Jeff Robinson on the LGBT issue at FairMormon

[CV75]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

So I am a bit confused about church direction here.  What I do know is that the ill advised promise to marry didn't work out so well.  Does the church want me to stay. celibate or keep trying to marry someone of the opposite sex?

The Church wants you to make that choice based on eternal principles, prayer and faith; the choice is yours, but before all that, the Church wants to to become a member in good standing.

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

So I am a bit confused about church direction here.  What I do know is that the ill advised promise to marry didn't work out so well.  Does the church want me to stay. celibate or keep trying to marry someone of the opposite sex?

These were my earlier comments: 

"What the church does teach is Chastity. I accept that in some cases a commitment to chastity is equal to a functional celibacy. In some cases, no matter how hard an individual works or how much faith he or she has, the circumstances leading to marriage will not develop.  It certainly is possible to live in harmony with the Restored Gospel. And many individuals who have identified as gay or lesbian do have fulfilling heterosexual marriages.  But there is no guarantee that heterosexual marriage will work for everyone in this life.  I think that is what the Church has (appropriately) stepped back from. The Church still teaches that striving toward a celestial marriage is the best course of action. Even for those who have no expectation or hope of attaining that in this life, the goal of working towards that outcome, including remaining sexually chaste, is still taught as the ideal."

Here is the official Church teaching: 

In some circumstances a person defers marriage because he or she is not presently attracted to a member of the opposite gender. While many Latter-day Saints, through individual effort, the exercise of faith, and reliance upon the enabling power of the Atonement, overcome same-gender attraction in mortality, others may not be free of this challenge in this life. However, the perfect plan of our Father in Heaven makes provision for individuals who seek to keep His commandments but who, through no fault of their own, do not have an eternal marriage in mortal life. As we follow Heavenly Father’s plan, our bodies, feelings, and desires will be perfected in the next life so that every one of God’s children may find joy in a family consisting of a husband, a wife, and children.

Same-gender attractions include deep emotional, social, and physical feelings. All of Heavenly Father’s children desire to love and be loved, including many adults who, for a variety of reasons, remain single. God assures His children, including those currently attracted to persons of the same gender, that their righteous desires will eventually be fully satisfied in God’s own way and according to His timing.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

And yet here you are, week after week, railing against members of one Christian church that doesn't approve and does consider it a sin. It's certainly an interesting phenomenon.

You mean something like taking the belief that all who are saved must fully repent of all their sins and twisting it into some kind of specific animus against 'gay couples'? Yeah, I'm not a fan of that either.

Joseph Fielding Smith made it clear that even 'those who enter the telestial kingdom ... are heirs of salvation, but before they are redeemed and enter into their kingdom, they must repent of their sins, and receive the gospel, and bow the knee, and acknowledge that Jesus is the Christ, the Redeemer of the world' (Doctrines of Salvation, 2:22).

An unwillingness to repent no matter what removes this option: 'The second death is spiritual; it is banishment from the presence of the Lord. It is similar to the first spiritual death, which has passed upon all men who have remained unrepentant' (ibid., 2:222-23).

Thankfully, I genuinely don't believe we'll see very many people make that choice in the end, no matter how wed to it they might claim to be now.

On this point, I share the prophet Alma's hope for every single one of us: 'And may the Lord grant unto you repentance, that ye may not bring down his wrath upon you, that ye may not be bound down by the chains of hell, that ye may not suffer the second death' (Alma 13:30).

I do have a follow up question for you, since you think that most will repent of their sins.  Do Mormons and you in particular believe that there will be the opportunity to break the law of Chastity in the next life?  Will it be possible to have carnal sex?  If not, how does one go about repenting of having a relationship with their same sex partner?  Does that repentance process mean disavowing any love they have for their partner?  I am not quite sure I see how the repentance process will actually work.  Maybe you could explain what steps you think will be involved.

I think you will find that as you look over all of my posts, I have repeatedly stated that the church has every right to disapprove of gay marriage.  I personally don't agree with that decision, but I am not a member and it makes absolutely no difference to me.  The questions I asked was because I was interested in what you said happens to gay couples after this life.  I thanked you for your comments.  I thought I was pretty polite. 

