Gay PDA at Church?
I’ve been away for awhile and, I’m not sure anyone even stops by here anymore. No, androgynous Prudence Brown nor his buddy Napoleonic Steve didn’t scare me out of the bloggernacle. Things have just been very hectic at work and supporting the wife and three girls at home and assisting my son on his mission and a daughter w/ education expenses all takes precedence over the free entertainment of pulling the chains of people who take themselves far too seriously.
There’s a neat open discussion going on at Nine Moons about gay Mormons. So I have a question that seems to be beneath the typical bloggernacle snobs. For background, the LDS church has more effeminate men than any organization I’ve ever been involved in, and this has been the case for the 35 years or so I’ve been a member (was born Catholic). BYU is like flammer Mecca. I assume most are gay, but even if only a fraction of these light-on-their-feet types are gay, our church has plenty of homosexuals. Of course, many homosexuals are straight acting. I served w/ some great missionaries that I only later learned are gay (sadly, most tried marriage, and are today divorced and no longer LDS).
So to the question, since the church now has the slogan “gays are welcome in the church”, where’s all the gay PDA at church? Yeah, I know some LDS flammers are bi and chose heterosexuality (seems to be the case with some GAs), and other LDS gays are just old fashioned self repressed or in the closet, but some are out now and yet you never see these guys holding another man’s hand at church, kissing, etc. Why are all active LDS gays still in the closet at church in 2005?
Steve EM
Which GAs do you have in mind?
Comment by Goofus — September 21, 2005 @ 9:10 pm
I won’t take the bait from anybody named Goofus.
Comment by Steve EM — September 22, 2005 @ 5:21 pm
A wise decision, Steve, since the IP address of 12.104.104.106 reveals the source to be somewhere within O’Conner & Cozens, which just happens to be where your pal Aaron Brown works. Here he posts as “Goofus” and on BofH he posts as “Gallant”, the paired duo from the Highlights magazine. At least here he is self-labeling in an accurate manner.
Comment by mormonopenforum — September 22, 2005 @ 7:33 pm
Well, given the dearth of Gay PDA in 2005 in a church full of flammers, it’s safe to conclude “Gays are welcome in the church” is an empty slogan to placate liberal critics and virtually all active LDS gays prefer to remain in the closet.
Comment by Steve EM — October 3, 2005 @ 2:44 pm
Being a member of the church who dealt for some time with these issues myself I can tell you that yes the church does condone sensitivity and other characteristics that some may see as effeminant but which I see as the same characteristics that one would find in Jesus Christ.
If anyone wants information on what some of these men go through, look for Disciples2 or Evergreen. Both are outreach groups for men who are struggling to overcome their homosexuality and either become heterosexual or choose to be chaste. Many of these men suffer a lot of hardships. Some leave the church, some have even committed suicide. Some try marriage and fail. Others try and succeed. There’s as broad a range of people here as there is in any culture or society and every outcome one can think of.
As for members of the GA being closeted…I won’t even justify that with a response.
Comment by SD Joe — October 13, 2005 @ 8:04 pm
SD Joe,
Welcome to open forum. I’m perplexed by your comment “As for members of the GA being closeted…I won’t even justify that with a response.”.
Since being homosexual or bisexual isn’t a sin (distinguishing the orientation from the act), why do you assume no GAs are closeted gay or bi? Beyond that by law of averages, some are likely gay or bi, some do seem definitely gay, especially with the obsession some of them have w/ women’s fashion. There’s one apostle you can just see the cross dresser screaming to get out. I remember him once going on and on about a Liberace performance. I thought he was having an orgasm over Liberace, but I digress.
To the point, I don’t recall a single GA discussing their homosexuality, so if some are gay (which is likely), by definition they are in the closet.
Comment by Steve EM — October 18, 2005 @ 10:08 pm
Steve,
Your point in interesting and worth consideration, but your use of such stereotypical terms like “flammers” and “light-on-their-feet” don’t lend much credence to your sensitivity on the subject. I’d suggest in the future to try to avoid such inflammatory terms.
Comment by adrianne — October 31, 2005 @ 11:26 pm
Adrianne,
Thanks for the input. Criticism is welcome here. You’re correct that while I’m sympathetic about the struggles of gays/lesbians in the church, I’m certainly not sensitive. For background, you may have noticed throughout the bloggernacle (the half I’m not banned from), I’m not sensitive about much of anything. I certainly didn’t mean to imply that all gays are flammers (the gay missionaries I served w/ certainly weren’t/aren’t), but wanted to draw on the irony of a homophobic church full of effeminate men.
Please understand that I’m active LDS and my heart is in the right place, but the whole of LDS culture is a theater of the absurd, of which this issue is just one example.
Thanks again.
Comment by Steve EM — November 2, 2005 @ 3:17 pm
Who is Steve EM? Is that ‘Steve Ex-mormon’? Or Steve Benson? C’mon tell us so we can placate you for fun…idiot-stick!!
