Prop 8 / Same-Sex Marriage Discussion

[Anonymous]

I will try to say this carefully. Please read and parse to see where I am speaking in generalities and where I am not. Also, please try to understand that I am going to provide a scientific outlook that probably only addresses a small percentage of people – but that does address that small percentage, at least. Finally, please understand that I intentionally am going to set aside my own feelings for this comment and present what I believe to be the best argument for someone to oppose the teaching of homosexual activity as nothing more than a personal decision and as no big deal.

There tend to be two extremes argued with regard to human sexuality – either that it is fixed and immovable at birth or that it can be shaped and changed even into adulthood. (I personally believe there are lots of examples of both, and that is the heart of the issue, imo – that the second stance too often gets argued in just as absolute terms as the first.)

To focus on homosexuality, those who say it is fixed and unalterable in all cases discount totally the influence of culture and experience – saying that nobody who is homosexual had any choice in the matter. Their biggest problem is the examples of those who are bi-sexual AND those who actually do switch sexual practices and go from claiming to be exclusively one orientation to the other. Those who say it is malleable in all cases discount totally the influence of genetics and deny that anyone is “born gay”. Their biggest problem are those who felt attracted only to members of their own sex from a very early age (including, ironically, the entire heterosexual population), with no apparent non-biological factors.

The second stance is open to individual variation, and, ironically, it is that openness to variation that allows people who oppose homosexual activity to be both “liberal” (allowing for strong biological influences) while also being “conservative” (insisting that, as a choice, individuals can change their actions at any point in their lives).

Now, to the argument:

Most of the science I have read supports a relatively fluid sexuality for many people, while it also supports rather inflexible seuxality for most. Therefore, there is a legitimate argument to made, based on what we understand currently, to oppose the simulation of actual intercourse by those who claim to be homosexual (since they are simluating heterosexual activity in the name of homosexuality) and the presentation of such activity as acceptable to those whose own “sexual wiring” still is flexible. Sexual experimentation is common in children and adolescents, and much of the current science (from BOTH sides of the overall argument) indicates that there are people who are “naturally” bi-sexual and others who eventually choose one exclusive orientation over another in their later adolescnce or even early adulthood. This is true especially in instances where some kind of trauma has occurred, and it is particularly disproportionate among women. This means that a larger percentage of lesbians choose that lifestyle through some sort of trauma or experience than do gay men.

Not to get overly graphic, but this manifests itself strikingly in the difference in how men and women are able to simulate sexual activity. MANY lesbians do so through simulating heterosexual activity; men simply can’t do so with quite the same biological preciseness. Iow, gay men engage in activity that is unmistakenly homosexual, even if images are obscurred almost totally. Lebians, otoh, can appear to be engaging in heterosexual activity if the overall images are obscurred enough. That biological difference is important scientifically, since it allows women who formerly were exclusively heterosexual to continue to simulate that orientation in their homosexual relationships.

That is a long-winded way to try to make the point that those who want to limit the way that homosexual activity is portrayed as fine for anyone might not be motivated by fear as much as by a belief that (for those for whom sexual orientation is not fixed) it is better to “remain” heterosexual and deal with expereinces that would challange that orientation than to switch orientation and abandon heterosexuality altogether. It is saying, essentially,

Quote:

“Sexual orientation is fixed early enough for the vast majority of people that nothing is going to change that. However, for a certain percentage of people, it is not fixed early – or perhaps not even fixed at all. For those people, we don’t think choosing to be a sexually active homosexual is right – and we think that programs intending to say homosexual activity is right for anyone who feels any inclination to experiment at any time also are not right. Therefore, we think that such things should not be taught – that teaching such things will encourage experimentation and lead some to homosexual activity who would not do so without such teaching.”

That isn’t a motivation of fear – and it’s a pretty sound argument (even if only focused on a small percentage of the population) based on the science that is available today.

