Prop 8: A Fork in the Road For Modern Latter Day Saints
Recent threads (I'm dating over the last couple of years here, even
though some material in this post was originally, as posted on the
MADboard, relative to one particular thread) on the Mormon Apologetic
& Discussion Board, as well as upon the generally critical
Mormondiscussions.com board, have engaged in vehement debate upon the
well worn subject of the Prop 8 controversy, and the subject itself, the
cause célèbre of the last
fifteen years or so in the popular culture and secular media, shows
little sign of abatement. So, as this has long been something with
which I’ve been wont to grapple, I’ve decided to give the subject a
preliminary treatment here, in a forum where the nodes at which the
gospel and politics meet and interact are the coin of the realm.
At the outset, I’d just like to provide both a doctrinal and personal
philosophical foundation for my position on the details of the issue,
and than go over a set of the most common leftist (or, from a Book of
Mormon perspective, Korihorist) perspectives, with what I consider to be the salient refutations.
From the perspective of settled Church doctrine, homosexuality is one
of a class of sins or transgressions against the laws and divine rules
of conduct that govern the integrity and boundaries of human sexuality.
Among all forms of transgression, it is classed, with other of the more
serious moral lapses, of various kinds, as an abomination; as a sin of a
degree of seriousness such that its continued indulgence, if not
repented of in this life, will result in the “second death”, or a
complete separation from God and all things “pertaining to
righteousness” once the spirit leaves the body in death. It is a gross
form of Telestial wickedness, classed with other forms of sexual
immorality such as pre-marital sexual relations, adultery, and all forms
of sexual perversion or fetishism that fall outside the bounds and
conditions set by the Lord.
From a restored gospel perspective, never, in the history of humankind
since Adam, have the commandments and counsel relative to human
sexuality in this context been altered, amended or negated. Continued
perusal of a lifestyle grounded in behaviors of this kind place one in a
position of the living of a Telestial law, with all the implications
and consequences attendant to that form and manner of life (whether such
a life involves sexual sins or other forms of rebellion against the
moral and ethical standards of the gospel).
Beginning in the sixties, the “sexual revolution” began a long and
sustained assault on gospel standards of human sexuality across a broad
front, of which the legitimization of homosexuality was, in the
beginning, a peripheral concern. The broad based assault (exemplified
by Hugh Hefner’s “playboy philosophy”) was on the primarily heterosexual
aspects of normative Judeo-Christian sexual ethics as well as focused
on the normalization or domestication of a society wide cult of
eroticism as a fundamental aspect of a modern, affluent late 20th
century western social structure.
A philosophy of unrestrained hedonism and “self fulfillment” paralleled
the rise of the New Left and a spasm of social upheaval across range of
social and political issues, many of them focused on the subversion and
overturning of both Judeo-Christian social norms as well as classical
liberal political and economic philosophy. “Liberation” was the cry
from a cacophony of idiosyncratic voices each seeking their “rights” in
their own way but all being united in their hostility to what we would
understand as gospel standards of behavior in many areas, but for our
purposes, in the area of sexual relations.
The “Gay Liberation” movement (there were a plethora of “movements”
arising out of the cultural turmoil of the late sixties through early
seventies era, all of which played upon some variant of the theme of
“liberation” and “equal rights”) gained organizational and political
experience in the late sixties, and blossomed over the next 20 years
into a powerful and vocal political presence in American political and
cultural life. Its original claimed aspirations, as with so many of the
other “rights” movements of the era, was “tolerance” Discrimination
against homosexuals in hiring, housing, and other venues of social life
were to be opposed and made illegal by statute law, where applicable, in
the same since as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 made overt
discrimination against blacks impermissible. Homosexuals were to be
tolerated within the context of the Bill of Rights and other protections
of the Constitution even when strong dissent regarding their chosen
lifestyle was present in the one extending such toleration.