Maybe you could point out where exactly where I took the belief that all who are saved must fully repent of all their sins and twisting it into some kind of specific animus against 'gay couples'?  You have accused me of these two things, I would appreciate if you would point out exactly what I said that makes you hurl such accusations towards me.  It seems to me that you want to insert hostility to this discussion when none was, at least intentionally started by me.

 I also don't appreciate your cut and paste of phrases fr.om three different posts together and completely ignore the contest that those statements were made.  Is that so unreasonable?  

[rockpond]

5 hours ago, CV75 said:

No, you are “just” left with every other covenant you can enter, and you can continue to choose to be chaste (abstinence from pre- or extramarital sex is a self-enforced restraint). So, it’s not a matter of the Church not accepting gay marriage. It’s a matter of the Church properly administering the keys to perform the ordinances as they were instituted from the beginning, and whether one chooses to believe and abide accordingly.

 

I am glad you are at last agreeing that to say that the Church expects celibacy is not really an accurate use of the word and that we seem to agree that what Elder Oaks meant apples to all.

 

No, you’ve misunderstood.  I was saying that for Oaks to say that the Church expects celibacy before marriage is not an accurate use of the word.  Because the definition of celibacy is to deny marriage. 

Those who support the Church’s position on this need to decide which it is:  does the Church recommend that gay people enter into opposite sex marriages or does the church recommend celibacy (no sexual relations and no marriage) for its gay members.  You can’t logically claim both. 

[Jeanne]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

I do have a follow up question for you, since you think that most will repent of their sins.  Do Mormons and you in particular believe that there will be the opportunity to break the law of Chastity in the next life?  Will it be possible to have carnal sex?  If not, how does one go about repenting of having a relationship with their same sex partner?  Does that repentance process mean disavowing any love they have for their partner?  I am not quite sure I see how the repentance process will actually work.  Maybe you could explain what steps you think will be involved.

I think you will find that as you look over all of my posts, I have repeatedly stated that the church has every right to disapprove of gay marriage.  I personally don't agree with that decision, but I am not a member and it makes absolutely no difference to me.  The questions I asked was because I was interested in what you said happens to gay couples after this life.  I thanked you for your comments.  I thought I was pretty polite. 

Maybe you could point out where exactly where I took the belief that all who are saved must fully repent of all their sins and twisting it into some kind of specific animus against 'gay couples'?  You have accused me of these two things, I would appreciate if you would point out exactly what I said that makes you hurl such accusations towards me.  It seems to me that you want to insert hostility to this discussion when none was, at least intentionally started by me.

 I also don't appreciate your cut and paste of phrases fr.om three different posts together and completely ignore the contest that those statements were made.  Is that so unreasonable?  

This is a real good question.  I would love to know the answers to this from the mormon point of view.

[kllindley]

14 minutes ago, rockpond said:

No, you’ve misunderstood.  I was saying that for Oaks to say that the Church expects celibacy before marriage is not an accurate use of the word.  Because the definition of celibacy is to deny marriage. 

Those who support the Church’s position on this need to decide which it is:  does the Church recommend that gay people enter into opposite sex marriages or does the church recommend celibacy (no sexual relations and no marriage) for its gay members.  You can’t logically claim both. 

I can't logically claim both? The only set of circumstances where that is logically contradictory, is to assume that 1) all gay people are exactly the same and that there is zero possibility of change in orientation, or that 2) gay individuals are incapable of deciding for themselves whether their individual attractions will allow for a heterosexual marriage or not. 

[CV75]

46 minutes ago, rockpond said:

No, you’ve misunderstood.  I was saying that for Oaks to say that the Church expects celibacy before marriage is not an accurate use of the word.  Because the definition of celibacy is to deny marriage. 

Those who support the Church’s position on this need to decide which it is:  does the Church recommend that gay people enter into opposite sex marriages or does the church recommend celibacy (no sexual relations and no marriage) for its gay members.  You can’t logically claim both. 

Neither you nor Oaks used the full meaning of the word since celibacy means to practice a self-enforced restraint from marriage and from sexual relations. As you pointed out, his message is that the Church expects her members to abstain from sexual relations if unmarried (and this is easily understood from the broader context). But your message is that the Church expects some to abstain from marriage, which is not so and ignores both individual agency and the voluntary nature of abstinence, indulgence, celibacy, and marriage.

