A True Man's Apology

This apology is a really big deal.

Thank you, Mr. Chambers, for having the integrity to _not_ play the oppressive, manipulative "we've always believed this way" card popular among accountability-avoidant PR departments. Thank you for making efforts over the last year to shed or distance yourself from the disingenuous and serpentine wordcrafting popular among certain of your peers.

I don't have any illusion that Chambers is moving towards embracing same-sex relationships as a spiritually ideal, Biblically approved option, and I still disagree with some fundamentals of his views, but I very much respect his persistent efforts to build his organization's integrity despite some very harsh criticism from those who have been his associates and fellows.

I heard him speak at a conference in Salt Lake almost 7 years ago now, and his rhetoric and tone seem to have shifted towards greater authenticity and frankness since then. He recently had the courage to admit, after years of evasive wording about "change", that few if any people actually change their orientation, at least not to the point of eradicating same-sex attractions. I believe many stick with the "change" angle with the intent to offer possibly life-saving hope for another way a few seeking souls may not have considered, downplaying or omitting the phenomenon of persisting same-sex attraction as irrelevant to their success in living according to their religious paths. But it's not irrelevant when heroes and careers are made or broken by a standard that was more slick marketing than human reality, or when an intensely conflicted young gay man can't understand why he hasn't had enough faith or put in enough effort to achieve what so many supposedly have, and he feels like a failure or loses all hope for happiness as he perceives it. Chambers' admission was not a hair-splitting, nit-picking quibble that cowed to some "gay agenda": it's a paradigm-shifting, potentially life-saving truth. He also announced Exodus would be dropping sexual orientation change efforts as a focus of their ministry, either de facto or explicit.

He isn't changing his personal, religious beliefs, as far as I can tell, and he may well intend for all of this to better position him and others to coach those desiring paths they believe to be Biblically congruent.  Nonetheless, he offers many vulnerable apologies to a wounded and potentially unforgiving audience, such as the following: 

"I am sorry that some of you spent years working through the shame and guilt you felt when your attractions didn’t change. I am sorry we promoted sexual orientation change efforts and reparative theories about sexual orientation that stigmatized parents. I am sorry that there were times I didn’t stand up to people publicly 'on my side' who called you names like sodomite—or worse...

"I am sorry that when I celebrated a person coming to Christ and surrendering their sexuality to Him that I callously celebrated the end of relationships that broke your heart. I am sorry that I have communicated that you and your families are less than me and mine...

"And then there is the trauma that I have caused. There were several years that I conveniently omitted my ongoing same-sex attractions..."

Those, I believe, are the words of someone who knows what it means to be a true man.

Please do not hinge your hope on "change"

When the researcher admits validity of criticism and expressly requests to retract his former conclusions, it's time to reconsider: http://wthrockmorton.com/2012/04/11/robert-spitzer-retracts-2001-ex-gay-study/.

None of this should change your freedom to choose how to respond to your attractions, but my direct observation of and personal conversations with dozens and dozens confirms what a long-time ex-gay leader recently said about the popular claim among certain organizations and groups that "change is possible": http://wthrockmorton.com/2011/10/10/former-love-in-action-director-i%E2%80%99ve-never-met-a-man-who-experienced-a-change-from-homosexual-to-heterosexual/.

I've noticed a subtle and gradual (if not somewhat disingenuous-seeming) shift in the usage of the word "change" in organizations like Evergreen and Exodus, apparently to sidestep or move away from discussion of reversing orientation, as more voices come out in testimony that few if any people actually change in the way the word has traditionally been used in that setting. There are still organizations like NARTH which endeavor to amass evidence in support of eradicating "sexualized" same-sex attraction in favor of an emerging heterosexual orientation, so it's not like this was the last leg, as some are claiming, but when foundational voices are retracting their conclusions, it certainly raises questions.

