Tuesday, December 17, 2013

Just a small thought on sexuality, morality and organized religion

I would dare say that 99/100 bishops and stake presidents would say that they are not the third party in any bedroom (when talking to a couple in his ward/stake).  I don't know when it happened, but only a couple decades ago it seemed that they officially made that quiet transition, like sneaking out backwards after the couple was asleep and quietly shutting the door behind them, leaving their key inside.  They would instead suggest that a couple leaves God inside, treating each other with respect, keeping the lines of communication open, and ensuring you "feel the Spirit".  If your bishop/stake president wasn't on board before, they are now and it didn't seem like a revolutionary step in church policy.  With this guidance, a couple can presumably do whatever they wish to do, as long as both partners keep their relationship to each other a priority and ensure the other one is enjoying whatever you are both participating in.  Now I don't think it is necessary at this point to detail options a couple has.  I just want to point something out.  If the church has willingly left the bedroom to a heterosexual couple, why do they, and some political personalities think they can stay inside a homosexual bedroom?  I'm no sex expert, but judging from the last 11 1/2 years of marriage, I have found that sex isn't one or two dimensional.  I am also quite aware that there are many doors with opportunities behind them that I and my wife have not even cracked.  Many "opportunities" require specific body parts, and many opportunities do not.  Think about that for a minute.  Many sexual opportunities between a couple, behind closed doors, where a bishop has no say, do not require one partner is a man and one partner is a woman.  I just thought that was interesting when, at a couples party, exchanging white elephant gifts, a gift bag had some lingerie and handcuffs in it.  An eruption of joking came about and one of the last comments made was that there was nothing wrong with the handcuffs for an active, bishop-fearing Mormon.

No comments:

Post a Comment