Last fall in one of my graduate seminars we were discussing a reading by a scholar by the name of Bruce D. Porter who was a respected, published scholar from BYU in political science and international affairs. My professor remarked that he didn’t know what had happened to Porter because he had stopped publishing and “disappeared”; well apparently Bruce D. Porter is an LDS general authority these days in the Quorum of the Seventy. In the June issue of The Ensign (a monthly magazine of the LDS Church containing talks, columns, and stories from church leaders that members are encouraged to read as part of their regular scripture study) Porter has an article entitled “Defending the Family in a Troubled World.”
It is not surprising that a man who has a PhD in political science from Harvard and who built his career as a researcher and professor in that field would have opinions on one of the most pressing social and political issues of this generation. And let me be clear, my purpose here is not to, as some have written, contend that the article in the Ensign was in poor taste or out of place for a publication that some members believe to be modern scripture. Porter is entitled to voice his opinions whether I agree with them or not.
My purpose is to confront the CONTENT of what was said. Porter is a smart man who, regardless of what he says over any pulpit or in any religious publication, truly knows that by exercising his right to free speech and free expression he is not free from critique by those who exercise their free speech with opposing views and that such critiques do not constitute any form of bigotry or persecution—for he built his career in a field (academia) that does not survive without critique.
There are a few sections of the piece that I wish to discuss, but you can find the article in its entirety to read and reference for full context, here.
The family by its very nature is an institution based upon righteous self-denial and sacrifice. It is not an individualistic or self-centered organization, but a highly cooperative and other-centered institution. Successful families require…substantial and long-term sacrifices…time, money, and personal fulfillment.
And yet we hear over and over again that those in the LGBT community are merely acting out of selfishness in being who they are. Porter wants to have it both ways: he wants to be able to label those who do not fit his definition of “traditional” as self-centered and selfish but also wishes to deny them access to the very institution that he claims refine human beings into more selfless beings through mutual shared sacrifice and commitment.
Moreover, the sacrifices that fathers and mothers make for their children ultimately will result in the greatest possible happiness for those making the sacrifices. In all of human experience, there are no joys more tender, no love more sweet, no fulfillment higher than that found in the family.Those who honor the calling of righteous parenthood will find their souls refined, their hearts purified, and their minds enlightened by the most important lessons of life. They will rise to far greater heights of happiness than those who engage in the narrow and ultimately unsatisfying pursuit of self.
This statement made my blood boil—not because I disagreed with it, but because I fully AGREE with it. It is incomprehensible that anyone can believe that an institution can bring “the greatest possible happiness” to men and women and that allows them to “rise to far greater heights of happiness” and escape the pursuit of self, and at the same time advocate that we deny to some the OPTION to choose such a sacrifice.
For a man who claims to be a disciple of a religion that teaches that “Adam fell that men might be—men are that they might have joy” it is extremely sad that he would advocate denial of the pursuit of such joy and happiness to human beings he views as his equals as his literal brothers and sisters as children of God.“
Latter-day Saints are often accused of narrow-mindedness or lack of tolerance and compassion because of our belief in following precise standards of moral behavior as set forth by God’s prophets.
No. Latter-day Saints are accused of such a lack of tolerance and compassion not because of their BELIEFS but because they are not content in merely believing, or in merely preaching and sharing those beliefs, but because they participate in calculated campaigns to codify those beliefs into law. I know of no person who is not content to allow Latter-day Saints to hold whatever beliefs they choose and, as annoying and invasive as it may seem at times, to try and share those beliefs with others. But there is a stark contrast between sharing and imposing by governmental force.
To some the very idea of a strait and narrow path will seem intolerant of those who choose different paths. By holding up a divine ideal of what family ought to be, they claim we are guilty of intolerance toward those who choose other paths, other standards, other definitions of right and wrong.
Again Porter seeks emotional sympathy for his position by inserting elements of self-victimization. Surely Porter knows that the inverse of his statement is also true: to those who for whatever religious, logical, or emotional reasons believe that it is perfectly fine for each human being to choose their own path, feel the same attack by those who hold Porter’s position. To repeat, Porter and all Latter-day Saints are allowed to hold beliefs and seek after whatever ideals, and whatever “straight and narrow” path they desire and allowed believe those who choose a different path are wrong, but they do not get to feel picked on simply because others believe that THEY are wrong based on their own beliefs.“
Curiously enough, this new modern tolerance is often a one-way street. Those who practice it expect everyone to tolerate them in anything they say or do, but show no tolerance themselves toward those who express differing viewpoints.
