actual evidence doesn't exist.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:People imagine that the church has a secret police and underhanded, disingenuous methods of perpetuating policies under the table. That's just wishful thinking, because actual evidence doesn't exist.
That's not what's being imagined here, nor is it what is being discussed here. You're welcome to bring that easily-rejected idea into the discussion in service to your overall ideas, though. I think there's a term for that sort of method, though.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I remember discussing the mormongulag thing; IIRC, I thought that the proof that Church's opponents so readily saw wasn't really there.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: People imagine that the church has a secret police and underhanded, disingenuous methods of perpetuating policies under the table. That's just wishful thinking, because actual evidence doesn't exist.
Could you please at least take the time to figure out what's actually being discussed here, even if you're still going to reject those discussions out of hand?
You did almost identically this exact same thing last time.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Does aversion therapy that was pioneered and practiced by a BYU professor on the BYU campus count as "sanctioned by the church"?
Possibly. It would depend on who the professor spoke to (if anyone) before starting trials, and who in church leadership was aware of this and how they responded. IIRC the trials did not last long and were discontinued by general authorities.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Possibly. It would depend on who the professor spoke to (if anyone) before starting trials, and who in church leadership was aware of this and how they responded.
In other words, no.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Yeah I seriously doubt that the aversion therapy thing would count as much more as misguided and regrettable experimentation, by probably even the church's own admission.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I thought it was pretty ironic when someone on the last page mentioned stealing futures. As far as I'm concerned that's exactly what happens to thousands of of gay kids in this country.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Possibly. It would depend on who the professor spoke to (if anyone) before starting trials, and who in church leadership was aware of this and how they responded.
In other words, no.
After looking into it it appears the trials that allegedly took place happened in the 70's when homosexuality was still listed as an illness by the WHO. Aversion therapy fairly quickly showed itself to be ineffectual, and so interest at BYU and the church disappated. (edit: It's not even clear general authorities of the church were notified of plans to attempt it, no documentation seems to be available.)
In other words, no.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
You're answering the specific case. But the answer to the general case, which is what Dana asked, is "no".
Just because something is done by a BYU professor on the BYU campus doesn't mean that it's "sanctioned by the church".
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: You're answering the specific case. But the answer to the general case, which is what Dana asked, is "no".
Just because something is done by a BYU professor on the BYU campus doesn't mean that it's "sanctioned by the church".
Right, I was trying (poorly apparently) to say as much.
edit: Did you get my PM btw Porter?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Yeah, I did. I'm planning on responding to it tonight.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Yeah, I did. I'm planning on responding to it tonight.
No rush, I just wanted to make sure you got it.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I have a buddy that told me that he had a friend who had a friend who had a friend that was taken by the Mormon church and forced to watch pornographic movies in order to make him straight.
Yeah! It must be true! And the Illuminati secretly runs every religion. Promise.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I have a buddy that told me that he had a friend who had a friend who had a friend that was taken by the Mormon church and forced to watch pornographic movies in order to make him straight.
Yeah! It must be true! And the Illuminati secretly runs every religion. Promise.
That's not entirely charitable Geraine. There are certainly Mormon boys who have been coerced by their families into undergoing that sort of treatment.
Posted by aeolusdallas (Member # 11455) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia:
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Let me get this straight, they think some guy who's in a room full of girls dressed mostly in tights, who gets the opportunity to grab and lift them to his hearts content, and do so in an activity that is more dangerous, exhausting, and prone to injury (other than wussy brain injuries) than football--may be gay? I think its the most macho thing imaginable.
I think the response is, "Oh, I understand that you fear turning your son gay. (many closeted gay men do) Why some of my best friends fear becoming homosexuals. I don't hold it against them any more than one should."
I was going to point this out. Not to mention that most sports involve crashing into sweaty scantily clad men.
Mostly I find that stereotype to be a bit... well, silly, really. I don't think an activity or a colour has the power to change someone's sexuality. And again, you're a danger, living up GIRLS in scanty underwear! Dancing is where it's at if you want to meet nice girls.
And guys for that matter. But there's a lot of girls.
In collage me ex was a dance major and out of a dozen guys he was the only gay one. Of all the gay stereotypes dancer=gay is just about the least true. yet almost every straight man I know thinks all male dancers are gay. But then they go crazy in denial if you suggest a male actor is gay even though there are usually a lot more gay men in acting than in dance.
It's just one of those things and of course the greatest irony has already been pointed out. male dancers get to be very intimate with beautiful women all the time and get laid a lot. Actually that's true of male cheerleaders as well. Another very often incorrect "gay" stereotype that men seem to have.
Posted by aeolusdallas (Member # 11455) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Basically, you're saying that in this instance, LDS parents should put aside their religious beliefs.
If those beliefs are actively harmful to the childs mental health? Absolutely. Family comes first.
Posted by aeolusdallas (Member # 11455) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Is there a such thing as "dance-aphobic"?
Seriously, I think that fear of (or repulsion from) effeminacy is something that isn't identical to homophobia. The two are often associated and sometimes confused, but they aren't the same. One can be completely comfortable with homosexuality, yet find effeminacy repulsive. I know gay men who are turned off by effeminacy.
distinct something I've been wondering about for a while.
