Bruce Hafen's Talk at Evergreen Conference

[staccato]

As you said a completely inadequate analogy. Turret's behavior is not under the control of the individual. Sexual behavior is under the control of the person whether homosexual or heterosexual; unless of course you are admitting that homosexual behavior is a compulsion which is beyond the control of the individual and I really don't think you want to go there.

I think it would be an excellent exercise for every church member to go without sex for a year. Single, married, old, young, everyone. Kind of like an extended fast. So they can personally testify of the manageability of one's ability to control their sexual urges. And we can believe them.

[bluebell]

I think it would be an excellent exercise for every church member to go without sex for a year. Single, married, old, young, everyone. Kind of like an extended fast. So they can personally testify of the manageability of one's ability to control their sexual urges. And we can believe them.

What do you think most LDS members did before they were married? Or do when loved ones serve overseas? Or do when they don't ever get married?

That there are millions right now who could personally testify (lds and non) that it's possible to go months, years, or even a lifetime without sex and still have a good life, it seems obvious that there is nothing that anyone with that belief system can do that would cause you to believe it.

So why pretend otherwise?

[Deborah]

I think it would be an excellent exercise for every church member to go without sex for a year. Single, married, old, young, everyone. Kind of like an extended fast. So they can personally testify of the manageability of one's ability to control their sexual urges. And we can believe them.

I'm going to have to get personal here, but I've gone without it for several years, so have several other people I know. I think you'd be surprised what one can do and I think it's very sad that you think so little of the ability of people to discipline themselves.

[AndyOne]

As you said a completely inadequate analogy. Turret's behavior is not under the control of the individual. Sexual behavior is under the control of the person whether homosexual or heterosexual; unless of course you are admitting that homosexual behavior is a compulsion which is beyond the control of the individual and I really don't think you want to go there.

Sexual attraction is not really voluntary either. That's my point. In understanding resulting behavior, one can have more sympathy if the cause underlying the behavior is involuntary. Obviously that can't result in condoning all behavior for which the urge was involuntary - otherwise we'd be letting pedophiles off the hook, etc. But two consensual adults acting on shared attraction is different.

[Chaos]

I think it would be an excellent exercise for every church member to go without sex for a year. Single, married, old, young, everyone. Kind of like an extended fast. So they can personally testify of the manageability of one's ability to control their sexual urges. And we can believe them.

Your tagline is offensive and inappropriate for this board. Do not post again until it is removed.

[Daniel2]

Darin, it strikes me that the GAs are just like you and me, faced with thousands of pages of information, some that suggests nature, some that suggests nurture, some that says, "no idea." It's refreshing to me that there is no consensus on the cause (how could there be?), but there is definitely a consensus on the love, concern, and empathy that they feel for those dealing with same-sex attraction. I can follow that consensus pretty easily!

Did you like Hafen's talk?

Hey, Bunny,

I agree... it does seem like the GAs are "just like you and me," faced with thousands of pages of information. The data isn't really as conflicting as one would believe, when one consideres the sources. The quantity of researchers that subscribe to the idea that "nurture" is responsible are a fraction of those that accept that sexual orientatation is biologically determined. The internet, however, gives these fringe organizations (like N.A.R.T.H.)a veneer of validity and prominence that the quantities of researchers simply doesn't support.

I might find the GAs lack of consensus to be 'refreshing' if there weren't so many adherents who were willing to stake their own lives and the lives of their unknowing spouse and future children on any crumb of insite that falls from the table.

As for Hafen's talk, here's a few of my as-yet incomplete thoughts:

Hafen begins his talk by offering the same statements of profound admiration in the face of temptation to the single returned missionary 'with SSA' that most Mormons offer to those who repress any expression a homosexual attraction. While I believe those statements are sincere, for those of us who have accepted our sexuality and decided against celibacy and chosen to integrate healthy expressions of it into our lives, those statements of effusive praise come across as subtle manipulation (even if not intentionally so). As I've said before: verbally setting someone atop such a pillar through expressions of exuberant admiration may appeal to one's sense of "worthiness" or earning others' approval, but it does little to change the end result that being exalted to the top of a pillar is an isolated, lonely place of imprisonment. A gilded cage confines even more effectively than an iron one, when it bars not only the body, but also deadens yearning for freedom by the spirit.

