For my other Tolerance posts see Tolerance I, Tolerance II, Tolerance III. Well, its been almost two weeks now since election day, and amazingly one issue remains in the news cycle on an almost daily basis since that time: Proposition 8 and the Mormon Church. That’s right, the Mormon Church, its members, and other persons of faith have been singled out and targeted for engaging in the exercise of an actual constitutionally protected fundamental right–the right to vote and participate in the political process. The vitriol, hate, intolerance and lawlessness in some cases exhibited by those who disagreed with Proposition 8 supporters has been frightening and should give pause to those who truly cherish our democratic institutions and the rule of law. See also S.P. Bailey’s These Cultural Wars post over at A Motley Vision. And, there is Marc Bohn’s Rhetoric, Ideology and Prop 8 over at Times and Seasons.
Meridian Magazine has two articles with incredible photos, that if you have not seen, you should. The two articles are: The Hypocrisy of the Tolerance Movement and In the Face of Hatred. Both are well done, and you should read them both. The photos accompanying the second article are truly remarkable and alarming. The author, Paul Bishop of this article is an LDS LAPD veteran, who makes some good points. Because I think the photos are particularly powerful, I repost them below, for those who may not get over to the Meridian website on a regular basis:
A separate incident, not specifically LDS directed, but just as disturbing and disgusting–if not more so:
From the El Coyote Restaurant protest, photos by Tom Andrews, LAist
This editorial cartoon no longer seems so far fetched, does it?
We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.
We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.
Prophets, Seers, and Revelators to a fallen and failing world. Take heed.
November 15, 2008 at 3:33 am
wow Guy, you just seem to be reveling in this persecution. It’s starting to come off self-righteous, Guy. You are calling those who are angry at the church for taking a political position “fallen and failing” people. It feels as if you can’t wait for the next incident just to prove that the Mormons are right and gays are wrong.
Did you really think that a simple vote would reconcile the situation?
November 15, 2008 at 7:36 am
Proposition 8 and the Mormon Church. That’s right, the Mormon Church, its members, and other persons of faith have been singled out and targeted for engaging in the exercise of an actual constitutionally protected fundamental right–the right to vote and participate in the political process.
I find it exceedingly interesting that so many Mormons/other people of faith who supported Proposition 8 are complaining about having been “singled out” in being instrumental in getting Prop 8 passed.
I can assure you that none of the groups who opposed Proposition 8 would have complained, had it failed at the ballot box, at being “singled out” in being instrumental in getting Prop 8 voted down. They would have been proud that they had accomplished their goal.
This complaining about being “singled out” suggests either that these people are ashamed of their role in getting Prop8 passed – or simply are cowards, scared of the consequences of their own actions. Either way, it rather betrays the fact that the supporters of Prop8 lack the courage of their convictions.
November 15, 2008 at 7:56 am
[…] cowardice. (Update: another example of the Yes-on-8 crew lacking the courage of their convictions here: further examples […]
November 15, 2008 at 9:24 am
Members of the LDS church gave the majority of the money used to help Prop 8 win. It makes the most sense to attack them. If you looked around the bloggernacle before election day you would have seen many people commenting that this could only bring hatred and bad press to the church. What is happening now doesn’t surprise me one bit.
The Coyote thing doesn’t make much sense to me though. Someone privately gave $100 to Yes on 8 so they picket the restaurant? I don’t get it.
November 15, 2008 at 12:54 pm
jjohnsen #4
Which is their constitutional right to do–just as it is for Catholics, Evangelicals, atheists or anyone else. This is a red herring on who gave the most money. People ought to be entitled to give money to a cause in a political campaign without having to be subjected to the hate, bigotry and vitriol heaped on Mormons and others targeted they way that these gay activists have done post election.
Really? How so? What precedent is there for the losing side in an election to go after Mormons and others who supported proposition 8, as has happened here? One side always loses in an election. And, in a democracy the losing side does not take to the streets, destroy property, intimidate their political opponents, threaten them with violence and try to destroy their lives. That’s not an appropriate response–not at all. Not what is going on. Targeting an entire religious group for their moral beliefs is more than troubling. Based on what we are seeing transpire here, it is more hate speech than anything else.
You’ve seen the photos and videos. This goes just a tad beyond “bad press” don’t you think?
It should. Or, at the very least it should trouble all of us. And, frankly it does not help the gay rights movement at all. This is going to have its own backlash.
I don’t get any of it. There are certainly more appropriate responses other than the gross intimidation and religious persecution we see unfolding here in America.
November 15, 2008 at 1:01 pm
What precedent is there for the losing side in an election to go after Mormons and others who supported proposition 8, as has happened here?
In Massachusetts, and I expect soon in Connecticut, the losing side certainly “went after” the targets that they saw as responsible for the right to equal marriage.
What I don’t understand, and a point you haven’t addressed, is why the LDS Church are complaining about being “singled out”. If they’re so ashamed of their church having helped to get it passed, why don’t they admit they were wrong and apologize? If they’re not ashamed – if they’re not yet awake to how ugly a thing it was for them to do – why aren’t they saying “yes, we got it passed, and we still think it was the right thing to do” instead of whining that the people whose rights they attacked don’t like them very much?
November 15, 2008 at 7:21 pm
I was just watching the TV news an hour ago or so, and I see that the protests against Prop 8 have gone nationwide.
I think what we have here is your basic Pandora’s box. And we opened it.
November 15, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Someone privately gave $100 to Yes on 8 so they picket the restaurant?
It was a popular establishment for the gay crowd, apparently. They’ve decided that when their own money ends up being used against them, they’re no longer going to patronize that business.
Can you blame them?
November 15, 2008 at 7:28 pm
It just may be, since we’re the ones being singled out for having “single-handedly” seen to it that Prop 8 passed (not that that’s true, but they’ve decided to give us the credit), that we’ve done more to unite the anti-8 people, and that we’ve done more to advance the cause of gay rights than the California Supreme Court could ever do.