You’ve presented a false dichotomy based on faulty premises and faulty logic. The Church invites everyone to enter and keep every covenant given their circumstances and opportunities, and every cir=circumstance and opportunity will be availed to them prior to the resurrection.

The Church does not single out gay people to either recommend or deny them marriage (the option to marry is open, as with anyone), and the Church expects celibacy (in the sense of abstaining from sexual relations) of any unmarried member, and the Church defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

[kllindley]

34 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

This is a real good question.  I would love to know the answers to this from the mormon point of view.

Which question? He has 6 question marks in that post. 

[rockpond]

31 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I can't logically claim both? The only set of circumstances where that is logically contradictory, is to assume that 1) all gay people are exactly the same and that there is zero possibility of change in orientation, or that 2) gay individuals are incapable of deciding for themselves whether their individual attractions will allow for a heterosexual marriage or not. 

No. 

My statement referred to gay people.  If a gay person’s orientation changes to something other than gay, than they would no longer be in that category. 

My statement also didn’t refer to what people  choose for themselves.  My statement is about what the church recommends.  We all seem to agree that it isn’t a same sex marriage.  So if the recommendation isn’t an opposite sex marriage,  than we’re just left with celibacy (no sexual relations and no marriage). 

[rockpond]

14 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Neither you nor Oaks used the full meaning of the word since celibacy means to practice a self-enforced restraint from marriage and from sexual relations. As you pointed out, his message is that the Church expects her members to abstain from sexual relations if unmarried (and this is easily understood from the broader context). But your message is that the Church expects some to abstain from marriage, which is not so and ignores both individual agency and the voluntary nature of abstinence, indulgence, celibacy, and marriage.

 

You’ve presented a false dichotomy based on faulty premises and faulty logic. The Church invites everyone to enter and keep every covenant given their circumstances and opportunities, and every cir=circumstance and opportunity will be availed to them prior to the resurrection.

 

The Church does not single out gay people to either recommend or deny them marriage (the option to marry is open, as with anyone), and the Church expects celibacy (in the sense of abstaining from sexual relations) of any unmarried member, and the Church defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

 

If a gay person cannot, in good conscience, enter an opposite sex marriage but wants to stay in the church and participate in the other ordinances, they must abstain from sexual relations and not enter a same sex marriage.  

Am I wrong?

[kllindley]

44 minutes ago, rockpond said:

If a gay person cannot, in good conscience, enter an opposite sex marriage but wants to stay in the church and participate in the other ordinances, they must abstain from sexual relations and not enter a same sex marriage.  

Am I wrong?

Correct.

If a straight or bisexual person cannot in good conscience, for whatever reason, enter an opposite sex marriage, but wants to stay in the church and participate in the other ordinances, they must abstain from sexual relations and not enter a same sex marriage.  

[kllindley]

50 minutes ago, rockpond said:

We all seem to agree that it isn’t a same sex marriage.

Yes! I agree. 

50 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So if the recommendation isn’t an opposite sex marriage,  than we’re just left with celibacy (no sexual relations and no marriage).

Assuming there is not a genuine attraction to the opposite sex (exclusively homosexual feelings) yes. No sexual relations and no marriage, for the time being.  

That's why I've said repeatedly: "The Church still teaches that striving toward a celestial marriage is the best course of action. Even for those who have no expectation or hope of attaining that in this life, the goal of working towards that outcome, including remaining sexually chaste, is still taught as the ideal." 

And:

"I accept that in some cases a commitment to chastity is equal to a functional celibacy. In some cases, no matter how hard an individual works or how much faith he or she has, the circumstances leading to marriage will not develop. "

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

Which question? He has 6 question marks in that post. 

Sorry..I should have specified...but what about carnal sex in the afternlife?? 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

If a gay person cannot, in good conscience, enter an opposite sex marriage but wants to stay in the church and participate in the other ordinances, they must abstain from sexual relations and not enter a same sex marriage.   

Am I wrong? 

Yes, in several ways.

