Sounds okay to me.

One of the most important aspects of this clarification is that gay BYU students, working with the administration, were actively involved in making the changes.

wow, what’s going on at BYU. First they allow protests of Cheney’s visit, and now this…

One’s sexual orientation is not an Honor Code issue.

That’s an important line. I think it might lead to more openness at BYU. It seems to me that it should now be possible for a person who has homosexual or lesbian orientation to say so in a group setting. I think this helps to take the person out of any self-imposed isolation and perhaps brings the person some support he/she may need.

We recently (a few months ago) had a testimony meeting where a man who has moved into our ward shared his conversion story and the spiritual journey he’s taken since his baptism. He openly stated that he has struggled with same-sex attraction. At the same time he bore fervent testimony of the truthfulness of the gospel and I found the whole thing to be very spiritual and uplifting.

It’s a difficult balance (I imagine). But it will be easier if people can be a little more open about this sort of thing.

I’d be very interested in hearing more about the process by which this change was made to the BYU Honor Code and how much input students really have. I’m under the impression that while the HC was started purely by students the administration now has final say and student control of it is on an invitation only basis.

Well this should be interesting. It’s good to see a clarification of position that, while still standing up for what the church believes about sexuality, makes room to make people feel more at ease.

Nick, I think your first point won’t be an issue. “Advocating” is a verb. It implies willful, concerted action. At least as far as I’m concerned, attending an event is not the same as advocating for that event.

I think your second point is a good one though. I don’t know what to say about it, except I hope people don’t stop comforting each other because of what it “might” look like. I don’t think there’s much chance of that though; my husband is finishing teacher’s college and the list of things they’ve been told they can’t do is really disheartening.

#5 (Dan) — wow, what’s going on at BYU. First they allow protests of Cheney’s visit, and now this…

They’re obviously trying to lure you back to BYU.

Mark, #13,

They’re obviously trying to lure you back to BYU.

Eh, they’ve got lots more to do before they can lure me back. For one, get rid of that stupid beard rule. I ain’t no hippie!

I think that this is great. I doubt that it will result in more openly gay students applying to BYU, but I’m sure it will do a lot to improve the condition of those who learn to come to terms with their gayness while their at BYU. It’s also good to know that BYU is open to the kind of discussion that Margaret describes.

Oh dear–someone took me seriously. M&M I do not do conspiracy theories. My comment about Cheney was ENTIRELY tongue-in-cheek.

I remember all the furor over birth control–which was still going on when I got married in 1979. Could Mormons engage in sex for any other reason than making babies? Was it okay to use birth control? The apparent answer in 1979 was NO. So I asked my stake president about it. I said simply, “What about birth control? He then got out a book and went down the methods. “This one works pretty well. This one is not so good. Do you know what they call people who use spermicadal foam for birth control? PARENTS!”

Now to the actual issue: The sentence which the students were most troubled by in the original text was this one: “Advocacy of a homosexual lifestyle (whether implied or explicit) or any behaviors that indicate homosexual conduct, including those not sexual in nature, are inappropriate and violate the Honor Code.”

What on earth did “implied” mean and how far did it extend?
The new statement will almost certainly need revision, because
it leaves wide areas open to interpretation (and accusation), but it’s a heckuva lot better than what was there last week.

As a current, homosexual BYU student, a committed Latter-day Saint, and one of those who are participating in these meetings, I thought I’d throw in a few comments.

First, in response to “a random John” (comment 9) and others who asked about the process, a handful of BYU students who were concerned about the image of gay people that the Soulforce visit might encourage asked to meet with administration about what could be done to encourage understanding within a more “faithful” context. In that first meeting (which I didn’t attend), the Honor Code application statement was brought up by the students as a concern. After explaining their concerns, the administrator said she understood why it might be unclear and committed to work on it. At the most recent meeting (which I did attend), she came with the revised text and asked for student input. The students there unanimously affirmed and supported what she had written—at the very least as being far better than what was there before—and the text was online next day.

So, no, the students didn’t come up with any of the text, but it was presented to the students for feedback and none had anything but good to say, so it was considered done.

Second: In response to Nick Literski’s comment… since I’m choosing to remain committed to the Church, I obviously don’t feel homosexual relationships are morally acceptable. I do, however, have friends who I love deeply who are choosing homosexual relationships for their path. I don’t have a problem with honoring their agency and supporting them should they choose to have a commitment ceremony of some sort, and I feel I can do that while simultaneously not “promoting homosexual relations as being morally acceptable.” If I were to pull a Jeffrey Nielson and publish SL Trib editorials calling the Church’s position immortal, I might understand why I was dismissed from the University.

With your second concern, I really don’t see it hugs as being a problem. If some hyper-Pharisee student/staff saw an objectionable hug and wanted to take a case to court, I really don’t believe it would go far. To me, I think the principle is pretty clear here, and that’s why I supported it as is. And I know from discussion that what they’re referring to are those who think they can have a boyfriend (if it’s a guy we’re talking about) and hold hands and kiss on campus (or anywhere for that matter) and think they’re not breaking the Honor Code simply because they’re not having sex. Same-sex romantic relationships—given Church teaching regarding the centrality of opposite-sex relationships in the plan of salvation—simply don’t work either, and are in violation of both Church and university ideals.

Thank you, Tito! You all have accomplished something wonderful! Thanks for sharing this!

Oh dear–someone took me seriously. M&M I do not do conspiracy theories. My comment about Cheney was ENTIRELY tongue-in-cheek.

Oh, dear, indeed. Sorry, Margaret. Sometimes I really hate this medium. Thanks for clarifying. :)
(Hey, but at least my gut feeling about you not being the conspiracy theory type was on. :) )

Does this mean my 20-year-old daughter, who regularly says “I love you” to her female roommates and close friends on campus, and greets them with more-than-half-a-second hugs, and in other ways is physically affectionate with them, is now considered in violation of the BYU honor code? This “all forms of physical intimacy” thing leads me to think that the Utah Mormon culture is so excessively repressive about the body and touching others. I guess for men you can engage in brief hand-shaking and closed-fist touching of the shoulder only? Anything else could, heaven forbid, lead one to feel affection for one’s peers. How sad that this fear of touching has become a gospel principle. Oh well, the new honor code text is a small step forward, however awkward.

Margaret,
Maybe the ensuing 8 years have changed BYU, but homophobia was not “thriving” while I was there. It existed, I am sure, perhaps in larger quantities than some other schools (although I have no way of gauging that–I’d be pretty sure that BYU had a higher percentage of homophobic students than Columbia, but those are my only educational referents). I think a charge of homophobia thriving is painting a bit broadly, unless you’re privy to information I’m not aware of (and letters to the editor of the Daily Universe regarding Soulforce don’t mean anything; I stand by my assertion that the letters are largely written by freshman who need to do it for their English class and kids who want to stir the water and get as many responses as possible).

In fact, I think the very fact that BYU changed the honor code w/r/t gays shows that homophobia is _not_ thriving at BYU. (Of course, again, you’re there and I’m not, so you may have a better lay of the land than I do.)

Nick, I think your worry is misplaced. My dad isn’t a gay ex-Mormon and he’s never been bishop or stake president. I never heard people having discussions about “my dad the bishop” while at BYU. Often one would know that people who had a father serving as a stake president or as a GA and they would be very quiet about that fact. The majority of leadership-offspring that I have ever met are very humble about the leadership positions their dads have been asked to fulfill. Certainly, there will be the exception to that standard — someone who is prideful about their dad’s “position”, but it is a stupid attitude to have and those people make themselves pretty unpopular pretty quickly except among others who think their dad’s calling is any reflection on themselves.

If anything, having a gay ex-Mormon dad will make her trendy and cool among the students who fancy themselves liberal free-thinkers unencumbered by conformity to the Church’s templates. To the orthodox students, she will certainly not be viewed on the basis of the actions of her father.

Sorry I was so unclear, John F. My observations were from LAST year, not this year, and the patronizing questions (very few) were from BYU students. There was some argument, but usually the BYU students got angry at any other BYU student who was saying homophobic things. Once or twice, it was quite heated. However, Soulforce members had planned all along to get themselves arrested at BYU, and they succeeded. For gay BYU students, this was NOT helpful to their cause. Note that this year’s appearance of Soulforce was one of the factors in uniting BYU’s gay population–not to join Soulforce, but to increase sensitivity to their particular struggles in another way than through public arrests.

Margaret,
I don’t know if straight students would have endeavored to change the Honor Code the way that it was changed. I have to (proudly/sheepishly) admit that I never once read the Honor Code while I was at BYU. I read that one- or two-page sheet that they had you sign, but I’ve since heard that that’s the abbreviated version. I was unaware that the Honor Code addressed homosexual behavior specifically (and maybe it didn’t then). So no, I wouldn’t have worked to change it while at BYU, because I wouldn’t have known that it was there. (In fact, until the advent of the Bloggernacle, I, and most people I knew, treated the Honor Code as a dumb as it related to dress and grooming and curfews, and nice as it related to academic honesty).

I’ll admit that the one class I had in the Zoology department (Bioethics) exposed me to a group who were fairly homophobic. Which frankly came as a surprise, because it contrasted so heavily with what I heard and saw in the English department. Although, I will grant you, being straight, I wouldn’t have been the brunt of such prejudice, so it could have existed off my radar, even among English majors.

Oh, and Nck, I don’t see any reason why your daughter would be ostracized at BYU, any more than a New Yorker would be. It’s something slightly different about her and, although I disagree with john f’s assessment of liberal BYU students, nonetheless, I think he’s right in substance that it will be a cool background detail to a large portion of the people she meets (at a relatively homogenious place like BYU, I was always looking for something different about myself), and won’t be a black mark against her, even with the homophobes Margaret has mentioned.

I would say Soulforce was FOUNDATIONALLY patronizing to BYU students because they had identified BYU as a place which oppressed gays.

Isn’t calling BYU homophobic sort of the same thing? :)

I don’t know that I ever remember contests about whose dad was the coolest or whatever. Nick, I am sure there is a lot of vulnerability for you right now, but I would hope that your daughter can be respected and find friends based on who she is, and that she will honor you in the process.

Wow, Nick, I really don’t know. But I truly do hope your fear isn’t realized. While I’ve never heard a conversation similar to the one you mentioned (in the context of homosexuality, I mean), I did have a good friend and roommate who was open about his dad—the eccentric Columbia professor who left the Church and who is openly critical of it—but the conversations it invoked never turned into “dad bashing.” It usually was the catalyst for discussion of how to best respond to diversity/challenge/whatever in our lives, and what that might mean for our own futures. And no one avoided him as a result of his family experience; to the contrary, he was really well liked and served as our elders’ quorum president.

I do think there are plenty of dumb, close-minded people at BYU (just like anyway), but I also think that some of the most mature, open-minded, and truly compassionate people in the world are at BYU. Being fairly open about my own feelings of attraction, I’ve only had one really negative experience. A small few have been a little wierded by it, but the vast majority have been amazingly supportive and understanding.

And that’s what the efforts of the group I’ve been meeting with are hoping to achieve. Even in our meeting this morning, I felt the administrators were very open to anything that might help build a better culture of understanding and compassion on campus when it comes to homosexuality. No one in that group is—to my knowledge—hoping for any kind of a change in doctrine or Church policy. But every one of them hopes for an atmosphere where people can be more open about so that the image changes from the “Buddhist vegan with ten earrings/bodyrings” to the “guy next door”—or the girl-next-door’s father (or mother)… you get the idea…

SilverRain,
What you are saying is absolutely correct, so far as individuals governing their own behavior. Observers, however, are generally not mind-readers.

Suppose, for example, that Tito (who is open about being gay) happens to give a purely non-sexual hug to a brother in his ward. Sister Suzie sees that, and thinks to herself, “Oh my gosh! Tito just hugged that guy! It must be an expression of homosexual feelings!” Next thing you know, Sister Suzie reports what she thinks she saw to the Honor Code office, and Tito gets brought in for questioning.

At least back when I was attending BYU, I knew of students reporting one another to the Honor Code office. They felt it was their “duty” to do so.

