Keep Changing- A Gay Mormon Journey

Healthcare Disparities

2011-06-29T11:17:00.003-05:00

Just published a few comments that have been waiting in the hopper for almost a year... so, sorry about that. :-) Haven't logged in here for a while.

Decided I'd drop a quick note about the AMA's recent policy adopted in regard to gay marriage. It was based on a report written by the Council on Science and Public Health that outlined the evidence for healthcare disparities between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples. The findings of the report were literally true, although taken altogether they gave an impression that was not true. Specifically, the supporting information suggests that the only reason for homosexual couples to be excluded from marriage is discrimination, which is opinion rather than fact.

It is a fact, on the other hand, that those who are insured are much more likely to get good healthcare options, live healthier, and live longer. It is also a fact that insurance coverage is routinely offered to spouses but not otherwise unrelated relations, so to speak. The disparity in healthcare and health between gay and straight couples is directly attributable to these facts, and was the basis for the AMA's support of same-sex marriage.

But there's a little problem with this.

Many opponents of gay marriage have contested that extending marriage to gays would dilute or destroy traditional marriage. These concerns have been dismissed as paranoid and absurd. How could it possibly follow that your straight marriage is harmed by opening the circle to others a little bit.

But the AMA has now shown exactly how this would work. The rationale for supporting gay marriage was to eliminate health disparities. This same logic, to be consistent, must also support eliminating traditional marriage altogether. The disparity in health and healthcare has never really been between straight and gay couples, it has been between married couples and unmarried people of any sort. By the same logic, that is unfair and victimizes those who are unmarried. Whether it is by choice or necessity, they should not have to bear the brunt of inferior healthcare and shorter lives because our society arbitrarily bestows benefits on the legally married.

So, in my view, the AMA's new policy position can be interpreted as a great step forward for gay equality and the marriage movement, or it can be interpreted as indicative of how some of the anti-gay marriage arguments might not be so absurd after all.

Don't be surprised if I don't moderate comments right away. I've got board exams coming up and a move and... well... life isn't really leaving room for this blog much anymore!

Judge Walker, is that a fact?

2010-08-22T09:58:00.003-05:00

The overturn of proposition 8, historic and fascinating, will do a lot of good for gays. I hope. I'm not sure, really though, because when there are so many statements of opinion designated as "facts" upon which the findings are based, it's hard to know how that's going to play out.

I don't have the time right now to trot out all the examples, but one will surely come as no surprise to anyone who reads this blog:

51.Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gay and lesbian individuals.

Yet, here I am. As with many of Judge Walker's "facts", this begs the question. When I got married, I went down to the courthouse and filled out the paperwork and paid my $20 to get a license. Then we did it. How is this "unrealistic"? Oh, yeah, because gay and lesbian individuals wouldn't necessarily value or want such a marriage because we're gonna equivocate between the legal standing that marriage is and the loving relationship of intimacy that marriage can be... at least for this part of the argument. The only one that is ever guaranteed for anyone is the former, and it's just as "realistic" for anyone who signs up.

My new standard disclaimer: I favor recognition of gay marriage but oppose the civil rights argument and arguments of equality as the basis for it. No amount of love conquering hate, tolerance conquering animus, or loathing giving way to acceptance is going to change the fact that marriage between homos and heteros is qualitatively different because only one can naturally produce children. And Judge Walker, that's an *actual* fact.

An update for anon

2010-08-07T12:46:00.002-05:00

My last post got a comment from an anonymous writer who says we have a lot in common. He asked for an update, and I realized that I haven't really written anything about myself in ages. There have been a few rants (and I feel one boiling up about the latest prop 8 ruling, even as I type), but this blog is supposed to be about *my* journey and it hasn't been much of that for a long while.

I'm a lot less ardent than I used to be. There are many reasons for that, but I'm still a little ashamed to admit it. I was raised to be ardent, and I've been active and faithful my whole life. But lately I've been feeling some laziness in my spirituality. I don't read the scriptures often and I seldom pray other than at meals and church. Our FHEs are sporadic and lame. I home teach still and enjoy it for what it is, and I still attend church and do a good job with my calling... but I've lost my spiritual moxie.

It would be an easy matter to set aside my faith and move on with life, if that's what I thought was best. But I've decided to believe and specifically decided that the alternative is not for me. So, I see my current lukewarmness as a bump on the road. Something that will pass eventually.

As general commentary, I've also always told myself that when I'm not living the gospel fully, I will never make judgments about its value. I stick by that, and so I'm in no state to shuffle through the tired arguments as to why the church doesn't "make sense" or why the historicity of the scriptures can't possibly be right, etc.

Having said all that, my marriage is as strong as ever... stronger? We love and cherish each other and I don't think I could face the world without her. Sex sucks. Or comparatively, anyway. I'll be honest about that... it's not all I would get were I to go after what my body responds to best. But, my life, my family, my ambitions... are all about a lot more than getting the best sex.

If I were to fall in love with and make love to a guy, as you have done, anon, I suspect my happy life would be shattered. So, I feel for your current challenge. You're in command of your own fate, so I'll decline to speculate on where your marriage will go from here, but I wish you the best in any case.

That brings to mind one of the things that makes my wife and I so close. She has told me more than once that she wants me to be happy. She's willing to divorce me and let me move along if that's what I think it would take as a gay man. Ironically, it's that willingness to give me up out of love that makes me love her and want to keep her forever.

Making one's way through this maze of life, there are many unexpected twists and turns. I'm going to try to avoid dispensing foolproof advice, recognizing that there are so many nuances that we can never even communicate to others. But, for me, trusting in God has led me to a place that is happy, and remains happy, even without God. Or, more accurately, God is here waiting in the wings until I figure out this current puzzle of faith, but I couldn't be where I'm at without His help getting here regardless of where my faith goes from here.

Fathers, etc.

2010-06-20T17:35:00.002-05:00

I was reading the transcripts of final arguments in the anti-proposition 8 lawsuit in California, and it was an interesting read. The arguments were not new, for the most part, but the way they were stated was so much clearer and more compelling than the usual. That was what I liked about it.

There were some different arguments that I'd never heard before. In fact, the *central* argument of the defense on the heterosexual exclusivity of marriage was a spin-off of arguments I've heard about the ideal circumstances in which to raise a child. This argument was that marriage is intended to benefit society by channeling intimacy (that may lead to a child) into a committed and stable relationship that would be better for an accidental child, should that occur. Or something to that effect. Gays can't have accidental children, and if they go out of their way to get kids, they're the last ones you have to worry about channeling into stability and commitment, because they've already got it in spades. Weird, huh? Flameretardentmormon called that out as disingenuous--something like what our son does when he's been naughty and then has to come up with an excuse after the fact as to why he was in the right the whole time.

Having said that, I disagree with the prosecution that those who supported proposition 8 could only have been motivated by discrimination, hate, and animus. That's the drum I've beaten on this blog for a long while, so that probably comes as no surprise that I get irritated by such labeling of others' motivations. Whether they successfully proved this is not the case, I still know for myself that it's not based on the only motivations I can really know without doubt--my own. I've written about my ambivalence on the subject and the competing gospel principles that may lead members of the church to opposite conclusions, and how I ultimately would have voted for proposition 8, had I been in such a position. I know I'm not motivated by hate, discrimination, or animus, so that's a settled question for me.

In the spirit of Fathers' Day, I thought I'd share this link: Science can't prove fathers matter. That doesn't mean we don't. It reflects my sentiments pretty accurately, in the title particularly. If doing research for the last several months has reinforced one principle in particular, it's the inability of science to satisfactorily address certain types of questions even while being brilliant at addressing others. Whatever science has shown about lesbian mothers and their well-adjusted children, or failed to show about the differences between gay households and straight ones, I'm certain that my choices have been for the best for my children. Absolutely certain.

Happy Fathers' Day!

The Life of Pi

2010-04-01T10:42:00.003-05:00

I thought about writing a lengthy April Fools Post, but that seems out of place in a blog that's been so infrequent in the updates. It would have been fun to tell the story about outing myself to the general assembly of the American Medical Association to battle the political bullcrap that slides by in that House, but that may come true one of these days, so I'll save that one up. :-)

No, instead I wanted to post a quickie about a book I just finished called the Life of Pi. It's a pretty popular book, so many people have probably already read it. I can't really discuss the interesting aspects of it without a spoiler, so if you're planning to read it, you'll have to stop reading this post now or risk me ruining it all.

Pi is an Indian boy who grew up around animals in his family-run zoo. When they decide to move to Canada and take their animals with them, Pi ends up the only human survivor of the shipwreck and finds himself aboard a lifeboat with an untamed tiger. He survives for months and most of the book tells the details of how he manages it. After being rescued, inspectors from the ship's company question him to determine what caused the ship to sink. They do not believe his story about the tiger and demand another explanation. He tells a parallel story that includes cannibalism, murder, his mother being beheaded by an evil man, etc. He points out that the inspectors have no way of knowing which of the stories is actually true and asks which of the stories they prefer. They say the one with the animals, and Pi responds, "so it is with God."

Earlier in the book Pi had become Hindu, Muslim, and Christian simultaneously, showing that he loved God and didn't dwell on the factual reality of any of the faiths. This seems silly in some ways and so wise in another.

The story impacts me personally because I've recently felt so acutely the same option in my beliefs. Given two stories that can be neither proven or disproven, I've chosen to believe in God. So, yeah. So it is with God.

A few recent thoughts

2010-02-07T15:00:00.002-05:00

Since my blog has devolved into nothing more than an occasional rant whenever something inflames my sensibilities to the point of needing verbal expression, I figure I’ll economize and get a few topics out of the way at once.

