Gay Student Panel At Byu

[CV75]

Then, how long did it take BYU to actually hold this Panel? *** It has been overdue for a while.

I think that holding them earlier would not have stayed the pervasive and dysfunctional sexualization of societies (most notably the children within those societies) that has made such discussion necessary. The widespread sexualization of the innocent during their formative years (whether by abuse, training or mere exposure to sexualized media, fashion, discourse, etc.) over the last 20-30 years has created in many a dependence on public acceptance of personal orientation, motive and behavior. The early panels were unwittingly part of the sexualization program.

[Minos]

Any further discussion of criminal acts is off-topic and will result in thread banning or suspension. If BYU holds a panel with respectful dialogue we expect the same here.

Moderators are conferring about potential board bannings. It should be clear by now that we are in agreement that this board will not allow itself to be used to spread bigotry of any kind. That includes demeaning, degrading or insulting comments about any group of people. If anyone wants to pick nits about that they are invited to leave before they are escorted out.

[Chris Smith]

I also recommend that anyone who is interested in this topic read through Taylor Petrey's recent article in Dialogue, "Toward a Post-Heterosexual Mormon Theology" (available online). I've seen LDS bloggers rave that this article does for gays what Lester Bush's famous Dialogue article did for blacks-- namely, exposed the "ban" as a folklore-based policy and demonstrated that there is doctrinal room for the ban to be lifted. I'm not a Mormon, so it's not my place to agree or disagree with that assessment. But I can tell you that the article is well-written and certainly food for thought.

[lostinmd]

I also recommend that anyone who is interested in this topic read through Taylor Petrey's recent article in Dialogue, "Toward a Post-Heterosexual Mormon Theology" (available online). I've seen LDS bloggers rave that this article does for gays what Lester Bush's famous Dialogue article did for blacks-- namely, exposed the "ban" as a folklore-based policy and demonstrated that there is doctrinal room for the ban to be lifted. I'm not a Mormon, so it's not my place to agree or disagree with that assessment. But I can tell you that the article is well-written and certainly food for thought.

Thanks for the link Chris. I hope life and research are treating you well.

[Chris Smith]

Thanks for the link Chris. I hope life and research are treating you well.

Thanks. They are! I hope life is treating you well, too.

[cinepro]

I thought the thread title was a joke, and I expected the OP to be the punch line. Imagine my surprise to find out that there really was a panel! Thanks for the great write up BlueDreams.

As I've mentioned before, I lived in a ward that encompassed the "gay" part of town, so we had many active and inactive gay members of our EQ. One of the saddest days of my life was when a good friend in the ward (a single man in his 30s) came out of the closet and left the Church. He still had a testimony, but he finally decided that if the Celestial Kingdom meant living a celibate or heterosexual existence, then he wasn't interested anymore.

I can't imagine many things worse than being gay in the Church, and anything that helps make life easier for them is a great thing in my book.

[Bikeemikey]

Yes, then we can allow even more non-standard sexual lifestyles access just because someone wants it. Pedophilia, Incest... I mean, they can't CONTROL it, so the Church should just stop making it a sin!

Alcoholism too. That's just not fair. They can't CONTROL their alchoholism, so the Word of Wisdom makes them feel bad and unloved. Time to ditch it..

JMS

JMS has left the building.

This kind of thinking is so unnecessary. Happy it isn't widely held by LDS folks I know.

[Saints Alive]

This kind of thinking is so unnecessary. Happy it isn't widely held by LDS folks I know.

it may not have been articulated well but I think JMSs underlying point is valid. We can't say that the church must accept a certain lifestyle as ok because some claim they were born a certain way. That being said, it is required of us to forgive all and to love our neibors, regardless of thier choices. Edited April 5, 2012 by Saints Alive

[mbh26]

Outside pressures and expectations can often make people make choices they would not otherwise make.

Agreed. But if the Church were to accept gay marriage, would you have people choosing to be gay for a while and then choosing to be straight later? Where would you draw the line? Often times the homosexual behavior I see in the real world seems to have a lot to do with the environment. Are they in prison, the military? etc.

I can see how some people could honestly change in their sexual attraction. Some people even have conditions that cause them to start life being physically female only to become physically male at puberty. i.e. huevos doches as it is referred to in the Dominican Republic But how do you maintain lifelong family continuity if you follow such desires?

The answer is of course it was never a conscious decision, it just always seems to be a part of who you are.

That's true. Growing up Mormon I fought the fact that I was attracted to women because I knew it was wrong to marry a nonmember. But it didn't matter, I was still attracted to them. As much as I get tired of putting up with women, I'm only attracted to women. I could see where gay men would be more attractive to women. They genuinely enjoy doing girly things. I put up with those type of activities until the girl would tell me she just wanted to be friends. Needless to say, those friendships never lasted long for me.

