I have some friends, a couple, that have stuck it out like you. They haven’t been excommunicated but things wax and wane depending on the bishop. Sometimes they hold callings and are fully fellowshipped. Other times they get nothing. But they keep on coming. They are extraordinary men. They choose it simply because they’re gay (something unchangeable) and they want to be Mormon (something changeable that they don’t want to change).

Active LDS co-bloggers: What do you think will happen to D. Fletcher when he gets married to another man someday?

D., I suspect we are similar. Your reference to hymn #166 is remarkable. When my partner and I got our various “just in case” paperwork written up (it’s important because we can’t, ahem, get married and some of our assets are in states which don’t recognize CA’s domestic partnerships)…. I had them add an instruction in my will: “Abide With Me” is to be sung at my funeral.

Just remember, no matter what happens between you and the LDS Church….if the members someday no longer embrace you, if the quiet weeping comes instead from sadness and confusion and loss of community….there are other churches out there where Abide With Me is sung, and where you and your partner will be embraced as just another family. And Jesus sings with them too. It won’t be the same, but it will still be holy.

Your last comment made me cry. Thank yoiu for sticking it out with the rest of us.

I want to get away from the disease analogy, because, I repeat, homosexuality is not a disease.

For example, IVF can correct the injustice of a barren womb, and modern antibiotics and medical treatment correct the injustice of children dying from disease.

Some decades down the road, when the biological basis for a homosexual orientation has been identified and found to be correctable, this argument will come back to bite you.

Being gay is a challenge for people, I sympathize. But I fully endorse the view that actual homosexual sex should disqualify you for temple recommend and that homosexual marriage should never be permitted within the Church.

But I also think that being gay is also an opportunity for us all. Neither our Church, nor its members have completely figured out what it truly means to be male (I’m not discussing female sexuality simply because I’m not female and it doesn’t resonate with me). What is the true character of a “man of God?”

I don’t think the heterosexuals have it completely (or even mostly) figured out. And I think that thoughtful and faithful LDS homosexuals could aid us in defining gender in the Gospel and in life.

I can’t generalize to all homosexuals, but I think part of homosexuality is symptomatic of a deeper problem with our society’s approach to gender identity. I really think that many homosexuals are partly standing as warnings to all of us that there may be an underlying disfunctionality in our expectations of manhood and general personhood.

I wish we could get past all of this “do you accept me or not?” sort of debate that has dominated bloggernacle discussion till now. I want to hear new ideas and perspectives on how we can better reclaim our identities as “sons of God.” I think those struggling with homosexuality have new and valid ideas to contribute. I’d like to hear them without the discussion degenerating into an argument over who belongs to the “Mormon club.”

If the environmentalist asks me to support policy X because God wants me to, or the trees demand it, or it makes us feel warm and fuzzy, then no, that argument should not be foisted on others. But if he can show with data that policy X will stall global warming, take money out of the hands of terrorists, etc. etc., then we have an argument worth considering. So far, I haven’t heard many people make an argument against gay marriage that goes much beyond, “God doesn’t want it.” That’s a problem in a society that is supposed to be areligious.

I don’t think of myself as a fence-sitter, but as a wall-breaker. But I’m not so deluded that I don’t know that dissonance will appear from time to time, dissonance in both camps. I have known many gay people who refused to be my friend because I associate myself with the LDS Church. Many — means more than 10.

If it eventually comes to my excommunication, because I have married an eternal partner in a legal ceremony somewhere in the world, so be it: I don’t believe God really cares (and neither do I). I will continue to go to Church. A funny thought: that will relieve me of Tithing!

But if I can go to church, and play through that hymn again (“Abide with Me” #166) and hear the quiet weeping of the congregation, and feel their embrace, and know that Jesus has sung along with us, it will be enough for me.

Oh come on, Ronan. Should we legislate for others based on our beliefs? What other kind of legislation is there?

Presumably, you’re suggesting that we shouldn’t try to legislate behavior that doesn’t harm third parties, in good libertarian fashion. But whether or not gay marriage would be harmful to society (in whatever way) is the very question that’s being debated.

Surely you’re not suggesting that when a “belief” has a religious basis, it is by definition out of bounds to try to pass legislation based upon that belief. Why not deny that a secular environmentalist’s pet regulations are out of bounds? His favored legislation is based upon his strongly held “beliefs,” and it would certainly burden third parties. Or is the legislation of his beliefs kosher since those beliefs aren’t “religious”? What if the environmentalist cites scripture to support his goals? Does his legislative agenda only THEN become an inappropriate imposition of “beliefs”?

Aaron B