Sexuality

Y'all know Lady Gaga, right? (This isn't about her, just using her as a template)

I read an article the other day having something to do with her--honestly I only remember the comments--and readers quickly fell into a debate on her sexuality and the genuineness thereof. (oh! here it is, but i'll give you the cliff's notes):

Commenter 1: Is she right in being such a strong advocate for the GBLTQ community? She's not gay. Commercialism at its finest. It pisses me off as a gay man.

Commenter 2: Dude, she's said she's bisexual on a number of occasions.

C1: Whatever. She's always hooking up with guys in her videos.

C3: Nuh-uh! Have you seen the "Love Game" video? She totally macks on a chick there.

C1: Doesn't make her bi.

C2: Who are you to decide whether or not she's bi? This is such a big problem for bisexuals. Can't be part of either community. Either with 'em or against 'em, jesus.

C4: She said she was attracted only physically to women, that she couldn't connect with them on an emotional level. She's not bi.

And on and on and on.

I felt C1's concerns during Prop 8. I kept arguing against the proposition and after a while felt like I shouldn't be doing it. I'm not gay. I'm married to a man. I have found women attractive before (wasn't about to say that yet, shh!). Still! I felt like I shouldn't be fighting their cause. I wondered if it wasn't my place. Maybe because I felt like a fake. Maybe because I was fighting against the church just as much as I was fighting against the proposition.

But beyond that: this issue of sexuality, bisexuality specifically. I've heard on a number of occasions that bisexuals are treated as if they can't have their cake and eat it too (a terrible phrase in this situation, really).

Is this a political issue? The gay community has a justifiable cynicism if not hatred toward the straight community. Is this a matter of Us vs. Them? Group mentality? And let's not blame only the gay community for this cynicism. Heterosexuals are constantly berating bisexuals as well for simply wanting to be rebellious or fake or whatever. Ask anyone. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

And let's for a minute consider the other argument brought up here. Gaga allegedly stated she was really only physically attracted to women but didn't feel she could feel an emotional attraction. It sounds odd, I guess, but I think most of us have at one point or ten felt a purely physical attraction to someone we otherwise found totally unattractive.

But Gaga is suddenly not bisexual to these people. Her alleged limited attraction to women negates her claim to bisexuality, and it makes me wonder what makes you bisexual and what, if anything, cancels that out--can you be a poseur if you're genuinely attracted in any way?

It's all bullshit, really. It's never anyone's right to decide how gay or straight someone else is. If you don't like someone fucking with your sexual identity, privilege, or rights, don't fuck with theirs. Period.

Annie on my mind

Over the last few days I've read so many glowing reviews for Annie on My Mind that it's on my summer TBR list for sure. It's a coming-of-age tale of two girls whose friendship turns to love. Their relationship, for various reasons both predictable and not, is forbidden.

So I went to Goodreads to update my list and to read the reviews there. After all I'd heard of this book, these reviews surprised me. Tons (like 85) Barnes and Noble readers give the novel 4.5 stars. Goodreads gives this book about 3. So I'm reading and then, then, I hit this review.

You'll enjoy it. I did.


"Had to read for controversial/banned books lesson for YA lit. class. Review: Dated (1982) book about a girl in high school who falls in love with another girl. Aside from being confused about their sexual orientation, the girls are not very good at practicing restrain or self-control. Personally, a disturbing subject and more so because of the point of view.


...


...Wait for it...


I am forever grateful for my friends in BYU 32nd ward who were with me throughout the day helping me get through this book. It was a serious ordeal for me and their love and support was the only thing that got me to the end." -- Goodreads (emphasis added)

sigh. I'm happy she was able to "get through" her "serious ordeal." Later she says she wanted to read an LBGTQ book, so props to her. Still, "serious ordeal"? I hope she came out with a greater appreciation and less "ew, gross."

(can i also just say that I want to take a YA lit class? PLEASE?)


Anyway, on my TBR list. So many books are. I'm in a little over my head, but oh well. I always romanticize things in my head. Summer will be wonderful. I will stay within a really air conditioned home and read in a quiet room (HA!). I will do all these things. I forget how tired the heat makes me. Or how easily distracted I get.



ALSO.

