My presentation at the 2013 Mormon Transhumanist Association Conference, held 5 April in the Salt Lake City Public Library.
An earlier draft version of the paper version is here.
Thursday, May 2, 2013
LDS Transsexual Policy: A Critique
My presentation at the 2013 Mormon Transhumanist Association Conference, held 5 April in the Salt Lake City Public Library.
An earlier draft version of the paper version is here.
Saturday, April 20, 2013
American Philosophical Association: my presentation in San Francisco on 30 March 2013
The Mormon Transhumanist Association newsfeed published:
----------------
I give my piece at http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=7Sr1kcogOoE#t=5936s
Fabuloso conference, I loved it! Dale Carrico was nice to me too. He's the kind of guy I'd naturally be friends with: far from the monster others' reports had me fearing. :-)
Saturday, March 9, 2013
Marriage Equality: the debate goes on
An acquaintance of mine emailed me recently as part of his fundraiser for his trip to Washington to support traditional marriage:
We've been having a pleasant dialogue since. I wonder how many similar discussions are going on in the world right now.
I contributed to his campaign today. I look forward to his responses.
We've been having a pleasant dialogue since. I wonder how many similar discussions are going on in the world right now.
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 12:05 AM, Brad Carmack <bradleycarmack@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi ____!
Thanks for the invite below. Marching in Washington D.C. sounds like an exciting opportunity! I've advocated publicly for traditional marriage myself, via calling voters in Maine in 2009, and I also feel that the Prop 8 case is a very significant one.
I did want to ask though, if you wouldn't mind sharing, why you feel to support a traditional version of marriage rather than a more inclusive version, i.e. one that accommodates homosexual as well as heterosexual orientation. Since opposite-sex marriage is much more difficult an arrangement for gay people than same-sex marriage, some argue that a more inclusive marriage (that is to say, for gay people as well as straight people) helps to strengthen marriage by making marriage an expectation and opportunity for a larger portion of our community. Buttressed by traditional norms of caretaking and commitment, gay couples and their families arguably stand to gain from entering into marriages, just as their opposite-sex counterparts do.
Brad,
There are a couple of reasons I feel strongly that marriage should continue to be defined as between a man and a woman. The most important to me is my religious beliefs, of course.Thanks for responding! Great to hear from you. This is a very thoughtful question, and I appreciate you asking it because I think discussion on this issue is so important.
It makes sense to be candid about that, and I respect your acknowledgment of the fact. Many LDS members understandably take the same position for religious reasons. Some of them then go on to make secular arguments that they're not very serious about, as a pretext for why they truly take the position they do.
But since my religious beliefs don't matter to most people, there are a few secular reasons I believe this is the best policy as well. Most of them center around children. Research shows, and I believe strongly, that children do best when they have both a mother and a father.
What research do you refer to, and what does it mean to you to claim that research evidences children do best when they have both a mother and a father? I have heard this argument before, but as of yet it doesn't add up to me. If a man were to claim his junior high son is the best free throw shooter, certainly he would mean the best free throw shooter on his team, or in his district perhaps. He would not mean that his son is the best free throw shooter in the world, or the best free throw shooter possible: as soon as someone in the comparison group came along and demonstrated a higher shooting percentage, the father would have to admit his son is no longer the best out of whatever particular group he was comparing to.
Similarly, most research that compares family structures did not include same-sex couple households in their sample: and they certainly did not include married same-sex couple households, since historically there have been so few to study due to the lack of access to marriage for same-sex couples. Instead, comparisons were often made between married opposite-sex couple households, cohabiting opposite-sex couple households, and single parent households. Thus, that research cannot be used to compare opposite-sex couple families to same-sex couple families.
Those few studies that do include same-sex couple families suggest there is little difference in parenting outcomes when compared to opposite-sex couple families, or a slight increase in parenting outcomes if the parenting couple is a pair of women rather than a man and a woman.
Those few studies that do include same-sex couple families suggest there is little difference in parenting outcomes when compared to opposite-sex couple families, or a slight increase in parenting outcomes if the parenting couple is a pair of women rather than a man and a woman.
Legalizing gay marriage would almost without question lead to legalization of adoptive rights for gay and lesbian couples. Some argue that this would be better than leaving children in foster care or orphanages. Some also argue that gay couples are also more loving and caring than many heterosexual couples. I can definitely see their point on both of these counts.
That's fair: I think you're right to acknowledge that there are gay couples that are more loving and caring to children in their care than some heterosexual couples.
However, if our aim is to get children out of foster care or orphanages, or to increase kindness in the home, there are other ways to accomplish this goal than legalizing a type of union in society that can never hope to replicate the ideal situation of having both a mother and a father in the home.
Again, I would challenge your claim that a mother and a father is an ideal situation for children. If you presume the fact, then there is little use trying to prove it: if you claim that a particular family structure is ideal, how could any other family structure even have a chance of besting it? Also, if you wish to create better homes for children, why wouldn't you spend your limited resources advocating research-based drivers of parenting outcomes, such as (1) stable, (2) low-conflict, (3) dual parenting, (3) drug-free homes with (4) adequate, steady income? Those four factors account for much more of the variability in child welfare than the number of genders in the parenting couple. Importantly, marriage can contribute significantly to the first three factors: and given the immense number of children that are and will grow up in same-sex couple households regardless of the outcome of the marriage equality debate, it would be in their interest to have their same-sex couple parents married rather than not married.
Children do not have a voice in this debate, so we must speak up and explain what would be best for children and their development in society.
I would agree that children do not have a voice in this debate, but that fact does not mean that your position or its opposite is any more right than the other.Additionally, the legalization of gay marriage has shown in many cases to decrease religious freedom, as well as parental rights in education. Both of these concern me deeply as a religious person and as a parent.
Perhaps: but couldn't religious persons and parents who take the opposite position argue just as strongly in the opposite direction? A straight mother who believes in same-sex marriage claims the absence of gay marriage diminishes her parental right in education. A religious gay man says his religious freedom is decreased because gay marriage is not legal. What marginal argument from parental rights in education or religious freedom can be made against gay marriage, that can't be made against its absence?
These are just a few reasons. So feel free to ask additional questions if you'd like!
I contributed to his campaign today. I look forward to his responses.
Sunday, February 3, 2013
A Critique of the LDS Prop 8 Amicus Brief: "reliance interests" as the new rational basis for opposing same-sex marriage
"Von G Keetch: Counsel of Record."
Von Keetch's name is the first to appear on the LDS-led coalition amicus filed in support of the proponents of Proposition 8 in the SCOTUS case that will likely be decided this summer.
If you want to sue the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Von Keetch is your man.
He's also exceptionally competent and the best stake president I ever had, leading my BYU stake for three of the years I lived at the Alta Apartments. Below, I offer my licensed attorney's first blush responses to the brief Von filed with the Supreme Court of the United States.
First,
I am fascinated by the alliance evidenced by this particular document: one part Southern Baptist Convention, two parts Evangelicals, one part LDS, and a few others (including a union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations). I find it significant that this ecumenical coalition, despite their differences, united on submitting this religious freedom-asserting opposition to same-sex marriage.
Second,
I confess that I find many reasonable arguments in both the analysis and the summary.
Third, I find that the brief does not fairly represent the diversity of views of same-sex marriage held by those that constitute the members of the participating entities:
Fourth, the amicus hid a few surprises. As the rational bases for supporting Prop 8 seem to have failed both the district and appellate level in the Ninth Circuit, the brief asserts two bases that, I think, are relatively novel:
"Proposition 8 is valid for additional reasons the court of appeals did not consider. Judged by conventional rational-basis review, Proposition 8 reasonably serves the legitimate ends of restoring the definition of marriage congruent with the people’s moral sense and protecting the substantial expectation and reliance interests of opposite-sex couples in the traditional institution of marriage. Each of these rationales independently satisfies the Equal Protection Clause."
These two are new to me. The latter is fairly easily toppled: the same argument could be made along the race dimension by racially matched couples before anti-miscegenation laws were declared unconstitutional in Loving. Picture white Jane and white John arguing that you can't define marriage to include black Sarah and white Joseph because Jane and John grew up expecting all marriages to be between partners of the same race. The amicus addresses this inconsistency:
"By 1967, if not long before, it was pellucidly clear that anti-miscegenation laws were antithetical to both the Fourteenth Amendment’s core prohibition on racial discrimination and the Nation’s highest moral values. Indeed, by then no credible voice defended such laws, as they were obviously just naked attempts “to maintain White Supremacy.” Id. at 11. Here, in contrast, there is no clearly established constitutional right to same-sex marriage and there are credible voices in politics, academia, and religion as well as leading members of the bench and bar defending the constitutionality and wisdom of traditional marriage."
I would point out that both slavery and anti-miscegenation enjoyed support from "credible voices in politics, academia, and religion as well as leading members of the bench and bar defending the constitutionality and wisdom of traditional marriage." Much of the amicus relies on a very strong appeal to tradition, a well-known logical fallacy which nonetheless is the basis for our precedence-leaning federal common law system. The reasons appeals to tradition fail are obvious: oppression of women and disenfranchisement of blacks, for instance, both enjoyed long recognition and moral approval but are both harshly and broadly condemned today.
