Sexual Fluidity and Legal Implications (and cultural)

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

There are other laws that deal with discrimination besides the Federal same sex marriage ruling and other countries besides the US.

What laws do you think could possibly be challenged based on a conclusion that sexual orientation is more fluid than previously thought? Can you give an example?

[kllindley]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

What laws do you think could possibly be challenged based on a conclusion that sexual orientation is more fluid than previously thought? Can you give an example?

Including then in as a protected class in any anti-discrimination law. We had several whole discussions here about what the requirements are for protected classes.  The reason is that being classified as a protected class does bestow additional rights and protections on members. As a society, we've decided that this is a worthwhile action, as long as the boundaries for what is a protected class are clearly defined. This research says that sexual orientation is not a good fit for being a protected class.

[kllindley]

10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The idea that sexual fluidity is more common than previously believed — wasn’t that one of the points in that study published a couple of years ago out of Johns Hopkins University, the one that was so loudly condemned, including by some on this  board? 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/68150-recent-study-on-gender-and-sexuality/

 

There is an important distinction  between gender identity fluidity and sexual orientation fluidity. Gender identity is the gender that a person internally experiences themselves to be. Sexual orientation is the gender(s) a person is sexually and/or romantically attracted to. Gender identity is much less fluid as it deals with a very foundational way that the person experiences themselves in relation to the world. 

[kllindley]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

Perhaps I am making a bigger issue with the problems I see in her presentation than is warranted.

Probably. It's pretty straightforward research which is being acknowledged more and more within the professional realm, even if pop-science hasn't caught up. 

But more importantly, you're right. This doesn't affect you personally. I don't think anyone here has tried to suggest that you are any less justified in your life decisions as a result of these new findings. I've felt sad as I've seen your defensiveness and saw that you felt threatened or attacked. I'm sorry if my comments continued to that.

As I see the value of her research has to do with the way we talk about sexual orientation, especially with youth. For many youth, some degree of same-sex attraction does not mean that they are "gay" forever more. If the only stories they hear tell them this, they are likely to make decisions based on falsehoods. 

I am equally opposed to exaggerating the meaning or applicability of statistics (like higher rate of disease and depression) to try to scare youth from considering same-sex relationships. I think that is very wrong. 

Either way, I perceived that you took this as a personal attack, and even though I don't understand why, I recognize that your emotional response is real.

[california boy]

2 hours ago, kllindley said:

Probably. It's pretty straightforward research which is being acknowledged more and more within the professional realm, even if pop-science hasn't caught up. 

But more importantly, you're right. This doesn't affect you personally. I don't think anyone here has tried to suggest that you are any less justified in your life decisions as a result of these new findings. I've felt sad as I've seen your defensiveness and saw that you felt threatened or attacked. I'm sorry if my comments continued to that.

As I see the value of her research has to do with the way we talk about sexual orientation, especially with youth. For many youth, some degree of same-sex attraction does not mean that they are "gay" forever more. If the only stories they hear tell them this, they are likely to make decisions based on falsehoods. 

I am equally opposed to exaggerating the meaning or applicability of statistics (like higher rate of disease and depression) to try to scare youth from considering same-sex relationships. I think that is very wrong. 

Either way, I perceived that you took this as a personal attack, and even though I don't understand why, I recognize that your emotional response is real.

I am not threatened with the idea of a more fluid approach to sexuality by some people.  But when a person draws conclusions that her study puts in jeopardy legal rights, I do become defensive.  I don't think that just because someone is gay. they should be excluded from basic rights enjoyed by others including housing and employment.  No matter what the actual percentage is, there is in fact a group who has immutable orientation to the same sex.  What that percentage is should not determine whether they are entitled to basic civil rights.  Her implications that some how her study may effect how the legal system views those rights is troubling, especially when she never actually defines what her definition of being fluid means.  

But hey, this is a Mormon Discussion Board.  I don't really expect  a certain group that posts here to understand that. 

