8.15.2009

Not Just Hypothetical

This blog, I realize, is mostly theoretical musing, but that is starting to change. I'm not going to be making any drastic decisions, but some things are coming up that don't allow this issue to be purely hypothetical for me anymore. As you may know, I am a HS student and will be going into my junior year. I am currently signed up for Seminary but haven't yet registered for it at church--and I'm not completely sure I want to. My schedule is really a mess right now, and Seminary would be a sacrifice. Right now I find myself wondering if it's worth it.

Last year, Seminary was not the best experience, as you may remember from my "Adam & Eve" post. Kids were peddling homophobic t-shirts in class, and one day, my teacher ended a lesson by saying that homosexuality is caused by pornography and masturbation, his copy of The Miracle of Forgiveness in hand. Last year was also the maiden voyage of our school's Gay-Straight Alliance (which I was involved in), and between the budding GSA and Prop. 8, Seminary became a place for kids to bash gay people. So I find myself wondering, Why would I want to put myself through that again?

There actually are a few reasons. For one thing, it would be nice to have BYU(-I) as a back-up college option in case my Stanford bid falls through. The problem, of course, is that it's...difficult to get a BYU(-I) scholarship without Seminary graduation. Extenuating circumstances might change that, but in my case--where Seminary is a well-established program--it may well be impossible.

Then again, Why would I want to go to BYU, one of the harshest campuses for gay students in Academia? It really comes down to keeping my options open. Who knows what the future might bring for me, or if things might change? It's good to have a Plan B and remain flexible.

Still, it seems a little absurd to endure homophobic slamming in Seminary only to able to endure homophobic slamming at BYU.

Any advice?

8.14.2009

Desire

Note: This post is not at all explicit, but it does concern a sexual topic.

Don't tell anyone I'm watching Oprah today. :-) The show today is a sex therapist saying that, for women, being desired means more than the actual sex. In fact, she says, the feeling of being desired is the orgasm. The first thing that came to mind for me was mixed orientation marriage: Besides intimacy itself, straight wives often miss out on this feeling of being desired--which is the reason behind many things women do. As Oprah's guest pointed out, women spend a lot of time and money doing things designed to increase desire (e.g., makeup).

Another topic was the fascinating interplay between evolution and attraction: men and women are unwittingly most attracted to each other when their bodies are most fertile. Beauty and appeal ultimately comes down to the highest chances of reproduction, which makes homosexuality an odd case as mating that has zero chance of passing on the genes.

? ? ?

8.10.2009

The Truth Hurts

The truth is...
  • ...that I have lost who I thought I was and who I thought I was going to be.
  • ...that I am disillusioned about marriage after seeing inside some "perfect" marriages and watching my own family crumble multiple times. I don't know that I would want to marry a woman even if I were straight, and I don't know that I want to marry a man, either. Realizing that I am gay has not made me think I belong with a man; it has made me realize that I am not fit for relationships of any kind.
  • ...that I probably have a mood disorder called cyclothymia, a milder form of Bipolar Disorder. This is a self-diagnosis--I haven't "gone in" because I don't want to be manipulated by drugs and I worry that medication would interfere with my creativity.
  • ...that I believe the prophets of the Church are men of God, but I don't--I can't--believe that homosexuality (not just the sex act, but rather the gay relationship on the whole) is wrong. I realize this is a contradiction, but I am a contradiction, a walking paradox. The bottom line: If I accept that homosexual relationships are morally inferior to heterosexual relationships by nature, I also accept that homosexuals are morally inferior to heterosexuals by nature--and I can't live with the belief that God thinks less of me because of the way He designed me.
  • ...that I believe the Church is true, but I question the homosexuality policy because it has contradicted itself so many times, and God does not contradict Himself, which led me to seek the truth on this issue for myself. (I might not have done this if I weren't gay, but seeing as I was so directly affected, it was something I wanted to be sure of.) Perhaps this is not such a bad thing given that a few decades ago, the Church pushed shock therapy for gay members. Had I been a BYU student then, the choice would have been questioning the Church's homosexuality policy or electric-burned genitals. While thankfully the Church's stance has grown more reasonable, I'm still hesitant to believe that the pain of celibacy/MOM is required by God. The pain of electro-shock certainly wasn't, as evidenced by the fact that the Church no longer advocates such treatment.
  • ...that I hate myself so much it hurts.
  • ...that whereas my family and other problems will abate in a few years, THE problem will never go away, no matter what I choose to do. If I remain in the Church, I will think, "You're here because the Church says homosexuality is wrong--something you know is not true." If I leave the Church, I will think, "What if you're wrong and this is all a mistake? What if you have chosen the cup of eternal damnation?" Either way, I lose.
  • ...that cowardice and concern for my family has saved my life.
  • ...not as cut and dried as I once believed.