The hypocrisy of this statement is astounding. I fully 100% support Porter’s Constitutional right to express his religious beliefs and if they were threatened by legislation that sought to eliminate that right I would be the first in line to fight against it. However, how much “tolerance” does Porter believe he has when he campaigns to use legal parameters to enforce his views over those who disagree?
Porter seems to think that because he and his fellow Latter-day Saints have such a strong testimony of their beliefs that they “know” that they have some sort of high ground in the argument. Unfortunately for Porter, Latter-day Saints do not have a monopoly on “knowing”.
Earlier this month Dustin Lance Black in coordination with the Courage Campaign issued a challenge to have people make videos of themselves bearing their testimony of equality and what they believe and know. Because of some frustrating computer problems I wasn’t able to make my video, but I would still like to bear my “testimony”:
I know, with the same force of conviction that Bruce D. Porter “knows” of the validity of The Book of Mormon and other LDS doctrines, that what he and his church say about me and my divine identity is in direct conflict with what I KNOW about me.
I know that if there is a God that he or she would not hold it against me for having the desire to love one of God’s children more than I love myself, regardless of that person’s gender. I know that seeking after a selfless commitment to another person—a commitment that both Porter and I believe to be one of the most character building and happiness bringing choices a person can make—is not an attack on family, but rather a reaffirmation of its strength.
I know that seeking after a love so deep that Biblical Jacob was willing to work for a total of 14 years for Laban so that he could marry Rachel—a love so deep that those 14 years of servitude seemed “but a few days, for the love he had for her”—is not an act of selfish rebellion against “tradition” but a beautiful advocacy of the most divine aspects of human nature.
I know that if Jonathan and David continue to be celebrated for their Biblical story of loving each other as they loved themselves and with a love that “surpasses that of women”, then such love between two human beings should not be attacked today, but celebrated and supported.
But most importantly of all, I KNOW that “the arc of history bends towards justice” and that those like Porter who believe in the glorious benefits of marriage and family but selfishly deny that opportunity for happiness to others WILL lose and that the hope for marriage and family for ALL will be a reality in this nation despite the protests of illegitimate self-appointed gate-keepers to the institution.
“Amen.”
A well thought-out post, Isaac. I am, however, quite curious about something: you state that “Latter-day Saints are accused of such a lack of tolerance… because they participate in calculated campaigns to codify those beliefs into law.” May I ask why you have a problem with this?
The Church’s political opponents are also waging “calculated campaigns to codify [their] beliefs into law.” In fact, I suspect that every law in the history of mankind (and probably more) is the direct result of one or more “calculated campaigns to codify [someone’s] beliefs into law.” Can you name any law, current or past, that isn’t simply a codification of someone’s belief? If not, I’m not quite sure what your argument is, here.
To continue: a bit further down, you state that Elder Porter is not exemplifying tolerance “when he campaigns to use legal parameters to enforce his views over those who disagree.” Again, I’d be fascinated to know why you feel such campaigns to be a problem. You can certainly disagree with the position Porter takes, but this charge also perfectly describes what the other side is doing. If Porter is not allowed to campaign in such a way, then why should anyone else enjoy that right? And if no one else has that right, how will any law ever be changed?
My apologies in advance, if I’m just reading in criticism where none was intended, but you do seem to be rather critical of Elder Porter and the article he wrote. Assuming this is the case, I’d really like to hear an explanation for the points I’ve outlined herein.
Thanks so much!
Jeff, if I’m not mistaken, you are arguing that because there is a type of a moral belief/notion behind every law, it would be unfair for Isaac to criticize the LDS position without equally criticizing the LGBT community’s. You seem to be suggesting that any faction has as much right to establish their beliefs through legislation as any other faction does. This, however, overlooks the Rule of Law and emphasis on individual rights and would result in a democratic free-for-all in which the faction with the greatest number takes home the prize through a tyranny of the majority. This is precisely the situation the founders of our country sought to avoid. While factions may believe what they will, no faction has the right to enact legislation that infringes on the rights of individuals. The LGBT position conforms to this criterion while the LDS position does not. Both are indeed promoting a certain set of laws based on certain moral presumptions, but the Church is doing so at the expense of the LGBT community while the LGBT model respects others’ right to marry. In order to place the two propositions on equal grounds, the LGBTs would have to advocate the prohibition of straight marriages while they advocate legalizing gay marriage. Straights can still marry under the LGBT’s proposition but the opposite is not true. This is why Porter’s statements are misleading and why the Church can be accused of intolerance while the LGBT, as long as they are acknowledging the legitimacy of straight marriage, cannot.
