Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Republicans Against 8


The sky is falling

In the same sex marriage battle, the focus has shifted towards other legal rights that will allegedly be infringed upon if proposition 8 is defeated in California. The chicken littles are running around in their religious garb prophesying terrible calamities if we GASP! let two men or two women be married.
  • Gay marriage will be forced down the throats of our school children
  • Private businesses will be fined for refusing to do business with perverts
  • Our country will, overnight, be transformed into a totalitarian state
  • Churches will lose their tax exempt status if they refuse to recognize and perform gay marriages
  • Religious adoption agencies will be forced to place innocent children into the homes of known pedophiles
  • It will push our economy into a recession
I'm not going to comment specifically on the alleged legal infringements as other people, way smarter than me, are doing an admirable job on both sides of that argument.

I just want to say that turning the effort to support proposition 8 into a battle for religious freedom is, at best, disingenuous.

If what the LDS church, and others, are really concerned about is maintaining their constitutional rights as defined by the first amendment - then fight that battle. There is no question that our rights, both as individuals and as institutions, are being infringed upon in diverse ways.

But, to wage a war against same sex marriage and then, almost as an afterthought when you created an hailstorm of controversy within your own ranks, to start waving the first amendment flag - I'm sorry, I'm just not buying it.
  • Where were you when doctors were fighting for their right to refuse to perform abortions based on their religious beliefs?
  • Where were you when teachers were fighting for the right to teach creationism along with evolution?
  • Why aren't you fighting to make divorces more difficult?
  • Why aren't you fighting for abstinence education to be taught in our public schools?
  • Where is your outrage against lowering the drinking age to 18; a movement which is gaining momentum?
Yes, the church teaches these things and encourages its membership to get involved - but not with the same fervor as it is doing to fight gay marriage.

Am I to believe that a bunch of queer couples in California who want to have the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts are the greatest threat we've ever seen to our society? Isn't that just a bit melodramatic?

It's one thing when other churches preach hate disguised as love - but aren't we, as Mormon's, above that? We, of all people, should know what it's like to be despised and reviled for simply being who we are. Didn't God specifically say to us "I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men" (D&C 64:10)?

You say you love me (as a gay Mormon), especially if I continue to live by church standards. But then to turn around and say that people like me - my friends - are the greatest threat to society ...

I'm not feeling much of that love.

Friday, September 26, 2008


Somebody visited my blog yesterday after googling
what to expect from a mormon male sexually
I'm envisioning some poor non-member woman whose been dating a nice mormon guy; and, their relationship is starting to get pretty serious to the point where they're starting to talk marriage. So, she googles that phrase to get an idea for what to expect, visits my blog and ... surprise!!!

Sorry about that nice mormon guy, better luck next time.

Thursday, September 25, 2008

Another Mormon Enigma?

It's true, I have a twin blog - although, apparently, I'm the evil twin since the other Mormon Enigma blog gets a G rating while mine gets an R

Unfortunately, I can't read what the other Mormon Enigma blog has to say - can anybody tell me what language this is?

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Moral depravity

In a blatantly 'me too' blog post

OnePlusYou Quizzes and Widgets

What did the blogging cops find?
  • retard (4x)
  • sex (3x)
  • hell (2x)
  • dick (1x)
The last one is because of my post about Matthew Mitcham where I quoted him being "Australia's first male Olympic gold medallist in diving since Dick Eve in 1924." So, I'm blaming Matt Mitcham for my moral turpitude!

Clay Aiken is gay

I'm sure this is not new news to anyone reading this blog.

Below is a smattering of the comments to this news I found on a major news outlet.
I wonder how many girls are crying now as their Christian parents strip their rooms of everything Aiken...

It's my opinion-a gay man should not be allowed to raise a boy. The child will be so confused growing up. It must have been ashamed all this years----since he did deny, deny, deny. Being gay is a personal decision but should the child suffer in a already cruel world.

Most likely he was abused by a family member when he was young. Very sad. Truth is, any adult who does this to a child is better off having a millstone hung around his neck and thrown into the ocean.

I bet he wasn't gay before he was on American Idol. Lots of fame and fortune does screw up the mind.

Should've kept his mouth shut. As did Rock Hudson and Elton John, they were gay but married women to keep the media off their backs for awhile. Now that was smart.

