There's a film on the horizon that I think has the potential to advance the conversation around SSA/LGBT Mormons by leaps and bounds. If you'd like to know what Far Between is about, please watch the trailer below and consider helping the team meet its goal to finish this diverse and personal exploration of what it's like to be Mormon and gay today.
When I look around at conversations around homosexuality or same-sex attraction and Mormonism, and how they affect relationships of all kinds, I see a lot of misunderstanding and rifts on all sides that I believe can be meaningfully bridged, a lot of confusion and hopelessness I believe can be turned into self-determination and hopefulness, and inaccuracy and false judgments that seem worth correcting, not only for truth to filter through but for more constructive relationships among friends, families, and communities.
I believe this film not only encapsulates that idea but represents, itself, a key to helping us move a step forward into a better, more sustainable place collectively. And I know and love the filmmakers as empathy-centered, intelligent individuals who value respecting the integrity of individuals' stories, so I've had no reservations at all about inviting any of my friends from any perspective to share their story with them.
For me, personally, the project echoes some of my own journey and reminds me of the hundreds of conversations I've personally had about the issue over the years, people I've met, perspectives I've heard and shared. It reminds me that no matter how many answers I might think I have, and no matter how much I might think I know about what "they" believe, the whole thing is evolving quickly, and there are always new individuals with slightly different experiences or views. I personally believe we have an opportunity and responsibility to step out of our "camps" and engage with each other in that evolution for the benefit of those who are most vulnerable and have felt caught in the crossfire. My hope is that we can all agree to engage with empathy, seek first to understand, and help those who are just now starting to go through what I started going through ten years ago to have a potentially smoother go, to sort things out with a little broader and deeper understanding, a little calmer an environment, and a little more prepared community, so each one doesn't have to start from scratch.
I hope I can in some way help that happen, and of all the efforts I've seen, none represent that ideal better than Far Between, and I believe it has potential to reach a wide audience. Let's spread the word on blogs, on Facebook, and in our communities and help make this happen!
If you want to support Far Between or find out more, you can visit the web site, donate to the Kickstarter campaign, like the Facebook page, or follow Far Between on Twitter.
16 July 2014
16 June 2014
Far Between last call!
Hey, all, if there's anyone out there who'll be in Utah this weekend and is willing to share your experience or story for the upcoming documentary film, Far Between, you can sign up here: http://slottr.com/sheets/6650. They already have so many great interviews/conversations uploaded on the web site, and they're opening up the opportunity to add a few more. Just a heads up.
05 June 2014
The Orientation Lottery
In a recent conversation, I was explaining that I believe there are benefits to some exercises and group methods of organizations like Journey Into Manhood even if I believe the language typically used to hook the interest of potential participants is unethical and disingenuous, language strongly implying and evoking orientation reversal, such as "overcoming homosexuality", "accessing your innate heterosexuality", "becoming a man among men", and "learning to identify as a straight male"
I mentioned that I've had conversations with a few friends who have shown interest in the idea of something like Journey Into Manhood but without the high, for-profit price tag, the imposed narrative, the secrecy with nondisclosure agreements, and the disingenuous marketing. But having nothing available, they've shrugged and mentioned they might just go to JIM because so many good people they know have sworn by it. And I've debated how much an alternative could compete without--and I'm just gonna call it as I see it--the snake oil promises and dangling prospect of getting close to attractive men within the assumed safety of supposedly "nonsexual" physical and emotional intimacy. But I also believe my friends when they say JIM taught them a lot about themselves even though it didn't do a thing to make them any straighter. And goodness knows I'm not so cynical as to believe all cuddling is sublimated sex...not all.
So we speculated: if there ISN'T a promise to "change" couched in terms of vaguely implied orientation reversal, would most of these guys even want to go to something like that? Isn't it the possibility of change that piques their interest to begin with? JIM is a business, after all, and there's a bottom line, and while I do believe helping people is a sincere motive, it seems there's an end-means game happening there. So can you get interest in a weekend or program designed to offer benefits like JIM offers but without dangling the "straight" carrot or the possibility of cuddling-cum-masculine-bonding? I'm not sure, to be honest. And the reason is what I think of as "the orientation lottery".
The "orientation lottery", as I conceive it, works like this: the player says he didn't have any illusions about winning, and he admits he doesn't know anyone who has ever won, but he goes ahead and buys the ticket anyway because, hey, lots of people have won $10, and that's something, and some of the money goes to help pay for schools, so it's for a good cause anyway. The analogy has its limitations, but as I see it, the dangling carrot of "overcoming homosexuality," even or especially if left vague, is the $50 million jackpot you "could" win, even if everyone playing objectively knows it's probably not gonna happen. I don't mean to diminish what many of the participants have experienced by comparing the personal, emotional, or spiritual rewards they've perceived with the monetary rewards of the lotto. For some, their experiences are spoken of in similar tones to the sacredness of temple worship. While I suspect, based on my own experience, that those experiences were part real change and part emotional manipulation, I don't mean to dismiss the real change just because of the supposed emotional manipulation. What I see is some truly valuable learning and growth that unfortunately happens to be found within a framework of smoke and mirrors. And I'd like to dispense with the trickery and find truer, more honest and reliable motivations to bring people to similar learning and help them (and myself) continue in it.
When people marvel at how much energy and how long so many guys put into groups and treatments without ever seeing anyone actually go from mostly same-sex attracted to mostly other-sex attracted, and why in heaven or hell anyone would do that to themselves or whether you'd have to be insanely desperate to do it, I remind them: many of them honestly don't actively think they'll become straight. It's not necessarily about that. Sure, there's a $50 million jackpot that's nice to think about because it seems like it could make life so much easier in so many ways (right??...), and some players invest relentlessly, believing the jackpot is always just within reach and end up exhausted, impoverished, and embittered when the lotto does not pay out as they hoped it would. But others understood, a bit more, how remote those possibilities were when they started playing, and they have other reasons for it. And I'm less worried about those players.
Shifting to a different analogy, I'm more worried about the sick and oppressed who desperately seek a remedy for the condition they're in and eagerly buy up what the traveling snake oil salesman promises will fix everything that afflicts them. They spend all of their money, and it does do some positive things for them, but what was really afflicting them remains unresolved and destructive because they clamored to the teaching of a miracle man while the local doctor who could have helped them was ignored, because he wasn't saying they'd be stronger than ever by drinking a potion, nor did he promise a fountain of youth, so what he offered...well, it just sounded too true to be good.
I mentioned that I've had conversations with a few friends who have shown interest in the idea of something like Journey Into Manhood but without the high, for-profit price tag, the imposed narrative, the secrecy with nondisclosure agreements, and the disingenuous marketing. But having nothing available, they've shrugged and mentioned they might just go to JIM because so many good people they know have sworn by it. And I've debated how much an alternative could compete without--and I'm just gonna call it as I see it--the snake oil promises and dangling prospect of getting close to attractive men within the assumed safety of supposedly "nonsexual" physical and emotional intimacy. But I also believe my friends when they say JIM taught them a lot about themselves even though it didn't do a thing to make them any straighter. And goodness knows I'm not so cynical as to believe all cuddling is sublimated sex...not all.
So we speculated: if there ISN'T a promise to "change" couched in terms of vaguely implied orientation reversal, would most of these guys even want to go to something like that? Isn't it the possibility of change that piques their interest to begin with? JIM is a business, after all, and there's a bottom line, and while I do believe helping people is a sincere motive, it seems there's an end-means game happening there. So can you get interest in a weekend or program designed to offer benefits like JIM offers but without dangling the "straight" carrot or the possibility of cuddling-cum-masculine-bonding? I'm not sure, to be honest. And the reason is what I think of as "the orientation lottery".
The "orientation lottery", as I conceive it, works like this: the player says he didn't have any illusions about winning, and he admits he doesn't know anyone who has ever won, but he goes ahead and buys the ticket anyway because, hey, lots of people have won $10, and that's something, and some of the money goes to help pay for schools, so it's for a good cause anyway. The analogy has its limitations, but as I see it, the dangling carrot of "overcoming homosexuality," even or especially if left vague, is the $50 million jackpot you "could" win, even if everyone playing objectively knows it's probably not gonna happen. I don't mean to diminish what many of the participants have experienced by comparing the personal, emotional, or spiritual rewards they've perceived with the monetary rewards of the lotto. For some, their experiences are spoken of in similar tones to the sacredness of temple worship. While I suspect, based on my own experience, that those experiences were part real change and part emotional manipulation, I don't mean to dismiss the real change just because of the supposed emotional manipulation. What I see is some truly valuable learning and growth that unfortunately happens to be found within a framework of smoke and mirrors. And I'd like to dispense with the trickery and find truer, more honest and reliable motivations to bring people to similar learning and help them (and myself) continue in it.
When people marvel at how much energy and how long so many guys put into groups and treatments without ever seeing anyone actually go from mostly same-sex attracted to mostly other-sex attracted, and why in heaven or hell anyone would do that to themselves or whether you'd have to be insanely desperate to do it, I remind them: many of them honestly don't actively think they'll become straight. It's not necessarily about that. Sure, there's a $50 million jackpot that's nice to think about because it seems like it could make life so much easier in so many ways (right??...), and some players invest relentlessly, believing the jackpot is always just within reach and end up exhausted, impoverished, and embittered when the lotto does not pay out as they hoped it would. But others understood, a bit more, how remote those possibilities were when they started playing, and they have other reasons for it. And I'm less worried about those players.
