I don't get it.

The new movement (if you want to call it that) on Facebook is to send your panties to John Boehner for women's reproductive rights.

I guess I don't get the connection.

Then again, facebook movements aren't exactly known for their logic, especially given the fact that tossing your panties at a man is generally considered a bit of a, uhm, compliment. A expression of affection, shall we say.

Really girls? You want to do this?

Have at, I guess, but Johnny might take it as a gesture of approval.

"Free Agency"

An article over at MormonTimes was brought to my attention which commented on the rhetorical issues of "I can't, I'm Mormon."

The author thinks this is crap because, duh, Mormons have a choice.

This is a sticking point between many ex-members and current members. It's also an issue between never-mos and current members. For example, my brother had a really bad experience with a scary roommate of his. The guy ended up going to jail because of my brother. He threatened my brother--you know, "When I get out..." I don't remember the specifics, but my brother had to do what he did because, as he said, he didn't have a choice.

A member told him "Of course you do."

This was during my initial disaffection, and as such I had a progressively heightened sense for bullshit. I told said person that when it's a "choice" between living or dying, it's not really a choice, is it?

This person is like this...all the time. He can't let anything go. He'll walk into your home and preach. He'll call you to task on anything he feels strongly about. It's his way of spreading teh gospel. It's fucking annoying.

To his credit, he let it go that time because really, what is the choice?

He didn't quite learn the lesson though. The church is all about "free agency." Freedom to choose. "I teach them correct principles," Joseph Smith said, "and they govern themselves." Every member is under this delusion that you always have a choice.

Of course you do, technically. You could choose to die if you wanted to. But most people aren't looking to be martyrs without a cause. Most people want to live. What choice is it when your hand is effectively forced?

But, members would say, the church doesn't force your hand. Ask past-President Gordon Hinckley:

No, I reply, the Church will not dictate to any man how he should think or what he should do. The Church will point out the way and invite every member to live the gospel and enjoy the blessings that come of such living. The Church will not dictate to any man, but it will counsel, it will persuade, it will urge and it will expect loyalty from those who profess membership therein.

Isn't "expect loyalty" simply a euphemism for "dictate"? 

The church is confusing choice with force, not to mention forgetting the paternal nature of its organization. They treat you like a (jerk) father would treat his little child--but it's worse than that. It is akin to a father saying "Don't ever say anything bad about me or I'll disown you."

What is the choice in that?

The Church takes it a step further, however. It's not simply about excommunication because excommunication as an LDS concept means so much more. What ought to be said is "Don't say anything bad about me or I'll disown you and effectively not only take away everything you've ever had, but your salvation as well."

Choice?

Truly, if I wanted to, I'd make a shirt that said "I can, I'm not Mormon."

Hmmm. I might look into that.




*Also, just for fun let's also discuss the funny that is an attractive, young blonde thing with "come hither" eyes wearing a shirt that says "I can't, I'm Mormon."

Stupid Argument

I just read this one:

A little boy writes God a letter. "God, why do you allow bad things to happen in schools?" God replies, "Dear son, I am not allowed in your schools."

I've heard this a few times but the full impact of its stupidity just hit me now. The first time I heard this, I, too, felt it was powerful. The more I heard it, the less powerful it became. And now it's just stupid.

God stays out of schools because he's not allowed in them? Some powerful god, more concerned with carnal policies than in being there for his children. Priority FAIL.

Also, if only good things happen where God is "allowed" as this meme alludes, can we then conclude that god really isn't allowed in other places, homes, etc? I'm pretty sure there are faithful people to whom bigger atrocities occur than "no [TEACHER LED] prayer in schools." I also know that good things--great things--happen where god isn't allowed.

Really, folks. You can do better, can't you? If anything, this only serves to prove the point.

Meaningless LDS Memes: Are you Christian?

Okay. I'm on a rampage, apparently. Just discovered that my old Institute "support specialist" (ie: secretary) has a profile on Mormon.org. The link to it is unnecessary to this post, just know that one answer provided inspiration.

Question: "Are Mormons Christian?"

Member: "Of course we are! Duh, it says Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-day Saints on all our church buildings."

While not perfect, this answer strikes me as analogous to "I'm not racist, I have a black friend."

That answer doesn't mean anything.

But, you know, whatever.

*cough*

From "It Can't Happen to Me," James E. Faust, Liahona July 2002

History is full of examples of men who were gifted and able but who, in a moment of weakness, threw away their promising lives. King David is a tragic example. As a youth he was handsome, brave, and full of faith. He slew the frightening giant, Goliath. He became king. He had everything a man could desire. Yet when he saw Bathsheba, he wanted her even though she was another man’s wife. He had her husband, Uriah the Hittite, sent to the front of the hottest battle so that he would be killed. Uriah died in battle, and David married Bathsheba. As a consequence of this evil deed, David lost his spiritual inheritance. 3 For all the good David accomplished, much of it was negated because he allowed himself to succumb to a serious personal flaw.

Does this sound familiar to ANYONE ELSE?

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?

Stupid Member Memes

You know, the "gotcha" stuff they like to throw at you. Feel free to add your own, complete with comeback. If you can't come up with one for whatever reason, I'm sure someone around here can help.

To investigators, out of fear they may seek "anti" sources:

You wouldn't go to a Ford dealership to learn about your Chevy, would you?

(Confession: I totally bought this one.)

Not necessarily, but let me screw with this meme a bit: if I wanted to buy a Ford it might be worth my while to check with someone who had experience with that brand to figure out if it was something I really wanted to buy. In fact, people do this all the time. "How's your Kia?" they ask us all the time. And we tell them.

If we like the person asking, we're even honest ;)

But seriously, would you buy a car without checking into it--what issues generally arise from it, if people are satisfied, its resale value, accident/safety reports, etc? Gas mileage? And let's not forget price, for that matter (*cough*tithing*cough*)--cost/benefit.

So you know, I just might go to a Ford guy to learn a little about Chevy (it wouldn't be "my" Chevy--who the hell buys something this expensive without learning about it first?...oh). Maybe the Ford guy has some inside info I don't have--but of course I'd double or triple check with some independent research. After all, all Chevy is going to do is tell me how awesome it is and, oops, happen to neglect a few of the not-so-nice things. Because they want me to buy their cars.

It's the same sentiment as checking out new restaurants or hotels. You're not just going to talk with the particular hotel or restaurant, are you? They won't tell you what sucks about it. But people who've stayed or dined there will, and it helps to know if anything unseemly goes on. Don't want to contract food poisoning after all (but the restaurant said they followed health codes!)

To anyone claiming to know a truth contradictory to LDS doctrine: (especially those along the lines of "the church isn't true.")

You can tell me the sky is green all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that it's blue.

Yeah, heard this one before. Directly. And I used to think it was epic AWESOME.

All I have to say is this: the sky is kinda green right before a tornado. And then it's gray during a storm. Mostly white sometimes. Black at night (kinda polka-dotted, really. stars and all). Then you have to consider that the sky ain't blue everywhere on Earth at the same time.

Purple, then!

Sunsets!

We could get a little trickier and discuss hues and shades. Mixtures of colors. But that'd probably just make their head hurt.


I can't seem to think of others at the moment, but I'm positive more exist. Help?