Where Are Our Priorities?

Subtitle: Yet Another Sex Post

This is heavily inspired by this video, which I am assigning as required viewing:

I have been on a "police procedural" TV kick.  Despite the violence (both actual and suggested), these shows somehow increase my faith in humanity: There are people out there who devote their lives to catching killers and saving lives.  It is a nice reminder to not take the police, the FBI, etc. for granted.

That being said,  the amount of violence does disturb me on some level—and sometimes how little it disturbs me actually disturbs me more.  People killing and torturing each other is normal fare for TV, but language and sex are censored, at least far more than violence is.  (I admit that the violence that is on day-time and prime time TV could be worse—after all there are subscription-only channels that have more violent content).  But out of those three—swearing, sex, and violence—which one seems to be the worst for society? 

Certain swear words (like racial slurs) can represent hate, true; but those aren't the kind of words that I'm talking about getting censored.  When does sex hurt anyone?  The case I can think of is rape—but that crosses over into violence. 

The out-of-whack priorities particularly struck me yesterday when watching some episodes of Criminal Minds that had been recorded in the afternoon.  All of the swears had been edited out (we're talking words like 'ass').  But they could still go into detail about murder. 

I see this even inside of the church.  Sources like For the Strength of Youth do caution against viewing anything that is vulgar, pornographic, or violent.  But in other cases, I see the threat of violence taken less seriously.  Regarding standards that members of the church have, I hear things like not drinking coffee, not spending money on Sundays, not swearing, and not having pre-marital sex.  But I don't think I've ever heard "not getting into fights" or even "not being hateful."  How many times was I lectured to in youth about not having sex?  More times than I can remember.  But I don't remember hearing about not physically hurting someone—I'm guessing it was mentioned, but it wasn't memorable enough for me to recall; on the other hand, the principle of not having sex was severely stressed and mentioned often.  Pornography is a frequently-mentioned issue too.  It would be one thing if it was stressed that pornography that was violent or that subjugated women was (especially) dangerous, but that isn't the case.  It's pornography in general that is bad because of the sexual component alone.

This just doesn't make sense, especially relating to the belief that, even if it is next to, extra-marital sex isn't as bad on the sin scale as murder.  Judging by the movies that are popular with LDS YSA, I can see that movies with a certain amount of violence are tolerated, but a movie that showed a bare bottom or had a sex scene would be totally off limits.  Why is sex more taboo than murder, especially when murder is considered worse?

You could say that youth and young adults are more likely to engage in sexual activity than murder, which is probably true.  But let's extend violence to hate, which causes it.  Personally, I'd much rather have a teenager fornicating than calling a gay classmate a f--.  A large component of the chastity talks were preventing sin by controlling the factors (like thoughts) that lead up to them.  But factors that lead to violence—like intolerance, hate, judgment, and self-righteousness—are not stressed very much in my experience.  BYU wards usually have a chastity talk at the beginning of the semester, but where is the anti-intolerance talk?  

I think it's a huge reflection of our society—violence is just far more acceptable than sex for some reason.  I can offer guesses for why that is, like the fact that the U.S. has a huge Puritan influence and the Puritans were tight-lipped about sex but saw no problem putting people in the stocks to be ridiculed.  I don't know the exact reason why our society has its priorities so out of whack.  What I do know is that this needs to change.

Overhaul on sex ed, please

The way morality and chastity is taught in the church is damaging and out of whack.  I think this mainly comes from leaders not putting themselves in the shoes of their audience members and trying to treat a symptom, not a disease (that's only a metaphor, and I don't mean that sex is in any way like a disease).  Instead of lecturing kids how going too far brings guilt and remorse and that you won't be pure, leaders need to think about the reasons kids choose to have sex.  They need to recognize that that desire isn't bad, and not all kids are just bundles of hormones who decide to have sex just because everyone else is doing it.  They try to claim that "those feelings" are "normal" and "natural," but in the same breath say that they need to be squashed.

Regardless of whether some church leaders' stances on homosexuality is even correct, it needs to be taught and discussed a different way.  If you are gay, it is not helpful to hear that your desires are perverted and that you need to change again and again.  In a church where marriage and family is so often stressed, kids who are gay who do want these same things but just aren't attracted to the opposite sex will feel like there is no path for them.  Sure, they want to get married, but it's impossible because they won't marry someone of the opposite gender; so they're trapped.

Elder Boyd K. Packer made some disastrous assertions during a General Conference talk, which are no doubt results of his age and sexual orientation.

Some suppose that they were preset and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn tendencies toward the impure and the unnatural.  Not so.  Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone?  Remember, He is our father.  Paul promised, 'God will not suffer you to be tempted above what ye are able.  But will with the temptation also make a way to escape that ye may be able to bear it.'  You can if you will break the habits and conquer the addiction and come away from that which is not worthy of any member of the church.

I am trying to prove that this statement is wrong even under the paradigm that homosexuality is immoral.  Bear that in mind.

