Loading ...Mainline Protestant churches decline
flockwoodThe 2010 Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches is out. (An order form is available here.)
And it contains few surprises. Mainline Protestant churches are shrinking. So are most evangelical churches. Which groups are growing? Roman Catholics. Pentecostals. Jehovah’s Witnesses. And Mormons.
The top 25 churches reported in the 2010 Yearbook are in order of size:
1. The Catholic Church, 68,115,001 members, up 1.49 percent.
2. Southern Baptist Convention,16,228,438 members, down 0.24percent.
3. The United Methodist Church, 7,853,987 members, down 0.98 percent.
4. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 5,974,041 members, up 1.71 percent.
5. The Church of God in Christ, 5,499,875 members, no membership updates reported.
6. National Baptist Convention, U.S.A., Inc, 5,000,000 members, no membership updates reported.
7. Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, 4,633,887 members, down1.62 percent.
8. National Baptist Convention of America, Inc., 3,500,000 members, no membership updates reported.
9. Assemblies of God (ranked 10 last year), 2,899,702 members, up 1.27 percent.
10. Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) 1(ranked 9 last year), 2,844,952 members, down 3.28 percent.
11. African Methodist Episcopal Church, 2,500,000 members, no membership updates reported.
11. National Missionary Baptist Convention of America, 2,500,000 members, no membership updates reported.
11. Progressive National Baptist Convention, Inc. 2,500,000 members, no membership updates reported.
14. The Lutheran Church– Missouri Synod (LCMS), 2,337,349 members, down 1.92 percent.
15. The Episcopal Church, 2,057,292 members, down 2.81 percent.
16. Churches of Christ, 1,639,495 members, no membership updates reported.
17. Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, 1,500,000 members, no membership updates reported.
17. Pentecostal Assemblies of the World, Inc., 1,500,000 members, no membership updates reported.
19. The African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, 1,400,000 members, members, no membership updates reported.
20. American Baptist Churches in the U.S.A., 1,331,127 members, down 2.00 percent.
21. Baptist Bible Fellowship International (ranked 22 last year), 1,200,000 members, no membership updates reported.
22. Jehovah’s Witnesses (ranked 23 last year) 1,114,009members, up 2.00 percent.
23. United Church of Christ (ranked 22 last year), 1,111,691 members, down 2.93 percent.
24. Church of God (Cleveland, Tennessee), (ranked 25 last year), 1,072,169 members, up 1.76 percent.
25. Christian Churches and Churches of Christ (ranked 24 last year), 1,071,616 members, no membership updates reported.
February 22nd, 2010 at 4:48 pm
Looks like the Mormons are going to overtake the Methodists in just a few more years. Kind of interesting—Joseph Smith was leaning towards the Methodist faith just before he received his first vision.
Looks like your team is taking a bit of a hit, Caleb. My condolences.
(I guess it’s not very Christian-like to gloat, is it?)
February 22nd, 2010 at 5:18 pm
One is tempted to reply with “Not Christian, but a very Mormon thing to do!” John, I thought that the Saints were closer to us Methodists. Looks like we have a few years to reverse the trend.
Recently I heard two separate news reports about religious organizations that looked to the LDS church as a model for their future. Both Muslims and the Unification Church (Rev. Moon) see an opportunity to grow in the US, but they also have to overcome a somewhat negative image. That’s a problem that the Latter Day Saints have countered very effectively in the past few decades. That’s neither a critique or commendation on Mormon theology, just an objective observation about church PR.
All else considered I certainly wish that The United Methodist Church were growing rather than shrinking. Still, a church ought to care more about being faithful to God than being popular.
February 22nd, 2010 at 6:07 pm
I agree with you there, José. Of course this is not a popularity contest, but after so many years being marginalized and ridiculed as some sort of cult, it is refreshing to note that our respectability seems to be improving. I don’t wish any ill-will on any other church—this isn’t a football game or anything—just proud of my heritage and beliefs. Of course, being proud of my beliefs infers that I think others are inferior. Rats! This whole trying to act Christian-like can really be a pain!
I don’t really care if we Mormons pass the Methodists or not. Neither of us has a prayer of catching up to the Catholics anytime in the next ten centuries. There’s just something romantic about a little persecuted podunk “cult” growing to be a considerable influence in America’s religious culture. It must all be due to that Jewish PR firm we hired a few years back. Or it could be because we have the actual truth. Naaah. It’s gotta be that PR firm.
February 22nd, 2010 at 6:40 pm
All kidding aside there’s something to be said for churchgoers to feel a little sting of persecution now and then. Keeps you humble and reminds you that faithfulness means real work and sacrifice. In recent years it seems like more Methodists are observing the season of Lent in that kind of way. There’s a hazard to being comfortably in the mainstream of society. Maybe the Mormons are better prepared than other faith groups.
February 23rd, 2010 at 9:57 am
You’re absolutely right, José. Brigham Young said he greatly feared the day when Mormons would start to become acceptable in the mainstream of world culture. Afraid we would get lazy and prideful (oops!), though he new the day would have to come if we were meant to preach the Restoration to the whole world.
That’s wonderful the Methodists are being more faithful. Regardless of differences in the details of belief, honest faithfulness and Christ-like love for all is what counts in the end. It brings the peace God taught, regardless of our individual creeds, even for non-Christians. I not only hope Mormons are better prepared, but that all worthy faiths are equally as prepared for the strife and turmoil we may be in for in this fallen world.
February 25th, 2010 at 3:29 am
“It must all be due to that Jewish PR firm we hired a few years back. Or it could be because we have the actual truth. Naaah. It’s gotta be that PR firm.”
Uh, more like a high birth rate, and exaggerated membership numbers.
February 25th, 2010 at 12:38 pm
I just wonder whether trend of total Christian population growth is up or down. If denominational growth is based on transformation of Christian from one denomination to other, then actual mission vision to enhance Kingdom of Heaven is in question as defined growth in the parable of talents in Mathew 25:14-30. It is duplication of work and wastage of God given resources vested for stewardship. For example if Mormon’s goal is to supersede Methodist or Jehovah Witnesses now ranked 22 set goal to be 21 by going to Christian and converting them to expand their denomination.
February 25th, 2010 at 3:19 pm
John, I suspect it has nothing to do with either the PR firm or the truth, and with respect to Justin, I doubt that the numbers are all that inflated, though I imagine that, like the Catholic numbers, they are inflated a bit.