[Calm]

I am not sure why you would be defensive when a person who wants to ensure there are legal protections expresses concern there may be problems with current approaches so more effective ones should be used.  Worried, yes, can very much see why there would be concern  But defensive of her, she is not threatening that I can see  

Now defensive if people using her research improperly like Narth did, that is threatening imo  I have seen a few sites that go about using her research to argue against rights and liberties...but that is their approach and not inherent to the information.  One could even use “born that way” as an argument for inherent inferiority as has been done for eons with race, for example  

———

I don’t think any current legal rights that I am aware of should be withheld from either the smaller minority of those who are exclusive and always have been exclusive (and they seem safe to me where laws are based on immutability even if the science is recognized) or the larger minority group of those who experience same sex attraction, but do not so exclusively. This larger group is from what I have researched actually at greater risk for discrimination and hate crimes (I wonder if this is because people have expectations and when these are contradicted, discrimination seems justified to them) and therefore these categories need solid legal standing, imo. If a country uses a definition that is not cover this group nor can it be easily expanded, it could take years to recover protections that it is currently assumed they have. It seems wise to me to revamp political approaches to match science’s current findings if one is using science at all in legal arguments. 

———

As far as her not defining sexual fluidity, I put up the time stamp of where she did so in the video. Perhaps I am not understanding what you are asking for. 

[Daniel2]

While popular as a means to rally and bolster social support, immutability isn’t a requirement to qualify for anti-discrimination law protections, nor to qualify for protected classifications, which already routinely cover a wide variety of personal choices related to but not directly as or displaying any given characteristic of a protected class. Some examples of such protected ‘choices’ or ‘behaviors’ include choice of religious affiliation, choice of the race of one’s spouse/sexual partner, choice of religious affiliation of one's spouse/sexual partner, choice of military service, choice of gender of one’s spouse/sexual partner, etc.

Additionally, courts are increasingly ruling that anti-discrimination laws already protect what’s commonly viewed as “sexual orientation” from discrimination on the basis of gender itself, rather than sexual orientation.  While orientation may be immutable for some and fluid for others, race and gender are far less changeable than orientation, even in light of gender expression or medical gender reassignment procedures.

Recognition of ‘protected classes’ does not afford members of minority subsets any MORE protections than members of the same protected class’s majority subsets. For example, non-discrimination laws do not grant blacks or Latinos any more rights than whites, nor do such laws grant Mormons living in Utah any more rights than Jews living in Utah (or Pennsylvanian Amish more rights than Pennsylvanian non-Amish, atheists, etc.).  Rather, anti-discrimination law treats all members of protected classes the same, irrespective of their sub-set identification/affiliation.  

As applied to marriage equality resting on principles of non-discrimination law, civil marriage recognition of all qualified couples legally robs nothing from men ‘who experience SSA’ (whether immutable or fluid) from marrying women, just as religious marriage which doesn’t recognize same-sex relationships legally robs nothing from same-sex couples who are still able to civilly marry one another, or religiously marry within same-sex relationship-affirming Faiths.

The current clash alleging a right to withhold service in public accommodations law based on deeply-held religious belief alledges the ability to discriminate based on religious affiliation, which (IMO) fundamentally undermines religious freedom in the public realm, rather than advancing or upholding it. 

As SCOTUS recently ruled, 

"Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth. For that reason the laws and the Constitution can, and in some instances must, protect them in the exercise of their civil rights. The exercise of their freedom on terms equal to others must be given great weight and respect by the courts. At the same time, the religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression.

 

As this Court observed in Obergefell v. Hodges, “[t]he First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths.” Nevertheless, while those religious and philosophical objections are protected, it is a general rule that such objections do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law.”

 

While I believe the law is on the verge of soon being firmly settled regarding upholding public accommodation laws, the most complex and challenging issue still facing emerging legalities involving sexual orientation, from my perspective, are those that involve the role, ethics, and medical application of professional therapists and those policies/laws governing and/or involving changing attractions vs. controlling behavior. 

 

Edited July 25, 2018 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

On ‎7‎/‎20‎/‎2018 at 3:18 PM, kllindley said:

So all the claims that gays have it impossibly hard in the Church because that is "just the way they are," are nonsense. 

Disappointed to see this coming from you, Kllindley.  "ALL the claims" that gays have it hard in the church "are nonsense"....?  Merely because SOME research shows that sexuality is fluid in more than previously thought...?  And merely because "more than previously thought" experience some level of fluidity, it must invalidate ALL the testimonies of those of us who have tried to change our sexuality but cannot....?

Of all people, I would have expected a less black-and-white, more nuanced approach from you that your statement above.

Edited July 25, 2018 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

On ‎7‎/‎20‎/‎2018 at 3:18 PM, kllindley said:

However, the facts about sexual attraction, orientation, and identity are not at odds with the Restored Gospel. Those claiming otherwise, or insisting that the Church change its doctrines, are not arguing from the perspective of science. 

Sorry.  I missed this statement previously.

By making yet another universal truth claim here, you sweep aside those of us who spent decades trying to change in accordance with what our church leaders were telling us was possible "in the name of the Lord."

For decades, the church's teachings were VERY much at odds with the facts about sexual orientation, attraction, and identity (ideas including homosexuality is the result of masturbation, selfishness, and wickedness and could be changed through fasting and prayer, that sexual orientation wasn't innate and unchangeable for at least some come to mind).

The fact is that the church itself has evolved as science and medicine have evolved, and will continue to do so.  I've seen that in my lifetime, as the moment I was astonished to see Elder Oaks admit in the early 1990s (and for the first time in anything I'd read before in my entire life of searching) that sexual orientation was likely unchangeable at least for some, and in an article published in The Ensign, no less--a far cry from the tone and substance of Kimball's "Miracle of Forgiveness" rhetoric and others of his and earlier times.

Younger generations reap the blessings of "line upon line" revelations of truth as it evolves through time, and I'd suggest that none of us are likely ever capable of truly understanding how organizations like the church (and many others like it, both religious and non-religious alike) adapt and change over time.  The only reason it's easier to see in the Catholic Church is because we have decades of time to see how the church changed as science, astrology, geology, paleontology, biology, etc. advanced.

Edited July 25, 2018 by Daniel2

[Storm Rider]

I don't think I have ever met an individual with same-sex attraction that I felt could, by some magical waving of their wand, change what or who they are attracted. I do think that the more they actively express their desires the stronger the attraction becomes, but in this context that is irrelevant. 

I have yet to hear from anyone a clear, understandable, believable reason why some individuals have SSA and others don't. As a result, I have concluded that the answer is unknowable and beyond our current understanding. Any attempt to paint a story or invent reasons are a dead end and have no merit.

When the topic is rights - employment and housing specifically - I don't see how an individual's sexual desires have any merit to qualify or disqualify. 

Nothing that I have stated conflicts with my spiritual beliefs - that man was created to have a female mate and anything other than that is against God's plans for his children. 

[kllindley]

2 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

Disappointed to see this coming from you, Kllindley.  "ALL the claims" that gays have it hard in the church "are nonsense"....?  Merely because SOME research shows that sexuality is fluid in more than previously thought...?  And merely because "more than previously thought" experience some level of fluidity, it must invalidate ALL the testimonies of those of us who have tried to change our sexuality but cannot....?

Of all people, I would have expected a less black-and-white, more nuanced approach from you that your statement above.

The key word in my response was "impossibly."  I was trying to fight back against the black-and-white narrative that has dominated lately between Believer Documentary and LoveLoud. 

[USU78]

16 minutes ago, kllindley said:

The key word in my response was "impossibly."  I was trying to fight back against the black-and-white narrative that has dominated lately between Believer Documentary and LoveLoud. 

Precisely. Those who've successfully chosen a path consistent with faithful discipleship should never be demeaned or marginalized. Neither should their methodologies.

[Daniel2]

12 hours ago, kllindley said:

The key word in my response was "impossibly."  I was trying to fight back against the black-and-white narrative that has dominated lately between Believer Documentary and LoveLoud. 

Huh.

Your appeal to to the word “impossibly” rings hollow in the face of my own struggle to overcome my religiously-induced suicidiality (a battle I thankfully won and, with the help of a compassionate, straight, non-LDS therapist and a new Unitarian Universalist religious community, I abandoned years ago), which isn’t to discount nor minimize those that I and others ultimately lost to such.  I personally knew Stockton and am very good friends with his parents. Not to mention my own experience with the suicide of Stephen Bowman, the 42-year-old father of four and son of the LDS Area Authority and Temple President’s son of the Oaxaca, Mexico Temple. 

But how nice that that distinction makes a difference to you and/or brings you solace.  

And if that sounds bitter.... it is. I’m tired of my and others’ experiences being dismissed in defense of dogma. I now believe EVERY life is worth more than an attempt to defend any belief-system that robs people of their own inherent dignity and worth and contributes to the idea that their lives may be better off dead than sinfully dishonored. 

I anticipate, however, that dogmatic defense will not only continue, even in the most strident terms, and in direct response to this post. 

Peace and blessings to all. 