Chris,

It’s possible that’s true. It’s just not my feeling when I read either of their work. And I’ve read a lot from both. And I’ve heard both speak. Given that a lot of the (open/public) conversation on this topic has taken place with Sunstone and Dialogue as medium, my experience is that those conversations have an entirely different nature and tone than any I have had among those outside that community. And I’m not talking Evergreen-esque. And CLP’s and Reese’s rhetoric seems to me to have been shaped by—or perhaps it was them who have done the shaping?—that community, and it simply doesn’t represent the views of the vast majority of those who I know who are homosexual (and who are committed to the Church).

Know that I’m not trying to be entirely critical of either of them. I just wouldn’t point to either of them anyone who wanted to understand the issue in a “faithful” context—that was also compassionate and understanding.

Nick,

“Suppose, for example, that Tito (who is open about being gay) happens to give a purely non-sexual hug to a brother in his ward. Sister Suzie sees that, and thinks to herself, “Oh my gosh! Tito just hugged that guy! It must be an expression of homosexual feelings!” Next thing you know, Sister Suzie reports what she thinks she saw to the Honor Code office, and Tito gets brought in for questioning.”

Are you sure that you aren’t projecting your own historical anxiety onto your daughter’s situation? She sounds like she has found her own way of dealing with the situation and is choosing to go to BYU. Sounds like your concern for your daughter’s feelings are a day late and a dollar short.

At least back when I was attending BYU, I knew of students reporting one another to the Honor Code office. They felt it was their “duty” to do so.

But a student has a chance to respond. An accusation does not reality make.

Nick,
I have several friends whose fathers are homosexual. One of my friends is very open about it. I think he’s had a variety of reactions from a variety of people, but for the most part he’s found acceptance and support. It’s not as uncommon as it used to be for BYU students to have homosexual family members. In my experience, it’s actually quite common. And while, yes, your daughter will likely find people pitying her, the reactions of peers will likely be more influenced by how she tells the story. When a friend of mine tells me his father left his family when he was a teenager because he wanted to pursue a homosexual lifestyle (sorry if that’s not a particularly pc way of stating it–I’m putting it in the terms my friend puts it in), I feel pain for him because I know he’s still struggling with the feelings of rejection brought on by that experience. When another friend of mine talks in loving terms about her homosexual uncle, I listen appreciatively.

I know of some people at BYU who are weirded out by anyone talking about homosexuality, and I’ve encountered some instances of homophobia. I also have friends who actively support same-sex marriage. Most of my friends are somewhere in the middle. My point is that there are all kinds of people here, and your daughter will be drawn toward (and will draw people toward her) who will be accepting of her.

It always boggles my mind and I feel terrible when I hear about people having a negative experience at BYU, because I don’t think it’s necessary. I really have met all kinds here–feminists, vegans, Bollywood fans, yoga enthusiasts, people who make bracelets out of duct tape, etc. Maybe I’m hopelessly idealistic and naive (or Molly), but I echo Tito in saying that in my experience there is a high percentage of people at BYU who are genuinely good and tolerant–who don’t just pay lip service to tolerance, but who actually live it. Much more than in my ultra-politically correct high school back home in California. (Uh-oh, I think I’m on a rant now. Better end.)

DKL: LOL. Branbury lost it’s BYU approved status a couple years ago because of questionable activities (like pot-growing) going on there that the management weren’t keeping in check. Since it gained back its approval status, though, it’s kind of gone back to what it was before.

Matt,
If I read you correctly, you misunderstood me in part. I was not suggesting that I was worried that my daughter might hug a fellow student and be accused of violating the honor code. My concerns for my daughter involve how she might be received by fellow students who learn that she has a father who happens to be gay.

The “hypothetical hug” comment was in response to SilverRain, who pointed to the language in the honor code about “expression of homosexual feelings.” I was attempting to point out that none of us can be sure what another person feels. An observer could interpret such a situation as either an “expression of homosexual feelings,” or as an innocent gesture of concern and/or affection. If the interpretation leads, by way of reporting, to an honor code violation investigation, the accused really has no way to prove to administration how he or she was feeling. Does the Honor Code Office operate on the principles of “innocent until proven guilty” and “proof beyond a reasonable doubt?” I don’t know.

Again, if I understand you correctly, you suspect that I am somehow insincere in the concerns I expressed, and that I have falsely claimed those concerns in order to play rhetorical games. Well, there is an example of just what I was saying. You have observed my comments, and reached a particular conclusion about my *feelings.* I can (and do) state that your conclusion is wrong, but I certainly have no way to prove to you what my feelings were.

If I have erred, Matt, it was in raising an issue that was admittedly tangential to this thread. Several people have made very useful comments, which I appreciate greatly (especially rinley, who reported his own experience directly on point). I certainly didn’t expect to be harshly accused by someone who apparently thinks my coming out of the closet demonstrated a lack of love and concern for my daughter.

No apology needed. I was reading more into some of your comments based on other people comments than was there. Threaded comments would be nice sometimes.

Wow, I feel like I’m jumping into a discussion that’s already mvery much going, but Margaret invited me because she said the news was here. I (like Tito) am one of the students who has been involved with this process. Unlike him I was at both meetings (not that that makes us so different); I have been so impressed with Jan so far and the changes that have been made. I am likewise excited for the further changes that are going to come as we continue to meet with top administrator’s over specific departments like the Dean of Students (over Honor Code Office) and The Counseling Center. This did all spring out of us not feeling represented by Soulforce and a desire to begin a dialogue before now had not been occuring. Lest we seek to vilify the administration, Jan pointed out in our first meeting they did not exactly know how to go about getting that dialogue with us. Imagine an administrator walking around Brigham Square with a bulllhorn announcing they want to talk with gays!? Um no. So we have now initiated the dialogue with her and other administrators (as Tito mentioned) and it’s going really well. We are excited to have a voice and help people further understand who we are, where we’ve come from, and where it is we are trying to get.

To just address a random comment or two I read, I am one of the people Margaret referred to who has experienced some of the homophobia which exists on campus, although I would agree that it’s not necessarily “thriving.” But then again we all tend to read too far into words and issues sometimes anyway, no? Also I’ve met Carol Lynn and know Bob and I agree they are great people. They have helpful insights even if I don’t agree with every single thing they do/advocate. I REALLY REALLY loved Margaret’s last comment about our faith being our own, and that there are numerous visions for our Church. I’d just like to say that’s pretty much how I understand these issues as well. I have gay friends all over the spectrum of in the church, out, not sure, dating, not, etc. Lots of them offer advice and help me and that’s great, and works to an extent, but it only goes so far. I believe that struggling is as individual as being human and that, inherently, the path I carve to walk with my Savior in order to get back to my Heavenly Father will be my own and no one elses. They say joy in the journey; I’d amend and state: Joy in the UNIQUE journey. Sure, there are moments where we coincide and overlaps, but there are always different. I think that’s why what we’re doing is harder than some people realize. We are trying to cater to a very diversified audience with different needs, wants, and even goals and that’s harder than I can put to words.

But nonetheless we are trying and the changes are starting and we are excited for more. If anyone has specific questions feel free to email me at: theDOThiddenDOTgayATgmailDOTcom and I’d be more than happy to attend you. I’m not too keen on getting involved with the discussion going on here, only because I’m swamped with finals right now and don’t have much time. Plus Tito’s already got this place pretty well covered.

I guess this means no more french kissing between the members of the football team.

Nick, in my experience, kids really don’t give a damn if you’re “living a lie or not.” At least, not when they’re young. At that age all they care about is whether their needs are being met. Your own needs be hanged.

Gradually, they grow up and start to take something resembling a passing interest in your needs and wants. But even in young adulthood, it’s kind of questionable.

The “living a lie” thing is often used by divorcing couples to justify the breakup, but really, the harsh reality is that junior would prefer you and mom to stay together in misery.

Just an aside, that kinda tangential to the main discussion.

D. Fletcher,

LOL! I’m guessing that the football team will continue to get away with things as long as the police are not involved. As we all know the Provo Police Department is an agent of the devil, or at least of the yewts, and exists solely to persecute the righteous.

Have I every gone on and on about how I stood in line for 45 minutes once to get lunch at that Canon Center? When I got to the head of the line Peter Tuipulotu (sp?) cut in front of me. He was allowed to do so because he was a football player. Then the lady at the door stopped me and asked me to lift up my shirt. She thought I was lowriding my shorts in order to get in. I refused because I felt that my honor was being questioned, and I had no desire to show this woman my rock hard abs. I was not lowriding. She informed me that I would have to change my shorts in order to get in because she suspected that I was lowriding. I then pointed out very loudly that not only had Peter just cut me off in line after waiting 45 minutes, but that he was wearing a t-shirt, a towel, and flip flops. No shorts or pants at all. He looked back at me and grinned and I was promptly kicked out of the building for my crimes.

Nick,

Is this the same nick I met at Ft Sill Oklahoma? I was your sergeant. If so please contact me.. I would like to visit with you . The Lord loves all of us. He wants to see us all happy and experience joy. The fastest way to be joyful is to be obedient. I am sorry to hear of your struggles and know that my prayers are with you .

Jay

Nick,

No less than an unsupported assumption of persecution, the basis of your original question.

But hiding behind your daughter is just phoniness.

The content of your post, that you are concerned about your daughter’s reception at BYU because she has a gay father, is in direct conflict with the effect of posting it on a widely read public blog.

When you say that you (I know I know, not “you” but your poor daughter) will be treated unfairly by “some people” you are assuming the role of a victim.

It is just annoying to hear someone go on and on about how uncomfortable it is for other people to have an opinion about or a response to their overt words or actions.

That’s right, Matt. Keep ignoring the fact that I assumed nothing at all, so long as that gives you the opportunity to feel morally superior. Keep convincing yourself, no matter what I posted, that I have victimized my daughter. Keep telling yourself that I mean something entirely different than what I say, so that you can pretend I’m an uncaring father. If that’s what it takes to keep your faith, then do what you must.

I don’t know how “widely read” Mormon Mentality is, but you make a profound mistake in your related assumptions. You seem to think that I have some big secret to keep, or that I’m afraid of BYU students knowing that I’m gay. Hardly. At the ripe age of 40, I’m too old to be concerned about what kids at BYU can do to me. My concern was for my daughter–who doesn’t (and shouldn’t) have to keep secrets.

I’m thankful for the more rational folks who have commented here, and helped greatly to alleviate that concern.

Nick,

I sorry, it isn’t a question of moral superiority or faith.

It isn’t an issue of secrets, obviously or your could have simply used a pseudonym.

It is the hijacking of your daughter’s attendance at BYU to promote your agenda.

You could have simply said “openly gay and former BYU.”

What would you do if your daughter decided NOT to tell anyone about your sexuality or asked you to conceal it in the presence of her friends and peers?

Nick,

I am not a BYU student, past or current. It would have to be downright fatefully serendipitous for me to ever run into your daughter, even more so in a situation where the subject of a parent’s sexuality would ever come up.

I don’t think that your daughter should be ashamed of anything outside of her own choices (not all her choices, just ones, if any, that she considers shameful).

I really don’t think that this has anything at all to do with your daughter. If her choice to attend BYU is any indication, neither does she.

What your comments suggest that you believe that BYU is organizationally predisposed to harbor or even encourage homophobia. And that BYU would benefit from becoming more socially progressive, particularly towards “sexual minorities.”

I don’t think that you are being completely honest Nick, this language is extremely suggestive.

“This worries me, frankly. Based on my own experiences at BYU twenty years ago, I worry that many students will be uncomfortable hearing her background, and avoid her as a result. I worry that others will embrace her out of misguided pity, and encourage her to further distance herself from me.”

“I understand that many would like to believe that BYU is a wonderful place, with a student body bordering on achieving Zion. I’m asking for a realistic perspective though,”

“This is precisely the sort of “understanding and compassion” that I am worried about my daughter encountering”

“It’s small minds like yours, Matt, who think they already know all life’s answers, that make me fear for my daughter’s well-being at “the Lord’s university.””

There you go, Matt. When all else fails, and your accusations repeatedly fall flat, call the person you’ve attacked a liar–especially if you have no evidence to back up your calumny. You accuse others of “agendas,” yet if anyone has a horse in this race, your persistance in spite of reality shows that it’s you who has an “agenda” here.

I stand by the fact that my experience of twenty years ago left me concerned. I stand by the fact that, in spite of high ideals, BYU’s student body is not perfect. I stand by the other two comments you cite, both of which were specific statements about *your* misbehavior.

