“There are so many interacting causes for sexual orientation that two different individuals can be gay for a different combination of reasons. Some people know at earlier ages than others. Some are bisexual rather than gay, some show more change over the course of their life. All this means that whenever someone comes up with a tag line like “we’re born that way”, they ultimately do everyone involved a disservice.” (Lisa Diamond, NS 25 July 2015 p18-19)
Lisa Diamond, professor of developmental psychology at the University of Utah was interviewed for the Opinion Interview in the 25 July issue of the New Scientist about her research on human sexuality. She had some interesting things to say.
Before looking at some of the points mentioned lets get out of the way that Diamond is on record as saying that her research does not support reparative therapy, and she has in the past been more than annoyed by groups that have misrepresented her findings to do just that. Diamond’s research examines sexual fluidity – “the capacity to experience attractions that run counter to your overall orientation.” Her earlier research looked at women. She is the author of the book “Sexual Fluidity: Understanding Women’s Love and Desire”. She was interviewed by the Huffington Post in 2012 (see here and here). More recent research has looked at men (cited here).
I would recommend reading the NS interview. What I want to do with this post is to highlight several things brought out in the interview that may have relevance to the LDS church in handling LGB issues in the future, and which form an interesting back drop to the current BSA debacle.
- Whilst there are those who experience solely same sex attraction, the most common form of same sex attraction is a bisexual form.
- Increasing social acceptability correlates with an increasing number of people who identify as gay, and in particular as either bisexual or as heterosexual but having had same sex experiences.
- Studies show that same sex attraction in and of itself is not “contagious”, but social acceptance is, lowering the risks of acting on those attractions.
- The development of sexual identity is complex, involving both an underlying capacity, and environmental interactions (environment includes the prenatal environment).
- There is no evidence that a person’s closeness or otherwise to their mother or father has anything to do with it.
For a church that wants to show love towards LGB members, and which at the same time wants to promote a heterosexual norm of marriage to an opposite sex partner, this research would seem to pose something of a conundrum. It may be one reason for the reluctance to be seen as condoning LGB relationships in any way. A difficult line to walk.
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
Now that the battle over SSM has been won, I think that LGBT advocates will begin to show more nuance in their definitions. Heretofore, the LGBT community has minimised bisexuality and insisted that homosexuality is inborn and unalterable, which makes it much easier to advocate for. Of course some homosexuality IS inborn and unalterable, but I think the article is right that the real situation is much more complicated.
If “the most common form of same sex attraction is bisexual,” that means that in the majority of SSA cases, LDS advocacy of heterosexuality could be completely innocuous. It’s like telling people to choose one brand of fabric softener over another. No big deal. But if you are allergic to a certain brand, then its still harmful.
But I think culture is telling bisexual people that they have to choose homosexuality. If you have those feelings, you are gay, end of story, and it is your right and your duty to stand up and claim your rights and be proud of your identity. We are taught that repressing same-sex attraction is harmful. But if we also have opposite-sex attraction, then is repressing same-sex attraction still harmful? I think culture is screwing with our brains a bit on this issue.
If a person is not married, he or she has no right to sexual feelings. That person needs to dismiss them. Two people of the same gender who claim to be married are not married according to God whether in this life or in the temple, should that happen. If two people of different genders marry they are married in the eyes of God can procreate between themselves and are of no sexual sin if their relationship is always between themselves.
If you interpret any holy scripture, that you say are of God and they refer to sexual feelings between any two unmarried people or to any person by himself or herself then you are, badly, misinterpreting holy scripture.
Like it or not, that’s the way it is.
Saying one is “born this way” is the easiest way for someone to get the following point across: “don’t tell me to change my sexual orientation because it is not a choice, this is who I am.”
I have no problem with this in light of so many who still think it is a choice.
As people accept that it is not a choice, hammering out the details seems fine. But the sad thing is many people misinterpret anything to suit their agenda, like the author stated. People have claimed her science supports the idea of reparative therapy, which is not true.
