Below I include 1) an edited excerpt of my responses to some facebook comments similar to this quote, then 2) the lengthy facebook discussion in order to provide context for the benefit of my blog audience that's bereft of access to the facebook dialogue.
Agency
"I thank you and Andy for relying on a fallacy in your comments. By addressing it I hope to resolve one of the most common misunderstandings I observe in discussions among LDS folk about homosexuality.
The fallacy? That a reduction in available alternatives violates the principle of free agency. Permit an explanation.
First task: Seth, using nothing but your natural capacities, please jump straight up in the air 200 feet. Can you choose to do it? No. In this scenario you may not choose to jump 200 feet straight up in the air using nothing but your natural capacities. Is agency violated here?
Next task: Compose a 200 page supreme court caliber legal opinion from scratch in 13 seconds. What, you can't choose to do it? I thought "there is always choice"!
Last example: take an infertile couple- say, the man's sperm don't develop because of an inherited double recessive meiosis inhibitor.
Okay, infertile man: sire a child by natural means. What, you can't? What happened to God-given free agency?
Now let's consider a different scenario which will let me resolve this apparent tension by creating a construct I will call "freedom".
Say little Johnny has 2 candy bars in front of him. He has 4 alternatives: grab neither bar, both bars, bar A, or bar B. I will term "agency" that power by which Johnny selects from among the alternatives available to him. I will term "freedom" the number of alternatives available to him. To quantify in this situation, Johnny has "full" agency, and a freedom of 4: i.e., 4 alternatives.
Now take away candy bar B. Johnny now has 2 alternatives instead of 4. He may now only choose between grabbing or not grabbing the bar. However, his agency, or power to choose from among the available alternatives, is still "full." His freedom, however, was reduced from 4 to 2. I would further argue that even if no candy bar were in front of Johnny, such that he has 0 alternatives, his agency is still "full-" though that agency would not be discernible until alternatives are available to him. Bottom line: in all four scenarios above, biological/physical limitations of the actor necessarily define his freedom without lessening his agency.
My application of this conclusion? None of us can exercise our agency to choose an alternative that is not available to us. Thus, the question of what alternatives are available is not made irrelevant by acknowledging free agency. Respecting homosexual orientation, one candidate question would be whether the alternative of exclusive romantic/emotional/sexual orientation toward members of the opposite sex is available to individual A. This question cannot be disregarded by an appeal to agency, since the abundance or scarcity of alternatives (freedom) necessarily relies upon the biological/physical capacities and limitations of the actor. Thus, if homosexual orientation is merely chosen, then the alternative of exclusive romantic/emotional/sexual orientation toward members of the opposite sex is available to individual A. If, on the other hand, exclusive romantic/emotional/sexual orientation toward members of the opposite sex is biologically impossible for A, then that alternative is not available to A. The resolution of the scope of A's freedom requires a determination at least of whether exclusive romantic/emotional/sexual orientation toward members of the opposite sex is biologically possibile or impossibile- hence the relevance of evaluating the "evidence" you decry as irrelevant.
I claim that evaluating the evidence is relevant on a second basis as well. Seth's argument that [biological evidence can only speak to biological phenomena + we can't be reduced to mere biology = the evidence or lack thereof as irrelevant] presumes that homosexual orientation is entirely abiological (presumably, instead, it is an aspect of our spirits). What is the evidence for this presumption? Are you prepared to claim that spirits come into the world homosexually oriented, or that an individual can choose the sexual orientation of his/her spirit during mortality? Would you also claim a person can choose one's spiritual gender during mortality?
If homosexual orientation is, on the other hand, caused by a 1) mixture of biology and spirit (e.g. the soul) or 2) only biology, then the question of whether and how much biology contributes to homosexual orientation is again relevant.
Atonement
Presuming I've established the relevance of the question of the cause(s) of homosexual orientation, I now respond to another of Seth's claims- the oft-used "Atonement argument". Seth notes that the atonement can reverse death, and thus it can reverse sexual orientation, since orientation reversal is certainly less impressive than death reversal. Granted- the Atonement can do so. So what? What matters to a decision maker is what God WIll do, not merely what he CAn do. If you're the only person around for miles except for a child that is drowning in a steep canal, and you CAn throw the kid a rope to save her but DO not, the kid will still drown. The question for a homosexually oriented person, then, turns to the likelihood of God's intervention to reverse his/her orientation. I draw on Seth's comparison to death. I hope it's not an exaggeration to claim that death reversal rates have historically been less than .01%. In most cases we know of, the death reversal was also not readily predictable by the subject. Thus if God's sexual orientation reversal intervention rate is at this same level, a reasonable homosexually oriented person is justified in placing little confidence, not in God's CApacity to reverse his/her orientation, but in God's LIkelihood of doing so for him or her. God's likelihood of reversing homosexually oriented person A's orientation is the relevant question for decision-making A. "A" may also reasonably consider:
"The pernicious consequence of promoting the idea that homosexuality is a chosen and changeable condition is that tens of thousands of Latter-day Saint homosexuals, believing that the atonement will change their homosexual inclinations, become disillusioned with God and Christ (and the Church) when they make every sacrifice of which they are capable in the belief that they will be free of homosexual feelings—only to discover that their efforts are ineffective. More often than not, they may blame themselves for having insufficient faith and either lose all faith, suspend their belief, or take their lives. Ecclesiastical leaders who have experience counseling with Latter-day Saint homosexuals know the heartbreak associated with such cases."
I contend that the Atonement's purpose is generally not to reverse physical conditions such as old age, diabetes, homosexual orientation, and disability. That is a mistake many people in Christ's day made, who viewed him merely as someone who could heal their physical bodies (e.g. giving sight to the blind man) and assuage their physical appetites (e.g. loaves and fishes). They missed the point these miracles were supposed to lead them to: that Christ/the Atonement's primary purpose is to heal us spiritually. Though a disabled or homosexually oriented or old person can be exalted, an individual tainted or damaged by sin cannot achieve exaltation without reversing her sinful condition. Guess how often God WIll (not merely CAn) reverse spiritual death of sinners who repent? 100% of the time. 100%! This is a much better ratio than .0001. Even though God CAn merely speak the word and a hot dinner will appear on your table, that you go ahead and prepare a meal anyway does not evidence your lack of faith. The primary purpose of the Atonement is to engender salvation and exaltation via the spiritual healing/cleansing of and grace extended to those damaged by sin. Hence, my claim that the Atonement argument is weak/irrelevant- which in turn refreshes the legitimacy of investigating questions of mutability and causation."
Context:
Location:445 MARB (BYU Campus)
Time:Thursday, 23 September 2010 19:00
Brad Carmack
Ah, time to respuesta at last! I really hope that's Spanish for "respond." Anyway, I'll admit I really didn't expect the comment firestorm- I merely posted the time and place of a lecture! Nonetheless, I shall select some comments to respond to in a mostly sequential order.
I note at the outset that I have already composed a more thoughtful, complete, and insightful article about these and related issues than is constituted by my responses here. If you are interested in that article (which I am in the process of reorganizing into a four-part series to provide greater structure and readability), please take some time to read and consider it. http://bradcarmack.blogspot.com/2010/02/i-support-he terosexual-members-of-lds. html
@Oumar- there's no such thing as a biological origin for homosexuality? Inasmuch as homosexuality = homosexual orientation I would claim that biology (e.g. genes, prenatal hormones) is at least partly the cause of homosexual orientation. If you care to open mindedly study some of the reasons why, consider reading https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYd4HeuA_ceTZGRnd nJ4NGJfNjNmd21qbmdmMw&hl=e n. Even with an open mind, you might not find the evidence persuasive- but if you've already concluded, presented evidence will likely only result in polarizing further the stance you've taken. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wi ki/Confirmation_bias) Thus, absent an open mind, I'd advise against reading the document.
@Alicia- I may post about it. I'm planning to post later about the causation and mutabilty of homosexual orientation, though, so I may hold off. I put the link to Bill's 45 pager (the basis for his presentation) in my response to Oumar if you want it. If anyone wants it in pdf form let me know.
@Nicole and Andrea- yes, there is some consistency in the teachings about the sinfulness of extramarital sexual relationships, i.e. they are sinful between both homo- and hetero- sexual partners.
