29 July 2009

Gay Gay Gay Gay Gay Gay Gay

Questions some of you, particularly friends and family of SSA/gay/queer/heterosexually challenged guys/gals/in-betweens, may have asked yourselves: Why do people shove their homosexuality in others' faces and expect them to accept it? Why is it that my friend who has acknowledged his/her homosexual inclinations or has finally come out talks incessantly about gayness and flaunts his/her attractions all the time? Why can't he/she just acknowledge it and move on? There's more to him/her than this one thing, but it's like he/she is trying to force all of us to accept it and like it.

1. Question whether you actually mean to say, "Why do they bring up their attractions or ogle people they find attractive just as much as any straighty does?" And realize it may be your problem, not theirs, if you're uncomfortable with the fact that their attraction is directed towards people you don't think it should be. Perhaps they're just acting like a typical guy/girl? Maybe?

2. Often, especially earlier in the "coming to terms with one's homosexuality" process, regardless of whether they intend to pursue a same-sex relationship, people do go overboard like a kid in a candy store. You might, too, if you'd held it all back for twenty-some years. The adolescent, eye-popping "appreciation" of beauty they never allowed themselves to acknowledge even to themselves is sometimes too much for newbies to contain, and they become drooling messes.

3. It feels amazing to finally be able to talk about it and express the thoughts that were kept so secretive, especially with others who fully identify. This means newbies may jump into their new circle of friends, somewhat forgetting or neglecting their long-term friends. This phenomenon is not exclusive to homos. Anyone who has been through something most people don't understand and find people who know where they're coming from want to be with those people and identify with them for a time, and sometimes that spills over into their other relationships as they gush. Most of us get past that. It may take a year or three, but most of us get past it.

4. There's often an element of defensiveness. People do this in all sorts of situations. Often, when someone thinks the decisions they've made or their life situation is threatening or uncomfortable to others, particularly those whose acceptance and love they care about, I think they do "flaunt" it in a way as a subconscious test. They may feel insecure, and instead of hiding the part of themselves they feel is disapproved, they magnify it out of proportion, testing others to make sure their friendship or love transcends it. It's an odd sort of thing to do to people, but I see it all over. Try to think of ways you might even have done it at some point. The defensive unconditional love test.

My advice: be patient. If it seems excessive, let them know in as kind and patient a way as you can think of. Do it in a way that doesn't make them feel like they can't ever express that part of themselves while reminding them that there's a lot about them you appreciate and love, and you don't want to see that get lost by one issue, no matter what the issue is. If their behavior becomes destructive to your well-being or to the friendship, you may have to pull back and let them go through it and hope they do go through it rather than getting stuck in it. But if you can stay close, it may help them for you to be a reminder of other facets of their life and other friendships, so their social circle doesn't become so limited and exclusive as to center their whole life around their sexuality or become too one-faceted. It's hard. I've been there. I may still be there to some extent. Most of my friends where I live are gay (or, for those of you who prefer other terminology for yourselves: same-sex attracted), and while we talk about much more than homoness, I recognize that I'm still seeking somewhat of a balance.

So I'd like to thank those of you who have patiently rolled your eyes or swallowed your distaste or simply understood as I may have been excessively, or exclusively, homoish at times and have remained my good friends who appreciated and knew more about me than one aspect of my life. I've appreciated it.

My advice to others who have let one aspect of their lives become their sole focus: the shininess will wear off. Make sure you don't alienate those who bring balance to your life. And for goodness' sake, you needn't parade promiscuity in order to gain acceptance. Who taught you that anyway?

28 July 2009

Soy Absolved?

A nutrition blog I sometimes read has alerted me to the fact that a new review seems to indicate prior warnings against the effects of soy on testosterone in men might have been overblown. Go fig.

Mom, rest easy knowing the years of soy formula you gave me might not have made me into a raging homo. ...although I'm not clear on how many of these studies reviewed used infants or toddlers as subjects, and as this editorial argues, endocrine disruptors in utero and in infancy may have marked effects (e.g. the intersex fish found in the Potomac and increasing incidence of genital deformities among newborn males, supposedly linked to certain chemicals), so maybe you should hang on to guilt about making me this way, just in case I need to use it to my advantage someday... *wink*

23 July 2009


Ha, she saved me the trouble, I guess. I just noticed the girl who I blogged about a few weeks ago has deleted me as a friend on Facebook. Not sure when it happened. Can't say I'm heartbroken over it, but it did elicit mixed feelings.