A 72-point font spelling “irony” just doesn’t do the word justice.
November 15, 2008 at 8:30 pm
Mark N
Yeah, I’ve noticed that. And, the thought I had was why all these demonstrations all over the country in states, for the most part that have adopted the exact same or very similar constitutional amendment as did California. Rather than protesting, it seems to me that these activists ought to be preparing their own initiatives where allowable, or pressuring their respective legislatures to see whether they can win at the ballot box. Marching down Santa Monica Blvd. after the election doesn’t do much to legalize gay marriage. It does, however, turn off the general electorate to their cause.
What own money was that? This was the private money of an individual employee–not at all implicating the restaurant, its management or the remainder of the employees. This kind of response from the gay marriage crowd is simply unacceptable, and not healthy in a democracy. People should be able to participate in the democratic process without being demonized, intimidated, and placed in jeopardy of losing their jobs.
Yes. I do blame them. The entire premise of their campaign, and these ridiculous post election protests is one of “equal rights” All married couples and gay couples domestically registered had all the same “equal rights.” That mantra was a lie pre-election, and it remains a lie post election.
These near riots are meant to intimidate, to ostracize, and exact revenge for people exercising their own constitutional rights on election day. The response is vulgar, obscene, and unprecedented. Ultimately it will set gay rights movement back years.
November 15, 2008 at 8:38 pm
Where the hell were they Nov. 4th, when it mattered?
November 15, 2008 at 10:36 pm
Estimates of a million participants at simultaneous rallies in 300 cities across the United States raised a voice of unity and activism for gay rights that makes Stonewall look like a mere prelude. At today’s rally in Salt Lake, Jeff Key, a gay Iraq war veteran, told the crowd, “You called us out, you did this.”
November 15, 2008 at 10:42 pm
Marching down Santa Monica Blvd. after the election doesn’t do much to legalize gay marriage.
I don’t know about that. I don’t see that they’d be doing it if they thought it wouldn’t help somehow.
What own money was that? This was the private money of an individual employee–not at all implicating the restaurant, its management or the remainder of the employees.
Well, I think they assumed that the employees money came from her (it was a “her”, right?) hourly wages at that restaurant, which, of course, came from those who patronized the restaurant.
People should be able to participate in the democratic process without being demonized, intimidated, and placed in jeopardy of losing their jobs.
People make decisions as to how and where they’re going to spend their money all the time. I think you’re going to have quite a task on your hands convincing someone that the reasons they’ve come up with to shop elsewhere, or to stop supporting a certain business and do business elsewhere are not legitimate.
it will set gay rights movement back years.
Maybe. We’ll just have to wait and see. I Googled “historical examples of successful boycotts” and came up with the following list:
Now we’ll see if the gays can get organized enough to make a difference. Looks like they made a valient effort at a beginning today.
November 15, 2008 at 10:47 pm
Where the hell were they Nov. 4th, when it mattered?
I think it’s probably safe to say that, given that the polls were giving the election to Obama days in advance of the election, they assumed a pro-Obama vote would also assure an anti-8 vote, and they were taken by surprise. They got complacent.
Doesn’t look like they’re complacent now.
November 15, 2008 at 11:35 pm
Connie and I went and ate at the El Coyote Restaurant today as a matter of support. I’m happy to report we didn’t see any protesters harassing the patrons and that business seemed to be booming. We left a “Yes on 8, thx” note on the credit card receipt. By the way, the food was excellent.
I’ve commented on other blogs “I carried a sign on the corner reading, Yes on 8 = Freedom of religion and they asked, what does 8 have to do with freedom of religion? I carried a Yes on 8 = Freedom of speech, and they asked, what does 8 have to do with freedom of speech? Duh. Thanks for making my point.” Enough said.
November 16, 2008 at 3:31 am
If you think the El Coyote Restaurant and employees were having their freedoms of religion and speech infringed upon, I would ask, wasn’t it the “yes” vote that brought about that result? Does it seem ironic? How can you complain about the infringement of civil rights when you support a similar infringement to be written into the state constitution?
November 16, 2008 at 8:29 am
[…] Tolerance IV Messenger and Advocate – November 14, 2008 […]
November 16, 2008 at 10:15 am
Mark N. #14
Interesting. Good thing for African Americans, that Dr. King and the Rev. Abernathy were never complacent eh?
November 16, 2008 at 10:59 am
Good thing for African Americans, that Dr. King and the Rev. Abernathy were never complacent eh?
Maybe their complacency ended with Rosa Parks.
November 17, 2008 at 3:07 pm
[quote}People ought to be entitled to give money to a cause in a political campaign without having to be subjected to the hate, bigotry and vitriol heaped on Mormons and others targeted they way that these gay activists have done post election.[/quote]
Why should they be entitled to that? Don’t we have freedom of speech? Why shouldn’t a person be hated for doing a hateful thing?
The Prop 8 vote was a vote to break up families. People were hurt, and they are lashing out. How would you react, if the government mandated that your marriage should be illegal? Would you really sit home and do nothing?
These people believe the LDS people (and many others, since the LDS church was hardly ‘singled out’) hate them. The LDS people have done NOTHING to help that. In many ways, they’ve made it worse. “A soft answer turneth away wrath,” says the scriptures, but all they hear are harsh words.
Christian charity should be the order of the day for those who claim to be Christ’s only true church, and yet, all we see is reveling in supposed persecution. All I see is pride, which is preached against so many times in the LDS church. Overcome your own pride, and see what happens to the world.
November 17, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Hi Goldarn, the civil magistrate is under no duty at all to endorse marraige of any kind. Marriage has been an institution for a lot longer than government has had anything to do with it. This debate isn’t about breaking up families–you only say that for effect. The existing law allows for civil union, this cannot be denied. What also cannot be denied is the false pretense being given for the anti 8 movement. This isn’t about civil unions being allowed, it is about *forcing* those who are offended by this behavior not to *tolerate* it, but to APPROVE of it and to make it equal to what has been universally agreed is a good behavior[man woman union].