By the time the 80s were well underway, however, this original
intention (as with many of the movements that proliferated during this
period) that been abandoned, first for acceptance of homosexuality and the Gay lifestyle, and then for celebration
of that behavior and lifestyle. Militant homosexual groups (like Queer
Nation and ACT UP), supported by the cultural and political Left across
a broad spectrum of groups and organizations (including much of the
mainstream Democratic party and its activist core), embarked in that and
primarily the next decade upon the cause of homosexual marriage, a
concept virtually unknown in the 80s and that probably would have struck
most homosexuals and homosexual activists in the 70s as preposterous.
While an idiosyncratic movement of its own with its own specific agenda
and points to make, the homosexual marriage movement can also be seen
as the relative culmination of a half century of sexual radicalism,
beginning with the work of Alfred Kinsey and his associates and
blossoming in the "sexual revolution" of the late 60, and early 70s,
that has sought, in conjunction with other allied concerns, to overthrow
the entire conceptual basis of normative sexual ethics and behavioral
boundaries for a society of what many on the cultural Left would
understand, with leading late 20th century leftist intellectuals such as
Michel Foucault or Judith Butler, as a society of "self crafting"
involving the liberation of the self from all, what are considered to be
artificial and imposed cultural constraints upon sexual identity
construction and expression.
All sexual boundaries, demarcation lines, and conceptual limitations
based in any form of normative "morality" are considered to be arbitrary
and oppressive, and worse, maintained in the service of the dominant
classes or power structures of society. Human sexuality, gender, gender
roles, and the possibilities of sexual experience are considered here
to be (as no core "self" or underlying individual essence, or
consciousness, is thought to exist) is as expansive and varied as the
human imagination can conceive it to be.
Kinsey brought these ideas to a place of intellectual respectability,
Hefter popularized them in their prurient, artistic form, and the
critical theorists and postmodernists of late 20th century academic
world baptized them in the waters of philosophical sophistication.
Looking over a number of both recent and past threads at the Mormon
Apologetics & Discussion Board, a pattern emerges in which we may
see that a number of LDS who have moved to the Left, or come to the
Church from the Left in other areas, appear to continue moving in this
philosophical direction upon ever more fundamental aspects of Church
teaching, including those relating to core concepts of morality and the
impact of what we might call the morality structure of a people upon the
larger culture. It strikes me as odd that anyone who considers him or
herself a "faithful" or "practicing" LDS who claim to be "faithful"
followers of Christ and his restored gospel, would be on the opposite
side of a debate regarding the complete redefinition of the concepts of
marriage, family and gender, so fundamental are these to an
understanding of who we are, why we are here, and the nature of our
potential and destiny as eternal beings as identified in modern
revelation and articulated by modern prophets and special witnesses of
Christ.
Not far behind this (of course) are deep confusion regarding the nature
of a free, constitutional republic, the original intent and purpose of
the Constitution, the meaning of the concept of "rights", and the moral
structure of "freedom".
For most "faithful" Latter Day Saints (given the full connotations of
that term in a Church context), one would think it enough that both the
scriptures and the living oracles of the Lord have spoken, from time
immemorial, in a unified voice against homosexuality (and all forms of
sexual deviation from the laws of God regarding human sexuality), and
warned that a people who accept and support "abominations" of this kind,
when that acceptance and support reach a critical mass of the
population are "ripening" in iniquity, and are setting themselves up for
the disintegration of their society. The Book of Mormon warns us
repeatedly in clear language to be cognizant of various “secret
combinations” in the last days and to be mindful of their power and
influence, lest they begin to dominate society. This would include, as a
matter of course, ideological or political forces seeking the overthrow
of the Constitution and the Judeo-Christian foundation of civil
society, as well as its economic basis.
This is all moot, apparently, for some, for whom trendy notions of
"oppression" and “social justice” (a code-like term that carries a great
deal of baggage unrelated to the euphemistic “rights” talk so common to
this and other related subjects) are the definitive shove under the bus
for the gospel when it presses too hard against the great and spacious
building’s garden gates.
So I’d just like to offer my perspective and some clarifying
observations on the issue, yet again, for consideration in the hope
that, at least those sitting on the fence of this issue will be moved to
move in a positive direction – toward the Ensign of the church, and
away from the “political correctness” of the great and spacious house of
mirrors.
