Yeah, some good things surrounded by a lot of PC backpedaling, but really, WHY is is innate and immutable for some people and not for others?? This philosophy just doesn't make sense. It's really not that complicated.
LizOctober 22, 2015
Thank you for this discussion. I am enlightened and have much to ponder. I appreciate your courage in speaking up with intelligence and compassion.
KatieOctober 19, 2015
This is a great article! Thank you for such well-though out explanations of kindness and what that means to each individual. Oh that we could all be kind and think the best of others (and NOT be offended if it appears others disagree).
Thank you.
Laura BrothersonOctober 17, 2015
Thank you for this excellent article! Well done! Wonderful points, so well articulated! :)
AlecOctober 17, 2015
The Smith article was a courageous effort to address an emotion laden subject. I applaud her for that. She tightly constrained her analysis. Overreaction or dismissal on the basis of things she didn't say is using a strawman argument. This article adds to the depth of the discussion but seems dismissive of the Smith article "even though she did not say that."
kateOctober 16, 2015
Thank you. This is a subject that is far more complicated than it first appears, and your explanation is excellent.
KendallOctober 16, 2015
Thank you for your thoughtful and well sourced insights. Here are a few comments and questions:
1- "(Unfortunately this was perhaps not clear enough in the article.)" While the acknowledgement is appreciated, it seems an intentional, bordering on disingenuous understatement. The original author evokes her professional license and qualifications as justification for making her assertions. Thus it behooved her to apply far more rigor and clarity in her use of terminology, making sure to avoid such easily avoidable misunderstandings.
2- I appreciate that you begin to address the salient distinctions between sexual orientation, behavior, and identity - particularly in the context of choice. The principle of choice or agency functions in distinctly different ways in each of those areas and therefore must be discussed in discrete and explicit terms so as to avoid the confusion at bets, and the further stigmatization of LGB people at worst.
3- "The Atonement gives hope that challenges will be overcome; not hope that challenges can be redefined out of existence." This is a provocative and insightful statement. It elicits a much deeper conversation on the fact that the essential nature of the "challenge" of experiencing homosexual orientation in the Mormon context and belief system is in how that sexual orientation is defined. The condition is not inherently a challenge. It is not innately experienced as a challenge. As you suggest, the challenge only arises when the gospel narrative is overlaid, thus defining homosexual orientation as an aberration (though not a sin) in need of healing or fixing (via the Atonement and/or man-made therapeutic modalities) in this life or the next, to thus enable the "sufferer" to fulfill the divinely revealed heterosexist narrative.
It is this level of clarity and specificity that I would hope all of Meridian's offerings on this subject area would rely. When the offerings are based on incomplete, imprecise, and thus convoluted conceptions, it is at least understandable that people might respond in kind with broad-stroked, imprecise, and ultimately unhelpful retorts.
Comments | Return to Story
DG34March 2, 2016
Yeah, some good things surrounded by a lot of PC backpedaling, but really, WHY is is innate and immutable for some people and not for others?? This philosophy just doesn't make sense. It's really not that complicated.
LizOctober 22, 2015
Thank you for this discussion. I am enlightened and have much to ponder. I appreciate your courage in speaking up with intelligence and compassion.
KatieOctober 19, 2015
This is a great article! Thank you for such well-though out explanations of kindness and what that means to each individual. Oh that we could all be kind and think the best of others (and NOT be offended if it appears others disagree). Thank you.
Laura BrothersonOctober 17, 2015
Thank you for this excellent article! Well done! Wonderful points, so well articulated! :)
AlecOctober 17, 2015
The Smith article was a courageous effort to address an emotion laden subject. I applaud her for that. She tightly constrained her analysis. Overreaction or dismissal on the basis of things she didn't say is using a strawman argument. This article adds to the depth of the discussion but seems dismissive of the Smith article "even though she did not say that."
kateOctober 16, 2015
Thank you. This is a subject that is far more complicated than it first appears, and your explanation is excellent.
KendallOctober 16, 2015
Thank you for your thoughtful and well sourced insights. Here are a few comments and questions: 1- "(Unfortunately this was perhaps not clear enough in the article.)" While the acknowledgement is appreciated, it seems an intentional, bordering on disingenuous understatement. The original author evokes her professional license and qualifications as justification for making her assertions. Thus it behooved her to apply far more rigor and clarity in her use of terminology, making sure to avoid such easily avoidable misunderstandings. 2- I appreciate that you begin to address the salient distinctions between sexual orientation, behavior, and identity - particularly in the context of choice. The principle of choice or agency functions in distinctly different ways in each of those areas and therefore must be discussed in discrete and explicit terms so as to avoid the confusion at bets, and the further stigmatization of LGB people at worst. 3- "The Atonement gives hope that challenges will be overcome; not hope that challenges can be redefined out of existence." This is a provocative and insightful statement. It elicits a much deeper conversation on the fact that the essential nature of the "challenge" of experiencing homosexual orientation in the Mormon context and belief system is in how that sexual orientation is defined. The condition is not inherently a challenge. It is not innately experienced as a challenge. As you suggest, the challenge only arises when the gospel narrative is overlaid, thus defining homosexual orientation as an aberration (though not a sin) in need of healing or fixing (via the Atonement and/or man-made therapeutic modalities) in this life or the next, to thus enable the "sufferer" to fulfill the divinely revealed heterosexist narrative. It is this level of clarity and specificity that I would hope all of Meridian's offerings on this subject area would rely. When the offerings are based on incomplete, imprecise, and thus convoluted conceptions, it is at least understandable that people might respond in kind with broad-stroked, imprecise, and ultimately unhelpful retorts.
ADD A COMMENT