Cui Bono?

[All-American]

So we've hacked around the issue of the Church's stance on gay marriage for the last few days, but I haven't seen anybody address THIS particular aspect of the question:

Cui Bono?

What is the church getting out of this fight? Why is it that the leaders of the church, rather than merely stand by and shake their heads, feel compelled to speak out on this particular issue? What do they hope to gain by their opposition?

I see it as one of the following:

1. It's essentially a PR move, meant to appeal to a potential audience of converts
2. It's a defensive maneuver, meant to counter what the brethren feel is a threat to the well being of the church
3. It is strictly for the benefit of those who will heed their counsel and lead a lifestyle that is in harmony with the teachings of the church.

Or maybe something else. What do you think?

[Levin]

The following syllogism explains it for me, I think (which is just fleshing out how it is a defensive maneuver, your second point):

(1) The First Presidency wants the Church's members to live in a society where homosexual sex is shunned behavior because
(2) they believe homosexual sex is serious sin
(3) legal recognition of gay marriage seals the deal on the normalization and legitimization of homosexual sex
(4) social legitimization of homosexual sex increases the likelihood that those who have weak and/or passing same-sex attraction at some point in their lives will act on this attraction whereas in a society where such behavior is shunned, those with weak/passing same-sex attraction are less likely to act
(5) for those with strong and complete same-sex attraction, living in a society that shuns the gay sexual act will likely cause them to keep quiet about their sexual orientation, increase the likelihood that they'll get married, and increase the likelihood that they'll suffer quietly, but perhaps chastely.

In short, I'm sure there are some in the past 175 years of the church's history who:

(1) had passing same-sex attraction, but ignored it because of the social shame and spiritual guilt, and who married and lived chaste lives, even if the same-sex attraction warmed every once in a while.

(2) had strong and complete same-sex attraction, but who married and lived mostly chaste lives (i.e., no gay sex, although likely rampant masturbation) because of the social shame and spiritual guilt

The conclusion is this: the First Presidency opposes sin, and there is an argument that the adoption of gay marriage will increase the occurrence of sin. Put another way, it will eliminate one of the principal tools for enforcing behavior: social shame and illegitimacy. The other principal tool would remain, of course: spiritual guilt.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Levin

The following syllogism explains it for me, I think (which is just fleshing out how it is a defensive maneuver, your second point):

(1) The First Presidency wants the Church's members to live in a society where homosexual sex is shunned behavior because
(2) they believe homosexual sex is serious sin
(3) legal recognition of gay marriage seals the deal on the normalization and legitimization of homosexual sex
(4) social legitimization of homosexual sex increases the likelihood that those who have weak and/or passing same-sex attraction at some point in their lives will act on this attraction whereas in a society where such behavior is shunned, those with weak/passing same-sex attraction are less likely to act
(5) for those with strong and complete same-sex attraction, living in a society that shuns the gay sexual act will likely cause them to keep quiet about their sexual orientation, increase the likelihood that they'll get married, and increase the likelihood that they'll suffer quietly, but perhaps chastely.

In short, I'm sure there are some in the past 175 years of the church's history who:

(1) had passing same-sex attraction, but ignored it because of the social shame and spiritual guilt, and who married and lived chaste lives, even if the same-sex attraction warmed every once in a while.

(2) had strong and complete same-sex attraction, but who married and lived mostly chaste lives (i.e., no gay sex, although likely rampant masturbation) because of the social shame and spiritual guilt

The conclusion is this: the First Presidency opposes sin, and there is an argument that the adoption of gay marriage will increase the occurrence of sin. Put another way, it will eliminate one of the principal tools for enforcing behavior: social shame and illegitimacy. The other principal tool would remain, of course: spiritual guilt.

I think you're spot on. And it's the same reason they have opposed other morality issues in the past and will in the future. I'm not saying I agree with the tactic. But I see that this is definitely the church's logic.

[CardiacCoug]

Originally Posted by Levin

The following syllogism explains it for me, I think (which is just fleshing out how it is a defensive maneuver, your second point):

(1) The First Presidency wants the Church's members to live in a society where homosexual sex is shunned behavior because
(2) they believe homosexual sex is serious sin
(3) legal recognition of gay marriage seals the deal on the normalization and legitimization of homosexual sex
(4) social legitimization of homosexual sex increases the likelihood that those who have weak and/or passing same-sex attraction at some point in their lives will act on this attraction whereas in a society where such behavior is shunned, those with weak/passing same-sex attraction are less likely to act
(5) for those with strong and complete same-sex attraction, living in a society that shuns the gay sexual act will likely cause them to keep quiet about their sexual orientation, increase the likelihood that they'll get married, and increase the likelihood that they'll suffer quietly, but perhaps chastely.

In short, I'm sure there are some in the past 175 years of the church's history who:

(1) had passing same-sex attraction, but ignored it because of the social shame and spiritual guilt, and who married and lived chaste lives, even if the same-sex attraction warmed every once in a while.

