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.

Queens and priestesses

Misogyny in the temple was never a huge concern for me. But for many, there's a troubling, even overwhelming sense of sexism built into and permeating the entire temple ceremony. Some are concerned by aspects of the temple ceremony: men and women are separated in the ceremonial rooms to opposite sides of the room. Ceremonial elements and covenants center around the representative male-female pairing relationship as a foundation for family and eternal progress, the men representing Adam in his dealings with God, and the women representing Eve in her dealings with...Adam? Adam and God? Adam-God?

But to me, as an orthodox but self-identified open-minded member, I figured that at some point, order or structure is arbitrary. God might have assigned priesthood authority and head-of-houseness to women, and then the dynamic might be reversed, with men crying sexism and a few being troubled with why men don't have the priesthood but others being content to support their families humbly and serving under women because women bore the sacred mantle of child birth and priesthood. I figured maybe God knew something about the nature of the beings he created, and he knew that giving men the priesthood would, despite kinks introduced by the weakness and evil designs among humans, be the best-working solution to establish order and structure in families and in the kingdom. Perhaps men needed the responsibility to give them something as sacred and powerful as child birth and motherhood is to women? I couldn't say, because my understanding was that of a spiritual infant. But the temple brought a new paradigm of equality to me.

To me, men and women being referred to as kings and queens, priests and priestesses was a beautiful declaration of shared glory and responsibility within the order of heaven. I wondered if there might be an extension of priesthood authority to women in store when human society and culture had developed to a point where we were ready to receive it without losing a sense of order and while maintaining mutual respect without constant power clashes. Maybe we needed to be ready enough to ask, I thought, as had happened with people of African descent, but it wasn't mine to know, so I let it go and trusted that the Lord would work it out through his appointed channels in the long run.

I never felt like submitting to or hearkening unto God was a demeaning or humiliating act but was a humbling covenant of mutual respect and love. So in turn, even though I was, in the back of my mind, troubled with language used in reference to women submitting unto their husbands in church culture and the talks of past prophets, when it came to the temple ceremony, I figured faithful LDS woman would not get caught up in the cultural baggage of hearkening as a demeaning thing. The way I saw it, I, as a future husband, was taking on a very delicate and sacred responsibility to be that much closer to the Spirit, that much more aligned with the will of God, because I would one day have a wife who would likely bring great perspective and spiritual power to the marriage, and if she was going to be able to trust me in exercising my priesthood, I would need to have my crap together.

To me, the priesthood was not my "right" as a male. To me, for whatever reason, males were assigned to be the bearers of the priesthood, at least for now, and even then only after showing they value it by living in accordance with God's commands and exercising the atonement of Christ. The priesthood didn't make me any more noble than anyone else. It didn't make me the boss of anyone. It was a charge and a sacred responsibility to use God's power to serve others and build the kingdom in a specific way, not to wield power or dominion in any way. And it could be taken from me in a snap if I wasn't living worthy of it and using it with care, tenderness, righteousness, and selflessness. There was no room in my understanding of the gospel and of the priesthood for tyranny or insistence on my family "submitting" to me as the head of the house merely because I'd been given a charge to metaphorically wash the feet of others, to confer blessings of health or comfort, or to visit the homes of others to offer messages of hope and to let them know someone cares.

In that light, I never thought of myself as being the future "head of the household" in an absolute or concrete way. I was raised by a mother who respected my father but taught me that they made decisions together, and they didn't make any big decisions or parenting decisions without consulting each other. In my view, men were not the head of their homes by virtue of being male. They were the "head" as a matter of order and because they had been authorized to exercise the power of God in official ways. Therefore, I saw the "hearken" covenant as being about mutual respect, responsibility, and order, not actually hierarchy or superiority.

I figured that the only time the man, as the head of the house, would need to be hearkened to is when both spouses have prayed about something, can't seem to agree, and a decision needs to be made. But I knew that I, personally, was not comfortable assuming the role of "decision-maker" every time there's a disagreement just because I held the priesthood. I knew, firsthand, that having the priesthood was no guarantee of having the best answer to any given situation, so I decided that I could not and would not subject my future wife to deferring to my opinion every time we have a disagreement, priesthood or not. I decided that exercising my priesthood responsibly included admitting when I wasn't sure what the answer was rather than pretending I knew just because I was "supposed to". Honoring the priesthood meant admitting when I hadn't had any divine revelation on a topic and telling my future wife, "Well, my opinion is this, but I'm not sure that's from God, and we can't seem to agree, so you make the decision this time, and next time we're in this situation, I'll make the decision. Can we trust each other that way and agree to respect each other's decisions?"

I set aside the understandably extrapolated notion that men are supposed to be to women as God is to men. That just seemed like poppycock, that I would be my wife's god or mediator, so surely that's not what was intended. It was maybe more an arbitrary chain of authority out of necessity for order's sake, or possibly something inherent in the order of heaven which I didn't comprehend. But one thing I was sure of: women were not "less than" men, nor were they weaker or less inspired than men, nor were they to hearken to men in _any_ instance where the man was not fully aligned with God's will, which I figured for myself was probably as often as any other faithful, sincere, Spirit-centered member of the church.

That, to me, was the kicker: women were to hearken to their husbands "as their husbands hearkened to God". This wording, to me, did NOT mean, "Women, your husband is to you as God is to your husband, which is to say the final authority, to be obeyed in all things." It meant, "Women, your husband has just been charged with aligning his will with God's and responding to God's commands. He will discuss matters with God, and as this yields answers, you are to hearken unto your husband when he has truly done so with God. And you have a right and responsibility to consult God about it directly through personal revelation and inspiration. And when there is a disagreement, where both of you are convinced, the responsibility defaults to him. You are also to hearken to God, understanding your husband is the one among you who is authorized to officially exercise the priesthood and certain keys thereof."

Did it place men as intermediaries between their wives and God? I didn't think so. Women were still responsible for speaking with God as Eve had in the garden, so "intermediary" wasn't an accurate word. But even if it was so, and I had yet to understand it in its profundity, it wasn't because men were better. It was based on the priesthood. And since I believed that could conceivably be extended to women someday, I didn't see men as being inherently superior or more authoritative than women. I saw the priesthood as being the divinely appointed channel for God's work, and that happened to be given to men, so for now, yes, men are representatives of God in ways women are not, only because of the priesthood. And should that ever change, those clownish men who think they're hot stuff just because they have "authority" to do things women don't will be put in their place. I kind of looked forward to that day, actually.

I wondered how some women might interpret or respond to the language of the temple ceremony, and I wondered how I would respond if I were a woman. I decided that through the eyes of understanding, it was not a deeply troubling concept and would likely become more clear in future years, or maybe after this life. I decided this because I was confident it, as with all doctrines and ordinances of the church, was of God and therefore had a good explanation, whether or not our limited mortal perspective was able to grasp it completely now.

I did consider that maybe women weren't denied the priesthood for reasons I'd heard thrown around. I considered that maybe men aren't any less inherently spiritual or righteous than women and therefore in need of the priesthood to whip them into shape. I considered that maybe men didn't need to be sandwiched between God and the beautifully sacred daughters of God to keep the men in line or give them purpose. But I put those thoughts on the back burner as mere speculation. After all, thousands of years of such gender-based order had to be justified somehow. There must have been some reason it was set up that way, even if those weren't it. A logical test I've used is to imagine the alternative: in this case, women having the priesthood and men not. Then women are giving birth and breastfeeding and raising children throughout history AND tasked with running the affairs of the church and counseling with members? Goodness, that's a lot to ask, and it would make men pretty darn subservient, mere sperm donors and money-makers while the women bear and nurture and raise children (newly arrived-in-mortality spirits) and manage the affairs of the kingdom of God. But why not give the priesthood to both and just assign different responsibilities, I wondered? But it came back to, "Surely there's some reason, and maybe we'll understand it in the next life if not this one." It was a matter of faith, awaiting further light and knowledge.

