...which was proven to "cure" homosexuality in one dose (AKA dissolve your homosexual/homoromantic feelings/desires/inclinations/passions and replace them with matching heterosexual/heteroromantic ones), and it was offered to you for free, would you take it?
Someone's statement today resurfaced this question for me. It reminded me of several months ago when my mom asked, "Wouldn't you rather not be same-sex attracted if you could help it? Wouldn't life be easier for you if you weren't torn between what you want and what you believe is appropriate to act on, or to feel more able to find a wife and start a family?" She seemed a little surprised (I hope not devastated) when I said maybe, but I wasn't so sure that I would. How I am is what I know, and it's hard to not want what you want (or not to believe what you believe). Yeah, it's a conflict, but I just don't know if I would take that pill. Maybe. Some days I'd be more inclined than others, perhaps.
Some of my reasons for reluctance towards said hypothetical pill are personal. Some may be very much emotional and possibly not logically defensible. Some I'm not sure I can even identify. But it's an interesting question to ask myself from time to time. Makes me pause to reflect on and assess a few things.
I admittedly worry for people who would stubbornly decry the very existence of the pill and would refuse to even consider taking it because "change" is another word for "dishonesty" and "hatred". But just as much, I worry for people who would be overzealous in their eagerness to take it to become "normal". I worry their attitude will lead them to miss out on the opportunity to love themselves as they are before moving on and to use that love in understanding others. I worry they're trying to skip learning to live life deliberately, to bridle their passions, to see beyond the "monster" they've created in their minds. I even worry they'd be overly confident that all of their problems would be solved by becoming heterosexual and life would be a cakewalk from that point on. I can't say I'd totally blame people for being first in line. But I would (or do) hold back and let the eager masses go first while I figure out if I really even hope to say goodbye to this part of me once and for all. Even if it seems obvious it could resolve certain conflicts for me, it's not a comfortable prospect to shift an entire paradigm and approach life from a very different angle.
Is it possible I've become addicted to or dependent on "the conflict"? It is, after all, certainly a puzzle. I like puzzles. OK, I obsess over puzzles. And it does make me a bit of an oddity, though the high number of LDS SSA/gay/struggler bloggers cropping up are beginning to make me feel annoyingly non-abnormal. Dang. I enjoy the self-flattery of fancying myself to be an anomaly of sorts. I do hope I don't have so much energy and identity tied up in the "conflict" that I wouldn't know who I am without it, that I wouldn't know where life's next mystery is if I were to let go of one side or the other.
Maybe I'd sample the gradual change pill. You know, out of curiosity. Maybe one that would make me "straight" just for a day. See how I like it. Then back to the safety net of neurotic, repressed mohoness to which I'm so affectionately accustomed.
19 December 2008
16 December 2008
Common Ground? Not So Sure...
I recently attended a "town hall" meeting regarding the Common Ground Initiative in Salt Lake. Sitting in a room full of gay activists and allies, I felt distinctly...distinct. I looked around the room and thought, "The people crying most loudly to be treated like everyone else are not at all LIKE everyone else. They're rougher, more crass, seemingly oblivious to how bizarre their appearance and speech would seem to most people they encounter on a daily basis. I don't think my perspective is SO skewed that I don't realize that I live in a cozy, suburban bubble that belies reality. I think they are probably deceived, unaware of the oddity and crudity of their behavior and sexual expression." Mind you, people looking or behaving "differently" should be no excuse for treating them with any less dignity or respect than anyone else, except perhaps where they're dishing out disrespect themselves. So I'm not saying people who are different don't deserve rights. I am simply saying I wasn't sure what, exactly, they were really hoping for...was it to be seen as "normal" and "typical" regardless of what they do and say? I wasn't sure. That may sound ignorant, but it's what I thought. Here I was, a gay man rather turned off by gay men and women and their in-your-face, militant attitudes. In their spouting off, they demonstrated just as little real intent to understand their probable political opponents as most Prop 8 supporters did. Common Ground? Really? I was disappointed.