(Because I posted on it yesterday...)
As for the bin Laden thing: I've heard so many different reactions. Mine, obviously, was one of "glee." We got the bastard! But I have appreciated hearing different perspectives. They made me think and continue to think. Still, as of this moment, I'm glad the asshole is gone.


And for right now, that's all I want to say.

New CHI, whatev

So the CHI (Church Handbook of Instructions) has been updated. And changed. To avoid making this post even longer while hijacking another's post, I will redirect any interested and uninformed peoples to Project Mayhem's post.

The following was initially purposed as a comment on Irresistible (Dis)Grace's blog post today, but I thought y'know, I wax on and on. I'll just post a response here:

I tend to agree with those opinions that state this is more a matter of saying things in a different, seemingly more open-minded way as to corral those on the brink into coming back, if even for a little bit. Those who have left the church and still feel the sting tend to be cynical and suspicious--I fall under this umbrella. But at the same time, who knows. I don't necessarily feel the need to explore this all that much because it won't change a damn thing for me. I've no plans to go back, even if they suddenly receive another convenient revelation about how gay people are totes okay with god and all this bullshit GBLTQ members have dealt with for decades upon decades is mere "policy." Y'know. Like with the "Lamanite" members until fucking 1978. Because, despite what they may tell themselves, that's not entirely why I left. While I believe in gay rights and find the church's actions reprehensible, I left because of what it represented.

The change is rather interesting following Packer's talk (heavily edited following actual talk, of which you can see here) considering that as Irresistible (Dis)Grace discusses, conservative opinion is given free-reign while any iota of liberal opinion is gasped at. Nobody knows if Packer received any sort of behind-the-scenes chastising, and if so we'll never hear about it. And the membership wouldn't care--too many agree with him. Too many don't see the problem. But the liberal members do. The questioning members do. Those on the brink of inactivity or even lesser activity do. That said, I think this new, nuanced version of the CHI may appeal to both in the active and to those who have their first real doubts.

But, y'know, if it's real progress it's progress. It won't do much for me as a person who doesn't necessarily believe in god anymore and sees far too much ill to come of any sort of mainstream religion--be it mainstream Christianity or Mormonism. Even if the church does liberalize by way of GBLTQ issues, it's going to take a LONG time for the more conservative membership who make up the vast majority of the church to accept it not only in their minds but in their hearts.

Maybe one day we'll get to the point where it's a lot like the relationship the church has with its women, separate but equal, and the active gay LDS community will chomp at the bit to convince both themselves and outsiders--I dunno. They do that now. At least at first. But the more they feel accepted and supported, the more they'll fight to stay in despite the basic and fundamental life experiences they will be denied as a result. Because the ultimate goal is to bring people to god and to live for death. Because God only loves those who keep his legion of commandments even if it makes them miserable enough to kill themselves.

So, separate but equal? Maybe that's how one could describe the situation today. But who knows. It isn't any better, but try telling a fully indoctrinated member that.

My Idea, Part 2

I did my thing. And I immediately had a sort of panic attack about it--which is entirely too par for the course this week.

A few days ago I signed up to have my status hijacked by the Human Right's Campaign. Three times they did their whole "NCOD is coming up, here's a little bit of depressing and enraging trivia about society's treatment of GBLTQ people."

I decided that, today, I'd just put my little announcement up as a comment to that. Which means I couldn't privatize the status.

I freaked out, totally regretted it at first. Because, you know, I don't think I want my stepmom to see that. She might ask about it in her own little "hahahaha, lisa, are you kidding? want a girlfriend lisa? hahaha" and will never fucking leave me alone. Which means I'll have to say something rather cutting because sometimes that's the only language she understands.

And then other people, like my dad, will find out and who the fuck knows who else. I don't necessarily care if my sister finds out, but shit. My dad can be an ass about this stuff.

Thought about deleting it. I'm over that now.

Honestly I was thinking about not doing it after all.

I'm just not that brave, y'all. It seems I am a bonafide wimp. And it's not like I'm saying "Hey, I dig chicks and not dudes"

Nonono. Just "Hey, I dig dudes for the very most part, but every now and again I have crushed on a girl."

WHY IS THIS A BIG DEAL?!

