Quantcast
Faith

Gay, Christian and … celibate: The changing face of the homosexuality debate

Comments

Return To Article
  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Aug. 4, 2014 3:43 p.m.

    I have worlds of respect for those who can keep their covenants in the face of strong tides pulling them another way.

    It is not only sexuality. I have heard those who struggle with certain addictions say that their addition was an equal or even a stronger pull for them than sex. Not meant to be a competition - simply an acknowledgement that, in terms of severity of the test, they are not alone.

    In the eternities, I believe all of the struggle and sacrifice (of whatever kind) we endure well will be rewarded.

  • ordinaryfolks seattle, WA
    Aug. 4, 2014 3:45 p.m.

    If this lady, or anyone, chooses to become celibate. So what? It is their choice. I could care less.

    If this lady or anyone else chooses to characterize those who happen to be gay, wish to be observant Christians, and marry some of the same sex as sinful. Well, there I have a problem.

    There is no unanimity of opinion or spiritual truth on this issue. Let each follow his/her own path, and let the deity decide the matter. Stop the name calling on all sides.

  • RedWings CLEARFIELD, UT
    Aug. 4, 2014 3:46 p.m.

    Great article. It highlights that there are options for people with SSA, and that ultimately is it the individual's decision.

    There are many who have successfully overcome SSA and lead a heterosexual lifestyle. For others, that is not possible. Celibacy never killed anyone, even though our hyper-sexualized society can't conceive of the concept, and there will likely be many posts to this article demonizing it.

    We each choose our own way in life. We each need to respect others' decisions, especially if it is not the one we would choose for ourselves....

  • Owen Heber City, UT
    Aug. 4, 2014 3:59 p.m.

    "John Paulk, ... apologized for the reparative therapy he used to promote. Yvette Schneider ... call(ed) for bans on reparative therapy. ...nine former ex-gay leaders denounced conversion therapy."

    Great examples that many institutions could and should follow.

  • Wonderpus Salt Lake City, Salt Lake, UT
    Aug. 4, 2014 4:36 p.m.

    What about the other option: leave your religion and live a healthy, happy life as a person not afraid of themselve?

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 4, 2014 5:27 p.m.

    @RedWings
    "It highlights that there are options for people with SSA"

    Calibacy's a choice for straight people too but nobody's expecting me to live an entire lifetime celibate.

  • the greater truth Bountiful, UT
    Aug. 4, 2014 6:34 p.m.

    @Frozen Fractals

    That not even the least bit true.

    Many straight people are expected to live a celibate lifestyle.

    From nuns and monks to catholic priests, to any Mormons who are not married. In fact in most if not all religions you are supposed to live chaste and celibate lifestyle if you do not marry or are not married.

    I am sure there are also non-religious who have chosen such a lifestyle.

    Does your sex drive control you or do you control your sex drive?

    You always have a choice.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    Aug. 4, 2014 7:48 p.m.

    I applaud the Deseret News for publishing this. I've seen the harm these so-called conversion therapies have done to some of my students. Regardless of where you stand on the Gay Marriage issue, its time to join together in opposition to these abusive practices that only damage the lives of people who have enough struggles already.

  • A Scientist Provo, UT
    Aug. 4, 2014 9:39 p.m.

    Throughout history and around the world there have been many official attempts to convert left-handed children to right-handedness due to cultural, societal and religious biases. In America until corporal punishment was outlawed in schools it was not uncommon for students to be physically punished for writing with their left hands:

    "My fourth grade teacher would force me to use my right hand to perform all of my school work. If she caught me using my left hand, I was hit in the head with a dictionary. She believed left handers were connected with Satan."

    Beliefs that a preference, orientation, or behavior is "connected with Satan" (and sin) is behind so much oppression, "conversion therapy", and pretending, it is astounding.

    Some "sinister" left-handers have learned to use their right hands quite effectively, but most conversions fail and cause other problems. The same us true of those with SSA.

    The central question is not whether a few can "convert"; the question is why should they have to even consider it.

  • StGeorgeBeacon SAINT GEORGE, UT
    Aug. 4, 2014 10:32 p.m.