By saying that someone is not "preset" and that God would not do that, what exactly is he saying is the alternative?  That it's your fault?  You're giving into the temptation to think that way?  He tries to be comforting by saying that God wouldn't do that, but the implication that you weren't born that way and that you can totally stop it is even worse.  I believe everyone has a predisposition toward things which are considered "immoral" that have to do with his/her personality and struggles.  To some, doing drugs is a huge temptation; to others, it's not but being dishonest is.  It's ridiculous to tell those people that God didn't make them predisposed to want to do drugs and that it's their fault for being tempted.

I don't know if God "tempts" us like some people say anyway.  That scripture from Corinthians that Elder Packer quoted  makes it sound like God sends us temptations, which doesn't seem right.  Plus, it's an overgeneralization that you will always be overcome temptation.  Mainly because people label too many things as "temptation," like being depressed.  I don't think we can always overcome our circumstances—what about all those pioneers that died en route to Utah??  They would have made it if they had had more faith?

Elder Packer makes being predisposed to liking the same gender sound like a stupid excuse.  God wouldn't do that?  So what's the alternative?  Now telling someone that being gay is an "addiction" and that their feelings are completely "impure and unnatural"—that's something Heavenly Father would never do.  Remember, He is our father.

Proposition Eight

I do not support Proposition 8. Let me clarify: I do not support bashing gay people or looking down on them or calling them the f-- word or making fun of them or lumping them all into one category and calling them all intolerant hateful and morally loose. Some people apparently think that this is what supporting Prop 8 means, which gives the rest of us a very bad name. 8 doesn't have to be h8.

What it comes down to is this:

The anti-Prop 8ers say that Prop 8 is intolerant.  The pro-Prop 8ers say that tolerance can't only go one way and that you need to respect dissenting opinions and not just label them as "intolerant."  But the thing is, the anti-P8 [I'm tired of typing it out already!] are saying that the pro-P8 are intolerant of gay people, not necessarily of themselves.  They're not saying, "You don't agree with me (that gay marriage should be legal), and therefore you are intolerant."  They're saying, "You are denying others rights because you don't agree with their identity and their lifestyle, and that makes you intolerant."

Now I'm embarassed and sad to say this now, but I did originally support Prop 8, and I am very sorry about it.  I know that sounds kind of lame, but please believe me.  During a special Prop 8 fireside, that principle about tolerance not going just one way was mentioned.  Yes, that's true many times–e.g. Jimmy says, "I like blue," but Jane says, "I don't like blue." If Jimmy then calls Jane intolerant, then yes, Jimmy does not understand that he is being intolerant of her opinion by calling her intolerant.  But if Jane beats Jimmy up and threatens to do soevery time he wears blue, then she is truly being intolerant.  This is what I see Prop 8 doing: it's not just disagreeing with someone, it's working to prevent them making a decision you don't agree with.

Really, this whole "You're intolerant!"  "Well, then that means you're intolerant!"  "No, you're intolerant for calling me intolerant!" mess is ridiculous.  Please look up Freud's theory of projecting, because this is a classic example of it.  Really, it just becomes a war of semantics and what it means to be "intolerant" (does it automatically make you intolerant yourself if you call someone else intolerant?), and as much as I like linguistics, it's just dumb.  Intolerance gives me a headache.

It also comes down to this:

Gays and those who support them are either in the right or are sinners living in denial that what they're doing is wrong.  I mean, I have thought about it from that perspective: what if being "tolerant" of others is really just excusing sin?  But then I try to think of another example, and everything else seems so extreme: Would you be tolerant of bank robbers and not make robbery illegal because they have the right to steal?  Should homicide be legal because we're being intolerant of murderers' choices?  Of course not!  But I'm not about to compare being gay to being a murderer–that's just ridiculous.  It doesn't work.  

And most importantly:  Wanting to get married to the person you love is motivated by. . .love, of course!  I don't understand it; do people think homosexuals want to get married to spite straight people?  Or spread evil?  Or just make a statement and be unorthodox?  I don't think so.  [Sure, whatever, some could; but so could straight couples.]  Those who want the right to marry love each other.  

A compromise?

Domestic partnerships/civil unions should at least have the same legal rights as a marriage.  For starters, at least.  

Misconceptions 

I think people's misconceptions about the gay community stem from not actally knowing any gay people.  If you are one of these people, at least read some blogs to try to understand others.  I would recommend "MoHo" blogs (written by gay Mormons).    I think being gay and Mormon carries the stigma that you "just don't have enough faith" or something, and that's why you haven't been "cured."  Views like this are harmful, hurtful, and truly intolerant.  

MoHos

I really feel inadequate trying to describe the situation gay Mormons are in (since I'm not in it), but I really want to express it well and continually learn and understand more about this predicament.  Gay Mormons are in a weird situation: to keep the Law of Chastity, they can't have any physical relations with members of the same sex.  But that's who they're attracted to!  If you are straight, just imagine not being allowed to get married or have a physical relationship with the person you love dearly.  I can't even image it.  It sounds confusing and like an agonizing decision to make.  It sounds like you would feel as if you're living in a whole different paradigm, a whole different world with a different set of rules, but others are trying to force their own rules on you.  

Conclusion

Think.  It makes sense.