Comment by Steve EM Alter-ego — November 10, 2005 @ 5:20 pm
Well Alter-ego, you must be getting Alzheimer’s before me, or you would know the EM stands for Evangelical Mormon, (covered in an earlier post). While sympathetic to Steve Benson’s tragic situation (a painful family rift that, IMHO, could have been completely avoided had we had a merciful retirement tradition for Apostles that we’re still sorely lacking), for the record, I’m active, believing, LDS and a proud dad of five great kids, ages 5-23.
I also recently learned of a 25 year old biological son who’s Dad recently passed away. Since the man, to my knowledge, isn’t aware of me, and my wife and I are at odds on the way I’m handling the situation w/ the boy’s Mom, I’m reluctant to comment further at this time.
Comment by Steve EM — November 14, 2005 @ 5:03 pm
I am one of gays who is still in the closet. I believe in the church slogan which says “All gay are welcome.” However, members around me (I am from Thailand) still do not understand. And if I tell everyone that I am gay…. I won’t be treated the same way I am now. How do I know? Because I have seen so many members who declared publictly that they were attracted to same sex gender, eventhough they want to live the church standard but members do not welcome them. I don’t lie but it doesn’t mean I need to tell everyone that I am gay since I am not practice it.
I love the church.
Comment by Anonymous — January 3, 2006 @ 2:47 pm
Please visit our website - lds4gaymarriage.net We appreciate all comments. Very imformative and thought provoking. Thanks.
Comment by Captain Moroni — April 29, 2006 @ 7:26 pm
I was wondering about this, thanks for the information.
Comment by marriage — May 31, 2006 @ 6:37 pm
As I recall, there were several GAs who died of (homosexually contracted) AIDS back in the early phase of the epidemic. It was COMPLETELY hush-hush. Perhaps somebody else can do the research and provide the details here. It would be absurd to think there are no closeted gays among the GAs, human nature being what it is. It’s like saying that everyone in the Vatican is always 100% chaste.
Comment by MikeInWeHo — August 24, 2006 @ 4:49 pm
Mike,
Welcome to Open Forum. To clarify my post and comments, I include chaste gays who deny or conceal their orientation as in the closet too.
The disease issue you bring up is something that bothers me too, as I have to believe that any pressure on a gay person to deny what they are is likely to lead to impulsive high risk behaviors. Such a person can rationalize “that’s not what I am, but something I sometimes do”, etc. Likewise, I have to believe an LDS gay person who accepts they’re gay and decides they’ll do the best they can with it is more likely to avoid such issues and be happier all around. In short, discouraging gay self identification and open committed relationships is a public health issue too. The church might as well be discouraging child vaccination in that regard.
Comment by Steve EM — August 25, 2006 @ 9:22 am
Hey is this a good place to post this, it was deleted at m*:
[quote][quote]I simply couldn’t disagree more with such comments, based on my experience. The Church teaches the very opposite than that people are “hated and reviled by God” for their actions. In fact, if you carefully read the interview linked to above, the General Authorities (in comments approved by the Brethren) clearly say the opposite, that we are all children of God and that he loves us all.[/quote]
geoff, clearly oaks does not say this. but even if he did, so what. its such a generic and broad reference where other comments he makes are quite specific and harmful, for example:
[quote]We feel great compassion for parents whose love and protective instincts for their challenged children have moved them to some positions that are adversary to the Church. I hope the Lord will be merciful to parents whose love for their children has caused them to get into such traps.[/quote]
the simple implication that a parents compassion and parental instincts for a child can be adversarial is ridiculous. it is beyond me how anyone could come up with this. equally unbelievable and offensive is his suggestion that the feelings of attraction for homosexuals are like the temptation to steal. there is no inspiration in such comments, only ignorance and personal ideology, both of which he is entitled to have and display as he sees fit.
it is interesting to me that you acknowledge that calling someone to repentence is not your place, and it seems that you feel to do so may be offensive. well hells bells geoff, if a homosexual is to show up in the halls of the chapels and sit in sacrament meeting where people are praising oaks and his fellow prophets, how are they too feel anything other than having been called to repentence, or judged, or unworthy of all the aspirations that the other members hold?
homosexuals are no less loyal to their families than anyone else. how do you think a homosexual would feel about their parents after reading or hearing oaks rant? do you think they feel like sitting in the pews so their parents can continually face this dilemna that oaks is so concerned about? i doubt it. welcome shmelcome. “come join us for church, if you dont you cant go to the CK, if you do, your parents are in a horrible dilemna.”