    I think there is an aspect of this that has not been touched upon, which has to do with celibacy and whether it is for everyone or not. I've read stories of several former Catholic Priests who said that after a certain amount of time remaining celibate, they realized that celibacy just wasn't for them--whereas, other Priests feel quite comfortable with it (and attribute it to having a divine gift of celibacy). I think it's important to point this out because many of these folks may not be suited to celibacy and may be setting themselves up to self-defeating psychological trauma.
    If celibacy is right for some people, then they may want to pursue it. Others, who aren't suited, should be free to pursue a sexual relationship.

    Caveat: I'm Atheist. I don't think there is any evidence for any of the gods that have been asserted. Nor do I believe in the so-called "divinity" of the bible or any other so-called "inspired" religious book. I think religion causes much more harm than good, in my opinion.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Aug. 4, 2014 11:14 p.m.

    Celibacy is a dignified lifestyle for a variety of people. I have known people with really bad diabetes or with cystic fibrosis who chose to live celibate lives. They weren't fitting with a cookie cutter lifestyle that is desirable. They had found their own path which was right for them.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Aug. 5, 2014 6:36 a.m.

    "Instead, she has chosen celibacy."

    --- If someone wants to practice celibacy, fine, its a personal choice and shouldn't be the only option available to LGBT.

    "... those who were gay or struggled with homosexuality ..."

    --- The only real "struggle" is accepting yourself and who you are. There is nothing wrong with being LGBT, nor should there even be a "struggle"; the problem is that so many are judgemental!

    "“We can be easily misunderstood, to put it nicely,..."

    --- Marriage, to one you love, is a viable option.

    "...deeply held religious ... conflict with same-sex attraction and/or behavior, resulting in anxiety, depression, stress, and inner turmoil,”

    --- This is what religion does.

    --- The Catholic's "celibate" group is more of a "serial-celibate" group.

    "...the loneliness of celibacy ..."

    --- Can be devastating!

    Homosexuality only becomes sinful when a person chooses to act on it.

    --- What if "god" make you homosexual for a reason, and you bury your "talent". What then?

    “It speaks against attraction that becomes lust.”

    --- If it isn't "lust" for a straight person to be attracted, why is it "lust" for a gay person to be attracted?

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Aug. 5, 2014 6:36 a.m.

    @RedWings;

    Marriage never killed anyone either.

    @TgT;

    You deliberately misstated FrozenFractals point.

  • ordinaryfolks seattle, WA
    Aug. 5, 2014 6:49 a.m.

    samhill

    I used "I could care less" in the original sense of the phrase. That is, I don't think about such things at all. These things have no effect on me, and there are a lot of other things to worry about. Therefore, I could really care less.

    It is not any of my business how this lady, or anyone else, conducts their life. I don't care if she or anyone else goes to church or does not. That she or anyone else is gay or straight. That she or anyone else is married or single. It is their choice, and it has not effect on my choices.

    The busybodies of the world are the folks you ought to be suspicious of, not me. There seem to be a strangely large amount of people who wish to interfere in other people's life, their choices, their religion.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    Aug. 5, 2014 7:44 a.m.

    Yes, celibacy is an option, but is it really a healthy option? I am not an expert, but I am sure there are real physical and emotional health benefits of having a partner to hold hands, hug, and kiss. Why do we keep on insisting that since some of us may be gay, we shouldn't be allowed to fully participate in all of the joys of life?

  • donn layton, UT
    Aug. 5, 2014 8:52 a.m.

    RE: Twin Lights , In the eternities, I believe all of the struggle and sacrifice (of whatever kind) we endure well will be rewarded. True,

    Supplement your faith with a generous provision of moral excellence, and moral excellence with knowledge, and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with patient endurance, and patient endurance with godliness… work hard to prove that you really are among those God has called and chosen. Do these things, and you will never fall away. Then God will give you a grand ‘entrance into the eternal Kingdom’ of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.( 2Peter 1:5-11 NLT) E.g…

    Honor your Father and Mother”[not mothers/polygamy],which is the first commandment(Not a suggestion) with a promise. God distinguishes father and mother from all other persons on earth, chooses them and sets them next to Himself, occupying the highest place in our lives next to God. Ephesians 6:2,3

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 5, 2014 9:00 a.m.