In short, I had a different perspective from many on the whole "sexism in the temple" thing. But I understand the concerns of many women and men in the church about the inherent separation of women and men and the roles which do have built-in orders of authority. And I understand, now, that my interpretation of the division of sexes was partially doctrine but also partially my own convictions, experience, and perspective. I found a way to make enough sense of it to accept not having all of the answers, but that included the necessary, "Perhaps someday it will be made clearer" and, "If only everyone saw it how I do, there would be no room for sexist tyranny in the church". The church's leadership could make the answers clearer if I was right. They could speak more concretely or clearly in defense of the perspective that husbands and wives are equals even if they have distinct roles. I do, to be fair, remember conference talks along those lines. And I appreciate those talks immensely. But I see an undercurrent in the culture which is not changing and if anything is re-entrenching in response to perceived threats on the stability of family structure. So those talks which might be intended as clarion calls to higher perspective feel more like token efforts to quell feminists. They seem less like a change and more like isolated voices which are almost "take it or leave it" peripheral ideas out of the mouth of only one witness. An occasional token reference in a conference talk doesn't stack up well against deeply ingrained social patterns and the regularly-experienced temple ceremony which is as official as any church teaching can possibly be. So personal interpretations of it become very cemented in the minds of members.

I admittedly wish women would just be given (and receive) the priesthood already. And I'm under no illusion that most who attend the temple see it the way I saw it. Even if there's nothing inherently sexist about the priesthood structure, I think too many men puff themselves up in their "authority", even if subtly, and some women who have suffered under tyranny of priesthood holders are reminded of terrible experiences every time they agree to hearken unto their husbands unless they understand the wording the way I did. I would like to see more explicit explanations of equality (even in distinct roles) among genders. And I have a pipe dream of a church which acknowledges personal adaptation of roles and relationships, even within the framework of doctrines and principles of the gospel. Even though I don't think I got caught up in misogynistic cultural interpretations, I recognized that many messages in the temple and in Mormon culture can and will be easily "misinterpreted", as I saw it, as supporting or condoning sexism or misogyny. I think the Church still has a lot of work ahead to help its members overcome the tendency to interpret doctrine and priesthood roles in sexist ways if the truth is, in fact, anything like my perspective was. But maybe my interpretation was just a preliminary cafeteria mormonism, a nice attempt to smooth over something inherently sexist and irreconcilable. Either way, it's not mine to wrestle with anymore. Best wishes to those of you still engaged in that endeavor.

Conversion therapy's elusive unicorn

From Facebook:
----------------------
In response to comments in a previous post, this describes my experience and perspective well.

Former Love in Action Director: I’ve never met a man who experienced a change from homosexual to heterosexual
John Smid was once the director of Love in Action a longtime Exodus International affiliate based in Memphis, TN. I have always found John’s candor refreshing. My first contact with John was at an Exodus meeting where he questioned the slogan, “change is possible.”

O-Mo Whatever the cause of homosexuality/same-sex attractions, whatever the life choices, and whatever the malleability or future possibilities of change through therapy techniques and neuroscience yet to be discovered, the reality of _today_, as I see it, is that people do not change from mostly same-sex attracted/gay to mostly opposite-sex attracted/straight. Some claim to have changed but later recant, and a few have staked their income and reputation in the claim and persist in it. But when pressed, I have found more wordsmithing and perspective reframing for functional/behavioral change or cognitive adjustment than actual change in attractions. Still, I don't believe this should be used as ammunition to shoot down someone's personal, honest, carefully considered direction for their life in congruence with their beliefs, values, desires, and goals.

Guy1 People make this so damn complicated.... :-P for me it all boils down to what gets you off. ;) I've never had a conflict of faith and sexuality, of course, so I don't really understand the intricacies involved...to me, it seems like a simple no-brainer.

O-Mo Afterthought: While my observation matches his, I would not say, as he does, that "none of this can occur with homosexuality" with a more accurate, "I have never seen it occur."

Gal1 I agree... This brings up some very intruguing differences between attraction and behavior. Attraction - well, there's no need to "repent" of that, since it's something you can't change. Behavior, however, is something you are always accountable for. People will try to reason their way out of a lot of things, but ultimately you are the one in control of your actions.
I also like the point made toward the end of the article, that it is possible to be in love with someone you are not sexually attracted to. It's an interesting thought, in a culture that overexaggerates the importance of sexuality. When it really comes down to it, there is SO much more to love, true love anyway. If it's just sexuality involved, that is lust. Big difference.

O-Mo Yeah, Guy1, I've run into that same confusion with others who either were not raised in a homosexuality-shunning church or left at an early age. I don't know how to convey it. But even without religious conflicts, I've known some to struggle with what they really want.

Guy2 This is some good stuff O-Mo. I've actually had a lot of these thoughts on my mind the past few days. I have found so much peace and happiness finally in my life doing exactly what I have always been taught was wrong. Letting go of that "battle" between good and evil and just following what I feel is right in my heart has been such a blessing for me.

Guy1 I grew up in small-town mid-america. I never knew what gay was until I got online at the age of 15... I always knew what I found attractive, though. Perhaps it was because I grew up with such a streak of individuality that being gay never really bothered me, even though family and friends spoke ill of it once it started hitting popular culture. My mom tried to get me to go to church and her side of the family is pretty religious, but it never stuck with me. I only went for the grape juice and crackers. I was never able to think of any of the stories as literal...they just seemed like good stories and I enjoyed reading all sorts of books back then.

I was certainly a prude throughout my teen years and the first couple of college, but that wasn't because I thought I should be with girls! :) They never did anything for me...

O-Mo ‎Gal1, I want my spouse to be passionate with me, and even...dare I say...lusty. ;-) I don't care to downplay sexuality as part of a whole relationship because I really do value it, particularly as an intimate and bonding (not to mention certainly fun!) experience between partners built on trust, familiarity, and mutual investment. But I also know that if I _had_ to choose between sexual passion and, say, open communication or tender affection, sexual passion does not win out as a highest priority. I just hope I don't have to choose. ;-) Incidentally, I do know some guys who, despite still being primarily attracted to men, quite enjoy sexual intimacy with their wives, even if it's often not to the same level as it had been with men. Beliefs, choices, priorities...

O-Mo More on this: http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/10/10/37766

Guy1 It's certainly not unheard of to have an open relationship wherein there is emotional intimacy with your primary partner and then the allowance of both parties to have physical intimacy with others outside of the partnership. This happens in many relationship regardless of whether the couple is same orientation or mixed orientation.... Sometimes people love each other deeply and want to build a life together but don't click physically. Certainly isn't a reason to give up the relationship if both parties want to stay together.

I think if more people accepted the idea of "nontraditional" relationships, there would be less of a problem with divorce and you'd see more families sticking together (and being stronger). Just my opinion, of course. :)

O-Mo Ha, true. But again: religious or personal conflicts can prevent that from being considered an option. But that's why I have always found strength in remembering that I am imposing some of my own restrictions and therefore am not merely a victim.

Guy1 Sometimes we must work through conflicts for the betterment of ourselves and our relationships. ;) Flexibility in life is a good thing! Flexibility and conflict...always makes for a good story.

O-Mo It does, indeed. But can you stretch too much too fast and end up spraining something? ;-) Or bend something not meant to be bent and break something you shouldn't have broken? Heh.

Guy1 TIme and lube. Everything's possible with time and lube. (per Dan Savage) :-P

O-Mo NARTH has responded to this notion without actually mentioning it at all: http://narth.com/2011/10/2061/. I see problems in such follow-up studies, mainly that I have known guys who would have put themselves in the "Success: conversion" category who, when I pressed, conceded that their new attraction to women was more a curiosity and 'openness to the possibility' than an actual drive, but since that was more than they'd ever known, they considered it an 'increase in heterosexual attraction'. And...let's just say you needed only watch their eyes at a party to see which sex caught their inadvertent gaze more often. ;-) I also wonder how many respondents are married and therefore are not only self-limited in their life choices and self-identification but are measuring their progress not by generalized attraction but by attraction to their wife, specifically. Increased heterosexual function and intimacy with their spouse is wonderful and should be acknowledged rather than dismissed for political agenda, but I just don't see it as the same thing as 'becoming heterosexual'.