and all y’all that think that gays are and should be welcome in the pews, go back and read this, from oaks:
[quote]I can also imagine some circumstances in which it might be possible to say, ‘Yes, come, but don’t expect to stay overnight. Don’t expect to be a lengthy house guest. Don’t expect us to take you out and introduce you to our friends, or to deal with you in a public situation that would imply our approval of your “partnership.”[/quote]
think about that for just a second, would ya? there are so many that claim that gays are welcome at church, where oaks is saying that they are not to be welcomed in THEIR OWN PARENTS HOME! they are not to be welcomed IN A PUBLIC SITUATION with their parents. how in the hell do you consider church to be anything other than a public situation? could you please explain that? is church a public or private situation in the minds of m* posters?
in many ways i applaud geoff for calling b.s. on oaks rant, and saying gays should be welcome at church or anywhere else. but, the reality is his suggestion is in absolute, black and white contrast to what is suggested by oaks.
stop pretending that gays are welcome at church, they are not. some gays may make concessions and attend, but they are not welcome.
someone suggested that they are welcome if they dont flaunt their sin. oh boy. and compared it to smoking in the foyer. lovely. i think we all agree that urinating is not a sin. right? but urinating in the foyer would probably void ones welcome at church. not smoking in the foyer is just plain ol bad manners and ridiculous. smokers and urinaters are all welcome at church, but etiquette still applies. the implication that gays are going to lose their etiquette and manners once they enter through the chapel doors is ignorant, at best, and just plain bigotted at the extreme.
oaks is a lawyer. he knows little to nothing about homosexuality. he works for the church. he is appealing to the core of the church. that is his right and his duty. we can choose to ignore, subscribe to or defy his suggestions. many choose to apologize for and interpret his words in creative ways, i think that is what is happening here in this thread of comments and in geoffs original post.
i suggest ignoring it may be the best approach. fighting it and expressing dismay at his ignorance is another. rubber stamping his comments as they are directed at parents is harmful to parents, gays, individuals and the church. i trust the real love and compassion a parent has toward a child more than i trust oaks. and i trust that if there is a god, and he is omnipotent, the instincts such a god would instill in a parent are to be cherished and nurtured, not hampered by an ignorant and harmful ideology.
my parting questions: what is to be gained by apologizing for oaks comment? what is so wrong in saying that oaks was hypocritical in his suggestions? why pretend that gays are to be welcome when clearly oaks, from one side of his mouth, says they are not? and what is so difficult in accepting the fact that mormon gays do not feel welcome and are often saddled with self-loathing?
are those questions tough to answer because we generically sustain these men in public and in private?
[/quote]
and it was immediately deleted.
since i wont be able to respond or get a response, i thought i would ask y’all to put on your very best thinking caps and role-play costumes and tell me, what was so offensive?
[url]http://www.millennialstar.org/index.php/2006/08/30/p1758#more1758[/url]
Comment by Mayan Elephant — August 31, 2006 @ 2:44 pm
ME, thanks for the very detailed and insightful comment. I give you credit for wading through the whole Oaks Q&A thing. It was so bad, such a step backward and so embarrassing, I never made it that far. Thanks again.
Comment by Steve EM — August 31, 2006 @ 2:59 pm
Someone asked if there are any closeted gay GA’s. I happen to be a member of one of the highest governing councils of the church. I can look you straight in the eye and speak very slowly and assure you that, yes, there are. I know because I am one. For obvious reasons, I cannot reveal to you my identity. Were I to do so, Elder Packer would surely contact my stake president to initiate a court of love.
Comment by RGS — August 31, 2006 @ 3:25 pm
yes, but can read prepared translations of those same words, just as slowly, with the same eye contact and slow sincere tone….. in spanish? can you do that Scott, Richard G.
oh, and rich, there is nothing wrong with that, its packer, he is the one with his head up his ass. no wonder he is not gay, he is competing with himself.
—–
Sorry Steve. I just felt so shutdown after using my best manners over at m*. you know how it is when you sin as much as me, its hard to not sin and sin and sin. mmmmm, mmmmmm, mmmmmmmm, gotta sin some more.
Comment by Mayan Elephant — August 31, 2006 @ 3:56 pm
Funny, it’s BKP that always came off as repressed homosexual to me.
Comment by Steve EM — August 31, 2006 @ 4:31 pm
HA! I found you.
Ok, just for a start, I don’t think there were any GAs that died of AIDS. It’s something I made it my business to know.
But I agree about the “sensitive” quality of LDS men that often screams “closet.” I’m a pianist that plays for theatrical productions, and one time a woman in our stake gave a party where everybody sang showtunes, and I was the accompanist. At one point, she was sitting next to me on the bench, and she said “take a look around the room — every single couple seems to be made up of men who know the songs, and their butch wives who don’t.”
Well, it was pretty funny at the time.
;)
Comment by D. Fletcher — August 31, 2006 @ 11:55 pm
D, Thanks for stopping by. I used to live in the Northeast.
Comment by Steve EM — September 1, 2006 @ 7:22 am