Church Making Further Movements Toward Respect For Gay Members

[wenglund]

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.

I am using the word "normal" to mean "normative" or "generally accepted as moral and good and right".

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.

Yes, the strategies have changed over time, in part because certain strategies were eventually determined to be ineffectual and perhaps even counterproductive in achieving the ultimate goal of gaining general social approbation for homosexual behavior. Early on, the gay movement aligned itself with the so-called "sexual revolution," including advocating for sexual relationships with children. In fact, NAMBLA was formed by gay activist, including leaders of the Mattachine Society, and often figured prominently in gay pride parades and gay publications. This caused enough of a backlash of disapproval towards the gay community as to require it to disavow pedophilia and remove pedophilic organizations from their midst and from their alliances.

Since then, it has been widely thought that the issue of gay marriage would be an excellent avenue for gaining social approbation. The controversy not only has had a way of keeping homosexuality on the front pages and prominent in pop culture, but it also lent itself to propagandistically endowing the gay community with victim status and a means for warping the notions of "rights" and "equality."

However, you are right. The vast majority of homosexuals, even today, are either against the institution of marriage or have no interest therein. Many think it an affront to homosexuality to mimic heterosexual conventions and pretend to be like heterosexual relationships. Evidently, though, the ends justify the SSM means.

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.

I am not seeing the sense of your "separation" argument. Gays have not been separated in any meaningful sense when it comes to marriage. They have the same right as heterosexuals, bisexuals, people from other races, etc., to marry an adult of the opposite sex. They unavoidably separate themselves by creating a different type of "marriage." By mangling the legal definition of marriage and extending legal marriages to same-sex couples, it produces the opposite effect from what you suggest. It separates them as a different and non-conformist marital relationship.

Be that as it may, the rationale for deciding whether to legalize SSM, ought not be based mindlessly on whether it separates elements of the community or not (there are a number of elements of society that continue to be excluded from the legal definition of marriage, like under aged children, incestual relationships, business relationships, roommates, humans and pets, etc.), but logically as to whether or not it fits the state's interest for getting into the marriage business to begin with. To me, the answer is that it clearly does not.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

As you well know, what you describe is NOT what the Mormon church thinks. But hey, if you need deception to make your case, then by all means use it. Evidently it is a value allowed by your moral code.

Based on comments the other day he served for a very long time in the Church, so yes he does know that is what we teach...we as most believe that appetites and passions are to be kept within the bounds the Lord has set. But unlike other we believe that punishment has a purpose and an end, otherwise it is just vengeance.

[wenglund]

As you well know, what you describe has NOTHING to do with gay marriage. The lawsuits that you allude to were decided upon by federal discrimination laws in this country not gay marriage laws. But hey, if you need deception to make your case, then by all means use it. Evidently it is a value allowed by your moral code.

Misleading Voters About Same Sex Marriage in Mass. Schools

Perhaps you are have trouble following the line of discussion, but my comment didn't have to do with SSM, but rather what might be asked for beyond SSM. Please pay better attention.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[california boy]

If I can ask a question of california boy and/or anyone else who wants to answer, why is it important to the LGBT community to have their relationships legally referred to as "marriage"? If I were in a same-sex relationship (which I am still intent on never having), I can't see how the legal name for that relationship would have any effect on how we would feel about each other, and it certainly wouldn't prevent us from referring to ourselves as being married. I suppose that calling it "marriage" rather than "a domestic partnership" could make some feel like they have society's stamp of approval, but approval comes from individuals, and individuals who do not approve will not approve any more if the legal definition were adjusted.

Why is it important for straight couples to marry? If you are straight, does the legal paper that says you are marry have any importance to you? There are a huge number of marriages every year in this country that are not a religious ceremony by straight couples. Why do they do that? If marriage is important to straight couples, why would it not be important to gay couples? Strange as it may seem, gay couples believe they have the same legal right to a civil marriage.

[Kemara]

I guess that means you are backing down on the assertions you were making.

And just where is a person in a gay relationship going when they die?

Caliboy, it doesnt seem like you are paying attention. I think the topic of conversation is clouding your mind.

[Kemara]

Based on comments the other day he served for a very long time in the Church, so yes he does know that is what we teach...we as most believe that appetites and passions are to be kept within the bounds the Lord has set. But unlike other we believe that punishment has a purpose and an end, otherwise it is just vengeance.

