"Washington has enough votes to recognize Mormonism as legal religion"

"Mormons have a right to worship as they choose, they don’t have the right to redefine Christianity, or religion, for all of us."

As lawmakers held their first public hearing on legal recognition of Mormonism, a previously undecided Democratic senator on Monday announced her support for the measure, all but ensuring that Washington will become the seventh state to publically recognize The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a religion.

The announcement by Sen. Mary Margaret of the Ascension, D-Camano Island, that she would cast the 25th and deciding vote in favor of the issue came as hundreds of people filled the Capitol to advocate for and against Mormon recognition.

In a written statement issued at the end of a Senate committee hearing on the bill, Sen. Ascension said she took her time making up her mind to "to reconcile my religious beliefs with my beliefs as an American, as a legislator, and as a worshiper who cannot deny to others the joys and benefits I enjoy."

"This is the right vote and it is the vote I will cast when this measure comes to the floor," she said.

How can Mormonism hurt your religion?

"If courts rule that Mormonism is a legally valid religion, then people like you and me who believe Christianity requires sole reliance on Jesus Christ and no other gods or teachers will be treated like bigots and racists.” 

The state House is widely expected to have enough support to pass legal religious status for the Mormon Church, and Gov. Pat Chuckoire publicly endorsed the proposal earlier this month. If a religious status bill is passed during this legislative session, the LDS Church will be granted the same religious freedoms and tax-exempt status as other recognized religions starting in June unless opponents file a referendum to challenge it. Opponents have already said they will.

A referendum can't be filed until after the bill is signed into law by Chuckoire. Opponents then must turn in 120,577 signatures by July 6.

Opponents and supporters packed a Senate committee hearing for the first public hearing of the most high-profile issue before the Legislature this session. The Senate set up three overflow areas for the public, including the public gallery on the Senate floor.

Mormon religious status foes wore buttons that said "True Religion.  One God.  One way." Others wore stickers that read "Washington United for Religion," a group that announced in November that it was forming a coalition to support legislation recognizing non-mainstream churches as religions.

"Public schools will teach young children that Mormons talking about salvation and righteousness are just the same as a Protestant or Evangelical, even when it comes to reliance on Jesus Christ.” 

Democratic Sen. Eric Murdock, a Mormon lawmaker from Seattle who has led the push for Mormon rights and religious tax status, testified before the Government Country Club Mentality Committee.

"I have waited 17 years to ask this body to consider religious equality for Mormons," said Murdock, who is sponsoring the Senate bill. "I realize the issue of religious status for our church communities and families is emotional and divisive. It touches what each of us holds most dear, our God, our families, and our religion."

Others argued that the measure goes against Biblical tradition.

"You are saying as a committee and a Legislature that you know better than God," said Ken Hutcherson, pastor of Antioch Bible Church.

Committee chairman June Quickmore said that no action on the bill would be taken Monday, but that a committee vote would be taken Thursday morning.

The bill is expected to easily pass out of committee, since the four Democratic members, including Quickmore, have all said they would vote yes on the measure. The three Republicans on the committee have all said they will vote against granting the LDS Church legal religion status.

The House Judiciary Committee was holding a companion hearing in the afternoon.

Why do you want to interfere with faith?

“Belief in God is a great thing. But true religion isn’t just any kind of belief in God; it’s the special kind of faith and dedication to Biblical practices and sacraments and community built on established, ancient scriptural tradition.”

Washington would join New York, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont and the District of Columbia in recognizing Mormonism as a religion. The state has had a freedom of religious worship law since 2007, and an "everything but religion" law since 2009.  The Mormon Church functionally has all of the tax benefits and responsibilities of other religious organizations, but many in the state voiced concern that a cult, no matter how well intentioned or how good the people, should not be confused for a true religion.

Murdock said that upon learning the decisive vote had been secured, he felt "humbled."

"It's an emotional moment," he said. "I want to smile and cry at the same time."

The National Organization for Religion issued a statement Monday morning pledging a referendum campaign to fight any law recognizing Mormonism as a bona fide religion. Last week, the group announced that it would spend $250,000 to help fund primary challenges to any Republican who crosses party lines to vote for Mormon religious status in Washington state. So far, two Republicans in the Senate, and two in the House have said they would vote in support of Mormon religious status.

"I want to re-emphasize that we fully expect that this issue is going to end up on the ballot," said Rep. Peter Jamesen, D-Seattle and sponsor of the House bill, said at a news conference following Ascension's announcement. "People should not be complacent."

