From Alma 34:
40 And now my beloved brethren, I would exhort you to have patience, and that ye bear with all manner of afflictions; that ye do not revile against those who do cast you out because of your exceeding poverty, lest ye become sinners like unto them;
41 But that ye have patience, and bear with those afflictions, with a firm hope that ye shall one day rest from all your afflictions.
At one point, my mother was married to a disabled man. Even though my mother is LDS and I’m gay, we occasionally talk about sex. I was curious about my mother’s sex life at the time of her marriage to this man. When I asked her about it, she smiled and said that she looks forward to when her husband will have a “perfect body.” This statement really bothered me.
There is a way in which believing that a disabled body will be “repaired” in Heaven maintains ableist thinking. It reduces the disabled body to a position of being lesser than. Certainly, if one’s hearing or sight gets worse as one ages, it might be nice to think that in Heaven one will have perfect hearing and sight rather than have to wear a hearing aid or have contact lenses. But this is using the able body as a point of reference. As a teaching aid, one might ask a question of, “Are there eyeglasses in Heaven?” — which can help LDS children think about ableism in their culture — but adults should be more critical. Consider the person born deaf, who learns sign language as a child, is involved in deaf culture throughout her life, and has no desire to be hearing after death. Is it appropriate to assume this person will be hearing in Heaven? The answer: No, it is not.
In Mormonism, considerations of disability have carried over to the question of “same-gender attraction.” In the last decade or so, there has been a rise of church leaders comparing “same-gender attraction” to disability, as something that will be “repaired” in Heaven (before this, there was a focus on “cure.”) In the Church, disabled people are pitted against gays as a way to instill humility. For example, in a 2006 interview with Dalin Oaks, Lance Wickman spoke of his disabled daughter who
stand[s] at the window of my office which overlooks the Salt Lake Temple and look[s] at the brides and their new husbands as theyre having their pictures taken. . . . [S]hes at once captivated . . . and saddened.
Her image served as a call for humility among those whose “differences” do not place them beyond the realm of marriageability in this life. From Wickman’s perspective, his daughter won’t have to be saddened in the afterlife because there she will be “repaired” and will marry (and even have children). What I see happening here is ableism being put in the service of heterosexism. It’s pretty awful.
There is a way in which LGBT politics often intentionally divorces itself from disability politics, because of (1) ableism in the gay community, and (2) gays want to move as far away from the idea of “homosexuality as a disability” given a very hurtful history of attempted “curing” and being considered lesser than. But what Mormonism makes clear is that even if a culture largely ceases trying to “cure” homosexuality, it can still maintain “same-gender attraction” as lesser than, a “disabling” factor to be “repaired” later. LGBT and disability politics have to join forces to address this.
Huh.
There is a way in which believing that a disabled body will be repaired in Heaven maintains ableist thinking. It reduces the disabled body to a position of being lesser than.
Well, isn’t it “lesser than”?
The body, I mean. A “disabled” person’s body is, by definition, “less able” than the body of someone who has full use of all of its functions.
That doesn’t make the person him/herself of any less worth as a human being, of course. A paraplegic can be every bit as good a person as someone who is fully abled. But he’s also not going to be able to do certain things that the abled person can do–or at the very least he’s going to need to exert considerably more effort and time in accomplishing those things.
Belief that a disability will be “fixed” in the afterlife is simply recognition that there is an ideal when it comes to the functionality of the body, and a hope that everyone might someday achieve that ideal.
Please understand that I wholeheartedly agree that homosexuality is not a deviation from that ideal, and that it should not be considered a “disability” that needs to be “fixed”. Sexual orientation has no bearing on a person’s “ability” (gay people as a group are not any less “able” than straight people). Some might argue that homosexuality does exhibit an “inability” to create children, but as I and countless others have demonstrated, this is not, in fact, the case (I have five kids).
Hi, Scott. Yes, gay people can produce children either through either heterosexual intercourse or with assisted reproductive technologies. Or they can adopt.
But if you notice, the focus is on the productivity of children. An “ability” or “inability” is related to productivity of some sort, rather than a focus being on “being.” If you focus on being as opposed to productivity, then a disabled body is not lesser than the able body. Moreover, you won’t have to separate a “person” from their “body” as you did in your comment.
The way Christians (including Mormons) tend to filter this is through the phrase “created in the image of God.” The image of God in Mormon texts tends to be white, able-bodied, heterosexual, male. It points to an ideal and society gets structured around the ideal and loses focus of what “is,” creating injustices and harmful thinking in the process.
“A disabled persons body is, by definition, less able than the body of someone who has full use of all of its functions.”
There are a lot of people who think that someone who is disabled is not so much less able because of their unique physicality but because of barriers out there in the world that are in their way – barriers that result from ableism.
“A paraplegic can be every bit as good a person as someone who is fully abled. But hes also not going to be able to do certain things that the abled person can door at the very least hes going to need to exert considerably more effort and time in accomplishing those things.”
You are assuming though that what someone not in wheelchair does is, and should be, the ideal.
I am hard of hearing – ie, I wear hearing aids. I can’t hear people very well without my hearing aids but I can lipread, I can communicate with people who know American Sign Language, I can comprehend the news on the TV without the volume on, I can communicate via sign language with people out of ear shot, with a flick of a switch squealing babies because inaudible … can most hearing people do these things? No, they can not. Are they then the disabled ones?
Notions of an ideal are highly problematic – an ideal way to be a body, the ideal sexuality to express, the ideal skin colour to have, etc… Ideals get right smack in the in the way of acceptance of people in all their variations, as they are, right here, right now and just getting on with life.
