Same-sex dating and non-sexual acts of affection
In the Church's recent statement in response to the HRC's statement against the Church (or Boyd Packer in particular), this line particularly stuck out to me.
"As a church, our doctrinal position is clear: any sexual activity outside of marriage is wrong"
I used to consider this (and similar claims) to be quite deceptive (or at least disingenuous), as it seems that gay and lesbian saints are not actually held to the same standards as heterosexual members. When I was single I was allowed (and sometimes strongly encouraged to) date, kiss, cuddle, hold hands, show non-sexual affection, and get in romantic relationships with persons of the opposite sex. However, it seems that all of these things are considered to be immoral, sinful, unchaste, etc if done with someone of the same sex. Thus, an unfair expectation and duplicitous standard was being set for Mormons who are gay or lesbian.
Or is it?
While I have assumed that unequal and different standards of chastity were expected, I am unaware of the Church explicitly stating that same-sex romantic non-sexual dating and tokens of affection were immoral or sinful. Has the Church actually made a clear statement about this?
Can two 16 year old Laurels hold hands romantically and still take the sacrament each week? Can a returned missionary softly kiss his male date after an evening together and still worthily be an Elders Quorum President? Can a high priest cuddle with his boyfriend and baptize his daughter the next day? Could a Relief Society President openly be in a serious, romantic, and chaste relationship with her girlfriend?
This type looking of two persons staring at each other is clearly promoted by the Church:
However, are these two men sinning simply by looking at each other with loving affection?
*EDIT*
I found the following in the 2006 Church Handbook of Instructions. Does anyone know if the 2010 version differs?
Homosexual Behavior
Homosexual behavior violates the commandments of God, is contrary to the purposes of human sexuality, distorts loving relationships, and deprives people of the blessings that can be found in gamily life and in the saving ordinances of the gospel. Those who persist in such behavior or who influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline. Homosexual behavior can be forgiven through sincere repentance.
While opposing homosexual behavior, the Church reaches out to understanding and respect to individuals who are attracted to those of the same gender. [This paragraph was not in the 1998 handbook.]
If members have homosexual thoughts or feelings or engage in homosexual behavior, Church leaders should help them have a clear understanding of faith in Jesus Christ, the process of repentance, and the purpose of life on earth. Leaders also should help them accept responsibility for their thoughts and actions and apply gospel principles in their lives.
In addition to the inspired assistance of Church leaders, members may need professional counseling. When appropriate, bishops should contact LDS Social Services to identify resources to provide such counseling in harmony with gospel principles.
Although not explicit, I think this does show that the Church does see all non-sexual romantic same-sex behavior as sinful, requiring repentance, and subject to Church discipline.
*EDIT*
From the BYU Honor Code:
But of course, the BYU Honor Code is pretty nutty and prohibits beards, piercings, bathroom sharing, mixed gender camping trips, and having persons of the opposite sex in your apartment before 9am.Homosexual Behavior or Advocacy
Brigham Young University will respond to homosexual behavior rather than to feelings or attraction and welcomes as full members of the university community all whose behavior meets university standards. Members of the university community can remain in good Honor Code standing if they conduct their lives in a manner consistent with gospel principles and the Honor Code.
One's stated same-gender attraction is not an Honor Code issue. However, the Honor Code requires all members of the university community to manifest a strict commitment to the law of chastity. Homosexual behavior and/or advocacy of homosexual behavior are inappropriate and violate the Honor Code. Homosexual behavior includes not only sexual relations between members of the same sex, but all forms of physical intimacy that give expression to homosexual feelings. Advocacy includes seeking to influence others to engage in homosexual behavior or promoting homosexual relations as being morally acceptable.
I've often thought about this. The response seems to be that heterosexual kissing/hugging/etc. is ok because it's in preparation for the legitimate kind of affection. Or, to channel Elder Oaks(I think), that kind of affection can easily be upgraded to the real thing. Homosexual affection can never be upgraded to anything legitimate.
