On the Proposed Marriage Amendment: Estranging Our Brothers and Sisters?
By Stephen Carter on May 29, 2006
In 1998, up here in Alaska, the Church donated half a million dollars to endorse an Alaska constitutional amendment that would effectively ban gay marriage.
Sometime during the whole ordeal, someone egged the stake center in Fairbanks. Everyone figured that it was in retaliation for the Church’s stance on the amendment. I still hear this incident brought up from time to time in our meetings touting the Mormons’ forbearance under the whips of persecution.
Whenever I hear this story, I get the distinct taste of irony in my mouth.
I remember a time when some people living on the banks of the Great Salt Lake had their own system of marriage that the Republican Party had vowed to turn into a grease spot on the bottom of their Oxfords.
So, according to a letter from the First Presidency read in my May 28th 2006 sacrament meeting, the Church wants us to write to our senators to encourage them to endorse a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman only.
You know, in a way, I’m for it. I really like social stability, and heterosexual marriage has been practiced for a while now. People are used to it. We pass on the expectations and roles of heterosexual marriage almost intuitively. We know the devils inherent in a society that endorses heterosexual monogamous marriage.
However, the last time I listened to someone promoting the rights of gay people to marry, I was struck by just how Mormon they sounded. They were spouting values like commitment, family, stability, and responsibility. If I had closed my eyes, I could have sworn I was sitting in a sacrament meeting.
It made me wonder if allowing gays to marry wouldn’t be a lot like welcoming a long lost family member back to the nest.
It seems to me that the reason marriage works as a social stabilizer is because it gives social endorsement to people that raise their children in a stable environment. The idea is, the children in this arrangement will likely grow up to be stable people who will be willing to function according to the same social contract. Thus: stability and the perpetuation of society. Are the important variables in this equation not the gender of the parents, but the principles they operate under?
If my rationale for marriage in the preceding paragraph is acceptable for this particular conversation, then it seems that the enemy of marriage is not marriage between similar genders, but the refusal of people to commit to and work for a stable relationship when children are involved.
If homosexual people are cool with the commitment thing and the stability thing, why can’t they be our friends instead of our enemies? Perhaps they’ll have something to teach us heterosexuals about commitment, love and stability. After all, they’ve been trying to nurture their own relationships under a social stigma for a long time.
When I hear about this issue, I remember the story of Jacob and Esau. Jacob wanted the birthright, but legally it belonged to his brother. Jacob, however, was the smart one, and with the help of his mother, managed to snatch the birthright right out from under Esau’s nose.
Naturally, Esau was angry, Jacob had to run for his life, and the two brothers were parted for a long time. When they finally met up again, it was Esau who had been wronged. But it was Esau who was willing to forgive his brother and let family bonds take precedence over his anger.
Could it be that we are so invested in getting what we want that we are estranging people who could otherwise be our brothers and sisters?
I tend to be on the same level as you with regard to this issue. Though I personally don’t care what the Church’s position is on homosexuality or homosexual marriage within the Church — it is a private institution, after all — I think it would be best for the Church to stay removed from the issue in the public sphere.
Comment # 1 by Rob | May 29, 2006 | Reply
You’re ignoring or forgetting the needs of the children. Stability is an important quality but so is an adequate role model. Recently (I wish I could find the link for you) a French research team finished a study in which it was discovered that children have a deep need for role models of both genders in their lives. Homosexual partnerships by definition lack one gender. It is a tragedy when a child loses a parent; what is it when a child is convieved or adopted into such a situation?
Comment # 2 by Proud Daughter of Eve | May 29, 2006 | Reply
#2, heterosexual marriage is no guarantee that kids will get two stable role models. Seems to me that many of our church leaders have turned out just fine without a father in their lives. Two loving parents of one gender is much more than many children are fortunate enough to have.
Comment # 3 by paula | May 29, 2006 | Reply
Re #2:
Though I don’t have any French studies to back me up on this, it seems to me that the most important ingredient for role models (and parents) is a sincere interest in the child. It hardly seems important what types of genitals they have or what gender role they portray. Also, role models can come from all sorts of places-they certainly aren’t limited to parents.
Comment # 4 by janaremy | May 29, 2006 | Reply
The OP said: “However, the last time I listened to someone promoting the rights of gay people to marry, I was struck by just how Mormon they sounded. They were spouting values like commitment, family, stability, and responsibility.”
