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

[Teancum]

And the key phrase in the quote over which cinepro makes merry is "give in."

 

Not "feel."

 

 

Let's cut to the chase... do you believe sexual orientation is simply a choice?

[BlueDreams]

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

 

Smac, 

 

As a therapist specializing in sex therapy and one who has had a long interest in the interesting cross-roads of being LDS and falling somewhere on the spectrum of LGBTQ/SSA experiences or identity....I'm not going to lie, I found this article awful. I couldn't even read it all the way through without wanting to scratch out my eyes. So this is my non-intellectual initial reaction and I can completely understand why this would be getting filleted online and I was probably going to ignore it all together.

 

But then I saw this thread, so I'll try to give at least one reasoned argument as to why this is a semi-epic fail. I don't have too much time, though, and need to get some other work done, so I'll probably keep this to basic points as to deeper analyses

 

It begins with the title and the assumptions of it How can we help our children choose heterosexuality. And several of the quote you pulled in post #21. It is fundamentally flawed because it asserts that there is only really 2 lifestyles one can choose from: heterosexual or homosexual. Of which, heterosexual is the best option. This is fundamentally not the direction that I've seen from counselors and the church itself surrounding these issues. On a counseling/therapeutic level, it would be choosing health and finding balance between all aspects of your personhood. This would mean acknowledging and accepting sexual inclinations as well as acknolwedging/accepting personal beliefs and faith. If a person is pushing against fundamental beliefs that are core to their  identity in favor for another part, it can be just as unhealthy as if they pushed aside every other identity in favor of just religious ideology. On a religious aspect the move in discourse is not choose heterosexuality....it's choose the gospel with all that you are. How that works will vary from person to person and family to family.

 

This point, in and of itself, conflicts with her message of helping children not feel shame for having feelings. Because the end message is that heterosexuality is the right formatting and the right way to feel, act, or be. I'm going to make an analogy to ethnicity (one that I'm usually loathe to do in other circumstances because it is an imperfect comparison...and these differences are important to me). It works with just about any race, ethnicity, or minority group. So lets choose mexican where the child learned only spanish growing up and was culturally raised with a strong identity to his roots. He's to learn english in school in the U.S. and is told that he shouldn't be ashamed of his heritage or how he feels more comfortable speaking spanish, but that he should now only speak english and learn to be a "true" american. Doing so entails, denying or minimzing large parts of who he is, his culture, his family, and his experiences. It means wearing the right things, associating with the right people, and marrying the right one. When he has children he is to teach them english only and leave the only sense of heritage to them tied to taco bell and whatever sterotypes people throw around about mexicans. When his kids ask if it's true he only spoke spanish once, I doubt it would be pride that he would affirm such. Telling someone you shouldn't feel bad for having certain feelings and then state you need to now work to not feel that way and try to act and be like the only right way (heterosexual, american, white, english-speaking, fill in the blank) will induce shame. It doesn't matter how you word it, if you treat what makes them and their experiences intrinsically different as problematic or superfluous or inferior to the majority experience they will get the message loud and clear that who they are is unacceptable.     

 

I am not saying that if the person marries and has kids they're doomed to failure. I do know or have met a few who have that and are doing fine. But to give that as the choice that children who do not fit cleanly into the hetero-normative spectrum of experience/feeling is dangerous. And even those who have chosen such (think Josh Weed) would argue against that as the best option for most people who fall into the LGBT/SSA categories.

 

So there's a few of my probs with this article.  Now back to my day job.

 

with luv,

BD

Edited September 29, 2015 by BlueDreams

[The Nehor]

Oh?  Do you have a choice to be male or female?  Do you have a choice to be Caucasian or something else? 

 

The choice I was referring to was the choice on how to act due to your impulses.

 

As to your questions the gender one may have come up really early in premortality. The second one might have been choice or assignment. Not sure.

[The Nehor]

Oh, and having read the article now I think it was pretty bad. It couldn't seem to decide what it was trying to say.

Edited September 29, 2015 by The Nehor

[smac97]

Smac, 

 

As a therapist specializing in sex therapy and one who has had a long interest in the interesting cross-roads of being LDS and falling somewhere on the spectrum of LGBTQ/SSA experiences or identity....I'm not going to lie, I found this article awful. I couldn't even read it all the way through without wanting to scratch out my eyes. So this is my non-intellectual initial reaction and I can completely understand why this would be getting filleted online and I was probably going to ignore it all together.

