Thanks to Ian over at War is peace; freedom is slavery; ignorance is strength, I came across this article from five years ago when President Hinckley was interviewed regarding politics.
This statement stood out:
We are not anti-gay. We are pro-family. I want to emphasize that.
I know many members who do not see a difference between the two. Is there a difference? Can someone by pro-family without being anti-gay?
I know several gay men and women who have families with their significant others. Two of those families have adopted kids that “traditional” families” didn’t want or couldn’t care for. Theey are Christlike in every way. I’m pro-family of any stripe.
Frankly Hinckley’s comments are a prime example of an anti-gay speaker refusing to take responsibiity for his bigotry. To teach and preach about the joys of marriage and child rearing is pro-family. To use the government to enforce laws that deprive gay and lesbian people of equality under the law is anti-gay. How exactly is it pro-family to allow hospitals to refuse gay people the right to see their loved ones because they are not “family?” Unfortunately, Hinckley and church are anti-gay.
I’m the penultimate anon, but in response to the last comment, I think it would be more accurate to say the Church is welcoming of asexual people than to say the Church accepts gays.
The Church accepts everyone, we are all, gay or heterosexual, children of God. As long as we strive to obey the commandments we can participate fully.
I don’t think the church’s political involvement in gay marriage law was really about “using the government to enforce laws that deprive gays and lesbians of equality” but rather merely to keep the government from telling US what we must accept as the definition of marriage? After all, what right does the government have to do this in the first place? Why can’t polygamists and incestual couples have “equal rights” under the law for that matter?
So I guess it also depends on what our actual human “rights” are. Sure, there needs to be a way for the government to determine “joint property” (for tax purposes, or division of property when it is no longer joint, or “alimony” etc)and “joint custody” but is having the government recognize your marriage as a “marriage” really a “human right”? Or should it really be just another religious priviledge to be determined by each religion as they see fit, (eg. baptism, a temple recommend, holding the preisthood etc.)
I haven’t seen the church oppose equal tax benefits for gay couples, NOR has there been any legal opposition to gays having custody rights of children. I bet if the government completely withdrew from defining marrige in any way, we probably wouldn’t see any opposition from the church. Something to think about….
I think it’s possible to support the proposition without being 100% behind all aspects (ie the hospitals). I believe it’s possible to be pro-family without being anti-gay, but I suspect that gays disagree.
I do think it’s wrong for an individual or an institution to insist that the only people allowed to even think sexual thoughts or have sexual experiences are straight people. According to the Church, if one is gay, he/she is condemned to a sexless (i.e. asexual) life forever to be in God’s good graces. So the Church accepts asexual gay members but is horribly condemning of those who want to live a wholistic adult existence, even if with one partner.
At the same time, I’ve known many people in the Church who are adulterous, have been married multiple times, abuse children, etc. and are in various stages of repentance. Yet for someone who is gay and wants to have a committed relationship with a significant other, even as a LEGALLY MARRIED couple, there is no “repentance.”
I do thaink that’s hateful.
Anonymous at 22:47, referring to the government prescribing the definition of marriage, said, “After all, what right does the government have to do this in the first place?”
Governments HAVE TO define marriage. Marriage is a contract recognized by governments. It is NEVER a mere agreement between two people, but always an agreement that two people make with a higher authority. If governments recognize marriage, they must define it. If they don’t define it, they can’t recognize it. They can’t just recognize anything that anyone wants to call a marriage as a marriage; there must be limits to what is a marriage and what is not.
Governments recognize marriage because, in their judgment, marriage creates societal benefits (including, but not limited to, more peaceful and orderly conduct among citizens and a likelier-to-be-stable environment for the care of children). In return for the benefits conferred on society by marriage, and in order to encourge the creation of those benefits, governments offer incentives for marriage. They offer benefits that can be had by married people and not by the unmarried. Among such incentives are legal rights of inheritance and greater ease in establishing citizenship for aliens who are married to citizens.
Outside the province of government, our societies–our private institutions–also offer incentives to the married. These often arise out of tradition. The traditions are based on the same premise as the laws–that the married are deserving of special rights because they confer special benefits on society. An example of such incentives is the limited right to visit hospital patients.
In order for those incentives to be granted, there has to be some limitation to the definition of “marriage.” If there is no definition then there is no way to incentivize.
President Hinckley and the Church as an institution have chosen to play a role in advocating for the continuation of our traditional definition of marriage as being limited to unions between members of the opposite sex. President Hinckley apparently believes that the societal benefits of such marriages (as a group) differ from, and are superior to, the societal benefits of same-sex unions (as a group). If you want to call this being anti-gay, I guess you can, but I’m not convinced.