Surprisingly, I actually agree with Hafen when he says that it is a lie for anyone to suggest that "acting out your [gay] feelings is inevitable." Of course it isn't. People of every sexual orientation are empowered to make choices on how to behave, and to what degree they will allow their sexuality to be expressed, in their lives.

Hafen would disagree with my belief that most humans (whether straight or gay) will experience the greatest abundance of peace, joy, and meaning when they make informed choices that allow them to build a healthy, stable, mutual relationship with another consenting adult with whom they share an intrinsic blend of romantic, emotional, spiritual, intellectual, and physical attraction.

I appreciate that GAs are urging members to find a more compassionate understanding of members who struggle with their homosexuality. Compassion and understanding are both needed, and it is good that they have abandoned (if not apologized) for some of the more direct, inflammatory language of past prophets. Even so, the new rhetoric brings new, far-more-subtle dangers with it. Like any excess of virtue, too much alters that virtue's practice into vice. If compassion for 'those that struggle with SSA' becomes misdirected and bloats into pity as THE defining characteristic of how you should respond to a gay loved one, thereby supplanting mutual respect for his or her adult choice of spouse and family, I believe "compassion" can transform into a stumbling block of entitled self-righteousness.

As I read through the responses of this thread, the thing that strikes me most BLATANTLY is the assumptions that seem to assume that homosexuality is all about "NOT doing something" (specifically, those gays have as much willpower to "NOT have sex as the rest of us straights do) rather than understanding that sexual orientation is about SO MUCH MORE than a mere 'sex act.'

One gay mormon blogger said it best this way, in an entry he titled "So Tired of Sex?":

It was clear that [my mother] had not comprehension of the reality that homosexual love, exactly like the love she felt for my father, isn't just about sexual organs, that it is also about the spiritual strength and the support one person draws mysteriously from another. I can't explain why the comfort I feel in a gay man's arms is greater than I could find in those of a heterosexual woman. It's not an act of sex. It's an act of love. It's not about sexual gratification. It's about spiritual survival.

--Mel White, Stranger at the Gate

What? He's tired of sex? I thought that would get your attention. No. I am not tired of sex. I enjoy sex very much. I am, however, getting tired of hearing about sex. I'm generally a low key person, who is not easily riled, but the next time a person tries to tell me that homosexuality is a sexual preference I think my head will explode. Hopefully my spirit will linger long enough to appreciate the mess I will have made and the look of horror on the unlucky individual who will have to wipe my brains off his face.

One of the first things my last bishop said to me was, "Homosexuality is a sexual preference that can turn into an obsession." I knew then I was dealing with someone who had no idea what he was talking about. I spent five years talking to a counselor about homosexuality. In all that time, my counselor was never able to explain to me how sex was at the center of homosexuality, at least not in a way that I could accept. Counseling seemed to revolve around the same theory, namely, my attraction to men was a preference, much as one prefers chocolate ice cream to vanilla, and all that had to be done was teach me to like vanilla. At the heart of this "retraining" was teaching me to see men as individuals and not sex objects. That is where he lost me.

First of all, I didn't and don't see men as sex objects. One of my gay friends once asked me if, when I saw a guy I thought was good looking, I tried to imagine his equipment. With my best you've-got-to-be-kidding look, I told him, "No." I don't see a good looking guy walking down the street and think, "Oooo, I'd like a piece of that ---." I see a good looking guy and think, "Wow. He's cute. I'd like to meet him. I wonder if he'd be interested in meeting me." I've seen men good looking enough to make my stomach feel like it's suddenly sagging around my knees. Even then I was not imagining what it would be like to get him into bed. I do confess, however, that I sometimes wonder how he kisses.

But what about your friend's question? Wasn't he objectifying men? Of course he was. And here is my second problem with this idea of sex as the focus of homosexuality. I have yet to find anyone who can explain to me what objectifying individuals as mere sex objects has to do with being gay. No rational human being can suggest that only gay men objectify those upon whom their desires are focused. Have you ever heard of Sports Illustrated? What about park bathrooms, gay bars and bathhouses, usually among the first things that comes to the mind of many "God fearing" individuals when they hear the word gay? Fair enough, but then let's also talk about prostitution, singles bars and exotic dance clubs. Again, someone please explain to me how lasciviousness, promiscuity and sexual addiction are the hallmarks of homosexuality.