    @the greater truth
    Nuns and monks chose to take a vow of celibacy. Straight people expected to be celibate til marriage aren't inherently expected to be celibate their entire life. I control my sex drive.

    I was responding to someone who was saying how gay people have options but at the same time they specifically are against one of the options (same-sex marriage). I was noting that if someone really championed options they wouldn't have an uneven standard where straight people can marry someone of the opposite gender and then ditch the celibacy while gay people can't marry someone of the same gender and then ditch the celibacy.

  • play by the rules SOUTH JORDAN, UT
    Aug. 5, 2014 9:05 a.m.

    To Ordinary Folks. It does not concern you what I consider sin. I consider homosexuality to be sin and I will declare that in honor and support of my God.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 5, 2014 9:06 a.m.

    Basically this is what I'm going for...

    @RedWings
    " We each need to respect others' decisions, especially if it is not the one we would choose for ourselves...."

    Then respect those who want to have a same-sex marriage.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Aug. 5, 2014 9:11 a.m.

    I'm sure Ms. Sarah Pulliam Bailey thought of herself as open minded and the bearer of good news to the poor LGBT person who wants to follow the gospel but happens "to be afflicted by gayness".

    I always agreed with women who doubt the vocie of the Vatican as a group of old celibate men ruling on women issues. I assume that for straight people should be very easy to advice celibacy for homosexuals.

    As a gay man and as a Christian man I believe we should follow the law of chastity in the same way as straight people do. I think that LGBT people should remain celibate until marriage, where the option of marriage is available, or until they find a person whith whom they plan to settle for life.

    God stated that is not good for man to be alone!

    Any double standards from certain so called Christians for the gay community IMHO is Un-Christian.

  • loaf Boise, ID
    Aug. 5, 2014 9:15 a.m.

    Ranch- I'm sorry, but calling a person's sex drive a "talent" is stretching things, don't you think?

    I don't understand why it seems like people feel they need to define themselves and their entire world based around their sex drive.

    I know that part of being human is important, and sacred. But there is so much abuse/ twisting to make something beautiful and good into something that can be degrading and enslaving.

  • loaf Boise, ID
    Aug. 5, 2014 9:15 a.m.

    I'm sure it would be extremely difficult to be celibate one's whole life- I don't want to minimize that, but as others have pointed out, MANY people- not just those who identify themselves as homosexuals- have that challenge in life, and choose to face it with strength, courage and hope.

    I think EVERY human being who has ever lived or will live has profound challenges in this life. I believe that those challenges are there to help us progress and that we can overcome with God's loving grace.

    Just because we have thoughts/urges we feel we need to express, doesn't mean that it's a good idea to act on those feelings. Shouldn't we weigh the outcome of our actions on ourselves and those around us?

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    Aug. 5, 2014 9:32 a.m.

    Hmmm… they’re going to “mine” the Catholic tradition for information on how to live a gay, celibate life. OK, but you may want to check with the Catholics (ask specifically about their priests) to see how that worked out for them.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Aug. 5, 2014 9:58 a.m.

    @loaf

    You wrote: "Ranch- I'm sorry, but calling a person's sex drive a "talent" is stretching things,"

    Loaf, when you are asking a person "to repress" his/her strogest drive in life. That person is being limited in all other aspects of his personality. Don't you agree?

    Loaf, you also wrote: "I don't understand why it seems like people feel they need to define themselves and their entire world based around their sex drive. "

    I'm sorry but this comment is just hypocritical, if you are LDS the most important thing you can do is get married and have an eternal family. You become a husband/wife, father/mother, grandparent. Doesn't that is a big part of who you are? Yet, you offer celibacy that prevents all this development from happening. Sex certainly is a big factor in what you become and how you define your life. We are not talking about sex drive, we are talking about sex.

  • The Wraith Kaysville, UT
    Aug. 5, 2014 10:04 a.m.