I find it disturbing the way religious dogma does so much to diminish people, to constantly tell them how bad/perverted/damaged they are. There are the incessant promises of how they will be “perfected” in the afterlife (conditions apply), but that doesn’t negate the psychological damage done by telling the people how unacceptable they are in this life. Of course there are people, such as myself, who don’t believe in an afterlife. Accordingly it’s truly appalling to treat people like offal in this life–quite likely the only one we have–while holding out promises of some Never-Never land where things will be perfect.
As to people with disabilities, many of the limitations they have are due to barriers put in place by so-called “able” people. So a person needs some adaptive equipment (like a wheelchair) and/or supports (like someone to help him with daily tasks) to help him get through life. Don’t we all? Is there any among us who is truly “independent”? But apply a disability label to a person and every time they need something to help them, or face a limitation, the “able” people are right there to declare them incapable and unworthy.
This would seem to be EXACTLY the kind of thing we need real prophets for; i.e. to give definitive answers about the afterlife.
Of course, given God’s history, I suppose we should feel grateful that He’s no longer a racist.
Suppose in resurrected life, we communicate directly, mind to mind, without the imperfect intermediary of vocal vibrations and hearing and language. Suppose we see not just outer aspects but inner; suppose we see the totality of a thing in all its complexity, and not just the reflections of light off a thing’s surface registering in nerve endings… By those standards of communication/vision all of us are “disabled” in our present state.
Maybe one way to look at this is to consider that the “ability” in question is the ability to communicate — to understand and be understood. So whether we do that through sign language or with braille or by some other means is sort of secondary. I can understand how a member of the deaf community, who communicates perfectly well with sign language, could rightfully point out that he or she isn’t lacking in any human faculties and that there’s nothing to be improved on in some eternal existence… And we can probably extend this to folks who locomote with wheels as opposed to legs, and so on. The ability is locomotion, and so if a person can do this effectively with the assistance of wheels and ramps, where is the disability, really? I understand this.
Gay folks are not devoid of the ability to love or to relate sexually to a partner or even to procreate — or, certainly, to establish families, raise kids, etc. And MY love is a love for a specific person, who happens to be a man. I have no desire for my ability to love this specific person to change, to be any different than what it is now. In fact I would experience that as a terrible loss. So, no, it doesn’t make sense for me to think of this as a disability in any sense of the word.
At the same time, suppose I was in an accident and became paralyzed from the waist down, and could no longer express myself sexually with my husband in a way that I currently experience as fully expressive. Boy, would I want that to be fixed!!! Boy, would I look forward to a time and a state of being where the restoration of that ability would mean so much to me…
What about AIDS, HIV? Cancer? Sickle cell anemia? There are lots of natural conditions that are appalling. Sometimes the desire to be cured, the desire to have a physical state repaired or restored is not just valid but profoundly human…
Maybe that kind of situation doesn’t apply to being gay, or even to many states of disability — such as being blind or deaf. But I’m not sure I’m willing to throw out the notion of physical evils from which we can reasonably hope for some kind of liberation…
John @ 6:
In the Bible, the blind man was a poor beggar due to his blindness, but when he was given sight by Jesus, he became a follower of him. Jesus thus had no disabled disciples, because he healed them all. The struggle of Jesus against disability might be thought of as a contest with the powers of Satan. At first, Jesus accepts the infirmities of humanity by healing them, but eventually he accepts the infirmities of humanity by participating in them — taking on afflictions himself. Paul comes to realize that a “a thorn in the flesh” is a greater witness to the grace of God than is the miracle or removal of the thorn (2 Cor 12:7-10). “Strength is made perfect in weakness,” he says, and “I will boast in my infirmities…take pleasure in my infirmities, in reproaches, in needs, in distresses. …For when I am weak, I am strong.”
If someone were to become paralyzed, understandably, they would likely undergo a great deal of grief since their world is changed. But if someone is born paralyzed, the grief comes from being treated differently by society. The problem was not that the blind man was blind, but that society deemed him fit to be a poor beggar because he was blind. The goal should be not be to bring everyone into the world of the “able” (through imaginations of the miraculous now or later), but to make room for multiple worlds, multiple bodies.
Personally, I am more than willing to throw out the notion of “physical evils” from which we are miraculously liberated. For example, in terms of “same-gender attraction” in Mormonism, the idea of being “liberated” from a “physical evil” can lead to suicidal thinking. The truth of the matter is, disabled people (to include the elderly) are more likely to commit suicide because of how society categorizes and treats them, not because they will be better off dead [and resurrected].
My Dad is bald, but he’s often interpreted the scriptures to say that his hair will not be restored.
It seems so odd and strange to me personally. That each person has a perfect self, whatever perfect means. Maybe that I would be male in the afterlife, since men have more power and authority. That doesn’t make sense with eternal gender, however.
Alan,
This is a great post. I think we are just on the same wavelength or something. I recently wrote about disability in Mormonism here (and briefly mention sexuality): http://www.faithpromotingrumor.com/2010/12/the-stories-bodies-tell/
I think I try to get at a more nuanced version of how LDS interpret disability. In a way, I think LDS notions of “repair” function differently with respect to disability than with respect to homosexuality. For the former, there is a sense of theodicy at work, where you mother’s lack of sexual experiences with her disabled husband will be rewarded in a more just future. While this certainly privileges ablism, I see something slightly different in rhetoric about homosexuality, where “repair” functions simply as the norm, without the redeeming aspects for others. I’m not sure I’m making that very clear, but I think that it is not just that LDS though sees homosexuality as a disability, but that it is a disability without all of the “good” things that come in LDS discourse about disability. It is an excess of disability, in a way, where there are no positive theological aspects that can be derived from homosexuality in the way that LDS do for disability. Obviously, both are intensely problematic discourses, and exposing these assumptions through close analysis is incredibly important. Great post.
