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.

;)

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.

[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]

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.