I think if anything the fear of being seen as effeminate is the source of homophobia not the reverse. There are many men in the world who wouldn't blink twice at being the "man" with another man but the very notion of being the women sends them into a panic. Heck a trip to a bar in Mexico or almost anywhere in the Middle East can be a real eye opener in that regard.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose:
quote:I also, selfishly, would love to see my own, incredibly flawed, genes carried on into another generation. Since my son is my only child, that's another reason why I hope he isn't gay.
I know several homosexual couples that have managed to pass their genes on.
Oh, it's obviously POSSIBLE, it just severely decreases the likelihood. As I said, I know this is a selfish desire, and he may not reproduce even if he's heterosexual, so it's not like I'd hold it against him or anything. If we're talking about HOPES though, it is somewhat relevant.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by aeolusdallas:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Basically, you're saying that in this instance, LDS parents should put aside their religious beliefs.
If those beliefs are actively harmful to the childs mental health? Absolutely. Family comes first.
I have no doubt that most LDS parents in this situation also want to do that which is best for their children's happiness and well-being.
You just happen to disagree with them about what will effect that.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote: I was going to point this out. Not to mention that most sports involve crashing into sweaty scantily clad men.
Mostly I find that stereotype to be a bit... well, silly, really. I don't think an activity or a colour has the power to change someone's sexuality. And again, you're a danger, living up GIRLS in scanty underwear! Dancing is where it's at if you want to meet nice girls.
And guys for that matter. But there's a lot of girls
Speaking from the experience of participating in a yoga class I can attest that the appeal wears off fast.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote: You just happen to disagree with them about what will effect that.
I don't think its that simple.
When the choices are:
1) Live your whole life suppressing your sexuality. 2) Marry a woman you have no sexual or romantic attraction to. 3) Live openly as a homosexual.
How many psychologists and and other mental health experts are going to suggest 1 or 2? I would imagine very very few.
It's not just that aeolusdallas disagrees with you, its the entire body of psychological research that disagrees with you, isn't it?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
The important part is that they disagree.
People here are suggesting that believing LDS parents do that which they believe will cause more pain and suffering for their children in the short and long run. As ScottR pointed out, that is a monstrous thing you're asking them to do.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Originally posted by aeolusdallas:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Basically, you're saying that in this instance, LDS parents should put aside their religious beliefs.
If those beliefs are actively harmful to the childs mental health? Absolutely. Family comes first.
I have no doubt that most LDS parents in this situation also want to do that which is best for their children's happiness and well-being.
You just happen to disagree with them about what will effect that.
Nah, you just happen to be wrong.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Be that as it may, in order for you to get LDS parents to act like you want them to regarding homosexuality, you need to first get them to believe what you do about homosexuality.
Pointing fingers at them and calling them wrong isn't likely to do much. Most of us are pretty darn immune to that by now.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
Actually, in elementary day care we had this dumb flag football game where the boys played football and the girls cheered. Like mthe third year I asked to be a cheer person because I was sick of playing and not doing shit. (I think I took someone flag off when he wasnt holding the football just out of boredom in the second year)I asked like in front every kid in the school and it was pretty funny.
I turned out straight.
(Also Basketball for life)
Posted by aeolusdallas (Member # 11455) on :
Well what do you suggest we do to solve the problem? It's either convince them or get the law involved. I don't think anyone wants to have to resort to the latter and deep down I just have to believe most parents care about their children more than dogma.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Well what do you suggest we do to solve the problem?
Come around to the correct way of thinking, of course.
quote:deep down I just have to believe most parents care about their children more than dogma.
This doesn't even make sense. Assuming, of course, that these parents really do believe what they believe and are doing what they think is best for their children's well-being and happiness.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Two things:
1) One thing I agree with OSC about is that "phobic" is a specific word with a specific, scientific meaning. "Being squicked out by" isn't that meaning. A phobia is an "irrational, intense and persistent fear." Using the word "homophobic" to describe everyone who's weirded out by homosexuality is a diservice to the scientific term, as well as to people who have a genuine, crippling fear of homosexuals, as well as the people who just get squicked out a bit.
I DO think those people need to get over themselves, and admit that their fear is irrational, admit that they DO have a fear (even if it's not a phobia) and that it is contributing to a world in which homosexuals feel ostracized and unsafe.
I don't have a suggestion for what adjective to use to describe those people. I'm not sure that it's necessary. Framing the question in terms of "are you [racist/sexist/whatever]?" is about the least helpful way to do it. People are less rational when they feel attacked.
I consider myself a little bit racist. It's a bad thing I need to be aware of. It's not an awful thing though. I think most other people are a little racist too, but associating them with a powerful, evil sounding word really doesn't help.
I don't think I'm squicked by homosexuality that much, but I'm squicked sometimes by cross dressing and related things. (That was a good point by Rabbit).
