Tuesday, February 15, 2011

Why black people shouldn't be allowed to marry

I received the following email recently:
 
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS


The Anglican Mainstream in partnership with the Oxford Centre for Religion and Public Life has asked the Jonah Institute to invite qualified researchers and/or clinicians to submit proposals for a meta-analysis of the existing literature on two separate topics:

 1) Same sex partnerships/marriages
 2) Same sex parenting

 and the impact of each on public life.

The results will be published through Oxford University.

The Anglican Mainstream is a community within the Anglican Communion committed to promote, teach and maintain the Scriptural truths on which the Anglican Church was founded. Those in the network of Anglican Mainstream are committed to the traditional biblical teaching on marriage, the family and human sexuality and seek to educate the public on secular psychological understandings relevant thereto.

 The Centre contributes to public deliberation by highlighting moral issues of public concern and by publicizing them in conversation with other traditions of religious and philosophical thought. 

The scope of this research should encompass studies that cover the following topics:

I.                    Same Sex Partnerships/Marriage:
               
·         Is faithfulness a category used by same sex couples who enter into long term partnership?
·         How is it understood?
·         Does it include exclusiveness as a criteria?
·         Length of self described long term same sex partnerships/marriages?
·         Conditions that enable same sex partnership to be long term.

II.                  Parenting:

·         The nature of same sex partnerships/marriages parenting?

a.       Is it different from the parenting of heterosexual couples?
b.      Its impact on the development of children in the area of social, emotional and education performance.


III.                Is faithfulness a characteristic of same sex couples?

IV.                Is faithfulness a required characteristic of successful parenting?


All are invited to participate. If you are interested please list your topic of interest for the research, estimated length for completion and compensation sought.

Additionally, if you know of someone qualified who may be interested, please contact us.

Please e-mail your proposal with a current CV no later than January 31, 2011 to orly.jonahoffice@gmail.com or via mail to:

JONAH, PO Box 313, Jersey City, NJ 07303

Please feel to call (201) 433-3444 with any questions. 

Sincerely yours,                                                                                                                                               
Arthur Goldberg                                                                              
Co-Director                                                                                                                                           
JONAH


I have modified it thus:

 
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS


The Anglican Mainstream in partnership with the Oxford Centre for Religion and Public Life has asked the Jonah Institute to invite qualified researchers and/or clinicians to submit proposals for a meta-analysis of the existing literature on two separate topics:

 1) Black partnerships/marriages
 2) Black parenting

 and the impact of each on public life.

The results will be published through Oxford University.

The Anglican Mainstream is a community within the Anglican Communion committed to promote, teach and maintain the Scriptural truths on which the Anglican Church was founded. Those in the network of Anglican Mainstream are committed to the traditional biblical teaching on marriage, the family and human sexuality and seek to educate the public on secular psychological understandings relevant thereto.

 The Centre contributes to public deliberation by highlighting moral issues of public concern and by publicizing them in conversation with other traditions of religious and philosophical thought. 

The scope of this research should encompass studies that cover the following topics:

I.                    Black Partnerships/Marriage:
               
·         Is faithfulness a category used by black couples who enter into long term partnership?
·         How is it understood?
·         Does it include exclusiveness as a criteria?
·         Length of self described long term black partnerships/marriages?
·         Conditions that enable black partnerships to be long term.

II.                  Parenting:

·         The nature of black partnerships/marriages parenting?

a.       Is it different from the parenting of white couples?
b.      Its impact on the development of children in the area of social, emotional and education performance.


III.                Is faithfulness a characteristic of black couples?

IV.                Is faithfulness a required characteristic of successful parenting?


All are invited to participate. If you are interested please list your topic of interest for the research, estimated length for completion and compensation sought.

Additionally, if you know of someone qualified who may be interested, please contact us.

Please e-mail your proposal with a current CV no later than January 31, 2011 to orly.jonahoffice@gmail.com or via mail to:

JONAH, PO Box 313, Jersey City, NJ 07303

Please feel to call (201) 433-3444 with any questions. 

Sincerely yours,                                                                                                                                               
Arthur Goldberg                                                                              
Co-Director                                                                                                                                           
JONAH



Discussion:

Biblical family structures were as diverse as the cultures they existed in.  Many Biblical examples of family suck.  Prevalence of concubines, oppression/devaluing of women, and stigmatizing barren women merely begins the illustration.  Many of the other references to marriage, family, and sexuality are contradictory and ambiguous.  What exactly is the "traditional biblical teaching on marriage, the family and human sexuality" the Anglican Mainstream wants to promote? 