TT: Regarding the problematic discourses you mention, I totally agree that applying a little close analysis in order to expose certain assumptions could produce some important insights. I’d suggest Kathryn Lynard Soper’s contributions at Meridian Magazine as a good starting point for that kind of thing. If you could find the time to apply your method over there, I’d sure be keen to read your findings here.
Link?
I have already constructively critiqued KLS on her feminism piece at Patheos: http://www.faithpromotingrumor.com/2010/12/mormon-feminism-old-wine-in-new-wineskins/
Awesome. I’ll take a look. Because rather than take your word for it, I’d like to decide for myself whether or not your critique was “constructive” … hee hee.
TT: As it turns out, your second link is quite long, so I’m gonna need a few minutes. In the meantime, maybe you could expand on what you meant by this graf in that first link of yours (The Stories Bodies Tell):
Well, I not really sure Alan’s post is the best place to hash out ideas about what I meant on my post. I will take it back to the post in question if requested.
I am not totally clear what exactly you want me to explain, but I assume it is my hesitation around biological reductionism as an explanation for binary sexuality. To be incredibly brief, I don’t think that something like sexuality is reducible to biology; I don’t think biology tells us much of anything about how to socially interpret “nature;” I don’t think sexuality is a binary; I think that the biologism of contemporary gay activist rhetoric is incredibly problematic for trans activists; I think that seeing “gay” bodies as fundamentally different from “straight” bodies is not only inaccurate, but potentially dangerous in terms of segregation, and I think that there are eugenics risks in gay gene research. In short, I think most contemporary gender theorists are right that this discourse is a misstep.
TT…go ahead and use this post to hash out ideas.
I’ll probably skim through Jennifer Clancy’s book at some point. It looks really fascinating. For everyone else, she talks about how bodies have historically been read as stories in Christianity: from the disabled or sick body (thought to be caused by sin) to what people thought of the pregnant Mary or Mary-in-birth, to the skin color of slaves, etc. Obviously, people still read bodies this way, including their own.
In terms of the linking of disability to (homo)sexuality in historical Mormonism, what is fairly obvious to me is that “homosexuality as a disability” is different from other LDS formulations of disability because we’re looking at specific 20th century changes in sexual discourse. In the nineteenth-century, most Christians linked too much sex and baby-making with causing disability (which well, if you were a woman, you sometimes died as the result of sex), but Mormons figured that if you have sex with reproductive intent and are “fruitful and multiply” then you can be rewarded bodily — have multiple women make babies. You hit the 20th century, and (1) sex within marriage stops needing reproductive intent, (2) women gain financial independence and stop being considered baby-making machines and (3) you have formulations of homosexualities, all of which culminate in the LDS context in an essentialization of gender roles. I think you’re right that the “repair” aspect of homosexuality is for normalization purposes rather than redemption or justice. Especially since LDS leaders didn’t talk about homosexual afterlife “repair” until the 1990s (when worldly repair was deemed unlikely).
It seems to me like the disabled body is used a site of excess beyond the “ideal.” I’m intrigued by this section of your post:
If this is the case, I can see Mormonism trying to fit homosexuality squarely into the discourses concerning other disabilites.
Biologism is problematic for everybody. I’ve had a difficult time on MSP trying to make these points clear. I keep being bombarded with the notion that “I didn’t choose to be gay.” That is because people on this site come largely from a culture in which homosexuality is rendered mostly a choice, and they turn to biology/science as the nearest savior. But, if you’re like me and you’ve been hearing biology your whole life, you move back to choice, because biology isn’t really all that liberating. Really, nature/nurture is a binary born from the sexual orientation classification system, in which homosexuality has had to be explained somehow while heterosexuality has not. Even the Church has jumped on board with this; the “repair” theme is basically to explain [away] the conundrum of homosexuality for the culture.
What I do in my upcoming Dialogue essay is make this a 1980s-1990s debate, to tell the reader, “It’s time to move on.” Because indeed, the academy, more or less, moved on after Eve Sedgwick and Judith Butler, and even the Church “resolved” nature/nurture debates in their own problematic way with the attraction/behavior distinction. When HRC delivered that petition following Packer’s spiel recently, the Church responded that it will “continue to speak out to ensure its position is accurately understood.” IOW, people continue to speak past one another by rehashing the same tired arguments.
Oh, c’mon, TT, in your #9 here, you dropped your first FPR link along with a full paragraph describing its relevance, but now you suddenly wanna play coy and pretend that my attempt to engage your #9 somehow risks sidetracking the discussion? All I did was blockquote a single graf of your own words from the linked post and ask you to expand on them while I popped over to read your second link and the twenty attached comments. Sorry to impose. I’m fine with moving on … I’ll just mention that having read your second post, I’m curious as to how you’ve managed to grasp the fungibility of Mormonism while apparently missing how that same quality also applies to the culture you refer to in the graf I blockquoted.
As it turns out, I think your second link was much more interesting, and now it’s my turn to admit that there’s more there than I’d want to tackle in comments here. So, just a couple of quick remarks: 1) I stand corrected. You’ve got KLS’s number and appreciate just how thin the gruel is that she’s offering … in Mormon terms, it’s the whole milk-before-meat nonsense all over again, but 2) I stand all amazed that all it took was for her to show up in comments under your worthy post and suddenly everything you’d argued went out the window in an attempt to reassure KLS that no matter how laughable her caricatures might be, well, it was just an honor having her around.
Because, of course, Mormons never stage protests, hold marches, sign petitions, write letters, mobilize grassroots forces, or make bold calls to action … or if they do, as long as it’s not happening in the Bloggernacle, whatever happens at Meridian, stays at Meridian, and all is forgiven. Awesome.
