What do you believe is the current narrative for most LGTBQ members of the Church?

[rodheadlee]

I'm still trying to figure out why I need to know anyone's sexual orientation. TMI!

[kimpearson]

It's interesting to me how most of you took a simple question and made it much more complex with a need for in depth analysis.  Many of you went off on tangents while pretended that my question was unclear.  I will simplify the question.  How are LGTBQ members ( as in born in covenant baptized at 8 or converted later in life) doing in the Church.  I present two narratives.  The one presented by publications of the Church of accepting wards where LGTBQ members find an accepting space and are at peace progressing in the gospel.  The other based on my personal experience of the vast majority of LGTBQ members who struggle with the Church and can't find a way to make it work.

I will be honest and express that my impression is many of you know all most all LGTBQ members are suffering and struggling with the church.  It appears many of you are uncomfortable with admitting that fact by itself.  You spent a lot of time making an effort to explain why that suffering and struggle is OK.   Some of you seem to love to cherry pick only those studies or scriptures that you can argue justify your position when there are just as many other scriptures and studies that contradict your conclusions.  That fascinates me because it confirms my general impression that most active members of the Church are very uncomfortable about what is happening to LGTBQ members and many of their families.  Such members will go to incredible lengths to explain why that situation is OK.  I believe the Brethren are frustrated with the issue because for the most part they truly believe that if LGTBQ members would just follow their current counsel they will find peace.  That is why the Church publishes the stories it does.  There is just one little problem.  Its not happening.  Just like the Brethren 50 years ago said it was a choice.  Just like the Brethren said 30 years ago, you can change with the proper treatment.  Just like the brethren said 20 years ago, go on a mission and get married and you will change.

This mind set of traditional believing members fascinates me on other issues besides the LGTBQ issue.   Why is that such members have such a hard time admitting that a current approach isn't working or conversely just admitting that they see certain people as destined by God's will to suffer and His covenant path members have no requirement under those covenants to try to help overcome the suffering of such children of God.  I am grateful that there are many other active members of the Church who do see these issues and are trying to do something to address that suffering.  The human mind and mentality is just fascinating to see in action.  Its no wonder some of us including myself might need millennium after this life to become like our Father in Heaven. 

[smac97]

59 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

It's interesting to me how most of you took a simple question and made it much more complex with a need for in depth analysis. 

Your question was not simple.  And it had all sorts of presuppositions attached to it, such that there was "a need for in depth analysis."

59 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

Many of you went off on tangents while pretended that my question was unclear. 

The responses I have read come across as fairly candid and sincere.  You impugning people who, in good faith, responded to your query ("pretended that my question...") doesn't come across well.

59 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

I will simplify the question. How are LGTBQ members (as in born in covenant baptized at 8 or converted later in life) doing in the Church. 

That is nothing like a "simple question."  It is very broad, very vague, and pertains to thousands and thousands of people.

59 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

I present two narratives. 

Yeah, that doesn't really work.  You don't get to ask an open-ended question and then insist that we respond with closed-ended responses about "two narratives," particularly when the question is as broad and vague as it is.

59 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

The one presented by publications of the Church of accepting wards where LGTBQ members find an accepting space and are at peace progressing in the gospel.  The other based on my personal experience of the vast majority of LGTBQ members who struggle with the Church and can't find a way to make it work.

Facile.  

59 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

I will be honest and express that my impression is many of you know all most all LGTBQ members are suffering and struggling with the church. 

Many do, yes.  The rest of the world is telling them to disregard the Law of Chastity.  The Church is encouraging them to keep their covenants, including obeying the Law of Chastity.

That said, there are many who are doing very well in the Church.  And then there are many who are somewhere in the muddled middle.

Dude, this is not an echo chamber.  You ought not ask for candid opinions and then complain when you receive them.

59 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

It appears many of you are uncomfortable with admitting that fact by itself. 

You are speaking in huge generalities.  Your OP was pretty skint on "facts."

59 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

You spent a lot of time making an effort to explain why that suffering and struggle is OK.   

Oh, brother.  Not content with presuming to dictate acceptable answers to your query, you are now moving on to misrepresenting those answers.

Nobody has said anything that could reasonably construed as being "OK" with others "suffering and struggl{ing}."

With respect, you do not have a monopoly on empathy and compassion for the struggles of others.  That others have not reached your conclusions, that others don't reflexively kowtow to your broad conclusory say-so, doesn't mean we dont' recognize the challenges here.

59 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

Some of you seem to love to cherry pick only those studies or scriptures that you can argue justify your position when there are just as many other scriptures and studies that contradict your conclusions. 

As long as we're talking past each other, I think you are doing quite a bit of cherry-picking yourself.  You came here looking to justify your position, and/or to sneer at those who do not share it.

59 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

That fascinates me because it confirms my general impression that most active members of the Church are very uncomfortable about what is happening to LGTBQ members and many of their families. 

What is it that you think is "happening"?  What are you referencing here?

59 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

Such members will go to incredible lengths to explain why that situation is OK. 

What "situation" are you talking about here?  No need to be coy.

59 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

I believe the Brethren are frustrated with the issue because for the most part they truly believe that if LGTBQ members would just follow their current counsel they will find peace. That is why the Church publishes the stories it does. 

This seems quite facile.

59 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

There is just one little problem.  Its not happening. 

This is a good example of the "faulty generalization" fallacy:

Quote

A faulty generalization is an informal fallacy wherein a conclusion is drawn about all or many instances of a phenomenon on the basis of one or a few instances of that phenomenon. It is similar to a proof by example in mathematics.^[1] It is an example of jumping to conclusions.^[2] For example, one may generalize about all people or all members of a group, based on what one knows about just one or a few people:

• If one meets a rude person from a given country X, one may suspect that most people in country X are rude.
• If one sees only white swans, one may suspect that all swans are white.