Second point: the average incidence of promiscuity of same-sex partnerships should not factor into whether a same-sex couple should be allowed to marry.  From my book (http://bradcarmack.blogspot.com/2010/10/homosexuality-straight-byu-students.html):


Gay promiscuity will taint marriage by reducing marital fidelity


Interlocutor: “Studies show that gay men have on average more than 250 partners.  It is women that tame male promiscuity- and women would be absent from male-male marriage.  ‘The chaos of sexual irresponsibility (especially infidelity and promiscuity within marriage) will grow, and the moral expectations of the basic institution of society will fade as the sexual ethic of gay and lesbian lifestyles is embraced as marriage.[i]  Also, ‘Legalizing same-sex marriage would be another notch in what Professor Helen Alvare calls “The turn toward the self in the law of marriage and family.[ii]” It would encourage gay fluidity, promiscuity, infidelity, and instability in marriage.  However, if we want to foster fidelity, monogamy, responsibility, and emotional bonding in marriages, the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples would be counter-productive… The morality of marriage would be the most devastating casualty of the legalization of same-sex marriage.[iii]’”

My response: I will make five responses.

Response 1:
It would be unsurprising that gay men on average are more promiscuous than straight men.  They lack (generally) the civilizing institution of marriage, approved sexual outlets, and societal acceptance compared to straight men.  Also, the area of the male brain that processes thoughts about sex is 50% larger on average than the female brain, and men’s brains are practically saturated with testosterone[iv]. Males are more visually oriented when it comes to sex, and the number of thoughts about sex that sexually mature males have per day is on average several times that of their female counterparts of the same age.  Though there may not be a strong link between sexual desire and promiscuity, it would be unsurprising that gay men, like straight men, are more sexually active, more sexually creative, and interested in a greater number of sexual variety and sexual partners than women.  It is not altogether unlikely that there would be more straight sex, including more sexual partners, were women as interested in sex as men are- and thus it would be unsurprising to learn that gay men are on average more promiscuous than straight men.  However, the figure you cite greatly exaggerates gay male promiscuity.  The 250 average you cite came from a San Francisco Bay Area sample recruited from bars, sex clubs, and sex-cruising spots[v].  The consensus numbers are more likely similar to these descriptions:

“Now it does appear that a significant minority of American gay males do have lots of sexual partners.  Moreover, the median American gay male does have somewhat more sexual partners than the median straight male (likely ten to twenty lifetime partners for gays as opposed to five to ten for straights…).[vi] 
The General Social Survey found that straight women reported having had on average three sex partners since age 18, straight men six, and gay men ten[vii].  Thus, gay men are not on average as hyper-promiscuous as you claim.  Plus, it may be that a minority of gay men are responsible for the predominance of the promiscuity- and it could be argued that group is less likely to enter SSM than the less promiscuous subset.

Response 2:
Homosexuals may be asexual, on average, more often than heterosexuals (though the following finding is limited since it was not based on a random sample):
“An online poll suggests that there is an overrepresentation of gays and bisexuals among asexuals, with 11% of the asexuals polled self-identifying as gay, 24% as bi, and only 43% as straight[viii].  One hypothetical explanation is that among sexuals, large percentages are homo/bi-romantic or homo/bi-physical but they identify as straight because their sexual attractions are exclusively hetero, whereas among asexuals the diversity of romantic and physical attractions comes to the forefront. Alternatively, asexuality may be an effect of some of the same prenatal biological factors that cause homosexuality/bisexuality, in which case the correlation may be a result of a common origin. Another way of looking at the poll data is that a gay person is about 8 times more likely to be asexual than a straight person, and a bisexual person is about 18 times more likely to be asexual than a straight person (assuming a 3% prevalence rate in the general population for self-identified gays and also 3% for bi).[ix] 

Response 3:
It is well-established that men are more promiscuous than women[x]- and that includes both heterosexual and homosexual men.  However, lesbian couples do not contain men- yet few if any who raise the promiscuity contention would permit SSM for lesbians, even if lesbians exhibited on average even greater fidelity that straight couples or straight women.  If marital fidelity were truly the aim, then there would be no reason to bar lesbians- in fact, they may be preferred to opposite-sex couples who, due to the fact that they each include a man, may be on average more promiscuous.

