Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

How to communicate love to LGBT members?


Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Maestrophil said:

I have this same problem.  I will not treat my gay friends any differently - yet one gay friend in particular singles me out because he knows I am LDS, and seems to like to try and corner me and get aggressive.  He will ask me point blank if my moral view is that Homosexual Sex is a sin...  I try and divert by saying I respect all people's rights, I don't judge by sexuality, and I even support equal rights for gay couples - but he gets angry and insists that I am still a bigot as long I believe that God does not condone Homosexual Intercourse.  What to do?

I agree with JK... It sounds like your gay "friend" has a chip on his shoulder, and, frankly, his behavior borders on bullying.

I would calmly yet assertively let him know that your personal beliefs are yours, and aren't really up for discussion, followed by reminding him just as calmly and assertively that regardless of your personal beliefs, you support equal rights for gay couples and refuse to judge others because of their sexuality. 

I would then let him know that true friends accept each other just as they are, without asking them to change--and just as you aren't asking him to change his beliefs, you hope he shows mutual respect by extending the same courtesy.  If he can't, then you'd understand, even if you felt sorry at having to lose his friendship.

And tell him a gay acquaintance of yours told you to say as much.

Link to comment
20 hours ago, Calm said:

There are people who die every day in the US.  I don't know, it just troubles me that this may convey the feeling to loved ones of those who die without this kind of recognition that their loved ones' deaths were not as tragic.  

I wonder if there are specfic rules for when this applies or if it is a gut decision.  I would prefer the first.

I am sure there are rules that apply to this type of situation....

I hope you didn't experience or express such... troubles... when the flags were flown half-mast after any of the other terrorist attacks and/or mass-shootings, especially since the Orlando incident was the worst mass-shooting in U.S. history...

That being said, I don't think it's worth losing this thread to politics, so should you decide to have the last word on the subject, I'll decline to discuss it further to keep the focus on the intent of the thread and let the thread remain open for ongoing dialogue.

Edited by Daniel2
Link to comment
13 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Just watched a youtube of someone standing in front of the Brigham City temple.  Apparently some businesses nearby with flags, have them flying at half mast.  But not the temple, it was at full mast.  I'm pretty sure it was just a mistake, or does anyone know if flags anywhere else are at full mast?

All a the ones I saw in Provo, including the City center temple are at half-flag...so I'd say it was probably a mistake. 

 

As for the main topic. I don't know. It's been an interesting weekend, considering it was our family reunion. There was more talk for me at least around concerns, though I didn't dig into the shootings much until today and even then I can't pull myself to read much because there's about eight different ways this frustrates me. I feel like a lot of the conversations I've had, without divulging too much personal things have made me think a little more about the complexity of communication and how our assumptions and own experiences can block love. Both gay and straight and everything in between. My general rule for anybody is:

- be patient and express love openly first. Be there with them, whoever "them" are.

- assume imperfection will be there. That things said for both ends may be harsh or difficult. But it doesn't have to be the end of connection and growth.

- allow people to feel and have emotions that differ from your own . 

- serve wherever you feel called to serve. I'm not a big volunteer but I'm an open heart and a listener. Listening and empathize and discussing tend to go far. 

- seek for understanding or empathy. It doesn't mean you necessarily all the sudden agree or adopt the others views. It just means you seek to see them....seeing a person instead of a charicature is always helpful.

I feel like sometimes both sides have things to learn in communicating love and care. My family runs an odd gammit of beliefs. most are lds, conservative, pioneer country originated stock. But we have a number of people who haven't lived the average Mormon life and a number who are gay with a variety of openness. Oddly the most "out" of them comes to reunions, is welcomed with open arms, etc. the ones more reserved don't because they feel family will judge them or feel out of place. I've tried to show more love in small ways not always related to the topic, show connection and care, and they love me. But their own hearts need some place to figure things out as well and they're not at a place to really have more than a soft relationship. I won't lie...that's frustrating. I want more, but can't and it feels like it's stunted before there's really not a good chance to try. The other relative is more long distance (age and geography) so there's less chance to associate. But still...we had a good moment and shared love and closeness because he opened up. I also talked to some of the parents and siblings closest. The sadness they have for varying reasons, the worry and fear they'll lose close relationships as lives divert, and the pain and exhaustion of watching other things just never be enough. It was hard because I know they feel they can't share in part because it wouldn't help and in part because a few feel there's not really space to do so.

I understand the danger of vulnerability particularly for those that are at a disadvantage voice-wise as a minority. I get feeling people out to see level of receptivity and how much space they can give for your diffs. But prejudgment, prejudice, and misunderstanding runs so many ways.  And I got to watch a lot of that this weekend. 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited by BlueDreams
Link to comment
12 hours ago, Valentinus said:

Keep the "It's a sin..." opinion to yourself. Lecturing on perceived morality is inappropriate. That's a good way to start.

