If you ever needed a reason to distance yourself from the LDS Church, Bruce C. Hafen of the Seventy has just given you one. Oddly, this talk was linked to from the blog of the PR Department of the LDS Church as though it is worth reading. I’m not sure why they are proud of it. I recommend reading it yourself, but if you want some highlights, here’s what I found:
During a recent stake conference in Europe, I asked the stake president if Sister Hafen and I might visit one or two of his members who could use a little encouragement. As we visited one young man, a single returned missionary, we found that he cared deeply about the Church but was also very troubled. When we asked how he was doing, he began to cry and said, with a look of real anguish, I suffer from same-gender attraction. My heart went out to him. The longer we talked, the more compassion I felt, as I learned that the operative word for him really was suffer.
This makes it sound an awful lot like a disease!
But as hard as same-gender attraction is, your feeling it does not mean that your nature is flawed. Whenever the Adversary tries to convince you that you are hopelessly that way, so that acting out your feelings is inevitable, he is lying. He is the Father of Lies.
Many other people also live heroically with uninvited daily struggles. The victims of childhood sexual abuse also live with agonizing daily battles that may echo the experiences of some who cope with same-gender attraction.
Here, homosexuality is equated with childhood sexual abuse (he also equates it with quadriplegia.)
You are literally Gods spirit child. Having same-gender attraction is NOT in your DNA, but being a child of God clearly IS in your spiritual DNAonly one generation removed from Him whom we call Father in Heaven.
Hmm… This sounds like a fact assertion. Unfortunately for him, the data from twins studies suggests there is very likely a genetic component. It may not explain all of the variation in sexual identity, but it explains some. Once again, ignorant religious leaders deny science for their own agenda!
If you are faithful, on resurrection morningand maybe even before then–you will rise with normal attractions for the opposite sex.
God don’t make no gay spirits. He just chooses to punish you with gayness while you’re mortal, ’cause he’s a loving god!
Its true that the law of chastity forbids all sexual relations outside the bonds of a married heterosexual relationship. And while same-gender attraction is not a sin, you need to resist cultivating immoral, lustful thoughts toward those of either gender. Its no sin if a bird lands in your tree, just dont let him build a nest there.
The latest euphemism for gay sex – “building a nest”!
So something has been going on that has caused a kind of cultural earthquake in just the last few years. What is it? during the last few years to cause the cultural earthquake were now feeling on this subject? We have witnessed primarily an aggressive political movement more than weve witnessed substantive change in the medical or legal evidence. In 1973, in response to increasing disruptions and protests by gay activists, the American Psychiatric and Psychological Associations removed homosexuality from their official lists of disorders. Significantly, they took this action by simply putting the issue to an open vote in their professional meetings–not because of any change in actual medical findings. As LDS psychologist Dean Byrd writes, This was the first time in the history of healthcare that a diagnosis was decided by popular vote rather than scientific evidence.
Equal rights for homosexuals is “an aggressive political movement” not backed by science! (My favorite part about this article – the hundreds of peer-reviewed articles that are… um… not included.)
The activists have used similar methods in the years since then, trying to prove that they are a legitimate demographic category with fixed and unchangeable characteristics. They must present themselves in this way in order to justify their demand for the same legal protections now given to race and gender. That is a crucial point in understanding both the agenda and the tactics of intimidation used by todays activists.
You heard it here, folks – homosexuals are less human and less deserving of equal rights than are women and blacks, only one of which the LDS Church has enfranchised. Ergo, women might get some degree of parity in the LDS Church before homosexuals do!
However, the activists have almost convinced the American public about this point. A reliable 2009 poll asked U.S. adults what causes people to be gay or lesbian. In the two most common responses, 42% of this public sample said gay or lesbian people are born that way, and 36% said they choose to be that way. Both of those responses are factually wrong.
Gays aren’t born that way and they don’t choose it. They, um, become that way through forces outside of their control? Are touched by Tinkerbell and her pixie dust at age 7? WTF?
