'A message from the gay community performed by the san francisco gay mens chorus'

[smac97]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I get that.  I've said a few times on the thread that I don't have any issue with the theme of the song, which I realize is about tolerance.  

I have issues with the themes of

A) parental subversion,

B) arrogantly and gloatingly bragging about usurping the teaching of other people's children,

C) sexual euphemism and double entendre pertaining to children,

D) broad accusations of bigotry/hate against anyone who disagrees with them, and

E) insinuations that there is nothing parents can do about any of the above.

"Other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?"  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 10, 2021 by smac97

[SeekingUnderstanding]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But some, it seems, are not content with "just living their lives."

Some are gloatingly taunting us, accusing us of bigotry and hate in one breath and in the next using tell us that now it's their "turn" to "indoctrinate" and "come for" and "convert" our children.

So much for the whole "live and let live" thing, I guess?

Thanks,

-Smac

And some are accusing them of being pedophiles. 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And some are accusing them of being pedophiles. 

Yes, that accusation continues.  Part of that is latent prejudice becoming patent.  Another part, however, is self-inflicted:

Quote

What these smart-a***s in San Francisco did was make a satirical song and video that would win them plaudits in their own circles by making fun of normies. They posted this online on July 1. My guess is that they began hearing back today from LGBT people outside of safe blue districts telling them that they are out of their damn minds. This is confirming the worst possible stereotype: the gays are targeting our kids. 

Also, more people are becoming aware that the creators of the song previously created a musical that romanticized/fetishized pedophilia and associated it with homosexuality.  In that instance they were smart and respectful enough to apologize, shut down the musical, and take it off streaming sites and social media.

Unfortunately, the SFGMC is doubling down, telling us - after this story blew up - that now it's their "turn" to "indoctrinate" our children.

Again, I agree with Dr. Munhazim.  Pedophilia should not be equated with homosexuality.  Someone needs to help the creators of the song, and the SFGMC, come to that realization.

Yeesh.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 10, 2021 by smac97

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

When leaders tell the youth to share their beliefs on social media, do you tell them to stop? 

As I said before, sharing beliefs with friends (which is what leaders are also telling adults to do, in the exact same manner and to the exact same extent) is different than "targeting youth".  That seems pretty obvious.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

You are not considering the half dozen other examples I gave which are coordinated on a much higher level and encouraged in conference and in manuals with media prepared by the church to be disseminated by the youth.

Are you considering that all that boils down to "sharing beliefs" and that the church is telling the adults to do the exact same things with their friends?

There is no "targeting of youth".  There is encouragement for every member, regardless of age, to share the gospel with their friends, regardless of age, in a way that fits naturally into their lives.

[bluebell]

54 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"After decades of children being indoctrinated and taught intolerance for anyone who is 'other,' ... now it’s our turn."

An observation:

And another:

Some further Twitter responses to the above statement from the SFGMC:

The threats of violence I am seeing are deeply problematic.  The song/video was calculated to be offensive and provocative, but we need to reign in the threats of violence, some of which may turn into actual violence.

Thanks,

-Smac

I do believe the song was a huge missed opportunity and is doing more harm than good.  It really is too bad.

[bluebell]

35 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I have issues with the themes of

A) parental subversion,

B) arrogantly and gloatingly bragging about usurping the teaching of other people's children,

C) sexual euphemism and double entendre pertaining to children,

D) broad accusations of bigotry/hate against anyone who disagrees with them, and

E) insinuations that there is nothing parents can do about any of the above.

"Other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?"  

Thanks,

-Smac

Yep, I know you do.  I think you have that right and despite what some posters seem like they are trying to argue, it's not a moral failing not to like the song.

But for me, I don't mind the theme of the song.

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I do believe the song was a huge missed opportunity and is doing more harm than good.  It really is too bad.

Same here.  There have been a lot of comments about how this story is damaging, and even setting back, the progress we've made.  There was not total agreement, and there never will be (we're too pluralistic).  But there did seem to be a good sense of growing détente.  

This comment about the song/video seems to get it right:

Quote

The point is the hostility projected by this group of gay men toward parents with children. At this late date, most people with teenagers are probably under 50, that is, they were themselves brought up in a world already quite accepting of gay people. But the deal sealing that acceptance was that each side would strive to show the other that putative threats from their own side were overblown.

This performance punctures that peace deal.

Parents of troubled and confused teens do not need a gaggle of childless activists intruding and getting in the way of dealing with teen development issues, however things turn out with those teens sexually.