The recent attention to “don’t ask don’t tell” is long overdue. The policy never particularly concerned me because I don’t see it as a horrible imposition to keep your personal life private when so many other accommodations and personal sacrifices are also required of our military. However, the policy was much broader than that and was outrageous because of it. That a person can’t discuss their sexuality with their physician out of fear is just reprehensible. Add to that the fact that physicians must ask direct sexual questions to appropriately care for patients, and it’s easy to see the injustice of requiring a soldier to either answer a direct important question honestly and risk losing his/her livelihood and dreams, or lie and receive inadequate or frankly inappropriate medical care. It’s just wrong and it’s long past due for correction.

Meanwhile hypocrisy is alive and well as self-righteous defenders of gay and lesbian interests go far past what is reasonable and try to one-up the hatred they believe is generalized among those with whom they disagree by out-hating and out-hurting with re-doubled efforts. I read an example recently:

Now that explicit anti-gay animus is an albatross, those who oppose gay civil rights are driven to invent ever loopier rationales for denying those rights, whether in the military or in marriage. Hatch, for instance, limply suggested to Mitchell that a repeal of “don’t ask” would lead to gay demands for “special rights.” Such arguments, both preposterous and disingenuous, are mere fig leaves to disguise the phobia that can no longer dare speak its name. If gay Americans are to be granted full equality, the flimsy rhetorical camouflage must be stripped away to expose the prejudice that lies beneath.

Let me set up for you, Mr Rich, a series of ideas, and then you explain to me how you can be so categorical in maligning those with whom you disagree.

Marriage as a religious institution is irrelevant to marriage as a secular institution.
Therefore, marriage as a secular institution is necessarily what society determines it to be.
The United States of America has specifically defined marriage in federal law as a union of one man and one woman.
Civil rights are those rights which expressly enumerated by the U.S. Constitution and are considered to be unquestionable; deserved by all people under all circumstances, especially without regard to race, creed, color, gender, and disabilities. (wiktionary)
Marriage, as a civil right, is still regulated and withheld in particular circumstances; that is, it is not available to anyone at any time and in any form merely because it is considered to be a civil right. This is not questioned in many cases (as in minors, for example).
Marriage, as defined by federal law, is currently available without regard to sexual orientation. My own situation as a gay man married to a woman exemplifies this fact. I have exercised my civil right to marry, and believing the federal definition of marriage to be accurate and appropriate in no way takes civil rights away from anyone.
Therefore, one referring to changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions as extending a “special right” is a logical and consistent position. Lobbing insults at people in place of addressing their argument makes the disingenuousness seem a lot closer to the source.
Society treats people unequally in many respects and this is often a good thing.
People pay different taxes depending on their income. It would be considered ridiculous for the wealthy to refuse to pay taxes by appealing to equality under their civil rights; marriage as a social institution is much more concerned with money and legalities than it is with love and companionship, and may be comparable with tax rebates given to only a subset of citizens based on arbitrary criteria.
People are treated differently because of their race and background in the academic and business world. This is often to deliberately favor non-white people, but this inequality is appropriate and well-considered.
Those who oppose affirmative action often have legitimate points. They are not automatically racist.
Therefore, defining marriage as society has defined it, including excluding certain couples from marrying, is neither violating civil rights nor necessarily inappropriate.
What is fair and good is debatable. Unfortunately, an increasing number who come to the discussion refuse to discuss the issues occupying themselves instead with dogmatic assertions that echo the close-minded inflexibility they so criticize in their religious counterparts.

Now, Mr. Rich, you may disagree with many of the issues I’ve presented here, but can you really so confidently dismiss them as “preposterous and disingenuous”? Can you really continue to generalize that all those opposing same-sex marriage are merely masking their bigotry when they discuss these issues? Can you possibly fail to see the bigotry and hatred in yourself, then?

A while back my wife and I invited some friends over for a little book club. We discussed The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. One of my friends is an evolutionary biologist and another is a psychologist. Both vehemently support gay marriage while perfectly active members of the church. During our discussion of The God Delusion the conversation steered, almost unavoidably it seems, to gay marriage as a possible example of where religion harms people. I defended the religious view as internally consistent and not necessarily motivated by hatred or discrimination. The ensuing question was: if not hatred or discrimination, then what possible secular reason could a person site for opposing gay marriage when it has been shown to improve the quality of life of the gay couple and their children, decrease health disparities, etc. etc.?

My answer was that marriage can be seen as necessarily tied to heterosexual coupling because of the necessary tie of procreation to heterosexual coupling. This, not surprisingly, was unsatisfactory. We don’t need heterosexual coupling for procreation anymore. We’re way past that. And all the science shows that children of homosexual parent households have no psychological deficiencies.

I pointed out that there is a world of difference between showing that those children have no psychological deficiencies and failing to show that they do. Science can’t measure everything. The measures I often see in the literature that have been “validated” are laughably crude. Have I no right to watch my wife breastfeed our children and conclude that a mother is necessary for the best family situation? Is that such an unscientific assertion based on non-psychological criteria then? Does the mountain of medical literature that supports breast-feeding as best for babies have nothing to do with the discussion of gay marriage? Why ever not? The rules seem to be made up as we go along.

At this point in the conversation my friends were nearly apoplectic, bewildered that I could hold out by playing such a non-scientific card. It was a lively discussion, to be sure. Ultimately, they never did directly concede that a person could hold a non-bigoted, non-discriminatory, non-hateful position of secular opposition to gay marriage. I suspect this was because it is human nature to require some explanation as to why someone would disagree with one’s views when it seemingly couldn’t possibly be a misunderstanding on the part of one’s self.

I’ve settled into a pro-gay marriage stance over the last several months. I feel that I stayed agnostic for a period that was wholly appropriate as I continued to ponder the topic, despite that I’ve been called out more than once for doing so. I hasten to add that my opinion is subject to revision as it suits me. I believe, ultimately, that the question of whether or not society should recognize gay marriage has no right answer, and I’ve come down on the side of favoring it. The question of how the church views marriage does have a right answer, and I subscribe fully to it as well. There are lots of folks within the church who equivocate between secular and God-recognized marriage, and I think knowing that fact goes a long way to reaching peace on the topic.

Yep, that’s right, I’ve come down on the side of gay marriage, where I’ve pretty much been hovering for years. I do not believe that gay marriage is appropriate because it’s a civil right. I do not believe that society is obligated to recognize such marriages out of fairness any more than it is obligated to a flat tax. It may be a good idea, it may be fair, and it may really help a lot of people live happier and better lives. However, that doesn’t mean that those who oppose it are irrational, deserve to be vilified, or are any less entitled to an alternate opinion as well as vocal advocacy in the political process.

Loved this article

2010-01-21T13:24:00.002-05:00

I just saw this little article on my google news page, and I loved it. The man is a voice of wisdom in a sea of pretention and politics.

Favorite parts:

Gays have children these days, of course they do, and not always to accessorise an outfit. Some gay couples adopt; others follow twisting paths to biological parenthood, often quite expensively, with the involvement of test tubes and cash changing hands. It is, really, a sort of snook to the system of nature. Shooting for the net without the chore of running with the ball. It’s just not for me.

...

Some will dismiss it as heresy. I have long argued that homosexuality is natural but abnormal, to a torrent of hostility from gay friends who refuse to acknowledge that what you are and what stake you hold in society are not the same.
Loving your own sex occurs in nature, without artificial triggers. But it is still not average behaviour. Homosexuality is an aberration; a natural aberration. Gays are a minority and minorities, though sometimes vocal, do not hold sway.
...
I wince when gays describe boyfriends as “husbands”, subverting a solemn institution created to provide stability for child-rearing. Besides, it seems highly perverse that gays should fight for freedom from the bonds of heterosexual morality and then set to copying their oppressors by creating similar contracts of their own.
...
Does this mean that I no longer like men? No, of course not, and I won’t pretend. But in the streets and avenues of this country there must be many husbands whose interests are divided but whose choices are determined not by sexuality but emotionality.
Would I be a good husband? I hope so. Would I keep faith? Well, I would try. The same siren voices to stray call to all men, all the time. I would be no different.

The APA's tast force statement on orientation change efforts

2009-09-12T22:53:00.003-05:00

I read a few posts on Warren Throckmorton's blog recently, and I really enjoyed them. The commenters there seem very reasonable, and civil by conventional internet standards. I ended up reading bits of the Report of the American Psychological Association Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation based on Dr. Throckmorton's suggestion (although he calls himself Warren, so I'm probably going to call him by his first name).

My take?

The overall position is conservative in the sense that it avoids any definitive statement of efficacy or harm, admitting the paucity of evidence. What disturbs is the pervasive bias in the way the data is discussed, regardless of the final, almost reluctant, conclusions. This bias bleeds out as imprecision and equivocation most frequently, but occasionally as blatant inconsistency in the standards to which the evidence is being measured (or even examined at all).

I don't have the time to trot out a lot of examples (or even read every word of the document), but here are a few passages with comments.

We see this multiculturally competent and affirmative approach as grounded in an acceptance of the following scientific facts:
Same-sex sexual attractions, behavior, and orientations per se are normal and positive variants of human sexuality—in other words, they do not indicate either mental or developmental disorders.

What the task force here calls "scientific fact" is actually consensus opinion, and there's a big difference. Many studies have defeated the long-prevailing belief that homosexuality is or is associated with mental illness. That much I can swallow (but only on a provisional basis). But, as I've mentioned on this blog before, it's odd to me that a discussion of "human sexuality" can so thoroughly and emphatically ignore reproduction as a significant part of the equation. If one assumes, as the task force apparently does, that ejaculating and having viable sperm is all that is necessary to give the thumbs up on normal reproductive capability, then perhaps their consensus statement (which is not a fact) is defensible. However, I beg to differ.