Expressed in more precise philosophical language, a fallacy of defective induction is a conclusion that has been made on the basis of weak premises, or one which is not justified by sufficient or unbiased evidence.

I'm wondering when the other shoe is going to drop.  You apparently did not come here to solicit input (since you are rejecting the input you are receiving).  So what is it?  Are you trying to set up a "Therefore we as a church need to . . ." style declaration?  And might that declaration be along the lines of "Re-define the Law of Chastity" so as to legitimize homosexual behavior?  That's the whiff that is coming off your comments.

59 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

This mind set of traditional believing members fascinates me on other issues besides the LGTBQ issue.

The Law of Chastity is not a matter of "tradition."  

59 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

Why is that such members have such a hard time admitting that a current approach isn't working or conversely just admitting that they see certain people as destined by God's will to suffer and His covenant path members have no requirement under those covenants to try to help overcome the suffering of such children of God. 

Any more loaded questions up your sleeve?  Any more false dilemmas you want to present?

Sheesh.

59 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

I am grateful that there are many other active members of the Church who do see these issues and are trying to do something to address that suffering.  The human mind and mentality is just fascinating to see in action.  Its no wonder some of us including myself might need millennium after this life to become like our Father in Heaven. 

To disagree with you is to be deliberately and willfully ignorant.

To disagree with you is to be indifferent to the difficulties of others.

This guilt trip crapola doesn't impress.

-Smac

Edited November 12, 2021 by smac97

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Substance-free driveby potshot at its finest.

Thanks,

-Smac

Sorry. There was no substance in your post to respond to. Just pretzel twisting word games. 

[Fether]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure that's true.  Everyone is told the same "message," which is that sex is only to be between a husband and wife.

Well, no, we don't.  We tell them the same thing we tell homosexuals.

I just saw this article earlier today: Cody Alan Opens Up About His Modern Family & Leaving the Mormon Church After Coming Out

This is a fellow who "knew he was gay from a young age," but nevertheless got married to a woman and had sex with her.  So the message to him was the same as the message to heterosexuals.

We tell everyone that they can never have homosexual sex.

The Law of Chastity presents the same parameters of acceptable sexual behavior to everyone, regardless of sexual orientation.

There are plenty of heterosexual members who may feel a "threat of condemnation" because of the prohibition against extramarital heterosexual sex.  That does not, in my view, impair or invalidate the Law of Chastity.  It's a matter of perspective.  Is a commandment of God a good thing or a bad thing?  I think they are always a good thing, even when obeying them is difficult.  YMMV.

There is also a "huge difference" in situation between married and unmarried folks.  More than half of the adult members of the Church are not married.  We could acknowledge that too.

Thanks,

-Smac

In a literal sense, you are exactly right. All I’m suggesting is more empathy on the topic.

Let me rephrase.

We tell heterosexuals “This inert and powerful desire you have is God given and should be used properly. You must wait till you are married. Once married, you may satisfy this God given desire.”

We tell homosexuals “This inert and powerful desire you have is evil and should never be used. You will never be able to satisfy this desire that you did not choose to have”

Again, I’m not seeking to justify sinful acts, or to change anything, but saying homosexuals experience the same thing every unmarried person does seems to drastically reduce their experience.

[OGHoosier]

5 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Sorry. There was no substance in your post to respond to. Just pretzel twisting word games. 

Pretzel-twisting wordgames? Worldview differences which prompt different assessments of observed reality? 

A rose by any other name is a rose all the same. 

[Fether]

2 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

I'm still trying to figure out why I need to know anyone's sexual orientation. TMI!

You would be surprised about how often it comes up.
 

Ever ask about whether someone has kids? Or if they want kids? Ever joke about someone being gay? Ever ask a guy which girl they are taking to prom or home coming? Or ask a boy if they have a cute girl in their class? Ask which temple they want to get married in? Talk to young men about lookong at pictures of naked girls, girls in bikinis or lingerie? Talk about modesty and reference althe affect it can have on the opposite gender?
 

All these naturally come with the assumption that you know they are heterosexual.

To suggest that only homosexuals talk about their sexuality is asinine. It is society that pressure them to come out. When you are surrounded by statements and questions that assume you are heterosexual, I can imagine why so many feel the need to make a statement.

Edited November 12, 2021 by Fether

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Duncan said:

r. A gay member wants to live the law of chastity with their legal gay spouse

In the past, imo western culture (not just in the church) labeled homosexual behaviour as pretty much inherently promiscuous, at least if “out of the closet”. Evidence such as the higher numbers of partners over a year or a lifetime was often in my experience pointed to in order to justify such connection. 

I think for many in the church they still make that assumption, that to participate in homosexual sexual behaviour is to be promiscuous.  

I would like to see a distinction made, a positive one, differentiating between a truly monogamous same sex marriage vs someone having multiple sex partners just as we would most likely be more approving of a monogamous, though unmarried heterosexual couple as opposed to an individual who had casual sexual partners or a couple with an open marriage  

So not a complete commitment to the Law of Chasity, but not a flaunting or rebellion against it, more like someone who pays generous fast offerings when they can, but is less committed to paying a full tithe because they find a very high value in self reliance and not turning to others for help, even the Church, when needs are high and income is low. 
 

Is that sort of what you had in mind, Duncan, or do you think it would be more appropriate to define the Law of Chastity as simply limiting sex to within a marriage and instead define same sex marriage as breaking a different commandment since chastity is usually defined as refraining from extramarital sexual relationships?

[Calm]

38 minutes ago, Fether said:

Again, I’m not seeking to justify sinful acts, or to change anything, but saying homosexuals experience the same thing every unmarried person does seems to drastically reduce their experience.

It is narrowing or simplifying sexual behaviour and desire significantly when it actually encompasses a wide range of complicated interactions. 

Edited November 12, 2021 by Calm

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

In the past, imo western culture (not just in the church) labeled homosexual behaviour as pretty much inherently promiscuous, at least if “out of the closet”. Evidence such as the higher numbers of partners over a year or a lifetime was often in my experience pointed to in order to justify such connection. 

I think for many in the church they still make that assumption, that to participate in homosexual sexual behaviour is to be promiscuous.  

I would like to see a distinction made, a positive one, differentiating between a truly monogamous same sex marriage vs someone having multiple sex partners just as we would most likely be more approving of a monogamous, though unmarried heterosexual couple as opposed to an individual who had casual sexual partners or a couple with an open marriage  

So not a complete commitment to the Law of Chasity, but not a flaunting or rebellion against it, more like someone who pays generous fast offerings when they can, but is less committed to paying a full tithe because they find a very high value in self reliance and not turning to others for help, even the Church, when needs are high and income is low. 
 

Is that sort of what you had in mind, Duncan, or do you think it would be more appropriate to define the Law of Chastity as simply limiting sex to within a marriage and instead define same sex marriage as breaking a different commandment since chastity is usually defined as refraining from extramarital sexual relationships?

To some extent, many former gay members feel like it doesn't make a difference how many sex partners they have since according to the Church, even just one person that they are committed to is still breaking the LOC.  They aren't going to the Celestial Kingdom anyway, so why worry about something like monogamy.  The way the Church views everything in such black and white terms means that those that are LGBT have to look at moral issues in a very black and white way as well.  

Honest questions.

Does the Church view a gay person in a monogamous committed relationship any differently than a gay person having multiple partners?

Is it better or worse for a gay person to be in a committed married monogamist relationship?  When getting married causes automatic labeling of apostate, isn't it better to not get married?  So isn't the Church actually encouraging non committed relationships if someone is gay and doesn't want to be celibate?

 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Does the Church view a gay person in a monogamous committed relationship any differently than a gay person having multiple partners?

I don’t know. I certainly do.  Loving and supporting and caring for another over time with sincere commitment must be better than treating them superficially, as pleasant but unimportant temporary companions at best or worse, essentially just an object for one’s own pleasure.

If the Church does view them differently and sees monogamous marriage as better though still partaking of sin in some ways similar to unmarried monogamous heterosexual couples, I think it would be wise to modify the language of the Law of Chastity without changing the meaning…if it isn’t appropriate for temple ordinances to split it into two laws, then perhaps teach it as part one and part two, the first part being faithfulness in marriage, the second being eternal and God sanctioned marriage is between a man and a woman. Thus there would be benefits for fidelity, but blessings received through God confirming one’s relationship as potentially eternal one would be lacking. 

No doubt some would argue that treatment would give the appearance of acceptance of SSM and lead to more choosing to sin rather than remaining true to all of the Law of Chastity.  Seems to me if someone has chosen to be in a long term relationship, we should try to find ways to support them to receive what blessings they can while also acknowledging the negative consequences of their choice.
 

But determining whether such a distinction would actually benefit those in SSMs is not in my stewardship. I would not suggest such a change happen without significant study and earnest prayer followed by revelation. 
 

Added: the two parts might also be helpful in making it in a better balance, consistency with teachings on unmarried heterosexual relationships in that while they are fulfilling part 2 by having the relationship be between a man and a woman, they are lacking in part one as some may be faithful in the relationship, but not have a marriage.  This might lead to a change in perspective from seeing those in same sex relationships as ‘other’ or outsiders, as homosexual sexual behaviour is more likely to be specifically taught as a violation of the Law of Chastity rather than within a context of a strange, unnatural, sick perversion or mental illness that is completely self destructive as it was in my youth once I finally heard of it in church (I think it wasn’t until late high school that it was discuss at church in my presence, it appeared teachers thought we would never be tempted to engage in such since they never cautioned us, it was something others did).
 

Instead, with this framing it is within the category of sins anyone might commit if they are unaware of the Law of Chastity, see the Law as undesirable to commit to living, see the positives as outweighing the negatives, see themselves as incapable of stepping away from it, etc.  It is not in a hierarchy, but clearly in a group of similar sins committed for pretty much the same reasons.
 

Not perfect if you believe homosexual behaviour is not inherently sinful and thus can be sanctified by marriage just as heterosexual behavior can be, but I believe it is a more realistic framing. 

Edited November 12, 2021 by Calm

[MrShorty]

15 hours ago, kimpearson said:

The one presented by publications of the Church of accepting wards where LGTBQ members find an accepting space and are at peace progressing in the gospel.  The other based on my personal experience of the vast majority of LGTBQ members who struggle with the Church and can't find a way to make it work.

I will be honest and express that my impression is many of you know all most all LGTBQ members are suffering and struggling with the church.  It appears many of you are uncomfortable with admitting that fact by itself. 

I admit that I am not sure if this comment will further the discussion you want to have, but I find this interesting. I agree that many in the Church are uncomfortable with any suggestion that maybe some people's path to salvation and exaltation does not go through the Church. We have a sense of exclusivity and exceptionalism that leads to want to believe that everyone's path must go through the Church.

As I [mis-]understand the principle of common consent, it seems to me that the observation that a "vast majority" of those who actually experience same sex attraction or gender dysphoria "can't" make the Church work for them strongly suggests that something is in error in our teachings and practices and policies related to LGBT+ issues. I have seen others (like Jon Bennet and Bryce Cook) express similar sentiments. We're not used to the principle of common consent being used in this way -- to suggest bottom up revelation -- but I think the implication is there.