Heh, that kind of logic was what changed my mind on gay marriage. There’s a “quiz” on a website that features a number of quotes. (link below) The reader is asked to guess whether each quote was made 30+ years ago about interracial marriage, or was made in recent memory about gay marriage.
I won’t spoil the quiz for you, but suffice it to say that the results were personally appalling to me. It made me realize that not only are people terrified of letting other people do things that don’t mirror the desired status quo, but a lot of times those things really don’t hurt people. And so the scared ones have to come up with excuses: “God doesn’t want this,” “It’s unnatural,” etc.
One can hope that someday we’ll all learn to live and let live a little better.
http://www.buddybuddy.com/quiz-1.html
Comment # 5 by Bro. Jones | May 30, 2006 | Reply
I think the Church’s stance is a lot more simple than the reasoning above. Gay couple want society to validate their union in law. The Church believes that such unions are not valid and should not be falsely validated by a legal marriage.
However, there are many things that the Church preaches against that it doesn’t protest against: de facto status in law, the legality of suicide, etc. I’m not sure why some issues are fought for and others not. Personally I think that anyone, straight or gay, should have the right to form a civil union that legally identifies the person they choose to be their next of kin, their family, and the person who should inherit from them (or care for their children) after their death in the absence of a will. These are decisions a person SHOULD be able to make under the protection of the law.
I don’t agree with gay marriage, but I agree that it is an issue we should not necessarily seek to legislate against. As you pointed out, LDS members were prohibited by law from practicing polygamy, and what does it mean to say that we claim the right to believe as we choose, AND GIVE EVERYONE ELSE THE SAME RIGHT, if in reality we forcibly stop them from living their beliefs, as we were stopped from living our beliefs. As long as the Church is not legally required to change its policies in order to accept or recognise such marriages (also retaining freedom to believe as we choose) then I don’t think we should seek to stop consenting adults from living as they choose. Sure, seek to teach the truth and persuade others to truth, but not to force their behaviour.
Comment # 6 by chosha | May 30, 2006 | Reply
If the prophet goes to the trouble to issue a press release, I think God thinks the church should become involved.
I’m not always comfortable with these things, but when the prophet speaks, the debate is over for me.
Comment # 7 by annegb | May 30, 2006 | Reply
Yeah, I quit debating over whether or not I should email my senators and did as I was told. I emailed them and told them that I’m against the anti-gay marriage amendment.
Comment # 8 by paula | May 30, 2006 | Reply
With the growing visibility and controversy over consensual, adult relationships such as homosexual marriage and polygamy, it seems that the question that isn’t being asked is why we ask the government to
regulate and endorse marriage at all. Marriage licensing began with permission for interracial couples to marry in spite of unjust miscegenation laws. Only within the last century have all couples been
required to obtain marriage licenses. Why should marriage between consenting adults be illegal without the state’s permission?
Comment # 9 by Jon Blake | May 30, 2006 | Reply
The Church is fighting a losing battle here. While the majority of Americans disapprove of gay marriage and don’t want it legal, a large majority of those under 35 think it should be legal. Many other countries are legalizing it now. It is only a matter of time before it becomes legal here, regardless of any amendments to our constitution that get passed now.
As for the argument that children need parents of each sex, that may be true in the ideal, but a huge number of children have been and are being reared by only one parent. (Of course those families in this situation who are active Mormons are usually made to feel marginalized by what is said and done in church, much to our disgrace). Should we have an amendment to remove those children from single-parent homes? Is a single parent home better than one with two mothers or two fathers? What percentage of children are removed from homes with homosexual partners because of child abuse? I’ll bet not as many as from “normal” families.
Since there are no effective laws against cohabitation, wouldn’t a marriage committment be preferable for anyone?
Marriage has been a wonderful thing for me and my wife, so I don’t see why would it hurt either heterosexuals or homosexuals to let or even encourage gays and lesbians to make a similar committment to being faithful to a partner and having a stable family life?
Comment # 10 by Gordon Banks | May 31, 2006 | Reply
I am 100% against this effort by the church. I cannot understand the logic of trying to push our definition of marriage on others when we CLEARLY felt that we had a constitution right to an unpopular definition in our early days.
I really believe that conservatives are terrified by the reality of homosexual monogomy and want to illegalize it instead of accepting that it happens.