 

But then I saw this thread, so I'll try to give at least one reasoned argument as to why this is a semi-epic fail. I don't have too much time, though, and need to get some other work done, so I'll probably keep this to basic points as to deeper analyses

 

It begins with the title and the assumptions of it How can we help our children choose heterosexuality. And several of the quote you pulled in post #21. It is fundamentally flawed because it asserts that there is only really 2 lifestyles one can choose from: heterosexual or homosexual. Of which, heterosexual is the best option. This is fundamentally not the direction that I've seen from counselors and the church itself surrounding these issues. On a counseling/therapeutic level, it would be choosing health and finding balance between all aspects of your personhood. This would mean acknowledging and accepting sexual inclinations as well as acknolwedging/accepting personal beliefs and faith. If a person is pushing against fundamental beliefs that are core to their  identity in favor for another part, it can be just as unhealthy as if they pushed aside every other identity in favor of just religious ideology. On a religious aspect the move in discourse is not choose heterosexuality....it's choose the gospel with all that you are. How that works will vary from person to person and family to family.

 

This point, in and of itself, conflicts with her message of helping children not feel shame for having feelings. Because the end message is that heterosexuality is the right formatting and the right way to feel, act, or be. I'm going to make an analogy to ethnicity (one that I'm usually loathe to do in other circumstances because it is an imperfect comparison...and these differences are important to me). It works with just about any race, ethnicity, or minority group. So lets choose mexican where the child learned only spanish growing up and was culturally raised with a strong identity to his roots. He's to learn english in school in the U.S. and is told that he shouldn't be ashamed of his heritage or how he feels more comfortable speaking spanish, but that he should now only speak english and learn to be a "true" american. Doing so entails, denying or minimzing large parts of who he is, his culture, his family, and his experiences. It means wearing the right things, associating with the right people, and marrying the right one. When he has children he is to teach them english only and leave the only sense of heritage to them tied to taco bell and whatever sterotypes people throw around about mexicans. When his kids ask if it's true he only spoke spanish once, I doubt it would be pride that he would affirm such. Telling someone you shouldn't feel bad for having certain feelings and then state you need to now work to not feel that way and try to act and be like the only right way (heterosexual, american, white, english-speaking, fill in the blank) will induce shame. It doesn't matter how you word it, if you treat what makes them and their experiences intrinsically different as problematic or superfluous or inferior to the majority experience they will get the message loud and clear that who they are is unacceptable.     

 

I am not saying that if the person marries and has kids they're doomed to failure. I do know or have met a few who have that and are doing fine. But to give that as the choice that children who do not fit cleanly into the hetero-normative spectrum of experience/feeling is dangerous. And even those who have chosen such (think Josh Weed) would argue against that as the best option for most people who fall into the LGBT/SSA categories.

 

So there's a few of my probs with this article.  Now back to my day job.

 

with luv,

BD

 

BD,

 

Thank you for your comments.  I respect you, your overall posture toward the LDS Church and the Restored Gospel, and the reasoning you generally exhibit in your posts.  So your opinion on this issue carries some substantial weight with me.  I will give it some real consideration.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Edited September 29, 2015 by smac97

[smac97]

Let's cut to the chase... do you believe sexual orientation is simply a choice?

 

I do not.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[Teancum]

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

 

 

Bullies are all a matter of perspective.

[Teancum]

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

 

 

 

No it shows your bias.  That you cannot see that speaks volumes.

[rockpond]

You haven't "suggested" the trope, but you've endorsed it as a "good point" when expressed by someone else.

That seems like a distinction without a difference.

Thanks,

-Smac

No. You're mistakenly equating Russell's quote with the other quotes that I said made good points. There is a distinction there that is important to understand. Edited September 29, 2015 by rockpond

[smac97]

No. You're mistakenly equating Russell's quote with the other quotes that I said made good points. There is a distinction there that is important to understand.

 

Yes, I'm clearly not understanding something.  I posted a number of Facebook comments about the article.  You then posted the ones you characterized as "some good points" and discarded the others as being "pointless attacks."  The comments you characterized as "good points" included the following:

• "It's time to go look for dead bodies because clearly this is damaging to LGBT people."
• "Maybe for your next article, you could look up statistics on suicide among gay youth, and more particularly gay Mormon youth."

Russell then made a comment about "the 'gays commit suicide because heteros disapprove of sodomy' trope".  You then said that you haven't "suggested" this trope, after which I observed that abstaining from "suggesting" a trope but endorsing it when espoused by others is "a distinction without a difference."

 

And now here you are, saying that I'm mistaken about ... something, and that there is a "distinction there that is important to understand."

