Inasmuch as this book is oI good report or praiseworthy, I credit:
Kenneth Miller, whose book Onlv a Theorv provided a structural prototype Ior chapter 2.
My parents, David and Becci Carmack, Ior teaching me moral courage.
BYU and my BYU proIessors, who have educated and helped me develop the skill oI critical
Many oI my Iriends, Irom whose examples I have learned compassion.
My LDS upbringing, Ior teaching me to seek Ior and cleave to truth.
My Heavenly Father, who has encouraged and inspired me along the way.

Inasmuch as the book is erroneous (and I would be deeply surprised iI it does not have many
Iaults), I take Iull blame.

aTication Y¢ar

%he views expressed in this book are those alone oI the author and do not represent the views oI
the LDS church or BYU. Neither this book nor its believing LDS author opposes any oIIicial
doctrine or policy oI the LDS church.
%he messages in this book are intended Ior everyone. Copy it, post it, link it, paste it, and share
it at will.

TaT¢ of Cont¢nts

ÞarL lť Pomosexual CrlenLaLlon
1Ŧ Case for Compasslon
2Ŧ CausaLlon
aŦ Sex ueLermlnaLlon
bŦ Þarklna LoL 1esL
3Ŧ MuLablllLv
aŦ aencv
bŦ LonemenL
ÞarL llť SameŴsex Marrlaae
4Ŧ Whv homosexuals can reproduce
3Ŧ moral case for LuS sameŴsex marrlaae
6Ŧ 8ebuLLals Lo common anLl sameŴsex marrlaae araumenLs
7Ŧ ln 8e ÞroposlLlon 8ť Þerrv vŦ Schwarzeneaaer


%he average person on this earth has a twelve-Iold better chance oI having strong homosexual
tendencies than oI having membership in the LDS church. At 14 million members, the LDS
church constitutes about .21° oI the world`s 6.8 billion people. At even the most conservative
consensus Iigures estimating the prevalence oI homosexual orientation (3° oI men and 2° oI
), that means about 170 million homosexually oriented people worldwidewhich is 12
times the number oI church members. Even within the church, at that same prevalence, a very
conservative estimate is that there are roughly 350,000 homosexually oriented members oI the
LDS church. Given the number oI church units (wards and branches), the likelihood that at least
a handIul oI homosexually oriented church members or ex-members live in your boundaries is
extremely high. Bottom line? Homosexuality is neither rare nor insignificant.
Who is my audience? Like the LDS author oI the well-known o More Goodbves, I would
'I write primarily oI the Mormon experience, but I don't write only to Mormons. I write to all
who Iind themselves walking that challenging territory where religion and sexuality collide. We
are an interesting bunch, we Latter-day Saints. Politically we hold a signiIicant place on the
national scene, and I think we oIIer a Iine microcosm oI all conservative religions as they
address this unavoidable subiect. Everyone can learn a lot Irom our pain, our conIusion, our
Iailures, our learning, and our successes.
¨ (in writing this book I have noticed parallels between
Muslim, Catholic, and Mormon responses to homosexuality
%hough I intend this book to be a mildly apologetic, Iaith-based response Irom a seventh-
generation Latter-day Saint, in it I will reach some tentative conclusions that the reader may as oI
right now disagree with. I invite all readers to suspend present views long enough to openly
consider the support I will give Ior the conclusions herein. %his reading will be worth little
unless you do, because iI one`s conclusions are already set, presented evidence is likely to result
only in polarizing Iurther the stance already taken
. II, when you Iinish the last page, you have
Iound none oI my arguments persuasiveno harm done, iust return to the views you held beIore
picking up the book. In exchange Ior your commitment to openness, I commit to a robust, well-
researched inquiry. I hope to emulate the ideal oI the editors oI Understanding Same-sex
Attraction. LDS Edition: 'We need all oI the understanding we can get Irom the three pillars oI
wisdom: religion, science, and human experience. %o this end we should spare no eIIort.

Penultimate request: please consider the chapters oI this book independently. II, Ior example,
you are moved by chapter 1`s call Ior compassion, please do not reiect that emotion because you
Iind a later claim about the causes oI homosexuality wanting.
Last introductory request: hold this book in suspicion. I am no less susceptible to bias than the
reader, and though I have sought to be Iair in my approach, please be on guard against my


Chapter 1ť A Case Ior Compass|on
lƌve tbooobt o lot oo tbls toplc ovet tbe post few veots evet sloce ooe of mv cooslos come bome ftom bls
mlsslooţ come ƍoot of tbe closetţƍ ooJ sobseooeotlv left tbe cbotcbŦ lƌve olwovs tbooobt of bomosexoolltv
to be ooe of tbe tooobest cbolleooes oovooe coolJ be foceJ wltb wbeo slmoltooeooslv bellevloo lo tbe
oospel of cbtlst wbete o betetosexool mottlooe ooJ tesoltloo fomllv ote so tesoooJloolv ceottolŦ
- Sara Johnson*

%hough the statements below bear on related issues (such as causation, mutability, and same-sex
marriage), my purpose in this chapter is onlv to argue that LDS members should have
compassion on homosexually oriented people in and out oI the church; I intend to discuss related
issues in other chapters. II your heart is touched by the plight oI many homosexually oriented
people, my purpose Ior this chapter is accomplished.
My argument is two-Iold: LDS members should have compassion on homosexually oriented
people in and out oI the church because 1) church doctrine compels it and 2) homosexually
oriented people oIten have it rough.
Church Doctrine Compels Compassion:
'elloloo´s powet lles oot so mocb lo tbe setmoo os lt Joes lo tbe bellevets copocltv to btloo to ftoltloo
tbtooob etblcol ooJ motol octloo tbe spokeo ot wtltteo wotJ of CoJ.
From the Church`s pamphlet, God Loveth His Children, written Ior homosexually oriented
members: 'God does indeed love all His children. Many questions, however, including some
related to same-gender attractions, must await a Iuture answer, even in the next liIe. But. He
loves all His children, and because He loves you, you can trust Him.
Irrespective oI one`s conclusions as to the sinIulness oI homosexual orientation and/or behavior,
it is clear that the LDS church should be a hospital Ior sinners rather than a mansion Ior perIected
saints. In addition to the above reminder oI God`s love, I could provide several more
authoritative quotes. However, though abundant, they don't depart signiIicantly Irom this
clearly articulated one by member oI the Quorum oI the %welve Apostles, Elder Oaks:
'All should understand that persons (and their Iamily members) struggling with the burden oI
same-sex attraction are in special need oI the love and encouragement that is a clear

responsibility oI church members, who have signiIied by covenant their willingness to bear one
another's burden and so IulIill the law oI Christ.
I add to these two excerpts a third quote Irom a previous mission president, Iormer BYU biology
proIessor, and current active Latter-day Saint, Bill Bradshaw-
"Greater sensitivity and a reduction in hurtIul disapproval might also be achieved as we review
and evaluate pertinent LDS doctrines. I would like to suggest that it is appropriate Ior members
oI the Church to withhold iudgment about the implications oI some religious principles in
humble recognition oI the uncertainty that accompanies our relative ignorance. . . . %he ideals
we espouse provide wonderIul general guidelines Ior the heterosexual maiority in their quest Ior
exaltation, without ruling out the possibility that there will be equivalent eternal possibilities Ior
the homosexual minority. it would seem most appropriate to love and support our gay and
lesbian brothers and sisters in their eIIorts in this mortal sphere to acquire as much as they can oI
It is also my belieI that our Heavenly Father has in store special blessings Ior his homosexual
children in recognition oI the successes they have made oI their mortal lives in the Iace oI
undeserved hostility.
In response to a petition Irom the Human Rights Campaign, the church responded:
'%his past week we have all witnessed tragic deaths across the country as a result oI bullying or
intimidation oI gay young men. We ioin our voice with others in unreserved condemnation oI
acts oI cruelty or attempts to belittle or mock any group or individual that is diIIerent - whether
those diIIerences arise Irom race, religion, mental challenges, social status, sexual orientation or
Ior any other reason. Such actions simply have no place in our society.
%his Church has Ielt the bitter sting oI persecution and marginalization early in our history, when
we were too Iew in numbers to adequately protect ourselves and when society's leaders oIten
seemed disinclined to help. Our parents, young adults, teens and children should thereIore, oI all
people, be especially sensitive to the vulnerable in society and be willing to speak out against
bullying or intimidation whenever it occurs, including unkindness toward those who are attracted
to others oI the same sex. %his is particularly so in our own Latter-day Saint congregations. Each
Latter-day Saint Iamily and individual should careIully consider whether their attitudes and
actions toward others properly reIlect Jesus Christ's second great commandment - to love one
Last, I quote LDS poet, author, and playwright Carol Lynn Pearson, whose words apply
especially to this chapter:
'What iI we are in that archery class, all oI us, practicing Ior perIection, rehearsing Ior heaven?
And what is the bull`s eye, that desired point Ior which we aim? No secret there. Love. %hat is
made clear in every sacred text that has graced this planet. Jesus said that the center point, the
greatest commandment, is to love God and your neighbor (as well as yourselI). 'Love one

another, as I have loved you.¨ Perhaps many oI us respond to our Iellow students` learning
with a righteous zeal that causes us to miss love and land on iudgment, Iear, hate. Perhaps
some oI us see the mote that is in our brother`s eye and are not aware oI the beam that is in our
own. Perhaps our %eacher would like us to be one another`s cheerleaders rather than one
another`s iudges.
'|E|verything that comes Irom love is a miracle¨ and brings about oneness. Whatever does not
come Irom love comes Irom Iear and contributes to the illusion oI 'separation,¨ separation Irom
God and Irom one another.
Can we be 'kind¨ to others when we see them as a diIIerent 'kind¨? We can be polite to our
homosexual brothers and sisters, but we are not being 'kind¨ unless we acknowledge them as
'kin,¨ not as 'the other,¨ but as our very own kind.
In this book I introduce you to your kin |homosexuals|, your own kind. %here`s an old Jewish
Saying: An enemv is someone whose storv vou do not know. Storytelling is part oI my calling,
and as you read the Iollowing stories, I have Iull conIidence that your understanding and
compassion will increase, that you will respond Irom the place oI love, oI kindness, and that
together we will create miracles.
They Have It Rough:
%o paint this 'they have it rough¨ picture, I will quote a Iew studies and share several stories
illustrating Iacets oI the story oI what it`s like to be homosexually oriented and LDS. It is my
hope that the reader will thoughtIully consider whether and how any oI his/her past or Iuture
attitudes or actions contribute to the experience oI homosexually oriented people. In this as in
other chapters, the stories shared will present a diversity oI views, including occasionally views
critical oI some teachings oI church leaders. I include these excerpts not necessarily because I
agree with any particular view, but because I Ieel that a candid presentation oI many diverse
perspectives adds value to our pursuit oI understanding.

Negative attitudes toward homosexuality harm:
Attitudes about homosexuality are not without heavy consequences. Many homosexually
oriented people have experienced depression and/or committed suicide because oI
misunderstanding and maltreatment Irom others because oI their homosexual orientation:
"According to a national survey conducted in 2000, 74 percent oI |gay persons| and bisexuals
reported having been subiected to verbal abuse because oI their sexual orientation and 32 percent

reported being the target oI physical violence.
" ; see also D. Satcher, supra ("|a|veraged over
two dozen studies, 80 percent oI gay |persons| had experienced verbal or physical harassment on
the basis oI their orientation, 45 percent had been threatened with violence, and 17 percent had
experienced a physical attack")

I'd imagine many homosexually oriented people also appropriately crave being open, being
authentic, being loved as they are
Look at me
You may think you see
Who I really am
But you'll never know me
Every day
It's as iI I play a part
Now I see
II I wear a mask
I can Iool the world
But I cannot Iool my heart

Who is that girl I see
Staring straight back at me?
When will my reIlection show
Who I am inside?

I am now
In a world where I
Have to hide my heart
And what I believe in
But somehow
I will show the world
What's inside my heart
And be loved Ior who I am

Who is that girl I see
Staring straight back at me?
Why is my reIlection
Someone I don't know?
Must I pretend that I'm
Someone else Ior all time?
When will my reIlection show
Who I am inside?

%here's a heart that must be
Free to Ily
%hat burns with a need to know
%he reason why

Why must we all conceal
What we think, how we Ieel?
Must there be a secret me
I'm Iorced to hide?
I won't pretend that I'm
Someone else Ior all time
When will my reIlection show
Who I am inside?
When will my reIlection show
Who I am inside?

%hough I don't know how representative the Iollowing experience is, this 1999 letter oI one
Iather illustrates the depths oI diIIiculty many LDS individuals and Iamilies have Iaced in
dealing with homosexual orientation
(when I Iirst read this letter, I was deeply moved by the experience oI this man and his Iamily.
%hough some oI his comments can seem accusatory, please try to understand his writing
primarily Ior what it is: one person`s authentic Ieelings and experiences.)

'I need to inIorm you oI the personal heartache and damage you have to some degree been
responsible Ior visiting upon my immediate Iamily as the author oI To the One |a talk given by
Elder Boyd K. Packer in 1978 that was subsequently distributed by the church as a Irequently
used pamphlet|... my wiIe and I have been reIerred to it numerous times as we have come to
grips with this issue over the past Iew years. As one who has always been mindIul oI my
%emple covenants, an unwavering believer, and a Iollower oI my Priesthood leaders, this is not
an easy letter to write. For me it represents an anguished "Crossing oI the Rubicon." I hope you
will take the time to read it, Ior in it I have invested my very soul.
Early on a Saturday morning six weeks ago, I watched as our car pulled away with my wiIe
driving our eldest son to a new city, a new community, and a new school to complete his senior
year oI high school. Ever since that morning, I have grown progressively angrier that to protect
our son's liIe and sense oI selI worth, we are compelled to send him away Irom our home and
Iamily. You see, this community oI "Saints" we live in is so steeped in ignorance, Iear, loathing,
iudgment and qualiIied "love" towards our son and those who like him Iace the challenge oI
homosexuality, he twice arrived at the point where he was devoid oI hope and Ielt he had no
alternative but to take his own liIe. Fortunately, he did not succeed. My son is not manic-
depressive, nor was he ever beIore suicidal. He simply understands too well the Gospel and
believed what his Seminary teachers and Priesthood leaders taught him about homosexuality,
based upon the doctrine set Iorth in To The One.
My wiIe and I are the parents oI six children - two daughters and Iour sons - ranging in age Irom
twenty-three to eight. Our oldest son at age thirteen had the courage to come to us with his
growing Iear that he had no attraction whatsoever to girls - the thought in Iact disgusted him - but
that he was very attracted to those oI his same sex. %hat he would come to us without Iear or
shame, conIide in us, and seek our counsel attests to the strong relationship my wiIe and I have
both always had with our son...
%his son was always spiritually mature Ior his age. He is the Iinest young man I have ever
known - giving, loving, supportive, honest, reliable. Most deIinitely unselIish. A leader among
his peers in his school and primary classes and in his Priesthood quorums. Since he was old
enough to talk and walk, we were very much aware oI certain diIIerences that concerned us. He
carried himselI diIIerently, walking and running. When we could get him to pick up a ball, he
threw it diIIerently. He spoke diIIerently. He was not in the least interested in sports (in spite oI
countless practices and Saturdays we spent supporting him in sporting events that utterly
disinterested him). He loved dolls and playing house. He loved music, literature, drama and
poetry. He made Iriends easily with girls, but very rarely with boys. Carlie and I listened with
hope to LDS counselors and leaders who dismissed or downplayed all oI this as merely a
"phase." We believed in and relied on them.
%he years passed, but the "phase" didn't - this in spite oI our doing everything recommended to
us by LDS counselors, Priesthood leaders and, oI course, the teachings oI the General
Authorities... While we were assured by LDS counselors that this was little more than a
correctable Pavlovian response and that "nothing could be easier to cure," and took hope in your
conIident statement in To The One: "When we understand Iundamental moral law better than we
do, we will be able to correct this condition routinely. . . ," matters went Irom bad to worse. One

evening in 1997, while I was out oI town and my wiIe was being assured by our well-meaning
Stake President at his oIIice that "iI we iust keep it quiet - the same as iI someone in your Iamily
had committed adultery |our son had done nothing|- it will all be iust Iine, trust me . . . ," our son
slit his wrists in his room at home. Earlier in the day, it had been the "Sodom and Gomorrah"
lesson in Seminary.
As bishop oI a student Ward at the University oI Utah working with homosexual returned
missionaries, I came to the painIul realization that the 'reparative therapy¨ practiced by LDS
Social Services and organizations such as Evergreen (whose board oI directors I then served on)
was not merely ineIIective, it was terribly damaging. In every instance I Iound that this
"therapy" accomplished little more than driving these earnest brothers and sisters, desperate to
believe that they would "change," deeper into selI-loathing and despondency.
%heir Iailure to "change" as promised them by you and other Priesthood leaders - a Iailure
ultimately arrived at by each and every one oI these young men and women who were honest
with his or her situation - leIt only three realistic alternatives: (1) practice deceit as long as
possible to remain in good standing with Church and Iamily, (2) give up completely, abandon
Church and Iamily, and turn to the only community that will accept you - the gay community, or
(3) commit suicide...
In To The One you preach that homosexuality is not innate, but is a curable condition. Your
Iundamental prooI: God wouldn't make a mistake like this. By preaching this, you set the
impossible goal oI "cure" as the standard to which my son must hold himselI responsible, as
must his Iamily and all other Church members. Until he chooses to do what he must to be
"cured," he hasn't done enough. He will never have done enough. He will always come up
Iailing in the most Iundamental aspect oI his entire existence as a child oI his Heavenly Father.
He is a pervert, an aberration, and an abomination... How would you deal with this iI you were
Last week a dear Iriend (Iormerly a bishop) reassured us that he still loved our son "even iI he
has made a choice to be this way." My son did not choose to be this way. %his type oI "love"
born oI duty and pity Ior his abominable choice acts like a slow but virulent cancer on our
son's selI-esteem. It is Ior this reason we have Iound it necessary to send our son away Irom the
community oI the "Saints."
As the Church "progresses" on this issue, what we are hearing more and more Irom Priesthood
leaders today is the idea that our son is acceptable so long as he practices liIe-long chastity. %hat
is, oI course, actually called celibacy, and while it's a convenient idea to advance, in practice it is
virtually impossible to live... You may recall that in his somewhat recent newspaper interview in
CaliIornia, President Hinckley compared the plight oI homosexuals to that oI the single sisters in
the Church. %o paraphrase, he said that the Church doesn't ask homosexuals to do anything it
doesn't also ask oI its other single adult members - to live chaste lives. But this simply isn't true.
As a Iormer bishop I have Iirsthand experience. We openly love and support our single brothers
and sisters. We give them important callings - especially with our youth and children. We urge
them to date, to Ilirt, to get crushes, to Iall in love, to marry. We sponsor Ward and Stake
activities and dances to get them together to accomplish this. We ask them to be chaste - until

they Iind someone to share their liIe and intimacy with. We go out oI our way to give them
something oI immeasurable value in the struggle to keep the law oI chastity - hope - hope that no
matter how diIIicult this emotional and physical loneliness is, it is temporary. For those with the
least control over their situation, our single sisters, we give special encouragement and hope that
they will Iind love, emotional intimacy and IulIillment in this liIe - and iI not, certainly in the
We do not knowingly give homosexuals important callings - especially not with our youth or
children who would be at risk oI being inIected and recruited. We Iorbid them ever to Ilirt, to
date, to get crushes, to Iall in love, to have a legally-recognized monogamous relationship. %he
image oI a %ri-Stake Gay and Lesbian Gold-and-Green Ball is amusing. We ask them to be
chaste - Iorever. No hope at all. %he question oI sexual intimacy aside - can you imagine having
being denied the ability to become attracted to, Ilirt with, get a crush on, hold hands with, steal a
kiss Irom, or Iall in love with your wiIe? With all trace oI romantic love and emotional intimacy
denied you, with what would you Iill the void to hold at bay a liIe oI loneliness, emptiness, and
We do have at least one historic example to look to. %he Catholic Church has attempted to
enIorce celibacy on its clergy throughout the ages with success at some level (although we will
never know what level). With what did they replace the emotional void? %hey had the love and
adulation oI the church membership, and authority and power. %hey were, in Iact, the Bishops,
Stake Presidents, and General Authorities. %hey were held next to deity - and their record is less
than stellar. Imagine the celibacy success rate oI a group deIined by a loathsome and
abominable "condition."
Imagine also, Ior a moment, iI you were to stand up in Iront oI the Ireshman class at BYU and
announce that everyone present was being given a special calling to live a celibate liIe Irom then
on. How many do you think would really be able to do it? How many empty and guilty lives
and suicides would result? %he Church has never taught the principle oI celibacy. As a parent, I
don't have the slightest idea how to begin teaching it. %here are no manuals, no courses, no "For
the Strength oI Celibate Youth" cards to carry. %here are no Priesthood, RelieI Society, Sunday
School, or Primary lessons on celibacy. On the other hand, Iollowing the teachings oI the
Church, we have raised our children in a home Iilled with open love, intimacy, loyalty and
commitment between a couple. Our children know Carlie and I adore each other, and they want
and need the same thing in their lives.
I never thought I would say this, but as a Iather given the choice between (a) my son's suicide,
(b) his complete abandonment oI the Church and embracing oI the extreme gay culture with its
emotionally debilitating and physically dangerous practice oI anonymous casual sex, or (c) living
in a committed, monogamous relationship Ior the rest oI his liIe practicing the Gospel virtues oI
love, commitment, and Iidelity we have taught in our home, I would have to pick the latter. %he
Church, however, is now doing all in its power to prevent that...
%hen again, perhaps my son is simply a casualty oI war - acceptable "collateral damage" in an
eternal plan and struggle in which by the luck oI the draw he has no relevance or place. %he
Gospel has always been easy to have Iaith in and Iollow because it made real sense and worked

in our lives. %his would make no sense. And the current doctrine, as set Iorth in To The One is
not working Ior our Iamily. I can't tell you how strange and diIIicult this is. It's like we woke up
one morning on a diIIerent planet. In our greatest time oI need as a Iamily, the Church has Iailed
us and abandoned us - and through the convenient but hurtIul doctrine oI parental causation,
complicity and guilt it directly promotes (evidence the article in September`s Ensign), it kicks us
while we are down... We live in this issue twenty-Iour hours a day, seven days a week, and must
raise our children through it by our best lights. And there are many more like us in the Church.
Parents like us are ultimately Iorced to make a hopeless decision: abandon our homosexual
children, or turn Irom the Church. "Not so," you say. You would never know unless you walked
in our shoes...¨

David Eccles Hardy

From a homosexually oriented LDS member in 2010:
'BeIore I even knew what sex was or conceptualized the word gay or knew oI the hostility the
worldespecially my worldhad towards such a concept, I was attracted to my same gender. I
was gay. I remember vividly my Iirst crush in third grade. I didn`t choose to have that crush, it
iust happened.
%here was no struggle with that attraction and I certainly wasn`t suIIering Irom it. %here was no
value iudgment oI superiority or inIeriority. It iust was.
Unnatural. Unclean. Abomination. Next to murder. Ungodly. Unworthy. Immoral.
It wasn`t until these words were preached to my young heart Irom persons I was raised to hold in
the highest esteem and the highest authority that the suIIering and struggling started. Church
leaders spoke oI those who struggle and suIIer with these attractions, and because I knew I was
the target oI their words, I too started to stuIIer.
I remember intentionally souring personal relationships with people in my liIe because they
expressed romantic interest and I dared not simply decline out oI immense Iear that this would
somehow give me away as one with 'unclean desires¨. And so I was mean. I was hurtIul. I
pushed people awayaway Irom me, and away Irom my secret. Indeed there was pain and
suIIering! Oh the regret.
I remember the nights where I would lock my bedroom door, crawl into my closet, and behind
the saIety oI the closet doors plead aloud 'Lord why me? Why hast thou Iorsaken me? I Ieel so
alone. II thou will provide a way, any way, to overcome this I will do all that you ask.¨
I remember waking at 4:30 am every %uesday morning to show God my commitment and
IaithIully going to the %emple to do baptisms Ior the dead. I remember through the grogginess
oI my tired eyes being able to see the love gleaming Irom the eyes oI the senior couples who

braved the early hours to give service to their Iaith and realizing that my church had condemned
me to never Ieel the ioy oI such a partnership.
I remember the spiritual wrestling match going thousands oI rounds over hundreds oI nights.
I remember so vividly each hot tear as it burned streaks down my Iace in the darkest hours oI too
many nights.
I remember once looking at my pillow one Saturday aIternoon as I exchanged the used pillow
case Ior a new Ireshly laundered one. %he cradle oI my head was so soiled and stained, not Irom
nocturnal drooling, but Irom thousands oI tears consciously and unconsciously shed. Its
yellowed stained appearance as physically appalling as the spiritual angst that created it.
Just as my church leaders had prophesied, my sexual attractions did bring much suIIering...
I still struggle when I see an institution that has preached so much emphasis on the Iamily
woeIully and inadequately prepare its members with the resources necessary to cope with such a
diIIicult conIlict between their Iamilial love and their religious teachings.
I still struggle when I hear the news oI those who were tired oI the Iight and choose to bow out
Iar beIore their time.
I still struggle when in the darkest hours oI the night the tears come again as my phone rings with
a sobbing Iriend on the other end oI the line who can barely express through their own tears their
weariness, despair, and 'struggle and suIIering¨ with their attractions.
I still struggle when I see Iriends and loved ones who are not gay but are reviled as apostates
because their consciences, liIe experiences, and relationships with their Iellow man tell them that
their church leaders are wrong on this issue.
So yes, my greatest blessing continues to be my greatest struggle. However, that suIIering has
evolved Irom one oI internalized selI conIlict to a struggle oI my heart reaching out in
compassion to those I love and to those who lack understanding.

A 21-year old Gay Mormon:
'I have adhered to and lived by the Church's counsel and guidelines most oI my liIe, while at the
same time being tormented by something inside me that countered some oI the Church's most
steadIast rules. Something that deIied change and quietly but stubbornly rebelled against
everything that it was claimed to be by President Kimball in his seemingly endless and merciless
damnation oI it. Something that has caused me endless nights oI lost sleep and endless days oI
struggle, denial, guilt and tears. Something deIined as homosexuality.
I suppose I am, and have been Ior a number oI years (iI not always), a homosexual.

%he events which led up to my going on a mission Ior the Mormon Church are another chapter
entirely. Perhaps, as much as anything, it was hope and Iaith which harboured the rationale oI 2
years devoted service to the Lord in exchange Ior the withdrawal oI that something which
President Kimball never Iailed to blacklist.
II I have accepted my sexuality, it has not been out oI deIiance, pride (or shame), adventure, or
understanding. Merely surrender. AIter years oI hope, prayer, Iaith, work, and unending anguish,
I cannot go on playing Don Quixote Iighting a windmill Ior which there is no conquering.

Andrew Sullivan, a religious gay man
'In my adolescence and young adulthood, the teaching oI the Church was merely a silence, an
increasingly hollow denial even oI the existence oI homosexuals, let alone a credible ethical
guide to how they should lead their lives. It is still true that in over thirty years oI weekly
churchgoing, I have never heard a homily that attempted to explain how a gay man should live,
or how his sexuality should be expressed. I have heard nothing but a vast and endless and
embarrassed silence, an awkward, unexpressed desire Ior the simple nonexistence oI such
people, Ior their absence Irom the moral and physical universe, Ior a word or phrase, like
obiective disorder,` that could simply abolish the problem they represented and the diverse
humanity they symbolized. %he teaching I inherited was a teaching that, in the best oI all
possible worlds, I simply would not exist. And it was hard to disobey this; since it was not an
order, it was merely a wish.
II articulated, I suppose, the order was abstinence. Abstinence Iorever; abstinence always;
abstinence not Ior the sake oI something else, but Ior its own sake; abstinence not iust Irom sex,
but Irom love and love`s hope and the touch oI a lover`s embrace. Abstinence even Irom
recognition, acknowledgment, Iamily. Some were honest enough to describe this Iate as
emblematic oI Jesus` suIIering on the cross, and they invited you to participate in it and told you
to embrace it. And they did so with a sympathy that was no less cruel Ior being genuine. But
Jesus` suIIering on the cross was at least 1or something, Ior Iorgiveness, Ior universal
redemption, remaining in his desperate isolation on the cross a symbol oI human brokenness who
opened his pinioned arms to everyone. It was an act oI eternal solidarity with the suIIering, not
an arbitrary invitation to the ordeal, let alone a gloriIication oI it. |N|o other group oI people
was told that although they did not choose their condition, it precluded them Irom the most
sacred and sustaining relationships know to man. %he inIertile was prayed Ior, and married, and
embraced; the sick and wounded were celebrated and invoked as models; the pariahs were
welcomed into the Iold; the prodigal sons were counted more ioyously than the regular
parishioners. But the homosexuals were unmentioned and unmentionable.¨

Cloy Jenkins, a BYU student, wrote:

'Let me tell you brieIly oI a young man who recently successIully completed this treatment at
BYU under the direction oI Dr. Ford McBride, whose work you are Iamiliar with. He is,
according to Dr. McBride, one oI his "star cases." As a young boy, he came to realize his strong
attraction to the other boys. As a teenager, he began to experience the sexuality oI his attraction
but also learned that it was regarded as wrong and resolved to change. He was popular and a
good student but troubled by this problem that wouldn't go away. He was devoted to the Church,
but his talks with the Church authorities only served to conIuse him as he was already Iollowing
the particular steps which they said would cure him. Nevertheless, he was IaithIul to the
commandments, and not once did he have any kind oI sexual experience with another person. He
entered the mission Iield conIident that his missionary work would produce the answer to his
IaithIul prayers. AIter completing a successIul mission, he returned to BYU as homosexual as
beIore. He dated, socialized and studied hard, but his desires were becoming increasingly
insistent in spite oI his vigorous eIIorts to put them behind. %ry as he might, the advice given
him by the Church was totally without any eIIect. He knew under the circumstances that he
could not marry. With trepidation, he Iinally went to the counseling service. He was given a
battery oI tests and interviews, then was set up on a conditioning therapy program coupled with
hypnosis and supportive counseling. He was sent to Salt Lake to magazine stores to Iind pictures
oI naked men that excited him. %hese were made into slides and Ilashed on a screen while he sat
in a chair with electrodes strapped to his arms. As the pictures were shown, he was given a
shock; the purpose being to couple the pain oI the shock with the stimulating picture in order to
condition him so that he not only disliked the shock but also the picture. %his was the Iirst time
he had ever looked at pictures oI naked men. He was given a dial to determine the strength oI the
shock, and was soon keeping it on Iull strength, as he was determined to be cured as quickly as
possible. He came out oI these sessions nauseated, shaking, and with mild burns on his arms. He
was hypnotized and told he would no longer think homosexual thoughts but would instead have
heterosexual ones. %he therapy sessions progressed well, and he was sent again to Salt Lake to
Iind pictures oI nude girls which were shown to him without the shock. He was counseled to let
his imagination have Iree play on these pictures and was to let them be the basis oI his sexual
Iantasies. He understood what they meant.

For nearly two years this therapy lasted, during which time he Ielt conIident that he was
changing and that homosexuality was behind him. His therapist was extremely pleased and had
him write a letter, stating that he was now cured through these reconditioning techniques.

Shortly aIter this, a girl Iriend introduced him to a Iriend whom I shall call Bob. Bob was
talented, intelligent, and handsome. He was about to leave Ior a mission. Immediately upon his
introduction to Bob, he knew that nothing really had changed. He Ielt so intensely attracted that
he could no longer deny the Iact to himselI.
%o you, his Ieelings Ior Bob may seem strange or repulsive, but Ior him it was a deeply
satisIying, warm, loving expression oI how he really Ielt towards another person and the Iirst
such experience in his liIe. It was not easy Ior him to accept, however, as he had to examine it
against all that the Church has to say on the subiect and against all oI his own built-up
prohibitions. But he could no longer deny the truth oI who he was and what his experience had
been. As he told me, "No one wanted to change more than I did. I did everything within my
power to change, and it didn't alter my homosexuality one whit. All I had learned to do was

suppress much oI my personality largely through preoccupying my mind and energy with other
distractions. I suddenly realized how much oI my liIe I was shutting down, turning oII, and how
absolutely lonely I was becoming. I was avoiding even innocent non-sexual rapport with other
men Ior Iear it might turn sexual. I was making my liIe miserable by a pervasive denial oI who I
am. It isn't easy now, especially because oI the Church which means so much to me.
%his young man's experience, like many others, including my own, discredits the proposition oI
reconditioning the homosexual. %his young man, like many others, had never had a
homosexual experience prior to therapy. Nothing could be misconstrued as conditioning him Ior
homosexuality. Everything points to the contrary. He chose not to be homosexual, he
systematically reIused to attend to homosexual Iantasies, he chose and had those experiences that
would reward heterosexual interests and extinguish homosexual ones. His two years oI therapy
were the epitome oI rewards and punishments scientiIically calculated to destroy homosexuality
and evoke heterosexuality. His subconscious was massaged through hypnotic techniques, his
conscious eIIorts were strongly supported and his spiritual eIIorts were absolute. According to
conditioning and "appetitional" theories, he should have become heterosexual. His therapist and
the counseling department believe him to be; they have his letter to prove it. He knows
diIIerently. His story can be and is duplicated over and over. Right now, young men are going
into the Smith Family Living Center to be strapped with electrodes and shocked out oI
homosexuality |please remember this is an older quote that does not reIlect current LDS church

A young convert recently told me oI how, as a teenager, he had tried drinking hot mustard water
to destroy his homosexual urges. He can laugh at himselI now, but at the time it was distressing.
Many kinds oI selI-punishment have been attempted Irom drinking raw eggs to burning oneselI.
In some cases, death has resulted. For many, the selI-torture is more subtle, a sort oI mental selI-
mutilation and is carried on Ior a liIetime with not so observable but equally disastrous results.
%ypical oI this is a proIessor who Iinally decided to go ahead and get married. Now, when he
walks down the hall, he keeps his eyes straight ahead, not looking at anyone. He has several
children, but the liIe has gone out oI him.

Hans explains why he has Iound success being gay and a LDS
'I Ieel that I have reached a sustainable level oI success on my iourney through same gender
I questioned God. I questioned his Prophets. I questioned the principles oI the gospel and the
commandments. I allowed myselI to doubt the reality oI it all. I did everything in my power to
get rid oI those Ieelings, but Iailed at every turn. GrateIully, I never stopped praying or studying
the scriptures, even when I Ielt that there was no beneIit in doing so. AIter a particularly diIIicult
period oI introspection and despair, I Iinally Ielt humble enough to seek help.

I conIided in my parents and a Iew very close Iriends. I asked my bishop Ior help. I obtained
proIessional counseling to help me talk through my thoughts and Ieelings in productive, healthy
ways. As I have come to terms with my Ieelings, my understanding oI God's plan Ior me has
increased dramatically. My heart has become Iull oI gratitude Ior a trial that lowered me enough
to Ieel the Iull weight oI my need Ior the Savior.
I have been through the hell oI abandonment, loneliness, misunderstanding, conIusion,
Irustration, and despair that accompanies same gender attraction. My soul has shattered Irom the
sheer torture oI it. I believe that each and every one oI God's children must experience those
Ieelings in this liIe, maybe even more than once. As unpleasant as they may be, they teach us
compassion and love, patience and charity.
As one who experiences SGA, I don't see myselI as any diIIerent Irom those who don't
experience it. As diIIicult as it was to accept, in my heart oI hearts I view SGA as trial that came
about because oI the Iallen world we live in. Just as Jesus Christ oIIers love, healing, and the
marvelous giIt oI change to those aIIlicted with all kinds oI diIIiculties, so He oIIers those
precious giIts to me.
I have decided to ioin my voice to those who believe success is possible and oIIer hope to any
and all aIIlicted with this struggle.¨
Wrote %y MansIield (an author oI well-known n Quiet Desperation):
'I believe that even with an experience oI same-gender attraction which in a mortal, Iallen
world a minority oI people may come to Ieel, Ior a myriad oI reasons- individuals can Iind real
peace with what we have been taught through the Lord`s prophets concerning the importance oI
marriage and Iamily. Despite the challenge oI same-gender attraction, they can reconcile their
challenge with a liIe completely IaithIul to Christ and to His Church, %he Church oI Jesus Christ
oI Latter-day Saints. Even though the challenge oI this experience has oIten Ielt unbearable, I
do now Ieel hope- the kind oI hope that comes with eternal perspective and Iaith in God. And I
now Ieel peace, a kind oI peace I have Ielt only through the Spirit oI the Lord when I have
diligently strived to Iollow His word given through ancient and modern prophets.
Other LDS homosexuals also report living happy and/or successIul lives in the church
. Some
oI these homosexuals are Iriends oI mine, both single and heterosexually married. In light oI
and UchtdorI's
October 2010 comments, many think the church is becoming more
and more a healthy place Ior a greater number oI gay members. On 28 November 2010 in Provo,
Utah`s Oak Hills 8th Ward, *JenniIer Matthews spoke about treatment oI same-gender attracted
people. Many listening came up to the speaker aIterward to thank her Ior what she said,
aIIirming the need Ior such an address. One very touched gay man in the congregation told me
about the talk (and I conIirmed subsequently
with the speaker):

'Michael Otterson who works Ior the Church oI Jesus Christ oI Latter - Day Saints Public
AIIairs Department was the one who delivered the church's media response to the controversy
over President Packer's remarks. Here is that statement:
%his Church has Ielt the bitter sting oI persecution and marginalization early in our history,
when we were too Iew in numbers to adequately protect ourselves and when society's leaders
oIten seemed disinclined to help. Our parents, young adults, teens and children should thereIore,
oI all people, be especially sensitive to the vulnerable in society.... %his is particularly so in our
own Latter -day Saint congregations. Each Latter-day Saint Iamily and individual should
careIully consider whether their attitudes and actions toward others properly reIlects Jesus
Christ's second great commandment- to love one another.`
Elder Marvin Jensen about two months ago, met with a group oI gay and straight LDS members
in the Oakland, CA stake. %hose present spoke oI the pain they had experienced during the Prop
8 campaign. People cried, and Elder Jensen cried with them. One person who had experienced
something extremely diIIicult, said he Ielt the church owed him an apology. Elder Jensen rose
and said to the Iull extent oI my capacity, I say that I'm sorry... I know that many very good
people have been deeply hurt, and I know that the Lord expects better Irom us.`
About a year ago a gay member oI the Oakland, CA stake, gave a talk and it was given and read
Ior him by someone else.
In it, he makes the Iollowing plea, which I personally think sums up what a lot oI members oI the
LDS church who are dealing with Same Gender Attraction are silently asking Ior Irom their
straight LDS counterparts. In his talk he states the Iollowing:
You know who I am. You have been seated next to me in meetings. You have greeted me with
enthusiasm when you have seen me in church. You have heard my voice in prayer. Yet, I wonder
how many oI you would treat me less kindly iI you knew the truth. I wonder iI you would iudge
me- however mildly, however inadvertently, however silently. I don`t want pity. %o pity me is to
make me a victim. I want understanding. %o understand me, is to love me as an equal. I don`t
want tolerance. II I`m tolerated, I am disliked or Ieared in some way. I want respect as a Iellow
striving child oI God - an equal in his eyes. I don`t want acceptance. %o accept me is to
graciously grant me the Iavor oI your company. %o accept me is to marginalize me with the
assumption that I am less than you. I am your peer. I am neither above nor below you. I don't
want iudgment. My path may be diIIerent than yours, but it is a plan built Ior me by a power
greater than anyone oI us in this room. %o iudge me, is to iudge the designer oI that path. I do not
want to be viewed as a mistake. My path on this Earth was prescribed uniquely Ior me, iust as
yours was. It was designed to give me the experiences I need to grow as a child oI my Heavenly
Father. %o view me as a mistake is to view Him as a maker oI mistakes. On a cosmetic level, we
are very diIIerent, you and I. You have spouses, or the opportunity Ior spouses. I do not. You
have children, or the opportunity Ior children, I do not. You are attracted to those oI the opposite
gender, I am attracted to those oI my same gender. What I want most oI all is Ior you to look past
the cosmetic. I want you to look at what makes us the same: the simple Iact that we are all
children oI our Heavenly Father, and we are struggling day to day to understand how to best do

his will, and how to return to Him. It is that similarity, brothers and sisters, that weighs more
than all the cosmetic diIIerences in the world.`
Other examples to me are my aunt and uncle. AIter their son *Brant came out gay a Iew years
ago, they met him at a restaurant Ior his birthday. He introduced them to his boyIriend. My
uncle iust went up to the man and embraced him. %he boyIriend broke down in tears, saying " I
never thought that a man Irom Utah County would ever hug me."
Another example, a son came out to his mother and told her that he was gay. %hey were worried
about how his Iather would take the news. so he decided to write his Iather a letter. AIter
receiving the letter, the Iather became very depressed, crying and moping around the house Ior
several days. Finally his wiIe became worried and spoke to her husband, saying, Our son is still
our son, and we need to love and support him Ior who he is and not Ior who we wish he was` He
looked at her and said, I'm not upset about what you think I'm upset about. I'm not sad or angry
that our son is gay - I will always love him the same. What I'm sad about is that I iust Iound out
that my son has been suIIering all these years alone, and he didn't Ieel comIortable enough to
come to me so I could be there to support him through this.`
We do know gay people, we iust may not know that we know gay people.
Now, I could imagine what it must like to be gay. I could imagine what it must like to be a gay
member oI the church. But the truth is, I really have NO idea what it`s like. We iust do not know
what those around us are dealing with.
Do we make iokes and oII-hand comments when we think we`re iust with our Iriends? Do we
pass along stereotypes about gay people and how we think they are or what we think they`re
like? Do we make comments in church and write things on the internet that we would never say
to someone`s Iace? II we had a Iriend who was gay and we didn`t know it, would they Ieel saIe
enough to tell us and come to us Ior support? Some gay people have been reiected by their
Iamilies, and their ward Iamily IS their only support.
When we were baptized as members oI this church, we made a covenant to 'bear one another`s
burdens, that they may be light, to mourn with those that mourn, and to comIort those in need oI
comIort.¨ (Mosiah 18) II we are to be like our Savior and show unconditional love, it means iust
thatlove without any conditions placed on it.¨
Carol Lynn Pearson, describing the experience oI her husband coming out to her
'Gerald thought a moment, then went on. I was not being dishonest with you when we married.
I loved you. You were wonderIul and I really did love you. I thought that the problem would be
taken care oI. %hey told me it would be. I did everything they said to do. And I thought Ior a
Iew months that everything was changed.`
But, Gerald,` I interrupted, we were- I was- happy!`

And I was too, in many, many ways. Blossom, this in not your Iault. Maybe you think it is, but
it has nothing to do with you, only with me. Yes, we were happy. I liked being with you. I even
liked being with you physically. But to me it was like. like we were such good Iriends that we
shared everything with each other, even sex. It was never quite like. like lovers. %here is this
other thing in me, Blossom, and it has never gone away and I know now that it never will. %here
is this thing in me that needs, that insists that my strongest Ieelings be Ior a man. It is a need that
seems to be as deep in me as my need Ior Iood and breath. I tried to beat it to death, to strangle
it, to smother it. And it has not died. Blossom, I know the anguish you`ve been through this last
week. Can you understand that I have been in anguish too? And Ior more than a week.
Gerald,` I said, it`s wrong!`
Wrong!` Gerald put his Iace into his hands and then looked up. I have taken that word and
uside it like a whip on myselI. I have Ilagellated myselI with that word until I`m bloody. But it
does not change things. I have Iasted, I have prayed. How many thousands oI prayers I have
prayed! And it does not change things. II my homosexuality is wrong, then I am wrong, the Iact
oI my being is wrong. Because that`s what I am!`¨
Said Clay Essig:
'As long as there is suIIering, as long as there is loss oI testimonies and hope, as long as Iamilies
are being divided and destroyed over this issue, as long as there is emotional, spiritual and
physical death and suicide because oI the lack oI truth regarding homosexuality, we must
diligently seek divine guidance, revelation and blessings to end these destructions.
Many homosexuals Ieel they are going to hell:
'%hey may attend church with their wives on Sunday, but they have secret homosexual liaisons
on other days oI the week. %hey have long since given up hope oI changing, and seem to be
convinced that they are destined to inhabit. hell.
Most men in this category say that while they desperately wish they could change their sexual
orientation, develop the willpower to live celibate, or be IaithIul to their wives, they are resigned
to the Iact that they cannot. One, typical oI many, conIided to me that at Iirst I used to say to
myselI, 'Stop than now. You can`t go into |gay bars and pick-up points| anymore.¨ %hen aIter a
while I stopped kidding myselI. I stopped mocking God with Ialse repentance and I iust decided
to not worry about it anymore. II I`m going to be iudged by God anyway, I may as well do as I
please. I`m going to the same place anyway.`
Gay Mormon (or Iormer Mormon) men who believe they are destined Ior hell are easy to Iind.
While some eventually manage to break Iree oI the church and assuage the guilt associated with
their homosexuality, someyears aIter their last church meetingstill Ieel that they are only
biding their time, waiting Ior God to condemn them.
Another account oI a mixed orientation LDS marriage, by Gordon Miller

'Finally at a late age, I married, hoping that might be the step which would 'cure¨ me oI my
homosexuality. From what I have observed, I was eminently successIul in hiding my sexual
Ieelings Irom everyone, including my wiIe.
During the course oI twelve years oI marriage, my wiIe and I parented Iour beautiIul children.
Our marriage went well except in our sexual relations. %his was the only matter concerning
which we ever argued and had hard Ieelings. I was never moved to initiate sexual relations
with my wiIe. She was always dominant in that area, and iI she didn`t make an issue oI it, there
were no relations. As time went on sexual relations became much more inIrequent. I Iound
Irom the outset oI marriage that I had diIIiculty spending time alone with my wiIe. %he children
provided a great escape in this area oI our relations. I could be out oI town and not miss my wiIe
but always missed the children immensely.
I Iound myselI in the situation oI constantly having to Ieign the small but necessary verbal and
physical demonstrations oI aIIection which really are vital to a loving relationship. I would more
oIten than not be remiss in that department, and only at the behest oI my wiIe would I revive my
Ieigning hypocrisy. I always wished that I could really demonstrate spontaneously all oI the
things my wiIe needed and oIten asked Ior, but I couldn`t, and it was very painIul. Every time
we were with another couple or I saw another couple who were spontaneous in their verbal and
physical public demonstrations oI aIIection, I Ielt a great deal oI pain. It constantly reminded me
oI those things I did not Ieel Ior a woman and that I was denying my wiIe- things she wanted,
needed, and deserved.¨
Commentary on mixed orientation LDS marriage, by a man who`s in one
'%here is a common undercurrent though, that runs through almost everything I have read.
Without any exception that I can think oI, |Mormon homosexuals| who have gotten married, and
who are still married, Iind a part oI them that wishes it had never happened.
At its core, we are gay men living in a situation that deIies our nature. Yes we may have a
loving and understanding spouse, but we are the other halI oI the equation that cannot make the
whole no matter how hard we try. We can sacriIice, compromise, work hard, and even have ioy
and happiness Ior ourselves and our spouse, but we cannot give all. %hat part oI us that is gay,
that core identity we possess, does not change, and is not satisIied in a heterosexual
%his knowledge presents me with a dilemma. I do want to live with more integrity, or more
authentically as I have heard it put more succinctly. II I am authentic then as a gay man I should
not be married, and reason would have it that I should also seek a relationship that will make me
whole. II I am authentic then as a Iather I cannot abandon my Iamily to whom I am morally and
emotionally committed. %his sucks...
I couldn't Iace my Iamily . and turn my back on a pioneer heritage that included so much
personal sacriIice Ior the Church. II they could scratch out a living in desolate Utah, then |I
Iigured| it must be a worthy cause and surely I could make my own sacriIice. I Ielt that iI I
openly came out as gay, then I would negate all my ancestors` eIIorts...

My wiIe did know about my same sex attraction beIore we married, but it wasn't until last year
that I really understood that it was a part oI me that was not going to go away, and that pushing it
away was killing me.¨
From the same source, a second man in the same Iamily situation said:
'I am so Ied up, it's unbelievable. %here is no simple solution. No single right answer. I have to
answer to so many. A Iamily who needs me, but I am dying emotionally, mentally, spiritually.
%hough I can pretend! II there is one thing I have learned over the years, it is how to pretend, to
be what everyone else needs, to sublimate my own needs/desires/selI so that others can have
what they need.
I don`t care about the Church any more. %hey oIIer me nothing, but expect me to deny
everything about myselI. Yet, when I read the scriptures, they say something entirely diIIerent.
When I attend the temple, I get answers I need...
I am not happy in the liIe they said would bring me happiness. Yet to leave my children, to cause
pain to both them and wiIe - that is something that is not me, not something I would deliberately
do, let alone choose to do. I would rather die. And so I am dying.
I am depressed most oI the time. It sucks. I want to be happy. I want to be happy with my kids. I
want to be a real person. But it doesn't look like it ever will be in my cards.¨
Coans¢ors and sycboogists
I`ve also had the opportunity recently to speak with the director oI BYU`s Counseling Center.
He noted how extraordinarily diIIicult liIe oIten is Ior homosexually oriented people in the
church. I illustrate some oI this heart-wrenching hardship by quoting Beverly Shaw, who holds a
doctorate in clinical psychology and since 1982 has practiced psychotherapy. She`s also a liIe-
long active Latter-day Saint and has been President oI the Association Ior Mormon Counselors
and Psychotherapists. Her quote matches what the director expressed to me:
'During the years I have been in practice I have had men and women in my oIIice with iust
about every variation oI homosexual issue Irom those who are open about their orientation to
those Ior whom I was the only one who knew. I`ve seen individuals who are repressing their
attractions in order to remain acceptable in church environs, and those who leIt the church
Ieeling they have been uniustly labeled as evil, dirty, and/or perverse. I have seen those who are
in committed same-sex relationship working on the same types oI issues as heterosexual couples
and those who have tried or are trying to make a heterosexual marriage work in order to change
those aberrant Ieelings.` I have seen women and men who desperately wanted a Iamily and were
absolutely heart-broken that they would never have it, those who accepted or had no interest in
having children, and those who have actively pursued alternative approaches such as single
parent adoption. I have seen everything Irom the stereotypical leather-wearing gay biker to the
(apparently) straight` recommend-holding Priesthood leader. . . .I can say with some amount oI
surety that probably the most challenging and heart rending therapy experiences that I have
shared is the pain oI those individuals who are/were devoted members oI the LDS church and

who are also homosexual. %he anguish they Ieel at having a part oI themselves completely at
odds with what they hold sacred is indescribable and unIortunately is usually compounded by
Ieelings oI abandonment by God that He has reiected their pleadings Ior help. An interesting
paradox that I have noticed is that the maiority oI the individuals I have seen have not been the
rebellious, rule-breaking, deIiant, anti-gospel individuals one might expect. Almost without
exception they have been spiritually devoted to the gospel, and possessed very strong
testimonies. . . . most oI them have ended up sorrowIully leaving the Church because they Ieel
spiritually and emotionally battered and bruised when there. . . . I can say without reservation
that none oI them chose this orientation, none oI them accepted it with a blase attitude, and none
escaped the heart-rending Why me?` Not one has ever given any indication it was something
chosen or desired. . .
In August oI 2010, the Iollowing article was published in the Deseret News:
SAL% LAKE CI%Y As the number oI suicides among lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender
populations continues to increase across the nation, concern among the Utah LGB% community
has begun to push the issue into the spotlight.
In July, Utah's LGB% community lost at least three members to suicide, including a 28-year-old
man whose death was mourned by more than 300 people during a candlelight vigil on the steps
oI the state Capitol.
%wo other suicides oI well-known members oI the LGB% community, also gay men, have
occurred in the past month... "%his is a serious problem in general," said Valerie Larabee,
executive director oI the Utah Pride Center, "and it's a serious problem in Utah... Over my 10
years here, every year we've had people (in the local LGB% community) who have killed
themselves," she said.
Jacob Jacquez was among those at the state Capitol recently who paid his respects to his
deceased Iriend.
"UnIortunately, this tragedy that has happened to my Iamily impacts so many others the same
way," said Jacquez, who had been in a relationship with the man. "Suicide, especially in the
LGB% community, iust happens too much.
For some historical evidence oI elevated homosexuality-related suicide rates, see August 13,
1975 The Advocate article, 'Outside the %emple Gates- the Gay Mormon.

Religiosity Correlated to Reiection, and Reiection Correlated to Suicide and Drug Use:
Here`s an irony: the more religious a Iamily is, the more likely they are to reiect their gay,
lesbian, and bisexual youth:

'Childhood religious aIIiliation was linked to Iamily acceptance; participants who reported a
childhood religious aIIiliation reported lower Iamily acceptance compared with those with no
religious aIIiliation in childhood. Childhood Iamily religiosity was also linked to Iamily
acceptance; highly accepting Iamilies reported low religiosity compared with the high religiosity
among low accepting Iamilies. %here are clear links between Iamily acceptance in adolescence
and health status in young adulthood. Young adults who reported high levels oI Iamily
acceptance scored higher on all three measures oI positive adiustment and health: selI-esteem,
social support, and general health. For the measures oI negative health outcomes, young adults
who reported low levels oI Iamily acceptance had scores that were signiIicantly worse Ior
depression, substance abuse, and suicidal ideation and attempts. HalI as many participants Irom
highly accepting Iamilies reported suicidal thoughts in the past 6 months compared with those
who reported low acceptance (18.5° versus 38.3°). Similarly, the prevalence oI suicide
attempts among participants who reported high levels oI Iamily acceptance was nearly halI
(30.9° versus 56.8°) the rate oI those who reported Iamily acceptance.
Another study corroborated:
'Higher rates oI Iamily reiection were signifcantly associated with poorer health outcomes. On
the basis oI odds ratios, lesbian, gay, and bisexual young adults who reported higher levels oI
Iamily reiection during adolescence were 8.4 times more likely to report having attempted
suicide, 5.9 times more likely to report high levels oI depression, 3.4 times more likely to use
illegal drugs, and 3.4 times more likely to report having engaged in unprotected sexual
intercourse compared with peers Irom Iamilies that reported no or low levels oI Iamily

Studies Evidencing the Appalling Rates oI Suicide Amongst Youth
hat is it about voung gav Mormons?
e must 1ind a solution because too manv lights are going out

O #ery fourth gay or b|sexua| woman and eery tenth man has attempted su|c|deŧ Cur survev
shows a doub|ed and |n some cases a treb|ed r|sk for lmpalred psvcholoalcal wellŴbelnaţ sLressţ
severe anxleLv and sulcldal LhouahLs amona vouna sexual mlnorlLlesŦ
O #1he odds for CL8 hlah school sLudenLs havlna aLLempLed sulclde ln Lhe pasL vear were ŦŴt|mes
greater Lhan for heLerosexual sLudenLsŦ
O LC81 ƍvouna adulLs whose famllles were hlahlv re[ecLlve żslcŽ of Lhelr ldenLlLv durlna adolescence
were more than e|ght t|mes as ||ke|y to hae attempted su|c|de aL leasL onceţ compared wlLh Lhose
who recelved no or low levels of famllv re[ecLlon durlna adolescenceŦ
O #MenLal healLh professlonals have lonaŴknown LhaL aavţ lesblan and blsexual (CL8) Leens face
s|gn|f|cant|y e|eated r|sks of menLal healLh problemsţ lncludlna sulcldal LhouahLs and sulcldal
aLLempLsŦ Poweverţ a aroup of McClll unlverslLv researchers ln MonLreal has now come Lo Lhe
concluslon LhaL selfŴldenLlLv ls Lhe cruclal rlskŴfacLorţ raLher Lhan acLual sexual behavloursŦ
O # 1 Cerman sLudv of 217 homosexual lndlvlduals (aae ƹ 13Ŵ27) reporLed LhaL 18Ʒ had
attempted su|c|deŦ

O #uLah leads Lhe enLlre naLlon ln sulcldes amona men aaed 13 Lo 24ŧ up Lo 30Ʒ of compleLed vouLh
sulcldes are commlLLed bv aav and lesblan vouLhŧ lL ls clear LhaL manv sulcldes amona vouna
Mormon homosexualsţ as well as aav people ln oLher rellalonsţ can be Lraced dlrecLlv Lo a hosLlle
soclal and rellalous envlronmenLŦ
O l could ao on and onţ buL Lhe consensus ls Lhe sameť #SLudles suaaesL LhaL aav and blsexual Leens
mav be aL to 4 t|mes the r|sk of comm|tt|ng su|c|deŦ

I hope that these studies strike the reader as more than merely numbers. One IaithIul, celibate
Latter-day Saint (Stuart Matis) wrote shortly beIore his suicide: 'Straight members have
absolutely no idea what it is like to grow up gay in this church. It is a liIe oI constant torment,
selI-hatred and internalized homophobia.
¨ His and the abundant suicides and attempted
suicides reIerenced above represent people. Stuart also said: 'In the end, remember, Clay, that
we gay people are your Iamily. We are your brothers and sisters. We are your sons and
¨ Imagine vour best Iriend, vour spouse, vour sister or brother, vour child- in a place
where they would consider taking their own liIe. I once had someone very, very close to me
attempt suicide by slicing her arteries longways Ior the length oI both Iorearms. I`m not a big
crier, but when I saw those wounds- I bawled Ior hours with wracking sobs in a way I`ve never
done beIore or since. Even now in writing the account I can`t stop weeping at the memory.
Some people, upon becoming aware that an individual is in a place where she would consider
taking her own liIe, would cast aside their tasks, abandon their pursuits, and run to help that
person. II this response does not describe you, please- at least Ieel compassion Ior them. For my
part, it is Ior them that this book is written- and to them that it is dedicated.


Chapter ť Causat|on
I now turn the tone Irom an emotional appeal in chapter 1 to a logical appeal as I here address the
question oI the causation oI homosexual orientation. I will use a number oI acronyms in this
chapter- the Iirst one is HO (homosexual orientation). You may choose to don your thinking cap
Ior this chapter.
%he structure will be as Iollows:
1) A primer on sexual determination
2) A scientiIic inquiry into two competing theories Ior the causation oI HO
3) A religious inquiry into the LDS view oI the causation oI HO
S¢xaa D¢t¢rmination
*I have Iound it useIul during this research to look up brieI summaries oI unIamiliar topics or terms in Wikipedia-
the reader might consider a similar practice.
I have recently been helping a proIessor write an ethics case on hydraulic Iracturing (HF). %he
crux oI the case is this: an eIIicient method oI extracting natural gas, HF, promises America
another decade or two oI cheap energy. However, some oI the chemicals used in this process
may be entering the Iood chain and accumulating in our tissues. By itselI this possibility is not
terribly surprising or alarming- however, as %heo Colborn persuasively argues in her book, Our
Stolen Future, some industrial chemicals may be messing up the Iertility and sexual development
oI human populations. How? Endocrine disruption. Keep this story in mind- more on it in a
page or two.
What makes a man a man and a woman a woman? What is the causation oI physical sex? What
is physical sex? %he answers to these questions are neither simple nor straightIorward- but parts
oI those answers are well understood, so we`ll start there. %here are two common ways oI
causing/determining sex in the biological world: 1) nongenetic Iactors (such as environmental
temperature) and 2) genetic Iactors. Humans Iall into the latter category, based on the genotype
oI chromosome 23: XY individuals are male and XX are Iemale. %his genetic diIIerence causes
a number oI measurably diIIerent phenotypes (physical traits)- diIIerent shaped Iaces, diIIerent

genitalia, diIIerent brains, diIIerent hands, diIIerent hematocrit (red blood cell count), diIIerent
muscle mass, and diIIerent hormone proIiles to name iust a Iew. All right, nothing new here so
Iar. How does the genotype diIIerence translate into these phenotypes?
Here the answer begins to get more complex. %he deIault phenotype in humans is Iemale. For a
short period aIter an egg is Iertilized, the zygote is bipotential, meaning it can become either a
male or a Iemale, and has both Mullerian ducts (precursors to the uterus and Iallopian tubes) and
WolIIian ducts (precursors to the prostate and seminal vesicles). A simpliIied, two-step
explanation oI how the deIault Iemale embryo is converted into a male:
Step 1: the SRY (Sex-determining Region Y) gene Irom the Y chromosome is translated into
a protein known as %DF (%estis Determining Factor).
Step 2: %DF causes a consequence cascade, which in concert with hormones causes the
phenotypic diIIerences observed between males and Iemales.
Now, as you might imagine, things can go wrong at a number oI points during this process. In
Step 1, the SRY gene could be broken or missing- this results in XY, or X persons that are
phenotypically Iemale (%urner syndrome). %he SRY gene could be translocated to an X,
resulting in an XX person that`s phenotypically male (XX male syndrome). %he SRY gene
could be Iaulty, resulting in an XY phenotypic Iemale (Swyer syndrome). %his is iust the
beginning, though, as these abnormalities result only Irom Step 1 problems.
Step 2 problems are even messier. Step 2 problems also demonstrate why genes are not the
whole story when it comes to sex determination. BeIore I illustrate some Step 2 problems, let
me describe epigenetics by comparing the endocrine system to a Iootball team. (note to
geneticists- I recognize that epigenetics usually reIers to genetic imprinting and methylation, and
represents both a Iield that is both new and, in my view, exciting. Here I Iollow Robin
Holliday`s precedent
in using the term more broadly- in this case to reIer to regulation oI gene
expression and other downstream eIIects caused by hormones).
#@be coosttoctloo of o bollJloo ls os lmpottoot os tbe bloeptlotŦ´ ŴCur SLolen luLureţ paae 204

Hormones (such as the androgen testosterone) are like Iootballs; hormone-producing glands such
as the adrenal gland are like the quarterbacks that throw the Iootballs; and wide receivers are the
hormone receptors- proteins embedded in cell membranes or cytoplasm which 'catch¨ the
Iootball and pass its signal down into the cell. AIter being caught, the hormone Iootball then
degrades. %he Iootball`s signal exerts inIluence upon (epi) the genetic (genetic÷ hence,
epigenetics) expression oI the cell. %he most typical cellular responses to catching the Iootball
are to up- or down- regulate gene expression: meaning that the number oI proteins the cell
translates Irom a particular gene goes either up or down. II there are too many or too Iew
received Iootballs, disaster can occur (e.g. testes won`t develop). Okay, so we`ve got the basics
oI the endocrine system- what next?
Without the activity oI the endocrine system, especially oI androgens, an embryo cannot become
phenotypically male. For instance, Ior a short time embryos have a pair oI partially developed
organs that iI leIt to themselves will turn into ovaries. II acted on by 'downstream¨ elements
Irom %DF, however, the gonads will become testes. Similarly, many typically male phenotypes
are dependent, not only on genes, but upon precise dosages and timing o1 speci1ic hormones.
%hough the causes oI Ietal hormone variance are not substantially understood, their role in sex
determination is. For emphasis, I`ll repeat the bottom line: sex determination is not merely
genetic; it relies necessarily on the endocrine system. Now Ior why this matters.
I noted above that Colborn`s book argued that some industrial chemicals are aIIecting human
Iertility and sex determination. %he reason? %he industrial chemicals do what some plants have
been doing Ior millennia: they manipulate the human endocrine system to decrease human
Iertility (the evolutionist might argue that so doing results in less predation oI the plant over
time). %he most common ways chemicals disrupt the endocrine system:
O 1hev block Lhe ball (for lnsLanceţ bv blndlna Lo or dlsflaurlna Lhe hormones)
O 1hev hold Lhe recelver (bv blndlna Lo Lhe recelvers' hands so Lhere's no room for hormones)
O 1hev Lhrow Lhelr own fooLballŴllke balls lnLo Lhe alr (known as hormone mlmlcs)
O 1hev Lackle Lhe quarLerback (block Lhe alands from produclna or releaslna hormones)
%hese endocrine disrupting eIIects oIten take place entirely independent oI genes or gene
expression. Because some wide receivers will catch about anything that`s loIted to them, the

mimics oItentimes don`t even need to bear a resemblance to an actual Iootball- even a lampshade
sometimes does the trick. %o complicate matters, hormone mimics and deIensive linemen tend
to stick around, rather than degrading like good little Iootballs do aIter they`re caught- thus, they
can go through the cycle again and again.
%he same eIIects caused by endocrine disrupters can occur iI genes coding Ior hormone receptors
are Ilawed, or iI glands don`t produce hormones in the right conIormations (shapes) and amounts
and at the right times. What kinds oI eIIects do we see in the animal kingdom (including Homo
sapiens) when these internally and externally induced Step 2 problems occur?
O Cver a slnale decadeţ llorlda eaales showed a sharplv aLvplcal lack of lnLeresL ln nesLlna or courLshlp
durlna Lhe maLlna season for several consecuLlve vears

O Mlnks ln Lhe CreaL Lakes areaţ desplLe belna bred as Lhev had alwavs been bv mlnk breedersţ
dropped from blrLhlna on averaae 4 pups Lo 2 pupsţ Lhen Lo even lessţ and manv of Lhe pups dled
shorLlv afLerward

O ln Lhe earlv 70'sţ for Lhe flrsL recorded Llme maleŴfemale nesLlna palrs of wesLern aulls were
replaced bv sameŴsex female palrs wlLh exLraordlnarllv larae numbers of eaasŦ 1he eaashells were
Lhlnner Lhan usualţ and Lhe nexL Lwo decades wlLnessed Lhe spread of Lhls phenomenon from
SouLhern Callfornla Lo Lhe CreaL Lakesţ ÞuaeL Soundţ and Lhe coasL of MassachuseLLs

O ClS (CompleLe ndroaen lnsenslLlvlLv Svndrome) Ŷ human belnas LhaL are phenoLvplcallv female
buL aeneLlcallv maleŦ 1hese lndlvlduals have aonads lnsldeţ buL Lhev're LesLes lnsLead of ovarlesŦ
1he aeneLlc maleness of Lhese people usuallv lsn'L noLlced unLll puberLv when mensLruaLlon falls Lo
O ÞlS (ÞarLlal ndroaen lnsenslLlvlLv Svndrome)Ŵ Lhe phalllc sLrucLure varles ln everv dearee beLween
a penls and a cllLorlsŦ 1he aenoLvpe ls male (x?)Ŧ Some have a slnale orlflce connecLed Lo boLh Lhe
ureLhra and Lhe vaalnaŦ 1hese people span Lhe enLlre ranae from predomlnanLlv phenoLvplcallv
female Lo predomlnanLlv phenoLvplcallv maleŦ
O uurlna Lhe 80'sţ alllaaLors ln Lhe llorlda lakes decreased haLchlna percenL from 0Ʒ Lo 18Ʒţ and half
of Lhe babv aaLors dled wlLhln 10 davsŦ 1houah Lhere was a pesLlclde splll ln Lhelr lake ln 180ţ Lhe
effecLs weren'L wlLnessed unLll vears laLerŦ 1hls ls an example of Lhe LransaeneraLlonal effecLs of
some endocrlne dlsrupLorsŴ meanlna LhaL vou don'L see problems unLll Lhe feLuses LhaL aoL Lhe
wrona dose aL Lhe rlahL Llme or Lhe rlahL dose aL Lhe wrona Llme reach sexual maLurlLv and have
Lrouble reproduclna a aeneraLlon laLer

O revlew of 61 sLudles revealed LhaL from 138 Lo 180ţ human sperm abnormallLles are upţ sperm
counLs are downţ LesLlcular cancer ls upţ Lhe lncldence of undescended LesLlcles ls upţ and Lhe
lncldence of shorLened LesLlcles ls up

O 1he sons of female raLs alven a small dose of dloxln (a hormone mlmlc) on Lhe flfLeenLh dav of
preanancvţ a cruclal wlndow ln sex deLermlnaLlonţ had sperm reducLlons as hlah as 36Ʒ less Lhan
Lhelr peers whose mom's hadn'L been alven Lhe dloxln (lnLeresLlnalvţ raLs have rldlculouslv more

sperm Lhan Lhev needţ so even a hlL of 36Ʒ won'L llkelv affecL Lhelr ferLlllLvŦ Pumansţ on Lhe oLher
handţ have [usL botelv enouah)Ŧ ddlLlonallvţ Lhe sons whose moms were polsoned were much less
llkelv Lo sexuallv acL llke males and much more llkelv Lo arch Lhelr backs ln Lhe Lvplcallv female
response known as lordoslsţ and allow anoLher male Lo mounL Lhem

I could go on, but the other eIIects Iollow similar lines, i.e. they conIirm that sexual
diIIerentiation and reproductive problems result Irom endocrine disruption. %he timing and
doses oI hormones Iloating around in the womb during the critical sex determining phases oI
Ietal development are like the small rudders which turn huge ships. Bottom line oI this primer
on sex determination? oth 1) genes and 2) the intra-organismal environment (i.e. the womb)
plav a huge role in sex determination.
Now why in the world did I spend all that space giving a primer on sexual determination?
Because it provides vital context to the second oI two theories that we will test in this section.
%o the LDS reader hesitant to proceed, I note that Elder Oaks in a 2007 press conIerence Iound
on the oIIicial Church Newsroom said: '%he Church does not have a position on the causes oI
any oI these susceptibilities or inclinations, including those related to same-gender attraction.
%hose are scientiIic questions whether nature or nurture those are things the Church
doesn`t have a position on.
¨ I hope you will take him at his word, as I have done, and seriously
consider that very scientiIic question here. You are Iree to saIely choose whichever causation
theory you wish.
Tb¢ arking Lots T¢st
II John claims that the car is parked in lot C, and his wiIe Sarah claims that the car is parked in
lot D, how do you test who`s right? %he answer: you walk to the two parking lots and see which
lot the car is parked in! %his kind oI organized common sense is at the root oI scientiIic inquiry,
and it is the method we will use to test two competing theories that claim to explain what causes
homosexual orientation (HO). I point out that we will not be testing the causation oI homosexual
behavior, nor oI some mix oI homosexual behavior and HO- we will only be testing the narrow
question oI what causes HO. %he lineup:

1heory Ź: MIC
%his is the non-biological Iactors theory. %hough there could be any number oI non-biological
Iactors, I have named the theory aIter some oI the popular ones I hear most oIten: molestation,
inIection, and choice. Molestation is the idea is that people become HO as a result oI childhood
and/or adulthood molestation. InIection is the idea that people become HO as a result oI some
kind oI contact with someone who`s already HO, such as the way you might get recruited into
the NRA, the way you catch a cold, or the way you 'inherit¨ Irom your upbringing the practice
oI waiting until prayers are said beIore you start eating. %his 'inIection¨ idea is similar to
memetic inheritance, iI you`re Iamiliar with the concept. (A meme, analogous to a gene, is an
idea, belieI, or pattern oI behavior which is "hosted" in one or more individual minds, and which
can reproduce itselI Irom mind to mind- it`s how cultural inIormation is spread)
. Under this
umbrella you could also place 'the way you were raised,¨ or parenting styles, which have also
been proposed as causative Iactors. Choice is the idea that a person chooses to be HO. I`m
going to aggregate this constellation oI Iactors such that any one oI them, or any combination oI
them, whichever results in the strongest presumption in its Iavor, will be tested below (in the
parking lots below, we`ll assume whichever combination will help MIC make the best
predictions). I will reIer to this set oI Iactors as MIC, which stands Ior
Molestation/InIection/Choice theory.
1heory ź: 0PRF
%his is the biological Iactors theory. %hough there could be any number oI biological Iactors, I
have named the theory aIter some oI the popular ones I hear most oIten: Genes and PRE-natal
hormones (GPRE). Now is where I drive home the relevance oI the primer on sex determination.
This theorv considers sexual orientation to be a subset o1 sexual development. %he most likely
placement oI sexual orientation is under the umbrella oI prenatal sexual diIIerentiation oI the

Okay, so now we have the lineup. Four problems and two terms beIore we get started:
Mixed Causation

What iI HO is caused by a mix oI MIC and GPRE? %his would mess up our test, which requires
that these theories exclude each other.
For the moment I resolve this tension by imposing a 90° threshold. %he relevant question here
is a common statistical one: what ° oI the variability in trait A is caused by Iactor X? %he
question is usually answered with a conIidence interval. Examples: 90° (or .9) oI the variability
in autism, ¹/- 10 percent, is due to heritable Iactors. Anorexia is 70° ¹/- 10° heritable. 40° oI
the variability in alcoholism, ¹/- 10°, is due to heritable Iactors. Using these three examples as
a precedent, I will set both MIC and GPRE to 90° ¹2°/-2° (meaning 90° oI the variability in
HO, plus 2° or minus 2°, is due to MIC/GPRE). %his basically means that we will test two
hypotheses: (a) 90° oI the variability in HO is due to MIC and (b) 90° oI the variability in HO
is due to GPRE. Because this standard excludes the opposite theory Irom having even the
possibility oI accounting Ior more than 12° oI the variability, our test may proceed- duo non
possunt in solido unam rem possidere (two cannot possess one thing each in entirety).
What about those who consider themselves intermediate between homo- and hetero- sexual
orientation? One could deIine bisexual as being between complete revulsion toward members oI
the same sex coupled with complete attraction toward members oI the opposite sex on one end,
and complete revulsion toward the opposite sex coupled with complete attraction toward the
same sex on the other. Alternatively, perhaps only those between an 80° homosexual and 20°
heterosexual orientation might be considered bisexual. Depending on where one draws the lines,
this bisexual group could account Ior most oI the population. %his is a diIIiculty which is Iurther
compounded by the Iact that males and Iemales demonstrate diIIerent sexual orientation
distributions on the Kinsey scale (e.g. the male bell curve is bimodal and the Iemale has only one
mode as measured by the Kinsey scale, a Irequently employed metric oI sexual orientation). In
the studies where there are only two categories, we assume that individuals reported their
predominant orientation. In studies that do report bisexuals as a discrete group, we will consider
the implications oI bisexual orientation. As I will explain immediately below, the possible errors
resulting Irom assuming that individuals report their predominant orientation cut in Iavor oI

%he DiIIiculty oI SelI-Reporting
Many oI the parking lots we will visit will have a set oI data Ior heterosexual people and a
separate set oI data Ior homosexual people. In most cases the subiects were separated by selI-
report. %he criticism here is that the reporters could be mistaken or lying. %his is a diIIiculty,
and is not unique to our test- Ior instance, it is a diIIiculty in happiness research as well (i.e. iI
Sally says she`s happy, we can`t iust take her at her word- she could be honestly mistaken or
lying!) However, the diIIiculty is also not Iatal to our test. %here are two and only two types oI
error that could come Irom selI-reporting: Ialse positives and Ialse negatives. A Ialse positive
would be a heterosexually oriented person who reported as HO. A Ialse negative would be a HO
person who reports as heterosexually oriented. Interestingly both false positives and false
negatives favor MIC and disfavor GPRE, since most oI the lots we will visit measure
biological phenomena. Stated another way: let`s say a claim is made that homosexuals on
average have bigger toes than heterosexuals. %he Ialse negatives would make the heterosexual
toe size mean (average) closer to the homosexual mean, and the Ialse positives would make the
homosexual toe size mean closer to the heterosexual mean. %hus, selI-reporting problems Iavor
MIC- meaning that a conclusion that MIC is a better theory than GPRE would be suspect, but a
conclusion that GPRE is a better theory than MIC could only be strengthened by reporting errors.
%he number and magnitude oI pathways to HO will also cut in Iavor oI MIC during the bulk oI
our parking lot tour. Imagine Ior a moment that some people are raped into HO, while others are
merely born that way. In this hypothetical there are two separate pathways to HO- which again
will mean that both the number and size oI non-GPRE pathways to HO, iI they exist, will Iurther
vitiate conIidence in a MIC~ GPRE conclusion, but serve to strengthen a GPRE~ MIC
Reliability oI Studies
How can the reader know that what we see in the parking lot is legitimate? %he short answer is:
she ultimately can`t. %he longer answer is that she can take reasonable steps to become more
conIident in the legitimacy oI the studies. I am reminded oI a %V show I used to watch called
'Reading Rainbow.¨ Star %rek Commander La Forge actor LeVar Burton was the host. AIter a

child would give a tantalizing book review, the child would always immediately aIterward
encourage the watchers to read the book Ior themselves, parroting Levar`s signature catch
phrase: 'But you don`t have to take mv word Ior it!
¨ I will modiIy his phrase and insist: 'Do
not, do not, do not take my word Ior it.¨ You will note that with some exceptions, I don`t
heavily reIerence the studies/parking lots we are about to visit (though I note here that I use some
oI Bradshaw and LeVay`s language in this section). %his is a strategic decision. I Ieel that the
80¹ additional pages I could, by virtue oI my academic training in the biological sciences,
compose on the nitty gritty oI the science would 1) merely replicate what more capable authors
have already accomplished and 2) distract somewhat Irom my intended obiectives Ior the book
as a whole. Most oI the studies are readily accessible by anyone with internet access, and each
and every study is cited and available in at least one oI the two resources I`m about to describe.
%o the discriminating reader who wants to satisIy herselI as to the reliability oI the studies and
my applications oI them, I emphatically recommend all oI these three steps: 1) read Bill
Bradshaw`s analysis and treatment oI the studies by downloading his 57-page .pdI entitled The
Evidence 1or a iological Origin o1 Homosexualitv. which I have made available Ior the reader
(with permission) at
YtMihiMzk0M%gyN%Ix&hl÷en; 2) read Simon LeVay`s 295-page Gav. Straight. and the
Reason hv. the Science o1 Sexual Orientation, published in 2010; and 3) using the
bibliographies in both oI these resources, 'peer review¨ the studies yourself.
%wo terms to know
!revalence: the total number oI cases in a given population at a speciIic time. ncidence:
Irequency oI occurrence, usually in a deIined time period.
Okay, now we`re almost ready to embark! %ogether we shall make a multi-stop iourney through
a countryside Iilled with parking lots. As we iourney, please keep a tally oI points. Example: iI
we were contrasting 'Ilat earth¨ vs. 'spherical earth¨ theory, one parking lot might be to get on a
spaceship, Ily out into space, then turn around and look at the earth. Flat earth would predict
they`d see something like a piece oI paper; spherical earth would predict they`d see something
like a sphere. You would likely award -1 (a demerit) to Ilat earth since its prediction was

contradicted, and ¹1 (a point) to spherical earth Ior being vindicated. Similarly, MIC and GPRE
will, like John or Sarah above, make a prediction oI where the car will be. As we visit each lot,
award a point to either or both theories whose predictions are matched by our observations, and
award a demerit to the predictions which are contradicted. At the end, I will ask you what score
you came up with. Also, please be aware that a portion oI readers have Iound the next IiIteen or
so pages exhaustive. %hough the scientist in me considers the material germane and important
(hence the choice to include it in the text), some readers may nonetheless Iast-Iorward through
some segments.
Purklnq Iot Ź: 0uy hunJx?
%he hands oI men and women are, on average, distinctly diIIerent. SpeciIically, the 2D to 4D
(second to Iourth digit, or ring to IoreIinger) ratio is closer to one in women than it is in men.
MIC would predict that either 1) the male HO population will have the same mean ratio as the
male heterosexually oriented population; 2) somehow the choice or inIection oI HO changes
Iinger length; or 3) a molestation or choice event retroactively changes Iinger length. 2 and 3 are
possible but not particularly likely, which leaves MIC with prediction 1. GPRE would predict
the opposite, namely that the mean ratio Ior HO men will be closer to that oI heterosexually
oriented women, and that the mean ratio Ior HO women will be closer to that oI heterosexually
oriented men. What do we observe? HO men`s ratios are shiIted in the direction oI straight
women, and HO women`s ratios are shiIted in the direction oI straight men
Some scientists would put the matter to bed right here in parking lot 1, claiming that it`s
ludicrous to think that MIC causes HO- aIter all, 1) the diIIerences are signiIicant; 2) these
populations were selected on a single variable, HO; 3) selI-reporting and multiple-pathway errors
cut in Iavor oI MIC; 4) the study has been independently replicated many times; 5) with a little
training on taking precise measurements ¹ a large sample, almost anyone can replicate this
experiment; and 6) there is no reason why molestation, choice, or inIection would alter the length
oI a person`s Iingers (in any case, Iingers can be measured in the womb and in early childhood
well beIore either parenting, inIection, choice, or molestation have an opportunity to alter the

2D:4D ratio). So some scientists would say. I, on the other hand, have promised a parking lot
tour, not a one-stop trip- thus, we shall proceed.
Purklnq Iot ź: 1wlnx
Will same-gender identical twins or Iraternal twins be more likely to share the same sexual
orientation? MIC would predict that, at a large sample size, either type oI twin will be about
equally exposed to cultural inIluences, molestation, and choice. In any case, an individual`s
molestation, choice, and inIection experiences will be a much better predictor oI whether that
person is HO than biological Iactors, since biological Iactors are not primary etiological Iactors
oI HO. %hus, two brothers or two sisters are neither more nor less likely to share the same
orientation as Iraternal or identical twin siblings. GPRE, on the other hand, would make two
very speciIic predictions: One, that identical twins will share the same orientation more oIten
than non-twin siblings because they share a greater portion oI their genes (and genes are partly
the cause oI HO). %wo, the identical twins will not always share the same orientation, because
that would mean HO is only genetic, rather than being a product oI both genes and pre-natal
hormones (because the Ietal twins develop at diIIerent paces and are positioned diIIerently in the
womb, we`d expect at least slightly diIIerent results iI pre-natal hormones are causative agents).
What do we observe? Same-gender identical twins on average share the same sexual orientation
much more than Iraternal twins
. %he author oI the seminal study writes: '%he evidence we
have at present strongly supports the proposition that there are hereditary Iactors in male
homosexuality the observation that an identical twin oI a male homosexual has approximately
a 20° likelihood oI also being gay point to this conclusion, since that is 10 times the population
¨ %he broadest twin study iust came out in 2010:
'We used data Irom a truly population-based 20052006 survey oI all adult twins (2047 years)
in Sweden to conduct the largest twin study oI same-sex sexual behavior attempted so Iar. We
perIormed biometric modeling with data on any and total number oI liIetime same-sex sexual
partners, respectively. %he analyses were conducted separately by sex. %win resemblance was
moderate Ior the 3,826 studied monozygotic and dizygotic same-sex twin pairs. Biometric
modeling revealed that, in men, genetic eIIects explained .34.39 oI the variance, the shared
environment .00, and the individual-speciIic environment .61.66 oI the variance. Corresponding
estimates among women were .18.19 Ior genetic Iactors, .16.17 Ior shared environmental, and
64.66 Ior unique environmental Iactors. Although wide conIidence intervals suggest cautious
interpretation, the results are consistent with moderate, primarily genetic, Iamilial eIIects, and

moderate to large eIIects oI the nonshared environment (social and biological) on same-sex
sexual behavior.
It has been suggested that individual diIIerences in heterosexual and homosexual behavior result
Irom unique environmental Iactors such as prenatal exposure to sex hormones, progressive
maternal immunization to sex-speciIic proteins, or neurodevelopmental instability (Rahman,
2005). Although the unique environmental variance component also includes measurement error,
the present results support the notion that the individual-speciIic environment does indeed
inIluence sexual preIerence.
Purklnq Iot Ż: ChllJhooJ qenJer-nonconformlty
You don`t have to be an expert to know that little boys and little girls behave diIIerently. As
LouAnn Brizendine elegantly illustrates in her books The Female rain and The Male rain
(both highly recommended reads- you can see my summary oI The Male rain on my blog
little boys and little girls diIIer signiIicantly on their risk taking, looking at their mothers` Iaces,
and turn-taking behaviors. %hey also diIIer in how much they engage in rough-and-tumble play,
how oIten they convert domestic obiects into weapons, and whether they preIer boy or girl
clothing. Are girly-behaving boys or boyish-behaving girls more likely on average than their
gender-conIorming counterparts to report HO as an adult? MIC would predict that knowing a
subiect`s childhood behavior would on average tell you nothing or very little about whether the
person is HO, since the MIC Iactors oI choice, molestation, and inIection usually exert the
maiority oI their inIluence in later childhood or aIterward. GPRE, on the other hand, which
considers sexual orientation to be largely iI not completely a brain-located reality whose
development is almost wholly complete by six months post-partum, would predict on average a
high correlation between childhood gender non-conIormity and adult HO. What do we observe?
Over 40 studies conIirm a high correlation between childhood non-conIormity and adult HO
Remember to tally the points Ior MIC and GPRE as we go along- I`ll be asking you Ior the
scores you awarded later on.
Purklnq Iot 4: 1he olJer-brother effect
Psychiatrists at London`s Maudsley Hospital predicted in the 60`s and 70`s that later-born boys
would be more likely on average to be HO. Later this prediction was modiIied slightly: men that
have older brothers are more likely than all other men to be homosexually oriented. What would
MIC think oI this prediction? Ceteris paribus (all else being equal), either 1) MIC would

conclude that the prediction would Iail- aIter all, what could having older brothers have, on
average, to do with inIection or choice or molestation?, or 2) MIC would ratiIy the prediction
because older brothers are more likely to molest their younger brothers, but Ior that same reason
would limit the prediction to a weak correlation, as the increased likelihood would be moderate.
GPRE would look again to the endocrine system and genetics Ior answers, and would Iind a
potential answer in each. From epigenetics is the hypothesis that a mother`s immune system
may conclude that this Y-chromosome-antigen-exposing XY creature inside her XX selI is
Ioreign, and will mount a moderate deIense in the course oI the pregnancy, the residual eIIects oI
which may disrupt end-user endocrine action in a subsequent male pregnancy. From genes the
answer may be that maternal line oI gay men tend on average to be more Iecund (have more
kids) than other mothers, or that heritable Iactors make a Ietus more susceptible to a
homosexualizing maternal anti-male antibodies response. %hus, GPRE would not be surprised iI
the prediction is veriIied. What do we observe? Compared with having no older brother, each
older brother increases the likelihood of a subject being HO by 33°
Purklnq Iot 5: HunJeJnexx
MIC: handedness will not help you predict whether a subiect you`ve never met is HO- only a
knowledge oI the subiect`s environment (molestation and inIection) and personal choices will.
GPRE: iI handedness is related to the same genes that aIIect sexual orientation, or iI handedness
is related to hormone activity, then such a correlation is possible, though not necessarily an
intuitive prediction. What do we observe? Gay men are on average leIt-shiIted in handedness
compared with straight men, and lesbians very shiIted toward non-right handedness compared
with heterosexual women
'%he authors conducted a meta-analysis oI 20 studies that compared the rates oI non-right-
handedness in 6,987 homosexual (6,182 men and 805 women) and 16,423 heterosexual (14,808
men and 1,615 women) participants. Homosexual participants had 39º greater odds of being
non-right-handed. %he corresponding values Ior homosexual men (20 contrasts) and women (9
contrasts) were 34° and 91°, respectively
¨ (emphasis added).
Purklnq Iot 6: OlJer-brother effect unJ hunJeJnexx
How about another twist on the older brother eIIect? Say the London Psychiatrists now claim
that the older-brother eIIect applies only to right-, but not leIt-, handed men. MIC`s response:

'Bizarro! Perhaps you`re not getting the message- HO is not caused by biology, it is caused by
inIection, molestation, and/or choice. Handedness in concert with the number oI older brothers
is not going to tell you anything about whether a person will turn out HO.¨ GPRE`s response:
'II right- but not leIt- handedness is correlated to the same genes that cause either increased
maternal Iecundity or male HO, as is suggested by the leIt-shiIt in handedness, then such a
prediction may be veriIied.¨ What do we observe? %he older-brother eIIect only applies to
right-handed men
Purklnq Iot 7: Ilmb lenqth to trunk lenqth rutlo
%his lot is very similar to lot 1 above. MIC: the ratio oI limb:trunk length will not help you
predict a person`s sexual orientation because that ratio is biological, and biology does not cause
HO. GPRE prediction: HO men will have a ratio shiIted toward that oI heterosexual women, and
HO women will have a ratio shiIted toward that oI heterosexual men. What do we observe? HO
men have a ratio shiIted toward that oI heterosexual women, and HO women have a ratio shiIted
toward that oI heterosexual men
Purklnq Iot 8: 0ult unJ volce-quullty
%his lot is similar to lots 1 and 7. MIC prediction: these 'gaydar¨ signals won`t work because,
again, they`re biological (though perhaps gaydar signals cause persecution oI such individuals,
and the persecution makes them gay). GPRE prediction: gender-atypical intermediate gait and
voice quality Ior HO men and women. What do we observe? Gender-shiIted gait and voice
quality, as well as other aspects oI body Iunction, in both lesbian women and gay men
Purklnq Iot 9: Croxx-culturul rutex of HO
Because culture and choices vary so widely, MIC would predict that the prevalence oI HO will
accordingly vary Irom culture to culture. GPRE would predict that, absent some regional
endocrine inIluence or lineage-conserved genotypic trend, prevalence oI HO will be Iairly
uniIorm across cultures. What do we observe? Consistent cross-culture prevalence oI HO

Purklnq Iot ŹŸ: Femule to Mule HO rutlo
Would MIC predict that men or women would more oIten be HO? Are men or women molested
more on average than the other gender? II so, the M oI MIC would predict the more-oIten-
molested sex. Are men or women more susceptible to HO inIection? Under the I oI MIC, the
more susceptible gender would have a higher prevalence. Are men or women more likely to
choose HO? Under the C oI MIC, the 'more likely to choose¨ gender is predicted to maniIest a
higher prevalence. Because the answers to this question are unclear, one might reasonably
conclude that this parking lot cannot cut Ior or against MIC. GPRE, on the other hand, would
deIinitively predict that the deIault sexual orientation, Iemale-type (towards men), would have a
higher prevalence simply because there are more steps that must go 'iust right¨ in order to result
in male-type orientation (towards women). What do we observe? Consistent 1.5 to 2.0 times the
rate oI gay to lesbian HO
Purklnq Iot ŹŹ: Perxonullty unJ qenJer-uxxocluteJ occuputlonul preference
MIC: there will be no diIIerence between HO and heterosexual populations Ior either gender as
to gender-associated occupational preIerences, physical aggressiveness, empathy,
expressiveness, and aesthetic/technological interests unless they on average either 1) result Irom
MIC Iactors or 2) lead to MIC Iactors. GPRE: HO men will consider themselves less masculine,
and HO women more masculine, than their heterosexual counterparts, including in the listed
categories. What do we observe? Gay men consider themselves less masculine, and lesbian
women more masculine, than their heterosexual counterparts. SigniIicant gender shiIts in
physical aggressiveness, empathy, expressiveness, aesthetic/technological interests, and gender-
associated occupational preIerences are also observed.
Purklnq Iot Źź: Coqnltlve trultx
Will HO men and heterosexual men score diIIerently on tests where each gender is known to
perIorm diIIerently, such as male-Iavored mental rotation oI obiects, targeting, navigation and
Iemale-Iavored tasks such as verbal Iluency, letter Iluency, synonym Iluency, iudgment oI line
orientation, and remembering the location oI obiects on a page? How about HO and
heterosexual women? MIC prediction: no. GPRE prediction: yes, the HO population will
perIorm more like the heterosexual norm oI the opposite gender. With the exception oI lesbians

who don`t do worse than straight women on obiect location, the HO subset oI both genders does
indeed perIorm atypically on these metrics Ior their gender in the direction oI the opposite
Purklnq Iot ŹŻ: Molextutlon rutex
In what way does molestation cause HO? One hypothesis is that whichever gender a child Iirst
has sexual contact with will determine the orientation oI that person Ior liIe (e.g. iI molested by a
man or experiments with a male peer, a boy will grow up HO. II molested by a woman or
experiments with a Iemale peer, he will grow up heterosexually oriented, and vice versa Ior
girls). %he less popular theory is that the person will grow up attracted to the opposite gender oI
their Iirst sexual experience partner/molester. MIC would certainly endorse at least one oI these
hypotheses, and absent genes dependent on subsequent external stimulus, GPRE would predict
an absence oI eIIect.
One study indicates that both gay men and lesbians are more likely to have had sexual contact
with an older person oI their own sex when compared to heterosexual people. %his study
requires the assumption that the adolescents and children were sexually passive targets.
Especially Ior the adolescents, the molester may have either picked up on clues about the target`s
sexual orientation Irom childhood indicators and selected on that basis, and/or the target may
have invited or resisted less the molestation than their heterosexual counterparts. In the study,
68° oI the men and 62° oI the women subiects identiIied themselves as homosexual be1ore the
molestation took place. %he authors also said: '|Molestation| may not, however, be a causal
Iactor in either gender. Perhaps children or adolescents with a higher potential Ior homosexual
behavior are more likely to enter a situation that leads to same-sex molestation.¨ In similar
molestation studies, over 95° oI the subiects report being aware oI their own HO be1ore the
incest or sexual relations with adults.
Another study reported that molested males, though not molested Iemales, were more likely than
non-abused males to Iorm homosexual partnerships in adulthood. %he latter study`s Iinding
could be limited to homosexual behavior rather than HO, and thus might be beyond the scope oI
this tour.

%he Iact that most young people in at least America develop an awareness oI their sexual
orientation while they are still virgins and/or beIore they`ve have sexual experiences with
members oI the preIerred sex belies the molestation hypothesis. %he reality that one out oI three
US women is sexually abused beIore age 18, yet the prevalence oI HO in women is Iar less than
33°, is another Iactor vitiating the Iirst hypothesis (similarly, the diIIerence between the ° oI
molested men and the prevalence oI HO even without subtracting the unmolested HO population
argues against molestation as an etiological Iactor). Last, the undisputedly high incidence oI HO
persons who were never molested indicates at the least that there`s more to the HO story than
molestation (though the 'molestation produces HO¨ idea has led to Iruitless 'molester witch
hunts¨ in some LDS wards and other communities when one oI their members comes out).
Some in the MIC camp predict that sexual abuse oI girls by men would cause an increased
incidence oI HO in women. GPRE would predict that the abuse would be irrelevant. What do
we observe? No greater percentage oI lesbians than straight women report having been abused.
In conclusion, I`m not sure how to score this lot- it seems dicey. You choose Ior yourselI- I`m
going to give both MIC and GPRE neither a point nor a demerit.
Purklnq Iot Ź4: BourJlnq xchool
Homosexual behavior is common among British children and adolescents who attend single-sex
boarding schools. MIC would predict a higher incidence oI HO in this population than the
general population. GPRE would predict no diIIerence. What do we observe? Adult Britons
who attended these schools are no more likely to engage in homosexual behavior than those who
did not. Once again, this behavior-based outcome may be beyond our 'HO causation only¨ tour.
Purklnq Iot Ź5: Syxtemlc culturul molextutlon
%here are a number oI cultures with require male youth to engage in homosexual acts, some oI
them believing that semen improves vitality. An example oI this norm is Iound in the Sambia
tribe oI New Guinea. II indeed molestation causes HO, then MIC would predict elevated levels
oI HO in the men oI this tribe. GPRE would predict no diIIerence in orientation. What do we
observe? As adults, these men marry and behave heterosexually. Again this behavior outcome
may be outside our 'orientation only¨ scope.