I was left feeling a clear desire not to become what I was witnessing, not to partake in the culture promulgated by those whom I was inclined to defend. Mind you, I had to check my gut reactions and recognize my knee-jerk distaste for what it was, but there was something intangible, inexplicable which spoke to me that this was, in fact, the core of the "gay" world, once you get past the pretty veneer of sexy young guys having sexy young relationships. For some reason, seeing two middle-aged men together, neither one acting much like a "man" in the traditional sense, and it bothered me. Shoot, I'm not as tolerant as I thought, maybe.
I thought, "Well if anything in my recent experience has instilled a desire for heteronormative functioning, this is it. I don't want to be middle-aged and weak- and fragile-seeming. I don't want to sound bitter and harping on religion and the vast majority of society. I don't want to be 35 and look utterly used and spent, probably the result of a really destructive pattern of habits and pastimes." I didn't want to be gay, and I didn't want to be counted as gay. I came to support a positive effort, and I went away feeling bland about the effort. I was a traitor.
And so it became clearer to me, as I felt distanced from the "gay" world, how some gay people desire and attempt to defy nature and what amounts to "common" sense to try making a normal, traditional male-female partnership work, apparently against the odds. I most often bristle at eager attempts at conformity, but in this dark, shrill room, I felt a clear desire for a more "normal" life. The idea of facing social and religious challenges and battling prejudice my entire life, possibly for no good reason other than my own stubborn refusal to accept the sanctity and eternal nature of gender and male-female marriage...well, when that lifelong battle was so clearly before me, I paused. I paused considerably.
I recognize that I still cling to some social norms and traditional roles. Much of me still thinks men should be sensitive and affectionate yet still strong and independent. Much of me still wonders how much of gender identity disorder or transgenderism is really psychological confusion that could be "corrected". And I fully recognize that I would then have to wonder more seriously whether counseling could also, in turn, "help" me with my homosexual/homoromantic desires. They're not the same thing, to be sure, but if I'm going to challenge the gay establishment in regards to transgenderism, I have to be fair and allow my own "condition" to be challenged. In a roundabout way, my pangs of what would be called intolerance by some made me back up and try to understand where those who are "ignorant" or "intolerant" about homosexuality in general are coming from. It reminded me that not all who believe in some kind of "change" are haters or simply not trying to understand, and it reminded me that just as I've gone through processes, I have to allow others at least as much time and learning to "come around", and maybe it's OK if they never completely do "come around" in certain ways because hey, diversity is the spice of life, right?
I was left feeling a clear desire not to become what I was witnessing, not to partake in the culture promulgated by those whom I was inclined to defend. Mind you, I had to check my gut reactions and recognize my knee-jerk distaste for what it was, but there was something intangible, inexplicable which spoke to me that this was, in fact, the core of the "gay" world, once you get past the pretty veneer of sexy young guys having sexy young relationships. For some reason, seeing two middle-aged men together, neither one acting much like a "man" in the traditional sense, and it bothered me. Shoot, I'm not as tolerant as I thought, maybe.
I thought, "Well if anything in my recent experience has instilled a desire for heteronormative functioning, this is it. I don't want to be middle-aged and weak- and fragile-seeming. I don't want to sound bitter and harping on religion and the vast majority of society. I don't want to be 35 and look utterly used and spent, probably the result of a really destructive pattern of habits and pastimes." I didn't want to be gay, and I didn't want to be counted as gay. I came to support a positive effort, and I went away feeling bland about the effort. I was a traitor.
And so it became clearer to me, as I felt distanced from the "gay" world, how some gay people desire and attempt to defy nature and what amounts to "common" sense to try making a normal, traditional male-female partnership work, apparently against the odds. I most often bristle at eager attempts at conformity, but in this dark, shrill room, I felt a clear desire for a more "normal" life. The idea of facing social and religious challenges and battling prejudice my entire life, possibly for no good reason other than my own stubborn refusal to accept the sanctity and eternal nature of gender and male-female marriage...well, when that lifelong battle was so clearly before me, I paused. I paused considerably.
