Mormons for Marriage

Jul.16.2010
8:56 pm
by Laura

Bits and Pieces

Filed in gay, homosexuality, mormons, prop 8 |

36 Responses to “Bits and Pieces”

1. 1fiona64on 19 Jul 2010 at 11:03 am

   I’d like to add one more event to this list:

   The Metropolitan Community Church of San Jose is screening “8: The Mormon Proposition” on Thursday, July 22, 7 PM. The church shares space with Grace Baptist at 484 E. San Fernando (10th and San Fernando in San Jose) and there is plenty of parking. Refreshments will be served.

   Here is the link to the press release with all of the particulars:

   http://www.prlog.org/10786920-metropolitan-community-church-of-san-jose-to-screen-8-the-mormon-proposition.html

   Thank you.

2. 2Sherylon 19 Jul 2010 at 1:29 pm

   Fiona, can you explain to me the reason your church is showing a documentary that is negative about another church. This bothers me. I would be bothered if my church was showing a documentary negative to another religion. Just trying to understand the purpose.

3. 3fiona64on 19 Jul 2010 at 3:31 pm

   The Metropolitan Community Church has a primary outreach to LGBT people, and was performing legal marriages for them up until Prop 8. The purpose of showing the documentary is to see the background of Prop 8 and allow for some informed discussion.

   Many MCC members were directly harmed by Prop 8. I think that (and I was not there when the decision was made to show this film, so I am now speculating/opining) there is a desire to understand the *why.* Why did the Church of LDS target GLBT people whom they don’t even know, in a state far away.

   I know that I would like to understand why, and no one I have asked from the Church of LDS (including my own parents) has been able to articulate anything beyond “Because the Prophet said so.” I am hoping to learn something, to be honest.

4. 4Lauraon 19 Jul 2010 at 3:54 pm

   Having seen the movie a couple of times, I’m not sure that you’ll find a definitive “why” other than that they really believe that gay marriage will destroy families. And since families are central to the LDS view of heaven and godliness, gay marriage therefore destroys possibilities of salvation for people who enter into them: In order for humans to be exalted and reach their fullest potential as literal children of God, they must be sealed together as husband/wife; man/woman; mother/father. By coming together in this way, children are also sealed and assured heavenly blessings as well. If the parents are not sealed, nobody receives the highest glory.

   That’s why Mormons do so much genealogy/family history work, and that’s why they spend time in temples. They believe that a loving God who would require LDS ordinances in order to achieve exaltation would not deny children exaltation without the opportunity to learn about/participate in/accept those ordinances. And if gay people marry each other, there are no provisions for their eternal exaltation.

   And the reason they chose to act in California (and not in Canada or Massachusetts or Iowa or some of the other places where SSM is legal) is because in California, there was both the opportunity to act and the ability to influence. Most of the support for Prop 8 (in both time and money) came from California Mormons (there are 700,000 of us); not from Utah Mormons. California elections are such that special interest groups can get a measure on the ballot, run a campaign and change the law. It’s easier to persuade voters (especially if you can use fearmongering tactics) with emotional, reactionary messages than it is to persuade lawmakers and judges. And if a special interest group lines up its ducks correctly, it can fly under the radar and influence voters a lot more quietly than it can influence legislators (where a SIG must comply with stronger lobbying laws). And if people aren’t watching carefully, a SIG’s influence on an election can go unnoticed until it’s too late to make a difference in the electorate.

   Add to that the idea that many Mormons continue to view homosexual attraction as a disease or a temptation and action (beginning with hand holding) a sin requiring confession and repentance. And add further to that a culture where it would be a shock to find that a leader is gay

5. 5Sherylon 19 Jul 2010 at 5:13 pm

   Thank you Fiona for your response. And, thank you Laura for your very excellent answer to the question of why the church was involved to such an extent in California.

6. 6fiona64on 20 Jul 2010 at 8:14 am

   Thank you so much for your response, Laura. I guess I just keep coming back to the same question: how is it any of the church’s business who gets married outside its doors?

   I guess there is no good response to that question.

   As you point out, a special interest group (in this case, National Organization for Marriage, as organized by the church and other organizations, becomes the front) can put anything on the ballot as long as it gets enough signatures, and then can employ all kinds of fear-mongering to insert its religious agenda into civil law.

   I appreciate you taking the time to answer.

7. 7Lauraon 20 Jul 2010 at 8:54 am

   Well, I don’t know if this will help, but:

   One of the tenets of LDS belief is that the President of the Church (currently Thomas Monson) receives revelation, the word of God, not just for church members but for The World (whether or not The World is listening).

   Also, church leaders in Salt Lake City believe that the idea of marriage (like gambling) transcends politics - that it is a moral, society-building or society-breaking issue and central to EVERYONE’s eternal destiny - not just Mormons’ eternal destinies.