We have no qualms about defining "citizen" to include women and people of African descent, even though at the time some citizenship laws were passed or upheld by judges, those demographics were not contemplated as part of the definition. Similarly, the brief's recitation of cases affirming marriage (for some reason, the brief repeatedly cites 19th century cases and references John Locke, Adam Smith, and David Hume) are unpersuasive in the context of a debate over what marriage legally is. Further, the existence of a clearly established right to same-sex marriage under Romer and Bowers is argued, and not as lacking as claimed.
Thus, we are brought back to square one: are marriage definitions that preclude same-sex couples antithetical to federal prohibitions against sex discrimination and the Nation's highest moral values? Let's see if the second newbie holds an answer to that question, rather than the mere appeal to two fallacies (popularity and authority, in this case) offered by the first basis.
On its face, restoring the definition of marriage congruent with the people’s moral sense appears a candidate reason that might be considered rational.
"Proposition 8 Recovers a Definition of Marriage That Is Congruent with the Values of California Voters and Thus More Likely to Sustain the Institution of Marriage. Enacting Proposition 8 recovered the meaning of marriage that is most consistent with the value choices or moral sense of California voters."
Because the CA supreme court recognized same-sex marriages shortly before Prop 8's passage, the word recovered does some appropriate. Yes, the meaning of marriage was changed away from the man-woman only meaning that most held precedent to the court's decision. Yes, the recovery was most consistent with the moral sense of CA voters, as the majority voted in favor of the Proposition. I suppose the same basis could be posited in favor of an anti-miscegenation Proposition, had a CA court similarly began recognizing racially-mixed marriages and the majority of CA voters voted in favor of such a positions. However, aside from that rebuttal, the basis strikes me as rational.
Fifth,
I notice that the brief somewhat ironically notes how little treatment the subject of homosexuality receives in church.
"Our faiths uphold the virtues of marriage and family life through teachings and rituals that seldom mention homosexuality."
From my perspective, this fact leads naturally to the conclusion that the LDS Church should naturally embrace same-sex marriage, as the anatomy of the two partners bears no necessary impact on the spiritual aspect of their union, commitment, and household. The brief's recitation of "We are among the “many religions [that] recognize marriage as having spiritual significance,” Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 96 (1987), indeed as being truly “sacred,” Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965)" is consistent with a same-sex marriage-embracing approach.
Sixth,
I detect an unfair depiction that is weaved through several portions of the brief.
I don't think heterosexist marriage is more focused on societal and children's needs than a sex-neutral construction. Nor would man-woman-only marriage be less focused on the desires of the couple. As Judge Walker pointed out, marriage has long been recognized as the forming of a household by two adults: and a same-sex household is neither more nor less structured to the needs of children than is an opposite-sex one. The old "homosexual relationships are selfish and heterosexual ones are focused on children" argument never made sense to me. There are fertile and infertile opposite-sex marriages that are averse or abusive to children, and same-sex ones that are very welcoming of the same. Similarly, there is no structural aspect of the relationship that is more or less focused on the desires of the couple. The reasoning here is a head-scratcher for me.
Conclusion
I conclude that I'd like to read some more analyses. :-) What have others said about the brief?
Von Keetch's name is the first to appear on the LDS-led coalition amicus filed in support of the proponents of Proposition 8 in the SCOTUS case that will likely be decided this summer.
He's also exceptionally competent and the best stake president I ever had, leading my BYU stake for three of the years I lived at the Alta Apartments. Below, I offer my licensed attorney's first blush responses to the brief Von filed with the Supreme Court of the United States.
First,
I am fascinated by the alliance evidenced by this particular document: one part Southern Baptist Convention, two parts Evangelicals, one part LDS, and a few others (including a union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations). I find it significant that this ecumenical coalition, despite their differences, united on submitting this religious freedom-asserting opposition to same-sex marriage.
Second,
I confess that I find many reasonable arguments in both the analysis and the summary.
- No law is invalid when it “merely happens to coincide or harmonize with the tenets of some or all religions.” McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 442 (1961).
- And whatever the failings (past or present) of individuals within our faith communities, we are united in condemning hatred and mistreatment of homosexuals.
- Holding Proposition 8 void because of its religious support would fly in the face of this Court’s teaching that the Constitution “does not license government to treat religion and those who teach or practice it, simply by virtue of their status as such, as subversive of American ideals and therefore subject to unique dis- abilities.” Mergens, 496 U.S. at 248 (quoting McDaniel v. Paty, 435 U.S. 618, 641 (1978)
- That Proposition 8 was supported by some religious voters or is in harmony with some religious views is constitutionally irrelevant.
Third, I find that the brief does not fairly represent the diversity of views of same-sex marriage held by those that constitute the members of the participating entities:
- Tens of millions of Americans are represented in the diverse group of faith communities that join in this brief. Despite their theological differences, these communities are united in declaring that the tradi- tional institution of marriage is essential to the welfare of the American family and society. This brief is submitted out of a shared conviction..."
- "Yet for us and our members, traditional marriage is also indispensable to the material welfare of children, families, society, and our republican form of government."
Fourth, the amicus hid a few surprises. As the rational bases for supporting Prop 8 seem to have failed both the district and appellate level in the Ninth Circuit, the brief asserts two bases that, I think, are relatively novel:
"Proposition 8 is valid for additional reasons the court of appeals did not consider. Judged by conventional rational-basis review, Proposition 8 reasonably serves the legitimate ends of restoring the definition of marriage congruent with the people’s moral sense and protecting the substantial expectation and reliance interests of opposite-sex couples in the traditional institution of marriage. Each of these rationales independently satisfies the Equal Protection Clause."
These two are new to me. The latter is fairly easily toppled: the same argument could be made along the race dimension by racially matched couples before anti-miscegenation laws were declared unconstitutional in Loving. Picture white Jane and white John arguing that you can't define marriage to include black Sarah and white Joseph because Jane and John grew up expecting all marriages to be between partners of the same race. The amicus addresses this inconsistency:
"By 1967, if not long before, it was pellucidly clear that anti-miscegenation laws were antithetical to both the Fourteenth Amendment’s core prohibition on racial discrimination and the Nation’s highest moral values. Indeed, by then no credible voice defended such laws, as they were obviously just naked attempts “to maintain White Supremacy.” Id. at 11. Here, in contrast, there is no clearly established constitutional right to same-sex marriage and there are credible voices in politics, academia, and religion as well as leading members of the bench and bar defending the constitutionality and wisdom of traditional marriage."
I would point out that both slavery and anti-miscegenation enjoyed support from "credible voices in politics, academia, and religion as well as leading members of the bench and bar defending the constitutionality and wisdom of traditional marriage." Much of the amicus relies on a very strong appeal to tradition, a well-known logical fallacy which nonetheless is the basis for our precedence-leaning federal common law system. The reasons appeals to tradition fail are obvious: oppression of women and disenfranchisement of blacks, for instance, both enjoyed long recognition and moral approval but are both harshly and broadly condemned today.
We have no qualms about defining "citizen" to include women and people of African descent, even though at the time some citizenship laws were passed or upheld by judges, those demographics were not contemplated as part of the definition. Similarly, the brief's recitation of cases affirming marriage (for some reason, the brief repeatedly cites 19th century cases and references John Locke, Adam Smith, and David Hume) are unpersuasive in the context of a debate over what marriage legally is. Further, the existence of a clearly established right to same-sex marriage under Romer and Bowers is argued, and not as lacking as claimed.
Thus, we are brought back to square one: are marriage definitions that preclude same-sex couples antithetical to federal prohibitions against sex discrimination and the Nation's highest moral values? Let's see if the second newbie holds an answer to that question, rather than the mere appeal to two fallacies (popularity and authority, in this case) offered by the first basis.
On its face, restoring the definition of marriage congruent with the people’s moral sense appears a candidate reason that might be considered rational.
"Proposition 8 Recovers a Definition of Marriage That Is Congruent with the Values of California Voters and Thus More Likely to Sustain the Institution of Marriage. Enacting Proposition 8 recovered the meaning of marriage that is most consistent with the value choices or moral sense of California voters."
Because the CA supreme court recognized same-sex marriages shortly before Prop 8's passage, the word recovered does some appropriate. Yes, the meaning of marriage was changed away from the man-woman only meaning that most held precedent to the court's decision. Yes, the recovery was most consistent with the moral sense of CA voters, as the majority voted in favor of the Proposition. I suppose the same basis could be posited in favor of an anti-miscegenation Proposition, had a CA court similarly began recognizing racially-mixed marriages and the majority of CA voters voted in favor of such a positions. However, aside from that rebuttal, the basis strikes me as rational.
Fifth,
I notice that the brief somewhat ironically notes how little treatment the subject of homosexuality receives in church.
"Our faiths uphold the virtues of marriage and family life through teachings and rituals that seldom mention homosexuality."
