Identity = Child of God > Gay Man

smac97 · September 8, 2021

This is a long post, as it reflects some of my attempt to address recent developments in society that end up intersecting with the Church's doctrines pertaining to sexual morality/ethics and marriage.

I came across this article this morning in the Daily Mail, in which a young Latter-day Saint man says some pretty important things:

Quote

Mormon mother-to-be, 23, insists she has a 'happy and normal marriage' despite her husband admitting he's GAY three weeks after they started dating

Mormons Nicholas and Jordan Applegate, 23, from Arizona married last year

Their wedding ceremony followed Jonathan revealing he's attracted to men

But he wants to stay faithful to the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter-day Saints

The couple insist they are happy, and are even expecting a baby together

Some excerpts:

Quote

A couple have insisted that they're happily married despite the husband admitting that he's gay three weeks into dating.

Mormons Nicholas and Jordan Applegate, both 23, are devout members of the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter-day Saints and the pair married in a church ceremony last November, just months after Nicholas confessed that he's attracted to men.

The couple, from Arizona, insist that they have a normal and happy marriage and are even expecting their first baby together next month.

Information systems student Nicholas has chosen to put aside his sexuality in order to stay committed to the church. The pair were school sweethearts who rekindled their romance last year and despite Nicholas confessing his feelings to Jordan, she decided to stand by him.

A bit of a detour from the article for a moment...

I can't help but feel that we as a society are trying a bit too hard to shoehorn ourselves into categories as pertaining to sexual attraction. As our own @Hamba Tuhan has summed up:

Quote

I don't have children of my own, but I have long worked with young men and young missionaries and have taught them the following facts that are fully supported by historical and anthropological research:

the concept of fixed, gendered sexual identities (both hetero- and homo-) is a late 19th-century social construct that has no historical precedence and, despite 150 years of Western colonisation of the imagination, these still haven't become natural categories across all cultures

same-sex sexual behaviour has been ubiquitous since the beginning of recorded history (along with opposite-sex and other behaviours too numerous to list), though it has been framed in a dizzying number of ways across both time and space, with some cultures (for example, many Melanesian ones) having once required it as part of normal human development

it is perfectly normal to experience various kinds of attractions to both males and females

it is also perfectly normal not to be attracted to an entire class of people; for example, a male does not have to be attracted to females as a class, and to be honest, this can make living the Law of Chastity much easier!

whilst some cultures offer very narrow gender stereotypes, there are actually an infinite number of ways to be a righteous man or woman

the one constant is that all these things are fluid because humans are dynamic

To which I add the following:

God, aware that sexuality is powerful, has provided guidelines to keep us safe and happy and help us to become most like Him

we are currently in a historically unique time that presents a number of complications for Saints, so don't worry if you feel confused at times

you are going to screw up in one or more areas of the Law of Chastity; I know because I have done the same

don't panic when you find yourself in a headspace that doesn't fully match your eternal desires; this is a perfectly normal part of discipleship, which is why we have so many scriptures about it

NEVER listen to someone who wants to place you in a box and keep you there; the whole point of the gospel is to free us from such limitations

wherever you are in this process, I love you, and you are important to me

it is essential that we are all nice to each other since we're all works in progress

remember that perception is reality, so when people believe things about themselves that aren't true, those things are true to them at that point in time; try to be someone people might listen to when they're ready to shift their perceptions

I've had several young men and at least one former missionary thank me for taking this approach with them. They report feeling empowered by knowing the truth.

I like the Latter-day Saint polish he puts on these observations. As for rigid sexual categories, consider this 2018 article:

Quote

You may think you’re only attracted to the opposite sex, but strictly straight people don’t exist, according to a psychologist.

It turns out we’re all bisexual, getting turned on by both men and women, regardless of what we say.

Researchers from Cornell University asked volunteers to watch a series of porn videos to test what turned them on and what didn’t.

Their research questions society’s strict definitions of sexuality and warns that we still struggle with the idea of bisexuality, especially when it comes to men.

Lead author Rich Savin-Williams suggests that sexuality exists on a spectrum and that younger generations are more open to the idea of fluid sexuality than older adults.
...
Savin-Williams warned that cultural expectations of sexuality need to change in order for people to be more comfortable with who they are attracted to.

“We’ve always recognized mostly straight women, that is, women who mostly are straight but if the right woman comes along, well maybe she’ll try it out. We used to think that was only a female phenomenon,” Savin-Williams told Broadly.

“There are aspects [of male sexuality] along a continuum, just as we have always recognized with women.

“Men have gotten so much cultural crap put on them that even if a man does have some sexual attraction to guys, they would never say it.”

Previous research has suggested that women’s sexuality can change throughout their life between lesbian, straight and bisexual.

Psychologist Dr. Lisa Diamond of the University of Utah said it was not always the case that “once a lesbian, always a lesbian.”

She added: “Historically, sexual orientation models assumed only two categories, exclusively homosexual and exclusively heterosexual.

“Anything else is ‘transitional,’ ‘confusion,’ ‘experimental.’ As a result, researchers routinely eliminated bisexual individuals from research samples. Big mistake.”

Surveys show more people identify themselves as “mostly-but-not completely heterosexual” than exclusively heterosexual. The smallest group is those that are exclusively attracted to the same sex.

"More open to the idea of fluid sexuality..."
"Along a continuum..."
"Women's sexuality can change throughout their life..."
"More people identify themselves as 'mostly-but-not-completely heterosexual' thatn exclusively heterosexual."

This seems largely congruent with Hamba's observations, and seems to reflect the concept of sexual fluidity:

Quote

Sexual fluidity is one or more changes in sexuality or sexual identity (sometimes known as sexual orientation identity). Sexual orientation is stable and unchanging for the vast majority of people, but some research indicates that some people may experience change in their sexual orientation, and this is more likely for women than for men. There is no scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed through psychotherapy. Sexual identity can change throughout an individual's life, and may or may not align with biological sex, sexual behavior or actual sexual orientation.

Sexual orientation is not a choice. There is no consensus on the exact cause of developing a sexual orientation, but genetic, hormonal, social and cultural influences have been examined. Scientists believe that it is caused by a complex interplay of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences. Although no single theory on the cause of sexual orientation has yet gained widespread support, scientists favor biologically-based theories. Research over several decades has demonstrated that sexual orientation can be at any point along a continuum, from exclusive attraction to the opposite sex to exclusive attraction to the same sex.

