Poll: Opinions on LGBT Issues And The Law Of Chastity

[Anonymous Mormon]

I have been following this board for more than a decade.  In the last decade there has been a sea-change from the majority of posters (just by my informal count of people who post on the topic) who feel that the Law of Chastity as the church currently teaches it (no sex before marriage, only sex with spouse after marriage, marriage between a man and a woman) applies to everyone equally, to now more posters (by post count) feel that the law of chastity is harmful to LGBT individuals because it doesn't give them the emotional / sexual fulfillment they deserve / need. 

So I am curious to see people's opinion to the above poll on the Law of Chastity and LGBT issues. I am especially interested in those who believe in the Law of Chastity.

I may try running the same poll again in the future to see if things change.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

44 minutes ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

I have been following this board for more than a decade.  In the last decade there has been a sea-change from the majority of posters (just by my informal count of people who post on the topic) who feel that the Law of Chastity as the church currently teaches it (no sex before marriage, only sex with spouse after marriage, marriage between a man and a woman) applies to everyone equally, to now more posters (by post count) feel that the law of chastity is harmful to LGBT individuals because it doesn't give them the emotional / sexual fulfillment they deserve / need. 

So I am curious to see people's opinion to the above poll on the Law of Chastity and LGBT issues. I am especially interested in those who believe in the Law of Chastity.

I may try running the same poll again in the future to see if things change.

What about an option of “God’s law of chastity never excluded homosexual behavior in a committed marriage. Modern prophets are products of their time and misread God’s intention based on their own bias.” As worded your poll makes no sense. 

Edited March 12, 2024 by SeekingUnderstanding

[MrShorty]

Deconstructing/reconstructing my sexual ethic has been an important part of my own faith deconstruction/reconstruction, and a variation on question 3 has played a central role in that deconstruction/reconstruction. I've been frequenting marriage help circles for LDS and Christian couples for years, and one of the common topics is navigating sexual differences. Naturally, there are a small percentage of people navigating sexual differences who end up in totally sexless marriages and lose all hope of sexually reconciling. These people frequently ask if it is okay to divorce and remarry. In almost all of the internet circles I frequent, no one is willing to tell someone in a sexless marriage that they must stay married. Almost everyone I encounter is willing to allow for divorce and remarriage when the sexual relationship in the marriage seems irreconcilable. Which isn't to say that everyone is lobbying for "they must divorce," just that they are willing to allow the choice to divorce as a legitimate, non-sinful choice. In this framework, mixed-orientation marriages are only one kind of potentially irreconcilable sexual difference in marriage that may lead a couple to choose separation and divorce.

Once I had accepted the idea that sexual and romantic fulfillment are important enough ideals to justify divorce and remarriage, it was a relatively small step to accept that maybe God wants everyone regardless of sexual orientation to have equal opportunity (as equal as a fallen world can allow, anyway) at finding romantic and sexual fulfillment. I still find that I value abstinence before marriage and fidelity after marriage, but I see no reason to believe that same sex marriages are any different from opposite sex marriages in this regard.

[Tacenda]

All I have, is that gay marriage is much better than being single for life and not having that bond, and possibly a lot of partners. Marriage is the healthiest for a gay person, if they are in love, just like a heterosexual. 

[CV75]

I’d like to give my replies some context:

Q1: God expects those who know better to keep the law of chastity.

Q2: “Spouse” is a man for a woman’s spouse and a woman for a man’s spouse (and the context for Q1 still applies!)

Q3: I would replace “should” for “would” in consideration of the context for Q1.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

Deconstructing/reconstructing my sexual ethic has been an important part of my own faith deconstruction/reconstruction, and a variation on question 3 has played a central role in that deconstruction/reconstruction. I've been frequenting marriage help circles for LDS and Christian couples for years, and one of the common topics is navigating sexual differences. Naturally, there are a small percentage of people navigating sexual differences who end up in totally sexless marriages and lose all hope of sexually reconciling. These people frequently ask if it is okay to divorce and remarry. In almost all of the internet circles I frequent, no one is willing to tell someone in a sexless marriage that they must stay married. Almost everyone I encounter is willing to allow for divorce and remarriage when the sexual relationship in the marriage seems irreconcilable. Which isn't to say that everyone is lobbying for "they must divorce," just that they are willing to allow the choice to divorce as a legitimate, non-sinful choice. In this framework, mixed-orientation marriages are only one kind of potentially irreconcilable sexual difference in marriage that may lead a couple to choose separation and divorce.