Yep.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

So here's an interesting bit about the origins of the song in the video.

First, from this article in the Advocate:

Quote

I spoke to Verdugo about this unfortunate and dangerous situation, and asked him if anyone raised a red flag before posting the video? “For a little bit of background, the song was originally commissioned by the Oakland Symphony about four years ago, and our artistic director heard the song, and thought it would be a great song for the chorus to perform. He reached out to the composers who were thrilled. 

“We had performed the song previously and have been performing it for a number of years, and obviously to friendly audiences who were not only in on the joke, but loved the song.” 

Also, see this article in the SF Chronicle:

Quote

The piece, which was commissioned by the Oakland Symphony several years ago and was performed various times, “ironically had a simple message around teaching young people to speak out against anti-LGBTQ hate, said GLAAD President and CEO Sarah Kate Ellis in a statement.

And this Yahoo article (same info here) :

Quote

The controversial song was commissioned several years ago by the Oakland Symphony ("a heterosexual organization," notes Verdugo), picked up as part of the SFGMC's program after the artistic director heard it performed and loved it. The chorus had performed it in public several times before the pandemic, and it was always well-received; releasing the video recently, as part of a series, was just a way of keeping up engagement in the absence of live performances.

And this article in Texas News Today:

Quote

Chorus director Chris Verdugo told Advocate that the backing was unexpected and the song was actually commissioned by the Auckland Symphony Orchestra about four years ago.

“We’ve played this song before and have been playing it for years. Obviously, we’ve played it not only for joking, but also for a friendly audience who loves the song,” he says. I did.

The "Auckland Symphony Orchestra" is pretty clearly an error ("Auckland" instead of "Oakland").

The SFGMC apparently even included this statement in a press release.  It's no longer available online (lots of memory-holing going on), but see here:

This is still up on the SFGMC Facebook page:

Quote

Dear Chorus Family,

On July 1, we posted “Message from the Gay Community” to SFGMC TV and across social media. It was chosen because of how loved it was when we performed it live here in San Francisco at Pride, at SingOuts, in South Carolina and at the Pride Showcase. The piece was commissioned by the Oakland Symphony who shared it with us.

The statement that the song was commissioned by the Oakland Symphony appears to be incorrect.  See this update at the bottom of an article from the Mercury News:

Quote

Correction, July 9, 2021: An earlier version of this story incorrectly reported the controversial song was commissioned by a Bay Area orchestra. The information has been retracted.

And here (also from the Mercury News) :

Quote

In a story published online July 9, 2021, a controversial song and video created by the San Francisco Gay Men’s Chorus was reported to have been commissioned by a Bay Area orchestra. The information has been retracted.

The Bay Area News Group corrects all significant errors that are brought to the attention of editors. If you believe we have made such an error, please contact us with the error and correct information at corrections@bayareanewsgroup.com

Huh.

So where did the song originate?  Who commissioned it?  When? 

Is the Oakland Symphony trying to distance itself from this song?  Did it it commission the song or not?

And what should we make of Verdugo's statement to The Advocate (verbatim quote: "the song was originally commissioned by the Oakland Symphony about four years ago...")?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 10, 2021 by smac97

[LoudmouthMormon]

19 hours ago, poptart said:

You know the thread is hot when Sonata stops by to pop her own popcorn on it.

[LoudmouthMormon]

It dawns on me.  Out of the population of folks with ties to both the church and the gay community, I wonder...

How many of them who are ok with this video, had a big problem when church announced we wouldn't baptize children in same-sex households?

[pogi]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Are you considering that all that boils down to "sharing beliefs" and that the church is telling the adults to do the exact same things with their friends?

There is no "targeting of youth".  There is encouragement for every member, regardless of age, to share the gospel with their friends, regardless of age, in a way that fits naturally into their lives.

I agree.  As I have maintained throughout this thread, I don't have a problem with it.  I believe that sharing beliefs is fair game for anyone.  What people are refusing to acknowledge is that our methods do indeed subvert parenting and that it is coordinated by adult leaders of the church.  Are you willing to at least recognize and acknowledge that fact?