Purklnq Iot Ź6: HO ux u xubxet of qenJer xoclullzutlon
II the psychology oI gender is socialized (meaning that the mental and behavioral traits that
diIIer between males and Iemales are learned Irom parents and society more generally), why
couldn`t HO be simply a subset oI gender learning gone awry? For instance, across cultures
boys engage in rough-and-tumble play more than girls. Perhaps all the cultures oI the world
reward boys` rough play and punish girls` rough play. Or perhaps a child iust imitates other role
models, such as older boys that play rough. MIC would predict that iI you raise a child as a girl
the child will adopt a Iemale gender identity, including an attraction to men. Biology-bound
GPRE would predict that sexual orientation is mostly independent oI socializing Iactors. What
do we observe in this parking lot? Studies oI genetic males who were reassigned as Iemales
while babies (due to severe congenital malIormations oI the pelvic area) report being attracted to
Iemales when they reach adulthood. Additionally:
'In 1995 Diamond reviewed the arguments that homosexuality is an acquired/learned condition.
His summary oI the earlier work oI investigators in both the United States and Great Britain who
examined the Iamily and social backgrounds oI heterosexual, bisexual, and homosexual adults
was '%heir basic Iinding was that no common parameter oI Iamily or upbringing could be linked
causally to sexual orientation, nor could any link be Iound between any aspect oI an individual`s
childhood or adolescent experiences and homosexual or bisexual activities.¨ Nothing published
in the subsequent 14 years appears to contradict this conclusion.
Purklnq Iot Ź7: HO ux u proJuct of purent orlentutlon
HO could result Irom a child role-modeling her parents. MIC would predict that HO parents that
raise their own or others` oIIspring would have a higher incidence oI HO among those raised
children. MIC would Iurther predict that, on average, straight parents will raise Iewer HO
children. GPRE would predict than either correlation would be due to genetics and prenatal
hormones (biological parentage) rather than how the parent raises the child. What do we
observe? %he vast maiority oI HO people have straight parents, and according to numerous
studies children raised by HO parents don`t diIIer in sexual orientation Irom children raised by
straight parents (with the exception oI the Iemale biological children oI lesbians).


Purklnq Iot Ź8: Cholce
MIC would predict that many iI not all HO people chose to be HO. %he MIC camp is split on
whether heterosexually oriented people chose their orientation- some say heterosexual
orientation is iust as chosen as homosexual orientation, while others say heterosexual orientation
is endemic to all people, but HO people choose to deviate Irom the orientation they were born
with. GPRE would predict that neither HO nor heterosexual people choose which sex to be
sexually attracted to. What do we observe? Only 4° oI gay men and 15° oI lesbians say that
choice has anything to do with why they are HO. One may speculate that heterosexually
oriented people would on average respond similarly- namely that choice has little to do with why
they are heterosexually oriented. (For some reason, there doesn`t seem to be a survey reporting
heterosexuals` response to the inquiry).
One also questions here why on earth large numbers oI people, especially in the church, would
choose to be HO:
'Join us and very possibly break your parents` hearts, throw the Iamily into chaos, run the risk oI
intense selI-loathing, especially iI you are religious, invite the disgust oI much oI society, give up
the warmth and beneIits oI marriage and probably oI parenthood.
II the heavily predominant preIerence is Ior heterosexual orientation and that is an available
alternative, why are so many otherwise good, reasonably normal people choosing what many
consider an exceptionally diIIicult liIe as an HO person?
Purklnq Iot Ź9: Anlmul HO
Some people claim that a number oI animals are homosexually oriented. MIC would predict that
animals would not maniIest HO because, with a Iew exceptions (species which can learn Irom
their peers, such as ravens and higher mammals and primates), animals are merely products oI
their environment and are incapable oI sexually abusing, being molested, being 'inIected¨ with
cultural inIormation, or choosing. Also, even Irom an evolutionary perspective, homosexuality
will be selected against since it doesn`t produce oIIspring- right?
Looking to the substantial prenatal and genetic similarities between ours and other species,
GPRE would predict widespread homosexual conduct (which serves as the indicator oI HO

animals since they cannot selI-report) in the animal kingdom. What do we observe? More
important than the strength oI the evolutionary arguments
Ior either side (which are abundant
and available) is the reality suggested by our observations. We observe homosexual, bisexual,
and/or transgender courtships, sex, aIIection, pair bonding, and/or parenting in about 1,500
species, with substantial documentation Ior 500 oI those 1,500. Examples: 8° oI male rams
behave only homosexually (turns out the sexually dimorphic nucleus oI the medial preoptic area
is halI the size in the gay than in the straight sheep); one report is that 9 oI 10 giraIIe pairings
occur between males; in some penguin species same-sex individuals mate Ior liIe and reIuse to
mate with Iemales even when given the chance; and many others (gulls, mallards, dolphins,
elephants, lions, bison, bonobos, and hyenas to name a Iew). Speaking oI same-sex penguin
pairings, Carol Lynn Pearson wrote:
'I have Iollowed the charming story oI Roy and Silo, two male penguins who met in a zoo
holding tank in 1998 in New York`s Central Park. %hey became inseparable, built a nest,
deIended it Irom others, and 'engaged in what zookeeper euphemistically call ecstatic display.`¨
%hey showed signs oI wanting to be parents, so the zookeepers gave them a dummy egg, which
they successIully incubated, then gave them an actual egg. When the baby chick was born, Roy
and Silo cared Ior it, Ied it, kept it warm, and successIully launched it into maturity. Years later,
the couple is still going strong and is regarded as iust another couple by their heterosexual
penguin peers.
Also, 'Sexual behavior is clearly under genetic control in animals. A single gene. controls male
and Iemale sexual behavior in Iruit Ilies. When the Iemale route oI expression oI the gene is
experimentally induced in genetic males, they do not exhibit male courtship movements and
sounds. When the male route oI expression oI the gene is experimentally induced in genetic
Iemales, they behave sexually like males. It is not valid to dismiss evidence obtained Irom non-
humans with the reioinder that, 'But, oI course, people are not Iruit Ilies.¨ Evidence continues to
mount that the biochemical mechanisms that operate during embryonic liIe are remarkably
similar, in general outline, among animals, and a large number oI the genes that control
development in Iruit Ilies and people (and worms, and Irogs, and mice) are the same.
Another observation- remember the rat sons reIerenced in the sex determination primer? %he
landmark study on the rat genome noted: 'the rat genome contains about the same number oI
genes as the human and mouse genomes. Furthermore, almost all human genes known to be
associated with diseases have counterparts in the rat genome and appear highly conserved
through mammalian evolution, conIirming that the rat is an excellent model Ior many areas oI
medical research.
¨ Our reliance on mice and rats Ior experimenting with new drugs evidences
our trust in the biological similarities between rats and humans. In the experiment reIerenced

above, a single dose oI a known endocrine disruptor was given to mothers. MIC would perhaps
concede that HO in animals is biological, but inasmuch as HO in animals is similar to that in
humans, a biological Iactor such as an endocrine disruptor won`t aIIect HO. GPRE would
predict hyper-masculinizing or Ieminizing oI the sons, depending on the eIIective direction oI the
endocrine disruption. What do we observe? %he small dose oI endocrine disruptor was enough
to turn the rat sons to homosexual behavior. Other studies, such as one where moms were
exposed to plant estrogens, resulted in sons who show less mounting behavior and Iewer
eiaculations. %he latter study shows that the Iirst ten days aIter a rat`s birth (rats aren`t as
developed as humans at parturition) constitute the critical period Ior development oI those areas
oI the brain linked to sexual behavior.

Purklnq Iot źŸ: Conqenltul uJrenul hyperpluxlu (CAH)
CAH 'reIers to any oI several autosomal recessive diseases resulting Irom mutations oI genes Ior
enzymes mediating the biochemical steps oI production oI cortisol Irom cholesterol by the
adrenal glands.¨ Individuals (usually women) with CAH Irequently had too little or too much oI
sex steroids such as testosterone, progesterone, and estrogens during development. MIC would
predict that there will be no diIIerence between HO and heterosexual populations as a result oI
the biological Iactor oI CAH presence. GPRE would predict masculinized or Ieminized
orientation, based on which steroids were present at altered levels, and the magnitude oI
alteration. Because very elevated testosterone is the most Irequent occurrence, GPRE would
predict increased incidence oI HO. What do we observe? No less than 19 studies evidence that
CAH women are on average very signiIicantly shiIted in the direction oI HO.
Purklnq Iot źŹ: AuJltory puthwuyx
Did you know the cochlea makes sounds in addition to sensing them? It`s true- and the sounds
are called oto-acoustic emissions (OAEs). A sensitive microphone placed inside the ear can
detect the OAEs Irequencies. Any particular person will have between zero and about a dozen
diIIerent OAEs. It turns out that the number and volume oI these OAE varies predictably by
gender (women have on average more and louder OAEs). %his sex diIIerence also exists in

monkeys and sheep. MIC`s prediction: HO and heterosexually oriented individuals Irom either
gender will not diIIer in their OAE`s because anyone can choose/become inIected/be molested
into HO, and none are signiIicantly biologically predisposed. GPRE: HO males will be shiIted
toward the heterosexual Iemale norm, and HO Iemales toward the heterosexual male norm.
What do we observe? HO men show no diIIerence Irom heterosexual men, and HO women are
shiIted towards the heterosexual male norm.
Additionally, men and women diIIer in their prepulse inhibition (PPI), which is the degree to
which they are startled by a loud sound stimulus iI they are exposed earlier to a weaker sound.
%his non-learned behavior is measured via eye blink, and is lower in women than it is in men.
MIC would predict no PPI diIIerences; GPRE would predict gender shiIts Ior this sexually
dimorphic trait. What do we observe? Homosexual women maniIest a signiIicantly
masculinized PPI.
Purklnq Iot źź: ÐFS expoxure

What is DES? 'Diethylstilbestrol (DES) is a synthetic nonsteroidal estrogen that was Iirst
synthesized in 1938. Human exposure to DES occurred through diverse sources, such as dietary
ingestion Irom supplemented cattle Ieed and medical treatment Ior certain conditions, including
breast and prostate cancers. From about 1940 to 1970, DES was given to pregnant women under
the mistaken belieI it would reduce the risk oI pregnancy complications and losses.
¨ DES is
also a known estrogen mimic. MIC would predict that DES exposure would not aIIect the
likelihood oI either gender`s HO, since the pre-natal hormones aren`t causes oI HO. GPRE
would predict a discernible diIIerence between DES-exposed and non-exposed people. What do
we observe? %here was no indication that DES inIluences the sexual orientation oI sons. Out oI
30 women whose mothers were not exposed, none indicated either a bisexual or a HO. Out oI 30
women whose mothers were exposed, 24° reported a liIelong bisexual or HO. When studying
sister pairs where one sister had been exposed in the womb to DES and the other hadn`t, 8° oI
the unexposed sisters reported liIelong bisexual orientation, while 42° oI the exposed sisters
reported a liIelong bisexual orientation

Purklnq Iot źŻ: HO runnlnq ln the fumlly
Additionally, what would MIC and GPRE predict about homosexuality running in Iamilies?
MIC might or not predict HO running in Iamilies based on how conserved the Iamily culture is
through generations, which culture could aIIect HO incidence in the Iamily. GPRE would
predict a moderate correlation based on the genetic component oI HO. What do we observe?
'Data Irom random samples show that gay men are about three times more likely to have gay
brothers than are heterosexual men (9° compared to about 3° in the general population).
Lesbians tend to have a higher incidence oI lesbian sisters (6-25° compared to about 2° in the
general population).

Purklnq Iot ź4: AnJroqen Inxenxltlvlty SynJrome (AIS)
'In another human intersexual condition called androgen insensitivity syndrome (AIS), the gene
that encodes the protein receptor that mediates signaling by testosterone is mutant. Males with
this condition cannot respond prenatally to the male steroid hormones and are convincingly
Iemale in anatomy. %hese persons are nearly always raised as women, are no diIIerent in
psychological well-being compared to control women.
MIC would predict that AIS would not aIIect homosexual orientation- aIter all, the HO is
overwhelmingly caused by molestation, choice, or cultural inIection rather than biology. GPRE
would predict that Ietal androgen sensitivity is vital to converting the deIault orientation towards
men into an orientation towards women, as a lack oI prenatal exposure to androgens leads to a
sexual orientation toward males- sublata causa. tollitur e11ectus (the cause being removed, the
eIIect ceases). What do we observe? AIS men uniIormly exhibit sexual attraction to men.
Purklnq Iotx ź5-Żź: 1he bruln
%his could be the most important lot visited on the tour- as your guide I have 'saved the best Ior
last.¨ %hough brains are plastic in some limited ways until about age 25, most structural aspects
are static and measurably diIIerent Ior men and women by a Iew months aIter birth, which is
beIore the time that MIC Iactors could exert inIluence. II girl and boy brains are diIIerent Irom
each other- how about the brains oI HO men and women? MIC would predict no diIIerence.
GPRE would predict, as it has in the many parking lots beIore this one, that the brains oI HO
men and women will be atypical Ior their gender in the direction oI the opposite gender.

Additionally, GPRE would predict marked diIIerences in parts oI the brain that are likely
candidates as sexual orientation centers. What do we observe? (award points Ior each bullet)
O PC men are aenderŴshlfLed ln Lerms of Lhe relaLlve slzes of Lhe lefL and rlahL cerebral hemlspheres ln
Lhe dlrecLlon of Lhe heLerosexual female normŦ
O 8oLh aav men and lesblan women are aender shlfLed Loward Lhe opposlLe aender ln Lhelr braln
responses Lo compounds LhouahL Lo be sex pheromonesŦ
O Cav malesţ llke femalesţ have beLLer verbal ablllLles Lhan sLralahL malesŦ
O 8oLh aav men and lesblan women are aender shlfLed Loward Lhe opposlLe aender ln Lhe funcLlonal
connecLlvlLv of Lhelr amvadalasţ Lhe emoLlonal cenLer of Lhe bralnţ as measured bv cerebral blood
O 1he lsLhmus of Lhe corpus callosumţ whose slze herlLablllLv ls a whopplna 4Ʒţ ls dlfferenL beLween
heLerosexual and homosexual menŦ
O Ilewlna a female face produced a sLrona reacLlon ln Lhe Lhalamus and medlal prefronLal corLex of
sLralahL men buL noL of aav menŦ Cav male bralns reacLed more sLronalv Lo Lhe face of a manŦ
O 1he anLerlor commlssure (superfasL cables connecLlna Lhe braln hemlspheres) are laraer ln aav Lhan
ln sLralahL malesŦ
O SlanlflcanLlvţ aav men are aender shlfLed ln Lhe slze and denslLv of Lhe Lhlrd lnLersLlLlal nucleus of
Lhe hvpoLhalamusţ whlch ls a sexuallv dlmorphlc cell aroup concerned wlLh maleŴLvplcal sexual

%he 32-stop parking lot tour is now complete! %hanks Ior coming along Ior the ride- next let`s
check the scoreboard. Now, there could be some error (which could go either way) in assuming
each parking lot merits the same amount oI points- nevertheless Ior the sake oI convenience,
presume each lot can give out no more than two demerits or two points |Iive possibilities: 1- both
MIC and GPRE`s predictions Iailed (one demerit each), 2- they both succeeded (one point each),
3- one succeeded and the other Iailed (one point, one demerit), 4- one either succeeded or Iailed
and the other neither succeeded nor Iailed (one point or demerit), 5- neither succeeded or Iailed
(none)|. What did you get? My tentative tally is MIC, -22 GPRE, 27. We must remember that
the size and magnitude oI multiple pathways, iI they exist, will Irustrate GPRE`s claims but
serve to substantiate MIC`s claims. Also, iI any persons in the sample groups mistakenly
reported their orientation or lied, such errors will similarly reduce or eliminate the diIIerences
between heterosexual and homosexual norms in the parking lots which measured physical

attributes. %o account Ior these MIC-Iavoring selI-reporting and multiple-pathway errors, I will
award a modest one demerit to MIC, leaving MIC -23 and GPRE 27 Ior a point spread oI 50.

Caasation of HU: tb¢ LDS vi¢w
Okay, now the parking lot test is done. Was the parking lot test a valid approach to gaining
knowledge Ior a Latter-day Saint? Abrogating a longer epistemological discussion, I will here
merely assert that there are two valid sources oI truth approximations Ior a Latter-day Saint:
revelation (explored below) and observation/science (analyzed above). Joseph Smith taught:
'one oI the grand Iundamental principles oI Mormonism is to receive truth, let it come Irom
whence it may.
¨ Also:
'Diversity oI opinion does not necessitate intolerance oI spirit, nor should it embitter or set
rational beings against each other. ... Our religion is not hostile to real science. %hat which is
demonstrated, we accept with ioy; but vain philosophy, human theory and mere speculations oI
men, we do not accept nor do we adopt anything contrary to divine revelation or to good
common sense.
%hus, I conclude that the scientiIic approach taken above is a legitimate one that merits
consideration Ior a Latter-day Saint. Having heard some Irom observation/science, we will now
give voice to what revelation has to say: audi alteram partem (hear the other side).
%o construct the revelation-based LDS view on the causation oI HO, I will cite approximately 60
statements by church leaders (I count 48 Irom those sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators)
over the years that could reasonably be interpreted to bear on the question oI the causation oI
homosexual orientation. %o avoid the potential oI casting an unIavorable light on any particular
church authority I have evidenced authorship in the endnotes rather than in-text. %his
construction will be diIIicult since it seems that sometimes terms such as homosexuality and
perversion reIer to either ¦homosexual behavior ¹ homosexual orientation}, homosexual
orientation, or iust homosexual behavior. I will leave it to the reader to discriminate how the
terms are used, since I struggle. I remind the reader that statements which bear on only
homosexual behavior are outside the narrow scope oI this chapter.

O #Some suppose LhaL Lhev were preŴseL and cannoL overcome whaL Lhev feel are lnborn Lendencles
Loward Lhe lmpure and unnaLuralŦ noL so! Whv would our Peavenlv laLher do LhaL Lo anvone?
8ememberţ Pe ls our laLherŦ
" (2010)
O #1here ls a reason whv we ln Lhe Church do noL Lalk more openlv abouL Lhls sub[ecLŦ Some maLLers
are besL handled verv prlvaLelvŦ WlLh manv Lhlnasţ lL ls easv Ŵ verv easv Ŵ Lo cause Lhe verv Lhlnas we
are Lrvlna Lo avoldŦ Cn one occaslonţ wlLh a frlend of mlneţ l wenL Lo Lhe medlcal cenLer of a larae
unlverslLv Lo see anoLher frlend who was a docLor LhereŦ ln Lhe walLlna room before us was a low
Lable covered wlLh pamphleLs descrlblna varlous dlseasesŦ Mv frlend observedť 'Wellţ Lhere Lhev areŦ
8ead enouah abouL lL and vouƌll Lhlnk vouƌve aoL lLŧ' and l have alreadv sald LhaL we can verv
foollshlv cause Lhlnas we are Lrvlna Lo prevenL bv Lalklna Loo much abouL LhemŦ
ƍ (178)
O #llrsLţ far less ls known abouL Lhe causes of sameŴaender aLLracLlon Lhan ls clalmed Lo be knownŦ
Þrellmlnarv flndlnas are LouLed as proven facLs whlle reLracLlons or conLradlcLlna evldence abouL Lhe
same lssue recelve llLLleţ lf anvţ aLLenLlonŦ 1he resulL ls an abundance of unLruLh and dlsLorLlons
worLhv of lsalah's warnlnať 'Woe unLo Lhem LhaL call evll aoodţ and aood evllŧ
" (2010)
O ƍhomosexuals can be assured LhaL ln splLe of all Lhev mav have heard from oLher sourcesţ Lhev can
overcome and reLurn Lo normalţ happv llvlnaŦ
" (170)
O #1here appears Lo be a consensus ln Lhe world LhaL lL ls naLuralţ Lo one dearee or anoLherţ for a
percenLaae of Lhe populaLlonŦ 1hereforeţ we musL accepL lL as all rlahLŦ Poweverţ when vou puL a
moral lnsLrumenL on lLţ Lhe needle lmmedlaLelv fllps Lo Lhe slde labeled ƍwronaŦƍ lL mav even
realsLer ƍdanaerousŧƍ 1he answerť lL ls noL all rlahLŦ lL ls wrona! lL ls noL deslrableŤ lL ls unnaLuralŤ lL
ls abnormalŤ lL ls an affllcLlonŦ When pracLlcedţ lL ls lmmoralŦ
" (178)
O #lf someone seeklna vour help savs Lo vouţ 'l am a homosexualţ' orţ 'l am lesblanţ' orţ 'l am aavţ'
correcL Lhls mlscasLlnaŧ lL ls slmplv noL LrueŦ 1o speak Lhls wav seeds a doubL and decelL abouL who
we reallv areŦ
" (2010)
O #Þlease noLlce LhaL l use żhomosexualŽ as an ad[ecLlveţ noL as a nounť l re[ecL lL as a nounŦ l repeaLţ l
accepL LhaL word as an ad[ecLlve Lo descrlbe a Lemporarv condlLlonŦ l re[ecL lL as a noun namlna a
permanenL oneŦ
" (178)
O #llrsLţ lL ls lmporLanL Lo undersLand LhaL homosexuallLv ls noL lnnaLe and unchanaeableŦ 8esearch
has noL proved LhaL homosexuallLv ls aeneLlcŦ Lven more lmporLanLţ manv researchers whose
sLudles have been used Lo supporL a bloloalcal model for homosexuallLv have deLermlned LhaL Lhelr
work has been mlslnLerpreLedŦ WhaL ls clear ls LhaL homosexuallLv resulLs from an lnLeracLlon of
soclalţ bloloalcalţ and psvcholoalcal facLorsŦ 1hese facLors mav lnclude LemperamenLţ personallLv
LralLsţ sexual abuseţ famlllal facLorsţ and LreaLmenL bv one's peersŦ
" (1)
O #1o Lhe 'mlslnformed' who belleve 'Cod make Lhem LhaL wavŧ 1hls ls as unLrue as anv oLher of Lhe
dlabollcal lles SaLan has concocLedŦ lL ls blasphemvŦ Man ls made ln Lhe lmaae of CodŦ uoes Lhe
perverL Lhlnk Cod Lo be 'LhaL wav?
'" (173)
O #'Cod made me LhaL wavţ' some savţ as Lhev raLlonallze and excuse Lhemselves for Lhelr
żhomosexualŽ perverslonsŦ 'l can'L help lLţ' Lhev addŦ 1hls ls blasphemvŦ ls man noL made ln Lhe
lmaae of Codţ and does he Lhlnk Cod Lo be 'LhaL wav'?"
" (180)
O #1odav we are aware of areaL problems ln our socleLvŦ 1he mosL obvlous are sexual promlsculLvţ
homosexuallLvţ drua abuseţ alcohollsmţ vandallsmţ pornoaraphvţ and vlolenceŦ 1hese arave
problems are svmpLoms of fallure ln Lhe homeŸLhe dlsreaardlna of prlnclples and pracLlces
esLabllshed bv Cod ln Lhe verv bealnnlnaŦ
" (182)

O #lor cenLurles men have souahL Lo flnd Lhe cause of Lhls condlLlonŧ buL lL ls noL a phvslcal dlsorderŦ
mosL exLenslve phvslcal examlnaLlon wlll noL reveal one shred of evldence LhaL lL lsŦ Þhvslclans
have never locaLed anv Lanalble conLrol cenLer ln Lhe bodv LhaL can be ad[usLed bv medlcal or
suralcal means Lo chanae Lhls condlLlonŦ 1he nexL obvlous place Lo look ls Lhe emoLlonal or
psvcholoalcal parL of our naLureŦ Pere we come closerŦ
" (178)
O #Some people who seek help for homosexual problems mav have concluded LhaL experlences from
Lhelr vouLhţ such as percelved problems wlLh a parenL or some oLher older personţ conLrlbuLed Lo
Lhelr lnapproprlaLe feellnasŦ Some mav belleve LhaL Lhev have noL consclouslv chosen Lo have such
feellnas ln Lhe flrsL placeŦ no aeneral aareemenL exlsLs abouL Lhe causes of such problemsŦ
" (12)
O #1here ls some wldelv accepLed Lheorv exLanL LhaL homosexuallLv ls lnherlLedŦ Pow can Lhls be? no
sclenLlflc evldence demonsLraLes absoluLelv LhaL Lhls ls soŦ 8esldesţ lf lL were soţ lL would frusLraLe
Lhe whole plan of morLal happlnessŦ Cur deslanaLlon as men or women beaan before Lhls world wasŦ
ln conLrasL Lo Lhe soclallv accepLed docLrlne LhaL homosexuallLv ls lnbornţ a number of respecLable
auLhorlLles conLend LhaL homosexuallLv ls noL acqulred bv blrLhŦ 1he false bellef of lnborn sexual
orlenLaLlon denles Lo repenLanL souls Lhe opporLunlLv Lo chanae and wlll ulLlmaLelv lead Lo
dlscouraaemenLţ dlsappolnLmenLţ and despalrŦ
" (13)
O #ls Lhls Lendencv lmposslble Lo chanae? ls lL preseL aL Lhe Llme of blrLh and locked ln? uo vou [usL
have Lo llve wlLh lL? lor exampleţ Lhe shuLLer of an expenslve camera ls callbraLed aL Lhe facLorv and
cannoL be ad[usLed ln Lhe fleldŦ lf such a cameraţ bv chanceţ ls Lhrown ouL of callbraLlon or damaaedţ
lL cannoL be flxed locallvŦ lL musL evenLuallv ao back Lo Lhe facLorvţ for onlv Lhere can lL be puL ln
orderŦ ls perverslon llke LhaL? 1he answer ls a concluslve no! lL ls noL llke LhaLŦ Some soŴcalled
experLsţ and manv of Lhose who have vlelded Lo Lhe pracLlceţ Leach LhaL lL ls conaenlLal and
lncurable and LhaL one [usL has Lo learn Lo llve wlLh lLŦ 1hev can polnL Lo a hlsLorv of verv llLLle
success ln Lrvlna Lo puL whaLever mechanlsm LhaL causes Lhls back lnLo proper ad[usLmenLŦ 1hev
haveţ Lo supporL Lhemţ some verv convlnclna evldenceŦ Much of Lhe soŴcalled sclenLlflc llLeraLure
concludes LhaL Lhere reallv ls noL much LhaL can be done abouL lLŦ l re[ecL LhaL concluslon ouL of
" (178)
O #1he chlef psvchlaLrlsL aL one of WashlnaLon's laraesL hosplLals savsţ ' normal 12Ŵ or 13ŴvearŴold
bov or alrl exposed Lo pornoaraphlc llLeraLure could develop lnLo a homosexualŦ'
" (170)
O #Pavlna sameŴaender aLLracLlon ls nC1 ln vour unŧ
" (200)
O #llrsL ls Lhe mlsconcepLlon LhaL sameŴaender aLLracLlon ls an lnborn and unalLerable orlenLaLlonŦ
1hls unLrue assumpLlon Lrles Lo persuade vou Lo label vourselves and bulld vour enLlre ldenLlLv
around a flxed sexual orlenLaLlon or condlLlonŦ

" (200)
O #Some who become Lanaled up ln Lhls dlsorder become predaLorsŦ 1hev proselvLe Lhe vouna or Lhe
lnexperlencedŦ lL becomes verv lmporLanL for Lhem Lo belleve LhaL evervoneţ Lo one dearee or
anoLherţ ls ƍLhaL wavƍŧ uo noL be decelvedŦ lf vou are one of Lhe few who are sub[ecL Lo Lhls
LempLaLlonţ do noL be mlsled lnLo bellevlna LhaL vou are a capLlve Lo lLŦ 1haL ls false docLrlne!
O #1here are sald Lo be mllllons of perverLs who have rellnqulshed Lhelr naLural affecLlon and
bvpassed courLshlp and normal marrlaae relaLlonshlpsŦ 1hls pracLlce ls spreadlna llke a pralrle flre
and chanalna our worldŦ 1hev are wlLhouL 'naLural affecLlon' for Codţ for spousesţ and even for
" (171)
O #ln Lhe Lwo mosL common responsesţ 42Ʒ of Lhls publlc sample sald aav or lesblan people are born
LhaL wavţ and 36Ʒ sald Lhev choose Lo be LhaL wavŦ 8oLh of Lhose responses are facLuallv wronaŧ

s Lwo Columbla unlverslLv researchers puL lLţ 'Lhe asserLlon LhaL homosexuallLv ls aeneLlc Ŧ Ŧ ŦmusL
be dlsmlssed ouL of hand as a aeneral prlnclple of psvcholoav'ŧ even Lhouah no unlversal
explanaLlon exlsLsţ some paLLerns do flL manv sameŴaender aLLracLlon casesŦ lor exampleţ we know
from Lhe research LhaL amona women up Lo 80Ʒ who have sameŴaender aLLracLlon were abused ln
some wav as chlldrenŦ mona menţ especlallv durlna Lhe vears [usL before and durlna puberLvţ as
ÞresldenL 8ovd kŦ Þacker has saldţ 'WhaL would have onlv been a more or less normal passlna phase
ln esLabllshlna żvourŽ aender ldenLlLv can become lmplanLed and leave vou confusedţ even
dlsLurbedŦ' ln oLher wordsţ before puberLvţ bovs are Lvplcallv more lnLeresLed ln oLher bovs Lhan ln
alrlsŦ 1hen Lhelr lnLeresL araduallv shlfLs Lo alrlsţ buL a few bovs don'L make Lhls LranslLlonŦ CfLen
Lhese bovs are emoLlonallv senslLlveţ lnLrospecLlveţ andţ especlallv amona Church membersţ
perfecLlonlsLlcŦ When puberLv hlLs Lhls aroupţ Lhev can be sexuallv aroused bv manv facLorsŦ When
Lhose facLors lnclude oLher bovsţ Lhev can become flxaLed on Lhe fear LhaL Lhev are #aavţ" especlallv
lf Lhev have male sexual experlencesţ lncludlna male pornoaraphvŦ 1hen Lhelr flxaLlon can block Lhelr
normal emoLlonalŴsexual developmenLŦ
" (200)
O #Lverv form of homosexuallLv ls slnŦ Þornoaraphv ls one of Lhe approaches Lo LhaL LransaresslonŦ
O #żŽnlmals do noL palr up wlLh Lhelr own aender Lo saLlsfv Lhelr maLlna lnsLlncLsŦ
" (12)
O #now lL ls noL all LhaL unusual for a bov or a alrlţ ln a momenL of chlldlsh plav wlLh someone of Lhe
same aenderţ Lo enLer lnLo some mlschlefŧ Lwo vouna men or Lwo vouna womenţ moLlvaLed bv
some aLLracLlon or respondlna Lo a deslre for affecLlon Ŵ anv klnd of affecLlon Ŵ someLlmes are drawn
almosL lnnocenLlv lnLo unnaLural behavlorŦ 1hev can be drawn lnLo some clrcumsLances LhaL makes
Lhemţ for Lhe momenLţ doubL Lhelr ldenLlLvŦ uo noL be deluded lnLo Lhlnklna LhaL such LhouahLs and
feellnas are normal for vouŦ !usL because vou experlence some perlod of confuslonţ do noL make of
LhaL Lhlna someLhlna LhaL lL ls noLŦ uo noL order vour llfe Lo conform Lo a LranslenL LhouahL or
Ŧ" (178)
O #llnd a LheraplsL who can help vou ldenLlfv Lhe unmeL emoLlonal needs LhaL vou are LempLed Lo
saLlsfv ln false sexual wavs
Ŧ" (200)
O #1here ls a dlsLlncLlon beLween lmmoral LhouahLs and feellnas and parLlclpaLlna ln elLher lmmoral
heLerosexual or anv homosexual behavlorŦ Poweverţ such LhouahLs and feellnasţ reaardless of Lhelr
causesţ can and should be overcome and slnful behavlor should be ellmlnaLedŦ 1hls can be achleved
Lhrouah falLh ln Codţ slncere repenLanceţ and perslsLenL efforLŦ
" (11)
O #1he Church dlsLlnaulshes beLween feellnas or lncllnaLlons on Lhe one hand and behavlor on Lhe
oLherŦ lL's noL a sln Lo have feellnasţ onlv ln vleldlna Lo LempLaLlonŦ
O #Chlldren learn how Lo love ln a sLableţ healLhv famllvŦ ÞarenLs need Lo know LhaL lack of proper
affecLlon ln Lhe home can resulL ln unnaLural behavlor ln Lhelr chlldren such as homosexuallLv or
lnablllLv Lo be an effecLlve parenL when Lhe Llme comesŦ
" (173)
O #ƍWe are Lold LhaL as far back as Penrv Lhe Illlţ Lhls vlce was referred Lo as ƌ1PL 8CMln8LL nu
uL1LS18LL C8lML ClnS1 n1u8Lŧ We know such a dlsease ls curableŧ and promlse hlm lf he
wlll sLav awav from Lhe haunLs and Lhe LempLaLlonsţ and Lhe former assoclaLesţ he mav heal hlmselfţ
cleanse hls mlnd and reLurn Lo hls normal pursulLs and a happv sLaLe of mlndŦ 1he cure for Lhls
maladv lles ln self masLervŧ
" (164)

O ƍPomosexuallLv ls an ualv slnţ buL because of lLs prevalenceţ Lhe need Lo warn Lhe unlnlLlaLedţ and
Lhe deslre Lo help Lhose who mav alreadv be lnvolved wlLh lLţ lL musL be brouahL lnLo Lhe openŦ lL ls
Lhe sln of Lhe aaesŦŦŦŦ
" (177)
O #We Lalked of Lhe lnfluences LhaL had puL ża vouna aav manŽ where he lsţ of Lhe home from whlch
he cameţ of assoclaLlons wlLh oLher vouna menţ of books and maaazlnes readţ of shows seenŦ
O #lL ls easv Lo hvpoLheslze LhaL lnherlLance plavs a role ln sexual orlenLaLlonŦ Powever lL ls lmporLanL
Lo rememberţ as conceded bv Lwo advocaLes of Lhls approachţ LhaL 'Lhe concepL of subsLanLlal
herlLablllLv should noL be confused wlLh Lhe concepL of lnevlLable herlLablllLvŦ ŦŦŦ MosL mechanlsms
probablv lnvolve lnLeracLlons beLween consLlLuLlonal predlsposlLlons and envlronmenLal evenLsŧ
SaLan #seeks Lo undermlne Lhe prlnclple of lndlvldual accounLablllLvţ Lo persuade us Lo mlsuse our
sacred powers of procreaLlonţ Lo dlscouraae marrlaae and chlldbearlna bv worLhv men and womenţ
and Lo confuse whaL lL means Lo be male or femaleŦ
" (13)
O #1hus propheLs anclenLlv and Lodav condemn masLurbaLlonŦŦŦŦWhlle we should noL reaard Lhls
weakness as Lhe helnous sln whlch some oLher sexual pracLlces areţ lL ls of lLself bad enouah Lo
requlre slncere repenLanceŦ WhaL ls moreţ lL Loo ofLen leads Lo arlevous slnţ even Lo LhaL sln aaalnsL
naLureţ homosexuallLvŦ lorţ done ln prlvaLeţ lL evolves ofLen lnLo muLual masLurbaLlon Ŷ pracLlced
wlLh anoLher person of Lhe same sex Ŷ and Lhen lnLo LoLal homosexuallLvŧŦ Sln ln sex pracLlces
Lends Lo have a 'snowballlna' effecLŦ s Lhe resLralnLs fall awavţ SaLan lnclLes Lhe carnal man Lo everŴ
deepenlna deaeneracv ln hls search for exclLemenL unLll ln manv lnsLances he ls losL Lo anv former
conslderaLlon of decencvŦ 1hus lL ls LhaL Lhrouah Lhe aaesţ perhaps as an exLenslon of homosexual
pracLlcesţ men and women have sunk even Lo seeklna sexual araLlflcaLlon wlLh anlmals
Ŧ" (171)
O #lf an lndlvldual Lrles Lo recelve comforLţ saLlsfacLlonţ affecLlonţ or fulflllmenL from devlaLe phvslcal
lnLeracLlon wlLh someone of hls own aenderţ lL can become an addlcLlon! L flrsL lL mav flll a need
and alve comforL of some klndţ buLţ when LhaL has fadedţ feellnas of aullL and depresslon followŦ
areaLer need soon emeraesŦ
" (178)
O #lL should ao wlLhouL savlna LhaL manv of Lhese problems would be allevlaLed lf parenLs would
spend more Llme Leachlna and rearlna Lhelr chlldrenŦ 8elaLed Lo Lhe sLorv LhaL l aave aL Lhe
bealnnlna of mv Lalk ls evldence of a cllnlcal researcher whoţ afLer sLudvlna 830 lndlvldual casesţ
sLaLedť #PomosexuallLv would noL occur where Lhere ls a normalţ lovlna faLherŴandŴson
relaLlonshlpŦ" nv of our people llvlna ln rlahLeousness would normallv avold belna lnvolved ln Lhese
" (177)
O ##SoŴcalled aavs and lesblansŦŦŦmav have cerLaln lncllnaLlons whlch are powerful and whlch mav be
dlfflculL Lo conLrolŦ
" (18)
O #1he Lord deflned some verv baslc dlfferences beLween men and womenŦ Pe aave Lhe male whaL
we call mascullne LralLs and Lhe female femlnlne LralLsŦ Pe dld noL lnLend elLher of Lhe sexes Lo
adopL Lhe oLher's LralLs buLţ raLherţ LhaL men should look and acL llke men and LhaL women should
look and acL llke womenŦ When Lhese dlfferences are lanoredţ an unwholesome relaLlonshlp
developsţ whlchţ lf noL checkedţ can lead Lo Lhe reprehenslbleţ Lraalc sln of homosexuallLvŦ ln oLher
wordsţ we have a responslblllLv as prlesLhood bearers Lo be examples of Lrue manhoodŦ
" (171)
O #1here are some clrcumsLances ln whlch vouna men mav be LempLed Lo handle one anoLherŧ
When a vouna man ls flndlna hls wav lnLo manhoodţ such experlences can mlsdlrecL hls normal
deslres and perverL hlm noL onlv phvslcallv buL emoLlonallv and splrlLuallv as wellŦ
" (176)
O #normal deslres and aLLracLlons emerae ln Lhe Leenaae vearsŤ Lhere ls Lhe LempLaLlon Lo
experlmenLţ Lo Lamper wlLh Lhe sacred power of procreaLlonŦ 1hese deslres can be lnLenslfledţ even
perverLedţ bv pornoaraphvţ lmproper muslcţ or Lhe encouraaemenL from unworLhv assoclaLlonsŦ

WhaL would have onlv been a more or less normal passlna phase ln esLabllshlna aender ldenLlLv can
become lmplanLed and leave vou confusedţ even dlsLurbedŦ lf vou consenLţ Lhe adversarv can Lake
conLrol of vour LhouahLs and lead vou carefullv Loward a hablL and Lo an addlcLlonţ convlnclna vou
LhaL lmmoralţ unnaLural behavlor ls a flxed parL of vour naLureŦ WlLh some fewţ Lhere ls Lhe
LempLaLlon whlch seems nearlv overpowerlna for man Lo be aLLracLed Lo man or woman Lo womanŦ
1he scrlpLures plalnlv condemn Lhose who #dlshonour Lhelr own bodles beLween Lhemselves ŧ Ť
men wlLh men worklna LhaL whlch ls unseemlv" or #women żwhoŽ chanae Lhe naLural use lnLo LhaL
whlch ls aaalnsL naLureŧ" 1he aaLes of freedomţ and Lhe aood or bad bevondţ swlna open or closed
Lo Lhe password cholceŦ ?ou are free Lo choose a paLh LhaL mav lead Lo despalrţ Lo dlseaseţ even Lo
" (2000)
O 1here ls a falsehood LhaL some are born wlLh an aLLracLlon Lo Lhelr own klndţ wlLh noLhlna Lhev can
do abouL lLŦ 1hev are [usL ƍLhaL wavƍ and can onlv vleld Lo Lhose deslresŦ 1haL ls a mallclous and
desLrucLlve lleŦ Whlle lL ls a convlnclna ldea Lo someţ lL ls of Lhe devllŦ
" (176)
O #lmporLanL as lL lsţ bulldlna sLronaer homes ls noL enouah ln Lhe flahL aaalnsL rlslna permlsslvenessŦ
We Lherefore urae Church members as clLlzens Lo llfL Lhelr volcesţ Lo [oln oLhers ln unceaslnalv
combaLLlnaţ ln Lhelr communlLles and bevondţ Lhe lnroads of pornoaraphv and Lhe aeneral flaunLlna
of permlsslvenessŦ LeL us vlaorouslv oppose Lhe shocklna developmenLs whlch encouraae Lhe old
slns of Sodom and Comorrahţ and whlch deflle Lhe human bodv as Lhe Lemple of CodŦ
" (177)
O #lreedom from Lhls klnd of enslavemenL ls up Lo a Lrall LhaL an lndlvldual musL walk aloneŦ lf vou
sLumbleţ aeL up and move onŦ Soon vour brulses wlll healŦ ?ou wlll arow sLronaerŦ ?our baLLle lL LwoŴ
Lhlrds wonţ or LhreeŴfourLhs or fourŴflfLhs wonţ when vou Lake charae of vour ldenLlLvŦ ccepL
vourself as belonalna ln Lhe Labernacle LhaL Cod has provlded for vouŦ ?our bodv was provlded as an
lnsLrumenL of vour mlndŦ lL has Lhe purpose Lo bless oLhersŦ uonƌL be mlxed up ln Lhls LwlsLed klnd of
" (178)
O # 177 SacramenLo 8ee arLlcle #aave experL evldence LhaL homosexuals cerLalnlv are noL born Ŷ
Lhev are made Ŷ furLher defuslna clalms LhaL Lhev 'can'L help lLŦ'
"" (178)
O #1he Church refuLes Lhe ldea LhaL homosexual orlenLaLlon ls aeneLlcallv deLermlnedŦŧlurLhermoreţ
a aeneLlc/bloloalcal cause of homosexual aLLracLlon has noL found supporL ln Lhe sclenLlflc llLeraLureŦ
#Sclence has never proved a aeneLlc llnk Lo sexual orlenLaLlonŦ Moreoverţ Lhe Church repeaLedlvţ ln
nearlv everv sLaLemenL abouL homosexual relaLlonsţ Leaches LhaL homosexual aLLracLlon ls noL
lnherenL Lo a personƌs parLlcular aeneLlc makeŴup and LhaL Lhev are qulLe able Lo chanaeŦ
" (2001)
O #8?u does noL lnLend 'Lo admlL Lo our campus anv homosexualsŦ lf anv of vou have Lhls Lendencv
and have noL compleLelv abandoned lLţ mav l suaaesL LhaL vou leave Lhe unlverslLv lmmedlaLelv
afLer Lhls assemblvŤ and lf vou wlll be honesL enouah Lo leL us know Lhe reasonţ we wlll volunLarllv
refund vour LulLlonŦ We do noL wanL oLhers on Lhls campus Lo be conLamlnaLed bv vour
" (163)
O #ż8?uŽ wlll never knowlnalv enroll an unrepenLanL person who follows Lhese pracLlces nor LoleraLe
on lLs campus anvone wlLh Lhese Lendencles who falls Lo repenL and puL hls or her llfe ln orderŦ
O # problem Lhev causedţ or Lhev were born wlLh? nswerť l donƌL knowŦ lƌm noL an experL on Lhese
LhlnasŦ l donƌL preLend Lo be an experL on Lhese LhlnasŦ
" (2004)
O #Cnce Lhe carnal ln man ls no lonaer checked bv Lhe resLralnLs of famllv llfe and bv real rellalonţ
Lhere comes an avalanche of appeLlLes whlch aaLhers momenLum LhaL ls Lrulv frlahLenlnaŦ s one
[ars loose and bealns Lo roll down hlllţ sLlll anoLher breaks looseţ wheLher lL ls an lncrease ln
homosexuallLvţ corrupLlonţ druasţ or aborLlonŦ Lach beaan as an appeLlLe LhaL needed Lo be checked
buL whlch wenL uncheckedŦ
" (178)

O #ƌPomosexuallLv can be cured lf Lhe baLLle ls well oraanlzed and pursued vlaorouslv and
conLlnuouslvŦƌ ż1hls obvlouslv refers Lo Lhe condlLlon of sexual aLLracLlon Lo persons of Lhe same
" (184)
O #1here appears Lo be a consensus ln Lhe world LhaL żsexual perverslonŽ ls naLuralţ Lo one dearee or
anoLherţ for a percenLaae of Lhe populaLlonŦ 1hereforeţ we musL accepL lL as all rlahLŦ Poweverţ
when vou puL a moral lnsLrumenL on lLţ Lhe needle lmmedlaLelv fllps Lo Lhe slde labeled ƍwronaŦƍ lL
mav even realsLer ƍdanaerousƍŧ 1he answerť lL ls noL all rlahLŦ lL ls wrona! lL ls noL deslrableŤ lL ls
unnaLuralŤ lL ls abnormalŤ lL ls an affllcLlonŦ
" (178)
O #1he words homosexualţ lesblanţ and aav are ad[ecLlves Lo descrlbe parLlcular LhouahLsţ feellnasţ or
behavlorsŦ We should refraln from uslna Lhese words as nouns żor pronounsŽ Lo ldenLlfv parLlcular
condlLlons or speclflc personsŦ Ŧ Ŧ Ŧ lL ls wrona Lo use Lhese words Lo denoLe a condlLlonţ because Lhls
lmplles LhaL a person ls conslaned bv blrLh Lo a clrcumsLance ln whlch he or she has no cholce ln
respecL Lo Lhe crlLlcallv lmporLanL maLLer of sexual behavlorŦ
" (13)
O #usuallvţ Lhere wlll be some reslsLanceţ parLlcularlv wlLh Lhe abandonmenL of Lhe people for manv
perverLs wlll clalm Lo have areaL ƍloveƍ for some wlLh whom Lhev have been lnvolvedţ especlallv
where Lhere has been a susLalned relaLlonshlpţ buL slnce Lhe problem ls ln Lhe mlnd more Lhan ln
Lhe bodvţ lL ls necessarv Lo flnd a new cllmaLe and Lo make posslble Lhe ellmlnaLlon of Lhe evll
LhouahLs whlch drlve hlm back Lo hls LroubleŦ
" (170)
O #Slnce homosexuals have become a naLlonwlde enLlLvţ and have come ouL of hldlna Lo demand Lhelr
place ln Lhe sunţ manv of Lhem clalm LhaL Lhev are whaL Lhev are because Lhev were born LhaL wav
and cannoL help lLŦ Pow rldlculous ls such a clalmŦ lL was noL Cod who mad Lhem LhaL wavţ anv
more Lhan Pe made bank robbers Lhe wav Lhev are
Ŧ (178)
O #uo noL be mlsled bv Lhose who whlsper LhaL lL ls parL of vour naLure and Lherefore rlahL for vouŦ
1haL ls false docLrlne!
" (178)
O #lL was noL Cod who made Lhem żhomosexualsŽ LhaL wavŦŦŦŦPe aave all manklnd free aaencvŦ
O #Sexual lmmorallLv creaLes a barrler Lo Lhe lnfluence of Lhe Polv SplrlL wlLh all lLs upllfLlnaţ
enllahLenlnaţ and empowerlna capablllLlesŦ lL causes powerful phvslcal and emoLlonal sLlmulaLlonŦ ln
Llme LhaL creaLes an unquenchable appeLlLe LhaL drlves Lhe offender Lo ever more serlous slnŦ lL
enaenders selflshness and can produce aaaresslve acLs such as bruLallLvţ aborLlonţ sexual abuseţ and
vlolenL crlmeŦ Such sLlmulaLlon can lead Lo acLs of homosexuallLvţ and Lhev are evll and absoluLelv
" (14)
O #When one pro[ecLs hlmself ln some confused roleŴplavlna wav wlLh Lhose of Lhe same aender ln an
efforL Lo become more mascullne or more femlnlneţ someLhlna fllps over and preclselv Lhe opposlLe
resulLsŦ ln a sLranae wavţ Lhls amounLs Lo Lrvlna Lo love vourselfŦ maleţ ln hls feellnas and
emoLlonsţ can become less mascullne and more femlnlne and confusedŦ female can becomeţ ln
her emoLlonsţ less femlnlne and more mascullne and confusedŦ 8ecause Lhe bodv cannoL chanaeţ
Lhe emoLlonal parL mav sLruaale Lo Lransform lLself lnLo Lhe opposlLe aenderŦ 1hen an lndlvldual ls
on a hopelessţ fuLlle quesL for ldenLlLv where lL can never be achlevedŦ
" (178)
O #Cnlv be Lhe desLrucLlon of Lhose who pracLlce LhemŦ Whvţ lf a llLLle nesL of Lhem were lefL LhaL
were aullLv of Lhese Lhlnasţ Lhev would soon corrupL oLhersţ as some are belna corrupLed amona
usŦŦŦ how can Lhls żsodomvŽ be sLopped? noL whlle Lhose who have knowledae of Lhese fllLhv crlmes
exlsLŦ 1he onlv wavţ accordlna Lo all LhaL l can undersLand as Lhe word of Codţ ls for Lhe Lord Lo wlpe
Lhem ouLţ LhaL Lhere wlll be none lefL Lo perpeLuaLe Lhe knowledae of Lhese dreadful pracLlces
amona Lhe chlldren of menŦ nd Cod wlll do lLţ as sure as Pe has spoken bv Lhe mouLhs of Pls
" (187)

O #When we undersLand fundamenLal moral law beLLer Lhan we doţ we wlll be able Lo correcL Lhls
condlLlon rouLlnelvŦ
" (178)
O #8e choosv abouL Lhe professlonals vou enllsLŦ Manv are proponenLs of Lhe #vou were born LhaL
wav" phllosophvŦ Lnsure LhaL Lhe counsellna ls conslsLenL wlLh aospel prlnclplesŦ
" (1)
O #now lL ls noL all LhaL unusual for a bov or a alrlţ ln a momenL of chlldlsh plav wlLh someone of Lhe
same aenderţ Lo enLer lnLo some mlschlef LhaL should remaln essenLlallv lnnocenL and meanlnaless
and should be foraoLLenŦ nd Lwo vouna men or Lwo vouna womenţ moLlvaLed bv some aLLracLlon
or respondlna Lo a deslre for affecLlon Ŵ anv klnd of affecLlon Ŵ someLlmes are drawn almosL
lnnocenLlv lnLo unnaLural behavlorŦ 1hev can be drawn lnLo some clrcumsLances LhaL makes Lhemţ
for Lhe momenLţ doubL Lhelr ldenLlLvŦ uo noL be deluded lnLo Lhlnklna LhaL such LhouahLs and
feellnas are normal for vouŦ !usL because vou experlence some perlod of confuslonţ do noL make of
LhaL Lhlna someLhlna LhaL lL ls noLŦ uo noL order vour llfe Lo conform Lo a LranslenL LhouahL or
experlenceŦ nd [usL because someone has sLubbed hls Loe a blLţ or [usL because someone dld noL
waLch carefullv where he was aolna and aoL off Lhe Lrack lnLo some unnaLural behavlorţ or [usL
because he mav have fallen vlcLlm Lo some clever predaLorţ LhaL ls no reason Lo [ump off Lhe cllff
lnLo splrlLual obllvlon
Ŧ" (178)
O #bealn Lhe rulnous pracLlce of perverslon Lhrouah curloslLv and Lhen become enLanaled ln lLs
" (171)
O #llrsLţ lL ls lmporLanL Lo undersLand LhaL homosexuallLv ls noL lnnaLe and unchanaeableŦ 8esearch
has noL proved LhaL homosexuallLv ls aeneLlcŦ
" (1)
O #Manv quesLlonsţ howeverţ lncludlna some relaLed Lo sameŴaender aLLracLlonsţ musL awalL a fuLure
answerţ even ln Lhe nexL llfeŦ
" (2007)
O #1he cause of Lhls dlsorder has remalned hldden for so lona because we have been looklna for lL ln
Lhe wrona placeŦ When Lhe cause ls dlscoveredţ lL mav be noLhlna so mvsLerlous afLer allŦ lL mav be
hldden because lL ls so obvlousŦ Pave vou explored Lhe posslblllLv LhaL Lhe cause when foundţ wlll
Lurn ouL Lo be a verv Lvplcal form of selflshness Ŵ selflshness ln a verv subLle form? now Ŵ and
undersLand Lhls Ŵ l do noL Lhlnk for a mlnuLe LhaL Lhe form of selflshness aL Lhe rooL of perverslon ls
a consclous oneţ aL leasL noL Lo bealn wlLhŦ l am sure lL ls qulLe Lhe opposlLeŦ Selflshness can aLLach
lLself Lo an lndlvldual wlLhouL hls belna aware LhaL he ls affllcLed wlLh lLŦ lL can become lmbedded so
deeplv and dlsaulsed so arLfullv as Lo be almosL lndlsLlnaulshableŦ lL ls hard Lo belleve LhaL anv
lndlvldual wouldţ bv a clearţ consclous declslon or bv a paLLern of Lhemţ choose a course of
devlaLlonŦ lL ls much more subLle Lhan LhaLŦ lf one could even experlmenL wlLh Lhe posslblllLv LhaL
selflshness of a verv subLle naLure mav be Lhe cause of Lhls dlsorderţ LhaL qulcklv clarlfles manv
LhlnasŦ lL opens Lhe posslblllLv of puLLlna some verv slck Lhlnas ln orderŧ When one has Lhe humlllLv
Lo admlL LhaL a splrlLual dlsorder ls Lled Lo perverslon and LhaL selflshness resLs aL Lhe rooL of lLţ
alreadv Lhe wav ls open Lo Lhe LreaLmenL of Lhe condlLlonŦ lL ls a palnful admlsslon lndeed LhaL
selflshness mav be aL Lhe rooL of lLţ buL we do noL have much evldence LhaL one can cure perverslon
bv Lrvlna Lo cure perverslonŦ lf unselflshness can effecL a cureţ we ouahL Lo be desperaLe enouah bv
now aL leasL Lo experlmenL wlLh Lhe posslblllLvŦ l repeaLţ we have had verv llLLle success ln Lrvlna Lo
remedv perverslon bv LreaLlna perverslonŦ lL ls verv posslble Lo cure lL bv LreaLlna selflshnessŦŦŦ vou
can undersLand unselflshness and selflshnessŦ ?ou can learn Lo cure perverslonŦ
" (178)

%he next collection oI excerpts comes Irom two pamphlets published in 1970 and 1971 by the
LDS church. %he Iirst is Ior church leaders, entitled Hope For Trangressors (1970):

'In the event that you have members who have homosexual tendencies or activities, it will be
your privilege and responsibility to assist them to eIIect a cure and bring their lives back into
total normalcy. %his dread practice is becoming widespread in the country and there is some oI
it even among our members which we deeply regret.¨ |In the years Iollowing this statement
some HO people underwent aversion therapy at BYU to 'eIIect a cure.
¨ %hey were shown
heterosexual and homosexual pornography
. Physiological responses (based on a penis-
attached device) Irom homosexual porn were punished by electric shocks and/or induced
vomiting, and soothing music was played during the heterosexual porn
. At least two oI the
subiects committed suicide aIter the therapy, with most oI the rest leaving as broken people
'Reason might also be employed to convince the individual that there is no Iuture Ior a
homosexual. the day will come in his liIe when there is nothing leIt but chaII and dust and
barrenness and desolation.¨
'%he entrenched homosexual has generally and gradually moved all oI his interests and
aIIections to those oI his own sex rather than to the opposite sex and herein is another step.
When you Ieel he is ready, he should be encouraged to date and gradually move his liIe toward
the normal.¨
'II they will close the door to the intimate associations with their own sex and open it wide to
that oI the other sex, oI course in total propriety, and then be patient and determined, gradually
they can move their romantic interests where they belong.¨
'Homosexuality CAN be cured.¨
From Horizons 1or Homosexuals, published by the church in 1971:
'Next to the crime oI murder comes the sin oI sexual impurity as expressed in its many
maniIestations: adultery, Iornication, homosexuality and related transgressions. Man is created
in the image oI God and prostitutes his God-given powers and image in such practices. No
amount oI rationalization can really neutralize the pollution. %he death penalty was exacted in
the days oI Israel Ior such wrong-doing.¨
'Satan tells his victims that it is a natural way oI liIe; that it is normal; that perverts are a
diIIerent kind oI people born that way` and that they cannot change. %his is a base lie. All
normal people have sex urges and iI they control such urges, they grow strong and masterIul. II
they yield to their carnal desires and urges, they get weaker until their sins get beyond control.
%he knowledge that homosexuality can be eIIectively treated must be made more generally
known, to oIIset the eIIect oI organized groups oI homosexuals who would have society accept
homosexuality and relieve them oI the pressure to undergo the changes that can be eIIected
through appropriate treatment. It can be overcome and the case oI diIIiculty oI overcoming
depends largely upon the strength or weakness oI the individual, the depth oI his entrenchment,
the quality and quantity oI his desire and determination.` Psychiatric Spectator, Vol II No. 4-
January 1965.¨

'Some continue until, when the changing gets diIIicult, they admit their inability to cope with it
and yield. %hey rationalize that they are oI another class oI people; that the Lord made them that
way; that they cannot change. %he powerIul LuciIer has had his day.¨
'You might be able Ior a time to deceive your associates and leaders. But, you cannot lie to
yourselI nor to your lord, Ior in spite oI all the rationalization, you know deep in your heart what
you are. You may be able to convince your mind that it is not so wrong but deep in your heart,
you will always be uneasy and unhappy and know that your sin is vicious and base. Remember
there are no rooms with such tight windows or with blinds so heavy but that the Lord and his
angles know what is going on.¨
'When I say this is sin, I am quoting the Creator oI the world. %ruth is truth and needs no
eloquent tongue nor brilliant brain to portray it.¨
'God made no man a pervert. %o blame a weakness and transgression upon God is cowardly.¨
'Whether or not you believe those scriptures or the things written above, they are still true and
they are still true and will ever be a testimony against you. Having read this letter, you will
never in time nor eternity Iorget it, nor its message totally.¨
'God did not make men evil. He did not make people that way.`¨

Another way to represent the church`s stances on HO causation is through a table oI authoritative
statements (Irom only those sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators) on the subiect



























Abnormal, transgressive aIIliction
Aggressive acts
Avoiding domesticity
Combination oI several Iactors
Constitutional predisposition
Disease/Contagion 3
Free agency
Ignoring sex roles
Masturbation 2
Not biological 2 2 2
Not known 2 2
Parental Iailure 2
Peer reiection
Physical perversion
PowerIul inclination
Satanic inIluence 2 2
Search Ior psychosexual role
Seductive Iathers
Social permissiveness
Speaking about it
Unchecked appetites

Numbers inside black boxes indicate number oI multiple reIerences to this topic in same year

%his table and the above collection oI excerpts, mostly Irom the past 50ish years, paints a
reasonable picture oI the historical/present LDS view on the cause(s) oI HO. Many oI my
homosexually oriented LDS Iriends have read many oI these quotes beIore, having snapped up
all church statements they can Iind on the subiect in their search Ior hope and truth. Some oI
these same Iriends have expressed to me the extreme pain they Iound in revisiting these quotes.
Said one (I will keep him anonymous):
'You've done your homework. You know the reIerences that all oI us (we being those who live
with same-sex attraction) have read and memorized, and the pamphlets we've kept on our
bookshelves. %he sleepless nights in reading page aIter page oI study and press conIerence and
archived talks and letters.
And yet, ultimately, Irom my perspective as a Mormon who has lived with this all my liIe, being
totally and completely truthIul. the most depressing composition I've read since I was 16 and
almost killed myselI because oI SSA |same-sex attraction|.¨
It is my hope that most readers have a more positive experience. %o use another`s words which
articulate my own hope
'I believe my approach can be Iaith-promoting Ior believers seeking to understand their religious
community as led by Iallible humans who struggle to achieve God`s will. For religious believers
who do not view the LDS church and its leadership through the lens oI Iaith, I hope they will
read this study with the charity they expect others to give to the humanness oI leaders in their
own religion`s history. I would also expect secular readers not to hold LDS leaders to a standard
oI inIallibility which secularists deny to everyone else.
Unconscious biological compulsions

1C1AL5 Þ ¥A
















Charity is a virtue I have oIten Iound among secular humanists as well as among believers in
various religious traditions. It has been my guide in appreciating an extraordinary people and in
restraining personal iudgments about many matters I have examined. OI course, there are
aberrations in our history,` current LDS President Gordon B. Hinckley has publicly stated
%here are blemishes to be Iound, iI searched Ior, in the lives oI all men, including our leaders
past and present. But these are only incidental to the magnitude oI their service and to the
greatness oI their contributions.¨
Given the wholly inconsistent, contradictory, and bizarre picture oI HO causation painted by
these 60ish statements, the apologist in me seeks Ior some way to reconcile or ignore such
conIusion. I will do so by selecting a recent statement that I preIer, then arbitrarily giving that
statement incredible weight. Inasmuch as the above LDS statements endorse the MIC theory,
per Elder Oaks`s 2006 statement they may be summarily reiected in Iavor oI a better-perIorming
etiology (causation) theory: '%he Church does not have a position on the causes oI any oI these
susceptibilities or inclinations, including those related to same-gender attraction. %hose are
scientiIic questions whether nature or nurture those are things the Church doesn`t have a
position on.
%hus, I conclude that HO is very likely caused predominantly by genes and pre-natal hormones,
and not by Iactors such as parenting, inIection, molestation, or choice.


Chapter ť Mutab|||ty
Now to the question oI the mutability (or changeableness) oI HO. Remember again that our
inquiry is limited to HO, not homosexual behavior or ¦HO ¹ homosexual behavior}.
At the outset I will note that the mutability question is moot Ior LDS people. Because
homosexually oriented people are considered worthy unless they sexually transgress, it is not
necessary Ior them to succeed or even attempt to change their orientation in this liIe. Given the
involuntariness oI HO, this rule is intuitive. In recent years, some church statements even go Iar
enough as to reinIorce this principle by promising that homosexual orientation will not exist in
the aIterliIe
Our inquiry begins with an initial conclusion: HO is not completely immutable, since at least
some people report Iull reversal Irom HO to heterosexual orientation
. Robert James, Ior
instance, claims: 'Many people have some degree oI attraction to the same sex and a much larger
degree oI attraction to the opposite sex. %hese experiences moved me along that continuum. My
attraction Ior men greatly decreased, and Ior the Iirst time in my liIe, I Iound my interests in
women increasing.
¨ Many researchers in this Iield oI mutability research would criticize this
conclusion, claiming that the best results Irom reversal attempts are merely to 1) convince
bisexuals to restrict their sexual activities to members oI the opposite sex and 2) convince
homosexuals to remain celibate. %hese critics would also point to the incredible pressures that
HO people experience, which systematically incentivize them to lie or engage in selI-deception
as to their orientation reversal. Additionally, much as there is a distinct diIIerence between the
psychology oI gender and the biology oI physical sex, sexual identity is not equivalent to sexual
orientation. We, however, accepted selI-reported HO in chapter two- so to be consistent we shall
accept selI-reported HO reversal here in chapter three. %hus, we have established a lower bound,
i.e. at the least HO is not absolutely immutable.
Even iI the selI-reporting contention is discarded, that the orientation oI Iruit Ilies, with whom
we share 60° oI our genome, can be reversed and then reversed again
suggests that a
comparable biological intervention may hypothetically make human orientation reversible-
which would also Irustrate a conclusion oI absolute immutability. Last, it seems clear that an

omnipotent God can reverse HO- which is the third argument against the absolute immutability
oI HO.
Now Ior an upper bound. Elder Holland says 'others, however, may never be Iree oI same-
gender attraction in this liIe.
¨ %he God Loveth His Children pamphlet also says, 'others may
not be Iree oI this challenge in this liIe.
¨ Elder Oaks, speaking oI the 'core characteristic¨ oI
HO, said that at least some 'have this kind oI challenge that they cannot control.
¨ %hus, a
conclusion oI absolute mutability also appears unmerited.
So where does that leave us, now that we`re between a Iloor (lower bound) and a ceiling (upper
bound)? I assert that the relevant question now is no longer, 'is HO mutable or immutable.¨
Instead, I propose we next explore 'how mutable is HO and what factors are most likely to
affect HO reversal?¨ I will attempt to answer that question as oI today in 2011 (since there`s no
way to predict with certainty whether a successIul change therapy oI some kind may enter the
scene in the Iuture, even iI we conclude that HO is highly change-resistant). %he structure Irom
here on will roughly be 1) a discussion oI relevant church doctrines, Iollowed by 2) a
commentary on what the empirical data and logical arguments have to oIIer our inquiry.
R¢¢vant Cbarcb Doctrin¢s

I will Iirst discuss the agency argument. Second I will examine the Atonement argument.

Ag¢ncy argam¢nt
First I address an assertion which commonly arises when attempting to answer this question:
'Homosexual orientation must be changeable. %o conclude otherwise is a violation oI Iree
agency.¨ In response to a similar claim I once replied (excerpt edited):
thank vou and *Josh 1or relving on a 1allacv in vour comments. v addressing it hope to
resolve one o1 the most common misunderstandings observe in discussions among LDS 1olk
about homosexualitv.
The 1allacv? That a reduction in available alternatives violates the principle o1 1ree agencv.
!ermit an explanation.

First task. *Mark. using nothing but vour natural capacities. please iump straight up in the air
200 1eet. Can vou choose to do it? o. n this scenario vou mav not choose to iump 200 1eet
straight up in the air using nothing but vour natural capacities. s agencv violated here?
ext task. Compose a 200 page supreme court caliber legal opinion 1rom scratch in 13 seconds.
hat. vou can´t choose to do it? thought there is alwavs choice
Last example. take an in1ertile couple- sav. the man´s sperm don´t develop because o1 an
inherited double recessive meiosis inhibitor.
Okav. in1ertile man. sire a child bv natural means. hat. vou can´t? hat happened to God-
given 1ree agencv?
ow let´s consider a di11erent scenario which will let me resolve this apparent tension bv
creating a construct will call 1reedom.
Sav little Johnnv has 2 candv bars in 1ront o1 him. He has 4 alternatives. grab neither bar. both
bars. bar A. or bar . will term agencv that power bv which Johnnv selects 1rom among the
alternatives available to him. will term 1reedom the number o1 alternatives available to him.
To quanti1v in this situation. Johnnv has 1ull agencv. and a 1reedom o1 4. i.e.. 4 alternatives.
ow take awav candv bar . Johnnv now has 2 alternatives instead o1 4. He mav now onlv
choose between grabbing or not grabbing the bar. However. his agencv. or power to choose
1rom among the available alternatives. is still 1ull. His 1reedom. however. was reduced 1rom 4
to 2. would 1urther argue that even i1 no candv bar were in 1ront o1 Johnnv. such that he has 0
alternatives. his agencv is still 1ull- though that agencv would not be discernible until
alternatives are available to him. ottom line. 3 all four sce3aros above, bologcal/phvscal
l29a9o3s of 9he ac9or 3ecessarlv def3e hs freedo2 w9hou9 lesse33g hs age3cv. Elder
Oaks. Essential to our doctrinal position on these matters is the di11erence between our
1reedom and our agencv. Our 1reedom can be limited bv various conditions o1 mortalitv. but
Gods gi1t o1 agencv cannot be limited bv outside 1orces. because it is the basis 1or our
accountabilitv to him.`
Mv application o1 this conclusion? one o1 us can exercise our agencv to choose an alternative
that is not available to us. Thus. the question o1 what alternatives are available is not made
irrelevant bv acknowledging 1ree agencv. Respecting homosexual orientation mutabilitv. one
candidate question would be whether the alternative o1 reversing ones sexual orientation is
available to individual A. This question cannot be disregarded bv an appeal to agencv. since the
abundance or scarcitv o1 alternatives (1reedom) necessarilv relies upon the biological/phvsical
capacities and limitations o1 the actor. Thus. i1 homosexual orientation is merelv chosen. then
the alternative o1 reversing orientation is likelv available to individual A. 1. on the other hand.
reversing ones exclusive romantic/emotional/sexual orientation toward members o1 a sex is
biologicallv impossible 1or A. then that alternative is not available to A. The resolution o1 the
scope o1 A´s 1reedom requires a determination at least o1 whether sexual orientation reversal is
phvsicallv possible or impossible- hence the relevance o1 evaluating the evidence vou decrv as

We will return to evaluating the evidence presently. BeIore we proceed, I address the second
most common contention I hear when addressing the mutability question with Latter-day Saints:
the Atonement argument.
Aton¢m¢nt argam¢nt
%he argument goes something like this: 'OI course homosexual orientation is changeable. %he
Atonement can reverse even death- so why not sexual orientation?¨ Responding to this very
interrogatory, I once wrote:
!resuming ´ve established the relevance o1 the question o1 the cause(s) o1 homosexual
orientation. now respond to another o1 *Mark´s claims- the o1t-used Atonement argument.
Seth notes that the atonement can reverse death. and thus it can reverse sexual orientation. since
orientation reversal is certainlv less impressive than death reversal. Granted- the Atonement can
do so. So what? hat matters to a decision maker is what God ll do. not merelv what he CAn
do. 1 vou´re the onlv person around 1or miles except 1or a child that is drowning in a steep
canal. and vou CAn throw the kid a rope to save her but DO not. the kid will still drown. The
question 1or a homosexuallv oriented person. then. turns to the likelihood o1 God´s intervention
to reverse his/her orientation. draw on Mark´s comparison to death. hope it´s not an
exaggeration to claim that death reversal rates have historicallv been less than .01º. n most
cases we know o1. the death reversal was also not readilv predictable bv the subiect. Thus i1
God´s sexual orientation reversal intervention rate is at this same level. a reasonable
homosexuallv oriented person is iusti1ied in placing little con1idence. not in God´s CApacitv to
reverse his/her orientation. but in God´s Lkelihood o1 doing so 1or him or her. God´s likelihood
o1 reversing homosexuallv oriented person A´s orientation is the relevant question 1or decision-
making A. A mav also reasonablv consider.
The pernicious consequence o1 promoting the idea that homosexualitv is a chosen and
changeable condition is that tens o1 thousands o1 Latter-dav Saint homosexuals. believing that
the atonement will change their homosexual inclinations. become disillusioned with God and
Christ (and the Church) when thev make everv sacri1ice o1 which thev are capable in the belie1
that thev will be 1ree o1 homosexual 1eelingsonlv to discover that their e11orts are ine11ective.
More o1ten than not. thev mav blame themselves 1or having insu11icient 1aith and either lose all
1aith. suspend their belie1. or take their lives. Ecclesiastical leaders who have experience
counseling with Latter-dav Saint homosexuals know the heartbreak associated with such cases.
assert that the Atonement´s purpose is generallv not to reverse phvsical conditions such as old
age. diabetes. homosexual orientation. and disabilitv. That is a mistake manv people in Christ´s
dav made. who viewed him merelv as someone who could heal their phvsical bodies (e.g. giving
sight to the blind man) and assuage their phvsical appetites (e.g. loaves and 1ishes). Thev missed
the point these miracles were supposed to lead them to. 9ha9 Chrs9/9he A9o3e2e39s pr2arv
purpose s 9o heal us spr9uallv. Though a mortallv disabled or homosexuallv oriented or old
person can be exalted. an individual tainted or damaged bv sin cannot achieve exaltation

without reversing her sin1ul condition. Guess how o1ten God ll (not merelv CAn) reverse
spiritual death o1 sinners who repent? 100º o1 the time. 100º This is a much better ratio than
.0001. Even though God CAn merelv speak the word and vour childs Downs Svndrome will
disappear. that vou go ahead and make preparations to raise him as he is does not evidence vour
lack o1 1aith. The primarv purpose o1 the Atonement is to engender salvation and exaltation via
the spiritual healing/cleansing o1 and grace extended to those damaged bv sin. Hence. mv claim
that the Atonement argument is weak/irrelevant- which in turn re1reshes the legitimacv o1
investigating questions o1 mutabilitv and causation.
Others have written along similar lines:
'%he magniIicent doctrine oI the Atonement helps us to Iind ways to cope, to deal with our
challenges, but is not an assurance that a condition will change. %his goes Iar beyond being a
theoretical doctrinal issue. We need to be aware oI how Irequently, when Iinally realizing that
heroic eIIorts will not change their homosexuality, many oI our brothers and sisters, Iinding
themselves excluded and marginalized and without acceptable options, despair oI liIe and Iaith
and spirituality and hope believing tragically that the Atonement may not apply to them. I
don`t want that to happen. Given the experience oI a great number oI gay and lesbian members
oI the Church that sexual orientation is not alterable even aIter the most devoted appeals to God
and adherence to a strict program oI righteous living, it may be reasonable to conclude that
homosexuality should not be viewed as a sickness, disease, or disorder that might otherwise be
amenable to divine healing.
'Healing blessings come in many ways, each suited to our individual needs, as known to Him
who loves us best. Sometimes a "healing" cures our illness or liIts our burden. But sometimes we
are "healed" by being given strength or understanding or patience to bear the burdens placed
upon us. %he healing power oI the Lord Jesus Christwhether it removes our burdens or
strengthens us to endure and live with them like the Apostle Paulis available Ior every
aIIliction in mortality. Brothers and sisters, iI your Iaith and prayers and the power oI the
priesthood do not heal you Irom an aIIliction, the power oI the Atonement will surely give you
the strength to bear the burden.
'%he atonement oI Christ was undertaken to pay the price Ior our sins and to liIt our burdens, not
to change our physiology. %here are any number oI human conditions that are not aIIected by the
atonement. While it may be true that the atonement may lighten emotional burdens and
ameliorate 'struggles,¨ including struggles with homosexual attraction, it does not, as Byrd, Cox
and Robinson seem to suggest and as Dean Byrd has argued in other publications, 'diminish
homosexual attraction¨ or change one`s sexual orientation. %o argue such is also to argue that the
atonement can change color blindness, leIt-handedness, schizophrenia, Down`s syndrome, or
other conditions that Iall outside what might be considered the norm. When they argue that 'the
Gospel oI Jesus Christ is a gospel oI change, and we (including those who struggle with
homosexual attraction) cannot sink lower than the arms oI the atonement can reach,¨ the authors
are really arguing Ior something that goes signiIicantly beyond what the scriptures describe as
the scope and power, let alone the purpose, oI the atonement.

'`Changing bodies or protecting temples are miracles, but an even greater miracle is a mighty
change oI heart by a son or daughter oI God (see Mosiah 5:2). A change oI heart, including new
attitudes, priorities, and desires, is greater and more important than any miracle involving the
body. I repeat, the body will be resurrected in any event, but a change aIIecting what the
scripture calls the 'heart¨ oI a spirit son or daughter oI God is a change whose eIIect is eternal. II
oI the right kind, this change opens the door to the process oI repentance that cleanses us to
dwell in the presence oI God. It introduces the perspective and priorities that lead us to make the
choices that qualiIy us Ior eternal liIe, 'the greatest oI all the giIts oI God¨ (D&C 14:7).
When I heard these words I realized I had been praying Ior the wrong miracle. %he miracles that
Jesus perIormed were merely types oI the greater miracles he desired to perIorm in the hearts oI
the children oI God- and more importantly, in my heart- giving the spiritually blind eyes to see,
the spiritually deaI ears to hear, the spiritually crippled legs to walk upon in Iaith, and the
spiritually dead rebirth and spiritual liIe in Christ. Although at the time I had never acted on my
Ieelings oI same-gender attraction and tried diligently to Iollow the teachings oI the Church, I
was still blind to some aspects oI the gospel.. II we think we have to be Iully rid oI every
attraction or inclination to do wrong in order to move on to the next liIe, we are setting a
standard that we simply cannot reach.
¨ %y MansIield

One homosexually oriented member, Jonathan Adamson, responded to these atonement
perspectives thus:
'%he best part is that it Ielt like truth! It resounded with my own experiences and struggles and
my own iourney with Iaith and testimony. I had been trying to use the Atonement in a way that it
wasn't meant Ior. I was begging to be cured. I was doing everything I could to show God that I
was worthy oI such a miracle. When I Iound that there was no miracle in store Ior me, despite
doing all that I knew how to do to please God, I Ielt abandoned, unworthy, and unimportant. But
now that I have accepted who I am and what that will mean Ior me, the atonement HAS healed
me and continues to shape my liIe. I went Irom the spiritually, emotionally dead person trying to
change something core to himselI, spending all my energy and time trying to "Iix" myselI, to a
person who has come to love who he is and has been spiritually awakened with a new and
greater understanding oI God and excitement Ior liIe! And iust like Lehi's initial reaction aIter
having eaten the Iruit oI the tree oI liIe, my immediate reaction was to reach out and share what I
had Iound with others in my situation.

Much earlier than Jonathan, a IaithIul church member wrote
'I Ieel that I have achieved some measure oI resolution about my homosexuality. I could not
have been more motivated to change. I could not have tried harder to change. I say this with no
sense oI boasting or selI-iustiIication but simply because it is true. My sense oI peace has come
about not because I am 'cured¨ oI my homosexuality but because I have Iinally been able to
accept that there is no cure. I accept that my homosexuality was not something I chose or
created because I was evil. All my liIe I had been treating the symptoms oI homosexuality and

consequently struggling with depression, guilt, and anxiety. Facing the real cause oI these
Ieelings directly and understanding myselI Iinally brought more clarity and peace to my liIe.

%he statements above have hinted at the experience that many homosexually oriented Latter-day
Saints have in trying to reverse their orientation. We should remember that their experience is
not universal, since at least some LDS people report Iull, permanent reversal Irom a HO to a
heterosexual orientation. In light oI what we have discussed so Iar, how is a HO Latter-day Saint
to decide whether or not to attempt to reverse his or her orientation?
What matters to a reasonable decision maker contemplating a reversal oI homosexual orientation
is 1) the magnitude oI beneIit, 2) the likelihood oI beneIit, 3) the magnitude oI harm, and 4) the
likelihood oI harm oI the reversal attempt. %hus, the beneIit/harm likelihoods, the amount oI
harm, and the amount oI beneIit matter. Certainly heterosexual marriage becomes more
accessible with a change to heterosexual orientation- so the magnitude oI beneIit is outstanding.
('Persons who have this kind oI challenge that they cannot control could not enter marriage in
good Iaith.¨) %he harm oI selI-loathing, depression, loss oI Iaith, suicidal ideation, reduced selI-
esteem, Iailure, leaving the church, etc. is certainly high- thus most likely approaching the
magnitude oI the potential beneIit. Emotional improvement, liIestyle changes, or I-Ieel-better-
about-myselI therapy outcomes are valuable but won`t score them the payload oI access to
satisIying heterosexual marriage. Also, Ior those who consider HO to be a perversion, only HO
reversal will provide the payoII sought. %hus, presuming one and three mostly cancel each other
out, the most critical Iactors become two and three, which are essentially the same Iactor: the
actual success rates oI orientation reversal.
%o ascertain this success rate the reasonable decision maker looks to the outcomes oI those
around her that are similarly situated. Over the past 30 years, she will look to her homosexually
oriented predecessors and peers that were/are similar iI not equal to her- similar in age, similar in
standing beIore God (i.e. His child), similar in willpower, similar in therapeutic approach, similar
in access to the Atonement, similar in how they became HO, and similar in their sincere desire to
change their orientation. What does this reasonable HO decision maker observe when viewing

these similar others, which observations will help her decide whether a change attempt is worth
it? AIter his term Iinished, one bishop reported:
'My experience with the IiIty or so homosexuals with whom I have had a close relationship over
the past twenty years can be summarized as Iollows: I have not met a single homosexual Latter-
day Saint who chose or was able to change or alter his or her sexual orientation. I also have not
met a single homosexual Latter-day Saint who had not tried valiantly, generally over a long
period oI time, to change his or her orientation. Some oI the most painIul experiences I had as a
bishop related to homosexual members recounting their desperate, even heroic eIIorts to change
their sexual orientation. For many, these eIIorts took place over a number oI years and involved
incredible sacriIice and selI-denial. Because they had been led by priesthood leaders to believe
that they could change iI they were iust righteous or selI-sacriIicing enough, when change didn't
come, they tended to blame themselves. Such selI-blame oIten led to alienation Irom God and his
church and at times to selI-destructive behavior, including suicide.
%he bishop`s account matches my personal experiences oI talking with HO members oI the
church, who again and again report something like this:
'For twenty years I listened to the message oI selI-loathing preached Irom LDS authorities. For
twenty years I believed in their Ialse hope that I could pray and Iast and serve away my sexual
orientation and God would then reward me with 'righteous¨ heterosexual desires.
When the change never came, the blame became even more internalized, and I lost hope. But
aIter a thankIully Iailed attempt to end the misery oI this liIe, I Iinally Iound the true peace oI my
divine identity. I Iinally realized that all oI those years I didn`t change because I didn`t need to.
I was the way God intended me to be.

Going to BYU as a Iactor in changing homosexual orientation
"Mike said, Most gays I know went to BYU initially with an undying desire to change.;¨
'`Everyone counseled me to come to BYU,` said Byron. "My stake president knew I was gay,
and he told me 'Go to BYUeverything will be OK.' It turned out not to be OK."

Getting married as a Iactor in changing homosexual orientation
'Many people are convinced that the homosexual is simply aIraid oI having sex with a girl and
that he only needs to try it and discover how much he likes it to get over his Iears. Some Church
authorities have encouraged the young man along this line, urging him to iust go ahead and get
married and that he will get to like having sex with his wiIe... I have talked with the women who

have been on the receiving end oI this emotional duplicity. For many, their lives have been
irreparably damaged.. I wish you could visit Ior a Iew hours with iust such a young woman
whose husband married her at President Kimball's urging. She is now struggling to piece
together her shattered liIe and raise their young daughter on her own while her ex-husband is
drawing other women into the vortex. in an eIIort to convince himselI he is a man. Even in
these recent attempts, he has had the encouragement and blessings oI his Church leaders.¨
"`I never should have married, but I thought at the time I could pull it oII. Now I have two
beautiIul children whom I love very much, but I never should have had them. In spite oI the ioy
they bring me, iI I had it to do again, I would never marry. It is very diIIicult Ior me to hold my
marriage together, but I Ieel I must now Ior the sake oI my children.`"
I would also note here that some heterosexually married homosexuals, including a good Iriend oI
mine, report happiness in heterosexual marriage.
Another Iriend oI mine wrote:
'It has been hurtIul at times when some people have assumed that someone's orientation was a
matter oI choice, or the result oI bad parenting or bad inIluences, etc. As the son oI wonderIul
parents, and having grown up in a Iairly sheltered LDS environment (and I've always been active
in the Church and still am), none oI those explanations have made any sense in my liIe.
I knew essentially nothing about "gay" and didn't Ieel that anything was unusual when I
excitedly recorded in my iournal at age 12 about how much I admired a certain boy I had
recently met, how spiritual I thought he was, how excited I was to make eye contact with him,
how I thought we must have known each other in the pre-existence! I Ielt that way about a
number oI guys as a teenager and in my years at BYU, Ieelings oI caring so much about them,
wanting to be close to them emotionally and physically. So many times it broke my heart when it
would become clear that they didn't Ieel the same way and I couldn't understand why. Unlike
what some might assume, it wasn't sexual attraction; I'm actually asexual and don't experience
sexual attractions to people oI either gender.
It took a long time Ior me to understand these things in my own liIe; I knew that I didn't
experience attractions to girls (on any level: romantically, physically, or sexually), but I was
always thinking I was iust a "late bloomer" and that the right hormones would kick in someday.
When I was at BYU, I even went and got my hormones checked because I wondered iI
something was wrong. l kept praying that things would change. For several years at BYU, I went
on lots oI dates with girls, hoping that would spark something; there was never the slightest
spark, but I didn't give up. For years I wasn't ready to directly conIront the issue. Even though
every week I could look around the room in sacrament meeting and see all the cute guys,
knowing I didn't ever see cute girls, I still iust reasoned to myselI that it was iust brotherly love
and that I was still a late bloomer (age 26!), and that things would change when I met "the right
girl". It wasn't until last December that I was ready to understand, and Heavenly Father
metaphorically whacked me over the head and then gently let me know that what I was wanting
and struggling to make true wasn't what He wanted.

Since then, I've become very happy about how God has created me; I think there may be reasons
Ior it I don't completely understand, but I want to do my best in liIe. I don't Ieel it is an evil thing
to Ieel love Ior another person, to care deeply about him. It is so hurtIul when some people have
conIlated love and lust and insinuated that gay people only Ieel lust. I've opened my heart here
because I hope it may help someone understand what it's like to be a gay member oI the Church;
I hope it will help someone love their brother, their sister, their son or daughter, a little bit more,
and not iudge them too harshly. I have two gay LDS Iriends who I know have tried to kill
themselves, and others who I worry about, because they have Ielt so hurt and so conIlicted after
having failed to change their orientation. I know several who ioined the Church and were
baptized as young adults, hoping and expecting that this would change them and make them
straight. I know many others who served missions Ior the Church, hoping the same thing, who
were so disappointed when they Iound that it doesn't work like this. I have other Iriends whose
orientation Ialls somewhere in the middle (having some attractions to both genders), some oI
whom have married heterosexually, with varying degrees oI success in their marriage.
From Cloy Jenkins:
'Brother Packer calls the assertion that homosexuality cannot be cured "a malicious and
destructive lie." Is it a lie that I have IaithIully and meticulously Iollowed every particular point
oI advice which Brother Packer says will make me heterosexual and yet I remain homosexual?
My experience with his advice is the rule, not the exception. Why is it that we never hear one oI
Brother Packer's "cured" homosexuals make this statement Ior him? Why is it that the only ones
we ever hear make such a categorical claim are people who have never been homosexual? Where
are all these men the Brethren have cured? What a tremendous opportunity the Church has to
show the entire world that it has discovered the method by which homosexuality can be cured.
%his method is so accessible that all that is necessary is Ior the homosexual to really want to
change and sincerely Iollow a Iew simple steps. Why is it that the Brethren cannot grasp the Iact
that many oI us have already done all they say and much more? Do they not realize that most
young men will have already gone to extreme lengths to understand and change their situation
beIore they would go through the terriIying and perhaps humiliating experience oI actually
telling their bishop that they are homosexual? It is a desperate, last resort eIIort. %hey come away
bewildered and disillusioned. %hey begin immediately to Iigure out how to convince the bishop
that they have changed. %hat's what the bishop wants to believe aIter all, and he would be the last
one to challenge the young man on this point. He is only too relieved to be rid oI the problem.
Over and over again in the literature appears the documented Iailure. Nowhere, not even once,
have I Iound a substantially documented and extensively Iollowed-up case history oI the cured
Over and over and over again in my personal discussions with homosexually oriented members
oI the church, I observe the same trend- including as recently as this week. %hey go to extremes
trying to please God (usually through extreme dedication as a missionary, attending BYU,
repenting intensely, reading scriptures excessively, extreme Irequency in serving in the temple,
etc.), trusting that iI they Iollow the prophets` counsel, God will reverse their orientation. Over

and over and over again, despite their nigh-superhuman Iaith and eIIorts, God does not reverse
their orientation. %hey blame and punish themselves, try harder, and/or attempt suicide. Utah
leads the nation in young male suicides
. %hey Ieel reiected, unloved, and unclean. Robert
(speaking oI the parents oI Stuart Matis):
'%he story they tell about their son is also a Iamiliar account oI the arc that is, unIortunately,
characteristic oI too many Latter-day Saint homosexuals: denial, repression, acknowledgment,
sustained and desperate attempts to change one`s orientation, vacillation between the impulse to
express homosexual Ieelings and the desire to conIorm to Church standards, Ieeling unaccepted
by the Church or loved oI God, and Iinally abandoning all hope oI Iinding a peaceIul resolution
in morality.¨
Another Latter-day Saint Iamiliar with LDS orientation reversal attempts:
G. Allen Gundry worked Ior decades Ior LDS Family Services with the assignment oI
counseling gay and lesbian members. HalI oI the 400 males he had extended proIessional
interaction with were single. He describes the single gays: 'For all, the beginning awareness oI
same-gender attraction was unwanted, and they did everything they knew how to stop or
change it.¨ He Iurther summarized that although other positive outcomes are possible, 'only
10° oI the single men with whom I worked experienced enough reduction oI their same-gender
attraction to marry.¨ He classiIied this 10° as bisexual

Another Latter-day Saint has written:

'Honesty compels us to consider the direct experience oI a very large number oI LDS gay
people, who in spite oI exhaustive, lengthy, and totally sincere eIIorts, have not been able to
change the Iact oI who they are sexually. A testimony oI the truthIulness oI the restoration oI the
gospel, IaithIul church activity, Iasting, prayer, missionary service, temple service - all oI these
are important, gratiIying, motivating and allow us to increase in power and goodness, but none,
in any combination, has been able to alter sexual orientation Ior the vast maiority, and possibly
Ior the totality
. Whatever other religious or social or personal standards we choose to use in
attempting to understand homosexuality and respond appropriately to it, we cannot ignore this
Iact Irom the liIe experience oI those most closely aIIected.

%his concludes our consideration oI relevant church doctrines and a purview oI Latter-day
Saints` experiences. Now we turn to see what science has to add.

hat the empirical data and logical arguments have to offer our inquiry

I will discuss logic-based arguments, then some empirical data. I note at the outset that the
current conventional wisdom outside conservative religious traditions is that '%he vast maiority
oI human sexuality researchers, therapists, religious liberals, gays, lesbians, and bisexuals
generally agree that a person's sexual orientation is determined beIore reaching school age. Once
established, sexual Ieelings are always or almost always unchangeable.
Logic-Tas¢d argam¢nts

A useIul, common-sense consideration in answering the question oI mutability is to ask oneselI
(whether straight or HO) how easy it would be to Iully and permanently reverse your own
orientation (again, not your conduct- but your romantic, sexual, and emotional Ieelings towards
members oI a certain sex):
'Is it possible, iI hypothetically required or commanded, that you repent oI your heterosexuality?
II you were to awake tomorrow to a world where heterosexuality was outlawed and you were
required to repent oI it, iust how would you go about it? What would you do about the
tremendous backlog oI heterosexual desires, experiences, loving relationships, even your earliest
childhood memories, attachments, and selI-concept? What would you do iI you were Iurther
required to develop homosexual desires? How easy would this be Ior you and how would you go
about it? Could you even attempt it? Minor considerations and diIIerences aside, this is precisely
how the homosexual experiences the demand to change. Do you think that iI you really buckled
down and wanted to change, three or Iour right good counseling sessions would do it Ior you?
%here are young men whose counselors believed they had changed aIter three or Iour sessions.
You may realize the absurdity oI this, but do you think that thirty shock treatments, while you
looked at naked men, would extinguish your heterosexuality?
One might also ask oneselI, "Can I remember deciding that I was going to be someone who
would Iall in love with a person oI the opposite sex?,¨ or "Can I envision any argument or
program oI persuasion that would cause me to change the obiect oI my romantic Ieelings?¨
Could you permanently change your orientation in the next Iive seconds? How about by
tomorrow aIternoon? Next month? Next year? Next decade? When you`re 90? How many
electric shocks would it take Ior you 500? 5,000? 50,000? By how much would your

orientation be changed? How permanent would that change be? Your answers serve as one data
point indicating how susceptible sexual orientation is to change.

Next logical argument: In chapter two we established that GPRE has a much better track record
as a predictor than MIC. Would it then be reasonable to make some inIerences based on
iuxtaposing MIC and GPRE as we did during the Parking Lots %est? Let`s give it a try.
What iI we were to treat mutability as a parking lot like one oI those in our test oI causation
above, what would MIC and GPRE predict? MIC would likely say: choice and socialization in,
choice and socialization out. II a person was socialized or chose to be HO, she can likely
socialize or choose her way out as well- making HO Iairly plastic. GPRE would say that because
the period oI human development in which sex determination (oI which sexual orientation is a
subset) takes place has almost Iully closed by a Iew months post-partum, it will be very diIIicult
to bring the water back under the bridge:
'I am aware that these days some young people Iind gay being sort oI 'hip¨ and try on the
identity. But sleeping in the garage does not make you a car. Nor does sleeping with a
heterosexual spouse make a gay person straight. %he large number oI gay people I know who
have slept Ior years with their straight spouses without it making the slightest impact on their
sexual orientation leads me to believe it would be an impossible assignment to take a truly
heterosexual person and turn him or her into a gay person.
II orientation is to be reversed, the operation will likely be quite invasive and look something
like surgery/hormone therapy/gene therapy.
Let`s illustrate GPRE`s conclusion with an analogy to severe autism. Some HO people will
likely disapprove oI this analogy, being Iatigued with how Irequently HO is compared to and
characterized as equivalent to negative conditions such as addictions, diseases, adultery, and
mental disorders. I hope the disapprovers will Iorgive me. I choose this example Ior three
reasons that I think make it Iit Ior comparison: 1) the heritability oI severe autism is about the
same as our 90° biological Iactor GPRE threshold
; 2) unlike handedness or heterosexual
orientation, severe autism can restrict an individual`s marriage prospects (we generally Irown on
marrying those with the mental capacity and Iunction oI third graders), and 3) much like HO,

there is a signiIicant autism camp which insists that autism should be considered as a diIIerence
rather than a disorder to be cured. I acknowledge the signiIicant diIIerence that, Ior at least the
overwhelming maiority, HO people are quite diIIerent Irom autistic persons in that they are
completely capable oI social interaction, communication, learning, and making inIormed
decisions. Now to the application.
How susceptible to reversal is severe autism? Should we encourage autistic people to seek to
change their autism? %he common sense answer to these questions is that it would be senseless
to encourage a severely autistic person to change because either 1) there`s nothing at all wrong
with being autistic and/or 2) autism is a persistent condition highly resistant to reversal attempts
(the same conclusion might adhere to homosexual orientation). I note here that it is contrary to
common sense to think that therapy, prayer, or righteous living will or even should reverse
conditions such handedness or autism. Let`s return now to the reversibility oI autism.
%hough diIIicult to tell how oIten recovery happens, 'Children recover occasionally, so that they
lose their diagnosis oI ASD.
¨ SigniIicantly however, 'No cure is known.
¨ %he best
reported recoveries so Iar are limited to 'developmental Iunctioning and decreasing maladaptive
behaviors and symptom severity at the level oI group analysis.
¨ %he present mutability oI
autism, then, seems about the same as Ior homosexual orientation: namely, a high tide oI modest
'symptom¨ control.