[Anonymous]

Thanks, Ray. That was one of the best dissections of the grayest part of this very gray issue. Very thoughtful and I agree with your analysis. In fact, one of my sister’s best friends is a lesbian of the exact order that you explained: TBM, RM, looking for a male eternal companion, found an alternative in a special relationship with a woman and now is 100% lesbian (according to her), completely abandoning church beliefs/activity. (And she had some unfortunate family male models)

I do not feel, however, that this implicitly means that “teaching” about homosexuality necessarily engages a young mind into a sense of sexual experimentation that could eventually lead to whole-sale life-long homosexual identity.

And, frankly, the unstated premise is that homosexuality of some sort or any sort is “wrong”.

Gender and gender identity is likewise fluid for some people though not the vast majority of us. Is it likewise inappropriate to “teach” girls “boy” things like football, race cars, boxing, marines, math? (The math one was the Harvard president a few years back ) Is this going to inspire a girl to “experiment” with boy things and eventually self-identify as a boy?

I know the counter is: “that’s apples and oranges”. But is it? If you feel that it’s okay for either gender to do anything they want regardless of gender or gender identity, then it may follow that it is okay for a person of any sexuality, hetero, homo, bi, fluid, to “do” anything they want regardless of their disposition.

Old-Timer wrote:

those who want to limit the way that homosexual activity is portrayed as fine for anyone might not be motivated by fear as much as by a belief that (for those for whom sexual orientation is not fixed) it is better to “remain” heterosexual

Is there a basis in that “belief”? Why is it “better” to “remain” heterosexual? Beside the fact that there are real bigots out there who will hurt and kill anyone with even the appearance of a gay or transgender identity.

[Anonymous]

Sorry for the late addition. I just found this link of an exchange between two members over the nature of some Prop 8 material originally entitled “Six Consequences the Coalition has identified if Proposition 8 fails”. This list of six may be what Heber was after. This link is the last “rebuttal” of the first rebutter, or whatever. Anyways, there is the original rebuttal, a counter, and, lastly, this one. You can click on the first two from the top of the page in this link:

http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dgbmjj9g_3cppnnzjm

They’re very thoughtful without too much vitriol. (If only I could be that, sigh )

[Anonymous]

@Ray

I appreciate the argument. You did a great job of remaining impartial, and your analysis seems good. I have a couple of comments:

1. you said nothing about age. That is, when does science say that most people become fixed in sexuality? Maybe this is the age at which we start teaching that there are alternative families.

2. you didn’t say anything about what kind of teaching is done. That is, if we introduce the concept in school at the 1st grade level that little Billie has two dads, and that’s okay, just different, does this cause shifts in the sexuality of little Johnnie? There certainly is a difference between teaching graphic sexual material and simply mentioning that some children might have two mommies and two daddies. Incidentally, this is the problem I have with what I perceived as fear mongering amongst the protectmarriage.com campaign. They made it out to be that if kindergartners were told that we ought to be nice to those who have two mommies, then we are endorsing homosexuality. Is there nothing to be said for teaching love towards those who are different?

3. In some sense, Heber’s fear/question is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If we have SSM, and encourage homosexual tolerance in schools, there will likely be an increase number in homosexual individuals (although there likely would be anyway just based on sheer statistics). That is, if we start allowing homosexual tolerance to be taught in school, and the number of homosexuals increase, conservatives will likely claim that it is because of the teaching. This would be a logical fallacy. It may be the number of homosexuals has increased because now more people are less afraid of opening up about it. Or, more importantly, it could be because fewer homosexuals are committing suicide (more discussion on this below).

I think Ray has given some sound analysis on why we could fear teaching our children about homosexuality (although we haven’t nailed down at what level, and with what detail that teaching is done). It seems only fair to represent the flip side in response to Heber’s question. Ray has answered in part why we should potentially protect our children against SSM. I likewise will try to be impartial in analyzing why it may not matter, indeed, may even be better.

