I said all along that Adam Lambert was the love child of Liza Minelli and Axel Rose. I guess I’m not the only one who saw the resemblance…

Then how about supporting traditional marriage and family structure because the prophets told us to?

Call me old fashioned, but the last time I checked that was a valid reason.

A recent study at the University of Copenhagen found that Mental illness is less likely for lesbians’ kids. The results of another recent study, out of Canada, found that “Parenting by same-sex families is just as good — if not slightly advantageous — for children when compared to heterosexual families.”

I am writing out of openess and trying to understand, Please tell me some one how homesexual actvitity is normal when there is a penis and a vagina: the necessary tools in creation of our species unless one wants cloning. Please define normal. I think the operative word would be acceptable. Having stating this,my compassion is for all people regardless of ones sexual orientation.

#4 BY said that whoever ‘mixes seed’ is worthy of death, should that advice be followed? The prophets of the early to mid 1900′s highly discouraged interracial marriage, they also came out against certain sex acts between married couples, how is that working out now?

Thanks Devyn for posting this. As a straight parent of a gay child I anticipate normal grandchildren because (for one reason) I haven’t taught my children to be bigots.

Gay parents raising children is a side-issue, and perhaps a distraction to take attention away from the bigger picture. A better question is what will happen when homosexuality becomes totally accepted as normal by society at large, no homophobia, no taboos, no “ick factor”? What will happen to the “marginal cases” of those whose sexuality is not firmly developed, or develops late, or is merely “soft coded” as some suggest?

Today’s children of gay parents still grow up in a society where homosexuality is considered taboo by the majority of the population.

My belief is that when all social taboos and societal disapprovals are removed, the first generation to grow up, or come of age in that society will see homosexuality as a legitimate choice. “Born that way” will be seen as old-fashioned. The concept of freedom of choice will be claimed and applied to the matter, which will foster much experimentation and exploration by those marginal cases who otherwise wouldn’t have experimented and explored due to the social taboos.

Once that first wave of marginal cases crosses into the new territory of exploration/experimentation/choice, and asks for (demands) compassion and understanding and acceptance by others, and receives compassion/understanding/acceptance; then in a few years, the next level of marginal cases will have an even lower barrier because those who went before already got their compassion/understanding/acceptance.

This article about marginal cases claims it doesn’t support one side or the other, but in reality it does. Or at least it illustrated how the concept of marginal cases has played out in other social issues.

The whole analysis of gay marriage in terms of how it affects people who are presently married is moot. The whole analysis of how gay marriage might affect our teens today is moot. The REAL issue should be an analysis of how it will likely affect younger children, or those yet unborn, who will go through adolescence and reach the age of sexual activity in a society (in the near future) where all taboo is removed.

We are already at a place and time where virtually (or essentially) all barriers against premarital sexual activity are removed for those 18 and up; and most barriers have been removed for those aged 16 and 17; and sexual activity among 14 and 15 year olds is not uncommon.

The removal of the taboo of homosexuality is the removal of another barrier. Consider the rate of sexual activity among teens today. Then consider what it might be if a future cohort of teens sees absolutely no difference between heterosexual activity and homosexual activity.

And imagine what the mindset of those future teens will be, after growing up in a school system that has taught them since kindergarten that “gay is okay” and that homosexuality is not different than heterosexuality.

Devyn, the analysis of children of gay parents doesn’t take into account that today’s adult children of gay parents were still raised in a “homophobic” (not that I agree with the term, but I’m using it as a shortcut) society, and future children won’t. The overall society still has a big influence.

This needs to be carefully thought out, because in the future, in order to get post-fact statistics to analyize things, it will be too late to put the genie back in the bottle. The damage will be done.

Your current children will likely not be affected by this. But those yet unborn, who reach the age of sexual activity 16 years from now? Or those age 6 and younger in California, who are already being exposed to the new paradigm taught in their schools.

The paradigm of “born that way”, though not always verbalized in those exact words is not cast in bronze. Once the brakes or limits of a social taboo against homosexuality are removed, the next generation will not have any social pressure to maintain the opinion that the only people who can be gay are those who are born that way.

I envision some future teens, the marginal cases, telling their parents and grandparents: “If there’s nothing wrong with homosexuality, why can’t we try it out? Why can’t we choose it? What happened to freedom of choice?”

And then like out-of-wedlock childbirths over the past 40 years, the marginal cases creep and grow and become a significant factor in society. No, there’s not an overall majority of children born out of wedlock today (though there is in the African American community, 70%), but it’s enough that it has caused significant societal problems.

Oh well, read that link about marginal cases.

10. ed42 – thanks for the comment and good points. Bigotry is such a disease and certainly creates many more problems than it solves.

11. BrianJ – nope I am implying that widespread homosexuality would certainly impact a survival of a species. But limited homosexuality could actually benefit a species from a Darwinian perspective if those who procreate are the best genetic specimens…

12. Bookslinger – thanks Bookslinger – I always enjoy your well thought-out comments. I think you do bring up a larger issue, which Rebecca J begins to address in her comment. Will there be long-term societal impact from this? Lets assume that the scenario plays out as you assume. What will be the impacts – first, the birth rate may fall in the US (arguably this acceptance has already occurred in Europe) although this is unlikely given the percent who may “choose” homosexuality is likely to be small, second, people who are gay are treated as equal citizens – not sure I see the downside in it. But the “freedom of choice” regarding sexuality is in line with Gospel Principles – we are all about agency. Although we may not like someone’s choice, it is their choice in the end and we should respect that. I do not see your scenario impacting Mormons significantly given our strong system of moral teachings works fairly well, even if some Mormon kids do experiment with pre-marital sex. So I am still a little confused as to what the Armageddon scenario looks like here.

13. Rebecca J – nicely put, we just don’t know and it is a large scale social experiment, much like civil rights, inter racial marriage, woman’s liberation. Our society will evolve for better or worse, but, if we truly believe in Mormonism, then it will survive just fine.

Our society will evolve for better or worse, but, if we truly believe in Mormonism, then it will survive just fine.

In that case, I’m not sure why anyone should have strong feelings about anything.

oops, triggered the moderation filter.

bbell, good point. I wonder if that’s held true in the CO2-causes-global-warming and CFC-causes-ozone-holes debates.

Hmmm, I would consider the belief that SSM, and gay relationships in general to be a distorted view of sexuality that should not be encouraged. What % of kids raised in gay partnerships/marriage view gay sexual relationships as both appropriate and praiseworthy? I would imagine most. It would appear CNN asked the wrong question.

#12:
Today’s children of gay parents still grow up in a society where homosexuality is considered taboo by the majority of the population.

That “majority” is quite slim already, Bookslinger, even with marriage equality limited to six states.

My belief is that when all social taboos and societal disapprovals are removed, the first generation to grow up, or come of age in that society will see homosexuality as a legitimate choice.

Notwithstanding my above comment about “the majority,” your idea of a world where “all social taboos and societal disapprovals are removed” is probably a fantasy. In our own country, we still have a substantial number of citizens who express racial and/or religious prejudice. We still have a number of citizens who rage at the idea of women having equal rights with men. We still have a number of citizens who find it offensive that employee unions should have rights which govern employers. The bottom line is we will always have anti-gay bigots.

The REAL issue should be an analysis of how it will likely affect younger children, or those yet unborn, who will go through adolescence and reach the age of sexual activity in a society (in the near future) where all taboo is removed.

Bookslinger, we already live in a world where the larger society’s taboos don’t match the taboos of the LDS church. Alcohol and tobacco are legal, for example, yet most LDS parents are still able to quite effectively teach their LDS children to abstain.

Consider the rate of sexual activity among teens today. Then consider what it might be if a future cohort of teens sees absolutely no difference between heterosexual activity and homosexual activity.

What evidence do you have, Bookslinger, that social exceptance of homosexuality increases teen promiscuity? We could just as easily “consider” the effect of taboos against homosexuality on teen experimentation, since we’re all familiar with the tendency of many teens to seek “forbidden fruit.” Sometimes teens (heck, sometimes even adults) are more prone to try something because it’s forbidden.

And imagine what the mindset of those future teens will be, after growing up in a school system that has taught them since kindergarten that “gay is okay” and that homosexuality is not different than heterosexuality.

I can “imagine” that those future teens will have a mindset less prone to suicide. We don’t get to interview those who “succeed,” but we do know that gay teens are up to four times more likely to attempt suicide than their heterosexual peers, regardless of whether or not they have actually been sexually active.

This needs to be carefully thought out, because in the future, in order to get post-fact statistics to analyize things, it will be too late to put the genie back in the bottle. The damage will be done.

