Monday, September 24, 2012

When the cat's away...

So last night was really great.

There were so many awesome people with so many awesome stories and I loved meeting everyone. Thank you to those of you who traveled far distances to come see me--and to all of you readers who came to support me, it seriously meant a lot to me.

I was an organizational disaster as I spoke and I had like ten notecards and another notecard and a piece of paper and I kept kind of losing track of what I was talking about and I looked like an ADD star palace, but in the end it ended up going well and I felt like I was able to say what I was supposed to say.

Here's a picture taken by a reader named Christen Lane who came to hear me and then posted it on my Facebook page.

My blind eye is only kind of squinty!!!

Thanks for the great photo, Christen.

When I got online after the event to check my email I did not feel so awesome.

So, I posted my last post at the airport on the way to Utah, and then I went off the grid because I was stressing out and needed all of my mental energy to think about my remarks. After I was done last night, I was like "oh, I can hop online now and see how things are going." Imagine my dismay and disappointment when I saw that I got numerous emails from people saying that the LDS temple ceremony was being mocked in the comments section of the post.

Of course I had to see for myself, and I was repulsed to see they were not exaggerating. And that there were one or two commenters who absolutely dominated the comment section with hate-filled, vitriolic, intolerant posts.

I have made a decision.

I am moderating comments.

I had thought that if I talked about this enough times, explained the type of conversation I was going for--the openness I seek, the feel of acceptance and sharing and mutual understanding, and respectful exploration of differences I am trying to foster here--that people would pick up on that and then manage themselves. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be happening.

This will be imperfect. I won't be able to be "fair." I have biases, and I will be more likely to remove the posts of some people based on history than others.

At the same time though, I don't want you to think that divergent opinions are the problem here. They aren't the problem. They are what make conversations great. There are so many divergent views shared by commenters who are able to articulate their thoughts in a respectful way (and did so even on yesterday's post). Anyone trying to share a perspective with respect and kindness, you have absolutely nothing to worry about w/ regard to moderation. In fact, your input is encouraged.

It is the people who have a clear agenda, who have explained that they do not intend to engage in this conversation in a respectful way, who can expect their comments to be removed. Every time. Without apology from me.

Furthermore, there is one more line I'm going to draw. As a believing Mormon, I cherish my religious beliefs, just as other adherents to other faiths cherish theirs. I love the exchange of ideas and information that happens when espousers of different creeds explore and share ideas. I think it's extremely useful to have that kind of exchange, and such a discussion requires a safe, respectful environment.

Because of this, any person who tears down a religious creed on my blog, or speaks derogatorily of someone's sacred beliefs can expect to have their comment swiftly removed. The level of disrespect and blatant intolerance I saw yesterday was breathtaking. It's actually been going on for a long time and I'm so sorry everyone has had to suffer through it for as long as they have. I've probably waited too long to take this action--the axe has been at the root for months--but I really did have hopes that people could self-manage. Last post's comments--and the many emails from people personally appalled by their sacred beliefs being trampled on--have demonstrated in a clear and obvious way that the time has come. Which makes me sad because while the presentation has been abhorrent, I have appreciated the perspective.

Aaaaand consider this issue put to rest. If you have a personal question about the policy or comments, feel free to email me at joshua dot weed at gmail dot com. I won't be responding to comments about it, but I will respond to emails.

All right. I have four trillion clients to see today. I'm gonna try to answer my FFAQ question tonight, but I'm going to be so busy recovering from the trip and preparing for a training I'll be going to from Wednesday to Sunday that it might not get finished. But I'll post something tonight regardless. It might be one sentence. About how tired I am. But whatev.

Thanks again to those who came to see me speak. Meant the world to me.

240 comments:

  1. Good move! In my opinion, at least. I've done the same on my blog. Really, people don't listen to others when they feel the need to get defensive because of the tone or name-calling or other unappropriate language. It is the antithesis of building bridges for any subject - religion, sexuality, politics, you name it. Civility is a nearly forgotten virtue. I love that at joshweed.com civility is required.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I completely agree, EB. I don't understand why people have to be so mean and hurtful.
    Josh, don't worry a moment about moderation. Those who love your blog won't care, we'll appreciate it. Let the haters hate, then delete them. I'm just sorry you still have to read that poison.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thank you, Josh. I love the differing points of view expressed in this blog, and I have been so pleased especially about the tone of the comments up until now. I read your blog every day because I feel it is a place where I am able to explore differing views and understand better the challenges of my gay friends and family. I'm one of those lifelong LDS with very close friends who are gay, and I have been so uplifted by the experiences shared here. It has helped my heart and mind grow and I have learned more about myself and my personal faith than I ever expected to from a blog. I hold fast to the doctrine of my faith, but I have been trying to love better and accept my friends and their choices. This blog has been a turning point for me. Your example of kindness and love and acceptance and openness are what the world needs. Not more yelling and anger. Thanks for the blog. Thanks for the moderation and thanks for keeping the discourse civil and respectful.

    Much love,
    Valerie

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Valerie-

      I have felt much the same. It has been a great way for me to understand what being gay may mean, especially for someone in the church and I applaud the efforts here. Thanks to those who have been willing to share their points of view in a respectful way. And I for one, do feel safer, knowing that my ideas and faith won't get knocked down hatefully, but that we can explore this issue with love and respect for one another.

      Delete
    2. Valerie and Rachel, I am nodding my head as I read your comments. I, too, read this blog everyday!

      Josh, your "coming-out" post changed my life. That might sound strange coming from someone whom you have never met in real life, but it is true- and from a lot of the comments I have read, I am not the only one who feels that way. You have opened my eyes to a much greater understanding of this topic as well as a much greater love for those who identify themselves as homosexual, both in and out of the LDS faith. In addition to this, strangely enough, even though I myself am not gay, I have found ways to relate to your struggles and be inspired by your courage and commitment in my own life. Most of all, I feel an increase of love towards others because of your example. Thank you for giving of yourself and for encouraging all of us to do so respectfully as well. You're awesome! And that goes for Lolly as well!

      Delete
  4. I think it's a great idea to moderate comments. A lot of people don't respect others because the internet is so anonymous and they feel like they can do anything they want and never be accountable for it. I appreciate you giving us a voice, to tell you what we're thinking and our opinions. I also appreciate you taking away that voice to those who decide to attack and offend. Love the blog and look forward to more.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Josh Weed - thank you! Thank you for the thoughtful discussion. I am so happy to see that it is going to continue in a respectful way because we all have something to learn. Every last one of us.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Good call. Sooner or later it had to happen. Just keep up the good work. The message of love and support is something I need to read and have reinforced in me every day of my life.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thanks! Glad you had a great time at the fireside. Wish I could have gone!!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Ever since your blog blew up across the Internet I haven't commented but I DO know that whenever I see anything making fun of ANY religion (not just my own) it makes me sick to my stomach. Good move on your part Josh. :)

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thanks so much for moderating comments! I know it's less than ideal, but it will be so nice to be able to come and exchange ideas respectfully. Looking forward to your FFAQ!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Good call. I know it's not what you wanted but I suspect the tone was putting many people off engaging in the dialogue.

    Glad the trip went well. I bet you sounded much better than you think. You have come across very well in the interviews I have seen.

    And nice suit, btw.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Wow, I really hope I didn't make any drunken comments last night. I am quite sure I went to sleep before any of the temple comments were made because I don't remember reading anything of that nature.

    It seems to me that we have two separate issues here: Homosexuality as it relates to private religion and homosexuality as it relates to secular law. And the problem is that I know that 99% of the time, private religious views on homosexuality and god are going to bleed over into secular law. And so as a battle strategy, I just try to fight things at the root. Right or wrong. That's the point I've come to over the past decade. Many years ago, I was just a faithful Mormon girl who tried her best to tow the company line, hoping that God would explain it all some day. I hoped this because unlike many people I come across here, I didn't enjoy being anti-gay. It didn't seem right or fair or kind. It only seemed "required" and so I did my best. Today, I've become somebody who is a fierce, sometimes rabid advocate for people who are gay. And here's the rub: I feel that this should probably include advocating for people who want to work with organizations like Evergreen but daRn it...I am at a loss for words.
    In my opinion, trying to get to the root of things and investigate WHY so many people are willing to assume that God (if indeed there is a god) has spoken on the issue is a vital part of this conversation. It is a VITAL part of this conversation because somewhere along the way, many of us have simply decided that God has spoken and that's that and it is an absolute puzzlement to me how we got there. And it's an often uncomfortable part of this conversation because when we follow the chain of authority and see where it takes us, we often come to elements that, if we found them in Scientology, for example, we would dismiss them with a hearty belly laugh and without any further thought.
    But not everybody does. Some people still choose to believe. And that's fine. But I think it would be fair and reasonable for those people to say: We still have faith that all this went down nice and good and proper the way our spiritual leaders who came before say it did, but maybe we could STOP SHORT of incorporating our beliefs into civil law. Maybe we could stop short of doing that.

    Not everything needs to be voted on! Some things can be decided diplomatically and based on principles found in constitutional law.

    I will continue to hope that our supreme court justices will get the GUTS to protect the gay community. And then maybe the day will come that I don't have to care what people who are religious think because their beliefs won't be able to touch me or people I care about.

    Maybe this Friday I'll officially ask the dodged question: Josh, what do you think of gay marriage from a legal standpoint? Because that has a lot to do with this discussion.
    I, for one, would feel less inclined to take my proverbial sledge hammer and pound mercilessly on religious dogma if I felt that my civil rights and the rights of people I love were safe from being threatened by religious dogma.

    But my apologies if I have said anything over the line this weekend. I got pretty riled up when I heard the name Evergreen. Maybe they've changed their approach over the past 30 years though I don't really agree with their mission statement to begin with. But hopefully they don't do the shock therapy or stuff like that anymore.

    Again, I think that when we go back following the chain of "authority" it can often get uncomfortable and there will be a great many skeletons uncovered. Whether or not that means we shouldn't take that journey remains up for debate. There might be kinder, gentler ways to state fact (not my strong suit), but I am of the mind that some things need to be said or challenged. Especially when so much is at stake. (Especially when so much is at stake for one party but not at all or the other...)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. No, you didn't miss any temple comments, but people misunderstood some references (including Josh). Actually I felt that I was having a good conversation with you and Tammy last night, but I do think some of your comments have been snarky.

      Delete
    3. Thinking back (and I had to really think hard- I wasn't pretending) I can only think of one semi "temple comment" I made. It was incredibly vague and hardly something that I think would warrant removing an entire post. In fact, there's no longer anything I can reference, but if I remember correctly, it went pretty much unnoticed so I'm not even sure I'm remembering the right thing. Have some of my comments been snarky? Yes. I'll try to do better. I think there are a lot of snarky anti-gay comments that don't get caught on the radar but I don't suppose there's much to be done about that. Frankly, I think if it's worth censoring people (in an admittedly biassed fashion) then it's worth making people register to make comments. You can register anonymously. But at least there's some recognition and not 20 different anons making comments. But it's not my blog.

      Delete
    4. Interesting that you want decisions "based on principles found in constitutional law". The constitution does not set forth rights for anyone to marry, but the First Amendment does state that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". There in lies the problem with gay marriage, because people who decline to perform marriages or make wedding cakes or rent wedding facilities, or provide adoption services, etc. to gay couples based on their own religious beliefs are harassed and/or sued.

      It appears to me that the real goal of many (not all) gay advocates is the destruction of religion. Freedom OF religion, not freedom from religion is a right guaranteed by the Constitution.

      Delete
    5. This is propaganda that has nothing to do with the Constitution or the legal system. I am a Jew married to a non-Jew who was refused by every single synagogue in the greater Washington DC area the right to marry, based on the fact that my husband was not converting on their schedule -- no other factors, not whether we intended to raise Jewish children or keep a Jewish home or anything concerning our beliefs -- and I had no recourse even for protest, let alone suing. My father-in-law is a retired Lutheran pastor and he can refuse to marry a (heterosexual) couple because they lived together before marriage, because they have too many divorces in their past, really anything that he personally finds to be out of line with the teachings of his church or his personal sense of their commitment to each other and/or to God. I have never heard of a Catholic church being successfully sued to force them to marry two non-Catholics, so why on Earth could they be sued with any more success for refusing to marry two gay men?

      The people who are being sued are those who harass gay people in the first place. You can't sue someone for declining to bake you a wedding cake, but you CAN sue someone who calls you derogatory names and publicly humiliates you to the point where it crosses into hate speech. You can sue Westboro Baptist, sadly without success in a lot of cases because the First Amendment gives them a lot of leeway to spout hate speech at weddings, funerals, and anywhere else they bring their vitriol. The idea that religious people are being oppressed by the very existence of gay couples in their community and would be further oppressed if those couple had legal rights is absurd. If I feel oppressed by having pork eaters on my street, that is MY problem, not theirs.

      Delete
    6. Anonymous (September 24 11:22- sigh)
      You will notice that I chose my phrasing very carefully. "based on principles found in constitutional law". I did not say anything about marriage being in the constitution. I very deliberately and preemptively avoided saying that because I know some people love to pounce on the first opportunity to remind others that the constitution doesn't specifically mention marriage. I'm referring to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Principles found in the constitution. If the government can, in any way, take measures so that people can pursue what will make them happy, and if such a pursuit will in no way harm innocents, that should be enough to give it the green light.
      I'm sorry that you disagree with marriage equality, but that doesn't mean that marriage equality would harm you or your rights. You would simply have to live with the fact that you disagree with it.
      If you feel that people should be free to withhold services from gay couples (and I think you could make a strong case for that), then you should tackle THAT issue alone. Spend the time and money that is spent on these anti-marriage issues trying to pass legislation that would protect religious liberties. Make a case. Don't just try to withhold marriage from an entire class of people! For goodness sake, nobody ever said that the system wouldn't need a small amount of tweeking. But to tell an entire class of people that they can't marry because it MIGHT threaten your right to discriminate against them? You don't need a sledge hammer to kill a gnat!