What is it you hope to prove by your increasingly desperate grasping for straws against me, Matt? Are you simply committed to railing against gay men, or against former members of the LDS church? Do you think that being loyal to your faith requires you to attack anyone who questions the perfection of LDS operations, such as BYU? Are you hoping that your local LDS leaders read your comments, and consider you a “defender of the faith,” so you can get their recognition and praise? You’re obviously spending far too much energy on this crusade of yours, for you to be acting with any sort of objectivity.

I’ll jump into the threadjack! Matt, why again is it a waste to discuss the honor code and shaving?

“No one is forced into BYU, hence no one is forced to shave. Of all the things to waste energy debating…”

You’re kidding, right?

Nick,

“There you go, Matt. When all else fails, and your accusations repeatedly fall flat, call the person you’ve attacked a liar–especially if you have no evidence to back up your calumny.”

So you called me a bug???

Do you have a reading or comprehension problem, Matt? If so, feel free to let me know, and I’ll use smaller words.

I typed:
“I don’t find you annoying, Matt. I merely find you curious…much like a small insect, under a magnifying glass.”

Now, Matt, in the English language, we have something called “simile.” A simile is when we say one thing is “like” another. That does not mean we are calling one thing another.

Fight the power! Protest shaving!

Very interesting comments on some very interesting steps taken at BYU.

I’m a gay man who likes to see progress toward better attitudes and perceptions of homosexuality even if meager.

I’m from New York and attended a small college in the mid-west in the 70′s. After reading the previous comments I’m even happier never attended BYU but attended a school where being homosexual was never an issue and rarely given a second thought. This is 2007?

Did I miss the post where Nick defended gay marriage by citing divorce rates? Did I miss the place where Matt made any of his attacks against Nick relevant to the original post (which wasn’t about Nick but about BYU’s honor code and its recent changes)? Did I miss the most important post where Christ’s injunction to comfort rather than accuse was over-ruled for bloggers?

There are too many “Matt’s” around here. Matt Bowman and I are going to have to work extra hard to rehabilitate our good name.

Ma,

I mentioned the facial hair rule tongue in cheek, though I do think it is an archaic remnant from before I, a father of three, was born. I have a distain for ridiculous rules that serve more to create a homogenous mass of Mormon youth than brings souls closer to Christ. BYU having a stupid rule like the facial hair rule give our modern day Pharisees one more way to look down their noses at the general membership. How much unrighteous dominion must the masses be subjected to in the name of testing obedience?

hire someone to do your wood work for you

Mutual funds are a safe bet

Navy….brown is so 70′s

dont know much about house bill 9.75.( i think your playing with me on that one)

plastic… it costs less to make and saves trees..

oh….love ya brother..

anything I can do to help..

Matt, I sense some tension between you and him, but that’s something you’ve brought on yourself. Nick started with a comment that expressed some concerns about the statement in a respectful and fair manner. He followed up with a broader comment that expressed some concerns about his daughter’s acceptance at BYU. I don’t see the least bit of contempt in either. I do see contempt in your response.

Matt,

I’m serious even if Kyle isn’t. Just because you see zero need to discuss the no shaving rule doesn’t mean that there is zero need to discuss it. It there was zero need to discuss it then there would be zero need for the rule.

ARJ,

Though I brought up the facial hair rule the first time in jest, I do agree with you. Those kinds of things can and should be discussed. I think they should start slowly, like allowing greek beards, but only on men.

a random John,

Discuss away…

DKL,

What reasons are those?

Matt, I’m just joking. It struck me as a slightly humorous thing to say. I don’t really have any basis for impugning your motives (as much as I’d like to ;) ), but I do think that your reaction to Nick shows exactly the kind of overreaction that you’re accusing him of.

From the link #113

The irony is pretty thick…

# Comment # 15 by:

Nick Literski
April 17, 2007 | 6:41 pm

Personally, I hope Courtney Wickman’s unnamed disability is mental, and profound enough that she doesn’t know her father shamelessly exploited her in order to score a rhetorical point in a largely political interview. Shameful.

Trolls everywhere.

The Deseret News article does what many descriptions of this change have done: it discredits Soulforce.

Jenkins said Soulforce has sought media coverage, not dialogue, and was not the cause of the clarifications. Thirty-one people have been cited for trespassing the past two years while watched by camera crews, reporters and few others. Eight more Soulforce Equality Riders were cited for trespassing Monday at BYU-Idaho.
Jenkins said Soulforce never asked for a meeting with Scharman.
News of the clarifications spread late last week and Monday on blogs where there was some cheering about creating change where Soulforce didn’t.

Now I don’t care at all about Soulforce, but it seems clear from the descriptions that I’ve read that this change would never have happened were it not for the Soulforce protests. Not that they participated in creating this positive change, but those that asked for the change seem to have done so as a reaction to the Soulforce protests.

Attempting to deny that Soulforce had anything to do with this seems less than genuine.

Margaret Young,

Look at -L-’s comment #22 as well as the first blog entry -L- links to. Then Tito’s comment #23. Then Hidden’s comment #61.

Don’t forget your own #35:
Note that this year’s appearance of Soulforce was one of the factors in uniting BYU’s gay population–not to join Soulforce, but to increase sensitivity to their particular struggles in another way than through public arrests.

I’ll admit that your #38 claims that Soulforce damaged the efforts of the BYU students involved in the change, but it isn’t clear how. What does seem clear from many of these comments was that Souldforce was the catalyst for this change.

I know that as Mormons we love to deny being influence by outside pressure, but this case seems pretty open and shut.

I don’t mean to take anything away from the students involved by pointing this out. I think what they did was courageous and wonderful. They deserve credit for taking a bad situation and making it better. I just don’t understand the need to say that this has nothing to do with Soulforce. Recognizing their role as a catalyst doesn’t take anything away from the students that took effective action.

Margaret Young,

I’ll thank you for saying that the case is compelling but I can’t take much credit for the accuracies or inaccuracies of it as I was simply pointing at the comments of others that seem well informed on the subject.

What’s your point? Even if we said, “Yep, Soulforce had an impact” why would that matter to you?

Again, I’m not trying to take anything away from the people that did the work to create this change. I am interested in the process and in how this change came about. It appears to me that some of the accounts are somewhat contradictory when it comes to the influence of Soulforce. I think that the Deseret News article went out of its way to make sure that nobody got the idea that these protests had anything to do with the process. I thought that the accounts I had read including your own indicated otherwise.

I would love to see a detailed essay on this entire process with a small portion devoted to a candid and nuanced look at the influence (both positive and negative) of Soulforce.

As for my point, it is that sometimes when there is external pressure on LDS institutions and then those institutions change we reflexively state that the change came purely from within and that the external pressure was just so much noise.

Simply because Soulforce is critical of BYU/the Church/the Honor Code doesn’t mean that they can’t have inadvertently been a part of this change. Just because their tactics weren’t palatable doesn’t mean that their role should be denied.

My more general point is that we can listen to critics of various aspects of Mormonism, consider what they have to say, and make changes without endorsing everything they say.

I welcome constructive criticism, including yours. I’ve even been known to welcome some nonconstructive criticism as well.

From the standpoint of economy – there is no value added (benefit) to the world from homosexuality. “Reason” supports reproductive behavior that supports reproduction. Intelligence is being able to realize what behavior is not productive and to change it to behavior that is productive. I do not understand why some support homosexuality and argue that point from the stand point of intelligence.

Regardless of the reason of sin – be it lack of intelligence or evil in one’s heart – it is wise for good people to not reach out to those in decieved by sin. Reaching out does not mean that we deny truth calling that which is evil (economicly bankrupt) worthwhile or implying that which is beneficial as something not of value or something to prize. Being a complete parent is something of value to be prized and a great benefit to society. I am sorry if someone finds this truth hurtful. I still care and wish to help but truth must stand when all the dust has settled.

jonathan m

go ahead and delete it.. there is nothing worng with my comment here.. the turd part is funny.

Jonathan M,

it is wise for good people to not reach out to those in decieved by sin.

Better cancel the missionary program.

Interesting conversation.
A random john–good job! Please forgive my tendency to push people a little. I get paid to do it. But what you said in #123 does go deeper than merely the compilation of comments suggesting that Soulforce impacted what happened at BYU.

Church history is full of reactions to outside pressures (moving from Ohio to Missouri to Nauvoo to Utah all were motivated by outside pressure; the abandonment of polygamy was certainly related to the acts and threats of the federal government; and even though there was no direct pressure on the Church to change the priesthood policy in 1978, the world itself had changed and certainly prompted a closer look at why the policy existed at all.)

I think a brief description of what Soulforce did at BYU might be a good idea, so I’ll provide it–though I’d still rather have someone actually involved in the code changes report on the whole thing.

The first Soulforce protest started very well, with friendly discussions and a few warmer arguments. Their pre-planned decision to violate the tresspassing agreement (and thus to invite their arrests) lessened the impact of their second visit, because they were not allowed on campus for that second visit.

Nonetheless, the first protest included poignant moments, where each Soulforce member represented a former BYU student who had chosen suicide as a resolution to their sexual orientation, which orientation had often meant that they were disowned by their families and condemned by the church they loved. The fact that many gay Mormons have chosen suicide must not be ignored. It should draw our attention without any help from Soulforce. But, with a few exceptions, it hasn’t. Yes, it has drawn the attention of bishops working with gay members, and even Deseret Book has published a work by the family of a gay young man who chose suicide. And of course, Carol Lynn Pearson’s latest work focuses on it. (I would be willing to bet that it’ll be heavily hit in the upcoming PBS documentary, too.)

There is such irony in the fact that the very moment when Soulforce could have had the most impact–that moment of personalizing the choices and tragedies of former BYU students–was the moment which mitigated further possibilities of “friendly interaction” at BYU. Nonetheless, I am persuaded by a random john’s careful compilation of the comments–and his good extrapolations–that Soulforce needs to be seen as an important impetus in unifying BYU’s gay community to work within the system for clarification and generosity in the Honor Code.

Jackson,

I suspect you are just the dork who’s been deleted before and a troll, but…

The rewording of the honor code isn’t about whether homosexual activity is OK. It’s about bringing the honor code more inline with the current policy of the church. Believe it or not, but God doesn’t hate homosexuals, and the church doesn’t excommunicate people for being homosexual either. There are consequences for engaging in homosexual activity, but that isn’t what anyone here is discussing. If you truly love the man and not the sin as you say we should, you would have no problem with this post and most of the comments.

Margaret,

Jackson K, Bob Wilson, Fred Phelps, and Jay Marks are all the same person, or at least that is what the system tells me. I think it is unfortunate that someone thinks that they can be legion (pun intended) and therefore make it look like there are a lot of like minded people here.

I suggest ignoring them (him). When he steps out of line by being vulgar I’ll moderate his posts.

Folks, please don’t be too angry at my friend, Jay. He did what he did in good humor, trying to see if he could get a rise out of me. (He’s also new to blogging, and perhaps didn’t realize how seriously some take it all.)

Jay has been a friend of mine since the early 90s, when he was my military instructor at Fort Sill, Oklahoma. He was a great support through what was, for me, a very trying time. We’ve kept in touch here and there through the years, but hadn’t spoken in a while. I’m glad he saw my posts here and contacted me—though you can all imagine his surprise at my subject matter!

Anyway, give him a break, and I’m sure he’ll have many valuable things to say in his future posts. :-)

I welcome any valuable and thoughtful contributions he may make. Assuming multiple identities for the purposes of a practical joke strikes me as not too high on the valuable scale, but I guess we can all take this as a lesson learned.

Could we unitedly choose which five minutes we’ll designate to being angry–sort of the opposite of joining together in a fast?
Nick, when would you like to begin?

I wasn’t going to thrust it into the universe. I was going to send it into the web. The five-minute glare. I perfected it when my kids got home from dates too late.

I’ll follow your lead and be nice.

yes.. Please post on The Secret.. You will have my full support and comments.. I was thinking the same thing. I look forward to that..

Jay

Thanks for the compliment Nick..

Outside of religion I wouldn’t argue that homosexuality is good or bad. I’d argue that it simply is. I would then argue that society has an interest in people forming stable long lasting relationships rather than encouraging the default of promiscuity and instability.

I’m not claiming that homosexuality is or is not a benefit to society. I’m saying that given that it is a fact of life for a significant percentage of the population society needs to decide what behaviors it wants to encourage in that population.