NARTH » Change in Sexual Orientation is Possible
narth.com
Change in Sexual Orientation is Possible, Harm Unlikely, according to New Eviden...See More

O-Mo Let me clarify one point in my last paragraph: "appropriately and understandably self-limited". :-)

Gal1 You can be just as much a victim of your own "self-limiting" choices as you can from others'... just sayin' :P

Hello eternal perspective, I'm John Wayne

A friend of mine just posted a link on Facebook to an article at The Mormon Women Project about a woman whose husband left her after coming out, titled An Eternal Perspective.

Since I haven't finished any of the myriad of drafts I've begun about various topics, I'll throw this up here as a filler for now. My comment on the link this friend posted is as follows:

I just ranted about this, but I deleted my comments and will rant in my own space. I of course can't speak on her ex-husband's perspective. But I agree that it should be considered in light of the nature of her comments, which sound, to me, less like "eternal perspective" and more oversimplified and stripped of opportunity to really grapple with truth.

Of course, I understand that just because the interviewee doesn't seem to agree with my view doesn't mean she is less intelligent or hasn't struggled with the topic long enough. And just because she doesn't detail her study and research doesn't mean she hasn't done any. But she describes very little effort to really understand the issue beyond what church leaders and scriptures have said, and the way she discusses it indicates a lack of...*sigh*...OK, seems to reflect a view that, when I held it, was simplistic and did not include any effort to understand except from sources which confirmed and consoled my existing beliefs.

Clearly, I no longer share the beliefs my old self had, so I have a bias and am likely to be dismissed by some as merely an example of one who has been led away by Satan precisely because I sought knowledge outside of official church materials. I think that very accusation is what keeps some people in the church, just to prove that not only godless heathens believe such things but that you can believe "liberal" doctrines without abandoning the gospel.

Anyway, that's enough digression. This being my own space, here is the rant:

Troubling on a few levels: she says she deals with it by praying, getting blessings, and reading official church materials. That sounds nice and spiritually safe, but years of personal experience and talking with others have strongly indicated that that approach alone pushes the real conundrums away or polishes conflict with veneer that wears off. I finally decided the scriptures are for matters of salvation, but we're given light and knowledge in professional fields to really sort out some things for ourselves. Only then, when I started seeing the issue from a more human, real-life perspective rather than a merely abstract ideological one did I start healing and really understanding.

Second, she rejected counseling because the counselor didn't agree with her beliefs about "the family", as traditionalists like to refer to the notion of the modern nuclear family as the only acceptable definition of family. That's understandable, but to disregard someone's wisdom about human relationships just because they don't share your view of gender roles and religious beliefs about family seems rash after a month or less of counseling and potentially a bit of a copout or escape.

Third, kids don't need to be 12 to understand man and woman, husband and wife, and I've discovered they don't need to understand sexuality and "gender roles" to grasp husband and husband either. As I see it, such limitations are projected and imposed on children by adults who want to be able to explain in their chosen framework why it's wrong, not just what it is.

Sorry to seem harsh, but I think this woman still has some emotional growing up to do. Even the way she speaks almost dismissively of her husband's experience as if he suddenly decided to "go gay" and escape the marriage at all costs attests that she is likely pushing some issues away rather than really grappling with them. That's not strength and eternal perspective. That's a low-level, short-term coping mechanism.

Opinions? No, not me. Why do you ask?

Some days, I step back and try to tell myself things like, "She's probably still in a lot of pain and maybe shouldn't be talking publicly about this yet but clearly seems intent on helping, and she could be a lot harsher, so let's go easy on her." Today, that didn't work so well, maybe.

Bachelor Twist

I have the next twist on the oddly conservative show, The Bachelor: a gay bachelor marrying a woman. But the women can't know he's gay. In proposing this, I mean absolutely no disrespect to anyone who's been through it, just like I don't watch this season in order to belittle the challenges of those on the show now. I just love an engaging social experiment.
The bachelor's reasons may be religious, social, personal, whatever, but I want to watch as he visits with a therapist, navigates the challenges of approaching marriage with a woman, etc. And during the testimonials, the women can express how impressed they are by his "respectfulness" or how confused they are by his lack of affection. Of course, it'd be refreshing to not have all the eye-rolling hot tub makeout... *cough*

Or maybe he'd be great with the physical stuff, just like a straight dude, though I'm thinking if it's gonna be that way, the producers need to impose at least a two-year makeout fast on the bachelor to make sure he's good and pent-up by the time the show shoots.

Or maybe it wouldn't be that different after all...until he tells the final 6 women about his secret, and we get to watch them deal with it. Oh man, I'd be glued.

Of course, the show's season would be about two or three times as long as usual.

Whom do I contact to get this done?

Not just about 'marriage'

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

It hasn't.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sacred, not secret, union

I've been thinking a bit, lately, about the reality of marrying or committing myself for life to a man I love someday. If I ever do find such a man, or even if I find such a woman, I intend to hold such a commitment (whether called 'marriage' or 'union') sacred and meaningful, and I have been thinking I may have to make some difficult decisions. I may decide to purify the experience and avoid sullying it by inviting, to the ceremony, only those who would be fully, truly supportive. Then we could have a reception for everyone, including those who couldn't wholeheartedly support whatever ceremony represents our union but who want to wish us well.

I might not allow the presence of those who do not hold sacred the covenants I make and the relationship into which I enter. I would do this not because I don't love them and not because they don't care but because some people just don't or won't understand the magnitude and sacredness the relationship holds for me. Some people would not fully grasp what it means or what it's about. They wouldn't relate to or appreciate the reality of it. They won't fully understand the motivations behind my choice to get married in that way. I wish they all did. I wish they could all understand and see what I've seen. But they won't, and that's their choice or belief, and it doesn't change or diminish what it means to me. They may be upset that they can't come, and they may not understand why I would exclude them when they are happy that I have companionship but just don't understand its full meaning. But it's not about them. It's about us. It's about our commitment to each other and to truth. They'll have to deal with it.

On one hand, I love the idea of having an open, public wedding to which all are invited, to contrast it with the exclusivity of LDS temple marriage, into which only active, temple-recommend-holding members of the church are allowed. I may never see many of my dear friends married because I no longer believe the ceremony is exactly what they believe it is, even though I know I would--if allowed to be present--lovingly and happily look on them as they make their covenants with moist eyes and be grateful to respectfully share that moment. But there are reasons for the exclusivity which I fully understand in ways someone who has never believed in the magnitude and the sacred and eternal nature of temple covenants might not fully relate to.

In fact, maybe it's not so different. I still believe my marriage or union, if I ever enter into one with either a man or a woman, will not be about any social approbation, grand parties, attention, or even 'rights' (though I'd want my partner and I to have legal protection and decision-making rights for each other)...and it's not even primarily about unifying or linking families. My commitment to another soul in union is about the unification of the two of us, committing our lives to each other and promising that we won't bolt when it gets tough, we will draw closer and remain one even when the fun wanes or other options come along, and we'll form a union within which we become financially and personally 'one' and lay a stable foundation for a future family if we're able to bring children into our home. That is too sacred a commitment to invite the presence of those who don't understand or believe in it.

So I may insist on a very private, very limited ceremony if it ever comes to that. If that means it's only my partner and me, then so be it. It's not about anyone else to begin with. I've always thought things were almost more sacred by being more private, so it's kind of a beautiful thought to commit to each other without spectacle or demonstration.

