Is the Church Homophobic?

[USU78]

Homophobia = the failure on any given day to embrace and promote a particular antireligionist, irrational, leftysociopolitical cadre of rules and regulations on the subject of homosexual and other deviant sexual and other, related behaviors, which cadre morphs so quickly and often that no one could possibly keep up.

[stemelbow]

In light of my reference to Elder Packer, I wanted to add that it is interesting to me that three pretty credible accusations against the Church, at least as I see it, are Homophobic, not stellar on women's issues (this is pretty broad and therefore, I realize a bit ambiguous, which means I'm putting it rather lightly.  but it's the best I can do now), and anti-intellectual. 

In all three areas I think the Church has too often been on the wrong side of the issue, much like, come to think of it, the race issues.  I'm happy and encouraged to note, there is always room for improvement, even if it seems improvement in the Church comes so slow to the brink of being too late. 

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Homophobia = the failure on any given day to embrace and promote a particular antireligionist, irrational, leftysociopolitical cadre of rules and regulations on the subject of homosexual and other deviant sexual and other, related behaviors, which cadre morphs so quickly and often that no one could possibly keep up.

Seeing how you define the term, could it be any wonder that the Church is homophobic? 

I get your trying express sarcasm on this topic, but to me that in itself is kind of telling. 

[ksfisher]

11 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

He was accurate in his statement and I suspect you knew that, just as I suspect you knew the sources you requested he supply.

To be more accurate children of gay parents can be baptized after they turn 18 and they have demonstrated that they are committed to living the principles of the gospel.

[thesometimesaint]

Are some members of the Church homophobic? Yes, but there is no excuse for it.

[Calm]

27 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I agree... the word has become too loaded to use but if we stick to the actual definitions of words, you are correct:  Someone who is repulsed by the idea of a gay God has some degree of homophobia just as most would likely agree that if you are repulsed by the idea of a black God than you likely have some degree of racism.

If one's belief is in a God the Father who creates humanity with God the Mother, it is not irrational to be repulsed by the idea that God the Father is gay and thus their partnership is not the one unity that we are taught is the ideal.

Unless you believe that a gay man can be completely fulfilled in a married relationship,with a woman?

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

To be more accurate children of gay parents can be baptized after they turn 18 and they have demonstrated that they are committed to living the principles of the gospel.

Children of married gay parents...

There are children whose parents are unmarried gays, there are children who have one biological gay parent who may be in a mixed marriage or now divorced, but celibate.  There are probably other combinations I can't think of right now.

[HappyJackWagon]

19 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Homophobia = the failure on any given day to embrace and promote a particular antireligionist, irrational, leftysociopolitical cadre of rules and regulations on the subject of homosexual and other deviant sexual and other, related behaviors, which cadre morphs so quickly and often that no one could possibly keep up.

Thank you for the illustration of what the "irrational fear" and contempt might look like.

Edited June 16, 2017 by HappyJackWagon

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Seeing how you define the term, could it be any wonder that the Church is homophobic? 

I get your trying express sarcasm on this topic, but to me that in itself is kind of telling. 

Why would you assume Church leadership has the same attitude as USU?

[USU78]

12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Seeing how you define the term, could it be any wonder that the Church is homophobic? 

I get your trying express sarcasm on this topic, but to me that in itself is kind of telling. 

Not sarcastic at all. It's a fixed game with a predetermined outcome.

All in all a nasty piece of business.

[HappyJackWagon]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

If one's belief is in a God the Father who creates humanity with God the Mother, it is not irrational to be repulsed by the idea that God the Father is gay and thus their partnership is not the one unity that we are taught is the ideal.

Unless you believe that a gay man can be completely fulfilled in a married relationship,with a woman?

Would that be the monogamist or polygamist ideal? Which one is taught? Either/or?

 

[ksfisher]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Children of married gay parents...

There are children whose parents are unmarried gays, there are children who have one biological gay parent who may be in a mixed marriage or now divorced, but celibate.  There are probably other combinations I can't think of right now.

Married or cohabiting.

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Not sarcastic at all. It's a fixed game with a predetermined outcome.

All in all a nasty piece of business.

That's quite Calvinist of you  

 

Edited June 16, 2017 by HappyJackWagon

[USU78]

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

That's quite Calvinist of you.

 

No. Not me. The Calvinist would tend to believe homosexual behaviors are inevitably "inborn and immutable," which irrationality I decry.

[stemelbow]

8 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

To be more accurate children of gay parents can be baptized after they turn 18 and they have demonstrated that they are committed to living the principles of the gospel.

Actually keep in mind anyone who does not have parents who are gay, can support gay marriage and still remain members in good standing, holding a recommend and all of that.  But the policy is such that those who have gay parents and are 18 must disavow same sex unions in order to be baptized.  So more than just them being committed to living the principles of the gospel.  They must oppose their family. 

[stemelbow]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

Why would you assume Church leadership has the same attitude as USU?

I don't.  I had asked given USU's definition, if that definition is true, how could the Church not be considered homophobic.  I, in no way, assumed anything about the views of Church leadership. 

[stemelbow]

12 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Not sarcastic at all. It's a fixed game with a predetermined outcome.

All in all a nasty piece of business.

If so, what is your source for that definition?  I"ve never seen it defined that way. 