Even this revised Honor Code policy while not condoning homosexual behavior does recognize homosexuality as a sexual orientation. If you are going to deny that it exists then the debate won’t go anywhere. If you are willing to acknowledge its existence then (again, outside of religious considerations) society needs to decide if it is going to try to encourage these people to:
– Remain celibate
– Attempt to have heterosexual relationships
– Have long term homosexual relationships
– Have short term homosexual relationships

There are probably other options, but you get the picture.

I’m sorry, what exactly are you proposing?

a random john

from #147

“Outside of religion I wouldn’t argue that homosexuality is good or bad. I’d argue that it simply is.”

“If you are willing to acknowledge its existence then (again, outside of religious considerations) society needs to decide if it is going to try to encourage these people to:
- Remain celibate
- Attempt to have heterosexual relationships
- Have long term homosexual relationships
- Have short term homosexual relationships”

I don’t see how society can decide (can “society” decide?) to encourage or discourage without having a discussion as to whether or not it is good or bad.

It might be interesting for SOME in this conversation to do a google search on “two spirit people” to see how some Native American peoples approach the subject of homosexuality.

MAC,
“I don’t see how society can decide (can “society” decide?) to encourage or discourage without having a discussion as to whether or not it is good or bad.”

Discussions of “good or bad” are matters of moral judgment, and present particular difficulties in a pluralistic society. For example, the majority of Americans in the 19th century held the opinion that plural marrage was “bad,” based upon their own narrow, bigotted religious views. This judgment was used as an excuse to unjustly persecute believers in an unpopular religion at the time.

When it comes to governing a pluralistic society, might I suggest that the proper questions have to do with whether something is harmful to the populace. For example, does a particular activity infringe upon the property rights of others? Does a particular activity threaten the safety of others who do not consent and/or participate? Society exists largely for the purpose of protecting the rights of individuals (even if the governments of the world sometimes forget that point). It is troubling, to say the least, when “society” takes it upon itself to limit the rights of others, where there is no threat to others.

Nick said: “For example, the majority of Americans in the 19th century held the opinion that plural marrage was “bad,” based upon their own narrow, bigotted religious views. This judgment was used as an excuse to unjustly persecute believers in an unpopular religion at the time.”

Not a good example, Nick. Because I agree with most of what you say, I really want you to find a better example. Not all of us are eager to defend polygamy, and in fact the reasons why society might deem a behavior “bad” according to your definitions (“Does [it] infringe upon the property rights of others? Does [it] threaten the safety of others who do not consent and/or participate?”) happen to apply to polygamy. Welfare fraud is significant in modern polygamy and DOES impact property rights of others. The Warren Jeffs case (one of several) has indeed shown that many young people had their safety put at risk and their marriage/sexual choices coerced. That’s bad behavior.

Your other examples are good (elderly couples, infertile couples), but this one doesn’t work.

I’m still not quite with you, Nick. I guess I’ve read too many journals of pioneer women who really struggled with polygamy. Isn’t there a better analogy?

MAC,
Your “evidence” is hardly useful. The author of the article you linked to admits that he is only reporting an alleged corellation. Because he admits that it is utterly impossible to prove that gay marriage actually *causes* the conditions he claims, he sits back, and confidently declares that the corellation should be “good enough” to bolster the denial of basic civil rights to gay persons. I suspect that if I were to write an article, claiming that various positive conditions were corellated with legal gay marriage, your author would be among the very first to declare that I had engaged in a logical fallacy, by mistaking corellation for causation.

I do appreciate you linking this article, however, just as I appreciate the other conservative LDS who have previously posted it on LDS blogs as “evidence” against gay marriage. The simple fact that people who wish to deny civil rights to gay persons must settle for such meager “non-evidence” is demonstrative of just how little support *reality* gives to bigotry, even when that bigotry is perpetrated in the name of deity.

Meager “non-evidence” is a matter of opinion. It rings true to me (ringing is there an echo in this chamber?)

I am content with the labeling of “bigot” in as much that I am intolerant of things that I believe are wrong.

You don’t expect me to just capitulate and agree with your point of view because you say so, I might disappoint you more than I already have.

Give me a smidgen of credit for at least listening to your point of view without attempting to insult me directly.

Hey folks, I liked the article, that’s why I linked to it.

I think that sexual orientation is plastic in some cases, other cases not (how’s that for alienating everybody).

The protection of marriage as a traditional institution may be a stronger incentive than what the government is capable of doing (as Nick pointed out, I am a conservative, I don’t TRUST the government).

English major I am not.

I guess what I am saying is that an external incentives may be a moot point once we have defined marriage and family away into an amorphous whatchamacallit.

MAC,

All the government can provide are external incentives. If they are meaningless to you then live your life without regard for them. I’m certainly not married because of external incentives, though there are some on the margins that probably are.

Chino Blanco #148 Just so we are clear I do not define marriage as a civil right. I do not believe that citizenship requires marriage nor do I believe that marriage requires citizenship. Perhaps you would be willing to provide, as defined by current law within the USA, what right are denied to homosexuals? And why you are sure that homosexuality is the cause of such loss of rights. Please reference for example the “Constitution of the United States of America”.

jonathan m

Jonathan #170:
First, I find it telling that you responded to my #152, but completely ignored my #154. You have an interesting habit, I notice, of creating your own unique definitions (such as what constitutes “insanity”)and then demanding that the discussion conform to your definitions. Likewise, you reject out of hand the idea that forming family bonds is a civil right (by the way, both the Constitution of the United States and the Supreme Court disagree with you), and THEN insinuate that Chino can’t tell you that homosexual persons are denied any rights on the basis of sexual orientation.

I did, in fact, provide you with the “compelling reason” that you sought, yet you entirely ignored it. Let me repeat:

“That said, I will give you one compelling reason, taken from your own religion. Your scriptures teach that “men are that they might have joy.” The simple fact, Jonathan, is that being a gay man brings me joy. I spent many years in misery, trying to be heterosexual. As described in your “Book of Abraham,” I found “there was greater happiness and peace and rest for me” when I embraced who I am, and began to live openly as a gay man.”

Now, Jonathan, I suppose you may wish to assume this is “only” a benefit “between each other,” as if homosexual persons are of so little value, that a benefit “between them” is of no worth.

Those who have a more comprehensive view of the human family (not to mention those who understand fairly basic Mormon theology) understand that joy experienced by even one person is, in fact, a benefit to many others, whether they are aware of it or not. The newspapers are full of stories where joyful people have blessed the lives of others. The newspapers are also full of stories where joyless people have destroyed the lives of others.

If you can’t accept this simple fact, Jonathan, then I think you need to be more honest, and admit that your only real definitions of “insane” is “someone who doesn’t agree with Jonathan.” Likewise, your only definition of “hate” would be left to “disagreement with Jonathan.”

You actually go so far as to say:
“I will also imply (unless someone can demonstrate otherwise) that if starting tomorrow there were no homosexuals – ever again – that society would fail or in any way be negatively affected). Is there reason to think otherwise? If so please share it.”

Such a point of view is rather frightening, Jonathan. Such a point of view has been used to justify murder on grand scales, against many groups of people.

I’m not going to lecture you, Jonathan, on the contributions which homosexuals have made to society. First of all, you’d ignore it. Second, if you couldn’t ignore it, you’d claim that none of those contributions had anything to do with the fact that the achievers were homosexuals. It’s all about your little definition game, Jonathan, and I can spot the plan of attack a mile away.

[...] path is heterosexual marriage. I’ve been following the discussion here and I’m also following a similar discussion on Mormon Mentality prompted by the recent changes in the honor code at BYU. It just so happens [...]

Two words: Harlem Globetrotters

The basketball analogy might be one of the dumbest, inapplicable, nonsensical things that I have ever read.

Nick,

Actually, I’m asking Jonathan to consider whether society should encourage certain types of living arrangements or whether he prefers that society ignore these relationships entirely. Of course it doesn’t matter because he won’t respond.

Nick,

“I think the benefits to society in recognizing and encouraging long-term, monogamous gay relationships are both numerous and significant. Even if we only examine the question from the viewpoint of public health, there are several benefits to be gained for society.”

Is there a down side?

a random john,

I would prefer to hear it from a proponent, will you pick up that banner?

“all you’ve been asked, if anything, is to stop trying to impose your religious views on those who don’t share them.”

unfortunatey nick,

those that have the “truth” will fight to the death that they are right and you are wrong with no regard to what you believe is truth. they forget that you have freedom of conscience. they forget that you have the right not to believe in god. and they forget that their “religious opinions [should never] prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others.”

I’m sorry that fine people like yourself have to prove that you are worthy of the same rights that most people in this county enjoy freely.

Nobody is dismissing Jonathan’s religious opinions as defective. In a diverse group, however, simply stating one’s religious viewpiont is not an adequate way to settle a question. Those of us who don’t happen to share Jonathan’s religious opinions are not going to be “brought into line” with his thinking, merely because he forcefully states what his religion leads him to accept as true.

If I believed the moon was made of green cheese, I would not be able to put an end to all discussion of the moon’s nature merely by stating my conviction that it was made of green cheese. Others who believed differently would be quick to point out that my “argument” was unsupported.

Mac, I don’t see a “down side” to recognizing and encouraging long-term, monogamous gay relationships. I understand that there will always be religiously-motivated individuals who would be angered by such circumstances, because they feel motivated to conform the practices of the larger society to the values of their specific religion. To those people, there is a “down side,” in the sense that (according to their belief) a deity will be offended.

In my experience, Mac, most arguments made by those who seek to prevent gay marriage are largely scare tactics, without foundation. I am convinced that any person who looks at the situation rationally will conclude that if I was allowed to legally marry my partner, your marriage to your wife would in no way be endangered.

Indeed, the only argument against gay marriage that has any “fact” to back it up, is the argument that such would extend spousal employment benefits (insurance, etc.) to same-sex spouses, which in turn would cost money. That much, in itself, is true. However, it doesn’t wash as a justification to deny gay marriage, any more than it would have been a justification to deny interracial marriage. A gay man who has a dependent partner is entitled to that benefit for his partner, just as a straight man is entitled to it for his wife. To deny the gay man this benefit, on the basis of the gender of his life companion, is in effect to require gay men to do the same work for less pay.

You will have great difficulty, Mac, in convincing me that allowing my partner and I to have the same legal rights as a heterosexual married couple is a “down side” to society. It costs society nothing to allow my partner to inherit my share of our assets if I predecease him. It costs society nothing to ensure that I am able to be by my partner’s side in the hospital, if he is dying or seriously injured or ill.

May I remind everyone of the words of our former Prophet, Seer, and Revelator Spencer W. Kimball:

“How like the mistletoe is immorality. The killer plant starts with a sticky, sweet berry. Once rooted, it sticks and grows a leaf, a branch, a plant. It never starts mature and full grown. It is always transplanted an infant. Nor does immorality begin in adultery or perversion. Those are full grown plants. Little indiscretions are the berries indiscretions like sex thoughts, sex discussions, passionate kissing. The leaves and little twigs are masturbation and petting and such, growing with every exercise.”

While little twigs have never personally been a problem for me, it is not too difficult to infer from this the abominable form of this full grown plant of perversion — I shudder to even think it.

MAC,

I agree that there might be unanticipated consequences to allowing civil unions. The, “we don’t know what things will end up like,” argument is vague but somewhat persuasive. It is an appeal to classical conservatism. What we have right now might not be ideal, but the alternative might be much worse in some way we can’t predict, right?

However you are still attacking the issue from only one side. So far nobody will respond to my assertion that there might be benefits to society if we select to not ignore homosexual relationships.

MAC,

I’ve acknowledged what I see as your argument. I think you make so logical leaps in your last comment. For example, I lived in MA without my marriage being destroyed. Will you engage with what I’ve said?

mfranti,

You missed the whole point.

I am not saying that legal marriage exists to make babies.

But that the legal protections directed at marriage exist to protect the children who are the inevitable product of most traditional marriages.

If then “marriage” is offered to any group of persons, the legal benefits of marriage no longer serve their intended purpose.

ROTFLMAO:

Of course [MA's] redefinition of marriage has not changed the internal (your and your wife’s definition). But the relationship between the state of MA and its residents has.