So, the Supreme Court was wrong to overturn laws forbidding mixed-race marriages, since that made it “too late to put the genie back in the bottle,” and there “could have been” damage to society? Religious folks (including LDS) were preaching at the time that interracial marriage would have devastating social effects.

I’d point out, Bookslinger, that your last sentence reveals a rather profound prejudice on your part. You argue that we don’t know for certain the social effect of marriage equality on future teens, but then you explicitly say, The damage will be done. You’ve already decided the effect will be “damage.”

Once the brakes or limits of a social taboo against homosexuality are removed, the next generation will not have any social pressure to maintain the opinion that the only people who can be gay are those who are born that way.

So, Bookslinger, are you telling us that absent social taboos, you might even try “batting for the other side?” What’s that you say? You’d never do such a thing, because the idea of having sex with another man is physically and mentally repulsive to you? Maybe that’s because you’re a heterosexual man, Bookslinger. What leads you to believe that heterosexual teens would be any different in that regard, just because society wasn’t anti-gay enough for you?

#17:
Can you imagine being a prof at a prominent university and studying this issue and coming to any other conclusion due to the overwhelming bias in favor of SSM and homosexual rights that is prevalent at these institutions? Talk about the end of a career in sociology or any other related field. Not to mention the chill at the water cooler. You would become a pariah.

So, bbell, are you trying to say that you believe that the referenced studies were falsified by their authors, in order to avoid professional ridicule? That’s quite a serious charge, don’t you think?

Another point. If there is as claimed a genetic origin to SSA then would you not expect to see the biological children of gay people be more likely to be Gay? Would’nt the studies find this? Then we could have a good old fashioned nature vs nurture debate.

bbell: it’s a hypothesis that would need testing, but genetics are not always that simple.

#28:
If there is as claimed a genetic origin to SSA then would you not expect to see the biological children of gay people be more likely to be Gay?

Perhaps, though it’s difficult to test such an idea right now. Since we haven’t identified a “gay gene” or a “gay gene combo,” it’s not like we can take a blood sample and determine whether or not a person has it.

Current genetic studies rely on whether or not a person identifies themselves as gay, and this is not always a reliable indicator. Last year, a survey conducted in New York City found a substantial percentage (somewhere around 25%, as I recall) of young men who identified themselves as heterosexual acknowledged having had sex with another man within the past 60 days. Kind of like how Larry Craig “is not gay, and never has been gay.”

Here’s an interesting tidbit that we do know, regarding biological factors. With each successive male child a woman carries in utero, the next male child has a higher probability of growing up gay. In other words:
(1) boy #2 is more likely to be gay than boy #1,
(2) boy #3 is more likely to be gay than boy #2,
(3) boy #4 is more likely to be gay than boy #3, and so on.

This suggests a hormonal effect in utero, and also raises some interesting implications for conservative religions which encourage large families.

I’d pay big bucks to go to an Adam Lambert concert.

Sarah said something about kids in elementary school getting homosexual crushes openly and freely these days. That bothers.

Nick, just responding to comment #31, which I find very interesting. Do you have any specific studies/links you can provide about that research? I’d like to read more.

Devyn: come on Axel Rose has better taste than that!

Two words: Beer goggles

Ian/Danithew: That reminds me of a study (can’t find the link handy) that showed a correlation between a certain hormone level in the mother during her pregnancy with a male child, with a tendency to effeminism in the child later on. But if I remember correctly, that study left open the question of the relationship between effeminism and homosexuality. Who was it that mentioned his observation of a noticeably greater proportion of effeminate males in Utah? I wonder if there’s some kind of tie-in to the effect noted in this study.

25. Nick Literski – I would agree that the falling birth rate is not a bad thing given the scenario you laid out

28. bbell – you bring up a good point but the genetics (if they play a role) are so complex for behavioral traits that we are likely looking at the impact of multiple genes combined with environmental influences that result in a phenotype that is only partially penetrant. In other words, it will be a long time before scientists figure that one out.

Interesting studies being tossed about. I had no idea such studies had been done. My family had 8 boys, but no homosexuals as of now.

Bookslinger: “My belief is that when all social taboos and societal disapprovals are removed, the first generation to grow up, or come of age in that society will see homosexuality as a legitimate choice.”

Actually, I’m afraid that horse is already out of the barn. I have kids in their 20s, good Mormons both, and they have gay friends, went to school with gay classmates, and have found them human and acceptable. As have all their other straight friends. Everything you say may be true, but it doesn’t matter. It’s over. All that’s left is us old folks dying, and maybe squealing on the way out.

#28 Bookslinger – Others have commented on your points, but I think that we need to realize that society is going to evolve for better or worse. We then have to figure out how to adapt to it and help our kids deal with it. While not a perfect option, I think that “kicking against the pricks” applies here. How much screaming and yelling is necessary for something that is inevitable anyway. Why not figure out how to live with it?

#44 DJINN – My view is from my experience. Most of my wife’s family lives in Eugene and every time we go there we visit various fairs and the number of hippies sitting around strumming John Denver tunes is always striking. Perhaps I am unfairly applying Eugene to Portland. Speaking of Oregon, I always know I am there when the dominant shoes are hiking boots :)

If we take D. advice we would roll over on everything. LOC, WOW, having kids, getting married etc. Its pretty bad advice.

Bbell – see my comment above to MAC. I am advocating that we realize when a fight is lost and then figure out how to teach our members to deal with it. Seems like reasonable advice to me. Alcohol is legal, ok, so how do we teach our members to deal with that. We can either fight and fight for making alcohol illegal or figure out how to live with it. That is what I am advocating and I think that at some point (I think now) the Church will realize the SSM issue is lost, therefore, how do we live with it.

MAC – I would agree with you on point #1 – I used that as an example that the outcomes are probably worse in some hetersexual relationships than in a SSM so why not focus there as well.

I would agree that it is a giant social experiment, but likely to have minimal impact on the Church – realistically, it is not like the Church was destroyed by women’s lib, repeal of prohibition or the sexual movement. It will survive and maybe thrive as more are drawn to it.

There is likely not a cohesive agenda – but I can’t speak to that, but my point is that some time the Church is going to have to concede that it lost the battle and focus on other issues. I would argue that should be sooner than later. I would hate to see another Prop 8 battle ensue

A big difference in perspective, which has come up a few times before, is that Devyn S. lives somewhere where the issue has been lost, and others of us don’t reside in a New England state.

“I would agree that it is a giant social experiment, but likely to have minimal impact on the Church – realistically, it is not like the Church was destroyed by women’s lib, repeal of prohibition or the sexual movement. It will survive and maybe thrive as more are drawn to it.”

There’s a point there; we have to deal with whatever adverse circumstances are ours, many of which we can’t change. I don’t think the Church just moves on unwounded, though. We lose people to such snares and are hindered in our ability to reach others with our message.

Sam – As John says, my perspective is different being here in NE – the fight is lost and nothing has really changed as far as I can tell. I would argue that “The screwed up morality of various metropolitan areas and select suburbs does not apply to the rest of the US and the world even” applies equally to Europe at this point. They seem to be 10-20 years ahead of us from that perspective.

John – thanks – I think that is the key point – how do we better teach ourselves correct principles and then govern ourselves more efficiently in those areas we have lost. I think it would be interesting (albeit extremely difficult) to analyze the membership impacts both positive and negative of the forces here. My bet is that it is a net positive for the Church as more people are drawn to it looking for a refuge…

If you really believe interracial marriage is the same thing as SSM, then you’re living in your own world and we’re destined to talk past each other.

But since I believe in gold plates, I’ll concede that you’re free to believe an apple is an orange.

John – While you are correct that 5 have SSM, there are 12 other countries that have some sort of recognition and rights for gay couples. In addition, only the new Europe (former Soviet Block countries) have any type of definition of marriage as between male and female. This is quite different from the US. I was also referring to Europe more broadly from a social perspective in that their views on nudity, sexuality, drugs, etc. are much more liberal overall compared to the US.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Same_sex_marriage_map_Europe_detailed.svg

I find the comparison of smoking and alcohol taboos to homosexuality taboos to be interesting. The fact that science has shown the detrimental effects of alcohol and tobacco use, not just for the generation of users, but for their offspring would play such an analogy into the “pro-homosexuality as taboo” hands.

Nick,

Only to some is heterosexual relations/marriage a religious belief. To many it is more part of moral and ethical foundations. Part of this may be a strong belief in right of exclusion as part of their pursuit of happiness in living in a country of convictions.

And let’s not forget that many religious folks believe that following the precepts of their religion is not necessarily a choice.

Generally, I agree with Bookslinger and the comments that those who believe in divinity of heterosexuality or what have you. We shouldn’t roll over and subjugate our opinions and beliefs to the moral positions of others for the sake of acceptance.