Mormon religious status has won the backing of several prominent Pacific Northwest businesses, including Microsoft Corp. and NIKE, Inc., and last week a conservative Democrat who once opposed recognition of Mormonism as a religion said he will now vote for it.

Isn't apostasy or atheism the real threat to religion?

“High rates of irreligion are one more reason we should be strengthening religion, not conducting radical social experiments on it such as welcoming cults and pseudo-religions as true religion.”

Bishop Jon Smiley celebrated the vote-count announcement after the hearing.

"We could have gone to another nation to operate our headquarters," said Smiley, of Seattle. "We want to establish ourselves in what we believe is the promised land and the birthplace of our religion."

In October, a University of Washington poll found that an increasing number of people in the state support recognizing the LDS Church as a religion. About 43 percent of respondents said they support recognizing Mormonism as a religion, up from 30 percent in the same poll five years earlier. Another 22 percent said they support giving identical rights of operation and freedom of worship to the Mormon church but just not calling it a religion.

When asked how they would vote if a referendum challenging a Mormon religious status law was on the ballot, 55 percent said they would vote yes to uphold the law, with 47 percent of them characterized as "strongly" yes, and 38 percent responded "no," that they would vote to reject a law recognizing Mormonism as a religion.

-------------------------------------------------------

Original article:

http://www.npr.org/2012/01/23/145665000/wash-has-enough-votes-to-legalize-gay-marriage

Interspersed quotes altered from the web site for the National Organization for Marriage.

---------------------------------------------------------

I don't mean to imply there are no rational arguments for preference of mixed-sex marriage or even for defining "marriage" as being between a man and a woman.

I do mean to promote the process of parsing the arguments and challenging emotional acceptance of them by applying them to a different minority group which many regard as spiritually destructive. I want readers to evaluate whether the logic holds up that way, whether it correlates, and why or why not, to get rid of the bad logic and focus on the real motivations and reasons. For my Mormon friends, my hope is that this illustrates, in some small way, how it might be to be on the other side of this kind of debate.

I believe most of the arguments presented in public and private discourse are specious, disingenuous, or make use of false or speculative information and exploit fears. I think most of society would agree it's ideal that a child not be raised by atheist parents, either, or awkward parents, or parents with unhealthy eating habits or destructive communication patterns, or single dads, or...Mormons.

I think the government should get its nose out of marriage and handle civil contracts for tax, public health, and socioeconomic stability reasons, which can admittedly naturally veer into grey territory, but if it won't get out of marriage, recognize it equally among same-sex and mixed-sex partnerships.

I support "marriage equality", and I do see many of the same arguments used against it that were used against integration and other issues now seen as quite non-controversial. At the same time, I don't believe ethnicity and sexual orientation are completely equatable, even if the arguments used regarding them are the same, and I don't think opponents of legalizing marriage for same-sex partners are simply hateful or bigoted. I just think we'd all do well, on all sides, to stop and think about what we're saying and what it really means. I need it as much as the next person, which is one reason why I'm not just keeping this to myself but opening it up to feedback and, certainly, criticism.

Queens and priestesses

Misogyny in the temple was never a huge concern for me. But for many, there's a troubling, even overwhelming sense of sexism built into and permeating the entire temple ceremony. Some are concerned by aspects of the temple ceremony: men and women are separated in the ceremonial rooms to opposite sides of the room. Ceremonial elements and covenants center around the representative male-female pairing relationship as a foundation for family and eternal progress, the men representing Adam in his dealings with God, and the women representing Eve in her dealings with...Adam? Adam and God? Adam-God?

But to me, as an orthodox but self-identified open-minded member, I figured that at some point, order or structure is arbitrary. God might have assigned priesthood authority and head-of-houseness to women, and then the dynamic might be reversed, with men crying sexism and a few being troubled with why men don't have the priesthood but others being content to support their families humbly and serving under women because women bore the sacred mantle of child birth and priesthood. I figured maybe God knew something about the nature of the beings he created, and he knew that giving men the priesthood would, despite kinks introduced by the weakness and evil designs among humans, be the best-working solution to establish order and structure in families and in the kingdom. Perhaps men needed the responsibility to give them something as sacred and powerful as child birth and motherhood is to women? I couldn't say, because my understanding was that of a spiritual infant. But the temple brought a new paradigm of equality to me.

