Dating Website For Mormons With Same-Sex Attraction

[smac97]

Here: http://www.huffingto..._b_2432467.html

Are you a gay Mormon who is single and looking for love?

Then a forthcoming website is here to answer your prayers. Created by Andrew Markle, "Origins" seeks to give gay Mormons an online social network to meet others like them for "marriage or long-term commitment." According to Markle, the website will act both as a tool for dating and as a resource for LGBTQ Mormons looking for acceptance within a church that's still evolving on its stance on homosexuality.

Note the sarcastic reference to an "answer (to) your prayers."

Markle stated that Origins will also "connect gay Mormons with allies and help them reconcile their [religious] beliefs with their lifestyle."

"Allies?" Allies against whom?

The answer, I think, is the LDS Church.

Markle believes that Origins is about building a gay Mormon community and estimates that there are around 22,000 practicing gay Mormons.

Expected to launch in the second quarter of 2013, Origins is supported by Affirmation, an advocacy group for LGBTQ Mormons made up of both actively practicing members of the Mormon faith and non-members.

I think Affirmation is headed into open apostasy territory with its support of this website (if it's not in that territory already).

Affirmation seeks provide a safe space in the Mormon church "where LGBT individuals, as well as those questioning their orientation, can associate with like individuals, ask questions, and know that they are not alone." Affirmation believes that same-gender relationships are "compatible" with the teachings of the Mormon church and hopes to make the church more inclusive for LGBTQ practitioners.

I do not agree with Affirmation's stance on "compatibility."

Markle believes that the Origins website will be a crucial component of this effort.

Although neither Origins nor Affirmations is officially sanctioned by the Mormon Church -- as the Elders do not openly recognize LGBT organizations as official church entities -- Origins comes on the heels of the church's announcement that they will minister to LGBTQ individuals.

In December, the Mormon Church launched "Mormons and Gays," a website devoted to "discussion on same-sex attraction." According to the website, the church's changing stance on gay members does not mean that the church accepts "homosexual behavior" as acceptable but recognizes that homosexuality is not a choice.

Like Origins, Mormons and Gays acts as a conduit for conversation and acceptance of LGBTQ individuals, so that church members can "respond sensitively and thoughtfully when they encounter same-sex attraction in their own families, among other Church members, or elsewhere."

Neither Origins nor Affirmation is unofficially sanctioned by the LDS Church, either.

And unlike Origins and Affirmation, the LDS Church's website is not about rationalizing same-sex behavior. However, it is not unexpected, as advocacy groups of this ilk are of the "give them an inch, they'll take a mile" school of thought.

Markle realizes that the mission of Origins, which helps LGBTQ singles connect for the purposes of a relationship, diverges with the church's new stance on homosexuality -- which is of the "love the sinner, hate the sin" variety.

I am glad the article has this admission in it, though it is very much soft-pedaled. Origins is a website intended to facilitate homosexual activity between Latter-day Saints.

For Markle, Origins will act as a further step in the right direction for gay Mormons -- moving from preliminary dialogue to a place of action. Frustrated with the church's decision to call same-gender relationships "attractions," Markle stated that the church "still has a long way to go in regard to full inclusion" and repairing the damage done by decades of forcing LGBTQ members into the closet.

Yep. Give 'em an inch, they'll take a mile. The camel's nose in the tent. The boiling frog. The slippery slope. Pick your metaphor.

It will be interesting to see how those active Latter-day Saints who purport to support Affirmation will justify their support from here on out.

In order to act as a force for good in the lives of its Mormon members, the church must continue to evolve and make amends to the gay faithful.

Note that this statement is not a quote. It's a declaration from the (non-Mormon) blogger who wrote it.

As a practicing Mormon and weekly churchgoer, Markle understands his position may be controversial for many in the church and that he may face excommunication or disfellowship for his involvement in Origins -- as advocating homosexual relationships may be grounds for expulsion from the church.

Markle was recently disfellowed from the church for getting involved in a relationship, which he could be excommunicated for.

