Insights Towards Understanding Homosexuality (A Fathers Journey)

By Stephen Cohen November 2011 Before Proposition 8, there was the 2004 Presidential Campaign, where marriage initiatives to define marriage as between one man and one woman were proposed and passed on 13 state ballots. In the fall, before the election, I had a discussion with my college aged son on these initiatives. I was surprised when he expressed sympathetic views towards gay marriage. I shared with him some of the traditional arguments against gay marriage, as I understood them: i.e. its not natural; god made us male and female; the universe is built upon the harmonizing attraction of opposites (north and south pole, positive and negative electrical charges, ying and yang, etc); it is listed as an abomination in the scriptures; and, if we legalize gay marriage, well open the door to allowing pedophiles to marry children and men to marry their animals. Yes, I made the comment about marrying and having sex with animals. In February of 2005, through a series of events, we learned that our son might be gay. This began a journey for our family, especially a nave father, of trying to truly understand what it means to be gay. I found that I had many misconceptions and learned also that I didnt need to fix my son for he is fine just the way he is. As I began to understand the information I found on homosexuality, I found it helpful to organize these insights into six categories or keys. In this paper I will share the insights I learned from these six keys and how understanding these keys might affect our treatment of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people. The six keys are as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Same Gender Attraction Is Not A Choice Its Not Just About Sex Scriptural Interpretation Must Account For Cultural Influences Like Us, Our Leaders Are Human Gay Marriage Is Not A Threat To Traditional Families Mental Health of Gays

These six keys or insights are covered in much greater detail and sophistication by other authors and these keys do not cover every single issue. We live in a complex world and it is impossible for any one of us to study in detail even a small portion of the issues facing mankind. My goal here is to simply share some basic foundational information that I discovered in my search to understand the issues surrounding homosexuality. Please note that Im writing from the perspective of the father of a gay son. There are differences in the issues between lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people that I am not addressing, however, these groups share many common concerns for which I hope, this paper can serve as a beginning point. 1

Before continuing, Id like to apologize to my oldest son for discussing his sexual orientation in this paper. First and foremost, he is simply my son. He is a wonderful human being with a kind heart and creative spirit. I know for him his sexual orientation is no more a key characteristic of who he is than is being right-handed a key characteristic of who I am. I mention him here because, without him, I likely would have not taken the time to study what it means to be gay. Many times our children become our greatest teachers.

Key 1: Born That Way? Choice or Not?

When it first became apparent that our son believed he was gay (believed is my word not his), I began searching the internet for information that I could use to show him that thinking he was gay was an error and a behavior to be avoided. In my search, I came across NARTH, The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality. NARTHs goal is to help people minimize unwanted homosexual feeling while at the same time increasing positive heterosexual feelings. NARTH has many online publications, of which I read a couple dozen. Some seemed to make good sense, others did not. One NARTH article in particular had a lasting impact in my search for understanding. This article talked about the importance of allowing a person the right of self determination and provided success rates for changing sexual behavior for individuals undergoing reparative therapy. In a 2005 interview1 with the Washington Post, Joseph Nicolosi, the co-founder of NARTH, reported that those who sought treatment fell into one of three groups. Although no rigorous outcome studies have been published, Nicolosi estimates that: Group 1: One-third are "cured": They don't have gay sex and the intensity and frequency of their same-sex desires is diminished, but not necessarily gone. Group 2: Another third of patients treated experience "significant improvement -- they understand their homosexuality and have some sense of control" but may still have gay sex. Group 3: The other third fail to change.

In general I have been a person who believes in the power of positive thinking and that, with discipline, we can change how we feel and how we act. A quote that I like reads, Our moods dont decree our thoughts, its the other way around. Our thoughts govern our moods. Therefore, if you think right, youll feel right. Note that the ones discussed by Nicolosi went in for reparative therapy because they desired to rid themselves of homoerotic feelings. The onethird who said they were cured still had some same-sex desires. Based on this it appears that none of those studied by Nicolosi changed their sexual orientation, but they simply learned to control or suppress their homoerotic feelings (A key in the debate on Choice or Not is an awareness of the difference between behavior vs. attraction). This raised a big red flag in my mind, telling me that homosexual orientation was more deeply rooted than a simple choice. Many of the major national health organizations (American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, the American Counseling Association, and the National Association of Social Workers) are 2

critical of organizations like NARTH that claim they can help reorient sexual attractions from same-sex to opposite-sex. They agree that one may be able to learn to control ones behavior, but they strongly disagree with the ability to change ones orientation. They point out that the research that NARTH uses for their conclusions does not prescreen for bisexuality, does not set up double-blind-type tests with a control group for comparison, depends too much on testimonial evidence like you find with diet pill advertising, does not have peer-reviewed papers and do not provide follow-up to determine if those who claim that their homoerotic feelings have diminished still feel that way 5, 10 or 20 years after the therapy is complete. Recently (August 2009), the American Psychological Association (APA) completed a study2 on the effectiveness and safety of Sexual Orientation Change Efforts (SOCE) by conducting a systematic review of peer-reviewed journal literature on SOCE and stated the following: None of the recent research (19992007) meets methodological standards that permit conclusions regarding efficacy or safety. Given the limited amount of methodologically sound research, claims that recent SOCE is effective are not supported. The results of scientifically valid research indicate that SOCE is unlikely to reduce samesex attractions or increase other-sex sexual attractions in individuals. The Task Force concluded that efforts to change sexual orientation are unlikely to be successful and involve some risk of harm, contrary to the claims of SOCE practitioners and advocates. (Note that NARTH is one of the main advocates for SOCE ) The same report states, . . . research and clinical literature demonstrate that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality. . .

Another criticism of NARTH (and organizations such as Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council) is that they cherry-pick information from researchers to justify their positions, even though the research being quoted often comes to just the opposite conclusions that NARTH claims the study shows. For example, A. Dean Byrd (a past president of NARTH and a member of the LDS church) discredits the role that genetics plays in the development of homosexuality by quoting Dean Hamer (the director of the Gene Structure and Regulation Unit at the U.S. National Cancer Institute) as saying, There is not a single master gene that makes people gay...I don't think we will ever be able to predict who will be gay.3 In an interview with Dean Hamer by Truth Wins Out he was asked about the common use of his research to show that genetics does not play a significant role in determining homosexuality. Dean Hamer responded as follows: Theyll even site me as saying there is no single gay gene. And that is correct. Just as it is true that there is no height gene and there is no eye color gene and there is no hair color gene. All of those traits are controlled by a large number of genes that interact with one another and do interact with the environment, but that doesnt mean that those traits arent largely genetic. So there are probably many different genes that affect sexual orientation. We dont know what they are yet. We dont know exactly how they work. But there is very convincing evidence that they do exist.4 3

In some personal email correspondence5 I had with Dean Hamer on A. Dean Byrds quote, he stated, I have no idea where that was taken out of context from or even if its real. It's a misrepresentation of my beliefs. My research shows that sexual orientation has a strong genetic component and is not a choice. You can cite that.... Any attempt to say I believe otherwise is fraudulent. One may ask why I am focusing on NARTH. First, for me, NARTH was a starting point for searching for answers relating to homosexuality. Second, I believe, NARTH has at least some influence (and perhaps a large influence) on the information that LDS General Authorities receive. The LDS church sponsors an organization called Evergreen International, which has the goal of diminishing same-sex attractions and overcoming homosexual behavior. The group has an annual conference in which A. Dean Byrd, Joseph Nicolosi and other NARTH members have been common speakers6. At these annual conferences, there typically is an LDS General Authority who participates. An example is Elder Bruce C. Hafens talk delivered at the 2009 Annual Evergreen Conference7. This talk has many references to NARTH positions, including quotes from A. Dean Byrd. Also, note that the only article written by a professional psychologist in the LDSs Ensign Magazine (a magazine for LDS adult members) on subject of homosexuality was one written by A. Dean Byrd.8 While I was reading articles published by NARTH, we found a book titled, Peculiar People: Mormons and Same-Sex Orientation9 by Ron Schow, Wayne Schow, and Marybeth Raynes. This book has several personal stories of LDS members who were struggling with unwanted homosexual attractions which they believed was morally wrong and they wanted to rid themselves of these feelings. These individuals prayed, fasted, read the scriptures, and served in church callings (some going on missions) in an effort to earn a blessing that would rid themselves of these feelings. After these attempts failed, some sought out professional therapy that in some cases included aversion therapy (used at BYU in the 1970s). In aversion therapy a patient is wired to a device that measures sexual arousal. They were then exposed to samesex pornography and then, if they became sexually aroused they were either shocked with an electric current or in some cases, had vomiting induced. Based on these stories and other reports Ive read, aversion therapy causes more confusion than help and sometimes leaves the person with no sexual feelings (i.e. asexual). The personal stories my wife and I have read and/or listened to have focused on gays from religious backgrounds. From what I can tell, the failure of these individuals to be able to change their sexual attractions has lead many of them to one of the following conclusions: 1) God does not really exist because my prayers were only met with silence; 2) God is unable to help me; 3) Im a weak and sinful person unworthy of Gods love; or 4) God doesnt change me because he is okay with me being gay. 4

Based on my observations, many of those in groups 1 or 2 find healthy identities by turning to non-religious communities, with some becoming non-believers in God. Many in group 3 (and some in group 2) end up in lots of mental pain in their lives, some committing suicide. People in group 4 find peace in God since they come to believe that God loves them as gay individuals without conditions. And if God can love them as they are, they learn to accept themselves. Im a believer that God does exist, that He does care and love us more that we can comprehend, and that He can guide us to change (within the limits of our individual agency). And since sexual attraction (not behavior) does not change even for the sincere followers, Ive been left to conclude that God loves homosexuals the way they are. If God is not a god of confusion and He says, men are that they might have joy10, isnt it possible that a gay finding joy with a same-sex partner is indeed true joy and not in conflict with Gods plan of happiness? Along with these personal stories showing that same sex attraction is not a choice, there is some scientific evidence that homosexuality has a biological origin. William Bradshaw, an emeritus professor of Microbiology and Molecular Biology from BYU, summarized some of these findings in an article titled, Biology and Homosexuality11 as follows:

Homosexuality runs in families, suggesting that it has a genetic basis. In a random sample, gay men have from 2-5 times more gay brothers than do heterosexual men. Lesbians have a high incidence of lesbian sisters. Comparisons (for both gay men and lesbians) of the incidence of homosexuality among identical twins, fraternal twins, and non-twin siblings suggest that it has a hereditary basis. The fact that there is only a 50% concordance between identical twins, shows that there are other non-genetic factors involved. Most likely, these non-genetic factors have to do with timing and amount of hormones present during development of the fetus. Anatomy of the human brain. A structure in the hypothalamus (the third interstitial nucleus, INAH-3) is sexually dimorphic (of significantly larger volume in men than women). For homosexual males, this measure is intermediate between heterosexual men and women (due to a greater density, but not number of neurons). Anatomy of the hand. The ratio of the length of the index finger to the 4th finger is greater in women than in men. This digit length measure is smaller in lesbians than in heterosexual women, and hypermasculinized in homosexual men with two or more older male siblings. Handedness. Homosexual women, in contrast to heterosexual women, are more often left-handed or ambidextrous. Aspects of the physiology of hearing. In homosexual and bisexual women, the strength of otoacoustic emissions, OAEs (tiny "echos" produced by the inner ear), is intermediate to that of heterosexual females and heterosexual males. Certain measures of auditory evoked potentials, AEPs, in homosexual males are hyper-masculinized.

