Gay Student Panel At Byu

[Daniel2]

I didn't go to BYU, so can someone tell me if it is a new thing for gay students to be "out"? Have there always been students who were open and honest about their homosexual inclinations, or is this a recent development?

Yes, Cinepro, this is a "new" thing for gay BYU students to be out.

I attended from 1991-1998--and there was NO open discussion, dialogue, or resources for gay BYU students.

Daniel2

[BlueDreams]

I am stating that one’s sexual orientation and/or expression of it can be chosen. This was a reaction to what I read as a blanket statement that it isn’t chosen. When someone tells me they haven’t chosen it, I take them at their word. When they apply their experience as a general representation of all others, I will not, simply because of what I have seen

Okay, now I understand. I mostly agree. Though I think it is a majority that have not chosen their sexual orientation, especially if they’re mormon.

As for the rest, I think I understand, I just have minimal opinion or apathetically disagree. Neither makes much great discussion

I think the BYU panel is great, but not necessarily long overdue.

This though I do adamantly disagree, in part for the video DaveT posted. One thing that I noticed in a number of their stories (not just this vid, per se) is a deep spiritual misunderstanding that lasted for years and was fed by a culture of silence and misunderstanding. I was surprised by how many were missing out on feeling the spirit simply because they were asking the wrong questions and seeking incorrect solutions to their struggles. I feel that this might have been realized sooner if there was more open discussion about topics that are often ignored at best.

. In the earlier stages, well-intentioned open public dialogue was exploited by the not-so well-intentioned and fed into the larger dysfunctional dynamic that resulted in the mess we see today.

Just curious, what are you referencing? Do you have specific examples?

Cinepro

I didn't go to BYU, so can someone tell me if it is a new thing for gay students to be "out"? Have there always been students who were open and honest about their homosexual inclinations, or is this a recent development?

Well I can’t compare to far in the past. I haven’t met that many “out” students and even from the meeting, it wasn’t a full out and out, but more selective. There were a full range of how open people were with it, even among the 4 who were telling their stories before a large crowd. I've only had 2 friends, personally tell me about their sexual orientation, so it's not like I have a large sample size to work on.

I’d assume this is more of a recent development.

Frankly, after seeing all those videos on YouTube, it seems like this could get out of hand. There may be a strong current of support from many students, faculty and Church leaders, but I think there may be other students, faculty and Church leaders that have a limit to how much "openness" and acceptance they can offer.

Eh, I’m more optimistic. I think far more people are ready to handle this amount of “openness” than is realized, especially among the younger generations. Where there’s a good number, I think it also allows for more dialogue with those who do not understand. Where there are more extreme beliefs about homosexuality, many of these can also be resolved. But it never really can until there is an awareness that they are problems. It’s not always easy, but I think it’s worth it

With luv,

BD

Edited April 6, 2012 by BlueDreams

[Matthew J. Tandy]

Good video.

I would point out two minor quibbles:

1) I could be wrong, but that numbers they use for Gay students at BYU appear to be based off of national averages. This would be wrong for many reasons. First off, many people who otherwise may consider being LGB don't because they have overcome those feelings, or view it as something they choose not to identify as despite any occasional thoughts. The line that marks when one is Gay versus not Gay can be fuzzy, and is more like a general grouping of thoughts and behavior that can have a lot of variation therein. What one considers gay, another may not, and vice versa. Additionally, and more importantly, it's probably safe to assume that less people who identify as LGBT would attend BYU to begin with, either because the LGBT community is not very associated with conservative groups (and so they won't feel welcome based on political ideology, sexual ideology aside, if they feel the BYU environment is not politically open), or because they feel they cannot "be themselves" in terms of openness about being LGBT, at BYU. The video and meeting may change that dynamic, but for now, it seems use of the national percentages to identify LGBT at BYU is disingenuous, if not outright dishonest in an attempt to make it seem like a bigger "current" issue than it is.

2) One of the guys mentioned that he went on a mission believing it would help him overcome his homosexual attractions. Going on a mission to "overcome" being gay is possibly more senseless than going on a mission to overcome immoral behavior. I have no doubt that someone, maybe even a well meaning ecclesiastical leader or friend, suggested it, but it's still silly. I would not be surprised though if the spiritual lessons he learned on his mission helped him to find peace now.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

One third quibble:

3) There will be backlash and a bad end result if they do not make more clear in things such as the video that the church's doctrine does not allow for acting LGB relations. That being open and honest is ok, and you are still loved, but acting on those feelings sexually will likely lead to disfellowship or excommunication, especially for endowed members. It is apparent from the panel that at least one, if not two, of them are considering an active homosexual lifestyle, adn they need to be clear that has a different acceptance level than simply being open and honest about your attractions.