I don’t see this as a conundrum for the church. The church needs to wake up on this issue.
Hedgehog:
I don’t see the conundrum and strongly support the church on this issue.
The problem with this entire post, and overall discussion, is the emphasis that is put on sex. God has asked us to bridle our passions. Sex is a necessary and important part of marriage, but it is not the only part. For that matter, billions of people engage in sex without marriage.
Marriage in the church is about taking two people that are by design opposite and making them one. Men and Women are fundamentally different. I have been to three sealing’s in the last week. It is a wonderful, but extremely difficult covenant with GOD. Not with each other, but with God. It is about learning and growing with a member of the opposite sex. This cannot happen with LGBT to the same extent.
The emphasis that is put on sex? If god created us, it was god who put the emphasis on sex. Look around. It dominates the priority list of almost every species on the planet. Do you know how many resources animals (including humans) devote to sex?
Of course, we would never want to protect someone from being denied their civil rights due to a CHOICE they made…..like their religion!
I don’t doubt that some are “born that way.” But I am not sure this is the case 100% of the time. Since I am not an expert, I can’t state how much environment and situation might have a role. But, I suspect some of it happens that way as well.
One always has the choice on how to act on our feelings, one way or another.
Some would say, they shouldn’t have to make a choice, but that’s what being on earth is all about, isn’t it?
Unless you choose not to believe that, then all bets are off.
“If God created us, it was God who put the emphasis on sex”
Kinda true. He said “I give unto men Weakness..” In other words, the many outcomes from natural biology — pre-dispositions, tendencies, drives and passions – the natural man. It is up to us to overcome the natural man with his grace.
Ken, it is not doctrinally accurate to portray the inherent drive for intimacy as a weakness. The point of the phrase “bridle your passions” is that the passion itself is not wicked. The sin is the lack of control the natural man exhibits. Overcoming the natural man refers to controlling the desires, not extinguishing them.
“Ken, it is not doctrinally accurate to portray the inherent drive for intimacy as a weakness.”
I never said or implied that; in fact, I wholly agree with your comment.
I would add “controlling the desires” does mean never engaging in some. For example, the desire to sexually control or abuse another person; the desire to murder or molest another person; or, the desire to engage in certain sexual acts.
“Overcoming the natural man refers to controlling the desires, not extinguishing them.”
Putting off the natural man, in scripture, means to yield to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, to be born of the Spirit. It means to become a “spiritual man” as the opposite of the “natural man.” The scripture is not referring to controlling “natural” desires and urges. It is about becoming spiritual beings, sanctified through the atonement of Christ. They “becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.” Do you see anything there about controlling “natural” desires? I don’t.
One thing that I took from your summary (and maybe this is incorrect without having researched further) is that it seems that Ms. Diamond’s research may support the idea that people fall in love with people. That perhaps our attraction is so gender specific (for those it is) because of a lot of external influencing factors, like parenting, society, etc. It seems that maybe if we were to grow up in an environment that was completely free of influencing factors toward sexual orientation, many more of us might be bisexual (?) because we wouldn’t be considering gender, so much as the individual themself.
Also, I don’t even really get this whole ‘show love for…’ thing. What does that even mean? To me, it just seems like a front. I did a quick google search of what it means to ‘show love’, and this is what I came up with:
“•Tenderness, compassion, and sensitivity to the needs of the other”
“•An ongoing, honest exchange of personal feelings.”
“•The process of offering concern, comfort, and outward assistance for the loved one’s aspirations.”
Not to hijack your post, but if I’m being honest, I just get really annoyed when people point out how the church says to “love” LGBT individuals. “The gospel of Jesus Christ teaches us to love and treat all people with kindness and civility—even when we disagree.” Kindness and civility – yes. “Love” – no. I don’t think the way the church acts toward those in “same sex relationships” actually embodies any of those attributes of showing love.
Nate, interesting thoughts. It will interesting to see how things play out moving forwards.