From my perspective, this fact leads naturally to the conclusion that the LDS Church should naturally embrace same-sex marriage, as the anatomy of the two partners bears no necessary impact on the spiritual aspect of their union, commitment, and household. The brief's recitation of "We are among the “many religions [that] recognize marriage as having spiritual significance,” Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 96 (1987), indeed as being truly “sacred,” Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965)" is consistent with a same-sex marriage-embracing approach.
Sixth,
I detect an unfair depiction that is weaved through several portions of the brief.
Conclusion
I conclude that I'd like to read some more analyses. :-) What have others said about the brief?
Sunday, January 20, 2013
"Bishop's Guide: Same-Sex Attraction" - my take
The Church just published online a resource entitled "Bishop's Guide: Same-Sex Attraction." Below is my Facebook comment responding to the same, which I also submitted to the site under my own name as feedback.
There's a lot to like. For instance, the emphasis on "expressing love
and acceptance to the individual is an important step to minister to
him/her" is appropriately central. Also, placing primacy on the "seek to
understand" step is productive.
The downsides, however, are many. As Edward pointed out, several old and largely counterproductive myths are underscored, such as (a) the positive correlation between loneliness/rejection and the strength of homosexual feelings, (b) the utility of avoiding triggers, (c) the relationship between lack of emotional connection and homosexual feelings, and (d) a connection between homosexual orientation and addiction, abuse, or emotional health.
The additional resources links also in many cases provide tired, inaccurate anecdotes which:
- compare homosexual orientation to "alcohol, tobacco, pornography, gambling, or other serious sins." In addition to failing to distinguish between temptations and actions, this depiction grossly misrepresents the value of same-sex romantic relationships
- repeatedly depict homosexual orientation as a "problem," "burden," "trial of faith," or "challenge." E.g. "many of us are developing spiritual muscles through the calisthenics of adversity. This is a fight that can forge a profound closeness with Heavenly Father and the Savior because victory hinges on our ability to rely on Them completely."
- fail to use terms such as "gay" and "homosexual orientation," opting instead for the "same-sex attraction" phrase that fails to match the permanence, depth, or centrality to identity that most homosexuals (and their heterosexual counterparts, myself included) would ascribe to their sexual orientation
- inappropriately burden homosexuals with the unrealistic and unhealthy expectation that they fight same-sex sexual fantasies (" we still have the power to resist and reform our feelings (as needed) and to assure that they do not lead us to entertain inappropriate thoughts"). Though extreme frequency of sexual fantasizing can become as a mental issue, for the majority of naturally sexual people this type of expectation has caused and will continue to cause unneeded and regrettable distress.
- suggests "victory," "overcoming same-sex attractions," "battle," and "healing" to those who are righteous enough, a pernicious idea that has caused untold damage to thousands of gay Mormons over the past 4 decades
- advises a host of unhealthy responses to homosexual orientation, including in addition to those above isolation from those with more positive views about the value of same-sex romantic relationships and, incredibly, quitting your job ("I urge you to distance yourself from those who see nothing wrong with same-sex attraction. Avoid places frequented by those who are involved in this lifestyle. Quit your job if need be. This is a battle for your eternal exaltation—and battle is a fitting word.")
- sidesteps the majority experience by highlighting minority cases, such as successful mixed-orientation marriages where the gay spouse feels diminished homosexual attraction.
"I found that my burden had been lifted sufficiently to pursue marriage. My struggle with same-sex attraction rarely comes up these days. She knows of my challenge—something I still face from time to time but am able to manage—but it doesn’t define our relationship. " Also,
"I know some people who struggle with same-sex attraction experience the burden being lifted entirely; they’re able to overcome it. That’s not the case for me. I still struggle with emotions or thoughts from time to time, and it takes strength and energy to manage them. I also know people who may not have the blessing of having it somewhat alleviated, as I have. I don’t know why people face challenges—this one or any other—with such different outcomes, but I do know that our God is not a cruel god. And I know that obedience brings peace."
Obedience in the form of avoiding same-sex romance has not brought peace to countless gay Mormons who, unsurprisingly, find celibacy or mixed-orientation relationships anything but peaceful. Would the majority of us (i.e. the straights, myself included) expect to find peace if we avoided all romantic and sexual relationships with a member of the opposite sex?
- repeatedly suggest that dating and marriage can or should be pursued when same-sex attractions are sufficiently diminished (the latter being an independently problematic proposition)
"I hope to one day sufficiently curb my attractions to make the first tenuous steps toward dating" also,
"'Marriage should not be viewed as a therapeutic step to solve problems such as homosexual inclinations or practices, which first should clearly be overcome with a firm and fixed determination never to slip into such practices again.' The ability of individuals with same-sex desires to date and marry depends on their progress made with the Lord’s help in overcoming these attractions—an effort that is neither easy nor quick."
- perpetuates the twin, false/unfounded, and insidious propositions that
(1) sufficient faith and effort has resulted, for many, in overcoming homosexual orientation, and
(2) gay Mormons should focus on the next life, at which point they will be made straight and can then be a spouse in a straight, opposite-sex marriage.
"While many Latter-day Saints, through individual effort, the exercise of faith, and reliance upon the enabling power of the Atonement, overcome same-gender attraction in mortality, others may not be free of this challenge in this life. However, the perfect plan of our Father in Heaven makes provision for individuals who seek to keep His commandments but who, through no fault of their own, do not have an eternal marriage in mortal life. As we follow Heavenly Father’s plan, our bodies, feelings, and desires will be perfected in the next life so that every one of God’s children may find joy in a family consisting of a husband, a wife, and children."
It is difficult to imagine a teaching more conducive to suicidal ideation. Given (1) the centrality of man-woman marriage to God's plan, and (2) the practically non-existent odds of a gay person becoming straight in the next few decades of his/her life, it is unsurprising that a significant proportion of gay Mormons have considered, attempted, or succeeded at killing themselves.
Conclusion:
Besides contributing towards the continued push of gay Mormons towards the suicide ledge, I'd say the resource is a step in the right direction.
The downsides, however, are many. As Edward pointed out, several old and largely counterproductive myths are underscored, such as (a) the positive correlation between loneliness/rejection and the strength of homosexual feelings, (b) the utility of avoiding triggers, (c) the relationship between lack of emotional connection and homosexual feelings, and (d) a connection between homosexual orientation and addiction, abuse, or emotional health.
The additional resources links also in many cases provide tired, inaccurate anecdotes which:
- compare homosexual orientation to "alcohol, tobacco, pornography, gambling, or other serious sins." In addition to failing to distinguish between temptations and actions, this depiction grossly misrepresents the value of same-sex romantic relationships
- repeatedly depict homosexual orientation as a "problem," "burden," "trial of faith," or "challenge." E.g. "many of us are developing spiritual muscles through the calisthenics of adversity. This is a fight that can forge a profound closeness with Heavenly Father and the Savior because victory hinges on our ability to rely on Them completely."
- fail to use terms such as "gay" and "homosexual orientation," opting instead for the "same-sex attraction" phrase that fails to match the permanence, depth, or centrality to identity that most homosexuals (and their heterosexual counterparts, myself included) would ascribe to their sexual orientation
- inappropriately burden homosexuals with the unrealistic and unhealthy expectation that they fight same-sex sexual fantasies (" we still have the power to resist and reform our feelings (as needed) and to assure that they do not lead us to entertain inappropriate thoughts"). Though extreme frequency of sexual fantasizing can become as a mental issue, for the majority of naturally sexual people this type of expectation has caused and will continue to cause unneeded and regrettable distress.
- suggests "victory," "overcoming same-sex attractions," "battle," and "healing" to those who are righteous enough, a pernicious idea that has caused untold damage to thousands of gay Mormons over the past 4 decades
- advises a host of unhealthy responses to homosexual orientation, including in addition to those above isolation from those with more positive views about the value of same-sex romantic relationships and, incredibly, quitting your job ("I urge you to distance yourself from those who see nothing wrong with same-sex attraction. Avoid places frequented by those who are involved in this lifestyle. Quit your job if need be. This is a battle for your eternal exaltation—and battle is a fitting word.")
- sidesteps the majority experience by highlighting minority cases, such as successful mixed-orientation marriages where the gay spouse feels diminished homosexual attraction.
"I found that my burden had been lifted sufficiently to pursue marriage. My struggle with same-sex attraction rarely comes up these days. She knows of my challenge—something I still face from time to time but am able to manage—but it doesn’t define our relationship. " Also,
"I know some people who struggle with same-sex attraction experience the burden being lifted entirely; they’re able to overcome it. That’s not the case for me. I still struggle with emotions or thoughts from time to time, and it takes strength and energy to manage them. I also know people who may not have the blessing of having it somewhat alleviated, as I have. I don’t know why people face challenges—this one or any other—with such different outcomes, but I do know that our God is not a cruel god. And I know that obedience brings peace."
