Oaks on Gays
Not to be out-gayed by T&S or M*, let me just say that there is a fantastic interview regarding Same-Sex Attraction over at the Church’s website. It deserves more than the mere link it received here. Public Affairs has seen fit to grill Elders Oaks and Wickman on homosexuality, the nature vs. nurture debate, same-sex marriage, civil unions, etc. Whether or not one agrees with every aspect of their views, it is surely signficant that Elder Oaks and Wickman were willing to go on the record with all this, and in such detail. I was particularly struck by how good the questions were that Public Affairs posed. The interview really covered all the hard questions, and didn’t sidestep any aspect of the issues, as my cynical self might have expected it to. I certainly hope this Q&A session is a harbinger of things to come. Wouldn’t it be great to read an interview like this concerning the Church’s views on evolution, the notion of “No Death Before the Fall,” or any number of other hot topics? Imagine the endless fodder for new blog posts in an otherwise burned-out Bloggernacle!
I encourage you to read the whole interview. Of the 1001 issues one might discuss after reading it, here are a random few that come to my mind:
1. More than even before, the Brethren seem to want to sidestep the Nature vs. Nurture debate and ground the Church’s opposition to homosexual activity in something other than a “position” on the causal factors behind homosexuality. I think this is a wise tactical move on the Church’s part. It would be nice if this serves to prevent bone-headed arm-chair analyses from Church members about the causes of homosexuality, and how their preferred causal theories are somehow mandated by LDS doctrine. If widely internalized by the Church at large, this approach will also, for better or for worse, probably make pro-homosexuality arguments relying on scientific explanations of homosexuality less persuasive among the membership. And thankfully, we probably won’t be hearing more of the Elder Faust view, circa 1995.
2. The Brethren seem unwilling to explicitly endorse specific therapeutic approaches to homosexuality. I wonder how the Evergreen folks feel about that. Also, there’s the acknowledgement of abusive therapeutic techniques. One wishes Oaks would have also made a regrettable acknowledgement of how BYU used to lead the way in implementing many such abusive techniques.
3. Oaks gives a nuanced view of the appropriateness of heterosexual marriage for homosexual members. Not reducible to a “Yes, they should get married,” or “No, they shouldn’t get married.”
4. There were several places in the interview where I can easily imagine the “unconditional love” issue might have been raised. It wasn’t, and thank goodness. I am so grateful that Church leaders don’t seem to want to jump on the Elder Nelson bandwagon!
5. The only part of the interview that leaves me slightly confused is Elder Wickman’s discussion of civil unions. Is Wickman opposed to same-sex couples having ANY of the rights that traditionally come with marriage, or is he only opposed to the full “bundle” of rights being had by gay couples (whether called marriage, civil unions, or whatever)?
Your thoughts?
Just noticed that Julie at T&S took the “high road” and directed all traffic on this topic to M*. No such policy here. Why should they get a monopoly on this discussion?
Aaron B
Comment by Aaron Brown — August 17, 2006 @ 1:08 pm
I’ve heard of sloppy seconds, what’s thirds? Unlike Julie, I thought a sidebar link was more than enough for this (done-to-death) topic.
Comment by Steve Evans — August 17, 2006 @ 1:31 pm
Steve, while the topic of “homosexuality” or “same-sex marriage” may have been done to death, this interview really is noteworthy, I think, for the reason(s) I set forth above. Thus, it deserves a thread.
Of course, if no one else agrees, then perhaps you and I can just argue ad nauseum about whether this post was a good idea or not, thereby creating a less-than-embarrassing showing with respect to volume of comments.
Aaron B
Comment by Aaron Brown — August 17, 2006 @ 1:38 pm
I was pleased that we managed to get through a lengthy interview on this topic without hearing the term “gender confusion”.
Comment by Mark IV — August 17, 2006 @ 1:52 pm
Elder Wickman said:
“What’s more, merely having inclinations does not disqualify one for any aspect of Church participation or membership, except possibly marriage as has already been talked about. But even that, in the fullness of life as we understand it through the doctrines of the restored gospel, eventually can become possible.”
Does this mean that those who feel they are homosexual will have the opportunity to marry after this life?
Comment by wes — August 17, 2006 @ 1:59 pm
AB, a meta-meta-debate? I’m game!
Comment by Steve Evans — August 17, 2006 @ 2:19 pm
“The interview really covered all the hard questions,”
While I mostly agree, one tough question they missed was whether gay mormons are expected to keep their problem mostly to themselves. I think that this is a very real expectation that many homosexuals feel in Mormon culture, and being closeted adds to the burden they must bear. If EO and EW think greater openness is ok, I wish they would have said so.
Comment by ed johnson — August 17, 2006 @ 3:02 pm
Nice comments, Aaron. You’re the first to post actual comments on the interview, as opposed to just a link with an invitation to discuss. I think another tough question not touched on in the interview is the status of members who oppose the proposed marriage amendment (that the Church officially supports) or who support either civil union or full gay marriage.
Elder Wickman is quoted in the interview as saying, “Decisions even for members of the Church as to what they do with respect to this issue [the proposed marriage amendment] must of course rest with each one in their capacity as citizens.” Of course, that’s true for any issue: the Church does not exercise temporal authority so the final decision on anything always rests with the individual. But does that mean they won’t be subject to various forms of formal or informal LDS discipline, such as being reprimanded by local leaders, being denied a temple recommend, or being dropped from employment at LDS employers such as BYU?
Comment by Dave — August 17, 2006 @ 3:23 pm
Aaron Brown out-gayed? Not possible.
Comment by Tim J. — August 17, 2006 @ 3:27 pm
“the Elder Faust view, circa 1995″
Cite, please?
I was surprised than in this very good, very thorough interview, there was nothing about spouses married to those with SSA. Maybe it is their generation showing, but I was surprised that there was so many questions re “What if my son is gay?” and no “What if my spouse is gay?”
I do think the interview was a very, very good thing for the Church, and I hope for more on other topics in the future.
Comment by Julie M. Smith — August 17, 2006 @ 3:48 pm
Julie, I hope for more of them too — but do we have any reason to expect any? I’d love to see more interviews, but SSA is such a hot topic with immediate political consequences that I worry this is a one-off event.
out of curiosity, what other topics would you want to hear about? Since the Strengthening the Members Committee reads BCC regularly, voicing your preferences here might just do the trick.
Comment by Steve Evans — August 17, 2006 @ 3:52 pm
Well, Steve, like you, my hopes aren’t too high for any issue that isn’t currently in the press spotlight, but if Romney becomes a serious contender, all sorts of things could be in the spotlight. I suspect the top three with be polygamy, blacks/priesthood, and women/priesthood. Possibly abortion, stem cell research, etc. It may also be that the motivation here wasn’t so much “SSA is in the media spotlight” but “there’s a lot about SSA on the web and none of it reflects the church’s official position.” I don’t know.
Comment by Julie M. Smith — August 17, 2006 @ 4:12 pm
That’s an interesting read of the motivation. I wonder if it’s really so — if SSA weren’t in the spotlight, I personally doubt we’d have this interview, but you never know.
Deep down, I wonder whether this interview really is the Church’s official position! I mean, it’s not canon by any stretch…
Comment by Steve Evans — August 17, 2006 @ 4:19 pm
Steve, everyone knows that the fourth horseman of the apocalypse is to ask whether something is really church doctrine. (The first horseman is comparison to Hitler, the second has something to do with fondue, and I forgot the third.)
Comment by Julie M. Smith — August 17, 2006 @ 4:22 pm
heh! the specter of fondue rides upon a cheesy pale horse.
Comment by Steve Evans — August 17, 2006 @ 4:28 pm
“I wonder whether this interview really is the Church’s official position!”
Funny you should mention that Steve, I was just thinking about that. But the interview as a whole is given as the answer to the question of “What is the position of the Church on same-gender attraction and same-gender marriage?†on the church website. Certainly non-canonical, but about as official as you can get.
But I think it’s interesting that this information was provided in this format. I mean, Oaks and Wickman could easily have drafted a document with much of the same information and then just released it under the name of the church. I’m sure it’s happened somewhere before, but this is the first time that I can think of that a Q & A interview was the medium used to release the church’s position on an issue. I wonder why this approach. Is it supposed to imply less formality and officialness?
Comment by Eric Russell — August 17, 2006 @ 4:38 pm
You can read my take here. File under “view on the interview from a gay Jew.”
Comment by Mike Kessler — August 17, 2006 @ 5:21 pm
It was a good interview; I think Oaks and Wickman did an excellent job.
I can’t say that I agree about a constitutional amendment, although I think they gave the best arguments they could for that position. I’d be curious to know what they would say (and this isn’t necessarily my position) about the idea that the state shouldn’t have anything to do with marriage, that it should be an ecclesiastical institution only. Actually, I know what they’d probably say. But I think an argument could be made, and the two came close to making it, is that once same-sex “marriages” are accepted at par that there is no such thing as a state-sanctioned marriage. What then? If the only legal “marriage” is a “genderless marriage,” as they put it, should the church have anything to do with it?
I’m sure that there will be those who see bigotry in this interview. But I don’t see it that way and appreciate their willingness to openly discuss this difficult issue.
Comment by Copedi — August 17, 2006 @ 5:41 pm
Mark IV remarked, “I was pleased that we managed to get through a lengthy interview on this topic without hearing the term ‘gender confusion’.”
Yes, that surprised me. But Oaks still insists that ‘Homosexuality’ is a verb and not a noun. The focus is clearly on what you do, not who you are. It seems to be the brethren’s way of saying that they don’t believe in homosexual orientation as an innate condition.
