Gay Mormons committing suicide

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Gay understanding has been consistent for a long time.

What do you mean by that?

[T Blue]

Originally Posted by CardiacCoug

Oh, man. Your post doesn't really deserve a response, but here goes. Are you really saying that a high suicide rate among a non-LDS population of native Alaskans proves anything about suicide among LDS gays? Awesome logic there. Teen pregnancy? Where did that come from? I think psychiatrists call that a loose association. It has no relevence whatsoever with the issue you're trying to address.

Your use of capitalization to emphasize words is interesting. My 6-year old daughter does the same thing -- random capitalized words in the middle of sentences. But my 8-year old son doesn't do that anymore.

Sorry about the 6 year old habit of capitilazing words randomly, spell check Nazi.

I too have several cousins who are gay, they certainly weren't gay when they were born, at least I don't recall them wanting to have sex with me when I slept over when we were younger, I do however recall that at the time they were about 18 they most certainly swung that way.

Born queer or morphed into it?

They have both made the adjustment into life without the LDS Church, both of them seem very happy with their lifestyle, although it is rumored one of them may have contracted HIV.

For those of you who truly believe this is the supposed "blacks with the priesthood" issue of this century, me thinks you are going to have to make a choice yourself one of these days with whether or not you will support the leaders, and whether or not your membership is important enough to give unwavering suppport of the continued anti sexually active gay stance of the brethren.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

What do you mean by that?

I'm not certain any more. Perhaps what I meant to say is an adverse reaction to gay relations is an instinctive reaction through nature for religious heteros, but there's nothing instinctive about it for race relations.

However, I immediately found my mind remember the customs of the ancient Greeks to note they did not instinctively reject the actions, i.e., pederasty.

the cultures of the book rejected gay actions and still do. but I'm not longer certain about anything. Just glad I haven't had friends involved til recently. very strange are the incidences of man.

[CardiacCoug]

Originally Posted by T Blue

Sorry about the 6 year old habit of capitilazing words randomly, spell check Nazi.

I too have several cousins who are gay, they certainly weren't gay when they were born, at least I don't recall them wanting to have sex with me when I slept over when we were younger, I do however recall that at the time they were about 18 they most certainly swung that way.

I guess you knew you were straight all along because you tried to have sex with your female cousins when you were a kid. Interesting.

Originally Posted by T Blue

For those of you who truly believe this is the supposed "blacks with the priesthood" issue of this century, me thinks you are going to have to make a choice yourself one of these days with whether or not you will support the leaders, and whether or not your membership is important enough to give unwavering suppport of the continued anti sexually active gay stance of the brethren.

Nope. Nobody is going to have to choose between Church membership and supporting gay rights. I'm sure that's disappointing for you.

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by CardiacCoug

I think you don't hear that sentence because some general authorities don't believe that homosexuals exist. They have only admitted for the last 10-15 years that people may have inborn "same sex attraction" (rather than just being heterosexual perverts). The very existence of homosexuals seems contrary to Heavenly Father's plan for many believing Latter-Day Saints and certainly for many leaders. I was taught in seminary that God simply wouldn't be so cruel to make somebody a homosexual.

It makes things so much simpler if homosexuals are actually heterosexuals who have made a bad "lifestyle" choice. I think that is the imaginary world that some members and leaders are living in. If that is your mindset, you don't even want to acknowledge that there may be "gays in the Church" to be concerned about.

I absolutely agree with this assessment--I'm confident there are those in leadership who just won't accept that God would create a homosexual. Over time, this opinion will likely die out, and we'll catch up as an entire church to the science.

This is troubling to me. Why are we always behind on these matters? You may say that God has to work through imperfect men and their incomplete knowledge, but I'm sorry--moral issues are something they need to get right. If the Church isn't reliable on these issues, if it has to wait for the science to pull it along kicking and screaming, what is it good for? I can get up and tell feel-good stories and tell everyone to be kind to their neighbor. Not to beat a dead horse, but claiming the leaders are products of their generation, be it in the arena of homophobia or racism or evolution, is not an excuse for an organization that claims to be led by God.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

I absolutely agree with this assessment--I'm confident there are those in leadership who just won't accept that God would create a homosexual. Over time, this opinion will likely die out, and we'll catch up as an entire church to the science.