And while I can appreciate arguments about childrens welfare, they end up being pretty weak. Neither God nor nature has done much in the way of ensuring the fitness of would-be parents. Right now drug addicts, pedophiles, etc. all have free license to reproduce. So even if you feel that a homosexual couple is inherently incapable of healthy parenting (and I’m not sure I’d agree), I don’t see how you can enforce societal rules on such unstable grounds.
Comment # 11 by Rick | May 31, 2006 | Reply
the important–and difficult–question for me is this: what do I do when I find that I passionately disagree with the church on a stand that they so openly take?
I thoroughly disagree with the “once the prophet has spoken, I’m done thinking” approach that appears on this thread and elsewhere throughout our church. Nonetheless, I’m not too fond of the idea of picketing around temple square during general conference or denouncing the church authorities in testimony meeting.
In the past my approach has just been to quitely vote my conscience and just keep quite about my disagreement. I’m not sure, though, if this is beneficial either to me or the church. Maybe some vocal–though respectful–dissent is healthy for us both.
Comment # 12 by Rick | May 31, 2006 | Reply
Why is it that with all this debate, no one has mentioned prayer at all? In any situation, the leaders of the Church ask us to consider their council, then pray about it for individual confirmation - Not to just follow them blindly. Has anyone here ever done that? It seems to me that most the people on here won’t do it because they are not open enough to allow the Lord to change their feelings on a subject - for pro or con.
Comment # 13 by Darryl | May 31, 2006 | Reply
what answer did you get when you prayed about it?
Comment # 14 by Rick | May 31, 2006 | Reply
Darryl wrote:
It seems to me that most the people on here won’t do it because they are not open enough to allow the Lord to change their feelings on a subject - for pro or con.
I write:
Ooh. Pointed words, Darryl.
But also a good point. (hah, I kill me!)
It’s hard for me to respond to your question directly because I find that God never tries as much to convince me of a position as she does to bring me into a fuller contact with the issue at hand. Often I find myself not necessarily being convinced through prayer, but opened.
That’s certainly been the case this time around.
Comment # 15 by stephencarter | Jun 1, 2006 | Reply
A few years ago I felt that homosexual marriages were a threat to traditional heterosexual marriages. I was also caught up in the hysteria that homosexuality leads to the destruction of society. I resented the gay rights movement and their “sinister” tactics. Eventually I reliazed that I ultimately resented gays. I was unable to “hate the sin, but love the sinner.” The negativity had become a spiritual drain, I was tired, and I knew my feelings were in stark contradiction to what I believed God desired for me . The negative feelings I harbored were resolved through prayer. The action of prayer allowed me to be open enough to recognize the many short comings of the fear driven moralistic rhetoric that had not only stunted my own growth, but simply doesn’t address the realities of homosexuality. Even though I know I am not in harmony with the Church’s position here, which I admit makes me squirm a little when I have to explain myself to ward members, I believe my prayer experience was genuine. I will not be supporting this latest ammendment.
Comment # 16 by Brad | Jun 1, 2006 | Reply
stephencarter, what religion are you?
Comment # 17 by Jennifer | Jun 1, 2006 | Reply
Brad,
Wonderful comment! Thank you for sharing it.
Comment # 18 by Rory | Jun 1, 2006 | Reply
Jennifer queried:
stephencarter, what religion are you?
I reply:
Officially, I’m a Mormon. Why do you ask?
Comment # 19 by stephencarter | Jun 1, 2006 | Reply
I just asked because you refered to God as a ’she’
Comment # 20 by Jennifer | Jun 1, 2006 | Reply
I’m a bit of a tease, I guess.
Comment # 21 by stephencarter | Jun 2, 2006 | Reply
“because you refered to God as a ’she’”
Yet everyone refers to both the Heavenly Parents as a collective “he”.
Comment # 22 by Rick | Jun 2, 2006 | Reply
Brad Says…”A few years ago I felt that homosexual marriages were a threat to traditional heterosexual marriages.”
Certainly they are a threat. Heterosexual marriages are held on a pedestal as the only valid marriage in our culture. Even if recognized by us liberal thinkers, homosexual marriages are often viewed as a generous concession made to sexual deviates, not a valid social union. Surely recognizing and accepting homosexual marriages diminishes “normal” marriages by making them equivalent.
This is a story of our changing culture, and cultures never change without angst and agony. Our culture is changing from a culture that has faithfully preserved many postured Victorian ideals to one that is more humanistic, and frankly, a little more healthy. We are furtively looking beyond the shrill cries of “witch”, and beginning to realize that “different” may not be “evil”.