      Your assertion that it is the real goal of many gay advocates to destroy religion is laughable. Believe it or not, this is not about you. People want rights INDEPENDENT of your religion. You think two dudes want to marry because doing so will somehow hinder your ability to wake up and attend church every Sunday or read your scriptures or pray? I'm trying to keep things civil here but good grief! Help me out a little.

      In saying that people are guaranteed freedom OF religion but not FROM religion, basically what you are implying is that anybody can choose any religion they want of ALL the many many MANY diverse and varying religions in the world(most of whom think they're true), but people aren't free to abstain. Is that what you think the founding fathers had in mind? Freedom of religion but not from religion is a ridiculous concept. One cannot exist without the other.

      And what about religions that are willing and even eager to perform same sex marriages? What about religions that value all marriage? How are you not destroying their rights? You seem to think that all religions agree that we must discriminate against gays. If that's the case, I think you should step out and attend a Unitarian Universalist service or maybe a Methodist service some time. Those are just two I can think of. But more and more religions these days are embracing the gay community and with that, marriage equallity. You might not agree with their principles. But you just said that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. So if marriage is only an institution for religions, then all religions should be able to issue marriage licenses and that includes the Unitarian Church I used to attend, who would issue them to both same sex and opposite sex couples.

      Delete
    7. Gay people are not trying to destroy religion. In fact, many gay people ARE religious. Although to be honest, based on how a lot of religions have treated/treat them, I wouldn't blame them if they did (which they don't).
      Like you, like me, they just want to live their lives equally to everyone else. To be able to marry - not special rights, not extra rights, just the same rights.
      There is actually no gay agenda, no meetings where gay people get together and discuss how they can destroy religions. They don't raise money for that and invite other gay groups to join them and give money. And yet there are meetings where religious people get together and talk about how they can stop gay people from having equal civil rights. They raise money, they lobby, they protest with signs that tell gay people that God hates them, etc.
      To argue that gay people want to destroy religion is an old and rather tired argument that is simply not true. What it does accomplish though is to create an 'us' versus 'them' scenario and enables religious people to feel persecuted.
      Equal rights, not special, not extra, just equal.
      Eeek, I'm going not anonymous again. I trust y'all will resist the urge to say "Karen, you are ________ (insert insult here).
      I think if everyone went non-anonymous with a real link to their real selves, there would be so much less risk of that.

      Delete
    8. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    9. MOR straight graduateSeptember 25, 2012 at 9:10 AM

      Anon 11:22 pm. You say that people who refuse are sued... That may be a true statement but let's make it more precise by breaking people down into individuals, businesses and religions. My understanding of US Law is that no one can force a religion or church or minster to officiate a wedding or bake a cake that it does not agree with. But if the church chooses to set up a business that bakes cakes or rents out premises, then in order to enjoy the (completely different) protections offered to businesses under the law, that business needs to be willing to serve all Americans without discrimination. As an individual I could be a minister on Sundays but have a cake baking business during the week. As a minister I can refuse a ceremony. As a cake baker I cannot turn away a client based on them wanting 2 grooms on the cake. Seems fair and legal to me.

      Delete
    10. The fact is that marriage began as a religious/cultural ceremony and it should have remained so. It should never have been legislated or licensed to begin with. There should be no tax break for married people, because that discriminates against single people and their should be no tax break for people with children for the same reason. If marriage existed merely as a cultural/community/religious ceremony then all who wanted to could participate, and anyone who wanted to exclude a certain group of people or another could at their will. I believe in marriage, but I believe it should be a deep personal commitment between 2, or more if that's your thing, consenting adults and no one else should need to be involved for that to happen. Marriage is about a personal decision of commitment anyway if you ask me, and a piece of paper validating it is unnecessary.

      Delete
    11. Also, I appreciate the moderation. The tone of the comments is so much more respectful! It was at a point where I would read a dozen or so and have to turn off my computer because I couldn't stand the amount of negativity being spewed out by total strangers to one another. I really think you should follow through with it if need be.

      Delete
    12. MOR straight graduateSeptember 25, 2012 at 12:39 PM

      K_laurelle, you may think that marriage should be just a ceremony nada commitment between 2 or more. That may be a description of a wedding. But marriage as it is recognized in our society is a protection and obligation of 700 to 1100 legal rights. That is the contract under discussion for lequality.

      Delete
    13. I am saying that it should not be in my opinion and then non of this would be an issue. People could just live their lives. I think that's what I said. I think marriage and civil union are backwards in our society. What we consider a marriage is really a civil union, one that is contractually binding and gaurantees legal rights, and in a number of states that right is given to everyone. The question of calling it a marriage or not a marriage shouldn't be an issue because marriage is really about religion and community at least in our society. We could make it about the acquisition of property which is the other thing that it's been historically know for, and in that case who would be interested in participating.

      Delete
    14. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    15. K_laurelle:
      That might be but it's a mute point now. Maybe marriage should be strictly up to religions. I hear a lot of religious people argue that. They think that giving marriage to religions would solve their problem and keep it away from the gays. What they don't understand is that giving marriage back to religion would in essence hasten gay marriage because I'll tell you now that my Unitarian Church would do them, as would United Church of Christ, Methodists, and probably too many others to name.
      Since the government HAS set a precedent of dabbling in marriage (whether or not that was a good decision), it's not just to withhold it based on religious principles. The government is not in the business of dictating religious behavior.
      If people who want to "protect" marriage are unhappy about sharing a name, perhaps they could come up with a new name for their unions. They could even make it a secret name so that the atheists and the gays couldn't use it.
      Problem solved.

      Delete
    16. I'm pretty sure married people don't get a tax break. Last I remember, people referred to a marriage tax penalty. I could be wrong. If a person has dependents, that affects taxes.

      Delete
    17. With all due respect, the phrase “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. That phrase is from the Declaration of Independence which was a declaration of separation from England and is not binding on any of our laws. The phrase used in Ammendment V of the Constitution is “life, liberty or property.”
      To say that freedom from religion means you have to belong to a religion is absurd. It just means that those who do not believe or belong to religion cannot prevent the free exercise of those who do.
      I present as a basis for my statements the following:
      A Colorado-based bakery was harrassed after refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple because of the religious beliefs of the owner.
      Chick-fil-a was harrassed when the owner of the company merely stated his opinion on gay marriage which had nothing to do with who his company hired or served.
      The Catholic Church had to stop providing adoption services in the state of Massachusetts over a state law requiring that they allow same-sex couples to adopt.
      The seemingly innocent gay marriage bill on the Washington State ballot for November adds a section dealing with discrimination to the state marriage law. So this law which claims to be about marriage equality describes the conditions under which a church can be sued for discrimination against gays.
      These are just a few examples, but more and more will come when those who claim that gay marriage will not affect me are trying to make sure that it does affect me.
      That being said, I do not think that gay people are bad or are to be shunned. To the contrary, I have a nephew who is gay, a wonderful neighbor who is gay, I have defended a gay teacher to other parents. But I believe that marriage was instituted of God and is intended to be only between a man and a woman.

      Delete
    18. Marriage didn't actually begin as a religious ceremony. Anthropologists peg the beginning of marriage at about 4,300 years ago.
      I'm quoting this next part because I'm too tired to paraphrase:
      For thousands of years before that, most anthropologists believe, families consisted of loosely organized groups of as many as 30 people, with several male leaders, multiple women shared by them, and children. As hunter-gatherers settled down into agrarian civilizations, society had a need for more stable arrangements. The first recorded evidence of marriage ceremonies uniting one woman and one man dates from about 2350 B.C., in Mesopotamia. Over the next several hundred years, marriage evolved into a widespread institution embraced by the ancient Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans. But back then, marriage had little to do with love or with religion.

      What was it about, then?
      Marriage’s primary purpose was to bind women to men, and thus guarantee that a man’s children were truly his biological heirs. Through marriage, a woman became a man’s property. In the betrothal ceremony of ancient Greece, a father would hand over his daughter with these words: “I pledge my daughter for the purpose of producing legitimate offspring.” Among the ancient Hebrews, men were free to take several wives; married Greeks and Romans were free to satisfy their sexual urges with concubines, prostitutes, and even teenage male lovers, while their wives were required to stay home and tend to the household. If wives failed to produce offspring, their husbands could give them back and marry someone else.
      and his next part is quite interesting:
      Gay marriage is rare in history—but not unknown. The Roman emperor Nero, who ruled from A.D. 54 to 68, twice married men in formal wedding ceremonies, and forced the Imperial Court to treat them as his wives. In second- and third-century Rome, homosexual weddings became common enough that it worried the social commentator Juvenal, says Marilyn Yalom in A History of the Wife. “Look—a man of family and fortune—being wed to a man!” Juvenal wrote. “Such things, before we’re very much older, will be done in public.” He mocked such unions, saying that male “brides” would never be able to “hold their husbands by having a baby.” The Romans outlawed formal homosexual unions in the year 342. But Yale history professor John Boswell says he’s found scattered evidence of homosexual unions after that time, including some that were recognized by Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches. In one 13th-century Greek Orthodox ceremony, the “Order for Solemnisation of Same Sex Union,” the celebrant asked God to grant the participants “grace to love one another and to abide unhated and not a cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God and all thy saints.”

      Delete
    19. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    20. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    21. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    22. It's not in the Initiative as written in the voters pamphlet. It is in the bill itself voted on in the state legislature. You'll need to weed (no pun intended) through the bill itself and follow the changes to the various RCWs that the bill changes. Currently on the state website they have the RCWs as written before this bill passed and you have to find the proposed changes in several places. The bill is contradictory in several places. It states that churches cannot be penalized for refusing to perform gay marriages but then it links to the discrimination RCW that says if you have a daycare or rent areas out, etc. then they can't discriminate against a long list including sexual orientation. So, as I read it, if a church has rented out its facility for an eagle court of honor, then it could be precluded from denying a gay marriage. And it will become an issue for the courts. I thought I had saved the locations of all the places in the RCWs but I can't find it on my new computer. It takes lot of reading. If I have time in the next few days, I'll see if I can find it again.

      Another question I have is about the fact that this has become an initiative. State legislatures can legally change an initiative voted on by the public after two years. So does that mean that since it is an initiative that the legislature can make any changes it wants after two years? I don't know the answer to that. But then, they could just go in and amend the bill anyway, initiative or not.

      Delete
    23. Tammy and all what do you feel about this scenerio my son found himself in and ultimately me having to make the decision for him...
      My oldest was told at his school if he didn't help and participate in a gay rights day he could not play in the upcoming football game later in the week... how do you feel about that? and how would you as parents handle it? I just want to see what people would say... i know how I handled it... but I want to see what people thought.

      Delete
    24. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    25. handing out pamphlets to other students in support, being apart of the rally in support of, maning the gay rights booth, participating in attached fundraiser in support. ....

      Delete
    26. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    27. Good Grief, Anon!
      PRINCIPLES found in the constitution. Life Libety and Pursuit of Happiness are PRINCIPLES found in the constitution. It is IMPLIED. The reasons for the constitution are the same reasons for the Declaration of Independence. It's all linked.
      If you are concerned about religious liberties, FIGHT FOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTIES. You don't have to fight AGAINST marriage equality. Just fight to make sure that with equality, bakers can still discriminate. Doctors can still discrimiate. Daycares can still discriminate. Everybody can discrimiate and teach hate! Yay!
      Aside from a few select and RARE situations, most of the time, religions are not discriminated against. Gay couples are discriminated against EVERY DAY. Hey, I have an idea! Let's try to protect everybody's rights intead of deciding that we have to choose between religions and gay people. America is one of the brightest nations in the world. Do you think that MAYBE we might be able to figure out a way that we could protect both religions and gay people?
      I'm sorry if that last post was dripping with sarcasm. Please don't censor me, Josh. I mean well.

      Delete
    28. MOR straight graduateSeptember 26, 2012 at 11:37 AM

      Poppysmic, would you do me a favor and check the wording on the Gay Rights Day and let us know? Was ith for rights or against discrimination? Do you feel that there is a difference?

      Delete
    29. It was on gay rights NOT some "end discrimination" campaign day for all people being discriminated against. If it was end discrimination against all people that would have been different. It was all about pushing an agenda and forcing our children to participate in something that a lot do not approve of. They brought an agenda into the school and that's were were I take a stand. It would have been totally different if it was not a mandatory thing, but when it takes away my son's rights to even participate in a football game because he doesn't want to participate thats when I drew the line. Luckily 2000+ people felt the same way as me and a petition was written up to the school district which ended the "if you don't participate you will be punished" idea. and guess who head it up!!.. Yep ME, plus some other parents who had to face the same situation on that football team (the majority, I will say, because of it being a forced, no chosen) !!! It is my right as his mother and his right to not participate in organizations not approved of. Just like its anyones right to participate in a organization to support it.

      Rights can't be forced... shouldnt it be a change of heart? just saying.

      Delete
    30. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    31. MOR straight graduateSeptember 26, 2012 at 1:00 PM

      Poppy, the way you tell it, it does sound inept. Can I still ask whether it was about Gay Rights or Anti Gay discrimination? I get it that it was not general discrimination.

      You had me up until your last sentence: "Rights" can and are enforced. We live in a civil society not a theocracy so we have laws to set them and police / courts to enforce them. Changes of hearts and attitude are what cannot be mandated. We all change (or confirm) our hearts and attitudes as we learn more and are exposed to new and different situations.

