My little sister sent me an email yesterday, troubled about just what to make of what I called the “post-crusade era” of SSM in the church. She had the following questions:
- Should legally married gay/lesbian couples be allowed to take the sacrament?
- Say hypothetically that this couple wanted to get baptized, would they have to divorce?
- Do you ever think that the church will baptize gay couples?
The current official answers would certainly be “no.” But will this change one day? I get the feeling that some leaders in the Seattle Washington Park Ward might think so, since they reached out to inactive gays with guidance from Mitch Mayne, and his former bishop from San Francisco. It would be interesting to hear more about their appeal, because right now, there seems to be very little incentive for openly gay people to participate in the LDS church.
What can we tell inactive gays? Be celibate and you will be happier? Social scientists would loudly dispute this claim. Do we say, “make a sacrifice, and you will be rewarded in the next life.”? With what? The opportunity to marry someone of the opposite sex in eternity? That would probably sound like hell to most gay men. Can we offer them hope of changing their orientation? Not universally, at least according to current church literature, which has conceded that in many cases, homosexuality is not reversible in this life.
Falling Outside the Paradigm
Gays simply do not fit into our current LDS paradigm. This is a reality for others as well: singles, infertile members, and those with extreme personality or cultural differences, some of whom experience the LDS church as a non-stop trial. The “next life” motivations of eternal families often hold little appeal for those who have been burdened by dysfunctional families in this life. And in the end, there is a reason why 99% of humanity is automatically turned off to the Mormon church. Its just not a good fit for some people, and not just because they are hard-hearted.
It’s Not Obvious
This is why I don’t believe in the obvious “keep my commandments-prosper in the land” paradigm we have in the church. Membership is an individual call, not an obvious choice. If you hear the spiritual call “come follow me,” you follow, no matter where it leads you. For Christ’s disciples, it meant following a strange man into the wilderness, who preached cannibalism “you must eat my flesh and drink my blood” and prophesied that some of them too would be martyred on crosses. They did not follow because it made sense or because it promised greater happiness. They followed simply because they heard the spiritual call and could not deny it.
It is no different in our day. People join our church because they feel something spiritual tell them to come, and they follow. And that “something” they feel is not universal, nor is it obvious from a rational perspective. “You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you.” I would never judge a homosexual for abandoning or refusing to investigate the church. Rather, for any of them to join would be a miracle on par with Paul’s vision on the road to Damascus. To sacrifice what they must sacrifice, they will have heard a voice from heaven, nothing less.
Resisting the Temptation to Universalize
Few seem to be able to resist the temptation to universalize church values and practices, even though there are dozens of scriptures that describe the gospel as “a strait and narrow way that few find.” Liberal Mormons cannot rest until the LDS church has adopted universally accepted Western values, and conservative Mormons cannot stop judging Gentiles by LDS values.
Why shouldn’t the LDS church embrace liberal Western values and accept homosexuality? SSM makes a lot of sense. Spend some time in the impeccably clean and civilized home of a gay couple, and you will start to wonder why the LDS church would insist this is wrong. SSM promotes fidelity, friendship, discourages promiscuity, and gives participants a much deeper sense of wellbeing than a solitary life, or one spent living contrary to one’s sexual orientation.
So why not? Because at the end of the day, homosexuality is still an aberration from the natural order. That might not be so bad in this life, but the LDS church is primarily about preparing for an ideal and perfected next life, sealing natural order of marriage and family for eternity. How could we eternally seal an aberration? We believe that all disabilities, aberrations, imperfections, and weaknesses will be perfected in the next life. “Every valley will be exalted, every hill made low, the rough places plain.”
Some might find it offensive to classify homosexuality as an aberration or disability, and maybe it is, within the context of the horribly imperfect world we live in. There are so many worse things after all, and so many heterosexual relationships are even more imperfect. But in the idealistic world of a perfect eternity, homosexual relationships are flawed because they can never experience procreation and childbirth, humanity’s most precious endowment, indeed, the most precious endowment of all life forms: the ability to self-replicate. Sealing a homosexual relationship would be like eternally sealing a blind man’s eyes shut. The blind man may have a rich life, and be more in tune with his ears and his sense of touch than any seeing man will ever be, but it is still preposterous to think of sealing his eyes shut eternally simply because we celebrate his special gifts and uniqueness in this life.
Celebrating SSM makes sense in this mortal life. If there is no reasonable expectation for conversion to heterosexuality, homosexuality seems to work as a compromise. Yes, homosexuals can’t technically procreate. But they can adopt, use IVF and surrogacy, they can love each other and find happiness. They can adapt sexual practices in ways that are still enjoyable if not ideal. For many, homosexuality is a God-given state in this life, and there is truth and beauty in that reality as there is in all God-given realities. But within the LDS concept of eternal perfection, it will never fit as an everlasting state of being.
“A Place Better Than Sons or Daughters”
What I have said might not be met with much agreement either by liberals or conservatives, and certainly not most homosexuals. But I would like to extend a special hand of fellowship to people like Mitch Mayne and others who have found ways to reconcile their sexual orientation with the current teachings of the LDS church, even if they hope the church will change someday. I have the upmost respect for their sacrifice and faith. They understand the gospel in a deeper way than most of us. Ty Mansfield quoted a beautiful scripture from Isaiah on one of the church website videos on same-sex attraction:
For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that take hold of my covenant; Even unto them will I give in mine house a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters.
This is something we can offer gays who stay true to the LDS covenant. We can recognize their sacrifice for what it truly is, give special consideration, special outreach, particular attention, and deeper trust. We can give them a place “better than sons and daughters.” We can give them a place better than the one we reserve for families of children. They are our heros because they make the sacrifice none of us have made. They are living Biblically when we are not. They are the proof of the strength of our faith, and the exceptional nature of our call and mission as a people.
However it is because they are exceptional that we cannot judge the many who will leave, who will not understand, who will refuse to “make themselves eunuchs for the Lord’s sake.” It is a call the Lord has reserved only for the few.
Wheat & Tares 
“They can adapt sexual practices in ways that are still enjoyable if not ideal.”
ROTFLOL!!! Okay, everyone…..Nate is now the self-proclaimed sex expert of Wheat & Tares! Everybody be sure and ask him their intimate questions, so that in his great wisdom and expertise, he can tell you whether or not YOUR sex is “ideal!” And remember, folks, just because YOU and YOUR PARTNER enjoy it, doesn’t mean you’re having “ideal” sex! 😉
“Even in ballet, where most of the men are gay….”
Do you happen to have legitimate data on this claim, Nate, or are you (noted sex expert that you are) merely engaging in a silly stereotype? I’m sure Mikhail Baryshnikov just can’t wait to find out he’s gay, so be sure and chime in with your expertise! 😉
Ummm… I got about as far as the “homosexuals are an aberration” section and “sealing a same-sex couple is like sealing a blind man’s eyes shut” and “They can adapt sexual practices in ways that are still enjoyable if not ideal,” and that was about as far as I could go without my stomach revolting.
Just stop. Take this down and have someone edit this post. I’m sure you tried to be kind and charitable when you wrote this, but you couldn’t be more patronizing and dehumanizing. I’m not sure that you actually know anyone who is gay, but if you do, maybe you ought to have one of them point out the multiple things you say that are stereotyped and degrading.
Speaking of aberrations, there are fewer red-headed people in this world than gay people. If gays vary from the natural order, how could we even consider eternally sealing red-heads?
So, I know that most people are just going to rage over this post and all, and maybe that’s about all we can expect, but I want to say a few things.
When I was reading this post, I had a lot of thoughts and emotions going through my mind too.
But I think my ultimate emotion was a sadness — it was a sadness that I recognize that Nate is doing his best to be as charitable as he can, and this is about as charitable, as respectful, as reasonable as one can be within the conservative, orthodox believing LDS framework.
But I do want to emphasize the points of charity I see:
1) Nate recognizes that this is not going to appeal to a lot of folks (especially not LGBT folks.)
2) Nate recognizes that from a secular perspective, gay marriage makes sense.
3) Nate recognizes that for those LGBT folks who do “stay true to the LDS covenant,” that these folks live their faith in a way that most straight members cannot even perceive — and that they should be recognized as heros.
and
4) Given 1, 2, and especially 3, Nate recognizes that for the folks who will leave, who will not find this appealing, etc., that these folks cannot be judged — their actions are ultimately reasonable because to walk this path is a superheroic feat that only those who are called to can actually pursue.
“Come back, but to what?” That question says it all to me. My gay son left and the rest of our temple recommend holding family followed.
” They are the proof of the strength of our faith, and the exceptional nature of our call and mission as a people.”
Gays who stay are showing the strength of their faith and theirs alone. It is a reflection of their individual conviction in a religion and there are believing members of many religions faced with this decision.
I feel a sense of deja vu here. How can homosexuality be an aberration from the natural order when it is 1) innate and 2) has existed since time immemorial? And if homosexual unions are problematic because of procreation, why do we not take issue with mature adults marrying or the infertile marrying? In short, we assume heterosexuals are “close enough” to extend them every courtesy, but we assume homosexuals are probably irredeemable. That’s just hypocrisy. As to universalizing the gospel, if we are saying it’s not for everyone, OK, I’ll go that far, but when we start saying that the ones it’s not for belong to our actual families, that becomes a HUGE problem. Out of sight, out of mind, but gay people are born to straight parents all the time.
I absolutely see Nate’s appeal to the “natural order” similarly to the way I see Catholic appeal to natural law. It’s not an appeal to evolutionary biology or whatever, but an appeal to the theological telos of mankind.
I see Nate’s post as basically saying:
1) from any secular viewpoint, gay marriage and support for LGBT rights makes sense.
2) the only reason LDS need to have to oppose it is that theologically, LDS folks work in a framework where it is against humanity’s telos.
(and then continue the rest of the post).
I’m not touching the LGBT/SSM issue, but there is a similar situation currently with polygamous families in African communities. Adults are not allowed to be baptized until they get down to one spouse through either divorce or death. Even though the culture accepts the marriage(s), the church does not. This is definitely a barrier to people joining the church in those communities.
The purpose of my previous comment is to point out that the heterosexual monogamist ideal in the church today contradicts other types of marriage structures accepted internationally. If the church currently asks people to modify their marriages prior to baptism in polygamous situations (which isn’t necessarily against wide interpretations of our theology), I don’t see any reason why the church would accept prospective members in a SSM.
as an infertile woman who tries to talk about the issue in an effort to normalize it, many orthodox traditional members get a little uncomfortable and their most common response is, “Oh, but you just have to endure to the end and you’ll be a mother/raise kids in the next life.” or “Just get over it and stop complaining” . . .
It’s incredibly marginalizing of the fact that “Men are that they might have joy” – and it minimizes my experiences and the missions and purposes that God has sent me here to earth… just because my role and purpose doesn’t fit the stereotypical norm.
this is one reason I’m now an LGBTQ ally, I have a glimpse of a shadow of how they are treated and seen. Also since I’m often cited in Gay Marriage court cases when the argument is made that families are for kids, duh. Well I don’t have a second class, consolation prize family. So….
I understand the response I receive from orthodox is because for right now, we don’t have any room/understanding in our plan of salvation for those that fall outside “normal”. Perhaps we don’t have a full knowledge of the plan of salvation . . . it would help if we could acknowledge that; it’s the first step to being open to receiving more: admitting that we don’t know what we don’t know.
As a liberal, gay, celibate, Mormon, I wasn’t offended by this. There were parts that I don’t agree with, but this is the most tolerable explanation I’ve ever read from an orthodox perspective. If the far right members could get to where this author is at, that’d be good progress.
Tiago: “this is the most tolerable explanation I’ve ever read from an orthodox perspective.” That’s high praise coming from you Tiago, and I thank you.
However, I wouldn’t describe my position as particularly orthodox, as Andrew S and others have described it. Rather I recognize that the church’s position is too narrow to accommodate the realities of homosexuality. Rather than claim that “narrowness” is wrong, I choose to describe that narrowness as unique, peculiar, and “for the few.” Therefore, I am a liberal that celebrates the peculiar diversity the LDS church brings to the tapestry of cultural life in the world. Others would pound the LDS church into their own humanist views, or pound gays into their conservative, heterosexual image. But a true liberal, like myself 🙂 seeks to understand and describe this diversity from its own perspective.
Regarding the offensive term I used: “aberration.”
Perhaps I could have found a better word. I recognize, as Hawkgrrrl noted, that homosexuality is a natural state, in that is created by nature (or nurture). In my post, I even described it as “a God-given state in this life, and there is truth and beauty in that reality as there is in all God-given realities.” I don’t know how you can be more charitable than that.
But how do you characterize a natural state, which nevertheless has obvious flaws in its evolutionary design, in that it is a sexual mechanism which cannot result in procreation? If I called infertility an “aberration” I don’t think people would find it offensive. Yet homosexuality is infertile. Would it be less offensive (or more) to call it a disability? Disabilities of various sorts are also natural states, created by nature.
I think the problem lies in the fact that homosexuality feels like such a deep and important aspect of identity, exactly as a heterosexual would feel about their sexuality, their innate masculinity or femininity. To take a heterosexual man, and tell him his man-ness is an “aberration” would be extremely offensive. Maybe something like that is going on here.
So I don’t mean to deny homosexuals the depth and reality of their identity. Homosexuals lead rich, fulfilling lives, and could do so eternally I’m sure. I am speaking merely of aspects of design and function as they are understood in their ideal, eternal perspective in the LDS church: and that means having children through sexual procreation. If I were to speculate that someday God in His mercy and generosity, would allow homosexual men to be able to get pregnant, would that make my view more charitable? No. They don’t want to experience childbirth. That would be missing the whole point about what it means to be homosexual. But homosexuals are missing my point, which is that childbirth IS the functional reason why sexuality exists to begin with. Without it, there are fundamental existential questions that cannot be adequately answered.
(Just a side note on the ballet comment: I myself am a former ballet dancer, so I know what I’m talking about. Ask any professional ballet dancer, and you will probably get the answer “50%. So I might have been exaggerating, but just barely. Most of the choreographers I’ve known have been gay. And it is fascinating that they rarely explore same-sex relationships, even in very contemporary works for liberal audiences, in companies when there are plenty of male dancers. Aesthetically, gay artists recognize that the man-woman coupling is the ideal, as it provides the perfect balance of masculine and feminine. This sense of balance is registered and understood subconsciously at once, just as balance between lights and darks in a photograph are understood at once. Gay ballet artists are confident and comfortable in their identity, so they don’t need to prove to the world that their relationship is the aesthetic equal of the man-woman relationship. They celebrate the man-woman relationship and identify with it.
It has been interesting for me this last 1 1/2 years as a female in her 30’s with 5 children, and married in the temple to find her “precious” paradigm change.
I was your typical conservative member because I was afraid of what was out there. I was afraid to ask a question in my heart because I may be one of non-elite to fall. Then I would be doomed to some “lower kingdom” for eternity because I didn’t hold to the rod. So I spent all my time pouring over the conference talks and wondering why I was still suffering. Why was I still suffering from depression and anxiety for 20 years. Why? Why? I just needed to do more, do better, serve more, pray more, etc (the typical answers) and so I would try and try and try with lots of shame and guilt to go with my trying to perfect myself. Yes I know grace is there but I needed to practice more (i.e. do more).
Well as a last ditch effort I went to therapy and I learned that it was really “neural brain paths” that were the cause of suffering.
As I healed my brain, I had space in my head and then the questions came with great speed. My whole belief system came crashing down when I realized it was NOT some man (i.e satan) on my left shoulder putting negative self-talk into my head…it was ME!!!
So how does one look at her husband who has also suffered with shame from the same self-loathing that led to self-medication through pornography and prostitution. This domino affect also resulted in a level of betrayal trauma in me that I was not sure it was possible to recover from. Our marriage was so full of lies, deceit,and suffering but on the outside we were your “typical” LDS happy couple at church with their 5 children.
Then the spiritual experience started happening. I became a certified yoga teacher and began a meditation practice that led to even greater healing. This lead to me questioning and learning that has took me on a path that has led to greater spirituality and a new way of looking at the church.
Joseph Smith was an amazing prophet but a complex human with many so-called flaws (he was really affected by his culture/science of his time as we are). The future church he organized was always within the culture of the times and actually behind through-out the history of the time but would have to (an continues to) play catch up 20-30 years later.
Yes, I have change my views regarding LGBT. My heart is so changed it has been scary to go to church at times. I go because I love the good it offers but I don’t believe we have a corner on spirituality, truth, ability to save, or prophecy.
For example, when I questioned my conservative teachings on evolution (i.e the creation story as taught in genesis and other places)and since my last biology class was in high school, I realized the craziness of my beliefs regarding evolution. This led me to see scripture differently and then to question so-called “modern-day” scripture.
It has been very painful but my heart now goes out to those who have suffered by our culture in the church. I was fearful my soul would be sent to hell to go against the culture but that is how our teachings keeps most of us from searching greater understanding.
If I would not have had my yoga training (now I am in Mindfulness training), I would not have seen other truths that are not “fear-based”. Now I see that Jesus was all about love and most great teachers through-out history have done much good but when we keep our views that “history” as in the scriptures is “true”…we miss the beauty of the scriptures and all good books that contain truth mingled with their culture of the time or later periods that changed according to their culture.
As I studied evolution in regard to man, I realized I probably evolved from an ape. I know I have a divine spirit, as I feel in my heart as human beings (rant- not human-doings), we are different from other species in our consciousness. I think scientifically we are showing, when one is willing to look and be open to new ideas, that LGBT are viable biological sexual identities.
As I have studied more about eastern religions, I see a great need in the church and our society at large to take on greater self-compassion (love of self – neighbor was always 3rd in the scriptures), less doing (I call this effortless effort=less stress), less suffering, less striving, more living in the present moment without judgement, less of this past (depression)or future (anxiety) based living, less pain, greater mental health through brain science (not satan based fear), less judgement, more joy, more happiness, more love, more peace, and more acceptance with all our differences, personalities, and choices.
I am now so grateful for the trauma that I sought healing from because it has resulted in waking up. I enjoy most day filled with happiness and joy even in the midst of my “mormon” faith paradigm shift (I don’t think of it as a crisis anymore).
Thank you for sharing your beautiful experience Sue. It’s so true that we don’t have a corner on truth and spirituality in the church.
I thought of another way “sealing and aberration” is offensive which I think is important to clarify. The purpose of “sealing” is not well understood, even among the orthodox members. In today’s LDS culture, it is often seen through a romantic lens, the ultimate celebration of eternal love. But that is not what the sealing ordinance is fundamentally about. In D&C 132, it’s original context was polygamous, demanding the Emma submit to it, not out of love for her husband, but out of humility to God. Its purpose was the continuation of eternal lives and continual procreation in the next life as a god.
If sealing were primarily about the celebration of romantic love, it would make perfect sense to seal gay marriages, because I know gays can have as deep and beautiful romantic relationships as any heterosexual couple. But sealing is not about love. It is about the continuation of the family unit as a procreating entity throughout eternity.
