First, I should make it very clear that I’m a Mormon and I really do believe in my church and its doctrines. I’ve also received a MA from Yale in religion, and am in a Ph.D. program in systematic theology at the Catholic University of America, so I kind of know my way around theological discussions. Our leaders have been pushing very hard for the members of the LDS Church to help pass Proposition 8 in California, which would overturn a CA Supreme Court ruling allowing homosexual couples to get married. I’m not at BYU anymore, nor do I live in California, but my impression is that the church has been pushing hard on this issue. The church has not, however, said “you must vote for Proposition 8 or you will be excommunicated.”
Second, one of my best friends is gay. The influence Devan has had on my life is worthy of its own entry here, but might also delve into the realm of the personal more than I’m comfortable sharing on a public blog. I consider the moment he (finally) “came out” to me a seminal moment in my life. If anybody actually begins gay-bashing they’re going to have to go through me, because I love Devan dearly as a friend.
With regards to Proposition 8, the arguments that have filtered my way from a legal standpoint are quite convincing. I’ll let you read the link at the end of the blog for the specific arguments, but I find particularly cutting the point that Catholic Adoption Agencies in Massachusetts have voluntarily shut down because of the current state laws and rulings there on this issue. I have some dear friends who are trying to adopt through LDS Social Services right now, and the idea that LDS Social Services might have to shut down disturbs me greatly. I do not find convincing the idea that we LDS will shortly be forced to allow homosexual marriages in our churches and temples. There’s a lot of latitude to operate with regards to religious freedom, and I doubt that the U.S. court system will begin to wade into that quagmire of saying that churches cannot determine their own membership requirements.
Anyway, this entry isn’t about Proposition 8. Obviously it provided the impetus for it, along with an email I got from an old high school friend of mine who wanted my opinion on Proposition 8 and the LDS take on homosexual marriage. In my 5 page response to him I noted that I’m currently working on a paper for a young LDS religious scholar’s conference, Faith and Knowledge that is basically an assessment of the LDS argument against homosexual marriage. In short, I think our argument is ridiculously stronger than any other religious argument, but not as strong as most LDS think it is. In particular I think we need to affirm the following propositions to make the case airtight:
1. God is married to a woman.
2. Only heterosexual couples will be able to have spirit children in the afterlife.
So while both of these propositions are short leaps from other affirmed LDS doctrines, and most Mormons do believe them, they have not been stated explicitly in a canonical way.
However, I am still not actually to the point of this entry. I’ll state my position on homosexuality succinctly now, and ask the question. I honestly want some feedback. I hope nobody is offended, and if anybody actually responds in the comments section, please keep it civil.
Despite my above assertion that the LDS argument against homosexual marriage is not (yet) logically perfect, I do believe my church’s teachings on the matter. So that means I believe homosexuality is temporary in the sense that it is a this-life-only condition. However it occurs, nature, nurture, or a combination of the two, I do not believe it will exist in the afterlife. In this view homosexuality becomes one of the myriad trials that one can go through. It is not at all my cross to bear, but we all have our own individual crosses and I in no way am trying to speak to the life experiences of my homosexual brothers and sisters on this planet as to the particulars of living as a homosexual. Life isn’t fair. In fact, that’s kind of the point of this earth life, in the LDS framework. (That, of course, doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t do our darndest to make sure it is fair inasmuch as we can.) So in my view homosexuality is a temporary, earthly condition that will not extend into the eternities. I also believe, therefore, that giving in to these very powerful feelings is to enter a state that violates a fundamental commandment of God—to only have sexual relations with a spouse of the opposite gender. So at best homosexual sexual relationships are a temporary this-life-only stopgap, and at worst they are a serious enough sin that it actually begins to impact the eternities.
I also fully recognize that of course not everybody else shares these views.
A good friend of mine currently has as her facebook status: [Carl’s Friend] says “No on 8!!!! No to hate!!!!” I hope it’s clear that my position was not arrived at lightly, quickly, or without deep thought and emotion, but I hope it’s also clear that my position does not spring out of fear or hatred and isn’t a knee-jerk homophobic reaction.
I want the best for my friends. As someone with the above beliefs “live and let live” is not an option—to do so would be to not actually want the best for my friends. So here’s my question (this is not specifically in regards to Proposition 8, which I have briefly discussed above, this is a more general question):
What are my moral obligations, as a person with the deeply held beliefs I have just outlined, to my homosexual friends?
Depending on the responses I get (if any) there may be a follow-up blog entry on this, as the self-described purpose of this blog is to help me “live the examined life,” a process that doesn’t ever exactly end.
9 comments:
You follow an interesting path here. Thank you for your insights. If you post more about this subject I will read it.
--Rebecca (not your sister)
Jamie Jones is my wife and I found your post thought provoking. I just have one comment that may or may not affect the assessment.
The first point you claim should be reinforced to perfect the LDS position is that God is married to a (single) woman. However, in the broader (read eternal) context, the LDS standard works acknowledge that God is not married to just a single woman but to at least two women (our spiritual mother and Mary, Christ's mother). Thus, the concept of a single man and single woman relationship being the exclusive and approved marital relationship to the exclusion of others does not appear to have much merit. In the eternities polygamy and monogamy both will be prominent and accepted marital principles.
This may be a distinction without difference because your second point is entirely valid and is, in my mind, the trump card. In the eternities only men and women (no matter the number of wives) will have spiritual offspring. The fact that God engages in an relationship alternative to the one he currently sanctions for his spirit children on Earth is likely of no moment to the overall argument that the inherent nature of homosexuality is antithetical to the laws of eternity.