I don't know if that is helpful for the direction you want the discussion to go, but those were a couple of thoughts that came to mind in response.

[MrShorty]

11 hours ago, california boy said:

Does the Church view a gay person in a monogamous committed relationship any differently than a gay person having multiple partners?

It doesn't seem that the LDS Church (speaking more to the institution than individual members) cares about the distinction between promiscuous and committed monogamous. One of the things that impressed years ago reading the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America's (ELCA) statement on human sexuality was that they made a clear distinction between promiscuous and committed monogamous. That certainly impacted my thinking to where I see a strong distinction, too. It probably doesn't mean much, but, in this part of the issue, I think the ELCA (and others who are like minded) have a better grasp on the truth than the LDS Church. (aside: how does that fit into our sense of exclusivity and exceptionalism if another Christian Church understands truth better than we do?)

[SeekingUnderstanding]

23 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

It doesn't seem that the LDS Church (speaking more to the institution than individual members) cares about the distinction between promiscuous and committed monogamous.

I don’t know about that. The Lord, in November 2015 revealed that the more committed the homosexual couple, the worse sin it is. The revelation indicated that serious transgressions include “homosexual relations (especially sexual cohabitation)” [emphasis mine]. It also stated that a disciplinary council was mandatory for apostasy if a homosexual relationship was solemnized with the sacrament of marriage. So under this revealed hierarchy, promiscuous relationships < cohabitation << marriage on the sin seriousness scale. 

Edited November 12, 2021 by SeekingUnderstanding

[smac97]

18 hours ago, Fether said:

In a literal sense, you are exactly right. All I’m suggesting is more empathy on the topic.

First, I'm not sure strangers are competently situated to measure other people's "empathy."

Second, uninformed calls for "more empathy" sometime come across as code for "capitulation to prevailing sociocultural trends" and "let's radically re-define the Law of Chastity to conform to those trends."

18 hours ago, Fether said:

Let me rephrase.

We tell heterosexuals “This inert and powerful desire you have is God given and should be used properly. You must wait till you are married. Once married, you may satisfy this God given desire.”

Not quite.  We tell everyone that, not just heterosexuals.

18 hours ago, Fether said:

We tell homosexuals “This inert and powerful desire you have is evil and should never be used. You will never be able to satisfy this desire that you did not choose to have”

This is plainly inaccurate.  From the Church's website:

Quote

Same-sex attraction refers to emotional, physical, or sexual attraction to a person of the same gender. The experience of same-sex attraction is not the same for everyone. Some people may feel exclusively attracted to the same gender, while others may feel attracted to both genders.

The Church distinguishes between same-sex attraction and homosexual behavior. People who experience same-sex attraction or identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual can make and keep covenants with God and fully and worthily participate in the Church. Identifying as gay, lesbian, or bisexual or experiencing same-sex attraction is not a sin and does not prohibit one from participating in the Church, holding callings, or attending the temple.

And here:

Quote

The Church does not take a position on the cause of same-sex attraction. In 2006, Elder Dallin H. Oaks said, “The Church does not have a position on the causes of any of these susceptibilities or inclinations, including those related to same-gender attraction.”

Feelings of same-sex attraction are not a sin. President M. Russell Ballard said: “Let us be clear: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes that ‘the experience of same-sex attraction is a complex reality for many people. The attraction itself is not a sin, but acting on it is. Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them. With love and understanding, the Church reaches out to all God’s children, including [those with same-sex attraction].’”

You: "We tell homosexuals 'This inert and powerful desire you have is evil...'"

The Church: "Feelings of same-sex attraction are not a sin. ... The attraction itself is not a sin, but acting on it is. Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them."

I get that people can and do have strong sentiments about this topic, but accuracy is really important.

18 hours ago, Fether said:

Again, I’m not seeking to justify sinful acts, or to change anything, but saying homosexuals experience the same thing every unmarried person does seems to drastically reduce their experience.

With respect, I disagree.  See here:

Quote

We urge persons with same-gender attractions to control those and to refrain from acting upon them, which is a sin, just as we urge persons with heterosexual attractions to refrain from acting upon them until they have the opportunity for a marriage recognized by God as well as by the law of the land. That is the way to happiness and eternal life. God has given us no commandment that He will not give us the strength and power to observe.

Over half of the adults in the Church are "unmarried," and are therefore constrained from sexual behavior.  Candidly, I think you are "drastically reducing their experience."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 12, 2021 by smac97

[MrShorty]

@SeekingUnderstanding I stand corrected. The Church seems (or at least did during the 3 1/2 years of that particular policy) to be more opposed to anything that looked like same sex marriage than to "casual" same sex relationships. Is this a parallel to the distinction between run of the mill adultery and polygamy? If one's dad is an adulterer, there are no special hoops to jump through when joining the Church, but, if one's dad is a polygamist, then there are special hoops to jump through.

Something to think about...

[smac97]

15 hours ago, california boy said:

To some extent, many former gay members feel like it doesn't make a difference how many sex partners they have since according to the Church, even just one person that they are committed to is still breaking the LOC.

Some heterosexual former members likewise adopt an "In for a penny..." attitude relative to extramarital sexual activity.

15 hours ago, california boy said:

They aren't going to the Celestial Kingdom anyway, so why worry about something like monogamy.  

Not "worry{ing} about something like monogamy" is apparently not restricted to former Latter-day Saints.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

From the linked article in the OP {in the Salt Lake Tribune}:

Quote

Gay Open Marriages Need To Come Out of the Closet
2015 was the year of marriage equality—and now it’s time to celebrate the openness at the heart of many same-sex partnerships.
...
What makes these newly married couples unique is more than their gender. Surveys indicate that a high percentage of same-sex relationships—particularly among queer men—are non-monogamous, and often even after marriage.

