Church Making Further Movements Toward Respect For Gay Members

[Calm]

I think your post raises some interesting issues, Flyonthewall.

Certainly, people who are depressed or are suffering from ADHD are often negatively affected by it. But what about a scenario where the situation is a mixed bag of good, bad, and indifferent.

Certainly, autism is a problem, but if someone comes to accept themselves as autistic, should they change? What if the autistic person is a savant, and that talent that comes with being a savant would end once the person is cured from autism?

I think an excellent example is the deaf community who have created their own culture where many not only have no personal desire to hear, but see it as a betrayal of the community to have any form of medical treatment to restore or allow hearing for the first time.

Is it wrong to suggest to a deaf person they might be missing out on music and other experiences that might be worth the cost of losing the unique circumstances of being deaf in a functioning community?

Google "deaf community against cochlear implants" for articles on the ongoing debate.

Edited October 30, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

.

One of the big losses of my life is I feel I don't even know my nieces and nephews. They were young when I was still in the closet. Now they are all grown up. I never got to know them. I am sure that is how your uncle feels about not having a relationship with you. Oh well. Life goes on. It is not over yet.

I've missed a great deal of certain youth in my extended family's life and possibly will never have contact with one of them again. One doesn't have to be gay to experience alienation from family members.

I am not trying to downplay the difficulty of having homosexual tendencies which range from mild for some to overwhelmingly life altering, even life ruling for others. I am merely challenging this sense of uniqueness that seems to be so often claimed for it and which, just like anything else that uses the "but this is different" paradigm may inhibit finding useful and healthy ways of living with whatever hardship one is burdened with.

Edited October 30, 2012 by calmoriah

[Nathair/|\]

From time to time, I hear people saying that God is cursing America because we tolerate gays, but it seems to me that if we are being cursed for anything, it's our lack of charity. I fully endorse the law of chastity, but if we are full of hate, all we do is drive people away.

[california boy]

I think an excellent example is the deaf community who have created their own culture where many not only have no personal desire to hear, but see it as a betrayal of the community to have any form of medical treatment to restore or allow hearing for the first time.

Is it wrong to suggest to a deaf person they might be missing out on music and other experiences that might be worth the cost of losing the unique circumstances of being deaf in a functioning community?

Google "deaf community against cochlear implants" for articles on the ongoing debate.

I am not sure what you mean by this post. Certainly gays also have a community amongst themselves as well. The only gay issue that is constantly in the public eye is marriage equality, something every other group already enjoys. When gays are allowed to marry, most of the "noise" from the gay community will go away. Anyone who remembers the amount of "noise" from the black community that was constantly part of our culture largely went away when America started treating them as equal citizens. Same with women getting the right to vote. When is the last time you heard about women's suffrage? The greater the discrimination, the louder the public debate and discussion.

If I am not talking about what you intended your post to convey, please let me know.

[Tacenda]

The church is staying out of campaigning against SSM this year, compared to years past when the church lead campaigns in other states. Is this going to be the trend now or is it for political reasons?

http://www.kutv.com/news/top-stories/stories/gay-marriage-ballot-2611.shtml

[Calm]

If I am not talking about what you intended your post to convey, please let me know.

I am referring to swfarnsworth comment about changing orientation in the resurrection and the ensuing conversation.

[california boy]

I am referring to swfarnsworth comment about changing orientation in the resurrection and the ensuing conversation.

So how does the deaf community fit in with the discussion.

[Saints Alive]

So how does the deaf community fit in with the discussion.

I believe calmoriah was comparing the deaf communities resistance to cochlear implants to a hypothetical cure for homosexuality, assuming the outcome would be the same.

Those without exposure might find it interesting that a lot of deaf people consider deafness an important part of who they are and many say they would never take the opportunity to hear be cause they feel that it would fundamentally change who they are.

Edited October 30, 2012 by Saints Alive

[Calm]

Not necessarily a hypothetical cure, but more applying to the comments that God will cause one's orientation to change in the next life which swfarnsworth, iirc, said he didn't find appealing in the least.

There are those among the deaf who have no desire to hear. There are those that do. I would say that neither position is the right one, both could be right or wrong, it depends on the individual and if they treasure what they have or are more than what they might have or become.

For some their perfection/completion is not changing or accepting all that God has to offer either now or later.