After about eight years involved in support groups and gay Mormon social circles, the only two people I've met who claim to have changed from homo- to heterosexual are Journey Into Manhood founders, and I haven't sat down for a real, personal conversation with them to find out if that's even what they really mean when they say they "identify as a straight male", though they know very well how vulnerable, conflicted men will hear it and yearn for it.  The claims of those I know of but haven't met are such that any retraction from them would mean loss of therapy fees, book royalties, speaking fees, and the public pride and championing of activist loved ones, so I see a strong incentive for them to convince themselves and others.  But I have little or no justification to claim they're just bald-faced liars, and if I could sit down with one, I would listen and try to understand what they mean or have experienced.  They might mean that when the temptation to look at erotic images arises, the images tempting them are of women.  Maybe they mean men are no longer interesting to them, and they feel magnetically drawn to women now.  They might mean they're attracted to men primarily but express that attraction in only friendly ways and deny or refuse to entertain, in any way, the romantic or sexual yearnings that occasionally arise, or call them something else.  They may mean they have directed, suppressed, and "re-framed" their attractions to such an extent that they genuinely hardly think about it anymore and live a contentedly "straight" life.  But even if they mean the latter, I know few, if any, who achieve that stably before marrying a woman, or before their early thirties, so I'm left wondering how much of that is personal effort and how much is decreased libido and more present priorities and stresses.  Unfortunately, those who claim to have changed are understandably guarded, having been verbally assaulted and publicly mocked, so I don't expect to be able to sit down with one.

Some people I personally know have temporarily claimed, in snapshot testimonials, to have eradicated most or all of their same-sex attraction while increasing opposite-sex attraction.  But they later privately admitted they'd over-interpreted a decrease in overall sex drive, or increased opposite-sex curiosity or openness (not attraction), or behavioral changes and relationship improvements.  They'd mistaken relative absence of obsession and impulsion for lack of same-sex attraction.  Nonetheless, saying I've never seen anyone actually change from homosexual to heterosexual is not the same as saying it's absolutely impossible.  And I can only speak from my own experience and what others have told me about theirs.  I just have never seen anyone "change" in the popularly understood and deliberately intended marketing use of the word, and others who have been on the front lines of larger efforts have periodically made public admissions of similar observation.

Those who speak out in support of "change" use such cleverly crafted wording to make the intended meaning of "change" so nebulous as to obscure any distinction between their change and the sexual, spiritual growth of my straight friends.  Heterosexual friends have, seemingly likewise, reached points in their lives when they were no longer troubled by thoughts contrary to their belief system and dominated by obsessive drooling.  They've learned emotional intimacy and authenticity and learned not to act on every sexual urge.  They're no less "straight": they just...matured.

I don't point this out to keep people from taking a path I chose not to take or to defend my own.  I don't point this out to slander individuals.  I don't point this out to push legalization of marriage for same-sex couples.  I point this out because I've watched friends repeatedly engage in an exhausting effort to change their orientation which led to isolation, depression, emotional dishonesty and detachment, all of which they were convinced would be worth it.  But they haven't changed in the ways they hoped, even if they denied they hoped it.  I point this out also because I personally know what it's like to see no good to be gained from casting doubt on an ideal goal just because I and everybody I knew hadn't reached it, when in reality nobody among us had reached the legendary goal.  I point this out because I believe getting caught up in the ideal of being "fully released from the temptation of same-sex attraction" completely distracts from the truer, more practical and helpful discussion of "whether or not it ever changes, what now?"  

If hope is only found in eradication of same-sex attraction, then I know nobody who has real hope.  I concede in a theoretical way that it can possibly change for some, but if so, it's very, very few.  Not one person among the dozens I know has changed their orientation, not after Journey Into Manhood, years of therapy, years of quietly doing their own thing, or years of being married to a woman.  You might want hope it can change.  But for most of you, even among those who believe you must never engage in same-sex romantic or sexual relationships, it just won't.  Other things will change.  Your ability to cope.  Your openness to a relationship without the sexual chemistry you yearn for.  Your openness to finding real attraction with just the right person to make it work.  Your emotional stability.  Your social network and support system.  Your religious beliefs.  Your communication skills.  Your relationship intimacy.  Your emotional intelligence.  Your decisions.  Your goals.  There's a lot of hope to be found in those kinds of changes.

Maybe one day, someone will figure out a reproducible way to eradicate erotic, romantic, or sexual same-sex attraction, and political pressure will not stifle it.  Maybe some day, neurology will advance enough to re-wire anyone for heterosexuality for those who want it (I wonder how many people would choose to become bisexual to increase their options...huh...oh, right: topic at hand).  It's conceivable that there will be a way to turn same-sex attraction into opposite-sex attraction.  But today, it's just not happening for at least most people, probably all but a very select few, and possibly not for anyone.  Maybe a few have changed.  Maybe they're more righteous and hard-working.  Maybe they wanted it more.  Maybe they had just the right combination of therapy, support, desire, belief, chemistry, diligence, divine intervention, and experience.  Or maybe they're just an anomaly who understandably think their coincidental effort and desire earned or caused the change.  Maybe they're more adept at self-deception or repression.  Maybe they're twisting words to make a buck.  I don't know, and I don't much care.  I just know my friends--the people I personally care about--haven't experienced the coveted 180 degree orientation change...or even 100.  And I gave up on assuming it might be due to their supposed "lack of" anything.