Lets face it, we are really re-thinking the value of our Victorian ideals, even against the wishes of those who stubbornly refuse to open their eyes. Unthinkable as it may seem, such “moral” sounding anthems as the 19th century “cult of true womanhood”; piety, purity, domesticity, submissiveness, etc may actually NOT describe the highest tide of true womanhood.
It may be enlightening to note that there was during the formative period of the church a universal embarrassment concerning all things sexual, homosexuality especially noted. We are slow to abandon these dated ideas, and to give them a timeless and eternal validity we ascribe to our old cultural morals a historical contuity that did not actually exist. In truth we are faithfully following the culture of our founders as dictated by “Godey’s Lady”, and avowing to the universal nature of their transitory dysfunctional sexual ideas. (Can you say “Ethnocentric”) For example, as did the Victorians, we still view masturbation as a mortal sin, and still see breaches of chastity to be as dire as death. We still hear dewy eyed seminary teachers bear fervent testimony to (More seldom now, thankfully) the Victorian statement that we would rather have our daughters die than be sexually defiled, losing that which is the most precious- their virginity. (So the atonement is worth what?)
Frankly, we and our recent relatives have been conditioned to be scared to death of Sex. Some of our frightened and embarrassed people even imagine it a worthy goal to limit and dictate sexuality in marriage. (Thankfully most Bishops don’t ask-don’t tell about oral sex any more.) And Homosexuality? The church stand has indeed changed lately, yet like acceptance of blacks into the priesthood, our women have yet to be emancipated and homosexuals have yet to be accorded “son of god” status.
Methinks after we have suffered through the social agony of deviating from the ethics of our worn out Victorian status quo, God may also change his mind.
Simon
Comment # 23 by Simonbinet | Jun 3, 2006 | Reply
PLEASE FORWARD:
In light of the Mormon church lobbying Congress to ban gay marriage,
I encourage everyone to contact their senators and rep. to let them
know that you think Mormon Temple marriages ought to be banned
constitutionally because those secret rituals are kind of creepy and
not very much in keeping with traditional marriage.
(This is a rhetorical argument to make a point, people. Don’t get too
worked up about it.)
For more info about this lobbying effort to ban Mormon Temple
marriage (and to find your reps’ email address), go to
http://www.stenar.org
Comment # 24 by Stenar | Jun 3, 2006 | Reply
I am not intending to change the subject, but does anyone know how our FLDS brothers and sisters vote on these ammendements/propositions?
Comment # 25 by Brad | Jun 4, 2006 | Reply
Stenar, I don’t think that’s a very moving argument, even if it is rhetorical.
Comment # 26 by Rick | Jun 4, 2006 | Reply
#25: My hunch is that most FLDS are not registered to vote, but I may be wrong.
Comment # 27 by Bro. Jones | Jun 5, 2006 | Reply
Being a traditionalist is not evil; championing change does not automatically guarantee utopia. Part of why we joined the church was because it wasn’t part of the culture of accomodation. God exists and has laws that we follow for our benefit (or ignore to our detriment). “Progressive” interpreters are basically just turning religion into a secular social club, and the resulting “religions” stand for so many things that they don’t make much demand on people’s lives.
The argument that homsexuals are solidly into commitment, making them seem like LDS faithful in their desire for stable families, is just smokescreen. Homosexual unions, especially among men, don’t last as long as heterosexual unions. I’ve heard homosexual activists actually blast heterosexuals’ emphasis on monogamy. Yes, one could argue that if the broader culture accepted homosexuality more, that more homosexuals would align themselves with other norms of behavior, specifically those concerning stability and the raising of children in stable environments, and give up promiscuous lifestyles. But that’s only wishful thinking, and there’s hatefulness in it because for the sake of trying that speculative experiment, the rest of us risk the destruction of our culture.
Comment # 28 by plainavy | Jun 6, 2006 | Reply
plainavy, what is your source of information regarding the commitment level of gays? I think your opinions sound like a smokescreen for serious prejudice.
In spite of the lack of any public, church, or governmental support, many gay and lesbian couples have been together in a committed relationship for years. Yes, there are a lot of “one-night” stands in the gay community. Are straights any different? Nor We’re not talking about a “speculative experiment” giving gays the right to cohabit. They’ve been doing that for years. All that many of us are suggesting is that we give them the same respect and support that we allow for other married couples.
