It seems that a major theme of both the General Conference’s Women’s Meeting and the rest of General Conference the emphasis on defending the family. Of course, by family, the speakers meant the traditional family, with a man, a woman, and 2.5 (or more) children. Plenty of people have asked in response: why can’t we defend the family by promoting more marriage — including same-sex marriage? Indeed, isn’t same-sex marriage an indication that LGB folks want to form healthy families?
In a few discussions online, I heard a narrative that I would like to counter: gay marriage is a trojan horse to destroy marriage for everyone.
To begin with one stark phrasing of this: I present to you a comment written by Seth R on a blog discussion of whether there could be “grace for gays” at LDS & Evangelical Conversations:
I frankly don’t care if gay people’s lived experience doesn’t match with it being a sin and being an ultimate problem for society. Because their anecdotes don’t change the equation. I don’t care if there are nice gay people. Gay marriage is still going to destroy the institution of marriage entirely and equivocate the sexes in ways that will profoundly undermine society and make it a more toxic place for everyone.
How could more people getting married destroy the institution of marriage? What’s that all about? How could gay marriage “profoundly undermine society and make it a toxic place for everyone”? I think that what underlies this particular narrative is two assumptions and a supposed “smoking gun”. I’ll summarize the assumptions, and then counter them in the latter half of this post.
Assumption 1: Gay people are inherently too different.
Seth’s basic argument relies upon the assumption that LGB people are inherently different from straight people. For example, Seth argues that gay people are inherently more promiscuous. Why? Firstly, because somehow, the mechanics of gay sex are inherently more promiscuous. As Seth argues:
Homosexual sex is, by-nature, inherently more promiscuous than heterosexual sex. You aren’t creating anything together that both of you need to be committed to. So it’s a bit of a no-brainer that homosexuals will tend to be a lot more promiscuous than heterosexuals.
I’m unsure as to whether Seth believes that straight folks engaging in non-procreative sex are also “inherently more promiscuous,” but it seems that to Seth, inherent is as inherent does. So, no babies? No commitment. I don’t think this actually is an argument for inherence, but Seth continues by employing statistics to show that gay people are empirically more promiscuous:
A recent survey from the Austin Institute of Family and Culture (edit: PDF) reported appalling rates of promiscuity in the homosexual population – especially the male population.
To cut and paste from another discussion where I presented this study:
The median heterosexual man or woman (age 18-60) reports somewhere between four and six opposite sex partners in their lifetime. The highest percentage of heterosexual males – 20% – reported 2-3 sexual partners. Only 3% of males and 2% of women reported over 50 partners.
I mentioned the “over 50″ percentage because the next finding is rather appalling. 30% of gay men report over 50 sexual partners. That’s 1 in 3. Interestingly 8% of gay men reported zero partners. After that a mere 3% of gay men reported the numbers of one, two and three sexual partners, jumping up to 9% at 4-6, 8% at 7-9, 10% at 10-15, 11% at 16-20, 4% at 21-30, and 11% at 31-50.
There is no bell curve in sex partners in the male gay population. Just an uneven climb, a curious drop around 21-30 and then a startling spike at over 50. Keep in mind that these are only numbers among self-identifying-as-gay respondents, but still…
Among lesbians, there is actually a bell curve – still exhibiting more promiscuity than heterosexuals but nowhere near the extremes in the male spread. Much higher percentages report at the levels of 1-2, curiously few at 3, and a spike up to 20% at 4-6 which steadily dies off as the graph goes into higher numbers.
Either way – the difference is stark. Homosexuals do not seem to value monogamy as much as heterosexuals and are much more prone to promiscuity and sexual risk-taking.
I’m just going to throw out here that the Austin Institute of Family and Culture is where Mark Regnerus (who doesn’t have the greatest track record with social science research) is at these days. But at this time, I am actually not going to challenge this data at all, because my argument later in this post will address this differently. I’ll just note: this is data that Seth wants to use to argue that gay people are inherently more promiscuous. That that data — if true — represents an inherent, unchangeable reality about gay men and lesbian women.
Assumption 2: LGB people will inevitably change marriage to reflect their differences
From asserting that LGB people are inherently different, Seth argues that said folks will inevitably pursue marriages that reflect those differences. So he points to articles that discuss that monogamy is not a priority in many same-sex marriages. For example:
…Peter Zupcofska, a leading marriage and divorce attorney for same-sex couples, says he’s dealt with premarital agreements between gay men in which they’ve agreed that sex with other people “would not be a reason to penalize each other.” Before they ever said “I do,” they wrote a contract with “the intention that they’d have an open relationship once they were married.”
Zupcofska says he has never drawn up such a clause for a heterosexual couple nor, fascinatingly, for a lesbian couple. A study out of UCLA found that two-thirds of formally legalized same-sex couples are made up of women; yet, nearly all the studies about sex and monogamy in same-sex couples focus exclusively on men.
Gay-rights groups are often nervous about sociologists or reporters looking too closely at what really happens in the bedrooms of gay relationships, out of fear that anti-gay activists will bludgeon them with a charge of sexual promiscuity, as a reason to deny them equal rights. But now that gays and lesbians are on the cusp of having access to marriage equality, will the conversation about monogamy change within queer culture? And would straight support have helped gays get the marriage rights they now have if the truly complex nature of sexual boundaries for gay couples were more openly talked about?
“Smoking Gun”: Radical Queer theorists have recognized the destructive potential of gay marriage all along!
The smoking gun of Seth’s argument — the reason you can know that it’s really real…is to point to various queer theorists or radical activists who have theorized this all along. For a summary of this from a historical perspective:
…Others criticize gay marriage for attempting to make homosexuality “normal,” which inevitably requires isolating fairies, bears, butch dykes, and others who can’t (or won’t) fit the “model” same-sex family with 2.2 in vitro kids, a middle class income, a Volvo in the garage, and TiVo in the living room.
These critiques of marriage are important and need to be kept in mind by anyone thinking of getting married—homo, het, or other. The feminist/anarchist ideal of no state involvement whatsoever in any sort of union among people is obviously the ideal. But as with many struggles, the path to this goal is not always the most direct one. We need to seize the opportunities history provides. In the short term, this may require embracing a practice (marriage) we would otherwise like to see ended rather than extended.