I would hate to live in a country where my religious beliefs where governed by the ethical philosophy of another group.

Devyn S.,

In my Psychology undergrad years, I generally found the APA to be extremely humanist- I thought they took the idea of “do no harm” too far to include “hurt no feelings”. To say that Kinsey’s philosophies of unadulterated hedonism and further- eugenics are accepted psychological theories gives a big black eye to the group, IMO. Not to mention the complete ignorance of the APA towards religious psychology.

My point being that what the APA says is normal, can sometimes be grotesque, but most often is guilty of anti-morality in an effort to portray amorality (which is true of many things in society). What the APA says should in no way guide the societal moral compass. The grain of salt ought to be a big one.

Your study is very interesting, though. I spent quite a bit of time studying a similar case involving transgendered parents and their children, and came to a different conclusion. The “transgendering” effect on children that were permanently living within the home of the transgendered parent was beyond the realm of chance. They were often effectually socialized to be transgendered. I think transgendered and homosexual are substantially different ideas, so I’m not entirely surprised by the differing results.

I am very interested to see how such research continues to play out as it inevitably will.

Devyn, within the United States there are also several places with civil unions or domestic registries, so again I don’t see that Europe’s current position on any-sex marriage is much different from the U.S.’s. If Europe is more accepting of homosexuality (and I’m not so sure how true or universal that is; I’ve heard some bits to the contrary), it would show that even if the French, English, et al. accept homosexuality, it doesn’t follow that marriage is viewed as anything other than a heterosexual arrangement.

Also, why is Europe the only point of comparison in social matters? Why are Asia, Africa, and Latin America unworthy of our attention?

Personally, I believe in a society which is openly protective of your right to hold and teach your religious beliefs, rather than a society which enforces your religious beliefs on those outside your faith.

However, I completely endorse the idea that I should be free to encourage my representatives to pass legislation that I support, and that my religious views might inform my political views.

Firstly, the GLBT community is not a monolith in that they all believe they were born gay. My sister, who happens to be bisexual and is an anthropologist believes sexuality is 100% socialization–a matter of choice. She’s far from alone in her views. There are plenty of other examples of people who have touted the same (Cynthia Nixon, for one). So I’m not sure why people are so quick to defend the GLBT community because they were “born” that way. There certainly is not a consensus on that, especially amongst themselves. It seems to be more a way for straight people who are well-meaning in protecting civil rights to defend their position than for anything else.

Secondly I think a main point of opponents of SSM as far as kids are concerned can be concisely summed up in the article

“These children are more likely to experiment with same-sex relationships. They’re more likely to be confused and hurt….”

…Some of the same children, though, face more difficulties dealing with questions about their sexual orientation. Garner, 37, who identifies as heterosexual, says some repress their sexuality because they don’t want to give ammunition to their parents’ critics.

“I know story after story of children who started to question their sexuality but stayed quiet about it out of fear that the truth would reflect poorly on their parents,” Garner says.

The article does little to appease those that fear a loss of sexual morality within society.

66. mmiles – my read on the article was that the questioning by the kids was they felt heterosexual and not homosexual, hence, their discomfort with making their parents feel badly. As for socialized vs genetic – I think at this point no one knows the answer except it is likely to be somewhere in the middle…

#68:
Clearly, Bookslinger is unwilling to actually answer any of my comments/questions in this thread, but I’ll respond to him anyway:

Even if we can’t effect change in the laws, by helping to righteously influence the minds of today’s non-LDS parents to become more in line with the Proclamation, we help their children and future generations have better lives.

So what changes are you really hoping to “effect in the laws,” Bookslinger? Are you hoping to criminalize homosexuality? Maybe send anyone who admits to being gay to a “re-education camp,” where righteous LDS priesthood holders can torture that “homosexual demon” out of them?

I’m simply amazed that you can sincerely take the position that by using civil law to persecute gays, you can make them have “better lives.”

I’d rather see 15% of the population in the future be pro-family than a mere 5%. Both are minorities, but “more good” is better.

Then start by looking in the mirror, and commit yourself to truly being pro-family, and not just pro-LDS-sanctioned-family.

That effeminism in the sons may then have an effect on how the fathers socialize with those sons, which then becomes part of pre-1972 APA’s beliefs on the causes of male homosexuality.

Bookslinger, do you seriously buy into the old stereotype that gay men are “effeminate?” I’d love for you to meet my partner, or most of my gay friends. Their degree of “traditional masculinity” would likely make most of you “righteous manhood” types wet yourselves out of sheer intimidation.

1. Most cases of homosexuality are not inborn. (APA used to point out causes of molestation, grooming/seducing, failure to bond properly with the father, failure to psychologically grow past a certain age level at the correct time, etc.)

How would you actually go about proving whether or not a person’s homosexuality was inborn, Bookslinger? Your “pray away the gay” therapists (most of whom are unlicensed, btw) are fond of saying you can’t prove that anyone is “born gay,” so how can you prove anyone is not “born gay?”

As for your recitation of old theories:
(a) How do you account for all the heterosexual men who were molested?
(b) How do you account for all the gay men who were never molested?
(c) How do you account for all the heterosexual men who never “properly bonded” with their fathers, or who were raised without fathers?
(d) How do you account for all the gay men who grew up with, and continue to experience, wonderfully close bonds with their fathers?
(e) At what “age level” does a person’s “psychological growth” make them heterosexual? Before you reached that “age level,” were you gay?

2. A not insignificant minority of homosexuals do recruit and groom younger men and women into homosexuality. Some likely identify those I previously described as “marginal cases”, and “help them along.”

Likewise, a “not insignificant minority” of heterosexuals do recruit and groom younger men and women into sexual activity. Why do you only notice this in the rare cases where pedophiles happen to be gay? Do you realize that the majority of male pedophiles who molest male children happen to identify themselves as heterosexual? Did it ever occur to you that this is one reason so many of them have no interest in boys who are old enough to display male sexual development, such as body hair? Or did your “experts” forget to tell you these things?

3. The Will-and-Grace public happy-face of homosexuality is a small small minority. Nor are most gays in a stable long-term relationship, not even among cohabiting gays.

Is the Will-and-June-Cleaver public happy-face of heterosexuality a “large large majority,” Bookslinger, or are your experts failing to acknowledge that there are many unhappy heterosexuals and heterosexual couples in the world? Why the use of “public happy face,” as if to imply that any gay couples who appear happy must be faking it, in order to deceive the public?

Just what do your experts believe constitutes a “stable long-term relationship?” Are the majority of heterosexuals in “stable long-term relationships,” or do they demonstrate significant rates of divorce, etc.? Maybe your experts are relying on the famed “Dutch Study,” which claimed that the average gay relationship lasted only 1.5 years. Do your experts mention that the Dutch Study specifically excluded monogamous gay couples from the study? Do your experts mention that the Dutch Study
specifically excluded anyone over the age of 30, artificially eliminating the length of time any of the study participants could have been in long-term relationships? It’s not as if the study was going to identify 29 year old gay men who’d been in a long-term relationship for 20 years.

4. Promiscuity and number of partners among homosexual men is still in big numbers, even post-AIDS. Prior to AIDS, it was so high you wouldn’t believe it, averages in the thousands of partners in a lifetime.

Again, the Dutch Study raises it’s ugly head! Notice that I said the study excluded monogamous gay men, which means “zero” or “one” weren’t possible answers toward the “average.” In addition, the study participants were all chosen from visitors to STD clinics in and around Amsterdam. Could it be that gay men who had to obtain treatment for STDs were more promiscuous than the “average gay man?”

5. Shortened life span due to violence and drugs.

This comes from a “study” by Paul Cameron, who advocates camp imprisonment, castration, and/or extermination as a “final solution” (his words!) for homosexuality. Mr. Cameron’s “study” consisted of reading newspaper obituaries in gay community newspapers, from which he decided that the average lifespan for gay men is a mere 41 years old. Of course, this wouldn’t be a representative sample of all gay men.

6. High incidence of domestic violence. Much higher than heterosexual couples.

Women are believed to be the victim in 85-95% of all U.S. domestic violence incidents, though this is partly due to greater reporting by women. Women with female partners experience slightly lower rates of domestic violence than women with male partners. Among men, it appears that about 23% of men in a male-male couple have experienced/reported being the victim of domestic violence, while only 7.4% of men in a male-female couple have experienced/reported being the victim of domestic violence.

These disparities are probably affected by the fact that female victims are far more likely to report domestic violence than male victims are. Even so, it looks to me like the problem is one of men in general being more likely to commit acts of domestic violence, rather than just a function of gay vs. straight relationships.