Ask any adult what is important about their relationships with the one they love and most will tell you that the sex is way down the list of what binds them together.

Maybe this is just part of being male, but sex is probably at the top of my list on what keeps me bound to women.

Many guys have followed this course that your companions father followed. Most feel like if they just try hard enough they too could learn to become straight. And the majority of times, these types of marriages fail. At one time many church leaders counseled gay men to get married in hopes that the attraction to men would go away. In recent years the church has discontinued this practice.

I guess it was just a shock. This man served a mission and was married long enough to have a son nearly complete his mission. It never came out before that, as far as we know, not even on the mission. I know accusations of homosexuality was a common way nonMormons would try to insult Mormon missionaries.

The church now counsels that marriage is not therapy for being gay.

That makes more sense based on what we know now. It's a shame it's taken this long to figure that out.

Edited April 5, 2012 by mbh26

[selek1]

The available evidence indicates that this BYU panel was set up to foster understanding and exposure to new ideas- not to foster perversity or "normalize" deviancy.

As such, I have no problem with the panel or the discussion.

When, however, posters on this board move beyond that prurpose and attempt to advance their pet projects of either homosexual activism or simply, bigoted, anti-Mormonism, they have left behind the purpose and principle of the panel.

Likewise, if the moderators become enablers and protectors of such efforts, they have abdicated their responsibiliies as moderators and become partisans.

I am all for a reasonable, self-disciplined, cordial discussion.

I am NOT for a one-sided hatefest where political correctness and anti-Mormon bigotry are the rule of the day.

Take a break.

[Sky]

I thought the thread title was a joke, and I expected the OP to be the punch line. Imagine my surprise to find out that there really was a panel! Thanks for the great write up BlueDreams.

As I've mentioned before, I lived in a ward that encompassed the "gay" part of town, so we had many active and inactive gay members of our EQ. One of the saddest days of my life was when a good friend in the ward (a single man in his 30s) came out of the closet and left the Church. He still had a testimony, but he finally decided that if the Celestial Kingdom meant living a celibate or heterosexual existence, then he wasn't interested anymore.

I can't imagine many things worse than being gay in the Church, and anything that helps make life easier for them is a great thing in my book.

Here are some blogs about gay Mormons that are faithful...

(Gay) Mormon Guy

Gay Mormon Pioneer

[phaedrus ut]

I applaud BYU for having such an event and for the gay LDS students who were brave enough to out themselves to their peers to discuss such an issue. Judging by the turnout it seems clear that fear and animosity against gays is much less prevalent in the younger generations than some of the posters here.

Phaedrus

[Buzzard]

I also recommend that anyone who is interested in this topic read through Taylor Petrey's recent article in Dialogue, "Toward a Post-Heterosexual Mormon Theology" (available online). I've seen LDS bloggers rave that this article does for gays what Lester Bush's famous Dialogue article did for blacks-- namely, exposed the "ban" as a folklore-based policy and demonstrated that there is doctrinal room for the ban to be lifted. I'm not a Mormon, so it's not my place to agree or disagree with that assessment. But I can tell you that the article is well-written and certainly food for thought.

Well, it is skillfully written to advance the writers POV. But as a reasonably orthodox LDS, let me be the first to assure you it is irredeemably heritical and apostate. Ain't gonna happen. Not now, not next year, not next millenium.

And that's all I have to say about that. Based on the casualties already from this thread, participating on it looks like a good way to get a forced vacation from the board, and I'd rather not have to do that.

Edited April 5, 2012 by Buzzard

[Damien the Leper]

Yes, then we can allow even more non-standard sexual lifestyles access just because someone wants it. Pedophilia, Incest... I mean, they can't CONTROL it, so the Church should just stop making it a sin!

Alcoholism too. That's just not fair. They can't CONTROL their alchoholism, so the Word of Wisdom makes them feel bad and unloved. Time to ditch it..

JMS

JMS has left the building.

I find it fascinating that certain slippery slope arguments are promoted in certain discussions such as this one and considered inappropriate in others. Slippery Slope, no matter the context, is and always will be a logical fallacy.

Edited April 5, 2012 by Valentinus

[Cobalt-70]

Well, it is skillfully written to advance the writers POV. But as a reasonably orthodox LDS, let me be the first to assure you it is irredeemably heritical and apostate. Ain't gonna happen. Not now, not next year, not next millenium.

And that's all I have to say about that. Based on the casualties already from this thread, participating on it looks like a good way to get a forced vacation from the board, and I'd rather not have to do that.