I recognize that I still cling to some social norms and traditional roles. Much of me still thinks men should be sensitive and affectionate yet still strong and independent. Much of me still wonders how much of gender identity disorder or transgenderism is really psychological confusion that could be "corrected". And I fully recognize that I would then have to wonder more seriously whether counseling could also, in turn, "help" me with my homosexual/homoromantic desires. They're not the same thing, to be sure, but if I'm going to challenge the gay establishment in regards to transgenderism, I have to be fair and allow my own "condition" to be challenged. In a roundabout way, my pangs of what would be called intolerance by some made me back up and try to understand where those who are "ignorant" or "intolerant" about homosexuality in general are coming from. It reminded me that not all who believe in some kind of "change" are haters or simply not trying to understand, and it reminded me that just as I've gone through processes, I have to allow others at least as much time and learning to "come around", and maybe it's OK if they never completely do "come around" in certain ways because hey, diversity is the spice of life, right?
No Serious Person...
As much as religious people most often show a fundamental lack of understanding of where their gay counterparts are coming from, people often show a fundamental lack of understanding of religious people's views regarding their own sacred institutions and the role of sexuality, as evidenced on page 3 (online) of a recent Newsweek article:
"If we are all God's children, made in his likeness and image, then to deny access to any sacrament based on sexuality is exactly the same thing as denying it based on skin color—and no serious (or even semiserious) person would argue that."
Really? You sure about that?
I could write so much more on this. Another time. I don't have the energy or desire right now.
"If we are all God's children, made in his likeness and image, then to deny access to any sacrament based on sexuality is exactly the same thing as denying it based on skin color—and no serious (or even semiserious) person would argue that."
Really? You sure about that?
I could write so much more on this. Another time. I don't have the energy or desire right now.
15 December 2008
Difficult Confession
I've had an inexplicable desire to snuggle and spend time with a saucy, altruistic, hottie brunette...of the female variety. None in specific. Just the idea of one. I know. Weird. For a couple of days now, pretty steadily. I've seen a couple of lovely daughters of God and thought, "OK, not bad. I could explore that possibility for the sake of actually procreating and living without all the baggage and stigma and complication of a gay relationship. Maybe there really is something to this whole marrying the opposite sex thing."
I think I'm not supposed to admit this sort of thing because it misleads the masses. "Wait...but he said he's gay! Liar!" And it threatens the whole "gay guys can't honestly be interested in women 'cause that would ruin our whole insistence that sexuality is totally fixed and absolute" camp. And they're a highly sensitive bunch you don't want to offend if you can help it. Wounded beasts lash out. Not pretty. Lots of growling.
Maybe I've been a switch hitter all along but have just "dabbled" in the gay club. Maybe I've actually been just as interested in girls all along. *stifling a scoff*
Maybe I'm beginning the gay-dreaded transition into heterohood at an alarming rate. By the end of the week, I'll be wearing flannel and spitting tobacco and pinching random women's butts. 'Cause that's what straight dudes do. Dang. I'm going to miss my scarves. But I guess I won't miss them if the woman-loving Hyde takes over.
Maybe the straightness has been in me all along and is now emerging because I've healed my sense of masculinity to the point that the natural processes are taking place. Dave and Rich will be so proud of me.
Or maybe I'm still rather non-hetero but am tired of resisting the urge to ask cute guys out because it will only end messily unless I go all out and open up to the possibility of a "real" relationship with a guy, which I haven't done. So I'm sick of not having that kind of companionship, so hey, those curves aren't really all that bad, if you look at them and slap a Matthew Goode face on 'em...eh no, nevermind, I'm not into gender-bending; take that mask back off. Yeah, OK, those delicately beautiful lines aren't so bad. I could work with that. Especially if she's the aggressive type and will throw me down. That's hot.
And the silky hair, the sweet smell, the soft skin...have I mentioned boobs aren't so bad, really? Could be fun. And the tenderness, the sensitivity, and the thoughtfulness of most women I've known outshine most men I've known. And I could probably take her home to family without tension. And she can probably make babies and feed them naturally and bond with and mother the little ones she birthed. We could still adopt, not out of necessity but out of desire.
