Polygamy and Same-Sex Marriage: The Contagion Theory

Last updated on: November 9, 2015 at 4:05 pm by TT

Polygamy and Same-Sex Marriage: The Contagion Theory 2015-11-09T16:05:24-05:00 TT

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

The recent policy changes in the LDS church treat polygamy and same-sex marriage as analogous in two ways. First, they are explicitly defined as “apostasy,” resulting in automatic church discipline. Second, the children of such relationships receive the highest level of scrutiny before they are allowed to join the church. Why are these two kinds of relationships, and the children of such relationships, subject to such treatment? We might note that other sexual and relationship sins will result in church discipline, including fornication, adultery, and homosexual acts. However, this does not explain why the children of polygamous and same-sex relationships are also subject to scrutiny. Children of fornicating or adulterous parents are not excluded from church membership or put under ecclesiastical monitoring.

First, some history. Polygamy is not just another sexual sin. It is both sexual and schismatic. That is, polygamy has been under special scrutiny because it represents a direct threat to the order of the church and the authority of its leaders. Polygamy is not like other sexual sins because, according to church doctrine, it is a malum prohibitum, not a malum in se. While other sexual sins are forbidden because they are considered morally problematic, polygamy once was officially embraced by the church, and at least according to some folk beliefs, may return again. The doctrine has been dangerous to the stability of the church for over a hundred years, with many members of the church each year entering into polygamous relationships or joining sects who accept the practice.

The challenge that polygamy poses is fourfold: 1) Church scripture and doctrine are unstable on this matter; 2) sectarian and schismatic elements have persistently threatened the church and poached its members; 3) polygamy is illegal, and the church’s acceptance of the practice existentially threatened the church with the US government; 4) polygamy is not a practice that is restricted to a small-group, but could be practiced by any heterosexual individual.

In the church’s experience, polygamy can and does spread by contagion. For these reasons, I suggest that the church has placed the children of polygamous families under especially high scrutiny. Polygamy threatens the church’s legal status, its reputation, and presents a schismatic risk. The church does not want to expose its members to polygamists by isolating them socially and from acceptance within the church. Further, it believes that the children of polygamous relationships will grow up to practice the “principle,” and potentially teach these ideas to other members.

Though the church has put polygamy and same-sex marriage in the same category of discipline, there are a number of differences between polygamy and same-sex marriage, which strain the analogy. 1) There is no history or doctrine in the church of accepting the practice as it exists today; 2) there are no schismatic elements of the church that rival church authority on the matter; 3) same-sex marriage is legal and accepting or rejecting it poses no legal threat to the church; 4) same-sex marriage will always be restricted to a small group of people who find themselves wanting to create permanent relationships of care with members of their same sex.

Despite these differences, my hypothesis is that a similar logic is at work in the church’s treatment of same-sex marriages and the children of these relationships with polygamy. The church has long held that same-sex attraction is contagious. While the official teaching of the church holds that same-sex attracted individuals, “individuals do not choose to have such attractions,” its past rhetoric advising people with same-sex attraction to avoid spending time with others like them, and the long history of (now abandoned) attempts to reform homosexuals, and tracing the causes of homosexual attraction to a contagion theory, reveal a perception by church leaders about homosexuality that has been difficult to shake. This new policy is a remnant of that long-held belief that homosexuality can spread.

This contagion theory may explain the treatment of same-sex couples, but what about their children? There are clear examples of this contagion theory through children in church discourse about same-sex marriage in the recent past. The church has objected to the character of the children of same-sex relationships since 2008 in its document, “The Divine Institution of Marriage.” In this document, it outlined its contagion theory: “traditional marriage provides the most solid and well-established social identity for children. It increases the likelihood that they will be able to form a clear gender identity, with sexuality closely linked to both love and procreation. By contrast, the legal recognition of same-sex marriage may, over time, erode the social identity, gender development, and moral character of children.” In this statement, the church outlines its belief that the children of same-sex relationships will be infected with dangerous ideas by their parents, such as a lack of clear gender boundaries and the idea that sex and procreation are linked. The “moral character of children” in same-sex relationships is treated as highly suspect. The document further outlines the fears that acceptance of same-sex marriage will lead to “gender confusion” throughout society: “When marriage is undermined by gender confusion and by distortions of its God-given meaning, the rising generation of children and youth will find it increasingly difficult to develop their natural identities as men or women.”

My hunch is that the church wants to protect its membership from these children of same-sex relationships, not protect these children from being caught between church and home. The notion that the children of same-sex relationships will not only be infected with the teachings and gender behaviors of their parents, but that they will pose a broader social risk, is in part why they are being quarantined from the general membership and their children.

EDIT: Some initial feedback has argued that the church is more concerned about people accepting gay people and their families than about homosexual contagion. I think there is clearly some merit to this, of course. The recent Pew data show that acceptance of homosexual and same-sex marriage has risen drastically among Mormons in the last 7 years. But, I think the earlier statements about the children of such relationships as being morally suspect for not learning proper gender roles cannot be overlooked.

Doctrine

Family

Sexuality

Previous Post

November 6, 2015

Tips on Being an Independent Scholar: Kevin Barney

Next Post

November 8, 2015 Tips on Being an Independent Scholar: Blake Ostler

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category 2013 Scriptures Administrative Apologetics Atonement Bible Book of Mormon Book Review BYU Doctrine Extra-Biblical Literature Family Feminism Guests History LDS Church History Leadership Marginalia Metaphysics Mormon Culture Mormon Studies Personal Issues Political Philosophy Politics Scripture Sexuality Speculation Spotlights Studying Religion Ten Tidbits The Tenure Track Theology Tips on Applying Series Tips on Being an Independent Scholar Uncategorized

Select a Month June 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 July 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz