Where should 'don't say gay' stop?

Missouri 'Don't Mention Mormons' Bill: GOP Sponsors Wary Of 'Mormon Agenda'

Republican lawmakers in Missouri are defending their controversial bill to ban the teaching of religious philosophy in schools as a way to prevent students from learning about the "Mormon agenda," the "Christian conspiracy" and the occult.

A group of 20 Republican state representatives introduced the so-called "don't mention Mormons" bill last week to prevent the teaching of religious philosophy in public schools, with the exception of classes relating to the founding of America. Tennessee legislators have been debating a similar proposal.

"When it comes to religion, that is a discussion that should be left for the most part up to the parents," House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Andrew Koenig (R-Winchester) told HuffPost. "It is a pretty political subject. I know there are a lot of parents that do not want the Mormon agenda taught in the schools."

Koenig said he has heard of what he called a "Mormon agenda" being taught in elementary school, but when questioned, said he did not know of specific incidents "off the top of my head."

"I have heard of instances with story books in grade school where it has come up," Koenig said. "You have Christians pushing an agenda, and you have Mormons pushing an agenda."

Koenig said he wants to amend the proposal to allow for the teaching of Mormon issues in current events classes.

State Rep. Steve Cookson (R-Fairdealing), the bill's principal author, was not available for comment. Cookson's assistant, Agnes Rackers, said Cookson rarely speaks to people from outside his southeastern Missouri district.

"He will probably not get around to calling you back since you are not in his district," Rackers told HuffPost.

A staffer in Tilley's office said he did not have time to speak until Wednesday afternoon.

House Small Business Committee Chairman Dwight Scharnhorst (R-St. Louis), a co-sponsor, said he believes religious issues should be taught by parents and clergy. Parents have been passing along responsibility for children to the public schools, Scharnhorst said.

Scharnhorst told HuffPost that teaching about Mormon issues would lead to other discussions. "There is no need to talk about Billy wanting to marry fifty women or become a god over his own planet," he said.

State Rep. Stephen Webber (D-Columbia), a leading opponent of the bill, said he is not surprised by its introduction because Missouri Republicans have been wanting to limit discussion of Mormon issues. Webber pointed to the defeat of his bill to ban discrimination based on religious affiliation for the past several years. He said that while some Republicans have privately expressed support for the bill, political concerns prevent them from voting for it.

Meanwhile, Republican lawmakers have been pushing to add gun owners to the list of residents who cannot be discriminated against in the workplace. He said the presence of Republican leaders on the religious philosophy education bill sends a signal to him.

"It is not a fringe thing," Webber said of the legislation.

Koenig said he disagreed with the gun owners bill and Webber's legislation, saying that he believes the list of protected classes should not be made lengthy to avoid burdening the small business community. He said that it should be limited to racial and gender discrimination. Scharnhorst said he is against Webber's bill for similar reasons.

Koenig said he believes students being bullied because of their religious affiliation should be allowed to discuss it with counselors.

Scharnhorst stressed that his support of the bill should not be confused with his personal beliefs about the Mormon community.

"I'm not bigoted," he told HuffPost. "I have friends who are Mormon."

UPDATE: April 24, 11:46 a.m. -- State Rep. Steve Cookson released a statement Tuesday morning explaining his sponsorship of the "don't mention Mormons" bill and why he does not view it as discriminatory. He said that he believes the bill's intent has been misreported in the media and that the bill's purpose is to shift discussion of religion out of the schools.

"Many of the recent articles on HB 2051 have shifted focus away from the true intent of my legislation, which is meant to protect the moral values that are most important to Missouri families. In a time when our public schools continue to struggle financially, we want their focus to be solely on core education issues such as math, science and reading; and not on topics that are better left for discussion in the home at the discretion of parents," Cookson said in the statement.

"It's also important to point out that my bill does not target a particular religion but instead says instruction or materials related to any religious philosophy should not take place in our public schools. This would not prohibit a student struggling with his or her religious identity from talking to a school counselor or cause any of the other issues that have been misreported by the media. Instead it would simply ensure the focus of our public schools is on the curriculum parents expect their children to learn when they send them to school each day."


[This is an adapted version of: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/23/missouri-dont-say-gay-bill_n_1447121.html]





Tennessee lawmakers advance 'don't mention Mormons' bill


NASHVILLE – A bill to restrict teaching about Mormonism before high school cleared its first hurdle in the state House of Representatives, setting the stage for a second year of debate on the appropriate way to handle discussion about Latter-day Saints with schoolchildren.

The House Education subcommittee approved the so-called "Don't mention Mormons" bill on a voice vote Wednesday, renewing a debate that roiled the legislature last spring over whether elementary and middle schools should be allowed to initiate discussions about Mormonism.


Opponents say it will not curb talk about Mormonism among grade school kids but will send the signal that it should be stigmatized. But several lawmakers argued that it would protect parents' right to educate their children about their beliefs on their own terms.


"The basic right as an American is my right to life, my right to liberty and my right to the pursuit of happiness," said state Rep. John DeBerry, D-Memphis, arguing to keep the subject of Mormonism out of elementary school classrooms. "Within that includes being able to run my home, raise my children as I see fit and to indoctrinate them as I see fit."


The measure, labeled "Don't mention Mormons" by its opponents, has proved to be one of the most emotionally charged bills to go before the Tennessee legislature in recent years. Mormon groups have led opposition to the bill, but many Nashville high school students have turned out as well.


Several dozen students, many of them wearing white shirts and ties, lined the rows of seating in the hearing room Wednesday to show their disagreement with the measure. Their numbers led the subcommittee to relocate the hearing to a larger room.


"To me, they're sending a message that in society LDS people aren't really equal," said Thomas Kibby, a student at Hume-Fogg High School. "This law would be kind of moving backwards."


The bill's original sponsor, state Rep. Bill Dunn, R-Knoxville, added an amendment that lined up the House version with the version that passed the Senate last year. He said the new wording should dispel "hysteria" that has surrounded the issue.


"What this amendment does is keep us in line with current curriculum," he said. "This bill, if amended, does not prohibit the use of the word 'Mormon,' it does not change the anti-bullying statute, and it does not prohibit a school guidance counselor from discussing the issues of spirituality with a student."


The Rev. Thomas Kleinert, pastor of Vine Street Christian Church in Nashville, said the bill would discourage discussions about a subject that children hear about constantly.


"Our children have to deal with that complexity long before they've reached sufficient maturity," he said. "Silence in the classroom only adds to the cloak of pain and shame, whereas open, age-appropriate conversation may give them a chance and the courage to talk to an adult they trust."


Supporters alluded to the emotion of the issue, but they said the principle at stake was ensuring that children receive appropriate instruction in a publicly funded setting.


"We put 'phobia' on the end of words, and then we automatically demonize someone who has an opposing view," DeBerry said. "What this bill does is it says everybody has the right to train their children."


[This is an adapted version of: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-02-16/tennessee-bill-homosexuality/53116470/1]

Marine Homecomings (context)

"Masculine" Rites of Passage

I never did see much point in arbitrary rites of passage. Even as a kid, I'd watch a documentary TV show about a tribe in Africa and see the boys all lined up for their group circumcision or their war games or whatever it was, waiting to pass through an ordeal or test of strength in order to become "men" in the eyes of their tribe, and I thought, "They are no different after the ritual than they were before. Just because they won a fight or got their penis snipped, it does not mean they're more 'men' now than they were before. They're still 15 years old and probably quite emotionally immature but will now think they have some authority or wisdom they didn't have before: I've seen it in American culture, too, and it's laughable when it's not dangerous. To me, being a man means being a mature, well-adjusted, well-rounded person who recognizes his strengths and weaknesses and is working on becoming better and who takes care of his family and treats people with kindness and is emotionally strong whether or not his body is physiologically strong or muscular and emulates Jesus the best he knows how...not someone who went through some ordeal to prove some arbitrary notions about what men are supposed to be like, or who wins a test of muscular strength, or who has had sex with a woman, or who has proven himself to be more aggressive than other men, or who has said the right words in conjunction with some ceremony...how silly."

When I received awards at scouting ceremonies, my first impulse was to roll my eyes at the formalities and hand shakes and token signs and scripts. But I thought, "There must be a good reason for it, and it's kind of fun, in a way, to be part of something official and formal: I just wish people didn't take it so very seriously because--aside from looking kind of silly to me when they're so serious about something that really didn't require any heroic effort on my part--what matters isn't the ceremony but the stuff I learned and accomplished, which isn't changed by whether I do the right salute or say the right phrase. I guess they just want to make sure we remember certain things by memorizing them, so that's OK."