   They also seem to believe that if same-sex marriage is allowed in the United States, two things will happen: (1) State governments (especially Utah’s government) will be forced to recognize the legality of same-sex marriages and (2) churches will be required to accept all “legally and lawfully wed” couples into full fellowship or face discrimination lawsuits. Whether or not those lawsuits would be allowed to be heard in or thrown out of courts doesn’t seem to matter - just the threat of lawsuits being brought seems to be scary enough.

   And, finally, if your mindset is one that homosexuality is a choice (as many - but definitely not all - church leaders have taught/believed in the past) if it is a choice, then having it discussed and practiced openly might lead young people (including young Mormon people) to choose that path - and act sinfully.

   It’s helpful for me to remember that the men who lead the church are men - they are not perfect and they come to their positions with all the cultural baggage they accumulated in their 80 or so years of living (and these men grew up in a culture where homosexuality was a mental illness and a sin and a shameful existence which should be hidden from public view at all cost). The policies of the church are such that public disagreement with those above you is almost unheard of in the 21st century. So while there may be general leaders who disagree with President Monson’s and President Packer’s leadership and approaches on this issue, it’s not really possible for those dissenters to speak out other than to talk about their issues quietly, behind closed doors and wait for a change in leadership.

   It’s also helpful to remember that, of the 700,000 Mormons in California, only a small percentage of them were involved in actively campaigning in support of Proposition 8. My impression from studying this for the past couple of years is that maybe 10 percent of Mormons in the San Francisco Bay Area, for example, were involved (and those who gave money were an even smaller percentage). Which leaves me with two thoughts: Those who were actively campaigning were a lot more effective than they’ve been given credit for because there were even fewer of them than has generally been acknowledge. But also, there are a lot more who were not strongly committed one way or the other, at least publicly, and it would be a shame to excoriate them just because of the actions of their neighbors. That wouldn’t be doing the same thing conservative straight people do when they write off the whole GLBT community solely based on the actions of flamboyant Drag Queens in Pride parades.

8. 8Joshuaon 20 Jul 2010 at 11:04 am

   Laura,

   I had a question about two things you said:

   “And, finally, if your mindset is one that homosexuality is a choice (as many - but definitely not all - church leaders have taught/believed in the past) if it is a choice, then having it discussed and practiced openly might lead young people (including young Mormon people) to choose that path - and act sinfully.”

   I’m not sure what you mean by this. What do YOU mean by homosexuality? Are you talking about a homosexual orientation, or are you talking about homosexual behavior? You talk about practicing it openly. That makes it sound like you are talking about the behavior. Do you believe that homosexual behavior is a choice? None of the prophets have taught sexual orientation was a choice, so I’m not sure what you mean.

   The other thing you said was “gay marriage therefore destroys possibilities of salvation for people who enter into them.”

   This really bugs me because I fully believe that several people in same-sex marriages are going to be saved in the Celestial Kingdom. To destroy the possibility of salvation is quite severe, especially when I believe that many people are sinning out of ignorance. The Book of Mormon is very clear that Christ atones for those who sin out of ignorance. If two people of the same sex get married, and are not fully aware of what God’s will is on the subject, then they are completely covered by the atonement of Jesus Christ. It doesn’t destroy the possibility of salvation for them. They won’t even be held accountable for it.

   I personally believe that was not the reason the church got involved.

9. 9Lauraon 20 Jul 2010 at 11:22 am

   RE: Salvation and gays. I was using a shortcut here and should have used the term “exaltation” LDS scripture, as you know, states: “In the celestial kingdom there are three heavens or degrees; And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]; And if he does not, he cannot obtain it. He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase.” (D&C 131:1-4).

   There is no way for same-sex couples to be sealed together in the new and everlasting covenant of marriage. Therefore they cannot be exalted. They will be resurrected and if God says being in a same-sex marriage was a sin, they’ll have the opportunity to be taught the gospel, repent, be baptized and enter into the Celestial Kingdom’s lowest level. And if they accept a marriage to someone of the opposite sex, they will be eligible for exaltation. And if God doesn’t believe that entering into a same-sex marriage was a sin requiring repentance, they won’t have to repent, but they still won’t be sealed in the new and everlasting covenant of marriage (unless there’s a change in doctrine) and they won’t be exalted.

   If you interpret the Doctrine & Covenants differently, please elaborate.

10. 10Lauraon 20 Jul 2010 at 11:39 am

    RE: Homosexuality

    If I meant to limit homosexuality to being mere attraction to members of the same sex, I would have used the term orientation.