Sue that was beautiful. Thanks so much for sharing it. I can relate to some of it, but you are ahead of me.
One thing that comes to mind when reading this is something that I heard. I do have it on “my shelf” to look up and investigate when I get into polygamy. I heard that someone intimate with LDS history passed on in a fireside one time that Joseph had men sealed to him. I have not even attempted to validate that, but it does leaving me scratching my head over all of this. But I will emphasize that this was a comment made on a podcast where someone being interviewed said they had heard this statement. So it could be misquoted or passed on incorrectly. It does leave me thinking a bit about what is a sealing really all about.
Another thought-provoking post. When LDS theology decided to exalt the heterosexual, child-producing relationship, it made low all other relationships. But relationships are just ways that humans organize themselves. Within those relationships people can thrive or cause harm, bless each other or curse each other. Maybe some relationships will, on average, produce better results than others. But the heterosexual, child-producing union does not have a monopoly on Christian discipleship.
Couldn’t we just focus on producing Christian disciples, and let people choose the relationships that work best for them?
We have a serious problem (as a church) deciding, here in the second decade of the 21st century, what we think “marriage” really should be.
Is it only, or primarily, a legal and societal arrangement? Or an eternal one? Or is it/must it be both? Ideally, it’s both, but we all know that even in the Church, it isn’t, always. We sometimes, for various reasons, “settle” for legal marriages (societal arrangements) which will never be sealings. And there are eternal sealings, like those which endure after divorce, which exist without benefit of legal arrangement.
So we find ourselves in the paradoxical position of supporting the legal cohabitation and sexual intimacy of a couple who will be separated for eternity, but excommunicating for adultery the divorced couple who gets it on together, even though they are still sealed to create and populate worlds together in eternity.
That said, stipulating acceptance of the LDS normative belief that same-sex unions will not endure past mortality, and the apparent teaching that same-sex attraction itself is a feature of the mortal body, why would we not allow people to find what happiness they could find in mortality, and trust in an infinitely loving God to work out the details in eternity? Support, or at least allow, same-sex marriages (but probably not sealings) as time-only arrangements with the understanding that things will likely change in the life to come?
Or, to paraphrase a popular T-shirt of my youth, “Marry ’em all, let God sort ’em out!”
This is very interesting reading. It reminded me of the Terry Givens interview on PBS a while back where he commented on homosexuality in light of LDS theology.
In light of these realities, wouldn’t a more helpful approach be for people who care about gay Mormons help them find a place outside the LDS church? I’m serious here. Life as a gay person can be just wonderful outside of Mormonism, and almost never is within it. That’s just reality, as you point out.
As people who’ve made the transition out of the church and the closet will testify, it’s that process (loss of family, church friends, etc) that is so terrible. If we stop and think about it, ALL of that horror is preventable if everyone would change their approach.
If an LDS stake somewhere wanted to help in a genuine way, it would partner with the local Gay & Lesbian center and sponsor an event about helping LGBT Mormons develop healthy relationships and health spiritual lives.
THAT would impress me. The latest LDS church PR fad, not so much.
Oh, and here’s the Givens quote:
http://northstarlds.org/featured-article/pbs-interview-terryl-l-givens-on-homosexuality/
It’s at this time that I’m really missing comment numbering (I promise everyone I’ll fix this soon!)
but
Nate,
I want to say that the basic issue here is in defining or valuing humans by what we can or desire to *do*. This is a larger issue in general discussions of disabilities, btw.
Like, the basic assumption that you’re making is stated later in the comment:
But here’s the thing — humans don’t EXIST in order to serve FUNCTIONS. So you cannot answer an EXISTENTIAL question with a FUNCTIONAL question — e.g., you can’t answer, “Why do humans exist” with “to use their sexuality for childbirth.” You can’t even answer, “Why does sexuality exist for humans?” with “so it can be used for childbirth.”
You don’t have to be gay to have an appreciation and understanding that sex can be had for more things than just childbirth. I mean, if you really were coming from a Catholic “open to life” perspective, maybe this would make sense, but in Mormonism — which accepts birth control, etc., — it doesn’t make sense to say that sex’s functional reason to exist is childbirth.
Firstly, from a solely natural perspective, you are reifying a whole lot of things that cannot be justified (we can use the concept of “purpose” or “design” as metaphors, but if you’re actually going to talk about something going against “evolutionary design” or whatever, then you’re reifying something beyond the metaphor). You can at best say that procreation is an evolutionary adaptation of the development of sexuality, but you can’t say that is its “purpose”. But even if you wanted to say it was *evolution’s* “purpose,” you cannot seriously say that *human* “purpose” is to fulfill whatever evolutionary “purpose” you have then defined.
The issue is that someone is fully human regardless of whether they are gay, straight, fertile, infertile, etc., They are not lesser human. They are not “broken” humans. They are not even dysfunctional humans — this is because one’s humanity is completely separate from what one is able to *do*. A more humane framing would be to ask whether a person is able to pursue the things he or she so desires — whether he or she is able to pursue his or her own path, as it were. To the extent someone is hindered in this, then PERHAPS we can start looking at this.
One reason the discussion of disabilities is problematic is because it often ignores the voices of the people who experience the supposed disability. I mean, I don’t know how much you have read about Deaf culture, but that is just one example.
So, going back to another paragraph you wrote:
So I don’t mean to deny homosexuals the depth and reality of their identity. Homosexuals lead rich, fulfilling lives, and could do so eternally I’m sure. I am speaking merely of aspects of design and function as they are understood in their ideal, eternal perspective in the LDS church: and that means having children through sexual procreation. If I were to speculate that someday God in His mercy and generosity, would allow homosexual men to be able to get pregnant, would that make my view more charitable? No. They don’t want to experience childbirth. That would be missing the whole point about what it means to be homosexual. But homosexuals are missing my point, which is that childbirth IS the functional reason why sexuality exists to begin with. Without it, there are fundamental existential questions that cannot be adequately answered.
Yeah, so if you want to talk about design and function in a theological (“eternal”) sense, that is fine, but don’t confuse this with any sort of secular, scientific, biological, etc., sense, which is a different playing field.
I mean, I get that you are constrained by the LDS framework (which is why I still insist that you are taking the orthodox position to its limits), but you can, in other frameworks, be a little more creative than this. In the same way that if God just went “poof” and homosexual men would be able to get pregnant, the very idea that if God went “poof” and all LGBT because straight and cisgender is missing a big point — if you change something that central to a person’s identity, you have *eliminated* that person and replaced him or her with a fundamentally different person.
I think gays want to force this on churches. I emailed mitch mayne once and told him that i thought a repentant gay person shoyld not go to gay bars or attend pride parades. No answer.
My thoughts are similar to Andrew S. While some aspects of this post are jarring, I appreciate the post because it helps me understand the theological constraints that prevent most all members of the church from including SSM within the plan of salvation. In short, the view is this: exaltation requires procreation through celestial sex and gays cannot procreate in that fashion.
While I am in a small minority, I do have hope that eventually our teachings can expand to accept SSM in the plan. Doing so will necessarily require an abandonment of the belief that celestial sex is a requirement for eternal parentage. I find hope that we can abandon that belief from the following evidence:
1. The scriptures. There really is little-to-no scriptural assertion that eternal progression requires celestial sex. Yes, D/C 132 can be read that way, but that reading is not required and could be a result of cultural blinders. Moreover, section 132 has its own problems and could be decanonized if needed.
2. The scriptures. There are scriptural accounts that suggest life can be created outside of male-female intercourse. The creation account of Adam/Eve can be read this way. For more on this possibility, read Taylor Petrey’s “Toward a Post-Heterosexual Mormon Theology.”
3. Church sanction of heterosexual adoption. We actively support, seal, and give the label of ‘marriage’ to heterosexual couples who adopt children even though the couple did not bring such children into life. Our cultural and sealing practices view these children as fully part of the couple’s posterity. There is no reason the same cannot be done for same-sex couples.
4. There is a strong current in the church to view men, and especially women, as parents even if they do not bring children to life. Exhibit A is Sheri Dew’s conference address “Are We Not All Mothers” in which she said “Motherhood is more than bearing children. … It is the essence of who we are as women.” If motherhood and fatherhood are just aspects of being a woman and man, then by definition sexual reproduction is not required to be a mother or father. Thus, gays can be included in parenthood.
5. The church has already backed away from full acceptance of a sexual God. Brigham Young taught that Elohim had sex with Mary in order to bring Jesus into the world. That teaching has been rejected and will get you boo’d out of any gospel doctrine class today.
6. Most importantly, Christ. The Savior is given the title of “Father” even though He did not create any of us through a sexual act. Exploring the Savior’s fatherhood yields a treasure-trove of information on what parenthood really is: condescension, sacrifice, example, and literally giving of one’s life for another. All of us can be parents in that sense. And if that’s good enough to give the title of “Father” to Christ, then it should be good enough to give the same title to His followers (straight and gay) as well.
I realize that, today, I am in the minority. But I will not be surprised if the youth of the church in two generations are as shocked by the idea of ‘celestial sex’ as today’s youth are shocked to hear of Brigham’s teachings about Mary.
One more evidence to add:
7. The church has backed away from teaching that procreation is the only (or even primary) function of sexual relations. While procreation is still ‘a’ function, the church fully embraces other functions, including creating a bond between the married couple. Just was with infertile heterosexual couples, there is space to view sexual relations in a same-sex couple as having a valued function.