Over the past decade and a half, studies from San Francisco State University and Alliant International University have found that around half of gay relationships are open. This rate is considerably higher than for heterosexual and lesbian couples...
...
Conservative estimates suggest that less than 1 percent of all married couples are in an open relationship, but other approximations are much higher. Back in 1983, the authors of American Couples, Phillip Blumstein and Pepper Schwartz, found that around 15 percent of committed partners—whether homo or heterosexual—had agreements that allowed for some degree of flexibility.

In a 2013 column for Slate, Hanna Rosin called non-monogamy the gay community’s “dirty little secret,” citing a study from the ’80s, which showed that up to 82 percent of gay couples had sex with other people. That number sounds about right to me, but here’s the thing: It’s not dirty and it’s hardly a secret...
...
Monogamish couples are a constant presence on apps like Grindr and Scruff, which allow gay men to connect with other men to chat or hook up.
...
I spoke to one couple that hasn’t let marriage get in the way of their Scruff account. Eric, 34, and Martin, 33, walked down the aisle last October after dating for five years. Like many gay couples, they were initially monogamous, although with “infrequent and informal” exceptions. “Think post-bar bathhouse outings,” Eric explained. But after creating a profile together on Scruff a few years ago, the couple agreed on a set of boundaries. “We only sleep with people together, we have to both communicate with the person to some extent before we meet up, and the guy has to very clearly be attracted to both of us,” Eric said.

Like nearly everyone I spoke to, the pair had few gay friends that were in monogamous relationships, and Martin believes it’s because there are fewer rules and expectations around gay relationships. “I think we don’t have heteronormative templates that we have to subscribe to,” Martin said. “There’s just not that same kind of pressure to be monogamous when you’re gay.”
...
Gays might be “saving” marriage, but for far too long, the burdens of the marriage equality movement—which highlighted the universality of love—made many feel like they couldn’t be honest about what makes same-sex relationships unique. In a 2013 piece for Gawker, Steven Thrasher wrote, “Gay-rights groups are often nervous about sociologists or reporters looking too closely at what really happens in the bedrooms of gay relationships, out of fear that anti-gay activists will bludgeon them with a charge of sexual promiscuity, as a reason to deny them equal rights.”

To sum up even a bit further:

• "Surveys indicate that a high percentage of same-sex relationships—particularly among queer men—are non-monogamous, and often even after marriage."
• "Around half of gay relationships are open.  This rate is considerably higher than for heterosexual and lesbian couples."
• "Up to 82 percent of gay couples had sex with other people."
• "That number sounds about right to me, but here’s the thing: It’s not dirty and it’s hardly a secret."
• "I spoke to one couple that hasn’t let marriage get in the way ... Like many gay couples, they were initially monogamous ... The pair had few gay friends that were in monogamous relationships ..."
• “'There’s just not that same kind of pressure to be monogamous when you’re gay.'”
• "The burdens of the marriage equality movement ... made many feel like they couldn’t be honest about what makes same-sex relationships unique."
• “'Gay-rights groups are often nervous about sociologists or reporters looking too closely at what really happens in the bedrooms of gay relationships, out of fear that anti-gay activists will bludgeon them with a charge of sexual promiscuity..."

Now take a look at this article from today's Salt Lake Tribune:

Quote

Gay couple on Bravo’s new season of ‘Newlyweds’ includes ex-Utahn, ex-Mormon
By SCOTT D | Pierce The Salt Lake Tribune

Television » Couple say Bravo reality series will show that their marriage is no different from others.

So gay "marriages" (male ones, anyway) are, according to the Trib article, "no different from others" and yet, according to the article in the OP, have "considerably higher" rates of infidelity/promiscuity (being "open") than heterosexual marriages ("up to 82% of them"!)?

I'm having a hard time buying what the Trib is trying to sell (that same-sex marriages are "no different" from heterosexual ones).  The astonishing rates of infidelity/promiscuity referenced in the OP's linked article shows that.

I have a friend who supports same-sex marriage because this friend believes the institution will "tame" (my friend's word) homosexuals, that is, reduce or eliminate the normative high levels of promiscuity that are - by even the reckoning of the radical gay rights folks - characteristic of the vast majority of same-sex relationships.  

I think the problem is that, as the OP article put it, if there is "a charge of sexual promiscuity" to be asserted against people in same-sex relationships, that charge is systemically valid.  

Not only that, the notion that same-sex marriage might have an ameliorating effect on this rampant promiscuity appears to be mostly wishful thinking.  

What's worse, it's not merely wishful thinking, it's a line of reasoning that is being openly rejected by the article's author.  As he put it, "what really happens in the bedrooms of gay relationships" is flagrant, systemic, widespread infidelity/promiscuity, but this is "not dirty" nor "hardly a secret" because "there's just not that same kind of pressure to be monogamous when you're gay." ...

And here (from 2018) :

Quote

Over 50% of gay and bisexual men have cheated on their partner, a new survey has found.

What’s more, almost half of that group believe their partner had no idea they were unfaithful. That’s according to a survey by the Health Equality and Rights Organization (HERO) for Britain’s FS Magazine.

After speaking to 961 gay and bisexual men, 52% reported cheating on their partner, with 45% believing the partner didn’t find out.

However, it’s likely that second figure is higher, as 58% of those surveyed reported that a partner had been unfaithful to them.

Of those who were unfaithful, 17% said they had contracted a sexually transmitted infection. And, if you need a reason never to trust anyone ever again, of the group that contracted an STI, 39% didn’t inform their partner.