I’ve always attributed the Mormons’ growth to the fact that they’re competent. When they move in to an area, they make an actual effort to evangelize, something we Anglicans gave up a century ago. And, I’ve always said that the growth of the Mormons proves that theology doesn’t matter. They have cobbled up a theology that reads like a bad science fiction novel and used it to take over the world. That shows competence in what they do. Imagine what they could do if they weren’t held back by a hidebound bureaucracy and an incomprehensible theology.
March 1st, 2010 at 11:04 am
The late Billy Mays could sell an inferior product, but only for so long. Eventually, word would get out that the product does not live up to its promotion. However, Oxy-Clean works (for most people) and therefore made his career. Likewise with Mormonism. All accounts peg Mormon convert retention rates at around 50 percent—considerably higher than the other major proselytizing faiths (the Jehovah’s Witnesses retention rate is around 5 percent). So, there must be something to that “incomprehensible” theology.
I still struggle to understand the animosity towards we Mormons. I don’t pick on other faiths, claiming they are bureaucratic or incomprehensible, though an argument could be made that they are. I just don’t see the point. No Anglican ever beat me up in a bar fight. I’ve never been threatened with burning at the stake by a Catholic. Other than threatening the livelihoods of paid preachers, all the Mormons I know don’t pick on other’s beliefs. We just offer what we believe is more, take it or leave it. Why the hatred?
March 1st, 2010 at 12:12 pm
I don’t think it’s hatred, John, so much as it is disagreement and incomprehension, and (at least for me) the fact that the Mormons have sold out so thoroughly to the right wing establishment that makes them suspect. I imagine that your high retention rate is more related to the fact that the church is well run, in the sense that, like in Mussolini’s Italy, the trains run on time, the meetings start on time, and there is a well recognized structure, than anything to do with theology. The fact is that most people in the pews of any church don’t much understand the theology of their churches. The Catholics, who have much of the same things going for them, including the incomprehensible theology, are the majority religion in the world, so perhaps it’s a formula that works.
March 1st, 2010 at 12:42 pm
Meetings on time? Mormon Standard Time is 15 to 20 minutes after the “official” published time (if anybody bothered to publish it). With no paid clergy, we are a church run by amateurs. Whenever there is problems with tithes and offerings, building use schedules, Sunday school teachers, or even cleaning up that ungodly mess in the men’s bathroom, we are specifically reminded of that fact. Literally everything, from cleaning the pews to preaching the Sunday sermon, is done by volunteers. Of course, that may be our secret—everyone is so involved in the day-to-day operations of the Church, they can’t (like the mafia) pull themselves free—at least not without everyone else knowing it and shaming them back.
Caleb, you fall into the trap of calling Mussolini and fascism in general “right wing.” It is exactly the same as socialism. How did Mussolini “make the trains run on time”? Power and control from the top. Exactly like socialism or the “left wing” philosophy. The Mormons are primarily “right wing” because we believe strongly (it is actually part of our incomprehensible theology) in free agency and self-reliance. You simply cannot reach the full potential God wants you to reach when others are dictating your choices. This includes “charity” that you may vote to force yourself, and more importantly others, to give. It just so happens that the “right wing” in today’s political environment lines up with such doctrine. This was not always the case. Around the turn of the last century most Mormons were liberal Democrats. It was not until the “left wing” began taking away or mitigating personal responsibility and using force to make people do the “right” thing that Mormons began to move en mass to the conservative parties.
March 1st, 2010 at 12:57 pm
On the same note, Caleb. The U.S. Constitution, according to official Mormon doctrine, was inspired by God. It always has been, right from the beginning. It is taught in our Sunday school classes and seminary courses. As such, we never took to “creative” interpretations of the Constitution. Politics and religion are so closely related, that it is hard to distinguish when a faith has “sold out” to a certain political philosophy. It might actually just be part of their theology.
March 1st, 2010 at 1:02 pm
“You simply cannot reach the full potential God wants you to reach when others are dictating your choices.” This from a church whose primary college expelled a student for not being a Mormon in good standing, and which bans its members from drinking not only alcohol, but caffeine as well, and tells you what kind of underwear to wear . . . quite a freedom loving bunch, no doubt!
March 1st, 2010 at 1:30 pm
Yeah, but we don’t impose any of that on anyone against their will. This might be a little too subtle for you to grasp, but nobody forced that student to go to BYU or wherever. Nobody forces you to wear the underwear. Nobody forces you to even go to church on Sunday. If you show up to church drinking a beer or picking your nose or anything else that may or may not be against that church’s precepts, you are really, in effect, imposing your habits or doctrine on the others who willingly assembled there according to other guidelines they accepted. We do value freedom, and that includes the freedom of association with like-minded people—with ground rules and common goals. We would never impose these personal moral rules on anyone else, even if we had the power. You think God couldn’t make us do what is right? Why doesn’t He? Same reason we don’t. But, if you choose to follow Him, you gotta abide His commandments. Otherwise you’re not following Him. If you’re not going to follow a certain level of commitment in the Mormon Church, then you’re not going to be welcome within its association. Your personal freedom is not infringed. But, your personal freedom will not be allowed to infringe on ours. Subtle, I know, but if you think long and hard on it, I think you’ll get it.
March 1st, 2010 at 2:05 pm
I think one of our apostles explains is quite well, although if one simply wants to continue to believe that we are somehow oppressed by our beliefs, I guess that’s their issue….
Boyd K. Packer stated that
“Latter-day Saints are not obedient because they are compelled to be obedient. They are obedient because they know certain spiritual truths and have decided, as an expression of their own individual agency, to obey the commandments of God. We are the sons and daughters of God, willing followers, disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ, and “under this head are [we] made free.” (Mosiah 5:8)
Those who talk of blind obedience may appear to know many things, but they do not understand the doctrines of the gospel. There is an obedience that comes from a knowledge of the truth that transcends any external form of control. We are not obedient because we are blind, we are obedient because we can see.”
March 1st, 2010 at 2:20 pm
Well, John and David, it’s true that no one makes you be a Mormon. By the same token, no one makes you be an American. If there’s another country you like better, there’s nothing keeping you here. But I just find it a bit humorous that you two proclaim how much the LDS Church loves freedom, so long as that freedom consists of not having to pay taxes to keep our society going, but doesn’t much like freedom for its own people. Living in society is a voluntary thing, and if we’re all in this together, we’ve all got to make our contributions. You may say that it’s using force to make someone do “the right thing,” but in reality, how is that any different than using the threat of hell, or the threat of expulsion from the LDS Church to do the same thing? Bear in mind that we only began “making” people do the right thing when they weren’t doing it voluntarily. If Christians had done what they were supposed to have been doing fifty or a hundred years ago, maybe we wouldn’t need so much government today.