8.05.2009

APA Press Release

INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THAT SEXUAL ORIENTATION CHANGE EFFORTS WORK, SAYS APA
Practitioners Should Avoid Telling Clients They Can Change from Gay to Straight



TORONTO—The American Psychological Association adopted a resolution Wednesday stating that mental health professionals should avoid telling clients that they can change their sexual orientation through therapy or other treatments.



The "Resolution on Appropriate Affirmative Responses to Sexual Orientation Distress and Change Efforts" also advises that parents, guardians, young people and their families avoid sexual orientation treatments that portray homosexuality as a mental illness or developmental disorder and instead seek psychotherapy, social support and educational services "that provide accurate information on sexual orientation and sexuality, increase family and school support and reduce rejection of sexual minority youth."



The approval, by APA's governing Council of Representatives, came at APA's annual convention, during which a task force presented a report that in part examined the efficacy of so-called "reparative therapy," or sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE).



"Contrary to claims of sexual orientation change advocates and practitioners, there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation," said Judith M. Glassgold, PsyD, chair of the task force. "Scientifically rigorous older studies in this area found that sexual orientation was unlikely to change due to efforts designed for this purpose. Contrary to the claims of SOCE practitioners and advocates, recent research studies do not provide evidence of sexual orientation change as the research methods are inadequate to determine the effectiveness of these interventions." Glassgold added: "At most, certain studies suggested that some individuals learned how to ignore or not act on their homosexual attractions. Yet, these studies did not indicate for whom this was possible, how long it lasted or its long-term mental health effects. Also, this result was much less likely to be true for people who started out only attracted to people of the same sex."



Based on this review, the task force recommended that mental health professionals avoid misrepresenting the efficacy of sexual orientation change efforts when providing assistance to people distressed about their own or others' sexual orientation.



APA appointed the six-member Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation in 2007 to review and update APA's 1997 resolution, "Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation," and to generate a report. APA was concerned about ongoing efforts to promote the notion that sexual orientation can be changed through psychotherapy or approaches that mischaracterize homosexuality as a mental disorder.



The task force examined the peer-reviewed journal articles in English from 1960 to 2007, which included 83 studies. Most of the studies were conducted before 1978, and only a few had been conducted in the last 10 years. The group also reviewed the recent literature on the psychology of sexual orientation.



"Unfortunately, much of the research in the area of sexual orientation change contains serious design flaws," Glassgold said. "Few studies could be considered methodologically sound and none systematically evaluated potential harms."



As to the issue of possible harm, the task force was unable to reach any conclusion regarding the efficacy or safety of any of the recent studies of SOCE: "There are no methodologically sound studies of recent SOCE that would enable the task force to make a definitive statement about whether or not recent SOCE is safe or harmful and for whom," according to the report.
"Without such information, psychologists cannot predict the impact of these treatments and need to be very cautious, given that some qualitative research suggests the potential for harm," Glassgold said. "Practitioners can assist clients through therapies that do not attempt to change sexual orientation, but rather involve acceptance, support and identity exploration and development without imposing a specific identity outcome."



As part of its report, the task force identified that some clients seeking to change their sexual orientation may be in distress because of a conflict between their sexual orientation and religious beliefs. The task force recommended that licensed mental health care providers treating such clients help them "explore possible life paths that address the reality of their sexual orientation, reduce the stigma associated with homosexuality, respect the client's religious beliefs, and consider possibilities for a religiously and spiritually meaningful and rewarding life."
"In other words," Glassgold said, "we recommend that psychologists be completely honest about the likelihood of sexual orientation change, and that they help clients explore their assumptions and goals with respect to both religion and sexuality."



Members of the APA Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation:
Judith M. Glassgold, PsyD, Rutgers University – ChairLee Beckstead, PhDJack Drescher, MDBeverly Greene, PhD, St. John's UniversityRobin Lin Miller, PhD, Michigan State UniversityRoger L. Worthington, PhD, University of Missouri




The American Psychological Association, in Washington, D.C., is the largest scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States and is the world's largest association of psychologists. APA's membership includes more than 150,000 researchers, educators, clinicians, consultants and students. Through its divisions in 54 subfields of psychology and affiliations with 60 state, territorial and Canadian provincial associations, APA works to advance psychology as a science, as a profession and as a means of promoting health, education and human welfare.
# # #





Full report available at http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/therapeutic-response.pdf . Hat tip to Alan for bringing this to the MoHosphere's attention. Thanks!

7.30.2009

Music and the Blogged Word


Look who else has scarlet-colored glasses!

Music is a major part of my life, so I finally added a player. Unfortunately it wouldn't work in the margin, so I had to place it at the bottom of the page. Then I worried that no one would listen to my tunes if they were hidden down below, so I enabled auto-play, which made me feel sneaky since music would inexplicably start playing and, if you wanted to stop it, you wouldn't know where to look! So I added "directions" to the welcome text at right. Who knew that adding a music widget would be such a dilemma?

I tried to select the music thoughtfully. I suppose it's obvious that my favorite band is U2! I'm a fan on so many levels (see the newly-added (BLOG) RED badge). You'll also find some REM, Counting Crows, and ABBA--hope you like it! Also included is a song by Melissa Etheridge from her coming-out album, Yes I Am.

I have also tried to choose songs that have a meaningful connection to my experiences. (Maybe I've over-thought this a bit!) The lyrics of U2's "Where the Streets Have No Name" feel especially appropriate:

I have climbed highest mountain
I have run through the fields
Only to be with you
Only to be with you

I have run
I have crawled
I have scaled these city walls
These city walls
Only to be with you

But I still haven't found what I'm looking for
But I still haven't found what I'm looking for
I have kissed honey lips
Felt the healing in her fingertips
It burned like fire
This burning desire

I have spoke with the tongue of angels
I have held the hand of a devil
It was warm in the night
I was cold as a stone

But I still haven't found what I'm looking for
But I still haven't found what I'm looking for

I believe in the kingdom come
Then all the colors will bleed into one
Bleed into one
But yes I'm still running

You broke the bonds and you
Loosed the chains
Carried the cross
Of my shame
Of my shame
You know I believe it

But I still haven't found what I'm looking for
But I still haven't found what I'm looking for
But I still haven't found what I'm looking for
But I still haven't found what I'm looking for...

7.21.2009

Sorting Through My Beliefs

Last night was my first time in public as a MoHo (at the Loganside BBQ). I was a little nervous at first, but it really was wonderful to talk to people who understand. I gathered that most of the attendees were those for whom the original definition of 'MoHo' applies: a Latter-Day Saint who struggles with same-gender attraction but strives to live in harmony with the Church.

I had some great discussions, but I had to face something that has been troubling me for some time. I'm not too worried about the future--marriage, relationships, etc.--because I've finally been able to say, 'I'll cross that bridge when I get there--for now, I just need to take one day at a time." I've finally reached a place where my gay-ness (I doubt that's a real word, but 'homosexuality' sounds so clinical) isn't a big deal, and I've realized it's hardest to grapple with when I make it a big deal. Beyond that, though, is my larger struggle of my feelings about the Church. That is what's been tearing me apart. Not the fact that I'm gay. Not the fact that I don't know what my future holds. The fact that, as a gay member, I am in an uncomfortable position with the Church I love.

Yesterday a fellow MoHo blogger shared his feelings about the new Church pamphlet on 'SGA', God Loveth His Children. He had some frustrations that also went through my mind when my bishop handed me the pamphlet, which--though it certainly beats Helping Those With a Homosexual Problem or whatever the previous edition was called--contains some definite snags, for me at least. I gratefully acknowledge that it's a marked improvement from the previous tone of death-is-preferable condemnation, but this pamphlet is still greatly flawed in my eyes.

Of course, they're very carefully-worded flaws like "It is not helpful to flaunt homosexual tendencies or make them the subject of unnecessary observation or discussion. It is better to choose as friends those who do not publicly display their homosexual feelings" (page nine). Translation: don't be yourself, and don't befriend people who are themselves. I hope I'm not being harsh here, but that's how I interpret it. There's also this: "While many Latter-day Saints, through individual effort, the exercise of faith, and reliance upon the enabling power of the Atonement, overcome same-gender attraction in mortality, others may not be free of this challenge in this life" (pages three and four). Many Latter-Day Saints? In my view, those who have 'overcome same-gender attraction' are in fact bisexuals. Moreover, 'many' means that it is a goal that can and should be accomplished, that change of orientation is an achievable task, like working through an addiction or other problem. Can't you imagine the gay Deacon, Teacher, or Priest who says, "Well, if 'many Latter-Day Saints' can do it, why can't I? What have they got on me?" I know that that was my thinking for a time, and the bottom line is that it's a futile and destructive mindset. Nearly everyone in the mental health field would agree.

Perhaps the hardest thing for me to swallow is "As we follow Heavenly Father’s plan, our bodies, feelings, and desires will be perfected in the next life so that every one of God’s children may find joy in a family consisting of a husband, a wife, and children." In other words, we will become straight in the next life, an idea I find...unsettling. Despite the convenience, I don't think I would want to be straight, now or then. Sexuality is a core part of being--I believe, an eternal part of being. There are many like me, too. Would a just and loving God force us to be turned straight? I don't think so. How, then, could "every one of God's children...find joy in a family consisting of a husband, a wife, and children"?

For me, though, it goes deeper than this. Throughout all of my inner confusion, there have been three things--three sustaining pillars--about which I have not been unsure:
  1. Heavenly Father and Jesus both live and love me.
  2. I need not be ashamed about being gay.
  3. Homosexuality is no more inherently sinful than heterosexuality.
The third point was not a conclusion I reached through logic or research (though reason does happen to back it up: if homosexual attractions are morally neutral, are not homosexual actions as well?). It was something I knew. I knew that over the years the Church's stance on homosexuality has contradicted both itself and the Church's own teachings, so I needed to find out for myself, and I did find out for myself. That was, I think, the main difference between my beliefs and the beliefs of some of the friends I talked to last night. That is also, I think, the main difference between my beliefs and the Church's teachings, though I don't think that makes me a heretic. Keep in mind these two quotes (which I got from the Serendipity blog--thanks, Sarah!):
  • “The greatest fear I have is that the people of this Church will accept what we say as the will of the Lord without first praying about it and getting the witness within their own hearts that what we say is the word of the Lord.” - Brigham Young
  • "If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted.” - Joseph Fielding Smith. (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols., (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954–56), 3:203–204 ISBN 0884940411)
According to the second quote, I am "duty bound to reject" something I believe is out of harmony with the revelations. It may be bold of me, but I do believe the teachings of the Church on homosexuality are out of harmony. And the fact of the matter is, I would need a strong testimony that homosexuality is wrong in order to live a celibate life or be married to someone not of the gender toward which I am oriented. Instead, I have a testimony of the opposite. Yet I continue to have a testimony of the Gospel's--and yes, the Church's--truth. Seem contradictory? I know it is. I'm not sure if I could explain it, but I am not so dependent on logic that I can't agree that some truths don't make sense. As j4k quoted in a comment on my blog today, "Logic is the beginning of understanding, not the end." (See "Beating a Retreat" for the full comment.)

It's hard for me to stand by and watch the Church's actions on homosexuality and the consequences of those actions. Shock and reparative therapy. Defense of Marriage and Proposition 8. Misleading pamphlets. The Plaza incident. Gay Mormon suicides.

And yet, I can't imagine living outside of the Church. Right now, my family is slipping into inactivity, and it causes me to consider if I really want a life I can't live in harmony with the Church. I look at the many MoHo's (and Mormons in general) who have left the Church and utterly lost their faith--becoming atheists or agnostics-- and think, I don't want to lose my salvation! I don't want to lose my faith! I don't want to lose my belief in God, my ultimate mooring!

I want to stay close to my Heavenly Father, and I don't want to leave (or be dismissed from) the Church. Some MoHo "strugglers" say that SGA is a trial like any other, one that can take us closer to God or take us from Him, but I'm not so sure. I realize that some would say it's a trial that has already taken me away from God. Again, I don't think so. I don't even see it as a burden, a trial, something to overcome. Rather, I see it as a blessing, a part of who I am. This is not a travail I long to be rid of...this is me.

Must 'who I am' automatically remove me from the great I AM?

7.15.2009

New Moon

Like the new widget? Counting down the seconds to November 20!

7.13.2009

Indian Advice on the Closet

I've been thinking about coming out lately. I was reading a book of Indian proverbs* and came across one that said, "Let your eyes be offended by the sight of lying and deceitful men." I then asked myself, Would my eyes be offended if I looked in the mirror? Am I deceiving people on a daily basis?

My mother's advice in a recent conversation was, "You never know. It just takes one--some special girl could come along and..." I said, "What would you say if the tables were turned and your mother said, 'Just wait for that special girl who will come along and magically turn you gay'?" I also reminded her that plenty of gay Mormons have done just that--waited for 'that special girl', sincerely fell in love with her, and married her in the Temple...only to have the supressed feelings explode a few years later. (As Stephen Covey said, "Unexpressed feelings come forth later in uglier ways.")

Then she said, "Just be open. At your age, you're searching for an identity--I know, I remember. You're young, and things change. People change." I am willing to 'be open', but I also know that there comes a point when you have to face reality and deal with the facts. The sooner the better, I tend to think. I realize that many adolescents who think they are gay are merely experimenting--physically or mentally--but I have looked inward and realized that I really am gay and really will, in all likelihood, remain that way. It took a long time to face the fact, but when I finally did, I felt an increased measure of clarity. And, I mentioned, this is not an exercize in identity-seeking. The fact of the matter is, I'm a pretty conservative guy who identifies much more readily with an equally conservative church than a community with a reputation for being a bit wild (the LGBT community at large, not the MoHo sub-group). And as far as culture, I'm more comfortable with the religious culture I grew up in and love than the rather, by definition, sexualized world of homosexuality (what many contemptuously--and erroneously--term "the lifestyle").

After hearing this, she said, "Well, what do you want to do? Make an announcement in the six o'clock news?" Her advice was that my sexuality really isn't other people's business, and I don't need to make it their business. And to a point, I quite agree: I don't have to sit my friends down and tell them I was born out of wedlock. Nor do I need to stand up at a family reunion and announce that I hate lettuce. So it's not like I need to issue a press release to come out as gay.

...And it was then that I read a second applicable proverb in the book, a Huron saying that goes, "Let your nature be known and proclaimed." This does sound like sound advice: if I'm not ashamed of who and what I am, there's nothing to hide. On the other hand, I don't climb up on the roof and shout, "I'M A CYCLOTHYMIC!", even though that would be "let[ing my] nature be known and proclaimed". So I'm curious--Do you agree with this quote? Is it better to let people know you're gay, or simply let them worry about it if they must (even if it means they sit around and wonder until they finally ask you upfront)?

Put another way: I think being out is not the act of announcing your sexuality but rather a state of mind, one in which you don't live with in fear of people "finding out". So, if you are in this state of mind, and you are willing to be honest and open with people, do you...
  1. Tell your associates and end the mystery once and for all: "There's something I need to talk to you about..."
  2. Be yourself, and let others think what they want of you. If they do ask you, be honest with them, but don't make a federal case out of it: "Q: Are you gay? A: Yeah, so what?" (that was how it went for Rep. Barney Frank, anyway).
Very interested to hear your thoughts!

*Zona, Guy. The Soul Would Have No Rainbow If the Eyes Had No Tears and Other Native American Proverbs. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1994.