Alan,
I think you’re absolutely right that the aspect of LDS “trials” discourse as a growth opportunity is certainly used in the context of homosexuality. There is certainly a great deal of overlap. And I think you’re right on to look at how this discourse changes over time and is shaped in response to other moves. I think you’re upcoming article (if it is the one you posted here a while back) makes really important steps in this direction and represents the kind of critical analysis that we could all use more of. Bravo.
I’ve seen you try to make the critique of biologism here, and I’ve appreciated it, but have been too timid to back you up. It is a tricky argument to make in some circles because it is so ingrained in some people’s self-identity. I think we agree entirely.
Chino,
Posting a link that deals with similar issues about disability, and exegeting a specific passage from my post are not the same thing. I’m not backing away from explaining myself, but was wondering if I best explain myself on my post, rather than in someone else’s. In any case, I did explain myself, so I am not being coy and you’ve not imposed on me (or, thankfully, Alan’s post).
The KLS tangent, however, might be going too far, so again, it might be better served in the original location of the discussion rather than here. But, so as not to be falsely accused of being afraid to back up what I’ve said, I will respond here once, and then I hope we can move it off of this thread which has nothing to do with KLS or feminism.
“Im curious as to how youve managed to grasp the fungibility of Mormonism while apparently missing how that same quality also applies to the culture you refer to in the graf I blockquoted.”
Sorry, I’m not sure what you mean when you say that I don’t grap the fungibility of culture. That seems to be the entire point of my post on the body, that the body is not a neutral substance but one which is inscribed with multiple meanings.
I’m also not sure how you concluded that I backed down from her when she showed up. To show respect to an interlocutor is not the same thing as throwing my criticism out the window. You’ll note that she concedes much of my critique. I answered her question in a way that was fully consistent with my original argument. The conversation ended amicably. What exactly is the sinister narrative you’re extracting?
I still have no idea what you are talking about at Meridian. I asked for the link and you didn’t provide it. Nor do I have any idea what your sarcasm is aimed at.
Setting sexual orientation aside for a moment to hone in on the implications of disabilities, I agree with Andy that everyone deserves respect for being a human being regardless of their productivity. But even if we were to privilege productivity, disabilities need not be an issue.
Since human beings prosper from the division of labor, it seems to me that most disabilities do not inherently compromise an organism’s productivity.
The trick is to play to your strengths instead of obsessing about your weaknesses. Everyone has weaknesses.
Having said that, I think that it is also important to acknowledge that some people have to bear a greater burden. That is a matter of respect as well.
The idea of ableism has some merit, and yet I think some take it too far. Setting aside the nonsensical idea of a perfect body, a disability really is a disability. It irks me when people try to deny this simple fact by saying a disabled body isn’t lesser than. It is.
For example, I’ve lost most of my sense of smell. I regret this disability almost every day. I would rather have my sense of smell back than to try to deny my disability. In that respect, my current body is less than.
If a person’s identity becomes bound up in their disability, I can understand the angst it would create to contemplate losing that disability in the resurrection. I understand the angst, but I think it’s an irrational protection of ego.
I don’t blame your mother for feeling a sense of lack in regard to her sexual relationship with her husband. It is what it is. The prerequisite for making real changes to our situation is to accept reality as it is and working from there. In this case, it means accepting that her sexual relationship wasn’t as fulfilling as she would have liked. Denial would prevent her from taking positive steps.
And yes, if I’m headed for an afterlife, I hope it doesn’t include eyeglasses.
TT: KLS came to mind b/c she has edited a bunch of books like this one.
Sorry to be snippy, but if you’re worried about eugenics risks, I assume that virulently anti-gay culture-warring outfits like Meridian (and writers like KLS who support Meridian) are of course a huge concern to you.
We have all kinds of technology that we could use for eugenics right now, but don’t. Suggesting that gay gene research is risky misses the point that it’s the culture that ultimately determines how any research will be used, and in terms of building a gay-friendly culture, Meridian is sugar-coated cyanide.
The same KLS that tells us “the life of a child with Down syndrome is something to celebrate” is troubled b/c she doesn’t think homosexuality should be normalized.
There’s no point having an amicable discussion with people like this. They’re parasites that make a living as anti-gay hucksters selling malarkey to marginally literate Mormons.
Everyone on this list is supporting a swindle.
One word: Kyani
With respect to eugenics, a concept that has shaped public policy not only in Nazi Germany but also in the United States and the most progressive western countries like Sweden, it is important to realize that human beings adapt primarily through culture, not genetic change.
Apparently, genetic change has been surprisingly slow during the last several thousand years. Yet, human adaptations to various environmental challenges have been so rapid and efficient that we have become the dominant species despite the absence of genetic change.
The reason is probably that the generational cycle is very long for our species and cultural and societal adaptation is much easier and faster to come by. The latter preempts genetic change because after cultural adaptation, human beings survive challenges and biological selection ends because the challenge is no longer deadly.
This year, American Scientific carried a fascinating discussion of the data.
By the way, Alan, am I wrong or isn’t this kinda what you’re trying to get at?
Religion Dispatches, John-Charles Duffy, Are Mormons Changing Their Stance on Homosexuality? (Actually, the Church has dug its heels in even further):
I think I get it. I guess what I don’t get is how this useful insight is supposed to somehow render scientific inquiry suspect. TT asked me “What exactly is the sinister narrative youre extracting?” Sinister. Heh. OK, so here it is: The reality is that we probably already know how to eradicate left-handedness from the human population. Does that frighten me? Not at all. What would frighten me is a bunch of humans starting a campaign advocating such eradication.