March 1st, 2010 at 3:54 pm
“…so long as that freedom consists of not having to pay taxes to keep our society going, but doesn’t much like freedom for its own people.”
OK, Caleb, where do you get that? I have no problem paying taxes. What I have a problem with is our government squandering our money. If you don’t remember this important fact, every dollar of tax money was earned by an American citizen. It doesn’t inherently belong to the government to spend in ridiculous ways. And don’t tell me you believe the government as a whole has been a wise steward of our money. I believe many more people would be OK with social programs if we thought the gov’t actually could run them effectively. Have worked for a state health and welfare agency, I can tell you first hand that doesn’t happen. I quit that career because I saw how much federal and state programs kept people a servant of the dole and under it’s control much more than any church would.
Secondly, as I’ve explained before on numerous occasions, our church does as much or more for the welfare of the poor and needy in this country than any other entity in this nation, as a percentage of income. So please don’t lump us in with those other Christians who you say haven’t “done what they were supposed to be doing.” We do a pretty good job of it, in my honest opinion, and I believe a lot of other churches do their fair share as well. (Remember, you’re the one who is condemning Christians as not doing enough, not me.)
If you think that government will solve the problem of hunger and need in this country, or anywhere else, then you need to study some more history, my friend. Government has never solved this problem anywhere, at any time. As awful as it is, there will always be poor and needy in the world until the Lord himself comes again. Doesn’t mean we should do all we can to help, it is our Christian duty, but not through government channels. Just doesn’t work.
March 1st, 2010 at 4:21 pm
There’s a big difference between “threatening hell” (which we Mormons never do) and throwing someone in jail.
We do pay our taxes, Caleb. The question is how much of the “society” is everyone’s business and how much is not. To the extent that someone else’s choices have a negative effect on innocent others, to that extent does government have the right to step in and regulate. The state would be right in enforcing laws and punishments on the persons responsible for beating the man on the road to Samaria, but it would be out of bounds to force an unrelated bystander to take care of the beaten man, take him to the inn, and pay for his healing. Should the bystander take care of the beaten man? Of course, of course, of course! He however CANNOT be forced to do so. If he is, it negates his growth opportunity and it also distorts true love. Instead of being grateful for the help, the beaten man may be tempted to feel it was his right to force others to compensate for his misfortune and he may be tempted to lay blame on the healer for not doing his job instead of on the actual perpetrators of the crime against him (or even on himself if the misfortune was somehow the result of his own willful actions). Likewise, initiative is taken from the bystander and given to his “lord and master” the government, king or any other entity.
THIS IS NOT CHRIST’S WAY! You do not force others to be kind.
Now, we don’t live in a perfect world. If we did, we would have no need for government in the first place. Government is a necessary evil used to combat certain evils that can develop in a fallen society, but it is still an evil. As such, it must have strict controls on its powers. Having roads or a homeless shelter on a community level with strict local oversight to insure proper use of power and that help is given to the innocent, and not merely shielding them from consequences, that’s okay. Having a national government 2,111 miles away administering “aid” along with the consequent limitations on choice, is evil. God did not want Israel to have a king, but since they demanded one, that’s what they got. The Book of Mormon is replete with cases of evil concentrations of power, usually in the form of kings, that God repeatedly warned the people against having.
The Constitution was inspired it that it struck the perfect balance needed to insure continued freedom. It was never intended to cure the ills of society, only people can do that. Once it steps out of its God-given bounds, it creates more evil than it cures. Every situation is a little different and we must be inspired at all times to properly apply the principles of freedom. Hence moral leaders are an absolute necessity. They don’t have to be perfect, but they cannot be inspired if they are not living an honest moral life.
March 2nd, 2010 at 7:57 pm
“I still struggle to understand the animosity towards we Mormons.”
Are you referring to the past or the present? These days I don’t see that Mormons face much more hostility than many other faith groups, and some folks get a heckuva lot worse. On this very blog there are more harsh words for the Episcopal Church than the LDS. Moreover, it sure is insensitive to complain about unfair treatment of a congregation that so recently played a significant role in revoking the legal rights of another minority. Regardless of whether the actions were coordinated and encouraged by the church organization, Mormons from around the country did much to pass Proposition 8 in California.
Caleb has his criticisms of the Mormon church. I’ll add one more, the lack of openness and transparency. In church governance, the suppression of scholarly criticism, and even the secrecy of rituals, it’s the kind of thing than any objective outsider would find suspicious and indefensible. History tells us of other churches where a self-selected leadership, claiming to be agents of the Almighty, conducted their business behind closed doors and without true accountability, often with terrible results. You are quite correct that the tradition of secrecy is your right, as Mormons. It is my right to point out that such a practice is not healthy in a church, and that any would-be adherent ought to be extremely wary.
March 3rd, 2010 at 1:50 pm
Oh wow, now you really have me scared, José. I wonder what we are REALLY doing in those temples? Oh yeah I, like most other Mormons, go through the temple all the time. Never mind. Now I’m wondering if the Brethren are secretly ordaining each other to higher and higher priesthood authority! Man, I gotta watch out that we don’t have a god on our hands soon! Maybe the Church leadership is amassing a great army to eventually FORCE everyone to do the prophet’s bidding! What are all those missionaries REALLY doing anyway? Oh yeah, I was a missionary once, too. Never mind.
Last time I checked, it takes a majority of the population voting for a Proposition in order to pass it. At most, Mormons make up only 15% or so of the population in California. Must have been stuffing the ballot boxes with votes from a lot of dead people. THAT’S why we’re so big into genealogy! It’s all coming together now! ‘Cause everybody knows NOBODY else agrees with the Mormons on that pesky Prop. 8!
Excuse me for a minute while I follow my Bishop to the University of Utah (lousy state-run school—we can’t tell them what to do) and burn down their scholarly presses.
Okay, I’m back. I’ve got a “Proposition” for you, José. Go to the Mormon Church’s website (I’ll e-mail you the secret password), and sign up to take the missionary discussions. You can become a member in about 3 weeks or so. Then, if you’re real good and do everything you’re told, we’ll let you in on all the secrets. But, you must consent to the “mind-meld” so that you can never reveal our secret baby-sacrificing rituals (oops!) if you ever leave the Church. As soon as we can swing it, you won’t have the option of leaving. (Stupid Article of Faith that says we believe in upholding the law!)