Your comments are extremely well reasoned and it's somewhat refreshing to read your particular perspective.
Dear Carl,
As your mom's apostate cousin, a strong No on 8 supporter with lots of gay friends AND loving ties to my Mormon family, I have lots of thoughts on this... but I'm not sure they'd be appreciated, or even really pertinent to the train of thought. I just want to say how much I appreciate reading your honest, intelligent wrestling with the subject at hand. The world needs more people who strive to live the examined life.
Perhaps if we meet up at a family gathering sometime we can have a discussion; always interested in your thoughts. Thanks for having an open mind and heart.
I'm interested in seeing what comments you get, and reading your further thoughts.
Jennifer
Carl, I thought your argument was well put. Thank you for your thoughts, which mirror my own.
:)
As someone who is presently living in California and has read much regarding this issue, I appreciate the argument you have set forth here. Many have argued to me that this is a matter of equality; however, I believe this measure to be more one of acceptance.
Homosexual couples already enjoy all of the rights and privileges a married couple enjoys in California. As such, what remaining inequalities still exist? Personally, I believe the measure is the result of the homosexual community's desire for acceptance. However, it is in this manner where we quickly find ourselves being the victim of equivocation.
On one hand, the homosexual community appears to be equating acceptance (and tolerance) with approval of a lifestyle. On the other hand, acceptance (in my understanding) means understanding the others position and being respectful towards such. Time and time again, I am told I am being "intolerant" or a "bigot" because I disagree with a particular lifestyle - but where is the reciprocity? Don't I also deserve to have others to be "accepting" or tolerant of my point of view?
Nonetheless, thank you for the well constructed argument.
Okay I feel like I can better respond with a little sleep. I would treat my friend as I would want society to treat him and hope that others noticed my example. I would listen often and talk little. Sympathize with the difficulties he faces; get angry when the world hates him; love him. But hold fast to your beliefs and be the friend he needs if he ever decides to come back to the church.
Carl,
Talk about leaving a comment on a dead post, but I noticed that no one had actually answered your question. As you state it you want the best for your friends who, like me, are gay. And the ?conflicting view of the church teachings provide a moral dilemma of sorts. So what are you to do?
First off, you shouldn't accept your gay friends at all. I for one, don't want to be "accepted." I, and most gays I know, want to be treated precisely as we had been before.
You should love them, and sadly often times that love, like a parents love, can seem misplaced in the eyes of your friends. You should love them no matter what they do while at the same time voting and believing your conscience.
I don't urge anyone to believe things just because I say them but rather they should believe because the spirit tells them to.
However and this is a big however, You may be wrong. As long as you are open to the possibility that you, in all your loving attempts to prevent same-sex unions, may be wrong about 1 or both of your assumptions. That the 9th article of faith may yet reveal more doctrine to the church as a whole, then I, as a Gay LDS friend, would be okay with all the fire and brimstone I might be told I will inherit. (not that you are the type of person to do such)
ps, Lyndsey, I think you are having a state of conditional love that can feel like a knife in the back. "I'll be your friend....if you come back to church" Perhaps that isn't how you meant it, but that is the way I have seen such sentiments taken.
I guess this was written before I started reading your blog regularly. This is probably the most well-written post on the Mormon view of homosexuality I've come across.
I, too, will answer your question.
I think we as members of the Church have a moral obligation to treat all human beings as children of our Heavenly Father. We have a responsibility to treat people with homosexual tendencies just as we would treat any other person - with dignity and respect. But we do not have an obligation to enable the behavior. "Oh, that's ok for YOU, because that's the way you are." You wouldn't give a alcoholic a bottle of wine, or a copy of playboy to a pornography addict. Maybe that's not a 100% accurate analogy, but I think it fits reasonably well.
We are on this earth so we can learn to overcome our temptations through self control. The whole point of the Atonement is so we can change if we want to. Therefore, I don't buy into the idea that homosexuality is an indelible part of a person's identity. Such a philosophy flies in the face of everything we know about the Plan of Salvation and our Savior's sacrifice for us.
So, a couple thoughts as to your question (and in general, not exactly at you):
- We should never assume that we understand how others feel (should be a general rule, but reiterating it in this context is worthwhile, because the experiences of subjects can be radically different).
- Don't assume that same-sex attraction is due to some moral defect. (Remember Christ and the blind man.)
- Allow for there to be a theologically and temporally meaningful purpose in life beyond marriage and sex. The church is trying to do this with singles, but it probably also applies to members with SSA.
- Allow for marriage to be more than a legalization and expectation of sex.
- Avoid the societal equation of marriage/weddings with happily-ever-after.
- Allow members with SSA to share their experiences openly so that others can be confronted with the difference.
- Oppose insensitive jokes about people who do not fit traditional gender expectations. Reprimand those who degrade or mock.
- Try not to assume heterosexuality (or even, really, sexuality - even though it is a fact of life, we often let it totally define our discourse about humanity).
And, more than a little tongue-in-cheek:
- Dress modestly by occluding all prominent secondary sex characteristics. This means males must wear loose-fitting shirts with shoulders at all times, and should not wear things that draw attention to musculature (muscle shirts) or broadness of shoulders, which is regarded as the main indicator of male attractiveness (i.e. football pads are out of the question). You should respect those around you by not dressing provocatively :P
Post a Comment