At this point, Id like to introduce the Kinsey Scale on sexual orientation (for those who are not aware of it). I first found this scale discussed in Peculiar People. The Kinsley Scale is based on a large survey which asked people about their sexual behaviors. While the scale was originally used to measure sexual behavior, it is now commonly used to describe the sexual attraction a person feels for either the opposite-sex or the same-sex. Note that a very small percentage of the population report feeling no sexual attraction (i.e. asexual). 5

0- Exclusively heterosexual 1- Predominantly heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual 2- Predominantly heterosexual, but more than incidentally homosexual 3- Equally heterosexual and homosexual 4- Predominantly homosexual, but more than incidentally heterosexual 5- Predominantly homosexual, only incidentally heterosexual 6- Exclusively homosexual X-Asexual, Non-Sexual Basically those in groups 0 and 1 are heterosexuals, those in 2, 3 and 4 are bisexuals and those in groups 5 and 6 are homosexuals. Different studies break down the percent of the population which fits into each category of sexual attraction somewhat differently. Using my own judgment to average the results Ive read, between 90% and 95% of the population (counting both females and males) falls into the heterosexual group, with those who are strictly homosexual at 3% to 4% of the male population and 2% to 3% of the female population, and the remaining portions being bisexual. Men tend to be either heterosexual or homosexual while women are more fluid, with a larger percentage being bisexual than homosexual. While I find the scientific research on homosexuality supportive of the claims that homosexuality is in part due to biology (both genetics and fetal developmental processes) and not choice, I find that science is still in the early stages of determining the biology of sexual attraction. For me, the strong evidence that sexual orientation is inborn and not a choice comes from those who want to change and cannot, even after trying therapy over a number of years. This makes for what I believe is a very compelling case for stating that homosexual attractions are inborn.

Key 2: Its Not Just About Sex

Compared to the other keys in this paper, this section is short. But its shortness should not be understood to lessen its importance. We first learned that our son was gay during a family crisis. At that time we asked his friend/partner to stay away for a couple of days so we (especially I) could spend some time coming to terms with this information. Our son questioned us on why we were keeping his partner away and we found that we were creating emotional pain in him by keeping them separated. Until this time, we did not realize the deep emotional connection our son had to his partner. This was surprising, since I never imagined that homosexual relationships were anything more than sex. One complaint in society, particularly from the very conservative religious communities, is the idea that homosexuals are simply sexual perverts who want to do away with sexual boundaries. While there may be a small percentage of homosexuals that fit this category (just as there are heterosexuals who dont like any sexual boundaries), most of the stories weve read about homosexuals show that many are looking for deeper relationships than simply sex. 6

It is a very recent concept (within the last 100 years or so) that homosexuality includes not only sexual feeling but also romantic and emotional feelings towards someone of the same sex. Many gays want relationships that include emotional, intellectual, physical, spiritual and social elements of a relationship that are found in healthy heterosexual marriages. Yes, they want the relationship to be romantic, but just as important is someone talk with, to share the ups and downs of life with, someone to cuddle with, someone to grow old with and, in many cases, a partner to raise a family with. When we talk about the homosexual lifestyle, what we are really talking about is a group of people who want to live in healthy and wholesome relationships the same as heterosexuals. A great example is found in an interview12 with Buckley Jeppson. Buckley was raised Mormon, got married in the temple, had children, lived an active life in the Mormon church but could never find fulfillment in his relationship with his wife. After years of struggling together, they eventually divorced so that they could each find a fulfilling relationship. Buckley and his former wife are still good friends. His story is both inspiring and sad: inspiring because of his ability to maintain a positive attitude in spite of his struggle, sad in that he wanted to stay in the Mormon Church but was forced out after a new ecclesiastical leader would not accept his sexual orientation. Fortunately for Buckley Jeppson, he finally found fulfillment in a relationship with a same sex partner and was legally married in Canada. His story is typical of the struggle of many gays in the search for fulfilling relationships.

Key 3: Understanding the Scriptures

For those of us with a Judeo-Christian heritage/belief system, the Bible (both Old and New Testaments) is a record of Gods dealing with mankind and His word on how we are to live our lives. However, there are debates on how to correctly apply the scriptures as guidelines, such as; 1) how much of the Bible is to be interpreted as literal, 2) how does the old world culture affect what was written, 3) is the Mosaic Law still valid in our modern era, 4) for Christians, are parts of the Mosaic Law still valid or have they been completely superseded by Christs teachings and 5) how much of the Bible has been passed on to us correctly (i.e. Biblical inerrancy). And for those who believe in Biblical inerrancy, the question must be asked on how do imperfect humans with imperfect understanding perfectly interpret the Bible. Understanding these debates is critical as we try and apply the Bible to our understanding of homosexuality in our century. There are many good books and articles13 that discuss questions in interpreting the scriptural references that are used to condemn homosexuality. From these references I learned that there are a dozen or so scriptures used to condemn homosexuality that I believe can be narrowed to four basic concepts: 1. 2. 3. 4. Gender is an essential characteristic of marriage (Genesis 1:27) The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was homosexual behavior (Genesis 19) Homosexuality is an abomination (Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13) Homosexuality is against nature and therefore a sin (Romans 1:26-27) 7

From here well focus on these four concepts. Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. A common anti-gay slogan is, God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve. While many things in this world fit neatly into binary systems such as male and female, Rabbis through the centuries have recognized that all things do not fit into these simple binary categories. For example the definition of day or night is not as straight forward as it seems. Day can be defined as when there it is light while the sun is up and night is when it is dark after the sun has set. But what about the twilight hours of dusk or dawn? The sun has set below the horizon and yet there is still day light illuminating the sky. What do we call this time? Note that in many cultures it is in the things that elude simple binary definitions that are given holy status, such as twilight. From an article written to accompany a video called For The Bible Tells Me So Rabbi Elliot Rose Kukla states the following: The rabbis of the Mishna, who lived in the rst two centuries of the Common Era, identify at least four possible genders/sexes: the zakhar (male) and the nekevah (female), as well as two sexes that are neither male nor female: the tumtum and the androgynos. They also had two other categories for gender identity that dont appear at birth, but develop later in life. The saris is born male but later develops female traits; the ayloni is born female, but later develops male traits. . . . Th(ese) term(s) is an acknowledgement that not all of creation can be understood within binary systems. It is recognition of the possibility that uniqueness can burst through the walls that demarcate our society. It is also a theological statementit is a proclamation that God creates diversity that is far too complex for human beings to understand. There are parts of each of us that are uncontainable. Every one of us must be appreciated as a created being of our own.14 From this it can be seen that life is complex, cannot always be simply placed in either/or categories such as male and female and that God loves diversity. But there is another part to understanding the marriage relationship between Adam and Eve as defined in the Bible. The question that must be asked is: Is it gender that defines marriage or the covenant aspects of the relationship that defines the marriage? Consider that in both the Old and New Testaments it is a common metaphor for God (or Christ) to compare his relationship with us, his children, as a marriage relationship. Consider the following verse of scripture (italics added to emphasis different parts of the relationship): Hosea 2:19-23 (Good News Translation) 19 Israel, I will make you my wife; I will be true and faithful; I will show you constant love and mercy and make you mine forever. 8

20 I will keep my promise and make you mine, and you will acknowledge me as Lord. 21-22 At that time I will answer the prayers of my people Israel. I will make rain fall (i.e. He will provide for us) on the earth, .... 23 ....I will show love to those who were called unloved (unconditional love). In this scripture God defines the marriage relationship by the attributes that make marriage important and not simply by gender. As I stated in Key 2, gay relationships are more than sex. Sodom and Gomorrah Ive read several commentaries on the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah which show that their sins likely had nothing to do with homosexuality. In fact some of the best commentary on the scriptures comes from the scriptures themselves. Both the prophets Isaiah and Ezekiel spoke on the sins in Jerusalem by comparing the people of Jerusalem to those of Sodom and Gomorrah. Making the comparison, Ezekiel stated, Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good. (Ezekiel 16:4950) And Isaiah teaches that to avoid being like Sodom we should, Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. (Isaiah 1:17) Jewish tradition teaches of the importance of the ancient Law of Hospitality. Hugh Nibley, an LDS scholar, tells us, It was the practice in Sodom and Gomorrah, we are told, to rob all strangers of their money and then let them starve to death because they could not buy food; and the cities inhabitants would put nets over their trees so that the birds would have no free lunch on their fruit. For Abraham, such meanness, as we have seen, was the last straw, and he cursed them in the name of his God.15 The Talmud and the book of Jasher also recount two incidents of a young girl (one involved Lot's daughter Paltith) who gave some bread to a poor man who had entered the city. When the townspeople discovered their acts of kindness, they burned Paltith and smeared the other girl's body with honey and hung her from the city wall until she was eaten by bees. (Sanhedrin 109a) It is this gruesome event, and her scream, in particular, the Talmud concludes, that are alluded to in the verse that heralds the citys destruction: So Hashem said, 'Because the outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah has become great, and because their sin has been very grave, I will descend and see... (Genesis 18:20-21).16 The reference in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah to the towns folk wanting the angels to come out so they could know them is likely about power. It was (and still is) common for soldiers, thieves, and bullies to rape a fallen enemy or victim, asserting victory by dehumanizing and demeaning the conquered. The act of raping an enemy or victim is about power and revenge. As one reads the historical accounts of Sodom and Gomorrah, one can see that they were destroyed for many sins, none of which had anything to do with homosexuality.

The message of Sodom and Gomorrah is very relevant for our day. In a time when corporate CEOs make billions, many corporate executives receive eight figure bonuses, athletes make seven figure salaries and many of the rest of us common folk spend well beyond our means, we still have people who cant afford some of the basic necessities of life. Are we guilty of not strengthening the hand of the poor and needy? Homosexuality is an Abomination I believe that the Old Testament contains many guide posts that are still valid today, such as the basic principles found in the Ten Commandments and ethical teachings on social justice, such as is found in Micah 6:8, What does the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God? So what about the portions of the Old Testament containing the Mosaic or Levitical Law? Do they still apply to our day? Id like to simply illustrate some of the problems in using the Levitical Law against homosexuality in our era by including an open letter titled, Dear Dr. Laura. Around the year 2000, Dr. Laura Schlessinger on her radio show stated that homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22 and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The open letter to Dr. Laura was posted on the Internet and has been widely read. As written, it is both humorous and informative. It reads: Dear Dr. Laura: Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding Gods Law. I have learned a great deal from your show and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual life-style, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them. 1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates pleasing odors for the Lord Lev. 1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them? 2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? 3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness Lev. 15: 19-24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense. 4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why cant I own Canadians? 10

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself? 6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I dont agree. Can you settle this? 7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here? 8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die? 9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves? 10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev. 24: 1016) Couldnt we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14) I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that Gods word is eternal and unchanging. Your devoted disciple and adoring fan, Jim This simple letter helps us to see that much of the Levitical Law is out of date with our modern understanding of ethical and compassionate treatment of others. There are many cultural aspects behind the reasons that Leviticus was written the way it was. Well jump to the New Testament to see an example of one these cultural underpinnings. Homosexuality is Against Nature So what about the New Testament? Christ was to fulfill the Levitical Law and institute a higher law based on the two great commandments; love God and love our neighbor as ourselves. Still many of the old cultural beliefs continued. This can be seen in the Apostle Pauls acceptance of owning slaves (Ephesians 6:5-8), and instructions for wives to submit themselves to their husbands (Ephesians 5:22-24). Try using this scripture with your wife during a disagreement. Paul encouraged single adults to remain single, But I wish everyone were single, just as I am. But God gives to some the gift of marriage and to others the gift of singleness. So I say to those who arent married and to widowsits better to stay unmarried, just as I am. But if they cant control themselves, they should go ahead and marry. Its better to marry than to burn with lust (1 Corinthians 7:7-8 New Living Translation). Compare this scripture with one from Joseph Smith, And again, verily I say unto you, that whoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God unto man. In Mormonism, where the family is considered central to our happiness, Pauls teachings are considered his own personal opinion, not Gods. 11