We’ve heard a lot about how hateful and bigotted pro 8’s are from this whole tantrum, when it is exactly the opposite, and you are guilty as well since you dont tolerate, but hate–this according to your own words.
To give you perspective, pro 8’s aren’t motivated by hate, I’m not. I’m motivated by care and concern that this dangerous lifestyle is going to be made by force of law accceptable. There are a host of behavoirs that are also dangerous that I’d be just as vocal about, like hard core drug use, drunk driving laws, prostitution etc…
You and others might not see the sense of this reasoning, but you cannot rightfully characterize it as hate when the original motivation is not hate but love for our neighbor. You might believe you can read the intents of the heart, but if you do, you tread on dangerous ground.
November 17, 2008 at 5:23 pm
The Prop 8 vote was a vote to break up families.
Were any families really broken up as a result of the Prop 8 vote? I’m not sure that anyone has come out to definitely state what the effects of the passing of Prop 8 have been so far.
November 17, 2008 at 7:03 pm
I wish to add another law I’d be just as vocal about had I known and been old enough to protest. Government didn’t protect marraige when in California is allowd “no fault divorce”. This had a negative effect on the institution that has shown up in so many ways–even in this debate.
November 18, 2008 at 10:32 am
#18 – “Interesting. Good thing for African Americans, that Dr. King and the Rev. Abernathy were never complacent eh?”
Guy, as you are fully aware, church members vilified the black civil rights leaders just as much as they are doing now with the gay movement. They were totally against equal rights for the blacks and for marriages of different races. Many of the church members and LDS culture sought to thwart the civil rights act.
So how can you now hold them up as an example of good when you would have followed the crowd back then and demonized them also?
Reason trumps emotion and until it is fully explained how gays and lesbians fit into the plan of salvation then the emotion will win the day. Where do we fit? Are we meant to be eliminated due to something we did not choose? Are we denied love and companionship forever? Or will we be switched back to heterosexuality upon our entrance into the spirit world? Do we change our fundamental makeup when we get to the other side?
We can always remain faithful to the Gospel but when will we get the answers we need to remain faithful to the Church?
November 18, 2008 at 10:42 am
RE: #21
Brad, there you go again. Calling it a lifestyle and reducing it all down to behaviour. When will you ever realize that this orientation is not a choice? You show a lack of thought and understanding by revealing your very obvious belief that this is all a matter of choice and lifestyle instead of what we really experience – which is a very natural, non-chosen adolescent blossoming of affection for the same gender. Just as simple, natural and unchosen as were your feelings for the opposite sex.
When you acknowledge the experience we actually go through and start to understand the feelings are not chosen, it changes the WHOLE picture. What are we supposed to do with natural feelings given to us by God? Suppress them? Ignore them? Suffer through them? Deny them? Act upon them only up to the point of kissing or cuddling? Change them? Admit that we are freaks and just act upon them?
Please give me a clear line of reasoning where they fit into the plan of salvation without resorting to the accusation that they are just a choice. Because they are not.
November 18, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Hi Michael, with all due respect for your reply, you are making sever serious leaps to conclusions that are not universally held. I’ve argued that gay lifestyle is is a behavior for good reasons. From what I can see, you offer personal experience. Now, having said that, I’ll state for you what I’ve said previously that I’m not arguing that the feelings you feel aren’t real, but that they are not natural to proper human expression. I’m guilty of unnatural affections also, and experience has taught me that these affections offend God and are not fulfilling-not do the serve me in life. So, this is not just the case with gayness, but also with other sexual proclivities that are deviant and do not serve to benefit human expressions of love. In fact statistical information suggests by a huge number that monogamous lifelong man/woman child bearing couples produce the most satisfying life experiences. On the other hand, the statistics around gay relationships [even from gay publications] suggest what could only be described as unfulfilled, unloving, dangerous to health lifestyles when compared to the heterosexual population.
Your side has a serious obstacle to overcome if you want to convince the rest of the world that gayness is natural or in fact genetic like skin color, race, height, gender and thus worthy of protection under the equality clause. The first problem is that there is not even 1 conclusive study that is accepted that proves it, and the second major problem is that there are upteen thousands of ex-gay people who’ve come out of the lifestyle. I dont think there is even 1 successful skin color convert–Michael Jackson notwithstanding, there are a few transgender individuals, but again statistical information suggests that this process didn’t make them happy in the end and in fact was more often than not, traumatic.
To answer your last question, sin has taken hold of the whole creation, regeneration is possible for any and all men who’ll worship God in spirit and truth. I would be hard pressed to answer better than the apostle Paul here:
1Cr 6:8 On the contrary, you yourselves wrong and defraud. {You do} this even to {your} brethren.
1Cr 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,
1Cr 6:10 nor thieves, nor {the} covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.
1Cr 6:11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.
Salvation is for all who repent and believe, and this repentance is acted out in practice not necessarily in perfection.
I hope that gives you a sense of where I’m coming from. For me to act contrary to sound reason and conscience is neither safe nor honest. Hopefully that holds true of everyone taking part in the discourse.
November 18, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Brad,
I appreciate and respect your opinion. Thank you for sharing. However, let me ask you a couple of specific questions. 1) Why do you seem to base your understanding of homosexuality on distorted statistics and descriptions of the worst of gay society? I don’t do that when I consider the straight world. And, 2) Is it necessary for you to have a scientific study to believe the true-life experiences of all the gays and lesbians out there? Do you rely upon such scientific studies as the basis for your testimony of the restored Gospel?
November 18, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Brad, you are talking past Michael’s points. You treat this as ultimately just a matter of behavior, while he is talking about what the Church itself has conceded is a “core characteristic” that may not be changeable. The American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics all line up with this perspective, not with yours.
