Homosexuality and Religion: What should we think about the Mormon church's new website and public relations campaign about "same-sex attraction?"

My answer shall be rather cynical, but then I'm not a Mormon, I'm one of those horrible, mean and vicious New Atheist types. So, it looks a bit like PR stunt. It all sounds rather nice and fluffy and praises "dialogue" and talks about "common humanity" and so on, but people have rightly made a big fuss over all the media stories of LGBT youth being kicked out of their homes in Utah. And that, along with Prop 8, rather hurt their PR of the LDS church: it shattered the image of Mormons as these people who believed some crazy stuff but are fundamentally nice people. I mean, sure, if they actually go through with some of the stuff, like support anti-discrimination ordinances and, oh, getting their members to not kick gay family members out of their houses... that'd certainly be an improvement. But it's an improvement from a frankly terrible place to a marginally less terrible place. If they expect applause for curbing the excesses of their bigotry, they sure as hell won't be getting any clapping from me. Being marginally less evil isn't something I'm going to applaud because you shouldn't be this mean to start with. The problem with all this dialogue PR stuff is they are polishing up a turd. You can go on about dialogue and respect but the Mormon faith is still basically saying to gay and lesbian people: "yeah, you don't quite fit God's plan, but don't you worry, if you try hard enough, and commit yourself to a life of complete celibacy and vow to not have sexual or romantic relationships with the people you are actually attracted to, then we're down with it". Yeah, any heterosexuals wanna sign up for that deal? Thought not. Cutting off the opportunity to have sexual intimacy and romantic love, two wonderful, pleasurable, life-affirming, meaning-giving things in order to satisfy the demands of some old book? Fuck that shit. There's only one answer to that kind of vile, anti-human, life-denying nonsense: take your theology and swivel on it. Here's a far more empowering message for gay people: there's nothing wrong with you. You don't have to listen to these sexphobic idiots. There's people out there who will love you without demanding you either give up any hope of sex and love or live a lie (and maybe wreck some poor, unsuspecting heterosexual's life by getting in to some sham marriage to please the church). So long as you enjoy it, your partner(s) enjoy it too, everybody consents, nobody gets any sexually transmitted diseases or risks anything more serious than a sore behind from overenthusiastic spanking, do whatever the fuck you want in the bedroom and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. It's this crazy idea we call "freedom". And while personally I think that the whole idea of God is a load of cobblers and Joseph Smith is a charlatan, if you still want to hang on to the embers of Christian religion, there are actual tolerant, affirming churches out there that don't believe you are just one of God's unfortunate mistakes. The answer isn't some mealy-mouthed "dialogue", it's walking proudly out from the church and standing up for your right to be free, not being a victim of anti-gay Stockholm Syndrome. To quote Sister Barbara Streisand: "I've had it, you've had it, he's had it, we've had it. Enough is enough is enough is enough is enough is enough is enough is ENOUGH!"

See also http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-news-conference-on-religious-freedom-and-nondiscrimination, which came out since this question was originally asked. Those that feel no change has been made are overlooking something important:  the Church has made the position much more clear for those of us that are members.  I think it was difficult to see couched in other terms, but I saw a clear line being drawn regarding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights.  The Church came out in favor of extending to LGBT the same negative rights to everyone in other protected classes.  The stated position reserved that some positive rights are not appropriate to extend to others because those rights would require some people to violate their own conscience. Below is from a discussion about proposed http://m.boiseweekly.com/CityDesk/archives/2015/01/26/follow-boise-weeklys-coverage-of-historic-add-the-words-hearing" legislation in the state of Idaho that was recently defeated in committee and how the Church positions plays into that legislation and others like it.  I should add that my friend had expressed a desire to have the same legal protection "Mormons enjoy" and asked referenced persecutions of Mormons in earlier days: I'm very happy to say that I want something like this bill, but I am trying to be cautious to avoid unintended consequences. What I read of it yesterday (can I say I'm not a fan of legalese?) included what can be done by the one side, but didn't address what obligations are intended to be created for others. I view the protections given to my because of my religion as a negative right- it requires no action on your part, it simply requires that you not engage in certain prohibited actions. I'm completely fine with having such negative rights extended. But the http://legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title67/T67CH59SECT67-5909.htm includes positive rights, which require others to take actions they might not otherwise take in certain situations. I'm not a fan of such laws; I prefer they be enforced through social mechanisms rather than codified into law. For example, if someone makes it clear that Mormon's aren't welcome in his establishment, the Human Rights Act gives me the ability to seek legal recourse against his business. But it seems like between the detriment he'll face by not having my business and the social stigma that would come from such a program, there may be non-legal recourse that can accomplish the same thing. To be frank, I dislike using legislation for this kind of thing because it requires finding a universal solution and applying it to everyone. In thorny issues like this, that is very difficult to do and I am concerned that government will get it wrong much more often than it will get it right. So I generally prefer non-legislative solutions. Part of that comes from a distrust of government rooted in the past persecutions you mention. I much prefer social solutions for these kinds of issues, where a number of different possible solutions are legal and people can figure out what works most effectively. That way is much more flexible than legislation and can vary to fit the facts of a particular circumstance. To get back to the original article, that is what the Church's announcement was about- we agree with extending these negative rights to all people. We don't agree with extending some positive rights (we obviously do agree with positive rights in certain cases, like children relative to their parents). This position reflects my own interpretation of the official pronouncement, but I think it is helpful in the discussion. As to those that think the Church is just trying to establish a new, more defensible position, you are mistaken.  This clarification was about helping church members understand which policies the church does and does not support, so they can vote with a clear conscience in favor of protections of negative rights and so they can clearly determine which policies would have negative repercussions on the Church through the use of positive rights.  Like most organizations, the Church wishes to be well thought of, but the focus is on being well thought of for doing what is right.  If the focus was on popularity, the position would have been very different.