Hope, I believe, is not found in the message that your "orientation" can and must "change", or that you can and should attempt to eradicate your same-sex attraction or even make opposite-sex attraction stronger than your same-sex attraction.  I believe hope is found in being told you are free to choose to live what you believe and want and that there are ways to make the best of a difficult situation.  Hope is found in recognizing the challenges ahead and trusting that you have the strength and support of people who care, not only to endure but to find fullness and joy in life.  Hope is being assured you are not a simpering victim of the lions of gay corruption or religious tyranny.  My hope was found in facing a tough probability or potential reality--that this might not completely change--dealing with it head-on, being open to what changes might be possible, and refusing to hinge my happiness and spiritual confidence on a specific kind of change that frankly does not come to most despite years of effort.  Try to change, if you feel you must, but please, please do not hinge your success, happiness, or self image on eradicating all homosexual feelings.

Change or not, you can do this, and you can find truth and happiness.  Something may have to give.  You may have to reevaluate the way you look at some things, what you believe to be true, what challenges you're willing to take on, how you see yourself, what attachments you might need to let go of, or what you most want.  But hang in there, and know that no matter if you're celibate, married in the temple, adopting children with your same sex partner, an all-around slut, or anywhere in between, you're in really good company if you still and always will most often feel something more instinctual and attractive for a hottie of the same sex walking down the street than a hottie of the opposite sex.

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'.

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'.

"Dangerous" Is My Middle Name

That's right: Original "Dangerous" Mohomie.


The story: Not so long ago, in a place not at all far away, in a panel discussion about SSA geared towards friends and family of "strugglers", someone whom I shall call "Pat" interjected before closing the session to say someone had asked a "dangerous question" that absolutely needed to be addressed. I braced myself for a concern about crystal meth, gay hookup sites, or secret BYU-I unprotected shenanigans. I was on the edge of my seat, awaiting the dangerous discussion topic.

Pat read the question, which was something like this: "My son tells me about something referred to as a blogosphere, I think it's called moho. What is it?"

Affectionately amused at how clear it was the questioner didn't know anything about it, I waited for the rest of the question to be read.  I wondered if they were asking about blogs in general, or maybe the MohoDirectory specifically, but I wondered what more there was to the question.  I figured Pat, clearly reacting to the question, was trying to regain composure before finishing it. This was not the case. That was the question.

Pat answered, wide-eyed, in a trembling voice, "Absolutely stay away from it! The people who call themselves that are living the lifestyle, and it's very dangerous. Very dangerous. That's all that needs to be said."

My jaw dropped. No explanation of what the terms were.  No invitation to panel members to respond.  For a moment, I was sorely tempted to stand and say, "Hey, I invented the term "moho" (actually it was a friend, in an e-mail to me, and I promulgated it). And a main organizer of this event, a friend of mine and yours, is a prominent blogger. Wanna ask me about it? Yes, the term 'moho' has been adopted by many who are mostly only culturally LDS and who think the church is wrong about homosexuality, but it was originally meant to denote someone who experiences same-sex attraction and who supports the church's stance on homosexual relationships, and there are still many in that boat who use the term in good-natured ways. And yes, many bloggers end up hooking up or buying into ideas which are anything but orthodox LDS thought and which undermine more conservative or fundamental views, but most of them are hooking up anyway, with blogs being just one more avenue, and most of those who "lose their testimonies" or become "dangerously" liberal had problems with LDS theology or practice long before they ever started reading blogs, and I know many who have remained very faithful to the church and its leadership and are blogging to make their voices heard.  Many have benefited from the 'blogosphere' in amazing ways, finding dialog and community they might never have found otherwise, giving some of them hope and reinforcement in living church standards and finding happiness doing so. Let's not be so reactionary, here. But then, I'm an agnostic blogger, so I'm one of the 'dangerous' ones." In my mind, I would then stand firm and invite the author of the question to see me after the panel if they wished.

I did none of it, though. Most of the discussion had been productive, and I perceived Pat wasn't in any condition to discuss the matter rationally, so it probably would've just caused a messy scene. Instead, I turned to my friends sitting next to me and said, "That answer was not true and obviously came from a very emotional place. I'm so blogging about this." Wry grinning followed.



Epilogue:  I've met Pat. Pat seems like a nice enough person, and we have many mutual friends, many of whom blog. I can only imagine Pat has very strong personal feelings, possibly from limited (and very negative) experience, and though Pat and I probably disagree on many things in some very fundamental ways, I wish Pat well and hope for healing and understanding. The organizers of the event, after all, are bloggers (at least incidentally), listed in the MohoDirectory, and rather connected with many self-described "mohos", many of whom are committed to the church and supportive of its stance on homosexuality, even if they've become the minority among those who use the term "moho". She doesn't have the full picture, but a couple hundred friends and family of gay LDS folk have now only heard the terms "moho" and "blogosphere" in a frightening context, terrified of their children being involved with something so dark, so insidiously menacing, that Pat trembled at the very mention.

So if any of you readers may be the son about whom some parent was speaking, and your parents are now banning your internet access and sending you off to boarding school in far off lands or to ex-gay camp, you now know where their panic may be coming from.

Incidentally, I no longer call myself a "moho". Nor do I think it a travesty if the term is passe. But if "moho" as the lighthearted, church-affirming term it was meant to be wasn't already dying, that one statement in a fireside sure did hammer a few more nails into the coffin for that region, at least. I've occasionally wondered when my blog name will become irrelevant in every way and whether I'll change it or leave it as a vestige of an era gone by. I think I'll opt for vestige. Call me dangerous.

"I'm Same-Sex Attracted. Deal With It, Homos."

A while back, I posted an entry titled I'm Gay. Deal With It, Strugglers, in which I expounded my opinion that while labels to carry social stigma and cultural baggage, using a label isn't inherently handing over your identity nor is it destroying the ideology (crusades?) of those who refuse to use it.

To be clear, I refer to myself as gay. I still am open (maybe more than ever, though perhaps not why you think, and that's a very different post) to a relationship with a woman, but I have yet to experience one of the kind which would be necessary to go ahead. I also cringe when people seem painfully, awkwardly bent on avoiding the g-word or the word "homosexuality", which contains the forbidden s-word. I want to shake some sense into the ones who seem so obviously conflicted and afraid of themselves that they're terrified of the implications of even beginning to think of themselves as "gay". I see it as very unhealthy, even if understandable given their paradigms and family/social pressures.

But I also have friends who confidently reject the term "gay" when describing themselves for personal, intellectual reasons but don't throw a fit if someone else refers to them that way. Many of them prefer to avoid labels altogether, often because they just don't believe it's a trait that can be accurately summed up in a label. I think that's true for almost everything, so I just don't see what's so different about "gay" or "same-sex attracted", but some people just have different sensitivities, social situations, or needs than I do. So as long as they're not militantly crusading against those who use a different label than they, they're not harping on me for choosing labels I would rather own than be determined by, and they're not preaching that nobody should use the labels to which they, themselves, ascribe so much meaning which I do not, I don't much care what label they use.

Within a church context, especially in extremely conservative areas (say, Idaho), where you're dealing with people who have little or no experience with "same-sex attracted" members (let alone "gay" folk), throwing around the word "gay" is a sure-fire way to garner distrust and skepticism and conjure all the wrong images simply because of the baggage the term carries and the lack of experience the people have with real-world people. The only way that will change is not to shove the g-word in everyone's faces while calling them bigots for reacting negatively to it (thereby confirming ideas about the aggressive, militant "gay agenda"), nor is it to obsessively dodge the g-word by pussy-footing around and wringing one's hands over it (thereby confirming it's something to be feared and disdained) but to speak the language of your target audience in order to facilitate opening the dialog to understand each other's point of view better and break down unnecessary stereotypes and faulty paradigms.

In other words, I have about as much patience for militant, general attacks on the use of "same-sex attraction" as I do for the same kinds of attacks on the use of "gay". I haven't seen the "SSA" people writing blog entries in defense of their practice, but if you read my post I mentioned above, just switch out all the stereotypes people have about "gay" to stereotypes people have about "same-sex attracted", along with everything they think it means about how harmful it is to use the one term or the other, blah blah blah, and that'll pretty much sum up my thoughts on the subject, I think.

Gay Facebook Breakdown

Addendum: I've added a poll to the right in relation to this post. For kicks. 'Cause that's how I roll. If you feel so inclined, also leave a comment stating your category. I'm curious to know if I categorized some of you as you'd categorize yourselves. :-)


No, this isn't about how I vomited my tragic life all over Facebook in a self-pitying sob-fest for the whole world to see. This is about my Facebook friends, specifically the ones who are "family". You know how you can make lists of friends? I've been maintaining a few fun lists for a couple of years, and one of them is "Family", and I ain't talkin' blood relatives, here.

I was curious to find out what percentage of my friends on Facebook are gay/SSA/afraid-to-label-their-homosexuality-but-who-are-nonetheless-decidedly-homosexual. Turns out just over 30% (over 100) of my friends on Facebook are, in fact, queer. Of course, I left out those who have admitted to "desires" but not explicitly to experiencing homosexuality more than heterosexuality. And there are plenty of others I strongly suspect as being "family" but who I'm reserving judgement about until I hear it from them. What I'm saying is that this nearly-one-third of my friends are those who have confirmed that they experience primarily same-sex attraction. That's a lot.

But my curiosity didn't stop there: I also wondered how they break down as far as church affiliation and activity go, so I defined various groups into which to break them up. I think the actual conduct of people within each group varies wildly, but what puts someone in a group is their general attitude towards homosexuality and the Church. Of course, people shift between groups over time, and I can't be sure about the beliefs of some people, but this is my best-guess, current observation. I've included some commentary on each group based on my own observations. They are as follows:

• ??? (10%): I don't know these people well enough or haven't been in touch enough to have any read on their current perspective. Or we've talked, but I'm not sure even they know where they are. :-)
  
  
• Non-LDS (2%)(sorry, Elder Ballard, it's just easiest to phrase it this way for my purposes here): Never, to my knowledge, have they been members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Among my friends, these are all "out-and-proud" gay men. Of course, I could divide these up all sorts of ways, but since I'm focusing on the LDS angle, I'll just lump these all together (yes, all 3 of them).
  
  
• Ex-LDS (7%): they used to be LDS but have been either excommunicated (and intend to stay that way) or have disavowed their connection with the institutional church. They may or may not still subscribe to some core gospel doctrines, but they have vocally and clearly declared their final departure from the church. Among my Facebook friends, all of these are seeking or are in same-sex relationships, to my knowledge.
  
  
• Inactive (22%): these are those from whom I've not heard a firm declaration that they're finished with the church or that they don't believe the doctrines anymore but who are not attending church services, not necessarily focused on the institutional "church standards" in guiding their morality, and may or may not report themselves as "LDS" if asked what religion they subscribe to. Most of these are, to my knowledge, dating members of the same sex, a few in committed, long-term relationships, and some are just living the single life without dating, which may or may not have anything to do with their LDS background. I even included a couple of guys who are engaged to other guys but who are not officially excommunicated or whom I haven't heard state their intent to fully disavow the church.
  
  
• Active in their own way (17%): folks who claim affiliation with the church and generally attend a ward, appreciate the structure and community church activity offers, and who generally live "clean" lives basically in harmony with gospel principles, aside from the whole annoying "gay" issue and maybe along with other strictures (e.g. the word of wisdom, temple covenants and attendance, etc). They may even live a basically temple-worthy life except for having a same-sex partner, along with the physical intimacy of a committed relationship, or they may mostly not even concern themselves with the church's standards of conduct but live by their own moral code while considering church a useful place to explore spirituality, remember good principles, and find a community of basically good people. They sometimes describe themselves as "as active as the church will allow me to be". Most of these are in same-sex relationships or seeking such and seem to consider it their compromise between happiness in this life and keeping an eye on eternity as they understand it. Some may have been excommunicated in consequence of their relationships, but their desire to stay affiliated and as active as possible distinguishes them from the "Ex-LDS".
  
  
• Active but dating (8%): these are slightly different from the "active in their own way" in that they still strive to maintain church standards but believe that includes non-sexual, but romantic, relationships with members of the same sex for the sake of companionship, or who at least believe there's no harm in dating for fun and maybe engaging in some makey-outy here and there, in light of not believing they will or should ever marry someone of the opposite sex. They may have no qualms about carrying a temple recommend while dating or kissing members of the same sex, as long as they maintain the same rules of chastity that all heterosexual members are expected to maintain.
  