2) Okay as it turns out this post didn't neatly divide itself into two points. Whatever.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Thank-you for your post Raymond, I found it quite insightful. Even if you numbering ended at 1. [ETA: I posted this before you edited ]
There seems to be a theme of people thinking that (in this case) LDS parents are somehow perfectly aware that their Church's teachings are wrong and outdated and thus must balance the knowledge of that truth against their loyalty to some antiquated tradition. The fact that you (in the general sense) are convinced that common sense and truth will win out in the end is not flattering, the base assumption is, instead, rather insulting.
Also, you can be openly gay and an active member of the LDS Church, as long as you don't participate in sex outside of marriage. And yes, I knew someone that did exactly that.
Hobbes Posted by shadowland (Member # 12366) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Be that as it may, in order for you to get LDS parents to act like you want them to regarding homosexuality, you need to first get them to believe what you do about homosexuality.
No. If I wanted to get LDS parents to act like I want them to act regarding their children's possible homosexuality, I would only need to get them to believe what I believe are the limits to what parents should do to enforce their desires or beliefs on their children as well as the extent to which children should be allowed to exercise their own free will, for better or worse.
Changing your own beliefs regarding homosexuality wouldn't strictly be necessary.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
What has been said here by various posters that LDS parents should do goes waaay beyond merely not "enforcing beliefs" and allowing the exercise of free will.
It would require a change in beliefs about homosexuality.
Posted by shadowland (Member # 12366) on :
Sure, some of the suggestions might require a change in belief or attitude regarding homosexuality, but many possibilities do not require such a change. I think that's a useful point to recognize.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Light, if there is an absolute truth - something I do consider possible, obviously - then some of the things you're saying don't sound very sensible.
If there is an absolute truth, and it's eternal and thus hasn't changed...it's pretty straightforward to see the Church does one of at least two things. There are other possibilities, I think, but these are the two most relevant to this discussion. (This goes for many religions, really, but we're talking about LDS here.)
One, it simply doesn't have an alignment with absolute truth, whatever that may be. This can be evaluated as a simple test of rationality-some rules have changed over time, plain and simple. Some things which authorities who were supposed to be in tune with that absolute, eternally unchanging truth once said were bad, are now acceptable or even good. (Hello, minority priesthood.)
That's one possibility. A more charitable possibility is that it does have an alignment with 'absolute, eternal truth' but that that every one of those words - absolute, eternal, and truth - don't mean what we think they mean. So then the question becomes, aside from making yourself feel better (and I do understand the appeal of affirming one's affinity with an absolute truth), what's the point of asserting it?
Because the Church has changed over time. That's not open to argument as a question of fact. Once you throw in the qualifier 'as revealed to the world etc.', there's really not much point in bandying about terms like 'absolute eternal unbending truth'...because you've just introduced some huge bendiness there with the whole 'as revealed to...' portion.
quote:Until that happens (which I find unlikely), no amount of badgering or persuading or heckling or protesting is going to get you anywhere. We're not changing, and we're not leaving.
It sounds to me like you're feeling very defensive about something you care a lot about (your faith), and so you're doing a bit of understandable - if I'm right about your motivation - chest thumping here. But this doesn't make much sense either, also as a statement of fact. The church has changed in response to pressure...heck, it's even left in response to pressure. I'm not saying it would this time, in this case, necessarily, but this is what happens when you start throwing around absolutes like you're doing: it's a lot easier to be quite badly, obviously mistaken.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:No. If I wanted to get LDS parents to act like I want them to act regarding their children's possible homosexuality, I would only need to get them to believe what I believe are the limits to what parents should do to enforce their desires or beliefs on their children as well as the extent to which children should be allowed to exercise their own free will, for better or worse.
You would "only" need do that?
Frankly, changing their beliefs about one specific concept (homosexuality), seems to me arguably easier than changing their entire mode of parenting habits, plus all their concepts about how personal ethics and social behaviour ought interact.
If they believe homosexuality to be bad and/or harmful and/or unhealthy, then to understand their position you ought treat it as you would treat your children smoking (at best), or doing drugs, or participating in armed robberies (at worst).
How easy would you find it to convince non-smoking, non-drugusing, non-criminal parents to be supportive and non-worried of their children doing these things?
I think it'd be easier to just change their belief that homosexual behaviour is bad/harmful/unhealthy.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
quote:Originally posted by aeolusdallas: Well what do you suggest we do to solve the problem? It's either convince them or get the law involved. I don't think anyone wants to have to resort to the latter and deep down I just have to believe most parents care about their children more than dogma.
Out of curiosity, have you read "Saints"?
Posted by shadowland (Member # 12366) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: You would "only" need do that?
...
I think it'd be easier to just change their belief that homosexual behaviour is bad/harmful/unhealthy.
Sure, although, I do think that changing someone's belief regarding the eternal consequences of an action as compared to the short-term effects is quite a challenge itself.
I mean 'only' in the sense that the way a parent treats a child's sexuality does not specifically require compromising a personal belief.
Posted by aeolusdallas (Member # 11455) on :
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh:
quote:Originally posted by aeolusdallas: Well what do you suggest we do to solve the problem? It's either convince them or get the law involved. I don't think anyone wants to have to resort to the latter and deep down I just have to believe most parents care about their children more than dogma.
Out of curiosity, have you read "Saints"?
No. How does it relate to my question? (honest question)
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: You'd have to be pretty tough to do... that... like really tough.