      Delete
    32. Poppysmic: Rights can and should be forced. (Uh, that's why they're called rights.) But I agree with your judgment that a school child shouldn't be forced to participate in gay rights day. I would be happy to have my kids participate in a gay rights day, but if it's something that goes against your religion, you shouldn't be forced to advocate in support of it. But that doesn't mean that gay people have to sit around and wait until the religious right feels judiciously benevolent enough to be willing to bestow the right of marriage- or at least some paltry crumb slightly resembling marriage- upon them. No, Poppysmic. I'm sorry that some people are under the impression that a person has to feel good about another person having civil rights in order for them to have civil rights.
      In this situation
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vivian_Malone_Jones

      people certainly weren't "ready" for justice to happen. It just did. Justice got tired of waiting and said "yall are gonna have to find a way to live with this".
      And most of them did.
      And the ones who still haven't today, (and oh, they're out there), we can pretty much agree, are not worth knowing.

      Delete
    33. Rachel explains it all.

      http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-rachel-maddow-show/44725449#44725449

      Delete
    34. Rights are a privilege not something to force I think people need to understand that. We come into this life with no guarantees but our bodies. It is a privilege to have rights bottoms line...do you like being forced? Yes I get it we need rules. But on topics like this, it is best to change the minds and hearts of the people instead of forcing people to accept it and just say oh well. Just like BQ (yes I think of DQ too :) ) she doesn't want to be forced into a religion that she feels discriminates, its also true the opposite. When you force a people to accept something that they don't believe it is hard and often difficult. Love and kindness goes along way to change the hearts of people more then sheer trying to force people to do their bidding and accept unconditionally. Look at communism. It never works.

      my point... is my child was almost forced to take part of gay rights rally at a public school which it should have never been apart of in the first place. Public school is NO place to force agendas. And then to force my son and the football team through threats of not playing the football game is absolutely wrong. How can anyone feel good about that all all? It really does put a bad taste in peoples mouth as Tammy stated.

      MOR... It was a gay rights.. not a anti gay discrimination.

      BQ, no it doesn't mean gay people have to sit around and wait, but it does mean that maybe they are going about it all the wrong way. I sadly have seen that both side are not innocent. The gay rights movement have been just as terrible as the other side. I have seen the effects of both opinion.
      Maybe it just time for people to stop thinking of themselves and just STOP for a moment. This battle has been raged from the beginning and will until the end of days regardless of what people think. There will always be people who oppose on both sides even after the laws are passed (which in this liberal country, I am sure gay marriage will pass in all the states eventually).

      Regardless, someones freedoms will be take away which ever way it goes, someone rights will be loss. I know mine rights and my child's rights almost got taken away because another group was pursuing rights. I am all for peoples rights, but when it starts affecting my kids even at school there is a serious problem to how rights are being afforded.

      So the real question is... who's right are more important then the other? Is my rights and my child's rights less important then the gay activist rights? I really wanna know, because it doesnt seem so.

      Delete
    35. MOR straight graduateSeptember 26, 2012 at 1:45 PM

      Poppy,

      I do not know the whole story but it seems to me that your civil rights worked just the way they are meant to. I am not a lawyer so any mistake is unintentional but my understanding is... US public schools do not have the right to force a political or religious agenda on the kids at school. The way you are telling us, at least one person messed up and attempted to do just that - force an agenda on the school children.

      You looked at the situation, noticed it was wrong (your rights were being violated) and started a petition to remind the school of your child's civil rights. Lucky for you, the school 'got it' and reversed course. Your got your (and all of our) rights enforced.

      If the petition had not worked, the next step would have been a warning letter form a lawyer, followed by mediation, followed by a civil suit. All steps to get your rights enforced, whether the other side liked it or not.

      I am glad you got your rights enforced and congratulations for winning it at the first round!

      Delete
  12. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  13. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I really enjoyed reading your comments and insight yesterday.

      Delete
    2. But this isn't your blog so if they are offensive to you, you don't need to read the blog or the comments. I saw the way the comments were going on the previous blog and chose not to read anymore.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. Agree, Tammy. I was enjoying my conversation with you last night. Thank you.

      Delete
    5. Same goes for you Anon if you are the one who was having a great conversation with Tammy. It's hard to keep the Anon's straight! :D

      Delete
    6. Yes I am the anon from last night, I promise. Yes I would like to be something other than anon, but I choose to stay private. Is there a way to stay private, but not anon?

      Delete
    7. sign your post with some sort of signature

      Delete
    8. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    9. Just set up a 'false' google account with an anonymous identity and use it every time. Tammy I agree that those kinds of things are hurtful, but I think to some extent Josh has to be sensitive to vitriol filled generalizations about homosexuals, as he is gay himself. So hopefully the more blatant ones will be removed, on the other hand I think a lot of it does come from ignorance rather than from a hurtful place. You would be amazed to know how many people in the Mormon church have never even been acquainted with someone that they knew was gay, through no fault or disregard of their own. They do tend to raise their children in a very sheltered bubble. I hope that generalization wasn't offensive, as I was raised Mormon and I feel like I was very sheltered, and in most ways I think that is a good thing! people should shelter their children, hopefully they can find some kind of balance when they do so, but it's a self perpetuating cycle really.

      Delete
  14. I’m suddenly very glad I didn’t check your blog for two days…. way to go, Josh!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Agh, I'm sure I'm not the only one who's been biting their tongue on the whole "magical thinking/ magic hat" commentary BQ. Do you really think those of us who very thoughtfully explore the history of our faith and church haven't heard this BS? You either believe God's ways are not our/man's ways (Isaiah 55:8-9) or you don't. There's no need to ridicule based on sensational explanations of very basic things like the existence of angels and seer stones mentioned consistently as far back as the scriptural record has existed. I like to read your comments when they're not inebriated by your tabloid mentality towards religious experience.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Suzthefooz:
      If I were to accept the notion that God's ways are not man's ways, there be utterly no limit to where I could run with that. Suicide bomber? Well, God's ways are not man's ways. Rape in God's name? Murder in God's name? Theft? Well, God's ways are not man's ways. Really, where would it stop?
      For the sake of logic and reason and order in our society, we must learn to trust our ways. We have to assume that God (if there is in fact a God who created us) created our brains to conform to a set of expectations that seem reasonable to us, and we must not assume that God created us with the expectation that we must ultimately do that which seems irrational or wrong.

      Sigmund Freud asked the question: Am I obliged to believe every absurdity? And if not, why this one in particular?
      I think that is a very good question; one people should consider when they argue that God would want us to do things that are counter-intuitive. To me, this would be God setting us up for failure. I suppose that I have no way of knowing that God (if in fact there is a god) is setting us up to fail. In the end, though, I have to choose that which is rational every time. If I find out some day that I'm wrong, I will only be able to ask my maker: WTF?
      I can only look to my own experience in parenting. I want my children to succeed. And so I give them instructions and I don't make them guess where the instructions are coming from. I'm not an absentee parent. I know my kids might choose to go against my wishes, but it won't be for lack of my clarifying. Ultimately this is their own choice. But I try not to leave any room for confusion. I don't relay importan messages second hand when I could do it myself. This doesn't take away my kids' "agency". It does take away doubt though. Taking away agency and taking away doubt are two very different things, wouldn't you agree?

      Delete
  16. I had to bite my tongue really, really hard not to engage in a contentious manner with a certain poster on here who posts hateful, spiteful negative comments on a perpetual basis. Josh, you asked us once before NOT to respond to that sort of thing and I am abiding by it. It's not worth raising my blood pressure about it. AND blaming it on being drunk is absolutely no excuse, none whatsoever. People do not do things drunk that they aren't thinking about when sober. Just because the filters come off doesn't make it anymore hateful. It's obvious what the agenda is for that person (you know who you are so I'm not going to name you by name)and it is not to have a thoughtful, civilized discussion.

    At least I am not anonymous to Josh. He knows my real name via Facebook. Nice to hide behind the mask of anonymity, I suppose. I decided to quit reading the previous blog post comments last night because I know you can't engage with vipers/anti Mormons. Too many years on the internet in the days alt.mormonism on Usenet cured me of that.

    I'm interested in how your speaking engagement went, Josh.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Certain poster"? Really, thanks for not being contentious. The drunk thing was a joke. Calm down. Some people think drunk posting jokes are funny.

      I hope you're not accusing me of hiding behind the mask of anonymity.

      Delete
  17. Please stop attacking that one person...just move on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. yes, let us move on.

      Delete
    3. and Inkstained, you are commenting on it even though you said you wouldn't. Please, move on.

      Delete
    4. I just love all the anonymous posters here.

      Delete
    5. You want not anonymous you say? Sure. I'd love more readers on my blog. I do also moderate my comments but do so before they appear. Although my blog isn't controversial really, just talking about, well, job searching and a variety of other innocuous things.
      I am still asking you to move on.

      Delete
    6. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    7. Any time there are limitless posters all posting under the same name, that is a problem. Having to constantly cross reference post times (for example, referring to somebody as "anonymous September 24 4:44" is annoying and an inefficient use of time and it doesn't help in the grand scheme of trying to remember who is saying what. On a board I used to frequent, they would say "Pick a nick and stick". That doesn't mean you have to divulge any personal information about yourself. You don't have to put yourself or your family at risk for crazy liberals / conservatives tracking you down. Just log onto blogger or google or wherever and set up an account and choose a fake name. Put a fake picture there if you want. Or not. Just something so that people can have a point of reference. Then when you say something profound / obnoxious, they can think "Oh, you're the one with all the profound / obnoxious comments". (And there is totally software for your smart phone in case you find it impossible to remember all those different names and passwords. Just thought I'd mention that. In case you have ADD and the thought of setting up one more account with a user name and password is just too much for you to bear.)

      Delete
    8. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    9. Tammy, I may be another "anonymous" sounding name, but if you do enough googling you can probably find out my real name. Plus, I "outed" myself to Josh on his Facebook page so he knows who I am. I actually do have a blog (or two or three) all interconnected but they have not been connected properly to this account.

      Delete
    10. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    11. FYI Josh has had my full name for quite some time. I don't think it matters.

      Delete
    12. And I figured out what's wrong - I have multiple variations on the InkstainedPsyche name, dating back to 1992, but I'd forgotten than I'd originally put my blogs under a variation of it. I'm trying to get things changed, but Blogger isn't allowing me to change my original log in name and replace it with this Google account.

      Yeah, "outed" might have been a weird choice, but I wanted him to know who I really am...and that we live less than 30 miles from each other.

      Delete
  18. BRAVO! Way to take a stand against intolerance. I couldn't believe the comments I was reading yesterday and really appreciate you addressing the situation!

    ReplyDelete
  19. I was really happy to read this post. Looks like things went well this weekend which is awesome. I am looking forward to this evening's post.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Whoa! I did not expect the picture to be on the blog, that's awesome though! Thousands of people "know" me now, weird... haha
    That's a bummer that people couldn't be respectful. I think moderating is a wise choice.
    Josh, I think you and Lolly are so brave. The thing I admire most about your story and decisions is that you are so real. It's kind of a dangerous and complicated place to be in, but you keep your heads above water and are honest. I also appreciate that you repeatedly say, in your blog posts and in your talk last night, that the path you have chosen is NOT for everyone. As a pro-LGBTQ person who also respects everyone's personal religious/spiritual beliefs, I completely agree that this won't work for everyone. But I think it does work for you. Thank you, Josh and Lolly (:

    ReplyDelete
  21. Josh and Lolly: You will Probably never know me. I follow your blog. Don't comment. Don't usually read many of the comments. But I want to say now that your posts are very uplifting. And full of grace and hope. Good job! And thank you. Also, Good for you for refusing to allow any abuse of the atmosphere of respect you are trying to create and encourage.

    ReplyDelete
  22. the comments I have been offended by are the ones that have said, in essence (and not in exact words) that gay families are wrong. That is so offensive to me as to be crushing at times.
    Josh, I don't think the 'other side' as it were, can be heard on here. I really don't. Which ultimately is fine. This is a Mormon blog and as such, should really be read by only Mormons.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. MOR graduate straight partnerSeptember 24, 2012 at 7:23 PM

      I like this blog for many reasons. Without discounting the sheer niceness and good writing of Josh, what brings me back is that this is a place with real dialog and real learning. We all may get a bit heated at times. I try not to, mainly because I know that flippant digs undermined my own position more than what anyone else can say against my views. I have been 'around' gay rights and the lack of them in and out the church for 25+ years. I am a justifiably angry ex client of Exodus et al. But I have LEARNED from Josh and FG Mormon and a few others that some people manage to make MORs work longer and better than I did. I thought it was a guaranteed to fail situation. I now think there are some situations (IMHO, bi ness in the gay partner) that make success possible. So after 25 years I changed my views. In return, I hope that (posting as multiple Anons) I have helped afew people transition to understand that gay people are born that way, that it is not a choice.

      I keep coming back because in spite of skirmishes, we are all learning and transitioning here. So it is worth the time.

      Yes, there is more I would like to share, but each new understanding truly assimilated is a victory for all of us.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. I like this too and could probably learn a thing or two from your outlook. But for the record, Josh has denied being bi.
      I do gain hope knowing that people are learning.

      Delete
    5. anonymous I personally think there is no real "sides" per say. I think we are all here to learn, grow, and try to come to terms with our own feelings of what we believe. I think this should be a place of no criticism were all people (no labels) can discuss topics that are affecting each of us without the hostility I have been seeing on here. It like the article I posted below said,

      "Thus, we must refrain from making final judgments on people because we lack the knowledge and the wisdom to do so. We would even apply the wrong standards. The world’s way is to judge competitively between winners and losers. The Lord’s way of final judgment will be to apply His perfect knowledge of the law a person has received and to judge on the basis of that person’s circumstances, motives, and actions throughout his or her entire life .... From all of this we see that the final judgment is the Lord’s and that mortals must refrain from judging any human being in the final sense of concluding or proclaiming that he or she is irretrievably bound for hell or has lost all hope of exaltation"

      It's important that we remember this when we talk, get agitated about what people say, etc. We do not "absolutely" have a full understanding of what is the absolute correct way (do not have the full absolute knowledge) like God does so we can not judge because of it. But like the article talks about, there is a difference between final judgement and intermediate judgement in which we judge what we drink, eat, choices we make for ourselves etc.

