Deseret News Article: "Coming back to church while reconciling faith and sexuality"

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

This is a legitimate point.  I love Christmas, but I have some reservations about how it has "become too commercial."  And yet I would find it problematic if someone were to come along and say that I need to be happy with, and go along with, these commercialized aspects and depictions of Christmas or else I am not an authentic Christian.

And a lot of people in the LGBT community don’t trust rainbow capitalism. This guy isn’t saying anything novel or interesting here.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I think many people share this sense of confusion.  I think this stems from the seeming lack of boundaries or limiting principles in the movement.  Consider, for example, this Quora comment:

I am sorry…..a Quora comment? 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

A community is, by definition, "a group of people living in the same place or having a particular characteristic in common."  If the "community" reflected in the acronym{s} lack limiting principles, then it becomes difficult, maybe even impossible, to define or quantify what that community is, what "identity" is signifies, and so on.

This is also a legitimate point.  For example, consider this comment from the above Quora link:

Is "K" a part of the acronym or not?  If not, why not?  If it is, then Bro. Schleicher's concern about "messaging" being conveyed to "our younger and more impressionable members of the Church."

Are you under the impression that there is some High Council of LGBTQ affairs that renders decisions on these matters? There isn’t. It is the mass of people belonging to the community that decide these things. Many try to add letters. Most of them don’t stick. Some poly people have tried to get P in there. It hasn’t stuck. Sapiosexuals have tried to get S in there with even less success and a lot more eye rolling.

Even as a sexually deviant kinkster into BDSM myself (I will now pause for gasps) I don’t think K fits. Most kinksters are straight. Per capita I suspect queer people are overrepresented in kink in the population. I don’t share this guy’s concern that being associated with kinksters will make people think we are deviants. They already think that and I am not inclined to punch down on kinksters to raise queer people. I find that kind of thing disgusting and I think he should be ashamed of himself for doing it. Unless he has a humiliation kink in which case I don’t want to feed it in this way. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

This is, I suppose, a question to be answered by each of us individually.  Some seem to feel there is a conflict between the two ("our engagement in Pride" and "adherence to the doctrine{s} of the Church").  That's a reasonable point of view, IMO.

A clash of identities perhaps? Maybe we should just abolish those and solve the problem.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I think Bro. Schleicher is not alone in having concerns about this sort of thing.  For example, in this YouTube video, an sportscaster, Paul Murray, declares that a Muslim player's refusal to wear a Pride jersey in the AFLW’s Pride round on the grounds of religious belief is "a very strange thing" and is "very obviously a middle finger to" the LGBT community.

OH NO!!!!!!!!!!!

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I think many Latter-day Saints - and many other Christians outside our faith - agree with this, but are perhaps hesitant to say so because it will elicit accusations of bigotry and hatred.

So they are cowards?

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

These are poignant comments. 

Not really.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I think many others harbor these sentiments.

Very few as a part of the larger group.

[Calm]

53 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Also you can’t convince me that people who participated in, for example, the molly house culture of Britain in the 1700s didn’t believe they had some kind of shared sexual identity.

You harp on this point endlessly even though it doesn’t mean what you want to think it means.

It is not something I have studied in detail, but from what I have picked up my guess is the establishment of the sexual identities of homo and heterosexuality actually lowered acceptance of and/or experimentation with same sex behaviour across cultures (whether the identities started appearing before and therefore contributed to formation of the laws or after criminalization of same sex behaviour and therefore identity formation was influenced by the laws, I don’t know; as I understand it the law in England at least first started out against any non reproductive sexual act and then become more rigid along gender lines) and therefore for those who wish to persuade others that same sex romantic and sexual behaviour is wrong (morally or evolutionarily or whatever), they should be applauding the formation of sexual identity as a contribution to the effort.

My guess is it’s the pendulum swinging back that has shifted to using identities in an more expansive way and that working to remove sexual identity altogether, one is more likely to increase the incidence of same sex sexual behaviour.

My memory is when Hamba pointed to cultures that had not yet adopted these two sexual identities, those cultures had sexual practices that included wide spread same sex (older and younger males) behaviours that would be labeled abusive in our society.

The American culture is still much more likely to produce an heterosexual identity and the belief of “born that way” would tend to result in much less experimentation across identities, resulting in less people experimenting with same sex behaviour.

Edited June 3 by Calm

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think many forms of "identity" can arise from, and/or be heavily influenced by, one's "feelings, desires and values."  

