The inevitability of the rise of gay-affirming Christianity

[David T]

http://websrv02.kids...stions_sex.html

I see nothing objectionable on this site, certainly no arguments for adult-child sex. It's about approriate degrees of sex-ed, and the first page, the only place it discusses the touching of genitals, is in the context of toddlers innocently exploring themselves, and how to react:

"So, what should you do when your toddler begins touching him or herself? Each family will approach this in their own way, based on their values, comfort level, and style. But keep in mind that your reaction to your child's curiosity will tell him or her whether these actions are "acceptable" or "shameful." Toddlers who are scolded and made to feel bad about their natural curiosity may develop an increased focus on their private parts or feel shame.

Some parents choose to casually ignore self-touching or redirect a child's attention toward something else. Others may want to acknowledge that, while they know it feels good to explore, it is a private matter and not OK to do in public."

[Loran Blood]

You're right. I don't believe it.

I'm trying to find a legitimate news source reporting on this as something that actually happened (your link is from 2009). The EU Times is known to be a rumor-monging politically charged rag, generally filled with racist rhetoric, and not a legitimate news source. All other references to this story have come back to this one unsubstantiated rabble-rousing post. It looks more like an internet chain letter than anything (Stop the Gay Jesus movie!!!). again, any other references? It seems something this big would have been all over the place.

If you're going to claim to be doing your own homework, perhaps you ought to actually do some.

http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/587ba2826ef77905.pdf

[Jaybear]

It is a complex issue.

JMS

I agree. As with most complex issue, on matters which I am not an expert, I pay deference to the consensus of the experts who have actually studied the issue. Its easy to find some crackpots out there to rationalize any preexisting beliefs.

[David T]

http://www.drjudithr...sexualizin.html

This article, while being the only one quoting selections from an individual advocating children exploring children's sexuality and responses, still included the note, "In fairness, Dr. Berlin did later tell Mr. Breslow that his words might "anger" some people and that he [berlin] is categorically opposed to adult-child sex with "pre-pubescent" children."

Again, not advocating for "adult-child sex".

If these are the best articles on the subject trying to prove your point that advocates of gay marriage are the same as those who are trying to decriminalize and legalize the practice of pedophilia, then there isn't really any actual substantial evidence backing up your main point. Because so far, I haven't seen anyone trying to decriminalize and legalize the practice of pedophilia - adults having sex with children.

[california boy]

Jskains,

Really, the only honest reasons I've heard people express as to why homosexuality shouldn't be allowed are:

a) They personally are revolted by the idea (the same many homosexuals are revolted by the idea of heterosex)

b) They believe God hates it with a burning passion.

I completely agree with your statement. It is only reinforced by virtually ever post on this site about homosexuality. Anything other than these two statements immediately slide into just "weird science". Gays don't really care whether they were born this way or how they caught this disease. WE DON'T CARE. Is all we know is that we have no attraction to the opposite sex and people who do seem to freak out over that. Straight people can beat us with bats, murder us, execute us, burn our houses down, throw rocks through our windows, bully us to the point where suicide seems like a good option and we are still attracted to the same sex.

So here are a few things coming from a gay man who used to be Mormon.

Why are some posters on this site so focused on this one sin?

Do you think that your campaign of justifying the marginalization of homosexuality will some how wipe it off the face of the earth? Or even make any significant difference on preventing homosexuality? Homosexuality has existed since the beginning of humans. It has always existed. It will continue to exist. It will continue to exist just as adultery, fortification and other "God condemned sins." You live your lives with all of these sins around you. WHY do you feel the need to somehow try and control homosexuality? Can anyone specifically tell me how homosexuality has effected their lives personally in any different way than any other sin that exists in the world?

Do you think this fixation on not allowing gays to marry will somehow make them form more stable relationships? Or do you think it will help them form relationships with the opposite sex? Seriously, what do you expect stopping gays to marry will accomplish? And if you think it will accomplish something, will you be putting this same effort in eradicating other sins? Are you hoping that there will be laws making homosexuality a crime?

Mostly I want to know what the heck you are trying to accomplish by putting so much effort into marginalization homosexuality. Specific goals would be appreciated rather than continued rants and questionable rationalizations.

[David T]

If you're going to claim to be doing your own homework, perhaps you ought to actually do some.

http://files.aboveto...2826ef77905.pdf

a) I'm reading an english google translation of this right now.

b) Where is a government or otherwise legitimate site I can I read about the EU passing into law the legalization of pedosex, or even the proposal of a bill set to do so, as the the header of the article professes?

Edited September 26, 2011 by nackhadlow

[Deborah]

Being gay or lesbian is not itself any longer considered to be a sin in Mormon theology, and that's a considerable recent change in Mormon doctrine.