Anyway, Mac, sorry, but you must promise to never, ever again accuse anyone of missing the point. People are starting to get upset, and I’m trying to help you out by letting you know that you’ve somehow apparently missed out on the last 200 years of cultural evolution. As such, successful interaction with those of us here sharing space with you in the 21st century might present a special challenge to you. Don’t give up, just be aware of your own unique challenges …

Case in point:

If marriage was simply a bundle of rights, shouldn’t it be extended to any “household?”, two widows living together, a parent and an adult handicapped child, roommmates …

Can you appreciate how insulting the above is to couples who married for love? “Love” being one of those terms apparently lost in the 200-year gulf between us and you.

(Not to mention to widowed flatmates, parents of handicapped children, and roommates. Have you heard any of these groups clamoring to redefine their friendship or parenthood as “marriage”? If I’ve missed this, please bring me up to speed.)

I congratulate anyone whose marriage produces babies. You have society’s eternal gratitude. You also have a baby. Which some people will never have, whether by destiny or design, but which, in either case, is really none of your concern, daddy, so you might want to consider worrying less about your relationship with the state of Massachusetts and more deeply about what it is in your inane ideas that makes them so insulting.

MAC wrote:
“And answer to an anticipated argument
Does this mean that male/female couple who are not capable of having children be restricted from marriage. No, because their marriage does not redefine (and in so damage) traditional marriage, it simply is a non-productive marriage of the old fashion sort.”

No, MAC, this is no answer at all. You have already claimed that the purpose of marriage is reproduction. Knowing that your argument is nonsense, you try to hedge with what can only be a non-reason. Your statement above simply means, “Well, I like that kind of marriage, so it’s okay with me if they can’t procreate!” You fail to provide an actual *rationale* reason why infertile couples should be allowed to marry, if as you claim, the purpose of marriage is procreation.

Clarification

I am not saying that the “purpose of (legal) marriage is procreation”

What I am saying is the legal sanctification of marriage exists to promote those aspects of marriage which contribute to a stable society, namely the development of the next generation.

If the legal definition of marriage is changed, then the reason for giving it any special legal status is no longer.

Is it in the state’s interest to prevent non-procreative couples from marrying? No. But it isn’t in the interest of the state to extend legal recognition to them either (in my humble opinion).

Will redefining marriage effectively undermine the basic reasons for giving legal recognition to marriage, I think so. Unfortunately, the only way to prove one way or another is to do it and observe the results. But once that is done, there is no backsies. It will not be possible to take back the consequences.

The most instructive example is the effect of the welfare system, which has removed the responsibilities of paternity, and the examples of the negative social impact are too many to count.

a random john,

I see where you are coming from. I don’t disagree that there may be a benefit to encouraging stable relationships, of whatever sort.

But…

To restate. Before we extend legal rights to non-traditional relationships, can we have a discussion about why marriage needs any sort of legal sanctification in the first place?

The government recognition argument cannot be disconnected from legal paternity (among other issues).

Fine, MAC.
Your argument specifically applies to the marriage of Adam and Eve, which lacked what you have stated to be “social benefits.” Your post #194 makes this clear.

MAC,

Thanks for engaging.

Again, I do not think it is clear that the raising of children is the bulk of the reason for societal promotion of heterosexual marriage. I think that there are clear benefits to society that have nothing to do with children.

Should society only give marriage benefits to couples that are actively raising children? Should those benefits all go away when you have no more minor dependents?

There are a whole set of rights and benefits associated with marriage that have nothing to do with children. In fact, the list of rights and benefits surrounding children is relatively short.

I agree that children are important. I do not see how you can say that they are all important and that the debate about long term relationships needs to be centered on the topic of pro-creation. I think that you’ve found the one distinction between the two relationships and have given it disproportionate weight in order to make your argument.

Can you make an argument that doesn’t depend on children? What is the harm in society providing incentives for long term homosexual relationships?

Nick,

I simply don’t agree that

your own deity and scriptures VIOLATE “my” claims as to the purpose of marriage

You will have to do a little (well ok, a lot of) explaining. I don’t see in anyway how the scriptural account of Adam and Eve invalidates the argument for procreation being an objective of marriage (is that what you are saying?)

But it is neither her nor there, because I was talking about the legal, not biblical, grounds for sanctified marriage.

a random john,

Again, I do not think it is clear that the raising of children is the bulk of the reason for societal promotion of heterosexual marriage. I think that there are clear benefits to society that have nothing to do with children.

There are social benefits to a lot of things, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they should be codified into law. The legal basis for marriage law is very much about paternity and its legal responsabilities.

Should society only give marriage benefits to couples that are actively raising children? Should those benefits all go away when you have no more minor dependents?

Which benefits? Tax benefits, they do. Education benefits, they do. The list goes on. These benefits do go away when the minor children do. Yes, I am ok with that.

There are a whole set of rights and benefits associated with marriage that have nothing to do with children. In fact, the list of rights and benefits surrounding children is relatively short.

Things that can’t be handled with wills or power of attorney? Do they require marriage, or even civil unions?

I agree that children are important. I do not see how you can say that they are all important and that the debate about long term relationships needs to be centered on the topic of pro-creation. I think that you’ve found the one distinction between the two relationships and have given it disproportionate weight in order to make your argument.

The dis proportionality of procreation to the argument is certainly a matter of opinion.

Can you make an argument that doesn’t depend on children? What is the harm in society providing incentives for long term homosexual relationships?

I don’t think there is a reason for the state to get involved in providing incentives for or against.

I don’t need to change the subject, MAC.
I’m not the one left with a deity who doesn’t live up to my own standards of morality, let alone good government. :-)

Correction, MAC, that last sentence of yours was one of your attempts to *change* the subject. Even if that was the original subject, you have provided nothing whatsoever to back up your claim. It’s just an unsubstantiated, emotional argument, which you (like so many others) are repeating from various religionists and conservative commentators. You’ve given nothing to respond to.

Your own sacred texts indicate that Adam and Eve were married by deity, while unable to procreate. Your texts give no idea how long Adam and Eve remained in that state. It could have been a day. It could have been a hundred years. The fact remains, your scriptures teach that they could not procreate until the Fall occurred.

Therefore, your own deity instituted marriage WITHOUT the procreative ability you tout as its purpose. If your sacred texts say anything at all about deity’s purpose for marriage, it would be the declaration that it was “not good for man to be alone.” This would indicate a need for companionship and love, not baby factories.

Of course, faced with the FAILURE of your own deity to uphold your moral and political opinions, you’ve resorted to repeated efforts to change the topic of discussion.

Nick,

You are being pretty selective when you ignore “go forth and multiply.” You appear to be very selective in what you want to hear.

But again. I was not discussing the religious underpinnings of marriage, but the legal underpinnings of state sanctified marriage.

I’ll make you deal…since we can’t seem to agree on what we are actually talking about (though a random john seems to get it).

Tell me again exactly what you want me to answer, and you answer this question. Fair?

What are the reasons, historic and current, behind the legal status of marriage?

a random john,

If we make any modifications to marriage then marriage is ruined. Completely.

Not ruined, we have removed the justification for the origins of state recognized marriage. Society should protect all of its members.

But marriage is not simply a benefits vehicle, it is most effective way to produce and sustain a healthy population. That is why it has a special status in the eyes of the law.

What vehicle would you suggest society use to encourage long term, stable homosexual relationships?

Society? Well that’s a tough one. In a narrow, governmental sense, I don’t think that there should be an encouragement specific to homosexual couples.

In a broader social sense, which I understand you to mean benefit programs. Most of which can be handled outside the framework of marriage.

An aside, I think there is a part (again part, not all) of “gay culture” which is all about not having long-term, stable relationships. So getting some of those people on board might help you cause.

MAC,

I should add that I’m happy to admit that some legal recognition of homosexual relationships might lead to fewer cases of mixed orientation marriages and thus fewer children. I am not sure what I think of mixed orientation marriages. I admire couples that approach them with their eyes wide open. It isn’t something I would want for myself. Anecdotally, my experience is that usually one party is not aware that they are in a mixed orientation marriage and that it ends badly. Of course I only hear about the ones that end badly and not the ones that go well, right?

insert an n’t into my “should”.

thank you.

mfranti

and why not? why shouldn’t an honest, contributing member of society not be able to enjoy the same benefits that you enjoy?

Because marriage is not simply a benefits package. It is legal condition to insure that paternity is established and creates a recognized relationship between husband and wife and their children, in the eyes of the state

you say:

“I am not making the argument that marriage must equal children”

but every time you are called on your position this is your argument:

“It is legal condition to insure that paternity is established and creates a recognized relationship between husband and wife and their children, in the eyes of the state”

or this:
“But marriage is not simply a benefits vehicle, it is most effective way to produce and sustain a healthy population.”

or my favorite one:

“Because marriage makes babies, society needs babies, babies deserve mothers and fathers, babies with mothers and fathers make a better society.”

I wonder why you are so damn afraid?

Mac, I am married and I am not planning on going forth and mulitiplying.

so ask me why I am married?

your very funny.

my religion says so.

MAC,

I appreciate your willingness to participate in this discussion. I agree that raising children is an important aspect of marriage. I do not agree that it is the foundation for legal sanction of marriage. I don’t think you’ve presented any historical or legal evidence that this is the case.

Even if that were the case there is a compelling argument (Nick states it well in 230) for providing some form of recognition of homosexual unions. These relationships look very similar to marriages expect for the natural ability to procreate. I understand that you consider that difference to be a show stopper. In my mind it is a reason to distinguish between “marriage” and “civil union”.

I do not see how granting civil union rights to homosexual couples would remove the basis for the special legal status of marriage. It seems to me that the two arrangements appeal to two separate groups of people and they shouldn’t interfere with one another.

At this point I think we understand each other’s position and we’re talking in circles. I’m willing to give it a rest.

How very sad, that anyone would consider formally recognizing love and committment between homosexual partners as defining marriage “down.” It seems quite the opposite, in my mind.

Nick,

I didn’t think it would change your position.

I just wanted to get on record as having made the point.

Nick,

I’m pretty sure that Chieko Okazaki has made similar statements.

KyleM

You beat me to the punch.

To describe the “same for everyone” argument as spurious is inaccurate and belies the nuance of Elder Jensen’s statement.

This kind of overreaching makes it difficult to consider Nick’s position.

Here is the Elder’s Jensen’s entire response, for context

… What is the official position of the church on homosexuality?

… Our position on that is that there is a single standard actually of morality for all members of the church, and that essentially is that we abstain from all sexual relationships and sexual relations prior to marriage. Once we do marry, we are loyal, completely loyal, to our marital partner, and that the only marriage sanctioned by God is of a man to a woman. As Paul said, “Neither is a man without the woman nor the woman without the man in the Lord.”

So there is really no allowance within our doctrine for a homosexual relationship of woman to woman or man to man. Obviously that creates a lot of pain. It has created a lot of pain for me just because I’ve known some of these wonderful people who have these feelings, who have these thoughts, who have these desires, and I’ve worked with them in my official capacity as a church leader. … I’ve sat with those that have tried for years to transition to a more traditional way of life and who haven’t been able to produce those feelings in themselves that would permit them honestly to marry. …

The thing that we have to ultimately say … is, yes, there’s nature; yes, there’s nurture; but there’s also agency. We all have the capacity and power to choose. If you’re going to live your life within the framework of the Gospel, within the framework of our doctrine, then you’ve got to choose to marry someone of the opposite sex, and if you can’t do that honestly, then your choice has to be to live a celibate life. That is a very difficult choice for the parents, for the young man, the young woman, for whoever’s making that choice, and my heart goes out to them. I think we’re asking a tremendous amount of them.

And yes, some people argue sometimes, well, for the gay person or the lesbian person, we’re not asking more of them than we’re asking of the single woman who never marries. But I long ago found in talking to them that we do ask for something different: In the case of the gay person, they really have no hope. A single woman, a single man who is heterosexual in their thinking always has the hope, always has the expectation that tomorrow they’re going to meet someone and fall in love and that it can be sanctioned by the church. But a gay person who truly is committed to that way of life in his heart and mind doesn’t have that hope. And to live life without hope on such a core issue, I think, is a very difficult thing.

We, again, as a church need to be, I think, even more charitable than we’ve been, more outreaching in a sense. A religion produces a culture, and culture has its stereotypes, has its mores. It’s very difficult, for instance, in our culture not to be a returning missionary. What about the young man who chooses not to go, or the parents who marry and for whatever reasons don’t have children, or the young woman who grows old without marrying, or the divorced person? I think we can be quite hard — in a sense unwittingly, but nevertheless hard — on those people in our culture, because we have cultural expectations, cultural ideals, and if you measure up to them, it’s a wonderful life. If you don’t, it could be very difficult. …

I totally agree, Aaron. The only issue I had with Nick’s comment was the jab at the end.