Comment by Steven B — August 17, 2006 @ 6:42 pm
Steven: I don’t believe that Elder Oaks intended to address the “innateness” question at all. Both Oaks and Wickman repeatedly stated that it is an issue for science and we don’t know. What they did affirm is that a prclivity or inclination is not sinful and that only behavior is sinful. They also stated very clearly, it seems to me, that gays are expected to control their sexual urges just as much as unmarried hetero-sexuals. Any other standard would be absurd within the gospel context it seems to me. Further, they affirmed something esential to the gospel — we can control urges and feelings and we don’t have to just surrender to any bodily urges we get. We are accountable precisely beause we have such control. I thought that the interview as honest and a very good thing.
Comment by Blake — August 17, 2006 @ 7:57 pm
Julie,
The Elder Faust speech, circa 1995 is here:
http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=7809
The section I had in mind is the following:
“There is some widely accepted theory extant that homosexuality is inherited. How can this be? No scientific evidence demonstrates absolutely that this is so. Besides, if it were so, it would frustrate the whole plan of mortal happiness. Our designation as men or women began before this world was. In contrast to the socially accepted doctrine that homosexuality is inborn, a number of respectable authorities contend that homosexuality is not acquired by birth. The false belief of inborn sexual orientation denies to repentant souls the opportunity to change and will ultimately lead to discouragement, disappointment, and despair.”
I recall, back in the day, how Faust’s speech was used by many to bolster the argument that homosexual inclinations were not inborn. After all, “Faust said so.” According to a member of BYU Zoology’s faculty for whom I T.A.’d, a number of LDS scientists approached the First Presidency with concerns about Faust’s talk, and not long afterwards came a speech by Oaks, preaching more or less the same agnosticism on the “innateness” or “inborn” question that Oaks preaches in his recent interview.
Of course, I realize that the Faust excerpt above can be read as ambiguous, since Faust doesn’t draw a careful inclination/act distinction. But that itself may be the problem. The speech can easily be read as a repudiation of the notion that homosexual inclination might be inborn (and often is/was so read). While I personally don’t have a strong view on the subject of the “innateness” or genetics of homosexual inclination one way or another, I think it’s good that the Church now makes the conceptual distinction between act and inclination, thus turning the question of the causality of homosexual orientation into a mostly irrelevant side show.
Aaron B
Comment by Aaron Brown — August 17, 2006 @ 8:13 pm
Thanks Aaron. I really like the way you articulated your last sentence.
Comment by Julie M. Smith — August 17, 2006 @ 9:29 pm
Does anyone know where I can find a gay discussion in the nacle? Cause, I just can’t find one.
Comment by fMhLisa — August 17, 2006 @ 11:28 pm
I’m sorry, but this grand distinction between “urges” and “behavior” misses the whole point that there is really no place for a homosexual orientation in a church whose focus, theology and soteriology revolves around and is dependent on heterosexuality. If the church really wants to bring the homosexual into the fold and create a special class of “celibates” in a society which is rapidly embracing homosexuality as a natural varient of human diversity, it needs to provide positive role models and make a place for such people at the institutional level, instead of comparing them to the disabled and reducing their uniqueness to “an inclination to sin.”
Comment by Steven B — August 18, 2006 @ 1:42 am
Steven,
That’s the crux, isn’t it? For the Church, heterosexual relations are sacramental, salvific, which means our approach to this goes beyond a bit of Deuteronomy mingled with Paul and strikes at the heart of Mormonism. That said, polygamy was once considered sacramental, salvific…
Comment by Ronan — August 18, 2006 @ 4:28 am
“I’m sure it’s happened somewhere before, but this is the first time that I can think of that a Q & A interview was the medium used to release the church’s position on an issue.” Somewhere would be Section 77.
A fascinating thing about this issue to me has been the inordinate attention given to a trivially small group. All the arguing for and against is largely carried out by people who aren’t and wouldn’t be affected by homosexuality one way or another. “What is the argument really about?” I have wondered. Dallin Oaks’ first response was a useful answer to my question.
Comment by John Mansfield — August 18, 2006 @ 6:05 am
If the GAs were prevented from re-marrying when they become widowers, perhaps they’d have a little more compassionate understanding (as opposed to facile, unhelpful comparisons–come on–gays are handicapped now???!!!).
As it is, they can’t wait to marry a fresh, relatively young (as young as their children, that is), virgin bride of 50+ within a year or two of their wives’ passing and yet they have the gall to tell homosexuals to wait until the afterlife so they can turn straight, when sex as we know it will most likely not even exist. Shame on them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Comment by nonamethistime — August 18, 2006 @ 7:02 am
As a gay man who feels alienated from the church (and to a lesser extent some of my extended LDS family and friends) in part because of this issue, this little “interview” has done nothing to draw me closer. Few things frustrate me more than having people who have no idea what it’s like to be gay tell me how I should understand my own experience.
Comment by Chris Williams — August 18, 2006 @ 7:54 am
This interview just floors me. Next time I call for the church leaders to speak out on some issue on which they have been reticent to speak, remind me of this interview. Who was it that said “better the world think you a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt”? These guys are so off-the-charts insulting to our intelligence. Their answers to the questions are a strange mixture of condescension, arrogance, and ignorance. Summing up Elder Oaks’s take on things. Homosexuals are just like:
{a} alcoholics
{b} kleptomaniacs
{c} the severely disabled
but their self-identification based on their sexual orientation is no different than those who identify themselves as
{a} Texan
{b} redheaded
{c} Marine
{d} Uncle Rico from Napoleon Dynamite
The number of different groups slurred and put down by Oaks and Wickman in this interview is astonishing. And Wickman’s aversion to using the word “sex” borders on the bizarre. “Genderless marriage”? These guys show that they really don’t have a clue. I do give props to the unnamed Public Affairs person asking the questions, though. They weren’t softballs.
Comment by Equality — August 18, 2006 @ 8:17 am
I do give props to the unnamed Public Affairs person asking the questions, though. They weren’t softballs.
I have a hard time believing that those questions weren’t thoroughly vetted before they were put before Elders Oaks and Wickman.
Comment by Chris Williams — August 18, 2006 @ 8:20 am
You’d think they would have had better answers then.
Comment by Equality — August 18, 2006 @ 8:52 am
Equality (#29),
Since I spent a while on the M* thread making what I thought was a pretty good case for both the significance of and the sympathy inplied in Elder Wickham’s analogy between a gay person and his handicapped daughter, let suggest that your reading is slightly off. EO did not say that “homosexuals are just like…the severly disabled.” What he did say is that, just as his severely disabled daughter experiences an emotional and/or physical condition that prevents her from marrying (and thus enjoying the pleasures and comforts of a sexual relationship), so too does a gay person–assuming they accept the perspective of the church regarding obedience to what are held to be divine dictates about sexual behavior–suffer from a “handicap” that prevents him or her from enjoying the pleasures of a sexual relationship. Obviously, if you don’t think one’s sexual life ought to conform to the statements of church leaders, then this analogy is perfectly ridiculous and carries no weight. Why I think it’s important though is that, if you are a gay man or woman, or the parent of a gay man or women, are you are in the church and believe in the church and want to stay in the church, then this analogy–which, I think, implies that there is no shame or “evil” whatsoever attached to being gay, no more than Elder Wickham’s daughter should feel as though her unfortunate fate in ANY way negatively reflects upon her personal worth–is tremendously important. It basically says, “Yeah, unfortunately some people’s physical and emotional states are probably going to have to oblige them to forgoe marriage in they want to stay faithful to the commandments of God. That sucks. Don’t you dare even begin to suggest that they should feel at fault for that. That’s their lookout. Take care of the beam in your own eye, buddy.”
Of course, as I also said at M*, this implication, if I am reading it correctly, would be massively more persuasive if you actually gay and/or at least celibate men and women occupying public positions in the church so as to exemplify it. And unfortunately, I think we’re probably years away from that.
Comment by Russell Arben Fox — August 18, 2006 @ 8:55 am
Chris, although I certainly can’t claim to know anything about what it’s like to be a gay LDS man coming out to friends and family, I well recognize the frustration and anger that come from listening to someone who embodies of all the sorts of privilege that I do not telling me about myself. When I was in college, nothing could bring me to tears of rage faster than a GA talking about my womanly nature. A decade and a half into my own challenge, I now recognize that rage as a legitimate beginner’s response.
What I’m wondering is, do you really think your objection is to the messengers, or is it most fundamentally to the message itself? I found that when I heard women saying the same things about women ex cathedra, it didn’t help matters at all; I was still enraged. I finally had to come to terms with the fact that the Mormon concept of authority isn’t based on experiential knowledge, it’s based on revealed knowledge. As angry as it made me, it really didn’t matter whether or not the GAs had ever experienced life as a woman (or a gay man, or whatever). The two are not fully discrete, of course, and I firmly believe that greater understanding and familiarity and sympathy for the gay experience on the part of GAs will facilitate the revelatory process. But in the end, it’s not about whether or not they feel our pain, it’s about whether we accept their authority to speak for God.
Comment by Rosalynde — August 18, 2006 @ 8:56 am
Rosalynde,
Thanks for your thoughtful reply to my post.
And you are right. I object to the message more than the messenger. Indeed, I’ve been engaged in a discussion on my blog with a married gay LDS man who basically takes the same approach as Elder Oaks in discussing homosexuality and it frustrates me. It frustrates me because while I think Elder Oaks just doesn’t know, I think my blog interlocutor should know better. So, yes, it’s the content that troubles me, not the relevant experience of the person delivering the content is really only a secondary issue.