Seriously, I checked out the Mormon Missionary calendar the other day because I've never really looked at it. Some of those guys--not bad, not bad at all. A few of them /fans self.

The women? None. Meh. None are my type.

That said, check out Kiley's post over at We Were Going to be Queens (loooove the title). I guess there's something about how your index finger compares to the length of your fourth finger. If yr index is shorter than yr fourth, all signs point to some degree of gay. Mine is just a little shorter.

I'll give you a minute to check your own fingers.

Either way what I did was initially terrifying. I'm getting over it.

Also, I'm not sure if I'm a 1 or a 2. It's hard to say. I put 2 though. Then one. Ugh. I don't know if I wanted to say that because it's less terrifying or because it's actually true. Hard to say. I can only think of 3 girls IRL I've been really attracted to in my entire life, enough to be considered a bonafide crush (and I still feel like I need to say this: IT IS NOT YOU) and a few celebrities and whatnot. It didn't start until high school and then I spent a good part of my life in the crutch where I just rarely thought about it because it's badbadbad. So it's hard to say.

Hm.

I think I'm a two. I think 1 is more "eh, maybe once."

It's a bit more than that for me.

This was supposed to be a step in the direction of a greater acknowledgment of self. Publicly. You know, be proud. Stand with my friends. Who the fuck cares. Lookit all the preaching I've done.

I feel a bit pathetic, but at least I'm working on it.

My Idea

So here's my idea. I've already ran it past a few FB friends, and they've expressed quite a few reservations. Like I said, it's not without issue, but maybe running it by more people will result in something else that will work better.

Or maybe my idea is just good enough for now. I think it's a good step, really.

I know the "post your bra color in your status (but don't say it's yr bra color!) to spread awareness for breast cancer!" didn't exactly work. Not in the way people wanted it to. Really, it was just a way for women to be ever so slightly naughty. It was fun, I'll admit, but it hardly made me think of breast cancer. Also, a lot of people thought it was lame.

BUT, you know, I thought of this after remembering something Harvey Milk once said:

Gay brothers and sisters,... You must come out. Come out... to your parents... I know that it is hard and will hurt them but think about how they will hurt you in the voting booth! Come out to your relatives... come out to your friends... if indeed they are your friends. Come out to your neighbors... to your fellow workers... to the people who work where you eat and shop... come out only to the people you know, and who know you. Not to anyone else. But once and for all, break down the myths, destroy the lies and distortions. For your sake. For their sake. For the sake of the youngsters who are becoming scared by the votes from Dade to Eugene.

--"That's What America Is," speech given on Gay Freedom Day (1978-06-25) in San Francisco

And National Coming Out Day is arriving on October 11. Next Monday.

This idea isn't just for GBLT people everywhere, but for everyone. It's based on the Kinsey Scale I discussed a few days ago. A scale, I understand, is not entirely accurate but I think works for this particular idea.

We could do this on October 11. We could post our Kinsey Scale number. It doesn't have to be "I'm a Kinsey 2." It could just be "2." Whatever. A friend of mine worried that his friends would think he was rating himself on a scale of 1-10 by way of hotness and said everyone knew he was far too vain to rate himself a 6, so I suggested we could do 6/6.

But you know, whatever. Everyone knows he's gay and ex-mormon, so him posting this on his status would be ridiculous. I just wanted his opinion.

Here's the biggest problem with this: Anyone considered not completely homosexual (anything below a 6) could get the comment "Hey, if there's any chance you can be attracted to someone of your opposite sex, then you should wait."

And that was my worry and the worry of a few others, as well. What bothers me about this idea is that it suggests those who married or partnered up heterosexually somehow settled. While some have because of the teachings of their churches (it's not just LDS), I didn't settle. I know others who haven't. Either way, it's not the response I want. It's one I have to prepare for if we're going to do this.

The same friend (the "vain" one) also expressed concern over confusing others and having to go through a protracted conversation over what the hell we are talking about. My only suggestion for solving this problem is to send around a "note" discussing what the Kinsey Scale is.

But, really, I think the first concern is the greatest one. The fact that there are others who may recognize tendencies to whatever degree don't feel as if they *should* pursue a gay partnership. This could be due in large part because they've been told all their lives how wrong and unnatural it is.