Before I comment, I'll establish my background. I'm an ex-Mormon. I had Mormon friends and acquaintances commit suicide because of the way the church and its members treated them. My father was a Bishop and was called one night to go clean up Stuart Matis' blood off the pavement in front of his chapel.http://www.affirmation.org/suicides/stuart_matis.shtml. So while I'm not gay myself, this is an extremely important issue to me. I think the site is a baby step in the right direction and so I'm happy about that. But I was really disappointed to see that the site put all the blame on public misunderstanding and church members not being tolerant enough. Clearly, the church itself and its leaders, both past and present, deserve a great deal of blame for the hatred and intolerance that has led to so much misery and so many suicides. It doesn't open a dialogue, but it does advance the church's official stance on homosexuality in four key areas: 1. It clearly says that homosexual attraction is innate rather than a choice or learned behavior. 2. It begins to use the label 'gay' more as a noun or at least a more permanent state than the adjective usage of past church teachings. 3. It establishes that it is not a disease or illness, which is a comparison church leaders have made previously. 4. It reaffirms that church members should not judge gay people. So I'm really torn in my reaction to the site. Any advance is good news. But it seems reactionary in a similar manner to the 1978 "revelation" regarding black people and it makes no effort to apologize for or explain past church positions that were clearly in the wrong. Most of all, it is still far from the position that I wish the Mormon church had: accepting gay people for who they are without trying to change them, suppress their innate sexual attractions, and convince them to remain alone and celibate their entire lives. The bottom line is this for me: even if I was still a believing Mormon, I would not recommend to a gay friend that he or she join Mormonism. While a few gay Mormons can apparently survive as active believers, it is generally a very depressing and cruel existence for most. This is a single step in the right direction, but there is a lot more distance to cover. If people are interested, I can give plenty of quotes and links to previous statements from church leaders on this topic that I think were incredibly harmful.

We should meet this new development in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints with all the kindness and appreciation that they have historically shown the gay community. Perhaps then they could begin to understand how these gestures that they are putting forward now are so deeply lacking. There is no meaningful discussion to be had about the fact that gay people exist, and strive to live fulfilling lives just as much as their straight peers. There should be no meaningful discussion that they are entitled to do so, in a just society. The Church's recognition that gay people exist is needed. It is also unforgivably late. I am glad that it finally happened. I can appreciate that to those within the Church this feels like a large step forward. Perhaps for them, it is. But they have so much farther to go, that my opinion of them is not meaningfully shifted. Even on their new site, the Church maintains that it is their explicit position that gay people are not entitled to fulfilling romantic lives: Where the Church stands:The experience of same-sex attraction is a complex reality for many people. The attraction itself is not a sin, but acting on it is. This cannot be understood as a position of love. It is a toxic position. It demonstrates unambiguously that the Church is still committed to teachings that actively worsen the lives of gay people. For the vast majority of people, romance and sex are important aspects of a happy and fulfilling life. One does not easily forgo them. For gay people, the type of romance and sex that they find fulfilling, are still explicitly forbidden by the Church, are still called sins, are still (apparently, as incredible as it is to wrap my mind around) a moral failing so grievous that the only conceivable appropriate punishment is a literal eternity of agony - the same sentence that is to be carried out against the greatest monsters that humanity has ever known. It is absurd and cruel to expect gay people to forgo all fulfilling sexual and romantic elements to their lives. To actually make that expectation is to show that you are still not concerned with the happiness or well-being of gay people, and that you still refuse to understand even on the most basic of levels what it means to be gay. In these fundamental regards, the position of the Church has not changed. And therefore, our opinion of the Church should not fundamentally change. Once again: It is, strictly speaking, a good thing that they took a step forward. For them to actually reach the point that they should (which, to be honest, the Church's history has lead me to believe that they never will), this step will have been necessary. And it is nowhere near enough for them to get rewarded. They owe so much more. When they make a change that is meaningful to more of the victims of their policies, perhaps they might earn some gratitude from the rest of society. For now, I refuse to call this position one of "Love, Understanding, and Hope". Even thinking to call it that makes me tremble with anger. They are not starting a dialog. They are beginning to perhaps consider approaching an existing dialog to which they are woefully late. I hope this step forward is meaningful within the Mormon community, and helps drive them forward towards a position of actual love and understanding. I hope for the members of the Mormon community who suffer under its toxic teachings, that their suffering is lessened by this change. I really, really hope so. But I'll save my joy for when the Church actually arrives at where it should - if ever it does.