First, “cannot” is subjective, and you’d be speaking for God here. Second, while he must abstain from sexual relations while unmarried to keep the covenants enough to remain in the Church, and ideally sufficiently to participate in the other ordinances, he can still remain in the Church if he enters marriage, even if he does so in bad faith, or with a level of uncertainty or risk he is willing to assume (just as anyone else who in good conscience “cannot” marry). Many spouses remain in the Church under such conditions; the Church is not the marriage police nor does she referee those personal decisions. Third, your scenario limits the complete scope of his opportunities from the eternal perspective wherein someday he could very well in good consistence / good faith marry. Fourth, your scenario does not allow that if anyone cannot in good conscience enter marriage but wants to stay in the Church and participate in the other ordinances, he must abstain from sexual relations and not enter marriage, to which I raise the same objections for the same reasons.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, kllindley said:

 

"I accept that in some cases a commitment to chastity is equal to a functional celibacy. In some cases, no matter how hard an individual works or how much faith he or she has, the circumstances leading to marriage will not develop. "

Using OSA and SSA to avoid getting blocked from posting due to using s-x too much...

Just as an observation, I would not be the least bit surprised if there were many more OSA and bi/sexually fluid members of the Church living what amounts to functional celibacy by choice (because they refused to break the law of chastity; will not marry outside the Church as they believe God would have them be in an eternal, sealed marriage from the beginning; believe any opportunities of marriage will interfere with their ability to worship in their chosen faith---a FM presentation referenced that in India a woman marrying a nonmember is generally essentially giving up her ability to be a member, thus the experience of a bishop arranging a marriage for one such woman; or some other reason) than the number of exclusive SSA members in the Church given the percentages offered by Lisa Diamond of the exclusive SSA group versus the other groups.

This is not to diminish the seriousness and difficulty of such a choice, just saying it isn't a unique choice for exclusive SSA members speaking generally, though each individual's choice is ultimately unique because their own attributes and life circumstances are unique even if many commonalities with others exist as well.

There is a difference in that there is likely less of an emotional yearning towards the fullness of celestial marriage itself (whatever that actually means) among the exclusively SSA members than in general among those who possess at least in some fashion some OSA*****, though I see no reason why the desire to be worthy and able to receive all blessings the Father desires to bestow on us would be any less for any particular grouping of people than another and that desire is the crucial one, imo, in us becoming open to receiving God's blessings.

*****I know of a number of women for whom the idea of celestial marriage itself has little appeal because their experience with marriage and/or men has been so negative there is no gut desire for that type of long term companionship though they may be still desirous of having physical relationships and thus will choose to control those.  I assume there are as many men out there feeling the same way. There are also individuals who are exclusively asexual and thus a hunger for that attribute of marriage companionship is also not a motivator for them.  Yet individuals in all those groups as well as the exclusive SSA group may deeply yearn towards a oneness with God or have a primary desire to do God's Will no matter what that is for them, having total trust in the Lord that through him true joy is found

Possibly 1% of population is asexual:  https://health.usnews.com/health-news/health-wellness/articles/2015/05/04/asexuality-the-invisible-orientation

Edited August 15, 2018 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

On 8/14/2018 at 7:04 AM, kllindley said:

These were my earlier comments: 

"What the church does teach is Chastity. I accept that in some cases a commitment to chastity is equal to a functional celibacy. In some cases, no matter how hard an individual works or how much faith he or she has, the circumstances leading to marriage will not develop.  It certainly is possible to live in harmony with the Restored Gospel. And many individuals who have identified as gay or lesbian do have fulfilling heterosexual marriages.  But there is no guarantee that heterosexual marriage will work for everyone in this life.  I think that is what the Church has (appropriately) stepped back from. The Church still teaches that striving toward a celestial marriage is the best course of action. Even for those who have no expectation or hope of attaining that in this life, the goal of working towards that outcome, including remaining sexually chaste, is still taught as the ideal."

Here is the official Church teaching: 

In some circumstances a person defers marriage because he or she is not presently attracted to a member of the opposite gender. While many Latter-day Saints, through individual effort, the exercise of faith, and reliance upon the enabling power of the Atonement, overcome same-gender attraction in mortality, others may not be free of this challenge in this life. However, the perfect plan of our Father in Heaven makes provision for individuals who seek to keep His commandments but who, through no fault of their own, do not have an eternal marriage in mortal life. As we follow Heavenly Father’s plan, our bodies, feelings, and desires will be perfected in the next life so that every one of God’s children may find joy in a family consisting of a husband, a wife, and children.

Same-gender attractions include deep emotional, social, and physical feelings. All of Heavenly Father’s children desire to love and be loved, including many adults who, for a variety of reasons, remain single. God assures His children, including those currently attracted to persons of the same gender, that their righteous desires will eventually be fully satisfied in God’s own way and according to His timing.