What is important, in my view, is that the possibility of change is not only available, but that people think and experience fully what resisting change means to them, which opportunity I think we all will receive in regards to what the Atonement can mean to us for the eternities.

Edited October 30, 2012 by calmoriah

[Hogmeister]

The difference is that there's an established doctrinal basis for the prohibition of gay marriage, whereas polygamy was explained to be a temporary thing in Jacob and no reason has been given for the priesthood ban at all. You could even declare that the ban was uninspired to begin with and not be disciplined, from my observations.

Hence, I don't want the Church to alter doctrine for my sake. Unlike the official declarations, this would really be the mountain bowing to the wind.

Edit: 100th post. Yippee.

Actually there's apocryphal doctrine that Ham (son of Noah) attempted to steal the priesthood by stealing the garment of Adam that was given to him by God in the garden of Eden as a symbol for the priesthood. This garment was passed down though the patriarchal line of Adam even to Noah. Noah (God) cursed or rather prophesied that Ham and his posterity would be the last to receive the priesthood. Ham being rebellious life lead to false traditions or the curse for his posterity. Which is what BY taught. BY did not teach that blacks would never have a right to the priesthood but that it would come in the Lords time (which it did).

I believe every parent has potential to "curse" their posterity by teaching false traditions to ones children. The curse will be lifted once the posterity sees the error of the traditions of the fathers.

There's a huge misconception regarding "curses from God".

[Scott Lloyd]

Thats true but I think a lot of people, especially those who still remember regional representatives, use that and area authority interchangeably.

Those who haven't been to church in a two or three decades, perhaps.

By the way, the term area authority is also outdated.

Edited November 1, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Walden]

Actually there's apocryphal doctrine that Ham (son of Noah) attempted to steal the priesthood by stealing the garment of Adam that was given to him by God in the garden of Eden as a symbol for the priesthood. This garment was passed down though the patriarchal line of Adam even to Noah. Noah (God) cursed or rather prophesied that Ham and his posterity would be the last to receive the priesthood. Ham being rebellious life lead to false traditions or the curse for his posterity. Which is what BY taught. BY did not teach that blacks would never have a right to the priesthood but that it would come in the Lords time (which it did).

I believe every parent has potential to "curse" their posterity by teaching false traditions to ones children. The curse will be lifted once the posterity sees the error of the traditions of the fathers.

There's a huge misconception regarding "curses from God".

I believe every parent has potential to "curse" their posterity by teaching false traditions to ones children. The curse will be lifted once the posterity sees the error of the traditions of the fathers.

In relation to your earlier statement that "BY did not teach that blacks would never have a right to the priesthood but that it would come in the Lords time (which it did)".....what "error of the traditions of the fathers" do you think that blacks came to understand, by 1978, that allowed the ban to be lifted?

[Mark Beesley]

The church is staying out of campaigning against SSM this year, compared to years past when the church lead campaigns in other states. Is this going to be the trend now or is it for political reasons?

http://www.kutv.com/...llot-2611.shtml

Maryland, Maine, Minnesota and Washington . . . who cares what those provinces do???

It may be simply that the Church has made its opposition clear, members know what they can do, and now they can choose to be as active or inactive as they want in campaigns without the Church prodding them. Additionally, Church membership in those states is probably not as significant as in California and Hawaii.

But, I don't know. Write a letter to SLC and see what they say.

[wenglund]

The only gay issue that is constantly in the public eye is marriage equality, something every other group already enjoys. When gays are allowed to marry, most of the "noise" from the gay community will go away.

Back in the 70's, gay activists told us that they just wanted to get the government out of their bedrooms and bars and bathhouses (something I could support), and if they could just get this, the "noise" would go away so to speak. At least this was the public image they intended to project while secretly planning to push for legalized marriage and ultimately normalization of homosexuality. The point being, not only can't we not trust that the "noise" will go away, but getting rid of the "noise" is not a valid reason to mangle the legal definition of marriage. Doing so would defy sound reasoning.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Saints Alive]

Back in the 70's, gay activists told us that they just wanted to get the government out of their bedrooms and bars and bathhouses (something I could support), and if they could just get this, the "noise" would go away so to speak. At least this was the public image they intended to project while secretly planning to push for legalized marriage and ultimately normalization of homosexuality. The point being, not only can't we not trust that the "noise" will go away, but getting rid of the "noise" is not a valid reason to mangle the legal definition of marriage. Doing so would defy sound reasoning.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

What else could they ask for after marriage?