Comment # 29 by Mr. Rogers | Jun 6, 2006 | Reply
good try, plainavy. But homosexual monogomy is a reality.
And why, might I ask, would you try to discourage it with legislation anyway….if you don’t believe that it exists?
Comment # 30 by Rick | Jun 6, 2006 | Reply
From MassNews:
“Dr. Martin Dannecker (a German sexologist, who studied 900 homosexuals in 1991 living in “steady relationships”)? According to Dr. Dannecker, 83% of males had numerous sexual encounters outside their partnerships over a one-year period. Dr. Dannecker observed “clear differences in the manner of sexual gratification” between single and non-single gay men that were the reverse of what he expected. Of the homosexual men in steady relationships, he wrote,” the average number of homosexual contacts per person was 115 in the past year.” In contrast, single gay men had only 45 sexual contacts.
According to gay icons Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, who wrote “After the Ball” (considered by many to be the definitive gay manifesto), “The cheating ratio of ‘married’ [committed] gay males, given enough time, approaches 100%.”
Here is one more quote, again from a gay magazine, which is surely the saddest testament to gay relationships that I have ever read. In the July 1999 issue of Out Magazine there was an article about a lesbian and a gay guy who decide to get married. The lesbian, Lisa, explains the limitations of their relationship, “I had huge performance anxieties, I mean, the total number of men whose bodies I’d touched and tried to please was, you know, 9. That was, like, the total number of men Bro (her gay husband) would try to please in a weekend…We’d drive out to the Palisades in the evening and talk and talk and talk, then I’d drop him off to go have sex in bathrooms.”
I hope that you have noticed that most of these examples are derived from gay sources. I don’t want anyone to think that these quotes are coming from heterosexuals who are virulently opposed to any consideration of gay marriage. This is largely what gays are saying about themselves and their lives.
What I want to point out to you is that the entire notion of gay marriage is being presented to Canadians using the facade that gays have unions similar to heterosexual marriage. That is very simply just not true. Gays themselves admit, as you have seen here, that fidelity is not an issue with them.”
Comment # 31 by Darryl | Jun 7, 2006 | Reply
While your sources may be “gay,” they are also rather carefully chosen. I doubt that you have read any of these sources in their entirety. Rather, I suspect that you have listed “talking points” from one conservative group or another, who have already identified “the important stuff” for you.
In my observation, it is true that many homosexual partnerships are open to one degree or another, subject to mutually agreed rules. To say, however, that partnered gay men have an average of 115 “homosexual contacts per year” is misleading at best. First, the statement makes no effort to differentiate with whom those contacts are made. It does not say “115 sexual partners,” nor does it say “115 homosexual contacts outside their partnership.” For all we know, the statistic (and we all know what Mark Twain said about statistics) could represent 100 instances of intercourse between partners, plus 15 outside the partnership.
As I read your other statements, I have similar questions due to incomplete data. “Given enough time,” what percentage of infidelity do heterosexual marriages approach? Further, why would anyone take an anecdotal description of one gay man, and apply it as a blanket “saddest testament to gay relationships?” I’ve never gone to a park and had sex in a bathroom. I never plan to. It’s not only begging for disease, but it’s legally risky. Even if someone is willing to engage in anonymous sex acts, there are better, safer, and legal venues for such. The individual described in the anecdote clearly has some serious issues—he married a lesbian, for goodness sake! In my observation, public restroom sex is by far dominated by married, allegedly straight men, who are seeking quick gratification in circumstances that essentially punish them for the guilt they feel in violating their marriages. Openly gay men rarely find any need to resort to such degrading conditions. Of course, this particular anecdote tells of a gay man trying to pass for straight, by marrying a woman (who just happens to be a lesbian). He’s clearly not at peace with who he is to begin with, and the sheer volume of sexual encounters described would strongly suggest that he is using sex to smother his unwelcome feelings–in other words, he’s a SEX ADDICT, not a normal gay man.
In short, these statements are NOT “largely what gay men are saying about themselves and their relationships.” They are handpicked anecdotes, chosen to further an anti-gay agenda. Before you trust these as “typical” statements, by all means pick up a copy of “Out” or “The Advocate” sometime, and read through the whole issue. You’ll receive a much broader understanding of people who ultimately are a lot like you.
Comment # 32 by Nicholas S. Literski | Jun 12, 2006 | Reply
And again…..if you don’t believe that homosexual monogomy exists, why are you hell-bent on keeping it illegal?