To me, men and women being referred to as kings and queens, priests and priestesses was a beautiful declaration of shared glory and responsibility within the order of heaven. I wondered if there might be an extension of priesthood authority to women in store when human society and culture had developed to a point where we were ready to receive it without losing a sense of order and while maintaining mutual respect without constant power clashes. Maybe we needed to be ready enough to ask, I thought, as had happened with people of African descent, but it wasn't mine to know, so I let it go and trusted that the Lord would work it out through his appointed channels in the long run.

I never felt like submitting to or hearkening unto God was a demeaning or humiliating act but was a humbling covenant of mutual respect and love. So in turn, even though I was, in the back of my mind, troubled with language used in reference to women submitting unto their husbands in church culture and the talks of past prophets, when it came to the temple ceremony, I figured faithful LDS woman would not get caught up in the cultural baggage of hearkening as a demeaning thing. The way I saw it, I, as a future husband, was taking on a very delicate and sacred responsibility to be that much closer to the Spirit, that much more aligned with the will of God, because I would one day have a wife who would likely bring great perspective and spiritual power to the marriage, and if she was going to be able to trust me in exercising my priesthood, I would need to have my crap together.

To me, the priesthood was not my "right" as a male. To me, for whatever reason, males were assigned to be the bearers of the priesthood, at least for now, and even then only after showing they value it by living in accordance with God's commands and exercising the atonement of Christ. The priesthood didn't make me any more noble than anyone else. It didn't make me the boss of anyone. It was a charge and a sacred responsibility to use God's power to serve others and build the kingdom in a specific way, not to wield power or dominion in any way. And it could be taken from me in a snap if I wasn't living worthy of it and using it with care, tenderness, righteousness, and selflessness. There was no room in my understanding of the gospel and of the priesthood for tyranny or insistence on my family "submitting" to me as the head of the house merely because I'd been given a charge to metaphorically wash the feet of others, to confer blessings of health or comfort, or to visit the homes of others to offer messages of hope and to let them know someone cares.

In that light, I never thought of myself as being the future "head of the household" in an absolute or concrete way. I was raised by a mother who respected my father but taught me that they made decisions together, and they didn't make any big decisions or parenting decisions without consulting each other. In my view, men were not the head of their homes by virtue of being male. They were the "head" as a matter of order and because they had been authorized to exercise the power of God in official ways. Therefore, I saw the "hearken" covenant as being about mutual respect, responsibility, and order, not actually hierarchy or superiority.

I figured that the only time the man, as the head of the house, would need to be hearkened to is when both spouses have prayed about something, can't seem to agree, and a decision needs to be made. But I knew that I, personally, was not comfortable assuming the role of "decision-maker" every time there's a disagreement just because I held the priesthood. I knew, firsthand, that having the priesthood was no guarantee of having the best answer to any given situation, so I decided that I could not and would not subject my future wife to deferring to my opinion every time we have a disagreement, priesthood or not. I decided that exercising my priesthood responsibly included admitting when I wasn't sure what the answer was rather than pretending I knew just because I was "supposed to". Honoring the priesthood meant admitting when I hadn't had any divine revelation on a topic and telling my future wife, "Well, my opinion is this, but I'm not sure that's from God, and we can't seem to agree, so you make the decision this time, and next time we're in this situation, I'll make the decision. Can we trust each other that way and agree to respect each other's decisions?"

I set aside the understandably extrapolated notion that men are supposed to be to women as God is to men. That just seemed like poppycock, that I would be my wife's god or mediator, so surely that's not what was intended. It was maybe more an arbitrary chain of authority out of necessity for order's sake, or possibly something inherent in the order of heaven which I didn't comprehend. But one thing I was sure of: women were not "less than" men, nor were they weaker or less inspired than men, nor were they to hearken to men in _any_ instance where the man was not fully aligned with God's will, which I figured for myself was probably as often as any other faithful, sincere, Spirit-centered member of the church.

That, to me, was the kicker: women were to hearken to their husbands "as their husbands hearkened to God". This wording, to me, did NOT mean, "Women, your husband is to you as God is to your husband, which is to say the final authority, to be obeyed in all things." It meant, "Women, your husband has just been charged with aligning his will with God's and responding to God's commands. He will discuss matters with God, and as this yields answers, you are to hearken unto your husband when he has truly done so with God. And you have a right and responsibility to consult God about it directly through personal revelation and inspiration. And when there is a disagreement, where both of you are convinced, the responsibility defaults to him. You are also to hearken to God, understanding your husband is the one among you who is authorized to officially exercise the priesthood and certain keys thereof."