No, that is not a change in Mormon doctrine. Being homoesexual has never been in and of itself considered a sin. The doctrine involves the Law of Chastity and that applies to both homosexual and heterosexual. What has changed is the realization that SSA is something that cannot be easily overcome, certainly not in this life. As such we try to look at the individuals who struggle with this with more compassion.

[David T]

a) I'm reading an english google translation of this right now.

Finished.

The pamphlet is about helping children grow up without shame for their bodies, and as part of that notes that it might be unwise when playfully touching the other parts of an infant's body for stimulating tactile response, that the genital area need not be sharply avoided.

It also notes that, if in a bath or shower, and a child innocently reaches up and brushed one's genitalia, it is not wise to smack the hand away, or yell at them. In connection with this, I've found nothing advocating any sort of pedophilia or explcit dedicated sexualized genital fondling so far (in either direction), and in fact, just read a selection from the pdf explicitly condmening the use or thoughts of children for purposes of sexual gratification whatsoever, that if one does feel any such inclinations they should not place themselves in such positions.

Other notes where the article summarized the pamphlet as encouraging mutual masturbation and encouraging sexual arousal between parents and children are ridiculously inaccurate in their presentation and context.

Again: fearmongering rhetoric in opposition to fact.

Is that good enough homework for you, Loran?

Edited September 26, 2011 by nackhadlow

[Cobalt-70]

To say ssa is just silly. It is no different than me offering you 100 pennies or a crisp one crisp one dollar bill

I agree. I like how "SSA" has been turned into an acronym, as if it were a recognized psychological disorder. All I think the acronym does is just stick a fork in the eye of every faithful gay and lesbian Mormon. Why go out of the way to portray them as freaks, when it is so much easier to use the standard and accepted words "gay" and "lesbian"? Or even just say "homosexuality." That's one word, whereas "Same Sex Attraction (SSA)" is three words and an made-up acronym.

[Deborah]

That's one word, whereas "Same Sex Attraction (SSA)" is three words and an made-up acronym.

And accurately defines the issue whether one is "gay" or "lesbian". I don't understand how it sticks a fork in the eye of someone who is gay.

[jskains]

I completely agree with your statement. It is only reinforced by virtually ever post on this site about homosexuality. Anything other than these two statements immediately slide into just "weird science".

Gee, that doesn't come across as a trapped statement.

Gays don't really care whether they were born this way or how they caught this disease. WE DON'T CARE.

We know. That's the problem.

JMS

[David T]

I kind of hope the debunking of Loran's conspiracy based on those articles would be viewed with a sigh of relief, that there aren't large legitimate organizations and full allied nations out there actively campaigning for the legalization and normalization of adult-child sex seeping into our society.

Unfortunately, I have a feeling that there are some who want this horrible conspiratorial idea to be true for the sole purpose of it leading credence (guilt by association) to their arguments and anger against Gay Marriage.

I don't deny that there's probably some isolated whackos out there who want to legalize and protect such actions. Just as you can find isolated whackos out there who want to advocate for (insert ridiculously harmful and inhmanely dangerous and illegal activity here). That doesn't mean they have any sway or credence with any significant percentage of society.

Or have anything to do with gay marriage.

Edited September 26, 2011 by nackhadlow

[Sky]

I agree. I like how "SSA" has been turned into an acronym, as if it were a recognized psychological disorder. All I think the acronym does is just stick a fork in the eye of every faithful gay and lesbian Mormon. Why go out of the way to portray them as freaks, when it is so much easier to use the standard and accepted words "gay" and "lesbian"? Or even just say "homosexuality." That's one word, whereas "Same Sex Attraction (SSA)" is three words and an made-up acronym.

We use 'Same-sex attraction' to describe a particular condition - it's not meant to be derogatory in any way.

We want to distinguish between thoughts/feelings and actions. To me, using the terms ‘gay’ or ‘lesbian’ imply actions as well as an ingrained cultural identity.

Also, believe it or not, some faithful Mormons do choose to identify as gay (see below). We don't encourage it, but we don't stop it either.

http://mormon.org/me/1TJC/.

[Jaybear]

And accurately defines the issue whether one is "gay" or "lesbian". I don't understand how it sticks a fork in the eye of someone who is gay.

Usually, the term is preceded by "struggling with" or "suffers from".

Do you think that your campaign of justifying the marginalization of homosexuality will some how wipe it off the face of the earth? Or even make any significant difference on preventing homosexuality? Homosexuality has existed since the beginning of humans. It has always existed. It will continue to exist. It will continue to exist just as adultery, fortification and other "God condemned sins." You live your lives with all of these sins around you. WHY do you feel the need to somehow try and control homosexuality? Can anyone specifically tell me how homosexuality has effected their lives personally in any different way than any other sin that exists in the world?