The Apostle Paul in several locations condemns same sex-activities. In Romans 1:26-27 he wrote, For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet. What does Paul mean by these verses? Id like to look at two aspects surrounding these verses, first some cultural practices of the Romans that would have been observed by Paul; and second Id like to talk about the word natural. Paul wrote this letter to the Romans after witnessing many sexual perversions from a visit to Rome. Reverend Dr. Mel White of Soul Force presents the following: On his journey Paul had seen great temples built to honor Aphrodite, Diana, and other fertility gods and goddesses of sex and passion instead of the one true God the apostle honors. Apparently, these priests and priestesses engaged in some odd sexual behaviors including castrating themselves, carrying on drunken sexual orgies, and even having sex with young temple prostitutes (male and female) - all to honor the gods of sex and pleasure.17 I think most of us would agree with Paul that these Roman practices are immoral. Most of us, believe sex is a sacred gift, and it is wrong to exploit it as the Romans were doing. Now for the second point from Romans 1:26-27. What does the phrase change the natural use into that which is against nature mean in this passage? The natural use of ones body as referenced in this scripture is most likely referring to sexual intercourse for the purpose multiplying and replenishing the earth as instructed by God to Adam and Eve in Genesis. Of course, as humans, we use the passion of sex for much more than to simply bring children into the world. This passion helps create emotional and spiritual bonds between committed companions. In a talk to youth in the Mormon Church (later published as pamphlet), the Mormon Apostle Boyd K Packer explained the following: This power (sexual desire) is good. It can create and sustain family life, and it is in family life that we find the fountains of happiness. It is given to virtually every individual who is born into mortality. . . . It was necessary that this power of creation have at least two dimensions: One, it must be strong, and two, it must be more or less constant.18 While we as heterosexuals enjoy these natural passions in our marriages, we give little consideration to the complex physiology that takes place causing sexual arousal. I know for myself I have simply enjoyed the arousal I experience in my relationship with my wife without caring to understand it. However, as Ive begun to understand the complexity of the physiological and emotional process that causes sexual arousal, Ive begun to understand that sexual arousal naturally varies from one person to the next. 12

For those of us in the majority, it is natural to not understand homosexual arousal. For me, the thought of being sexual with another man is anything but natural. As Paul says, men with men working that which is unseemly is how I feel about having sex with another man. This may seem strange, but I can understand what a lesbian sees in another woman much easier than I can understand what a gay man sees in another man, simply because Im naturally attracted to women so I can understand the attraction of another female. As I have read the stories of gay men and women, it is interesting that they feel unnatural in having sex with someone of the opposite gender. For them the natural attraction is to someone of the same gender. The concept that it is natural for a gay person to be attracted to the same gender was inconceivable to me in the past. But Ive learned that it is just as natural for a homosexual to be attracted to the same sex as it is for a heterosexual to be attracted to the opposite sex. I believe that much of the prejudice that we as heterosexuals have towards gays comes from us projecting our own repulsion of same-sex behavior upon gays natural same-sex attraction without understanding that their biological wiring is simply different from ours. I believe this is why over the centuries we have considered same-sex activities as an unnatural perversion and that is one reason why, in biblical times, same-sex activities were condemned as sin. As a society, we are just beginning to understand that homosexuality is a normal variant of sexual physiology. As our understanding increases, I believe that, in time, society at large will see that that Bibles teaching on same-sex activities are no longer be acceptable the same as we no longer accept the Bibles teaching on slavery and the treatment of women as property. I want to share a couple of the tools I use in understanding the messages from the scriptures. First, as alluded to in the opening paragraph of this section, the interpretation of scriptures is a tricky subject. I personally use the following statements as guidelines: John Dillenberger, That which is disclosed is always disclosed in the time-bound categories of any generation, of any time. The things that fall from Heaven are still colored by earth. And the reason theology is an enterprise that will not go out of existence is simply that it is the theological task of every generation to ask the question: In faithfulness to God's witness to us and in faithfulness to God's witness out of the past, how can we and how must we now say what they also once said? For that is the continuity and witness of the saints throughout history.19 Elder John A. Widtsoe, The message of the scripture is divine; the words in which it is clothed are human. Failure to make this distinction has led to much misunderstanding. Intelligent readers will separate the message of the scripture from its form of presentation.20 Lowell L. Bennion, I do not accept any interpretation of scripture that denies the impartiality or love of God or the free agency and brotherhood of man.21 13

Articles of Faith of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints:22 8. We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God. (Also from the BofM Title page, And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.) 9. We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

President Joseph Fielding Smith, Where is there a writing intended to be taken in all its parts literally? Such a writing would be insipid and hence lack natural appeal. To expect a believer in the Bible to strike an attitude of this kind and believe all that is written to be a literal rendition is a stupid thought. No person with the natural use of his faculties looks upon the Bible in such a light.23

Finally, I find it interesting that Jesus himself never once spoke on this subject. And, as a Mormon, it is also interesting that neither the Book of Mormon, nor the Doctrine and Covenants nor the Pearl of Great Price address the subject of homosexuality. Since the Book of Mormon states that it was written for our time, why wasnt this issue mentioned in it or in the Doctrine and Covenants?

Key 4: Like Us, Our Leaders Are Human

In writing about this key, one of the biggest debates Ive had is what the title should be. The current title is the original title I first came up with when I categorized these keys back in spring of 2010. I considered changing the title to Seek Wisdom. For Mormons the founding scripture for our faith could be said to be James 1:5 which reads, If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. As humans we need to be willing to admit that we all lack understanding in many different areas and that we need to be continually searching for truth. I like what a late 19th century author named Ambrose Bierce stated, Believe those who are seeking truth, doubt those who find it. Recognizing that absolute truth is difficult to find the Apostle Paul stated, For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. (1 Corinthians 13:12) Because of some of the strong statements made by our church leaders against homosexuality my wife and I found that many LDS members will not honestly listen to our experience of having a gay son. I know I was once one who wouldnt listen. If the reader will recall, in the opening paragraph of this paper I mentioned the surprise I had when my son stated his support for gay marriage. As I told him all of my beliefs on why gay marriage was wrong, I cannot recall any of his statements for supporting gay marriage because I wasnt listening. This reminds me of how easy it is to be close minded. 14

For many active Mormons the belief is strong that when our leaders speak, it as though God himself is speaking to us, . . . whether by my own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same. (D&C 1:38) So what does one do when what we experience leads us in a different direction from the guidance that our modern leaders give? For me, the first is to recognize that all of us who inhabit this earth are human. There was only one perfect man who always led us correctly and that was our Savior. I find the following words of Brigham Young comforting: I do not even believe that there is a single revelation, among the many God has given to the Church, that is perfect in its fullness. The revelations of God contain correct doctrine and principle, so far as they go; but it is impossible for the poor, weak, low, groveling, sinful inhabitants of the earth to receive a revelation from the Almighty in all its perfections. . . . Why? Because the people are not prepared to receive it in its completeness, for they are not complete or perfect themselves. . . . The laws that the Lord has given are not fully perfect, because the people could not receive them in their perfect fullness; but they can receive a little here and a little there, a little today and a little tomorrow, a little more next week, and a little more in advance of that next year, if they make a wise improvement upon every little they receive; if they do not, they are left in the shade, and the light which the Lord reveals will appear darkness to them, and the kingdom of heaven will travel on and leave them groping. ... There is a further reason - we are not capacitated to throw off in one day all our traditions, and our prepossessed feelings and notions, but have to do it little by little. It is a gradual process, advancing from one step to another; and as we lay off our false traditions and foolish notions, we receive more and more light, and thus we grow in grace; and if we continue so to grow we shall be prepared eventually to receive the Son of Man, and that is what we are after.24 It is clear to see that Brigham Young understood our unfinished understanding and the need for increasing in knowledge. So where did the attitude come from that our leaders wont lead us astray? I believe that some of this attitude comes from an oft-quoted idea that was found in a Ward Teaching message published in the June 1945 Improvement Era. Part of this message reads as follows: When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a planit is God's plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy. God works in no other way. To think otherwise, without immediate repentance, may cost one his faith, may destroy his testimony, and leave him a stranger to the kingdom of God.25 This idea was repeated in 1978, at a church-wide fireside when Elaine Cannon, the Young Womens President, told the women of the Church, Personal opinions may vary. Eternal principles never do. When the Prophet speaks, sisters, the debate is over.26 15

Shortly after this talk President N. Eldon Tanner reflecting on Elaine Cannons talk, said, I was impressed by that simple statement, which carries such deep spiritual meaning for all of usWhose side are we on? When the prophet speaks, the debate is over.27 So do these statements represent the official position of the Mormon Church? It all depends on who you ask. Following the 1945 ward teaching message quoted above, many people, both inside and outside of the church, expressed concern over this statement. Dr. J. Raymond Cope, the leader of the First Unitarian Society in Salt Lake City, wrote a letter to church president George Albert Smith. President Smith wrote a letter back to Dr. Cope, part of which is included below (underlined portions were made by President Smith in the original letter): The leaflet to which you refer, and from which you quote in your letter, was not "prepared" by "one of our leaders." However, one or more of them inadvertently permitted the paragraph to pass uncensored. By their so doing, not a few members of the Church have been upset in their feelings, and General Authorities have been embarrassed. I am pleased to assure you that you are right in your attitude that the passage quoted does not express the true position of the Church. Even to imply that members of the Church are not to do their own thinking is grossly to misrepresent the true ideal of the Church, which is that every individual must obtain for himself a testimony of the truth of the Gospel, must, through the redemption of Jesus Christ, work out his own salvation, and is personally responsible to His Maker for his individual acts. The Lord Himself does not attempt coercion in His desire and effort to give peace and salvation to His children. He gives the principles of life and true progress, but leaves every person free to choose or to reject His teachings. This plan the Authorities of the Church try to follow. The Prophet Joseph Smith once said: "I want liberty of thinking and believing as I please." This liberty he and his successors, in the leadership of the Church, have granted to every other member thereof. On one occasion, in answer to the question by a prominent visitor how he governed his people, the Prophet answered: "I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves." Again, as recorded in the History of the Church (Volume 5, page 498 [499,] Joseph Smith said further: "If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way." I cite these few quotations, from many that might be given, merely to confirm your good and true opinion that the Church gives to every man his free agency, and admonishes him always to use the reason and good judgment with which God has blessed him.25 Unfortunately, as often is the case, the personal letter written by President Smith was only read by a few, while the Improvement Era article was widely read by church members. I believe this imbalance is at least partly the cause of why members today believe that it is wrong for them to take a position that is different from that of the church leaders. As recent as July 8, 2008, the 16