Did it place men as intermediaries between their wives and God? I didn't think so. Women were still responsible for speaking with God as Eve had in the garden, so "intermediary" wasn't an accurate word. But even if it was so, and I had yet to understand it in its profundity, it wasn't because men were better. It was based on the priesthood. And since I believed that could conceivably be extended to women someday, I didn't see men as being inherently superior or more authoritative than women. I saw the priesthood as being the divinely appointed channel for God's work, and that happened to be given to men, so for now, yes, men are representatives of God in ways women are not, only because of the priesthood. And should that ever change, those clownish men who think they're hot stuff just because they have "authority" to do things women don't will be put in their place. I kind of looked forward to that day, actually.

I wondered how some women might interpret or respond to the language of the temple ceremony, and I wondered how I would respond if I were a woman. I decided that through the eyes of understanding, it was not a deeply troubling concept and would likely become more clear in future years, or maybe after this life. I decided this because I was confident it, as with all doctrines and ordinances of the church, was of God and therefore had a good explanation, whether or not our limited mortal perspective was able to grasp it completely now.

I did consider that maybe women weren't denied the priesthood for reasons I'd heard thrown around. I considered that maybe men aren't any less inherently spiritual or righteous than women and therefore in need of the priesthood to whip them into shape. I considered that maybe men didn't need to be sandwiched between God and the beautifully sacred daughters of God to keep the men in line or give them purpose. But I put those thoughts on the back burner as mere speculation. After all, thousands of years of such gender-based order had to be justified somehow. There must have been some reason it was set up that way, even if those weren't it. A logical test I've used is to imagine the alternative: in this case, women having the priesthood and men not. Then women are giving birth and breastfeeding and raising children throughout history AND tasked with running the affairs of the church and counseling with members? Goodness, that's a lot to ask, and it would make men pretty darn subservient, mere sperm donors and money-makers while the women bear and nurture and raise children (newly arrived-in-mortality spirits) and manage the affairs of the kingdom of God. But why not give the priesthood to both and just assign different responsibilities, I wondered? But it came back to, "Surely there's some reason, and maybe we'll understand it in the next life if not this one." It was a matter of faith, awaiting further light and knowledge.

In short, I had a different perspective from many on the whole "sexism in the temple" thing. But I understand the concerns of many women and men in the church about the inherent separation of women and men and the roles which do have built-in orders of authority. And I understand, now, that my interpretation of the division of sexes was partially doctrine but also partially my own convictions, experience, and perspective. I found a way to make enough sense of it to accept not having all of the answers, but that included the necessary, "Perhaps someday it will be made clearer" and, "If only everyone saw it how I do, there would be no room for sexist tyranny in the church". The church's leadership could make the answers clearer if I was right. They could speak more concretely or clearly in defense of the perspective that husbands and wives are equals even if they have distinct roles. I do, to be fair, remember conference talks along those lines. And I appreciate those talks immensely. But I see an undercurrent in the culture which is not changing and if anything is re-entrenching in response to perceived threats on the stability of family structure. So those talks which might be intended as clarion calls to higher perspective feel more like token efforts to quell feminists. They seem less like a change and more like isolated voices which are almost "take it or leave it" peripheral ideas out of the mouth of only one witness. An occasional token reference in a conference talk doesn't stack up well against deeply ingrained social patterns and the regularly-experienced temple ceremony which is as official as any church teaching can possibly be. So personal interpretations of it become very cemented in the minds of members.

I admittedly wish women would just be given (and receive) the priesthood already. And I'm under no illusion that most who attend the temple see it the way I saw it. Even if there's nothing inherently sexist about the priesthood structure, I think too many men puff themselves up in their "authority", even if subtly, and some women who have suffered under tyranny of priesthood holders are reminded of terrible experiences every time they agree to hearken unto their husbands unless they understand the wording the way I did. I would like to see more explicit explanations of equality (even in distinct roles) among genders. And I have a pipe dream of a church which acknowledges personal adaptation of roles and relationships, even within the framework of doctrines and principles of the gospel. Even though I don't think I got caught up in misogynistic cultural interpretations, I recognized that many messages in the temple and in Mormon culture can and will be easily "misinterpreted", as I saw it, as supporting or condoning sexism or misogyny. I think the Church still has a lot of work ahead to help its members overcome the tendency to interpret doctrine and priesthood roles in sexist ways if the truth is, in fact, anything like my perspective was. But maybe my interpretation was just a preliminary cafeteria mormonism, a nice attempt to smooth over something inherently sexist and irreconcilable. Either way, it's not mine to wrestle with anymore. Best wishes to those of you still engaged in that endeavor.