      There are some very good fine points of what is considered righteous judgements in the article. I employ everyone to read this. It really opened my eyes on if I positively or negatively judge. Today alone I kept track on how many negative judgements I made and it was sad at how many times I judged someone or thought to myself how idiotic someone ones.

      here is the article again...

      http://www.lds.org/ensign/1999/08/judge-not-and-judging?lang=eng&query=judge+judging+(name%3a%22Dallin+H.+Oaks%22)

      Delete
    6. MOR straight graduateSeptember 24, 2012 at 10:40 PM

      Poppysmic, Sorry but these are real issues and those of us who gave been in the real trenches have strong opinions, wounds and knowledge. I am absolutely taking a side. The side that says we can deny our sexuality but we cannot choose it or change it. And having gone through it as a straight partner, I will tell you definitively that reparative therapy is a bunch if deceit leasing to suicides and despair. So I will vigorously criticize any opinion to the contrary. I will do my best not to criticize the person saying it. After all, I was them once. I believed it and trashed my life in doing so.

      I am not taking a side on here about Mormon faith and practices. What? Gasp? Why not??. Because it is irrelevant from my point of view. Condemnation from the pulpit is not exclusive to the Mormon church. Whatever your faith or practices, my goal on here is to remind people of the harm of gay bashing and the veiled rejection of 'love the sinner, hate the sin'. And to remind them that no one ever changed their orientation voluntarilly( yes, I know, google sexual fluidity but that is not voluntary).

      Delete
    7. MOR Straight graduate, I understand. It is absolutely ok to believe the way you do and it absolutely ok for you to disagree with others. I disagree with many people on a lot of things. I would say though that we should be careful about fallacies. A fallacy is an error in reason, which is different from just being factually incorrect. This type of fallacy is classified as a slippery slope analogy (One thing inevitably leads to another. By taking the first benign step, the second undesirable step will surely follow. A simplistic reduction of a possible chain of events). To say that reparative therapy is a bunch of deceit leading to suicide and despair infers the slippery slope fallacy that one thing inevitably leads to another. Which is does not.

      I would go on further to say to "love the sinner, and let God judge the sin, not us". Hate the sin is too strong for me. I would much rather say that we hope for the best in others, that we love the people in general regardless of what they do.

      I will differ in you in that, I do believe people can change their orientation voluntarily or with time. I have seen it happen many times. There is not one mold to a persons attractions. Attractions change with time (trust me I know) and our desires change. It's a fallacy to say that "no one ever changed their orientation", that is just not correct. It's more appropriate to say that many people do not change their orientation but it does happen.

      Delete
    8. Anon...I don't want to discount your feelings when you say that hearing that someone feels day families are wrong....I know that must hurt. I am not gay, but I hear those same words about our religion. It does hurt to have some say that they believe something you are to the core is wrong in their eyes. But I don't think those are hateful comments. If someone tells me that they think my religion is wrong and that I am wrong for following it, it hurts me because it is core to who I am, but I can live with that. We all have the right to disagree with things. What we don't have the right to do is tell that person that we disagree with that they are a horrible person or stupid, or idiotic, or (insert any other name that comes on here). Nor do we have the right to make someone feel hated.

      Sometimes when someone tells someone else that they believe they are wrong, it feels like hate(and to be honest, sometimes it can be), but it does not always have to mean you are attacking that person. There is a difference.

      I see this sort of debate played out in lots of areas in life. I am a part of world where birthing rights/nursing rights, have the same issues and many people are hurt and are hurtful. But we all have the right to believe what we believe, even if it may be that you think another persons actions/believes are wrong.

      Again, we have the right to think what someone does is wrong, what we don't have the right to do is make them feel like they are less than dirt because of it. And that happens on both sides of the issue. I can only imagine how difficult that may be to moderate, though.

      Delete
    9. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    10. MOR straight graduateSeptember 25, 2012 at 8:20 AM

      Poppysmic, you say "I do believe people can chage their orientation voluntarilly or with time. I have seen it happen many times"? Please tell us more, giving examples of the many times. Josh has said from the outset that he is gay, living an MOR lifestyle. So he is pretty clear that his orientation has not changed and that he does not believe orientations can change. I am as straight today, married to my straight husband as I was when my ex and I were going from prayer group to therapy group attempting to get him changed. He was and is gay, he has not and never did change.

      Having stated the clear boundaries, let's get into the gray fuzzy edges... Take a bunch straight people, put them into boarding school or prison for years an see what happens... Some ( a minority, not all) will start to show some same sex attraction and act on it. Others never will. So far, we are still on facts. Moving off facts onto my personal opinion... I think that the Kinsey scale explains this... Most of those people are clearly at the straight end of the spectrum but they have just enough bi-ness to tap into as the circumstances 'force' them. In my opinion, this is Josh's situation too. And let's be fair and clear here, this is MY opinion, not something I have seen him say.

      Could all gay people force themselves to 'grit their teeth, hold their noses and kiss or smooch an opposite gender person'. No more or less than I could do so with a same gender person. Yes, I could get through acting a Shakespeare role if needed. No, I could not sustain a life time. We all fall somewhere in between, most of us (most of us not being bi) at one end or the other.

      Love the sinner, say that we believe God will judge the sin? It all comes back to whether we have a choice in our orientation or not. If we do not have a choice (and that is pretty much the premise if this blog) then tha t sounds to me to be very similar to "love you, judge you for your brown skin. love you, judge you for your Asian eyes. Love you, judge you for your country of birth. Love you, judge you for your loud voice."

      Delete
    11. MOR straight graduateSeptember 25, 2012 at 8:33 AM

      Rachel, I believe there is a difference between feeling that my religion is core to my being and feeling that my orientation is core to my being. If we were born with a Mormon, Catholic or Buddhist gene then we'd just kind of know it as we went into adolescence and every religious group around the world could stop missionary work and use that time and money elsewhere. But passionate as we are about our faiths, it is a choice followed by declaration at baptism. Straightness or gayness is not a choice. So although it may feel similar to be criticized for my Faith, skin color or orientation, they are actually different. I have free choice or agency over only one if them, that being my faith.

      Delete
    12. ... how much stock do people put into the Kinsey Scale? Does it really matter whether someone is a '6' or a '4' on the scale as to whether or not they can be considered 'gay?' Does it matter if Josh is closer to 'bi' rather than 'fully gay'? Because isn't that basically trying to find a formula for human sexuality? And isn't that something that should be avoided like the plague?

      Some people are really concerned that stories like Josh's will be generalized, but isn't equally dangerous to try and make Josh the exception by trying to nail a 'gayness number' on him or anyone else? I know that quantifying things often makes them easier to understand, but it seems to me like the ultimate goal of all of this is to give people the benefit of the doubt and to trust them, because trust breeds honesty and honesty allows people to really dig into the possible consequences (good, bad, best, worst, neutral) of the choices they make.

      Delete
    13. MOR straight graduateSeptember 25, 2012 at 2:47 PM

      Laurenkri,

      You ask whether the Kinsey scale matters. I think it matters a lot to this discussion because it helps us understand the discussion. The 'numbers' of you me or Josh do not matter in themselves. They are ours and they just are whatever they are. But, like our height, weight and blood pressure (or something more esoteric like our IQ or SAT scores) they matter because they are predictors of behavior and expectations.

      I think that most people in this debate accept that the Kinsey scale 'is' and that it is a largely valid measurement system. I certainly have not heard of a better one.

      I am not about to put words in Josh's mouth so I add a disclaimer that this paragraph is MY experience and opinion: His number tags him way gay. Mine tags me way straight. IMHO, his solidly gay number comes with just enough of a tiny seasoning of bi-ness for him to tap into and use to flourish in his marriage.

      So? Why does it matter? It matters intensely to the even-more-gay-than-Josh teen or young person who has a bunch of well meaning friends and relatives telling him / her "See! There is another way! Josh did it so you can do it too! You can marry an opposite sex partner and BE HAPPY"

      "No... I can't... I'd need to grit my teeth to even kiss one and I think I'd throw up if I actually had to make out with one, before or after marriage" the gay kid is thinking.

      It matters that we all understand that Josh's options are not open to every gay person. That we really get that and stop offering it as a viable alternative.

      And it matters to all the Gays, straight partners and kids of MOR where the gay person had enough of a sprinkling of 'bi on the side' to make it work for 5, 10, 15 years. But then they ran out. Of the will power it took to keep .making it work' in a marriage they were just not suited for. The more we understand about our reality, the better choices we can take for our futures.

      Delete
  23. Thank you for your comments last night. I brought my father with me. My parents had rejecting behaviors when I was growing up, so I was never able to reach out for help. I am so glad that the church and families are growing and becomming more loving towards their children who have challenges.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I have a question for you Tammy and Anon? Is it possible that even if someone doesn't agree with your lifestyle they can still respect it? This anon from last night Tammy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I find that to be a good question. Throwing in my two cents even though I'm not the anon you were talking about.I'm not sure if respect would be the right word - perhaps tolerate it? If one believes that, for example, the gay lifestyle is against God and that God disapproves of it or hates it, I don't think that that can be considered respectful. Just imagine if I said to you that I think that Mormonism is against God and he hates it but I still respect you and who you are/what you believe, would that feel like respect?

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. I think that question can be answered with a question. If a gay person said to their Mormon neighbor: " I don't agree with your lifestyle. I think you're doing harm to your kids. Given the chance, no offense, but I would have to vote against Mormon marriage. But hey, that's democracy right? Everybody gets a vote. We can still be friends. Love the sinner, hate the sin" would that person feel respected? Frankly, no. I doubt it.
      In my opinion, once a personal aversion to something like "the gay" crosses over into activism (ie: I'm gonna have to put a stop to this or at least try to curtail it) there absolutely cannot be respect. I think we've sold ourselves a bill of goods, thinking that there's a polite way to disparage people and an impolite way.

      Delete
    4. I am one of those that have had people (I am sure many mormons can attest too) flat out said they think I am crazy for believing the way I do but they respect me. I have even anti-mormon protestors demonstrating yelling and scream stuff at me to the point were I was scared to walk by them. Have you seen that yellow truck that travels around the country now following the I'm a mormon campaign. lol I really truly don't care that they don't agree with me. I see it as this way. It's my right to believe the way I do and it's their right to disagree with me (in a respectful way and to be honest in a not so respectful way if they so chose). Period. Just like it's the gay person right to live how they want to, and it's my right to disagree with them in a respectful way.
      In the end it will be up to God to judge the way he sees fit regardless what we think. It's not our place to pass final judgement.

      There is a great article by Dallin H. Oaks called, "Judge Not" and Judging which I think which is a good read. Check it out:

      http://www.lds.org/ensign/1999/08/judge-not-and-judging?lang=eng&query=judge+judging+(name%3a%22Dallin+H.+Oaks%22)

      Delete
    5. MOR straight graduateSeptember 24, 2012 at 11:00 PM

      Poppysmic, In America, we all get the freedom of religion and we all get the freedom of speech. So you and I both get the right to worship as we please and we both get the right to speak out against each others worship if we so please. I don't wish to do that though.

      But being gay is not a religion. It is a genetic condition that 3 to 5 percent of the population are born with. Times are changing... 100 years ago women did not have the same civil rights as men. Then black people did not have the same rights as white people. Gay people are now asking for the same civil rights as straight people. I will do what I can to help them get the same rights that I have. So in my opinion, American laws allow you the right to worship the way you want and to speak out against the way my gay friends worship but they don't give you the right to respectffully disagree with their gayness any more than you could rsspectfully disagree with their gender or their skin color. It just is.

      Fwiw, I used to call myself the straight survivor or a MOR, but then I realized that deep as my pain had been, it taught me deep understanding... No one gets just how gay, gay really is more than the gays themselves and the people who have been in relationships with them. So now I call myself a graduate.

      Delete
    6. MOR,
      Actually I think America is very pro-gay now more then it use to be. I can almost bet you will find now that America is more pro-gay then pro-religion (and definitely more then pro-mormon) :). You know you may be right on the genetic condition. It has never been proven yet that there is a gay gene but science is finding out new things about our genome and what genetic markers determine certain conditions every day. It was not so long ago we had no clue their was a genetic marker for diabetes/obesity or even the breast cancer gene. Things are rapidly changing.

      Because we do not have the "absolute knowledge" about this topic and only god does at this point in history, we really can't judge either way really. We really wont know until we die and meet our maker if what we did in this life was correct or not or if things were a genetic condition if not proven. So it's just best to love regardless of what we personally feel is wrong / right and let God sort out the rest.

      Delete
    7. I'm not sure I really want to get into this conversation again because I've already tried. But, here I go...I personally believe that gays should have the civil rights granted to them that are granted through marriage, just not through marriage. I know that sounds very, very strange and wrong to people, but that's because it is coming at people from a very different world view than what we currently have regarding marriage.

      From what I can tell from studying history and my own thoughts, marriage is a societal unit created to promote stability within a society and has, for the most part, always regulated sexuality(be it gay or straight). It has not, until recent history, been used to show someone how much you love them. Rights have been incorporated into them only insofar as they have been judged to be beneficial to the stability of society. It does not mean that they were wonderful happy marriages, nor that that treated the people the best within those marriages, but they were made that way to try and create stability.

      Nowadays, that is not the case. People get married because they love someone and want to feel connected to them and the rights we have given to those who are married are mostly for the convenience of how our society works(ie insurance, visiting rights, tax laws), not really the stability.

      So what we have is two ways of looking at marriage: as a unit designed to provide structure and stability(and yes regulate sexuality in many forms in order to do so), and as a way to show you love someone and make an easy way for us to grant some rights that really should have nothing to do with marriage.