That said…
You wrote: But in the end, it’s not about whether or not they feel our pain, it’s about whether we accept their authority to speak for God.”
For men who reportedly speak for a kind and loving God, it seems to me that it ought to be about both.
Comment by Chris Williams — August 18, 2006 @ 9:26 am
Argh, you know what, the end of that last comment came out much more preachily than I had wanted. Chris, I’m sure none of what I said was news to you; sorry for being so condescending, and I wish you and your famkily all the best things.
Comment by Rosalynde — August 18, 2006 @ 9:28 am
FMH Lisa (#23), perhaps we should have some kind of round table on the topic? I’m just not sure we’ve yet plumbed the depths.
RAF, while the implications of this interview are very interesting if fleshed out to their fullest extent (as you’ve suggested), I see no real evidence that the authorities who gave this interview intend such far-reaching consequences. Rather, I see their replies as being very focussed on immediate responses to at-hand situations rather than policies or guidelines for homosexuals in the Church. That’s part of my reluctance to view this interview as anything more than a public relations act or modest policy shift at most.
Comment by Steve Evans — August 18, 2006 @ 9:56 am
Rosalynde, so apology necessary. Thanks for your post and the dialogue.
Comment by Chris Williams — August 18, 2006 @ 10:05 am
Chris, is it a valid possibility in your view that even a “kind and loving God” strictly forbids some things and simply expects obedience to His word? Or, in your view, to be a “kind and loving God,” must God take an I’m okay, you’re okay approach and never condemn anyone or any kind of behavior? If you do believe that God can and does forbid some things (i.e. if you believe that “sin” can and does exist) then how does your view deal with the idea that this concept of sin is going to rub some people wrong no matter what? Assuming that you do believe God can and does designate some things as sin that we must avoid or repent of in order to live with Him again (and I have no basis for thinking that you do take this view, but just for the sake of discussion), I am guessing that you would maintain that the homosexual sex act would not and could not be considered sin in the eyes of God. That is fine, let us just focus on whatever it is that you would consider sin in the eyes of God. The people engaging in such acts (that actually constitute sin in the eyes of God) are sure to feel put off, angry, and/or frustrated that God’s prophet and apostles are admonishing the Church against such behavior or actions or that their behavior is being labeled as against the will of God. How do you resolve this dilemma in your view? Can or does God forbid certain things as “sin” and does the fact that the people engaged in those things feel indignant about this fact invalidate God’s designations?
Comment by john f. — August 18, 2006 @ 10:11 am
john f. (#38): I believe and kind and loving G-d does strictly forbid some things. I would expect that a kind and loving G-d might even condemn sex between two men or two women — if it was for self-gratification alone and not for intimacy. By that I mean, it is, to me, unlikely for G-d to have created men who love other men and then would condemn them for doing so, or to limit that love in a way that other love is not limited. However, I have always understood the Leviticus passage to refer to men who prefer women but who have sex with men merely for base gratification. That, to me, is consistent with the other passages surrounding it in Leviticus.
Comment by Mike Kessler — August 18, 2006 @ 10:27 am
Mike, that is a fair answer with regard to the homosexual sex act. Do you have a view as to the larger question though? Let’s take those who you mentioned who engage in the homosexual sex act “for self-gratification alone” (although we could have this discussion with regard to any other thing that we believe God has condemned as sin and not necessarily with regard to homosexual sex). People engaging in this will likely feel enraged or frustrated that God views their behaviour as sinful, and even moreso at the prophets who deliver this message to them. Can the indignation of people actually engaging in sin — indignation resulting from the message that God does not or might not accept their actions — reverse the mind of God about what is sin? Can the indignation itself be a reason to conclude what is or is not sin? Any definition of sin is bound to get some class of people up in arms by virtue of the fact that they act or want to act in contravention to whatever God deems as sin.
Comment by john f. — August 18, 2006 @ 10:39 am
“By that I mean, it is, to me, unlikely for G-d to have created men who love other men and then would condemn them for doing so”
Where does this leave you on pedophiles and rapists?
Comment by Julie M. Smith — August 18, 2006 @ 10:40 am
“Where does this leave you on pedophiles and rapists?”
Or home-schoolers?
Comment by Carlton — August 18, 2006 @ 10:48 am
Is home schooling argued to be genetic — or a sin?
Comment by john f. — August 18, 2006 @ 11:46 am
41
Beautiful, Julie. It only took 41 posts for the pedophile/rapist connection to homosexuality to rear its pretty head. Do you even realize how ignorant and cruel you sound with this comment? Do you even comprehend how hurtful such a comment is to homosexuals and their families? Do you really not have the cognitive ability to distinguish the vast chasm that exists morally between a rapist and a homosexual? I am not sure whether to pity or scorn you. Pity if you really are so ignorant. Scorn if you know the difference but are so callous as to raise this absurd point (for the umpteenth time here in the glorious bloggernacle environs) despite knowing better.
Comment by Equality — August 18, 2006 @ 11:48 am
john f, Carlton is demonstrating the absurdity of Julie’s comment by posing one a connection that he finds equally ridiculous. But somehow I think you knew that.
Comment by Equality — August 18, 2006 @ 11:49 am
But Equality, Carlton’s attempt at the ridiculous doesn’t work because his chosen example doesn’t fit into the class of things that Julie referred to, i.e. behaviors that are argued to be genetic but are nevertheless seen as “sin” by many or most people, even though the perps can theoretically argue, as did Mike, that “it is, to me, unlikely for G-d to have created men who love other men [i.e. people with a certain genetic predisposition] and then would condemn them for doing so [acting on their genetic predisposition].â€
Comment by john f. — August 18, 2006 @ 11:55 am
Equality, your 44 is not really an appropriate response to Julie’s 41, I think. It seems to me that Julie was responding to Mike in the context of my larger question to Chris in my 38 and 40. The question is about whether a class of people’s indignation about the fact that God might consider some certain thing sin and as strictly forbidden to be normative as to whether it really is sin or not. Any designation of sin or forbidden behavior as being against the will of God will anger the subset of people engaged in such behavior. Mike’s response was to say he felt it unlikely that God would create someone a certain way and then still hold as sin acting in the way that person was created. Julie responded with a valid counter-point based on Mike’s resort to the argument of “God creating a person a certain way.”
Comment by john f. — August 18, 2006 @ 12:01 pm
john f.,
For the sake of argument, I can agree with you that God can call something sin and those who engage in that sin might be enraged by that.
Feel better?
Comment by Chris Williams — August 18, 2006 @ 12:05 pm
Um, guys, Julie wasn’t comparing gays to pedophiles or rapists. (Have you read any of the 3000+ posts on homosexuality in the nacle? This is Julie we’re talking about; she doesn’t do that s***). Rather, she was pointing out a flaw in the argument by using a _separate_ example.
The argument as made was: “unlikely for G-d to have created men who love other men and then would condemn them for doing so.” In other words, God gives us our sexual desires; therefore all sexual desires are acceptable.
Julie pointed out the flaw in that reasoning, by noting that there are at least some cases (e.g., pedophiles) where this broad-brush logic simply does not work. Given those cases, it is incomplete to simply say, God gives us our sexual desires; therefore all sexual desires are acceptable. It’s obvious that some sexual desires are _not_ going to be acceptable, whether we think that they’re genetic or cultural or whatever else.
Therefore, any argument that homosexuality ought to be acceptable — and such arguments can certainly be articulated — should start from some point other than “all of everyone’s sexual desires are God-given and therefore fine.” As Julie has noted, that starting point is too broad.
Comment by Kaimi — August 18, 2006 @ 12:15 pm
(In fairness to Julie’s critics, she should have been a little more clear about her point, given the potential for confusion with a negative and harmful stereotype.)
Comment by Kaimi — August 18, 2006 @ 12:17 pm
john f,
My response was entirely appropriate. Julie’s use of the rapist/pedophile is standard tripe from the right wing and from religious zealots who use it to smear homosexuals. It’s SOP and I think you know it. Don’t try to hide behind sophistry and semantics. The idea encapsulated by the shorthand Julie used is that if homosexuals are innately predisposed to be attracted to members of the same sex and can therefore justify their “lifestyle,” then pedophiles and rapists (and, if you ask Professor Wilkins at BYU Law School, people who want to marry their goat) can simply say they were “born that way,” too and then we’ll all have to recognize their “perversions” and give legal protections to them. Her words were “code words” and I for one am sick of seeing it. And I won’t stand silently by and let it pass without comment.
Comment by Equality — August 18, 2006 @ 12:18 pm
kaimi,
you are confusing sexual desires and sexual orientation.
and, yes, i was surprised to see this from Julie.
Comment by Equality — August 18, 2006 @ 12:19 pm
Chris, I’m not sure what you mean by asking me whether I “feel better”? I assume you are implying that I am somehow not discussing this in good faith. But I see that you agree that people’s indignation about having been designated as engaging in sin or sinful behavior does not dictate to God what He thinks constitutes sin.