Excuse me Pa Pa but the Church does not teach that any person is "going to hell for being in love with someone of the same sex."

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I totally agree with you. No one is asking the Mormon church nor any other church to perform gay marriages. There has never been a single instance in this country where any church has been forced to marry anyone they did not want to. Even when the church was discriminating against blacks, there were no court orders for Mormons to allow blacks access to marriage in the temples.

But how does the resolve what you said is the problem, sexual relation outside of marriage. If the Church cannot accept this as marriage then how would it no longer be a sin? It would still be sex outside the Church's definition of marriage. I once sat on a High Counsel disciplinary court. The question was asked if someone could be ex'ed for being gay, I informed others the answer was no, the issue that brought us there was his behavior since he was a married man. Gays who are living the commandments may serve and be within full fellowship if striving to keep the commandments, God will not tempt us (of course God not tempt, just quoting a scripture) yond our means to resist.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Excuse me Pa Pa but the Church does not teach that any person is "going to hell for being in love with someone of the same sex."

That is not what I said, I was speaking of sin in general and to Cal Boy's comment. Maybe a retread would help, at least of my comments.

[california boy]

I am using the word "normal" to mean "normative" or "generally accepted as moral and good and right".

Yes, the strategies have changed over time, in part because certain strategies were eventually determined to be ineffectual and perhaps even counterproductive in achieving the ultimate goal of gaining general social approbation for homosexual behavior. Early on, the gay movement aligned itself with the so-called "sexual revolution," including advocating for sexual relationships with children. In fact, NAMBLA was formed by gay activist, including leaders of the Mattachine Society, and often figured prominently in gay pride parades and gay publications. This caused enough of a backlash of disapproval towards the gay community as to require it to disavow pedophilia and remove pedophilic organizations from their midst and from their alliances.

Since then, it has been widely thought that the issue of gay marriage would be an excellent avenue for gaining social approbation. The controversy not only has had a way of keeping homosexuality on the front pages and prominent in pop culture, but it also lent itself to propagandistically endowing the gay community with victim status and a means for warping the notions of "rights" and "equality."

However, you are right. The vast majority of homosexuals, even today, are either against the institution of marriage or have no interest therein. Many think it an affront to homosexuality to mimic heterosexual conventions and pretend to be like heterosexual relationships. Evidently, though, the ends justify the SSM means.

I am not seeing the sense of your "separation" argument. Gays have not been separated in any meaningful sense when it comes to marriage. They have the same right as heterosexuals, bisexuals, people from other races, etc., to marry an adult of the opposite sex. They unavoidably separate themselves by creating a different type of "marriage." By mangling the legal definition of marriage and extending legal marriages to same-sex couples, it produces the opposite effect from what you suggest. It separates them as a different and non-conformist marital relationship.

Be that as it may, the rationale for deciding whether to legalize SSM, ought not be based mindlessly on whether it separates elements of the community or not (there are a number of elements of society that continue to be excluded from the legal definition of marriage, like under aged children, incestual relationships, business relationships, roommates, humans and pets, etc.), but logically as to whether or not it fits the state's interest for getting into the marriage business to begin with. To me, the answer is that it clearly does not.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

This is such balony. Wade, the gay community is not a church or organized group. They don't have a leader or even some leaders. No one speaks for the gay community. No one ever has. No one ever will. What some thought or what some believe is not speaking for the "gay community". Does the Mormon church allow any Mormon to speak for the church? And that is a much more organized group of people than the gay community. I have never gotten a packet or manuel on what I should believe or support nor has any other gay person. So don't try and deceive others that there has been some kind of "plan" by the gay community.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

This is such balony. Wade, the gay community is not a church or organized group. They don't have a leader or even some leaders. No one speaks for the gay community. No one ever has. No one ever will. What some thought or what some believe is not speaking for the "gay community". Does the Mormon church allow any Mormon to speak for the church? And that is a much more organized group of people than the gay community. I have never gotten a packet or manuel on what I should believe or support nor has any other gay person. So don't try and deceive others that there has been some kind of "plan" by the gay community.

Does it anger you when others pretend too? To answer one of the questions you asked about "Mormon Church" spokesman...15 Apostles.