March 3rd, 2010 at 2:04 pm
I wonder if they’re secretly taking my tithing money and using it to buy Porsches for all the uppity ups. Has anyone seen our Church President riding around in a Ferrari? I can just see his gray hair flapping in the breeze while he laughs maniacally at all us poor saps in the lower echelons of the Church.
Maybe he secretly dresses up like the Pope with silky robes and gold rings and a golden scepter. Maybe the Brethren are pronouncing curses on the Episcopalians right now. Watch out for lightning bolts everybody. I know I’m safe, are you?
March 3rd, 2010 at 3:54 pm
John, if you have nothing of substance to offer in return then silence is acceptable, and certainly preferable to childish sarcasm and hyperbole. One would expect that if you HAD a meaningful response, it would take less effort and fewer words than these outbursts. At least you don’t dispute my actual observations, so thanks for that. Seriously.
March 3rd, 2010 at 4:16 pm
I guess I have never understood the great need that the Catholics and the Mormons have for secrecy. I mean, it’s not like they own the formula for Coca-Cola or the atomic bomb, or the eleven secret herbs and spices, or have national security secrets that would help our enemies. As far as I can tell, secrecy in religious organizations (as shown by the Catholic response to the sex abuse scandal) is never a good thing, and is often a very bad thing indeed.
March 3rd, 2010 at 4:33 pm
José I don’t dispute them, because I don’t know what they are?!! Okay, our temple ceremony is secret (we call it sacred), but trust me there is nothing in it for you or anyone to worry about. In that we are no different than the Catholics in their “secret” conclaves to chose a new Pope. You can probably find the whole ceremony, word for word, somewhere on the Web, but I’m not going to help you there.
The Church does not publish its finances, but neither do most evangelical churches either. They don’t take federal aid (at least not directly—you can really stretch definitions there), so they are not required to. Can you imagine trying to keep every single member happy about their donations if they published every little expense? I’ve known Church members who stopped contributing because they found out aid was going to one of their neighbors they didn’t particularly like! And how much are we paying that Jewish PR firm, anyway!
The Church archives are Church property. They can publish them or not. If they’re keeping something secret, I don’t know what it is, so it is useless to speculate.
We tolerate all sorts of criticism. I can’t imagine any more creative arguments being leveled at the Church and the Church does not respond, either in kind or at all, in most cases. Go into any public library in Utah and you’ll find plenty of fodder to keep you occupied for years on anti-Mormon literature and scholarly works. No, you won’t find as much at the BYU library, but you will find some, but why would you? It is not, and should not be, a priority there.
Again, I don’t know what you mean by “transparency.” Our current Prophet has type 2 diabetes, and priesthood blessings apparently aren’t curing him. The scandal! Is that what you mean?
Virtually every Mormon is familiar with every argument that can be made against the Church. Tells you something about our heritage of persecution. Not devaluing the persecution of other churches, I’m sure there are cases worse than ours from time to time, but as for consistency and longevity of attacks against us, we rank up there in the big leagues. At least in modern times.
I know Church leaders, none of them are professionals. Every single one of them, including our current Prophet, had or has careers outside the Church governance. Doctors, lawyers, teachers, even a car dealer, etc. They are not evil men or women! That’s why I don’t understand the hatred. It seems to tell me more about the issues of the criticizing one than of the these genuinely good men and women.
March 3rd, 2010 at 4:38 pm
Okay, so maybe the car dealer was evil (he did go to Obama’s inauguration, ya know), but I’m sure he’s on the path of repentance like the rest of us.
March 3rd, 2010 at 4:50 pm
Well, John, at least he’s not a lawyer . . .
March 3rd, 2010 at 5:01 pm
We did have a lawyer as Prophet once, but he only lasted 9 months and then God took him. Guess there’s a limit to what God can stand…
March 8th, 2010 at 5:07 pm
Just for the record, no one has satisfactorily reconciled John’s portrayal of Mormons in modern America with the plain facts. He describes how others mistreat the Mormons with terms like “antagonistic” and “hatred”. Those words were certainly apt in the past but today they seem exaggerated and awfully strong. In current politics, two of the most powerful US Senators and a major presidential contender are Mormons. That would be nearly impossible today for a Muslim or an avowed atheist. The LDS church has many business leaders, a nationally famous university with successful athletic teams, an influential newspaper, and who knows what else. Many minorities would be envious to be so mistreated!
As for the policy of tolerance and the bold claim that:
“We would never impose these personal moral rules on anyone else, even if we had the power.”
frankly, that’s a crock. I can’t think of anything much more intolerant than actively seeking to rescind the civil rights of a group of folks simply because it violates the church’s morality. Sure, there are other churches that are just as guilty, and I’ll be happy to point out that fact should any of them be so foolhardy to brag in the same way.
Make a choice here. Present yourself as the clean cut American ideal who is successful in business and society, or complain that you are a poor victim of prejudice and persecution, but please don’t try to do both. And as for how you regard others, boldly proclaim your uncompromising leadership in shaping the social agenda by institutionalizing morality, or else convince us that you are comfortable with allowing everyone the freedom to choose how to live, and by your actions show that you work only through gentle persuasion instead of legal mandates.
It’s no secret that Mormons and I have a very different evaluation of their religion. Generally I am content to leave that issue alone. It doesn’t bring me any satisfaction or amusement to highlight our disagreements, and I rather doubt that either side will be convinced to change their minds. However, recall that John did invite a challenge by asking why the Mormons are persecuted and by speaking so highly of their live-and-let-live ways.
March 8th, 2010 at 6:33 pm
José:
Let’s talk about “live-and-let-live” for a minute. The Mormon Church supports civil unions for gays with all the legal rights of a married couple, except for the right to label themselves as “married.” I’m not sure, but I think we would even recognize another church’s claim that a gay couple is “married” as far as their church records go. I don’t think we would refuse to recognize a gay priest in another church, for example.
The point of the gay “rights” movement in the Prop. 8 case is that they wish to FORCE other’s to recognize them as “normal.” Once the government FORCES everyone to recognize “plural” marriages (polygamy) then we Mormons might talk. Since the definition of “marriage” is so fluid, the will of the majority will have to be respected. We accept that the majority of Americans, and the world, does not accept polygamy and we abide by that. The majority has spoken in the Prop. 8 case. You’ll have to abide by that for now. It is not fair, I know, but neither is the opposite.
As far as presidential candidates and powerful senators goes: Can you tell me the specific religious denominations of any of the other presidential candidates or senators? I thought not. We Mormons have indeed found more acceptance of late, but it is still a stigma to be a Mormon, as you adequately display here. When as many a half of all Evangelicals claim they would not vote for Mitt Romney only because he is Mormon shows that we still have a ways to go.