I think one can express disapproval of behavior without lecturing. To me, it all boils down to whether we can accept that others don't behave or believe the way we do and love them, anyway, or not.

Link to comment
On 6/12/2016 at 3:39 PM, Eek! said:
On 6/14/2016 at 8:03 AM, Tacenda said:

Just watched a youtube of someone standing in front of the Brigham City temple.  Apparently some businesses nearby with flags, have them flying at half mast.  But not the temple, it was at full mast.  I'm pretty sure it was just a mistake, or does anyone know if flags anywhere else are at full mast?

 

The flag outside the Church Office Building is at half staff.

https://www.lds.org/church/news/church-issues-statement-on-shootings-in-florida?lang=eng

 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, JAHS said:

 

The flag outside the Church Office Building is at half staff.

https://www.lds.org/church/news/church-issues-statement-on-shootings-in-florida?lang=eng

 

Since posting that, I've seen many say the church has flags at half mast everywhere.  I firmly believe it was just a mistake,  I'll bet the guy in the You Tube, which was anti, got there real early in the day, don't know for sure.  I'm pretty sure it's flying half mast now.  

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Valentinus said:

No one's asking. Keep your religious opinions to yourself.

First, it appears that some people are asking.

Second, what is a "religious opinion?"

Third, are you seriously encouraging preemptive viewpoint discrimination based on religion?  For many people, religion seriously and substantially informs their worldview, their opinions.  I find it rather astounding that you would preemptively tell such persons that they should not express their viewpoints because such viewpoints have a religious dimension.

Fourth, would you ever say, in polite company, any of the following:

  • "Keep your homosexual opinions to yourself."
  • "Keep your Jewish opinions to yourself."
  • "Keep your African-American opinions to yourself."
  • "Keep your atheist opinions to yourself."
  • "Keep your 'liberal/progressive' opinions to yourself."
  • "Keep your Canadian opinions to yourself."

See, religion isn't the only facet of the human condition that informs a person's worldview.  A person's race, sexual orientation, nationality, political preference, etc. all affect one's opinions.  It seems that we as a society can and should respect that and allow for the expression of diverse viewpoints based on diverse experiences and backgrounds.

But here you are, telling people with religion-informed viewpoints to shut up.  To not exercise their constitutional right to Free Speech.  And that they should do so because you do not approve of their religion.

If you don't tell Jews to shut up because they are Jews, or gays to shut up because they are gay, and so on, how is it appropriate to tell Mormons to shut up because they are Mormon?

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

First, it appears that some people are asking.

Second, what is a "religious opinion?"

Third, are you seriously encouraging preemptive viewpoint discrimination based on religion?  For many people, religion seriously and substantially informs their worldview, their opinions.  I find it rather astounding that you would preemptively tell such persons that they should not express their viewpoints because such viewpoints have a religious dimension.

Fourth, would you ever say, in polite company, any of the following:

  • "Keep your homosexual opinions to yourself."
  • "Keep your Jewish opinions to yourself."
  • "Keep your African-American opinions to yourself."
  • "Keep your atheist opinions to yourself."
  • "Keep your 'liberal/progressive' opinions to yourself."
  • "Keep your Canadian opinions to yourself."

See, religion isn't the only facet of the human condition that informs a person's worldview.  A person's race, sexual orientation, nationality, political preference, etc. all affect one's opinions.  It seems that we as a society can and should respect that and allow for the expression of diverse viewpoints based on diverse experiences and backgrounds.

But here you are, telling people with religion-informed viewpoints to shut up.  To not exercise their constitutional right to Free Speech.  And that they should do so because you do not approve of their religion.

If you don't tell Jews to shut up because they are Jews, or gays to shut up because they are gay, and so on, how is it appropriate to tell Mormons to shut up because they are Mormon?

Thanks,

-Smac

All I'm saying is that it is unnecessary to always say that it's a sin. We know what you think and believe about it. I'll defend your right to have that belief. I don't want or expect you or any religion to be okay with my intimate choices. But you don't need to tell me I'm sinning every chance you get. Your God's opinion on the matter is irrelevant.

I understand this is an LDS board and it provides you with a privileged platform to proclaim perceived sin. I respect that. So I'll lay down my ego and my sword so that you may continue your crusade. 

Link to comment
On 6/15/2016 at 4:39 PM, Valentinus said:

All I'm saying is that it is unnecessary to always say that it's a sin.

Your statement seemed a bit more expansive than that.  But I guess context matters.  Thanks for the clarification.

Quote

We know what you think and believe about it.