      I don't think I want to go much further than this, and I certainly am not going to follow the comments from this, but I just wanted to propose this idea to people. The reason some believe that gay marriage should be separated from gay rights, is because it is viewed as a completely separate issue. Marriage is seen as having a fundamently different purpose between the two groups, and I'm not quite sure we will be able to reconcile those two. Reconciling two world views is one of the hardest things to do. I don't even think it has to do with one side figuring out that the other side is wrong, but more of realizing we see this completely different and that doesn't make you a bad person and someone we've got to bring these two world views together. Greater miracles have happened though.

      I for one would vote to grant gay couples the rights they desire in a different way, but both sides seem to be unhappy with that too or feel it is a cop out.

      Delete
    8. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    9. Absolutely! I think it's bull honkey when people talk about giving gay people "all the rights of marriage" but just with a different name.
      That is actually impossible. And it's unnecessary for our government to spend this much time and energy and money over a silly name change.
      The fact is, Tammy, you are a better person than I am. You want to understand the opposition but I feel I understand them quite well. And right now I see them all collectively as a threat. And until the government sees fit to take away their ability to threaten (at the voting booth), I will not care to sit down and entertain their reasons for why they feel the way they do. Because in the end, why they feel the way they do doesn't make a differenct to me. The only thing that matters is will they be able to push everyone else around? Because I am unable to separate the opinion from the activism. And it's unfair. It's unfair to gay people and it's unfair to religious people! Here's why: Because when you give somebody the opportunity to decide this type of thing in the voting booth, they are put in the position of having to choose between their religious obligations and what is fair to their fellow man. And a lay citizen shouldn't be placed in that position. Voters don't have any obligation to consider constitutional principles or to uphold them. They don't even necessarily have the knoweldge necessary to make a fair decision. Now I am by no means saying that there should be no electorate or that we should do away with democracy. I think that democracy is very important. I think the electoral college should be dissolved but that's the topic for a different post. What I'm saying is that even if you don't believe marriage should be a civil right, it is still an QUESTION of civil rights. It falls under the category of civil rights issues. And civil rights issues should not be decided by citizen voters. Civil rights issues should be decided by constitutional scholars who sit on the supreme court. Period.

      Delete
    10. Rachel,
      I was not married in a church. I was married in a civil ceremony. My church was not about to marry me to a "non-member" atheist. So we went to the county building. And here's a fun tidbit: We had to, essentially, ask special permission to get married off the premises and stipulate that we weren't expecting a religious ceremony. I guess that if you get married by a religious official you just git er done with no hassle but if you're married by a chaplain (who happened to be a family friend) you have to ask special permission. This seemed really strange to me and made a very stressful time even more stressful. I really don't think it's the government's place to dabble in religion at all or to tell people that they have to stipulate that it's not going to be a religious ceremony in order to get a license. I think that should go without saying.
      But IN THE END, I am MARRIED. To my husband, the atheist. And I am an atheist. And we happen to have kids but that was not a condition of us getting a marriage license.
      So I am MARRIED. Not by the church. By the government. And I don't go around calling myself anything silly like "civilly united" to my civil partner. I am just married.
      And if an atheist like me can go to the county and get a marriage license and I actually have to expressly stipulate that this MARRIAGE has NOTHING to do with religion in order to get that license(they have it in writing), then I don't see why it should be any different for gay people.
      Do you see any reason it should be different for gay people?

      Delete
    11. It's not a competition to see who is more persecuted - gay people or Mormons. Straight Mormons are legally allowed to marry which gay people are not.
      As for the U.S.becoming more pro-gay - certainly it is to an extent. I mean less than 40 years ago gay people had to hide or risk, in some cases, being killed. However, gay people are still being killed in the U.S. and some still have to hide. In many states, gay people can be fired for being gay, for no other reason than being gay. There is no protection. In many states, gay people can't adopt children.
      To try and compare Mormon persecution and gay persecution feels defensive to me - kind of like a child in a sandbox saying, 'But I get sand kicked in my face too!"
      I feel that even if every Mormon on the planet were discriminated against in some way it would not negate the daily discrimination and abuse many gay people face. The blog comments have been down this road before - and I would like to re-iterate that it is not a competition. Attempting to negate discrimination against gay people by noting that Mormons are persecuted too doesn't actually negate the discrimination against gay people.
      On a different note, assigning morality to one's sexual orientation is akin, in my opinion, to assigning morality to left-handedness or one's handwriting or level of intelligence or creativity, etc. It is so counterintuitive. It's not a moral issue - it just is. It's not something to be judged. The fact that it is judged daily, heck hourly, minute-by-minute, means that there should be laws in place to protect gay people. Otherwise, they are sitting ducks for continued discrimination. I can imagine a time when being gay is not seen as being up for discussion and judgement. What a glorious time that will be.

      Delete
  25. But, Tammy, is it truly respected if the person believes, in effect, that living as a gay person is morally wrong? That ultimately, and i know there is disagreement in the interpretation here, who you are in your core is wrong?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. It does, Tammy. Unfortunately, their views are creating laws in the U.S. to prevent you from being able to marry your partner (if you have one).
      Individually, some may believe in your right to have equality and some may not. But as a group that has power and money to back up their beliefs, they have actively and do actively work to keep you from being able to marry. The official party line, as it were, is that the life you are living and the family you are building is fundamentally wrong and evil.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. I am going to share my opinion and hope it will be respected. I believe that one of the main reasons we are all here is to procreate. From the beginning God created a union between a man and a woman. It was sacred and to be respected. Everything in nature follows this pattern. Male and Female to create.There is no creation without male and female. Marriage for me was established by God between a man and a woman. However,I also believe that you should have all the same rights as me and would hope that you could choose who you would want to be with and hope I would never judge anyone for trying their best to live a happy life.

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    6. Melissa, you have a right to your beliefs and in fact I used to share those beliefs. Because of your beliefs, you should never enter into a gay relationship and I doubt this will be much of an issue for you. I'm glad that you acknowledge that people should all have the same rights. If you're familiar with Brown vs. Board of Education, you know that the supreme court struck down the notion of separate but equal. Equal rights, for gays, means marriage. (And this means that heteros would also be allowed to choose gay marriage so everything would be equal still.) Civil unions are not equal. Having to pay hundreds if not thousands in attorneys fees is not equal. MARRIAGE. Nothing more. Nothing less. Civil marriage is equal. Couples who are infertile are allowed to marry. Couples who are too old to procreate are allowed to marry. Couples who have children are allowed to divorce and move across the country and create situations where the noncustodial parent rarely if ever see their kids. I consider this HIGHLY immoral in most circumstances but the gov doesn't try to make it illegal. Nor do any lobbiest groups I can think of.

      Delete
    7. I believe that procreation as traditionally observed, through a sexual relationship between persons of the opposite sex within a bond of the matrimony, has huge spiritual consequences that cannot be replicated in any other way.

      Those who are either not spiritual or do not particularly care about spirituality may not be able to perceive those consequences or simply dismiss them as non-existent, but for those who do see them, they are very real and undeniable.

      Delete
    8. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    9. My comment is in accordance to the LDS church doctrine, which is also personally experienced as true. If you haven't had the exposure to the Mormon doctrine, it is not entirely easy to explain it. But in essence, I believe in God, and I believe that there are certain spiritual reasons why He ordained marriage between a man and a woman as such. I also believe that sexual relationship between a man and a woman is pretty much common sense, in spite of my strong same-sex attraction which I cannot and will not deny. And last but not least, I believe that "engineering" kids as it has been done recently (surrogate mothering, artificial insemination) is something that pretty much trivialize a miracle of conception and make it pretty much un-spiritual or non-spiritual. Some people find that acceptable & okay, but I don't, not because there is something inherently evil in those procedures, but because spiritual aspect of the conception that I find very real and undeniable is thrown out of the window.

      Delete
    10. Tammy, they may be separate to you and that is fine. However, they are not separate to me and will never be. Having children should be within the bounds of marriage because procreation is sacred. I guess am just trying help you understand where religious people who support marriage between a man and a woman, are coming from. And why they will fight for it. Marriage between a man and a woman was the first sacred relationship, thus very important to religious people. It is the fundamental relationship to the human race.

      Delete
    11. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    12. Melissa, I'm interested in your reference to religious people fighting for their view of marriage. Most people who read Josh's blog seem to be from the US (self included). My experience is that many disagree with the view of marriage you are describing, but most of us don't want to "proselytize" to people who hold that view and try to change their minds - we just want to live and let live. Do you feel like there's something that needs to be fought for?

      Delete
    13. Melissa, do you understand that people who are not part of your religion have a RIGHT to not be part of your religion?
      YOU think procreation is sacred. It's important for YOU to procreate in a way that doesn't conflict with your religious values.
      I don't think procreation is sacred. I think it happens when sperm and eggs meet. I think that if God were doing a better job he wouldn't let 12 year old girls get knocked up and instead he would send those babies to 35 year old women who have done everything "right" and who are ready to be mothers.
      I don't need help understanding why you think procreation is sacred. I understand it because I used to believe it. What I need help understanding is why you seem to feel that your values should be incorporated into CIVIL LAW! It's CIVIL law. It has nothing to do with religious law. Those are two separate things. "Your" people are not the only people who are represented by our government.
      The constitution gives me freedom OF religion and by that definition, it gives me freedom FROM all the other religions that are not my religion. And the only difference between me and you is that instead of rejecting 99.999999999% of the world's religions, I reject one more than that. The constitution grants me freedom OF religion and freedom FROM religion. Both. At the same time.
      That means that your spiritual leaders do NOT have the right to dictate to everybody outside your religion what is sacred and what is not.
      I mean this in the nicest way possible. But it's late and I'm very frustrated and having 2008 flashbacks.

      Delete
    14. FG, I think your "engineering" comment is insensitive to many couples (not just gay) who have had to have help making their families complete.
      These children are not "engineered". They are loved.

      Delete
    15. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    16. Tammy, I see the underlying of the difference in our thinking. I am not trying to force anyone to believe what I think to be true. I am not instituting my family dynamic, it was instituted from the beginning. I believe that this world was created from truth or laws. God operates from these very laws. It is a truth, from God, that marriage is between a man and a woman. So, I don't care if the government changes the law, God's law will not change. I don't care about the ins and outs of the Constitution, God's law will not change. And FG Mormon I completely agree with you about the "engineering" of children. Procreation is sacred and should be within the bounds of a marriage between a man and a woman.

      Delete
  26. Actually Karen, I find your response to be narrow minded. Of course I have people around me who think Mormonism is agaisnt God and I am crazy for believing it, however they can still say I'm a good person and we both like soccer (or insert other interest) so let's look past that. I can still respect someone if they are different than me.
    Tammy, thank you...it gives me hope for building bridges.
    Can I call myself The Anon?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Interesting question, is your core being gay (or being Mormon)...I believe atour core we are all human.
    The Anom

    ReplyDelete
  28. I can absolutely respect someone who is different than me. But I also don't think that those differences in them are thought of badly by God, so badly that heaven is in fact made up of people who don't have those differences.
    I also don't try to get laws passed against those differences.
    I really find it to be a whole different ball game now that I have put my name on my comments. I feel more vulnerable. And realize that it is much, much easier to be anonymous.

    ReplyDelete
  29. In fact, I feel so vulnerable that I am actually going to stop commenting. There is too much of an opportunity for people to use my name and then call me narrow minded, etc. Anonymous is way way way easier. No risk.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Karen, please understand, I did not call YOU narrow minded. I did say that I found your response narrow minded. Please continue
    The Anon

    ReplyDelete
  31. And I am truly sorry if I did indeed offend you. That was not my intention.
    The Anon.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Does this mean that you will repost that post you took off because of the comments? I hope so.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I completely understand your desire to have a respectful moderated discussion of your posts. However I wonder if you will be addressing the concerns that were brought up yesterday. Evergreen has a history of attempting reparative therapy at great personal loss for their clients. I truly believe that it is organizations such as Evergreen that push gay youth towards suicide because the youth believe they should be fixed in the eyes of God, their families want them fixed, and then when they don't have enough "faith" and are not fixed, they have no where else to turn. Perhaps they have changed from the organization that once used shock-therapy to "fix" people, but I have a hard time believing so. I would be very interested in hearing your thoughts as to how you can show support for an organization like Evergreen. I understand why you deleted the post, but I feel it is a loss if the issues and questions that were brought up are never addressed.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Thank you, Josh, for choosing to moderate. A lot of people didn't notice the offensive comment (the one that made me choose to stop reading) because it is not something they recognize as sacred. I am glad that mockery won't be allowed anymore, because this blog and the constructive discussions in the comments have definitely deepened my understanding and compassion for something I was unfamiliar with. Thank you for policing and keeping it "safe."

    ReplyDelete
  35. Charlotte,
    I personally don't know much about Evergreen...I've heard both good and bad things about it so I don't have much of a dog in that fight, per se. But from what I read I'd say it seems fairly safe to say that they don't participate in shock therapy, considering it states such on their website and that they were organized in 1989. Shock therapy was used more commonly (as a legitimate psychological practice) during the 60's and 70's, based on behavioral psychological methods and the current DSM. It fell out of use and then was stated as no longer recommended for Gays/lesbians by the AMA in 1994. (Mind you, this is what I googled in about 5 minutes).

    I mention this because my first response to your concerns is, that as a practice, psychology is constantly evolving. It's not one of linear progression. It's a messy study with not one absolute about human behavior. There were astoundingly horrible practices, beliefs, and assumptions, that were made in the past about how best to treat a variety of psychological conditions....We see it now as bad, but at the time they were based on what was considered sound scientific or psychological practice/belief. This includes aversion therapy. So in general, I would say, yes one can support a group that once believed/practiced things that would not fly today. Plenty of organizations/psychological practices have and will. For example I have my tiffs with ECT (electroconvulsive therapy...not to be confused with aversion therapy) after watching a friend with schizophrenia begin to lose her memory from it. Yet it's still practiced today. I don't throw out all biological/physiological treatment for mental disorders because it doesn't always work. (FYI, I'm not stating that being gay is a mental disorder). Nothing in psychology is exact. Whatever its premise in treatment. There will always be things that work for one and don't for another.