March 8th, 2010 at 8:12 pm
“Once the government FORCES everyone to recognize ‘plural’ marriages (polygamy) then we Mormons might talk [about same sex marriage].”
It doesn’t say much for one’s principles when they are conditional on someone else’s actions. That’s either moral relativism or being reactionary or something. Call me old fashioned but I believe that a principle ought to stand on its own merits. If you want to argue for the legalization of plural marriages, go ahead. You might be surprised at how receptive some folks are to the idea. But please don’t be a hypocrite about it.
Many sins have been committed under the reasoning that prejudice is acceptable when it is common, traditional, and the majority opinion. That’s bunk. The idea that anyone’s rights and freedoms ought to be constrained merely because they makes someone else uncomfortable, that’s just repulsive. Should’t we expect more understanding from a religious group that was itself considered not normal?
I do enjoy trivia quizzes. Off the top of my head and without looking I can name the religious affiliations of eight of the last ten Presidents plus the last three Veeps. For good measure I’ll add Kerry, Edwards, Lieberman, Dole, Hillary Clinton, the late Sen. Kennedy, plus my two Senators and Congressman. Why that is important to you, I cannot answer.
March 9th, 2010 at 11:33 am
In this case, José, the argument can be made either way as to where the morality lies. Being gay, like polygamy, is a choice. It is not a gender or skin color. Many would say that a kleptomaniac (desire to steal) is not a choice, that they were born that way, but would that justify allowing them to practice it? Now, being gay is a victimless crime, if it is a crime at all, so it wouldn’t fall under the same head as a kleptomaniac. However, what you do with a consenting adult in the privacy of your own home is nobody else’s business. Don’t make it everyone’s business by demanding that they recognize it.
People were never “disgusted” with blacks having freedom (unless they were mild psychopaths, which the South was unfortunately full of as a result of prolonged justification for immoral behavior), they just didn’t think blacks were capable of handling freedom and needed masters to guide them, or so forth. Others just didn’t care about slavery, unfortunately. But, most, and I’m quite comfortable about saying “most,” people, when they think about the acts of sexual intimacy between two men (not sure about two women) they are absolutely disgusted. The gay community wants the rest of us to consider them normal when most of us think their actions are disgusting! It would be like having a campaign to force people to recognize nose-picking as an Olympic sport.
I’m talking about the ideals here. Any random heterosexual couple’s bedroom actions could be considered disgusting to others not in that particular relationship, but the ideal of intimacy between the “perfect” man and the “perfect” woman does not disgust the vast majority of people. The thought of intimacy between two gay men, no matter how “perfect” they may be, is abhorrent to most people, as poll after poll continues to show. In other words it is not considered “normal.” Everyone knew there was something “unnatural” or “abnormal” about slavery, whether they admitted it or not. Same could be said about polygamy, I suppose. Therefore it is perfectly and morally justifiable to contend against being forced to recognize the gay activities as normal.
Like I say, I have gay friends, but they don’t force their “gayness” on me and say I must accept or celebrate their lifestyle. That sitcom on NBC a few years back with the gay main character (I forget the title of it right now) still made me uncomfortable. AND I THINK THAT IS A NORMAL AND “PROPER” REACTION! A gay person might think otherwise, but he/she must work on conquering the uncomfortable feelings in others first before using the force of law to tell everyone they shouldn’t feel a certain way.
For the record: The Mormon Church does not support reinstating polygamy, we’ve moved beyond that. There is no “bargain” being proposed about allowing it if gay marriages are allowed. If gay marriages do become legal, the Mormon Church would abide by that and would not demand the “right” to marry more than one spouse. I was just making the point to show the multiple possibilities of the definitions of marriage and therefore the need to come to an understanding that the majority can agree with.
March 9th, 2010 at 11:46 am
José,
As for the religious affiliations of politicians: You may know what they are, but I dare say the vast majority of the electorate does not. Except for the late Ted Kennedy, maybe, and possibly Obama because of the Rev. Wright issues.
When asked to describe all they know of Donny and Marie Osmond, most people would include that they are Mormon somewhere in their description. Pick any other random celebrity out of a hat and see if that person’s religion ever comes up in the descriptions most people would give. There may be some, like Tiger Woods being Buddhist, or Tom Cruise being a Scientologist, but unless they’re Mormon, it would most likely never come up.
That is what I mean. Mormons, no matter how successful, are still considered “odd” by most, and maybe even hated by some. The same cannot be said, as a general rule, about Methodists or Lutherans, etc.
March 9th, 2010 at 12:55 pm
Without entirely stepping into this debate, I note once again the use of the word force. John says: “The point of the gay “rights” movement in the Prop. 8 case is that they wish to FORCE other’s to recognize them as “normal.””
No, John, they just want to FORCE others to treat them equally and to give them the same civil rights as others enjoy. “Normal” is not a legal standard, and I know of no law requiring me to “recognize” anyone as either normal or abnormal. In this regard, the civil rights act of 1964 FORCED restaurants and other public accommodations to do the same for blacks, and the voting rights act of 1965 FORCED the southern states to allow blacks to register to vote. The reason that the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education was not obeyed until decades after its issuance in most southern states is because the US Government, for political reasons, refused to FORCE these states to obey it, and the result was another generation of segregated schools.
What all these statutes have in common is that they came only after long and protracted campaigns to get people to do these things voluntarily, which they didn’t. But when you look at it from the point of view of the people being discriminated against, it was the FORCE of popular opinion that kept them in inferior places in society. I mean, why is it FORCE to require the recognition of gay and lesbian marriages, but not FORCE to refuse to recognize them? After all, it’s the full power and weight of the government that either recognizes or refuses to recognize them, and right now that FORCE is arrayed against them.
And, the civil rights legislation of the sixties remedied wrongs that were perpetrated by FORCE. It is FORCE that allowed good Christian southerners to lynch blacks without fear of legal consequences, and that same force that allowed southern states to refuse to register blacks to vote for decades.
And, using the ultimate demonstration of FORCE, it was only the FORCE of the Union Army that ended slavery in the south in the first place: Had it not been for the use of FORCE against the confederacy, it would have continued to use its FORCE to enslave others.