Happy Hubby, Joseph Smith had men sealed to him as brothers or sons. Back then, there was a tradition of sealing yourself to the family of Joseph Smith or Brigham Young or other family lines deemed to have some kind of unblemished priesthood line of authority extending back in time.
But I think its a good subject to bring up because Joseph Smith had very intimate friendships with other men and sealing those friendships within an eternal family was important to them and him. I wouldn’t be surprised if Joseph’s relationships with men were stronger than those with women, as David says of Jonathan, “thy love surpasses the love of women.” People do not cultivate these kinds of intimate friendships in the 20th and 21st centuries, but they were common in the 19th century. They often had a sexual element, even if not always physically acted upon. And the secretive nature of that sexual element gave the relationship a special and intimate quality, even a poetic one, which could not have been any more passionate even if they abandoned their wives and got gay married. Relationships between men of the same sex are real and beautiful, and I find the sealings to Joseph Smith reflect the power and eternal nature of those kinds of relationships.
While these kind of adoption sealings have been done away in the church, they still say something significant about male-male relationships and their eternal nature. Aside from the sexual element practiced by homosexuals, which has no procreative purpose, male-male relationships are sacred and eternal, in love and devotion often surpassing male-female relationships.
So in that sense, homosexuals are engaged in something I believe has a place within the traditional LDS paradigm. But the problem arises from the fact that modern homosexuals use that relationship, as powerful as it is, to supplant the male-female relationship, which has been “ordained of God” if you will, for the eternal procreation of physical and spiritual progeny.
If you were to talk to a 19th century gay or lesbian woman, I don’t know if they would necessarily approve of the strides gays have made in the 21st century to try to make homosexual relationships the equal of heterosexual ones. Rather, homosexual relationships in the 19th century context are special, secret, romantic, and wholly different from heterosexual relationships. Men understand men, women women, and by its very nature is far more intimate, with far greater potential for depth of understanding and feeling. Marriage on the other hand, is full of strife, misunderstanding and a continual battle of the sexes.
But anyway, enough of those musings. Maybe for another post…
Andrew S. “Yeah, so if you want to talk about design and function in a theological (“eternal”) sense, that is fine, but don’t confuse this with any sort of secular, scientific, biological, etc., sense, which is a different playing field.”
Maybe I’m not skilled enough in existential philosophy or gay studies to be able to make an effective argument that would impress the secular world, so I will stick to the LDS theological perspective. It makes sense to me, and I think to most Mormons, but I can see how questions of identity, humanity, and purpose can all be understood in different ways. And it is important to understand how gays see themselves, their purpose, the value and function of their sexuality, and how they define their humanity beyond their limited procreative potential. All I am pointing out is that regardless of how they experience their identity, there is no place for it within the current LDS paradigm.
David K., thanks for your insights on the topic. I wouldn’t be concerned in the slightest if the church one day reoriented itself to include perspectives closer to yours. I would welcome it even. But I don’t see it happening. I could be wrong, but I’m afraid I will have to stick with how things pretty much are now. That is why I seek to find a way to define my LDS beliefs in a way that still reflects the realities of homosexuality and recognizes its incompatibility and respects the distance homosexuals must therefore make from the church.
I’m in total agreement with MikeInWeHo about helping homosexuals out of the church, if that is indeed the path God has given them, which I believe it is in many cases. Mormons should always follow the Spirit. And they should be prepared to follow the Spirit when it directs others along different paths. Mormons give individuals tools to know God, and the greatest of those tools is personal revelation. Respect the light and understanding God gives to them and the directions it takes them, even if it seems contrary to the direction God has given us.
Nate,
To address an earlier comment: Yeah, so the whole, “we need better male-male friendships so that people won’t be so starved of their male-male bonding and become GAAAAAY” is not a good way to go. It’s not a good way to go as a theoretical framework (per your comments) and it’s not a good way to go as ex-gay therapy (as per many supposed reparative therapy courses).
To address your most recent comment, yes, I think that if you stick within a particular, conservative, orthodox LDS framework and continue to move forward with the point that this isn’t going to appeal in any secular sense, will not hold up in any rigorous philosophical sense, etc., but REQUIRES the theological precommitment to work, then that would probably be the best concession. I’m sure many people will disagree because they think that Mormon theology (at least orthodox conservative Mormon theology) should make sense to everyone and should apply to everyone or whatever, whereas you’re not going for that.
But I seriously think that Mormons can (and should) be more creative on this topic. If personal revelation only goes so far as to say, “Well, this isn’t for you and there is no possible way for this to change so let’s help you out,” that’s a good concession, but it is still, as I have said from my first comment, profoundly sad.
Nate said:
Actually, this merely demonstrates that choreographers, gay or otherwise, recognize that the majority of their audiences will always be heterosexual (and heavily female), and that watching a male-female pas de deux is what most appeals to the audience. Not to mention the fact that sufficient homophobia exists, even in ballet audiences, to make same-gender pairings unlikely to sell well, and even possibly to endanger the dancers and choreographer in some venues.
Not to mention the fact that pairing male and female dancers makes it easier to include the athletic lifts which are a major selling point of pas de deux. You don’t have to make everything a morality tale or proof of the inherent moral superiority of heterosexuality. Lots of times it is simply all about the money.
Matthew Bourne choreographed an all male cast dancing ‘Swan Lake’. Makes my heart sing.
Lorian, of course what you say is correct. I still don’t think it explains the whole phenomenon. Matthew Bourne is the exception that proves the rule. Its an extremely popular ballet, yet it remains quite unique in its exploration on the theme. It would be interesting to see what gay choreographers chose to create in the absence of market restraints. I personally think it would be more heterosexual pairings, because as deeply as gays feel sexual attraction to their own sex, they are aesthetically drawn to the yin and yang of male-female pairing. In fact I believe they identify with the traditional pas de deux in an even deeper way than a heterosexual would, because they identify with both the male and the female.
*sees vast majority of television features predominantly white casts*
You know, I think people continue to film predominantly white casts because they understand intuitively that white is right. And if there weren’t market constraints, this would come out even more.
“In fact I believe they identify with the traditional pas de deux in an even deeper way than a heterosexual would, because they identify with both the male and the female.”
Please stop—your ignorance with regard to how gay people feel or think is distracting from the point of the post (which, while I didn’t entirely agree with it, I thought was quite good).
Nate W, I’m glad you liked the post, and thanks for the encouragement to keep focused. However, I don’t think I’m off base here. It’s a profession I know quite well. In a previous blog, I argued that all humans have both masculine and feminine traits, in various degrees of prominence. Heterosexual men have a predominance of masculine traits but in homosexuals, the balance could be more mixed. So even though a homosexual relationship has two men, there is a feminine side to the relationship, because the feminine is included within the mixture. I would go so far as to suggest that there is something within us subconsciously, that seeks a balance between the two, even among homosexuals. In ballet, that balance is traditionally achieved by having men and women play stylized masculine and feminine roles. I know that homosexuals absolutely identify with the female role, as many male dancers relish the female choreography, learning it themselves for their own enjoyment and the opportunity it creates to express their feminine side.
Nate:
Anytime you attempt to generalize, you are off base. “Homosexuals”[1] (I feel like I’m in a 1950’s hygiene film just typing that word) are not just hairdressers, interior designers, and choreographers. We do not all have a more pronounced “feminine side” than heterosexual men–some do, but in my experience as a practicing gay man, most do not. Some heterosexual men also have a more pronounced “feminine side” than an average man, and while this is only speculation, I would guess that many more straight men would allow expression of preferences and interests that are thought of as feminine if it were socially acceptable within their peer group to do so. And I won’t even begin to address all of the nonsense about characterizing certain interests and activities as masculine and feminine. Suffice it to say that any claims about gay men being inherently more feminine than straight men are not supported by actual evidence.
Thus, I can say that the following statements really do come from a place of ignorance:
While I suppose it should be flattering that you think that all gay couples have “impeccably clean and civilized homes,” it’s (a) not true, (b) likely not even true compared to straight couples with the same number of children, and (c) a stereotype that harms gay people in the same way that the “all Asians are good at math” stereotype is harmful.[2] Also, it’s just a strange thing to say—it seems to suggest that morality can be determined by the cleanliness of one’s home.
I’m not sure what that even means. This just sounds like that awkward question “which one of you is the girl in the relationship?” I suppose there is a “feminine side” to every person, gay or straight, but this just sounds like the wrongheaded “butch and femme” hypothesis. There is no evidence that gay men who have more traditionally feminine characteristics or interests gravitate toward gay men with more traditionally masculine characteristics or interests, or vice-versa.
Again, I’m not sure what this means. I certainly don’t identify with “the female” in terms of wanting to be a woman, and while being gay has given me a little more perspective on the privileges that I have by being a male, I can guarantee you that this awareness is not universally shared by all gay males.
I’m sure you know some gay men who learn the female choreography. However, unless these dancers you know have actually stated that they learned it in order “to express their feminine side,” you are speculating as to their reasons. I can come up with several reasons off the top of my head why a male dancer might want to learn his dance partner’s choreography that have nothing to do with expressing his feminine side.
This statement is just creepy. It turns out that straight couples engage in “adapted sexual practices” (by which I assume you mean non-PIV sex) to nearly the same degree as gay couples do. As Andrew Sullivan once said, “We are all sodomites now.” What’s more, ever since the First Presidency instructed local leaders not to “inquire into personal, intimate matters” between a husband and wife, I’m pretty sure that most Mormon couples are engaging in these adapted sexual practices as well.