Response 4:
Why is SSM counter-productive to fostering emotional bonding between spouses?  It is not at all clear that same-sex couples do not bond emotionally with their partners in an inferior way to same-sex couples.  The rush of oxytocin (a bonding/trust neurochemical) associated with orgasm in both men and women still occurs when same-sex couples kiss, hug, touch, and have sex.  Authentic communication engendered by commitment and a shared life with a partner bear the potential to foster emotional bonding in same-sex as in opposite-sex pairings.  Male and female brains are, on average, different.  Arguably, due to the decreased median difference between the brains of same-sex spouses, an elevated level of similarity and understanding may grant an emotional bonding advantage.

Response 5:
“Remember that two-day, four-part Marital Aptitude Test you were required to pass before you were allowed to get your license?  Remember when the social worker visited your home and interviewed your neighbors to make sure you were faithful enough to your partner to qualify for marriage?  Remember how, before they issued your license, the authorities looked up your age group and ethnic group and religious group to check that the odds of your staying married were up to par? No?...
[T]he fidelity double standard—the insistence that gay people become model marital citizens before they can have the right to marry—is the bitterest of all the ironies in the gay-marriage debate, and also the most twisted… [Critics] treat gay people not as individuals but as averages… it is certainly possible for [a gay couple] to stay faithful to each other, and many do, just as many straight couples do not.  Even if all gay-male couples were adulterous, their number would not approach that of adulterous heterosexual husbands.  But all such considerations are deemed inconsequential, because the gay average is below par.  One wonders: Exactly what proportion of gay men would need to be faithful in order to earn homosexuals the legal right to marry?  Seventy-five to 80 percent- the male heterosexual average, if you trust surveys?  Ninety percent? And how many heterosexuals would agree that their own legal right to marry should depend on the average fidelity of other heterosexuals?[xi]

Barring SSM because of the promiscuity of gay men penalizes both homosexually oriented men and women for not living up to the rules of a club they’re excluded from, predicts without merit the future behavior of a group of people, assumes that any increase in heterosexual couples’ divorce or adultery would be unacceptable regardless of costs to homosexuals, and applies a fidelity prerequisite to homosexuals that is not applied to heterosexuals.  As with fertility (see chapter 4), it seems that by exposing inconsistencies we have unearthed yet another façade- one that is no more pro-fidelity than the fertility-based SSM opposition was pro-fertility.  Instead, it is merely anti-SSM.


[i] Lynn Wardle, "A Response to the ―Conservative Case‖ for Same-Sex Marriage: Same-Sex Marriage and the Tragedy of the Commons," BYU Journal of Public Law, Volume 22, Number 2 (Winter 2008), pg. 473.
[ii] Helen M. Alvare, The turn toward the self in the law of marriage & family: same-sex marriage & its predecessors,” 16 Stan. L. & Pol’y Rev. 135 (2005).
[iii] Lynn Wardle, “The morality of marriage and the transformative power of inclusion,” in Wardle’s What’s the Harm, Chapter 11, pg. 228.
[iv] See LouAnn Brizendine’s The Male Brain, circa 2009.
[v] Jonathan Rauch, Gay Marriage: Why it is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America, 2004, pg. 142.
[vi] Eugene Volokh, UCLA, circa 2003, qtd. in Jonathan Rauch, Gay Marriage: Why it is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America, 2004, pg. 143.
[vii] Qtd. in Jonathan Rauch, Gay Marriage: Why it is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America, 2004, pg. 143.
[viii] http://www.asexuality.org/en/index.php?showtopic=873. Also see the newer poll at http://www.asexuality.org/en/index.php?showtopic=34365
[ix] Personal friend, email to the author, December 2010.
[x] “Is Promiscuity Innate?” Washington Post, 2003: Men on average desired 1.87 partners over the next month compared to women’s .78, and over the next ten years men wanted 5.95, while women wanted 2.17. 
[xi] Jonathan Rauch, Gay Marriage: Why it is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America, 2004, pg. 155-156.

15 comments:

  1. Brad,

    I don't think you are understand my concern. I think it is damaging to perpetuate the myth that all homosexually oriented people are excluded from marriage. I think I showed you evidence that homosexually oriented people are more likely to be in an opposite-sex marriage than a same-sex marriage.

    Hence, you are not talking about homosexually oriented people, but same-sex couples.