Just more immoral evil being presented for us to watch. I do not care about his sinful life, to the point that he should realize his ways, and change. Maybe a little filtering from the media, will put these degenerates back in the closet. Who really in there right mind, loves to look at stories like this? Does this fascinate people to hear about somebodies problem in life. My .02

NEWSFLASH!! So is that creepy David Archuleta kid from American Idol.

It seems the Devil is winning. That is a terrible thing! Where is God?

More sexual confusion in our culture....what a pity...where's the shame????

Being gay is a choice; a bad choice.A person is not born gay, he chooses to be gay. The Bible clearly teaches that homosexuality is a sin (Romans 1:24-28;I Corinthians 6:9-11; I Timothy 1:10; Genesis 19:1-26). The Word of God is truth, which far outweighs popular opinion and personal preference.

it's my opinion-a bigot who worships imaginary deities should not be allowed to raise a boy. The child will be so confused growing up. Believing in an invisible sky daddy is a personal decision but should the child suffer in a already cruel world.

Wow, this sucks a lot.

That's too bad.

I'll let Jesus Christ be the judge. It's his words in the Bible what's right and wrong. People just don't want to answer to a higher power. But one day they will have no choice whatsoever.

He's already put the judgement on himself.

Yeah. . .that's great. I can't tell you how many times I've wished my Dad was gay. Bringing my high school football team mates home to be introduced to my gay Dad and his swishy boyfriend would have been such a wonderful experience. I'll just have to move on with my empty life, never having the good fortune to experience being raised by a couple of hairy, french kissing men as my parents.

So sad, I guess we knew it but I was hoping to be wrong. He claims to be a Christian.
I am, of course, focusing on the negative comments as there are plenty of more positive comments. I just wanted to illustrate that homophobia is alive and well.

Monday, September 22, 2008

Double bind

My therapy assignment for this week is to research double bind to see if that applies to me. A double bind is
a dilemma in communication in which a person receives two or more conflicting messages and one message denies the other, a situation in which the person will be put in the wrong however they respond, and the person can't comment on the conflict, or resolve it, or opt out of the situation.
Double bind theory came about when studying schizophrenia and proposes that symptoms of schizophrenia are an expression of contradictory patterns of interaction in the family - for example, a child growing up in a home where a parent verbally tells a child that they love them but their non-verbal communication says that they wish the child were gone out of their life.

I still need to give this more thought, but there are some unresolvable conflicts in my life.
  • I am a gay man who is heterosexually married to a woman.
  • I yearn for an intimate (though not sexual) relationship with a man; but, I also love my wife and want to maintain an intimate relationship with her and not do anything to hurt her.
  • I want to remain active in the LDS church (which has a largely homophobic culture) and I want to be part of a church family that loves and accepts me, and others like me, for who and what we are and not who we pretend to be.
Is this a double bind? I don't know. Double bind seems to be concerned more with conflicting communication we receive from others. My conflicts are more internalized; although, they certainly present me with seemingly unresolvable paradoxes - that's got to mess with a person's mind, no wonder I'm so screwed up.

One thing that sure seems like a double bind is how the LDS church regards homosexuality.