I'll still try to remember her as the fun-loving goofball I knew a decade ago. But I can't help but feel a tinge of disappointment and sadness that it ended as it did. It would be pretty easy to say that one conversation converted her from thinking I'd be a good match for her friend to thinking I'm a selfish, worthless human being. But hey, maybe she also didn't like my post on Facebook in which I questioned the practice of plural marriage. Or my statuses continually offended her sensibilities. Or maybe she was put off that I never replied to her last comment because I just didn't have anything to say that I thought would be productive.

It would be unfair and overly simplistic, probably, to call this a clear case of blind bigotry and prejudice based on sexual orientation, but I've gotta tell ya: it's taking some effort on my part to not have some hard feelings. Fortunately, I have control over my own attitudes towards others. I can't control how she sees me, and I honestly don't care to re-friend her, at least not for now, but I can control whether I choose to see her as a daughter of God, or as a terrible bigot, or as misinformed, or as possibly right, or as full of pain and fear that causes her to push people away, or...a fellow flawed human being who's right sometimes and wrong sometimes, and it's not always clear which is which. I guess I'll try to go with that one and not demonize her or let a victim complex get me down.

Defriended. I think that's the third or fourth time that I'm aware someone has defriended me on Facebook. ...fortunately, it's never happened from somebody I was terribly disappointed about. If it ever does, you'll probably be hearing about it here in all its emotional devastation. *wink*

19 July 2009

Gay Kissers Reveal Their Deception

My suspicion that the little hug and kiss on Temple Square in Salt Lake City was more than a little hug and kiss appears to be confirmed if a new official statement from the Church is accurate.

Of course, this is largely subjective. Some people think groping includes hands low on the waist, while others think it can be deemed so only with a full-on crotch-grab. We probably have two fairly extreme perspectives on what is "appropriate" from the church and from these guys.

As the Salt Lake Tribune reports:
"I guess they consider hugging groping," Aune said Friday. "Regardless of if a kiss is on the cheek or on the lips, it still is not inappropriate -- unless you are gay, according to the LDS Church."

Aune said he held Jones' hand in the plaza and gave him a kiss on the face.

You know, I'm normally fair and try to give people the benefit of the doubt because people's subjective understanding is different. For example, if we pretend for a moment that he comes from a social circle where revealing clothing is the norm and passionate kissing is just what everyone does all the time and you're not crossing over into lewd until you have your hand in someone's pants, then certainly he very well may believe he would be justified and 'appropriate' in, for example, passionate kissing with full pelvic contact and hands rubbing up and down his partner's back. But at this point, after they've initially claimed it was hand-holding, followed by admitting to a kiss on the cheek, followed by now calling it a kiss on the face and saying there shouldn't be a difference between a kiss on the cheek or the lips, I'm just gonna say my suspicion is confirmed and call bulls#$% on this dude.

Further reflecting on his probably warped view of reality is the following quote from the same article:

Aune said, "I think anyone who was detained against their will in the way we were ... would be upset."

And "be upset" = "swear and revile against the steward of the private property you have been asked to leave"? Well, little man, I guess you live in a world where your emotional reaction justifies unseemly behavior or belligerent reaction. I don't. I live in a world where I choose my actions, and even when I believe I have been mistreated, I am not exonerated from acting like an ass. You, sir, seem to reflect degraded moral character in your, "what did I do?" rhetoric. "Victim" my a--...nkles.

Do I blindly accept the church's explanation and dismiss any suspicion that the guards did with a gay couple what they would have done with any mixed-sex couple? No. I still don't believe the standard of behavior is the same for same-sex couples, and I think the church will eat those words if they continue to stand by them. I think there is a double standard, and the church should either change it or own it. But I think the church has made a smart move here. It's too bad they were forced into a corner from which they were compelled to call the men out on their apparently downplayed portrayal of their PDA. If these Tribune quotes are accurate, it sounds like the boys know they're caught.

I wonder if they'll continue to challenge the church on the reality of the story. We're apparently still waiting to see if security cameras caught anything. If they force it, might the church release video footage? Can these boys stand up to such evidence? Will they instead acknowledge their initial deception but focus on the actions of the guards as patently discriminatory by dealing with them in a way they can't prove they've dealt with mixed-sex couples? Do they realize the risk of taking on the Church's formidable legal and PR departments?

Maybe we'll find out. But I'm not losing any sleep over it.