Brilliant deduction.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

That is sort of my point.  I think some folks with same-sex attraction feel some real tension between their "identity" as Latter-day Saints and their "identity" as a gay person.  This is particularly so since the latter may carry notions engaging in sexual behaviors as a part of "being" or "expressing" their "authentic self."  There sure seems to be societal voices that scoff at the idea of constraining one's sexual behaviors to the parameters established by the Law of Chastity.  Consequently, some folks may feel that "setting aside or subordinating one's sexual orientation/identity" in favor of a more important one (that of being a child of God, a disciple of Jesus Christ, a Latter-day Saint) could help alleviate some or all of the above-referenced tension.

I tried to do more than subordinate it. I tried to have my identity as a child of God exclude the other identity entirely. I can assure you it did not alleviate any tension. It multiplied it.

That is what is so asinine about you pushing this. Virtually every queer dedicated latter-day saint who left tried to make their identity as a member of the church or as a child of God reign supreme. It didn’t work for them. You suggesting that it would help to try borders on insulting. What do you think we were doing when trying to reconcile conflicting identities? I am still trying to do it. I find it very hard to recommend the process.

Admittedly some general authorities are trying to suggest this approach but considering previous general authority suggestions on how to deal with this “problem” I don’t have a lot of trust left. Turn out that following the prophet when he doesn’t know the way doesn’t work very well.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I respectfully disagree.  I think that "feelings, desires and values" can have a lot to do with one's "identity."

I agree.  And part of that "immersive discipleship" is obedience to the commandments of God, including the Law of Chastity.  Such obedience requires resisting inclinations to engage in behaviors prohibited by the Law of Chastity.  Such resistance may be facilitated by setting aside or subordinating one's sexual "identity" (which is, historically speaking, a very new concept) in favor of a more important identity.

Said important identity is, of course, historically speaking also a very new concept.

[smac97]

22 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I tried to do more than subordinate it. I tried to have my identity as a child of God exclude the other identity entirely.

Okay.  Hence the "'setting aside or subordinating one's sexual orientation/identity' in favor of a more important one" concept.

I have two close friends who have both succeeded in the "setting aside" thing.  Neither of them "identify" themselves by their sexual orientation.

I have another friend who is presently succeeding at the "subordinating" thing.  He still identifies as gay, but he subordinates that identity to that of Latter-day Saint, of disciple of Christ, of child of God.

22 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I can assure you it did not alleviate any tension. It multiplied it.

Okay.

22 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

That is what is so asinine about you pushing this.

As per usual, you resort to personal insults and invective in lieu of substance.

22 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Virtually every queer dedicated latter-day saint who left tried to make their identity as a member of the church or as a child of God reign supreme. It didn’t work for them. You suggesting that it would help to try borders on insulting.

Hence the "'setting aside or subordinating one's sexual orientation/identity' in favor of a more important one" concept.

I think there are people who have succeeded at this.  

22 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

What do you think we were doing when trying to reconcile conflicting identities? I am still trying to do it. I find it very hard to recommend the process.

I decline to comment in any way particular to you.

22 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Admittedly some general authorities are trying to suggest this approach but considering previous general authority suggestions on how to deal with this “problem” I don’t have a lot of trust left. Turn out that following the prophet when he doesn’t know the way doesn’t work very well.

Reasonable minds can disagree about such things.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

An additional thought…the creation of heterosexual identity also created a very easily understood/process concept for rejection of same sex attractions/inclinations in oneself in that assuming “I am attracted to the opposite sex” implies you won’t enjoy sex with the same biologoical sex….and since this is still the usual assumption…

Without that very clear sexual identity, it may take more effort and time to come up with a reason to reject any inclinations or curiosity one has towards same sex behavior. 

There is something to be said for simplicity when wanting to standardize behaviour. 

Edited June 3 by Calm

[smac97]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

As I have previously suggested, "'All sexual identity is a late 19th-century Western social construct.'" 

Which is completely wrong.

I think it is clearly and demonstrably correct.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

The current terms are such a construct but other terms and constructs have existed.

He asserted (rather than demonstrated).

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Also you can’t convince me that people who participated in, for example, the molly house culture of Britain in the 1700s didn’t believe they had some kind of shared sexual identity.

I'm okay with not trying to convince you of anything.  I don't think you and I can confer in good faith.  

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

You harp on this point endlessly even though it doesn’t mean what you want to think it means.

Reasonable minds can disagree about such things.

Thanks,

-Smac

[LoudmouthMormon]

Just wanted to remind folks that there's decent reason to believe there are somewhere around a quarter of a million gay LDS folks living in the mormon corridor.  Unstudied, unseen, and apparently happy with just quietly being LDS. 