    Did I actually just read this statement from RedWings: "We each choose our own way in life. We each need to respect others' decisions, especially if it is not the one we would choose for ourselves"

    Does this mean you are now going to respect the right of same sex couples to get married? These couples are just trying to forge their own way in life and we do need to respect others' decisions. And apparently we need to respect those decisions even more if they are decisions we don't agree with.

    I really like this statement Red; it's exactly what we should do.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Aug. 5, 2014 10:13 a.m.

    Just a few thoughts...

    Involuntary celibacy, by definition is not a choice.

    Inability to participate in physical intimacy for medical or other reasons, is not voluntary celibacy.

    Coercing someone else into celibacy is no blessing for anyone involved.

    No one who has not chosen a life of celibacy should be entitled to be taken seriously when they tout the benefits of it.

    Involuntary deprivation of intimacy is costly to a person's spirit, in all senses of the word.

    Finally, let me close with a 2005 quote from the Minute recorded by our wise-beyond-their-years Quaker youth, who met at our state conference center to autonomously contemplate "Sex and Religion."

    "We as Friends affirm that sexuality is a natural aspect of human life and that it is an ever-unfolding facet of our being. Sexuality is an outward expression of love that comes from deep within. It includes deep connections that we have with each other filled with love, trust, respect and the deepest sense of the Divine. As an extension of deep love, it is an expression of the Divine."

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Aug. 5, 2014 10:33 a.m.

    I was remiss in not pointing out that the name of this Minute by the Powell House (NYYM Friends Conference Center) Youth Program is "Minute on Sexual Orientation." It is gender-neutral and applies to all interpersonal relationships, gay and straight.

    You can find the whole thing on the New York Yearly Meeting (NYYM) website. Just google the quote in my first message.

  • RedWings CLEARFIELD, UT
    Aug. 5, 2014 11:39 a.m.

    Wraith -

    In an open society, all points of view and personal decisions deserve equal protection. Whether one chooses to act on SSA and live a gay lifestyle, chooses to repress SSA and live celibate, or chooses to espouse a religious belief that God ordained marriage and intimace to be only between one man and one woman, we all deserve respect and should expect it.

    I may disagree with one's choice of lifestyle, but that person is still a child of God. All rights should be protected, not just the rights of ones I agree with.

    The hypocrisy of the left is something I cannot stomach. To demand tolerance while practicing intolerance, or to decry close-minded dogmatism of religion while displaying the same close-minded dogmatism against religion - society can simply do without those behaviors.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    Aug. 5, 2014 12:20 p.m.

    @RedWings – “The hypocrisy of the left is something I cannot stomach. To demand tolerance while practicing intolerance…”

    We hear this from our friends on the Right quite often and it is a complete canard – here’s why:

    Tolerance does not mean being tolerant of its exact opposite (i.e., intolerance) – that would be logically inconsistent and for those math aficionados out there, doing so would cancel both terms out (i.e., it renders the word “tolerance” meaningless).

    Regarding a specific and current issue, if you do not believe in SSM don’t have one. No LGBT activist is going to break down your door and force you to marry your college roommate or missionary companion (that would be intolerant).

    However, when you seek to legislate your religion or morality and make it apply to all, you are not tolerating other points of view (that btw are harming no one) and for anyone to “not tolerate” your intolerant efforts is completely consistent with having a generally tolerant outlook.

    I would be happy to graph this out for those having trouble following the logic…

  • loaf Boise, ID
    Aug. 5, 2014 12:50 p.m.

    Baccus-
    No. I don't agree that controlling sexual feelings limits every aspect of one's personality or life. It may be a challenge, yes, but I don't believe it controls our happiness or that we're a slave to it.

    I don't believe sex is more important than following the best that is in us- to sacrifice for people or principles that we know to be good. From my own experience, controlling myself when I really want to do something harmful- like feeling anger and wanting to lash out at others- truly brings me peace and happiness- for myself and others. Not that the anger itself is bad, but can be good or bad depending on how I choose to handle it. I think the same principle applies to sexual feelings.