Context is all. What is an oppressive practice in one context can be liberating in another. Just as revolutionary civil rights workers like James Forman recognized that a Black Southerner voting was not buying into the system but threatening it, so is gay marriage a potential threat to marriage and the traditional family. It is a threat because it undermines the assumption that an intimate union consists of one man and one woman. Radicals need to challenge this “heteronormativity,” as academics call it, and the best means to do so today is by embracing the struggle to legalize same-sex marriages, whatever one’s opinion of marriage itself. All the radical critiques of marriage combined don’t pose one-tenth the threat to patriarchal and heterosexist institutions that the simple marriage between the two middle-class white lesbians whose marriage my wife legally witnessed does.
Radical feminist and queer activists and scholars, many of whom used to be critics of gay marriage, are already making this point. In the early nineties, for example, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force policy director Paula Ettelbrick opposed making legal marriage a priority for the gay rights movement because, she argued, gay marriage would encourage assimilation rather than acceptance of queer difference. But Ettelbrick now supports gay marriage. This may seem like a reversal in position, but not necessarily. The basic principle Ettelbrick holds to is that the basic notion of the “traditional family” needs to be transformed. “Being queer,” she writes, “means pushing the parameters of sex and family, and in the process transforming the very fabric of society.” In the current situation, she sees gay marriage as an opening toward transforming the family and subverting state interference in unions among people.
Are You Convinced?
So, let’s take a break right here. Are you scared? Are you worried? If you were or are against gay marriage, did/do any of these points inform your view? If you were or are for gay marriage, do any of these links or quotations give you pause?
For the rest of this post, I want to argue a different view: I want to argue that one could be against some of the things described above while still advocating for homonormative gay marriage.
Counter 1: The (Mis)Education of LGB Youth
The biggest part of what I have presented as Seth’s first assumption is assuming inherence. That there is something permanent, unchangeable, and essential about non-heterosexualities that lead to promiscuity.
I don’t think that is the case. I think that it is fairly obvious that straight people can be as promiscuous as gay people. That straight people can have the same desires that might lead them into promiscuity. It doesn’t really follow that the body mechanics drive one group into promiscuity and the other away from it — while it is true that straight folks have to worry about pregnancy, it is also true that 1) straight folks can have non-procreative sex and 2) there is contraception or even more extreme measures should one not want to become or remain pregnant.
Instead, I think that where LGB folks and straight folks largely differ is in socialization or education. I’ll focus on the Mormon church’s socialization for now, but I think this applies (to more or less of an extent) in other religious institutions, and to a different extent in secular institutions.
Both gay and straight Mormons are raised with the understanding that sexuality should only be employed within committed, monogamous, legal and lawful married relationships. However, both gay and straight Mormons are raised with the understanding that marriage is only between a man and a woman — and that any expression of homosexuality is sinful.
This education and socialization comes with its own picture of what it means to be gay and to have gay relationships. Homosexuality is inevitably promiscuous (see Seth’s comments above).
Straight Mormons are raised with the awareness that they can go wrong with their relationships and sexuality, but they are also given appropriate channels to strive for. So while a straight man may sow wild oats in his young days, he may always settle, repent, and marry.
Gay Mormons don’t have this. They have celibacy (which actually isn’t a valid option in Mormonism), mixed-orientation marriage…and wanton, promiscuous gay sin.
And to be fair, lots of LGB Mormons try the first two options…but if they slip up into the third, they often experience more guilt and shame regarding that, and their slip-ups reinforce the idea that it was all wanton. It was a lapse of judgment. And on top of that, slip-ups are more likely to be unsafe because there is no education on how to safely and conscientiously navigate gay relationships. There is no education because per the church, it is impossible.
(In a sense, it’s kinda like with abstinence-only education. If someone goes that route “slips up”, then they will be worse off than if they were taught a comprehensive sex education, had rumors stomped out and replaced with reliable information.)
My sense, therefore, is that these differences between straight and gay are not intrinsic or inherent, but rather differences in socialization. Because society (and especially the religious institutions within) have failed to constructively teach LGB responsible outlets for sexuality, that society has in fact created the hazards it decries.
What’s good anecdotal evidence in favor of this? It’s the fact that LGB folks raised Mormon actually want to live in relationships that are pleasing to their families and their religion. The clubs and bars are unfamiliar; we want the white picket fences. Seth has challenged that these folks represent a minority of the LGB communities. Perhaps (but so could be said for any Mormon) — but it just goes to show that this isn’t inherent. You can’t take the gay out of the gay Mormon, but you can encourage positive, thoughtful ways to be gay.
Counter 2: Change may be inevitable, one can steer change
If LGB people are not intrinsically more promiscuous (or whatever social and moral ills we associate with non-heterosexualities), then what about marriage? Will it change if gay people seek it?
I would say that marriage certainly has already changed. Hawkgrrrl has written about the myth of traditional marriage. But it wasn’t gay marriage that changed it. Marriage has changed because heterosexuals got the idea that love and feelings matter. Marriage has changed because collectively, we have decided that women should have political and economic rights and should seek education and employment.
Good luck turning back the clock on either of those things. (But I think this explains why many conservatives do try to turn back on these things.)
But you know what? With those changes, even if they kick and scream, religious institutions have mostly shifted along with the changes. You don’t really hear any churches openly dismissing the concept of marriage for love — they temper it with messages about sacrifice, about love being more than fleeting feelings of infatuation. These are good messages, good responses to change. Even though the LDS church is against many feminist causes for women’s equality, even it tries to argue that men and women are co-presiders in the home, rather than making the woman unequivocally beneath the man.
So, it’s possible to steer with change.
This can be done for gay marriage as well.
Certainly, if nothing is done to change the message taught to LGB youth, then religions will have no say in what values they have, what motivations they have, and what they ultimately do. It will, again, create the hazards it decries. But isn’t it possible for various religious groups to refocus their efforts? Don’t challenge gay marriage — challenge promiscuity, whether in same-sex or opposite-sex relationships. Challenge any worldview that doesn’t give sexuality the soberness and care that it deserves.