Heck yeah, send in the applications, ladies. Just being interested and somewhat open to the possibility of non-perverse love is a rarity for me, so act now. But, um...act fast 'cause this is most definitely a limited-time offer. My less-gay-than-yesterday phases don't usually last very long.
I think I'm not supposed to admit this sort of thing because it misleads the masses. "Wait...but he said he's gay! Liar!" And it threatens the whole "gay guys can't honestly be interested in women 'cause that would ruin our whole insistence that sexuality is totally fixed and absolute" camp. And they're a highly sensitive bunch you don't want to offend if you can help it. Wounded beasts lash out. Not pretty. Lots of growling.
Maybe I've been a switch hitter all along but have just "dabbled" in the gay club. Maybe I've actually been just as interested in girls all along. *stifling a scoff*
Maybe I'm beginning the gay-dreaded transition into heterohood at an alarming rate. By the end of the week, I'll be wearing flannel and spitting tobacco and pinching random women's butts. 'Cause that's what straight dudes do. Dang. I'm going to miss my scarves. But I guess I won't miss them if the woman-loving Hyde takes over.
Maybe the straightness has been in me all along and is now emerging because I've healed my sense of masculinity to the point that the natural processes are taking place. Dave and Rich will be so proud of me.
Or maybe I'm still rather non-hetero but am tired of resisting the urge to ask cute guys out because it will only end messily unless I go all out and open up to the possibility of a "real" relationship with a guy, which I haven't done. So I'm sick of not having that kind of companionship, so hey, those curves aren't really all that bad, if you look at them and slap a Matthew Goode face on 'em...eh no, nevermind, I'm not into gender-bending; take that mask back off. Yeah, OK, those delicately beautiful lines aren't so bad. I could work with that. Especially if she's the aggressive type and will throw me down. That's hot.
And the silky hair, the sweet smell, the soft skin...have I mentioned boobs aren't so bad, really? Could be fun. And the tenderness, the sensitivity, and the thoughtfulness of most women I've known outshine most men I've known. And I could probably take her home to family without tension. And she can probably make babies and feed them naturally and bond with and mother the little ones she birthed. We could still adopt, not out of necessity but out of desire.
Heck yeah, send in the applications, ladies. Just being interested and somewhat open to the possibility of non-perverse love is a rarity for me, so act now. But, um...act fast 'cause this is most definitely a limited-time offer. My less-gay-than-yesterday phases don't usually last very long.
12 December 2008
Garriage
Hm, maybe the gay rights movement should just let the straighties keep their "marriage" and fight to adopt "garriage" into the Constitution instead. That could be fun. And church manuals and past talks say nothing of sexual relations being OK between garried people, so no sweat on the Church's part to have to clarify what kind of marriage is chaste, right? Adoption agencies can still choose to adopt out only to married couples if they want. And churches can marry or garry to their hearts' content. I think this has potential...
07 December 2008
Power In Labels
Words carry power. Without words, thoughts remain nebulous, and expression pales. When a word's perceived meaning is changed, communication and understanding shift with it. Words carry cultural implications and symbolic nuance.
It is precisely because of this that I often refuse to be a slave to existing social paradigms in the self-application of labels. If I use a label for myself, it becomes mine, and it makes me no less an individual or beholden to some one-dimensional mass. Rather than assimilating wholly into the label, I add context and facets to it. Perhaps I'm naive in thinking so, since most people will not see it this way. Most will see the label and ascribe various traits and beliefs to me without even realizing they've done it or questioning whether it is just to do so. Fortunately, I'm generally not afraid of that. Those who prefer ignorance will persist in it regardless of what I bring to the table. Those who recognize their own ignorance will learn and will add me to their conglomeration of who comprises a given label. But the perception of the label will never change if those whom it describes don't speak up for themselves.