    I suspect that it’s only recently (the past few decades) that society in general has drawn a distinction between orientation and action, and it’s only been very recently that church leaders have placed any emphasis on the differences between the two (thus allowing the general membership to believe that there is a matter of choice and/or nurturing involved in the orientation). In other words, a gay man married to a straight woman would not be called a homosexual or a bisexual because, for all intents and purposes, he appears to be heterosexual. Same-sex orientation, then, would have been the illness that needed to be cured, and if it was an illness, it must have a cause - an overbearing mother, sexual abuse, masturbation, pornography. But (I’m drawing a blank here) what did the DSM call that illness of orientation?

11. 11Joshuaon 20 Jul 2010 at 12:13 pm

    That is the key. It was the DSM which called homosexuality an illness, not the Church. Elder Oaks taught that leaders may sometimes reference modern research, but that is not to be taken as an official position on medical issues. The Church does not take a position on medical issues.

    When Elder Kimball (he was not the prophet at the time) wrote Miracle of Forgiveness, he was very clear that he was referring to homosexuality as an act, and that while everyone can repent of it, the feelings would still be present. He even compared it to an alcoholic who might still have the desire to drink alcohol even after he stopped drinking. He never taught the feelings would go away.

    He wrote the book in the 1970s and he wrote it using terminology of the time. He might not have used “orientation”, but he spoke of it and was clear it would probably persist even after the “act” was forsaken.

    It was the world that changed the meaning of homosexuality and gay. It is not fair to blame 1970 leaders for using 1970 terminology, nor for quoting the DSM when the DSM was the accepted standard at the time.

    I agree that many members do not understand it, but they do more than anyone else. Many Churches teach both is a sin, but almost every Mormon I talk to is clear that only sex outside of marriage is a sin, and not the orientation. There are exceptions, but they are much less than most conservative churches. The Church has done a fantastic job in making the distinction.

    RE: salvation and gays

    The question of the exaltation of a gay person who never marries someone of the opposite sex in this life is the same question as a anyone else who does not marry in the temple on this Earth. How is that any different from a child who dies before getting married. Elder Holland taught:

    “For various reasons, marriage and children are not immediately available to all. Perhaps no offer of marriage is forthcoming. Perhaps even after marriage there is an inability to have children. Or perhaps there is no present attraction to the opposite gender. Whatever the reason, God’s richest blessings will eventually be available to all of His children if they are clean and faithful.”

    All blessings include exaltation. Being clean and faithful, as the Book of Mormon teaches, is to the full understanding of the commandments of God. Christ atones for people sinning in ignorance.

    You know that those who do not marry the opposite sex here on earth will still have an opportunity later. Elder Holland also taught same-sex attraction is only a condition of mortality, so there will be no desire for a homosexual relationship in the hereafter.

    I feel like we are actually talking now. I appreciate this.

12. 12Lauraon 20 Jul 2010 at 12:50 pm

    “That is the key. It was the DSM which called homosexuality an illness, not the Church. ”

    And the church leaders grew up in a society were homosexuality was an illness. That is the baggage they bring to their points of view. The men leading the Church 60 years from now will grow up in a society where homosexuality was not an illness. That will make a difference in how they view homosexuals and in what kind of questions they ask about homosexuality. They will also grow up with a distinction between orientation and action. They will also grow up realizing that there are people who are born gay and who will always be gay and who should not try to “marry away the gay.” They might even grow up knowing that masturbation is not a “gateway drug” (for lack of a better term) which turns straight boys into gay boys.

    “Elder Oaks taught that leaders may sometimes reference modern research, but that is not to be taken as an official position on medical issues. The Church does not take a position on medical issues.”

    And he taught that very recently.

    “He wrote the book in the 1970s and he wrote it using terminology of the time. He might not have used “orientation”, but he spoke of it and was clear it would probably persist even after the “act” was forsaken.”

    Yes, and thus the problem with viewing history with modern glasses. It will take lots of emphasis and reiteration to drive home the point that there is a difference between homosexual orientation and homosexual action. Especially when society-at-large does not really draw that distinction.

    “It was the world that changed the meaning of homosexuality and gay. It is not fair to blame 1970 leaders for using 1970 terminology, nor for quoting the DSM when the DSM was the accepted standard at the time.”

    I wasn’t blaming them, I was pointing out that we all live in society and are influenced and affected by society as much as we affect and influence the world around us. And we all need to make changes according to the way society does, whether we like it or not, or else we face the problem of miscommunication. That’s why Primary kids don’t sing about “It’s always fun when grandpa comes, when grandpa comes, we’re gay.” Now they sing, “It’s always fun when grandpa comes, when grandpa comes, ‘Hooray!’”

    ======

    “You know that those who do not marry the opposite sex here on earth will still have an opportunity later. Elder Holland also taught same-sex attraction is only a condition of mortality, so there will be no desire for a homosexual relationship in the hereafter.”

    Well, yes, all who don’t marry will be given the opportunity to do so - that’s a very reassuring message for single people (and for anyone not married in a Mormon temple). But step back for a moment and think about how this sounds to someone in a same-sex marriage. Imagine if you spent your life married to and loving your spouse, raising kids, helping each other through good times and bad, attending funerals of parents and in-laws. Then you die and have no desire for that person? You’d trade in your soulmate for someone else because you will no longer desire a relationship like you had on Earth? What about the children you raised together?

    I think Elder Holland’s words are extremely comforting for people who want to rid themselves of their homosexual orientations. To be relieved of that temptation, or burden, after years of struggling to overcome it and feel wholly worthy would, indeed, be a wonderful blessing.

    But what about people who find their orientation as basic and integral to who they are? What about people for whom being gay is as much a part of themselves as being human or male or female or brown-eyed or left-handed?

    “God’s richest blessings” does include (and perhaps even means) exaltation. But exaltation can only come when a man and a woman are sealed under the authority of the priesthood and have had that sealing confirmed by the holy spirit of promise.

13. 13Lauraon 20 Jul 2010 at 1:16 pm

    “I personally believe that was not the reason the church got involved.”

    Why do you think the church got involved, Joshua?

14. 14cowboyIIon 20 Jul 2010 at 2:00 pm

    Before I go down this road any further: Let me understand something. Being gay is an affliction in your Mormon dogma? A disorder much like being an alcoholic?

    Another question: Do you or do you not believe two men can genuinely love one another?

    Let me qualify. Love in the same manner as two heterosexuals would feel.

    And how so very convenient to have an “out” to explain people who are ever going to have children and never marry in the Temple and how they can be redeemed. That only placates the sanctimonious who can handle the unfairness of such doctrine.

    And please stop with your pity. I’m not afflicted. I’m not broken.

    Faithful and Clean? Nobody has the right to say how my love for another person is clean or not. I’ll leave that to my Creator and me. So, leave your dogma at the door before you enter my house and say my love is unclean. And don’t force me to live under the laws dictated by some Church. You have your religious rituals…I’ll have mine.

    I bet you can’t believe two men can love one another. That, what you don’t understand.

    Because you and many other Mormons think I am something that needs to be fixed in the next life tends to make you look superior.

15. 15Joshuaon 20 Jul 2010 at 6:07 pm

    CowboyII,

    I never entered your house and said your love was unclean. We are discussing Mormon doctrine. You do not have to believe Mormon doctrine. Laura said that Mormon doctrine teaches “gay marriage therefore destroys possibilities of salvation for people who enter into them”. That is not correct. I think if we are going to reference Mormon doctrine, we should do it correctly. No one is coming into your home and telling you your love is unclean. No one is stopping you from loving anyone you chose. Love is never unclean. However, we believe sexual relationships should only be between a husband and wife. We are not forcing you to believe that, but if you ask us what we believe, that is what we will say.

    Laura,

    I understand that many people in same-sex couples will not like the idea that exaltation is possible for them, but only on conditions that they will no longer be with their same-sex partner and at some point be with an opposite sex partner. However, I personally know people who were part of a same sex couple, who learned that was not what God wanted, willingly left it of their own accord, and now testify they have peace and happiness. The path to heaven is straight and narrow and few will find it, but there will be those who do. The point is that is open to everyone, even those in gay marriages.

    “What about people who find their orientation as basic and integral to who they are?”

    The first commandment is to have no other gods before God. Anything that gets in the way of that is a sin. It doesn’t matter what it is, if you put it before God, it is a sin. For exaltation, you must be willing to sacrifice everything, even your own family. Christ taught: “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother… He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me.” (Matt 10:34-37)

    If you love anyone more than Christ, whether it be a same-sex partner or an opposite-sex spouse who is sealed to you in the temple, then you are not prepared for exaltation. Nothing should be more basic and integral to who you are than that you are a child of God. Those who hold something back from the altar of Christ need to repent in order to obtain exaltation. No unclean thing can enter in the kingdom of God.

    I understand that is a hard doctrine. I understand if I take a step back the whole idea of Christianity seems harsh. My point wasn’t to make things sound soft. It was to clarify a misunderstanding. People in same-sex marriages can obtain exaltation, but they must meet the same requirements that is asked of everyone else - which is to be willing to sacrifice all things for Christ. I understand many will not be willing to. That is not the point. The point is many will, and they will be exalted.

    ===

    RE: Homosexuality

    The point is that prophets have always taught we can chose our actions, but they have never taught we can chose our inclinations. It has been that way since Adam down to the present time, regardless of the terms they used. If some members of the Church of any age believed there is a matter of choice in orientation, then they did not understand the teachings of the prophet at that time. That has never been taught in the church.