Obedience in the form of avoiding same-sex romance has not brought peace to countless gay Mormons who, unsurprisingly, find celibacy or mixed-orientation relationships anything but peaceful. Would the majority of us (i.e. the straights, myself included) expect to find peace if we avoided all romantic and sexual relationships with a member of the opposite sex?
- repeatedly suggest that dating and marriage can or should be pursued when same-sex attractions are sufficiently diminished (the latter being an independently problematic proposition)
"I hope to one day sufficiently curb my attractions to make the first tenuous steps toward dating" also,
"'Marriage should not be viewed as a therapeutic step to solve problems such as homosexual inclinations or practices, which first should clearly be overcome with a firm and fixed determination never to slip into such practices again.' The ability of individuals with same-sex desires to date and marry depends on their progress made with the Lord’s help in overcoming these attractions—an effort that is neither easy nor quick."
- perpetuates the twin, false/unfounded, and insidious propositions that
(1) sufficient faith and effort has resulted, for many, in overcoming homosexual orientation, and
(2) gay Mormons should focus on the next life, at which point they will be made straight and can then be a spouse in a straight, opposite-sex marriage.
"While many Latter-day Saints, through individual effort, the exercise of faith, and reliance upon the enabling power of the Atonement, overcome same-gender attraction in mortality, others may not be free of this challenge in this life. However, the perfect plan of our Father in Heaven makes provision for individuals who seek to keep His commandments but who, through no fault of their own, do not have an eternal marriage in mortal life. As we follow Heavenly Father’s plan, our bodies, feelings, and desires will be perfected in the next life so that every one of God’s children may find joy in a family consisting of a husband, a wife, and children."
It is difficult to imagine a teaching more conducive to suicidal ideation. Given (1) the centrality of man-woman marriage to God's plan, and (2) the practically non-existent odds of a gay person becoming straight in the next few decades of his/her life, it is unsurprising that a significant proportion of gay Mormons have considered, attempted, or succeeded at killing themselves.
Conclusion:
Besides contributing towards the continued push of gay Mormons towards the suicide ledge, I'd say the resource is a step in the right direction.
Saturday, December 22, 2012
BYU's Student Review published my response to "LDS Church launches site on homosexuality"
By request, I reproduce my comment responding to the 7 December BYU Student Review article, LDS Church launches site on homosexuality.
"I deeply appreciated official comments from both Elder Oaks:
“what is changing and what needs to change is to help our own members and families understand how to deal with same gender attraction.”
and Elder Christofferson:
“Our only real hope in addressing these very sensitive and difficult issues is that we are civil and listen to one another and try to understand.”
Their comments reflect a commitment to empathy that we would all do well to adopt. Saying “One thing that’s always important is to recognize the feelings of a person, that they are real, that they are authentic, that we don’t deny that someone feels a certain way” reflects a connection to the lived experiences of gay Mormons. Last, emphasizing the theme of “stay with us” serves as an important reminder to LGBT members of the love and concern Church members and leaders have for LGBT Mormons.
However, Elder Christofferson and Elder Oaks missed two very crucial points: (1) the value of romantic homosexual relationships, and (2) the moral equivalence of same-sex and opposite-sex romantic relationships.
At one point, Elder Christofferson states that homosexual behavior “can never be anything but transgression.” I wonder exactly what would he would classify as homosexual behavior, out of this list?
-Getting up early to make breakfast for your partner, even though you hate early mornings
-Staying home from work, even though there’s an important deliverable, because your partner is sick
-Having sex with your partner
-Sending your partner flowers at work
-Scrubbing the toilet, even though it’s not your favorite, because you know your partner likes things clean
-Waiting at the halfway mark with a “Go Christy” sign at her marathon
All of these are homosexual behaviors, just as their equivalents are all heterosexual behaviors. To reduce one’s romantic relationships to genital contact is akin to equating marriage as nothing more than the sum of sexual interactions between the spouses. This failure to grasp the value of homosexual behavior is the most glaring flaw in Elder Christofferson’s remarks. Romantic homosexual relationships, like romantic heterosexual relationships, add incredible value to the lives of the gay people who constitute them and to society generally.
In addition to failing to acknowledge the value of homosexual relationships of themselves, both Elder Oaks and Elder Christofferson fail to acknowledge the moral equivalence of same-sex and opposite-sex romantic relationships. Empirically, the outcomes of these relationships are equivalent: but our scriptures additionally teach us that all are alike unto God, male and female. There is no revealed test in the standard works which tells us how to tell a spiritual male from a spiritual female; instead we presumptively rely on a man-made Outward Appearance Test that in turn depends on the external length of a person’s genital tubercle at birth. (By the way: the clitoris and penis are about the same length: one is just bifurcated and largely internal, the other merged and external).
Is our theology really shallow enough that it draws conclusions about spiritual attributes (sex) based on body shape (genitals), as it once drew conclusions about spiritual attributes (pre-mortal valiance) based on body color (black skin)? It is high time to depart from these onerous “philosophies of anatomy, mingled with scripture” and acknowledge the equality of all people before God.
In addition to being incapable of dealing with the reality of intersexed persons, Elder Oaks and Elder Christofferson’s adherence to the biological category of sex fails to recognize that _how_ two romantic partners treat one another is far more morally significant than the number of penises in the couple."
"I deeply appreciated official comments from both Elder Oaks:
“what is changing and what needs to change is to help our own members and families understand how to deal with same gender attraction.”
and Elder Christofferson:
“Our only real hope in addressing these very sensitive and difficult issues is that we are civil and listen to one another and try to understand.”
Their comments reflect a commitment to empathy that we would all do well to adopt. Saying “One thing that’s always important is to recognize the feelings of a person, that they are real, that they are authentic, that we don’t deny that someone feels a certain way” reflects a connection to the lived experiences of gay Mormons. Last, emphasizing the theme of “stay with us” serves as an important reminder to LGBT members of the love and concern Church members and leaders have for LGBT Mormons.
However, Elder Christofferson and Elder Oaks missed two very crucial points: (1) the value of romantic homosexual relationships, and (2) the moral equivalence of same-sex and opposite-sex romantic relationships.
At one point, Elder Christofferson states that homosexual behavior “can never be anything but transgression.” I wonder exactly what would he would classify as homosexual behavior, out of this list?
-Getting up early to make breakfast for your partner, even though you hate early mornings
-Staying home from work, even though there’s an important deliverable, because your partner is sick
-Having sex with your partner
-Sending your partner flowers at work
-Scrubbing the toilet, even though it’s not your favorite, because you know your partner likes things clean
-Waiting at the halfway mark with a “Go Christy” sign at her marathon
All of these are homosexual behaviors, just as their equivalents are all heterosexual behaviors. To reduce one’s romantic relationships to genital contact is akin to equating marriage as nothing more than the sum of sexual interactions between the spouses. This failure to grasp the value of homosexual behavior is the most glaring flaw in Elder Christofferson’s remarks. Romantic homosexual relationships, like romantic heterosexual relationships, add incredible value to the lives of the gay people who constitute them and to society generally.
In addition to failing to acknowledge the value of homosexual relationships of themselves, both Elder Oaks and Elder Christofferson fail to acknowledge the moral equivalence of same-sex and opposite-sex romantic relationships. Empirically, the outcomes of these relationships are equivalent: but our scriptures additionally teach us that all are alike unto God, male and female. There is no revealed test in the standard works which tells us how to tell a spiritual male from a spiritual female; instead we presumptively rely on a man-made Outward Appearance Test that in turn depends on the external length of a person’s genital tubercle at birth. (By the way: the clitoris and penis are about the same length: one is just bifurcated and largely internal, the other merged and external).
Is our theology really shallow enough that it draws conclusions about spiritual attributes (sex) based on body shape (genitals), as it once drew conclusions about spiritual attributes (pre-mortal valiance) based on body color (black skin)? It is high time to depart from these onerous “philosophies of anatomy, mingled with scripture” and acknowledge the equality of all people before God.
In addition to being incapable of dealing with the reality of intersexed persons, Elder Oaks and Elder Christofferson’s adherence to the biological category of sex fails to recognize that _how_ two romantic partners treat one another is far more morally significant than the number of penises in the couple."
Saturday, December 15, 2012
The new mormonsandgays.org site: more paint, less corner
I first heard of http://www.mormonsandgays.org/ (Published 6 December) from my friend in Washington, DC. Commentary on Facebook and elsewhere buzzed over the subsequent week.
I made a point, however, of avoiding the reviews. Initially, I want to evaluate it myself before I read others' analysis.
I will organize my analysis thus:
1. Content2. Conclusions
1. Content
Before we get into the statements from Elders Oaks and Christofferson, let's address some text on the landing page:
"The Church’s approach to this issue stands apart from society in many ways.
Perhaps. Certainly, many other religious components of society take a very similar approach; society is far from monolithic on this issue. This appeal to the common Us v. "the world" (e.g. the world would have you drink; We think differently) fails for the same three reasons. (1) the world has no consensus on almost any issue, (2) Us is part of "the world," and (3) frequently, components of the world take a similar approach.
And that’s alright. Reasonable people can and do differ.
