I wonder why the church still goes on and on (i.e. Prop 8, Packers tirade) about gay rights. Back in the 70's when political pressure was on, TSCC let blacks have the priesthood, despite church doctrine saying the church would be in apostasy if they did.
I suppose that temple marriage/sex/family is a central method of controlling the saints, blah blah blah. If that changed it might get folks thinking.
Any thoughts?

None of them valid.

Believe me--I could list a lot of "assumptions" I have just from what I learned over the years.

BUT I heard Donald Trump on a morning news show the other day and he said that he is against gay marriage because he believes in "traditional marriage."

Oh, okay . . . 3 wives, 5 kids with 3 wives, and how much younger is his NOW wife than he is.

You call this a traditional marriage/traditional family?

I think many heterosexual men are threatened by gays and that very much goes for mormon leaders (and I'd bet there are a few closeted gays in the bunch, too, who despise themselves like Ted Haggard does).

I'm in the midst of writing a paper for my English comp class where I must argue a value.(While I lurked on this site years ago, it's this paper that brought me back yesterday) The main thesis has to do with what is sacred, and the ridiculousness of Mormons demanding respect for the sanctity of their underwear (postsecret bruhaha) while actively working against others' right to marry the one they love. Underwear is more sacred than having love? I think I just hit on something while laying out the groundwork of my argument.

When one of the most important tenents of the church is procreation, and many procreate and procreate and procreate beyond their emotional and financial means, why wouldn't they resent the idea of recreational sex? Afterall, when the gay argument gets right down to it, it's the sex part they have a problem with, right? Gays are free to be gay. As long as they don't actually act on it. Plus Mormons can't have sex outside of marriage, so marriage equals sexual freedom.

How many times have you heard the Mormon cry of "Why do they get to (fill in the blank) and I don't?" or some variation? I've heard it a lot. If they're "forced" into a life of suppression and oppression, so too must you.

I've thought about--their envy over recreational sex and it is the sex part they have a problem with.

I've posted before that I think the "ick" factor comes into play--and they never consider the fact that the gays I know (not all, but most) think the way straights have sex is ICK too. Not like we all go around thinking about our parents having sex. Makes you wonder where the leaders' minds are.

Another thing I did take note of is that when the leaders were working with my ex and I--their focus was on "well, I like sex with women and it is all I can think about--if we can just get him turned on by a woman then he will never go back. He is just confused because of his first sexual experience and we certainly can't condone they have sex, but then again . . . if they do, we'll let them go to the temple without repenting--" which is what they told us.

THEY ONLY focused on the sex when they were trying to get us married off.

Take note that they call it SSA and not homosexuality.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/19/2011 05:30PM by cl2.

They seriously encouraged pre-marital sex without punishment as means to "turn" your ex? Wow.

By calling it SSA I assume that makes it seem more like a choice than something scientific and natural?

we could do anything up to intercourse and he (the bishop--who had talked to the SP and BKP) would still give us a TR. BUT as time went on, I KNOW he would have looked the other way and given us a TR no matter what. It was very important to all of them to get us married off. We knew of several gay men in our singles ward and they used us as an example to the other gay guys--and a lot of them got married after we did (but I don't think they wives knew).

I would "fast and pray" and think I had my answers--one being that my ex could never change (they told me he had to or be damned) and that 2 wrongs didn't make a right. I'd go talk to the bishop and he would shake his head back and forth slowly and say, "We have to do it this way . . . ."

I didn't do much. I was too guilt-ridden--nearly blew my mind--and one of the reasons we got married is to get the church leaders out of our lives. Nothing like all their voyeuristic prying to drive you nuts. I had lived my life so that I would NEVER have to talk to a church leader about intimate issues--and here I was. And the bishop changed and so we got to discuss it with someone new.

Mormon leaders think with their dicks. If they have to be "righteous" and use sex only for procreation, which many of the old guard believe and taught, then why should gays get off scott free--AND WHY should anyone be with a person who is emotionally, mentally, and sexually compatible with you when they just married the first one to come along so they could have sex?

I'm assuming a lot here--but they did tell me what I have posted--I have been called on it a few times, but I was a dyed in the wool MORMON VIRGIN who had never even French kissed when this started--and the bishop assigned my gay boyfriend to French kiss me without telling me. That was the first assignment.

The sick insanity. And I thought it was bad to have been asked by my bishop, as a teen, if I masturbated. I hoped beyond hope that my instant blush indicted embarrassment over the question, and not guilt over my lie. I was still allowed to dunk for the dead, so I guess I pulled it off ok.

But back to you - I don't even know what to say. That's all just nutty.

I absolutely agree with you about the jealousy over others having healthy partnerships. I feel a tangent coming on but I don't have the time to indulge it.

Thanks for sharing part of your story with me, cl2.

I am heterosexual so I can't imagine being attracted to another man in that way. But I put a lot of thought into it, and I voted against prop eight. A constitutional amendment to discriminate? No way could that be right.

Anyway, I'm glad I arrived at that conclusion. My son came out awhile ago. He's a college student, and he's gay. I love him more than anything else on Earth. We were having dinner and he said: "Dad, I'm glad you didn't raise me Mormon like your father did to you."

All the years of shunning and ridicule washed away like a spring rain. I saved my sensitive son from a nightmare cult that ran five generations deep. My greatest achievement ever.

Church membership stagnated in the 70's. Apostates out equaled converts in and the membership flatlined. So, the church had a "revelation" to give equal status to Blacks. It didn't help much. Now, in the 2000's membership is declining due, in part, to the internet but also as a backlash to the official LDS position regarding gays. Far too many youth and young adults know gays who are wonderful people and they are offended that LDS, Inc. is so homophobic and bigoted toward them. I think that some day - sooner than later, I hope - the Morg will gradually lift their draconian attitude toward gays and grant them equal status with heterosexuals. They will do this, not out of a sense of moral responsibility and obligation, rather, out of the need to re-energize the membership statistics. Someday, but not today.

Think about it.