In conclusion, I’ll reiterate what I have said throughout this thread—I have no doubt of your sincerity or your good intentions, but your lack of knowledge of gay men and lesbians leads you to use jarring stereotypes that distract from your message. This is why I encouraged you to stop and get an editor. Your message will benefit if you do not include these items that are false, vaguely offensive, and frankly, tangential to your point.
[1] I’m going to note right now that “homosexuals” also includes lesbians, but as it appears that you have focused exclusively on gay men, I will follow your lead for the purposes of discussion.
[2] Google “model minority stereotype” for details.
Nate W. — You said it perfectly in your 11:24AM comment. Everything I wanted to say and hadn’t taken the time to say yet. Thank you.
Nate –
Um, no. Heterosexual pairings, frankly, look weird to me. I can’t really understand what heterosexual couples see in each other, or how heterosexual women deal with the inherent societally-imposed inequality in status within the relationship (though I realize intellectually that relationships between individuals vary widely from “societal norms” and that most of my heterosexual female friends are in very equitable, balanced relationships with their husbands/partners).
I say this, not to disparage heterosexual relationships, or to suggest that heterosexuals are lying about their attractions to one another or about their degree of satisfaction with their romantic relationships and partners, but to demonstrate that, as a lesbian, I really know relatively little about the heterosexual experience (other than what I can observe from the outside, from family, friends and media — which is a considerable amount, especially by comparison with what you, as a heterosexual person, can observe *realistically* about homosexual persons and their relationships in any great detail), and thus, I really cannot presume to describe or to diagnose why it is that heterosexuals are attracted to people of the opposite sex or why they would find watching other heterosexual pairing in dance, or other art or media, aesthetically pleasing.
Point being, neither can you with regards to homosexual persons and our relationships. And it is insulting that you continue to insist that you can, and that really, at the heart, our relationships, attractions and aesthetic appreciation are heteronormative because you think they ought to be, and because that’s the only level at which you could possibly understand them.
Nate W. and Lorian, while I obviously lack the personal experience you bring to this discussion, I would like to be clear that I am very good friends with dozens of homosexuals in my profession as I’ve worked in various artistic capacities. While I would not share my blogging life with most of them, as they would not understand or appreciate my LDS perspectives, I try to be respectful of their perspectives, and advocate for the reality of the lives they lead to Mormons who read this blog, who might not have as many contacts with homosexuals as I do.
I am certain that many of my supposed stereotypes would not be seen as offensive to my gay friends, because most of my gay friends are comfortable with their effeminate side. Ballet is a celebration of the feminine, and its no surprise that gays in ballet universally celebrate it with passion, relish, and an intrinsic understanding. It is not a stereotype they are ashamed of, but rather one they are completely happy to indulge.
It’s good to know that there are homosexuals like Nate W. who would rather move beyond these stereotypes. Maybe I get a skewed perspective because I am in the arts. Your perspective is a common refrain in many progressive circles, including feminists, who try to move beyond feminine stereotypes even in women, and seek to define them as cultural affectations, not intrinsic to the core identity of what women are.
But I believe stereotypes, even though they can be misleading, can help us understand each other, as long as they are not used with too broad a brush stroke. Some stereotypes can be hurtful, negative, or completely untrue. And perhaps some gays see flaming queer effeminate mannerisms as being hurtful to a true understanding of what homosexuality means. That’s a valid concern. But denying its existence, or refusing to discuss it because it is “offensive” doesn’t help us discuss or understand homosexuality any better either. Rather it must be acknowledged in order to seriously discuss whether it is prevalent, meaningless, cultural, intrinsic, or biological. Are gays more effeminate on average than heterosexuals? Is effeminate behavior a learned affectation or an intrinsic characteristic? Would heterosexuals also be just as effeminate if they weren’t “repressed” as Nate W. seems to suggests? And if effeminacy is intrinsic, what does that suggest about the nature of homosexuality?
Now, my own assumptions about homosexual effeminacy lead me to believe that gays intrinsically carry higher than average feminine traits. There is scientific evidence to back me up on the Wikipedia article “effeminacy” as well. While this assumption might not be universally accepted, I am certain that many homosexuals, including many of my friends, would be perfectly happy with that assumption and not find it offensive in the slightest.
And I’m happy to hear arguments why you might think this is not the case. But dismissing it as an offensive stereotype is not an argument. Rather, to kill the stereotype, you need to find evidence that negates its prevalence or demonstrates its origins as cultural affectation, not intrinsic behavior.
Regarding describing homosexual sexual practices as not the “ideal,” I only meant in the biological sense, where evolution has created a magnificently self-lubricating orifice in females that is lacking in males, and this necessitates adaption and more care must be taken against infection than would be needed in heterosexual sex. I don’t see how there can be any argument about that. Gays are very open about trying to make homosexual sex safe, and that it is done in educated way, and that there are special considerations that go above and beyond normal man-woman sex specifically because of the lack of a self-lubricating orifice. Does that justify claiming it is less “ideal” in the physical, biological sense of the word? Maybe that is debatable. But that is my reasoning. I believe it is one that would resonate with most Mormons, if not with most homosexuals, and in the end, that is my audience.
Nate, you do realize, don’t you, that when someone who is of xyz minority calls out your behavior as offensive, and you begin your next sentence with the words, “Some of my best friends are xyz minority…” you should really just stop. right. there. And do not go farther. Having “gay friends” does not give you any personal understanding of what it is to be gay (clearly), nor does it give you license to pontificate about what gay people think or feel or react.
Please. Stop now. You only make it worse with every post.
Let’s start by asking you to refrain from calling gay people “effeminate.” Just eliminate that from your vocabulary, along with “aberration.”
I also find the way that nearly your entire discussion of homosexuality centers around how you believe *male* homosexuals think, feel, act, have sex, experience the world, incredibly sexist and naive. It seems as though you write off the entire existence of lesbians, describing all homosexuals as “more in touch with their feminine side” and “needing to lubricate their bodily orifices” and a host of other masculocentric references.
But on second thought, it is really okay if you ignore the existence of lesbians, because I cringe at the thought of where you would take the discussion if you began thinking about what you believe gay women think, feel and do.
Look, Andrew’s right. You get points for *trying* and for not battering us with Leviticus. I appreciate that, I really do. But the stuff you are saying — trust me, Nate; it’s really pretty awful if you could only hear it with our ears. Your post is like the epitome of what people are talking about when they refer to would-be “allies” who blunder around committing micro-aggression after micro-aggression. If you don’t think it is hurtful and harmful to the gay people in your audience, just because you aren’t calling us “abominations,” please think again.
Lorian, I know you seem very angry with me, and I don’t know why I have the urge to share this with you, but I do. I didn’t talk about lesbians because frankly, I don’t really have much experience with them. But I did have this beautiful experience with a lesbian couple which I wanted to share. I don’t share it because I think it describes other lesbians, but only to illustrate how I think that even in our differences, there can be beauty and understanding. I will never forget it and it transformed the way I see humanity in general.
I was at a jazz club in NY a few years ago listening to a fantastic singer named Nicole Henry. A “lipstick” lesbian first sat down across from me, a stunning beauty, but made-up exactly like a 60s Marilyn Monroe, with affected feminine mannerisms. She and I were talking and everything she said was exactly, I mean exactly, like a Marilyn Monroe film, with that kind of tender, vulnerable, open femininity which even though it seemed affected, could not have been coming from a place more real, more wounded, more beautiful. Then her partner sat down next to me, who was her complete opposite, hulky, masculine, strong, wearing a big trenchcoat, roughly cropped hair, all black. At first the incredible masculinity of this woman intimidated me, and I wondered if I had been too friendly with “Marilyn.” But she was also very chatty, extremely confident, and very friendly to me in a “with-the-guys” kind of way. As the evening progressed, the “butch” lesbian gradually inched closer and closer to me, till she had her arm around me and her head on my shoulder, whispering in my ear during the performance, telling me all about how amazing the artist was, about other performances she had witnessed with the same artist. And with this butch lesbian on my shoulder, and beautiful Marilyn smiling across from me, I felt such warmth, such love, such complete openness, like an experience at the temple. We were all ourselves, we were all comfortable, we were all intimate, although complete strangers, and there was no judgement, worry, strain, shame, or anxiety that could possibly penetrate that moment of pure heaven.
I don’t know why I share that. I just think it was a rare and beautiful moment that showed me the potential for understanding and love, regardless of how completely different we all were in gender and orientation.
I’m sorry if my stereotypes have offended you. In a previous post I used stereotypes to describe men and women too, and if I remember, you didn’t like that either. I hope you will forgive me my failings and at least remember that, as you say, “You get points for *trying*” I am trying. And have a great love and respect for people of all sexual orientations.
Nate, there must be a point you wish to make with that story, despite your protestations to the contrary, or you wouldn’t have brought it up (“See? Butch lesbians love me!” “Femme lesbians are wounded — that’s why they’re with another woman.” “I like the kind of lesbians where you can tell which one is the guy and which one is the girl. It makes me more comfortable in my binary gender-is-eternal paradigm.”)
I find it telling in so many ways that this is the story which comes to mind for you when you think of lesbians. Dig deep, Nate, and ask yourself why.
Suffice to say, from my perspective, that your story is about as far as I think you could get from a real understanding of who lesbians are or are likely to be.