"Changes is sexuality or sexual identity..."
"Some research indicates that some people may experience change in their sexual orientation..."
"Sexual identity can change throughout an individual's life..."
"Sexual orientation . . . is {believed to be} caused by a complex interplay of genetic, hormonal, and environmental {that is, social and cultural} influences."
"Sexual orientation can be at any point along a continuum..."

Interestingly, the concept of sexual fluidity seems to be controversial . . . . in the LGBT community:

Quote

The exploration on sexual fluidity initiated by Lisa M. Diamond presented a cultural challenge to the LGBT community; this is because although researchers usually emphasize that changes in sexual orientation are unlikely, despite conversion therapy attempts, sexual identity can change over time. That sexual orientation is not always stable challenges the views of many within the LGBT community, who believe that sexual orientation is fixed and immutable.

It seems like, historically speaking, "gay" folks have been much put upon to conform to sociocultural expectations about sexual identity and expression, and yet now we seem to be seeing developments about sexuality becoming more about being potentially "fluid" and on a "continuum." These ideas don't seem to mesh well with the "sexual orientation is fixed and immutable" concept espoused by "many within the LGBT community." I wonder how much of this "fixed and immutable" concept has been driven by ideological / political / legal considerations.

I also wonder how much of an individual's sexual orientation (aka sexual orientation identity) is attributable to, as noted above, "social and cultural influences." See, e.g., this Wikipedia article about Bisexual Chic:

Quote

Bisexual chic is a phrase used to describe the public acknowledgment of bisexuality or increased public interest or acceptance of bisexuality. Another usage describes a faddish attention towards bisexuality. Bisexual chic is often accompanied by celebrities publicly revealing their bisexuality.

In the United States, the 1920s was a decade of social experimentation, particularly with sex. This was heavily influenced by the writings of Sigmund Freud, who theorized that people would behave in any manner to satisfy sexual desire. With the well-publicized image that sexual acts were a part of lesbian women and relationships, sexual experimentation was widespread. Large cities that provided a nightlife were immensely popular, and women began to seek out sexual adventure. Bisexuality became chic, particularly in America's first gay neighborhoods.

The phrase itself came into wide usage in the 1970s, on the tail end of the hippie movement, which extolled free love. During the glam rock and disco era, there was a media-generated fascination with bisexuality in the club scene and among musicians such as Elton John, David Bowie and Patti Smith; in fact, in 1980, Time magazine referred to Bowie's persona Ziggy Stardust as "the orange-haired founder of bisexual chic." At the same time, bisexual groups formed in several large US cities, heralding the birth of the modern bisexual civil rights and liberation movements.

The phrase can be used to imply someone is only pretending to be bisexual because it’s fashionable at the moment. Alternatively, it can be used to assert that someone is free of taboos, experimental, in touch with both masculine and feminine aspects of themselves, and therefore potentially a better lover or even a better person.
^...
Despite the visibility and acceptance of bisexuality brought by the effects of bisexual chic, this phenomenon has been criticised for its "trendy" property rather than a genuine act of advocating bisexual equality. The idea of bisexuality being chic is also detrimental to the bisexual movement as "faux bisexuality" gives bad credits to bisexual people that their sexuality is only a form of art, not a real sexual orientation.

It also misleads people who are bi-curious, which means questioning their attraction to both sexes and possibly end up being monosexual, to identify with being bisexual.

"The 1920s was a decade of social experimentation, particularly with sex ... {and} heavily influenced by the writings of Sigmund Freud, who theorized that people would behave in any manner to satisfy sexual desire."
"Sexual experimentation was widespread."
"Women began to seek out sexual adventure. Bixesuality became chic..."
"The phrase ... can be used to assert that someone is free of taboos, experimental, in touch with both masculine and feminine aspects of themselves..."
"This phenomenon has been criticised for its 'trendy' property..."
"Bisexuality being chic is also deterimental to the bisexual movement as 'faux bisexuality'..."

Another interesting phenomenon is that the concept of "bisexuality," which implies two genders, is given way to "pasexuality." See, e.g., here (from 2019) :

Quote

The pansexual revolution: how sexual fluidity became mainstream
Rigid definitions of sexuality are on the way out, as a younger generation embraces a ‘never say never’ approach to sex and gender

Nick Meadowcroft-Lunn has a girlfriend, whom he has been seeing for three years. Jezz Palmer has a girlfriend, too, and they have been together for five. You might assume therefore that Nick is straight and Jezz is gay; or, if not, that both must be bisexual. But you would be wrong.

“I always describe my sexuality as: ‘If you’ve got nice hair and pretty eyes, I’m down for it,’” explains Jezz, a 26-year-old editor working in historical publishing. “It’s not that gender doesn’t matter, because it can be important, but it’s a bit of an afterthought. It’s just like: ‘Oh, hello.’” For a while, she wasn’t sure what to call this, but eight years ago she settled on “pansexual” as the closest word. “It took me a while to figure it out. [The TV series] Torchwood was about the only thing I’d heard of. I was talking about maybe being pansexual and someone said: ‘Oh, like Captain Jack in Torchwood.’”
...
Last year, “pansexual” briefly became the online dictionary Merriam-Webster’s most searched word of the day after the singer Janelle Monáe defined herself as a pansexual . . . The Panic at the Disco frontman Brendan Urie and the singer Miley Cyrus both also identify as pan, with Urie explaining that, to him, it means: “I really don’t care … If a person is great, then a person is great. I just like good people, if your heart’s in the right place.” The singer Demi Lovato, meanwhile, identifies as “sexually fluid”, or “having a shifting gender preference”, while other labels for being neither exclusively straight nor gay include “heteroflexible” and “questioning”.

For bisexual activists who have long felt erased from the picture, many of these new identities can sound suspiciously like elaborate ways to avoid the word “bisexual”. But Meg-John Barker, psychology lecturer and author of The Psychology of Sex, argues that, while “bisexual” is a useful and widely understood umbrella term for being attracted to more than either gender, labels such as “pansexual” do capture a specific sense that fancying someone isn’t just about gender. And if all this seems confusing, the all-purpose “queer” is increasingly used to mean anything other than plain-vanilla 100% straight, a visibly expanding category.

When YouGov asked people to place themselves on a sliding scale where zero equals exclusively straight and six equals exclusively gay, more than a quarter of Britons polled identified as something other than 100% heterosexual. But strikingly, 54% of people aged 18 to 24 did.

Hmm. This sounds more and more like "social and cultural influences" having a big influence. It sounds like . . . a trend.