Goal: Preach Homonormativity
When people like Seth point to radical queer theorists who used to oppose gay marriage but who now are either silent about the issue or are in support of gay marriage as a trojan horse, this gets to ideas of heteronormativity and homonormativity.
Without getting too into the details, it’s safe to say that the LDS church is thoroughly heteronormative. If you think about the Proclamation on the Family, everything the church has said about eternal gender or in refutation of intersex or transgender issues, that is heteronormativity. A man and a woman (with very clear roles by their genders) marry and have 2.5 kids. Leave it to Beaver.
The opportunity for Mormons and other religious conservatives is to expand their heteronormativity and preach homonormativity. That is: monogamy and commitment and marriage. That is: the opposition to promiscuity or casual sex.
This is an opportunity to work with the growing inevitability of gay marriage while still remaining relevant — certainly, a lot of people have problems with heteronormativity (and many would have problems with homonormativity), but this is a much more natural and appealing message to sell than messages of basic brokenness, disorder, or inferiority. And even more, this is still taking a stand apart from some cultural forces. It is still distinctive. It is still disciplined.
Will it be easy? No, probably not. Will it convert all the doubters? Definitely not. Heteronormativity and homonormativity are criticized by plenty of people because it is still exclusionary in ways that people think are unjustified — it still sets up “good straight relationships” and “good gay relationships” to be contrasted with “bad relationships.” But that again just goes to show that you can change with a changing world without losing all sense of value.
Wheat & Tares 
I’ll stick with the conventional institution of marriage between a man and woman.
Ken,
Certainly, no one is saying you should get married to another dude if you are actually into women.
EGAD.
Nothing bad about the presentation (actually well-written and thought out, gotta give that), but as the fictional Charlie Harper’s housekeeper, Berta, quipped…”You can roll a turd in brown sugar all you want but that won’t make it a jelly doughtnut!”
Douglas,
Of course, the question is what is a turd and what is a jelly doughnut.
My argument is that committed, monogamous relationships celebrated as marriage *are* the jelly doughnut.
Others are writing similar things like here.
I think the entire LDS vs LGBT argument is a red herring, it’s easier to unite people by pointing them at a common enemy and they love you for giving them a righteous outlet for their hate because otherwise they must repress it or deny it. With a just little spin the pious conservative Christian religious leaders serve this up on a platter from the Bible as if it were a righteous justification for creating an underclass.
If you believe that the underpinning of marriage is procreation, there’s really no common ground.
Other than human decency, of course.
SilverRain, tell that to my lovely friends who just welcomed their first child into the world today. After years of infertility and miscarriages, they were blessed to find a wonderful, loving surrogate who helped bring their beautiful daughter into this world. Too bad this opposite-sex couple aren’t “really” married, being unable to procreate without assistance and all. (eyeroll)
But if the underpinning of marriage is not procreation, which it clearly is not since humans have married for a number of differing reasons throughout time and in different traditions, relatively few of which have to do with procreation, and since many of us remain married even after we’re done procreating or if we can’t procreate, and since many straight people marry at ages well past childbearing years, then . . .
. . . it becomes much harder to justify an opposition to stable same-sex marriage. Perhaps that’s why the Church seems to be OK with civil unions as long as we don’t call them marriage.
So those against gay marriage point to promiscuity among homosexuals as they tell homosexuals who want to make the ultimate monogamous commitment (marriage) that they can’t do it? Wow. I can’t imagine something more unfair.
Look, the desire to connect with someone romantically, emotionally, sexually, and for love and companionship is one of the strongest, if not THE strongest, desires we have as human beings. Most people feel this desire towards someone of the opposite sex. Some people feel this desire towards someone of the same sex. The vast majority of people in both of these groups dreams about their wedding day for many, many years. To tell anyone they can’t commit to the person they love, as long as both are consenting adults, is beyond cruel and a clear manifestation of hatred.
How can you claim love and family is the most important thing and then tell a large group of people, who are gay through no fault or choice of their own, that they SHOULDN’T be able to marry?
Gays exist! They always have. They always will. Why would you prefer they live together than get married? What are you so afraid of? It’s pure fear and hatred. And I find it despicable.
re 6,
SilverRain,
I can see that. However, I think that if a religion really wanted that to be its ultimate message, then it would have to rail harder against non-procreative sex, contraception, birth control, etc., etc., Which, to be fair, a lot of groups do just this, so to that extent, it’s consistent. It’s just pretty alienating.
So I still want to say: if you want that to be your ultimate end goal, then what? Do you want to alienate everyone who doesn’t fit that on a prima facie level? Or do you want to have messages that could also apply to other people? Really, I don’t know if I get it.
Nick,
Could you do without the parenthetical eyerolls for this discussion? I believe I know the same person about whom you allude, and I am so excited for her and her family, and I’m hoping that these and other great families can be discussed considerately on both sides, but I don’t know if that can happen with eyerolls and snark.
Maybe it’s already too late for this discussion though. We have a full cast, with Douglas and Ken already…
I agree with you, Andrew. And I’m sad that church leaders missed another good opportunity to help strengthen all families.
I don’t know why our church is so sex-focused anyway. Christ gave us a new law with two great commandments, neither of which mention sex.
Good post Andrew. The prevalence of promiscuity in the homosexual community is the natural result of centuries of marginalization: it is a counter-culture. Take away the marginalization and invite homosexuals into homonormity, and promiscuity rates will drop. Conservatives who encourage marginalization are actually encouraging promiscuity.
It is true that LDS theology is utterly incompatible with gay marriage. Conservative Mormons MUST find a way to horriblize it, because what is incompatible with LDS doctrine MUST be evil, MUST be destructive. But if LDS theology is merely a strait and narrow way, which does not cast aspersions at other strait and narrow ways, like homonormity, then we no longer have to strain to horriblize it, and can easily see that promoting homonormity is a positive thing in society.
Nate,
Excellent comment!
Great post Andrew. As I’ve pondered what a possible homonormative mormon theology would look like I’ve thought that perhaps the gift God gives us all, what he wants us all to use, is the desire we have to be intimate and one with another person. Instead of procreation being the reason to unite (spoken as a barren woman) that our spiritual reason for marriage is intimacy. That through this limiting and stretching relationship we begin to learn how to be “one” in the hereafter.