Once I had accepted the idea that sexual and romantic fulfillment are important enough ideals to justify divorce and remarriage, it was a relatively small step to accept that maybe God wants everyone regardless of sexual orientation to have equal opportunity (as equal as a fallen world can allow, anyway) at finding romantic and sexual fulfillment. I still find that I value abstinence before marriage and fidelity after marriage, but I see no reason to believe that same sex marriages are any different from opposite sex marriages in this regard.

What other forms of fulfillment did you accept as important enough to justify divorce and remarriage prior to accepting that sexual and romantic fulfillment were?

[Anonymous Mormon]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

What about an option of “God’s law of chastity never excluded homosexual behavior in a committed marriage. Modern prophets are products of their time and misread God’s intention based on their own bias.” As worded your poll makes no sense. 

All polls are inherently limited in what they try to accomplish, and mine is no different. I tried to make the poll flexible enough for the kind of sentiment you are expressing. If I understand your sentiment, I think the following would work:

You could mark 'No' to #1 since it my understanding is you to believe that 'God would consider a same-sex marriage as not a sin for them'

Then for #2, you could mark your opinion on whether or not the rest of the law of chastity exists. It sounds like you would be a 'Yes' on that since you are referring to 'God's intention' with the Law of Chastity.

Then for #3, you can mark your own opinion as well.

 

Or if you want to boycott the survey you could choose to not answer, but then your opinion won't be reflected in the results and thus they would be skewed against your viewpoint. I would love to get more opinions and not less, so I would hope you don't choose this option.

Or you can create your own poll with better questions. If you do, I would be happy to take it.

[Anonymous Mormon]

20 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I’d like to give my replies some context:

Q1: God expects those who know better to keep the law of chastity.

Q2: “Spouse” is a man for a woman’s spouse and a woman for a man’s spouse (and the context for Q1 still applies!)

Q3: I would replace “should” for “would” in consideration of the context for Q1.

Noted and thank you.

Like I said in my previous post, it's tough to write a poll that is not biased in some way. I tried my best to capture what I thought was fair and not misleading.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

6 minutes ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

I would love to get more opinions and not less, so I would hope you don't choose this option.

Given that I don’t believe in God, you’re not looking for my opinion. 👍

[MrShorty]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

What other forms of fulfillment did you accept as important enough to justify divorce and remarriage prior to accepting that sexual and romantic fulfillment were?

A good question. There was a time when I believed that divorce was only justified in the most extreme cases of abuse or unrepentant adultery. I should be able to put every other expectation or joy or happiness as a sacrifice on the marriage altar to preserve the marriage. In the extreme, I believed God would want me to be abjectly miserable in life in favor of breaking up a marriage. I no longer believe God expects us to sacrifice anything and everything in favor of keeping a marriage together. I don't think God wants us to be abjectly miserable.

Of course, the actual decisions around separation and divorce are nuanced and personal. Some sexless marriages stay together, and some don't. Some mixed-orientation marriages continue, and some separate. Some saver/spender marriages figure out how to get along, others don't. And so on and so forth. At present, I am unaware of any checklists or formulas that tell us when a marriage should be endured and when it should be dissolved, so I trust that individuals in those circumstances will be diligent about trying to stay together, with the wisdom to know when it just won't work out.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

Noted and thank you.

Like I said in my previous post, it's tough to write a poll that is not biased in some way. I tried my best to capture what I thought was fair and not misleading.

No problem, just posted that for the sake of conversation.

[longview]

17 minutes ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

38 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I’d like to give my replies some context:

Q1: God expects those who know better to keep the law of chastity.

Q2: “Spouse” is a man for a woman’s spouse and a woman for a man’s spouse (and the context for Q1 still applies!)

Q3: I would replace “should” for “would” in consideration of the context for Q1.

Noted and thank you.

Like I said in my previous post, it's tough to write a poll that is not biased in some way.

I have read of men with same-sex attractions who are married to willing females. Both are committed to trusting God and magnifying their participation in the Plan of Happiness. They believe that the Atonement will make them whole and complete (perfected).

Heterosexual couples have the same challenge. The first commandment is for us to love God with all our might, mind, strength, heart and soul. The second is to love our neighbors as ourselves. During His earthly ministry, Jesus further exalted the second commandment for us to love others the way He loves them. Interestingly, we are to love ourselves the same way as Jesus loves us! That is the higher law.