Building constructive dialog

The recent Box Turtle Bulletin article, A changed Exodus, is a beautifully stated message. I'm so glad there are organizations and individuals learning and practicing valuable, constructive dialog and leading the call to mutual respect and understanding, even if not agreement, on often divisive and heated issues.

Credit due not just to Box turtle Bulletin writers, but to Alan Chambers, who has seemed to strive for a more frank, authentic Exodus in the last few years. And, incidentally, to Warren Throckmorton, whose work I respect and regard as influential in this bridge-building and frank discussion.

...But do keep dreaming.

"There is no fullness of joy in the next life without a family unit, including a husband, a wife, and posterity. Further, men are that they might have joy. In the eternal perspective, same-gender activity will only bring sorrow and grief and the loss of eternal opportunities." - Elder Oaks

The otherwise righteous who must wait until after death to find out if they're set up for a fullness of joy: the childless, all never-married people, people who married outside of the temple, people who married in the temple but whose spouses have not been true to the covenants made.

On one hand, that's a lot of people who have to trust that "it'll all work out somehow". On the other hand, that's some pretty good company. Not that I think homo single folks in the church actually are asked the same as hetero single folks in the church. That's probably another post for another time, but the short version is implied in the quote above: "same-gender activity" quite clearly does not refer exclusively to sexual activity, promiscuity, or lifetime partnership.

Options for gay people (or "those who experience primarily or exclusively same-sex attraction") in the Church, according to Oaks:

1. marry someone of the opposite sex if you have your behavior under control and same-sex attractions in the background and find someone of the opposite sex to whom you're attracted enough to raise a family with him or her,
2. stay single your whole life, never dating or experiencing even romantic, non-sexual intimacy, and hope to be married after this life in order to experience "fullness of joy",
3. choose "sorrow and grief and the loss of eternal opportunities" by having any kind of romantic partnership with another member of the same sex.

This does not jibe, as I see it, with insistence on the part of some that the LDS Church is warming up to committed same-sex partnership at least as a "for time only" (as opposed to "for time and all eternity") option. Honestly, while not everyone is quite so explicitly proscriptive as Oaks, I know of no member of the quorum of the twelve, nor any seventy, making statements otherwise. Some members may be, but I just don't see any acceptance of even non-sexual same-sex dating anywhere in any statements, official, informal, or otherwise, from any of the church's leadership at any level above an occasional stake presidency.

I don't want to go so far as to say, to those who believe the church is on the brink of a 1978-style declaration, that you're fooling yourselves, but...I think there's a lot of wishful thinking among segments of the church's membership in this regard.

Bygone love letter

I still feel a flicker. It's dim and very occasionally offers brief waves of warmth. Sometimes, an echo of what I felt for you glances off of another memory shrinking in the distance behind me. I can't help but compare what I feel with others today and what I felt with you back then, though that comparison becomes more hazy with distance, which is sometimes frustrating, other times relieving. Sometimes, a place, a person, or a song reminds me of something about you, and for a crystal clear instant, I remember what it felt like. I smile at the joy I felt and fondly embrace the scene...to give it a hug goodbye. I think of you still, but I feel at peace with moving forward. It feels right. We've grown apart, and there is no starting where we left off, if there is ever any kind of relationship at all in store.

Goodness knows I see things, including you, differently now than I did when I hoped so fully that you were the one. Call it irreconcilable differences. But that doesn't change the fact that you--the version of you I perceived--are woven into my psyche, and I see no need to defensively extract you from my fabric. I may always be a little in love. I don't know how much time must pass before my eyes stop occasionally moistening at the wish that you had been the one, the thought of how at home I used to feel with you. I try not to ask myself "what if," a mostly successful effort. I felt what I felt, which seemed right at the time. I don't need to justify those feelings or explain them away. And I'm distant enough now that I can look back without defensively leaning away or longing for what was.