Formal doctrine and teachings tells us that merely having same sex attraction is not a sin - it's only when we act on those attractions that we sin. We are taught that people with same sex attraction are treated the same as everyone else and are held to the same standards as everyone else. Yet, the LDS church has policies and practices that send a different message.
  • The whole mess in California with the LDS church abandoning its normal position of political neutrality and encouraging members to donate their time and means to support proposition 8 banning same sex marriage via a constitutional amendment. Out of all of the political issues in our society - why pick this one to take a stand on?
  • While modern church teachings separate attraction from behavior, when a person confesses to their bishop, they are often counseled to read "The Miracle of Forgiveness" which doesn't make that distinction and refers to homosexuality as "the abominable and detestable crime against nature"
  • We're told it's OK to be gay - but we're not supposed to call ourselves 'gay' or 'homosexual' preferring politically correct terms like 'same gender attracted'. Is there any other group of people in the church who are told to not refer to themselves by culturally accepted jargon?
  • We're told it's OK to be gay - but we're not suppose to exhibit homosexual attributes or flaunt our homosexual characteristics (I don't even know what that means).
  • Whenever we are planning an activity that involves costumes, it seems we always receive explicit instructions that guys are not allowed to wear costumes depicting them as girls. Does anybody really believe that putting a dress on a boy will turn him into a homosexual? And, why aren't girls dressing like boys equally disdained?
  • According to the general handbook of instructions, if a young man fornicates heterosexually, he has to wait at least 1 year before he will be allowed to serve a mission. If he fornicates homosexually then he has to wait at least 3 years - and then only if the transgression occurred in his teenage years. If a young man has a homosexual experience after graduating from high school then it is extremely unlikely he will ever be allowed to serve a mission, regardless of the circumstances.
  • We're told that a homosexual who commits to living church standards is eligible to hold any calling in the church. Yet, it's not hard to imagine that a person with publicly known homosexual attractions would never be put in a position working with young men. Even if he were, it's not hard to imagine certain parents going to the bishop with their concerns. Yet, I don't get the sense of similar concern about a Lesbian working with young women.
  • According to the general handbook of instructions, church records are to be permanently notated for repeated homosexual transgressions - yet there is no such notation required for repeated heterosexual transgressions.
Is it just me? Or is the unwritten and unspoken message contradictory to what we are told? As gay Mormon's, are we faced with a double bind? Are we simultaneously being told
  • we are loved
  • we are disgusting
  • we are treated as equals
  • our sins are far worse than all others
  • we need to love and accept ourselves for who we are
  • we need to hide our true selves and repress our feelings
  • homophobia is not becoming of a good latter day saint
  • anything remotely associated with homosexuality is repulsive
  • we respect the beliefs of others
  • except if they're queers

Saturday, September 20, 2008

Socially retarded

I had another therapy session yesterday. I was actually considering canceling it. I don't know why, I've just been feeling really down lately - and I didn't want to talk about it. But I went anyway.

He asked some probing questions regarding what happened to bring this on - but the only thing I could tell him is that it just happens at times, it ebbs and flows, and I just need to time to get out of my funk.

He explained that there are times when depression is justified, such as the death of a loved one, and we just need to let it run its course in those situations. But, it seems to him that I've simply accepted my depression as something that happens, it's just part of my being - and that can't be good. It's not healthy, and I need to figure out a way to address it.

Then he asked me about some of the thoughts that go through my mind when I'm feeling like this. I told him that I feel like a social retard with no friends. He asked me to create, what he called, a sociograph. It is basically a diagram where I draw a circle in the center representing myself. I then draw other circles for other people I'm involved with in my life with their proximity to my circle representing how close I am to them. After examining my sociograph, he observed that I don't have much social interaction with others outside of family. He then referenced some events from my timeline that occurred at critical points in my life and said that it seems that I lack experience in building social relationships - experience that other people normally get while growing up,

so, I guess it's official now, I am a social retard!

One way to address this is through a desensitization where I consciously force myself into social situations in order to gain that experience. That is, of course, much easier said than done. How exactly does a social retard like me gain socialization experience? We talked about my role at church; but, he said that doesn't really help. It is a defined role with a defined expectation of behavior - he said even the most introverted person can fulfill a role. Social interaction skills help us in situations where we don't have a defined role.

So, I need to get out more to socially interact with others; but, I don't know how to do that because I'm a social retard. Does anyone else see the problem here?

Thursday, September 11, 2008

Something in the air?

I was catching up on blogs over lunch - and both Mark Johnson (aka Another Gay Mormon aka Shades of Gay) and Chase (Sneakers in Sacrament) blogged about coming out on facebook. Then I read the comments, and Kengo Biddles mentioned he had been thinking about the same thing.

What makes this really weird is that I was writing on the wall of my wifes facebook page this morning and the thought occurred to me - what if I put 'gay' down as my orientation in my facebook profile, that would sure raise some eyebrows. And, then I thought - I wonder if anybody has ever come out on facebook?.

What's going on here? We live in different parts of the country, so it can't be the water. I've never even met another MoHo in person. Is this the next phase of that 'gay agenda' I keep hearing about? Some sort of subliminal suggestion to come out on facebook? What's next? Will I start having this uncontrollable urge to start singing show tunes while out in public? Will the word 'fabulous' start showing up in my everyday vernacular? - oh wait, that started a few months ago.