 

Edited July 25, 2018 by Daniel2

[USU78]

6 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Huh....

Your appeal to to the word “impossibly” rings hollow in the face of my own struggle to overcome my religiously-induced suicidiality (a battle I thankfully won and abandoned years ago), which isn’t to discount nor minimize those that I and others ultimately lost to such.  I personally knew Stockton and am very good friends with his parents. Not to mention my own experience with the suicide of Stephen Bowman, the 42-year-old father of four and son of the LDS Area Authority and Temple President’s son of the Oaxaca, Mexico Temple. 

But how nice that that distinction brings you solace.  

And if that sounds bitter.... it is. I’m tired of mine and others’ experiences being dismissed in defense of dogma. 

 

... because Mormons are always killing homosexuals. Right!?

[Daniel2]

41 minutes ago, USU78 said:

... because Mormons are always killing homosexuals. Right!?

Nope.

It’s  it a joke or a meme or an angle, USU. But thanks for illustrating my point that the defense of dogma would continue in the wake of my last post.

In my experience, the vast majority of Latter-day Saints are good-hearted, well-intentioned people who, in regards to this issue, are just as lost as those of us who have left the church. For all our differences, you and I are brothers in our shared family of humanity. 

The reality is that many Mormon homosexuals are killing THEMSELVES.

The moment we all can confront that reality, stop politicizing it, and try to prevent it from continuing, the better.

Edited July 25, 2018 by Daniel2

[USU78]

4 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Mormon homosexuals are killing themselves.

Because

They

Are

Mentally

Ill

[Daniel2]

10 hours ago, USU78 said:

Because

They

Are

Mentally

Ill

Thanks for THE best illustration of a black-and-white, oversimplification that I could have EVER asked for. 

LDS doctrine defends the idea that religion/God can not only allow, but literally command, killing in defense of some religious  ideologies (as described in Old Testament genocides, the ‘near miss’ slaying of Issac by his own father, or the murder of Laban). Yet even as Mormonism promotes/defends the idea that ‘God commanded me to kill in His name’ as an entirely mentally sane and perfectly justifiable action in some circumstances, many Latter-day Saints seem unable to admit or even see how such teachings can religiously influence gays and lesbians struggling to understand how to make sense of the idea that “if thine eye/hand offends thee, pluck it out/cut it off.” Easier, instead, to simply blame it on mental illness and ignore how religion can also be a contributing/major factor. 

Edited July 25, 2018 by Daniel2

[kllindley]

2 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

And if that sounds bitter.... it is.

Well, then there's not much point talking is there? Talk about disappointing. Indeed: "Of all people, I would have expected a less black-and-white, more nuanced approach from you than your statement above."

Congratulations. You win. Discussion ended.

[Hamba Tuhan]

17 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Congratulations. You win. Discussion ended.

Trump card played.

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

 

Of all people, I would have expected a less black-and-white, more nuanced approach from you that your statement above.

Are you sure you're not my mother?

Edited July 25, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Daniel2]

10 hours ago, kllindley said:

Well, then there's not much point talking is there? Talk about disappointing. Indeed: "Of all people, I would have expected a less black-and-white, more nuanced approach from you than your statement above."

Congratulations. You win. Discussion ended.

Acknowledgment of my dealing with the bitterness of loss doesn’t mean constructive conversation cannot continue—just the opposite, from where I sit. There aren’t any winners so long as we continue to lose people to suicide.

Edited July 25, 2018 by Daniel2

[USU78]

11 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

Thanks for THE best illustration of a black-and-white, oversimplification that I could have EVER asked for. 

LDS doctrine defends the idea that religion/God can not only allow, but literally command, killing in defense of some religious  ideologies (as described in Old Testament genocides, the ‘near miss’ slaying of Issac by his own father, or the murder of Laban). Yet even as Mormonism promotes/defends the idea that ‘God commanded me to kill in His name’ as an entirely mentally sane and perfectly justifiable action in some circumstances, many Latter-day Saints seem unable to admit or even see how such teachings can religiously influence gays and lesbians struggling to understand how to make sense of the idea that “if thine eye/hand offends thee, pluck it out/cut it off.” Easier, instead, to simply blame it on mental illness and ignore how religion can also be a contributing/major factor. 

"The fault, dear [Dan'l], is not in our stars, But in ourselves."