@Peter- though the US Supreme Court has recently refused to recognize a distinction between orientation and behavior when it comes to homosexuality (noting that with respect to sexual orientation the court has "declined to distinguish between status and conduct" and offering the parallel from an earlier case: "A tax on wearing yarmulkes is a tax on Jews."), partly because of the reasons you cite I find the distinction helpful. The distinction is useful at least in discussion with stereotypical LDS folks (I would include myself here) who, per the Oaks/Wickman homosexuality address, put a lot of stock in separating the two.
@Nathan- thanks for posting the link- it is both recent and relevant.
@Nicole- I am also curious about the contribution or lack of contribution culture makes to both homosexual conduct and homosexual orientation.
@Andy- your opinion that homosexual feelings/identity is comparable to overeating and inclination toward aggression is testable. In a later post I may address the predictive value of your opinion.
I respond to about your claim that "there is always choice" in my response to Seth below.
@Miki- the conclusion that not everyone is in control of their behaviors seems to directly contradict Elder Wickman's statement in the Oaks/Wickman press conference on homosexuality: "One of the great sophistries of our age, I think, is that merely because one has an inclination to do something, that therefore acting in accordance with that inclination is inevitable... we know we can control how we behave, and it is behavior which is important." Interesting.19 minutes ago ·
Brad Carmack
@Seth- I thank you and Andy for relying on a fallacy in your comments. By addressing it I hope to resolve one of the most common misunderstandings I observe in discussions among LDS folk about homosexuality.
The fallacy? That a reduction in available alternatives violates the principle of free agency. Permit an explanation.
First task: Seth, using nothing but your natural capacities, please jump straight up in the air 200 feet. Can you choose to do it? No. In this scenario you may not choose to jump 200 feet straight up in the air using nothing but your natural capacities. Is agency violated here?
Next task: Compose a 200 page supreme court caliber legal opinion from scratch in 13 seconds. What, you can't choose to do it? I thought "there is always choice"!
Last example: take an infertile couple- say, the man's sperm don't develop because of an inherited double recessive meiosis inhibitor.
Okay, infertile man: sire a child by natural means. What, you can't? What happened to God-given free agency?
Now let's consider a different scenario which will let me resolve this apparent tension by creating a construct I will call "freedom".
Say little Johnny has 2 candy bars in front of him. He has 4 alternatives: grab neither bar, both bars, bar A, or bar B. I will term "agency" that power by which Johnny selects from among the alternatives available to him. I will term "freedom" the number of alternatives available to him. To quantify in this situation, Johnny has "full" agency, and a freedom of 4: i.e., 4 alternatives.
Now take away candy bar B. Johnny now has 2 alternatives instead of 4. He may now only choose between grabbing or not grabbing the bar. However, his agency, or power to choose from among the available alternatives, is still "full." His freedom, however, was reduced from 4 to 2. I would further argue that even if no candy bar were in front of Johnny, such that he has 0 alternatives, his agency is still "full-" though that agency would not be discernible until alternatives are available to him. Bottom line: in all four scenarios above, biological/physical limitations of the actor necessarily define his freedom without lessening his agency.
My application of this conclusion? None of us can exercise our agency to choose an alternative that is not available to us. Thus, the question of what alternatives are available is not made irrelevant by acknowledging free agency. Respecting homosexual orientation, one candidate question would be whether the alternative of exclusive romantic/emotional/sexual orientation toward members of the opposite sex is available to individual A. This question cannot be disregarded by an appeal to agency, since the abundance or scarcity of alternatives (freedom) necessarily relies upon the biological/physical capacities and limitations of the actor. Thus, if homosexual orientation is merely chosen, then the alternative of exclusive romantic/emotional/sexual orientation toward members of the opposite sex is available to individual A. If, on the other hand, exclusive romantic/emotional/sexual orientation toward members of the opposite sex is biologically impossible for A, then that alternative is not available to A. The resolution of the scope of A's freedom requires a determination at least of whether exclusive romantic/emotional/sexual orientation toward members of the opposite sex is biologically possibile or impossibile- hence the relevance of evaluating the "evidence" you decry as irrelevant.