This is troubling to me. Why are we always behind on these matters? You may say that God has to work through imperfect men and their incomplete knowledge, but I'm sorry--moral issues are something they need to get right. If the Church isn't reliable on these issues, if it has to wait for the science to pull it along kicking and screaming, what is it good for? I can get up and tell feel-good stories and tell everyone to be kind to their neighbor. Not to beat a dead horse, but claiming the leaders are products of their generation, be it in the arena of homophobia or racism or evolution, is not an excuse for an organization that claims to be led by God.

I'm not so sure. How do you answer what Archaea and I have suggested about this being an insurmountable theological problem? Lets assume that leadership has every intention of trying to "catch up" on this issue. What does that look like?

How can the church allow for a gay marriage without totally abandoning its concept of eternal families, husband and wife as eternal procreaters, etc? I have been thinking about this and I just don't see it. Could you do a gay marriage for time only? Certainly it couldn't be an eternal marriage. Could children be sealed? No way they could be born in the covenant. Or do we totally abandon the concept of gender being an eternal characteristic? I think we have to become something else entirely theologically to accomplish this.

I'm open to ideas here, but I think this is a much, much bigger problem than just "want to." I would love to know if anyone has an idea of how to resolve it.

I imagine the Lord has an idea about how to bring gays into better fellowship. Can't the prophet inquire on this point? Or maybe he has and we just don't like the answer. Still, I don't think I've heard anyone say "this is a vexing issue that we have diligently inquired of the Lord on and the answer is....."

[MikeWaters]

Gay siblings are going to heaven. This is taught, indirectly, by the general authorities.

They have said that children born in the covenant will eventually be saved.

I think perhaps they are averse to labeling people as "gay", instead they say "those that struggle with SSA". Because that makes it sound like it is not an immutable characteristic, but rather something like someone who is struggling with porn. It can be overcome, they seem to say.

When they are insensitive to gays, I think it is because most of the time, it doesn't even occur to them that it might be an issue. At least, that's my hopeful thought.

[Sleeping in EQ]

I'd like to see leaders and members alike take this issue to the Lord in the spirit of A of F #9.

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I'm not so sure. How do you answer what Archaea and I have suggested about this being an insurmountable theological problem? Lets assume that leadership has every intention of trying to "catch up" on this issue. What does that look like?

How can the church allow for a gay marriage without totally abandoning its concept of eternal families, husband and wife as eternal procreaters, etc? I have been thinking about this and I just don't see it. Could you do a gay marriage for time only? Certainly it couldn't be an eternal marriage. Could children be sealed? No way they could be born in the covenant. Or do we totally abandon the concept of gender being an eternal characteristic? I think we have to become something else entirely theologically to accomplish this.

I'm open to ideas here, but I think this is a much, much bigger problem than just "want to." I would love to know if anyone has an idea of how to resolve it.

I imagine the Lord has an idea about how to bring gays into better fellowship. Can't the prophet inquire on this point? Or maybe he has and we just don't like the answer. Still, I don't think I've heard anyone say "this is a vexing issue that we have diligently inquired of the Lord on and the answer is....."

I agree--I think the theology prevents a full acceptance of homosexuality. One of the most beautiful aspects of our doctrine is the blend of male and female as a single unit progressing towards Godhood, with the subsequent eternal progression and procreation; homosexuality just doesn't fit with this.

The part that bothers me is how long it's taken for us to admit that there is a genetic basis to homosexuality, how long we've called them perverts, how we claim that masturbation can lead to homosexuality, etc. These statements are just plain ignorant, and while we are not alone among churches in these areas, we certainly seem among the most backward (or have until the last ten years or so).

[BYUTexan]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

My friend grew up on the bench, near Hogle Zoo, went to East HS.

He said he went through phases of depression and self-loathing because he hated who he was. After BYU, he moved up to SLC for awhile, but eventually moved to the Bay Area. He said leaving Utah was hard because he loved his home, but living in NorCal has finally afforded him the ability to feel free.

His words, not mine.

My older brother was gay and he too took his life back in 2005. Shortly before his passing he told my younger brother that if he could take a pill so he could be straight then he would, but he didn't choose to be gay. I will say that I highly doubt that his being gay led him to suicide.

After having grown up with a gay brother I am baffled when I hear or read statements from people that say they believe that they chose to be attracted to men/not attracted to women. Thats laughable at best. As to whether they remain celibate is a choice.