As I've stated quite recently, suicidal ideation and acting out [whether in the attempt or the completion of the act] is best evidence of mental illness.  Both the ideation and the acting out are often triggered by one or more external events or things.  It is not the fault of the external event or thing that it is a trigger for the mentally ill person.  It is, rather, that the mental illness expresses itself in response to triggers unique to each mentally ill person.

It is thus fallacious reasoning that blames Christianity or Mormonism, Christians or Mormons, Mother or Father, for the mentally ill homosexual's triggers or the mental processes or acts ensuing upon his encountering the triggers. 

The cause of suicide, dear Dan'l, is internal to the suicide.

It is a libel to assert otherwise.  As serious and nasty as the Blood Atonement Libel.  As potentially dangerous as the Blood Libel.

Edited July 25, 2018 by USU78

[Daniel2]

16 minutes ago, USU78 said:

"The fault, dear [Dan'l], is not in our stars, But in ourselves."

As I've stated quite recently, suicidal ideation and acting out [whether in the attempt or the completion of the act] is best evidence of mental illness.  Both the ideation and the acting out are often triggered by one or more external events or things.  It is not the fault of the external event or thing that it is a trigger for the mentally ill person.  It is, rather, that the mental illness expresses itself in response to triggers unique to each mentally ill person.

It is thus fallacious reasoning that blames Christianity or Mormonism, Christians or Mormons, Mother or Father, for the mentally ill homosexual's triggers or the mental processes or acts ensuing upon his encountering the triggers. 

The cause of suicide, dear Dan'l, is internal to the suicide.

It is a libel to assert otherwise.  As serious and nasty as the Blood Atonement Libel.  As potentially dangerous as the Blood Libel.

Was Abraham’s attempt to kill his own son due to his belief that it was God’s will evidence of mental illness?

Was Nephi’s completion of the act of kill Laban due to his belief that it was God’s will evidence of mental illness?

Same questions regarding Samuel and God’s commanded OT genocide of “though shalt utterly destroy”?

Do you believe God can command people to kill people without it being an manifestation of mental illness?

Do you believe that only those who seek/attempt to take their own lives because they believe God expects/commands it ARE mentally ill, but those that seek to kill others because they believe God commanded them to do so AREN’T mentally ill....?

[USU78]

2 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Was Abraham’s attempt to kill his own son due to his belief that it was God’s will evidence of mental illness?

Was Nephi’s completion of the act of kill Laban due to his belief that it was God’s will evidence of mental illness?

Same questions regarding Samuel and God’s commanded OT genocide of “though shalt utterly destroy”?

Do you believe God can command people to kill people without it being an manifestation of mental illness?

Do you believe that only those who seek/attempt to take their own lives because they believe God expects/commands it ARE mentally ill, but those that seek to kill others because they believe God commanded them to do so AREN’T mentally ill....?

You're conflating things.

Suicide is wrong.  Murder is wrong.  These are the rules human beings live by.

As JSJr taught, however, sometimes but rarely G-d has other plans for an individual in a particular circumstance.  Nephi/Laban, The Binding, The Conquest are examples of this.  He causes/permits us to be placed in circumstances where our hearts are rended by what we must do.  But He makes it clear that those circumstances are exceptional.

Not so with suicides.  Saul's suicide in the face of humiliation is in no way laudable.  And neither is the homosexual suicide laudable.  Lamentable surely, but not laudable.

You are making an extraordinary claim here:  that homosexual suicides are uniquely not mentally ill.  I'm unaware of any mental health professional or school of thought that allows such a conclusion. 

How do you arrive at this?

[Daniel2]

29 minutes ago, USU78 said:

You're conflating things.

Suicide is wrong.  Murder is wrong.  These are the rules human beings live by.

As JSJr taught, however, sometimes but rarely G-d has other plans for an individual in a particular circumstance.  Nephi/Laban, The Binding, The Conquest are examples of this.  He causes/permits us to be placed in circumstances where our hearts are rended by what we must do.  But He makes it clear that those circumstances are exceptional.

Not so with suicides.  Saul's suicide in the face of humiliation is in no way laudable.  And neither is the homosexual suicide laudable.  Lamentable surely, but not laudable.

You are making an extraordinary claim here:  that homosexual suicides are uniquely not mentally ill.  I'm unaware of any mental health professional or school of thought that allows such a conclusion. 

How do you arrive at this?

I have not claimed what you’ve said I’ve claimed. At work now, but will respond more when I have some time.