I dearly wish for all people to have this sacred space of one-ness. During conference I did share that I want to join forces with everyone who wants to make marriage the foundation of their families.
PS loved your comment Nate.
New Iconoclast,
While I get your point, I think that someone could easily argue that what humans have done in different times and different traditions doesn’t necessarily define what the institution of marriage “clearly” must or must not be about. There’s always room to say that humans haven’t been pretty good at living up to the ideal, but that the ideal still is what it is.
I think it’s a hard sell, and I do think it misses some ideologically important concepts. Like, I don’t know if we want to emphasize on procreation in the sense of bearing children (because this sort of emphasis tends to be on *bearing* rather than *raising*)…but others’ mileage may vary. But I don’t know if I want to say that that is “clearly” the case.
re 9
Dexter,
It seems that many responses are to say:
1) It’s not about love and companionship. It’s about bringing forth the next generation.
2) Gays aren’t really about monogamy for (insert explanations here), so they will inevitably change it for everyone.
But I personally get your point. If people find value in marriage and want to do it, why turn them away?
re 11,
Lilliput,
I think that part of it is that religious folks of all stripes are trying to live “the abundant life.” Marriage and family seem to fit strongly in that. And people want to argue that only certain kinds of marriages and families fit, but I don’t get that.
re 12
Nate,
Totally agree with your first comment! I’m not as sure if I agree with your second comment. I know a lot of people who think that, and maybe that is the case currently, but I think that we have avenues…creativity with existing theology and doctrine, and of course…the possibility of revelation. Still, I guess as things currently are, revelation doesn’t seem forthcoming and the leaders are doubling down.
I like what you say here though:
Seeing these as two different “strait and narrow” ways captures what I’m getting at. Can the church at the very least recognize the “strait and narrow” way of heteronormativity as its top priority and ideal, and recognize that the “strait and narrow” way of “homonormativity,” even if not the ultimate ideal, is better than plenty of other, not-so-narrow ways?
Nick
no person is born of two men or two women.
Winifred,
You can’t be so naïve as to think a gay couple can’t raise a child? Do you know how many children are out there wishing, hoping for a loving family? Are you saying two men or two women should not be able to raise a child? What is your point?
I feel like there is so much emphasis on who can bear children physically that we ignore who can *raise* children. I think we should say, “And while y’all gay men and lesbian women are married, seriously considering raising children.” There are plenty who certainly would appreciate a home.
Yes winifred so far it still requires sperm and egg but not necessary the same womb as the egg came from, soon genetically modified babies? And who will the parents be? The biological donors or the parenting nurturers?
Andrew said what many would say to my earlier post:
“1) It’s not about love and companionship. It’s about bringing forth the next generation.
2) Gays aren’t really about monogamy for (insert explanations here), so they will inevitably change it for everyone.”
I would reply to those queries thus:
1 – The church itself argues that marriage is about more than procreation. Further, examples abound. People too old to have children get married, and are encouraged to marry. People who are unable to procreate are still encouraged to marry. Anyone who argues that marriage is only for procreation is contradicting the church. Even arguing that sex within marriage is solely for procreation contradicts the teachings of the church.
2 – First, I disagree that gays are inherently more promiscuous. But for the sake of argument, even assuming that were true, so what? Does the church tell promiscuous straight people NOT to marry? Absolutely not. Are there plenty of promiscuous straight people out there? Absolutely. To argue that the promiscuity of those in gay marriages would somehow taint all of marriage is the most absurd thing I have ever heard. There are plenty of straight people cheating on their spouses, getting divorced and being encouraged by the church to straighten up and marry again. For anyone to argue that homosexuals are too promiscuous to marry is the height of hypocrisy. (Especially when you consider the history of the church, and all the plural wives who were kept a secret from the original wives of many church leaders.)
The church is coming from the point of view that God defines marriage not leaving it to culture to define. If important things are left to culture to define for themselves then under the same principle blue could be defined as red if people wanted. If that becomes the case society dissolves having no common language defined by absolutes and therefore can only be held together by an authoritarian government.
I’m saying that by saying nothing in support on same-sex marriage, the church absolutely is letting the culture define it for themselves. Instead of saying, “Hey, marriage should be about monogamy, commitment, shared sacrifice, so same-sex couples should keep that in mind as well,” they are saying, “Well, we’re abdicating our moral influence here.”
Churches do not usually use this kind of logic to formulate doctrine, and I don’t think the LDS church is an exception. For the most part, they use ad hoc reasoning to interpret the scriptures in a way that validates their preconceived notions. One sign of this is the conference talks in recent years that refer to “unchanging” principles or doctrine. Refering to key tenets as unchanging absolves the speaker from any burden of proof. I call this the Doctrine of Unchanging Doctrine and it might be just as incompatible with Mormonism as gay marriage; it contradicts the ninth article of faith. DoUD seems to be an excuse for keeping questionable doctrines or practices when they seem outdated.
In other words, the forces keeping the status quo in place are quite strong. So while I agree with your logic, I haven’t yet got the vision of how it can grow beyond its grass roots. I hope it takes root though. I really do.
I couldn’t agree more with Nate’s first comment. That’s the point of your post, I think, that homosexual promiscuity is a chicken & egg question. We outlaw gay sex, then call gay people outlaws. Which came first? I would think that Cam & Mitchell on Modern Family are an example of a homonormative couple raising a child. I imagine this kind of modeling is important to the process of creating empathy and solving the issues.
Most of the gay exMos I know would not have left the church if there had been a homonormative option. The church left them. They really didn’t have a viable choice.
I am sick of the procreation argument. So if a couple fails to produce a child, should we forcibly separate them? If someone is determined to be infertile, should we require them to be celibate for life? Should we bar women past the age of menopause from (re)marrying? Because if not, how about everyone shut the hell up about the ability to procreate being a requirement for a valid marriage? It’s not and never was.