I wasn’t so much criticizing the “campaigns” as I was criticizing Porter for not recognizing that it wasn’t the mere BELIEFS that prompt backlash but rather those beliefs in action in the political arena. I believe they have the right to voice their political views and advocate any policy they support, but I take issue with them wanting to be sheltered from critique of those views and arguments simply because they are religiously or faith based.
Thanks for being so thorough and thoughtful, Isaac.
Really good post.
Issac, that was great! Thank you for taking the time to share!
Here again I hear one of the most common arguments I hear in support of same-sex marriage. It goes something like this:
1. Whenever someone is prohibited from participating in a great good of human life, they are being oppressed.
2. Marriage is one of the great goods of human life and homosexuals are prohibited from participating in it.
3. Therefore bans on same sex marriage are oppressive.
That is the typical form that I see. Let us grant the second premise. Both defenders of traditional/natural marriage and same-sex marriage advocates seem to agree that marriage is a great good. And in most of the country same-sex marriages are not permitted.
The question is whether the first premise is true. I say that it is not. One needs only point to other examples to show this. Child birth is a great joy, one of the greatest possible joys. But are men being oppressed because they are prohibited from participating in this joy? Of course not, that is ridiculous. It is not in the NATURE of a man to be the sort of thing that can bear children. There is no “oppression” here, rather it is a matter of getting clear on what is at hand, and what sorts of things can, in accordance with their nature, participate in it. It is reality that is operative here, not social oppression.
Monty Python comically takes up this point in this scene from Life of Brian:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c
Much of the confusion about marriage and, indeed, the morality of homosexuality and of some forms of heterosexual sex (like contracepted sex) has to do with us failing to get clear on the nature of marriage and the nature of sexuality. What is sexuality and what is it for? Why is there sexual difference, and what does that mean for certain kinds of human relationships? What is marriage and what is marriage for?
These are deeper questions than the easy “I’m being oppressed because someone is saying I cannot participate in good X” mantra of the same-sex marriage movement. It is easy to argue against man-made laws, harder to argue against human nature. Thoughtful arguments against same-sex marriage will suggest that it is not because of oppression or bigotry or homophobia that homosexuals are excluded from marriage. Rather it is because of the NATURE of marriage (what it is and what it is for) that same-sex couples cannot participate in it.
How, though, is marriage a wholly natural institution? I strikes me as, at least partly, a social one, given its fluid definitions across history.
There are, of course, some mere social constructions around marriage and it is also the case that not every culture has always ordered its cultural practices and laws around the nature of the natural institution. That said, I think the “fluidity” of the institution across history is often overstated. I would argue that marriage is an institution that arises out of nature and natural needs and is not an institution created by the state. If it were merely created by the state, I would be the first to grant that it is in the power of the state to simply redefine it. But it is not in the power of the to redefine human nature and human needs.
The story of Genesis is one way of articulating the point that marriage is with us from “time immemorial”. It is the basic social unit of human society and is part of the natural fabric of the human condition. It arises out of the natural need to bring women and men together in stable relationships that can create children and provide them with mothers and fathers. Again, while there has been some cultural variation on this theme, the unitive and procreative functions of marriage have been, to the best of my understanding, a near universal feature of marriage across time and cultures.
And, yes, natural marriage arguments have able responses to the every predictable counter about infertile couples. I have rehearsed the argument here before and won’t bore everyone with it again.
The real point of my post was not to make the argument. Instead I just wanted to redirect the discussion. Too often the discussion gets framed as some homophobic jerks trying to make sure gay people can’t be happy. This is just not a serious argument, and it utterly fails to take up the serious arguments in defense of natural marriage. I just think this whole approach is wrong-headed. What we should do is having a serious national conversation about sex and marriage to sort out what these things are and what they are for. If, as a culture, we decide that all marriage is and all that marriage is for is the intimate sharing of a life between two people, fine. At that point, I see no reason why the state should have any involvement with it at all. But, according to what I see as the natural definition of marriage, marriage is and has always been much more than that, and I do think the state has a compelling interest in encouraging natural marriage.
Let me put it another way:
Supposing we grant that marriage is not a “wholly natural institution”. The question then is whether sexual difference is an essential or an accidental property of marriage (is it part of the nature of the institution or a fluid social norm)?
