Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,890 Excellent

About Daniel2

  • Rank
    Culturally-Mormon Gay Dad
  • Birthday 01/01/1973

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

3,296 profile views
  1. This also brought to mind the following recent Deseret News Article (sorry--I know this is slightly off topic, but the timing is pleasantly serendipitous, when considered in light of the Church's movement away from Scouting):
  2. While the history may be backwards (and a comment on the historical timeline of the divergent organizations wasn't within the scope of my previous comments), the impression I had (as you say) wasn't far off the mark. Again, it wasn't my intent to suggest the BSA is comparable to the ideologies of those other alternate organizations---to my sensitivities as a young boy, then a youth, and later a young man unaware of 'which came first,' the similarities were still notable, significant, and somewhat unsettling.
  3. I agree. My comment wasn't meant as an endorsement of the loss of those types of activities, and like you, I lament the fact that kids get far too much 'screen time' and not enough 'go outside and play, ride bikes, explore woods, build dams, climb trees, skin knees, get lost and find your way back, skinny dip in lakes/rivers, work together to create tree houses or forts, chop wood or whittle, set up and take down tents, build campfires, learn responsible citizenship, learn to be social, defend others, stand up for one's convictions in a setting of one's peers, etc.' time. There are things that affect character and development that are definitely lost.
  4. I know that for US-based Latter-day Saints, this is a BIG deal. I was raised as an active LDS kid in the US Military community overseas (in Northern Europe, mostly) until i was 18, and Scouting was NEVER part of our LDS young men's activities. My brothers and I dabbled in Scouts in one of the military branches we were associated with for a time, and I enjoyed the camping and merit badge aspects.... but it folded because of lack of interest. Our Young Men group went camping a lot, and did some "scouts type" activities, but we never had the ceremony, merit badges, or pomp and circumstance associated with Baden Powell's organization, which always struck me as oddly military-ish... like... Starship Troopers or even (and I don't mean to invoke Goodwin's law here, so please understand I'm not meaning it in that way) reminiscent of youth groups organized by dictators (a.k.a. Hitler Youth or communist parties), only with an American flair. Don't get me wrong, I know the ideologies are VASTLY different---but the uniforms, the patches, the scarves and advancements.... it was all a little weird when I moved to the states and found out how enmeshed the LDS church's youth were with Scouting in America. In my early days at BYU after moving to the states for the first time, I was somewhat put off by the obsession with whether or not I'd earned an Eagle Scout status.... it was something that was either asked or bragged about by my roommates in interviews for on-campus jobs, and it was frustrating to have to keep explaining that where I came from, earning an Eagle Scout status wasn't even possible, since we didn't have troops. It seems to me that BSA as it's been formerly is a vestige of the past and could use streamlining. That said, I'm not sure youth today are interested enough in it's merits for the organization to survive, even with streamlining. As society has moved into the modern era, the risks of overnight camping, the litigiousness, legalities, and liabilities associated with adult leaders sleeping near/with youth and the occurrences of abuse also seem to be a contributing factor.
  5. Thanks so much for sharing all of the above, Kllindley. I appreciate your extension of good faith, and am both sorry and saddened that you had to pause in questioning the safety of this board. I hope I haven't contributed to that concern, but if I have, I'd love to hear feedback on how to better contribute in ensuring we all can feel comfortable in sharing our thoughts here as a safe forum to do so. I can appreciate, understand, and also fully support your and all of our abilities and freedoms to approach the philosophical/spiritual nature of homosexuality according to the dictates of our own conscience and belief. It wasn't my intention to call that into question earlier, so I appreciate you elaborating in explaining the differences by which you approach the nature of attraction from a philosophical/belief-based paradigm vs. an empirical/secular approach. As far as your approach to balancing your own personally-held religious beliefs vs. how you feel attractions should be treated in the public square, as well as your acknowledgement that from all data available thus far, there appears to be no measurable differences between the nature, development, and capabilities of heterosexual and homosexual attractions and relationships--as well as a personal conviction to treat all people and relationships with equal dignity--you not only have my agreement, but also my deepest respect. Thank you again for going out on a limb, being vulnerable, and sharing. And if you ever run for President, can I be your VP? lol Daniel
  6. Hey, Kllindley, Based on the context of our conversation and your response above, I'm curious: from the context of the nature (i.e. the determinative factors and/or immutability of sexual orientation) as related to conversion/reparative therapies that have been discussed in this thread, do you believe the attractions of gay and/or lesbian individuals are fundamentally different from the attractions of straight individuals? If so, can you elaborate how you believe the nature of straights’ attractions are different than the nature of gays’ and lesbians’ attractions?
  7. I'm not sure I understand your last sentence above... can you elaborate on how "the attractions gay and lesbian people feel are fundamentally different" than those felt by straight people...? (or was that tongue-in-cheek? lol).
  8. Well said. And in my experience, it's best (as in most polite, respectful, and an exercise in the golden rule) to refer to others' self-identity as they refer to themselves (also as you say) on a personal level. That is, even though I may find the term "same-sex attracted" or "experience same-sex attraction" distasteful or inadequate, I understand and respect others' decision and comfort to so self-designate. And even though others may find my terms of "gay" to be distasteful or inadequate, I hope for the same understanding and respect in my husband's and my choice to so self-designate. And as always, Kllindley, I appreciate your thoughts and approach on this entire issue. Though we come from different paradigms, I appreciate the mutual respect and striving to understand and avoid behaving disagreeably, whether or not we agree.