[...] Other blogs talking about it: 1. Mormon Mentality – specifically comment #61 http://www.mormonmentality.org/2007/04/12/byu-honor-code.htm 2. Sunstone [...]

-L-
I’ve known Elder Holland personally. I have tremendous respect for the man. I think he exhibits tremendous warmth, love and compassion toward others. In fact, it would not be an exaggeration for me to say he’s the model of what I would consider the “ideal Mormon man” in character. I had intimations that he would one day be an apostle many years before he was called as such.

Unfortunately, I can not find a single statement by any president of the church, let alone any declaration of an actual revelation, that homosexuality is limited to mortality. While apostles are sustained as “prophets, seers and revelators,” the statements of an individual apostle do not carry the authority that the president of the church does, to actually define or declare doctrine.

In the part of the interview you quote, Holland compares homosexuality to his niece’s infertility, and says that “these” conditions will not exist after mortality. Laying aside the issue I have with considering homosexuality some sort of “birth defect,” I think this explains the logic behind Elder Holland’s (and Elder Hickman’s in the mock interview on lds.org) opinion. If homosexuality is indeed a biological disorder of some sort, then it is entirely logical in LDS doctrine to conclude that it will not exist before or after mortality. At the same time, however, LDS leaders admit that we simply don’t know the “cause” of homosexuality, so this sort of reasoning can’t be very conclusive.

In addition, I think this idea may be taken from the Proclamation on the Family, but it requires a stretch (dare I say a misunderstanding?) to get there. The Proclamation states that gender is eternal. For those who assume homosexuality is a somehow a contradiction of gender, the Proclamation could lead to an assumption that homosexuality is limited to mortality.

Personally, I really wish Elder Holland hadn’t used the phrase, “gender confusion” in referring to homosexuality. The so-called “gay community” is made up of diverse groups, just like the rest of society. While there are effeminate gay men who fit the old stereotype, there is also a considerable segment of gay culture which could only be described as “hyper-masculine.” Gay men who identify with this part of the community (like myself) are quite happy being men, to the point of practically celebrating masculinity. When someone uses the phrase, “gender confusion,” to describe homosexuality, it sounds to me as if they are assuming that all or most gay men are “confused,” and really want to be women.

So yes, -L-, I have to say that I still consider this “false doctrine,” unless and until it is actually based on revelation to the person authorized to determine LDS doctrine. I realize, however, that accusing an apostle of “false doctrine” is rather strong words. Do I think it contradicts already-revealed doctrine and scripture? Yes, I do. On the other hand, I suppose reasonable minds can differ on that point. Perhaps it would be best for me to say it is “speculative doctrine.”

Wouldn’t a statement by an apostle stand as a pretty good doctrinal default when no statement has been made to the contrary? I see no contradiction to the scriptures, as I’ve mentioned before. Add to this Wickman’s statement (that was likely given review prior to posting on the church’s website):

What Nick is getting at, and he can correct me if I’m wrong, is that an apostle when speaking on his own is not definitively speaking doctrine. The president of the church is the only person who individually holds the keys to revelation on behalf of the entire church. Even then, on most important issues, the doctrine will be presented in unanimity as the first presidency and the quorum of the 12 before it becomes doctrine. To become cannon, it must then be sustained by the body of the church.

I’m not saying if Elder Holland is right or wrong. I’m just saying that just because Elder Holland is an apostle doesn’t mean that every word from his mouth is absolutely true doctrine. Your mind will explode if you try and reconcile every statement on every subject by every apostle, even without including all apostles in previous generations.

-L-:
Thank you for posting Elder Wickman’s statement, of which I was well aware (and which I referred to, above). Of course, he is a seventy, and has even less authority than an apostle does when it comes to determining the doctrine of the LDS church.

I understand that you do not agree that this opinion contradicts the plain words of Alma in The Book of Mormon, though I’ll admit that to me, it takes some considerable “wresting of the scriptures” to take that position.

If a president of the church declares the idea that homosexuality does not exist outside of morality to be the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, then it will be more than just the personal opinion of two general authorities. Unless and until then, I’m really quite comfortable concluding that it is merely a reasoned opinion, extrapolated from the opinion that homosexuality is some sort of biological “defect.”

From what I know of Elder Holland (I was a student of his at BYU), he would be the first to agree that his individual extrapolation does not constitute a declaration of the doctrine of the LDS church.

Yes, MAC, thank you for catching my typo.

As for “overreaching a little,” I think it’s best to “overreach a little” by concluding that these two general authorities have stated what, for them, is a reasoned conclusion.

The other alternative would be to suggest that they are “overreaching” their own callings by declaring new doctrine to the church, when they don’t have the keys to do so. From what I know of Elder Holland, I honestly can’t see him acting beyond his authority in such a way, and I have no reason to think that Elder Wickman would, either.

In either case, the opinion stated by these two men cannot be construed as the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, since the one who holds the keys to determine doctrine has yet to declare any such thing.

I don’t dispute what everyone is saying about how doctrines are established as doctrines, become canonical, resolving disputes among various general authorities, etc. But, there is no apparent dispute anywhere among the leadership of the church. The default doctrinal position ought to reside with those whose calling it is to teach and interpret the scriptures, and is that homosexuality is a mortal condition. To claim that those who interpret the scriptures at odds with your view are “wresting the scriptures” is amusing when the implication is that your view is authoritative and the general authorities mentioned are the ones guilty of wresting the scriptures (presuming, of course, that they read the scriptures as consistent with their views publicized on the church website and elsewhere).

You can believe what you want, but your calling a view shared by multiple general authorities and disputed by none “false doctrine” seems a little bit laughable.

Neither of those quotes sound speculative in tone to me.

-L-, let’s be clear. We’re talking about an opinion expressed by exactly TWO general authorities–one seventy and one apostle. No president of the church has ever taught such a viewpoint. There is simply no ground there to say that it is the doctrine of the LDS church. This has nothing to do with whether I agree with them or not–I’d disagree with the teaching if Gordon B. Hinckley stated it too, but at least HE has the authority to say what is the doctrine of the LDS church. A single apostle does not. A single sevently certainly does not. Whether they are right or wrong, the statement they made is not the doctrine of the church.

I have to admit, I just don’t see how that is so difficult for you to grasp, unless you subscribe to a very non-Mormon idea that individual general authorities are somehow infalliable.

Nick, you’ve been abundantly clear in repeating the same legalistic view of doctrine that I often see on the blogs. It’s consistent with a recent news release from the church itself in which the point is made, “A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church.” I have no problem with that and I completely agree with that.

However, when a topic has not been clarified one way or the other by the president of the church, it is certainly reasonable to give merit to statements by multiple general authorities consistent with multiple other church publications over the years and the scriptures (far more than you have been willing to acknowledge, and which I think I’ll post about some time). I don’t care if we use the word doctrine (it was you who called it “false doctrine,” which is certainly unwarranted given no DENIAL by the president of the church over the pulpit in conference if you want to be so legalistic about it). But provisional doctrine, or default doctrine, or whatever non-binding non-legalistic way one may want to refer to the concept, it carries far more weight than your opinion and is far more likely to be doctrine if and when such an affirmation takes place officially. Your disparaging of views by others on this post and recent ones elsewhere is just unsupportable.

I think I’ve “grasped your point” all along, but you can try to be clearer and clearer in repeating yourself if you like.

-L-
I hope you noticed above that I tempered my label of “false doctrine,” for just the reason you cite—that it has not been declared false, any more than it has been declared true. I resorted to calling it “speculative doctrine,” which I think is the fairest way to characterize it.

You are certainly free to agree with the reasoned opinion of Elder Holland and Elder Wickman. I have no problem with someone trusting their reasoning. My only objection here has been against taking this opinion as “the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,” especially given that the official doctrine of the LDS church is, for many LDS, the entire end of discussion on a topic.

Just a clarification from a lurker.

MAC keeps talking about “state sanctified” marriage. Maybe he means, “state sanctioned,” for the state can’t sanctify anything unless it’s a theocracy. Hmmm…

I am sorry that I do not have to time to live on the internet.

I am told that there have been responses to my question of benefit to society that come as a direct result of homosexual relationships. The only response at an attempt of benefit is that a poster said the homosexual relationships bring happiness to those homosexuals and that is a benefit to society.

I responded that there is no benefit to society in selfishness. Being happy with one’s self is not a benefit to society. I have not fostered any ill towards any person. All that I have said is that if there no homosexual sex in the world for 1000 years there would be no failing or ending of society. Because there is no benefit to society there is no loss to society should it go away. There is no reason to think homosexuality is beneficial. We cannot make that same statement about heterosexual behavior (though some insist the two have equal value). If there was no heterosexual behavior in the world for 1000 years there would be no human society. Dah!!

The two are not the same and should not be thought of as the same – If someone thinks that homosexual behavior is as important to human society as heterosexual behavior then yes I think they are a nut job. I do not think they are capable of reason.

Jonathan M

Nick Literski #180

I regret that you do not recognize children as something worthwhile and something to cheer about. You may laugh that there are still parents that love and appreciate children. Please stop belittling children like they are worthless. They are not worthless – have some respect.

Jonathan M

Jonathan M,

I’ve responded to you multiple times using simple logic. I’ve never mentioned personal happiness as a reason, have I?

Your inability to constructively engage on this topic is spectacular.

While I’m at it, I’ll throw out that some cultures value people that you don’t. Samoan culture has an example of this.

Nick,

While I agree with much of what you say, please keep it at least superficially polite.

A random john–do you mean Nick should have spelled “please” correctly?

a random john #277:
You’re right. I should not have referred to Jonathan as “jackass,” and I apologize for doing so. I should have said that his *behavior* was that of a jackass.

Nick, are you sure about that?

Beth, #269

Just a clarification from a lurker.

MAC keeps talking about “state sanctified” marriage. Maybe he means, “state sanctioned,” for the state can’t sanctify anything unless it’s a theocracy. Hmmm…

Yes, you are right in a strictly modern, American sense “sanction” is a better word that “sanctify.”

But the origins of the recognition of the legal implications of marriage are much older than that and the distinction isn’t nearly that clear.

Thanks for appreciating my comments though, that was a lot of typing.

The “origins of the recognition of the legal implications of marriage” occurred when theocracy, or at least state sanctioned religion, was the prevailing power structure. It also occurred when the social environment, including that of sexuality, was vastly different than today. The disillusion of marriage was illegal back then until a King decided he would rather not kill off his wife in the usual manner of ending a marriage. He then created his own state sponsored religion and changed the legal definition of marriage. Some nobility in some areas even laid claim to brides on their wedding night. Thank goodness legal marriage is different now. Even marriage being about happiness is a relatively recent development. I’d say marriage today is vastly different than at the time of the origins in marriage, even without considering same sex couples.

In short (too late), I don’t buy that marriage should be the same as when it was legally instituted or that it is a valid argument against SSM.

KyleM

Yes, I have heard all that before.

But it doesn’t answer the question that I posed earlier which is why does secular recognition of marriage exist in the first place.

My answer being that it creates a socially and legally recognized structure that best protects and raises the children which are the product of sex. That the social/legal interest in marriage is primarily for that reason, otherwise lets just do away with legal marriage entirely and let whoever sanction our marriage do so, but the state doesn’t need to be involved at all.

Or to state it in a different fashion, is the social interest in promoting and protecting marriage primarily to benefit the individuals being married or the offspring come from that marriage (in a social capital sense).

MAC,

I am actually opposed to SSM. I just disagree with the idea that marriage is primarily about perpetuation of the species. I think that is a very simplistic view of marriage.

KyleM,

I am not making the argument that marriage is all about “perpetuation of the species.” But I am repeating myself, please go back and read my previous comments if you are interested.

Nick,

is that being a gay man may provide a bit of freedom from traditional “male” behavior, but it’s certainly not the same thing as being a man who wants to be a woman. This “two-spirit” concept seems more akin to the latter.

That is an example of exactly what I mean, there has been an unfair use of the Native idea of two-spirited people. There have been attempts by people to co-opt this idea, infuse into the current debate surrounding gay marriage and modern gay issues generally. It is certainly not universal among tribes and there is little actual evidence about what “it” actually was. But there has been certainly a dearth of input from Native peoples themselves, many of whom would prefer to have their culture left out of this part of the culture war.

