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

[bluebell]

16 minutes ago, california boy said:

I think everyone agrees with that.  And it took 18 pages to decide that the message was fine, the song was not.  Maybe people just like to get upset, especially with the LGBT community.

I'm pretty sure my first post said that I thought the message of the song was fine.  I don't think I was the only one.

[california boy]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm pretty sure my first post said that I thought the message of the song was fine.  I don't think I was the only one.

OH I agree with you.  Many did not have a problem with the message.  And I don't think a single person said that the song wasn't the best way to present that message.  But here we are 19 pages later arguing about the appropriateness of teaching tolerance and fairness without parent consent.  Just another example of how polarized this country is.  

[california boy]

Just now, california boy said:

OH I agree with you.  Many did not have a problem with the message.  And I don't think a single person said that the song was a good way to present that message.  But here we are 19 pages later arguing about the appropriateness of teaching tolerance and fairness without parent consent.  Just another example of how polarized this country is.  

 

[bluebell]

44 minutes ago, california boy said:

OH I agree with you.  Many did not have a problem with the message.  And I don't think a single person said that the song wasn't the best way to present that message.  But here we are 19 pages later arguing about the appropriateness of teaching tolerance and fairness without parent consent.  Just another example of how polarized this country is.  

Very true.

To be sure, if the church had produced a similar song, it would have been received in the same way, just by a different side of the isle.  Or if it has been sung by the "Republican Choir" or the "Democratic Choir", we would have had just as many people up in arms, just for different reasons.

Everyone is very touchy right now with any implication that a group they disagree with might hold the moral high ground.  It wouldn't really matter what the group represented or who they were singing about--the "sides" would be different but the results would be the same.

We are a polarized mess.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I’d venture to say that almost everyone “offended” by the song (not speaking of those that find it merely in bad taste or a PR blunder) are those that found it via right wing sites that shared it with the intent to inflame the cultural wars. 

I think the same thing happened with the baptism child ban. A group of critics got to the media first and presented it in the worst way possible, inflaming fears, which was then picked up by more moderates.

Here a set of critics did their best to make it look bad and that is now the almost complete focus in the media and in discussion.

It is unfortunately not an unusual tactic, overwhelming those who suggest asking and/or waiting for clarification, looking at the greater context to understand the actual message, etc.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Very true.

To be sure, if the church had produced a similar song, it would have been received in the same way, just by a different side of the isle.  Or if it has been sung by the "Republican Choir" or the "Democratic Choir", we would have had just as many people up in arms, just for different reasons.

Everyone is very touchy right now with any implication that a group they disagree with might hold the moral high ground.  It wouldn't really matter what the group represented or who they were singing about--the "sides" would be different but the results would be the same.

It is also about what is meant by “tolerance and fairness”.  Given who is singing, it is about a certain view of tolerance and fairness (just as if church kids were signing about bringing the gospel to the world, other Christians might be offended by the song even if they believe the Gospel should be taken to the world, just not the one assumed by the Church to be the one taught by Christ then and now).

[Rain]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

OH I agree with you.  Many did not have a problem with the message.  And I don't think a single person said that the song wasn't the best way to present that message.  But here we are 19 pages later arguing about the appropriateness of teaching tolerance and fairness without parent consent.

I don't think everyone would view it that way. Maybe that's the problem? 

3 hours ago, california boy said:

 Just another example of how polarized this country is.  

 

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

It is also about what is meant by “tolerance and fairness”.  Given who is singing, it is about a certain view of tolerance and fairness (just as if church kids were signing about bringing the gospel to the world, other Christians might be offended by the song even if they believe the Gospel should be taken to the world, just not the one assumed by the Church to be the one taught by Christ then and now).

 

58 minutes ago, Rain said:

I don't think everyone would view it that way. Maybe that's the problem? 

 

This is interesting.  While I know the church does not condone same sex marriage, don't they teach the same tolerance and fairness that the choir is singing about?  Are members of the Church suppose to be intolerant of those that are gay and choose to marry?

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

It is also about what is meant by “tolerance and fairness”.  Given who is singing, it is about a certain view of tolerance and fairness (just as if church kids were signing about bringing the gospel to the world, other Christians might be offended by the song even if they believe the Gospel should be taken to the world, just not the one assumed by the Church to be the one taught by Christ then and now).