Granted, we are still learning about what causes sexual orientation. But the strong trend of scientific evidence is in the direction of nature, not nurture. You have repeatedly done what you accuse Michael of: make huge leaps to conclusions that ignore other evidence. The evidence, for example, of tens of thousands of gay people who confirm that their emotional and spiritual health skyrocketed upward when they finally accepted their orientation and stopped thinking of themselves as inherently condemned by God, as your comments suggests they are. The consistent statements from countless gay people that it is NOT a choice, but is as fundamental and ineradicable as their heart or hands.
You seem to have bought into the myth that there is a “gay lifestyle” that is inevitably destructive. You ignore the fact that there are countless gay people around you who are probably just as “normal” as you, want the same things in life as you, who don’t go to bars, drink, or do drugs, who don’t gender-bend or march barely clothed in parades. They know what’s destructive and they stay away. It’s likely that you know at least one such person. They can choose to avoid certain behaviors of course, but you are wrong to assume that that means they are “cured” or have “left the lifestyle” or are no longer gay. Evidence is that so-called “reparative therapy” doesn’t work. If it did, and if being gay was really a choice, then why wouldn’t we see at least a few curious heterosexuals trying to go the other way?
In my experience, many Mormons go to great lengths defending the idea that being gay is a choice and can be “undone” because the doctrinal implications of the alternative are just too difficult to tolerate. Michael has already listed them in #25. He’s spot-on. The Church is in a nearly impossible position on this issue, and will remain there, fighting a growing body of scientific and empirical evidence that contradicts the opinions of members like yourself, until the prophet finally gets on his knees to ask for new guidance and doesn’t get up again until he has it.
November 18, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Your side has a serious obstacle to overcome if you want to convince the rest of the world that gayness is natural or in fact genetic like skin color, race, height, gender and thus worthy of protection under the equality clause.
Why do gays need to convince the world of anything? There is nothing in the constitution or its interpretation that requires that only minorities united by genetic similarities deserve protection. In fact, it’s clear that the opposite is true. There are no “genetic” Mormons, Catholics or Baptists, yet each of these groups is entitled to the same protections as the other. They are treated equally under the law, as they should be.
Re: Guy #5…
What precedent is there for the losing side in an election to go after Mormons and others who supported proposition 8, as has happened here?
There is no precedent because this election was unprecedented. It isn’t normal for the people to vote away the rights of a minority. It’s accepted that in an election there will be a winner and a loser, but the loser in nearly every case ends up no worse off than he was before the campaign started. Not so in this instance–the losers actually ended up in a situation that was s significant step backwards from where they had been. Some anger and indignation is justified, and they have every right to express that anger in a legally permissible way, such as peaceful protest or boycott. (The illegal retributions such as vandalism and violence are not justified, but they are also being perpetrated by a very small percentage of the protesters).
In anticipation of a protest along the lines of “but no rights were lost–gay couples in CA still have all the rights of married people” let me add a couple more points:
First, one right was lost: the right to marry. This may seem insignificant to many, but it is obviously very significant to a lot of people.
Second, gays lost considerably more than the freedom to use one particular word.
Even with a state-recognized civil union or domestic partnership that is exactly identical to civil marriage in every detail, gay couples’ rights are significantly diminished when compared to those of married couples for the simple reason that their unions are not recognized outside of their home state (for the most part) or on the federal level. This has a huge impact on such things as federal taxation and immigration.
California tends to be something of a trendsetter for the rest of the nation, and it was hoped that the defeat of Proposition 8 would have a ripple effect on other states, making same-sex marriage legislation more likely to pass, and eventually allowing federally recognized gay marriages to be realized. The passage of the proposition dashed these hopes and set the gay rights movement back considerably. For many, it is this setback as much as the loss of the word “marriage” that is driving the protests.
November 18, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Hi Jim and Michael, thanks for the opportunity to clarify with reasonable points. I ought to clarify for all as I’ve done before on this site, I’m not a Mormon, just a Reformed [Protestant] Christian.
So, Michael to your questions. 1) I live in So.Cal., my experiences are persnal also from childhood friends dead from AIDS, interactions with knuckleheads ignorant about thier inapproiate public activities, adult acquaintances where violence and abuse was not just evident, but the effects of were witnessed. I think you ask a valid question, and personally [admittedly albeit somewhat limited] I do not personally know any gay relationship-male or female-that have stayed together. I’m 50 this year and some of the people I’m referring to are in the area of my acquaintance for more than 25 years, so I have personal experience to rely on also.
2) As for scientific studies and polls and or information gathering for statistical purposes, I’m wary of the temptation to slant and skew to get a particular view. I have seen studies referred to on the net where gay publications have offered information regarding the activities of gay men. The admitted instances of unprotected sex, infidelity, deceit concerning AIDS, etc.. is shocking. The info put out by Focus On The Family or other Christian publications also cite sources for their results that are secular like CDC stats I think are reasonably trustworthy.
As far as the quesiton about the “restored gospel”, I dont think there is such a thing.
Michael, thanks for your input. I am not convinced that what you say is true at all. I dont want to be unsensitive to the fact that people who share those feelings are sincere and to the innermost part of their being find rest in that knowledge. I’m prepared to write a books worth or commentary on this topic, but this type of forum is not suitable. The effects of the fall of man onto the human being can account for a whole host of strange and foreign desires. This is in no way proof that the best end to man is to follow those passions.
When I was 3 years old, my granpa had a trucking company where the truckers would leave their pornographic magazines in and as we kids would plan hide and seek and stuff, I would see this. Shortly after, I told a few people that I wished I was a woman. If some idiot like I saw on tv recently would have begun to give support to that unhealty passion, my life would’ve been destroyed. My personal struggle with taming strange unhealthy passions-even toward the opposite sex were/are legitimate feelings. I had the choice to just accept this as who I was as God made me or not. Peace can be found if one refuses to confront guilt, but this isn’t a proof that the guilt was not founded on truth.