BYU NewsNet web site published an article titled Follow the Prophet. In this editorial it was argued that active Mormons cannot and will not disagree with the Prophets counsel.28 As a balance to the above statements and other similar statements Id included the following quotes on learning and individual thinking to support the quotes given by President George A. Smith in his letter. This list is somewhat long, but I think it is important to see that several Mormon leaders have on many occasions encouraged independence in thought: Joseph Smith: I want to come up into the presence of God, and learn all things; but the creeds set up stakes, & say hitherto shalt thou come, & no further -- which I cannot subscribe to.29 We deem it a just principle . . . that all men are created equal, and that all have the privilege of thinking for themselves upon all matters relative to conscience. Consequently, then, we are not disposed, had we the power, to deprive any one of exercising that free independence of mind which heaven has so graciously bestowed upon the human family as one of its choicest gifts.30 Brigham Young said: What a pity it would be, if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken the influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually.31 I do not wish any Latter-day Saint in this world, nor in heaven, to be satisfied with anything I do, unless the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ, the spirit of revelation, makes them satisfied...Suppose that the people were heedless, that they manifested no concern with regard to the things of the kingdom of God, but threw the whole burden upon the leaders of the people, saying, 'If the brethren who take charge of matters are satisfied, we are,' this is not pleasing in the sight of the Lord.32 . . . .Now those men, or those women, who know no more about the power of God, and the influences of the Holy Spirit, than to be led entirely by another person, suspending their own understanding, and pinning their faith upon another's sleeve, will never be capable of entering into the celestial glory, to be crowned as they anticipate; they will never be capable of becoming Gods. They cannot rule themselves, to say nothing of ruling others, but they must be dictated to in every trifle, like a child. They cannot control themselves in the least, but James, Peter, or somebody else must control them. They never can become Gods, nor be crowned as rulers with glory, immortality, and eternal lives. They never can hold scepters of glory, majesty, and power in the celestial kingdom. Who will? Those who are valiant and inspired with the true independence of heaven, who will go forth boldly in the service of their God, leaving others to do as they 17

please, determined to do right, though all mankind besides should take the opposite course. Will this apply to any of you? Your own hearts can answer.33 President Joseph F. Smith: We talk of obedience, but do we require any man or woman to ignorantly obey the counsels that are given? Do the First Presidency require it? No, never.34 Apostle Charles W. Penrose: President Wilford Woodruff is a man of wisdom and experience, and we respect him, but we do not believe his personal views or utterances are revelations from God; and when 'Thus saith the Lord', comes from him, the saints investigate it: they do not shut their eyes and take it down like a pill.35 And none are required to tamely and blindly submit to a man because he has a portion of the priesthood. We have heard men who hold the priesthood remark, that they would do anything they were told to do by those who presided over them, if they knew it was wrong; but such obedience as this is worse than folly to us; it is slavery in the extreme; and the man who would thus willingly degrade himself should not claim a rank among intelligent beings, until he turns from his folly. A man of God... would despise the idea. Others, in the extreme exercise of their almighty authority have taught that such obedience was necessary, and that no matter what the saints were told to do by their presidents, they should do it without asking any questions. When Elders of Israel will so far indulge in these extreme notions of obedience as to teach them to the people, it is generally because they have it in their minds to do wrong themselves.36 George Q. Cannon, Counselor to three Church Presidents: "Do not, brethren, put your trust in man though he be a bishop, an apostle, or a president. If you do, they will fail you at some time or place; they will do wrong or seem to, and your support be gone;"37 James E Talmage Within the Gospel of Jesus Christ there is room and place for every truth thus far learned by man or yet to be made known. (Inscribed on the apostles tombstone-Salt Lake City Cemetery) President Hugh B. Brown, Counselor to President David O. McKay: I have been very grateful that the freedom, dignity, and integrity of the individual are basic in church doctrine. We are free to think and express our opinions in the church. Fear will not stifle thought. God himself refuses to trammel free agency even though its exercise sometimes teaches painful lessons. Both creative science and revealed religion find their fullest and truest expression in the climate of freedom. . . . .I admire men and women who have developed the questing spirit, who are unafraid of new ideas as stepping stones to progress. We should, of course, respect the opinions of others, but we should also be unafraid to dissent -- if we are informed. Thoughts and 18

expressions compete in the marketplace of thought, and in that competition truth emerges triumphant. Only error fears freedom of expression. . . . .(A) free exchange of ideas is not to be deplored as long as men and women remain humble and teachable. Neither fear of consequence nor any kind of coercion should ever be used to secure uniformity of thought in the church. People should express their problems and opinions and be unafraid to think without fear of ill consequences. . . . .One of the most important things in the world is freedom of the mind; from this all other freedoms spring. Such freedom is necessarily dangerous, for one cannot think right without running the risk of thinking wrong, but generally more thinking is the antidote for the evils that spring from wrong thinking. More thinking is required, and we should all exercise our God-given right to think and be unafraid to express our opinions, with proper respect for those to whom we talk and proper acknowledgment of our own shortcomings. . . . .We must preserve freedom of the mind in the church and resist all efforts to suppress it. The church is not so much concerned with whether the thoughts of its members are orthodox or heterodox as it is that they shall have thoughts. . . . And while all members should respect, support, and heed the teachings of the authorities of the church, no one should accept a statement and base his or her testimony upon it, no matter who makes it, until he or she has, under mature examination, found it to be true and worthwhile; then one's logical deductions may be confirmed by the spirit of revelation to his or her spirit, because real conversion must come from within...38 I believe our leaders are good men who lead us in many good ways. I believe we should study their words and incorporate what we find to be good into our lives. But if we find that we cant agree with all of their words we should also be unafraid to dissent as stated by Hugh B. Brown. Developing new ideas that are different from the majority is part of our church history. The founding of our church and the new ideas that the independent thinking Joseph Smith brought forth into the world has separated the Mormon Church from mainstream Christian Churches since the beginning of Mormon Church. In fact, many of the founding ideas of Mormonism to this day are considered heretical by the main stream Christian Churches. A classic example of independence of thinking is the conflict that developed between the Apostle Orson Pratt and the Prophet Brigham Youngs on Youngs teaching that Adam is our God (commonly referred to as the Adam-God Doctrine) and his teaching that God is eternally progressing in knowledge39. These teachings of Youngs have been declared as false doctrines in recent decades. In 1982, the Apostle Bruce R. McConkie gave a talk titled The Seven Deadly Heresies40 listing these teachings of Brigham Young as heresies. Orson Pratts refusal to accept these teaching (even though Brigham was the Prophet) helped prevent them from becoming accepted as official doctrines in the church. 19

Sterling McMurrin and Lowell L. Bennion (a couple of the great minds of the church in the 1950s to the 1980s) publically disagreed with the churchs policy on the priesthood ban for blacks. Sterling McMurrin reports that he was threatened with excommunication by one of the General Authorities for his public stance on the priesthood ban until President David O. McKay came to his defense on this issue.41 And Lowell Bennion was phased out of being the Director of the Institute at the University of Utah, partly because of his stance on the priesthood ban.42 Hugh B. Brown is the only counselor from a former first presidency in LDS Church history that was not carried forward into a new first presidency (that of Harold B. Lee) after the death of the past prophet. It is believed that the prime reason for this was that he pushed for the blacks to receive the priesthood in the final months of the life of David O. McKay, which was strongly opposed by Harold B. Lee.43 It is interesting to see the shifting of opinions in leaders after the priesthood ban was lifted. For example, compare Elder McConkies pre-1978 statements on blacks compared with post-1978: Pre 1978 Negroes in this life are denied the priesthood; under NO circumstances can they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty. The gospel message of salvation is not carried affirmatively to them... negroes are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned...44 Post 1978 Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation (i.e. the priesthood revelation). We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world. We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don't matter anymore.45 In hindsight we see that McMurrin, Bennion and President Browns thinking was ahead of their time. A belief in continuing revelation creates in us the need to be mindful of our incomplete knowledge and our current prejudices and always searching for new knowledge and wisdom. Understanding that our leaders are fallible and that we need to carefully study their words with prayer and reason is, I believe, essential to the health of a church that believes in continuing revelation. We need to be patient with our leaders and their flaws, partially because I hope theyll be patient with me and my flaws. Thus the reason Ive kept the title of this section as it is. Ill close this section with another favorite quote, The old joke is too often true: In the Catholic Church everyone says the pope is infallible, but nobody believes it; and in the Mormon Church everybody says the prophet is fallible, but nobody believes it.46 20

Key 5: Marriage Equality for Homosexuals is not a Threat to Traditional Family Values

Part of the focus for the supporters of Californias Proposition 8 in 2008 was that traditional family values would be threatened if gay marriage were legalized. So the question is, How is gay marriage a threat to traditional family values? And is the feared threat supported by actual research? For the purpose of this topic, I will highlight a couple of the feared threats that gay marriage could pose for traditional families and discuss information about these feared threats. Homosexuals are not fit to be parents Opponents of gay marriage use studies on healthy and dysfunctional traditional families to show that children are best raised in two-parent homes consisting of a father and a mother. There have been hundreds studies on traditional families to show the wisdom in this advice. Children do best in homes that have two parents for several reasons, namely, two-parent homes provide stable environments for physical and mental health, reduce the risk of poverty, and provide for better education. The problem comes when trying to apply these studies to oppose gay parenting. The studies used to show that two-parent heterosexual homes are best were not designed to look at samegender parents but were designed to look at the problems with single parenthood (whether caused by divorce, children born out of wedlock or absent fathers) and other types of traditional dysfunctional families led by heterosexual parents. Among the hundreds of studies looking at the health of families with children there has only been between twenty to thirty studies that have looked at families where the children were raised by same-gender parents. And the bulk of these studies focused on lesbian parents. A paper47 was written by Judith Stacy and Timothy J. Biblarz that summarizes the results from the available studies on same-gender parents. They came to the following conclusions: Opponents of lesbian and gay parental rights claim that children with lesbigay parents are at higher risk for a variety of negative outcomes. Yet most research in psychology concludes that there are no differences in developmental outcomes between children raised by lesbigay parents and those raised by heterosexual parents. The commonly held assumption that children brought up by lesbian mothers will themselves grow up to be lesbian or gay is not supported by the findings of the study: the majority of children who grew up in lesbian families identified as heterosexual in adulthood, and there was no statistically significant difference between young adults from lesbian and heterosexual family backgrounds with respect to sexual orientation. (T)hese studies find no significant differences between children of lesbian mothers and children of heterosexual mothers in anxiety, depression, self-esteem, and numerous other measures of social and psychological adjustment. The roughly equivalent level of psychological well-being between the two groups holds true in studies that test children directly, rely on parents reports, and solicit evaluations from teachers. The few significant differences found actually tend to favor children with lesbian mothers. 21

This study also concluded, not surprisingly, that children raised by same-gender parents are less prejudiced against homosexual relations than were children raised by heterosexual parents. Depending on your point of view, this could be looked at as a positive or a negative. While, for the most part, children raised by lesbian mothers are equivalent and sometimes better than those raised by heterosexual parents, there were found a couple of negative findings. The one listed below is a bit of a two-edged sword. Quoting from the paper: Relative to their counterparts with heterosexual parents, the adolescent and young adult girls raised by lesbian mothers appear to have been more sexually adventurous and less chaste, whereas the sons of lesbians evince the opposite patternsomewhat less sexually adventurous and more chaste. (page 171) As part of the above research review the paper points out that while daughters of lesbian parents may experiment with same-sex activities more than those raised by straight parents, as adults these same females identifies themselves as being lesbian or straight at the same percentages as those raised by straight parents. I believe it is possible that if our youth were better educated on what it means to be attracted to the same-sex, there perhaps would be less experimentation since they would better understand what it means to be gay or lesbian. In addition to the above study conducted by Stacey and Biblarz, a very similar study was conducted for The Australian Psychological Society.48 The following statement is made in the conclusion: In keeping with the broader family studies literature, the literature discussed here indicates that the family factors that are important for childrens outcomes and well-being are family processes and the quality of interactions and relationships. The research indicates that parenting practices and childrens outcomes in families parented by lesbian and gay parents are likely to be at least as favourable as those in families of heterosexual parents, despite the reality that considerable legal discrimination and inequity remain significant challenges for these families. (Pg 25) In other words, what matters most, and this should not be a surprise, children respond to love and nurturing regardless of the sexual orientation of the parents. So while there may be some slight differences between children raised by heterosexual parents as opposed to homosexual parents, on the whole these differences appear to be minor. In the end, most children raised by gay parents have the same opportunities to be both well adjusted and to be heterosexual as do children raised by straight parents. Homosexuals pose a threat to children Are homosexual men pedophiles? This is a belief of many people and a common claim of many articles produced by organizations such as Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council. So what does research actually tell us of homosexual men being pedophiles? 22