Of course, there has also been an unfair use of religion. There have been attempts by people to co-opt the religious concept of obedience, and use it to create an otherwise non-existent debate over gay marriage, under the theory that entire societies should be required to live under the dictates of one particular faith tradition. In Mormonism, this sort of power grab is best exemplified by the propositions of Lucifer, as reportedly given in the Heavenly Council. It is, in fact, the very definition of “unrighteous dominion.”

MAC,
Nope. In fact, danithew’s #294 must have been posted while I was composing my #295. Reading what he said, I certainly don’t understand what you mean, when you suggest that I was “just messing with him.”

Perhaps that was your way of ignoring the point I raised?

MAC, don’t be obtuse. Read #295.

MAC, I could be wrong, but I suspect that most real Mormons would be following Joseph Smith’s “Mormon Creed” on the subject, if they weren’t being told by church leaders that gay marriage must be opposed. No matter what arguements they invent, it comes down to “because we think God said so.”

And since you probably don’t know what Joseph Smith said the “Mormon Creed” was, I’ll tell you. It was “Mind your own business.”

danithew,

None of the comments in the last month have anything to do with the post. It’s best to ignore.

Nick,

It is my turn to ask you not to be obtuse.

I will repeat again. I have not said that

“the purpose” of marriage is breeding

The argument that I made was that the justification for the legal/societal recognition of marriage exist to create the structure which allows the best results for its next generation.

Whether or not a marriage results in children is immaterial.

Why the state would have any reason to inject itself into a personal matter is the question. It is obvious that you are interested in reducing legal marriage into a bundle of rights. This view is simplistic and incomplete.

MAC and Nick Literski,

I’m writing from my own vantage point – not representing the Mormon Mentality permabloggers as a group. In fact, some of the permabloggers may disagree with my current approach to this.

Having said that, it is my impression that the two of you have a capability to argue with each other endlessly and that your argument is only vaguely connected to the subject matter of the post itself. Furthermore, it’s not that great an argument anyway – IMO it’s a waste of space. So I would prefer that the two of you find somewhere else to argue. If you both want to continue and give your permission, I can provide each you with each others’ email addresses, so that you can interact directly.

danithew,

Ahhh, come on. Indulge me just a little while longer. I only need 30 (or 29 now) more comments to be the 3rd most prolific commenter.

No, we don’t need to do it by email. That wouldn’t be any fun, I would hazard a guess that Nick isn’t interested in me hearing his arguments.

I’ll shut-up if you all are tired of my opinions.

Nick, most people who argue on the blogs will stop after awhile – satisfied that they made their point and having other things to do. There are 308 comments on this thread and 50+ of them are yours. If you haven’t been able to make your point by now I don’t know if you ever will.

Oh, sorry, I see that you are gay.

Nick-

While I support a lot of what you have said, and I appreciate your comments, I have to take issue with this remark, “The LDS are free to believe as they are told to.” This statement is one gigantic contradiction, that I am sure was done intentionally. If you feel that the LDS church is such a dictatorship where all of the lemmings are told what to believe, why are you even bothering to post here?

While I don’t understand why heavenly father has allowed individuals to have attractions that when acted upon are deemed “immoral”, I know that acting upon them is immoral. I am glad that I don’t have to reconcile, what seems like an entirely unfair hand to be dealt. That being said, I am fully supportive of some sort of civil union for homosexuals. Additionally, I think what Elder Jensen said is telling and true. I sympathize with your plight, but yet while difficult the policy of the church is simple and true on this subject. You can’t have it both ways.

Wow! 316 comments. I’d like to thank each and every one of you for making this MM’s most prolificly commented on post. But isn’t it getting a little silly by this time? It feels like a very zesty ping pong game.

Margaret,

My hold on the 4th most prolific commentator position is tenuous. You are right on my tail. Don’t make me keep coming back

Seems to me like the “shut your d*&$%m pieholes” comments are having the exact opposite of effect of their intent.

MAC–come back as often as you like. I originated the post (Joven= Young), and I plan to include it on my CV (resume) forever–unless someone can get something started which would bring in 400 comments or more. Isn’t there something else that people are dying to comment on? We passed the “Global Warming” conversation in comments a few days ago. What else gets people eager to comment? Can we do some kind of personal attacks? Oh, looking back–we just did…
And I don’t use the word d*&$%m. That’s a rarely spoken dialect of Zanzibar which means “tasty and thoughtful.”

What’s with the multiple personalities folks? It seems woefully unfair to the neophytes or the uninitiated.

Let me see if I can come up with some alternate, yet equally charged topics. It will probably be a challenge since, to be honest, sex sells. Even Zanzibar is tangentially on topic, remember Freddy Mercury?

But race is a close second. Ecclesiastical abuse, as a subtheme, seems to be woven through many of the posts and appears to get the hackles up. I am sure that anngb and DKL will jump on that bandwagon.

Maybe they would accept a guest posting on that certain kind of illiberal and bloggernaclely distinct political correctness which rears it’s head in comments like “its best to ignore” or (no offense given or taken) “this just seems silly.”

holy cow, what’s kept this post going for so many comments?

MAC–I am SO prepared to talk about race/priesthood restriction, etc., but I am going to ask you to avoid that subject out of respect for what I’m actually supposed to be doing with my time. See my husband’s blog about the temptation of blogging–and my own 9-step program designed just for him. (He is supposed to be writing a book on family in Shakespeare’s time.) Link: http://www.faceofother.blogspot.com . I am trying really hard to re-focus my sights. Please, don’t tempt me with the one topic I can’t resist.
I’ll check in on this conversation once in awhile, just out of curiosity. Let’s see if we can get 400 comments. Would that be an all-time high in the bloggernacle? Could we get listed in Guiness?

Just when I thought I was being shutdown.

So let me recap.

The opposition to gay marriage cannot be confined to simple religious bigotry. There are secular arguments against.

Legal marriage is not just a compilation of “rights.”

That ought to get it to at least 350 comments.

Daniel, are you having stress? LOL

What he’s really saying is
shutup shutup shutup shutup shutup shutup shutup shutup shutup shutup shutup shutup

well, he’s more screaming it as he’s running naked down fifth avenue pulling hair out

danithew,

Jaime and I might be moving back into the city in the next few months. I might be tempted to pull out the camera and shoot ya runnin’ naked down fifth avenue pulling your hair out….

danithew,

Is this like the car wreck you can’t help but look at even though you know your shouldn’t? I’m just currious how you can let something like this be a source of irritation.

danithew,

Let them beat it here too.

MAC,

Legal marriage in not just about paternity either. :)

Personally, whenever possible, I like to take detours on Madison Avenue. It’s just that there are wider sidewalks on Fifth so it’s easier to dodge the hot-dog men and other sidwalk traffic.

Also, I wear sneakers. I have my limits.

What’s really sort of comical, Margaret, is that danithew finds the issue of gay marriage SO disturbing, that he chooses to run naked down Fifth Avenue—thus exposing himself as the possible object of omosexual lust! That’s quite a strategy! LOL!! ;-)

NICK–that’s brilliant! Post everything twice and we’ll hit the goal even sooner. And I haven’t seen Danithew naked, so I can’t say whether or not it would provoke homosexual lust. Might it actually make somebody reconsider his sexual orientation?

Okay, fifty-five to go. Why do I feel like getting out the pom poms?
I regret to inform you all that I need to go home now and help my son do a report on Tanzania. But I wanted to make a significant comment on Tanzania in relation to this conversation.
Tanzania had a remarkable Olympian named John Stephen Akhwari who competed in the 1968 Olympics (Mexico City). More than an hour after the race had been won, Akhwari entered the stadium, bloody, bandaged, limping. When asked, “Why didn’t you quit?” he said, “My country did not send me 5,000 miles to start the race. My country sent me 5,000 miles to finish the race.”

People, we are aiming for 400 comments, after which we will meet at Danithew’s house to watch him demonstrate his protest style and have Nick decide if it’s a good protest or a bad one. We will have root beer floats and pickled herring.

Remember, we are out to FINISH the race. It was not enough merely to start.

A final word to MAC before I head home:
I just passed you up as a frequent commenter. I did this strategically. Three comments in a row. Come on, Man! Follow the example of John Stephen Akhwari! You have a tiny window to pass me right here, because I will be working on a 9th grade geography report with Mr. Michael Young for the next several hours. This is your chance!

Holy crap. They serve coke at the MTC????

Growing up in the Church, but never having lived in the Mormon Culteral Area, I have always romanticized Utah, especially Provo. It is still shocking to me that they sell cigarettes in all the stores.

Then you hear something like coke at the MTC and even if it is decaffeinated there is still that tiny little visceral response.

MAC,

I’m actually a bit surprised that I’ve commented so much on this blog. Most of that was pretty early on, and usually on the political posts.

Nick, it isn’t the topic that bothers him, it’s the pointless argument. I get into those every once in awhile, where I can’t stop trying to make the other person come around to my point of view. I am into it, but it gets tiresome for everyone else. The contention gets tiresome.

Daniel is a quiet peaceful person.

Unlike most of the rest of us.

Dan and danithew are two different people. You’ll note that permabloggers are exempt from the race being run here.

I am not danithew. but the Daniel that annegb is referring to is danithew. I don’t think annegb thinks of me as a “quiet peaceful person” especially in regards to “pointless arguments” especially about politics. :)

Don’t worry, Bookslinger.
One day, science really will identify a “gay gene” that can be identified in utero, and then all these right-wing religionists will suddenly think legal abortion is a good idea.

You Know Everything About Same-Sex Marriage

… because you already know everything there is to know about same-sex marriage.

That’s right, you already know everything there is to know. There are no surprises anymore, so each side of the battle is really just waiting for the other to lose steam, change its mind, or age out and die.

In case you think I’m trying to avoid engaging the arguments, here are the major talking points from both camps:

Arguments against same-sex marriage:

(1) Marriage is an institution defined historically as the union between one man and one woman.
(2) Children are optimally cared for in homes with a mother and a father.
(3) The purpose of marriage is procreation and societal stability.
(4) Same-sex marriage is an untested and dangerous social experiment.
(5) Same-sex marriage is part of a slippery slope to universal depravity.
(6) Gay relationships themselves are immoral.

Arguments against the arguments against same-sex marriage:

(1) You don’t have a bit of evidence for any of that, and
(2) Please, quit being a jerk.

See? No surprises.

Now, I want to confess that I’m very gay, and the rest of this article will be biased appropriately. I also want to confess that I have no idea what marriage is. That’s ok, though, because if we had enough time and wine, I’m pretty sure you’ll discover that you don’t either. This should not prove any impediment to the conversation.

You might notice that the arguments against same-sex marriage seem to be more numerous than the arguments for it. There are two reasons for that: first, most of them aren’t actually arguments against; and second, arguments don’t get you very far in this sort of thing anyway.

Let’s start with that first part. Even though I put six things on the list, most of them aren’t arguments against same-sex marriage at all. Argument (1), for example, isn’t against same-sex marriage–it’s for the strengthening of hetero-sex marriages. Same with (2). Argument (3) is similar, except that given the now-public knowledge that men and women don’t have to be married or even in the same room to conceive a baby, it actually argues for extending marriage to anybody willing to raise a kid in tandem.

Two of them are just smoke screen distractions. Argument (4) has always sounded silly to me, because everything new is potentially dangerous, and same-sex marriage isn’t untested anymore; and Argument (5) is popular among juridical thinkers, but is equally a non-starter in the real world. Really it is: why can 5th cousins but not 4th cousins be married? Because we drew the line there. Why will allowing gays to marry not automatically allow people to marry patio furniture? Because we’ll draw the line there as well. Those who find themselves in a committed relationship with a wicker bistro set will have their own fight to fight. I will happily stand behind their right to love whatever they love. They, however, will be responsible for figuring out the tax implications of their blessed union.

That brings us to Argument (6): Gay relationships are themselves immoral. What can you even say to that? Nothing. That’s when you stop the debate and see if the person wants to grab dinner one night instead. Then you move in down the street a few years later, go shopping with them, watch their dog while they’re out of town, invite them over for Super Bowl parties, call them to gossip, swap turns carpooling the kids to school, and just live. It might take five or ten years, but they’ll figure it out, without you ever saying a word.