Gay men, lesbians, and bisexual individuals form stable, committed relationships and families that are equivalent to heterosexual relationships and families in essential respects.

This is presented as another "scientific fact". What I think they meant to say was that these folks form said relationships at rates that are not statistically significantly different from heterosexual families in the essential respects that have been examined. This is not even close to the same thing. Maybe the studies satisfy non-inferiority criteria (that are subjectively assigned). Maybe there is statistical significance for the subjective answers to survey questions, but many "essential respects" are not so easily measured, and failing to show a difference is not the same as showing equivalence. They don't bother footnoting this statement, so there's probably some great quality data... but moving from great quality data to proclamations of unequivocal "fact" is a move I highly doubt I would support after reviewing the relevant literature.

...few studies on SOCE produced over the past 50 years of research rise to current scientific standards for demonstrating the efficacy of psychological interventions...

Few studies of anything produced more than a few years ago rise to current scientific standards. They still can inform, even if they can't prove. Because these studies weren't conducted as randomized controlled clinical trials, they can't show us what we'd like to know, but I don't think the task force is correct with: "there is little in the way of credible evidence that could clarify whether SOCE does or does not work in changing same-sex sexual attractions." The evidence that is presented is what it is. Just because it's not the kind of rigorous science that would demonstrate causality doesn't mean that it's not "credible"! If the researchers were found to have manipulated data there would be a credibility problem, but as the data is, it just gives us very limited evidence, albeit legitimate.

Interestingly, a footnote briefly mentions a Nicolosi study that was not included in the task force's consideration because it was published after the review period and "appeared" to be a reworking of an earlier study. I haven't read Nicolosi's 2008 study, but if it provided any new information that met "current standards" in a way that nothing else does, perhaps they could have gone ahead and extended the review period since the limited data is the whole point. And if it was a reworking of an earlier study, that's even more reason to suspect that it was specifically reworked to assuage criticisms of methodology or presentation. In other words, the task force laments having no "credible" data but can't be bothered to look at the most recent data, even when it was published a year in advance of this report.

White men continue to dominate recent study samples. Thus, the research findings from early and recent studies may have limited applicability to non-Whites, youth, or women.

This is certainly true. So is this: old people continue to dominate the cancer literature, so research findings may have limited applicability to young people. The trick is most people with cancer are old. Just like most people who seek out SOCE are white males. So it's okay to go ahead and accept that there's value in the data even if it's not completely generalizable. The population that has been studied happens to be the vast majority of those for whom this research will make any difference.

In general, the results from studies indicate that while some people who undergo SOCE do engage in other-sex sexual behavior afterward, the balance of the evidence suggests that SOCE is unlikely to increase other-sex sexual behavior.

Again, this is true. So is this: chemotherapy for breast cancer patients will not give any benefit to a majority of patients but will give toxicity to all of them. The trick is, I don't care what happens to the "majority," I want to know quantitatively whether there was a difference in the rate of other-sex behavior from the therapy (if not causally demonstrated, at least temporally). And it sounds like there was a quantitative difference, even a significant one. But I wouldn't know from this report as they just go ahead and stick with vague dismissals like the quote above.

Two participants reported experiencing severe depression, and 4 others experienced milder depression during treatment. No other experimental studies reported on iatrogenic effects.

Woah. Suddenly the fact that participants are experiencing things in association with treatment can be automatically causally linked. Well, hey, we moved on to harms, so the rules of scientific rigor have all changed. These cases of depression are "iatrogenic". Umm... how do you know? Although the task force does go on to admit that there is no causal attribution for harms or benefits, they go ahead and refer to "some evidence" of harm repeatedly through the report while adamantly holding that there is "no credible evidence" of benefit.

We recommend that APA take a leadership role in opposing the distortion and selective use of scientific data about homosexuality by individuals and organizations and in supporting the dissemination of accurate scientific and professional information about sexual orientation in order to counteract bias.

Ah. Here's something I totally agree with. I just wish they'd followed their own advice. I couldn't find it just now rescanning through, but there's a great gem in there where the task force refers to itself as an example of authoritative and reliable source of scientific information. Ha. Or... maybe individuals can actually go ahead and critically examine things for themselves since science isn't a religion and appeals to authority are both unnecessary and fallacious. A scientist ought to know that.

Way overdue.

2008-11-16T13:05:00.002-05:00

This blog has been important in my life, but I think most of that has been in the past. I'm pretty well reconciled with all the topics I've blogged about, and for those areas where I still feel confusion and ambivalence... well, at least it's well defined confusion and ambivalence. :-)

My son and daughter continue to grow up before my very eyes. Yesterday they both disappeared for a while and I had my suspicions they were into some mischief. A few minutes later they both came barreling in to the room where my wife and I were sitting and shoved little containers of applesauce into our hands to be opened. They tried to sneak it but realized they couldn't open it without our help and reconsidered their tactics.

The fact that I'm as gay as ever (gayer?) and still living the all-American dream gives me conflicting feelings. On the one hand, I want to speak out against the nay-sayers who yell and scream that it's an illusion, that such a situation never happens, that it's impossible. I want to speak out and tell people that I've been in shoes very similar to every gay person I hear--doubting the church, questioning my self worth, feeling suicidal, being overcome with an overwhelming sense of unfairness and unending conflict. I want to speak out and say that the church is true and that there are miracles to be had, if we will only listen and obey.

On the other hand, I want to shut up and let it all play out on its own. I'm sort of sick of writing about tolerance, explaining misunderstandings, and promoting more thoughtful and considerate dialog. My efforts have been met with some really ornery people who don't care in the least about what I have to say, only that it appears on the surface to disagree with their own views, so the gloves come off and the punches start flying. These people are plentiful and insistent, and it's just not worth it to try to convince them of the reality I live in. There's a lot of joy to be had in the church, and no amount of insults and rancor can convince me that my wife and my two children are not worth every sacrifice I've made (and for that matter, many that I haven't). And no amount of gnashing teeth will convince me that someone who hasn't made those same sacrifices needs or deserves concessions from me in the form of some fatalistic assessment of what they need to be happy or fulfilled or what their "rights" have to be.

So I've just been a fence sitter. I try to avoid those who want to engage only to foist their bigoted selves onto a soap box. I walk away from that and build a castle with my son instead. But I do see many who are learning about this and looking for truth. So I keep blogging (although mostly at Northern Lights now).

For better or worse, that's my update. It's long overdue, I know.

But you can rest assured that as I learn new things I'll be writing about it.

A Legal Question

2008-08-06T20:00:00.001-05:00

Just read this article and I have a question for the legal minds out there.

Why does stabbing someone to death, decapitating them and flashing the head around to other people, then eating the corpse's flesh qualify as SECOND degree murder?

Update

2008-08-02T10:17:00.002-05:00

What's to tell? There are a million things that I could blog about in my life right now. How amazing my children are (the stories could be endless), the patience and incredible capacity of my wife, my job, my progress. But, unfortunately, time is always so short.

I get a few e-mails a month asking about myself, and I appreciate that gesture of friendship. I suppose it would be a better use of time to just blog more to keep people updated. For those who have written recently to ask me specifically about how I keep things together with my family, reparative therapy, or general gay topics, I'm sorry I haven't had a lot of time to respond. One trick is that I've written quite a bit about these things before and so there's quite a bit to read from the archive if you are interested.

Sorry for the boring post. But, you know. Gotta get to the ward party today and then... well there's plenty of other stuff I've been putting off until today too. :-) Best wishes to all.

Not just a margin

2008-06-27T04:49:00.002-05:00

For better or for worse, I'm coming here to feel sorry for myself. I'm that guy. The one that has everything when you look in from the outside. We've got the little family of four, the cute little house and dog, the great career and graduate program between the two of us, and all our health.

But I feel tormented far more than I have any right to feel, I suppose. But does one have to earn their torment? Or does its existence serve as automatic legitimization?

Today I feel on the margin of a margin of a margin. I'm in a minority field of medicine, often unappreciated. I'm in minority situation in my department. I'm a minority within the church in my understanding of gay related issues. I'm definitely in a minority among gays in my empathy for the church. Couldn't I, for once in my life, be surrounded by crowds of people that get me? Get it? Get anything?

Basically, today I feel like there's nobody that understands. Perhaps my wife, and that's it. And that makes me feel all the better that I have her and that I'm not in a different circumstance right now. And that makes me sad that so many other people don't or won't believe such a thing can happen. But then, can it? Or am I just an anomaly--an outlier there too?

It's as if I've spent a lot of effort trying to bridge gaps and shed light where people have closed themselves off, but in the process I've put myself too far into the minds of others and made myself inaccessible to my self. I haven't pulled off the insight I need to peacefully be at one with the majorities in every part of my life. I guess I don't know how to do it. Or, I need to humble myself to try something new.

Mere Meme

2008-04-19T10:43:00.003-05:00

JGW tagged me (finally someone did ;-)).

Here are the instructions.

1. Pick up the nearest book (at least 123 pages).
2. Turn to page 123.
3. Find the 5th sentence
4. Post the 5th sentence on your blog.
5. Tag 5 people.

"But what does puzzle people---at least it used to puzzle me---is the fact that Christians regard faith in this sense as a virtue."

C.S.Lewis, Mere Christianity. It's actually a really interesting paragraph (and somewhat appropriate to the things I've read of late). He follows by saying:

I used to ask how on earth it can be a virtue--what is there moral or immoral about believing or not believing a set of statements? Obviously, I used to say, a sane man accepts or rejects any statement, not because he wants or does not want to, but because the evidence seems to him good or bad. If he were mistaken about the goodness or badness of the evidence that would not mean he was a bad man, but only that he was not very clever. And if he thought the evidence bad but tried to force himself to believe in spite of it, that would be merely stupid.

Ah, Lewis. Love his guts. I tag FRM, playa, Craig, ATP, and John Galt.

Changing... changing... changing... same.

2008-04-07T21:12:00.002-05:00

For old times sake I did a little "rounding" on the moho blogs this evening. It turns out everything's changed, and yet everything's just the same. There were a bunch of commenters I'd never heard of and never talked to. Bloggers too. But, the topics were the same, more or less. The occasional ironies: vitriol from some sides, the over-reactions, the banding together in defensive victimhood while disparaging those "other guys" in a manner that is completely intolerant.

Sometimes I just feel like people choose a role and move through the motions without even realizing they're doing it. The young gay who feels liberated as he questions authority. The married gay who considers walking away from the life he's built to search for an upgrade. The depressed blogger who manages to create something beautiful and artful and poetic in articulating the struggle of life.

It makes me wonder what role I'm in right now? The sanctimonious, overly self-assured churchy guy? [Yes, I know that's how I'm frequently seen, but it's part of the piety to be in denial, I suppose.] Am I in the calm before the storm--the guy whose life is perfect right before falling apart? Am I to the point where everything is boring because I've pretty much solidified my biases and don't have enough time for online friends?

I dunno. I'm still on a journey. Not sure I can fully appreciate the birds' eye view. But, I'm still truckin'. And trying to refrain from tapping on the restroom floor of the truck stop. :-)

My Lucky Day

2008-03-17T19:11:00.003-05:00

I like St. Paddy's day. Green is my favorite color, after all. And little leprechaun dudes make me happy. Gold too. Candy too. And those were all involved in the day in one way or another.

I need days like today to remind me how lucky I am. Birds chirping, hinting that winter is coming to a close. A good job that I love and that provides for my family. Calzones...

I hope nobody pinches me so I wake up in a different life. ;-)

Odd things

2008-02-02T16:21:00.000-05:00

I remember in college chatting online (or through e-mail? I think chatting wasn't as popular back then) with a gay guy that FRM (my wife) was great friends with in high school. It was a novelty experience for me. Here was an actual out-in-the-public gay guy who would be open with me about it. At the time I was anything but out, so I had to have cover for why I wanted to be best friends with her old buddy, but I came up with something convincing. Okay, maybe this was one of many reasons she suspected I was gay, I dunno.

The interesting thing is to reflect about how few openly gay people I've known and/or talked to face-to-face about being gay. There were several guys I suspected of being gay in high school, but none of them were out. It just wasn't done in rural Utah at that time.

Fast forward a decade and I found an old high school friend of mine posting up a storm on a faithful gay Mormon message board. We were great friends back then and we never knew we had this in common. We still don't, actually, because he freaked out when I e-mailed him privately and he never responded. I think he might have thought I was hitting on him or something. Anyhoo...

At BYU the pressure to be in the closet was pretty similar. All you mohos who hang around together now... that's just incomprehensible to me. There were probably homos having private meetings at BYU while I was there, but not mohos, if you catch my meaning. So, another serendipitous find after blogging a bit is that a friend of mine who I worked closely with in Youth and Family Programs is gay. Like my old high school friend, he's still living the gospel and doing well, from all reports.

And that brings me up to date. Well, almost anyway. A few weeks back I found out one of my mission companions is gay. It was through the blogs I found this out, of course. We've mailed a couple times since then to catch up, but I'm a bad one to stay in touch with people. For whatever reason, I don't do reunions, Christmas cards, or keep in touch with people I love very well. Parents? Haven't seen 'em in forever. Siblings? Could be dead. Who knows?

Anyway, just thought I'd share the evidence from my life that society (and Mormon society in particular) is becoming more open and accepting of people like me. And, my old mission companion, coworker from BYU, and friend from high school, are all success stories of living the gospel and quietly moving on with life after coming to grips with the reality of their sexuality. I'm glad for the examples and the reassurance these odd findings bring me.

Update from Hel-L-

2008-01-23T17:58:00.000-05:00

Residency is hard. Last year was a cake walk compared to this year. So, there hasn't been much time for blogging. I hope everyone is happy and good.

:-)

My family is doing well, thanks for asking. The kids are happy and cute and amazingly smart. The Mrs. is even MORE happy, cute, and amazingly smart, somehow.

As far as gay issues go, I'm in a pretty happy place. Still ardently gay and ardently Mormon. And by ardently gay, I mean I see guys all the time that catch my eye. But, I couldn't be happier than I am (and I mean that quite literally).

In a few weeks it will be my blog anniversary, and it's sort of amazing for me to reflect on where I've been and where I am, where other people I've met have been and where they're at. It's all quite a testament to the gospel, really. I went from hundreds of posts in year to less than one a month lately, and I suppose that's just a part of life... moving on to new experiences. But, if there's anything I can do or say to help anyone out, let me know.

All the best!!

-L-

Since last we spoke...

2007-12-11T20:03:00.000-05:00

I'm disenchanted with blogging. But maybe that word has too negative a connotation for what I'm trying to convey. The fact is, I used to be enchanted with blogging, but now it's just there. I take and leave it now with more indifference than before. Disenchanted.

When Northern Lights got off the ground, I thought I would put the more philosophical posts there and put the more biographical ones here, but there hasn't been much biographical to say, really. I've kept my identity private so that I can work through the challenges in my life in a forum of sorts, without all the unpleasantness of people getting personal and interjecting their judgments into my personal life. You can hate me or love me online all you like, but I'd rather keep my family out of it. Using a pseudonym has been the only way I could think of to do that, and now the anonymity is pretty much gone. In case you missed it, a person with no decency publicly posted my real identity. So, no more astonishingly candid posts. Sorry. It's just a part of life that someone always comes along and ruins it for everyone else. (Also, sorry to those who had to wait 3 weeks for me to approve my newly moderated comments!)

Having said that, MOST of the people who read this blog and subscribe to the comments are very decent folks. To that subset I offer my earnest request that you keep my identity to yourselves, if you ever happen to learn it. I've become quite comfortable with who I am and what I believe, but the people in my life who will be affected by an intolerant society have requested that I keep my online activities anonymous. So, please support that.

I was mulling whether and how to write about Step 7: Humility. But this post came out instead. I'll write on that next time.

Relationships

2007-11-15T22:23:00.000-05:00

Good relationships define a life. Bad ones too. I'm working on my relationship with my blogs (both those I write and those I read) because, well, we've had somewhat of a falling out.

I knew what sophistry was before seeing it in living deceptive color, but I never expected it to come knocking on my door so persistently and craftily as it has since I started blogging. For a long time I thought it wasn't really fair to call it sophistry either, believing that people just believe different things and genuinely only try to persuade others in good faith, even when it may seem so diabolical to the over-sensitive. But now I'm convinced that there are folks who just plain believe scoring cleverness points is worth nearly any price, especially if it seems like a means to an appealing end and sacrifices only a few tender sensibilities along the way (anyone's and everyone's, that is).

So, we've been on a break.

But I have high hopes that we'll come around. A relationship is what you make it, after all. I've seen a number of failed relationships, and they're often mis-attributed. Failed relationships with a spouse, failed relationships with a church, failed relationships with God. In great epiphanies of insight, blame is placed, and usually squarely away from one's self.

So, blogs, I'll make you a deal. Maybe I'll post once in a while if things can go back to a happy place where we work together not to go crazy. You get rid of all the sophists (or at least get them to be less prolific) and I'll accept my responsibility for being overly sensitive that people are so stupid.

Salacious me

2007-10-03T21:10:00.000-05:00

After Beck took my last post personally, but before the ensuing satire and commentary on people being over-sensitive, I wrote to Beck privately and offered this assessment of the issue:

...It's really hard to know how to interact with other people, because the blogs tend to get so argumentative. For better or worse, people jump all over themselves to protect friends from other friends, to take sides. It's tiring to me.

When it's about pointing fingers and accusations and blame, it's perfectly understandable to feel attacked and defensive. I don't mind admitting that the way I wrote the post was borderline snarky, and the comments were edgy too. Bringing up "covenants" was relevant, but not tastefully approached. It came across as manipulative (if not accusatory).

And, for that matter, I'm guilty of being salacious on my blog myself. I known this. I don't deny it. But, I recognized a while back that it wasn't really right, even though people seemed to enjoy the humor and explicitness. I was one of the first to justify such use of edgy expression, and now I've started to see what kind of an impact it can have.

As much as I want to believe that I'm a grown-up and I can discuss adult things with other adults and can't be expected to censor and edit for every reader who comes along, I've heard complaints from real people that it has been disappointing and hurtful. In my less prideful moments I admit that church leaders have counseled on this very topic, and letting virtue garnish my thoughts unceasingly doesn't apply to some of my past approaches.

I knew it wouldn't fly to just guilt people into not using erotic pictures (despite that it appears to many that that's what I'm trying to do), but I thought a personal appeal from a long-time reader who has genuine interest in visiting your blog might persuade you and others to accommodate me. For many of us, blogging is a personal journey AND a way to encourage and uplift others. To the extent there's a community and resulting awareness of influencing others, it seems a reasonable thing to look at.

I know you've already said you will be mindful of me it may seem like I'm just beating a dead horse. I just want you to understand where I'm coming from and that I don't look down on you or hold myself blameless or anything like that...

In the words of a close friend, "I just laugh thinking about defensive, bitchy homos jumping up to defend one another." Well, hopefully we all got a good chuckle out of it. And, I will probably continue to try to carpet the world, if I think it's a good thing to do. Hmmm... maybe red shag...

Showing skin

2007-09-26T11:14:00.000-05:00

I would personally appreciate it if people wouldn't post pictures of hot guys on their blogs. Yes, yes, I've heard all the disclaimers to the effect, "My blog is for ME and if you don't like it, then you can just DIE!!!" On the other hand, there's an ongoing subtext in this part of the blog world of community, and of supporting others. And I'm left asking myself why people feel the need to post semi-erotic pictures in the first place.