My interest in this debate is to protect that 3 year old who like me at the time was confused. As to the conversion issue you bring up, the mountain of evidence that is against what you say is no easily dismissed. Men are fallen creatures and the lure away from Godliness is a first principle, or default position upon birth. To open up a highway toward destruction without a single growl would be shameful on my part.
November 18, 2008 at 5:57 pm
One area that I don’t see being addressed is how all of this prop 8 business is affecting those of us who are gay and who are trying to remain faithful in the LDS church.
Whether you want to admit it or not – we too are are part of the GLBT community. While we may have been opposed to proposition 8, we’re not the ones who are out protesting; We may not even agree with what others in the GLBT community are doing. But, when you speak ill of our gay brothers and sisters, it can be difficult to not take it personally. Just because I have a temple recommend doesn’t mean I can’t empathize with my GLBT community.
And to refer to my attractions to other men as an ‘unnatural affection’ – well, that’s just dang rude! And, I’m curious where you get your statistic that ‘upteen thousands of ex-gay people who’ve come out of the lifestyle’. I would put that number more in the dozens, maybe low hundreds – the fact of the matter is the ex-gay folks are very elusive when you try to nail them down on retention rates.
To restate what Michael said: We can always remain faithful to the Gospel – but it is becoming increasingly difficult to remain faithful to the Church when our heterosexual brothers and sisters make us feel unwelcome with their homophobic rhetoric.
November 18, 2008 at 11:48 pm
@Brad B:
I’m a little disappointed. Your response to Michael is essentially “I don’t believe you.” No substance to back up what you say. This isn’t reasoned, grounded debate, it’s stubborn refusal to consider that the other side may have some merit. While I understand that you may worry about “other 3 year olds” what you don’t seem willing to recognize is that there are many people who report that they knew they were homosexual from a very early age and nothing, no persuasion, no outside influences, no “reparative therapy”, NOTHING ever successfully changed that. You seem wedded to the idea that this is something people are persuaded to be, that it’s something willingly adopted. You’ve got to get rid of that myth if you are ever to understand what people like Michael are saying.
It also seems clear that you believe the Protestant Christian doctrine of man being inherently evil as a result of the fall of Adam. Just as you don’t believe there is such a thing as “the restored gospel”, Mormons don’t believe in the notion of original sin. They believe that children are born innocent, neither intrinsically good nor evil. They have their own personalities, strengths, weaknesses and characteristics, but these are all morally neutral at birth. What counts is what each person does with what they’re given. But I suppose that, with the growing body of scientific evidence that suggests that homosexuality may be traceable even to neo-natal factors, the only way to continue maintaining the fiction that it is inherently evil is to blame it on the alleged corruption we all supposedly inherit from Adam. Again, though, Mormons don’t accept this. So your argument on this basis really won’t fly with them.
At the end of the day, though, I notice that there is nothing to back up your claims but your own personal beliefs and, dare I say it, prejudices. You are entitled to this approach, of course, but I had hoped for something more substantive.
November 19, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Hi Jay, I see that I directed the second part of my last post to Michael when it was you I was addressing–sorry for the confusion this caused.
The theological points are going to have impact on what we think, but I’d prefer to not directly discuss the differences that I as a Reformed believer have vs. what Mormon doctrine teaches per se, but where the theological points are unreasonable, I’d be open to discuss that also.
I’ve definately made claims, but they are not unfouded. Rather than clutter up a blog with huge text pastings I think its best to reason out the claims. You’ve challenge my claim about how people are not born gay, so why not lets delve into that?
Jay says earlier:
“But the strong trend of scientific evidence is in the direction of nature, not nurture”
and along the same line, this:
“But I suppose that, with the growing body of scientific evidence that suggests that homosexuality may be traceable even to neo-natal factors”
Please post a url or link that’ll give me a chance to see which scientific evidence you are relying on. I’ve made the claim several times that there is not even 1 conclusive study that is agreed upon that proves these claims, [so far I haven’t seen one].
You’ve made the point the point that homosexual desires are felt early on, I’ve read contrary stories from gay men that they really didn’t “feel” attracted to men until later. And even if they are felt early on, does that really validate those feelings are good? Couldn’t a child molester say the same thing, that he has always had attraction to children? Or attraction to blood relatives-siblings? Why is it that homosexual desires escape scrutiny?
November 20, 2008 at 9:40 am
@Brad B:
Challenge accepted. Below is a link to a piece by a Stanford geneticist who confirms what I said before, that the trend points toward homosexuality being in the direction of nature, not nurture. His piece confirms that it is a combination that we don’t yet fully understand. But nature is definitely a significant component. Here’s the link:
http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=155
To your second point. There is no single pattern for method or timing of recognizing of homosexuality, and it is dishonest to suggest they can or should all fit one pattern. That’s a straw man. Won’t fly.
And it’s a crashing non sequitur to tie, as you have, early recognition of homosexuality to the question of whether homosexual feelings are good or not. These are completely unrelated.
Others have made this same argument, namely, that child molesters feel an “attraction” too, so therefore we are justified in condemning homosexuality as equally sinful because it is also a “feeling” or an “attraction.”
Another major non sequitur. Bicycles and tanks are both vehicles. They both move, carry people, and require power to be propelled. They both have wheels and require someone to steer them.
But for all those similarities, they are TOTALLY different in intent, use, and effect. I will try to be nice and say that it is deceptively simplistic to say that because homosexuality and an urge to molest children are both “attractions” they are therefore essentially the same and both morally opprobrious. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
The Bible says “by their fruits ye shall know them.” You will disagree with me on this, I have no doubt, because you have already judged homosexuality to be intrinsically morally wrong.
But the fruits I see of people accepting their homosexuality are very similar to those which Paul describes as fruits of the Spirit: peace, a loving heart, empathy, charity. The fruits of denying this part of one’s nature are usually depression, conflict, anger, self-doubt, and more.