Exactly.  It is one group presenting the idea that they alone get to decide what is tolerant and fair, and that will almost always (always?) get push back from other groups.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

I think the same thing happened with the baptism child ban. A group of critics got to the media first and presented it in the worst way possible, inflaming fears, which was then picked up by more moderates.

Here a set of critics did their best to make it look bad and that is now the almost complete focus in the media and in discussion.

It is unfortunately not an unusual tactic, overwhelming those who suggest asking and/or waiting for clarification, looking at the greater context to understand the actual message, etc.

Excellent point.

[bluebell]

27 minutes ago, california boy said:

 

This is interesting.  While I know the church does not condone same sex marriage, don't they teach the same tolerance and fairness that the choir is singing about?  Are members of the Church suppose to be intolerant of those that are gay and choose to marry?

There are many--many--who believe that it the church, despite its teachings on the subject, is intolerant of fair of lgbtqs. 

So it's not an issue of what members are doing or believing sometimes.  Sometimes it's an issue of people who believe that the only tolerant and fair thing is total acceptance and support of the homosexual lifestyle, etc. and so anything less than that is automatically intolerant and unfair.

That's what Calm and Rain are talking about.  

[Calm]

50 minutes ago, california boy said:

While I know the church does not condone same sex marriage, don't they teach the same tolerance and fairness that the choir is singing about?  

I don’t know. The song doesn’t specify what tolerance means to them.  It may include accepting the view that a same sex sexual relationship is not sinful and is equivalent to a heterosexual marriage in every important way (since they can be parents through adoption or other means).  It may not. And those singing may have different intents. 
 

The phrase “Gen Z is gayer than Grindr”, for example, would suggest they are not talking about the identical type of tolerance. 

Edited July 11, 2021 by Calm

[Bernard Gui]

Why does everyone have to interpret the song the same way?

[JustAnAustralian]

Interesting that they're after tolerance now rather than genuine loving acceptance.

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

I don’t know. The song doesn’t specify what tolerance means to them.  It may include accepting the view that a same sex sexual relationship is not sinful and is equivalent to a heterosexual marriage in every important way (since they can be parents through adoption or other means).  It may not. And those singing may have different intents. 
 

The phrase “Gen Z is gayer than Grindr”, for example, would suggest they are not talking about the identical type of tolerance. 

I don't think tolerance ever means accepting anything as being right or wrong.  It means, at least to me, tolerating other peoples choices that they make.  When I tolerate someone who is Mormon, does not mean I want to embrace that lifestyle for myself, but it does mean I respect the choice they have made.

[california boy]

3 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

Interesting that they're after tolerance now rather than genuine loving acceptance.

It's a song by just one choir.  I don't think you can project any single group to speak for everyone who is LGBT

[Peacefully]

12 hours ago, pogi said:

It goes tar beyond ward activities though.  The youth are trained by adult leaders and provided media and other materials and encouraged/committed to share the gospel everywhere, including online. Never are they encouraged to get parental permission before handing out Book of Mormons or pass along cards, or before posting videos and other media and scriptures online.  Parents absolutely are being subverted.

I’m not sure how the youth are in your neck of the woods but getting any of our girls to reach out to less active girls was like pulling teeth. They definitely have minds of their own. I think the parents are having enough trouble keeping the active kids in without trying to convert their friends, but maybe that is just here. We did have one YM who was pretty gung-ho about sharing the gospel, but I don’t think his parents or the leaders put him up to it. It was just his personality. 

[Calm]

30 minutes ago, california boy said:

I don't think tolerance ever means accepting anything as being right or wrong.  It means, at least to me, tolerating other peoples choices that they make.  When I tolerate someone who is Mormon, does not mean I want to embrace that lifestyle for myself, but it does mean I respect the choice they have made.

Not a bad definition, IMO.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Peacefully said:

I’m not sure how the youth are in your neck of the woods but getting any of our girls to reach out to less active girls was like pulling teeth. They definitely have minds of their own. I think the parents are having enough trouble keeping the active kids in without trying to convert their friends, but maybe that is just here. We did have one YM who was pretty gung-ho about sharing the gospel, but I don’t think his parents or the leaders put him up to it. It was just his personality. 

I have definitely seen many youth take the programs and invitations to heart.