Seems a fair, disarming statement. 10 points for Gryffindor.
From a public relations perspective it would be easier for the Church to simply accept homosexual behavior.
That may be true. Accepting homosexual behavior would not be costless: the flip-flopper penalty would be significant. However, on balance, the credibility tax it currently pays is far higher.
That we cannot do, for God’s law is not ours to change.
I'm not convinced. There is absolutely scriptural precedent for wrestling with the Lord to change His dictates (e.g. the OT king who bargained for life extension, or the prophet who negotiated amnesty "for the sake of 10"). Certainly, at least, we have some influence on the timing of God's pronouncements, if not their content: else what would be the use in praying? Has the lesson of Jehovah's "what do you propose" invitation to the Brother of Jared been lost on us?
Now, I would agree that seeking revelatory guidance would be an appropriate precedent to accepting homosexual behavior. However, to perpetuate the idea that God's prophets and people are no more than relay points of top-down pronouncements is, I believe, discouraging of the very moral development we were placed here to pursue.
There is no change in the Church’s position of what is morally right. But what is changing — and what needs to change — is to help Church members respond sensitively and thoughtfully when they encounter same-sex attraction in their own families, among other Church members, or elsewhere."
Now that I agree with. Far too many Church members fail to respond sensitively and thoughtfully when encountering gay people in their communities. Church leaders themselves bear some of the responsibility of that failing: but nonetheless, the failure can and should be mitigated by Church members in their local interactions.
Oaks:
Same gender attraction presents many issues and questions in society at large. Much has been written (including by E. Oaks) about the choice of terms here: alternatives included homosexual behavior, homosexuality, homosexual orientation, and same sex attraction. I'll table this debate (which I tackle in my book, Homosexuality: a Straight BYU Student's Perspective) though to address other portions.
These include what causes it, whether it is subject to change in kind or degree, and whether, or the extent of which, laws like marriage should accommodate it. Our discussion is limited to two related questions we sometimes hear in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. What does our doctrine teach us about how family members and church members should treat one another when one of their members is struggling with some of these issues, and how can we help members of the church who struggle with same-gender attractions, but want to remain active and fully engaged in the church?
I've always appreciated Elder Oaks's structured, scope-defined addresses. Good work.
Much has also been written on describing homosexual individuals as "struggling." In LDS discourse, struggling is typically a euphemism for failing, and is always negative. Many homosexual individuals bristle at this: "do you 'struggle' with your heterosexuality?" they might ask. Those who do not consider themselves broken are not in the market for a fix.
Only a conclusion that homosexual relationships are inferior to heterosexual ones (or that a heterosexual orientation is superior to a homosexual one) would unerringly couple the word struggle with same gender attraction.
This same topic was discussed with all of the general authorities of the church in April of 2012.
Oh, the money I would have paid to listen in on that. Was it really a discussion? How many people weighed in?
We will not discuss any of the multitude of other issues and questions. There is so much we don’t understand about this subject, that we’d do well to stay close to what we know from the revealed word of God. What we do know is that the doctrine of the church, that sexual activity should only occur between a man and a woman who are married, has not changed and is not changing.
A consistent stance, to be sure. Except for the fact the standard used to be between a man and several women, but we'll give a pass on that for now.
Backing away from certainty on the multitude of other issues and questions (e.g. cause and cure) is a refreshing change, and only about a decade or so old. I compiled a list of over 60 statements from church leaders over the past 7 decades on the causes of homosexuality: retreating from claiming to know the answers to those other issues is a change, but a welcome one and one that leaves space for future pronouncements.
But what is changing and what needs to change is to help our own members and families understand how to deal with same gender attraction.
Amen, as mentioned above.
Elder Christofferson:
A worthy aim, to be sure.
You’ll see in these experiences that some people state what you could call the position of the Church – it coincides perfectly – and others not. But again they’re all very authentic, and as we listen to one other and strive to understand, things can only get better.
One of the things I like about what you see on this website is that people have hope.
Some have not always had hope, and they talk about how they keep hope in their lives, or bring it back if it’s been lost. To me one of the key things, one of the key messages that comes from these experiences, as well as from the teachings of the Church, is that we approach it all with patience, but remembering that the person who’s really striving, has the Savior in his or her life, has the gift of the Holy Ghost, the Comforter, has hope, has happiness, can live in a happy, hopeful way.
Certainly happy, hopeful approaches to life are preferable to despairing ones. Gryffindor is scoring points so far.
Ugh. How many does it take to make a large number? Using a conservative 3% estimate, 209 million people in the world are gay or lesbian, as are about a half million Mormons. There are on average about 14 per LDS congregation. But, every soul matters. Everyone is important. The Savior made that plain when he told the parable of leaving the 90 and 9 and going after the 1.
It's a bit more like leaving the 90 and 5 to go after the 5, once you throw in the bisexuals outside one standard deviation, but I get your point. In addition to the sakes of the 5 sheep, the institution's credibility is also at stake: getting marriage, family, and sexual morality right is hardly on the periphery of LDS practice. These matters are central to our theology.
And I believe it’s important, it’s crucial, frankly, if we’re going to be followers of Jesus Christ as we profess and strive to be, that we do minister to each other, every one, without exception.
I'm behind that. That ethic leads me (and many others) to embrace same-sex marriage both in and outside the Church, but at the least we agree on principle.
In another sense, though, the audience is universal. We’re not here dealing with therapy issues and individual treatments and things of that kind. What we’re talking about is how we relate to one another, how we preserve hope and understanding and love, and struggle together in some cases really. I mean, we’re giving meaning to struggle in the sense that we help each other through our challenges.
I suppose the same could be said by a prison warden to his prisoners who yearn to be free. Certainly we all want to help each other through our challenges: but if we are responsible for unnecessarily inflicting the very burden we offer help to lift, the offer risks appearing rather hollow.
This is a challenge, and all of us can understand that and can be empathetic about that because we all have a challenge.
Again, that is not necessarily true, as evidenced by the myriad gays (both in and out of the church) that do not perceive their sexual orientation as a challenge.
I heard it expressed once, someone said: “We all have a horse to tame.” And so same-sex attraction may be one, and something else with someone else.
Ugh again. The implications are that 1) homosexual orientation is somehow wild, unproductive, or useless, 2) homosexual orientation is tameable or can somehow be muffled or redirected into productive activity, and 3) those with homosexual orientation should try to muffle or redirect their orientation.
#1: Homosexual orientation is no more nor less useful than heterosexual orientation, and can be extremely valuable when it is applied in non-oppressive ways to build loving, romantic, erotic, and mutual-caretaking, consensual human relationships.
#2: Homosexual orientation, like heterosexual orientation, is for most people difficult if not impossible to redirect (e.g. towards another sex). It also, as a general rule, fiercely resists attempts to muffle.
#3: There are significant dangers to attempting to destroy or redirecting one's sexual orientation. Additionally, homosexual orientation opens up the potential for relationships of incredible value, e.g. with a beloved spouse, and are not of themselves undesirable.
But we can all appreciate, I think, that each of us face challenges in life, and this is a way for us to help each of us understand better a particular one that may not be so well known or a common experience.
Are we truly open to understanding the experience of homosexual orientation when we insist it is undesirable and a challenge to struggle with?
I disagree. I mapped out statements by Church leaders over the past 7 decades in exquisite detail in my book, and the Church's position has absolutely changed. For instance, Church leaders expounded the causes of homosexuality. Now, Elder Oaks and President Hinckley claim that we do not know the causes of homosexuality. That, my friend, is a distinct and documented change.
The doctrines that relate to human sexuality and gender are really central to our theology. And marriage between a man and a woman, and the families that come from those marriages – that’s all central to God’s plan and to the opportunities that He offers to us, here and hereafter.
Now this is fun. I wrote an entire book (Breaking the Patriarch Grip: an argument for governance equality through sacred disobedience) about this theology based on outward appearances. Did we learn nothing from our gross error about race? All are alike unto God, my friends: male and female, black and white, bond and free. As with race, we have no objective test to discern who is in and who is out. Sex, rather than being a binary, is a spectrum (a fact the postgender future will increasingly highlight). The assertion that each human body is embodies either male or female is all well and good: but we have no way to discern whether that is the case nor which sexed spirit inhabits a particular tabernacle.
Church members and leaders, like most people, rely on an Outward Appearance Test to bifurcate humanity. Not only does this approach assume (without merit) a correlation between physical and spiritual sex, it is (1) inconsistent (not everyone agrees by looking whether a person is male or female), (2) arbitrarily relies on the length of a person's genital tubercle, and (3) failes to account for intersexed persons (such as the reader of this post. Did you know, men, that you used to be both sexes, have ovarian tissue in your testicles, and at one point were on the default path to femalehood? And women, you too were bisexed at one point, have testicular tissue in your ovaries, and may in fact have an XY genotype?).
Church leaders' continued insistence on using the categories of male and female to restrict its governance and marriage practices will increasingly vitiate LDS credibility as more and more people abandon pre-critical notions of sex.