Lorian, really I had no ulterior motive in sharing that story. I share it purely as a rare and beautiful moment of intimacy with people that were completely different than me. Here on W&T I often take an analytical distance from my experiences and friendships and reframe them within the context of LDS struggles to understand itself and its theology in the context of a world that is different and paradoxical. Within the context of faithful LDS worship, homosexuality, like infertility is understood as less than ideal, and in a church that celebrates eternal perfection, that’s a problem. But out of this context, in the context of a mortal, secular understanding, I agree that homosexuality need not be understood as less than ideal. I should have made that more clear in my post. LDS theology will nescessarily be offensive to those believe in the absolute equality of orientations. But I can step out of my LDS perspective and appreciate that God has created other paths which have their own understandings which are as valid in their own context. “What’s true in our minds is true, whether some people know it or not.”
Nate,
I guess what ultimately bothers me is that even though you’re saying that you can step out of your LDS perspective, that you can see that there are two contexts (one an LDS context, and another a secular context) — and I agree that the OP attempts to show the difference between the differing contexts — my issue is that a lot of your examples are not prefaced with an LDS context. As I read your comments, the contexts do not stay silo’d. So, when you talk about your thoughts about gay men, you are not saying, “These are my thoughts from an LDS perspective.” You’re not saying, “I’m putting these beliefs forward because my commitment to Mormonism requires that I put these beliefs forward.” Instead, you’re presenting experiences (without specifying context) and then implying that those experiences just naturally reinforce the LDS perspective. Like, you don’t say, “So, because of my commitment to the LDS perspective, I see and categorize experiences into gender binary.” You just talk about an experience of lesbians neatly sorting into butch and lipstick and how beautiful is that! Look, gay men recreate and celebrate the gender binary in ballet and how beautiful is that!
I think that what’s more off-putting is that you are externalizing your commitments to LDS philosophy onto *others* rather than keeping them on *yourself*. Rather than saying that your seeing gender binary in all these places is a reflection on you, or socialization from larger society, or whatever, you phrase things in a way that implies these are a reflection of those others’ opinions. Like, when you say something like:
The troubling part is that you are taking *your* LDS commitment to seeing the man-woman coupling being the ideal, taking your experience of seeing gay artists perform this coupling (or whatever), and then making your explanation is that gay artists “aesthetically recognize this as ideal” rather than considering that maybe, gay artists might perform this coupling for other reasons than that they “aesthetically recognize” this as ideal. For example, I don’t see serious consideration that maybe this happens because the historic corpus of art is geared toward male-female, so becoming familiar with the craft will involve studying that. I don’t see serious consideration about the role of socialization. I don’t see serious consideration (although there are comments mentioning it offhand) about market factors. I mean, there are a lot of possible explanations, but yours is, “Gay artists aesthetically recognize this as ideal.”
I mean, to use an analogy I am reminded of Kenneth and Mamie Clark’s doll experiments. It just seems to me that if you knew that the black children picked the doll with blond hair and light skin over the doll with with dark skin and dark hair, and that, when asked, they said that the lighter skinned doll was “the nice doll” with the “nicer color,” you would say that this is an instance where black children “aesthetically recognize” the ideal of whiteness.
I find it sad that in Mormonism, you could legitimately make a theological argument for this, so I’m just going to hope that you don’t in fact actually come around and say that you do think there is an aesthetic ideal of whiteness.
My “like” button is not working, so I’m going to have to just say, “What Andrew said.”
I, too, find it disturbing that you see any acknowledgement by gays or lesbians of the surrounding heterosexual culture as proof of the innate superiority of that culture. And I agree with Andrew that your protestations of separation between your “LDS viewpoint” and your “secular viewpoint” are somewhat less than convincing.
And I am deeply disturbed by your reference to the “lipstick lesbian” dressed as Marilyn Monroe as being
(emphasis added)
Where do you get this bit about her being “wounded”? Did she tell you she was “wounded”? And why in the world would you see “wounded” as “beautiful”? I get the impression that you see characteristics like “strong,” “self-sufficient,” “healthy,” and “well-adjusted,” as “masculine” characteristics, and not something you prefer to see in women. Even your description of the “butch lesbian” strikes me as you saying, “Hey, she had all these ‘masculine’ characteristics, but because she trusted me, she stopped being all ‘masculine’ and started being ‘feminine’ and ‘vulnerable.'” (By the way, while we gay people may refer to people as “butch” or “femme” or “dyke” or “a lipstick lesbian,” you should probably exercise at least a bit of discretion in adopting such terminology. Coming from someone who describes gay men as “effeminate,” and gays and lesbians as a group as “aberrations,” it doesn’t sound very nice.)
Nate, I think you see yourself as very familiar with the gay community and very “hip” to what it means to be gay (“Yeah, I’m cool. I understand all you gays and lesbians and effeminate men and lipstick lesbians and butch dykes — I know the lingo and I can speak as an insider!”), but you have way too many stereotypes in your head and way too many incorrect cultural beliefs and a priori ideas about homosexuality that you carry in from your LDS (and probably just general conservative USAmerican culture) upbringing. So when you talk about us as though you think you understand us, and then you try to pigeonhole us and tell us what we believe and how we *really* think, it is insulting and so far off the mark that it amounts to grossly distorted caricature drawings.
I’ll say it again: Please stop. Take Nate W.’s advice and let a gay person review and rewrite your posts about homosexuality before you consider posting them. You are trying hard. I get that. But you are missing the mark by a very wide margin.
To me trying to wring any pro-LGBT message out of the LDS beliefs is simply asking too much. My former TBM wife once said, “I will never let anyone take the church away from me.” Our then 19 year old son came out to us before Prop 8. The light regarding the irreconciability of the theology of the church and happiness for our son came on as ward members gleefully gathered on street corners to waive their pro-prop 8 signs in our small CA town. It wasn’t anything anyone said. It was the smiles on their faces and the almost giddy conversations they seemed to be having as they held the signs.
Nothing as been the same since.
It is what it is, no matter what makeup some compassionate Mormons try to put on it.
Thanks to all for their good points. Complicated and very personal topics are not easily discussed much less resolved.
We are human, and, by definition, flawed and imperfect in our thoughts, words, and deeds. Judgement is reserved for only One. Not even He who was without sin can do so.
Christ would sit down to eat a meal, take time to love and support each one of us. There would be no judgement, no shoulds, no guilt, no shame, no ideals, better or worse thans. Just all us sinners, equal. And there would not be a separate table for the gay folks. They wouldn’t have limited access to Christs love, and would be no more “in need” of his atonement than anyone else.
Placing human constraints and limitations on eternal ideals seems a little misplaced. The truth is, the LDS church is not eternal. It is a very human construct designed to facilitate fellowship between its members. The LDS paradigm has always been, and will always be structured “by the flawed for the flawed” and it is solidly rooted in flawed interpretations made with the best intentions at heart, for the given time period in which the interpretations occur.
The church is not the gospel. Culture and societal convention change, the church changes, the gospel does not. Humans are not in a position to make judgement calls in regard to “correct” application of it’s principles.
In pre-existence, we were intelligences. Male? Female? Doesn’t say. Those intelligences were made flesh – procreation is needed to make bodies. Sex is a physical expression of our bodies. Connections between two people, the ones that strongly bind, are on a different level/plane than sex. Deeper, past the physical. These connections are more likely to be eternal than sex.
Where does the gospel say that love, if not between opposite sexes, is to be discouraged? Love is what this life seems to be about. Create in ourselves. Share it with others. Create more. Christs unconditional love has a pivotal point in His suffering and sacrifice, doesn’t it?
Celestial sex? That is beyond our human ability to comprehend. If our intelligences could make important decisions in the pre-existance, and clearly had different opinions, then there must have been some prior event(s) that both created/formed the intelligences, and gave them sufficient learning experiences to be able to make the decision of which plan they would follow.
We do not have a clue how our intelligences became intelligent. Were born? What they experienced? Anyone who has kids knows that kids arrive on day 1 with “who they are” already intact. And good luck changing it!
If that is our intelligences made flesh, then we are only seeing a portion of the “true big picture.” No understanding of what came before, or what will come next in our eternal progression. Placing limitations on one step of the process without understanding the whole seems illogical.
Why is it unbelievable that love, deep eternal connection, and same sex progression as a complementary team requires different sexes?
Babies are not aware of their sexual roles – society and human hormones involved in brain patterns influence this. No right/wrong, no judgement. Elderly men who have been life long friends freely express and vocalize their love for each other – often over spouses. The longer you live, the more you learn to stop viewing the world through right/wrong tinted glasses, and the more you understand the dangers involved with judging others.
We are admonished in the BoM to learn all we can, to test that which we learn, keep that which is good, and discard that which is not. In order to do this, one must have an open mind – an open to being tested belief system. Ones belief system is their own bible, conscious and subconscious, it dictates our behavior. Our thoughts and beliefs are illustrated in our words and deeds. Regardless of the other beliefs, the only requirement for an open belief system is the belief/knowledge that: there is always a probability that you are wrong. Or human.
Fundamental thought is typically closed, no long open to testing and receiving new information. Only the perfect can afford a closed belief system. Beliefs that come from a closed system, or a closed mind change in quality from being righteous and evolve into self-righteous.
Perhaps a less self righteous LDS paradigm is what is required for the possibility of Gay-okay thought.
How to do that? Seems like following the gospel, not so much the church, is a possible solution.
Andrew: “my issue is that a lot of your examples are not prefaced with an LDS context.”
Thanks for keeping me honest guys. Though it might not seem like it, its helping me understand it just a little better I think.
In my OP, I actually mix four separate contexts, and perhaps not very effectively. So its not just the LDS context. Its the LDS context, the secular humanist context, the biological context, and the artistic context. I believe each context is valid within its own sphere, even if they may contradict each other. In the OP, I use the biological and aesthetic context to support the LDS context, but at the same time, I recognize that the secular humanist context makes perfect sense in its sphere as well.