    It is damaging to assume they are the same group.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I concede that there are many homosexually oriented people in opposite-sex marriages. Though I only partly remember your evidence, I would not be overly surprised to learn that there are more mixed orientation marriages than same-sex marriages (for a number of reasons, cultural and legal being foremost among them).

    You are correct that in the above substitutions I replaced "same-sex" with "black," rather than replacing "homosexually oriented." Though I think homosexually oriented people are overwhelmingly represented in same-sex marriages, strictly speaking it was gender, not sexual orientation, that I compared to race as an egregious basis of discrimination. Thus, yours is an appropriate point.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree that most people in same-sex relationships (including same-sex marriages) are homosexually orientated.

    The line I had problems with was this one:

    "Barring SSM because of the promiscuity of gay men penalizes both homosexually oriented men and women for not living up to the rules of a club they’re excluded from."

    I agree that a legal union for same-sex couples would help stability just like it does for opposite sex couples. To deny same-sex couples that union because they aren't as stable without them is like refusing to give a hungry person as much food as others because they don't eat as much. It is through the legal unions that stability can be found.

    That is not what I was upset about. What I think is harmful is the notion that homosexually oriented men and women are excluded from traditional marriage. I think many young gay people are not aware of what possibilities are available, and by telling them there is only one possibility, in essence you are recruiting them for that possibility.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The evidence I gave was in my discussion with you on another web site.

    According to several estimates, including the straight spouse network, there are about 2 million LGBT people in a traditional marriage. http://www.straightspouse.org

    The Janus report on sexual behavior indicated 20% of gay men (not bisexual men) will be heterosexually married at some point in their lives.

    According to the "The social organization of sexuality", 3.5% of married men and 2.1% of married women report same-sex attractions.

    http://books.google.com/books?id=72AHO0rE2HoC&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=the+social+organization+of+sexuality+1990&source=web&ots=kHfFtQQH7j&sig=ZS5sk4GqzcR4e8mLVIHTNPsHt-Y#v=onepage&q=the%20social%20organization%20of%20sexuality%201990&f=false

    Compare that to only 1% of couples are same-sex couples, or about 600,000 committed same-sex couples in the US.

    No matter how you look at it, more homosexually oriented people are choosing traditional marriage than committed same-sex relationships.

    I admit that people in same-sex relationships are practically all LGBT, but to say that homosexually oriented people are excluded from traditional marriage, when that is their committed relationship of choice, is a distortion of facts.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Fair enough. Opposite-sex marriage is an option for homosexually oriented people.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Why are you a member of a church that you don't agree with? You go to church and take the sacrament, but you turn around and agree with all those that that support homosexuality. The church says no to gay marriage, but you support gay marriage.

    ReplyDelete
  7. What is wrong with supporting homosexuality? Homosexuality is a sexual orientation. No one chooses their sexual orientation. I think that is why the Church has supported legislation to protect homosexuals from housing and employment discrimination. I think it is interesting that Utah has yet to comply with these measures. It seems many Mormons go to church and take the sacrament, but aren't as quick to follow the church in supporting civil rights for gay people.

    Do you support the church in ending discrimination against homosexuality in housing and employment?

    ReplyDelete
  8. @Anonymous:

    Candidate response 1: The church said no to black men receiving the priesthood. I support giving black men the priesthood.

    Candidate response 2: Do you agree with every practice and doctrine of the church? How about when apostle A says X and apostle B says Y- who do you agree with then? (e.g. President Faust and others say inborn sexual orientation is a false belief; Oaks says the church has no position on the causes/nature v. nurture of sexual orientation) How about when the position changes over time (e.g. the morality of birth control)? Do you agree with the church's early (and biblical) treatment of women which, though arguably progressive for its time, fell far short of the equality we today firmly believe they merit? Do you agree with the common church practice of less effective meetings? How about the pronatalist teachings and culture which marginalize single sisters? How about the teaching that woman should stay home and men should be the breadwinners? What's your understanding of the Atonement? Faith? The necessity of knowledge to gain salvation? The historicity of the creation and Adam/Eve stories? I could go on and on. The point is, there are no two members that hold exactly the same belief set. There is no black-and-white clarity nor uniformity on the interpretation and application of church teachings and practices. If a rigid lock-step understanding and belief is necessary to be in the right way, then at least the vast majority or active, believing members are hopelessly and permanently astray. Might it not be that I am merely more transparent, rather than farther afield, compared with my ostensibly faithful peers?

