While I disagree with the church’s position on same-sex marriage, I don’t think it’s fair to assume that those who hold that position are simply evil homophobes bent on ruining the lives of gay people. My observation is that this opposition largely comes not from a particular animosity toward gay people—though that certainly may play a role at times—but from the fact that the contemporary church heavily emphasizes obedience and the importance of following the prophet. For Latter-day Saints who equate faithfulness with a willingness to strictly comply with the instructions of General Authorities, the question of same-sex marriage is simply not up for debate.
When it comes to discussion of this issue, I see two extremes. On the one hand are those who see opposition to same-sex marriage simply in terms of upholding the importance of traditional marriage, and who are baffled when gay people frame this in terms of rejection and oppression. People in this camp often emphasize that they have gay friends, and perhaps even declare their love for gay people—but they do not seriously grapple with the implications of their position. On the other side are those who see opposition to same-sex marriage as nothing but bigotry and homophobia, as coming from self-righteous people who are attempting to impose their values on others. One has only to scan online comments to see people clashing as a result of this disconnect.
In thinking about this, I am reminded of theories of cognitive dissonance. If you treat people badly, or put them in a subordinate position, or deny them full humanity, this will result in a sense of dissonance, if you also hold the view that you are a moral human being. How might you handle this? A common solution is to adopt the belief that the people in question somehow deserve to be in their situation. Another way to resolve the problem is to define these people as somehow “other,” as being qualitatively different from you in their needs and experience. Thus men who enjoy positions of privilege, for example, might not question the subordination of women because they cannot imagine that women are really beings like themselves. They themselves would dislike being in such a position, they might see, but they assume that it is different for women, because women are different.
Gay people, I think, already get seen as other by the heterosexual majority in that it is challenging to imagine having a sexual orientation other than your own—it is easier to dismiss it as wrong or unnatural. And when gay people are denied the right to marry, or asked to commit to a life of celibacy, this both draws on and reinforces this sense of otherness. I see this dynamic at work when I hear straight people admit that they themselves would not be able to tolerate such a state of affairs, but they nonetheless hold it up as the correct path for their gay sisters and brothers.
This is why, I believe, that those who see opposition to same-sex marriage as nothing more than a benign upholding of traditional marriage, and not something that gay people should take personally, are missing the implications of their view. In holding it, people are not just making a positive claim: traditional marriage is good; they are also making a negative one: same-sex marriage is bad. This is the crux of the matter: I am not sure how possible it is to say that gay marriage is wrong without at the same time saying that in some way gay people are wrong, that at the very least, if they act in accordance with deeply held desires—desires which are seen by the church as fundamental to what it is to be human—it will negatively impact society. And this of course gets spiced up by rhetoric about how same-sex marriage is a sign of the evil of the last days, and that the church is a beacon of goodness opposing this evil. If a gay person hears this message over and over, it is not a leap to conclude that she herself is evil—a message to which youth are particularly vulnerable.
I have on several occasions seen Latter-day Saints baffled by the reaction of many gay people to their position. We’re not out to do you harm, they say. We’re just protecting society. But that leaves gays classified as those from whom civilization needs to be protected—an unenviable position.
That said, I do not think it is fair to label everything that gay-marriage-opposing Mormons say on the subject as hate speech or gay-bashing. I think this move dilutes the meaning of the terms, and it does not describe the feelings or actions of the vast majority of Latter-day Saints with whom I am acquainted. I personally appreciate the steps the church has made, and the shift from the language of abomination to statements that encourage people to be loving.1 While I have run into fanatics, I also know people who disagree with me on this issue and yet genuinely care about and respect me as a person, who do not judge me for being gay. I would be impoverished if I lost all my relationships with people who see this differently than I do.
And yet, I can’t deny that when someone tells me they are against same-sex marriage, my first reaction is to feel a little bit rejected. Because they are telling me that as much as they may care about me, they think I should be denied certain opportunities solely on the basis of my sexual orientation. And while in many cases I really do think I understand where they are coming from, it still stings. Those who hold this position, I think, need to at the very least own the fact that they are advocating for something that—as important as they may see it as being for the good of society—has a negative impact on gays, and not hide behind the assertion that they hold gay people no ill will. I have a much easier time listening to someone who disagrees with me if I hear some acknowledgment of the very real difficulties caused by their position.
So—is it possible to oppose same-sex marriage while genuinely respecting gay people, seeing them as full human beings? I want to say yes because, as I’ve said, I know people who oppose gay marriage yet clearly do not see me as lesser. I want to say yes because I do not want to assume that every single person who opposes gay marriage suffers from an inability to see gays as real people. At the same time, I want to say no because it seems to me that the position inevitably requires at least some willingness to sacrifice the needs of gay people, and I can’t help noticing how often it is intertwined with a sense of gays as other. In the end, I’m not sure what to think.
- For example, according to Elder Quentin L. Cook: “As a church, nobody should be more loving and compassionate. Let us be at the forefront in terms of expressing love, compassion and outreach. Let’s not have families exclude or be disrespectful of those who choose a different lifestyle as a result of their feelings about their own gender.” See mormonsandgays.org [↩]
If it came down to the last seat on the lifeboat being between a human and my dog, my dog gets the seat.
But when it comes to civil marriage, there are unlimited seats on the lifeboat. And if you’re making me swim for it, whatever the reason, you don’t see me as a full human being.