 

Well, seeing as I'm not understanding what you are saying, I look forward to you educating me.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[Hamba Tuhan]

There's a choice to act in a certain way but not a choice to feel a certain way.

 

I wonder, in the grand scheme of things, if there can be a more pernicious, damning lie than to persuade people they lack agency.

[Bobbieaware]

Smac, 

 

As a therapist specializing in sex therapy and one who has had a long interest in the interesting cross-roads of being LDS and falling somewhere on the spectrum of LGBTQ/SSA experiences or identity....I'm not going to lie, I found this article awful. I couldn't even read it all the way through without wanting to scratch out my eyes. So this is my non-intellectual initial reaction and I can completely understand why this would be getting filleted online and I was probably going to ignore it all together.

 

But then I saw this thread, so I'll try to give at least one reasoned argument as to why this is a semi-epic fail. I don't have too much time, though, and need to get some other work done, so I'll probably keep this to basic points as to deeper analyses

 

It begins with the title and the assumptions of it How can we help our children choose heterosexuality. And several of the quote you pulled in post #21. It is fundamentally flawed because it asserts that there is only really 2 lifestyles one can choose from: heterosexual or homosexual. Of which, heterosexual is the best option. This is fundamentally not the direction that I've seen from counselors and the church itself surrounding these issues. On a counseling/therapeutic level, it would be choosing health and finding balance between all aspects of your personhood. This would mean acknowledging and accepting sexual inclinations as well as acknolwedging/accepting personal beliefs and faith. If a person is pushing against fundamental beliefs that are core to their  identity in favor for another part, it can be just as unhealthy as if they pushed aside every other identity in favor of just religious ideology. On a religious aspect the move in discourse is not choose heterosexuality....it's choose the gospel with all that you are. How that works will vary from person to person and family to family.

 

This point, in and of itself, conflicts with her message of helping children not feel shame for having feelings. Because the end message is that heterosexuality is the right formatting and the right way to feel, act, or be. I'm going to make an analogy to ethnicity (one that I'm usually loathe to do in other circumstances because it is an imperfect comparison...and these differences are important to me). It works with just about any race, ethnicity, or minority group. So lets choose mexican where the child learned only spanish growing up and was culturally raised with a strong identity to his roots. He's to learn english in school in the U.S. and is told that he shouldn't be ashamed of his heritage or how he feels more comfortable speaking spanish, but that he should now only speak english and learn to be a "true" american. Doing so entails, denying or minimzing large parts of who he is, his culture, his family, and his experiences. It means wearing the right things, associating with the right people, and marrying the right one. When he has children he is to teach them english only and leave the only sense of heritage to them tied to taco bell and whatever sterotypes people throw around about mexicans. When his kids ask if it's true he only spoke spanish once, I doubt it would be pride that he would affirm such. Telling someone you shouldn't feel bad for having certain feelings and then state you need to now work to not feel that way and try to act and be like the only right way (heterosexual, american, white, english-speaking, fill in the blank) will induce shame. It doesn't matter how you word it, if you treat what makes them and their experiences intrinsically different as problematic or superfluous or inferior to the majority experience they will get the message loud and clear that who they are is unacceptable.     

 

I am not saying that if the person marries and has kids they're doomed to failure. I do know or have met a few who have that and are doing fine. But to give that as the choice that children who do not fit cleanly into the hetero-normative spectrum of experience/feeling is dangerous. And even those who have chosen such (think Josh Weed) would argue against that as the best option for most people who fall into the LGBT/SSA categories.

 

So there's a few of my probs with this article.  Now back to my day job.

 

with luv,

BD

In light of your post, how does one explain the recent phenomenon of multiple millions of individuals of many different nationalities and ethnicities who came to the United States and gladly left behind their former languages, customs and much of their former cultures in order to proudly and joyously become Americans? And isn't this phenomenon analogous to men and women being willing to leave behind their former lives, including many things they once enjoyed and valued that they might become the sons and daughters of Christ and thereby obtain precious citizenship in the kingdom of God?