Comment by john f. — August 18, 2006 @ 12:37 pm
Kaimi,
what julies said was - “Where does this leave you on pedophiles and rapists?”
and this was in no way pointing out a flaw in an argument, it was a flaw itself in any argument. sure, we have all seen the comments in the nacle about pedophilia, and generally they are all offensive. if i recall it goes a little like this: if we accept gay folks its the “slippery slope” to accepting pedophilia. and generally, that argument is proposed by a tbm or apologist and generally its up to some satanic/slothful/sinning/un-tbm to discredit the absurdity of the argument as most tbm’s and nacle moderaters would never ever ever disagree with such a generalization.
the problem is, julie is dead wrong in the association. an equally applicable question would be “where does that leave you on drunk drivers, bank robbers, murderers, perjurers, embezzlers, etc?”
julie makes me sick. and anyone that would defend her homosexuality/pedophile/rape association is equally ridiculous.
if she cares to defend herself, perhaps she could get on here and give us the documented facts about pedophilia. she may want to start out learning that most predators are men preying on girls. so, perhaps heterosexuality is actually the slippery slope?
and, dont get me started on the tolerances for real pedophilia in the history of the mormon church. after all, that topic is absolutely forbidden, given that there are facts to review, and not just one line idiotic associations of crimes with uncrimes.
Comment by mayan elephant — August 18, 2006 @ 12:38 pm
Christ, also, my comment was a response to your invocation of the idea of what a “kind and loving God” would or could deem sinful in 34. So I guess my broader question is still up in the air: does God cease to be a “kind and loving God” because what he deems sin enrages, frustrates, and/or saddens some class of people engaging in that particular sin. This question is actually bigger than the debate about whether the homosexual sex act is a sin in the eyes of God. It was sparked by your invocation of a “kind and loving God,” as if such a being would not designate as sin something that could hurt some class of people’s feelings.
Comment by john f. — August 18, 2006 @ 12:40 pm
55: Did we drive you to start cussin’, john f?
Comment by Equality — August 18, 2006 @ 12:43 pm
john f, you make a classic mistake here: how would one know what God “deems sin”? Are the opinions of apostles and seventies on social topics equal to the word of God? Is Oaks speaking for himself, the church, or God? Are these indistinguishable in your mind? I think we could turn this question on its head. I ask you: is it reasonable to put your trust in men who spout ignorance and hatred? The question is whether the words of these men stand as evidence that, in fact, they DO NOT speak for God. Methinks the more they speak, the more obvious the answer to this question becomes.
Comment by Equality — August 18, 2006 @ 12:49 pm
Sorry, Equality, your 51 again entirely misses the mark as a rhetorical matter. You are too willing to obfuscate by projecting on Julie things you attribute to “standard tripe from the right wing and from religious zealots who use it to smear homosexuals.” In so doing you can all too conveniently avoid and ignore the issue of this sub-discussion that I was interested in pursuing with Chris, to which Mike responded, to which response by Mike Julie specifically responded. You succeed in derailing the discussion of the isolated point and casting anyone who does not agree with your view of the homosexual sex act as bad people, but you place yourself outside the actual topic of discussion (for this sub-point).
My feeling is that a sub-text of the interview that has been mentioned above by Russell and Aaron B. is that whether something is genetic or not is completely beside the point in the question of whether God considers it a sin or not. I think Julie’s simple sentence went to that point, which, as noted, Aaron already pointed out with his observation in # 21 that the interview seems to turn “the question of the causality of homosexual orientation into a mostly irrelevant side show.”
Pedophilia and rape are both argued by some to be genetically caused. But this argument is completely irrelevant as to whether God deems either a sin. Mike’s statement, however, legitimately results in Julie’s question, since Mike seems to view the genetic nature of homosexuality as normative for whether God considers it a sin.
Comment by john f. — August 18, 2006 @ 12:50 pm
/kicks over hornet’s nest and then leaves computer to make lunch for children
Kaimi in #49 is right. I think everyone who had something lovely to say about me already knew that, but I realize that it is therapeutic to attack someone else instead of acknowledging the weakness of one’s own position* and I’m happy to provide that service, so carry on.
*Absent modern revelation, I think support for homosexual activity–even gay marriage–is a fairly easy position to defend. But the argument that if God gave someone a sexual desire, God wouldn’t condemn them for acting on it is pathetic, in any framework. You can do better than that, folks.
Comment by Julie M. Smith — August 18, 2006 @ 12:59 pm
john f.,
My apologies for calling into question the good faith with which you entered conversation with me. As a now out gay man with a deep Mormon past, I walk into fora such as this feeling defensive. It struck me that the gist of your question was, “Hey, Chris, aren’t you really just pissed off because you’re a homosexual and you don’t want to accept that God isn’t going to let you act on it?” You were, of course, more polite than that, but that’s what I read. To the extent that your question was distorted as it passed through my defensive filter, I apologize. I’ll assume that you enter dialogue with me about this issue–which touches me in the most personal way it can–in good faith.
But I also must confess some puzzlement over your questiong my use of the term “kind and loving.” I used it specifically in response to Rosalynde’s comment that whether or not an apostle felt our pain was not the issue–the issue is his claim to God’s authority. I’d like to think that a special witness of Christ was fully capable of “feeling our pain”–and that ability to show empathy is to me, a child of God, every bit as important as his claim to authority.
Here’s what that doesn’t mean–that said apostle has to give me a pass or let me off the hook if my behavior or life choices come into conflict with church teachings. Not at all. What it does mean is that what I feel from Elders Oaks and Wickman in this Q&A is not love and empathy. I brought my voice to this discussion to say simply this: I am a gay man and a Mormon (in name if no longer in practice or belief) and this attempt to explain the church’s position has only deepened my alienation from a Church that I gave my life to and that I believed could help me overcome the burden of being gay. It has furthered my alienation from a church that provides answers that ring hollow or do not describe my own reality, my own truth, my own experience with homosexuality. It is yet another example of the church telling me how I should feel and understand about my sexuality that just doesn’t work.
I’m not a class of people, john f. I’m an actual person, and, yes, my feelings are hurt. But they’re not hurt so much because the Church (and in the interest of full disclosure, I do not belive the LDS Church and God are the same thing) tells me that something I desire to do is sinful, but because the Church can’t seem to find a way to speak to me with any compassion or understanding.
Comment by Chris Williams — August 18, 2006 @ 1:03 pm
Julie, what “modern revelation” are you referring to? I haven’t heard of such a reveleation. Rather, I hear modern church leaders rest their arguments on scripture, primarily the Bible, on traditional teachings, and on simple assertions. Many people assume that the Proclamation on the Family is a revelation, but I don’t think church leaders have claimed that.
(BTW, I want to join those defending Julie against silly attacks that misunderstand her completely valid points.)
Comment by ed johnson — August 18, 2006 @ 1:05 pm
Sorry, john f., I’m not buying what you are selling. You’re trying to tell me that of all the specific examples in the entire universe of possible specific examples that Julie uses to make her point that whether something is genetic or not is completely beside the point, she pulls out “pedophiles and rapists” in a discussion about homosexuality. What a coincidence that these code words are the ones she chose to use.
And your assertion that “some” argue pedophilia and rape are genetically caused is absurd. “Some” might argue that there are Quakers living on the moon, but that fact is hardly salient to any serious discussion on astronomy.
And don’t try to shift the blame to me for derailing the discussion. I think we should have a rule for the Bloggernacle, something like a corollary to Godwin’s Law, that no one bring up “pedophilia” and “rape” in any discussion on homosexuality. Seems to me that comparison is what derails the discussion.
To the larger point: you are correct that Oaks and Wickman do not want to talk about the “cause” of homosexuality. Why is that? Perhaps because the “cause” is the same “cause” as heterosexuality. And if so, then that leaves them open to the charge of discrimination. Now, if they want to argue that God is a bigot and that God desires that homosexuals be discriminated against, then they are free to make their case. That was, after all, the position that many leaders of the church took with respect to people with dark skin of African descent. They should at least be honest and up front about it, though.
Comment by Equality — August 18, 2006 @ 1:07 pm
“Pedophilia and rape are both argued by some to be genetically caused”
yeah, and some people blow their minds out in a car while waiting for the light to change. so what.
you are sick, john f. and the fact that you subscribe to that argument of genetic association of crimes and hate enough to tolerate it rather than refute it, puts you in the very camp of people that would use it to justify their murders and other crimes. also, you would use “some” folks argument to justify your own bigotry and association with someone as shamelessly bigoted as oaks.
Comment by mayan elephant — August 18, 2006 @ 1:08 pm
Chris, assuming that God does view the homosexual sex act as sinful, how should God’s prophets communicate that so as to avoid making you feel more alienated by the Church?
Comment by john f. — August 18, 2006 @ 1:09 pm
Wow. Deja vu.
I’m afraid Equality and Mayan Elephant are serial offendors on the shrill “You’re saying homosexuals are just as bad as pedophiles and rapists, you despicable bigot!” front. I don’t know what it is, but when they see the word pedophile their brains turn off.
I can’t find the Messenger and Advocate thread where we went through this, but it’s pretty much exactly the same. It’s all very predictable. And depressing.
Comment by Tom — August 18, 2006 @ 1:10 pm
john f., one thing they could do is recognize that my homosexuality is about far more than wanting to commit “the homosexual sex act.” (Which one is that, by the way?)
Comment by Chris Williams — August 18, 2006 @ 1:12 pm
tom, and arent you special for sitting on the sidelines while other make the association about pedophiles and homosexuals.
plan to see me around again when the topic comes up. because there are few in the church that are willing to go against the association, despite the ridiculousness and offensiveness of it.
Comment by mayan elephant — August 18, 2006 @ 1:13 pm
Re #61,
Ed, that’s a fair question. I was using “modern revelation” as shorthand for “what Church leaders teach” and not “a document.” So perhaps I should have said: “Absent what current church leaders teach . . .”