In case you missed it, I have a little porn problem. I know, I've been so coy and indirect on that subject, that only the most astute have probably figured it out. My triggers are many, but among them are hot guys that ostensibly aren't pornographic. I convince myself it's not a problem to look at such things, but such looking always leads to more looking and more perseverating on what I want but can't have. This is never a good thing for me.

I also wonder how long it takes a guy to find just the right photo for a given post. You'll notice I've never really gone down that road--I keep my picture posting on my family blog and it's generally little cherub faces of my kids. And, really, I'd rather the dialog on this blog be the draw rather than the illustrations. If every time I wanted to post I started surfing for that perfect shot that captured everything homo and angsty about my life, I'd just end up looking at butts all afternoon. Anyone care to comment on how long it takes to find that perfect shot? Just curious. I know for me it would be longer.

I realize this might be ignored by many, and probably incite some anger and irritability in others. But, because I believe people want to be helpful rather than hurtful, and I believe people aren't too proud to admit that the gratuitous hotness and skin is unnecessary, I'm making the request all the same: please keep your pictures Sunday School appropriate (and then some).

The little edge of laziness

2007-09-18T18:11:00.000-05:00

There was a time when I would be very diplomatic in the way I interacted on the blogs. Even with people I had little respect for, I would find the patience to quell the snarky quibbles that came immediately to mind in favor of a more friendly tone. That wasn't always the case, but usually.

So, now what happened?

I no longer have time to read any blogs it seems (if I start going through my reader I'll never be able to stop). And in the few cases that nice, well-intended people have bantered around on NL, I end up just snapping back. [sigh]

I think it's just laziness, and I apologize. Most recently to Kalvin, who made me realize how snappy and lazy I've become in my replies.

Oh well.

Maybe I like being lazy.

HGTV

2007-09-08T11:52:00.000-05:00

I watch HGTV a lot. Pretty much, all the time. I suppose I'm in that demographic they cater to in a lot of ways. We're young, starting a new family, and open to lots of creative ideas on how to save, design, etc.

Recently, I've noticed that pretty much 90% of the guys on that show are gay (or appear to be). I don't really have much to say about that. I guess I just feel like I fit right in. :-)

Surrounded

2007-08-25T08:18:00.000-05:00

As a resident, I'm supervised by an attending. He's gay. He knows I'm Mormon (although I have no idea how), and I think when he first introduced his partner he was wondering how I would respond. I think the fact that I took it all completely in stride is why he now feels comfortable talking about the church and/or gay topics without caution, and I'm glad.

On the other hand, my closest neighbors are gay too. I don't know them as well and I think they may wonder whether I've "put things together". I wonder whether they've put it together that I'm Mormon as I cart my little family to church every Sunday. The problem is, if these things never come up in the across-the-fence chats we have, how will they ever realize that I'm not what they may think I am?

I had a neighbor not long ago whose front door was inches from our own, and he had calendar boys over to spend the night all the time (frankly, I don't know how he reeled them in!), but we never did get around to making it clear that we're fine with him living his life the way he wants, so I think he just assumed we were bigoted Mormons. We lived near him long enough (and parked near enough) that there's no way he could have missed the LDS trappings over time.

There are several other gay guys in the office besides my attending who I haven't had the chance to get to know personally. I don't want to miss out on good friendships with neighbors or coworkers because of a misunderstanding of what I might believe about gay people, but I also don't know how to say, "So... you're gay, I'm Mormon, and I'm totally fine with that. Any questions?"

Doing yourself violence

2007-08-18T11:37:00.001-05:00

An interesting comment from a therapist who works with families shattered with domestic violence has got me pensive. Apparently, my blog and the comments therein contain all the familiar verbiage. I'm not sure what this means, but I've noted the assessment is not a favorable one.

Came across your blog recently. Not LDS here. I'm a therapist that works with families affected by domestic violence, (broadly defined to include not only physical but psychological and emotional abuse.) I found myself drawn in recognizing posting after posting echoed the voices I hear daily in my practice. The voices of the abused trying to make sense of abusive relationships. Why do we stay in relationships that love us back so poorly? Beliefs. About self, about relationships, about God and the nature of Divine Love. Eerily, I have heard echoes of the comments I find in your blog coming from the victims with swollen lips and eyes nearly blinded by the abuser. "I know he loves me, I just need to be a better person." Yikes!! I could parallel any number of these comments similarly to the sad, sad mental contortions people make to live in abusive relationships. What is it but abuse to call someone an abomination?

And, as you may know, if you know me at all, I'm prone to apologetics when I'm not given a favorable assessment. ;-)

Truth is, I've had my share of swollen lips and eyes nearly blinded by an abuser. But the abuser has never been my faith or my family. The abuser has been pornography. Why do I go back, I wonder? Happily, I haven't gone back for quite some time. Maybe those 12 steps are paying off. Maybe my new found accountability system is working. Maybe I've parted ways with my abuser after all this time of dependence and humiliation.

As for the comments on this blog, many of them reflect places I've been on my journey. I see their views as views to defend as my own. I don't agree with them, necessarily, but I sympathize with the value of struggling through the issues; I know the importance of fighting the good fight, keeping the faith.

On the other hand, larger parts of my fight seem to be winding down, and it's odd to me that the commenter seems not to see it. I've felt more and more like blogging is a chore. It's not that I don't have anything to say; I still get ideas all the time for interesting ways to discuss relevant topics. But it has become so progressively less of an issue in my life that it feels at times distracting to revisit it. That's not to say that I've passed some wondrous benchmark of progress, because I cycle through these issues all the time, and it's too early to say how the long-term prospects look. But it is to say that I can understand how many people who have "overcome" SSA don't spend a lot of time debating the issue... because more than ever before I can believe that I may soon be one of them.

However, now that I've said that I feel dramatic and manipulative. It's not that I'm trying to get lots of comments telling me that I'm important and have important things to say. I believe there ought to be folks speaking up whose lives defy conventional wisdom, and I'm fairly certain I'll be trying to be one of them for a good while yet. And in so doing, I'll try to comfort those who stand in need of comfort, those who have been done violence by evils in the world (whether sophistry, pornography, intolerance, actual abuse, or whatever), and defend the source of truth and peace from being mischaracterized as an abuser.

Don't let me distract you

2007-08-14T21:01:00.000-05:00

A while back I felt some comfort believing that a lot of people came to my blog and were interested in what I had to say. Then... life got busy. Well, it turns out that now that I've posted once in the last month, I still have the same number of daily visitors as before. Do I think that 178 people visited this blog yesterday to re-read my Step 6 post? No. You're here for the sidebar feed and probably always have been. I see how it is. Well, don't let me slow you down with my rambling here. Go on. Go read the goodies from around the queerosphere!

Regardless, just for FOB, I'm going to keep posting here anyway.

Step 6: Change of Heart

2007-08-04T09:13:00.000-05:00

KEY PRINCIPLE: Become entirely ready to have God remove all your character weaknesses.

During a recent priesthood lesson on integrity, I opened a can of worms into the discussion by bringing up online file sharing and piracy. I'm guessing that mohos who blog fit well into the category of those who would be tempted to do some online file sharing. They're techno-savvy, often musically inclined, etc.

I had a technology industry job once where my coworkers were extremely capable at... well, hacking. They had a good time breaking into the county courthouse's network to find out which of our coworkers and superiors had been arrested and why. Ok, that's a little off-topic, but the memories... Anyway, we also had a large library of illegally copied software, music, and movies going around. I've always gone through cycles with such things--indulging and then deleting it all in a fit of remorse... only to start doing it again later.

Enter: step 6.

It's not just about pornography anymore. [That's happily in part because I haven't been nearly as tempted with it lately. But, I'm sure there will be times of extreme temptation down the road at some point, so I continue with the steps.] Having a changed heart extends its influence past that issue to every issue of my life. Do I want what God wants? I need to desire not just to avoid copied music and pornography and... whatever the case may be... but I need to actually lose the desire to return to them.

How does one lose the desire for sin? Especially if that desire has become seemingly hard wired in my nervous system? Oh yeah, I guess that's the whole meaning of an addiction and the whole challenge of defeating it.

The Lord wants to bless you with a change of disposition that will unite you with Him in mind and heart, just as He is united with the Father. He wants to give you rest from your isolation from God the Father, the isolation that caused the fears which contributed to your addiction. He wants to make the Atonement effective in your life, here and now.

As you yield to the promptings of the Spirit and look to the Savior for salvation, not only from addiction but from character weaknesses, you can be assured that a new disposition or character will grow out of your willing heart. A growing desire to be sanctified by God will make you ready for a change in your very nature.

The manual points out the propensity people feel to take their struggles head on, by themselves. And it points out that that approach is precisely why people fail to overcome their addictions time and time again. I know I need "a higher power" involved in the mix, but when it comes down to the time to submit to God, I'd rather go amuse myself elsewhere. I'd rather stay home from church, read blogs, watch TV, or pretty much anything rather than study the scriptures and pray with real intent.

“No matter what the source of difficulty and no matter how you begin to obtain relief—through a qualified professional therapist, doctor, priesthood leader, friend, concerned parent, or loved one— no matter how you begin, those solutions will never provide a complete answer. The final healing comes through faith in Jesus Christ and His teachings, with a broken heart and a contrite spirit and obedience to His commandments” (Richard G. Scott, in Conference Report, Apr. 1994, 9; or Ensign, May 1994, 9).

Although there are many possible roads to addiction recovery, I think for me the only one that will work is one that involves--REALLY involves--Christ.