[cinepro]

Eh, I’m more optimistic. I think far more people are ready to handle this amount of “openness” than is realized, especially among the younger generations.

It's not the younger generations I'd be worried about.

If this thing grows too far beyond being a novelty and homosexuality, even celibate homosexuality, starts to be viewed as an acceptable lifestyle, I would expect furrowed brows.

If any of the poster-children give into temptation and pair up and/or leave the Church or become too vocal in their desire for change, then that's it for the era of enlightenment.

[BlueDreams]

Matthew: Just on number 2, I think that comment might have been connected to a common problem, that was talked about at the forum about trying to bargain with God, or expecting faith (and subsequent faith actions) to heal them of their desires. The logis would go: my feelings are wrong, God teaches us to repent and be healed, ergo my wrong feelings will go away because God wouldn't make me this way.

With luv,

BD

[Kenngo1969]

Matthew: Just on number 2, I think that comment might have been connected to a common problem, that was talked about at the forum about trying to bargain with God, or expecting faith (and subsequent faith actions) to heal them of their desires. The logis would go: my feelings are wrong, God teaches us to repent and be healed, ergo my wrong feelings will go away because God wouldn't make me this way.

With luv,

BD

[Emphasis added]

Feelings are neither right nor wrong; they simply are; it's what one does with them that matters. Acknowledging one's feelings while at the same time committing to live a life in accordance with the principles of the Gospel of Jesus Christ seems, to me, to be a reasonable resolution.

Edited April 6, 2012 by Kenngo1969

[Matthew J. Tandy]

Matthew: Just on number 2, I think that comment might have been connected to a common problem, that was talked about at the forum about trying to bargain with God, or expecting faith (and subsequent faith actions) to heal them of their desires. The logis would go: my feelings are wrong, God teaches us to repent and be healed, ergo my wrong feelings will go away because God wouldn't make me this way.

Yeah, I realize that. It was more of a quibble with the line of thinking in regards to the mission. They do in a sense correct it. The flip side is that I don't think they should be promoting a view that God didn't make them that way, or that he did. Neither is valid,s ince God may have made one person in one way, and simply allowed the other to happen. It depends on the challenges in life each person is to have. I think this comes into greater focus when we take away the LGB community adn focus solely on Transexuals. If you have both body parts, how does a faithful member of the gospel resolve the who and why as well as their role in the gospel and sexual relations. That is where the deepest questions about it all lay in my mind.

[BlueDreams]

Feelings are neither right nor wrong; they simply are; it's what one does with them that matters. Acknowledging one's feelings while at the same time committing to live a life in accordance with the principles of the Gospel of Jesus Christ seems, to me, to be a reasonable compromise.

I would very much agree. My concern and interest is that this message isn't reaching the youth who are struggling with SGA and are more aware that their feeling in part because of the way homosexuality is discussed (or not) when they are young.

With luv,

BD

[Kenngo1969]

It's not the younger generations I'd be worried about.

If this thing grows too far beyond being a novelty and homosexuality, even celibate homosexuality, starts to be viewed as an acceptable lifestyle, I would expect furrowed brows.

If any of the poster-children give into temptation and pair up and/or leave the Church or become too vocal in their desire for change, then that's it for the era of enlightenment.

For clarification, what "thing" are you referring to, whose brows would you expect to furrow, and which poster-children are you referring to?

[Kenngo1969]

I would very much agree. My concern and interest is that this message isn't reaching the youth who are struggling with SGA and are more aware that their feeling in part because of the way homosexuality is discussed (or not) when they are young.

With luv,

BD

Here's to more events like the one which took place at BYU then. (Yes, I realize that's easier said than done, but it's certainly a good start.)

