Skip to main content

Some Thoughts on Homosexuality

Heterosexual promiscuity in the world today has done far more damage to society than homosexual promiscuity has. Homosexuality is no more "gross" than heterosexuality. It is a way of life for some people.  While I think it is not a healthy way of life, I am much more convinced that it is wrong to belittle people who  happen to live that lifestyle.
Share/Save/Bookmark


I don't know enough about homosexuality to be sure whether "homosexual marriage" would be a detriment to society.  I tend to think it would be, though. It's probably more important, in this now politically charged arena, to agree to disagree on that issue.

There is something much more important, though, in the short term at least, that we can agree on without worrying about anyone winning or losing the debate, and without anyone being put in danger.   Regardless of how we feel about homosexuality, we should be united in helping homosexuals to feel valued, accepted, and loved.

Many in the homosexual lifestyle have feelings of conflict and distress. It's my opinion that (a) some of those feelings are spiritual, based on the fact that they are living a less-than-optimal lifestyle, but (b) by far most of those feelings are as a result of how they are treated negatively by family, former friends, and others around them.

When I was younger, we used to play a game of free-for-all tackle football called "Smear the Queer".  We all knew that "queer" was used by many people as a derogatory term to refer to someone who is homosexual.  We laughed about it.  Looking back on that, I can see now how that was a really dumb thing to do.

I grew up with about a half dozen male friends (that I knew about) who eventually chose the homosexual lifestyle.  Ironically, considering the unfortunately named football game described above, one thing these friends had in common is that they didn't--some very often, some ever--play sports with the rest of the boys. The other thing that most (and actually perhaps all, but I'm not sure) of them had in common is that they had very poor relationships with their fathers. I've since read several stories by homosexuals or former homosexuals who noted similarly negative or distant relationships with their dads.

I know of a family that lives nearby that has ostracized one of its members because he is gay. They feel very uncomfortable being around him and do not like it when he comes to family functions, because they are afraid that his homosexual inclinations put their children in danger. Even if that were true, this is no way to treat a family member. Even worse, however, is that it doesn't seem to be true.

If many former homosexuals have been very successful at choosing not to live a homosexual lifestyle anymore, I'm unclear why it is so often claimed by homosexual advocates that because homosexuality is not a choice, it is impossible to choose to no longer be homosexual.  As Dennis V. Dahle, JD, says in the book Understanding Same-Sex Attraction
Many people who identify themselves as homosexual would rather have been heterosexual, and, given the opportunity to "change," they would do so.

Perhaps much of the discomfort for homosexuals at allowing others to leave the homosexual lifestyle is the way that homosexuals are often treated. Homosexuality should not have to be a dark burden of shame or guilt, especially for the many homosexuals who cannot think of any time in their lives where they "chose" to be homosexual.  Homosexuals should never be disowned or ostracized by family or friends, which often happens when their homosexuality becomes known.

What if one of your children announced to you that they were gay? Would you love them any less than you did the moment before? Would you love them any less than a daughter who announced that she had become pregnant out of wedlock?

We often look at "what if" as an enemy, especially after what if becomes reality. We try with all our might to push certain events aside and wish that they had never happened to us. But in doing so, we also push aside and denigrate others to whom these events happened, whether we mean to or not.

What if we make "what if" our friend? We can still hope that certain events will never happen, but if they do, we can be prepared for them, so that we don't push them--and the people inside of them--out of our lives. With preparation, we can look at each "what if", should it happen to become reality, as an opportunity--or a starting point--to take those that we still love by the hand and mutually try to do better.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Red Clothing and Resurrection: Jesus Christ's Second Coming

The scriptures teach that when Christ comes again to the earth, that he will be wearing red apparel. Why red ? They also teach that at Christ's coming, many of the dead will become resurrected. Will this only include members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Not by a long shot, no matter what some Mormon might tell you.

School Vouchers: "The Bramble Memo"

$429 million? What? Where? The legislative fiscal analyst for the State of Utah calculated the costs to the public schools over the next 13 years if school vouchers are implemented. It said the costs would be $5.5M in the first year, and $71M in the 13th year. Suddenly, the number I have started seeing thrown around was $429 million, the total costs for vouchers over 13 years. Where did that number come from? Enter the mysterious "Bramble Memo". In the past few days several of us (Jeremy, Utah Taxpayer, Craig, Sara, Urban Koda, Jesse, and me) have (sometimes?) enjoyed a lively discussion about school vouchers in Utah . Jeremy clarified to me the costs of the venture by linking to a copy of the Utah Legislative Fiscal Analyst's Impartial Analysis (LFA) of the costs of Vouchers , found on "The Senate Site". In my previous voucher article, I quoted some of Lavar Webb's article from last Sunday's Deseret News, wherein he stated that those total costs ...

What's Your Reaction to California's Decision on Same-Sex Marriage?

Yesterday a "Republican-dominated" California Supreme Court struck down state laws against same-sex marriages. The LDS Church issued a press release, calling the decision "unfortunate". I agree, but not for reasons you might think. Did the California Court make the right decision? Update 5/17/2008 : California decision does not affect prohibitions against polygamy and marriage of close relatives. Why not? Government should not sanction same-sex marriages for the same reason that it should not sanction heterosexual adultery--such activities tend to be destructive to the family as the fundamental unit of society. Before you get too far into reading into my words, let me echo and agree with something that Madeleine Albright wrote in her recent book, The Mighty & The Almighty (one of the better books that I have read in a long time): I oppose discrimination against gays and lesbians and am convinced that heterosexual adultery is a greater danger to the institu...