It is nigh impossible (currently), to determine what people are born with, and what is learned. There has been a lot of research done that suggests that children’s minds are very malleable at very young ages, and even up into the late teens. This is arguably the best time to teach children what is right and wrong, and instill in them a sense of love for people who are different. Having said this, conservatives fear that talking about homosexuality will lead to more homosexuality, while liberals argue that talking more about it creates love for those who are different.

Here’s my analysis (ignoring the obvious assumption that homosexual sex is immoral). Currently the cultural limitations, biases, and hate towards homosexuals is very strong. Indeed, a google search about homosexual teen suicides reveals some startling statistics. Given that teens killing themselves is bad, how do we help stop this phenomenon? Research has shown that homosexuals feel less than, and feel that their true feelings are somehow wrong and immoral. This often leads to severe depression, and sometimes suicide. There is a very good description about this phenomenon on Affirmation, a support group for gay and lesbian Mormons (http://www.affirmation.org/suicide_info/suicidal_behavior.shtml” class=”bbcode_url”>http://www.affirmation.org/suicide_info/suicidal_behavior.shtml). So what are some ways we can fix this? Will introducing the concept of alternative families to school children make people more open, and less intolerant? There ought to be some research done on this. If so, and this coincides with teaching in the home that we are to love those who are different, even if we choose something else for ourselves, I think we might be very effective in turning around the culture.

I am not in favor of any schools introducing sexually graphic discussion at the elementary level. I am in favor of introducing safe sex techniques in the high school, and possibly middle school level, but that’s a different discussion. If Heber’s argument (and Ray’s analysis to some extent) hold that by teaching kids about homosexuality may lead to some people becoming such, then it may be reasonable to assume that by teaching kids to be tolerant may lead to some people becoming just that. Let us suppose for a moment that by introducing love for those who choose an alternative family life, we dispose of some of the hatred against homosexuals, and the teen suicide rate goes down. Now, given Ray’s analysis that some people have fluid sexuality which do we choose, to save some people’s lives (plus dispel hatred in the hearts of some), or save our children from a “sin”? Now, an even more poignant question, what would you choose if your child had feelings of same sex attraction?

There is no scientifically proven way (that I know of) to test an individual child to determine whether or not teaching them about homosexuality will increase the likelihood of them becoming such. But there is scientific evidence that shows that if people don’t hate you, and you have a good self-esteem, you are less inclined to commit suicide (and there are some fairly reliable indicators about whether or not a specific individual is suicidal, or is prone to it). Although, I know full well that sometimes a disposition toward depression is inherited. If we simply follow the evidence, I think there is a stronger case for reinforcing tolerance and love for homosexuals (especially since they are the minority) than ignoring the problem.

On a personal belief level, we should be more concerned with how our actions are effecting homosexuals rather than whether or not allowing SSM will result in more of our children turning homosexual. Once again, I don’t think there is much reliable evidence proving that increasing talk of tolerance towards homosexual (note I said tolerance, not graphically homosexual discussion), or allowing SSM will increase the odds that a specific child will become homosexual. But there is evidence suggesting that homosexuals are more inclined to suicide based on the culture we’ve created. I think dispelling that culture, based on the merits of lowering gay teen suicide rates alone, is more importance than the potential threat of any individual child becoming gay through increased acceptance.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for reading my comment for what it is. I really appreciate that. It’s incredibly hard to write a comment like that and keep it concise, which also makes it impossible to address all the reasonable concerns.

Remember, I’m NOT against teaching about homosexuality. Frankly, I’m against organized, explicit, public teaching about sexuality of all kinds until at least 5th or 6th Grade – around age 10. I also believe such teaching should be biological in nature and not include anything that would be considered a value judgment – and it should include the physical / medical pros AND cons when taught. If we are going to teach the clinical aspects of sex, we need to do a WAY better job than we do currently – and the fact that we don’t is FAR more the fault of the Victorian side than the modern one.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Thanks for reading my comment for what it is. I really appreciate that. It’s incredibly hard to write a comment like that and keep it concise, which also makes it impossible to address all the reasonable concerns.