So homosexual behavior is contrary to those doctrines – has been, always will be – and can never be anything but transgression.
Elder C clearly oversteps his authority here. God retains the ability to change doctrine, and has exercised that right on numerous occasions in the past. An apostle in 2012 does not have the power to bind his successors, nor God himself, perpetually into the future.
Also, as mentioned above and detailed in my Why Mormonism Can Abide Gay Marriage presentation, the absence of a test for discerning spiritual sex allows us to frankly embrace a position towards marriage that is blind to the man-made category of biological sex.
Additionally, exactly what would Elder C classify as homosexual behavior, out of this list?
It’s something that deprives people of those highest expectations and possibilities that God has for us.
For a number of reasons, articulated in my Why Mormonism Can Abide Gay Marriage presentation, I simply disagree with this conclusion.
That being said, it’s important to remember a few things that people don’t always understand or remember. And that is that homosexual behavior is not the unforgiveable sin. The atonement and repentance can bring full forgiveness there, and peace. And secondly, I’d say though we don’t know everything we know enough to be able to say that same-sex attraction in and of itself is not a sin.
It is merciful to point that out; no doubt that one message alone will reduce much unneeded suffering.
The feeling, the desire is not classified the same as homosexual behavior itself. And the third point I would mention is that when people have those desires and same-sex attractions, our attitude is “stay with us.” I think that’s what God is saying “Stay with me.” And that’s what we want to say in the Church: “Stay with us.” Let’s work together on this and find friendship and commonality and brotherhood and sisterhood, here more than anywhere. It’s important that there be love, and that there be hope. Love is not to say acceptance or endorsement, but it is to say inclusion and not ostracism. We want to be with you and work together.
A positive and constructive message.
Good stuff.
There are examples of this among Church members, there are multiple examples. And though no one would say that it’s always easy, all of us are endeavoring to maintain those norms and keep our covenants, and we’re all in the same boat, in the same company, in that regard. So, I say there are many, relatively speaking, who are finding that success in their lives and that happiness.
True, but the variance is bounded. The majority of gays and lesbians don't find success in overcoming SSA, and many do not find fulfillment in coping with it, at least to the extent that means refraining from same-sex dating and romantic relationships, or entering opposite-sex romantic relationships.
You’ll see in some of these vignettes experiences that are recounted that people have found a diminishing of that same-sex attraction, almost to the point of vanishing, and others not at all.
Okay, but again if you're going to say there are multiple camps, might it not be appropriate to hint as to the size of those camps? As between to the two you indentify, one has a population far disproportionate to the other.
We don’t counsel people that heterosexual marriage is a panacea.
Thank Allah. Although some of your predecessors taught that very thing.
You’ll see in some of these experiences that are related on this site that it has been a successful experience in a few cases, or some have expressed the success they’ve found in marriage and in raising a family and in the joy and all that has filled out and blessed their lives as a consequence. But that, we know, is not always true.
:) Again, "not always" belies the more realistic statistic of "usually not." Additionally, Elder C does not even mention the option of marriage and raising a family in a same-sex relationship, an option, it turns out, many homosexuals prefer.
It’s not always successful. Sometimes it’s been even disastrous. So, we think it’s something that each person can evaluate and they can discuss, both with priesthood leaders and family and others, and make decisions. If the existence of a range of outcomes (e.g. successful to disastrous) of a particular option justifies individuals counseling with others and deciding, they why not apply that same logic to same-sex marriage? The outcomes of same-sex marriages similarly vary from successful to disastrous (though I suspect, as rated by the spouses themselves, same-sex marriages will come in as being, on average, less disastrous that mixed-orientation opposite-sex ones).But we simply don’t take a uniform position of saying “yes” always or “no” always.
! Then do the same thing for same-sex marriage!
One thing we want to stress is that this is but one aspect of any person’s life, and it need not become the consuming aspect of his or her life.
Is your marriage, Elder C, merely "one aspect" of your life? The nexus between one's sexual orientation and one's romantic partner is not a loose one. For those that centrally value their romantic relationship, sexual orientation is not a tangential matter.
One thing that’s always important is to recognize the feelings of a person, that they are real, that they are authentic, that we don’t deny that someone feels a certain way. We take the reality where it is, and we go from there.
That's progressive language right there: relative to past apostolic dialogue on homosexuality.
And we want people to feel that they have a home here, that we have much, much more in common than anything that’s different about us.
Amen.
Some of the experiences that are related there talk about that in this website. And I believe it is crucial that we always continue to feel that, to express that, to acknowledge the reality of people’s feelings and circumstances, and go from there.
Awesome.
I think he's right on both scores.
And it’s important to have enough self control to lay all that aside and to have a little patience, and to begin to talk and begin to listen and begin to try to understand better.
I affirm.
We lose nothing by spending time together, by trying to understand, even where there’s not agreement on a course to follow at the moment or how to respond or how to react. We don’t have to do everything today. We don’t have to resolve everything in a month or a week or a year. These things are questions of resolution over time and accommodation over time and seeking the will of the Lord over time and guided by him over time. So, I hope we will give ourselves the time and have the patience to listen and understand and not insist on everything being resolved within a certain framework of time.
Seems wise enough.
Trouble! The immediate thought here is that Elohim is straight, so I have to become straight as well. Now, Elohim may have a thousand wives as well, but that doesn't mean a woman should look to wed an already married man, nor that a married man should nurture a non-monogamous orientation and try to marry a thousand wives right now. Elohim may have all his limbs, but that doesn't mean an amputee needs to take immediate action.
Sure, there is room to mature in our moral development: but none of our spirits are broken because of a present aspect of our bodies.And none of us are at that point. None of us have things, are free of things that we don’t need to change in our lives and to improve.
The context of this message is homosexual orientation. To suggest the need to change implies that gay people can change, and that they should change, their orientation to be like God's. Both implications cause more harm than help.
And the standard is always the gospel of Jesus Christ. And every one of us has to measure up to that standard because that’s where our ultimate happiness is going to be found. That’s where our ultimate freedom is going to come. And God being just and loving all of His Children is going to help everyone who wants to progress toward that ideal, whatever they may need to do in their lives to do that.
Again, without further clarification and given that the entire rest of this message addresses same-gender attraction, and that the identified timetable is this life, the promise that a just God will help gay people become straight is flat-out false. If that were true, the gates of despair would not be littered with the lives of thousands of gay Mormons that have broken themselves on that promise.
2. Conclusions
The website is progressive in many ways, especially in its acknowledgement of homosexual orientation and the insistence that Church members respond sensitively and thoughtfully to LGBT people.
What Elders Oaks and Christofferson fail to do, however, is create space for that thoughtful and sensitive response to include affirmation of same-sex marriage. They fail to identify the (1) value and (2) equivalence of same-sex romantic relationships relative to opposite-sex ones. They fail to articulate a test for discerning spiritual sex, a categorization they rely on for their moral conclusions. Glaringly, if their advice was taken, a half-million Mormons would either choose (1) lifelong celibacy or (2) risky mixed-orientation rather than (3) pursuing healthy same-sex romantic relationships. That these same leaders encourage the pursuit of healthy romantic relationships between straight opposite-sexed persons evidences a grave inequality.
Using words like "always will be" and "can never be anything but" transgression paints future leaders into a corner they can only escape by paying a heavy credibility tax (similar to that still being paid on the race and polygamy issues). In the meantime, the price of that increasingly untenable and unpopular position is the continued opportunity cost of gay mormons' same-sex relationships at the least, and additional unnecessary struggle and rejection at worst.
My conclusion in a phrase? More paint, less corner.
I made a point, however, of avoiding the reviews. Initially, I want to evaluate it myself before I read others' analysis.
I will organize my analysis thus:
1. Content2. Conclusions
1. Content
Before we get into the statements from Elders Oaks and Christofferson, let's address some text on the landing page:
"The Church’s approach to this issue stands apart from society in many ways.
Perhaps. Certainly, many other religious components of society take a very similar approach; society is far from monolithic on this issue. This appeal to the common Us v. "the world" (e.g. the world would have you drink; We think differently) fails for the same three reasons. (1) the world has no consensus on almost any issue, (2) Us is part of "the world," and (3) frequently, components of the world take a similar approach.
And that’s alright. Reasonable people can and do differ.
Seems a fair, disarming statement. 10 points for Gryffindor.
From a public relations perspective it would be easier for the Church to simply accept homosexual behavior.
That may be true. Accepting homosexual behavior would not be costless: the flip-flopper penalty would be significant. However, on balance, the credibility tax it currently pays is far higher.
That we cannot do, for God’s law is not ours to change.
I'm not convinced. There is absolutely scriptural precedent for wrestling with the Lord to change His dictates (e.g. the OT king who bargained for life extension, or the prophet who negotiated amnesty "for the sake of 10"). Certainly, at least, we have some influence on the timing of God's pronouncements, if not their content: else what would be the use in praying? Has the lesson of Jehovah's "what do you propose" invitation to the Brother of Jared been lost on us?