Some are uncomfortable referring to themselves as "gay" because "gay" is associated, as you can see, with "licentious". And "homosexual" implies purely "sexual" desire. And we, in Mormon culture, know that sexual appetite is evil, right? Some argue that same-sex attraction is about much more than sexual desire--intimacy, sexuality, romance, etc--so to use "-sexual" undercuts those nuances. Generally speaking, people so acutely aware of the problems with such labels don't apply the same stringent requirements to other self descriptions, but perhaps social stigmas make us understandably more defensive about certain pet peeves.
Maybe it's fair for people to say "I don't consider myself 'gay', so I don't care about changing the perception of that label." I, however, would prefer it if, one day, people could hear "gay" without thinking only of Will & Grace, anti-prop-8 protesters carrying "Mormon scum" signs and vandalizing temple grounds, or gay pride parades replete with all kinds of whoredom. I know gay people who are quietly living productive lives, giving to their communities, maintaining committed relationships, living every bit as "morally" as their straight counterparts, just not following the Proclamation on the Family. Are they less "gay" because they don't subscribe to licentiousness? Am I less "gay" because I'm not looking for a same-sex partner? I guess we all draw our lines somewhere.
Some members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints refuse to ever call themselves "Mormon" because they are "latter-day saints" or "LDS" or "members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". Many of us will use "Mormon" casually when it's convenient. Heck, I've even known one or two members of the Church who would not refer to themselves as Christians because that carried a connotation that they were part of the larger, apostate Christian community, and they were more comfortable staying separate and distinct from that. Again, I guess we all draw our lines somewhere.
It is precisely because of this that I often refuse to be a slave to existing social paradigms in the self-application of labels. If I use a label for myself, it becomes mine, and it makes me no less an individual or beholden to some one-dimensional mass. Rather than assimilating wholly into the label, I add context and facets to it. Perhaps I'm naive in thinking so, since most people will not see it this way. Most will see the label and ascribe various traits and beliefs to me without even realizing they've done it or questioning whether it is just to do so. Fortunately, I'm generally not afraid of that. Those who prefer ignorance will persist in it regardless of what I bring to the table. Those who recognize their own ignorance will learn and will add me to their conglomeration of who comprises a given label. But the perception of the label will never change if those whom it describes don't speak up for themselves.
Merriam-Webster's definition of gay:
Main Entry: gay
1 a: happily excited: merry
b: keenly alive and exuberant: having or inducing high spirits
2 a: bright, lively
b: brilliant in color
3: given to social pleasures; also: licentious
4 a: homosexual
b: of, relating to, or used by homosexuals
Main Entry: ho·mo·sex·u·al
1 : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex
2 : of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex
Some are uncomfortable referring to themselves as "gay" because "gay" is associated, as you can see, with "licentious". And "homosexual" implies purely "sexual" desire. And we, in Mormon culture, know that sexual appetite is evil, right? Some argue that same-sex attraction is about much more than sexual desire--intimacy, sexuality, romance, etc--so to use "-sexual" undercuts those nuances. Generally speaking, people so acutely aware of the problems with such labels don't apply the same stringent requirements to other self descriptions, but perhaps social stigmas make us understandably more defensive about certain pet peeves.
Maybe it's fair for people to say "I don't consider myself 'gay', so I don't care about changing the perception of that label." I, however, would prefer it if, one day, people could hear "gay" without thinking only of Will & Grace, anti-prop-8 protesters carrying "Mormon scum" signs and vandalizing temple grounds, or gay pride parades replete with all kinds of whoredom. I know gay people who are quietly living productive lives, giving to their communities, maintaining committed relationships, living every bit as "morally" as their straight counterparts, just not following the Proclamation on the Family. Are they less "gay" because they don't subscribe to licentiousness? Am I less "gay" because I'm not looking for a same-sex partner? I guess we all draw our lines somewhere.
Some members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints refuse to ever call themselves "Mormon" because they are "latter-day saints" or "LDS" or "members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". Many of us will use "Mormon" casually when it's convenient. Heck, I've even known one or two members of the Church who would not refer to themselves as Christians because that carried a connotation that they were part of the larger, apostate Christian community, and they were more comfortable staying separate and distinct from that. Again, I guess we all draw our lines somewhere.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)