I think I understand your position, and I thought your argument was well reasoned. Thank you for the input.

Old-Timer wrote:

Remember, I’m NOT against teaching about homosexuality. Frankly, I’m against organized, explicit, public teaching about sexuality of all kinds until at least 5th or 6th Grade – around age 10. I also believe such teaching should be biological in nature and not include anything that would be considered a value judgment – and it should include the physical / medical pros AND cons when taught. If we are going to teach the clinical aspects of sex, we need to do a WAY better job than we do currently – and the fact that we don’t is FAR more the fault of the Victorian side than the modern one.

Well said. I agree completely.

[Anonymous]

Thank you all for taking the time to provide me (and the forum) with such good insight.

I guess there are some “dangers” listed – and these are debatable. The topic does have far-reaching impact to our schools and our churches. Actually, the more I read about this, the less I see it is similar to plural marriage and the issue the church faced back in the late 1800s. I can draw similarities, but the societal landscape seems to be so different.

So there doesn’t appear to be any hard evidence from science or anywhere that we can know if SSM is “right” or “wrong” – which is why liberals fight to protect to give it equal tolerance in society, clearly the suicide statistics are alarming and cannot be dismissed, and conservatives fight to protect their lifestyle and teachings so they aren’t forced to change.

On a simple level, the church should be allowed to teach God’s law is as stated in the Proclamation, and everyone should choose to “worship how, where or what they may” can accept or reject that teaching.

But since the law is defining rights based on the definition of marriage, it impacts the church and the church should be able to stand up for its own interests (BYU student housing, marriages allowed or not allowed in churches, tax exempt status).

It seems to me that the “ideal” way of loving your neighbor and being tolerant of everyone is at conflict with maintaining and upholding the teachings of God. It is like there is a teaching that is “ideal” and then there is real life on how to live in society accepting and being tolerant of others.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

Actually, the more I read about this, the less I see it is similar to plural marriage and the issue the church faced back in the late 1800s. I can draw similarities, but the societal landscape seems to be so different.

Exactly right, Heber. I’ve found that there are HUGE similarities to legal challenges to the miscegenation laws of the 1950’s-60’s. And some interesting parallels to the ways the church attacked ERA in the 1970’s. (though I’m not old enough to remember, I just came across a bunch of campaign material from back then)

Heber13 wrote:

It seems to me that the “ideal” way of loving your neighbor and being tolerant of everyone is at conflict with maintaining and upholding the teachings of God. It is like there is a teaching that is “ideal” and then there is real life on how to live in society accepting and being tolerant of others.

I would only change this statement in one way, kind of a JSTranslation, if you will . Add to “teachings of God” the phrase “as interpreted by man”. imho 😳 I’m definitely NOT a prophet. 😆

[Anonymous]

Been reading the posts, wanted to throw my 2 cents in. My best LDS buddy was crazy about being involved with the LDS Prop 8 campaign, and he took a lot of personal pride after the recent court decision. Good for him, I guess.

I just don’t see this as a true church topic, only political. I place it along with the 1978 “revelation”. I think church authorities will maintain status quo until they are eventually pushed over by the government and name their submission “revelation”. If the trend of the world wanders back to a less gay-friendly attitude, so will the church. But one can hardly be surprised by the fact that a church, started by a white male that married over 30 women and kept the blacks at bay as long as possible, has chosen to stand against homosexuality.

Maybe things will keep going, and the church will keeping shifting their position until they allow gays to be sealed in the temple around the year 2300 or something.

I personally don’t think gays should marry because homosexuality is icky to me. Sorry, I’m hetero, and therefore gay stuff seems gay. It’s that simple. I have gay people in my family, I’ve had gay roommates and landlords and friends. All cool folks, but no one ever brings up the fact that gay men act a lot more like women and gay women act like guys. Please don’t dispute this, you know what I mean, it’s the reason we can spot a gay dude from a mile away. So it’s not exactly the same sex you’re attracted to if you behave like the other side. This is just something that has kept me from thinking of homosexuality as perfectly acceptable.