Empirica data
%here`s a plethora oI literature on the subiect oI orientation reversal. Much oI the available
research on orientation is highly charged, with claims oI high rates oI orientation reversal
resulting Irom certain therapies iuxtaposed against claims that there has never been a single
reliable report oI permanent orientation reversal. Wading through these arguments, data, and
sharply competing claims has proven diIIicult Ior me, and vitiates conIidence in my analysis.
%hough our empirical inquiry will be limited, nonetheless we shall try.
Tbos¢ tbat caim r¢ativ¢y bigb r¢v¢rsa rat¢s


First, let`s take a look at some evidence strongly supporting the conclusion that HO is relatively
malleable. P. Scott Richards was the Coordinator oI the counseling Psychology program at BYU
and editor oI the AMCAP (Association oI Mormon Counselors and Psychotherapists) iournal.
He suggested in Understanding Homosexualitv. !erspectives o1 LDS !svchologists and
!svchotherapists by AMCAP that 'therapy outcome research. provide|s| considerable support
Ior the notion that many people can control, reduce, and even overcome their homosexual
thoughts, attractions, and behaviors.
I will now quote Irom 'Ex-Gays?: An Extended Longitudinal Study oI Attempted Religiously
Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation.
¨ I chose this study because the sample population is
religious and thus germane to our partly religious inquiry. I also selected this study because it is
recent and purports to be 'the most rigorous longitudinal methodology ever applied to this
question oI sexual orientation change and possible resulting harm.¨
'%he present study was designed to address those weaknesses oI previous studies by studying
attempted change longitudinally and prospectively via standardized selI-report measures . In
some important ways, our study resembles the respected decade-long study by Lisa Diamond
(2007; 2008) oI a group oI 89 non-heterosexual women. Where our study diIIers Irom hers most
distinctly was that her sample was not seeking deliberate change in their experience oI sexual
attraction (though some did report signiIicant change), while our sample all sought such change.¨
'We studied a group oI men and women seeking sexual orientation change through a religious
ministry organization called Exodus. Exodus International (2007) is a worldwide,
interdenominational, Christian organization dedicated to equipping and uniting agencies and
individuals to eIIectively communicate the message oI Ireedom Irom homosexuality.` It is the
largest umbrella organization Ior Christian ministries to people experiencing unwanted sexual
attraction or sexual identity concerns. Exodus seeks to articulate a Christian perspective that
neither reiects homosexual persons nor embraces 'gay¨ identity as an acceptable norm. Exodus
aIIiliated ministries seek to help individuals troubled by their sexual orientation to achieve
Ireedom Irom homosexuality through the power oI Jesus Christ` (Exodus, 2007). %he motives
behind the various ministries are grounded in the traditional Christian moral teaching
disapproving oI homosexual conduct.¨
'We conducted a prospective, longitudinal study oI individuals seeking sexual orientation
change using respected selI-report measures oI sexual orientation and oI psychological distress.
%his is the most rigorous longitudinal methodology ever applied to this question oI sexual
orientation change and possible resulting harm.¨

'the study, it does not allow, however, Ior rigorous examination oI more sophisticated
hypotheses such as predictors or probabilities oI change, or diIIerential eIIectiveness oI change
'total elapsed time between %1 and %6 |time one and time six| varied Irom 6 to 7 years.¨
'First, we used the seven point selI-report Kinsey scale (1948), originally scaled Irom 0,
exclusively heterosexual, through 3, equally heterosexual and homosexual, to 6, exclusively
homosexual (we shiIted the scaling to a seven point scale Irom 1, exclusively heterosexual, to 7,
exclusively homosexual). We report two variations oI the Kinsey: 1) the Kinsey 1-item was the
original version asking subiects to describe the population oI individuals with which one had had
sexual relations (behavior), and 2) a Kinsey Expanded scale that is the average oI Iour Kinsey
ratings oI behavior, sexual attraction, emotional/romantic attraction, and Iantasy. Second, we
used the Shively and DeCecco (1977) scale, which is based on conceiving heterosexual and
homosexual attraction to be separate and orthogonal (rather than on a single continuum as Ior the
Kinsey scale). %hus, the Shively and DeCecco scale is composed oI Iour questions that ask Ior a
Iive-point rating oI physical sexual attraction to men and separately to women, and oI emotional
attraction to men and separately to women. %he result is separate ratings (Irom 1, none, to 5,
exclusively) Ior homosexual and heterosexual orientation.¨
'We began with 98 subiects at %1. Our sample eroded to 73 at %3, a retention rate oI 74.5°. %his
retention rate compares Iavorably to that oI respected longitudinal studies. 63 subiects were
interviewed or categorized at %6, Ior a %1 to %6 6 to 7 year retention oI 64°.¨
'For the whole population, the %1 to %6 change away Irom homosexual attraction attained
signiIicance and moderate eIIect size, while the change toward heterosexual attraction did not
attain signiIicance. Neither oI the %1 to %6 changes attained signiIicance Ior the Phase 1
subpopulation. For the %ruly Gay subpopulation, the %1 to %6 change away Irom homosexual
attraction attained signiIicance and a large to moderate eIIect size, while the change toward
heterosexual attraction attained signiIicance and a moderate eIIect size. Note that changes away
Irom or the diminishing oI homosexual orientation appear oI larger absolute magnitude than
changes toward heterosexual orientation. It would appear, then, that while change away Irom
homosexual orientation is related to change toward heterosexual orientation, the two are not
identical processes. %he general picture that emerges Irom these data is that on a number oI
standardized measures oI sexual orientation, this population experienced statistically signiIicant
change away Irom homosexual orientation.¨
'Following prevailing proIessional wisdom, our hypothesis was that involvement in the
orientation change process should result in worsening psychological distress outcomes on
average on the SCL-90-R. Our analysis yielded no support Ior this hypothesis. %he global
severity index or GSI did not show any indication on average oI increasing psychological
distress. %he results in %able 3 do maniIest signiIicant changes Ior the whole and %ruly Gay
subpopulations, both in the moderate eIIect size range, and both indicating improved
psychological status.¨

'II the attempt at the change process was going to be harmIul, this harm should show up among
those continuing to pursue change over a period oI six years or more years. Contrary to these
expectations, we Iound no evidence oI movement toward increased distress on average as a
result oI Exodus involvement.¨
14 oI 61 (23°) %6 participants reported 'change to be successIul by experiencing substantial
reductions in homosexual attraction and substantial conversion to heterosexual attraction and
Iunctioning.¨ %he remaining 77° reported either 1) homosexual attraction to be present only
incidentally or in a way that does not seem to bring about distress, allowing them to live
contentedly without overt sexual activity; 2) may have experienced modest decreases in
homosexual attraction, but were not satisIied with their degree oI change and remained
committed to the change process; 3) no signiIicant sexual orientation change; 4) had experienced
no signiIicant sexual orientation change, and had given up on the change process but without yet
embracing gay identity; or 5) had given up on the change process and embraced gay identity.
'Irom 57 initial Phase 1 subiects, only 5 attained Success: Conversion status (9°)¨
%he current data suggest such change can be sustained through %6 Ior those who report
successIul change. %hese Iindings go against the common argument that change oI orientation is
gradual and occurs over an extended period oI time. Some may see these results as reIlecting not
a change in sexual orientation Ior most participants who reported such change, but rather a
change in sexual identity. Such a change might result Irom how one thinks oI oneselI and labels
one`s sexual preIerences (that is, attributions and meaning-making).¨
'We Iound no evidence that the attempt to change sexual orientation was harmIul on average Ior
these individuals... Despite these Iindings, we cannot conclude that particular individuals in this
study were not harmed by their attempt to change. SpeciIic individuals may claim to have
experienced harm Irom the attempt to change, and those claims may be legitimate, but while it
may be that the change attempt caused harm by its very nature as an attempt to change
orientation, it may also be that the harm was caused by particular intervention methods that were
inept, harsh, punitive or otherwise ill-conceived, and not Irom the attempt to change itselI. Our
Iindings mitigate against any absolute claim that attempted change is very likely to be harmIul in
and oI itselI. %he logic oI scientiIic inquiry drives us, based on our results, to reiect both
hypotheses and to conclude that sexual orientation may be changeable Ior some, and that the
attempt to change sexual orientation is not harmIul on average.¨
'%he pattern oI outcomes documented here is suggestive oI the possibility oI change but not
adequate to make Iirm predictions oI likelihood oI change. While this study reports on arguably
the best, most representative sample oI subiects ever studied seeking change via religious means,
we cannot aIIirm that it is scientiIically representative. We do not know what such a
representative sample would look like, as this is a rarely studied or even acknowledged
'In addition to clariIying what we Iound, it is equally important to clariIy what we did not Iind.
First, we did not Iind that everyone can change. Saying that change is not impossible in general
is not the same thing as saying that everyone can change, that anyone can change, or that change

is possible Ior any given individual. Second, while we Iound that part oI our research population
experienced success to the degree that it might be called (as we have here) 'conversion,¨ our
evidence does not indicate that these changes are categorical, resulting in uncomplicated,
dichotomous and unequivocal reversal oI sexual orientation Irom utterly homosexual to utterly
heterosexual. Most oI the individuals who reported that they were heterosexual at %6 did not
report themselves to be without experience oI homosexual arousal, and they did not report their
heterosexual orientation to be unequivocal and uncomplicated.¨
In conclusion, the Iindings oI this study would appear to contradict the commonly expressed
view oI the mental health establishment that sexual orientation is not changeable and that the
attempt to change is highly likely to produce harm Ior those who make such an attempt.¨

Now that we have examined a signiIicant study suggesting relatively high orientation reversal,
let`s hear Irom the other side.

Tbos¢ tbat caim v¢ry ow r¢v¢rsa rat¢s
I will quote Irom Iour sources which extirpate conIidence in some oI the claims made about
orientation reversal.
Source Ź: Blll BruJxhuw
'%here are counseling programs oIIering sexual reorientation therapy ('conversion¨ or
'reparative¨ therapy) that hold out the promise oI changing homosexual orientation. %here are at
least two important issues that should be taken into consideration when evaluating these eIIorts.
%he Iirst is that while claiming success at eIIecting change, these programs oIten Iail to
quantitatively report their results or to substantiate that the alleged change is long-term. %he
second consideration is that a certain number oI gay people are bisexual, capable, in varying
degrees, oI romantic Ieelings Ior persons oI either gender. %here is a very strong possibility that
those who report success in changing their homosexuality are bisexuals who have achieved an
accommodation to Iocus on one only (the heterosexual interest) oI the two attractions they are
capable oI.¨
'Shidlo and Schroeder reported on the results oI 202 individuals with whom they conducted
anonymous 90-minute telephone interviews in the period between 1995 and 2000. %hese people
contacted the researchers in response to mailings to gay and ex-gay organizations and to a
national association oI conversion therapists. All met the criteria oI : 1) having selI-rated
themselves 5-7 (more homosexual than heterosexual to exclusively homosexual) on a modiIied
7-point Kinsey scale, and 2) having engaged in at least 6 sessions oI any Iorm oI conversion
intervention. %he participants reported receiving psychotherapy Irom both licensed mental health

proIessionals (psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, marriage and Iamily counselors) and
non-licensed practitioners (peer and religious counselors). %he mean age oI the participants was
40 years. Ninety percent were men, and 86° were Caucasian. Sixty-six percent considered
themselves religious; 11 (5.4°) were LDS. %wenty-six (13°) oI the participants perceived their
therapeutic experience as successIul. %hese could be Iurther subdivided into three groups:
successIul and struggling (repeated slips into homosexual behavior) - 12 persons (6°);
successIul, not struggling (able to manage same-sex desire) 22- 6 persons (3°), 3 oI whom were
celibate; successIul heterosexual shiIt - 8 persons (4°). Seven oI the 8 provided ex-gay
counseling, 4 oI whom had paid positions. OI the 176 (87°) who were disillusioned by their
conversion therapy experience, and viewed it as a Iailure, 21 (10.4°) identiIied themselves as
resilient, having recovered a gay identity without negative psychological aIter-eIIects. %he
remaining 155 individuals (77°) identiIied as having recovered a gay identity, but had
experienced signiIicant long-term damage Irom the therapy. %he authors recommend among
other things that potential clients Ior conversion therapy be inIormed oI the possibility oI harmIul
side-eIIects and 'not be told that high motivation and hard work in the treatment assures a
change in sexual orientation.¨
'%he respondents in the Spitzer study. Sixty-eight percent oI the woman and 78° oI the men
engaged in masturbation, and oI these 18° oI women and 45° oI men reported same sex
Iantasies on 20° or more oI those occasions. Overall, only 11° oI the males and 37° oI the
Iemales selI-reported a complete or near complete change in all measures oI sexual orientation
that were employed.¨
'|Spitzer| also conceded that Iinding persons who could report these kinds oI results was
diIIicult, and that this suggests that the marked change in sexual orientation reported by almost
all oI the study subiects may be a rare or uncommon outcome oI reparative therapy.`¨
'%wenty-six commentaries written by 42 mental health proIessionals that occupy 44 pages oI
text and 6 pages oI reIerences to published iournal articles appear with the Spitzer article. %hey
constitute a very important contribution to the discussion about the validity oI reorientation
therapy, representing a wide range Irom sympathy to condemnation. A small number oI these
commentaries concur with Spitzer`s interpretations or at least Iind his study to be proIessionally
legitimate. Most, however, are highly critical. %here is extensive disapproval oI the methodology
employed and the conclusions drawn Irom the data. Many ethical concerns are also raised.
%wo oI the studies cited above |106,110| (and many others) have also documented deleterious
and destructive outcomes Irom participation in reorientation therapy programs. Among the harms
and negative consequences that have been reported are depression, loss oI selI-esteem and
increased selI-loathing, increased loneliness (alienation and social isolation), an increased
impulse to suicide, and a loss oI religious Iaith.

Source ź: Iee BeckxteuJ
Lee Beckstead is a returned LDS missionary who also has a Ph.D. in counseling psychology from the University of
Utah and is currently working as a psychologist in private practice in Salt Lake City, Utah.

'FiIty individuals with same-sex attraction were included in this study (5 women, 45 men). All
underwent counseling to change their sexual orientation. %he individuals Iell into two groups:
those who believed in reparative therapy and those who did not. %hose who supported the ideas
and purpose oI reparative therapy believed that:
O Heterosexual marriage is the ideal
O Homosexual desires are emotional attractions Ior the same-sex which become sexualized
during developmental years.
O Erotic attractions to the same sex can be unlearned.
O Using the identity label "same-sex attracted (SSA)" is healthier, more IulIilling, and
productive than using the identity labels lesbian, gay, or bisexual (LGB).
In other words, those who believe in this therapy chose to label themselves as having SSA rather
than to accept the identity oI being homosexual or bisexual. %hey then attempt to "unlearn" their
attractions Ior the same sex and Iollow the ideal oI heterosexual marriage. Positive outcomes
reported by participants in these therapy programs included:
O %hey Iound ways to reconcile their previously distressIul identity.
O %hey were able to control their homosexual behaviors better.
O %hey Ielt their attractions to the same-sex became less intense.
What was not reported as a result Irom the therapy programs was a substantial or generalized
heterosexual arousal, or being able to eliminate their erotic or romantic attractions to their same
sex. Since no increased attractions to the opposite sex ensued, those who reported that their
attraction to the same sex diminished due to reparative therapy reported Ieeling more asexual -
(i.e., an absence oI attractions Ior either sex) rather than a move toward heterosexuality.
DistressIul identity problems had developed in participants Irom Ieelings oI not Iitting in while
growing up in homo-negative or heterosexist environments. Resolving the identity problem made
many involved in the therapy Ieel that the therapy was successIul in spite oI not having any
increase in attractions Ior the opposite sex. Instead oI identiIying as gay, they learned to accept
the Iact that they had attractions to the same sex. %hey learned that these attractions were not
something they chose and having these attractions does not make them a bad person, only what
they choose to do with those emotions has a moral implication. %he new label, Same Sex
Attracted (SSA) provides a way oI accepting one`s homosexual attractions without an acceptance
oI the distressIul identity oI being gay.
Although elements oI reparative therapy can be beneIicial, its underpinnings and current practice
also have potential Ior harm. Some elements have the potential Ior both beneIits and harm. For
example, change therapies encourage a closer aIIectionate relationship with a Iather Iigure which
can be good, but can also place blame on parents Ior the person's condition and can hurt
relationships and the healing process.
EIIective and beneIicial results Irom therapy programs that participants experienced include:
O %hey are not the only ones with such Ieelings.

O %hey Iound love and support through the program.
O %hey were able to get a broader perspective oI their situation and Iind a variety oI options.
O %hey can Iind ways to Ieel and have more control oI their lives.
IneIIective and harmIul results Irom therapy programs that participants experienced include:
O Misrepresentation oI treatment outcomes.
O Internalization oI treatment Iailure.
O Presentation oI misinIormed biases. (For example, the idea that Gay, Lesbian, or Bisexual
selI-identiIying persons are all Iundamentally unhappy.)

%he Ialse hopes can lead to hopelessness and maior depression. For some, this sense oI
hopelessness and inability to reconcile sexual, social, and religious conIlicts led to suicide

'You can help persons with same-sex attractions by emphasizing that there are a number oI
others who have these Ieelings, even among active members oI the church. Some with attractions
to the same sex have Iound they can reduce the behaviors motivated by their attractions but in
general persons are unable to eliminate the tendency to be attracted to the same sex and are
unable to increase opposite-sex attractions. %here are more than two choices. %hey can accept
their Ieelings as being normal and not evil and with support they may be able to make behavioral
choices regarding their same-sex attractions (e.g. celibacy, etc.). %his is a way oI being aIIirming
oI the individual while living within church standards. On the other hand, they may Iind ways to
be spiritual and maintain much oI their religious belieI system and ethical code oI conduct even
iI they decide to become more aIIirming oI a lesbian, gay or bisexual identity.
Marriage may be an option, especially iI they experience bisexual attractions. However, open
and inIormed dialogue between the individual and Iiancee needs to occur regarding options,
limitations, needs, commitment, honesty, and authenticity. Unless an inIormed awareness and
discussion had occurred, the marriages oI individuals in my studies were troubled and spouses
also tended to internalize the Iailure oI reparative treatments and blame themselves Ior their
spouses' inability to be heterosexually aroused.¨

Source Ż: Ðouqlux C. HulJemun, Ph.Ð.
The !seudo-science o1 Sexual Orientation Conversion Therapv

'%o show why conversion therapy should not inIluence the development oI public policy, this
analysis will address several issues:
· Conversion therapy is based on Iaulty assumptions.
· Homophobia leads some individuals to seek sexual orientation change.
· %he mental health proIessions generally oppose conversion therapy.
· No reliable evidence supports the eIIectiveness oI conversion treatments.
· Conversion therapy can be harmIul.
· Conversion therapy adversely aIIects the public`s views oI lesbian, gay and
bisexual people.¨

'Psychology and psychiatry have no precedents Ior treating conditions that are not considered to
be illnesses. Since 1973 homosexuality has been considered a normal variation oI human
sexuality. Proponents oI conversion therapy disregard this view because oI their mistaken belieI
that homosexuality was declassiIied as a mental illness only aIter lobbying Irom gay activists.
%he truth, however, rests in the science, or lack thereoI, oI the 'mental illness¨ assumption oI
Homosexuality itselI became a mental health diagnosis only as a reIlection oI prevailing social
preiudice. %his assumption was Iirst questioned by Evelyn Hooker, who compared matched
groups oI homosexually and heterosexually-identiIied men. She Iound that scores Irom
psychological tests oI the two groups were indistinguishable Irom one another. Since then, a
substantial scientiIic literature has Iound no signiIicant diIIerences between homosexual and
heterosexual subiects on measures oI overall psychological Iunctioning and mental and
emotional well-being. %he most comprehensive review oI such studies was conducted by
'Conversion therapists have diIIerent views on what constitutes eIIective treatment. Religious
groups oIten encourage celibacy Ior their 'ex-gay¨ Iollowers, so lack oI sexual contact is
construed as successIul treatment. Most studies published in the mental health literature use
heterosexual behavior as a treatment goal. Much oI the eIIectiveness oI conversion therapies is
asserted in clients` testimonials or in articles in publications that do not meet accepted research
standards. A careIul analysis oI other evidence oI conversion therapy eIIectiveness Iails to iustiIy
these recent claims. %he studies that have appeared in legitimate iournals are generally quite old
and share common methodological problems. Studies oI conversion therapy are not based upon a
random sample oI homosexuals who are randomly assigned to diIIerent treatments and are then
compared, but on a group oI homosexuals who have sought treatment because they are unhappy
with their sexual orientation. Furthermore, the studies all rely on clients` selI-reported outcomes
or on therapists` post-treatment evaluations. As a result, all conversion therapy studies are biased
in Iavor oI 'cures¨ because clients oI conversion therapy are likely to believe that homosexuality
is an undesirable trait to admit and may Ieel pressure to tell their therapist that the treatment has
been successIul. Similarly, conversion therapists have an interest in Iinding that their treatments
are successIul.
%he potential Ior what is known as 'social desirability bias¨ in selI-reported outcomes is most
obvious in studies oI group approaches to conversion therapy. In one group approach, Hadden
Iinds that 37° oI 32 research subiects reported that they had shiIted to heterosexuality. But these
results must be viewed with skepticism, since therapy groups implicitly encourage individuals to
report that they meet the group`s standards, even when this is not true.
MisclassiIication is another widespread Ilaw in these studies that will inIlate reported success
rates. Researchers are likely to misclassiIy bisexual people as homosexual, which makes it more
likely that clients will pursue heterosexual behavior even without treatment. A Iinding that
bisexual men can be taught to strengthen their heterosexual behavior is not equivalent to
changing sexual orientation. %he earliest study attempting to show reversal oI homosexual
orientation through long-term psychoanalytic intervention reported a 27° success rate in
'heterosexual shiIt.¨ But only 18° oI those research subiects were exclusively homosexual to
begin with. FiIty percent oI the successIully treated men were more appropriately labeled

'Finally, Iollow-up oI those subiects who meet the subiective criteria Ior 'successIul change¨ in
sexual orientation is either poor or nonexistent in conversion therapy studies. Adequate Iollow-
up is likely to uncover cases oI reversion to homosexual behavior, which would Iurther reduce
the therapy`s success rate. Birk described a combination approach group Iormat Ior treating
homosexuality and claimed that 38° oI his subiects achieved 'solid heterosexual shiIts.¨
Nonetheless, he acknowledged that these shiIts represented 'an adaptation to liIe, not a
metamorphosis,¨ and that homosexual Iantasies and activity are ongoing, even Ior the 'happily
married¨ individual. Similarly, a religiously-oriented conversion therapy program described by
Pattison and Pattison reveals that more than 90° continued to have homosexual Iantasies and
behavior aIter treatment. More comprehensive examinations oI conversion therapy studies have
been published elsewhere. %hose reviews show that no study claiming success Ior conversion
therapy meets the research standards that would support such a claim.¨
'Such individuals oIten experience continued depression over their homosexuality, compounded
with a sense oI shame over having Iailed at conversion therapy. Further, they may have a
psychologically debilitating sense oI having lost those important liIe elementsIamily oI origin,
religious aIIiliation, social support Ior which there was still some hope as long as the
individual was trying to change.¨
'From a practical perspective, even the staunchest advocates oI conversion therapy will admit
that sexual orientation is extremely diIIicult to change. For every satisIied client who comes
Iorward claiming that conversion therapy changed her or his sexual orientation, there are many
more who disavow its eIIicacy. Sexual orientation is a deeply rooted, psychologically complex
aspect oI the human experience. %hough one`s Ieelings about his or her sexual orientation may
be changeable and susceptible to social inIluence, no evidence suggests that sexual orientation
itselI is so malleable.¨
'Conversion therapy is not iust an individual mental health issue but has implications Ior society.
%his discredited and ineIIective psychological treatment harms people and reinIorces the notion
that homosexuality is bad. In this regard, it is not a compassionate eIIort to help homosexuals in
pain, but a means oI exploiting unhappy people and oI reinIorcing social hostility to

Source 4: Amerlcun Pxycholoqlcul Axxoclutlon
'%he most recent position statement by a proIessional organization on the subiect oI therapeutic
eIIorts to change sexual orientation was issued by the American Psychological Association
(membership 150,000) in August 2009. It came aIter a conIerence oI the organization heard the
report oI a task Iorce whose six members had conducted a comprehensive analysis oI 83 peer-
reviewed studies on the subiect published between 1960 and 2007 |118|. %he reviewers
distinguished among the research work based on the methodological designs employed by the
investigators (whether experimental, quasi-experimental, or qualitative - based on retrospective
selI-reporting), and examined variables such as sample size, attrition among study subiects,
measures oI orientation (attraction, identity or behavior), the nature oI treatments (aversive - as
by using electric shock or induced vomiting, psychotherapeutic counseling, etc.), and the validity

and generalizability oI the conclusions drawn Irom the resulting data. %hey determined that the
earlier studies, prior to 1981, were the more scientiIically rigorous, in part because physiological
measures oI arousal, such as penile volume, were employed, and comparisons were made with
control groups oI subiects.
AIter conducting this review, members oI the task Iorce concluded that the assertions that sexual
orientation could be changed were not validated by the evidence, whether the measure was
decreased attraction Ior or sexual activity with same-sex persons, increased attraction Ior or
sexual activity with other-sex persons, increased healthy relationship and marriages with other-
sex partners, or improved quality oI liIe and mental health. Judith M. Glassgold, chair oI the task
Iorce, summarized their investigation as Iollows. 'Contrary to claims oI sexual orientation
change advocates and practitioners, there is insuIIicient evidence to support the use oI
psychological interventions to change sexual orientation. ScientiIically rigorous older studies in
this area Iound that sexual orientation was unlikely to change due to eIIorts designed Ior this
purpose. Contrary to the claims oI Sexual Orientation Change EIIorts (SOCE) practitioners and
advocates, recent research studies do not provide evidence oI sexual orientation change as the
research methods are inadequate to determine the eIIectiveness oI these interventions. At most
certain studies suggested that some individuals learned how to ignore or not act on their
homosexual attraction. Yet, these studies did not indicate Ior whom this was possible, how long
it lasted, or its long-term mental heath eIIects. Also, this result was much less likely to be true Ior
people who started out only attracted to people oI the same sex.¨ By a vote oI 124-4 the 26
governing Council oI Representatives oI the APA accepted the recommendations oI the task
Iorce and adopted a resolution reaIIirming its position that homosexuality is not a mental
disorder, and stating that mental health proIessionals should avoid telling clients that they can
change their sexual orientation through therapy or other treatments.

%his concludes our cursory review oI both sides oI the empirical studies mutability debate.

My tak¢ on bow macb is known, in wbicb dir¢ction tb¢ ¢vid¢nc¢ ¢ans, and Ty bow macb
%he reader is oI course Iree to interpret the research presented here and elsewhere as they see Iit.
AIter my research, I conclude that some HO people permanently change their sexual orientation.
I also Iind, on balance, that the 'very low reversal rate¨ arguments are more persuasive than the
'relatively high reversal rate¨ arguments. %he scholarship here, though mixed, leans
substantially toward the conclusion that HO is highly resistant to attempts at change using
historical and current approaches. My research has revealed no credible report oI large-scale
success in permanent sexual orientation reversal Irom a large sample oI non-selI-selected HO

people- but in LeVar Burton`s Iamous words, 'you don`t have to take my word Ior it.¨ Go dig
up the research yourselI and see what you Iind.

Cosing discassion
%here are individuals who report that their attempts to change were Iully successIul. However,
given the cost/beneIit calculus, the enduring orientation reversal rate must be Iairly high to
rationally iustiIy the attempt.
Now there are, as acknowledged above, many worthwhile beneIits to be gained Irom therapy and
counseling. As to the narrow result oI homosexual reorientation, however, in light oI the high
risks and low probability oI meaningIul success, there is but one most reasonable course both to
take and to advise LDS HO people who are under no gospel obligation to reorient or seek
reorientation. %hat course is: at the verv least. wait Ior new and promising
therapies/interventions, and at the most reIrain Irom making risky sacriIices Ior any extant

HO is a persistent, core physical characteristic highly resistant to present day change therapies.


Chapter 4ť Why nomosexua|s Can eproduce

%his chapter builds an apropos bridge between preceding scientiIic chapters and succeeding
same-sex marriage chapters. Because it is an edited dialogue excerpt that rebuts a common anti-
SSM argument, this chapter could have been placed inside chapter 6 (which contains almost
exclusively edited dialogues rebutting common anti-SSM arguments). I chose to make it a
separate chapter Ior two reasons: 1) the idea is novel and eyebrow-raising to most, and 2) the
concept is especially signiIicant.

Interlocutor 1: 'As to vour re1uting the claim that homosexual couples can´t have children.
would sav that vou re1uted the claim that a homosexual individual can´t have children. because
vou said he or she can reproduce through a third partv. This does not re1ute the claim. however.
that two homosexual individuals cannot reproduce together. Homosexual couples can raise
children (one o1 mv dearest 1riends was adopted and raised bv two women). but thev cannot bear
children without a third partv. And necessarilv - in everv case - bringing in a third partv 1or
homosexual couples di11erentiates these couples 1rom heterosexual unions that don´t inherentlv
necessitate a third partv. (nherentlv is the operative word.) There is a di11erence between
reproducing with vour partner and reproducing via a third partv.¨
Interlocutor 2: 'The take home message is. anv given heterosexual couple (in the aggregate) can
*potentiallv* procreate independentlv. There is O potential 1or A homosexual couple to
procreate independentlv/naturallv (that 3rd partv and all the tech would be needed). There1ore.
think we can argue that a procreation-based de1inition o1 marriage can still be supported. since
natural procreation can onlv occur in a heterosexual couple.¨
My response: I think you're misunderstanding Iour oI my scenarios- which is understandable,
they're not exactly Biology 100. Four oI the scenarios I've noted require NO third party. Also, I
did not argue that heterosexuals as a rule cannot reproduce without a third party. Rather, I argued
that a subset oI them are iust as inherently inIertile as homosexual couples and thus merit
exclusion as much as the class oI couples that are same-sex on a *potential* to reproduce basis.
Also: You make a claim about "natural procreation"- moral claims Irom nature are usually
I "reproduce" my edited arguments here- I realize they're a bit complex, but I think they'll make
sense iI careIully analyzed, and it's the best way I can think oI to address your speciIic questions:
Interlocutor: ' dont see the logic in vour contention about homosexuals not being able to
reproduce together.¨
What is your deIinition oI 'reproducing together¨? Since you can`t respond here I will posit
what seems a reasonable dictionary deIinition: 'the process oI generating new individuals oI the
same kind Irom the parents.¨ %he mechanism oI inheritance in sexually reproducing species

(and indeed all cellular liIe) like ours is DNA. %ake a gay couple- the men mix their sperm,
Iertilize a donated egg, and have a charitable Iemale Iriend act as surrogate. Or we could look to
a lesbian couple. Is not a DNA contribution by both partners (throw in gestation by one oI the
parents too iI you want) suIIicient to make them biological parents? Picture partner A oI a
lesbian couple replacing the nucleus oI partner B`s oocyte with her own Iertilized nucleus, then
either partner gestates the child. %he resulting oIIspring will be genetically related to both
lesbian parents. %he biology here is inescapable
You`ve also lost me on the third party discussion. II your standard is that bringing in a third party
'diIIerentiates these couples Irom heterosexual unions¨ and that 'there is a diIIerence between
reproducing via a third party,¨ I will make two embryologic counters, each in the alternative,
Iollowed by a normative argument. %hough these ideas are original, I have little doubt others
have articulated them beIore me.
First counter: Will the useIulness oI inherent reliance on a third party as a discriminator Iail
when the technology advances suIIiciently to enable homosexual couples to be the two and only
two biological parents oI a child?
Scenario 1: For instance, all the instructions necessary to create a human egg are contained in
each somatic cell oI an adult male (because males are the heterogametic sex, and because the
second X oI chromosome 23 in Iemales is lyonized into an unused Barr body, in Iollows that all
the genes needed Ior oogenesis are necessarily in adult male diploid cells). Given the proper
hormone/nutrient/transcription Iactor cocktail, totipotent cells (which as the name implies can
become any oI the several hundred distinct types oI human cells) harvested Irom gay partner A
could be stimulated to become eggs. %he sperm oI partner B could Iertilize the eggs Irom partner
A. (Interesting sidenote- children reproduced in this way would be on average about 66° male
and 33° Iemale, while the counter situation |Scenario 2| in lesbians would likely require added
proteins |chromosome Y gene products|, and could only produce girls). %he embryo could then
be implanted in a surrogate or, iI you think gestation contributes to biological parentage, avoid
the third parent by placing the embryo in an artiIicial womb to gestate. |%hough the device is
not yet Iully operational, much as the Death Star, many oI its constituents are already employed.
%hree examples: 1) extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), a Iunctioning technique and
a component oI an artiIicial womb currently used within neonatal intensive care units Ior very
premature inIants; 2) dialysis techniques, which could remove waste products generated during
gestation; and 3) lactated Ringer's solution, which can be used to replace amniotic Iluid|. %he
Ieat oI producing a mouse with two and only two same-sex parents was accomplished in
December 2010 (about three months aIter I Iirst began advancing this argument - see 'My
Mouse has %wo Daddies
Scenario 3: Fuse two sperm (one Irom each partner), then place the resulting diploid nucleus into
an enucleated totipotent stem cell Irom one oI the men- voila.
Scenario 4: the nucleus oI lesbian partner A's gamete could be Iused to that oI partner B's, the
resulting oocyte persuaded that Iertilization had occurred, and the zygote implanted in either
partner. Bottom line in all three scenarios? child with two and only two biological parents
of the same sex.

In the Iace oI these biological possibilities, is not the natural possession oI all the inheritable
material necessary Ior procreation suIIicient to conclude that homosexual couples are inherently
capable oI reproducing together? Given that the gap between the current situation and the
scenario I`ve described is purely technical, is there some articulable reason to wait Ior that
technology to actualize beIore concluding that homosexual couples possess iust as Iully as
heterosexual couples the essential inherent elements (i.e. the DNA) needed to reproduce
Second counter: II my argument that homosexual couples are inherently capable oI two and only
two parent biological reproduction Iails Ior some reason, I argue in the alternative that to be Iair,
the standard oI inherent reliance on third parties to reproduce must also be applied to inIertile
heterosexual couples who inherently rely on third parties. You noted that the operative word is
"inherently." I would ask Ior your deIinition oI inherent, which would engender testability. Since
you can't respond right now I will again quote a dictionary: "Existing as an essential constituent
or characteristic; intrinsic." %he most essential biological intrinsic constituent existing that we
know oI is DNA. For at least some subset oI inIertile couples the cause oI inIertility is an
inherited genetic condition (such as two recessive alleles which when combined inhibit meiosis).
Because these couples/individuals' third-party reliance was DNA inher-ited, that reliance is
inher-ent. For at the very least that subset oI inIertile couples whose inIertility is inherent they
Iail to survive your standard. Assuming that my interpretation oI "inherent" is reasonable, you
must either 1) abandon the reproductive reliance on a third party as a discriminator or 2) abandon
the claim oI being Iair in applying the standard unless you would also exclude this class oI
heterosexual couples.

Normative argument: Irrespective oI the success oI counter 1 or 2, I question the purpose oI
endeavoring to Iind reproductive diIIerences on which to pin exclusion oI access to marriage.
Marriage traditionally is not strictly tied to reproduction. Parties that have undergone a
hysterectomy or vasectomy, elderly people incapable oI reproduction (I'd point out this inIertility
is also inherent, as we inherit senescence genetically), emasculated individuals, etc. are all
permitted to marry. %hus, excluding homosexual people Irom the institution must be done on
some other basis than reproductive capacity to avoid a conclusion oI caprice. Said the moderator
oI a January 2011 debate on SSM on the website oI The Economist:
Ms. Gallagher narrows eligibility Ior marriage to couples whose sexual acts are "Ireighted with
the possibility" oI producing a child. Gay couples (and sterile men and women, apparently) do
not qualiIy. Her iustiIication is her concern that gay marriage will lead to the Iurther
Iragmentation oI sex, reproduction and marriage. %his is an interesting argument, though it
burdens gay marriage with a trend that is well under way. AIter all, out-oI-wedlock births have
been on the rise in the West Ior three decades, with no correlation to the legalisation oI gay
marriage. II you share Ms. Gallagher's concerns, it would seem much more radical solutions are
in order.

Interlocutor: 'Again. the take home message is this. 1 select a heterosexual couple at random.
there is a statistical possibilitv that thev can procreate naturallv (without the 3rd partv. or test-

tubes. etc). 1 natural procreation is part o1 the de1inition o1 marriage. then all heterosexual
couples (regardless o1 1ertilitv - and leaving out all incest and things o1 the like) should be
allowed to be married because o1 that statistical possibilitv. n other words. that group is all in
without preiudice.
(---ou mav argue. but what about the old people? Sure. i1 vou select randomlv 1rom a set o1
100¹ vear old heterosexual couples. thev mav too have zero statistical potential 1or procreation.
ut that group is so small. that it is ridiculous to consider them as their own entire categorv due
to sample size. Thus. thev´d be included in the set o1 all hetero couples.---)

My response: First, are you sure oI your numbers? Is the set oI couples characterized by ¦too-
old-to-reproduce ¹ sterile} larger than the set oI homosexual couples? Second, iI you zoom out
and cover your eyes, sure you can say that there's a statistical possibility that a random
heterosexual couple can reproduce. II you'll zoom out, though, given that the vast maiority oI
people are heterosexual, you could iust as easily zoom out one more blip, lump in the
homosexual couples, and by the same standard a random couple (including homosexual couples)
would have the possibility oI reproducing naturally. What is your zoom level standard, and what
is the iustiIication Ior its placement where you put it rather than closer in or Iarther out?
II you open your eyes, on the other hand, you can look and see whether an inherently inIertile
couple, an inherently Iertile couple, or a homosexual couple stands beIore you. II you'll look
closely enough to distinguish classes, then you'll see the homosexual class oI couples and the
inherently inIertile class oI couples- in which instance it's unIair to exclude class 1 but not class 2
on an inherently inIertile basis.
As to the old people argument, would you then permit homosexuals to marry as long as only a
Iew oI them requested it? It sounds like the new device created to exclude homosexuals, since
the capacity to reproduce discriminator has Iailed, operates because there are too many oI them
that want the exception. II more and more people undergo vasectomies and hysterectomies or
wait until they're postmenopausal to marry, or there's a boom in gerontology ward weddings, will
you then begin to exclude them Irom marriage as well? What's your threshold percentage? Or is
it an absolute number? What is the iustiIication Ior placing it where you do rather than higher or
lower? %he size oI the exception is a candidate discriminator, but a weird one- perhaps I should
applaud the creativity:
'%here are at least as many sterile heterosexual couples in America as homosexual ones, and
every one oI them is allowed to marry. II the possibility oI procreation is what gives meaning to
marriage, then a postmenopausal woman who applies Ior a marriage license should be turned
away at the courthouse door. What`s more, she should be hooted at and condemned Ior breaking
the crucial link between marriage and procreation, Ior stretching the meaning oI marriage beyond
all recognition, and Ior reducing the institution to Irivolity.

Interlocutor: 'One mav argue that lesbians are capable o1 procreating via arti1icial
insemination. so the state does have an interest in recognizing lesbian marriages. but a lesbians
sexual relationship. committed or not. has no bearing on her abilitv to reproduce


My response: Yes, but marriage is much more than a recognition oI a sexual relationship, as this
author vigorously argued earlier when honing in on whether the couple propagates. Also, when
used by sterile heterosexual couples, such technologies are also independent oI the couple`s
sexual relationship. Again, this argument would exclude inIertile heterosexual couples Irom
marriage as well, since their sexual relationship has no bearing on their ability to reproduce. II
you`re serious about reproduction as the iustiIication Ior marriage, then apply it Iairly.
Interlocutor: 'Elderlv couples can marrv. but such cases are so rare that it is simplv not worth
the e11ort to restrict them.
Are elderly marriages really that rare? Consider:
'%here seems to be a trend oI remarriage among the elderly. In Iact, marriage among the elderly
is already a popular Internet topic, as well as a popular media subiect. %his trend promises to
increase with the growth oI the elderly population. As a whole, between 1990 and 1994, the
elderly population has increased by a Iactor oI eleven, while the total population has only tripled
in that same amount oI time. Under population predictions by the United States Census Bureau,
the number oI elderly will increase to eighty million in the next century.
¨ (see Iootnotes 1-7)
Additionally, I ask: how hard is it to restrict elderly marriages? Cap the age at a certain number
and withhold the license! %hey already have to calculate age on the Iorm to prove they`re over
18. Also, would you then allow homosexual couples to marry, as long as it`s only a Iew oI
them? Will you start restricting elderly couples iI enough oI them start asking Ior marriage?
Interlocutor: 'The marriage laws. there1ore. ensure. albeit imper1ectlv. that the vast maioritv o1
couples who do get the bene1its o1 marriage are those who bear children.
¨ Elder Oaks: 'the
interests at stake in the proposed legalization o1 so-called homosexual marriages are su11icient
to iusti1v a 1ormal Church position and signi1icant e11orts in opposition... one generation o1
homosexual marriages would depopulate a nation. and. i1 su11icientlv widespread. would
extinguish its people. Our marriage laws should not abet national suicide... vigorouslv oppose
the legalization o1 homosexual marriages.¨
First oII, legalizing same-sex marriage does not prohibit opposite-sex marriage, nor even iI it did
would the world necessarily be depopulated in a generation, since reproduction has a robust
extramarital track record. Second, the authors have made an unsupported syllogistic leap that
Iertile couples reproduce. As one author previously noted, those who get the beneIits oI
marriage are usually those capable oI bearing children- not necessarily those that reproduce.
Otherwise, it's Ieasible to restrict marriage to those that bear children more narrowly- Ior
instance, by revoking the marriages oI those who don't actually reproduce by a certain age or by,
say, ten or twenty years into the marriage.

I would also ask, iI you are serious about restricting marriage to reproducers, what you would
advise in these two situations:
First: a man and a woman marry, and two years aIter the wedding the man loses his Iertility, e.g.
through cancer oI the vas de1erens. Should his wiIe IulIill the purpose oI marriage by leaving
him Ior a Iertile man, or would it be better to stay with him but merely cancel their marriage?
%wo: a man and a woman marry, and two weeks aIter the wedding the man discovers that his
wiIe is inIertile, but that she purposely waited until they were married to disclose the Iact.
Should the law Iine her Ior Iailure to reveal the most important Iact about her marriage
worthiness, or instead give her iail time Ior breaching such a Iundamental social contract?
Should the husband divorce and then cohabitate with her, or instead divorce her and marry
someone else who`s Iertile
Interlocutor: First problem. one o1 them isn´t a parent in the technical sense. v de1inition. two
people o1 the same sex cannot both be a genetic progenitor o1 a child. hen traditional
marriage is upheld. we assign parenthood bv the obvious. natural principle. biologv. Everv
child has a mother and a 1ather. This is a biological realitv. o matter how vou answer the
question. vou are not onlv saving that vou know better than natural law.

My response: Will this problem disappear with the obstacle? %hat is to say, when it becomes
Ieasible Ior a homosexual couple to reproduce together (say, via somatic cell nuclear transIer, or
by inducing opposite gender germline development oI one partner's stem cell), will you cease to
use this genetic progenitor argument against same-sex marriage? Also, a naturalist argument
(what is natural is right and what is unnatural is wrong) is weak absent additional support. What
is natural law? What about examples in nature oI non-opposite-gender reproduction? Is there
some moral standing to what is natural? It is natural Ior humans to commit genocide, but also
immoral. It is natural Ior those who are strong to exploit the weak, but enIorcing a man-made
criminal code against such oIIenders is a better law. It is unnatural to administer lab-produced
antibiotics, but also moral - see my post about the naturalistic Iallacy
Interlocutor: 'hat would vou think about an exception cra1ted in this wav. Anv two individuals
who have a presumed natural abilitv to procreate mav marrv. here presumed natural abilitv
is de1ined as compatible reproductive organs--one male, one 1emale."
My response: Compatible reproductive organs (I presume that means X genital Iits into Y
genital) are insuIIicient and unnecessary to procreate- as evidenced by those inherently inIertile
couples who successIully copulate without conceiving on the one hand, and procreate without
sex via in vitro Iertilization on the other. It is not the union oI penis and vagina, but egg and
sperm, which is typically necessary to reproduction. Plus, you have chosen a male-leaning
denominator Ior your exclusion, as the ratio oI male:Iemale orgasms resulting Irom penis-vagina
unions is much greater than one (the Iemale biological analog to the male penis is the clitoris, not
the vagina). Indeed, the percentage oI penis/vagina unions that produce children is quite small,
suggesting other purposes and eIIects:

'We are taught that the reason Ior the diIIerences, and the use to which the sex organs are put,
has to do with making babies. %his is a lie. In our society only occasionally are these organs
used to make babies. Much more oIten they are used to produce sexual pleasure Ior men.
Additionally, it is quite a departure Irom your children-based argument to seek to reduce
marriage access to whether one has a penis or a vagina. What about persons who undergo a sex
change? Individuals who have lost their genitals, such as a man whose penis and testicles were
severed in a work accident or a woman whose uterus and vagina Iailed to develop properly or at
all? Your marriage standard would clearly exclude them. Additionally, the modern view oI
mate selection turns primarily on the complementarity oI individuals rather than their body parts,
and as the divorce rate evidences, 'many male-Iemale couples turn out not to be very
complementary at all
¨ despite possessing the 'right¨ equipment.
As to the use oI a "presumed natural ability," a baseless presumption does Iunction as a
discriminator but is also accurately described as arbitrary and capricious. Similar to the baseless
presumption that black people are inIerior to white people, what matters is whether class A is
inIerior to class B, not whether class A is presumed to be inIerior to class B. As I've shown, there
is no signiIicant diIIerence between inherently inIertile homosexual and heterosexual couples as
to their capacity to reproduce. In any case, what is the basis Ior concluding reproduction method
G is superior to method H? Who is authorized to say that modern medicine and third parties
cheapen the reproductive process? %o close:
'%heir real position is that the possibility oI procreation deIines marriage when homosexuals are
involved, but not when heterosexuals are involved. %o put the point more starkly, sterility
disqualiIies all homosexuals Irom marriage, but it disqualiIies no heterosexuals. So the
distinction is not pro-procreation (much less pro-children) at all. It is merely

I Iinish with the view oI a prominent LDS Ieminist, Valerie Hudson, who argues against using
reproduction and Iertility as a basis Ior opposing SSM:
'What we understand Irom our doctrine is that the telos oI marriage is to ground every human
Iamily in real, lived, embodied gender equality. And then, as a consequence, all reproduction
would occur only within that context oI gender equality. II the ideal were lived, then every son
and daughter oI God would be born into a Iamily that lived gender equality, and thus each would
learn how to Iorm such a relationship when they themselves came oI age. Reproduction is the
Iruit, not the root, oI what God intended in establishing marriage.
%hat is why it doesn`t matter who`s Iertile, and whether a marriage oI inIertile people is a
marriage is beside the point.



Same-gender couples can reproduce. %o the extent their reproductive capacity is limited, it is no
less limited than Ior inherently inIertile opposite-gender couples.


Chapter 5ť A Mora| Case for LD5 5ameŴ5ex Marr|age

I love and support the LDS church and it`s leaders- and encourage you to do so as well, whether
a member oI the church or not. I have a Iirm testimony oI the gospel oI Jesus Christ and oI the
LDS church. %his testimony is strengthened by my regular temple attendance (Ior a year I was
also a temple worker), consistent service in the church, IaithIul church attendance, Iasting, and
daily prayers and scripture study. I have always had a special appreciation Ior the Book oI
Mormon, whose inspired passages guide my liIe and decisions. Deep down, I`m little more than
an EFY counselor who loves to have Iun and teach the gospel. %hough I will make a strong
moral case Ior LDS SSM, please remember:
1) Neither this book nor this chapter is to be interpreted as promoting homosexual relations
or seeking to inIluence others to engage in homosexual behavior. I do not oppose any
doctrines or policies oI the church. I do not believe in advising the Lord`s representatives
or Iorcing them into my way oI thinking. However, I do believe in badgering the Lord
Ior revelation- because it is the only reliable mechanism Ior getting answers that I know.
2) %hough I am still seeking the Lord`s will regarding SSM and evaluating the arguments
Ior and against it, I have been publicly active in opposing same-sex marriage. In the Iall
oI 2009 I volunteered with Protect Marriage Maine to help call voters in Maine to oppose
same-sex marriage legislation there (which opposition prevailed). Earlier this year I
sacriIiced considerable time to help organize BYU`s Stand For the Family Student
Symposium. %o use another SSM-analyzing author`s words, 'I come to this as a true
believer in the special importance and unique qualities oI the institution oI marriage. For
all its Iailings in particular cases, and Ior all the stress it has borne lately, marriage is the
great civilizing institution.
3) %hat a strong moral case 1or LDS SSM exists does not necessarily imply that the moral
case against SSM is weaker. A key outcome oI a successIul education is the ability to
make a persuasive argument advancing a proposition with which one personally
disagrees. II successIul, my rigorous presentation oI the pro-SSM position will help
traditional marriage deIenders sharpen their advocacy as a consequence oI understanding
their opposition better.

Now back to the task at hand. %o make this moral case, I ask you to embark on a thought
experiment with me into a world independent oI the one you know- speciIically, a world exactly
like this one, with two exceptions: 1) that homosexual conduct is sinIul is not a necessary moral
conclusion; and 2) that SSM is wrong is not a necessary moral conclusion. %he purpose Ior these
exceptions is to engender a Iorward, (i.e. take a look at evidence, then conclude) rather than a
retrospective, (make the conclusion Iirst, then interpret evidence through that lens) evaluation. I
believe what I`ve asked oI you is a truly awkward mental task- but please take a minute to really
complete it. (You`ve already practiced awkward mental tasks, right? Remember suspending
your views per my request in the introduction?) Once you're inside the world, read on.
Remember, this is a thought experiment, a saIe zone which cannot be construed as the author`s
view on the morality oI SSM in the actual world. Again, because oI how oIten this chapter has
been misinterpreted as my real-world views toward SSM, I underline- a thought experiment is a
departure Irom the real world into the realm oI imagination.

26 good reasons why, inside this thought experiment, LDS members and the LDS church should
support SSM Ior homosexually oriented people
Are you inside with me? Okay, here we go-

ŵ. Homos¢xaa ori¢ntation is not a aToat ast
In the past Iive decades there has been a careIul and successIul 'lustiIication¨ oI homosexual
orientation in a large portion oI the population. Many oI the most potent oI these 'lustiIications¨
have been declared by past and present church leaders, who have systematically characterized
heterosexual orientation as exalting and desirable (though it can be perverted into lust), while
scorning homosexual orientation as onlv base, abominable, and solely about lustIul sex. More
recently, in contrast, the church has said: '%he Church recognizes that those oI its members who
are attracted to others oI the same sex experience deep emotional, social and physical
'It is hard to escape the conclusion that the aversion many heterosexuals mount against
homosexuality is based on a Ieeling oI repugnance Ior the physical nature oI love-making

between persons oI the same gender. Unable to imagine themselves engaging in such activity,
they (heterosexuals) may perceive it to be unnatural, a perversion. It must be admitted, however,
that the intimacies oI sex are somewhat mysterious, sometimes overwhelming even Ior recently
married men and women. It is the contemporary LDS view that physical aIIection in marriage is
not only proper, but an essential component in a healthy, IulIilling relationship, sustained by
mutual concern and respect Ior one`s partner. Importantly, since this is deemed a private matter,
the mechanics oI love-making are neither prescribed nor proscribed, thoughtIulness and
sensitivity to the Ieelings oI one`s mate being the most important consideration. %he private and
personal character oI sex also obtains in a homosexual context in which there is also an emphasis
on appropriate balance, that sex should not assume a dominant role at the expense oI the other
necessary psychological and spiritual elements in the monogamous association oI two people in
love with each other. While properly arguing that a long-lasting and satisIying relationship
between a man and a woman cannot be based on sex alone, it is also incumbent on critics not to
believe that homosexual love is primarily based on erotic desire. %he expression oI homosexual
love is no more governed by lasciviousness than is heterosexual love

Sexual orientation, be it toward men or women, is about more than erotic desire. For example-
my mother loves and supports my Iather. Within her is a sexual orientation toward men, a
constellation oI romantic/sexual/emotional susceptibilities/inclinations/orientation/attractions
/Ieelings toward members oI the opposite sex. She has chosen to direct that constellation toward
loving him and strengthening their relationship, which has resulted in unmeasured beneIits to me
and my siblings. What iI her sexual orientation were instead housed inside a man`s body?
Would my mother`s ability to choose to direct that orientation be lessened? Would she (he) be
any less capable oI being my Iather`s 'help meet?¨ OI staying by my Iather`s bedside when he`s
sick? Would his hands be any less capable oI making countless meals Ior my Iather and our
Iamily? OI standing by my Iather through thick and thin? OI making him a big lunch when he
goes away Ior the day with a love note inside? OI keeping marital vows? OI pleasing him in
bed (iI he is also sexually oriented toward men)? OI listening to him aIter a hard day at work?
OI going on long trips to the wilderness with his wanted-to-be-a-park-ranger spouse, despite
preIerring his Iamiliar suburban home? OI supporting him when he`s Irequently away on church
assignments? OI tending to the kids during the night out oI love Ior him? I Ior one do not think
Just as there exists a distribution along the spectrum Irom asexual to hypersexual Ior
heterosexually oriented people, there exists a distribution along that same spectrum Ior
homosexually oriented people. My gay Iriend *Matthew, Ior instance, claims to be asexual, and
describes his orientation in terms oI romantic and emotional attraction and connection:

'I've always been IaithIul in the Church (and still am), but have never been able to be attracted to
a girl, in spite oI years oI praying and working Ior it. Instead, I've Iound that I love guys, and in
many cases care deeply about them and yearn to be close to them emotionally and physically;
that is how it has been at least since I was 12 years old. But I don't want to have sex with them,
contrary to what some people seem to be assuming: I am asexual, meaning I don't experience
sexual attractions to anyone. I'm happy now to understand that God loves me, and I believe he
may have made me this way Ior a reason.

Another has written: '%he need Ior us to be open on the issue oI homosexual choice is especially
strong since, in contrast to Iear, or anger, or greed, or any one oI a number oI negative
characteristics to be resisted and overcome, love Ior another human being is a Iundamentally
positive and noble attribute.
¨ One doesn`t have to recite the Hercules story to prove that one
oI the greatest errors in history has been to underestimate the motivating power oI human
romantic love. (For those interested in the diIIerences between the three separate, brain-
mediated drives Ior sexual love, romantic love, and companionate love, I recommend Helen
Fisher`s book hv e Love. the ature and Chemistrv o1 Romantic Love). II homosexual
orientation is all about lust, why are so many oI them seeking marriage- when they could engage
in essentially unlimited homosexual conduct with one or multiple partners outside marriage?
%hough homosexual orientation has oIten been compared or grouped with negatives such as
pornography, temper, alcoholism, addiction, gambling, a covetous manner, and drug use- would
we compare heterosexual orientation to any oI these negatives? In addition to the reality that
homosexual orientation is not as transitory as these analogs, it is morally repugnant to demonize
what can accomplish such incredible human good. One author wrote:
'Homosexuality is no less oI a complex interplay oI emotions, aIIections, identity, needs,
aspirations and sexuality than is heterosexuality. For most oI the homosexuals I know, the
Ieelings Ior one another are the most deep, warm, genuine expressions oI love and compassion
that two human beings are capable oI sharing. Like heterosexuals, most oI their aIIections are not
explicitly sexual, nor is their relationship, when sexual, any more oral, anal, sado-masochistic or
prone towards Ietishes than is the heterosexual experience.
Wayne Schow:

'sexual morality is not iust a matter oI 'thou shalt not.¨ '%hou shalt not¨ is a blunt instrument, a
negative, easy, and sometimes heavy-handed marker. II we believe that our sexuality is
something more than inherent evil, iI we see our sexual nature as a vital part oI our humanness
and as having the potential to raise us to a higher level oI being, and iI we would pursue the

opportunity Ior growth inherent in this nature, we must surpass the Pharisaical letter oI the law to
Iind the more IulIilling and sublime positive aspects oI sexual relationship with another.
Wrote Carol Lynn Pearson:
'A strong belieI oI mine is that sexuality is an awesome giIt and should be treasured. I am
impressed with the words oI American publisher Margaret Anderson, who said, "In real love you
want the other person's good. In romantic love you want the other person." I wholeheartedly
believe that intimate access to the body oI another person is the most supreme oI privileges, that
being in lovereal lovewanting both the other person and the other person's highest goodis
a breathtaking experience that brings us about the closest we mortals ever get to heaven.
Said another:
'It is common to hear the advice, 'Even iI you`re homosexual, you don`t have to act on your
homosexual Ieeling.¨ %he unspoken assumption in this sentiment is that what a homosexual
experiences is lust. But what are the essential, healthy Ieelings oI a gay person? As with
heterosexuals, they are love, respect, admiration, or inIatuation, Ior another human being. %hey
are the natural Ieelings that accompany the dreams oI becoming a spouse or partner. %hey are a
love Ior children and a hope Ior the security, solidarity, and sanctity oI a Iamily. %hey are the
Ieelings that accompany the hope oI being a good parent. %hey are the Ieelings we all,
heterosexual and homosexual alike, share in common as human beings. What is the origin oI
these Ieelings? %hey are the inheritance oI spiritual oIIspring oI divine parents, the results oI
lessons taught in the homes oI active LDS Iamilies, all conIirmed as good through liIe`s adult
experiences. %hey are the Ieelings that have been cultivated by associating with the Saints. Not
to act on those Ieelings? Not to be honest with oneselI? Not to know who you are and be true to
what you`ve been taught? How would those oI us who are heterosexuals react to the suggestion
that we should not act on those same Ieelings, Ieelings born in part Irom our innate sexuality and
leading us to aspire to goodness and godliness?
%hose not closely acquainted with gay people may not have considered that they are capable oI
the same type oI romantic Ieelings that characterize heterosexual love, something in addition to
urges oI a sexual nature. Nevertheless that is true. Falling in love can have the same positive
emotional, spiritual, and moral qualities Ior a homosexual couple as Ior a heterosexual couple.
Homosexual love is not counterIeit. What do Latter-day Saints (and others) who are in a
committed gay relationship do? %hey get up in the middle oI the night to care Ior a sick partner.
%hey Iix dinner, out oI turn, when the person they love has had a bad day. %hey sacriIice in order
to provide opportunities Ior the growth and development oI their children. %hey resist the
temptation to be unIaithIul. %hey send Ilowers. %hey coach little league baseball teams. %hey
say, 'I`m sorry.¨ %hey help in buying the groceries. %hey plant Ilowers and mow the lawn. %hey
delight in the success and achievement oI the one to whom they are devoted. %hey do their best
to express the deepest Ieelings oI their heart when they say, I love you.`
Wrote one IaithIul member

'I too have needs to be IulIilled. Homosexuality is not about sexual IulIillment but rather about
emotional IulIillment. Homosexuality is an internal drive Ior intimate companionship and
bonding with one oI one`s own sex. Many homosexuals, conIused by a lack oI selI-esteem and
by social labeling as 'perverts,¨ 'queers,¨ and 'degenerates,¨ have Iallen into the trap oI sexual
promiscuity, trying desperately to meet an inner need by changing partners continuously. Such
promiscuity is as much a symptom oI personal inadequacy and immaturity as promiscuity among
Carol Lynn Pearson argues similarly:
'Sexuality, I am convinced, is the liIe Iorce itselI- and not iust the reproductive liIe Iorce. When
a power so great is not allowed a respectable stage upon which to dance, it will nearly always
come out in twisted and tortuous ways. We have sadly learned Irom our Catholic Iriends,
through the news oI case aIter case oI sexual molestation by priests, that celibacy is a calling Ior
some but clearly not Ior all. I am beginning to understand why some gay people have expressed
their sexuality in ways that have shocked us. I recently heard a very articulate gay man on
Oprah say he is convinced that the promiscuity oI many gay men is due to the shame they have
absorbed. With absolutely no societal, Iamily, or spiritual support, with Iew role models, and
under layers oI learned selI-loathing, I believe that many have been leIt one by one to reinvent
the wheel oI relationship, even to some extent the wheel oI liIe. I Iirmly believe that what they
will do with societal, Iamily, and spiritual support, excellent role models, and layers oI selI-
respect is surely something that will bless us all.
Wrote another oI the hypothetical oI a straight person being told that all heterosexual conduct is
a sin, whereas homosexual marriage is God`s plan Ior all His children
'Let's suppose that you take this hypothetical demand seriously. AIter several years oI
determined eIIort, you realize that your heterosexual desires are, iI anything, experienced more
intensely, and you are as adverse to homosexuality as ever. You then decide to abstain. Your
resolve requires a supreme eIIort. Your dreams and Iantasies reIuse to be suppressed. Your daily
routine brings you constantly into contact with attractive women. %he longer you abstain, the
more persistent your desires become. Since you cannot have a woman and you don't want a man
as your intimate companion, you maintain a limited rapport with both. Your social liIe, though it
consumes much oI your time and energy, is kept at a saIe distance emotionally. No amount oI
church meetings, social Iunctions or vocational preoccupations Iills the void you experience Ior
that warm, loving intimacy with a woman. Loneliness becomes the hallmark oI your experience.
%en, twenty years oI this isolation take their toll on your personality. You remain steadIast to
your conviction, but you Iace old age with an ever-increasing sense oI loneliness and
unIulIillment. %he question now needs to be asked, Is such a liIe really morally neutral?`¨
Cloy Jenkins continues:
'Recommending to the homosexual that he abstain Irom the sexual expression oI who he is has
Iar-reaching consequences. It cuts him oII Irom the only real possibility open to him to
experience love. %he more Irightening Iact is that it unquestionably condemns him to a liIe oI
loneliness which cannot and is not ministered to by any Iacet oI the Church or society. No

amount oI temple going, priesthood meetings, home teaching, or special interest activity will
ease the loneliness. %his can only be realized through a mature loving intimacy. %he men whom I
know who have Iollowed the course oI abstention have a conspicuous diminution oI humanness
in their lives. %hey are, Ior the most part, a mixture oI Ilat, uninteresting, impoverished
personalities with a conspicuous tenseness and anxiety that is never Iocused or constructively
expended. %hose around them sense their desperate need Ior warmth and aIIection but also an
overriding coldness, prohibiting any closeness. Years ago, I met a young man here at BYU. I
knew in an instant that he was homosexual and, moreover, that he was Iighting it. I could tell it
Irom a certain Iierceness in his manner. I never saw him again Ior several years but was kept
abreast oI his activities, including his counsel Irom the Brethren, his marriage, and his
subsequent divorce. I visited with him about Iive years ago, and he vigorously denied that he was
homosexual though his behavior indicated otherwise. %he most convincing indication to me was
his Iractured personality; a downright dull returned missionary type, so inappropriate Ior his age,
and a hypertensity bordering on hysteria. I have visited with him several times since, and it
appears he is slowly coming to accept the Iact that he is homosexual but he has also attempted
several cures. Now, as he approaches middle age, he is Iinally able to Iace his homosexuality and
open up to who he really is. All oI his years oI abstaining and denial have taken their toll on him,
but the most dramatic change Ior the better has taken place recently as he has straightIorwardly
Iallen in love with another man. He is at last allowing himselI to love and be loved, and his
personality is warming, expanding, and maturing, and a soul, starved Ior all these years, is at last
being nourished with aIIection and love.¨
Homosexual love is not counterIeit.
Ŷ. Famiy: tb¢ saTstanc¢
What is Iamily? Let`s begin brieIly with Iorm, then discuss substance.
%he Iamily Iorm has two prongs: the number oI genders and the number oI partners. %he
traditional Iamily has two genders and two partners.
What about the substance oI Iamily? %he core oI the institution oI the Iamily is the marriage.
Even iI no kids are ever brought in (say the couple is inIertile), the Doug and Jenny Larsen
Iamily is no less a Iamily:
'Marriage to be sure is not instituted solely Ior procreation. Rather, its very nature as an
unbreakable compact between two persons. demand that the mutual love oI the spouses, too, be
embodied in a rightly ordered manner, that it grow and ripen. %hereIore, marriage persists as a
whole manner and communion oI liIe, and maintains its value and indissolubility, even when
oIIspring are lacking- despite, rather oIten, the very intense desire oI the couple.
Also, Irom an LDS scholar-Ieminist:

'LDS prophets have emphasized that the marriage relationship is not a mere means to a good
end, but a good end in itselI which then makes possible other good ends. Men and women are
that they might have ioy: the scripture does not say men and women are that they might have
But another very large part oI the ioy I Ieel is in the relationship I have with my spouse, which
existed beIore we had children and will exist aIter the children have leIt our home to create their
%hus, our question turns to: what is the substance oI marriage? One given answer by a well-
known Iamily science LDS author is: "united spiritually, mentally, emotionally, and physically,
taking Iull responsibility Ior nurturing each other, they are truly married.
" One oI the most
important Iunctions oI marriage is to help someone become like God by abandoning a 'me¨
identity and instead merging into a 'we.¨ Could this principle not apply to a homosexual couple
as well as a heterosexual one?
Let`s assume Ior a moment that a homosexual union is Ior some reason 'less¨ than a
heterosexual one. Just because it is unlikely or impossible Ior a seriously Down's Syndrome
child to graduate Irom high school, let alone college, this Iact does not imply that one should
prohibit her Irom going to elementary school. Similarly, even presuming a homosexual union
does not qualiIy as a Iirst-place ideal, why prohibit the homosexually oriented Irom
approximating the ideal oI marriage and Iamily? %ake a look at a class oI individuals- namely
poor, uneducated Americans who grow up in divorced homes. (I choose this class because their
category is chosen about as much as is homosexual orientation). Despite their elevated
likelihood oI themselves divorcing and thereby disadvantaging their own children (i.e. Iailing to
reach the Iirst-place ideal), one would nevertheless reIrain Irom prohibiting their marrying, and
would perhaps even try to assist them in building a stable marriage and Iamily. Since according
to the presumption homosexually oriented people can hardly iI ever make the ideal Iamily, one
should help them get as close to that ideal as they can rather than hedging up their way. Said the
Sa1e Space Declaration in 2004:
'We stand Ior the principle that love is not a sin. We believe that the Iocus on sexual orientation
obscures the real underlying issues oI sexual sin, which are Iounded on lust, greed, and sexual
exploitation, Iound among both heterosexuals and homosexuals everywhere.

We stand Ior the institution oI the Iamily as the embodiment oI love and commitment. %he
presence oI a Iather, mother, and children living together is no guarantee oI Iamily success. %he
presence oI true love and commitment within a Iamily is a much better indicator. We believe that
all Iamilies, regardless oI the gender oI those involved, should receive wholehearted sanction
Irom our Church..
%here`s no physical reason why homosexually oriented people can`t get married and parent, as
there is in the case oI mentally handicapped persons. Absent the barrier to entry that is the
prohibition against SSM, homosexually oriented people become similarly situated to single
church members, who as a general rule may marry who they want as long as they can persuade
their available target to consent. Neither celibacy nor promiscuity deliver a Iamily experience.
Hetero and homosexual marriage do. %hus we should encourage both- and as it would be
repulsive and impractical Ior most Iully homosexual members to enter heterosexual marriage, to
say nothing oI the risk to the spouse, SSM is the most intuitive vehicle through which to deliver
a Iamily experience.
Let us continue to consider this question by exploring a homosexually oriented member`s
perspective. A IaithIul LDS homosexually-oriented member has primarily Iour liIestyle choices:
1) heterosexual marriage, 2) Iidelity to a single homosexual partner, 3) liIelong celibacy, and 4)
homosexual promiscuity. Since homosexual promiscuity is a demonstrably unhealthy liIestyle,
we should deIinitely seek to create and encourage superior alternatives. How about heterosexual
'It is clear that our culture, in which everyone is expected to marry, puts enormous and excessive
pressure on homosexuals to marry. I am aware oI the pressure on homosexuals because in the
last IiIteen years I`ve been studying this issue oI same-sex attraction (SSA) and meeting with
homosexuals in our culture. Universally, they report Ieeling the pressure to marry. Many
homosexuals also report on their marriages which have ended in Iailure. For example, in 1994 I
surveyed an LDS homosexual group oI 136 where 71 percent were returned missionaries
(indicating their commitment to the church) and 36 had tried marriage. %hey had been married
an average oI nine years and had an average oI 2.5 children. Only two oI the 36 were still
Evergreen, a resource group committed to promoting change therapy Ior homosexual Latter-day
Saints, helps create this problem by promoting the idea that persons can 'transition out oI
homosexuality.¨ %his idea is also promoted by many ecclesiastical leaders, most oI whom are not
well inIormed about the nature oI homosexuality. %he extent oI the problem is seen in the Iact
that Evergreen receives over 150 requests Ior help each month Irom those with homosexual
attractions; 40 percent oI these requests come Irom men who are married. Only 10 percent oI the

calls come Irom women. %he remaining 50 percent are Irom single men. %his pattern indicates
a great deal oI social pressure on LDS men with homosexual attractions to marry heterosexually,
with unIortunate outcomes Ior many oI them and their spouses and children.
It is possible that Ben |a homosexual male| can achieve a successIul marriage, but,
unIortunately, the odds are against him and Jessie |a heterosexual Iemale|. An increasing body
oI data, some mentioned above and some that will summarize below, reinIorces this pessimistic
Iorecast. Much pain- directly and indirectly- results when these marriages Iail.
Said Marybeth Raynes, who was quoted in chapter 1:
'I can count on both hands the couples I have worked with who have chosen to stay married with
the goal oI managing the diIIiculties and enriching their experience with each other and their
I have talked to many women- and several men- who Ielt leIt out oI discussions oI Iuture
ramiIications, even iI they knew about the same-sex attraction prior to the marriage. Amity
Burton, author oI The Other Side o1 the Closet, discusses the trauma, silence, and loss oI integrity
that occur as one spouse comes out oI the closet. EIIectively, when the gay partner comes out oI
the closet, the straight one oIten goes in. %he Ieeling oI invisibility and oI not being loved or
cherished increases Ior most spouses.
Indeed, this concern about 'not being loved¨ in a gay/straight marriage has led me to more
pondering than any other in the area oI homosexual married people. I am deeply concerned
about what happens to both partners when there is very little or no sexual interest toward the
other by at least one spouse. When this is the case, there oIten may not be a sustained emotional
and mental wish to really discover who one`s partner is on many levels. Much like the quip,
Money doesn`t buy happiness, but it sure makes a good down payment,¨ sexual interest alone
does not create a loving marriage, but it certainly is an important Ieature. In their book, The
Good Marriage, a study oI three types oI healthy marriages, Judith Wallerstein and Sandra
Blakeslee conclude that at least warm, iI not deeply passionate, sex is a necessary Ieature in all
types oI good marriages.
Last, a quote Irom Wayne Schow:
'%his problem is more widespread among Mormons than we care to acknowledge. %hese
'mixed¨ marriages seem much more likely to end in divorce or, iI they remain intact, are much
less likely to provide marital satisIactions to both partners. Indeed, their negative outcomes
typically cause pain and suIIering Ior all involved, not least to the children oI such unions. Nor is
it in society`s best interest to perpetuate such suIIering. Would it not be Iairer and more humane
to legitimize a Iorm oI marriage that is more realistically attuned to the uniqueness oI the
individuals involved?
In past decades (and indeed to an extent in the current one), some church leaders prescribed
heterosexual marriage as a remedy Ior homosexual inclinations. %he Craigslist culture in Utah

and Salt Lake counties oI sealed LDS men seeking out homosexual men to come over Ior 'when
the cat`s away the mice play¨ during the absence oI the wiIe and kids hints at the duplicity in
many oI these heterosexual marriages:
'You would be amazed how many married gay men there are in the Church, in Utah especially,
who lead double lives. %hey have secret same-sex partners or anonymous sexual encounters on
their business trips. %heir spouses are unaware, or suspect and live in denial. %hese spouses are
at risk Ior many reasons. the Church`s anti-gay attitude creates a destructive subculture oI lies
and deceit.¨
%hen again, who can blame the man or the wiIe in these situations, who make incredible
sacriIices Ior the Mormon bottom-line: a sealed heterosexual Iamily with children?
More recently, "Persons who have this kind oI challenge that they cannot control could not enter
marriage in good Iaith" seems to be more oI the Church`s stance. %hus, iI options 2 and 4 are
out, and 1 is also advised against, the homosexually oriented person is leIt with liIelong celibacy
as the only acceptable means Ior moving Iorward. %he church position on homosexuality as
evidenced by the Wickman/Oaks press conIerence is treading a Iine line between some weighty
doctrine-induced duties. (I asked Elder Wickman in person in September 2010 about the press
conIerence- he said the transcript was pretty raw/unedited but Ior grammar and such. I asked
what he would change in retrospect. He said, "not a thing, it was spot on." I appreciated his
approachability). %he Iirst is to Iorbid homosexual behavior. %he second is to reIrain Irom
Iorbidding to marry: "And again, verily I say unto you, that whoso Iorbiddeth to marry is not
ordained oI God, Ior marriage is ordained oI God unto man." Doctrine and Covenants 49:15.
One might wonder iI homosexual men, to use an example, are not also men in the usage oI that
verse- in which case advising against heterosexual marriage Ior those homosexually inclined
appears to be inappropriate on its surIace. II homosexual orientation does not exist, is not
signiIicant, is chosen, and/or is changeable, then there seems to be little uniustiIied risk in a
homosexually oriented person obediently entering heterosexual marriage. What relative risk
increase exists iI, per the assertions in the Oaks/Wickman address, behavior is all that matters,
and each person has total control over his or her behavior?
Also, this counsel, which uses the language oI "challenge... that they cannot control" seems
almost to contradict the theme oI the press conIerence about "we do not accept the Iact that

conditions that prevent people Irom attaining their eternal destiny were born into them without
any ability to control" and "One oI the great sophistries oI our age, I think, is that merely because
one has an inclination to do something, that thereIore acting in accordance with that inclination is
inevitable" and "we know we can control how we behave, and it is behavior which is
¨ No less an authority than a Supreme Court Justice reiected the signiIicance oI a
distinction between behavior and orientation: "Following the Supreme Court's decision in
Christian Legal Societv v. Martinez on June 28, 2010, the plaintiIIs in !errv cited the decision by
Justice Ginsburg's as Supreme Court precedent that sexual orientation is "an identiIiable class"
in opposition the deIense's argument that sexual orientation is "behavioral". Christian Legal
Society had asserted that it did not restrict membership based on sexual orientation but based on
"conduct and belieI that the conduct is not wrong". Ginsburg reiected that distinction, noting that
with respect to sexual orientation the court has "declined to distinguish between status and
conduct" and oIIering the parallel Irom an earlier case: " tax on wearing yarmulkes is a tax
on 1ews.
" (emphasis added).
I'm also not Iully convinced about the signiIicance oI this inclination/behavior distinction. %ake
two 10 year olds- John, who's normal, and Mark, a very low-Iunctioning autistic person with an
inclination toward Ilailing about and throwing tantrums. John and Mark can both control their
behavior, and despite his inclinations in any particular instance Mark can, and sometimes does,
reIrain Irom throwing a tantrum. II John Ilailed about in class and threw a tantrum, you might
discipline him somewhat severely. II you punished Mark the same amount Ior the same
behavior, he'd spend his liIe in the corner. Despite Mark's agentic control (i.e. the reality that
any particular instance oI misbehavior is not inevitable), it's absurd to hold him as responsible as
John Ior an outburst or trend oI outbursts- and it would be Ioolish to expect Mark to regulate his
behavior to the same level oI mellowness as John. (Please pardon the comparisons to negative
behaviors- culpability highlights the distinction between inclination and behavior). Said Francis
Collins, director oI the Human Genome Proiect
'%he best case I can make Ior that is the Iollowing: about halI the people on the planet have a
particular predisposition to criminal behavior that makes them about 20 times more likely than
the other halI to end up in trouble with the law and end up being incarcerated and in prison.
Who are those people? %hose are the males. %hat is probably the strongest oI all the inIluences
we will ever discover in terms oI a predisposition Ior violent behavior."

Perhaps one can hold these individuals strictly responsible Ior the consequences oI their actions-
but are they truly as worthy oI blame and stigma as those with no predisposition who behave
similarly? It is established that alcoholism is 40-60° heritable
. Are alcoholics equally
culpable Ior their consuming behaviors as those who have no genetic predisposition? %o
analogize to theory oI criminal law, let`s take two individuals, Mark and Sarah, who both
participate in the crimes oI assault and battery oI John. Let`s presume that they both were
equally violent; also presume that Sarah has no predisposition toward violence and that Mark is
signiIicantly predisposed because oI his genes, high testosterone levels, and an inhibition oI
cortisol (a stress hormone) uptake that together account Ior 50° oI the variability in his violent
behavior. In criminal law, punishments are not iust based on the tort theory oI strict liability
(which roughly means that you`re responsible Ior any and all Ioreseeable consequences oI your
acts) but upon Iinding the element oI mens rea, or the guilty mind: actus non 1acit reum nisi
mens sit rea- "the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind be also guilty." %he
punishment oI criminals Iound to be mentally incompetent is usually mitigated. Might it
similarly be appropriate that 90° oI the punishment to Mark and Sarah should be in the strict
liability sense, but that the mens rea calculus would diIIer between them, since their minds are
not equally guilty? Say, give them both nine months in iail, but then give Mark an additional
IiIteen days, but Sarah thirty, to account Ior the diIIerence in their moral breach? %hough
potentially impractical, wouldn`t this approach otherwise be appropriate?
Another example would be thoughts about sex. %hough we consider ourselves in control oI our
thoughts, that control is limited to handle thoughts once they enter one`s head- we have much
less control over how oIten those thoughts come. II one were to plot out the number oI thoughts
about sex per day by your average male between the ages oI 10 and 30, it becomes Iairly clear
that the testosterone-saturated adolescent male brain is imposing a lot oI thoughts about sex
irrespective oI the boy`s agency. Is he as guilty as an 18-year old girl oI the same age who
consciously spends 30 minutes each day, brow Iurrowed, drumming up lustIul thoughts iust to
keep pace with her reasonably selI-controlled male peers? Might not a similar principle be at
work with the trends oI our behaviors, most oI which reIlect conditioned compliance with
cultural norms and habits rather than highly volitional, intentional conduct? How chosen are
most oI a newborn`s behaviors? How about the possibility oI genetic predispositions to

personality traits and spirituality? What about the inIluences oI other biological Iactors besides
genes? How about non-biological environmental inIluences such as social and cultural/memetic
Iactors? Anyway, let`s move on.
It's interesting that in the Wickman/Oaks address, homosexual orientation was aIIirmatively
identiIied as unique to mortality (i.e. was not an aspect oI pre-mortal existence and won't be an
aspect oI post-mortal existence). %his principle is conducive to suicide. Here is the message
some hear: '%he theosis (becoming like God) utility oI Iamily liIe is the primary purpose oI
mortality. %he sum oI all other activities pales compared to the value oI being a parent and
spouse. Due to conditions outside your control, you are homosexually oriented. II you cannot
control your attractions (which is largely true oI almost every homosexually oriented person, iI
controlling attractions means eliminating homosexual thoughts/Ieelings and/or replacing them
with heterosexual ones), you could not enter opposite-gender marriage in good Iaith. Same-sex
marriage is out oI the question. However, you can start progressing substantively on the path oI
Godhood as soon as you die and are resurrected as a person you can`t currently relate to, namely,
a version oI you that is heterosexually oriented. %hough as you are you`re not good enough to
take big strides toward becoming like God now, iI you were lucky enough to get hit by a bus
(thus side-stepping the moral consequences oI suicide) and radically changed into a more God-
conducive (heterosexual) version oI yourselI, you could then start progressing on that path.
Otherwise, patiently endure decades oI the relative misery which results Irom loneliness, lack oI
intimacy, and selI-repression in the hope that one day sweet death will release you Irom the
shackle oI your Iallen tabernacle whose homosexual orientation daily aIIlicts you with guilt,
doubt, and temptation. Only then will you at last be equal to your peers in capacity to advance
toward Godhood; until that day, you must endure witnessing as your heterosexual peers select
spouses and raise children.¨ In this light, I no longer scratch my head much when reIlecting on
some oI my celibate homosexually oriented LDS Iriends who have longed Ior death, waded
through deep depression, and in a great many instances, sought to take their own lives.
It seems that this Iact (homosexual orientation is Ior mortality only) also brings up a more
cheerIul, hopeIul idea: it suggests the permissibilitv o1 at least a mortalitv-onlv remedv 1or the
homosexuallv oriented. II we are willing to "throw up our hands" and say "the Lord will work it
out in the aIterliIe" in diIIicult situations (e.g. a child with serious Down's syndrome, or a woman

who goes through liIe without receiving a marriage proposal), why not carve out a similar short-
oI-eternal-heterosexual marriage, mortality-only remedy Ior the homosexually oriented? Perhaps
a remedy that would encourage greater obedience to the law oI chastity, which is also about 1)
¦cleaving to a single spouse} and 2) ¦behaving with Iidelity} in addition to restricting sexual
behavior to one's opposite gender? It seems that promiscuous homosexual behavior is more
immoral than Iidelity to a homosexual partner- but iI the repercussions oI each behavior class are
equal, there seems to be little incentive Ior treading the more moral oI two paths both deemed to
be immoral:
'%heir abstract demand that homosexuals be saved, their loving invitation to leave` a
deception,` could only serve to obliterate the integrity and selI-respect oI any gay child who
heard them. %he ministers who used such language certainly could not provide an ethic Ior
homosexual living. %hey oIIered a way out, not a way Iorward. But what iI the way out was
unavailable? What options remained? What incentives were oIIered Ior you to choose one way
oI liIe over another, when all possible expressions oI your identity, Irom love and Iidelity to
promiscuity and prostitution, were regarded as morally indistinguishable one Irom the other?
How can a human being navigate an ethical liIe in the midst oI such moral nihilism?
Along these lines, one author who argues Ior LDS SSM wrote:
'Gay marriage need not be seen as incompatible with LDS doctrine. %he Church opposes sexual
activity outside marriage; but by recognizing gay married relationships, it would allow the
ennobling expression oI natural sexuality in a morally responsible way, within the context oI
commitment. Gays could then be expected to observe the same standards oI Iidelity to their
spouse that the Church requires oI heterosexual persons. Channeling gay sexual expression in
this way would discourage the promiscuity that gays as outsiders are, not surprisingly, vulnerable
to. Surely that would be a good thing.
%hough the church's teachings are very appropriate Ior the heterosexual maiority, on what basis
does a homosexually oriented member have Iaith in the ability oI the church to help him or her
be happy and prosperous during mortality? Certainly there is the promise oI Iull opportunity and
Ielicity aIter death- but "it has always been a cardinal teaching with the Latter-day Saints that a
religion which has not the power to save people temporally and make them prosperous and
happy here, cannot be depended upon to save them spiritually, to exalt them in the liIe to
" - Joseph F. Smith. Neal Maxwell similarly taught:
'Whatever it is in the gospel that Jesus tells us to do is productive oI happiness here as well as
salvation in the world to come. %he sum oI human misery is less because some Mormons live
their religion; the sum oI human happiness is greater Ior the same reason.

We are rightly concerned with reIorming and improving our institutions in society.
Said one LDS member:
'I believe that homosexual Latter-day Saints realize that marriage is not an end in itselI. It is not
sought as a badge oI honor, to spite society, or out oI any other questionable motive. Rather
marriage, regardless oI sexual orientation, is viewed as a relationship between people who love
each other that permits both to begin to acquire those godly traits that we all hope to develop
during our mortal existence: unselIishness, kindness, Iorgiveness, sacriIice, service to others, and
Iidelity, to name a Iew. And, as a people we argue IorceIully that no other institution is able to
Ioster these characteristics as eIIectively, and, as we are taught, mortality is the most eIIective
period Ior that to be achieved.
Said one author:
'%he more internal structure or 'real¨ stuII oI the marriage relationship is its connection to
individual human dignity via the opportunity it provides its participants to achieve levels oI
human selI-IulIillment that are wholly unique and otherwise unattainable.
II a prayerIul homosexually oriented member oI the church took a teleological rather than a
deontological ethical approach (arguably as Adam did in consciously and intentionally violating
a commandment oI God to bring about a worthwhile end, namely "that man may be") and
concluded that s/he could obtain more oI godliness through getting as close to marriage as s/he
could with a partner oI the same (or, Ior that matter, opposite) gender than through a long liIe oI
lonely dinners and little Iamily purpose, one might be hard pressed to Iind that iudgment grossly
erroneous. Both religion and culture generally extol marriage. %he LDS church preaches
marriage and Iamily ad nauseum. It's hard to beat marriage as Iar as its value as a stepping stone
to theosis (the core Mormon doctrine oI man becoming like God), and the opposite genderness
aspect oI marriage is not the only cause oI those valuable eIIects. As one Iriend oI mine said,
"no matter how many puppies you save and battered women you help, you're still alone at the
end oI the day.
" Also Irom a gay Iriend: 'We`re being short-shriIted Irom the we` universe,
and we know it
¨ (meaning the identity shiIt Irom 'me¨ to the 'we¨ unity that can come Irom
being married is unavailable to celibacy- sentenced HO people). %hough the God Loveth His
Children pamphlet points out "Partaking oI the sacrament, singing the hymns oI Zion, and
listening to upliIting talks all contribute to your spiritual growth
," general authorities
consistently couch happiness in terms oI spouse and children and preach the central role oI the
Iamily in God's plan in mortality. Comparing service and endeavors outside the home to

motherhood, President Hinckley taught: "%here is no other thing that will compare with that
regardless oI what she does.
" David O. McKay taught, "No other success can compensate Ior
Iailure in the home.
" Might this principle include, Ior those that are capable (including
homosexuals), "No other success can compensate Ior Iailure to have a home," meaning spouse
and/or children? %hough counseled to serve and Iocus on non-Iamily aspects oI liIe, it is clear
that the sum oI these 'other¨ activities will never approach the eternal utility oI even a modest
dose oI parenting a child and/or becoming one with a spouse. Said one LDS homosexual male:
'%he church would have me live a celibate liIe without a partner. It would have me reIrain Irom
even dating. %hey would have me live alone. For the rest oI my liIe. Now, iI this liIe is all about
learning and progression, to what extent would I be able to learn and progress living a liIe like
that? On the other hand, say I got married to a man. We adopted children. We raised them and
taught them the best we could. We experienced trials together as a Iamily, etc. Now wouldn't that
experience be Iar more beneIicial to learning and progression? %o learn compromise and loyalty
within a valid, loving relationship? %o experience the challenge and ioys oI raising children? I
believe I would be much more likely to learn more oI what it must be like to be God in that kind
oI liIe than it would a celibate, lonely one.
Because Iamily is so central, individuals understandably exhibit a certain Iierceness in marriage's
pursuit. A marriage or marriage-like relationship can, like almost no other relationship, context,
or experience in liIe, help one to develop attributes oI godliness such as patience, love, mercy,
and the host oI relational virtues unavailable to non-Iamily experience
. Even iI a prayerIul
homosexually-oriented member oI the church mistakenly Iails to account Ior the primacy oI
earth's purpose to "to see iI they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command
them" in choosing to develop attributes oI godliness through a marriage-like homosexual
relationship, that mistake seems somewhat small ethically. Family is central to the Creator's plan
Ior His children during mortalitv.
ŷ. Famiy: tb¢ form
%he above section about the substance oI Iamily should not be interpreted to say that Iorm is
immaterial- rather, the claim is that substance can be preserved through at least some changes oI
Iorm. God has maniIestly been open to expanding the Iorm oI marriage, as He has repeatedly
done so through history by expanding the 'one man one woman¨ deIinition to 'one man one
woman OR one man several women.¨ %he rebuttal here is: 'But we know oI no case where this
precedent extends to same-gender marriage!¨ %o my knowledge, this is true. However, the Iirst

marriage we know oI was one man/one woman (Adam and Eve); thus, sometime between then
and now, God must have introduced Ior the Iirst time and without earthly precedent the marriage
Iorm expansion oI polygyny. (No doubt some oI the traditional marriage advocates present at
the unveiling ceremony cleaned out their ears, thinking they must have heard Him wrong). II
God was willing to change the 'number oI partners¨ prong oI marriage Iorm, He may be willing
to change the 'number oI genders¨ prong as well. No one argues that God cant expand the
expansion oI marriage Iorm- He can do anything. Notably, the Restoration scriptures (Doctrine
and Covenants, Pearl oI Great Price, and the Book oI Mormon) are silent on anything to do with
homosexuality, and many liturgies Irom monasteries between the Iourth and eleven centuries
suggest that the early Christian church perIormed same-sex marriages.
%hough not direct
evidences oI God`s will, same-sex marriages have been practiced traditionally in a number oI
cultures, such as in parts oI the Inuit culture, the Vanuatu in the South PaciIic, the Ming Dynasty
in China, the Azande in sub-Saharan AIrica, and in cultures in Eastern Siberia and 27 Native
American tribes where Mormon missionaries have proselyted
%hat being said, there are many good reasons, such as the ManiIesto,
to limit marriage in the
church to two partners. I will Iorbear Iurther arguments Ior and against seeking to bring back
LDS polygamy except to say that Iear oI SSM leading to polygamy is not as troubling inside the
church as it is outside it.
Also, legalized same-sex marriage arguably makes same-sex couples` sexual conduct within the
church`s law oI chastity already, since the church`s law oI chastity is tied to 'legal and lawIul¨
marriage. Compare to an apologist`s explanation oI Brigham Young`s anti-interracial marriage
'First, Brigham Young is not even talking about intermarriage between whites and blacks. In
1863, there were Iew, iI any, places where whites were Iree to marry blacks in the United States.
%hereIore, President Young is talking about sexual relations outside oI marriage.
%he strong opposition that Latter-day Saints have to sexual relations outside oI marriage is well-
Since Latter-day Saint men could not legally marry black women, then any sexual relationships
between them were strictly condemned.

Homosexual behavior between legally married persons, such as Buckley Jeppson and husband
Michael Kessler
, already comports with the law oI chastity since as stated in the temple that
standard requires that sexual relations be limited to one`s legally and lawIully wedded husband
or wiIe and thus, Buckley`s sexual relations with Michael, his legal husband, are chaste. As
Iar as I know, no other church moral standard besides the general Article oI Faith 12 duty to
obey the law is explicitly tied to an external legal concept. Perhaps this is part oI the reason Ior
the Church`s opposition to legalizing SSM in Hawaii, CaliIornia, and everywhere else
. II
homosexual relations are sinIul only because they are extra-marital, then they will remain so-
except in marriage
. %hus, LDS SSM might not necessarily require a departure Irom historic
condemnation oI homosexual conduct, since the morality oI such was, arguably, always
conditioned on the absence oI marriage.
Penultimately, the Family Proclamation already contains the mechanism Ior LDS SSM (though
the Family Proclamation hasn`t been sustained by the body oI the church and thereIore is not
new doctrine: '%he only one authorized to bring Iorth any new doctrine is the President oI the
Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation Irom God, and it will be so accepted by
the Council oI the %welve and sustained by the body oI the Church.
¨). President Packer`s talk
was amended to downgrade the description oI the document Irom 'revelation¨ to 'guidance.¨
Even were the Proclamation authoritative, in the very paragraph declaring marriage between a
man and a woman to be 'essential to His eternal plan,¨ it states: 'Disability, death, or other
circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation.¨ Homosexual orientation is an 'other
circumstance necessitating individual adaptation¨ iI ever there was one. "%his is the principle on
which the government oI heaven is conducted- by revelation adapted to the circumstances in
which the children oI the kingdom are placed
"- Joseph Smith. Might not an adaptation be
made available Ior gays and lesbians who seek the moral good oI a Iamily-pursuing, liIe-long
commitment to each other?
Last, God has Irequently turned the doctrinal tables on what consensus church apostles oI the day
thought was truth. Preach the gospel to the gentiles? 'Emphatically not!¨ (until Peter`s vision
oI the sheet descending with unclean animals). Give the priesthood to black men?
'Emphatically not!¨ (until President Kimball`s declaration). Give marriage to homosexuals?
'Emphatically not!¨ (until ). Conclusion? Because oI these reasons, including the

precedent oI polygyny, the likelihood that God will again expand the Iorm oI marriage is more
than nominal.