Evergreen was no different. Three times I listened to conversations that can be summed up like this: "I just can't imagine living together with a guy. That's so gay." Finally the third time I stopped them and said, "Guys, I wouldn't do it any other way. I don't want sex. I want to fall in love. I want to settle down. I want to find a mate." I didn't ask them why living with a life partner was somehow more gay than cruising for your next lay, or why it was somehow worse. I already knew that answer. You see as long as the sex is meaningless you can justify your behavior as "a phase," an aberrant predilection for a type of sex. In so doing you also marginalize and diminish what you are feeling. You don't have to face the fact that your feelings are much deeper than mere desire or lust. You can convince yourself that it and you are wicked, evil and wrong.

We are not in Baskin Robins. I am not sampling flavors of ice cream and deciding which is my favorite. As someone who has had sex with a man and sex with a woman, I'll let you in on a little secret. Aside from obvious differences in mechanics and execution, physical pleasure is physical pleasure. Sex is sex. What makes the difference is how you feel about who you are with. It is not about the act of sex. It is about who makes you twitterpated, who makes your stomach fall to your knees, who makes your heart beat faster, and who makes it skip a beat. It's about finding peace wrapped in the arms of another. It's about trust, love and companionship.

The last conversation I had with my last bishop is blurry to me now. I remember very little of what was said, probably because I was fuming mad. I can't even remember now what he said to me that inspired the following angry response, which I bit back. "Let me ask you something. How would you feel if I spoke about your relationship with your wife as just someplace you like to put ---- ----?" Sometimes I wish I had said it, hoping it would have shocked him enough into bringing more than a few brain cells to bear the issue. In my more quiet moments, however, there is something that tells me it wouldn't have done any good.

Like this blogger, I am also so tired of hearing that my "homosexual attractions" are merely a matter of willpower to "just say no" to a sex act, as if that is all sexual orientation is all about. Yes, celibacy should be possible for any of us, and for those that choose to make that a guiding benchmark of their lives, so be it. In my view, life is much richer--a more abundant experience--because of the lessons we learn in opening ourselves up to the miraculous, challenging, and humbling possibilities that come from loving, serving, sacrificing for and being loved by the spouse with whom we choose to share our lives, loves, challenges, and heartaches.

Will write more, as able,

Darin

[bluebell]

Hafen begins his talk by offering the same statements of profound admiration in the face of temptation to the single returned missionary 'with SSA' that most Mormons offer to those who repress any expression a homosexual attraction. While I believe those statements are sincere, for those of us who have accepted our sexuality and decided against celibacy and chosen to integrate healthy expressions of it into our lives, those statements of effusive praise come across as subtle manipulation (even if not intentionally so).

It sounds like what you are saying is-

Anything short of complete acceptance of my lifestyle is worthy of some type of criticism (for lack of a better term) and is therefore not good enough.

Is that what you are saying here? That there is no compliment that someone can give that is not somehow 'bad' if that compliment is not based on full acceptance of the gay lifestyle?

I'm honestly asking for clarification.

[USU78]

I think it would be an excellent exercise for every church member to go without sex for a year. Single, married, old, young, everyone. Kind of like an extended fast. So they can personally testify of the manageability of one's ability to control their sexual urges. And we can believe them.

Who bit your butt, staccato?

Think this through before you say silly things: How many men and women, because of their spouses' physical or emotional issues, aren't able to enjoy a fulfilling physical relationship? They don't ask for this. Implicit in their marriages was the promise of sexual fulfillment.

Yet they live without it, and most don't resort to hookers, affairs, divorce/remarriage, or internet porn.

I daresay the numbers of those who live thus vastly outnumber homosexuals period, let alone those with a serious interest in living in accordance with G-d's commandments.

Given this, why should we be so very worried about the potential lack of sexual fulfillment of yet another group?

Where is it written we're entitled to a life where all we would like is part of the package?

[Deborah]

Sexual attraction is not really voluntary either. That's my point.

So...? I think the GA's have acknowledged that. Does that mean we should give special consideration for one group over another, which is basically what gay advocates are asking.