But if the law changes, I’m alright with it. We’re all people and the laws are created by us.

Oh, and on a personal note, I was at church for the first time in about two years, and the two talks were on the importance of tithing, protesting gay marriage, and having lots of babies even though we’re in tough financial times. I got the feeling that membership is in a rapid decline. I could see why.

[Anonymous]

spacious maze wrote:

I could see why.

I get the feeling you are having an extra hard time right now with your decision to try staying LDS. I think part of the answer is to, while being fully aware of the problems, try to focus on positive aspects for ourselves and others.

[Anonymous]

spacious maze wrote:

All cool folks, but no one ever brings up the fact that gay men act a lot more like women and gay women act like guys. Please don’t dispute this, you know what I mean, it’s the reason we can spot a gay dude from a mile away. So it’s not exactly the same sex you’re attracted to if you behave like the other side.

This is a bit of “stereotyping” but it also gets at the other part of this whole debate, which is gender, gender-identity, and transgender. SSM is a tough concept for many and gender-identity/transgender is just as tough. It’s a long road ahead. Unless, of course, there’s a lightning bolt type revelation to the FP and 12, wherein they determine that “humans” regardless of race(check), sexuality(patience), and gender(more patience) can form families and live happily ever after. No matter how icky it is.

[Anonymous]

I hear ya, I admit my last comment was a bit insensitive, I’ve seen plenty of icky heterosexual marriages in my workplace (Newport Beach , CA,) but I was just thinking of the true reason folks feel uncomfortable with gay marriage. It’s not the moral issue, its discomfort. I was listening to this comedian Louis CK discuss gay marriage being debated in the courts in Boston. One side fought for equality, the other fought because gay people were “queer”. I really think the whole debate rest on something that stupid and simple. One side is seeking a peace through a positive philosophical ideology, the other is just reacting because they don’t like it. I admit to feeling uneasy about it, but I also accept anyone who fights for their right to be themselves.

[Anonymous]

spacious maze wrote:

I hear ya, I admit my last comment was a bit insensitive

I have no problem with reading your views Maze. In fact, I’m glad you’re honest in your posts. I’d hate this forum to just become “politically correct” speech only (although I’m glad we all keep a level of mutual respect and avoid “shock speech”). Stating things plainly as you see it is fine with me.

[Anonymous]

I don’t think the issue has anything to do with discomfort or anything. I am not uncomfortable in the least around homosexuals but I feel that the Church has to stand by the Biblical standards that homosexuality is not in accordance with God’s word.

That being said, I feel that sexuality is far more fluid than many people want to believe. Just for fun I shared the sexual orientation inventory test found at Robert Epstein’s site with several friends. One female friend scored a 4 with a range of on the scale and asked what it meant. I jokingly said that it meant she would not find a long-term relationship with a woman satisfying but she would like to have sex with women occasionally. Expecting her to jke back she instead said that the test was totally accurate then. Another woman I know took it and said that she has never had relations with a woman but could not rule out the possibility that she could fall in love with a woman and live life as a lesbian even though her life goal is to marry and have kids (in fact both these women are far more interested in a traditional husband and kids life than most women I know in their age group).

I think that the whole opening the door to experimentation and acceptance is going to be confusing to many people and more than a few will find themselves struggling with same sex attraction issues if we form a totally “It doesn’t matter the gender of the person we fall in love with” societal attitude. Freud was afraid of this and expressed why he did not want society to totally accpet homosexuality in a letter he wrote to Jung. That’s where I stand on this.

Would I deny a lesbian artificial insemination if she wanted to start a family with her partner? No I would not — I feel she is at least following the Biblical law to multiply and replenish the earth. However, I would be totally against teaching young children that two women “married” are the same as a man and woman married.

[Author]

Posts