Ÿ. Cbidr¢n
%hough children are not necessary to constitute an LDS Iamily, children are commonly
contemplated when one thinks oI the word. Same-gender couples can bear and/or raise children
by adopting and/or reproducing as described in chapter Iour.
'Jesse Levey is a Republican activist who says he believes in Iamily values, small government
and his lesbian mothers' right to marry. Levey is part oI the "gayby boom" generation. %he 29-
year-old management consultant is the son oI a lesbian couple who chose to have a child through
artiIicial insemination. He's their only child. Critics oI same-sex marriage say people such as
Levey will grow up shunned and sexually conIused. Yet he says he's a "well-adiusted
heterosexual" whose upbringing proves that love, not gender, makes a Iamily.
¨ %here is a
signiIicant pronatalist camp among homosexual couples. %he Williams Institute estimated that
in a recent year, about 60,000 gay, lesbian, or transgender couples are raising at least one child
under 18
%he Family Proclamation states: "Children are entitled to birth within the bonds oI
¨ %hough we usually think that this clause means that parents who intend to bear
children should be married, there`s a second part: 'children are entitled to birth.¨ Children are
entitled to birth! Entitlements, like rights, are meaningless iI the other side oI the coin is not a
duty that is binding on someone. %his duty is reinIorced by the command to 'multiply and
replenish.¨ II this duty exists, and reproduction is the only available means Ior children to be
born, then adults are obligated not only to reIrain Irom bearing out-oI-wedlock children- thev are
also obligated to bear children. %hus, it would seem that at least those Iertile adults who choose
not to bear any children are in breach oI an important duty. Now to the relevance:
II a particular child will not be conceived but Ior a homosexual marriage, it is very diIIicult to
argue against that homosexual marriage on a children`s-interest basis, even iI one were to

concede that the child`s liIe would be less ideal than in a diIIerent Iamily. How do you compare
even a blighted liIe to no liIe at all? Picture an empty bench- on it doesn`t sit Greg, the child that
was never born because the ban on gay marriage resulted in his Family Proclamation-Iollowing
mother`s choice oI a celibate liIe over the lesbian union Greg would have been born into (e.g. via
a sperm donor). As much as liIe can suck sometimes, most non-suicidal people nonetheless
overwhelmingly preIer to exist. A same-sex household may be a promising Iamily environment
Ior an IVF child: the commitment oI parents is oIten a key predictor oI child outcomes. Since
IVF techniques and adoption are usually expensive and serious undertakings, 'a same-sex
married couple might well view their marriage as both a symbolic and legal commitment, and
this acknowledged commitment might be the deciding Iactor when the couple was considering
whether to adopt a child or whether to produce a child through the use oI advanced reproductive
¨ Regardless oI parenting caliber, iI one contends that Greg`s spirit will simply be
sent to another Iamily, by that same token it becomes diIIicult to criticize normal, Iertile couples
who choose to have no children. II the buck doesn`t stop at adults capable oI reproduction,
where does it stop? Why block an attempt by God`s children to exercise their Iree agency by
choosing to IulIill one oI the most important duties incumbent on them, namely the bearing oI
children within the bonds oI matrimony? Is theirs not the same dilemma that Adam Iaced?
Adam could not both multiply/replenish the earth and reIrain Irom partaking oI the Iruit, though
he could do either. Most homosexual couples cannot both multiply/replenish the earth and avoid
the sin oI leaving the church as a consequence oI their same-sex monogamy, though s/he could
do either. Are they not Iollowing the moral example oI Father Adam, who chose the better
option oI multiplying/replenishing the earth 'that man may be¨? Why seek to place stumbling
blocks in the path oI these moral agents? Why not instead aIIirm the diIIicult decision made by
partially obedient, pronatalist homosexuals, or iI not aIIirm at least reIrain Irom condemning it?
'You do not deIend Iamilies by making liIe more diIIicult Ior people trying to create a
Ź. ar¢nting
%hough the issue is hotly contested, the predominance oI research to date indicates that 'there is
a consensus among credible scientiIic researchers which conIirms the abilities oI gay and lesbian

persons as parents, and Iinds positive outcomes Ior their children. Statements by the leading
associations oI experts in this area reIlect proIessional consensus that children raised by lesbian
or gay parents do not diIIer in any important respects Irom those raised by heterosexual parents.
No credible empirical research suggests otherwise
. II gay, lesbian, or bisexual parents were
inherently less capable than otherwise comparable heterosexual parents, their children would
evidence problems regardless oI the type oI sample. %his pattern clearly has not been
¨ %he inherent parenting capability exception here would be breastIeeding with gay
men- though men can lactate
, I know oI no gay couples who have undergone the intervention
needed to enable breastIeeding. Excerpts Irom studies and three statements:
Study 1: "According to their mothers' reports, the 17-year-old daughters and sons oI lesbian
mothers were rated signiIicantly higher in social, school/academic, and total competence and
signiIicantly lower in social problems, rule-breaking, aggressive, and externalizing problem
behavior than their age-matched counterparts in Achenbach's normative sample oI American
" -17-year national longitudinal lesbian Iamily study
Study 2: Also in 2010, "children raised by lesbian parents (mostly comothers) have been Iound
across a large number oI tests to be generally similar to children raised by heterosexual parents
on dimensions oI psychological well-being, peer relations, and social and behavioral
I presume the inconsistent Iindings (same vs. superior outcomes) are attributable to the separate
Statement 1: %he Canadian Psychological Association has stated in 2006: '%he literature
(including the literature on which opponents to marriage oI same-sex couples appear to rely)
indicates that parents` Iinancial, psychological and physical well-being is enhanced by marriage
and that children beneIit Irom being raised by two parents within a legally-recognized union. As
the CPA stated in 2003, the stressors encountered by gay and lesbian parents and their children
are more likely the result oI the way in which society treats them than because oI any
deIiciencies in Iitness to parent.
Statement 2: 'In July 2006 the American Academy oI Pediatrics issued the Iollowing statement:
%here is ample evidence to show that children raised by same-gender parents Iare as well as
those raised by heterosexual parents. More than twenty-Iive years oI research have documented
that there is no relationship between parents` sexual orientation and any measure oI a child`s
emotional, psychosocial, and behavioral adiustment. %hese data have demonstrated no risk to
children as a result oI growing up in a Iamily with one or more gay parents. Conscientious and
nurturing adults, whether they are men or women, heterosexual or homosexual, can be excellent


Statement 3: We also know that the kids oI heterosexuals do better when their parents are
married rather than iust living together. %he parents' relationship is more stable and grounded
and that gives kids a more secure Ieeling. We know that when the parents are married rather than
iust roommates, that the relationship lasts longer. Far more unmarried couples split up than
marriages. Marriage provides more stability to the kids. Denying gays marriage obiectively
harms their kids and makes them Ieel more insecure and increases their risk oI living in a single
parent home and the accompanying harm that it causes. Why are we LDS promoting this anti-
child and anti- Iamily agenda? ... Many straight couples aren't ideal parents. %hey may have poor
morals, do drugs, subiect kids to second hand smoke, drink, belittle education, put the kids in day
care every day, live in a poor/dangerous neighborhood, don't provide a well-balanced diet,
etc...Why are such sub-ideal couples allowed to marry, but a lesbian couple, both with graduate
degrees in Marriage, Family and Human Development Irom BYU, who are active in a church,
who are actively involved in the child's local school, who live in a nice neighborhood, who have
one parent stay home and make nutritious well balanced meals and raises the child with no day
care, where neither parent smokes, drinks, does drugs, etc...are NO% allowed to marry? Which
couple is more Iit to raise a child and deserve the protections marriage provides spouses and

It is not diIIicult to imagine at least some committed homosexual couples lovingly raising
children. It seems common sense to me that married homosexual couples would on average do
at least as good a parenting iob, iI not better, than the more prevalent single parent homes, which
many conclude is a very risky environment Ior children. Said one gay LDS man:
'I also Ieel like iI gays were granted the right to marry their marriages would probably have a
higher rate oI success because they have had to Iight so long Ior that right. I'm sure aIter the
initial marriages, the numbers would be equal to heterosexual marriages, but there would be a lot
oI successIul ones. Same goes Ior kids. %hese couples have to go through so many obstacles to
be able to have kids. %hey really have to work hard Ior it. %here aren't any "accidents" or
unplanned children. So in all likelihood, these homes would be very well prepared Ior children
and the parents would be very committed, simply due to the hardships they must go through to
enioy parenthood.
Is it not socially sensible to at the least promote healthy, committed homosexual couple Iamilies
over single parenting? Many would go Iarther and argue that same-gender Iamilies merit the
same treatment and consideration as parent candidates as opposite-gender Iamilies. Based on the
observed outcomes to date, this parenting-capacity argument is not Iar-Ietched:
'|C|hildren can and do thrive in both contexts |same and opposite sex two parent households|,
and some oI the diIIerences noted in the literature do not establish that children are better oII
when raised by parents oI diIIerent sexes.
Children in opposite-sex households stand to beneIit Irom SSM as well:

'What children, all children, need is protection Irom the bleak allure oI a culture without
commitment and a Iuture without marriage. %hey need to grow up taking Ior granted that love,
sex, and marriage go togetherIor everybody. %hey need to live among Iriends and neighbors,
including gay Iriends and neighbors, who are married, not shacked up. No matter how you look
at things, it is hard to see how a marriageless homosexual culture sends a good message Ior
children or improves their social environment.
In addition to child-beneIit-based parent arguments, one should consider the parent`s beneIit as
well. '%he title Iather is sacred and eternal. It is signiIicant that oI all the titles oI respect and
honor and admiration that are given to Deity, He has asked us to address Him as Father.
¨ Like
uniting with a spouse, parenting children is a crucial step in theosis that should take place in
mortality where possible. Lonely celibacy cannot aIIord a parenting experience to nearly the
degree that homosexual marriage can.
ź. roviding r¢iaT¢ car¢giv¢rs
'From society`s point oI view, an unattached person is an accident waiting to happen. %he
burdens oI contingency are likely to Iall, immediately and sometimes crushingly, on people-
relatives, Iriends, neighbors- who have enough problems oI their own, and then on charities and
welIare agencies. We all suIIer periods oI illness, sadness, distress, Iury. What happens to us,
and what happens to the people around us, when we desperately need a hand but Iind none to
II marriage has any meaning at all, it is that when you collapse Irom a stroke, there will be
another person whose 'iob¨ is to drop everything and come to your aid. Or that when you come
home aIter being Iired, there will be someone to talk you out oI committing a massacre or killing
yourselI. %o be married is to know there is someone out there Ior whom you are always Iirst in
Providing reliable caregivers is one oI the most signiIicant societal and personal beneIits and one
oI the most signiIicant responsibilities that attach to marriage. Marriage is more stable on
average than cohabitation (and Ior the same reasons, I would presume domestic partnership and
civil union):
'A husband or wiIe is the social worker oI Iirst resort, the psychiatrist oI Iirst resort, the cop and
counselor and insurer and nurse and 911 operator oI Iirst resort.
'It is true that the single most important reason society cares about marriage is Ior the sake oI
children. But society's stake in stable, long-term partnerships hardly ends there. Marriage

remains an economic bulwark. Single people (especially women) are economically vulnerable,
and much more likely to Iall into the arms oI the welIare state. Furthermore, they call sooner
upon public support when they need careand, indeed, are likelier to Iall ill (married people, the
numbers show, are not only happier but considerably healthier).
Many oI the beneIits oI marriage (which I detail later in this chapter) may come because married
people have someone to look aIter them, and someone to look aIter- and they know it.
Homosexuals largely lack this assurance:
'One oI the Iirst things many people worry about when coming to terms with their
homosexuality is: Who will take care oI me when I`m old? When I`m sick?
II it is true that marriage creates kin, then surely society`s interest in kin creation is strongest oI
all Ior people who are less likely to have children oI their own to rely on in old age and who may
be reiected or even evictedit is still not all that uncommonby their own parents in youth. II
the AIDS crisis showed anything, it was that homosexuals can and will take care oI each other,
sometimes with breathtaking devotionand that no institution or government program can begin
to match the love oI a devoted partner.
One sees more evidence oI this 'commitment to caretaking¨ as a primary aspect oI marriage in
three ways: legal, normative, and ceremonial.
Legal (generally):
O Spouses can make liIe or death decisions when the other is incapacitated
O Don`t have to testiIy against each other in court
O Hospital visiting rights
O Doctor`s cannot reIuse to tell the spouse`s condition
O Inheritance rights
O File taxes as a unit
O Etc.
Many legal beneIits recognize the unique responsibility spouses have to care Ior each other. As
one author concluded:
'%he vast maiority oI ways in which the law recognizes marriagepractically all oI them, iI you
stop to think about itaim at Iacilitating and bolstering the caregiving commitment.

In addition to these legal evidences, normative social expectations also support the proposition
that providing reliable caretakers is a primary purpose/aspect oI marriage. %he Iirst evidence
comes Irom the reader- do you consider caring Ior each other as a primary purpose/aspect oI
marriage? My guess is that most would answer yes. Has this purpose/aspect been substantively
attached to marriage in the past Iew centuries and beyond, in the reader`s perspective? I would
again predict an aIIirmative response. %he third evidence comes Irom a hypothetical. Let`s say
Mary and John, a middle-aged couple, are married. John is terribly iniured at work: paralyzed
Irom the waist down. Mary immediately abandons him, moving several states away. Mary calls
every so oIten to chat Ior a bit, but leaves John`s care completely to a hired helper. Could Mary
still claim to be married? Would John be likely to get a divorce, perhaps even more likely than iI
Mary had committed adultery? I imagine their Iriends would also be shocked. '|W|hatever else
marriage may be, it is a commitment to be there. the sine qua non oI marriage.
Last, one sees evidence Irom the text oI Irequently used marriage vows. %he Book oI Common
Prayer Irom as early as 1662:
'%o have and to hold, Irom this day Iorward, Ior better Ior worse, Ior richer Ior poorer, in
sickness and in health, to love, cherish, and to obey, till death us do part. Wilt thou love her,
comIort her, honor and keep her in sickness and in health; and, Iorsaking all others, keep thee
only unto her, so long as ye both shall live?¨
Regarding this prayer, Jonathan Rauch said:
'%he text speaks twice oI care and comIort in sickness and in health,` twice oI love, twice oI a
liIetime bond. %hose three, it implies, are interwoven: the commitment to care Ior another Ior
liIe is the love which exceeds all others, the love oI another even above oneselI. %here is no
promise oI children here, either to have them or to raise them, no mention oI sex, no mention oI
inheritance, not a word about personal IulIillment. they placed at the center oI marriage what
most married people today also place there: in sickness and in health, to love and cherish, till
death us do part.`

Providing reliable caregivers is well within the capacities oI both homosexuals and
heterosexuals. %he beneIits Irom this aspect oI marriage accrue to homosexuals and society
more generally, including heterosexuals. %he opportunity cost in the church and in the country is
enormous: potentially thousands and millions (respectively) oI reliable caretaking relationships.
Celibacy (and, to a lesser degree, civil union, cohabitation, and domestic partnership) does not do
nearly as good a iob oI providing reliable caretakers as does marriage, including SSM.
Ż. S¢tting yoang m¢n
A Iew years ago, I lived south oI BYU campus in the Moon Apartments oI Provo, Utah. While
there I remember having a one-on-one talk with my bishop about marriage. Encouraging me to
marry, he taught me that young men are sexually driven, strong, and aggressive. His teaching, I
think, is an expression oI common wisdom: marriage channels young men`s sexual and other
energy to settle and stabilize them. Said a prominent political scientist in 1993:
'Much oI the history oI civilization can be thought oI as an eIIort to adapt these male
dispositions to contemporary needs by restricting aggression or channeling it into appropriate
channels. %hat adaptation has oIten required extraordinary measures. oI all the institutions
through which men may pass- schools, Iactories, the military- marriage has the largest eIIect.
Wilson went on to note some evidence Ior the unmatched stabilizing and settling eIIect oI
marriage, such as the statistic that unmarried men between 24 and 35 are three times as likely to
murder another male, and are more likely to rape and rob, among other risks, than their married
counterparts. I will cut short a more exhaustive review oI the civilizing eIIects oI marriage by
stating that I think such eIIects are intuitive because:
'Marriage conIers status: to be married, in the eyes oI society, is to be grown up. Marriage
creates stakes: someone depends on you. Marriage creates a saIe harbor Ior sex. Marriage puts
two heads together, pooling experience and braking impulsiveness. OI all the things a young
person can do to move beyond the vulnerabilities oI early adulthood, marriage is Iar and away
the most IruitIul. We are diIIerent people when we have a home: more stable, more productive,
more mature, less selI-obsessed, less impatient, less anxious. And marriage is the great
An article Irom The Economist arguing Ior gay marriage emphasized the societal value oI
marriage in parenting and caregiving. It then said:

'Not least important, marriage is a great social stabiliser oI men. Homosexuals need emotional
and economic stability no less than heterosexualsand society surely beneIits when they have
it. For society, the real choice is between homosexual marriage and homosexual alienation. No
social interest is served by choosing the latter.
However, it`s not only marrying, but the prospect oI marrying, than can contribute to the social
beneIit oI settling marinating-in-testosterone-brained men. I have observed this in my own and
my peers` lives. Said one corroborating author:
'II you hope to get married, and iI your Iriends and peers hope to get married, you will socialize
and date more careIully. II you`re a young woman, you will avoid getting pregnant
unintentionally or gaining what used to be called a reputation. II you`re a young man, you will
reach Ior respectability. You will devote yourselI to your work, try to build status, and earn
money to make yourselI marriageable (oIten true oI women, too). People who expect to get
married observe and emulate husbands and wives.
%hese civilizing eIIects apply to both men and women, though predominantly to young men.
'So what?¨ a critic might say. 'Young homosexual men can still get married- to a woman.¨
%his rebuttal reminds me oI a discussion I had about SSM a couple months ago with my brother,
*Matthew, and some others. One person advocated Ior SSM, to which Matthew pushed back,
noting that some homosexual people are happily married to someone oI the opposite sex. My
brother wryly retorted (out oI Matthew`s earshot) that a lot oI black people managed to attain
some level oI happiness under the yoke oI slavery as well, but that Iact doesn`t argue Ior
maintaining the institution. I can also see the parallel drawn by my Iriend who quoted Irom
GriIIin`s lack Like Me:
'`Whites told their black employees, and really believed it, that the NAACP and Martin Luther
King were the black man`s greatest enemies. %hey were oIIended by any suggestion oI iniustice.
%hey claimed that they always treated black people wonderIully well and always would so long
as black people 'stayed in their place.¨ II you asked them what that 'place¨ was, they could not
really say, but every black man knew that place was right in the middle oI the stereotype.
Many in the anti-SSM make the same claim: we treat homosexuals wonderIully and always
will, as long as they 'stay in their place¨- outside marriage.
I trust that the comparable preiudice holds true Ior but a small subset oI SSM opponents. %o
return to the critic, I note a Iew details Irom a 2010 study reviewing 20 years oI mixed-
orientation marriage studies:

'While gay-heterosexual marriages beneIitted Irom communication and discussion oI individual
needs, Iew such marriages enioyed a mutually satisIying sexual relationship together. Hays and
Samuels (1989) administered a 28-page questionnaire adapted Irom Klein, SepekoII, and WolI
(1985) to 21 heterosexual women who were or had been married to, and had children with,
bisexual or gay men. Descriptive analysis revealed that all women had anticipated a liIelong,
monogamous marriage, even those who had some knowledge oI their husband`s premarital
homoerotic Ieelings. GrieI, social isolation, and Ieeling deceived were common responses oI
women aIter they discovered the sexual or emotional relationships oI their husbands with other
men. Forty-eight percent oI the participants had divorced, separated, or were in the process oI
leaving their husbands. Women did not Ieel at liberty to seek support Irom Iriends and Iamily
due to Iear oI stigma. OI the 52° oI participants who remained married, three Ielt secure in their
relationships. Most married couples were not sure iI their marriages would endure.
|From another study| A wavelike model oI changing emotional Ioci was identiIied Irom common
themes Iound in participants` written narratives oI their experiences. AIter their husbands came
out to them, the women reported the Iollowing issues that emerged as they examined their
relationship both in the present and as they reviewed their relationship history: (a) awareness oI
sexual or emotional dissonance with their spouse, (b) bewilderment and Ieelings oI Iailure that
their nai¯vete´ or actions caused the dissonance, (c) simultaneous relieI and preoccupation about
the implications oI their husband`s coming out, (d) despair as they were unable to Iind mutually
acceptable solutions except separation or divorce, (e) concern Ior their children`s well-being
aIter learning that their Iather was gay, (I) disorientation as the women tried to assess the impact
oI the experience on themselves, (g) spiritual turmoil as they examined their religious belieIs and
ties to their Iaith community, and (h) redeIining themselves and renegotiating liIe plans aIter
integrating their experiences and resolving loss issues.
|From a study surveying gay and bisexual men in MOM`s| %he maiority oI men (65.4°) married
because it seemed an expected liIe choice. HalI oI the sample realized they were gay or
bisexual beIore marrying. Men were signiIicantly more homophobic, with negative attitudes
toward gays and lesbians.
|Another study| All participants reported depression longer than a month beIore coming out to
their wives and reported selI-loathing aIter witnessing their wives` anger and pain. Men were
IearIul oI losing Iriends and Iamily ties aIter coming out.
|From the discussion| Pressure Irom within is described in these data as arising Irom tension
between societal expectations, love Ior spouse, and same-sex attraction; Iear oI losing one`s
Iamily; developing a cogent sense oI selI while compartmentalizing Ieelings and behaviors;
dealing with ambiguity about one`s sexual identity across contexts; and being able to live
intentionally and with integrity.
Coming out to one`s straight partner was reported to be an extremely stressIul event Ior both
Rating on scales oI homosexuality was positively correlated with incidence oI divorce and
separation. Findings Irom investigations in Australia and the Philippines indicate that lack oI
community acceptance, Iew positive gay role models, and little gay-aIIirming societal discourse
exert pressure on bisexual and gay men to marry women.

Straight women in MOM experienced an array oI responses aIter their husband`s coming out,
ranging Irom outrage to relieI. Such women`s experiences were oIten conceptualized in terms oI
loss, shock, and sadness. Responses included isolating themselves, Ieeling humiliated, seeking
counseling, and attempting to renegotiate or dissolve their marriage.,
I would also reply that the church now counsels (at least to a signiIicant degree) against mixed
orientation marriages
. I point out that many gay men in mixed orientation marriages Iantasize
about men to enable their sexual perIormance, and aIter having sex with their wives some oI
them go into the bathroom and vomit. From an 1897 treatise on 'sexual inversion:¨
' I have little sympathy with those who are prepared to "cure" the invert at any price... the remedy
|hypnosis, prostitute services| seems to me worse than the disease. it is not uncommon Ior even
a pronounced invert to be able sometimes to eIIect coitus. It oIten becomes easy iI at the time he
Iixes his thoughts on images connected with his own sex. But the perversion remains unaIIected;
the subiect is merely practising masturbation per vaginam.
%he assistance oI an honest woman would be much better therapeutically, but it can very seldom
be right and Ieasible to obtain the help oI one who is likely to be successIul... it is oIten not
diIIicult to prematurely persuade an invert that his condition is changed; his health is perhaps
improving, and iI he experiences some slight attraction to a person oI the opposite sex he hastily
assumes that a deep and permanent change has occurred. %his may be disastrous, especially iI it
leads to marriage... %he apparent change does not turn out to be deep, and the invert's position is
more unIortunate than his original position, both Ior himselI and Ior his wiIe. Nor is it possible to
view with satisIaction the prospects oI inverts begetting or bearing children. OIten, no doubt, the
children turn out Iairly well, but Ior the most part they bear witness that they belong to a
neurotic... |Iootnote: "I have recently been told.. oI a congenital invert.. who lately married in the
hope oI escaping his perversion, and was not even able to consummate the marriage. It is
needless to insist on the misery which is created in such cases. "| It is better that a man should
be enabled to make the best oI his own strong natural instincts, with all their disadvantages, than
that he should be unsexed and perverted, crushed into a position which he has no natural aptitude
to occupy. As both RaIIalovich and Fere have lately insisted, it is the ideal oI chastity, rather
than oI normal sexuality, which the congenital invert should hold beIore his eyes.
I note that the trust-vitiating risk oI adultery is elevated in these marriages and point out the irony
that some oI the same critics which excoriate gay male promiscuity`s risk to marital Iidelity
would also suggest they marry an individual they`re not sexually interested in. II the critic is
straight and male, I would shortcut a Iuller deIense along these lines and ask him a bottom-line
question: 'Imagine that the world now has onlv SSM: OSM (opposite sex marriage) is not an
option, and opposite-sex couples have no special legal or cultural status and are considered to be
cohabiting. II you want a liIelong, committed relationship, your options are to either marry a
man or shack up with a woman. How willing would you be to marry another man (same
question but to another woman iI the critic were Iemale)?¨ I don`t know what the critic would

say, but this heterosexual author is exceptionally interested in marrying a woman and intensely
disinterested in marrying a man- and I expect those interests wouldn`t be much diIIerent iI the
tables turned on me tomorrow. '|M|ost regard the hope oI a love marriage as the sine qua non oI
the pursuit oI happinessahead oI career, money, Iame, even children.
¨ II LDS SSM were
available, I would make two predictions: but Iew heterosexuals would avail themselves oI SSM,
and but Iew homosexuals would opt Ior OSM. %he author oI hen Gav !eople Get Married.
hat Happens hen Societies Legalize Same-Sex Marriage. who studied the eIIects oI SSM in
the Netherlands (which has legalized SSM since 2001), wrote:
'I compare the actual rates oI same-sex marriage or registered partnership across countries.
|W|hat I Iind is that the vast maiority oI gay and heterosexual couples alike choose marriage
when they have options Ior legal recognition.
By prohibiting SSM, all homosexuals except those who enter mixed orientation marriages are
eIIectively barred Irom marriage- and thus, Ior the male subset oI that population, Irom
marriage`s (and the prospect oI marriage`s) settling and stabilizing eIIects.

%. Cod did not cr¢at¢ a p¢op¢ pbysicay ma¢ and f¢ma¢
Up to this point, the arguments in support oI SSM have largely been some oI the same reasons
that Latter-day Saints typically support OSM (opposite-sex marriage). We will now turn to some
reasons that are more uniquely speciIic to SSM.
Many church leaders have argued against a biological origin Ior homosexual orientation based
on the claim that God makes no mistakes- 'While it is a convincing idea to some, it is oI the
devil. No one is locked into that kind oI liIe. From our premortal liIe we were directed into a
physical body. %here is no mismatching oI bodies and spirits. Boys are to become men --
masculine, manly men --ultimately to become husbands and Iathers
¨ (1978). %his position
was reiterated as recently as the October 2010 general conIerence: 'Some suppose that they were
pre-set and cannot overcome what they Ieel are inborn tendencies toward the impure and
unnatural. Not so! Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone? Remember, He is our
¨ |one might question the implicated theodicy (resolutions to the problem oI evil) here-

iI He is our benevolent Father, why did He create and send so many oI us physically and
mentally disabled into a world saturated with evil, suIIering, and abuse?|
%he nature oI marriage as a two-gender institution may be Ioundational and Iundamental- but it
will be impossible to apply iI gender is indiscernible. God created man male and Iemale-
Genesis says so, right? ot i1 voure talking about phvsical sex. Application oI the idea that
God made us all physically male or physically Iemale Iails not Iar beyond its limited application
to Adam and Eve. %he prooI:
Because the claim requires gender to be binary (either male or Iemale and nothing in between),
in order to be reliable a gender test must also place every individual it is applied to correctly into
one oI the two categories. %his implies two requirements:
1) the test must place every person (i.e. none can be ambiguous), and
2) there must be no Ialse positives or Ialse negatives (classiIying a male as a Iemale, or vice-
versa, such as might happen iI applying multiple tests or a single test with multiple non-exclusive

What criteria would you use to ascertain physical gender?
(Ior support oI the examples cited below see e.g.
http://www.isna.org/, and the reIerences section oI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex)

I present several commonly proposed phenotypic and genotypic criteria:

a. %he 'pull your pants down¨ test (genitalia)- take a look and see iI they have a vagina or a
penis. %his test Iails because there are some people that have both or neither. %here are some
that have a partial penis/partial clitoris. Some have both ovaries and testicles. Some have
testicles where their ovaries should be. %his test violates both requirements 1 and 2 above.
b. %he genetics test (XY is male, XX is Iemale)- this will help by separating those with
ambiguous genitalia, and is testable through genotying. However, this test also Iails because
some people are XXY or XXYY. Also, some have XY but the SRY gene either isn`t expressed
or is damaged (so the XY individual is phenotypically Iemale, the deIault gender in the sexual
diIIerentiation oI humans- see chapter 2). %his test doesn`t tell a iudge how to come down in
these cases (violating 1 above).

c. %he gametes test- whichever gametes (eggs or sperm) a person makes deIines the
person`s gender. A number oI people Iail to make any gametes (e.g. via upstream aborted
oogenesis or spermatogenesis)- thus Irustrating requirement 1.
c. %he brain test- though largely alike, as Brizendine (author oI The Male rain and The
Female rain) summarizes, there are distinct structural diIIerences between the average male
and the average Iemale brain. %he exceptions here are 1) those who exhibit intermediate brain
phenotypes, 2) those who have a male brain but Iemale genotype and Iemale genitalia, and 3)
those with a phenotypically Iemale brain and phenotypically Iemale genitalia but male genes.
%hus, requirements 1 and 2 are both violated.
d. %he sexual orientation test- assign the gender opposite the sexual orientation oI the
subiect (e.g. iI the person`s attracted to men, conclude the person is a Iemale). %his test Iails
both because it is counterintuitive and because sexual orientation is spectral rather than binary
(e.g. what about bisexual people?), thus at the least violating requirement 1.
%ake Mr./Ms. Chase as an example. Born in New Jersey with ambiguous genitalia that baIIled
doctors, her/his parents originally named her/him Brian Sullivan, noting that "Chase is XX, and
the reason Ior her intersex condition has never been Iully understood." Mr./Ms. Chase was born
with "mixed male/Iemale sex organs" and aIter the discovery oI ovaries and a uterus, a
clitoridectomy was perIormed when she/he was aged 18 months. Her/his parents, as advised by
doctors, moved to a new town and raised him/her as a girl, Bonnie Sullivan. Although she/he had
begun speaking beIore the operation, she/he Iell silent Ior six months aIter the operation. She/he
developed ovotestis at age 8 (later clariIied as "the testicular part oI her ovo-testes"). She/he
Iound out about the clitorectomy aged 10, and at age 21 succeeded in gaining access to her/his
medical records. She/he now goes by two names, Bo Laurent and Cheryl Chase, and advocates
that surgery should only be done on patients who are able to make an inIormed choice.
What is a bishop to do when one oI these ambiguous-gender persons comes beIore him
requesting marriage? Does he send the person away with a prescription Ior liIelong celibacy?
Does he randomly assign the person a gender and restrict their marriage prospects to its
opposite? OItentimes iudges decide the gender oI these ambiguous individuals when the intersex
person is young, ordering invasive surgery and hormone treatment to Iorce the individual to
become one gender (one oI the iudges I`ve worked Ior told me he has had to make the call a Iew
times). Not inIrequently the person grows up and angrily claims the iudge got it wrong, in some
cases seeking a sex change operation. In other cases the individual grows up and criticizes the

iudge Ior not letting them remain as they were born phenotypically a third gender. Now back
to the argument, where I conclude:
&nless and until a reliable and unambiguous test of physical gender is identified the
existence of these intersex persons frustrates the two-gender claim.
As one can see, the claim that God made all people either physically male or physically Iemale is
demonstrably Ialse (to say nothing oI those who Ieel their spiritual gender doesn`t match their
physical, such as a subset oI transgendered
persons). II this building block is destroyed, the
cross-beam that relied upon it, namely that God placed the proper sexual orientation into every
body, is also suspect- sublato 1undamento. cadit opus (the Ioundation being removed, the
structure Ialls). Additionally, iI a person appears beIore an LDS Bishop and requests marriage,
and this is key- the bishop doesnt know with certaintv the spiritual gender o1 the requestor.
%his is not surprising because the bishop (or you or I) doesn`t know with certainty whether a
body is even ensouled or not. Picture a room with ten bodies. One has had no vital signs Ior an
hour (heart, lungs, brain, etc.). Another has brain stem Iunction but no higher brain Iunction.
One has no brain Iunction but the lungs and heart are working. One has had no vital signs Ior
two seconds. One is a united egg and sperm right beIore union, one the sperm and egg are united
but the chromosomes aren`t. One is partway through syngamy (similar to the concepts oI
Iertilization or conception), one three seconds aIter syngamy (though thirty nonessential base
pairs didn`t bond), one ten days aIter syngamy, and the last one two hundred and thirty days aIter
'It is a Iact that a child has liIe beIore birth. However, there is no direct revelation on when the
spirit enters the body.¨ 2010 Church Handbook oI Instructions, 17.2.10
Without being told, can you or the bishop tell how many ensouled bodies are in the room with
your eyes closed? II so, what is the number? Could you count iI your eyes were open? How
about open with access to all the details iust listed? Would reliance on physical characteristics
advance, obstruct, or have no eIIect on discerning a spiritual reality?
II the Bishop cannot discern even the presence oI absence oI a human spirit (which makes issues
such as organ donation and abortion very sticky), how can the Bishop be relied upon to correctly

identiIy an attribute oI that spirit (i.e., its gender)? Could he or you or anyone iudge the spiritual
hair color oI a person? How about the spiritual height oI an individual? %he Family
Proclamation teaches that 'Gender is an essential characteristic oI individual premortal, mortal,
and eternal identity and purpose. In the premortal realm, spirit sons and daughters knew and
worshiped God..¨ Because our spirits did not have bodies premortally, gender as used here
must necessarily be spiritual. Here we return to the exacting task oI discerning spiritual gender.
II the Bishop is blind and a person is brought beIore him, does he know whether that person is a
male or a Iemale spirit? Would he not wait to conclude until he heard the person speak?
Wouldn`t sight-privileged people conclude based on apparent physical appearance? Would
some oI them Iactor in the testimony oI the person, who may be transgender? What iI a person
got a sex change and altered their appearance- could they not trick the Bishop into marrying a
Iemale-turned-male to another Iemale? What iI that person were born intersex? Is there any
basis Ior aIIirming conclusively the spiritual gender oI anv person, irrespective oI their physical
appearance? %he practice oI marrying only physical males and physical Iemales risks both Ialse
negatives (prohibiting a male and a Iemale spirit Irom marrying because their bodies are oI the
same or ambiguous sex) and Ialse positives (uniting two same-sex spirits because their bodies are
oI diIIerent or ambiguous sex). In the absence oI certainty about spiritual gender, it is irrational
to exclude marriage on the basis oI apparent physical sex: instead, a bishop charged with
marrying male to Iemale spirits must either not marry at all (thus avoiding same-sex pairings) or
marry any two people that come beIore him (thus avoiding the absence oI any marriage). Stated
another way: being uncertain as to sex itselI, it makes little sense to exclude marriage on that
basis, and more sense to instead stake marriage access on a more sure and discernible
Ioundation, especiallv iI the relevant determination is oI spiritual sex. %hat Ioundation is the
platIorm constructed oI the planks oI 1) two partner, 2) consent, and 3) minimum age requisites,
and not 4) indiscernible spiritual sex. SSM Iits the bill: physical man/woman-only marriage does
%. W¢ can't T¢ ŵŴŴ¾ c¢rtain w¢ know Cod's tboagbts on SSM
%he claim has been made that SSM will never be perIormed in the church because God has
sexual intercourse with His wiIe and God has oIIspring
, implying that same-sex couples
cannot mimic a heterosexually married God in this way (though opposite-sex couples can). %o

my knowledge, precious little iI anything has been revealed about either the mechanism oI
spiritual reproduction or God`s sex liIe. Certainly, the idea oI reproducing as we typically do on
earth (by having a number oI sexual episodes with a partner Iollowed by a painIul, risky nine-
month pregnancy) becomes diIIicult to conceptualize as God`s method, considering He and His
wiIe(ves)`s numberless progeny, omnipotence, and invulnerability. In the end, that would be an
obscene amount oI sex and pregnancy (numberless oIIspring multiplied by numerous orgasms
per conception) Ior the embodied parents oI unembodied spirits. Plus, we are close to giving the
ability to reproduce together to same-sex couples here on earth- is there doubt that omnipotent
persons in heaven would struggle with a comparable task? For instance, we are told God created
our bodies Irom the dust oI the earth, which seems very unlike sexual intercourse- in which case
increasingly Iollowing His example through the use oI reproductive technologies might seem
diIIicult to condemn. In any case, there is insuIIicient revelatory basis to support the contention
that homosexual couples cannot mimic God`s method oI spiritual reproduction: the literal
spiritual parentage oI God cannot even potentially argue against SSM absent knowing the
mechanism oI spiritual reproduction.
Also, even iI God is heterosexually married, He is either exclusively monogamous or
polygamous, in which case to become like Him each oI us must mimic Him- meaning that in
eternity all will be either polygamous or monogamous. Given that over time IaithIul church
members have Iit some into one and some into the other camp during mortality, one or the other
class will have some signiIicant changes to make in heaven. II God instead permits a diversity oI
marriage Iorms (e.g. you can be exalted in either polygamous or monogamous opposite-gender
marriage) as long as the individual is sealed to at least one other spouse, then there is no
necessary preclusion oI same-sex pairings. Indeed, knowing that God is not the only person oI
His stature and indeed trod a path similar to ours, including likely having an exalted spiritual
Iather, we reasonably conclude that a community oI Gods exists. Not knowing the homogeneity
oI that community`s constitution, the possibility oI exalted same-sex couples extant in the
universe at this moment exists.
Said an apostle in 2011:

'By divine design, by divine design, as a part oI the Iather`s plan, there are diIIerences between
male and Iemale spirits. A part oI the plan is Ior a male and a Iemale spirit to progress together
towards the blessings oI Iamily in eternity. %hat`s the reason Ior those simple statements in the
Proclamation. Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained oI God and the Family is
central to the Creator`s plan Ior the eternal destiny oI His children. %hat`s iust Ioundational and
As noted in the immediately preceding section, the lack oI certainty as to spiritual gender calls
into question the utility oI applying a marriage access standard based on apparent physical
gender. II spiritual gender roles are both vitally important and distinct, it is reasonable to ask:
why is there so little guidance given to women on what their roles are? What are the discernible
diIIerences between male and Iemale spirits that are not attributable to biology (that there is in
the population every intermediate between the male and Iemale average oI any given phenotype,
be it patience or amygdala volume, belies the distinct male/Iemale categorization)? What are the
diIIerent sets oI expectations oI men and women? It is clear that all oI us are to develop
Christlike attributes. !reach Mv Gospel identiIies Iaith, hope, charity/love, knowledge, patience,
humility, diligence, and obedience without regard to gender (chapter 6). Almost every
commandment, such as to love God and Iellow man, applies equally to male and Iemale. I have
observed none that balk at the idea oI a Christlike woman, despite the obvious Iact that Jesus is
male and a woman Iemale. We are told in the scriptures very little about a Heavenly Mother.
All Iour standard works reIer overwhelming to men and overwhelmingly contain stories about
men; how would a woman beneIit Irom reading the owner`s manual to the wrong car?
Generally, I believe, most oI us reconcile this tension by concluding that one can put oneselI in
the actor`s shoes regardless oI whether one is male or Iemale. We encourage men to develop
charity, mercy, and wisdom, three attributes that are Ieminine in English texts. We encourage
women to develop every attribute oI God that has yet been identiIied. Some even claim that God
÷ an exalted woman ¹ her exalted husband. %he Iailure to parse the male and Iemale in scripture
vitiates conIidence in highlighting the importance oI gender roles in spiritual development.
Emphasizing God`s distinguishing oI male Irom Iemale risks portraying a misogynistic deity.
What observable beneIits come Irom uniting a physical male/Iemale that do not come Irom
uniting a physical woman/woman or man/man? Might the diIIerences between individuals
exceed that oI the diIIerences between genders? Could it be that God has more to reveal still

about gender
? %hough these gender questions call Ior additional analysis, there is at least
some reason to be cautious about the strength oI our conclusions regarding them.
Below is an interesting study. %hough it lacks rigor, the results are intuitive and belie certainty
that God`s will regarding SSM is Iully and broadly known:
"We published a notice on our web site encouraging visitors to take part in our study to assess
the will oI God. We E-mailed a Iorm to each visitor to our web site who had asked to be included
in the study. Subiects were thus selI-selected. %he Iorm asked the recipient:
O Whether they were currently in Iavor oI or opposed to same-sex marriages (SSM).
O Some personal data -- their sexual orientation, religious aIIiliation, and which "wing" oI that
religion that they Iollowed.
O %o seek God's will Ior same-sex marriages through prayer.
O %o continue praying until they received a response Irom God or Ielt that they could not assess
the will oI God.
O II they were successIul in assessing God's position on SSM, then we asked:
- what God's will is, and
- how certain are they that they correctly assessed God's will."
Results Irom the preliminary study
Although the sample size was small, one result was striking: OI the 68° oI the participants who
believed that they assessed the will oI God, everv person Iound that God agreed with their stance
on SSM:
O All oI those who are personally opposed to SSM reported that God agreed with them.
O All oI those Iavoring SSM also reported that God agreed with them.
O None Iound that God took a compromise position, saying that God supported or opposed
SSM depending upon the speciIics oI each individual case.
Summary oI the study
%he most signiIicant result, in the author's opinion, is that:
O %hose who personally Iavored SSM Iound that God also Iavored it.
O %hose who personally opposed SSM Iound that God also opposes it.
O God did not disagree with any oI the participants' belieIs, even though they are in conIlict.

With Iew exceptions:
O Religious liberals Iavor SSM.

O Religious conservatives oppose SSM.
With no exceptions:
O Heterosexual conservative Christians oppose SSM
When asking God to reveal truth, one must be open to whatever answer He would give, even one
that contradicts what you thought you knew Ior sure- else there is little point in posing the
Joseph Smith: 'Why be so certain that you comprehend the things oI God, when all things with
you are so uncertain?

ŵŴ. V¢ry f¢w op¢n m¢mT¢rs stay activ¢
I Iailed to Iind a credible percentage oI those LDS members who stay active aIter coming out oI
the closet about their orientation. My unscientiIic inquiries to three I thought well equipped to
provide the answer said:

"OI the 100s oI gay men I know with Mormon roots, I'm one oI maybe 3 or 4 that are out and
active. I would submit that the ones who stay are deep in the closet. hard to poll a hidden

"Ooooh, thats a hard number to estimate. Mostly because I don`t see it as a binary thing. Some oI
my Iriends have leIt 100° have withdrawn their memberships like they have their testimony,
some are completely indiIIerent, some Iight the church, some stay active, and I know many
people who still have membership but aren't active, don`t wear garments and will unlikely go
back to church without the church policy changing and then bringing them back. As Ior people
who stay 100° active years aIter they come out- 5° oI people I know. I know plenty oI people
who have SAID and PROMISED they'd stay active, but they don`t ever. It`s not that they go
apostate either. It`s more like the church isn't a healthy place to live Ior them and they part ways
Ior a Iew years or decades until things get better between them.

"Honestly I Have no idea on that statistic, sorry. I would say that oI people who acknowledge
their homosexuality, meaning that are out at all, it is inIinitesimally small. Almost no out gay
people, some that are kinda halIway out and a Iair number that aren't out at all, many who are
married. But Ior percentages...no way anything I'd say would be anything other than pure
Gary Watts, the Iormer president oI Family Fellowship (Family Fellowship is a predominantly
Latter-day Saint support group Ior Iamilies who have Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and/or
%ransgender members
), says less than 10° stay in the church. %his statistic matches my

personal experience and I Ior one Iind it devastating, iI indeed God uniIormly condemns leaving
His restored church. Mosiah 27:3: 'Ior they could not bear than any human soul should perish;
yea, even the very thoughts that any soul should endure endless torment did cause them to quake
and tremble.¨
%here are doubtlessly many reasons why individuals choose to withdraw their church activity.
However, iI these perceptions are even roughly accurate, they are one piece oI evidence to
suggest that the LDS environment is inhospitable to those who are open about their homosexual
orientation. II there is nothing sinIul about being homosexually oriented, there seems to be little
reason to criticize the act oI coming out. (Even iI homosexual orientation were sinIul, there
might still be little reason to criticize the act oI coming out- see my post
). %o tolerate or
advocate SSM as a church is likely to make the LDS environment more hospitable to those who
do come out (and likely those who don't as well). It should go without saying that proselytizing
eIIorts to HO people and their loyal loved ones would likely be more successIul with than
without LDS SSM
In addition to losing Iewer homosexually oriented people to apostasy or suicide, the church
stands to gain Irom losing Iewer people who sympathize with homosexually oriented people.
What Iollows is some dialogue I had with a new convert troubled by this issue.
Linda: My name is *Linda. I am Iriend oI *Brenda who is a Iriend oI Brad Carmack. Actually,
Brenda was my missionary back in 2007 and has turned into a very dear Iriend. I am writing
because I would like some opinions on the subiect oI same sex involvement including marriage. I
was raised by lesbians and that was the main reason I did not want to be part oI the church aIter
knowing their Ieelings oI gay people and marriage. ( I grew up in a non-denominational church
led by gays) AIter some serious talks with Brenda, I was convinced that maybe I did not need to
understand or even believe every single thing the same as the church teaches. I eventually got
baptized. I had been going to church Ior a couple oI months and about a week aIter I got baptized
Brenda got transIerred. I quickly went into panic mode. I no longer had 'my missionary" there by
my side to talk to very day. I still went to church but about a month aIter that all happened
Proposition 8 in CaliIornia was going on in regards to same sex marriage. My bishop started
talking about it one Sunday and I got up and leIt. %he next day I saw the news reports oI how
much money the LDS church was giving to campaign against same sex marriage. I was done
with church. ( I know it wasn't iust the LDS church giving money...but that was the church I was
tithing to so in essence...I was helping to pay Ior something that was way against my belieIs).
Me: can see whv that experience would be hard.

Linda: About a year later I started missing the Ieelings I got while I attended the church so I went
back but only once. I again started getting angry about the church's stance on the subiect as it
was brought up AGAIN in church that day. I have never been back since.
I have since started getting into universal happiness and karma to put it simply. However, when I
try to think that maybe there isn't a God, I get a strange Ieeling. When I try to believe in giving
good to the universe gets me good back....something happens and I end up "praying to God"
even though I have sort oI denounced him in a way. Obviously something isn't right. So when I
think about....Is there a God?....I can only come to the conclusion that the LDS church seems to
be the lessor oI all "the religous evils" iI that makes any sense. I think it does. Still I can not
come to terms with the gay issue.
Me: Okav. 1ollow vou.
I am married to a man....not gay. However, my mom wanted nothing else but to be happy with
her liIetime partner. When she was on her death bed, she was not able to get the rights with her
lover that heterosexual couples got. %his hurt me so bad.
Me: would imagine ´d probablv 1eel about the same wav in vour shoes.
I also know people this has happened to as well. A long-time Iriend oI my mom`s was with her
lover Ior 38 years and aIter she died, her lover got no rights, lost their house, and was not even
allowed at the Iuneral.
Me: That is a verv rough outcome.
Linda: %here have iust been so many terrible things that go along with this....it makes me cry to
think oI them. As you can see, it is not easy Ior me to go to a church that ex-communicates (Irom
what I've heard) gay people that act on it....but re-enacts ex-communicated members that are
child molesters (my husband`s 2 uncles).
Me: don´t know 1or sure but ´d imagine that an individual that is excommunicated 1or
homosexual conduct could also regain his or her membership and 1ellowship in the church a1ter
repentance. much like child molesters.
Linda: How do I get over this? How does a gay man or woman stay in a church that doesn't
'want" them?
Me: 1or one want them. think the Lord wants them. Though dutv-bound to take a hard line
against what God has declared as sin. there are some strong statements 1rom church leaders that
the church wants them. (See Helping Those ho Struggle ith Same-Gender Attraction.
hats more. love vou. Mv rethren among the General Authorities love vou. m reminded o1
a comment !resident ovd K. !acker made in speaking to those with same-gender attraction.
e do not reiect vou. he said. . e cannot reiect vou. 1or vou are the sons and daughters o1
God. e will not reiect vou. because we love vou.)

Linda: How do I Iollow the right path (iI it is indeed the right path) alongside people that would
not have allowed my mom to be a member or even say she was wrong to be happy in an
"unconventional" way?
Me: v 1ollowing that path. The people in the church are no more per1ect than vou. me. or vour
mother. 1 people in the church commit uncharitable errors. it seems more appropriate to love.
1orgive. and associate with them than to part wavs.
Linda: Brad mentioned one oI you lead a same sex marriage talk group on campus... I would
really appreciate your guys take on all oI this. I so bad want to be where I belong....I iust don't
know where that is.
Me: prav vou´ll 1ind it. Though don´t know how or when. because vou´re seeking. think vou
will 1ind where vou belong i1 vou have real intent (see Moroni 10.3-5 or D & C 14.5) and ask
Linda: I hate to think it is in the LDS church and I will miss out on the Celestial kingdom (iI,
again, I believe that) because oI this when it doesn't even aIIect me directly. However, I would
never change how I grew up.
Me: The wav vou grow up is a dangerous 1oundation 1or deciding how to believe and live. There
are manv scriptural examples o1 individuals who were raised with at least some 1alse traditions
(e.g. the Lamanites). 1 these people alwavs 1ollowed the wav thev were raised. then none would
1orsake their lives and take up their cross to heed the Savior´s invitation to Come. Follow Me.
t is better to seek and con1orm to truth even at the expense o1 abandoning belie1s or practices
vou were raised with i1 necessarv (or. converselv. embracing correct belie1s vou were raised with
even i1 thev´re unpleasant). How this principle applies in vour case don´t know.
Linda: And I will Iight right alongside oI the gays and lesbians Ior equal rights Ior my mom`s
sake, as well as human rights sake, as long as I live.
Me: Again. the 1ight mav be a iust one. but it is not made so merelv because o1 vour mother´s
choices- 1or though o1 course vou love and respect her immenselv. she is no less
human/imper1ect than vou or me. don´t conclude as to the correctness o1 her choices. but do
claim that i1 thev are correct. thev are so not merelv because the choices were made bv her- but
instead because thev are in harmonv with independent principles such as iustice and equalitv.
Linda: I need answers and I don't like the ones I am getting. HAHA. I am not naive enough to
think that any "religion" would say it is okay to be gay. But I do believe that many people are
pushed away Irom "God" because they are gay. II memory serves me right, I was taught that God
loves everyone and no one should iudge. So iI that's true....why do people that Iollow Gods' word
Me: For some. the answer is because God has charged them with that responsibilitv. For
instance. ishops are common iudges in srael. and are tasked with. among other
responsibilities. iudging and punishing certain sins. God does love evervone. but He does not

endorse sin. and it would be wrong 1or His servants to re1rain 1rom 1ul1illing a dutv God has laid
upon them. Fortunatelv in mv view. most members don´t have this burden/responsibilitv o1
iudging. !lus. it is valuable to remember as God reminds us so o1ten in the scriptures that He
will iudge us at the last dav and hold us accountable 1or our choices- and that even though He
loves us. He will not shield us 1rom the consequences o1 our choices. positive and negative.
without our exercise o1 agencv. Thus. church members should iudge themselves. identi1v errors.
and repent o1 them. Thus. ´ve identi1ied two categories where people should iudge.
Linda: Isn't the point oI our lives to live happily and do good to people? %o help people? %o
show generativity (people nurturing the younger generations)? %o |be| unselIish to our own
needs and wants? %o raise a Iamily with good values and morals?
Me: es. there´s lots o1 scriptures supporting these points vou make.
Linda: And that is a whole other subiect. %here are so many children out there that don't have
homes. %hey are living in group homes or on the streets. Why is it not okay to have these
children placed in good homes iI those homes consist oI gays and lesbians? %he church would
rather those children grow up without a loving Ioundation? I iust don't get it. Please help me

In the end, despite my eIIorts, she didn`t understand- and Iell away Irom the church.

ŵŵ. LDS divin¢ command tb¢ory r¢i¢s on iving orac¢s
*note- the next two reasons are a bit oI an exception because they support the proposition that
one should be readv to accept SSM, not necessarily that she should support SSM (as do the other
'Mormonism. calls 1or thought1ul disciples who will not be content with merelv repeating some
o1 its truths. but will develop its truths.. The disciples o1 Mormonism. will vet take
pro1ounder and broader views o1 the great doctrines committed to the church, and. will cast
them in new 1ormulas, co-operating in the works o1 the Spirit. until thev help to give to the truth
received a more 1orce1ul expression. and carrv it bevond the earlier and cruder stages o1 its
¨ -Elder B.H. Roberts
%he de Iacto moral reasoning theory most Mormons use is divine command theory, meaning that
our most important duty is to comply with God`s commands. We learn His commands through
prophets. Mormons believe that the words oI living prophets trump the words oI dead ones- I
leave the prooI Ior this claim out since I think but very Iew would contest it (examples oI
prophets trumping their predecessors include relaxed strictures on birth control, relaxed

standards on the length oI garments, and signiIicant alterations in temple ordinances). Wrote an
advocate oI LDS SSM:
'Does it trouble me that my view oI this matter directly challenges the present stance oI the LDS
Church, which opposes gay marriage and Iorbids as sinIul any sexual activity outside oI
traditional marriage? Yes, it does sadden me to be at variance with the Church, but that does not
absolve me oI the moral responsibility to analyze such matters as thoughtIully as I can and to
share with others what my relevant experience has been. I do not see my questioning oI the
present Church position as inappropriate, disloyal, or without ample precedent. AIter all, in the
Judeo-Christian tradition and in recent LDS Church history, there are numerous examples oI
signiIicant doctrinal reinterpretations and course corrections. Maior examples include the revised
view that God is the God oI all human beings, not oI Israel alone; the reinterpretation oI the
gathering oI Israel, the institution and subsequently the cessation oI the practice oI polygamy;
and the extension oI priesthood ordination to black men. It is even evident that the Church`s
view oI homosexuality has undergone some signiIicant adiustment in recent decades; thereIore,
it, too, may be susceptible to Iurther revision.
%his living~dead principle can be a Iortunate thing. For example, President Kimball`s 1968-
1971 teachings about homosexuality created a psychological living hell
Ior many
homosexually oriented members in the 1970`s. In chapter 2 we concluded that homosexual
orientation is, in at least most cases, predominantly caused by biological Iactors. %hus,
homosexual orientation is at least roughly morally equivalent to be being born leIt-handed, i.e.
that there is nothing morally wrong with either since neither is agentic (chosen). Certainly moral
agents are responsible only Ior their acts and omissions and not Ior phenomena they did not
causally contribute to. We observed in chapter 2 as well that many earlier church statements did
not discriminate between orientation and behavior; thus, many experienced the equivalent oI
Ialsely condemning themselves Ior the choosing to be leIt-handed in a world where such
handedness is oIIensive to God. However, because oI more recent authoritative statements, such
as President Hinckley`s 1997 recognition oI the moral diIIerence between orientation and
conduct, we need no longer apply President Kimball`s repeated characterizations oI our
homosexually oriented brothers and sisters as selI-selected perversions. President Hinckley:
'Now we have gays in the church. Good people. We take no action against such people
provided they don`t become involved in transgression, sexual transgression.
¨ %his is not the
Iirst time that the church has changed signiIicantly regarding homosexual issues.

LDS church leaders did not speak out very much against homosexuality except in belated concert
with the homophobic trends in the surrounding culture (mostly in the past 60 years- though as in
the initiation they once again lag slightly behind the culture, which is currently reversing the
trend). Wrote one author: 'Reaching adulthood in the twentieth century seemed to be the crucial
Iactor in the decline oI tolerance among LDS leaders Ior homoerotic behaviors and the rise oI
homophobia within the Mormon hierarchy since the early 1950s.
¨ Also, 'Despite newspaper
reports oI sexual activities among Mormon students since the early 1900s, Ior decades some
LDS administrators and Mormon teenagers showed no homophobia.
¨ %his is contrasted with
the harsh penalties Mormons oI an overlapping time period imposed on perpetrators oI acts oI
bestiality, incest, or adultery, including decapitation and castration
. Sodomy wasn`t even
illegal in Pioneer Utah, as evidenced by Mormon municipal iudge Jeter Clinton`s release oI
soldier Frederick Jones Ior sexual assault on a nine-year old boy. %he iudge noted in the 1864
case that anal sex was not illegal in Utah
(a month beIore, the Salt Lake County Court
sentenced a man to 20 years oI hard labor in the Penitentiary Ior sexually assaulting a similarly
aged girl
). 'In Iact homoerotic conduct was not among the sex-related charges Ior which any
Mormon was excommunicated between 1845 and Brigham Young`s death in 1877
notably three teenagers were excommunicated nearly a decade later Ior homoerotic acts
).¨ A
number oI prominent Mormons in the early nineteenth century were not sanctioned Ior their
homosexuality, including Evan Stephans, Louie P. Felt, and May Anderson, all oI whom in 1919
'came out¨ in public at the zenith oI their church careers
. 'In almost every instance Mormon
leaders who served in the nineteenth century were more tolerant oI homoerotic behaviors than
they were oI every other nonmarital sexual activity.
¨ %he activities oI Salt Lake City`s
Bohemian Club evidenced that Utah was no exception to the existence oI 'an early American
subculture oI people who interacted socially because they shared an erotic interest in persons oI
their same gender.
¨ Also, Ior decades same-sex church leaders slept in the same bed together
when traveling: 'same-sex sleeping arrangements were nearly a requirement Ior Mormon men in
church leadership positions that involved extensive travel
.¨ In 1843, Joseph Smith preached
that 'two who were vary Iriends indeed should lie down upon the same bed at night locked in
each other|s| embrace talking oI their love and should awake in the morning together. %hey
could immediately renew their conversation oI love even while rising Irom their bed.
¨ %his is
in sharp contrast to the strict mission rule that companions are not to sleep in the same bed

Mormon men and women in the nineteenth century oIten kissed others oI their same gender out
oI religious devotion and personal aIIection, most likely Iull on the lips
. Even as late as the
1940`s, the Apostle Richard Lyman`s extramarital heterosexual aIIair was punished much more
harshly than the revelation oI Church Patriarch Joseph F. Smith`s homosexual aIIairs with
college students
. Others, such as a Mormon proIessor at Ricks College, were dropped Irom
held positions rather than excommunicated or disIellowshipped
. Homosexual acts as grounds
Ior excommunication was not added to the Handbook oI Instructions until 1968
%his brieI historical treatment suggests that the church`s treatment oI homosexual issues is
. We should be careIul to presume that we have enough, that we`ve received the last
word Irom the Lord on homosexual issues:
'Yea, wo be unto him that saith: We have received, and we need no more!... For behold, thus
saith the Lord God: I will give unto the children oI men line upon line, precept upon precept,
here a little and there a little; and blessed are those who hearken unto my precepts, and lend an
ear unto my counsel, Ior they shall learn wisdom; Ior unto him that receiveth I will give more;
and Irom them that shall say, We have enough, Irom them shall be taken away even that which
they have.¨ 2 Nephi 28: 27 & 30
'Is God inconstant, changing his mind suddenly as he goes along? Or do we change in our
perception oI his will as we experience evolutionary growth? I subscribe to the second position.
Since the Church proclaims the importance oI ongoing revelation and since our leaders, however
wise, do not claim to be inIallible, the Latter-day Saints above all religious groups should accept
that internal, as well as external, dialogue can contribute to advancing our understanding oI the
divine will. Latter-day Saints should not merely concede that God`s revelation regarding moral
development is unIinished but should optimistically expect it to be continually reIined. All oI us
have a responsibility to help prepare the seedbed oI understanding Ior moral progress.
A story Irom Joseph Smith:
'Upon Pelatiah Brown being brought to trial beIore a high council, the Prophet Joseph is quoted
as saying, 'I did not like the man being called up Ior erring or questioning doctrine. I want the
liberty oI thinking and believing as I please. It Ieels so good not to be trammeled.
Last, Irom apostle Hugh B. Brown:
'Revelation may come in the laboratory, out oI the test tube, out oI the thinking mind and the
inquiring soul, out oI search and research and prayer and inspiration.

We should be dauntless in our pursuit oI truth and resist all demands Ior unthinking conIormity.
No one would have us become mere tape recorders oI other people's thoughts. We should be
modest and teachable and seek to know the truth by study and Iaith. %here have been times when
progress was halted by thought control. %olerance and truth demand that all be heard and that
competing ideas be tested against each other so that the best, which might not always be our
own, can prevail.
Knowledge is the most complete and dependable when all points oI view are heard... One oI the
most important things in the world is Ireedom oI the mind; Irom this all other Ireedoms spring.
Such Ireedom is necessarily dangerous, Ior one cannot think right without running the risk oI
thinking wrong, but generally more thinking is the antidote Ior the evils that spring Irom wrong
thinking. More thinking is required, and we should all exercise our God-given right to think and
be unaIraid to express our opinions, with proper respect Ior those to whom we talk and proper
acknowledgment oI our own shortcomings.
We must preserve Ireedom oI the mind in the church and resist all eIIorts to suppress it. %he
church is not so much concerned with whether the thoughts oI its members are orthodox or
heterodox as it is that they shall have thoughts. And while all members should respect, support,
and heed the teachings oI the authorities oI the church, no one should accept a statement and
base his or her testimony upon it, no matter who makes it, until he or she has, under mature
examination, Iound it to be true and worthwhile; then one's logical deductions may be conIirmed
by the spirit oI revelation to his or her spirit, because real conversion must come Irom
Because we are a church oI living oracles, we have no loyalty to what past prophets have said
which contradict the living one. Also, we hold that the canon is still open: 'We believe that He
will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom oI God.
¨ %here is
little use in praying Ior God to reveal truth to us iI we place bounds on the answers we will
accept. %hus, we must be prepared to Iollow whatever direction comes- even a reversal oI the
current church practice oI Iighting SSM. %his scenario not entirely unlikely- iI indeed the circuit
and/or Supreme Court upholds the !errv v. Schwarzenegger holding, which God necessarily
knew would happen because He`s omniscient, it is counterintuitive that God would have
instructed the church to promote Proposition 8 in the Iirst place iI indeed His ostensible purpose
was to make same-sex marriage as broadly illegal as possible. Why? Because God is not stupid.
%he church`s involvement in the passage was a direct contributing cause to the exact opposite
eIIect, namely that more states than iust CaliIornia may no longer prohibit same-sex marriage.
Circuit or Supreme Court aIIirmations oI !errv will expand this eIIect even Iurther. Perhaps
Proposition 8 was like Zion`s Camp or the command to Abraham to slay his innocent son- God
had other purposes besides the ostensible redemption oI Zion by arms or the death oI Isaac by his

Iather`s hand. Even iI this speculation Iails, one may in any case argue that a reversal oI the
church`s religious and legal opposition to SSM is vanishingly likely- but iI President Monson
pronounced tomorrow that the church will now practice and promote SSM, will you be ready, or
like some members aIter the blacks/priesthood reversal will you Iall away? The stereotypical
LDS divine command theory approach demands that level of readiness sacrifice and
Additionally, I note that many oI the harsher anti-homosexual statements oI church leaders can
be excused by virtue oI rapid change in the landscape oI reproductive technologies. A Iew
decades ago, the ability oI homosexuals to reproduce was not as apparent. Also, the accessibility
oI reproductive technologies Ior same-gender couples was less than that oI today (the most likely
increased accessibility in coming decades). %hus, that portion oI older statements contingent on
the inability oI same-gender couples to reproduce may be somewhat excusable. Additionally, it
is arguable that none oI the past statements (as listed in chapter 2) qualiIy as the church`s
position: 'Iormal statements by the First Presidency are the deIinitive source oI oIIicial church

ŵŶ. SSM advocat¢s may tarn oat to T¢ pro-famiy
Was George Washington a traitorous rebel or a Ireedom Iighter? Is Al-Qaeda a bright hope Ior
iustice or a deeply traitorous rebel? %he answer usually turns not on the nature oI their activities,
but on the whether the iudge is a %ory or a Patriot; an American or a radical global iihadist Sunni
Muslim. Similarly, some view SSM advocates as a threat to the Iamily. Others see them as
Iamily Ireedom Iighters. Either view can cause regrettable problems.
Over the last year I have worked with two prominent LDS scholars who are very outspoken
against SSM. I have heard both oI them peioratively use terms such as 'agenda-driven gay
activists,¨ spitting Iorth the 'gay activists¨ phrase as though they were some reprobate societal
plague. I have witnessed similar vitriol Irom some oI these activists when describing people like
me, deIenders oI traditional Iamily. I am impressed with neither. At the end oI the day you have
only people on both sides- spiritual brothers and sisters who wake up, eat breakIast, Iace
challenges, and then go back to bed again iust like you or me. Certainly members oI the church

do not want to risk harboring hateIul Ieelings toward any person or group. It is never appropriate
to demonize the opposition when that opposition is constituted only oI mortal people.
It would also be wise to avoid viliIying SSM, as one cannot be certain whether or when their
case will ultimately prevail:
'Second, with marriage in America declining in appeal and statistical success, it can use help
Irom whatever quarter. Homosexuals constitute a minority that wishes to aIIirm this institution
and its ideals. Contrary to the hue and cry raised by the extreme right, gays are not trying to
dismantle marriage but rather to extend its stabilizing inIluence on society. By entering into it,
they are attempting as individuals and as couples to be socially responsible.
Marriage connects a couple with their community. For decades the heterosexual maiority has
snubbed and excluded homosexuals and same-sex couples. %he eIIorts oI some homosexually
oriented people to seek marriage could thus be viewed as an act oI Iorgiveness- that aIter so
many years oI oIIensive persecution and discrimination, they are still willing to attempt
reconciliation. Many homosexually oriented people are not as Iorgiving, and instead choose to
remain in the separate status to which society has relegated them. Also,
'At a time when marriage needs all the support and participation it can get, homosexuals are
pleading to move beyond cohabitation. %hey want the licenses, the vows, the rings, the
honeymoons, the anniversaries, the in-laws, the beneIits, and, yes, the responsibilities and the
routines. Same-sex marriage oIIers the opportunity Ior a dramatic public aIIirmation that
marriage is Ior everybody and that nothing else is as good. And who is telling gays to iust shack
up instead? %he selI-styled Iriends oI matrimony.
It is not clear to everyone whether SSM strengthens or weakens the Iamily. In the meantime,
civil and respectIul opposition to SSM advocacy is appropriate Ior those whose consciences so
ŵŷ. Tb¢ d¢adn¢ss of tb¢ aw
'elloloo sboolJ oot be o scoffolJ to molotolo tbe ptlvlleoe of beloo tlobt so mocb os lt sboolJ be o
loJJet tbot ptompts os lo Joloo ooJ becomloo oooJ.
Many IaithIul members oI the LDS church Ieel duty bound to 'Iollow the brethren¨ in insisting
that 1) HO is chosen and abominable; and 2) HO members should try very hard to change, since
HO is contrary to the Plan and can be routinely reversed. Either or both oI these ideas

unquestionably impose excruciating and unnecessary hardship on HO Latter-day Saints, as
abundantly evidenced by their personal accounts and disturbingly elevated suicide rates. %hough
I and many others conclude that members are not duty bound in this way, I do not condemn
those who iudge otherwise. I also do not condemn the 50° oI participants in the Milgram
who hurt innocent people merely because an authority Iigure so instructed them.
(In the experiment ordinary people repeatedly sent, according to their understanding, lethal
amounts oI electricity into the bodies oI people who were screaming at the top oI their lungs and
urgently protesting Ior their lives). I may even exculpate those 200 or so IaithIul members who,
under the explicit direction oI their Mormon church leaders, massacred in cold blood over 100
unarmed men in the Mountain Meadows Massacre
. (%hose very leaders, under the pretense oI
a white Ilag and promise oI saIe passage, beguiled the band oI traveling emigrants to yield up
their weapons beIore commanding their slaughter). %he situation oI today`s duty-bound
members is not so diIIerent Irom that oI pre-Christ Jews, who were required to impose
excruciating hardship on homosexually behaving people by stoning them to death (Leviticus
20:13). %he diIIerence today is that the imposed excruciating hardship is persistent rather than
temporary. %o these members who Ieel duty-bound to harm homosexually oriented people, I
recommend by analogy the account oI a homosexual-stoning, pre-Christ society oI Jews (2
Nephi 25):
24 And, notwithstanding we believe in Christ, we keep the law oI Moses, and look Iorward with
steadIastness unto Christ, until the law shall be IulIilled. 25 For, Ior this end was the law given;
whereIore the law hath become dead unto us, and we are made alive in Christ because oI our
Iaith; yet we keep the law because oI the commandments. 27 WhereIore, we speak concerning
the law that our children may know the deadness oI the law. that they need not harden their
hearts against him when the law ought to be done away.
As concluded in chapter 2, homosexual orientation is overwhelmingly biologically caused
(genetic ¹ prenatal intraorganismal hormone environment). %hough some Iew report
successIully reversing Irom a Iully homosexual orientation to a Iully heterosexual orientation,
the predominance oI attempts to reverse orientation result in heart-wrenching anguish, intense
suIIering, excruciating disappointment, and abiect Iailure. An embrace oI SSM would be one
way to send the vital message that the unchosen characteristic oI homosexual orientation is not
evil, and instead can be channeled to Iurther God`s purposes Ior His children during mortality.

ŵŸ. Escbatoogy {tb¢ aft¢rif¢) do¢sn't n¢c¢ssariy arga¢ against SSM
Interlocutor: '%here are no homosexual unions or marriages in Heaven. As a primary goal oI liIe
on Earth is to create eternal Iamily units, giving validity to a same-sex union that will have no
validity aIter this liIe would be counter-productive Ior those engaged in it. Also, iI same-sex
attraction is a mortal "test" equivalent to blindness, cerebral palsy, Down's Syndrome, or mental
illness (in the eyes oI God), and iI those individuals who suIIer Irom same-sex attraction here
will no long suIIer Irom it aIter death or aIter the resurrection, we do them harm by encouraging
or "blessing" what will ultimately be selI-destructive behavior (destructive to them).¨
In response, I would ask two questions. First: how is liIelong celibacy`s track record doing Ior
creating eternal Iamily units? Second: how about a woman whose husband dies in a car crash
two weeks aIter the wedding? A woman can only be sealed to one man, and it would be unIair
to her Iirst spouse, who committed no Iault, to lose his wiIe to another man. What LDS man
would marry such a woman, to whom he could not be sealed? Would their children be the
posterity oI the Iirst husband? Will he spend his whole liIe raising and building relationships
with his spouse and another man`s progeny, only to lose his wiIe and/or children in the aIterliIe?
What rational man in the church would entertain even Ior a minute the idea oI dating this woman
when he could instead marry someone he would be with Ior eternity? II she was unlucky enough
to have her sealed spouse die early on, perhaps her Iailure in not doing a better iob oI protecting
him iustiIies her subsequent liIelong invalidity in the church as a legitimate marriage partner.
Perhaps also those single women who are born inIertile, whom in the women-heavy dating
market men would reasonably pass up in Iavor oI a woman who can meet the church`s naturally
reproducing ideal, are also rightly disadvantaged as God`s comeuppance Ior some transgression
on their part.
I hope these examples sound as repugnant to the reader as they do to me. %he important point
here is that, as established in chapter 2, at least Ior the maiority oI HO people, they chose to be
'that way¨ as much as the woman above chose to have her husband die early, or as much as
naturally inIertile women or men chose their inIertility. Our Christian hearts go out to these
people, and Ior some oI us our Christian hands as well, in designing something that will enable
them to have a Iamily experience in this liIe- even a less-than-celestial-law something. |It is
obvious that we don`t yet live a celestial law in the church. We live the law oI tithing- in the

celestial kingdom is the law oI consecration. In the celestial kingdom, looking on a woman to
lust aIter her is adultery- Ior that oIIense we don`t even remove a man Irom his calling, let alone
disIellowship or excommunicate him. In heaven there is no divorce- here temple divorces
(sealing cancellations) are Irequent and regular.| What are some examples oI the products oI
these Christian hands?
A bishop might counsel a man to give the young widow serious consideration as a marriage
partner. An understanding young woman might consider dating and marrying an inIertile man,
even knowing they will never have their own biological children. A young husband who learns
shortly aIter the wedding that his wiIe can`t have children decides that, despite his belieI in the
importance oI rearing his own biological children, he will stay with her anyway. An inIertile
couple is encouraged to draw on reproductive technologies, in spite oI the church`s disIavoring
oI unnatural types oI reproduction
(though I hear the 2010 Church Handbook oI Instructions
has changed to disIavor unnatural reproduction less). Many couples seek adoption. %wo old
people, whose spouses have passed away, marry each other in the temple Ior time only. What do
all oI these examples have in common? %hey are attempts in the here and now, in mortalitv, to
provide as much oI a Iamily experience as possible to people in a diIIicult situation they did
nothing to choose. Why are we not more interested in similarly helping homosexually oriented
people, whose Iamily prospects are limited Ior the same non-agentic reasons?
'II God wants to change the orientation oI their sexual Ieelings in an aIterliIe, that matter is in
his hands, but we can make their lives better here and now.
In the young widow example, most oI us would, rather than prescribe liIelong celibacy,
encourage her to marry and rear children. Most oI us would hope that men would not write her
oII as a marriage candidate. II we would encourage this couple to marry, knowing they will be
separated in the aIterliIe, whv would we do so? Is it not because the value oI companionship,
even iI it is onlv during mortality, is better than being single? Some people would scream this
(Moses 3:18- 'it was not good that the man should be alone¨). Wrote one:
'But what about the assertions in '%he Family: A Proclamation to the World,¨ those that concern
'the eternal role oI gender¨ and declare an 'ideal¨ Iamilial structure Ior parent/child
relationship? Neither need those belieIs be an impediment to supporting gay marriage. %he

Church need not accept gay marriages as 'eternal¨; it would not need to oIIer temple gay
marriages. %hey could be regarded like civil marriagesIor this liIe only. As the Church views
the matter, adiustments are going to have to be made in an aIterliIe anyway Ior many people,
because many situations involving marriage, singleness, or parent/child/nurturer relationships are
not ideally Iinalized. For those who do their best to live uprightly given their varying mortal
circumstances, the aIterliIe will doubtless satisIactorily resolve itselI.
From the 2010 Church Handbook oI Instructions, we see how a comparable uncertainty results in
a broad grant oI discretion to a Iamily:
'%emple ordinances are not perIormed Ior stillborn children. However, this does not deny the
possibility that a stillborn child will be a part oI the Iamily in the eternities.¨ -17.2.10
II we expect that God will 'work it out somehow in the aIterliIe¨ in the remarried widow
example, must we not also expect that God could and would 'work it out somehow in the
aIterliIe¨ Ior homosexual couples?
ŵŹ. A r¢v¢a¢d r¢igion n¢¢d not T¢ cons¢rvativ¢

"%he Church... is imperIect. |However,| it is the best instrument the Lord has, given our agency,
to eIIect His purposes. II it is at times ineIIicient, backward, repressive, it is also at times
instructive, progressive and liberating. %he Church is like us .... I`ll go one step Iurther: the
Church is us; it is no better or no worse than we are (and that includes vou and me), Ior the
Church is what we make it.

My brother once noted that religions are oIten 'behind the times¨ oI social progress. %o him I

(edited) 'It seems strange that religions should be years behind societal changes- you'd think
instead that at least a revelation-based religion would be light years ahead on important issues oI
social iustice and truth because oI their access to a source oI omniscience. %hough I can see the
wisdom oI non-revelation based (unsupported by direction Irom heaven) religions using a
conservative (old ways are better than new) approach similar to that oI the iudicial branch, it
seems that a revealed religion would be Iresh, bold, Iearless, and progressive. A conservative
church seems slow to change and risk averse, like an old man, more than strong and Iearless and
beneIit-seeking and truth-Iilled, like the strapping prophet Joseph. But, perhaps there's a sensible
explanation Ior the apparent disioint.

An example oI being years ahead oI society that comes to mind would be the Word oI Wisdom
(other examples include progressive recognition oI racial and gender equality, in doctrine at least
iI not in practice- ""all are alike unto God, black and white, male and Iemale"- 2 Nephi). A

riposte would be blacks and the priesthood, which in 1978 was not only over a decade behind the
civil rights movement but over a century behind the Emancipation Proclamation.

Perhaps church members and leaders are too quick to presume that we already have all the truth
we need (a sin we typically charge the Jews with Ior stopping at the Old %estament instead oI
accepting Christ and the New; or that we Iind modern people culpable oI Ior stopping at the Old
and not accepting the Another |Book oI Mormon: Another %estament|). Just last Sunday, a
bishopric member advocated that I cease my line oI questioning. He made the "it's not important
to your salvation" bromide in response to my discussion oI some church policies. Article oI
Faith nine: "We believe... that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to
the Kingdom oI Heaven." Also, Joseph Smith: "... it will be a great work to learn our salvation
and exaltation even beyond the grave.
" Given the doctrinal support Ior the idea that God
doesn't work among men save according to their Iaith and doesn't reveal until His children ask
(e.g. the Doctrine and Covenants sections are almost wholly answers to interrogatories), it would
seem to make sense Ior church members and leaders to be knocking down the doors oI heaven to
obtain answers to tough questions such as homosexual privileges, surrogate motherhood, and
social iustice, rather than shutting their praying mouths on a "we've received all we need" basis
like the Jews did to Jesus and many today do to President Monson. (Proverbs 2: 3 Yea, iI thou
criest aIter knowledge, and liItest up thy voice Ior understanding; 4 II thou seekest her as silver,
and searchest Ior her as Ior hid treasures; 5 %hen shalt thou understand the Iear oI the Lord, and
Iind the knowledge oI God.)

President Kimball's worrying, praying, and raising oI the issue likely resulted in the liIting oI the
priesthood ban against blacks ("God rarelyiI everuses his prophets as "teletype machines"
who mindlessly transmit God's will word Ior wordhe requires his prophets to inquire with
some thought as to potential answers
"). Kimball`s predecessor, Harold B. Lee, speaking on
the subiect the day he became President, said he 'intended to stand by and wait until the Lord
¨ %his passive strategy did not liIt the ban. We must be proactive: 'God does notice
us, and he watches over us. But it is usually through another person that he meets our needs.
Perhaps iI prophets a century earlier had cared to pray about and resolve the issue the ban would
have been liIted then (see especially 'Circumstances which preceded the 1978 revelation
Indeed, nine years earlier the ban almost was liIted. In November 1969, the Quorum oI the
%welve passed a proposal that would allow Iull priesthood Ior Blacks. Since President McKay
was incapacitated, the two counselors in the First Presidency could have signed the rarely-but-
sometimes-used ioint declaration oI the First Presidency and the Quorum to grant priesthood to
those oI black AIrican ancestry. Apostle Lee, absent during the decision, returned and persuaded
the Quorum to rescind their vote, holding to 'the traditional belieI as revealed in the Old
%estament that the races ought to be kept together.
¨ Apostle LeGrand Richards wrote in 1967:
'I always say I am not halI as much concerned about pleasing the Lord as I am about pleasing all
oI the Brethren.
¨ Lee then pressured First Counselor Hugh B. Brown into signing a statement
reaIIirming the ban. OI this experience Brown`s grandson wrote:

'GrandIather managed to add language to Elder Lee`s statement endorsing Iull civil
rights Ior all citizens, but he still resisted signing the statement. However, he suIIered
Irom advanced age and the late stages oI Parkinson`s disease and was ill with the Asian
Ilu. With GrandIather in this condition, Elder Lee brought tremendous pressure to bear

upon him, arguing that with President McKay incapacitated GrandIather was obligated to
ioin the consensus with the Quorum oI the %welve.

OI the priesthood ban, and bearing striking parallels to homosexuality, Brown wrote that same

'Personally I doubt iI we can maintain or sustain ourselves in the position which we seem
to have adopted but which has no iustiIication as Iar as the scriptures are concerned so Iar
as I know. I think we are going to have to change our decision on that. %he President
says that it can come only by revelation. II that be true then it will come in due course. I
think it is one oI the most serious problems conIronting us because oI course it aIIects the
millions oI colored people.

On the other hand, the Lord didn't liIt the ban until about 10 years aIter President McKay and
Hugh Brown's attempts to move in that direction, thus implicating a possibility oI some wise
purpose(s) in the Lord's Iorbearance. It is likely that much truth is withheld because people are
so steeped in their traditions (which are acutely maniIest by symptoms oI conservatism):

'%here has been a great diIIiculty in getting anything into the heads oI this generation. It has
been like splitting hemlock knots with a corn-dodger |a piece oI corn bread| Ior a wedge, and a
pumpkin Ior a beetle |a wooden mallet|. Even the Saints are slow to understand.
¨ Joseph

'I have tried Ior a number oI years to get the minds oI the Saints prepared to receive the things oI
God; but we Irequently see some oI them, aIter suIIering all they have Ior the work oI God, will
Ily to pieces like glass as soon as anything comes that is contrary to their traditions: they cannot
stand the Iire at all. How many will be able to abide a celestial law, and go through and receive
their exaltation, I am unable to say, as many are called, but Iew are chosen... Why be so certain
that you comprehend the things oI God, when all things with you are so uncertain?... Some
people say I am a Iallen Prophet, because I do not bring Iorth more oI the word oI the Lord. Why
do I not do it? Are we able to receive it? No! not one in this room.
¨ - Joseph Smith

On the other hand, perhaps the revelation in this area is cohesive, comprehensive, and correct.
Anyway, to conclude, I haven't yet resolved this tension between a revealed religion and its
apparent conservativeness as compared to secular society.

My brother: 'Societv changes but religion o1ten lags 1ar behind. An example is the in1amous case
o1 blacks not being able to receive the priesthood. This was a blatantlv racist practice that had
no base in the written works. There was even an apostle who said that blacks would never get the
priesthood. as god himsel1 was inherentlv racist (Good ´ol ruce R. i1 vou were wondering).¨

My response. Yes, in retrospect that statement seemed unwise. My Iriend wrote:
'So why does the Lord not reveal the answers to a prophet so that we can clear up this mess once
and Ior all? Continuous coddling oI God`s people has never been conducive to the development
oI their Iaith. Instead, sustained periods oI revelatory abundance and prolonged prophetic spoon-
Ieeding have also penned a tragic scriptural history oI deteriorating righteousness ending in

eventual destruction. Don`t believe me? Read The Holv ible. Read The ook o1 Mormon.
Another Testament o1 Jesus Christ. A prophet at the helm does not automate or ensure salvation-
collective or individual.

I've heard 'SSM-will-never-be-approved¨ language similar to that about blacks/priesthood which
makes me cringe. Some claim that homosexual behavior will never be approved in the Church
because to do so would be counter to the Plan oI Salvation. %hat conclusion is based on the
presumption that homosexual behavior is malum in se (inherently wrong) rather than malum
prohibitum (wrong because it`s prohibited)- which is a conclusion Irustrated by the simple
diIIiculty oI reconciling the Plan with the reality oI homosexual orientation. Other Plan misIits:
severe mental retardation, early death, or living one's whole liIe as a single sister. Yet all Iour
categories seem involuntary - so what is to be done Ior these misIits? Contra non valentem
agere nulla currit praescriptio - "no prescription runs against a person not able to act." %hey
are all children oI God as well, and it seems certain that God has made provision Ior them
somehow. Justitia nemini neganda est - "iustice is to be denied to no one." Permit a comparison.

One: Sexual behavior itselI isn't wrong- in Iact to a IaithIul LDS member though it's a sin at one
point, it is then condoned and encouraged IiIteen minutes later, provided a marriage ceremony
intervened (thus heterosexual behavior in a certain category is malum prohibitum, but not malum
in se- the same might be the case Ior homosexual behavior). II the declaration that homosexual
conduct is sinIul is rescinded, the conduct is no longer malum (or wrong). Sublata cuasa. tollitur
e11ectus- the cause being removed. the e11ect ceases."

%wo: McConkie's aIterstatement: "%here are statements in our literature by the early Brethren
that we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality.
I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, "You said such and such, and
how is it now that we do such and such?" All I can say is that it is time disbelieving people
repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have
said, or what President Brigham Young or George Q. Cannon or whoever has said in days past
that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the
light and knowledge that now has come into the world. It doesn't make a particle oI diIIerence
what anybody ever said about the Negro matter beIore the Iirst day oI June 1978. It is a new day
and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the
world on this subiect. As to any slivers oI light or any particles oI darkness oI the past, we Iorget
about them. We now do what meridian Israel did when the Lord said the gospel should go to the
Gentiles. We Iorget all the statements that limited the gospel to the house oI Israel, and we start
going to the Gentiles.
" Again, it's only the most recent revelation that counts.

%hree: Similarly, the priesthood used to only be extended to males in one oI Israel's twelve
tribes- now, by dictate, it's extended to all worthy males. It might later be extended to women or
sheep: who's to say? %he euthyphro dilemma ("Is what is morally good commanded by God
because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?
") can thus
exhibit a temporal aspect in that what is morally right is merely what has been most recently
commanded by God- thus the seeming Iolly in making Iuture predictions such as "women will
never be bishops" or "homosexual marriage will never be approved by God." Many church
members and leaders mistook the prohibition against blacks holding the priesthood as doctrine. It

seems more likely in retrospect that it was a practice whose doctrinal Ioundation ultimately
Iailed. Similarly, were church leaders to alter their stance about the sinIulness oI monogamous,
committed homosexual relationships in addition to their current altering oI the language they use
in discussing such matters (e.g. you don't observe the demeaning "so-called" and derogatory
"chosen homosexual liIestyle" language as much in the last decade), it would seem that the
church's policy once again reIlected practice more than doctrine.

My brother: 'hen the world changed and civil rights happened the church realized. vears later.
that thev had to change or become marginalized in American societv.¨

My response: Perhaps- though arguably the Church relied on revelation rather than the
realization oI marginalization risk regarding polygamy and blacks/the priesthood. Otherwise
they would likely have changed much earlier than they did. What seems strange is why the
revelation didn't precede the persecution and marginalizing eIIects, given God's Ioreknowledge.
"%his is the principle on which the government oI heaven is conducted- by revelation adapted to
the circumstances in which the children oI the kingdom are placed
"- Joseph Smith. A test oI
Iaith? Because His servants didn't ask ('I know that God will give liberally to him that
¨? You`ve got me.

Bottom line? %he members oI the church are (or at least should be) prepared to Iollow wherever
God leads them. II social progress is iustiIiably moving toward an embrace oI SSM socially,
religiously, and legally- why shouldn`t Christ`s revealed church be ahead oI the curve?

ŵź. B¢caas¢ w¢ sapport¢d poygamy

'There is an ironv inherent in the church´s taking a public position opposing homosexual marriages...
The leading United States Supreme Court authoritv 1or the proposition that marriage means a
relationship between a man and a woman is Reynolds v. United States. 98 U.S. 145 (1878). n that case.
in which the United States Supreme Court sustained the validitv o1 the anti-polvgamv laws. the Court
de1ined marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman. The court´s stress in that case was
on one. The modern relevance o1 the Revnolds opinion is its re1erence to marriage as being between a
man and a woman. The ironv would arise i1 the Church used as an argument 1or the illegalitv o1
homosexual marriages the precedent 1ormerlv used against the Church to establish the illegalitv o1
polvgamous marriages.
¨ Elder Dallin H. Oaks

It's generally appropriate Ior an institution, such as a church, to take a stand on a consequential
issue such as the deIinition oI marriage, provided thev´re consistent. For instance, it'd be
appropriate Ior the First Baptist Church to declare, "%he only deIinition oI marriage should be/is
one man and one woman." What's not internally consistent is to say "the only deIinition oI
marriage always has been and always should be one man and one woman," (Ior instance, because

that's God's unchanging, unqualiIied position on the matter) then later expand or contract the
deIinition. %he LDS church, Ior instance, has a vitiated, or at least qualiIied, Ioundation Irom
which to declare that marriage is only between one man and one woman. Why? Because in the
recent past they oIIicially maintained a broader deIinition (one man and one woman OR one man
and several women)! Polygynous marriages had only two genders, but more than two partners;
now, the oIIicial deIinition the LDS church supports is only two genders and two partners. At
Iirst blush these two positions maniIest a glaring hypocrisy:

'God is not the author oI incoherence or iniustice, but we humans oIten are. We in the LDS
Church must be more honest about our history, including the past and Iuture practice oI
polygamy in our oIIicial doctrine. %his will be diIIicult, Ior it will reveal that we have been less
than truthIul in our public relations, and it will show our inconsistency with current statements
opposing gay marriage.

Are we not mimicking the type oI treatment our polygynist ancestors received in our legal and
organized opposition to SSM? Having so recently received such bitter government persecution
(bv de1enders o1 traditional marriage!) Ior practicing an unpopular minority deIinition oI
marriage, one might reasonably predict that the LDS church would instead support (or at least
reIrain Irom opposing) those who, due to deeply-held belieIs, also desire government recognition
and societal tolerance oI their practice oI an unpopular minority deIinition oI marriage. Indeed,
'many same-sex couples desire to marry Ior religious reasons.
¨ Certainly an anti-SSM
conservative Christian perspective should not be accorded more weight than a pro-SSM
progressive Christian perspective: to use partisan language, the Christian right doesn`t have a
corner on the religious market. %hough we depart Irom their religious views, should we not
protect as Iiercely as we do our own their right to constitutionally-privileged religious exercise?

Supporting SSM would oI course maniIest tolerance Ior the unpopular minority practice, as
tolerance is subsumed within support.

ŵŻ. r¢saming tb¢ princip¢ T¢bind tb¢ practic¢ is a bazardoas id¢a
'|M| most oI our Church governance is perIormed and the maiority oI our teaching is conducted
as iI we had not only a common moral ground but a uniIorm understanding oI the doctrines oI

the Church. Because oI this, we tend to expect more oI the Church than it can possibly give and
also expect a higher level oI Christian behavior Irom some Saints than they can possibly live.

One way to learn about God is to deduce His characteristics based on His behavior. %his is a one
oI the primary reasons Ior studying the scriptures. Since Christ Iounded and guides the LDS
church, it is reasonable to seek to inIer some oI His attributes Irom the extant practices in His
church. For instance, in the LDS church bishops lovingly counsel sinning members and help
them to repent. %he principle behind this practice would be that God is a counseling, Iorgiving,
and loving Person. However, this 'principle behind the practice¨ learning approach is Iraught
with peril. Why?
Example 1: political vs. moral issues. %he church`s political neutrality statement, in part, says
'%he Church`s mission is to preach the gospel oI Jesus Christ, not to elect politicians. %he
Church oI Jesus Christ oI Latter-day Saints is neutral in matters oI party politics. %his applies in
all oI the many nations in which it is established.

%he Church does not:
* Endorse, promote or oppose political parties, candidates or platIorms.
* Allow its church buildings, membership lists or other resources to be used Ior partisan
political purposes.
* Attempt to direct or dictate to a government leader.

%he Church does:
* Expect its members to engage in the political process in an inIormed and civil manner,
respecting the Iact that members oI the Church come Irom a variety oI backgrounds and
experiences and may have diIIerences oI opinion in partisan political matters.
* Reserve the right as an institution to address, in a nonpartisan way, issues that it believes
have signiIicant community or moral consequences or that directly aIIect the interests oI the

%hough the Family Proclamation calls 'upon responsible citizens and oIIicers oI government
everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the Iamily as the
Iundamental unit oI society,¨ the Church claims to not attempt to direct a government leader.
%he Family Proclamation is not the only example oI the Church`s attempts to inIluence civic and
government matters. Let`s analyze the practice oI the church regarding addressing such issues to

determine the principle behind the practice. %he Church used its church buildings and other
resources to oppose
the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), a rather brieI proposed
constitutional amendment:
'Section 1. Equality oI rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States
or by any State on account oI sex. Section 2. %he Congress shall have the power to enIorce, by
appropriate legislation, the provisions oI this article. Section 3. %his amendment shall take eIIect
two years aIter the date oI ratiIication.¨
(sidenote: 'In 1978, a First Presidency statement contained the Iollowing quote; We believe the
ERA is a moral issue with many disturbing ramiIications Ior women and Ior the Iamily....and
could result in an increase in the practice oI homosexual and lesbian activities.
%hrough the church`s anti-ERA and pro-Prop 8 activism, one observes what a potent Iorce Ior
political activism LDS women prove when the cause is cast in terms oI loyalty to the church and
deIending the Iamily. %he Church also advocated against SSM in Proposition 8-like state
amendments around 1998 in CaliIornia
, Hawaii
and Alaska
. %he Church`s overt and
covert advocacy against the ERA, which- like their support oI Proposition 8- arguably tipped the
scales oI a close race, would seem to indicate the principle that God opposed this gender equality
measure. On the other hand, in the midst oI campaigning against the ERA, God/the church Ielt
'signiIicant community or moral consequences or that directly aIIect the interests oI the Church¨
suIIicient to speak out against deregulating airlines: 'the First Presidency asked all western
Congressmen to vote against the deregulation oI airlines, hardly a matter oI Iaith or morals.
Perhaps the interests oI the church truly were threatened, since it was a signiIicant stockholder in
the threatened Western Airlines. In any case, this advocacy stands in stark contrast to the
'alooIness oI most LDS leaders toward the civil rights movement oI the 1960s because they
deIined that as a political issue.`
¨ In '%he Case Against Gay Marriage,¨ Randolph G.
Muhlestein in Dialogue. A Journal o1 Mormon Thought wrote:
'Probably most Americans would view the social and legislative accomplishments oI the various
civil rights movements as among the most important achievements oI American society during
the last IiIty years.
A 'principle behind the practice¨ presumption deduces that God does not agree with most
Americans about the 'signiIicant community or moral consequences¨ oI the civil rights

movement- else why wouldn`t the Church have promoted aspects oI the movement in a way
similar to its opposition to ERA and advocacy Ior Proposition 8? Said one iaded member in his
letter to the church requesting the removal oI his membership record:
'%he Mormon god seems not to care Ior basic social iustice. %he Mormon god did not have his
'inspired prophets¨ march with Martin Luther King during the Civil Rights movement, and none
oI the leaders oI the Mormon Church actively pushed Ior basic rights Ior gays, lesbians, and
transgender people until the church received negative press Irom the Church`s support oI
Proposition 8.
Ezra %aIt Benson spoke oI Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. in 1969:
'%he man who is generally recognized as the leader oI the so-called civil rights movement today
in America is a man who has lectured at a Communists training school, who has solicited Iunds
through Communist sources, who hired a Communist as a top-level aide, who has aIIiliated with
Communist Ironts, who is oIten praised in the Communist press and who unquestionably
parallels the Communist line. %his same man advocates the breaking oI the law and has been
described by J. Edgar Hoover as the most notorious liar in the country.`...
Benson also delivered a 1967 general conIerence address entitled 'Civil Rights: %ool oI
Communist Deception,¨ which stated
'Now there is nothing wrong with civil rights--it is what's being done in the name oI civil rights
that is alarming. There is no doubt that the so-called Civil Rights movement as it exists todav is
used as a communist program 1or revolution in America, iust as agrarian reIorm was used by the
communists to take over China and Cuba.
Not one in a thousand Americans--black or white--really understands the Iull implications oI
today's civil rights agitation. %he planning, direction, and leadership come Irom the communists,
and most oI those are white men who Iully intend to destroy America.¨
LDS apostle Delbert Stapley wrote a letter to civil rights activist, Latter-day Saint, and Michigan
governor George Romney (the namesake oI my MPA program at BYU), in 1964:
'AIter listening to your talk on Civil Rights, I am very much concerned... I thought to drop you a
note not in my oIIicial Church position, but as a personal Iriend.
When I reIlect upon |Joseph Smith`s| statements and remember what happened to three oI our
nation`s presidents who were very active in the Negro cause, I am sobered by their demise. %hey
went contrary to the teachings oI the Prophet Joseph Smith. those who are determined to
pursue a course, which shows an opposition, and a Ieverish restlessness against the decrees oI the
Lord, will learn, when perhaps it is too late Ior their own good, that God can do His own work,
without the aid oI those who are not dictated by His counsel,` has and will continue to be

In this respect, let me give you a personal experience. a great champion oI the colored race
came to me aIter my call into the %welve, and acknowledged President McKay to be a Prophet oI
God. He wanted me to ask President McKay to inquire oI the Lord to see iI the Lord would not
liIt the curse Irom the colored race and give them the privileges oI the Priesthood. I explained to
him that the Lord had placed the curse upon the Negro, which denied him the Priesthood;
thereIore, it was the Lord`s responsibilitynot man`sto change His decision. %his Iriend oI
mine met a very tragic end by drowning. He was a most enthusiastic advocate oI the colored
cause and went about promoting Ior them all the privileges, social opportunities, and
participation enioyed by the Whites.
It is not right to Iorce any class or race oI people upon those oI a diIIerent social order or race
classiIication. People are happier when placed in the environment and association oI like
interests, racial instincts, habits, and natural groupings.
I Iully agree the Negro is entitled to considerations, also stated above, but not Iull social beneIits
nor inter-marriage privileges with the Whites, nor should the Whites be Iorced to accept them
into restricted White areas. In my iudgment, the proposed Bill oI Rights is vicious legislation.
Principlereligious or otherwisecannot be abrogated Ior political expediency.
Now, don`t think I am against the Negro people, because I have several in my employ. We must
understand and recognize their status and then, accordingly, provide Ior them. I iust don`t think
we can get around the Lord`s position in relation to the Negro without punishment Ior our acts;
going contrary to that which He has revealed. %he Lord will not permit His purposes to be
Irustrated by man.
I note here that we could delve into several other relevant examples which veriIy that 'principle
behind the practice¨ peril:
O 1he unequal sLaLus of women ln ChrlsL's church ln boLh former and modern Llmesţ lncludlna Lhelr
severe underrepresenLaLlon ln scrlpLure
O 1he repleLe scrlpLural references Lo Cod's wraLh and anaerţ a seL of characLerlsLlcs we are lronlcallv
counseled Lo eschew
O Chanalna sLances on evoluLlon
O 8lood aLonemenL pracLlced ln 1
and 20
cenLurv uLah
O 1he reaular use of alcohol bv church leaders ln Lhe 1
cenLurvţ lncludlna !oseph SmlLh's llfelona
consumpLlon of alcohol
O SvsLemaLlc lvlnaţ such as !oseph SmlLh's denlal of hls pracLlclna of polvaamv
O uramaLlc chanaes ln Lhe Lemple ceremonv over Lhe lasL LwoŴlsh cenLurles
O Chanaes ln church Leachlnas abouL Lhe moral permlsslblllLv of oral sex and blrLh conLrol
O Church supporL of raclal seareaaLlon (eŦaŦ #l Lhlnk Lhe Lord seareaaLed Lhe nearo and who ls man Lo
chanae LhaL seareaaLlon?
" and #casLe svsLems have Lhelr rooL and orlaln ln Lhe aospel lLself ţ and
when Lhev operaLe accordlna Lo Lhe dlvlne decreeţ Lhe resulLanL resLrlcLlons and seareaaLlon are
rlahL and proper and have Lhe approval of Lhe Lord
O Church supporL of dlscouraalna lnLerraclal marrlaae (eŦaŦ #1o lnLermarrv wlLh a nearo ls Lo forfelL a
'naLlon of ÞrlesLhood holders
' and #Lhe whole nearo race have been cursed wlLh a black sklnţ Lhe

mark of Calnţ so Lhev can be ldenLlfled as a casLe aparLţ a people wlLh whom Lhe oLher descendanLs
of dam should noL lnLermarrvţ
" and #We are unanlmousţ all of Lhe 8reLhrenţ ln feellna and
recommendlna LhaL lndlans marrv lndlansţ and Mexlcans marrv MexlcansŤ Lhe Chlnese marrv
Chlnese and Lhe !apanese marrv !apaneseŤ LhaL Lhe Caucaslans marrv Lhe Caucaslansţ and Lhe rabs
marrv rabsŦ
O Church supporL of a raceŴbased prlesLhood dlscrlmlnaLlon
For the moment, let`s take a closer look at the last bullet.
Example 2: the prohibition against black people holding the priesthood. %he common-sense
principle behind this practice is that black people are viewed diIIerently by God than non-black
people (or at least that non-black men are viewed diIIerently Irom black men). Some conclude
Irom this previously oIIicial LDS practice that God is racist, as shown by the abundant paper
trail evidencing racist teachings and practices by Christ`s Latter-day apostles
. (See Mac
Madsen`s paper
Ior why this issue is similar to the SSM). %hese teachings are contrary to
today`s anti-racist sentiments and 2 Nephi 26: 33: "And he inviteth them all to come unto him
and partake oI his goodness, and he denieth none that come unto him, black or white, bond or
Iree, male or Iemale, and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God." (2 Nephi
26:33) We also know that God is impartial
and no respecter oI persons
. I will brieIly quote
iust three passages (including two Irom my current university`s namesake), then move on with
why this matters:
1) 'Shall I tell you the law oI God in regard to the AIrican race? II the white man who
belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed oI Cain, the penalty under the
law oI God, is death on the spot. %his will always be so.
¨ Brigham Young
2) 'Cain, Ham, and the whole Negro race have been cursed with a black skin, the mark oI
Cain, they can be identiIied as a caste apart, a people with whom the other descendents oI
Adam should not inter-marry.
¨ Bruce R. McConkie
3) "You see some classes oI the human Iamily that are black, uncouth, uncomely,
disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived oI nearly all the
blessings oI the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind. the Lord put a
mark upon him, which is the Ilat nose and black skin. %race mankind down to aIter the
Ilood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race -- that they should be the
"servant oI servants;" and they will be, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists
cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree.%hat curse will remain upon them, and
they never can hold the Priesthood or share in it until all the other descendants oI Adam
have received the promises and enioyed the blessings oI the Priesthood and the keys
thereoI. Until the last ones oI the residue oI Adam`s children are brought up to that
Iavourable position, the children oI Cain cannot receive the Iirst ordinances oI the
Priesthood. %hey were the Iirst that were cursed, and they will be the last Irom whom the

curse will be removed. When the residue oI the Iamily oI Adam come up and receive
their blessings, then the curse will be removed Irom the seed oI Cain, and they will
receive blessings in like proportion.'
" Brigham Young

%hough the possibility exists that black skinned, Ilat-nosed people were indeed cursed by God to
be the servant oI servants until some point between the time oI President Young`s teachings and
the present day (perhaps because in some way all oI Adam`s other descendants have since then
received Priesthood keys, blessings, and promises), most oI us Iind this conclusion unsavory-
and would instead elect to reiect these teachings as the type oI scripture-mingled ideas oI men
we`re warned against. Were the prohibition viewed as merely a practice rather than a revealed
principle, it would presumably need no revelation to reverse. Were the principle instead
revelation, one is leIt to wonder why an impartial God oI truth would share with his prophets the
that some black-skinned people are uncouth, deprived, unintelligent, and undeserving oI
the priesthood. President WilIord WoodruII wrote: '%he Lord will never permit me or any other
man who stands as president oI this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the program. It is not
in the mind oI God. II I were to attempt that the Lord would remove me out oI my place, and so
he will any other man who attempts to lead the children oI men astray Irom the oracles oI God
and Irom their duty.
¨ Wrote Brett Alan Sanders:
'Jesus`s reiection oI Iormalized religion. Iorces a conIrontationdisorienting Ior many
IaithIulwith our own Church`s corporate structure at over a century-and-a-halI`s remove Irom
the Prophet Joseph`s ragged Irontier church. WilIord WoodruII promises that neither he nor
any prophet-president oI the Church will be permitted by God to lead His people astraya
puzzling promise in the light oI so many well-established prophetic misstatements. One solution
to that dilemma is to diIIerentiate between when the prophet in question was speaking as a man`
versus as the prophet, but how does that idea help to clariIy anything? What exactly constitutes
being led astray? Does God tolerate His prophets` errors on science or politics, iust so long as
they don`t Iail to teach Iaith, repentance, and the importance oI sacred ordinances? And iI so, is
that idea oI any comIort to the gay Mormon who has committed suicide because he can`t bear his
enIorced separation Irom those ordinances?

President Benson taught, 'We encourage earthly knowledge in many areas, but remember, iI
there is ever a conIlict between earthly knowledge and the words oI the prophet, you stand with
the prophet, and you'll be blessed and time will vindicate you.
¨ Another explanation might be
thereIore that today`s church is in apostasy, since it is apparent both that President Young was
not removed out oI his place and that the current church`s position contradicts President Young`s

position. In addition to Iinding this explanation unsavory, I think it Iails
because today`s President is also not removed out oI his place.

%he perverse result oI concluding that God is racist shows the diIIiculty oI inIerring principles
Irom a church practice. Much as LDS members oppose civil SSM today because they believe
God has declared it to be immoral, it is not diIIicult to see why so many LDS members were
apathetic or opposed to aspects oI the civil rights movement such as ending segregation,
promoting legal equality, and ending racism. II God is racist in practice and prophetic precept,
certainly one is on dangerous ground promoting the 'worldly¨ view oI social iustice and racial
equality. I Ior one am grateIul here that the worldly view won out, and tend to agree with:

'In the present LDS context oI anguished wrestlings over the problematic existence oI same-sex
attraction among the marginalized IaithIul, Wills`s treatment oI Jesus`s challenge to the very
'holiness codes¨ that his religion and ours still uphold is itselI oI great importance. No outcasts
were cast out Iar enough in Jesus`s world to make him shut them out,` Wills writes, but not so
Ior the Christianity that arose in his name to cast out the Jews: II this sin oI racial purity``
which Wills calls one oI Christianity`s greatest sins`did not cause the Holocaust, in certainly
Iacilitated it.`

At the risk oI over-emphasizing the virtue oI charity, I condemn 'otherizing¨ those who are
'impure¨ as among the worst oI vices.
Yet, iust such obiectiIying seems to have been
employed by God`s people to systematically stigmatize, respectively, gentiles, Jews, and black
people. %his practice and precept seems violative oI:
'In reality, we can`t accept the Atonement until we are able to love those who, like ourselves, are
undeserving oI Christ`s love. It is through loving others that we participate with God in the
redemption oI his children, and it is in being loved by others that we receive the power to seek
¨ - Robert Rees
'One oI the things the gospel oI Jesus Christ tells us is that our brotherhood with men on this
planet is not a mere biological brotherhood but a kind oI brotherhood that lets me know that I
have an accountability, Ior my relationships will be perpetuated Iar beyond today, Iar beyond
here, and Iar beyond now... I would submit to you that we cannot really Iorgive each other iI our
brotherhood is simply a biological brotherhood in which we share the same planet at the same
time; the only kind oI Iorgiveness that can operate eIIectively in the human Iamily grows out oI a
sense oI brotherhood that the gospel oI Jesus Christ makes pervasive and persistent.
¨ (Neal A.


Also: 'Violence is not only what we do to the Other. It is prior to that. Violence is the very
construction oI the Other.. Outside by deIinition but always threatening to get in, the Other is
poised in a delicate balance that is always oII balance because Iear and aggression continually
weight the scales. Identity Iorged against the Other inspires perpetual policing oI its Iragile

Additionally: 'Civilization is the process in which one gradually increases the number oI people
included in the term 'we' or 'us' and at the same time decreases those labeled 'you' or 'them' until
that category has no one leIt in it.¨ - Howard Winters

%hese Jew/gentile/race-otherizing religions have, as Ioreshadowed immediately above, 'policed
the Iragile borders¨ by Iiercely resisting the common humanity oI man. In His mortal ministry,
Jesus passionately decried that very resistance.

Some would inquire whether these racism-evidencing statements were made 'over the pulpit.¨
%hat this inquiry never arises until a seemingly contrary statement crops up evidences the
conIirmation bias endemic to such a iustiIication. Verba debent intelligi cum e11ectu. words
ought to be understood with eIIect. A conclusion that these statements were made by these men
while not in their role as prophets results in either 1) castigating conIidence in current
pronouncements by church leaders, or 2) reducing prophetic teachings to an impotent 'I`ll pick
and choose which teachings to buy into by calling the ones I like prophetic and the ones I dislike
their personal views.¨ Fairly applying this 'not in their role¨ contention exposes past and present
statements by church leaders on homosexuality to dismissal (and as one might imagine, there is a
hot debate about the desirability oI that dismissal- especially regarding the homophobic and
'there`s no such thing as inborn homosexual orientation¨ subsets). In any case, the church
practice oI Iorbidding homosexuals to marry each other does not necessarily imply that
homosexual people are inIerior to heterosexual people, nor that He will never open up to them
the privilege oI approved matrimony. D&C 56:4 "I, the Lord, command and revoke, as it
seemeth me good."

ŵ%. SSM do¢sn't n¢c¢ssariy w¢ak¢n marriag¢
Some say that gay marriage weakens the institution oI marriage. %his is clever wording, as
adding same-genderness to a two-partner-only construction oI marriage is merely a change

which requires an additional value iudgment to be deemed a weakening. What is the iustiIication
that the change is negative? As shown Irom the blacks and the priesthood analysis, practice-
based deductions are suspect. %wo quotes:
'%he political and religious rhetoric around the 'Protection oI Marriage¨ concept provided the
last layer oI despair that drove Stuart Matis and others to take their lives. We must not allow this
to happen again. Whatever our convictions about which unions are appropriate to legalize and
which are inappropriate, we must recognize once and Ior all that in our universe oI people there
are many dear loved ones who happen to be homosexual and that we are responsible to them,
responsible to see them as our own kind, to give them respect, Christlike love, to circle the
wagons around them so that they too can be saIe and warm.
JeIIrey Nielsen, an instructor BYU`s Department oI Philosophy reIused to rehire because oI his
public views: 'Further, to say that gay marriage will destroy traditional marriage and the Iamily
without giving any reasons why is the Iallacy oI appealing to Iear. Indeed, once you get past the
emotion, it is quite an unIounded claim. How could the union oI two committed and loving
people negatively aIIect my marriage? I believe that quite the contrary is true; namely, legalizing
gay marriage reinIorces the importance oI committed relationships and would strengthen the
institution oI marriage.
Indeed, 'A look across a broader range oI countries provides some evidence that gay couples
might even be bucking the heterosexual trend oI increasing skepticism about marriage.
As will be seen in chapter 7, some leading proponents oI Proposition 8 and other anti-SSM or
anti-gay laws and practices seek to condemn homosexual people Ior various social ills, such as
Iatherless homes, single parenting, and Iilial instability. %hese attempts bear a strong
resemblance to historic anti-Semitic treatment, as persuasively illustrated by Cindy LeFevre in
her article, '%he Hidden Nazi Mentality in the Proclamation on the Family.
¨ Also, it seems
that legalizing SSM has little or no eIIect on the marrying and divorcing behaviors oI
heterosexuals (2009):
'Chapter 4 plunges more deeply into the demographic changes in these countries to ask whether
same-sex couples have somehow changed heterosexual marriage choices. Measures oI
heterosexual marriage and divorce behavior turn out to suggest that nothing much changed as a
result oI the recognition oI same-sex couples. Opening up marriage to same-sex couples is iust
the latest step toward renewing marriage`s continuing relevance in the twenty-Iirst century.

I have included more thorough discussion on the 'weakens marriage¨ argument in civil SSM-
based chapter 6, much oI which draws Irom 'the age-old wisdom that love and sex and marriage
go together and are severed at society`s peril.
¨ In another`s words:
'I believe that the norm oI sex-love-marriage is the one to go with, because the norm oI
opposite-sex-only is less important and less Iair and is crumbling anyway as the culture adiusts
to the reality oI same-sex unions. %he Iundamental conIlict today, iI you care about marriage, is
not between same-sex marriage and traditional marriage; it is between marriage and
In conclusion,
'II marriage is to IulIill its aspirations, it must be deIined by the commitment oI one to another
Ior richer Ior poorer, in sickness and in healthnot by the people it excludes.
ŵ%. Incr¢as¢ fr¢¢dom
'Aside Irom the speciIic beneIits oIIered by marriage, access to marriage exempliIies Ior gays
and lesbians the more general goals to which they aspire: respect, legitimacy, and recognition
that this very important aspect oI their beingthe condition that Ior whatever reason is deeply
imprinted in their sense oI themselvesdoes not diminish them or make them second class. As a
naturally occurring minority, they claim to be entitled equally to whatever rights and
opportunities society can extend. In short, they are looking Ior their iustiIied place at the table.
And since they have no intent to disrupt the Ieast Ior the rest oI us, nor do we have reasonable
and realistic grounds to say that they would compromise our gustatory satisIaction, how can we
then deny their request without compromising our own ideals oI equity and Iairness?
%he meaningIulness oI agency (the power to select an alternative) is inversely correlated to
Ireedom (the number oI available alternatives). Opening up LDS marriage to same-sex couples
gives those couples one very signiIicant alternative they didn`t have previously. Many SSM
advocates exempliIy: 'And now the design oI the Nephites was. that they might preserve their
rights and their privileges, yea, and also their liberty..., they were Iighting Ior their homes, and
their liberties, their |spouses| and their children, .Ior their rites oI worship.. their
Iamilies...their Ireedom.¨ -Alma 43:9, 45, 47, 48. Wrote Clay Essig:
'In LDS Seminary and Institute, I was taught marriage, our choice oI who we marry and how, is
one oI the most important and personal choices or exercises oI our God given agency we can
make in mortality. II marriage is an exercise oI personal choice and agency Ior us, isn`t it the
same Ior our Gay and Lesbian neighbors?

Our Father in Heaven declared: '.because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy
the agency oI man, which I, the Lord God, had given him. by the power oI mine Only
Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down¨ (Moses 4:3). Do we Latter-day Saints believe
and live by these words oI God? Can our Father in Heaven teach us any more clearly that when
we seek to destroy the agency oI any oI His children we are doing Satan`s work, not God`s; and
in so doing we put our souls in serious ieopardy oI being cast down? Or do we believe God has
suddenly changed and is now pleased when we legislatively seek to destroy the agency oI the
millions oI His Gay and Lesbian children to marry and raise Iamilies according to their
conscience and religious belieIs? II we Latter-day Saints vote to destroy the ability oI millions oI
God`s Gay and Lesbian children to choose to enter the sacred and loving bonds oI marriage,
what will we say to God in our Iinal iudgment iI He asks, 'Did you seek to destroy the agency oI
any oI my children?
Also, we have a strong belieI in allowing others to Ireely exercise their religious belieIs. %hus,
Ior at least that subset oI SSM advocates that possess a religious belieI that same-gender couples
should be allowed to marry, we should at least reIrain Irom opposing them. 'We believe that no
government can exist in peace, except such laws are Iramed and held inviolate as will secure to
each individual the Iree exercise oI conscience. human law.should never suppress the
Ireedom oI the soul.holding sacred the Ireedom oI conscience. "We believe that .
governments have a right, and are bound to enact laws for the protection of all citizens in the
free exercise of their religious belief; but we do not believe that they have a right in iustice to
deprive citizens oI this privilege, or proscribe them in their opinions." (Doctrine and
Covenants 134:2, 4, 5, 7- emphasis added). Even iI we personally disagree with their dictates oI
conscience, it might be wise to get out oI the way or ioin homosexuals Iighting Ior honorable
marriage over the anti-Iamily alternatives oI liIelong celibacy, promiscuity, or cohabitation to
which society has consigned them. Is not marriage a better Iamily alternative Ior these people
than promiscuity, celibacy, or cohabitation?
O 'Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undeIiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God
will iudge¨ (Hebrews 3:4)
O 'And again, verily I say unto you, that whoso Iorbiddeth to marry is not ordained oI God, Ior
marriage is ordained oI God unto man.¨ -D & C 49:15
O 'Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one oI the least oI these my brethren, ye have done it unto
me.¨ Matthew 25:40

%o close:

'Do we care enough about the well-being oI our homosexual brothers and sisters to allow them a
socially approved, supportive structure oI love, acceptance, and security like that enioyed by

married heterosexuals, and the opportunity to grow together with a loved one in sustained,
committed intimacy? Jesus did say that we should iudge human behaviors by their Iruits, that is,
by their practical outcomes, not by some ideology (Matt. 7:16). Scripture teaches us by
implication that it is not good Ior a man (or a woman) to be alone (Gen. 2:18). II two people oI
whatever gender commit to each other that they will love, cherish, and support each other
without reservation through liIe`s vicissitudes, will not such commitment likely bear good
Iruitand should we not support that? I say yes!

ŶŴ. Int¢grity, S¢carity, Commanity, and Happin¢ss

A virtue ethics perspective evaluates moral choices based on what character attributes result
Irom conduct, and what way oI living results in eudemonia (also known as human Ilourishing, or
'the good liIe¨). %o iuxtapose the alternatives oI either including or excluding same-sex couples
Irom marriage, a virtue ethicist might ask which produces the superior virtue proIile. I argue
here that SSM, more than its absence, contributes to the character attributes/moral goods oI
happiness, community, security, and integrity. Because the support Ior these claims is Iound in
stories and quotes elsewhere in the book, I will avoid repetition by merely outlining this
argument without many reIerences.
Integrity is oIten viewed as encompassing two or three oI these concepts: 1) wholeness, 2)
commitment keeping, and 3) honesty/authenticity. Compared with mixed orientation marriages
(MOM) and celibacy, SSM on average accords more oI all three to homosexually oriented
people. Many (though not all) homosexuals in MOM`s Ieel or act duplicitously
honesty and authenticity), and many Ieel a great hole in their lives roughly characterized by the
lack oI an intimate and/or romantic relationship with someone he or she is erotically,
emotionally, and romantically attracted to. I assume that divorce is more common in MOM`s
compared with SSM (a whopping 85° in the Iirst three years aIter coming out Ior MOM`s where
the husband comes out to his wiIe aIter they`re married
). %he norm oI encouraging gays and
lesbians to 'stay in the closet¨ or pretend to be and/or act 'straight¨ is also inconsistent with
integrity Ior many homosexuals:
'|%he norm| tells gay people that |it| is acceptable to be gay as a matter oI Iact, but that it is
unacceptable Ior gay people to act out that identityto show same-sex aIIection, to discuss their
sexuality in any signiIicant way, to engage in behaviors that are perceived as gay`. this denial
oI integrity, this severing oI the selI, can exact signiIicant physic damage on gay people and their

relationships, and is ultimately stiIling and harmIul to society as a whole, particularly in a society
in which we all, gay or straight, have some attribute that society pressures us to downplay in
order to Iit into the mainstream.
'An individual who acts consistentlv with his or her sexual orientation acts in a morallv good
manner. A person who acts in that Iashion will be able to Ieel happiness (including sexual
pleasure) more authentically and will be more likely to live a liIe oI honesty and integrity. By
contrast, a person who acts inconsistently with his or her sexual orientation is more likely to
experience unhappiness (including sexual deprivation and dissatisIaction) and is more likely not
to have integrity in his or her liIe. A corollary oI such choices is that the person who becomes
the spouse oI a person who is acting inconsistently with his/her sexual orientation is also more
likely to experience unhappiness in his/her liIe.
'I credit the atonement Ior the change that occurred in me. I obtained a new view oI God and
selI. I could Iinally see myselI with God. And %HA% is how I know that my decision to live as a
gay person was the right one. Because all those years oI trying to change, trying to suppress it,
trying to pluck it out oI me drove a wedge Iurther and Iurther between myselI and God. He
became so distant that I could no longer see how He could possibly exist. But the minute that I
accepted my sexuality and decided that I would move Iorward doing the best I could as a gay
man, living honestly with myselI and others, God was in my liIe. He was all around me, and I
was suddenly enabled to be a tool in His hands.

I now add security to the list oI virtues/moral goods begun by integrity. %he security (meaning
both security in the relationship, the marriage, and in perceived physical, emotional, and
psychological security which oIten results Irom an intimate, committed, society-supported
relationship) oI homosexual couples is a moral good that society should value. %hat security is
increased by SSM compared to SSM`s absence. Also as supported elsewhere in the book,
homosexuals on average are happier when SSM is available compared to when it is not. Last,
because marriage connects a couple to their community more than does celibacy and
cohabitation, the virtue oI community connection/commitment is enhanced.

In conclusion, SSM enables many homosexual people to live with 1) greater integrity, 2) greater
security, 3) greater happiness, and 4) greater commitment/connection to their community (note
that the Iramework engenders, rather than guarantees, that enhanced capacity)


Ŷŵ. Homos¢xaay ori¢nt¢d p¢op¢ ar¢ cbidr¢n of Cod
'Jesus`s pronouncements and his behavior. challenge us to reach out to others generously,
Ilexibly, and inclusively rather than seeking to iustiIy exclusion. Why and how these Christian
principles relate to the question oI committed homosexual marriages should be obvious.
Is the gospel Ior everyone or isn`t it? %hat SSM should be made available to HO people is
essentially an argument Irom equality:
'And why the presumption oI equality? %hat we may truly love our neighbor, Ior iI we cannot
love him as our equal, as ourselves, we do not really love him. And iI we cannot truly love our
neighbor, we cannot be 'one,¨ and iI we are not one, we are not 'His¨ (D&C 38:27).
As children oI God, homosexually oriented people deserve the privileges and opportunities
equally available to all oI God`s children. 'God is no respecter oI persons.
¨ %here is no
'separate but equal¨ to Him (the clause comes Irom a Iamous US Supreme Court case, !lessv v.
Ferguson, which recognized segregation and was overturned by rown v. oard`s declaration
that separate is inherently unequal). We buy into the Nephite tradition: '.it was strictly
contrary to the commands oI God that there should be a law which should bring men on to
unequal grounds." - Alma 30:7. Also, king Mosiah wrote to his people::
'And now I desire that this inequality should be no more in this land, especially among this my
people; but I desire that this land be a land oI liberty, and every man may enioy his rights and
privileges alike, so long as the Lord sees Iit that we may live and inherit the land, yea, even as
long as any oI our posterity remains upon the Iace oI the land.¨ - Mosiah 29:32
Homosexual members are in every way equal beIore God and are candidates Ior exaltation.
Even their tithing monies support chapels and temples in which they themselves are Iorbidden to
marry a chosen spouse. Because homosexually oriented people don`t have equal access to
heterosexual marriage (they are Ior the most part counseled against it) and are by nature
generally ill-positioned Ior it, a logical deduction Irom equality is that an equal institution should
be made available to them: LDS SSM.
'Ubi eadem ratio ibi idem ius. et de similibus idem est iudicium` (when there is the same reason,
then the law is the same, and the same iudgment should be rendered as to similar things).

ŶŶ. Tb¢r¢ ar¢ many T¢n¢fits from marriag¢ to Totb individaas and soci¢ty
%he literature abundantly evidences the many beneIits oI marriage that do not necessarily also
attach to cohabitation (though these beneIits are correlated to marriage, I am not yet aware oI
substantial evidence supporting causation). Might not at least most oI these beneIits be realized
by married homosexual couples in addition to married heterosexual ones? %he opportunity cost
Ior LDS homosexuals is liIelong celibacy, which is much less likely to bring about these eIIects
(see this Iootnote
Ior bullets below that don`t have their own citation- most oI the Iollowing is
an excerpt):
BeneIits Ior both genders:
O Married people have longer liIe expectancies than unmarried peers
O Married people are more productive, have higher incomes, and enioy more Iamily time than
the unmarried. %his is due in part to the division and specialization oI labor, where spouses
each take responsibility Ior speciIic tasks
O Married people are more likely to volunteer. Married adults were 30° more likely than
unmarried adults to have volunteered |Ior social service|, and married adults averaged 40°
more volunteer hours than unmarried individuals. In addition, parents were also twice as
likely as childless adults to volunteer Ior social service.
O Married people experience less depression. Married people had considerably less depression
and Iewer problems with alcohol than did unmarried people. Men who married and stayed
married were less depressed than those who remained single. Among women, marriage was
associated with Iewer alcohol problems.
O Getting married increases the probability oI moving out oI a poor neighborhood. Marrying
nearly doubled the probability that a person would move Irom a poor to a non-poor
neighborhood. Likewise, the dissolution oI a marriage more than doubled the probability that
a person would move Irom a non-poor to poor neighborhood. Among blacks, marital
dissolution increased the likelihood oI moving Irom a non poor to a poor neighborhood
almost six-Iold.

BeneIits Ior Men:
O Marriage encourages better relationships between parents and children, especially Iather-
child interactions
. -Brad Wilcox
O Married men gain substantial physical health beneIits; they are physically Iitter and less
prone to illness or disability
O Mortality rates are two-thirds as high among married men as among single men. Married
men (and women) are less than halI as likely as their divorced counterparts to attempt
O Married men have lower levels oI testosterone which is associated with a reduction in
aggressive and risky behavior, as well as promiscuity

O Married men are less likely to have alcohol and drug addictions, to commit crime, and to be
O Single men have almost six times the probability oI being incarcerated as married men.
O Men's Iinancial gains are substantial. Married men make 25 percent more money than single
men, and two-parent Iamilies are Iive times less likely to be in poverty than single-parent
BeneIits Ior Women:
O Compared to unmarried women, married women without children have higher incomes and
married mothers are less likely to live in poverty
O For women, marriage combats depression, provides particularly high psychological beneIits,
and signiIicantly lowers the risk oI suicide
O Studies show that wives are 30 percent more likely to rate their health excellent or good than
single women oI the same age. In addition, married women (and men) are less likely to suIIer
long-term chronic illness or disabilities than single women. And mortality rates are less than
one-third as high among married women as among non-married women.
O Women gain Iinancially as well--marriage increases income by 50 percent Ior women (25
percent Ior men)--and domestic violence rates decrease substantially. Married women are Iar
less likely to be victims oI intimate-partner violence than divorced, separated, or never-
married women. %he rate per thousand Ior divorced or separated women is 31.9; never
married women, 11.3; married women, iust 2.6.

Wayne Schow, in a Dialogue. A Journal o1 Mormon Thought article, similarly argued:
'First, marriage, as experts agree, does promote stability in people`s lives: better health, Iewer
risky behaviors, more satisIying sex lives, larger incomes, greater longevity, and in general
greater happiness than single or divorced people. Stable lives mean Iewer problems that
society must deal with. Why, then, is it not in society`s interest to make the stabilizing
inIluence oI marriage available to a signiIicant minority that, not surprisingly, has suIIered
Ior want oI it? II gays are statistically more subiect to health risks and have higher rates oI
depression, addiction, and suicide, surely the lack oI social acceptance and oI equal
opportunity Ior socially approved unions is partly responsible. Leveling the playing Iield
would undoubtedly improve these conditions. Consider, Ior example, how the introduction oI
gay marriage has the potential oI reducing sexual promiscuity among gays (as marriage
reduces promiscuity among heterosexuals) and thereby reducing the spread oI AIDS.

The Economist made a corroborating claim:
'We have, Ior example, lived through a period in which around 300,000 young Americans died
oI a terrible disease that was undoubtedly compounded by the total lack oI any social incentives
Ior stable relationships. Imagine what would happen to S%D rates or legitimacy rates iI
heterosexual marriage were somehow not in existence. Do you think that straight men would be
more or less socially responsible without the institution oI civil marriage?

Along similar lines, Jonathan Rauch argued:

'But what may not be obvious is the stake straight society has in helping homosexuals establish
settled lives. One way to see that stake is to reIlect on the AIDS crisis and its enormous social
cost (to say nothing oI the horriIic cost in gay lives). A culture oI marriage might not have
stopped the virus altogether, but it certainly would have slowed the virus down, and saved who
knows how many lives and who knows how much money and agony. A sexual underworld is
inevitable in every society, but in a marriageless society its extent is greater and its allure
stronger. And, oI course, its cost is higher. Syphilis, gonorrhea, and all the rest have haunted
sexual underworlds since long beIore AIDS appeared. Beyond disease, there is a moral cost. In
the context oI heterosexual liIe, conservatives take Ior granted that a culture in which marriage is
the norm is a healthier culture Ior children. It has always struck me as peculiar that so many
conservatives have denounced the 'homosexual liIestyle¨meaning, to a large extent, the gay
sexual underworldwhile Iighting tooth and nail against letting gays participate in the
institution which would do the most to change that liIestyle.

Ŷŷ. B¢n¢fits from marita bomos¢xaa condact
In addition to the beneIits mentioned in the section above, the likely sexual conduct between
committed same-sex partners may be morally beneIicial in the same ways as marital
heterosexual conduct. I will address both sides oI why this may be so: 1) avoiding harm and 2)
promoting human love.

AvolJlnq Hurm:

%here is potential Ior harm to individuals that comes Irom restricting their opportunities Ior sex
and romance. %o the homosexual who cannot control his or her homosexual Ieelings, Elder
Oaks counseled not to enter into heterosexual marriage
. %his amounts to a prohibition against
sex iI not also necking, kissing, Ilirting, and other romantic and sexual gestures between two
persons oI the same sex attracted to each other
. Presuming persistent orientation, the
statement also removes reasonable hope oI sexual expression during this liIe, iI not also a
reasonable hope oI other romantic expressions with a partner one is attracted to in sexual and/or
romantic ways. Wrote Wayne Schow:
'%o understand why we are morally obliged to grant homosexuals the right to marry, we must
look at the larger, central, complex role oI sexuality in human lives. Whether or not we like
to admit it, we are sexual beings. For most oI us, sex is one oI the most Iascinating,
mysterious, and challenging aspects oI liIe. Like the Grand Canyon, it`s awesome, dazzlingly
beautiIul at times, powerIully inviting, and also potentially dangerous to negotiate. On the
one hand, we are like lesser animals in the inescapability oI our sexuality; on the other, we

sense in it a godlike power. Mythology and Iolklore Irom earliest times and disparate cultures
perceived this power and Iramed the creative acts oI the gods in sexual metaphors. On some
primordial level we know that sexuality is an energy that underlies and drives creation. It is a
basic human need, a basic human privilege. And so a liIe without sexual IulIillment is not a
complete liIe, however good it otherwise may be.

%hough my experience will not match that oI all others, I personally Iind it diIIicult to advise
another to embrace celibacy, which is something I would probably be unwilling to do myselI.

%he most intense and persistent psychological stress I have experienced during the last 10 years
has resulted Irom repressing my sexual impulses. I am committed to abstinence Irom premarital
sex and other sexual indulgences. %he clash between this commitment and my uninvited, oIten
nigh-consuming libido has caused me intense pain, discomIort, and suIIering. Much like
choosing to eat, sleep, breathe, or deIecate, one can elect to reIrain- but she cannot choose the
consequences oI such consistent omissions, which are oIten quite negative and severe. Because
long-term repression oI romantic and sex drives runs so counter to Iundamental human
, it unsurprising leads to depression, anxiety, Irustration, and a pall oI apathy or
deadness, to name but a Iew outcomes. Similar outcomes result Irom the lack oI human touch,
which is more likely to be the experience oI many gay men in an anti-homotactile, keep-gays-
away-Irom-children, homophobic culture (though the cultural norms Ior Iemale touching are
merciIully more liberal). I have the Ireedom to mitigate these deleterious results by kissing,
dating, cuddling, and seeking a legitimized sexual relationship with a Iemale partner I am
attracted to. Ending a lengthy kissing abeyance with a blossoming new relationship helps me
Ieel alive again. It would be unreasonable Ior me to presume that at least some subset oI my
homosexually oriented brothers and sisters do not have a similar experience. %hus, in applying
the golden rule to me personally, to condemn this subset to a liIetime without sex and/or
romance is at the least unIair, and at the most immoral (this conclusion may hold at the society
level as well). Indeed, iI an authoritarian regime told me to stop dating, kissing, and pursuing a
legitimate sexual relationship Ior the remainder oI my liIe, I can easily imagine myselI rebelling
against that regime (likely with some careIully chosen, colorIul language on my way out the
door). I can also see myselI rebelling similarly were I instructed by an authority Iigure to deny,
ignore, or reIute such a core component oI my identity.


In addition to this narrow conclusion as to eIIect on repressed persons, it is also reasonable to
consider the indirect consequences that occur to others as a result oI the repression-linked
negative conduct oI individuals who choose to Iollow the Church`s counsel to unnecessarily
repress their sexual and romantic Ieelings.

Promotlnq Humun Iove:

Is sexual conduct morally praiseworthy or worthy oI condemnation? %he short answer is: it
depends, running the spectrum Irom reprehensible to exalting. %he relevant Iactors are 1)
context and 2) the motive oI the individual.

Are the couples in a recognized, committed relationship, or not? Premarital/extramarital,
uncommitted sex is presumed to be less moral than marital sex:

'%he Lord`s law oI moral conduct is abstinence Irom sexual relations outside oI lawIul marriage
and Iidelity within marriage. Sexual relations are proper only between husband and wiIe,
expressed within the bonds oI marriage.

Sex within SSM can IulIill the same purpose. Summarizing a Iederal court`s analysis, Michael
Sandel wrote:
'%he marital relationship is signiIicant, wrote the court oI appeals, not only because oI its
procreative purpose but also because oI the unsurpassed opportunity Ior mutual support and
selI-expression that it provides.` It recalled the Supreme Court`s observation in Griswold |v.
Connecticut| that marriage is a coming together Ior better or Ior worse, hopeIully enduring, and
intimate to the degree oI being sacred.` And it went on to suggest that the qualities the Court so
prized in Griswold could be present in homosexual unions as well: For some, the sexual activity
in question here serves the same purpose as the intimacy oI marriage.

Motive oI the Individual:
%his Iactor, like context, merits great weight when calculating the morality oI sexual conduct.
Both the Catholic and LDS churches have historically alternated between Iocusing solely on
procreation on the one hand, and the mutual love and IulIillment oI the marriage partners on the
other, as acceptable purposes Ior marital sexual conduct
. %he modern view oI both is that
marital sexual relations are appropriate outside oI the strict procreative purpose; though a virgin

myselI, I would predict that most married couples would Iind this result intuitive, since the
maiority oI sexual conduct between marital partners is not only or in many cases even partly the
motive. An expressed Catholic view on this subiect will likely ring true Ior many Latter-day

'%he mutual inward moulding oI husband and wiIe, this determined eIIort to perIect each other,
can in a very real sense, as the Roman Cathechism teaches, be said to be the chieI reason and
purpose oI matrimony, provided matrimony be looked at not in the restricted sense as instituted
Ior the proper conception and education oI children, but more widely as the blending oI liIe as a
whole and the mutual interchange and sharing thereoI.


'Pure coniugal love involves the good oI the whole person.` In such statements the lie is given
to the notion that sex in marriage is evil, or only a concession to concupiscence, or valid only Ior

It is common to consider same gender sexual conduct as an obvious perversion oI the biological
Iunction oI the sexual organs. However:

'We do not Iind it contrary to nature` that man has taken the hands which biological evolution
provided him as grasping instruments and employed them in the ideal creative pursuits oI
wielding a brush or pen. Nor do we Iind it contrary to nature that man has used his mouth with
its teeth, tongue and lips, obviously intended by nature Ior eating, in order to communicate
through speech and song his most intimate aspirations. Nor should we Iind it any less according
to nature Ior procreation, in order to give the most intimate expression to his drive Ior union in
love with his Iellow man.

Additionally, a naturalistic argument Ior sexual conduct negates any possibility oI understanding
human sexual conduct as having a component oI the human dimension oI interpersonal love:

'It is this personal uniqueness oI every individual which Iorms the necessary basis Ior the
possibility oI human love. A loving action, even iI it takes the Iorm oI a sexual gesture, must be
directed to the other as unique, as end in himselI or herselI. %o treat another person merely as a
means to an end that lies outside the person himselI represents a Iailure to love that person as

From this personalist viewpoint an overemphasis on procreation can be seen as leading
potentially to a seriously immoral and dehumanizing Iorm oI sexuality. Modern consciousness
has been sensitized by the movement Ior women`s rights to the Iact that to understand the Iemale

exclusively in a Iunctional manner as bearer oI children` is a depersonalizing and, thereIore,
immoral attitude. Such an emphasis can be seen as in conIlict with the Gospel emphasis on the
respect and love due to one`s Iellow human as a person. As we have seen, a general
consideration oI scriptural data concerning sexual behavior leads to only one certain conclusion:
those sexual relations can be iustiIied morally which are a true expression oI human love. %he
call oI the Gospel to man is not one oI conIorming passively to biological givens; rather, that call
is to transIorm and humanize the natural order through the power to love.

%he wiIe who withholds sex with a view to negotiating a Iur coat is acting immorally; she is
behaving like a prostitute, even iI a legal prostitute. And the husband who uses his wiIe as a
convenient instrument oI masturbation, seeking exclusively his own egotistical pleasure, is
immoral and remains so even iI the act is open to the possibility oI procreation. From these
examples it should be obvious that there is something more to the moral quality oI sexual
behavior that the purely obiective legal question oI marriage, or even the obiective rational
question oI openness to procreation. Something else ought to be present; and that something else
is love. Are your using your sexual powers as a means oI expressing your love? Are you
centering your existence in the one you love and seeking his or her IulIillment in what you are
doing? %he human conIorms to the divine image. not by acting in an impersonal, rational way,
but by acting Irom a motive oI love.

%hus, the increase oI human love as can be expressed through sexual conduct in a committed
homosexual partnership, stands as another beneIit oI SSM.

ŶŸ. Many LDS bomos¢xaas wi opt for a monogamoas bomos¢xaa anion anyway
Cloy Jenkins wrote:
'Most oI the young homosexual men here will sooner or later meet and come to love another
man. Most oI them would preIer their Iriend to be oI the same background and share the same
values and Iaith. Ironically, the Church discourages this, drives the homosexual underground and
out oI the Church to seek his Iriends elsewhere. Sadly enough, many do as they are told on this
point, and instead oI associating openly and maturely among their own kind here, they take to
more questionable social settings where their sexuality is accepted but their values seldom
respected. Originally, these men were looking Ior love. %hey soon Iind themselves Iorced into
places and lives, where sex, not love, is the name oI the game. It is one oI those strange
contradictions oI liIe that Iinds the Church directly instrumental in encouraging a loveless, lonely
liIe oI dubious morality.
Said another:
'Many oI our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters, knowing that heterosexuality is not possible
Ior them, and seeing celibacy as an unsatisIying and unacceptable alternative, will opt Ior a
loving, spiritually IulIilling monogamous relationship, seeing it as the more moral choice, the

one most in keeping with their sense oI what God wants Ior them, even iI it means being unable
to Iunction in the Church. %his decision is made reluctantly, no doubt with agonizing reluctance.
%hese people Iind themselves in a position they never would have supposed or chosen under
normal circumstances being able to do more to exercise a Christian liIe oI service, sacriIice,
and personal growth outside the Church than they would be able to achieve by remaining
celibate and staying in the Church. I believe that given that terrible 'Sophie`s Choice,¨ most gay
LDS have opted or will opt Ior a committed same-sex relationship - their understanding oI the
gospel and their pleadings with God will impel the maiority in that direction. %his decision will
not be made out oI a spirit oI deIiance or rebellion or disagreement with spiritual truths, but iust
the opposite, because oI devotion to those very ideals. %he above commentary is not intended as
a prescription oI what gay LDS people ought to do, but a prediction about what is most likely to
happen based on my past observations

Gary Watts argued:
'I believe |some Iorm oI sanctioning or aIIirming committed, monogamous same-sex
relationships| has the potential to provide some reward and incentive Ior gay members to sustain
a committed, monogamous relationship that would have value Ior the church. II gay members in
committed relationships were able to Ieel that their relationship had value and that it would
enable them to remain members oI the church, I believe that most oI the animosity currently
extant would evaporate overnight. Other beneIits to the church would Ilow naturally. Gay
members would continue to be active in the church and would be able to make contributions
which are sorely missed presently... Gay and lesbian members would, Ior perhaps the Iirst time,
Ieel welcome that they Iinally have a place in the church. %he church could even become a place
where gay members with an interest in things oI the spirit could socialize rather than congregate
in gay bars. %he exodus oI so many gay members and their Iamilies and Iriends Irom the church
would cease, and acrimonious Ieelings and expressions would certainly diminish. Many
individuals, unable to give unqualiIied support to the church because oI this issue, would return
to the Iold and once again become its advocates.
M.V. Lee Badgett, Ieatured on the SSM debate on The Economist, wrote:
'In America, almost 600,000 same-sex couples live together. %he experience oI the states that
allow those couples to marry suggests that most oI them will iump at the chance. In
Massachusetts, two-thirds (and counting) oI same-sex couples have married since 2004.
%here is also reason to conclude that marriage stability is increased when 1) couples marry
within a church, 2) couples have a good relationship with their Iamilies, and 3) the couples are
embedded within an approving network oI Iriends and community
. Willingness to invest in
the relationship and children is key diIIerence between married and cohabiting heterosexual
, and the existence oI a similar correlation among homosexual couples is not
unreasonable. One story:

'Bill and Robert considered themselves 'soulmates.¨ When Robert Iell Iatally ill, the admitting
Maryland hospital knew through his accompanying medical records- and Bill`s statements to
hospital staII- that Bill was Robert`s Iamily and legal agent Ior health care decisions. But the
hospital blocked any communication between them, saying that only 'Iamily¨ were allowed
access to patients. Bill was Iorced to watch with mounting anguish and humiliation as Iamilies
oI other patients arrived and quickly were escorted in to see their loved ones. Robert slipped into
unconsciousness, alone and without comIort, support, and solace during his Iinal hours. He
never saw or spoke with Bill beIore his death.
Not inIrequently, the lack oI marriage`s kin-creating tools can cripple commitment when the
need is greatest.
LDS SSM would help in the cultural and legal movement Ior civil SSM. Both are likely to bring
the beneIicial kin-creating, commitment-to-each-other strengthening, investing-in-children
aspects oI marriage to society and homosexuals.
II many church members will opt to seek a monogamous same-gender union, necessarily
sacriIicing their membership in God`s church, why not let them have the union and keep their
membership too? In light oI the intense desires oI and sacriIices by many oI them to keep God`s
commandments and live a Iamily liIe as He would have them, should we not support their
attempts rather than prescribe the anti-Iamily institution oI celibacy?
ŶŹ. BiTica cond¢mnation of bomos¢xaaity is not c¢ar
My iudgment is susceptible to conIirmation bias. In the area oI biblical interpretation, as in
many areas, my iudgment is also (and unIortunately) based on thin research. Now there are, as
one would imagine, rebuttals
to the arguments I present below. %hough I have Iound many oI
these rebuttals to be unpersuasive insoIar as I have researched, I encourage those interested in a
balanced inquiry to review them- in this section I will primarily represent only that side which
supports the title.
'%he Church pamphlet "Hope Ior %ransgressors" states that there are many scriptures that
condemn homosexuality and lists 74. OI that list, only 4 actually reIer to homosexuality. %wo oI
those are Irom the old Jewish law contained in Leviticus. Application oI the ancient Jewish law
is, in our time, Iorbidden by Iederal and state law and ecclesiastically obsoleted through the
Gospel oI Christ. Many oI the statutes oI the old law carrying heavy penalties are not Iollowed at
all by the Saints today. Standing on their own, the reIerences Irom ancient Jewish law are mainly

oI historical value. %he other two reIerences in this list are Irom Paul's writings. Not one oI the
other 70 reIerences can be construed to reIer to homosexuality directly. Instead, these reIerences
deal with Iaith, repentance and the evils oI sin generally. %hey are obliquely applicable to the
view oI homosexuality as presented in the pamphlet but by no means do they accomplish what
the list was supposed to provethat the Bible condemns homosexuality.
'It is possible, oI course, to read the Bible Irom an absolute or inerrant perspective. In such a
view the words oI the Biblical writers are selI-evident, to be interpreted literally (never
metaphorically nor symbolically), reIlect precisely the mind and will oI God, and are timeless, in
that they apply without alteration regardless oI peoples, culture, or circumstance. Alternatively,
one can believe that careIul study is required to distinguish the literal Irom the Iigurative, and
accept that a revelatory message might be imperIectly understood, even by an inspired human
recipient, or imperIectly transmitted through or between the sometimes inadequate instrument oI
languages. Latter-day Saints accept the latter proposition, believing it to be consistent with broad
implications oI the Mormon declaration that the 'Bible is the word oI God as Iar as it is
translated correctly.¨ One oI these implications oI this qualiIication is that a thoughtIul
investigation is required in the search Ior understanding. What Iollows, then is an attempt to
scrutinize those Biblical passages that have been traditionally used to condemn homosexuality.
Conventional wisdom has it that the destruction by God oI the cities oI Sodom and Gomorrah as
recorded in Genesis 19 can be attributed to homosexuality practiced by their citizens. %his view
is inappropriately perpetuated through the conventional use oI the words sodomy and sodomite.
A thoughtIul analysis oI the Biblical texts, however, demonstrates that this conclusion is not
valid. In the account, Lot violates the cultural mores oI Sodom by inviting strangers (in this case
two heavenly agents) into his home. Sodom`s people were not hospitable. A crowd oI some
citizens gathers and demands that the two be turned over to them, in order 'that we may know
them.¨ %hat the word 'know¨ has a sexual connotation in this context (not the much more
Irequent use oI the Hebrew 'yada,¨ meaning recognize, acknowledge, make known, or punish
has been assumed because in reIusing to invite the strangers into their homes Lot alternatively
oIIers his virgin daughters in appeasement. (We note that the Inspired Version renders the text as
'. . . let me, I pray you, plead with my brethren that I may not bring them out unto you.¨) %he
story is also remarkably similar to another account in Judges 19-21 in which the outcome is more
clearly a gang rape oI the house guests. %he critical insight in interpreting this account is that the
inhabitants oI Sodom are condemned, Ior reasons not speciIied, beIore the incident at Lot`s
home. Divine iudgment has been passed previously (the Lord had earlier inIormed Abraham oI
what would happen), and is not a consequence oI the events at the doorstep. In Iact the angels
have been sent to execute the destruction. A review oI the subsequent Biblical reIerences to
Sodom (in seven books oI the Old %estament and six books oI the New %estament) does not
iustiIy the conclusion that the problem oI the city`s people was sexual. (%he one possible
exception is Jude 7 which cites Iornication and the vague statement 'going aIter strange Ilesh,¨
where the Greek word 'sarx¨ is variously interpreted to mean Iood, the body, human beings, or
human nature - Irailties or passions |133|.) Most Irequently Sodom and Gomorrah are cited
together as a metaphor Ior wickedness: '. . . as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah,¨
Isaiah 13:19. An unequivocal statement oI the real source oI the wickedness, however, is made
by Ezekiel. 'Behold this was the iniquity oI thy sister Sodom, pride, Iulness oI bread, and
abundance oI idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand oI the

poor and needy¨ (Ezekiel 16:49). %he Sodomites were selIish and uncaring. As a reIlection oI
their arrogance and unwillingness to care Ior those in need, they turned away strangers. Jesus had
this same view. He says that people in those cities who Iail to host and be receptive to the
missionary apostles will be under greater condemnation than those oI Sodom and Gomorrah
(because they also were inhospitable) - repeated in Matthew 10:15, Mark 6;11, and Luke 10:12.
Sodomites were not homosexuals; they were people bereIt oI charity.
II, in Iact, those who gathered at Lot`s door were intent in gang raping his visitors, this can be
universally condemned as despicable, a sadistic act oI violence. Such behavior was apparently
not uncommon in the ancient world as part oI the violence inIlicted by victorious armies upon
the vanquished. It must be clearly distinguished, however, Irom a same-sex romantic encounter.
%his propensity Ior cruelty and the exploitation oI other people may, in Iact, be the reason why
the word sodomite was used peioratively, as, Ior example, Deuteronomy 23:17-18, where it is
probably a reIerence to male prostitutes associated with Canaanite and Babylonian Iertility
rituals. %he interpretation that the sin of Sodom was inhospitality mistreatment of aliens and
a lack of generosity is strongly supported by ancient Jewish religious texts (the Babylonian
%almud). %he (unreliable) connection oI Sodom with same-gender sex was Iirst made thousands
oI years aIter the Iact by Philo oI Alexandria, whose liIe spanned that oI Jesus and the early
church Iathers. It then became the dogma oI the Iledgling Catholic Church, espoused, Ior
example by Augustine. Latter-day Saints should not accept an erroneous notion that became part
oI Christian religious canon during that apostate period oI history when legitimate revelation was
in such short supply
¨ (emphasis added).
A scriptural appeal supporting the proposition that homosexuality is an abomination is deeply
Ilawed. Jay Michaelson, the Iounder oI ehirim. GLT Jewish Culture & Spiritualitv and
columnist Ior the Forward, HuIIington Post, and %ikkun, is completing his Ph.D. in Jewish
%hought at Hebrew University. He wrote:
'%he word 'abomination¨ is Iound, oI course, in the King James translation oI Leviticus 18:22, a
translation which reads, '%hou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it |is|
abomination.¨ Yet this is a thoroughly misleading rendition oI the word toevah, which, while we
may not know exactly what it means, deIinitely does not mean 'abomination.¨. a close reading
oI the term toevah suggests an entirely diIIerent meaning: something permitted to one group, and
Iorbidden to another. %hough there is (probably) no etymological relationship, toevah means
%he term toevah (and its plural, toevot) occurs 103 times in the Hebrew Bible, and almost always
has the connotation oI a non-Israelite cultic practice. In the %orah, the primary toevah is avodah
zara, Ioreign Iorms oI worship, and most other toevot Ilow Irom it. %he Israelites are instructed
not to commit toevah because other nations do so. Deuteronomy 18:9-12 makes this quite clear:
When you come into the land that YHVH your God gives you, do not learn to do the toevot oI
those nations. Do not Iind among you one who passes his son or daughter through the Iire; or a
magician; or a Iortune teller, charmer, or witch. because all who do these things are toevah to
YHVH and because oI these toevot YHVH your God is driving them out beIore you.

Elsewhere, Deuteronomy 7:25-26 commands:
|Y|ou shall burn the statues oI their gods in Iire. Do not desire the silver and gold on them and
take it onto yourselI, else you be snared by it, Ior it is a toevah to YHVH your God. And you
shall not bring toevah to your home
Deut. 12:31, 13:14, 17:4, 27:15, and 32:16 Iurther identiIy idolatry, child sacriIice, witchcraIt,
and other 'Ioreign¨ practices as toevah, and Deut. 20:18 says that avoiding toevah iustiIies the
genocide oI the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanaites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites. So, toevah is
serious, but it is serious as a particular class oI cultic oIIense: a transgression oI national
boundary. It is certainly not 'abomination.¨
%oevah is used Iour times in Leviticus 18once to reIer to male homosexual acts, and then three
times as an umbrella term. As in Deuteronomy, the signal Ieature oI toevot is that the other
nations oI the Land oI Israel do them: 'You shall thereIore keep my statutes and my iudgments,
and shall not commit these toevot. because the people who were in the land beIore you did
these toevot and made the land impure (tameh)¨ (Lev. 18:26-27; see also Lev. 18:29). %he term
is repeated with reIerence to homosexual activity in Lev. 20:13.
Similarly, the Books oI Kings and Chronicles use toevah nine times to reIer to acts that other
nations did in the Land oI Israel:
1 Kings 14:24 (general); 2 Kings 16:3 (child sacriIice); 2 Kings 21:2 and 2 Kings 21:11
(idolatry); 2 Chron. 28:3 (child sacriIice); 2 Chron. 33:2 (idolatry); 2 Chron. 34:33, 36:8, and
36:14 (general). (Ezra 9:1, 9:11, and 9:14 use the word in exactly the same way.)
In all these cases, toevah reIers to a Ioreign cultic behavior wrongly practiced by Israelites and
Israelite kings.
And likewise, the prophet Ezekiel uses the term toevah a record-setting 39 times to reIer to
idolatry (Ez. 5:11, 6:9, 6:11, 7:20, 14:6, 20:7-8, 22:2, 44:6-7, 44:13), usury (Ez. 18:13),
haughtiness and pride (Ez. 16:47-50; the 'Sin oI Sodom¨more on that in a Iuture article),
heterosexual adultery (Ez. 22:11, 33:26), and violence (Ez. 33:26), as well as a general term Ior
Ioreign acts (Ez. 16:51) or transgression, oIten in a cultic context (Ez. 5:9, 7:3-4, 7:8-9, 9:4,
11:18, 11:21, 12:16, 16:2, 16:43, 18:24, 20:4, 33:29, 36:31).
In one extended passage (Ez. 8:1-18), Ezekiel is taken on a visionary tour oI toevot, all oI which
have to do with idolatry and each, Ezekiel says, is worse than the previous one, beginning with
an image on the door oI the gate oI Jerusalem, to idols and imagery in a house oI worship, to
women weeping Ior the god %ammuz,* to men worshipping the sun within the %emple itselI.
%his extended passage, with six mentions oI toevah, links the term in every instance with avodah
zara, or idolatry.
In Iive instances, Ezekiel mentions toevah together with both idolatry and zimah or znut,
'whoredom¨ (Ez. 16:22, 16:36, 16:58, 23:26, 43:8), strongly suggesting that the nature oI sexual

toevah is not mere lewdness, and certainly not loving intimate expression, but sexuality in a
cultic context.
Detestable Because it is Foreign, or Foreign Because it is Detestable?
Now, so Iar, it is unclear whether a toevah is detestable because it is Ioreign, or Ioreign because
it is detestable. %his question is resolved elsewhere in the Bible, because Israelites are not the
only ones with toevot. %here are several examples oI things which are toevah Ior Egyptians but
perIectly acceptable Ior Israelites.
Genesis 43:32 states that eating with Israelites is toevah Ior Egyptians. Gen. 43:34 states that
shepherds are toevah to Egyptiansthe sons oI Israel are themselves shepherds. In Exodus 8:22,
Moses describes Israelite sacriIices as being toevat mitzrayim (toevah oI Egypt), although
obviously Israelite ritual is not an obiective 'abomination.¨ II toevah means abomination, then
eating with shepherds, eating with Israelites, and Israelite sacriIices themselves must be
abominable! Since this clearly is not the case, toevah cannot mean 'abomination¨ in any
ontological senseit must be a relative quality.
%oevah can also mean other things. It can reIer to ritual imperIection: Deut. 17:1 uses it to reIer
to the sacriIice oI a blemished animal, and Deut. 19:19 bans as toevah sacriIices bought through
prostitution or 'the price oI a dog.¨ Deut. 22:5 calls crossdressing a toevah (incidentally, in
Orthodox Jewish law, this includes women wearing pants). Remarriage (i.e. oI the same two
parties) is toevah according to Deut. 24:4. %he sole ethical use oI the term in the %orah is in
Deut. 25:16, in which the use oI unequal weights and measures is called toevah.
In the Book oI Proverbs (which comes late in the Bible but which scholars believe to have been
composed prior to the Deuteronomic and Levitical material), toevah is used twenty-one times to
reIer to various ethical Iailings, including the ways, thoughts, prayers and sacriIices oI the
wicked (Prov. 3:32, 15:8-9, 15:26, 16:12, 21:27, 28:9), pride (Prov. 6:16, 16:5), evil speech
(Prov. 8:7), Ialse weights (Prov. 11:1, 20:10, 20:23), devious heartedness (Prov. 11:20), lying
(Prov. 12:22, 26:25), scoIIing (Prov. 24:9), iustiIying the wicked and deIaming the righteous
(Prov. 17:15). Interestingly, Proverbs 13:19 says that 'to turn Irom evil is toevah to Iools,¨ again
suggesting that toevah is something relative in nature. Similarly, Prov. 29:27 says poetically:
'An uniust man is toevah to the righteous, and the straightIorward man is toevah to the wicked.¨
Finally, other books oI the Bible adapt the meaning oI toevah in accord with their overall literary
agendas. Isaiah uses it to reIer to the sacriIices oI hypocrites (1:13, 44:19), as a taunt against
earthly power (41:14), and idolatry (66:3). Jeremiah associates toevah with idolatry (Jer. 2:7,
7:10, 32:35) and unspeciIied transgression (Jer. 6:15, 8:12, 44:22). Malachi (2:11) uses it to reIer
to the Israelites` having 'married the daughter oI a Ioreign god.¨ And Psalm 88:9 poetically uses
the term to reIer to being alienated Irom one`s Iriend: 'You have taken me Iar Irom my
acquaintance; made me a toevah to him, put away, and I cannot come out.¨
Even these variant uses, in most cases, point to the nature oI toevah as something Ioreign or,
more generally, something which is or ought to be Iar away Irom oneselI. Proverbs` use oI
toevah is the exception, rather than the rule; in the overwhelming maiority oI cases, toevah has

nothing to do with ethics, and everything to do with cultic behavior, idolatry, and Ioreign ritual.
However we may understand this type oI transgression, it is certainly not 'abomination¨ in the
modern sense.
Justin W. Starr, author oI a FAIR (Foundation Ior Apologetic InIormation and Research), wrote
in 2004
'%he story oI Sodom and Gomorrah is short and ultimately unsatisIying in the search Ior
certainty concerning the Biblical treatment oI homosexual conduct. In the ancient literature
Sodom is destroyed Ior reasons as varying as arrogance to pederasty. |quoting another| the
city was consequently destroyed not Ior sexual immorality but Ior the sin oI inhospitality to
Lack oI hospitality is in Iact a common explanation Ior the destruction oI Sodom, both in modern
and ancient literature. Kugel, in his commentary, notes that being stingy and unhospitable,
especially to strangers, was no small matter. From ancient times, this had been considered a
particularly grave Iault.`
%he Hebrew word Ior vadah, the proponents oI the inhospitality theory argue, means literally 'to
know¨ or 'become acquainted with,¨ and has no sexual connotation as used by the men oI
Sodom. When the Hebrew bible does reIer to homosexual intercourse or bestiality, it uses the
verb shakabh, not Iound in this story.` Shakabh is translated to lie with,` such as the Levitical
prohibition that a man not lie with` another man.
It is also noteworthy that the Septuagint (the Greek translation oI the Hebrew Bible used by the
Jews oI Christ`s day) version oI this passage implies nothing more than become Iamiliar with`
or become acquainted with` (suggenometha autois). %his is in sharp contrast to the verbs the
Septuagint employes in reIerence to Lot`s daughters (egnosan, khresasthe), which clearly denote
sexual activity. Jesus himselI declared the sin oI Sodom to be inhospitality when he tells his
disciples that iI anyone does not receive you. it shall be more tolerable on the day oI iudgment
Ior the land oI Sodom and Gomorrah than Ior that town` (Matthew 10:14-15).¨
Back to our Iormer author:
'%he main Old %estament scripture they reIer to is the account oI the destruction oI Sodom and
Gomorrah. %he very scholarly research oI Derrick Bailey in Homosexuality and the Western
Christian %radition reveals that it was centuries aIter its destruction beIore a homosexual
interpretation was ever attributed to the sins oI Sodom. Once applied, the interpretation has
stuck, and Sodom to this day remains erroneously synonymous with homosexuality. %he bulk oI
the Iew remaining Biblical reIerences to homosexuality come Irom the writings oI Paul in his
epistles to the Romans, Corinthians and %imothy. %hough some experts doubt that Paul is
directly reIerring to homosexuality, it appears to me that there is little doubt that he is, and that
he condemns the practice. But several other crucial Iacts must be squarely Iaced by all parties
who give scriptural authority to the problem oI homosexuality. %he belieI was current in the
Mediterranean culture oI Paul's time that overindulgence in heterosexual activities would make a
man eIIeminate and turn him into a homosexual. %he notion held that the heterosexual proIligate

would simply wear out and become bored with "normal" sex and by dint oI its unusualness,
would turn to the taboos, one oI which would be homosexuality. %his explains Paul's
condemnation oI men who "turn Irom" the "natural use" oI the woman to lust aIter each other.
%he homosexual who reads this scripture is bewildered, realizing that he has never "turned Irom"
the woman. His "natural" desire has always been Ior a man and sex with a woman is Ior him
"unnatural." He connects with Paul's condemnation oI the homosexual activity oI these men but
is at a loss to see how their activities and his situation coincide. %he young men to whom this
scripture has been read by their bishops come away only more conIused about their sexuality,
especially iI they have not yet had any kind oI sexual experience but are keenly aware oI the
desire they have always had. %he responsible application oI Paul's statement to the Romans
requires that one subscribe to the theory that too much heterosexual sex will turn a person into a
homosexual. %his general notion is still held as valid by the Jehovah's Witnesses. (Awake, March
15, 1977) In the most strict interpretation, Paul was condemning wanton heterosexuals who were
turning Ior sheer novel pleasure to sexual activities outside oI their "natural" desires.
%he prohibitions oI Leviticus:
'It is helpIul to put the Old %estament verses oI scripture that comment on same-gender
sexuality (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13) in the historical setting oI Israel attempting to survive
physically and maintain its religious and social integrity in the Iace oI Ioreign inIluences the
people encountered in a new location. %he regulations in this book constitute a 'Holiness Code, ¨
intended, in large part, Ior the priests as rules oI behavior that would distinguish the emigrants
Irom Egypt Irom the Canaanites whose land they have entered. 'Ye shall thereIore keep all my
statutes, and all my iudgments, and do them: that the land, whither I bring you to dwell therein,
spue you not out. And ye shall not walk in the manners oI the nation, which I cast out beIore
you: Ior they committed all these things, and thereIore, I abhorred them. But I have said unto
you, Ye shall inherit their land, and I will give it unto you to possess it, a land that Iloweth with
milk and honey: I am the Lord your God, which have separated you Irom other people |Leviticus
20:22-24|.¨ %he practical implementation oI this 'separation¨ took the Iorm oI instructions
pertaining to security, preserving a cultural identity, and procreation so as to enlarge the
population. %he Israelites were not to worship Canaanite gods nor adopt their customs. %he need
oI this community has been described as 'nation building,¨ an attempt to maintain ethnic purity,
appropriate to a particular Irontier circumstance at a particular time. As examples oI the eIIort to
promote a state oI strict purity, the people were Iorbidden to interbreed cattle, plant a Iield with
two diIIerent kinds oI seeds, or wear clothing made Irom two diIIerent kinds oI Iabrics (Leviticus
19:19). %here is a long list oI additional prohibitions including round haircuts, marital sexual
relations during menstruation - all deemed impure. Many oI these violations were punishable by
death. Sex between men is described as an 'abomination¨ (Lev. 18:22). %he Hebrew word is
'tow`ebah¨ or to`ebah,¨ which has a range oI meanings, but whose intent as it appears in a
number oI verses in Leviticus and Deuteronomy seems to be 'abhorrent because oI being
idolatrous or ceremonially unclean |133|.¨ %hus, other 'abominations¨ included eating
organisms that creep on the earth (Lev. 11:4), taking idols (or removing the gold or silver Irom
them) obtained Irom deIeated enemies (Deut. 7:25), sacriIicing a blemished bull or sheep (Deut.
17:1), wearing the clothing oI a person oI the opposite gender (Deut. 22:5), being a practitioner
oI magic or the mystical (Deut. 18:12), taking back a divorced wiIe whose subsequent husband
had died (Deut. 24:4), or doing business with dishonest scales or rulers (Deut. 25:16). Many oI

these concerns are clearly anachronisms in today`s society, or at best viewed as trivial, and not
intrinsically evil. %his is especially true since the required punishment Ior same-gender sex was
death, also prescribed Ior adultery, sex with one`s parents, sex with one`s children, sex with
animals (Lev. 20: 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16), but also Ior cursing one`s parents (v. 9), dabbling in the
occult (v. 27), blaspheming God`s name (Lev. 24:16), murder (Lev. 24:21), or advocating the
worship oI Ialse gods (Deut. 13:5). Few today would consider the death penalty appropriate Ior
all oI these kinds oI behaviors, even those deemed highly contemptible.
So those who argue in Iavor oI a letter oI the law Old %estament condemnation oI homosexuality
appear to be guilty oI a serious inconsistency, by advocating one set oI prohibitions while
disregarding most oI the others. But the more important point is that the same-sex acts reIerred to
were undoubtedly perceived to be between heterosexuals, there being no concept at the time in
this culture that there existed in humanity any other state than to be opposite-sex attracted.¨
%he New %estament statements oI Paul
'Writing Irom Greece, Paul begins his letter to the Romans with greetings (Romans 1:1-15), and
then launches a sermon on the degraded state oI human kind, probably highly inIluenced by the
pagan practices he had observed in his recent missionary iourneys. He decries the Iact that
though the ways oI godliness are obvious, the people have abandoned righteousness. %hey have
substituted love oI selI Ior love oI god. Beginning with worship oI idols, there Iollows a long list
oI inappropriate attitudes and behaviors which derive Irom this selI deception. Among these,
verses 26-27, are same-gender sexual acts, deemed unnatural Ior either women or men. %he
emphasis here is on the capacity oI people to be contrary, to know what is right, but to do the
opposite. In this context, being one thing but doing another, it is reasonable to believe that Paul
was condemning those oI a heterosexual orientation who perIormed homosexual acts, and that it
was unlikely that he imagined that some women or men were homosexual by nature. '%he idea
was not available in his world. Other statements in the writings oI Paul about those who 'abuse¨
(I Cor. 6:9) or 'deIile¨ (I %im. 1:10) 'themselves with mankind¨ are most likely reIerences to
male prostitutes, an interpretation consistent with his companion examples oI promiscuity
(Iornicators, adulterers, whoremongers). I propose, then, as have others beIore me, that when
the two or three Biblical writers denounced homosexual behavior they were addressing the
issue of heterosexual persons engaging in homosexual sex. It was inconceivable to them that
there were persons whose natural state was to be romantically oriented to those oI their same
gender. Such a possibility iust did not occur to these people at that time. I note the absence oI a
reIerence to homosexuality in the Book oI Mormon, or Pearl oI Great Price, or, especially, in
%he Doctrine and Covenants. Disease-causing microorganisms were unknown until the rise oI
late 18th century scientiIic technology permitted their detection and a conceptualization oI their
role in human aIIairs. In an analogous way, it has taken even more time Ior us to conceive oI a
segment oI humanity with a non-heterosexual orientation, and Ior gay and lesbian people to
emerge Irom the realm oI the invisible. I submit that our current perspective should take into
account recent knowledge and experience. Human understanding oI what is true changes over
time. %ruth may be eternal, but our comprehension oI it is neither automatic nor complete. It
takes time, usually a long time, Ior us to learn|.| What seems apparent is that God doesn`t iump
in unilaterally and correct our deIiciencies in knowledge and understanding; He appears to wait
patiently while we Iigure things out Ior ourselves. %he evidence is strong, as presented in Parts I

and II oI this document, that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters are homosexual by nature,
and that their type oI sexual orientation is not alterable. %his inIormation places us under
obligation to reconsider misconceptions we may have harbored, even those based on scripture,
when we recognize our understanding to be Iaulty.
Wrote Clay Essig oI invoking Paul`s teachings about homosexuality:
'A Iew oI Paul`s teachings are another traditional roadblock to accepting and blessing God`s
Gay children. We Latter-day Saints readily dismiss Paul`s teachings regarding women keeping
silent in church (1 Cor. 14:34-35; 1 %im. 2:11-12), the wearing or not wearing oI hats (1 Cor.
11:4-7), hair length (1 Cor. 11:14-15), his iniunction to 'drink no longer water, but use a little
wine¨ (1 %im. 5:23), shunning and shaming sinners (1 Cor. 5:11; 2 %hes. 3:14), the marital status
oI deacons and bishops (1 %imothy 3:2, 8, 12), the verses used to iustiIy slavery (Eph. 6:5 etc.),
not to mention the verses which suggest celibacy is more noble than marriage (1 Cor. 7:7-9, 38);
but many promote vehemently Paul`s writings that are traditionally used to condemn all
homosexuals and homosexuality.
Also, there is a lack oI teachings about homosexuality in modern canon:
'One oI the more singularly striking Iacts is that in the entire Book oI Mormon and the other
modern scriptures there is not one single reIerence to homosexuality. %hese scriptures contain
the "Iullness oI the Gospel" and all the essential commandments Ior the Saints, and yet the
subiect oI homosexuality is conspicuously absent. %o my knowledge, Joseph Smith never
mentioned the subiect.
No doubt some oI the more enthusiastic view the silence oI modern scriptural canon on
homosexuality as 'writing on the wall.¨ Said one:
'As |most Mormons| see it, the Lord by means oI his prophets has repeatedly condemned
homosexuality. But has He? Where are these prophetic denunciations so oIten cited by
opponents oI same-sexuality? %hey are not Iound in the Book oI Mormon, the Doctrine and
Covenants, or the Pearl oI Great Price- an astonishing omission given the alleged gravity oI the
sin. . Mormon prophets have not condemned homosexuality on the strength oI prophetic
authority. . Not even statements Irom the First Presidency which have appeared in various
editions oI the bishop`s handbook can make the claim oI |being revelation| since they represent
an arbitration oI policy, not doctrine.
It is debatable whether scripturally-based modern teachings about homosexual behavior survive
independent oI scriptural canon: debile 1undamentum 1allit opus (where there is a weak
Ioundation, the work Iails). In any case, appeals to the New and Old %estament homosexuality
condemnations are not a suIIiciently certain basis Ior concluding one way or the other about
God`s views on the morality oI homosexuality:

'It Iollows that to condemn homosexuality as sinIul simply on the basis oI appeal to biblical
authority is insuIIicient. We must undertake a more painstaking moral assessment based on its
eIIects. %he highest criteria against which Latter-day Saint Christians should measure behavior
(including homosexual behavior) were given us by Jesus Christ. He taught us to evaluate
attitudes and actions not by their conIormity to the letter oI a generalized law but rather
according to their compatibility with the spirit oI love and the degree to which they promote selI-
development. In this light, sin is behavior that weakens our capacity Ior love, impedes our
growth toward divine characteristics, and undermines our worth and dignity as oIIspring oI
I believe he would recognize that they too have been given God`s giIt oI sexuality Ior their
potential beneIit. %o that end he would iudge the expression oI homosexuality by standards
similar to those we apply to heterosexuals: is it committed and loving in a larger context rather
than promiscuous, selIish, and merely sensual? By their Iruits ye shall know them,` he taught,
and the Iruits oI the homosexual liIe vary considerably, even as do the Iruits oI heterosexuality.
Perhaps the appropriate question is not whether but how one is homosexual.
Would Jesus Iind homosexual expression sinIul because it is biologically inIertile? I think not.
Conceiving, bearing, and rearing children in this liIe may be a blessing, but it is not sine qua non
Ior salvation and continuing growth. Many married people do not produce oIIspring, and we do
not regard this as evidence oI moral Iailure. II homosexuals are biochemically unsuited Ior the
psychological demands oI heterosexual cohabitation, that is suIIicient reason not to marry.
Would Jesus Iind homosexual expression sinIul on grounds that sexual intimacy outside
marriage is Iorbidden? I doubt he would look at the matter that simplistically. He would
recognize that Ior most oI us, whatever our sexual orientation, a IulIilled liIe is more likely iI an
individual is sustained by the love oI another person within the bonds oI caring, committed
intimacy. He would recognize that marriage, through sharing and commitment, provides
stability and mutual support conducive to maximum growth oI the partners. For what sanctiIies
marriage is not its legal Iormality but rather the holy enterprise oI bonding and complementing
which is intrinsic to it.
I believe that Jesus would recognize that homosexuals, deprived oI socially approved
cohabitation, have nevertheless the same righteous need Ior loving commitment. Would he deny
them opportunities Ior growth that are compatible with their nature and with righteous love?
%hat means, oI course, that gays should enter monogamous, IaithIul relationships analogous to
our ideal oI heterosexual marriage. Ultimately Jesus would, I believe, iudge each human
relationship on its own merits.

Ŷź. Tb¢ atiity of saff¢ring arga¢s for SSM
When discussing SSM with my LDS Iriends, it is not uncommon Ior me to hear comments like
the Iollowing:

'I have been through the hell oI abandonment, loneliness, misunderstanding, conIusion,
Irustration, and despair that accompanies same gender attraction. My soul has shattered Irom the
sheer torture oI it. I believe that each and every one oI God's children must experience those
Ieelings in this liIe, maybe even more than once. As unpleasant as they may be, they teach us
compassion and love, patience and charity.¨
'All oI us must bear crosses in this liIe - there is no getting around that. LiIe is not supposed to
be easy or smooth. It's a test. It's a reIiner's Iire. It's a probationary period Ior people to prepare
to meet God, a time to prepare Ior our eternal Iuture.¨
'I believe that every problem presents an opportunity, and with this particular challenge comes a
corresponding spiritual opportunity. It is an opportunity to build spiritual muscles that Iew
people are given. spiritual growth does not come when one shrinks Irom divinely-appointed

%hese and similar statements argue Ior maintaining the hellish experience oI dealing with same
gender attraction because oI the eternal utility oI suIIering. AIter all, we cannot become like
God without passing through severe trials, right? I will now show why this view is grossly
%his attitude is evil because it iustiIies harming innocent people. %he necessity oI severe trials
Ior salvation is an insuIIicient basis to rationalize imposing intense suIIering on another person.
Racist behavior with its corresponding eIIect on people (causing a child oI God to think that
Heavenly Father views him as less than another person) could certainly 'build spiritual muscles
that Iew people are given.¨ %orturing someone Ior years in a dank prison would no doubt make
liIe less 'easy or smooth¨ and convert liIe into 'a test¨ and a 'reIiner`s Iire.¨ Arbitrarily gouging
out a person`s eyes would unquestionably impose a severe, liIelong trial on that person that could
help teach them 'compassion and love, patience and charity.¨ Yet I hope it is obvious that none
oI these consequentialist arguments iustiIy such clearly immoral acts. It would similarly be
unethical to obstruct development oI AIDS treatments, or oppose reasonable eIIorts to reduce
child abuse, or, God Iorbid, sexually molest a young child knowing how likely that act is to
impose intense, liIelong suIIering on that person, because oI the eternal utility oI suIIering! %he
suIIering and happiness reductions that most homosexually oriented members experience are not

because oI some condition inherent to mortality, such as malaria or severe burns resulting Irom
an unIoreseeable accident or getting cancer. %heir suIIering does not even directly result Irom
being homosexually oriented. Most oI their diIIiculties are instead caused primarily by the
insistence oI Latter-day Saints that 1) non-biological causes such as the devil or choice are
responsible Ior their homosexuality, 2) homosexually oriented members can and should alter
their ultimately damning orientation in mortality and their Iailure to do so reIlects their lack oI
eIIort and Iaith, and 3) they should remain celibate their entire lives. %hese three Iactors are not
accidents; they are not unIortunate and unavoidable aspects oI mortality. %hey are choices made
by the LDS community, mv LDS community- choices within that community`s power to change.
How much room in this world`s LDS theology is there Ior LDS same-sex marriage? Enough Ior
two elephants, long-ways, with a walkway in between.


Chapter 6ť ebutta|s to Common Ant| 5ameŴ5ex Marr|age Arguments
%hough I have advocated against SSM, I am not opposed to understanding the opposition.
PowerIully arguing Ior the other side elicits the strongest responses Ior the pro-traditional
marriage camp. %raditional marriage deIenders can then use these strong responses in their
advocacy eIIorts. Below, I respond to common anti-SSM arguments. Most responses are edited
excerpts Irom various Iacebook, in-person, blog, and email conversations I`ve had in recent
months that bear on the issue oI same-sex marriage (SSM) or Proposition 8.
I have grouped the anti-SSM arguments into Iour interrelated categories. I will give each
category its own section, then address speciIic anti-SSM arguments within each category. %he

Parenting/children Consequences
O Opposite-gender parenting is best
O Studies oI gay parenting are Iatally Ilawed
O SSM harms children
O Don`t change the rules Ior children
O We should subsidize marriage to propagate society
O SSM is about private indulgence; marriage is a public institution
O Relationship with both biological parents
Religious Consequences
O SSM threatens my Iamily`s religious values
O Churches will have to perIorm SSM
O Religious liberty
Legal Consequences
O SSM would lead to marrying animals, etc.
O %he state has no interest in gay marriage
O State recognition oI marriage is not a universal right
O Individual states should be allowed to deIine marriage
O %he Iederal iudiciary violated the sovereignty oI the people by overturning
Proposition 8
O We can`t trust the courts
O SSM violates gender equality
O Opposing SSM is about gender, not sexual orientation
Societal Consequences
O History shows that monogamy is best
O SSM distorts the traditional deIinition oI marriage
O Gay promiscuity will taint marriage by reducing marital Iidelity
O SSM 'weakens marriage:¨ promote domestic partnership or civil unions instead
O SSM contributes to Iamily breakdown
O SSM will make civilization come crashing down
ar¢nting]Cbidr¢n Cons¢qa¢nc¢s
Upposit¢-g¢nd¢r par¢nting is T¢st
Interlocutor: 'Studies show irre1utablv that children do best when raised bv a mother and a
1ather. Those who do best o1 all are raised bv their own biological parents. Millenia o1 human
experience tell us that marriage is societv´s wav o1 ensuring that the adults responsible 1or

creating children take responsibilitv 1or raising them. hen we recognize marriage between a
man and a woman in our laws. we are endorsing that idea.
1 we reallv want what is best 1or
children. we would want them to have a mom and a dad.¨
My response: Ah, please permit an endeavor to reIute the irreIutable! %he studies you reIerence
are incapable oI concluding that children do best in arrangement X unless those studies also
examined how children Iare in arrangements Y, Z, and all other candidate arrangements. %he
logical Ilaw in your claim is that most iI not all oI the studies you implicitly reIerence did not
iuxtapose same sex parent households against opposite gender and biological parent opposite
gender households. |instead, they likely compared biological parent to 1) non-biological parent
opposite gender, 2) single parent, and/or 3) one-biological parent opposite gender Iamilies|.
%hus, until the studies include same sex Iamilies, they are incapable oI concluding as to the
superiority oI A over B, and in any case will never be capable oI claiming a "best" conclusion
since many conceivable Iamily arrangements (such as same-sex 2 and only 2 biological parent
households) are still untested (and indeed, as yet, untestable). At least some studies suggest that
same-sex couple households parent as well or better on average than opposite-gender
%he claim was made that recognizing marriage between a man and a woman endorses the idea
that adults responsible Ior creating children take responsibility Ior raising them. %his ideal is not
threatened by SSM since 1) man/woman marriages are still recognized and 2) same-sex couples
will be equally responsible Ior raising the children they create.
Also, an advocate oI homosexual marriage could acknowledge the relevance oI gender
diIIerences and the value oI opposite gender parenting, yet still advocate on other grounds such
as IulIilling the duty to bring children into the world in two parent households or on the basis oI
providing Ior a right to marry. Or in the alternative they could argue, as Biblarz and Savci did in
2010: "Contrary to popular belieI, studies have not shown that compared to all other Iamily
Iorms, Iamilies headed by married, biological parents are best Ior children` ... Research has not
identiIied any gender-exclusive parenting abilities (with the partial exception oI lactation)...
very little about the gender oI the parent seems to be distinctly important.
`¨ %here are those
who say: 'now that I am married, I see what my wiIe does that I cannot possibly do.
¨ %hey
argue that the divine roles oI men and women are both essential to marriage and Iamily. On the
related subiects oI Mormon Ieminism and gender equality, I wrote:
'Now, I'm going to hone in on the gender discrimination and examine it using the comparison to
the issue oI racial discrimination as evidenced in "separate but equal" (see !lessv
) and
"separate educational Iacilities are inherently unequal" (see rown v. oard o1 Education
language. No doubt brighter authors than I have done this very exegesis beIore. I Ieel more
uneducated on this subiect cluster than on other recent posts. Notwithstanding, here goes:

!lessv: Family Proclamation :: rown: Adam and Eve story. Allow me to explain.

Much has been made oI the "separate but equal" roles oI men and women in the church. %he
divine role oI women and the doctrine oI motherhood is abundantly taught. (See Ior more detail,
'LDS Family Ideals versus the Equality oI Women: Navigating the Changes Since 1957,
2008). %he Family Proclamation teaches:

"By divine design, Iathers are to preside over their Iamilies in love and righteousness and are
responsible to provide the necessities oI liIe and protection Ior their Iamilies. Mothers are
primarily responsible Ior the nurture oI their children. In these sacred responsibilities, Iathers and
mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners." (Separate responsibilities but equal
partners- separate but equal, !lessv's language)

%his paragraph expounds separate responsibilities Ior Iathers and mothers, though it doesn't go as
Iar as to say in what ways the two genders' natures diIIer (that they diIIer is implied by "Gender
is an essential characteristic oI individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.").
I term this illustration oI the archetypal Iamily the Modern Family. Because I want to get to
other points, I will not exhaustively research authoritative statements which support a conclusion
that, Ior instance, the church teaches that men are built better Ior providing or that women are
built better Ior nurturing children than the opposite gender. Although I would point out that
although women and men might complement each other well generally, the general man and the
general women never marry- instead, there is always a speciIic man and a speciIic woman, each
with a unique attribute proIile. II the Iather is more nurturing than the mother, or the woman
more capable and inclined to protect or provide than the man, then the couple has a tougher iob
complying with the articulated roles than a more stereotypical couple. II one's proIile oI
characteristics is largely unchosen, this result seems diIIicult, unIair, and unnecessary- with the
seeming response oI "tough luck."

Anyway, back to my intended points. %he Adam and Eve story is one oI the ideal marriage and
Iamily, and provides an archetype to Iollow (I term their arrangement the First Family). It
seems that Adam and Eve's approach wouldn't Iit in very well under the modern church's
depiction oI gender roles. %hat could be okay - the modern church is Ior the modern world, and
Adam and Eve were in a diIIerent world, a new world, where they had the opportunity oI
establishing the culture rather than responding to it. However, the iuxtaposition might shed some
light on the doctrine oI gender roles. I think it paints more oI a picture oI equality than the
"separate but equal" conception extant today. (%hough I don't here, I might also iuxtapose an
interesting third option chronologically nestled between the First Family and the Modern
Family, namely the Polygynous Family, which like the other two, seems to have garnered at
least occasional endorsement by God).

Back to the First Family. Adam and Eve did everything together. In Moses 5, it seems there
wasn't a division oI labor resulting Irom diIIerent innate, gender-speciIic tendencies.

Did iust Adam do the providing? No, they worked together: "Adam began to till the earth, and
to have dominion over all the beasts oI the Iield, and to eat his bread by the sweat oI his brow, as
I the Lord had commanded him. And Eve, also, his wiIe, did labor with him.¨

Did Adam take the lead as voice in their prayers, receive commandments, and pass them along to
his wiIe? No- they prayed and worshiped and received revelation together. Notice the "they's":
"And Adam and Eve, his wiIe, called upon the name oI the Lord, and they heard the voice oI the
Lord Irom the way toward the Garden oI Eden, speaking unto them... And he gave unto them
commandments, that they should worship the Lord their God, and should oIIer the Iirstlings oI

their Ilocks, Ior an oIIering unto the Lord."

Did Eve do the predominant share oI nurturing? Here the answer is less clear, though again the
partnership is reIerenced as the teaching entity: " And Adam and Eve blessed the name oI God,
and they made all things known unto their sons and their daughters." I think there is no doubt
that women have a nurturing nature- but I'm not convinced that men lack this ability.

LouAnn Brizendine, The Male rain, 2010: "%he stereotype oI the stoic, unemotional male is
again contradicted by research showing that the daddy brain and mature male brain are
proIoundly devoted and nurturing" (pg. 132).

I also don't think it is clear that men lack the level oI nurturing that women exhibit, though men
may nurture diIIerently than women. I think men oIten nurture in similar ways as well, though-
e.g. see the male-only priesthood qualities Irom D & C 121 that sound very Ieminine and
nurturing, such as "persuasion, by long-suIIering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love
unIeigned 42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without
hypocrisy, and without guile- 43 Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the
Holy Ghost; and then showing Iorth aIterwards an increase oI love toward him whom thou hast
reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy." %hus, I think men are equally qualiIied to teach
and nurture children. At the least I think they could unlock the ability iI socialized to do so.

I also see little reason on a "nature" argument why women are not cut out to be providers.
Women are strong and smart and can do about anything with some training (as can men
generally as well). Eve didn't seem to balk at earth tilling. Indeed, history shows that women
have brought home the bacon as much or more as men Ior the bulk oI human history
One ill oI promoting a Modern Family over a First Family model is that some oI those "misIits"
(e.g. 1: *Jessica Stott, a young and high-accomplishing Ph.D. proIessor in a graduate school
program at BYU`s Marriott School oI Management. Her husband is content to be a stay-at-home
dad and his wiIe the breadwinner. Or 2: *Sarah Stewart, a high-accomplishing, Iull time MPA
student and mother oI Iour) receive condemnation, both direct and indirect, within the church.
Who can blame them, when the Family Proclamation states: "By divine design, Iathers are to
preside over their Iamilies in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the
necessities oI liIe and protection Ior their Iamilies. Mothers are primarily responsible Ior the
nurture oI their children." Both couple examples I illustrated are misIits. In the First Family
model, however, such a couple is not out oI line, as long as the between them the couple provides
and between them the couple nurtures. %he First Family model treats the couple as a unit, rather
than an association oI a Iather and a mother to whom diIIerent duties independently attach. %he
First Family approach seems to treat the couple
as 'one Ilesh
¨ better than the Modern
Family Iramework.

Personal preIerence, I like the First Family approach more than the Modern Family approach. It
seems to be a better policy in an ideal and in a practical world because men and women really
are equal
, and avoiding role diIIerentiation allows the couple greater Ilexibility in IulIilling the
parenting and other responsibilities incumbent on them as a couple. I think in a First Family, iI
there is any Iailure in the perIormance oI parenting duties, then each is held individually
responsible Ior the breach, as each individual is accountable Ior the entire parental perIormance.

In addition to apportioning responsibility, I see great beneIit in a tighter peer/equality
relationship. As the rown decision says, separate is inherently unequal. %his iustiIication is
bounded, though- Ior there are some physical diIIerences at least between the average man and
average woman (see e.g. Brizendine's The Female rain and The Male rain). As mentioned
above, though - because unique individuals marry rather than averages, less discriminating oI
roles seems a propos (instead, assign roles to the couple rather than to individuals, which Iurther
incentivizes unity). Men and women "are alike" - at least to God...
As to the nurturing argument, I would argue that men nurture diIIerently than women on
average, but not necessarily worse or less
. Also, is nurturing more important than the male-
associated roles oI providing, protecting, and presiding, all identiIied in the Family
Proclamation? One must necessarily conclude as much to exalt women in relation to men on a
nurture basis.
%he bottom line is this: emphasizing gender distinctions strengthens some couples at the expense
o1 others. %he alternative oI attaching responsibilities to spouses, parents, and couples does a
better iob oI promoting gender equality without losing the important Iunctions oI emphasizing
providing, nurturing, and protecting. Gender equality also more accurately describes the real
world oI marital partners. Spouses are alwavs equal; a model emphasizing stereotypical gender
diIIerences only sometimes holds Ior a particular couple (e.g. a man is not always more Iirm with
the kids or more cut out Ior the marketplace than his spouse- and trying to Iorce an individual
into that maioritarian mold can be counterproductive Ior a particular Iamily). As one replied to
the commenter above who spoke oI his wiIe`s unique abilities:
'How do you know she`s able to do those things as a result oI being Iemale, not iust as a result oI
being another human being with diIIerent experience, talents and abilities than yours?
Now we return to empirical evidence shedding light on the parenting ability oI same-sex couples.
One study came out in 2010 in Applied Development Science: "Our Iindings revealed, Ior the
Iirst time, that young children adopted early in liIe by lesbian and gay parents were as well-
adiusted as those adopted by heterosexual parents. Our results suggest that lesbian and gay adults
can and do make capable adoptive parents. We Iound no signiIicant diIIerences among Iamilies
headed by lesbian, gay, or heterosexual parents in terms oI child adiustment, parenting
behaviors, or couples` adiustment.
" (see also studies reIerenced in chapter 5`s 'Parenting¨
%hat an opposite sex couple parents better than a single parent does not imply that an opposite
gender couple parents better than a same-sex couple. In any case, most oI the children oI same-
sex couples are adopted- which means that the choice is not as Irequently between an opposite
and a same sex couple as parents, but instead between having no parent and having two parents.
At the least, Ior the vast maiority oI adopted children, the ideal oI being raised by the child`s two
biological parents is simply not Ieasible. Indeed, SSM may well encourage more adoption- and
there is little doubt that a loving SSM home is better Ior a child on average than no adopted
Additionally, we must remember some oI the salutary eIIects on children. According to the 2000
Census Bureau, between 166,000 and 300,000 children (and perhaps up to 2 million
) live in a
SS couple household. %hese numbers are likely larger now and are likely to persist. %hus, it

would make good policy sense Irom a beneIit-to-children perspective to encourage the marriage
oI the same-sex couple:

'|S|uppose that Ann makes use oI artiIicial insemination to conceive a child, Bernard. Suppose
Iurther than Ann is raising Bernard with her partner, Nancy. Permitting |Nancy| to adopt can
have a number oI beneIits Ior the child, e.g., he will be eligible to be covered under Nancy`s
employer-provided insurance policy. However, in some iurisdictions, a non-marital partner is
not allowed to adopt unless the parent is willing to surrender her own parental rights. %hus, in
some iurisdictions, unless Nancy and Ann were married or Ann was willing to surrender her own
parental rights, Nancy would not be permitted to establish a legal relationship with Bernard, and
Bernard would be unable to avail himselI oI various Iinancial beneIits to which he would have
been entitled had he been recognized as Nancy`s child.Nancy might be more willing to invest
in her relationship with Bernard iI that relationship were accorded legal protection.