Then, after the most important business of unifying ourselves, we can symbolically unify other aspects of our lives by bringing together families and friends in a fabulous reception with lots of good food, good music, and happy memories in the making.

Ha, or I could just be a single old codger with a few short-term relationships along the way. That's probably more likely. *wink*

Lesbians do it better?

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

Less than but equal?

It began with the question from my brother: "So I gotta ask you something I've never understood. If same-sex couples can have all of the same rights and legal privileges in civil unions as heterosexual marriages have, as has been done in California, why make so much noise about the word marriage, and change the meaning of something most of society believes means something else by definition? It seems like a grab at power or affirmation." Something like that. I groaned inside at the prospect of another of "these" conversations, but I was interested to get to the root of some of his views while explaining and refining mine and hopefully helping him see where 'the other side' is coming from as requested.

There were the usual elements of such a conversation, discussion about what the word means, religion's role in the definition, militant gay activism, the church's role in Prop 8, the role of prophets (from an LDS perspective), obedience, greater good, evidence for same-sex marriage being a positive change and whether existing evidence is valid or sufficient enough to make such a leap.

We fundamentally disagree on several fronts, such as religious beliefs, how to effect change in society, the value of social 'stability' weighed against the role of government or equality, the threat same-sex marriage actually poses to social stability, and probably along with that, where the best balance between progress and stability is found: I think in my mind he's the frustratingly "if it ain't broke don't fix it" type who tends to sacrifice progress to formulaic oversimplification, and I suspect in his mind I'm the organizationally naive type who overestimates society's capacity to adapt and self-correct and sacrifices proven stability to abstract analysis.

But what it came back to, after two hours of discussion, was two fundamental points:

1. This is, at its root, related to what the word 'marriage' means to society in general, or to the majority of individuals in society, especially in religious connotation.
2. Both sides are motivated primarily or exclusively by emotion or 'belief', and both are equally as outrageous and/or guilty as the other in each other's eyes.

It also helped hit something home a bit more thoroughly to me: if I find a great guy to spend my life with, and we form a union of whatever kind we're allowed, and we raise children (assuming I can ever afford adoption or surrogacy...let alone become more comfortable with the idea of surrogacy) our relationship will be inherently "less" than my brother's marriage in his eyes. This would not mean he would think any less of us as individuals. It would be because he values his marriage so very much that a relationship which doesn't include everything his marriage (which I've always thought is excellent) includes, such as procreative ability and a supposedly more ideal parenting pair (with sexual dichotomy) is simply a different kind of relationship and deserves a different label. More than being different, though, it's missing pieces that he considers essential to the definition of 'marriage', the sacred institution and relationship to which he aspired and worked so hard to be worthy of. In his mind, you get married because you're going to unify as a man and woman in order to bring lives into this world and raise them together, and there is one relationship set apart for that purpose. No matter how well-intentioned two men or two women may be, they just can't make babies, and that means their purpose in unification is patently different.

In trying to really grasp where he's coming from, I had to set aside the fact that he doesn't regard sterile mixed-sex couples as having a relationship inferior to his or 'missing' anything, even if they know before marrying that they're sterile. I tried to set aside my belief that procreation is not somehow more selfless or noble a goal than adoption (a point on which most people would likely disagree based on the genders of the parents). I didn't argue that my goal in marrying a man would, I think, be to raise children together: to have a family. I set aside my disregard for institutional and social approbation (I was never much for ceremony and recognition, so having any approval but God's and my own was never very important to me). I set aside the reality that many straight couples think of marriage more as a love-commitment than a child-rearing union because in his mind, they, too, are missing the point of marriage, but they at least have the key elements should they figure it out.

I had to face the fact that even if my relationship with my male partner was the kind of relationship most mixed-sex couples only dream of as far as our communication, intimacy, and partnership, and we worked together to raise children wonderfully, our relationship would be patently inferior because it could never be naturally procreative (at least not with current scientific knowledge or human physiology), it would deprive our children of a true mommy, and it could never be sanctified by God in a temple. No matter how amazing our relationship is, or how trashy and flimsy many sanctified mixed-sex marriages are, our relationship would be "less than" (his words, spoken in kindness, meant to be descriptive, not demeaning) his marriage.

Look at it this way: all else being equal, most people can describe what a mixed-sex marriage has that a same-sex marriage doesn't (e.g. penis + vagina = natural reproductive capability, male role model for Timmy and female role model for Sally, suburban neighbors' heads don't explode when they bring a casserole or cookies to the new couple on the block), but find me people who can describe what a same-sex marriage has that a mixed-sex marriage doesn't...that was my "ah-ha" moment in understanding where he is coming from and why he's comfortable saying it's a patently different relationship with limitations, not imposed by anyone but inherent in the kind of pairing it is.

It's a relative, perhaps qualitative judgment not on me as a person but rather on the type of relationship, not even necessarily on the specific relationship itself. Though I think I'd struggle to really distinguish those, since my relationship would be sacred to me (I can't imagine spending my life with someone without it being sacred), I think I can handle it, having faced that realization ahead of time. I'm gonna have to handle it regardless. That's just the way it is, as he said, and if most people were as honest with me, they'd probably admit the same.

Even so, he said he could get on board with civil unions being granted all the rights of marriages, inherently different kinds of relationships by nature, one being "more" than the other by procreation, eternal nature, and maybe a few other factors, but with equal legal rights, privileges, protections, and responsibilities. I told him I can respect that perspective.

As for me, I don't much care what any institution "calls" my union but do care very much that my partner has rights of partnership and stewardship over our pooled resources, and I very much care about making a lifetime commitment to each other by whatever means effective and binding in our own minds and hearts. And I care very much that we make sure we citizens aren't cherry-picking civil rights based on religious beliefs hidden behind smoke-and-mirror rationales. I think government should handle civil contracts equally for same-sex and mixed-sex couples and leave religions to exercise religious rites as they believe. "Render unto Caesar..." Of course, I think you'd still have a battle over whether marriage was a religious institution first and foremost, and any push to remove the word "marriage" from law would be attacked by right-wingers as just another attempt to remove God from society (as if politicians didn't add specific mentions of God just decades ago to our coins, mottos, and pledges), blah, blah, blah. I'm pretty convinced that even if you gave "marriage" to religions and "civil unions" (of same-sex and mixed-sex couples) to government, you'd still have a raging debate about whether such recognition of same-sex unions would have dire consequences for society, for our children, for cute little puppies, etc. Maybe that's another post.

Heteros do it too (and what I really think about most therapy of homosexuality), Part 3

Back to Part 2.

I'd guess some same-sex spouses or partners experience a lack of infatuation to an extent, too, maybe even fully. Would gay activists decry that relationship just as much as a mixed-orientation relationship based on a lack of euphoria, intense but unearned trust, and/or the feeling of walking on clouds and feeling deliriously happy? Would they decry it if the partners had to work on the sexual aspect of their relationship? Might they just as well have married people of the opposite sex if they were going to forgo the whole "euphoria" thing anyway? Or is that a specious question because gay men still experience infatuation even with their wives? Or is it possible to be "in love" in a way unique to pair-bonding without anything like the infatuation or euphoric feeling? Is that all just insignificant, doped up brain chemistry in the end? Is being in a committed, fulfilling relationship really not even about being in love? All else being equal, if you knew you could choose to have a committed, fulfilling relationship with or without being "in love" in this euphoric or deeply emotional sense, would you choose to go without? To you straight people who tell me it's not that important anyway, would you have married your spouse if it hadn't been for those feelings? Whether or not you think you should have, would you have? What stopped you from marrying your opposite-sex best friend for whom you had no such feelings? Shouldn't you have done that?

I think straight people generally do have the "in love" feelings, at least in the beginning of their relationship, and throughout, if they work to maintain them. I also think they take them for granted, and it does wane with time, although some brain activity research indicates that long-term couples tend to still dope up each other's brains quite nicely. Is a chemical reaction in the brain something to base a lifetime decision on? No, I don't think it is. Is it something to reject just because it's chemical, even when other important factors line up? I think you'd be a fool to. If the match is a good one, and the values and commitment line up, then that doped up brain is a total bonus, and who wouldn't want that?! I believe rejecting the euphoria as if it's proof of shallowness of affection is what many gay men are doing when they "explain away" their attractions to other men. Whether acting on those attractions lines up with their values and beliefs is another question: I just wish more such men would call a spade a spade, admit the authenticity of the experience, and see that they needn't decimate their concept and experience of being in love in order to justify their decision to live an alternative lifestyle and seek love in a form more compliant with their beliefs.

Mind you, I think many gay men do idolize the "objects" of their attraction, thinking them to be everything they'd want in a man...or, as the reparatives narrate it, everything they wish to be. I think many straight men "idolize" the women they're attracted to, as well, seeing the ideal feminine (often rooted in evolutionarily biological preferences reinforced by societal norms and structure) in them even well beyond reality until something snaps sense into them, often well after it's likely to make any difference in their love. I wish there were an accurate way to get into the mind of any given gay man and see his attractions for men, and the traits he finds attractive, and then get into the mind of a straight man and his attractions for women and see if they're patently differently motivated in a quantifiable way.

Let's pretend, for a nutty moment, that some people are truly, physiologically wired, for whatever reasons (environmental, genetic, whatever the triggers for that wiring) to fall for people of the same sex. Now, why wouldn't a guy be attracted to guys who represent ideal men? Why wouldn't any given same-sex-wired guy be attracted to guys similar to those hetero women are attracted to? And why wouldn't a guy who is truly primarily attracted on a personal, not romantic or sexual, level of admiration or aspiration to a guy who also happens to be physically attractive find it difficult to sort out which kind of attraction he's dealing with? Don't hetero girls also have a tendency to think they're in love with the "perfect guy" when in reality they just really look up to them but wouldn't necessarily pair well with him or would realize, if they started dating him, that they're not actually that interested after all but were idealizing him based on admirable hobby traits? I know many women who have gone through that. If certain parts of gay guys' inner workings resemble the inner workings of the average female of the species, as some brain structure research suggests on at least some level, wouldn't it make sense for them to experience some similar processes?


Continue to Part 4...

Private

I'm seriously considering going private for a time.  At the very least, going on hiatus for a while.

I still have so much to say:

• about my belief that most reparative therapy is unnecessarily lobotomizing, cleverly packaged, subtly emotionally manipulative mind tricks with good intentions, 
• about my continuing support for those who choose alternative-alternative lifestyles such as mixed-orientation marriages as long as they're being honest with themselves and their spouses (yes, maybe even to a level not required of other couples because of the circumstances and assumed risks), 
• about my own persisting desire to have a wife and kids, 
• about my skepticism that I can do so without being a bit selfish and/or losing myself (sorry, friends, I haven't liked the all of changes I've seen in those who have taken that route, even if they believe they are as happy as anyone), but still wondering whether losing myself a little might be worth the trade-off, and questioning whether I'm fully engaged in the relationship if I've tucked part of myself under the rug, but figuring maybe that's my spouse's choice to make, and reminding myself maybe I wouldn't lose myself at all or would but could also find lost parts of myself and maybe I can't know any of this until I try,
• about my questions as to whether the only truly selfless path, for me, is to never have children,
• about my theory that gay male culture began as a snowball of men who, because of the outright rejection of all homosexuality back in the day, left their jobs, families, and religions, and therefore had nothing left to lose and threw out the baby with the bathwater regarding commitment in relationships and standards of behavior, how gender roles and male physiology may come into play to magnify seed-sowing or gratification behavior without the tempering influence of women (who have higher risk of investment in promiscuity),  and how there seems to be a trend, slow as it may be, towards stabilization and maturation of gay culture in general as it re-assimilates certain values and relationship perspectives, 
• about my theory that gender constructs are malleable and based primarily on what traits happen to be generally predominantly found among males or females of our own species and how pockets of nature challenge notions of inherently "female" or "male" roles, and whether we can actually tweak what is considered "masculine" and "feminine" evolutionarily by adjustments to social/cultural ideas around gender and who ends up pairing off and having offspring, and whether education of those concepts might naturally, gently push the population in that direction, and ethical questions around what I guess I'd call social engineering,
• about wondering who my reader from a particular government office is, or the one from some studio in Cali,
• about my increasing belief that there is meaning, beauty, and optimism in life and the universe with or without a god or gods, 
• about what might become if our actual, physical communities and 'tribes' reassumed the roles which religion clearly dominates now and therefore seems uniquely positioned to provide but isn't necessarily inherently so but might be because of its acute and structured appeal to supernal emotion and ideation, 
• about how I'm full of crap trying to sound intelligent by forming sentences like the last one and how more intellectually honed people readily perceive it, 
• about what "light in your eyes" is really all about and how I think it has little to do with "having the Spirit" based on my experience and observation,
• about my increasing belief that the church is useful in a way and a great model of community in some key ways but doctrinally arbitrary/fantastical and possibly irreparably socially ill in others, 
• about my love of fireplaces and how that might be one of the top three elements I want in my home, 
• about my current, somewhat surprising happiness despite enormous stress and possibly very limited prospects for the future, 
• about my somewhat whimsical desire to go completely off the radar for a year and work as a baker in Italy or join some Spanish commune, 
• about the hot cop I saw at a Panda Express on Monday and how I figured coming on to an ambiguous police officer having lunch with his police officer friends was probably not the wisest thing in the world to do (a wise friend pointed out it's generally unwise to come on to men with guns),
• about the frank and clarifying conversation I had with someone close to me about the gay marriage debate and how I realized there is probably no true reconciliation to be reached on the issue on a legal/political level, even if I still believe there should be, because it's fundamentally about the subjective definition of marriage and whether someone believes God and predominant thought define it or that it is only defined as it is because of limited, flawed, evolving understanding,
• about the conversation I had with a pretty typical male on the subject of whether physical violence is an appropriate response to unwanted advances and how the genders of the one coming on and the one being come on to affect the appropriateness of the response, and how I think tempering gut reactions (physical violence and disgust when a man comes on to a straight man in no more offensive a way than a woman might) with conscious processing is as clear an example of 'overcoming the natural man' as any,
• about my frustration with having to constantly cater to the "majority" and their constructs, accept their lack of vision (yes, I know how arrogant saying this may seem) as somehow authoritative just because they think or were wired more like each other than I do/am like them, and abide by their change-resistant rules for the sake of arbitrary stability at the expense of progress when I think the balance between stability and progress has room to be tilted toward progress in many aspects, 
• about family dynamics and some realizations I've had regarding how certain family members' outspoken views throughout my life have significantly colored my own self-perceptions and my perceptions of others growing up, 
• about how belief may come down to choosing what to believe rather than figuring out what is concrete truth and why not to choose the pretty stories (even if they come with some ugly ones) just in case they're true or why someone would choose to believe in a godless universe and how it's not the bleak, meaningless perspective I, for one, always thought it was,
• about the sustainability of morality not based on authoritarian deity and arbitrary constructs/dogma,
• about discovering, with a fun smirk, that a long-time crush-from-afar was not one-directional, even though clearly nothing is going to be done about it,
• about tying up loose ends, moving on, and feeling good about it, 
• about my favorite recently watched movies and snippets of music, 
• about the joys of public transportation and quirky bus stories,
  
• about wanting to find more between the closeted angst and hypocritical repression of Utah gay men hopelessly attached to their stifling religious community and beholden to family expectations and the swishing and brazen flippancy of Seattle gay men hopelessly attached to their licentious sexuality community and withering in empty individualism,
  