And I think that's the point of ritual to me. I guess I appreciate the probability that most people are more responsive to things like fraternal orders and ceremonial formalities than I am. They just never made a lot of sense to me except as arbitrary ways of helping us remember and recognize principles and, for those who look forward to the recognition or formality, motivation to progress within certain systems of advancement usually tied to particular ideological and cultural ideals and templates. I just wasn't motivated by looking forward to another painfully formalized and pompous ceremony, so I found rites of passage to be almost a deterrent. But I appreciated the symbolism and reminders they offered. I appreciated rewards and awards but didn't want the ceremonial recognition. I was very shy, so that definitely came into play, but there was more to it on an intellectual level. Oddly, I still remember aspects of my arrow of light ceremony, which I remember thinking was overwrought, but I was still proud that I'd 'earned' it. The funny thing: I don't remember what I did to earn it or what it meant. So much for being a reminder. It probably worked at the time, for the time.

On the other hand, I remember the temple ceremony quite well and can probably recite the memorized parts but, of course, choose not to out of respect for what it is believed to mean by those who still participate in it. Somehow, the temple ceremony was different for me. I still saw it as somewhat arbitrary rites and phrases chosen to represent a deeper meaning and symbolic representation of gospel principles. I knew the ceremony had been changed over the years and that it may or may not be 100% dictated directly by God. But though most people are really weirded out by the ritual of it when they first go through, I wasn't. It seemed fine to me, not outlandish or odd. I'd been to a Catholic mass, I'd casually studied ancient religious traditions, I'd taken the stake temple prep class one-on-one, and I knew ritual was a way of engaging the adherent in a whole-body representation of the beliefs and principles taught, an interactive experience which went beyond mere spoken instruction to a more proactive kind of internalization of the ideas taught. I felt like the temple ceremony made me really think in an impacting way about what living the gospel was all about and why we make the commitments we do, and I felt like I was stepping up a bit more, manning up a bit more to a higher level of commitment than I had previously done if only by virtue of the fact that someone was now bothering to say, "Do you actively promise to dedicate yourself to X and Y?" and I was given the opportunity to explicitly state my intent and to follow through. Again, it wasn't the ritual or ceremony which mattered but what it represented, and I found personal motivation and meaning in it. Maybe part of what I appreciated about the temple as opposed to other ceremonies I'd been involved in or witnessed was that everything was very personal, not done with fanfare and individual recognition but sort of privately, one-on-one, as part of many who were doing the same rather than having any individual "recognition" beyond very private interactions I believed were meant to represent my direct relationship and connection with God.

In addition, when I 'received' the Aaronic priesthood when 12, I didn't consider myself to somehow be more of a man, but I did consider it an opportunity to learn a new level of service and to begin to learn to exercise the authority and power of God through my worthiness and dedication to the principles of the priesthood, an effort to become more like God in an eternal, steady process. It wasn't that I was becoming more of a man: it was that I was accepting the opportunity to grow personally and step up. It's a subtle difference, maybe, but a paradigm I think is tragically overlooked and ignored by many or most young men in the church who seem more fixated on the idea that they're being given some kind of badge or stripes each time they 'advance' in the priesthood or are called to serve a mission.

It's understandable, I guess, from an emotional standpoint: men are supposed to want and deserve validation as 'men' (in the social belonging sense of identifying with those who generally share similar traits as distinct from other groups, even if there are amazing, good men whose qualities are not the same as the socially traditionally ideal template), rites of passage into manhood (social recognition that they are maturing and reaching socially or culturally defined milestones which traditionally entitle them to rights and privileges not previously offered, arbitrary though they may be), affirmation and recognition for their accomplishments and learned strengths (both to motivate future progress in him being recognized, assuming he's motivated by social recognition, and to motivate others to want to work to earn the same recognition through their own personal progress), etc.

This all came up because I was reading some material on Evergreen's web site, an article by a somewhat popular author within EG circles about masculine identity (one day, maybe I'll dig into my disagreement with such people's conclusions despite my agreement with many aspects of what they say). Within various sexual orientation change circles, there's a strong trend towards masculine identification exercises and what I think is regarded as a return to a sort of primal, tribal brotherhood notion. I find it all a bit overwrought still, as if those pushing it believe it's the only or best way to motivate and bring accountability into men's lives. I may not feel a drive to be involved with ritualistic or fraternal order groups, but I recognize that we all have formal and informal social systems and that, generally speaking, most people are happiest when they have social order and structure in their lives and tend to progress more steadily with accountability and incentive in place, including social recognition and reinforcement through formal ceremony. I also recognize that a key way values and principles have been maintained and preserved throughout history is through established ritual and symbolic ceremony, regardless of whether I think there are or should be better ways. So I don't have a problem with formalized or fraternal "orders" which engage in more or less formal "ritual" as long as they're recognized for what they are--a social mechanism and symbolic representation of underlying principles--and not given magical importance in and of themselves, used to emotionally manipulate those who aren't cognitively aware of why they feel so "affirmed" and "strengthened" but just assume that everything being taught to them is right because of how good it feels to them to be a part of some grand brotherhood of men, or given free license to commit grave errors of action and thought because their members fear to lose the camaraderie should they challenge the status quo.

Unfortunately, I think fraternal orders almost always have more of that influence than I'm comfortable with, and I don't believe the benefits typically outweigh that effect. But then, I'm not the kind of man they draw to begin with...

Not just about 'marriage'

I often hear church members say they support civil unions and giving same-sex couples the same rights as mixed-sex couples (many stop short of adoption rights), just not allowing same-sex couples to use the word 'marriage', and some even say the church has said as much.

It hasn't.

It has come out in support of certain rights for same-sex couples:

The Church does not object to rights (already established in California) regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family or the constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice their religion free from government interference. - The Divine Institution of Marriage

That's great, but it comes with the "so long as" qualifier (part of which [infringement of constitutional rights of churches and adherents] is totally understandable and probably necessary, the other part of which [infringing on the 'integrity of the family'] is completely subjective and allows for plenty of wiggle room should the church need it) and says nothing of civil unions, adoption rights, taxation, insurance, guardianship...

It has also clearly and officially implied it does not support giving same-sex couples all of the same rights and responsibilities as mixed-sex couples:

Legalizing same-sex marriage will affect a wide spectrum of government activities and policies. Once a state government declares that same-sex unions are a civil right, those governments almost certainly will enforce a wide variety of other policies intended to ensure that there is no discrimination against same-sex couples. This may well place "church and state on a collision course." - The Divine Institution of Marriage (emphasis added)

Classic "us or them". Of course, they expound on other reasons to bolster their opposition to same-sex marriage, reasons I believe are completely debatable if not debunkable. But my point here is that, to the church, this apparently isn't just about the word 'marriage', folks. So at the risk of spurring some of you to change your minds in a direction I disagree with, I say to my LDS-faithful friends and family: be careful about where you draw your lines, or you may find yourself unexpectedly at odds with 'the brethren' in your attempts to be 'tolerant'.

The truth about mormons...and heterosexuals...

I know some very vocal ex-mormons who speak at conferences to reveal the "truth" about Mormons, the seedy underbelly and corruption in Mormon culture behind the fluffy, feel-good masks of family-centrism and values-based living. They explain the dishonesty of the members, the hypocrisy rampant in leadership, the child abuse, the spouse abuse, the consumerism, the addiction to antidepressants, the truth about their beliefs which they don't publicly acknowledge because they know how outlandish they are. Yes, the truth about Mormons can only be revealed by one who has left that lifestyle and can be corroborated both by Mormon neighbors we've all heard complain about those very issues in their own culture and by their own leaders who reveal their underlying bigotry and lust for control over their disciples: it's so clearly confirmed that there's no denying the ex-mormons are on to something.

I have a few straight friends. Yes, I do. No, seriously. And some of them have told me the truth about straight people. They are thoroughly convinced that marriage is a ruse, a farce, a joke and can testify why from their own experience. Sure, they might acknowledge possible exceptions, but those are just better at fooling themselves. They talk about their past affairs and swinger parties with leaders and members of conservative and sexually puritanical churches and the testament that is to the falseness of their supposed values, are absolutely convinced that everyone is a total sexual freak and some just won't admit it and that everyone watches porn and masturbates daily whether they admit it or not, and they can tell you the "truth" about people based on their experience in a sex industry.

Yeah, you see my point yet? Why does anyone buy so very thoroughly into occasional accounts from "ex-gays" who loudly proclaim the "truth" they've uncovered about "the gay lifestyle" based on their experience cruising gay dating sites, or a couple of gay relationships, or twenty years as a prostitute and porn star, and think that story is somehow "the truth" because they've heard hints of similar complaints even from gay people themselves? And especially without really examining their credibility/sanity and checking the facts as they would anyone else criticizing a society or culture they are fond of? Come on, people!

Do all the real men go for women?