  
• Strictly active (34%): as far as I know, these folks are active in their wards and believe they should refrain from all dating and romantic involvement with members of their same sex. Many of these are hoping to find someone of the opposite sex to marry and with whom have a family. Most are not, to my knowledge, actually ready to date the opposite sex or actively doing so, but they have it as a goal and believe it may happen. However, some of them are actually dating members of the opposite sex, one or two are engaged, and some (about 1/4 of them) are already married to members of the opposite sex. Some of them do "slip up" with members of the same sex at times, but what distinguishes these from, say, the "Active but dating" bunch is that while an "Active but dating" type has no qualms about making out with or romantically dating a same-sexer, a "Strictly active" type may do it and determine they've transgressed or at least lost sight of their goal and swear they will "do better" in the future. In other words, same-sex romantic conduct may not be a grievous sin, but it's something to eschew and avoid and is certainly not helpful in one's goal of forming an eternal family. Some are staunch in this and completely oppose anything resembling "homosexual conduct", such as physical affection (e.g. cuddling) between gay male friends. Others embrace non-sexual physical affection between members of the same sex as something healthy and even starkly lacking in western culture and something which needn't be sexual or romantic in nature. They may even vary on whether reparative therapy or experiential weekends are worthwhile or necessary. Come to think of it, I think this group is pretty diverse and includes varying levels of church activity and behavioral stability, and I'm tempted to break it down even more, but I think that would just get messy... I guess their common thread is that they are active in the church and believe that church activity and adherence is generally incompatible with same-sex romance and sexuality.
  

Great, now I want to create a poll to find out how my readers would categorize themselves. I enjoy polls...but I don't know how to do one. ...I'm going to resign myself to my obsessive curiosity and go and find out how, aren't I? Yeah, I am...

Power In Labels

Words carry power. Without words, thoughts remain nebulous, and expression pales. When a word's perceived meaning is changed, communication and understanding shift with it. Words carry cultural implications and symbolic nuance.

It is precisely because of this that I often refuse to be a slave to existing social paradigms in the self-application of labels. If I use a label for myself, it becomes mine, and it makes me no less an individual or beholden to some one-dimensional mass. Rather than assimilating wholly into the label, I add context and facets to it. Perhaps I'm naive in thinking so, since most people will not see it this way. Most will see the label and ascribe various traits and beliefs to me without even realizing they've done it or questioning whether it is just to do so. Fortunately, I'm generally not afraid of that. Those who prefer ignorance will persist in it regardless of what I bring to the table. Those who recognize their own ignorance will learn and will add me to their conglomeration of who comprises a given label. But the perception of the label will never change if those whom it describes don't speak up for themselves.

Merriam-Webster's definition of gay:

Main Entry: gay
1 a: happily excited: merry
b: keenly alive and exuberant: having or inducing high spirits
2 a: bright, lively
b: brilliant in color
3: given to social pleasures; also: licentious
4 a: homosexual
b: of, relating to, or used by homosexuals

Main Entry: ho·mo·sex·u·al
1 : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex
2 : of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex

Some are uncomfortable referring to themselves as "gay" because "gay" is associated, as you can see, with "licentious". And "homosexual" implies purely "sexual" desire. And we, in Mormon culture, know that sexual appetite is evil, right? Some argue that same-sex attraction is about much more than sexual desire--intimacy, sexuality, romance, etc--so to use "-sexual" undercuts those nuances. Generally speaking, people so acutely aware of the problems with such labels don't apply the same stringent requirements to other self descriptions, but perhaps social stigmas make us understandably more defensive about certain pet peeves.

Maybe it's fair for people to say "I don't consider myself 'gay', so I don't care about changing the perception of that label." I, however, would prefer it if, one day, people could hear "gay" without thinking only of Will & Grace, anti-prop-8 protesters carrying "Mormon scum" signs and vandalizing temple grounds, or gay pride parades replete with all kinds of whoredom. I know gay people who are quietly living productive lives, giving to their communities, maintaining committed relationships, living every bit as "morally" as their straight counterparts, just not following the Proclamation on the Family. Are they less "gay" because they don't subscribe to licentiousness? Am I less "gay" because I'm not looking for a same-sex partner? I guess we all draw our lines somewhere.

Some members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints refuse to ever call themselves "Mormon" because they are "latter-day saints" or "LDS" or "members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". Many of us will use "Mormon" casually when it's convenient. Heck, I've even known one or two members of the Church who would not refer to themselves as Christians because that carried a connotation that they were part of the larger, apostate Christian community, and they were more comfortable staying separate and distinct from that. Again, I guess we all draw our lines somewhere.

