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.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by 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?

I'm not this cynical. In my mind there is little question that this is being done because the brethren believe that gay marriage is a moral evil which the Lord wants them to take a stand against. I think any possible cost benefit analysis gets swallowed up in this much larger point.

We can certainly disagree about whether they are right, but I at least believe their motives to be pure.

[CardiacCoug]

Originally Posted by 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?

I vote for #2. I think the brethren feel like societal acceptance of gay marriage will damage the institution of marriage and the institution of the family. They feel that more children will be born out of wedlock, more men will leave their families, and more heterosexual marriages will end in divorce if gay marriage is officially endorsed.

I've been trying to figure out why I feel differently from the brethren on this issue. I think the root cause for the difference may be that I view gay people as unalterably gay -- incapable of achieving the heterosexual LDS family ideal in this life. I see gay and straight people as being in mutually exclusive groups -- what gay people do with their personal lives doesn't seem to affect me, my family, or the other LDS families I know. So I feel that I shouldn't interfere with the rights of gay people to pursue happiness as they see fit as long as it doesn't encroach on my rights.

The brethren may view gay people as capable but unwilling of achieving the eternal, LDS family ideal. They may feel that if society shows no official endorsement of the homosexual "lifestyle" that more men and women will successfully marry people of the opposite gender and raise children in traditional households with a mother and a father. Maybe they feel like more parents may abandon their spouse and children if gay marriage is condoned (After all, there are men and women who leave their spouse to run off with people of the same gender, though this is exceeding rare compared with leaving for someone of the opposite gender).

Anyway, just a few thoughts on the issue. I don't think opposition to gay marriage is particularly good PR for the Church or a good missionary tool.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by 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?

The church frequently gets involved politically on morality issues: alcohol, gambling, abortion, gay marriage.

I think the church believes the people in a community have a responsibility to legislate morality as much as possible. It sees it as a way of protecting the saints and the nation as a whole.

I think the church believes that though the righteous may be outnumbered and lose these causes, they at least have a responsibility to fight and they believe that some of them they can win or at least prolong the day they lose.

[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.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by CardiacCoug

I see gay and straight people as being in mutually exclusive groups -- what gay people do with their personal lives doesn't seem to affect me, my family, or the other LDS families I know.

What if your teenage son feels attracted sexually to his male peers, but he has yet to act on it. He also feels sexually attracted to his female peers at times, which he has also not acted upon.

Does the social and legal acceptance of gay marriage (i.e., the legitimization of the sex act) affect your family then?

[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.

[CardiacCoug]

Originally Posted by Levin

What if your teenage son feels attracted sexually to his male peers, but he has yet to act on it. He also feels sexually attracted to his female peers at times, which he has also not acted upon.

Does the social and legal acceptance of gay marriage (i.e., the legitimization of the sex act) affect your family then?

Good question. If he was that confused in his sexual preference, I wouldn't want him to "act on it" with another guy, that's for sure. That's probably because it's tough to be gay, much more difficult than being straight, especially for Church members. I wouldn't want him to be cultivating that aspect of his sexuality while still a teenager and still confused about things. Maybe I just feel that way because I'm a bigot who hates the idea of having a gay son -- I'm not really sure.

If he eventually decided that he was completely gay, then I would want him to be happy -- either by being celibate and staying in the Church (if the Church was that important to him) or by leaving the Church and having a stable, long-term (married?) relationship that made him happy.

I guess for people who are truly bisexual, without a preference for either gender, my honest advice would be to try to be straight, if possible. Things just seem a lot less complicated for straight people.