(2) had strong and complete same-sex attraction, but who married and lived mostly chaste lives (i.e., no gay sex, although likely rampant masturbation) because of the social shame and spiritual guilt

The conclusion is this: the First Presidency opposes sin, and there is an argument that the adoption of gay marriage will increase the occurrence of sin. Put another way, it will eliminate one of the principal tools for enforcing behavior: social shame and illegitimacy. The other principal tool would remain, of course: spiritual guilt.

I think you're absolutely right. Great points.

I guess I am not convinced that the overall greater societal benefit (or individual benefit) is served by pressuring gays, especially those with "strong and complete same sex attraction" to enter into heterosexual marriages. That seems like a recipe for heartache and sorrow to come to the innocent spouses and children of gay people who are living a lie.

People with "passing same sex attraction" may in fact be benefited by societal pressure to stay straight and not act on this attraction. I guess that makes sense. That may be the first logical rationale for opposition to gay marriage that I have heard.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by CardiacCoug

I guess I am not convinced that the overall greater societal benefit (or individual benefit) is served by pressuring gays, especially those with "strong and complete same sex attraction" to enter into heterosexual marriages. That seems like a recipe for heartache and sorrow to come to the innocent spouses and children of gay people who are living a lie.

You've hit the nub of it for me: what, in the overall analysis, is best for those with strong and complete same-sex attraction? The church seems to say two things:

(1) formerly, it said (and still says a little) to get married, find joy in children and your wife's companionship, all of which will help you bear the cross . . . (but what about the heartache of the wife during those loveless months; the emotional anger borne of suppression that will display itself in other settings?)

(2) now, it says remain celibate and lonely

For the overall state of the person's soul, we are taught to believe these are the two best options.

For the overall state of the gay person's earthly well-being, however, I'm inclined to think a loving, committed, and stable same-sex marriage would be best.

And that's the conflict I can't reconcile: long-term spiritual well-being (as taught by the First Presidency) versus earthly emotional and physical well-being.

If my signature line means anything, I think I come out on the side of earthly misery for my faithful gay brothers and sisters.

[Indy Coug]

Have you wondered if this is perhaps a spiritual tipping point?

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/hel/5/2#2

[CardiacCoug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Have you wondered if this is perhaps a spiritual tipping point?

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/hel/5/2#2

I guess it is a spiritual tipping point. We'll see if the people who want to deny the equal legal right for some citizens to be married are more numerous than the people who want to protect the equal legal right for all citizens to be married.

Let's hope those with the moral high ground prevail.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by CardiacCoug

I guess it is a spiritual tipping point. We'll see if the people who want to deny the equal legal right for some citizens to be married are more numerous than the number of people who want to protect the equal legal right for all citizens to be married.

Let's hope those with the moral high ground prevail.

If we can figure out which is the moral high ground, then we'll be set, eh?

[Levin]

Originally Posted by Adam

So much for men are that they might have joy. You believe God wants gay people to be miserable. I think that is horrible and horribly wrong. I just cannot believe the Father who loves us wants His homosexual children to live a live of sad, lonely pain.

Because, motivated by love, I would want my homosexual son to find a helpmate and live a full life of joy, I think our Father, motivated by love, would want this for his sons too.

Maybe that is the truest and most core statement on the subject that I have come up with in these discussions to pin down how I feel and why I disagree with the Church's stand on the issue.

There is something to be said for the peace that comes when choosing obedience, even when that obedience causes immense suffering and pain.

Would you counsel a person to refrain from being baptized if that would result in him being shunned by his family, his friends, and his culture? (I tihnk my answer may vary depending on the situation. There is no dobut that such a choice would cause immense pain, even though such a choice would bring the peace that follows obediently following the Savior. I'm sincerely interested to hear your answer here.)

What of the load that Christ promises to carry for those with extra heavy crosses? And carrying the load does not mean eliminating the loneliness or the anguish, I'm sure. But I think it means, at least it has in my experience with my crosses, that Christ assures us that there is purpose in carrying the load; that is, he gives hope.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Levin

There is something to be said for the peace that comes when choosing obedience, even when that obedience causes immense suffering and pain.

Would you counsel a person to refrain from being baptized if that would result in him being shunned by his family, his friends, and his culture? (I tihnk my answer may vary depending on the situation. There is no dobut that such a choice would cause immense pain, even though such a choice would bring the peace that follows obediently following the Savior. I'm sincerely interested to hear your answer here.)

What of the load that Christ promises to carry for those with extra heavy crosses? And carrying the load does not mean eliminating the loneliness or the anguish, I'm sure. But I think it means, at least it has in my experience with my crosses, that Christ assures us that there is purpose in carrying the load; that is, he gives hope.

While I agree with your general premise, there is absolutely no comparison for the trial of homosexuality. Your baptism example would be tough, but only with homosexuality is the individual doomed to a life of emotional and sexual isolation, with no hope for intimacy on any level.....in the Church, even a fat ugly single person can openly talk about wishing to be married, hoping to get a date, they can hold hands, date, etc....Gays are afforded no such privilege.

In comparison, having your mom and dad pissed at you is a walk in the park. That person can always just find and marry a nice Mormon after baptism.

Again, there is absolutely no comparison. trying to make one seems trite, although I know that was not your intent.