So the issue is not whether or not it is a choice, but whether or not it is wrong. But we have so many events and attitudes in our history once believed wrong and unnatural that we no longer believe are wrong. Interracial couplings and marriage, for example.

So will this message fly over heads? Or is it sufficient that the message is just as much "hey, it's not just one or the other. It's a spectrum. Look inside yourselves."

Because the more something is normalized, the less wrong it seems. That was Mr. Milk's sentiment. Make them realize that their daughters, sons, fathers, mothers, friends, neighbors, etc.--people they've known and loved are "this" way. Break down the myths and the stereotypes. It's much harder to vote against them.

I know that's the argument of zealous right-wingers in opposition of this, but still. I think this may be a step in the right direction.

What do you all think?

Limits

There was a time I never spoke out and I'm horrified by it. A time I didn't think and didn't listen but just accepted. I can't seem to figure out when and where and how often it's appropriate to speak out, especially as a person who rarely gets out.

I'm an undiagnosed obsessive-compulsive. But I am diagnosed with something else that includes obsessive and compulsive thoughts and behavior. It's a nightmare. I find a topic and I obsess over it. I have a thought and I obsess over it until I can't stand it anymore and act on it. This process generally takes a second, but sometimes takes over the span of a few days. Weeks, months. A year. It depends on my cycling. Sometimes I don't think and just do despite knowing I need to stop and think. I'm rarely happy with myself afterward. I'm learning control, but it's hardly easy. It's a continual struggle that often results in damaged relationships. One that depends on the forgiveness of others and the gift of second, third, even fourth chances.

I want to do what is right, but the definition of "right" has changed a bit. I feel a lot of responsibility being surrounded by people who can't see past their leaders' noses, spread the ignorance, and in the process hurt others. But, you know, they feel just as right as I do.

I don't often proclaim something is definitely right or wrong anymore because I know there are exceptions, that there are more than two sides to each story. I can give a general, reasonable judgment on certain things--murder is wrong, rape is horrific, love is good, the church isn't "true." I can reasonably proclaim that racism and sexism are bad, that while homophobia is not in itself bad (I see it more as a misunderstanding, lack of education, experience, time), the actions that stem from it can be.

I should be more concerned with inspiring people to think for themselves rather than make judgments. People who feel wrongly judged don't want to listen. They want to fight back. I think there are those who have felt ostracized by a religion or church or its members because of individual beliefs understands this. It's the same on their end, too. When you feel attacked, you want to fight back--however is your style.

I'm on the fence about this Boyd Packer thing. I want to talk about it, and I have. I want to scream and yell, which I've tried my best to not do. I'm actually proud of myself for my reactions here. Not so much elsewhere on the 'net, though. I've come to ask myself at what point do I stop--at what point does focusing on it and feeding it become antithetical to me, personally? Because let's be honest, I'm standing up for myself, too, because this very thing is what drove me out of the church. The accusation that I wasn't faithful enough despite everything I was doing to be just that.

But what of those I'm standing up for as well? At what point does it harm more than help? At what point do I end up chasing away those who might otherwise listen to me at a lower volume?

I can't figure out when silence is good and when it's hurtful. My husband says he's disgusted by everything that has happened, but he doesn't show it unless I press him and even then he's pretty even-keeled. And it's then that I wish I could be more like him, more like those who exhibit control. I feel out of control.

The quote I have on this blog propels me to action. I don't want to be silent anymore, especially as others around me state that which is wrong and spread those diseases. I don't want to be silent anymore, in part because I am still attempting to atone for a sin I committed ten years ago when I dismissed my hurting friend. I want to stand with him, with them. I want to be brave and do this in not-so-safe places. I want to acknowledge things within myself that will help their cause--but I'm not entirely sure it would. Because in the end, to too many people, I chose a man. I chose "the right."

Not only do the words like that hurt other people, but they hurt those who don't know any better than to just accept the sentiments and conclusions of their chosen leaders. Later some of them will find out. Later they will hate themselves. Later, they may even realize they've been hating a part of themselves all along.

Not that I want that, but perhaps that's just how it has to go.