Having just posted that comment, I’m already regretting over-generalizing about churches. #internetregret
Having kids is one thing but consumation carries a lot of weight.
one of the reasons I support gay marriage is because I agree with the church – families are more stable when they are founded on the legal contract of marriage…..and strong families strengthen communities. Make the moral argument for those in this space. Make s commitment. Be monogamous. Be selfless and volunteer at PTA. Foster/adopt those in need. Etc.
That’s certainly true in my marriage, ron. My husband sure could stand to lose a few pounds.
Winifred,
Other than repeating an argument that has already lost repeatedly in marriage equality lawsuits (often before judges appointed by Reagan and the Bushes), what does your random biological claim have to do with this discussion?
Here’s a wrinkle for you. Science is actually growing closer to providing a way for same sex couples to conceive with one another—to mingle their DNA in a manner not much different than assisted fertility procedures currently used for opposite sex couples. So within the next decade, when a “child is born of two men or two women,” what happens to your non-sequitor argument?
Andrew,
The ineffective “good boy” gays found Harvey Milk “rude” too, so thank you for placing me in such good company. 😉
Andrew, I’m responding late, but I don’t have much I’m willing to say here.
I’ve reached my understanding of marriage (as being between man and woman) in the theological and political spheres through much pondering, personal experience, and prayer. It was not my original opinion.
I’m happy to discuss it with you in private, if you wish, but this forum is too prone to abuse by those who use emotions as an excuse to lash out. I have no interest in stirring those waters, especially with such a late response.
I will say that, when considering the entire body of preaching, the Church most certainly has taught against all the things you describe. Don’t mistake current issues for only issues.
Okay, I have to say that I think the argument of encouraging gay couples to adopt children because there are so many children who want a loving home is a red herring. I was involved in the adoption process for many years, and my experience contradicts this. Do you know how many, many infertile couples are desperate for a child? So many that they often wait years and pay the equivalent of a year’s salary to adopt a child. So many that many try to adopt through the foster care system only to have the adoption they were hoping for fall apart after they have fallen in love with a child and made him or her a part of their family. So many infertile couples are desperate for babies or toddlers. I know, because we were. We had an in vitro miracle and then a surprise miracle, so we have given up trying to adopt but we would love to have another child if only we could afford it or could deal with the potential heartbreak. Also, we are so blessed to have two kids and I don’t want to compete for that baby with other couples who have none.
Legalizing gay marriage only allows more couples to compete for those few babies. So that’s fair, right? Why shouldn’t they have the chance to have kids just as much as any other infertile couple? So then you get into the argument of whether gay parents can be good parents. Well, of course they can. But is it really just as good to have two dads or two moms than a dad and a mom.
Pointing to the many single moms and single dads raising happy kids is also a red herring. Of course there are lots of great success stories with a single parent. But most people would not deliberately choose to deny their child a father, or a mother. It happens not as a choice (usually) but as an unfortunate outcome of divorce or death or other circumstances.
Pointing out that there are hetero horrible parents, even child abusers, is also a red herring. There is no reason to believe that gay people are more or less loving and righteous parents than hetero parents. So we are left with the simple fact that children raised by gay parents will have less exposure to both sexes. They’ll either have two dads, or two moms. They’ll will never know what it’s like to have a mom or, conversely, a dad.
All I will say here is what I believe (because I don’t think it’s possible to know yet how that will affect kids), but I believe it very strongly. It will be a great loss for those kids who never have a dad, or a mom. It makes me feel sorry for those kids. I know, I know, no one wants my pity! But there it is, that’s the instinctive way I feel.
Having wanted children for years, I know the longing a great many gay couples will have to raise children. It’s a transformative, wonderful thing. I would wish everyone could have that experience. But many, unfortunately, have to settle for loving other people’s children, as an aunt or uncle, or primary teacher, etc. It’s an unfair world for sure, and definitely unfair to be denied the right to have children. But I worry that legalizing gay marriage will put man, many more children in the unpaired position of never knowing a mom or dad. And that makes me sad.
And I agree that gay people are not inherently more promiscuous. I think civil unions are a great thing.
There are quite a few mistakes in my post but most don’t obscure my meanings. However, in the second to last paragraph, “unpaired” should be “unfair”. Darn autocorrect!
I have no problem with marriage equality.
My understanding of what the scriptures say on the subject of marriage is to love the on you are married to. To not commit adultry, and in the temple, to only have sex with the person you are legally married to.
We do have conservative politics taught as gospel, but not coming from God, so value as such.
We should encourage those who love each other to marry, and not commit adultry. The same rules for everyone, the same expectations, the same respect, the same love.
The prevalence of promiscuity in the homosexual community is the natural result of centuries of marginalization: it is a counter-culture.
As one who hit the “over 50” categorization before age 30, I would not say it is ALL the result of marginalization. I grew up being taught that sex is sacred and should be reserved for procreation and intra-marital intimacy. Nevertheless, my view altered (some would say warped, some liberated) in seeing sexual activities not exclusively as creating intimate bonds, but purely as recreation. It was the capping point to a shared buddy experience–not much different than a match of arm wrestling or sharing a beer. I don’t remember most of these partners, and never even knew the names of many of them (and I was keeping the word of wisdom so it was not alcohol that was the factor).
I never had the attached idea at all during homosexual sex that a life-form would be created, so that half of the reason for keeping sex sacred, as I was taught as a youth, was completely out of mind. As the guilt of participating in non-marital sexual activities died down as I got further involved, the other half of that reason was also diminished.
While I agree that preaching homonormativity has the potential to save youth from the negative web that I was drawn into, without the possibility of homosexual sex resulting in conception, there is still only half of that traditional justification there for keeping sex sacred. I’m not sure that half would have been enough of a counter-argument for my younger, curious, attracted to male-physicality self to have limited sex to a committed homosexual relationship. If I had not grown up with it being counter-cultural, the need for secrecy and congregating in businesses advocating the most hedonistic aspects of homosexual sex would have been lower. On the other hand, attempts to reduce homosexual expression to homonormative patterns that attempt to mirror heteronormality are rejected by some men who feel that such an attempt reduces one of the singular facets of homosexuality that is unique.
I think Nick Literski might shun the support of any dogmatic teachings of homonormativity that restrict homosexual coupling to one man and one man and not include, as equally justifiable, one man and two men, though he is free to correct me if my conjecture is wrong.