John, several times on here, you have argued against nearly everything government wants to do on the ground that these things are brought about by FORCE. Well, John, FORCE is the only thing that government has to use when people won’t do the right thing voluntarily. I understand why, as an LDS member, you don’t like the use of FORCE by the government. Your own church, in perhaps the only instance in history of church doctrine being changed by government fiat, was FORCED to change its doctrine on polygamy or else have its temple and property sold at auction by the government. I can understand how something like that can leave a bad taste in one’s mouth, but let’s get past that and look at the present.
And, John, today that very FORCE is the only thing that keeps any of us going. When the LDS Church claims its right to exist under the first amendment, the FORCE of the US Government is the only thing that enforces that amendment. When the LDS Church desires to propagate its message using all the media available to it, protected by that same first amendment, it is once again only the FORCE of the US Government that allows it to do so.
In fact, the only reason we are able to blog like this, again using the first amendment, is because the FORCE of the US Government allows and protects it. So, just from my point of view, John, May the FORCE be with you!
March 9th, 2010 at 3:11 pm
Okay, why doesn’t the government FORCE us to eat only healthy foods? Why does it not FORCE us to not smoke? The government can force anything it wants to under your definition, Caleb. Reminds me of kings and oligarchies. I don’t know if there is any other way to explain this more plainly: The force of government must be constrained to only those freedoms of actions that infringe on another’s freedoms. If second-hand smoke is harming others in a public place, then the government has a right to use it’s powers to PROTECT the innocents. It does not have any right to tell you you can’t smoke yourself.
The southerners who lynched blacks or denied them the right to vote were infringing on the freedoms of those blacks. The government was perfectly within its powers to pass laws forbidding such actions and to enforce them by any means necessary. Likewise, when you open an establishment to the “general public” the government has the right to enforce laws that make you honor that—meaning it is truly a business meant to cater to ALL the general public regardless of benign characteristics, such as race or creed. Otherwise the liberties of the blacks, or whoever, would be being infringed since they are slaves to an arbitrary and changing definition of “general public” depending who happens to operate a general public business. Same goes for hiring and employment that would otherwise be open to all. Some jobs are still not open to all because of certain requirements that make them no longer open to the “general public” such as a dressing room attendant for female dressing rooms, or a clothing or make-up model that requires an attractive woman or man, or because of certain knowledge being required. These would be classified as talents or skills that narrows the pool definition, but are not arbitrary in nature.
You are making the case FOR limited government, Caleb, when you bring up the violations of its constraints of powers in the voting rights and rights to fair trials in the South. These are classic examples of government overstepping its bounds. Same goes for the Civil War. The Union troops had a right to enforce the contract the states made to honor the results of a national election. Nowhere in the Constitution or the laws does it say that a state can leave just because it doesn’t like who the majority of other states elected for president (Abraham Lincoln). It would be like Utah seceding because Obama was elected. (Bill Clinton actually came in third in Utah—we can spot a scoundrel a mile away—we’ve had enough experience with multi-level marketers abusing our Mormon culture.) Can you imagine the complete breakdown of proper government if this were allowed to happen? It’s one of the reasons we have a Constitution in the first place.
The LDS Church is an VOLUNTARY organization. It’s members are free to join, leave and return of their own free will. Therefore it can make rules for personal conduct and morality. A person merely being born under a government does not have that freedom of association. It is therefore imperative that that government is constrained in its powers. Each of its laws must stand the burden of proof that it is not infringing on the freedom of the individual to do or say whatever the hell he wants, so long as by doing or saying so does not infringe on another’s right to do or say whatever the hell he want. Get it?
As far as gay rights go, either option is infringing on the rights of the other. If gays don’t have the right to marry, it is infringing on their right to freely associate. However, by forcing official recognition of their marriage, it is infringing on the rights of others to redefine their definition of marriage to accommodate what they feel is immoral. It’s a gray area. Therefore either the will of the majority must be respected or a “middle ground” must be reached. Gays have all the legal rights of married couples save the actual name. The only real reason they want the actual name, and I don’t blame them for it, is to make others accept them as moral. When the majority of the general public accepts them as moral, then the law can change. We’re talking about taking a proactive step into the personal lives of others when they have done nothing to warrant it. If I deny a seat to a black person in my public restaurant, I’m actively infringing on his rights. All I did was be here to have the gay community force me to recognize their CHOICES as legitimate and moral.
Caleb, did they not teach John Locke at Harvard Law? I don’t know how this is hard to understand. Maybe you don’t agree and think we should be guided by an enlightened king or cadre of intellectuals that know what is best for us, but that does not mean my firm belief in the rights and freedoms of the individual, no matter how inconvenient or misguided they may be at times, should be paramount. You’re always free to move to Cuba, ya know.
March 9th, 2010 at 4:09 pm
“Caleb, did they not teach John Locke at Harvard Law?” No, John, not that I recall. We were too busy studying law, or maybe I missed that day. As far as Cuba goes, I’ll stay here and smoke their cigars, declared by your man Rush Limbaugh as the only thing the Commies haven’t been able to ruin.
While I understand your viewpoint, I can’t accept it. You seem to believe that morality is somehow wrapped up in the law, and in issues like this, it’s not. You say that the reason gays want to use the name “married” is so that people will think they are moral. Maybe, but maybe they simply want the same rights everyone else has. I know that many think that “civil unions,” whatever that means, gives them that. Maybe it does, and if it does, why not give them the name as well? That was the holding of the California Supreme Court, and while my Harvard education was notoriously deficient in Locke-ian studies, we made up for it by reading actual cases, and this is a good one. I realize that it has effectively been overruled by the majority vote of the population, which leads me to ask whether Loving v. Virginia, the case which held that states could not ban interracial marriage would have been overruled had the good Christian people of Virginia been able to do so by ballot. Of course, Brown v. Board of Education itself would have been overturned on the same basis all over the South, probably including Kentucky, which had segregated schools at the time.
I am sure that many people get married under circumstances that you and I might agree were not moral. Is getting drunk and getting married at a wedding chapel in Vegas by an Elvis impersonator moral? Is getting married and divorced many times moral? Is marrying someone for money rather than love moral? Each of these things happens every day (well, the Elvis thing happens mainly on weekends). Certainly the good Christians of Virginia thought that a black person marrying a white person was immoral, and by the standards of the time it was. Those folks didn’t change their opinions because of the ruling of the Supreme Court, and I don’t imagine a court ruling would change your opinion, either (or mine for that matter). Marriage, as regulated by the government, is not about morality, it’s about legal rights, and if our courts have held the right to get married to be a fundamental legal right, as they did in Loving v. Virginia, how can we deny it to anyone?