Dr. Gregory M. Herek at the Psychology Department of the University of California at Davis stated, "The empirical research on adult sexual orientation and molestation of children does not show that gay men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to suggest that molestations of children by adult homosexual men never occur. They do. But molesting children has nothing to do with whether a man is heterosexual or homosexual."49 Dr. Herek explains that most of those convicted of child molestations are typically divided into two categories: one, those with an enduring primary preference for children as sexual partners and two, those who have established age-appropriate relationships but become sexually involved with children under unusual circumstances of extreme stress. He then goes on to explain, Perpetrators in the first category those with a more or less exclusive interest in children have been labeled fixated. And, other molesters are described as regressed. Regression is "a temporary or permanent appearance of primitive behavior after more mature forms of expression had been attained, regardless of whether the immature behavior was actually manifested earlier in the individual's development" (Groth & Birnbaum, 1978, p. 177).50 Regressed offenders have developed an adult sexual orientation but under certain conditions (such as extreme stress) they return to an earlier, less mature psychological state and engage in sexual contact with children. From here, Dr. Herek explains, For the present discussion, the important point is that many child molesters cannot be meaningfully described as homosexuals, heterosexuals, or bisexuals (in the usual sense of those terms) because they are not really capable of a relationship with an adult man or woman. Instead of gender, their sexual attractions are based primarily on age. These individuals who are often characterized as fixated are attracted to children, not to men or women. Dr. A. Nicholas Groth who was quoted above by Dr. Herek made the following statements: In general, fixated child molesters are drawn to children sexually in that they identify with the child and appear in some ways to want to remain children themselves. It is for this reason that the trend for fixated offenders is to target boys as victims. . . . They see the boy as a projected representation of themselves. They feel themselves to be more child than adult more boys than men and therefore find themselves more comfortable (especially sexually) in the company of children.51 Homosexuality and homosexual pedophilia are not synonymous. In fact, it may be that these two orientations are mutually exclusive, the reason being that the homosexual male is sexually attracted to masculine qualities whereas the heterosexual male is sexually attracted to feminine characteristics, and the sexually immature childs qualities are more feminine than masculine. . . . The child offender who is attracted to and engaged in adult sexual relationships is heterosexual. It appears, therefore, that the adult heterosexual male constitutes a greater sexual risk to underage children than does the adult homosexual male.52

23

Occasionally it is argued, that if homosexual marriages are allowed legal status, well have to allow the same status for men who want to marry young boys (or young girls for that matter). This argument falls apart quickly when we acknowledge that there is a world of difference between a legal contract entered into by adults, or consensual sex between adults and sex between an adult and a minor child. From this information, it should be clear that being a pedophile is not the same thing as being a homosexual, and as such, gays are not a threat to children any more than heterosexuals are. Homosexuals do not reproduce and thus threaten the survival of society So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth,... (Genesis 1:27, 28) Another common argument against same sex-marriage is that, since same-sex couples do not naturally reproduce, they do not meet the minimum definition of traditional marriage. Traditional marriage has typically included the possibility of having children by natural childbirth and some are trying to make this a requirement for marriage in an effort to exclude same-sex couples from being married. This argument was one of the central points of the proponents of Proposition 8. In the court brief, Judge Walker included the following: Proponents argued that Proposition 8 should be evaluated solely by considering its language and its consistency with the central purpose of marriage, in California and everywhere else,* * * (is) to promote naturally procreative sexual relationships and to channel them into stable, enduring unions for the sake of producing and raising the next generation.53 (page 8-9) (Italics added for emphasis) Without going into the detail of Judge Walkers finding that the above argument was flawed which, in part, led to the eventual overturning of Proposition 8, I think that we can easily see that this argument has several serious flaws. First there are many heterosexual couples that get married that cannot reproduce. In some cases one or the other spouse is infertile. Or in other cases senior couples get married who are beyond the child bearing years. Would we ever think to prohibit infertile or senior couples from being married since they cannot have children? No! As a society we recognize that the value of marriage extends beyond simply multiplying and replenishing the earth. Second, for heterosexual couples who want children but cant, they have multiple options for having children; i.e., insemination, surrogacy, foster care or adoption. The only argument that these same options should not be open to homosexual couples is that they have unstable relationships and are unfit as parents. However, in reality there are many stable same-sex couples that are raising families and, as discussed above, many same-gender parents are just as successful as heterosexual parents in raising children. 24

Homosexuals desire sex with many different partners In a study54 of 16,000 people in 52 countries (mostly on college campuses) the question was asked How many sexual partners do you desire over the next month. For heterosexuals, 29% of men and 6% of women desired more than one partner. For homosexuals, 31% of men and 4% of women desired more than one partner. As can be seen by these numbers the desire for many partners is not so much a function of sexual orientation but one of gender, with men showing a much higher desire for multiple partners than for women. Could it be that this is one of the reasons that polygamy was sanctioned in the church in the 1800s? The above referenced survey was based on sexual desires and not actual sexual practices. In a survey56 which measured sexual practices, it was found that approximately 14% of heterosexuals and 31% of homosexuals have had sex with more than one partner over the last year. Notice that for heterosexuals this number is one half of the stated desired number of partners, while for homosexuals the number of desired partners is virtually the same as the actual number of partners. While I cannot find a study linking these results, my best guess is that this has to do, at least in part, with the commitment that comes from being married. If one of our goals is to increase morality by decreasing the number of sex partners, it seems that one effective tool would be to provide access to marriage for homosexuals. Id also like to point out that even without access to marriage the majority of homosexuals (69%) had sex with only one partner in the last year.

As we were struggling for direction after we first found out about our sons homosexuality, we turned to a former bishop for advice. He had a brother who had died of AIDS, and, on occasions in the past he had spoken compassionately about his brother in Sunday School classes. As we spoke with this thoughtful bishop, he shared with us his experiences with his brother. Among the thoughts he shared with us were these two pieces of counsel: Your son is a whole human being. Take his sexuality, put it in a box, and put it on a shelf. You wouldnt focus on your straight childrens physical intimacy with their companions, so dont focus on the physical intimacy in your sons relationships. Encourage your son to find a lifetime companion. Our former bishop told us if his brother had done this, he might still be alive today.

We place LGBT people in an unhealthy position when we do not allow them to safely explore healthy relationships, including sexual expression. In an article by Gail Sheehy titled Why Marriage Is Good Medicine for Men, Gail begins as follows: The biggest fiction behind James Bond is that the fantasy master spy and world-class heartbreaker lived past 40-something. It's not just the death traps and vodka martinis, or even the three packs of cigarettes a day that would have shortened his life. His naked ring finger would have too. Because real men need wives.

25

Consider the data: Married men - regardless of age, sex, race, income or education consistently have been found to be healthier than men who are single, divorced or widowed. This so-called "marriage benefit" begins to kick in right after the wedding, then builds. Husbands ages 18 to 44 are strikingly healthier than bachelors of the same age. At every age, in fact, marriage not only protects men's health but also prolongs their lives.55 In societys effort to prevent LGBT people from having legitimate relationships, we have in essence thrown them in front of a moving train. Its been said about LGBTs, We have thrown them in the gutter and then complain when they get dirty. When I hear the reasons given by conservative churches for defining marriage as being only between one man and one woman, one of the main reasons given is that it is a moral issue. I agree with them that it is a moral issue; however, I believe that conservative churches are on the wrong side of the debate. We need to encourage legal same-sex marriage for moral reasons since the healthiest relationships occur within the safety of committed relationships. By allowing same-sex marriage, we will be encouraging homosexuals to live a moral life in committed relationships and not live a promiscuous life with many partners. As Ive considered these feared threats to the family, the advice given by Screwtape in C.S. Lewiss Screwtape Letters comes to mind. In this book, Screwtape is a senior bureaucratic devil who writes letters of advice to Wormwood, his apprentice nephew. Wormwood is a young devil on assignment trying to tempt, corrupt, and confuse a young man in wartime London. In one part of the book, Screwtape gives the following advice: The use of fashions in thought is to distract men from their real dangers. We direct the fashionable outcry of each generation against those vices of which it is in the least danger, and fix its approval on the virtue that is nearest the vice which we are trying to make endemic. The game is to have them all running around with fire extinguishers whenever theres a flood. I have pondered this on many occasions as some of our neighbors have gotten divorced. The reasons are many, from not being able to deal with abuse that happened in youth, to an overcontrolling spouse, to lack of intimacy in the marriage, to drug/alcohol addiction, pornography, lack of agreement on parenting, etc. In most of these cases these couples were thought of as pillars of our community and good examples for our youth, and yet these families, for the reasons stated above and possibly many other reasons, ended up being split apart. None of these failed marriages had anything to do with homosexuals threatening their relationships, and yet our community spends much effort focusing on the supposed threat of homosexuals to the family. Maybe we need to spend more time focusing on real threats to the family. While many homosexual relationships will experience the same types of stresses that heterosexual relationships experience, I believe we can learn from one another and can actually end up helping each other to strengthen families rather than harming families.

26

Key 6: What about the Mental Health of LGBT People?