Equality writes, “in the entire universe of possible specific examples that Julie uses to make her point that whether something is genetic or not is completely beside the point, she pulls out “pedophiles and rapists†in a discussion about homosexuality”
I honestly can’t think of any other sexual practices that (1) some people think have a biological basis and (2) are [almost] universally condemned. I don’t know who you are are what you know about me, but if you read pretty much anything I’ve ever written at T & S, you’ll find that I’m not a tool of the far right social agenda. I usually wish the far right would leave the rest of us alone and go play baseball or something.
Comment by Julie M. Smith — August 18, 2006 @ 1:14 pm
re 63, Mr. Elephant, I don’t think that you’ve been reading this discussion very closely. Kaimi has made the exact same point that I am making with regard to Julie’s invocation of that comparison. To wit, Mike was in essence stating that a genetic predisposition, i.e. how God created a person, could be normative in determining what is or is not sin. But this cannot be a normative criterion from a logical point of view based on the obvious example of pedophilia, which is argued to be a genetic predisposition. Despite the fact that God created pedophiles that way, the fact of their genetic predisposition is not normative of whether their behavior in accordance with that genetic make-up is sin or not. The issue is genetics and what role they play in the definition of sin, not a slippery-slope argument leading homosexuality to pedophilia. If you do not understand the use of the pedophilia example in this discussion by this point, then you are willfully ignoring what it is really being used for and that is obvious to at least this reader. I am guessing that an objective reader, even one who supports the homosexual sex act, will acknowledge the rhetorical use of Julie’s comparison in this larger argument of the intersection of genetics and sin.
Comment by john f. — August 18, 2006 @ 1:14 pm
re 66, Chris, it is your view that the interview does not acknowledge that your homosexuality is about more to you than the homosexual sex act? I wasn’t getting that from the interview. Maybe you could elucidate?
Comment by john f. — August 18, 2006 @ 1:15 pm
Mayan, it’s not an association. Using two words in the same conversation does not denote anything about the relationship between the two words. People who are paying attention and thinking don’t need to hyperventilate at the very sight of the two words on the same page. The first time somebody suggests that pedophilia and homosexuality are on the same moral plane, you’ll see me objecting vociferously. This was not done here, nor will it be, I’m sure.
Comment by Tom — August 18, 2006 @ 1:17 pm
Well, as one who “supports the homosexual sex act,” (I think–again, I’m not sure which one we are talking about. I also support the heterosexual sex act for those who enjoy it) I can say that I understood the point Julie was making, regrettable as it was in the way in which she made it and as much as it made me cringe when she did.
This might be another way that the Church (in this case, the people who comprise it) could ease the sense of alienation that gay people feel. Be a little more sensitive in selecting your analogies. Because Equality is also right: the association is frequently made in the most virulently homophobic way by those with serious theological and political axes to grind.
Comment by Chris Williams — August 18, 2006 @ 1:20 pm
re 62, Equality, see Kaimi’s comment above. You are misreading Julie pretty strongly here. Pedophilia is an activity, although arguably genetic, that noone in their right mind would say is justified just because of the fact that it might be genetic, i.e. that God made pedophiles that way. That is why Julie used that and rape as her counter-point examples. What they show is that Mike’s premise is invalid as a criterion for what can be or is not sin.
Comment by john f. — August 18, 2006 @ 1:24 pm
70–
john f, the emphasis over and over and over is on sinful behavior–i.e., sex. If same-sex attraction (remember, “homosexuality” is off limits in LDS discourse about, um, homosexuality) is a condition akin to alcoholism or obesity or whatever, then we all we need to do is control/curb/repress the desire to engage in abberant homosexual sex. But what makes me gay is not wanting to have sex with men. What makes me gay is wanting to love another man and to express that love in all of the ways that husbands and wives express that love to each other.
The emphasis in LDS treatments of this issue is always on controlling sexual activity. Ok, but what about the fact that I just want to be in love with a man?
Comment by Chris Williams — August 18, 2006 @ 1:27 pm
re 72, the fact that Equality is correct that in other contexts some people have argued that homosexuality is linked directly to pedophilia actually has no bearing on how Julie was using it, and, knowing that Equality is a smart guy and that he is familiar with sound rhetoric, it is also obvious that Equality sees this point right now. Having you, Chris, voice your view in agreement of how Julie was using the comparison should certainly tip Messrs. Equality and Elephant to a reasonable assessment of what is going on in this discussion. At least I would hope so. But I suspect that Julie’s example, though entirely valid as a rhetorical point in the context of the discussion at hand, and also easily identifiable as not being used how Equality and Elephant are saying, simply provides too easy an opportunity for Equality to criticize the Church as right wing bigots and religious zealots. It makes a substantive discussion about any other point difficult, but at least they get their point across.
Comment by john f. — August 18, 2006 @ 1:29 pm
Chris wrote remember, “homosexuality†is off limits in LDS discourse about, um, homosexuality
I didn’t get the memo on that. Are you saying this because of the GAs’ use in that interview of the term “same gender attraction”, which use has been much maligned here and on the other lds blogs discussing the interview? The way I see it, the GAs’ use of the term “same gender attraction” was an effort to do precisely what you are demanding Chris, i.e. to show an understanding that your homosexuality is about more to you than the homosexual sex act. Is this unfounded? If their use of this term is oriented to that end (of trying to show their acknowledgment that your homosexuality is about more than the biological sex act, as Kristine put it), then why take offense at that term? Do you want homosexuality referred to as something more than the sex act or not?
Comment by john f. — August 18, 2006 @ 1:32 pm
re 67, Mr. Elephant, if I understand correctly, you aren’t in the Church.
Comment by john f. — August 18, 2006 @ 1:34 pm
I think the pedophile/rape issue has been discussed enough. We’ve all had our say on that and I have nothing further to add on that. john f., on the point about the terminology employed by the church, I think the criticism is that in refusing to use the words homosexual or gay or lesbian as nouns, the GA’s are intentionally sending a message that they do not believe such persons exist. Instead, they are “people who call themselves” homosexual the same way someone might “call himself” a Marine or a redhead. The language the GAs use demonstrates fundamental misunderstanding of the issue and is born either of ignorance or obstinance. Which do you think it is, john?
Comment by Equality — August 18, 2006 @ 1:40 pm
Julie, as you know, there is a big difference between conclusions based on popular myth and conclusions based on a preponderance of evidence. The only people that make the homosexual/pedophile connection are those associated with the far right religious agenda. Those are the people that originated this argument. No credible scientist or psychologist thinks that pedophilia has a biological component.
Comment by Lunar Quaker — August 18, 2006 @ 1:40 pm
john f,
First of all, I demand nothing of the Church. I left the Church. The Church can do and say what it pleases. And if they don’t miss me and the other gay men and women who leave, there’s nothing I can do about it.
But, yes, you have missed the memo. Elder Oaks, in his 1995 article, very clearly stated that the terms gay, lesbian, homosexual should never be used as nouns. They should only be used as adjectives to describe a condition. The use of the terms “same sex attraction” or “same gender attraction” are not intended to convey to me that they understand that my sexual orientation is about more than the sex act. It is intended to convey that it is not intrinsic, that it should not be central to my identity, and that I should recognize it as a temporary condition (even if “temporary” is my whole life). These terms are not used to convey to me understanding and empathy that my orientation is social, psychological and emotional as well as sexual.
Comment by Chris Williams — August 18, 2006 @ 1:42 pm
mayan, john f. just called you a nonmember. I guess that means he need not address any substantive arguments you might make. You are now officially a nonentity. Let the shunning commence!
Comment by Equality — August 18, 2006 @ 1:43 pm
re 78, Equality, as you know, I don’t buy into either of the choices in your artificial, forced false dichotomy. I see the GAs’ attempt to use “same-gender attraction” relatively uniformly as an attempt to acknowledge that homosexuality is about more to homosexuals than engaging in homosexual sex.
Comment by john f. — August 18, 2006 @ 1:45 pm
john f., perhaps you should ask a few other homosexuals how they feel about the use of the term.
Comment by Chris Williams — August 18, 2006 @ 1:49 pm
john f., perhaps you should ask a few other homosexuals how they feel about the use of the term. Most of us just prefer to be called “gay.”
Comment by Chris Williams — August 18, 2006 @ 1:50 pm
re 81, my comment (#77) to Mr. Elephant was in response to his (#67) in which he stated that he would always stand up against people linking homosexuality to pedophilia (although no one here is doing that, as you, Mr. Equality, full well know) because noone else in the Church will. He stated:
This is vague enough to be read as Mr. Elephant implying that he would be a lone voice from within the Church to make a stand against this position (which noone here is taking).
Please, Mr. Equality, do not act like anyone here except you and Mr. Elephant are trying to avoid substantive discussion, at least of the point about how Julie was using the pedophilia example. From your comment 78, it looks like Chris’s comment was enough to make you think again about harping on the deliberately inaccurate representation about how Julie was using that example.
Comment by john f. — August 18, 2006 @ 1:50 pm
re 83, Chris, that is exactly what I did in my 76: I asked you how you view the GAs’ use of the term “same gender attraction” and whether that was, in your view, an acknowledgment that your homosexuality is about more to you than the homosexual sex act.
And the interview, it seemed to me, emphasized that it was the homosexual sex act that is sinful in the eyes of God and not the rest of what it means to be homosexual as a genetic predisposition.
Comment by john f. — August 18, 2006 @ 1:53 pm
not in the church. you got it. but some of the folks in my house still are. and lots of other family. so, my response was really meant to imply that the churchfolk are a common source of the “then what about pedophiles i dont mean to say they are the same i am just saying that if you say yes to homosexuals then what about pedophiles i am not saying pedophiles are the same thing i am just saying that some people do say its the same so its fair to ask what about pedophiles” argument, where i prefer to argue against that sort of idiocy. and being in or out doesnt affect my position on the bs of it all.
