Thursday, May 21, 2009

Newsflash: Marie Osmond Still Loves Her Lesbian Daughter Because She's A Mormon; Mormonism Does Not Require Hatred

The entertainment media is making a big deal over the fact that Marie Osmond's eldest daughter, Jessica, has been outed as a lesbian. But one of the more frustrating issues is that the entertainment media seems to be implying that Marie must choose between her religion and her daughter.

One report by Digital Spy is entitled, "Osmond not ashamed of gay daughter". Another report by StarPulse is entitled, "Marie Osmond: I Don't Care That My Daughter Is Gay". And yet another report by Monsters and Critics is misleadingly titled "Marie Osmond bucks Mormon Church teachings, proud of Gay daughter"

Bucks Mormon Church teachings? Show me any statement by any General Authority at any time that says "You must hate your children if they become gay". There is none. Marie Osmond is not required to choose between her daughter and her religion. On Entertainment Tonight, one of the few entertainment media outlets that even pretends to respectability, Marie speaks out on the subject:

According to the Kansas City Star, the controversy began earlier this month when Marie Osmond confirmed to a Los Angeles radio station that her daughter is a lesbian and spoke out supportively on same-sex marriage, classifying it as a civil right. Osmond also said, "When you start mixing religion into that and beliefs, you know, I do believe in the Bible. My daughter understands my beliefs. And, you know, God said to be married and be productive with your children and, you know, replenish the earth or whatever. She understands those things. My daughter is sharp. And we have a great relationship and I think she would tell you that." She reiterated that her Mormon faith did not keep her from loving her daughter, given her sexual orientation.

What the LDS Church teaches about homosexuality is simple. Homosexuality is a form of sexual misconduct just like fornication (sex by single people), adultery, pedophilia, bestiality, or chronic masturbation. The practice of homosexuality can lead to excommunication, just like the practice of other forms of sexual misconduct. However, a mere homosexual orientation alone will not result in any sanction whatsoever. A celibate homosexual remains a member in good standing, meaning a premium membership replete with temple recommend.

Of course, some critics will claim it's not fair that a homosexual must remain celibate to remain a full member of the Church. However, is it also fair that a single heterosexual must also remain celibate to be a full member? Is it fair that a guy in a wheelchair can't run, jump, and play basketball? Is it fair that a Third Wordl peasant cannot become a First World CEO? Guess what - life wasn't intended to be fair. The "fairness" comes after the fact; namely, after we die. Then all unpaid balances will be reconciled. Of course, to believe that requires faith. We Mormons don't ask that you share that faith. But we Mormons won't let you hold us hostage to your lack of faith and browbeat us into changing our doctrine simply because you don't share our faith.

But the LDS Church does NOT teach that you cannot love other people if they sin. The bottom line - Marie Osmond can love her lesbian daughter and still remain faithful to Mormonism, just as God continues to love us although He frequently grits his teeth at what we do. It's time to get off Marie Osmond's back.


Anonymous said...

I understand your points and agree with your main statement - no religion suggests that a mother must hate her child under any circumstance.

And Marie Osmond certainly never explicitly said she believed anything that was contrary to her faith.

However, regarding the celibacy issue - homosexuals are told they can NEVER have a committed, fulfilling, loving relationship. Single heterosexuals always have the opportunity to find someone and marry. That is where the debate is centered. Homosexuals are told they're not worthy of lifelong, committed love, a family, etc. That's the difference.

Physical limitations have nothing to do with the question, in my opinion, since there is no physical limitation on loving someone.

Jack Mormon said...

Thanks for your response, Anonymous. You do narrow down the crux of the debate, but it then depends upon how you want to define a "committed, fulfilling, loving" relationship.

People can have fulfilling relationships without being physically intimate. Of course, they won't be completely fulfilling. But there are numerous straight people who practice celibacy as well - some by choice, others because physical infirmity prevents physical intimacy - and many handle it well, so it can be done.

Besides, sex is overrated. The media hypes it up to be far beyond what it really is.