On the Church and LGBTQ

I write this post for those who either are not members of our church and therefore do not understand our position on LGBTQ or who are members and take a contrary position on the topic. I ask that you keep an open mind, and do not dismiss this explanation on purely ideological grounds.

As a social scientist myself, I have something to say on the “science” of homosexuality. The current scientific paradigm of the social sciences, especially sociology, on which this question is premised is called “positivism” or “functionalism.”  Its basic assumptions necessitate a deterministic nature of mankind.  That is, our behaviors are strictly determined – by our genetics, by our environment, and by our social institutions.  Agency or free will, in this view, does not exist.  It is illusory, a figment of the imagination, a mental trick. 

Thus homosexuality is, for these social scientists, caused.  Gays don’t have a choice because choice is not real.  The debate of nature or nurture is, in a meaningful sense, a red herring.  Whether it is one, the other, or both, it is still caused.  Thus the idea that such a behavior is a “sin” is nonsensical.  The is no sin if there is no choice.  We are denigrating behaviors that cannot be helped, which is unjust.

In our faith (and in the more sane corners of the social sciences), the rejection of agency is false.  Agency is REAL.  We have a choice.  Our behaviors are not caused.  They can only be said to be influenced. 

This premise, an “anti-positivist” approach to social science, is pretty well borne out by a lot of research that continues to be ignored.  For example, there is fascinating research on neuroplasticity (how the brain can change itself) and genetic (phenotypic) plasticity (how even our DNA can be changed).  So far acceptance of this research goes only so far as it can be accepted as caused by the environment (in accordance with determinism), but it strongly supports the idea of agency, that we are more than just DNA and flesh.

If we accept voluntarism (agency), then all behavior is chosen.  Certainly, there may be factors that strongly influence one’s choice.  One may be predisposed to a certain behaviors.  One’s social or external environment may influence the availability or desirability of certain behavioral options.  But in the end, behavior is chosen, not caused.

In such a view, homosexuality can indeed be described as an undesirable behavior, one that is destructive to a more ideal and productive social order.  Such a behavior can be socially ostracized to dissuade such behavior.  It is not, if agency is real, unjust to dissuade such behavior because it is not causally determined.  Such social rejection is merely another influencer on the choices individuals make (i.e. it modifies the social influencers).  In fact, research suggests that it is mostly socially/psychologically influenced (the strongest influencers are, e.g., a troubled childhood and social pressure).  That is, it is a rebellion of sorts against the prevailing social structure, not a natural (biological) inclination. Such rebellion against a structure that is perceived to be just and productive can be rightfully denigrated.

Also, a word on marriage.  As a libertarian, I find the idea that the State can choose who does or does not get married morally repugnant.  Marriage is a religious rite, not a civil right (note the different spelling), the state has no business licensing marriage.  In my view, churches should decide who can and cannot get married.  If there is a church that wants to marry gay couples, fine, who cares?  But there should be no legal status of “married,” and those who don’t think marriage exists between members of the same sex can simply believe that church’s marriage invalid.

Because the State has inserted itself into deciding who can and cannot get married (because it wants to treat married people differently than single people), the State gets to decide who can and cannot marry.  Thus it is decided by those who “own” the State, i.e. democratically.  That a minority may strongly disagree with the decision is simply too bad.  The State discriminates all the time on behavior.  It discriminates on people’s work (e.g. progressive taxation), on their use of drugs, criminal action, even in some places on their food preferences (e.g. soft-drink bans).  Some of it is just (i.e. their behaviors infringe on the rights of others).  Most of it is not.  But that’s what the State has grown into, and thus it has given itself the right to decide who and who does not get married.  That the LGBTQ community tends to strongly support this government overreach was its own undoing… that is, until it successfully pushed the State to usurp even more power and override even democratic voting.

In short, I get why people think we’re wrong on LGBTQ policy.  They have a different view of the nature of man.  But our view is NOT unreasonable or unjustifiable.  It is JUST AS VALID as a functionalist determinism (this issue goes all the way back to the indeterminacy of the "body-mind problem" in philosophy).  And I certainly cannot understand LDS members that reject the church’s position on the issue.  Do you reject the principle of agency?  If so, you’re probably in the wrong church.  If not, you ought to rethink your position.