President Hinckley also apparently believes that by retaining our traditional definition of marriage, we will tend to help and support righteous choices by individuals. He apparently believes that including same-sex unions in the definition of marriage will tend to encourage people to engage in homosexual conduct–that is, it will encourage people to sin. Now, you may also believe that calling homosexual conduct “sin” is being “anti-gay.” If you do, there’s no way to change your mind through logical argument. But again, I’m not convinced.
“I think he was referring to the context of the article where President Hinckley said, “we were actively involved [in proposition 22]”.”
Oh ok.
To Anonymous:
“At the same time, I’ve known many people in the Church who are adulterous, have been married multiple times, abuse children, etc. and are in various stages of repentance. Yet for someone who is gay and wants to have a committed relationship with a significant other, even as a LEGALLY MARRIED couple, there is no “repentance.”
I do thaink that’s hateful.”
Legally married doesn’t mean married in the eyes of God. If marriage is going to extend into the eternities, then it needs to have the CHANCE to do so. Just because people still shoudl be loved and have the right to choose doesn’t make their actions wrong. Repenting means to NOT do the action again. If someone is adulterous, a molester, what have you it is only if they REPENT that they can participate fully in the Church. Since participating in a homosexual lifestyle is contrary to the Gospel (even if “legally married”)then they havent’ been through repentance. The actual act of homosexual behaviour, whether in a marriage or not prohibits repentance. Just because it is legal doesn’t make it morally right.
Even saying this, I do not personally judge anyone who is gay, having known many homosexual individuals in my life, men and women, I don’t at all presume to know their minds or judge their decisions. I personally don’t agree with the homosexual lifestyle, but I still accept their right to so choose.
Anonymous at 7:40 said: “According to the Church, if one is gay, he/she is condemned to a sexless (i.e. asexual) life forever to be in God’s good graces. So the Church accepts asexual gay members but is horribly condemning of those who want to live a wholistic adult existence, even if with one partner.”
Let’s try a parallel:
According to the Church, if one desires to commit adultery, he is condemned to a sexually limited life (i.e., monogamous) life in order to be in God’s good graces. So the Church accepts would-be adulterers who suppress their desires, but is horribly condemning of those who want to live a full adult existence, even if it means committing adultery with only one extramarital partner.
Yep. Both statements are true.
Anonymous also says: “Yet for someone who is gay and wants to have a committed relationship with a significant other, even as a LEGALLY MARRIED couple, there is no “repentance.”
Of course, that’s not true. There is repentance. The person who feels a desire to sin (by engaging in homosexual conduct) can refuse to indulge that desire, turn away from such conduct and keep the commandments. He/she can seek and receive the power of Christ’s atonement. There is just as much repentance for this as for any other sin.
But of course, by “repentance” what you really mean is “opportunity to commit a desired sin without condemnation.” And it’s true that the Church doesn’t offer that–not for homosexual sin, not for adultery, not for any other desire to commit sin.
In saying all this, I don’t wish to trivialize the feelings of those who have homosexual desires. I believe such desires are strong and deeply rooted, and that the struggle against them is extremely difficult. I don’t know why they have been given such a burden in life. I don’t know why they feel such a strong and persistent temptation. But I do know what the Lord wants all of us to do with our temptations, and what he wants us to do when we give in to them. He wants us to resist, and to repent.
Clarification: I’d like to make sure no one interprets my last post as meaning that the mere feeling of a temptation is a sin. I simply mean that people who are tempted to sin should turn away from the temptation, and that when they do sin, they may repent. Repentance is just as available for the sin of homosexual conduct as for other sins.
So what is the repentance for a legally married homosexual couple? Legally divorce and live apart and celibate for the rest of their lives? Harsh. And yet people in the church sleep around, marry, divorce, get a slap on the wrist (they don’t excommunicate for adultery anymore in most cases) and still enjoy the closeness of a relationship or relationships and normal family lives.
And since the law of chastity means “sexual relations with the husband or wife to whom (one is) legally married”, legally married gays are keeping the law of chastity.
The only other way they can feasibly keep the law of chastity (which also means no sex thoughts, masturbation, etc.) is to be completely asexual until death.
Y’all try that sometime.
Finally, is it really the belief of the Church that every gay person in the entire world should live a celibate, lonely life? Since this is a punishment most of us straight people would not endure, why do we think it’s “loving” or not cruel to inflict that on every single individual who happens to be gay? That’s a prejudicial and harsh indictment on a significant percentage of society. Even if there were only 5 gay people in the whole world, it would be prejudicial and mean.