See also here (from 2019) :

Quote

ONE IN FIVE TEENS REPORT CHANGE IN SEXUAL ORIENTATION DURING ADOLESCENCE, STUDY FINDS
Some teens who identified as heterosexual reported having some attraction to same sex or engaging in same-sex sexual behaviour

Teenagers are likely to experience sexual fluidity during adolescence, with a new study finding one in five adolescents report change in sexual orientation or sexual attraction during that period of life.

The foregoing articles are all pretty much laudatory of these trends. This article provides a different point of view on them:

Quote

The Explosion In Queer Sexuality Among Kids Is Not A Natural Trend
For young American women, it appears queer identity may just be the newest fashion trend they are eager to show off on social media.

A new Gallup poll published on Feb. 24 shows 1 in 6 Gen Z adults identify as LGBT. These results represent a remarkable jump from 2017, when 4.5 percent of Americans identified as LGBT, a number that has now risen to 5.6 percent just three years later.

Quote

Matt Walsh

@MattWalshBlog

The number of kids who identify as LGBT, especially trans and bisexual, has absolutely skyrocketed. If you think this is a natural or organic development, you're deluded. The media, Hollywood, and the school system actively recruit children into the LGBT ranks.

11:12 AM · Feb 24, 2021·Twitter Web App

The increase is indeed dramatic, yet it doesn’t fully tell the whole story. Why? While the population of Americans identifying as LGBT has risen steadily since 2012, last year the question was expanded from a simple “yes” or “no” to LGBT identity to include specific categories to choose from. Only one identity group showed a dramatic increase: bisexual women.

Of the 5.6 percent of all adults who identify as LGBT, 3.1 percent identify as bisexual, making up 54.6 percent of all LGBT adults. When broken down to the Gen Z age group (those aged 18 to 23), 11.5 percent identify as bisexual. In contrast, 5.1 percent of millennials and only 1.8 percent of Gen X identify as such. Across the board, all other categories, which include gay, lesbian, transgender, and others, remained steady.

Phillip Hammack, a psychology professor and director of the Sexual and Gender Diversity Laboratory at the University of California, Santa Cruz responded with excitement to the survey:

Quote

The rigid lines around gender and sexuality are just opening up for everybody … Young people are just doing it. … they’re leading this revolution, and they’re forcing scientists to take a closer look.

The data, however, doesn’t quite argue that point. Women are more likely to identify as LGBT than men, with 4.3 percent identifying as bisexual and only 1.8 percent of men identifying the same.

One in ten high school students identify as LGBT. Of these, 75 percent are female, and 77 percent identify as bisexual. As detailed by the Washington Post, the Williams Institute at the University of California at Los Angeles has found that 35 percent of LGBT adults are bisexual women.

Further, Hammack argues that his research shows young women are more likely to identify as “non-binary” or “gender-fluid.” The Gallup poll didn’t provide the option to identify gender identity separately from sexual orientation, but more Gen Z adults identified as transgender than as lesbian.

So this trend seems to be having a disproportionate effect on women. More specifically, young women. Read on:

Quote

So why are young women exceedingly more likely to identify as neither gender and bisexual? The argument that today’s society is more accepting and readily allows people to be their true selves doesn’t account for this exclusive, targeted change in women.

Neither does the argument for a genetic or natural human biological component. The poll does not indicate a rise in LGBT Americans — it tells us gay and transgender numbers are stable and, yet, very suddenly, there has been an increase in bisexual women who reject female identity.

If the breakdown of celebrities who came out in 2020 is any indication, men overwhelmingly come out as gay while women tend to come out as bisexual, pansexual, or simply queer. In practice, bisexual identity, similar to non-binary and gender-fluid identity, may not require as big of a social change or commitment as being gay or transgender.

Hmm.

Quote

According to a Pew Research Center survey from Stanford University, nine in 10 bisexual people in a committed relationship are with someone of the opposite sex. This does not mean bisexuality is invalid as a sexual orientation or to suggest bisexual people are simply “going through a phase,” but identifying as bisexual doesn’t necessarily alter their lifestyle the way being gay or transgender would.

As Abigail Shrier discussed in great detail with in-depth research in her book, “Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters,” the power of social contagion and peer group identity is important to consider:

Quote

Between 2016 and 2017, the number of gender surgeries for natal females in the US quadrupled; in the UK, the rates of gender dysphoria for teenage girls are up 4,400 percent over the previous decade.

Indeed, as 16-year-old Jasper Swartz — who identifies as non-binary — expressed to the Washington Post, all of her friends are “queer in some way.”

Rather than reflecting the natural progression of openness to human variation in sexuality and gender identity, it seems to better reflect a pop culture fad to be included in the LGBT spectrum in any way possible. This seems especially true for younger people, who are inundated with LGBT education, culture, and positivity and, as Abigail discusses in her book, find meaning in being different, unique, and rebellious, along with their friends. As indicated by the Gallup survey, as people age, their identities become more stable and bisexuality drops significantly.

Like non-binary and gender-fluid identities, bisexuality also offers an even more unique form of social oppression because both sides of the spectrum are suspicious of true identity. Jenny Granados-Villatoro, 18, told the Post that her parents struggle to understand her identity as bisexual and gender fluid.

She reported, “They always ask me, ‘do you think you’re going to end up marrying a woman or a man? If I were to have come out as lesbian it would have definitely been an easier concept for them to grasp.” Grey-area identities may offer more social clout and sense of rebellion and uniqueness than traditional gay or transgender identities, but with less dramatic personal changes.

For young women seeking identity and being part of a special or important group, all they have to do is cut their hair short, dress like a boy, and declare themselves non-binary or bisexual to gain instant victimhood status and self-validation. If it becomes too much and they still get the exciting thrill of being LGBT, they can always slip back into safer roles. For advocates of female identity and rights like Shrier, this can be a dangerous place to be:

Quote

Anxiety-ridden, middle-class girls who once engaged in cutting or anorexia were now wearing ‘binders’ (breast-compressing undergarments), taking testosterone and undergoing voluntary double mastectomies.

Layshia Clarendon, a non-binary lesbian who plays for the WNBA, shared her “top surgery” on social media:

Quote

It’s hard to put into words the feeling of seeing my chest for the first time free of breasts, seeing my chest the way I’ve always seen it, and feeling a sense of gender euphoria as opposed to gender dysphoria … Sighhhh … freedom … freedom at last.