Rich: “If a person is not married, he or she has no right to sexual feelings.”
Maybe we use the word “feelings” differently, but feelings happen, it is what we do with our feelings that is the point.
Dexter, I agree “born this way” can be a quick short cut to “this is something I didn’t have a choice about”, but it is misleading.
Ken, Dexter, on the conundrum angle I was thinking about the surprise expressed in some quarters of the bloggernacle to the press release about the BSA decision. Many questioned it in light of what had seemed to have been a more inclusive outreach by the church towards lesbian and gay members recently. They viewed the press release as a step backwards.
Ken: “The problem with this entire post, and overall discussion, is the emphasis that is put on sex.”
Well specifically sexual attraction, Ken. Not sure what else you’d expect from a brief post intended to highlight research about same sex attraction. I could have chosen a different subject I guess, but I thought it relevant to current events.
Nick, on the civil rights issue quoting from the NS interview Diamond said that Justice Kennedy had indicated that sexual orientation is immutable, but that “importantly, that was not the basis on which the ruling was made… that’s not the basis for legal reasoning in the US. And it shows we don’t need to be a protected class in order to make strong and successful arguments about civil rights.”
Jeff, I think environment has to include things like epigenetic changes, chemical exposure (including exposure to hormones), pollution, diet, population.. so many factors. We can see the effect of things in the natural world – for some reason fish are the first thing I find come to mind.
I would agree with you that life on earth is certainly about choice.
Mary Ann (9), Ken (8,10), I would agree, so far as it goes.
Steven, maybe I’m missing something. Doesn’t yielding to the enticings of the spirit help in developing control of self?
KT: “One thing that I took from your summary (and maybe this is incorrect without having researched further) is that it seems that Ms. Diamond’s research may support the idea that people fall in love with people. That perhaps our attraction is so gender specific (for those it is) because of a lot of external influencing factors, like parenting, society, etc. It seems that maybe if we were to grow up in an environment that was completely free of influencing factors toward sexual orientation, many more of us might be bisexual (?) because we wouldn’t be considering gender, so much as the individual themself.”
I didn’t get the impression that she goes that far, though the blurb on the link for her book in the OP says the following:
“For some, gender becomes irrelevant: “I fall in love with the person, not the gender,” say some respondents.” So it would seem to be true for some people certainly. Her research does show that fluidity is not the same for everybody, and there are those in societies very hostile to lesbian/gay people, who are nevertheless lesbian/gay. I would imagine the reverse to also be the case, that even in very welcoming societies there will be those who do not experience same sex attractions. So more of a spectrum. And it would seem that in the more open societies there is more willingness on the part of those on the more middle ground to acknowledge their same sex attractions.
I like your definition of showing love. You may be right on that.
“Steven, maybe I’m missing something. Doesn’t yielding to the enticings of the spirit help in developing control of self?”
Yes, but my point is that people frequently cite the scripture about the “natural man is an enemy to God” as a call to control one’s “natural” desires and impulses. Instead, the verse is a call for men to become born of the Spirit. One doesn’t become a “spiritual” being by controlling his or her “natural” passions and desires. One becomes a spiritual being by drawing unto the Spirit and being sanctified by Christ. It is a fine distinction, but one I think is the essence of the Gospel.
Steven, I will concede that bridling the passions is a more appropriate scriptural injunction than putting off the natural man in this context.
Back to the OP, I thought the presentation of the conundrum was fascinating. If the study is accurate that greater acceptance of LGBT individuals in the community leads to lower societal risks on coming out as LGBT, then the church really is in a catch-22. Showing love for the individuals in this case actually *does* risk encouraging more people to participate in actions the church would prefer to discourage.
To be honest, doctrinal arguments need simplicity. Arguing that having LGBT tendencies is solely a matter of choice dictates that individuals can be held spiritually accountable for those decisions. Using the “born this way” argument implies a restriction on agency, which then affects spiritual accountability. Saying “it’s complicated,” while definitely the most accurate, is not a helpful answer when people are looking to the church for authoritative statements. At an institutional level the church does black and white. At the personal level we can see more shades of gray.