I could try to prove my old feelings right by clinging to what I hoped they meant, against evidence or reason. I accept that what I felt filled a need in my life and gave me something to invest in, belong to, hope for, serve, and be lifted by. It made sense with what I knew at the time. It animated me with a feeling that whatever else happened, what mattered most was being with you. Now that I've lost what I once thought I most wanted, I'm re-learning what I want and need and how to find it. I'm determining whether I can expect to feel that again or whether it's a beautiful but illusory memory which I should not even want to repeat. Is it foolish to hope for the same feelings but with something which proves itself? Is it a loss of faith to move forward more soberly without expecting the same emotional experience?

I'll just move forward and cope without pretending I can completely shut you out. My friendships remind me of you. My journal reminds me of you. Who I am today reminds me of you and how you imprinted my life, for better and for worse. Sometimes I'll almost instinctively say something I picked up from you, and I'll smirk that you're still in my head that little bit. But I wasn't one to leave when staying was hard, and I'm not one to go back when nostalgia pricks a tear duct. I accept the feelings, but I choose not to fight for you because you do not want to be fought for, and you are not, on paper, what I need or want.

I will not be a doormat and pretend you did nothing wrong, but I also believe you were doing your best. We grew apart. Maybe I'm wrong and should have changed. Maybe you're wrong and should have changed. But we came together under a certain agreement, knowing what each other was, and in time, it became clear that it wasn't a fit. I could try to stay and change you, but I saw that was not your goal, so I said my piece and forced myself away on reluctant, trudging feet. I have since gained clarity and insight to what I believe and want, so even though I loved what I felt with you, and would love to feel that again and be satisfied with what we had, there could be no going back even if you did somehow change. I'm afraid if you tried to bend as far as I'd need, you'd break entirely.

The you I thought existed might not ever have been quite real, but the you I believed in was good, and our relationship was good for me in many ways. It gave me opportunities to serve and grow and love and learn, and I felt like I was part of something special. I believe that even though we ended up disagreeing and parted on somewhat cold, detached terms, you generally mean well and are good-hearted, and I appreciate our relationship for the good it brought and the lessons I learned.

So let's acknowledge the experiences, the memories, the ways we impacted each other and what we learned from it, and move on towards our separate horizons. I don't agree with everything you do or believe, as you don't agree with me, but I will probably always have a bit of a tender spot for you, what I once felt for you, and what I still do feel for you. If I feel anger or resentment towards you at times, it probably comes from a pain which can only be inflicted by those I've cared about. You were once my home, and though I don't want us to disrespect each other by "holding on" to what is bygone, that's not something I can bring myself to fully disregard as part of the whole of myself and yourself. I wish you well on your quest for truth and joy. I'll see you when I see you.

Conversion therapy's elusive unicorn

From Facebook:
----------------------
In response to comments in a previous post, this describes my experience and perspective well.

Former Love in Action Director: I’ve never met a man who experienced a change from homosexual to heterosexual
John Smid was once the director of Love in Action a longtime Exodus International affiliate based in Memphis, TN. I have always found John’s candor refreshing. My first contact with John was at an Exodus meeting where he questioned the slogan, “change is possible.”

O-Mo Whatever the cause of homosexuality/same-sex attractions, whatever the life choices, and whatever the malleability or future possibilities of change through therapy techniques and neuroscience yet to be discovered, the reality of _today_, as I see it, is that people do not change from mostly same-sex attracted/gay to mostly opposite-sex attracted/straight. Some claim to have changed but later recant, and a few have staked their income and reputation in the claim and persist in it. But when pressed, I have found more wordsmithing and perspective reframing for functional/behavioral change or cognitive adjustment than actual change in attractions. Still, I don't believe this should be used as ammunition to shoot down someone's personal, honest, carefully considered direction for their life in congruence with their beliefs, values, desires, and goals.

Guy1 People make this so damn complicated.... :-P for me it all boils down to what gets you off. ;) I've never had a conflict of faith and sexuality, of course, so I don't really understand the intricacies involved...to me, it seems like a simple no-brainer.

O-Mo Afterthought: While my observation matches his, I would not say, as he does, that "none of this can occur with homosexuality" with a more accurate, "I have never seen it occur."

Gal1 I agree... This brings up some very intruguing differences between attraction and behavior. Attraction - well, there's no need to "repent" of that, since it's something you can't change. Behavior, however, is something you are always accountable for. People will try to reason their way out of a lot of things, but ultimately you are the one in control of your actions.
I also like the point made toward the end of the article, that it is possible to be in love with someone you are not sexually attracted to. It's an interesting thought, in a culture that overexaggerates the importance of sexuality. When it really comes down to it, there is SO much more to love, true love anyway. If it's just sexuality involved, that is lust. Big difference.