Do you think this fixation on not allowing gays to marry will somehow make them form more stable relationships? Or do you think it will help them form relationships with the opposite sex? Seriously, what do you expect stopping gays to marry will accomplish? And if you think it will accomplish something, will you be putting this same effort in eradicating other sins? Are you hoping that there will be laws making homosexuality a crime?

Mostly I want to know what the heck you are trying to accomplish by putting so much effort into marginalization homosexuality. Specific goals would be appreciated rather than continued rants and questionable rationalizations.

Would love to see someone honestly try answer that question someday?

I can see that if someone is LDS and "struggles with SSA", that they may wish to see laws or a barriers put in/stay in place. No doubt it must be harder to rationalize the need to "struggle" against your nature, when see others around you accept who they are and thrive.

Edited September 26, 2011 by Jaybear

[Cobalt-70]

No, that is not a change in Mormon doctrine. Being homoesexual has never been in and of itself considered a sin. The doctrine involves the Law of Chastity and that applies to both homosexual and heterosexual. What has changed is the realization that SSA is something that cannot be easily overcome, certainly not in this life. As such we try to look at the individuals who struggle with this with more compassion.

The idea that homosexual orientation exists, that homosexuality itself (apart from gay sex) is not a sin or "perversion," and that it might not be possible for all gays to convert to straighthood, are all quite new doctrines in the LDS Church.

Back in the mid-20th century, as LDS leaders first started to hear about the existence of gay Mormons, the church issued a publication, authorized by David O. McKay and based on work of several apostles such as Spencer W. Kimball, stating in no unclear terms that homosexuality was a psychological disease that can in all cases be cured by things like prayer, straight dating, and reading scriptures. A church publication written by Boyd K. Packer stated that homosexuality itself was a perversion caused by letting "impure thoughts" enter the stage of one's mind. Homosexuality, he taught, was a form of selfishness for which people thusly perverted must repent. At least in the 1970s, it is apparent that Packer did not have a good handle on what homosexuality is (for example, he appears to have confused it with gender identity). However, he was the first to admit in 1990 that church authorities didn't really have a good understanding of what homosexuality is. Also, mid-20th century church doctrine was reflected in the admission policy at BYU, where any gay or lesbian Mormon would be excluded for gay or lesbian "tendencies" (regardless of whether they were having gay sex), on the theory that gayness was contagious. That policy was later changed.

So you can see a significant doctrinal shift between mid-20th century, and the 1990s, as the church got a bit more experience with the issue of homosexuality. It would have been unheard of, in the 1970s, for an LDS authority to suggest that homosexuality had a biological component, that homosexuality itself is not a sin, or that it might not (always) be possible to "pray away the gay."

[Deborah]

No doubt it must be harder to rationalize the need to "struggle" against your nature, when see others around you accept who they are and thrive.

Even LDS who accept who they are struggle constantly with the conflict with what they feel is their nature and living the principles of the gospel. So yes it is a struggle. Those who abandon the struggle have accepted the world's view and left the faith behind.

[David T]

Even LDS who accept who they are struggle constantly with the conflict with what they feel is their nature and living the principles of the gospel. So yes it is a struggle. Those who abandon the struggle have accepted the world's view and left the faith behind.

I have a hard time saying that 'Gays shouldn't get married' is part of 'The Good News (Gospel) of Jesus Christ'. Christianity, at least to me, is about recognizing and participating in God's Love. (Love the Lord, and Love your Neighbor As Yourself). I understand the principle of fornication as being contrary,as it is representative of irresponsible and non-committed creation,whereas marriage (whether heterosexual, plural, or homosexual) set an example or symbol of a compact and commitment of love dedicated to building and raising others up, whether it be each other,or biological or adopted children.

In a way, Gay Marriage could possibly be viewed as a positive development - a way to create an option of harmony and reconciliation between homosexuals and the gospel, contrary to just something else trying to destroy it.

I think it resonates with what President Uchtdorf spoke about in the RS Conference on Saturday - sometimes we're so busy focusing on the details and commandments of the Gospels that we forget the underlying 'why', or 'meaning' or purpose of the Gospel.

Edited September 26, 2011 by nackhadlow

[jskains]

Or have anything to do with gay marriage.

You fail to see the reverse, that you are ignoring legitimate concerns because they hurt your cause (which appears to me to be to bully the LDS Church and our values into your own view of the world).

JMS

[Cobalt-70]

And accurately defines the issue whether one is "gay" or "lesbian". I don't understand how it sticks a fork in the eye of someone who is gay.

Suppose I categorized left-handed people as suffering from "Left Hand Compulsion (LHC)"? Do you think they wouldn't be offended by that? By labeling a group with a "clinical"-sounding acronym, you turn them from a variant population into a freakshow. Words matter.