(The wide wide range of reactions to things like cross-dressing and drag has always interested me. Particularly since there are so many more cases of cross-dressing in both directions in Hong Kong cinema)
I forgot to mention how HOT that guy looks as a woman. Wow.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I mean 'only' in the sense that the way a parent treats a child's sexuality does not specifically require compromising a personal belief.
In the LDS religion, a parent is obligated to teach their children correct moral principals. This is an extremely serious obligation. It is so serious that a parent who does not properly teach their child will be considered guilty of the sins the child commits.
Teaching doesn't mean coersion. It does mean nagging or beating the person over the head, but it does mean that a parent must be clear and consistent about what is right and wrong.
An LDS parent can love and support a child no matter what they do, but a faithful LDS parent has to be clear to their children that homosexual behavior is sinful. Failure to do this would be compromising a personal religious belief.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: Also, you can be openly gay and an active member of the LDS Church, as long as you don't participate in sex outside of marriage. And yes, I knew someone that did exactly that.
In practice, what did that mean though? Same-sex partners in a sexless relationship? Living in a jurisdiction where same-sex marriage is legal? A marriage with a self-sacrificing spouse?
Posted by shadowland (Member # 12366) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: An LDS parent can love and support a child no matter what they do, but a faithful LDS parent has to be clear to their children that homosexual behavior is sinful. Failure to do this would be compromising a personal religious belief.
Hmm, perhaps the disconnect here is that I think that merely teaching that homosexual behavior is sinful is not necessarily a display of homophobia. Obviously people are going to disagree with my view. But I do think that it's entirely possible to teach that something is 'sinful' without instilling an irrational fear of it. Likewise, I think that it's possible to accept what you perceive to be a sinful condition in others without compromising personal beliefs.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: Also, you can be openly gay and an active member of the LDS Church, as long as you don't participate in sex outside of marriage. And yes, I knew someone that did exactly that.
In practice, what did that mean though? Same-sex partners in a sexless relationship? Living in a jurisdiction where same-sex marriage is legal? A marriage with a self-sacrificing spouse?
No, no relationship. It meant being single. He understood the sacrifice was to be by himself and decided it was worth what he thought to be true.
Hobbes Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
God, that's tragic.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Sure, although, I do think that changing someone's belief regarding the eternal consequences of an action as compared to the short-term effects is quite a challenge itself.
It can be, but we're pretty darn good at rationalizing essentially anything we choose to believe even if it's in apparent contradiction to other beliefs. I think the pro-ssm stance of many LDS is an excellent example.
LDS theology is somewhat unique in Christianity in that it anticipates spiritual progress after this life. I've seen people come to terms with loved ones who strayed from the church, it's teachings, and standards of behavior by asserting that they are in some way handicapped in this life but will have opportunities to overcome these problems in the next.
ETA: To be clear, rationalization is ubiquitous to mankind. There's nothing unique about LDS in this regard, but that's the context we're working with here.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
Without getting into too many spoilers, I'm thinking of a certain scene on a boat that sort of illustrates that the faithful put nothing before "doing what's right". Insofar as believing in and following dogma constitutes "doing what's right", it's hard to tell someone that they must love their child enough to condone sin.
One of the biggest reasons I will probably never become LDS is that I think they're flat wrong on this one. I don't believe there is anything sinful about one man's love for another man (or woman/woman). I think such desire goes beyond mere lust, and therefor isn't comparable to adultery since a homosexual couple currently has no opportunity for marriage withing the church.
However, that doesn't mean that I believe a parent should ever condone sin in their children. I personally feel very strongly that casual sex is deeply sinful. If my son were engaging in casual sex it would be my duty to make sure he knew the risks of what he was doing and to never EVER let him believe I thought it was ok. That doesn't mean I stop loving my son, but it does mean that I show disapproval with his actions.
That makes it very hard for me to know what a parent should do in this case. Honestly, I don't know how someone could be the parent to a good hearted homosexual child without having a serious break with LDS doctrine. It very much seems like they're going to be put into a place where they either have to believe that their otherwise good child is, for some reason, insisting on taking on a life of sin or they'll have to decide that living in a homosexual relationship is not sinful. In a very real way that's going to make them choose between their child and their church, and that's a very sad position to be in.
quote:Originally posted by aeolusdallas:
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh:
quote:Originally posted by aeolusdallas: Well what do you suggest we do to solve the problem? It's either convince them or get the law involved. I don't think anyone wants to have to resort to the latter and deep down I just have to believe most parents care about their children more than dogma.
Out of curiosity, have you read "Saints"?
No. How does it relate to my question? (honest question)
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
quote:Originally posted by LIGHT: Rakeesh, I don't exactly see what the contradiction is. Like I stated in my post, the Church will only change its policies according to what the Lord reveals to them. Are you familiar with the Articles of Faith? The ninth one says:
"We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."
We are held accountable according to what degree of truth that we've been given so far. We don't have everything yet. Nobody does. But what we do have is true (according to our beliefs).