One of the myths about homosexuality is that it is a depressing and sad lifestyle. I believe that, in part, this myth is based on prejudice; part of the myth is based on the assumption that homosexuality is a sin and since, according to the Book of Mormon, wickedness never was happiness (Alma 41:10) and despair cometh because of iniquity (Moroni 10:22), Mormons commonly believe that homosexuals cannot be truly happy; and finally, part of the myth comes from believing that the depression and suicide experienced in the homosexual community is the result of mental disorders that comes from having same-sex relationships. A couple of years ago, I ran across an interesting study on happiness in a report titled Money, Sex and Happiness: An Empirical Study by David G. Blanchflower and Andrew J. Oswald.56 This paper studies the links between income, sexual behavior and reported happiness. It begins with the simple question, Taken all together, how would you say things are these days - would you say that you are very happy, pretty happy, or not too happy? The report then collected data on income level, various questions on sexuality (i.e. how often do you have sex, how many sexual partners in the last year, what was the sexual orientation of their sexual experiences, etc) and levels of reported happiness. The data sample consisted of 16,000 adult Americans and was collected between the years 1988 and 2002. This report had several interesting findings. The relevant information for this article is as follows: How many sexual partners in the last year will maximize a persons happiness? Although persuasive cause-and-effect is clearly difficult to establish in cross-section data, the simple answer according to these General Social Survey (GSS) data is one sexual partner. In this sense, our work has conservative implications. After some experimentation, we report this monogamy result, in Table 3, simply as the variable single partner. Table 4 looks in more detail at the type of sexual partner. We find, for instance, that people who say they have ever paid for sex are considerably less happy than others. Those who have ever had sex outside their marriage also report notably low happiness scores. Does the nature of someones sexuality affect their chances of being happy? In Table 4, columns 3 and 4 reveal that homosexual activity has no statistically significant effect in a happiness equation. (Emphasis added)(Pg 10) Also from the same report: As might be expected, Table 5 finds that aging reduces sexual activity. Black males report more sex than other groups. Married people have (much) more sex than people with other kinds of marital status. Despite the stereotypes, students have, if anything, less sex than the average person their age. People who say their parents were divorced at 16 have more sex than average; this, however, is due to the male sub-sample. Homosexuals and bisexuals have no more sex than heterosexuals. The structure of the frequency equations of Table 5 is similar for men and women, but working part-time is, among females, associated with lower levels of sexual activity. (Pg 11) 27

Based on the above data, the happiest people are those that live in a committed relationship with a single partner. Those who have multiple partners are not as happy as those with a single partner, and those who pay for sex are the least happy. These statistics on happiness bear the same results, whether we are talking about heterosexuals or homosexuals. In the other studies that I have read, the same basic conclusion can be made: homosexuals living in committed relationships can have the same degree of happiness as heterosexuals. Using the premise that I begin this section with, if wickedness is never happiness, then either homosexuals are lying about their happiness or homosexuals are bound by the same laws of happiness as heterosexuals; i.e., living in a committed relationship with someone you truly love will help one be happy. And this is not a sin. So what then is the cause of much of the depression that is experienced by LGBT people? For a possible answer to this, I have included some of the findings from research work led by Caitlin Ryan, PhD, ACSW, Director of the Family Acceptance Project at San Francisco State University. Early in Caitlin Ryans career she began working with men when the AIDS epidemic was first becoming a public issue. In working with these AIDS patients, some who were still in their teens, she could see that these young men needed the support of their families, so she would ask them how to contact their families. What she found surprised her. Many of these young men had been kicked out of their homes and told not to return so long as they believed they were gay. Some of these families expressed the idea that these children would be better off dead than gay. These extreme forms of rejection led Caitlin to research the effect of this rejection on LGBT children. Recently, Caitlins research group (Family Acceptance Project) completed a study57 on the effect of rejection of LGBT children and found that highly rejected young people were: More than eight times as likely to have attempted suicide Nearly six times as likely to report high levels of depression More than three times as likely to use illegal drugs, and More than three times as likely to be at high risk for HIV and sexually transmitted diseases The effects of different levels of rejection and acceptance on LGBT young people based on the Family Acceptance groups research work are graphically shown below.

28

From this data, it becomes quite clear that one of the major causes of depression and suicide among LGBT young adults is the fear of rejection and/or the actual rejection itself. From a pamphlet58 published by the APA (American Psychological Association) Answers to your questions: For a better understanding of sexual orientation and homosexuality, there is a section which asks this question, What is the psychological impact of prejudice and discrimination? Their summary reads: Prejudice and discrimination have social and personal impact. On the social level, prejudice and discrimination against lesbian, gay, and bisexual people are reflected in the everyday stereotypes of members of these groups. These stereotypes persist even though they are not supported by evidence, and they are often used to excuse unequal treatment of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people. For example, limitations on job opportunities, parenting, and relationship recognition are often justified by stereotypic assumptions about lesbian, gay, and bisexual people. On an individual level, such prejudice and discrimination may also have negative consequences, especially if lesbian, gay, and bisexual people attempt to conceal or deny their sexual orientation. Although many lesbians and gay men learn to cope with the social stigma against homosexuality, this pattern of prejudice can have serious negative effects on health and well-being. Individuals and groups may have the impact of stigma reduced or worsened by other characteristics, such as race, ethnicity, religion, or disability. . . . The widespread prejudice, discrimination, and violence to which lesbians and gay men are often subjected are significant mental health concerns. Sexual prejudice, sexual orientation discrimination, and antigay violence are major sources of stress for lesbian, gay, and bisexual people. Although social support is crucial in coping with stress, antigay attitudes and discrimination may make it difficult for lesbian, gay, and bisexual people to find such support. (Pg 2-3) Supporting that prejudice and violence is an ongoing concern, on October 1, 2010 the U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan released the following statement: This week, we sadly lost two young men who took their own lives for one unacceptable reason: they were being bullied and harassed because they were openly gay or believed to 29

be gay. These unnecessary tragedies come on the heels of at least three other young people taking their own lives because the trauma of being bullied and harassed for their actual or perceived sexual orientation was too much to bear. This is a moment where every one of us parents, teachers, students, elected officials, and all people of conscience needs to stand up and speak out against intolerance in all its forms. Whether its students harassing other students because of ethnicity, disability or religion; or an adult, public official harassing the President of the University of Michigan student body because he is gay, it is time we as a country said enough. No more. This must stop.59 Obviously, LGBT people as a group are going to experience many of the same mental health issues that the heterosexual population is going to experience. However, from the evidence that Ive seen, LGBT people are going to experience higher rate of depression per capita than the heterosexual majority as result of prejudice and rejection. So what can we do to help? Caitlin Ryans study had the following advice for parents dealing with LGBT children. Behaviors to Avoid Hitting, slapping or physically hurting your child because of their LGBT identity Verbal harassment or name-calling because of your childs LGBT identity Excluding LGBT youth from family and family activities Blocking access to LGBT friends, events and resources Blaming your child when they are discriminated against because of their LGBT identity Pressuring your child to be more (or less) masculine or feminine Telling your child that God will punish them because they are gay Telling your child that you are ashamed of them Telling your child that how they look or act will shame the family Making your child keep their LGBT identity a secret in the family Not letting them talk about it Behaviors that Help Talk with your child or foster child about their LGBT identity Express affection when your child tells you or when you learn that your child is gay or transgender Support your childs LGBT identity even though you may feel uncomfortable Advocate for your child when he or she is mistreated because of their LGBT identity Require that other family members respect your LGBT child Bring your child to LGBT organizations or events Connect your child with an LGBT adult role model to show them options for the future Welcome your childs LGBT friends & partners to your home Support your childs gender expression Believe your child can have a happy future as an LGBT adult 30

Summary
1. Same Gender Attraction Is Not A Choice While there are a few who choose to participate in same sex behavior (i.e. those who experiment with different forms of sexual expression, those in prisons, and some porn stars), same sex attraction is not a choice. For those of us who have personally interacted with LGBT people, we have watched them struggle with their identities. While the scientific data on the biological origins for homosexuality is significant, I find the thousands of personal stories about their struggles compelling enough that I dont need a final biological explanation to believe that homosexual attraction is not a choice. 2. Its Not Just About Sex The LGBT people that I know are like most heterosexual people in desiring an enduring companionship with someone they can love. And while sexual expression is an ingredient in the relationship (just as it is part of most heterosexual relationships), the sexual segment only defines a portion of the relationship. 3. Scriptural Interpretations Must Account For Cultural Influences While the Bible addresses same-sex behavior, it does so in the backdrop of sexual perversions used in idol worship that were common in surrounding cultures. Also, where the Mosaic Law does contain provisions against same-sex behavior, these provisions are found among other provisions that we no longer accept (i.e. eating shellfish is an abomination). Also, in biblical times, there was no understanding of the difference between same-sex behavior and same-sex attraction. 4. Like Us, Our Leaders Are Human Most of our LDS leaders are good people who try to do their best in serving God. They offer assistance to many people in need. However, they are human and subject to the limitations of their own opinions. As Mormons we believe in continuing revelation, and in believing in continuing revelation this sets up the necessary reality that our current understanding of some ideas will be superseded in the future as we gain new knowledge, line upon line, precept upon precept. I like a verse of scripture from the Community of Christs Doctrine & Covenants, Section 161, Verse 1a which reads, Lift up your eyes and fix them on the place beyond the horizon to which you are sent.60 Part of the Joseph Smiths genius was his refusal to become fixed in his thinking, as was illustrated in the earlier quote, Creeds set up stakes, & say hitherto shalt thou come, & no further -- which I cannot subscribe to.29 Parley A. Christensen, the Chair of the English Department for 25 years at BYU once said, God himself is limited when men cease to think.61 5. Gay Marriage Is Not A Threat To Traditional Families Just as marriage has a stabilizing effect on heterosexuals, it has been shown to provide the same benefits for homosexuals. By not allowing gays access to marriage we put them at risk. Not only is allowing gays to marry not a threat to traditional families, but it can become a welcome addition to providing healthy and stable family relationships. 31

6. Understanding Mental Health Aspects While LGBT people deal with the same mental health stresses that the rest of society must cope with, they also have the added stresses caused by prejudice, rejection, and violence for who they are. It is our responsibility to reach out and let LGBT people know that they are loved, cherished, and accepted for who they are. LGBT people bring many talents to the table of society that we miss out on when we reject them.

A Hope for the Future

I appreciated reading a sermon by Rabbi Fred Guttman on Reflections on Proposition 8. He is the Senior Rabbi at Temple Emanuel in Greensboro, NC. In his sermon he stated: At Temple Emanuel of Greensboro, we are desirous to communicate that gays and lesbians are truly welcome, not merely tolerated. There will be no asterisks, no hidden messages. We will sincerely welcome all who wish to explore the Jewish journey towards spirituality and social justice.62 I found this attitude very refreshing. In my Mormon heritage, we are taught to love those with same-sex attraction, but we always include asterisks. There is the common expression used in church, Love the sinner, hate the sin. An example of how this notion plays out in the LDS church is found in a conference address reprinted in the November 1998 Ensign (those asterisks are shown in italics): People inquire about our position on those who consider themselves so-called gays and lesbians. My response is that we love them as sons and daughters of God. They may have certain inclinations which are powerful and which may be difficult to control. Most people have inclinations of one kind or another at various times. If they do not act upon these inclinations, then they can go forward as do all other members of the Church. If they violate the law of chastity and the moral standards of the Church, then they are subject to the discipline of the Church, just as others are.63 Now imagine that you are someone who has struggled all of your life with same-sex attraction. You love the church and believe with all your heart that what the prophets say are inspired by God. So youve followed their counsel, youve prayed, fasted, and served God with all your heart with the hope that your same-sex attraction will go away. Youve counseled with your bishop, received priesthood blessings, and you may have even gone to professional therapy as recommended by your bishop. But, with all of this, these same-sex attractions remain strong. The past practice of asking gays to marry the opposite gender has led to many broken families and, as result, the church has abandoned this recommendation. So you are asked to live a life of celibacy which you are willing to do since you believe in following the church leaders. The church teaches that while this standard of morality may be hard to follow, it is no different than the standard that they ask the single heterosexuals in the church to follow. 32