Nick,

1) You’re continuously trying to justify behavior by pointing out the flaws in another behavior.

It doesn’t work to say “my behavior is fine because yours is bad, too.”

2) With my comment before, which you absolutely agreed with:

I would hate to live in a country where my religious beliefs where governed by the ethical philosophy of another group.

I couldn’t agree with you more on this, nasamomdele, and I said as much in an earlier comment. I hope you can understand, however, that civil marriage equality does not govern anyone’s religious beliefs.

And your response to Bookslinger:

I’d rather see 15% of the population in the future be pro-family than a mere 5%. Both are minorities, but “more good” is better.

Then start by looking in the mirror, and commit yourself to truly being pro-family, and not just pro-LDS-sanctioned-family.

It seems that your ultimatum that Bookslinger needs to be truly pro-family by dropping his religious convictions and embracing your definition of family is just what you agreed that you would not want: using civil laws to persecute LDS by marginalizing LDS convictions.

We’ve been in this discussion before. Your arguments are hypocritical by subverting one set of beliefs/values/historic claims for the sake of your own.

3) It should not surprise you that it is very difficult for religious folks to redefine family and marriage for the sake of a lifestyle that they see as a threat to their personal well-being should they engage in it. Which engagement is a lot easier when society tells us that the behavior is no worse than any other behavior.

And where our children are highly socialized by their peers, and sexual experimentation is higher among homosexuals or the children of homosexual parents, there is one valid concern that homosexual socialization will affect religious heterosexual children to also experiment, to the detriment of their well-being.

Therefore, it should not surprise you that religious people would rather marginalize homosexuality as a protection of their well-being than submit to the marginalization of their own beliefs.

4) It does not surprise me that most SSM/Gay rights advocates do, in fact seek to marginalize religious beliefs. You all may not hold any animosity in your effort, but nevertheless, religious beliefs are a huge influence against your fight, so they are necessarily collateral damage.

I suggest you think on that and realize that this issue is supremely more difficult and complicated than “achieving equality”- something that will not happen either way the issue falls.

It looks like my #74 is caught in the moderation filter. Can someone please release it? Thanks!

Nick and Bookslinger – it is all those bad words you keep using that put you in the spam filter :) I rescued you though

Nick makes the exact right point (way earlier): LDS parents have always faced the daunting task of raising kids in a society whose norms differ radically from ours, and we have tended to do it effectively. When and if society turns a different way from us: Them’s the breaks.

A lot of this discussion is genuine fear-mongering, unfortunately: if it becomes “acceptable” to be gay, then it’s omigosh-all-the-kids-will-turn-gay. It doesn’t work like that, though: the entire world could have wanted me to connect sexually with my high school team’s point guard, but I don’t think that would have done the trick. It turns out I liked girls. (That said: there may be some truth to it on the margins. But no one has really identified that the margins are very large. The VAST majority would still turn out to be what they are.)

What’s difficult here is absolutely basic to political talk: should you be allowed in the public debate to hide behind a belief system that most (nearly all, in fact) don’t share? Or should you have to support your arguments with something other than “thus saith the Lord”? (And that would be different from the question of what you do in the privacy of the ballot box. There, it seems clear that you can vote your conscience, or according to your personal belief system.)

For my own part (and since I know that some will wonder: that part is as an active high priest and high councilor in my stake), I think that the public argument requires a higher bar than “this is what I believe, and you can pound sand if you believe differently.” To convince others, we should have rigorous arguments and good support.

This adds to that. The original post here wasn’t saying, “You can’t oppose gay marriage anymore,” it was simply saying, “If this is WHY you oppose gay marriage, your ground is getting shaky.” Fair enough, I say.

And then: go in the box and vote however you like.

I just want to point out these concerns about society crumbling -immediately- are pretty silly.

However, it is not silly to point out that allowing gay SSM will most certainly have a detrimental impact (from my point of view, maybe not yours) in 1 maybe 2 generations. Look at birth control, abortion, divorce, even the washing machine. These things may have had an immediate impact (in that they suddenly appeared and changed what people do) but they didn’t alter the fabric of society for years.

It’s somewhat similar to Presidencies. There are a few things the President can do to immediately impact me (world war, heavy taxation), but government is a slow moving beast that tweaks with the foundation of the incoming generations. For the most part I’ll still life my life according to the principles and guidance I was raised with.

The incoming generation that is faced with a whole new set of “rules” will experience a dramatically different world view than I did. And the children they raise will be completely different.

This is one of the reasons why it is so crucial to consistently teach our children gospel principles. I see this often in my inactive family members and friends. They take for granted the up bringing they have, that has led them to become the people they are today — even if they have rejected the church they are still better for having been raised in it. But their children on the other hand are receiving no teachings of the sort. They are certainly great kids, but they are also having to work out various principles and general right/wrong and how one should act by observing those around them, which changes with each new generation.

So I guess my point is, societal changes are a slow moving process and SSM will most definitely affect our future generations, but there should be no doubt that society will not crumble tomorrow or next year if gays are allowed to marry.

So both “the world will end if gays marry” and “Things are no worse everywhere it’s been allowed” are a false dichotomy. Certainly there are changes at the margin, but most of us will be dead or very well into our own age before the adverse impacts take effect.

MFM: No one is saying “all the kids will turn gay.” But look at what happened, over a generation of time, to out-of-wedlock births. It was and is a classic example of President Monson’s “pity – endure – embrace” pattern. Lots of men and women now actively choose having children out of wedlock. How many of them would have choosen otherwise had the social stigma not been removed? What effect has the 70% African-American and 30-something % overall illegitimacy rate had on the social fabric of the US?

That’s exactly what’s happened to homosexuality. It used to be pitied, then endured, and now it’s “celebrated.”

What’s going to happen, over a generation of time, when homosexuality has totally lost its stigma? It won’t appear out of nowhere. It will start small and grow, just like the issue of illegitimacy claiming new and successive levels of “marginal cases” until now 30% of births are those “marginal cases.”

I’ve been saying it will _start_ to be visible in a given locale 11 years after the school there alters their curriculum to present SSM as normalized. With each graduating class adding another percentage or two.

But several people on this blog have commented that they already start to see signs of its beginning.

Also, with the level or layering effect, it doesn’t really matter what is the actual initial percentage of marginal cases, and whether they be the explorer/experimenter types, the unsure-of-their-sexuality types, late-bloomers, victims of childhood molestation (by either sex0, come from dysfunctional homes, or have abusive parents. All those things are relative, and exist in various degrees anyway.

That is because in the “incrementalism” of margin-cases, each grad year class sees what happens in the previous 2 or 3 classes, becoming aware of their choices. So once the one year’s “marginal cases” have established a precedent, the next year’s cases see it too, but also the next “layer” or ring becomes the new “marginal”. The boundaries get pushed.

It then becomes easier for those with somewhat less of an “exception” to claim their exception. Until after a while, there are no exceptions. Nowadays, many MANY more people feel no qualms about intentionally having children out of wedlock than did 35 or 40 years ago.

#84:
You try very hard to be offensive. And to spin words out of context.

“Hello, Pot? This is Kettle. YOU’RE BLACK!!”

You try to play this whole victimhood game, nasamomdele, crying that anyone would have to be “spinning words” in order to dare take your false accusations at their plain face value. The reality, as any honest, literate person can tell from your #84 and other posts on other threads, is that you delight in twisting the words of those you consider your “enemies,” in order to make them appear something beyond the lunatic fringe.

No amount of confronting you with reality is going to make a difference, because of your ulterior motivations. Enjoy your little game, and rest assured that for 90% of your readers, it’s plain that your “emperor has no clothes.”

72. MoHoHawaii – thanks for your comments. I think they were very level headed and right on.

Bookslinger and Nick – you guys are talking past each other. Personally, I think that many of Bookslinger’s premises and assumptions are very inflammatory and insulting to homosexuals. I think the key is that we are all brothers and sisters, some choose different paths and that is ok. Do we have to agree with everything that others do? No, but we should try to understand their decisions and not make such inflammatory remarks about them. Does the LDS Church frown on homosexuality? Yes it is seen as a sin, but President Hinckley (I think) mentioned that we should love everyone. So to me we should find points of understanding.

Gail, yes we are talking about peoples’ lives, but we are not only talking about the lives of homosexuals. Heterosexuals have a place in this argument and we have lives, as well. We have feelings as well. I am so sick of “minorities” thinking they are the only ones who have a right to feelings.