As to changes in the Church's policies: you state that it's because the Church gave in to social pressure. Umm, no. Fail. Research that more. That was not the reason for it. Try reading the Official Declarations of the Church (found rather conveniently at the back of the Doctrine and Covenants). The only reason anything changed is because the Lord commanded it. And the Church does what the Lord tells it to.
As Wilford Woodruff writes (concerning the Manifesto--the abolishment of polygamy):
"I want to say this: I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself, and let every other man go there, had not the God of heaven commanded me to do what I did do."
It's not social pressure. Of course, that also depends on whether or not you believe that we are personally directed by God. If you don't, then you'll find a lot of things we do difficult to believe or understand.
LIGHT - It's extremely hard for outsiders not to observe that God tends to reveal things at rather socially convenient times.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
LIGHT,
quote:Rakeesh, I don't exactly see what the contradiction is. Like I stated in my post, the Church will only change its policies according to what the Lord reveals to them. Are you familiar with the Articles of Faith? The ninth one says:
The contradiction is that if there is an absolute, unchanging eternal truth and the Church is aligned with it, but the Church only gets access to it in little dribs and drabs over generations, there's not much point in asserting the moral authority of being in line with that AUET (absolute, unchanging, eternal truth).
quote:We are held accountable according to what degree of truth that we've been given so far. We don't have everything yet. Nobody does. But what we do have is true (according to our beliefs).
Case in point. There are times - and this is a matter of factual record, LIGHT - where Church policies that were supposed to be founded on this AUET changed over time. Perhaps it was because people changed, meaning we reached a new level of 'rules' or something. (Thinking of minority priesthood specifically here-also an older change, polygamy.) But if that's so, if that's the explanation, then the AUET doesn't mean what we think it does. Rendering its moral authority less shiny and powerful.
quote:
As to changes in the Church's policies: you state that it's because the Church gave in to social pressure. Umm, no. Fail. Research that more. That was not the reason for it. Try reading the Official Declarations of the Church (found rather conveniently at the back of the Doctrine and Covenants). The only reason anything changed is because the Lord commanded it. And the Church does what the Lord tells it to.
That's actually not what I said. "Because the Church has changed over time," is what I said-if the Church is aligned with the AUET, and the AUET obviously doesn't change, why does the Church change over time? I specifically didn't say it was caving in to social pressure, though the truth is I do believe that played a role.
You'd believe it to, were it about any organization other than your own.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I believe that we, human beings as a body, get better at discovering, understanding, and accepting eternal truths as we get better at learning and understanding every thing else. We know more now than we did 150 years ago - and more than we did 3000 years ago. So religious beliefs should be compromised for better ones.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I believe that we, human beings as a body, get better at discovering, understanding, and accepting eternal truths as we get better at learning and understanding every thing else. We know more now than we did 150 years ago - and more than we did 3000 years ago. So religious beliefs should be compromised for better ones.
I agree with you, but if religious beliefs about morality AREN'T any better than regular human understanding, that takes away the point of religious beliefs for a lot of people.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I believe that we, human beings as a body, get better at discovering, understanding, and accepting eternal truths as we get better at learning and understanding every thing else. We know more now than we did 150 years ago - and more than we did 3000 years ago. So religious beliefs should be compromised for better ones.
I agree with you, but if religious beliefs about morality AREN'T any better than regular human understanding, that takes away the point of religious beliefs for a lot of people.
What do you mean by better? And why wouldn't one inform the other?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
"This ground is not the rock I thought it to be." Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
People always go to blacks/priesthood and polygamy when they're talking about doctrinal changes, but that's really just scratching the surface. The church is constantly changing fairly important parts of its dogma.
I just read a book review today that mentioned (in terms vague enough to avoid sacrilege) several changes in the temple ceremony and garments. I was familiar with many of them, but a few of them quite surprised me. They've been gradual enough not to require any official declarations in the D&C. But taken as a whole, temple worship is radically different than it was 150 years ago. At least enough so to raise questions about the absolute, eternal nature of the truths it's based on.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:That's just it. Our fear of sin is very rational. If you take into account our belief in an afterlife, in accountability, judgment, and the entire Plan of Salvation--it would be irrational to not fear sin. Sin is genuinely frightening stuff.
I find this a very strange perspective. I'm not frightened by sin and don't think fearing sin is at all rational. I can see "repelled by sin" or "Afraid of the consequences of sin", but not "afraid of sin." Fear is an emotion I reserve for things that are outside of my control, like inattentive automobile drivers, violent criminals, virulent diseases, and poisonous snakes. I can always choose not to sin, it is within my control and if I choose badly, God has provided a process by which I can repent and be made whole.
quote:For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.
2 Timothy 1:7
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
But LIGHT - it could just as easily be that profits are imperfect people and unwilling to hear God's truths until the social environment is correct. Or perhaps God really does change his mind about things because certain things that might be sins in one situation are not sins in another situation.
But, I can run with your "convenience" argument too. In that case, I think we need to push on the church a little more so that God will decide now is the most convenient time to reveal to the "men at the top" the fact that homosexuality is not inherently bad or evil. I'll be super excited if he does!
Posted by Hank (Member # 8916) on :
I'm amazed at how civil this is 4 pages in.