    Just some random thoughts on your questions

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you look in the medical world too, they use to do horrendous stuff in the name of medicine but have now rescinded or done away with such practices. Look up the Tuskegee Syphilis experiment for an example of medical incompetence and horrendous trials. Times have changed, so do certain practice of how to treat things such as what use to happened to try to "cure" gays/lesbians. I agree with Tasha.

      Delete
    2. MOR straight graduateSeptember 24, 2012 at 11:15 PM

      Tasha, Hmm... Let's leave the methods out of it and just focus on reparative therapy itself. It is a lie. It does not work. It has never worked. There are no success stories. None. Exodus was the main group selling this snake oil to the fundamentalist community. After 35 years they finally admitted in May that no one can change their orientation. They can live celibate or in an MOR but cannot change. Immediately some othe new group sprung up. 35 years from now they won't have any successes either.

      So I do not base my aversion to Evergreen on the methods but on the claims and the goals.

      Delete
    3. It's true that procedeures have changed. But the common concensus among the psychiatric community is now that orientation can not be changed. Yet, Evergreen's primary purpose is to help gay people "diminish" the gay. So really, it doesn't appear that they've learned much from history or their mistakes. They might be using less extreme methods than electroshock, but they're still trying to teach gay people that they can diminish their sexual desires. I wonder if the people who run Evergreen spend much time at all thinking about the damage that has been caused. I've heard this place referred to as a suicide mill. What will it take?

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  36. Thank you, Josh. I love your blog, but I stopped reading any of the comments a long time ago because so many were so derogatory. Maybe I'll start reading them again.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Thanks for taking this action. I read a few of the comments from yesterday and felt sick afterwards. I don't usually look at the comments for that particular reason. Which is a shame as I know comments usually carry a conversation and add so much to the discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Hi guys. Let me see if I get it right. From the very first Joshua's blog post about homosexuality, there are several points of contention that recur over and over again in this comment section. Here are those points as I see them.

    1) GAY MARRIAGES

    Defenders of the LDS church position claim that it is right and proper for the church to engage in efforts to keep the definition of marriage as a sanctified relationship between a man and a woman, which is in accordance to various religious traditions.

    Those who oppose the LDS church's efforts in that regard do that on the ground that marriage is and/or should be universal human right which should be extended to all those who feel that it belongs to them, including couples that are in same-sex relationship.

    2) SIN OR NOT?

    Defenders of LDS church's stance on homosexuality claim that either homosexual activity or sometimes even just homosexual inclination or attraction is a sin that needs to be overcome.

    Others vehemently disagree with such a stance and consider it wrong, abhorrent or even preposterous, often on the ground that a question of right or wrong is non-issue because religions as such are misleading and/or incapable of competently defining those terms.

    3) PREJUDICE TOWARDS HOMOSEXUALS AND IT'S CONSEQUENCES

    I find at least two layers of prejudices towards gay people that have been discussed here. One is the prejudice towards people who report their attraction without ever acting upon it. The other is towards people who are in actual same-sex relationship, either informal or formal.

    Defenders of Mormon position either do not admit prejudice on a ground that homosexuality in any shape and form is a sin, a makeup of those who call themselves homosexuals, and is non-issue. Other defenders of Mormon position admit that there is prejudice and that efforts of various kinds are made in order for that prejudice among religious people in general, and Mormons in particular, is addressed.

    Then there are those who find those prejudices abhorring & barbaric, they are appalled by it, and pretty much do not see much (if any) improvement in the religious realm (the church and it's faithful members) regarding that prejudice. They seek immediate actions, sometimes demanding various levels of governmental intervention into the matter.

    (Continues in the next comment.)

    ReplyDelete
  39. (Continuation of the previous comment.)

    4) "PROPER" TYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS FOR GAY PEOPLE

    Defenders of Mormon position claim that a mixed orientation relationship & marriage is at least possible to be fulfilling, and sometimes (if not often) desirable course of action. They also often claim that if for any reason person cannot be in such a relationship, he or she should engage in celibacy.

    Those who oppose that stance claim that mixed orientation marriage is potentially dangerous course for a gay person which can cause great trouble and heartbreak. They also often claim that celibacy for gay people is not an option, and that pretty much the only way is to engage in same-sex relationship.

    5) THERAPY

    Some debaters expressed grave concern about various types of therapies (including reparative therapy) in which some homosexuals were engaged. Others believe that the issue is of a lesser importance, and is and should be a matter of choice by a gay person.

    6) SUPPORTING GROUPS

    The question have been raised about various types of supporting groups for gay persons: are they legitimate, are they helping or hurting people with same-sex attraction? Which of those deserve our support?

    7) AN ISSUE OF BALANCE

    There are some in the religious community that believe contemporary society is becoming increasingly biased towards one option for gay individuals. Same-sex relationships are increasingly percieved as the only proper option. It is believed that that approach is not balanced and/or fair, and that homosexuals should have wider array of options to take into consideration, including mixed orientation relationships and celibacy.

    Others disagree, sometimes quite vehemently, claiming that such a stance is a form of prejudice nurtured by misunderstanding of homosexual inclinations and attractions. They affirm that the only proper option for persons with same-sex attraction is to engage in same-sex relationship, and that pretty much everything else is harmful.

    =====================

    OK, guys, that's pretty much all I can find here as issues of contention. If I missed something, please, add to the list, but I think that everything that has ever been discussed here can fall in one of seven aforementioned categories.

    Now, I personally believe that there are many great issues about homosexuality that haven't been touched in the discussion, issues that cannot be put in any of those seven categories. I find that unfortunate.

    I also believe that all those seven categories can be summed up into one category, and only those who can debate them as one issue are actually worth to be called consistent and truly valuable addition to the discourse. At least that's how I perceive it.

    And that category is:

    HOW DO WE TREAT EACH OTHER? WITH RESPECT OR WITH CONTEMPT? TO BUILD OR TO DESTROY? TO LEARN OR TO "TEACH THE LESSON"? TO ENCOURAGE OR TO BELITTLE?

    Thank you for your attention.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. There is one way, FG. It is through affording rights. (In mormon circles, we would refer to this as 'agency' aka 'god's plan'). In nearly every state in the USA and in nearly every nation, gays are fighting for marriage rights and often civil rights. Sometimes the right not to be killed. People see The Weed Man (I'm going to call him that because I like it more than Joshua) and his cyber entourage as a threat because we are not able to separate their opinions from their political activism. I find this both very unfortunate and very understandable. Unfortunate because I think the Weed Man is one of the most delightful fellows I've ever cyber met. Understandable because he's challenging the notion that orientation is non negotiable. Frankly, for the most part, when people start believing that, it sets us back. And a certain subset of his followers is grasping for any reason to believe that orientation should be negotiable and when it's not, a person should take the crappy hand they're dealt. The solution is to make people see that the opinions of others won't touch them negatively. That can be done through civil rights. Minority rights. Separate the opinions from the political activism. People will have to find their own ways of dealing with churches that accept them conditionally or not at all. I had to deal with this in my life and I dealt with it by walking away. It was not easy. But it had to be done. But let our governments at least be a safe haven. For me it really is that simple.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. MOR straight graduateSeptember 25, 2012 at 1:46 PM

      Tammy, because time and attitudes are changing, you are able to live you lives openly. 20 or 30 years ago, you might just have claimed to be room mates and everyone around you could have / would have turned a blind or dumb eye. So all the kids who were friends with your kids would have missed out on the positive role model right in front of them.

      As you question, in your post, so do you also answer it. You are the example that Changes the attitudes. As are thousands of others. My kids have positive 'living gay since the kids were born' examples in their friends parents and they have 'making the most of it after an MOR failed and the parents divorced' examples in their friends parents.

      I sat my cute 'popular kid' child down as she entered middle school and said "if I ever hear or see you use the phrase "he's so gay", you are in bigger trouble than you can imagine.' She looked all puzzled "why would I do that? ____'s Dad is gay. I like him."

      Winner! This is what we want to 'save' kids from seeing or understanding?!?! I hope not.

      Delete
    5. BQ, there is one fundamental difference between you and me which I do not see how it can be reconciled in foreseeable future, which is OK, as I don't find it necessary to be reconciled. However, I do find it somewhat important to be made manifest.

      You abhor religion. I abhor the government. "Abhor" is too strong of a word? OK, then, you strongly dislike religion. I strongly dislike government. You think that religion may very well be root of all evil? You don't? Well, I still believe that the government is indeed root of all evil. You think that government can and should protect rights? I believe that there is only one entity on the earth which rights should be protected against. And that is government.

      If you read carefully what I just wrote, and I mean very carefully, you may realize that I'm actually accusing you of something. I'm accusing you that you are not an atheist. You are a believer. A very strong one. And your church is called government.

      That's why I strongly believe in principle that the LDS church's stance on Prop 22 is wrong. Instead of fighting against gay marriages, the church should have fought against government's right to define marriage, thank you very much.

      Delete
    6. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    7. FGua:
      Some believing people have a very hard time conceptualizing atheism so they try to say that atheism is a religion. Or secular life is a religion. They are no such thing. Atheism is the absence of religion; nothing more.
      It would be pretty difficult, after hundreds of years of practice, to argue that government should no longer have the right to perform marriages. But assuming we could, how would thay play out? Would the government cease to issue marriage licenses or would they annul all prior marriages? And now that marriage is owned by private religions, I'm sure you understand thay UU and UCC and methodists are all going to have a heyday with their big fat gay weddings. But hey, you asked for it. So does the government recognize all those private marriages or not? I'm sure you understand that they can't discriminate between religions. It really is all or nothing.
      In the end, the effect is the same. You can't stop it.
      People are making this way too complicated. Imagine we both have sons. They're both named Josh. You call your kid Joshua for long. (Relax. I'm just joshua-ing you a little here.) Anyway, we both have kids named Josh(ua). Yours goes to church. Mine is a science geek. Yours wants to be Captain Moroni for Halloween. Mine wants to be Sam Harris. Our children are not the same person just because they share a name! More importantly, nobody ever assumed they were. Nobody has to get upset because we chose the same name for our kids. For crying out loud, I've read letters to Dear Abby on the subject, but normal people don't get territorial about names.
      I'm trying to teach you with a parable here. Like Paul Dunn.
      FG you have a dizzying intellect. But let's keep things simple. Whatever your philosophical thoughts are on God and procreation, they are yours. They are not part of a collective like the bjorge. In a civilized society, we find a common premise and work from there. We have governments, and until such a time as your deity sees fit to take a break from whatever and overthrow our government(s), you and the rest of the deists will have to defer to their edicts since they are what we can see.

      Delete
    8. BQ, sure some religious people have a hard time conceptualizing atheism. Not me. Been there, done that. Remember, I live in a former communist country. I was a staunch atheist up until my mid 20-ties. My father is still a staunch atheist. In my late teens I was, as a poster boy of my generation, invited to join the Communist Party. I didn't, just because at that time it was obvious that everything is falling apart. They were late 80-ties after all. Very late.

      I'm not saying that there are no atheists in the world. I know some of them. I'm just saying that you are not the one.

      You ask how absence of government in marriage business would play out. Then you give an example with UU and UCC and methodists. And I say to that example EXACTLY. And I also say AMEN. Yes, I do ask for it. I am a faithful Mormon and I have no problem with the LDS church running out of members over the issue of homosexuality. Or any other issue, for that matter. It should all be a matter of competition.

      And by the way, not just UU and UCC and methodists. Any private organization should be able to perform marriages, including for example Bjorg Queen International. The more, the merrier.

      Government's business in only to protect what private people agreed upon. Gay marriages should be vehemently protected within the community of UU and UCC and methodists and BQ International. Gay marriages should be vehemently denied within the community of Mormons, Catholics etc. Government should be perfectly neutral in that matter. She is nothing more and nothing less but a monopoly of force. Everything she does ultimately boils down to that one single fact. That is why I am not just highly uncomfortable, but it also scares bejesus out of me when government is involved in marriage business, and the same I feel when someone who claims to be atheist practices government as his religion.

      Sure, I am aware that there are many other things created by the government that makes the marriage business very complicated. It involves this entitlement "right" or that entitlement "right" granted by the government to spouses in marriage. To which I say, dear BQ, kiss all of your "rights" handed out by the government goodbye. They will be soon all gone. The only rights that will stay with you will be rights given to each person by God, or (for true atheists) inherent to the nature of man. How that will play out is of course entirely different topic, which should be discussed elsewhere.

      Delete
    9. FG - I think BQ knows whether or not she is an atheist.
      Also - seems libertarians can be pro-gay-marriage: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:tYkv8WiGuGEJ:stonewall-az-libertarians.info/content/Raico%2520booklet%2520on%2520Gay%2520Rights.pdf+libertarians+for+gay+rights&hl=en&gl=ca&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESg7T94jVh6gYeQmsda2oodpQPz4S5yuLbektgHI89w11voA9L-jY66ysf7shcAtsNLYNU65DnvQ196StryfM4Wzsxdj2Fh5bEU6lcgBxltdy0ihFL9vA5eKLXpezJ9pO9yYn_TB&sig=AHIEtbTnjZu4z-AAN7CEEU-jUY4POGXE9A

      Delete
    10. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    11. Yes, Thank you Anonymous.

