My Thoughts on Homosexuality

This is a rebuttal to somone's response to my post about homosexuality that I made at a friend's request on LDS Linkup. The parts in quotes (unless otherwise credited) are from my original posts. The bolded sections are the responses written to my original post by someone on Linkup. The italicized parts are my responses to my antagonist's commentary.
For more on this topic click the Spiritual Discussion Group link to the right and go to the comments under the post "Calling all Explorers".

"Calling homosexuality negative and evil is no different from calling dark skinned people negative, evil, and not worthy of full participation in the Church."

I disagree. Loving homosexuals and not stigmatizing them is a good idea. But equating homosexual issues with race issues is inadequate and blurs the moral issue of refusing homosexual _activity_.


Ok, maybe I’m stretching it a little on this one, but if you read some of the writings of the General Authorities on the subject of blacks you will find a similar attitude to the one that is prevalent in regards to homosexuals now. Based on some of these statements maybe we could speculate that homosexuals were also less valiant in the pre-existence and the torment of being gay but either having to pretend they’re straight or be celibate is their reward.

"There is a reason why one man is born black and with other disadvantages, while another is born white with great advantage. The reason is that we once had an estate before we came here, and were obedient, more or less, to the laws that were given us there. Those who were faithful in all things there received greater blessings here, and those who were not faithful received less.... There were no neutrals in the war in heaven. All took sides either with Christ or with Satan. Every man had his agency there, and men receive rewards here based upon their actions there, just as they will receive rewards hereafter for deeds done in the body. The Negro, evidently, is receiving the reward he merits."
-Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.1, pages 66-67

"THE NEGROES ARE NOT EQUAL WITH OTHER RACES where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned, ...but this inequality is not of man's origin. IT IS THE LORD'S DOING, is based on his eternal laws of justice, and grows out of the LACK OF SPIRITUAL VALIANCE OF THOSE CONCERNED IN THEIR FIRST ESTATE."
-LDS Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 527 - 528, 1966 edition

"Though he was a rebel and an ASSOCIATE OF LUCIFER IN PRE-EXISTENCE, ...Cain managed to attain the privilege of mortal birth.... [H]e came out in open rebellion, fought God, worshiped Lucifer, and slew Abel.... AS A RESULT OF HIS REBELLION, CAIN WAS CURSED WITH A DARK SKIN; HE BECAME THE FATHER OF THE NEGROES, and THOSE SPIRITS WHO ARE NOT WORTHY to receive the priesthood are born through his lineage."
-LDS Apostle Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, pp. 108-109, 1966 edition, emphasis added.

"Shall I tell you the LAW OF GOD in regard to the AFRICAN race? If the WHITE MAN who belongs to the CHOSEN SEED mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is DEATH ON THE SPOT. This will ALWAYS be so."
-LDS Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 10, p.110, 1863, emphasis added

"...[W]orthy males of all races can now receive the Melchizedek Priesthood.... It means that members of all races may now be married in the temple, although INTERRACIAL MARRIAGES ARE DISCOURAGED by the Brethren...."
-LDS Apostle Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, pp. 526-528, 1979 printing of 1966 edition

"...[I]n a broad sense, CASTE SYSTEMS have their root and origin in the gospel itself, and when they operate according to the DIVINE DECREE, the resultant RESTRICTIONS AND SEGREGATION ARE RIGHT AND PROPER and have the APPROVAL OF THE LORD. To illustrate: Cain, Ham, and the whole negro race have been cursed with a black skin, the mark of Cain, so they can be identified as A CASTE APART, a people with whom the other descendants of Adam should NOT INTERMARRY."
-LDS Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, pp. 108-109, 1966 edition, emphasis added.

"Maybe after the rest of our culture begins to understand homosexuality we can start accepting and respecting gay, lesbian, and bi-sexual people for who they are. Maybe we’ll even let them be full-fledged Mormons someday.”

While I agree that homosexual tendencies may be genetic, I assert that the choice to be homosexual in conduct is a sin and that preaching acceptance of such conduct is to preach false doctrine, brother. Furthermore, to assume that heterosexuals can "understand" homosexual theory is to assume that homosexuals have a solid understanding of that complexity, which I don't buy completely. If I am hetero and want to understand the homo "other", can I really get an objective answer from a gay theorist? That's an important question to answer, friend.

Yes, brother, I realize that under the current policy homosexual behavior is a sin. I also realize that under a recent (in my lifetime) policy of the Church being black designated one as less valiant, less obedient, and unworthy of all the privileges of full membership in the Church and deemed him unsuitable to mix bloodlines with the chosen white people. Things do change, don’t they?