[Deborah]

I am also so tired of hearing that my "homosexual attractions" are merely a matter of willpower to "just say no" to a sex act, as if that is all sexual orientation is all about.

Not if you make it something more than that. I don't think you realize how many people live happy fulfilling lives without sex involved. I think one of the problems with homosexuality is that those who are afflicted with this (and yes it is an affliction-just listen to the difficulties of those involved) seem to emphasize sexuality in their lives rather than looking in other areas where they can find success and happiness. It does seem to be an obsession if not a compulsion. This is from someone looking outside but who is very close to the issue.

[Confidential Informant]

Hafen would disagree with my belief that most humans (whether straight or gay) will experience the greatest abundance of peace, joy, and meaning when they make informed choices that allow them to build a healthy, stable, mutual relationship with another consenting adult with whom they share an intrinsic blend of romantic, emotional, spiritual, intellectual, and physical attraction.

There is, in fact, no evidence that gays (but more especially gay men) are capable (speaking in general terms) of establishing such relationships. At least, not as we have traditionally defined them.

While I believe those statements are sincere, for those of us who have accepted our sexuality and decided against celibacy and chosen to integrate healthy expressions of it into our lives, those statements of effusive praise come across as subtle manipulation (even if not intentionally so).

So **** sex, accompanies by all it's attendant physical risks, is a healthy expression? Somehow, I doubt it.

C.I.

[Daniel2]

It sounds like what you are saying is-

Anything short of complete acceptance of my lifestyle is worthy of some type of criticism (for lack of a better term) and is therefore not good enough.

Is that what you are saying here? That there is no compliment that someone can give that is not somehow 'bad' if that compliment is not based on full acceptance of the gay lifestyle?

I'm honestly asking for clarification.

Thanks for asking clarifying questions, Bluebell. That's almost always helpful.

No... I don't expect "complete acceptance of my lifestyle" by others (I wonder if you and I would define "complete acceptance" differently). I accept there will be those who remain critical of same-sex relationships and/or 'behaviors.' I don't seek to deny them their right to believe as they feel inspired to believe, even if I offer a critical analysis of those beliefs and experessions (as I accept that others have similar critiques of me and my beliefs--here's winkin at you, ERMD! ).

As I reflect on your querey, I'm trying to ask myself what it IS that I'd love to hear, from those who hold different beliefs. I suppose it'd be nice to hear something like this:

You know, Darin, that I don't believe that exaltation can be attained if one chooses to enter into a romantic partnership with someone of the same gender. As you're aware, my beliefs about Heavenly Father (and the need for a Heavenly Mother, as co-creaters of spirit children in the etnernities) simply has no conceptualization for how two men or two women can fulfill the pattern of creating a Celestial Family. As such, it's impossible that our doctrines could make allowances for same-sex relationships. On a personal level, it's almost impossible for me to understand how someone could be romantically involved or physically intimate with someone of the same gender. The idea is so foreign and almost repugnant to my own sensibilities!

Given all of the above, I don't believe I'll ever be able to accept that a same-sex relationship would be 'sanctioned' by the God I worship. However... I know you. I see your heart and, even if I disagree with you, I know enough to know that you also believe that pursuing this type of relationship will ultimately lead to the greatest happiness. I see the love that you and your husband have for each other, and believe it's genuine. I would hope that, if our roles were reversed, you'd treat my ability to choose for myself with the same dignity and respect that I'd hope from you. And so, even though I don't agree with your decisions to embrace your identity as a gay man, I support and love you--and will even love and support your husband. And perhaps, as we move through life, we'll grow in our understanding and love for one another.

If it helps you understand how someone could disagree and still support someone else's decision to enter a relationship that was antithecal to one's own beliefs, it might to re-read the same passage, only from the perspective of a gay man supporting his LDS friend's temple marriage (by attending the temple, waiting on the grounds, helping out with the reception, etc).

My view,

Darin

[Daniel2]

There is, in fact, no evidence that gays (but more especially gay men) are capable (speaking in general terms) of establishing such relationships. At least, not as we have traditionally defined them.

Actually, there's an abundance of evidence that gays and lesbians are capable of forming healthy, stable, and mutual relationships with each other, but only if one has "eyes to see, and ears to hear."