Good point with the adultry parallel itbugaf. I’d like to exand by pointing out that that the church does not expect gay people to be asexual without a full adult existance. Rather it is the belief that if one dedicates themselves to Christ they can eventually overcome same sex desires and have a happy marriage and fulfilling sex life with a member of the opposite sex. However false or naive a gay person may perceive that belief to be, I see nothing hateful about it.
I also don’t believe it is the government’s role to incentivize marriage. It is the role of religion to encourage the practice. For an interesting read on the proper role of government, check out “The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson”. It is an official church publication and I haven’t seen any prophets speak officially to the contrary since that time.
Also, the government recognizes a “common-law” partnership, therefore they aren’t really incentivizing legal marriages anyhow.
A basic and fundamental concept in Christianity is that with God, all things are possible. The adulterer can overcome their urges, an alchoholic can recover completely, a person with a bad temper can change their nature. Likewise, then, couldn’t a person successfully change their sexual orientation?
I certainly don’t mean to trivialize how difficult this would be…but I think that while Jesus taught against sin of all types, it was clear he still loved and cared about the sinners. He was not anti-anyone…and nor is the church.
“And yet people in the church sleep around, marry, divorce, get a slap on the wrist (they don’t excommunicate for adultery anymore in most cases) and still enjoy the closeness of a relationship or relationships and normal family lives.”
What? Do you think those people are happy? I bet if you were to take a pole among those who have been through divorce you’d find that the overwhelming majority would report it (divorce) as the single greatest cause of pain in their lives. You talk as if sex, Sex, SEX! is the key to happiness regardless of how it’s used or abused.
Jack
Anonymous: Just thought I’d point out that everyone that I have known that has commited adultry (a close friend, a relative, and other known cases) has defintately been ex-communicated. Sure, going through the motions of repentance may seem like a slap on the wrist, but the process of true repentance in one’s heart is no walk in the park, not to mention aknowledging the pain you have caused to others. Also, I’m sure that even if adulterers truly repent, it could still be a lifelong struggle to resist the temptation to do it again and again. Harsh? Condemning?
so if the church wants to make eveyone straight, it’s obviously anti-gay. easy.
Nermalcat and Anonymous: Through the power of the Atonement and other forces, some people may be able to lose their desires to sin, whether that sin be adultery, homosexual acts, or something else. But some people may never be rid of their desire to sin. They may have to cope with temptation all their lives. That is suffering, to be sure. But obedience to Christ sometimes requires us to suffer–to take up our own crosses and experience difficulties that are infinitely smaller than the ones Jesus suffered for us.
I don’t think it is a doctrine of the Church that every homosexual person can change the way he or she feels sexual attraction. But I do think it’s a doctrine of the Church that a homosexual person can forsake the sin and repent of it, irrespective of whether the temptation goes away. So can an adulterer, or any other kind of sinner.
It is true that some forces interfere with agency. I think mental illness is one of those. A person who suffers from mental illness may lack the capacity to act with true freedom–to choose for himself. Does the same apply to some kinds of addiction? Does it apply to some people who feel same-sex attraction? I don’t know.
Yes, you know the interesting thing is, the people here who are insisting the Church is anti-gay because of policy seem to think that the desire to have sex always does overwhelm the desire to do anything else, or that no one can have the ability to control their desires.
The Atonement can make it possible to overcome any challenge.
Mary: I agree with you completely that “the Atonement can make it possible to overcome any challenge.” But I’m not sure this means that everyone who truly repents will have his temptations removed. I know you’re not saying that, but I think some people here are. They seem to believe that true repentance equals no more temptation, and that therefore true repentance from homosexual conduct equals “turning straight.” I think the Lord gives that blessing to some but not to all. Why? I don’t know that either.
Of course people have the ability to control their desires, but those who want to be gay and who are gay have no place in the Church. They are never allowed to live as wholistic adults–complete with companionship and sexual congress–unless they are straight, not gay. Ergo, the Church is anti-gay. Not rocket science.
Maybe the Church should conduct an experiment: have all the straight membership swear off sex for a year. They should move out of their houses, live alone, no affection between partners, just asexuality and celibacy for an entire year, with no hope of comign together before then.
Gay people in Church doctrine don’t have any hope of partnering with anyone they feel attracted to EVER if they want to be involved in the Church or even looked on kindly by the Church.
the day there’s a celibate gay apostle or prophet is the day I say (1) it can be done and (2) the Church is not anti-gay.