Other related news:

Second 'kiss-in' planned at SLC Temple

Police report on men's plaza kiss released

Gay incident reopens Salt Lake City's Main Street plaza wounds

Update over at Northern Lights:

LDS Newsroom: “Church Clarifies Record on Plaza Incident”

15 July 2009


After reading about how yoga can cure homosexuality, I figured I should finally give it a shot.

Maybe I'll sign up for a JIM weekend while I'm at it.

And sever all ties with homosexuals (that should leave me with about two friends locally).

And give my heart, might, mind, and strength over to Dr. Robinson.

Oh, and avoid the gym for a while. ...and BYU.

And not watch Will & Grace anymore. Or Gay, Straight, or Taken. ...or Ugly Betty. ...or Brothers & Sisters. ...or The Bachelorette.

And start dressing in baggier clothes like I used to. No more fitted stuff from Express and Banana Republic--we all know how subversive to heterosexuality they are.

And go back to pretending I don't notice the hot shirtless guys all summer but instead looking everywhere but at them so as to not give myself away but all the while glancing back to sneak secret peeks at their lean, glistening physiques and telling myself it's not sexual but an intense curiosity and a jealousy because I really just want to be like them, not "get with" them.

And junk my movies which show gay characters in a humanizing, normalizing light. No more The Family Stone for me.

And work on being less selfish and narcissistic because selfishness breeds homosexuality.

And recognize that the notion of same-sex relationships working long-term and matching the intimacy and personal progress of mixed-sex relationships is a farce and is inherently impossible because of the nature of homosexual/homoromantic attraction, even if society adapts to foster same-sex commitment.

And frame my attractions to men as the sexualization and distortion of identification and connection needs while framing my attractions to women (there are some in here somewhere, I'm sure) as God-given and totally hubba hubba.

And make more straight friends to establish healthy, non-romantic male bonds, thereby increasing masculine identification and removing the stumbling block which prevented the natural development of heterosexual feelings in adolescence.

And read scriptures and pray and go to church and write in my journal...

And ask nice, young, LDS ladies out weekly to establish habit and become accustomed to interacting with women on a potentially romantic level again. After all, dating isn't meant to be fun: it's meant to be a way of finding a compatible partner who...

*Note to self: also make an effort not to say things like "Compatible Partners" when speaking of women...terribly self-defeating...*

Gosh, no wonder people "struggle" so much with gay-to-straight conversion; it might even be harder than heathen-to-Mormon conversion! Those of you who say you have tried and failed obviously just weren't working hard enough. Freak! I'll start tomorrow, maybe...

Delhi Decriminalization

In a ruling that applies apparently only to New Delhi, the Delhi High Court decriminalized consensual gay sex, apparently the first such move in India.

But now, The Advocate reports that a leading television yoga expert in India has filed a petition challenging that ruling, reasoning that homosexuality is a disease curable through yoga exercise and meditation.

I knew there was something suspicious about the apparent attraction of gay boys to yoga.

13 July 2009

The Flesh is Willing But the Spirit is Appalled

"Dude...are you...?"

"No, no, I just...I was thinking about Eva Mendes in lingerie..."

Don't pretend it hasn't happened to you. Awkward moments caused by unexpected (even unwarranted) physiological "indications" that the body is preparing itself for reproduction-related activities. Yes, for men especially, this difficult-to-disguise indicator can make for a thoroughly embarrassing scenario. But perhaps it's not always indicative as you think, which is my purpose in writing this.

I've had conversations with a few people about this, including a friend I shall call Tommy. Tommy was concerned by accounts he'd heard of guy friends cuddling and one or both experiencing this "at attention" phenomenon. He avoided most such contact partially because he figured if he ever found himself in that situation, he would feel bad, sinful, and dirty. I am not one to tell people to loosen up, sexually. I think most people are plenty loose already, too much so in most cases. But I did see what I considered to be a possibly extreme interpretation, so I challenged it. I know: shocker.

I assured Tommy that the simple fact of that particular part of the body being engorged with blood does not necessarily mean you're up to no good or are engaging in something sinful or wrong. It doesn't even mean you're turned on by that person. He gave me a very confused look and begged some clarification, with a look as if I were fairly crazy or, at the very least, self-deceived. I continued, and the conversation went something like this (with some details filled in from my very vague recollection of the specifics, as this conversation took place a couple of years ago):

"Has that ever happened to you when you weren't engaging in inappropriate behaviors?"


"Has it happened when you weren't dwelling on titillating daydreams?"

"Yeah, I guess."

