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.

Confessions of a Nurtured Homo, Part 3

<< Part 2


Sometimes, guys at school had traits I was attracted to, like confidence, being outgoing, and being really comfortable with themselves in a way I wasn't sure I understood but wanted to because I felt really inhibited and reserved and didn't always like that. I found myself drawn to them in a way I couldn't put my finger on but figured I wanted to observe and learn from them, and I accordingly made efforts to emulate the positive traits I observed however I could. I thought if I could incorporate admirable traits into my life, it would resolve the fascination, and I found it to work pretty well. I never thought of that as wanting to be with them. I remember catching myself watching one such guy in a high school class a little too intently, wondering what made him so confident and at ease, and figuring if anyone caught me looking, they'd think I had a crush on him or something. So I stopped looking and thought, "That's not gay or anything: he's not even the physical type I'm most...*ahem*...jealous of. I just want to emulate some of his traits." Only later did the possibility of being "attracted" on more than an admiration level come into my paradigm, and I still wouldn't be wholly attracted to this guy I'm thinking of even if I had been open to that possibility at the time. I've always believed you're drawn to some people because of who they are, not because you want to "be with" them. But because I'm looking for trends, here, and because I do know that it got confusing, for a while after I started acknowledging my homosexuality, to discern which guys I was attracted to for their traits and which I was actually _attracted_ to on a romantic/sexual/personal level, I'll go ahead and add this to the list. Sexualization of admiration: check.

I always had high standards for myself and wanted to do something perfectly or not at all, in the things I cared about, that is. I would stay inside during recess to get my math homework painstakingly finished and triple-checked. I would draw every individual blade of grass on my scenic drawings in first grade. I buttoned my shirt all the way up and tucked it in neatly and combed every last hair perfectly flat to my head. Every stuffed animal had a name and personality. Music in grade school and primary had to be sung precisely, the motions memorized and performed perfectly, or I'd be embarrassed. While playing piano, if I messed up, I would go back to the beginning of the piece to play it from the beginning because I knew I could do it perfectly, and I would settle for nothing less. Perfectionism: check.

As a kid, I would sometimes skip cracks in the pavement. No biggy, right? We all did that sometimes. But I would sometimes actually get frustrated if I had to alter my pace to compensate and miss a crack. I wanted to find a pattern of steps which would work, and it stressed me out to be trying to do that and keep having to adjust, even though I knew it was a game. Or when I was really little, I'd think, "Well, I don't see how stepping on a crack would actually break my mother's back, but if I step on the crack, it's almost like I don't care if it actually did..." I'd also adjust volume in round numbers. I liked round and even numbers and didn't like leaving volume or timers on odd numbers. Of course, I didn't feel like anything bad would happen if I didn't, but I would feel somewhat uneasy if I had to leave it somewhere I didn't want it. In addition, I would occasionally daydream about not being able to stop bouncing. I'd try to absorb the bounce or grab something anchored to stay put on the ground, but I couldn't stop bouncing. I wouldn't just distract myself and go do something else to get my mind off of it: I had to learn to force myself to stop the thought and gain control of it, but I couldn't. Obsessive/compulsive thoughts: check.


Gosh, is that all? On the surface, my life does seem to fit the pattern of a classic homo, and if I bought into reparative theory and similar theories of developmental causes of homosexuality, I suppose I'd believe these things all contributed to the unnatural development of homosexual inclinations. If I felt emotionally vulnerable or driven to eradicate homosexuality from my life, and I were looking for someone who seems to "understand it" and who was offering solutions, I dare say I would feel a strong pull to plop these puzzle pieces into place and not question them further since they clearly fit on at least a superficial level. But the theories, and the stories of those who think they fit into their lives, never rang true with me, even when I thought it would be nice if they did, and I think there's more to the story than the theories focus on, not least of which is the conundrum: even if there is a correlation (and in many of these points, research shows there is), how is causation determined, and what causes what? Maybe I'll get to that in another post...

Confessions of a Nurtured Homo, Part 2

<< Part 1


I have no recollection of ever having been sexually abused, and nobody has ever reported seeing signs of sexual abuse in me. But in early grade school, I had a nearly traumatic, shame-filled encounter with a little female friend my age who wanted to get naked in her bedroom and asked me to lie down on my back. She then got on top of me, naked, and sort of laid there. I wasn't aroused or anything and had no idea what her aim was. I just felt like this was something we weren't supposed to do, and I was more awkwardly curious and ashamed than anything. I don't remember if it was that time or another, but I lost my shirt, and her mom had to help us find it. I was so mortified that her mom would realize that we'd been doing things we weren't supposed to, and I was sad to be moving away from that friend but glad I wouldn't have to deal with that again. Even when I saw her a few years later during a visit, I felt uncomfortable about the emotions seeing her brought back despite wanting us to just be friends without the awkwardness. As I remember, she didn't seem to give it a second thought. My number one wish for my baptism at 8 years of age was to have that incident wiped clean and never, ever do anything that shameful again. I felt dirty, unclean, and unworthy until my baptism, when I was able to finish the process of "repenting" for that sin and have it washed away. I haven't given that incident much thought since adolescence, but I remember feeling scarred and sinful as a young child. Traumatic sexual experience: check.