    Candidate response 3: Because I believe in it, though I expect no more perfection of its leaders in their mortality than I expect of myself in mine.

    Candidate response 4: What does your assertion mean that I support gay marriage- do you mean 1) legally 2) doctrinally 3) personally 4) policy-wise 5) other?

    Candidate response 5: I wasn't aware that I agree with all those that support homosexuality. First, I am at a loss to describe what it means to "support homosexuality" and am skeptical to the accuracy of that characterization. Second, it is unlikely that those who "support homosexuality" are uniform in their views, in which case I would avoid agreeing with them all in the interest of eschewing holding contradictory views.

    Candidate response 6: What is the church? I see it as members of the body of Christ- and thus the church is as varied, contradictory, and imperfect as its constitution. Would you assert an alternate construct?


    Candidate response 7: Would you then suggest that I leave the church or cease taking the sacrament? Though one might take umbrage at your explicit condemnation/judgment, I think a more important focus is on whether it is appropriate to seek to improve the body of Christ/the church. I believe that is exactly what we are called to do and would cite to the numerous scriptures that obligate us to preach repentance and "to teach, expound, exhort, baptize, and watch over the church… And see that there is no iniquity in the church" as my support for the proposition. As the church's position on homosexuality changes (as evidenced, for instance, by the switch from the '97 First Presidency characterization of homosexual feelings as necessitating repentance to the '10 Otterson statement that 'it is not a sin to have feelings'), it is the privilege if not also the duty of church members to prayerfully and faithfully provide their input on church practice and policy, as "all things shall be done by common consent in the church, by much prayer and faith."

    ReplyDelete
  9. > President Faust and others say inborn sexual orientation is a false belief; Oaks says the church has no position on the causes/nature v. nurture of sexual orientation

    That is not true. Elder Oaks said that the Church has not position on the causes of sexual attraction, not sexual orientation. Those are two different things. I think you often confuse the two.

    According to the APA:

    "Sexual orientation also refers to a person's sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community of others who share those attractions."

    Same-sex attraction only refers to attraction, whereas sexual orientation can refer to an identity based on those attractions and related behaviors.

    Elder Oaks never said the church has no position on sexual orientation.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Brad! I love you're enthusiasm for a great argument, but I feel you have "overshot the mark". I definitely do not have the patience to offer up such a majestic counter argument but I promise you, your logic is not quite complete. #1 sexuality can be dissected into various groups: sexual attraction, sexual fantasy, sexual action, and (my favorite) sexual APPETITE. Are you a homosexual if you feel homosexual attraction but have never engaged in homosexual actions? Therein lies the key. Many women find other women attractive, even "sexy", but they are not necessarily lesbians. It is the act of sexual indulgence that defines the homosexual. And like an appetite for food, sexual appetites manifest themselves differently from person to person. I argue that there is a type of "sexual obesity" that plagues or society and much like those in Over-eaters Anonymous, the sexual obese can not control their bodily urges or in other words their "natual man".
    The questions at hand seem so easy to me even in the face of your arguments and scientific explanations. Our happiness is the focal point for those prophets who run Christ's church and they do their best to explain that pleasure is not the source of joy and eternal life. Indeed it is clear that as we forgo pleasures in this life, we will find true happiness. Sounds cliche, but I would wager that if you were to interview gay and lesbians who have subdued their sexual appetites in favor of a "church approved" family they would back me up. Lastly, beware of you investment of time and energy into anything that may prove a waste. You will fight harder and harder to be right and all the while you will be wasting your God given talents on "fighting" clear gospel doctrine. Don't over think the room. With all the respect in the world, Bo Scott.

    ReplyDelete
  11. @Peculiar light: Thank you for your criticism. You are one of the most consistent to offer feedback evaluating my claims, and your input in the past has helped me, I believe, to improve my stance. My claims and arguments are full of logical failings, and will likely continue to be for the rest of my life. Pointing out those you see helps me to adopt better supported views.

    Now I address your contention about confusing attraction and orientation in the context of President Faust and Elder Oaks's statements. You may be right. Elder Oaks did use the word "attraction" in his talk, and the referenced Faust excerpt used the word "orientation." However, in this case, you are guilty of the same error you accuse me of: misquoting Elder Oaks!