    Nor was it ever taught that masturbation turns straight boys gay. The Miracle of Forgiveness, which is not doctrine, taught it could lead to the act of homosexuality. I believe that is true, especially for people with homosexual inclinations, just as it could lead to illicit heterosexual actions for people with heterosexual inclinations.

    It was never taught you should “marry away the gay”. President Kimball included marriage as a step towards exaltation, which we have previously been discussing, but only after the person had stopped the act of homosexuality. That step may not happen here on earth. It was not a promise that it will turn you from gay to straight. He never even talked about orientation, so where did you get the idea that he taught to “marry away the gay”?

16. 16fiona64on 21 Jul 2010 at 4:22 pm

    Joshua wrote: It was never taught you should “marry away the gay”.

    Not in those words, no. It is, however, taught that gay men and lesbians should either marry someone of the opposite sex, remain celibate for life, or be excommunicated.

    http://www.mormonstudies.net/html/official/god_loveth_his_children.html

17. 17cowboyIIon 21 Jul 2010 at 9:22 pm

    I think Laura touched on something I have pondered about. The aspects of what it means to be loved or love someone. I don’t think there are many couples (straight or gay) who have really found love. At least not what I consider love.

    I have observed some of my friends/family/associates in all different environments. And I think we can agree there are some couplings that are not meant to be. I don’t want to sound too negative but I truly think it is a rarity to find your soulmate.

    Then there may be some people who tried to find a mate and come away disappointed and discouraged in the endeavor. It’s not easy to date. There are many who just don’t want to deal with the dating game. To some people it is easier to be alone and not deal with the complexities with dating or seeking their mate for life. That happens in the gay and the straight world. Part of the problem is a severe lack of self esteem. It’s a vicious cycle that can lead to a life full of loneliness and depression.

    Let me give an example: I noticed a couple I know; good friends of mine. I see how even after years (eons) since their honeymoon they still love each other. I see how they touch each other. The gleam in their eyes. It’s subtle but you can witness it sometimes. Like: when they have to squeeze past each other in a tight space. I watch my long-time friends Mary and James when they are in their tiny kitchen and how they caress and use their hands when they need to pass by each other. It’s subtle but it comes naturally.

    Let’s compare that with some other couples I know.

    There are some that marry for various reasons that have not considered the element of love. They’re married for convenience sake. They’re married because of peer pressure. They’re married (like my old high school buddy) because his LDS Bishop told he had to. He had to prove he was no longer gay. Then there are some who marry because of their career. A fifth-grade teacher I know got married because the Principal at his elementary school threaten to tell people he was gay.

    So, I need an answer to a question: If I find a woman who will marry me in the LDS Temple will I be exalted? I won’t love her. I can certainly tell you I will never love her as she should be loved. But, will that make me an eligible for the higher kingdom in heaven? I just have to go through the ritual?

18. 18cowboyIIon 22 Jul 2010 at 9:09 am

    Recently, Gregory Quinlan, President of PFOX, has been caught on video. If it were not so pathetic it could be laughable. He gave an impromptu press conference at one of the planned stops the NOM traveling mobile van for anti-gay marriage has been making on the East Coast. (You can find it on YouTube.)

    Give a look-see. This is a man who found Jesus and gave up the homosexual lifestyle. He married a lesbian but they have since divorced.

    And he is supposed to be one of the hallmarks of what ex-gays should be like.

    I do hope people here know the difference between PFOX and PFLAG.

    Is Orson Scott Card (Mormon) in charge of NOM and giving his blessings to this mobile carnival?

19. 19Joshuaon 22 Jul 2010 at 10:45 am

    CowboyII,

    Recently, you accused me of entering into your house and saying your love is unclean. I have my beliefs about chastity, but I do not force them on anyone. I fully believe many people who chose to live the gay lifestyle will make it into the Celestial Kingdom. Please respect my right to live the ex-gay lifestyle. If you do not want to live it, then don’t. If you think it is immoral, than that is fine, but please do not belittle the ex-gay lifestyle. Mormons for Marriage is supposed to be a safe place for Mormons who are attracted to the same sex. If you truly are for “marriage equality”, then you would support ex-gay marriages, not oppose them.

    And to answer your other question, rituals by themselves do not save. The Book of Mormon teaches that those with a broken heart and contrite spirit will be saved. Along with our rituals, we make a covenant. We still have to follow that covenant. There will be many who perform rituals on Earth, but will not keep their covenants. There will be many who did not have a chance to perform rituals on this earth, but because they have a broken heart and a contrite spirit, they will have the opportunity to make those covenants for themselves later.

    The counsel of the church is “marry who you love and love who you marry.” If you do not have an opportunity to do that here, you will have an opportunity in the afterlife.

