|
|
|
timmy
|

 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13818
|
|
|
I have heard something that has some logic, but for which I cannot find a reference. I am presenting what I have heard here for research. I do not present it as anything other than "something that I have heard" and it therefore has no basis, until that basis be found, as an authenticated fact. All I can say is that it is logical and is unlikely. In a different culture it would be logical and likely, but this culture is "God Fearing America"
So, here we go:
The Mormon faith (and yes, I know this is a nickname) used to espouse multiple wives per man. This meant that the number of available women was much lower than in monogamous societies, but the birth rate of males and females produced a broadly equal population of girls and boys.
Boys, while not encouraged to be homosexual, found male/male juvenile relationships were not frowned on, simply because the boys had no other sexual outlet.
When the US Internal Revenue Service made sure that the multiple wife scenario was stamped out, the tacit acceptance of male/male relationships for young Mormon men became frowned upon because women were now available in the right proportions, but the "frowning upon" took a couple of generations to become established.
Homosexuality is a sin in the Mormon church.
I have précised what I have heard. On the one hand it is logical and believable. On the other hand it is unlikely, given the puritan climate in the USA. And yet multiple wives is against puritanism, too.
I have not put this here to attack a faith. I am interested instead to find out of there is any authoritative documentation for or against this thinking.
[Updated on: Tue, 10 April 2007 11:21]
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Fact, Urban Myth, Authenticated Fact, or Bull?
By: timmy on Tue, 10 April 2007 11:20
|
 |
|
Re: Fact, Urban Myth, Authenticated Fact, or Bull?
By: marc on Tue, 10 April 2007 11:56
|
 |
|
Re: Fact, Urban Myth, Authenticated Fact, or Bull?
By: saben on Wed, 11 April 2007 13:42
|
 |
|
Re: Fact, Urban Myth, Authenticated Fact, or Bull?
By: Roger on Wed, 11 April 2007 16:42
|
 |
|
Re: Fact, Urban Myth, Authenticated Fact, or Bull?
By: Deeej on Wed, 11 April 2007 22:17
|
 |
|
Re: Fact, Urban Myth, Authenticated Fact, or Bull?
By: Roger on Wed, 11 April 2007 23:11
|
 |
|
Re: Fact, Urban Myth, Authenticated Fact, or Bull?
|
 |
|
Re: Fact, Urban Myth, Authenticated Fact, or Bull?
By: Roger on Thu, 12 April 2007 12:52
|
 |
|
Re: Fact, Urban Myth, Authenticated Fact, or Bull?
|
Goto Forum:
[  ]
|