I just didn't relate to guys my age and thought they were neanderthals, boring, interested in things I wasn't interested in, kind of stupid, immature, crude, rough, unkind, mean to girls (since I generally heard the girls' perspectives of situations), etc. I had mostly female friends. I didn't think of myself as girly, but I was mocked for not being one of the boys. I didn't want to be. I didn't want to be a woman, but I didn't want to be a man if it meant being a prick. I decided I just was going to be me, but I couldn't deny I was affected by being so 'different' and sometimes wished there were more people like me (I'm not sure I ever really wished I were more like others...perhaps narcissism should be added to my list of things that have made me gay). I always had one main male friend at a time, three or four growing up. When I was really young, I played a sort of intellectually dominating role in the friendship and was bossy and probably not the best for his self-image. Late grade school, I made another friend I could relate to who also seemed to relate better to girls but again was a bit of a jerk to him. I made fun of traits I called girly and gave him a hard time for his weight. When I found out, in college, that he'd come out as gay, I feared that my bullying might have contributed to making him that way. Now I think...birds of a feather...and I love this guy and hope I'm forgiven for having been a jerk so many years ago. And he's not girly or overweight. *wink* General masculine detachment: check.

Throughout adolescence, I had a strong aversion to playing team sports. I enjoyed games involving basketballs but not the sport itself, individual games as long as super-competitive (trash-talking) people weren't playing. I enjoyed volleyball with friends. I liked baseball in my yard with friends. I was never into football or soccer and avoided playing them, if I could, in P.E. in secondary school. Boys were absurdly aggressive and mean about sports, and I wanted no part of the childish trash talk and mean-spirited criticism of those who were trying but just didn't have the athletic ability of the boys who seemed to think life was about sports. It wasn't worth it. I didn't enjoy it much in the first place, so to put up with that and be around it didn't make sense to me. I did, however, really enjoy lacrosse, gymnastics, archery, random made-up team games using hockey sticks... Team sports aversion: check.

In junior high, the boys and girls were separated, and boys would play "shirts and skins" football or soccer, and I never once played skins, and if I was going to have to, I opted to run laps instead. I didn't have the physique the other boys had, and I had acne problems, and I was ashamed of my body in general. Body shame: check.

I would see guys with cut, trim, or lean physiques and find myself trying very hard not to look at them, or not to get caught looking at them. I felt jealous of their good looks. I wanted to be more like that. I didn't want their personality traits, too, if they were jerks, but I wished I looked like they did. I told myself this was why I was so interested. It only made sense. I was skinny, without muscle, a weakling, and I wanted to be like them. When I found myself aroused by them, I scorned myself for perverting what was surely a natural jealousy and admiration and making it sexual. I found myself wanting to look at pictures, so I wouldn't get caught gawking, so I'd look in fitness magazines or underwear catalogs. Surely it was a curiosity which would just pass. But then I'd hit myself upside the head for having looked at pictures of attractive men and getting aroused because I must only be making the "problem" worse. Body envy: check.


[...]

Confessions of a Nurtured Homo, Part 1

As I read literature on what supposedly causes young boys to head down a heterosexually retarded developmental path, I see threads of my own life. I know this is how they seduce many guys into their philosophy, guys desperate to believe this "isn't who they are" or "isn't what they were meant to be", so they can then offer them "a way out". Many need to believe they turn out straight if they become the men they were meant to be, and this whole dilemma will be resolved. I think most of that philosophy is bunk, as many of you know, and that it comes down to coping with one's differences and past or approaching relationships in a healthy way that works best for maximum satisfaction and congruence with beliefs. But I know that someone who knows me well enough will see, beyond my skepticism, the ways my life's pieces supposedly fit into that puzzle. In the interest of full disclosure, here are some of the things I might confess to a reparative or other gender identity therapist:

My father worked a lot when I was younger and wasn't always home in the evenings. I looked at my friend down the street whose dad taught him to throw and catch, and even though I was never especially interested in team sports, I felt a little jealous that his dad taught him that. My mom taught me to catch and throw. My brother did sometimes, too, at my mom's request. But Dad didn't "get" me. In the Myers Briggs personality typing, we're conflicting types. I figured he loved me, but I didn't "feel" it from him like I did from my mom. I just had to accept it on an intellectual level. I have happy memories with him from my childhood, like watching The Muppet Show together and him reading the newspaper by the fire with my draped on his side, probably as a toddler. Vacations were always fun, when we weren't car shopping (BORING). But no, we didn't really connect in the cozy, emotional level I did with my mom, and I felt slightly awkward about going anywhere with _just_ him. Even though the tension around that is something I've worked to resolve over the years, and I relate to him better now and am not the least bit uncomfortable admitting I very much show traits from both him and my mom despite some significant differences in personality, I've always remembered that it wasn't always as it is now. Distant father: check.

My older brother who still lived at home while I was growing up was possibly my most prominent male role model as far as attachment goes. He played violin and played football. He really dug girls. Personalitywise, he and I are about as different as siblings can be. He didn't "get" me and often was frustrated by my sensitivity and lack of interest in typical 'male' things. But he was a great older brother in the most important ways, and he cared about me, and I knew he wanted to help balance out my eccentricities with his natural ability to 'fit in', and part of me knew he was right that I was too weird for most people to handle, so I reluctantly tried some suggestions here and there because I didn't like being made fun of so much at school. And I cared what he thought to an extent, even though I denied that I cared what anyone thought, so when he swore at me once for crying, it hurt a lot. Feelings of rejection from male attachment figure: check.