I just wanted to add my perspective that the role of an LDS parent is going to be a significantly more difficult balancing act for a teen vs. and adult child. For an adult child I think most LDS parents (at least those I have known with family members struggling with this issue) would be willing and able to say, "I cannot understand or condone those choices, but you are a beloved part of myself, and I will never reject you."
For a teenager, most LDS parents who are working hard to establish good spiritual habits would have house rules in place to discourage any dating before age sixteen, and pairing off even after sixteen. It is widely encouraged that young people not date anyone seriously/exclusively until they are both of a reasonable age to marry. The purpose of all dating and romantic relationships is therefore to establish relationship habits that can eventually lead to an LDS temple marriage.
As a (hypothetical) parent to a GLBT teen, I could see a lot of argument over whether these rules should change drastically--if I wouldn't allow my straight child to view pornography, it stands to reason that it is just as harmful for a gay child. For a teen younger than 16, I could honestly see myself saying, "Well, you know what my religion teaches on that subject, and you'll just have to find the balance between what you feel, what you've been taught, and what you personally feel is right, but regardless, the rule stands that you're not allowed to date until age 16, and at that age you are to go with large groups of friends to well-lit venues with responsible adult supervision and the following curfew." In that case, the child's day-to-day life may not change much based on their orientation.
I personally am in my mid-twenties, and I find it entirely plausible that I will never be married. In that case, I would be expecting GLBT members to do only what I am willing to do myself: remain celibate outside of marriage so that I affirm to society as a whole the sacred (an inextricably connected) nature of family, sex and marriage.
I agree that (at the very least in this society) celibacy is a dreadful thing to ask of someone who doesn't believe with their whole self that this is the right thing for them, and who doesn't feel they are receiving divine support for this decision. But I think those who assume that there is no possibility of happiness and fulfillment in life without sexual gratification are placing far to much emphasis on one small aspect of the human experience.
GLBT people who choose to abstain out of fear, shame and self-loathing are no closer to living God's laws than those who openly embrace those lifestyles, but there are some who are able to find peace, purpose, and satisfaction, if not sexual fulfillment, because it is their own faith that they live, not that of their parents.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
God is not a terrorist.
God does not rule the righteous out of fear, for fear is something to overcome. So fear of sin is something that can be overcome.
The Righteous are righteous because they believe in what they believe in, not because they fear to disbelieve.
The question is "what do we do about the sinners we love."
The answer is that we should bring those sinners we love around to being righteous. You can't do that be threatening or rejecting the sinners. All that accomplishes is to drive the sin underground. It is only through love and understanding that things work.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
YAY! Love and understanding!
Posted by John K (Member # 12303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hank:
But I think those who assume that there is no possibility of happiness and fulfillment in life without sexual gratification are placing far to much emphasis on one small aspect of the human experience.
I think the emphasis on sexual gratification is yours. In my marriage, sexual fulfillment is one aspect but not the most important one. What people who are celibate miss is the intimate life partner relationship. Someone to share and experience life with. Making it just about the sex is far too simplistic (IMHO).
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
(I know it is old school to go back to definitions in these days where "terrorist" means "person doing stuff we don't like", but if we do isn't God, at least of the Old Testament, specifically a terrorist?
He has political and religious goals, does and threatens violence, violence which is designed to have psychological goals, he has a chain of command with no standardized uniform, and he's a non-state actor.
Just sayin')
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Only if you believe the version of God as depicted in those writings is an accurate and factual representation.
Posted by Hank (Member # 8916) on :
quote:Originally posted by John K:
quote:Originally posted by Hank:
But I think those who assume that there is no possibility of happiness and fulfillment in life without sexual gratification are placing far to much emphasis on one small aspect of the human experience.
I think the emphasis on sexual gratification is yours. In my marriage, sexual fulfillment is one aspect but not the most important one. What people who are celibate miss is the intimate life partner relationship. Someone to share and experience life with. Making it just about the sex is far too simplistic (IMHO).
A solid point, but a practicing LDS member who doesn't happen to be even remotely attracted to the opposite sex could still enter into a traditional marriage, provided both partners knew in advance that that "one aspect" would be permanently missing. Along with the many other variations on close, loving, supportive relationships that are less typically sexual/romantic in nature.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I wonder at those who label sex, human sexuality, a 'small' part of the human experience. There really isn't a way of looking at humans I can think of which bears this notion out, aside from presupposing the idea and finding evidence for it.
Is sex the meaning of life? Surely not, but to suggest it's a small part of humanity seems so very strange to menand to fly in the face of most of what I've read, observed, and experienced as and about human beings. If it were truly a small part of the human experience rather than one of the more fundamental, this topic for example wouldn't be so controversial.
People wouldn't die over it, kill over it, work their lives for and against it, develop mental problems because of their sexuality or their hiding of it, etc. etc. It's not a small part of the human experience, far from it. To say nothing of how sacred sex is supposed to be, etc., if done 'properly'.
I don't say this is what was intended, but labeling sex as something small in this context sounds to me like a means of minimizing the difficulties (that's putting it mildly, because it ain't a small issue) homosexuals endure coping with the expectations put upon them. Sometimes voluntarily and with good intent, others not.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I've found this quote very apt when discussing nature/nurture, but it also has application I think as far as human sexuality goes.