Furthermore, if heterosexuals want to understand the homo “other”, as you put it, there is an incredible amount of objective information out there. Here’s a really important question for you to answer, friend, have you ever taken a human sexuality class or even read any relevant research on homosexuality at all? You’ll find that the majority of ground breaking work was done by Masters and Johnson, a heterosexual couple; heterosexuals also did much of the other research. Maybe that helps answer your question, good buddy, because heaven knows you wouldn’t want to get any of the answers from the people who could provide a firsthand experience of what it’s like to be homosexual.

A great deal of revolutionary mutual understanding must take place for both homo and hetero followers of Christ to truly call themselves Christian, but your diatribe falls too dangerously on to the side of loving the sin, which is just as evil as any level of bigotry.

I’m not loving a sin, I’m questioning whether the nature of one of God’s creations (homosexual humans) is evil.

"An objective study of homosexuality will reveal a wealth of information that points to the fact that there is an incredibly wide range of human sexuality and that people are born with the seeds of their sexual preference in place."

An objective study of _human affection_ will reveal the same wide range of sexuality, so don't just project this fact through the homosexual lense.

That’s true and it only serves to illustrate my point that we shouldn’t try to make everyone be the same when we’re all created very differently. No homosexual lense necessary.

Regardless of your stance, this fact does not change the law of god or the onus placed upon us to make a _decision_, does it?

I agree, regardless of your stance you should make a decision to love gay people and to give them an opportunity to worship and be a part of the Church in a non-hostile environment where they are not taught that they are evil if they express themselves sexually in a different way than the rest of the “normal” people out there.

It is just as important to not let theorists think for you as it is to refuse the social narcotics of bigotry and hatred.

For the same reason it is also important to not let your religious leaders think for you and to study, ponder, and pray about the truth that is being uncovered by research in all fields. I like to look at things skeptically and find replicable evidence before I put too much stock in anything, that way I back up my beliefs in a way that is accessible to anyone.

For most people feelings of attraction are not a choice we make like ordering off a menu."

Tell that to the billions of married heteros who honor their covenants by choosing to fall in love with their spouses all over again when their feelings change in the midst of the marriage relationship. Though change of feelings is inevitable in any relationship (because everyone changes and evolves over time) they choose to forego their attractions to others, they choose to invest effort in re-establishing those love feelings, they choose to follow God in being emotionally committed to their spouses. It IS a choice, no matter what your tendencies are. Just like the choice to believe Christ. To preach otherwise is false doctrine. To preach otherwise refutes the faith necessary to believe God.

I think you’re talking about fidelity, not attraction. The point is that those married heteros wouldn’t have married in the first place without being attracted to each other. There are cases where homosexuals have married heterosexuals and the results are typically disastrous. There is a choice to marry, and to be committed to someone, there is not a conscious choice in who you’re attracted to. If you tried to be attracted to a man (assuming you’re heterosexual), could you?

"If you doubt the truth of this just tell yourself to be attracted to someone that you find completely unattractive because you’re “supposed to”. Feeling hot and bothered yet? Yeah, doesn’t work out so well does it?"

If you're going to study homosexual theory so extensively, why don't you do yourself (and those you preach this to) a favor and study the success rate and affection level present in cultures which assert arrainged marriages. I think you'll discover some interesting facts that pretty much evaporate the "example" you posited above.

Not only are arranged marriages not necessarily examples of trying to be attracted to someone that you find unattractive, but they are an extremely poor example of marital success and affection. Perhaps you should do yourself the favor of studying the “interesting” facts like the rates of spousal abuse, child abuse, homicide, and infidelity in arranged marriages. Here’s a few links for you:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/392619.stm
http://www.alternet.org/rights/27435/
http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=179

Hmmm, maybe it’s not my example that has evaporated.

“Some people have a greater range of attraction than others. Some people will find almost everyone attractive and then you’ve got the Morrissey’s of the world on the other end that find almost no one attractive. Is it Psychological? Biological? Genetic? Environmental? No one really knows… yet.”

Yet you’ve made all these assertions, and propagated the efficacy of homosexual theory dogmatically. I think it’s not only spiritually wrong, but ethically disingenuous to preach this set of values when you yourself are still working out the facts of this tenuous theory. I fear you may lead many astray if you are not more careful in what you embrace as “love”.

I may not have a perfect knowledge of how homosexuality works but I have much more than a “tenuous theory” that I’m propagating. My assertions are a combination of facts and personal experiences that homosexuals have related to me. If you study homosexuality with an open mind and heart you will find the same information that I have. It’s there. It can be replicated and confirmed. In my opinion there is enough there to cause me to speak out and to question the shameful way the LDS culture treats homosexuals.

As far as leading people astray; much better than me have been accused of the same: Copernicus, Bruno, Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Halley, Darwin, Hubble, even Bertrand Russell. They stood up to their respective Churches that attempted to bully them into silence. At the end of my life I hope I can stand with men of integrity such as these that withstood brutal persecution for the truths that they had to offer.