I've been digesting what Packer said for a few days now. I have three brief insights I'd like to share with you.
1st. He never actually says homosexual, now does he? This is great news for future Mormon apologists. Heck, it's good news for Bruce R. McConkie Boyd K. Packer! Should his superiors decide to reverse their official anti-gay stance he can claim he was talking about pornographers. Or shoplifters.
2nd. “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” isn't canonized and Apostles don't get to canonize whatever they want. Not even the President of the quorum can do that. Even if he super-duper wants to. I wonder what his boss thinks of the obvious overreach. Can a breach of etiquette be blamed on a moment of religious fervor? Can it be excused by the same?
3rd. This is for anyone who thought that Conference was good except for Packer's talk:
ps. Should you care to read a bit more of Packer's teachings checkout this BYU link.
My favorite quote: "We've always counseled in the Church for our Mexican members to marry Mexicans, our Japanese members to marry Japanese, our Caucasians to marry Caucasians, our Polynesian members to marry Polynesians. The counsel has been wise."
Halfway through the two weeks, over the course of several phone calls, we talked about how we loved each other and we each acknowledged out loud that we were thinking marriage. The conversation naturally evolved to when and where we would get married. The next morning, Ty called the Salt Lake Temple and scheduled our wedding. Things were feeling pretty set already...and then Ty changed his relationship status on Facebook to say he was engaged to me.
No, there is no mention of Ty being a big gay anywhere in their official life story! The gay, as it were; remember, Ty wrote the book on being a gay Mormon.
More accurately, Ty wrote the book on being a hopelessly repressed gay Mormon. His book outlines his commitment to celibacy. On CNN he declared his commitment to the entire country. In person at Matis family gatherings he quietly soaked up the adoration of countless other repressed gays. They wanted him and he knew it.
He still knows it, by the way.
You can probably sense my disdain for the man. He represents everything wrong with the gay-meets-Mormon universe. Is is impossible to be a complete human being and celibate. Period.
And that's why I don't like Ty. Or it was... until today.
Today I found out he's getting hitched. To a lady. And it's not that I'm upset he'll be sexing a player on the other team. Gay guys sleep with women sometimes, no big. No, the bad part is the using.
He's using her. She gets him into heaven. Finally, no more guessing about the fate of a gay celibate Mormon. No more hoping the celibacy thing pans out after death. Nope. Once he pops that cherry punches that ticket he's guaranteed a seat on the Heaven Express.
He'll never see her as a women. That Sister of God may as well be a crowbar he slips between the pearly gates. Unless he needs liquid oxygen and a hammer because the Pearly Gates are padlocked after hours, in which case he can think of her as that.
She'll never be loved in that relationship. Not like a wife should be loved. He'll like her, sure. A baker likes flour. A judge likes justice. Anyone can like a tool, a ticket, or a pet.
... they aren't merely mistaken, they're dead wrong...
North Star* just forwarded everyone a statement from the Matis family. In it, the parents of Stuart Matis requests that any activities planned by those wishing to remember the 10th anniversary of Stuart's suicide be canceled. They feel any such activities would detract from the Stuart's wish for change.
This is so, so wrong. Where do I even begin?
THE FAMILY OF AN ICON HAS NO SAY ON HOW OTHERS VIEW THE ICON. Sorry, but it's true. Stuart is a symbol now. Be it martyr or victim there is nothing his parent's can expect except to draw more attention to the event.
THE FAMILY IS MISTAKEN ABOUT THE CHANGE STUART WANTED. Mr. and Mrs. Matis don't expressly say what Stuart wanted. They do say that a rally is not how Stuart would want to change things. They also say "...he was also an intensely private person. It was in quiet, unobtrusive ways that he made his biggest impact on others."
He blew his brains out on the steps of the Stake Center. That IS NOT how a "intensely private person" effects change in a "quiet, unobtrusive" way.
THE FAMILY IS SERIOUSLY F---ED IN THE HEAD. They claim to understand so much about gay Latter-day Saints. They claim to have spoken to many gay latter-Day Saints. They claim to talk to other members about the needs of gay Latter-Day Saints.
Those claims are all true. I've been to the firesides at their house so I can confirm this first-hand.
But this is also the family that wrote in a book they authored, "Although losing our son was difficult, it has been comforting to know that he was faithful to his temple covenants." (p 20).