My reaction to the poll questions was I thought that 2nd and 3rd questions were too rigid and needed to further define terms spouse and marriage. Also, the poll should make distinctions between members feelings (and commitment) to the Proclamation on the Family and their understanding of the implementation of the Plan of Happiness in various stages: 1- eternal existence (no beginnings) of intelligences; 2- intelligences being invited to become spirit children of Heavenly Parents in the First Estate; 3- willingness of spirit children to participate in and go through the travails of mortality (Second Estate); 4- after death, make personal self assessments and reconciliations in the post-mortal spirit world as to wether they want to fully embrace the Gospel; 5- the Resurrection to various degrees; 6- those that acheive the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom will be "permitted" to have their own "kingdom" and start another implementation (Eternal Round) of the Plan of Happiness.

1 hour ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

I tried my best to capture what I thought was fair and not misleading.

Fair? According to what standards? The world's or the Lord's?

Isaiah 55:
7 Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.
8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.
9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

A good question. There was a time when I believed that divorce was only justified in the most extreme cases of abuse or unrepentant adultery. I should be able to put every other expectation or joy or happiness as a sacrifice on the marriage altar to preserve the marriage. In the extreme, I believed God would want me to be abjectly miserable in life in favor of breaking up a marriage. I no longer believe God expects us to sacrifice anything and everything in favor of keeping a marriage together. I don't think God wants us to be abjectly miserable.

Of course, the actual decisions around separation and divorce are nuanced and personal. Some sexless marriages stay together, and some don't. Some mixed-orientation marriages continue, and some separate. Some saver/spender marriages figure out how to get along, others don't. And so on and so forth. At present, I am unaware of any checklists or formulas that tell us when a marriage should be endured and when it should be dissolved, so I trust that individuals in those circumstances will be diligent about trying to stay together, with the wisdom to know when it just won't work out.

This is why I added the context for Q1 in my post. Considering myself as one who “knows better,” my relationship with Christ helps me deal with my and others’ failures so that they don’t grind me down with abject misery. This relationship is based on His sacrifice and grace, so that my sacrifice and endurance more closely align with His expectations for our mutual joy, present and future.

As you pointed out, one or both marriage partners decides when enough failure and the attendant abject misery is enough. From what I’ve seen, the lack of any form of fulfilment is important enough to justify divorce and remarriage as assessed by the parties involved. We can decide what is best for us based on what we take from their experience and even adopt a new paradigm upon getting to know other people and their struggles better.

[Anonymous Mormon]

3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Given that I don’t believe in God, you’re not looking for my opinion. 👍

As a frequent poster on the board I am interested in your opinion. I tried (unsuccessfully it looks like) to word option #3 on the first two questions to include atheists, so you can select those since they best define your view.

[Anonymous Mormon]

1 hour ago, longview said:

Also, the poll should make distinctions between members feelings (and commitment) to the Proclamation on the Family and their understanding of the implementation of the Plan of Happiness in various stages: 1- eternal existence (no beginnings) of intelligences; 2- intelligences being invited to become spirit children of Heavenly Parents in the First Estate; 3- willingness of spirit children to participate in and go through the travails of mortality (Second Estate); 4- after death, make personal self assessments and reconciliations in the post-mortal spirit world as to wether they want to fully embrace the Gospel; 5- the Resurrection to various degrees; 6- those that acheive the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom will be "permitted" to have their own "kingdom" and start another implementation (Eternal Round) of the Plan of Happiness.

It turns out that the polling software on the site only allows x3 questions. I was originally going to include more to get more feedback, but wasn't able to.

 

1 hour ago, longview said:

Fair? According to what standards? The world's or the Lord's?

Isaiah 55:
7 Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.
8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.
9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

It wasn't the Lord's or the World's standards that I was trying to be fair to. I tried to be fair by not being overly biased in how I phrased and worded questions and in succinctly allowing answers for all viewpoints.

 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, longview said:

I have read of men with same-sex attractions who are married to willing females. Both are committed to trusting God and magnifying their participation in the Plan of Happiness. They believe that the Atonement will make them whole and complete (perfected).

They are called bisexuals. There are probably around a half dozen of them in your average ward.

I also am giving the side eye at how this focuses on men and ignores women with “same-sex attraction”.