My mother is a bit of a mama bear. She's no demure, mousy housewife, and she has always had a fiercely protective streak. Fortunately, I didn't see much of that growing up except for putting a shady car salesman or two in his place with his tail between his legs. She tried to rein it in and keep any involvement or interference--such as calling the school regarding bullying issues or any such thing--behind the scenes. I had the illusion of mostly fighting my own battles. But she also has always been very involved--even nosy--in her kids' lives, and I was the youngest and was naturally very cuddly as a baby and therefore probably got the bulk of the affection and squeezing and clinging from her. She told me she knew I wasn't perfect, but I was never sure if she could handle knowing, rather than vaguely suspecting, my imperfections, tendencies, and decisions she wouldn't approve of, let alone the ones I didn't approve of, myself. She has had trouble stepping back and relinquishing the mama role. She's been doing much better over the last several years as I told her I needed to cut the umbilical more thoroughly, but the damage may have been done. Overbearing mother: check.

I was given soy formula for years. Soy estrogens: check.

Speaking of bullying issues, I was never bullied much in a physical way, but I was called names in school. I don't know that it was inordinate compared to most people, but I know it was stressful at times. I learned early on that I choose how to react to situations. I learned to try to be selective about whose input I cared about. I learned to respond to threatening situations with disarming mental tactics because I was skinny and weak. Bullying: check.


>> Part 2

Do all the real men go for women?

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

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

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

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

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

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

If snails can do it...

I've realized that I'm just not convinced by the idea that theoretically perfected celestial beings with immortal, glorified bodies of light who are on a track to omniscient omnipotence still require a penis and a vagina to procreate new celestial or spiritual beings.

I mean, if that's the way it is, then that's the way it is. Maybe it's as simple as living within the constructs we're officially aware of. And if that assumption is made and decided on, then all of this hubbub over same-sex relationships is justified.

Maybe whether or not God could have done it another way, this life has a prescribed purpose, and procreation is central and essential to this life's purpose, and he set us up to need penes and vaginae to procreate, end of story. Naturally, God is a 'he', and a heavenly mother exists necessarily because God needs a heavenly female to complement his heavenly maleness in order to heavenly procreate spirit children. But we don't talk about God's wife...or wives...because she's...they're...so sacred, implying, of course, that God The Male Father is not as sacred because we talk about him all the time, but that implication is not sacrilegious because...well, they just have different roles, so they're equal but our mortal existence only deals with him...for some reason...maybe our heavenly moms needed a break after birthing so many billions of spirit children and they're off getting heavenly spa treatment on the other side of the galaxy... Where was I? Ah, right: So procreation (by divinely arbitrarily chosen method of the union of sperm from a male and egg from a female) and raising souls unto eternal glory is our primary source of purpose and joy, and therefore any deviation from that leads to only partial, or limited, joy and is therefore regarded as 'sin'...you know, for our own happiness.

And within this template, some of us are just tested to see if we'll abide by that system by choice, and in the next life, we'll all be all fixed up into proper, binary male-or-female fashion and rid of any messy wiring which had us attracted to the wrong sex. Maybe hermaphroditic humans are actually just tweaked telestial bodies of a fallen world housing sexually dichotomous 'spirit bodies' and will, in their perfected form, be changed to perfectly sexually differentiated resurrected souls with accompanying, perfectly differentiated and dichotomous gender traits. And we'll all be properly paired, penis-possessors with vagina-possessors (in a one-to-many ratio for maximized production volume, assuming there are that many more vagina-possessors in celestial glory than penis-possessors...perhaps God created more of the former or made them more celestial-prone for this very purpose).

I just find it hard to believe--pardon my skepticism--that if certain wrasses change sex depending on social triggers, and certain snails have mastered hermaphroditic sexual reproduction, gods still absolutely need a penis and a vagina to determine pairing and reproduction. It seems, to me, a touch...inelegant a solution.

But hey, rules is rules. If that's the way things is, then that's the way things is, and we'll be blessed for abiding by it and not rocking the boat to churn up the discontent of the masses even if I'm on to something, here. So we needn't ask questions like whether celestial animals will reproduce, and if so, whether celestial snails will therefore be made male and female in order to follow the "perfect" celestial order of things to match eternal 'gender' roles, or whether they just have their own perfect pattern not related to ours. ...And whether any of those poor, hermaphroditic snails who felt like a male trapped in a he-she snail body will--gotcha!--turn out to have been female spirit-snails all along! We mustn't wonder whether eternal sex, let alone gender, is much more nuanced and complex than some binary male-female physical/spiritual dichotomy or whether males can appropriately and divinely possess traits that happen to be more often found in females but aren't inherently 'feminine' in some eternal sense. That just gets all kinds of intellectually and emotionally messy. No, better to just play along and focus on other easier-to-digest things, like the ward chili cook-off!