II Ann were to die in a car crash, Bernard might be sent to a home with people he doesn`t know
iI Nancy is a legal stranger to him- despite their relationship. (interestingly, even in those
iurisdictions that allow second parent adoptions to compensate Ior the unavailability oI marriage
to same-sex couples, the second parent option reduces the incentive to marry and increases the
number oI children raised out oI wedlock, partly because unmarried heterosexual couples have
begun to avail themselves oI second parent adoption
). Similarly, iI Anna and Nancy break up,
Anna could Iorbid Nancy Irom seeing Bernard, even iI it would have been better Ior Bernard to
maintain relationships with both oI the adults who raised him since inIancy. At the conclusion oI
a week-long online debate about SSM on The Economist, the proponent oI SSM said oI the
opposition lead:

'Maggie Gallagher's latest non-sequiturs illustrate yet again that there is no good reason Ior the
government's exclusion oI gay couples Irom marriage. Denying marriage to committed couples
does nothing to address any oI the things she ostensibly worries about: divorce, men and
women's "Ireighted" relationships, "unintended" children, etc. II Ms Gallagher's concern is that
the children oI diIIerent-sex couples be raised in wedlock, why then does the NOM |National
Organisation Ior Marriage| not advocate abolishing divorce or compelling diIIerent-sex couples
that conceive "unintentionally" to marry? Wouldn't that make more sense than withholding the
critical saIety net and meaning marriage brings Irom same-sex couples, thereby punishing them
and the children they are raising? Why is the entire programme oI the so-called National
Organisation Ior Marriagethe Ilood oI money its Iunnels into attack laws and constitutional
amendmentsobsessively about barring gay people Irom marrying, rather than anything that
would actually help anyone's liIe, including real children who have the parents they have?

We should also consider beneIits that accrue to the aged. More and more adults are acting as
caregivers Ior their own parents- and without marital beneIits such as being covered by a
spouse`s insurance policy or the increased security that derives Irom a Iormal commitment, the
adult child may be simply unable to stop work to care Ior an aging parent
(or, Ior that matter, a
sick or disabled child or a sick spouse). %hese consequences may result in a greater burden on
the state to pick up the slack and inIerior care Ior the spouse, child, and/or aged parent.

Last, imposing optimal parenting requirements Ior marriage strikes most oI us as ridiculous. We
wouldn`t stop a poor couple Irom getting married, or a minority, or someone raised in a divorced
household, or someone that uses drugs, or doesn`t intend to procreate, irrespective oI how those
Iactors might contribute to their parenting Iitness:
'|A|s a general matter, we do not impose an optimal-parent requirement on those seeking to
marry. Indeed, we do not even impose an optimal parent requirement on those seeking to adopt.
Nor would anyone think oI proposing such a standard were this not a discussion oI same-sex
marriage or LGB% parenting. %hat this criterion is suggested only in the context oI LGB%
parenting or marriage suggests that this criterion is not really embraced as the appropriate
consideration to determine who may marry or adopt but, instead, is being used as a makeweight
to iustiIy the imposition oI a burden on members oI the LGB% community.
Stadi¢s of gay par¢nting ar¢ fatay faw¢d
Interlocutor: "Un1ortunatelv. small sample sizes and other methodological problems make it
impossible to draw conclusions 1rom studies that directlv examine the e11ects o1 gav
%hat conclusion is not merited. Every study is less than ideal, but that reality vitiates conIidence
in conclusions, rather than making such conclusions impossible. %his is a well-known Ioul trick
oI argument known as the 'call Ior perIection.¨ %he author seems to Iind empirical studies on
gender complementarity in parenting suIIicient to draw sweeping conclusions- iI the author does
not maintain a double standard, he at the least is not transparent about his threshold acceptability
criteria. He ioins other SSM opponents who, ironically, criticize the validity oI SS parenting
research, yet simultaneously claim that children Iare less well in such Iamilies
. Also, the
author's conclusion relies on the authors' review oI all studies to this point that directly examine
gay parenting, which comprehensive research isn`t likely. II the author has reviewed all such
studies and Iound them wanting Ior the reasons he states, it is not iustiIied to characterize all
such studies as having small sample sizes because Iuture studies might very well prove
methodologically sound and have large sample sizes.

SSM barms cbidr¢n
Interlocutor: "So i1 admit that there exists stable. committed. and 1unctional same-sex
households have to concede that same sex marriage wouldn´t harm children? 1 the purpose o1
this nation is to promote the general wel1are. whv not start with those people who have no voice
in court or the lawwho literallv onlv have the abilitv to crv i1 the people charged with their
care decide that there are other. more important. more enlightened things than their
A persuasive point, though it advocates against premarital reproduction, divorce, drug use, step-
parenting, single-parenting, co-habiting beIore marriage, and other Iamily arrangements short oI
two biological parent households as much as (or more than) homosexual marriage. Also, there

still is little data about child outcomes in homosexual marriage since only a Iew countries (such
as Spain) have recognized homosexual marriage Ior a signiIicant amount oI time, and even then
the results may resist generalized application. Also, one should remember that class oI people
who will likely be brought into the world that, but Ior homosexual marriage, would not. II a
particular child will not be conceived but Ior the homosexual relationship, it is very diIIicult to
argue that the child is harmed. How do you compare a blighted liIe to no liIe at all? %his is the
classic 'non-person¨ problem- how do you harm someone who doesn`t yet exist? Picture an
empty bench- on it sits Greg, the child that was never born because the ban on gay marriage
resulted in his mother choosing a single liIe over the homosexual union Greg would have been
born into (e.g. via a sperm donor). As much as liIe sucks Ior some people, most nonetheless
overwhelmingly preIer to exist. II you contend that Greg will simply be sent to another Iamily,
by that same token it becomes diIIicult to criticize normal, Iertile couples who choose to have no
children. Additionally, you must consider the babies who 'only have the ability to cry¨ and will
beneIit by having the couple raising them be married.
Last, the higher the 'optimal parent¨ requirement Ior marriage access, the Iewer the parents that
qualiIy- meaning both Iewer children overall and Iewer children in stable households. Until you
apply an 'optimal parent¨ requirement Ior marital access to heterosexuals (Ior instance against
the less Iecund, the poor and uneducated, those who grew up in divorced homes, or any other
category shown to result in decreased child outcomes), it is unIair to apply it only to
Don't cbang¢ tb¢ ra¢s for cbidr¢n
Interlocutor: "ut let´s take a 1ew steps back and trv to see the longer viewone in which
children haven´t come into the picture vet. but 1ace a world which has changed the rules about
the where. when and whv o1 their existence.
%he rules have already signiIicantly changed, and will likely continue to do so. For instance, sex
and reproduction used to be tightly correlated. With birth control two people can have sex
thousands oI times with no oIIspring. Similarly, couples can reproduce proliIically without ever
having sex (e.g. via IVF). Also, the civil rights movement oI the 60's and the passage oI the 19th
Amendment both occasioned sweeping, yet welcome, change. Your argument would be better iI
based on the consequence bundle oI a particular change rather than 'changing the rules Ior
children¨ generally.
W¢ sboad saTsidiz¢ marriag¢ to propagat¢ soci¢ty
Interlocutor: 'Collecting a deceased spouses social securitv. claiming an extra tax exemption
1or a spouse. and having the right to be covered under a spouses health insurance policv are
iust a 1ew examples o1 the costlv bene1its associated with marriage. n a sense. a married couple
receives a subsidv. hv? ecause a marriage between two unrelated heterosexuals is likelv to
result in a 1amilv with children. and propagation o1 societv is a compelling state interest.
%his argument is deeply Ilawed in that it Iails to recognize the tens oI thousands oI children in
America that are being raised in one- or two- homosexual parent households. Where do these
children come Irom? %he maiority come Irom previous marriages. %here are many ways Ior
lesbian and gay couples to have a Iamily with children absent previous heterosexual

relationships, though. Adoption, artiIicial insemination Ior lesbians, mixing sperm to Iertilize a
donated egg subsequently gestated by a surrogate Ior gays, etc. have and do result in homosexual
parent households. %hus, denying marriage to these parents harms/Iails to beneIit their children.
'%o the extent CaliIornia has an interest in encouraging sexual activity to occur within
marriage. the evidence shows Proposition 8 to be detrimental to that interest. Because oI
Proposition 8, same-sex couples are not permitted to engage in sexual activity within marriage.
%o the extent proponents seek to encourage a norm that sexual activity occur within marriage to
ensure that reproduction occur within stable households, Proposition 8 discourages that norm
because it requires some sexual activity and child-bearing and child-rearing to occur outside
%he argument also assumes, without merit (as evidenced by the Iailure oI governments to take
reasonable steps to restrict marriage to reproducers) that reproduction is the primary or only state
interest in marriage:
'|S|tates have never required spouses to have an ability or willingness to procreate in order to

SSM is aToat privat¢ indag¢nc¢: traditiona marriag¢ is a paTic institation
Interlocutor: "not onlv are vou saving that it is more important to support private indulgences
than public institutions
Not necessarily. As argued above, there are legitimate grounds Ior advocating same-sex
marriage as a public institution (e.g. homosexual couples are more likely than homosexual
singles to bring children into the world, and many oI the public beneIits oI marriage and Iamily
are not limited to the opposite genderness oI marriage). It is inappropriate to characterize same-
sex marriage as a private indulgence- this appellation reIlects a sex-centered conception oI the
proposed institution t\hat Iails to acknowledge the richness that same-sex marriage can provide
two people that are committed to and sacriIice Ior each other. Generally we don't consider
heterosexual marriage to be a private indulgence or all about sex- is there a basis Ior an opposite
conclusion about homosexual marriage? Especially since homosexual people can privately
indulge without marriage?
Interlocutor: 'The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law
the notion that sexual love. regardless o1 its 1ecunditv. is the sole criterion 1or marriage.
My response: %his conclusion also is not merited. Is sexual love the sole criterion Ior
heterosexual marriage? Are there not many other signiIicant reasons why individuals choose to

'Never has the state inquired into procreative capacity or intent beIore issuing a marriage
license; indeed, a marriage license is more than a license to have procreative sexual
intercourse. |I|t would demean a married couple were it to be said marriage is simply about
the right to have sexual intercourse.` Lawrence, 539 US at 567. %he Supreme Court recognizes
that, wholly apart Irom procreation, choice and privacy play a pivotal role in the marital
%he incidence oI premarital sex, at least, belies the conclusion that marriage Ior heterosexual
people is iust Ior sex- and there is no reason to presume contrarily Ior homosexual persons.

R¢ationsbip witb Totb Tioogica par¢nts
Interlocutor: 'ow. don´t know about vou. but am grate1ul to have a relationship with both o1
mv biological parents.
' Also. ¨Taken together. these bene1its illustrate the manv dimensions
o1 the childs bonding rights which heterosexual marriage is able to protect with relative ease.
Same-sex marriage. mostlv as a result o1 structural considerations. does not and in most cases
cannot provide anv o1 these bene1its to the child.
%he relationship oI children in homosexual Iamilies with one oI that child's biological parents is
likely to be absent or abrogated as compared to a two-biological parent household- so you imply
a strong point
. However, many children never know their Iathers either because they skip town
or they were conceived IVF by an anonymous donor, but your complaint doesn't also target
them, which it should on a basis oI opposing action that induces identity issues. Would you also
legally prohibit out-oI-wedlock births, divorce, and IVF, and putting kids up Ior adoption Irom
that are in abusive, two-biological parent homes? Also, it is not clear that SSM would increase
the number oI children not raised by their biological parents (many children in SS homes are
adopted and would not be raised by their biological parents regardless oI the marital status oI the
SS couple).

R¢igioas Cons¢qa¢nc¢s

SSM tbr¢at¢ns my famiy's r¢igioas vaa¢s

Interlocutor: 'The argument alwavs hear is. ell. thev iust want to be happv. and it doesn´t
invalidate mv marriage i1 thev have theirs. To that. sav. ves and no. t does not directlv
a11ect mv marriage (meaning i1 homosexual couple X gets married. mv marriage doesn´t blow-up
or something). However. it perpetuates a moral value that see as negative and subiects mv
1amilv and children even more to that negative value. Jalues and principles. in mv opinion. are
crucial in our countrv. but appear increasinglv lacking due to the power o1 empiricists. A similar
argument might be. t doesn´t hurt me directlv i1 thev legalize prostitution in mv town. because
´m not going to a hooker anvwav. Let those people have the 1un thev desire. Does that make the
situation morallv right? Does that create a culture that is hostile and non-supportive o1 the

religious values espouse? t certainlv does... and. in that wav. it certainlv a11ects me and mv
1amilv. Anvwav. the moral to mv ramblings is. sometimes we 1ollow our gut and our values
rather than the data.¨
My response: So you say there`s a negative eIIect oI subiecting your Iamily and children to a
perpetuated moral value you view (and others who view similarlylet`s call this group the
Westovers) as negative. Let`s say I concede that the eIIect exists. %he same argument about
using the negative consequence as a basis Ior prohibiting conduct or privileges can be used
equally against the oIIended. Example: some citizens oI the country, let`s call them the
Eastovers, could view your occupational choice or your religious practice or your white skin or
your heterosexual marriage or some other characteristic or conduct as subiecting their Iamily and
children to a perpetuated moral value they Iind to be negative. Which class`s conduct and
privileges should be then constrained: the Eastovers, or the Westovers? Is there a reason outside
personal moral view to esteem either over over the other over? (the literary device is no extra
charge). II not, how is the superior moral view to be selected, and who makes the selection?
Absent solid answers to these questions, iI Iollows that even a concession oI the consequence
doesn`t advance a proposal to limit the conduct/privileges oI either negative moral value
Plus, it is essential to consider the welIare oI homosexuals, who by and large are by banned Irom
marriage since nature has predisposed them away Irom romantic and erotic interest in the
opposite sex (which, though not the only reasons to marry, are important and useIul ones) and
made SSM very attractive and potentially very beneIicial to them:
'II there are 12 million gay Americans, that would be more than the population oI any but the
seven largest states, not a trivial number. Even iI the number were much smaller, each gay
person is an individual seeking the good liIe. Not one oI those lives in inconsequential. no one
can make decent social policy without considering both sides oI the equation. %o assume that
'we¨ (the heterosexual maiority) should deny millions oI Americans any chance to marry iI
allowing them to marry would cause 'us¨ any harm or inconvenience at all is to account gay
welIare as essentially worthless... A one-eyed utilitarian is a blind utilitarian.

Following your gut or values is appropriate, but doesn`t get one very Iar in the public square.
Arguing public policy in a pluralistic society under a constitutional democratic republic like unto
the one we`re in requires persuading people- and unless either 1) everyone happens to agree with
you or 2) you have an eIIective way to convince lots oI someones to make consequential
decisions based not on their guts or the 'dangers oI logic,¨ but instead on your guts, you might
Iind the uphill battle discouraging.
'A commitment to the First Amendment prescription oI the separation oI church and state
necessarily precludes government Irom establishing and enIorcing a religious theocracy. But it
does not require a banishing oI religious belieIs as a legitimate source oI shared moral values in
the public arena. Conversely, the 1act that a moral value is derived 1rom a religious belie1
should not shield that moral value 1rom contestation in the public domain
(emphasis added).¨

Lex plus laudatur quando ratione probatur - the law is the more praised when it is supported by

Cbarcb¢s wi bav¢ to p¢rform SSM
Interlocutor: 'How do vou think allowing gav marriage would a11ect the church´s right to re1use
marriage to whom thev want? with so much hate swirling against the church in connection to
prop 8. do vou think its in1easible to expect there to be suits against the church 1or re1using gav
members to marrv in the temple or even be married bv a bishop on the grounds o1 preventing
their constitutional right to marrv how thev want? unlike other churches. where di11erent pastors
mav have di11erent views and some mav re1use where others wont. the Mormon church is
absolute in their position against gav marriage. which prevents a gav couple 1rom getting
married in the church 1orever.`
My response: It seems unlikely that suits against the church Ior reIusing same-sex temple
marriage would succeed. %he Ireedom oI preiudice Ior religions is robust in the United States
and other countries. On what law or grounds would such a suit proceed? Why is the church
experiencing none oI this type oI trouble in Canada, a country that has legalized SSM? Why
isn`t the church running into these problems in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, New
Hampshire, and Vermont, where same-sex marriage is legal? Private religious practice is given
high deIerence in the Iederal US courts (and indeed in many iI not most nations), and religions
are not government actors- and thus not subiect to the high constitutional standards that might be
binding on, say, a civil oIIicial perIorming a marriage. It seems that the most proximal hazard
would be loss oI property tax exemptions (in some states) Ior church-owned public
accommodations iI the church blocked access based on sexual orientation
(see endnote Ior
Iurther discussion oI the bounds oI burdening acts oI discrimination by religions).
Noncompliance with the restriction against supporting political campaigns that 'have the eIIect
oI Iavoring a candidate or group oI candidates
¨ is also a tax exemption risk. %he unlikely loss
oI 501(c)3 tax exempt status based on reIusal to perIorm SSM would merely amount to a
reduction oI a gov`t subsidy rather than the more egregious oIIense oI depriving a religion oI
their right to exclude applicants Irom a religious ordinance. However, that risk is extremely low:
'Almost certainly not. the maior case under Iederal tax law is ob Jones v. United States. a
charitable organization. they have to serve a public purpose and not be contrary to established
public policy they must be in harmony with public interest and the institution`s purpose must not
be so at odds with community conscience as to undermine public beneIit. unlikely Ior a court
to do that. unlikely Ior the IRS to even bring that action to begin with. %he IRS is a relatively
conservative Iederal agency. extremely unlikely that the IRS would try to bring sort kind oI
action to take away the church`s tax exempt status based on their views on same-sex
Speaking oI the loss oI tax-exempt status resulting Irom a religion not perIorming SSM, one
commentator wrote: '%his argument truly stretches the bounds oI existing legal doctrine... No
religious organization, other than Bob Jones University, has ever had its tax-exempt status
revoked because oI discriminatory rules that it applied on the basis oI race or any other

Plus, the church is not a university, as Bob Jones was; religions are typically accorded greater
deIerence than universities. Last, the church`s gender inequality is more threatening than
orientation discrimination. %he church`s questionable and non-transparent political lobbying
ieopardizes their status more than their views or practices regarding same-sex marriage
. Said
the Connecticut Supreme Court:
'Finally, religious autonomy is not threatened by recognizing the right oI same sex couples to
marry civilly. Religious Ireedom will not be ieopardized by the marriage oI same sex couples
because religious organizations that oppose same sex marriage as irreconcilable with their belieIs
will not be required to perIorm same sex marriages or otherwise to condone same sex marriage
or relations.
As in other countries, a practical work-around iI the battle heats up would be Ior the church to
mandate that all church members wanting to be temple or LDS clergy married get married civilly
by a iustice oI the peace or equivalent Iirst. (%he church already requires its members to do this
beIore a temple sealing in some countries with adverse legal landscapes). In that case there
would be even less basis Ior an attack, because who cares iI you exclude or discriminate Iolks
Irom a legally meaningless religious ordinance (as whether they are married in the eyes oI the
state would be resolved independent oI the excluding practices oI the subsequent sealing or
bishop-perIormed hitching)?
Writing on a similar subiect in a Square Two article, Ben Hertzberg wrote
'%he prospect oI legal gay marriages should disturb Mormons less than it disturbs conservative
Christians. %his is the case because oI the diIIerence between the relationship oI LDS marriage
to the State and the relationship oI traditional Christian marriage to the State. %his diIIerence
gives Mormons resources to deal with a state that marries gays that I believe conservative
Christians lack. Marriage as it is traditionally deIined is one oI the last legal institutions in which
Church and State share roles. II a couple is married in a Baptist Church (or a Mormon temple)
the minister or sealer acts on authority delegated to him Irom the State. %his is the purpose oI
issuing marriage licenses. Church and State cooperate in marrying couples. In a sense, then,
marriage is one oI the last remnants oI the Western, medieval, theocratic partnership oI Church
and State. %his partnership is reIlected in the liturgy oI Christian marriage ceremonies: they are
large events done in Churches (or sometimes out oI doors) and the couple invites their
communitythey invite the public to witness the occasion. Now, gay marriage is seen (at least
by conservative Christians) as ending that partnershipthe State and the Church will no longer
work together to marry and support heterosexual couples only. Mormons, in contrast, have
never really worked in tandem with the State on questions oI marriageat least, not to the extent
that other Christians have. %his is because the LDS deIinition oI marriage is Iundamentally
diIIerent Irom the State`s deIinition and Irom the traditional Christian deIinition. Mormons, oI
course, marry 'Ior time and all eternity,¨ not '`till death do you part.¨ (And, oI course,
Mormons once practiced plural marriages, another important diIIerence between both the State
and other Christian deIinitions.) %he State has never been so bold as to even attempt to marry
couples in some way that would be binding aIter death; indeed, the suggestion that it ever could
is laughable. And this diIIerence in deIinitions oI marriage is reIlected in the LDS marriage
ceremony, iust as the deIinition shared between other Christian Churches and the State is
reIlected in their liturgies. Mormons do not seal couples in public. %hey instead perIorm their
most important marriages in private, behind the closed doors oI the temple. %he explicitly

private nature oI the Mormon marriage ceremony reIlects the distance between the LDS
understanding oI marriage and the State`s (the public`s) deIinition oI marriage. Mormons, then,
already have more than one hundred years oI experience in conducting a Iorm oI marriage that is
not and cannot truly be ratiIied by the State. %his is not to say, oI course, that the State`s
perIorming gay marriages will not be a radical change Ior Mormons. It will be. But it will be a
change that Mormons are more prepared to deal with than many other Christian groupsby
virtue oI our own private practice oI eternal marriage. We thereIore should Iear gay marriage

R¢igioas iT¢rty
Interlocutor: 'SSM is a threat to religious libertv. Just look at Catholic Charities in
Massachusetts- thev stopped their adoption work because o1 legalized SSM. Or. take a look at
education- i1 SSM is legalized. teachers that have a religious belie1 that SSM is wrong wont be
able to speak out at their schools.¨
In February 2011 in an address at Chapman University School oI Law, Elder Oaks said similarly:
'I see a serious threat to the Ireedom oI religion in the current assertion oI a 'civil right" oI
homosexuals to be Iree Irom religious preaching against their relationships. Religious leaders oI
various denominations aIIirm and preach that sexual relations should only occur between a man
and a woman ioined together in marriage. One would think that the preaching oI such a doctrinal
belieI would be protected by the constitutional guarantee oI the Iree exercise oI religion, to say
nothing oI the guarantee oI Iree speech. However, we are beginning to see worldwide
indications that this may not be so.
My response: I don`t Iollow the logic here. It`s well established that the government is interested
in reIraining Irom preIerring religious practice A to religious practice B (Establishment
). Example 1- let`s say an organization called Christchurch Charities, inIormed by its
religious conscience, places adoptees only in married same-sex and opposite-sex Iamilies. II the
state prohibits or Iails to legalize SSM, that religion`s religious practice is inhibited because they
can no longer place children with same-sex couples, since their religious belieI is to only place
adoptees in homes where the parents are married. Example 2: Cathy Johnson is a 7
science teacher. Her religious belieI is that homosexual and heterosexual people are equal and
thereIore should both be allowed to marry. %o the extent that a teacher opposed to SSM would
be inhibited by a SSM legalization, Cathy would be inhibited by a SSM prohibition. %he long-
standing tradition in America is to permit religious practice within certain deIined bounds,
imposing those limitations impartially on all religious practices. 'We believe that religion is
instituted oI God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, Ior the exercise oI it. We
do not believe it iust to mingle religious inIluence with civil government, whereby one religious
society is Iostered and another proscribed |prohibited| in its spiritual privileges, and the
individual rights oI its members, as citizens, denied." -Doctrine and Covenants 134:4, 9. %hus,
the religious liberty argument doesn`t advance an anti-SSM argument because it necessarily cuts
both ways. Said the Connecticut Supreme Court:

'Many people hold deep-seated religious, moral, and ethical convictions that marriage should be
limited to the union oI one man and one woman, and that homosexual conduct is immoral. Many
hold equally strong religious, moral, and ethical convictions that same-sex couples are entitled to
be married, and that homosexual persons should be treated no diIIerently than their heterosexual
neighbors. Neither view answers the question beIore |the court|. Our concern is with |our state|
|c|onstitution as a charter oI governance Ior every person properly within its reach.
Additionally, Catholic Charities was accepting public Iunds, and was thereIore bound to obey the
laws oI the state because the people deserve a say in the expenditures oI public Iunds. LDS
Family Services, because it is privately Iunded, still adopts babies out only to straight married
LDS couples. %heir sexual orientation and religious discrimination is allowed because they
don`t accept money Irom the state.
On a similar subiect, Clay Essig wrote:
'We believe that religion is instituted oI God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him
only, Ior the exercise oI it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to in1ringe upon the
rights and liberties o1 others¨ (D&C 134:4; emphasis added). Isn`t it strongly held 'religious
opinions¨ regarding marriage and Iamily that are Iueling these 'pro-Iamily¨ campaigns which
severely 'inIringe upon |marital and Iamilial| rights and liberties oI others¨, speciIically our Gay
and Lesbian neighbors?
Growing numbers oI churches see the good in their Gay and Lesbian members and want to oIIer
them the blessing oI marriage. II we Latter-day Saints support the maiority to legislatively
deprive the religious Ireedom oI those churches to marry according to their belieIs, aren`t we
opening the door Iurther Ior the maiority to vote away our right to practice our LDS religious
belieIs, severely undermining essential religious Ireedom? '. but we do not believe that human
law has a right to interIere in prescribing rules oI worship to bind the consciences oI men, nor
dictate Iorms Ior public or private devotion¨ (D&C 134:4).
Do we practice what we preach?
Consider some Iorms oI public or private devotion. Do they include prayer, scripture study,
baptism and marriage? Since we believe the proper Iorm oI prayer is to conclude 'in the name oI
Jesus Christ, Amen¨, should we pass a Constitutional amendment Iorbidding any other Iorms oI
prayer? Should we Latter-day Saints constitutionally deIine baptism as 'only by immersion by
one having authority Irom God¨ and legislatively Iorbid other Iorms oI baptism? How can we
maintain integrity when we continue to support political movements, laws, State and National
Constitutional amendments that are contrary to our own declarations in our own LDS
Such constitutional amendments oIten have more than merely legal consequences. A 2010
article Irom the American Journal oI Public Health Iound that SSM bans might decrease the
mental health oI the LGB population:

'Psychiatric disorders. increased signiIicantly between waves 1 and 2 among LGB respondents
living in states that banned gay marriage Ior the Iollowing outcomes: any mood disorder (36.6°
increase), generalized anxiety disorder (248.2° increase), any alcohol use disorder (41.9°
increase), and psychiatric comorbidity (36.3° increase). %hese psychiatric disorders did not
increase signiIicantly among LGB respondents living in states without constitutional
amendments. Additionally, we Iound no evidence Ior increases oI the same magnitude among
heterosexuals living in states with constitutional amendments.
%he author oI hen Gav !eople Get Married. hat Happens hen Societies Legalize Same-Sex
Marriage studied the eIIects oI SSM in the Netherlands, which has legalized SSM since 2001.
She argued similarly in her section, 'Reducing Minority Stress: %he Value oI Inclusion:¨
'Social science suggests that experiences oI discrimination or unequal treatment can have
harmIul eIIects on physical and mental health. %his minority stress` has been linked to higher
blood pressure. and to other negative health outcomes Ior lesbian, gay, and bisexual people
%he psychologist Glenda Russell`s research shows that liIe in an atmosphere oI antigay politics
has similar negative eIIects on the mental health oI LGB people. Recent studies show that
stigma and homophobia reduce the quality oI same-sex relationships. it seems reasonable to
predict that removing Iormal discrimination through policies such as opening up marriage to
same-sex couples will have positive mental health eIIects on individual LGB people (including
those who are single). my own experience makes me wonder how the ability to marry could
not change LGB people in some proIound and positive way, especially Ior those LGB people
who decide to marry. Moving Irom a position oI exclusion to one oI inclusion is a change that
is likely to have a positive psychological eIIect on some people.
In another Iorum, she said:
'Research also shows that getting married has been good Ior same-sex couples. %hey are more
committed to their relationships, Ieel more secure, perceive that their children are better oII and
receive more support Irom their Iamilies than when they were unmarried. Having the right to
marry makes gay people Ieel more included in society overall, a proIound change that extends to
unmarried gay people and, one hopes, to young people who are struggling to accept being gay,
lesbian, or bisexual.
%hese arguments match my experiences oI talking with many gay and lesbian people who very
much view issues such as SSM as matters oI equal rights, and Ieel in important ways like
second-class citizens.
Last in this subsection, a quote Irom Ben Hertzberg:
'II it is the case that the issue Mormons should be most concerned about is the protection oI our
religious liberty, then I worry that the Proposition 8 campaign was a mistake. As the
homosexual community`s reaction to our apparent 'victory¨ indicated (deplorable though it was)
campaigning against gay marriage alienates the very parties with which we will eventually have
to Iorge some sort oI compromise and Ieeds the Ilames oI the culture warriors who relish
continued battle. It also works to undermine the possibility oI such a compromisea

compromise on which I believe our continued Ilourishing as a religious group importantly and
essentially diIIerent Irom traditional, conservative Christianity depends.

L¢ga Cons¢qa¢nc¢s

SSM woad ¢ad to marrying animas, ¢tc.
Interlocutor: 'Allowing gav marriage would iust be the ball at the top o1 the hill. ext. !olvgamv
(FLDS are alreadv challenging that law in Texas). marriage with children. marriage with other
animals. marriage with rocks. etc. 1 we change marriage to include evervthing. it will eventuallv
mean nothing.¨
My response: You lack a substantial basis to conIidently predict the continued expansion oI the
marriage deIinition. Is it possible that polygamy, then marrying children, then marrying animals,
then marrying rocks would sequentially Iollow expanding Irom |man-woman| to |man-woman or
man-man or woman-woman|? Yes. Will it likely happen? DiIIicult to discern. Would any
continued deIinitional expansion be causally linked to the initial expansion? Also diIIicult to
show. Will it happen? Impossible to conclusively say. I could argue the likelihood oI continued
deIinitional expansions, but am content to point out how diIIicult it is to predict the Iuture as you
have done (gay marriage would iust be the ball at the top oI the hill).
Now I will speak more directly to the polygamy contention. First, I point out that hundreds oI
human cultures have condoned polygamy, and at least the vast maiority oI them were neither
preceded by, contemporaneous with, nor succeeded by SSM.
Also, though there is exhaustive literature on the number oI partners issue, I will mention but one
reason cluster that argues Ior two-partner-only marriage:
'II I were to marry three or Iour people, the pool oI potential caregivers would be larger, but the
situation would, perversely, make all oI them less reliable: each could expect one oI the others to
take care oI me (and each may be reluctant to do more than any oI the others are willing to do- a
common source oI conIlict among siblings who need to look aIter an aging parent). %he pair
bond, one to one, is the only kind which is inescapably reciprocal, perIectly mutual. Because
neither oI us has anyone else, we are there Ior each other.
Arguing similarly, Kenii Yoshino wrote: 'Currently, I would distinguish polygamous marriage
primarily on the intuitive ground that one can give one's Iull selI to only one other personthat
is, that the "undivided commitment" the co-authors praise can be valuable even in the absence oI
common procreation.
Independent oI this and other iustiIications that could be advanced to deIend two-partner-only
marriage, it suIIices to say that the same limits which apply to OSM can and should apply to
SSM, and Ior the same reasons. %hese limits include relatedness, number oI partners, and age.
SSM does not include 'everything;¨ rather, it merely expands narrowly to include (or
discontinue excluding) SS couples. II polygamy is to win recognition, it will have to do triumph
its own merits, as it is not a necessary result oI legalizing SSM.

Interlocutor: 'SSM would allow a 1ather to marrv his 24-vear-old son. or Sallv to marrv
Christina. a sick 1riend shes caring 1or.`
My response: Yes, Sally could marry Christina. Seth could marry Christina, the sick Iriend,
equally well- in both cases the same restrictions apply as to age, consent, etc. As to the Iather
marrying his son, what is to stop him Irom marrying his 26-year-old daughter? %he answer: a
statute to that eIIect. Whatever relatedness restriction good Ior the goose is good Ior the gander,
and could be applied equally to same and opposite gender couples. However, there is some
reason to think that incest laws may be unconstitutional, especially iI the elevated birth deIect
risk argument Iails
. Lawrence v. Texas may be used to argue that the right to privacy is
unconstitutionally violated by legal restrictions on consensual incest, especially when unrelated
persons with genetic disorders are allowed to marry despite their elevated risk oI passing on a
birth deIect. In any case, it is important to remember that 1) homosexual relationships are less
reproductive on average than heterosexual ones and thus have less risk oI contributing to birth
deIects and 2) incest laws will stay or be overturned on their own merits independent oI the
success oI Iailure oI SSM.
%here is no necessary logical tie between SSM and polygamy, incest, or marrying children which
doesn`t also apply to OSM:
'Gay people are not asking Ior the legal right to marry anybody they love or everybody they
love. Instead, homosexuals are asking Ior what all heterosexuals possess already: the legal right
to marry somebodv they love.

Tb¢ stat¢ bas no int¢r¢st in gay marriag¢
Interlocutor: "Some argue that homosexual marriages serve a state interest because thev enable
gavs to live in committed relationships. However. there is nothing stopping homosexuals 1rom
living in such relationships todav.
How can one be certain oI that? Lack oI recognition oI marriage disincentivizes the commitment
oI homosexual unions economically and socially at least in ways similar to cohabiting
heterosexual couples, which empirically have inIerior parenting and individual outcomes as
compared to married heterosexual couples. For example, relatives are oIten more willing to give
Iinancial help to Iamilies where the parents are married compared to cohabiting- and this
correlation may at least partly hold Ior same-sex couples as well
. Also, both the state and the
partners may be interested in marriage because oI the comparatively superior equitable asset
allocation that results upon relationship dissolution:
'%he plaintiIIs in marriage-equality cases do not say that they want to marry so that iI they split
up the property division and support rules that accompany divorce will apply to them. Like all
couples who plan to marry, they do not expect to divorce. But the diIIerent rules Ior settling
money issues at the end oI a marriage versus an unmarried relationship can cause indeIensible

%he state might also be interested because:
'All societies must accept that there is an underworld oI deviants and criminals that want to hide
their activities Irom public view. But to eIIectively Iorce a group that wants the sunlight into a
shadow society surely is selI-deluding and, yes, harmIul.
Last, the value oI marriage as a signal to one`s partner and third parties oI the committed nature
oI the relationship is lessened iI the marriage is not legally binding.
Stat¢ r¢cognition of marriag¢ is not a aniv¢rsa rigbt
Interlocutor: 'The debate over whether the state ought to recognize gav marriages has thus 1ar
1ocused on the issue as one o1 civil rights. Such a treatment is erroneous because state
recognition o1 marriage is not a universal right.
My response: %hat point is debated. For instance, the UN Declaration oI Human Rights, article
16 states:
'(1) Men and women oI Iull age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have
the right to marry and to Iound a Iamily. %hey are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during
marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the Iree and Iull consent oI the intending spouses.
(3) %he Iamily is the natural and Iundamental group unit oI society and is entitled to protection
by society and the State.
A right to marry has been recognized as a constitutional right in numerous Supreme Court cases
(see e.g. the line oI cases quoted in page 110 oI !errv). %hus, the prohibitions on cousin
marriages and bigamy may later be Iound unconstitutional. Even iI cousin and bigamy
prohibitions are Iound constitutional, a right to marry someone oI the same sex may nonetheless
be Iound constitutional under either due process and/or equal protection, and indeed has been so
Iound under one or both clauses by both Iederal and state courts (e.g. Kerrigan, !errv,
and Jarnum).
Individaa stat¢s sboad T¢ aow¢d to d¢fin¢ marriag¢
Interlocutor: 'On Constitutional grounds. mv observations are that there are several SCOTUS
decisions. both be1ore and a1ter Loving v. Virginia. that support the idea that states have the
right to de1ine the nature o1 the marital relationship within them (as state´s have a vital interest
in the organization o1 their societies) while individuals have the right to decide whether thev
want to enter into that relationship and with whom. Or. in other words. the individuals right to
marriage is subiect to the state´s de1inition.

My response: What then would prevent a state Irom regulating marriage out oI existence or
prohibiting marriage altogether? Let`s Ior the moment concede that states can indeed deIine and
regulate marriage and marital relationships, and that regulation can vary Irom state to state.
%here is one signiIicant limit- the states may not deIine or regulate in such a way as to deny any
state citizen equal protection under the laws oI the United States. %he states may grant MORE
rights than the Iederal constitution, but they absolutely may not grant LESS- otherwise states
could use their statutes or constitutions to deprive US citizens oI their Iederal constitutional
rights. %he US Constitution is supreme and trumps state laws and constitutions. %hus, state
discretion is only in one direction (broader than or irrelevant to, but never violative oI, those
rights guaranteed by the US Constitution). Because the right to marry has been identiIied as a
US constitutional right, it must have at least a minimum deIinition (or 'Iloor¨) aIIorded to all US
citizens irrespective oI the state they reside in. %hough they may expand the right to marry,
states may not narrow it such that it deprives their citizens oI that Iederal constitutional right by
either statute, conduct, or constitution. Above this Iloor, it makes good Iederalist sense to allow
states to experiment with age, relatedness, and other standards. Also, I can see some wisdom in
state-by-state SSM legalization
, as incremental change is less likely to trigger the kind oI
deleterious 'culture war¨ pushback and the perception oI an overly active Iederal iudiciary that
sometimes result Irom sweeping national Iamily law changes such as Roe v. ade`s ruling on
abortion. On the other hand, like black people Iollowing rown v. oard:
'|D|espite the harmIul backlash experienced by the gay rights movement Iollowing marriage
cases such as Goodridge, lesbians and gay men are nonetheless better oII as a result oI those

Although it is understandable that so many gay rights supporters Ieel despair and anguish in the
Iace oI the severe backlash against gay rights.rown and its aItermath teach us that backlash is
a part and parcel oI the history oI civil rights struggles in this country. %hose struggles are, at
their core, about getting the maiority to give up privileges, both tangible and intangible, that
reinIorce their perceived superiority. %he Iact that, prior to rown, laws and regulations kept
blacks out oI the white (and much better) schools created and reinIorced the view in the minds oI
many whites that they were superior to blacks. And Ior years aIter rown, many oI those whites,
especially in the South, did everything they could to retain the long standing regime oI privileges
that beneIitted them at the expense oI blacks.

Similarly today, the maintaining oI the institution oI marriage as exclusively heterosexual
reinIorces the views oI many straight individuals that they are morally superior to lesbians and
gay men because their relationships are more meaningIul, valuable, and important. And despite
cases such as Goodridge indeed, because oI cases such as Goodridge many heterosexuals
will do everything they can to maintain the long standing regime oI privileges that beneIit them
at the expense oI lesbians and gay men.

For more readings on the intersection oI topics such as discrimination, equality, the courts, the
constitution, popular sovereignty, and same-sex marriage, I have compiled the Iollowing list.
You may also email me Ior a document giving a one-paragraph summary oI each at

O Neal Devins, How State Supreme Courts Take Consequences nto Account. Toward a State-
Centered Understanding o1 State Constitutionalism, 62 S1nŦ LŦ 8LIŦ 162 (2010)Ŧ
O Sue uavlsţ ulscrlmlnaLlon 1hrouah ulrecL uemocracvť 1he 8ole of Lhe !udlclarv ln Lhe ÞursulL of
LquallLvţ ln 1PL !uulClL 88nCPţ 373Ŵ400 (Cxford unlverslLv Þress 2003)Ŧ
O uavld Ŧ ?alofţ cootts ooJ tbe uefloltloo of uefeoJoots´ lobtsţ lo 1PL !uulClL 88nCPţ 432Ŵ438
(Cxford unlverslLv Þress 2003)Ŧ
O Wllllam n Lskrldaeţ !rŦţ Þlurallsm and ulsLrusLť Pow CourLs Can SupporL uemocracv bv Lowerlna Lhe
SLakes of ÞollLlcsţ 114 YALE L.J. 1279, 1283 (2005).
O kevln !Ŧ WorLhenţ Who uecldes and WhaL ulfference uoes lL Make? ueflnlna Marrlaae ln Cur
#uemocraLlcţ lederal 8epubllc"ţ 18 BYU J. PUB. L. 273, 274 (2004).
O Aileen Kavanagh, De1erence or De1iance? The Limits o1 the Judicial Role in Constitutional
HuscroIt, ed. 2008) available at
O naoml Cahn Ǝ !une Carboneţ ueep lotpleť elloloos 5boJes of lomllv lowţ 110 WŦ IŦ LŦ 8LIŦ 43ţ
47 (2007)Ŧ
O Clen SLaszewsklţ eosooŴClvloo ooJ Accoootobllltvţ 3 MlnnŦ LŦ 8LIŦ 1233 (200)Ŧ
O MarLha nussbaumţ 8lahL Lo Marrv? SameŴSex Marrlaae and ConsLlLuLlonal LawŦ DISSEN% 56(3):
43 (2009).
O MonLe nell SLewarLţ ,ottlooe loctsţ 31 P8IŦ !ŦLŦ Ǝ Þu8Ŧ ÞCL'? 313 (2008)Ŧ
O !ulla Palloran McLauahllnţ uO,A ooJ tbe coostltotloool comloo Oot of 5omeŴsex ,ottlooeţ 24 WlSŦ
!ŦLŦ CLnuL8 Ǝ SCC'? 143 (200)Ŧ
O Martha %. McCluskey, Thinking ith olves. Le1t Legal Theorv A1ter the Rights Rise, 34
8ullŦ LŦ 8LIŦ 111ţ 1270 (2007)Ŧ
O mv Waxţ 1he ConservaLlve's ullemmať 1radlLlonal lnsLlLuLlonsţ Soclal Chanaeţ and SameŴsex
Marrlaaeţ 42 Sn ulLCC LŦ 8LIŦ 103 (2003)Ŧ
O ndrew koppelmanţ 1he uecllne and lall of Lhe Case aalnsL SameŴsex Marrlaaeţ 2 uŦ S1Ŧ 1PCMS LŦ!Ŧ
3ţ (2004)Ŧ lsoţ Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines (Yale
University Press 2006.
O Louls Mlchael Seldmanţ Cav Sex and Marrlaaeţ Lhe 8eclprocal ulsadvanLaae Þroblemţ and Lhe Crlsls
ln Llberal ConsLlLuLlonal 1heorvţ 31 HARV. J.L. & PUB. POL`Y 135 (2008).
O Carlos Ŧ 8allţ 1he 8acklash 1hesls and SameŴsex Marrlaaeť Learnlna from 8rown vŦ 8oard of
LducaLlon and lLs fLermaLhţ 14 WMŦ Ǝ M8? 8lLL 81SŦ !Ŧ 143 (2006)Ŧ
O Robert A. Schapiro, Toward a Theorv o1 nteractive Federalism, 1 lCW LŦ 8LIŦ 243ţ (2003)Ŧ
O !udlLh LŦ koonsţ Lnaaalna Lhe Cdd Coupleť SameŴSex Marrlaae and Lvanaellcallsm ln Lhe Þubllc
Squareţ 30 WCMLn'S 81SŦ LŦ 8LÞŦ 233 (200)Ŧ
O naoml 8Ŧ Cahn and !une Carboneţ eJ lomlles vŦ 8loe lomlllesť wotkloo lopetţ 18 unlIL8Sl1? Cl
lLC8lu !Cu8nL Cl LW nu Þu8LlC ÞCLlC?ţ forLhcomlnaŤ CWu LW SCPCCL Þu8LlC LW 8LSL8CP ÞÞL8
nCŦ 343ţ ln possesslon of 8rad Carmack and ovolloble ot SS8nť hLLpť//ssmŦcom/absLracLƹ1008344
(SS8n membershlp ls free)Ŧ
O Llnda CŦ McClalnţ 8ed Iersus 8lue (and Þurple) SLaLes and Lhe SameŴSex Marrlaae uebaLeť from
Ialues ÞolarlzaLlon Lo Common Cround?ţ 77 UMKC L. REV. 415 (2008).
O 8lchard PŦ lallonţ !rŦţ @be cote of oo uoeosv cose fot IoJlclol evlewţ 121 P8IŦ LŦ 8LIŦ 163ţ 16
O 8oberL MŦ ÞalllLLo Ǝ !ason Punaerfordţ 1he Þroposed nLlŴCav Marrlaae mendmenLť 1he
ConsLlLuLlonţ Lhe Law of SLandlnaţ and LlberalŴuemocraLlc Ialuesţ 17 LW Ǝ SLxuLl1? 73ţ 7 (2010)Ŧ

O Ingrid M. LoIgren, The Role o1 Courts Jis-a-vis Legislatures in the Same-Sex Marriage
Context. Sexual Orientation as a Suspect Classi1ication, uŦ MuŦ LŦ!Ŧ 8CLţ 8LLlClCnţ CLnuL8 Ǝ
CLSS 213ţ 23 (200)Ŧ
O Emily K. Baxter, Rationalizing Awav !olitical !owerlessness. Equal !rotection Analvsis o1
Laws Classi1ving Gavs and Lesbians, 72 MCŦ LŦ 8LIŦ 81ţ 07 (2007)Ŧ
O ndrew Cllvoţ SecreLs and Llesť 1he lnLelllaence CommunlLv's #uon'L skţ uon'L 1ell"ţ 12 SCPCL8
331 (2010)Ŧ
O 8achel Shaplroţ Conawav vŦ ueaneť 1o Pave and Lo Poldţ lrom 1hls uav lorwardŸMarvland's
unflL Marrlaae Lo lederal Lqual ÞroLecLlon nalvslsţ 68 MD. L. REV. 957 (2009)Ŧ
O Jean C. Love, The Svnergistic Evolution o1 Libertv and Equalitv in the Marriage Cases
rought bv Same-Sex Couples in State Courts, 13 J. GENDER RACE & JUS%. 275 (2010).
O Wllllam nŦ Lskrldaeţ lorewardť 1he Marrlaae CasesŴ 8everslna Lhe 8urden of lnerLla ln a ÞlurallsL
ConsLlLuLlonal uemocracvţ 97 CAL. L. REV. 1785 (2009).
O Ronald D. Rotunda, Fundamental Rights, 2 18L1lSL Cn CCnS1Ŧ LŦ Ƈ 13Ŧ7 (4
edŦ 2010)Ŧ
O Rosalie Berger Levinson, Time to urv the Shocks the Conscience Test, 13 CPÞŦ LŦ 8LIŦ 307ţ
336 (2010)Ŧ
O !ames Ŧ kushnerţ Lqual ÞroLecLlon SLandards ln Speclflc Casesť Cavsţ Lesblansţ and Sexual
CrlenLaLlonţ CCIŦ ulSC8lMŦ Ƈ 3ť18 (200)Ŧ
O 8lchard PŦ lallonţ !rŦţ @be cote of oo uoeosv cose fot IoJlclol evlewţ 121 P8IŦ LŦ 8LIŦ 163ţ 172
O Nelson %ebbe & Deborah A. Widiss, Equal Access and the Right to Marrv, 138 uŦ ÞŦ LŦ 8LIŦ
1373 (2010)Ŧ
O Adam Winkler, Fatal in Theorv and Strict in Fact. An Empirical Analvsis o1 Strict Scrutinv
in the Federal Courts, 3 InuŦ LŦ 8LIŦ 73 (2006)Ŧ
O Hernandez v. Robles, 7 N.Y.3d 338, 380-381 (2006).
O SLrauss vŦ PorLonţ 46 CalŦ4
364ţ 406 (200) (applvlna Lhe ma[orlLv holdlna of lo te ,ottlooe cosesţ
183 ÞŦ3d 384 (2008))Ŧ
O Lawrence vŦ 1exasţ 33 uŦSŦ338 (2003)Ŧ
O Kerrigan v. Commissioner oI Public Health, 289 Conn. 135, 174 (2008).
O Citizens Ior Equal Protection v. Bruning, 455 F.3d 859, 866 (2006).
O Iarnum vŦ 8rlenţ 763 N.W.2d 862, 896 (2009)Ŧ
O 8lchard CŦ Wllklns Ǝ !ohn nlelsenţ 1he CuesLlon 8alsed bv Lawrenceť Marrlaaeţ Lhe Supreme CourLţ
and a WrlLLen ConsLlLuLlonţ 83 N.D. L. REV. 1393 (2007).

Tb¢ f¢d¢ra jadiciary vioat¢d tb¢ sov¢r¢ignty of tb¢ p¢op¢ Ty ov¢rtarning proposition %
Interlocutor: 'Then what is marriage? who de1ines marriage? is the government given that
power. or is it the people? does the constitution de1ine marriage? i1 not. as rad [Carmack]
said. how do vou decide whether or not a right is being violated? The question here isn´t the
right o1 people to be married. it´s the verv de1inition o1 marriage. Some sav that a homosexual
union means marriage. and others sav that it does not. t is per1ectlv within their rights to
disagree. So. the question that think rad is getting at. is who gets to de1ine marriage? the
people. or the government (sounds like rad sides with government. or the iudiciarv). ut what
is the government when it denies the will o1 the people? Sounds like tvrannv.¨

My response: %wo rebuttals.
1) First some philosophy oI law/social contract and constitution theory. In 1787 'we the people¨
gave up a portion oI our power by social contract to the Constitution, which means that there`s a
certain portion oI our will that is no longer ours- namely any will which would in eIIect
contravene that Supreme rule oI law- and thus that will portion is not available to be either
denied or aIIirmed. Stated another way- picture ten people who have 100 "sovereignty" dollars
each. %hey come together and sign a contract saying they'll immediately exchange Iive
sovereignty dollars each Ior securing the blessings oI liberty to their posterity, ensuring domestic
tranquility, and providing Ior the common deIense. %he Iive dollars means they agree (or
consent, which is the term a positivist would likely use) to be subiect to the iudgments oI the
limited government created by the contract. At the end oI the process, they only have 95 bucks
leIt! %hey are no longer as Iully sovereign as people in a state oI nature. %o then claim that the
rule oI law empowered by those sovereignty dollars violates your sovereignty can only be true
Ior the remaining 95 units, i.e that portion oI your sovereignty not already contracted away (the
non-Constitutional areas oI liIe). |Sidenote- state law takes another BIG chunk oI the remaining
95- "%he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to
the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" (%enth Amendment)|. Based
on responses I've heard, this widespread illusion that the people oI a United State still possess
their Iull popular sovereignty is a cause oI much misplaced angst. It would be like a computer
engineer who's contracted to work Irom nine to Iive Ior pay to rebel against his boss during the
workday by saying, "I'd rather build a swing set in my backyard than a motherboard; I'm a Iree
man, now shove oII." %he workman's Iree to spend his time as he pleases oII the clock; on the
clock he's bound to uphold his contract. Similarly, it's assumed US citizens have contracted to
subiect ourselves to the Constitution- it is meaningless to speak oI the Constitution as the
supreme law oI the land otherwise. CaliIornians are part oI the "we the people oI the United
States" and by virtue oI the contract iust discussed are subiect to the US Constitution- thus the
diIIiculty in concluding that a properly interpreted Constitution overcomes the will oI the people.
Again, it's still Iine to argue that the Constitution was not properly interpreted |i.e. Judge Walker
got it wrong|. However, "II we oppose persons who hold particular oIIices or the policies they
pursue, we are Iree to vote against them or work against their policies. But we should not carry
our opposition to the point oI opposing their oIIices, or we weaken the institution oI
constitutional government" - Elder Oaks. II one argues that Judge Walker/the Iederal iudiciary
shouldn't be interpreting the Constitution, the next question would be- who should interpret the
Constitution instead? %he Constitution is truly impotent absent some level oI uniIorm and
predictable application, which necessarily requires iudgment. Who makes the calls iI not the
Iederal iudiciary?
Additionally, by Iailing to Iight against the eIIect oI Marburv v. Madison, we have arguably
permitted the Iederal iudiciary to grab the power oI constitutional interpretation which 'we the
people¨ might otherwise have allocated.
2) %he right to marry is a Iederal constitutional right binding on the whole country. Why should
the will oI CaliIornia voters determine the deIinition oI a right that applies nationwide?
CaliIornia doesn`t command a suIIiciently signiIicant portion oI the country`s population to
qualiIy their vote as the will oI the people oI the United States. Even iI we assume Ior the
moment that 'we the people¨ haven`t lost/ceded to the Iederal iudiciary that portion oI power

which deIines the US Constitutional right to marry, shouldn`t national consensus be required to
evidence the will oI the people?

W¢ can't trast tb¢ coarts
Interlocutor: 'And reallv don´t care 1or centuries-old iurisprudence. Go ahead and take a stab
at Roe v. Wade with me and that will tell vou how much care about case law setting precedent.
1 it´s not deliberatelv in the Constitution. remand the right to law-making with the people. err
on the side o1 democracv everv time. even when thev make historical mistakes. ´m also not in
1avor o1 iudicial activism. pre1er the patient process o1 rational argument to change the heart
and minds.¨
My response: I Iind your 'iI it`s not deliberately in the Constitution¨ scheme unworkable,
because Constitutional provisions have no practical meaning outside their interpretation.
Example: say you have a right to Iree speech. Does that mean you can publish your opinion
about Obama or state your stance on abortion to your sister? Perhaps. Does it mean you can
punch a poster oI Ralph Nader? Maybe. Does it mean you can start a business? It`s possible.
%o Iind out which oI these examples qualiIies as an expression oI Iree speech requires a
iudgment, an application oI law to Iacts. %he constitution is absolutely impotent absent an
interpretation. %hus, quibbling about whether rights are written or not or deliberately in the
Constitution or not doesn`t resolve the question oI who interprets, as even explicit enumerated
rights necessarily require a iudgment call in order to mean anything. Someone has got to do it-
what I don`t see in your statements is who that person or entity is. Is it you? Oscar the Grouch?
A magic 8 ball? Who?
Additionally, wouldn`t your position exclude Iundamental rights not speciIically enumerated in
the Constitution? Are you prepared to cast aside Iederal protection oI the right to privacy, the
right to marry, the right to interstate travel, and the right to procreate? Any deliberate-
ist/originalist oI the ilk you`ve described must scratch those iust Ior starters.
Also, how is the iudicial activism accusation relevant? Is not a iudicial decision itselI the result
oI a patient process oI rational argument? How is iudicial activism discerned generally? How
was it evidenced in the !errv decision?
Last, would you preIer the 'side oI democracy¨ when, as *Brandon suggested, the Alabama
(sorry Ior picking on you Alabama) maiority stripped LDS temple attenders oI their driver`s
licenses? II not, how do you determine when to check the voice oI the people quickly vs. the
patient process oI rational arguments, and who makes that decision?
'%hat the maiority oI CaliIornia voters supported Proposition 8 is irrelevant, as 'Iundamental
rights may not be submitted to |a| vote; they depend on the outcome oI no elections.¨ West
Virginia State Board oI Education v Barnette, 319 US 624, 638 (1943).
SSM vioat¢s g¢nd¢r ¢qaaity
Interlocutor: 'There is simplv no other arrangement that can ground everv human 1amilv in
gender equalitvcompanionate heterosexual monogamous marriage (as the essav entitled
Some Things hich Should ot Have een Forgotten ere Lost
in this issue terms it) is
simplv it.` o gender unequal relationship (even i1 it is called marriage`) and no gender

apartheid arrangement (with a person o1 the same sex or with no other person at all) can ground
the households o1 the human 1amilv in gender equalitv.
` Also. 1 men and women live
separate lives within their societv. a hierarchv o1 men over womenwith its attendant slide
towards malignant patriarchv--is the inevitable result. t is onlv through the widespread
existence o1 companionate heterosexual monogamous marriages that democracv. 1reedom.
prosperitv. and other goods such as state peace1ulness can continue to have strong root and be
My response: Does allowing an AIrican American to marry another AIrican American Irustrate
racial equality? Should we instead require that an AIrican American marry a Caucasian, or a
Japanese person marry a non-Japanese, to promote racial equality? How about religion- should
we mandate Catholic-Jew weddings, and bar the pairing oI two Southern Baptists, to promote
religious equality? 'One must wonder why it is necessary to prohibit same-sex marriage to
promote gender equality when it suIIices to permit interracial marriage to promote racial
¨ Allowing diIIerent-race marriage doesn`t evidence the state`s preIerence Ior or
against endogamous same-race marriage. Apartheid is an inappropriate comparison because
apartheid mandates segregation whereas SSM is merely an option (an option which is likely to
be overwhelmingly chosen by homosexuals- Iew straight people will likely marry someone oI
the same sex). %he oIIensiveness oI miscegenation laws is not merely because oI its privileging
one race above another, but that race is simply not an appropriate basis Ior limiting or granting
the privilege oI marriage. Gender is inappropriate by the same token. Last, what is the basis Ior
concluding that patriarchy is the inevitable result oI SSM? Both men and women have equal
rights in such a iurisdiction- what then would Iound the supremacy oI the males? Indeed,
traditional marriage has historically promoted gender hierarchy with women receiving the short
end oI the stick. Might not deIense oI that traditional hierarchy itselI perversely result in Iewer
women entering the institution? Much oI the tradition-based anti-SSM rhetoric is vulnerable to
that risk:
''|%|he gender equality argument oIIered by same-sex marriage opponents may mask something
that they do not seem to appreciate, namely, that it may well be that one oI the reasons that
marriage may seem to be in trouble is that proponent oI traditional marriage seem to extol
traditional gender roles and stereotypes.. those who seek to promote marriage are doing
themselves and society as a whole a disservice by suggesting a return to the good old days.` For
those women Ior whom the good old days do not look particularly good, such descriptions may
well make marriage seem less rather than more desirable.
By extolling a period in our history during which women were not viewed as equals, and by
reIusing to permit the needs oI same-sex couples and their Iamilies to be met, same-sex marriage
opponents may be doing more harm to the institution that they allegedly venerate than the
recognition oI same-sex marriage ever could.

Upposing SSM is aToat g¢nd¢r, not s¢xaa ori¢ntation
Interlocutor: 'Most o1 the arguments 1or !rop 8 that have heard are based on gender. not
sexual orientation. Those are two di11erent things... That is about gender. not sexual

My response: I concede that gender and sexual orientation are diIIerent. However, the sexual
orientation discussion is related because the gender discrimination has a disparate impact on gay
and lesbian people. %o illustrate, I draw Irom the related Iield oI employment law. Let`s say the
%ucson police department reIused to hire those who know Spanish and have lived more than a
year in Mexico. %hough this is not on its Iace race or national origin discrimination, the policy
has a 'disparate impact¨ on Mexican immigrants compared to other applicants and would thus
violate Iederal discrimination law. Similarly, because gay and lesbian people are overwhelming
represented in the population oI those seeking same-sex marriage, gender discrimination
'disparately impacts¨ a group oI people based on their sexual orientation. AIter writing this I
came across a similar passage:
'Sexual orientation discrimination can take the Iorm oI sex discrimination. Here, Ior example,
Perry is prohibited Irom marrying Stier, a woman, because Perry is a woman. II Perry were a
man, Proposition 8 would not prohibit the marriage. %hus, Proposition 8 operates to restrict
Perry`s choice oI marital partner because oI her sex. But Proposition 8 also operates to restrict
Perry`s choice oI marital partner because oI her sexual orientation; her desire to marry another
woman arises only because she is a lesbian.
Alternately, I could rebut gender discrimination on its own merits, as Judge Walker did in the
Proposition 8 case (!errv v. Schwarzenegger). Essentially, the argument is this: iI American
citizens are granted the right to marry a woman, it violates equal protection to give that right only
to men. Legal privileges may not be denied on the basis oI sex. %his is, again, the same issue as
voting- is the substance oI voting the participation oI a citizen in democracy, or is it the male-
only deIinitional aspect? Similarly, is the substance oI marriage the consensual, recognized union
oI two adults (amongst other elements), or is it the opposite-gender deIinitional aspect? I respect
the position that the substance oI marriage is that opposite-gender deIinitional aspect- but I hope
both sides would agree that there is at the least much more to marriage than its opposite-
genderness. Said !errv:
'Marriage has retained certain characteristics throughout the history oI the United States.
Marriage requires two parties to give their Iree consent to Iorm a relationship, which then Iorms
the Ioundation oI a household. %he spouses must consent to support each other and any
dependents. %he state regulates marriage because marriage creates stable households, which in
turn Iorm the basis oI a stable, governable populace. %he state respects an individual`s choice to
build a Iamily with another and protects the relationship because it is so central a part oI an
individual`s liIe.
Said an Alaska court, emphasizing a right to choose one`s liIe partner, rather than a right to
marry another oI the same sex, as Iundamental:
'Government intrusion into the choice oI a liIe partner encroaches on the intimate personal
decisions oI the individual. %he relevant question is not whether same-sex marriage is so
rooted in our traditions that it is a Iundamental right but whether the Ireedom to choose one`s
own liIe partner is so rooted in our traditions.
A right to dignity might be appealed to as well when inquiring about the necessity oI legal same-
sex marriage:

'Given that the state already recognizes a right to marry Ior opposite-sex couples, iI this is not a
suIIicient basis to extend that right to same-sex-couples, I do not know what would be. It is then
almost a selI-evident truth that same-sex couples ought to be aIIorded the same legal right to
marry in the name oI human dignity that is aIIorded to opposite-sex couples.
Regarding sexual orientation and discrimination resulting Irom a state SSM ban, the Connecticut
Supreme Court Iound:
'|W|e agree with the plaintiIIs` claim that sexual orientation meets all oI the requirements oI a
quasi-suspect classiIication. Gay persons have been subiected to and stigmatized by a long
history oI purposeIul and invidious discrimination that continues to maniIest itselI in society.
%he characteristic that deIines the members oI this groupattraction to persons oI the same
sexbears no logical relationship to their ability to perIorm in society, either in Iamilial
relations or otherwise as productive citizens. Because sexual orientation is such an essential
component oI personhood, even iI there is some possibility that a person`s sexual preIerence can
be altered, it would be wholly unacceptable Ior the state to require anyone to do so. Gay persons
also represent a distinct minority oI the population. It is true, oI course, that gay persons recently
have made signiIicant advances in obtaining equal treatment under the law. Nonetheless, we
conclude that, as a minority group that continues to suIIer the enduring eIIects oI centuries oI
legally sanctioned discrimination, laws singling them out Ior disparate treatment are subiect to
heightened iudicial scrutiny to ensure that those laws are not the product oI such historical
preiudice and stereotyping.
|b|ecause a person`s sexual orientation is so integral an aspect oI one`s identity, it is not
appropriate to require a person to repudiate or change his or her sexual orientation in order to
avoid discriminatory treatment.` n re Marriage Cases, supra, 43 Cal. 4

Soci¢ta Cons¢qa¢nc¢s

History sbows tbat monogamy is T¢st
Interlocutor: 'Good old 1ashioned monogamv iust happened to be the most success1ul societal
structure 1rom an evolutionarv point o1 view (or monogamous marriage happened to be
practiced in estern Europe which through Jared Diamondesque 1actors came to dominate the
My response: Yes, monogamy is highly conserved historically and cross-culturally, indicating its
evolutionary Iitness as an institution. Counterexamples (such as the matrilineal Musuo in China)
are Iew. On the other hand, polygyny seems to have been Iairly common: 'According to the
Ethnographic Atlas Codebook, oI 1231 societies noted, 186 were monogamous. 453 had
occasional polygyny, 588 had more Irequent polygyny, and 4 had polyandry", and interestingly
the males in those relationships (polygyny) tend to live on average 12° longer. However,
homosexual relationships, especially reproductive ones, either couldn`t or haven`t been given
much chance to prove themselves yet- so it`s inappropriate to discard them so quickly on an
evolutionarily unIit` basis. %hey should at least be given their day in court Iirst.

However, even iI they are less 'Iit,¨ what iustiIication is there Ior using evolution as a Iilter oI
Iamily types, especially when the very strains oI the colander are not natural, but rather agentic,
meaning that we choose them as a society? %hat`d be sort oI like saying 'we`ll see iI evolution
will Iavor the corn stalk I planted,¨ then either tending or poisoning it and concluding that nature
has spoken.
SSM distorts tb¢ traditiona d¢finition of marriag¢

Interlocutor: 'Gav marriage and traditional marriage cannot coexist anv more than we can
logicallv conclude that there is no di11erence between a man and a woman. A heterosexual
relationship and a homosexual relationship are not the same. and to call them both marriage`
is a distortion o1 an obvious and sel1-evident realitv, whether one is better or worse than the
other does OT need to nor should it enter the public discourse and legal debate, it onlv masks
the real truth. e simplv need to be honest and pursue a course o1 equalitv. while at the same
time recognizing the di11erences. The equalitv is achieved through equal recognition and
bene1its. and the di11erence is recognized through calling one bv one name and the other bv
another. Marriage has alwavs been de1ined as opposite gender. so what logic is there to change
this name? Do we need to get rid o1 the names men and women and replace them with it`
or unisex` or call women` men` in order to achieve gender equalitv?... The voice o1 the
Cali1ornia people did OT discriminate. and it did OT promote inequalitv. it onlv said that a
name should be preserved 1rom distortion.¨
My response: I appreciate your points. I concede that marriage has predominantly been an
opposite gender institution over time. Bryce Christensen criticized similarly in his article,
'Same-sex marriage` as verbicide: reaIIirming the linguistic and cultural heritage that once
made marriage` a vibrant word oI substance and hope¨:
'|P|opular ownership oI the language is anathema to those pressing Ior what they persist in
calling homosexual marriage. %hese activists are claiming a politically and culturally perilous
right to deIine a word by iudicial or political Iiat, even iI doing so destroys the traditional
meaning oI the word. Indeed their lexical behavior is precisely that which the British literary
scholar and Christian apologist C.S. Lewis called verbicide, the murder oI a word.
%he traditional deIinition argument Iails, though, Ior two reasons: Iirst, it is a well-known
Iallacy; two, it is not clear what traditional marriage really looks like, and that same-sex marriage
is less in keeping with traditional marriage than its absence.
First, an appeal to tradition is a popular is-ought Iallacy
. %here might be a successIul,
independent "ought" argument, but it won't derive Irom "is." An easy example illustrating why
this is a Iallacy: 'Slavery is what we`ve always done in Georgia; thus, emancipation is a bad
idea.¨ A similar example would be the very traditional ideas oI gender inequality and racism.
%here must be some argument besides mere tradition to advance the anti-SSM ball.
Second, there is signiIicant historical evidence oI same-sex marriage in many cultures
; thus,
same-sex marriage is not bereIt oI precedent and thus not clearly non-traditional. I also note that
marriage has also historically and predominantly been a union between two persons whose
sexual orientation is or is assumed to be toward the gender oI the partner- in which case, the

subset oI same-sex marriages between homosexually oriented people is traditional. Last, the
traditional deIinition argument has Iailed in two important, comparable contexts beIore: voting
and interracial marriage.
At the time oI the suIIrage movement, the traditional deIinition oI voting was by men only
Imagine iI the traditionalists won, but conceded some 'ballot-casting¨ beneIits to womensay,
they could cast ballots Ior state issues and candidates but were prohibited Irom 'voting¨ Ior the
President and U.S. Senators and Representatives. (%his is similar to granting domestic
partnership beneIits and adoption privileges to same-sex couples but denying them marriage.)
Voting would then come to have a narrow meaning based on its exclusion oI women. As
decades passed and competent, visibly equal women citizens were continually barred Irom the
privilege oI 'voting,¨ 'ballot-casting¨ would come to be viewed as more legitimate than 'voting¨
and would likely replace voting as the preIerred democratic participation (much as I Iear civil
unions compete with marriage- though perhaps with time and consensus, one would preIer civil
unions- especially iI marriage is saved as an instrument oI inequality). %he deIinition oI voting
had to be expanded to include women or voting would remain discriminatory by deIinition and
would become increasingly unaccepted in an increasingly equality-recognizing society.
Allowing women to vote does not distort nor is it a threat to the word "vote," even though the
deIinition changed. And yes, to respond to the 'replacing men` and women` inquiry¨: calling
men and women "person" or "citizen" does indeed have a great track record oI promoting gender
Interracial marriage:
Some oI those who opposed interracial marriage made a deIinitional argument as well,
contending that miscegenation is not marriage, and 'to call it marriage` is a distortion oI an
obvious and selI-evident reality.¨ Similar 'destroying the sanctity oI marriage¨ rhetoric was also
wielded vociIerously to oppose the legalization oI interracial marriage. %he interlocutor says it
is Iutile to ignore the 'obvious and selI-evident reality¨ that men and women are diIIerent.
Indeed, it would also be inappropriate to deny that black and white people are diIIerent: their
skin color is visibly dissimilar! The question is not whether differences exs9; it is whether
differences 2a99er. As popular awareness increased oI liIelong-committed black/white couples
who raised Iamilies and love each other and are equal and similar in every other way,
miscegenation laws looked increasingly ludicrous in a Constitutional republic 'dedicated to the
proposition that all men are created equal.¨ Here, as in voting, it became expedient to look at the
substance oI the institution, not its past deIinition, in order to preserve it. Were miscegenation
excluded today because it 'distorts¨ the deIinition oI marriage, marriage would suIIer loss oI
legitimacy and popularity because oI the taint oI discrimination enshrined in its deIinition.
Similarly, some straight, opposite-gender couples may begin to request civil unions so as to
eschew the same-sex-excluding institution oI marriage. One straight man/woman couple in
Britain made iust such a request (though perhaps Ior diIIerent reasons) in November 2010
More and more same-sex couples are conspicuously parenting, reproducing, and keeping liIe-
long commitments oI love and caretaking to each other:

'Constitutional amendments or not, gay and lesbian Iamilies are not going back into the closet.
One-third oI Iemale same-sex households and more than one-IiIth oI male same-sex households
include biological children under eighteen. Eight U.S. states and the District oI Columbia
currently allow a child to have two legal mothers or two legal Iathers. And 40 percent oI the
nation`s adoption agencies report that they have placed children with gay or lesbian parents.
%his is a reality that won`t go away.
In a legal and societal environment that denies them marriage, the heightened awareness
occasioned by their very presence contributes to marriage`s decline as marriage is deIined more
by who it excludes
than the purposes it IulIills and the obligations it imposes. UnIortunately
in my view, committed same-sex couples oIten become walking advertisements Ior the
legitimacy oI cohabitation and the irrelevance oI marriage.
In the country where SSM has been legal the longest (the Netherlands- since 2001), '%he Dutch
are quick to say, %here is no gay marriage hereit`s iust the same marriage Ior everybody.`
And it`s obvious when you think about it. %he legal status is the same Ior same-sex couples and
diIIerent-sex couples, so there is no need Ior a separate term like gay marriage` or same-sex
marriage.` A better term Ior the subiect. would be something like equal access to marriage Ior
same-sex couples.
`¨ Similarly, we no longer speak oI miscegenation, but only oI marriage-
because the legal status is the same Ior mixed-race and same-sex couples.
Said one LDS member:
'How can our own Iamilies possibly truly love, accept and support us when they are told to use
their money, time and means seeking to destroy our agency to live in loving, stable
relationships? What message and harm result when we are repeatedly taught about the temporal
and eternal blessings oI marriage and Iamily but are then told in word and action that we, God`s
Gay and Lesbian children, are inherently so bad that we do not deserve any oI those blessings, or
anything that resembles those blessings in this liIe. We are taught love, marriage and Iamily are
good and oI God. except Ior us. that we are so vile that somehow merely participating in
marriage and Iamily would cheapen and undermine all marriages and Iamilies; as iI Gays have
some kind oI marital cooties that will degrade the sanctity oI all marriages and destroy
civilization as we know it. Did granting slaves Ireedom cheapen and undermine Ireedom Ior all
or did it actually strengthen Ireedom and increase the numbers oI those willing to Iight to
maintain it? Did allowing women the right to vote weaken and undermine democracy and society
or did it strengthen and broaden it? Did allowing God`s Black children the priesthood destroy the
sanctity oI priesthood or deIile the temple? Or did it actually strengthen the priesthood and puriIy
the temple through diminished preiudice and increased love and unity?
As noted above, deIenders oI tradition because 'it`s always been that way¨ or because 'it has
passed the test oI time¨ must distinguish their support Irom also endorsing slavery, gender
hierarchy, and racism- all which 'passed the test oI time¨ and Iunctioned Ior centuries. %hough
Iiercely traditional, all these institutions were Ilawed, and overturning them proved a superior
alternative to maintaining the status quo Irom both a deontological (all people should be treated
equally without regard to gender or race being the germane duty) and a utilitarian perspective
(the greatest net beneIit accrues by overturning compared to the status quo). Legalizing SSM is
superior to the alternative oI maintaining the opposite gender-exclusive status quo Ior the same

types oI deontological and utilitarian reasons. I close with the words oI the Connecticut Supreme
'Like these once prevalent views, our conventional understanding oI marriage must yield to a
more contemporary appreciation oI the rights entitled to constitutional protection. Interpreting
our state constitutional provisions in accordance with Iirmly established equal protection
principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise
qualiIied same sex partner oI their choice. %o decide otherwise would require us to apply one set
oI constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others.

Cay promiscaity wi taint marriag¢ Ty r¢dacing marita fid¢ity

Interlocutor: 'Studies show that gav men have on average more than 250 partners. t is women
that tame male promiscuitv- and women would be absent 1rom male-male marriage. The chaos
o1 sexual irresponsibilitv (especiallv in1idelitv and promiscuitv within marriage) will grow. and
the moral expectations o1 the basic institution o1 societv will 1ade as the sexual ethic o1 gav and
lesbian li1estvles is embraced as marriage.
Also. Legalizing same-sex marriage would be
another notch in what !ro1essor Helen Alvare calls The turn toward the sel1 in the law o1
marriage and 1amilv.
` t would encourage gav 1luiditv. promiscuitv. in1idelitv. and instabilitv
in marriage. However. i1 we want to 1oster 1idelitv. monogamv. responsibilitv. and emotional
bonding in marriages. the rede1inition o1 marriage to include same-sex couples would be
counter-productive. The moralitv o1 marriage would be the most devastating casualtv o1 the
legalization o1 same-sex marriage.
My response: I will make Iive responses.
Response 1:
It would be unsurprising that gay men on average are more promiscuous than straight men. %hey
lack (generally) the civilizing institution oI marriage, approved sexual outlets, and societal
acceptance compared to straight men. Also, the area oI the male brain that processes thoughts
about sex is 50° larger on average than the Iemale brain, and men`s brains are practically
saturated with testosterone
. Males are more visually oriented when it comes to sex, and the
number oI thoughts about sex that sexually mature males have per day is on average several
times that oI their Iemale counterparts oI the same age. %hough there may not be a strong link
between sexual desire and promiscuity, it would be unsurprising that gay men, like straight men,
are more sexually active, more sexually creative, and interested in a greater number oI sexual
variety and sexual partners than women. It is not altogether unlikely that there would be more
straight sex, including more sexual partners, were women as interested in sex as men are- and
thus it would be unsurprising to learn that gay men are on average more promiscuous than
straight men. However, the Iigure you cite greatly exaggerates gay male promiscuity. %he 250
average you cite came Irom a San Francisco Bay Area sample recruited Irom bars, sex clubs, and
sex-cruising spots
. %he consensus numbers are more likely similar to these descriptions:


'Now it does appear that a signiIicant minority oI American gay males do have lots oI sexual
partners. Moreover, the median American gay male does have somewhat more sexual partners
than the median straight male (likely ten to twenty liIetime partners Ior gays as opposed to Iive
to ten Ior straights.).
%he General Social Survey Iound that straight women reported having had on average three sex
partners since age 18, straight men six, and gay men ten
. %hus, gay men are not on average as
hyper-promiscuous as you claim. Plus, it may be that a minority oI gay men are responsible Ior
the predominance oI the promiscuity- and it could be argued that group is less likely to enter
SSM than the less promiscuous subset.
Response 2:
Homosexuals may be asexual, on average, more oIten than heterosexuals (though the Iollowing
Iinding is limited since it was not based on a random sample):
'An online poll suggests that there is an overrepresentation oI gays and bisexuals among
asexuals, with 11° oI the asexuals polled selI-identiIying as gay, 24° as bi, and only 43° as
. One hypothetical explanation is that among sexuals, large percentages are homo/bi-
romantic or homo/bi-physical but they identiIy as straight because their sexual attractions are
exclusively hetero, whereas among asexuals the diversity oI romantic and physical attractions
comes to the IoreIront. Alternatively, asexuality may be an eIIect oI some oI the same prenatal
biological Iactors that cause homosexuality/bisexuality, in which case the correlation may be a
result oI a common origin. Another way oI looking at the poll data is that a gay person is about 8
times more likely to be asexual than a straight person, and a bisexual person is about 18 times
more likely to be asexual than a straight person (assuming a 3° prevalence rate in the general
population Ior selI-identiIied gays and also 3° Ior bi).
Response 3:
It is well-established that men are more promiscuous than women
- and that includes both
heterosexual and homosexual men. However, lesbian couples do not contain men- yet Iew iI any
who raise the promiscuity contention would permit SSM Ior lesbians, even iI lesbians exhibited
on average even greater Iidelity that straight couples or straight women. II marital Iidelity were
truly the aim, then there would be no reason to bar lesbians- in Iact, they may be preIerred to
opposite-sex couples who, due to the Iact that they each include a man, may be on average more
Response 4:
Why is SSM counter-productive to Iostering emotional bonding between spouses? It is not at all
clear that same-sex couples do not bond emotionally with their partners in an inIerior way to
same-sex couples. %he rush oI oxytocin (a bonding/trust neurochemical) associated with orgasm
in both men and women still occurs when same-sex couples kiss, hug, touch, and have sex.
Authentic communication engendered by commitment and a shared liIe with a partner bear the
potential to Ioster emotional bonding in same-sex as in opposite-sex pairings. Male and Iemale
brains are, on average, diIIerent. Arguably, due to the decreased median diIIerence between the
brains oI same-sex spouses, an elevated level oI similarity and understanding may grant an
emotional bonding advantage.

Response 5:
'Remember that two-day, Iour-part Marital Aptitude %est you were required to pass beIore you
were allowed to get your license? Remember when the social worker visited your home and
interviewed your neighbors to make sure you were IaithIul enough to your partner to qualiIy Ior
marriage? Remember how, beIore they issued your license, the authorities looked up your age
group and ethnic group and religious group to check that the odds oI your staying married were
up to par? No?...
|%|he Iidelity double standardthe insistence that gay people become model marital citizens
beIore they can have the right to marryis the bitterest oI all the ironies in the gay-marriage
debate, and also the most twisted. |Critics| treat gay people not as individuals but as
averages. it is certainly possible Ior |a gay couple| to stay IaithIul to each other, and many do,
iust as many straight couples do not. Even iI all gay-male couples were adulterous, their number
would not approach that oI adulterous heterosexual husbands. But all such considerations are
deemed inconsequential, because the gay average is below par. One wonders: Exactly what
proportion oI gay men would need to be IaithIul in order to earn homosexuals the legal right to
marry? Seventy-Iive to 80 percent- the male heterosexual average, iI you trust surveys? Ninety
percent? And how many heterosexuals would agree that their own legal right to marry should
depend on the average Iidelity oI other heterosexuals?
Barring SSM because oI the promiscuity oI gay men penalizes both homosexually oriented men
and women Ior not living up to the rules oI a club they`re excluded Irom, predicts without merit
the Iuture behavior oI a group oI people, assumes that any increase in heterosexual couples`
divorce or adultery would be unacceptable regardless oI costs to homosexuals, and applies a
Iidelity prerequisite to homosexuals that is not applied to heterosexuals. As with Iertility (see
chapter 4), it seems that by exposing inconsistencies we have unearthed yet another Iacade- one
that is no more pro-Iidelity than the Iertility-based SSM opposition was pro-Iertility. Instead, it
is merely anti-SSM.

SSM "w¢ak¢ns marriag¢": promot¢ dom¢stic partn¢rsbip or civi anions inst¢ad

Interlocutor: '1 SS couples want health bene1its and hospital rights 1or their partner. then sure.
give them civil unions or domestic partnerships that include those bene1its- but do not. under anv
circumstances. give them marriage. SSM weakens the institution o1 marriage.¨
My response: I will now show one reason cluster why SSM strengthens, rather than weakens,
marriage. Prohibiting SSM has led SS couples to creatively promote alternate institutions such
as second-parent adoption, civil unions, domestic partnerships, cohabitation, etc. %o the extent
that heterosexuals avail themselves oI these marriage competitors, marriage is disincentivized

as a result oI banning SSM. Said Jonathan Rauch, author oI Gav Marriage. hv it is Good 1or
Gavs. Good 1or Straights. and Good 1or America.
'%he main and great beneIit oI SSM, however, would be its normalization oI marriage. Marriage
depends Ior its success on its uniqueness and its universality. %hose, in turn, depend on two
principles. One is II you want the beneIits oI marriage, you have to get married.` %he other is

Marriage is Ior everyone- no exclusions, no exceptions.` Gay marriage reinIorces both
principles. It makes marriage not iust a norm (the one Ior heterosexuals) but the norm (Ior
everybody). In doing so, it oIIers the best hope oI stopping the proliIeration- aided, perversely,
by the anti-gay-marriage movement- oI marriage-like and marriage-lite` alternatives.
Many same-sex couples perceive that these second-class 'alternative¨ institutions evidence that
their relationships are not as valuable or worthy as opposite-sex couples` relationships. Indeed, a
signiIicant portion oI the harm alleged by black-white couples who were Iorbidden to marry
under miscegenation laws was their dignitary interest. Ordering that the couples be allowed
access to the gold standard that is marriage appropriately recognized the equality oI same and
mixed race couples. Similarly, the dignitary interest oI same-sex couples is not satisIied by a
'back oI the bus¨ type concession typiIied by civil unions and domestic partnerships. It is
unsurprising that many same-sex couples reIrain Irom availing themselves oI these separate-but-
equal, !lessv-like alternatives
, but when marriage is available they Irequently iump on
'%he very intensity oI the opposition to same-sex marriage ironically conIirms this
understanding; the stakes Ieel so high to the opponents because they sense the Iragility oI their
communal bonds generally and thereby elevate the importance oI maintaining the conventional
boundaries oI marriage, the special sense oI belonging which that status has traditionally
implied. What the opponents Iail to see is that the advocates Ior same-sex marriage are investing
that status with new strength on two scores. First oI all, the advocates are not asking Ior
communal approval oI their right to have sexual relations with whomever they might want. %he
advocates are asking Ior an opportunity to bind themselves to a liIe-long commitment to a
marital partner in Justice Kennedy`s words in Lawrence, 'a personal bond that is more
enduring¨ than 'intimate sexual conduct¨ as such.15 %he same-sex partners seek to obligate
themselves to one another, to create a strong bond oI belonging between them. %his IaithIulness
has always been at the core oI the marital status Ior mixed-sex couples, though in recent years
the existence oI a permanent (or even a long-term) commitment has considerably Irayed and
this weakening oI the marital bond has itselI contributed to the diminution oI the sense oI
belonging in our culture generally.
Second, the advocates Ior same-sex marriage are asking to embed their mutual commitment to
one another in the context oI a communal recognition. %hey might have isolated themselves
Irom the broader community by simply living together and negotiating private contractual
obligations between themselves (or seeking the Iinancial advantages oI the marriage status
through civil unions, but without the solemnity oI the mutual commitment that marriage has
traditionally represented). %here is thus a two-Iold commitment that same-sex couples are
seeking: a binding commitment to one another and a mutual commitment oI this couple, a
promise oI IaithIulness, to the community in which they live notwithstanding the past
indignities that this community had heaped on them.
Fully understood, this eIIort by same-sex couples to achieve legally recognized marriage is an
act oI Iorgiveness, a wish to honor and aIIiliate with the community that had once condemned
them. II the opponents oI same-sex marriage could see the proponents` claims in this light, they

might also see how their own deepest desires Ior binding commitment to their Iamilies and to
their community could Iind new strength.
Civil unions and domestic partnerships threaten marriage Ior two reasons.
1) %hey compete with marriage, i.e. many homosexuals and some heterosexuals have
and will
likely in coming years avail themselves oI some or all oI the beneIits and responsibilities
associated with each:
'%he importance oI marriage Ior society's general health and stability also explains why the
commonly mooted alternative to gay marriagea so-called civil unionis not enough.Some
gays think it would be better to limit their ambitions to that, rather than seeking Iull social
equality, Ior Iear oI provoking a backlash.
Yet that would be both wrong in principle and damaging Ior society. Marriage, as it is commonly
viewed in society, is more than iust a legal contract. Moreover, to establish something short oI
real marriage Ior some adults would tend to undermine the notion Ior all. Why shouldn't
everyone, in time, downgrade to civil unions? Now that really would threaten a Iundamental
institution oI civilisation.
2) %hey devalue the understanding oI marriage in comparatively suggesting that marriage is
either A) merely a contract between two people, B) a bundle oI beneIits, or C) both:
'%o understand how to preserve the health oI marriage as a social institution, and also to
understand why there is no substitute Ior same-sex marriage, it is necessary to understand where
marriage gets its special power: how it works. And this depends crucially on understanding that
marriage is not merely a contract between two people. It is a contract between two people and
their communitv.
I remember this 'two parties ¹ community¨ idea oI marriage sticking out to me when I read
Bruce HaIen`s Covenant Hearts. %his construct oI marriage is buttressed by noting that private
contracts can take place between only two partners, whereas marriage must take place beIore a
magistrate or clergyman; essentially, a third party is always present to symbolize the public`s
interest in the union (usually, there are many guests as well). %he author oI hen Gav !eople
Get Married. hat Happens hen Societies Legalize Same-Sex Marriage studied the eIIects oI
SSM in the Netherlands, which has legalized SSM since 2001. She wrote:
'As a deeply rooted social and cultural institution, marriage is powerIul in ways we might not
always appreciate. |the strong reaction oI a Iather to his daughter`s marriage| illustrates the
proIound meaning and value that the act oI marrying has Ior many people other than the two
getting married. |M|arriage is an experience that connects the couple to other people in their
social circleswhether the couple wants it or not. Ironically, at a time when many
demographers take Ior granted the deinstitutionalization oI marriage` Ior heterosexual couples,
that is, the Iading away oI the social and legal meanings oI marriage that structure how married
people live their lives, the experiences oI gay and lesbian couples suggest that marriage has a
continuing relevance and meaning.
%hird-party presence is not as highly conserved in civil unions and domestic partnerships, and is
almost wholly absent Irom cohabitations. %hese three marriage competitors, by virtue oI their

diverse expectations and understandings, don`t possess what marriage does- a clear, bright-line
understanding oI the diIIerence between married and non-married. Very Iew understand what a
civil union in a particular state means, or what expectations do and do not attach to a particular
iurisdiction`s domestic partnership, nor even when someone is domestically partnered or civilly
united. %he deIinitions oI domestic-partner programs, Ior instance, vary by sponsor
. %here is
much less conIusion about what marriage means and who is and isn`t married- and it this
'standard package¨ clarity itselI which contributes to marriage`s power. (I would also make the
ancillary note here that in a pluralist, church-and-state-separate society like America, this reason
also argues Ior keeping civil marriage rather than 'getting government out oI the marriage
¨ %aking government out means a more case-by-case, intrusive evaluation oI
whether or not two people are married. %he loss oI a common marital currency impoverishes the
institution. Plus, 'Secular rather than religious authorization oI marriage has been a consistent
tradition in the United States. %he author oI the preeminent nineteenth-century legal treatise on
marriage and divorce showed his commitment to state authorization by calling marriage a civil
status`; he dismissed as too absurd to require a word oI reIutation. the idea that any
government could, consistently with the general well-being, permit this institution to become
merely a thing oI bargain between men and women, and not regulate it.
¨ For these and other
reasons, I would argue against the vociIerous position oI at least one Iriend oI mine that
government should stop regulating and distributing marriage).
%hus, the 'common currency¨ aspect partially explains the magic oI marriage (Ior a rebuttal oI
this position which argues that 'Marriage is not the right dividing line,
¨ see Nancy PolikoII`s
2009 evond (Straight and Gav) Marriage. Jaluing All Families Under the Law, chapter 7,
'Valuing All Families Under the Law.¨ Another reason marriage is the gold standard is that it
ties beneIits to burdens in many inIormal and Iormal ways. Legal beneIits, societal expectations
oI caretaking and commitment, etc. require marital parties to assume the burdens as well as the
beneIits. Cohabitation is the most egregious oIIender in decoupling burdens and beneIits, and
most traditional advocates eschew it as a marriage alternative:
'What |conservatives| miss is that a growing number oI homosexuals are acting married and
being regarded by their heterosexual peers as married in all but law. %he risk is that the culture
and the law will part ways as gay people set up what amount to common-law marriages,
becoming spouses unoIIicially but cohabitants in the eyes oI the law. %he very distinction
between marriage and cohabitation blurs as couples` behavior, rather than their legal status,
comes to be accepted as the dividing line. the growing visibility oI unmarried gay couples may
legitimize cohabitation instead. %he marriage ban turns gays into walking billboards Ior the
irrelevance oI marriage.
Civil unions and domestic partnerships, in at least some oI their varieties, ioin cohabitation in
decoupling beneIits and burdens (at least much more than marriage). For instance, the mere
addition oI a domestic partner to an employee`s health beneIit plan doesn`t pull much weight as
Iar as society`s elevated expectation oI that partner`s commitment or caretaking. Marriage does:
'SSM, then, clariIies and reinIorces the key message to people who are embarking on
coupledom: marriage is Ior everybody, marriage is uniqueno exceptions, exclusions, or
excuses. In doing so, gay matrimony bolsters marriage`s status as the gold standard Ior
committed relationships, at a time when marriage`s competitors are gaining ground. And in so

doing it also preserves and strengthens marriage`s legitimacy and sustainability as a social and
legal institution. It stabilizes marriage Ior the long haul.
When it became obvious that blacks were not children and that women could think Ior
themselves, the country had to make a choice: expand the Iranchise or see it lose its legitimacy.
Marriage`s position today is similar. straights-only marriage could soon have the dubious
distinction oI being the discriminatorv liIestyle choice.` Cohabitation and partnership may
emerge as ethically modern, while marriage becomes your Iather`s Oldsmobile.
Also, '|%|he experience in Europe and in states like Vermont and CaliIornia suggests that
alternatives to marriage are useIul only iI they are transitional statuses on the way to Iull equality
Ior same-sex couples.
%hough more iustiIications could be provided, a preIerence Ior SSM over competitors such as
cohabitation, civil unions, and domestic partnerships is well-supported based on the reasons

SSM contriTat¢s to famiy Tr¢akdown

Interlocutor: 'The breakdown o1 the 1amilv is one o1 the greatest tragedies in historv. Children
are growing up in single parent 1amilies. growing up without a 1ather. and the education and
povertv and drug problems that result are drastic. SSM weakens the institution o1 marriage.¨
My response: You`ve pinned the crime on the wrong man. SSM is not the cause oI society`s ills.
More likely criminals Ior the lack oI education, poverty, mental health, drug, and crime problems
we observe include
O Divorce
O Negative inIluences Irom the media
O Materialism
O Absentee Iathers
O Families that lack a stay-at-home parent
O Co-habitation beIore marriage
O Pornography
O Unemployment, and/or a poor economy
O Parental drug use/abuse
O Parental alcohol use/abuse
O Drug use/abuse among teens or children
O %een sexual involvement/activity
O Alcohol use/abuse among teens or children
O Adultery
O Poor schools or quality oI education

%he existence oI social problems does not argue against SSM absent a causative link between
SSM and those problems. Causa proxima. non remota spectatur - the immediate, and not the
remote cause is to be considered. Said one in a law review article:
'Opponents oI same-sex marriage like to talk about morality, but their eagerness to scapegoat
innocent people Ior social problems that those people have nothing to do with has moral
implications oI its own.
Rather, same-sex couples may instead build up the Iamily:
'|A|lthough controversy surrounds same-sex marriage and lesbian and gay Iamilies with
children, these Iamilies appear to be remarkably similar structurally to other post-modern
Iamilies Iormed through adoption, AR%, and remarriage. Many appear to hew both toward
heteronormativity in terms oI adult-aIIective binary and mutual relationships and toward post-
modernity in their expansive kin networks and embrace oI social and biological kin.
Additionally, why wouldn`t pro-Iamily organizations spend their limited resources attacking
these more culpable criminals, rather than lynching the questionable-at-best criminal oI SSM?
Has the church come out as publicly or in as big a way on any (allegedly) pro-Iamily issue
besides opposing SSM since the Family Proclamation came out in 1995? For instance, the
church could instead Iocus its political capital on divorce, drug use, poverty, keeping one parent
at home, media, or materialism. %hey could even Iight the emphasis on erotic/romantic love in a
bid to strengthen marriage. Over the last 50 years, erotic/romantic love has come to be viewed
as an increasingly necessary reason to get and to stay married:
'In the eighteenth century, people began to adopt the radical new idea that love should be Iree to
choose their marriage partners on the basis oI love. %he sentimentalization oI the love-based
marriage in the nineteenth century and its sexualization in the twentieth each represented a
logical step in the evolution oI this new approach to marriage.
%his shiIt is untraditional and has arguably hobbled marriage`s stability. Very high expectations
oI selI-IulIillment and romance have weakened the institution because such ends are not
typically Iound quickly, easily, or in consistently abundant quantities in marriage. Romantic
love, Ior instance, is a decidedly brieI biological reality (usually around six months
). Even de-
emphasizing (though not eliminating) erotic/romantic love as the or the primary reason to get and
to stay married will arguably reduce divorce, increase healthy marital expectations, and thus
strengthen marriage more than keeping the institution Irom homosexuals. One oI my Iavorite,
and I think eIIective marriage-promoting quotes Irom President Hinckley:

'%here seems to be a superstition among many thousands oI our young who hold hands and
smooch in the drive-ins that marriage is a cottage surrounded by perpetual hollyhocks to which a
perpetually young and handsome husband comes home to a perpetually young and ravishing
wiIe. When the hollyhocks wither and boredom and bills appear, the divorce courts are
iammed.. Anyone who imagines that bliss is normal is going to waste a lot oI time running
around and shouting that he has been robbed.. LiIe is like an old-time rail iourneydelays,
sidetracks, smoke, dust, cinders, and iolts, interspersed only occasionally by beautiIul vistas and
thrilling bursts oI speed. %he trick is to thank the Lord Ior letting you have the ride.
Even iI this angle is reiected as tenuous, certainly campaigns against adultery, divorce, and
cohabitation are more eIIectively targeted than opposing SSM. Advocating Ior maternity leave
and health insurance beneIits are two other candidates more amenable to the public square, iI
that`s where the advocacy is desired. As argued in the 'SSM Weakens Marriage`¨ section,
prohibiting SSM may weaken marriage more than promoting SSM. As noted by other
, in concert with the church`s anti-homosexual approach in opposing the ERA, the
church`s pro-Iamily public/cooperative/political capital has been disproportionately allocated in
anti-homosexual endeavors.
SSM wi mak¢ civiization com¢ crasbing down

Interlocutor: 'e must. de1end [traditional marriage] i1 we are to preserve societv as we know
[]n our time. the inevitable. ultimate social consequences o1 letting evervone do their
own thing in regard to marriageand speci1icallv in regard to legalizing same-sex marriage
will be. devastating. A weakening o1 the institution o1 marriage is certain. As that institution is
the 1oundation o1 social order. a weakening o1 social order is inevitable.
` God rained down
1ire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah 1or not doing evervthing thev could to stomp out
homosexualitv. Rome 1ell 1or the same reason. SSM is a radical blow to the 1amilv. The
!roclamation on the Familv explicitlv warns that the disintegration o1 the 1amilv will bring
upon individuals. communities. and nations the calamities 1oretold bv ancient and modern
prophets. ¨
My response: %hat is certainly a very serious concern. However, there are three possible reasons
why perhaps we should be cautious about an impulsive response to SSM based on the Iear oI
God`s punishment. BeIore expounding these three, however, I must inquire: What exactly is the
traditional Iamily the interlocutor wants to preserve?
'When anti-gay advocates use the term traditional,` I always wonder what tradition and what
time. Do we support early 19
-century traditional marriages when married women had no legal
standing, could not own property, sign contracts, or legally control any earned wages?
¨ Said
Valerie Hudson:
'II the telos oI marriage is gender equalitya teaching oI how the two halves oI humanity are to
relate to one another so that when new members oI humanity are brought Iorth they will be

taught this correct principle Irom birththen the student`s question was right on the money.
'%raditional¨ marriage is simply not what LDS members believe marriage is, Ior 'traditional¨
marriage is based on a hierarchy oI men over women, and oppression oI women in all Iacets oI
society based on the template Iound in 'marriage.¨ Given the greater light and knowledge
revealed to the LDS, it would be abominable to stand together with those who advocate
'traditional¨ marriage, Ior it is the opposite oI what marriage means, we believe, to God.
Wrote another:
'It is hard to think oI a bigger aIIront to tradition than allowing married women to own property
independently oI their husbands. In hat is Marriage For?, E.J. GraII quotes a nineteenth-
century New York legislator as saying that allowing wives to own property would aIIront both
God and nature, 'degrading the holy bonds oI matrimony |and| striking at the root oI those
divinely ordained principles upon which is built the superstructure oI our society.¨ In 1844 a
New York legislative committee said that permitting married women to control their own
property would lead to inIidelity in the marriage bed, a high rate oI divorce, and increased
Iemale criminality,` and would turn marriage Irom its high and holy purpose` into something
arranged Ior convenience and sensuality.` A British parliamentarian denounced the proposal as
contrary not only to the law oI England but to the law oI God.
%he rhetoric sounds Iamiliar.
In her book, Marriage. A Historv, Stephanie Coontz shares her belieI that 'marriage adds
something extra. the highest expression oI commitment in our culture and comes packaged
with exacting expectations about responsibility, Iidelity, and intimacy. %hese commonly held
expectations and codes oI conduct Ioster the predictability and security that make daily living
¨ Many LDS people doubtlessly concur with her belieI. In the book Coontz details the
radical evolution oI marriage, which has experienced intense transition in the last two centuries.
She noted that nearly every generation presumes that marriage was better in the preceding
'|F|or thousands oI years people have been proclaiming a crisis in marriage and pointing
backward to better days. %he ancient Greeks complained bitterly about the declining morals oI
wives. %he Romans bemoaned their high divorce rates, which they contrasted with an earlier era
oI Iamily stability. %he European settlers in America began lamenting the decline oI the Iamily
and the disobedience oI women and children almost as soon as they stepped oII the boats.
%he invention oI a past Iilled with good marriages
,` Kaler concluded, is one way people
express discontent about other aspects oI contemporary liIe.
She continues, pointing out that most oI the 'new¨ Iamily trends are actually old, and many oI
the old aspects are actually new:
'Furthermore, many oI the things people think are unprecedented in Iamily liIe today are not
actually new. Almost every marital and sexual arrangement we have seen in recent years,
however startling it may appear, has been tried somewhere beIore. %here have been societies
and times when nonmarital sex and out-oI-wedlock births were more common and widely
accepted that they are today. StepIamilies were much more numerous in the past. Even divorce

rates have been higher in some regions and periods than they are in Europe and North America
On the other hand, some things that people believe to be traditional were actually relatively
recent innovations. %hat is the case Ior the tradition` that marriage has to be licensed by the
state or sanctiIied by the church. Even the Catholic Church long held that iI a man and woman
said they had privately agreed to marry, whether they said those words in the kitchen or out by
the haystack, they were in Iact married. For more than a thousand years the church iust took
their word Ior it.
Having a single breadwinner, high marriage rates, and marrying young are also relatively recent:
'Until |the 1950`s|, relying on a single breadwinner had been rare. For thousands oI years, most
women and children had shared the tasks oI breadwinning with men. Ior the Iirst time, a
maiority oI marriages in Western Europe and North America consisted oI a Iull-time homemaker
supported by a male earner. Also new in the 1950s was the cultural consensus that everyone
should marry and that people should wed at a young age. For hundreds oI years, European rates
oI marriage had been much lower, and the age oI marriage much higher. the baby boom oI the
1950s was likewise a departure Irom the past, because birthrates in Western Europe and North
America had Iallen steadily during the previous hundred years.¨
%he idea that a husband owned the body oI his wiIe and could not thereIore rape her (the marital
rape exception) used to be common (up until the 1980`s)
. %he home used to be a sanctuary
that state authorities would not invade in order to protect women Irom violent wiIe-battering
husbands. Now, 'legislation and police directives allow public authorities to breach the sacred
precincts` in order to arrest violent men.
Birth control used to be available only to married couples, until the historic Eisenstadt case
'denied the state`s right to distinguish between citizens oI diIIering marital status.
During the latter 19
century, 'Many states put stricter controls on marrying, guarding the
altar,` as one historian has called it, using the public power oI the state to raise the age oI consent
and to instigate hygiene-based or eugenic` requirements, supposed to saIeguard the next
generation by reIusing to license people with venereal disease or mental incapacities to have
¨ Other states made divorce very diIIicult to obtain by taking away their omnibus
(catchall) clauses as grounds Ior divorce, limiting the acceptable grounds to Iactors such as
adultery, abandonment, and habitual drukenness. '|C|onservative and religious voices held that
a man and a woman, who have sinned against the law oI marriage, |should| be kept by law Irom
marrying one another.`
Love (romantic, erotic, and companionate) as a Iundamental reason Ior marriage is a radical new
'|M|arriage was not primarily about the needs and desires oI a man and woman and the children
they produced. Marriage had as much to do with getting good in-laws and increasing one`s
Iamily labor Iorce as it did with Iinding a liIetime companion and raising a beloved child.
I would also point out that a traditional construction oI marriage, iI looking at the balance oI
history, supports a much more signiIicant 'property¨ or 'ownership¨ element (namely, oI the

husband owning the wiIe as property) than modern day deIenders oI traditional marriage would
preIer to acknowledge:
'%hrough much oI its history, marriage was primarily about Iamily alliances, the consolidation
and preservation oI wealth and power, and/or the practical division oI labor Ior Iamily survival.
II love entered into it that was a bonus.
Monogamy-only rather than polygyny or both is arguably a new state oI aIIairs. Robust
enIorcement oI consent oI both parties is also a recent addition to the institution, one that I
presume most traditionalists would not oppose. Coontz:
'|Marriage| was too vital an economic and political institution to be entered into solely on the
basis oI something as irrational as love. Because marriage was too important a contract to be
leIt up to the two individuals involved, kin, neighbors, and other outsiders, such as iudges,
priests, or government oIIicials, were usually involved in negotiating a match. not until the late
eighteenth century, and then only in Western Europe and North America, did the notion oI Iree
choice and marriage Ior love triumph as a cultural ideal.
Would traditional marriage deIenders advocate a return to a time when women generally needed
to marry in order to gain economic security and legal status? How about when coverture was
still binding? From !ublic Jows. a Historv o1 Marriage and the ation:
'Under the common law, a woman was absorbed into her husband`s legal and economic persona
upon marrying, and her husband gained the civic presence she lost. the wiIe`s marital
dependency so compromised her ability to act Ior herselI in public that single women, too, being
potential wives, were oIten treated as lacking civic independence.
How about when it was much harder to live the single liIe? From Marriage. A Historv:
'Women`s legal and economic dependence on men and men`s domestic dependence on women
was the Iourth Iactor that had long driven people to get and stay married. But during the 1970s
and 1980s women won legal autonomy and made huge strides toward economic selI-suIIiciency.
At the same time, the proliIeration oI laborsaving consumer goods such as permanent-press
Iabrics, ready-made Ioods, and automatic dishwashers undercut men`s dependence on women`s

In a recent discussion on this subiect I heard one wry concluding remark: 'Marriage has more to
Iear Irom dishwasher salesmen than same-sex couples.¨
No-Iault divorce represents another signiIicant change. Reliable birth control and contraception
have impacted marriage as well. 'Only in the last hundred years have women had the
independence to make their marital choices without having to bow to economic need and social
¨ %he Iall oI the acceptability oI wiIe beating is another signiIicant change, as is the
Iall oI the marital rape exception (though both have yet to Iall Iully). %he prevalence oI the
legitimate/illegitimate status oI children has declined. Due to the rise oI Ieminism and other
movements, cultural norms about male protection oI Iemale purity have changed drastically, as
has adherence to Victorian morals. Cohabitation, solitary living, Iemale workIorce participation,
and later age oI Iirst marriage all either cause or indicate changes. Employment laws, health

laws, and business practices extending beneIits to unmarried partners all alter the landscape.
'%he reproductive revolution has shaken up all the relationships once taken Ior granted between
sex, marriage, conception, childbirth, and parenting. People who could not become parents
beIore can now do so in such bewildering combinations that a child can potentially have Iive
diIIerent parents: a sperm donor, an egg donor, a birth mother, and the social Iather and mother
who raise the child.
%o those who claim:
'|%|he principle harm` done by marriage-like registered partnerships` was to ampliIy the
dissolution oI the once vital bond between marriage and procreation. Sterile by deIinition, the
concept oI same-sex marriage strips the heart out oI the traditional institution, to the conIusion
and disorientation oI society as a whole, and oI the young in particular,¨ Allan Carlson replies:
'In truth, though, the bond oI procreation and marriage was already seriously weakened by the
prior legal embrace oI contraception within marriage, by the intentionally childless marriage, by
elimination oI illegitimacy` as a legal category, and by recognition in law oI heterosexual
. Indeed, Eskridge, Spedale, and Ytterberg make a powerIul reioinder that |i|I
the chieI concern oI Iamily law should be the creation oI a stable Iamily structure Ior the rearing
oI children, then most oI the hetero-liberalization oI the last generationno-Iault divorce,
cohabitation, rights Ior non-marital childrenhas been a mistake. Marriage in America has been
compromised in ways that should be reclaimed.` %hey add that any traditionalist deIense oI
marriage that leaves no-Iault divorce and cohabitation untouched` has already embraced a
radical redeIinition oI marriage, one that has done much more measurable harm to children and
society than same-sex marriage
. On empirical grounds, it appears, here they are correct.
%his cursory review shows that marriage in the past is Iar Irom homogenous. A parallel review
would likely make a similar conclusion as to marriage in Biblical cultures. In past societies,
including Biblical ones, many oI the elements common to marriage would be considered heinous
today. %o those who decry the breakdown oI the Iamily and seek to brake or reverse its
deterioration, I would inquire again: exactly which traditional Iamily do you want to preserve?
Now, I return to the three possible reasons why we should be cautious about an impulsive
response to SSM based on the Iear oI God`s punishment or disastrous social consequence.
1) Homosexual orientation is largely iI not wholly biological in origin. It is likely that God is
aware oI this Iact. %hough there is biblical evidence oI the obligation to stone homosexuals,
hopeIully most oI us can agree that at least today it is morally wrong to kill homosexuals even iI
it seems to some that the Bible mandates it.
2) It is not clear that homosexual orientation, homosexual conduct, or same-sex couples were the
reasons Ior God`s destruction oI Sodom and Gomorrah. (see 'Biblical condemnation.¨
discussion in chapter 5) As to Rome, what iustiIication is there Ior attributing its downIall but
not its rise to homosexuality, as such was present during its growth as well as decline? Certainly
the proximate, substantive cause oI its Iall was not homosexual conduct. Civilizations rise and
Iall normally (haven`t the vast maiority oI them Iallen or been assimilated?)- so what evidence is
there that God destroyed Rome because it tolerated homosexuality?