“How much of the excessive behavior that causes problems in the lives of homosexual behavior not in direct response to a society that so completely rejects who they are and the feelings they can not change?” I think you left out some words and I’m confused what you are trying to say here. Can you extrapolate? Because if you’re saying that society’s excesses are causing homosexual behavior, that seems to defeat the premise that homosexuals are born. Or are you saying homosexual excessive behavior is in response to society’s rejection?

annegb,

I am heterosexual man, and yes we do have lives, feelings, and we have a part in this. But, with all do respect there seems to me to be a significant problem in the way we in our Mormon culture treat our homosexual brothers and sisters. One indication of this is the fact that three times as many homosexual Mormon men commit suicide than Mormon straight men.

I apologize for my lack of clarity.

I was referring to this comment:
“Just in the temporal earthly realm, the homosexual lifestyle is generally one of unhappiness, violence, emotional upheavals, concommitant mental/emotional problems, and shortened life-expectancy (and not just due to AIDS). (I chuckled at the children-of-lesbians link above, because though the children may have less mental health problems, stats show that gays/lesbians themselves don’t have less. The two uber-cool mommies of Heather in the storybook are the exception, not the rule.)”

We see behaviors like promiscuity and drug abuse in some homosexual community. These excessive behaviors typically lead to the types of unhappiness that Bookslinger is referring to. Not that these behaviors are not alive and well in some heterosexual communities as well. My question is are not many of these excessive behaviors in reaction too someones whole culture rejecting who you are? Are not many of these behaviors in reaction to condemnation by church and family, as well assumed damnation from God? Are not people more likely to make good healthy choices in an accepting and loving environment instead of a hateful rejecting one? Is this not why we believe in defending strong families? I also ask why we only defend strong opposite-sex families? Why do we work so hard to destroy same-sex families?

Thank you,
Gail

Annegb,

As a heterosexual man, I do understand that we heterosexuals have feelings, lives, and place in this argument, but I for one, think there is a significant problem when three times the homosexual men in the church commit suicide than heterosexual men in the church. There is a problem when it is legal to fire someone in UT for being gay whatever the persons life style is. There is a problem when the church says that there is no sin in the feelings of homosexuality, yet homosexual members are asked to keep their oriantation a secrete and treat them as if they were serious sin and only share them with the bishop and a close family member. I believe there is a problem when all the gay members I know sit in fear when they go to sacrament meeting wondering how their fellow ward members will treat them when they find out who they really are. It is a problem when our leaders instead of working to solve these problems they go to great lengths to motivate we the members of the church to donate millions to make it illegal for gay people that are not members of the church to get married in California. I hear you are sick of minorities, but the minority we are talking about here is significantly marginalized in our Mormon society. please remember the words of Elder Packer “I give you a strong caution. Be wary of the word tolerance…. we are not required to tolerate anything that leads to unhappiness…. Tolerance is often demanded but seldom returned. Beware of tolerance. It is a very unstable virtue.” Let us stop tolerating a culture that leads to so much unhappiness. Do we not have the responsibility to morn with those who morn and comfort those that stand in need of comfort? Well this minority group that you are sick of stands in need of comfort.

I apologize for being unclear. I was referring to this statement made by bookslinger:
“Just in the temporal earthly realm, the homosexual lifestyle is generally one of unhappiness, violence, emotional upheavals, concommitant mental/emotional problems, and shortened life-expectancy (and not just due to AIDS). (I chuckled at the children-of-lesbians link above, because though the children may have less mental health problems, stats show that gays/lesbians themselves don’t have less. The two uber-cool mommies of Heather in the storybook are the exception, not the rule.)”
In some groups of homosexuals there are extreme behaviors such as promiscuity and drug abuse. These extreme behaviors typically lead to some of the unhappy conditions that bookslinger mentions. These behaviors also are seen in some groups of heterosexuals. I would like to ask a few questions. Are people not far more likely to participate in these extreme behaviors when people are rejected by their church, family, and culture? Are people not more likely to participate in these extreme behaviors when all the sexual feelings they have ever had are completely condemned by their society? Are people not much more likely to participate in these types of behavior when they are marginalized by their society? Is this not the very reason that we advocate for strong families? Why then do we only advocate for one type of family?

Nick,

I really haven’t taken a side in this discussion except to point out how your comments are snide and hypocritical. And I’ve used your comments as references.

Your accusations are merely ad hominem. It’s plain to see that it’s not discussion you want, but change and only change. You have shown that you have no interest in another point of view.

It’s hard for people to address without some foundation of trust and building a common framework for addressing issues.

Keep fighting, brother.

You’re right Nick I apologize. It wasn’t a thought out statement but not thinking is what I do best. I do believe consideration is owed to the majority. Just because (and tell the truth I wonder if those opposed to gay marriage are in the majority) have a right to their feelings. But you said that.

On the other hand your assertion sounds like lip service. Maybe when two sides are so diametrically opposed there isn’t room for consideration of each others feelings.

Moho you have always struck me as a fine person. Your comments are reasonable and thought out (unlike mine :) and wise no matter the subject and I find nothing to disagree with in what you said. Frenkly I’n of a mind that the children of homosexuals don’t fare any worse than anybody else’s kids. We’re all whacked to one degree or another.

Nobody commented on my comment about kids in elementary school openly displaying homosexual preferences. Moho how do you see that trend and how do you feel about it? In those cases are the kids showing a tendency that would have heretofor been stifled out of fear or are they racting to programming and embracing something that is simply now “stylish?”

Gail my request for clarification was sincere.

Nasomomdele I am so going to use the word ad hominem in a sentence someday. I have to practice so I don’t trip over the sylablles however you spell it though.

92. Gail F. Bartholomew – thanks for your comments and I agree that the treatment of homosexuals in the Church is poor and causes a lot of heartache in both the homosexual and the family. I know of too many stories. I also agree with you, that why don’t we try to foster solid relationships rather than destroy them.

93. MoHoHawaii – thanks for the comment. I would agree with many of your statements. For me, I think that SSM is fine, and should be legal, but perhaps a compromise is a start. I also think that at some point, SSM will be legal nationwide – it is inevitable (at least I hope for the sake of thousands of persons). While I am not an advocate for homosexuality, neither am I an advocate for polygamy, alcohol, or smoking, but I think people need to have agency and the freedom to live their lives in equality as long as others are not impacted by their actions.

95. B Tippetts – so did you sign it?

97. Steven – amen – nice comment – tolerance and understanding are critical

98. annegb – I always find your comments insightful with a bit of humor – you have a knack for it!

# 87 Nick,

Social psychology for the past 30 years points to peers being the greatest socializing influence on our children. Regardless of the “effectiveness” of parenting techiniques or personalities. This has been shown for:

1) Children speaking English as a second language
2) Violent behavior or violent group affiliation
3) Academic achievement
4) Religious commitment

And most other behaviors you could think of.

Re #98,

Nobody commented on my comment about kids in elementary school openly displaying homosexual preferences. Moho how do you see that trend and how do you feel about it? In those cases are the kids showing a tendency that would have heretofore been stifled out of fear or are they reacting to programming and embracing something that is simply now “stylish?”

There is a trend for kids to come out much earlier than in the past. This is increasingly happening between the ages of 13 to 17. See here for a New York Times article about a family whose teenage son came out to them at age 13. I think the parents in the article show a sane and compassionate response. Most telling, the boy’s grades improved after he came out, and he became happier and much better adjusted socially. Read the article.

I think early disclosure of sexual orientation is a positive trend because it gives because parents the opportunity to be a stabilizing influence as the child goes through adolescence. (Adolescence is a turbulent time and for a gay teen even more so.) It does not result in more gay people than the bad old days.

If your 14 year old son makes a tearful confession, you’d be wise not to just pass it off as a phase. The best parental strategy is to listen and to occasionally remind the child that just even though they may be gay, they still have to do their math homework. :-)

Re #101,

For me, I don’t know how homosexual stigma would fall. …

I tend to think that the successes many people have spoken of are reflections of them being good people and associating with good people who have seen such success. I have seen that success as well.

I have also seen failure in homosexual circles where the stigma is not an influence as much as hedonism and the lack of moral or relational commitment- things I would reflect small-scale community behavior than general community behavior.

I don’t think anyone can really tell how it would go for society as a whole. We just don’t know.

This is an interesting point. To state it another way, what can be done to make gay life more wholesome and goal oriented? How do we curb the excesses?

I know of no gay person who didn’t suffer to some extent from the social stigma of being gay. I think the social stigma contributes to the excesses you write about. It’s not as if the stigma just melts away once you find a circle of gay friends. If anything, the gay ghetto exists because of wider social disapproval. I’m no fan of the ghettos, gay or otherwise. They are not the crucible of social integration.

I think the way to encourage a serious-minded ethic in the gay population is to normalize homosexuality in society. If gay people know that they are fully and openly integrated into society they will also know that they have the same responsibilities as everyone else. This is why gay marriage is actually a conservative social policy. It reigns in gay sexuality just as it has straight male sexuality for millenia.

