#53485 Gay Marriage

[Gay Blade]

Imogen said:

sexual orientation isn't fixed. it can be fluid. it's more complex than just gay, straight, and bi.

I think this goes back to the Kinsey Scale. The fluidity of sexual orientation relates, I think, to people whose lifetime score is anywhere from a 1 to a 6 on the Kinsey Scale. So they're really just bisexual and they 'focus' on male partners or female partners at different times in their lives.

Mr. Blade misunderstood when he wondered if the Kinsey Scale was based solely on experience—it's based on experience and reaction. So even though he's never actually had a sexual encounter with another male, feeling attracted to one may indicate that he is other than a 0 on the Kinsey Scale.

I also feel that the Kinsey scale is related to 'homosexual recidivism'. There are often reports from people who claim to have overcome homosexuality in their lives. I suspect (though I have no evidence to back me up) that they probably only rated as a 1 to 4 on the Kinsey Scale and they have enough heterosexual attraction to maintain them. I think it is 5s and 6s on the Kinsey scale that inevitably slide back into homosexual behavior.

I could be mistaken. I often am. I was going on what the Wikipedia article you referenced said. “The Kinsey scale attempts to describe a person’s sexual history or episodes of their sexual activity at a given time.” I see that Kinsey did write “…it has seemed desirable to develop some sort of classification which could be based on the relative amounts of heterosexual and homosexual experience or response in each history…” So, I guess we also include “response,” and not just experience.

Well, I’ve certainly felt an emotional attraction to men. I’ve heard it said that the difference between men and women is that both prefer the company of men. That’s not what I believe, at least not all the time, but I can understand the idea.

I never allowed myself to develop a romantic attraction with another man. And since I’ve been married I’ve never allowed myself to develop a romantic attraction with either men or women, except my wife.

I’ve heard of men and women who have changed their sexual orientation. The National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) has done a lot of research on it. There are some who say that the therapy is only temporary and gays eventually go back to their previous sexual orientation. NARTH says they have data that shows otherwise. See http://www.narth.com/

I’ve read a lot of personal stories of those who were once practicing homosexuals, but who changed years ago. Some of these people were exclusively homosexual, so I think that would put them in the 6 category of the Kinsey scale. It seems reasonable to me that if you can move from being a 3 to being a zero, you could move from being a 5 or 6 to being a 3 or 4, and from there move to being a zero. I read some of these stories on http://www.stonewallrevisited.com/ The site has been discontinued, but if you go there you are referred to other sites (such as http://pfox.org/stories.html) which give similar stories of people who once were a 6 but are now a zero on the Kinsey scale.

[Nanti-SARRMM]

Here's an article that you all may find interesting.

[Damasta]

I can see the guy's point. And I certainly don't think his position in the Church is in jeopardy because of his political views. But here I think he strays into dangerous territory:

For example, as a Mormon I might believe that premarital sex, alcohol or even coffee can impede a person’s eternal potential. However, I don’t necessarily have to support legislation that makes these things illegal. Instead, I can accept the fact that people must choose for themselves, even if I disagree with what they choose. Ultimately the principle of choice, or agency, is more important than requiring everyone to act the same or protecting society from every possible danger.

Sure, it's impossible to protect society from every possible danger. Ironically, our government is pretty good at trying to do just that. For example, seat belt laws. But when there's widespread debate about the impact of a given policy, e.g. legalization of drugs, I think it's foolhardy to brush it aside and claim that "freedom of choice" trumps what they claim are imagined detrimental consequences. We have a vested interest in prohibiting and regulating behaviors which have a destructive effect on society. And I think has to be seriously considered when determining governmental policy. Sure, "the public good" can be taken too far, resulting in despotism (though usually it's a despot, not the public, that decides these things).

So in my own case there are things which I consider morally wrong which have no impact on the well-being of society and so I won't argue for those things to be enforced by legislation. Those include things like drinking tea or coffee, Sabbath-breaking, &c. There are other things which I consider morally wrong and I believe they're socially harmful to an unacceptable degree. Therefore, I support legislation to regulate them. Those include things like murder, embezzlement, and robbery. Those also include more controversial practices such as recreational drug use (including alcohol), abortion, nuclear armament, and certain sexual practices (e.g. fornication, homosexuality, pedophilia, &c.).

So while my views on those matters are informed by my religious/moral upbringing, my political savvy also tells me that they'd be a bad idea. And I think that article promotes license for a few rather than freedom for all.

[Damasta]

So the topic came up again today on the Board. And I think the articles that Waldorf and Sauron linked to were excellent. I really felt for Ben Christensen and I hope that his marriage works out. But there was one thing that gave me pause.