Content

2007-07-15T16:18:00.000-05:00

Not so cranky anymore.

As I've experienced a million times, a few hours of sleep puts an amazing distance between me and my crankiness. And, as I suspected, I felt more embarrassment about airing my pity party than anything else. Just thought I'd let you know in case anyone's been praying for me. You have, right? Right? ;-)

I love sitting in sacrament meeting and getting that peaceful feeling that everything will be okay. Even though the world is filled with injustices and hypocrisy and bigotry, it's worth having hope and optimism. The hymn in my ward today made me cry. You've probably never heard it before:

Come, come, ye saints, no toil nor labor fear;
But with joy, wend your way.
Though hard to you this journey may appear,
Grace shall be as your day.
’Tis better far for us to strive
Our useless cares from us to drive;
Do this, and joy your hearts will swell
All is well! All is well!

It really is, you know. All is well.

Cranky

2007-07-13T19:02:00.000-05:00

Things are pretty good for me these days, and I love my job. My family is doing so well, too, that I keep being tempted to post photos of how great they are.

Unfortunately, though, my recent travels online have really bummed me out. For one thing, I get irritated by national news outlets with some regularity. The bias is not something I notice most of the time, but lately it seems like everything is slanted and ridiculous. Michael Moore irritates me for taking a completely important topic and presenting it as sneaky half-truth that will leave some doubting the issue is even worth consideration and others over-stating the facts. But I suppose such disingenuous presentation of the issues isn't limited to the big boys.

I've been offended by things lately that shouldn't really offend me. I think it's because I have less tolerance when people should really know better. It's like I can give large leeway to someone I know virtually nothing about, but I can't help but get emotionally volatile in response to someone who I know has had all the advantages and opportunities for insight but ends up solid in their determination to be a closed-minded bigot (exalted in their self-importance and moral superiority, of course).

I'm also bummed about Northern Lights recently. While I think it's doing fine overall, the little things agitate me. They're all subtle, and so it's hard to pin them down, but I get the sense that it's viewed as "the establishment" rather than what it is: a collection of people talking about stuff in a protected/uplifting way. You know, like every other blog, just with some rules.

Could be I get bogged down by the little things because of my own struggles. The constant ebb and flow of feeling elated and set back never seems to stop. So, this could just be low tide.

Throw on top of all that that I feel lonely sometimes... despite having a lot of great friends. I guess it's just having people who you thought were your friend end up not caring for you in the least that ends up being hard. It doesn't matter that there are really nice folks willing to be there for me at any time I need, I still find rejection by others to be a big fat downer. I suppose that's life.

And now that I've made my blog into an adolescent journal, I'm done for now. :-)

Mini-meme

2007-07-12T20:54:00.000-05:00

Here are the rules.
Here are the random 8:

1. I recently learned that I type over 90 wpm with 100% accuracy. Sweet. (Also, highly valuable these days!)
2. In the last 5 years I've visited every big church history site in the country... pretty much.
3. I've worked for EFY, BSA, BYU, MS, and AT&T.
4. I have several interesting hobbies... that I can't tell you about because then I would have to kill you (man, writing a meme anonymously is hard work). Okay, okay: gardening, music, blogging (shocker), programming, photography, art, and lusting after electronics.
5. Today I saw a person's back from the front (as in, during surgery after his guts had been tucked out of the way)
6. I've made lobbying trips to Washington D.C. every year for the last three years. Yet I know virtually nothing about politics.
7. If you Google me (my real name) you'll find some pretty interesting people: a horticulturalist, a football player, and a technical manager in San Francisco. These are not me (although I do show up).
8. I've been on TV a few times, but only once as a pundit. :-)

Never been tagged for one of these before. Weird. But now I feel loved. Thanks Kengo.

Let's see

2007-07-09T18:29:00.000-05:00

I'm so behind on my blogging... and there are so many topics that have been knocking around in my head waiting to come out. But time is short and it's busy busy busy at the -L- residence. Or the -L- secret lair, if you prefer the comic theme.

Speaking of which, I can't quite recommend doing a search for gay comic book characters (what with having come across a few not-so-appropriate ones myself), but Northstar seems like a good upstanding kid, and the first out character in comics, from what I read.

Now, if only Marvel wants to license me as a gay super hero... my Mormon powers could do the universe a lot of good, I'd say.

Journaling

2007-07-05T18:45:00.000-05:00

Blogging, apparently, isn’t all that it’s cracked up to be in terms of personal journaling. It is pretty great, don’t get me wrong, but it doesn’t have the same feeling as writing in a personal journal on the computer. On my computer, for years I’ve written my inner-most thoughts with very little (if any) regard for how they might be interpreted by others. When I blog, I write for an audience. I always keep the reader mind—trying to remember the most entertaining anecdotes, the cleverest ways of putting things. I think I do this even while trying to convince myself that I don't. I suppose there’s a value to both approaches. If I were someone reading a personal history, I’d want one that had been tailored to be relevant and succinct, not the meanderings of a bothered mind (as my computer journal entries tend to be).

The other issue I’ve been dealing with is the evolving multiplicity of places where I record my thoughts. I have a family blog, a personal blog, several group blogs, an anonymous blog, and a private blog (online but password protected). All those places tend to get confused, and while I have what seems to be a good reason for each of those places existing, sometimes just sorting out what goes where seems to take more effort than I want to put forward, so I just don’t write anything at all.

Over time, blogging seems to have become just a de facto part of what I do--how I make sense of life. Currently, time limits what I can do. And, for that matter, I don't find I need the therapeutic outlet right now that I have at other times. But it's there, and I'm glad. And so is the computerized journal. With the all the places for outlet, with all the friends-both online and off, it's a system I'll keep.

Imagined

2007-07-03T21:03:00.000-05:00

My boy: What's the pride parade for?
Me: Well, it's a celebration for gay people, I guess.
My boy: Why is it called "pride" parade?
Me: Rather than be ashamed of being gay, people want to show that they have nothing to hide and that they're all the way on the other end of the scale and proud of who they are.
My boy: Are you proud of being gay?
Me: Well, no. I decided a long time ago that there's nothing to be ashamed of in who I'm attracted to. It's not something I consciously do, so I can't take the blame or the credit for it. And I think that applies in the other direction too. Being gay isn't something to be proud of, for me, it just is.

Fathers Day

2007-06-19T09:45:00.000-05:00

Fathers Day is one I've never paid much attention to. I've only been a father for a relatively short time, and the holiday never seems to have as obvious of celebratory possibilities as others. So, it didn't hurt my feelings that I was scheduled to work on Fathers Day shortly after church was to end.

The lesson in Sunday School focused largely on service--how we can make it a more meaningful part of our lives, do it more, etc. I thought a bit about medicine and how enamored I've been with the idea of getting paid to do something so interesting all while thinking about it as "serving." It's a healing art, and that just seems cool. But, in the practice, sometimes the comforts and real basic needs of the patients get swallowed up in the establishment's regulations and standards of care: you have to be certain this antibiotic is given within this amount of time, you must wait until the nurse has completed the triage sheet, you must have this paperwork before giving this treatment. It ends up feeling a lot less like service and a lot more like an assembly line.

But every once in a while you get a patient like Judy.

Judy was my first patient on Fathers Day. She had fallen several times that day, but still didn't want to come in for evaluation. For several days she had been unable to walk steadily, a cancer patient of several years with so much pain that she would rather just curl up and lie on the floor than try to move for... well, anything. She was so nauseated she didn't want to turn over to look at me when I came in the room. Unfortunately, the nurses had been forced to cut off her hair because the caked vomit made it so tangled it couldn't be washed. Her skin was irritated from feces and infections secondary to poor hygiene.

"Just leave me alone, okay?" With the pressures of twenty or more patients in the waiting room thinking their concern is the most important in their life, sometimes it's hard to slow down to extend some reassurance to someone who isn't likely to accept it. But there are certain situations where the raw emotional nature forces you to slow down and think about what's really going on, what's important in life, and what you really must do.

When I see my little boy playing and learning, sometimes I get this feeling of desperation that he's too good for the world. I worry that once he's old enough to go to school or the playground or elsewhere, there will be bullies and obnoxious teachers and... people who don't care about him as I do.

I wonder what Father in Heaven thinks about his children going off to Earth where there are bullies and mean people. Or just cancer, debilitation, and social injustices. I assume he hopes, as I do, that someone will step in and watch over his dear ones. "We'll leave you alone if you want Judy, but we can help make you feel better. We can help you. It's okay, Judy."

I have a habit of getting so wrapped up in my own life, my own struggles, my own desires, that I forget that the road to happiness is to forget myself and follow Christ's example to minister to others. I was grateful for that reminder on Fathers Day.

-L- is a busy boy

2007-06-12T11:49:00.000-05:00

People occasionally note that a doctor in residency with two small children must have a hard time finding the time to blog as much as I do.

They are right.

Which is why things have caught up to me and I'll be relatively quiet for certain stints. But, I'm still here, just so you know. And feel free to read my latest on NL.

Compliments of the QoQ

2007-06-05T13:13:00.000-05:00

The QoQ recently noted this music from my favorite group, Barenaked Ladies. I'm not sure how to ditch the crazy video, so here it is in all its puzzling glory.

Awesome.

Recap

2007-06-02T18:16:00.000-05:00

After a zillion comments, I was left agreeing with Mohomie's comment in which he said essentially, "Umm... what's going on?"

So, part of my own confusion stems from my scatter-brained original post. I mentioned the youth pamphlet, but in my mind (and post) I extend the need for order and clear expectations to a larger group than that.

On the other hand, I've since looked through the For the Strength of Youth pamphlet, and I think it already does outline some pretty clear expectations. And adults' standards of behavior aren't really different, per se, just the circumstances. And I certainly don't want to be perceived as criticizing the brethren or official church publications in talking about this stuff, because I most certainly don't think that would be appropriate.