So you COULD consider promiscuity counter-cultural, OR you COULD consider it uniquely-and-gloriously-cultural depending on the framework by which non-procreative sex is integrated into a lifestyle. As an active member of the LDS church, I see it as my duty to define promiscuity as counter-cultural. With 30% of homosexual men doing the things I did, I will have to consider how fixed that percentile is and whether preaching homonormativity is (beyond preventing STDs) helpful to THAT group.
The studies don’t make much difference to me. When I read in the scriptures that “ Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”(Lev. 18:22), that makes that action wrong and that is that. And now we should teach Homonormativity? That’s crazy. It’s wrong!! Why teach something that’s not only wrong, but will prove destructive. What might need to be destroyed first of all is the wrongness of heterosexual sin since they far out do the wrongness of homosexuals. I mentioned one source of homosexuality as being wrong and none for heterosexual sins since the heterosexual sins are probably without number. The final analysis: They are both wrong, therefore they are both destructive. Solution: Exterminate them both – DON’T TEACH THEM.
Thank you, Rich. I’m glad someone finally mentioned the elephant in the room: the Old Testament. There’s simply no getting around this. From one strict adherent to the OT to another, I salute you. There was a time when I found it hard to live by the true teachings of that book, but I’m a better person for having done it. So how many of your children have you had to stone for being disrespectful to their parents? I actually had one survive that, but then she ate shellfish at a friend’s house and I had to kill her, too. Still, rules are rules, right, Rich? RIGHTEOUSNESS!!!!
Rich, an appeal to the Old Testament is simply conceding defeat in any argument. After all, the OT teaches that if a mob of rapists appear at your door, do not send out your male guest, but offer the mob your daughters. You would be willing to do this, right? I mean, the old testament is where you learn your morals, right?
Silver Rain,
This is a place to make your point with reason and logic. You don’t see us claiming that our positions are better bc we prayed about them. How many terrorists have killed people after praying about it and being sure that that was what they were supposed to do?
The theology surrounding gender is a big problem in attempting to fit gay people into the bigger plan. I tend towards the belief that Godhood is created by merging female and male, so for me the ideal is heteronormative. Finding out how often the body can get messed up in matching the chromosomal gender with the physiological gender or other gendered characteristics, though, has put up a big red flag for me. I don’t know that I *should* assume the spirit gender always matches the outward appearance of the physical body. Given that perception, I find it difficult to push an exclusively heteronormative approach on the rest of society. I don’t think the church will ever preach it, but if creating stable families is our ultimate goal then I think the idea of homonormativity would be a net positive for society at large.
Dexter,
Coincidentally, a comment like that is probably a great example of why SR doesn’t write any further. I don’t blame her…
#32:
I’ve reached my understanding of marriage (as being between man and woman) in the theological and political spheres through much pondering, personal experience, and prayer.
So saith a noted expert on successful, happy marriage. Stones. Glass houses.
#33:
Legalizing gay marriage only allows more couples to compete for those few babies. So that’s fair, right?
Not exactly. I’m aware of a number of same sex couples who have adopted special needs children—children whose challenges made them an “unattractive” choice to many potential adoptive parents who were looking for (a) infants, (b) white infants, and (c) non-medically-challenged white infants.
Seriously though, I find it creepy to speak of “competing for” children as if they were the latest Elmo doll on a Black Friday door-buster sale.
#36:
I think Nick Literski might shun the support of any dogmatic teachings of homonormativity that restrict homosexual coupling to one man and one man and not include, as equally justifiable, one man and two men, though he is free to correct me if my conjecture is wrong.
Not exactly. It’s true that I am part of a long term, committed, polyamorous relationship. For those who are unclear, polyamory involves consensual, committed relationships between more than two individuals—not promiscuous “screwing around.” I did not seek out this sort of relationship, but it’s where I ended up. It generally works for us, though we have challenges just like any other relationship. Do I think it’s an equally viable model for everyone? Absolutely not. Do I think it should be legally recognized in the same way that a two-person relationship is recognized? Not really, and I don’t see myself advocating for such.
If, for example, LDS leaders suddenly declared that same-sex couples would be recognized and accepted on the same ecclesiastical standing as opposite-sex couples, I wouldn’t dream of claiming that they must accept same-sex polygamy. Granted, if they decided to reinstate heterosexual polygyny, I might encourage similar treatment for gay and lesbian church members, but let’s face it—the LDS church is probably even less likely to revisit polygamy than they are to accept same sex couples. 😉
In general, however, I do believe that consenting adults should be free to form whatever family relationships they desire, and it’s none of my business to declare them acceptable or non-acceptable.
The theology surrounding gender is a big problem in attempting to fit gay people into the bigger plan.
Here’s my solution to this problem. We currently believe that there are 3 levels in the CK. The ‘highest’ is for sealed opposite couples. The ‘lowest’ is for men who had the opportunity to get sealed to a woman during mortal life and did not. The middle level has never been explained.
The theologic description of these levels as ‘highest’ and ‘lowest’ could be reframed as parallel but equally blessed levels (hey, if anyone gets to the CK at all, that’s great). Now the theologic room for same sex couples–even sealed together–is there for that third parallel group.
And while we may understand that creation of spirit children is limited to oppositely sexed celestial partners, there is still no canonized doctrine that I am aware of that physical sex is required for creation of these spirit children–even if such a teaching is found in Journal of Discourses and even as much as heterosexual men want to believe it to be true. Inevitably, all 3 groups will be coordinating efforts and will have connections to members in all groups through sealings of various relationships of kin. I suspect that this ‘middle’ group, may be having the most celestial fun–well, maybe not as much fun if, as Bruce Hafen taught, they rise in the resurrection with normal sexual attraction.
Add the fact that Joseph Smith promised Elizabeth Jane Manning that as a woman of African descent, she could be sealed to him and Emma “as a servant,” which would take her into the Celestial Kingdom—Wilford Woodruff eventually did that very thing, since she kept pestering for it to happen.