      FG, I was not kidding when I said you have a dizzying intellect. Here's the thing though: Sometimes when people are waxing philosophical about this or that, they can get so caught up in trying to come up with a bold, unique, profound idea that they, in the process of trying to do so, can assume too much or take liberties that they ought not. You have some very interesting ideas, but when you suggest that a concept can only he understood through mormonism (which happens to be your religion) or that I am not atheist as I say I am, you have gone too far and it is time for some introspection. A shared idea doesn't have to be extreme to be worth considering. I have, on many occasions, challenged exmormons turned "mainstream" christian who love to talk all day about how glad they are that they finally "found" Christ (unlike when they were Mormon supposedly) It's fine to say: "I feel closer to Christ in this religion" but I have little tolerance for the "Mormons aren't Christian" crowd and I've had numerous occasions to say so. If somebody says they're Christian, they are.
      I've had to keep myself in check in the past and avoid statements. For example, I've had to fight the urge to say to somebody: 'I used to be just like you. I was lying to myself the whole time I was Mormon and SO ARE YOU'. I don't have the right to tell another person that their experience mirrors my own. I just don't know that much.
      In short, you don't have the right to tell me I'm not atheist. I think your comments insisting that I'm not who I claim to be are disrespectful and contentious but I hope Josh won't remove them because frankly I think they should be left as an example of the type of assumptions and liberties we should all try to avoid here.

      Delete
    12. BQ, please, don't get me wrong. My intention is not to persuade you. As I mentioned earlier, there are some fundamental differences between you and me that currently cannot be reconciled, and I have no problem with that. I'm writing it not for you, but for the people who may be reading comments and wondering what is wrong and what is right in the issue of, for example, gay marriages.

      And I just want to say that these days many issues have been made into points of fierce contention whereas only by looking at them from just a slightly different and perhaps not entirely conventional perspective they become non-issues.

      Of course, not everyone likes that their favorite point of contention is turned into a non-issue.

      If you are hurt by me calling you a believer rather than an atheist, forget about it. I called you a believer to make my point for those who have ears to hear. As for you, BQ, you are an atheist just much as Josh and myself are gay.

      Delete
    13. I'm not at all sure what you mean about things becoming non-issues. I think your opinions about whether or not being gay is "wrong" will become a nonissue once the government (specifically the United States government in this case) takes away the ability of people of all religions to withhold rights in the name of "upholding" their religious views. Not to sound like a broken record, but until that time, I will have a very difficult time not blanketing all conservitives, particularly those who are opposed to homosexuality, into one amalgamous archetype or characture whose primary goal is to withhold civil rights from those who have different religious views. Because where this issue is concerned, there is no agree to disagree. At the end of the day, one group has protective rights and one does not. And the group with protective rights would not lose those rights were the other group to also receive the same rights. So I really find that I don't have much room to compromise in this area.
      As for "religion", I have convictions. Most people have convictions. I think that sometimes people put more value in "religion" than they do in "convictions" and that's unfortunate. I don't often hear people express that all convictions ought to be respected, but I do regularly hear people express that all religious views are deserving of respect. Recently in fact. I don't think there's much of a difference, frankly.
      I'm not hurt by you calling me a believer. I'm disputing it based on fact. And I won't forget about it because it makes me feel irritated; I'll disregard it because it's untrue. I don't think there's any difference between you calling me a believer for the benefit of others with "ears to hear" (whatever that means) and you telling me I'm a believer for my own information. But I'm glad that ultimately we can agree that I'm an atheist.

      Delete
    14. I'm still not clear on one thing: In your opinion, if the government were to stop issuing marriage licenses and performing ceremonies,
      1) what would happen with all the preexisting marriages? Would they still be valid in the eyes of the government?
      2) Would any church marriages be considered "valid" in the eyes of the government for the sake of tax purposes and such.
      3) If so, which marriages would be valid in the eyes of the government?
      4) Would churches choosing to offer gay or polygamous marriages or marriages to minors also be valid in the eyes of the government?
      5) On the topic of polygamous marriages, if a man is allowed to have 5 wives and one of his wives has 5 husbands, would that man be "married" to his wife's husbands?
      6) If all the different churches are to set their own rules regarding who can get married and who can't, how would this affect laws such as the law that one spouse doesn't have to testify against the other or the law that immigration preference is given to those who have citizen spouses? (I realize these things might not apply in your country, but in America we do have laws regarding testifying in court and immigration so I'm wondering if those who advocate that marriages be given "back" to the churches have considered these logistical issues.)

      On the topic of giving marriage "back", I'm not entirely sure that churches ever "owned" marriage to begin with. If they did, was it "owned" by one church or a collection of churches? But to me that's like saying that churches had an "idea" and therefore the government had no right to copy that idea. I don't know if I agree with that. I might take issue with copying direct passages out of a ceremony. (It sure made the freemasons raging mad when Joseph Smith did it.) But as for marriage itself, the term "marriage" is defined as "a social union or legal contract between people called spouses that creates kinship." So I really don't think at all that there's any reason to believe that the government doesn't have a right to perform marriages for its citizens. I think the government probably shouldn't invoke God's name in said ceremonies. Not because churches "own" the right to perform marriages in God's name, but because I feel governments ought to remain neutral as to the existence of deity in the absence of proof and there hasn't been any real proof (which is not to say people should't believe).

      These are my thoughts. I hope I haven't expressed too many. I would like an answer to questions 1 through 6.

      Delete
    15. BQ, I respect your questions, but by asking them, you are luring me into a discussion which I do not find appropriate to start in the comment section of Josh Weed's blog.

      Let me just say this. I study wide range of historical and contemporary issues, and I'm becoming increasingly convinced that for whatever issue, situation or a problem we put a trust on government to resolve, we would end up being sorely disappointed at best and massively slaughtered at worst.

      Don't ask me to explicate here what I mean by that, because, again, this is not time nor place.

      I bring this up SOLELY to present my case in the gay marriage issue. It may make some people think, others disagree, yet others angry or whatever. I personally find the government part of the problem, not part of the solution. If you disagree, fine, let's go about our own business or let's continue the discussion someplace else.

      Again, the government will never ever in a million years, by whatever it's action or legislation, make gay people equal to straight people. The sense of equality should come out of people's hearts. And no matter what propaganda in it's almost infinite varieties claim, the government ultimately is NOT and has NEVER BEEN in the business of hearts, but only in the business of the monopoly of brute force, period.

      Delete
  40. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tammy, I think it does matter no matter, because each of us has some issue with homosexuality. Either we are gay, or we are uncomfortable in their presence, or are uncomfortable about how they are treated.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. Tammy, that's actually not difficult. But I would argue that your expressed desire to understand the ones who are uncomfortable with gays is rhetorical rather than genuine. If I understand it correctly, you are actually saying that you cannot possibly understand them. Well, guess what. I'm gay, and I used to be uncomfortable in the presence of myself. And sometimes even in presence of other gay people. Why? Because I didn't know it. I was clueless and scared. And there is nothing wrong with that as long as one's desire to understand actually exists, and then is genuine rather than rhetorical.

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    5. Tammy, I had a lesbian friend several years ago(more of an acquaintance) who said that her female friends felt worried that she would be attracted to them and then offended if she wasn't! LOL. Kind of a crappy situation to be in. It made me laugh though.

      Delete
    6. I believe there are several reasons why would someone be uncomfortable with gays.

      One of the old fashioned stereotypes about homosexuals is that they are promiscuous predators, so the main fear used to be (and with some people still is) that they would seduce an innocent person (particularly a young man or woman, one's son or daughter) into a quick affair. That stereotype waned not because of a change in attitude towards gay people, but because promiscuity and to a degree predatory sexual behavior has become generally accepted and acceptable among general public.

      This stereotype has waned among Mormons also because there are unquestionable reports of gay persons who have kept the law of chastity their whole lives and have made a great effort to remain faithful to the teachings of the church, but still experience strong same-sex attraction.

      Another reason why I believe people are uncomfortable with gays is simply because they cannot comprehend how a gay person can feel the way he or she feels. For a straight individual, thinking about sex with a member of the opposite sex is more or less pleasurable, but when that kind of thinking is directed towards members of the same sex, the thought might be highly uncomfortable, or even repugnant or disgusting. They have difficulties with putting themselves in other people's shoes.

      Then there could be purely religious reasons. Some people have a strong belief that homosexuality either in thought or in deed or both is one of the greatest sins there is. For them, to be in a close proximity to a gay person is like being close to Sodom & Gomorrah. They cannot comprehend that for many if not most gay people same-sex attraction is a given. They are often hit by reality when a member of their family come out of the closet.

      Then of course there are those who, as you mentioned, cover up their own homosexuality with fierce antagonism towards homosexuals.

      Delete
    7. I think to some extent it's unfamiliarity that makes the uncomfortable. It could also be related to a fear that you may or may not be attracted to them. Just because they themselves are straight, doesn't mean they wouldn't still like to be found attractive... It could also be linked to some ambiguity in their own sexuality. For some it's likely a strong moral conviction, that your decision is biologically wrong (I am not asserting that conviction merely stating it does exist for some people). I don't think it's hard to understand what would make some people uncomfortable around homosexuals given those considerations. I don't have to agree with them to understand where they are coming from.

      Delete
    8. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    9. What does it mean if I'm not gay but I am attracted to Rachel Maddow? Not in a sexual way. Just in like I want to sit and cuddle with her and have her read the New York Times to me?

      Delete
    10. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    11. Tammy, as a gay person, I actually find it sometimes difficult to not just say, but to actually explain the following: "I'm gay and yes, I'm attracted to you, but hey, don't worry, I'm self-disciplined."

      And the answer is (with a scare in guy's eyes): "Hmmm. OK." And I see the wheels in his brain going like: "Am I sure about that?"

      Delete
    12. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    13. To answer some of the stereotypical questions of why people are uncomfortable I have seen first hand. I am will break down FG comment (which was great btw and is so true) and tell you about experience I have seen and have to illustrate why sometimes it can get uncomfortable.

      1. "One of the old fashioned stereotypes about homosexuals is that they are promiscuous predators..."

      I use to work in a hospital (night shift, UGHH) in which there was 2 gay men working with me. All they ever talked about was SEX SEX and more sex. It would be every time I would be sitting at the nurses station, their latest conquest of male "yum yum'. They would also start down a guys but as patients families would walk by. Let me tell you it made us ALL uncomfortable for how predatory they were.


      Another story that happened to my son. I had a really good gay friend (guy) who said to me one day, that my son (my son was 14 at the time) was HOT and he would totally lick him up and take him down. You should have seen the darts in my eyes when he said that. I will say I decided to make a judgement call and remove this pervert from my facebook friends list, told this man what for and to never come around my son again, and how sick he was to even talk about my son like that let alone a minor. Do you think that would not resinate with me about gay men? I have worked really hard to not only forgive this person for coming onto my son like that but to not feel critically about the gay community at large. This was inline with the predatory nature that FG talked about.

      2. "Another reason why I believe people are uncomfortable with gays is simply because they cannot comprehend how a gay person can feel the way he or she feels."

      He is right about this one. Straight people have a hard time seeing more then straight. Likewise the gay person has trouble see more then gay. If it was about love would it matter if a gay person loved someone of the opposite sex? If it truly was about love and intimacy. If its more then about sex, couldn't a gay person fall in love with someone from the opposite sex and be happy. Josh has proven it can happen. Are they separate? sexual desire and true intimacy?

      3. "Then there could be purely religious reasons. Some people have a strong belief that homosexuality either in thought or in deed or both is one of the greatest sins there is."

      I am sure their are people who believe this way, but I think most religious people just consider a sexual sin just like fornication, pornography, sexual addictions etc now a days.

      Overall I think a lot of people have trouble with it because it is so very open. I am not one to sit around talking about my sex life but some (not all) ruin it for the rest of the gay community with the flabbout rhetoric that comes out of some gay men/lesbian women's mouth. On the opposite side I have friends who are lesbian and/or gay that are respectful, live a normal life without all the rhetoric and flabboutancy (sp) and it makes me feel more comfortable with these friends then other gay friends.

      Just a perspective....

      Delete
    14. New edit...... sorry so many

      To answer some of the stereotypical questions of why people are uncomfortable I have seen first hand. I am will break down FG comment (which was great btw and is so true) and tell you about experience I have seen and have to illustrate why sometimes it can get uncomfortable.

      1. "One of the old fashioned stereotypes about homosexuals is that they are promiscuous predators..."

      I use to work in a hospital (night shift, UGHH) in which there was 2 gay men working with me. All they ever talked about was SEX SEX and more sex. It would be every time I would be sitting at the nurses station, they would talk about their latest conquest of male "yum yum'. They would also stare down guys coming into the hospital and make sick comments. Let me tell you it made us ALL uncomfortable for how predatory they were.


      Another story happened to my son. I had a really good gay friend (guy) who said to me one day, that my son (my son was 14 at the time) was HOT and he would totally lick him up and take him down. You should have seen the darts in my eyes when he said that. I will say I decided to make a judgement call and remove this pervert from my facebook friends list, told this man what for and to never come around my son again, and how sick he was to even talk about my son like that let alone a minor. Do you think that would not resinate with me about gay men? I have worked really hard to not only forgive this person for coming onto my son like that but to not feel critically about the gay community at large. This was inline with the predatory nature that FG talked about.

      2. "Another reason why I believe people are uncomfortable with gays is simply because they cannot comprehend how a gay person can feel the way he or she feels."

      He is right about this one. Straight people have a hard time seeing more then straight. Likewise the gay person has trouble see more then gay. If it was about love would it matter if a gay person loved someone of the opposite sex? If it truly was about love and intimacy. If its more then about sex, couldn't a gay person fall in love with someone from the opposite sex and be happy. Josh has proven it can happen. Are they separate? sexual desire and true intimacy?

      3. "Then there could be purely religious reasons. Some people have a strong belief that homosexuality either in thought or in deed or both is one of the greatest sins there is."

      I am sure their are people who believe this way, but I think most religious people just consider a sexual sin just like fornication, pornography, sexual addictions etc now a days.

      Overall I think a lot of people have trouble with it because it is so very open. I am not one to sit around talking about my sex life but some (not all) ruin it for the rest of the gay community with the flabbout rhetoric that comes out of some gay men/lesbian women's mouth. On the opposite side I have friends who are lesbian and/or gay that are respectful, live a normal life without all the rhetoric and flabboutancy (sp) and it makes me feel more comfortable with these friends then other gay friends.