Here's the section in the pamphlet about sexual purity:

“The sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife” (“The Family: A Proclamation to the World”).

Physical intimacy between husband and wife is beautiful and sacred. It is ordained of God for the creation of children and for the expression of love between husband and wife. God has commanded that sexual intimacy be reserved for marriage.

When you obey God’s commandment to be sexually pure, you prepare yourself to make and keep sacred covenants in the temple. You prepare yourself to build a strong marriage and to bring children into the world as part of a loving family. You protect yourself from the emotional damage that always comes from sharing physical intimacies with someone outside of marriage.

Do not have any sexual relations before marriage, and be completely faithful to your spouse after marriage. Satan may tempt you to rationalize that sexual intimacy before marriage is acceptable when two people are in love. That is not true. In God’s sight, sexual sins are extremely serious because they defile the power God has given us to create life. The prophet Alma taught that sexual sins are more serious than any other sins except murder or denying the Holy Ghost (see Alma 39:5).

Before marriage, do not do anything to arouse the powerful emotions that must be expressed only in marriage. Do not participate in passionate kissing, lie on top of another person, or touch the private, sacred parts of another person’s body, with or without clothing. Do not allow anyone to do that with you. Do not arouse those emotions in your own body.

In cultures where dating or courting is acceptable, always treat your date with respect, never as an object to be used for your lustful desires. Stay in areas of safety where you can easily control your physical feelings. Do not participate in talk or activities that arouse sexual feelings.

Homosexual activity is a serious sin. If you find yourself struggling with same-gender attraction, seek counsel from your parents and bishop. They will help you.

Victims of rape, incest, or other sexual abuse are not guilty of sin. If you have been a victim of any of these crimes, know that you are innocent and that God loves you. Seek your bishop’s counsel immediately so he can help guide you through the process of emotional healing.

If you are tempted to commit sexual transgressions, seek help from your parents, your bishop, and friends you can trust. Pray to the Lord, who will help you resist temptation and overcome inappropriate thoughts and feelings.
If you have committed sexual transgressions, begin the process of repentance now so you can find inner peace and have the full companionship of the Spirit. Seek the Lord’s forgiveness. Talk with your bishop. He will help you obtain the forgiveness available to those who truly repent.

There's nothing there that's not applicable, in my mind. And if I were to tailor it specifically to a gay youth, I would only adjust a few minor things. Maybe it would say something like this:

“The sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife” (“The Family: A Proclamation to the World”).

Physical intimacy between husband and wife is beautiful and sacred. It is ordained of God for the creation of children and for the expression of love between husband and wife. God has commanded that sexual intimacy be reserved for marriage [with someone of the opposite gender].

When you obey God’s commandment to be sexually pure, you prepare yourself to make and keep sacred covenants in the temple [still true for gays...even if the marriage covenants may be delayed until after this life]. You prepare yourself to build a strong marriage and to bring children into the world as part of a loving family. You protect yourself from the emotional damage that always comes from sharing physical intimacies with someone outside of marriage.

Do not have any sexual relations before marriage, and be completely faithful to your spouse after marriage. Satan may tempt you to rationalize that [gay] sexual intimacy is acceptable when two people are in love. That is not true. In God’s sight, sexual sins are extremely serious because they defile the power God has given us to create life. The prophet Alma taught that sexual sins are more serious than any other sins except murder or denying the Holy Ghost (see Alma 39:5).

Before marriage, do not do anything to arouse the powerful emotions that must be expressed only in marriage. [Do not rationalize that such emotions can have no expression otherwise.] Do not participate in passionate kissing, lie on top of another person, or touch the private, sacred parts of another person’s body, with or without clothing. Do not allow anyone to do that with you. Do not arouse those emotions in your own body.

In cultures where dating or courting is acceptable, always treat your date with respect, never as an object to be used for your lustful desires. [Do not rule out dating merely because you are not sexually attracted to a person. This might be a good area for further discussion and information.] Stay in areas of safety where you can easily control your physical feelings. Do not participate in talk or activities that arouse sexual feelings.

Homosexual activity is a serious sin. If you find yourself struggling with same-gender attraction, [you should start a blog and notify the guy at ardentmormon.blogspot.com. Also...] seek counsel from your parents and bishop. They will help you.

Victims of rape, incest, or other sexual abuse are not guilty of sin. If you have been a victim of any of these crimes, know that you are innocent and that God loves you. Seek your bishop’s counsel immediately so he can help guide you through the process of emotional healing.
[Those who experience unchosen feelings and sexual attractions are also not guilty of sin. However, such feelings may challenge you throughout your life. Finding a way to properly deal with various challenges is an important part of every person's mortal life.]

If you are tempted to commit sexual transgressions, seek help from your parents, your bishop, and friends you can trust. Pray to the Lord, who will help you resist temptation and overcome inappropriate thoughts and feelings.
If you have committed sexual transgressions, begin the process of repentance now so you can find inner peace and have the full companionship of the Spirit. Seek the Lord’s forgiveness. Talk with your bishop. He will help you obtain the forgiveness available to those who truly repent.

So, what do you think?

Gay anarchy

2007-05-31T18:58:00.000-05:00

Enigma suggested to me the other day the need for a For the Strength of Gay Youth pamphlet to help SSA people know what is okay and what is not in their unique situation. Yes, we both know that Affirmation already has taken that clever step, but I'm not such a big fan of Affirmation and I'd rather have it from someone I trust (and minimally agree with).

Considering the recent debates about cuddling, outing oneself, straight dating, etc... it makes sense that there ought to be some informed guidance for a guy or girl who wants to keep it all above board. Who do you tell? When? What situations should be avoided?

Of course, the issue is not one that applies merely to the youth. Enigma also mentioned in his comment on my last post that he's apprehensive about coming out because of potential consequences from the scouting organization or the ward. So... what do you do in a situation like that? Stand up and be a martyr so that you can educate the people around you regarding the issue? Or continue as you have before where you can serve the young men and touch those private lives in a way that might otherwise be impossible?

The automatic inclination among gays is going to be to assume that restricting callings based on orientation is just simply born of ignorance, but I don't think it's that simple. I suspect that the young women leaders are always women to keep any possibility for impropriety at bay (ditto the young men leaders being men). As my mom is fond of saying, "we should avoid even the appearance of evil." Considering the likelihood that there will be homosexually attracted youth in pretty much every sizable ward, there's an analogous possibility for the appearance of or actual impropriety in a scenario with a gay leader.

But it's not a perfect analogy, of course. Some suggest (and I believe) that coping with SSA is aided with non-sexual relationships with other men. This is particularly true of men whom one finds attractive, the idea being that a friendship reveals the real person and their appeal is normalized and largely mitigated. Some gay men may have painful memories of their youth and consequently idealize the outgoing, talented guys in the ward. So, in may be helpful to both the youth who need a good role model and the gay leader to have such a calling, despite the remote possibility of scandal.

Considering the homophobic culture that clings to some wards despite explicit doctrine of acceptance (of unchosen gay feelings), there hasn't been enough opportunity for those who have been in situations like this to really stand up and say whether it's been an overall positive or negative experience.

Regardless, the scouting organization, while on friendly terms with the church, may have a completely different approach. And, as Enigma pointed out, it's not likely to be particularly gay friendly, even with the distinction between unchosen feelings and behavior (and a straight-married gay). So, yeah. Major problem.

So, I hereby call to order an online policy making session in which people should discuss what the guidelines should be and why. If the brethren give us a set, I'll be delighted. In the mean time, how do you recommend bringing order to the gay anarchy? ;-)

No Easy Outs

2007-05-27T16:17:00.001-05:00

I've seen several posts discussing coming out as a way to be more honest about ourselves and to be who we really are as unapologetically as possible. I appreciate the importance of these things. However, I'm still not out to anyone I see on a regular basis except my wife. There are several reasons for that, and perhaps the most weighty in my mind is the fact that once out you can't go back in. The finality of coming out (whether perceived or actual) demands some pretty careful consideration.

As far as sexuality goes, I don't consider my attractions to be a "defining" part of who I am. They're significant and influence (probably) every aspect of my personality, but the sexual aspects themselves are purely private. They don't dictate my interests or behaviors and I consider them completely irrelevant in 99.9% of my daily interactions. So, in some ways, I just don't think coming out has much importance for me.

Some people have a much different experience than that, however, and would like to be open about sexuality and homosexual issues in their discussions and interactions with other people. I've felt this way myself, but when the issue is a discussion of my own sexuality (and not sexuality in general), I sometimes have to stop and really examine whether it's even appropriate to discuss my personal sexuality with whoever it is I'm chatting with. Sure, they're a friend who cares about me and loves me, but it's still a sacred and private topic. I'm not shy at all about talking about homosexuality or having explicitly sexual conversations in an impersonal, objective sense, but I tend to shut up (despite my occasional desire to "share" myself with friends) if I'm rational about it.

Perhaps the main reason I can think of for caution in coming out is that not being out has kept me away from temptation on many occasions. I have been to SO many professional meetings where I'm in a hotel far away from home and there is an organized group of GLBT medical students and physicians who, well, would likely provide plenty of opportunities to get into some hot trouble. I've been to their meetings to be supportive, but when I'm there I don't label myself as gay. I label myself as married with children and heterosexually active (or I would, if someone really pressed me for a label!). I read Abelard's description of a temptation with a coworker who was gay (and offered a sexual encounter!), and I suspect such a situation would have been exponentially worse if Abelard had been out to that coworker. I remember Max's description of a coworker who became obnoxiously determined to get it on after he learned that Max was gay. I've chatted with other bloggers who have gotten into trouble by "outing" themselves to others as well (once, for example, resulting in excommunication). Basically, I have plenty of temptation in my life without adding more. I'm pretty sure that I owe my 'gay virginity' to the fact that I haven't been out and have therefore had fewer opportunities to get into trouble.