I sometimes wonder if the emotionally healthiest gay guys (or the ones whose perspectives best align with my ideals about relationships) most recognize (or believe) that much or most of what really matters in a relationship can be found in a relationship with a woman and are consequently inclined to seek it with a woman for social and/or religious reasons. Maybe they believe it to be genuinely not selfish if it's done openly because everyone brings baggage and emotional reservations to a relationship, and if a woman is willing to take this challenge on, they're both making sacrifices for a relationship they believe in and want, and to refuse to allow her to choose that is to demean her ability to decide what's best for her. Maybe the concern about not being able to return certain vulnerabilities and kinds of passion or investment is inconsequential, and every pairing is uneven in some way, so getting caught up in that is a cop-out when you can have open communication, emotional connection, and deliberate investment, which are what a lasting relationship is built on.

Maybe this is all correct, and only those with the emotionally healthiest perspective on relationships or who have the most mature outlook--the 'real men'--realize it, and therefore very few of the healthiest gay men end up on the market for other men, so those men who are left seeking same-sex companionship mostly include those who don't understand or grasp it, compounding the problems of relationships in popular gay culture. I mean no offense to those of you in great same-sex relationships. I'm just wondering if you're the exceptions rather than anything even remotely like the rule, not because same-sex-attracted men are inherently worse at relationships than opposite-sex-attracted men, and not just because of self-perpetuating unhealthiness in aspects of popular gay culture or society's official rejection of same-sex partnership commitment, but because gay men who see beyond dogmatic homosexuality or who can't stop wanting certain things for their lives see, in all probability, significant trade-offs no matter what they choose.

Some such guys might fully recognize and accept that, all else being equal, they'd rather be with a man, but they also believe all else is not equal socially, religiously, eternally, culturally, personally, or biologically, so all things considered, they might just as well take on the specific challenges and sacrifices of a mixed-sex relationship as take on the specific challenges and sacrifices and social or legal limitations of a same-sex relationship. ...Or maybe I'm only projecting my own skepticism.

I wonder if the men who most easily pass for straight are most likely to try to pass for straight. Maybe for a more "effeminate" guy, he's not going to fool anyone, so he will likely always deal with whispers of his probable homosexuality and people telling him to be himself. He might fear his sons, if he has any, will have a girly-man for a dad. He might have to "act" more "masculine" to play the role most women want. But for the already-"masculine" gay man, the one who enjoys sports and can fix a car, or the one who most people don't suspect until they find out he's only seriously dated one or two girls in his thirty years of life, playing the part of a typical, standard husband might seem more natural in certain ways than it would to the man with fewer traits generally regarded as belonging to masculinity.

I wonder if the guys I would be most attracted to and who want what I want are the least likely to be available to me because they're busy keeping everyone clueless that they're even gay by dating and marrying women because it just makes social sense to take the path of less resistance. Jerks.

But it's natural. Most of us don't exactly relish the idea of being social crusaders or living against the grain if we don't have to. Most of us don't really critically examine our beliefs until they're challenged thoroughly, or other beliefs seem not only more plausible but emotionally fulfilling. Most of us don't question roles and systems until something about them really doesn't fit or stops working. I certainly don't claim to be the most traditionally 'masculine' of men, nor the most understanding of relationships or women, but sometimes I wonder if I'd rather just give up on pioneering paths for the sake of intellectual integrity or making reality of conceptions and rejoin the trodden trails of normality...

Lesbians do it better?

A friend recently directed my attention to an article discussing a study in which researchers actually found that young adults raised by female same-sex partnerships actually did better academically and showed fewer behavioral problems than those raised in mixed-sex-couple-headed homes. I'm sure those opposed to gay parenting will tell you there are all kinds of "explanations" for this that have nothing to do with two women being anywhere near as good for children as one woman and one man, and it's probably too small a sample to be statistically significant...not that such arguments have ever stopped "pro-family" groups from cherry picking statistics when it works in their favor...

Ted Cox presentation on JIM and ex-gay movement

I've found this presentation by Ted Cox, a straight, ex-LDS writer who went to a JIM weekend undercover and shares his experience and interpretations, pretty interesting, although he does tend to fall into the tendency to dismiss ideas based on personal choices of certain of those who espouse and promulgate them, and he clearly has a bias. But so do the creators of JIM, so...y'know. One thing I find interesting is that I've found myself nodding at many points but saying, "Eh, now wait a minute, that's not entirely on-point," at others.

If you're uncomfortable with some crude language and humor, you might want to skip over the first 2 1/2 minutes. In fact, up until about 4:45 of part 1 is just intro stuff that's not necessarily relevant. There's incidental language throughout the rest, but nothing too in-your-face, from what I've seen in the first 6 parts so far. To get to the rest of the parts, either watch this until the end and follow the links in the video, or click on the video to bring up a YouTube page with some of them listed on the right.

The pitfall of dismissiveness

Observation: talk to any random person on the street, and they don't know anything about Evergreen, Exodus, Love Won Out, or reparative therapy. Never heard of it. Talk to a gay person about them: some have heard, but the vast majority haven't even given it a second thought and chalk it up to bigots and self-loathers who would strip them of the happiness they've found in learning to accept themselves and learning that God accepts them. Talk to an LDS or formerly LDS gay person who was in the church in the last ten years but is same-sex dating, and they've most likely heard of it, and many of them have some strongly worded opinions about them, but relatively few of them have ever been to an Evergreen Conference or read a book by or been counseled by a reputable reparative therapist (now now, don't jump on the 'oxymoron' jokes). Generally, they're completely dismissive of efforts to live a heterosexual lifestyle as "lying to one's self", and they're confident those who promote reparative therapy or a self-denial approach have all been long-since debunked as a bunch of quacks, and only desperate people could want to try to live the heterosexual lifestyle.


THE DISMISSAL GAME

It's a classic error, really, in any society or group: the lack of effort to really explore the assertions made because...hey...it's obvious it's all bunk because look: an authoritative organization says it's often harmful, and I know tons of people who tried it and thought they were changing but ultimately decided they were fooling themselves and are happier since "accepting themselves". Of course, they don't think about the fact that OF COURSE that's who they know. Are they really going to run into the people who are still at it and purposefully and mostly happily living the way they believe they're supposed to?

Others have said, "Every gay guy I know who got married did OK for a while but just couldn't sustain it and either suffered through a lonely, awful marriage or he eventually broke it off, often after there were kids involved, and was happier overall but carried the regrets of a broken home. Every one." I've asked them, "Did any of them openly discuss their homosexuality with their wives beforehand?" The answer? Nope. And again, what of the guys who have had successful marriages? Do they run in gay social circles? They do exist, you know. Do I think they're much rarer than the more tragic stories? Yes, I do, but they exist, and perhaps in increasing numbers as they find healthier ways to live their alternative-alternative lifestyle.


WON'T THEY BE SURPRISED?

But here's the problem: when the whole argument is based on, "No gay guy can really marry a woman and stay happily married very long," or, "It's so tragic when people can't accept who they are and live miserable, self-loathing lives," guess what happens when the people who've heard that and nothing else about reparative therapy go to a conference like Evergreen's or Love Won Out, and they personally meet dozens of people who seem completely genuine and sincere and say, "I do exist, and there are increasingly many of us," and they are presented with statistics and theories which fit the patterns in their own lives. Suddenly, it becomes clear to these newcomers that the outspoken gay people had no idea what they were talking about, and the reparatives are not only disarmingly charming but are surprisingly intelligent. Suddenly, everything they've heard before may feel like a big lie, designed to deceive them from giving these good people a chance to show them a better way...


IF I CLOSE MY EYES, YOU'LL GO AWAY

Of course, I've seen this same phenomenon everywhere, particularly in politics and religion. I think sometimes we think that to actually address an "opponent's" arguments would be to validate them, so it's more convincing to just dismiss them and scoff at their claims or satirize them while knocking down straw men. But when someone investigates and finds validity in their arguments, and sees that nobody has bothered to refute those arguments on their logical merits, they are likely to draw the conclusion that nobody has refuted them because there is no refutation.

Maybe it's because opponents' claims are actually complex, and the refutation even more complex, and it's easier to say, "Trust us, they're not right," than to say, "Fine, here's the evidence and analysis, and certain things they're saying are rational, but their conclusions are drawn way beyond what's supported by research," or whatever. Goes for people on both sides of most issues, as far as I can tell.


ARE THERE RATIONAL RESPONSES?

So setting aside the emotion-charged rhetoric and attacks on ex-gay crusaders who go on vacations with RentBoys, where are the rational responses to the claims made at an Evergreen Conference, for example, or Joseph Nicolosi's methods? I do know there are some responses to their claims because I've found some, but they're not the arguments you typically find, and it seems a bit subjective as to whom you believe or which scientific, replicable studies you glean statistics from and how you interpret the numbers and personal stories of people who say, "I don't know about the numbers, but X worked for me, and I'm happy."