O-Mo Yeah, Guy1, I've run into that same confusion with others who either were not raised in a homosexuality-shunning church or left at an early age. I don't know how to convey it. But even without religious conflicts, I've known some to struggle with what they really want.

Guy2 This is some good stuff O-Mo. I've actually had a lot of these thoughts on my mind the past few days. I have found so much peace and happiness finally in my life doing exactly what I have always been taught was wrong. Letting go of that "battle" between good and evil and just following what I feel is right in my heart has been such a blessing for me.

Guy1 I grew up in small-town mid-america. I never knew what gay was until I got online at the age of 15... I always knew what I found attractive, though. Perhaps it was because I grew up with such a streak of individuality that being gay never really bothered me, even though family and friends spoke ill of it once it started hitting popular culture. My mom tried to get me to go to church and her side of the family is pretty religious, but it never stuck with me. I only went for the grape juice and crackers. I was never able to think of any of the stories as literal...they just seemed like good stories and I enjoyed reading all sorts of books back then.

I was certainly a prude throughout my teen years and the first couple of college, but that wasn't because I thought I should be with girls! :) They never did anything for me...

O-Mo ‎Gal1, I want my spouse to be passionate with me, and even...dare I say...lusty. ;-) I don't care to downplay sexuality as part of a whole relationship because I really do value it, particularly as an intimate and bonding (not to mention certainly fun!) experience between partners built on trust, familiarity, and mutual investment. But I also know that if I _had_ to choose between sexual passion and, say, open communication or tender affection, sexual passion does not win out as a highest priority. I just hope I don't have to choose. ;-) Incidentally, I do know some guys who, despite still being primarily attracted to men, quite enjoy sexual intimacy with their wives, even if it's often not to the same level as it had been with men. Beliefs, choices, priorities...

O-Mo More on this: http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/10/10/37766

Guy1 It's certainly not unheard of to have an open relationship wherein there is emotional intimacy with your primary partner and then the allowance of both parties to have physical intimacy with others outside of the partnership. This happens in many relationship regardless of whether the couple is same orientation or mixed orientation.... Sometimes people love each other deeply and want to build a life together but don't click physically. Certainly isn't a reason to give up the relationship if both parties want to stay together.

I think if more people accepted the idea of "nontraditional" relationships, there would be less of a problem with divorce and you'd see more families sticking together (and being stronger). Just my opinion, of course. :)

O-Mo Ha, true. But again: religious or personal conflicts can prevent that from being considered an option. But that's why I have always found strength in remembering that I am imposing some of my own restrictions and therefore am not merely a victim.

Guy1 Sometimes we must work through conflicts for the betterment of ourselves and our relationships. ;) Flexibility in life is a good thing! Flexibility and conflict...always makes for a good story.

O-Mo It does, indeed. But can you stretch too much too fast and end up spraining something? ;-) Or bend something not meant to be bent and break something you shouldn't have broken? Heh.

Guy1 TIme and lube. Everything's possible with time and lube. (per Dan Savage) :-P

O-Mo NARTH has responded to this notion without actually mentioning it at all: http://narth.com/2011/10/2061/. I see problems in such follow-up studies, mainly that I have known guys who would have put themselves in the "Success: conversion" category who, when I pressed, conceded that their new attraction to women was more a curiosity and 'openness to the possibility' than an actual drive, but since that was more than they'd ever known, they considered it an 'increase in heterosexual attraction'. And...let's just say you needed only watch their eyes at a party to see which sex caught their inadvertent gaze more often. ;-) I also wonder how many respondents are married and therefore are not only self-limited in their life choices and self-identification but are measuring their progress not by generalized attraction but by attraction to their wife, specifically. Increased heterosexual function and intimacy with their spouse is wonderful and should be acknowledged rather than dismissed for political agenda, but I just don't see it as the same thing as 'becoming heterosexual'.

NARTH » Change in Sexual Orientation is Possible
narth.com
Change in Sexual Orientation is Possible, Harm Unlikely, according to New Eviden...See More

O-Mo Let me clarify one point in my last paragraph: "appropriately and understandably self-limited". :-)

Gal1 You can be just as much a victim of your own "self-limiting" choices as you can from others'... just sayin' :P