It sometimes seems like what you’re calling for, since the LDS inborn/celibacy position uses science for a crutch, is an anti-scientific response that’ll kick that crutch out from under them. That’s the part I don’t get.
Think of it this way. Gay people being represented in the media, starting with talk shows in the 1990s, and later on sitcoms and dramas, has done a lot more for societal acceptance in 20 years than science has done in over 100. You should also consider that the track record of science with regard to homosexuality is pretty awful: e.g, electroshock therapy, which is science underpinned by cultural views. For once, I’ll agree with Seth R that science by itself is useless.
Consider this quote from Eve Sedgwick in 1989:
Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, “How to Bring Your Kids Up Gay,” 1989.
No matter how much science you put forth to prove homosexuality is biological, unless you change cultural views, you can’t prove that it’s normal.
Now, I’m not as pessimistic as Duffy, since I think the Church can only extend welcome to gay people to a certain extent without creating an unstable internal imbalance. For example, that MSP TV Youtube video you posted the other day about the Church inviting Dustin Lance Black as a VIP guest to the Tabernacle solicited a comment of “I wonder how it makes LGB Mormons feel to see gay activists fted by the same LDS leadership that places such disproportionate demands on its own gay membership.” At some point, it’ll all stop making sense, but for now, we’re looking at rocket ship blasting at full thrust away from an event horizon. You can either focus on the rocket ship (which Duffy does in his essay), or you can look at the whole picture.
Alan, take the possibility away that some people are born homosexual or biologically determined to be homosexual and reparative therapy begins to make sense. The remaining libertarian arguments aren’t persuasive enough for me. If all it came down to was a choice rather than biology, I’d switch sides in the debate and say people should suck it up and choose to date people of the opposite sex if societal acceptance and marriage was important to them.
“If all it came down to was a choice rather than biology, Id switch sides in the debate and say people should suck it up and choose to date people of the opposite sex if societal acceptance and marriage was important to them.”
Why? (Sorry if this sounds like an attack on you…really, it isn’t)
Religion is a choice. People who belong to minority religious groups often face intolerance. But do we tell them to “suck it up” or “just go join one of the major religions” if they’re unhappy with their situation? Were there, say, a ban on people of the Froo-Froo faith (fictional) getting married, would we tell them to just “suck it up and change faiths” if they really wanted marriage and societal acceptance? If not, why is that acceptable for gay people, even if it’s considered a choice?
What’s more–would anybody consider it acceptable to push the notion that religion is a mental or moral defect, and to have entire programs dedicated to “overcoming” it? Could you imagine the outrage if an “Ex-Christian” program sprang up, run by atheists who promise they can “fix” these broken people? Yet religious groups push “ex-gay” programs as if they’re something wholesome and genuinely therapeutic. When the people harmed by them dare to speak up, the charlatans running them pretend *they’re* being persecuted. The gall!
I really don’t want to be forced to argue the other side based on a hypothetical situation where homosexuality is purely a choice.
However, let’s take polygamy for example. It is a pure choice, not biologically determined. I don’t think government should recognize polygamous marriages because nominal monogamy has had a stabilizing effect on civilization. With the chance that polygamy would have widespread, deleterious effects, legally recognizing it so that a few people could have government endorse their choices is a gamble I’m not willing to take.
I also don’t think government should criminalize polygamous relationships. It should just stay out of the question. At bottom, I think governmental involvement in marriage is extremely problematic. If we could extricate it from the situation, it seems like a lot of things would clear up.
So, in a hypothetical world where people choose their sexual orientation, I would argue against same-sex marriage because it is a novel twist on the (nominally) monogamous, (nominally) heterosexual marriage that, while it isn’t the “foundation” of our society, has helped to stabilize it. In other countries so far, same-sex marriage has had positive effects, yet we haven’t seen what happens in the long term. Why take a gamble on same-sex marriage just so government could endorse some people’s choices?
Still, I don’t think homosexual relationships should be criminalized.
For me, biological determination tips the balance. Without it, homosexuality becomes just another choice like religion that someone has a right to make freely, but the government has no obligation to endorse.
Yeah, what Buffy said. I don’t quite understand your perspective, Jonathan. Are you saying that homosexuality should be normalized only to the extent of accepting those “predestined” to be gay, but no further?
The point of gay politics as I see it let the next generation have a world where they can choose to be with whoever they want to be with without having to worry about societal acceptance. People point to gay ducks and antelopes to bolster this point, but the libertarianism is the foundation.
I know plenty of people who do tell religious people to “suck it up” or “just go join x other group” if they’re unhappy with their situation.
It’s not usually “just go join majority religion” if they want “social acceptance,” but more like, “if you’re facing cognitive dissonance, leave the church. Stop trying to rationalize and shelve your doubts.”
I think the issue is a bit confusing though. I don’t think beliefs are chosen, so to me, religion as a choice isn’t really an open-ended choice. If someone is facing crushing cognitive dissonance, he can’t simply “choose” to return back to his simpler belief structure. He can’t simply “choose” for the cognitive dissonance to evaporate. That would be nice, but unrealistic. Sure, sure, he can choose actions (e.g., keep going to church even though it’s uncomfortable), but that doesn’t change the underlying feelings which were not and are not chosen.
I’m therefore interested in Alan’s argument. For me, it’s not about nature vs. nurture…it’s not about trusting in the arm of biologism. Rather, it seems to me that between both nature *and* nurture, there is not a lot of room for conscious choice at the underlying levels of things like belief, feeling, attraction, etc., Supposing that we are fluid (in both sexuality and belief), the issue becomes that we don’t choose our fluidity or the course these things will take.
