Meridian Magazine: Can You Help Your Children Choose Heterosexuality? (Answer: Yes)

[The Nehor]

A better question is whether the title is representative. The article says that some kids who are not genetically predisposed to homosexuality choose to be gay for other reasons and can be taught to choose heterosexuality. This is BS and is dangerous.

Actually I believe it. It is almost an article of faith in the gay community that some people are hard-wired that way (and they seem to be right). I also do not deny this there are some people who are predominantly heterosexual who engage in homosexual activity. The gay community and others promote a spectrum of sexuality now. A cynic would suggest they are recruiting and encouraging experimentation. Even if you are not that cynical (I am not) this dogma encourages experimentation. Lesbian experimentation is making great strides towards normalization and most of the stigma is gone. The equivalent is beginning amongst men as well. I expect the next generation will reduce or eliminate the stigma even more.

On a personal note I was tempted in college once to join a group relationship of a guy and two girls. My covenants pulled me back from the brink but I cannot deny I found all three attractive mainly because they cared about me. I did not run off to gay bars after that and generally do not find guys sexually enticing but I can see the temptation. Take a young boy or girl with less experience who feels isolated and who only feels accepted by their own gender and I can see declared orientation slipping.

[HappyJackWagon]

Are you telling us this is an impossibility?

I know 2 women who are divorced from men who have come out after their marriage. The men tried to live the hetero lifestyle but could only maintain it for a short while. The families I know have been hurt badly. Why? Because a bishop told the husbands (in both cases) that if they lived the lifestyle they would be happy and even have their orientation change over time. It didn't. It's very sad, damaging, and unnecessary.

[rockpond]

Are you telling us this is an impossibility?

 

No.

 

I'm saying that I felt the author made no attempt to incorporate this teaching from the Church in her article:

 

"Unlike in times past, the Church does not necessarily advise those with same-sex attraction to marry those of the opposite sex."  (Source:  MormonsandGays.org)

 

Instead, her article comes across as providing reasons for LDS parents to encourage their gay children to take this route.  I think that's dangerous and believe that's why our Church leaders moved away from that advice.  Too many broken homes and damaged lives.

[rockpond]

How is it "dangerous"? Any behavior can me learned an mimiced.

 

Mixed-orientation marriages have a horrible failure rate.  Church leaders have acknowledged that while they used to advise that course of action, they no longer do.

[smac97]

The title of this thread matches the title of the article with the exception of the parenthetical note.  But that parenthetical note is the same answer that the Meridian author arrived at.

 

I didn't find the article to be reasonable or reasoned.  Many seem to agree... if you go to Meridian's facebook page and look at the post on this article you'll see many replies begging them to remove the article.

 

Wow.  I read the comments on Facebook.  Heavy on the vitriol / rage / vituperation / this article will drive kids to suicide, etc., and quite light on reasoning / principled disagreement / substantive analysis.

 

The bullies are coming out in force for this one.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[rockpond]

And this: "We must be brave enough to contradict the world’s instance that homosexuals have no choice. For that matter, we need to contradict anybody’s refusal to take responsibility for their choices."

 

I think that statement as well as others in her article indicate that sexual orientation is a matter of choice.  It may be for some, but does not appear to be for the majority.

[jkwilliams]

How is it "dangerous"? Any behavior can me learned an mimiced.

So parents are supposed to determine whether their kid is gay because of genetics or not and then tell the kid they can choose to be straight. You don't see any potential danger? Yikes.

Edited September 29, 2015 by jkwilliams

[Senator]

I know 2 women who are divorced from men who have come out after their marriage. The men tried to live the hetero lifestyle but could only maintain it for a short while. The families I know have been hurt badly. Why? Because a bishop told the husbands (in both cases) that if they lived the lifestyle they would be happy and even have their orientation change over time. It didn't. It's very sad, damaging, and unnecessary.

 

This doesn't answer my question.

[rockpond]

The bullies are coming out in force for this one.

 

Calling them bullies shows your bias.

 

There are good reasons for disagreeing with the article.  And since it disagrees with current LDS teachings & policy, it seems appropriate to ask an LDS-themed publication to remove it.

[Teancum]

Ugh.  Reading the Meridian Magazine gives me a headache.  But this is awful even for them.

 

 

What a hack job Meridian is. Sad thing is many LDS buy into its garbage and diatribes.

[stemelbow]

No.

 

I'm saying that I felt the author made no attempt to incorporate this teaching from the Church in her article:

 

"Unlike in times past, the Church does not necessarily advise those with same-sex attraction to marry those of the opposite sex."  (Source:  MormonsandGays.org)

 

Instead, her article comes across as providing reasons for LDS parents to encourage their gay children to take this route.  I think that's dangerous and believe that's why our Church leaders moved away from that advice.  Too many broken homes and damaged lives.

True. it think the conclusion provides some confusion:

For youth who do not have a genetic predisposition to homosexuality, but choose homosexuality for other reasons, we can help them choose heterosexuality if we simply make heterosexuality more appealing to them.

how does she know of youth that have not a genetic predisposition to homosexuality? I thought there was no genetic predisposition inherent in whether one is gay or not?