And here (also from 2018, entitled "Writing Rainbow: Were infidelity and gay men always meant to be?") :

Quote

Relationships fall apart. It’s a dreadful, yet unavoidable lesson that every person learns. And while they often fail for various reasons, perhaps the most common — and the most difficult to accept — is when one person cheats.

For most people, infidelity is considered the ultimate dealbreaker. But can the same be said about queer men? According to a 2018 survey conducted by the Health Equality and Rights Organization, FS magazine and OutLife, 52 percent of respondents who identified as gay or bisexual admitted to cheating on their partners. Even more astonishing, 45 percent of admitted cheaters said their partner never found out.
...
Don’t get me wrong: Infidelity is undoubtedly the worst crime any person can commit against their partner, and both parties inevitably end up getting hurt. If infidelity is such a common aspect of the queer dating experience, is it really possible for men to sustain meaningful, honest relationships with each other?

Queer men have always struggled with liberating themselves from the heteronormative constructs imbedded within our cultural structures. Though they are often invisible, these ideas are detrimental to the queer experience for a variety of reasons, including the fact that they perpetuate sexual hierarchies and divisive stereotypes about men seeking relationships with men. These constructs are evident in the transformation of queer culture today: More and more LGBTQ individuals are embracing monogamous relationships and parenthood.

While monogamy, parenthood and marriage are all equally desirable, queer people have been told their entire lives that they need to conform to the status quo, that they need to be or act a certain way to be happy, that they need to lead normal lives in order to achieve acceptance. This stereotypical image has become the omnipresent echo of society.

Take Cam and Mitch from ABC’s “Modern Family” for example, one of the most recognizable same-sex couples in mainstream media. Cam (Eric Stonestreet) and Mitchell (Jesse Tyler Ferguson) are married, they have an adopted daughter — and they have been completely monogamous for the duration of the show. While Stonestreet and Ferguson are commendable for their multi-dimensional portrayals of gay men, Cam and Mitchell are just one of many representations of the exemplary gay couple that people expect, one almost identical to any other suburban family obsessed with the idea of a white picket fence — which is bullshit at the end of the day. The Cam and Mitch image, which was created by heterosexual showrunners, is ultimately a dangerous stereotype because it reinforces the notion that queer people must conform to a certain lifestyle in order to be generally accepted as normal by society.

As queer men, we are often told that there is an ideal we must succumb to.  Sometimes we are even shamed into thinking that there’s a right way to build relationships, families and lives. However, these attitudes are harmful since they are restrictive to maintaining healthy, open relationships. This toxic mindset may be the reason why so many queer men are susceptible to cheating, and also why they end up repeatedly cheating. Practicing monogamy is only one part of the equation, but it should not be the default.

And here:

Quote

A study by the Center for HIV Educational Studies and Training, “Alternatives to Monogamy Among Gay Male Couples in a Community Survey: Implications for Mental Health and Sexual Risk”, will be published in this February’s issue of Archives of Sexual Behavior. The study surveyed over 800 gay and bisexual men in the New York City area. A preview of the report notes:

Dr. Parsons pointed out that “the diversity in types of non-monogamous relationships was interesting, and something that hasn’t been explored very much in research studies. Typically gay men have been categorized as monogamous or not, and our data show that it is not so black and white.” CHEST’s survey indicated that about 60% were single. Of those partnered, about 58% were in monogamous relationships. Of those that were non-monogamous, 53% were in open relationships, and 47% were in “monogamish” relationships (i.e., couples that have sex with others as a couple such as “threeways” or group sex).

What seems apparent from the CHEST study is that same-sex romantic relationships can be healthy and happy, and that gay men can be “committed” to their long-term partners while still being sexual with other people. Dr. Parsons adds, “Our findings suggest that certain types of non-monogamous relationships – especially ‘monogamish’ ones – are actually beneficial to gay men, contrary to assumptions that monogamous relationships are always somehow inherently better.”

In an article for the Huffington Post, gay-rights activist Zach Stafford reports on the study and adds:

Prince Charming may not be charming forever, and we may find ourselves waking up one day wanting to invite Aladdin or Prince Eric or Prince Phillip to join us in our bed, if only a few times a month. And if our relationship is not monogamous but more “monogamish,” we can still be happy. Indeed, we may find that monogamy isn’t what we wanted all along.

A significant percentage of persons in same-sex sexual partnerships, including those who advocate for the legal recognition of same-sex “marriage”, do not view monogamy or sexual exclusivity as part of the meaning of marriage. Despite their use of the term “monogamy,” many are referring to “monogamish” relationships. This misleading shift in language leads many Americans to misunderstand what it is they are really supporting when they advocate for same-sex marriage. Marriage is not being redefined in a way that simply includes same-sex couples, but redefined in a way that excludes sexual fidelity as an essential component of the marital relationship.

And here (from 2020) :

Quote

I only came across one study that really seemed to take the right approach and that was also based on a nationally representative US sample: the National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior [1]. Here’s a look at what they found:

• Overall prevalence of infidelity: about 8% of heterosexual participants, 14% of gay participants, 6% of lesbian participants, 18% of bisexual participants, and 6% of those who described “other” sexualities reported nonconsensual nonmonogamy (defined here as agreeing to be sexually exclusive with a partner, but one or both partners cheated or had an affair). 
• Overall prevalence of open relationships: 2% of heterosexual participants, 32% of gay participants, 5% of lesbian participants, 22% of bisexual participants, and 14% of those who reported “other” sexualities. 