I know at least two of them personally.

Edited June 3 by LoudmouthMormon

[Calm]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm okay with not trying to convince you of anything.  I don't think you and I can confer in good faith.  

Would you please explain how the Molly culture defined itself without the use of sexual identity of some sort for the rest of us so we can see what you actually mean when you say that sexual identities of any sort did not exist (it is one thing to accept or reject a label, it is another thing to be able to explain a subject without that label, especially when the label is pretty intuitive; how does one discuss being American without referring to the label, for example, it is possible, but more complex especially if you exclude the concept the label is used for which is having a national identity, imo).  This is a sincere question as I do not understand your position the way you have explained it so far (and I am one who has always agreed with Hamba when he first brought it up on the board that the homosexual and heterosexual identities are relatively recent historically speaking).

Edited June 4 by Calm

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  Hence the "'setting aside or subordinating one's sexual orientation/identity' in favor of a more important one" concept.

I have two close friends who have both succeeded in the "setting aside" thing.  Neither of them "identify" themselves by their sexual orientation.

I have another friend who is presently succeeding at the "subordinating" thing.  He still identifies as gay, but he subordinates that identity to that of Latter-day Saint, of disciple of Christ, of child of God.

I wish them luck.

I also doubt any of them needed some kind soul to come along and tell them to rank their identities or discard one. I also doubt that is how they resolved the tension if they have resolved it.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Okay.

Le sigh

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

As per usual, you resort to personal insults and invective in lieu of substance.

I am insulting your insulting solution. If you feel that is a personal insult maybe rethink what you are doing. You are seeing a conflict between two values  that you have (presumably) never actually experienced. You are not highly educated or trained in one of them. You then take some random posts about how our current conception of one side is pretty recent and decide that you have a potential solution. You don’t.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Hence the "'setting aside or subordinating one's sexual orientation/identity' in favor of a more important one" concept.

I think there are people who have succeeded at this.

 And if some people can do it then it follows that everyone can? Even if you have many examples where the approach was tried and failed.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I decline to comment in any way particular to you.

I wasn’t talking about just me and you know it. Most queer former members of the Church will talk about this struggle. Listen to them.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Reasonable minds can disagree about such things.

No, they can’t. Not in this case.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I think it is clearly and demonstrably correct.

One historical case in another culture of a different sexual or gender identity disproves this. I gave you several. You are being irrationally stubborn about something that is objectively false.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

He asserted (rather than demonstrated).

You declined to deal with them the last three times I presented examples. You’ll do it again.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I'm okay with not trying to convince you of anything.  I don't think you and I can confer in good faith.

See, I gave another example and you ignored it.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Reasonable minds can disagree about such things.

No, they can’t. You can have your own interpretations of facts but you can’t have your own facts.

Edited June 3 by The Nehor

[The Nehor]

42 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Just wanted to remind folks that there's decent reason to believe there are somewhere around a quarter of a million gay LDS folks living in the mormon corridor.  Unstudied, unseen, and apparently happy with just quietly being LDS. 

I know at least two of them personally.

Nope, wrong, bad statistics, do not pass Go, do not collect $200.

There are about a quarter of a million of LGBTQ (a minority of whom are gay) folks IF you assume they are equally demographically distributed within the church. Saying they are all gay is throwing things off to a huge degree. While these folks are probably spread pretty equally within the church throughout childhood and adolescence that changes.

Many of those folks have voluntarily left if they were born into the faith. Most queer people don’t convert and join (there are some but not many). Are there some in the church? Yes. The majority of the LGBTQ community are some flavor of bisexual/pansexual and if they find a partner of the right gender and keep quiet they are probably unnoticed in church. Bi/pan people are as capable of monogamy as anyone else. There are some gay and lesbian people who live quiet single lives. Some find marriage with VERY mixed success. There are some trans people who just cope with dysphoria. There are asexual people who marry and sometimes frustrate their spouse. There are aromantic people who make things work. There are non-binary people who chafe at gender norms but endure them. Many of these people also give up and leave.

The church is a self-selecting group after a certain age. Mapping general demographics onto the church doesn’t work.

Do you think if you assumed that US political party affiliation would equally map across all ethnicities and religious affiliations that you would get an accurate look at party composition? Same applies here. They aren’t unstudied and unseen and quietly happy. Many just left. Others never joined.

This is ridiculous on its face.

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

Okay.  Hence the "'setting aside or subordinating one's sexual orientation/identity' in favor of a more important one" concept.