    Those who don't control their sexual feelings have created immense heartache for themselves and others. They can end up in jail for rape or destroy their family by being addicted to pornography. Both are evil because they hurt others. Yes- sometimes ALL of us NEED to control ourselves for the greater good!

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Aug. 5, 2014 1:01 p.m.

    @RedWings: You are confusing speech with action.

    In a free society, it is the ability to EXPRESS "all points of view... [that] deserve[s] equal protection." Also, each person is entitled to have "personal decisions" protected from government interference. By mashing pieces of these two thoughts together, you negate the freedom factor. These truths remain:

    You are free to express yourself.

    You are free to make personal decisions about how to live your life.

    Other people are free to express themselves.

    Other people are free to make personal decisions about how to live their lives.

    At no time are you free to tell other people what decisions to make. In the case of same-sex couples, the freedom to associate, the freedom to make personal decisions, the privacy to decide their own intimacy is pretty much none of your business, and you have no right to interfere with it. You may express your distaste of their choices, but so may others express distaste of your attitudes. You have no immunity to criticism. That's part of free speech, too.

  • loaf Boise, ID
    Aug. 5, 2014 1:07 p.m.

    Baccus-
    Yes. You pointed out there is a difference.

    There is definitely a difference between lust (just following whatever your sex drive tells you) and intimacy (or sex, as you said). One is self serving and ugly, intimacy is the opposite. When talking about someone focusing their identity around their sex drive I was referring to the selfish version.

  • waikiki_dave Honolulu, HI
    Aug. 5, 2014 1:08 p.m.

    It is time for the DN to stop printing these so-called "lifestyle" articles about happy gay people choosing to live their life's like nuns and how ful-filled they are with their decision. It is just annoying and serves no purpose but to de-grade normal gay people who live in stable, monogomous and happy same sex unions. Do you ever see the DN printing stories about hetrosexuals who choose to live celebate lives? No you don't.

  • RedWings CLEARFIELD, UT
    Aug. 5, 2014 1:56 p.m.

    Tyler D & Quaker:


    However, to force someone to resign from a job because they donated personal money to a political cause is bigoted, intolerant, and a violation of rights. To resort to the childish name-calling of "bigot" simply because one believes marriage was defined by God is bigoted and intolerant.

    I have never opposed employment, housing, and other secular rights for SS couples. I have stated before that civil unions are what goverment should oversee and marriage should be left to religion. Yet becuse of my position on the sanctity of traditional marriage I am called names, and could be chased from employment in the future, simply for having that belief.

    For the left, tolerance is only really offered to those they agree with.

  • donn layton, UT
    Aug. 5, 2014 1:59 p.m.

    RE: A Quaker, the Powell House (NYYM ) , which often includes singing and readings from the Bible.

    Versus, The Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience is a manifesto issued by Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christian leaders to affirm support of "the sanctity of life, traditional marriage, and religious liberty". It was drafted on October 20, 2009, and released November 20, 2009, having been signed by more than 150 American religious leaders. On the issue of marriage, the declaration objects not only to Same-Sex marriage but also to the general erosion of the "marriage culture" with the specter of divorce, greater acceptance of infidelity and the uncoupling of marriage from childbearing.

    @Christians expressing themselves by actions. In 1970 USAF commandos looking for a downed pilot, came upon an orphanage in a small village in Laos run by “nuns”, they were warned that the NVA was nearby and they should come back to NKP Thailand they had a Catholic Chaplin who stayed with the sisters, many years later I heard they were hung.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Aug. 5, 2014 2:11 p.m.

    Loaf

    I totally agree with your distinction between love and lust. However, I think where we differ is in the fact that you consider Homosexuality as abnormal.

    My point and that of others in this forum is that love, faithfulness, loyalty, monogamy can and occurs equally in homosexual and heterosexual relationships and that the best way to protect those relationships is through marriage.

    I think waikiki_dave got it right when his post:"It is just annoying and serves no purpose but to de-grade normal gay people who live in stable, monogomous and happy same sex unions. Do you ever see the DN printing stories about hetrosexuals who choose to live celebate lives? No you don't."