So not only is the website specifically designed to facilitate excommunicable behavior, its creator has been disfellowshipped.

Something tells me that this website is not going to go over well amongst the active set of Latter-day Saints.

Despite disapproval from the leadership, Markle's other churchgoers were like a family to him. They were welcoming of his orientation -- and treated his new relationship just like any other. Markle hopes that the church will one day be able to say the same.

Note the adversarial sign-off against the Church.

Thoughts?

-Smac

Edited January 14, 2013 by smac97

[Calm]

They are attempting to pit members against leadership. Portray it as members on their side.

[Standard]

It is a sad day when apostate groups such as this believe that they can change the church. It is obviously a devilish hoax, if they truly believed (as I do) that the church has the word of God and that by following the churches principles we can obtain eternal life then they would be supportive of the churches standing on LGB.

[rockpond]

I think that we need to face the fact that we (as an LDS community) are still in a bit of a quandary on this topic.

We have been called upon to reach out in love and understanding. And yet, asking our homosexual brothers & sisters to be celibate will be interpreted by many of them as quite the opposite of love and understanding.

I'm not pretending to have the answer and I realize that Markle's stated goal of marriage goes against the counsel of church leadership. That said, maybe a social network of like minded individuals wanting to stay in the church while being open about their sexual orientation, is something that is needed.

[jwhitlock]

I've long felt that Affirmation wants nothing more than to re-mold the church into its own image. It's not going to happen. I suspect that Affirmation will not stop there, but will eventually resort to the courts to try to enforce its makeover.

[Gillebre]

I think that we need to face the fact that we (as an LDS community) are still in a bit of a quandary on this topic.

We have been called upon to reach out in love and understanding. And yet, asking our homosexual brothers & sisters to be celibate will be interpreted by many of them as quite the opposite of love and understanding.

I'm not pretending to have the answer and I realize that Markle's stated goal of marriage goes against the counsel of church leadership. That said, maybe a social network of like minded individuals wanting to stay in the church while being open about their sexual orientation, is something that is needed.

There is something like that already. It's called North Star International. They have a private facebook group for that express purpose.

[canard78]

Uhoh... here we go again. Strap in folks, it's going to be a bumpy ride.

Don't forget the 'pinned rules' from the mods. Love and kindness

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I don't get it, what would be the point?

[Questing Beast]

Defined sin is scriptural. Sexual urges produce temptations to sin. Nobody is immune. Homosexuality is just one, not that common, temptation. It gets top billing because of the GLBTQ advocacy. This advocacy rides on the impetus of the civil rights movement. While I agree that GLBTQ people should not be "closeted", they must realize that in order for the LDS faith or any other conservative denomination to accept their lifestyle as "normal" and "just the same" as any other devoted couple's, entire doctrinal verities would have to be denied and overturned. Historically there is positively zero basis for allowing consensual homosexual sexual relations, period.

If "the church" changes, it will be into a very different church, in order to allow same-sex "marriages".

The responses to that word, "marriage", to be included as covering homosexual unions, are very emotionally charged. My take on it is that something more like "domestic partnership" is the proper approach, and leave the word "marriage" out of the civil code entirely. I can accept any consensual "domestic partnership" as equal to heterosexual marriage in every legal sense of the words: but I will not be putting myself into the position of publicly accepting that all such domestic partnerships must be accepted by religions; including "wedding" ceremonies or other suchlike demonstrations of public sentiment.

For instance, if my daughter comes to me and says, "Dad we are getting married", my response will be: "Married, not to my way of thinking; but I will sign as a witness on the documents that will legally recognize your relationship. But I will not be attending any wedding, nor do I want to be included in any conversations of a sexually topical nature, where you think that sharing such intimate details about your relationship will somehow validate what you do together in what should be privacy. Your domestic partnership does not include anything about sexual relations; domestic partnerships do not concern themselves with such private details. And neither do marriages these days. Any man or woman can get married without the subject of sex every coming up and I expect the same from you."