I have two close friends who have both succeeded in the "setting aside" thing.  Neither of them "identify" themselves by their sexual orientation.

I have another friend who is presently succeeding at the "subordinating" thing.  He still identifies as gay, but he subordinates that identity to that of Latter-day Saint, of disciple of Christ, of child of God.

I wish them luck.

One of them passed away, with some of his last thoughts expressed to me being his relief at having left behind his "identity" and lifestyle and behaviors as a gay man, instead having chosen to exercise faith in God and keep His commandments, even until his death.  The other has took the "setting aside" route some years ago.  She is pretty happy.  She doesn't advertise herself as "ex-gay" or anything like that.  She just made the decision for herself and proceeded accordingly.

11 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I also doubt any of them needed some kind soul to come along and tell them to rank their identities or discard one.

Both of them are Latter-day Saints, and relied on prophetic counsel and spiritual impressions to take the courses of action described above.

As for "ranking" identities, I see no particular problem with that.  Some identities are more important and superior to others.  Some are legitimate and worthwhile, some are less so.

11 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I am insulting your insulting solution. If you feel that is a personal insult maybe rethink what you are doing.

You insult and denigrate as a matter of course.  You pretty much always do so in lieu of substantive, reasoned discussion and argument.

11 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

You are seeing a conflict between two values that you have (presumably) never actually experienced.

I don't know what "values" you are referencing here.  Most Latter-day Saints eventually encounter a conflict between one set of values (living as an observant Latter-day Saint) and another set (which justifies / rationalizes / excuses violating the Law of Chastity).  This happens in all sorts of ways, but the "conflict" is pretty common.  

11 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

 And if some people can do it then it follows that everyone can?

I haven't said this.  But I think everyone should make the effort to obey God.

11 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Even if you have many examples where the approach was tried and failed.

Your anecdotal and exceedingly hostile say-so doesn't do have much probative weight.

11 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

Quote

What do you think we were doing when trying to reconcile conflicting identities? I am still trying to do it. I find it very hard to recommend the process.

I decline to comment in any way particular to you.

I wasn’t talking about just me and you know it.

Still, I decline to comment in any way particular to you.

11 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Most queer former members of the Church will talk about this struggle. Listen to them.

I will.  I will not, however, give much credence to your exceedingly hostile anecdotal say-so.

I will also listen to people who speak of successfully navigating "conflicting identities," some of whom seem to do so by setting aside or subordinating their "sexual identity" in favor of a more important one.

11 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

 

Quote

Admittedly some general authorities are trying to suggest this approach but considering previous general authority suggestions on how to deal with this “problem” I don’t have a lot of trust left. Turn out that following the prophet when he doesn’t know the way doesn’t work very well.

Reasonable minds can disagree about such things.

 

No, they can’t. Not in this case.

Yes, they can.

Thanks,

-Smac

[CV75]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

I agree.  

As I have previously suggested, "'All sexual identity is a late 19th-century Western social construct.'"  For myself, I reject the notion of "sexual 'identity,'" so I have not needed to set it aside.  

I agree.  But I think some who espouse the notion of "sexual identity" will dispute that it amounts to a state of being, as something more than an "inclination" to be "resisted."  This is, in my view, one of the core sources of tension here.  "Sexual identity" is something you are, whereas sexual attraction is something you experience, and either allow or disallow.

I agree.

Okay.  Others, however, may choose to set aside or subordinate an identity which, in their view, creates tension and conflict.

Good stuff.

Thanks,

-Smac

Given what you previously suggested, this makes sense. You reject sexual identity as a valid social construct, rendering it irrelevant to the temptations and inclinations of a sexual nature that you may face. It also makes it unnecessary for you to describe the expression of temptation, inclination and sin in terms of gender. “Intentional sexual expression outside the marriage institution as the Lord set it up” is sufficient; the gender requirements for marriage are a given. What is the difference you see between sexual identity and gender identity?

Was there a time when you did hold a sexual identity for yourself and for that reason experienced less resistance to breaking (or less ability to keep) the law of chastity than you do now? Had this identity created tension and conflict for you that were relieved by subordinating it to your identity as a child of God?

[The Nehor]

34 minutes ago, Calm said:

Would you please explain how the Molly culture defined itself without the use of sexual identity of some sort for the rest of us so we can see what you actually mean when you say that sexual identities of any sort did not exist (it is one thing to accept or reject a label, it is another thing to be able to explain a subject without that label, especially when the label is pretty intuitive; how does one discuss being American without referring to the label, for example, it is possible, but more complex especially if you exclude the concept the label is used for which is having a national identity, imo).  This is a sincere question as I do not under your position the way you have explained it so far (and I am one who has always agreed with Hamba when he first brought it up on the board that the homosexual and heterosexual identities are relatively recent historically speaking).