In other words, before puberty, boys are typically more interested in other boys than in girls. Then their interest gradually shifts to girls, but a few boys dont make this transition. Often these boys are emotionally sensitive, introspective, and, especially among Church members, perfectionistic. When puberty hits this group, they can be sexually aroused by many factors. When those factors include other boys, they can become fixated on the fear that they are gay, especially if they have male sexual experiences, including male pornography. Then their fixation can block their normal emotional-sexual development. Adult men who have had such childhood experiences can often resume their normal development by identifying and addressing the sources of their emotional blockage, which usually includes restoring healthy, appropriate male relationships.
Bruce C. Hafen, lawyer, has now explained the root cause of homosexuality – Freudian fixation that results in blocked emotional-sexual development at puberty. He’s qualified to make this pronouncement because he…. Um…. Oh, right, he’s not qualified to talk about this.
Both no-fault divorce and same-gender marriage allow personal adult rights to trump the best interests of society and children. The radical personal freedom theory on which the Massachusetts same-gender marriage case is based is actually the logical extension of the same individualistic legal concept that created no-fault divorce.Think about it. When the law upholds an individuals right to END a marriage, regardless of social consequences (as happened with no-fault divorce), that same legal principle can be used to justify the individuals right to START a marriage, regardless of social consequences (as happens with same-gender marriage).
We finally get to the heart of the matter. No fault divorce empowers women in crappy marriages to leave. Thus, no-fault divorce is a scourge and should be stamped out (got to slap down those uppity women). Spousal abuse isn’t a problem; let the women suffer.
Same-sex marriage may not result in more divorces, but it does redefine god’s ordained gender roles. Thus, homosexuality is a threat to the male hierarchy of Mormonism. Ergo, we must crush them out of existence! If gays get rights, then women will want them too. And once that happens, no more all-male clubs for the Mormon hierarchy.
I really recommend you read the whole thing as it is a very disturbing talk.
Once again, we see that homosexuality is a exclusively male phenomenon.
I just can’t figure out if they haven’t yet caught on that their are females with same sex attraction too, if they’re just too horrified by the prospect to acknowledge it, if they maybe find it just a little titillating so they’re a little less invested in eliminating it, or if this is just one more way in which they ignore women and take them for granted.
visitor — I think the latter(est).
Hafen, speaking of young homosexuals: “Often these boys are emotionally sensitive, introspective, and, especially among Church members, perfectionistic.”
Gosh, why do you suppose they are perfectionistic? Could it be that the church and the idiots in charge (like Hafen) tell them that they have to be righteous and live the commandments so that God will remove their sinful desires from them? And if it hasn’t happened yes, they must strive and struggle even more?
So, the answer for young men (and only young men, of course!) who think they might be gay is to be completely faithful and endure to the end with faith that God will remove their attraction to men. But, don’t be a perfectionist about it, whatever you do.
Happened ‘yet’, not ‘yes.’ Dang my cursed fumbly fingers!
Wow, that article was a non-stop WTF experience. This is the best the corporate leadership can do?
What an irresponsible statement from this Hafen guy. Does he believe at all in science? Does he care at all that his statements are damaging? Reminds me of the pope saying condoms don’t stop HIV. Ugg…make it stop.
This is a giant step backwards for the church. I can’t say I’m that surprised that the church is reverting to previous homophobia.
I couldn’t read his entire talk – it was too emotionally draining – but even in just skimming it, I was horrified, furious, and revolted.
He promotes the completely and utterly discredited change and reparative “therapies”, confuses “gender issues” with homosexuality, totally ignores lesbians and bisexuals and transgendered, misrepresents the APA’s stance on homosexuality, quotes completely discredited and unethical therapists, promotes the church’s insane redefinition of “tolerance”, makes unsubstantiated anthropological claims, preaches the evils of a person being able to divorce, uses one country’s official homophobic vitriol as an excuse to ignore scientific research, makes sciency sounding reality-claims he then “backs-up” with scriptures and statements by other church leaders.
