Disagreeing with the Ensign article

Julie (in the T&S "Notes from all over" sidebar) doesn't want to talk about it, so I will. This month's Ensign has an article entitled "Disagreeing Without Being Disagreeable" (not yet online). In it, an LDS teacher describes how she came into conflict with the rest of her school over a certain issue but nevertheless managed to stay friendly with her colleagues. It's difficult to argue with such sentiments, and clearly they echo President Hinckley's call to be more courteous to people even if we disagree with them because of our religion. But it is the nature of the disagreement in the story that I find troubling. The teacher felt that she could not sign "a gay-student bill of rights". The story makes no further elaboration, so we are left unsure as to what this "bill of rights" actually entailed. I can think of many instances when such a "bill or rights" for gay students at a school would be entirely appropriate. Gay people have a right to an education without fear or discrimination, the right to enjoy sports and other activities, the right to privacy. Are not these enshrined American principles? And as far as I can tell, the Church supports the rights of gays in these isssues: certainly "gay-bashing", whether physical or mental, is contrary to true Christianity. Again, we are not told by the Ensign what the exact details were, but I fear that Latter-day Saints reading the article will have reinforced in them the view that "homosexuality" is something the Church opposes, that anything that helps gays is wrong. But this is simply not true. As I understand it, the Church's attitude to homosexuality is that: 1. Homosexual behaviour is a sin. 2. We don't support the idea of gay marriage. 3. Despite 1 and 2, we show gays love and kindness; they are welcome in the Church, and are entitled to full activity if they, like anyone else, can keep the commandments. The article conflates this "bill or rights" with number two by quoting President Hinckley on the matter, but I have a hard time imagining that a document at school would be about gay marriage. Maybe it was, but the Ensign doesn't specify. I wish they were more careful: sometimes the stories they carry that are written by members perpetuate Mormon folklore and myth, in this case that "gays" and "rights" are contrary to LDS belief. Other than in the case of marriage, I have never been given that impression. Many Ensign readers, however, will simply go away reaffirmed in their sometimes erroneously anti-gay belief. Salon has a very balanced article on the affair in question. In it, Joanna Price (the LDS teacher) comes across quite well. In her own words: "The Gay/Straight Alliance claims we're trying to prevent teachers from discussing homosexuality, and that's just a big lie. By all means, let's discuss homosexuality. But let's do it openly, honestly, respectfully, and in a proper forum." What Price says she finds unacceptable "is the one-sided, doctrinaire approach to the issue" being taken at the high school. "What we oppose is a teacher taking up time in a science, math or English class to talk about gay rights, sexual orientation, their personal relationship with God or any other issues extraneous to the curriculum. What we oppose is teachers denigrating moral values and religious precepts they personally disagree with in order to promote tolerance. All we ask is that standards of professional conduct be observed and the state education code be adhered to. If certain administrators or staff members aren't willing to go along with that, maybe they don't belong in the public school system." All good. (Read the article, it's very interesting). I just wish the Ensign had thought to make the issue at hand more explicit. This segways nicely into a BYU NewsNet article that highlights the research of a BYU professor who has concluded that a) homosexual attraction is biologically-based, and that (b) orientation "therapy" hardly ever works. He claims (probably by extrapolation) that there are 132,200 gay members of the LDS church, or six members in every ward and that consequently, homosexuality affects 500,000 Latter-day Saints who have gay family members. That's a lot of gay Mormons, whose rights the Ensign would have us oppose. Maybe they were worth opposing in this instance, and the Salon article, hardly a bastion of homophobia, depicts Price in a sympathetic tone. But for all we know from the Ensign one-liner, maybe they weren't. In an issue as emotive as this, the Ensign must give no room for error. Remember one more thing: straight kids can be just as "sinful" as gay kids.)