1st Context, LDS: homosexuality is theologically incompatible with LDS doctrine.
2nd Context, secular humanist: SSM leads to greater happiness than celibacy or living contrary to ones orientation. Homosexuals can adopt, have families through IVF etc. and fare just as well as heterosexuals.
3rd Context, Evolutionary, biological: homosexuality is less than ideal because it is incapable of natural procreation.
4th Context, Aesthetic, artistic: Balance of masculine and feminine in ballet, my belief that subconsciously we seek this balance, and that even homosexuals have a balance of masculine and feminine traits.
Now most people, when faced with differing contexts which contradict, will seek to resolve those conflicts, either by saying “this is right, that is wrong,” or else argue that conflicting contexts are an illusion (like the illusion I have of the aesthetic masculine feminine balance.) But I am not trying to resolve conflicts between contexts. I make it very clear in the OP that I see the church as “for the few,” a peculiar way which people only should follow IF they have heard a voice from heaven tell them to follow it. As for the other contexts, my liberal philosophy is non-judgement and acceptance.
However, as an LDS believer writing to a liberal audience this is not enough. You all would like to see the LDS church change and embrace the 2nd context: secular humanist. You are progressives. You are not content that the LDS church, as small and insignificant as it is, continue to be incompatible with homosexuality, and that is an offense, a wrong to right. (It might be to a certain point, in that the LDS church currently exercises too much judgement for those who are led down different paths, and this forces some young people to face conflicts which sometimes result in suicide.)
But apart from the suffocating universality in LDS judgements towards those who take different paths, I believe it is the right of the LDS church to define their own beliefs according as they feel fit. To try and defend LDS peculiarities on homosexuality, I resort to other contexts to provide extra support: biological and aesthetic, in order to demonstrate that our views can be held reasonably. While my arguments have fallen flat with many of you, I don’t think they would fall flat with most Mormons. I think even some secular atheists might understand and accept them, given the fact that LDS are pursuing some kind of (in their view, nonexistent) eternal ideal, that that eternal ideal, if it DID exist, might not include sexual practices that were evolutionarily redundant and non-perpetuating. Abstractly, it makes perfect sense. It is only in practice in mortal life that they would disagree.
But we are not interested in mortal life. We are interested in heaven. We define that heaven in a certain way. It includes procreation. It includes a continuation of physical relations. It is said to be perfect and free from flaws like infertility. Does that heaven exist? For us it does. For others it does not. If you believe in that heaven, it will define your life on earth. If not, you don’t have to worry about it.
Nate,
I applaud your efforts here.
In discussions such as these, the waters get stirred up pretty quickly. What began with clear intent and purpose becomes swirled, murky, and impossible to see clearly.
Much ground has been covered both by you and by the comments of others. Could you, as clearly and precisely as may be possible, share with us the core idea/stement/truth that you wish to convey via this post? What is your desired intent for those that listen and hear your truth? Finally, to what end, or what is it that you hope to accomplish through the course of this dialog?
I ask simply because I am not able to easily pinpoint where you are coming from. That is undoubtedly in part due to my mental state, not an attempt to discredit your well thought out comments. It is clear that you have, and mostly like are still, putting thought and effort into this topic.
Thanks, I appreciate the help.
There are some spots in my 2:13pm post that aren’t complete. Typing too quickly, limited time.
Being sealed: proxy sealings, those who died before reaching an age that they could choose with whom to procreate – – sticking points for logic. We are sealing two people without knowing if it is their wish. Surely all young ones who passed on without marrying and procreating will not be punished for their lack of an opportunity. Are they permantly stunted in their progression due to circumstances beyond their control? What will happen to them? What are the details? We don’t know. that doesn’t mean they don’t exist and are part of the plan. Some don’t marry. Marriage is not a commandment. Because they, for whatever reason, are not sealed into a procreating relationship on this earth, does this permanently halt their progression? We don’t know. Probably not.
If, based on your procreation purpose arguement, it is essential for progression, then does that not place the gay man who abstains…..in your own words
“This is something we can offer gays who stay true to the LDS covenant. We can recognize their sacrifice for what it truly is, give special consideration, special outreach, particular attention, and deeper trust. We can give them a place “better than sons and daughters.” We can give them a place better than the one we reserve for families of children. They are our heros because they make the sacrifice none of us have made. They are living Biblically when we are not. They are the proof of the strength of our faith, and the exceptional nature of our call and mission as a people.”
In a position of “unable to progress?” due to lack of procreation.
Is it not probable that there are possibilities unknown to us that will be fair and give everyone the same opportunities?
We are not the animals of Noahs Ark, paired 2 by 2. What about sealed couples where one “makes it” and the other doesn’t? Are they progressionally halted? Was the institution of polygamy in modern days not partially based on the revelation that polygamy exists in heaven? Why then, can it not be possible for the celestial sex and procreation from a terrenial same sex couple to be from a spirit of the opposite sex sealed in a polygamous union?
I’m not professing that any of this is true, because it is not a part of modern day revelation. I am curious to know why you may think that it is definitely false…..since it is not part of modern day revelation.
One point, Nate: You continue to assert:
Your view of what is evolutionarily advantages is pretty narrow and shortsighted. There are many species in which multiple individuals are involved in the care and protection of offspring to the overall benefit of the species at large and the particular local gene pool of which they are members. Examples include insects such as bees and ants, where only a few individuals are actually involved in procreative breeding, while the vast majority of the community participates in the care and upbringing of young, obtaining food for the colony, protecting the colony from invaders, building and maintaining living quarters, etc. All of these individuals participating in reinforcing their participation in the gene pool because they share genetic material with the queen and drones who do the actual breeding. By assuring the safety and continuity of the offspring, they are as evolutionarily significant to the species as are the reproductive members of the colony.
There is good evidence to support the theory that homosexuality is determined by a combination of factors which includes both a genetic component and environmental factor (which do not include “nurture,” but rather changes in the environment in the uterus over the course of pregnancy). One such factor is demonstrated by a study in which the researchers found that in a family where there are several boy children, the youngest boy has a significantly increased probability of being gay as compared with his older brothers. This is true whether the child is raised in the context of his biological family or in another setting, so it has nothing to do with the way he is treated by his mother, father or siblings.
The mechanism is thought to be similar to that by which a woman who is Rh-negative but whose children are Rh-positive because her husband or partner is Rh-positive, will often have an uneventful first pregnancy, but in subsequent pregnancies will need gamma globulin treatments to prevent her immune system from attacking the fetus because her body becomes sensitized (develops antibodies) to the Rh factor present in the fetus’s blood during the delivery of the first baby.
In the same way, it is likely that a woman’s body develops a sensitivity to the presence of the male genome, and may begin secreting hormones at some point in the pregnancy which produce the brain changes characteristic of a homosexual male. This would be more likely to take place in a later pregnancy than an earlier one because of successive exposures to the male genome/hormones in the earlier pregnancies.
I can see a distinct evolutionary reasoning for why such processes would develop and be reinforced by the evolutionary process. In hunter-gatherer societies and later in early agrarian societies, land and resources were often limited. Suitable breeding partners may also have been limited. Since siblings share a large percentage of genetic material, it is nearly as advantageous for an individual to assure the breeding success of a sibling as it is to be successful, him/herself. Allowing the older (or possibly stronger) siblings to find a mate, bond and produce offspring, and lay primary claim to the resources in the area for the care and feeding of those young, while the younger siblings participate in caring for, teaching, protecting, and obtaining food for them, makes as much (or more) sense in an evolutionary context as having many siblings competing with one another for the same resources and possibly lessening the chances that *any* of their offspring will make it into the gene pool if their infighting makes them more vulnerable to predation from another family group.
Nate:
See, I can believe it is the *right* of the LDS church to define their own beliefs however they like, while *at the same time* not needing to concoct *any* kind of defense for doctrines which I find harmful and indefensible. The church is allowed to hold the beliefs, but no one who does not believe those beliefs has to defend those beliefs.
So the fact that you feel the need to defend those beliefs suggests that you *do* believe them and *do* consider them defensible. You may be emotionally conflicted about it (hence your need to separate your religious beliefs from your secular/humanist beliefs from your biological beliefs from your “aesthetic” beliefs — I have no such need to separate out different and conflicting ideas about homosexuality in my own head, or to defend those conflicting beliefs because my views on homosexuality are internally consistent).
I understand your conflicts, I believe, since I too was raised in an extremely conservative church (the Assembly of God) in which I was taught that homosexuality was evil and homosexuals were damned (a bit harsher, even, than the LDS approach). When I came to realize that I was one of those evil, damned homosexuals, you can imagine that my cognitive dissonance was at *least* as intense as yours (a good deal more intense, would be my bet). I spent some time trying to defend the indefensible idea that God would create some 4-10% of humanity (and many animal species, as well) to be attracted to their own sex, but then would damn the human ones to hell for the way God created them.
Ultimately, I decided that I could not believe in such an arbitrary, hateful, ludicrous being, and that if I were to believe in God, it would need to be in a God who was at least as logical, sensitive, loving, nuanced and capable of rationality as I, one of that God’s creations, am. So I went to work intently studying the tiny handful of scriptures usually used to condemn homosexual people and found that none of them, when studied in its original context and language, says what religious people have historically represented them as meaning.
I learned that it is far easier to defend the existence of a God who treats God’s creations with love and doesn’t play mean jokes on them. I found that it is far easier to defend the teachings of a church whose teachings are based upon the idea that God loves God’s creations, does not want to punish them for being the people God created them to be, and wants all of us to treat one another with love and respect and to value the characteristics which make each of us who we are. I’m grateful I no longer need to defend a wrathful, punishing, arbitrary being who demands indefensible beliefs and practices of his creatures.
