Homosexuality – Gay Marriage

Me personally, i’m fine if same sex couples have all the same treatment, benefits, or whatever government gives to traditional married couples. I really don’t care. That seems fair to me. I agree that the LDS Church will long be remembered for their participation in this (both negative and positive depending on the person). I also prefer that the Church stay above politics in general. I like that idea.

The part that I have a hard part with still is the word … “marriage.” Its that last part where the SSM proponents want to make those who disagree, and this topic is a deeply rooted religious disagreement, fully embrace them as the same. Its not just about being treated equal under the law, it sometimes seems like there will be no peace until those traditional religious people also accept them on a religious basis — that they stop thinking SSM is wrong. That is where I start to have sympathy for those who are opposed. How can they go that route without being forced into some massive and painful deconstruction of their faith?

I’ve asked this in other places, but how exactly does the LDS Church get to a point where they embrace SSM? (goes the same for Catholics, the Muslims, Orthodox Jews and other extremely traditional Churches). I have yet to see a really good explanation. Mostly just people throw back reasoning about fairness and feelings. But how would that work doctrinally? I just don’t see a realistic path in the very short-term future for the LDS Church to doctrinally embrace SSM. If that ever happens, it will take a few more decades. In some ways, I think it is healthy that parts of our society move slower to change. Maybe SSM is a good change. That will play out over a long time.

So I am not really happy with how the Church got involved, but I have some sympathy for it’s position.

I’ve said everywhere that I would support comprehensive civil unions (with exactly equal civil rights) regardless of sexual orientation, with “marriage” reserved as a religious word for churches to confer as they desire. If some churches want to perform gay marriages, so be it; if others don’t, so be it. I see that as the only option that provides equal protection under the law, while still allowing religions to “sanctify” marriage. I see this generally in Europe, with their implementation of civil unions. I also see this already on a very practical level in the Mormon Church – where Mormon/non-Mormon marriage has one of the highest divorce rates in the nation, the non-temple-marriage Mormon divorce rate essentially is average in the country, and the temple marriage divorce rate is the lowest in the nation by far. I think this is due largely to those marriages being “sanctified” in the eyes of those who are involved.

I also have said in many places that I see multiple, clear ways that gay members can be more active in the Church without having to forsake the current wording of our core covenants, but I don’t think the membership in general is ready for that. We’re getting closer and closer (slowly), but I don’t think we are close to being there yet.

As for the overall issue, I do think it is much more complicated than most people (on either side) consider. Sexuality and sexual orientation definitely are “hard-wired” for many, but every study I have seen over the decades indicates that it is soft-wired in a much larger percentage of the population than many people realize (and than either side wants to publicize). This means that there are lots of people who might lean toward either option, depending on what transpires in their lives. There also is almost a given in research that recognizes a significant portion of the lesbian population as influenced by previous abuse – that women, especially, fluctuate within the orientation spectrum more than men and end up much more likely to be bi-sexual than men.

Given the Church’s most recent alterations to its official statements regarding homosexuality, I’m fairly certain that the apostolic consensus recognizes those who are “hard-wired” as being unable to live the Law of Chastity as currently constituted – or, at the very least, that they recognize how brutally difficult and unrealistic it is to expect many homosexuals to live the Law of Chastity. Personally, I think that the stance on gay marriage legislation is focused as an attempt to keep social inhibitions in place that would discourage those who are more “soft-wired” from sexual experimentation and influence those who could end up sexually active as straight, bi-sexual or gay to “choose” heterosexual activity over the other alternatives. That is what I get from the statements of the Church leaders I have read, and I have tried to read them carefully and slowly. From that perspective, I understand and support the Church’s stance on the vote for Prop 8 – even if I reject completely most of the arguments I read for that vote. Most of them are just as applicable within the straight community, but nobody I know who argued them also would argue for the natural application of them to the heterosexual community. I don’t like hypocrisy, and far too many supporters of Prop 8 were fundamentally hypocritical in their justifications for their support. That left me willing to support Prop 8 in its most narrow application, but dismayed by the reasoning being given by most people around me. (If I had been required to vote based solely on those justifications, I would have voted No in a heartbeat – without hesitation. However, I have been intimately involved with homosexual friends since my college days [where most of my closest friends were gay], so I have had twenty years to think about this issue.)