This entire talk is about dehumanising, de-legitimising, and denigrating gays, women, liberals, intellectuals, scientists, and ethical psychologists.
I have never before encountered such a concentrated dose of homophobic demagoguery, complete mind-blowing fabrications, and unending rape of science and history.
If I had heard or read this as a Mormon, especially a young one, if the lies I had been taught had been so well codified and packaged as they are here, I truly wonder if I would have survived. I can only imagine how many more suicides this f-er is going to inspire.
Hafen just negated every bit of progress and enlightenment the church has so slowly and painfully reached over the past years. And the fact that the talk was posted in the Newsroom rather than being repudiated by the Q15 seems to indicate that all the previous signs of slightly increased compassion and understanding were lip service.
I can’t even express how disgusted I am. I am NOT going back to that church.
Female homosexuality? That’s what polygamy is for.
Just kidding.
More seriously, the PR folks are proud of Hafen’s talk because they consider homophobia standing on principle even though it is a public relations disaster.
I willing to believe/hope that this just represents the fitful nature of social change in the LDS church. Two steps forward, one step back.
oh. my. god.
or, as my husband said “oh no.”
WTF?
There’s nothing more to say. This is beyond ridiculous.
That said, I wonder what his views are regarding lesbians. Geeeeez.
They’re proud of it because it jives with a core tenant of Mormon faith. Hafen spells this out in his speech. It’s that simple. Science can only see “the natural man” an so is blind to the larger truth, as far as the church is concerned. I think I’d rather have them be consistent with the core of what they claim to believe than bend to external pressure. It’s the only way we’ll ever come to terms with face-value Mormonism.
IOW, what Hellmut said in 10.
PS. Is this really news? The church’s so-called progress toward enlightenment is an illusion out of wishful thinking cafeteria mormonism.
I think this is more than just one step backwards. I feel like the gay-bashing vitriol hasn’t been this strong in 15 years.
holy shit.
I was too nauseated and sickened by your summary to imagine reading the whole talk myself. I’m glad to have a better sense of what’s actually in it, though.
Well, I imagine that one of the few good things to come out of this talk is further mobilization in the queer community. It will now be hard for the church to argue that it’s not anti-gay, just anti-gay marriage after this.
i especially like how the article references the church itself for sources.
ex: “As Boyd K. Packer has said, homosexuals are…”
it reminds me of my missionary discussions. my missionaries said to me “Look! Here’s a prophecy in 1 Nephi, and it’s fulfilled in 3 Nephi. That proves the BoM is true!”
What I mean by a single step backward is that this is just one guy balanced against others who seem to be on their way to actually getting it. Granted his nonsense gets highlighted on the PR site, but that represents only one part of the equation.
The LDS members may not think for themselves as much as we would like, but they form the LDS viewpoint at least as much as the leadership does.
Hafen’s statement is significant, but I’m much more interested to know what the average LDS member thinks in the privacy of their own mind and how their attitude is changing over time.
FWIW, the average LDS member has thought many things in the privacy of their own minds. Never daring to speak for fear of ostracism or even excommunication. What average Mormons think in private has never meant much to the church.
Jeez. That article was not helpful to anyone in any way. He says (quoting James E. Faust) that those who claim a genetic basis for homosexuality are dooming homosexuals to disappointment, discouragement, and despair? I think it’s just the opposite. Following the evidence and coming to terms with one’s own true nature is the only path to freedom and happiness. At least, if you’re interested in happiness during this life. Maybe that’s not so important.
Tried to read the whole talk earlier, but I couldn’t, so thanks for the summary and excerpts. They were quite bad enough, thank you.
I cannot believe that anyone takes this crap seriously. “It isn’t a sin to have same-sex attraction, but to act on it is.”
It’s easy, isn’t it, for a presumptively heterosexual person to pat gays on the head and tell them that it’s okay for them to be gay, but they better not try to have gay sex, since sex is only okay within the bounds of marriage, but they aren’t going to be allowed to marry the person they feel love for.