Lorian, your last two comments were interesting and insightful and I appreciate there was no spirit of offense in them. Now I can understand why you reject my argument from evolution, and I feel understood, because your last comment empathised with my plight. But it’s harder to come to an understand when arguing that something is merely offensive, without first reasonably demonstrating that it is wrong. Anyway, I thank you for your comments. Your comment about evolution reminds me that in LDS doctrine, in the highest heaven, the celestial kingdom is made up of three degrees, only one of which has procreation. This never made sense to me because no Mormons seem to want to acknowledge that going to one of these non-procreative heavens is an option, but rather selling out. I remember speaking with two gay Mormons both of whom expressed the desire to be a “ministering angel” in one of the other non-procreative celestial kingdoms. That makes sense of course. Maybe Mormons should just accept that non-procreative marriage is not for everyone even in heaven. (They also say sex is only for the marriage heaven too, but that’s another can of worms.)
Regarding your observation that I subscribe to anti-homosexual beliefs, even though I try to separate them from other contexts which I also respect:
I believe in a God who works on multiple dimensions. I don’t follow the church merely because I believe it, or it has been demonstrated to be true. Rather I believe (within its own context) because I have heard a spiritual voice saying “come follow me” which I cannot deny. But you are right that I find my appeal to the aesthetic and evolution to be reasonable, if not perfect. But that is not why I follow or why I believe. Jesus preached canibalism (eat my flesh, drink my blood) and all his disciples left except a few. They didn’t stay because it made sense, but because they had felt something spiritual in his invitation to follow.
“3rd Context, Evolutionary, biological: homosexuality is less than ideal because it is incapable of natural procreation.”
Evolution is not a matter of ideal. It’s whatever works. Evolution does not care about some religious ideal.
Sex and reproduction are not the same thing.
Humans are made up of 37.2 trillion cells. Very few of them are gametes. Yet here we are, all those trillions of cells and two random gametes meet.
I suppose, one could say, all those trillions of cells are not ideal because they are not naturally procreative. And our brain cells are an aberration.
And if someone does produce a kid, it only has half your genes. Hardly ideal.
Or there could be something called Inclusive Fitness. It’s about our group. I share genes with other people. Even if I’m not having as many babies as possible, my genes will go on because I cooperate. I’m building a community where children can thrive and grow up to contribute to society.
Nate:
Nate, this leaves me feeling like you totally missed some of my points. I appreciate that *you* appreciate having me explain what is specifically wrong or problematic with some of your *arguments*, but if you look upthread I already did so with several of them much earlier in the conversation (and so did several other posters, notably Andrew and the other Nate).
The things which I addressed as specifically being offensive did not so much have to do with incorrect arguments put forward in your posts, as with the most basic *assumptions* which you make, in which you apparently believe yourself able to *speak for* gay and lesbian people and outline how *we* think and experience the world. This is where you are presumptuous and offensive (as well as in using terminology like “aberration,” which you have agreed was a poor choice of words, and “effeminate,” which you have not yet addressed, despite my telling you several times that it is rude beyond any dispute, and despite your co-opting of terms like “lipstick lesbian” and “butch,” which describe a somewhat outdated lesbian culture which is not really yours to analyze).
The fact that you attempt to subtly shift the blame for your behavior to my shoulders by way of supposedly offering me an olive branch makes me feel less than encouraged by the conversation, though, again, I do think your intentions are likely good. But I think it is really important that you stop attempting to pontificate about gay and lesbian issues and do some real listening to what the gay and lesbian people around you are trying to tell you.
Lorian, of course I missed all points where you accuse me of being rude, presumptuous, or offensive, because you have not reasonably demonstrated that my language is indeed “rude beyond dispute.” I’m open to being convinced. But I need a decent argument first of all. I work in a culture surrounded by homosexuals where language far more colorful is routine, and where effeminacy is an open subject which is indulged in without restraint. See this article in HuffPo called “Is Effeminacy in Gay Men a Function of Nature or Nurture?” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-alvear/is-effeminacy-in-gay-men_b_654188.html
And “butch” and “femme” have their own wikipedia entries, with countless people who have made a career out of studying its etymology. Find me some real online LGBT dialogue that is representative, that says that discussions using the words effeminacy, butch, etc. are off limits. I’m open to being convinced. Show me that my experiences with homosexuals are not representative, that the artistic gays who surround me are indulgent embarrassments to the real homosexual community, which is restrained, “gender appropriate,” and offended by suggestions of increased effeminacy in gays and masculinity in lesbians.
I can understand why homosexuals would find the word “aberration” rude, but I made clear that this is an argument for LDS people who understand homosexuality from an eternal perspective as less than ideal. It’s not a word I would use out of the context of Wheat and Tares, which is exclusively for people interested in hearing LDS perspectives. You forget that you already addressed this issue in a reasonable way in your comment on evolution, and I conceded that I found your argument compelling. I feel that going back to crying “offensive” simply diminishes what was already a sound argument.
Let me make sure I understand you correctly, Nate. You are a heterosexual man talking to a real, live, lesbian woman (plus several gay men) who have told you that various aspects of your terminology are marginal at best, and in several cases, clearly derogatory and insulting, and you are going to argue and demand proof? Proof that I know more than you about what lesbians find offensive?
The fact that a word has a definition page in Wikipedia is not, to my knowledge, proof that it is inoffensive or should be used as a term of reference in respectful discussions, particularly if it is a term used to refer to members of a minority of which you are not, yourself, a member.
Here are some examples of words which have a Wikipedia entry but which are deeply offensive and which I daresay you would not consider using as a term of reference if you did not intend to give insult:
(Trigger warning: strongly offensive language, which I am in no way endorsing by linking to these wiki entries)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faggot_(slang)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kike
These are only a few examples. Please do not attempt to justify your words by noting that they have Wikipedia entries, or have been used in a media article. That does not prove that they are not offensive in the context in which you use them.
Additionally, you may be (for some reason) unaware, but there are terms which have been or which continue to be used by the group of people to which they apply, or which have been “reclaimed” by that group, but which people who are not members of that group are not welcome to bandy about. Stating that the “homosexuals” you know or hang out with use the term “effeminate” does not entitle you to refer to gay men as “effeminate.” It just doesn’t, Nate, and the fact that you do not realize this, and refuse to accept it when I tell you, makes me despair that there can be any helpful outcome from this discussion at all.
Would you continue to use a racial slur which you had used in well-meaning innocence, but which a person of that race told you was offensive to them, and asked you not to continue using? Would you attempt to justify your usage of the term by citing Wikipedia entries defining the term, or articles which contained the term in their titles? Would you demand that the person of that racial minority justify to you why they find your terminology offensive, or educate you as to why you shouldn’t use that term? Would you demand that they supply you with studies or scholarly references to prove to you that you shouldn’t use the offensive racial reference?
This sentence is particularly problematic, Nate, and incredibly dismissive of the men you claim as “friends” in your daily life, by the way. No one has called your gay male friends “indulgent embarrassments” but you. I find it rather telling about what appear to be your true feelings towards gay people. Perhaps the most troubling aspect of your discussions on this topic is your continued insistence upon engaging in gross stereotyping of gay and lesbian people.
Since you like to refer to Wikipedia definitions, and apparently consider them at least more authoritative than the word of a lesbian, with regards to whether or not terminology referring to gay people is offensive, I’ll quote from the wiki entry on the word, “effeminate”:
(emphasis added)
That’s just from the opening paragraphs on the entry. And yet, you expect that you can gaslight me and attempt to convince me that I am being oversensitive and unenlightened in questioning your use of this offensive term?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effeminacy
One more quick note, Nate, taking you at your word that you really do want me to educate you regarding offensive terminology and respectful discourse regarding a minority of which you are not a member.
You mentioned and linked a Huff Post article which references the term “effeminate” in the title, as justification for your use of the term. I’ve read the article. The fact that it was written by a gay man should be your first context clue that you should not necessarily feel free to emulate any gay-specific language you might find in the article, and should use discretion if you do so, and be prepared to backpedal if anyone informs you that you have misstepped.
Your next clue should be the fact that, in addition to “effeminate,” the article (in which the author makes absolutely clear that he is discussing what he calls “effeminate” gay men in a less-than complimentary context, and is therefore using the “effeminate” descriptive, itself, as a derogatory term) makes reference to a number of other terms which are blatantly derogatory. A few examples:
I find it interesting that, even though you use this article as justification for repeated use of the term “effeminate,” you realized, apparently, that you shouldn’t call gay men “nelly,” “sissies,” “pansies,” “fruits,” or “mary.”
Clearly, the author was writing as a gay man for other gay men, engaging in the use of what he obviously understood was derogatory terminology because he was using a type of ingroup irony that he knew would be recognized by his intended audience. You were apparently tone-deaf to this irony, and interpreted his verbiage as permission for the terms he used to be used by people outside the group.
I really am pained to have to have this level of discussion with you on this topic, Nate, because, as I’ve said previously, I *do* believe that you mean well. But you really have a great deal to learn before you can function effectively as an ally to LGBT people (if that’s even a role you identify with). Please try not to be so resistant to hearing, believing and internalizing the feedback you receive from gay and lesbian people whom you find in your audience when you discuss this topic. Unless, of course, you intended your OP remarks solely for the consumption of a heterosexual audience (like a white person discussing race with other white people, and being shocked to learn that people of color in the audience had unexpected reactions to hearing the discussion). In which case, you might want to rethink this approach.