We have less of an idea what they called themselves. They were often called “Sodomites”.

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

One of them passed away, with some of his last thoughts expressed to me being his relief at having left behind his "identity" and lifestyle and behaviors as a gay man, instead having chosen to exercise faith in God and keep His commandments, even until his death.  The other has took the "setting aside" route some years ago.  She is pretty happy.  She doesn't advertise herself as "ex-gay" or anything like that.  She just made the decision for herself and proceeded accordingly.

Both of them are Latter-day Saints, and relied on prophetic counsel and spiritual impressions to take the courses of action described above.

Good for them.

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

As for "ranking" identities, I see no particular problem with that.  Some identities are more important and superior to others.  Some are legitimate and worthwhile, some are less so.

Progress.

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You insult and denigrate as a matter of course.  You pretty much always do so in lieu of substantive, reasoned discussion and argument.

You repeat these lines endlessly and irrelevantly.

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't know what "values" you are referencing here.  Most Latter-day Saints eventually encounter a conflict between one set of values (living as an observant Latter-day Saint) and another set (which justifies / rationalizes / excuses violating the Law of Chastity).  This happens in all sorts of ways, but the "conflict" is pretty common.  

NO! BAD!

You know exactly what values I am talking about as you respond about them except you then generalize them and go back to your old refrain about how all people face the same Law of Chastity and in its majestic equality commands all to marry someone of a specified gender whether you want to or not. Somehow you think this means the impact is somehow even on those who do or do not want to despite clear evidence to the contrary.

You are generalizing to trivialize what others face. Stop.

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I haven't said this.  But I think everyone should make the effort to obey God.

And if they try and it doesn’t work then what?

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Your anecdotal and exceedingly hostile say-so doesn't do have much probative weight.

YOU JUST GAVE A BUNCH OF PERSONAL ANECDOTES A FEW LINES AGO!!!!!

Do they have no probative weight? If not, why did you mention them?

Stop pretending you are playing fairly and reasonably when you change the rules of evidence every other paragraph.

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Still, I decline to comment in any way particular to you.

Then comment about everyone else. I wasn’t using “we” in the royal sense.

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I will.  I will not, however, give much credence to your exceedingly hostile anecdotal say-so.

Okay, got it. Despite your earlier anecdotes anecdotes have no value.

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I will also listen to people who speak of successfully navigating "conflicting identities," some of whom seem to do so by setting aside or subordinating their "sexual identity" in favor of a more important one.

And we are back to anecdotes having value again folks. How do you not have whiplash?

How long will anecdotes having value continue? One paragraph? Two paragraphs? Next post? The post after that? Place your bets! Can’t win if you don’t bet!

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, they can.

Unreasonable minds can disagree about such things.

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

I don't know what "values" you are referencing here.  Most Latter-day Saints eventually encounter a conflict between one set of values (living as an observant Latter-day Saint) and another set (which justifies / rationalizes / excuses violating the Law of Chastity).  This happens in all sorts of ways, but the "conflict" is pretty common.  

NO! BAD!

You know exactly what values I am talking about

Apparently not.  And rather than explain what you mean, you accuse and prevaricate.

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

as you respond about them except you then generalize them and go back to your old refrain about how all people face the same Law of Chastity

There is only one "Law of Chastity."  The same standard for all of us.  Same standard, disparate impact.

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

and in its majestic equality commands all to marry someone of a specified gender

The Law of Chastity does not include any such mandate.

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

whether you want to or not.

Nor is the Law of Chastity compulsory.  "Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself."  (2 Nephi 2:27.)

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Somehow you think this means the impact is somehow even on those who do or do not want to despite clear evidence to the contrary.

No, I have never claimed identical impact.  To the contrary, I have acknowledged that disparate impacts can and do happen.

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

You are generalizing to trivialize what others face. Stop.

You are attributing sentiments and motives to me that I do not hold.  Stop.

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

I haven't said this.  But I think everyone should make the effort to obey God.

And if they try and it doesn’t work then what?

Obeying the Law of Chastity is or can be quite difficult.  No question there.  But merely asserting that obeying it "doesn't work" is not self-evident.

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

Your anecdotal and exceedingly hostile say-so doesn't do have much probative weight.

YOU JUST GAVE A BUNCH OF PERSONAL ANECDOTES A FEW LINES AGO!!!!!

Yes.  But not "exceedingly hostile" ones.  And I repose far more trust in my first-hand observations and experiences than I do in your hostile and anonymous ones.

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Do they have no probative weight? If not, why did you mention them?

They have probative weight to me.  As I have previously noted: "I'm okay with not trying to convince you of anything.  I don't think you and I can confer in good faith."

I am explaining my position, including experiences that have probative weight to me.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No, I have never claimed identical impact.  To the contrary, I have acknowledged that disparate impacts can and do happen.

Quote

The Honor Code applies to individuals.  And it applies to everyone regardless of inner-felt sexual orientation/desire.  Nobody can engage in same-sex behavior.  

The "impact" to the individual, then, remains the same.

Feelings and desires are, in my view, insufficient grounds to claim "disparate impact," even for "legalistic purposes." 

Emphasis mine.

 

[smac97]

49 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

No, I have never claimed identical impact.  To the contrary, I have acknowledged that disparate impacts can and do happen.

Quote

The Honor Code applies to individuals.  And it applies to everyone regardless of inner-felt sexual orientation/desire.  Nobody can engage in same-sex behavior.  

The "impact" to the individual, then, remains the same.

Feelings and desires are, in my view, insufficient grounds to claim "disparate impact," even for "legalistic purposes." 

Emphasis mine.

 

Context matters:

Quote

Quote

For legalistic purposes, it is useful to distinguish between content and impact. The rules/content are the same. The impact of the rules are not the same (since a homosexual couple can't physically express their affection in the same way a heterosexual couple can).

The Honor Code applies to individuals.  And it applies to everyone regardless of inner-felt sexual orientation/desire.  Nobody can engage in same-sex behavior.  

The "impact" to the individual, then, remains the same.

Feelings and desires are, in my view, insufficient grounds to claim "disparate impact," even for "legalistic purposes." 

A heterosexual BYU student who wants to be sexually active outside of marriage cannot claim that the Honor Code disparately impacts him because regardless of his desires, he agreed to constrain his behavior to the parameters set in the Honor Code.  He faces the same constraints all other BYU students do.  That he may subjectively chafe more against those constraints more than some other student (who is quite willing to abstain from sex outside of marriage) is neither here nor there.

"For legalistic purposes."

"A heterosexual BYU student who wants to be sexually active outside of marriage cannot claim that the Honor Code disparately impacts him because regardless of his desires, he agreed to constrain his behavior to the parameters set in the Honor Code.  He faces the same constraints all other BYU students do.  That he may subjectively chafe more against those constraints more than some other student (who is quite willing to abstain from sex outside of marriage) is neither here nor there."

(Emphasis mine.)

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

Given what you previously suggested, this makes sense. You reject sexual identity as a valid social construct,

I reject it for myself, and I think others may benefit from doing likewise.  I acknowledge that others accept it as a valid social construct.

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

rendering it irrelevant to the temptations and inclinations of a sexual nature that you may face.

Essentially, yes.  Hamba has explained this rationale here:

Quote

1. Sexual identity is a recent social construct, dating to the second half of the 19th century. Before that, neither heterosexuality nor homosexuality (or any other kind of -sexuality) existed, either as words or identities. Same-sex behaviour, of course, has been ubiquitous. In addition to all the quotes from queer and queer-friendly historians...
...
2. This new social construct spread slowly at first but started to become ascendant in the West in the second half of the 20th century, when it was adopted for its political utility...
...
3. In their quest for normalisation and domestication, all ascendant discourses attempt to mask their genealogies by creating narratives of having 'always already' existed. ...
...

4. Under the direction of the prophets, the Church has at no point in its history embraced this new discourse of sexual identities. Consequently, whilst the Church recognises the reality of same-sex behaviour (and even same-sex attraction, though one could reasonably argue that this is itself a modern construct, arising from the suggestive influence of the normalisation of homosexuality as an identity), the Church has maintained the sharp distinction between behaviour and identity.

5. The Church's position puts it at odds with a number of trends/forces in Western society -- and with those, like you, who have uncritically embraced the new discourse of sexual identity -- but it is a position far more in harmony with the paradigm that has existed for nearly all of human history and which remains the dominant paradigm around the world in areas least subject to Western colonisation of the imagination. It also is in harmony with the work of all serious historical scholarship on this topic.