“I gave away a Book of Mormon for the first time in between science and history when I was in eighth grade. I’d like to say I did this just because I wanted to, but it was actually a requirement for Personal Progress.”

https://www.ldsliving.com/-LDS-How-Youth-Can-Share-the-Gospel/s/67542

The whole article is a good example of exactly what I have been talking about.  It is all coordinated and directed by the church.  No mention of seeking parental permission anywhere.  There is no way we can place the responsibility on the parents to screen every social interaction of their kids. So those here who are trying to suggest that the problem (for those who are taking issue with it) is isolated to my ward and are criticizing my local leaders (not directing this at you, Peacefully) I think the issue clearly is more generalized than my ward.  

Edited July 12, 2021 by pogi

[Peacefully]

37 minutes ago, pogi said:

I have definitely seen many youth take the programs and invitations to heart.

“I gave away a Book of Mormon for the first time in between science and history when I was in eighth grade. I’d like to say I did this just because I wanted to, but it was actually a requirement for Personal Progress.”

https://www.ldsliving.com/-LDS-How-Youth-Can-Share-the-Gospel/s/67542

The whole article is a good example of exactly what I have been talking about.  It is all coordinated and directed by the church.  No mention of seeking parental permission anywhere.  There is no way we can place the responsibility on the parents to screen every social interaction of their kids. So those here who are trying to suggest that the problem (for those who are taking issue with it) is isolated to my ward and are criticizing my local leaders (not directing this at you, Peacefully) I think the issue clearly is more generalized than my ward.  

I hope this is changing. Kids shouldn’t feel pressured to discuss the church with their friends. 

[smac97]

An article on this topic by Bruce Bawer: Way, Way Off-Key / A massive misstep by the San Francisco Gay Men’s Chorus.

Some excerpts:

Quote

The video, posted on YouTube by the Gay Men’s Chorus of San Francisco, begins with a young gay man, Troy Iwata, in tight close-up, looking intensely into the camera. 

“As we celebrate Pride and the progress we’ve made over these past years,” he declares, “there’s still work to be done. So for those of you who are still working against equal rights, we have a message for you.”  

Iwata begins to sing, in a light tenor and with a self-satisfied smirk: “You think we’re sinful / You fight against our rights / You say we all lead lives you can’t respect. / But you’re just frightened / You think that we’ll corrupt your kids / If our agenda goes unchecked.” 

With a fatuous smile he then croons: “Funny, just this once, you’re correct.” And then he dives into the refrain: 

“We’ll convert your children,” Iwata warbles, grinning smugly. “Happens bit by bit. / Quietly and subtly. / You will barely notice it. / You can keep them from disco, / Warn about San Francisco . . .” And so on. 

What the . . . ? 

OK, in the next couple of lines it turns out that he’s not singing about converting kids to homosexuality. No, the premise is that “we”—the “gay community,” naturally—will convert those kids to being “tolerant / And fair.” 

I agree that the smarminess of the singer was, I think, pretty offputting.

The "What the..." and "singing about converting kids to homosexuality" were the initial impressions I had, too.  Not until the line "tolerant / And fair" do we get the "joke."

Quote

And on it goes. Before the tune is over, fully 81 members of the chorus are in on it, belting out this stupid lyric in 81 little boxes on-screen. “We’ll convert your children,” they repeat. “The gay agenda is here.” And: “We’ll make an ally of you yet.” 

Not with material like this, you won’t. 

Idiots! 

Yep.  Joking about sexual predation of children, coupled with repeated accusations of bigotry, is not going to win people over.

Quote

Several points. First: the video is titled “A Message from the Gay Community.” Since when does the Gay Men’s Chorus of San Francisco think it can speak for all gay people? 

This does speak to a problem.  The "Gay Community" is amorphous.  There is no leadership, no structure.  Membership is based on the unilateral choice of the individual (or subgroup). 

That said, the SFGMC is a prominent, even famous, group.  They put themselves out there as ambassodors for the "Gay Community."  The prominence and notoriety of the Chorus is, I think, why the song/video generated such controversy.  The song/video was not a one-off by an individual gay guy formulating lyrics and strumming on a guitar in the corner of his apartment.  The song was composed by somewhat notable musical fellows, Rosser/Sohne.  It was performed many times prior to the video.  The leadership of the choir probably all signed off not only on the song, but on producing and publishing the video on YouTube and Facebook.  And then there was all the time and effort to actually produce the thing.  Dozens, perhaps hundreds, of individuals were part of the process.  Apparently nobody gave a second thought to the song/video.  And all of this happened after Rosser/Sohne were publicly taken to the woodshed for their romanticizatin/fetishization of pedophilia and child rape in their "The Boy who Danced on Air" musical, after they repeatedly apologized for it, after they shut it down and took it off streaming outlets and YouTube.  