Anonymous at 12:37: You’re still missing the point that being against a sin is different from being against a person. The Church (more accurately, the Lord) asks EVERYONE, regardless of how they feel sexual desire, to refrain from the same list of sexual sins. Refraining from these sins–including homosexual conduct, adultery and all the rest–and repenting when they do sin, brings them within the Atonement of Christ and makes them eligible for the greatest blessings in the Universe. Encouraging people to seek Eternal Life–whether that seeking is especially difficult in one aspect or not–is not being “anti” anyone.
The real gist of what you’re saying is that the Church is anti-gay because it preaches that homosexual conduct is a sin. What would you suggest the Church do? Ignore the revelations and forsake the truth? Perhaps that would make the Church less “anti-gay” in your eyes. But it wouldn’t help anyone; it would merely reduce the Church to another man-made society lacking in any divine power or authority.
Sorry, I meant to address that last comment to Anonymous at 12:34, not at 12:37.
Sheesh, why don’t you just use a name?
The Church preaches salvation FOR STRAIGHT MEN AND WOMEN (particularly for the concept of exaltation) and for hence it’s anti-gay. Simple.
I guess it could be argued that the Church accepts celibate heterosexuals, and only accepts celibate homosexuals to the extent that the gays will want to–and will eventually—change their orientation (i.e. not be gay anymore).
So in other words, whatever else the Church says and does and whatever good it achieves and however it helps most people, it is anti-gay. Let’s not fool ourselves.
If you don’t agree with that, find all the partnered gay people you know and invite them to investigate and join the Church.
Anonymous at 12:55: I suppose if you just keep saying the same thing, and keep saying that it’s “simple,” then your argument will become more valid. Right?
Let’s accept for the sake of argument that by your definition, the Church is “anti-gay.” What should the Church do? Are you going to engage that question or just repeat yourself again?
oh, i see. so in order to be “whole” you have to be having sex.
Again, find a partnered same-sex couple (even a couple in their twilight years who probably aren’t having sex anymore), teach them about the plan of salveation and get back to me. The church is anti-gay.
Well, according to theology, yes. The man/woman/procreation thing…
Been to the temple lately?
Are the adulterers unhappy because they had sex, or because they cheated on their spouses?
According to the church, a gay person is never, ever allowed to have sexual interaction (including kissing, etc) with anyone for their entire lives.
That’s different than sneaking out on one’s spouse. No parallel there.
So how does homosexual conduct equal “the whole man/woman/procreation thing”?
Anonymous at 13:15: You said, “find a partnered same-sex couple (even a couple in their twilight years who probably aren’t having sex anymore), teach them about the plan of salveation and get back to me.”
I think you mean by this that the couple will likely reject the message because THEY consider the message anti-gay. How does their rejection make it anti-gay? And how does teaching the message to everyone, including gays, make the Church anti-gay.
You also said, “The church is anti-gay.”
Thanks for not letting me down in the mindless repetition department. Keep saying it! It will make you more convincing! Really!
Is the church pro-gay? In what way? (and no, don’t answer “if the gay member fasts and prays really, really hard and pays hundreds of thousands of dollars in treatment he can be changed, married and exalted.”)
Ever heard of a literary device? Ever read the Book of Mormon (hurry up! You only have 43 days!)?
Repitition has its purpose; sometimes as punctuation.
If someone is asked to divorce his spouse and look forward to being heterosexual even though he is homosexual, I would say the person or organization doing the asking is anti-gay.
Here’s what a pro-gay church would (and does) look like, since people can’t fathom what that must be:
1. A gay-friendly church would acknowledge that where legal, gay marriages are just as valid as straight marriages.
2. A gay-friendly church would not pour money into anti-gay marriage campaigns.
3. A gay-friendly church would not preach that unless its gay members turned straight and got married to an opposite-sex partner (and did whatever it took) they would not be worthy to live with God forever (i.e. the definition of eternal life/exaltation).
4. A gay-friendly/pro-gay church would not break up gay families who joined the Church and wanted to be in full fellowhip with the Church.
Get it now?
Nermalcat: I’d like to reply to a couple of comments you made earlier.
You said, “I also don’t believe it is the government’s role to incentivize marriage…For an interesting read on the proper role of government, check out “The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson”.
Governments can either recognize marriages or not recognize them. Recognizing them is incentivizing them. Not recognizing them is remaining completely neutral on marriage. A government that doesn’t recognize (i.e., incentivize) marriage affords absolutely no benefits to the married as opposed to the unmarried. No common property, no making it easier to immigrate, no faciliation of name changing, no presumptions of paternity. I honestly don’t think President Benson advocated such a government.