The Kinsey Scale

Ugh, so this is one of those trendy post/ex-mo/NOM subjects and I'm just not a trendy girl. To a fault. I've avoided talking about this simply because of that. But you know, Boyd Packer asked for it.

So what a better time, yeah?

For those not totally in the know:

The Heterosexual-Homosexual Rating Scale, sometimes referred to as the “Kinsey Scale,” was developed by Alfred Kinsey and his colleagues Wardell Pomeroy and Clyde Martin in 1948, in order to account for research findings that showed people did not fit into neat and exclusive heterosexual or homosexual categories.

The scale is as follows:

0- Exclusively heterosexual with no homosexual

1- Predominantly heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual

2- Predominantly heterosexual, but more than incidentally homosexual

3- Equally heterosexual and homosexual

4- Predominantly homosexual, but more than incidentally heterosexual

5- Predominantly homosexual, only incidentally heterosexual

6- Exclusively homosexual

I'm not totally sure where to stick myself. I have had 2 girl crushes I can clearly recall of people I've known "IRL" and it began in high school. I remember as a younger kid (4th grade or so) going completely tomboy and the way others reacted to it. My grandmother asked me if I wanted to be a boy. Oprah had a show talking about how tomboys inevitably turn into lesbians. And the older I became, the more I heard about how homosexual people or actions are icky.

I took the Oprah show as a challenge. I would not--repeat not--fit into that mold, even though I didn't yet have any indication I felt that way.

I was a late bloomer. Not physically, but in the sense of having crushes. I didn't have my first real crush until I was in the 5th grade. His name was Ryan. I don't know if he felt the same way because I had a bit of a nerdy rep at that school and his friends gave him all sorts of shit about it, so nothing happened. I still remember being in the bus with my best friend Beth and telling her that I thought I liked someone. Once I wrote his name on a paper towel on our kitchen counter...with a sharpie. Oh god, I freaked out. I think I got it all out. Mom never noticed, at least.

There were other boys. Friends of my stepbrother, neighbor boys, etc. I was always oblivious to them. One in particular I really, really liked and didn't realize he dug me, too, until we had lost contact (why are kids so goddamn stupid?). His name was Phillip. He was an idiot, but I think he could've been good for me. In a bad sort of way.

I didn't have my first girl crush until, I think, my senior year of high school. I could be wrong, but she's the first I remember. Her name was Rose. I had a dream about her and that was the beginning of that. Caught me off guard but only in the sense that I didn't know her well or really think of her much. We rarely talked in class, but she was always super nice to me. I thought about her a lot after that. Not that she was the only one to be nice, but whatever. Something clicked. And, I liked how it made me feel. Not that it's any different, necessarily. A crush is a crush, but this was a she. You know? In that way it was different, and though I knew it probably wouldn't and couldn't happen, I liked thinking about it.

After high school I had my first real girl crush. Like, I wrote about her in my diary and wanted to kiss her and all of that stuff. I don't know what it was about her. She was beautiful and fun and I wanted to believe it could happen. I learned soon after that it couldn't, there was no way. I got over her pretty quickly after I learned that. There was always the residual stuff, but I kept everything respectful. If that couldn't happen, I could at least be her friend. And that worked out. Eventually the feelings were all gone. Besides, they had to be once I joined the church.

Mostly, though, I just like the idea. I write about it sometimes, think about it. Wish I could've explored it more. Like I mentioned earlier, my senior year high school boyfriend totally caught on. But I'm not all that hard to read, either. I dismissed him because I didn't want to admit to it, but I don't believe I was all that convincing. He left it alone either way.

I went back to boys after that though. One boy in particular sooooo caught my eye once I began college. We had the same English class, and my crush on him was a little odd. At least how I responded to his behavior toward me. He was gorgeous, though. He had these long legs I wanted wrapped around me. God, those legs. And then he referred to two years he spent in Texas. Opportunity! I spoke with him after class once where he confirmed he was Mormon and we began meeting at a pizza place semi-regularly where he acted as my unofficial missionary, answering my questions and whatnot. I know he had a crush on me, too, but for some reason I chose to ignore it. My friend tried to encourage me, but I was just ridiculously resistant. If I asked him to do something he didn't want to do, he'd do it for me. He also came to my workplace and invited me to do things all the time but I always said no. I think I was afraid of joining the church because of a boy. Also, I knew he always had the missionaries over and that it was probably a ruse as much as it was anything else. Maybe to get me to join so he could date me? Who knows. After I joined, he was always at my townhouse hanging out. Then I was stupid and began dating his roommate (who I had absolutely no feelings for) and he began dating a friend of mine and eventually moved to Utah to get into pre-med stuff.