    Let's stop making differences between my love and your love. Heterosexual relationships are good. Homosexual relationships are bad. Well, there is plenty of evidence that we find equally stable families and relationships among homosexuals and heterosexuals.

  • Testimony Philadelphia, PA
    Aug. 5, 2014 2:33 p.m.

    RedWings,

    You are confusing corporate policy with public policy. No one has a "right" to a CEO job at a major corporation. That's entirely up to the Board and shareholders of that corporation. Even in a "publicy-listed" stock corporation, that's still what's known as "private enterprise." HR policies, guidelines and corporate manuals are their business alone. If a company wants to create and maintain an image that they are open to diversity, that is well within their right.

    If you have a beef with how some person was fired (or "outcounseled") from a corporation, take it up with that corporation. Either buy enough stock to force them to let you sit on the Board or organize some sort of public protest against them and maybe someone will heed you.

    In either event, no laws were broken. Preferences were expressed, and no one is likely to starve to death. Major officers of large corporations have huge stock options and other deferred payments that go with them when they leave. Don't cry over a self-"disgraced" millionaire who violated his company's policy or image.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    Aug. 5, 2014 2:35 p.m.

    @RedWings – “For the left, tolerance is only really offered to those they agree with.”

    You’re confusing the issue – what the Left or Right or really anyone with an expressed political opinion is doing is voicing their opinions (i.e., if we equate this act with intolerance, then everyone is intolerant).

    That this sometimes degenerates into name calling and personal (verbal) attacks is unfortunate, but that’s been going on since the founding (e.g., Jefferson presidential campaign) and I’m sure you don’t believe the Left has a monopoly on this behavior… do you?

    In the context we were discussing, tolerance and intolerance is about actions people take to impose their views on unwilling others. When religious folks do this – ignoring their American values of liberty and assuaging their consciences with slogans like “we’re protecting traditional marriage” – they are being intolerant, period.

    When the LGBT community tries to pass laws outlawing your marriage or forcing you to marry a same-sex person, then we can have a discussion about their intolerance.

    PS – If you lose your job because of your beliefs (vs. actions) you may have a legal case against your employer.

  • USAlover Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 5, 2014 2:53 p.m.

    You're all missing the point.

    The people in the article are expressing their religious freedom to worship according to the dictates of their own conscience. I repeat, THEIR OWN conscience. I thought you liberals understood and championed those words?

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Aug. 5, 2014 2:56 p.m.

    @loaf;

    Who said anything about the "sex drive"? You. You are the one who immediately jumps to the SEX conclusion. We don't define ourselves by this one thing, you define us that way.

    The "outcome of our actions" (i.e., marrying the person we love) on ourselves and those around us is GOOD.

  • jmoscynski Norfolk, VA
    Aug. 5, 2014 3:19 p.m.

    What most people fail to remember is "Thou shalt not Judge". It is not our place to judge another, it is the Lord only that bears that authority and burden. The teachings of the scriptures testify to this fact. So, if we disapprove of a thing. Than avoid the thing. Do not shot from the soapbox that you have chosen to avoid the thing. That is between you and God and is nobody else's business. And in conclusion, God loves us all equally and without reservations. Just as we as parents love our children. Now we might not always approve of their choices, but as parents cannot love them any less or we condemn ourselves. Don't we.

  • ordinaryfolks seattle, WA
    Aug. 5, 2014 3:26 p.m.

    play by the rules

    You said: "It does not concern you what I consider sin. I consider homosexuality to be sin and I will declare that in honor and support of my God."

    Good for you. May you always be happy. However, many of us with alternative beliefs or non-beliefs don't think as you do. Unless you advocate a theocracy, then you are free to believe as you wish as I am. And no one's individual belief system becomes dominate. That is the nature of a secular society.

    And a secular society is the only true way to preserve your individual religious choices. So, if you advocate the criminalization of homosexuality and forbid same sex marriage, you oppose secular government in favor of theocracy.

    Try to live and let live.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Aug. 5, 2014 4:35 p.m.

    @loaf;

    The problem with your assessment is that what you consider "harmful" is not harmful. Being true to oneself is not harmful; trying to be what you aren't definitely is harmful though.