Ignorant, ignorant, ignorant.
While I’m skeptical of the whole “God made” aspect of it (since I’m agnostic and all), I’ve always like how my mother viewed homosexuality. She always said, “If God hates gays so much, why did he make so many of them?” With the intent, of course, that God (should he/she/it exist) doesn’t have any problem with gays at all.
The longer I pondered Hafen’s address, the more I found myself agreeing with the title of this post: the operative word for Bruce really is “gaybasher.”
In fact, he’s a star of the int’l gaybashing
jet set:
http://www.worldcongress.org/wcf4.spkrs/wcf4.hafen.htm
A couple things that struck me in the above excerpt:
1) Examples of poor, lost, suffering young men and boys apparently regularly feature in Bruce’s talks.
2) Apparently Bruce owns a functioning irony meter. Who knew?
For a long time I’ve felt dissatisfied with the church. Prop 8 and several other events made me feel extreme tension. But this has broken it for me. I am now utterly ashamed to have been born a Mormon. When applying for jobs in the future, I’m going to stare at the words “Brigham Young University” on my resume with total embarrassment. I’m going to have to explain to people that while I didn’t choose to be born into a culture of racist, sexist, ignorant bigots, I don’t have anything to do with them now.
Welcome to Main Street Plaza, Molly. There are many people hanging out here that can relate to your feelings.
In addition to the barrage of scientifically unsound assertations and conclusions, there was a fair dose of homophobia thrown into that toxic cocktail as well. Comparisons of gays to “angry dogs”. Encouraging stereotypes that there is a link between sissies and gays.
I HATE THIS CRAP!!!!!!
The thing that strikes me as an outsider is that Mormon families are so large that the mathematics of probability suggests that if all LDS nuclear families don’t have a gay member, the extended families will. I mean the odds are 1 in 10. And that’s 1 in 10 of all Americans, all humans, all mammals. So there can’t be many LDS families that don’t include gay sons or daughters, nieces or nephews, cousins, grandsons or granddaughters.
How do the people who preach so negatively, rigidly and adamantly (not to mention scientifically incorrectly) on this subject escape the consequences in their own lives?
My best guess: vested interests. The LDS Church has such vested interests in an all-male, all heterosexual hierarchy that they are willing to deny homosexuals rights, equality, fair treatment, love, kindness, etc. Not treating them so poorly and alienating them would open up the hierarchy to bigger issues. Imagine the 14 year-old girl sitting in sacrament meeting who sees a gay male bishop leading the service. What is she supposed to think when it comes to her own oppression? “If gay men can have the priesthood, why can’t women? If gay men can hold leadership positions, why can’t women?”
I could be wrong here, but I really think it boils down to vested interests – the current all-male, all-heterosexual (though I’ll bet there are some closet homosexuals among the hierarchy) leadership can’t afford to open this up without losing power.
Of course, there’s also the issue of the LDS Church claiming to be divinely inspired. Changing practices and beliefs in religions like that is hard to do as it suggests, like with race and polygamy, that god was wrong at some point in the past. That just makes the religion look retarded. It also means going forward that people are going to be forced to take a less literalistic perspective on the religion, which results in declining fervor and adherence.
So, in no way except avoidance of flak is embracing homosexuality a positive for the vested interests that run the LDS Church. They have a lot to lose, and only a little to gain – for now. But if sentiment continues to change in the US toward sexual equality, eventually the LDS Church will start to feel this where it counts – in the pocketbook. Enlightened, tolerant members will stop donating to this bigoted religion, forcing the Church to change its position. Until then, don’t expect change.
My estimate – 2025. The Church always lags about 10 to 15 years behind US cultural norms.
“So, in no way except avoidance of flak is embracing homosexuality a positive for the vested interests that run the LDS Church.”
Listen, I’m not in the culture so I can’t check the likelihood of my speculation against reality. That said, I can’t see how the hierarchy doesn’t, in fact, have much to gain.