March 9th, 2010 at 5:22 pm
Random responses:
If being gay is a choice then quite reasonably one will conclude that being heterosexual is also a matter of choice. Personal experience informs me otherwise. (Maybe you are not so sure of your own leanings. That would explain much of the hostility.) On the other hand, actions are voluntary. You may accurately observe that a person of either orientation may choose to engage in such activities. To conflate sexual orientation with sexual actions is simply not being truthful, and that’s a sin in my Book.
As free individuals we are permitted to decide for ourselves what we consider normal, quite apart from what the law says. John, it’s not that hard to understand. As I’ve pointed out before, Catholics have a much more narrow view of marriage than civil code and it hasn’t kept them from enforcing their theological restrictions on their flock. Bully for them. It’s time for folks to get a thicker skin and let other citizens be free.
Yes, I know that the LDS church no longer seeks plural marriages. That was an awfully weird challenge that you proposed, and it’s clear that you didn’t really believe in your own position. Again, I’ll be interested to hear your attempt to equate same sex marriage with plural marriage or any other type.
Re: the Mormon stigma. You are right that Methodists and a few other religious groups have a lower profile that the LDS. (That’s not necessarily a compliment to us.) However there ARE other religious affiliations besides Mormonism with a similar burden of heightened public awareness, especially for politicians. President Kennedy sure knew that. The Catholic faith of Sen. Kerry and Vice President Biden became matters of public discussion during the campaign, when we should have been talking about issues instead of whether someone was allowed to take communion. Any national candidate who is Southern Baptist will be scrutinized carefully. Lieberman is Jewish, we all know that. And– this is very important, John– the Mormons are far ahead of some other faith groups when it comes to public acceptability. It’s long past time to quit crying about victimization. You’re really not that special. Now please drop it.
Re: “People were never ‘disgusted’ with blacks having freedom…” Poppycock.
John, you have so many good things to say about freedom but it is so dadgummed selective! It’s shocking that you could actually believe what you say, that equal treatment is a divine right but only for the few things that John Hamilton declares good and valid.
March 9th, 2010 at 6:25 pm
Caleb, that’s the sad part of a Harvard Law education. It wasn’t always that way. A Harvard lawyer was well versed in the classics of legal theory and had little or no case studies until Langdell took over in the 1870s. Most other schools followed Harvard in the ensuing years out of some misguided worship or something, unfortunately, but I understand some are returning more to the liberal classic education. The actual cases, in theory, would each be resolved on the legal principles laid down by logic and inalienable rights and so forth learned in law school instead of mere precedent. Precedents can be wrong. Brown vs. Board overturned one, ya know.
Concerning interracial marriages in Virginia or elsewhere: No one, in their heart of hearts, actually believed it was immoral, in principle, for two races to marry each other. Whites and Indians did it all the time, a few in my ancestry, and it was fairly acceptable. Once again this is evidence of the psychopathic nature, or its residual, in the South. I understand it was perfectly legal, though not common, in many other states. Homosexuality is a different matter. Most people in every state where polls have been taken believe it is wrong to one extent or another. I see your point, Caleb, and I’ve said before, I personally have no problem with gays getting married. I’ll fully acknowledge such a marriage, legal or not, personally. I do, however, see the real problem others may have with it and until they become the minority I’m not going to ram it down their throats. Their fear and abhorrence may be unwarranted, but I have do doubt that it is real, to them.
Evidence of a natural and proper relationship between two individuals is the production of offspring. The sexual act at its very core is to reproduce. All other affectations surrounding it are nice, but are ultimately secondary to that evolutionary fact. This is in the idealized perfect senerio, of course. A man and a woman of different races produce quite healthy offspring very well and therefore it cannot be argued that it is “unnatural” by a logical, reasoning person, whether he personally likes the practice or not. Sadly (and I mean that) this is not so for homosexual relationships. Of course they can adopt and so forth, but their sexual acts are not natural in this sense. Not saying I agree whole-heartedly with that view, but it is the prevailing view of the vast majority of Americans for now. And I don’t think the vast majority of Americans are psychopaths, even if a bare majority of them voted for Obama. (Who is also against legalized gay marriage, by the way.)
Getting married by an Elvis impersonator in Vegas is definitely immoral! Especially if such a union produces offspring! (Shudder!) But that’s why they call it Sin City, right?
March 9th, 2010 at 6:38 pm
José,
First of all I don’t appreciate calling my own sexual preferences into question here. If that is where this discussion heads, I’m out of here. Rest assured, I am quite confident in my heterosexuality.
Now, if I, John Hamilton, cannot declare what is moral and valid, who can? Fact is, no one can perfectly. But since that is the case, should we just dispense with government and community morals altogether?
As for Mormon victimhood, no we don’t have it all that bad compared to some. That still doesn’t negate the fact that Mitt Romney or whoever would loose half, yes a full 50 percent, of the Evangelical base within his party merely for the fact he was Mormon. No other religion (except possibly the Catholics) would ever come close to approaching those kinds of numbers. Though it is not as bad as it could be, I think I’m justified in mentioning it as a factor. And besides, I think I’m very special, thank you very much!
March 9th, 2010 at 7:23 pm
Hey, you’re the one who calls sexual preference a choice. I’m the one who disagrees. Make up your mind.
March 9th, 2010 at 7:54 pm
“When you open an establishment to the “general public” the government has the right to enforce laws that make you honor that—meaning it is truly a business meant to cater to ALL the general public regardless of benign characteristics, such as race or creed”-John
John, I like what you said here. However, when government is the establishment in question, it too must cater to ALL the general public regardless of benign characteristics, such as race, creed, or sexual orientation. Face it, you’re description of the perfect marriage might make sense from a religious perspective, but in the eyes of the state, marriage is little more than a property-sharing agreement. When they marry, they agree to share their stuff, and when they divorce, they divide it up. The government has no reason to deny homosexuals the right to enter a property-sharing agreement. And your contention that legalization of same sex marriage would force other people to accept it as moral is just wrong. Abortion has been legal for thirty years, and no consensus has even begun to develop as to its moral validity. People will continue to believe whatever they want to; it is the American way.
“[The government] does not have any right to tell you you can’t smoke yourself.”-John
John, have you run this by the DEA? They seem to have this crazy notion that they can arrest people who smokes cannabis. Have you mentioned to them that they don’t have that right? They must have skipped that part of the Constitution.
March 9th, 2010 at 7:57 pm
Oh, and John, I believe we atheists have you Mormons topped in the victimization game. We get 0% of the evangelical vote.
