I have a few problems with Boyd K. Packer's talk. The first thing is when he mentioned changing a law against nature. I don't have a problem with the Church's stance on marriage. My problem is with enforcing a spiritual belief on someone else and making it a law. Not a law of nature, a law of the land. Keeping marriage only legal between a man and woman doesn't make it any more sacred. There are legal marriages everywhere that are in shambles and people who don't respect their "sacred" vows of commitment. A piece a paper making a marriage legal does not define a marriage as sacred. It is the people in the marriage that make it sacred, how they view their marriage, their actions and by how they treat their spouse. Proposition 8 is forcing this spiritual belief on people who don't believe in it. On a smaller scale, you wouldn't try to pass laws about The Word of Wisdom or people living together out of wedlock.
My second problem with the talk was his comment saying why would Heavenly Father make people gay, and that people are not born gay. I feel his wording is confusing and in a way irresponsible. Some will take these words to say that people are lying when they say they are born gay. Gordon B. Hinkley said he didn't know if people were born gay. He also said that the Church isn't anti-gay, it's pro-family. There are people who take things very literal and will take a rhetorical question and treat it as prophesy. His talk basically was a slap in the face to everyone gay, and calling them liars. I think saying that Heavenly Father makes people gay is a bold statement and I don't necessarily agree with it. If you believe homosexuality is a sin, then the temptation for the sin comes from Satan, not Heavenly Father. I do believe that things happen to certain people in order to teach a lesson. This lesson might not be to the person who is gay, but to the people around them. How would Heavenly Father want us to respond? Is it our place to judge? I am not judged by someone else's sin.
Our natural reaction to something we don't understand is fear. You have all these reactions because you are afraid, but you react from fear instead of taking the time to think logically. A gay person will not be able to sue for the right to get married in the Temple. The State cannot legally force the Church to do this. That would mean, anyone could sue for admittance into the Temple defeating the purpose for a Temple Recommend. Do you think this would logically happen? And yet, many people use this as their number one reason for supporting Proposition 8. Many people want to protect their children. Think about the children raised by gay parents or with gay family members. Is this harmful to them? My brother in law doesn't hide the fact that he's gay, his boyfriends have come to family functions and are introduced to people as his boyfriend. The kids know that he has a boyfriend but he is very respectful around them and it isn't something that is flaunted in their faces. I believe there is a tactful way to have this discussion with children, but you can't keep them in a bubble. There are so many instances of bullying and suicides that it HAS to be addressed, and maybe even sooner than you think. Chris' youngest brother used to be called gay and was being bullied at the age of 8, and this wasn't because their brother came out as gay. Just like racism is passed on from generation to generation, ignorance and intolerance is being passed on. You don't have to teach your kids that it's not a sin to be gay, but they should be taught how to properly deal with people they view as different. I will not tolerate any slander or bulling from my children. So many times I hear "that's gay" or "you're gay" thrown around casually without a second thought. My entire life I never even thought twice before uttering this myself. People don't realize how hurtful these remarks are.
Before you say you are a tolerant person, think about what laws like this are saying. Does being gay make them any less human than a straight person? By denying them the same rights, that is exactly what you are doing. I don't expect everyone to agree with me 100%. I just want people to understand. I think the Church has given itself a bad image because of this and it has overshadowed what it is really about. It makes me really sad to see this. There is a way to be supportive of gay rights and still pro-family. After all, what do you do when your "family" is gay? I'd love to hear everyone's thoughts. Don't be afraid to comment.
3 comments:
UT is a tough place to live when you're gay. It's not just the Mormon church, but the fact that aspects of homophobia are ingrained into the culture. Having spent many of my formative years in one or both of the above cultures, I doubt I'll ever stop thinking it's funny when I hear someone say "that's gay".