Shifting to a different analogy, I'm more worried about the sick and oppressed who desperately seek a remedy for the condition they're in and eagerly buy up what the traveling snake oil salesman promises will fix everything that afflicts them. They spend all of their money, and it does do some positive things for them, but what was really afflicting them remains unresolved and destructive because they clamored to the teaching of a miracle man while the local doctor who could have helped them was ignored, because he wasn't saying they'd be stronger than ever by drinking a potion, nor did he promise a fountain of youth, so what he offered...well, it just sounded too true to be good.
08 January 2014
We'll link arms around you if it's true
In discussing legalization of same-sex marriage, you go right for claims designed to elicit emotional responses of fear and tribalism. You enumerate terrible and violent social and personal consequences in places that have accepted same-sex marriage. I can tell you right now that if that's true: you have unexpected defenders.
If you show me where your churches are being menaced, where you are being harassed with slurs and turned away from work and housing, where you're being fined and jailed for speaking your beliefs, and where your neighbors are being beaten for their religious belief that male-female marriage is the only union approved by God, then I will bring passionate defenders who disagree with those beliefs, and we will link arms around your home, your churches, and your neighbors to protect you and the people you care about from your assailants and tyrants. We will stand against our own if we must to ensure that what has been done to us does not become our sin, too.
Tell us where it's happening, and we'll come to your aid the way nobody has come to ours when we've been called faggots by strangers in cars and "gay" has become popular vernacular for "stupid", "lame", and "ridiculous", or when our neighbors were literally beaten into curbs, our homes and churches vandalized, and gathering places violently stormed. We will not let that happen to you. We care about you. Many among us have children of their own, and those who don't have our own children care about yours, who are our nieces and nephews, brothers and sisters.
Where are the attacks? Many of us will try harder to listen and not dismiss your persecution. We'll try to remember how few listened to us for so long and called us oversensitive and drama-prone. I recognize many won't, and some would like nothing more than for your religions to dissolve, and they'll be loud, but many of us will defend and protect your rights as we would any group facing tyranny, even if we get less attention for it than the radicals. We will not allow your churches to burn, your homes to be invaded, and your children to be "recruited".
Tell us where. Tell us how. We will help put a stop to it. But people are catching on: you don't get to pretend it's "us or them" anymore when it comes to liberty. You don't get to hide behind potential abuse you might face: we're here to stand with you against it.
Now what are your reasons?
If you show me where your churches are being menaced, where you are being harassed with slurs and turned away from work and housing, where you're being fined and jailed for speaking your beliefs, and where your neighbors are being beaten for their religious belief that male-female marriage is the only union approved by God, then I will bring passionate defenders who disagree with those beliefs, and we will link arms around your home, your churches, and your neighbors to protect you and the people you care about from your assailants and tyrants. We will stand against our own if we must to ensure that what has been done to us does not become our sin, too.
Tell us where it's happening, and we'll come to your aid the way nobody has come to ours when we've been called faggots by strangers in cars and "gay" has become popular vernacular for "stupid", "lame", and "ridiculous", or when our neighbors were literally beaten into curbs, our homes and churches vandalized, and gathering places violently stormed. We will not let that happen to you. We care about you. Many among us have children of their own, and those who don't have our own children care about yours, who are our nieces and nephews, brothers and sisters.
Where are the attacks? Many of us will try harder to listen and not dismiss your persecution. We'll try to remember how few listened to us for so long and called us oversensitive and drama-prone. I recognize many won't, and some would like nothing more than for your religions to dissolve, and they'll be loud, but many of us will defend and protect your rights as we would any group facing tyranny, even if we get less attention for it than the radicals. We will not allow your churches to burn, your homes to be invaded, and your children to be "recruited".
Tell us where. Tell us how. We will help put a stop to it. But people are catching on: you don't get to pretend it's "us or them" anymore when it comes to liberty. You don't get to hide behind potential abuse you might face: we're here to stand with you against it.
Now what are your reasons?
29 December 2013
OK, but what if you were REALLY wrong...?
As I described in a previous post, I have often gone back to the question of whether I could possibly "go back" or re-integrate LDS belief into my perspective if I thought and felt it were correct to do so. When I've heard other "post-Mormons" swear they couldn't go back, I have patted myself on the back for thinking, "I could go back in a heartbeat if I thought it was right." Covenants, callings, garments, and all. I don't feel any draw to go back, despite missing certain aspects of involvement (community, service opportunities, evaluating and remembering principles and paradigms in a somewhat formalized setting, singing and playing hymns, primary songs, feeling like part of something unique with the grandest mission possible...aside, maybe, from the universe of The Lord of the Rings: that place is sweet!). But if I believed it was right, of course I could go back. Even if a spirit came to me and started to teach me something unexpected, I hope I would listen critically with full intent to seek and understand any truth being presented.
One day, in one of those moments, something occurred to me. What if I died, found that life continued, and was not met by Jesus but by Fred Phelps. Well, crap. This gave me pause...as in, completely halted my self congratulatory humility. I was disgusted by some of the prospects. What if this spirit tried to teach me that slavery was OK in some circumstances, that Mosaic Law regarding virgins was actually God-given and correct, that thirteen-year-old girls should be assigned to fifty-year-old men, that people should be eaten alive as sacrifices, or that child abuse is, in fact, not as bad as consensual sex between unmarried individuals? I could hear out the Buddha, Muhammad, or Vishnu, I think, but there's no deity or prophet other than Jesus (as I understand him) before whom I'd readily kneel, and I'd rather roast in hell or cease to exist than receive instruction from Osama Bin Laden or Warren Jeffs. I think the vast majority of the world would find no fault in this, but it's an extreme illustration of the possible limits of my openness to truth or reliance on human understanding. Even if Muhammad was the figure waiting for me on the other side, there'd be no immediate kneeling and no humble familiarity.
Maybe I could console my sense of intellectual honesty with the idea that irrational or violent fundamentalism is hugely unlikely to be the true explanation of the universe and existence compared to a religion like moderate Mormonism or Islam. But is that objectively rational? Is it possible for me to be truly objective? Does openness to all possibilities make me scarily susceptible to false ideas, or is it the empowering key to finding truth? Both?
I don't know that humbly and readily kneeling before Jesus as I understood LDS doctrine to describe him would make me remarkably humble. I think it defies the dismissive stereotypes of the "lost" being rebellious and stiff-necked, but what if the truth were something completely obliterating any range of expectation I might have had? If I wouldn't readily bow and submit to an unexpected master, how much intellectual honesty and humility is actually reflected? How much of my ready response, "I would kneel," is actual openness to truth, how much is residual conviction or latent belief, how much is self delusion about my openness and teachability, and how much is nostalgia for the familiar? When I believed in LDS doctrine, I prided myself on my conviction, faith, and loyalty to the truth when I firmly knew that even a spirit could not deceive me, that if an angel came with a message other than "the gospel" I knew, I would not be deceived. And I called it humility before the Lord that I would not be so proud as to put more stock in the words of an angel than in the inspiration I had been quietly given through feelings of testimony and fruits of the Spirit. And many Muslims have that same conviction and loyalty to the truth as they understand it. And Westboro Baptists. And Jews. Are we to praise the Jewish person for having the "humility" to accept a spiritual impression that Christianity is true while deriding the supposed "lack of conviction" of a Christian who accepts a spiritual impression that Islam is true? Am I supposed to pat myself on the back for being willing to accept Mormonism if taught it in another life and simultaneously pat myself on the back for being unwilling to "be deceived" by false spirits preaching things that contradict Mormon doctrinal understanding but which bring "the fruits of the Spirit"? Where does conviction end and arrogance begin?
Would I be so nobly submissive to the truth if I were really, really wrong?
One day, in one of those moments, something occurred to me. What if I died, found that life continued, and was not met by Jesus but by Fred Phelps. Well, crap. This gave me pause...as in, completely halted my self congratulatory humility. I was disgusted by some of the prospects. What if this spirit tried to teach me that slavery was OK in some circumstances, that Mosaic Law regarding virgins was actually God-given and correct, that thirteen-year-old girls should be assigned to fifty-year-old men, that people should be eaten alive as sacrifices, or that child abuse is, in fact, not as bad as consensual sex between unmarried individuals? I could hear out the Buddha, Muhammad, or Vishnu, I think, but there's no deity or prophet other than Jesus (as I understand him) before whom I'd readily kneel, and I'd rather roast in hell or cease to exist than receive instruction from Osama Bin Laden or Warren Jeffs. I think the vast majority of the world would find no fault in this, but it's an extreme illustration of the possible limits of my openness to truth or reliance on human understanding. Even if Muhammad was the figure waiting for me on the other side, there'd be no immediate kneeling and no humble familiarity.
Maybe I could console my sense of intellectual honesty with the idea that irrational or violent fundamentalism is hugely unlikely to be the true explanation of the universe and existence compared to a religion like moderate Mormonism or Islam. But is that objectively rational? Is it possible for me to be truly objective? Does openness to all possibilities make me scarily susceptible to false ideas, or is it the empowering key to finding truth? Both?
I don't know that humbly and readily kneeling before Jesus as I understood LDS doctrine to describe him would make me remarkably humble. I think it defies the dismissive stereotypes of the "lost" being rebellious and stiff-necked, but what if the truth were something completely obliterating any range of expectation I might have had? If I wouldn't readily bow and submit to an unexpected master, how much intellectual honesty and humility is actually reflected? How much of my ready response, "I would kneel," is actual openness to truth, how much is residual conviction or latent belief, how much is self delusion about my openness and teachability, and how much is nostalgia for the familiar? When I believed in LDS doctrine, I prided myself on my conviction, faith, and loyalty to the truth when I firmly knew that even a spirit could not deceive me, that if an angel came with a message other than "the gospel" I knew, I would not be deceived. And I called it humility before the Lord that I would not be so proud as to put more stock in the words of an angel than in the inspiration I had been quietly given through feelings of testimony and fruits of the Spirit. And many Muslims have that same conviction and loyalty to the truth as they understand it. And Westboro Baptists. And Jews. Are we to praise the Jewish person for having the "humility" to accept a spiritual impression that Christianity is true while deriding the supposed "lack of conviction" of a Christian who accepts a spiritual impression that Islam is true? Am I supposed to pat myself on the back for being willing to accept Mormonism if taught it in another life and simultaneously pat myself on the back for being unwilling to "be deceived" by false spirits preaching things that contradict Mormon doctrinal understanding but which bring "the fruits of the Spirit"? Where does conviction end and arrogance begin?
Would I be so nobly submissive to the truth if I were really, really wrong?
22 December 2013
Who owns "religion" and "marriage"?
I'm honestly perplexed as to why the use of the term "marriage" continues to be a sticking point even among some who support full civil union rights. Does the Westboro Bigot Central being called a "religion" in legal or cultural terminology make you feel like your religion or conception of religion is slighted or demeaned, or do you just qualify and classify different religions differently and shrug it off when loonies call themselves a "religion"?
Is the Westboro circus kind of the drunken Vegas marriage of religions? You're not a fan, you think they're completely misguided and idiotic, and you think it's a mere parody of what you believe marriage to be about, but it regrettably slips through the basic requirements or guidelines meant to define and protect relationships like yours? And same-sex marriage might be...like a nonprofit that does good things and which you even could donate to but which just doesn't have the elements to make it a "religion"?
There may be some among you who actually believe legally recognized religions _should_ have to meet stricter requirements before receiving specialized tax statuses or exemptions or being able to operate in certain ways.
Do you just "tolerate" religions you believe are false being able to use the term "religion" because they meet some minimum requirement, but draw the line at other groups or churches you think don't have the traits that make up a "religion"? Do you think the population should just vote to determine who can be called a religion, or set the guidelines for what constitutes a religion? Would you maintain that view if your religion was eventually marginalized to the point of being very poorly regarded by most of society and unlikely to court much sympathy if under fire?
Is it actually, subjectively different since it's also objectively a different thing? Government doesn't create or set up religions: it just recognizes certain organizations as religions for tax, prisoners' rights, or other practical reasons. In that way, it's different from marriage because government both creates its own marriages and recognizes or incorporates marriages created by religious entities. But I'm not sure how much that distinction actually comes into play for people who are discomforted by the thought of having the same-sex unions called "marriages".
Anyone have some insights from a personal perspective?
Is the Westboro circus kind of the drunken Vegas marriage of religions? You're not a fan, you think they're completely misguided and idiotic, and you think it's a mere parody of what you believe marriage to be about, but it regrettably slips through the basic requirements or guidelines meant to define and protect relationships like yours? And same-sex marriage might be...like a nonprofit that does good things and which you even could donate to but which just doesn't have the elements to make it a "religion"?
There may be some among you who actually believe legally recognized religions _should_ have to meet stricter requirements before receiving specialized tax statuses or exemptions or being able to operate in certain ways.
Do you just "tolerate" religions you believe are false being able to use the term "religion" because they meet some minimum requirement, but draw the line at other groups or churches you think don't have the traits that make up a "religion"? Do you think the population should just vote to determine who can be called a religion, or set the guidelines for what constitutes a religion? Would you maintain that view if your religion was eventually marginalized to the point of being very poorly regarded by most of society and unlikely to court much sympathy if under fire?
Is it actually, subjectively different since it's also objectively a different thing? Government doesn't create or set up religions: it just recognizes certain organizations as religions for tax, prisoners' rights, or other practical reasons. In that way, it's different from marriage because government both creates its own marriages and recognizes or incorporates marriages created by religious entities. But I'm not sure how much that distinction actually comes into play for people who are discomforted by the thought of having the same-sex unions called "marriages".
Anyone have some insights from a personal perspective?
25 October 2013
What if you were wrong about...?
A friend asked me over brunch one day some time ago, "What if, just imagining, what if after you die, you find that life continues--you continue--and you're led to someone who explains that he's the Savior? How would you react?" It was a question I already had asked and answered myself, checking in with myself periodically to see if the answer was still the same. It was then, and it is now.
I explained that despite the guilt-inducing stories of my Mormon social upbringing in which some rebellious character gets to the other side and is too ashamed to look Christ in the face, I don't have the sense that that would be my experience. I acknowledge that could change, depending on what perspective might open up to me at some point, but actually living it has given me a different conception. I've lived as honestly and sincerely as I know how, and I fought for years to hold on to what beliefs or "testimony" I could and give myself ample time to come back around before heading off in any direction other than the one that had, for years in the past, seemed so trustworthy. I've acted and prayed carefully for years. I don't feel "rebellion" in my path.
I will not always get it right, and I don't want to mislead anyone or miss opportunities to help someone in the best way when I could have done so. But when it comes right down to it, I hope I will always find a way to let go of my own pride about how right I've been or egocentric pride about what kind of "example" I'm being and will instead humbly, deliberately, and actively seek to embrace truth in front of me.
And for that reason, the short answer to that ultimate question is really just three words: I would kneel. I still get choked up saying that, but I don't see any other way. My friend said he somehow knew that would be my response. I took that as a compliment. Sure, I don't expect that is what will happen, but I don't think I have it in me to be totally dismissive about the possibility, it having meant so much to me for so long. And sure, if it does happen, I might wonder how I had lost sight of it or how many souls I could have brought to the greater truth during my time wandering. And I might have questions to ask and critical thinking to incorporate into or balance with faith, but in the end, I believe what ultimately matters is that when truth presents itself, no matter how scary or unexpected, I embrace it and try to do the best I can with it. After all, that's how I've found the peace and perspective I have today, and I'm not so proud as to assume I've got it all figured out now. For that reason, I believe I would kneel, and I would ask, "What now?"
I explained that despite the guilt-inducing stories of my Mormon social upbringing in which some rebellious character gets to the other side and is too ashamed to look Christ in the face, I don't have the sense that that would be my experience. I acknowledge that could change, depending on what perspective might open up to me at some point, but actually living it has given me a different conception. I've lived as honestly and sincerely as I know how, and I fought for years to hold on to what beliefs or "testimony" I could and give myself ample time to come back around before heading off in any direction other than the one that had, for years in the past, seemed so trustworthy. I've acted and prayed carefully for years. I don't feel "rebellion" in my path.
I will not always get it right, and I don't want to mislead anyone or miss opportunities to help someone in the best way when I could have done so. But when it comes right down to it, I hope I will always find a way to let go of my own pride about how right I've been or egocentric pride about what kind of "example" I'm being and will instead humbly, deliberately, and actively seek to embrace truth in front of me.
And for that reason, the short answer to that ultimate question is really just three words: I would kneel. I still get choked up saying that, but I don't see any other way. My friend said he somehow knew that would be my response. I took that as a compliment. Sure, I don't expect that is what will happen, but I don't think I have it in me to be totally dismissive about the possibility, it having meant so much to me for so long. And sure, if it does happen, I might wonder how I had lost sight of it or how many souls I could have brought to the greater truth during my time wandering. And I might have questions to ask and critical thinking to incorporate into or balance with faith, but in the end, I believe what ultimately matters is that when truth presents itself, no matter how scary or unexpected, I embrace it and try to do the best I can with it. After all, that's how I've found the peace and perspective I have today, and I'm not so proud as to assume I've got it all figured out now. For that reason, I believe I would kneel, and I would ask, "What now?"
20 June 2013
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.
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.
04 June 2013
Worthless Gumshoe Cupcake
I just listened to this interesting LDS-centric discussion on how to teach youth about chastity without objectification or shaming implications: http://radiowest.kuer.org/post/teaching-chastity.
It's great that there seems to be at least a clear consensus that Elizabeth Smart is not "guilty of consensual sex" (implication that "consensual sex" is something to "be guilty of" being another conversation). Yay for that. It wasn't long ago that she _would_ have been considered by many to be "guilty" for not fighting to her death, if necessary, to prevent rape. Not resisting until death would have meant she dishonorably valued her life more than her "virtue" (apparently, when talking about chastity, there's only one "virtue", the definition of which presumably means either "virginity" or "absolute abstinence enforced to the death except with one's legally married, binary-opposite-sex spouse" or some such thing).
Only absolute physical force was construed as rape, with little or no consideration for non-physical power dynamics or psychological duress. If she stopped resisting psychologically or even became "consensual" at some point after the initial trauma, then being kidnapped into mountains and thrown into a tent alone with an old, crazy a-hole in the middle of screaming-is-futile-nowhere might not have excused her from resisting with all her might every day of every month she was held captive, and she might likely have been shamed and called to repentance for giving in and becoming a willing participant in sin. Thank goodness that has seemingly changed.
It's also great that so many people seem to be listening to Elizabeth Smart when she talks about the reality and psychology of sexual abuse. I appreciate how freely so many offer consolation and empathy for her traumatic experiences and express full confidence in her value and wholeness as a person. But I do think it should be made clear that women have been saying exactly what she is saying for decades upon decades, and I wish it didn't take someone who fits a certain, specific mold of "purity" or "righteousness" to get so many to listen for the first time. Maybe that's not what has happened, or maybe not on a large scale, but it seems like women like Smart often receive unlimited sympathy and forgiveness while women who said the same thing but didn't fit that mold have been scorned, dismissed, and belittled, in addition to the trauma they had already experienced. It's hugely unjust. But I believe people tend to listen more to those with whom they identify, so I try to keep that in check in myself. I try to listen more openly and support more personally without surrendering critical thought or prematurely abandoning what I have already experienced or learned. Sometimes it's a tough balance, to me, between being truly compassionate and open to truth and avoiding being duped by a sob story or crafty spin. But it's a bit hard to look back and realize the people I disrespected because I was more concerned with being right about my ideas of how things are and should be than with seeing and understanding someone as a living, breathing human with real, personal, complex experiences.
It also seems to me that Ms. Ruzicka is either so singularly defensive of an ideology as to become extremely disingenuous about the reality of the influence of lessons taught or messages conveyed by some leaders and teachers, or she is quite ignorant of what has actually been taught and of the power of a few not-directly-challenged, even if relatively isolated, lessons by respected authority figures and loved ones.
I heard several of those object lessons growing up, and the more active, faithful LDS young women I talked to throughout the years, through college and after, the more I realized how pervasive those messages had been, and the more I tried to balance them in my own teaching. Even when I still lacked conviction of their error and would not directly criticize those messages, I defended what I thought people "meant by that" while trying to heal damage caused by the implications, intentional or unintentional.
I have different ideas about "chastity" and "virtue" than I used to, and I'm now just another godless heathen "outside" of the Church. But I'm passionate about this because I regret saying so little back when I still knew of the problem but didn't want to make anyone or the Church "look bad". I don't expect the Church to refrain from teaching youth that sex outside of marriage is absolutely a transgression or sin. I do expect the young women I care about to be taught those ideas in ways that don't degrade, objectify, and shame them with false analogies and powerful but deeply inaccurate object lessons. I don't speak up to attack the Church as an institution, a set of doctrines, or a culture (though I have plenty of beefs with all of the above). I speak up because it's just not enough to say, "That message is ridiculous and is not taught, so there's no reason to address it," or, "Mormons are medieval," or, "Everyone knows those object lessons are stupid and the official doctrines of the church teach something different." Not everyone knows that. Not every kid tells his or her parents every lesson they learn, especially by the age when they're learning this kind of lesson. Many kids quietly question and process and imprint without a word. Some errors are worth examination and correction without defensive over-protection of institutions.
To the young ladies and young men I personally care about: no matter who says it, you are NOT a chewed up piece of gum, even if you have made decisions or had experiences that don't fit your or my ideals. You are your passions, your beliefs, your decisions, your affinities, your integrity, your experience, your learning, your opinions, your uniqueness, your talents, your strengths and weaknesses, your humor, and a whole lot more things that make you you. I beleive a truly good, whole person doesn't think of his or her potential spouse as a brand new shoe to wear in to fit his or her own foot. Instead, see if this approach rings true for you:
It's great that there seems to be at least a clear consensus that Elizabeth Smart is not "guilty of consensual sex" (implication that "consensual sex" is something to "be guilty of" being another conversation). Yay for that. It wasn't long ago that she _would_ have been considered by many to be "guilty" for not fighting to her death, if necessary, to prevent rape. Not resisting until death would have meant she dishonorably valued her life more than her "virtue" (apparently, when talking about chastity, there's only one "virtue", the definition of which presumably means either "virginity" or "absolute abstinence enforced to the death except with one's legally married, binary-opposite-sex spouse" or some such thing).
Only absolute physical force was construed as rape, with little or no consideration for non-physical power dynamics or psychological duress. If she stopped resisting psychologically or even became "consensual" at some point after the initial trauma, then being kidnapped into mountains and thrown into a tent alone with an old, crazy a-hole in the middle of screaming-is-futile-nowhere might not have excused her from resisting with all her might every day of every month she was held captive, and she might likely have been shamed and called to repentance for giving in and becoming a willing participant in sin. Thank goodness that has seemingly changed.
It's also great that so many people seem to be listening to Elizabeth Smart when she talks about the reality and psychology of sexual abuse. I appreciate how freely so many offer consolation and empathy for her traumatic experiences and express full confidence in her value and wholeness as a person. But I do think it should be made clear that women have been saying exactly what she is saying for decades upon decades, and I wish it didn't take someone who fits a certain, specific mold of "purity" or "righteousness" to get so many to listen for the first time. Maybe that's not what has happened, or maybe not on a large scale, but it seems like women like Smart often receive unlimited sympathy and forgiveness while women who said the same thing but didn't fit that mold have been scorned, dismissed, and belittled, in addition to the trauma they had already experienced. It's hugely unjust. But I believe people tend to listen more to those with whom they identify, so I try to keep that in check in myself. I try to listen more openly and support more personally without surrendering critical thought or prematurely abandoning what I have already experienced or learned. Sometimes it's a tough balance, to me, between being truly compassionate and open to truth and avoiding being duped by a sob story or crafty spin. But it's a bit hard to look back and realize the people I disrespected because I was more concerned with being right about my ideas of how things are and should be than with seeing and understanding someone as a living, breathing human with real, personal, complex experiences.
It also seems to me that Ms. Ruzicka is either so singularly defensive of an ideology as to become extremely disingenuous about the reality of the influence of lessons taught or messages conveyed by some leaders and teachers, or she is quite ignorant of what has actually been taught and of the power of a few not-directly-challenged, even if relatively isolated, lessons by respected authority figures and loved ones.
I heard several of those object lessons growing up, and the more active, faithful LDS young women I talked to throughout the years, through college and after, the more I realized how pervasive those messages had been, and the more I tried to balance them in my own teaching. Even when I still lacked conviction of their error and would not directly criticize those messages, I defended what I thought people "meant by that" while trying to heal damage caused by the implications, intentional or unintentional.
I have different ideas about "chastity" and "virtue" than I used to, and I'm now just another godless heathen "outside" of the Church. But I'm passionate about this because I regret saying so little back when I still knew of the problem but didn't want to make anyone or the Church "look bad". I don't expect the Church to refrain from teaching youth that sex outside of marriage is absolutely a transgression or sin. I do expect the young women I care about to be taught those ideas in ways that don't degrade, objectify, and shame them with false analogies and powerful but deeply inaccurate object lessons. I don't speak up to attack the Church as an institution, a set of doctrines, or a culture (though I have plenty of beefs with all of the above). I speak up because it's just not enough to say, "That message is ridiculous and is not taught, so there's no reason to address it," or, "Mormons are medieval," or, "Everyone knows those object lessons are stupid and the official doctrines of the church teach something different." Not everyone knows that. Not every kid tells his or her parents every lesson they learn, especially by the age when they're learning this kind of lesson. Many kids quietly question and process and imprint without a word. Some errors are worth examination and correction without defensive over-protection of institutions.
To the young ladies and young men I personally care about: no matter who says it, you are NOT a chewed up piece of gum, even if you have made decisions or had experiences that don't fit your or my ideals. You are your passions, your beliefs, your decisions, your affinities, your integrity, your experience, your learning, your opinions, your uniqueness, your talents, your strengths and weaknesses, your humor, and a whole lot more things that make you you. I beleive a truly good, whole person doesn't think of his or her potential spouse as a brand new shoe to wear in to fit his or her own foot. Instead, see if this approach rings true for you:
13 May 2013
Denying a Child a Mother
I think one of the greatest spoken oppositions to same-sex adoption revolves around the "need" for children to be raised by both a mother and a father. Some studies seem to indicate that children raised by a mother and father fair better, overall and generally, than children raised any other way. I'm not sure if polygamous households are included in those studies (are children raised by 4 mothers and 1 father even better off?), but the claim seems to be that a male and female parent, whether biological parents or not, make the ideal parenting pair. Some studies seem to indicate that children raised by two parents fair better, overall and generally, than children raised by one, and additionally that parental sex/gender is almost if not completely irrelevant. But despite the touting of studies, I don't think research or statistics are the reasons most people determine their position on same-sex adoption. And I think most opponents, including many gay dudes I've spoken with, oppose it partially because of supposed future teasing and discomfort of children (you know, like Mormons adopting in Mormon-unfriendly areas or inter-ethnic adoption) but even more because they know how much they loved their mothers and the softness and warmth they brought to their lives, and they hate the idea of denying that to a child. And I won't lie: it tugs at my heartstrings, too.
The softness of a mother. The way she smells so nice and looks so pretty. The quiet lullabies in soothing, motherly tones. The soft, gentle touch on the cheek. The building and management of a clean and organized home, a comforting shelter, a cooperative micro-community. The tenderness, the emotional expression, the mother bear protectiveness, the singing, the click clack of the heels, the hugs when you get a boo-boo, the gentle way she cleans up scrapes...
I don't know that I can say anything or any figure can fully replace a mother, or--maybe more accurately--nothing and no one could replace mine. I wouldn't trade her for any.
Dads are awesome, too. The providence, the strength, the discipline, the example, the humor, the slightly awkward but meaningful arms around you, the musky smell of cologne, the shoe shining, the ability to objectively assess a situation and help you work through it without getting overly emotionally involved or blinded. Mom could teach aspects of manhood to me, but she couldn't personally model it like he could and did. How could you deny that to a child, either?
But then I pause and can't keep certain thoughts and memories at bay. I can't quite get away with overlaying them with popularly favored binary gender roles without something inside of me resonating with a "wait just a moment".
I have memories of tender moments with my father. Sometimes, I was sure if we had an intruder, my mother would be the one to beat the crap out of them. Sometimes, my father was the one more concerned with fashion sense. My dad was rough getting splinters out, but he also taught peaceful resolution through quiet strength rather than combative conflict born of insecurity masquerading as fierceness. My mom got overly emotional sometimes, but she also taught us to play sports and speak up for ourselves. Dad sang to us, even if in occasionally grating tones, and cooked and cleaned. Mom fixed stuff and worked and handled the finances. I wasn't raised by completely stereotypical, binary gender roles. I was raised by a mother and father who taught me different, same, and overlapping or complementary things. Neither is replaceable because they are my parents, and they are what I know, not because one is a woman and the other is a man.
Don't get me wrong: I don't deny having a male and female role model and caretaker was beneficial and even integral for certain aspects of development of my identity. I believe it was and is for most children. In fact, I still suspect that, all else being equal, having a mother and father may be _generally_ ideal, the easiest solution to gender identity development for most children. And gender is a pretty undeniably core aspect of identity and psychological and social development and adaptation. Ethnicity is another aspect of identity that some adoptive parents simply cannot model for their children, and some dismiss the value or impact of ethnic background while others try to connect their adopted children with strong role models or family who can be a resource to them. If I ever have a daughter, I really do hope she has a close female role model, someone who can not only explain the realities of becoming an adult woman, physiologically, psychologically, socially, etc, which I could probably do pretty well at, but who actually understands it firsthand and can identify with her about it on a firsthand, "I get it" level. I won't be able to do that. If I have a son, I will teach him about becoming a man, but I would like him to have a meaningful female role model in his life who shows him, rather than just abstractly telling him, what qualities to look for in a potential future spouse, assuming he's heterosexual, which he most likely would be. And there might come a time when talking with his dads about his dating life starts to feel a bit off, like there's a disconnect. Because there very well may be: dating guys as a guy is not the same as dating girls as a guy. But building a good, stable relationship with communication and respect and healthy choices...that carries over pretty well, in my experience, and I hope to know a thing or two about that to pass on to my children.
I had to figure out the whole gay thing on my own. I had to seek out my own role models, people to identify with, people to sort it all out with. I didn't have role models at all for same-sex partnership. But I did have role models for partnership. It would be easier in many ways if I continued to just live within the bounds set before me: I know what "husband and wife" is supposed to look like and have had excellent role models for it. But this whole boyfriend and boyfriend thing has aspects about it that I'm not sure translate directly from my parental role models. So I recognize that if I raise heterosexual children, which is the highest likelihood, they may be in a somewhat similar position. I would hope that their grandparents, aunts and uncles, and our married friends will be all around them as models and will hopefully be people they can talk to. I plan to not raise my children in a gay vacuum, or a white vacuum, or a Mormon vacuum, or an agnostic vacuum, or a male vacuum, or a Utah vacuum, or a middle class vacuum.
I guess that's where it really started to break down for me. I cherish the softness of a mother and benefited from the discipline of a father, but let's be honest, there's enough fierceness, tenderness, protectiveness, singing, emotional expression, cool objectivity, and other traits to go around in my current relationship, and they're not contrived or unnatural: they're just us. Neither of us has soft shoulders to snuggle into, it's true. Neither of us has long, silky hair or wears perfume and heels. If we had children, our children would miss out on that from their parents. Some kids don't have physically active parents, or parents who communicate well, or educated parents, or emotionally stable parents, or funny parents, or socially connected parents, or principled parents, or culturally aware parents, or parents who respect individuality as well as social integration, or good-looking parents, or healthy parents, or rich parents, or politically powerful parents, or parents who care about cultural heritage, or parents who can take them all over the world, or parents of their ethnicity... We probably couldn't give a child all of those things, and we couldn't give a child a mother, but we could give a child many of the positive traits, attention, behaviors, and lessons a typical mother offers as well as a good number of things an orphan might hope for, and we could give love from parents who went to great lengths and expense to bring that child into our family to be our son or daughter.
For me, the single biggest hesitation in feeling comfortable with going ahead with adoption has been the realization that though my child would definitely have a father, I would be, in a way, deliberately denying a child the exact kinds of motherly memories I treasured. And that's not something to be casually shrugged off. My mom is certainly irreplaceable, and there are memories of her I just couldn't duplicate with my children. I would just try to make sure they have them as similarly as we can, or in a different but significant form, or with trusted and present, if not parental, loved ones. Ultimately, I can only hope that if I ever did have children with a male partner that they would grow up as happy, productive, and fulfilled as any, that they would one day reflect back and find that though another parent or a mother might have offered something we couldn't, they can't imagine having to choose one of their irreplaceable dads to deny their children of.
The softness of a mother. The way she smells so nice and looks so pretty. The quiet lullabies in soothing, motherly tones. The soft, gentle touch on the cheek. The building and management of a clean and organized home, a comforting shelter, a cooperative micro-community. The tenderness, the emotional expression, the mother bear protectiveness, the singing, the click clack of the heels, the hugs when you get a boo-boo, the gentle way she cleans up scrapes...
I don't know that I can say anything or any figure can fully replace a mother, or--maybe more accurately--nothing and no one could replace mine. I wouldn't trade her for any.
Dads are awesome, too. The providence, the strength, the discipline, the example, the humor, the slightly awkward but meaningful arms around you, the musky smell of cologne, the shoe shining, the ability to objectively assess a situation and help you work through it without getting overly emotionally involved or blinded. Mom could teach aspects of manhood to me, but she couldn't personally model it like he could and did. How could you deny that to a child, either?
But then I pause and can't keep certain thoughts and memories at bay. I can't quite get away with overlaying them with popularly favored binary gender roles without something inside of me resonating with a "wait just a moment".
I have memories of tender moments with my father. Sometimes, I was sure if we had an intruder, my mother would be the one to beat the crap out of them. Sometimes, my father was the one more concerned with fashion sense. My dad was rough getting splinters out, but he also taught peaceful resolution through quiet strength rather than combative conflict born of insecurity masquerading as fierceness. My mom got overly emotional sometimes, but she also taught us to play sports and speak up for ourselves. Dad sang to us, even if in occasionally grating tones, and cooked and cleaned. Mom fixed stuff and worked and handled the finances. I wasn't raised by completely stereotypical, binary gender roles. I was raised by a mother and father who taught me different, same, and overlapping or complementary things. Neither is replaceable because they are my parents, and they are what I know, not because one is a woman and the other is a man.
Don't get me wrong: I don't deny having a male and female role model and caretaker was beneficial and even integral for certain aspects of development of my identity. I believe it was and is for most children. In fact, I still suspect that, all else being equal, having a mother and father may be _generally_ ideal, the easiest solution to gender identity development for most children. And gender is a pretty undeniably core aspect of identity and psychological and social development and adaptation. Ethnicity is another aspect of identity that some adoptive parents simply cannot model for their children, and some dismiss the value or impact of ethnic background while others try to connect their adopted children with strong role models or family who can be a resource to them. If I ever have a daughter, I really do hope she has a close female role model, someone who can not only explain the realities of becoming an adult woman, physiologically, psychologically, socially, etc, which I could probably do pretty well at, but who actually understands it firsthand and can identify with her about it on a firsthand, "I get it" level. I won't be able to do that. If I have a son, I will teach him about becoming a man, but I would like him to have a meaningful female role model in his life who shows him, rather than just abstractly telling him, what qualities to look for in a potential future spouse, assuming he's heterosexual, which he most likely would be. And there might come a time when talking with his dads about his dating life starts to feel a bit off, like there's a disconnect. Because there very well may be: dating guys as a guy is not the same as dating girls as a guy. But building a good, stable relationship with communication and respect and healthy choices...that carries over pretty well, in my experience, and I hope to know a thing or two about that to pass on to my children.
I had to figure out the whole gay thing on my own. I had to seek out my own role models, people to identify with, people to sort it all out with. I didn't have role models at all for same-sex partnership. But I did have role models for partnership. It would be easier in many ways if I continued to just live within the bounds set before me: I know what "husband and wife" is supposed to look like and have had excellent role models for it. But this whole boyfriend and boyfriend thing has aspects about it that I'm not sure translate directly from my parental role models. So I recognize that if I raise heterosexual children, which is the highest likelihood, they may be in a somewhat similar position. I would hope that their grandparents, aunts and uncles, and our married friends will be all around them as models and will hopefully be people they can talk to. I plan to not raise my children in a gay vacuum, or a white vacuum, or a Mormon vacuum, or an agnostic vacuum, or a male vacuum, or a Utah vacuum, or a middle class vacuum.
I guess that's where it really started to break down for me. I cherish the softness of a mother and benefited from the discipline of a father, but let's be honest, there's enough fierceness, tenderness, protectiveness, singing, emotional expression, cool objectivity, and other traits to go around in my current relationship, and they're not contrived or unnatural: they're just us. Neither of us has soft shoulders to snuggle into, it's true. Neither of us has long, silky hair or wears perfume and heels. If we had children, our children would miss out on that from their parents. Some kids don't have physically active parents, or parents who communicate well, or educated parents, or emotionally stable parents, or funny parents, or socially connected parents, or principled parents, or culturally aware parents, or parents who respect individuality as well as social integration, or good-looking parents, or healthy parents, or rich parents, or politically powerful parents, or parents who care about cultural heritage, or parents who can take them all over the world, or parents of their ethnicity... We probably couldn't give a child all of those things, and we couldn't give a child a mother, but we could give a child many of the positive traits, attention, behaviors, and lessons a typical mother offers as well as a good number of things an orphan might hope for, and we could give love from parents who went to great lengths and expense to bring that child into our family to be our son or daughter.
For me, the single biggest hesitation in feeling comfortable with going ahead with adoption has been the realization that though my child would definitely have a father, I would be, in a way, deliberately denying a child the exact kinds of motherly memories I treasured. And that's not something to be casually shrugged off. My mom is certainly irreplaceable, and there are memories of her I just couldn't duplicate with my children. I would just try to make sure they have them as similarly as we can, or in a different but significant form, or with trusted and present, if not parental, loved ones. Ultimately, I can only hope that if I ever did have children with a male partner that they would grow up as happy, productive, and fulfilled as any, that they would one day reflect back and find that though another parent or a mother might have offered something we couldn't, they can't imagine having to choose one of their irreplaceable dads to deny their children of.
07 April 2013
Yeah, yeah, more Packerpucky
We all get it, Facebookers. He's stepped in it again, must be decried, etc etc etc. Regarding a new talk by a consistently controversial LDS leader: I do worry some people in my life will selectively take certain counsel with staunch, militant compliance and focus on certain principles in what I believe is distorted priority while diminishing the wider variety of teachings and reminders from equally endowed and truth-tapped teachers. Maybe that's what he's worried about, too. So be it. My refusal to "let it go" when he speaks out might be a touch of hypocrisy if I were to demand that he "let it go" when it comes to his favorite hobby topics, I admit. Besides, it's probably a good thing if he's dropping speculative legal and sociological arguments in favor of more faith-based or religious counsel on spiritual harm. And he does say tolerance is a virtue, even if he goes on to say it can be exaggerated into a vice, as he asserts all virtues can (an inclusion I fear may be lost on those who seek first to justify their judgment). I don't know what Boyd K. Packer is like in person, as a father, as a grandfather, a neighbor, a son, a friend, or a brother. He may be a bitter, cantankerous old man full of thinly veiled spite, or he may be a kindly old man trying to correct tendencies he sees the best he knows how and sincerely hoping to help humanity with his message. I do not know.
What I do know is that this particular message carries little weight with me. I don't mean I dismiss everything he says or think it's all poo. I just mean I place no special authority or weight on his perspective and often find his manner of expression as well as the messages he presents quite obviously erroneous in significant aspects. I don't mean he's not a wise man in many ways, but I what he says just doesn't directly or internally impact me much, no matter how many people in my life believe he speaks for God when he is behind one particular pulpit. I'm also so brash and disrespectful as to quite frankly state that the Pope's counsel means no more to me than Glenn Beck's. OK, maybe a little more. And I know how lost I must seem for not replacing the Pope with another equally authoritative, God-speaking individual, but it's not rebellion as far as I experience it: it's just how I see it.
I'm used to hearing similar stories from all sides, including Packer's own arch nemeses. The slippery slope. The same chatter that "tolerating" (which seems to mean either not constantly, directly, aggressively battling or completely embracing and adopting, depending on whom you ask) false views, beliefs, or behaviors may ensnare me into complicity, that my hands will have blood on them when the tyrants I "tolerated" oppress, destroy, and reign with blood and horror. The claim that I, though well-intended and meaning to build harmony, enabled and ignored a growing threat from enemies who would reduce my humanity and rob me of my pursuit of happiness. The sometimes completely accurate and useful but more often exaggerated and sensationalized suggestion that if we fail to alienate or criticize "them" enough, pretend to "be OK with" their choices and beliefs by not taking every opportunity to decry them, or focus excessively on common ground, that "their" divergent views will fester and take hold on society until utter destruction is inevitable. The tired claim that my moral compass or ability to discern truth is so flawed or weak that defending even an errant group against spurious criticism and false prejudice might lull me into embracing their very falsehood. I don't believe I'm a moral child pursuing the latest strange car offering sweet things. I don't believe I'm a moral zombie chasing the loudest noise in futile pursuit of satiation. I don't buy the extremism of the way such messages are often used, and I pity those who do when it seems to reflect fear of self and subversion of honest seeking of truth in favor of a contrived humility.
In other news, my friends and family who are actively LDS may not be actively decrying Packer's talk (or the likely use of it by some) but generally seem much more interested in Uchtdorf's remarks, so that's hopeful. And no, President Packer people, no matter what you think you know, it's not hopeful in a "yay, I'm going to get away with sin because they're complacent!" way but in a "hopefully, we can continue building understanding and coexist in peaceful disagreement" way. I still, to this day, believe relationships with people who won't work to survive rifts in belief and lifestyle necessarily take a back seat to truth, not the other way around. That's one of many things from nearly thirty years of being active LDS that I still believe.
What I do know is that this particular message carries little weight with me. I don't mean I dismiss everything he says or think it's all poo. I just mean I place no special authority or weight on his perspective and often find his manner of expression as well as the messages he presents quite obviously erroneous in significant aspects. I don't mean he's not a wise man in many ways, but I what he says just doesn't directly or internally impact me much, no matter how many people in my life believe he speaks for God when he is behind one particular pulpit. I'm also so brash and disrespectful as to quite frankly state that the Pope's counsel means no more to me than Glenn Beck's. OK, maybe a little more. And I know how lost I must seem for not replacing the Pope with another equally authoritative, God-speaking individual, but it's not rebellion as far as I experience it: it's just how I see it.
I'm used to hearing similar stories from all sides, including Packer's own arch nemeses. The slippery slope. The same chatter that "tolerating" (which seems to mean either not constantly, directly, aggressively battling or completely embracing and adopting, depending on whom you ask) false views, beliefs, or behaviors may ensnare me into complicity, that my hands will have blood on them when the tyrants I "tolerated" oppress, destroy, and reign with blood and horror. The claim that I, though well-intended and meaning to build harmony, enabled and ignored a growing threat from enemies who would reduce my humanity and rob me of my pursuit of happiness. The sometimes completely accurate and useful but more often exaggerated and sensationalized suggestion that if we fail to alienate or criticize "them" enough, pretend to "be OK with" their choices and beliefs by not taking every opportunity to decry them, or focus excessively on common ground, that "their" divergent views will fester and take hold on society until utter destruction is inevitable. The tired claim that my moral compass or ability to discern truth is so flawed or weak that defending even an errant group against spurious criticism and false prejudice might lull me into embracing their very falsehood. I don't believe I'm a moral child pursuing the latest strange car offering sweet things. I don't believe I'm a moral zombie chasing the loudest noise in futile pursuit of satiation. I don't buy the extremism of the way such messages are often used, and I pity those who do when it seems to reflect fear of self and subversion of honest seeking of truth in favor of a contrived humility.
In other news, my friends and family who are actively LDS may not be actively decrying Packer's talk (or the likely use of it by some) but generally seem much more interested in Uchtdorf's remarks, so that's hopeful. And no, President Packer people, no matter what you think you know, it's not hopeful in a "yay, I'm going to get away with sin because they're complacent!" way but in a "hopefully, we can continue building understanding and coexist in peaceful disagreement" way. I still, to this day, believe relationships with people who won't work to survive rifts in belief and lifestyle necessarily take a back seat to truth, not the other way around. That's one of many things from nearly thirty years of being active LDS that I still believe.
28 March 2013
The Erotic Supremacy Lie
One of the greatest damages to relationships and people's self image and security I've seen is what I believe to be a lie that romantic and erotic attraction and affection so far surpass attraction, affection, or bonding on a level some would describe as friendship, "true love", or "philia" that life is empty and full of loneliness with "only" non-sexual, non-romantic, or non-partnership intimacy. My experience tells me that, mindfully pursued in principled ways, friendships can reach depths of intimacy and love that can surpass other bonds, passing enthrallments, or temporary investments. A life lived in restraint or denial of romance and eros is not a life devoid of richness and meaning.
Another of the greatest damages to relationships and people's self image and security I've seen is what I believe to be a lie that friendship or non-romantic love so far surpasses attraction, affection, or bonding on a level some would dismiss as sexual appetite, "lust", or "eros" that life is empty and animalistic when sexual or romantic intimacy are pursued or yearned for. My experience tells me that, mindfully pursued in principled ways, romantic partnership with sexual expression can reach depths of intimacy and love that can surpass other bonds, passing enthrallments, or temporary investments. A life lived in partial pursuit and development of romance and eros is not a life devoid of richness and meaning and need not detract from the pursuit and development of intimate friendship. Romantic and sexual intimacy can expand and enrich selected relationships, especially those which also have or develop a basis in intimate friendship or "philia".
A life full of sex without friendship seems completely empty and kind of ugly to me, to be honest. And if I have to choose between having sex and having friendships, I'll choose friendship every time, even if the choice is between great sex and great friendships. Likewise, I'd choose having great lifelong friends over having great passing romances, if I have to entertain a false dichotomy. And I highly recommend the same choice to everyone, so maybe I'm a bit of a hypocrite for wishing people would stop devaluing the choices of others by insisting theirs is right for everyone. But I also don't see them as mutually exclusive. And if I had to choose between spending the rest of my life with a truly intimate, loving, platonic friend, and spending the rest of my life with a truly intimate, loving friend I also am romantically bonded with and have sexual intimacy with, better yet! See, I believe in a generic, general sense that "friendship" is better than "sex", if they can be so simplified. I also believe that, in my experience, living without sex or romance but with interpersonal intimacy is so much better and fuller a life than living without intimacy but with sex and romantic excitement. But I also believe living with intimate, mindful friendships and with romantic/sexual expression--especially the intimate, mutually respectful kind--and especially especially the intimate, mutually respectful kind that comes with some pretty great internal chemical fireworks--is better and fuller yet! Call me animalistic.
I'm fine with you choosing to pursue exclusively philic love, experiencing or investing in a different kind or degree of romantic love or erotic attraction, or however it works out for you within your value system and chosen priorities. But I firmly reject the notion I've often heard implied or stated by those who so choose that love between intimate friends and companions where affection is not expressed sexually or even romantically is somehow inherently "superior", more selfless, or more noble than love which is those things _plus_ romantic/erotic attraction, affection, and expression. I believe restraint is noble when exercised out of deference to personal or moral considerations, and I can certainly relate to the feeling that having both in the measure that most people exoerience them is not an option for such reasons and choosing accordingly. And I very much have experienced the exquisite saturation of relationships or service with intense connection and meaning where I've believed and reminded myself I was sacrificing and subduing natural urges or distracting thoughts for a greater, focused purpose, and what I was giving up seemed a small price to pay in that light. I think everyone should know that sense of rewarding discipline in at least some aspect of life. That decision on how to respond to the feelings, however, doesn't make the feelings any more or less pure, nor does it mean relationships where romantic affection is checked or restrained are inherently more meaningful or rewarding than those in which it is expressed. That is a leap some try to make, but it's an erroneous and unnecessary leap, as I see it.
For example, when you feel intense appreciation, affection, selflessness, and physical attraction to someone, but you rein it in because that person is in a committed relationship which would be violated by expressing it or acting on your attraction, then yes, the _restraint_ based on deference to what you believe to be best can be quite noble. You might find meaning or pride in overcoming your inclinations or in demeaning the restrained feelings by viewing them as inferior to the feelings compelling you to do what was "right" (in this case, for example, avoiding causing someone to emotionally or sexually cheat on their partner). But that makes neither your actions nor your feelings for that person any more pure or noble than the feelings their partner has for them or the choice they made to pursue them.
If you choose a vow of celibacy, and you find greater meaning and richness in non-sexual relationships than you ever found in sexual ones, then I'm sincerely happy for you! Yes, I question whether your sexual or romantic relationships were pursued in healthy, constructive ways, whether you ever experienced romantic partnership as I have, whether you inherently view sexual or romantic expression as so mutually exclusive with "philia" or "charity, the pure love of Christ" that you've blocked them from both occupying any one relationship, whether your reasons for choosing celibacy are based on truth or convincing but half-true-at-best stories or beliefs, whether you have wiring that causes you to experience romantic or sexual attraction and bonding in a patently different way than most humans do, etc. But your choices are yours, and I cannot fully inhabit your mind and soul, so I try to balance analysis or skepticism with a healthy dose of "what the @#$% more do I know about the vastness and profundity of the universe than the next guy anyway, let alone the next guy's own internal workings?" I try, even though failing at times, to step back from demeaning or dismissing lifestyles and choices other than my own (assuming they're not demonstrably harming people) or injecting so much "meaning" into my own choices as to portray other choices as meaningless out of some sense of justification.
Yes, some gay/SSA people do not want same-sex relationships, not romantically or sexually overt ones at least, due to reasons they regard as superseding their feelings, inclinations, or urges. I believe they should be allowed that choice. But I will not sit by quietly while they explain or frame my feelings and decisions in their own terms, and I have my limits on allowing them to speak unchallenged when they imply that they somehow have the market cornered on "true love". Yet I sometimes invest a puzzling amount of energy trying to help people understand their decisions, while they actively urge people to limit my legal options and keep my relationship marginalized as patently inferior to heterosexual love and pairing generally. Maybe I just don't understand true, selfless, godly love like they do, but I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that.
The spark for this post: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/03/9432/, about which I have many more thoughts and responses but chose, for now, to focus on this one point.
22 January 2013
Cougar Bait?
Me from behind the Egyptian Theater beverages/concessions counter in Park City for Sundance Film Festival: "How's it going?"
Thin, good-looking blonde lady in her maybe forties or fifties with a somewhat wry grin: "Better now."
Me not asking what makes "now" better because I'm afraid I'll be caught off-guard and unable to follow up if the answer is as flirtatious as it seems it might be: "Good! What can I get for you?"
Lady alternately exploring the snacks and looking me intensely in the eye: "Hm...oh M&Ms, but none with peanuts?"
Me, confused that she seems to saying this as if it's some kind of innuendo but enjoying the ambiguity of her enthusiasm and intrigued by her demeanor: "Ha, none with peanuts, unfortunately. Just plain."
Lady making a swift choice: "I think I'll have this chocolate bar with almonds."
Me, relieved that she didn't follow it up with something like "I like nuts" but kind of grinning to myself at the possibility of forwardness I am not accustomed to responding to, *cough* at least not from women: "Very nice. That'll be just $2."
Lady, like she's playing the sassy corrective teacher in some kind of role play: "'Just' $2, you say? You mean 'Two dollars only'?"
Me, amused and confused as to what the heck is going on: "Ha, sure, only $2, $2 is all, whatever works."
At this point, I choose to exchange my usual obliviously friendly smile for a semi-flirtatious smile for the heck of it as I hand her her change, she drops a couple of dollars in the tip bowl and smiles as she double-takes while walking away...at which point I have two thoughts: (1) does she always tip for candy bars?, and (2) even if she was making advances, my age means she was less cougar and more...just horny.
In any case, she may have just meant it was better now because she'd come in from the cold, and I got all weird, and she's now telling her friends about the concessions dude inexplicably flirting with her. But I prefer to think of it as me getting hunted by a cougar 'cause that's just fun.
04 December 2012
We can debate til the end of time...
Acceptance should not negate conviction. The good news is that it doesn't have to. If you struggle to wrap your mind and heart around that, you may do well to soften your heart, open your ears, and relax your neck.
Don't get me wrong: I _will_ challenge and push back and ask questions and retain skepticism. Crucial conversations must take place regarding the consequences of our actions on each other and on people we care about in our political, social, and personal lives. Understanding and solutions come from such conversations, through the conflict, not by avoiding it. Conflict is bound to arise from people of varying convictions pursuing what they believe is right and good. And some people in pursuit of power, self aggrandizement, or justification will destroy peace around us if we are too busy holding hands to stand against them and do anything about it. Not all views of either spirituality or secularism include a love of peace or prioritize harmony, reconciliation, and self-determination. But I think humanity generally craves them enough that they can and will be fostered and magnified by example.
If I love you, I am going to care about your happiness and will be concerned when I see you choosing what seem like destructive beliefs and decisions. I think we should be honest with each other. But there are respectful, mutually beneficial ways to approaching those concerns, and there are tyrannical, stiffnecked, or defensive ways to approach them. We know where we fundamentally disagree, and we're not likely to change each other's mind, especially not by reminding each other of disapproval at every opportunity without being ever willing to hear each other out. And if I turn out to have been slightly short of full understanding of truth, or just plain wrong about someone's decisions, will I have destroyed good friendships to defend my own flawed understanding? If I'm certain I'm right, and they're certain they're right, am I proud enough to staunchly believe I am the right one? Am I arrogant enough to let that sense of righteousness alone justify behavior or treatment of others that I would consider wrong from anyone else? No, and I don't think I have to. I have my beliefs, but I don't know all things or the depths and breadth of anyone's heart and experience. I try to keep this perspective ever present when approaching and having conversations about controversial or difficult subjects I might more easily rail against or rant about than attempt to understand.
That's why I think I'd change one lyric in this song: "We can debate til the end of time who's wrong and who is right, yet I can honor your choices and you can honor mine."
I believe that debate can only get us so far. At some point, I think each of us has to accept that there's no way we can keep up with each other, or there's no way I can fully articulate every nuance of every thought and experience I have, let alone do it in a way that would be convincing to everyone or even anyone. I may have a higher tolerance for tension and debate than others. And I still do and will rant sometimes. I do still think we can and should have productive, even if conflict-born, conversation. But I will nonetheless commit and re-commit, and strive to honor your choices, even when I don't understand or agree with them (which is often, let's just be honest *wink*), and after some rigorous testing, I've found that even though in some cases we agree less than ever, I can generally expect the same of my truest friends, for which I'm grateful.
26 July 2012
Move on...?
Maybe I just have writer's block. Maybe I'm just busy with work and my first and potentially only "real" relationship. Maybe I'm realizing I was never that good a writer, and the time for becoming a better writer has passed. Maybe I'm tired of telling my story and trying to get people seeing new angles. Maybe I just think I have nothing novel or useful to say in this way, and my openness in my personal life has superseded this blog in importance. Maybe it's just not my battle anymore, and I'm inclined to settle into further obscurity and live an even simpler, quieter life. Maybe I'm also afraid this battle and effort of outreach has been my most important or impacting legacy (though unlike many bloggers, I do NOT get fan mail with proclamations that my blog changed someone's life...which I like to think just means my readers are mostly already stable, healthy individuals *wink*), and I will feel less useful or influential if I'm not actively engaged in the battle, even if only through a piddly blog. Maybe I'm a little fish in a big pond, and I'm not invested or skilled enough to compete with or be of any real use to the big boys. *sigh* I guess angst and existential crises aren't entirely over. :-)
29 April 2012
It gets better. ...If.
OK, it just gets better. From adolescence, things get better even for the vast majority of those who could see no light at the end of the tunnel. There are things that will happen totally without your effort, such as a gradual balancing of hormones. Don't scoff: that's huge. ;-) Environment will change. Minds will adapt and open. But for some, it might not happen readily, and it might not happen quickly, and it might not happen to any great degree.