For me, I do not offer unsolicited opinions about the lives of other people who are not within my stewardship.

But as has been alluded to by other posters, some folks on your side of the argument do not appear to be content with a "live and let live" philosophy, hence the not-too-uncommon raking-over-the-coals we Mormons get for committing the thought crime of having religious beliefs that touch on matters of sexuality.

And then there are times when a "live and let live" philosophy runs into cold, hard reality.  Personally, I rather like what I see as the Church making good faith efforts to accommodate the lifestyle choices of LGBT folks (endorsing employment/housing protections, etc.), while stopping short of capitulating on our beliefs.

Quote

I'll defend your right to have that belief. I don't want or expect you or any religion to be okay with my intimate choices.

Frankly, I generally don't think much about or desire to overly involve myself with other people's "intimate choices."  But some on your side of the argument seems intent on forcing the public to pay attention to those "intimate choices."  Hence we get things like the Folsom Street Fair.

Quote

But you don't need to tell me I'm sinning every chance you get.

CFR, please, as to where I have ever told you that you are sinning.

I assume you will respond to this CFR by saying "Never."  

To which I will then say "Darn straight.  So why are you telling me that I 'don't need to' do something I have never done before?"

Quote

Your God's opinion on the matter is irrelevant.

With respect, I disagree.  But again, I don't press the matter (you brought it up, brah!).

Quote

I understand this is an LDS board and it provides you with a privileged platform to proclaim perceived sin.

Oh, c'mon.  Can this board really be characterized as "a privileged platform to proclaim perceived sin?"

Is that the substance of the discussions we see here?  I trow not.

Quote

I respect that. So I'll lay down my ego and my sword so that you may continue your crusade. 

What crusade is that?  The one where I tell you you are sinning?  Which I have never, ever done?

tilting_at_windmills.jpg

;)

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/utah-lt-gov-says-heart-195554609.html

Ut. LT Governer Spencer Cox, apologizes for his past treatment of gays.  

I saw that last night and found it moving and very encouraging. Maybe more people will understand that you can find behavior sinful without hating the people engaged in that behavior. You might also enjoy reading this piece about someone who showed love to those who were most in need of it and had been rejected and literally left for dead.

http://m.arktimes.com/arkansas/ruth-coker-burks-the-cemetery-angel/Content?oid=3602959

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I saw that last night and found it moving and very encouraging. Maybe more people will understand that you can find behavior sinful without hating the people engaged in that behavior. You might also enjoy reading this piece about someone who showed love to those who were most in need of it and had been rejected and literally left for dead.

http://m.arktimes.com/arkansas/ruth-coker-burks-the-cemetery-angel/Content?oid=3602959

Reading these stories from this amazing woman, is both heartbreaking and heartwarming.  The part about her not wearing gloves in the hospital was great, especially when all they ever had were people around them with gloves.  And how those parents of some of those patients couldn't wait for their sons to die.  They didn't want anything to do with them; it's just so sickening.  The young man that just wanted to talk to his mother one last time before he died, but she wouldn't answer his calls, all he heard was her answering machine.  How they cleaned up after an aids patient died back then, was pretty sad.  I guess people didn't understand a lot back then, glad it's gotten better.

But after reading these, it makes me mad that I won't get to know many gays, because they aren't at my church sitting at the pews, unless they're hiding.  

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Reading these stories from this amazing woman, is both heartbreaking and heartwarming.  The part about her not wearing gloves in the hospital was great, especially when all they ever had were people around them with gloves.  And how those parents of some of those patients couldn't wait for their sons to die.  They didn't want anything to do with them; it's just so sickening.  The young man that just wanted to talk to his mother one last time before he died, but she wouldn't answer his calls, all he heard was her answering machine.  How they cleaned up after an aids patient died back then, was pretty sad.  I guess people didn't understand a lot back then, glad it's gotten better.

But after reading these, it makes me mad that I won't get to know many gays, because they aren't at my church sitting at the pews, unless they're hiding.  

It takes a lot to being me to tears, but that article did. I cannot imagine completely rejecting a child for any reason. Even if I had a child on death row, I would still love him or her. The image of a dying young man crying in vain for his mother is one that will stay with me a long time.

Link to comment
On Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Jeanne said:

It should be half mast (IMO)  These gay people are US citizens first and foremost.  Huh...I will check things out around here,

 

On Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 0:35 PM, Calm said:

There are people who die every day in the US.  I don't know, it just troubles me that this may convey the feeling to loved ones of those who die without this kind of recognition that their loved ones' deaths were not as tragic.  

I wonder if there are specfic rules for when this applies or if it is a gut decision.  I would prefer the first.