Child molestation has no positive benefits whatsoever. It causes nothing but pain and destruction. Homosexuality by itself does not do this.
No doubt you will say that “the gay lifestyle” causes drug addiction, alcoholism, STDs, promiscuity, financial instability and all kinds of other pathologies. But if you are honest and logical, you must make a distinction between the nature of the attraction itself and how some choose to channel it.
I sometimes wonder why more people don’t see that many homosexuals choose that kind of life because they feel there’s no real alternative, given the barriers in American life to their living in a more healthy way. Granted, this is not true of everyone, but why do you think there’s been such a huge eruption of anger over Prop 8? Could it be that more homosexuals actually want the same sort of basic acceptance and humdrum domesticity that heterosexuals take for granted, if only they could get the law to recognize it for them too? Doesn’t this suggest to you that maybe they really want the same things that you do?
Someone once said to me “I don’t understand how homosexuality feels.” My response was this. Imagine the face of your wife, the person you love the most in this world. The one who makes you want to do better, be better, care for them, who inspires you to reach for great things, the one you want to spend your life with, caring for, sharing, the one you feel safe and secure with. Then just replace that face in your mind with someone of the same gender, but don’t change the feelings. That’s really all there is to it.
In all honesty I can’t understand myself why that should bother anyone.
November 20, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Hi Jay, I just did log on to see that there is a link to check out and I will as soon as I can-thanks.
The molester attraction was used to demonstrate that some feelings/attractions are in fact not good even though they are in fact valid emotions–for someone who’s thoughts lead them that way. I didn’t make a tie in with homosexual attraction and molestation other than the fact that they are both sexual attractions. I was pretty sure that you would agree that this attraction was morally wrong, and although you went to some lengths to separate homosexual attraction from molestation, I’m not sure this is possible. I wouldn’t even agree that heterosexual attraction is any less of a tie in since they are sexual attractions. They are the same make,model,and color but with different drivers to use your analogy.
I’ll try to get some early impression on the linked article and get back to you.
P.S. since you referenced the Bible, do you hold that it is reliable and authoritative?
November 21, 2008 at 7:26 am
Hi Jay, after reading the linked article, I was supprised that this is the kind of “science” you rely on. Here is a url to a similar article that has taken this same material and exposed the fallacy of the whole presentation. I think this one lays out a more honest explaination of the facts and how they are used in promoting the theory.
http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html
There are many linked articles/studies on the home site that this artcle is available from. At this time, I’m not persuaded to change my stance since the most reasonable position to hold to is the same one I’ve had.
November 21, 2008 at 12:54 pm
@Brad B:
Sorry, you’re going to have to do better than NARTH, which is just as agenda-driven an organization as any lobbying group in Washington DC or any “pro-gay” group you might disagree with.
I linked you to a Stanford geneticist because he was arguably objective, agnostic, and limited his remarks to just the results of research done to date. Asking me to accept NARTH’s position on homosexuality is like referring me to Barack Obama’s campaign for comments on Bob Barr.
Even so, I did see that at least two of the “authorities” quoted on one of the NARTH pages said exactly what the Stanford geneticist did: homosexuality appears to result from a mix of genetic and environmental factors.
Ultimately there are only two alternatives: it either has an unchangeable genetic component or it doesn’t. I’ve yet to see any credible source say that it has no genetic component whatsoever. Even some of the people on the NARTH site admit that, as stated. To that extent then, it is NOT volitional. “Reparative therapy” is therefore a waste of time and that’s why those who tout it are always so vague about their “success rates.”
When even NARTH supporters admit that genetics is at least part of the cause, Brad, where do you go from there?
November 21, 2008 at 1:02 pm
@Brad B:
P.S. For a slightly different perspective on NARTH, go here:
http://gayaffirmativetherapy.com/default.asp?id=1268
November 21, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Hi Jay, thanks, I will check out the link. The Stanford genetisist uses faulty logic in his reasoning. Did you see the basketball player ananogy in the linked article that I pasted? Dont adhominem attack the article because of the site, refute the article or what it is.
The use of scientific information as a statistical analysis has to be uniform for the conclusion to be reliable. This is where the Stanford “expert” errs. I’m not saying that he errs in the genetic science, but he definately errs in how he applies that information–his conclusions are one sided.
Are you prepared to aver with just a much vigor that basketball players are “born that way” also? If not, you are in a pickle because your integrety and honesty as a debater is on the line. As I see it, you’ll have to abandon this line of reasoning OR admit that basketball players are born that way.
Just to let you know, I’m no blind sheep, I am not following some “party line” when it comes to anything. I back check my theology, my science, my resources etc.. I also am on guard of my own proclivities or propensities to only see things from my own perspective. I was fortunate to escape the modern Dewey infected education system with a mind that does still have the ability to reason and think for myself–I dont just believe things just because they’ve been presented as true by some supposed authority.
November 21, 2008 at 5:59 pm
I just re-read my last post, and need to add that I’m also aware of the fact that I’m prone to error–I dont want to come off as thinking I dont make mistakes, or believe erroneously. I also dont want to intimate that you [Jay] aren’t an honest thinker or that you always err.
November 22, 2008 at 12:24 am
I think the whole NARTH article mischaracterizes by assuming the argument is about homosexuality is “inherited” as opposed to having some larger biological or genetic cause. Call it “heritable” or something else. Perhaps I should have made this clearer. Saying there is a biological component is not to say solely that it is “inherited.” There is lots more to a person’s biological or genetic make-up than just the question of whether they got something from someone else; that is one component, which some of the NARTH-quoted experts concede IS part of the origin of homosexuality. But it misstates the case to confine this question to “inheritance” alone. That’s where I think the NARTH article is skewed. It ignores other possible biological explanations.