[california boy]

But how does the resolve what you said is the problem, sexual relation outside of marriage. If the Church cannot accept this as marriage then how would it no longer be a sin? It would still be sex outside the Church's definition of marriage. I once sat on a High Counsel disciplinary court. The question was asked if someone could be ex'ed for being gay, I informed others the answer was no, the issue that brought us there was his behavior since he was a married man. Gays who are living the commandments may serve and be within full fellowship if striving to keep the commandments, God will not tempt us (of course God not tempt, just quoting a scripture) yond our means to resist.

I see the confusion. When I said "For some Gays who follow Christ, the sin of homosexuality is having sex outside of marriage. They wish to be married. And they don't think that Christ condemns them for that." I wasn't trying to fit that belief into Mormon doctrine.

I clearly realize that Mormons still think that would be living in sin. Does that answer your question.

[Flyonthewall]

I don't really think that gay people care whether others think they are sinning or not. They just want marriage equality. That is important to them. They are fully aware that some churches and the Mormon church in particular think they are all going to hell for being in love with someone of the same sex. To say that gays want marriage so they will be liked or accepted is ridiculous in my opinion. Whether gay marriage is legal or not, the attitudes towards gays will not change amongst Mormons and some other churches one iota. Long after gay marriage is legal in this country, churches including the Mormon church will still not like their behavior. They know that.

This may be YOUR point of view. If they wanted marriage equality, California gave it to them, just not the term "marriage". Civil Unions provided all the rights and privileges that marriage provided for non-gays....but that wasn't enough.

My point was not that gays want marriage so they will be liked or accepted, it was more along the lines of what they want afterwards.

And by the way, I have never heard ANYONE in the LDS church proclaim that ANYONE is going to hell. That is simply not a phrase that is common in the LDS culture.

It is not who you love that will be the cause of someone as you say "going to hell", but who you have sex with. That is true for gays and non-gays alike.

We are commanded to love everyone.

[wenglund]

Why is it important for straight couples to marry? If you are straight, does the legal paper that says you are marry have any importance to you? There are a huge number of marriages every year in this country that are not a religious ceremony by straight couples. Why do they do that? If marriage is important to straight couples, why would it not be important to gay couples? Strange as it may seem, gay couples believe they have the same legal right to a civil marriage.

The answer to your question is simple, and has been forwarded in state legislatures and various court rulings. Our existence and survival is dependent upon heterosexual relationships, and it is in our interest to not only encourage those relationships, but to encourage that they be formally committed and long-term. This is the reason that the government created and conferred the right to legal marriage. The reasoning and the right, itself, doesn't in any way pertain to homosexual relationships, though, as previously explained, the right to civil marriage between a man and a women applies equally to heterosexuals and homosexuals and people of all races, etc. It is unimportant to us, as a society, for homosexuals to marry members of their same sex. It doesn't make sense, nor is it in our interest to mangle the definition of marriage and invent some new and different marital right. The costs exceed the benefits.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Kemara]

That is not what I said, I was speaking of sin in general and to Cal Boy's comment. Maybe a retread would help, at least of my comments.

Ummm yes, a retread would be helpful, but it is not going to turn out how you think.

Caliboy said this:

They are fully aware that some churches and the Mormon church in particular think they are all going to hell for being in love with someone of the same sex.

To which I said this:

As you well know, what you describe is NOT what the Mormon church thinks. But hey, if you need deception to make your case, then by all means use it. Evidently it is a value allowed by your moral code.

You replied to my comment on Caliboy’s quote with this:

Based on comments the other day he served for a very long time in the Church, so yes he does know that is what we teach...we as most believe that appetites and passions are to be kept within the bounds the Lord has set. But unlike other we believe that punishment has a purpose and an end, otherwise it is just vengeance.

I replied to you with this:

Excuse me Pa Pa but the Church does not teach that any person is "going to hell for being in love with someone of the same sex."

You quoted me so I assume you were referring to what I wrote, as such is it your position that the Church teaches that a person goes to hell for being in love with someone of the same sex?

[california boy]

Does it anger you when others pretend too? To answer one of the questions you asked about "Mormon Church" spokesman...15 Apostles.

I don't think that any gay person is claiming to speak for the entire gay community. And yes, I would be upset if someone claimed that his views were the same as my views. We may agree on some issues, but I doubt that we would agree on every issue.

Exactly. The organization of the church is far different than the "gay community". There is no spoksman no leader, no one who speaks for the group, no one who sets policy in the gay community. The only common thread is that they are gay.