Thanks for posting this, kllindley. Do you have a reference for it?

 

[kllindley]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Thanks for posting this, kllindley. Do you have a reference for it?

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/god-loveth-his-children/god-loveth-his-children?lang=eng

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

https://www.lds.org/manual/god-loveth-his-children/god-loveth-his-children?lang=eng

Thanks.  

I had heard of this publication, but until now, I don’t believe I have read it in its entirety. It is a good resource. 

[pogi]

On 8/10/2018 at 9:23 AM, rockpond said:

When it comes to language development, it seems pretty clear that one develops the language they are predominantly exposed to.  How many children are born into the environmental stimuli of an English speaking family but wind up speaking French instead?

This is why I think it's an odd analogy.  Every gay person I know had the rather constant environmental stimuli of heterosexual parents throughout their formative years.  I presume that Robinson is wise enough to have figured that out so he must be referring to something else, something more complex and nuanced.  I guess I'm curious what that is and how he explains it.

I think the analogy holds up quite well.  You are assuming that the environmental factor that influences sexual attraction must be the "constant environmental stimuli of heterosexual parents".   I just don't think you are considering that sexual attraction might not be influenced by social factors much at all. There are plenty of other possible environmental variables that may contribute to SSA.  It probably has little to nothing to do with how a person is raised socially in the family environment (that seems pretty evident), but as is the case with epigenetics, other environmental factors, which are rarely consistent from one sibling to the next might be factors. 

For example, in identical twin studies siblings raised in the similar environment with the same social structure can manifest different tendencies and physical/social/intellectual traits like height, reading disabilities, autism, bipolar, etc.  It is clear that with siblings raised in the "same" family environment can still have vastly different environmental influences on epigenetics.  This can all be affected by environmental factors in the womb (mother's diet, stress level, exposure to heavy metals, vaccines, medications, etc.) and environmental exposures out of the womb, such as trauma, diet, and many other potential exposures. 

We don't know for sure, but any of these could potentially influence the epigenetics of sexual tendencies of siblings differently.  The "environment" of 2 siblings is never identical as you make it seem. It seems reasonable that not all siblings are born into the "English" (straight) environment, but that a sibling might speak "French" (SSA) due to one single environmental difference. 

Quote

 Although our epigenetic marks are more stable during adulthood, they are still thought to be dynamic and modifiable by lifestyle choices and environmental influence. It is becoming more apparent that epigenetic effects occur not just in the womb, but over the full course of a human life span, and that epigenetic changes could be reversed. There are numerous examples of epigenetics that show how different lifestyle choices and environmental exposures can alter marks on top of DNA and play a role in determining health outcomes.

It seems to me that the theory about the role of epigenetics in SSA and what Robinson is saying, seem to jive quite well together.  They both emphasize environmental factors and fluidity, and how it is thought to be potentially modifiable by lifestyle choices and environmental influence. 

It would be helpful to know exactly what environmental factors play a role, there may be several.  Some may be prenatal factors, others may be postnatal.  

Edited August 17, 2018 by pogi

[CMZ]

On 8/8/2018 at 5:45 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

He seemed to find a unique alternative to the heretofore binary debate that people with same sex attraction were either “born that way” or they chose it.

Been saying the same thing for a long time. Never liked the false dichotomy of the whole thing.

[CMZ]

On 8/8/2018 at 6:05 PM, kllindley said:

 

That is what research on sexual orientation and fluidity suggest.

Part of the problem with the whole entire discussion is seemingly everyone on each "side" of the discussion seeing sexual orientation (either way) as an utterly concrete way of being. I'm not saying everyone is part gay and part straight, but everyone seems to see sexual urges as much more concrete and distinct than they really are. Whatever angle any individual is coming from they will be able to eventually channel their sexual impulses in a gospel-approved way, even if everyone's timeline for doing so is different. Some might need to wait until the next life but we should hold out hope that they might be able to do so in this life.