If we are looking for simplicity, there shouldn’t be a conundrum for the church, with or without the research of Lisa Diamond. Jesus said “Love everyone. Treat them kindly too.”
Forgive me for sidestepping the OP, but in my opinion the real conundrum is that the church’s doctrine developed from a heterosexual worldview, and now it is becoming more and more evident to society that there is a spectrum of sexual orientation and gender expression. The conundrum is whether the church should continue to hold up the heterosexual couple, with the perfect gender duality, as the only ideal worth consideration and refusing to accept and fellowship all who do not fit that mold.
If the church sees giving love and acceptance to those who are different as a “risk” then it doesn’t understand the pure teaching of Jesus. And it would prefer to restrict the agency of its members simply to hold up its untenable ideal.
The “risk” is that people will explore their own sexuality and find happiness with a person they are attracted to and well suited to be in a relationship with. The “risk” is that members may have happy, stable families that do not meet the ideal the church is currently advocating.
“It is about learning and growing with a member of the opposite sex. This cannot happen with LGBT to the same extent.”
Ken – and you know this how?? I’m tired of straight people claiming to know how gay people feel. We’re just as capable of the other dimensions of intimacy, commitment, sacrifice and love in our relationships as straight people are in theirs. Our attractions are just as normal and natural to us as yours are to you. Don’t presume to speak for people like me that you know NOTHING about.
So what about the Kinsey scale? 1-7, right? With everyone falling somewhere in between? I think this is a pretty good descriptor and do believe there is fluidity and nuance to sexuality …..
But if we’re moving from everything is a choice and everything different than me is a twisted perversion” narrative…. Getting people to acknowledge some people are “born that way” is a good first step.
One thing I’ve learned about recently that is probably pretty widespread in the church is bisexual erasure – bisexuals in hetero marriages neither identifying nor acting on their bisexuality.
There is so much we don’t know. I went to the Queer LDS Womem panel at sunstone and liked learning about the diverse experiences of them all. A sexuality is real, and heartbreaking. Sigh. Can we just acknowledge there is so much we don’t know?
Hedgehog #14:
That is exactly what I meant. I think I was aiming at the Book of Mormon’s teaching that we will be judged according to our thoughts which will help a lot in keeping the feelings away until they are right in doing them.
Neal
Ssa was not present in the pre existence and will not be present after this life.
You risk much by committing major transgression.
Steven, thanks for the clarification #18.
“Forgive me for sidestepping the OP, but in my opinion the real conundrum is that the church’s doctrine developed from a heterosexual worldview, and now it is becoming more and more evident to society that there is a spectrum of sexual orientation and gender expression. The conundrum is whether the church should continue to hold up the heterosexual couple, with the perfect gender duality, as the only ideal worth consideration and refusing to accept and fellowship all who do not fit that mold.”
I don’t disagree. It does look like something that needs to be grappled with from a doctrinal point of view.
I think you make a good point about agency #22.
Mary Ann #19, Thanks for the comment. I do think the church will need to face that whether or not the church comes across as more accepting, the fact that society as a whole, at least in the west, is doing so, means that members will be exposed to that cultural environment anyway. Some way of dealing with a world where a norm of heterosexual relationships cannot be taken for granted needs to be found, that is neither reactionary nor hostile. Definitely lots of grey.
Neal, thanks for the comment.
Kristine: “One thing I’ve learned about recently that is probably pretty widespread in the church is bisexual erasure – bisexuals in hetero marriages neither identifying nor acting on their bisexuality.”
This would be a problem because? The thing about marriage is, it’s a commitment to a spouse. Ideally a married man or woman would wish to remain faithful to that spouse regardless of any attraction they might feel to another person of either sex. Having made that commitment, I’m not sure why they would wish to talk about any attraction they might feel to another person.
I’m more than happy to acknowledge there’s tons we don’t know.
