Comments on: Mind-bending story about ‘gay Mormons’ reinforces political correctness

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 09 Aug 2011 17:30:00 +0000

Well said.

Thanks for stating the obvious. Obvious to anyone who is willing to actually think through the problem – and it is a problem.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 06 Aug 2011 05:06:00 +0000

No, it’s not at all necessary for anything I said to somehow construe “sexual” as a noun and “human” as its modifier. That’s a pretty glaring mischaracterization. I don’t support a view that places a person’s characteristics before his or her status as a person.

That doesn’t, however, mean that characteristics don’t exist. A person (the noun) can be described by their characteristics (the adjective). Recognizing as much is not the height of political correctness — it’s reality. I don’t imagine you would write this piece or make the same argument if the article in question were about black Mormons, hispanic Mormons, American Mormons, tall Mormons, male Mormons, young Mormons, etc.

By: Paul Mero

Paul Mero — Fri, 05 Aug 2011 18:20:00 +0000

I can see your context is “sexual orientation.” I don’t share that context. My context is “human orientation,” if you will. I see human beings who, because of physiology and biology, are also naturally sexual; I don’t see “sexuals” who are also naturally human beings.

Likewise, I don’t see a chaste heterosexual or “gay”; I see chaste human beings.

Your other questions are answered by the differences in, and logical extensions of, our contextual views.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 05 Aug 2011 03:46:00 +0000

I ask because you seem to think that a person cannot properly be considered to be (or call themselves) gay without engaging in homosexual activity. If it’s possible in a broad sense to be a chaste straight person, as you agree it is, why is it not possible to be a chaste gay person?

As for this distinction you make between a legal implication and a broader one, what is its justification? (If you’re just saying that this is what the law in fact is but aren’t justifying it, that’s no defense against people who would have it be otherwise.) If a person can meaningfully be said to have their sexual orientation compose part of their identity, as you seem to think it can for a straight person, why shouldn’t it be the purview of law in the same way other basic personal characteristics are, like skin color?

By: Paul Mero

Paul Mero — Thu, 04 Aug 2011 22:45:00 +0000

Having “attractions” is what healthy men and women have…it means were either male or female, it doesn’t necessarily mean we’re sexual. Our sexuality is something different…an actual choice…an actual behavior. Based on the broad implications of your question…meaning, psychologically/emotionally…I suppose I can safely answer your question, yes. If your implication is legal, I’d say no. In other words, if you wanted to place the word “heterosexual” into law, I would consider the term to mean a sexually-expressed act of some sort, and not simply your individual idea of what the term means. For instance, if an application required you to list yourself as “heterosexual, homosexual, or other sexual,” and you checked “heterosexual,” I would assume that means you are communicating that you are active sexually as a heterosexual. It could, of course, simply mean you want to be active in that fashion if you’re not but, in that case, the question becomes relative. I’m interested to understand the intent of your question.

What we have said time and again about human sexuality is that all that science and medicine know is that we are all either male or female with moral agency. After those distinctions, our
sexuality is what we do, especially as our sexuality relates to the law.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 04 Aug 2011 21:26:00 +0000

Mr. Sutherland, can a man who has never married and always been chaste call himself a heterosexual if he is attracted to women?