I'm Gay. Deal With It, Strugglers.

Note: I'll sort of "preface" this, ex post facto, with a slightly more objective (read "drier") post: Power In Labels.


Every once in a while, I can't hold back from addressing a hot-button issue any longer. In this case, the issue is whether I'm "gay".

I think there's an idea in LDS culture that when people who experience same-sex attraction decide to stay active, they're not really "one of them". They're not "gay". They become de-sexualized eunuchs or ex-gays who are "trying to change". To say you're not sure you'll ever change, and you're OK with that, is to blaspheme the atonement, regardless of what you intend to do with that. And to say you're "gay" is to adopt all of the negative connotations of the word as part of your identity.

In some ways, it's true I'm not "one of them", IF "gay" means "one who actively pursues same-sex partnership" or "one who prances around in tiny jeans cut-offs". If gay means "one who is primarily attracted to men", then I'm gay, folks.

Some people have expressed surprise that I'm "one of them" when I tell them I'm LDS or "Mormon". They didn't think LDS people could withhold judgement or could be fun, or they didn't think Mormons could leave their polygamist ranches or drive cars. Should I refuse to label myself as LDS because most of society where I live thinks that means I have 18 wives and sacrifice people in the temple? Or should I maybe approach it differently, educating them about what it really means to be "Mormon".

If the Gay United Nations issues an edict proclaiming "gay" to mean "never attracted to girls in any way" and "fully supportive of and actively seeking same-sex partnerships", then I guess I'll have to bow to the authorities, the owners of "gay", and call myself something else. Queer? Homosexual? Same-sex attracted? More attracted to men than to women? Struggler? Tell you what, I'll make that call when the owners of "gay" count me out.

Until then, I (kind of) understand where you "not gays" or "strugglers" are coming from.

Perhaps you want to keep that big, bad homosexuality properly contained in its verbal cage so it doesn't leak out and take over your bloodstream and your psyche. Just like "American", "black", "journeyer", "Mormon", "Sigma Alpha Epsilon", or "PhD" might taint your identity as a son or daughter of God with culturally loaded distractions.

Perhaps you don't want the labels that come with "gay" or "homosexual" because people's perceptions are wrong. Nevermind doing anything to change those perceptions. And nevermind that calling yourself LDS often conjures images and prejudices that probably have nothing to do with you. But defending what "LDS" means is important because it's not just one aspect of your life, right? Defending what "LDS" means is so important because you have to do missionary work. Defending what "LDS" means is important because you don't want LDS kids growing up feeling freakish and rejected by non-LDS society and committing suicide or otherwise feeling alone and helpless because they think others view them as dirty, devilish, and faithless and could never understand what they're going through.

Or maybe you don't want anyone mistakenly thinking of you as one who engages in same-sex sexuality in any form (pardon my slight eye-roll as I recall the "not gays" whose stories are just as tawdry and disconcerting as any openly gay folks I know). Or you at least want them to know that you think it's wrong, even if you DO have at least as many compulsive, non-committal sexual experiences with others of your sex as any average gay person.

Don't get me wrong: I know "strugglers" aren't all just whores in disguise. And I understand that many are simply wrestling, or "struggling", with how to respond to same-sex attraction in gospel-centered and productive ways, and that's respectable. But really, doesn't framing it that way make life one big struggle? Isn't life about responding in gospel-oriented, productive ways, to everything around us? If you're really so concerned about labels, do you really want to wade through life regarding it as a constant "struggle"? Really? OK, but try to respect the fact that I choose to frame it differently, and I'll try to respect your choice to somehow think you're not "gay".

And I realize not all those who reject the term "gay" also adopt "struggler". There are some who reject "gay" and favor other words, like "same-sex attracted" or "SGA". Whatever. You have your reasons. I felt that way once, too, to some extent.

To be honest, when I first talk with people, I often choose not to say "gay" right off the bat because they may worry I've become part of a smutty culture, or they may offer to set me up with their attractive, available gay friend. I usually refer to myself as same-sex attracted until they understand where I'm coming from. Once it's understood that I'm not a fan of leather and chains or pink feather boas, I casually use "gay". And when they demonstrate the ability to joke about the topic, they're educated on the usage of "moho", just for fun. And the girls are often pleased to be counted as "mohoneys".