Comforting? Comforting to know that your son, all his potential grandchildren, and all your would-have-been family memories of his adulthood are ALL DEAD. But, hey, at least he didn't date some dude!
So maybe they don't understand gays so well. They even dust-off the old chestnut of "same-gender attraction" instead of just acknowledging their son was g-a-y GAY.
And they are wrong, wrong, wrong about finding comfort in Stuart's death. There's NO comfort in Stuarts death. There's NO silver lining. It is pure, epic tragedy.
The failure of the Stuart's parents to see that is beyond the pale. It is disgusting. Filthy. Putrid.
SILENCE IS MURDER. The planned event is the opposite of silence. It can only save lives. If you live anywhere nearby I would hope you attend.
and just when i had started to think the inside story would never be told...
Journey Into Manhood. Ever heard of it? It's the pray-the-gay-away organization run by People Can Change. Ty Mansfield* talks about it all the time. Journey Into Manhood (JiM) is an expensive weekend retreat run by non-professionals who claim a shocking 79% success rate! They do this by...
...ah, yes. I almost forgot about the confidentially agreement. Do you know who remembers the agreement and is fully prepared to breech it? Ted Cox.
Ted Cox, a "perennially straight writer," spent two years posing as a gay man and attending reparative therapy events around the country including JiM!
Feel free to read the whole article (it isn't very long) but before you do, feel free to read these choice quotes:
"For one exercise, you're standing just inches away from another man and you're staring him in the eyes, and someone in the background is telling you to think about what emotions come up. You do this with every man at the camp. It is very uncomfortable."
"I became sad because I saw men reenact traumatic events from their childhood. ... One man, for example, reenacted his father beating his mother."
"What was surprising at the weekly meetings was this emphasis on falling in love with Christ. In order to overcome your attraction to men, it was to fall in love—in almost a romantic way—to the most perfect man. Some of the songs they sang sounded like soft-rock 80s love hits, but they were about Jesus instead of your sweetheart."
I can hardly contain my laughter about that last one. Surely, if you can't pray the gay away you can always sex-up the Lord!
In the article Mr. Cox also talks about the staffers trying to reinforce the American machismo mind-set. How does that myth still persist? These non-professional therapists need to spend a night at a leather bar.
A cousin of mine sent me an invitation to sign a Facebook petition. This cousin knows I'm gay, comes from a conservative military family (that also knows I'm gay), and is preparing to serve an LDS mission. What do you think, bloggers, did I handle this well?
Cousin,
My Facebook account informs me you have requested I sign the "Petition to US Congress and President Obama."
Item 5 of the petition states:
"I am against the Hate Crimes Bill (Pedophile Protection Act) that would make it a federal hate crime to defend a child against a pedophile."
This is simply not the case. The legislation, known as the Matthew Shepard Act, amends the existing federal Hate-Crime Law to include crimes motivated by a victim's actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.
The bill would also: - remove the current prerequisite that the victim be engaging in a federally-protected activity, like voting or going to school; - give federal authorities greater ability to engage in hate crimes investigations that local authorities choose not to pursue; - provide $10 million in funding to help state and local agencies pay for investigating and prosecuting hate crimes.
Nowhere in the bill are provisions made regarding pedophilia. The author of the petition has made the bigoted assumption that all non-heterosexuals are pedophiles and that assumption couldn't be further from the truth. Nor does it have anything to do with this bill.
This bill's detractors usually claim it will suppress free speech by making it illegal to speak or preach against homosexuality. This too is a flawed notion. Quoting from the bill itself, "Nothing in this Act...shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution."
I believe you have been deceived by the wording of this petition and been led to sign it thinking it was protecting something it doesn't. Political rhetoric can be difficult to sort through and I'm not bothered you fell victim to its lies. I would appreciate, however, if you removed your name from it.
"A recent poll of Massachusetts residents revealed that 36 percent of voters who oppose gay marriage agreed with the statement, 'If you speak out against gay marriage in Massachusetts you really have to watch your back because some people may try to hurt you.'"
Wow, 36%. That's a big number. There are 6,497,967 people in Massachusetts. That's 2,339,268 people (give or take) that feel they need to "watch their backs."
What have we done, gays? We'reterrorizing... our enemies... merely... for... thinking...
Wait just a second. 36% of voters who oppose gay marriage? 64% of the state is registered to vote and according to the study I found, support amongst the state's citizenry for genuine gay marriage* is 56%. So if 36% of 44% of 64%fear for their backs...