Posted 28 without having read 27. I see your perspective now. But I really question the “stabilization of society” component of hetero marriage. It’s kind of an historical myth put forward specifically to argue against same-sex marriage. It doesn’t really say much about the actual gender, racial and sexual dynamics over the course of history, which have been pretty terrible (women as property, for example — which, well, of course things will be stable if you own your spouse).
Andrew,
You’re right about belief. That’s really not a matter of choice. But the particular religious sect we belong to often is. If it weren’t, churches wouldn’t expend so much effort trying to convert others via missionaries and other forms of proselytizing. Back when I was a Christian I converted from the religion my parents had brought me up in to one I felt was more suited to me.
No, the cognitive dissonance can’t simply evaporate and it’s rude for people to simply say “suck it up and deal” or “just leave already”. I went through that myself for many years before I ultimately lost my faith. Each person has to deal with it their own way. I tried more Bible reading, more prayer and good old-fashioned denial. None of them worked and I finally had to admit I no longer believed. Other people might benefit from looking around and finding a church that’s better suited to where they are at that particular point in life (which is what my sister is currently doing).
It’s the reactions of others that can sometimes be the hardest to deal with. It took me barely a week to come to terms with my loss of faith. Some of the people around me, however, took it pretty harshly. I lost a long-time friend over it, in fact. Sadly that’s often why some people stay in a particular religious group despite misgivings–they’re afraid of losing friends or even family over it. Of course I’m sure I don’t have to explain that phenomena to anybody here.
It’s not so much that hetero marriage has stabilized society as much as mono marriage has, based on pretty persuasive arguments from historical evidence.
In the case of same-sex marriage, it doesn’t have a negative track record. It’s untried. In that respect, the case against same-sex marriage is, I admit, weaker.
Andrew, I don’t think it’s necessary to put religious liberty in a framework of choice. It’s just as valid to frame it as having the space to live according to your conscience. You have the freedom to give expression to your conscience, but it may not be true that you are free to choose what your conscience dictates. It also doesn’t mean that government has to put its stamp of approval on what your conscience says.
I see the same arising in the case of sexual orientation, but that would take me away from talking about the hypothetical world where sexual orientation is a choice.
Buffy, nevertheless, people DO say both “suck it up and deal” or “just leave already” depending on which side of the table they are. So, it just goes to show that when people perceive a choice, they *do* have different ways of addressing people.
(Also, I think the reason that churches spend so much time trying to convert via missionaries — especially the LDS church — is precisely because Mormons believe *beliefs* are chosen in addition to religious affiliation. I don’t think missionaries try to convert people to the religion without also trying to change the beliefs of the individual. “You can just choose to desire to believe, plant the seed, and then you take your Moroni’s challenge, and then voila!” This turns up with variations in other denominations and other religions. Much of the heartache with losing faith is the fact that many Mormons think this is a failure of your *choices*.)
Jonathan,
I guess the relevant comparison between the hypothetical world where sexual orientation is a choice would be a hypothetical world where one is free to choose what his conscience dictates.
The problem is this seems tough for me to imagine. I mean, I can understand that 1) people’s consciences may differ and 2) certain experiences may unpredictably change what one’s conscience dictates…but 1 and 2 do not provide me a basis to imagine a world where one is free to choose what his conscience dictates.
Just for the record, I never said that people with cogdis should suck it up. 🙂
What I was saying is that if someone belongs to religion that their neighbors don’t respect, then they should deal with it or choose a different religion. As long as the neighbors aren’t infringing on that person’s rights then it’s their choice.
Of course that would get mucked up if government endorsed certain religions like it does for marriages.
Oh yeah, didn’t mean to imply (if it came across that way) that that was something you did.
But outside of our fair Main Street Plaza, certainly people are less charitable. I’m not making this up.
Andrew, assuming free will exists, imagine a world where you can choose to either listen to your conscience or ignore it. Over time, your choices train your conscience by atrophying the ignored parts and reinforcing the others. In that world, would/should we have as much respect for freedom of religion? I’m not sure. It’s interesting to ponder.
I think the comparison to religious belief is problematic because belief is mental. It’s when belief influences action that other people begin to have a legitimate interest in your beliefs. Living in a same-sex marriage, on the other hand, is an action. It may be based on beliefs, but it has already crossed the line into the tangible world of actions.
A more apt comparison is to religiously motivated actions. It’s OK for people to believe that prayer will cure their child of diabetes. It’s criminal for them to force their children forgo medical treatment based on those beliefs.
Andrew,
WRT “belief” I was referring to belief in god(s) rather than specific doctrines. Of course individual churches try to convert people into believing their particular dogma, and reject others. That’s something that’s pretty changeable. But belief or non-belief in gods, for most people, isn’t a conscious choice.
“I think the comparison to religious belief is problematic because belief is mental. Its when belief influences action that other people begin to have a legitimate interest in your beliefs. Living in a same-sex marriage, on the other hand, is an action. It may be based on beliefs, but it has already crossed the line into the tangible world of actions. ”
How does my marriage affect anybody ? I know people have imagined vague “grave consequences” but really, how does my marriage affect others? Does it affect others more than the marriages of death-row inmates, thrice-divorced adulterers or men who’ve abused their previous wives?
“Of course that would get mucked up if government endorsed certain religions like it does for marriages.”
Legality doesn’t imply endorsement. Making same-sex marriage legal wouldn’t mean the government “endorsed” it any more than the fact that Buddhism, Satanism, Islam and other religions are legal (and get the associated tax breaks and other perks) means the government “endorses” them.
Note that I’m arguing (in the hypothetical world) against the government licensing same-sex marriage (under the assumption that they need to license marriages, which I think is a bad assumption) and granting it privileges under the law (which is an endorsement). I’m not arguing for criminalization of homosexual relationships.