I’m sorry, but I think the basketball analogy is silly. There is no record going back millenia of countless people reporting the same “core characteristic” (as the LDS Church now concedes it is) of an unchangeable urge to play basketball. There is no record of new irrepressible basketball players emerging every year and who can’t ever leave it alone for the rest of their life. I think the point of that analogy was to show how reporters more interested in sound bites than in accuracy will make what ends up being a significant mistake in terminology. I don’t find it persuasive at all as a comparison to analysing the origin of homosexuality.
I actually laughed out loud to see your objection to the Stanford expert: “one-sided.” And NARTH isn’t? Please, Brad. NARTH arose from the religious beliefs of three former APA members who refused to go along when the APA finally realized that homosexuality wasn’t a mental disorder. That isn’t one-sided? I’m afraid that criticism of the Stanford guy doesn’t quite cut it if NARTH is relied on as a source for the opposing view.
Lastly, I appreciate your desire to be honest and even-handed. I am no infallible source either. But so far I haven’t seen anything from NARTH or anyone else that persuades me to adopt your views.
November 22, 2008 at 9:49 am
Going back to the concept of being singled out-
Mormons shouldn’t feel anymore singled out by anti-8ers than gays should feel singled out by Mormons.
Of all of the moral issues that were voted on this cycle from Abortion to Marijuana to Assisted Suicide, Gay marriage is the only issue that the Mormons fought institutionally.
Get over yourself and stop whining about being singled out. You made the first move.
November 22, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Hi Jay, the use of the statistical informaiton alluded to by the Stanford genetisist where identical twins, non identical twins, and siblings which he refers to [when he answers the question for the person asking] is EXACTLY like the basketball players example in the NARTH hosted piece. The use of statistical information exactly like what is used by the proponents of born gay view is used to prove basketball players are born that way. By the way, I’m not in love with NARTH, and I do know of the overall view that seems to be aparent, but I’m not asking you to accept NARTH, but I’m asking you to deal with the use of the statistical information that was debunked by the article.
The distinction you refer to about herited or inhereted cannot just be stated, it has to be proved. This is where the whole debate is centered and this is where those who propose that gayness is genetic fail–and most likely will always fail, because how does the gay gene ever get passed down. If it was ever in fact accepted to be genetic, what is known about genetic theory is turned on it’s head to suggest that it has opportunity to be dominant enough in reproducton to appear even remotely–Im talking 100ths of 1%.
November 22, 2008 at 3:08 pm
I think its the Gay community that needs to “get over themselves”, not Mormons. If the Gay community thinks that vandalizing property, throwing garbage on Temple grounds, threatening harm to individuals, and assorted acts of down-right terrorism are going to endear their cause to the American public, they are sadly mistaken. Its like my beef with “Gay Pride” parades. Exactly HOW does a parade of Gay people – some in drag, many nearly naked, others wearing nothing but condoms, and some simulating sexual acts – endear the American public to their cause? How does that make me feel better about Gay people adpoting children? Or teaching our young people? How does that make me want to have Gay neighbors?? And just like the parades, this issue will have the effect of further alienating Gays from the main-stream. Why should I be sympathetic to those who claim to be persecuted, when they turn around and heap persecution on others?? Perhaps what this issue has most clearly demonstrated is that a lot of the Gay leadership, and many who follow them, are just a bunch of thugs!!
I think Pro-8 supporters should get a list together of those who fought against Prop 8 and start to boycott THEIR businesses! Turn about is fair play, isn’t that what I hear you saying??
November 22, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Hi Peter, I guess after having had Jay state the the Mormon church has agreed that homosexuality is unalterable and such, they do deserve the hostility, since they acted differently than the church authority has stated. This is quite similar to Popery in the Roman Catholic church where they maintain infallability of the Pope when he speaks as the viccar of Christ. Yet the popes have contradicted themselves over and over again and found themselves errant. I guess what I’m saying is if the facts are as they seem to be, I agree with you
November 24, 2008 at 12:26 am
@Brad B:
Re the “genetic” origin of homosexuality. Nobody knows everything about this. But your argument assumes that 100% of people with any homosexuality in them won’t procreate so therefore “how can the ‘gay gene’ get passed down”. Sorry, doesn’t fly. There are lots and lots of people with same-sex attraction who have had kids the old-fashioned way, always have been and it’ll always be so.
And your argument also assumes that being passed down from one generation to another is the only meaning of a “genetic origin” for homosexuality. That’s an artificial restriction. There are other ways genes can influence this. Genes can mutate. Pre-natal environment is crucial and can skew fetal and post-natal development in all kinds of ways. We don’t have all the answers and I’ll be the first to admit that.
What we DO know is that homosexuality happens. Consistently. Throughout human history. Whatever the “genetic” cause may be, the fact is that it’s always been around, it’s not going away, it can’t be changed, and “reparative therapy” has never been shown to eliminate it (it just enhances suppression skills). It is a permanent feature of countless numbers of God’s children. At the end of the day its origins for each of them may vary, but the end result is the same, and it’s indisputable. Eventually the Christian world is going to have to accept this.
One problem I have with approaches like yours (not with you personally) is that the subtext always seems to be “if we can show this is voluntary then we won’t have to confront the contradictions between the theological implications of God actually planting it in some people without them choosing it on one hand, and our own prejudices against it on the other.”
November 25, 2008 at 8:01 pm
Hi Alan, the only thing that I think I agree with your post is that is is an indisputable fact that homosexuality happens. And I do think that the people who have said that it’s something they’ve always felt for as long as they remember are not just making that up. Tough situation, and one that needs to be handled with respect and care for the person, as a human being.
On the other hand, the strong statements where you’ve stated that “reparative therapy”[your phrase,not mine], *never* works is just plain factually incorrect. There are many testimonies of people who’ve left what they thought to be born with. I dont think it’s possible to deny that everyone who says this has happened is lying or exagerating or is mistaken. Actually it’s possible to deny it, but the price one pays is that their intellectual honesty is questioned.