...that's about 10% 650,000 people!
So, to the 10% or so Massachusett-ites who fear for your spines, we're sorry for the vague threats we've been issuing. But we didn't bring the Neolithic attitude toward the gay minority to the party so grow up. Try worrying about the planet or the economy or something else you may be able to influence in some way.
And to the well-read scholar who wrote the even-handed analysis the original quote came from I say this:
First, thank you for participating in this debate in a cool, controlled manner.
Second, you claim individualism and communism are bad without establishing a reasonable middle-place. I think you need to elaborate on that.
Finally, pick a better statistic then "36 percent of 44 percent of 64 percent."
Let's face it: Gay Mormons have to put up with two of the worst acronyms ever coined.
The Church would have us believe we suffer from Same-Sex Attraction or "SSA." This gives us a good example of how something very trite can be very true: SSA is ASS backwards.*
Another unfortunate concept you may have noticed is Mixed-Orientation Marriage or "MOM." the oedipal implications of a gay man saying, "I am in a MOM," are staggering.
Perhaps it would be better for individuals in such marriages to admit to being in a Mixed Orientation Partnership. I think MOP (pronounced "mope") would be the most accurate title for those poor, unfortunate souls.
Let's pretend you can stop us from marrying forever. All the things you whine on and on about (they need a mommy and a daddy, for example) would still be trumped by the fact that all kids need a family. Certainly this applies to foster kids.
But gays cAN't have kids on their own! They want the ones we straights are disCaRDing!! tHen thEY can indoctrinate future generatiONs with lies about how normALl gay folks are!!! they musT be stopped FRom adopting!!!1!
Indeed, some states have done just that. In doing so they have secured their futures and the futures of all children everywhere. No gay families equals no gay recruiting, no gay support, and no gay tolerance. Problem solved, right?
However, in their frothy denunciations they have overlooked the loophole: Gays are breeding.
Its true. The government can take away all sorts of rights from its gay citizenry but it can't take away their ability to have sex. Sorry, straight bigots, but you can't do that.
So gays are generating their own children one way or another. Surrogacy, in vitro fertilization, and saki make babies happen regardless of orientation. Not that it happens without effort. The family you want to build is always happier than the family a torn prophylactic built. Maybe that alone is why kids in gay families love their gay parents.
So go ahead and keep discarding your precious progeny, straight bigots. And if you think gays don't deserve a shot to care for the children you treat like refuse, fine. The gays and their families aren't going anywhere.
And honestly, some of us are getting real tired of asking for your permission to exist.*
*I believe in the basic human right to start any and all sentences with "and" if one so chooses.
This one's gonna be brief. I really have just a single question.
Why is polygamy illegal?
If a man married to one wife has multiple affairs a court will order him to pay support to any children he fathers.
Nobody is ever prosecuted for philandering. The worst that could happen is he'd lose a custody hearing should they divorce.
But if he is willing to volunteer support, if the mistresses want to live near him, and if nobody is underage, what's the problem?
Let me reiterate that underage marriage is obviously wrong and should be prosecuted. Based on that big raid last year it seems that underage marriage isn't a frequent issue.*
Does anyone know why polygamy is illegal?
*Besides, I want to discuss polygamy as a concept as opposed to a particular groups use of it.
This is great! This is such good timing; the news comes only days after I identified his need for companionship. Now I have further evidence supporting my All-it-Takes-to-be-Happy-is-Submitting-to-Happiness™* theory.
Congratulations, Max. I hope you and Whoever-He-Is spend the rest of your lives sharing warm, sexy nights together! :)
P.S. Does anyone know who the mystery boyfriend is? My guess would be the blogger Issacson based on those steamy Guatemala pics. Does anyone else care to venture a guess?
*Per playasinmar stylebook instructions, the All-it-Takes-to-be-Happy-is-Submitting-to-Happiness™ theory can be abbreviated in all caps as AITTBHISTH.
It doesn’t take a creative person to sit in front of a computer and pound out C#. It takes a creative person to pretend to like programming but programming itself is 99% mindless busy work.*
Are you familiar with the traditional nerd (from the Latin battlus starus galacticus)? The thick glasses, inept social skills, dresses like Stephen Speilburg, and hair like Bill Gates type of nerd is real. Very, very real.
These people are easily the smartest among us and yet the most difficult to be around voluntarily.