      Just a perspective....

      Delete
    15. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    16. But sexually predatory behavior is even more common with straight men (not that being straight makes men more likely to be predators, but men who target female victims are more tolerated). Yet, almost no one becomes uncomfortable around straight men as a result. I suggest thinking about the reasons why that is.

      Delete
    17. Tammy-I have never really felt uncomfortable being around gay people. But I have felt uncomfortable about expressing my opinions of gay marriage because I was afraid that gay's would then judge me as bigoted, hateful, stupid, brainwashed, uneducated, unamerican, idiotic mormon, etc. Which for the most case I have been called anytime I have tried to discuss this issue with many gay people. It is only until this blog that I have felt at peace about being able to discuss this topic in an open way without feeling like someone will automatically jump to conclusions about who I am.

      I truly appreciate being able to do that and also being able to learn about what it means to be gay without feeling like we have to jump down people's throats.

      Delete
    18. Just another note on this topic...people are always afraid of the "other". That can be lots of different kinds of groups. Gays, for a long time, where the other. The people no one knew about, and thus did not understand. Once you get to know someone who is gay, and realize you have more in common than not, it becomes different. You realize you really are not so different.

      In reality, we are really more the same than different. I have some gay friends, so maybe that's why it's not so weird to me. And we appreciate each other, even if we disagree because we also are able to appreciate and see the good in each other.

      Not everyone has that opportunity because being gay was not able to be discussed much. Now that more people are talking about it there is starting to be a shift.

      Delete
  41. MOR straight graduateSeptember 25, 2012 at 8:50 AM

    Tammy, it matters to me because I am a straight person whose heart was broken and whose life was derailed, almost to the point of suicide by a church fueled mixed orientation relationship. Josh and FG Mormon are currently MOR success stories. I am an MOR failure story. We did not have kids, but many kids are born into MORs and my opinion is that most of them are likely to live in an unhappy home that is statistically likely to end in divorce. Friends don't let friends enter MORs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  42. MOR straight graduateSeptember 25, 2012 at 8:53 AM

    Tammy, it matters to me because it hurts to see any fellow man or woman told they are wrong for being who they are. Because it upsets me that gay teens feel so much rejection they kill themselves. It is a human rights issue and it is huge.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  43. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Josh - I thought you were very articulate and clear when you spoke on Sunday. You may have felt disorganized, but it in no way came off that way. It was great to see you and Lolly!

    ReplyDelete
  45. Sorry this cannot be attached to the original points…for some reason my computer will not allow me to reply like that. So I hope you guys will see this.
    Also, again, I’d like to emphasize that I don’t have a real fight for or against evergreen. Or affirmation. Or any group really. Honestly right now, looking into what both of you have mentioned is the most that I’ve ever read about evergreen, trying to get a better understanding of the organization as a whole.


    MOR

    I find methodology quite important since it is also tied directly into underlying assumption in therapy as well. From what I read on evergreen’s site, “curing” homosexuality did not seem to be the entire focus of its organization. Not to say it wasn’t there. It was. But that it had a number of more fundamental focus on some of the false beliefs and assertions about oneself that are common themes with those that are LDS and gay that I think were actually pretty positive and healthy. So on these things I could easily find things supportable. The change in sexuality from gay-to-straight almost read off to me like willy wonka and the chocolate factory. In this, I mean that it was stated as a possibility, that it could happen, you could get the golden ticket per se. But you’re more likely to get chocolate instead. “Chocolates” are generally the other positive things that can come from their group (better regard for self, less sense of shame, better sense of self/value within their religious community, etc). The problem I see is that golden ticket could easily become the focus for many who join the organization/those within the organization. I’m taking a semi-educated guess that those who had the hardest time in the group were those that were honed in, for various reasons (familial pressure, personal desire, ideology, etc) on getting that golden ticket. When they continue to try method after method, and still only receive chocolate they’ll probably re-deal with feelings of failure, disappointment, shame, isolation, etc. From what I read that to me is their biggest weakness.
    Also I do think change in sexuality is possible. I think major 180’s are probably extremely rare, but that varying change within the spectrum of sexuality (whether gay/bi/straight and it’s varying intensity) probably could. I would still assume change in sexual orientation (even minor change) is still rare, but I’m hesitant to negate any possibility that it can because of personal stories that I’ve read or personally heard. I generally take people for their word. And what I’ve heard is that therapy can help them navigate their sexual feelings. I haven’t heard any that indicate change was a direct result of therapy as well.


    BQ, (so every time I write this I think of DQ and have a sudden craving for a soft serve ;))
    My major concern with what you’ve written (especially about it being a suicide mill) is evidence. Not anecdotal evidence. That’s a dime a dozen for either side. There’s things I disagree with, from reading Evergreen’s page (or think have potential flaws) but I tend to want it evidence based rather than anecdotal oriented. Many of your concerns to me seem to exceed what I can find (for or against evergreen) when it comes to actual numbers/stats.
    Also “‘diminish’ the gay” doesn’t seem like necessarily accurate description to their actual goals. It assumes a diminishing of person as opposed to orientation. This is a smaller concern but I think still important. In order for anything to be accurately critiqued, IMO, entails accurately understanding their position, claims, and assumptions…then indicate potential problems and benefits that come from that view. Every controversial, current-day view I’ve ever read has its lists of pros and cons. Understanding that on both sides, to me, gives the best opportunities to improve and change in the future.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks of Dairy Queen. Bjorge King makes me think of Burger King.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. MOR straight graduateSeptember 26, 2012 at 1:32 PM

      Tasha,

      Thanks for the response. You consider methodology quite important. I don't, partly because I personally went through more than one methodology/doctrine/approach whatever with my former partner in his quest for straightness. And I read every tract printed (this was back before the internet, LOL!) and I've read most of the websites since then. The important thing to me is the 'promise'. I do like your Willy Wonka Analogy!

      Let's accept/assume that most people are going to a place like this (rather than to their local, way more affordable, way easier to get to, counselor) for the golden ticket, the prize that is not offered elsewhere. Those consolation chocolates will no more sustain the seeker than chocolates and candy ALONE would make a body physically healthy.

      You say ::I’m taking a semi-educated guess that those who had the hardest time in the group were those that were honed in, for various reasons (familial pressure, personal desire, ideology, etc) on getting that golden ticket.::(Please, trust me on this, I have BTDT, they and their loving entourages are the ONLY ones in the group. There are no others. In the unlikely event there are, so what? We are not talking about others on this blog, but about gay people struggling with their gayness}:: When they continue to try method after method, and still only receive chocolate ::(Yes! You get it! They do try and try and try and they do only get chocolate!)::they’ll probably re-deal with feelings of failure, disappointment, shame, isolation, etc.::(Exactly!):: From what I read that to me is their biggest weakness.::(THIS is where we disagree: It is not their weakness to me, it is their gayness. Which, to me, is part of who they are, not something they can change.)

      They are going to these groups because they want to change their sexuality. They are not trying to change their intellect (school and college and libraries help with that) Or their spirituality (assuming they are getting that through church) or their physiques (Gyms and the great outdoors). There is one part of their life they are missing out on - love and companionship. They live in societies / churches that tell them the love and companionship they were born seeking is 'wrong' so they try to fix it.

      You say ::Also I do think change in sexuality is possible. (Josh says he does not believe this. I don't believe it. I used to, and in that belief trekked around these groups getting nothing but ever more sickening chocolate) I think major 180’s are probably extremely rare, (No kidding! There is such a condition as sexual fluidity, but even with this the person does not control it, so back to where we started!) but that varying change within the spectrum of sexuality (whether gay/bi/straight and it’s varying intensity) probably could. (Hmm... varying change... I am unconvinced. I think we are who we are but we can hide that form ourselves for a long time. If we grow up in a family/church/society that completely condemns us for being L G T Q or whatever, we will deny it to ourselves for a long time. So the 35 YO married man coming out to his wife is not so much a change as a personal revelation to me) I would still assume change in sexual orientation (even minor change) is still rare, (Rarer than a unicorn) but I’m hesitant to negate any possibility that it can because of personal stories that I’ve read or personally heard. (PLEASE TELL MORE!!! I am often hearing of these second hand personal stories on here, but no follow up details. What can I tell you? 25 years ago you might have seen me and my ex testify about the wonderful work that had been done. Not any more. I'm married to another man and so is he!) I generally take people for their word. (Which is why it is painful when the great testimony is not being lived behind closed doors) And what I’ve heard is that therapy can help them navigate their sexual feelings. I haven’t heard any that indicate change was a direct result of therapy as well. ( Nor have I. And I have been looking for a long time)

      Delete
  46. Tammy, just so you know, I did watch your video as well. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  47. BQ- you said- "People see The Weed Man (I'm going to call him that because I like it more than Joshua) and his cyber entourage as a threat because we are not able to separate their opinions from their political activism."
    I think this hits on a very salient point. And it runs both ways. The activism surrounding gay issues has relied a great deal on a dogma of immutability as it relates to orientation (probably to capitalize on the connection to other civil rights movements). The thinking seems to be, "if we acknowledge any possibility of fluidity, than our whole quest for equality will be thwarted". I think this is a tactical error. And it has unintended consequences. Hence, many people would love to silence Josh, because they perceive his story doing damage to their cause. But what does that remind you of- the idea that someone should either be dishonest about or hide their truth because it makes people uncomfortable, or doesn't gel with the dogma feeding their suppositions?
    We seem to be getting that sexuality exists on a huge spectrum. Heck, I can't even keep up with whatever new letter is being added on to LGBTQ... but as soon as the politics start, we have to shut up those who don't fit the mold- the one that will sell this as the next equality front in a post racial world. We should have equality and the right to self determine because we are people. Period. Not because we pass muster as a members of a particular group.
    This is what people are not getting about Josh- why his story is resonating with so many. And why it will do more good than harm- He is telling us the truth about some hard issues. Sexuality is complicated, it is about more than who you want to have sex with, it exists both inside and outside the worlds of nature, nurture, intent, self-concept, and much more. It is not a fortune teller that predestines our choices. And the sickness that surrounds so much of our sexual lives (hetero- and homo- and bi- and pan- and a-) is born of shame and secrecy. As soon as we start to accept ourselves in the light of day, our choices look a lot different. And we might find that we have more choices than we thought. Sometimes we have to choose between alternatives that will both leave wounds, but if we can examine our truest desires, maybe we can come out healed and whole. It is just more binary and absolutist thinking to expect that the only use for such a story is to bludgeon some poor gay kid into compliance. The person who would wield it in that way would find something else to use in its absence. That it can only be seen in terms of its value or liability to this or that interest group is a poverty of human understanding. (And maybe even Evergreen and Affirmation exist outside this world of pure demons and angels we like to concoct for ourselves.)
    Let's all tell our stories. We'll all feel better because we'll all discover that none of us are particularly typical. We are all equally weird, damaged, striving, failing, transcending. Maybe than we'll feel more comfortable loving those who are different than us, because we'll know that everyone is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, I hear you. I hear the hypocrisy and it I'm not at all comfortable with it. In the end, I believe that it's not our place to judge whether a person is "legitimately gay" (how's that for a buzz term?)
      I know somebody who came out in their 30s who had dated men and was almost as surprised as I was. Does that make it my place to question whether that person was legitimately gay? To me, most of the time, it's not a choice. But more than that, even if it were a choice, it still wouldn't matter. To me, there simply is nothing wrong with a woman loving a woman or a man loving a man, both sexually and nonsexually.
      If a person truly wants to change their path from gay to straight-ish, I can only hope that it comes from a place of true desire and not coersion. As I said in an earlier post, sometimes you have to convince somebody they're sick befor you can sell them a cure. Within the LDS culture, gayness is just plain unacceptable. I want to be open minded. But I have to ask the uncomfortable question of Josh and those like him: If the church were to change their policy tomorrow, what would you do? I believe that Josh truly loves his wife and children (who wouldn't?) and I can't picture him being the type who would leave his family. But for the rest of people living in mixed orientation marriages: If the church said, tomorrow, that being gay is okay, would you continue to want to change? Would you breathe a sigh of relief? Would you pursue a same sex relationship? Would you want to?
      Maybe some think this is a ridiculous thing to suggest- surely the church would never change their position on that issue.
      But I'm sure that many people in 1977 thought that the church would never change to accomodate black priesthood holders.

      Delete
    2. ^ like.

      Great points. The whole discussion involves very complicated feelings/beliefs/attractions. I love hearing other perspectives on this issue that has been a concern of mine for years. I am thoroughly grateful for the insights and opinions and perspectives that people have raised. I, too, feel that the more open the discussion, the better off everyone is. That is why I appreciate so much Josh and Lolly's story. I have never before heard an MOR perspective. I've only ever learned about someone being in an MOR after the MOR failed. It's a great boon to the discussion to have an MOR that is succeeding being represented.

      Delete
    3. The ^like was for Charles' comment. Not that I have anything against yours, BQ, I just wanted the first comment on that comment and your nimble fingers won out! :)

      Delete
    4. Charles, what is a 'post racial world'?

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    6. I think that maybe why we usually only hear about the MOR's that fail and not those that succeed is because people seem to want to keep MOR relationships private that are in them. Although when they fail, one person is usually "coming out" and it can no longer be kept just between close family and friends.

      I remember telling my husband about Josh being Gay and he said "Oh, that makes sense". I think at some point video's of our childhood need to be posted (I am his sister). That should quell those saying he isn't gay :D

      Delete
  48. can't add this as a reply for some reason. But if you mean by 'post racial world' that racism is no longer a problem in the U.S. that is most definitely not true.

    ReplyDelete
  49. And just to reiterate - marriage did not start out as a religious ceremony. I talk about that quite a bit several comments up.
    I find it ironic - some religious people are quite worried that their rights will be taken away but seem to have no issue with taking away the rights of others.

    ReplyDelete