Thursday, December 06, 2012

Mormon church now says that people do not choose same-sex attractions


A major religion story in the Huffington Post today reports that the Mormon Church is now saying that same-sex attraction is not a choice.  However, it still teaches that acting on the action is a sinful choice, and therefore implies that people inheriting same-sex attractions must face making emotional sacrifices that others won’t have to make.  In other words, life isn’t “fair”.

But the church reportedly says that it considers the “love the sinner, hate the sin” approach of some protestant evangelicals presents unacceptable contradictions and paradoxes.

The Huffington story is here.

The Church has a website on the issue here, with brief videos. 

The LDS Church (as do many religions) says that scripture dictates that sexual activity should occur only between a man and a woman in marriage (open to having biological children if possible).  The indirect result of such a teaching would logically mean that some people would have no access (or only very compromised access) to adult sexual experience.  The only logical reason for expecting such a disproportionate sacrifice would be that the welfare of the group as a whole depends on maximizing (and perhaps indirectly safeguarding) the experience of procreation and family around it, including the ability of the family to find places for those who do not procreate.  An open society would see this as a “rationalization” for  unacceptable “second-class-citizenship” or even servitude, but religious communities often are less concerned about this notion.   Sometimes religions teach that different individuals are often called upon to make greatly variable and seemingly unequal sacrifices for the good of the group. 

Still, it seems incredible that the emotional health of partners of a traditional marriage could depend on a belief that others not inclined toward marriage must abstain from sexuality entirely.  It's the idea that "I can play by the rules if everyone else has to, because then the world means something."  Can this make sense?   What would Dr. Phil say about this sort of thinking?

No comments: