posted
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.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
To be fair, Syne, I think the answer to that is, "If the religion changes its mind, the leadership will tell us."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see what is wrong about changing religious beliefs that are harmful. I see plenty wrong with not changing those religious beliefs.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
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)
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.)
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
To be clear, I meant chastity in the stricter sense of no sex period, rather than only sex within a marriage.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I figured. But you asked for the LDS perspective, and from that perspective, that's what chastity means.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Under that view, during the eternities, does having a homosexual partner impede progress more than having no partner at all though?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
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
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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)
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geraine, I second that. I'm not LDS, but that pretty closely mirrors my thoughts on the matter.
Posts: 1069 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1087 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
If two men being together is gay then two girls being together must be ecstatic.
IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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".
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry if I sound dense but are you asking me to edit your post, or just saying pretend you didn't write that?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