Grandchildren? Man, that IS a poser....

Edited January 15, 2013 by Questing Beast

[smac97]

I think that we need to face the fact that we (as an LDS community) are still in a bit of a quandary on this topic.

I disagree. I think a quandary only exists if we contemplate capitulation on revealed doctrines so as to placate those who wish to legitimize homosexual behavior within the context of LDS doctrine. If that is not on the table, then there is no quandary.

We have been called upon to reach out in love and understanding.

And I think the LDS Church, in the main, succeeds in this regard. The Church's website referenced in the article is a good example.

And yet, asking our homosexual brothers & sisters to be celibate will be interpreted by many of them as quite the opposite of love and understanding.

Pardon my French, but that is utter and complete crap. People with same-sex attraction are asked to abide by the same standards as anyone else.

There is no shortage of widowed, divorced, not-yet or never-married church members who are commanded to be celibate.

Those who are married are commended to confine their behavior to certain parameters.

All of these commandments come from God. Those who profess to be LDS, who define themselves by a belief system that entails confession of and belief in these precepts, cannot in good faith claim that church leaders counseling members to adhere to these voluntarily-accepted doctrines constitutes "quite the opposite of love and understanding."

I'm not pretending to have the answer

I have the answer for such folks: Stop kicking against the pricks. Stop believing that you are somehow better than or otherwise exempt from the commandments of God. Stop listening to worldly voices which tell you to disregard the oracles of God. Start listening to the scriptures, modern prophets, and the Holy Spirit. As Elijah once asked the Children of Israel: "How long halt ye between two opinions? If the Lord be God, follow him" (1 Kings 18:21).

and I realize that Markle's stated goal of marriage goes against the counsel of church leadership.

How blithely you breeze on past that. Markle, a member of the LDS Church, is creating a money-making business venture with a stated purpose of facilitating behavior amongst Latter-day Saints which is expressly prohibited by their religion, and which behavior constitutes a grave and profound sin described as "most abominable above all sins save it be the shedding of innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost" (Alma 39:5).

And your response to this, incredibly, is ...

That said, maybe a social network of like minded individuals wanting to stay in the church while being open about their sexual orientation, is something that is needed.

The mind reels.

-Smac

[blackstrap]

Too bad that these advocats don't seem to want to start their own religious offshoot .It's not like it hasn't been done before.

It's kind of like Quebec in Canada, which wants all of the benefits of the nation but prefers to have its own laws and regulations,and by the way, all of the MONEY that the other provinces send to it.

[Scott Lloyd]

In the spirit of those who "apologize" for the Church holding fast to its principles and doctrines, I hereby apologize for the vain efforts of Mr. Markle and others to remake the Church in their own image.

Edited January 15, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Sky]

I think that we need to face the fact that we (as an LDS community) are still in a bit of a quandary on this topic.

We have been called upon to reach out in love and understanding. And yet, asking our homosexual brothers & sisters to be celibate will be interpreted by many of them as quite the opposite of love and understanding.

I'm not pretending to have the answer and I realize that Markle's stated goal of marriage goes against the counsel of church leadership. That said, maybe a social network of like minded individuals wanting to stay in the church while being open about their sexual orientation, is something that is needed.

The way I see it, the quandary stems from the fact that the LDS Church is trying to reach out to the GLBT community, but will never be able to give them what they really want (acceptance of their relationships).

I think it's great that the Church is trying to be more open and understanding about the subject (i.e. mormonsandgays.org), but I'm concerned that the GLBT community sees it only as a first step, with the eventual outcome being full acceptance and fellowship in the Church.

Anyway, if I were Markle, I would think twice about launching a website like this if I wanted to keep my membership in the Church.

[RobertAC]

I believe that the term "allies" is used in the sense that there are non-GLBT people who are supportive of GLBT Mormons. The word is not being used in the sense that it was during WW2 where allies were facing off against the Axis powers.