My biggest problem right now is that we are aligned with those who have no problem with hyperbolic and vile arguments – who use horribly weak justifications – who condemn ALL active homosexuals (and, in some cases, even non-active homosexuals) to Hell – who truly are bigots and homophobes. We are aligned politically with many organizations who really do NOT “hate the sinner”, but we also are aligned with many others who actually DO “hate the sinner”. Even if we accept homosexual activity as “sin” (and, in many cases, I do not classify it that way), I am every bit as much of a sinner as most active homosexuals, and I know gay friends who live much more Christlike lives than I currently do. To be aligned politically on an issue like this with those who openly glory in visions of eternal damnation for others (including, in many cases, us) pains me deeply.

Finally, I am concerned that we don’t identify enough with all who are sexually active outside the bounds of our own Law of Chastity – heterosexual OR homosexual. I think we do way too much judging and not nearly enough loving, even in those cases where we can’t yet embrace a particular sexual action – again, heterosexual OR homosexual. I am much more concerned about our un-Christlike feelings and perspectives and reactions than to others’ beliefs and actions.

Fwiw, right after the Prop 8 vote, I wrote the following on my blog:

http://thingsofmysoul.blogspot.com/2008/11/proposition-8-and-presidency-week-of.html

Legalized SSM to me is not a church issue it is up to the people of free society to decide.

That’s of course what Prop 8 was about–whether it was the right of the people of the state of CA to decide or not. They had voted against SSM, and the court overruled their vote. Prop 8 was to restore the matter to the vote of the people. The people again voted no, although they did it by a narrower margin this time. I would certainly say that’s an arguable point, whether it’s a decision that belongs with the public or the courts. As for whether an individual church wants to sanction a specific type of marriage, that’s also pretty much a consensus issue. Almost all have stated (so far) that they think that’s the discretion of a given church.

Personally, I am uncomfortable when politics are introduced at church. I would prefer we not take an activist stance on just about anything, but leave those matters to the discretion of individuals. “Teach them correct principles, and let them govern themselves.” At the end of the day, regardless of whatever rhetoric you hear at church, you’re the only one in that voting booth anyway. I don’t like the strange bedfellows that politics brings. I don’t like the hyperbolic rhetoric individuals use (in either party and for most causes).

I like Ray’s idea about mainstreaming gay church members, even when they are not living the law of chastity. Perhaps they cannot hold church callings (just as heterosexuals who are disfellowshipped cannot), but we can love them and include them. They can fully participate as members, side by side with us.

Some of the drag on change in the church is probably due to being led by a gerontocracy; for their generation, these guys are pretty progressive. But OTOH, I don’t care to be led by a bunch of young wet-behind-the-ears whippersnappers either. A little life experience would be helpful at giving credibility. Look at how much other Christian denominations struggle due to the personal instability of their young leaders. Many of them simply aren’t ready to handle the “fame” and importance of their positions.

Thanks for the response, Salo. You actually highlighted some areas where, on re-reading, I wasn’t very clear.

1) I didn’t mean to make “membership” exclusive of “leadership”. I meant it to be inclusive of all levels of membership. I meant the Church as a whole isn’t ready.

2) I also think it would be a nightmare to be gay in the Church right now. That’s why I don’t condemn or judge those who leave – who can’t remain celibate. I’m not sure I could, so I am deeply grateful I didn’t have to try. I met my love early and married her early, so I never had to live that particular nightmare.