Among the core arguments made by LDS supportive of homosexual marriage,
which are not at all at varience with similar arguments made in the
secular world, are:
1. There is a “right” to homosexual marriage in the constitution (assuming also an implied right to marry qua marriage for heterosexuals) that is being denied by opponents of homosexual marriage.
2.
A continued and stubborn conflation of the civil rights movement of the
50s and 60s with the homosexual marriage movement (a movement that only
dates from roughly the middle of the 90s as a public concern).
3.
Anecdotal claims, perhaps definitive for anyone unfamiliar with the
longstanding social science knowledge regarding the Gay subculture, or
who has lived in areas, as I have, with a visible and concentrated
homosexual subculture, that most homosexuals are in “loving
relationships” that precisely parallel heterosexual married
relationships and which in x number of cases, are more committed and
monogamous than heterosexual ones.
4.
A continuing implication, if not outright accusation, that anyone
opposing homosexual marriage could not be doing so as a matter of deep,
thoroughly considered principle, but only out of ignorance and hatred
rooted in unenlightened and unsophisticated bigotry.
Let’s make a few brief points about the above.
A.
From both a gospel and a generalized western Judeo-Christian
perspective, “homosexual marriage” is an exercise in oxymoronity that it
would be difficult to outdo (“social justice” is a strong runner up)
even given our present culture’s continuing paroxysms of linguistic self
flagellation we know as “political correctness”. But, as LDS, we may as
well go all the way and stick rigorously to the restored gospel in its
fullness, which is, after all, the basis upon which all derivative
concepts are based.
Homosexuals cannot “marry” each other in any intelligible sense because
the term “marriage” both denotes and connotes only one thing: a union
of a man and a woman (the rarely commanded or allowed practice of plural
marriage aside for the moment, as in the history of the gospel, from
Adam to the present day, it appears to have been a rather rare and
isolated phenomena among the Lord’s people, and has been, as in the case
of the Nephites, to an overwhelming degree, prohibited) for the purpose
of their exhalation in the Celestial Kingdom, the bringing of the
Father’s children into mortality, and an eternal posterity in the
eternal worlds.
Homosexuality, aside from its being an “abomination” comparable in all
respects to premarital and extramarital sexual immorality in
seriousness, frustrates and subverts each and every one of these
purposes, both mortal and eternal.
Homosexual marriage is, then, a self negating concept, even if it can
quite easily be subjected to a breaking on the rack of political
correctness, such that the meaning of its terms take on different
colorations once enough semantic ligaments have been torn and joints
pulled out of place.
B.
Skin color and other similar characteristics are a matter of DNA, and
completely outside the control of the one who inherits them. Homosexual
behavior, “Gay” identity, and the dynamics of the “Gay” subculture are
choices, values and, in the case of the various Gay personae,
mannerisms, modes of speech and dress, and roles played in homosexual
relationships and culture, cultivated and practiced self identities.
There is nothing about such forms of culture or personal definition to
which the constitution speaks or to which majorities within a culture
must pay obeisance.
By any stretch, homosexuals already have, and have long had, the very
same inalienable rights that I enjoy. Their sexual orientation provides
no compelling argument for any others, and marriage, by definition,
being neither a right nor a concept logically and conceptually congruent
with homosexuality, is not in any case a conceptual category within
which the concept “homosexuality” can make any sense.
3.
Anecdotal claims aside, homosexual relationships have long been known
to involve severely disproportionate rates of social pathology such as
drug and alcohol use and suicide, and feature startlingly aggressive
rates and forms of promiscuity and sexual predation (what one could only
call, especially in urban areas a hyperpromiscuity).
The popular attraction within much of the male homosexual subculture
for young boys, including boys well underage (the culture of the
“chicken hawks”), is well known.
4. Following long established precedent in other areas of Korihorism (and its attendant Kultursmog),
the assumption is made that no principled opposition to homosexuality
exists. All that exists is philistine ignorance and bigotry. In such an
environment, all one really has to do to win a debate is call a name.
No comments:
Post a Comment