BYU censors portraits of gay students ....

[_ajax18]

What the...? Your post is hysterical, Ajax. I could only write that if I was piss drunk or stoned, which happens to be very expensive in NYC. So you're saying that same sex attraction is like ugly girl attraction: it's just not natural....

I think what he's saying is that being gay is like being attracted to beautiful women when you are a poor, ugly man who can't have one. You can't have what you are attracted to. Too bad says the church!

This reminds me of a crazy old branch president of mine who in a roundabout way would talk about how much he couldn’t stand his ugly wife, but about how he had faith that after the resurrection, she’d be young and beautiful again and then he’d again feel attracted to her. The glories of Celestial love!

We all have things we want that we can't have. Right now I'm repressing a desire for vengeance and satisfaction.

You still didn't answer my main quesiton. What is BYU supposed to say? I don't think they're going to endorse homosexuality very soon if that's what you're after.

[_Seven]

Excellent point, Rollo. Clearly BYU practices a double standard on chastity in the case of gays. It seems they seems they perceive their duty with regard to gays to prevent any kind of intimacy, since the outcome, in their eyes, can only be sinful. For heteros, they are looking to get them to marry as soon as possible under the right circumstances (return missionaries and 18-year-old virgins).

I completely agree. But this double standard just shows that the Church's mantra of "gays are welcome as long as the keep the Law of Chastity just like everyone else" is a blatant fraud.

Exactly. LDS leaders have disingenuously stated that gays are welcome and loved in the church if they remain celibate. The exhibit was tastefully done and did not push gay marriage or engaging in homosexual behavior on anyone. Clearly the church would rather shove them back in the closet.

[_Seven]

ajax18: Granted different rules apply to heterosexual attractions than homosexual attractions. In a skewed way, no it's not equal. It's skewed to me because I don't believe people are very often born with exclusively same gender attraction. I think it's a matter of preference. In fact many so called gays possess heterosexual attractions as well.

I wouldn't say "many."
All of us have the potential to be tempted/desire homosexual behavior. Changes in hormones will do it.
There is a huge difference between engaging in lustful/carnal bisexual behavior and falling in love with the same sex. The gay Mormons I have known throughout my life, we knew as children that they were different.

So what should the Church claim? I don't think the Church wants to throw out all gay people just because they struggle with same gender attraction. I do think the Church expects these people not to talk about it to anyone except in the strictest confidence (probably a counselor) and not to demonstrate it to the public in any way. In other words it's an aberant desire that should always be repressed both now and in eternity.

What if gays were allowed to marry? If they avoid sexual pleasure until marriage, would it then be acceptable? Who are they harming?

How about oral sex between married heteros? There is nothing sacred or holy about that behavior, yet many temple married LDS are having oral sex. Is sexual intercourse for pleasure instead of for the intent of creating life also to be repressed? If the higher law is abstaining and overcoming the carnal/sensual/sexual desires, we should all be aiming for celibacy. (or at minimum limiting all sexual activity of married LDS to procreation)

Does that mean the Church doesn't treat gay people equally?

Yes

[_cinepro]

That's really cool that BYU reinstated the exhibit when they were obviously wrong to take it down. Here's a gay smiley for them:

And I'd like to respond to Ajax18's comment, but my head is still spinning. Sometimes, there's just nothing to say.

[_ajax18]

We don't expect them to maintain heterosexual-type boundaries by limiting their physical contact. We expect them to be eunuchs, totally subverting their desires for physical affection from a member of the same sex.

I know you probably said this in jest Cinepro, but I think this is pretty much true. So what should the Church say? I don't think they want to cast off people with same gender attraction forever, but you're sort of right if you're saying they want to put gays back in the closet. Other than getting counsel and help overcoming it, I don't think the Church really embraces anythying else. I'm not defending it. It shouldn't matter to me anyway. You and Rollo both know what the Church's position is. What should they then to state their position more honestly? I think the Church saying, "Gay people, we think you are less than heterosexual people and do not want you in the Church," would not really be what the Church is saying.

[_ajax18]

What if gays were allowed to marry? If they avoid sexual pleasure until marriage, would it then be acceptable? Who are they harming?

From a personal perspective, nobody. But from the Church's perspective I suppose they're harming the children they should sire and care for in a family of a female mother and a male father. Nor does the Church believe in eternal homosexual marriage, so in a sense gay people who marry would clearly be postponing their own progression at the very least. I don't have reference for this but I would think most Mormons would see same gender attraction as a flaw of the mortal body that will clearly not exist in a perfected resurrected body. However, I get the impression that heterosexual desire will exist in the hereafter. I think that's a fair respresentation of the Church's position. You all know that.

How about oral sex between married heteros? There is nothing sacred or holy about that behavior, yet many temple married LDS are having oral sex. Is sexual intercourse for pleasure instead of for the intent of creating life also to be repressed?

I think it's a fair distinction if the Church is holding that male female bonds are proper and necessary and should be enjoyed. I can see your point, and some Mormons don't believe in sex for pleasure, but I don't find it contradictory to believe that heterosexual sex for pleasure and male/female bonding is ordained by God while homosexual sex for the same purpose is not. If you feel I'm wrong that's fine but in my mind it makes sense whether it's true or not.

If the higher law is abstaining and overcoming the carnal/sensual/sexual desires, we should all be aiming for celibacy. (or at minimum limiting all sexual activity of married LDS to procreation)

I see your point on this and this was one of my doubts about the Church. In a Catholic way I saw celibacy as the most saintly way of life as well. It's clearly the most difficult. But the scriptures don't say "repress" your passions, but "bridle" your passions. I think that's a fair distinction. Joseph Smith clearly believed that the Lord's way was not necessarily the most painful way.

Being a gay Mormon is not an envious position. I think you'd have to evaluate whether you truly believed in life after death, judgment etc. to stay in it. Social ties, and even earthly families no matter how strong, just wouldn't be enough as they may be for other people. IMHO