The Baron of Deseret

Reflections on Homosexuality

Part 1: Defining 'Gay'--Identity vs. Action

Let's imagine we have a guy named "David", a college student from a middle class family in some Western state. While home from school after the semester, David sits down with his parents for a talk. "I have something to tell you," he says, in a slow, solemn voice, "I'm gay."

Let's stop there for a second... What exactly does David mean when he says he is 'gay'?

(A) He has already had at least one sexual encounter with another guy in the recent past, and plans to have more in the future.

(B) He has not had a previous sexual encounter with another guy, but based on some inherent attraction within himself he thinks he would like it if he did, and plans to seek one out in the future.

(C) Isn't attracted to guys in general, but there's one particular guy whom he has gotten to know at school and with whom he really feels a connection--much more so than with any girl he's yet to meet--and feels compelled to seek out a closer, more intimate relationship with him and only him.

(D) Hasn't noticed any attraction to guys, but all attempts to have a relationship with a girl over the past few years have failed miserably, and he no longer has any interest in pursuing a relationship with them in the future, therefore...

(E) Hasn't noticed any attraction to guys so far, but feels his personality and character traits are naturally very 'effeminate' in nature, therefore...

(F) Has exhausted virtually every kind of heterosexual sex he can think of with a large number of different people and now feels bored. He feels he wants to try something 'new'...

(G) Not attracted to guys at all, but he feels his parents--strict conservatives who preach high standards--neglect him in his own life (when they're not telling him how to live) and this seems to be a great way of getting their attention...

With just his brief statement to go on, is it possible to determine what David means when he uses the word 'gay'? It could possibly be any of the above (or some others you might think of), and perhaps a combination of two or more. Obviously, some of the possibilities are significantly less likely than others, but one could certainly find an example somewhere in the world for all of them.

Of course, there are two parts to this question: what does David mean when he uses the word--and how do his parents interpret the word when they hear David use it? What happens when the interpretations are different?

This represents one of the key problems regarding any discussion of homosexuality; the lack of a clear definition for what the word even means. Are previous sexual encounters a requirement? Do extremely 'effeminate' guys (or 'tomboyish' girls) count, even if there is no sexual component at all? Different people will use and interpret the word differently, which is one of the main reasons discussions between the two sides end up being so disconnected--and heated (not that there are many discussions between the two sides to begin with).

Is this an important question? Of course it is--because one of the key debates surrounding homosexuality is its 'morality' (or lack of), and one cannot discuss the morality of homosexuality without a clear definition of what 'homosexuality' is. Look again at the seven listed possibilities up above, and using LDS or whatever church doctrine you feel like applying, count in which ones has a 'sin' actually been committed?

A quick glance from my perspective says:

(A) Yes--(law of chastity)

(B) No--(not yet anyway)

(C) No

(D) No

(E) No

(F) Yes--(chastity again, although it appears to be heterosexual sex...)

(G) Yes, sort of--(lying)

At a casual glance, that's only 3 out of 7: not a high ratio--not to mention that two of the three don't even directly involve homosexual behavior. Yet many Christians hear the word 'gay' or 'homosexual' and automatically condemn it as being immoral without looking at nor caring if the words are being used to describe inherently different situations. In other words, just saying the words "I am gay" automatically makes you a sinner.

Myth: There is such a thing as a "sin of homosexuality"

The "sin of homosexuality" doesn't exist, because 'homosexuality' has no clear definition.

Let's discuss two concepts--identity and action--and how they apply to the gay debate. In basic terms, action refers to what we do, while identity refers to who we are.

The concept of sin is inherently based on action--what we do. For example, under LDS doctrine having a sexual encounter with a person of the same sex is by definition a sin because it violates the law of chastity, which states basically 'celibacy before marriage, and total fidelity after marriage'. (Marriage being defined as between a man and a women only; see Part 3 for the discussion on gay marriage. Note that the law of chastity covers heterosexual encounters as well--many people conveniently forget this...) But being 'gay' (whatever that means) counts as a sin only as far as action has been taken, which in some cases is none at all.

An example of identity vs. action: I love coffee. I drank it frequently until I was in high school. Then, when I was 16, I was baptized into the LDS Church and made a covenant with God that as part of respecting the 'temple' of the body, I would no longer drink coffee (or tea, or alcohol). I haven't drank coffee since, although even now I still enjoy the smell of coffee whenever I happen to be around it.

The point is: I happen to like coffee. That's who I am, and that won't change. But God can't condemn me for liking coffee (identity), only if I drink it (action), since I made a covenant I wouldn't.

Assigning sin by identity doesn't stand up to any logical analysis. There are lots of things I'm sure I would like if I did it (let's see...pornography, adultery, stealing my neighbors car), and so might you--but that's beside the point, isn't it? It's the mark of a strong character, in fact, not to do something you'd like to because you realize it's not in the best interest of you or those around you. (Why I don't play games on my computer at work, for example, even though I'm sure I would like that more than working...)

And yet, identity/action confusion is one of the major problems in the treatment of homosexuality today. Let's go back to David for a second...

Let's suppose the basis for David's admission to his parents is a combination of (B) and (D)--namely, that David's remarks to his parents were because he feels a certain inherent attraction to men above and beyond that which he's felt for any girl he's met so far, but that he doesn't have a 'boyfriend' nor has he in fact had any sexual encounter with another guy (as of yet). His use of the word 'gay' to describe himself refers to him having noticed a certain level of same-sex attraction within himself--nothing more and nothing less.