While it is true that single heterosexuals are commanded to live the law of chastity, they are also told to prepare themselves for marriage. For the single heterosexual, the church holds dances and other social events to help them find an eternal mate. The single heterosexual can dream and fantasize about finding a mate of the opposite sex. And if they dont find a mate in this life, they have the promise that, if they are faithful, they will be given an eternal mate in the next life. For the homosexual, there is no preparing for marriage in this life and no dances or other social events to encourage you to find someone you can love. Since you arent attracted to the opposite sex, you shouldnt even dream or fantasize about finding a companion. (I guess you can have a dog or cat as a companion.) And if you ever give in to this inclination, you will be subject to church discipline. You are told that in the next life youll be cured of this mortal defect and be changed to a heterosexual in the resurrection. At that time, youll be given an eternal opposite sex companion for your sacrifice in this life. Mind you, there is no revelation to back up this belief, only a hope (and hopefully not a vain hope) that this is true. When we ask the homosexual to live a life of celibacy, we are asking them to do something that we ourselves, as heterosexuals, are unwilling to do. Christ warned us not to follow the Pharisees by saying, . . . .but do not do what they do, for they preach, but do not practice. They tie up heavy loads, hard to bear, and place them on men's shoulders, but they themselves will not lift a finger to help bear them. (Matthew 23:3-4, Amplified Bible) In reading the arguments for supporting same-sex marriage, I came across an article in Newsweek by Theodore B. Olson, one of the attorneys representing the legal case that Californias Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. I repeat a small portion of his excellent article here: The simple fact is that there is no good reason why we should deny marriage to same-sex partners. On the other hand, there are many reasons why we should formally recognize these relationships and embrace the rights of gays and lesbians to marry and become full and equal members of our society. No matter what you think of homosexuality, it is a fact that gays and lesbians are members of our families, clubs, and workplaces. They are our doctors, our teachers, our soldiers (whether we admit it or not), and our friends. They yearn for acceptance, stable relationships, and success in their lives, just like the rest of us. Conservatives and liberals alike need to come together on principles that surely unite us. Certainly, we can agree on the value of strong families, lasting domestic relationships, and communities populated by persons with recognized and sanctioned bonds to one another. Confining some of our neighbors and friends who share these same values to an outlaw or second-class status undermines their sense of belonging and weakens their ties with the rest of us and what should be our common aspirations. Even those whose religious convictions preclude endorsement of what they may perceive as an unacceptable "lifestyle" should recognize that disapproval should not warrant stigmatization and unequal treatment. When we refuse to accord this status to gays and lesbians, we discourage them from forming the same relationships we encourage for others. And we are also telling them, those 33

who love them, and society as a whole that their relationships are less worthy, less legitimate, less permanent, and less valued. We demean their relationships and we demean them as individuals. I cannot imagine how we benefit as a society by doing so. . . . . And, while our Constitution guarantees the freedom to exercise our individual religious convictions, it equally prohibits us from forcing our beliefs on others. I do not believe that our society can ever live up to the promise of equality, and the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, until we stop invidious discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.64 Compare the above thoughts by Theodore B. Olson with early LDS Apostle Elder Charles W. Penrose: "Here, then, is where the line must be drawn. Anything that persons profess to do under the name of religion, which interferes with the rights of others is wrong, and the secular law may step in and protect the citizens and restrain or punish those people who attempt to do this under the plea of religion. If I do anything which interferes with the life, the liberty, the happiness or the property of my neighbor the law has a right to step in and protect my neighbor and restrain me.I have a right to the exercise of my religion so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of other people."65 Id like to close this section by briefly discussing the changing attitudes towards homosexuality as it is taking place in religion and in American life. However, this was meant to be a short paper so Ill only include two thoughts. First is from a Bishop Jack M. Tuell, in the United Methodist Church: But our scripture lesson for today reminds us that God is ever ready to do a new thing. It further reminds us that the God we worship is not a static God, capable only of speaking to us from two, three or four thousand years ago. Rather, God is living, alive in this moment, revealing new truth to us here, now, in this year of our Lord 2000. ... The new thing that God is doing in our midst right now is to show us that homosexuality is not simply an act or acts of willful disobedience to God's law and commandments, but it is a state of being. It is an identity that God has given to some of His children. It is who they are.66 Second, in a recent Gallup Poll from May 201167, it was found that for the first time a majority of Americans favor legal gay marriage. This new survey for 2011 had the percentage for supporting gay marriage at 53% compared to 27% in 1996. When broken down by age, it is 70% for the 18 to 34 yr olds, 53% for the 35 to 54 yr olds and 39% for those 55 and older.

Closing Thoughts
Ive written this paper based on my perspective of the journey. It is important to point out that each member of my family has also been on this same journey, each with a slightly different perspective. For example, our youngest child, Tiffany, wrote the following titled, My Brother for a school assignment in 2010: 34

The heart harbors many secrets. Some are small and benevolent, but others are large with the potential to ruin lives. Five years ago, I found out a secret about my brother. It wasn't from his mouth that I discovered it, but from a slip of paper that I don't think I was supposed to find. My brother was gay, not a great thing to learn from a slip of paper. Before that moment, this type of thing didn't seem real. At first I thought I could just forget about it. But you can't escape reality. It happened a few weeks later, my parents told us that my brother was gay. I could tell he was scared, he didn't know if we would accept him. At first I didn't know if I would be able to accept him, but when I looked at him I didn't see gay or straight. I saw a brother who had been there for me my whole life. In the weeks that followed, he gained more confidence and cheered up. I once read in a book that you don't separate a person into pieces and say, these parts I like and these parts I don't like. I couldn't hate my brother because he was gay. It wasn't like anything changed either, he was still the brother I knew and loved. I couldn't understand those who thought I shouldn't accept him. Yeah he's gay, but I am proud to be his sister.68 Id like to claim that I came to my current understanding simply by being an open-minded person who is concerned with the needs of others. However, it took a crisis of faith in coming to terms with our sons gay orientation and the wise advice of a caring former bishop to send me on this journey towards understanding and caring about the homosexual. Without this experience, I fear I would not have taken the time to study this complex human issue and would have simply accepted the status quo belief of my upbringing. I dont expect others to come to the same conclusions I have. For each of us reality is based on what we as individuals have experienced as individuals. However, I believe, as more and more gays come out of the closet, society as a whole will begin to see them for who they are. I like the old Jewish proverb, An enemy is someone whose story we dont know. As we learn the stories of LGBT people, well find that they are not any stranger than ourselves. Well realize that they arent sexual perverts, but, like us, are simply human beings looking for the deep multifaceted intimacy that is formed within the bonds of committed relationships. In the future, I hope that we will have a society that will embrace all people and show greater love and compassion to all in their search of their individual identities, regardless of their race, gender, nationality, religion, or sexual orientation. This will allow all to feel valued and included in our family called the human race. I believe in the saying (with no asterisks included in the word all), "A table not set for all of God's children is not a table set by God." (George Keith)

For comments or questions Stephen may be contacted at sdc.4ever1@q.com

35

NOTES
1

Sandra G. Boodman, "Vowing to Set the World Straight: Proponents of Reparative Therapy Say They Can Help Gay Patients Become Heterosexual. Experts Call That a Prescription for Harm," Washington Post, August 16, 2005, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/15/AR2005081501022_pf.html, (accessed May 16, 2011). 2 Report of the American Psychological Association Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation, August 2009, http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/sexual-orientation.aspx, (accessed May 17, 2011). 3 A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D., MBA, MPH, Born That Way? Facts and Fiction about Homosexuality, http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2004_Facts_and_Fiction_about_Homosexuality.html, (accessed July 13, 2011). 4 Dr. Dean Hamer (Molecular Biologist), Interview discussing biology, genetics and homosexuality, http://www.truthwinsout.org/category/videos/medical-professionals, (accessed July 13, 2011). 5 Email correspondence in my possession dated March 8, 2011. 6 Dean Byrd was a speaker at the 1992 and 2001 annual conference and a fireside speaker in 2003. Joseph Nicolosi was a speaker at 1992 and 2009 annual conference and at January 1994 a speaker at a public meeting at Brigham Young University (sponsored by the Departments of Educational Psychology and Clinical Psychology). November 56, 1999: Evergreen hosted the annual NARTH Conference in Salt Lake City. See conference schedule on Evergreens Website http://www.evergreeninternational.org/conferences.htm (accessed June 5, 2011) 7 Bruce C. Hafen, Elder Bruce C. Hafen Speaks on Same Sex Attraction, http://newsroom.lds.org/article/elderbruce-c-hafen-speaks-on-same-sex-attraction, (accessed July 13, 2011). Elder Hafen is currently an emeritus member of the First Quorum of the Seventy. The First Quorum of the Seventy is the third ranking leadership quorum in the church, with the First Presidency being the highest and the Quorum of Twelve Apostles being the second highest. 8 A. Dean Byrd, When a Loved One Struggles with Same-Sex Attraction, Ensign Magazine, Sept 1999, http://lds.org/ensign/1999/09/when-a-loved-one-struggles-with-same-sex-attraction, (accessed July 12, 2011). Byrd and Douglas A. Abbott have a new book titled Encouraging Heterosexuality: Helping Children Develop a Traditional Sexual Orientation, (Millennial Press, Orem, Utah 2009) 113 pp. William S. Bradshaw provided an in depth review of this book titled Short Shrift to the Facts, published in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Vol 44, Spring 2011, pp. 171-191. In Bradshaws review he found the following categories of serious deficiencies: carelessness in reading the research literature, misquoting specific information, interpreting results in ways that contradict the findings of the original authors, providing superficial or partial summaries of research (thus omitting those results and explanations that contradict the original authors pre-conceptions), and duplicating the alleged evidence. Bradshaw then states, When the reader identifies an error of the sort just described, the response is probably charitable: Oops, the authors made a mistake.... However, after detecting the second, third and fourth errors, the response likely becomes, I wish the authors had been more careful. But when there is a repeated pattern of inaccuracy, misrepresentation, and distortion, the reader is led to conclude either that these errors reflect rank scholastic ineptitude or that they are the result of intentional misuse and manipulation a deliberate tactical decision to take liberties with the published data to spin a conclusion in a predetermined direction that supports the authors position. It is this poor scholarship used by individuals like Dean Byrd that have caused many of the major mental health organizations around world not to trust the conclusions of organizations like NARTH and Focus on the Family. 9 Ron Schow, Wayne Schow, and Marybeth Raynes, Peculiar People: Mormons and Same-Sex Orientation, Signature Books (June 15, 1991), 406 pages 10 Book of Mormon: 2 Nephi 2:25 11 William S. Bradshaw, Ph.D, Biology and Homosexuality, http://ldsresources.info/professionals/bradshaw.shtml (accessed July 12, 2011) 12 John Dehlin, Mormon, Married, Gay and Facing DisciplineAn Interview with Buckley Jeppson, http://mormonstories.org/?p=79, (accessed July 13, 2011). 13 Some references dealing with interpretations on Biblical passages in relation to homosexuality are as follows: one published by Soul Force referenced in footnote 17 below; John Shelby Spong, Section 4 The Bible and Homosexuality, The Sins of Scripture: Exposing the Bible's Texts of Hate to Reveal the God of Love, (HarperOne, March 14, 2006), p 113 135; David G. Myers and Letha Dawson Scanzoni, What God Has Joined Together, The Christian Case for Gay Marriage, (HarperOne (May 9, 2006) 208 pgs; Royce Buehler, A Defense Theory: An Analysis of Six Critical Texts Used To Condemn Homosexuality, http://www.whosoever.org/v2i5/defense.html,