I claim that evaluating the evidence is relevant on a second basis as well. Seth's argument that [biological evidence can only speak to biological phenomena + we can't be reduced to mere biology = the evidence or lack thereof as irrelevant] presumes that homosexual orientation is entirely abiological (presumably, instead, it is an aspect of our spirits). What is the evidence for this presumption? If homosexual orientation is, on the other hand, caused by a 1) mixture of biology and spirit (e.g. the soul) or 2) only biology, then the question of whether and how much biology contributes to homosexual orientation is again relevant.
Presuming I've established the relevance of the question of the cause(s) of homosexual orientation, I now respond to another of Seth's claims- the oft-used "Atonement argument". Seth notes that the atonement can reverse death, and thus it can reverse sexual orientation, since orientation reversal is certainly less impressive than death. Granted- the Atonement can do so. So what? What matters to a decision maker is what God WIll do, not merely what he CAn do. If you're the only person around for miles except for a child that is drowning in a steep canal, and you CAn throw the kid a rope to save her but DO not, the kid will still drown. The question for a homosexually oriented person, then, turns to the likelihood of God's intervention to reverse his/her orientation. I draw on Seth's comparision to death. I hope it's not an exaggeration to claim that death reversal rates have historically been less than .01%. In most cases we know of, the death reversal was also not readily predictable by the subject. Thus if God's sexual orientation reversal intervention rate is at this same level, a reasonable homosexually oriented person is justified in placing little confidence, not in God's CApacity to reverse his/her orientation, but in God's LIkelihood of doing so for him or her. God's likelihood of reversing homosexually oriented person A's orientation is the relevant question for decision-making A. "A" may also reasonably consider:
"The pernicious consequence of promoting the idea that homosexuality is a chosen and changeable condition is that tens of thousands of Latter-day Saint homosexuals, believing that the atonement will change their homosexual inclinations, become disillusioned with God and Christ (and the Church) when they make every sacrifice of which they are capable in the belief that they will be free of homosexual feelings—only to discover that their efforts are ineffective. More often than not, they may blame themselves for having insufficient faith and either lose all faith, suspend their belief, or take their lives. Ecclesiastical leaders who have experience counseling with Latter-day Saint homosexuals know the heartbreak associated with such cases."
I contend that the Atonement's purpose is generally not to reverse physical conditions such as old age, diabetes, homosexual orientation, and disability. That is a mistake many people in Christ's day made, who viewed him merely as someone who could heal their physical bodies (e.g. giving sight to the blind man) and assuage their physical appetites (e.g. loaves and fishes). They missed the point these miracles were supposed to lead them to: that Christ/the Atonement's primary purpose is to heal us spiritually. Though a disabled or homosexually oriented or old person can be exalted, an individual tainted or damaged by sin cannot achieve exaltation without reversing her sinful condition. Guess how often God WIll (not merely CAn) forgive and cleanse those who repent? 100% of the time. 100%! This is a much better ratio than .0001. The primary purpose of the Atonement is to engender salvation and exaltation via the spiritual healing/cleansing of and grace extended to those damaged by sin. Hence, my claim that the Atonement argument is weak/irrelevant- which in turn refreshes the legitimacy of questions of mutability and causation.11 minutes ago ·
Brad Carmack
@Miki- if one cannot posit that homosexuality is normal while asserting that homosexual behavior is sinful, then resolution of the normalcy of homosexual orientation will resolve the question of the sinfulness of homosexual behavior. According to this reasoning, if homosexuality is normal, then homosexual behavior is not sinful. If homosexual orientation is not normal, then perhaps the conduct is sinful. Though I wouldn't assert this reasoning, I note that it makes the sinfulness of homosexual conduct threatened by evidence leading to a conclusion that homosexual orientation is a "normal minority variation in humans the origins of which are biological." That is exactly the conclusion Bradshaw's paper reaches. Once again, I assert that the support of this conclusion deserves careful, analytical, and open-minded consideration. Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why : the Science of Sexual Orientation by Simon LeVay (copyright 2011!) also contains a well-supported analysis of the subject.
As to the personal note, thanks! And I still play with Legos occasionally. :) I also share your favorable view of my parents.