Heterodox, maybe, but not heretical. I don't want to be the one that sets boundaries which the church supposedly will never cross. Lots of people who had done that in 1978 with respect to blacks ended up leaving the church. Something similar happened n 1890. But I do agree that there is not currently a recognizable path toward a post-heterosexual Mormonism. Too many changes would need to occur first, and we already know that attitudes towards gays and lesbians are a generational issue. The main reason public opinion on gay marriage is changing in the United States as a whole is because old people are dying off, and young people are turning 18 with the right to vote. So we have to look at the opinions of current college-age young people in the church, and fast-forward another 40 years to when that generation will be exercising their maximum political power in the church. And I don't think the current crop of BYU students is to that point yet, or anywhere close to it.

[Damien the Leper]

The already DO have the ability to gain full access to Church rights. I'm not sure what you think is going to happen in a decade or two, I'll tell you this much, I don't think the church will ever condone homosexual physical relationships or marriage.

I'm okay with this. The LDS church has every right to hold its own opinion on the matter. Whatever the church decides then that is what it is meant to decide. The relevance to that decision is specifically directed toward the members of the LDS church and hold no bearing on those outside of it.

[Cobalt-70]

I think that holding them earlier would not have stayed the pervasive and dysfunctional sexualization of societies (most notably the children within those societies) that has made such discussion necessary. The widespread sexualization of the innocent during their formative years (whether by abuse, training or mere exposure to sexualized media, fashion, discourse, etc.) over the last 20-30 years has created in many a dependence on public acceptance of personal orientation, motive and behavior. The early panels were unwittingly part of the sexualization program.

But I don't think this is about sex at all. Talking about sexual orientation is not talking about sex, anymore than talking about gender (masculinity or femininity) is about sex. We teach our boys to play with Lego robots, and our girls to play with rainbow-colored pony dolls, but who among us thinks that by so doing we are sexualizing our children? So why is it any different when we talk about orientation?

Edited April 5, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[CV75]

Who knows what causes these feelings of who we are attracted to deep inside of us. Even the church has stated that they do not understand what causes someone to be gay. We don't really wake up and decide what gender we are attracted to. The question often asked is "when did you decide you were attracted to women?" The answer is of course it was never a conscious decision, it just always seems to be a part of who you are.

<snip> The most misunderstood fact about being gay is that it is about sex. While sex is a component with sexual orientation it is not the primary drive whether you are straight or gay. Ask any adult what is important about their relationships with the one they love and most will tell you that the sex is way down the list of what binds them together.

<snip> The church now counsels that marriage is not therapy for being gay.

Where children are increasingly exposed to all the options at an earlier age, and society is increasingly sexualized, I think sexual orientation has increasingly become a matter of choice in increasing numbers. Where that is the case, the motives are increasingly less likely to be sexual.

And if, as you say, most adults rank sex low on the list of binding factors in a long-term, monogamous, loving relationship, sexual orientation would not prove to be the barrier it is to traditional marriage.

In either case, will the demand arise to treat those who choose differently than those who did not choose?

[Damien the Leper]

it may not have been articulated well but I think JMSs underlying point is valid. We can't say that the church must accept a certain lifestyle as ok because some claim they were born a certain way. That being said, it is required of us to forgive all and to love our neibors, regardless of thier choices.

Whether the LDS church believes a persons claim to be valid is irrelevant. The GAs do not represent the mind and will of God but are mere proponents of a specific stigma or system of beliefs and principles. If the LDS GAs are unable to accept the authority in the scientific and psychological studies as provided by the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association then that is on them and is their problem. I mean no disrespect by my statements.

[BlueDreams]

CV75: I don't know if I'm the only one....but i don't understand what your last post is say at all...do you mind restating it

[CV75]

But I don't think this is about sex at all. Talking about sexual orientation is not talking about sex, anymore than talking about gender (masculinity or femininity) is about sex. We teach our boys to play with Lego robots, and our girls to play with rainbow-colored pony dolls, but who among us thinks that by so doing we are sexualizing our children?

The definition I'm using is the pervasiveness of sex in media and culture, particularly where it is represented to and discused with children in insensitive, age-inappropriate ways, which effcetively objectivizes the acts, types (pending orientation) and the people so engaged. This is related to the problem of others making a child see himself, making him to be seen, and making him to realize that he is to be seen as sexual in nature (whatever that may mean to teh child), or to become aware of his sexuality (or imitation of it) on an adult’s terms. This is not a healthy form of sexualization and shows up later as an inordinate need to be artificially and overtly recognized for something that once developed more naturally.