Comment by mayan elephant — August 18, 2006 @ 1:58 pm
86–
john f, where did they talk about the “rest of what it means to be homosexual” in the interview?
The problem from my perspective is that homosexual attraction is viewed as intrisically bad, which is why acting on it is sinful. I think for most of us, gay or straight, it is nearly impossible to separate out the various components of attraction so neatly and then assign them into “acceptable” and “sinful” categories and in a way that doesn’t over the long term do damage to one’s psyche. If Elder Oaks or Elder Wickman can explain to me how that’s possible, I’d be most interested in listening. Because in my own experience, it didn’t work. Even having never acted on my attraction, I felt horrible about myself for feeling it.
Comment by Chris Williams — August 18, 2006 @ 2:01 pm
That’ll teach me to take a long lunch. I come back to BCC after 3 hours and all kinds of bizarre stuff has happened.
To john f. (#40): I wasn’t writing specifically about “the homosexual act,” although I realize it’s a fine line. There are a host of sinful acts in the Five Books of Moses. Of all the sins in the Five Books of Moses that people commit every day, why is the twenty-second verse of the eighteenth chapter of the third book, a verse that is the second shortest of all verses in the chapter and one of the shortest in the entire Five Books of Moses, of such concern over all the others?
You also write, “Can the indignation of people actually engaging in sin — indignation resulting from the message that God does not or might not accept their actions — reverse the mind of God about what is sin? That would be up to G-d to decide, not me. I can’t imagine G-d’s mind being “reverse” due to human indignation. But my interpretation of the verse is different than yours. To me, it says, “If you lie with a man as with a man, that’s not a sin. If you lie with a man as you’d lie with a woman, that is a sin.” Whatever your interpretation is, if it works for you, that’s fine. Don’t commit that which is a sin. But don’t give this sin greater importance than any of the hundreds of other sins in the Five Books of Moses, and don’t forget that it is G-d who judges and metes out punishment, not humans.
To Julie M. Smith (#41): Where does this leave you on pedophiles and rapists? Hello, Julie, wake up! In case you don’t know this, pedophilia and rape are crimes of violence which use sex as a weapon, crimes which prey on those presumed to be weaker in order to make the criminal feel stronger, crimes that have victims.
Homosexuality and heterosexuality are terms used to describe consensual intimacy (which may or may not include sex), whether within or outside marriage. Neither has a victim. There are both homosexuals and heterosexuals who are celibate. Just as a heterosexual is a person who is attracted to the opposite sex, and just as a heterosexual remains a heterosexual even if she or he never has sex, the same is true of a homosexual. In their finest forms, homosexuality and heterosexuality both can create a marriage and a family.
Comment by Mike Kessler — August 18, 2006 @ 2:02 pm
Very enlightening and tolerant Mr. Elephant. It seems, though, that you still haven’t read this discussion, otherwise you could in now way claim that anyone here is linking homosexuality to pedophilia.
Comment by john f. — August 18, 2006 @ 2:02 pm
86–
Also, john, you asked me how I felt about the term, but you apparently are dismissing it as valid and going instead with how you feel about what Oaks and Wickman said.
Okay.
Comment by Chris Williams — August 18, 2006 @ 2:03 pm
Mike, I appreciate your comments to me in your 89. What is your view, however, of the larger point that has been discussed here since you made your comment, i.e. that the notion that God making someone a certain way (their genetic make-up) is not a criterion upon which to base or determine what can be or is not sin. When you argue that God made homosexual men to love other men, therefore you cannot imagine God being intolerant of them acting on that genetic make-up, Julie’s counter-point is valid: what about pedophiles. If pedophilia is genetic, then that still does not justify acting on that genetic pre-disposition because everyone agrees that pedophilia is a sex crime, and also a sin (or at least, most of those who believe in God believe that pedophilia is a sin).
In your response to Julie, you pointed out that pedophilia is a sex crime — a violent act that uses sex as the method. But that still does not address the context in which Julie used the example: if it is genetic, then God made them that way.
Comment by john f. — August 18, 2006 @ 2:10 pm
Elephant (54), you’re overreacting. I’ve never made a slippery-slope argument, and the suggestion that I’d endorse or defend such an argument is really funny. I’ve consistently argued in the bloggernacle against slippery slope arguments; in fact, I’ve probably been one of the most consistent bloggernacle voices against slippery-slope arguments. You can see complete posts of mine on the topic at http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=490 and http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=1339 ; there are dozens more instances of comment discussion (as in the comments to http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=1330 ) where I’ve criticized slippery-slope arguments. I know what a slippery-slope argument is; I find such arguments very unconvincing in most contexts (including the same-sex attraction and same-sex marriage context); and I’ve got three years of extensive bloggernacle paper trail to prove it.
I didn’t read Julie’s comment as a slippery-slope one; if I had, I would have happily told her she was wrong. Her own explanation in 59 is the one that makes the most sense to me.
However, her analogy was unfortunately chosen because it brings with it association with other problematic arguments. So I’m with Equality (62) that it’s the sort of thing that should be avoided in this kind of discussion.
Comment by Kaimi — August 18, 2006 @ 2:32 pm
re 91, Chris, please don’t start into that. Until now, you’ve been a reasonable discussion partner. What would make you say that I have dismissed your answer? Here’s how it went down from my perspective: after I asked you your view in my # 76, you chided me in 83 and 84 for not asking a homosexual how he viewed the use of the term. That was the entire point of my 86 — to point out that I did ask and that you were acting, for some reason, like I had not asked or thought to ask.
Comment by john f. — August 18, 2006 @ 2:39 pm
Whoa nelly! Everyone settle down, I hate to close posts and ban people. Mayan Elephant, you’re been especially out-of-line with direct name calling (”you make me sick”, etc.). Please cut it out. John F., you don’t exactly stand without offense here either — please try to dial back the reactionism.
For those who feel unable to take things slowly and approach this topic in a friendly, Christian way, then maybe this thread isn’t for you. Go outside! Explore the wonders of nature! Go get some ice cream. But friends don’t let friends blog angry.
Comment by Steve Evans — August 18, 2006 @ 2:40 pm
re 79, Mr Quaker wrote No credible scientist or psychologist thinks that pedophilia has a biological component.
Is this true. Does anyone have any insight on this? My understanding was that there are credible arguments that both pedophilia and rape are genetic predispositions.
If it is true that noone that is credible is making these arguments, as Mr. Quaker asserts, then Julie’s comparison would not be germane. But that is not the basis on which Equality and Elephant were objecting.
Comment by john f. — August 18, 2006 @ 2:42 pm
Here’s how it went down from my perspective:
In 80 I explained why the term is not desirable from my perspective. In 82 you explain to someone else why you think it works. In 83/84 I suggest you ask a few other gay people (aside from me) how they feel about it. In 86 you explain to me how you felt like they do convey understanding about the depth/breadth of the homosexual experience, including the use of the term. You did not ever address or acknowledge any of my points about why it doesn’t work for many of us.
But I’ll retract 91 and let’s proceed. This has been a good discussion.
Comment by Chris Williams — August 18, 2006 @ 2:46 pm
I typed 82 before I saw 80 (likely I was typing 82 at the same time you were typing 80). I didn’t understand your 83 and 84 as telling me to ask other homosexuals besides yourself; it seemed like you were saying: why haven’t you even thought to ask homosexuals what they think about it — despite my 76.
Comment by john f. — August 18, 2006 @ 2:51 pm
Water under the bridge…
Comment by Chris Williams — August 18, 2006 @ 2:53 pm
I don’t think pedophiles choose to be attracted to children any more than heterosexuals or homosexuals choose to be attracted to adults of the opposite or same sex. Personally, I can’t imagine changing my orientation towards young children any more than I can imagine changing it towards men. I don’t think it’s known whether pedophilic inclinations come from nature or nurture (or both), but that’s beside the point.
Julie’s reference to pedophiles was a perfectly legitimate reducto ad absurdum pointing out the flaw in one of Mike’s overly simplistic arguments, nothing more. Mike, in comment 89, has answered the question well about why we need to treat pedophilia differently from heterosexuality and homosexuality: because pedophiles have victims. Since homosexuality doesn’t create victims in the same way, it is still an open question why same sex partnerships would be so offensive to God.
Can we stop attacking Julie now, and reading into her comment all sorts of things she didn’t intend?
Comment by ed johnson — August 18, 2006 @ 2:57 pm
Well, it partly is, as my light-hearted, non-angry, point about Quakers on the moon was meant to demonstrate. As I said, though, I think it best to move on from the pedophile/rapist point/counterpoint as others have also suggested, not becuase I concede the point but simply because I think it is a case of having fully argued and briefed the objection and there being no new ground to cover on it. Yet you keep going back to it (see, e.g., your #92).
Steve, I appreciate the call for more light and less heat, though I must say that what you have experienced on this thread from my friend mayan elephant is really quite tame. You haven’t seen him get angry. The mayan who has pisted here today has been quite soft and cuddly. Just ask Guy murray. Or Geoff B. Or Blake O.
I think I’ll go get some ice cream now. Thanks for the suggestion!
Comment by Equality — August 18, 2006 @ 2:59 pm
Speaking of ice cream, I have to go to the gym now. John, if you want to pick this up later, I’d be happy to.
Comment by Chris Williams — August 18, 2006 @ 3:02 pm
I think John F. has been quite civil. Equality, if this is the tame side of your friend, then it is obvious that this is a forum where he isn’t particularly welcome.