[kimpearson]

I am not quite sure how to put this so its coming from heart and it might be torn apart by those to whom this just an intellectual discussion based on reason and logic.  I hope you all realize that souls and precious children are involved in this.  I am the dad of a 15 year old gay son trying as hard as I can to figure out how to raise him so that he can have a relationship with his Father in Heaven when there are almost no real answers about why or how he can live his life happily and fully in the Church.  I have had a member of the First Quorum of the seventy spend an afternoon in our house listening to our questions and at the end of the day tell us that the leaders of the Church just don't have many of the answers right now. They are praying constantly for guidance but it hasn't fully come.  This article is so full of half truths and insinuations that have been tossed at our family over and over again.  I have personally seen the damage that such articles and thoughts do to our gay members of the Church.  Such articles do not bring peace and the ideas presented simply do not work.  The writer has no real evidence that her ideas work.  She has never put them in practice.  it is simply her theory. I wish that before someone published such an article, they would take the time to really try to apply their theories and see if they work.  I understand the outrage voiced over this article.  It is so very clear that the writer has no real experience and is simply perpetuating so many myths that Mormon's desperately cling too because they simply cannot believe Heavenly Father would allow someone to be born gay.

[ttribe]

I am not quite sure how to put this so its coming from heart and it might be torn apart by those to whom this just an intellectual discussion based on reason and logic.  I hope you all realize that souls and precious children are involved in this.  I am the dad of a 15 year old gay son trying as hard as I can to figure out how to raise him so that he can have a relationship with his Father in Heaven when there are almost no real answers about why or how he can live his life happily and fully in the Church.  I have had a member of the First Quorum of the seventy spend an afternoon in our house listening to our questions and at the end of the day tell us that the leaders of the Church just don't have many of the answers right now. They are praying constantly for guidance but it hasn't fully come.  This article is so full of half truths and insinuations that have been tossed at our family over and over again.  I have personally seen the damage that such articles and thoughts do to our gay members of the Church.  Such articles do not bring peace and the ideas presented simply do not work.  The writer has no real evidence that her ideas work.  She has never put them in practice.  it is simply her theory. I wish that before someone published such an article, they would take the time to really try to apply their theories and see if they work.  I understand the outrage voiced over this article.  It is so very clear that the writer has no real experience and is simply perpetuating so many myths that Mormon's desperately cling too because they simply cannot believe Heavenly Father would allow someone to be born gay.

 

So sorry for your personal pain on this issue...I don't have any answers either, but I certainly feel for you and your family.

[smac97]

I am not quite sure how to put this so its coming from heart and it might be torn apart by those to whom this just an intellectual discussion based on reason and logic.  I hope you all realize that souls and precious children are involved in this.  I am the dad of a 15 year old gay son trying as hard as I can to figure out how to raise him so that he can have a relationship with his Father in Heaven when there are almost no real answers about why or how he can live his life happily and fully in the Church.  I have had a member of the First Quorum of the seventy spend an afternoon in our house listening to our questions and at the end of the day tell us that the leaders of the Church just don't have many of the answers right now. They are praying constantly for guidance but it hasn't fully come.  This article is so full of half truths and insinuations that have been tossed at our family over and over again.  I have personally seen the damage that such articles and thoughts do to our gay members of the Church.  Such articles do not bring peace and the ideas presented simply do not work.  The writer has no real evidence that her ideas work.  She has never put them in practice.  it is simply her theory. I wish that before someone published such an article, they would take the time to really try to apply their theories and see if they work.  I understand the outrage voiced over this article.  It is so very clear that the writer has no real experience and is simply perpetuating so many myths that Mormon's desperately cling too because they simply cannot believe Heavenly Father would allow someone to be born gay.

 

Thank you for your comments.  You have given me a lot to think about.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[CV75]

I am not quite sure how to put this so its coming from heart and it might be torn apart by those to whom this just an intellectual discussion based on reason and logic.  I hope you all realize that souls and precious children are involved in this.  I am the dad of a 15 year old gay son trying as hard as I can to figure out how to raise him so that he can have a relationship with his Father in Heaven when there are almost no real answers about why or how he can live his life happily and fully in the Church.  I have had a member of the First Quorum of the seventy spend an afternoon in our house listening to our questions and at the end of the day tell us that the leaders of the Church just don't have many of the answers right now. They are praying constantly for guidance but it hasn't fully come.  This article is so full of half truths and insinuations that have been tossed at our family over and over again.  I have personally seen the damage that such articles and thoughts do to our gay members of the Church.  Such articles do not bring peace and the ideas presented simply do not work.  The writer has no real evidence that her ideas work.  She has never put them in practice.  it is simply her theory. I wish that before someone published such an article, they would take the time to really try to apply their theories and see if they work.  I understand the outrage voiced over this article.  It is so very clear that the writer has no real experience and is simply perpetuating so many myths that Mormon's desperately cling too because they simply cannot believe Heavenly Father would allow someone to be born gay.