For young women, queer identity can often mean hiding or even removing all aspects of natural female attributes, whereas young queer men are encouraged to decorate themselves and blend masculine and feminine traits in celebration of all gender expression.

While LGBT media and advocacy insist on projecting a narrative of anti-LGBT hatred oppressing vulnerable LGBT youth, the reality appears to be that LGBT identity is a highly desirable social status, a state of things both positive and negative. On the one hand, it demonstrates how far LGBT equality has come, but on the other, it diminishes and trivializes the experience of LGBT Americans.

"As 16-year-old Jasper Swartz ... {put it}, all of her friends are 'queer in some way.'"
"{Bisexual status} seems to better reflect a pop culture fad to be included in the LGBT spectrum in any way possible."
"Grey-area identities may offer more social clout and sense of rebellion and uniqueness than traditional gay or transgender identities, but with less dramatic personal changes."
"{Declaring} themselves non-binary or bisexual ... {results in} instant victimhood status and self-validation."
"{T}he reality appears to be that LGBT identity is a highly desirable social status."

The more I review and consider this matter, the more I find Hamba's summary to be apt, accurate and reasonable:

"The concept of fixed, gendered sexual identities (both hetero- and homo-) is a late 19th-century social construct that has no historical preceden{t}."
"{S}ame-sex sexual behaviour has been ubiquitous since the beginning of recorded history (along with opposite-sex and other behaviours too numerous to list), though it has been framed in a dizzying number of ways across both time and space."
"{I}t is perfectly normal to experience various kinds of attractions to both males and females."
"{A}ll these things are fluid because humans are dynamic."
"God, aware that sexuality is powerful, has provided guidelines to keep us safe and happy and help us to become most like Him."
"{W}e are currently in a historically unique time that presents a number of complications for Saints, so don't worry if you feel confused at times."
"{Y}ou are going to screw up in one or more areas of the Law of Chastity."
"{D}on't panic when you find yourself in a headspace that doesn't fully match your eternal desires; this is a perfectly normal part of discipleship, which is why we have so many scriptures about it."
"NEVER listen to someone who wants to place you in a box and keep you there; the whole point of the gospel is to free us from such limitations."
{I}t is essential that we are all nice to each other since we're all works in progress."

In other words, Hamba point is to acknowledge the complexities of sexuality in this life, and then transcend them by looking to and following the commandments of God. Very good stuff.

With that context, let's go back to the first article about Nicholas and Jordan Applegate:

Quote

Nicholas made a brave declaration on Facebook about his sexuality and why he chose to marry Jordan and the post has since racked up almost 12,000 likes, shares and comments.

Wow. The wheel is always turning. It seems that not too long ago Nicholas would have been excoriated for his choice, as it would have been seen as a betrayal or denial of his "fixed and immutable" category of "homosexual."

Quote

Nicholas said: 'We're both really happy and I wouldn't change my decision. It's definitely a happy and normal marriage.

'We have a lot in common, we both love music, we love to sing, watch TV together, go to the movies and go out to eat. We communicate very well so it's a very intimate and emotional relationship.

'A lot of people at the church were quite surprised when they found out that I'm gay but they were mainly impressed at the sacrifice I'm making.'

Nicholas and Jordan are expecting their first baby in October and hope to have more children in the future.

Software company worker Jordan added: 'My life has never been better than it has been married to Nick. He is the sweetest man I have ever known, loves me unconditionally, and is the best partner I could have asked for.

'When we started talking about having children, we both got so excited to think that we would be starting our own little family.

'With our baby just two months away, we couldn't be more ecstatic. This is the life we both have prayed for, and it is the one we choose.'

Childhood sweethearts, Nicholas and Jordan, met at high school and rekindled their relationship in March 2020. By August, Nicholas had proposed and the couple were married three months later.

He says he realised he was gay at the age of 12 and admits he was nervous to tell Jordan the truth.

Nicholas said: 'It wasn't a topic that we talked about. I was still really young so it wasn't really a big thing at the time. When I started growing up, I started to realise how it would impact my life but I decided to ignore it.

'In the church, we don't start dating until we're older and we believe in no sexual relations before marriage.

'I decided that before I started dating that I wanted to stay within the church and follow the principles. I was really nervous and I didn't know how Jordan was going to take it.

'She was definitely shocked and wasn't anticipating it but I wanted to make sure that Jordan knew the situation before we went further emotionally.

'After I told her, I asked her to go away and process it on her own rather than in front of me so she went and talked it over with her parents. Then she decided that she was ok with it because she just wanted someone who would commit to her.'

They sound happy. I hope things work out for them.

Quote

Jordan added: 'Neither of us knew exactly how things would work.

'I remember feeling lost and trying to find any stories of others in our similar situation but we knew that it was right to get married, despite our opposing sexual orientations.'

The couple say that friends and family support their decision and Nicholas says he's happy to make the sacrifice if it means he can remain part of the church.

Nicolas said: 'My friends and family know that I'm gay and people are quite progressive even if they don't agree with my choice, they are still supportive. Anyone can come to church and participate but if you don't follow the principles, you can't have responsibilities or enter the sacred buildings like the temples.

'If I'd made another choice, I don't think I would have lost friendships but they would have been different and I wouldn't be able to fully participate in the church which means a lot to me.' 3

Nicholas's post read: 'I am a gay man married to a wonderful wife, and I openly support The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, its doctrines, and its leaders.

'However, at the core of myself, I am not a gay man; I am a child of God, a priesthood holder, a husband, and a father. I am not denying my true self by living the tenets of the Church. I would be denying my true self by not living the gospel and leaving the Church to live a gay lifestyle.

'I saw in my life that as difficult as it might be to be a gay man not living a gay life, it would be more difficult to live a gay life that did not include active and worthy membership in Christ's church.

'The Church has always been clear, in my lifetime anyway, that it is not attraction to men that is sinful, but acting on those desires. I always understood that if I chose to either live a celibate or a heterosexual life, my standing within the Church would never be in question.

'I decided essentially as soon as I realized I was gay that I would follow the law of chastity and not engage in a relationship with a man.'

Nicholas's post read: 'I am a gay man married to a wonderful wife, and I openly support The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, its doctrines, and its leaders.

'However, at the core of myself, I am not a gay man; I am a child of God, a priesthood holder, a husband, and a father. I am not denying my true self by living the tenets of the Church. I would be denying my true self by not living the gospel and leaving the Church to live a gay lifestyle.