[wenglund]

This is such balony. Wade, the gay community is not a church or organized group. They don't have a leader or even some leaders. No one speaks for the gay community. No one ever has. No one ever will. What some thought or what some believe is not speaking for the "gay community". Does the Mormon church allow any Mormon to speak for the church? And that is a much more organized group of people than the gay community. I have never gotten a packet or manuel on what I should believe or support nor has any other gay person. So don't try and deceive others that there has been some kind of "plan" by the gay community.

Nonsense. There are a plethora of gay advocacy organizations and gay publications and spokespeople the media and pop culture go to for comments on gay issues. it is not deceptive to inform people about what those organizations and publications and spokespersons have said over the years. Instead, it is deceptive for you to dismiss the information and bury your head in the sand.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Ummm yes, a retread would be helpful, but it is not going to turn out how you want.

I was agreeing with you that Calboy was mistaken...I am not sure how what I said could be misunderstood. But after twice in two days of being completely misunderstood and somehow offended someone means time for a rest. I leave it to you guys until another day. So maybe this will help, no the Church does not teach that loving "anyone" will be met with punishment of hell. So I will be putting my stones down for the day.

[Kemara]

This is such balony. Wade, the gay community is not a church or organized group. They don't have a leader or even some leaders. No one speaks for the gay community. No one ever has. No one ever will. What some thought or what some believe is not speaking for the "gay community"....So don't try and deceive others that there has been some kind of "plan" by the gay community.

There may not be an all encompassing organised group but as you well know there are most certainly organised groups within the broader homosexual community with very specific agendas. So don't try and decieve others that there is not some kind of "plan" by these organised homosexual groups.

[Kemara]

I was agreeing with you that Calboy was mistaken...I am not sure how what I said could be misunderstood. But after twice in two days of being completely misunderstood and somehow offended someone means time for a rest. I leave it to you guys until another day. So maybe this will help, no the Church does not teach that loving "anyone" will be met with punishment of hell. So I will be putting my stones down for the day.

Oops, sorry, I most cetainly did misunderstand you.

[Calm]

I was agreeing with you that Calboy was mistaken...I am not sure how what I said could be misunderstood. But after twice in two days of being completely misunderstood and somehow offended someone means time for a rest. I leave it to you guys until another day. So maybe this will help, no the Church does not teach that loving "anyone" will be met with punishment of hell. So I will be putting my stones down for the day.

I think what happen was your comment saying that cb knew having been a member for a long time could be interpreted in two ways.... kemara interpreted that as you agreeing with cb's accusation while you were actually implying cb knew better. It was slightly confusing phrasing and someone like kemara who may not have read these interactions extensively and not be aware of your past comments and positions might draw the wrong conclusion, though someone like myself who is more familiar with your writing knew the point you were making.

But it is never a bad idea to take a break if the frustration level gets a bit high.

Edited November 3, 2012 by calmoriah

[california boy]

There may not be an all encompassing organised group but as you well know there are most certainly organised groups within the broader homosexual community with very specific agendas. So don't try and decieve others that there is not some kind of "plan" by these organised homosexual groups.

So outside of gay marriage and ending discrimination for gays, what is the plan presented by these other groups

[wenglund]

So outside of gay marriage and ending discrimination for gays, what is the plan presented by these other groups

It is the same plan by which they have achieved all their incremental objectives. In a word: propaganda.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[california boy]

I was agreeing with you that Calboy was mistaken...I am not sure how what I said could be misunderstood. But after twice in two days of being completely misunderstood and somehow offended someone means time for a rest. I leave it to you guys until another day. So maybe this will help, no the Church does not teach that loving "anyone" will be met with punishment of hell. So I will be putting my stones down for the day.

Maybe I should have been more clear. When I said someone in love with someone of the same sex, I also should have added and having sexual relations with that person. I thought it was implied, Obviously that did cause some misunderstanding.

I am perfectly aware that a celibate gay person gets to be eligible for the Celestial Kingdom provided they meet the other requirements, and gets the opportunity to marry a woman for eternity.

If you are a practicing homosexual, you will not be headed to the Celestial Kingdom. Hell is sometimes used as shorthand for not being in the presents of God by some Mormons.

[california boy]

It is the same plan by which they have achieved all their incremental objectives. In a word: propaganda.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Oh Brother. Whatever.

[wenglund]

Oh Brother. Whatever.

Don't take my word for it. Read some pro-gay material like "How the Gay Rights Movement Won' and the Gay Liberation Front Manifesto.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-