"Have you ever had something brush you the wrong way and experienced a sudden 'response' from the big guy below?"


There was then an awkward pause in which I wondered if I had just revealed some crazy-strong sex drive I have or an exceptionally 'responsive' physiology, until I remembered I'd already talked to people who agreed this had happened to them plenty. *whew*

He countered, "But those are all things I don't necessarily have control over. If I'm doing something that causes it to happen, and I keep doing it, that's bad. That's sinful to indulge lust like that."

I retorted, "Does that physiological response always indicate lust? What if the vibration of a motorcycle 'caused' it to happen? Would you have to stop riding or go to the bishop for knowingly continuing the activity causing it by driving where you needed to go?"

From his somewhat blank expression, I could tell this was maybe not getting through as I'd hoped, and I was wary of coming up with examples that made it sound like I had a million weird fetishes.

"OK, listen. Sometimes, we think about getting all hot and heavy, and the body responds by getting ready for what it thinks you're anticipating. But the body also experiences external stimuli in certain ways that tell it, whether your emotions and brain are on board or not, that it's time to prepare for certain kinds of activity. It sometimes doesn't seem to matter what the stimulus is: if certain areas get brushed or pressure is applied, especially when you're the type of person who doesn't experience much physical contact to begin with, the body sometimes responds by heightening nerves or pumping blood selectively or whatever the case may be, depending on the stimulus and where it's applied."

I shared an account of just cuddling with a guy friend with whom there wasn't a romantic interest at all and wishing the ol' boy would just settle down because I really didn't want to do anything about it, and I didn't want the other party thinking I wanted to do anything about it. In fact, had the guy tried something, I would've had no problem saying, "Whoa, you need to consult the committee before believing the ol' loose cannon below. He tries to make executive decisions, but the committee usually overrides him."

I also told him about my first "real" massage at a local massage school and how I experienced some degree of 'response' even though the massage therapist, besides being a girl, was not the least bit attractive to me. It was just a natural physiological response that had nothing to do with wanting to get down and dirty. I certainly wasn't about to stop the massage and announce that though I am gay and have absolutely no concern about this becoming a saucy encounter, I mustn't continue an activity which results in blood flow to that particular extremity if my soul was to remain chaste. Junior sometimes just has a mind of his own, and there's not much you can do about it, aside from thinking about dead puppies or Lorena Bobbitt, both of which I did.

Tommy said something like, "OK, I can see that, and I hadn't really thought of it that way. But still, when you're talking about cuddling with a guy, it's pretty likely something more..."

"Well," I replied, "as I said, I've experienced it while cuddling up with a guy who was a friend but for whom I felt no attraction. But yes, it's a little more grey because sometimes you find you're attracted in a moment, and people sometimes fool around even when they're not attracted to each other but just because someone else was available and obviously...ready. So you definitely can't be reckless or complacent about it, and it's good to take an honest look at your motives and avoid pursuing activities which are likely to lead to things you don't want.

"All I'm really saying is:
a) li'l soldier's salute does not necessarily mean you're lusting but is sometimes just physiology at work, and
b) even when it could be construed as a sexual response with someone you may be attracted to, if the act itself is not inherently 'bad', and it's not causing you to feel compelled to do 'more' (in which case you should probably change the situation, especially if there's any risk of reciprocation), you can just look down, laugh at your strong-willed little (relatively speaking, of course) friend who seems to have a mind of his own, shrug it off, and focus on the movie, conversation, or whatever else you should be focusing on besides an incidental and natural physiological process that you needn't do anything with.

"Simple as that."

His reticent face left me wondering how much headway I'd made, and he was beginning to look worn out from processing this perspective. I wasn't interested in pushing someone in the direction of unleashing their inner whore, so we moved on to other topics having nothing to do with anatomy.

Note: for related topics which spurred me to finally finish and publish this post after more than a year, check out Dichotomy and Hidden in the Light.