6. Fortuitously, the Church's position also happens to be a defence of revealed truth relating to these issues

And here:

Quote

Significantly, the breakdown of historically novel (fixed, gendered) sexual identities is happening everywhere in large part because they are so unnatural that they can't be sustained. From the same analysis above comes the following: 'a recent UK poll found that fewer than half of those aged 18-24 identify as “100% heterosexual"'. And to build on something I tried to indicate earlier regarding the false assumptions present in the very title of this thread: 'That isn’t to suggest a majority of those young respondents regularly practise bisexuality or homosexuality'. This is simply a return to something more normative historically.

And I know what I'm talking about. I completed my PhD in history at a university whose postgraduate history program at the time was ranked fifth globally. After completing, I was offered a position at the university in the same college I had belonged to as a student, comprised of historians, anthropologists, and linguists. What is expressed in this book review and this analysis is everyday stuff for every single academic I ever studied with or worked alongside. It's not controversial; it's consensus.

Significantly, our doctrines align perfectly with the academic consensus of historians, anthropologists and linguists -- as do prophetic statements such as when Elder Bednar said, somewhat infamously, 'There are no homosexual members of the Church. We are not defined by sexual attraction. We are not defined by sexual behavior'.

I have read many of the references Hamba has provided, and find them - and his assessment of them - persuasive.

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

It also makes it unnecessary for you to describe the expression of temptation, inclination and sin in terms of gender. “Intentional sexual expression outside the marriage institution as the Lord set it up” is sufficient; the gender requirements for marriage are a given.

Given the radical re-definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, I think addressing the Law of Chastity in the context of same-sex behavior is necessary.

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

What is the difference you see between sexual identity and gender identity?

Per Wikipedia:

Quote

Sexual identity refers to one's self-perception in terms of romantic or sexual attraction towards others,^[1] though not mutually exclusive, and can be different to romantic identity^[2]. Sexual identity may also refer to sexual orientation identity, which is when people identify or dis-identify with a sexual orientation or choose not to identify with a sexual orientation.^[3] Sexual identity and sexual behavior are closely related to sexual orientation, but they are distinguished,^[1] with identity referring to an individual's conception of themselves, behavior referring to actual sexual acts performed by the individual, and sexual orientation referring to romantic or sexual attractions toward persons of the opposite sex or gender, the same sex or gender, to both sexes or more than one gender, or to no one.

And here:

Quote

Gender identity is the personal sense of one's own gender.^[1] Gender identity can correlate with a person's assigned sex or can differ from it.

FWIW, I view "gender" as a synonym for biological sex.  Otherwise, it's just a reference to broad sex-based stereotypes and caricatures.  

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

Was there a time when you did hold a sexual identity for yourself and for that reason experienced less resistance to breaking (or less ability to keep) the law of chastity than you do now?

I had previously, as Hamba puts it, "uncritically embraced the new discourse of sexual identity."  Having examined the issue more critically, I have come to find the notion of "sexual identity" to be problematic, and have rejected it.

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

Had this identity created tension and conflict for you that were relieved by subordinating it to your identity as a child of God?

If I were to attach a "sexual identity" to myself, it would be "heterosexual."  Latter-day Saints attracted to the opposite sex have plenty of potential "tension and conflict" available between their sexual inclinations and doctrinal constraints.  Anyone who has ever participated in membership councils could tell you that.  This is a big reason I value the Restored Gospel so much, as it has helped me better understand and abide by the the contours of the Law of Chastity.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 4 by smac97

[The Nehor]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Context matters:

"For legalistic purposes."

Nope, it was “even for ‘legalistic purposes’”

The word “even” matters.

So you were claiming they couldn’t claim disparate impact EVEN for legalistic purposes. They can’t claim disparate impact at all and you were just specifically making sure to specify that a possible exception wouldn’t apply.

The exact opposite of what you just said while saying there can be disparate impact.

[smac97]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

Would you please explain how the Molly culture defined itself without the use of sexual identity of some sort for the rest of us so we can see what you actually mean when you say that sexual identities of any sort did not exist (it is one thing to accept or reject a label, it is another thing to be able to explain a subject without that label, especially when the label is pretty intuitive; how does one discuss being American without referring to the label, for example, it is possible, but more complex especially if you exclude the concept the label is used for which is having a national identity, imo).  This is a sincere question as I do not under your position the way you have explained it so far (and I am one who has always agreed with Hamba when he first brought it up on the board that the homosexual and heterosexual identities are relatively recent historically speaking).

We have less of an idea what they called themselves.