Add the fact that in early Mormonism, parents who were “sealed up until eternal life” via the Second Anointing were promised that they would have the power to even bring their less obedient children into the Celestial Kingdom, as their “servants,” rather than leaving them in one of the lower rent districts.
In other words, there is room for creativity—at least within Mormonism as originated under Joseph Smith (maybe less so in modern LDS-ism).
I’m not clear whether it was Jaramiah referencing “normal” sexual attraction or whether he was quoting Mr. Hafen, but that just makes me laugh. My sexual attractions are COMPLETELY normal for a gay man. 🙂
Or, as Billy Joel said, we’d rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the Saints?
I did not intend to create a chilling effect that would lead to Silver Rain deciding not to share more. But her comments touched on a common strategy by many, that I do not agree with. It seemed to me that Silver Rain attempted to maker her opinion somehow grander by saying she received it through prayer and that it’s just too special to be shared here. I could be wrong, but I wanted to touch on that idea, because even if Silver Rain didn’t do it, we are all familiar with people who have.
Any view discovered, or claimed to have been discovered, through prayer makes me cringe. History is full of examples of people who did awful things bc “God told them to.” Trying to make your points grander by pointing to the source is as old as time, and sadly, effective on some people. This is a shame.
Valid points should be judged on their contents, no matter the source. If I hear something that resonates with me, I don’t think it should become even MORE true if I find out it came from someone I respect or admire. Similarly, if I hear something I disagree with, I shouldn’t let finding out the source change my mind on the contents of the argument.
Throughout history, many have made poor arguments, but convinced others to believe them bc they claimed the comments came from God, not from them. I believe this to be wrong and manipulative.
I am more likely to trust those who say, this is what I think, take it or leave it based on its content, not the source.
I could have misread Silver Rain completely. It’s very likely that she wasn’t trying to maker her opinion grander. But it simply reminded me of this broader theme.
Dexter,
I’ll just say that your imputation of motives to SR is uncharitable, cynical, and still chilling. I am vicariously embarrassed on behalf of all Wheat and Tares because SR predicted this and the prediction has proven to be fantastically and embarrassingly true.
You are being more fantastically uncharitable than I ever was.
I made it clear I was speaking to a broader theme, not to S R. I openly acknowledged I may have misinterpreted her comment. I am happy to apologize to her if that’s the case.
But you seem all too happy to insult me personally, and with much stronger language than I used. It seems hypocritical. You are doing what she worried about, lashing out emotionally. I was logically trying to make a point.
Dexter – Rich, an appeal to the Old Testament is simply conceding defeat in any argument. After all, the OT teaches that if a mob of rapists appear at your door, do not send out your male guest, but offer the mob your daughters. You would be willing to do this, right? I mean, the old testament is where you learn your morals, right?”
Dexter, really. I’m sure neither of the angels nor God liked what Lot did because when they judge any incident they use the same standard for for all incidents in any time frame. Truth is truth. Sometimes a person or poeple will live a higher law before it’s even introduced to them by God. The Book of Mormon seems to be good for that. Remember, tithing is not the end of the law. Concecration is.
Rethinnk this. There must be a better approach to studying the scriptures than what you are doing.
#46 Jaramiah – LOL your speculation is as valid as any. I for one am glad the church has moved away from speculating on the other levels of the CK. There have been many… interesting ideas set forth about them in the past (and by interesting I mean incredibly disturbing).
What I meant by theology of gender is our very basic understanding of what gender is. There are many variables that our doctrinal definitions do not account for. Either our core understanding of what defines a man and what defines a woman is flawed, or the conditions of this temporal existence have made the distinctions too fuzzy. Regardless, the heteronormativity argument that our church pushes is based on the faulty premise that we have a solid understanding of what gender entails.
Rich said, ” I’m sure neither of the angels nor God liked what Lot did because when they judge any incident they use the same standard for all incidents in any time frame. Truth is truth. Sometimes a person or people will live a higher law before it’s even introduced to them by God. The Book of Mormon seems to be good for that. Remember, tithing is not the end of the law. Concecration is.”
Rich, if the angels didn’t like it, why didn’t the angel (who was being asked for by the mob), do or say anything to contradict Lot’s offer of his daughters? And why was Lot labeled as a righteous man in the OT?
And if God always judges with the same standard, then why do members always say it was ok for JS to marry a teenager, bc times were different then. Why was it ok for BY to be a racist, but that’s not ok for the leaders of the church now?
You seem to give a lot of benefit to every doubt about the OT, which is one way to do it. But I don’t think it’s fair to criticize those who take it at face value. After all, it claims to be the word of God. Why am I supposed to apologize for it and give it every benefit of the doubt when it is supposed to be inspired?
Andrew S., there are few here whose opinions I respect more than yours, but this seems like a pretty severe overreaction on your part. I agree with you that Dexter’s comments will have a chilling effect on SR, but to call them embarrassing is unfair, I think. This is a marketplace of ideas, at least as much as testimonies. Jared is regularly attacked for basing his arguments solely on matters of emotion and other extralogical criteria, and I’ve never seen a response like this from you or anyone. SR is free to say his/her position on the issue is based on spiritual factors, and leave it at that. But it seems wholly appropriate in this venue for someone to push for more than that. Obviously SR is free to refuse to go further, but I don’t see how it’s embarrassing that someone rejected SR’s spiritual bases, just because SR predicted that would happen. I don’t think leaving it at that has never made a comment exempt from scrutiny.
brjones,
The fact that *anyone* is *regularly attacked* is embarrassing, but I do not read every comment discussion here (mostly, I only read mine). It’s not embarrassing to reject someone’s spiritual bases. What *is* embarrassing is to compare any position reached at through prayer with terrorism, and then to try to defend that later on by imputing the motivation that she was undergoing a “common strategy” of just trying to “make her point grander by pointing to the source”. Like, those arguments aren’t good faith arguments. You can’t *go anywhere* when you claim that someone’s spiritual bases are akin to terrorists’. It’s Godwin’s Law for the 21st century.
That wasn’t the only embarrassing comment though. Nick’s comment on stones and glass houses was probably even worse, but it seems he accepts being called rude with great pride.
If anyone wants to scrutinize, then fine, whatever, go ahead, but I will call out what is uncharitable as I see it. Call that me scrutinizing back.