[Cobalt-70]

The definition I'm using is the pervasiveness of sex in media and culture, particularly where it is represented to and discused with children in insensitive, age-inappropriate ways, which effcetively objectivizes the acts, types (pending orientation) and the people so engaged. This is related to the problem of others making a child see himself, making him to be seen, and making him to realize that he is to be seen as sexual in nature (whatever that may mean to teh child), or to become aware of his sexuality (or imitation of it) on an adult’s terms. This is not a healthy form of sexualization and shows up later as an inordinate need to be artificially and overtly recognized for something that once developed more naturally.

If you are suggesting that talking to kids about gays and lesbians makes them homosexual, or makes them self-conscious about their bodies, then I don't think there is any scientific support for that. If you are talking about things like portrayals of young children in provocative clothing and poses, then I think that is solely a heterosexual-related problem.

[Damien the Leper]

If you are suggesting that talking to kids about gays and lesbians makes them homosexual, or makes them self-conscious about their bodies, then I don't think there is any scientific support for that. If you are talking about things like portrayals of young children in provocative clothing and poses, then I think that is solely a heterosexual-related problem.

Agreed. Suggesting that homosexuality is nurtured or is a choice is fallacious.

[Grundelwalken]

What I took from the summary (thanks BlueDreams) is that these four individuals have found a way to deal with the feelings/thoughts/desires they have in a constructive and appropriate way. They are not advocating (at least not from the notes) any changes in doctrine or action by the Church and they are not saying they will leave. I applaud their personal commitment to a religion they believe in and I am deeply touched that they have worked so hard in the face of such a difficult "problem" (please don't derail with discussion that it's not a problem).

I would hope that if one of my children or grandchildren were in a similar situation, they would have a testimony of such strength as to be able to find a way to live within the boundaries, while still recognizing they are different. As I see it (and I do not profess to have any idea how difficult this is) isn't this exactly what God is asking each of us to do with our lives.

I know some will think this is a lame example but I'm going to use it anyway. My mother was born with an obsessive behavior (alcohol) and for many years she was unable to control her attraction to anything alcoholic. I KNOW THIS IS NOT THE SAME AS SGA!!! But she has had to learn ways to overcome her thoughts/feelings/desires in order to find a way to receive the blessings of the gospel. It is not something that just turns off -- in fact, she still craves the ingestion of some of her favorites. But she does resist! Some days it is all she can do, but she resists.

The young people on that panel have an idea what it means to overcome the body and its desires. That is all God is asking. I don't know how HE will make it up to people with SGA and I really don't know how HE will make it up to my mom, but I have great faith that HE will. Sometimes this life has very unfair parts. For all of us. It's on purpose. Let's learn and get over ourselves. MW

[CV75]

CV75: I don't know if I'm the only one....but i don't understand what your last post is say at all...do you mind restating it

OK, maybe post #46 helps, at least serves as a preface (???):

I was responding to the assertions that 1) sexual orientation is not a choice; and 2) sex in a mature relationship is not the primary factor in keeping a couple together as they relate a) to homosexuality and b) the Church’s stance on marriage not being designed for homosexual relationships, either as a same-sex institution or for changing one’s orientation to heterosexual.

My first point is that, while it is generally accepted that we don’t know how one is homosexual, and that it is generally asserted that it is not a choice, it seems to me that in recent years more people are choosing to be gay by virtue of living in a world where the option is presented in an overtly sexualized environment at an early age (using the definition I offered in #46). This allows a choice to made on factors, pressures, drives, etc. that are not sexual in nature at all. The more one objectivizes others and himself, sexuality and sexual expression and acts (which is easy to in the overtly sexualized environment), the easier it is to visualize, entertain, accommodate sexual feelings through a variety of chosen expressions.

The second point is that, if sex is not so important to long-term monogamy, then in those increasing numbers of cases where homosexual expression is a choice, a homosexual could find lasting happiness in a heterosexual relationship. It could work the other way around as well.

The third point is, where orientation is a choice, and/or where sex isn’t a primary factor in long-term relationship, the Church’s stance on marriage is reasonable to expect of its members.

I think many people would say that their sexual relationship is an important, meaningful and abiding aspect of their long term emotional and spiritual relationship. I think it is a deeply personal experience as to which is the chicken and which is the egg in this dynamic; both support the other, at the very least in different balances at different seasons of life and at most all life-long.

My question was to challenge the grounds under which any of the following other combinations should be treated differently: Orientation chosen / sex is a primary factor; Orientation not chosen / sex not a primary factor; Orientation not chosen / sex a primary factor. I think that ultimately, the institution of temple marriage is not about sexual orientation but about eternal relationships between men and women and the reasons for them, regardless of choices and the relative importance of sex to them in this life.

I hope this didn't muddle it up further!