You also said, “the government recognizes a “common-law” partnership, therefore they aren’t really incentivizing legal marriages anyhow.”
The common-law marriage is a device that imposes the RESPONSIBILITIES of marriage on those who have “stolen” some of its RIGHTS. But putting that point aside, the common law marriage IS a legal marriage. That’s the whole point of its existence. Through it, the government confers marital benefits only on those whose marriage is officially recognized by the state. That means the state is defining marriage and saying when and how it will recognize it.
Yes, anonymous, I do “get it” now. I always did get it. You think the Church needs to be pro-gay, and that in order to do so it has to forsake the revelations and commandments of God. That doesn’t help gays or anyone else.
All I’m saying is the Church is obviously not pro-gay, and that it is, in fact, anti-gay. I have ably demonstrated that. I’m not saying the Church has to change. It is what it is.
Anonymous: (whichever one you are…why don’t you guys just grow a tiny bit of spine and choose a consistent identity?)
You said, “(and no, don’t answer ‘if the gay member fasts and prays really, really hard and pays hundreds of thousands of dollars in treatment he can be changed, married and exalted.’)”
Nice straw man you built there. Hope you had fun knocking it down rather than engaging in the actual issue.
The Church does NOT say that people must change their sexual feelings to be accepted. It does NOT say that they must “turn straight” in this life in order to have a hope of exaltation. Even if you didn’t already know this (which I rather think you did) you could have learned it by just paying attention to the previous posts on this thread.
The Church just says that in order to receive exaltation, everyone who is tempted by sin (yes, including homosexual sin) needs to turn away from it, and that everyone who commits sin (including homosexual sin) needs to forsake it and repent. They don’t have to “turn straight.” No one knows how many want to do so or can.
“the Church is obviously not pro-gay, and that it is, in fact, anti-gay.”
That line of reasoning makes no sense. Social issues are not polarised. It is not required for someone who is not pro-something to automatically be anti-something.
If the Church is anti-gay, it is not simply because they are not pro-gay.
Are gay couples exalted? Are singles exalted?
No.
For exaltation, a straight single person must marry an opposite-sex partner in this life or the next. What is the mandate for the gay individual?
No marriage (to a straight opposite sex person), no exaltation.
I learned that in Primary.
Are the Church’s policies and practices antagonistic towards gay people?
Saying that every gay person on the face of the earth must be celibate and eventually be straight is not a welcome/welcoming thought.
It’s not militantly anti-gay, no (its plitical forays notwithstanding). But the definition of family, marginalization of gays, untenable solutions (stay single and celibate as long as you live just because you’re gay)–that’s not pro-gay. And it’s not accepting of gays, either.
On a slightly tangential topic, have you seen the insightful satire on the politics of homosexuality on Jeff Lindsay’s site?
http://www.jefflindsay.com/smokophobia/index.html
By anti-gay, do you mean “against homosexual persons” or “against homosexual conduct”? It’s the conduct we’re against–the sin. And in being against the sin–in trying to rescue people from sin–we’re being pro-people. Even if the people are gay.
The Church will be happy to tell anyone that if they’re committing sin, they should stop it and look forward to a day, whether in this life or not, when the hunger for that sin will no longer trouble them.
That standard doesn’t change because the sin happens to be homosexual conduct.
I’m awfully glad the Church is anti-sin. But apparently the anti-sin stance is deeply disturbing to some of the anonymous posters.
The reason the anti-sin concept is so bothersome to some individuals is because we live in a world or rather society that believes in allowing whatever choices a person makes, should be considered to be right. This has created a more permissable society and much more selfishness.
I know someone who left his wife because the most important thing to him was to “be happy”. And happiness to him (at the time) was to give up his family, his eternal marriage and to be with someone else (who he didn’t know very well at the time). Is he truly happy having given up his blessings (and now needing to strive very hard to retain them, unfortunately he will probably never be able to attain celestial marriage again, at least in this life as his current wife has no interest in the Church and his previous wife has remarried), his priesthood authority and having his children sealed to him? I don’t know. Is his life better? I don’t really think so, in many ways, from what I have heard. Selfishness rarely brings happiness. When we give in to our “natural man” desires, does that bring true peace and happiness. I doubt it.
As I said in an insightful post that wasn’t uploaded for some reason, the sin of adultery or leaving one’s spouse is about abandonment and cheating, not being gay. Was it selfish of him to marry in the first place? That was probably the greater selfishness, but Church counsel years ago was “marry and it will go away.”