I dont think I’m altogether wrong on the genetic situation. Nonetheless, even suppression skills aren’t anything to be vilified. Alchohol Anonomous enhances suppression skills also, that doesn’t mean that alcholism ought to be a behavior that is promoted. I think everyone is subject to unhealthy, destructive behavioral yens that if not just left unchallenged, but much more even encouraged and promoted would spell sad times for the participants and the cultures in which they live.
As far as your theological query, I dont think it applies to me as a Reformed believer. We believe [I’ll quote the Westminster Confession of Faith] “Chap. III-1. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass;[1] yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin,[2] nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established”
The elephant in the room “theological problem”, of greater weight would, it seems to me, be the problem of a changeable God. One Who’s spoken clearly that homosexuality is an offense. Either it still is, or He’s changed His mind and is no longer reliable in His promises. Even the promises regarding saving sinners. So, for one to speak of a theological problem, the preeminent question would be why did God change His mind, or even better, can God change His mind. If one were to consult the apostle Paul on the issue of homosexuality, the answer would be no!
November 25, 2008 at 10:54 pm
One Who’s spoken clearly that homosexuality is an offense.
Oh, you mean the One who has spoken clearly that eating shellfish is an offense.
November 26, 2008 at 3:48 am
Hi Mark, legitimate point to contend, but the dietary laws of the OT were for specific reasons. Health concerns aside, the scriptures say that the restrictions were because of the set apartness of the nation, they were to be a holy peculiar people. The dietary law served the nation well. See the story of Daniel, he refused the king’s diet for one that gave honor to God. Even now, in modern times it is considered to be less than healthy to eat shellfish, and pork is shunned by most health nuts[no offense to the health nuts out there, I’m married to one].
Now, the prohibition against homosexual sex, animal sex, incestual sex, and adultery came with the death penalty. Very harsh, it must’ve really been an offense. Dietary restrictions were not met with anthing more than ceremonial uncleanness which usually meant a washing or a sacrifice to “atone”.
Lest one say that here is an example of God changing His mind when in the New Testament, these restrictions had been lifted with the end of the Law. The objection cannot stand if one holds that the New Testament is the word of God. The nation of Israel and the theonomic governmental economy ended when the temple curtain was torn coincidentally with the crucifying of Jesus. Lots of symbolism here. Peter specifically tied the freedom to eat anything with the opening up of the kingdom of God to everyman[every type of man, Gentiles, Jews, free men and slaves]. To the contrary, the prohibition against homosexuality is strongly reinforced in the N.T., not with the death penalty though, since the theonomic nature of the kindgom had ended where priest also judged.
There is a lot more to this than could be discussed in this format, but it is a legitimate coherent answer.
November 26, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Since God did, at one time, assign a death penalty for homosexuals, do you think there should still be legal penalties (not necessarily limited to the death penalty, of course) specifying punishment for homosexual acts? Why?
November 27, 2008 at 9:24 am
Hi Mark, there’s a lot to consider to answer the question. First off, I’m going to say that the scriptures and Christian faith do not demand penalty for acts that offend God-neither do I. Church discipline is another thing–it is voluntary submisssion as a condition of inclusion into the visible church[covenant community]
Without a theonomic government system, there is a separation of church and state. OT Israel, where Church standards were imposed on all who lived in the state irregardless of confession of faith was a theonomy. In OT Israel, one was free to leave if they wanted to. There was no penalty for leaving, but it was a 1 way trip out of the covenant community.
In fact even in the OT economy, where priest were judges also, it was only within the covenant community that obedience was required. There was no implicit duty to impose the Law onto the pagan nations. The idea of a “city on a hill” where life lived in obedience to God’s standards was to be example of how life improves by observance. The hope of willing obedience was desired, not by force of law. I think David in Psalm 119 says it best here:
Psa 119:97 O how I love Your law! It is my meditation all the day.
Psa 119:98 Your commandments make me wiser than my enemies, For they are ever mine.
Psa 119:99 I have more insight than all my teachers, For Your testimonies are my meditation.
Psa 119:100 I understand more than the aged, Because I have observed Your precepts.
Psa 119:101 I have restrained my feet from every evil way, That I may keep Your word.
Psa 119:102 I have not turned aside from Your ordinances, For You Yourself have taught me.
Psa 119:103 How sweet are Your words to my taste! {Yes, sweeter} than honey to my mouth!
Psa 119:104 From Your precepts I get understanding; Therefore I hate every false way.
Psa 119:105 Your word is a lamp to my feet And a light to my path.
Psa 119:106 I have sworn and I will confirm it, That I will keep Your righteous ordinances.
This is what David says of the law which included death penalty for many things, even the extremely disobedient son at the hand of the parent[s].
The New Testament economy is not a departure or elimination of God’s revealed Law, but an end to it. There are no commands to “force” obedience from without, but by obedience within the heart-by seeing it as David did. Even with God’s law a valid expression of His person, He has no designs for the church to impose civil penalties to offenders since men willingly pave their own roads toward perdition.
Now having said that, civil magistrates, [govt. is ordained by God as an administration of general grace] punish the wicked and reward the righteous, and do have authority to impose penal sanction on behavior. If the civil law of a culture abides within the scope of a Judeo Christian worlview, there may well be laws that require conformity to God’s revealed word. The USA has had this in some degree from the beginning. The state cannot compel belief, but rightly protects freedom of religeous expresssion. One sees in the Islamic nations compulsory belief by the threat of penal action-“evangelism and catechism by the sword”.
Well, this could go on for a long time so I’ll quit here. Hopefully it answers your questions.
January 8, 2009 at 3:33 pm
[…] How much incentive do you suppose Church leaders have at this point to support such legislation, given the response by some in the gay community to the Church’s involvement in Proposition 8? […]
March 1, 2009 at 9:28 am
[…] what he says. And, frankly his speech is just as constitutionally protected, if not more so than some the Proposition 8 aftermath that passed for political protest and speech. And, it was this aftermath that has disturbed Mr. Mero: Angry about the gay community’s […]