Psychologist Donald Hebb is said to have once answered a journalist's question of "which, nature or nurture, contributes more to personality?" by asking in response, "Which contributes more to the area of a rectangle, its length or its width?"
I think sex while not the most important aspect of a relationship, yet I am unsure if one can rightly be asked to just put that part of themselves on hold indefinitely.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I think that's pretty darn apt, BB.
My personal belief is that a person's sexuality is likely to have differing levels of importance to different people, but there are probably not very many people at all for whom the things that fall under that umbrella (sexuality-not just having sexual intercourse with the people we want to have sex with) could be considered a small part of the human experience.
In my mind, this is such a fundamental part of human beings it's very straightforward to me: sexuality is important to people. For some people it's very important, for others it's just important, and for some others it's not really very important. But so far as I know (and I'm hardly informed on the subject), that's far from common.
Posted by aeolusdallas (Member # 11455) on :
I agree that claiming the sexual gratification is a small part of the human experience is a very dubious position to take.
It's very high on the hierarchy of needs. Water and food are higher and shelter is as well in all but the most pleasant environments but after those nothing really beets sex and sexual companionship.
Yes there are people who claim to lead chaste lives. A very small percentage of the population. And those who actually succeed at it. An even smaller percentage. But the vast, overwhelming bulk of the population does not and would never willing live sex free lives.
The rules against sex before marriage when strictly enforced lead to earlier marriage. Which is a pretty strong example of this.
Telling a gay teen that he cannot have sex without marriage and then forbidding him to marry is cruel and a recipe for failure. All it does is drive the individual to hidden affairs or leaving his faith.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:All it does is drive the individual to hidden affairs or leaving his faith.
Or suicide.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Telling a gay teen that he cannot have sex without marriage and then forbidding him to marry is cruel and a recipe for failure. All it does is drive the individual to hidden affairs or leaving his faith.
The latter part (and suicides) regular enough that these established religions had such a vested interest in claiming that homosexuality is a choice that you can reverse. That way, it wouldn't be 'forbidding' him from doing anything, he or she's just not 'choosing' to allow himself that opportunity.
Of course, after the stunning failure of conversion therapy, that creates what I (optimistically) consider the recipe for religions to change in the modern world. Reluctantly, and evasively, but assuming the world otherwise stays mostly the same, the gay war ends with us.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Nope. A terrorist is, by definition, human.
Trying to assign God human characteristics is doomed to fail by definition. Understandable, but flawed from the get go.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Trying to assign God human characteristics is doomed to fail by definition. Understandable, but flawed from the get go.
Jesus is flawed from the get-go? Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
Wow. Sam. That is a really interesting way to interpret that, and I have no response. I mean, the claim by Kwea is a really common one among theologians, but I'm not sure how it is resolved with the Jesus aspect.
I'm particularly thinking of apophatic theology where it seems that the claim is because of how limited our very language is, we can't even talk about God. (Among other general claims about it being wrongheaded to anthropomorphize "him").
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by JonHecht: Wow. Sam. That is a really interesting way to interpret that, and I have no response. I mean, the claim by Kwea is a really common one among theologians, but I'm not sure how it is resolved with the Jesus aspect.
I'm particularly thinking of apophatic theology where it seems that the claim is because of how limited our very language is, we can't even talk about God. (Among other general claims about it being wrongheaded to anthropomorphize "him").
The concept that God chose to manifest himself in human forum and the concept that humans can not understand or judge God by human standards are so different its very hard for me see any meaningful relationship between the two.
By analogy, I choose to express myself by posting words on this forum, yet if you try to understand me by assuming that I am the words I post, you will fail utterly to understand my true nature.
Beyond that, any attempt to understand Judeo-Christian thought by assuming it is one single coherent philosophy are doomed to failure. You can't pick an idea from one theological school (like apothaticism) and match it against a belief from another school (say Christian literalism) and expect anything but total nonsense.
I am of course aware that religions people do that kind of thing all the time, but the fact that many religious people have rather muddled beliefs is really a strawman argument. If you critique Schrodinger or Nietzche based on the way they are represented in popular culture, your critique will be worthless as an assessment of quantum mechanics or nihilism. The same is true of theology.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Only if you believe the version of God as depicted in those writings is an accurate and factual representation.
Ummmm, no. Obviously I believe that the version of God as depicted in the writings is a fictional character. So "accuracy" is kinda inapplicable.
It is like me describing Han as a loose cannon based on him shooting first in Star Wars. Well sure, maybe he was just acting in self defence in the Special Editions, but my classification was never meant to apply across retcons and the Expanded Universe.
For that matter, looking downward, I don't generally say that Ewoks can't be fathers or that Ackbar can't be an Admiral because they're not human. So meh.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Mucus, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.
Is your argument that God as dipicted in the biblical stories with which you are acquainted can be accurately described as a terrorist.
Or is it that the God which people involved in this discussion believe in, can be accurately described as a terrorist.
If its the former, then I question first whether your acquaintance with biblical stories is sufficient to qualify you to make any judgement of them and second what relevance you think this has to the discussion.