In the case of a polygynous marriage, having fewer potential marital partners leaves unattached men in the population. Unattached men tend to feel disenfranchised and to be a destabilizing force. That’s one example of how a marriage can affect other people.
In a more typical example, abusive marriages have long-term negative consequences for children, making it harder for them in turn to have successful marriages.
No marriage is an island. They have consequences for the surrounding community. I hope no one is seriously arguing otherwise. The argument has always been (or should have been) that same-sex marriage doesn’t affect the community negatively, or negatively enough to justify the refusal to endorse it. That marriages have consequences outside of the couple involved should go without question.
Personally, I am strongly in favor of same-sex marriage because there exist people who are in such relationships, and they deserve the same legal rights and protections as opposite-sex married couples. But, would it make a difference if orientation were entirely a choice? A fascinating and complex question!
In real life, most of my friends are part of the international expat community. I have nearly as many friends who are from different countries than their partners as friends who married people from their own country of origin. I know several same-sex couples that have serious problems obtaining the simple right to live in the same country with their spouse. Hence, for me, the right to marry (and consequently to live in the same country with your spouse) is an absolutely crucial protection for families. (For more on my POV, see my post just write it down.)
In this case, you could absolutely argue that I’ve made a choice that I didn’t have to make. I’m not biologically oriented towards French people. Society could tell me “Suck it up — you want to live in the same country with your husband, then don’t choose to fall in love with a foreigner!” I’m glad they don’t.
That said — regardless of whether the “biological argument” is useful politically — the fact remains that there is a demonstrated biological basis to homosexuality. Science isn’t about what you want to believe. The whole point of science is to try to counterbalance bias in order to discover accurate information.
In arguing against same-sex marriage, and sleeping on those arguments, I don’t know anymore that I would switch over. However, I still believe the lack of biological determinism would severely weaken our case. I know it was one of the reasons that originally convinced me. I’ve also seen it help convince others.
I’m not willing to argue that homosexual relationships are immoral which would have made my arguments stronger for the social conservative. But for those, the fact that “God made people homosexual” gives them pause (at least the ones open to persuasion). I think it would be a mistaken tactic to abandon it as an argument just because someone has come up with (rather weak) arguments to counteract it.
And as chanson points out, it’s science.
Just a very quick bibliographic note on the critique against the biological explanation of the origins of “homosexuality,” I’d recommend starting with Michel Foucault’s _History of Sexuality: Vol 1_. Of course, as Alan mentioned, numerous contemporary gay activists and thinkers have impressive philosophical arguments against it, including Judith Bulter. The most important insight that you get from this is a more robust sense of “agency” and “choice,” that I think offers solutions to many of the critiques some of you have raised. Basically, the dichotomy of choice or determinism is way too stark and neither are reflective of how we actually live our lives or constitute our subjectivities.
As a side note, Butler opposes gay marriage, as do many older gay and lesbian intellectuals, not because they don’t think gay couples should be given equal rights (they do) but because she argues that it reifies marriage as the only legitimate relationship and actually marginalizes more radical gay and lesbian lifestyles and practices, divined the gay community between married and not married. She sees it as a profoundly conservative move that closes down and delegitimizes much of what gay liberation fought for. Whatever the merits of this argument, her arguments against the biological explanation of homosexuality (building on Foucault), most recently in _Undoing Gender_, need to be taken seriously.
Maybe i will get around to posting on this someday.
Also, Chino’s example of left-handedness @23 is interesting. The thing is that people once really did think left-handedness was wrong and sinister, and was something that required re-education to “correct.” Such a belief is, today, absurd. Recognizing that handedness has a biological basis (and that left-handedness is a natural variant) — plus the discovery that re-education doesn’t work to turn people right-handed — was a part of that acceptance. And it wasn’t that the biological basis was some sort of brilliant political/philosophical strategy — it’s that it is accurate information about how handedness works.
TT@42:
Yes, if you look at gay politics from the 1950s to the 1970s, all you’ll see is libertarianism. The right to privacy and autonomy. This is because the APA thought of homosexuality as a mental illness. Science was not on the side of gay politics.
From the 1980s onward, you see institutionalism. Part of this has to do with getting into public spaces like schools for the sake of queer youth. But it’s also about housing, employment, hate-crimes, and the rights afforded with marriage, etc. I’ll agree with Jonathan that these things probably wouldn’t have happened without an elite class resting on an APA decision. But if you read the 2003 Supreme Court decision Lawrence v. Texas, you’ll find that the victory was a libertarian one: a right to privacy and autonomy. It’s not about science and the compartmentalization of some Americans as different than others.
The fact that science is now the friend of gay politics has to do with normalizing discourses surrounding science. If you look in the Mormon context, the science is considered without those normalizing discourses, and what do you have? A lack of equality. Now, I’m not saying that we should listen to the Dean Byrds of Mormonism who would still consider homosexuality a mental illness, who reduce the science of the last 40 years to mere politics, but what I’m saying is that even with the science you still have the Dean Byrds of Mormonism who run the show! If you read any of his stuff, you’ll find that the theoretical problems with his work have to do with gender stereotypes more than questions of the biology of homosexuality. Why? Because he’s Mormon and we’re talking about eternal gender. The question of the acceptance of homosexuality in society is fundamentally a question of what are deemed acceptable gender roles as opposed to biology.
With that said, I’m still looking forward to how William Bradshaw (a BYU scientist) will tear apart Byrd in the next issue of Dialogue. I think what’s happening in this discussion here is that when we say “science,” we assume a bunch of normativizing relationships. But let me tell you, in conservative spaces where people put God before science, it just doesn’t work the same way.