3) II the concern is homosexual conduct, such may actually be lessened in that promiscuous
behavior among gay men may on average decrease as more gay men choose SSM. II the
concern is that homosexual unions are less reproductive, it suIIices to point out that SSM does
not outlaw OSM, and no doubt heterosexual unions (which are much more common) will
continue to reproduce independent oI the presence or absence oI SSM. II the concern is natural
disasters, such have struck many countries that have not legalized SSM and have not struck at
least most countries that have. II the concern is that opposite-gender Iamilies will not Iorm as
Irequently because potential members oI those unions are instead in same-sex relationships, I
would point to the incredible diIIiculties and high divorce rates endemic to mixed-orientation
marriages and ask whether MOM`s contribute more, on average, to broken Iamilies, shattered
women, and disappointed men (to say nothing oI the incredible suIIering oI children in such
conIlicted Iamilies), than they do to strong Iamilies and men and women and their children living
lives oI integrity and happiness. Also, allowing women to own property was viewed by many
religious and civil leaders as a blow to the divine institution oI the Iamily- yet in retrospect most
oI us support that move whether we perceive that it brought calamities or not. In addition, same-
sex couples exist mostly outside oI legal marital recognition and will continue to do so. II their
presence/cohabitation is likely to incur God`s wrath, then we must break them up or
punish/eliminate the participants, rather than merely legally bar SSM- actions Iew are willing to
take under a modern morality. %hough we eschew tolerance oI sin and believe that the Book oI
Mormon promises oI prosperity and Ireedom Irom bondage are contingent on whether the
inhabitants serve God and keep His commandments, this ethic does not always translate clearly
into legislative recommendations. %hough baptism and conIirmation in Christ`s true church
IulIills God`s commandments, we would not approve a tax subsidy on that activity. %hough we
oppose baptizing inIants and drinking coIIee, we would not criminalize those activities
Indeed, it would be contrary to God`s commandments to overly burden Ireedom. %hus, even iI
God would have His people oppose homosexual behavior, He might nonetheless will that His
people promote civil same-sex marriage based on the principles oI agency and/or equality.
Same-sex does not appear to threaten opposite-sex marriage: 'none oI the data convincingly link
the recognition oI same-sex partners to either Iewer marriages or a declining belieI in the current
relevance oI marriage.
¨ Plus:
'|E|ven iI it is true that gay marriage constitutes a more radical deIinitional change than earlier
innovations, in an important respect it stands out as one oI the narrowest oI reIorms: all the
earlier changes directly aIIected many or all married couples, whereas same-sex marriage would
directly pertain to only a small minority. It isn`t certain that allowing same-sex couples to marry
would have any noticeable eIIect on heterosexual marriage at all.
%rue, you never know what might happen when you tinker with tradition. A catastrophe cannot
be ruled out. It is worth bearing in mind, though, that predictions oI disaster iI open
homosexuals are integrated into traditionally straight institutions have a perIect track record: they
are always wrong. When openly gay couples began making homes together in suburban
neighborhoods, the result was not Sodom on every street corner; when they began turning up in
corporate iobs, stud collars did not replace neckties. I vividly remember, when I lived in London
in 1995, the Iorecasts oI morale and unit cohesion crumbling iI open homosexuals were allowed
to serve in the British armed Iorces; but when integration came (under court order), the whole
thing turned out to be a nonevent. Again and again, the homosexual threat turns out to be

imaginary; straights have Iar less to Iear Irom gay inclusion than gays do Irom exclusion.
Granted, Ior many people marriage is deIined in terms oI sexual orientation, which (Ior example)
employment never was. Still, there is reason to doubt that the latest predictions oI the end oI
civilization will prove more accurate than their predecessors.
I end with a quote Irom LDS scholar Valerie Hudson:
'%his uniquely LDS view calls Ior a wholesale reevaluation oI the logic and the arguments oI the
anti-same-sex marriage movement, to the intent oI improving its chances at this time oI twilight.
II the movement is not put on Iirmer Iooting, with a truly adequate answer provided., it will be
but a memory in less than a decade.
Most oI the common anti-SSM arguments I`ve heard to date are either Ilawed or deeply Ilawed.


Chapter 7ť In e Þropos|t|on 8ť Þerry Ŧ 5chwarzenegger

My day iob is as a humble %eacher`s Assistant in the BYU Biology Department. Between shiIts
I`m a Iull-time grad student at the Marriott School oI Management (BYU`s Business School),
and in my spare time I moonlight as a J. Reuben Clark Law School student. |Don`t ask me how I
Iound time to write this book, which Iirst 120-page draIt I did in a three week period during
September/October|. On September 9
, aIter a meeting on the hydraulic Iracturing research
mentioned in chapter 2, I literally ran across campus Irom the Marriott School to the Law School
to get a good seat Ior hearing a distinguished speaker- Mr. Charles Cooper.
%he lead counsel deIending Proposition 8 in !errv v. Schwarzenegger, Chuck Cooper spoke to
students and Iaculty Ior an hour. I was privileged to sit in the Iront row, Irom which position I
could observe not only Mr. Cooper but other VIP's such as DC Circuit Court Judge %om GriIIith;
First Quorum oI the Seventy emeritus member Lance Wickman; Iormer clerk Ior US Supreme
Court Justices Warren Burger and Antonin Scalia, Von Keetch; J. Reuben Clark Law School
Dean James Rasband; and proIessors Cole Durham and Lynn Wardle, among others.

Mr. Cooper spoke Ior a halI hour to the standing-room only crowd, Iocusing on Iaults in
Walker's decision. AIter discussing the history and purposes oI marriage, he opened to
questions. %here were many hands and little time- but amazingly aIter a Iew questions such as
how homosexual marriage harms heterosexual marriage and whether the plaintiIIs have standing
to appeal, I was chosen. I even got to ask two questions! Hogging the Q and A time- selIish I

My Iirst question addressed his claim that homosexuals can't reproduce. I reIuted his claim,
showing that some oI them do reproduce by citing two examples (e.g. lesbian couple- partner A
gets her egg artiIicially inseminated, then implants the embryo in partner B who bears the child.
Or, a gay couple who mix their sperm, Iertilize a donated egg, then have a close Iriend act as
surrogate). I Iurther noted that stimulating the germline development oI totipotent cells Irom
partner A into sperm, then using that sperm to Iertilize an egg oI partner B, would yield a two
biological parent homosexual household. I concluded by asking whether advancing reproductive

technologies such as these would weaken his tradition-based argument. He said no, but admitted
that eventually it would iI the technologies get to that point (a notable concession). He pointed
out that a third party intercessor is required. I didn't push him on the contention that no one
balks at inIertile heterosexual couples doing the same or similar third-party-required procedures.
For that matter, I also reIrained Irom the more obvious rebuttals that reproduction or likely
reproduction or even potential reproduction has never been required to get a marriage license.
Even iI reproduction is vital to the institution oI marriage, iI you'll let old people who can't
reproduce (and others who aren't likely to reproduce) marry, why deny marriage to homosexual
people on the basis oI their reduced reproductive capacity? Anyway, back to the story.

He continued to answer my question by citing a lengthy list oI social ills, such as children
growing up in single parent Iamilies, children growing up without a Iather, and the education and
poverty and drug problems that result in those situations. %his is where he lost me. I spent a
chunk oI my 2010 summer as a research assistant Ior a law proIessor researching issues such as
the economic and social consequences oI Iamily breakdown. |Let me know iI you'd like my
paper on this, or my thorough research on the role oI courts in deIining SSM, by emailing me at
homosexualityperspective(yahoo.com|. %hus, I was aware oI how well documented the ills are
that he cited. However, thev don´t advance his position He's arguing Ior a particular deIinition
oI marriage (only a man and a woman) over an alternate (man and a woman ¹ man/man ¹
woman/woman). Yet the evidence he cites is not causally linked to his advocacy oI deIinition A
over deIinition B. Sure, we all agree that those social outcomes are undesirable - but they've
mostly taken place during the last 40 years, during which time as Mr. Cooper noted the applied
marriage deIinition has been the traditional one. %hus, the most likely deduction is either that 1)
other Iactors besides the deIinition oI marriage caused those ills, or that 2) the traditional
deIinition contributed to those ills. %he speculative, prospective non sequitur (it does not Iollow)
that instead the alternate deIinition would exacerbate those negative social consequences is the
least supported deduction oI the three. %his rhetoric bears the signs oI a classic witch hunt:
though most everyone is upset about the breakdown oI the Iamily, you`ve pinned the tail on the
wrong donkey. Homosexuals are not the perpetrators oI society`s broken homes and single
parenting. (Indeed, as The Economist argues, 'the weakening oI marriage has been

heterosexuals' doing, not gays', Ior it is their inIidelity, divorce rates and single-parent Iamilies
that have wrought social damage.
%hus, my Iollow up question appropriately demanded that he identiIy the nexus or link between
the ills he cites and the alternate marriage deIinition he opposes. I Iound his response, which
centered on the ills resulting Irom general Iamily breakdown being likely to increase because oI
the weakening the institution by the alternative deIinition, unsatisIying. %he alternate deIinition
is not clearly a weakening oI the institution- it is only clearly diIIerent. Whether the change
weakens, strengthens, or doesn't aIIect marriage is neither agreed upon nor well evidenced, and
thus in the absence oI empirical data amounts to little more than a value iudgment which lacks
the ability to conIidently predict Iuture consequences. %he evidence he emphasized is nothing
more than a red herring eIIectively wielded on those unaware oI the glaring gap between that
evidence and his proposition. Again, 1rustra probatur quod probatum non relevant- that is
proved in vain which when proved is not relevant.

However, his overall position seems to be in line with the LDS church on the matter: "%he
Church oI Jesus Christ oI Latter-day Saints regrets today`s decision. CaliIornia voters have
twice been given the opportunity to vote on the deIinition oI marriage in their state and both
times have determined that marriage should be recognized as only between a man and a
" When I Iirst read this, my response was: "Uh, what happened to the Constitution-
loving church I thought I knew?"

I hope it is not necessary to prove that the LDS church is Constitution-aIIirming. Besides the
potent endorsements oI the Constitution in the Doctrine and Covenants (98:5-6, 101:77-80,
109:54), President Ezra %aIt Benson ("I reverence the Constitution oI the United States as a
sacred document. %o me its words are akin to the revelations oI God, Ior God has placed His
stamp oI approval on the Constitution oI this land
") and President Hinckley, ("%he
Constitution under which we live, and which has not only blessed us but has become a model Ior
other constitutions, is our God-inspired national saIeguard ensuring Ireedom and liberty, iustice
and equality beIore the law
") while president, both unequivocally endorsed the document.
Elder Oaks recently taught, "II we oppose persons who hold particular oIIices or the policies
they pursue, we are Iree to vote against them or work against their policies. But we should not

carry our opposition to the point oI opposing their oIIices, or we weaken the institution oI
constitutional government
" (2010).

"It is emphatically the province and duty oI the Judicial Department |the iudicial branch| to say
what the law is
."- Marburv v. Madison. %he iudicial branch determines the constitutionality
oI state laws and state constitutional provisions under the 1ederal constitution. A state law, or
even a state constitution, may not deprive a US citizen oI a right under the US Constitution. II
indeed there is a constitutional right to marry (as has been recognized in numerous US Supreme
Court cases- see e.g. page 110 oI the !errv opinion
), then it is emphatically the iudicial
branch's iob to deIine that right. Opined the United States Supreme Court:
'%he Ireedom to marry has long been recognized as one oI the vital personal rights essential to
the orderly pursuit oI happiness by Iree men. Marriage is one oI the basic civil rights oI man,`
Iundamental to our very existence and survival... Under our constitution, the Ireedom to marry or
not marry. resides with the individual and cannot be inIringed by the State.
An absence oI a marriage deIinition would make the right meaningless, Ior one could not then
discern when or whether the right is violated. One may certainly argue that the court got it
wrong, but I Iail to see the deIensibility oI the position oI a US Constitution-aIIirming church
that the people oI CaliIornia should be the ones to deIine a Iederal constitutional right. "|%|he
United States Supreme Court... has the ultimate responsibility oI interpreting the meaning oI the
loIty and general provisions oI the Constitution
" -Elder Oaks. Coincidentally, Elder Wickman
expressed basically the same position as the church that the legislature/people oI CaliIornia
should be deIining marriage rather than the courts during my conversation with him right
aIterward (which conversation also included a notable Q and A about the Oaks/Wickman Public
AIIairs interview on homosexuality). I guess I don't see his/the church's logic. It may seem odd
that one man (Judge Walker) can overturn the expressed will oI 13.4 million (7 million in Iavor,
6.4 opposed). You may even agree with %homas JeIIerson, who in response to Marburv v.
Madison said "that iI this view oI iudicial power became accepted, it would be 'placing us under
the despotism oI an oligarchy.
'" %o %homas JeIIerson and those who contend similarly I say:
you lost! Welcome to contemporary America. Federal iudicial review oI state law or conduct
alleged to be violative oI Iederal constitutional rights is how our system's been working Ior over
two centuries now.


In closing I 1) discuss my motivations Ior writing, 2) make a request oI the reader, and 3) oIIer
my closing thoughts.

Motivations for writing:
I am oIten asked why I care about the issues addressed in this book. Indeed, distributing it
resulted in the loss oI my chosen career (BYU`s MPA program denied my appeal to reverse their
reIusal to nominate me Ior the Presidential Management Fellow program on October 31, 2010.
Despite my exceptional perIormance in the selection criteria categories and the glowing reviews
oI my supervisors at the Maricopa County Superior Court, Idaho Supreme Court, and
Government Accountability OIIice, the MPA program decided to reiect me on account oI my
choice to share an early version oI this book). In addition, writing and sharing this book has
brought the disapproval oI my parents, contributed to a girlIriend`s decision to break up with me,
and led to stressIul conversations with several church leaders, BYU deans, and dear personal
Iriends. %his book was not written Ior a class, and no mortal person suggested the proiect to me.
I am not a part oI any advocacy group. %o be Irank, the experience has required a lot oI me-
physically, mentally, spiritually, relationally, and emotionally- as I have wept and researched and
reasoned its pages into existence.
%he short and unsatisIying answer to the 'why I care¨ question is that I don`t exactly remember
other than that I Ielt called to write this. %he highest goal oI my liIe has been to IulIill the
missions my Father has Ior me in this mortality. My sentiments and situation mimic %y
MansIield`s, who at the conclusion oI n Quiet Desperation wrote oI his decision to attach his
real name as author:
'I believe in Christ and in the Iullness oI the gospel, and when it comes to proclaiming both the
redeeming and enabling power oI His name, with this speciIic book and in this particular
situation, I could not stand behind 'Name Withheld.¨ Because I`m not married, I had to take
into consideration how it could aIIect my potential Iuture Iamily but, nevertheless, as I continued
to ponder and pray, I knew what I needed to do, and I Ielt the Lord`s peace with that decision.
%hat is the only thing that matters to me. So, regardless oI what happens in the Iuture concerning

a Iamily or the societal response to the convictions recorded on these pages, I know the Lord is
with me and will provide a way Ior me to do whatever it is that He would have me do.¨
I am not as conIident as %y that the ideas in my book are correct and divinely approved/inspired.
However, I Ieel 1) to aIIirm that I Ielt called to this task, 2) that the general endeavor was largely
appropriate, and 3) that some oI the content was inspired. I don`t think I could have written this
book on my own. During the three week period that most oI it was draIted, I would sometimes
go to bed, then unable to sleep because oI the Ilood oI ideas oI what to write and how to write it,
I would arise and resume composing. I can`t Iully explain what moved me. However, I will
give three post-hoc iustiIications Ior my composing and distributing this book: timeliness, my
Iuture children, and my human side.
One reason Ior writing, especially the second part (SSM), is that same-sex marriage is a deIining
issue oI my generation. %he acknowledgement that biologically-caused homosexual orientation
exists is relatively new, signiIicantly substantiated only recently, and spreading. More and more
people are choosing to come out, and more and more gay and lesbian people are openly living in
liIelong committed relationships. Due to current and improving reproductive technologies,
homosexuals are gaining access to reproduction, including with each other. Increased gender
and racial equality, economic prosperity, no-Iault divorce, and other changes have altered
marriage Irom what it looked like in the 1950`s- and I doubt the institution will ever go back.
Now is the time to take a hard look at marriage Irom both a religious and civic standpoint and
Iorge ahead with a marriage worthy oI securing Ior ourselves and succeeding generations- which
leads me to my next iustiIication.
My Iuture children:
It is my hope this reason appeals to my Millenial generation peers who are similarly situated.
%he reason is this:
I plan to marry a woman and raise my own biological children soon. One or more oI those
children may be homosexually oriented. I want the world to be a place where the American
dream and the LDS dream, which I believe both include the opportunity Ior marriage, is as bright
Ior my homosexual children as it is Ior their heterosexual siblings. Indeed, at the risk oI being

overly dramatic, I have a dream that someday soon my children will be iudged by the content oI
their character and not by the color oI their skin their mostly-iI-not-wholly-biologically
determined sexual orientation.
Human side:
I would also say that the more human side oI my motivation is one cup curiosity, one cup
commitment to truth, and two cups compassion.
Curiositv: Initially, my interest resulted Irom my natural curiosity (I`m a binge learner), triggered
three or Iour years ago aIter I heard Irom a BYU proIessor the evidence Ior a biological origin oI
homosexual orientation. Without a doubt, his presentation challenged my presumptions. I was
not aware oI a single homosexually oriented Iriend at that time.
Truth: From my LDS upbringing I have been taught, above all else, to seek Ior and cleave to
truth- and it is to that high standard I seek, though I don`t know that I have ever attained it. In
the Epilogue oI Understanding Same-sex Attraction. LDS Edition. Dennis Dahle wrote: '%he
greatest display oI compassion, and the greatest blessing that can be given, is to Iind and share
the whole truth oI the matter.
: As I have since looked into the science and moral arguments, I have learned oI
the intense, widespread, and predictable diIIiculties my homosexually oriented brothers and
sisters experience. In a drama the reader is likely Iamiliar with, the character Frodo said: 'I will
take the Ring to Mordor. %hough I do not know the way." GandalI, placing his hands
reassuringly on Frodo`s shoulders, responded: 'I will help you bear this burden, Frodo Baggins,
as long as it is yours to bear.
¨ %hat is the message I hope to convey to those oI my
homosexually oriented brothers and sisters who consider their orientation a burden. 1
Corinthians 12: '%hat there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have
the same care one Ior another. And whether one member suIIer, all the members suIIer with
¨ Per my baptismal covenant and per the human compassion God has privileged me to
possess, I will help you bear your burden- as long as it is yours to bear.

R¢qa¢st to tb¢ r¢ad¢r:

What would I hope the reader will do, Ieel, or think, as a result oI reading this book? Wrote Bob
Rees oI Carol Lynn Pearson`s o More Goodbves. Circling the agons Around Our Gav Loved
'%he Mormon pioneers who set out on the treacherous iourney to their promised land did so
because they were misunderstood, persecuted, and at times even murdered Ior their belieIs,
including their very unorthodox belieIs about marriage. %hey went to escape social ostracism
and political tyranny that sought to deprive them oI their right to live according to their belieIs.
What sustained them was their Iaith and their Iellowship with one another and their belieI that
they would Iind a place, 'Iar away in the West, / Where none shall come to hurt or make aIraid,¨
where they would not only be Iree oI persecution but Iree as well to build a better kingdom Ior
themselves and Ior those who would come aIter.
I dream oI such a place Ior our homosexual brothers and sisters. But rather than traveling to it
over plains and mountains, rather than carving it out oI a desert wilderness, I believe we have to
make it where we are, here and now, in our homes, in our communities, and in our
congregations. It is the courage oI people like Carol Lynn Pearson that gives me hope that we
canheterosexual and homosexual togetherbuild the Zion we are called to build.
How can we build this Zion? %o answer this question, I will quote another, who wrote two
decades ago
'As someone who loved the church but has literally chosen between liIe and death, I beg you to
consider these points:
1) Most homosexuality is biologically determined. It cannot be 'unchosen¨ once it occurs.
2) Please allow homosexuals the choice to remain in the church on the same basis as
heterosexual members, through sexual restraint rather than denial and change. I do not
ask you to approve oI gay sexual relations, but it is clear that those who understand their
homosexual orientation early on in an accepting environment have Iewer diIIiculties
adiusting, are less promiscuous, and have a better chance oI achieving a healthy selI-
image and a positive liIestyle.
3) II and until a proven method oI change becomes available, the burden oI guilt could be
liIted Irom those whose thoughts and Ieelings are homosexual. II the church recognized
that homosexuals did not cause their condition and are not responsible Ior its continued
existence, their selI-esteem could be built and they could Iocus their energies on sexual
selI-restraint and acceptance oI themselves as gay individuals.
4) II members oI the church were educated about what we currently know and do not know
about homosexuality, this would alleviate much oI the suIIering experienced by parents,
wives, children, Iriends, and the homosexual individual him- or herselI. Such education
may help to reduce the Irequency oI suicide among despairing gays.
%ruth is one oI the cornerstones oI the church. %he church should not avoid truth or make it
diIIicult to Iind. I pray that you will be part oI the eIIort to promote honesty and truth about
homosexuality. I pray that you will help bring about a greater understanding oI this diIIicult

subiect so that Iamilies can come back together, individuals may begin healing, and we may all
share a brighter Iuture oI love and understanding.¨

Cosing Tboagbt:
I anticipate that my views as expressed in this book will change over time as I learn more. %hus,
all that I have written is tentative- merely a snapshot oI my current thinking. In composing it I
hope that I have learned and come closer to truth- in reading it I hope you have as well. In
addition to insights about SSM and homosexuality, I hope that you walk away Irom this book
with one additional take-home: IaithIul members oI the LDS church need not close their hearts
nor remove their critical thinking caps to practice their religion.



See noLes 3Ŵ13 aL hLLpť//enŦwlklpedlaŦora/wlkl/Pomosexual_orlenLaLlon
Carol Lvnn Þearsonţ -o ,ote CooJbvesť cltclloo tbe woooos AtoooJ Oot Cov loveJ Ooes paŦ 3Ŧ
See eŦaŦ Carol Lvnn Þearsonţ -o ,ote CooJbvesť cltclloo tbe woooos AtoooJ Oot Cov loveJ Ooes paŦ 77Ť !ohn
Mcnellţ @be cbotcb ooJ tbe nomosexoolţ 176Ŧ
uennls IŦ uahleţ #8eLurn Lo 8easonť urawlna upon Lhe 1hree Þlllars of Wlsdom Lo ddress SameŴsex LLracLlonţ"
ln uoJetstooJloo 5omeŴsex Atttoctlooť lu5 £Jltlooţ 200ţ paŦ 478Ŧ
Ceorae Pandlevţ ƍ1he envlronmenLal eLhlcs of mormon bellefţƍ 8?u SLudles 40ť 2 (2001) paŦ 206Ŧ
uallln PŦ Caksţ #SameŴCender LLracLlonţ" Lnslanţ CcLŦ 13ţ 7Ŧ

8lll 8radshawţ #1he evldenced for a bloloalcal orlaln of homosexuallLv" paŦ 43Ŧ vallable aL
Church 8esponds Lo P8C ÞeLlLlonť SLaLemenL on SameŴSex LLracLlonť hLLpť//beLaŴ
Carol Lvnn Þearsonţ -o ,ote CooJbvesť cltclloo tbe woooos AtoooJ Oot Cov loveJ Ooes paŦ 21Ŵ22Ŧ
żSee alsoŽ ŦŦŦ ƍPenrv !Ŧ kalser lamllv loundaLlonţ lnsldeŴCuLť 8eporL on Lhe Lxperlences of Lesblansţ Cavs and
8lsexuals ln merlca and Lhe Þubllcƌs Ilew on lssues and Þollcles 8elaLed Lo Sexual CrlenLaLlon (2001) ppŦ 3Ŵ4ŦŦŦŦƍ
Compare ÞarLners aalnsL PaLeţ ƍ2000 lederal 8ureau of lnvesLlaaLlon PaLe Crlme SLaLlsLlcsţƍ wlLh ÞarLners
aalnsL PaLeţ ƍhLLpť//wwwŦparLnersaaalnsLhaLeŦora/sLaLlsLlcs/connecLlcuLŴ2004ŦhLmlŦ Crlme sLaLlsLlcs
ChrlsLlna aulleraţ #8eflecLlon" 1Ŧ
Þersonal frlend of Lhe auLhorţ pasLed from a lacebook noLe clrca CcLober 2010Ŧ
nonvmous leLLer Lo Lhe edlLorţ @be Opeo uootţ SepLember 178ţ vol 2Ŧ noŦ ţ pŦ 3Ŧ
ndrew Sulllvanţ love uoJetecteJť -otes oo ltleoJsblpţ 5exţ ooJ 5otvlvol 18Ŧ
Clov !enklnsţ #Þroloaueť n examlnaLlon of Lhe Mormon aLLlLude Lowards homosexuallLvŦ" 178Ŧ vallable aL
hLLpť//aavmormonauvŦbloaspoLŦcom/p/successŴsLorlesŦhLmlţ see also hLLpť//saamormonŦbloaspoLŦcom/
1v Mansfleldţ lo Oolet uespetotloo 68Ŵ6Ŧ
See eŦaŦ hLLpť//aavmormonauvŦbloaspoLŦcom/p/successŴsLorlesŦhLml
Sam WesLfahlţ frlend of Lhe auLhorţ used wlLh permlsslonŦ 1alk recelved from Lhe speaker (also wlLh permlsslon)
and ln possesslon of Lhe auLhorţ 3 uecember 2010Ŧ uLhor's referencesŴ Mlchael CLLerson sLaLemenLť
aLLracLlon Llder Marvln kŦ !ensenť
_sorrvƷL2Ʒ80Ʒ_for_hurLful_leaacv_of_propŦ_8/ Caklandţ C SLake Lalk bv anonvmous aav church member (he
has slnce revealed hlmselfŸscroll down Lo Lhe Lalk bv MlLch Mavne)ťhLLpť//wwwŦclpearsonŦcom/oaklandsLakeŦhLm
lsoť hLLpť//mormonsformarrlaaeŦcom/?pƹ116 Son who wroLe leLLer Lo faLherť
lecollot leopleť ,otmoos ooJ 5omeŴsex Atttoctlooţ edlLed bv 8on Schowţ Wavne Schowţ and MarvbeLh 8avnesţ
11ţ paŦ 70Ŵ71Ŧ
Clav Lsslaţ ƍ Þlea Lo Seek 8evelaLlon and 8lesslnas 8eaardlna Codƌs Cav Ǝ Lesblan Chlldren and Lo LeL Cur LlahL

8lck Þhllllpsţ coosetvotlve cbtlstloo lJeotltv ooJ 5omeŴsex Otleototlooť @be cose of Cov ,otmoosţ 2003ţ paŦ 1Ŧ
lecollot leopleť ,otmoos ooJ 5omeŴsex Atttoctlooţ edlLed bv 8on Schowţ Wavne Schowţ and MarvbeLh 8avnesţ
11ţ paŦ 0Ŵ1Ŧ
ƍ SlLuaLlon 1haL uefles Cur naLureţƍ lovlctos lllotlmť ,ottleJţ ,otmoo ooJ Covť Ooe ,ooƌs Iootoevţ
8lll 8radshawţ #1he Lvldence for a 8loloalcal Crlaln of PomosexuallLvţ" avallable aL
Ǝhlƹen paŦ 2Ŧ
vallable aL hLLpť//wwwŦdesereLnewsŦcom/arLlcle/700034446/dvocaLesŴseeŴrlseŴlnŴaavŴsulcldeŦhLml
ÞaŦ 14ţ avallable aL hLLpť//wwwŦconnellodonovanŦcom/lmaaes/LempleaaLesŦ[pa
CalLlln 8vanţ SLephen 1Ŧ 8ussellţ uavld Puebnerţ 8afael ulazţ and !orae Sanchezţ #lamllv ccepLance ln
dolescence and Lhe PealLh of LC81 ?ouna dulLsţ" Iolume 23ţ number 4ţ november 2010ţ Iootool of cbllJ ooJ
lsvcblottlc -otslooţ paŦ 208Ŧ hLLpť//famllvpro[ecLŦsfsuŦedu/flles/lÞ_lamllvƷ20ccepLance_!CÞnŦpdf
CalLlln 8vanţ uavld Puebnerţ 8afael MŦ ulaz and !orae Sanchezţ #lamllv 8e[ecLlon as a ÞredlcLor of neaaLlve
PealLh CuLcomes ln WhlLe and LaLlno Lesblanţ Cavţ and 8lsexual ?ouna dulLsţ" publlshed onllne uecember 2ţ
2008ţ l£ulA@lc5ť Offlclol Iootool of tbe Ametlcoo AcoJemv of leJlottlcsţ IolŦ 123 noŦ 1 !anuarv 200ţ paŦ 346Ŧ
Lauraţ hLLpť//mormonsformarrlaaeŦcom/?pƹ274ţ !ulv 21ţ 2010Ŧ
Swedlsh naLlonal lnsLlLuLe of Þubllc PealLhţ based on revlew of people aaed 16Ŵ2 beLween 2003 and 2008Ŧ
lebruarv 2010ţ Iootool of tbe Ametlcoo AcoJemv of cbllJ Ǝ AJolesceot lsvcblottvŦ
Carol Lvnn Þearsonţ -o ,ote CooJbvesť cltclloo tbe woooos AtoooJ Oot Cov loveJ Ooes paŦ 37Ŧ See also
#ueadlv Labooť ?ouLh sulclde an epldemlc LhaL manv ln uLah prefer Lo lanoreŦ" Þubllshedť Mondavţ prll 24ţ 2006
12ť37 pŦmŦ Mu1 8v Luclnda ulllon klnkead and uennls 8ombovţ uesereL Mornlna newsŦ
Sulclde ln Cav/8lsexual ?ouLhţ llsL of resources avallable aL hLLpť//wwwŦdaLehookupŦcom/conLenLŴsulcldeŴlnŴaavŴ
SLuarL MaLlsţ LeLLer Lo a Couslnţ lebruarv 2000ţ avallable aL
SLuarL MaLlsţ leLLer Lo hls cousln Clav ln 2000ţ quoLed on paae 33 of Carol Lvnn Þearson's -o ,ote CooJbvesť
cltclloo tbe woooos AtoooJ Oot Cov loveJ OoesŦ
Pollldavţ 8Ŧţ 10Ŧ Mechanlsms for Lhe conLrol of aene acLlvlLv durlna developmenLŦ 8lolŦ 8evŦ CambrŦ ÞhllosŦ SocŦ
63ţ 431Ŵ471Ŧ
1heo Colbornţ Oot 5toleo lototeŦ
1heo Colbornţ Oot 5toleo lototeţ chapLer 1Ŧ
1heo Colbornţ Oot 5toleo lototeţ chapLer 1Ŧ
1heo Colbornţ Oot 5toleo lototeţ chapLer 1Ŧ
1heo Colbornţ Oot 5toleo lototeţ chapLer 1Ŧ
1heo Colbornţ Oot 5toleo lototeţ chapLer 1Ŧ
uescrlpLlonť #1he followlna lnLervlew was conducLed ln 2006 wlLh Llder uallln PŦ Caksţ a member of Lhe Cuorum
of Lhe 1welve posLles of Lhe Churchţ and Llder Lance 8Ŧ Wlckmanţ a member of Lhe SevenLvŦ 1hese senlor Church
leaders responded Lo quesLlons from Lwo members of Lhe Church's Þubllc ffalrs sLaffŦ" vallable aL hLLpť//beLaŴ
See Levavţ Covţ 5ttolobt ooJ tbe eosoo wbvť tbe 5cleoce of 5exool Otleototlooţ paŦ 138Ŵ142Ŧ Some of Lhe
prlmarv llLeraLureť Pallţ LŦ SŦ Ǝ Loveţ CŦ 1Ŧ (2003)Ŧ llnaerŴlenaLh raLlos ln female monozvaoLlc Lwlns dlscordanL for
sexual orlenLaLlonŦ Atcblves of 5exool 8ebovlotŦ 32ţ 23Ŵ28Ť Mcladdenţ uŦ Ǝ Shubelţ LŦ (2002)Ŧ 8elaLlve lenaLhs of

flnaers and Loes ln human males and femalesŦ notmooes ooJ 8ebovlotŦ 42ţ 42Ŵ300Ť 8rownţ WŦ MŦţ Plnesţ MŦţ
laneţ 8Ŧ Ŧ Ǝ 8reedloveţ SŦ MŦ (2002b)Ŧ Mascullnlzed flnaer lenaLh paLLerns ln human males and females wlLh
conaenlLal adrenal hvperplaslaŦ notmooes ooJ 8ebovlotŦ 42ţ 380Ŵ386Ť 8ahmanţ CŦ Ǝ Wllsonţ CŦ uŦ (2003b)Ŧ Sexual
orlenLaLlon and Lhe 2nd Lo 4Lh flnaer lenaLh raLloť evldence for oraanlslna effecLs of sex hormones or
developmenLal lnsLablllLv? lsvcbooeotoeoJoctlooloovŦ 28ţ 288Ŵ303Ŧ
Some of Lhe prlmarv llLeraLureť 8allevţ !Ŧ MŦ Ǝ Þlllardţ 8Ŧ CŦ (13)Ŧ CeneLlcs of human sexual orlenLaLlonŦ Aooool
evlew of 5ex eseotcbŦ 6ţ 126Ŵ130Ť 8allevţ !Ŧ MŦţ Þlllardţ 8Ŧ CŦţ nealeţ MŦ CŦ Ǝ avelţ ?Ŧ (13)Ŧ PerlLable facLors
lnfluence sexual orlenLaLlon ln womenŦ Atcblves of Ceoetol lsvcblottvŦ 30Ť 8allevţ !Ŧ MŦţ uunneţ MŦ ÞŦ Ǝ MarLlnţ nŦ
CŦ (2000)Ŧ CeneLlc and envlronmenLal lnfluences on sexual orlenLaLlon and lLs correlaLes ln an usLrallan Lwln
sampleŦ Iootool of letsooolltv ooJ 5oclol lsvcboloovŦ 78ţ 324Ŵ336Ŧ
uean 8vrd wroLe an arLlcle for Lhe n81P webslLe daLed prll 4ţ 2007 quoLlna Colllns' bookţ @be looooooe of
CoJţ on aeneLlcs and homosexuallLvŦ 8vrd's revlew provlded accuraLe quoLes buL lmplled LhaL Colllns belleves free
wlll ls lnvolved ln Lhe developmenL of homosexuallLvŦ SubsequenLlvţ uavld 8oberLs aL LxCavWaLch wroLe Colllns Lo
flnd ouL lf 8vrd had capLured hls vlews properlvŦ Colllns responded bv savlna Lhe quoLe ln an emallŦ vallable aL
Lva CarlsLromţ nlklas LanasLromţ Þaul LlchLensLelnţ and Cazl 8ahmanţ #CeneLlc and LnvlronmenLal LffecLs on
SameŴsex Sexual 8ehavlorť ÞopulaLlon SLudv of 1wlns ln SwedenŦ" Atcblves of 5exool 8ebovlot (2010) 3ť73Ŷ80Ŧ
8allevţ !Ŧ MŦ Ǝ Zuckerţ kŦ !Ŧ (13)Ŧ Chlldhood sexŴLvped behavlor and sexual orlenLaLlonť concepLual analvsls
and quanLlLaLlve revlewŦ uevelopmenLal ÞsvcholoavŦ 31ţ 43Ŵ33Ŧ See also kaLarlna lankoţ Þekka SanLLllaţ kaLarlna
WlLLlnaţ Markus Iar[onenţ ÞaLrlk !ernţ da !ohanssonţ 8eLLlna von der Þahlenţ nŦ kenneLh Sandnabbaţ ƍÞsvchlaLrlc
svmpLoms and sameŴsex sexual aLLracLlon and behavlor ln llahL of chlldhood aender aLvplcal behavlor and parenLal
relaLlonshlpsţƍ Iootool of 5ex eseotcbţ SepLŴCcLţ 200 4ţ 44Ŵ304Ť Þloderlţ MŦ Ǝ larLacekţ 8Ŧ (2008)Ŧ Chlldhood
aender nonconformlLv and harassmenL as predlcLors of sulcldallLv amona aavţ lesblanţ blsexualţ and heLerosexual
usLrlansŦ Atcblves of 5exool 8ebovlot 38ţ 400Ŵ410Ť Cardosoţ lŦLŦ (200)Ŧ 8ecalled sexŴLvped behavlor ln chlldhood
and sporLs' preferences ln adulLhood of heLerosexualţ blsexualţ and homosexual men from 8razllţ 1urkevţ and
1hallandŦ Atcblves of 5exool 8ebovlot 38ţ 726Ŵ736Ŧ
See Levavţ Covţ 5ttolobt ooJ tbe eosoo wbvť tbe 5cleoce of 5exool Otleototlooţ paŦ 260Ŵ270Ŧ Some of Lhe
prlmarv llLeraLureť 8lanchardţ 8Ŧ Ǝ 8oaaerLţ Ŧ lŦ (16)Ŧ PomosexuallLv ln men and number of older broLhersŦ
Ametlcoo Iootool of lsvcblottvŦ 133ţ 27Ŵ31Ť 8oaaerLţ Ŧ lŦ (2003a)Ŧ 1he lnLeracLlon of fraLernal blrLh order and bodv
slze ln male sexual orlenLaLlonŦ 8ebovlotol -eotoscleoceŦ 117ţ 381Ŵ384Ť 8oaaerLţ Ŧ lŦ (2003b)Ŧ number of older
broLhers and sexual orlenLaLlonť new LesLs and Lhe aLLracLlon/behavlor dlsLlncLlon ln Lwo naLlonal probablllLv
samplesŦ Iootool of letsooolltv ooJ 5oclol lsvcboloovŦ 84ţ 644Ŵ632Ť 8oaaerLţ Ŧ lŦ (2006)Ŧ 8loloalcal versus
nonbloloalcal older broLhers and menƌs sexual orlenLaLlonŦ Þroceedlnas of Lhe naLlonal cademv of Sclences of Lhe
unlLed SLaLes of merlcaŦ 103ţ 10771Ŵ10774Ŧ
1houah one sLudv deLecLed Lhe shlfL ln women onlvť MusLansklţ 8Ŧ SŦţ 8allevţ !Ŧ MŦ Ǝ kasparţ SŦ (2002)Ŧ
uermaLoalvphlcsţ handednessţ sexţ and sexual orlenLaLlonŦ Atcblves of 5exool 8ebovlotŦ 31ţ 113Ŵ132Ŧ
Lalumlereţ MŦLŦţ 8lanchardţ 8Ŧ and Zuckerţ kŦ!Ŧ Sexual orlenLaLlon and handedness ln men
and womenť a meLaŴanalvslsŦ lsvcboloolcol 8olletloţ 126ţ 323 (2000)Ŧ
8lanchardţ 8Ŧţ CanLorţ !Ŧ MŦţ 8oaaerLţ Ŧ lŦţ 8reedloveţ SŦ MŦ Ǝ Llllsţ LŦ (2006)Ŧ lnLeracLlon of fraLernal blrLh order
and handedness ln Lhe developmenL of male homosexuallLvŦ notmooes ooJ 8ebovlotŦ 4ţ 403Ŵ414Ť 8oaaerLţ ŦlŦţ
8lanchardţ 8Ŧ Ǝ CrosLhwalLţ LŦLŦ (2007)Ŧ lnLeracLlno of blrLh orderţ handednessţ and sexual orlenLaLlno ln Lhe
klnsev lnLervlew daLaŦ 8ebovlotol -eotoscleoce 121ţ 843Ŵ833Ť 8lanchardţ 8Ŧ Ǝ Llppaţ 8ŦŦ (2008)Ŧ 1he sex raLlo of
older slbllnas ln nonŴrlahLŴhanded homosexual menŦ Atcblves of 5exool 8ebovlot 36ţ 163Ŵ176Ŧ
MarLlnţ !Ŧ 1Ŧ Ǝ nauvenţ uŦ PŦ (2004)Ŧ nLhropomeLrlc analvsls of homosexuals and heLerosexualsť lmpllcaLlons
for earlv hormone exposureŦ notmŦ 8ebovŦ 43ţ 31Ŵ3Ŧ
!ohnsonţ kŦLŦţ Clllţ SŦţ 8elchmanţ IŦ Ǝ 1asslnarvţ LŦCŦ (2007)Ŧ Swaaaerţ swavţ and sexuallLvť !udalna sexual
orlenLaLlon from bodv moLlon and morpholoavŦ I lets 5oc lsvcbolŦ 3ţ 321Ŵ334Ť 8leaerţ CŦţ Llnsenmelerţ !Ŧ lţ
Cvaazţ LŦţ Ǝ 8allevţ !Ŧ MŦ (2010)Ŧ ulssecLlna #aavdar"ť ccuracv and Lhe role of mascullnlLvŴfemlnlnlLvŦ Atcblves of
5exool 8ebovlot 3ţ 124Ŵ140Ŧ

WhlLamţ lŦ LŦ (183)Ŧ CulLurallv lnvarlanL properLles of male homosexuallLvť 1enLaLlve concluslons from crossŴ
culLural researchŦ Atcblves of 5exool 8ebovlot 12ţ 207Ŵ226Ť Welllnasţ kŦţ lleldţ !Ŧţ !ohnsonţ Ŧ MŦ Ǝ WadsworLhţ !Ŧ
(14)Ŧ Sexual 8ehavlor ln 8rlLalnť 1he naLlonal Survev of Sexual LLlLudes and LlfesLvlesŦ Þenauln 8ooksŦ
See Levavţ Covţ 5ttolobt ooJ tbe eosoo wbvť tbe 5cleoce of 5exool Otleototlooţ paŦ 13Ŵ13Ŧ Some of Lhe prlmarv
llLeraLureť Laumannţ LŦ CŦţ Caanonţ !Ŧ PŦţ Mlchaelţ 8Ŧ 1Ŧ Ǝ Mlchaelsţ SŦ (14)Ŧ @be soclol otooolzotloo of sexoolltvť
5exool ptoctlces lo tbe uolteJ 5totesŦ Chlcaaoť unlverslLv of Chlcaao ÞressŤ SLaLlsLlcs Canadaţ (2004) coooJloo
commooltv neoltb 5otvev 2003Ŧ vallable aL wwwŦsLaLcanŦca/uallv/Lnallsh/040613/d040613bŦhLm accessed
!anuarv 14ţ 2010Ť SmlLhţ Ŧ MŦţ 8lsselţ CŦ LŦţ 8lchLersţ !Ŧţ Crullchţ Ŧ LŦ Ǝ de Ilsserţ rŦ CŦ (2003)Ŧ Sex ln usLrallať
sexual ldenLlLvţ sexual aLLracLlon and sexual experlence amona a represenLaLlve sample of adulLsŦ Aosttollo -ew
2eolooJ Iootool of lobllc neoltb 27ţ 138Ŵ143Ŧ
8lll 8radshawţ #1he Lvldence for a 8loloalcal Crlaln of PomosexuallLvţ" avallable aL
Ǝhlƹen paŦ 14Ŧ
Carol Lvnn Þearsonţ -o ,ote CooJbvesť cltclloo tbe woooos AtoooJ Oot Cov loveJ Ooes paŦ 16Ŧ
See eŦaŦ !eff klrbvţ # new aroupŴselecLlon model for Lhe evoluLlon of homosexuallLvţ" 8loloov ooJ lbllosopbv
18ť683Ŵ64ţ 2003Ŧ
Carol Lvnn Þearsonţ -o ,ote CooJbvesť cltclloo tbe woooos AtoooJ Oot Cov loveJ Ooes paŦ 16Ŧ
8lll 8radshawţ #1he Lvldence for a 8loloalcal Crlaln of PomosexuallLvţ" avallable aL
Ǝhlƹen paŦ 7Ŧ
nlP new 8eleaseţ naLlonal Puman Cenome 8esearch lnsLlLuLeţ March 31ţ 2004ţ ƍSclenLlsLs Compare 8aL
Cenome WlLh Pumanţ Mouseť nalvsls ?lelds new lnslahLs lnLo Medlcal Modelţ LvoluLlonarv Þrocessţƍ avallable aL
1heo Colbornţ Oot 5toleo lototeţ paŦ 63Ŧ
8lll 8radshawţ #1he Lvldence for a 8loloalcal Crlaln of PomosexuallLvţ" avallable aL
Ǝhlƹen paŦ 6Ŧ
8lll 8radshawţ #1he Lvldence for a 8loloalcal Crlaln of PomosexuallLvţ" avallable aL
Ǝhlƹen paŦ 12Ŧ
PlsLorv of Lhe Church 3ť4Ŧ
Ɗ llrsL Þresldencv (!oseph lŦ SmlLhţ !ohn 8Ŧ Wlnderţ nLhon PŦ Lund)ţ ƍWords ln Season from Lhe llrsL
Þresldencvƍţ uesereL Lvenlna newsţ 110Ŵ12Ŵ17ţ secŦ 1ţ pŦ 3Ŧ
8ovd kŦ Þackerţ cLlna ÞresldenL of Lhe Cuorum of Lhe 1welve posLlesţ #Cleanslna Lhe lnner Iessel" CcLober 3
2010Ŧ l reporL Lhe verslon l heard from hls llps when l waLched Ceneral ConferenceŦ
Llder 8ovd kŦ Þackerţ @o tbe Ooeţ dellvered aL 12ŴsLake realonal conference March 3ţ 178 and publlshed ln 178
bv #CorporaLlon of Lhe ÞresldenL of 1he Church of !esus ChrlsL of LaLLerŴdav SalnLs"ţ popularlv dlsLrlbuLed
afLerward ln Lhls pamphleL formŦ
8lshop kelLh McMulllnţ Lverareen lnLernaLlonal nnual Conferenceţ SaLurdavţ SepLember 18ţ 2010Ŧ
llrsL Þresldencv Clrcular LeLLerţ March 1ţ 170ţ LuS Church rchlvesŦ
Llder 8ovd kŦ Þackerţ @o tbe Ooeţ dellvered aL 12ŴsLake realonal conference March 3ţ 178Ŧ
8lshop kelLh McMulllnţ Lverareen lnLernaLlonal nnual Conferenceţ SaLurdavţ SepLember 18ţ 2010Ŧ
Llder 8ovd kŦ Þackerţ @o tbe Ooeţ dellvered aL 12ŴsLake realonal conference March 3ţ 178Ŧ
Ŧ uean 8vrdţ #When a Loved Cne SLruaales wlLh SameŴSex LLracLlonţ" Lnslanţ Sep 1ţ 31Ŧ
ƍuoama ccordlna Lo klmballƍţ uausL 13ţ 173ţ ppŦ 14 and 16ţ avallable aL
Spencer WŦ klmballţ Church ÞresldenLţ #ÞresldenL klmball Speaks CuL on MorallLv"ţ Lnslanţ november 180ţ pŦ

Lzra 1afL 8ensonţ Þresldlna posLle november 182ţ #lundamenLals of Lndurlna lamllv 8elaLlonshlps"ţ Lnslanţ
pŦ 3Ŧ

Llder 8ovd kŦ Þackerţ @o tbe Ooeţ dellvered aL 12ŴsLake realonal conference March 3ţ 178Ŧ
undersLandlna and Pelplna 1hose Who Pave Pomosexual Þroblems Ŷ SuaaesLlons for LccleslasLlcal Leadersţ 1he
Church of !esus ChrlsL of LaLLerŴdav SalnLsţ 12Ŧ
!ames LŦ lausLţ #Servlna Lhe Lord and 8eslsLlna Lhe uevllţ" Lnslanţ Sep 13ţ 2Ŧ
Llder 8ovd kŦ Þackerţ @o tbe Ooeţ dellvered aL 12ŴsLake realonal conference March 3ţ 178Ŧ
IlcLor LŦ 8rown SrŦţ 2nd Counselor ln Þresldlna 8lshoprlcţ prll 4ţ 170ţ Conference 8eporLsţ prll 170ţ pŦ 31Ŧ
Llder 8ruce CŦ Pafenţ Lverareen lnLernaLlonal nnual Conferenceţ 1 SepLember 200Ŧ vallable aL hLLpť//beLaŴ

Llder 8ruce CŦ Pafenţ Lverareen lnLernaLlonal nnual Conferenceţ 1 SepLember 200Ŧ vallable aL hLLpť//beLaŴ
Llder 8ovd kŦ Þackerţ @o tbe Ooeţ dellvered aL 12ŴsLake realonal conference March 3ţ 178Ŧ
Spencer WŦ klmballţ uellvered prll 3ţ 171ţ #Iolces of Lhe ÞasLţ of Lhe ÞresenLţ of Lhe luLureţ Lnslanţ !une
171ţ pŦ 16Ŧ
Llder 8ruce CŦ Pafenţ Lverareen lnLernaLlonal nnual Conferenceţ 1 SepLember 200Ŧ vallable aL
Spencer WŦ klmballţ Church ÞresldenLţ CcLober 4ţ 174ţ"Cod Wlll noL 8e Mocked"ţ Lnslanţ novŦ 174ţ pŦ 4Ŧ
8ovd kŦ Þackerţ #Cur Moral LnvlronmenLţ" £oslooţ Mav 12ţ 66Ŧ
Llder 8ovd kŦ Þackerţ @o tbe Ooeţ dellvered aL 12ŴsLake realonal conference March 3ţ 178Ŧ
Llder 8ruce CŦ Pafenţ Lverareen lnLernaLlonal nnual Conferenceţ 1 SepLember 200Ŧ vallable aL
Cfflce of Lhe llrsL Þresldencvţ 1he Church of !esus ChrlsL of LaLLerŴdav SalnLsţ november 14ţ 11Ŧ 1oť ll
Members of 1he Church of !esus ChrlsL of LaLLerŴdav SalnLs uear 8reLhren and SlsLersť SLandards of MorallLv and
lldellLvŦ vallable aL hLLpť//lnsLlLuLeŦldsŦora/manuals/eLernalŴmarrlaaeŴsLudenLŴmanual/m2ŴmorallLvŴ4Ŧasp
#Church 8esponds Lo P8C ÞeLlLlonţ" 12 CcLober 2010Ŧ hLLpť//beLaŴnewsroomŦldsŦora/arLlcle/churchŴmormonŴ
IlcLor LŦ 8rown !rŦţ 8?u lnsLrucLorţ #1wo Ilews of SexuallLv"ţ Lnslanţ !ulv 173ţ pŦ 30Ŧ
Spencer WŦ klmballţ !ulv 10ţ 164ţ # Counsellna Þroblem ln Lhe Church" Ŷ 8?u uevoLlonal for LuS Semlnarv Ǝ
lnsLlLuLe lnsLrucLorsŦ
#1he loundaLlons of 8lahLeousnessţ" Ceneral Conferenceţ Spencer klmball 177Ŧ
Cordon 8Ŧ Plncklevţ #Cpposlna Lvll"ţ Lnslanţ november 173ţ pŦ 38Ŧ
uallln PŦ Caksţ posLleţ CcLober 13ţ #SameŴCender LLracLlon"ţ Lnslanţ ppŦ 7Ŵ8Ŧ
#1he bomlnable and ueLesLable Crlme aalnsL naLureť 8evlsed PlsLorv of PomosexuallLv and Mormonlsmţ
1840Ŵ180" bv Connell C'uonovanŦ vallable aL hLLpť//wwwŦconnellodonovanŦcom/abomŦhLml CuoLlna chapLer
slxţ #1he Crlme aalnsL naLureţ" of @be ,ltocle of lotolveoess bv Spencer klmballţ paŦ 77Ŵ78Ŧ
Llder 8ovd kŦ Þackerţ @o tbe Ooeţ dellvered aL 12ŴsLake realonal conference March 3ţ 178Ŧ
!Ŧ 8lchard Clarkeţ 2nd Counselor ln Þresldlna 8lshoprlcţ #MlnlsLerlna Lo needs Lhrouah LuS Soclal Servlces"ţ
Lnslanţ Mav 177ţ pŦ 83Ŧ
Cordon 8Ŧ Plncklevţ Church ÞresldenLţ CcLober 18ţ #WhaL re Þeople sklna bouL us?"
IlcLor LŦ 8rown SrŦţ 2nd Counselor ln Þresldlna 8lshoprlc #1he Meanlna of MorallLv"ţ £oslooţ !une 171ţ pŦ 33Ŧ
8ovd kŦ Þackerţ #1o ?ouna Men Cnlvţ" Ceneral Conference ÞrlesLhood Sesslonţ CcLober 2ţ 176Ŧ
8ovd kŦ Þackerţ cLlna Þresldlna posLleţ CcLober 8ţ 2000ţ #?e re Lhe 1emple of Cod"ţ £oslooţ novŦ 2000ţ pŦ 72Ŧ
8ovd kŦ Þackerţ #1o ?ouna Men Cnlvţ" Ceneral Conference ÞrlesLhood Sesslonţ CcLober 2ţ 176Ŧ
Spencer WŦ klmballţ Church ÞresldenLţ #1he loundaLlons of 8lahLeousnessţ £oslooţ november 177ţ pŦ 4Ŧ
Llder 8ovd kŦ Þackerţ @o tbe Ooeţ dellvered aL 12ŴsLake realonal conference March 3ţ 178Ŧ
Mark LŦ ÞeLersenţ posLleţ !anuarv 14ţ 178ţ #1he sLrona deluslons"ţ cbotcb -ewsţ pŦ 16Ŧ
uean 8vrdţ CcLober 2001ţ PomosexuallLv and Lhe Church of !esus ChrlsLť undersLandlna PomosexuallLv
ccordlna Lo Lhe uocLrlne of Lhe Church of !esus ChrlsL of LaLLerŴdav SalnLsţ Cedar lorL ÞressŦ
LrnesL LŦ Wllklnsonţ #Make Ponor ?our SLandard"ţ uesetet -ewsţ Church news supplemenLţ november 13ţ
163ţ pŦ 11Ŧ
Spencer klmballţ #Love versus LusLţ" 3 !anuarv 163ţ laLer publlshed ln 8?u Speeches of Lhe ?earŦ

Cordon 8Ŧ Plncklevţ Church ÞresldenLţ uecember 26ţ 2004ţ lnLervlew wlLh Larrv klnaţ on Cnn's #Larrv klna
Llve"Ť LranscrlpL avallable on cnnŦcomŦ
Spencer WŦ klmballţ Church ÞresldenLţ #LlsLen Lo Lhe ÞropheLsţ" £oslooţ Mav 178ţ pŦ 76Ŧ
uallln PŦ Caksţ ƍÞrlnclples Lo Covern Þosslble Þubllc SLaLemenL on LealslaLlon ffecLlna 8lahLs of Pomosexualsţƍ
Memo proposlna #aeneral prlnclples Lo aulde Lhose who prepare Lhe LexL of a publlc sLaLemenL lf one ls needed"ţ 7
uausL 184ţ hLLpť//afflrmaLlonŦora/pdf/oaks_paper_02ŦpdfŦ
Llder 8ovd kŦ Þackerţ @o tbe Ooeţ dellvered aL 12ŴsLake realonal conference March 3ţ 178Ŧ
uallln Caksţ posLleţ SameŴCender LLracLlonţ" £oslooţ CcLŦ 13ţ Ŧ
Spencer klmballţ nope fot @toosotessotsţ pamphleL publlshed bv Lhe church ln 170Ŧ
Mark LŦ ÞeLersenţ posLleţ uecember 16ţ 178ţ #Sln ls no excuseţ" cbotcb -ewsţ pŦ 16Ŧ
Llder 8ovd kŦ Þackerţ @o tbe Ooeţ dellvered aL 12ŴsLake realonal conference March 3ţ 178Ŧ
Mark LŦ ÞeLersenţ posLleţ uecember 16ţ 178ţ #Sln ls no Lxcuse"ţ cbotcb -ewsţ pŦ 16Ŧ
8lchard CŦ ScoLLţ #Maklna Lhe 8lahL Cholcesţ" £oslooţ nov 14ţ 37Ŧ
Llder 8ovd kŦ Þackerţ @o tbe Ooeţ dellvered aL 12ŴsLake realonal conference March 3ţ 178Ŧ
uŦ Mlchael Culnnţ 5omeŴ5ex uvoomlcs omooo -loeteeotbŴceototv Ametlcoosť A ,otmoo £xompleţ (urbana and
Chlcaaoť unlverslLv of llllnols Þressţ 16) pŦ 417Ť and C'uonovanţ #bomlnable"ţ pŦ 144Ŵ Ceorae CŦ Cannonţ 187Ŧ
lso avallable on paŦ 33ţ 1he vear of [ublleeť full reporL of Lhe proceedlnas of Lhe flfLleLh annual conference of
Lhe Church of !esus ChrlsL of LaLLerŴdav SalnLsţ held ln Lhe larae Labernacleţ SalL Lake ClLvţ uLahţ prll 6Lhţ 7Lh and
8Lhţ Ŧ uŦ 1880 Ť lso a reporL of Lhe exerclses ln Lhe SalL Lake ssemblv Pallţ on Lhe Sundav and Mondav [usL
precedlna Lhe conferenceţ Iolume 1Ŧ lso CcLober 187ţ epott of tbe 68tb 5emloooool Ceoetol coofeteoce of tbe
cbotcb of Iesos cbtlst of lottetŴJov 5olotsţ 63Ŵ66Ŧ
8v Church of !esus ChrlsL of LaLLerŴuav SalnLsţ Ceorae lŦ Clbbsţ !ohn lrvlne (reporLer)Ŧ
Llder 8ovd kŦ Þackerţ @o tbe Ooeţ dellvered aL 12ŴsLake realonal conference March 3ţ 178Ŧ
Ŧ uean 8vrdţ #When a Loved Cne SLruaales wlLh SameŴSex LLracLlonţ" £oslooţ Sep 1ţ 31Ŧ
Llder 8ovd kŦ Þackerţ @o tbe Ooeţ dellvered aL 12ŴsLake realonal conference March 3ţ 178Ŧ
Spencer klmballţ -ew notlzoos fot nomosexools pamphleLţ 171Ŧ
Ŧ uean 8vrdţ #When a Loved Cne SLruaales wlLh SameŴSex LLracLlonţ" £oslooţ Sep 1ţ 31Ŧ
hLLpť//ldsŦora/Loplcs/pdf/CodLoveLhPlsChlldren_04824_000Ŧpdf (2007)Ŧ
Llder 8ovd kŦ Þackerţ @o tbe Ooeţ dellvered aL 12ŴsLake realonal conference March 3ţ 178Ŧ
Clov !enklnsţ #Þroloaueť n examlnaLlon of Lhe Mormon aLLlLude Lowards homosexuallLvŦ" 178Ŧ
Max lord Mc8rldeţ £ffect of vlsool 5tlmoll lo £lecttlc Avetsloo @betopv 176Ŧ
lecollot leopleť ,otmoos ooJ 5omeŴsex Atttoctlooţ edlLed bv 8on Schowţ Wavne Schowţ and MarvbeLh 8avnesţ
paŦ xxvŦ
#1he bomlnable and ueLesLable Crlme aalnsL naLureť 8evlsed PlsLorv of PomosexuallLv and Mormonlsmţ
1840Ŵ180" bv Connell C'uonovanŦ vallable aL hLLpť//wwwŦconnellodonovanŦcom/abomŦhLmlŦ #l also personallv
recall an fflrmaLlon meeLlna ln 188 when a man showed up calllna hlmself onlv uavldŦ Pe saL alone ln a corner
durlna our meeLlna and became exLremelv [lLLerv when anvone approached hlmŦ l spoke wlLh hlm buL he
requesLed LhaL l remaln aL leasL slx feeL ln dlsLance awav from hlmŦ Pe Lhen rolled up hls shlrL sleeves and showed
me hls armsŦ 1he deeplvŴscarred skln on Lhe lnslde of hls arms looked llke raw hamburaer and l almosL vomlLed
from Lhe slahLŦ Pe lnformed me LhaL he had parLlclpaLed ln elecLrlc shock Lherapv aL 8?u ln 177 and had been
allowed Lo Lurn up Lhe volLaae as hlah as he wanLed LoŦ"
brldaed Lable recelved from Connell C'uonovanţ CcLober 2010Ŧ used wlLh permlsslonŦ
uŦ Mlchael Culnnţ @be ,otmoo nletotcbvť £xteosloos of lowetţ paŦ vllŴlxŦ
Sherl uewţ Co lotwotJ wltb loltbť @be 8lootopbv of CotJoo 8Ŧ nlocklevţ paŦ 31ţ qLd ln uŦ Mlchael Culnnţ @be
,otmoo nletotcbvť £xteosloos of lowetţ paŦ lxŦ
uescrlpLlonť #1he followlna lnLervlew was conducLed ln 2006 wlLh Llder uallln PŦ Caksţ a member of Lhe
Cuorum of Lhe 1welve posLles of Lhe Churchţ and Llder Lance 8Ŧ Wlckmanţ a member of Lhe SevenLvŦ 1hese
senlor Church leaders responded Lo quesLlons from Lwo members of Lhe Church's Þubllc ffalrs sLaffŦ" vallable aL
Lance Wlckmanť #CraLefullvţ Lhe answer ls LhaL sameŴaender aLLracLlon dld noL exlsL ln Lhe preŴearLh llfe and
nelLher wlll lL exlsL ln Lhe nexL llfeŦ lL ls a clrcumsLance LhaL for whaLever reason or reasons seems Lo applv rlahL

now ln morLallLvţ ln Lhls nanoŴsecond of our eLernal exlsLenceŦ" uescrlpLlonť #1he followlna lnLervlew was
conducLed ln 2006 wlLh Llder uallln PŦ Caksţ a member of Lhe Cuorum of Lhe 1welve posLles of Lhe Churchţ and
Llder Lance 8Ŧ Wlckmanţ a member of Lhe SevenLvŦ 1hese senlor Church leaders responded Lo quesLlons from Lwo
members of Lhe Church's Þubllc ffalrs sLaffŦ" vallable aL hLLpť//beLaŴnewsroomŦldsŦora/offlclalŴsLaLemenL/sameŴ
5exool llolJltv bv Llsa ulamond ls also one source suaaesLlna Lhe flexlblllLv of sexual orlenLaLlon for someŦ lsoţ
SLanLon LŦ !ones (WheaLon Colleae) and Mark Ŧ ?arhouse (8eaenL unlverslLv)Ŵ avallable aL
hLLpť//wwwŦlvpressŦcom/medla/pdfs/exŴaavŴapaŦpdf lndlcaLes LhaL aL leasL some ln a slxŴLoŴseven vear sLudv
reporL subsLanLlal movemenL awav from homosexual orlenLaLlon and Loward heLerosexual orlenLaLlonŦ More
dlrecLlvţ uavld reporLed homosexual aLLracLlons and never belna aLLracLed Lo alrls (paŦ 161)ţ followed bv belna
#free of Lhe sLruaales of Lrvlna Lo reslsL homosexual LempLaLlon" (paŦ 164) ln Lrln Lldrldaeţ 8oto @bot wovť A @toe
5totv of Ovetcomloo 5omeŴsex Atttoctlooţ uesereL 8ook 14Ŧ ln Lhe same bookţ Lhe auLhor reporLs belna lesblanţ
Lhen laLer marrvlna a man and experlenclna freedom from sameŴsex aLLracLlon (paŦ 2)Ŧ Lldrldae also lncludes an
accounL of !effţ who was phvslcallv aLLracLed Lo oLher bovs as a vouna bov and Lhrouah colleae and laLer #was no
lonaer sexuallv aLLracLed Lo oLher men" and #arew lnLo mv Lrue heLerosexual ldenLlLv wlLh lLs subsequenL
aLLracLlons and deslres for Lhe opposlLe sex" (paŦ 16)Ŧ See also Lhe second LesLlmonlal ln uavld MaLhesonţ #1he
LranslLlon from homosexuallLvť Lhe role of Lverareen lnLernaLlonalţ" ln ln uoJetstooJloo nomosexoolltvť
letspectlves of lu5 lsvcboloolsts ooJ lsvcbotbetoplsts bv MCÞ (ssoclaLlon of Mormon Counselors and
ÞsvchoLheraplsLs)ţ 13ţ paŦ 10Ŧ lsoţ 8avmond reporLs chanalna from a homosexual Lo a heLerosexual ln 8lck
Þhllllps's coosetvotlve cbtlstloo lJeotltv ooJ 5omeŴsex Otleototlooť @be cose of Cov ,otmoosţ 2003ţ paŦ 8Ŧ
8oberL !amesţ #1he lrulLs of lalLhţ" ln uoJetstooJloo 5omeŴ5ex Atttoctlooť lu5 £Jltlooţ LdlLors uahleţ uanLţ
8vrdţ uuncanţ Coxţ LlvlnasLoneţ and Wellsţ loundaLlon for LLracLlon 8esearchţ 200ţ paŦ 428Ŧ
8oberL 8ov 8rlLLţ #SclenLlsLs Make lrulL llles Cavţ 1hen SLralahL aalnţ" loxnewsŦcomţ 1uesdavţ uecember 11ţ
2007Ŧ hLLpť//wwwŦfoxnewsŦcom/sLorv/0ţ233ţ316316ţ00ŦhLml
!effrev 8Ŧ Pollandţ #Pelplna 1hose Who SLruaale wlLh SameŴCender LLracLlonţ" £oslooţ CcL 2007ţ 42Ŷ43
Cod LoveLh Pls Chlldrenţ 2007ţ avallable aL hLLpť//ldsŦora/Loplcs/pdf/CodLoveLhPlsChlldren_04824_000Ŧpdf
uescrlpLlonť #1he followlna lnLervlew was conducLed ln 2006 wlLh Llder uallln PŦ Caksţ a member of Lhe
Cuorum of Lhe 1welve posLles of Lhe Churchţ and Llder Lance 8Ŧ Wlckmanţ a member of Lhe SevenLvŦ 1hese
senlor Church leaders responded Lo quesLlons from Lwo members of Lhe Church's Þubllc ffalrs sLaffŦ" vallable aL
8lll 8radshawţ #1he Lvldence for a 8loloalcal Crlaln of PomosexuallLvţ" avallable aL
Ǝhlƹen paŦ 27Ŧ
uallln PŦ Caksţ #Pe Peals Lhe Peavv Ladenţ" £oslooţ nov 2006ţ 6ŶŦ
8oberL 8ees ln 8lll 8radshawţ #1he Lvldence for a 8loloalcal Crlaln of PomosexuallLvţ" avallable aL
Ǝhlƹen Ln paŦ 27Ŧ
uallln PŦ Caksţ #Mlraclesţ" £oslooţ !un 2001ţ 6
1v Mansfleldţ lo Oolet uespetotlooţ paae 77Ŵ78Ŧ
Þersonal emall CcLober 2010ţ used wlLh permlsslonŦ
lecollot leopleť ,otmoos ooJ 5omeŴsex Atttoctlooţ edlLed bv 8on Schowţ Wavne Schowţ and MarvbeLh 8avnesţ
paŦ 111Ŧ
lecollot leopleť ,otmoos ooJ 5omeŴsex Atttoctlooţ edlLed bv 8on Schowţ Wavne Schowţ and MarvbeLh 8avnesţ
paŦ l don'L rememberŴ somewhere ln Lhe 324 paaesŦ
8lll 8radshawţ #1he Lvldence for a 8loloalcal Crlaln of PomosexuallLvţ" avallable aL
Ǝhlƹen paŦ 30Ŧ
lsaac Plamanţ avallable aL hLLpť//mvouLsplrlLŦcom/lndexŦphp?paaƹadverLlse_lnsplraLlonƎldƹ34Ŧ uescrlpLlonť
#lsaac Plaham resldes ln uLah and wroLe Lhls posL ln response Lo a Lalk aL Lhe Church of !esus ChrlsL of LaLLerŴdav
SalnLs (LuS) Ceneral Conference on Sundavţ CcLober 3rd 2010Ŧ"

Clov !enklnsţ #Þroloaueť n examlnaLlon of Lhe Mormon aLLlLude Lowards homosexuallLvŦ" 178Ŧ
8renL klrbvţ from hls lacebook noLe pasLed SepLember 2010Ŧ
Clov !enklnsţ #Þroloaueť n examlnaLlon of Lhe Mormon aLLlLude Lowards homosexuallLvŦ" 178Ŧ
ulllon klnkeadţ Luclnda and uennls 8ombovŦ ƍueadlv Labooť ?ouLh sulclde an epldemlc LhaL manv ln uLah
prefer Lo lanoreŦƍ uesetet ,otoloo -ewsŦ prŦ 2006Ŧ 22 lebŦ 2010
8oberL 8eesţ uloloooe WlnLer 2003ţ volŦ 38ţ noŦ 4ţ paŦ 210Ŧ
8lll 8radshawţ #1he Lvldence for a 8loloalcal Crlaln of PomosexuallLvţ" avallable aL
Ǝhlƹen paŦ 30Ŧ
nonvmousŦ SolusŦ uloloooeť A Iootool of ,otmoo @booobtţ 10 (2)ţ 4Ŵţ uLumn
(176)Ŧ lsoţ ueclslons of Lhe SoulŦ LuS Þersonal ccounLs of SameŴSex CrlenLaLlon ln CpposlLeŴsex MarrlaaeŦ 1he
lnLermounLaln Conference on SexuallLv and PomosexuallLvţ prll 2ţ 13Ŧ uwlahL Cookţ 8ob klllanţ and karen
Swannackţ Serles LdlLorsŦ 33Ŧ LasLţ Þearsonţ Carol LvnnŦ no More CoodbvesŦ ÞlvoL ÞolnL 8ooksţ WalnuL Creekţ CŦ
8lll 8radshawţ #1he Lvldence for a 8loloalcal Crlaln of PomosexuallLvţ" avallable aL
Ǝhlƹen paŦ 30Ŧ
Clov !enklnsţ #Þroloaueť n examlnaLlon of Lhe Mormon aLLlLude Lowards homosexuallLvŦ" 178Ŧ
Carol Lvnn Þearsonţ -o ,ote CooJbvesť cltclloo tbe woooos AtoooJ Oot Cov loveJ Ooes paŦ 16Ŧ
PelL Mţ kellev Lţ klnsbourne M eL alŦ Can chlldren wlLh auLlsm recover? lf soţ how? -eotopsvcbol evŦ
Mvers SMţ !ohnson CÞţ Councll on Chlldren wlLh ulsablllLlesŦ ManaaemenL of chlldren wlLh auLlsm specLrum
dlsordersŦ leJlottlcsŦ 2007Ť120(3)ť1162Ŷ82Ŧ
Sallv !Ŧ 8oaersaŤ Laurle Ŧ Ilsmaraaţ £vlJeoceŴ8oseJ comptebeoslve @teotmeots fot £otlv AotlsmŦ
ÞŦ ScoLL 8lchardsţ #1he LreaLmenL of homosexuallLvť some hlsLorlcalţ conLemporarvţ and personal perspecLlvesţ"
ln uoJetstooJloo nomosexoolltvť letspectlves of lu5 lsvcboloolsts ooJ lsvcbotbetoplsts bv MCÞ (ssoclaLlon of
Mormon Counselors and ÞsvchoLheraplsLs)ţ 13ţ paŦ 3Ŧ
SLanLon LŦ !ones (WheaLon Colleae) and Mark Ŧ ?arhouse (8eaenL unlverslLv)Ŵ avallable aL
8lll 8radshawţ #1he Lvldence for a 8loloalcal Crlaln of PomosexuallLvţ" avallable aL
Ǝhlƹen paŦ 24Ŧ
8lll 8radshawţ #1he Lvldence for a 8loloalcal Crlaln of PomosexuallLvţ" avallable aL
Ǝhlƹen paŦ 23Ŧ
Lvndsev Cravenţ Pelen Ŧ 1uppenţ CareLh uŦ Creaaalnsţ SLephen !Ŧ ParboLLleţ !ulle LŦ Murphvţ Lvnsev MŦ Creeţ
llson ÞŦ Murdochţ ÞaLrlck lŦ Chlnnervţ 8oberL WŦ 1avlorţ 8oberL nŦ LlahLowlersţ Marv PerberLţ Ǝ uoualass MŦ
1urnbullţ #Þronuclear Lransfer ln human embrvos Lo prevenL Lransmlsslon of mlLochondrlal un dlseaseţ" -ototeţ
IolŦ 464 noŦ 721ţ prll 13ţ 2010Ŧ news release hLLpť//wwwŦwlredŦcom/wlredsclence/2010/04/mlLochondrlaŴ
ÞZ Mversţ ƍMv mouse has Lwo daddlesţƍ posLed on uecember 11ţ 2010ţ
hLLpť//sclencebloasŦcom/pharvnaula/2010/12/mv_mouse_has_Lwo_daddlesŦphp SLudvť uena !Mţ SaLoh kţ Chana
Pţ Zhana Zţ SLewarL Muţ Wana Pţ Coonev !ţ 8ehrlnaer 88 (2010) CeneraLlon of vlable male and female mlce from
Lwo faLhersŦ 8loloov of eptoJoctloo uClť10Ŧ103/blolreprodŦ110Ŧ088831Ŧ
8oaer McShaneţ #1he ModeraLor's 8ebuLLal 8emarksţ" 3 !anuarv 2011ţ
!onaLhan 8auchţ Cov ,ottlooeť wbv lt ls CooJ fot Covsţ CooJ fot 5ttolobtsţ ooJ CooJ fot Ametlcoţ 2004ţ paŦ

dam kolaslnkslţ ƍ1he Secular Case aalnsL Cav Marrlaaeţ @be @ecbţ
dam kolaslnkslţ ƍ1he Secular Case aalnsL Cav Marrlaaeţ @be @ecbţ
!oanna Lvn Cramaţ ƍ1he ƌnewƌ newlvwedsť marrlaae amona Lhe elderlvţ suaaesLlons Lo Lhe elder law
pracLlcLlonerţ" @be £lJet low Iootoolţ Iolume 7ţ 2000ţ paŦ 380Ŧ
dam kolaslnkslţ ƍ1he Secular Case aalnsL Cav Marrlaaeţ @be @ecbţ
1he laLLer opLlon ls normaLlve ln some culLuresţ see eŦaŦ Ilola PorbsLţ #Male lnferLlllLv ln Mallť klnshlp and
lmpacLs on 8lomedlcal ÞracLlce ln 8amakoţ" ln !onaLhan LŦ 8rockoppţ edŦţ ,osllm ,eJlcol £tblcsť ltom @beotv to
ltoctlceţ 2008Ť Marlda Pollosţ ulla Larsenţ Cka Cbonoţ 8ruce WhlLehouseţ #1he problem of lnferLlllLv ln hlah
ferLlllLv populaLlonsť Meanlnasţ consequences and coplna mechanlsms ln Lwo nlaerlan communlLlesţ"
5oclol 5cleoce Ǝ ,eJlcloe 68 (200) 2061Ŷ2068Ŧ
kendel ChrlsLensenţ ƍMuslnas on Marrlaae and Chlldrenţƍ @be Offlclol webslte of keoJel cbtlsteoseoţ lebruarv
2010ţ hLLpť//wwwŦkendelcŦcom/1/posL/2010/02/muslnasŴonŴmarrlaaeŴandŴchlldrenŦhLml
llx Shulmanţ #Craans and Craasmsţ" ln Ilvlan aornlck and 8arbara kŦ moranţ edsŦţ womeo lo 5exlst 5ocletvť
5toJles lo lowet ooJ lowetlessoessţ (new ?orkť 8aslc 8ooksţ 171)ţ ppŦ 18ţ 203Ŧ
!onaLhan 8auchţ Cov ,ottlooeť wbv lt ls CooJ fot Covsţ CooJ fot 5ttolobtsţ ooJ CooJ fot Ametlcoţ 2004ţ paŦ
!onaLhan 8auchţ Cov ,ottlooeť wbv lt ls CooJ fot Covsţ CooJ fot 5ttolobtsţ ooJ CooJ fot Ametlcoţ 2004ţ paŦ
Ialerle Pudsonţ ƍ1he Men Pave Muffed lLť Pow Menƌs MlsundersLandlna of Lhe 1elos of Marrlaae lmperlls lLs
luLureţƍ prll 200ţ #ddlLlonal CommenLarv on Lhe Sherlock/PerLzbera/Pancock uebaLeţ" 5ooote@woţ IolŦ 1 noŦ
1 (lall 2008)ţ hLLpť//squareLwoŦora/Sq2ddlCommenLarvSherlockŦhLml
!onaLhan 8auchţ Cov ,ottlooeť wbv lt ls CooJ fot Covsţ CooJ fot 5ttolobtsţ ooJ CooJ fot Ametlcoţ 2004ţ paŦ 7Ŧ
#Church 8esponds Lo P8C ÞeLlLlonţ" 12 CcLober 2010Ŧ hLLpť//beLaŴnewsroomŦldsŦora/arLlcle/churchŴmormonŴ
8lll 8radshawţ #1he Lvldence for a 8loloalcal Crlaln of PomosexuallLvţ" avallable aL
Ǝhlƹen paŦ 37Ŧ
CommunlcaLlon beLween *MaLLhew and Lhe auLhorţ SepLember 2010Ŧ
8lll 8radshawţ #1he Lvldence for a 8loloalcal Crlaln of PomosexuallLvţ" avallable aL
Ǝhlƹen paŦ 26Ŧ
Clov !enklnsţ #Þroloaueť n examlnaLlon of Lhe Mormon aLLlLude Lowards homosexuallLvŦ" 178Ŧ
Wavne Schowţ # Case for Same Sex Marrlaaeť 8eplv Lo 8andolph MuhlsLelnţ" uloloooeť A Iootool of ,otmoo
@booobt 40ť3 (lall 2007)ť 40Ŵ37Ŧ
Carol Lvnn Þearsonţ -o ,ote CooJbvesť cltclloo tbe woooos AtoooJ Oot Cov loveJ Ooes paŦ Ŧ
8lll 8radshawţ #1he Lvldence for a 8loloalcal Crlaln of PomosexuallLvţ" avallable aL
Ǝhlƹen paŦ 41Ŧ
lecollot leopleť ,otmoos ooJ 5omeŴsex Atttoctlooţ edlLed bv 8on Schowţ Wavne Schowţ and MarvbeLh 8avnesţ
paŦ 111Ŧ
Carol Lvnn Þearsonţ -o ,ote CooJbvesť cltclloo tbe woooos AtoooJ Oot Cov loveJ Ooes paŦ 18Ŧ
Clov !enklnsţ #Þroloaueť n examlnaLlon of Lhe Mormon aLLlLude Lowards homosexuallLvŦ" 178Ŧ
#ÞasLoral ConsLlLuLlon on Lhe Church ln Lhe Modern WorldŴ a 8esponseţ" uocumenLs of Lhe IaLlcan llţ edŦ WŦ
8lll 8radshawţ #1he evldenced for a bloloalcal orlaln of homosexuallLv" paŦ 43Ŧ vallable aL
ƎhlƹenoLLţ paŦ 314Ŵ313ţ also #1he ÞasLoral ConsLlLuLlon" noŦ 30Ŧ CuoLed from Mcnellţ @be cbotcb ooJ tbe
nomosexoolţ paŦ 203Ŵ206 (176)Ŧ

Ialerle Pudsonţ ƍLquallLvţ Loveţ Marrlaaeţ Zlonť 8esponse Lo 8alph Pancockţƍ Mav 200ţ ƍddlLlonal
CommenLarv on Lhe Sherlock/PerLzbera/Pancock uebaLeţ Þaae 2ţƍ 5ooote@woţ IolŦ 2 noŦ 1 (Sprlna 200)
8eed PŦ 8radfordţ ƍlamllvť 1eachlnas bouL Lhe lamllvţƍ £ocvclopeJlo of ,otmoolsm 12ţ avallable aL
1he Safe Space CoallLlonţ Comprlsed of members and frlends of 1he Church of !esus ChrlsL of LaLLerŴdav SalnLsţ
hLLpť//wwwŦafflrmaLlonŦora/acLlvlsm/safe_spaceŦshLml#declaraLlonţ 2004Ŧ
8on Schowţ #Pomosexual LLracLlon and LuS Marrlaae ueclslonsţ" uloloooeť A Iootool of ,otmoo @booobt lall
2003ţ volŦ 38ţ noŦ 3ţ paŦ 133Ŵ134Ŧ
MarvbeLh 8avnesţ #Pomosexual LLracLlon and LuS Marrlaae ueclslonsţ" uloloooeť A Iootool of ,otmoo
@booobt lall 2003ţ volŦ 38ţ noŦ 3ţ paŦ 144Ŵ147Ŧ
Wavne Schowţ # Case for Same Sex Marrlaaeť 8eplv Lo 8andolph MuhlsLelnţ" uloloooeť A Iootool of ,otmoo
@booobt 40ť3 (lall 2007)ť 40Ŵ33Ŧ
Caks/Wlckman press conference
ChrlsLlan Leaal SocleLv vŦ MarLlnezţ 361 uŦSŦ ___ (2010)ţ ls a !une 28ţ 2010ţ declslon bv Lhe unlLed SLaLes
Supreme CourLŦ 1he courL upheldţ aaalnsL a llrsL mendmenL challenaeţ Lhe pollcv of Lhe unlverslLv of Callfornlaţ
PasLlnas Colleae of Lhe Law aovernlna offlclal recoanlLlon of sLudenL aroupsţ whlch requlred Lhe aroups Lo accepL
all sLudenLs reaardless of Lhelr sLaLus or bellefs ln order Lo obLaln recoanlLlonŦ Ŵ
kendlerţ kŦSŦţ eL alŦţ (14)Ŧ Lwln famllv sLudv of alcohollsm ln womenŦ lnť Am IŦ lsvcblottv 131ţ (pp707Ŵ713)
quoLed ln hLLpť//enŦwlklpedlaŦora/wlkl/SubsLance_dependence #Lpldemloloalcal sLudles esLlmaLe LhaL aeneLlc
facLors accounL for 40Ŵ60Ʒ of Lhe rlsk facLors for alcohollsm"
ndrew Sulllvanţ love uoJetecteJť -otes oo ltleoJsblpţ 5exţ ooJ 5otvlvol 18Ŧ
Wavne Schowţ # Case for Same Sex Marrlaaeť 8eplv Lo 8andolph MuhlsLelnţ" uloloooeť A Iootool of ,otmoo
@booobt 40ť3 (lall 2007)ť 40Ŵ60Ŧ
#1he 1ruLh abouL Mormonlsmţ" Oot westť A ,ooozloe of tbe OlJ loclflc ooJ tbe -ewţ SepLŦ 103ţ 242Ŧ
neal Ŧ Maxwellţ ƍSplrlLual Lcoloavƍţ -ew £toţ lebŦ 173ţ 33Ŧ
8lll 8radshawţ #1he Lvldence for a 8loloalcal Crlaln of PomosexuallLvţ" avallable aL
Ǝhlƹen paŦ 41Ŧ
IlncenL !Ŧ Samarţ #1he case for LreaLlna sameŴsex marrlaae as a human rlahL and Lhe harm of denvlna human
dlanlLvţ" ln Wardle's wbot´s tbe notmţ paŦ 241Ŵ242Ŧ
Ierbal communlcaLlon beLween me and Lhe frlendţ around SepLember 2010Ŧ
Ierbal communlcaLlon beLween me and Lhe frlendţ SepLember 2010Ŧ
Cod LoveLh Pls Chlldrenţ 2007ţ avallable aL hLLpť//ldsŦora/Loplcs/pdf/CodLoveLhPlsChlldren_04824_000Ŧpdf
Cordon 8Ŧ Plncklevţ #LxcerpLs from 8ecenL ddresses of ÞresldenL Cordon 8Ŧ Plncklevţ" £oslooţ uec 13ţ 66Ŷ
CuoLed from !Ŧ LŦ McCullouahţ Pomeť 1he Savlor of ClvlllzaLlon ż124Žţ 42Ť coofeteoce epottţ prŦ 133ţ 116
and/or ln coofeteoce epottţ prŦ 164ţ 3Ŧ
lamllvŴ l Can Pave Cne 1ooţ Cav Mormon Cuvţ 8loať ƍln Lhese aav mormon shoesŦƍ uownloaded uecember
2010 from hLLpť//lnaavmormonshoesŦbloaspoLŦcom/2010/12/araŴfamllvŴlŴcanŴhaveŴoneŴLooŦhLml
See mv marrlaae posL hLLpť//bradcarmackŦbloaspoLŦcom/200/12/covenanLŴhearLsŴmarrlaaeŴandŴ[ovŴofŦhLml
!ohn 8oswellţ cbtlstlooltvţ 5oclol @oletooceţ ooJ nomosexoolltvť Cov leople lo westeto £otope ftom tbe
8eolooloo of tbe cbtlstloo £to (Chlcaaoť unlverslLv of Chlcaao Þressţ 180)ţ 26n47ţ 82Ŵ83Ť 8oswellţ 5omeŴ5ex
uoloos lo ltemoJeto £otope (new ?orkť Illlard/8andom houseţ 14)Ŧ
uŦ Mlchael Culnnţ 5omeŴ5ex uvoomlcs omooo -loeteeotbŴceototv Ametlcoosť A ,otmoo £xompleţ 130Ŵ131Ŧ
See uocLrlne and CovenanLs Cfflclal ueclaraLlon 1ţ 180Ŧ
WŦ !ohn Walshţ #ls lnLerraclal Marrlaae a Sln?"