The "message" in the song and video went through that much vetting, so it's sort of understandable that people think, well, the message is deliberate.  The taunting.  The gloating.  The contempt.  The overt and in-your-face threat of indoctrination of targeting children - my children - for indoctrination.  The threat of parental subversion.  All the while playing on a connection between homosexuality and pedophilia, replete with sexual euphemism about children - my children - sung by dozens of adult men.  This, we are told, is the "joke" we don't get.

Quote

Second: what as-yet-unobtained “equal rights” is Iwata singing about? In 2021, gay Americans can marry—and do anything anyone else can do. 

Another good point.  The timing of the video seems to undermine the "live and let live" thing that we have seen for years.  Those of us who thought, and still think, that marriage should be between a man and a woman, well, we lost the legal dispute on that one.  However it happened, same-sex marriage is the law of the land.  I recognize that.  And in the ensuing years I've thought many times "Well, it looks like all this 'live and let live' stuff is going to carry the day after all."  Regarding same-sex marriage, I will live as I see fit, and others will live as they see fit.  And as for most other civil rights issues, I have been on board with those for years (the Utah Compact).

But then comes this video.  

So much for "live and let live."  "Tolerance" means capitulation.  "Fair" means indoctrination.  Of children.  My children.  Subversively.  Without my knowledge or consent.

Quote

At the end of the video, we learn that this farkakte piece of music was written by Tim Rosser (music) and Charlie Sohne (lyrics). I looked them up, too. They look no older than Iwata. 

Which explains why none of them grasp that gay Americans didn’t win the rights they now enjoy by talking down to—and smirking at!—the majority of Americans. 

In fact, the self-styled “queer” radicals tried that in the 1970s and ’80s, when most gays were closeted. Those leftists presumed to speak for all of us. Most of what they said and did was as reckless and stupid as this dopey ditty. 

They pulled stunts like disrupting a Mass at St. Patrick’s Cathedral and throwing the Host on the floor. I even remember signs at Pride marches that promised: yes, we do want to convert your children.  

It was puerile. And it was wildly counterproductive. Instead of conducting themselves like adults and making mature arguments, they behaved like toddlers throwing temper tantrums. For the fist-pumpers in the streets, who were vetting inarticulate rage at their parents, this wasn’t activism; it was therapy. And for the people running the show, none of this was about trying to win reform, but about using the marginalized gay population as the leading edge of a Marxist revolution.  

In the 1990s, thankfully, the grown-up gays increasingly spoke up. Closeted gays—more conservative, on the whole, than anyone imagined—came out. Together we won over America—patiently, civilly, and respectfully. Lesson learned. 

But in this new woke atmosphere, all of that seems to have been dropped down the memory hole. 

I too think the song/video was counterproductive.  There isn't a wit of "patiently, civilly, and respectfully" in the song/video.  Instead, it comes across as, well, see above.

Quote

After the Gay Men’s Chorus posted this song on its YouTube page, it received a few dozen thumbs-ups—and thousands of thumbs-downs. Surprise! After a few hours, they yanked it down. But it remains up at other YouTube pages—such as those of the International Organization for the Family and the Evangelical Dark Web. Surprise again! 

I didn't orchestrate the "thousands of thumbs-downs."  

Quote

Not long after pulling the video, the people who run the Gay Men’s Chorus—courageous activists that they are—closed their offices and ran home in fear of being ripped to bits by violent Christian mobs. Meanwhile, even as the public outrage over the video was still building, the leftist and queer media were fighting back, applauding the song as “clever” and “extremely funny” and dismissing critics as far-right bigots who were deliberately misinterpreting the lyrics. 

Yep.  I've seen some folks either defend the song/video or shrug off its themes (the most problematic, I think, being the sexual predation "joke" and Sohn/Rossers linking homosexuality to pedophilia, both of which are deeply troubling) as harmless.  "Boys will be boys," I guess.  "Nothing to see here, folks!  Just a YouTube video showing dozens of adult men using a double entendre to croon a 'joke' about sexually preying on your kids!  Oh, and you're a bigot if don't like the joke!"

And no retraction or apology, either.  

 

Quote

Or were they? Information posted posted on social media seemed to indicate that several members of the Gay Men’s Chorus are registered sex offenders.

This part of his article really needs correction.  Apparently the men being identified as "registered sex offenders" aren't.  See here.  (I tried to post a message with that link in the comments section of the story, but I can't get it to work.)

Quote

And right here at American Greatness, Debra Heine revealed that in 2016 Rosser and Sonne, the tunesmiths responsible for this disaster, put on a musical about pedophilia in Afghanistan, “The Boy who Danced on Air.” 

Secular Afghans and Afghan-Americans, noted Heine, were livid, accusing the show “of romanticising child sexual abuse and child rape.” (Of course, among woke queers nowadays, the idea of responding with anything other than approval to another culture’s social practices, however abominable, is racist and xenophobic.) 

Although some chuckleheaded Broadway types cheered the play (“thrillingly fresh”—Theatermania), it went too far for the New York Times, whose reviewer, Jesse Green (author of a memoir about gay fatherhood), complained that some scenes “suggest romance more than predation” and criticized the lyricist for his “glibness” (an attribute also on display in the tune performed by the Gay Men’s Chorus). But there’s more: the star of “The Boy who Danced on Air” was none other than—small world—Troy Iwata. In response to the Afghan complaints about the play, he took to Instagram to apologize for taking part in a show that “romanticised sexual assault and misconstrued an entire culture and its people.” 

Odd that he should have decided, five years later, to team up again with Rosser and Sonne for another wildly ill-advised effort to turn pedophilia into entertainment. 
...
In closing, just one question: what are the chances that the fools who wrote and sang this unbelievably off-key anthem—and who dared to present it as a message from all gay Americans, most of whom are undoubtedly appalled by it—will learn the right lesson from this outrageous misfire? They sure didn’t learn anything from the reaction to “The Boy who Danced on Air.”

Yep.  I am trying to understand how Rosser/Sohne and Iwata, all of whom were neck-deep in the backlash against their pedophilic musical, didn't see the current controversity coming.  They apologized profusely to the Afghanis, but they double-downed in their threats to indoctrinate the children of their neighbors.  Weird.

Quote

And so far they seem not to grasp that they deserve all the opprobrium they’ve gotten, and more. Because the most virulent gay-hater in the world couldn’t have come up with a better way than this to try to undo all the progress that gay Americans have made in the last few decades. 

This part of his article also needs correction.  I think some solid doses of "opprobrium" are in order, but not the threats of violence.  

I wonder if this song/video is a wake-up call.  For everyone.  The "Gay Community" needs to examine stuff like this song/video, and "The Boy who Danced on Air."  I think many people outside of that community, those who are not steeped in or particularly familiar with it, have been trying the "live and let live" thing, the "mutual respect" thing.  Then they see this song, and this musical, and start wondering how "mutual" that respect really is, and whether we are going to be "let {to} live."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 12, 2021 by smac97

[JustAnAustralian]

In regards to the personal progress thing, I can't find anything in there mandating they shared anything preachy with a non-member or gave away a Book of Mormon.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/manual/young-women-personal-progress?lang=eng

 

Edited July 13, 2021 by JustAnAustralian

[pogi]

2 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

In regards to the personal progress thing, I can't find anything in there mandating they shared anything preachy with a non-member or gave away a Book of Mormon.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/manual/young-women-personal-progress?lang=eng

 

This young woman seemed to believe it was.  I don’t know how to search the 94 pages to see if it is suggested or not, but it is suggested and encouraged by the church here:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/youth-activities/missionary-work

[california boy]

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

An article on this topic by Bruce Bawer: Way, Way Off-Key / A massive misstep by the San Francisco Gay Men’s Chorus.

Some excerpts:

I agree that the smarminess of the singer was, I think, pretty offputting.

The "What the..." and "singing about converting kids to homosexuality" were the initial impressions I had, too.  Not until the line "tolerant / And fair" do we get the "joke."

Yep.  Joking about sexual predation of children, coupled with repeated accusations of bigotry, is not going to win people over.

This does speak to a problem.  The "Gay Community" is amorphous.  There is no leadership, no structure.  Membership is based on the unilateral choice of the individual (or subgroup). 

That said, the SFGMC is a prominent, even famous, group.  They put themselves out there as ambassodors for the "Gay Community."  The prominence and notoriety of the Chorus is, I think, why the song/video generated such controversy.  The song/video was not a one-off by an individual gay guy formulating lyrics and strumming on a guitar in the corner of his apartment.  The song was composed by somewhat notable musical fellows, Rosser/Sohne.  It was performed many times prior to the video.  The leadership of the choir probably all signed off not only on the song, but on producing and publishing the video on YouTube and Facebook.  And then there was all the time and effort to actually produce the thing.  Dozens, perhaps hundreds, of individuals were part of the process.  Apparently nobody gave a second thought to the song/video.  And all of this happened after Rosser/Sohne were publicly taken to the woodshed for their romanticizatin/fetishization of pedophilia and child rape in their "The Boy who Danced on Air" musical, after they repeatedly apologized for it, after they shut it down and took it off streaming outlets and YouTube.  

The "message" in the song and video went through that much vetting, so it's sort of understandable that people think, well, the message is deliberate.  The taunting.  The gloating.  The contempt.  The overt and in-your-face threat of indoctrination of targeting children - my children - for indoctrination.  The threat of parental subversion.  All the while playing on a connection between homosexuality and pedophilia, replete with sexual euphemism about children - my children - sung by dozens of adult men.  This, we are told, is the "joke" we don't get.

Another good point.  The timing of the video seems to undermine the "live and let live" thing that we have seen for years.  Those of us who thought, and still think, that marriage should be between a man and a woman, well, we lost the legal dispute on that one.  However it happened, same-sex marriage is the law of the land.  I recognize that.  And in the ensuing years I've thought many times "Well, it looks like all this 'live and let live' stuff is going to carry the day after all."  Regarding same-sex marriage, I will live as I see fit, and others will live as they see fit.  And as for most other civil rights issues, I have been on board with those for years (the Utah Compact).

But then comes this video.  

So much for "live and let live."  "Tolerance" means capitulation.  "Fair" means indoctrination.  Of children.  My children.  Subversively.  Without my knowledge or consent.

I too think the song/video was counterproductive.  There isn't a wit of "patiently, civilly, and respectfully" in the song/video.  Instead, it comes across as, well, see above.

I didn't orchestrate the "thousands of thumbs-downs."  

Yep.  I've seen some folks either defend the song/video or shrug off its themes (the most problematic, I think, being the sexual predation "joke" and Sohn/Rossers linking homosexuality to pedophilia, both of which are deeply troubling) as harmless.  "Boys will be boys," I guess.  "Nothing to see here, folks!  Just a YouTube video showing dozens of adult men using a double entendre to croon a 'joke' about sexually preying on your kids!  Oh, and you're a bigot if don't like the joke!"

And no retraction or apology, either.  

 

This part of his article really needs correction.  Apparently the men being identified as "registered sex offenders" aren't.  See here.  (I tried to post a message with that link in the comments section of the story, but I can't get it to work.)

Yep.  I am trying to understand how Rosser/Sohne and Iwata, all of whom were neck-deep in the backlash against their pedophilic musical, didn't see the current controversity coming.  They apologized profusely to the Afghanis, but they double-downed in their threats to indoctrinate the children of their neighbors.  Weird.

This part of his article also needs correction.  I think some solid doses of "opprobrium" are in order, but not the threats of violence.  

I wonder if this song/video is a wake-up call.  For everyone.  The "Gay Community" needs to examine stuff like this song/video, and "The Boy who Danced on Air."  I think many people outside of that community, those who are not steeped in or particularly familiar with it, have been trying the "live and let live" thing, the "mutual respect" thing.  Then they see this song, and this musical, and start wondering how "mutual" that respect really is, and whether we are going to be "let {to} live."

Thanks,

-Smac

So church leaders are fallible but we should expect the San Francisco Gay Men’s Choir to be infallible and never make a mistake.  Their message of tolerance and fairness might be ok but their execution might be flawed. Hummm

Edited July 13, 2021 by california boy

[california boy]

On 7/11/2021 at 9:29 PM, pogi said:

I have definitely seen many youth take the programs and invitations to heart.

“I gave away a Book of Mormon for the first time in between science and history when I was in eighth grade. I’d like to say I did this just because I wanted to, but it was actually a requirement for Personal Progress.”

https://www.ldsliving.com/-LDS-How-Youth-Can-Share-the-Gospel/s/67542

The whole article is a good example of exactly what I have been talking about.  It is all coordinated and directed by the church.  No mention of seeking parental permission anywhere.  There is no way we can place the responsibility on the parents to screen every social interaction of their kids. So those here who are trying to suggest that the problem (for those who are taking issue with it) is isolated to my ward and are criticizing my local leaders (not directing this at you, Peacefully) I think the issue clearly is more generalized than my ward.  

The Mormons are coming for your children.  They have a message of love. Let’s all get hysterical.