Which may indicate that "sexual identity" was a foreign, or even nonexistent, concept to them.  This would comport with the historical record regarding the creation of "sexual identity" in the mid-to-late 19th century:

Quote

I think the "sexual identity" paradigm has become very firmly entrenched in modern society, so much so that it is not even questioned.  By way of example, look at this compilation of quotes from Hamba, which are often responsive to people who seem to be shocked at the very notion that "sexual identity" is, historically speaking, a novelty.  Or as Hamba has (with documentation) put it:

• "a late 19th-century Western social construct,"
• "'a hetero/homosexual binarism emerged only after 1869 following the coinage of "homosexuality", which, according to Foucault, introduced the homosexual as a new 'species' of being,'"
• "'the social and cultural identities based on an exclusive same sex-erotic attraction were virtually impossible before the nineteenth century,'"
• "A central -- if not perhaps the most central -- element that has characterized modern homosexuality is the understanding of erotic same-sex attraction as a fundamental element of the individual's biological or psychological makeup"
• "'This idea of (homo)sexual personhood has a very recent history'"
• "'The homosexual "species" emerged and took root in Germany after the mid-nineteenth century through the collaboration of Berlin's medical scientists and sexual minorities. This confluence of biological determinism and subjective expressions of sexual personhood was largely a German phenomenon, moreover, and it clearly underpins modern conceptions of sexual orientation'"
• "This new social construct spread slowly at first but started to become ascendant in the West in the second half of the 20th century, when it was adopted for its political utility."
• "'Before that point [the late 1860s], Western culture did not include the concept we now call "sexual orientation" or "sexual identity"'"
• "Clearly we are dealing with a cultural phenomenon."

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Context matters:

"For legalistic purposes."

Quite laughable and despicable that you left off the "even" then. Do you ever argue in good faith? 

[smac97]

30 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

Context matters:

"For legalistic purposes."

Nope, it was “even for ‘legalistic purposes’”

The word “even” matters.

The discussion about "disparate impact" was about the law.  "For legalistic purposes."  And even then, I acknowledged that the Law of Chastity can have disparate impacts ("That he may subjectively chafe more against those constraints more than some other student (who is quite willing to abstain from sex outside of marriage) is neither here nor there.").

I have elsewhere acknowledged the disparate impact of the Law of Chastity.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

The Church is trying hard to respect individual choice and autonomy, but what you present above is a recipe for anarchy.  Marriage and sexual behavior are extremely important components of the Restored Gospel, so much so that the Church has promulgated the Law of Chastity.  It is that law which defines the parameters of sexual behavior.  So Latter-day Saints are not at liberty to exceed those boundaries and set new ones - as you put it - "in whatever way they define it."

This 2012 pamphlet from the Church sums up the position I hold:

Quote

As part of the test of mortality, our bodies have desires, appetites, and passions which we must learn to discipline and control. When these desires are kept within the bounds the Lord has set, they enhance and enrich life. If they are undisciplined, they can destroy both our bodies and spirits. Consequently, the Lord has given us very specific instructions about modesty and chastity.

I acknowledge that these boundaries have disparate impacts on each of us according to our circumstances and choices.  In the end, though, the Lord still holds everyone to the same standard.

And here:

Quote

Quote

Also, I want to address something you said, and something I hear quite often. The law of chastity is expected of all men, homosexual or heterosexual. This is true, but the implications couldn’t be further apart for both groups.

Well, yes and no.  Yes there are disparate impacts.  But the fault line is not between "homosexual or heterosexual."  There are plenty of heterosexual members of the Church who are never married, divorced, or widowed, and who are still required to abstain from sexual behavior outside of marriage.

 

30 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

So you were claiming they couldn’t claim disparate impact EVEN for legalistic purposes.  They can’t claim disparate impact at all and you were just specifically making sure to specify that a possible exception wouldn’t apply.

The exact opposite of what you just said while saying there can be disparate impact.

You are in error.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 4 by smac97

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quite laughable and despicable that you left off the "even" then.

"Left off" here meaning "Quoting, verbatim, the word 'even' in the context in which I was using it."

Strange.

Meanwhile, a prior post includes my other instances of acknowledging the actual or potential disparate impact of the Law of Chastity.

13 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Do you ever argue in good faith? 

Do you still enjoy torturing puppies for fun and profit?

Gotta love loaded questions.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 4 by smac97

[Calm]

On 6/3/2024 at 6:50 PM, smac97 said:

reject it for myself, and I think others may benefit from doing likewise.  I acknowledge that others accept it as a valid social construct.

So you think people would benefit from not having expectations of themselves dating, falling in love with, and marrying a man if a woman or marrying a woman if a man?

Edited June 17 by Calm