What term would you use to describe straight people? Would you ever say that someone has "Opposite Sex Attraction (OSA)"?

[David T]

You fail to see the reverse, that you are ignoring legitimate concerns because they hurt your cause (which appears to me to be to bully the LDS Church and our values into your own view of the world).

JMS

jskains,

I was raised Evangelical, and pretty hardcore anti-gay.Even when I joined the LDS Church, I kept my assumptions and position of anti-gay. It's been my personal experience with homosexuals, and critically searching the scriptures and scientific arguments that have led to a change over a significant period of time to my current position. I'm not gay. As far as I know, I don't have any gay family members. I don't have a horse in the race, so to speak.

I have been shown to have my position changed by experience and evidence, and have expressed my willingness to be changed on seeing better evidence.

I examined the evidence of the assertions that were presented here as ;legitimate concerns', and find them insubstantial, dishonest, and lacking of any convincing power.

There may be some legitimate reasons for being opposed to SSM. None have yet been substantially presented in this thread.

I do think the argument with the most potential would be a legitimate study showing that children who grow up with committed and honest gay parents are significantly emotionally disadvantaged from those who grow up with equally committed and honest straight parents. I would be very interested in seeing such a study. That would certainly be worth studying and considering. An assertion that this is fact is not enough. I would need to see data.

Edited September 26, 2011 by nackhadlow

[Jaybear]

You fail to see the reverse, that you are ignoring legitimate concerns because they hurt your cause (which appears to me to be to bully the LDS Church and our values into your own view of the world).

JMS

I think the point was, the concern was not legit, but manufactured. Moreover, he didn't ignore the "concern," he looked into it, and debunked it.

The broader point is that we are still waiting for your side to come up with a secular reason to ban ay marriage. Or I suppose to simply admit that the your opposition to gay marriage is rooted in the biblical condemnation of sodomy.

[Cobalt-70]

We use 'Same-sex attraction' to describe a particular condition - it's not meant to be derogatory in any way.

We want to distinguish between thoughts/feelings and actions. To me, using the terms ‘gay’ or ‘lesbian’ imply actions as well as an ingrained cultural identity.

Whether the term is derogatory, and whether it is meant to be derogatory are two different things. Lots of people still use the word "Negro," oblivious to the fact that by doing so they are marginalizing black people. Not intentionally marginalizing them, but doing so nonetheless. It used to be that Mormons didn't like people calling them "Mormons." Mormons ought to be sensitive to the power of labels.

In today's culture, everybody understands that gay and lesbian are sexual orientations, and not acts. Moreover, there is no one "gay cultural identity." I think you are thinking of the stereotype. But there are as many different "gay cultures" as there are "straight cultures." Some gay cultures, such as Mormon gay culture, are quite chaste and celibate.

[Cobalt-70]

I do think the argument with the most potential would be a legitimate study showing that children who grow up with committed and honest gay parents are significantly emotionally disadvantaged from those who grow up with equally committed and honest straight parents. I would be very interested in seeing such a study. That would certainly be worth studying and considering. An assertion that this is fact is not enough. I would need to see data.

Studies have shown just the opposite. Many of these studies were presented during the lawsuit over Proposition 8. It turns out that children of committed gay parents are not disadvantaged. In fact, the studies that have shown any difference at all actually show that children of gay parents are a little better off (possibly in part because gay parents are less likely to be poor, they are older when they have children, and their pregnancies are never unplanned).

See, e.g.,

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1994480,00.html

[David T]

• Advocacy of Homosexuality is a conspiracy related to population control.
  
• Legalizing Gay Marriage encourages and enables the organizations trying to legalize pedosex
  
• Kids of Gay Parents are disadvantaged
  

Regrouping, what are the other non-religious / non-"I just don't like it" arguments still on the table?

EDIT: Found another:

• Allowing Gay Marriage will infringe on legal rights for the practice of opposing religions
  
• Allowing Gay Marriage will infringe on legal rights concerning public education
  

Edited September 26, 2011 by nackhadlow

[Sky]

Suppose I categorized left-handed people as suffering from "Left Hand Compulsion (LHC)"? Do you think they wouldn't be offended by that? By labeling a group with a "clinical"-sounding acronym, you turn them from a variant population into a freakshow. Words matter.

What term would you use to describe straight people? Would you ever say that someone has "Opposite Sex Attraction (OSA)"?

By using terms like ‘same-gender attraction’, I’m only trying to use the same terms that the General Authorities of the Church most often use (that is most likely the reason why other Mormons use them too). I personally think that’s a good thing. So maybe you should take the issue up with the GA’s instead.

But I personally have no problem with calling someone gay if that is the term they prefer. I use that word too. It’s easier to say and also the most recognized. I recognize it as an orientation and an identity. The problem that I have is that it tends to overshadow everything else about the person.