Homosexuality Part 1: On The LDS Church's Position

This is something I have been thinking about for a long time, but just haven't taken the time to put my opinion to words. Then, after the fallout from President Packer's talk which discussed the issue, I found myself having a lengthy Faceboook conversation with a friend about our views on homosexuality. Here are some excerpts; You'll have to fill in the missing context but it should be fairly self explanatory. As the conversation is ongoing, I may post more later on.

In the heat of the Prop 8 campaign, I read the church's official statement on the matter (http://beta-newsroom.lds.org/article/the-divine-institution-of-marriage). Based on what I remember and what I gleaned by skimming it just now, the central arguments were: 1) God has defined marriage as between man and woman, 2) The best conditions to raise a child are in a family with a mother and father present, 3) There are a myriad of "unwanted" potential consequences for legalizing gay marriage. The last of these actually include arguments such as the one you presented (I saw references to the case you mention regarding housing for same-sex couples) and many others. But the overarching theme which penetrated all the others was really #2.

I'll comment on #1 later, which really gets at the doctrinal reasons for thinking that homosexual relationships are immoral in the first place, and is really the weakest political argument (hardly even worth mentioning politically, even though that is where most who are religious fanatics tend to begin.)

Your comments regarding your peeks into family life recapitulate much of what the Church argues in the article. While I appreciate the benefits you see from having a masculine and a feminine influence in the home, I am also aware that the "division" of labor is quite different in my home. I am the softy. I even think I am much more of a talker than is my wife when it comes to resolving conflicts. I see benefit and need for both perspectives. When I read the article announcing the Church's position, I also read their references and found that they were not the strongest of references, at least from an academic perspective. I was also curious about what research had been done to see if there was an effect that could be observed when comparing children raised in traditional families with stable marriages and children raised in homes with same sex couples. I haven't looked these up again, but my memory is that those conducting the study actually hypothesized that those raised by same-sex parents would be maladjusted in some way, but found that there was no difference between the children raised in the different circumstances. They even noted that if anything, children raised by same-sex couples were perhaps better equipped socially because their homes were typically marked by more equitable relationships than is often found in traditional families. I am obviously here remembering one specific article, but I read multiple articles which all drew the same essential conclusion of no difference. I know this goes against conventional wisdom, but taking this research along with my own experience leads me to think that what really matters is having a stable home where children learn to love and work through difficulties which arise due to individual differences (or for whatever reason); those differences themselves perhaps providing examples about alternate ways to navigate family and social situations as well as what might be found outside the family. Given this, I agree with "Kaylee's wisdom" saying that it makes sense to provide an opportunity for homosexual couples adopting children to be married to promote stability in the family.

These arguments aside, I also found it interesting (and by that I mean discouraging) that the Church was willing to cherry-pick weak publications which favored their point of view but ignored what I found to be the larger body of research on the topic. I just think that as a matter of good faith, once scientific evidence is brought to bear, one (the Church in this case) has to be willing to accept, or at least address, the full weight of scientific research on the topic.

With respect to #3 (the "unwanted" potential consequences), this is actually the argument I have heard most often. The first time I heard it some friends of mine were suggesting that if gay-marriage were legalized then there is a possibility that the Church would be forced to perform gay marriages or suffer some sort of consequence (perhaps loosing the license to have marriages performed in the temple be recognized legally). The way I felt about this is the same way I feel about all similar arguments the Church made regarding the potential consequences. They all seem to me to be illegitimate "slippery-slope" arguments. There is no reason that any of these consequences should necessarily follow, particularly the ones which the church claims would limit religious freedom. Respecting my friends’ fears, there is no reason that making gay-marriages legal in the state means that any institution other than the justice of the peace (especially religious ones) would be forced to perform them; moreover, there is good reason to believe that the law could not be pushed in this direction in light of the 1st amendment. It is granted that activists have and will seek to push the boundaries, but their actions do not make gay marriage wrong in and of itself. If the argument is to be made that they were trying to pre-empt the financial expense of these activist-driven law suits, then from a purely financial perspective I see the argument, but without making it clear why they are against gay-marriage specifically (particularly when the marriages are secular and have nothing to do with the Church directly) I don't see that the decision is a moral one. It makes it seem rather more like stooping than taking the high road.

What's more, if they are truly concerned about the consequences, foremost among them being those affecting children and the preventing the "disintegration of the family", why choose gay marriage as the focal point for their sudden political activity. Doesn't abortion, adoptions by single individuals and gay couples, and quickie divorces lead more directly to the disintegration of the traditional family than gay marriage? I am not arguing against any of these (except maybe quickie divorces), but it seems that these could be places where the Church could take political action on the premise of protecting families and at least make a potentially sensible argument. Why does the Church not choose to be politically active on these issues?

I have to admit that no matter how I look at it, I just cannot get my head around why the Church took the actions it did with Prop 8. In fact the more I look at it the worse the Church's case becomes from my perspective. The action taken seems to have caused nothing but turmoil. What's worse, Prop 8 was overturned (Which I actually rejoiced over) and from my understanding the Church didn't even have representatives or lawyers make any arguments at the hearings which led to it being overturned. It seems that they may have recognized that the same arguments they used to persuade the electorate to pass Prop 8 wouldn't pass muster by anyone familiar in any way with law or the constitution.