The whole thing was weird.

And even though I had gone back to boys entirely after joining the church, I did tell a friend of mine that I had "struggled" with "same sex attraction" in a horrendous reply email to him where he came out to me. That was a big step. The first time I had put it into words. Of course, it wasn't something I was dealing with at the time. Ignore it and it'll go away, as Packer so nicely put it. But it doesn't. It comes back, even if not in the form of a crush. You notice someone, celebrity or whatever, and you think dammit. But it doesn't need to be that way.

Over the last few years I've begun to really acknowledge it to myself. It's been a bit of a weird road as far as that goes. I've told a few people, online, but nobody here. Even when I did online, it was always vague. Telling Eric will be a big step for me, putting it into verbal words like that.

Something I feel the need to say about some of the myths is this: it wasn't a choice, but it wasn't easy to admit it to myself, so I didn't act on it. Not to be righteous, necessarily, but because I was afraid. I didn't fully acknowledge it to myself, really, for quite some time. I also didn't admit to myself that I liked it until very recently. It is only a struggle because other people tell you it is. I didn't grow up in a time where people were coming out of the wood work to declare themselves as homosexual or bisexual of any degree.

Also, this doesn't mean I've been crushing on all or any of my girlfriends since. I have had many friends I've loved and admired dearly (perhaps too much) and have thought were gorgeous and fun and amazing but without having romantic feelings for them.

I know! IT IS POSSIBLE. People with homosexual tendencies of any degree are not out to fuck everyone of their own gender, no matter how pretty or handsome you are. Gasp!

So I'm not sure where I fall on the Kinsey Scale. My best guess is probably a 1-2, maybe 2.5. It's hard to say because I don't know what would've happened had I grown up in a more accepting household, environment, or society. I know it's not great now, but it's getting better despite Packer's and Mormon bullshit. Who knows what it would've been had my life turned out a bit differently--if I had gone to the university I had wanted so much to go to throughout high school (UC Santa Cruz)--or, really, any university. If I hadn't joined the church.

It's interesting to think about. And I have so much respect and admiration for those who choose to come out of the closet and respect themselves and have enough self-worth to follow their hearts and emotions to seek out things that aren't harmful.

That said, I don't totally regret joining the church. Like Chandelle said recently in her blog, and among other things, it brought me Eric. He's unbelievably good for me and he swears I'm just as good for him. We had crazy chemistry--I don't know how we waited for marriage. We almost didn't. I knew he was "the one" before I even met him. I saw his picture and something like lightning hit me. I want to tell him about all of this kinsey-crap, but can't help but wonder if he needs to know. Which is the fear talking. I don't know what I think he's gonna do or say, but if I think about who he is as a person it'll be okay. Like I've said before, he knows me better than anyone. This won't shock him.

Re: Leaders and Homosexuality

So you've probably noticed this too: all these anti-gay politicans and evangelical pastors/leaders go on and on about the evils of homosexuality, passing laws and other bullshit only to THEN get caught banging another dude. Even, at times, young men (perhaps this is where the gay = pedophile thing comes from?)

I briefly skimmed the recent Evergreen talk (caution: talk will piss you off) where Bishop whatshisname said that we shouldn't use the terms "gay" "lesbian" or "homosexual" because "god doesn't think of [us] that way."

I'm going to leave the WTF silent and just assumed, here.

Anyway, you know that in the past the leaders "exhorted" their gay sheep to marry straight and all would be well. Not to mention the former subjection to electroshock therapy where--and I don't fucking GET this--showed the men gay pornography (i guess porn is only acceptable in this situation?) and then shocked the hell out of them as to teach them a righteous reaction to gay sex.

But now it's a matter of "just don't act gay." "it's not sin unless you fuck someone of your own gender"

(but in the dark corners they still say it's a matter of overcoming it)

So. With all of that in mind:

How many of the LDS leaders--I'm talking top leaders, here--do you think are closeted gay men? Who were? ARE?