March 10th, 2010 at 9:57 am
Hey Cheese,
I don’t necessarily agree with everything the DEA does. As long as what you do or take into you own body does not have adverse effects on other people, I’m all for legalizing it. I would even be for legalizing hallucination drugs if some way could be devised, at no expense to the general public, to insure the safety of everyone around the drug taker when he is high or out of control. This is why alcohol is heavily regulated. Persons under the influence of a substance may not act rationally and harm others, therefore the DEA and government have every right to regulate or ban such substances. Smoking, except for second-had smoke, does not fall under this category, and alcohol may not, at least partially.
Just like abortion, neither option is ideal in the gay marriage debate. But, just like abortion, I think a middle ground can be reached. There are valid moral points on both sides of the abortion debate, which are mutually exclusive, likewise in gay marriage. The other side is not going to be happy if we go to the extremes. I’m fine with gay marriage, most of my Mormon counterparts are not. Neither is most of the general public, therefore I think a fair compromise is in order. YES, I KNOW IT IS NOT IDEAL, but we can all still be reasonably happy in the middle ground. A civil union in most states, as far as I know, has all the property rights, rights of “divorce” and so forth that an actual marriage in name has—just not the name. Appeases the “unenlightened, backward-thinking” hairless apes out there who stupidly think sexual intercourse between two men is “not quite right.” Work on “enlightening” them all first then ask for the legal recognition, would be my suggestion. I don’t expect you to agree, I just want you all to see this is a valid viewpoint.
As for being atheists, I agree! I never said we Mormons have the worst of the persecution. After all, we’re still going to some form of heaven.
You atheists, get it at both ends—here and after you’re gone! Yup, you don’t get the evangelical vote, but I dare say you probably get most of the commie vote. 
March 10th, 2010 at 7:16 pm
John,
I appreciate your willingness to compromise on this issue of same sex marriages. Compromise, the true essence of democracy, seems like a dying art these days. I don’t have a problem with civil unions per se, but this whole “marriage-for-heterosexuals-and-civil-unions-for-homosexuals” thing, separate-but-equal deal, reeks of Plessy v. Ferguson. I’m not exactly sure why, but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. So here’s my compromise: civil unions for everybody. Heterosexual and homosexual couples each get all the accompanying legal rights. Religious institutions can still conduct “marriages,” but at the courthouse, we’ll all file for civil union licenses. Then there’s no separate-but-equal stink on the whole deal, everyone can use the same terminology, and no one’s feelings get hurt.
POP QUIZ: If a man and a woman get married under today’s definition of the term, and one partner in the relationship undergoes a sex-change operation, is their marriage effectively null and void, or would they have a legal same-sex marriage?
March 11th, 2010 at 10:00 am
Pop quiz answer: That very thing happened right here in my town! Our county’s Economic Development Director had a sex change to become a woman, and then made a stink because the county wouldn’t let him/her use the women’s bathrooms. Seems his/her coworkers were uncomfortable about it. So, they built him/her a whole separate bathroom at tax payer expense. Someone asked if they would do the same for one of us here at my work, and they just laughed.
Anyway, he/she is still married and is technically still a male, I believe, according to Utah law. If there’s a Y chromosome you’re male, if not you’re female. Pretty simple. Not arguing that he/she doesn’t have the right to change. I meet with him/her all the time in my line of work and treat him/her as a female. (I’m only using “him/her” here for clarity, I don’t mean it to be degrading.)
So, I guess the answer is yes. They are still technically married. But, I don’t really know why they would want to be.
March 11th, 2010 at 2:38 pm
Cheese, you’re absolutely right with your analysis. The California Supreme Court, in the case that held that California could not discriminate by calling what gays have civil unions and what everybody else has as marriage, used exactly that logic. If it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck. (I refer to that as the Migratory Waterfowl Rule of Law). Of course, that case was effectively overturned by the voters, as, no doubt, Brown v. Board of Education would have been as well if the grass eaters could have figured out how to do it.
March 11th, 2010 at 4:45 pm
“Quack, quack, quack, BARK, quack, quack…”
March 11th, 2010 at 7:23 pm
“…is technically still a male…according to Utah law”
Not really. Stated precisely, the director is LEGALLY a male according to state law, not TECHNICALLY. The whole male/female thing really isn’t as clear cut as some would like, when you look closely at the rare cases in the middle. There are other factors in play besides chromosomes. Some XX people have male genitalia and some XY are female.
March 12th, 2010 at 11:42 am
I’ve never heard of any XX people having male genitalia. Though now that I think about it, that would explain a few people I know. I would dare say such genitalia were not “functional” though insofar as siring offspring. Likewise, I’ve never heard of anyone with a Y chromosome being able to bear a child. I’ve heard of ones with an extra X or Y chromosome, though. Whatever the legal definition might be, I don’t think there has ever been a legal definition of “gender neutral” at least in modern times. I think you’re either one or the other, depending in the presence of a Y chromosome, regardless of superficial characteristics.
This doesn’t preclude people from thinking of themselves as the other sex. That’s their right and freedom. It is also might right and freedom to think they are the other way. For myself, however, I will honer whatever it is they want to call themselves. Just legally there sometimes needs to be some clarity.
March 12th, 2010 at 5:52 pm
Just a further note of clarification.
It’s true that for humans the Y chromosome gives the fetus a very strong push to develop as a male. Absent the Y chromosome the fetus tends to default to female. There are other factors that try to nudge the development, but in humans those factors are rarely meaningful because of the power of the chromosomes. In some nonhuman species, however, the nonhereditary factors are more influential. For these creatures the sex of the offspring can be set during gestation by things like environmental temperature, chemicals, food levels, and stress of the mother-to-be. These creatures are fully functional and fertile.
The point is this: having XY or XX is not the actual definition of male or female according to biology, and that’s a fact. And while being born with one set of genitalia may define the physical biological sexness of a person, it does not necessarily determine one’s gender self identification nor sexual preference. I don’t know if that’s provable fact but I reckon that it’s the consensus among folks who are generally open to ideas that are supported by evidence even when conventional wisdom says otherwise.
March 15th, 2010 at 3:25 pm
You well may be right, José. However, at some point a concrete legal definition may be necessary. If that legal definition is “Whatever the person says he/she is” that would be okay with me, though somewhat chaotic, admittedly. Most others in this country don’t quite see it that way, so we’ll just have to muddle through with some sort of definition most of us can agree on. You can campaign for more broad definitions, but I don’t necessarily discredit people who are for a more narrow and clearly defined legal code. You both have your points.