For one thing, there would, no doubt, be fewer suicides. The suicide rate for youth in the Mormon corridor is very high. And even if the faithful take consolation from the fact that it’s much lower among those who attend church, it is still probably being felt in many LDS families whose gay sons and daughters stopped attending church before they gave in completely to despair and the weight of the social blot their gayness and church opprobrium dealt them.
For another, there are those surviving families. The guilt they feel and the conflict between their children and their faith must really take a toll on them. And then there are the families who make a choice and take a stand — Marie Osmond comes to mind. That must hurt the church too.
There would probably be fewer resignations from the church. The church’s involvement in Prop 8 seems to have caused an unprecedented number of resignations. And, in the wake of these, even excommunication has lost it’s sting for many. John Remy springs to mind and he has probably galvanized a lot of support since being ex-ed. OTOH, if the church were to relent as it did in the case of the priesthood for Blacks, they could probably anticipate the return of some and an increased opportunity for conversion in the US (and let’s face it, they’re already drawing away from foreign missions) as occurred in the 80s among Blacks.
Finally, I know in the post-Prop 8 days, the church took reassurance in the fact that most Americans around the country sided with them. But by now they must be coming to terms with the fact that it was a short lived victory. Every day the weight of public opinion switches just a little. By the time the current generation of GAs passes away the tide will have switched completely. Even today a news story tells us that Iowans may be equally divided on whether or not they want to permit gay marriages but 92% of them don’t see a gay marriage as any threat to their own. http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20090921/NEWS10/909210321/1001/NEWS And that’s the Heartland! Another study in MA indicates that the first state to permit same sex marriages has a divorce rate that has declined every year since that historic legalization (championed and signed into law by Mitt Romney) to the point where they have the lowest divorce rate in the country and one that compares to pre-WWII rates. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-wilson/divorce-rate-in-gay-marri_b_267259.html The church will find itself on the demonstrably wrong side of the facts with more and more frequency and consistency.
I can see that they’re entrenching around traditional male-dominated practices, but it looks like an increasingly dangerous place to be and could cost them as much as they wish to preserve as the number of gay LDS who are willing to speak out grows, and grows bolder and less patient with such awkward, scientifically vulnerable and regressive statements as Hafen’s.
You may be right and I’m sure you have more access to testing the waters but I think the points above remain significant.
Yes, I think this is a big part of it. It would lead people to conclude that there’s some lee-way in the doctrine of eternal gender roles. Homosexuals have gotten caught in the crossfire in the Mormon battle of the sexes.
Additionally, I think that the LDS leadership is legitimately afraid that polygamy might get some kind of legal recognition or legal status. This would be a huge problem for the CoJCoL-dS because the proclamations against polygamy basically just say “we’re committed to obeying the law” — leaving open the possibility of polygamy becoming doctrine again if the law changed.
I think this is a big part of the reason why the LDS church is so concerned about influencing civil laws about marriage: they’ve put themselves in a position where their own doctrine is affected by what’s written in the civil laws of the land.
Hey Visitor,
I don’t think we disagree. I’m certainly not trying to defend the Church, just explain the possible reasoning. While I hate to think this way, cost/benefit analysis seems to be the best way to reason through the Church’s behavior.
You just outlined the current costs to their policy towards homosexuals. I agree with all of them.
The question is: What is the relative value of those costs to the current leadership?
Obviously I don’t know the answer, but we can assume that the relative value is low as they have yet to change their views (and, as this post indicates), may have just pushed them further toward intolerance. If I were to think like a bigoted General Authority for a minute, I might respond to you by saying something awful like, “But the LDS Church is not responsible for those suicides. Those kids who kill themselves are simply not following the teachings of Christ. And, who knows what other factors played a role in their deaths.” In short, disavow responsibility. And, legally, because of how our courts work, there is no way in hell the LDS Church could be held liable for the harm it causes, even though I agree with you that it is responsible for these suicides and should be held liable for them.