ReplyDeleteSeems kind of like they're saying that a fake $100 bill is more legit than monopoly money because at least the fake $100 bill is faking 'real' money.
I found the following in the 2006 Church Handbook of Instructions. Does anyone know if the 2010 version differs?
ReplyDeleteHomosexual Behavior
Homosexual behavior violates the commandments of God, is contrary to the purposes of human sexuality, distorts loving relationships, and deprives people of the blessings that can be found in gamily life and in the saving ordinances of the gospel. Those who persist in such behavior or who influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline. Homosexual behavior can be forgiven through sincere repentance.
While opposing homosexual behavior, the Church reaches out to understanding and respect to individuals who are attracted to those of the same gender. [This paragraph was not in the 1998 handbook.]
If members have homosexual thoughts or feelings or engage in homosexual behavior, Church leaders should help them have a clear understanding of faith in Jesus Christ, the process of repentance, and the purpose of life on earth. Leaders also should help them accept responsibility for their thoughts and actions and apply gospel principles in their lives.
In addition to the inspired assistance of Church leaders, members may need professional counseling. When appropriate, bishops should contact LDS Social Services to identify resources to provide such counseling in harmony with gospel principles.
Although not explicit, I think this does show that the Church does see all non-sexual romantic same-sex behavior as sinful, requiring repentance, and subject to Church discipline.
from the BYU Honor Code:
ReplyDeleteHomosexual Behavior or Advocacy
Brigham Young University will respond to homosexual behavior rather than to feelings or attraction and welcomes as full members of the university community all whose behavior meets university standards. Members of the university community can remain in good Honor Code standing if they conduct their lives in a manner consistent with gospel principles and the Honor Code.
One's stated same-gender attraction is not an Honor Code issue. However, the Honor Code requires all members of the university community to manifest a strict commitment to the law of chastity. Homosexual behavior and/or advocacy of homosexual behavior are inappropriate and violate the Honor Code. Homosexual behavior includes not only sexual relations between members of the same sex, but all forms of physical intimacy that give expression to homosexual feelings. Advocacy includes seeking to influence others to engage in homosexual behavior or promoting homosexual relations as being morally acceptable.
I think we can have a broader debate about how much the Honor Code reflects the Church's position. BYU has all kinds of stupid rules that go above and beyond what the Church requires, but it seems to point towards what the Church policy would be if they had no constraints on their own behavior.
ReplyDeleteWhen I think about my time in a singles ward in NC, during sacrament meeting and other lessons, there was plenty of hand-holding, arm around the shoulder, head on the shoulder, etc. going on. All between males and females. Totally kosher. There is no question in my mind that if such a thing had happened between two men or two women, the bishop would probably have stopped whatever meeting was then going on in order to put an stop to it. There might be some wards out there where this is an exception, but whether it is official or not, this is going to be the on-the-ground reaction just about everywhere.
I don't think either of those statements appropriately distinguishes "homosexual behavior" from "heterosexual behavior before marriage." In fact, I think you could interchange those two terms. We're left with the original questions unanswered.
ReplyDeleteFor full disclosure, I won't be convinced by anything short of an official statement that says something like "certain heterosexual behavior is ok before marriage, such as X, Y & Z, but homosexual behavior of any kind is always forbidden, even A, B, and C." Until then, I'm comfortable telling hand-holding and kissing homosexuals that their behavior is not forbidden by the church, and that anyone who tells them otherwise is applying an unsupported double-standard.
Joel, I think the BYU Honor Code is remarkably clear, if wrongheaded. What about this statement- "Homosexual behavior [which is inappropriate] includes not only sexual relations...but all forms of physical intimacy that give expression to homosexual feelings."