20. 20fiona64on 22 Jul 2010 at 11:26 am

    Let’s define some terms, shall we? There is no such thing as “ex-gay.” You yourself say that you are still gay, Joshua — you just happen to be living a “straight lifestyle.”

    Your words, not mine.

21. 21Joshuaon 22 Jul 2010 at 11:45 am

    Gay is an adjective that describes thoughts, feelings, or behaviors. It is ambiguous and depends on the context.

    When I say I am LGBT, I am referring to my feelings. However, when we are talking about ex-gay, I am referring to my actions. I used to participate in gay behavior. I no longer do. Hence, I am ex-gay.

    And that is me. Others have changed their sexual orientation. The APA has said (more or less) “Some people believe sexual orientation is fixed and innate, but sexual orientation develops across the lifetime of a person.”

    There are people for whom their sexual orientation has changed.

22. 22fiona64on 22 Jul 2010 at 12:50 pm

    Joshua, could you please stop with the spin? Some of us are getting dizzy. You keep changing your definitions to suit yourself, and some of us *are* paying attention. “I’m gay” (your statement” is not ambiguous in the slightest. You said you are still gay, even though you are “living a straight lifestyle.”

    This does not mean you are no longer gay, which is what the “ex-gay” movement proclaims happens when you follow their (discredited by all reputable psychological and psychiatric bodies) “teachings.”

    You keep trying to pretend that being gay is only about what happens in the bedroom (and even told me in no uncertain terms that being straight is only about what happens in the bedroom).

    Please, Joshua — be honest with *yourself* if you can’t be with anyone else.

23. 23Joshuaon 22 Jul 2010 at 2:16 pm

    Gay is an adjective which describes thoughts, feelings, or behaviors. It depends on the context. Gay is not what only what happens in the bedroom. The ex-gay movement focuses on changing behaviors. No major ex-gay organization claims to change a person’s sexual orientation to heterosexual.

    It has not been discredited by the anyone. They haven’t found any evidence whether or not it changes sexual orientation, but that isn’t the purpose and no evidence is different than discredit.

    Last year a task force commissioned by the APA found that ex-gay groups help counteract and buffer minority stress, marginalization, and isolation and are “a refuge for those who were excluded both from conservative churches and from their families, because of their same-sex sexual attractions, and from gay organizations and social networks, because of their conservative religious beliefs”. Ex-gay groups relieve the distress caused by conflicts between religious values and sexual orientation and help participants change their sexual orientation identity.

24. 24fiona64on 22 Jul 2010 at 2:45 pm

    I guess you haven’t read much about NARTH’s claims lately, Joshua.

    Anyway, I am confident that you have a peer-reviewed source (or at least a link to one) for your assertion, right? And that you’ll be providing it, since you slipped and forgot to do so in your post?

    Thanks in advance.

25. 25Joshuaon 22 Jul 2010 at 2:55 pm

    The link is here:

    http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf

    Like I said, it is the report of a task force.

26. 26fiona64on 22 Jul 2010 at 2:55 pm

    The reason I asked for your source, Joshua? Is that I happen to know exactly what the APA says.

    Here’s the press release: http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2009/08/therapeutic.aspx

    And here is the report to which it refers: http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf

    And here is their resolution on appropriate affirmative intervention over sexual orientation distress: http://www.apa.org/about/governance/council/policy/sexual-orientation.aspx

    Not at all what you said. In fact, I could not find one single, solitary paragraph on the entire APA website to go with what you said. Perhaps you can assist me by providing your source. Again, thanks in advance.

27. 27Joshuaon 22 Jul 2010 at 2:56 pm

    I posted it, but I don’t think it will let me do links. Try this by removing the spaces.

    apa . org / pi / lgbt / resources / therapeutic-response . pdf

    Like I said, it is the report of a task force.

28. 28fiona64on 22 Jul 2010 at 4:12 pm

    From the third source I cited (emphasis added):

    Quote: Although there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation, some individuals modified their sexual orientation identity (i.e., group membership and affiliation), behavior, and values (Nicolosi, Byrd, & Potts, 2000). They did so in a variety of ways and with varied and unpredictable outcomes, some of which were temporary (Beckstead & Morrow, 2004; Shidlo & Schroeder, 2002). Based on the available data, additional claims about the meaning of those outcomes are scientifically unsupported.

    In other words, the APA makes no claims whatsoever to the scientific validity of the “ex-gay movement’s” reported efficacy.

    However, the philosophies of NARTH, et al., are *widely* debunked and considered unethical at best and harmful at worst.

    Take whatever comfort pleases you, Joshua. No one here has tried to deny you that. OTOH, you have tried very hard to preach that *others* should be denied — and have contributed money and time to make sure of it.

29. 29cowboyIIon 22 Jul 2010 at 9:04 pm

    Before you go put words in my mouth I need to clarify something, Joshua. Your perceived belittlement is really just my pity. Don’t confuse belittlement with pity.