Comment # 33 by Rick | Jun 12, 2006 | Reply
“…why are you hell-bent on keeping it illegal”
Mostly because God keeps asking us to.
Comment # 34 by Anonymous | Jun 14, 2006 | Reply
LOL.
If you want to discuss this, let’s do it. I certainly don’t feel that my opinion is the only valid one. So lets talk.
But to hide behind a simplistic statement like that is a disservice—and ignores a lot of tough facts.
Comment # 35 by Rick | Jun 14, 2006 | Reply
This is really interesting. I was under the impression that only “liberal” Mormons came to this site. But I guess there’s a bigger spectrum of Mormons here. Which is great. I’m glad we’re able to talk.
Comment # 36 by Stephen Carter | Jun 14, 2006 | Reply
I totally agree. And i totally agree.
Comment # 37 by Rick | Jun 15, 2006 | Reply
The question of the existence of homosexual monogamy isn’t on the table. I’m sure it exists; I would argue rather that it is not the norm in the homosexual community, with some activists even looking down on monogamy as “heterosexist” bilge foisted on humans’ naturally polymorphous sexuality.
Andrew Sullivan in Virtually Normal (New York: Vintage Books, 1996), wrote that monogamy is a “stifling model of heterosexual normality” and he speaks of homosexuals’ “understanding for the need for extramarital outlets” (202–3, qtd. in “protecting america’s immune system: a reasonable argument against homosexual marriage,” by Frank Turek, http://www.equip.org/free/JAH044.htm).
Sullivan is a “conservative” homosexual, famous for plying us with the argument that marriage will have a stabilizing effect on homosexual relationships and perhaps even on the heterosexual institution of marriage as well.
You see, when homosexuals question monogamy they do so from a superior morality and higher consciousness of what the true ends of being human are. Read any queer theory propaganda peddeled in the graduate schools and you’ll know exactly how accurate my report here is.
One last chestnut cited at http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/eight.php: “Michelangelo Signorile, writing in Out! magazine, has stated that homosexuals should, ‘…fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely … To debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution. … The most subversive action lesbians and gays can undertake-and one that would perhaps benefit all of society-is to transform the notion of “family” altogether.’” (Out! magazine, Dec./Jan., 1994).
Quotes like this from within the gay community are cited ad nauseam at the traditionalvalues.org site.
Comment # 38 by plainavy | Jun 15, 2006 | Reply
Thank you, “plainavy,” for revealing the actual source of your (mis)information. Feel free to correct me if I err, but I think it’s fair to conclude from your own writing that you have never read a copy of “Out,” nor “The Advocate,” nor any of the books you are citing. Instead, you have read selective statements quoted on a website, without bothering to check the context for yourself. Further, you choose to interpret these statements as representative of homosexuals across the board. I can tell you I once made the mistake of purchasing a book by Signorile, and the man has some bizarre attitudes that in no way reflect the gay community I’ve come to know. All the while, he has a superiority complex that sets him above not only heterosexuals, but 99% of homosexuals as well.
I would encourage EVERYONE participating in this discussion to look at the “traditionalvalues.org” website, specifically “traditionalvalues.org/urban/” where your quotes come from. A quick perusal reveals a plethora of questionable propaganda techniques. The site compares homosexuals to “Marxists,” and claims that the “gay agenda” is based on plans by Hitler. The page includes a graphic which flashes back and forth between photos of a young boy and a sinister-looking, older (presumably pederastic) man. Don’t you find this site just a bit far out? These are precisely the kind of right-wing religionists who produce the bulk of anti-LDS literature, yet you trust their judgment on other topics?
Comment # 39 by Nicholas S. Literski | Jun 15, 2006 | Reply
Nicholas writes, “it’s fair to conclude from your own writing that you have never read a copy of ‘Out,’ nor ‘The Advocate,’ nor any of the books you are citing.” “Fair”? Please don’t presume to know my background. I have examined issues of “The Advocate” in the past–it’s tawdry stuff and would shock most LDS faithful. Is there an LDS Living (or Better Homes and Gardens) version of homosexual magazines that has a bigger readership? You know, something that represents the “real” homosexual community.
And yes, the traditionalvalues.org site is a partisan, committed right-wing site, but that neither impairs all their quotes nor my use of them. If you can provide the right “context” for all the quotes, please do so, but don’t just smear the site or my position on this issue instead of performing that work.