A year or so ago in an English class at BYU, we were playing a “get to know you” game. This one involved each person in the class saying what celebrity she or he would like to kiss. Besides the fact that I was bothered by the general immorality of the question, it really bugged me that if I said Ewan McGregor I’d probably be turned in to the Honor Code Office (and yet it’s okay for a married man to say he’d like to make out with Gwyneth Paltrow).

In my wife’s family, there’s an ongoing joke in which my mother-in-law will see some guy on TV and comment on how hot he is, then add with a grin, “But not as hot as your dad.” Will I ever be able to casually comment that Tom Cruise is hot, but not as hot as my wife?

I have two thoughts about this. First, he was right to be bothered by the immorality implied in both of these situations. But he was wrong to desire that the same permissiveness be extended to him. Rather, he should expect that heterosexuals treat these practices as inappropriate, too. Another example: in the late 1800s and early 1900s it was overlooked (and even expected) that a young man was sexually promiscuous. There was no such allowance for young women. (A perfect example of this attitude is in the book Tess of the d'Urbervilles). There was eventually an outcry against this and...they went the wrong way. Instead of pushing society to be less tolerant of male promiscuity, they pushed society to be more tolerant of female promiscuity. It was unfair and unjust that there were different standards for men and for women, but when equalizing things, we got the wrong standard. Society should encourage people to have more self control, not less.

Second, in an ideal world we would be able to tell each other our problems, without fear of rejection, mistreatment, gossip, &c., so that we could help each other with overcoming those problems. But, then, in an ideal world we wouldn't have problems. His desire to say "Tom Cruise is hot" without causing people shock or dismay suggests that he hasn't completely rejected homosexuality as a lifestyle. Note that I'm not saying that he can make his same-sex attraction go away. I'm saying that he's rejected certain types of homosexual behavior (e.g. male-male sexual contact) as inconsistent with the Gospel, but feels that other homosexual behaviors (e.g. remarking on the physical attractiveness of another man) are acceptable and that society should make permissions for him to freely do so.

Let's take this one more step in the wrong direction so that you see what I mean. Suppose that we don't just have his mother-in-law (let's call her Nancy) and Ben in the room watching TV, we also have someone who is attracted to children, but doesn't act on those urges (we'll call him Karl for the sake of ease). Everyone knows about Ben's and Karl's sexual urges and support them in their efforts to resist those urges. Now they're watching Steven Spielberg's War of the Worlds. Nancy comments, "Justin Chatwin is so hot!" (grin) "But not as hot as your dad!" Then Ben comments, "Tom Cruise is so hot!" (grin) "But not as hot as my wife!" Then Karl comments "Dakota Fanning is so hot!" (grin) "But not as hot as my wife!" Whoa, Nellie! Karl may never touch a young girl in his life, but that comment is still inappropriate. Whether or not he actually feels that way, Karl's remark suggests that he still thinks it's okay to fantasize about little girls even though he (currently) has no intentions to ever act out. And Ben's remark suggests that he still thinks it's okay to fantasize about men even though he (currently) has no intentions to ever act out. So Ben's remark would be inappropriate, too. (And so would Nancy's).

I'm not trying to say that homosexuality and pedophilia are equally reprehensible. They're not. I am saying that neither practice is acceptable to God. I am saying that no one consciously chooses to experience either of those conditions. I am saying that people who experience attraction to the same gender or to children struggle with those feelings all their lives. And in the previous example I'm saying that it's inappropriate for Karl to voice his attraction, for Ben to voice his attraction, and for Nancy to voice her attraction. And there's a difference between noticing that someone other than your spouse is attractive and expressing it. It may not represent full-blown lust, but it certainly indicates less than full-blown dedication to your spouse.

[bismark]

lets make it all illegal cuz its easier to care about other people's problems than my own!

[Nanti-SARRMM]

Just thought I would share something that just happened, The LDS Church is supporting protections for gays.

[Damasta]

Thanks for that link, Nanti-SARRMM.

Like the post that started this thread said, the Church does not support mistreatment of homosexuals nor targeting them for political punishment. The concern is for the legal clash that would come from so-called "gay rights"* and religious rights; and because there will be serious repercussions for a society which recognizes homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle.

*I say so-called because I don't like the phraseology. It makes it sound like there are special rights which are only afforded to gays by virtue of their being gay. Which isn't really the case. It really means that gays shouldn't be denied human rights. But I can't think of a better way to phrase it--it always comes out too bulky.