    "Those who don't control their sexual feelings have created immense heartache for themselves and others."

    --- Referencing LGBT relationships, that is complete malarky. If you're referencing men/women who fail to remain faithful, then yes, that is correct.

    One of the problems with your comments is that you seem to equate same-gender love with lust and opposite-gender love as "love".

    @USAlover;

    Nobody has said that these people can't choose to live their lives as they see fit; only that there are more CORRECT ways to live one's life than just celibacy.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Aug. 5, 2014 4:36 p.m.

    RedWings

    "However, to force someone to resign from a job because they donated personal money to a political cause is bigoted, intolerant, and a violation of rights. To resort to the childish name-calling of "bigot" simply because one believes marriage was defined by God is bigoted and intolerant. "

    1) The LGBT community didn't "force" anyone to resign, his company did.
    2) Donating to a "political cause" that violates someone else's rights is an action that deserves criticism - it is NOT "free speech".
    3) Believe (and practice) whatever you want about marriage and god, that does not give you the right to pass laws forcing others to adhere to your personal beliefs. Stating that "civil unions" are "good enough for the gays" is the very definition of "intolerant" when you, yourself can enjoy the benefits of marriage.

  • rusby Minneapolis, MN
    Aug. 5, 2014 6:43 p.m.

    Why do we even need to identify ourselves as gay or straight. I think identifying ourselves by anything that is not globally inclusive is wrong and acting on those exclusive identities is the heart and definition of sin.
    As Christians, we need to encourage everyone to align themselves with how Christ would act and make that our universal identity. It is what he taught.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Aug. 6, 2014 5:00 a.m.

    @USAlover 2:53 p.m. Aug. 5, 2014

    You're all missing the point.

    The people in the article are expressing their religious freedom to worship according to the dictates of their own conscience. I repeat, THEIR OWN conscience. I thought you liberals understood and championed those words?

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

    I believe you are the one who is missing the point. Nobody is denying or challenging anyone's right to believe and worship as they choose, except to the extent that some are trying to deny the right to practice, enter into, and celebrate SSM found in the doctrine of some religions (example -- the law in NC).

    What is mainly being contested is the attempt by some to deny the same SECULAR civil rights to members of a minority group that they, as members of a majority group, enjoy. They have every right to believe and worship as they choose, but their right to impose their beliefs and doctrines end when they try to impact (and try to deny) the civil rights of others.

  • O'really Idaho Falls, ID
    Aug. 7, 2014 12:56 p.m.

    Baccus- Thing is, heterosexual sex has the potential to create a family. Homosexual sex doesn't and never will. So what is hypocritical about what Loaf said? Yes, Mormons generally want to create a family. Without sex, they'd have to adopt, ( which is totally acceptable but usually unnecessary) So sex is a means to an end. Our sexuality, though is not how we define ourselves. I know of some couples who have their children but no longer have sex. They love each other dearly and are completely and eternally devoted to each other.

    Ranch- It's pretty hard to have sex without a sex drive. Ok, so if gays completely took the sex out of their relationship, (y'all don't define yourself by sex, right?), would they stay together? And what then makes their relationship any different than two good friends of the opposite sex hanging together?

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 7, 2014 4:14 p.m.

    @O'really
    "So sex is a means to an end. "

    Maybe if you believed birth control was a sin you'd have an argument, but let's not pretend that straight people don't have other reasons for sex other than just creating life.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Aug. 13, 2014 9:36 a.m.

    O'really said:

    "I know of some couples who have their children but no longer have sex. They love each other dearly and are completely and eternally devoted to each other."

    and then says he says:

    "Ranch- ... so if gays completely took the sex out of their relationship, ..., would they stay together? And what then makes their relationship any different than two good friends of the opposite sex hanging together?"

    I'm pretty sure the irony of your two statements in the same comment passed right over your head.

    Why is it that a heterosexual, married, sexless couple "who love each other dearly" is any different than a homosexual couple, married or not, who "love each other dearly"? Why is it that the gay couple is "just a couple of friends hanging out" but the straight couple is welcome at your table?

    I see a hypocrite.