    The quote is: "The Church does not have a position on the causes of any of these susceptibilities or inclinations, including those related to same-gender attraction." (http://newsroom.lds.org/official-statement/same-gender-attraction)

    You said: "Elder Oaks said that the Church has not position on the causes of sexual attraction, not sexual orientation."

    "causes of any of these susceptibilities or inclinations, including those related to same-gender attraction" does not equal "causes of sexual attraction" any more than it equals "causes of sexual orientation," if you want to make an issue of the semantics.

    Let's presume from here on out that you instead criticized my equating of "susceptibilities or inclinations, including those related to same-gender attraction" with orientation. It is not clear that the two are different.

    First, is the APA's definition authoritative, is it right, and is it what President Faust relied on when he used the term? How does one discern the "right" definition? Second, is the definition of a word resolved by an appeal to the speaker's intention, the receiver's perception, or both? If the receiver's perception is what counts (as implied by the fact that you quoted the APA's definition; it is unlikely to presume you have reason to believe that Faust was specifically aware of and/or relied on the APA's construct), then one must ask which definition is authoritative.

    ReplyDelete
  12. For example, the American Heritage Dictionary, downloaded today, has the following entry for sexual orientation:
    n.
    "The direction of one's sexual interest toward members of the same, opposite, or both sexes." There is no mention of behavior or identity in this definition. Also, you failed to include the immediately preceding (and thus, as some would claim, more primary) definition of sexual orientation from the APA brochure:

    "Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, or both sexes."

    Could this be at least part of or overlapping with what Elder Oaks means when he speaks of attractions/susceptibilities/inclinations/feelings?

    In any case, I would assert that the common understanding of the term controls, and would contend against any degree of certainty that an element of identity and/or behavior necessarily attaches. I would also purport that the definitional question cannot be fully resolved because of the diversity of understanding about the definition of the same word in the general population. The reasonable conclusion is that words are approximations only- which belies confidence in your criticism, which affirms that I have confused two independent terms. It is not clear that these terms do not overlap, nor even that they are not identical.

    Third, in the address referenced where Elder Oaks said that the church has no position, he referred to a constellation of terms such as attraction, susceptibility, inclination, and feeling to describe homosexuality. Sometimes he made distinctions between these terms that some would consider significant; at other times he did not. Might it not be that what is commonly referred to as orientation is exactly what Elder Oaks means means when he speaks of homosexual attraction and/or "these susceptibilities or inclinations, including those related to same-gender attraction"?

    Fourth, there is a well-evidenced opposition to
    using "gay" and "homosexual" as a noun (President Packer explicitly rejected homosexual as a noun, Elder Oaks has resisted, and President Faust used "so-called" to describe homosexuals). Thus, the difference between attraction (and/or "susceptibilities or inclinations, including those related to same-gender attraction") and orientation may be directly attributable to that resistance, which itself may or not be well founded, and in any case is contrary to the generally understood concept of sexual orientation, including that of the APA source relied upon.

    It conclusion, it is not clear from your contention that either A) I have confused attraction and orientation or B) that I have inappropriately juxtaposed the statements by Elder Oaks and President Faust.

    ReplyDelete
  13. You are correct. I am confusing definitions as well. I think the main point is that it is too hard to know for sure. Even the APA, as you pointed out, has two different definitions. It isn't clear you confused the two, but neither is it clear that you haven't.

    My comment was probably more in response to the 2nd chapter of your book. You have a table outlining various times that speakers have assigned causes to HO. I think in many cases, you have misanalyzed them. In some cases, they are ambiguous, such as the case with Elder Faust, where you are not certain which definition of sexual orientation he is using, or if he is using his own.

    In other cases, they are just plain implausible. Spender Kimball frequently discussed the cause of homosexuality, but he always referred to it as "a sexual act". This definition is a legitimate definition of homosexuality even in today's dictionary, and was certainly common in President Kimball's time. He even warns that while you may overcome homosexuality, the desire would still be there. I would think the desire would be more closely related to what has more recently termed "same-sex attraction" while the sexual act of homosexuality would be more closely related to same-sex relationships.

    Even with the desire, you need to be careful. When I was a teenager, I was taught that if someone truly loved you, they would not want to have premarital sex. They said that the desire to have pre-marital sex was in nature selfish, because it wanted something without waiting or commitment.

