The Fine Art of Sexual Intercourse

[_harmony]

See, that's what I'm talking about. Under the 1971 law that I'm covenanted to, I'm allowed to have sexual intercourse with only my husband. However, I am not covenanted regarding virtually anything else... so it's conceivable that I could have numerous lesbian encounters, unlimited everything but intercourse encounters with men who are not my husband, and still not be able to be touched by a church court. Since I didn't covenant under the current law. And would this not be the same for a gay man who married under the pre-1990 law?

So I can have sex with another man or engage in everything but penetration with a woman, huh? I'm sure my wife would agree. ;)

I'm pretty sure your wife would object, but I don't see how anyone can be held to something they didn't covanent to, and that includes gays or lesbians.

[_Runtu]

I'm pretty sure your wife would object, but I don't see how anyone can be held to something they didn't covanent to, and that includes gays or lesbians.

I must say I've never thought of that covenant in that way before. And you know me, as an apostate I'm always looking for loopholes. ;)

[_Zoidberg]

Sexual intercourse is no longer the problem. In 1990, the law of chastity was revised so that "sexual relations" outside marriage were forbidden. One would expect that homosexual sex falls under this umbrella term.

OMG, you've just made me realize another possible reason why they are so actively opposing gay marriage on a secular level! The current covenant is worded so that it doesn't specify what the gender of your (current or prospective) spouse is! So the married gay Mormons in Mass. or, say, the Netherlands are not violating their temple covenants if they're only having sexual relations with their spouse!

If gay marriage becomes more widely recognized, we might expect another change in the endowment.

[Guest]

The thread about gay marriage started me thinking about fornication, and by extrapolation, sexual intercourse.

Strictly speaking (which is how our LDS leaders speak as a general rule), is sexual intercourse is even possible for gays? Most of the definitions I found stated that in order for sexual intercourse to take place, the penis must be inserted into the vagina. Therefore, it seems to me there is no such thing as gay sexual intercourse. So if there is no intercourse, how can there be any fornication? And if there is no fornication and no sexual intercourse between unmarried participants, how can there be sin?

In more recent years (well since the Kimball administration) it has been made very clear that all homo-erotic activities are wrong--not just sexual/intercorsal activities. I think at the time (more rarely now), there had been young men who had thought nothing over homosexual activities, as they were bombarded all the time on how only they should treat the opposite sex respectfully and not do anything with girls.

Even there are many homosexuals who choose not to practice anal intercourse....preferring instead frottage or mutual masturbation. The church has made it more clear, for these people who think they are not sinning if performing intercourse or sodomy, that all practicing of same-sex attraction feelings ("even those not sexual in nature") is not acceptable.

See, that's what I'm talking about. Under the 1971 law that I'm covenanted to, I'm allowed to have sexual intercourse with only my husband. However, I am not covenanted regarding virtually anything else... so it's conceivable that I could have numerous lesbian encounters, unlimited everything but intercourse encounters with men who are not my husband, and still not be able to be touched by a church court. Since I didn't covenant under the current law. And would this not be the same for a gay man who married under the pre-1990 law?

So I can have sex with another man or engage in everything but penetration with a woman, huh? I'm sure my wife would agree. ;)

I'm pretty sure your wife would object, but I don't see how anyone can be held to something they didn't covanent to, and that includes gays or lesbians.

Well, for any member who has been baptized (and covenanted to "keep all the commandments") there would be no way around it for homosexuals in the church. You absolutely can be excommunicated from the church for homosexual practices, even if you aren't endowed or have the Melchizedek priesthood.

[_Livingstone22]

Sexual intercourse is no longer the problem. In 1990, the law of chastity was revised so that "sexual relations" outside marriage were forbidden. One would expect that homosexual sex falls under this umbrella term.

OMG, you've just made me realize another possible reason why they are so actively opposing gay marriage on a secular level! The current covenant is worded so that it doesn't specify what the gender of your (current or prospective) spouse is! So the married gay Mormons in Mass. or, say, the Netherlands are not violating their temple covenants if they're only having sexual relations with their spouse!

If gay marriage becomes more widely recognized, we might expect another change in the endowment.

Actually, by technical definitions, you are very correct. I have met a few gay Mormons who are waiting to to get married (some may go to Canada like Buckley Jeppson) so as not to violate their covenents.

[Guest]

I have met a few gay Mormons who are waiting to to get married (some may go to Canada like Buckley Jeppson) so as not to violate their covenents.

Now this seems kind of backwards to me. If they already realize that the Church is wrong about homosexuality and are willing to go against it in that respect, why do they feel the need to keep their covenants? Do they actually think God is really such a bureaucrat as the GAs would have us believe? And the whole idea that some kind of government recognition is required for a marriage to be approved by God is ridiculous.

[_harmony]

I have met a few gay Mormons who are waiting to to get married (some may go to Canada like Buckley Jeppson) so as not to violate their covenents.

Now this seems kind of backwards to me. If they already realize that the Church is wrong about homosexuality and are willing to go against it in that respect, why do they feel the need to keep their covenants? Do they actually think God is really such a bureaucrat as the GAs would have us believe? And the whole idea that some kind of government recognition is required for a marriage to be approved by God is ridiculous.

I think once one is in the habit of thinking a certain way, in this case in the Mormon way, whether by birth or by habit, it's really hard to get out of that habit.

[_Jason Bourne]

So here is the question Harmony...

If two guys, or two gals were being non-sexually affectionate, say holding hands or sitting close in church, what would happen? If they admitted they were gay, promised there would be no sex, but were close friends would it be a problem?

Seems even if a "couple" admitted they were gay, so long as they said they were free from sexual encounters they would be fine?

Hmmm... I'm not sure what would happen in this case.

~dancer~

The current position is you can be gay and be a member but you should not act on those gay urges in anyway. The Church has a new pamphlet out for homosexual members. It even counsels that they should not have associations or close friendship with other homosexuals.

So I think what you describe would be frowned upon. And culturally the ward members would freak out.

[_Jason Bourne]

At least it used to be. I think in the current generation of members, the thing against oral sex thing has more or less died out. But yeah, ask a lot of older members and they'll condemn oral sex. There was actually a First Presidency letter instructing bishops to consider oral sex an unholy and impure act for the purposes of temple worthiness, however that got dropped pretty quickly, and didn't make it into the next revision of the bishop's handbook, which means pretty much that it doesn't count. So today there's no official stance on oral sex between married persons in the church, and it's my belief that oral sex between married people is probably pretty common amongst the younger generation.

Yea it was 1980 or 1981 that the infamous oral sex letter and quick retraction took place. But there is still some oblique references to the "Not anything goes" in sex even in marriage and "You know what we mean when was say unholy, impure or unnatural and we really do not have to spell it out for you."

[_Trinity]

Word of mouth?

Interesting use of terms on an oral sex thread, Harmony.