I will also add that it is more than just a passive casual sharing of beliefs initiated by the youth.  It is largely initiated in the programs of the church by church leaders who are coordinating the entire effort.  We train our youth from primary on how to be missionaries and share the gospel, through song and scripture and lessons.  As they age we encourage them more strongly.  We give them media to pass-along.  We give them videos to share.  We encourage them to share scriptures on social media.  We give them all sorts of other media to share on-line targeted to youth.  We give them Book of Mormons to pass out.  We encourage them to write their testimonies in the from cover before handing it out.  It is a highly directed and coordinated effort.  We help them set goals.  We commit them to their goals.  We follow up.  We give further direction and counsel with follow up.  I don't think we can in honest integrity pretend like adults are not directly involved in the process of targeting youth - with or without parental approval.  The verse "we are coming after your children" is indeed happening in the church and is coordinated by leaders through youth programs.  Again, we would never come out taunt others with that fact, but that is indeed our intent.  It is our mission.  How can we pretend to hide it?  We don't discriminate when it comes to conversion.  We do come after children.  We have adult coordinated efforts to do that specifically.  We have well trained youth subverting parents in doing so.  Sure, if we can get the parents on board, all the better, but that is not a limiting factor to conversion. 

I directly asked Scott if he felt it would be ok if the gay community used the same tactics.  He explicitly stated that it would not be ok.  That is the double standard I am addressing.

My intent here is to 1) get people to acknowledge that we are indeed targeting children in the mission of the church.  Not exclusively (but neither is the gay agenda exclusively targeting children - the song was a joke! - in bad taste, I admit, but a joke), but they are targeted.  2) that parents are indeed being subverted and that it is kind of built into the program in many ways.  That is life!  Peer-to-peer influence and sharing rarely goes through parents.  But lets not pretend like it is not coordinated and directed by adults.   

I also would like people to acknowledge that our missionary efforts are highly more sophisticated and coordinated than the gay movement, with much more central leadership oversight with training programs and manuals with the specific goal/target of teaching our youth member-missionaries to convert their youth peers - with or without their parents knowledge and approval.

 

Edited July 10, 2021 by pogi

[pogi]

47 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

It dawns on me.  Out of the population of folks with ties to both the church and the gay community, I wonder...

How many of them who are ok with this video, had a big problem when church announced we wouldn't baptize children in same-sex households?

I think the issues there is that it felt more like a shunning/banning to them (from my outside perspective).  If their children were allowed to be baptized with their parents approval, just like all other children, then it probably wouldn't have felt so hurtful.  I understand that the church had reasons for the ban, but none of them had anything to do with the topic of this song and thread.  If it was simply done out of respect for the parents wishes, so as to no subvert them, they would not have made a blanket ban, but would have treated them like all other children. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

49 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

It dawns on me.  Out of the population of folks with ties to both the church and the gay community, I wonder...

How many of them who are ok with this video, had a big problem when church announced we wouldn't baptize children in same-sex households?

Can you elucidate? Where is the perceived conflict between the two?

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, pogi said:

 If it was simply done out of respect for the parents wishes, so as to no subvert them, they would not have made a blanket ban, but would have treated them like all other children. 

I think there is another possibility exists in that leaders saw same sex couple parents as possibly agreeing out of pressure from extended family (most likely grandparents) as in parents agreeing not because they thought it was a good idea, but rather not wanting to give already disapproving grandparents more reason to be critical of them.  Removing the possibility was perhaps anticipated as removing a source of family conflict (perhaps not accurately as that could increase the blaming of the same sex relationship).
 

Another possibility is that leaders thought they knew better than the couples that the conflict would affect the parent child relationship, that leaders just didn’t see it as possible to reconcile the conflicts even with well intentioned parents attempting to support children, especially as time went on and resentments might build up, leaders expected conflict to be inevitable and that parents would eventually change their minds.

Edited July 10, 2021 by Calm

[SeekingUnderstanding]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think there is another possibility exists in that leaders saw same sex couple parents as possibly agreeing out of pressure from extended family (most likely grandparents) as in parents agreeing not because they thought it was a good idea, but rather not wanting to give already disapproving grandparents more reason to be critical of them.  Removing the possibility was perhaps anticipated as removing a source of family conflict (perhaps not accurately as that could increase the blaming of the same sex relationship).
 

Another possibility is that leaders thought they knew better than the couples that the conflict would affect the parent child relationship, that leaders just didn’t see it as possible to reconcile the conflicts even with well intentioned parents attempting to support children, especially as time went on and resentments might build up, leaders expected conflict to be inevitable and that parents would eventually change their minds.

The parallel is often drawn to polygamous families. In addition to the reasons listed above, it seems to me that the church is extra zealous in keeping those families (polygamous) out because they can have a subversive influence on those in the flock. The church doesn't want polygamous recruitment going on, and doesn't want any association with polygamy which is why you have to be specially interviewed even as an adult (if you are a child of polygamous parents) and renounce their teachings. (All of this is my read. I have no source other than my self). 