There's no Anti-Evergreen conference where you can go get charged up and hear it all packaged in an organized response, buoyed by the sense that you've found rational arguments nobody else has bothered to piece together and enjoy the fellowship of others who are in the know. There are few web sites, if any, dedicated to responding to the claims of ex-gay ministries or reparative therapists on the merits of their foundational theories and statistical support rather than relying on emotionally-charged rhetoric and exposing supposed hypocrisy of their promulgators.

I have my own theories about certain things, and I want to know how to find out if studies have been done along the lines of my questions but haven't found anything researched. Is that because nobody gives their claims enough credibility to bother investing money for research to refute them? Is it because the research has been done and is old news and I just don't know where to find it? Is it because it's just a barely newborn field of research, wide open for real investigation to test claims and better understand the human psyche?


LOGIC ASIDE, THERE'S SOMETHING LARGER

Of course, there's another facet to this on top of any rational approach: Evergreen offers shining faces and happy countenances, a grand battle cry to join the army of God and press forth to Celestial Glory and eternal joy. What does "being gay" offer that can compare to that grandeur and "larger than myself" "eternal glory" sense of mission and purpose?


LET THE QUESTIONS FLY

Maybe if those who do not agree with Evergreen were a little less stubbornly zealous, there might be fewer who are surprised when they discover Evergreen to consist of some apparently very good, intelligent, self-determined people, which has made it easier for presenters to say, "See? The gay people who want you to be miserable like unto them have lied to you about who we are, so what else have they been lying about to spread their dogma?" I know you may not believe it's worth the effort, but I kind of wish more people had been to Evergreen and could witness how reasonable they are in so many ways, even if you disagree with their interpretations of data or underlying theories and the way they connect them to the data.

So, in the interest of finding out which ideas are straw men and which are critical points of discussion, or addressing the issues in a rational way rather than foolishly thinking so many chumps are "duped" by "stupid" theories and mirages of happiness, let's address not just our emotional reactions or dogmatic adherence to gay-influenced APA committee edicts but address the actual issues, ask the critical questions, respond to the science and psychology, and risk being wrong or escalating and accelerating the intellectual arms race.

...Tomorrow or the next day, 'cause I'm tired now.

All tied up neatly with a bow

I used to think any time I shared anything other than positive, faith-filled thoughts, I needed to make sure it was all neatly tied up at the end with a faith-affirming thought because to express anything other than positivity was not constructive and could undermine the faith of others. I no longer believe that.

My practice of wrapping everything up with "but since I have faith in God's plan and know God is with me, everything will turn out for the best if I am humbly doing my best and have faith, so I needn't fear, and that's all I need to know" was fine and dandy for everyone else. But even though I truly meant it, and it was truly all I needed to not just carry on but press forward with energy and happiness, when the comfort of those thoughts eventually (we're talking years) waned somewhat in certain ways, despite every effort to "be strong and faithful" and to maintain and testify of "an eternal perspective", I found myself in the unfortunate position of being everyone else's strength with nobody to be mine except an intangible being in whom I believed but whose eyes I couldn't see, whose physical touch I couldn't feel, whose companionship I could only experience in the abstract, which had always been enough. I cringed when I realized the old Barbara Streisand song I'd never liked suddenly made some sense: people who need people indeed. Maybe God was teaching me to connect with others more completely, I thought, sending me out the front door to learn to play with the other kids. Maybe I was wondering whether I was supposed to be learning more about myself and life from my conflicts rather than setting them aside as mere temptations, and I had a notion that God was compelling me to face them more starkly. Or maybe I was experiencing a sort of existential crisis of realizing that people of many other religions relied on basically the same idea of God being with them, too, and pondering on the meaning implicit in that. Maybe it was some mix of the above.

Everyone had always told me what a strength I was, how amazing my outlook was, how much they were buoyed by my pure, simple faith in the gospel. They were so glad someone dared to speak the plain and simple truth and wasn't caught up in the artificial shades of grey or mired by worldly concerns or worries of the flesh which are eternally inconsequential. I was given pause a couple of times when bishops seemed almost incredulously impressed by something I said, and I wondered why it should be so rare as to surprise them, or a mission president gave a faint hint of an expression as if to say, "Your simple faith is a great asset for now, but one day, that simplicity is going to be rocked, and you're going to see beyond the neat and tidy answers, but I'm not going to be the one to break it to you because your innocence is beautiful." I often had a vague feeling that maybe, in some way, I had yet to learn or experience some things and might see what others seemed to see, but that even if that was true, I wasn't going to let that alter my simple faith in the power of God to help us overcome all things.

What I didn't realize was that, though there were many who craved my positive words and focus on "just have faith, and all will be well," there were many others who silently believed my simplistic approach was as harmful as it was helpful, and though they most often didn't give me a chance to prove otherwise, they were sure I wouldn't understand their situation. They were sure I'd give them some prescription to take two of these and call me in the morning. They were sure I'd just tell them to smile and everything would be OK. I knew better by my post-mission years. At least, in a detached way I did. I understood that some people's issues required more than a positive pep-talk or a reminder that God was with them. They had issues beyond what most of us had confronted at that age. They had complications, sometimes from their own decisions, often from actions of others, which clearly required, in addition to God's healing, professional help or the perspective of someone who understood firsthand what they were going through. I wished I could know what they'd been through to help them, but I knew I just hadn't been there, and someone else was better equipped to walk with them.

Maybe my own life became more complicated. Maybe I complicated my life in my head. Maybe faith that things would work out was fine and dandy until I really confronted a possible life alone or felt the sting of losing my youth and desirability and let doubt creep in out of fear and desperation that it might not be worth the sacrifice. Maybe losing another great girl because I couldn't fall in love with her brought up questions I'd shoved under the rug believing "it's OK if I don't know all the answers now", and now some of those questions didn't seem so optional after all. Maybe I realized my "faith" had really been a refusal to truly, honestly consider what might be reality. Maybe my old coping mechanisms of "just keep swimming" and "remember the eternal perspective" were worn out and ineffective after so long.

I no longer believe I undermine someone's faith or optimism by admitting I'm down or struggling. I no longer believe I must wait until resolution before expressing conflict and confusion, even doubt. I believe there's value in openly needing as well as offering strength and perspective with other people. I believe there's value in expressing struggles without tidying it up, to reflect on it openly rather than alone, so people have the opportunity to help you in kind, and so you don't get caught up in the notion that it's only OK to be struggling as long as it's not a "real" struggle but is already resolved or in the past. I believe getting overly focused on putting on a happy face or constantly affirming everyone else's faith often leads to a lack of authenticity without the burden-bearer even realizing it. I believe there's something beautiful about saying, "I know I'm usually very positive, but...I'm struggling, and I don't want to discount God's help because he has offered it abundantly, but I need people, too, who can walk with me, hold me, share with me, mourn with me, and rejoice with me."

But there's no need to pretend to be struggling more than you are (or are aware) just to seem authentic. And there is something beautiful about trying to find the positive in even the crappiest situations. There's something so good-hearted and lovable about a person who wants to help lift others up and give them hope in some small or significant way. There's honor in finding solutions out of problems and seeking ways to move forward with optimism rather than letting the muck hold you back.

Authenticity, self-discovery, acknowledgement of struggle, faith, perspective, recognition of harsh reality, disillusionment, joy, hope, resting, pressing forward...we're all at varying points of balance at different times, and maybe it's OK and even good that we're all balanced a bit differently from each other. And running into people who are more positive reminds me to focus on the positive as well, even if I have my suspicions about the sustainability of their brand of optimism. While letting people know it's not all skipping in sunny fields of flowers, it's OK to skip sometimes, too, when I feel like it. In any case, I probably don't present my life and situation immaculately packaged and neatly tied up in a pretty bow, but I was always more interested in what was inside the package, anyway.

A Fort Worth City Council member says, "It gets better"

Thanks to Sean for posting this powerful video. As I said before, assurances that they'll eventually leave their home and find friends who support homosexual relationships are of little comfort to an LDS kid who doesn't want to leave their belief system or live "sinfully" but who still wants to know someone understands. But this video is so personal, so seemingly sincere, and so relate-able in many ways to youth who want a more "conservative" lifestyle and who don't believe the lies about what being gay means that I think it's my favorite I've seen so far. OK, maybe it's my favorite because it's the one I most relate to.

And as Jey poignantly points out, a war on bullying, though one approach which probably needs to be taken, doesn't quite get at the root, which has more to do with the way the bullied youth are processing the persecution and derision they may face, and they may need more help with that than parents are equipped to offer. In attacking bullies, let's not forget to lift up the bullied until the bullies lose their power one strengthened, resilient heart at a time.

Dude, Bro

I know we each come from different social circles, and mine are not indicative of the whole world, but I just have to say, guys, that while my straight guy friends call each other "man" on occasion, only my gay friends, particularly the mohos aiming for a heteronormative lifestyle, call each other "dude" and "bro" with any regularity. My straight guy friends have never really employed those "hey, we're non-sexually affectionate" expressions, including those who are unabashedly affectionate. It seems ironically gay-sounding to me. Just sayin'.

A rival good to God's

I finally finished watching the BBC version of Brideshead Revisited, all 11 episodes. I still also like the more recent version with Matthew Goode, Emma Thompson, and others, but this one brought out so much more complexity and nuance in the story. Something that stood out to me is the power of religious faith in people's lives and the unlikelihood that most people will ever fully let go of it or escape the voices of their past, telling them of sin and grace.

SPOILER ALERT: Most poignant, to me, was the crisis of the relationship between Charles and Julia, Charles being an atheist-leaning agnostic, and rather staunch and even arrogant about it, and Julia being a free-spirited and wayward Catholic woman who nonetheless retains a notion that she is, in the end, a sinner and will have to repent or pay at some point. This difference seems a side note in their relationship, a point of some mild friction but nothing to end the relationship over. In fact, they each turn away from other relationships and lives to come together, against the criticism and dismay of her family, who insist it is a relationship begotten in sin and incapable of being blessed by God, since they can't be married by a priest.

There's a reflective and poignant conversation between Charles and Julia's brother and sister, Bridey and Cordelia, in which Charles challenges their notion that their dying father must receive last rites from a priest in order to be saved from his life of faithless abandon. They insist he must show an act of will and contrition before he dies, and he illustrates that if their father has the will, the priest is secondary and not the crux, and they end in a bit of a stalemate. But in the end, the "just in case" wins out over doubts of faith, and their father participates in the rites before passing away, which challenges Charles' confident assertion that it's all hogwash, and he, too, joins in a prayer of mercy from God, in case God exists, and in case mercy is needed. He realizes he, too, has doubts about whether it's all truly "bosh" as he has claimed so often.

With his deep realization of what this family's religion means to them, of how pervasive it is in their being, and of the probability that he's been too dismissive of their faith, this experience hammers home the suspicion he's been fighting all along: that he is asking Julia to choose between him and something that is equally or more interwoven into her, and that maybe, just maybe, she's right not to let go of it. They have the following conversation--their last--on the steps of Brideshead, the family home where it all began and ended:


---------------------------------------------------------
Julia: ...We have on the stairs a minute to say goodbye

Charles: So long to say so little.

Julia: You knew?

Charles: Since this morning. Since before this morning, all this year.

Julia: I didn't know 'til today. ...Oh my dear, if you could only understand, then I could bear to part, or bear it better. I'd say my heart were breaking if I believed in broken hearts. I can't marry you, Charles. I can't be with you ever again.

Charles: I know.

Julia: How can you know?

Charles: ...What'll you do?

Julia: Just go on. Alone. How can I tell what I shall do? You know the whole of me. You know I'm not one for a life of mourning. I've always been bad. Probably I shall be bad again. Punished again. But the worse I am, the more I need God. I can't shut myself out from his mercy. That is what it would mean, starting a life with you: without Him. ...One can only see one step ahead, but I saw today there's one thing unforgivable--like things in the schoolroom so bad they're unpunishable, that only Mummy could deal with--the bad thing I was on the point of doing that I'm not quite bad enough to do: to set up a rival good to God's. It may be because of Mummy, Nanny, Sebastian, Cordelia, ...perhaps Bridey and Mrs. Muspratt, keeping my name in their prayers. Or it may be a private bargain between me and God that if I give up this one thing I want so much, however bad I am, he won't quite despair of me in the end. ...Now we shall both be alone. And I shall have no way of making you understand.

Charles: I don't want to make it easy for you. I hope your heart may break. But I do understand.
---------------------------------------------------------

I fear having that same conversation. It seems an all-too-likely scene in which to find myself years from now, and it's hard to imagine taking a risk that I may be sitting on the steps, knowing that I understand so very well that I can't say anything in rebuttal because even if I have worked it out and reconciled for myself, I know that no amount of explanation, or prodding, or pleading from anyone could have brought me here before I was ready. And I can't promise with 100% confidence that I will never make the same turn back and be the one saying, "I'm not quite bad enough to...set up a rival good to God's," nor can anyone else honestly. So the only option in such a case would be to let go, to love someone enough to not demand they choose damnation, even only in their own mind, for me. I wouldn't cling to someone at their detriment, but I'm afraid of being someone's sacrifice to prove their will to a God whom they believe demands such of them. I don't want to be laid on the altar and left as a holy offering by those I've grown to love and into whom I've invested everything. In those moments, the idea that we have eternity to develop relationships and this life to prove our will can become a comforting balm, even with its often accompanying rejections and reprimands, so it's not hard to understand why someone would choose as Julia did.

There are no guarantees, though. So I guess it's one step at a time, knowing the risks, learning from experience to refine and strengthen me, trusting in what I believe and/or hope is possible, doing the best I can with what I do know, and trying not to let my fear keep me "safely" locked up.

No To Adoption

OK, so adoption can be a really emotionally charged issue, but it's important, so I think it's worth discussing. I have thought a lot about my feelings on adoption by "alternative" households and whether the best interest of the children is in mind or whether it's more about people getting what they want for their own happiness or sense of accomplishment and acceptability.

After all, in a way, when you're voluntarily bringing children into a household in which they are going to face social ridicule, socially atypical gender roles, or behavior and beliefs which most of society agrees is deviant and even unhealthy, how can adopting children be seen as anything but selfish?

Children raised in "alternative" homes often tell of persecution at school, emotional and psychological pressures far beyond what their peers must deal with, and isolation from their community for being part of a family they didn't choose to be with. There's a whole set of common problems unique to their situation.

Many of these children grow up to live differently from their parents, but being raised in a household so outside social norms and standard behaviors leaves them ill-prepared for life within their community or with someone of the opposite sex who grew up in a more socially stable, normal environment.

The most loving and selfless policy is to make sure children up for adoption find homes headed by parents who do not bring these inherent stressors and deviations into their lives. Adopted children are already in a volatile enough position, coming from orphanages and foster homes, so there's no sense in adding complications to their already sensitive lives. They're better off living as most of society lives to give them the best chance at success.

We shouldn't be making decisions affecting the welfare of the nation's children based on the shrill cries of activists who seek validation and selfishly want to fulfill their fantasies about raising children in their deviant homes. Besides, they chose to live the way they're living and could've chosen to live differently if they wanted children. Therefore, I've come to the conclusion, based on concern for the children and logical analysis, that adoption should not be allowed for the Amish.

Speaking of piecing together statistics from where I want them, studies have shown major depressive episodes to be far more prevalent among people from the south, and substance abuse much higher among certain Native American populations, so those populations should probably be barred from adoption as well. Oh, and far more 26-49-year-olds are treated for depression and substance abuse than other age demographics, so adoption should probably be limited to people under 26 and over 49. Shoot, suicide rates jumped 20% from 1999 to 2004 among people aged 45 to 54, which is a disconcerting trend, so we should put them on hold too, until they stop offing themselves. Some studies in the past have shown domestic violence to be higher among African American populations, so black people shouldn't be allowed to adopt and bring children into such a violent environment. Speaking of which, interracial couples should be barred from adoption because the social troubles inherent to such a home would be overwhelming in many areas of the country. And Mormons may carry a facade of mainstream family values but are really cult members who lead their children away from the true Christ and his grace into a path which leads to eternal damnation by the arrogance of their doctrine, so it would be better for the children if they were placed in Christian homes where they'll be brought up with values and truth. As for a southern black/white Mormon couple in their late twenties, well they should be required to have their tubes tied.

Shoot, I say leave the kids in the orphanages where they won't be messed up by selfish people bringing them into misled, sinful, stressful, abnormal homes of people who belong to demographics with high-risk statistics for mental disorders and substance abuse. Think of the children.

Words, Words, Words

Ironically, I have a heck of a lot to say on this subject, but for now, I'll post this video that often comes to mind when I'm thinking about the many people who tend to say they believe something or know what they want or value but whose actions and behaviors tell a very different story or don't at all substantiate what they claim to believe or value, whether we're talking about a relationship or their beliefs. This song pretty aptly conveys my general feelings towards people right now...including myself, actually. I'm a tough crowd. :-)

Getting Connexted

Alright, if I were wanting to date, this whole online social network thing might not be such a terrible thing after all. As it turns out, I've already made a couple of interesting connections, run into a couple of friends I didn't know were on there, and even ran into someone I knew a while back but didn't know was gay. Aside from messages from friends, I've received close to 50 messages from fellows kind enough to welcome me to the community. Isn't that sweet? One even asked me if I'd like to have my...eh, nevermind. Let's just say it was a 'generous' offer I ignored with severe disgust and blocked that user from ever contacting me again. Probably 30 or so of the messages consist of little more than, "what's up?" or "how's it going?" or some variation, leading me to believe they aren't exactly taking a 'personal' approach. Some said, "like the profile!" or, "hey, handsome!" or something like it. Flattery will get you nowhere. ...Usually. Only 10 or fewer actually mentioned specifics from my profile. A few asked specific questions. I've replied to most or all of the messages in these latter two categories. Some have responded back, some haven't. Maybe I wasn't interesting or flirty enough. I'm OK weeding some out that way. If we don't click, or they were looking for something more along the lines of, "I'll show you what's up," then it's best to just move on.