I think there're probably a few, actually. Given what we've seen, they might be the most outspoken ones.

Spencer W. Kimball, perhaps? He of "if you rub one out you'll totally end up in a circle jerk with all your buddies and then have a big gay orgy" mentality?

All of that repression. All of that power.

Of course this is pure conjecture, but still:

What d'ya think?

Teh Gays: Making Life Hard

Pun totally intended.

So I ran across this article at Jezebel.com and began to think. It's a thought I've had before, but I figured maybe some of you would appreciate it and maybe give feedback.

This whole gay thing, yeah? Teh gays. Ruining everything. Trying to even take our marriage. And not even that! What about their deal with bending God-given GENDER ROLES.

I mean, haven't they read the Proclamation on the Family?

Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose...By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children.

HEL-LO.

Like someone I know said recently, "It's okay to be a boy."

You know, boy. Rough-housing, pants-wearing, rambunctious, sports-playing boy. No sissy stuff. It's okay, just in case you were concerned it wasn't. Because apparently society at large is beginning to say it isn't.

So we had this whole discussion one day in the kitchen of a loved one's home about gender and that was said. Among some other, similar things. Boys are boys and girls are girls. Blue and pink. Guns and dolls. Pants and dresses. Barbies and Spiderman.

It's so easy. But our "progressive" (socialist!) society wants to make it so weird and complicated.

Anyway, I almost--I was a good girl, this was family, they think I'm weird enough--said "There are theories that state gender is fluid."

Oh god, could you imagine?

Anyway, so I'm thinking about this whole gender role thing and how the church applies it to homosexuality (sorry, "SSA").

First, it's two people of the same gender, which is so not what the (current) definition of marriage is.

Second, gay people can't procreate, so obvs they shouldn't get married. But they are having sex. Which is wrong. Obvs. It's not even real sex.

Third, uhm, Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.

Something about Sodom and Gomorrah (so convenient when you don't actually read the story critically)

Paul--Paul said something didn't he? Lovers of themselves? Men lying with other men? I dunno. I thought that was supposed to be about masturbation. Or selfishness. Or something. Whatever interpretation works for the current argument.

And something in Leviticus among stoning women and other such Biblical things.

Ahem. Gender.

So it's much easier to just say "boys" and "girls," yeah? Girls get their own bathroom/locker rooms, boys get their own. You have dorms--BYU notably--where co-ed living is forbidden. In the mission field, boys stick with boys and girls with girls. Elders are not permitted to proselytize with Sisters and Sisters with Elders. Elders are not permitted to visit with a single sister. Same with home teachers. Hell--married people are strongly discouraged from even having friends of the opposite sex.

And why?

Because we don't want any sexy shit going down before marriage. Or outside of marriage.

And here's where teh gays come in (and even more sneakily, teh bisexuals):

Many people, at least in my experience, seem to think homosexuals cannot control themselves. They must have teh sex with anyone warm and breathing, straight or not. This can include children and your little dog, too! So desperate and backwards and evil, teh gays are.

Straight men and women dress in their specified rooms with those of their same gender because nothing weird is going to happen. Other guys won't check out other guys. Women too. There is less of a chance for sexy shit to go down. Less of a chance for sexual harassment.

Clean and simple. Safe. Neat. And celibate. Pure. You know. I mean, it's bad enough to get nekkid around anyone, but sometimes you just gotta. I mean, even back in the day the MTC had open showers. But who's to worry, you know? Just a bunch of guys or just a bunch of girls. Nothing's gonna happen.

Slumber parties, too. Keep 'em contained to girls or boys only and no sexy shit will go down. Probably.

Teh gays ruin all of this. And people would prefer, as illustrated by "don't ask don't tell," to remain ignorant. Because obvs once someone outs themselves, it opens the floodgates for sexy shit to go down.

"Oh, you're a lesbian? I've always wanted to try that, you know. Experiment."

Wink.

"You're gay? So am I. Wanna visit my bunk tonight?"

Nobody wants that.

It goes beyond people being "uncomfortable," which is crap anyway. Heaven forbid somebody's sexuality make you uncomfortable. Heaven forbid you be uncomfortable period!

It's in the Constitution!...somewhere, I'm sure of it.

But is it any different than when a man catcalls a woman and makes her uncomfortable? Not so much. Boys will be boys after all.

Being of African, Native American or of Japanese descent used to make people uncomfortable, too, but most of us have gotten over that. Or so we like to think. You can add Mexican and Muslim (also those of Middle Eastern and East Indian descent) to the list. Anything other than Christian, too, but that's not race. Still, uncomfortable.

If they're not white, they're not right. If they're gay, stay the fuck away.

It's not just the LDS church that enjoys a black and white view of the world. Much of society likes things in their little, pretty, predictable boxes. We don't like to think of girls who like boy things (I was a HUGE tomboy as a kid and still remember an Oprah show where she thought tomboy indicated a future lesbian--from the tone of the show, I thought that might be a bad thing, generalization aside). But even that is ok-ay. As long as they grow out of it.

We REALLY don't like to think of boys who like girl things. Heaven. Fucking. Forbid.

So when we speak of things such as gender fluidity, sexual fluidity, it threatens those who are afraid and don't know any better. Insecure people.

While watching the movie Milk, I was struck by Harvey Milk's idea to encourage every queer boy and girl to come out to his or her family as to destigmatize the gay community. To show straight people that they're not animals. But that is asking a hell of a lot for a hell of a lot of people.

My step-FIL was part of the gay police at BYU back in the day, charged with keeping an eye out for any suspected gay people. Thankfully that doesn't go on anymore (?).

Anyway, once we make gays as regular as anybody else, as accepted, then we have to worry about sex more. What if Susie's best friend is a lesbian and they "experiment" while alone in Susie's room? I mean it's one thing to have a rule to keep a boy out of Susie's room, but what about her female best friend? CAN WE TRUST NOBODY ANYMORE?

What if Elder-so-and-so is gay and gets hard over his companion?

If we can't keep them away (and we can't, they're so goddamn stubborn with their Pride parade and all), we ought to at least silence them. Shame them. Guilt them. Tell them they're bad and their attractions are, if not sinful, potentially sinful. They are defected. It's a cross to bear. We'll kick them out from our families, our homes. We won't recognize their partners. We'll use sanitized terms such as SSA (Same Sex Attracted) instead of gay, lesbian, bisexual. HUMAN BEINGS equal in worth to straight people. We don't define straight people by their orientation (they're normal, after all), but we sure as hell define gay people by their orientation. We don't understand them and we sure as hell don't want to.

If anything else, let's just keep them quiet. Don't ask, don't tell. Ignorance is bliss.

Or, in the case of the Jezebel article I mentioned, make them out themselves to their roomies just in case somebody else might think they'll be jumped in the middle of the night.

Because straight people are never aggressive.

Besides, even if they are, it's okay. Especially if its a boy. They can't help themselves, either. But since they're straight, it's totes okay.

And if not okay, at least understood.

Hi, I'm Marishia and I'm a Homosexual Mormon

I saw this one coming, too.

But not quite like this.

Go read the article at Mormon.org.

See, my problem is not so much with this homosexual member of the church who chooses to deny herself EVERYTHING related to having an inkling of a romantic life (this particular paragraph is heart-wrenching:

I have now come to understand and accept my homosexuality as one of my crosses to bear in this life which will help strengthen my faith in Christ and will teach me to be obedient to my loving and merciful Heavenly Father. I know that if I continue to be obedient to my Father in Heaven that one day he will bless me with the righteous desires of my heart to marry a good man in the temple and to have a forever family of my own.)

but it is the perpetuation of the teaching--the myth--that those who leave are:

1) Forever bitter
2) Unhappy
3) Into drugs and alcohol and other unhealthy things to help deal with the depression
4) Merely suppressing that which they know to be true

But I'll be fair. She didn't say these things happened simply because she left (although it did happen after she left), but because she was trying to get over her depression over being a lesbian.

Now who encouraged that?

But don't worry. Now she knows it's just a "physical defect."

I know.

And it does bother me to say I'm sad for someone who is in the church because it pisses me off when people say they're sad for me for leaving, but this?

It's horrible.