So **** sex, accompanies by all it's attendant physical risks, is a healthy expression? Somehow, I doubt it.

Who said anything about **** sex? You've fallen into the very trap that I mentioned in my previous post about mistakenly assuming that homosexuality "is all about sex." That reductionist view is false. First, **** sex is not exclusive to gay relationships; Second, not all gay relationships involve **** sex; Third, for those that choose to incorporate **** sex into their relationship, there are healthy ways of doing so. It's absurd to me that you choose to focus on a singular sexual act as if it defines the entire nature of the rest of how two individuals choose to make a life together.

Darin

[bluebell]

As I reflect on your querey, I'm trying to ask myself what it IS that I'd love to hear, from those who hold different beliefs. I suppose it'd be nice to hear something like this:

You know, Darin, that I don't believe that exaltation can be attained if one chooses to enter into a romantic partnership with someone of the same gender. As you're aware, my beliefs about Heavenly Father (and the need for a Heavenly Mother, as co-creaters of spirit children in the etnernities) simply has no conceptualization for how two men or two women can fulfill the pattern of creating a Celestial Family. As such, it's impossible that our doctrines could make allowances for same-sex relationships. On a personal level, it's almost impossible for me to understand how someone could be romantically involved or physically intimate with someone of the same gender. The idea is so foreign and almost repugnant to my own sensibilities!

Given all of the above, I don't believe I'll ever be able to accept that a same-sex relationship would be 'sanctioned' by the God I worship. However... I know you. I see your heart and, even if I disagree with you, I know enough to know that you also believe that pursuing this type of relationship will ultimately lead to the greatest happiness. I see the love that you and your husband have for each other, and believe it's genuine. I would hope that, if our roles were reversed, you'd treat my ability to choose for myself with the same dignity and respect that I'd hope from you. And so, even though I don't agree with your decisions to embrace your identity as a gay man, I support and love you--and will even love and support your husband. And perhaps, as we move through life, we'll grow in our understanding and love for one another.

My view,

Darin

I guess, my confusion now comes because it seems Brother Hafen's talk is specifically to people who have NOT pursued a same sex relationship but that your disagreement with the talk comes because he didn't tailor his talk to include those who have.

Knowing who his target audience was, is it fair to criticize him for not addressing the issues of those outside of his target audience?

I realize i could be reading you wrong again though so please correct if i am.

[Droopy]

It really saddens me to see so much misinformation in Elder Hafen's talk. It's absolutely obvious that he has never taken the time to sit down and research the science concerning homosexuality (from all angles) and is merely regurgitating what a hateful, insidious organization like Evergreen has to say about homosexuality.

It's also disheartening that the Church continues to associate with Evergreen, despite the pain it causes to families and individuals across the nation.

I've got a great deal of studying to to tonight, but I couldn't help pointing out the simple truth of the matter here for those still enamored with and in need of clinging to the long discredited "gay gene" theory of homosexual "causation" and other reductionist measures intended to deflate criticisms of this serious distortion of normal psycho-sexual development.

There is no "science" behind any claimed knowledge of the "causes" of homosexual attraction. There is no known gene, set of genes, or other biological mechanisms that can be pointed to as the "cause" of homosexual orientation.

May we move beyond this pretense now?

Homosexuality isn't caused - its origin (like the addictions) is influenced by any number of complex biasing factors that simplistic reductionism of the kind favored by the World is not going to disentangle and explain in the neat, cog and widget manner needed to place homosexuality beyond the pall of moral and social critique, especially from a religious perspective.

Darin has apparently made peace with his SSA, and is deeply threatened by those who have not done so. There is by now good evidence that homosexuals who desire change, and are suitably motivated, can benefit greatly from reparative therapy.

Like all uninvited and disturbing anomalies, this phenomena upsets the most jealously guarded apple carts, but,facts remain stubborn things.

[Nemesis]

Topics merged. There was no need for a second thread on the same topic.

[Droopy]

Actually, there's an abundance of evidence that gays and lesbians are capable of forming healthy, stable, and mutual relationships with each other, but only if one has "eyes to see, and ears to hear."