Anyway, she continues by suggesting,

Clearly, it is not our role to judge what influences a person’s choice to embrace a homosexual lifestyle, nor to assess the magnitude of those influences. It is, however, our obligation as parents, to educate our children, to teach them about agency and accountability.

That's pretty confusing. She says it's our role to influence those who don't have a genetic disposition to homosexuality, but then she says it's not our role to judge what's causing peoples choices.

A bit of a mixed message, if anything, and wrong when it comes down to it--duh...no genes.

[Senator]

No.

 

I'm saying that I felt the author made no attempt to incorporate this teaching from the Church in her article:

 

"Unlike in times past, the Church does not necessarily advise those with same-sex attraction to marry those of the opposite sex."  (Source:  MormonsandGays.org)

 

Instead, her article comes across as providing reasons for LDS parents to encourage their gay children to take this route.  I think that's dangerous and believe that's why our Church leaders moved away from that advice.  Too many broken homes and damaged lives.

 

I agree.

 

However, notice the wording, "does not necessarily advise".  This indicates to me that the option to choose such directions is not off the table. And in fact we do know of individuals who have been successful at such marriages.

 

Yes, I do believe the author could have been more articulate on this point.

[Paddy]

If anyone is misleading, it's the article's author. The title says kids can choose heterosexuality.

Just read the article and this in a nutshell is what it is arguing.

[Senator]

Calling them bullies shows your bias.

 

There are good reasons for disagreeing with the article.  And since it disagrees with current LDS teachings & policy, it seems appropriate to ask an LDS-themed publication to remove it.

 

I hate these public manipulations for censorship!

[smac97]

I think that statement as well as others in her article indicate that sexual orientation is a matter of choice.  It may be for some, but does not appear to be for the majority.

 

Again, the article is much more nuanced than that.  The author makes a substantial effort to differentiate "between same sex attraction or homosexual inclinations, and acting on same-sex attraction, or living a homosexual lifestyle."  

 

She also references "youth who do not have a genetic predisposition to homosexuality, but choose homosexuality for other reasons."  Is this the part that is causing the ruckus?

 

I'd like to see a reasoned discussion about this.  But I'm not seeing it.  Viciousness and bile is not argument.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[rockpond]

I don't have time today to continue to respond to this thread but I'd like to leave with a couple good viewpoints for consideration.

 

The first is from Laura Skaggs Dulin who posted today about her disappointment with the Meridian article and request that it be removed "due to its many contradictions and misrepresentations of church teachings."  She cites this 2014 Deseret News article show wrote on the subject.

 

I also appreciated Dr. Kristy Money's response to the article:  http://drkristymoney.com/helping-our-children-be-themselves/

 

In addition to furthering the thought that LDS parents can get their gay children to enter hetero marriages, the article also manages to be offensive adoptive parents and loving heterosexual couples with gay children.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

HappyJackWagon, on 29 Sept 2015 - 3:57 PM, said:

I know 2 women who are divorced from men who have come out after their marriage. The men tried to live the hetero lifestyle but could only maintain it for a short while. The families I know have been hurt badly. Why? Because a bishop told the husbands (in both cases) that if they lived the lifestyle they would be happy and even have their orientation change over time. It didn't. It's very sad, damaging, and unnecessary.

 

Senator- This doesn't answer my question.

 

Is it possible that a gay man can marry a woman? Of course it is possible. Is "possible" the standard we're looking for? Is it possible that x% of people who try this approach will be successful? Can't everyone do the same thing Josh Weed does? The church has backed away from the approach of encouraging gays to marry as a kind of reparative therapy. Good move by the church.

[stemelbow]

Again, the article is much more nuanced than that.  The author makes a substantial effort to differentiate "between same sex attraction or homosexual inclinations, and acting on same-sex attraction, or living a homosexual lifestyle."  

 

She also references "youth who do not have a genetic predisposition to homosexuality, but choose homosexuality for other reasons."  Is this the part that is causing the ruckus?

 

I'd like to see a reasoned discussion about this.  But I'm not seeing it.  Viciousness and bile is not argument.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

I'm not seeing viciousness and bile. Whose being vicious?

[rockpond]

Again, the article is much more nuanced than that.  The author makes a substantial effort to differentiate "between same sex attraction or homosexual inclinations, and acting on same-sex attraction, or living a homosexual lifestyle."  

 

She also references "youth who do not have a genetic predisposition to homosexuality, but choose homosexuality for other reasons."  Is this the part that is causing the ruckus?

 

I'd like to see a reasoned discussion about this.  But I'm not seeing it.  Viciousness and bile is not argument.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

 

What you see as nuanced, I see as a very confusing attempt to muddle LDS teachings and throw in just enough medical terms to give it an authoritative voice.  She's got some horrible statements in there implying that homosexual orientation can be caused by parents who don't model a loving relationship and she diminishes adoptive parents.  Even though she tries to throw in some balancing points the overall tone is that sexual orientation is a matter of choice.  This is dangerous and inconsistent with current church teachings.