In looking at these overall numbers, a few things pop out. One is that, for heterosexuals, rates of infidelity are four times higher than the rate of open relationships. By contrast, for sexual minorities (with the exception of lesbians), rates of open relationships are higher than the rate of infidelity.

These attitudes transcend the relatively tiny subset of the gay community comprised of former Latter-day Saints.

15 hours ago, california boy said:

The way the Church views everything in such black and white terms means that those that are LGBT have to look at moral issues in a very black and white way as well.  

Honest questions.

Does the Church view a gay person in a monogamous committed relationship any differently than a gay person having multiple partners?

Both behaviors are severe violations of the Law of Chastity, but I'm not sure "the Church" assigns gradations of severity to particular variations.

15 hours ago, california boy said:

Is it better or worse for a gay person to be in a committed married monogamist relationship?  

Better or worse than what?

15 hours ago, california boy said:

When getting married causes automatic labeling of apostate, isn't it better to not get married?  

Again, I don't think the Church assigns gradations in this way.  

15 hours ago, california boy said:

So isn't the Church actually encouraging non committed relationships if someone is gay and doesn't want to be celibate?

No.  That would be like saying the Church encourages fornication when it condemns adultery.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 12, 2021 by smac97

[rodheadlee]

15 hours ago, Fether said:

You would be surprised about how often it comes up.
 

Ever ask about whether someone has kids? Or if they want kids? Ever joke about someone being gay? Ever ask a guy which girl they are taking to prom or home coming? Or ask a boy if they have a cute girl in their class? Ask which temple they want to get married in? Talk to young men about lookong at pictures of naked girls, girls in bikinis or lingerie? Talk about modesty and reference althe affect it can have on the opposite gender?
 

All these naturally come with the assumption that you know they are heterosexual.

To suggest that only homosexuals talk about their sexuality is asinine. It is society that pressure them to come out. When you are surrounded by statements and questions that assume you are heterosexual, I can imagine why so many feel the need to make a statement.

You are the one making assumptions.

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I don’t know about that. The Lord, in November 2015 revealed that the more committed the homosexual couple, the worse sin it is. The revelation indicated that serious transgressions include “homosexual relations (especially sexual cohabitation)” [emphasis mine]. It also stated that a disciplinary council was mandatory for apostasy if a homosexual relationship was solemnized with the sacrament of marriage. So under this revealed hierarchy, promiscuous relationships < cohabitation << marriage on the sin seriousness scale. 

Thank you for this clarification.  It's the opposite of how "I" perceive things.  Promiscuity for any person to me is problematic.  Committed faithful devoted monogamy of any two people is more desirable than promiscuity and unfaithful behavior of any two people.  IMO.

[Fether]

2 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

You are the one making assumptions.

You are right. Feel free to ignore that line.

 

the rest stands 

[kimpearson]

If the Church's approach to LGTBQ members is the approach sanctioned by God, why does it cause such suffering in the form of mental illness, self harm, self hatred and in far too many cases suicidal ideation by those who try for years to follow the Church's approach.  I am basing those results on the 3 or 4 thousand personal stories I have listened too.  These are individuals who kept the law of chastity, read their scriptures, prayed (in most cases almost constantly for a period of time), attended the temple regularly, attended seminary, served as class and quorum presidents, went on missions.  None of these actions helped.  Their mental condition became worse and worse until they left the Church to save their own lives.  Explain to me why a loving savior who was willing to sacrifice His life would offer a path that leads to such results.  Tell me of any other path of obedience to God's commandments that causes those who are faithful in their obedience such pain and suffering.  The scriptures seem clear.  By the fruits you shall no if something is right.  How can we argue that wickedness is never brings happiness but imply the righteousness for some will always cause unbearable pain and suffering.

Please don't assume I saying the Church should say homosexual sex is okay in any instance.  I personally believe the gender of your sexual partner doesn't matter.  What matters is the commitment to that partner.  The righteous proper use of sex is between two individual that have made promises to each other that are intended to last forever/life depending on your understanding.  We see the good fruits of such commitments that are truly honored around us in numbers to great to deny.  This includes committed gay couples.  We see the bad fruits of those who don't honor such commitments or have sex outside of such commitments in numbers to great to deny.   Now as to the question of whether you can become exactly like God (i.e. highest degree in the Celestial Kingdom) in a same gender relationship, I have no idea.  I have no problem with not performing celestial marriages in the temple for eternity for same gender couples until we get further revelation.  I have no problem with the Church officially refusing to perform same gender marriages in its churches because it isn't known if they can lead to the celestial kingdom.  Why can't we accept that unknown but allow homosexual committed relationships evidenced by legal marriages under the law of the land full membership in the Church with the exception of temple marriage.  Why can't we treat homosexual sex outside of such committed relationships the same as we treat heterosexual sex outside of committed relationships.  Why can't that be the definition of the law of chastity?  What would be the bad fruit that would hurt peoples lives and make them unhappy of such a policy?  What would cause people to draw away from God by such a policy?

I do believe people should be allowed to transition their gender.  If not being allowed to transition creates the same mental illness, self harm and in far to many cases suicidal ideation, how can that be the approach sanctioned by a loving Heavenly Father.  I have yet to meet a transgender member of the Church that didn't for at least some period of time try to follow current Church guidance but had to stop before it ruined their lives.  If the Church believes the priesthood can only be held by men, then a transgender female member can give up the priesthood and a transgender male can be ordained to the priesthood.