    So if a heterosexual teenager desires straight sex, it could very well be interpreted as a selfish desire. Does that mean heterosexuality is caused by selfishness? No. Elder Packer has taught that any desire to do that which is contrary to God's will can be traced back to selfishness.

    It just seems you are trying to map Mormon vocabulary onto worldly vocabulary in a way that will make Mormonism look as bad as possible.

    ReplyDelete
  14. @Peculiar light-

    I appreciate your points, as usual. I think you're right that it is not clear that I have not confused terms or definitions. I agree that it is hard to know for sure what meaning or understanding is intended when certain words are used by an individual speaker in a particular context.

    It may well be that I have misanalyzed how or whether certain quotes address the question of the causation of homosexual orientation. My disclaimer in the book immediately before the quotes/table section reads:

    "To construct the revelation-based LDS view on the causation of HO, I will cite approximately 60 statements by church leaders (I count 48 from those sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators) over the years that could reasonably be interpreted to bear on the question of the causation of homosexual orientation. To avoid the potential of casting an unfavorable light on any particular church authority I have evidenced authorship in the endnotes rather than in-text. This construction will be difficult since it seems that sometimes terms such as homosexuality and perversion refer to either {homosexual behavior + homosexual orientation}, homosexual orientation, or just homosexual behavior. I will leave it to the reader to discriminate how the terms are used, since I struggle. I remind the reader that statements which bear on only homosexual behavior are outside the narrow scope of this chapter."

    As to the implausibility of attributing Kimball's causation statements to homosexual orientation, I would rebut your claim that he "always referred to it as 'a sexual act.'" A few examples from his writings:

    - 'In the event that you have members who have homosexual tendencies or activities, it will be your privilege and responsibility to assist them...'
    - 'The entrenched homosexual has generally and gradually moved all of his interests and affections to those of his own sex rather than to the opposite sex...'
    - 'If they will close the door to the intimate associations with their own sex and open it wide to that of the other sex, of course in total propriety, and then be patient and determined, gradually they can move their romantic interests...'
    - et cetera

    Interests, affections, and tendencies don't sound like acts, especially when they are listed in the same sentence or paragraph in addition to acts.

    (as an aside, I'd be interested to see the statement you reference about overcoming homosexuality but still having homosexual desires.)

    To conclude, some of his statements are not clearly statements on the causation of homosexual orientation. However, it is not clear that he spoke only of homosexual conduct when he referred to causative factors, including homosexual conduct.

    I acknowledge that it seems to you that I'm trying to map Mormon vocal onto worldly vocab in a way that will make Mormonism as bad as possible.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Thanks Brad,

    I appreciate you taking the time to address my concerns.

    President Kimball referred to homosexuality always as a "sexual act", and defined it as such. I would also argue that he used homosexual as one who practiced the sexual act of homosexuality.

    As you pointed out earlier, most people who have gay sex are attracted to the same sex. Saying homosexuals are attracted to the same sex does not mean he defines homosexuals to be anyone who is attracted to the same sex. The second comment could just as well be:

    "The entrenched ''person who has gay sex'' has generally and gradually moved all of his interests and affections to those of his own sex rather than to the opposite sex."

    The one I don't understand was addressing tendency, and then in the next sentence saying it was a practice. I don't know what the practice of homosexual tendencies means, but I don't suspect it means the same thing as it does today. Maybe he was talking about the tendency to have gay sex, which not everyone with same-sex attraction has. I doubt he was referring to the practice of having an enduring pattern of sexual interest. That concept wasn't even around when he spoke.

    That is my problem. The idea of HO is fairly new, yet you claim people were talking about it since the 1960s. Society just didn't view homosexuality that way back then.

    (As a side note the "entrenched homosexual" comment referred to a medical study he was quoting. It didn't originate from him.)

    This is what I was telling you about the cure:

    "In a few months, some have totally mastered themselves... We realize that the cure is no more permanent than the individual makes it so and is like the cure for alcoholism subject to continued vigilance."

    Curing alcoholism doesn't mean you think water tastes better than alcohol anymore than curing the practice of homosexuality means you think straight sex is better than gay sex. It means you abstain.

    If he were promoting a complete change in orientation (which is unlikely considering the concept didn't exist back then) as many critics claim, what would be the need for constant vigilance? Do you know of any complete heterosexuals who have to be constantly vigilant not to have gay sex?

    Your interpretation just doesn't make sense.

    ReplyDelete

Search This Blog