Rich #24, thanks for the clarification.
Ron #25, You know that how?
#6 – Nick, I’d never want to deny YOU or any other gay man (or any man or woman, for that matter) your ‘civil rights’ regardless of your (lack of) civility. Now, if you’re insisting on your inherent right to behave in a free manner with another consenting adult(erer) as you both deem fit, I’d wholeheartedly agree that your ‘right’ to do so ought not to be interfered with. To me, the test of one’s commitment to Libertarian values is to support the rights of persons whose views and/or conduct he personally finds revolting (but violence, whether under color of authority or by mobocracy, is more ‘revolting’).
I will certainly uphold your rights as articulated by Sgt. Joseph Friday, LAPD, Badge #714. Sorry I couldn’t find a clip with the Sgt reciting the Miranda warning, I have to figure out how to excerpt a clip and get it on the next “Dragent” airing on MeTV, but, for your viewing pleasure, the good Sergeant’s style…
Neal
Don’t listen to the voices of this world. The First Presidency and the 12 apostles are here to help guide us through mortality safely.
Given the complexities that scientists can identify in our physical bodies (down to the chromosomal level) regarding gender/biological sex, there is no way we should be making statements about what was happening with our premortal spirit bodies or what will be happening with our resurrected bodies in the hereafter. As has been discussed, the most accurate answer is “it’s complicated.”
Even the Church won’t take a position on “nurture or nature” so there’s no ‘official’ position to take as to the INCLINATION towards same-sex attraction. Like many other behavioral issues, the role of genetics versus environment won’t likely be resolved.
However, the Law of Chastity is NOT based on what impels one to break it in whatever way, it’s based on the ability of those commanded to keep it (I Nephi 3:7). Save one is genuinely mentally ill (beyond the scope of this forum to elaborate, but have to acknowledge mental illness with regards to misbehavior), EVERYONE has the ability to perfectly keep the Law of Chastity regardless of their appetites. Yes, some, if not many, fail to keep it, and that’s where the repentance process comes in, which at first brings up the issue of recognition of the sin. If you’re seeking endless ways to downplay your sins or refuse to acknowledge them, then the repentance process is effectively short-circuited.
I only mention it as an issue because LGBT+ is a marginalized group – there are people quietly in this situation who may be feeling confusion or guilt for their feelings; or believe that everyone experiences life like they are. I think knowing and acknowledging the complexity of your own sexuality could only help you manage it; especially if we break down the barriers of shame associated with it.
Douglas, but why can’t the law of chastity be fair?
For example, an unmarried man and woman can hold hands, kiss, make-out and still be temple worthy.
Two gay people cannot even do that without sinning, in the eyes of the church.
Similarly, when married to each other, a man and woman can have sex without being in any trouble.
But two gay people married to each other cannot have sex without sinning.
So for you to say everyone can obey the law of chastity, well, it’s a lot easier for straight people than gay people. Since we know so little about human sexuality – despite so many know it all quotes from church leaders over the years – perhaps the same rules should apply to all?
Is there a way to read the article without shucking out the shekels?
I don’t know if Diamond addresses this, but last I heard, there was some evidence indicating that female sexuality tends to be more fluid than that of males. I always wondered if that’s because it seems more affectional and less visual. At any rate, there’s still so much we don’t know that it seems pointless to make more than the most tentative of “At this point, it would appear . . .” statements about these things. None of those are really effective guides to behavior, since we’re all different.
When I provided the link NI, it was available to read free if you registered, it looks like that offer has now expired. Sorry!
I believe Diamond originally thought females were more fluid than males, but her more recent research, which was presented February 2014 I believe, but which I haven’t found published yet (although cited briefly in the link in the OP) she announced she was wrong, and males were more fluid too. Something along those lines. There seems to be an earlier online presentation from 2013 here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2rTHDOuUBw).
Kristine, I guess I can see that. Though I think it is relatively recently that anyone really felt comfortable discussing their sexuality as part of their identity.