While it would be nice to pretend this was about "open discussion," or "identifying pre-concieved notions," as other answers claim, that's meaningless. This is a PR stunt. The church has taken a public relations hit with its members campaigning and donating to support Prop 8 in California, and the Church spending money to support those members' political activities, so they're trying to distract from that. That a christian denomination even needs a branding campaign to try and distract you from their message, and their actions, says all that needs to be said on the matter. Folks will show up here to paint a smiley face on things and try and distract with smoke and mirrors, but it doesn't matter in the least. The church still says what it says: I should consign myself to a life of celibacy, and my relationship with the man I love is wrong. No, it's not. They are wrong. They always have been, and they always will be. Glossing over that with a new website that tries to pretend they're doing something different is insulting. It won't work, but it's insulting that they think it might.

I can almost copy and paste my answer about Catholicism and gay people here. It's fake support. "We totes love you, but you still deserve to go to hell for being gay" isn't real progress. Look, if you're Mormon or Catholic or whatever, you're allowed to have any opinion you want to have. But with supporters of gay rights now being a majority in the US, and growing in every age range, don't expect anyone else to go along with you.

My reaction is very similar to . This is a consistent and moderate (in relation to the church's contemporaries) response by the LDS church. One of the core challenges the LDS church is continually dealing with is the right wing political and fundamentalist evangelical protestant ideas that continue to influence many members. You can see this in the church's response and local backlash to immigration reform legislation and their support for local anti-discrimination laws in Utah. With the left, LDS members often find it very easy to draw bright dividing lines between their beliefs and the outside world. With the right, it is often more difficult. While the church is officially moderate, and does attempt at high levels to be moderate, the consequences for being more liberal in one's interpretation of church doctrine are more harsh than being more conservative in one's interpretation of church doctrine. Consistency and being relatively moderate do not mean healthy or effective. This is a website. it's not a change in doctrine, or even in practice. There is no retraction of some of the truly horrible things LDS leaders have said about gay people, up to and including 'protecting' oneself by gay bashing. Furthermore, it obscures what seems to be a procedural change whereby gay members who have had gay sex have their church records annotated; barring them from a significant number of local positions and all leadership positions in the church. (as referenced by Benji Schwimmer in his Mormon Stories interview)

You know what? I wish that Mormons had just kept this stuff to themselves from the beginning, and not gotten into the quasi-theocratic business. Same for the Catholic Church. There is zero-zip nada evidence that same sex marraige in other countries that have Mormons and Catholics in them effected anyone's marraige. Instead, both groups dug their feet in and devoted all types of resources to stopping fellow countrymen from having rights. This is clearly a legal issue. Both groups need to work in keeping their own yards clean, and maybe checking their priorities.

This question is asked in an interesting way. Not "what do you think" but "what should we think." We should think exactly as has suggested, that anything along these lines is always a good thing. That's because there are many misconceptions. Let me spell it out for you. What many Mormons think about homosexuals: 1. They hate Mormons 2. They hate religion 3. They are all flamboyant 4. They have many sexual partners 5. They don't feel real love 6. They are all sinners 7. They chose their lifestyle There is some truth to some of these. I know gay people that vehemently hate Mormons and the Mormon church because of Prop 8. But as with all stereotypes, they are born from some kind of truth. What many homosexuals think about Mormons: 1. They are all bigots 2. They are all hypocrites 3. They don't understand real love 4. They don't think it's natural You get the point. I think in the past attempts like this by the Mormon church may have been perceived as a way for the Church to try and "fix" their reputation with the homosexual community. After reading through the site, it looks to me in all honesty as a way to both help improve the way homosexuals view the church and it's members as well as be a way to improve how Mormons view homosexuals. In fact, I would venture to say the site is geared way more toward Mormons and helping them have a more accurate understanding of homosexuals. So we should think this is a good thing as it is preferred to having Mormons guess at what the Church's stance is or how they should feel toward homosexuals. Very clear cut here so leaves no grey area.