Posted by:
snowball
(
)
Date: October 18, 2019 02:10PM
I thought this part was very insightful into the thinking of top LDS leaders on this subject. Here are a few early thoughts:
"...we can learn from the skillful way the Catholic spokesmen have communicated this critical distinction between tendency on the one hand and practice or advocacy on the other."
They certainly did learn it--perhaps over learned it. Think of all those painful distinctions between "same sex attraction" and "acting on those tendencies." The condition and act of homosexuality are hard to separate. It is certainly difficult to separate a straight person's attraction to the opposite gender from their acting on the impulse to have sex with persons of the opposite gender. We have the condition of desiring sexual relations, which for many is a very powerful drive (disciples of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young ought to understand that!).
If we understand that some people are naturally attracted to individuals of the same gender, then we have to accept that many will want to physically express that attraction.
What seems most striking to me is the extent to which Oaks, and by extension his circle, seem to assume that allowing social acceptance of homosexuality is incompatible with what they consider traditional family life. I am part of what Oaks would consider a traditional family, but attend a church with a lot of families led by same sex partners with children. The fact that other people in my social and religious circle are open about their LGBTQ+ identity doesn't really change what I want to do personally one iota. Since leaving LDS, Inc. I've interacted with a lot of gay and lesbian people and none have tried to invite me into their "lifestyle." That's understood to be each others own business.
Oaks seems to think that gay and lesbian people should not be in positions of being role models for young people such as teachers. He just can't accept that exposure to someone who is different will throw people into total confusion about their own sexual identity. Oaks goes so far as to consider homosexuals a "threat" in such positions, where he imagines they may promote and proselytize the homosexual lifestyle. A lifestyle that is (as others of you pointed out) only remotely interesting to someone who has the tendencies he is at pains to stress are okay.
Then Oaks accidentally throws his whole argument about this under the bus. Whoops! After reading page 15, I would start to wonder whether he thinks adulterers should be barred from being school teachers--although I'm afraid if he were honest he might say "yes and stone them too."
Oaks repeatedly talks about harms and "bad effects" associated with homosexuality's influence. But he doesn't ever seem to enumerate or provide evidence for what those "bad effects" are. He just assumes they are there--I suppose just knowing that people are having gay sex somewhere in the world right now is just too much for him to bear.
Again assuming there is a threat, he recommends LDS, Inc. take a hard stance against same sex marriage. Why?
Point #1 - The LDS Church believes that the family is the bulwark of society.
Ugh...ok...but why can't we expand our imagination a bit to include families led by two men or two women. I suppose that would upset someone being able to call priesthood rank on the other? LGBTQ people are generally the children of many straight parents. How is it defending the family to drive a wedge between them like this?
Point #2 - Procreative purpose.
We now have widespread practices of surrogacy and sperm donation. Also some same gender partners adopt children Oak's noble traditional parents will not or are unable to care for. So the human race will go on, put your feet up and relax.
I guess this point really came home for me the first time I attended a church with same-sex couples with children. It was something new to me, but what I soon realized was that some of these people were really great parents and their kids were lucky to have them. At the same time, I reflected on our backdoor neighbor while I was growing up, who I dubbed "swear lady," because she'd always curse at her kids in a loud voice. Now swear lady had a lot of kids (probably too many for her). Her husband was in and out of prison, or so I understood. I asked which would you choose to be a child in? Crazy unstable home with mean/absent parent, but at least you have a mother and father; or a stable, loving home with two partners of the same gender? Most sane people would choose the latter.
Now I started to get it, in what just universe does swear lady get to have a family--but these fine people I was witnessing don't! But that's exactly the society Oaks seeks to sustain in this memo--and still fights for today.
Point #3 - Time honored tradition
A lot of time honored traditions have been challenged because they are wrong. I will not list them all. As our understanding grows, so should our traditions.
Point #4 -- National suicide quote discussed above
see remarks on point #2, put up feet and relax.
I can see myself having written something like this screed from Oaks when I was Mormon. It is very precise, detailed, and well-organized--but it is also completely wrong because it lacks imagination.