I really like how you’ve thought through this question, Lynnette. I particularly like your discussion of cognitive dissonance, and how treating others badly often forces us to see them as deserving of bad treatment or as other somehow.
thank you for this thoughtful and forgiving analysis. I have written about this, too, and I really wish church members would invoke the golden rule and do unto others as they would have done unto them instead of assuming others must be so fundamentally different that they would want other things. http://www.the-exponent.com/what-we-see/
Most people go through 95% of what they say and do without thought for the implications.
Yes! It would be much easier to accept people’s views against same sex marriage could co-exist with love, IF they could acknowledge that it’s a hard, complicated issue, that people are hurting over.
It’s possible that you are only interested in the opinions of people who agree with you about same-sex marriage,but on the chance that you are not,let me respond that from my perspective,opposing same-sex marriage is AN INDISPENSABLE PART OF “genuinely respecting gay people,seeing them as full human beings”.
If you see those who identify as “gay people” as the helpless slaves of their homosexuality,completely incapable of ever placing it into its true context as one of the worst,but least important,things about themselves,something they should never allow to influence their behavior,you are NOT seeing them as full human beings but writing them off,defining them by their flaws.
Time and again,those of us who uphold the principle that all are equally obligated to abide by standards of conduct that exclude same-sex sexual activity are accused of being “bigoted” against those who,for whatever reason,wish to violate those standards.In actual fact,its the thinking of those who assert “rights of gay people” are thus infringed who are exhibiting the type of thinking typical of bigots.
It is the inclination of bigots to regard their target groups as incapable of changing their behavior,target-group membership being enough to ensure that a behavior is inevitable.Thus the bigot will declare all Jews by nature usurers,all Gypsies by nature thieves,all Irish by nature drunkards,and so forth.Those of us who insist homosexuals DO have the mental capacity to realize that any indulgence of their same-sex sexual attraction is irrational are NOT being bigoted against them,nor are we being patronizing,coddling them as special snowflakes who have to be accommodated because the poor things just can’t help it.We face constant resentment but the real caring comes from our side.We take on the often thankless task of telling them the hard truths they need to hear instead of the comforting lies they want to hear.
“Friends don’t let friends”.
Louis E., you seem to take it as not only axiomatic, but obviously true, that it is irrational to “act on” one’s same-sexual attractions. Certainly the church makes a case for it being “sinful,” but that’s not the same thing at all–plenty of sin is perfectly rational. No one is saying that gay people “just can’t help” acting on their sexual orientation, but that maybe they shouldn’t have to help it — that they can choose to pursue meaningful romantic relationships with other consenting adults and that it might be a positive thing for them to do so.
In essence, then: you’re not the bigot, I’m the bigot, because you believe that gay people are smart enough to see the manifest truth of homosexuality’s irrationality (that is, they’re smart enough to agree with you!), whereas I feel that at the very, very least, reasonable people can disagree about this issue? Also, Jews : usury :: gay people : gay relationships is a pretty bad analogy. A lot of medieval Jews did practice usury, because of a specific set of social circumstances that both forbade Christians from doing so and hindered Jews from pursuing other occupations. If you take the view that homosexuality is purely a social construction with no basis in biology at all, fine, but the church has left you way behind on that issue.
Friends let friends do all kinds of things, unless friends are so intently self-assured of the incontrovertibility of all their views, and so lacking in a theory of mind that allows them to assume the good faith and intelligence of other people’s decision making, that friends have alienated all their friends.
It is indeed my position that if persons are of the same sex,it is therefore necessarily not positive to pursue a romantic/sexual relationship between them.
And it is the true friend who doesn’t stop saying “that stupid thing you love to do is really,really bad for you”,rather take the cop-out route of “aaah,whatever floats your boat” when met with resentment.I am not religious and never have been…nor do I have a “mind so open my brains fall out”.
Louis E
How would you feel if I told you to how to live your life? What you should or shouldn’t do to be happy? You’d think I was a huge %&*$%&. That’s what everyone thinks you are, and they’re right.
Friends don’t let friends drive drunk. Fine, that’s bc drunk driving could lead to a host of super bad things: killing yourself or others, getting arrested, fines, etc. While the benefit is merely to save a few bucks on cab or Uber, and not have to retrieve your car the next day. Hmmm…the cons so heavily outweigh the cons I don’t mind if someone tells their friend not to drive drunk.
But you are telling strangers (not your friends) not to pursue romance? I’m sorry, but that is just hateful. The pros and cons are not cut and dry like they are for drunk driving. Pros of living a celibate life as a gay person: you might be impressing god (but no one knows this for sure). Cons: you might suffer an extremely lonely life when you could have had a happy life with a life long partner. There is no comparison. To tell someone not to pursue romance, which is pretty much the biggest desire all humans have, is to hate them. Stop spreading hate. Thanks.
Louis E., if you see homosexuality as a horrible, awful thing about people, you’re not respecting them. Period. And I have no interest in hosting a discussion about how bad gays are, and how people need to act hateful in order to get them to change. (No, that’s not love.) Goodbye.
I appreciate your essay and agree with much of it. I have thought a lot about it because I believe in love and equal treatment for all. I guess I’ve become a conspiracy theorist though because I decided that gay marriage is a front for a small, possibly secret group of individuals leading the movement with the true purpose of removal of religious liberty in America. So I agree with everyone deserves love and happiness, but I disagree with where I think the movement is taking the laws of the land. I know here are many who will argue that isn’t so and think I’m a nut but I believe it is one of the reasons the church opposes it.