In the name of calling out the uncharitable, you are being much MORE uncharitable. Give it a rest.
Dexter,
So, here’s the thing. As this is my blog post, it’s like my house. All y’all commenters are guests. Guests should not be so presumptuous to tell the owner of the house to “give it a rest.”
I have not banned you. I have not removed any of your comments. I have not edited you. I have simply told you what I have found unacceptable. I do it because I have no problem with your other comments, and because I generally don’t like heavy moderation anyway. I have full faith that this issue will blow over eventually and there will be no issue — unless you take it personally, but that’s not my problem.
This *is* charity. I am truly sorry if you cannot see how comparing someone’s prayerfully considered position to the same thing driving terrorists’ motivation is a non-starter for any good faith conversation.
I thought this was supposed to be an attempt at a free exchange of ideas, not a place to try and please the host.
You have over reacted, and I’m not the only one who thinks that.
The record is here for all to read. And I’m glad you could care less if I take it personally. I felt bad at the possibility that I hurt S.R.’s feelings. It’s nice to hear you state you don’t care at all about my feelings. That has been evident throughout. I tried to make a point, I was willing to back track and apologize, but you have attacked me and pushed further ahead even when others have told you to cool it. Congrats on your awesome “house”. No offense, but, I’ve had better hosts at Denny’s.
Andrew – at times you leave the impression that you truly can’t tolerate opposing views. I would agree, however, to editing out ad hominens or name-calling. We can agree to disagree but still be agreeble. And I fail to see how self-righteously judging gay people and “Lording it over” them can win their hearts and minds. For myself, I simply treat LGBT folks the same manner as ‘straights’: invite them to come to Christ and leave their sins behind. I respect their choices and will always defend their right to live their lives as they see fit in peace.
Um … in the interests of providing additional data points, I am attracted to both male- and female-presenting people and to me it just all feels the same. There’s nothing about “same-gender attraction” that makes me want to suddenly go out and bed a ton of people in one night, compared to “opposite-gender attraction” making me want to invest in a committed relationship.
So whenever I see people (like Seth R, or my brother) saying “gays are just more promiscuous!” I kind of roll my eyes at them. And get the impression that they want me and my lived experience to go away so they can go on saying whatever they want about me.
Incidentally, I’m in two committed relationships, both of which have lasted for years, and both of my partners are agender and one of them is asexual. So one sexual relationship and two romantic relationships? That’s hardly promiscuous either, but I’m pretty sure it challenges both heteronormativity and homonormativity. I think your norms are doing a poor job of keeping up with actual people. ^^;
Also, if anyone thinks being Mormon means getting attacked for your beliefs and lifestyle, try being any or all of LGBTQIA sometime.
I’ve been both, and this is much, much harder, purely in terms of societal acceptance and persecution. Even though as a Mormon I was pushing my beliefs on everyone and attacking everyone else’s, whereas now I just want to be myself and work on my plastic model kits. And occasionally explain this to people in the hope that it will persuade them to stop insulting / attacking me. >_>;
#33 Brenlee – there’s a long waiting list for white infants. If you’re interested in a pair of non-white siblings over the age of 5 from an abusive home who may have physical and mental challenges, that’s a good deal easier. And wouldn’t you know it, those are precisely the kinds of children that many gay couples are willing to adopt!
#56:
<iThat wasn’t the only embarrassing comment though. Nick’s comment on stones and glass houses was probably even worse, but it seems he accepts being called rude with great pride.
Even worse, it was accurate. Her continuous (yet oh-so-piously phrased) harangue against marriage equality begins to grow old, when her own expertise on the subject of marriage is clearly questionable. BTW, before everyone piles on with “she was a poor, abused victim,” let’s recall that we’ve only ever heard one side of her sob story.
And yes–being called “rude” by those who refuse to stand up for themselves under the excuse of holding hands and singing “Kum-ba-ya” is something to be proud of.
By the way—the whole “I’m gonna verbally take a big dump on an entire minority group, but I won’t say more because mean people will criticize me” nonsense is a blatant ploy, designed to shut down discussion by playing the victim card. If someone is afraid to back up their opinion with ongoing discussion–even discussion where their opinion might be criticized bluntly—then perhaps that person should think twice about saying vile things in the first place.
#65 – By “Vile”, apparent you mean whatever contradicts your notions and/or your advocacy of your LGBT lifestyle, values, and your angst towards your erstwhile faith. Fine, label it what you will. Opinions are like bungholes…everyone hath one, and to all whatsoever proceedeth out of said bunghole is, yea, verily, fit for human consumption.
But please keep posting. You make far more convincing arguments as to WHY the Church should stick to the twenty-year old Proclamation on the Family than I do. Gotta hand you that, and thank you very much.
Douglas,
Loved your last comment and it is accurate. It is like Michael Moore helping Bush get re-elected.
Keep telling yourself that, big guy! In reality, it’s the crazy rantings of bigots that are convincing rational people every day to support equality.
Bro. Jones, I am aware that there are many children who have difficulty finding forever families. We have considered this very carefully and may adopt a child with physical and/or mental challenges at some future point (and the race doesn’t matter–I feel this should go without saying, but I have to be very, very careful to be clear in any discussion about gay rights so unfair assumptions about my character are not made) when my kids are older. Always, I plan to consider carefully what’s best for my family in my desire to have more kids.
Nick, I agree, it is distasteful to talk about competing for kids. But that is truly how it felt when we were trying to adopt, and It’s why we ultimately were planning to adopt through the foster care program. I don’t know, maybe we were with bad agencies, but that’s definitely how it felt.
I’m just not sure that everyone realizes how very difficult it is to adopt, so I thought I’d put it out there.
I’m thrilled that some gay couples are willing to adopt kids with challenges. But I think, when gay marriage is legally considered exactly the same as hetero marriage everywhere, and a few years have passed, there is no reason to believe that a higher percentage of gay couples than hetero couples will want to adopt kids with challenges.
And again, my point is that it makes me sad that it will become more and more common for children to never have a mother, or never have a father. I do worry that those kids will have extra challenges (but I hope I’m wrong).