Many argue it is part of a fluid social norm, and attempt to compare same-sex prohibitions to prohibitions against inter-racial marriage. But these comparisons are entirely off the mark. The just revision of marriage laws to allow for inter-racial marriage did not require a basic redefinition of the nature of marriage and its essential connection with both unitive and procreative functions. Those unjust laws had nothing to do with the nature of marriage, but were driven entirely by racism. This is not the case with arguments against same-sex marriage. They are not [necessarily] driven by homophobia, but are rather driven by a conviction about the nature of the marital institution and the meaning of sex generally. If natural marriage is essentially connected to both unitive and procreative functions (that it is bound up with the KIND of actions that can be procreative), then one can see that sexual difference is not an accidental property of marriage.
I would like to respond to your argument but need to have a better understanding of your terms. Would you mind giving your definition of ‘natural’? I suppose you do not mean ‘instinctive’, unless you reject the possibility that homosexual attraction is at all instinctive. Your example of childbirth as a natural thing would seem to imply that by ‘natural’ you mean ‘biological’. But I doubt you would argue that marriage is biological in the sense that childbirth is biological. The sexual act is certainly a biological process, but marriage is not simply the social manifestation of this act, and to claim as much would, I think, be a gross oversimplification of the institution. There is much more that goes into marriage than I feel your are acknowledging simply because it would be detrimental to your argument, but I do not wish to misinterpret you. For that reason it would be helpful to understand your meaning of natural.
By natural I do not mean the merely biological, much less the “instinctive”. I am using the term with its more philosophical sense. By nature I am referring to a thing’s essence or “form”, and in its ethical turn I am intending it in the sense used in the natural law. Check out the wikipedia page on “natural law” for what is probably a reasonably good overview of natural law theory (I say probably because I have not actually read it).
To clarify a few other terms I used: Following Aristotle I distinguished between “essential” properties and “accidental” properties. It is an essential property of man to have a rational capacity (whether developed or not). That I am bearded is an accidental property of me (I would remain essentially the same kind of a thing if I shaved my beard). At bottom, the natural law claim is that sexual difference is an essential property of marriage, not an accidental one.
This example might better explain how I am using “nature” and “natural”:
Aristotle says that man is by nature a social and political animal. But that doesn’t mean that political associations are simply or merely biological, and nor does it mean that social and political associations are “artificial” additions to the human experience. Rather, it just means that human beings are the kinds of things for whom social and political relations are a basic goods.
It is worth noting that we can both make choices or sometimes even be predisposed in some ways that are contrary to our own natural goods. For instance, I think most everyone would agree with Aristotle that man is by nature a social and political animal (that friends, society, civilization, etc are basic human goods). But some people choose to develop habits that frustrate community (they become greedy or envious or untrustworthy) and some are born with or at least are inclined toward some anti-social psychological disorders that frustrate those natural ends.
Despite the odd turn of phrase, then, you might say that what is natural to man does not always come naturally. This is one way in which men are different than beasts – we require education in order to actualize the natural goods of civility and virtue while beasts tend to develop more “instinctually”. This is relevant because it suggests that the mere existence of a desire in a person does not demonstrate that the desire is natural and good, even if that desire was unchosen and “inborn”. Some of our desires are actually unnatural (see the Monty Python clip). So the question of whether homosexual attraction is “instinctive” is not, in my view, all that important from the moral point of view. I am more than happy to say that some people are “born gay” (I would say that certainly seems to be the case with most of my gay friends) and admitting as much does nothing to weaken the natural law arguments about sexuality and marriage.
I am not sure what you mean when you say that there is much more going on in marriage than what I identify. I have no interest in reducing marriage at all (frequent readers of this blog will know how much I hate reductionism) and I have certainly not intentionally done so to avoid problems for my position. But I do think that the two basic features I identify – the unitive and the procreative – pretty well cover the essential goods, both public and private, of marriage.
Hope that helps to clarify. I probably won’t continue on the debate here, I’ve annoyed people on this blog on the question of gay marriage enough (if you search back, there have been long discussions on this blog and I have given long-winded and pretty comprehensive accounts of the natural law view on the matter). If you want to better understand the arguments, there is ample literature on the natural law and marriage (Robert George of Princeton is a good person to read).
Best.
Pingback: Sunday in Outer Blogness: Winners Edition! | Main Street Plaza