The nice thing about the “against same-sex marriage” list of arguments is that it isn’t getting any longer. They’ve had thousands of years to tell us why we’re broken, and about forty years to figure out why we can’t get married (the first American cases were in 1971, according to HRC). Based on what I’ve been hearing for the past 27 years of my own life, it sounds like they’ve run out of new ideas.

On the other hand, every committed same-sex couple is another argument for same-sex marriage. Every kid who comes out is another reason to quit being a jerk and let him dream of white picket fences and a family and love and all the stuff that other kids think they’ll have before they learn how the world really works.

I’m highly optimistic that over the next ten years we won’t need arguments anymore. There is no need to debate what you can plainly see: that it’s love that makes a family, and the energy and breath we waste fighting over who should be a family could be much better spent supporting and encouraging the families that continue to exist whether we legally recognize them or not. It doesn’t require even a minute of legal research, or a page of historical reference. It needs neither clever twists of equality doctrine nor the due process guarantee. To see that same-sex marriage should not be denied any longer takes only a single ounce of kindness.

Wish I’d said it.

And I wish my comments would post properly.

The writing credits go to Robert Latham, whose Op-Ed I excerpted from:

http://mblog.lib.umich.edu/RG/archives/editorial/op-ed/index.html

Chino

I hate this rewording. It’s so insulting I can’t even believe it. Fortunately, it does clarify that there are two differing standards of morality in the LDS Church (and BYU), despite the rhetoric otherwise. The standard for heterosexuals is to remain celibate while dating and engaging in romantic pursuits. Holding hands, kissing, and getting all cuddly are perfectly fine and acceptable per se.

But the standard for homosexuals? No touching, no holding, no kissing, no NOTHING. A dreary life without love. How pathetic! It makes me weep. And the Gay students who “helped” write this? What in the world were they thinking???

Connell (#365):

Please cut the martyr act. There are plenty of single heterosexuals (never married, divorced, widowed) of all ages, who don’t get to kiss, hold hands or cuddle either.

#many: Margaret, you never cease to amuse me. I am still laughing. Your sarcasm has no limits. Only 31 to go!!! Let’s see if this can drive some more responses… and return us to the original topic at hand…

#365: Connell, As one of the Gay students who “helped” write this I feel qualified to respond to this comment. First off, the LDS church does not approve of homosexual relations. We all know that. The Proclamation to the Family, etc. make it clear that our purpose is families, and that is defined as man, woman, and kids. While I recognize that society is embracing other definitions and that there are plenty of happy homosexuals couples, I am not in a position to facilitate such change. I also happen to believe in my church. Which is exactly why the rewording is exactly what we wanted. It was change that was feasible, I could drive, and it worked. The environment at BYU was not previously conducive to even struggling with this. Just telling someone that you dealt with this was grounds for getting the boot. Our goal was to make BYU a more open place where people can talk about their struggles, receive support and friendship, and not have to worry about being judged when they have done nothing wrong. Sexual orientation is not an Honor Code issue, so I can be open, honest, and up front with the way that I feel. This by no means classifies me as a sex act, or someone who–to be true to himself–must act out. Being TRUE to myself can involve that fact that I love my church and my God enough to realize that I can choose, and I choose my testimony. Sure, I get flak for this, but I’m thick-skinned. And pretty strong. It takes will, resolve, and drive to stand where I do. I can be mormon first and gay next. This doesn’t have to encompass every little tidbit of who I am. That’s not a lie, it’s not denying who I am; I love who I am and I am fine with the way that I feel. I’m not an expert, and don’t have all the answers, but I’m fine not knowing everything.

God’s in charge and he’s way smarter than me. I just have to keep taking one step, and then another, until I get back to him. And I will. No matter how long the fight, no matter how hard the journey…that’s where joy is. And to that end was I made.

This also relates to #367: Bookslinger, I don’t know that Connell is entirely copping a martyr act. I would say this to you: The comparison to heterosexuals in the church who don’t marry is NOT a fair comparison to us by any means. First, they are heterosexuals living in a heterosexual society. At any time they feasibly (not saying it will happen, but the possibility is there) can find someone, get married, and their loneliness is at an end. What the church asks of us is much, much harder. We have no end, no way out, no solution except celibacy. They at least have options and potential.

~Hidden

Sheesh, Bookslinger, who’s playing the martyr?

It’s already been admitted that sexual orientation is real.

What more could you possibly want?

Rabblerouser.

As a follow-up on this thread…
Back at #328, I mentioned that The Advocate had picked up my comment from the Salt Lake Tribune. As it turns out, the same comment has shown up in several other media outlets, much to my surprise.

How? Well, my daughter works at an LDS bookstore, managed by her mother. I used to manage the same store. Apparently, some faithful soul evidently was so offended by my comment, that they felt it important that they clip it out of some media source, and mail it to that bookstore for my daughter to read! She wasn’t upset by the comment at all, but I really had to chuckle at the bizzaro mindset of whoever mailed the article.

getting so close…

To the magic number of 400 posts, of course! :-)

but still so far away…

Discussing the number 400 or the topic?

somebody please segue to “don’t ask, don’t tell” , it’s topical, and it’s only 16 to go …

Now, when will BYU remove the stupid beard rule…

Dan,

In gay slang, a beard is a companion of the opposite sex used to hide a homosexual’s sexuality by appearing in public as if the two were a heterosexual couple.

In light of which, I can only ask, what are you really trying to get at with your comment #387 ?

Republican.

ouch, them’s fightin’ words dude.

I actually didn’t know that about the beard. I’m guessin’ you’re sayin’ that Brigham Young and Joseph F. Smith were hidin’ somethin’ eh.

You know what? There’s a site (Great Firewall of China) where you can check if your website is banned in China.

The Good Democrat is banned in China! So there, all y’all who think Dems are in cahoots with dem commies!

Wow, that is fascinating, Times and Seasons is NOT banned in China. I wonder why…

Fight to the finish, then? fwiw, I thought you were dissin’ HRC. I got no beef with BY and JFS.

Wanna weigh in on how clueless the Republican slate of candidates is about “don’t ask, don’t tell”?

and there I thought I was the proverbial old China hand …

#393:
No, but maybe Gordon’s compensating for something with that giant supernacle? JUST KIDDING.

Nick,

Now I know why Mormon Mentality is banned in China. Lines, buddy, lines.

They’re not always there just to be crossed …

I guess 500 is out of the question.

Wow…I read your mind before your post #407 appeared!

386. Chino, I had un-Christlike thoughts well before my first comment.

My experience has been that only Times & Seasons is reliably available behind The Great Firewall of China … the rest of the bloggernacle appears to be mostly blocked based on casual/random attempts at accessing it from Shanghai and Beijing.

Now I came across this comment at Times & Seasons today, and apparently it is exactly the same situation in Saudi Arabia as well:

http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=4027#comment-231983

What’s up with that?

Great Rant Houston. You brought up a lot of good points.

These people are evil. Let people live their lives and stop being asses. Not only are they restricting homosexual behavior, but you can’t even say that it’s acceptable.

Jonathan:

“From the standpoint of economy – there is no value added (benefit) to the world from homosexuality.”

“There is no reason to support homosexuality. There is no benefit to society to support homosexuality. Without benefit there is no reason.”

First, Jonathan, I assume you accept the reality that certain individuals (between two to five percent of the population) are homosexually oriented. Second, I assume that you also accept that a homosexual orientation is usually very difficult to change, if not immutable. Given this, we can see that the decision to “support” (or not support) homosexual individuals in certain ways will not significantly impact the number of individuals who are homosexually-oriented, regardless of their hypothetical “benefit to society.” If you disagree with either of these basic assumptions, please explain your objections and I will try to address them.

Given these assumptions, it is reasonable to ask how such individuals can best contribute to society. As you have explained above, the generally accepted model for heterosexual adults is that they find an opposite-sex partner whom they wish to marry, in which context they produce and raise offspring.

However, marriage does not only benefit society by providing a context for child-rearing—it also increases the happiness, security and stability of the couple themselves. Married partners can divide domestic labour effectively—one person cooking and cleaning for two is less work than two people cooking for themselves. They share basic living expenses—again, two people making joint financial decisions spend less than two people making such decisions individually. If one loses their job or has an accident, the other can help shoulder the additional burden; the net reduction in quality of living is less than it would be for a single individual. Emotionally, a loving, intimate partner is an enormous boon, to the improvement of physical, mental and spiritual well-being.

You may argue that these are “selfish benefits,” but healthier, happier, more financially stable individuals are an asset to society—indeed, they are the very essence, the building blocks, of a healthy society. Opposite-sex marriage helps to provide these benefits for heterosexual individuals. However, there is good reason to believe that marriage to an opposite-sex partner would not improve the overall well-being of homosexual individuals, due to the strain of labouring under an expectation of intimacy with a partner to whom one is not sexually attracted, or a partner who is not sexually attracted to oneself; indeed, there are numerous examples of such partnerships ending in divorce or worse. (Nick, whom you have encountered above, is a case in point.) It is far more likely for homosexual individuals to find happiness and stability in a relationship with another homosexually-oriented partner of the same sex. Thus, it would be eminently sensible for society to encourage such individuals to enter into a relationship which is analogous to heterosexual marriage, but with the affordance of a same-sex partner.

It is quite simple. A healthy, happy, stable society is composed of healthy, happy, stable individuals. Anything which benefits a significant number of individuals in a society (and a percentage greater than one in fifty is certainly significant) without severely impacting other individuals is desirable.

Also, numerous studies concerning gay parents show that same-sex couples have similar parenting outcomes to opposite-sex, married couples—the generally accepted “gold standard”. As such, gay couples are well-positioned to adopt or foster children. This in turn has an improving effect on children who would otherwise lack primary caregivers, and furthers society’s interest in raising happy, healthy children.

I think its interesting that in the book of mormon, the law during the reign of the judges could not punish man for his belief. I think the attempt to regulate or exclude people on the basis of what they believe to be morally acceptable very closely approximates satans plan to control mankind through force and the elimination of freedom. freedom to believe, and to choose, and to advocate different moralities either needs to be a part of christ’s university, or it shouldnt pretend to be christs. Establishing regulations on behavior, such as practicing homosexuality, is one thing. establishing regulations on belief and expressions of belief, is entirely different. I believe that jesus may be interested in excluding people who actively practice homo-sexuality from the byu campus, he would likely frown on expelling them based on expressions of thier morality. This is my opinion as someone who more or less knows jesus. will i get excommunicated if the church traces this to me? Talk about a culture of fear…. scary.

I don’t accept that supposition at all, for two main reasons:

1. Through modern revelation, we know that such behavior is a sin, and is evil in the sight of the Lord, and

2. We know that the Lord does not condemn us to lives of sin without choice; that is, we are not given any challenge that the Lord does not give us the strength to overcome.

Therefore, your supposition that it is ‘immutable’ is false. People are not born doomed to live such a lifestyle.

That seems pretty normal to me. I want to know what things are considered innapropriate actions.

Rate Rexburg Housing

What do people do for fun at BYU?

Hi,
I really agree that it is quite simple. A healthy, happy, stable society is composed of healthy, happy, stable individuals. Anything which benefits a significant number of individuals in a society without severely impacting other individuals is desirable.Thanks for sharing useful information.

Regards,
Sana

I wasn’t going to add to this but I feel I should. As a heterosexual Mormon who knows and lives with one homosexual male Mormon I can’t begin to tell you of the internal struggle he faces. He has every desire that I have but toward members of his gender. He also has a testimony and intends to live by the covenants he has made. He doesn’t believe he could marry a woman and create a happy, functional, and lasting marriage. He has decided for now to date woman on occassion but knows that more than likely he will be single for the duration of his mortal existence. He hopes in the next life he can marry. I can’t understand how he feels but I CAN listen and love him just as much, if not more, then my other faithful Mormon friends. He has a heavy cross to carry. Nick, while I have to state I don’t believe the homosexual lifestyle is correct, I do hope you the best. DO WHAT MAKES YOU HAPPY. We all make mistakes and we learn from them. Like I said previous, I stay away from all that is the Church except on Sundays. I live the Gospel as best I can and that is simply all I can do. Everyone knows how Mormons feel about the gay “lifestyle” we should love them and accept them and hope they come to an understanding of the Savior. I hope you and your partner a happy and fullfilling life. Live and let live.