A good example of this approach is The Netherlands. Being gay is completely accepted, but you are cut no slack because of it, and nobody really wants to hear you talk about it. Dutch society, despite its reputation as permissive, is anything but. Community standards for educational achievement and civic participation are strict. “Slacking” is not acceptable in Dutch society. The Dutch have a self image as being tough, disciplined and resilient, and no whining is allowed. The result is that gay people blend into society in Holland and their social outcomes are good. In other words, in Holland you can be gay, but you still have to do your math homework.

MoHo,

To state it another way, what can be done to make gay life more wholesome and goal oriented? How do we curb the excesses?

I don’t think I was saying this, but they are interesting questions. I think they are questions that every “pro-marriage (anti-SSM)” person asks and comes to the conclusion that homosexuality is an excess or causes excesses.

Religion tells us this, our socialization tells us this, many things condition us to this conclusion.

I’m not saying it is true, but it is evident behavior.

Whats more, I don’t think that many people would be opposed to equal and broad gay rights if they were developed outside the scope of conflict, which is difficult to envision lately.

Fact is, the gay community does not want the hetero community telling them what is socially acceptable, and the hetero community does not want the gay community telling them what is socially acceptable.

nasamomdele,

“I don’t think I was saying this, but they are interesting questions. I think they are questions that every “pro-marriage (anti-SSM)” person asks and comes to the conclusion that homosexuality is an excess or causes excesses.

Religion tells us this, our socialization tells us this, many things condition us to this conclusion.”

I wonder why you see pro-marriage and anti same sex marriage as even close to being the same. How does working to destroy one type of marriage make some one pro-marriage? How can we support family unless we are working to support families in general?

Do you know anyone personally that is openly gay? I may be wrong, but it sounds like all of your information about the “homosexual lifestyle” comes from stereotypes. I hope my friends and family don’t take this as an insult, but the gay people I know are some of the most boring people I know. I mean this in the best way possible. I recently when to a Pride in the park celebration. This was a very family oriented affair; kids playing, music, and few booths. My favorite sticker being past out at the park that day sums up the Gay people I know, it read: The Gay Agenda 1. spend time with family. 2. be treated equally. 3. buy milk.
This sticker just perfectly described the normal mundane lives of the gay people I know that I had to laugh. I think we make a lot of assumptions that are based on a few. We also forget that the excesses that we see in a few gay people also can be seen among some heterosexuals. Gay people certainly do not have a monopoly on dysfunction.

“Fact is, the gay community does not want the hetero community telling them what is socially acceptable, and the hetero community does not want the gay community telling them what is socially acceptable.”

I can agree with most of this statement. The problem I have with it is the fact that I have never seen the gay community telling the heterosexual community what is socially acceptable. On the other hand I see we heterosexuals particularly we Mormon heterosexuals not only telling the homosexual community what is acceptable, but spending millions to making parts of there lifestyle illegal.

Nick,

“Oh, but we do. We tell the heterosexual community that civil inequality is socially unacceptable. We tell the heterosexual community that discrimination and bigotry are socially unacceptable. We tell the heterosexual community that attempting to use the civil law to force us into living their way is socially unacceptable.

And as soon as we do that, some of those heterosexuals immediately start accusing us of religious persecution and bigotry, for daring to criticize their opinions or actions.”

I sit corrected. I now see that taking issue with an outside group working to make your marriage illegal is such an infringement on someones religious rights. Thank you so much for the clarification. This explains why so many Mormons are convinced that the gay community is attacking the Mormon way of life instead of we Mormons attacking monogamous homosexuals family life. I now understand that we Mormons are not self deluded just working to defend our religious right to take everyone else s rights away. I feel so much better about the whole issue now.

nasamomdele,

“The point isn’t that any group is telling the other what is socially acceptable, its that one group percieves the other to be telling them what is socially acceptable, or simply “moving in on their lifestyle” – “forcing” their way of living on others.”

Please, help me understand how making it illegal for people outside our church to marry someone they desire to is not “forcing” our way of life on them. This is not anything light for me. This is a topic of great importance to me personally. You have no idea how many hours I have spent reading the words of the brethren. I believe I have real everything on LDS.org about homosexuality and gay marriage so many times that I suspect I have read them more then the brethren that said them.

“I refer to Nick’s objections as the latest evidence. Read any Mormon’s defense of heterosexuality for the other side (Bookslinger’s or my comments above).”

First of all I have not seen anyone either needing to defend or actually defending heterosexuality. I have read many attacks against homosexuality and same-sex marriage. None of which seem to be based in sound logic, scriptures, or revelation. By the way I am as Mormon as they come. Pioneer stock, born raised, full time mission, seminary, married in the temple, served in Elders quorum presidencies, and even in a branch presidency, I have two degrees from BYU. I don’t tell you these things to impresses yo or because it may give my words any more validity. I just want you to understand where I come from. Your words sound like I have not made it clear that I am a Mormon.

I have read the comments above. I may have missed something but I do not see where you have addressed the deep emotional pain the stigmas you wish to keep in place. Your argument that it will be bad for generations to come if there is no stigma. These are the same arguments that were used to say we should keep the stigma and the illegality of interracial marriage. Now that both are gone I think society is better for it.

“But please don’t go around asking someone if they know a gay person because you’ve never run into anything they describe. One of my best friends and coworkers is gay and almost gave up on life after the infidelity ruined his relationship of 9 years. I’ve seen first hand both sides in gay and hetero lifestyles, and not at a festival.”

I asked the question sincerely. I could not tell from your writing. My mentioning about the festival was to highlight what I know about people I know and love. And let me assure you that my relationship with my gay loved ones are far more intimate than my experience at a festival.

“No SSM talk from me. I don’t think that’s what this post was about in the first place.”

I came to this post because I believe the original post was interesting. I believe it became about Same-Sex-Marriage when Bookslinger and you started expressing that it does not matter how healthy children raised by same sex partners are the point is we must keep the stigma for the good of society. In other words it is best for society to continue deeply hurting these people.

“Fact is, the gay community does not want the hetero community telling them what is socially acceptable, and the hetero community does not want the gay community telling them what is socially acceptable.”

Yup. I just don’t think there’s a compromise here, from either side.

#94, Gail (I’m all skeewampus here, I missed this, sorry); Carol Lyn Pearson’s last book is an eye opener on this topic. No More Goodbyes ? I think that’s the title. I haven’t finished it because it’s pretty painful to read and chock full of thought and wisdom that bears pondering.

My answer to your questions at the end is “I do not know.” I don’t know. No clue. Clueless. It appears that one truth directly contradicts another. Leaving me without a clue.

Gail, I, too, am close to several people who are openly gay. My nephew, for instance, although he’s conflicted. He gets crushes on girls as well. I believe in his case, he was a tremendously spoiled and pampered as a baby and very close to his mother, who abandoned the family. He was quite baby-ish into his teens. This seemed to be effeminate and others in the family decided he was gay. He was young and impressionable and I believe chose to experiment with the gay lifestyle, hoping to find himself. I believe he lost himself in the process. We haven’t rejected him at all; we love this boy, who is now 24; but as I said, he’s very confused. He will sometimes say, “I’m not sure I’m gay.” He’s a good example of how experimenting with the seamier sides of the homosexual lifestyle simply brings confusion.

Another young man, whom I’ve also known since birth, also appeared feminine. But more than that, he seemed to get crushes on boys from the beginning and had a really hard time relating to girls on a romantic level. I believe that he, unlike my nephew, was the product of a very stable home, and no amount of programming would have changed the fact that he is gay. His family and we, his friends, love him and accept him as is. But he has to be very conflicted because he was brought up as a Mormon.

A woman I was very close to, who had been (happily, too) married and very much in love with her husband until he cheated on her. When I first met her, she was feminine, I would never have guessed she might have homosexual tendencies. Later, as she decided that she was gay, she became very masculine looking and acting. She is now in a committed relationship with a woman I like (unlike her early partners, who really fit the stereotype as far as promiscuity and bad treatment of partners goes, that is) for gee, maybe 10 years, at least.

And you know, from these personal experiences, what conclusions have I reached? None. Zip. Nada. No clue. Hell if I know.

But I am a faithful if non-traditional Mormon. Going from the family proclamation and my belief that the prophet is a conduit for God, my conclusions have to be along that line. Do I think we haven’t gotten the whole story from the prophet? Heck, yeah.

Well damn, this is a confusing issue. Personally, I think boys going around chasing other boys in second grade and getting them down and kissing them because society has decided to embrace homosexuality is just going too far. That’s what I was thinking about…where do we cross the line from acceptance into promotion? And if we start accepting, then promoting homosexuality, where do we go from there?