I've carried on a dialog with just a few of them. They're mostly cute, not gonna lie, but it's all in good, clean fun, and they actually had something to say besides "what's up?" Some of the conversations have fizzled out, others are carrying on incidentally. No conversation has led to meeting up, and I don't really plan for any to, unless it's with mutual friends. Although I must admit, there's the occasional one with whom I don't necessarily have main interests in common, but our conversation has been fun and engaging, and he's ridiculously spoon-worthy, and I'm trying to keep my motives in check because part of me wants to cut to the chase and just make out already. No, I wouldn't do that, even if I thought that's what he wanted. It's not what I want. Dammit. Stupid principles. (Note for those of you who will read this as me being all "angsty": I'm kidding--it's totally my choice to follow my principles, and while I'm mildly conflicted between wanting something and wanting something else more or believing something that keeps me from doing what part of me wants, I think being conflicted is a sign of healthy...oh, forget it, call me angsty if it makes you feel better about life.) I can definitely see how guys get themselves in 'trouble' on sites like this, but there are guys on there who seem genuinely interested in getting to know people in the non-carnal sense, though obviously some guys who seem that way at first later reveal through their actions or words that they're jonesin' like nobody's business.

I also discovered adding pictures multiplies your profile views by MANY times, and I thought that reflected the shallowness of people on the site until I remembered how few pictureless profiles I checked and how when you're browsing, the ONLY initial information you get is a name and a pic, so it's a big factor. It's a little unnerving to see that my profile was viewed nearly 200 times the day after I posted pictures. I felt so...exposed. I had a brief moment of self-flattery when I saw I was the 5th most viewed profile at the end of that day, but I quickly reminded myself of the many factors that came together to create my one, brief moment of glory: new member, newly posted photos, added friends around the country, and had been logging in repeatedly all day to check the messages I was getting. Then I saw a really homely guy in the top 10 because he was new, too, and I was sufficiently humbled. :-)

I was also interested in the ages of guys contacting me because there are apparently some guys in my age range:

• 19-23: 11
  
• 24-27: 10
  
• 28-31: 14
  
• 32-35: 9
  
• 37 and older: 4

One problem: now that I've conducted my experiment and am running out of results and have explored but don't intend to start dating, I may be getting a bit bored with this site. I'll always have Facebook...



Addendum: OK, so one conversation has just led to possibly meeting up briefly. Another experiment. Here's to hoping he's not a pscyho-stalker rapist or a *gasp* woman...

...don't worry, I'm not naive. I'll only meet someone in a public, neutral place. ...I mean, except when I'm meeting certain bloggers who invite me to their homes...alone. ...I wore my chastity belt just in case.

Whoring Around Online

I feel mildly ill.

Facing the prospect of actually dating (men) has been interesting, daunting, exciting, and somewhat nauseating (in a not-so-great way). I've always just met friends of friends and naturally gravitated towards certain guys who I got flirty or romantic with, and we had to try to be "just friends". But if I am going to be open to a relationship, it sure as heck ain't gonna be with a conflicted moho, which almost all of my friends-of-friends are, but with someone who is more settled, more mature, looking for something real to actually commit to.

To experiment or test the waters, even though I'm not ready to "actively look" (I have way too much other stuff to figure out without bringing someone else into the uncertainty that is my life right now or distracting myself with a relationship), I set up profiles on a couple of sites where they survey you and match you up with others based on your answers (personality, preferences, etc). Very few results interest me, but occasionally they match me with someone I'd consider a first date with. But I had a realization: I found one match I actually thought had real potential, and he said he wanted a lifetime relationship and kids. My initial response was, "That's what I've always wanted." My follow-up response was a sinking feeling in my stomach and a blow to the head: there was no way in Hades I was ready for anything like that, even if that's what I thought I wanted. It was an odd sort of realization, but the thought of actually meeting someone, falling in love, and living with them the rest of my life and adopting children to be raised by two daddies was just too much yet. So I can't honestly say I'm looking, right now, for a lifetime commitment, but I also don't want to look for a "just for fun" kind of relationship to offer temporary companionship.

When I've fallen for someone or felt attracted, it's easy to imagine being together, but it's also never been in the cards for us to actually commit to anything. It's never been on the table at all. When faced with the potential reality, some things become clear. And I have to wonder if this is why I've fallen for guys who are, in fact, "unavailable", whether because they're emotionally detached types or say they want to find a wife and have kids. It's "safe" to fall for them, and I don't have to force myself to either face commitment or face the fact that I'm in a temporary relationship.

I probably still haven't fully come to terms with the more objective "idea" of a male life partner. More appealing, still, is the idea of meeting a great woman I'm genuinely attracted to and having children together, our own offspring we raise as equally invested biological parents. But what if we couldn't have kids? Would I have the same reservation? Is this more about kids, or is it more about my unshaken paradigms about the morality of same-sex partnership? Is it the Spirit whispering me away from a damning path, or simple fear of commitment to something new and uncharted? Is it a healthy recognition of what I am and am not ready for, emotionally, financially, mentally?

Whatever it is, I realized I was, in fact, looking for a "learning relationship", one that could potentially progress to more but would more likely be a stepping stone relationship, since I've never even had a "real" relationship to begin with. And this realization made it hard to know what to look for. Would I even want to date someone who is willing to date such a red flag: a guy my age who's never been in a relationship? Do I look for someone who isn't looking for a lifetime relationship? Then we're both understanding that it's temporary? But what if I fell for him and wanted to spend my life with him, and he ended up saying, "Hey, I told you I wasn't looking for anything serious"? 500 Days of Summer was a great movie, but I don't want the experience firsthand. But if I found someone looking for a lifetime relationship, and they fell for me, and I wasn't ready for it, and I ended up losing out on a great relationship because I jumped in before I was personally ready to make of it what it could have been...? Yeah, that's when I decided there are just too many "what ifs", and you just have to do the best you can, recognizing your own limitations and taking some risks, trusting there are plenty of fish in the gay sea. ...which I still struggle to believe.

I wanted to explore this idea of finding potential dates more, while I'm still not actually wanting to do anything about it, so I set up a profile on a gay social networking site that's hugely popular here and is one of the less cruisy sites, as far as I can tell. But judging from the onslaught of messages that consist of nothing more than, "Hey, how's your night?" and "Thought I'd say hi," I'm feeling a little gross about being there. Seriously, dude? Your pic shows you in underwear with your legs spread--not to mention our tastes and interests don't match up at all--and you expect me to respond to you when my profile clearly says I'm not looking for hook-ups? Sick. I feel cheap just being somewhere where people do this. I don't want to be anywhere near that scene, let alone affiliated with it. I'm no manwhore...well, Chedner might beg to differ, but I expect him to eat those words after his latest declaration. ;-)

Fortunately, not everyone there is like that. I have a few friends there who I don't think are just looking to hook up. And while I must admit I don't see why you'd have a profile on a gay site unless you were at least partially testing the dating waters or wanted to maintain gay-centered social circles, there are people on there I'm pretty sure aren't using it for hooking up or even dating but just to keep in touch with friends and connections, somewhat like LDS people on sites like LDS Linkup, or LDS Singles.

I set up a profile on LDS Linkup back in the day to make friend connections, but I didn't even use that 'cause it seemed limiting and one-dimensional, based on one common thread. It weirded me out that many people used more profile space talking about their callings and missions and desires for eternal companionship than about who they really are as a person. But let's be honest: while LDS culture has its downsides, they're typically much less trashy than sex-centric "gay culture". No, not all gay people are trashy or promiscuous, but what holds "gay culture" together is not religion, or profession, or ethnicity, or cultural tradition, but homosexuality in and of itself: romance and sexuality. That's really not that much to build a culture around. So when I see someone's profile who only has pictures with gay friends at clubs and beaches, I'm turned off because they're portraying their life as one-dimensional gayness. I'm interested in people who live beyond the club.