Waning popularity

I guess I'm no longer one of the cool kids - my 15 minutes of fame has come and gone. Access to my blog peaked Sunday and Monday and was still higher than usual on Tuesday. Although Wednesday the number of hits was near normal which is what I expect going forward.

Still all is not lost. Another family member discovered the queerosphere via my blog (and sent me an email); although, I don't know, for fact, that he found me via one of the sites driving traffic to my blog. Regardless of how he found us - welcome!

Now if I could just get Brad Paisley's I'm so much cooler online out of my head ...

Tuesday, September 9, 2008

Women who love men who love men

Jay Leno: A new study shows that women prefer men with feminine characteristics. The bad news: Men with feminine characteristics ... also prefer men with feminine characteristics.

I know it's a bad joke. But, I've been wondering if, perhaps, there is some grain of truth behind it. When a husband comes out to his wife as gay, there is always a lot of crying. The straight spouse grieves that her husband will never desire her in the same way that a straight man could. But, isn't it possible that the characteristics that go along with him being gay are the very characteristics that she fell in love with in the first place? If you were to, somehow, magically take the gay out of him, would he still be the man she loves?

In our household, I'm a great cook, during football season our TV is turned off, I'm creative - these are all characteristics that are much more prevalent in gay men than they are in the general male population - and these are things that my wife loves about me.

When you marry a guy, doesn't he come as a package deal - the good and bad? Is having a husband who gets so engrossed in football that he ignores his wife really any better than having a husband who drools over mens gymnastics during in the olympics?

For those of us in mixed orientation marriages, I'm just wondering if we're going about this the wrong way. Don't love me in spite of me being gay - love me because I'm gay. Don't grieve for the things you can't have - rejoice for the things you do have.

Shifting attitudes

There is an article in the Wall Street Journal that others might be interested in

The GOP Should Kiss Gay-Bashing Goodbye

On September 2nd, the Log Cabin Republicans voted to officially endorsed John McCain calling him a very inclusive Republican. While John McCain is against gay marriage, he also opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment - significant since the Log Cabin Republicans declined endorsing George W. Bush in 2004 because of that issue. Oh, and by the way, for all of you Obama fans, his views regarding gay marriage are essentially the same as McCains (opposes same-sex marriage, but also opposes a constitutional ban) making it, essentially, a non-issue in the upcoming election.

I don't have anything against Obama; my biggest concern is his lack of experience. And, truth be told, I'm not particularly excited about McCain either ... is it November yet?!?!?!?

Monday, September 8, 2008

New found popularity

Yesterday (Sunday) I set a new record for the number of hits to my blog. Today (Monday) is already breaking that record. After all these years - I've finally become one of the cool kids!

So, where is all of this new traffic coming from?


I must confess that I feel a bit naive as, before today, with the exception of bycommonconsent.com, I was unaware of the existence of these other sites.

It seems my post about the letter read by my bishop warning us of "Dale Callahan" is prompting all of this new found popularity. If you google "dale callahan mormon" or "dale callahan lds" then my blog is near the top of the results list linking to my post titled And they shall be ignored. (in other news, someone recently found my blog by googling "lds chili fest" - go figure)

In, possibly, related news, I also discovered that my blog (as well as other queerosphere blogs) is linked from the Mormon Blogosphere portal under the heading "Liberal/Fringe Elements".

Lest anyone start thinking that I'm becoming a fringe church hating liberal fag, I feel inclined to clarify my position.
I am an active member of the LDS church, I serve in the bishopric of my ward. I have a testimony of the Book of Mormon as a second testament of Jesus Christ. I support Thomas S. Monson as a prophet, seer, and revelator. I support my local church leaders.

I do not, however, believe in infallibility of our church leaders - a case in point, is the decision of the church to abandon it's normal position of political neutrality and encouraging the saints in California to donate of their time and means to help pass prop 8. Another prophet gave us the 11th article of faith - I feel we should live by that creed. I've explained my support for gay marriage here and here.

Oh, and I happen to be gay - does this make me a fringe church loving conservative fag?
And, for all of you new visitors - welcome to the Mormon queerosphere, a blogging community of gay Mormon's. Some of us are active members of the church. Others have left the church behind, but still have some affinity for their Mormon roots. Most are single, but a significant minority are married (both heterosexually and homosexually). A goodly number of us have children of our own. Most of us prefer to think of ourselves as 'gay', but a few prefer the more politically correct 'same sex attracted' or 'same gender attracted'. Most of us are male, but we do have some females in our ranks. We're all over the board in political and social issues. All in all, we're just like you - well, except for that gay thing.