[hope_for_things]

52 minutes ago, pogi said:

Just be careful, it appears that you are both rejecting the use of the word homophobia while simultaneously stating that the product of Mormonism is homophobia.

It is entirely unclear what you mean by your use of the word "homophobia" when you say that it is the product of the rhetoric and doctrines.  I instantly feel defensive because of what it can mean and how most people generally use it. 

The product of the rhetoric and doctrines is indeed aversion to homosexual activity (sin). If that is what you mean, just be clear, because I think we can all agree with that without getting defensive. 

I personally don't like using the word homophobia when talking about this issue because of the defensiveness response that it creates, so that was my first point.  It makes it difficult to have conversations about the topic all together, and I appreciate what you're saying and how my comment might also be triggering, its a challenge because this is the topic of this thread, so I'm trying to tread lightly.

When I said the product of the teachings of the church is homophobic members, I think the evidence for this is clear from my personal experiences and interactions with family and friends, I do see homophobic behaviors and attitudes.  I will say that most of the people I interact with have very kind hearts and are loving and generous in many aspects of their lives.  Unfortunately homophobia often keeps them from sharing the same generous spirit of love and acceptance to this group of individuals.   

The idea that homosexual activity is sinful, I believe it a major contributing factor to homophobia.  To me, if a person believes this, then that belief is homophobic at its core.  That person may be outwardly loving and kind to homosexuals, but believing that those individuals are sinning, even committed monogamous couples, is a homophobic belief.  Increasing this problem is the teaching that this sin is not a benign sin in Mormon parlance, but is next to murder.  I used to think you could separate the sin from the sinner on this issue, but I no longer do.  If you believe that homosexual activity is universally a sin, then that belief qualifies as a homophobic belief in my opinion.  

Edited June 16, 2017 by hope_for_things

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, USU78 said:

No. Not me. The Calvinist would tend to believe homosexual behaviors are inevitably "inborn and immutable," which irrationality I decry.

 

But you just said...

Quote

It's a fixed game with a predetermined outcome.

You're right. Not Calvinistic at all. My bad  

[USU78]

Just now, stemelbow said:

If so, what is your source for that definition?  I"ve never seen it defined that way. 

Observation. It's a weapon word. Nothing more.

[Rain]

16 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Thanks for your comments, Rain.

But if someone expresses being "repulsed" by a certain type of person, is that just my sensitivity feeling that the comment is homophobic?

If a policy is enacted that prohibits children of gays from being baptized, is my feeling that the policy is discriminatory and therefore bordering on homophobic merely in my mind, or is there a rational basis for using the term?

I understand that my personal views will color the way I view the behaviors or words of others, but at some point isn't there some level of acceptance that when a certain line is crossed, the behavior becomes homophobic, or racist, or sexist, etc.

While I understand the word is emotionally charged I have a hard time rejecting the word because I think it is instructive and descriptive. Saying someone is bordering on homophobia, and providing examples of why I think that is the case, seems different to me that stating that someone seems like a sexual predator without offering any kind of explanation or evidence.

First I think that the word is more than emotionally charged. I think it is also judgement charged. It may seem the same, but to me they are enough different that it matters. 

When you add the additional meanings to "irrational fear" of "contempt" "prejudice" or "hatred" it takes one even further from the idea of how it may have originally been meant to be used, especially when you are talking about contempt for people and not just "things" like heights or spiders. 

So I can't use the word because I'm not sure it is possible to separate it from all those things. For me, at this point, it's use means it could not be instructive, only divisive. Seriously, I sit here trying to imagine myself in a conversation where it might be used instructively and I'm finding it near impossible to feel about it in that way and I think I'm pretty good about being able to do that on a whole. (Someone saying I'm not Christian isn't even a blip because I understand their Trinity defition and boy can that get charged.) I don't have a lot of confidence it will work with other people who have a hard time separating the emotion from it.

By the way, I like the word "ignorant" because of what it describes and how it can be used. I find though that it has enough of a charge that I am very careful on when I use it. I can't think of a time when I feel I could use homophobia in a similar way.

[stemelbow]

Just now, USU78 said:

Observation. It's a weapon word. Nothing more.

Sure, in a sense I think it's much like the term anti-Mormon (which is really quite useless these days too).  But to the thread's point, if it weren't used in such a way, if we were strictly using it as it is defined, there is meaning and in some measure the practice of it is pretty identifiable. 

[USU78]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

 

But you just said...

You're right. Not Calvinistic at all. My bad  

I know you're trying to be funny, but let's be clear: those who employ the term don't do so clinically or consistently or even accurately.

They use it irrationally and as a weapon. Always.

[USU78]

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Sure, in a sense I think it's much like the term anti-Mormon (which is really quite useless these days too).  But to the thread's point, if it weren't used in such a way, if we were strictly using it as it is defined, there is meaning and in some measure the practice of it is pretty identifiable. 

You think it possible that it could be used rationally, accurately and not as a weapon? In my experience it has never been employed thus.

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, USU78 said:

I know you're trying to be funny, but let's be clear: those who employ the term don't do so clinically or consistently or even accurately.

They use it irrationally and as a weapon. Always.

That is why on my mission I realized using the term anti-Mormon was useless, so I get where you're coming from.  But sticking to the actual definition, without getting all dramatic about it, emotionally charged, well, it's pretty easily useable.