Now, I would agree that seeking revelatory guidance would be an appropriate precedent to accepting homosexual behavior. However, to perpetuate the idea that God's prophets and people are no more than relay points of top-down pronouncements is, I believe, discouraging of the very moral development we were placed here to pursue.
There is no change in the Church’s position of what is morally right. But what is changing — and what needs to change — is to help Church members respond sensitively and thoughtfully when they encounter same-sex attraction in their own families, among other Church members, or elsewhere."
Now that I agree with. Far too many Church members fail to respond sensitively and thoughtfully when encountering gay people in their communities. Church leaders themselves bear some of the responsibility of that failing: but nonetheless, the failure can and should be mitigated by Church members in their local interactions.
Oaks:
Same gender attraction presents many issues and questions in society at large. Much has been written (including by E. Oaks) about the choice of terms here: alternatives included homosexual behavior, homosexuality, homosexual orientation, and same sex attraction. I'll table this debate (which I tackle in my book, Homosexuality: a Straight BYU Student's Perspective) though to address other portions.
These include what causes it, whether it is subject to change in kind or degree, and whether, or the extent of which, laws like marriage should accommodate it. Our discussion is limited to two related questions we sometimes hear in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. What does our doctrine teach us about how family members and church members should treat one another when one of their members is struggling with some of these issues, and how can we help members of the church who struggle with same-gender attractions, but want to remain active and fully engaged in the church?
I've always appreciated Elder Oaks's structured, scope-defined addresses. Good work.
Much has also been written on describing homosexual individuals as "struggling." In LDS discourse, struggling is typically a euphemism for failing, and is always negative. Many homosexual individuals bristle at this: "do you 'struggle' with your heterosexuality?" they might ask. Those who do not consider themselves broken are not in the market for a fix.
Only a conclusion that homosexual relationships are inferior to heterosexual ones (or that a heterosexual orientation is superior to a homosexual one) would unerringly couple the word struggle with same gender attraction.
This same topic was discussed with all of the general authorities of the church in April of 2012.
Oh, the money I would have paid to listen in on that. Was it really a discussion? How many people weighed in?
We will not discuss any of the multitude of other issues and questions. There is so much we don’t understand about this subject, that we’d do well to stay close to what we know from the revealed word of God. What we do know is that the doctrine of the church, that sexual activity should only occur between a man and a woman who are married, has not changed and is not changing.
A consistent stance, to be sure. Except for the fact the standard used to be between a man and several women, but we'll give a pass on that for now.
Backing away from certainty on the multitude of other issues and questions (e.g. cause and cure) is a refreshing change, and only about a decade or so old. I compiled a list of over 60 statements from church leaders over the past 7 decades on the causes of homosexuality: retreating from claiming to know the answers to those other issues is a change, but a welcome one and one that leaves space for future pronouncements.
But what is changing and what needs to change is to help our own members and families understand how to deal with same gender attraction.
Amen, as mentioned above.
Elder Christofferson:
What is the purpose of this website?
We’re not endeavoring here to try to cover the waterfront and address every issue that could be, and needs to be, addressed in different settings relating to same-sex attraction. But the idea is to open us, all of us, to greater understanding. And you’ll hear stories, experiences from quite a diversity of people and backgrounds and perceptions. They’re genuine, they’re real, they’re authentic. And while you see some saying “this didn’t work” and “this did” and a progression in life, we feel that this can only lead to greater sensitivity and better understanding, and that’s what we’re about. Our only real hope in addressing these very sensitive and difficult issues is that we are civil and listen to one another and try to understand.A worthy aim, to be sure.
You’ll see in these experiences that some people state what you could call the position of the Church – it coincides perfectly – and others not. But again they’re all very authentic, and as we listen to one other and strive to understand, things can only get better.
One of the things I like about what you see on this website is that people have hope.
Some have not always had hope, and they talk about how they keep hope in their lives, or bring it back if it’s been lost. To me one of the key things, one of the key messages that comes from these experiences, as well as from the teachings of the Church, is that we approach it all with patience, but remembering that the person who’s really striving, has the Savior in his or her life, has the gift of the Holy Ghost, the Comforter, has hope, has happiness, can live in a happy, hopeful way.
Certainly happy, hopeful approaches to life are preferable to despairing ones. Gryffindor is scoring points so far.
What audience is the Church trying to reach?
We may not be talking about large numbers. In fact, we’re probably not.Ugh. How many does it take to make a large number? Using a conservative 3% estimate, 209 million people in the world are gay or lesbian, as are about a half million Mormons. There are on average about 14 per LDS congregation. But, every soul matters. Everyone is important. The Savior made that plain when he told the parable of leaving the 90 and 9 and going after the 1.
It's a bit more like leaving the 90 and 5 to go after the 5, once you throw in the bisexuals outside one standard deviation, but I get your point. In addition to the sakes of the 5 sheep, the institution's credibility is also at stake: getting marriage, family, and sexual morality right is hardly on the periphery of LDS practice. These matters are central to our theology.
And I believe it’s important, it’s crucial, frankly, if we’re going to be followers of Jesus Christ as we profess and strive to be, that we do minister to each other, every one, without exception.
I'm behind that. That ethic leads me (and many others) to embrace same-sex marriage both in and outside the Church, but at the least we agree on principle.
In another sense, though, the audience is universal. We’re not here dealing with therapy issues and individual treatments and things of that kind. What we’re talking about is how we relate to one another, how we preserve hope and understanding and love, and struggle together in some cases really. I mean, we’re giving meaning to struggle in the sense that we help each other through our challenges.
I suppose the same could be said by a prison warden to his prisoners who yearn to be free. Certainly we all want to help each other through our challenges: but if we are responsible for unnecessarily inflicting the very burden we offer help to lift, the offer risks appearing rather hollow.
This is a challenge, and all of us can understand that and can be empathetic about that because we all have a challenge.
Again, that is not necessarily true, as evidenced by the myriad gays (both in and out of the church) that do not perceive their sexual orientation as a challenge.
I heard it expressed once, someone said: “We all have a horse to tame.” And so same-sex attraction may be one, and something else with someone else.
Ugh again. The implications are that 1) homosexual orientation is somehow wild, unproductive, or useless, 2) homosexual orientation is tameable or can somehow be muffled or redirected into productive activity, and 3) those with homosexual orientation should try to muffle or redirect their orientation.
#1: Homosexual orientation is no more nor less useful than heterosexual orientation, and can be extremely valuable when it is applied in non-oppressive ways to build loving, romantic, erotic, and mutual-caretaking, consensual human relationships.
#2: Homosexual orientation, like heterosexual orientation, is for most people difficult if not impossible to redirect (e.g. towards another sex). It also, as a general rule, fiercely resists attempts to muffle.
#3: There are significant dangers to attempting to destroy or redirecting one's sexual orientation. Additionally, homosexual orientation opens up the potential for relationships of incredible value, e.g. with a beloved spouse, and are not of themselves undesirable.
But we can all appreciate, I think, that each of us face challenges in life, and this is a way for us to help each of us understand better a particular one that may not be so well known or a common experience.
Are we truly open to understanding the experience of homosexual orientation when we insist it is undesirable and a challenge to struggle with?
Is the Church softening its position regarding same sex attraction?
There shouldn’t be a perception or an expectation that the Church’s doctrines or position have changed or are changing. It’s simply not true, and we want youth and all people to understand that.I disagree. I mapped out statements by Church leaders over the past 7 decades in exquisite detail in my book, and the Church's position has absolutely changed. For instance, Church leaders expounded the causes of homosexuality. Now, Elder Oaks and President Hinckley claim that we do not know the causes of homosexuality. That, my friend, is a distinct and documented change.
The doctrines that relate to human sexuality and gender are really central to our theology. And marriage between a man and a woman, and the families that come from those marriages – that’s all central to God’s plan and to the opportunities that He offers to us, here and hereafter.
Church members and leaders, like most people, rely on an Outward Appearance Test to bifurcate humanity. Not only does this approach assume (without merit) a correlation between physical and spiritual sex, it is (1) inconsistent (not everyone agrees by looking whether a person is male or female), (2) arbitrarily relies on the length of a person's genital tubercle, and (3) failes to account for intersexed persons (such as the reader of this post. Did you know, men, that you used to be both sexes, have ovarian tissue in your testicles, and at one point were on the default path to femalehood? And women, you too were bisexed at one point, have testicular tissue in your ovaries, and may in fact have an XY genotype?).
Church leaders' continued insistence on using the categories of male and female to restrict its governance and marriage practices will increasingly vitiate LDS credibility as more and more people abandon pre-critical notions of sex.
So homosexual behavior is contrary to those doctrines – has been, always will be – and can never be anything but transgression.
Elder C clearly oversteps his authority here. God retains the ability to change doctrine, and has exercised that right on numerous occasions in the past. An apostle in 2012 does not have the power to bind his successors, nor God himself, perpetually into the future.
Also, as mentioned above and detailed in my Why Mormonism Can Abide Gay Marriage presentation, the absence of a test for discerning spiritual sex allows us to frankly embrace a position towards marriage that is blind to the man-made category of biological sex.