[Cobalt-70]

I added that in a highly sexualized environment, sexual orientation easily becomes an option tied to underlying motives that would not have otherwise been present in a more balanced environment. It is human nature for many to be “tipped” one way of the other in their orientation, expression and behavior by the encouragement, reward or recruitment systems they are enmeshed with. I believe this is so because people are born with or somewhere along a gradient of “natural in-born” orientation. Mass media and communication facilitates their being receptive to or influenced by the options. Such an environment contributes to one’s hypersensitivity and personal need to discuss it on an individual and public basis once they start to feel different and ostracized, the threshold of which, despite (or perhaps due to) an air of tolerance, becomes lower and lower.

....

I think the BYU panel is great, but not necessarily long overdue. My observation is that the current need was, in part, inadvertently fueled by well-intentioned but naive efforts in previous decades. The need for such frank public conversation and debate about sex, gender, and sexual orientation arises where societies have become either over- or under-sexualized to the point that its interests (in these discussions represented by marriage and biological families as the foundation of society) are compromised. What we have seen over the last 20-30 years is massive sexualization and its objectivization, and as far as the Church goes, efforts by the faithful to maintain a normalcy and family-centered tone while living in such an environment. In the earlier stages, well-intentioned open public dialogue was exploited by the not-so well-intentioned and fed into the larger dysfunctional dynamic that resulted in the mess we see today. As the need to discuss it becomes stronger, I’m confident the Church, like Jacob in chapter 2, will continue to address it through appropriate mechanisms with a supportive attitude toward all members regardless of orientation.

Respectfully, I don't think you know what you are talking about. You seem to be saying that, if people would just not talk about sexual orientation, nobody would be gay or lesbian. You also seem to be saying that references to sexual orientation is "sexualizing" and "objectivizing" people. How so? Every time someone says to a man, "Hey, how's your wife?" they are referring to sexual orientation. Whenever a man says, "I'm going on a date with my girlfriend," that is a reference to sexual orientation. Do such statements sexualize or objectivize anyone? Most gay and lesbian people, especially in the LDS church, have grown up with orders of magnitude more references to straightness than to gayness. Yet why are they still gay?

If you talk about "reward systems," how is homosexual orientation ever rewarded in our culture, particularly in the LDS Church?

[Cobalt-70]

1) I could be wrong, but that numbers they use for Gay students at BYU appear to be based off of national averages. This would be wrong for many reasons. First off, many people who otherwise may consider being LGB don't because they have overcome those feelings, or view it as something they choose not to identify as despite any occasional thoughts. The line that marks when one is Gay versus not Gay can be fuzzy, and is more like a general grouping of thoughts and behavior that can have a lot of variation therein. What one considers gay, another may not, and vice versa. Additionally, and more importantly, it's probably safe to assume that less people who identify as LGBT would attend BYU to begin with, either because the LGBT community is not very associated with conservative groups (and so they won't feel welcome based on political ideology, sexual ideology aside, if they feel the BYU environment is not politically open), or because they feel they cannot "be themselves" in terms of openness about being LGBT, at BYU. The video and meeting may change that dynamic, but for now, it seems use of the national percentages to identify LGBT at BYU is disingenuous, if not outright dishonest in an attempt to make it seem like a bigger "current" issue than it is.

I agree on your general point that LGBT Mormons probably self-select, first on the issue of being Mormons, and second on the issue of going to BYU. But I don't think the disparity is likely to be too vast, considering that very few LGBT Mormons come out prior to going to college, and often they have not yet even admitted to themselves that they are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgendered. (It doesn't help that the church is always vascillating on whether gay and lesbian people exist or not, or whether people who "call themselves" gay or lesbian are really just straight people with "SSA," a rather demeaning acronym that sounds like a disease.)

[Jaybear]

Remarkable video. You have to admire and respect them for having the courage to come out at BYU in the service of others.

The lesson they seem to be communicating to young gay Mormons appears to be life will get better once they accept the reality that they are gay.

[CV75]

I am stating that one’s sexual orientation and/or expression of it can be chosen. This was a reaction to what I read as a blanket statement that it isn’t chosen. When someone tells me they haven’t chosen it, I take them at their word. When they apply their experience as a general representation of all others, I will not, simply because of what I have seen

Okay, now I understand. I mostly agree. Though I think it is a majority that have not chosen their sexual orientation, especially if they’re mormon.

As for the rest, I think I understand, I just have minimal opinion or apathetically disagree. Neither makes much great discussion

I think the BYU panel is great, but not necessarily long overdue.