And what about the other site, quoting Andrew Sullivan? How do you “contextualize” his quote?
Comment # 40 by plainavy | Jun 16, 2006 | Reply
Of course, I have no way of identifying what precisely rises to the level of “tawdry” for you. I will grant you that even advertisements therein, many of which depict gay men in embraces, etc., would be “shocking” to many who have not been exposed to such expression. Much of “The Advocate,” however, is quite political in nature, examining current affairs which affect the gay and lesbian communities.
I had to chuckle at your query about more representative magazines. I don’t mean that I laughed *at* you, either. It’s just that magazines like Better Homes & Gardens may well have at least as large a gay readership as “The Advocate” does! Some of the most common magazines I see in the homes of gay men include “National Georgraphic Traveller” and “Architectural Digest.”
What your comments seem to miss, plainavy (why the pseudonym, anyway?), is that the gay community is not a monolithic body. I don’t really fault you for thinking that, because even when I came out of the proverbial closet, I was amazed at the diversity I found among gay men–and the nonjudgmental, almost unconditional acceptance of that diversity. Of course, gays and lesbians have often experienced enough pain over being “different,” that they learn to value and embrace such diversity.
Within the gay community, you will absolutely find irresponsible, sex-addicted, even pedaristic psychopaths. You will also find responsible, caring philanthropists. You will find all types of people in between those extremes. In other words, the “gay community” is just as varied as the rest of society–and perhaps more so, due to an innate willingness to toss aside convention. So yes, you’ll find the Sullivans and the Signoreles. You’ll also find many gays and lesbians who advocate against such authors.
Comment # 41 by Nicholas S. Literski | Jun 16, 2006 | Reply
Nicholas, the monolithicizing of the homosexual community that you perceive is ironic because one of my initial points, the reason I responded on this board, was the unitary, and may I say domesticated, way that the homosexual community was being presented: Just a mass of undifferentiated people who, in an innocuous way, would benefit tremendously from marriage and strengthen the institution (see, for example, the post here dated May 30th, 2006 at 12:29 am).
No acknowledgement was being made on this board at the time that there is a deep and aggressive strand of militancy and activist agenda-setting within that community that is entirely deplorable.
To pretend a hard separation between those activists, as some putatively negligible minority, and a similarly putative vast majority of honest, unvexed homosexual citizens who pay no head to that minority, dodges the fact that somebody is leading someone. It is also to brush under the rug the fact that promiscuity among gay men is off the chart and higher than among straight men, and that many of the homosexual militants and activists work from an assumption that monogamy is over-rated.
Even to appeal to a community so varied that we should ignore (or rather even embrace) monumental social policy decisions that emanate from it, just sounds confused to me. Somehow that (leaderless?) community finds a critical mass of supporters for radical social policy from somewhere.
Are most homosexuals basically nice people who just want a good life? Sure, if one is allowed to generalize at all. But the activists, militants, and theorists who force radical social policy decisions into the public arena, with varying degrees of virulence, 1) have a constituency somewhere and 2) obviously have goals that reach beyond this year’s legislative agendas.
To ask the rest of us to ignore these larger forces and purposes involved in or that pursue proposed radical social policy is, ultimately, to shut down the discussion.
Comment # 42 by plainavy | Jun 17, 2006 | Reply
I apologize, plainavy, for taking your comments as applying to the gay community as a whole, rather than a single element within that community. I misunderstood your intent. There are various forms and levels of “activism,” of course. You pointed out a few authors who indeed have “radical” opinions and agendas. I, on the other hand, know a good many very average gay men who feel they are entitled to the benefits of formal marriage, and who promote that “agenda” without grandstanding. In other words, the push for gay marriage is not just something cooked up by “radicals” who want to “transform” marriage, etc.
I would point out that there is also a “deep and aggressive strand of militancy and activist agenda setting,” which is “entirely deplorable,” within the American religious right wing. The “activists, militants, and theorists” among them wish to “force radical social policy decisions into the public arena, with varying degrees of virulence.” The only difference between these forces and the Taliban is their choice of religion, and make no mistake—these are the same “religious” folk who would very much like to eliminate LDS-ism as something they see as being equally evil with homosexuality. Personally, I believe it is dangerous for the LDS church to hop into bed with these folks so readily.