And holding “science” accountable for electroshock therapy strikes me as akin to blaming modern medicine for homeopathy. I tend to think there are better ways forward than joining some conservative folks in confusing pseudoscience for the real thing.
As a competing bibliographic note, I’m gonna drop this link. As Halperin notes:
More importantly, thanks for the heads up that Bradshaw is gonna take on Byrd in that Mormon magazine. At the end of the day, I totally agree with this:
Mormon cultural views can change, they will change. But returning to that Halperin interview, I think he raises an important caution re academic theory becoming an increasingly marginal activity in terms of effecting cultural change.
Alan, with respect to arguing “free will” vs. “determinism” in homosexuality, I’m still not sure I’m communicating on the same wavelength with you. Let my explain my perspective and questions:
In the “nature vs. environment” debate, essentially every complex human behavior is a combination of both. Usually, it hardly makes sense to attempt to disentangle them. Some habit or practice may be dictated by human culture, but it’s not as though human culture were imposed by some sort of alien invaders. Culture is created and defined by humans, acting according to their nature and their environment. Attempting to separate human behavior from the influence of culture is not the path to discovering the true human nature. Indeed, if there exists a single human anywhere who is untainted by the influence of human culture, I can hardly imagine anything more unnatural.
Anything that has been encoded in human culture is (by definition) within the range of possibilities for human culture. To attempt to uncover universals about human nature, the best we can do is cross-cultural comparisons and look for patterns.
Language and religion are among the universals. Every known human society has them. Also long-term emotional pair-bonding based around mating. The corresponding customs vary widely from one culture to the next, but in the overwhelming majority of human societies, the dominant parenting/mating pattern is (and has been) serial heterosexual monogamy leaning slightly towards polygyny. Note that a long-term mating-pair system typically includes some “cheating” (in humans and other pair-bonding species), so widespread cheating is not a proof that monogamy is unnatural (nor that it is somehow imposed by culture, contrary to human nature). The sensation of “falling in love” is influenced by culture, but it has a very real biological basis. Same with sexual attraction.
In this context, it’s not clear what it would even mean to claim that homosexual orientation is a choice. Are you saying that — even though heterosexual love/attraction/bonding has a biological component — homosexual love doesn’t?? People have some control over who they can feel attracted to and fall in love with, but it is very far from 100%. It may be philosophically satisfying to imagine that you can use your free will to decide exactly whom you will love, but philosophically satisfying and true are two different things.
To say “sexual orientation is generally not a choice” may be neither philosophically satisfying nor politically convenient. However, it is useful in helping people understand homosexuality because it is accurate.
Chanson @47:
There is a major problem when some people get to say what is voluntary and what is involuntary within others. The very existence of expertise on the subject of sexual attraction, whether its clinical or by religious leaders, guarantees people who are not the object of the expertise an empowered place from which to view the “other.” In this case, we’re looking at the idea of the closet. We think we know some kids are gay before they know this about themselves, and we’re often correct years down the road, so we say homosexuality is “inborn.” But what is it that we’re actually knowing about the kid? We’re categorizing the kid as this or that in a way that straight kids are not thought about (usually based on gender stereotypes). Plus the kid might end up bisexual or straight after all. In Mormon culture, we’re currently looking at the idea of “involuntary” attraction, but “voluntary” choice over the attraction. First off, heterosexuals don’t get the same treatment. Their lives, thoughts and feelings don’t get divided this way.
It’s not just philosophically satisfying to imagine that you can use your free will to decide exactly whom you will love. If gayness were considered as natural as straightness, everybody would decide exactly whom they will love. There wouldn’t be a question of what is voluntary and what isn’t.
Biology is used for the cause of gay liberation, but I would again point you to the quote by Sedgwick above @24. The more liberation you achieve, the less important proving sexual orientation is inborn becomes. One could even say that the biological discourse just points to the politics of liberation — proving that some people are attracted one way or the other. The biology discourse of yesteryear (that Chino above calls “pseudo-science”) pointed to the politics of heterosexism.
Another way of saying this is that attempts to change orientation are an attack on free will.
Chino @46:
Of course science is accountable for electroshock therapy. You can’t just dismiss the science you don’t like as pseudo-science just because it turns out as inaccurate. The change to “gay as normal” was a paradigm shift that found its roots in the 1950s after scientific surveys and experiments, but before that you’ll be hard-pressed to find any scientists who thought homosexuality was normal.
And if I invent an apparatus for casting out evil spirits, of course science is to blame for the runaway commercial success of my new Electric Exorcism.
We posit heterosexuality as natural as a matter of course. What is natural deserves rights and privilege. So saying that homosexuality is natural or inborn is not singling out same gender attraction but it is a move in the struggle for access and equality.
Sure, there is othering, but that’s a necessary aspect of change of persuasion. The othering is an implication of the inadequate conditions of the past and present. Each one of us has to start out where we are to get to where we wish to be.
Culture and socialization are powerful, the status quo is what it is and if we wish to overcome it, we will have to engage it as it is, not how we wish it to be. And that includes especially our own attitudes, prejudices, and inabilities.
It takes time and effort to shed prejudice. Clumsiness and mistakes are par for the course. It is unfortunate that minorities have to bear most of the burden in the process but better that than the burden of lasting discrimination.
In the end, the argument is that gays are just as natural and just as human as any hetero guy or girl. Even if people don’t say it that way, at some level, they all imply it.
When people say that homosexuality is natural or that a kid was born gay, they acknowledge that the gay kid was just like them and everybody else when it comes to sexual orientation. It is really as much about identification with each other as it is about the nature of sexuality.