But I think it will more likely get better if:
But I think it will more likely get better if:
- you don't wait around for everything around you to change and magically "get better"
- you really work at emotional authenticity, honesty, and integrity
- you learn to separate true criticism from blind bigotry
- you talk with someone who can help you sort through things
- you are honest about who you are, starting with being honest to yourself, then to others with care
- you remove yourself, when possible and with good judgment, from abusive situations
- you refuse to be a victim of circumstance and start planning your response to your situation
- you carefully seek others who understand and have more than their own self interest in mind
- you figure out your options and prepare to choose
- you remind yourself that you have no idea what ten years from now will bring, and 50 years of happiness will be worth a few years of difficulty
- you consider your situation to be a challenge rather than an oppression
- you find the right medications to balance your chemical levels and bring you to a more optimal level of functioning
- you avoid enslaving your judgment and cognitive abilities to addictive substances
- you avoid enslaving your emotional fulfillment and stability to addictive or abusive behaviors
- you remember that there is so much more that makes you who you are, and foster the parts that make you feel productive and strong
- you take time to meditate, ponder, pray, or otherwise focus both inward and on something greater than yourself of which you are a part
- you keep in mind that you are not truly alone, even if you haven't yet found those who understand
- you make an effort to help others in their need, since you are not the only one struggling with something
- you don't push away all unpleasant conversations or questions out of fear of having to face something
- you work on recognizing that you are just as worthy of love and understanding as anyone
- you let people compliment you and consider and take in their feedback at least as much as the douchebag who doesn't actually know you
- you forgive others and know you are worthy of forgiveness
- you just hang in there long enough to let some of this stuff work out, even if it takes years.
Meanwhile, those of us in more stable, secure places will do our part to change the environment for you. We will reach out to build understanding both ways. We will watch for people struggling like you are. We will work to give you a better playing field in which to work through whatever you need to work through. We will listen. We will offer our ears and shoulders at times. But it will take time, we might not yet know how to change your environment, and we may not have time and strength to personally reach out to every one. We're working on it, but in the meantime, until the world is a safer, more understanding place for you to work through whatever you're working through, or until you find someone else who clearly 'gets it' better than I do and can offer you hope in a way I can't despite wishing I knew how, the one with the most power for you is you.
It will probably get better, but you'll make it much more likely to get better if you work at making it better. And I attest that it's worth the effort. I don't know you, I don't know every aspect of what you're going through, and I have different brain function, chemistry, family life, life experience, social placement, religious background, personality, and coping mechanisms than you do. But I hope something here is helpful, and I do think you can make it better by working at it if you can find the strength to just begin to do so, to begin to trust that it could conceivably get better even if you can't see how right now. Hang in there.
27 April 2012
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]
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]
11 April 2012
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/.
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.
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.
30 March 2012
Packer: First Blood?
You have consistently declared war, and I hear nobody among your brethren countering or even balancing your rhetoric over the pulpit in a significant way, so what are any of us to assume about our relationship with the church? I thought we had an amicable parting, irreconcilable differences and divergent paths but with frank civility. But maybe that was naive of me. Maybe there's a bitchy sibling-in-law making it very difficult to maintain a peacefully civil relationship with my ex (no, I did not call you bitchy but was merely illustrating a concept, not making a personal accusation; surely you can relate). Maybe it's not possible to have peace with the church, and you're just the "bad cop" removing the varnish. Maybe the church doesn't want peace. Maybe, instead, it needs passionate troops to animate the body of the church in a battle against those of us who have gone AWOL. We are not with you, so we are against you, spit out as the lukewarm?
When you say "the enemy", you might mean Satan. I suspect you did not mean that I am personally the enemy of all righteousness even though I believe things you don't and would support someone in something you wouldn't. But I do think you implied or stated that those of us not heeding your counsel are either pawns or clueless to "the adversary's" power over us, needing either to be vanquished by the sword of truth or saved by the example and influence of the youth whose righteousness you're rallying. And if I'm hearing that message, surely at least some of your troops are, and since I'm no longer "on the inside" to see the response, it's unsettling to wonder what foments within. I can accept that when you counsel youth to fight the enemy, you may mean to engage them in an internal purification and fight for their own soul and righteousness, not an outright offensive against anyone who does not conform to your idea of righteousness. But your rhetoric carries a tone and implications far beyond that. And your authoritative position exerts disproportionate influence on the attitudes, cognition, and behavior of some youth I personally know and love but you merely abstractly "feel charity for" in an impersonal stewardship. You must know the power you wield so seemingly brashly, and you must understand that on some level, or at some point, this does become very personal for some of us, and we will feel compelled to raise defenses and respond if necessary.
Push it far enough, and some of us may have no choice but to reluctantly take up arms (figuratively, of course, which I clarify because I know how easily anyone disagreeing with the Church is painted as a militant and immoral antimormon capable of who-knows-what) to defend ourselves, our beliefs, our liberties, and those we love against the carefully aimed scopes of you and your troops when we had no such desire for war. But it seems that's what you want, and it's what you know. Troops. Battle cries. Foes. Enemy lines. War. Cleansing. There's a great sense of mission, of glory, and of camaraderie in war, in the army of Helaman, especially when the whole world is against the underdogs who shall not falter in defending truth and right, who have the architect and manager of the universe on their side. I know what that was like. I didn't hate people. I loved all people. I just thought most people were deceived by Satan, and I was fighting Satan's influence everywhere I turned, hoping to help those people. But lines were drawn, and looking back, my actions and attitudes had unintended negative consequences on others and within myself. Well, you're rid of me from your ranks, but I, too, feel righteous indignation, and you taught me your tactics most of my life, so expect a fight if a fight is what you force.
Nevertheless, I will hold the line a while longer. I will wait, quell defensiveness, quiet presumptions, remember my own non-nefarious motives in the past, and watch for the actual, rather than speculative, effects of what you're preaching and the tone you're promoting. It feels to me like you have set it up so that if I did lash back, it would only confirm what you've warned adherents about. Take a mild person, warn others of their malicious or ferocious nature, then push that person long enough and marginalize him or her enough, and they may eventually confirm the warning. But that's not the only reason I step back, turn a cheek, and try to keep calm. I also believe it's the most productive means of engagement and testimony. And part of why I don't fire back angrily is that I don't believe you're a monster. I'm not convinced you're a nasty, embittered old wart bent on making everyone else as miserable as some accuse you of being. I think you're probably well-meaning and believe you are saving souls and sharing what you believe is happiness.
But what you say and, even more, how you say it directly affects me, my relationships, and the happiness of people I care about, so you bet I'm paying attention. Still, I have hope. It seems, to me, that the principle of Zion, or unification of "the kingdom" into one mind and one heart, is not a conquering of ideology achieved by warlike means, as has been viciously attempted by world religions for centuries, but an interconnection through building bridges, looking into eyes, looking on the heart, reproving with sharpness on rare, required occasions, then showing increased love through an open ear, arms, and shoulder, and increasing understanding a heart at a time.
I don't know you. I can't look you in the eyes in person, connect with you, and see behind your rhetoric. I can hope there is a richness of humanity behind the abrasive exterior, but your rhetoric makes that hope hard to trust sometimes. Meanwhile, I remember how your words made me feel when I was in your ranks. I remember how they seemed such clarion calls of righteousness. I remember how they called me to align myself and coaxed me into subtly combative ways of thinking while rewarding me with a sense of camaraderie and mission in a righteous war. I remember the simultaneous retreat of parts of me that were not worthy of discussion, not deserving of understanding, not safe to articulate or bring to any light lest they overtake me completely and destroy my soul. I have since lived something better, the purification of bringing all of me to light, the strength of looking directly into myself without fear, the power of examining and admitting rather than chasing off-stage my doubts, feelings, or urges, the fellowship of a more complete, authentic me among those who are every bit as faithful but apparently less fearfully combative. I have greater peace, more optimism, and comfort within myself I didn't know I could have. What's more: temptations and behaviors are actually less on my mind and less engaged than they were before. Losing the need to fight them let them dwindle into the background. I have found better than your teachings, a more excellent way.
I don't want a war. I will attempt productive and constructive rather than destructive and combative engagement, but do not mistake me for a pacifist you can bulldoze, and please understand that if others who believe differently than I do about engagement take up arms in a rhetoric war, it was not before a lifetime of dodging or quietly accepting the darts that flew from you or from those who were responding to your words and commands. A morality war has been raging since long before you or I was born, and you are likely responding not specifically to we who choose and believe as you would not but to a generalized enemy of your morality. I suppose your blunt words are in response or reaction to perceived spiritual dangers and those who promote them, and your messages are meant to alert and awaken obedience to what you believe to be a stricter, safer path. But for most of us, in our experience, your rhetoric drew first blood. I will decry extreme reactions, as I have. I will not excuse disrespect and willful ignorance, even directed at a perceived aggressor. But I do understand a great deal of the emotional reaction, and at some point, trying to defend your words begins to feel a bit like defending an abusive parent by insisting they're just trying to express love the best they know how. It may be true, but the abused party is no less downtrodden, and when it's consistent, it becomes harder to dismiss it as overreaction, the guilt of the wicked, or generally their problem and not yours. Couldn't you at least acknowledge it could be both? After all, they don't have this problem with the other apostles. Are you that much greater a defender of righteousness than them that the wicked senselessly attack you to justify their guilt-ridden consciences?
Knowing what I do about church hierarchy and beliefs about church office and calling, and you as a public persona, I think it completely ineffectual for me to plead that you change your tone. I also am not a fan of jumping on the anti-Packer bandwagon and jumping down your throat every time I think you misstep. Believe me, I've held my tongue plenty before today. But I'm writing this because I wanted to get it off of my chest, and I'm publishing it in case some reader gets some insight from a little raw honesty and because if my patience is wearing thin, I imagine many are way past worn. And with that, I'll try to let go of what I cannot change while turning to what I can.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)