[DavidB]

Seems more like sour grapes than a genuine interest in helping gay mormons.

[rockpond]

Pardon my French, but that is utter and complete crap. People with same-sex attraction are asked to abide by the same standards as anyone else.

No, they aren't. People with opposite-sex attraction get to attend church-sponsored dances and dance with people they are attracted to. People with opposite-sex attraction are encouraged to date, hold hands with, kiss, get engaged to, and marry those to whom they are inherently drawn toward. People with opposite-sex attraction get to act on their sexual orientation and have it celebrated in private, in public, and in church lessons on Sundays.

People with same-sex attraction get none of that if they wish to remain in full fellowship within the church.

There is no shortage of widowed, divorced, not-yet or never-married church members who are commanded to be celibate.

Not under the broader definition of celibate used by church leadership. Opposite-sex attracted widows/ers, divorcees, and singles may dance, date, hold hands, kiss, and have the hope of marriage with those to whom they are attracted. For members with same-sex attraction they must not participate in any of those activities with those to whom they are attracted.

The difference is significant and speaks to my point that what we feel might be a loving & compassionate response, does not feel that way to many homosexual members.

[halconero]

ldsplanet or ldssingles is better anyways....

[jwhitlock]

People with same-sex attraction get none of that if they wish to remain in full fellowship within the church.

This is false.

There are a surprising number of active, faithful members of the church who have SSA who have nevertheless entered into successful marriage relationships with those of the opposite sex.

Smac's point is valid and accurate. In both situations (SSA and straight), those who cannot or choose not to live within the standards as set forth by God when it comes to relationships should not expect those lifestyles to be condoned or embraced by the church in contradiction to what God has commanded.

[Calm]

Too bad that these advocats don't seem to want to start their own religious offshoot .It's not like it hasn't been done before.

It's kind of like Quebec in Canada, which wants all of the benefits of the nation but prefers to have its own laws and regulations,and by the way, all of the MONEY that the other provinces send to it.

Getting homesick....had any referendums lately? Edited January 15, 2013 by calmoriah

[sunstoned]

I think that we need to face the fact that we (as an LDS community) are still in a bit of a quandary on this topic.

We have been called upon to reach out in love and understanding. And yet, asking our homosexual brothers & sisters to be celibate will be interpreted by many of them as quite the opposite of love and understanding.

I'm not pretending to have the answer and I realize that Markle's stated goal of marriage goes against the counsel of church leadership. That said, maybe a social network of like minded individuals wanting to stay in the church while being open about their sexual orientation, is something that is needed.

I agree rockpond. To me this looks like a site that can provide dialog and fellowship for people who identify as LDS, and who want to remain associated with the church.

The Gospel of Christ is one in inclusion and not exclusion. We do need to find some common ground.

[sunstoned]

No, they aren't. People with opposite-sex attraction get to attend church-sponsored dances and dance with people they are attracted to. People with opposite-sex attraction are encouraged to date, hold hands with, kiss, get engaged to, and marry those to whom they are inherently drawn toward. People with opposite-sex attraction get to act on their sexual orientation and have it celebrated in private, in public, and in church lessons on Sundays.

People with same-sex attraction get none of that if they wish to remain in full fellowship within the church.

Not under the broader definition of celibate used by church leadership. Opposite-sex attracted widows/ers, divorcees, and singles may dance, date, hold hands, kiss, and have the hope of marriage with those to whom they are attracted. For members with same-sex attraction they must not participate in any of those activities with those to whom they are attracted.

The difference is significant and speaks to my point that what we feel might be a loving & compassionate response, does not feel that way to many homosexual members.

+1000

[rockpond]

This is false.

There are a surprising number of active, faithful members of the church who have SSA who have nevertheless entered into successful marriage relationships with those of the opposite sex.

Smac's point is valid and accurate. In both situations (SSA and straight), those who cannot or choose not to live within the standards as set forth by God when it comes to relationships should not expect those lifestyles to be condoned or embraced by the church in contradiction to what God has commanded.