• about the moment my friend's toddler son sweetly touched the cheek of a guy I was dating and cared about very much when he found the two of us bundled in a blanket together at my friend's house, the flicker of hope I smiled at that maybe he'd warm up to the idea of having kids someday (with whomever, not necessarily with me, though I admit I kinda liked the idea), and how--when I asked if my friend was OK with us being affectionate around the boy (just leaning on each other)--my friend said it was good for him to be exposed to us,
• about my prayer experiments from years ago,
• about my story of experiences with homosexuality and with the church, told as two separate but connected stories, from childhood to now, in several audio installments, some of which I already recorded months ago,
• about feeling like I've had a good love and not feeling the need to try to top it or supplant it for now because despite the pain and anger around how it ended, I still feel satisfied and filled, maybe permanently changed, and at least for now content in a way I'm not sure I can describe, and it's time to focus on other things for now,
• about my mission journal and the ways it all fits, maybe even better, within a completely different perspective than I had then, and the code I wrote into it in case someone else read it and I didn't want them to know what was hidden behind the words, and what it has reminded me of that I'd forgotten and can't honestly ignore,
• about the book I'm reading, The Happiness Hypothesis, and the many ideas I'm loving from it which reflect and support my own realizations and questions and the questions it has magnified about my own probably kinked psyche,
• about the fact that...I might take that hypothetical pill if it were offered, after all, but without shame...
• ...about this and more, far too much to try to explain fully here and now.

I'm feeling a desire to just take it all private, visible to only myself.  If I did write more about all of this, I'd want to give it due attention and do it justice.  And readers would surely react and misconstrue and jump to conclusions and ask questions and challenge and confirm, which would leave me wanting to clarify and refine and tease apart emotion from reason, conviction from suspicion, and questions from assertions...and even after all of that, it all seems so pointless sometimes that I shrug and say to the world, "You do your thing, and I'll do mine."

I see blogs which appeal to more lusty appetites gain zealous followers quickly, while my favorites are generally not hugely popular, being not nearly sensational or provocative enough, nor party-line-toeing enough, to appeal to the comforted masses.  Maybe I prefer that kind of company though.  Maybe I want to get away from the mobs anyway, despite missing certain aspects of the community they tend to carry.  In any case, it seems this little blog most likely won't make any lasting, actual difference outside of me, and I have been questioning whether my energy would be better redirected as I evaluate my probably nearly half-over vital life.  Please, no bites on supposed fishing line here, I'm talking about what's best for me, not lamenting and insisting I'll go eat worms.

In many ways, I've been closing chapters of my life, and as I've done so, I've hit a realization: I'm not sure I'm interested in writing the next chapters of this book.  I may be more interested in starting another book altogether and setting this one aside for now, maybe coming back to it someday.  If I'm honest with myself, I probably can't completely set it aside.  I'll probably just journal instead of publish for a while.  Maybe I'll never compile all of these thoughts into something cohesive to publish in book form.  Maybe I'll quit blogging with the hopes that this little, mostly undiscovered nook of cyberspace will become a compendium of my journey which might positively impact at least one person in some non-negligible way.  Maybe I'll keep blogging as usual with or without a hiatus.  Yeah, probably that last option, with a little of the others mixed in.

I'm looking forward to a future "download" feature to install in my brain.  I hope neuroscience advances quickly to enable that.  That'll be fun.  But for now, even if for only a symbolic night or two, I'm taking a vacation...I think...ah, heck.  All I know for sure is that I'm going to slip into a deep sleep induced by the powers of prescription cough syrup.  Ah, yes, I feel it.  That "good luck waking up sooner than 147 hours from now" feeling as Vienna Teng lulls me.  Mmm...



Note from the  next morning: that was trippy...as I listened to some of my favorite Vienna Teng bedtime songs, like 'Lullabye for a Stormy Night' and 'The Last Snowfall', it was like I was living in slow motion, like the short songs which always end too soon were extended far beyond their usual length, and it was so satisfying.  Perhaps there are ways to slow down life without codeine... :-)

Carol Lynn Pearson's Mormon Stories Interview

I've been watching this over the last few days and really enjoying it. Carol Lynn Pearson definitely is one of the most prominent voices on the subject of homosexuality and the church between her books and her play and other efforts. In this several-part, several-hours-long interview on Mormon Stories with John Dehlin, she discusses her 'mixed-orientation marriage' with her gay husband and other personal views and experiences related to homosexuality and the church. She doesn't toe the church policy line on the subject, and she definitely has been more embraced by organizations like Sunstone than by organizations like Evergreen (I'm pretty sure many or most Evergreeners consider her to be subversive), but she definitely has her finger on the pulse of the issue. Her voice is more that of practical observation, personal experience, and philosophy than of a scientific researcher or future General Relief Society President, which I think many find refreshing. I guess I won't say much more than to recommend watching it for those who are interested in such perspectives.

Pioneering paths and pitfalls

Note: this post began as a comment on my previous post and became a monster.



JIM SKEPTICISM

As is reflected in many of my posts, I'm quite skeptical of aspects of JIM, which skepticism is partially why I don't know if I'd ever be welcome even if I did have the money for it...that and my non-theist bent...and refusal to unquestioningly accept, even if I'd listen to and consider, a "life coach's" insistence about the causes and sources of my deepest emotional needs in a moment of cathartic vulnerability.


JIM BENEFITS?

But I've always said I don't doubt I could learn a lot about myself from one of those weekends, even if I am comfortable being my own man whether or not I fit anyone else's idea of "masculinity" and whether or not I think the weekend has anything to do with changing my attractions. ...And whether or not I think some valuable tools and true principles are attached to potentially completely wrong paradigms and assumptions, something I admit I may not be able to know unless I actually went and experienced it for myself...kind of like being in a healthy same-sex relationship, eh? But hey, reservations aside, I've been learning to 'follow my heart' and be willing to experience and listen to different things and take the good from them that I find and leave the stuff I consider superfluous or invalid.

I could imagine going to a JIM weekend under no false pretense if allowed, learning some cool stuff about myself and gaining clarity on a thing or two, quietly acknowledging the exercises or ideas I think are overwrought or contrived without imposing my skepticism on someone else's experience, maybe being surprised by the intensity of my own experience, giving consideration to the explanations given, and using what's useful and disagreeing with what I think is wrong, being open to the possibility that much less is wrong than I suspected.


ODDS AGAINST MOMS?

As for the statistical odds for 'mixed-orientation marriages', I don't know that I've seen reliable studies about it, but my observations seem to confirm that they aren't great. After all, I personally know several people who couldn't hold their marriages together, say they are happier in a long-term same-sex relationship than they ever were in their marriage with someone of the opposite sex, or who have held their marriages together but who (whether the SSA person or the spouse or both) confide to a few that they're quite unhappy and don't know if happiness is ahead but will probably never end the marriage out of obligation to their children and covenants, making it look to most people like a 'successful' marriage just because they're still together. I know many gay people who say they've never known a gay person in a mixed-orientation marriage who didn't eventually get divorced, didn't cheat on their spouse (usually often), and didn't confide in them that they weren't happy. But most of these cases, when pressed, admit their homosexuality either was not discussed before marrying, still hasn't been discussed or addressed openly, or was only discussed after being caught cheating or viewing pornography and therefore 'didn't go so well' and was off to a rough start.


HUNTING FOR HAPPY MOMS

I believe there are happy MOMs, but in order to know the couples who are happily married, you probably have to be in the right 'circles'. You often don't find them at Pride, or otherwise hanging out in 'out and proud' circles, or frequenting comments on The Advocate. They're most often quietly living their lives, often relying on a support network of other similar couples. Maybe they'll 'go public' more as society learns to accept and tolerate them, rather than pigeonholing them as doomed to failure and a threat to gay self-acceptance, and they're free to 'come out'. I personally also know several mixed-orientation couples who have been happily married for years, some for well over 15 years, a couple for decades. And because I personally know some of them fairly well, and a couple of them very well, I don't find it hard to believe they are, in fact, as happily married as any other married couple. Many or most of these were communicating openly about the issue from the beginning, and almost all of the rest weren't but have become so, with support systems in place for both spouses to help them through. Some observers say they'd rather not 'have to' have such a support system to stay married, myself included, but that's every individual's choice to make. Many of these have had rough spots, maybe more so than your average couple or maybe not--I can't know for sure. But they also usually confidently say they wouldn't trade what they have for the world and are glad they married and/or are glad they stayed together. And I typically believe them. But yes, many of them have been married fewer than 10 years. We'll see, but how disgusting might it feel to know the vultures are just waiting for your relationship to fail? I believe in optimism tempered with realism, but when it comes to hoping for friends' happiness, I try to let faith win out.