Am I demanding these changes, no.  I am saying the current approach does not bear any evidence of being approved by God as guided by prophets and scripture as to what is evidence of God's approach.  So let's try a different approach.  I have offered some that allow certain current doctrines to remain fully in place while simply treating God's children in way that would bring much relief from current suffering.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, kimpearson said:

If the Church's approach to LGTBQ members is the approach sanctioned by God, why does it cause such suffering in the form of mental illness, self harm, self hatred and in far too many cases suicidal ideation by those who try for years to follow the Church's approach.  I am basing those results on the 3 or 4 thousand personal stories I have listened too.  These are individuals who kept the law of chastity, read their scriptures, prayed (in most cases almost constantly for a period of time), attended the temple regularly, attended seminary, served as class and quorum presidents, went on missions.  None of these actions helped.  Their mental condition became worse and worse until they left the Church to save their own lives.  Explain to me why a loving savior who was willing to sacrifice His life would offer a path that leads to such results.  Tell me of any other path of obedience to God's commandments that causes those who are faithful in their obedience such pain and suffering.  The scriptures seem clear.  By the fruits you shall no if something is right.  How can we argue that wickedness is never brings happiness but imply the righteousness for some will always cause unbearable pain and suffering.

Please don't assume I saying the Church should say homosexual sex is okay in any instance.  I personally believe the gender of your sexual partner doesn't matter.  What matters is the commitment to that partner.  The righteous proper use of sex is between two individual that have made promises to each other that are intended to last forever/life depending on your understanding.  We see the good fruits of such commitments that are truly honored around us in numbers to great to deny.  This includes committed gay couples.  We see the bad fruits of those who don't honor such commitments or have sex outside of such commitments in numbers to great to deny.   Now as to the question of whether you can become exactly like God (i.e. highest degree in the Celestial Kingdom) in a same gender relationship, I have no idea.  I have no problem with not performing celestial marriages in the temple for eternity for same gender couples until we get further revelation.  I have no problem with the Church officially refusing to perform same gender marriages in its churches because it isn't known if they can lead to the celestial kingdom.  Why can't we accept that unknown but allow homosexual committed relationships evidenced by legal marriages under the law of the land full membership in the Church with the exception of temple marriage.  Why can't we treat homosexual sex outside of such committed relationships the same as we treat heterosexual sex outside of committed relationships.  Why can't that be the definition of the law of chastity?  What would be the bad fruit that would hurt peoples lives and make them unhappy of such a policy?  What would cause people to draw away from God by such a policy?

I do believe people should be allowed to transition their gender.  If not being allowed to transition creates the same mental illness, self harm and in far to many cases suicidal ideation, how can that be the approach sanctioned by a loving Heavenly Father.  I have yet to meet a transgender member of the Church that didn't for at least some period of time try to follow current Church guidance but had to stop before it ruined their lives.  If the Church believes the priesthood can only be held by men, then a transgender female member can give up the priesthood and a transgender male can be ordained to the priesthood.

Am I demanding these changes, no.  I am saying the current approach does not bear any evidence of being approved by God as guided by prophets and scripture as to what is evidence of God's approach.  So let's try a different approach.  I have offered some that allow certain current doctrines to remain fully in place while simply treating God's children in way that would bring much relief from current suffering.

How do you describe the Church's approach to LGTBQ members?

I can understand the importance of a couple being committed to each other, but the most essential component of the relationship is the couple's individual and united commitment to and covenant with God.

Edited November 12, 2021 by CV75

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, CV75 said:

prevailing value

Prevailing means current…are you saying the current value of a couple’s relationship as far as the Church is concerned is “the couple's individual and united commitment to and covenant with God”, as far as God is concerned,  or something else?

Edited November 12, 2021 by Calm

[CV75]

27 minutes ago, Calm said:

Prevailing means current…are you saying the current value of a couple’s relationship as far as the Church is concerned is “the couple's individual and united commitment to and covenant with God”, as far as God is concerned,  or something else?

I think I used the wrong word then, but I meant having the highest priority. I'll change that -- thank you!

I can understand the importance of a couple being committed to each other, but the most essential component of the relationship is the couple's individual and united commitment to and covenant with God.

 

 

Edited November 12, 2021 by CV75

[california boy]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

Some heterosexual former members likewise adopt an "In for a penny..." attitude relative to extramarital sexual activity.

Not "worry{ing} about something like monogamy" is apparently not restricted to former Latter-day Saints.  See, e.g., here:

And here (from 2018) :

And here (also from 2018, entitled "Writing Rainbow: Were infidelity and gay men always meant to be?") :

And here:

And here (from 2020) :

These attitudes transcend the relatively tiny subset of the gay community comprised of former Latter-day Saints.

Both behaviors are severe violations of the Law of Chastity, but I'm not sure "the Church" assigns gradations of severity to particular variations.

Better or worse than what?

Again, I don't think the Church assigns gradations in this way.  

No.  That would be like saying the Church encourages fornication when it condemns adultery.

Thanks,

-Smac

Not sure what your point is.  The vast majority of gay guys grew up and lived most of their lives not being even able to marry the person they love.  Something your Church did everything they could to prevent them from doing.  They also grew up being constantly told by their churches that they were going to hell, were perverts, and abominations which is exacta what Spencer W. Kimball referred to those that were gay in  The Miracle of Forgiveness.  It is that book my Church leaders and father asked me to read, highlighting that chapter.  So why would a lot of them worry about conforming to a monogamous marriage?  You expect decades of behavior to all the sudden conform with that religion wants? Those same religions that kicked them out some for just being gay and just about every one of them for wanting to live with the person they choose?  It wasn't all that long ago when the Church punished gay couples from marrying by calling them apostates, excommunicating them from the church and refusing to baptize their underaged children.  

The question I would like you to answer is "Why would a gay person feel the need for a monogamous marriage if both partners were ok with an open relationship?  

Name just ONE thing the Church has done to encourage gay couples to have a monogamous committed relationship.

Edited November 13, 2021 by california boy