And you have verifiable data on the success of those marriages? Because I have read accounts of many mixed orientation marriages that fail and leave damaged lives in their wake.

And, of course, there are the "surprising number of active, faithful members of the church who have SSA" either left the church and/or chosen to end their lives under the crushing weight of our loving and compassionate outreach.

Accusing the Church of causing suicide is out of bounds. You are excused from this thread.

Edited January 15, 2013 by Ares

[glitterNgold]

To the OP: I doubt they meant "allies against the church." Maybe it is actually "allies against bigots."

[Sky]

And you have verifiable data on the success of those marriages? Because I have read accounts of many mixed orientation marriages that fail and leave damaged lives in their wake.

There are some mixed orientation marriages that work (more the exception than the rule). Definitely not an ideal circumstance, but then again neither is celibacy or losing your membership in the Church for a same-sex relationship. What other options are there? That is why we have to learn to trust that, with God, everything will be made right in the end. Easier said than done, I know.

And, of course, there are the "surprising number of active, faithful members of the church who have SSA" either left the church and/or chosen to end their lives under the crushing weight of our loving and compassionate outreach.

Fortunately, these scenarios are not the case for all LDS people with SSA.

The Church is trying to make things better for the gays. Better days are ahead. I wish this could have helped the many who have already left the Church, or in the worst case scenario, ended their lives. But that is why in times like these, we have to learn to trust that, with God, everything will be made right in the end.

[smac97]

No, they aren't.

Yes, they are.

People with opposite-sex attraction get to attend church-sponsored dances and dance with people they are attracted to.

Heterosexuals are allowed to dance with members of the opposite sex. So are people with SSA.

Heterosexuals are (I believe) discouraged/prohibited from dancing with members of the same sex. So are people with SSA.

The same standards are applied to all members.

People with opposite-sex attraction are encouraged to date, hold hands with, kiss, get engaged to, and marry those to whom they are inherently drawn toward.

Church members, all of them, are encouraged to marry if that is feasible.

Marriage does not happen for everyone, of course. When it does not happen, then those members, all of them, are required to remain celibate.

The same standards are applied to all members.

People with opposite-sex attraction get to act on their sexual orientation and have it celebrated in private, in public, and in church lessons on Sundays.

Church members, all of them, get to engage in sexual relations within bounds prescribed by God.

Church members, all of them, are prohibited from engaging in sexual relations outside of those bounds.

The same standards are applied to all members.

To suggest otherwise is to create a special dispensation for people with SSA. That's not right. There are plenty of heterosexual church members who are asked to live a life of celibacy. And yet there is no concerted effort to push the LDS Church to let them exceed the bounds set by God.

People with same-sex attraction get none of that if they wish to remain in full fellowship within the church.

People with opposite-sex attraction face the same constraints on their sexual behavior as do people with same-sex attraction.

Not under the broader definition of celibate used by church leadership. Opposite-sex attracted widows/ers, divorcees, and singles may dance, date, hold hands, kiss, and have the hope of marriage with those to whom they are attracted.

All Church members may dance, date, hold hands, kiss and have a hope of marriage.

Those behaviors, however, are not unfettered. To the extent same-sex dancing, dating, etc. is prohibited, it is prohibited for all church members.

For members with same-sex attraction they must not participate in any of those activities with those to whom they are attracted.

For members with opposite-sex attraction, but must also not participate in any of those activities.

Your reasoning does not make sense to me. By your reasoning, a married man should expect the Church to have an adulterous affair simply because he is attracted to that person. An unmarried man should be able to have sex outside of marriage simply because he wants to.

What is it, exactly, that privileges homosexual behavior above these?

The difference is significant and speaks to my point that what we feel might be a loving & compassionate response, does not feel that way to many homosexual members.

Again, this is utter and complete crap. If a homosexual church member resents being held to the same standard that everyone else is held to, then that person is in error.

Thanks,

-Smac