By the way, the term area authority is also outdated.

Maybe but I still hear it... A LOT.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Back in the 70's, gay activists told us that they just wanted to get the government out of their bedrooms and bars and bathhouses (something I could support), and if they could just get this, the "noise" would go away so to speak. At least this was the public image they intended to project while secretly planning to push for legalized marriage and ultimately normalization of homosexuality. The point being, not only can't we not trust that the "noise" will go away, but getting rid of the "noise" is not a valid reason to mangle the legal definition of marriage. Doing so would defy sound reasoning.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Good point...Gov't in or out?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

What else could they ask for after marriage?

The list could be endless.

[Saints Alive]

The list could be endless.

Like what? I honestly can't imagine anything other than forcing churches to solumize their marriages

[RobertAC]

Back in the 70's, gay activists told us that they just wanted to get the government out of their bedrooms and bars and bathhouses (something I could support), and if they could just get this, the "noise" would go away so to speak. At least this was the public image they intended to project while secretly planning to push for legalized marriage and ultimately normalization of homosexuality. The point being, not only can't we not trust that the "noise" will go away, but getting rid of the "noise" is not a valid reason to mangle the legal definition of marriage. Doing so would defy sound reasoning.

Not entirely correct. It is true that the gay rights movement has always focused on "normalizing" homosexuality and bisexuality. They both have been around since mankind has walked the planet. One may differ on whether they are "sinful" or not, or even whether pursuing homosexual relationships is fulfilling or not, but it is "normal" in the sense that homosexuality has always been part of the population.

Gay marriage, at least in this country, has not always been a goal of gays and lesbians. In fact, members of the early Mattachine Society were largely against marriage. It was viewed as a broken, patriarchal institution that was created to make women second-class citizens whose sole purpose in life was to breed babies. Equality -- yes. Marriage -- no.

The problem with this view of keeping separate from heterosexual institutions is that it helped keep the gay community needlessly separated from the community at large. When ethnic, religious, racial, and sexual groups separate themselves from everyone else, the insular group usually loses out, most often in the form of further discrimination. The gay community was not an exception, and in the last 15 years, its leaders have come to rethink marriage in a more positive light. However, not every GLBT person thinks marriage is a good thing to pursue.

[TAO]

Robert, weg could just use the civil union -> gay mairrage argument if he wanted to... the point of his post was that their political activists don't really 'stop', I am guessing.

[RobertAC]

Robert, weg could just use the civil union -> gay mairrage argument if he wanted to... the point of his post was that their political activists don't really 'stop', I am guessing.

I got that too, Tao. I think there is some truth to Wade's observation on that point, but it could be expanded to everyone. Rights are not given, they are taken. If the general population gave away their civil rights to government officials, we would all lose our civil rights. Maintaining civil liberty is always a constant struggle with a number of different forces going against it.

I was focusing principally on a point where there is some misconception. Same sex marriage has not always been a goal of the gay rights movement. As a group, it's taken GLBT people a long time to accept the institution.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Like what? I honestly can't imagine anything other than forcing churches to solumize their marriages

Reporations, affirmative action, hate speech laws.

[Saints Alive]

Reporations, affirmative action, hate speech laws.

they already have the second two and if the black community can't get reparations I don't think they will.

[TAO]

I got that too, Tao. I think there is some truth to Wade's observation on that point, but it could be expanded to everyone. Rights are not given, they are taken. If the general population gave away their civil rights to government officials, we would all lose our civil rights. Maintaining civil liberty is always a constant struggle with a number of different forces going against it.

Mhm, it could apply to anybody. That's why we must always be vigilent. This is one of those cases where we have to be extra vigilent, because incidents suggesting that they often go further than they had planned have already happened. So we must be watchful.

I was focusing principally on a point where there is some misconception. Same sex marriage has not always been a goal of the gay rights movement. As a group, it's taken GLBT people a long time to accept the institution.

Indeed it has. But it did. How long do you think it will be till they start sticking rather direct stuff in education? Things are already leaning that way, believe it or not. That's why vigilence is important; so that way things aren't countered when it is too late.

Edited November 3, 2012 by TAO

[RobertAC]

How long do you think it will be till they start sticking rather direct stuff in education?

Last year: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/14/california-gay-history-law-jerry-brown_n_898745.html