Then I'd like to see it, as there is also mountainous evidence regarding the vociferous promiscuity, psychological dysfunction, and tempestuous, emotionally fragile relationships the vast majority of homosexuals have been engaging in for as long as they've been studied and observed.

Wickedness never was happiness, and retreating into fantasy never was a solution to the problems of mortality.

[John Williams]

Then I'd like to see it, as there is also mountainous evidence regarding the vociferous promiscuity, psychological dysfunction, and tempestuous, emotionally fragile relationships the vast majority of homosexuals have been engaging in for as long as they've been studied and observed.

Wickedness never was happiness, and retreating into fantasy never was a solution to the problems of mortality.

This is kind of depressing. You take a marginalized group, tell them they are not wanted in society, label their deepest desires perverted and sick, disown them for admitting who they are, and then you wonder why they are prone to dysfunctional and destructive relationships.

[lukas_s]

I've got a great deal of studying to to tonight, but I couldn't help pointing out the simple truth of the matter here for those still enamored with and in need of clinging to the long discredited "gay gene" theory of homosexual "causation" and other reductionist measures intended to deflate criticisms of this serious distortion of normal psycho-sexual development.

There is no "science" behind any claimed knowledge of the "causes" of homosexual attraction. There is no known gene, set of genes, or other biological mechanisms that can be pointed to as the "cause" of homosexual orientation.

May we move beyond this pretense now?

Homosexuality isn't caused - its origin (like the addictions) is influenced by any number of complex biasing factors that simplistic reductionism of the kind favored by the World is not going to disentangle and explain in the neat, cog and widget manner needed to place homosexuality beyond the pall of moral and social critique, especially from a religious perspective.

Darin has apparently made peace with his SSA, and is deeply threatened by those who have not done so. There is by now good evidence that homosexuals who desire change, and are suitably motivated, can benefit greatly from reparative therapy.

Like all uninvited and disturbing anomalies, this phenomena upsets the most jealously guarded apple carts, but,facts remain stubborn things.

I never said anything about a "gay gene." I said it's obvious Elder Hafen has not sat down to review the issue completely. There are a number of studies both recently and decades back which confirm that homosexuality may have a genetic link. They have never been repudiated. Neither side of the argument has been able to conclusively substantiate their respective positions, yet you make it seem as if they have.

Until you can show me, scientifically, 100%, that the etiology of homosexuality stems from NOTHING more than "a number of complex biasing factors..." then I'll consider this little rant of yours moot.

CFR on that.

[talisyn]

This is kind of depressing. You take a marginalized group, tell them they are not wanted in society, label their deepest desires perverted and sick, disown them for admitting who they are, and then you wonder why they are prone to dysfunctional and destructive relationships.

Indeed, Trekkers have a hard life. Or was it IT people? Or those who carry small yapping dogs in purses?

Point is, everyone has challenges. Not everyone will have the opportunity for marriage. Unfair? Since we cannot see why some have a same-sex attraction challenge and someone else has a different one we don't know if it's unfair or not.

[John Williams]

Indeed, Trekkers have a hard life. Or was it IT people? Or those who carry small yapping dogs in purses?

Point is, everyone has challenges. Not everyone will have the opportunity for marriage. Unfair? Since we cannot see why some have a same-sex attraction challenge and someone else has a different one we don't know if it's unfair or not.

It's not "unfair" for some people to have challenges. It is, however, unfair and uncharitable to sneer at the personal problems of people whose existence you despise.

[talisyn]

It's not "unfair" for some people to have challenges. It is, however, unfair and uncharitable to sneer at the personal problems of people whose existence you despise.

Well, it would be pretty dumb to sneer at the personal problems of those you don't despise. What a world it would be if the only people you cannot mock are those you disagree with

[John Williams]

Well, it would be pretty dumb to sneer at the personal problems of those you don't despise. What a world it would be if the only people you cannot mock are those you disagree with

Let me guess, if you sneer and they are offended, it's their fault, right?

[Daniel Peterson]

It's not "unfair" for some people to have challenges. It is, however, unfair and uncharitable to sneer at the personal problems of people whose existence you despise.

Just for the record, I despise nobody's existence and I sneer at nobody.

[John Williams]

Just for the record, I despise nobody's existence and I sneer at nobody.

What about your malevolent stalker?