If its the later, then your dismissal of believers intepretation of the bible is obsurd.
Comparison of Bible stories to Star Wars is a strawman from the get go.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: ... a strawman from the get go ...
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Mucus, you understand, I hope that "fictional character" and "as accurately and factually portrayed in the Bible" are not the only two options. They are not even the best options.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
I'd love to hear him describe a natural process by which all black people could be "shipped off" the face of the earth.
edit: Barring that, I'd love to hear him describe what racism is and how his comments don't fit that mold.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Yeah, like I said elsewhere. It boggles my mind that with companies like Facebook cracking down ever harder on on-line anonymity or even pseudonyms and/or pen-names, that there isn't a bigger dent in this kind of activity.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Oh come on now BB. He isn't racist, he just wants them all to become astronauts!
Posted by leeyn (Member # 12531) on :
[ March 17, 2011, 11:07 PM: Message edited by: JanitorBlade ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Oh come on now BB. He isn't racist, he just wants them all to become astronauts!
Day never finished NASA got me workin someday NASA set me freeee
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
That's particularly funny. Tip o' my hat, sir.
Posted by Wendybird (Member # 84) on :
There is a very interesting blog written by a young man who is gay but chooses not to participate in the lifestyle. I am not on my computer so I can't give you a link but you could google (Gay) Mormon Guy blog and I am sure you would find it. It is very interesting to read his perspective on this issue.
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
;-; necromancy!
Well, I don't like it when people pretend to be gay or half-gay for the attention it brings.... Mostly a highschool thing I think girls say they're half because the guys like it, guys say they're half because the girls like it ~.~
I don't read blogs sorry Wendy XD I'm not interested in anyones life unless I feel that individual has something important to say...
Anyone with a blog is just gripping for attention and that area I am not friendly with :F ------------------------ My step-dad has gay uncles, I had to be told they were gay, because neither of them act the stereotypical part, no funny speach, no funny walk, no weird cloth choices, and most of all they don't talk about being gay.
Now besides the possibly more femine voice which could be brought on by excess estrogen. All those other things are just cries for attention and popularity, and the sad thing is it works it vill nebar end ;-; ------------------------------------------ So I think sexuality should be kept between the partners, and maybe the family too... ------------------------------------------ I am racist, sexist, and in dislike of homosexuality, especially under the circumstances that those said races, genders, and sexual orientations are almost entirely guided by stereotypes.
FFS black kids pull up your pants I don't want to see your rears
FFS white kids stop acting like what you think black kids should be acting like
FFS the butthole is an exit!
FFS woman you don't have to listen to your man if he treats you badly
FFS man if you sleep with many various women often then you're a wh*r* too, and that's not a compliment!
Think that's the gist of it...
[ March 31, 2011, 04:55 AM: Message edited by: Rawrain ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Now besides the possibly more femine voice which could be brought on by excess estrogen. All those other things are just cries for attention and popularity, and the sad thing is it works it vill nebar end ;-;
Thanks for uncovering the mystery of gay psychology: all other estimable traits of being notably gay? Cries for attention and popularity. Hooray! Now we know!
urghhh
quote:So I think sexuality should be kept between the partners, and maybe the family too...
Nope. Nobody gets to be shamed into keeping their sexuality secret. If I get to have a picture of my lovely lass on my office desk, my token gay friend gets to have a picture of his main squeeze on his desk too.
quote:I am racist, sexist, and in dislike of homosexuality
Well, thanks for sharing, champ.
Sincerely,
A Whore.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Samp- for some reason, I think people assume when gay people discuss their lovers, it isn't going to be a picture or a mention of their anniversary, but instead an in detail report on in what they did in the bedroom. And if it is a picture, it will be porn.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Rawrain, your experiences in high school might not be representative of the world at large. I'm just throwin' that out there for consideration. Just a thought.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:FFS the butthole is an exit!
So is the vagina.
For most anyway, I myself was from my mother's womb untimely ripped.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Have you been trying to get back ever since? `cause I hear us dudes want to do that, psychologically speaking.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:So I think sexuality should be kept between the partners, and maybe the family too...
You're a fan of Supernatural too, I take it?
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
I like the show Supernatural .___. ----------- Sam by keeping it to your sexuallity to yourself I don't mean hiding it, but I most certainly shun telling everyone just because it is so..
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
You aren't making any sense.
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
Sam I only mean verbaly.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
No, I mean, I have no idea what you are talking about. You aren't coherent enough for me to understand exactly what you mean when you define 'keeping it to themselves.'
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
I should've paid more attention in English class, and now I can't explain myself...
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
Is English your second language?
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
No Spanish was!
And actually I was thinking and I am not sexist... but I am still those other things .___.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Your loss. The rest of us are probably better off anyways.
I hate ignorance and prejudices, but I still read your posts.
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
I'll strike a deal, after jebus is done with the suggestive editing of my attempt at making a landmark, I will take at least a week long break from hatrack to give ya'll some air.
My clueless obnoxious shenanigans can only be tolerated so much on a forum. Imagine how the people I live with feel...mwahahahah XD
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
] ![[Frown]](frown.gif)