[Calm]

On 3/12/2024 at 7:36 AM, Anonymous Mormon said:

ore posters (by post count) feel that the law of chastity is harmful to LGBT individuals because it doesn't give them the emotional / sexual fulfillment they deserve / need. 

Just be careful not to assume that just because some of us argue against certain arguments used to justify the Law of Chastity, that we believe the Law is ultimately harmful to someone.

I personally believe most laws of God are immediately harmful in some way, otherwise there would be no sacrifice in living them.  I also believe eventually the blessings not only outweigh the suffering living them causes, but God heals the harm such that it’s like it’s never occurred.  That promise does not lessen the pain of the experience in my experience though.

Exercise, part of what we could call the law of health, can be harmful in that you may be in pain following it, but long term the cost is worth it as overall pain is likely less, you are healthier, etc.

Edited March 13, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

6 hours ago, CV75 said:

What other forms of fulfillment did you accept as important enough to justify divorce and remarriage prior to accepting that sexual and romantic fulfillment were?

I would think this would vary with individuals and it is less about the type and more what kind of impact not having that fulfillment has on the individual.

For me a spouse who didn’t not allow me to develop my intelligence in the ways that appealed to me, who got angry when I spent money or time on books or classes, was dismissive when I brought up things I was intellectually exploring….that might very well result in a divorce for me.

I also have too much anxiety (as in severe anxiety) associated with money to live in a marriage where there was no restraint on buying on credit, no attempt at budgeting, etc.  Lack of financial stability that could be changed but wasn’t could be a deal breaker for me.

Edited March 12, 2024 by Calm

[CV75]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

I would think this would vary with individuals and it is less about the type and more what kind of impact not having that fulfillment has on the individual.

For me a spouse who didn’t not allow me to develop my intelligence in the ways that appealed to me, who got angry when I spent money or time on books or classes, was dismissive when I brought up things I was intellectually exploring….that might very well result in a divorce for me.

I also have too much anxiety (as in severe anxiety) associated with money to live in a marriage where there was no restraint on buying on credit, no attempt at budgeting, etc.  Lack of financial stability that could be changed but wasn’t could be a deal breaker for me.

Absolutely. These triggers do differ from person to person and couple to couple.

But my question was intended to compare his "before" and "after" opinions, and whether other justifications for divorce have loosened up as well, or whether they existed at all, seeing that @MrShorty's current view of sexual and romantic fulminant is the outcome of deconstructing and reconstructing faith and sexual ethics.

[longview]

16 hours ago, The Nehor said:

They are called bisexuals. There are probably around a half dozen of them in your average ward.

I also am giving the side eye at how this focuses on men and ignores women with “same-sex attraction”.

Yes, the whole spectrum. Equally applicable to both sexes. You really cannot rule out actual homosexuals, a few that have come to fully embrace the truth of the Gospel, the beauty of the Plan of Happiness, and the affirmation of the Proclamation on the Family.

Those few may choose to live out the remainder of mortality being celibate. Or they can be courageous (being willng to trust God) and partner in the formation of the "Basic Unit" consisting of male husband, female wife, and hopefully children. Maybe one or both spouses may not feel much sexual attraction but they can al least have platonic love for each other. That love can progress to the Christlike love that I spoke of in my previous post. The higher law. The same applies for heterosexual couples. All wonderfully challenging and ultimately joyous.

[MustardSeed]

We’re miserable so the gays should just suck it up and be miserable too! 
 

I would never want a platonic marriage for me or for my children.  I would REALLY never want my straight child to marry a gay person.  How sad. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

8 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I would REALLY never want my straight child to marry a gay person.

This! 

[Maestrophil]

On 3/12/2024 at 9:25 AM, MrShorty said:

 Almost everyone I encounter is willing to allow for divorce and remarriage when the sexual relationship in the marriage seems irreconcilable.

Once I had accepted the idea that sexual and romantic fulfillment are important enough ideals to justify divorce and remarriage, it was a relatively small step to accept that maybe God wants everyone regardless of sexual orientation to have equal opportunity (as equal as a fallen world can allow, anyway) at finding romantic and sexual fulfillment.