If you feel so inclined, check out the blogs by other members of our little family (links in the right hand nav bar). If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to email me, a link to my email is in my blog profile. You're certainly more than welcome to join in our discussions, which range from the mundane to the interesting. We only ask that you play nice.

And, as you may expect, the topic of gay marriage is of great interest here in the queerosphere. But, so are other topics.

Thursday, September 4, 2008

I'm homo for Romo

In other news, I'm starting to see "I'm Homo for Romo" T-shirts around these parts. I had to do a bit of googleing to see what this was all about. It seems Tony Romo is one of the Dallas Cowboys and, according to some, is destined to be the next great Dallas Cowboys quarterback. So, I suppose saying you're "homo for Romo" is a term of endearment of sorts. Although, I know of one high school student who was instructed by his teachers to cover it up because it has the word "homo" on it.

o o o

I'm not really quite sure what to think about this. Should I be offended? Or should I buy one and wear it proudly? Nah, then people might start talking to me about football and my eyes would glaze over - and it would become apparent that it's only the first half that's relevant.

Another visit with the shrink

I had another visit with my therapist a couple of days ago. I've talked about my photography a bit during our sessions; so, he had asked me to bring in some examples - pictures I was especially proud of. I have two photo albums I keep in our living room with 8x10's of my favorite pictures which I brought with me to my session. Mind you, these are photo's that I share with family and friends.

After going through the pictures ...

Shrink: Well, a few of these could, arguably, be considered homoerotic
Shrink: Is it mere coincidence that most of your pictures are of men?
Me: Um, probably not
Shrink: I didn't think so
Shrink: Why is that?
Me: I prefer taking pictures of men
Shrink: That's understandable

So, apparently it's official - I'm gay! And, I guess I'm not doing a very good job at hiding it.

Tuesday, September 2, 2008

And they shall be ignored

I've been thinking about the things that happened on Sunday. On one hand, I feel good about being able to open my home to help a family which has been uprooted from their home. But, something else happened Sunday that is really starting to bug me.

In PEC meeting, before church, our bishop read a letter he received from church headquarters. It was warning us of letters and/or emails we might receive from a Dale Callahan. It seems he has started a letter writing campaign to LDS leaders, members, and missionaries in California urging them to vote 'No' on proposition 8. It went on to explain that they do not know if he is a former member of the church or if it's an assumed name he is working under. It pointed out that he does not represent the church and then ended saying any coorespondence we receive from Dale Callahan should be ignored.

I don't have a problem with the church pointing out that this Dale Callahan does not represent the church and that the views he is expressing are contrary to those expressed by the church. These are simple statements of fact. But, to tell us to ignore him seems petty. We are counseled to study the issues and vote with our conscious. But, are we only supposed to study things that come from the church and people who agree with the church. Are we supposed to simply ignore anybody that expresses any opposing points of view?

Needless to say, after our bishop read this letter a discussion ensued. My bishop wanted to clarify "so, if you vote no that means you are FOR gay marriage - in other words, you are against the family proclamation." Other brethren in the room were saying that this is truely a sign of the last days. One brother said that this person was obviously a former member of the church because no active member would ever express views like this.

As the discussion continued - I sat there in stunned silence. I truly did not know what to say or how to react. I felt very uncomfortable to say the least. I felt like an outsider. I was no longer sitting in a council of brethren united in purpose - I was the enemy. Me, and others like me, are the modern day Korihors - seeking to bring down the church. If only they knew what evil was lurking in their midst.

Today I am feeling melancholy - I feel so conflicted. As I pointed out in my last blog post, Mormon's are good people. Most members of the church will bend over backwards to help someone in need - apparently only so long as you keep homos away from them. Evidently we are of no consequence. If we express views supporting gay marriage then we are to be simply ignored. Studying political issues does not include listening to anything we have to say.

I feel like we're tolerated only so long as we keep our secrets to ourselves so that the general membership of the church can go on in blissful ignorance because, obviously, we don't have any of -those- people in the church. Hmmm, that sounds eerily similar to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, president of Iran when he said "We don't have any gays in Iran."