Given that at the same time the church banned children with a parent in a same sex relationship, they also redefined apostacy to include same sex relationships, I think there is a similar motivation there. I'm not saying that the given reasons (avoiding family conflict) are invalid, but that it seems to me that there was an additional motivation to draw an extra sharp line in members minds when it comes to same sex relationships.

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

the church banned children with a parent in a same sex relationship

Specifically banned children living in primary custody of a parent in a same sex married relationship iirc…

Which was a bit strange that it didn’t include living together, but just married Imo…evidence to me it wasn’t given enough attention in writing up the policy, but that is purely my speculation. 

[JAHS]

36 minutes ago, pogi said:

I agree.  As I have maintained throughout this thread, I don't have a problem with it.  I believe that sharing beliefs is fair game for anyone.  What people are refusing to acknowledge is that our methods do indeed subvert parenting and that it is coordinated by adult leaders of the church.  Are you willing to at least recognize and acknowledge that fact?

I'm not. Which "methods" are you talking about? Nothing is done without parent permission. If the parents of the non-member kid don't intervene and are OK with their kids associating with member kids then that's not subverting.  It's the parents' responsibility to know what their kids are doing and learning and to give permission for it. If their kids don't like it they will just have to accept it.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

Specifically banned children living in primary custody of a parent in a same sex married relationship iirc…

That is giving the benefit of the doubt, which may be warranted. The actual text banned any child of a parent in a same sex relationship. The verbal guidance and reasoning that came a week later narrowed its application. (iirc)

Edited July 10, 2021 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

That is giving the benefit of the doubt, which may be warranted. The actual text banned any child of a parent in a same sex relationship. The verbal guidance and reasoning that came a week later narrowed its application. (iirc)

Right…I do assume the later clarification was what was originally meant…more evidence for my view they thought it was simple to write up and didn’t really think through all implications. 

[Rain]

On 7/9/2021 at 11:49 AM, california boy said:

A good start.  Maybe others could make suggestions.  

Maybe start a thread listing the 3 best things people like about this forum and the 3 things they dislike the most, with the ground rule that no one comments on the answers like Bernard is doing.  I think more ideas will come out and the thread will not get bogged down in some downward spiral about specific issues.  

Yes, too many rules especially with too many people just wouldn't work.

[poptart]

2 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

You know the thread is hot when Sonata stops by to pop her own popcorn on it.

I blame my old bronie roommate.  Bookhorse best horse lol.

Have some of the music I tortured him with in kind.

[pogi]

2 hours ago, JAHS said:

I'm not. Which "methods" are you talking about? Nothing is done without parent permission. If the parents of the non-member kid don't intervene and are OK with their kids associating with member kids then that's not subverting.  It's the parents' responsibility to know what their kids are doing and learning and to give permission for it. If their kids don't like it they will just have to accept it.

I have listed the multiple methods many times already (including just a few posts back on this very page). 

If the responsibility is being placed 100% on the parents to know and approve of all social interactions at school, sports, clubs, social media, etc., etc. (I don’t think that is realistic) with no responsibility on religions or the gay community to seek parental permission, then I suppose we can’t blame anyone other than the parents.

Edited July 11, 2021 by pogi

[JAHS]

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

I have listed the multiple methods many times already (including just a few posts back on this very page). 

If the responsibility is being placed 100% on the parents to know and approve of all social interactions at school, sports, clubs, social media, etc., etc. and no responsibility to seek parental permission, then I suppose we can’t blame anyone other than the parents for their kids being “converted” to the world views of the gay community, and all this outrage is entirely misguided.  There should be no reason for anyone to be outraged at the gay community for using our same tactics on our children.

It feels like the standard of parental permission is getting more and more loose as the thread evolves.  

Not all things need parental permission but the choice of one's religion and faith has a very strong and important effect on a person's life and young children should be guided by what their parents approve of and not what other people say. Unfortunately this song went too far and even though it was meant to be satirical too many people did not take it that way. 

[pogi]

15 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Not all things need parental permission but the choice of one's religion and faith has a very strong and important effect on a person's life and young children should be guided by what their parents approve of and not what other people say. Unfortunately this song went too far and even though it was meant to be satirical too many people did not take it that way. 

I agree that it was in poor taste.  I am just wondering at the apparent double standard of it being ok to seek to convert (without baptism at least) their children with or without parental permission, but it is not ok for them to seek to convert ours by the same means, where efforts are coordinated and directed by adult leaders.

Edited July 11, 2021 by pogi