I personally don't think the Mormon church will ever back off from its stance on homosexuality or gay marriage. Despite whatever evidence out there that suggests logic on the issue, such as the fact that homosexuality is no less innate than heterosexuality, or the fact that (to your point) Mormons would not be required to perform gay marriages under any statute that has been proposed and/or made law to date, Mormons will continue to do what they believe to be "God's will" until it becomes politically expedient to do otherwise. I say this because of the church's history of about-faces with polygamy and with blacks holding the priesthood. The timing of those "revelations" is too coincidental to ignore.
Where I have a bigger problem with Packer's talk is where the church revised some key portions of it when it printed the talk. It is well known that everything that gets said in General Conference is approved before it's said. This being the case, there is no question that Packer's superiors saw and approved his remarks before they were actually spoken. The revisions (you can find comparisons of the actual talk vs. the printed version online) suggest serious backtracking in the face of pressure. One major revision was to call the Proclamation on the family a "guide" in the written version instead of "revelation", as it was called in the talk. This is in direct contradiction with materials on the lds.org website that call it a revelation.
Personally, this whole issue speaks to a lot of the problems that I have with religion and with so-called "conservative" values these days. In both camps (and they're not mutually exclusive), there is a lot of fear of change and fear of what they don't understand. I have never seen any empirical data that would suggest families would crumble if they had two dads. Gay marriage has been legal in parts of Europe for a long time...wouldn't we have learned something from that? Sadly, I also know that having this kind of data would mean nothing to the person who insists that their homophobic behavior is "God's will". Such people can rarely be reasoned with when it comes to these kinds of issues. This is part of the reason that I no longer identify with any religion or political movement. I find these arguments tiresome and believe they detract from other, more important issues--the economy, unemployment, national defense, international relations, and so on.
I would love to see the issue of gay marriage decided at the federal level once and for all. Homosexuality has been a part of every society since the dawn of civilization, and it isn't going anywhere any time soon. While I admittedly still cringe at outward displays of homosexual affection, I see no good reason to deny these people equal rights...and would love to move on from this to what I believe to be far more pressing matters.
This is an extremely touchy subject that's going to stir up all kinds of emotions.
I haven't listened or read President Packer's talk yet, but I've read a lot of what other people are saying. From what I've read, he didn't exactly say "people are not born gay." It was more like people have temptations and it's their choice what they do with those temptations. I read a blog entry by a gay man who is a practicing Mormon and he said he thought the talk was mostly about pornography and any sexual sin (ie pre-martial sex).
Ultimately, people will take what they want from the talk and color it with their bias whether they're for or against it.
Personally, I don't agree with their lifestyle, but I try to be respectful and accepting of them as a person. I definitely think the bullying needs to stop.
"Temptations" is what Packer said after he went back and edited his comments for publication. Here's a comparison of some of the more offensive parts of the talk and how they were changed:
The version spoken in conference:
We teach the standard of moral conduct that will protect us from Satan’s many substitutes and counterfeits for marriage. We must understand that any persuasion to enter into any relationship that is not in harmony with the principles of the gospel must be wrong. From The Book of Mormon we learn that wickedness never was happiness. Some suppose that they were pre-set, and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn tendencies toward the impure and unnatural. Not so. Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone? Remember, he is our Father.
The text version on LDS.org today:
We teach a standard of moral conduct that will protect us from Satan’s many substitutes or counterfeits for marriage. We must understand that any persuasion to enter into any relationship that is not in harmony with the principles of the gospel must be wrong. From the Book of Mormon we learn that “wickedness never was happiness.”
Some suppose that they were preset and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn temptations toward the impure and unnatural. Remember, God is our Heavenly Father.
Given the fact that conference talks are screened and approved by church leadership prior to being communicated over the pulpit, there is little doubt in my mind that the original version was Packer's (and thus the church's) true message and intent. The published version of the talk is toned down in so many important ways that the church is clearly backing off under pressure.
The comment about "Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone?" are also very telling. Why would he make anyone blind, or a Siamese twin, or anything else? That comment leads to a very slippery slope that I doubt any Mormon could climb.
Post a Comment