Upon hearing this announcement, though, let's suppose David's mom starts crying, David's dad makes some statement to the effect of "Don't you know being gay is a sin! How could you...?" followed by a polite yet firm invitation for David to leave the house.

David's parents, if they chose to analyze the specific religious objections to homosexual behavior, would probably realize that the 'immorality' of homosexuality is based on action not identity--but they didn't ask David about it, did they? Their reaction was based entirely on David's use of the word 'gay' and their interpretation of that word as automatically including some kind of homosexual behavior on David's part--although, again, they didn't ask and find out for sure.

After this encounter, though, what does David think? "I haven't actually done anything yet," he might think, "and my parents have already condemned me as a sinner. This is obviously about my identity--who I am--because they didn't ask nor care about my actions."

Now you see the discussion of David's homosexuality has been placed on the level of 'identity'--when it shouldn't have been. David feels his parents have rejected him for 'who he is' not 'what he has done'--since there was never any discussion of the latter--and feels (understandably) that 'who he is' will not change. Thus, David thinks, any further discussion about the issue with his parents is a waste of time since they've rejected him personally.

On the other hand, David's parents--if you asked them--would probably insist that their objection to David's homosexuality is based on behavior, yet their actual treatment of David from the beginning was based on judgment by identity--neither discussing nor providing a solution based on behavior--and you can understand why David would be skeptical of any later statements from them to the contrary.

This, in essence, is one of the biggest problems on both sides of the homosexuality debate--the disconnect between interpretations of the word 'gay' and the confusing of the difference between identity and action. Many Latter-Day Saints (and many other Christians) will condemn a person as a sinner simply for saying the words "I am gay" or admitting one feels some sort of same-sex attraction without checking if any 'action' has been committed. The gay person, upon hearing this condemnation, thinks that the 'sin' is simply having same-sex attraction and thinks, "Since this is about identity, I know now there's no hope for me to be reconciled with the Church and God since the Church and God have rejected me personally". Thus, a bad situation has become worse simply by putting the key issues on the wrong plane of discussion to begin with.

Gays themselves--however you want to define the group--have also embraced the 'identity' idea to the detriment of everyone involved. The rise of gay communities and gay culture--due in no small part to the rejection they feel from straight society--has created an atmosphere which seems to be saying 'gays' and 'straights' are two separate subspecies of man and will remain separate always and forever. After the aforementioned incident with his parents, David will often be treated by both sides of the divide as David-The-Gay-Man--as if that is the sum total of his identity. In the future, he wouldn't be David-The-Artist or David-The-Author but rather David-The-Gay-Artist or David-The-Gay-Author as if his art/writing were inherently different than any other artist/writer because of his same-sex attraction. David--being David-The-Gay-Man now--would be expected to fit in with gay culture and NOT fit in anymore with the straight religious culture from that time forward as if no other personal aspect of his identity mattered.

Both sides are wrong, though. If more people could put aside the issue of 'identity' and focus on just 'actions' (you know, "hate the sin, love the sinner"--something that every Christian says, but few actually do), there would be more love and understanding, and less hate and sadness. By focusing on action, Christians who have a family member or friend who feels same-sex attraction wouldn't feel personally rejected, and would be more likely to listen to family members and make better choices since he/she feels that their family still loves them and wants the best for them.

Here's another way of looking at it: Let's substitute another word for homosexuality--say, 'prostitution', for example--and see how the situation would be different.

Suppose "Lucy", another college student, tells her family one day "I am a prostitute." Now, like homosexuality, prostitution would be considered immoral according to LDS Church doctrine (and probably most others)--but the word 'prostitute' in English is slightly different in common interpretation than 'homosexual': it's directly related to a specific action (selling your body for money), not a specific characteristic (like "I am a redhead" or "I am a arachnophobe").

In other words, if it happened that after interrogation Lucy admitted that she hadn't actually had sex for money at any time in the past, but rather thought it would be something she might like to do in the future, would her statement still be true? In my opinion, no--you could consider her statement "I am a prostitute" to be false, since the action that defines prostitution never actually occurred. If this happened in real life, Lucy's family would undoubtedly try to convince her that her 'actions' weren't morally correct (not to mention illegal and dangerous) and not in her best interest. They would NOT treat her as if 'prostitution' was an inseparable part of Lucy's person, because they inherently view prostitution in terms of behavior, not identity.

Perhaps we should be viewing homosexuality the same way. By inherently viewing the word 'gay' or 'homosexual' in terms of behavior, not personal characteristics then it's more likely that the two parties can have a more productive conversation about it, because the focus is on the proper plane of discussion. So, person X has same-sex attraction--that's okay...now what? Instead of ending at that point (as often happens), the discussion could proceed calmly and lovingly (one hopes...) discussing why the Lord gave us the law of chastity, and why it's in our best interest to put strict guidelines on our sexual behavior (both homo- and hetero- types). The discussion would NOT concern things that could not be changed but rather things that can--personal actions. (Whether same-sex attraction can be 'changed'--or what 'changed' would mean to begin with in this context--is a topic for another day)

[Note: Now that we've discussed defining terms, I will define my own. My use of the words 'gay' or 'homosexual' from now on in this series will refer to 'someone with same-sex attraction'.]

Further discussion of 'action' and the issue of 'choice' will be continued in Part 2...