Comment by J. Stapley — August 18, 2006 @ 3:04 pm
Chris or others who may be comfortable speaking from a “gay” perspective:
Why do you prefer to be called “gay” and affirmatively prefer not to be referred to as “having same sex attraction”?
It seems the argument may be: if you *are* gay (vs. experiencing same sex attraction) then God created you gay and God wouldn’t have created you gay while at the same time forbidding you from truly being gay (meaning to act gay–love, commit to and have sexual relations with another gay person) or that would be cruel or wrong, etc.
Does that reflect your position? If not, what is my version of your hypothetical argument missing?
Comment by Pete — August 18, 2006 @ 3:04 pm
Equality, I wouldn’t like him when he’s angry? well, let’s nope there’s no hulk-outs.
As for ice cream, I recommend Cherry Garcia. Gays and straights alike praise its creamy goodness!
Comment by Steve Evans — August 18, 2006 @ 3:05 pm
The obvious reason behind using the term “same gender attraction” over the other terms would be to avoid the bad connotation that some would attribute to them. For many, homosexual and gay are inherently pejorative.
Plus, “same gender attraction” sounds more politically correct. =)
In an attempt to avoid substantive discussion, I wonder how many times the Snark will comment on discussions about this topic, before it becomes guilty of beating a dead horse?
Comment by FHL — August 18, 2006 @ 3:18 pm
john f. (#92): Pedophilia, rape, murder, arson, battery, theft — all are violent crimes, all with victims. Yes, G-d created everything in the universe. But because those who commit crimes may have been created by G-d with a propensity for these acts (something that is not known for sure) is of little concern to me — those who victimize others should be judged for their crimes. In all of those cases, the victims suffer a grave loss, either of self, or dignity, or property, or all of the above. But I don’t think Elders Oaks and Wickman, or for that matter, anyone else here but you and Julie, were discussing the commission of violent crimes.
Comment by Mike Kessler — August 18, 2006 @ 3:40 pm
I’d love to see the brethren do a similar interview on Iraq and the War on Terror in general. While I might have a hard time agreeing with some of their positions, it’d be great to have it on record. Since it’s more of a political issue (with far greater ramifications than whether or not Las Vegas can reroute water from the church’s land), I doubt we’d ever see such an interview.
Comment by Steve Park — August 18, 2006 @ 3:45 pm
Pete (#104): I doubt that you would like to be characterized as “experiencing opposite-gender attraction.” It’s clinical and dehumanizing. So how else would you describe your condition to others?
Comment by Mike Kessler — August 18, 2006 @ 3:45 pm
The only thing more irritating than a far-right lunatic who thinks that homosexuality and pedophilia are somehow morally equivalent, is an unhinged gay activist who can’t interpret the mention of homosexuality and pedophilia in the same sentence as anything other than an act of hateful bigotry. Julie’s argument is conceptually very easy to understand, just as John F.’s and Kaimi’s elaborations have been.
But throwing a melodramatic tizzy-fit of overblown indignation is fun, so I don’t want to begrudge anyone their enjoyment of that.
I have little doubt that there are those (including some in the LDS Church) who have utilized pedophilia and homosexuality in their arguments in offensive ways. But there may be important insights to be had by comparing the two pheonomena in limited ways that don’t constitute hateful declarations of moral equivalence. If certain participants in this thread would actually attempt to engage the arguments, it might be easier to take their moral outrage and pious
posturing more seriously. (But even then, probably not).
Aaron B
Comment by Aaron Brown — August 18, 2006 @ 3:48 pm
Mike, the point was to question the reasoning behind your straightforward statement that “it is, to me, unlikely for G-d to have created men who love other men and then would condemn them for doing so.” It seemed like you were saying that genetics could be a basis for determining what is or is not sin. I believe that is why Julie brought up the example, and not in the interest of conducting a discussion on violent crime per se.
It sounds like you are saying that genetics is a basis for determining what God does not declare as sin if the result of the particular genetic predisposition doesn’t interfere with anyone’s rights. If a genetic predisposition interferes with someone else’s rights, then it doesn’t matter that it is genetic — that God made them that way — it is still sin forbidden by God. In other words, genetics is not irrelevant in a certain scenario but can be irrelevant depending on the outcome. Is this a type of ends-based reasoning as an approach to determining to what extent genetic predisposition can be seen as a normative criterion in discerning what constitutes sin for God?
Comment by john f. — August 18, 2006 @ 3:50 pm
john f. — I am not saying what G-d considers a sin. G-d can make those decisions without any help from me. I just want to live my life — judged by G-d, not by others.
Comment by Mike Kessler — August 18, 2006 @ 3:57 pm
I get banned for comparing un-named GAs to W, but you guys leave #107 up?
Comment by Steve EM — August 18, 2006 @ 4:01 pm
Hey, Aaron, did you just call me “an unhinged gay activist”? I’ve never been called all three in the same sentence before, or been called an activist at all. Unhinged, on occasion. Gay, on occasion. (I’m gay all the time, just not called gay all the time, since it’s superfluous.) “Unhinged gay activist” — cool!
Comment by Mike Kessler — August 18, 2006 @ 4:03 pm
But Mike, you seemed to be saying that you thought it was unlikely that homosexual activity could possibly be a sin given that God created you as a man who loves other men. It seemed to be a statement about what can legitimately constitute sin that is strictly forbidden by God (a concept you said you believe in) based on a genetic reality.
My observation from the interviews was that a sub-text seemed to be, as noted by Russell and Aaron, that genetics is an irrelevant factor in discussing what is or is not sin. As Latter-day Saints, we believe that living prophets and apostles can communicate to us what God views is or is not sin. Therefore, there is relevance to discussing your view of a genetics-based approach to what might legitimately constitute sin. The Latter-day Saint view, as you well know, is that the same way that the material in Leviticus comes to us as the will of God on what is or is not sin, living prophets and apostles continue to do that today. Since you seem to accept Leviticus, albeit with a relatively unique interpretation of its prohibition on homosexual intercourse, I was wondering if you viewed God’s logic behind Leviticus as conveyed to us through God’s prophet at the time, as genetics based in the way you described in your initial comment.
Comment by john f. — August 18, 2006 @ 4:07 pm
Mike, I think Aaron was referring to Equality and Elephant who were misconstruing Julie’s counter-example in the discussion with you. My guess is that he was not referring to you at all.
Comment by john f. — August 18, 2006 @ 4:08 pm
Actually, I had a couple other folks in mind, Mike, not you, but I suppose I could review all 114 comments and assess whether I think it applies to you or not.
Alas, I don’t have the time, as I’m busy coming up with clever, hurtful one-liners to hurl indiscriminately and my other ideological foes in the Bloggernacle.
Aaron B
Comment by Aaron Brown — August 18, 2006 @ 4:11 pm
Aaron - Drat.
Comment by Mike Kessler — August 18, 2006 @ 4:14 pm
If he was referring to me as an unhinged gay activist, I must admit that, along with Mike, that is a first. Been called lots of things in my life. never an unhinged gay activist.
Steve, you must be clairvoyant. Cherry Garcia is my favorite ice cream. But the new Marcia Marcia Marshmallow is a close second.
True enough, but I think I did a little more than that. And I also think that sometimes, even when people are not intentionally using language to hurt others, they ought to be made aware of the effect their choice of words might have on someone.
Comment by Equality — August 18, 2006 @ 4:16 pm
Then I think you need to do some research, my friend. You won’t find any credible arguments for genetic predisposition to pedophilia or rape. In contrast, there is near consensus in the scientific community that homosexuality is an innate sexual orientation just like heterosexuality. A BYU professor has done research that supports this.
Comment by Lunar Quaker — August 18, 2006 @ 4:19 pm
And the dialogue goes on and on.
I don’t have much to add that hasn’t been said by others here (both John and Chris, dear friends of mine) and much more eloquently.
I don’t think this recent interview was particularly enlightening on the subject, but I’d like to add my little bit to the dialogue.
No one ever mentions love. Love between two men, or two women. It’s always sex — the sex act itself, which is going to be grotesque to someone, either homo- or hetero-.
But love is the key. I myself can’t understand why God would want to limit love, to limit a connection between any two adult people who felt it. I *can* understand the limits placed on love between an adult and a child, because I think it could be misunderstood, and undermine emotional growth (of the child).
But two adults who find each other in the world — it’s a kind of miracle, particularly when they want to commit themselves eternally. Why does it matter (or why does God care) what their gender is?
Although this isn’t mentioned in the interview, I do feel that the Brethren would be very unhappy if I chose to make another man my life’s companion, even if we were celibate and never actually touched. Because this would set an example that the Brethren don’t want set, the example of two men who love each other. And I’m limited to even speak of this kind of love, the love I feel for other men.
This limit on love, on my kind of love in particular, bothers me a lot. It isn’t the same as being tempted to drugs, alcohol, or even sexual promiscuity.
Comment by D. Fletcher — August 18, 2006 @ 4:19 pm
Mr. Quaker, thank you for your reply, but you will not be offended if I decline to accept the word of an anyonynous internet poster on this issue.
Does anyone else know if noone credible is saying that pedophilia might be a genetic predisposition? Or can you substantiate you statement, Mr. Quaker, by more than stating that I need to do more research?
I am willing to believe this. I personally don’t have a large investment in Julie’s pedophilia example, except to the extent to say that it was valid given the premise that credible voices are making the argument that it might be genetic.
Comment by john f. — August 18, 2006 @ 4:22 pm
john f. — I don’t recall using a genetics-based approach. If I did, that’s not what I meant. I agree with Elders Russell and Aaron if they said that genetics is irrelevant in determing what is or is not a sin. Still, I do believe G-d created me to be who I am. Also, what I wrote about Leviticus 18:22 is not original. It’s a possible interpretation I’ve heard many times since as far back as Sunday school when I was 12 or 13.