@Nicole- great point about science never claiming to be "absolute and inflexible." I find the tentative and falsifiable nature of scientific claims incredibly attractive epistemologically. Also, your point about evidence supporting revelation would be expected if 1) the evidence is sound and 2) truth can be encircled in one great whole. However, I would part ways with you as to the pretty goodness of "no, you're not crazy/deformed/maimed somehow because you're attracted to the same gender. Just curb your desires and find a constructive outlet because life is NOT just all about sex." More on that in a later post.
@Miki- On its face, the reality of homosexual orientation does seem to evidence a Designer flaw, since according to the doctrines homosexual orientation/behavior and the heterosexual/opposite gender, family-based plan of happiness are incompatible. God created us, and He doesn't make mistakes, right? How about the truth that God created man, male and female created He them? What do you do with intersex persons, who are gender ambiguous? I quote:
"Because spiritual gender is binary (either male or female and nothing in between) and unchangeable, in order to be reliable [a test of physical gender] must also place every individual it is applied to correctly into one of the two categories. This infers two requirements: 1) the test must place every person (i.e. none can be ambiguous) and 2) there must be no false positives or false negatives. What are the criteria for the test of physical gender? (for support of the examples cited below see e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klinefelter's_syndrome,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_hermaphroditism,
http://www.isna.org/, and the references section ofhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex) I present several commonly proposed phenotypic and genotypic criteria:
a. The “pull your pants down” test (genitalia)- take a look and see if they have a uterus or a penis. This test fails because there are some people that have both. There are some that have partial penis/partial clitoris. Some have both ovaries and testicles. Plus, people can undergo a sex change operation. This test violates both requirements 1 and 2 above.
b. The genetics test (XY is male, XX is female)- this will help by separating those with ambiguous genitalia, and is testable through genotying. However, this test also fails because some people are XXY or XXYY. Also, some have XY but the SRY gene either isn’t expressed or is damaged (so the XY individual is phenotypically female, the default gender in the sexual differentiation of humans). This test doesn’t tell the judge how to come down in these cases (violating 1 above).
c. Brain gender- though largely alike, as Brizendine (author of The Male Brain and The Female Brain) summarizes, there are distinct structural differences between the average male and the average female brain. The exceptions here are 1) those who exhibit intermediate brain phenotypes, 2) those who have a male brain but female genotype and female genitalia, and 3) those with a female brain and female genitalia but male genes. Thus, requirements 1 and 2 are both violated.
d. Sexual orientation- assign the gender opposite the sexual orientation of the subject (e.g. if the person’s attracted to men, conclude the person is a female). This test fails both because it is counterintuitive and because sexual orientation is spectral rather than binary (e.g. what about bisexual people?), thus at the least violating requirement 1.
Given our real-world situation where... it seems gendered spirits are sent into ambiguous gender bodies. Unless and until a reliable and ubiquitous test of physical gender is identified, the reliance on physical gender to discern spiritual gender necessarily fails."
I bring up the intersex example to demonstrate that there is more to the "Designer Flaw" story than meets the eye- and some of that story is persuasively presented in Bradshaw's 45 pager.
@Peter- We are so on the same page here! I've been reading Theo Colburn's book, Our Stolen Future, and have also learned about chemicals (some unknown, others such as Bisphenol A, Phthalates, DDT, and Alkylphenols better documented) thought to affect sexual development. The hypothesis that sexual orientation is a subset of sexual development, which development is caused almost exclusively by [genes + prenatal hormones], is a reasonable one. If the data were available, I would LOVE to mine it to test whether incidence of homosexual orientation in both genders has varied in the last century significantly more than in the last 20 centuries (which might indicate whether the named chemicals, which have only been around abundantly in more recent times, contribute to the prevalence of certain sexual orientations). Plants have been using hormone mimics and inhibitors for a while, though, which might frustrate the inference.
Anyway, as to the question of pharmaceutical cure, it is a possibility- careful monitoring and control of the prenatal hormone profile and environment (i.e. the womb), combined with a better understanding of the genetic component of sexual development/sexual orientation development, might indeed allow parents to select the sexual orientation of their offspring. The moral and political implications- well, that'd probably take a rather lengthy book to tease out.