So, my point is: the relative costs of flak do not outweigh the benefits of vested interests, entrenched mindsets, and the potential benefits of persecution for strengthening the testimonies of members. But, that will change, as you outlined above. Once it does, expect a shift in policy.
I simply gave a key for understanding when the shift will occur – donations. Cut off 10% of the income of the religion because of their bigotry and the gears of change will start churning. Cut off 25% and you’ll have gay bishops in a year!
Right now, the Church may have lost a few thousand nominal members over this, but they haven’t lost major contributors. Until they do, they won’t care. Losing the dissidents just makes the mindset inside the religion more conservative and monolithic – there is no one inside to voice dissent anymore!
I’ve enjoyed the conversation, profxm, and I didn’t take you for an apologist for the church. I think we’re just weighting the cost/benefit analysis in different ways. And, of course, I assume you have specific experiences that I don’t have to rely on.
You know, I’m really indifferent to how you view the LDS Church on this issue.
But I have to say…
The gay movement needs to drop the “it’s genetic” argument.
Let’s say it really is genetic. Opponents of homosexuality will say “so what? so is heart disease.”
Genetics has no moral content. All it really is, is straight descriptive data. It says very little, if anything, about whether we should view homosexuality as a good thing or bad thing.
So arguing that “homosexuality is genetic – so me having gay sex is just fine” is an utterly irrelevant argument. It doesn’t address any issues anyone really cares about.
Secondly, it’s a bad argument for the gay community because using it makes them look like they’re apologizing for something. Like they’d like to be different, but their genes give them no choice.
It’s almost as if the gay community, in pushing this “it’s genetic!” argument so forcefully is, in effect, saying:
“Look, I know I’m a mess. I know what I’m doing is repulsive. But it’s in my genes! I can’t help myself. So you have to accept me anyway.”
The gay community needs to think long and hard whether that’s really the implied message they want to be sending.
And they do send exactly that message every time they trot out the whole genetic argument.
So they shouldn’t act so shocked when the other side retaliates with exactly the kind of remarks we’re reading here from Hafen.
A message to my gay brothers and sisters:
If you think that gay sex is a good thing, then for heavens sake, argue that point.
No more of this lame “my genes made me do it” crap.
If gay sex is a good thing, then it will be good – no matter whether it is genetic or not.
If it’s a bad thing, then it will be bad – no matter whether it is genetic or not.
Genetics has nothing to do with this debate. It’s being used as a cop out, and it just makes the gay community look like they’re apologizing for something they deep-down, know is screwed up.
Appeal to genetics is not helping the gay cause, and they need to stop using this argument and move on.
Agreed. Appeal to genetics is not helping Evergreen’s cause, and Hafen needs to stop using this argument and move on.
By the way, Seth R., what the heck is “spiritual DNA” ??
Aren’t appeals to “spiritual genetics” evidence of some pretty messed up theology?
Resorting to such appeals strikes me as tantamount to apologizing for a Mormon theology that you know deep-down is screwed up.
Seth, I’m surprised by your position here. I think you’re missing the point of the argument. First, the gay community and science don’t say, “Homosexuality is 100% genetic.” They say, “Someone’s sexual identity is determined primarily in utero through a combination of genes and hormones.” Most of my sexual identity and YOUR sexual identity, Seth, was determined in utero. So, to be clear, this is not an “exclusively genetics” argument as there does not appear to be a single “gay gene.”
Second, I think you are confusing two types of genetic pre-determinates. Obviously genetic conditions like Huntington’s Disease are not things that people should be trying to defend as “normal” in the sense that they should be celebrated as a “different way to be human.” Such conditions limit human functioning and substantially reduce quality of life. Even so, when people have life altering genetic conditions, we do everything we can to help them maintain a good quality of life because their condition is not something they chose or caused.
In contrast to those things we consider genetic conditions or abnormalities are genetic phenotypes, which make someone different. Skin color and eye color are both phenotypes that are not considered abnormal in any real way. We don’t blame green-eyed people nor do we believe they need to apologize for it. We don’t consider it a condition. And, we don’t discriminate based on eye-color.