No answers here, just fear and confusion. You can put me down in the afraid and confused category. Nothing that has been said here changes that.

#111:
The point isn’t that any group is telling the other what is socially acceptable, its that one group percieves the other to be telling them what is socially acceptable, or simply “moving in on their lifestyle” – “forcing” their way of living on others.

Yes, because as anyone can plainly see, I’m trying my very best to force nasamomdele to be gay.

One of my best friends and coworkers is gay and almost gave up on life after the infidelity ruined his relationship of 9 years.

Well, there you go, folks. “Then thar’ gays” are just a bunch of degenerates who, unlike heterosexuals, sometimes engage in infidelity!

#116:
My nephew, for instance, although he’s conflicted. He gets crushes on girls as well. I believe in his case, he was a tremendously spoiled and pampered as a baby and very close to his mother, who abandoned the family. He was quite baby-ish into his teens. This seemed to be effeminate and others in the family decided he was gay. He was young and impressionable and I believe chose to experiment with the gay lifestyle, hoping to find himself. I believe he lost himself in the process.

Annegb, I know exactly what you’re saying. I was certainly conflicted at one time. I believe in my case, I was very close to my chosen faith. I seemed to be quite masculine, and others decided I was heterosexual. I was young and impressionable, and I believe I chose to experiment with the heterosexual lifestyle, hoping to find myself and please a certain concept of deity. I believe I lost myself in the process.

Thankfully, I grew up and came to my senses. I’m much happier now!

Personally, I think boys going around chasing other boys in second grade and getting them down and kissing them because society has decided to embrace homosexuality is just going too far.

Annegb, I’d think that boys going around chasing girls in second grade, and getting them down and kissing them, even though society has traditionally embraced heterosexuality, is also just “going too far.” I’ll bet you agree! :-)

Really, Annegb? When my girls were in second grade, if I’d found out a boy had been chasing them, and “getting them down and kissing them,” you can bet I’d be having some very serious words with the school facutly and administration. You’re describing behavior that borders on sexual assault.

Well, I guess actually it’s more the girls who do the chasing in the second grade. Boys who like girls in second grade tend to sock them.

But Moho, you have to admit sometimes—heck often, abuse is a factor. I know my friend’s son is truly “other” he has never really been attracted to girls, except for the love he exhibited toward Sarah from age 1-6 until she cheated on him. He wasn’t abused (not to contradict myself or anything), but I know many gay people who were. Actually, I know more gay women who were abused than men who were abused. Hmmm….

As I said, God is going to have to figure this out. But it scares and confuses me. I can go all mentally ill at the prospects. Moho, Nick, I’d have you for neighbors–or sons–any day, but like I said, I can go crazy in my head. And I’m not going to apologize because you never know, people who are paranoid may be genuinely in danger.

Re #123, Abuse isn’t a factor mentioned in the scientific literature on homosexuality.

I know some straight people who were sexually abused as children. Did the abuse make these folks straight?

annegb,

“Point. But honestly all the gay women I know have been abused but I don’t know of gay men who were abused. Personally I mean. Not that I know a lot. Just saying.”

I think that is because a much higher present of women are abused than men in our society. What is it one in four women are raped. I think you would find at random more straight women that had been abused than straight men. Just my opinion.

Gail,

I appreciate your apology and humility with this topic. Please don’t take my comments the wrong way. I think myself and many other Mormons are in the same boat as annegb- It’s not clear why the church asks us to line up a certain way, but we’re doing it with faith that for some reason it is right. We do have doubts, though.

And I don’t necessarily believe some of the arguments I’ve posted, but I try to make it clear that “some people” think a certain way- this generally doesn’t include me. The simple fact that some people think that way should broaden our perspective of the issue, not make us take a more firm and narrow position.

My primary motivation is that I take huge issue with bullying and harsh dismissal of others’ comments, which is generally coupled with some form of insult. This issue just comes with hostility.

Again, I appreciate your humility in the matter. If I’ve done any of the things I’ve mentioned above or made you feel less than equal on the subject in any way, I apologize as well.

123. MoHoHawaii – there are multiple cases like the one you describe where gender is more than genitals. I totally agree with your conclusion.

131. Anne – That type of thing is exactly why I don’t think it is a problem at the end of the day. How much more screwed up could SSM be than traditional ones…

(I’m pretty sure nasamomdele is a male, and not a ma’am, but I could be mistaken.)

Annegb,

“I still follow the prophet and believe what he says, but damn, this just doesn’t feel black and white to me.”

This is a difficult issue to reconcile. I must say I believe strongly in Morni’s promise: “By the power of the holly ghost you may know the truth of all things.”

Remember Brigham Young’s Words:

I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. Brigham Young

I think we in the church loose track of what it means to be a church of revelation. We interpret Christ’s words in (Matthew 16:17-19) than the Catholics do. The Catholics believe the Rock that Christ built his church on is the man Peter, the Pope. We on the other hand believe that the Rock is revelation not the leaders themselves. Because of this we can follow Brother Brigham’s advice and pray and ask if this specific direction comes from God, and God will tell us. We know if we continue to get a stupor of thought, which I had most of my life on this issue, we know we are asking the wrong questions. When God speaks peace to our souls we can be assured God has spoken to us.

We in the church sometimes misunderstand, and think that because we believe in modern day revelation this means that every thing spoken by the brethren is God’s words. We have seen many historical examples when this is not the case. Abraham had slaves. Paul said women should veil there faces and not speak in church. Brigham Young said: “Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.” I believe these are examples of when the Lord’s prophet spoke from their cultural understanding not as a result of God speaking to them. These are only a few examples. There are many.

As members of the church we need to not only use our minds, but truly ask in prayer in faith, with real intent what is revelation and what is man.

I think it is a fare question to ask what is the church’s policy concerning homosexuality and fighting against gay marriage based on. I believe most of us Mormons assume that these policies are well established in scriptures and in revelation. When I have really looked I have not found that to be the case. Yes, if you take a few isolated scriptures you can make this assumption, but if you will hummer me can we examine it here.

Please understand when it comes to scriptural foundation of the condemnation of homosexuality there is nothing in from the Doctrine and Covenants, any thing taught by Joseph Smith, anything taught by Book of Mormon prophets, nothing in the Ten Commandments, and nothing in the teachings of Christ.

The first place people talk about for a scriptural support is the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, after all our western society has named gay sex after one of these towns. Unfortunately this story never makes any mention of conceptual homosexual sex. In fact it never tells us what the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah is other than gang rape. It never even implies that gay sex is a practice in Sodom and Gomorrah.

Outside of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah and references to it there only two sources of the condemnation of homosexuality Leviticus and Paul.

Leviticus I think is our favorite to quote. Abomination sounds pretty definitive. What we fail to point out is all other uses of this ward are about ceremonial performances that have no moral implications such as pork and shell fish. Also, beyond a few references to one of the Ten Commandment here and there the only think I find in Leviticus we except as religious teaching is the condemnation of homosexuality. So it seems we disregard this whole but we choose to keep this one thing.

When we look at Paul’s teachings on homosexuality it seems that the brethren don’t accept what he teaches on this subject. He teaches that if you do not have enough faith in Christ we will be plagued with homosexuality. This seems in direct contradiction with there is no sin in the feelings of homosexuality. It also seems that the brethren disregard almost everything that Paul says on the subject of sexuality in general. He says that we can serve Christ better if we remain celibate. He taught that the only reason to marry is if you can not control your sexual desires.

I do not see either of these as good sources. I don’t think the brethren do either. President Packer at the world wide training on the family in 2008 said that the best source we have on our policy concerning homosexuality is the Proclamation, even better than scripture. This seems to be consistent with how the brethren back up anything they say about homosexuality or Gay marriage they seem to almost exclusively quote from the Proclamation.

I do want to talk about what the Proclamation actually says, but first I would like to point out none of the brethren actually call this a revelation. I have to think that there is something that separates this from a revelation like declaration 2.

So let us look at what the proclamation says about homosexuality and gay marriage.

The first line reads:

“We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.”

Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God is repeated several more times. We can infer that this is important. Note that it never says that any other type of marriage is condemned by God. I do not believe we should assume that anything that is not ordained by God should be hunted and killed, for example single parent families.

The next line from the Proclamation we see used to defend the church’s position on homosexuality is this:

“Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.”

I ask what this says about homosexuality. Gender is how masculine or feminine you are. Gender is not something directly effected by orientation. There are very masculine men that are gay and very feminine men that are straight. This may say something about Trans-gendered individuals, but what? Does it say that if your eternal spiritual gender conflicts with your physical gender you should change the physical to match the eternal?