Yes, there are rules according to everything I have read over the years and unless there was a government official killed here my understanding is the flag should not be at half staff in this instance and in nearly every orher instance I have heard of in the last couple of years.  http://www.usflag.org/nff.half.staff.html

Posting from my phone so I can't figure out how to quote it:

"From the Nov.-Dec. 1994 National Flag Foundations "Standard Bearer" Magazine."


"This article remains the copyrighted material of the National Flag Foundation and is presented here by permission."

"Flying the flag at half-staff is an area of flag etiquette that most people want to make sure they get right. It is also an area for which the road to error is routinely paved with good intentions. With that in mind, we offer this refresher course as the all-important intersection where knowledge meets benevolence."

"FLYING THE FLAG AT HALF-STAFF: The pertinent section of the Flag Code says, "by order of the President, the flag shall be flown at half-staff upon the death of principal figures of the United States Government and the Governor of a State, territory, or possesion, as a mark of respect to their memory. In the event of the death of other officials or foreign dignitaries, the flag is to be displayed at half-staff according to Presidential orders, or in accordance with recognized customs or practices not inconsistent with law."

"In the event of the death a present or former official of the government of any State, territory, or possession of the United States, the Governor of that state, territory, or possession may proclaim that the National flag shall be flown at half-staff." The code also includes other related details including the specific length of time during which the flag should be displayed at half-staff, in the event of the death of a "principal figure"(e.g., 30 days for the death of a sitting or former President, 10 days for the death of a sitting Vice-President,etc.)."

"GOOD-FAITH MISUNDERSTANDINGS: Although the code is actually pretty clear, confusion continues to occur. For example, U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno recently ordered the American Flag flown at half-staff on all U.S. Department of Justice buildings, in honor of several DEA agents who had died. While NFF understands this gesture, the Flag Code does not give Attorney General Reno the authority to issue that order. Closer to NFF's Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania home, Mayor Tom Murphy ordered all flags flown at half-staff to honor the victims of a plane crash. Here again, a well-intentioned gesture, but one for which no authority exists. NFF points out these "good-faith misunderstandings" not to criticize or embarrass anyone, but rather to head off a growing trivialization of this memorial salute, and to preserve the dignity and significance of flying the U.S. flag at half-staff. To any readers who may think that NFF is insensitive for raising these breaches of etiquette, please be assured that our motives are pure. We grieve these human loses deeply; however, we believe proper respect for our flag must be maintained - no matter the circumstances."

Edited by Rain
Link to comment
14 hours ago, smac97 said:

Your statement seemed a bit more expansive than that.  But I guess context matters.  Thanks for the clarification.

No problem.

For me, I do not offer unsolicited opinions about the lives of other people who are not within my stewardship.

But as has been alluded to by other posters, some folks on your side of the argument do not appear to be content with a "live and let live" philosophy, hence the not-too-uncommon raking-over-the-coals we Mormons get for committing the thought crime of having religious beliefs that touch on matters of sexuality.

And then there are times when a "live and let live" philosophy runs into cold, hard reality.  Personally, I rather like what I see as the Church making good faith efforts to accommodate the lifestyle choices of LGBT folks (endorsing employment/housing protections, etc.), while stopping short of capitulating on our beliefs.

Agreed so long as the church does not try to legislate its idea of morality. I don't want the church to accept the "gay lifestyle" and start offering sealings. But I also don't want it to politic against my right to marry. The church can keep it's tax exempt status and stay out of politics.

Frankly, I generally don't think much about or desire to overly involve myself with other people's "intimate choices."  But some on your side of the argument seems intent on forcing the public to pay attention to those "intimate choices."  Hence we get things like the Folsom Street Fair.

I agree. I don't care for such festivals.

CFR, please, as to where I have ever told you that you are sinning.

I assume you will respond to this CFR by saying "Never."  

To which I will then say "Darn straight.  So why are you telling me that I 'don't need to' do something I have never done before?"

Good grief. Apologies. I did not mean you specifically.

With respect, I disagree.  But again, I don't press the matter (you brought it up, brah!).

Fair enough. A simple difference of opinion.

Oh, c'mon.  Can this board really be characterized as "a privileged platform to proclaim perceived sin?"

Is that the substance of the discussions we see here?  I trow not.

Um...I've seen the condescending and pious rot against people like me. I remember when Wade used to compare love to loving a dog or an inanimate object. The vitriol with which some others post, masquerading with pretty words, is alive and well here.

What crusade is that?  The one where I tell you you are sinning?  Which I have never, ever done?

No. The ongoing plight to righteously proclaim God and Jesus and an obscure atonement and how to get into an obscure highest level of the highest level of heaven. All of which is absolutely unnecessary. To be clear, I'm not singling you out so don't get defensive.

 

;)

-Smac

 

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...