So Facebook is my social network of choice because it's more like real life to me, with profiles that are more natural and usually based on more than one facet of people's lives. But now I have this profile (on a trial basis, mind you) on a gay-themed site, partially out of curiosity, partially to see if I can approach the prospect of dating (though I have to admit, it hasn't been especially encouraging, and I am a friends-of-friends kinda guy), and while I've discovered there are some good guys out there, some of whom seem to be genuinely interested in "real" relationships rather than getting action, the dominant tendency seems to be this lusty, shallow connection based on shirtless mirror pics (a big turn-off in a potential date, by the way, though I won't pretend not to enjoy some hotness), and I can't get over how unhealthy and immature these guys seem. Mind you, this isn't necessarily completely unique to gay guys. I have a couple of female friends who have done the online dating thing and been propositioned and felt cheap because of the response they've received, too. Guys are pigs.

Last night, I was chatting with a friend and sharing with him a few of the profiles of people who contacted me (apparently putting pictures on your profile and being logged in multiplies your profile views by 10 and garners messages...go fig...), and there were a couple of guys I thought were really cute, but when discussing it with him, I was forced to look beyond the "cuteness" and realize they probably weren't good matches. The more I told him which profiles were interesting to me, the more I realized I wasn't finding much of what I would actually be interested in when I started dating. I was being shallow. Ew. ...until one. Yes, he's friends with a couple of people I've met and thought seemed like decent guys, he seems down-to-earth, he's over 23 (*whew*), we have some common interests, he's not a total hotbod, he's potentially kinda nerdy...that could work.

So maybe there's hope to at least meet some decent guys who aren't embroiled in moho conflicted culture but also haven't fallen for the ridiculous trappings of pop gay culture, lured by the idea that promiscuity, substance abuse, and shallow pop culture are the only alternative to being active LDS.

Oh, got another short, come-on message while writing this. I'm feeling nauseous again...I kinda wanna run screaming from the gay fresh-meat vultures and consider doing something for real when I'm actually ready to date, but I'm the kinda guy who forces himself to wait until emotional reactions subside a bit before deciding...



Addendum: ...and then there's the random guy you find whom you knew years ago and suspected incidentally but never imagined having a bit of an underwear fetish, let alone seeing pictures of him in...costume...

...and then there's that random guy who totally knows you and your "anonymous" blog, but you're sure he must be thinking of someone else until he says "So it is you!" when you post about having created a profile, which is kinda wiggy until he says who he is, and you realize he's someone you've heard about for years but never figured you'd have direct contact with (behold the power of the small, gay world), and he points out superfluous hyphenation, so you remove at least one thoughtless hyphen from your latest post and wonder what possessed you to use it there...

His Interest Is In Girls

So, there's a certain adorable "Idol" winner whose name I'm not going to mention because I don't want the random Google guests stumbling into my neck of the blogosphere in search of gossip about whether he likes boys. I think he seems like a good kid, and I also think younger guys shouldn't be hounded about their sexuality, though it is natural for people to be curious. As I was tonight. I wanted to see what people were saying about him, so I searched. I know, I should be ashamed of myself, seeking out the gossip I find distasteful. I slapped myself on the wrist before clicking further. I found several references to an answer he apparently gave a Malaysian interviewer when asked about the gay rumors, which people are quoting as "proof" that he's not gay:




I have to say that is some really smooth wording, really well executed! I wonder if he was coached on that response? Whether he's hetero and was trying not to sound like he was disgusted by the suggestion, or whether he's homo and was playing a mental slight of hand, it was well fielded and focused.

It took me back to when I found ways to answer such questions in honest but "directed" ways, to satisfy curiosity and thereby evade further questioning while directing attention to what I believed was most important in the answer. Some would say I'm just trying to make everyone gay in even thinking such a "clear" answer as "my interest is in girls" could mean anything except that he's straight, but I suspect those are mostly people who don't know, firsthand, the workings of the mind of a young guy whose beliefs conflict with his attractions. "My interest is in girls," to such a young man, does not mean, "I'm primarily sexually and romantically attracted to females and don't experience homosexual inclinations." It's a declaration of what one wants in life, regardless of sexual orientation. It's a statement that regardless of whether guys are more attractive, a gay relationship is not the goal but rather a relationship with a wife and children. And it's a lot easier than trying to explain, to a casual, pop-culture, worldwide audience, that you're gay in the sense that you're attracted to members of the same sex but not gay in the sense that you seek out same-sex relationships and that what you hope for is to find a girl you can marry despite this inherent challenge in such a hypothetical relationship...

But who knows? Maybe he meant, "No, I'm not gay," or, "I'm attracted to girls and not guys." Whatever he really meant by it, his response seems to have put many fans at ease to finally have some kind of definitive answer from him, even while some will simply believe what they want regardless of what he says. The kid's really young, and he has a lot to experience and figure out, and he should be allowed to do that without everyone trying to shove him into a box or mold to fit their paradigms and defend their egos. ...but I still think of him as the world's most-loved moho. Is that wrong of me? ;-)

Standing Up for Alternative Marriages

A friend/fellow blogger recently posted something regarding mixed-orientation marriages and how they are, in my opinion, comically and ridiculously dismissed or decried by so many from the "free to make my own choices" gay community (though they have admittedly not [yet] sought to remove people's legal right to enter into them), and it's totally worth posting a link to it to encourage my readers to check it out and honestly consider what she's saying because I'm right behind her:

Every Once in a While

Anonymous Schmanonymous

OK, this post may seem, on the surface, hypocritical, since my blog is a rather anonymous venue for my articulatory jaunts, but those of you who know me well know that my sexual orientation (my attractions, gayness, queerocity, whatever you want to call it) is hardly a secret and that I'm pretty up front about it in most settings, including using my face and name on one web site for a time. I respect anonymity and believe it to be valuable or necessary at times. This particular setting is one in which I find anonymity most appropriate for me, for now, for various reasons I don't feel a need to explain. But I staunchly refute the absolute necessity of general anonymity for all people in connection with homosexuality.

So what?

There are some prominent players in the LDS world, people who were once respected as the primary voices regarding homosexuality and the church (and who seem hellbent on trying to regain that position of power and authority, judging from presumptuous titles of their publications which seem to purport they have some claim on the official or general voice of the church on the matter of homosexuality) who severely declare that no person should use their real name and face in connection with any published work about homosexuality.

Why?

Supposedly, from what I understand they've said to others (I've admittedly never had a dialog with this particular clan of therapists and therapist-disciples), it's for a few reasons, including:

• 1. You must protect yourself from the fiery darts of the activists: if they don't know who you are, they can't spy on you and publicize every slip-up, misconstrue any of your actions in their favor, contact your children to recruit them to the other side, or pipe bomb your bedroom and eat your dog and...whatever else activists do in secret to accomplish their nefarious purposes.
  
  
• 2. Your perspective may evolve over time, and you may find that something you said ten years ago isn't an idea you espouse anymore, so you wouldn't want Affirmation having their clutches on a statement you made and leading people away carefully with flaxen cords to the dark misery of same-sex partnership (hell) using your statements in which you no longer believe.
  
  
• 3. There's no point in jeopardizing your career or reputation over this. There is a lot of misunderstanding out there, and without the full context of your beliefs, your background, the perspectives explained in the rest of whatever anthology your essay may be part of which may or may not carry a title reflecting the arrogance of its primary authors/organizers, and an understanding of the gospel in its fullness (line upon line), you're surely going to be misunderstood, and if someone were to read what you wrote without all of that understanding, you're in a world of hurt having to explain yourself to every person you meet every day who surely will have been sent a chain e-mail spreading your entire essay across cyberspace.
  
  
• 4. (My favorite:) Think of the children. One day, you may get married to someone of the opposite sex, if you aren't already, and you may have children, if you don't already, and it would be utterly selfish of you to drag your spouse and children into the scrutiny and criticism of hateful, vindictive gay activists or schoolmates who will mock and deride your children for having a gay daddy/mommy. The children's lives will be marred by the trauma of being teased on the playground, being ridiculed by other children of their faith, and knowing that their dad once had feelings for the prancing queen they saw on Queer as Folk Season 24 (by accident during a one-week free Showtime preview) shaking his sweaty stuff on the dance floor, with whom they'll picture daddy gyrating, which will make them scream in sheer terror at such horrific debauchery.

If you buy into these perspectives, then any revelation of identity is just a reckless, selfish, grandstanding self indulgence to entertain your own wanton desire for sexual liberation. Now, don't you feel bad if you've outed yourself publicly or used your real name on your blog? Wait, reserve the self-lashings for a moment while I explain why I think these points are valid enough to consider but are simultaneously mostly crap when applied as blanket rules.