ReplyDeleteSo we have two categories- sexual relations and all forms of physical intimacy. Now sexual relations is obviously a subset of that second category but the context seems to indicate that there are other actions that are not sexual relations that are physical intimacy. If you think that hand-holding and kissing are OK by the Church, what kinds of behavior would you put in that category of physical intimacy? I am assuming that by including it as a separate category, it is not a null set, though that would not be the dumbest thing BYU has ever done.
All this being said, I don't disagree with you that it is a double standard. Moreover, I think that it is a troublesome standard, even from the Church's claimed (though probably not actual) desire to fellowship and welcome gays and lesbians. I merely disagree that the statement from the Honor Code is not clear on this.
I think that the answer is: "It depends".
ReplyDeleteThat is, it depends entirely on the local leaders (bishop, stake president) and how they interpret the term "homosexual behavior".
I have a (gay) friend who is active in his ward and fully out. He dates regularly. I don't know the extent of physical intimacy associated with his dates, but as he is a fairly "touchy-feely" guy in general I would assume that at least occasionally there would be hand-holding, back-rubs, and perhaps kissing. As I understand it, he is entirely open and honest with his bishop and none of this is an issue.
I have another friend whose bishop objected to him having gay friends at all, and made it clear that any physical intimacy with another guy was forbidden.
Until the church explicitly states what "homosexual behavior" is and isn't "allowed" we will see these huge discrepancies in local interpretation--most often leaning toward prohibiting gay members from doing things that are perfectly acceptable for straight members to do.
AHLDuke, I largely agree with you. Let me clarify my comment:
ReplyDeleteI don't think [The Handbook] appropriately distinguishes “[inappropriate] homosexual behavior” from “[inappropriate] heterosexual behavior before marriage.” [While the Honor Code uses the same terminology in its distinction—which distinction you accurately described—I am ultimately unconvinced that “homosexual behavior” means the same thing in both texts, because “BYU has all kinds of stupid rules that go above and beyond what the Church requires.”]
[Still], I won't be convinced by anything short of an official statement [from the Church] that says something like "certain heterosexual behavior is ok before marriage, such as X, Y & Z, but homosexual behavior of any kind is always forbidden, even A, B, and C." Until then, I'm comfortable telling hand-holding and kissing homosexuals that their behavior is not forbidden by the church, [even if it is forbidden at BYU], and that anyone who tells them otherwise [could be] applying [a] double-standard [based on an unreasonable belief that identical terms in the BYU Honor Code and the Church Handbook (or any other Church publication) share identical meanings.]
[Similarly, mere statements by Church officials defining "homosexual behavior" consistently with the BYU Honor Code should not necessarily lead us to believe that the definition applies to that terminology as used in the Handbook. After all, "[certain leaders] [have] all kinds of stupid rules that go above and beyond what the Church requires."]
At another local where this post is being discussed (and which I am not allowed to post), a poor argument is being repeatedly made that attempts to equate a prohibition of same-sex romantic interaction with heterosexual romantic interaction outside of one's own marriage. In other words, they are trying to say that a double standard is not being applied because certain heterosexual non-sexual interactions (such as me kissing a woman who is not Angela) are also deemed immoral and sinful.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with this argument is that fails to realize that for homosexual affection, the sin is in the homosexual nature of the act itself (ie. it is wrong because it is homosexual). If I were to engage with non-sexual affection with someone who is not Angela, it is not because of the heterosexual nature of the act, but because the act is in violation of the commitments I have made with Angela.
Why do people pushing that analogy believe that non-sexual affection with someone who is not your spouse would make you subject to church discipline in the first place? I don't know whether you would or not, but it seems the legitimacy of their analogy depends on some statement that distinguishes non-sexual behavior that is appropriate for unmarried heterosexuals but inappropriate for married heterosexuals.
ReplyDeleteIs hugging, hand holding, and other non-sexual "romantic interaction" a sin in-and-of itself, or is the breach of confidence the sin? If, for example, you and Angela agreed that you could have non-sexual romantic interaction outside of your marriage, upon what authority would you believe yourself to be subject to church discipline?