WHAT ABOUT SUBSETS?

Probable statistical odds conceded, we don't know the statistical odds for the subset of couples who married having communicated openly about the issue before marrying and throughout the marriage, having done therapy and support group work to explore their emotional needs and fill desires and needs for friendship and non-sexual intimacy in certain ways, developing their sex life, etc. Whether it's about "changing orientation" or about coping mechanisms or emotional fulfillment, I'd guess the success rates of that particular subset are much higher--though even if so there will still be ended/failed marriages, yes, and I wouldn't know what consolation to offer those in that group--than those who "had the right intentions" and tried to "make it work" in a diffuse sort of way or maybe even went to couple's counseling. It's possible that of the however many percent of mixed-orientation marriages which ARE successful and happy, many of those share common threads which, if identified and applied on a larger scale, could greatly improve similar marriages. Who knows? Some try seemingly weird things in the process of learning what makes the best relationships tick, and unless there's demonstrable evidence that particular practices are harmful for all people, why not focus on cautioning those who want to try them rather than simply squashing the whole thing? As for JIM in general, my personal conversations and reading tell me claims that the weekend was traumatizing or harmful overall are the very small minority. But these are the kinds of questions some are willing (and yes, sometimes desperate) to explore and experiment on because it matters so much to them to try, both the gay/SSA people and the ones who love them and want to be with them, challenges and all.


"I NEED A HERO!"

I am concerned about guys who see examples like Preston's and think, "He's my hero! I'm going to be just like him!" First of all, Preston's journey and those of others who have done similarly are unique to each person in their challenges and timelines, and their journeys aren't as perfect as many guys wishing for the same seem to think when they see stuff like this Nightline condensation of the last several years of his life in a snapshot now. When do you think people agree to be interviewed for shows like that? When they're struggling and down, or when they're on a high and have been doing pretty darn well for a while? Do you think they're never going to have some down times again in their long, gradual personal progress, at least like anyone else in the world dealing with a long-term challenge? There have been times I'm pretty sure they'd describe as 'difficult', not just an 'adventure', especially when they don't feel pressured to represent an organization or program which has helped them approach those difficulties better equipped and with more courage but are speaking on a purely personal level. But though I may wish they'd be more up front about it, many of them will admit to honest questioners and newcomers privately, where it can be discussed in a trusting environment, that it's not always easy, and they'll discuss the challenges and realities, and they'll reassert their belief that it's been worth it and is getting better all the time with the things they've been learning. Many of those I know try to help others learn from, rather than repeat, whatever mistakes they may have made and prepare them for the inevitable ups and downs by sharing what has brought them greater peace and happiness each step of the way. Such is the pattern of pioneering, mentorship, building on the knowledge and experience of those who dared to go before, whether or not the idea or practice being pioneered proves 'true' in the long run or right for everyone.


TO EACH HIS OWN

I've never let anyone showing me statistics about the success rates or longevity of gay relationships or 'explaining' to me the realities/superficiality of homosexual love make my decision for me as to whether I dare to try to defy the odds or find out for myself what that love can be. I've processed the information I've found and referred back to my own perceptions, experience, beliefs, and 'moral compass'. I've asserted there were other confounding factors involved, and my experience needn't be that of the majority, particularly if I wasn't going about it in the way the majority seems to. I wonder if I'd have a harder time forging my own path if I lived in a time when the majority of the scientific community did think homosexuality was a mental disorder, and you'd have been hard-pressed to find a gay man who believed in monogamy and long-term commitment between two men, much less had lived it.

I've also seen guys (and gals) try to do all the 'right' things, go to the 'right' groups, and keep the 'right' perspectives, and end up bleak and unhappy, a few even attempting to take their own lives when they can't understand why they're not so 'successful' and happy in that path as their testifying counterparts seem to be. I want to make sure folks like that know that there are options, that they haven't lost their only hope if they can't seem to bring themselves to marry a woman (or a woman to marry a man) in whatever timeline they'd imagined. I want them to know how to find others who won't insist they abandon their personal beliefs, values, or principles in order to conform to a prepackaged path.

I cannot make the decision for anyone else or predict who will thrive in a certain path and who will despair...nor presume to know exactly why. The best I can do is raise a voice of caution when I'm genuinely concerned, show others what has worked for me, listen to and learn from the experiences of others, encourage others to seek truth and happiness the best they know how and to live by their proven values and principles rather than letting anyone else prescribe their decisions, offer my ear and voice as they explore, and offer my hand if they want to walk with me.


PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS

If a mixed-sex couple in which one spouse experiences predominant same-sex attraction grow old together, having a rich and fulfilling life together with their children and grandchildren, I suspect hearing "well, you were the exception to the rule" or "your example led to suicides of those who never knew you, never bothered to ask you about the realities of your situation or whether you believed all people should do it the way you did it, bought into a version of your story promulgated by those who thought you would fail, and consequently despaired when they didn't become straight within a year or two like they presumptuously thought you had" is highly unlikely to quell their gratitude for their decision to determine their own path to truth and happiness.

And I will determine mine.

Nightline's Journey Into Manhood

Note: For a more complete picture of my views on Journey Into Manhood and related efforts, see my blog entries marked with the labels Journey Into Manhood or Therapy of Homosexuality.



I was going to title this "JIM-Dandies on Nightline", but a friend who has been quite heavily involved with JIM for quite some time seemed genuinely offended when I said "JIM-dandies" a few weeks ago, and though I've wondered how he couldn't see that it's not meant to be "pejorative" as he said but good-natured ribbing, cheekiness isn't what this post is about, so I refrained...except for this paragraph. *smirk*

Nightline finally aired a story about Journey Into Manhood they filmed this summer, and it's a bit shorter than I expected, and less a personal narrative than I had the impression it would be, but it seems like a pretty fair approach to the issue of certain efforts of guys to deal with "unwanted same-sex attraction", probably as balanced as I've seen on any major news media.

The weekend portrayed was a reunion of sorts, not an actual, regular JIM weekend. The report included some exercises, but not nearly all of them. There are more intense and personalized exercises throughout the weekend, I understand. The ones portrayed in the report reminded me of some in which I participated at an Evergreen Conference in 2006 or 2007, when Rich Wyler presented about the experiential weekend in a workshop. For example, I was to stand face-to-face with another workshop attendee, just inside our comfort bubble, look into each other's eyes, and think of the "story" I was telling myself about who he is, why he's here, where he came from, what his traits are, etc. And hold the stare despite discomfort, paying attention to the feelings arising in that discomfort, letting them surface. Were we feeling vulnerable? Were we laughing nervously? Did we want to look away? Why? Etc. Not life-changing, but interesting and instructive. He told us this and a couple of others we did were just a small sample of the more intensive, deeper exercises we could expect from the weekend if we were to go.

But regardless of whether we got any real feel for the weekend from the story, I think I'm glad the story has been told. And to be honest, what stood out to me more than anything about the Journey Into Manhood weekend was just the personal perspective and story of a gay guy who married a woman and is choosing his path forward. I won't comment in much detail about the subjects, Preston and Megan specifically, since I do know them personally. I'll just say I believe them when they say they're doing well now, they're happy, and they're looking forward to their new addition to the family!