    Find some references in anything I have typed here that says you can’t marry or you can’t live the ex-gay marriage lifestyle you so choose. I dare you.

    The truism: Anyone who still struggles with same-sex attraction is not straight. No matter what your behavior may be.

    Mormons for Marriage is a safe place? Really?

    I am so glad that you are able to walk hand-in-hand with your wife at almost any place in Utah. Let see how often two men try the same thing in most any public place in Utah. Reality sucks. The living-room we all share is suddenly restricted to my house. How often do I hear I should return to the closet. (Just read some of the public comments on any gay news topic on ksl.com and you will quickly see what I mean.) But, yet, you’re free to show love towards your wife with a kiss or a hug most anywhere.

    Where do gays go for their safe place? I can understand not on LDS Church property. But in public areas? I don’t suppose we will ever see a LGBT couple in the Pioneer Parade any time soon will we? Only special people get invited to be in that parade. And that might be interpreted as a ‘special right‘ for us.

    And the only way you can rationalize your support for keeping me and my ilk as second-class citizens: the obtuse explanation about me finding solace in the afterlife. How very kind of you to grant me that. Does that explanation makes you feel less like a bigot?

    Then, Joshua typed: “There are people for whom their sexual orientation has changed.” Such a statement is ludicrous because if it were true, there would have been a Press Conference the likes we have never seen before. I know people who would forgo their life’s savings to change from gay to straight. I know some people who have paid princely amounts of money to therapists for a way to cease their struggles. They even paid for the electricity. The electricity that powered the shock treatments.

    Quit playing semantics. Joshua, you’re as gay as I am.

30. 30Joshuaon 22 Jul 2010 at 9:50 pm

    >> Your perceived belittlement is really just my pity.

    I don’t want you to pity my lifestyle. I want to be treated as an equal. I think pity is belittlement.

    >> Anyone who still struggles with same-sex attraction is not straight. No matter what your behavior may be.

    I didn’t say I was straight. I said I lived a straight lifestyle. I chose not to live a gay lifestyle.

    >> I am so glad that you are able to walk hand-in-hand with your wife at almost any place in Utah.

    Too bad I don’t live in Utah. I live in the bay area. I’m not going to defend Utah culture. I have major problems with it. I can walk hand-in-hand here, but the culture here is downright hostile. I was openly gay when I announced I was getting married. Many of my co-workers told me downright I was making a mistake. Some refused to congratulate me. No one had a problem with another coworker who had a same-sex partner. I was the one who received the discrimination. I come here and you pity me. There is an official page on this web site which tells all would be parents-in-law to stay away from me. It scared me to death to tell my would-be father-in-law. Fortunately, he hadn’t read this web site, and he was a bit more open minded than the people on here. Believe me, this area is a lot more friendly to same-sex couples than mixed-orientation couples.

    >> Where do gays go for their safe place? … you’re as gay as I am.

    So am I included in that? Are you asking where I can go for a safe place? I don’t know of any safe place. I am trying to make a safe place, but it is hard with web sites like this attacking my lifestyle.

    >> Such a statement is ludicrous because if it were true, there would have been a Press Conference the likes we have never seen before.

    Call the press conference. The APA stated: “Some people believe that sexual orientation is innate and fixed; however, sexual orientation develops across a person’s lifetime”

    (Remove spaces from link)
    www . aglp . org / pages / cfactsheets . html

31. 31Joshuaon 22 Jul 2010 at 9:54 pm

    Fiona,

    NARTH is a research organization, not an ex-gay group (though I did like how you showed that even the APA is okay with quoting Nicolosi in a paper.)

    What you wrote doesn’t dispute any of my claims. It even affirms that “some individuals modified their sexual orientation identity”, which is all I ever claimed for it to change. If you look at the list of sexual orientation identities, ex-gay is included as one of them. So basically, the APA task force says it does exist, and therapy can help you be ex-gay.

32. 32fiona64on 22 Jul 2010 at 10:31 pm

    Joshua, you (like NARTH) are misrepresenting the facts. APA is citing the research that they debunked. That’s called being responsible. Citing something is not the same as endorsing it. I can cite The Book of Mormon in a paper, for example, without endorsing its claims.

    NARTH is an organization that promotes “reparative therapy,” much like Evergreen. It is not a “research organization.” Every bit of its methodology has been debunked (Paul Cameron).

    You are being disingenuous once again, when you say you only claimed that sexual orientation identity changes.

    21Joshuaon 22 Jul 2010 at 11:45 am

    There are people for whom their sexual orientation has changed.

    Like I said, Joshua — some of us are paying attention to what you say. You spin like a 78RPM record.