 

 

I hate these public manipulations for censorship!

 

For the reasons I noted immediately above, I think church members don't want this kind of material in an LDS-related publication.  When it comes to the safety of our children, issues with censorship tend to take a backseat.

 

I'm sorry... I'm out for the rest of the day.  Too much to do.

[smac97]

Calling them bullies shows your bias.

It shows my ability to read. Here are some of the remarks on Facebook I had in mind:

"I CANNOT believe this author is in the mental health profession. It's time to go look for dead bodies because clearly this is damaging to LGBT people. And she needs to turn in her license. Here are a few of some of only some of the severely uneducated things she says."

"Sounds like a good way to make kids want 'anything but' a religious life. This article make the primary mistake of assuming that homosexuality is purely about having sex with others of the same sex. Just another semi-medicalized version of Christian dogma."

"But this article furthers the disgusting reality that Christians seem to be obsessed with gay sex! ... Clearly you haven't got enough to do, if you have time to obsess about gay sex enough to make an issue of it."

"You are boxing your queer children's hearts and souls into a dark corner so you can maintain power over them. Their mental health is at risk and you quite possibly can make them act out in unhealthy sexual outbursts by not encouraging a healthy mindset from the beginning. You're tearing your own families apart - the very families that you treasure so dear. You're destroying them."

"Stop the oppression. Stop having to be right. It's ok to be afraid and change. No one really knows what happens when we die so make the time on this earth count. Terrible, damaging article..."

"This is why kids are killing themselves."

"I don't usually get too fired up about this issue but this article made my blood boil!! To me, this was 90% CRAP!!!!"

"Right. Why would a person make a choice that would force them to give up on a polygamist eternal family. ... The Mormon afterlife is so perfect. It is so free of sexual perversion. It's a s place where men sleep with whomever they want, and women do as men say."

"Maybe for your next article, you could look up statistics on suicide among gay youth, and more particularly gay Mormon youth."

"This is disgusting, but I fear calling you out for your hateful speech will only make you feel like freedom fighters and that you get it while the rest of the world falls into sin."

"This article would be thrown in the garbage by her peers for poor logic and dangerous suggestions. Remove this article, Meridian Magazine. For once, do something RIGHT."

"This is disturbing and sickening. Shame on the author and editors for publicizing this pseudoscientific babble."

"Moronic!"

"This article is terrible!"

"This is horrible."

"It's 2015. What in the actual hell is this ridiculousness?"

 

There are good reasons for disagreeing with the article.  And since it disagrees with current LDS teachings & policy, it seems appropriate to ask an LDS-themed publication to remove it.

I am willing to admit that reasonable minds can disagree about this topic generally, or about this article in particular.  However, I am seeing very little in the way of reasoned disagreement.  Lots of anger and venom, tho.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[stemelbow]

She's got some horrible statements in there implying that homosexual orientation can be caused by parents who don't model a loving relationship and she diminishes adoptive parents.  

As I noted, this caught my eye, as an adoptive parent. I don't appreciate the point she raised there.

[Senator]

Is it possible that a gay man can marry a woman? Of course it is possible. Is "possible" the standard we're looking for?

 

Agency, is the standard we are looking for. And there can be no true agency if "the possibility", or option, is entirely removed from the equation.

 

I'm not saying that the option, is the best option, but that the option does exit and should not be ruled out entirely.

Edited September 29, 2015 by Senator

[Russell C McGregor]

That's not the message of the article.  The author tells parents that their children can choose heterosexuality including marriage and child-rearing.  This is a dangerous concept that the church used to promote but, thankfully, has stopped (see MormonsandGays.org for a reference).

 

It's considerably less dangerous than the evil lie that homosexual entrapments are morally equivalent to divinely instituted authentic marriage.

[rockpond]

"I CANNOT believe this author is in the mental health profession. It's time to go look for dead bodies because clearly this is damaging to LGBT people. And she needs to turn in her license. Here are a few of some of only some of the severely uneducated things she says."

"Sounds like a good way to make kids want 'anything but' a religious life. This article make the primary mistake of assuming that homosexuality is purely about having sex with others of the same sex. Just another semi-medicalized version of Christian dogma."

"You are boxing your queer children's hearts and souls into a dark corner so you can maintain power over them. Their mental health is at risk and you quite possibly can make them act out in unhealthy sexual outbursts by not encouraging a healthy mindset from the beginning. You're tearing your own families apart - the very families that you treasure so dear. You're destroying them."

"Maybe for your next article, you could look up statistics on suicide among gay youth, and more particularly gay Mormon youth."

 

Some good points there... thanks for pulling these over from Facebook for everyone to read.

 

The ones that I removed are those that, agreeing with you, I consider to be pointless attacks.

[cinepro]

First, I think that the title of your post is substantively misleading, and that it mischaracterizes the content and spirit of the article.

 

 

 

Others have pointed this out, but just in case you missed it, the title of my post is the same title that Meridian itself used (with the addition of "Answer: Yes").  So you should probably direct your comment to the editors of Meridian (the Proctors?) 

 

But something tells me they have their hands full right now.