The homosexual community and those who accept homosexuality view homosexuality as the latter type of genetic pre-determinate – it’s simply a variation of sexual identity, not an abnormality. There is no need to apologize for one’s skin color; nor is there a need to apologize for one’s sexuality.
You are framing this or interpreting the framing of the homosexual community as though they are saying, “Look we have homosexuality/Huntington’s, so pity us.” What they are really saying is, “Look, we are homosexual/green-eyed, it’s normal, so accept it and us.” Don’t confuse the two.
If gay sex is a good thing, then it will be good no matter whether it is genetic or not.
Now THAT is a useless and meaningless statement. The basic sex drive in human beings has been labeled, well, a drive, a basic biological impulse that most human beings are “driven” to meet. But to argue that it’s therefore “good” or “bad” is to ignore the nuances that inflect human relationships. Sex, whether gay or straight, isn’t “good” or “bad” simply by virtue of what impels it, but in how it’s expressed and experienced by the people who engage in it, even in terms of a particular act in the context of a relationship that has been labeled “good,” like a straight marriage. The fact that straight sex can be “good” doesn’t make straight rape “good,” even when the raper and rapee are officially married to each other.
I personally think that people should have to right to choose gay relationships if they want to; I don’t think choosing a same-sex partner should be the least bit unacceptable. But I also have no problem believing that sexual identity is determined by biological mechanisms we still don’t know all that much about, and that for many people, the choice was made for them before they were born.
And your statement that
is really out of touch. That might be what self-loathing gay Mormons who are desperately trying to justify Mormonism’s really gross theology are saying, but it’s not what the gay community in general is saying. profxm’s statement of the message in #40 is far more accurate.
I think an angry response here Chino, simply proves my point – certain elements of the gay advocacy community are really, REALLY invested in this whole line of genetic reasoning. And any threat to their use of this old canard is going to meet with a lot of resistance. But that doesn’t make the argument any less stupid.
(by the way, I have no idea what your “spiritual DNA” comment had to do with anything. It’s not a concept I endorse myself, and its connection to this topic seems tenuous at best)
Holly, I follow the news on this debate extensively and read a lot of gay forums, blogs, and news sources. And I do think that this whole “my genes made me do it” line of reasoning is featured quite prominently.
As for much of the rest of your comment – I think you’re making exactly the same point I did. You just don’t appear to be aware that you are.
profxm,
You can’t keep the two categories neatly separate. Biology doesn’t care about your categories. And I don’t think society does either.
What about a woman who is six and a half feet tall? Doesn’t matter how otherwise attractive she is, she will always have a limited dating pool because of primarily social factors (which may even have some genetic motive – who knows?).
Is being a tall woman a “defect?” Most of us would say no. Certainly, she was born that way. And this does limit her quality of life. But it doesn’t qualify as a disease by right-thinking people.
And what about me?
I was born with Attention Deficit Disorder. Something people consider a “defect” to be cured. And people did try to cure me. I went through the whole Ritalin/Prozac/Adderol regimen.
What I found out during this whole process was that the drugs altered my personality and made me a different person. In some ways they improved my quality of life. In other ways they actually made my quality of life worse. Sure I could focus more. But some of the drugs just depressed me a whole lot. Others turned me into a walking zombie (I’m exaggerating – but it sure felt like it). Others made me so wired that I felt a bit crazy.
And the fact is, there are some advantages to having my condition. It gives me an unconventional way of thinking. It allows me to see life differently than most people, and make connections easily that most people don’t see. I also enjoy how tenacious and willing to obsess over a train of thought it makes me (an advantage in blogging, actually).
So, is ADD a “defect” or not?
Answer is – it is neither. It certainly seems genetic (my dad and others in my family line have it too). But does the mere fact I was born with it mean anything to me?
It means nothing to me. It provides me no guidance in life. It gives me no marching orders, and no goals. This bare genetic data is just as worthless to me as knowing the current primary crop of the state of Alabama.