This is why people make correct and faithful decisions without clear explanations, yet at the same time with crystal-clear guidance from the Lord (these are two different types of answers). Many of these answers are perfectly private and intimate, others made in confidence with the assistance of family or priesthood leaders. In either case the choices and decisions are very rarely broadcast, whether for social or sacred reasons, but there is certainly comfort and perspective to be found in the Lord, for all involved.

[Hamba Tuhan]

I don't think anyone believes you can choose your sexual orientation, except this author, it seems.

 

Yeah, this single author is completely alone on this point, cos what would cutting-edge gay academics like Hanne Blank and George Chauncey know...

[Danzo]

I wonder, in the grand scheme of things, if there can be a more pernicious, damning lie than to persuade people they lack agency.

 

It kind of reduces people to animals, saying that they have no choices.

[jkwilliams]

Yeah, this single author is completely alone on this point, cos what would cutting-edge gay academics like Hanne Blank and George Chauncey know...

I have read that before. Not sure how it's relevant.

[jkwilliams]

It kind of reduces people to animals, saying that they have no choices.

The choice is whether you act or not. You don't choose orientation.

[Hamba Tuhan]

I have read that before. Not sure how it's relevant.

 

I think it may problematise your attempt to deny credibility to the author of the article by isolating her.

[BlueDreams]

In light of your post, how does one explain the recent phenomenon of multiple millions of individuals of many different nationalities and ethnicities who came to the United States and gladly left behind their former languages, customs and much of their former cultures in order to proudly and joyously become Americans?

Bobbie, I really do not want to derail the thread and it was an analogy or parallel. Not a perfect reference point. So lets not go too far down this road. My bio-dad and step-mom are both immigrants to the U.S. and I believe both are citizens. I've also had the opportunity to know a lot of first/second-gen immigrants that range with the american experience. From what I can see they do not "leave behind" their former customs and cultures. If you were to see my dad/step's place it looks like a mini-nigeria. They have their house painted in bold colors, have tons of african art, have tropical fake trees in the house, have their own garden, buy local goat (he dislikes most american store-bought meat), eats fufu and fried plantains and nigerian stews, etc. My bio-dad states the main reason he finally got his citizenship was because he got tired of waiting in lines at the airport...ie. it made life easier. He's here because his children are here, jobs are here, and his life is here. The decision to stay here is often not an easy one and no where near as glowy or patriotic as is often discussed. My parents appreciate the U.S. But it had costs....they just decided the benefits were worth it...or they got used to it; one of the two. Either way, they certainly didn't shirk off who they were to become citizens. They became nigerian-americans and their culture and customs still resonate through their life.

 

Also for reference, the "hypothetical" I gave was not too far off to what happened to my step-dad. Except he was always a u.s. citizen (as were his parents) and the circumstances were more extreme/hostile. He basically had a choice: his culture or economic upward movement. He chose the latter.

 

And isn't this phenomenon analogous to men and women being willing to leave behind their former lives, including many things they once enjoyed and valued that they might become the sons and daughters of Christ and thereby obtain precious citizenship in the kingdom of God?

 

 

No. America isn't in any way equivalent to God's kingdom. And likewise heterosexuality is not the ultimate way of being God's child or on His errands. I have read and listened to several LDS people who do not fit the heteronormative experiences and are converted to their faith. Doing so has convinced me that their attractions are in no way a lesser road but a different one. One when accepted and navigated with God have often led to some of the most powerful testimonies of Christ I've had the privilege to hear. They didn't get it from ignoring their attractions. They didn't get it from "choosing to be heterosexual." They got there by accepting and submitting themselves unto the Lord and His ways. I view who they are as a beautiful way to exhibit more of Divinity in all its colors and aspects. These do not come from just learning the culture of the gospel just like everybody else, but allowing who they are and all their experiences culminate in a relationship with God. Few if any of them follow a straight forward path to their faith journey.

 

IMHO, we are not all to become proverbial "english speakers" for Jesus

 

With luv,

BD

Edited September 30, 2015 by BlueDreams

[Danzo]

The choice is whether you act or not. You don't choose orientation.

 

This seems to be an article of faith to many of you.

 

"Homosexuals can't choose their orientation"

 

"I Know someone who did"

 

"That was no true homosexual"

 

its the no true Scotsman fallacy.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Edited September 30, 2015 by Danzo

[jkwilliams]

I think it may problematise your attempt to deny credibility to the author of the article by isolating her.

In what way?

[jkwilliams]

This seems to be an article of faith to many of you.

Nope, just common sense. Did you choose your orientation? Neither did I.