Puao Sallnasţ ƍLuS Church 1hreaLens Lo LxcommunlcaLe Leaallv Marrled Manť fflrmaLlon Member 8ucklev
!eppson Lo lace Church CourLţƍ March 16ţ 2006ţ hLLpť//wwwŦafflrmaLlonŦora/news/2006_26ŦshLml
Church Pandbook of lnsLrucLlons 2010ţ Pandbook 1ţ 17Ŧ3Ŧ10ţ paae 166ť #1he church accordlnalv afflrms
deflnlna marrlaae as Lhe leaal and lawful unlon beLween a man and a womanŦ"
1here seems llLLle reason ouLslde Lhe mere facL of prohlblLlon Lo condone marlLal heLerosexual buL noL marlLal
homosexual sexŦ lor more on Lhe #whv's" of sexţ see eŦaŦ !effrev Polland's #Cf Soulsţ Svmbolsţ and SacramenLsţ"
hLLpť//wwwŦfamllvllfeeducaLlonŦora/allllland/procaroup/SoulsŦhLm (!effrev 8Ŧ Polland was presldenL of 8rlaham
?ouna unlverslLv when Lhls devoLlonal address was dellvered on 12 !anuarv 188 ln Lhe MarrloLL CenLerŦ)
Parold 8Ŧ Leeţ 1he llrsL rea Ceneral Conference for Cermanvţ usLrlaţ Pollandţ lLalvţ SwlLzerlandţ lranceţ
8elalumţ and Spaln of Lhe Church of !esus ChrlsL of LaLLerŴdav SalnLsţ held ln Munlch Cermanvţ uausL 24Ŷ26ţ
173ţ wlLh epotts ooJ ulscootsesţ 6Ŧ
@eocbloos of tbe ltopbet Iosepb 5mltbţ ppŦ 236Ŷ7Ŧ
Mark SLrasserţ #1he lleaed Parms of 8ecoanlzlna SameŴsex Marrlaaeţ" ln Wardle's wbot´s tbe notmţ paŦ 33Ŧ
damlnCeorala wroLe aL 03/01/2011 00ť36ť04 am on £cooomlst uebotesţ
e_8rlefŦpdfţ hLLpť//weddlnaŦLhe[onsŦneL/homework/opLlonal_readlnasŦpdf
SexƷ20CouplesƷ20ÞoslLlonƷ20SLaLemenLƷ20ŴƷ20CcLoberƷ202006Ʒ20Ʒ281Ʒ2Ŧpdf ŦŽ
naneLLe CarLrell and Pennv 8os ţ leJlottlcs publlshed onllne !un 7ţ 2010Ť uClť 10Ŧ1342/pedsŦ200Ŵ3133ţ #uS
naLlonal LonalLudlnal Lesblan lamllv SLudvť Þsvcholoalcal d[usLmenL of 17Ŵ?earŴCld dolescenLsţ" avallable aL
1lmoLhv !Ŧ 8lblarzţ Lvren SavclŦ ƍLesblanţ Cavţ 8lsexualţ and 1ransaender lamlllesţƍ arLlcle flrsL publlshed onllneť
18 !une 2010ţ Iootool of ,ottlooe ooJ lomllvţ Iolume 72ţ lssue 3ţ paaes 480Ŷ47Ŧ
#Marrlaae of SameŴSex Couples" Ŷ 2006 ÞoslLlon SLaLemenLţ coooJloo lsvcboloolcol Assoclotlooţ avallable aL
Wavne Schowţ # Case for Same Sex Marrlaaeť 8eplv Lo 8andolph MuhlsLelnţ" uloloooeť A Iootool of ,otmoo
@booobt 40ť3 (lall 2007)ť paŦ 62ţ fooLnoLe 4Ŧ
lamllvŴ l Can Pave Cne 1ooţ Cav Mormon Cuvţ 8loať ƍln Lhese aav mormon shoesŦƍ uownloaded uecember
2010 from hLLpť//lnaavmormonshoesŦbloaspoLŦcom/2010/12/araŴfamllvŴlŴcanŴhaveŴoneŴLooŦhLml
Mark SLrasserţ #1he lleaed Parms of 8ecoanlzlna SameŴsex Marrlaaeţ" ln Wardle's wbot´s tbe notmţ paŦ 2Ŧ
!onaLhan 8auchţ Cov ,ottlooeť wbv lt ls CooJ fot Covsţ CooJ fot 5ttolobtsţ ooJ CooJ fot Ametlcoţ 2004ţ paŦ 7Ŧ
#laLherţ Conslder ?our Wavsţ" £oslooţ !un 2002ţ 12
!onaLhan 8auchţ Cov ,ottlooeť wbv lt ls CooJ fot Covsţ CooJ fot 5ttolobtsţ ooJ CooJ fot Ametlcoţ 2004ţ paŦ 22Ŧ
!onaLhan 8auchţ Cov ,ottlooeť wbv lt ls CooJ fot Covsţ CooJ fot 5ttolobtsţ ooJ CooJ fot Ametlcoţ 2004ţ paŦ 23Ŧ
ƍLeL Lhem wedť 1here ls no compelllna reason Lo exclude homosexual couples from marrlaaeţ and several
compelllna reasons Lo lnclude Lhemţƍ !an 4Lh 16ţ hLLpť//wwwŦeconomlsLŦcom/node/231338
!onaLhan 8auchţ Cov ,ottlooeť wbv lt ls CooJ fot Covsţ CooJ fot 5ttolobtsţ ooJ CooJ fot Ametlcoţ 2004ţ paŦ 78Ŧ
!onaLhan 8auchţ Cov ,ottlooeť wbv lt ls CooJ fot Covsţ CooJ fot 5ttolobtsţ ooJ CooJ fot Ametlcoţ 2004ţ paŦ 23Ŧ
!onaLhan 8auchţ Cov ,ottlooeť wbv lt ls CooJ fot Covsţ CooJ fot 5ttolobtsţ ooJ CooJ fot Ametlcoţ 2004ţ paŦ 26Ŧ
!onaLhan 8auchţ Cov ,ottlooeť wbv lt ls CooJ fot Covsţ CooJ fot 5ttolobtsţ ooJ CooJ fot Ametlcoţ 2004ţ paŦ 27Ŧ
!ames CŦ Wllsonţ @be ,otol 5eoseţ 13Ŧ
!onaLhan 8auchţ Cov ,ottlooeť wbv lt ls CooJ fot Covsţ CooJ fot 5ttolobtsţ ooJ CooJ fot Ametlcoţ 2004ţ paŦ 20Ŧ

ƍLeL Lhem wedť 1here ls no compelllna reason Lo exclude homosexual couples from marrlaaeţ and several
compelllna reasons Lo lnclude Lhemţƍ !an 4Lh 16ţ hLLpť//wwwŦeconomlsLŦcom/node/231338
!onaLhan 8auchţ Cov ,ottlooeť wbv lt ls CooJ fot Covsţ CooJ fot 5ttolobtsţ ooJ CooJ fot Ametlcoţ 2004ţ paŦ 21Ŧ
!ohn Poward Crlfflnţ 8lock llke ,eţ SlaneLţ paŦ 17Ŧ
lrlend of Lhe auLhorţ oral communlcaLlonţ !anuarv 2011Ŧ
8arbara Couden Pernandezţ naoml !Ŧ Schwenkeţ Ǝ Colwlck MŦ Wllsonţ ƍSpouses ln MlxedŴCrlenLaLlon Marrlaaeť
a 20Ŵvear 8evlew of Lmplrlcal SLudlesţƍ Iootool of ,otltol ooJ lomllv @betopvţ 26 prll 2010ţ paŦ 4ţ
uallln Caksť #Þersons who have Lhls klnd of challenae LhaL Lhev cannoL conLrol could noL enLer marrlaae ln aood
falLhŦ" uescrlpLlonť #1he followlna lnLervlew was conducLed ln 2006 wlLh Llder uallln PŦ Caksţ a member of Lhe
Cuorum of Lhe 1welve posLles of Lhe Churchţ and Llder Lance 8Ŧ Wlckmanţ a member of Lhe SevenLvŦ 1hese
senlor Church leaders responded Lo quesLlons from Lwo members of Lhe Church's Þubllc ffalrs sLaffŦ" vallable aL
Pavelock Lllls Ǝ !ohn ddlnaLon Svmondsţ 5exool lovetslooţ 187ţ paŦ 142Ŵ132Ŧ
!onaLhan 8auchţ Cov ,ottlooeť wbv lt ls CooJ fot Covsţ CooJ fot 5ttolobtsţ ooJ CooJ fot Ametlcoţ 2004ţ paŦ 6Ŵ

MŦ IŦ Lee 8adaeLLţ wbeo Cov leople Cet ,ottleJť wbot noppeosţ wbeo 5ocletles leoollze 5omeŴsex ,ottlooeţ
200ţ paŦ 4Ŧ
8ovd kŦ Þackerţ #1o ?ouna Men Cnlvţ" Ceneral Conference ÞrlesLhood Sesslonţ CcLober 2ţ 176Ŧ
8ovd kŦ Þackerţ cLlna ÞresldenL of Lhe Cuorum of Lhe 1welve posLlesţ #Cleanslna Lhe lnner Iessel" CcLober 3
2010ţ orlalnal LranscrlpL quoLe avallable aL hLLpť//LlmesandseasonsŦora/lndexŦphp/2010/10/whvŴwouldŴourŴ
8en PerLzberaţ ƍMarrlaaeţ Mormonlsmţ and PomosexuallLvť 8esponse Lo 8lchard Sherlockţƍ March 200ţ
uavld Ŧ 8ednarţ C and sesslon ln new ?orkţ 23 lebruarv 2011ţ avallable aL
lor more on femlnlsL/aender lssuesţ see hLLpť//bradcarmackŦbloaspoLŦcom/2010/08/sunsLoneŴsvmposlumŴ
reflecLlnaŴonŦhLml and hLLpť//bradcarmackŦbloaspoLŦcom/2010/04/reflecLlonsŴofŴmormonŴfemlnlsLŴroleŴofŦhLml
PlsLorv of Lhe Churchţ 3ť32Ŷ30Ť spelllna and puncLuaLlon modernlzedŤ from a dlscourse alven bv !oseph SmlLh
on uaŦ 13ţ 1843ţ ln nauvooţ llllnolsŤ reporLed bv Wlllard 8lchardsŦ
WrlLLen communlcaLlon wlLh Lhe auLhorţ SepLember 2010 (name of quoLed wlLhheld)Ŧ
WrlLLen communlcaLlon wlLh Lhe auLhorţ SepLember 2010 (name of quoLed wlLhheld)Ŧ
WrlLLen communlcaLlon wlLh Lhe auLhorţ SepLember 2010 (name of quoLed wlLhheld)Ŧ
1houah cerLalnlv some homosexuallv orlenLed people converLţ see eŦaŦ
Llder 8ŦPŦ 8oberLsţ #8ook of Mormon 1ranslaLlonţ" Ŧ
Wavne Schowţ # Case for Same Sex Marrlaaeť 8eplv Lo 8andolph MuhlsLelnţ" uloloooeť A Iootool of ,otmoo
@booobt 40ť3 (lall 2007)ť 40Ŵ3Ŵ60Ŧ
See #1he bomlnable and ueLesLable Crlme aalnsL naLureť 8evlsed PlsLorv of PomosexuallLv and
Mormonlsmţ 1840Ŵ180" bv Connell C'uonovanŦ vallable aL hLLpť//wwwŦconnellodonovanŦcom/abomŦhLml
Connell C'uonovanţ #1he LLloloav of PomosexuallLv from uLhorlLaLlve LaLLerŴdav SalnL ÞerspecLlvesţ 187Ŵ
2006ţ" november 2006Ŧ vallable aL hLLpť//connellodonovanŦcom/eLloloavŦhLm
uon LaLLlnţ Chronlcle 8ellalon WrlLerţ ƍMuslnas of Lhe Maln Mormonţƍ San lranclsco Chronlcle prll 13ţ 17ţ
8ead moreť hLLpť//wwwŦsfaaLeŦcom/calŴ
bln/arLlcleŦcal?flleƹ/chronlcle/archlve/17/04/13/SC3628Ŧu1L#lxzz13l1aCarvţ downloaded from
uŦ Mlchael Culnnţ 5omeŴ5ex uvoomlcs omooo -loeteeotbŴceototv Ametlcoosť A ,otmoo £xomple paŦ 373Ŧ

uŦ Mlchael Culnnţ 5omeŴ5ex uvoomlcs omooo -loeteeotbŴceototv Ametlcoosť A ,otmoo £xomple paŦ 3Ť see
also chapLer 10Ŧ
uŦ Mlchael Culnnţ 5omeŴ5ex uvoomlcs omooo -loeteeotbŴceototv Ametlcoosť A ,otmoo £xomple paŦ 272Ŧ
See lrank Lsshomţ Þloneers and ÞromlnenL Men of uLahţ Comprlslna ÞhoLoaraphsŴCenealoalesŴ8loaraphles
(113)ţ paŦ 246ţ quoLed ln uŦ Mlchael Culnnţ 5omeŴ5ex uvoomlcs omooo -loeteeotbŴceototv Ametlcoosť A
,otmoo £xomple paŦ 272Ŧ
SalL Lake CounLv ÞrobaLe CourLţ Clvll and Crlmlnal uockeL 8ookţ paae 240 for 13 sepLŦ and 1 SepLŦ 1864ţ Serles
344ţ 8eel 3ţ uLah SLaLe rchlvesţ qLd ln uŦ Mlchael Culnnţ 5omeŴ5ex uvoomlcs omooo -loeteeotbŴceototv
Ametlcoosť A ,otmoo £xomple paŦ 272Ŧ
See references ln fooLnoLe 30ţ uŦ Mlchael Culnnţ 5omeŴ5ex uvoomlcs omooo -loeteeotbŴceototv Ametlcoosť A
,otmoo £xomple paŦ 27Ŧ CuoLe from paae 274Ŧ
uŦ Mlchael Culnnţ 5omeŴ5ex uvoomlcs omooo -loeteeotbŴceototv Ametlcoosť A ,otmoo £xomple paŦ 276Ŧ
uŦ Mlchael Culnnţ 5omeŴ5ex uvoomlcs omooo -loeteeotbŴceototv Ametlcoosť A ,otmoo £xomple paŦ 232Ŧ
uŦ Mlchael Culnnţ 5omeŴ5ex uvoomlcs omooo -loeteeotbŴceototv Ametlcoosť A ,otmoo £xomple paŦ 263Ŧ
Ceorae Chauncevţ ln Cov -ew )otkť CeoJetţ utboo coltoteţ ooJ tbe ,okloo of tbe Cov ,ole wotlJţ 180Ŵ140
(new ?orkť 8aslc 8ooks/ParperColllnsţ 14)ţ qLd ln uŦ Mlchael Culnnţ 5omeŴ5ex uvoomlcs omooo -loeteeotbŴ
ceototv Ametlcoosť A ,otmoo £xomple paŦ 6Ŧ
uŦ Mlchael Culnnţ 5omeŴ5ex uvoomlcs omooo -loeteeotbŴceototv Ametlcoosť A ,otmoo £xomple paŦ 83Ŧ
kennvţ wllfotJ wooJtoff´s Iootoolţ 2ť227 (16 prŦ 1843)ţ qLd ln uŦ Mlchael Culnnţ 5omeŴ5ex uvoomlcs omooo
-loeteeotbŴceototv Ametlcoosť A ,otmoo £xomple paŦ 87Ŧ
Mlsslonarv Pandbookţ #?ou and vour companlon are Lo sleep ln Lhe same bedroomţ buL noL ln Lhe same bedŦ"
pŦ 24 (noL sure whlch vearŴ 2000's somewhere)Ŧ lso called Lhe #WhlLe PandbookŦ"
uŦ Mlchael Culnnţ 5omeŴ5ex uvoomlcs omooo -loeteeotbŴceototv Ametlcoosť A ,otmoo £xomple paŦ 1Ŧ
uŦ Mlchael Culnnţ 5omeŴ5ex uvoomlcs omooo -loeteeotbŴceototv Ametlcoosť A ,otmoo £xomple paŦ 370Ŵ373Ŧ
uŦ Mlchael Culnnţ 5omeŴ5ex uvoomlcs omooo -loeteeotbŴceototv Ametlcoosť A ,otmoo £xomple paŦ 370Ŵ373Ŧ
8ushţ #LxcommunlcaLlon and Church CourLsţ" paŦ 84ţ qLd ln uŦ Mlchael Culnnţ 5omeŴ5ex uvoomlcs omooo
-loeteeotbŴceototv Ametlcoosť A ,otmoo £xomple paŦ 380Ŧ
uŦ Mlchael Culnn (13)ţ ƍ,oleŴ,ole lotlmocv omooo -loeteeotbŴceototv ,otmoosŸo cose 5toJvƍţ 28(4)
uloloooeţ 103Ŷ28Ŧ
Wavne Schowţ # Case for Same Sex Marrlaaeť 8eplv Lo 8andolph MuhlsLelnţ" uloloooeť A Iootool of ,otmoo
@booobt 40ť3 (lall 2007)ť 40Ŵ60Ŧ
Mac Madsenţ ƍPomosexuallLv and Lhe Churchť ÞerspecLlves of an LuS laLherţƍ from a paper dellvered aL Lhe
2000 SunsLone Svmposlumţ avallable aL
hLLpť//wwwŦafflrmaLlonŦora/resources/homosexuallLv_and_Lhe_churchŦshLmlŦ lso aL nlstotv of tbe cbotcb 3ť340Ŧ
Puah 8Ŧ 8rownţ # llnal 1esLlmonvţ" ln Ao AbooJoot llfeţ avallable aL hLLpť//wwwŦldsŴ
rLlcle of lalLh Ŧ
8?u 8oard of 1rusLees conslsLlna of Lhe llrsL Þresldencvţ seven members of Lhe Cuorum of Lhe 1welveţ and
oLher Ceneral uLhorlLles and Cfflcersţ quoLed ln ,otmoolsm ooJ £volotlooť @be Aotbotltotlve lu5 5totemeots bv
Wllllam LŦ Lvenson and uuane LŦ !effervţ Crea kofford 8ooks 2003ţ paae 4Ŧ
Wavne Schowţ # Case for Same Sex Marrlaaeť 8eplv Lo 8andolph MuhlsLelnţ" uloloooeť A Iootool of ,otmoo
@booobt 40ť3 (lall 2007)ť 40Ŵ33Ŧ
!onaLhan 8auchţ Cov ,ottlooeť wbv lt ls CooJ fot Covsţ CooJ fot 5ttolobtsţ ooJ CooJ fot Ametlcoţ 2004ţ paŦ 3Ŧ
Ceorae Pandlevţ ƍ1he envlronmenLal eLhlcs of mormon bellefţƍ 8)u 5toJles 40ť 2 (2001) paŦ 206Ŧ
Mllaramţ SLanlev (163)Ŧ ƍ8ehavloral SLudv of CbedlenceƍŦ !ournal of bnormal and Soclal Þsvcholoav 67ť 371Ŷ
378Ŧ 5ee olso hLLpť//enŦwlklpedlaŦora/wlkl/Mllaram_experlmenL#clLe_noLeŴCbedSLudvŴ0Ŧ
Church Pandbook of lnsLrucLlons (CPl)ţ 2006ţ 186Ŵ188Ŧ #rLlflclal lnsemlnaLlon wlLh semen from anvone buL
Lhe husband ls sLronalv dlscouraaedŦ" #rLlflclal lnsemlnaLlon of slnale slsLers ls noL approvedŦ" #ln vlLro
ferLlllzaLlon uslna semen from anvone buL Lhe husband or an eaa from anvone buL Lhe wlfe ls sLronalv
dlscouraaedŦ" #SurroaaLe moLherhood ls sLronalv dlscouraaedŦ" #1he donaLlon of sperm ls sLronalv dlscouraaedŦ"

#1he Church sLronalv dlscouraaes suralcal sLerlllzaLlon as an elecLlve form of blrLh conLrolŦ" l quoLe from Lhls
resource because 1) Lhe 2006 CPl ls broadlv avallable onllneţ 2) excerpLs are abundanL on bloasţ and 3) Lhe release
of Lhe conLrolllna 2010 CPl has made Lhe 2006 CPl lnsLrucLlve and valuable hlsLorlcallvţ buL no lonaer blndlnaŦ
Wavne Schowţ # Case for Same Sex Marrlaaeť 8eplv Lo 8andolph MuhlsLelnţ" uloloooeť A Iootool of ,otmoo
@booobt 40ť3 (lall 2007)ť 61Ŧ
Wavne Schowţ # Case for Same Sex Marrlaaeť 8eplv Lo 8andolph MuhlsLelnţ" uloloooeť A Iootool of ,otmoo
@booobt 40ť3 (lall 2007)ť 61Ŧ
nonvmousţ ƍLeLLers of 8ellefť n Lxchanae of 1houahLs and leellnas abouL Lhe Mormon lalLhţƍ uloloooeť A
uloloooe of ,otmoo @booobt ť3 (173)ť 11Ŵ13ţ referenced ln 8oberL 8eesţ ƍloralvlna Lhe Church and Lovlna Lhe
SalnLsť SplrlLual LvoluLlon and Lhe klnadom of Codţƍ 5oostooeţ lebruarv 12ţ paŦ 18Ŧ
@eocbloos of lteslJeots of tbe cbotcbť Iosepb 5mltb ż2007Žţ 268Ŧ
loooJotloo fot Apolooetlc lofotmotloo ooJ eseotcbţ ƍMormonlsm and raclal lssues/8lacks and Lhe
prlesLhood/LlfLlna Lhe banƍ avallable aL
CoaLesţ notolJ 8Ŧ leeţ 463ţ also 404 for Lee's admlnlsLraLlve supremacv as flrsL counselorţ quoLed ln uŦ Mlchael
Culnnţ @be ,otmoo nletotcbvť £xteosloos of lowetţ paŦ 13Ŧ
ÞresldenL Spencer WŦ klmballţ #Small cLs of Servlceţ" £oslooţ uec 174ţ 2
LrnesL LŦ Wllklnson ularvţ 3 MarŦ 163ţ qLd lnŦ Culnnţ @be ,otmoo nletotcbvť £xteosloos of lowetţ paŦ 14Ŧ
LeCrand 8lchards Lo LrnesL LŦ Wllklnsonţ 27 uecŦ 167ţ Wllklnson papersţ Lee Llbrarvţ qLd ln Culnnţ @be ,otmoo
nletotcbvť £xteosloos of lowetţ paŦ 13Ŧ See also 8lchards's 174 LapeŴrecorded oral hlsLorv ln LuS archlvesŦ
uŦ Mlchael Culnnţ @be ,otmoo nletotcbvť £xteosloos of lowetţ paŦ 14Ŧ
uŦ Mlchael Culnnţ @be ,otmoo nletotcbvť £xteosloos of lowetţ paŦ 14Ŧ
8rlaham Penrv 8oberLsţ 8v Lhe Church of !esus ChrlsL of LaLLerŴdav SalnLsţ nlstotv of tbe cbotcb of Iesos cbtlst
of lottetŴJov 5olots ÞarL 1ţ Iolume 6ţ paae 184Ŧ 1844ţ reporLed bv Wllford WoodruffŦ
nlstotv of tbe cbotcbţ 4ť478Ť from a dlscourse alven bv !oseph SmlLh on uecŦ 1ţ 1841ţ ln nauvooţ llllnolsŤ
reporLed bv Wllford WoodruffŦ
ndv lernulkţ ueot ,tŦ 5tepbeosť lettets of love ooJ of nopeŦ ÞaŦ 47Ŵ48Ŧ hLLpť//wwwŦandvfernulkŦcom/
8ruce 8Ŧ McConkleţ #ll re llke unLo Codţ" 8ruce 8Ŧ McConkle was a member of Lhe Cuorum of Lhe 1welve
posLles of 1he Church of !esus ChrlsL of LaLLerŴdav SalnLs when Lhls address was alven aL Lhe CLS 8ellalous
LducaLors Svmposlum on 18 uausL 178Ŧ
@eocbloos of tbe ltopbet Iosepb 5mltbţ ppŦ 236Ŷ7Ŧ
2 nephl 4ť33
uallln PŦ Caksţ ƍÞrlnclples Lo Covern Þosslble Þubllc SLaLemenL on LealslaLlon ffecLlna 8lahLs of Pomosexualsţƍ
Memo proposlna #aeneral prlnclples Lo aulde Lhose who prepare Lhe LexL of a publlc sLaLemenL lf one ls needed"ţ 7
uausL 184ţ hLLpť//afflrmaLlonŦora/pdf/oaks_paper_02ŦpdfŦ
!effrev nlelsenť #Leaallzlna aav marrlaae would sLrenaLhen Lhe lnsLlLuLlon of marrlaae" 4 !une 2006ţ
#1hree davs before Lhe uS senaLe voLed onţ and re[ecLedţ a proposal for wrlLlna dlscrlmlnaLlon lnLo Lhe
ConsLlLuLlonţ !effrev nlelsenţ an oraanlzaLlonal consulLanL and phllosophv lnsLrucLor aL 8rlaham ?ouna unlverslLvţ
publlshed Lhe followlna edlLorlal ln 1he SalL Lake 1rlbuneţ" avallable aL
Cordon Ŧ 8absLţ Lmllv 8Ŧ Clllţ Ǝ !ason Þlercesonţ edlLorsţ ,otol Atoomeotţ ellolooţ ooJ 5omeŴsex ,ottlooeţ
200ţ xvlllŦ
8oberL 8eesţ ƍloralvlna Lhe Church and Lovlna Lhe SalnLsť SplrlLual LvoluLlon and Lhe klnadom of Codţƍ
5oostooeţ lebruarv 12ţ paŦ 21Ŧ
uŦ Mlchael Culnnţ @be ,otmoo nletotcbvť £xteosloos of lowetţ 384Ŵ38Ŧ #Lhe use of meeLlnahouses was
encouraaed ln Plncklev's prlvaLe lnsLrucLlons Lo realonal represenLaLlvesţ sLake presldenLsţ and 'sLaLeżwldeŽ L8
coordlnaLors" (37)Ť #LuS church 'lnvolvemenL ln Lhe L8 conLroversv mav well have exceeded leaal boundarles
for LaxŴexempL lnsLlLuLlons" (38)Ť 3 CcLober 17 lnsLrucLlonť #Church bulldlnażsŽ mav be used for L8 educaLlonţ

nv and all Church meeLlnas are approprlaLe forums for dlscusslna L8" (384)Ť #Mormon conareaaLlons recelved
leafleLs descrlblna how Lo voLe for referendums and someLlmes for sLaLe lealslaLors" (383)Ť #Cn cruclal L8
referendums Mormon conareaaLlons Lrled Lo dlsLrlbuLe anLlŴL8 leafleLs Lo Lhe doorsLeps or car wlndshlelds of all
ellalble voLersŦ Wards ln 1empeţ rlzonaţ made Lhls pamphleL dlsLrlbuLlon an asslanmenL for prlesLhood bovs aaes
fourLeen Lo slxLeen" (386)Ť #ln each sLaLe anLlŴL8 #clvlc" oraanlzaLlons of Mormonsţ someLlmes of women onlvţ
were oraanlzed under Lhe dlrecLlon of 8ealonal 8epresenLaLlves of Lhe 1welveŦ 1he realonal leaders acLed under
Lhe dlrecLlon of Cordon 8Ŧ Plncklevţ chalr of Lhe Speclal ffalrs CommlLLee aL LuS headquarLers" (386)Ŧ
Mac Madsenţ ƍPomosexuallLv and Lhe Churchť ÞerspecLlves of an LuS laLherţƍ from a paper dellvered aL Lhe
2000 SunsLone Svmposlumţ avallable aL
See ÞroposlLlon 22ţ #1he knlahL lnlLlaLlveţ" hLLpť//enŦwlklpedlaŦora/wlkl/ÞroposlLlon_22
Some deLalls aL hLLpť//wwwŦldsŴmormonŦcom/arLlcleŦshLmlŤ
Some deLalls aL hLLpť//wwwŦldsŴmormonŦcom/aavldsŦshLmlţ hLLpť//wwwŦexamlnerŦcom/ldsŴchurchŴlnŴ
uŦ Mlchael Culnnţ @be ,otmoo nletotcbvť £xteosloos of lowetţ 3Ŵ400Ŧ See addlLlonal references ln fooLnoLe
uŦ Mlchael Culnnţ @be ,otmoo nletotcbvť £xteosloos of lowetţ paŦ 400Ŧ See addlLlonal references ln fooLnoLe
8andolph CŦ MuhlesLelnţ #1he Case aalnsL Cav Marrlaaeţ" uloloooeť A Iootool of ,otmoo @booobt 40ť3 (lall
c2007)ť 2Ŧ
LeLLer ln possesslon of Lhe auLhorţ !anuarv 2010Ŧ
Lzra 1afL 8ensonţ #lL Can Pappen Pereţ" ln Ao £oemv notb uooe @blsţ !erreld LŦ newqulsLţ compŦ żSalL Lake ClLvţ
uLahť ÞarllamenL Þubllshersţ 16Žţ ppŦ 103ţ 310Ŧ
n address dellvered on SepLember 2ţ 167ţ aL Lhe Ceneral Conference of 1he Church of !esus ChrlsL of LaLLerŴ
dav SalnLsţ ln Lhe 1abernacleţ SalL Lake ClLvţ uLahţ and prlnLed ln pamphleL form bv uesereL 8ook CompanvŦ
Mark LŦ ÞeLersonţ #8ace Þroblems as 1hev ffecL Lhe Churchţ" dellvered aL Lhe ConvenLlon of 1eachers of
8ellalon on Lhe Colleae Levelţ 8rlaham ?ouna unlverslLvţ uausL 27ţ134ţ hLLpť//wwwŦldsŴ
8ruce 8Ŧ McConkleţ ,otmoo uocttloeţ paŦ 114Ŧ
Mark LŦ ÞeLersonţ #8ace Þroblems as 1hev ffecL Lhe Churchţ" dellvered aL Lhe ConvenLlon of 1eachers of
8ellalon on Lhe Colleae Levelţ 8rlaham ?ouna unlverslLvţ uausL 27ţ134ţ hLLpť//wwwŦldsŴ
8ruce 8Ŧ McConkleţ ,otmoo uocttloeţ paŦ 114Ŧ
Spencer WŦ klmballţ @be @eocbloos of 5peocet wŦ klmbollţ pŦ 303Ŧ
Several mav be found aL hLLpť//wwwŦldsŴmormonŦcom/raclsmŦshLml
Mac Madsenţ ƍPomosexuallLv and Lhe Churchť ÞerspecLlves of an LuS laLherţƍ from a paper dellvered aL Lhe
2000 SunsLone Svmposlumţ avallable aL
Moronl 8ť18 lor l know LhaL Cod ls noL a parLlal Codţ nelLher a chanaeable belnaŤ buL he ls unchanaeable from
all eLernlLv Lo all eLernlLvŦ
uocLrlne and CovenanLs 38ť16 nd for vour salvaLlon l alve unLo vou a commandmenLţ for l have heard vour
praversţ and Lhe poor have complalned before meţ and Lhe rlch have l madeţ and all flesh ls mlneţ and l am no
respecLer of personsŦ
Iootool of ulscootses 10ť 10Ŧ
8ruce 8Ŧ McConkleţ ,otmoo uocttloeţ 138ţ ppŦ 107Ŵ108Ŧ
Iootool of ulscootses 7ť20Ŵ21 (CcLober ţ 183)Ŧ
mos 3ť7Ŵ #Surelv Lhe Lord Cod wlll do noLhlnaţ abuL he revealeLh hls secreL unLo hls servanLs Lhe propheLsŦ"
#LxcerpLs from Lhree addresses bv ÞresldenL Wllford Woodruff reaardlna Lhe manlfesLoţ"

SlxLvŴflrsL Semlannual Ceneral Conference of Lhe Churchţ Mondavţ CcLober 6ţ 180ţ SalL Lake ClLvţ uLahŦ 8eporLed
ln uesetet £veoloo -ewsţ CcLober 11ţ 180ţ pŦ 2Ŧ
8reLL lan Sandersţ 8evlew Lssavţ #Pe Was SollLarvţ 8ebelllousţ and Pard Lo be Covernedţ" revlewlna Carrv
Wllls's wbot Iesos ,eootţ ln SunsLone March 2007ţ paŦ 68Ŧ
Lzra 1afL 8ensonţ aposLleţ #lourLeen lundamenLals ln lollowlna Lhe ÞropheLţ" lebruarv 26ţ 180ţ avallable aL
ƍ8rlaham ?ouna revealed LhaL Lhe nearoes wlll noL recelve Lhe ÞrlesLhood unLll a areaL whlle afLer Lhe second
advenL of !esus ChrlsLţ whose comlna wlll usher ln a mlllennlum of peaceţ" !ohn LŦ Lundţ @be cbotcb ooJ tbe -eotoţ
167ţ ppŦ 43Ŵ38Ŧ
8reLL lan Sandersţ 8evlew Lssavţ #Pe Was SollLarvţ 8ebelllousţ and Pard Lo be Covernedţ" revlewlna Carrv
Wllls's wbot Iesos ,eootţ ln SunsLone March 2007ţ paŦ 67Ŧ
See rblnaer lnsLlLuLe's leoJetsblp ooJ 5elfŴueceptloo and Aootomv of leoceŦ
8oberL 8eesţ #ƍloralvlna Lhe Church and Lovlna Lhe SalnLsť SplrlLual LvoluLlon and Lhe klnadom of Codţƍ
5oostooeţ lebruarv 12ţ paŦ 26Ŧ
neal Ŧ Maxwellţ ƍSplrlLual Lcoloavƍţ new Lraţ lebŦ 173ţ 33Ŧ
8ealna MŦ SchwarLzţ @be cotse of coloť @be vloleot leoocv of ,oootbelsmţ (Chlcaaoť unlverslLv of Chlcaao
Þressţ 17)ţ paŦ 3Ŧ
Carol Lvnn Þearsonţ -o ,ote CooJbvesť cltclloo tbe woooos AtoooJ Oot Cov loveJ Ooes paŦ 64Ŧ
!effrev nlelsenť #Leaallzlna aav marrlaae would sLrenaLhen Lhe lnsLlLuLlon of marrlaae" 4 !une 2006ţ
#1hree davs before Lhe uS senaLe voLed onţ and re[ecLedţ a proposal for wrlLlna dlscrlmlnaLlon lnLo Lhe
ConsLlLuLlonţ !effrev nlelsenţ an oraanlzaLlonal consulLanL and phllosophv lnsLrucLor aL 8rlaham ?ouna unlverslLvţ
publlshed Lhe followlna edlLorlal ln 1he SalL Lake 1rlbuneţ" avallable aL
MŦ IŦ Lee 8adaeLLţ wbeo Cov leople Cet ,ottleJť wbot noppeosţ wbeo 5ocletles leoollze 5omeŴsex ,ottlooeţ
200ţ paŦ 63Ŧ
Clndv Le levreţ #1he Pldden nazl MenLallLv ln Lhe ÞroclamaLlon on Lhe lamllvţ" a paper orlalnallv presenLed aL
Lhe fflrmaLlon naLlonal Conferenceţ ÞorLlandţ Creaonţ SepLember 3ţ 18Ť revlsed and presenLed Lo Lhe Mormon
Womenƌs lorum CounLerpolnL Conferenceţ CcLober 2000ţ avallable aL
MŦ IŦ Lee 8adaeLLţ wbeo Cov leople Cet ,ottleJť wbot noppeosţ wbeo 5ocletles leoollze 5omeŴsex ,ottlooeţ
200ţ paŦ 8Ŵţ 213Ŧ
!onaLhan 8auchţ Cov ,ottlooeť wbv lt ls CooJ fot Covsţ CooJ fot 5ttolobtsţ ooJ CooJ fot Ametlcoţ 2004ţ paŦ 81Ŧ
!onaLhan 8auchţ Cov ,ottlooeť wbv lt ls CooJ fot Covsţ CooJ fot 5ttolobtsţ ooJ CooJ fot Ametlcoţ 2004ţ paŦ 4Ŧ
ƍLeL Lhem wedť 1here ls no compelllna reason Lo exclude homosexual couples from marrlaaeţ and several
compelllna reasons Lo lnclude Lhemţƍ !an 4Lh 16ţ hLLpť//wwwŦeconomlsLŦcom/node/231338
Wavne Schowţ # Case for Same Sex Marrlaaeť 8eplv Lo 8andolph MuhlsLelnţ" uloloooeť A Iootool of ,otmoo
@booobt 40ť3 (lall 2007)ť 40Ŵ36Ŧ
Clav Lsslaţ 8ellevloo tbe wotJs of Iesos cbtlst Ŷ o Cov lu5 letspectlve paŦ 10ţ wwwŦCavsnd1heCospelŦoraŦ
Wavne Schowţ # Case for Same Sex Marrlaaeť 8eplv Lo 8andolph MuhlsLelnţ" uloloooeť A Iootool of ,otmoo
@booobt 40ť3 (lall 2007)ť 40Ŵ3Ŧ
See 8arbara Couden Pernandezţ naoml !Ŧ Schwenkeţ Ǝ Colwlck MŦ Wllsonţ ƍSpouses ln MlxedŴCrlenLaLlon
Marrlaaeť a 20Ŵvear 8evlew of Lmplrlcal SLudlesţƍ Iootool of ,otltol ooJ lomllv @betopvţ 26 prll 2010ţ
8uxLonţ Ŧ ÞŦ (2004)Ŧ #Works ln proaressť Pow mlxedŴorlenLaLlon couples malnLaln Lhelr marrlaaes afLer Lhe
wlves come ouLţ" Iootool of 8lsexoolltvţ 4ţ 3Ŷ82Ŧ
Cordon Ŧ 8absLţ Lmllv 8Ŧ Clllţ Ǝ !ason Þlercesonţ edlLorsţ ,otol Atoomeotţ ellolooţ ooJ 5omeŴsex ,ottlooeţ
200ţ 218Ŧ
Cordon Ŧ 8absLţ Lmllv 8Ŧ Clllţ Ǝ !ason Þlercesonţ edlLorsţ ,otol Atoomeotţ ellolooţ ooJ 5omeŴsex ,ottlooeţ
200ţ 213Ŧ
#1P1ť l had Lhe LonemenL wronaţ" hLLpť//lnaavmormonshoesŦbloaspoLŦcom/2011/01/LhLŴlŴhadŴaLonemenLŴ
wronaŦhLmlţ 3 !anuarv 2011ţ lo @bese Cov ,otmoo 5boes bloaŦ

Cordon Ŧ 8absLţ Lmllv 8Ŧ Clllţ Ǝ !ason Þlercesonţ edlLorsţ ,otol Atoomeotţ ellolooţ ooJ 5omeŴsex ,ottlooeţ
200ţ 216Ŵ217Ŧ
Wavne Schowţ # Case for Same Sex Marrlaaeť 8eplv Lo 8andolph MuhlsLelnţ" uloloooeť A Iootool of ,otmoo
@booobt 40ť3 (lall 2007)ť 40Ŵ3Ŧ
Ialerle Pudsonţ ƍLquallLvţ Loveţ Marrlaaeţ Zlonť 8esponse Lo 8alph Pancockţƍ Mav 200ţ ƍddlLlonal
CommenLarv on Lhe Sherlock/PerLzbera/Pancock uebaLeţ Þaae 2ţƍ 5ooote@woţ IolŦ 2 noŦ 1 (Sprlna 200)
See eŦaŦ uocLrlne and CovenanLs 38ť16Ŧ
WlLherspoon lnsLlLuLeţ Marrlaae and Lhe Þubllc Coodť 10 Þrlnclplesţ 2006ţ pŦ20ţ wwwŦprlnceLonprlnclplesŦora
LŦ WalLe Ǝ LŦ Lehrerţ 1he 8eneflLs from Marrlaae Ǝ 8ellalon ln Lhe uŦSŦť ComparaLlve nalvslsţ lopolotloo Ǝ
uevelopmeot evlewţ Iol 2ţ noŦ 2ţ !une 2003ţ pŦ 264Ŧ
8rad Wllcoxţ #26 Concluslons from Lhe Soclal Sclencesţ" lnsLlLuLe for merlcan Ialuesţ wbv ,ottlooe ,ottetsţ
2oJ £Jltlooţ 2003ţ wwwŦamerlcanvaluesŦora
WlLherspoon lnsLlLuLeţ Marrlaae and Lhe Þubllc Coodť 10 Þrlnclplesţ 2006ţ pŦ20ţ wwwŦprlnceLonprlnclplesŦoraŦ
8rad Wllcoxţ #26 Concluslons from Lhe Soclal Sclencesţ" lnsLlLuLe for merlcan Ialuesţ wbv ,ottlooe ,ottetsţ
2oJ £Jltlooţ 2003ţ wwwŦamerlcanvaluesŦoraţ pŦ 17 Ǝ WlLherspoon lnsLlLuLeţ Marrlaae and Lhe Þubllc Coodť 10
Þrlnclplesţ 2006ţ pŦ20ţ wwwŦprlnceLonprlnclplesŦora
LŦ WalLeţ uoes ,ottlooe ,ottet?ţ pŦ 468Ŧ
WlLherspoon lnsLlLuLeţ Marrlaae and Lhe Þubllc Coodť 10 Þrlnclplesţ 2006ţ pŦ20ţ wwwŦprlnceLonprlnclplesŦora
8rad Wllcoxţ #26 Concluslons from Lhe Soclal Sclencesţ" lnsLlLuLe for merlcan Ialuesţ wbv ,ottlooe ,ottetsţ
2oJ £Jltlooţ 2003ţ wwwŦamerlcanvaluesŦoraţ pŦ 17 Ǝ WlLherspoon lnsLlLuLeţ Marrlaae and Lhe Þubllc Coodť 10
Þrlnclplesţ 2006ţ pŦ20ţ wwwŦprlnceLonprlnclplesŦora
Wavne Schowţ # Case for Same Sex Marrlaaeť 8eplv Lo 8andolph MuhlsLelnţ" uloloooeť A Iootool of ,otmoo
@booobt 40ť3 (lall 2007)ť 40Ŵ34Ŧ
LexlnaLonţ ƍCav marrlaaeţƍ pr Lh 200ţ 1he LconomlsLţ
!onaLhan 8auchţ Cov ,ottlooeť wbv lt ls CooJ fot Covsţ CooJ fot 5ttolobtsţ ooJ CooJ fot Ametlcoţ 2004ţ paŦ 7Ŧ
uallln Caksť #Þersons who have Lhls klnd of challenae LhaL Lhev cannoL conLrol could noL enLer marrlaae ln aood
falLhŦ" uescrlpLlonť #1he followlna lnLervlew was conducLed ln 2006 wlLh Llder uallln PŦ Caksţ a member of Lhe
Cuorum of Lhe 1welve posLles of Lhe Churchţ and Llder Lance 8Ŧ Wlckmanţ a member of Lhe SevenLvŦ 1hese
senlor Church leaders responded Lo quesLlons from Lwo members of Lhe Church's Þubllc ffalrs sLaffŦ" vallable aL
1here ls some debaLe as Lo wheLher sameŴsex couples mav klss and hold handsŦ 8ecause such aesLures are noL
Lvplcallv consldered slnful for heLerosexualsţ some conslder Lhem moral for homosexuals as wellŦ frlend wroLe
me an emall ln uecember 2010ť ƍCn Lhe one handţ ÞresldenL Plncklev sLaLedţ 'nowţ we have aavs ln Lhe churchŦ
Cood peopleŦ We Lake no acLlon aaalnsL such people ŴŴ provlded Lhev donƌL become lnvolved ln Lransaresslonţ
sexual LransaresslonŦ lf Lhev doţ we do wlLh Lhem exacLlv whaL weƌd do wlLh heLerosexuals who LransaressŦ We
have a verv sLrona moral Leachlna concernlna absLlnence before marrlaae and LoLal fldellLv followlna marrlaaeŦ
ndţ reaardless of wheLher Lhevƌre heLerosexuals or oLherwlseţ lf Lhev sLep over LhaL llne Lhere are cerLaln
sancLlonsţ cerLaln penalLles LhaL are lmposedŦ' (hLLpť//wwwŦsfaaLeŦcom/calŴ
bln/arLlcleŦcal?fƹ/c/a/17/04/13/SC3628Ŧu1LƎaoƹ3#lxzz1WCr3vaL) 1hls sLaLes qulLe clearlv LhaL Church
dlsclpllne should noL be Laken aaalnsL aavs unless Lhev commlL sexual Lransaresslonţ and LhaL Lhe sLandard of
deflnlLlon ls exacLlv Lhe same as for heLerosexualsŦ 1hereforeţ slnce fllrLlna and klsslna are noL consldered sexual
Lransaresslons for heLerosexualsţ Lhev shouldnƌL be for homosexuals elLherŦ lor addlLlonal relevanL quoLes on Lhls
polnLţ Lhere ls Llder Marlln kŦ !ensenƌs sLaLemenLţ ƍLhere ls a slnale sLandard acLuallv of morallLv for all members of
Lhe churchƍ (hLLpť//wwwŦpbsŦora/mormons/lnLervlews/[ensenŦhLml)ţ also Llder Pollandƌsţ ƍ?ou seeţ sameŴaender
aLLracLlon ls noL a slnţ buL acLlna on Lhose feellnas lsŴ[usL as lL would be wlLh heLerosexual feellnasŦƍ
dƹe3cbba12dc823110IanICM100000176f620a____Ǝhldenavƹ1)Ŧ" Cn Lhe oLher handţ 8?u's honor code
malnLalns a doubleŴsLandardť #Pomosexual behavlor lncludes noL onlv sexual relaLlons beLween members of Lhe

same sexţ buL all forms of phvslcal lnLlmacv LhaL alve expresslon Lo homosexual feellnasŦ" lronlcallvţ Lhls permlLs
heLerosexuals Lo enaaae ln more phvslcallv lnLlmaLe relaLlons wlLh Lhe same sex Lhan homosexualsŦ lsoţ some
local leaders dlsclpllne sameŴsex fllrLlna or klsslna more Lhan Lhe same behavlors bv opposlLeŴsex couplesŦ
Wavne Schowţ # Case for Same Sex Marrlaaeť 8eplv Lo 8andolph MuhlsLelnţ" uloloooeť A Iootool of ,otmoo
@booobt 40ť3 (lall 2007)ť 40Ŵ37Ŧ
See Pelen llsherţ wbv we loveť @be -otote ooJ cbemlsttv of omootlc loveŦ
llrsL Þresldencv LeLLerţ november 14ţ 11Ŧ lso quoLed ln cbotcb nooJbook of losttoctloos 2006ţ paŦ 187Ŧ
Mlchael !Ŧ Sandelţ Moral raumenL and Llberal 1oleraLlonť borLlon and PomosexuallLvţ 77 CalŦ LŦ 8evŦ 321
(18) aL 333 (quoLlna Pardwlck vŦ 8owersţ 760 lŦ2d 1202ţ 1212 (11
clrcŦ 183)ţ rev'd 478 uŦSŦ 186 (186)
(fooLnoLes omlLLed)Ŧ
lor supporL of Lhls clalm as Lo CaLhollcsţ see eŦoŦ !ohn !Ŧ Mcnelllţ @be cbotcb ooJ tbe nomosexoolţ paŦ (176)Ŧ
lsoţ see #1he procreaLlve aspecL becomes Lhe prlmarv and someLlmes Lhe onlv purpose of sexuallLvţ" quoLed
from Curranţ cotbollc ,otol @beoloov lo uloloooeţ pŦ 1Ŧ
CfŦ Seven CreaL Lncvcllcals (Þaramusţ !Ŧ!Ŧť ÞaullsL Þressţ 163)ţ paŦ 3Ŵ4Ŧ CuoLed from !ohn !Ŧ Mcnelllţ @be
cbotcb ooJ tbe nomosexoolţ paŦ 100 (176)Ŧ
#ÞasLoral ConsLlLuLlon on Lhe Church ln Lhe Modern WorldŴ a 8esponseţ" uocumenLs of Lhe IaLlcan llţ edŦ WŦ
bboLLţ paŦ 314Ŵ313ţ also #1he ÞasLoral ConsLlLuLlon" noŦ 30Ŧ CuoLed from Mcnellţ @be cbotcb ooJ tbe
nomosexoolţ paŦ 203Ŵ206 (176)Ŧ
!ohn Mcnellţ @be cbotcb ooJ tbe nomosexoolţ paŦ 104 (176)Ŧ
!ohn Mcnellţ @be cbotcb ooJ tbe nomosexoolţ paŦ 102Ŧ
!ohn Mcnellţ @be cbotcb ooJ tbe nomosexoolţ paŦ 103Ŧ
Clov !enklnsţ #Þroloaueť n examlnaLlon of Lhe Mormon aLLlLude Lowards homosexuallLvŦ" 178Ŧ
8lll 8radshawţ #1he Lvldence for a 8loloalcal Crlaln of PomosexuallLvţ" avallable aL
Ǝhlƹen paŦ 40Ŧ
Carv MŦ WaLLsţ ƍ1he Loalcal nexL SLepť fflrmlna SameŴSex 8elaLlonshlpsţƍ essav orlalnallv publlshed ln
uloloooeť A Iootool of ,otmoo @booobt (Iolume 31ţ number 3 żlall 18Žť 4Ŵ37)ţ avallable aL
lecollot leopleť ,otmoos ooJ 5omeŴsex Atttoctlooţ edlLed bv 8on Schowţ Wavne Schowţ and MarvbeLh 8avnesţ
paŦ xxŦ
See MaraareL lŦ 8rlnla Ǝ SLeven LŦ nockţ #Marrv Meţ 8lllť Should CohablLaLlon 8e Lhe (Leaal) uefaulL CpLlon?"
64 loŦ lŦ evŦ 403ţ 426 (2004)Ŧ
!onaLhan 8auchţ Cov ,ottlooeť wbv lt ls CooJ fot Covsţ CooJ fot 5ttolobtsţ ooJ CooJ fot Ametlcoţ 2004ţ paŦ 36Ŵ
See eŦaŦ !usLln WŦ SLarrţ #8lbllcal CondemnaLlons of Pomosexual ConducLţ" ll8 (loundaLlon for poloaeLlc
lnformaLlon and 8esearch) 2004Ŧ avallable aL hLLpť//wwwŦfalrldsŦora/pubs/8lbllcalPomosexuallLvŦpdf and shbv LŦ
Campţ #1he 8lble and Pomosexual ConducL" avallable aL
Clov !enklnsţ #Þroloaueť n examlnaLlon of Lhe Mormon aLLlLude Lowards homosexuallLvŦ" 178Ŧ
8lll 8radshawţ #1he Lvldence for a 8loloalcal Crlaln of PomosexuallLvţ" avallable aL
Ǝhlƹen paŦ 34Ŧ
!av Mlchaelsonţ ƍuoes Lhe 8lble 8eallv Call PomosexuallLv an #bomlnaLlon"? 1hls wordţ used for cenLurles Lo
[usLlfv an anLlŴaav posLureţ has been badlv LranslaLed and even more poorlv undersLoodŦƍ elloloo ulspotcbesţ !ulv
1ţ 2010Ŧ
!usLln WŦ SLarrţ #8lbllcal CondemnaLlons of Pomosexual ConducLţ" lAl 2004Ŧ vallable aL
Clov !enklnsţ #Þroloaueť n examlnaLlon of Lhe Mormon aLLlLude Lowards homosexuallLvŦ" 178Ŧ

8lll 8radshawţ #1he Lvldence for a 8loloalcal Crlaln of PomosexuallLvţ" avallable aL
Ǝhlƹen paŦ 36Ŧ
Clav Lsslaţ 8ellevloo tbe wotJs of Iesos cbtlst Ŷ o Cov lu5 letspectlve paŦ 4Ŧ
Clov !enklnsţ #Þroloaueť n examlnaLlon of Lhe Mormon aLLlLude Lowards homosexuallLvŦ" 178Ŧ
Lachţ nomosexoolltv ooJ 5ctlptote ftom o lottetŴJov 5olot letspectlveţ quoLed ln 8lck Þhllllpsţ coosetvotlve
cbtlstloo lJeotltv ooJ 5omeŴsex Otleototlooť @be cose of Cov ,otmoosţ 2003ţ paŦ 8Ŧ
lecollot leopleť ,otmoos ooJ 5omeŴsex Atttoctlooţ edlLed bv 8on Schowţ Wavne Schowţ and MarvbeLh 8avnesţ
paŦ 123Ŵ126Ŧ
Wllllam CŦ uuncanţ #CompasslonaLelv SLandlna up for 1radlLlonal Marrlaaeŧ and Whv We Should 8e Concerned
abouL SameŴSex Marrlaaeţ" ln uoJetstooJloo 5omeŴ5ex Atttoctlooť lu5 £Jltlooţ LdlLors uahleţ uanLţ 8vrdţ uuncanţ
Coxţ LlvlnasLoneţ and Wellsţ loundaLlon for LLracLlon 8esearchţ 200ţ paŦ 376Ŧ
1lmoLhv !Ŧ 8lblarzţ Lvren SavclŦ ƍLesblanţ Cavţ 8lsexualţ and 1ransaender lamlllesţƍ arLlcle flrsL publlshed onllneť
18 !une 2010ţ Iootool of ,ottlooe ooJ lomllvţ Iolume 72ţ lssue 3ţ paaes 480Ŷ47ţ
!oshuaţ #Whv l supporLed prop 8ţ" ,otmoos lot ,ottlooeţ
Carrle Ŧ Mllesţ
See SLephanle CoonLzţ ,ottlooeţ A nlstotv's dlscusslon of a slnale breadwlnner as a modern Lrend (abouL paae
See Moses 6ť ln Lhe lmaae of hls own bodvţ male and femaleţ creaLed he Lhemţ and blessed Lhemţ and called
Lhelr name damţ ln Lhe dav when Lhev were creaLed and became llvlna souls ln Lhe land upon Lhe fooLsLool of
See Mark 10ť 8 nd Lhev Lwaln shall be one fleshť so Lhen Lhev are no more Lwalnţ buL one fleshŦ
See 2 nephl 26ť 33 lor none of Lhese lnlqulLles come of Lhe LordŤ for he doeLh LhaL whlch ls aood amona Lhe
chlldren of menŤ and he doeLh noLhlna save lL be plaln unLo Lhe chlldren of menŤ and he lnvlLeLh Lhem ball Lo come
unLo hlm and parLake of hls aoodnessŤ and he denleLh none LhaL come unLo hlmţ black and whlLeţ bond and freeţ
male and femaleŤ and he remembereLh Lhe heaLhenŤ and all are allke unLo Codţ boLh !ew and CenLlleŦ
1odd LŦ Coodsella Ǝ !aren 1Ŧ Meldrumaţ ƍnurLurlna faLhersť a quallLaLlve examlnaLlon of chlldŴfaLher
aLLachmenLţƍ £otlv cbllJ uevelopmeot ooJ coteţ Iolume 180ţ lssue 1 Ǝ 2 !anuarv 2010 ţ paaes 24 Ŵ 262ţ
hLLpť//wwwŦlnformaworldŦcom/smpp/conLenLƋconLenLƹa1880471ƋdbƹallƋ[umpLvpeƹrssŦ See also #1he Male
8ralnţ" hLLpť//bradcarmackŦbloaspoLŦcom/2010/07/maleŴbralnŦhLml
8rad Carmackţ #SunsLone Svmposlumť 8eflecLlna on MaLurlna lalLhţ" 1hursdavţ uausL 12ţ 2010ţ
Lauraţ #Whv l supporLed prop 8ţ" ,otmoos lot ,ottlooeţ hLLpť//mormonsformarrlaaeŦcom/?pƹ432#commenLs
8achel PŦ larrţ SLephen LŦ lorssellţ CharloLLe !Ŧ ÞaLLersonţ ƍÞarenLlna and Chlld uevelopmenL ln dopLlve
lamlllesť uoes ÞarenLal Sexual CrlenLaLlon MaLLer?ƍ ApplleJ uevelopmeotol 5cleoceţ 14(3)ţ 164Ŷ178ţ 2010Ŧ
Mark SLrasserţ #1he lleaed Parms of 8ecoanlzlna SameŴsex Marrlaaeţ" ln Wardle's wbot´s tbe notmţ paŦ 33Ŧ
!onaLhan 8auchţ Cov ,ottlooeť wbv lt ls CooJ fot Covsţ CooJ fot 5ttolobtsţ ooJ CooJ fot Ametlcoţ 2004ţ paŦ 74Ŧ
Mark SLrasserţ #1he lleaed Parms of 8ecoanlzlna SameŴsex Marrlaaeţ" ln Wardle's wbot´s tbe notmţ paŦ 32Ŧ
uale CarpenLerţ #1he unconservaLlve Consequences of ConservaLlve CpposlLlon Lo Cav Marrlaaeţ" ln Wardle's
wbot´s tbe notmţ paŦ 322Ŧ
Lvan Wolfsonţ ƍ1he proposerƌs closlna remarksţƍ !an 7Lh 2011ţ

Mark SLrasserţ #1he lleaed Parms of 8ecoanlzlna SameŴsex Marrlaaeţ" ln Wardle's wbot´s tbe notmţ paŦ 34Ŧ
Mark SLrasserţ #1he lleaed Parms of 8ecoanlzlna SameŴsex Marrlaaeţ" ln Wardle's wbot´s tbe notmţ paŦ 32Ŧ
dam kolaslnkslţ ƍ1he Secular Case aalnsL Cav Marrlaaeţ 1he 1echţ
lor an example of Lhls lronvţ see Ŧ uean 8vrdţ #Con[uaal Marrlaae losLers PealLhv Puman and SocleLal
uevelopmenLţ" ln Lvnn uŦ Wardle's wbot´s tbe notmţ paae 18ţ flrsL and second paraaraphŦ
kendel ChrlsLensenţ ƍMuslnas on Marrlaae and Chlldrenţƍ lebruarv 2010ţ @be Offlclol webslte of keoJel
cbtlsteoseoţ hLLpť//wwwŦkendelcŦcom/1/posL/2010/02/muslnasŴonŴmarrlaaeŴandŴchlldrenŦhLml
kendel ChrlsLensenţ ƍMuslnas on Marrlaae and Chlldrenţƍ @be Offlclol webslte of keoJel cbtlsteoseoţ lebruarv
2010ţ hLLpť//wwwŦkendelcŦcom/1/posL/2010/02/muslnasŴonŴmarrlaaeŴandŴchlldrenŦhLml
dam kolaslnkslţ ƍ1he Secular Case aalnsL Cav Marrlaaeţ @be @ecbţ
lettv vŦ 5cbwotzeoeooetţ paŦ 113ţ avallable aL hLLpť//wwwŦequalrlahLsfoundaLlonŦora/wpŴ
kendel ChrlsLensenţ ƍMuslnas on Marrlaae and Chlldrenţƍ @be Offlclol webslte of keoJel cbtlsteoseoţ lebruarv
2010ţ hLLpť//wwwŦkendelcŦcom/1/posL/2010/02/muslnasŴonŴmarrlaaeŴandŴchlldrenŦhLml
dam kolaslnkslţ ƍ1he Secular Case aalnsL Cav Marrlaaeţ @be @ecbţ
lettv vŦ 5cbwotzeoeooetţ paŦ 111ţ avallable aL hLLpť//wwwŦequalrlahLsfoundaLlonŦora/wpŴ
kendel ChrlsLensenţ ƍMuslnas on Marrlaae and Chlldrenţƍ @be Offlclol webslte of keoJel cbtlsteoseoţ lebruarv
2010ţ hLLpť//wwwŦkendelcŦcom/1/posL/2010/02/muslnasŴonŴmarrlaaeŴandŴchlldrenŦhLml
Louls ueSerresţ #SameŴsex marrlaae and Lhe rlahLs of Lhe chlldţ" ln Wardle's wbot´s tbe notmţ apaŦ 113Ŧ
Þresumlna LhaL bloloalcal parenLs are superlor on averaae Lo sLep and slnale parenL householdsŦ l do noL know
how bloloalcal parenL households compare Lo sameŴsex households on averaaeţ lncludlna when one of Lhe parenLs
ls bloloalcallv a parenL of Lhe chlld(ren)Ŧ See also nneLLe 8Ŧ ppellţ ƍ1he Lndurance of 8loloalcal ConnecLlonť
PeLeronormaLlvlLvţ SameŴSex ÞarenLlna and Lhe Lessons of dopLlonţƍ 8)u Iootool of lobllc lowţ Iolume 22ţ
number 2 (WlnLer 2008) paŦ 28Ŧ See also 8rownlnaţ uŦ Ǝ MarquardLţ LŦ (2006)ţ #WhaL abouL Lhe Chlldren? ln
8oberL ÞŦ Ceorae and !ean 8eLhke LlshLaln (edŦ) @be ,eooloo of ,ottlooeţ uallasť Spence Þubllshlna Companvţ pŦ
36ť #when oLher Lhlnas are equalţ chlldren Lhemselves wanLŸlndeedţ ofLen lonaŸLo be ralsed bv Lhose who aave
llfe Lo LhemŦ"
!onaLhan 8auchţ Cov ,ottlooeť wbv lt ls CooJ fot Covsţ CooJ fot 5ttolobtsţ ooJ CooJ fot Ametlcoţ 2004ţ paŦ 6Ŧ
Cordon Ŧ 8absLţ Lmllv 8Ŧ Clllţ Ǝ !ason Þlercesonţ edlLorsţ ,otol Atoomeotţ ellolooţ ooJ 5omeŴsex ,ottlooeţ
200ţ 21Ŧ
Cordon Ŧ 8absLţ Lmllv 8Ŧ Clllţ Ǝ !ason Þlercesonţ edlLorsţ ,otol Atoomeotţ ellolooţ ooJ 5omeŴsex ,ottlooeţ
200ţ 226Ŧ
kalml Wenaerţ Leaal nalvsls of ÞroposlLlon 8ţ Lranscrlbed from Lhe vldeo uecember 2010ţ
Cordon Ŧ 8absLţ Lmllv 8Ŧ Clllţ Ǝ !ason Þlercesonţ edlLorsţ ,otol Atoomeotţ ellolooţ ooJ 5omeŴsex ,ottlooeţ
200ţ 223Ŧ
See eŦaŦ 8ť @be ,otmoo ltoposltlooţ a fllmŦ
kerrlaan vŦ Commlssloner of Þubllc PealLhţ 28 ConnŦ 133Ť 37 Ŧ2d 407 (2008)Ŧ
8en PerLzberaţ ƍMarrlaaeţ Mormonlsmţ and PomosexuallLvť 8esponse Lo 8lchard Sherlockţƍ 5ooote@woţ
March 200ţ hLLpť//squareLwoŦora/Sq2rLlcleSherlockMarrlaaeŦhLml
uallln PŦ Caksţ 4 lebruarv 2011ţ #Þreservlna 8ellalous lreedomţ" hLLpť//newsroomŦldsŦora/arLlcle/elderŴoaksŴ
kerrlaan vŦ Commlssloner of Þubllc PealLhţ 28 ConnŦ 133Ť 37 Ŧ2d 407 (2008)Ŧ
Clav Lsslaţ 8ellevloo tbe wotJs of Iesos cbtlst Ŷ o Cov lu5 letspectlve paŦ 14Ŧ

Mark LŦ PaLzenbuehlerţ kaLle Ŧ McLauahllnţ kaLherlne MŦ kevesţ and ueborah SŦ Paslnţ ƍ1he lmpacL of
lnsLlLuLlonal ulscrlmlnaLlon on ÞsvchlaLrlc ulsorders ln Lesblanţ Cavţ and 8lsexual ÞopulaLlonsť ÞrospecLlve
SLudvţƍ March 2010ţ Iol 100ţ noŦ 3 | Ametlcoo Iootool of lobllc neoltb 432Ŵ43ţ !ÞP llrsL Lookţ publlshed onllne
ahead of prlnL !an 14ţ 2010ţ hLLpť//a[phŦaphapubllcaLlonsŦora/cal/conLenL/absLracL/100/3/432
See llan Meverţ #MlnorlLv sLress and menLal healLh ln aav menţ" Iootool of neoltb ooJ 5oclol 8ebovlot 36
(March 13)ť 38Ŵ36Ť Ilckle MŦ Mavs and Susan uŦ Cochranţ #MenLal healLh correlaLes of percelved dlscrlmlnaLlon
amona lesblanţ aavţ and blsexual adulLs ln Lhe unlLed SLaLesţ" Ametlcoo Iootool of lobllc neoltb 1 (2001)ť 186Ŵ
MŦ IŦ Lee 8adaeLLţ wbeo Cov leople Cet ,ottleJť wbot noppeosţ wbeo 5ocletles leoollze 5omeŴsex ,ottlooeţ
200ţ paŦ 121Ŵ124Ŧ See also fooLnoLes 16Ŵ18 on paaes 246 and 247Ŧ
hLLpť//wwwŦeconomlsLŦcom/debaLe/davs/vlew/638ţ @be £cooomlst SSM debaLeŦ
8en PerLzberaţ ƍMarrlaaeţ Mormonlsmţ and PomosexuallLvť 8esponse Lo 8lchard Sherlockţƍ 5ooote@woţ
March 200ţ hLLpť//squareLwoŦora/Sq2rLlcleSherlockMarrlaaeŦhLml
!onaLhan 8auchţ Cov ,ottlooeť wbv lt ls CooJ fot Covsţ CooJ fot 5ttolobtsţ ooJ CooJ fot Ametlcoţ 2004ţ paŦ 22Ŧ
ken[l ?oshlnoţ #Lose Lhe 8aseball naloavť Mv response Lo 8oberL ÞŦ Ceoraeƌs second aLLempL Lo [usLlfv bannlna
aav marrlaaeţ uecŦ 21ţ 2010ţ avallable aL hLLpť//wwwŦslaLeŦcom/ld/227874/
lor some relaLed dlscusslonţ see #lnbred obscurlLvť lmprovlna lncesL laws ln Lhe shadow of Lhe 'sexual famllvţ'"
notvotJ low evlewţ noLeţ Iolume 110ţ number 8ţ !une 2006Ŧ
!onaLhan 8auchţ Cov ,ottlooeť wbv lt ls CooJ fot Covsţ CooJ fot 5ttolobtsţ ooJ CooJ fot Ametlcoţ 2004ţ paŦ
dam kolaslnkslţ ƍ1he Secular Case aalnsL Cav Marrlaaeţ @be @ecbţ
kaLhleen Mullan Parrlsţ #lamllv SLrucLureţ ÞoverLv nd lamllv WellŴ8elnať n Cvervlew Cl Þanel 2ţ" 10
£mplovee ts Ǝ £mplovmeot lol´v IŦ 43ţ 34 (2006)Ŧ
nancv Þollkoffţ 8evooJ (5ttolobt ooJ Cov) ,ottlooeť vololoo All lomllles uoJet tbe lowţ 200ţ paŦ 173Ŧ
MarLha 8allevţ #uwelllna mona usţ" ln Wardle's wbot´s tbe notmţ paŦ 160Ŧ
MarLha 8allevţ #uwelllna mona usţ" ln Wardle's wbot´s tbe notmţ paŦ 138Ŧ
dam kolaslnkslţ ƍ1he Secular Case aalnsL Cav Marrlaaeţ @be @ecbţ
Law school frlend of Lhe auLhorţ wrlLLen communlcaLlonţ lall 2010Ŧ
!onaLhon 8auch (see hls dlscusslon ln Cov ,ottlooeť wbv lt ls CooJ fot Covsţ CooJ fot 5ttolobtsţ ooJ CooJ fot
Ametlcoţ 2004) ls a sLaunch advocaLe of Lhls approachŤ see also 8adaeLL's dlscusslon ln chapLer ţ #1he Þace of
Chanaeť re We Movlna 1oo lasL?" wbeo Cov leople Cet ,ottleJť wbot noppeosţ wbeo 5ocletles leoollze 5omeŴ
sex ,ottlooeţ 200ţ paŦ 173Ŵ13Ŧ
Carlos Ŧ 8allţ 1he 8acklash 1hesls and SameŴsex Marrlaaeť Learnlna from 8rown vŦ 8oard of LducaLlon and lLs
fLermaLhţ 14 WMŦ Ǝ M8? 8lLL 81SŦ !Ŧ 143 (2006)Ŧ
IŦPŦ Casslerţ #ƌSome 1hlnas 1haL Should noL Pave 8een loraoLLen Were LosLƌť 1he ÞroŴlemlnlsLţ ÞroŴ
uemocracvţ ÞroŴÞeace Case for SLaLe Þrlvllealna of CompanlonaLe PeLerosexual Monoaamous Marrlaaeţ"
5ooote@woţ IolŦ 2 noŦ 1 (Sprlna 200)ţ hLLpť//squareLwoŦora/Sq2rLlcleCasslerMarrlaaeŦhLml
Ialerle Pudsonţ ƍ1he Men Pave Muffed lLť Pow Menƌs MlsundersLandlna of Lhe 1elos of Marrlaae lmperlls lLs
luLureţ" 5ooote@woţ prll 200 hLLpť//squareLwoŦora/Sq2ddlCommenLarvSherlockŦhLmlŦ See alsoţ Lvnn Wardleţ
ƍ 8esponse Lo Lhe źConservaLlve Caser for SameŴSex Marrlaaeť SameŴSex Marrlaae and Lhe 1raaedv of Lhe
Commonsţƍ 8?u !ournal of Þubllc Lawţ Iolume 22ţ number 2 (WlnLer 2008)ţ paŦ 474Ŧ
IŦPŦ Casslerţ #ƌSome 1hlnas 1haL Should noL Pave 8een loraoLLen Were LosLƌť 1he ÞroŴlemlnlsLţ ÞroŴ
uemocracvţ ÞroŴÞeace Case for SLaLe Þrlvllealna of CompanlonaLe PeLerosexual Monoaamous Marrlaaeţ"
5ooote@woţ IolŦ 2 noŦ 1 (Sprlna 200)ţ hLLpť//squareLwoŦora/Sq2rLlcleCasslerMarrlaaeŦhLml
Mark SLrasserţ #1he lleaed Parms of 8ecoanlzlna SameŴsex Marrlaaeţ" ln Wardle's wbot´s tbe notmţ paŦ 36Ŧ
Mark SLrasserţ #1he lleaed Parms of 8ecoanlzlna SameŴsex Marrlaaeţ" ln Wardle's wbot´s tbe notmţ paŦ 41Ŧ
!oshuaţ quoLed ln commenL 32ţ hLLpť//mormonsformarrlaaeŦcom/?pƹ432#commenLs

lettv vŦ 5cbwotzeoeooetţ paŦ 11ţ avallable aL hLLpť//wwwŦequalrlahLsfoundaLlonŦora/wpŴ
lettv vŦ 5cbwotzeoeooetţ paŦ 111ţ avallable aL hLLpť//wwwŦequalrlahLsfoundaLlonŦora/wpŴ
!av 8rause Ǝ Cene uuaan vŦ 8ureau of IlLal SLaLlsLlcsţ ÞeLer Mlchalsklţ !udae of Superlor CourL for Lhe SLaLe of
laskaţ 3d !ud ulsLrlcLţ leb 27ţ 18 ż18 WL 88734ţ laska SuperŦŽţ case 3nŴ3Ŵ6362 ClŦ
IlncenL !Ŧ Samarţ #1he case for LreaLlna sameŴsex marrlaae as a human rlahL and Lhe harm of denvlna human
dlanlLvţ" ln Wardle's wbot´s tbe notmţ ChapLer 12ţ paŦ 230Ŧ
kerrlaan vŦ Commlssloner of Þubllc PealLhţ 28 ConnŦ 133Ť 37 Ŧ2d 407 (2008)Ŧ
CŦSŦ Lewlsţ 5toJles lo wotJsţ 2
edŦţ 167ţ paŦ 7Ŧ
ln Wardle's wbot´s tbe notmţ ChapLer 14ţ paŦ 276Ŧ
See uŦ Mlchael Culnnţ #SameŴsex unlons worldwldeť a hlsLorv lanored bv opponenLs of aav marrlaaeţ"
Þrellmlnarv Survev (2004)ţ ?ale unlverslLvţ 2002Ŵ03ţ hLLpť//ldsreconclllaLlonŦora/CulnnŦhLm
See eŦaŦ WebsLer's 1828 dlcLlonarvţ whlch under #voLe" descrlbes elecLlna a manţ raLher Lhan a personţ Lo
offlceŦ hLLpť//1828ŦmshafferŦcom/d/word/voLe
1om lreeman and kaLherlne uovleţ hLLpť//wwwŦwaLermarkonllneŦcom/lndexŦphp/news/naLlonalŴworldŴlabLŴ
SLephanle CoonLzţ ,ottlooeţ A nlstotvţ 2003ţ paŦ 273Ŧ
See Lvnn Wardle's comparlson of leaallzlna SSM Lo permlLLlna llvesLock owners Lo overaraze Lhelr herd on Lhe
publlc commonť ƍ 8esponse Lo Lhe źConservaLlve Caser for SameŴSex Marrlaaeť SameŴSex Marrlaae and Lhe
1raaedv of Lhe Commonsţƍ 8?u !ournal of Þubllc Lawţ Iolume 22ţ number 2 (WlnLer 2008)ţ paŦ 470Ŵ472Ŧ
MŦ IŦ Lee 8adaeLLţ wbeo Cov leople Cet ,ottleJť wbot noppeosţ wbeo 5ocletles leoollze 5omeŴsex ,ottlooeţ
200ţ paŦ 14Ŧ
Clav Lsslaţ 8ellevloo tbe wotJs of Iesos cbtlst Ŷ o Cov lu5 letspectlve paŦ ţ
kerrlaan vŦ Commlssloner of Þubllc PealLhţ 28 ConnŦ 133Ť 37 Ŧ2d 407 (2008)Ŧ
Lvnn Wardleţ ƍ 8esponse Lo Lhe źConservaLlve Caser for SameŴSex Marrlaaeť SameŴSex Marrlaae and Lhe
1raaedv of Lhe Commonsţƍ 8?u !ournal of Þubllc Lawţ Iolume 22ţ number 2 (WlnLer 2008)ţ paŦ 473Ŧ
Pelen MŦ lvareţ 1he Lurn Loward Lhe self ln Lhe law of marrlaae Ǝ famllvť sameŴsex marrlaae Ǝ lLs
predecessorsţ" 16 SLanŦ LŦ Ǝ Þol'v 8evŦ 133 (2003)Ŧ
Lvnn Wardleţ #1he morallLv of marrlaae and Lhe LransformaLlve power of lncluslonţ" ln Wardle's wbot´s tbe
notmţ ChapLer 11ţ paŦ 228Ŧ
See Lounn 8rlzendlne's @be ,ole 8toloţ clrca 200Ŧ
!onaLhan 8auchţ Cov ,ottlooeť wbv lt ls CooJ fot Covsţ CooJ fot 5ttolobtsţ ooJ CooJ fot Ametlcoţ 2004ţ paŦ
Luaene Iolokhţ uCLţ clrca 2003ţ qLdŦ ln !onaLhan 8auchţ Cov ,ottlooeť wbv lt ls CooJ fot Covsţ CooJ fot
5ttolobtsţ ooJ CooJ fot Ametlcoţ 2004ţ paŦ 143Ŧ
CLdŦ ln !onaLhan 8auchţ Cov ,ottlooeť wbv lt ls CooJ fot Covsţ CooJ fot 5ttolobtsţ ooJ CooJ fot Ametlcoţ 2004ţ
paŦ 143Ŧ
hLLpť//wwwŦasexuallLvŦora/en/lndexŦphp?showLoplcƹ873Ŧ lso see Lhe newer poll aL
Þersonal frlendţ emall Lo Lhe auLhorţ uecember 2010Ŧ
#ls ÞromlsculLv lnnaLe?" wosblootoo lostţ 2003ť Men on averaae deslred 1Ŧ87 parLners over Lhe nexL monLh
compared Lo women's Ŧ78ţ and over Lhe nexL Len vears men wanLed 3Ŧ3ţ whlle women wanLed 2Ŧ17Ŧ
!onaLhan 8auchţ Cov ,ottlooeť wbv lt ls CooJ fot Covsţ CooJ fot 5ttolobtsţ ooJ CooJ fot Ametlcoţ 2004ţ paŦ
uale CarpenLerţ #1he unconservaLlve Consequences of ConservaLlve CpposlLlon Lo Cav Marrlaaeţ" ln Wardle's
wbot´s tbe notmţ paŦ 323Ŧ
!onaLhan 8auchţ Cov ,ottlooeť wbv lt ls CooJ fot Covsţ CooJ fot 5ttolobtsţ ooJ CooJ fot Ametlcoţ 2004ţ paŦ 6Ŧ

MŦIŦ 8adaeLLţ Carv !Ŧ CaLesţ Ǝ ueborah Poţ #Marrlaaeţ 8ealsLraLlon and ulssoluLlon bv SameŴSex Couples ln Lhe
uŦSŦţ !ulv 2008ţ hLLpť//wwwŦlawŦuclaŦedu/WllllamslnsLlLuLe/publlcaLlons/CouplesƷ20MarrƷ208ealsƷ20ulssŦpdf
See MŦ IŦ Lee 8adaeLLţ wbeo Cov leople Cet ,ottleJť wbot noppeosţ wbeo 5ocletles leoollze 5omeŴsex
,ottlooeţ 200Ŧ
8oberL Ŧ 8urLţ 8eloooloo lo Ametlcoť now to uoJetstooJ 5omeŴ5ex ,ottlooeţ presenLed aL 8?u Law School's
!anuarv 28ţ 2011 Svmposlum on 8elonalnaţ Lhe lamllvţ and lamllv Lawţ soon Lo be publlshed ln 8?u !ournal of
Þubllc LawŦ
!onaLhan 8auchţ Cov ,ottlooeť wbv lt ls CooJ fot Covsţ CooJ fot 5ttolobtsţ ooJ CooJ fot Ametlcoţ 2004ţ paŦ 48Ŧ
ƍ1he case for aav marrlaaeť lL resLs on equallLvţ llberLv and even socleLvţƍ @be £cooomlstţ leb 26Lh 2004ţ
!onaLhan 8auchţ Cov ,ottlooeť wbv lt ls CooJ fot Covsţ CooJ fot 5ttolobtsţ ooJ CooJ fot Ametlcoţ 2004ţ paŦ 32Ŧ
MŦ IŦ Lee 8adaeLLţ wbeo Cov leople Cet ,ottleJť wbot noppeosţ wbeo 5ocletles leoollze 5omeŴsex ,ottlooeţ
200ţ paŦ 4Ŧ
!onaLhan 8auchţ Cov ,ottlooeť wbv lt ls CooJ fot Covsţ CooJ fot 5ttolobtsţ ooJ CooJ fot Ametlcoţ 2004ţ paŦ 43Ŧ
See also ƍLeL Lhem wedť 1here ls no compelllna reason Lo exclude homosexual couples from marrlaaeţ and
several compelllna reasons Lo lnclude Lhemţƍ !an 4Lh 16ţ hLLpť//wwwŦeconomlsLŦcom/node/231338
nancv lŦ CoLLţ lobllc vowsť o blstotv of mottlooe ooJ tbe ootlooţ 2000ţ paŦ 6Ŧ
nancv Þollkoffţ 8evooJ (5ttolobt ooJ Cov) ,ottlooeť vololoo All lomllles uoJet tbe lowţ 200ţ paŦ 126Ŧ
!onaLhan 8auchţ Cov ,ottlooeť wbv lt ls CooJ fot Covsţ CooJ fot 5ttolobtsţ ooJ CooJ fot Ametlcoţ 2004ţ paŦ 2Ŧ
!onaLhan 8auchţ Cov ,ottlooeť wbv lt ls CooJ fot Covsţ CooJ fot 5ttolobtsţ ooJ CooJ fot Ametlcoţ 2004ţ paŦ 4ţ
MŦ IŦ Lee 8adaeLLţ wbeo Cov leople Cet ,ottleJť wbot noppeosţ wbeo 5ocletles leoollze 5omeŴsex ,ottlooeţ
200ţ paŦ 12Ŧ
ndrew koppelmanţ 1he uecllne and lall of Lhe Case aalnsL SameŴsex Marrlaaeţ 2 uŦ S1Ŧ 1PCMS LŦ!Ŧ 3ţ (2004)Ŧ
nneLLe 8Ŧ ppellţ ƍ1he Lndurance of 8loloalcal ConnecLlonť PeLeronormaLlvlLvţ SameŴSex ÞarenLlna and Lhe
Lessons of dopLlonţƍ 8)u Iootool of lobllc lowţ Iolume 22ţ number 2 (WlnLer 2008) paŦ 310Ŧ
SLephanle CoonLzţ ,ottlooeţ A nlstotvţ 2003ţ paŦ 3Ŧ
See Pelen llsherţ wbv we loveť @be -otote ooJ cbemlsttv of omootlc loveŦ
!enklns Llovd !onesţ quoLed ln Cordon Plncklev's 5tooJloo fot 5ometblooť 10 -eolecteJ vlttoes tbot wlll neol
Oot neotts ooJ nomesţ paŦ 131Ŵ132Ŧ
See eŦaŦ nadlne Pansen's #Cav Marrlaaeţ Callfornlaƌs ÞroposlLlon 8 and Lhe LuS Church (ÞarL 2)" aL
hLLpť//wwwŦvouLubeŦcom/waLch?vƹPcL84MCMkƎfeaLureƹplaver_embeddedŤ uŦ Mlchael Culnn's @be ,otmoo
Wllllam CŦ uuncanţ #CompasslonaLelv SLandlna up for 1radlLlonal Marrlaaeŧ and Whv We Should 8e Concerned
abouL SameŴSex Marrlaaeţ" ln uoJetstooJloo 5omeŴ5ex Atttoctlooť lu5 £Jltlooţ LdlLors uahleţ uanLţ 8vrdţ uuncanţ
Coxţ LlvlnasLoneţ and Wellsţ loundaLlon for LLracLlon 8esearchţ 200ţ paŦ 381Ŧ
Lvnn Wardleţ ƍ 8esponse Lo Lhe źConservaLlve Caser for SameŴSex Marrlaaeť SameŴSex Marrlaae and Lhe
1raaedv of Lhe Commonsţƍ 8?u !ournal of Þubllc Lawţ Iolume 22ţ number 2 (WlnLer 2008)ţ paŦ 473Ŧ
SLuarL MaLlsţ leLLer Lo hls cousln Clav ln 2000ţ quoLed on paae 34 of Carol Lvnn Þearson's -o ,ote CooJbvesť
cltclloo tbe woooos AtoooJ Oot Cov loveJ OoesŦ
Ialerle Pudsonţ ƍ1he Men Pave Muffed lLť Pow Menƌs MlsundersLandlna of Lhe 1elos of Marrlaae lmperlls lLs
luLureţ" 5ooote@woţ prll 200 hLLpť//squareLwoŦora/Sq2ddlCommenLarvSherlockŦhLmlŦ
!onaLhan 8auchţ Cov ,ottlooeť wbv lt ls CooJ fot Covsţ CooJ fot 5ttolobtsţ ooJ CooJ fot Ametlcoţ 2004ţ paŦ
SLephanle CoonLzţ ,ottlooeţ A nlstotvţ 2003ţ paŦ 30Ŧ
mv kalerţ #'Manv ulvorces and Manv SplnsLers'ť marrlaae as an lnvenLed LradlLlon ln SouLhern Malawlţ 146Ŵ
1ţ" Iootool of lomllv nlstotv 26 (2001)ţ ppŦ 347ţ 348Ŧ
SLephanle CoonLzţ ,ottlooeţ A nlstotvţ 2003ţ paŦ 2Ŧ
SLephanle CoonLzţ ,ottlooeţ A nlstotvţ 2003ţ paŦ 2Ŧ
nancv lŦ CoLLţ lobllc vowsť o blstotv of mottlooe ooJ tbe ootlooţ 2000ţ paŦ 211Ŧ

nancv lŦ CoLLţ lobllc vowsť o blstotv of mottlooe ooJ tbe ootlooţ 2000ţ paŦ 211Ŧ
nancv lŦ CoLLţ lobllc vowsť o blstotv of mottlooe ooJ tbe ootlooţ 2000ţ paŦ 18Ŧ
nancv lŦ CoLLţ lobllc vowsť o blstotv of mottlooe ooJ tbe ootlooţ 2000ţ paŦ 110Ŧ
nancv lŦ CoLLţ lobllc vowsť o blstotv of mottlooe ooJ tbe ootlooţ 2000ţ paŦ 10Ŧ
SLephanle CoonLzţ ,ottlooeţ A nlstotvţ 2003ţ paŦ 3Ŧ
Wavne Schowţ # Case for Same Sex Marrlaaeť 8eplv Lo 8andolph MuhlsLelnţ" uloloooeť A Iootool of ,otmoo
@booobt 40ť3 (lall 2007)ť paŦ 60ţ fooLnoLe Lhreeť #lor a useful dlscusslon of Lhe hlsLorlcal evoluLlon of marrlaae as a
soclal lnsLlLuLlonţ see SLephanle CoonLzţ ,ottlooeţ A nlstotvť ltom ObeJleoce to
lotlmocvţ ot now love cooooeteJ ,ottlooe (new ?orkť Ilklnaţ 2003)Ŧ"
SLephanle CoonLzţ ,ottlooeţ A nlstotvţ 2003ţ paŦ 7Ŧ
nancv CoLLţ 2000ţ paŦ 7Ŧ
SLephanle CoonLzţ ,ottlooeţ A nlstotvţ 2003ţ paŦ 308Ŧ
SLephanle CoonLzţ ,ottlooeţ A nlstotvţ 2003ţ paŦ 4Ŧ
SLephanle CoonLzţ ,ottlooeţ A nlstotvţ 2003ţ paŦ 273Ŧ
llan Carlsonţ coojoool Ametlcoť Oo tbe lobllc lotposes of ,ottlooeţ chapLer 1Ŧ
Wllllam nŦ eskrldaeţ uarren rŦ Spedaleţ and Pans vLLerberaţ #nordlc Illss? Scandlnavlan 8ealsLered ÞarLnershlps
and Lhe Same Sex Marrlaae uebaLeţ" lssoes lo leool 5cbolotsblp (rLlcle 4 2004)ť 40Ŵ41Ŧ
llan Carlsonţ #LquallLv or ldeoloav? SameŴsex unlons ln Scandlnavlaţ" ln Wardle's wbot´s tbe notmţ chapLer 13ţ
paŦ 271Ŵ272Ŧ
no doubL we could have an lnLeresLlna dlscusslon abouL Lhe crlmlnallLv of adulLervţ whlch was a clvll offense ln
lma 30ť 7 now Lhere was no law aaalnsL a man's bellefŤ for lL was sLrlcLlv conLrarv Lo Lhe commands of Cod LhaL
Lhere should be a law whlch should brlna men on Lo unequal aroundsŧ10 8uL lf he murdered he was punlshed
unLo deaLhŤ and lf he robbed he was also punlshedŤ and lf he sLole he was also punlshedŤ and lf he commlLLed
adulLerv he was also punlshedŦ
MŦ IŦ Lee 8adaeLLţ wbeo Cov leople Cet ,ottleJť wbot noppeosţ wbeo 5ocletles leoollze 5omeŴsex ,ottlooeţ
200ţ paŦ 83Ŧ
!onaLhan 8auchţ Cov ,ottlooeť wbv lt ls CooJ fot Covsţ CooJ fot 5ttolobtsţ ooJ CooJ fot Ametlcoţ 2004ţ paŦ
Ialerle Pudsonţ ƍ1he Men Pave Muffed lLť Pow Menƌs MlsundersLandlna of Lhe 1elos of Marrlaae lmperlls lLs
luLureţƍ prll 200ţ #ddlLlonal CommenLarv on Lhe Sherlock/PerLzbera/Pancock uebaLeţ" 5ooote@woţ IolŦ 1 noŦ
1 (lall 2008)ţ hLLpť//squareLwoŦora/Sq2ddlCommenLarvSherlockŦhLml
ƍ1he case for aav marrlaaeť lL resLs on equallLvţ llberLv and even socleLvţƍ leb 26Lh 2004ţ
ƍChurch SLaLemenL on ÞroposlLlon 8 8ullnaţƍ uausL 04ţ 2010ţ avallable aL hLLpť//beLaŴ
Lzra 1afL 8ensonţ #1he Mlraculous ConsLlLuLlonţ" ltleoJţ Sep 187ţ lnslde fronL cover
Cordon 8Ŧ Plncklevţ #1he 1lmes ln Whlch We Llveţ" £oslooţ nov 2001ţ 72
uallln PŦ Caksţ posLleţ #lundamenLals of Cur ConsLlLuLlonsţ" utob´s coostltotloo uov celebtotlooţ 1abernacleţ
SLC uLahţ SepLember 17ţ 2010Ŧ
Marburv vŦ Madlsonţ 3 uŦSŦ (1 Cranch) 137 aL 177Ŵ78 (1803)Ŧ
vallable aL hLLpť//wwwŦequalrlahLsfoundaLlonŦora/wpŴconLenL/uploads/2010/08/33374462ŴÞropŴ8Ŵ8ullnaŴ
Lovlna vŦ Ilralnlaţ 388 uŦSŦ 1ţ 12 (167)Ŧ
uallln PŦ Caksţ posLleţ #lundamenLals of Cur ConsLlLuLlonsţ" utob´s coostltotloo uov celebtotlooţ 1abernacleţ
SLC uLahţ SepLember 17ţ 2010ţ paŦ 6Ŧ
!ames 1aranLoţ Leonard Leo (2004)ţ lteslJeotlol leoJetsblpŦ Wall SLreeL !ournal 8ooksŦ See also 1homas
!efferson Lo Wllllam CŦ Parvlsţ 182 ML 13ť 277Ŧ
uennls IŦ uahleţ #8eLurn Lo 8easonť urawlna upon Lhe 1hree Þlllars of Wlsdom Lo ddress SameŴsex
LLracLlonţ" ln uoJetstooJloo 5omeŴsex Atttoctlooť lu5 £Jltlooţ 200ţ paŦ 478Ŧ

Ierses 23 and parL of 26Ŧ
8oberL Ŧ 8eesţ lorward paŦ xlvŴxvţ ln Carol Lvnn Þearson's -o ,ote CooJbvesť cltclloo tbe woooos AtoooJ Oot
Cov loveJ OoesŦ
lecollot leopleť ,otmoos ooJ 5omeŴsex Atttoctlooţ edlLed bv 8on Schowţ Wavne Schowţ and MarvbeLh 8avnesţ
paŦ 112Ŧ