I had to find my meaning elsewhere, and I suggest the gay community do likewise.
Don’t think I’m arguing for or against a position here on the gay debate.
I’m simply inviting the gay community to refocus the debate on where it belongs:
Is gay sex an acceptable thing to do? And if so, why?
If you can resolve those questions, the question of whether it’s genetic or not won’t matter anymore.
Oh my, Seth’s pulling a Poe, isn’t he?
http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Poe's_Law
Seth:
I also follow queer rights discussions in a variety of forums, and in them, the focus of discussion is not really on sex per se. It’s on gay marriage, partner benefits, hate-crime legislation, adoption rights.
The consensus of society at large seems to be that gay sex is just fine. It’s no longer really a prosecutable crime, even in states or localities where there are still statutes outlawing it. Consenting adults can do it all they want.
It’s only organizations like the LDS church and its members that have this squeamish obsession with male orifices coming into contact with male genitalia. And it is almost exclusively about male body parts; as plenty of people have commented, within Mormonism, lesbians essentially don’t exist. And the focus on the specific mechanics of sex rather than the general politics of it underscores the church’s essential prurience, and its ultimate irrelevance from the larger debate about the ethics of queer rights.
As for much of the rest of your comment I think youre making exactly the same point I did. You just dont appear to be aware that you are.
I don’t see how my direct contradiction of your statement that “if gay sex is a good thing, then it will be good no matter whether it is genetic or not” constitutes making the same point you did. Gay sex is NOT automatically good and no one should argue that it is. It’s simply something consenting adults have a right to engage in if they want. That’s a different proposition, and one that the queer community at large takes as a given.
Seriously: Has anyone ever asked YOUR permission to have gay sex–unless it was with you? No one’s ever asked mine, and I wouldn’t feel entitled to give it if it was sought. Therefore you are entirely wrong, as well as coming off as a condescending jerk who can’t kind his nose out of other people’s bedrooms, when you
If you honestly think that question hasn’t been answered, you need some new gay friends.
Well, one difference (if not the only one), Seth, is that no one is telling you that ADHD is a sin, and if you slip up and have distracted thoughts or hyperactive behavior it’s going to prevent you from ever returning to God or seeing your family in the next life. And that there’s only one right way to live and it doesn’t include being ADHD, so you’d better choose not to be that way anymore.
I recognize that the line between “genetic condition” and “phenotype” is a bit arbitrary. Trisomy 18 is definitely a genetic condition while, say dwarfism could be argued to be just another phenotype. So, yes, I get that it can be arbitrary.
That said, I’m still not sure why you want to focus the debate over the physical act of sex rather than the sexual attraction (which is, in all likelihood, biological). If it is okay for a man to penetrate a woman anally or vice versa, why is it wrong for a man to penetrate another man anally? I don’t see anyone up in arms about heterosexual anal sex.
If the concern is that gay sex is not procreative, then all non-procreative sex should be attacked, not just gay sex. So long masturbation, oral sex, anal sex, manual sex, rubbing up against each other, using toys, etc. Sex would become a tool to procreate, nothing more. Is that what you’re advocating? If so, well, then I’m going to assume you need more sex! 😉
“I was born with Attention Deficit Disorder. Something people consider a defect to be cured. And people did try to cure me. I went through the whole Ritalin/Prozac/Adderol regimen.
What I found out during this whole process was that the drugs altered my personality and made me a different person. In some ways they improved my quality of life. In other ways they actually made my quality of life worse. Sure I could focus more. But some of the drugs just depressed me a whole lot. Others turned me into a walking zombie (Im exaggerating but it sure felt like it). Others made me so wired that I felt a bit crazy.”
Sounds like the marching orders of Evergreen, doesn’t it. …if they had any real inventory of “successes” to point to.
Hey, thanks for the link about Poe’s Law, LdChino! Do you suppose that explains Glenn Beck? 🙂
@48: I don’t know if it explains Glenn Beck, but I suppose it might explain those who mistake “scoffing in their general direction” for “anger” … 😉