What a hoot if we get to the other side, and God hugs us and says, "Hey, so...my first announcement for you newcomers: we're all hermaphrodites here, and gender is more about your traits and complementarity than your gonads. Sorry. I just didn't know how to tell you all in a way that wouldn't make your brains go mushy or throw your sense of gender identity all wonky, so we sort of enforced the whole male-female thing and had that same-sex marriage fiasco to deal with. What a mess, but hey, for your obedience, here you go: I've put a little extra joy in your heart. Doesn't that feel nice?"




Educational supplemental material

Warning: the following video depicts highly erotic sexual activity between hermaphrodites. Please click to acknowledge you are of age to view this material:

I understand and am of age

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.

Missing The Same-Sex Marriage Mark (As I See It)

PREACHING TO THE CHOIRS

The same-sex marriage debate continues to floor me in its smoke and mirrors, its straw men, its red herrings. Both sides seem so completely fixated on their perspectives that the debate generally goes nowhere but is focusing on emotional appeals from both sides and only preaches to the respective choirs.



BULLCRAP

Couples are being limited in how they can love and told they're worthless by being denied? Bullcrap.
Moral majority setting rules is what democracy is all about, and if you don't like it, get out? Bullcrap (time marker 7:45).

I call bullcrap all around. We can go back and forth forever. Same-sex marriage proponents seem to believe this is the great civil rights battle of our generation. Same-sex marriage opponents seem to believe this is the great moral battle of our generation.



THE CRUX (AS I SEE IT)

Same-sex marriage proponents declare selective limitation of the right to marry to be an unconstitutional practice and an egregious civil rights violation, not to mention a sign of bigotry and tyranny in our society.

Same-sex marriage opponents declare opening marriage to all consenting adults to be a detriment to the foundation of healthy society and a forced redefinition and breakdown of a time-honored institution for the sake of social validation, not to mention it not being a civil rights issue.

"Wait...what? Not a civil rights issue? How can they say that? Of course it's a civil rights issue." "No, it's not a civil rights issue, it's a moral issue." Here, in the definition of marriage and whether it is, indeed, a civil rights issue (which is debatable depending on your definition of marriage, as is the question of whether marriage is a natural right), is where I think the problem is. If we have two fundamentally disparate definitions of what marriage is, the rest of the debate is mostly useless and superfluous.



WHAT IS "MARRIAGE"?

As I see it, to someone who believes the very word "marriage" is inextricably tied to a usually or ideally religious union of a man and a woman, generally for the purpose of raising a stable family, no matter how much that union has been abused over the years, "marriage" is not merely a civil contract but a moral, religious institution, and a heterosexual one by definition. In that sense, all people have equal access to the union called "marriage" because any gay man is welcome to marry a woman, and any gay woman is welcome to marry a man, if they so choose, as some do. If some feel they couldn't be happy in such a relationship, they are also free to choose not to marry or to enter into another kind of relationship. And from that perspective, marriage is, by its very nature, an institution which is unchangeable and fixed except perhaps by edict directly from God, so even if the word "marriage" is bastardized to include couples for whom it was never intended, it won't be authentic marriage but the government co-opting a religious institution which was never intended to be up for public revision.

As I see it, someone who believes "marriage" is a union by contract of two people who want to bring their resources and lives into one as recognized by society under the law naturally believes that to limit access to such a contract depending on sexual orientation and based on religious belief not only is fundamentally anti-American and a clear violation of civil rights but the terrible tyranny of religious beliefs mixing with government to marginalize those who don't fit an ideological mold. For some of them, their church would "marry" them if their church were allowed to, and they want the government to get out of controlling whom their church chooses to marry. Being "allowed" all the same rights under a civil union, or having a "commitment ceremony", may be nice, but feelings of degradation aside, it's just wrong to deny rights to people based on sexual orientation, and they see "marriage" as such a right.



EMOTIONAL POLITICS

Unfortunately, I'm afraid most people haven't even thought their own stance through to nearly that extent but have responded to emotional arguments. There are so many emotional appeals out there on both sides, and they're mostly irrelevant and specious. People who repeat them sound annoying and foolish after a while as they ring the same tinny bell.

• We're not allowed to love who we want to. What's wrong with love?
• Society will mock our traditional beliefs if gay marriage is allowed.

To me, the most galling examples of this were two ads during the Prop 8 campaign. The first, made by the organization sponsored by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, featured a young man saying if Prop 8 didn't pass, people upholding traditional beliefs would be subjected to social ridicule. I've rarely been so angry at a political statement, and if it's not obvious to you why that's such an offensive thing to say, it's probably not worth putting energy into convincing you. The second was an ad which targeted the church in a completely ridiculous and senselessly inflammatory way, a portrayal so absurd and so reflective of a lack of understanding that it's almost not worth mentioning.



THE (IR)RELEVANCE OF MOTIVES

Emotional appeals aside, there are also arguments for or against based on the motivations for supporting/opposing same-sex marriage.

I've heard from many people, including some gay rights supporters, that the gay marriage debate is not about the right to marry in and of itself but is about social validation and ending bigotry by changing cultural perception through legislation. I don't think any reasonable person would deny that there are activists who are trying to use same-sex marriage as a wedge to gain social acceptance at any social cost (though they may not believe the costs are or would be negative or grave, as many opponents do), but to say that the majority of same-sex marriage supporters are just seeking validation and forcing tolerance and not actually interested in preserving freedom and rights for all is diminutive.

I've also heard from many people, including some religious opponents of same-sex marriage, that opponents are only enforcing their morality on society and that they don't really care whether "equality" is obtained because gay relationships are inferior and unworthy of social recognition. I don't think any reasonable person would deny that there are religious conservatives who don't care whether this is a civil rights issue at all because the social good is what they're after, not equality (though they may believe, as I mentioned, that all have access to marry...someone of the opposite sex), but to claim that all opponents of same-sex marriage are bigots and homophobes and not actually interested in preserving the institution of marriage is diminutive.

Such accusations are, aside from being inflammatory and dismissive, almost entirely irrelevant because if something is right (legally speaking), it's right no matter why some people are pushing it, and if something is wrong, it's wrong no matter why some people are pushing it. If you try to tell me gay marriage should be illegal because gay people don't really want marriage because they don't stay together longer than two years anyway, and if you try to tell me gay marriage should be legal because those who oppose it are bigots, you've made no argument whatsoever. Seriously. You've just told me you're willing to deny rights or change the law based on someone else's motives, not on legal merits.

Where motives do become relevant, in the political arena, is in perceiving where a power grab is masked in championing a good cause. The greatest political players know that to accomplish anything, you have to hide behind heroism and strong ideology. So it's wise to question motives, and it's wiser still to prepare to respond to those and to negate them through negotiation or proposing alternative actions, but it still doesn't change whether something should happen on its own merits. It just means you have to be aware and wise about how legislation is worded and implemented, no matter which side you're on.

For example, most of us agree health care should be reformed, but we're cautious about what will sneak its way in with the reform, so we understandably have taken our time in figuring out what to do. We don't trust each other. We probably shouldn't. But that doesn't mean certain changes shouldn't be made, so we try to move ahead and negotiate and make sure nobody's going to use a good thing to completely overturn our country's foundation, like conservative worry about Obama's proposed health care reform pushing us towards socialism. But...then again, we don't see much open dialog there, either, mostly just all-or-nothing debate. Politics as usual.



ERA ALL OVER?

Speaking of politics as usual, I've heard talk, in relation to the church's involvement with Prop 8, of the church's successful opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment, a position which the church clarifies on its web site as not being against equality for women but against the implications of its wording and the lack of necessity based on other avenues of procuring "equality" while "allowing for natural differences". Today, you'll provoke the ire of many if you voice a belief in inequality of women and men, yet the Equal Rights Amendment is still not part of the U.S. Constitution. Things seem to have worked out fine with women achieving equal status but without the potential mess of the ERA's apparently sloppy or vague wording.

Or, if you flip it around, is it possible that Prop 8 was a sort of counterpart to the ERA: a quick blanket fix without regard to a more gradual, nuanced approach of achieving equality and protecting the rights of religions from government control by instead hastily changing a constitution to achieve the desired effect?



RENDER UNTO CAESAR...

And if we're going to change the constitution anyway, I propose a different change than those attempted thus far: take marriage out. I say if marriage is a religious institution, invented by and managed by "the church", then give it back to the churches, get the state out, and let the government govern the legal rights and obligations of "civil" unions, which would be required completely independent of marriage.

But aside from being very skeptical about our ability to change something that's been such a part of our history from the beginning (I can only imagine the outraged backlash from ultraconservatives, but let them fume), I think the battle would then move to civil unions and the ramifications of legalizing them and placing them on equal footing as heterosexual civil unions. Would adoption agencies not still have the same issues? Would schools not have the same ability to teach homosexuality? ...if those were ever valid arguments, won't they still apply with civil unions? Won't we still have a civil rights debate on our hands...?



THE UNEDUCATED HAVEN'T EARNED A RIGHT TO VOTE

I've heard it argued many times that gay people don't stay together anyway, and when they do, they have open relationships, so why do they even need marriage? It's a "farce", some say, to take gay people at face value when they say they want the right to marry because all they really want is social validation since they obviously don't know the first thing about real commitment. It's ridiculous that they even presume to be capable of marriage, others say (an idea possibly rooted in the belief that homosexuality is a symptom of emotional deficits, sexual disorder, gender role issues, men not being "wired" for monogamy and needing women to tie them down, or some such thing).

Besides, why should the majority of society bow to their whim in wanting marriage by changing the definition that has always existed and been the foundation of functioning society throughout all of recorded history, just so they can "feel" validated, especially when they can have all the same rights through civil unions and other legislation anyway?

To those who view marriage as an inherently male-female institution, this does make sense. To those who view marriage in a different way, somewhat like land ownership or the right to vote, it seems more like a copout reason to withhold rights. Once upon a time, there was no precedent for women to vote, and that was supposedly as it should be because it maintained well-working social structure and roles. Some see marriage as similarly denied based on archaic social constructs. Of course, the comparison runs into problems when sexual orientation is not seen as an innate characteristic, such as gender or ethnicity.

And of course, there may be some who don't care whether marriage is a civil right anyway because the social good overrides civil rights. Perhaps those same people are consistent in their views, such as believing uneducated people shouldn't have a right to vote because they haven't earned that responsibility, and we should therefore identify subsets of society in which lack of education is rampant and remove their right to vote. That argument certainly has been made in the past. But then, the definition of "vote" is pretty clear, so we have the added problem of debating what "marriage" means, whether a religious institution or a civil contract.



MY POINT
...though it may only make sense to me...

My point is that, as I see it, whether traditionalists will be socially ridiculed, and whether gay people are capable of lifelong fidelity, and whether schools will teach gender-neutral sexuality, and whether society "validates" homosexuality, and whether "love" is being denied people, and whether being allowed only civil unions makes people feel "second class" are all specious arguments. They are mostly valid concerns which should be addressed, but they do not make legal arguments as to whether "marriage" should include couples of the same sex. They're all distractions from the real discussion: what marriage is and whether it is a civil right. Everything else, like what ramifications it might have to open it or close it to same sex couples, is secondary and can probably be worked out in the long run.

It seems to me that if marriage is exclusively defined as a religiously ordained institution which is inherently heterosexual by nature, then we already have marriage equality, and any changes really are not issues of civil rights but of simple majority rule deciding whether to "change" the definition of marriage, and all talk of "civil rights" should cease as irrelevant. Perhaps then it'd be time to turn to gaining other rights that, to me, seem more important: employment and housing non-discrimination, domestic partnership rights for financial and medical protection and stewardship, etc. Here I'll admit I think of "marriage" as used in legal framework documents as inherently non-denominational, therefore subject to interpretation, and referring, in law, to civil contract by virtue of separation of church and state, but I also admit I have no formal education to support that view. That being the case, it seems to me that if this definition of marriage is adopted, government should divorce itself from the term "marriage", but we all know that's not likely to happen any time soon.

But if marriage is a civil right, then it seems to me we should grant it to all equally and pass any laws to protect or guard against possible consequences of it, such as those enumerated by Prop 8 supporters. But perhaps I'm deluded and need to face the possibility that even "civil rights" can and should be denied if there is a greater social good to be preserved or established. But that's a pretty scary philosophy, if you ask me, even if it were legal: feeling justified in telling a group they can't have rights you have because you think it's better for the republic that they not.

And if "marriage" is a vague term not well defined and under dispute, then the nation (or the states) probably should define it in its (or their respective) constitutions to clarify its role. Admittedly, if that's the case, then that is quite possibly what happened in California: the majority of the population simply decided marriage meant "man and woman" and is not a "civil right" for any two consenting adults, while the side which lost believed marriage to be a contract and therefore a civil right but were outvoted in their definition of marriage. My problem is that, judging from the scare-tactic ads about homosexuality being taught in schools and churches being forced to perform gay marriages, I seriously doubt most voters ever even considered whether they were removing someone's civil rights, and I suspect many indeed thought they were blocking civil rights for a greater social good, and that bothers me a lot. See, I'm more concerned about why people voted the way they did, on both sides, than which way they voted.

As far as I can tell, whether it's a civil right (or what the definition of "marriage" is) is still being decided and will continue to be decided state-by-state and through court cases nationwide. In the meantime, can't we have more dialog about compromise?

"Unnatural" My Tukus

Freaks of nature! How dare they defy and reverse traditional gender roles? Nurturing is a female trait! Raising children is a mom's job! Males are to make the money and feed their families! What business do they have changing what has been done since the dawn of time and what is clearly the standard in nature?!

...no, I'm not talking about people who are gay or single parents. I'm talking about... nature. Fact: throughout nature, species have adapted to varying conditions by switching things up a bit. Of course, this was sparked by a National Geographic web article published for Father's Day and reinforced by my knowledge of the animal world. What doesn't work for certain species proves to work for others, given environmental, biological, or ecological circumstances or niches. Life adapts.

Of course, I'm not saying we should eat our young when we can't feed them, or carry our babies by the backs of their necks, or force women to have sex, or bite men's heads off after they've fulfilled their sperm-donating role. And as far as I know, few head-wife polygamous women are capable, when their husband dies, of becoming a man and assuming his role, as certain fish are. I mean, apparently "nature" doesn't have religious beliefs or morals to prevent it from adapting in certain ways, and not all species carry the same genetic programming.

Different species seem to have different instinctive tendencies as a whole, so if you want to argue that human men and women are programmed differently, you can debate that. I think that though there are hormonal and chemical differences between male and female which surely influence 'natural' tendencies, whether or not those can be overridden by rationale or effort, most gender "roles" and family archetypes are socially programmed and culturally reinforced, often heavily influenced by religious beliefs and values rather than science or "what works". I'm just sayin' the "unnatural" argument against nontraditional gender roles or families based on what is observed in the rest of nature is weak sauce. Psh.

And I wanted an excuse to post lots of pics of cute animals. Aaawww, precious...

Reinterpretation Gone Wild

What if my patriarchal blessing informs me that, in the Lord's "own due time", I will enter the temple holding the hand of a beautiful princess of Israel and there be sealed into a family of my own?

How am I to interpret it? I mean, if my patriarchal blessing was given by revelation and inspiration, that pretty much seals my fate as ending up in one of those mixed-orientation marriages, doesn't it? You know, "M.O.M.", that thing closeted gay mormons do when they are so self-deceived and selfish as to rope some poor sucker into marriage just so they can adhere to what they believe are truths and covenants which bring joy and blessings far outweighing the promise or happiness any other relationship in this life will offer them. Chumps. No, a MOM obviously isn't in the cards for me because I could never be so cruel, duped, or dishonest as to pursue something that doesn't come naturally. So what else?

Becoming straight isn't an option. Everyone knows that's impossible, and it's blasphemy against sacred gay creeds and doctrine and destructive to gay rights to even acknowledge the possibility. So that can't be it.

Maybe my patriarchal blessing is just the best guess of a perceptive old man or, even worse, just another nasty, cruel joke typical of that hope-destroying, genocidal institution called religion.

These interpretations just weren't sitting well, so I awaited the day when I'd know what it all meant. Over time, I ran across some broader, more open-ended, open-minded views of the gospel, and it dawned on me that I could adopt more open-ended interpretations of my blessing, since the previously mentioned interpretations were so obviously not on the table.

Perhaps my marriage is to take place after this life, and all that hooey about not being a homo after resurrection is true and that's when it will happen, after meeting my eternal companion in the spirit world, where she was waiting for a nice ex-homo to die and be released from his same-sexfulness. No, I don't like that one. I don't want to be "cured". I don't need to be "cured". I'm lovable and capable of finding happiness just as I am, which means I'm absolutely perfect. I have no frailties, just uniqueties. I lack no understanding; it's the oppressors and bigots who are clueless. So that interpretation's out the window, too. Anything else?

Oh! Maybe same-sex couples will be allowed to be sealed in my lifetime, but the patriarch speaks from his own limited, culturally-biased understanding, so though his revelation showed a beautiful same-sex couple entering the temple, he naturally interpreted my partner to be a woman. The gay walk can be deceiving sometimes, and maybe my man will be longer-haired. I could understand the confusion. It's not his fault for getting it wrong.

Or wait! He said my being "sealed into a family of my own" will happen in the Lord's timeline, not the church's, mine, or anyone else's! Surely this means the Lord is waiting for the church to allow same-sex temple sealings, but they obviously are not going to happen in my lifetime. So instead, after my future life partner and I have passed to the next life and left our bodies behind, my partner and I are going to the temple with our proxies, and I am going in swinging spiritual hands with my favorite new mohoney-in-the-flesh, my proxy. After all, it doesn't say I will be sealed to the beautiful woman, just that I'll enter the temple with her and be sealed into my own family. It makes perfect sense! Maybe a female proxy will be allowed because same-sex sealings will be allowed, and society will be more enlightened and therefore genderless. Or maybe same-sex sealings still won't be allowed, but some angels are gonna pull a fast one and trick temple workers into thinking I'm a woman so nobody's the wiser, and they think they're sealing a man and a woman. God moves in mysterious ways, my friends.

Gosh, I kind of hoped I'd be a groom, not a wife, but hey, I'll take what I can get. This changes everything...

Hm, my cheek seems to be full of tongue. How'd that happen?

What Is Marriage Anyway?

Finally, I've found someone else who seems to be asking what I've been asking. And at the heart of debates over whether gay marriage should be legal is that very question: what is marriage? What's it for? Who's it for? Is that why the focus has gone to clearly defining marriage constitutionally?

I can't help but ask certain questions in relation to this line of thought: maybe marriage is nothing more nor less than a family-building (ideally procreative) union of a man and a woman independent of love or affection. Have we over-romanticized the whole thing in modern Western culture? Have we perverted the whole concept of marriage into this romanticized, bonding-of-souls ideal that has little to do with its origins or hundreds/thousands of years of social constructs? Perhaps the ideal would be both the love/passion and the dedication of contractual agreement, but they needn't coincide. Cultures in which arranged marriages are the norm would probably insist quite vehemently that marriage is not ultimately, primarily about love. And maybe they're right.

Maybe plural marriage is, in fact, the highest order of marriage, as it is a matter of dedication, respect, care-taking, community, union of people into industrious units of society. I can't imagine the children had much in the way of male role models except from a distant, detached perspective, which doesn't seem very healthy to me. Isn't that what makes kids gay?

Maybe marriage really is for rearing children, and therefore, nobody should ever use birth control, and sex isn't so much an experience to unite two bodies and souls into one intimately climactic experience shared between only those two but is, after all, simply a means of creating life. The good feelings and intimacy are incidental bonuses. Therefore, sexual intercourse should be practiced only when a child is desired. Sex for recreation, even between spouses, should be eschewed as lustful and selfish spilling of seed, as it does not fulfill its intended purpose but focuses only on the pleasure, the hedonic reward without the dedication to its divine end.


Maybe couples found to be infertile and who refuse to adopt children should be forced into annulment because their marriage is rendered invalid and runs counter to the very foundation of society.

Perhaps divorce should be illegal except in cases of unrepentant adultery or relentless physical abuse verified by a state-appointed physician.


Perhaps parentless children are better off staying in the orphanage or various, transitory foster homes and being brought up properly there than being raised by two dedicated fathers or mothers in a stable but non-ideal (even morally abominable) home. Maybe it's more "right" for a single person to raise adopted children without the help of a partner with whom to share the workload or household duties than to be raised by two people of homogeneous gender representation.

Or could it be this simple, practical applications or implications aside: marriage was meant for nuclear families, a mother and father and children, and no matter how many ways we may have messed it up and degraded it so far, and no matter what other civil union arrangements can be made, there's no sense in obliterating its original significance any more than we already have?

Perhaps there's a touch of edgy cynicism to my questions, but my intent is not to skewer or jab or otherwise engage in some kind of verbal passive aggressiveness. I merely mean to ask tough questions I'd usually rather not even look at but which I believe must be asked if the issues are to be approached honestly or fairly. Just a thought. Or two.

The Big Spoon

It's an elegant term, "spooning". The gentle, intimate connection between two spoons nestled neatly aginst each other is a perfect reference for the same comforting behavior between two people showing mutual affection. Regarding spooning, I have a question which may be relevant here: do you prefer to be the big spoon or the little spoon?

For my part, I prefer being the big spoon. In almost all cases. And I'm a relatively little guy, so this can pose logistical challenges. Being the big spoon to a considerably more girthy person can be slightly awkward, but these things can be worked through.

It seems like men are usually big spoons and women little spoons, but it seems like most gay males with whom I've discussed this prefer being the little spoon. I don't. Does that make me less gay? I mean, I could enjoy it enough at times, and maybe it depends on the person and the relationship, but I prefer either to have someone cuddled up against my side, arm resting on me (incidentally, this is quite a nice positioning, allowing for face-to-face conversation but maintaining nice, intimate contact), or to have them as the little spoon. I think I prefer holding over being held. Don't judge me.

Do the spoon roles reflect subjugation and dominance? Trust and protection? Maybe I should take a survey. Find out if there's a statistical correlation between gender, sexual orientation, and spooning preference. There's some splendid research to be done here. If only I could find funding.



Note: I'd just like to report that I found the spoon image on, coincidentally, the blog of a gay guy in Vegas who, coincidentally, talks about being the small spoon. I tell you, I'm an oddball among homos.




Note: click on the "Spooning" label below for more spoony wisdom.

Men Are From Mars; Little Boys, on the Other Hand...

I think there are some inherent personality traits and characteristics that we are born with, and I think there are general trends tied to gender. But how much is inherent and how much is learned?

I don't decorate well, I'm not titillated by dressing up, and I certainly won't consider wearing women's jeans (come on--there are simple structural/anatomical problems there), but I was a sensitive kid and have some tastes and interests that are not of your typical macho variety.

I think the world could certainly use more men who aren't friggin' afraid of showing tenderness towards their wives or their brothers. More women who know how to be truly assertive and confident. I like seeing little girls play in the mud, and I like seeing little boys baking. Not because I gain some perverse pleasure from seeing the little ones become twisted to make me feel less freakish. I like it because what I see is little individuals becoming well-rounded and shedding the imposed shackles of meaningless, popular tradition.

Many traditions are good. Good traditions are good. And change for the sake of change is a frivolous ideal. But I suggest that to stifle a child's natural development and slap labels on non-'normal' behavior is probably destructive. Parents are there, in my opinion, to direct their children's interests in positive ways, not to stomp out the interests the parents don't understand.

I remember a study we learned about in a college Sociology course in which they gave children stereotypically masculine and feminine toys to play with and watched their behavior from behind one-way mirrors. When they did the study with toddlers, they found no statistically significant difference, if I remember right, between what the little boys chose to play with and what the little girls chose, indicating that gender roles may be largely defined for children by the models they see around them from a very young age; that many preferences may, in fact, be primarily taught, not inborn.



Maybe those differences develop naturally as the biology advances, much like the anatomy becomes more and more dichotomous with age, but that's pretty hard to research ethically (I mean how do you really study that--make sure these 50 children are raised around only women, without ever seeing a man, and those 50 children around only men?).

Don't get me wrong--again, I tend to believe men and women have inherent differences. I just don't think those differences have much to do with whether or not you let your boy have a doll or your girl a truck if they ask for one.

Why take those inherent male/female differences and entrench ourselves in them? Why not embrace and accept our respective roles or uniqueness while learning from each other? Why do you think we hear (admittedly mostly from church leaders) about how it's so important for families to have two parents? Of opposite sexes? Is it so dad can teach his boys to be 'men' and disregard what mom can teach them? Is dad to raise the boys and mom the girls? I think not.

My two cents, but then, I'm a boy who's attracted to boys, so you should probably ignore any thoughts I have on the matter.

Besides, easier said than done, right? If I ever have a boy who wants a doll, I'm probably going to have a bit of hesitation...and I might have to eat my words. I understand the gut reactions, the "feelings," but do they really make sense? Should I really let the fact that I like to bake cookies define me as gay? Come on!

P.S.--If I remember right, there may even have been a statistically significant difference in the behavior of the children when they were left completely alone in the room versus when they were with other children...again indicating learned behavior and social pressure...but I'd have to look the study up to find out for sure. I don't like quoting things incorrectly, so I'll acknowledge I just don't have the study in front of me and am not sure about it--I could be way off. Anyone have any sources? I'm too lazy right now to look them up myself. I'll just settle for spouting my rhetoric.