12 July 2009

No O-Mo Kiss-In Coverage

Well, I overrode my photojournalistic curiosity with other plans, so I have no idea how the Kiss-In went other than this Deseret News article. Sounds like things went well and peacefully. That's all I have for now. I've gotta get to work on making a pie, followed by some flooring installation, followed by either dinner or a concert (haven't decided), followed by loitering. No more time or energy for political stuff today. :-)

11 July 2009

Temple Square Smackdown on the Kissy Kissy

Uh-oh, it looks like the Church's PR department has a mini-nightmare to deal with. I'm not talking about the seminary principal who was arrested earlier this week on charges of sexual relations with a 16-year-old girl. That's just some dude being a disgusting predator, and I would guess he has no such known history, or he wouldn't be in that position, though I don't know. But the newest incident is a little closer to home: right between the Salt Lake Temple and the Church Office Building, on the Main Street Plaza area of the complex. A gay couple was asked to leave the grounds of church headquarters after a security guard observed them hugging and kissing there, which was deemed inappropriate conduct. The story has been posted by various news organizations, including The Salt Lake Tribune, The Daily Herald, ABC 4, KSL, Deseret News, and The Huffington Post, among others, including a personal account.

I'm often interested in or even entertained by the ways different news organizations choose to report incidents like this and the different tidbits of information you get from them.

ABC4 reports:
"They say they were assaulted when LDS Church security told them to leave, but they refused and asked why.

So what transpired after these innocent lovers quietly and respectfully asked why? It's awful:
“The next thing we know, I'm being forced onto the ground on my stomach, my face is on the pavement, they handcuffed me and they grab Matt and try to get him into handcuffs," says Jones.

Tried. So what you're saying is...there was enough resistance on their part to make it a challenge for security guards to get handcuffs on them? Interesting.

KSL quotes a blog written by Derek, one of the men, regarding Matt, the other:
Matt then tried to get them to admit they were singling us out because they just didn't approve of ‘gay' public displays of affection, baiting them into revealing their bigotry."

OK, so let's sort out a couple of things here:

1. These men walked onto private property owned by a church whose stance on homosexual relations is clearly known to the world.

2. They hugged and kissed. It's unclear to me, at least, whether it was, as a few sources have reported, just a kiss on the cheek, and I doubt the security guard or the church is about to get into a debate over what kind of kiss it was. In a way, it doesn't matter, except regarding the church spokesperson's statement (more on that in a moment).

3. When asked to leave the private property they entered and knowingly disrespected (not in doing something inherently bad but in doing something they knew was not condoned by the church and was against its political and moral position), they did not leave the private premises but demanded a reason not because they were clueless but because they wanted to prove a point.

4. When they refused to leave because of some sense of righteous indignation, the only option was to remove them by force, and they even resisted that.

5. The police became involved not because they hugged and kissed each other but because they violated the standards of a private property and refused to leave when asked, making them trespassers by law, regardless of why they were asked to leave.

That said, I could understand the possibility that they were unlucky enough to butt heads with a particularly homophobic and bullheaded security guard who was only too eager to employ physical force against some repugnant sexual deviants defiling sacred ground. It's a possibility that should be investigated by the church, in my opinion, but assuming the story is accurately portrayed by piecing together the various reports, I'm inclined to think that's less likely than the possibility that you had two guys knowingly ruffling feathers, becoming belligerent and refusing to comply when an unamused guard told them to leave, probably in blunt terms. Just my hunch.

Still, I won't go so far as to say they planned the whole thing, but I will not cry over these poor, victimized souls who were beaten down by the man. They knew what they were doing. I think they should stand up and own their disobedience rather than whining like a couple of pansies. But that wouldn't bode well for their "woe is me, I'm an oppressed homosexual" persona to garner sympathy from the public, would it?

In my opinion, if the church wishes to dismiss people from their private grounds for wearing the wrong shade of blue, that's their right. And they should expect backlash. But whether or not you think a homo kiss is the same as a hetero kiss, the church has a right to say it's not and to enforce such policies. The problem, as I see it, is in the church statement that they were "asked to stop engaging in inappropriate behavior just as any other couple would have been." Really? Doesn't that make it sound like any other couple doing what they were doing would be asked to leave? I'm pretty sure I've personally observed hetero couples kissing on the lips for wedding photos right in front of the Church Office Building. I think we all know the notion that heterosexual couples would be asked to leave for hugging and kissing on the cheek, or briefly on the lips, is hooey, so I suppose the way to make a truth of that statement is to interpret it a bit differently: they were asked to cease inappropriate conduct (which for same-sex couples includes hugging, kissing, or holding hands) just like any other couple would be asked to cease inappropriate conduct (which for opposite-sex couples does not include those things). And that's their prerogative to define "inappropriate" behavior however they want on their private property, just as you and I do in our homes.

...or the church spokespeople just didn't have all the facts and assumed this couple really was doing something lewd beyond a simple, quick kiss. Perhaps? Nah, probably not.