'I saw in my life that as difficult as it might be to be a gay man not living a gay life, it would be more difficult to live a gay life that did not include active and worthy membership in Christ's church.

'The Church has always been clear, in my lifetime anyway, that it is not attraction to men that is sinful, but acting on those desires. I always understood that if I chose to either live a celibate or a heterosexual life, my standing within the Church would never be in question.

'I decided essentially as soon as I realized I was gay that I would follow the law of chastity and not engage in a relationship with a man.'

The article quotes his Facebook post in its entirety: Pic 1, Pic 2, Pic 3, Pic 4, Pic 5. He addresses Elder Holland's remarks to some extent, but overall I was more impressed with him expressing in words concepts that I feel often do not get sufficient attention and emphasis:

First, Nicholas is saying something that often does not get sufficient attention or emphasis: He values his membership in the Church, so much so that "he's happy to make the sacrifice if it means he can remain part of" it. He wants to "fully participate in the church" because it "means a lot to" him. Just so. If the Church is what it claims to be, then joining it and remaining in it will often entail some very real sacrifice, which efforts result in blessings and joy. In that sense it's like marriage. Lots of sacrifice and commitment, but lots of blessings too. Fully participating means a lot to us.

Second, Nicholas is acknowledging the plain reality that is often overlooked or glossed over: Being a member of the Church is more than just a social or nominal thing. It means obeying the commandments and keeping covenants. Again, like a marriage.

Third, Nicholas "comes out" in a very Latter-day Saint way: "I am a gay man married to a wonderful wife, and I openly support The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, its doctrines, and its leaders." And here: "However, at the core of myself, I am not a gay man; I am a child of God, a priesthood holder, a husband, and a father. I am not denying my true self by living the tenets of the Church. I would be denying my true self by not living the gospel and leaving the Church to live a gay lifestyle." And here: "'I decided essentially as soon as I realized I was gay that I would follow the law of chastity and not engage in a relationship with a man."

Beautiful stuff.

He chooses to let his identity as "a child of God" predominate over his status as "a gay man." He finds his "true self" in living the Gospel. He committed to constraining his sexual behaviors to the parameters set by God.

I have great affection and love for our gay brothers and sisters. I cherish my friendships and relationships with them. I also cherish my relationship with Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ. These days there seems to be a lot of tension and disputation as to matters of sexual identity, expression, behavior, and so on. I am therefore grateful to have the Restored Gospel, to have living prophets and apostles who, though themselves flawed and imperfect, are providing us with cumulative and coherent and clear guidance on these important matters. I am reminded of this quote by Joseph Smith:

Quote

Let us here observe that three things are necessary for any rational and intelligent being to exercise faith in God unto life and salvation. First, the idea that he actually exists; Secondly, a correct idea of his character, perfections, and attributes; Thirdly, an actual knowledge that the course of life which one is pursuing is according to His will.

For without an acquaintance with these three important facts, the faith of every rational being must be imperfect and unproductive. But with this understanding, it can become perfect and fruitful, abounding in righteousness unto the praise and glory of God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

I believe Heavenly Father actually exists. I believe we have an incomplete, but nevertheless correct (in our limited sphere) idea of His character, perfections, and attributes.

The part tripping up the Latter-day Saints seems to be that third point: "actual knowledge that the course of life which one is pursuing is according to His will." In other words: obedience. Keeping covenants. Repentance. Enduring to the end. Listening to the Lord and His servants more than to the cacaphony of alternative voices out there.

So thank you, Nicholas, for your thoughts. And thanks again to Hamba for his summary.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

Tacenda · September 8, 2021

I think there might be a problem with your analogy if Nicholas might just think he's gay, when really he's bisexual or he really has the desire to stay in and live his days following the prophet, case in point...Ed Smart.

Or another case is the Weed couple, forgot their name, they were much like Nicholas and his wife. But look what happened to them. Oops found them: https://kutv.com/news/local/josh-weed-famous-gay-married-mormon-announces-divorce-apology-to-lgbtq-community

I think you've created a concept to fit into the LDS paradigm, which would get more people to do as Nicholas has and stay in the church and marry heterosexually and live the rest of their days practicing their faith, or adhering to it. But this may set them up for disaster. I wish this weren't so though.

But that's just me, because most heterosexuals and gays know what their preference is at a young age and anything different would be abhorrent to them.

Edited September 8, 2021 by Tacenda

katherine the great · September 8, 2021

Show me some similar couples who are 53 (not 23) and I’ll think about it. 23 year old are barely even adults.

Chum · September 8, 2021

5 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

Show me some similar couples who are 53 (not 23) and I’ll think about it. 23 year old are barely even adults.

I might object to this broad brush - if for no other reason than I keep oberving each generation to be more capable than the one before.

rongo · September 8, 2021

9 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

Show me some similar couples who are 53 (not 23) and I’ll think about it. 23 year old are barely even adults.

Brother Applegate was my son's MTC teacher, and he and his wife were there for my son's homecoming. Very nice and dedicated people.

I share your concern because of people I have known who were similar "back of the Ensign stories" who were held up as examples of straight-married Mormons who were "making it." All of the ones I personally know have turned away from that and fully embraced the gay life (which includes divorce and children from the marriage). I do believe that it is possible, but it requires an iron will, dedication, and huge sacrifice over decades. I haven't seen any of the "back of the Ensign" stories pan out, long-term.

I'm really pulling for the Applegates. They are 100% sincere and fully dedicated to traditional Church orthodoxy. But so were others I know (some who blogged about the experience. The blogs are radio silent or gone now).

He and his wife (both Facebook friends of ours) gave lengthy fervent and spirited defenses of Elder Holland and the Church after his talk. That was when he publicly came out.

The Nehor · September 8, 2021

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I came across this article this morning in the Daily Mail, in which a young Latter-day Saint man says some pretty important things:

I am seeing a glaring problem here.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Interestingly, the concept of sexual fluidity seems to be controversial . . . . in the LGBT community:

It is controversial in the straight community as well.

There is something darkly ironic about coopting the latest trends in sexuality as a defense for the reasonableness of demanding only heteronormative relationships on the basis of everyone essentially being ‘closet’ bisexuals. You have also grabbed only the one piece you like. I don’t think you actually want the whole cake.

rongo · September 8, 2021

12 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I am seeing a glaring problem here.

That's ad hominem (can there any good thing come from the Daily Mail?). They were picking up on a Facebook sensation story. First time any of my friends had tens of thousands of reactions and responses.