  9. I think a man (straight or otherwise) can say that a female actress "isn't his type" and comment that her body type isn't one he's "drawn to".... in fact, I echoed it in my response to Bluebell (and actually, I even agree with her that while I can appreciate and even admire his attractiveness, I'm not drawn to the body-type of men of Mr. Hemsworth stature, either). Did you find her post unfairly sexist or offensive from a male perspective...?
  10. That's exactly what I say about Jennifer Aniston!
  11. The problem I have with the term "same-sex attraction" is that it's reserved for individuals who experience attractions to members of their own gender in a way that is NOT used by individuals who experience attractions to members of the opposite gender. Except as a foil when engaging with gays or lesbians, I've never heard a straight person: a) object to being described as "straight" on the basis of their attractions to members of the opposite sex, b) refer to themselves by saying "I experience opposite-sex attraction," c) avoid using the concept of "be-ing" (as in, a state of existence) 'straight', as opposed to something they 'have' or merely 'experience.' The implication being they "are" straight as a comfortably innate self-identifying characteristic. In every case, I've heard straight people say "I'm straight" or the VERY different "I'm attracted to women." NOTE the significance of the words "I'm"--an abbreviation of "I AM," and nothing like "I EXPERIENCE..." or "I HAVE..." The term "I AM" is a state of being. A state of existence. It adds legitimacy to "straight" people's experiences and identity as "straight" people who "are" straight. The avoidance of the term "gay" or to say "I'm attracted to men" is significant, and delegitimizes one's identity in a very different way than is afforded to "straight" people. In sum, I think most heterosexual men are able to acknowledge that women who aren't their own wives are attractive, but I've never heard one say, "Wow... Look at HER--I'm experiencing attraction for her!" Most would simply say, "I'm attacted to her," or "I find her attractive," or "She's HOT." And to me, the difference in language is significant as the implications underlying it.
  12. Does anyone not find Chris Hemsworth attractive?! lol Same question about Jennifer Aniston.... is there anyone alive that doesn't find her attractive....?! lol
  13. To be fair, Kllindley, Evergreen itself evolved over time. 25 years ago, when I was at BYU and met with the Evergreen counselor for six months on campus while attending as a student, he was advocating very much for reparative/conversion therapy, including ongoing and blunt references to "becoming straight" and "changing my orientation," coupled with scriptural references as to how "with God, nothing is impossible," that "faith precedes the miracle," etc. It's likely difficult (as you acknowledged previously) to pin down terms such as these, especially looking retroactively, and especially when attempting to speak universally. It's entirely possible (and likely probable) that different Evergreen groups, leaders, and therapists each had their own unique approach/verbiage/spin in earlier days, because culture wasn't focused on the issue and it wasn't under the scrutiny that later arose. As the practice lost favor, Evergreen attempted to adapt and change it's approach and sought to stay current (as any responsible organization should). Ultimately, from my perspective, the organization was plagued by too much baggage around prior practices which certainly seemed like reparative/conversion therapy, which is why it ultimately merged with Northstar and retired the Evergreen branding. I think it's wise to focus on behaviors and encourage all of us to ensure our behaviors are congruent with our most important, personally-held values, and therapists should seek to encourage their patients to find ways to deal with their desires and behaviors in emotionally, physically, spiritually, and sexually possible ways. I believe that ecclesiastical leaders should be free to encourage their adherents to live by the moral code advocated by their religious beliefs and values, so long as they don't misrepresent therapies which medicine has disproven or found to be damaging, unhealthy, or dangerous. Sometimes knowing where to draw that line is difficult, and that's the conversation the legislature is engaged in now. Again, from my perspective, there's well-meaning people on all sides of the issue.
  14. Let's not devolve into unfounded fear-mongering or irrational claims. Suggesting that anyone is attempting to outlaw The Bible is a pretty significant charge. I don't know of anyone seeking to outlaw the sale of The Bible, including any LGBT civil rights advocacy groups, NOR the sponsors of this current bill. Critics are concerned that may be an unintended outcome, but that certainly isn't anyone's intent, nor have I seen any compelling evidence that's the case.
  15. I'm not sure the above is accurate. Does individual citizens' freedom of speech allow them a right to proclaim and subsequently act as though they are medical experts, able to administer controlled substances, perform surgical procedures, or act as psychologists overseeing therapy? Are efforts to regulate disproven and/or dangerous medical therapies really protected under the umbrella of "freedom of speech"? Does (or should) "freedom of religion" truly allow adherents to administer disproven and/or dangerous medical practices, or are there limits to "freedom of religion"? How far does "freedom of religion" extend, in the medical field? Should religious adherents be able to commit suicide or assisted suicide, a la "Heaven's Gate"? What about other harmful practices...? I think there are well-intentioned people on all sides, and it isn't helpful in trying to portray those who's views differ as entirely unreasonable. I think the same is true for those on 'my' side of the fence. Legislation is often a tough process. It works it's way through drafts and versions trying to avoid legal loopholes and other results that are contrary to the intended outcomes (i.e. the law of unintended consequences). From what I've read so far, it sounds like the bill needs more work to ensure the goals of the bill is accomplished while preserving those religious actions/behaviors that are and should remain legal.