• 1. Fear-mongering is effective at silencing opposition. This works various ways. If it's true that the activists will pipe-bomb your house and run off with your children, then that's a terrible thing, and their opponents must stand up against it to conquer it rather than cowering before the tyrannical influence. Oh, wait...no...that's not what these anonymity-pushing folks are saying at all. Hm...so could it be they're using fear tactics themselves to keep people from standing up and being known? Well, regardless, if a cause is worth fighting for, if it's worth standing up for, then intimidation must be met and confronted. Since when did any social revolution come about by numberless anonymous pen names? ...Hm...maybe the anonymity folks are die-hard fans of V for Vendetta. That was an anonymous revolution, right? It's the idea that matters, not the people behind it. ...except that this is, by definition, a deeply personal issue. Besides, what "cause" are these folks fighting for? Greater acceptance of homosexual people in the church as long as they live the same standards as everyone else? Is that their primary aim? Or is that secondary to showing gay people what they need to become if they're to be part of the church and happy in the gospel? And how do they intend to achieve that end? By showing happy, functional faces of people living in temple marriages with families or living fulfilling lives as single people with support systems? Or by preaching at them with a bunch of shamefully cloaked pen names?
  
  
• 2. I believe this argument is, at its root, more about information control than it is about concern for the people whose ideas may change. I mean, if you have an anthology of essays written by nameless people, there is little recourse for anyone to follow up with those people ten years from now, to ask them how their marriage is going, whether they're still heterosexually functional, how happy they are in their path, or (most significantly, I think) whether they still support and stand behind the author of the anthology. Nope, an anonymous pen name can be a snapshot in time, a static snippet of one person's journey to a certain point, sealed and done, resolved and closed. It is tidy. It is convenient. It is supposedly all that matters. It is not real. Do I think most such people will be weeping and wailing and gnashing teeth ten years down the road, wishing they never married and pining for same-sex bliss? No, I think most will still be working at it, with ups and downs, and proclaiming that they wouldn't trade their life with their family for anything. I sincerely believe that. But it's much "safer" if nobody ever knows their stories post-publication.
  
  
• 3. I have to explain myself in all kinds of ways all the time. I take that back: I don't have to. I choose to. And sometimes I choose not to. There are many times when I just shrug and smile and move on, or say something like, "Yeah, I know it's hard to grasp. Maybe we can discuss it more in depth sometime." Or whatever. LDS people love to talk about times when they "had to" defend their religion to people at work because it opened a dialog which led to greater understanding and mutual respect. Of course, we tend not to eagerly discuss the times when such discussions lead to heated emotions or disrespectful insults and at least as much misunderstanding as before. But our religion is something we believe in and want to fight for! For these anony-misers, homosexuality is inherently a "problem" or a developmental hiccup, not a normal variation of sexuality, so the burden of understanding and dealing with it presumably rests on the shoulders of those who experience the deviant attractions. Yes, they may make efforts to increase understanding among church members and usually decry any hateful or demeaning language or actions, but that seems, at least, to take a back seat to their mission to convince all gay members that they can and should find a way out of homosexuality (an expression I think is misleading) and into a temple marriage. That's understandable, assuming traditional LDS doctrinal framework. But what I think it comes down to is this: some things are worth fighting for (like "the gospel"), while some things aren't worth the conflict (being strictly temporal and curable) and are better dealt with quietly and internally (like "same-sex attraction"). To me, however, the cultural awareness and mutual understanding through dialog are worth the risks in many cases. After all, how many LDS people are depressed and even suicidal over their religion and the social pressures against it?
  
  
• 4. On the surface, this seems the most selfless and noble of all of the reasons. How can you not do it for the children? How can you be so selfish as to bring them into this without them having any choice? First of all, I've never been a parent, so I have to admit to lacking a certain perspective in that regard. I do believe children should be a parent's number one priority. I believe they should be given every opportunity to grow and learn in love and guidance. I believe that, in most cases, fighting on the front lines of a cultural, political, or physical war would probably distract a lot of energy from one's family to their detriment. Priorities have to be weighed. But writing an essay for an anthology or even a web site is different, to me. Children grow up under many stressors that compel them to learn resilience and self-determination, endurance and dedication, living by principle in authenticity. My parents knew that being LDS would be a challenge for me in school, but I was never told to mask or hide it. I wasn't encouraged to flaunt it or talk about it at every turn, not out of shame but because there's a time and place for all things, and trying to force it on people generally doesn't garner healthy interest. I was ridiculed for my religion at times in an LDS-minority (maybe 10% or less) community. Some children are ridiculed for having mixed-ethnicity parents. A judge in Louisiana recently denied a marriage license to a mixed-ethnicity couple because if they had children, those children would surely endure unnecessary ridicule as a result. But again, I can only assume these anonymity proponents would say that's different because ethnicity isn't something they can choose whether to talk about, or because ethnicity is patently different from sexuality, so it's comparing apples to oranges. If you don't believe social change to be necessary, or you place more priority on shielding your children from existing prejudices than on changing those prejudices for future generations at the expense of your children's comfort and your own, then I honestly respect the decision of anonymity. But to push that same priority onto others is inappropriate and ultimately, in my opinion, more selfish and shortsighted than raising your children to meet the challenges potentially brought by your own authenticity and openness.

"Why do you care so much about this?"

I can't tell you how bleak it seemed, to me, that when I was searching for resources, all I could find from faithful LDS sources was anonymous, neat-and-tidy stories of how people "came out of" homosexuality or had families or found their testimonies, and all was resolved and pretty. It was depressing for various reasons:

• Nobody was willing to say, "Hey, do you know how unashamed I am and how comfortable I am with my situation now? This is my name, and this is my face. That's how comfortable."
  
• Even the anonymous stories were few and far between, so what hope did I have of finding anyone who could prove their comfort with their sexuality by saying, "Here I am"? I had no real way of knowing that one person didn't write two or ten stories under various names. I had no way of knowing if I could actually relate to any of these people on a real, personal level, or if they were a bunch of fanatical loonies. I mean, why was Evergreen hiding them all so carefully? Were they fugly? Were they all 187 years old? Were they all super femmy? Were they too attractive and therefore a temptation to us impressionable newbies? Why were they hiding?
  
• I wanted to know that people had stuck with their decisions after writing these pieces, but I knew that their anonymity generally shielded them from such follow-ups. I would rather have known that 2 or 3 out of 5 people had stuck with it than wonder if any of them had. I figured I might not even relate to those who didn't stick with it, so if the 1 or 2 I did relate with had, then that could provide some hope for me. I also recognized that identifying or relating to someone didn't mean I'd choose their same path, and I've always believed ideas stand on their own, independent of the people behind them, but when it came to this particular issue, I somehow found myself aching for more, longing to know that someone relatable was making their way through. I told myself I didn't "need" it. I never expected to need that. But in a way, in this case, or with this issue, I think I really did. I needed to see actual living, breathing people dealing with and getting through it, not anonymous stories.
  

Fortunately, there are now authors and organizations putting real faces and names out to offer new hope and truly "living" testimony of their beliefs and their journeys. While I may not be in a "spiritual" place right now to benefit greatly from those, I'm glad they are standing up and proclaiming their beliefs, presenting their stories, and connecting real people to each other and to the issue.

I sat with some friends about three years ago now, at a time when I was not at all ready to be open with my identity in connection with this issue, and I listened to a friend offering impassioned words about the need to put real faces with the issue. He spoke of the need for young guys suffering in suicidal agony, thinking they were utterly alone, believing nobody in the world could understand their conflict between religious beliefs and the desire for companionship and intimacy, or not knowing who to talk to because real people were shrouded behind a cloak of secrecy and hoops to jump through (which oftentimes disqualified them because of some behaviors) just to be able to sit with a group and share their true hopes and fears and questions. He spoke of the need for us to speak for ourselves rather than let Hollywood, or pride parades, or bitterly disaffected members speak for us. He spoke of the need for us to stand and be counted, to place real faces of church members' husbands, sisters, sons, mothers, uncles, bishops, and friends on what has, in the church, been a largely objective and impersonal issue, to show that we are here, we are quietly among them, and we are their dearest friends and family members, not so they'll give us a free pass but so that they will understand the impact of what they say in church, or think twice about how a silently suffering teenager might interpret their attitudes and actions, to humanize the issue and inject real, personal love into the way it is approached in the church.

I almost, at that time, felt guilty for still refusing to "come out" or use my real name in a publication. But I also knew that for each of us, there is a timeline. Each of us has different needs and priorities, different life situations and insecurities. I knew it was OK for me to stay "closeted". But I also knew there was a real need for those who were willing and able to stand up and speak for themselves, and I was deeply grateful for them. I also made a goal to work towards increasing openness, and I wouldn't change that process. It has felt right, and I hope more and more people will work towards openness and speak for themselves, not to self-satisfy, not to grandstand, and not to force understanding, but to be authentic, to show those who think they are alone that there are many who understand to some degree and sympathize, and to give those around us the opportunity to truly show compassion and understanding as we strive to do the same.

And yes, this blog will remain anonymous. ;-)