I admit I have some strong feelings about this due to a complicated and hurtful past with sexuality - but, I get upset when I hear members of the church place so much emphasis on the importance of being sexually fulfilled - I think this is a more modern view, and it does not align with what I feel God has always asked of His people - to be willing to sacrifice everything. I was always prepared to go a whole life without sexual fulfillment if that was required of me.  Now I understand proponents of SS relationships will say that is not the same for me because I at least had the 'possibility' of one day being sexually fulfilled.  But even when I entered into a marriage plagued with issues, I still was prepared to stay in it for eternity - until my -ex decided to seek fulfillment elsewhere.  

I feel we are giving too much to fulfilling an appetite - love can exist without sexual fulfillment.  

[MustardSeed]

9 minutes ago, Maestrophil said:

I admit I have some strong feelings about this due to a complicated and hurtful past with sexuality - but, I get upset when I hear members of the church place so much emphasis on the importance of being sexually fulfilled - I think this is a more modern view, and it does not align with what I feel God has always asked of His people - to be willing to sacrifice everything. I was always prepared to go a whole life without sexual fulfillment if that was required of me.  Now I understand proponents of SS relationships will say that is not the same for me because I at least had the 'possibility' of one day being sexually fulfilled.  But even when I entered into a marriage plagued with issues, I still was prepared to stay in it for eternity - until my -ex decided to seek fulfillment elsewhere.  

I feel we are giving too much to fulfilling an appetite - love can exist without sexual fulfillment.  

I don’t think it’s the same thing at all. A non-sexual relationship with a man for me would be completely different than a non-sexual relationship with a woman. A non-sexual relationship with a woman for me would be a complete lie, and a degradation of my own sense of self. I imagine that any homosexual would feel the same.
 

This is not about having or not having sex. 

[Calm]

5 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

would never want a platonic marriage for me or for my children.

At this point of my daughter’s life, if she finds a platonic relationship she can be happy with and wants to be happy with, I will joyfully support her rather than attempt to persuade her not to settle for less as long as she doesn’t see it as settling, but as getting what she wants in a marriage (I don’t believe she will go that route if she ever considers marriage though).  I see companionship as so beneficial and wonderful it would be a gift even without romance (as long as the two didn’t see the lack of romance themselves as a negative).

While I agree that if a choice of a platonic marriage can be avoided, it should be as romance adds a lovely and deeply meaningful dimension to a relationship, there are likely those who do not and cannot not feel romance or do not express it as most people do and yet they also desire a long term companionship, desire to be parents and likely can be very successful at both.  In the past with class restrictions and just circumstances in general (many more arranged marriages), perhaps it was difficult to find someone that brought the romance out, so platonic marriages were more likely than now. If one didn’t expect or particularly want romance in a marriage, less likely to miss it. 

Maybe the experience of my greats opens me up to it more, both were engaged to be married and both engagements fell through on the way to Zion.  Mutual friends encouraged them to get together and they did.  Had quite a few children, he became a local leader, she became an official midwife.  They described their relationship as companions rather than lovers, mutual respect and friendship. Both seemed happy with their lives, though I don’t have journals from them.  My GGG?M chose the women when her husband practiced plural marriage.  It is said in their bio by their granddaughter that when Brigham Young visited their home he called it the best example of celestial love he knew.  So I have had that love story in my head since a child, probably makes me more comfortable with the idea.

I have also discussed marriage with a professor who was Muslim, also married to another professor.  Their marriage was arranged by their parents and it certainly sounded more platonic than romantic.  They had careers at different universities, one in Utah, the other back East and so spent much of their life separate and at least the husband appeared very content with it.  He described his marriage in very positive terms.  It met his needs and while I imagined him quite lonely, it appeared he didn’t see himself that way.

Otoh, my parents were a living fairy tale with both engaged to others and then my dad traveling across the continent for his first job after graduation and upon seeing my mother for the first time when looking for a place to stay, both fell head over heels with each other and every night free was filled with nights out dancing and romance.  That is lovely imagining it, but not an easy dream to live up to, lol.

If someone desires a more platonic marriage because that is where they are, as long as they are upfront about it with their future spouse and have thoroughly explored the implications for both, I believe I would be supportive of both though I would hope my children would want more in their life.  I have grieved with some of the choices my kids have made in their lives that would be less impactful in limiting experience than choosing a platonic relationship, so I am not saying that support would come easy.  I could have saved myself some significant suffering if I had let my kids’ dreams for themselves become my dreams rather than imagining what their lives would be like even before they could tell me their preferences.

Edited March 13, 2024 by Calm