Comment by Mike Kessler — August 18, 2006 @ 4:22 pm
Mike, thanks for your response. So your statement “I do believe G-d created me to be who I am” does not imply a genetics component? I admit that, based on the similar statement you made in your initial comment, I inferred a genetics-based approach to what can legitimately count as sin.
Comment by john f. — August 18, 2006 @ 4:26 pm
D. Fletcher — I used the word “love” but I used it in a link in comment #17. Can I be your friend?
Comment by Mike Kessler — August 18, 2006 @ 4:27 pm
john f. — No, I did not mean to imply a genetics component. I meant to imply a G-d component, or more accurately, that my creation and all that I am is attributable to G-d.
Comment by Mike Kessler — August 18, 2006 @ 4:32 pm
HaHa, sure, Mike! I’m Chris’s… uncle-in-law. And I’m sorta related by marriage to John F. too!
I’ve just read your letter — lovely! I hope it’s read in the spirit that it’s given.
Comment by D. Fletcher — August 18, 2006 @ 4:33 pm
Mike, at the risk of infuriating the spectrum of anonymous posters here, I should point out that a God component that does not imply a genetics argument solicits Julie’s counter-example of what to do about the pedophile to the same extent or perhaps even more than a behavior-based genetics approach. That is because, even absent the argument that pedophilia might be genetic that Mr. Quaker says noone credible is making, the pedophile can also say “my creation and all that I am is attributable to G-d.”
Comment by john f. — August 18, 2006 @ 4:35 pm
By the way, D., I thought you brought up an excellent point. You mentioned love and that the brethren would not approve of even a non-sexually-active union of two people of the same gender. I am not sure that I agree with your conclusion about what the brethren would accept or reject about such a union. But it raises the interesting question: As a hypothetical matter, would homosexuals who care one way or the other what the Church believes about homosexuality be more content with a solution that allowed a non-sexually-active union? Or would that also be viewed as intolerant, bigoted, etc. (all judgments that seem to be based on the assumption that God does not or cannot view homosexual sex as a sin).
Comment by john f. — August 18, 2006 @ 4:43 pm
john f. — We’re going around in circles here. Yes, I believe we are all created by G-d. And G-d created the person who becomes a pedophile, though I doubt that G-d created him or wants him to be that way, but that part doesn’t matter. I do not believe G-d intends for us to victimize each other and commit crimes against each other, even if there is the possibility that some were created with a criminal predisposition. No matter how G-d created us, I believe we were expected to show each other love and respect, and to honor each other, not victimize each other.
Comment by Mike Kessler — August 18, 2006 @ 4:51 pm
I don’t know the answer John, though I have brought this example to the table many times before, and no one ever comments on it. If I were to love a quadriplegic man, so sex is physically impossible, would this be a sin? How about if I married this person in Canada? Still a sin?
Of course it is. The sin is in the love, not just the physical behavior, though the Brethren aren’t saying so.
And I just can’t see the sin in it. I can’t see it, I don’t think there’s one thing wrong with it. Unlike other sins, say, addictive behaviors, I don’t see loving another man as hurtful in any way, either psychologically or socially. I do think there might be some hurtful consequences to us because of the Church and society’s opinions of us and our “grotesque” ways. But for ourselves, our “secret” love is as empowering and fulfilling as any heterosexual marriage, perhaps even moreso for being unusual.
Of course, I can’t seem to find this partner… (sniff)
Comment by D. Fletcher — August 18, 2006 @ 4:53 pm
#106, I think that another reason for using “same gender attraction” might be that the use of the word “gender” is then in line with the way that it’s used in the family proclamation– which is a little out of step with standard usage. I think it’s also a euphemism since using the word ’sex’ very often would bother some people.
Comment by pjj — August 18, 2006 @ 4:54 pm
john f. — on your note to D. Fletcher, when you say “would homosexuals care…” Everyone is an individual with individual thoughts and beliefs. Not all Mormons think alike, not all gays think alike, not all members of Kiwanis think alike.
Comment by Mike Kessler — August 18, 2006 @ 4:55 pm
Mike, what would your reaction be, as a homosexual who apparently cares what the Church thinks, to allowance of non-sexually-active unions between two individuals of the same gender based on the premise that God views homsexual sex as a sin but the Church still wants homosexuals to have love as discussed by D.?
Comment by john f. — August 18, 2006 @ 5:04 pm
Mike, I think your answer to 130 is just fine, and I agree with it. I was more interested in discussing the abstract principle which does not seem possible. I take it you are fine with the inherent contradiction in the position you take. That is fine as well, since we all take incoherent and inconsistent positions on any number of things in our lives.
Comment by john f. — August 18, 2006 @ 5:06 pm
re 131, interesting insights D.
You wrote, Of course it is [sin for a gay man to love another man who is quadriplegic and therefore no sexual activity is possible]. The sin is in the love, not just the physical behavior, though the Brethren aren’t saying so.
Unfortunately, I can’t agree with this assessment. I do not believe that the leaders of the Church view the sin as being in the love; rather, I take them at face value when they say that the sin is in having sexual intercourse with another person of the same gender.
Comment by john f. — August 18, 2006 @ 5:09 pm
john f. — If you will allow me to do a bit of rephrasing, “based on the premise that the Church believes that G-d views homosexual sex as a sin but the Church still wants homosexuals to have love as discussed by D.” — I would be okay with the allowance of non-sexually-active unions between two individuals of the same gender. I don’t think it’s fair, but I’m still okay with it. My relationship with my husband is based on love. We spent hundreds of dollars and months filing forms with the government of the Province of Ontario in Canada and then flew to Toronto to get married because we love each other, not because we wanted to receive a license to have sex.
Comment by Mike Kessler — August 18, 2006 @ 5:14 pm
Really John? If I married Chris in a ceremony in Canada, but remained celibate (and said so), what do you think the Brethren and my Stake President would do about that? The public ceremony alone would be enough to do me in. (Sorry to drag you into this Chris).
I can’t speak about being gay now, even though alone.
Nope, I don’t think the Church wants gay people, celibate or not. Truthfully, I don’t think people believe me (in my celibacy) — they think I must be doing something.
I’ll never tell.
Comment by D. Fletcher — August 18, 2006 @ 5:15 pm
D. I wonder if that’s true. What if you entered into a non-sexually-active civil union? I think that’s a grey area. Based on what the Church has been emphasizing and especially based on this interview, it seems to me that the touchstone is homosexual intercourse. If it was a non-sexually-active union, I’m not sure that the Church would condemn it. I think you are right that there might be some doubt as to whether the union actually is non-sexually-active, mainly because of the natural tendency for people to be skeptical about that sort of thing.
Comment by john f. — August 18, 2006 @ 5:24 pm
john f. — Buckley’s stake president told him he assumed we were sexually active because we are married. Since Buckley has been in the bishopric several times before, he told the SP that they both know the SP is not allowed to ask any married couple about their sex life.
Comment by Mike Kessler — August 18, 2006 @ 5:29 pm
D wrote:
Me, neither. Everything I understand about God and love suggests exactly the contrary.
Hence my annoying lawyering elsewhere on this issue.
Comment by greenfrog — August 18, 2006 @ 5:31 pm
John, there are too many hypotheticals to make any sort of positive analysis. Notably, this kind of hypothetical (two men in love, but not sexually active) didn’t come up in the “interview.” I found that interview surprisingly skewed toward people having to deal with gays in their lives, like their straight LDS parents.
I think the Church could take baby steps toward recognizing gay unions, and one of those would be, let gay people talk about their problems, even over the pulpit. If I’m celibate and alone and trying to live the commandments, it sure would be nice to get some support for my struggle, real support. And the next step is to tell gay couples that they can continue to attend Church and fill callings (like organist!) even though they won’t receive “exaltation” and they won’t be able to do Temple work. I think a lot of gay people would return to the fold under these conditions.
Mike, you’re Buckley’s significant other! Congratulations on your marriage! And I think your situation is a significant step for the Church — I hope we continue down that line.
greenfrog, there’s not one annoying thing about you. There are a few online posters I can say I truly love, and you’re one of them.
Comment by D. Fletcher — August 18, 2006 @ 5:51 pm
I hope that I don’t offend too many folks around here with what I’m about to say–especially the likes of D., whom I believe to be one of the most (if not *the* most) intelligent and refined commenters arts.
I think “love” can be more illusive than we’d like to believe. As one who has suffered from a depressive panic/anxiety disorder of sorts plus other personality distortions, one of the most difficult burdens that I ‘ve had to bear is the seemingly never ending battle with codepndency. It is only in recent years (now that I’m a little older) that I’ve been able to recognize the difference between genuine love and a depency born of mental/emotional deficiency.
Now I do not want to suggest that Gays are not capable of genuine love–I believe all human beings are. It’s just that (and this is where I’m likely to offend the most) it is quite plausible that same sex attraction is a mental/emotional disorder of sorts. I don’t think there’s enough evidence to support the idea that homosexuality is “healthy” because of genetic predisposition–though I *do* believe that genetic predisposition can have everything to do with the developement of mental/emotional/physical/etc. deficiences/disorders.
That said, whether are not one’s affections are “genuine” (or a mix of genuine and non) doesn’t lessen the burden that comes of such feelings not finding fulfillment. In fact, I believe that some “illusory” affections can cause greater heartache than the genuine.
Now that I’ve thoroughly affended some (sor