So the issue really has less to do with whether they should have been dismissed than whether you agree with the church's stance on homosexual or homoromantic conduct or believe it to be hypocritical or unreasonable.

Although this does beg a question, assuming it was only a hug and kiss on the cheek: would I be able to give a friend a hug and a kiss on the cheek, with no romantic meaning, without being kicked off of church grounds, just because it might appear to be a homosexual act? Somehow, methinks the hug and kiss was more than an affectionate squeeze and quick cheek-peck to elicit the response it did, but who knows? I wasn't there. Meh, I'll wonder about it the next time I feel inclined to give a friend a non-romantic kiss on the cheek on temple square.

Note: In protest of the church security team's decision to dismiss the men from the premises and detaining them when they refused, a "Kiss-In" has even been organized for tomorrow (Sunday) morning. Judging from the Facebook confirmed attendees thus far, it may be a very small showing, but I'm intrigued enough to consider maybe jetting up there with my camera to capture the moment. Hm...I think I'm becoming a wannabe photographic journalist (and no, not just for gay stuff, though that's all I post here on this blog about all things moho).

02 July 2009

Crying at a Crappy Gay Musical

I went to a musical tonight called Zanna, Don't! at the Seattle Center with several friends. I'd been wanting to see some quirky theater for a while, and I went skeptically looking forward to it, and it pleasantly surprised me. Yes, it was a small, low-budget production, and no, the singers were not Broadway stars nor were the set or props particularly impressive, but it was very fun, very whimsical, and very, very gay. Most of it is ribbing cultural prejudices and stereotypes, and some of it is fairly thought-provoking, usually in a fun way, not taking itself too seriously. Yet, as I sat there half laughing at myself, I teared up during one of the more serious songs, Do You Know What It's Like?, because it was so close to home.

Background story: The story takes place in a high school in a world where gay is the norm, and a somewhat self-sacrificing guy named Zanna uses magic to help everyone find and fall in love with their perfect match. Since the guys' story is what I identified with, I'll ignore the girls (I know, what's new, right?). Mike (in this case an adorable, thin blond boy) found his perfect match in Steve, the quarterback and star in the school's musical which Mike wrote about a controversial topic: heterosexuals in the military. (Spoilers ahead) As part of his role, Steve has to kiss the girl lead, Kate, which he almost refuses to do because it's gross and contrary to his conservative upbringing, but he does, and by the time they finish performing, Steve and Kate discover that they've fallen for each other and are confused about their heterosexuality and struggling to know how to deal with it in a society which frowns upon people of opposite genders being romantically involved. When Kate's girlfriend and Mike find out about it, they have to deal with being in love with people who don't love them back like they thought they did, and Steve and Kate are trying to understand their love for each other and for the ones they've realized they aren't in love with.

When Mike sang, a line particularly stood out: "Do you know what it's like...to have my heart still love you when my mind knows it's not true?" I knew exactly what that was like. I've felt it, and it bothered me at the time, that my heart wouldn't listen to my head. I wouldn't have quite identified or fully understood that a couple of years ago, but I get it now, and in an odd way, maybe, I'm glad I do.

That kinda got the ball rolling, but what really brought the tears was Steve's part, and it surprised me how much I felt as he sang the lines. I thought of one female friend in particular, and I smiled sadly as I wept remembering what that was like and how I couldn't fully explain to her what I was feeling. I've been on both sides of Mike and Steve's story, and they both were hard in different ways.

MIKE: Do you know what it's like
To be in love with you,
To have my heart still love you
When my mind knows it's not true?
Do you know what it's like
To be in love with you,
Not to remember what my life was like
Before I first met you?
Do you know what it's like when I lie in bed
And I think of you and the things you've said,
How they're almost exactly all the things that I've said, too?
But there's one word missing and it comes before "love"?
And I think it doesn't matter, what we have is enough,
But what we have isn't "in" so I don't know what to do?
Oh, do you know?

STEVE: Do you know what it's like
Not to be in love with you,
Not to have my heart obey
What my mind wants to be true?
Do you know what it's like
Not to be in love with you,
But to like you, love you, cherish you,
idolize you and protect you?
Do you know what it's like to look into your eyes
And see what I know you don't see in mine
Though I pray it might be so the whole night through.
Do you know what it's like
to have to let go of your hand
and to start another life, a life I don't understand,
and live the rest of my life knowing how much I've hurt you?
Oh, do you know?

...Then things got light and fun again, and I wiped my eyes dry and resumed laughing out loud.