Edited September 8, 2021 by rongo

smac97 · September 8, 2021

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

I came across this article this morning in the Daily Mail, in which a young Latter-day Saint man says some pretty important things:

I am seeing a glaring problem here.

The Daily Mail article is mostly quoting Nicholas.

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

This seems largely congruent with Hamba's observations, and seems to reflect the concept of sexual fluidity:
...

"Changes in sexuality or sexual identity..."

"Some research indicates that some people may experience change in their sexual orientation..."

"Sexual identity can change throughout an individual's life..."

"Sexual orientation . . . is {believed to be} caused by a complex interplay of genetic, hormonal, and environmental {that is, social and cultural} influences."

"Sexual orientation can be at any point along a continuum..."

Interestingly, the concept of sexual fluidity seems to be controversial . . . . in the LGBT community:

Quote

The exploration on sexual fluidity initiated by Lisa M. Diamond presented a cultural challenge to the LGBT community; this is because although researchers usually emphasize that changes in sexual orientation are unlikely, despite conversion therapy attempts, sexual identity can change over time. That sexual orientation is not always stable challenges the views of many within the LGBT community, who believe that sexual orientation is fixed and immutable.

It is controversial in the straight community as well.

Well, that's what we're here to discuss.

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

There is something darkly ironic about coopting the latest trends in sexuality

There is also something ironic about you speaking of "coopting ... trends."

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

as a defense for the reasonableness of demanding only heteronormative relationships on the basis of everyone essentially being ‘closet’ bisexuals.

I don't think that is an accurate or fair characterization.

The propriety of categorizing sexual behavior into "identities" should, I think, be a big part of the discussion.

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

You have also grabbed only the one piece you like. I don’t think you actually want the whole cake.

I don't understand what this means.

Thanks,

-Smac

The Nehor · September 8, 2021

7 minutes ago, rongo said:

That's ad hominem (can there any good thing come from the Daily Mail?). They were picking up on a Facebook sensation story. First time any of my friends had tens of thousands of reactions and responses.

That is not ad hominem. Ad hominem is unrelated stories about the person who said something being used to discredit what they say. When news media (or a person) routinely puts out garbage it is not a fallacy to assume that what they put out is, in fact, garbage.

Edited September 8, 2021 by The Nehor

rongo · September 8, 2021

11 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

That is not ad hominem. Ad hominem is unrelated stories about the person who said something. When news media (or a person) routinely puts out garbage it is not a fallacy to assume that what they put out is, in fact, garbage.

That's textbook ad hominem. "The Daily Mail routinely puts out garbage," so "there is a glaring problem there" (Daily Mail highlighted). In other words, since they put out garbage, this must be garbage, too.

But, in this case, there was nothing false in their reporting --- they were simply reporting on a social media sensation story --- and one where I know and have met the subjects. They mostly quoted from his Facebook coming out post.

Even tabloids can report facts. Dismissing specific instances because of a perceived broad, sweeping judgment without even considering the specifics of the particular instance is classic ad hominem.

Edited September 8, 2021 by rongo

The Nehor · September 8, 2021

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't understand what this means.

Which is why I expect this discussion to be pretty asinine. The potential changes in our concepts of sexuality with the rising generation are potentially very broad. You are taking one piece this member of the church latched on to and using it to question the concept of sexual identities without acknowledging what will be replacing them. You just want the one bit that helps support the idea you like.

katherine the great · September 8, 2021

40 minutes ago, Chum said:

I might object to this broad brush - if for no other reason than I keep oberving each generation to be more capable than the one before.

Interesting. I see each generation taking longer to grow up than the one before. At any rate, marriage is a process not an event. Someone being happy in a marriage at age 23 just really means nothing to me. If they are happy 30 years later, that speaks volumes about the quality of the marriage.

The Nehor · September 8, 2021

Just now, rongo said:

That's textbook ad hominem. "The Daily Mail routinely puts out garbage," so "there is a glaring problem there" (Daily Mail highlighted). In other words, since they put out garbage, this must be garbage, too.

But, in this case, there was nothing false in their reporting --- they were simply reporting on a social media sensation story --- and one where I know and have met the subjects.

Even tabloids can report facts. Dismissing specific instances because of a perceived broad, sweeping judgment without even considering the specifics of the particular instance is classic ad hominem.

No. Wrong. Not a classic ad hominem.

Credibility is always relevant. Ad hominem attacks don’t hit at credibility. They hit at unrelated character flaws.

Wrong.

Chum · September 8, 2021

8 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

Interesting. I see each generation taking longer to grow up than the one before.

Any length in prep time may be due to their lives being exponentially more complex, while commonplace events (eg: first jobs) come with many new barriers.

However, at each step in the growth process, I feel they are much more capable of handling intricate challenges than their predecessors.

Edited September 8, 2021 by Chum

katherine the great · September 8, 2021

6 minutes ago, Chum said:

However, at each step in the growth process, I feel they are much more capable of handling intricate challenges than their predecessors.

Lol! We will have to agree to disagree. My observations come from years of teaching college students.

Chum · September 8, 2021

7 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

Lol! We will have to agree to disagree. My observations come from years of teaching college students.

I'm oldish. When I was young, my parents' generation struggled much less with everyday expectations. It's become a vastly more complicated world and being able to navigate it reflects on ability.

smac97 · September 8, 2021

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

I don't understand what this means.

Which is why I expect this discussion to be pretty asinine.

Feel free to not participate, then.

If you want to be cryptic, fine. Just do so in some other thread. Don't clutter up this one.

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The potential changes in our concepts of sexuality with the rising generation are potentially very broad.

I agree.

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

You are taking one piece this member of the church latched on to and using it to question the concept of sexual identities without acknowledging what will be replacing them.

Actually, I think I was acknowledging quite a bit.

Sexuality as "fluid" and on a "continuum" as opposed to rigid, either/or, "fixed and immutable" categorical "identities."

Sexuality as something that, for some, "can change throughout their life."

Sexuality as being influenced, perhaps even substantially so, by "social and cultural influences."

As for Nicholas, I think his Facebook post is thoughtful, meaningful and significant.

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

You just want the one bit that helps support the idea you like.

It's not so much about what I "like" as about what I believe.

It sure would be easier for the Latter-day Saints to "go along to get along." to abandon or re-define the Church's teachings about sexuality and marriage. To conform to popular opinions. To capitulate.

Instead, I see the Brethren as continuing to present to us revealed doctrines, despite their being socipolitically unpopular in the moment. I like that.

In John 6 (the "Bread of Life" sermon), Jesus Christ said some things that were not popular. Many of those who heard it "murmured at him." Many of those who heard it "strove among themselves." Many of those who heard it "went back, and walked no more with him."

That was His modus operandi. Christ said and did things that were not well-received by the society around Him. I'm quite okay with that. I'm also quite okay with His servants doing the same thing. I am of course interested in the reputation of the Church. Our reputation affects our ability to fulfill various mandates from God, not the least of which is the Great Commission. But preserving and ehnancing the Church's "reputation" cannot come at the expense of other mandates, such as upholding and proclaiming and teaching principles pertaining to marriage and the Law of Chastity.

Christ did not upend the moneychangers' tables in the temple because it was popular. He did so because it was right.

Christ did not preach the "Bread of Life" sermon in John 6 because it was popular. He did so because it was right.

Christ preached a gospel that was not going to be popular in the minds of an increasingly wicked world. He knew that. But He preached it anyway. I think He knew beforehand that His message would alienate many people, including some otherwise good and decent people. But He preached anyway. I think He did so because those who were ready for His message needed to hear it, and needed to be gathered out of the World.

Perhaps this is why He said "For if ye will not abide in my covenant ye are not worthy of me."

I find it grimly satisfying that the Brethren are saying and doing some things that, in my mind, are A) unpopular in the eyes of the World, and B) in accordance with revealed truths. It is in times like this that we learn and grow, that we are called upon to dig deep and discern just how much value we place in our relationship with the Lord, with His church, with our covenants. In John 6, we read about the response many of the Savior's follower's had: "From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him." But then, we also read about the response of others:

Quote

67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

The "idea {I} like" is ascertaining, and then following, the will of God. Even if doing so is difficult. Even if it is unpopular.

The Church's teachings about sexual ethics/behavior and marriage are presently a stumblingblock for some members of the Church, rather like how the Savior's teachings in John 6 were a stumblingblock to some in that generation.

Thanks,

-Smac

Calm · September 8, 2021

2 hours ago, katherine the great said:

Show me some similar couples who are 53 (not 23) and I’ll think about it. 23 year old are barely even adults.

Couples of that age are much less likely to be open about their sexuality and wisely so imo. Plus if married for 30 years, they may have moved past thinking of their marriage in those terms.

While I applaud couples in a happy, honest with each other mixed marriage who appear to be making it work being public about their relationship so as to demonstrate there are more workable options out there for others, I fear for the added stress publicity/celebrity puts on any relationships. How many straight marriages survive such? Imagine trying to deal with the usual struggles of marriage with the added context of many people watching those struggles and expecting to see one fail, even being vocal in their expectations. I think we naturally have doubts about our relationships when differences in expectations and approaches to life cause conflict, even with longterm relationships. If we add a ton of outside doubtful voices to our own internal doubts, how much more likely our doubts will overwhelm us and we give up trying to make it work because we begin to believe it won’t work, a self fulfilling prophecy.

And in the case of mixed orientation marriages, if the marriage eventually breaks down, the assumption is most likely going to be because mixed marriages don’t work, not because of the usual personality issues that every marriage struggles with.

I am not suggesting mixed orientation marriages never fail due to orientation issues, but rather that the reason marriages fail are often complicated, but the couple may focus on the most obvious differences when in conflict and that may inflate those differences’ importance in their minds, making it more difficult to resolve the conflict.

Added: I think there is a happy median of sharing one’s troubles in a marriage with others and keeping it between the couple. By sharing, one can receive worthwhile advice on how to resolve issues as well as get a more realistic view of any conflict, which may allow the fear of loss to be less, allowing couples to be more willing to be vulnerable with each other rather than defensive because they are convinced they are going to be hurt badly eventually.

However, by being open with others, one risks getting bad advice and complicating an already complicated relationship by adding others into the mix. For example, my marriage greatly benefitted moving away from family because that removed the option of running to parents or siblings to get our emotional needs met as they had before marriage and instead we learned to get support from each other. When I would complain about my husband to my mother, she almost always ‘took his side’ (though never by trashing me, more like ‘give him the benefit of the doubt, try to understand it from his POV’) so I never felt so justified in my complaints that I didn’t have to question myself…which forced me to look at those complaints in a more realistic way rather than getting my hurt feelings nurtured or destructively inflated. While I think it would have been helpful to have more emotional support at times so I would have been more proactive in pushing for balance and pushing my husband to speak for himself rather than me doing it for him because he finds dealing with pain very difficult, I am very grateful Mom never helped me wallow in my anger and instead helped me turn my thoughts to productive paths.

I have seen what happens in marriages where parents think their child can do no wrong…or worse, that the marriage was a mistake from the beginning or there are friends who think they are being supportive but instead are encouraging one of the couple to hold on to slights leading to bitterness or who talk in negative ways about the spouse and end up diminishing the perceived value and making it less appealing to put effort into the relationship. Unless the couple find a way to distance themselves from the negativity around them, it bleeds into the marriage and damages it, sometimes destroys it.

Edited September 8, 2021 by Calm

smac97 · September 8, 2021

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I think there might be a problem with your analogy if Nicholas might just think he's gay, when really he's bisexual or he really has the desire to stay in and live his days following the prophet, case in point...Ed Smart.

I think there is some danger is bystanders second-guessing this sort of thing. How many gay people have been told "You only think you're gay..."?

More to the point, I wonder if there is some utility in re-visiting the framework of sexuality as an "identity." Hamba has stated that "the concept of fixed, gendered sexual identities (both hetero- and homo-) is a late 19th-century social construct that has no historical preceden{t}." I think he may be on to something. What do you think?

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Or another case is the Weed couple, forgot their name, they were much like Nicholas and his wife. But look what happened to them. Oops found them: https://kutv.com/news/local/josh-weed-famous-gay-married-mormon-announces-divorce-apology-to-lgbtq-community

Yes, "mixed-orientation marriages" do seem to be more prone to divorce. Per this article, the divorce rate is 80% (compared to a 50% divorce rate of marriages overall).

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I think you've created a concept to fit into the LDS paradigm,

Oh, I don't know about that. First of all, very little of what I wrote is anything I "created." I'm just quoting others.

Second, Hamba seems to have raised a point worth discussing (see above).

Third, "homosexual" was not even coined until the late 19th century. "

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

which would get more people to do as Nicholas has and stay in the church and marry heterosexually and live the rest of their days practicing their faith, or adhering to it.

Or else remain single. That's an increasingly feasible option, I hope.

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

But this may set them up for disaster. I wish this weren't so though.

I wish our society was not so sexualized and increasingly depraved. Coping with sexual appetites would be less difficult.

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

But that's just me, because most heterosexuals and gays know what their preference is at a young age and anything different would be abhorrent to them.

Hmm. From Wikipedia:

Quote

A study on the nature of mixed-orientation marriages was conducted in 2002 at Deakin University, Australia. This study was conducted on 26 men: of these 26 men, 50% thought they were gay before their mixed-orientation marriage and 85% identified as gay after their mixed-orientation marriage.

Thanks,

-Smac

Calm · September 8, 2021

1 hour ago, Chum said:

I'm oldish. When I was young, my parents' generation struggled much less with everyday expectations. It's become a vastly more complicated world and being able to navigate it reflects on ability.

But isn’t that more a comment on the culture than the individuals’ ability to deal with complexity overall?

Throw a young adult of today into the culture of 100 years ago and they likely would be floundering around because they lack the skills.

My husband teaches a class that is much more experiential, student structured (entrepreneurship, kids go out and start businesses or help others with their businesses). He doesn’t teach from a textbook. He tends to lose a number of students at the beginning of the semester because they can’t handle not knowing in clear, somewhat rigid detail (read this chapter/book by this date, this test will be based on info from this part of the textbook, etc) what is expected of them from the start, not having everything clearly outlined or expecting them to try new ways of doing things.

It is similar to how one’s own problems often seem to be less than others, not because they actually are, but because we have learned to cope with them and we haven’t often had the opportunity for the issues that others deal with.

Edited September 8, 2021 by Calm

Calm · September 8, 2021

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Actually, I think I was acknowledging quite a bit.

Sexuality as "fluid" and on a "continuum" as opposed to rigid, either/or, "fixed and immutable" categorical "identities."

Sexuality as something that, for some, "can change throughout their life."

Sexuality as being influenced, perhaps even substantially so, by "social and cultural influences."

So you would be accepting of someone leaving a marriage because later in life they became attracted to someone of the same sex where earlier in their life their inclinations were towards the opposite sex?

Vanguard · September 8, 2021

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

So you would be accepting of someone leaving a marriage because later in life they became attracted to someone of the same sex where earlier in their life their inclinations were towards the opposite sex?

That's not how I took his comments. IMO acknowledging there may be 'fluidity' in another's sexual orientation does not necessarily equate with an endorsement of whatever actions that person may or may not take as a result.

Chum · September 8, 2021

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

But isn’t that more a comment on the culture than the individuals’ ability to deal with complexity overall?

Throw a young adult of today into the culture of 100 years ago and they likely would be floundering around because they lack the skills.

I don't believe that counters my point that present day youth (I love presents!) are increasingly capable. It might even reinforce it, albeit with a potential explanation.

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

My husband teaches a class that is much more experiential, student structured (entrepreneurship, kids go out and start businesses or help others with their businesses). He doesn’t teach from a textbook. He tends to lose a number of students at the beginning of the semester because they can’t handle not knowing what is expected of them from the start, not having everything clearly outlined or expecting them to try new ways of doing things.

I'm not clear how this applies. I'm not assigning some genetic ability to modern youth. I'm comparing reality against reality. The world is harder by the hour and young people now routinely navigate a state of mandated & increasing complexity that didn't exist before. Call it training or education or boot camp - it makes them more capable just as learning would.

It also means people that had less learning tend to be less capable.

smac97 · September 8, 2021

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

So you would be accepting of someone leaving a marriage because later in life they became attracted to someone of the same sex where earlier in their life their inclinations were towards the opposite sex?

A few thoughts:

First, I would need to understand my role in or stewardship over adjudicating "someone leaving a marriage." Perhaps you mean "approve" or "disapprove?"

Second, I feel that marriage is the single most important covenant/contract in a person's lifetime. For me, emotional/romantic/sexual fidelity in marriage is one of the few absolutes in this world.

Third, for me marriage is about much, much more than romantic/sexual fulfillment. So varied degrees of romantic/sexual satisfaction over a lifetime commitment would not be sufficient grounds to end that commitment.

Fourth, I see nothing unique or particular about a shift in sexual attraction that would justify it as a basis for ending a marriage. A married person can develop any number of sexual interests that fall outside the parameters of the marital relationship, none of which justifies the breaking of the covenant.

Fifth, your question seems to not really address the issue of agency. We are not animalistic, driven by primal urges beyond our control. We have the capacity to choose. To exercise self-control. To constrain our appetites and passions. This is, I think, a particularly relevant point to make in a Latter-day Saint paradigm.

Sixth, we as a society don't seem to have much tolerance or appreciation for a husband with a "wandering eye" (the trope traditionally pertains to men playing the cad, but I suppose women can also do this). How many times have we heard stories, jokes, anecdotes about a man "trading in" his first wife for a "newer model?" If a man in his forties finds himself sexually attracted to younger women, is that okay? Can/ought he pitch his wife to pursue a younger woman (or women) and claim a justification of unfulfilled sexual needs? Do those desires (which, I think, often arise over time through incremental behaviors) predominate over the importance of the marital union? In my view . . . no. The marital covenant is far more important than destroying it to accommodate an alteration in one of its constituent parts.

Thanks,

-Smac

smac97 · September 8, 2021

37 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

Quote

So you would be accepting of someone leaving a marriage because later in life they became attracted to someone of the same sex where earlier in their life their inclinations were towards the opposite sex?

That's not how I took his comments. IMO acknowledging there may be 'fluidity' in another's sexual orientation does not necessarily equate with an endorsement of whatever actions that person may or may not take as a result.

Yes, what Vanguard said.

See also my quote of Hamba Tuhan in the OP. I think the idea of sexual "identity" may be problematic. Sexual attraction that is "fluid" and/or on a "continuum" doesn't seem to jibe with the categorical identities that, as Hamba notes, are of fairly recent vintage.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 8, 2021 by smac97

Sign In

Identity = Child of God > Gay Man

Recommended Posts

smac97

Tacenda

katherine the great

Chum

rongo

The Nehor

rongo

smac97

The Nehor

rongo

The Nehor

katherine the great

The Nehor

Chum

katherine the great

Chum

smac97

Calm

smac97

Calm

Calm

Vanguard

Chum

smac97

smac97

Recently Browsing 0 members

Activity

Browse