I have to admit that when the reporter talked about Preston achieving his dream of becoming a father, my heart swelled a little at the thought, and despite fighting some resentment towards him in connection with feeling like he contributed personally to my pain this summer, I couldn't help but feel warmly happy for him and Megan because I, too, have always hoped to one day have a family. I know that dream. I believe in its joy. And while I'm busy trying to sort out whether I'm prepared for the challenges of building a family with another man or the challenges of building a family with a woman, he is actually living that dream.

I couldn't help but feel a glimmer of a wish that I could have that, the picture I had in my head when I was young, before I realized my own attractions weren't geared towards women. I couldn't help but acknowledge my recurring notion over the past month that maybe I'm not cut out for this whole gay crusader thing, or not interested in the struggles accompanying same-sex companionship, and would be better off finding a woman who's willing to take on the challenge if I am, or at least being open and available should such a woman come along. In that state of mind, I've considered doing whatever it takes, whatever others have experienced as working for them to work towards being prepared for that step--marriage with a woman--even if I don't necessarily have the same motivations for doing it or ascribe all of the same explanations to the exercises.

Maybe I want to "drink the Kool-Aid" if the end result is the kind of happiness I have always most wanted and if the alternatives just don't work for me. Maybe I can't "have it all", and I have to choose what I most want and value, and what I most want and value can be found with a woman as well as with a man. Maybe I'll find that if/when a woman comes along for whom I genuinely fall, as I'd need to in order to marry in good conscience, it won't feel like a compromise after all, like being with a guy hasn't felt like the compromise I once thought it would be.

In that light, making this admission (which admission I suppose may anger, frustrate, or elate some of you), and at the risk of validating what they're saying by questioning rather than "confidently" decrying their dastardly self-deception, how can I blame the guy I dated for choosing to end whatever we had to try to find happiness similar to what such a good guy as Preston testifies has worked for him? And if I can experience what I'm thinking and feeling without even bringing God into the equation, how can I possibly demean anyone for wanting to try efforts to reject a "gay identity" in favor of hope for heterosexual marriage which will bring less friction socially and will allow them to procreate with their spouse, especially when they believe such marriage is key to celestial glory and that same-sex companionship is not only strictly temporal but also completely opposed to a most fundamental 'purpose' of our existence?

Whether or not I would do it exactly like Preston or think it's "right" to do it exactly like he has, how can I not feel love for his happiness and respect for his and Megan's right to pursue what they want according to their beliefs and desires? As much as I worry their story may seduce many young men into years of unnecessary conflict before realizing it didn't have to be that way and there is growth, joy, and love in value- and principle-based living outside of the JIM or reparative paradigm, I can't possibly fault Preston and Megan for wanting to share their experience, to make their story known to those who would like a similar life for themselves. And as much as I believe their past hasn't always been so sunny, I can't help but set aside childishly defensive cynicism in order to take them at face value and just be genuinely happy that they're happy.


On that vein, I enjoyed the end of this clip (from 4:10 on):



NOTE: For some reason, the video isn't working lately on ABC's web site, but you can see it on Hulu, and the clip I refer to at the end begins at 19:54. I'll embed it below:

Is mortal love ruined?

As I was driving tonight, I forget what train of thought brought me there, but I had a bit of a realization.

I spent twenty-some years firmly believing that family relationships, beginning with the sealing covenant of temple marriage, are not only meant to be eternally binding and unifying but are the central apex of the entire purpose of our existence now and into eternal immortality. I spent twenty-some years pitying those whose marriages were for time only and hoping they'd eventually choose to be sealed by (LDS) priesthood authority and keep their families together forever. I spent several years believing same-sex couples won't even have that option, to make their unions eternal. That they are definitely and finally separated at death, which makes their lifetime together a mere bandaid of temporal comfort which will sting that much more when removed. I believed that the truest, most beautiful, most godlike, most loving, eternal, glorious, celestial relationships were unions solemnified in holy houses of the Lord, built on love of God first, and the pure love Christ for each other, forged by the priesthood (power of God through men), all else being secondary and maybe primarily mortal...lower.

Now, I'm afraid that next to that, no relationship other than a temple marriage will ever seem quite as wonderful and glorious as it otherwise should. No worlds without end, no celestial king and queen, no bond forged eternally by God and unbreakable by any man, no love supposedly gifted/borrowed from deity. I'm afraid of what might happen if I never shake those notions, that I might marry or partner with a beautiful, wonderful man (or even woman) and always, in the back of my mind, even if I no longer believe we continue living after death, vaguely or diffusely regard our relationship as inferior to those of my temple-married family and friends.

I actually teared up at the thought that "regular" love, even if it's the storybook love most people are jealous of and which lasts a lifetime and builds a family, might be ruined in my mind, inferior by its mortality, that some part of me might never let go of what I thought it was supposed to be.

I'm not sure this fear is something I'm willing to just hope goes away when I find someone. Since I've never gotten as far as "committed", but the love I've felt for a guy or two I've fallen for has felt as 'divine' as any I've known, I suppose I don't know whether this would've come up or whether it's a non-issue. Just seems like something I should at least be aware of and not sweep under the rug to resurface in a relationship. For now, though, it's just a thought...back burner...I've got bigger fish to fry.

The risks of questioning aloud

I think there are various reasons I've held back vocalizing certain things in such a "public" or diffuse way as blogging it here, particularly concerning reparative therapy and attempts to live a heterosexual lifestyle. I haven't wanted to "attack" things people close to me seem very sensitive about or make it seem like I'm directly criticizing their lives or relationships by asking questions. I haven't wanted to be lumped in with acerbic cynics and uninformed critics. I haven't wanted people who tend to selectively gather information to read my thoughts and take them quietly to those who profess healing through all things reparative and have their questions silently addressed behind closed doors, away from critical response or dynamic conversation where the discussion will be fair. I can hear the responses now, "O-Mo is bright, but he hasn't tried this, he doesn't know what he's talking about and can't speak from experience. I can. And you can't deny a personal story." I haven't wanted to seem confrontational. I haven't wanted to be just another non-professional voice speaking about theories which therapists have been refining for years.

And I think part of me would rather hit someone with certain ideas in private, teachable moments, when they seem open to questioning and really considering "another side", to increase the impact of the ideas and really try to get them across in a meaningful way. ...Which I guess is like addressing them behind closed doors, away from critical response. Aw, balls, I hate it when I turn stuff around on myself.

And to be honest, even though I do think I have a better-than-average grasp on a lot of the stuff I've held back, there's always a small fear that when I actually try to vocalize it, I will be challenged in a way which will make me look ignorant, or I'll find that I didn't understand as well as I thought I did. This has always been a factor for me in holding back questions. I probably would have learned more in school if it weren't for this hesitation. This is no exception.

But as I've noticed so few people discussing the topic in anything but combative or dismissive terms, I want to get some ideas a little more out in the open. I may address issues around these ideas more in upcoming posts because I'm ready to ask questions openly, to invite dialog, to see where I'm wrong or need to challenge my paradigms more, or to potentially challenge others' paradigms.

And to be somewhat painfully honest, part of me wants to believe I would be completely happy with a wife who complements and brings out the best in me and children we have together, in whom we see ourselves, free from the theoretically unnecessary but very real and present burdens of societal defiance, legal and procreative limitations, and lingering, back-of-the-mind questions or "what ifs" about what will become of our relationship if we continue after death. Despite feeling confidently ready to face whatever might come while I was dating a great guy, and believing we could do anything if we did it together, the loss of that relationship has revealed lingering or resurfacing "unresolved issues". So I'm not so very interested in pontificating or staging a witty "wise-guy" routine right now. I'm more interested in saying what I'm thinking, raising questions, sifting out emotional reactions from rational assessments, and inciting some critical thought in others and in myself.

But to those of you afraid of losing the more wry or clownish O-Mo (if any such people made it to this point of the post), fear not: dry snark and sassy smirks may not abound, but come on...it's me...they're not going away.