Comment # 43 by Nicholas S. Literski | Jun 19, 2006 | Reply
what a thrill to find this forum and find I am not alone in being appalled at being told by the church how to stand on a political issue.
if i might make a reply to plainavy. i applaud you for doing your research, but i prefer to use the evidence of my own eyes. i have know many gay people over the (long) course of my life and found them to be as average a cross section of society as any other, neither more promiscuous and immoral, or less. i think that the conditions which society imposes on them in order to live their chosen sexual orientation takes a toll, however, and would account for much of the distasteful lifestyles which you seem to highlight. if we would allow them to live their lives as they choose, even as we have the right to choose, we would see a better picture of gay lifestyle in the end.
Comment # 44 by Anita Torres | Jun 22, 2006 | Reply
Which would benefit society the most?
Encouraging two men to live in a committed, loving, monogamous relationship..?
or…
Do whatever you want to sexually, with as many other men you want, BUT keep it to yourself, keepi it private and don’t “parade” your sexality out in public?
The second was tried, and the result was the AIDS epidemic…as well as self-loathing and guilt among homosexual men that resulted in all sorts of pathologies and pathological behaviors. (Anyone recall Jeffery Damar?)
Same-sex marriage is GOOD for marriage generally and society as a whole.
Comment # 45 by Rob | Aug 14, 2006 | Reply
plainavy,
I am a homosexual Reform Mormon (no longer LDS) and a Conservative (meaning clasic liberal, small government/personal freedom Conservative).
I find it interesting that you refer to Andrew Sullivan as a “Conservatrive” (in quotes) as if he is not. Also you took his quote from “Virtually Normal” outof context, as if he is suggesting that “exra maritial outlets” are a norm or a virtue to be pursued. In context Sullivan was merely noting that since married me more than married women commit adultery (at least that is the common perception), that two men in a same-sex marriage might be more forgiving if their partner committed adultery. Sullivan was in no way saying that same-sex marriage should be “open marriages”.”
You also misrepresent his views by taking out of context the clause “stifling model of heterosexual normality.” Your purpose is clear: to convince readers here that Sullivan wants to change monogamous marriage. Nothing is further from the truth.
Anyone unfamiliar with Sullivan’s stance should log onto his blog (sponsored by TIME magazine) at http://www.andrewsullivan.com…..and read VIRTUALLY NORMAL. Reading this book changed my life. I was closeted, active LDS Mormon–and unbearably unhappy.
Thankfully it was the teachings of Joseph Smith on the uncreated, etrenal nature of the human mind (found in the King Follett Disocurse) that opened my eyes to the reality of my nature–along with reading the first chapter VIRTUALLY NORMAL. In a blinding moment of personal revelation I accepted my homosexuality AND experienecd a profound rebirth in my understanding of and commitment to Mormonism and God. (I found out that this was something completely different and for me something far more important and profound than having a “testimony” of the LDS institution.)
End result: a closeted former LDS Mormon who was passionately opposed to same-sex marriage is now fully in support of same-sex marriage–seeing it as a profound moral imporvement,and one of the defining moral issues of our time–and at the same time I am more committed to Mormonism and my relationship ot my Heavenly Parents than ever before. On top of that, I am more Conservative politically than ever before….and by Consetative I do not mean that i am part of the Religious Right and the “Theocons.” Far from it! The completely secular government set up by the Constitution (which James Madison said must take absolutely no notice whatsoever of any religious issues) is the ONLY way to protect the natural rights of ALL citizens–including the Natural Right to Freedom of Conscience
-most often referred to as “Freedom of Religion.”
Comment # 46 by rob | Sep 7, 2006 | Reply
Utah’s FOX channel aired a two-part story last night, titled “Married, Gay & Mormon.” The links to view the story are:
PART ONE:
http://www.myfoxutah.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=1390775&version=2&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=3.1.1
PART TWO:
http://www.myfoxutah.com/myfox/pages/News;jsessionid=12F4E90EC9A94634253EFFD0E77DE9B1?pageId=3.1
The story makes an admirable effort to be impartial, presenting both a gay former member of the church who ended his twelve year marriage, and a near-newlywed couple who was recently featured in the Salt Lake Tribune. (They don’t point out the relatively brief marriage of the latter “happy” couple). Perhaps of greatest interest, the reporter specifically says that they contacted the church for comment, and were told that the church “is not interested in participating in any discussion of the subject.”
Comment # 47 by Nick Literski | Nov 6, 2006 | Reply