3) What I meant is that the actual covenants we make relative to the Law of Chastity don’t need to be tweaked to allow gay members in legally recognized marriages to attend the temple (even if they can’t be sealed therein) – and if civil unions were the law of the land, our current wording would allow gay members in those legal unions to be actively involved in local units (excepting certain callings) at the least – and there is NOTHING in our current church attendance policies that would deny gay members the ability to worship and study with us in any of our local meetings. I’m not saying it would happen right now in lots of local units or in the temple, but the wording doesn’t prohibit it automatically.

“If i’m hearing you correct you are saying you see the hand of God in the current teachings but the membership (and you spread the blame around here to include all levels) are not ready to interpret them correctly.”

Not quite, but close. Just to be clear here in this thread, I think it would take a very direct and clear revelation on the magnitude of the Manifesto and OD 2 in order to make gay marriage acceptable in the Church, and I don’t see that happening in the near future. I see valid reasons for the current teachings (so I would have voted for Prop 8 if I had lived in CA), even as I hope we can find ways to engage actively gay members more in the Church. I think it would be possible without much change to our current covenant wording, but I don’t think it will happen without revelation. I might be wrong about that, but I’m fairly confident revelation would be necessary for any major change – and I’m not confident that “major change” is the will of God.

In a nutshell, I think a lot of things relative to this topic, but I know very little about the future of the topic.

I’ve often thought that an approach to this issue, and actually many issues, would be for our Church to become FAR more comfortable with imperfection and sin. I know that sounds horrible to more orthodox ears, but it saddens me how many people leave the fountain of spiritual nurturing because they feel they aren’t good enough to be there. In fact, that is reinforced by members who do not understand their own desparate need for the grace of the God.

Part of it is how we seem to grade and order sins into magnitudes and severity in the Church. We are *ALL* sinners who fall short, from TSM all the way down to the most inactive member. Which is the worse sinner? The man I personally know that is emotionally abusive to his wife, or the other man that loves another man and has sexual attraction to him? Does it even matter in the eyes of God that we attempt to grade them? God has total, all-encompassing love and acceptance for us just as we are. God also urges us to keep walking forward, and to discover our personal divinity, while shedding the things that hold us back, whatever those things may be. My view of this has changed significantly as I have entered midlife and really internalized that I will never be able to conquer all my flaws in this life and EARN and deserve salvation through my works. I carried that baggage for so long, I wore myself out. I suspect that’s the point. I needed to carry it until I was ready to let go. I feel silly about it now sometimes thinking about it. I feel so much more compassion now for others who are struggling, instead of feeling threatened or uncomfortable with them.

I look at Jesus Christ, and I see him sharing meals with “publicans” and sinners. I don’t think they were all sitting around the dinner table looking all morbid and pained at each other. We are all following the quiet promptings of the Holy Spirit in a direction towards the divine unity with God and Christ. I have my problems. I am a very flawed man for sure. The man or woman next to me that is gay is flawed too. I don’t even have to be sure that homosexuality is a flaw. It certainly shouldn’t exclude him or her from my love and acceptance.

I’m a sinner, and I can hold callings. I can serve others. I can be a member of the LDS Church. I can uplift those who are down. I can be a part of the solution. Why not someone who is gay?

Its easy to say “lets put all young people in leadership” so we can change faster. I’m in between young and old now. Looking back, I would have really screwed the whole Church up royally if they had made me king of the Church with all power and discretion to make any changes I wanted. On the other hand, I also feel the frustration of being restrained by older people who are from a bygone era. Yes. They seem out of touch in a lot of ways. Don’t forget we will be those old people, set in our ways, some day. We will be the ones resisting the new and correct changes, holding back progress. I suspect we will be sure that we are doing the right thing, even though younger and wiser people will be passionately telling us otherwise

It’s also worth considering that much of the messiest stuff that challenges faith came about in a time when the Church was led by the young and impetuous. Most members don’t stop and consider that.

wow … You are right Ray. I hadn’t focused on that before. That is a really good point.