Miki Tracy Very good, Brad! Fascinating argument--and one that I will be very interested in following as you develop it further. You've given me a great deal to think about. Thank you. ; )
Yesterday at 04:00 ·
Brent Kerby Brad, looks like you've prompted some interesting discussion again! :-)
At the Evergreen conference last Saturday, Shirley Cox told a story of an LDS person who was born with both male and female genitalia. She explained that the parents rai...sed him as a boy, that he adjusted relatively well to this identity and eventually, as an adult, with the counsel of his Church leaders, undertook surgery and hormone therapy to complete the assignment to male gender. I think sometimes God may have a different view from us about what is a mistake on His part. There may be reasons or purposes to things that we don't yet understand. Maybe God wants us to open our a hearts a little bit bigger in these situations.
I think we don't yet know solid answers about what exactly is going on biologically or otherwise when it comes to homosexuality; I appreciate the efforts of those who are trying to understand and learn more about it. It has been hurtful at times when some people have assumed that someone's orientation was matter of choice, or the result of bad parenting or bad influences, etc. As the son of wonderful parents, and having grown up in a fairly sheltered LDS environment (and I've always been active in the Church and still am), none of those explanations have made any sense in my life.
I knew essentially nothing about "gay" and didn't feel that anything was unusual when I excitedly recorded in my journal at age 12 about how much I admired a certain boy I had recently met, how spiritual I thought he was, how excited I was to make eye contact with him, how I thought we must have known each other in the pre-existence! I felt that way about a number of guys as a teenager and in my years at BYU, feelings of caring so much about them, wanting to be close to them emotionally and physically. So many times it broke my heart when it would become clear that they didn't feel the same way and I couldn't understand why. Unlike what some might assume, it wasn't sexual attraction; I'm actually asexual and don't experience sexual attractions to people of either gender.
It took a long time for me to understand these things in my own life; I knew that I didn't experience attractions to girls (on any level: romantically, physically, or sexually), but I was always thinking I was just a "late bloomer" and that the right hormones would kick in someday. When I was at BYU, I even went and got my hormones checked because I wondered if something was wrong. l kept praying that things would change. For several years at BYU, I went on lots of dates with girls, hoping that would spark something; there was never the slightest spark, but I didn't give up. For years I wasn't ready to directly confront the issue. Even though every week I could look around the room in sacrament meeting and see all the cute guys, knowing I didn't ever see cute girls, I still just reasoned to myself that it was just brotherly love and that I was still a late bloomer (age 26!), and that things would change when I met "the right girl". It wasn't until last December that I was ready to understand, and Heavenly Father metaphorically whacked me over the head and then gently let me know that what I was wanting and struggling to make true wasn't what He wanted.
Since then, I've become very happy about how God has created me; I think there may be reasons for it I don't completely understand, but I want to do my best in life. I don't feel it is an evil thing to feel love for another person, to care deeply about him. It is so hurtful when some people have conflated love and lust and insinuated that gay people only feel lust. I've opened my heart here because I hope it may help someone understand what it's like to be a gay member of the Church; I hope it will help someone love their brother, their sister, their son or daughter, a little bit more, and not judge them too harshly. I have two gay LDS friends who I know have tried to kill themselves, and others who I worry about, because they have felt so hurt and so conflicted after having failed to change their orientation. I know several who joined the Church and were baptized as young adults, hoping and expecting that this would change them and make them straight. I know many others who served missions for the Church, hoping the same thing, who were so disappointed when they found that it doesn't work like this. I have other friends whose orientation falls somewhere in the middle (having some attractions to both genders), some of whom have married heterosexually, with varying degrees of success in their marriage.
Most of my gay LDS friends don't go to Church anymore; they often don't feel there is a place for them there. I cringe a bit when at Church there are sometimes unkind and uninformed things said about gay people. I and a few of my gay friends still go, because it is our faith and home, and we love the values of the Church and the people there. I hope that, going forward, there may be more bridges of understanding built, and that eventually more people will feel welcome in the Church.
https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1u3K43P-3JoYTUzNjYwMGEtNzNmYi00ODkwLTllMzYtNjRlOTVlMWUwYTM2&hl=en
No comments:
Post a Comment