This though I do adamantly disagree, in part for the video DaveT posted. One thing that I noticed in a number of their stories (not just this vid, per se) is a deep spiritual misunderstanding that lasted for years and was fed by a culture of silence and misunderstanding. I was surprised by how many were missing out on feeling the spirit simply because they were asking the wrong questions and seeking incorrect solutions to their struggles. I feel that this might have been realized sooner if there was more open discussion about topics that are often ignored at best.

. In the earlier stages, well-intentioned open public dialogue was exploited by the not-so well-intentioned and fed into the larger dysfunctional dynamic that resulted in the mess we see today.

Just curious, what are you referencing? Do you have specific examples?

RE: specific examples, I do but they are all from personal experience and observation and from the 70’s and 80’s, and I haven’t done the research to see if there have been any formal studies or reports of such. I’m trying to keep my comments general, because any specific can be just as quickly dismissed, and in my approach is that the principle drives the specifics anyway.

RE: BYU's panel, I believe deep spiritual misunderstanding that is influenced by the traditions of men occurs on many subjects and they all make people unnecessarily (avoidably) miserable (“if I only knew/did then what I know now.” A certain threshold must be met, however, before an organization puts resources into general approaches and solutions to address the impact on the general membership. This threshold is both qualitative and quantitative and is defined by the broader impact on general membership. I think BYU has done this with the panels. Prior to such a threshold being met for BYU or the Church to step in more overtly, I believe the Lord always finds a way to help someone through their trials. I have many anecdotal experiences with this as well, and I think I’ve seen a few shared in this thread.

[CV75]

Respectfully, I don't think you know what you are talking about. You seem to be saying that, if people would just not talk about sexual orientation, nobody would be gay or lesbian. You also seem to be saying that references to sexual orientation is "sexualizing" and "objectivizing" people. How so? Every time someone says to a man, "Hey, how's your wife?" they are referring to sexual orientation. Whenever a man says, "I'm going on a date with my girlfriend," that is a reference to sexual orientation. Do such statements sexualize or objectivize anyone? Most gay and lesbian people, especially in the LDS church, have grown up with orders of magnitude more references to straightness than to gayness. Yet why are they still gay?

If you talk about "reward systems," how is homosexual orientation ever rewarded in our culture, particularly in the LDS Church?

I will leave you with that conclusion, though I think you should study up on what I explained in post #46. Hint: I am not saying what you say I seem to be saying; it seems you do not know what does sexualize and objectivize someone in the context and manner I described. Find out, and then you might know how to discuss this without mischaracterizing. But your method of engagement will also have to be more conducive to further discussion; you'll understand if I don't bite.

I don’t think growing up LDS automatically shields someone from the negative aspects of society (The impetus for “For the Strength of Youth” comes to mind, along with all the warnings about society’s role from the pulpit). No member is really immune from any influence the rest of the world faces; our leaders aren’t pretending otherwise.

Note that I said that the condition of our society can be a factor and a facilitator in making choices about sexual orientation, and is not the sole cause of / process defining sexual orientation (see posts #50, 68).

Edited April 6, 2012 by CV75

[Matthew J. Tandy]

"call themselves" gay or lesbian are really just straight people with "SSA," a rather demeaning acronym that sounds like a disease.)

SSA is not insulting unless you choose to believe it is. Every LGB is so because of same sex attraction. How is that demeaning? It is a fact, and is not morally judgemental in any way.

the church is always vascillating on whether gay and lesbian people exist or not

No, they are not. No one questions their existence. The only question has been theological or biological in terms of the how and why. Not "do they exist".

But I don't think the disparity is likely to be too vast, considering that very few LGBT Mormons come out prior to going to college, and often they have not yet even admitted to themselves that they are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgendered

That is probably true. There is though the factor that most male students at BYU served missions, so they had more time to "figure it out" so to speak. The principle of the matter is that it is erroneous to beleive that the same national averages can be flatly applied with accuracy to the BYU population and then presented as fact.

[Mark Beesley]

I can understand a need to have a support group to deal with challenges. I can understand the need to be able to talk frankly with parents about challenges. I can understand the need to be able to talk with ecclasiastical leaders about challenges. I can understand the need to be able to open and honest with friends about challenges.

What I don't understand is the need for public declarations of sexual orientation. Does it provide some kind of catharsis to state on a video intended for unlimited internet distribution that one is gay and LDS? What catharsis is that? Isn't sexuality, in all its varients, intended to be, primarily, a private matter?

[David T]

I can understand a need to have a support group to deal with challenges. I can understand the need to be able to talk frankly with parents about challenges. I can understand the need to be able to talk with ecclasiastical leaders about challenges. I can understand the need to be able to open and honest with friends about challenges.

What I don't understand is the need for public declarations of sexual orientation. Does it provide some kind of catharsis to state on a video intended for unlimited internet distribution that one is gay and LDS? What catharsis is that? Isn't sexuality, in all its varients, intended to be, primarily, a private matter?

It's part of a video series ("It Gets Better")specifically designed to be seen by gay individuals who are contemplating Suicide, and features the testimony and pleading of those featured saying - don't do it. It does/can get better. You're not alone in your struggles. To have those who are specifically gay and LDS saying this speaks to and means something to some individuals that other gay individuals can not.

It's an act of service, reaching out, and showing compassion. Not self-catharsis.

Edited April 7, 2012 by David T

[Mark Beesley]

It's part of a video series ("It Gets Better")specifically designed to be seen by gay individuals who are contemplating Suicide, and features the testimony and pleading of those featured saying - don't do it. It does/can get better. You're not alone in your struggles. To have those who are specifically gay and LDS saying this speaks to and means something to some individuals that other gay individuals can not.

It's an act of service, reaching out, and showing compassion. Not self-catharsis.

And I can appreciate that as a noble motive. Seems there ought to be a better distribution vehicle than the internet.

[Chris Smith]

If it were a video featuring people struggling with alcoholism, you wouldn't be complaining.

I can think of no particular reason these people shouldn't be free to speak as publicly about this as they please.

[Saints Alive]

If it were a video featuring people struggling with alcoholism, you wouldn't be complaining.

I can think of no particular reason these people shouldn't be free to speak as publicly about this as they please.

maybe not alcoholics but if it were for drug addicts they might wish to keep it private

[Cobalt-70]

I will leave you with that conclusion, though I think you should study up on what I explained in post #46. Hint: I am not saying what you say I seem to be saying; it seems you do not know what does sexualize and objectivize someone in the context and manner I described. Find out, and then you might know how to discuss this without mischaracterizing. But your method of engagement will also have to be more conducive to further discussion; you'll understand if I don't bite.

I don’t think growing up LDS automatically shields someone from the negative aspects of society (The impetus for “For the Strength of Youth” comes to mind, along with all the warnings about society’s role from the pulpit). No member is really immune from any influence the rest of the world faces; our leaders aren’t pretending otherwise.

Note that I said that the condition of our society can be a factor and a facilitator in making choices about sexual orientation, and is not the sole cause of / process defining sexual orientation (see posts #50, 68).

Yah. I re-read your #46, 50, and 68 and I still don't know exactly what specific things you are talking about by which society is "sexualized and objectified," which also happen to contribute to children "becoming gay." Can you please give an example? Surely you're not talking about the Teletubbies or Ernie and Bert. (By the way, I just picked up your mention of "recruitment systems" in #68. Are you saying there are gay and straight recruitment systems?)

Or maybe you are saying that the portrayal of too much straight sexuality contributes to the process by which people become gay or lesbian. So for example when society pressures young girls to be super-skinny, wear intense makeup, and dress like a floozy, that somehow contributes to them becoming lesbian?

[BlueDreams]

RE: specific examples, I do but they are all from personal experience and observation and from the 70’s and 80’s, and I haven’t done the research to see if there have been any formal studies or reports of such. I’m trying to keep my comments general, because any specific can be just as quickly dismissed, and in my approach is that the principle drives the specifics anyway..

I believe context drives the specifics, especially when understanding human behavior. Without context, theories or principles cannot even be tested for accuracy. There are no written laws for social or psychological studies, so to understand means living within the current context. I do find it problematic, on this note, that the only examples would come from the 70's/80's. That was contextually very different from where we are now.

With luv,

BD

[Damien the Leper]

Besides my cousin, I have a gay uncle. Actually, I'm not related to him, he's my late stepmother's youngest brother. He's in his 70's now, and after his last gay partner died of AIDS, he married his partner's wife. Talk about a perplexing outcome.

This whole subject is perplexing.

That is perplexing. Why does it seem to mirror an OT practice?