36

(accessed July 14, 2011); Steve Schuh, Challenging Conventional Wisdom, http://www.ecwr.org/images/stories/challenging_conventional_wisdom-schuh.pdf, (accessed July 14, 2011), Walter Wink, Homosexuality and the Bible, http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/23697.htm, (accessed July 14, 2011). 14 Rabbi Elliot Rose Kukla, Gender Identity And Jewish Tradition, Handout 2F, For the Bible Tells Me So A Study Guide, (http://www.forthebibletellsmeso.org/For_the_Bible_Tells_Me_So_Curriculum.pdf, accessed July 31, 2011.) 15 Hugh Nibley, Work We Must, But the Lunch Is Free, in Approaching Zion, The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, Vol. 9, (Shadow Mountain November 1989), pages 631 16 Wikipedia, Sodom and Gomorrah, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah, (accessed July 13,2011). 17 Rev. Dr. Mel White, What the Bible Says and Doesnt Say about Homosexuality, pages 24, http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian, accessed July 14, 2011. 18 Elder Boyd K. Packer, How to Teach the Moral Standard, in Teach Ye Diligently (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1975), pg 312. Also given as a General Conference address on April 9, 1972 and later reprinted as a pamphlet. Return LDS Missionaries who taught using the Rainbow Discussions with be familiar with the language from this talk as part of the lesson on chastity from the phrase, A light, so to speak, that has the power to kindle other lights, in referring to the sexual drive. 19 John Dillenberger, President of the Hartford Theological Seminary, The Sovereignty of God in John Calvin and Brigham Young Response, Sunstone September/October 1980, page 31, https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/wpcontent/uploads/sbi/issues/023.pdf, (accessed July 14, 2011) 20 John A. Widstoe, Evidences and Reconciliations, (Bookcraft, Inc.; 4th Printing edition, 1965) 21 Lowell L. Bennion, The Best of Lowell L. Bennion: Selected Writings, 1928-1988, Edited by Eugene England (Shadow Mountain; First Edition, November 1988), 305 pages 22 Joseph Smith, Jr, The Articles of Faith of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Published in the Pearl of Great Price, http://lds.org/scriptures/pgp/a-of-f/1?lang=eng, (accessed July 14, 2011) 23 Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1956, vol. 3) pg 188. 24 Brigham Young, The Kingdom of Heaven given on July 8, 1855, Journal of Discourses, 26 Volumes, (In Public Domain), Vol. 2 pgs 313-317 25 A complete copy of the ward teaching message from the 1945 Improvement Era article, Dr Copes Letter, and President Smiths letter can be found in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Volume 19 Number 1 (Spring 1986), pgs 35-39. 26 President Elaine Cannon, If We Want to Go Up, We Have to Get On, Ensign Magazine, November 1978, page 107 27 President N. Eldon Tanner, The Debate Is Over, Ensign Magazine, August 1979, page 2. 28 Opinion of The Daily Universe editorial board, Follow the Prophet, BYU NewsNet, July 8, 2008, http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/68994, (accessed July 14, 2011) 29 Joseph Smith, Jr, Teachings Of The Prophet Joseph Smith, Complied by Joseph Fielding Smith, Original Printing 1924 (In Public Domain), pg 327 30 Joseph Smith, Jr, Teachings Of The Prophet Joseph Smith, Complied by Joseph Fielding Smith, Original Printing 1924 (In Public Domain), pg 49 31 Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 26 Volumes, (In Public Domain), Vol. 9 pg 150 32 Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 26 Volumes, (In Public Domain), Vol. 3 pg 45) 33 Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 26 Volumes, (In Public Domain), Vol. 1 pg 312 34 Joseph F. Smith, Journal of Discourses, 26 Volumes, (In Public Domain), Vol. 16 pg 248 35 Charles W. Penrose, Millennial Star, Vol. 54 pg 191 36 Charles W. Penrose, Millennial Star, Vol.14 pg 593-95 37 George Q. Cannon, Millennial Star, Vol. 53 pg 658-59 38 Edwin B. Firmage, "A Final Testimony", An Abundant Life: The Memoirs of Hugh B. Brown, (Signature Books; Enlarged 2nd edition, August 15, 1999), pgs 200 39 Gary James Bergera, The Orson Pratt-Brigham Young Controversies: Conflict Within The Quorums, 1853 To 1868, Dialogue, Volume 13, Number 2/Summer 1980.

37

40

The talk Seven Deadly Heresies by Bruce R. McConkie, was given at a fireside at Brigham Young University on 1 June 1980. http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=6770 last accessed July 7, 2011. A list of the heresies is as follows: 1. God is progressing in knowledge. 2. Organic evolution and revealed religion cannot be harmonized. 3. Temple marriage assures us of an eventual exaltation. 4. Belief that salvation for the dead offers men a second chance for salvation. 5. Belief in progression from one kingdom to another in the eternal worlds. 6. Believing that Adam is our father and our god, that he is the father of our spirits and our bodies, and that he is the one we worship. 7. Believing that we must be perfect to gain salvation. Amongst his seven deadly heresies are items in which I would strongly disagree with Elder McConkie. He includes Organic Evolution as a heresy. I believe there is overwhelming scientific proof of its validity and I believe that the scriptures can be explained in such a way that there is no conflict between religion and science. I personally like the idea of progression from one kingdom to another similar to C.S. Lewiss line of reasoning in the Great Divorce. Eternity is a long time. However, I couldnt agree more with Elder McConkie on stating that we must be perfect to gain salvation should be considered a heresy. 41 Sunstone Symposium Philosophical Roots of McMurrin's Theology: A Conversation with Sterling M. McMurrin interviewed by Jack Newell, August 14, 1993. Audio of interview found at https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/shop/products/?product_id=1344&category=3, Transcript of interview found at http://www.lds-mormon.com/newell_mcmurrin.shtml. 42 Mary Lythgoe Bradford's, Lowell L. Bennion: Teacher, Counselor, Humanitarian, (Dialogue Foundation, 1995). Ernest Wilkinson, who was the director of the church education system, outlined in a letter to Church President David O. McKay his reasons for releasing Lowell Bennion as director of the institute at the University of Utah. Among these reasons was Lowells unorthodox position on the Negro question. Pgs 165 to 167. 43 Edwin B. Firmage , An Abundant Live The Memoirs of Hugh B. Brown, (Signature Books, 1999). Edwin B. Firmage was the grandson of Hugh B. Brown. On page 142 he states, Grandfather was dropped from the First Presidency when it was reorganized under President Joseph Fielding Smith in 1970. Although his health was declining health, Grandfather did not believe that this was the reason for his return to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. I believe without the slightest doubt that his position on blacks and the priesthood was the matter that led to Grandfathers removal from the new First Presidency. 44 Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, (Bookcraft; Rare first edition, first printing. edition 1958) p. 477 45 All Are Alike unto God, Elder Bruce R. McConkie was a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, address was given at the CES Religious Educators Symposium on 18 August 1978. http://speeches.byu.edu/?act=viewitem&id=1570&tid=7 (Accessed July 7, 2011) 46 Wendy Ulrich, Ph.D., Believest thou...?: Faith, Cognitive Dissonance, and the Psychology of Religious Experience, Fair Conference 2005. Transcript found at http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2005_Faith_Cognitive_Dissonance_and_the_Psychology_of_Religious_Ex perience.html. Video available on YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0vQ4_nMImc (Accessed July 7, 2011) 47 Judith Stacy and Timothy J. Biblarz, (How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?, American Sociological Review (Vol. 66 No. 2, April 2001), pages 159-183 48 Elizabeth Short, Damien W. Riggs, Amaryll Perlesz, Rhonda Brown, Graeme Kane, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Parented Families: A Literature Review, Australian Psychological Society by, August 2007 49 Dr. Gregory Herek, Ph.D., Professor of Psychology at the University of California at Davis, Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation, http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html, (accessed July 10, 2011) 50 From reference in Note 48 referring to paper by Groth, A.N., & Birnbaum, H.J. (1978), Adult sexual orientation and attraction to underage persons, Archives of Sexual Behavior, 7 (3), 175-181. 51 From reference in Note 48 referring to paper by A. Nicholas Groth, William F. Hobson, and Thomas G. Gary, The Child Molester: Clinical Observations, in Social Work and Child Sexual Abuse, ed. Jon R. Conte and David A. Shore (New York: Haworth, 1982).129-144.

38

52

From reference in Note 48 referring to paper by Groth, A.N., & Birnbaum, H.J. (1978). Adult Sexual Orientation And Attraction To Underage Persons. Archives of Sexual Behavior, vol. 7 (3), 175-181. 53 "Decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger", Judge Walkers Court Brief and Finding of Fact, https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/files/09cv2292-ORDER.pdf (accessed July 10, 2011) 54 David P. Schmitt, Universal Sex Differences in the Desire for Sexual Variety Tests form 52 Nations, 6 Continents, and 13 Islands, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (2003), 85-104. 55 Gail Sheehy, Why Marriage Is Good Medicine for Men, Parade Magazine, June 18, 2006, http://www.healthymarriageinfo.org/docs/Sheehy-WhyMarriageIsGoodMedicineforMen_PARADEMagazine5035.pdf (accessed July 10, 2011)
56

David G. Blanchflower (Professor of Economics at Dartmouth College, USA) and Andrew J. Oswald (Professor of Economics, Warwick University, UK), Money, Sex and Happiness: An Empirical Study, For the Behavioral Economics special issue of the Scandinavian Journal of Economics (July 27, 2004). Table 1 from this report is included below for reference. http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/316/1/WRAP_Oswald_finalsentscanjsex04.pdf (accessed July 10, 2011)

57

Caitlin Ryan, PhD, ACSW, et al, Supportive Families, Healthy Children - Helping Families with Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Children, Family Acceptance Project, San Francisco State University, 2009, http://familyproject.sfsu.edu/publications, (accessed July 11, 2011). American Psychological Association, Answers to your questions: For a better understanding of sexual orientation and homosexuality, Washington, DC, http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/orientation.aspx (accessed July 11, 2011) 59 Arne Duncan, U.S. Secretary of Education, Statement on the Recent Deaths of Two Young Men, http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/statement-us-secretary-education-arne-duncan-recent-deaths-two-youngmen (accessed July 11, 2011). Also see for more details, http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2010/10/education-secretarycalls-for-tolerance-in-response-to-bullying-suicides-of-gay-teens/ 60 Community of Christ Doctrine and Covenants Section 161 http://www.cofchrist.org/onlineresources/DocCovenants/section161.asp, (accessed July 12, 2011) 61 Parley A Christensen, On Liberty in Our Time: Milton and Mill, reprinted in a book titled, Of a Number of Things, Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1962 (306 p.), http://www.archive.org/details/ofanumberofthing030813mbp, (accessed July 12, 2011). Parley A. Christensen (1888-1968) was a member of the faculty at Brigham Young University from 1927 until his retirement in 1965, serving as chairman of the English department for twenty-five years. 62 Reflections on Prop 8 from Rabbi Guttman, (accessed July 11, 2011) http://www.jewishjournal.com/oy_gay/item/reflections_on_prop_8_from_rabbi_guttman_20100912/ 63 President Gordon B. Hinkley, What Are People Asking about Us?, October 1998 LDS General Conference, Ensign Magazine, November 1998, http://lds.org/ensign/1998/11/what-are-people-asking-about-us?lang=eng, (accessed July 14, 2011) 64 Theodore B. Olson, The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage, Why same-sex marriage is an American value, Newsweek, January 09, 2010, http://www.newsweek.com/2010/01/08/the-conservative-case-for-gay-marriage.html, (accessed July 11, 2011).
58

39

65

Elder Charles W. Penrose, Journal of Discourses, Vol 25 page 220. This statement of Charles Penrose is in harmony with D&C 134: 9 which reads, We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied. 66 Bishop Jack M. Tuell, "Doing a New Thing": The United Methodist Church and Homosexuality, Preached on February 20, 2000, http://www.umaffirm.org/gcnews5.html, (accessed July 15, 2011) 67 Gallup Poll, For First Time, Majority of Americans Favor Legal Gay Marriage, May 20, 2011, http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/first-time-majority-americans-favor-legal-gay-marriage.aspx, (accessed July 15, 2011) 68 Tiffany Cohen, My Brother, Celebrating What is Important to Me, Grades 7 12, (Creative Communication, 2011), pg 48.

40