[rockpond]

5 hours ago, CMZ said:

Part of the problem with the whole entire discussion is seemingly everyone on each "side" of the discussion seeing sexual orientation (either way) as an utterly concrete way of being. I'm not saying everyone is part gay and part straight, but everyone seems to see sexual urges as much more concrete and distinct than they really are. Whatever angle any individual is coming from they will be able to eventually channel their sexual impulses in a gospel-approved way, even if everyone's timeline for doing so is different. Some might need to wait until the next life but we should hold out hope that they might be able to do so in this life.

Go ahead and couch sexual orientation in whatever terms you want but the teaching you describe above is what will lead young men who have spent their entire life feeling exclusively attracted to men to keep it a secret and marry a woman out of loyalty to God/testimony/family.  For each of you that have daughters, ask yourself if you are comfortable with that.

[kllindley]

5 hours ago, rockpond said:

Go ahead and couch sexual orientation in whatever terms you want but the teaching you describe above is what will lead young men who have spent their entire life feeling exclusively attracted to men to keep it a secret and marry a woman out of loyalty to God/testimony/family.  For each of you that have daughters, ask yourself if you are comfortable with that.

You know, rockpond, until this comment I didn't quite understand where you were coming from. You've claimed that your views are consistent with the science,  but then you've also gone to great lengths to avoid the research and data being presented here. You've insisted on celibacy for "gay people" who don't leave the schurch and enter same-sex marriages. But when I answer your deeply personal  questions, you ignore my response altogether. I was very confused. 

But I've heard this argument before. The fear for your daughters, logic. "Black people are fine of they stick to themselves", but if you promote interracial marriage, think about you daughter marrying one of "them."  Tolerance for a minority as long as stays where it belongs. "I love black people," the racist says. "Just stay away from my daughter and my family." 

I am so grateful that my father in law is not that bigoted and homophobic. He could see past my attractions to the deep love I have for his daughter. I'm so grateful that he didn't automatically judge me as unworthy of his daughter. 

 

 

[CMZ]

6 hours ago, rockpond said:

Go ahead and couch sexual orientation in whatever terms you want but the teaching you describe above is what will lead young men who have spent their entire life feeling exclusively attracted to men to keep it a secret and marry a woman out of loyalty to God/testimony/family.  For each of you that have daughters, ask yourself if you are comfortable with that.

Allow me to clarify that I am not invalidating feelings. I am saying we all need to take a step back and realize that we have all been talking about not the feelings themselves but the story that has been built up around those feelings. Until people grasp this no conversation on the topic will ever be complete.

[rockpond]

12 hours ago, kllindley said:

You know, rockpond, until this comment I didn't quite understand where you were coming from. You've claimed that your views are consistent with the science,  but then you've also gone to great lengths to avoid the research and data being presented here. You've insisted on celibacy for "gay people" who don't leave the schurch and enter same-sex marriages. But when I answer your deeply personal  questions, you ignore my response altogether. I was very confused. 

But I've heard this argument before. The fear for your daughters, logic. "Black people are fine of they stick to themselves", but if you promote interracial marriage, think about you daughter marrying one of "them."  Tolerance for a minority as long as stays where it belongs. "I love black people," the racist says. "Just stay away from my daughter and my family." 

I am so grateful that my father in law is not that bigoted and homophobic. He could see past my attractions to the deep love I have for his daughter. I'm so grateful that he didn't automatically judge me as unworthy of his daughter. 

 

 

You've made an incorrect assessment of me here.  And I find your comparison to be insulting and unfair.

I haven't avoided research and data.  And I was grateful for your personal response and story (I didn't have a particular question or follow up so I didn't respond.  Instead, I have added it to my working knowledge in trying to better understand this issue.  I apologize if that felt like I was ignoring you.  I should have at least replied with my gratitude for you sharing your story.)

And I am certainly not bigoted and homophobic.  I'm firmly arguing for acceptance and full fellowship.  I have long worked towards better acceptance of the LGBT people in my family, ward, and the YM that I lead (including many conversations just this week working toward making sure that the son of a lesbian couple who just joined our priest quorum felt welcome).

I'm glad that your marriage has worked out.  My comment speaks to the high risk of mixed-orientation marriages.  I would not want any of my children to enter into a mixed-orientation marriage (regardless of whether they represented the gay or straight side of that marriage).

If both parties to a marriage enter it out of love, I am all in favor.  If one party to a marriage enters because they feel, even in part, that it is what they need to do to please God/family even if they aren't feeling a physical attraction to their future spouse, I believe that represents a problem.