Ask your self why their employers went to bat for them in the fight against Prop 8. Ask yourself why these tech firms already have policies in place to extend medical coverage to the partners of gay employees. Ask yourself why, exactly, in a world full of heterosexual tech graduates they would try so hard to retain the small number of gay ones.
And ask yourself what, precisely, straight communities have to fear from regular gays if Apple has already learned to love gay nerds.
Hollywood has long portrayed gays as sympathetic victims of a Straights Only culture much to the ire of social conservatives. These portrayals have little to no effect on culture at large and are mainly for the entertainment of social liberals. These teleplays aren’t what I mean by Hollywood’s Example.
Have you noticed there aren’t any high-ranking gay actors? How many can you name off the top of your head? Ellen, Rosie, and Neil Patrick Harris are probably the best known. And their status in the Hollywood Universe: talk show host, vagrant comedian*, and sitcom actor.
Let’s look at the winners of Oscars for Best Actor and Best Actress from the last five years: straight, straight, straight, straight, straight, straight, straight, straight, straight, straight. So why does Hollywood support the gay community if they aren’t deserving of their industry’s top honors?
Because they talk to, work with, dine with, and toast with gays. Gays are their friends, neighbors, and colleagues.
They know and therefore aren’t afraid of gays.
It will take time but it will happen everyone eventually. Unless you live on the moon or Northern Idaho you’ll meet one and you’ll undersand Hollywood’s Example: gays aren’t any different from straights. They’re just as fat/skinny, polite/rude, corrupt/virtuous, and detached/involved as everyone else.
Jesus commanded, "…Ye shall not esteem one flesh above another, or one man shall not think himself above another." (Book of Mormon, Mosiah 23:7)
"And again I say unto you, let every man esteem his brother as himself." (Doctrine and Covenants 38:24)
"And there was a strict command throughout all the churches that there should be no persecutions among them, that there should be an equality among all men; That they should let no pride nor haughtiness disturb their peace; that every man should esteem his neighbor as himself…" (Book of Mormon, Mosiah 27:3-4)
"We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others…." (Doctrine and Covenants 134:4)
We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another [prohibited] in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied." (Doctrine and Covenants 134:9)
"…it was strictly contrary to the commands of God that there should be a law which should bring men on to unequal grounds." (Book of Mormon, Alma 30:7)
hey, L. havin' any luck keepin' me off northern lights?
You know that email. The one forwarded to you by every family member you’ve ever heard of and their podiatrist. The one titled “Six Consequences the Coalition Has Identified if Proposition 8 Fails.” It seeks to provide logical reasons why no sane person would allow for gay marriage.
Today wasn’t Christmas but I did awake today to find the internet had brought me the best gift I’d received in years: a rebuttal to “Six Consequences” written by a BYU Law School professor. This isn’t your average rebuttal. This is a rebuttal so razor-sharp it will slice the very air molecules between your eyes and the screen.
I’ve always held to this tenant: You can believe what ever you want but your arguments need a rock-solid foundation. If I see foundational weakness I’ll tear it down. Or, as that PDF demonstrates, a BYU professor will do it for me.
I realize*, of course, there are other arguments than the six presented in that email. I only wish to point out the inherent fragility of the arguments used in this campaign. Arguments built on fear, exaggerated consequence, and flat-out fabrication.
And this isn’t just a weak foundation! The whole structure built upon it is thin and wafer-like. It’s an entire house built out of frickin’ graham crackers.
*In civilized society a learned person will use the “z” (or “zed” to the heathen) if the need to be taken seriously should arise.
"Inan early post [on cranieum's blog] he describes his video game addiction history and his committment to his young family. Sometimes it’s just good to know that non-ssa guys struggle with unhealthy addictions but have the same desires to be good, honorable men."
Addiction? Hurumph!
Is it addiction to be loved by someone you actually love in return? Not platonic, not brotherly, not familial. Actual Love loving.
Is it addiction to be kissed by someone you actually enjoy kissing? Not a peck on the cheek or a brush of the lips. Actual Kiss kissing.
Is it addiction to sit next to someone you fully appreciate? Not thanks-for-toughing-this-out-for-eternity closeness or please-help-me-control-my-inconsolable-sobbing closeness. Actual Cuddle closeness.
And while we're on the subject of sobbing... wouldn't it be nice if sex didn't end that way?
