Thursday, August 24, 2006
LDS Church position on homosexuality and gay marriage
I don't know how long this has been there (lack of a time/date stamp on a news item is really rather unforgivable IMO), but I just discovered a LENGTHY interview with LDS Church leaders Elder Oaks and Elder Wickman, by the LDS Public Affairs office, asking for clarification on the LDS policy towards homosexuality and gay marriage.
Basically, I have to give kudos to the interviewer for asking meaningful questions. The answers were pretty forthright in most cases, but there were a few places where I thought they didn't answer what the interviewer was asking (whether intentionally or just through misunderstanding the question, I can't judge).
Some key points that were made:
1. They emphasized the same inclination/behavior dichotomy that the church has taught in recent years. That is, homosexual *actions* are what is evil, not necessarily homosexual *tendencies*. I agree with church leadership that this is an important distinction.
I agree completely with Elder Wickman's comment: "One of the great sophistries of our age, I think, is that merely because one has an inclination to do something, that therefore acting in accordance with that inclination is inevitable. That’s contrary to our very nature as the Lord has revealed to us. We do have the power to control our behavior."
2. They didn't take a stand on whether homosexual tendencies come from nature vs. nuture. This is wise, in my opinion--that's a medical topic, not a religious topic.
3. They didn't shy away from the "celibacy is expected" implication of the church policy. Elder Wickman's example of his handicapped daughter having similarly no chance for a marriage/sexual relations was interesting. I'll have to think about whether I feel that is a fair comparison.
4. They emphasized that homosexual members should not define themselves via their homosexuality.
5. A lot of the interview centered on how parents should treat children that are active in a homosexual lifestyle.
5a. They emphasized that even though parents should not express approval of the child's lifestyle, families should continue to love and maintain contact with homosexual family members. For example, the first thing that Elder Oaks said in response to a specific "what if" question is that you should tell your child "You’re my son. You will always be my son, and I’ll always be there to help you."
Then later, "My first responsibility as a father is to make sure that he understands [that homosexual behavior is sinful and will affect his church membership], and then to say to him, "My son, if you choose to deliberately engage in this kind of behavior, you’re still my son."
5b. They emphasize the need for families to make their own decisions as to how much or little inclusion the child's homosexual partner should have in the family. Elder Oaks said that is "a decision that needs to be made individually by the person responsible, calling upon the Lord for inspiration."
6. They clarified a few reasons why the church opposes gay marriages: (a) Marriage has been defined by the Lord, and we humans shouldn't change the definition. (That's one I've heard from church leadership before.) (b) Such a fundamental change in the *definition* of marriage must necessarily result in a fundamental change in the *intitution* of marriage.
7. It's not just the *name* "marriage" that the church opposes for homosexuals--anything packaged up identically would be de facto marriage, even if not called the same. That's an argument I've heard before, but not from church HQ.
All in all, a serious and interesting discussion of difficult and meaningful topics.
Basically, I have to give kudos to the interviewer for asking meaningful questions. The answers were pretty forthright in most cases, but there were a few places where I thought they didn't answer what the interviewer was asking (whether intentionally or just through misunderstanding the question, I can't judge).
Some key points that were made:
1. They emphasized the same inclination/behavior dichotomy that the church has taught in recent years. That is, homosexual *actions* are what is evil, not necessarily homosexual *tendencies*. I agree with church leadership that this is an important distinction.
I agree completely with Elder Wickman's comment: "One of the great sophistries of our age, I think, is that merely because one has an inclination to do something, that therefore acting in accordance with that inclination is inevitable. That’s contrary to our very nature as the Lord has revealed to us. We do have the power to control our behavior."
2. They didn't take a stand on whether homosexual tendencies come from nature vs. nuture. This is wise, in my opinion--that's a medical topic, not a religious topic.
3. They didn't shy away from the "celibacy is expected" implication of the church policy. Elder Wickman's example of his handicapped daughter having similarly no chance for a marriage/sexual relations was interesting. I'll have to think about whether I feel that is a fair comparison.
4. They emphasized that homosexual members should not define themselves via their homosexuality.
5. A lot of the interview centered on how parents should treat children that are active in a homosexual lifestyle.
5a. They emphasized that even though parents should not express approval of the child's lifestyle, families should continue to love and maintain contact with homosexual family members. For example, the first thing that Elder Oaks said in response to a specific "what if" question is that you should tell your child "You’re my son. You will always be my son, and I’ll always be there to help you."
Then later, "My first responsibility as a father is to make sure that he understands [that homosexual behavior is sinful and will affect his church membership], and then to say to him, "My son, if you choose to deliberately engage in this kind of behavior, you’re still my son."
5b. They emphasize the need for families to make their own decisions as to how much or little inclusion the child's homosexual partner should have in the family. Elder Oaks said that is "a decision that needs to be made individually by the person responsible, calling upon the Lord for inspiration."
6. They clarified a few reasons why the church opposes gay marriages: (a) Marriage has been defined by the Lord, and we humans shouldn't change the definition. (That's one I've heard from church leadership before.) (b) Such a fundamental change in the *definition* of marriage must necessarily result in a fundamental change in the *intitution* of marriage.
7. It's not just the *name* "marriage" that the church opposes for homosexuals--anything packaged up identically would be de facto marriage, even if not called the same. That's an argument I've heard before, but not from church HQ.
All in all, a serious and interesting discussion of difficult and meaningful topics.
# posted by John Colton @ 9:29 AM 