    You’ve been married less than a year. You are 23 years old. I have no doubt that you are a bright guy. I just think you are terribly invested in I Am Not Gay Anymore And Have a Wife To Prove It (TM) — you seem to protest an awful lot for someone who is so tremendously happy and secure.

    No one is trying to take away your marriage (no matter how you try to spin it), this website is not “homophobic” for promoting marriage equality and providing support to like-minded LDS members (no matter how you spin it), and nowhere on this website does it say the things you claim — as was proven to you in another thread with direct quotes.

    Tonight I watched security tape of LDS “security” people ripping a gay male couple out of one another’s arms on the public sidewalk in SLC and calling the police to have them arrested — because one of them kissed his partner on the cheek. Would you be arrested for kissing your wife on the cheek in Utah? No.

    You can say “this isn’t Utah,” but you admit that you donated money in an effort to make California very much like Utah. You put money into a campaign that did something that has NEVER happened in the US before: took rights away from law-abiding citizens.

    Did you stop to think about that, or did you just salute smartly and charge up the hill when President Monson told you to give a Judas kiss to your fellow GLBT citizens?

33. 33cowboyIIon 23 Jul 2010 at 10:00 am

    Joshua, you’re twisting the point I was making to make yourself look the persecuted. Your stories of discrimination is laughable. You’re living a heterosexual lifestyle and you don’t feel you have a safe place? What the hell?

    Do you wear a “I AM AN EX-GAY” t-shirt everywhere you go? Why would people cast dispersion upon you unless you did. Something is fishy here.

    Those same organizations that Joshua toots for inclusion has heaped a whole lot of harm on lots of people. I’ll gladly supply links as evidence. There are testimonies from former members of those organizations who now are publicly making apologies for their past association with these ex-gay organizations.

    fiona64 is right. There are many good places where gays can seek help other than at places that demonize gays. We are going to make damn sure some gays that might be reading this webpage will seek alternatives. It’s for their mental health.

    Sadly, there isn’t much of such support or help within the LDS Church.

    Case in point: I was asked to volunteer help in a kitchen to provide dinners as a fund-raiser. It was in a church and my assigned task was dolloping up some dessert. The kitchen help was 90% gay…(because a lot of gays are good at catering for some odd reason.)

    But I suddenly realized something. No LDS Church would ever have a Wardhouse kitchen full of gays making dinner for the Relief Society. Not even if all the gays in the kitchen were celibate. There just isn’t a gay support group. Gays are kept to stay away from each other. You’re not even allowed to congregate as gay LDS members. One Bishop in San Francisco tried to organize such a group but what happened? Don’t answer. We all know the answer.

    I’m sure someone will give us the details of the latest meeting between high-ranking Mormons and the gay community. No?

    I know there was a secret meeting with Jim Dabakis and Dallin Oaks but what Mr. Oaks said in a speech at BYU Idaho destroyed whatever positive results might have happened in that meeting.

    So, to those gay Mormons reading this website: Hang in there. Do some reading and exploring. There are good people who will help you. I’m certainly glad I was lucky to find my network of friends (both gay and straight) who give me support. Do stand tall. Give a firm handshake and never apologize for who you are.

34. 34Joshuaon 26 Jul 2010 at 2:03 pm

    I congregate just fine with other gay Mormons thank you very much. I came out over the pulpit in Sacrament meeting and not one person said a negative word. I was openly gay and still had plenty of friends. You say all of these things, but that just isn’t my experience.

    The Mormon Church is one of the few organizations working to make a safe place for me and my lifestyle choices. This organization is working against it. If you do not understand why the gay community is not a safe place for someone living the ex-gay lifestyle, you need to take your blinders off.

35. 35fiona64on 26 Jul 2010 at 2:24 pm

    34Joshuaon 26 Jul 2010 at 2:03 pm

    I congregate just fine with other gay Mormons thank you very much. I came out over the pulpit in Sacrament meeting and not one person said a negative word. I was openly gay and still had plenty of friends. You say all of these things, but that just isn’t my experience.

    The Mormon Church is one of the few organizations working to make a safe place for me and my lifestyle choices. This organization is working against it. If you do not understand why the gay community is not a safe place for someone living the ex-gay lifestyle, you need to take your blinders off.
    —-
    I’ll take “Yet Another Disingenous Answer” for $600 …

    Joshua, you know exactly what was meant. Your church actively discourages single gay and lesbian people from getting together with other single gay and lesbian people. It’s specifically stated in “God Loveth His Children.”

    You are congregating with other mixed-orientation married people — and that is NOT the same thing as a group for single LDS gay and lesbian people.

    Stop being deliberately obtuse. It is unbecoming.

36. 36Joshuaon 26 Jul 2010 at 7:33 pm

    Fiona, your assumptions about who I congregate with are wrong.

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (hidden) (required)

Website