Additionally, exactly what would Elder C classify as homosexual behavior, out of this list?
- Getting up early to make breakfast for your partner, even though you hate early mornings
- Staying home from work, even though there's an important deliverable, because your partner is sick
- Having sex with your partner
- Sending your partner flowers at work
- Scrubbing the toilet, even though it's not your favorite, because you know your partner likes things clean
- Waiting at the halfway mark with a "Go Christy" sign at her marathon
It’s something that deprives people of those highest expectations and possibilities that God has for us.
For a number of reasons, articulated in my Why Mormonism Can Abide Gay Marriage presentation, I simply disagree with this conclusion.
That being said, it’s important to remember a few things that people don’t always understand or remember. And that is that homosexual behavior is not the unforgiveable sin. The atonement and repentance can bring full forgiveness there, and peace. And secondly, I’d say though we don’t know everything we know enough to be able to say that same-sex attraction in and of itself is not a sin.
It is merciful to point that out; no doubt that one message alone will reduce much unneeded suffering.
The feeling, the desire is not classified the same as homosexual behavior itself. And the third point I would mention is that when people have those desires and same-sex attractions, our attitude is “stay with us.” I think that’s what God is saying “Stay with me.” And that’s what we want to say in the Church: “Stay with us.” Let’s work together on this and find friendship and commonality and brotherhood and sisterhood, here more than anywhere. It’s important that there be love, and that there be hope. Love is not to say acceptance or endorsement, but it is to say inclusion and not ostracism. We want to be with you and work together.
A positive and constructive message.
Are there restrictions on Church participation?
Someone who is adhering to the norm of chastity, someone who is following the covenants and the standards, teachings of the gospel of Christ, though they may be dealing with same-sex attraction really there’s no reason they cannot be fully participative, that they can’t be a full-fledged member of the Church and hold callings and speak and enter the temple and serve there, and all the other opportunities and blessings that can come from Church membership will be available to them.Good stuff.
There are examples of this among Church members, there are multiple examples. And though no one would say that it’s always easy, all of us are endeavoring to maintain those norms and keep our covenants, and we’re all in the same boat, in the same company, in that regard. So, I say there are many, relatively speaking, who are finding that success in their lives and that happiness.
Should one be actively working to overcome same-sex attraction or just coping with it?
What a presumptuous question. There is a third and for most, superior option: neither. It’s difficult to say because each case is different, each person is different. Their circumstances will vary.True, but the variance is bounded. The majority of gays and lesbians don't find success in overcoming SSA, and many do not find fulfillment in coping with it, at least to the extent that means refraining from same-sex dating and romantic relationships, or entering opposite-sex romantic relationships.
You’ll see in some of these vignettes experiences that are recounted that people have found a diminishing of that same-sex attraction, almost to the point of vanishing, and others not at all.
Okay, but again if you're going to say there are multiple camps, might it not be appropriate to hint as to the size of those camps? As between to the two you indentify, one has a population far disproportionate to the other.
We don’t counsel people that heterosexual marriage is a panacea.
Thank Allah. Although some of your predecessors taught that very thing.
You’ll see in some of these experiences that are related on this site that it has been a successful experience in a few cases, or some have expressed the success they’ve found in marriage and in raising a family and in the joy and all that has filled out and blessed their lives as a consequence. But that, we know, is not always true.
:) Again, "not always" belies the more realistic statistic of "usually not." Additionally, Elder C does not even mention the option of marriage and raising a family in a same-sex relationship, an option, it turns out, many homosexuals prefer.
It’s not always successful. Sometimes it’s been even disastrous. So, we think it’s something that each person can evaluate and they can discuss, both with priesthood leaders and family and others, and make decisions. If the existence of a range of outcomes (e.g. successful to disastrous) of a particular option justifies individuals counseling with others and deciding, they why not apply that same logic to same-sex marriage? The outcomes of same-sex marriages similarly vary from successful to disastrous (though I suspect, as rated by the spouses themselves, same-sex marriages will come in as being, on average, less disastrous that mixed-orientation opposite-sex ones).But we simply don’t take a uniform position of saying “yes” always or “no” always.
! Then do the same thing for same-sex marriage!
One thing we want to stress is that this is but one aspect of any person’s life, and it need not become the consuming aspect of his or her life.
Is your marriage, Elder C, merely "one aspect" of your life? The nexus between one's sexual orientation and one's romantic partner is not a loose one. For those that centrally value their romantic relationship, sexual orientation is not a tangential matter.
One thing that’s always important is to recognize the feelings of a person, that they are real, that they are authentic, that we don’t deny that someone feels a certain way. We take the reality where it is, and we go from there.
That's progressive language right there: relative to past apostolic dialogue on homosexuality.
And we want people to feel that they have a home here, that we have much, much more in common than anything that’s different about us.
Amen.
Some of the experiences that are related there talk about that in this website. And I believe it is crucial that we always continue to feel that, to express that, to acknowledge the reality of people’s feelings and circumstances, and go from there.
Awesome.
History aside, what counsel can you provide to those who are afraid to approach their local leaders?
I can understand that there could have been a legitimate concern about the kind of reception one might find from a local priesthood leader in the past. But I’m convinced that today that there are so much more help and resources available to a bishop or a local priesthood leader. There’s greater understanding, there’s greater appreciation of the issues and how to help. We are training bishops; they have resources that they haven’t had in the past, that we haven’t been able to make available. There are resources online, there are resources in print. There’s just greater experience over time that has developed and accumulated. So, again, I say it’s really one of the very best first steps for one to take.Describe the ideal setting for discussing this important issue?
Initial reactions are critical. And the inclination, the temptation that people have often is anger or rejection. Sometimes it’s simply denial, on both sides of the question, whatever it may be.I think he's right on both scores.
And it’s important to have enough self control to lay all that aside and to have a little patience, and to begin to talk and begin to listen and begin to try to understand better.
I affirm.
We lose nothing by spending time together, by trying to understand, even where there’s not agreement on a course to follow at the moment or how to respond or how to react. We don’t have to do everything today. We don’t have to resolve everything in a month or a week or a year. These things are questions of resolution over time and accommodation over time and seeking the will of the Lord over time and guided by him over time. So, I hope we will give ourselves the time and have the patience to listen and understand and not insist on everything being resolved within a certain framework of time.
Seems wise enough.
Why doesn’t the Church just let people be?
This is a gospel of change. Jesus Christ is asking every one of us to change, and to become better and to progress and to follow in his footsteps. His ultimate commandment is that we become as He is and as His father.Trouble! The immediate thought here is that Elohim is straight, so I have to become straight as well. Now, Elohim may have a thousand wives as well, but that doesn't mean a woman should look to wed an already married man, nor that a married man should nurture a non-monogamous orientation and try to marry a thousand wives right now. Elohim may have all his limbs, but that doesn't mean an amputee needs to take immediate action.
Sure, there is room to mature in our moral development: but none of our spirits are broken because of a present aspect of our bodies.And none of us are at that point. None of us have things, are free of things that we don’t need to change in our lives and to improve.
The context of this message is homosexual orientation. To suggest the need to change implies that gay people can change, and that they should change, their orientation to be like God's. Both implications cause more harm than help.
And the standard is always the gospel of Jesus Christ. And every one of us has to measure up to that standard because that’s where our ultimate happiness is going to be found. That’s where our ultimate freedom is going to come. And God being just and loving all of His Children is going to help everyone who wants to progress toward that ideal, whatever they may need to do in their lives to do that.
Again, without further clarification and given that the entire rest of this message addresses same-gender attraction, and that the identified timetable is this life, the promise that a just God will help gay people become straight is flat-out false. If that were true, the gates of despair would not be littered with the lives of thousands of gay Mormons that have broken themselves on that promise.
2. Conclusions
The website is progressive in many ways, especially in its acknowledgement of homosexual orientation and the insistence that Church members respond sensitively and thoughtfully to LGBT people.
What Elders Oaks and Christofferson fail to do, however, is create space for that thoughtful and sensitive response to include affirmation of same-sex marriage. They fail to identify the (1) value and (2) equivalence of same-sex romantic relationships relative to opposite-sex ones. They fail to articulate a test for discerning spiritual sex, a categorization they rely on for their moral conclusions. Glaringly, if their advice was taken, a half-million Mormons would either choose (1) lifelong celibacy or (2) risky mixed-orientation rather than (3) pursuing healthy same-sex romantic relationships. That these same leaders encourage the pursuit of healthy romantic relationships between straight opposite-sexed persons evidences a grave inequality.
Using words like "always will be" and "can never be anything but" transgression paints future leaders into a corner they can only escape by paying a heavy credibility tax (similar to that still being paid on the race and polygamy issues). In the meantime, the price of that increasingly untenable and unpopular position is the continued opportunity cost of gay mormons' same-sex relationships at the least, and additional unnecessary struggle and rejection at worst.
My conclusion in a phrase? More paint, less corner.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)