Also similar to the first line:

“We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.”

So where does God command this. I do believe the brethren believe that God implied this some how, but unless this here is the Lord’s words himself I am unaware where he Commands this.

Again very similar to the first line:

“Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan.”

And again stating that this is essential to his plan does not speak to anything else being eliminated or not part of his plan.

I find this line very interesting:

“Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.”

In European countries that had seen for many years a decline of traditional marriage and a rising rate of divorce found both these statistics turn around once gay marriage was legalized. Therefore there are indications that gay marriage can to turn around the disintegration of even what we might call traditional families.

Similarly I believe the last line of the proclamation calls us to protect all families and does not justify destroying one type of family:

We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.

As we see given that the proclamation is the best source to teach us about homosexuality and gay marriage it really does not teach us that these things are wrong.

I do believe that using our minds to look at what foundation the church has for things they are doing, particularly when we are unconvertible with them, is good. I must say ultimately it comes down I believe to Moroni’s promise. Like I said before for many years I had a lot of uneasiness about the church’s position on homosexuality. I must say now I finally feel at peace in my prayers with this issue. I finally started asking the right questions.

“You people are crazy”. I laughed out loud and woke up the dog. Harold, ya think?

I just don’t get this online thing. People anonymously argue and fight against our leaders. They told us to support prop 8 – end of story to me

136 Gail – I love your analysis and I have come to a similar conclusion as you. Thanks for the detailed assessment.

140 – Harold – stay awhile and you may “get” it…

Re #140,

They told us to support prop 8 – end of story to me.

I agree with this statement 100%. Would you please use it in your ads the next time you decide to campaign against my family’s right to exist?

#134:
I’m pretty sure nasamomdele is a male…

If so, I am plainly “gender confused” when it comes to nasamomdele, and readily apologize for my mistake.

Nick,

Very interesting. So are you saying that according to LDS doctrine any sexual activity that does not involve procreation is on the up and up? This is based directly on the Proclamation which is signed by the first presidency, so this is gospel. I want you in my gospel doctrine class Nick.

They told us to support prop 8 – end of story to me.

Where do you live? California? Utah? Where I live, our support was not requested.

147 – Nick – your attorney thinking comes out here – it made me chuckle :)

150 – Baxter – If you will notice, no one said that homosexuality was ok, nor that it was not a sin (at least from an active Mormon perspective). However, there are comments that SSM is ok to support and not fight against. How is that mental gymnastics?

By drawing attention to dubious pronouncements of past and present church leaders and by pointing to either a lack of clarity or lack of evidence in the scriptures, these folks conveniently tear down any moral road block that may stand between them and their morally bankrupt prejudices.

The problem with dubious pronouncements, is that they’re dubious and bankrupt. It’s not just a problem of people drawing attention to them to tear down “moral road blocks”, it’s also a problem when people draw attention to them to build up their own equally dubious positions.

That’s what happens when we take words out of the scope in which they were delivered. A GA making an offhand remark in a ward testimony meeting is not announcing new doctrine or direction for the whole Church, but we often see that happen. A GA writing a book is not announcing a course of action for the Church for follow (even if he becomes president of the Church 20 years later, the book is not doctrinal unless he starts quoting from it as president of the Church).

#148:
So are you saying that according to LDS doctrine any sexual activity that does not involve procreation is on the up and up?

Nope. I’m just saying that the “Proclamation” doesn’t address non-procreative sexual activity whatsoever, no matter who it’s between. It merely claims that “employing” the “powers of procreation” is limited by deity to heterosexually-married couples.

Re #157

There is a very long list of sins that are much better established since “time immoral.” Why are only choosing to vote this one into law?

It’s likely that the Church’s outsized investment in this minority issue doesn’t have much to do with concern over the Law of Chastity or morality. As you said, there are a million other issues that could have been chosen. Divorce. Obligations of noncustodial parents. Health care for children. Pornography. Etc. Etc. Unravel the layers of the Prop 8 debacle and what you’re left with is an investment in gender roles. The novel aspect of the Proclamation on the Family is not that it reaffirms heterosexual marriage (yawn); it’s that gender is important and eternal.

If you don’t believe me, think back to the only other time in the past 50 years when the Church got involved in politics. It was in the mid-1970s. The issue then wasa also gender roles. The Church fought tooth and nail against the following proposal: “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.”

It’s really breathtaking when you stop to think about it.

Back to the question at hand, why would the all-male leadership of the Church be interested in reinforcing traditional gender roles? Why is gender, of all the issues you might imagine, worth bankrupting the Church’s public image and sowing division in its membership?

Unfortunately, it’s pretty hard to see this as anything other than unrighteous dominion (or patriarchy). It’s about the preservation of power.

Harold,

Being gay is not in any way gender confusion, and has little or nothing to do with ones gender. Gay men know they are men and gay women know they are women. Besides gender is not the only thing that is eternal in our theology. I still think this begs the question why is this the only eternal thing that is so important as to effectively make behavior of nonmembers illegal?

Harold – given others have addressed your quote – I won’t respond, but you certainly have some black and white ideas about the Gospel.

Nick you quote examples from 100 years ago and are clearly silly. I am referring to the proclamation which is very recent and very relevant and given by living prophets. That is the difference. Besides why do you ex-Mormons care about this Mormon specific issue?

#164:
Nick you quote examples from 100 years ago and are clearly silly.

Actually, the Brigham Young examples are from more than 100 years ago, Harold, and their “silliness” is the point. Brigham Young said a number of “silly” things, such as that the Salt Lake Temple should be built out of adobe, because adobe would “progress” to become stone (you can readily find that one in the Journal of Discourses). Not all statements by LDS presidents are, as you put it, “critical.”

I am referring to the proclamation which is very recent and very relevant and given by living prophets.

To the contrary, Harold, the proclamation was given by fifteen men whom the LDS esteemed as “prophets,” on September 23, 1995. Four of those men, including the church president who actually read the proclamation aloud for the first time in public, are now dead. Therefore, it would be more accurate for you to claim that the proclamation “is only about 14 years old” and “given by eight living and four dead prophets.”

Besides why do you ex-Mormons care about this Mormon specific issue?

Alas, we ex-LDS care about this “LDS specific” issue because the current LDS leadership seems intent on making it an issue of civil law to restrict the rights of non-LDS persons, rather than just an “LDS specific” issue.

165 DKL – now that is a funny picture of Brother Brigham break dancing…

Gail. I was actually talking to Nickin my comment. I think that the the proclamation says gender is fixed and that marriage is between man and woman. Therefore, we should not support gay marriage as it is wrong.

Three reasons. First it says marriage is between man and woman, second marriage is for procreation and third the prophet said gay marriage is wrong and we should fight efforts to make it legal.

DKL, you are a teddy bear. Not in a Putin kind of way, that’s for sure :)

I don’t think that it can really affect the sexual orientation of the kid. He will have his own identity soon and what he needs is a guidance, either from straight, gays or bi.

Wow! I’m just an outsider looking at these comments here, but it has been very educational and insightful for me. I’ve learned:

1. Never take the words of the prophets at face value–do your own research and prayer and be true to yourself.

2. There is a huge variance of opinions and lifestyles among Mormons….maybe we should accept that as a good thing and be glad that we can think for ourselves and not be led as blind sheep. Let’s value our diverse opinions and choices!

3. There is a huge temptation to make the gospel black and white….after all it makes everything easier…it makes our decisions easier and our world view more simple, but it’s clear just from reading this discussion if nothing else, that the world is not black and white; and the gospel is not black and white. Some are going to interpret it that way because for them it’s the only way they can function, but for others, life and the gospel are full of multi-colored, multi-faceted issues of great complexity, and because of that their faith is also very complex.

4. Confusion about these issues is a fact of life…it exists. If we pray over and over and still don’t know for sure what is right or true about a specific issue, so be it. We must accept that and make decisions based on our best understanding, not on perfect understanding. That being said we must accept our own and others best, but imperfect, understanding of gospel principles and controversial issues.

Since I skipped down to the bottom, I apologize if my comment is repetitious.

Have any of you read the facts in the trial papers? They pretty much debunk any theories people have about homosexuals ruining the earth, and sexuality being a choice. A simple google search will do if anyone wants to read it.

178 – Lady Di – wise advice and a nice distillation. Not bad for someone who has been dead for 13 years.

180 – newly housewife – which comment is repetitious??

Well, I thought of this the other day: if people make the assumption that children of homosexuals will be affected by their parents’ choices and become homosexuals themselves, how does one explain the homosexual children of heterosexual parents?

Homosexuality is quite normal, it has been around, ever since mankind was there. I don’t see any harm it that. Even you can see gay monkeys and other primates.

Thanks