Quote:
|
Originally Posted by outlier
Not sure how we're defining apologists here, so maybe I'm not one, but my main contention isn't that Everyone Should Be Carnal, but rather that Mormons should stop being jackasses toward people who are different from them. Including those who think acting gay is a-okay.
I'm totally with you on the standpoint that morality exists and just because you *want* to do something, that doesn't mean you necessarily should. OTOH, most of the comments I ever hear from LDS isn't that "gays are in a tough situation and we should try to help them out where possible", but rather "gays are WRONG and should be mocked and shunned and considered as though they're completely devoid of worthwhile human content".
There are more than two ways to address the issue and it bugs me that people seem to want to choose up sides and form teams around the two extreme positions rather than address reasonable realities.
|
I couldn't agree any more with you. I think you have laid out my feelings on the subject exactly. LDS people don't realize how destructive and alienating the constant gay-bashing is to LDS members who struggle with homosexuality. My sincere hope is that all those who have contributed to driving homsexual LDS members away from the church are someday held accountable for their sin.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Archaea
Sex, in proper confines, is very spiritual and moving. Outside of that, it's just getting your rocks off. I'm not very sympathetic about a gay's "need" to get his rocks off. Do it on his time but don't claim any rights to it.
|
I'm having a hard time understanding the hatred by church members of homosexuals. I think you kind of highlight what I think is the inconsistency in the prevailing LDS attitude. The hate is all about the sacredness of sex. Homosexuals are "unnatural" and "perverted". Yet, the homosexual "movement" (of which Mormons are so terrified) isn't about allowing men to hump each other freely on the city streets. The social changes that I see happening (i.e., domestic partnerships, gay marriages, gay adoptions) are aimed at allowing homosexuals enjoy the social benefits to this point permitted only to heterosexual couples.
Archaea, do you not see the inconsistency? Homsexuals are saying, "Let us get married and have committed relationships and families," while Mormons are saying, "Keep your sexual perversions to yourself!" It's not the right to have gay sex in the privacy of their homes that they're trying to get - they'll do that regardless, just like unmarried heterosexuals will do it, as well.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Archaea
And, I imagine, most of us are pragmatic, in that as far as we associate with gays for non-sexual purposes, we treat them based on their merits.
|
But you don't, because you continually reference their sexual orientation. Face it - if you've got a gay file clerk, he's not the "file clerk" - he's the "gay file clerk." Why do LDS homosexuals uniformly feel ostracized if we're treating them based on their merits, rather than based on their sexual orientation?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Archaea
But gay sex is not worthy of respect. It is intellectually repugnant to common sense, rejects the physical marital sacrament for which it is, and ignores the blessed differences communing betweeh the very delightfully different sexes.
|
Do Mormons generally feel the same way about anal heterosexual sex? I bet (if you work with non-LDS) you work with heterosexuals who participate in anal sex, too. I know what you're thinking: "But they don't flaunt it!" Seriously, have you ever had a gay man come up to you and say, "Hey, know what? I just banged my boyfriend in the ass, and boy was it great!" No, I'd bet my house that you've never had that happen. You simply know that's how it's done - if someone's gay, you assume they're having anal sex with another man. (I'd also bet that you've had a heterosexual man come up to you and say something similar about a woman - were you horrified and nauseated?)
Is anal sex between an unmarried man and woman any less of a sin than anal sex between two unmarried men? What about anal sex between a married man and woman? Between two married men? It's only the homosexuals who receive the derision and scorn. Simply because it's easier to discern that they must be doing it. Is that really fair or reasonable?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Archaea
I do have interactions with lesbians, which has been most pleasant, as no sexual tension there, it was professional and we discuss matters of general interest. I render professional service, they pay and we move on. A great relationship. I sense a lesbian relations is less about sex and more about a relationship with somebody who emotionally anticipates another's needs. That part makes sense. I don't agree with it, but it makes a little bit of rational sense. You could have that without the sex.
|
You imply that there is tension between you and homosexual men. The fact that you don't have the same problem with lesbians suggests to me that the difference lies in your own prejudice and distaste for male homosexual sex. If a male homosexual seeks "a relationship with somebody who emotionally anticipates another's needs," do you have a problem with that? Or do you believe that with homosexual men, it's just all about the anal sex? Could the "sense" you have about lesbians as compared to gay men be more a function of your own prejudices (not meant to be used in a pejorative term) rather than any true feeling conveyed by them?
You can tell I have strong feelings about this - I have a gay brother, and I've seen the difficulties he's gone through as a direct result of the LDS attitude toward homosexuals - it's actually acted to drive him farther away from the church. It's destructive and un-Christlike, and I hate it.