I do see the benefits of being honest with close friends and loved ones about central issues such as this, and I am still considering whether, how, and when to come out to my parents. I'll do so when I see some real opportunity for benefit, and until then I plan to keep the private aspects of my life private.

Romney, more or enough?

2007-05-23T08:18:00.000-05:00

I hadn't even seen the Time coverage of Romney (and Mormonism) when I wrote my Romney post. I've been keeping a little bit of an eye on the issue since then and found this story that I quite liked.

The good news is, I think, that I've noticed more discussion of Romney's views rather than his underwear. Maybe now I can start writing some pro-Giuliani posts. ;-)

Blogging over there

2007-05-22T14:06:00.000-05:00

It's been a busy time for me, and I'm a little surprised to see how few posts I've thrown out there this month. But then, part of it is that I've started putting most of my less personal posts on Northern Lights.

Please come visit me over there too. :-)

Romney's 24 hours

2007-05-16T11:54:00.000-05:00

I'm not decided on the presidential election (which, I think is okay given the current date). However, I've been irritated repeatedly that any discussion of Romney in the media has to be a discussion of irrelevant crap rather than his policy and leadership. And yes, I'm including the fact that he's a Mormon in the category of "irrelevant crap". The man should be given consideration for how well he can lead our country.

Anyway, in the wake of last night's debate, there's a 24 hour campaign for Mitt's support. I signed up and donated $10. I don't even know if I'll vote for the man, but I'm persuaded his campaign needs support just to get a fair shake. Here's an e-mail I got from a friend. Have a look and consider supporting the guy. If you like the idea, you should do it right now, cuz otherwise it probably won't happen.

Step 5: Confession

2007-05-15T22:21:00.000-05:00

It's been a while since I've stepped. I've got 4 down and 8 to go, so I don't know why I'm always so slow. Things won't take care of themselves automatically, I suppose. So, on to step 5.

“I would not dwell upon your crimes, to harrow up your soul, if it were not for your good” (Alma 39:7).
• Some people would claim that we dwell too much on negative things in life by taking steps 4 and 5 and that doing so can only add to our stress. In this verse, we are taught that facing shortcomings can do us good, not just “harrow up” (or distress) our souls. In what ways can steps 4 and 5 relieve you of stress and bring you more peace?
-Addiction Recovery Manual

With all the attempted suicides and self-hate that I see among young gay guys, it's easy to get carried away and apply the same soothing rhetoric to myself that I would like to extend to them. But the fact is, I'm not suicidal and have no real problem with self-hate. My problem is excusing myself.

I excuse myself from looking at porn because "I'm addicted," or I excuse myself from really stepping up and carefully studying the scriptures and participating in church. I excuse myself for masturbation. I excuse my selfishness.

Selfishness. That reminds me of the recent discussions I've seen about President Packer's pamphlet, To the One, in which he opines that many of the difficulties associated with being gay are attributable to selfishness. The rhetoric flying off that discussion was thick and deep, and frankly, irrelevant to me. Because, regardless of whether you want to take issue with the generalizability of that, regardless of whether you are prone to outrage that an apostle would say such a thing, I can't deny to myself how true it is in my case. I'm a very selfish person, I always have been, and it's no good trying to deny it.

...President Spencer W. Kimball: “Repentance can never come until one has bared his soul and admitted his actions without excuses or rationalizations. . . . Those persons who choose to meet the issue and transform their lives may find repentance the harder road at first, but they will find it the infinitely more desirable path as they taste of its fruits”

Being selfish is not going to make me happy. I'm fully convinced of that on an academic level. I love the scriptures where we're invited to lose our lives for Christ's sake, and that through so doing we will find ourselves. And, to be fair and honest, I've done a pretty good job of being unselfish in some ways in my life. But there is still a very deep-rooted desire within myself to look at porn, despite what it may do to my wife, despite how it may affect our family and marriage, despite its effects on my spirituality. I know what I want, and the largest effort of my daily life ends up being a puzzle of risk and consequence management, keeping the negative impact of my selfishness at a minimum, but harboring the selfishness through it all at the protected core of my life.

One major obsession of those who struggle with addiction is a great desire to look good to others. How would this desire keep you from improving and bringing “forth more fruit” (or good works)?

I've always been an approval junkie. It's a problem on this blog, certainly, because I tend to want to look consistent and sometimes avoid airing my dirty laundry (despite that doing so is one of the reasons this blog exists). I'm not looking for reassurances of my self-worth with this post, and I don't want to hear criticisms of President Packer. This post is just for me to say what I know is true: I have a fair number of problems in my life that still need to be dealt with. Primary among these problems is my selfishness. It's the center of my issues with porn, imagining a life of gay bliss, wasted time, hypocrisy, and so on. So, there you have my confession, hopefully unsoftened by my desire to look good.

You may fear that someone who really knew all your weaknesses and failings would reject you. But a priesthood leader or a trusted friend who understands the recovery process usually responds with understanding and compassion. How could such a response help you heal?

I suppose this speaks to my last post. My wife allows my confessions and responds with understanding and compassion. She doesn't excuse my faults, and I'm glad for that. But she stands by me regardless of my failings, and she lets me know that she wants me to be happy and she wants me to be the person I can be. I don't bring up my failings to her on a perpetual basis, because that wouldn't be fair to her. Luckily, I do have friends who are supportive and encouraging and who I trust not to give me improper guidance or misinformation when I confide in them. For all the love I receive from people both near and far who care about me, I say thanks.

Better "because of," not "in spite of"

2007-05-14T12:18:00.000-05:00

Chatting around the queerosphere, I've been polling a bit to find out what people do that helps their marriages or hurts them. Near as I can tell, there is a pretty solid correlation between being fully honest with one's spouse about sexuality issues and ability to positively deal with said issues.

My wife and I talk about the blogs, gay politics, and family issues on a pretty regular basis. Daily, probably. Our openness is one of the most wholesome and healthy things in our marriage. I can say what I think--cautiously and sensitively, still--and she will respect me for my honestly and candor. We've had our share of misunderstandings, hurt feelings, over-reactions, and the like. But we work at it. We work through it. And we're stronger, I believe, not just for weathering the storm, but because we're willing to face the realities of our lives and deal with them.

My struggle with same-gender attraction has been one of the most formative issues in making our marriage strong. We know our marriage is "high risk," so to speak. We know that we need to be super understanding of one another. We know that we are committed to each other despite the challenges.

Some marriages seem to be defined by "mixed orientation," which is one reason I think the term mixed orientation marriage is annoying. In the final analysis, an MOM is just like any other marriage--one in which a commitment is made to be sexual and domestic partners despite the challenges life throws at you. The challenges will be colored by external attractions in both cases, sexual intimacy will face challenges in both cases, etc. To quote Samantha:

I can name six marriages (not MOM) in less than thirty seconds that deal with problems with attraction, sexual interaction, impotence, low-libido, and other intimacy detractions. They have to work to be physically intimate, just as I may have to. They don't always feel fulfilled emotionally by their spouses. Sometimes I think we, in MOM's feel we have a special corner on the market when it comes to intimacy issues. We're whiners.

I don't know what to tell people whose spouses aren't ready to deal with the realities of having unwanted sexual attractions. You can't force someone to bump up a few levels of maturity and empathy. But, if there's a solution to be had, I'd say it's worth trying to find. Counseling, certainly, ought to be an option. And for those for whom it's not a likely option, I hope some solution is there for you, and I really do hope that you will find it and have a better marriage because of dealing with challenges, not in spite of them.

Commenting makes me gay

2007-05-07T15:35:00.000-05:00

One of the suggested reasons reparative therapists offer for homosexual attractions is a long-established disconnect from masculine acceptance. That's why they have guys running around learning how to play sports and feel good about it. It's a theory that has often been criticized (sarcastically), but one that makes a little sense in my mind.

I hated church ball as a kid. I would rather go to the dentist than throw a basketball (or any ball, for that matter) with an audience. And, I suppose the surprising thing about this is that I'm not too bad of a ball player. I'm not great... my skill development stopped in about the third grade when I quit wanting to play sports pretty much at all... but I do quite well in things like racquetball.

Anyway, as a kid I was invited (half-heartedly) to play with the teachers' quorum team. When I gave it a shot, I was horrible, and the other kids being of the appropriate maturity level for a set of average 14-year-old boys weren't particularly supportive. I didn't go back and they didn't pursue me; or if they did it was obviously half-hearted. "Hey, -L-, if you want to play, we'll certainly sacrifice our chances of winning and cheer you on in a condescending show of supporting our ridiculous teammate." Yes, there's some pride operating there, but I should be given the same concessions of 14-year-old maturity that I give my teammates, right?

So, here I am twice the age and still suffering from caring what other people think. The authors of the blogs here on my sidebar are generally nice to me, even when I'm a ridiculous fool. I appreciate this and it fosters a community spirit that allows openness and honesty without fear of being hurt for it. It also fosters quick and blameless changes of opinion rather than a, "you said something false in writing and in public and now your humiliation will be celebrated" view.

But, when I go out into the bloggernacle proper, I think I freeze up a little bit. I let jeering and obnoxious people keep me from speaking up. I defend myself and my views with a fervor that I later easily admit to myself is ridiculous and counter-productive. In short, I get the same types of insecure feelings I got when I attempted to throw a baseball as a teenager.

I know I've been on quite a kick of blogging about blogging for the last several weeks. But, what can I say? It's been on my mind, and writing this stuff makes me get over it, it seems.

Hate crimes

2007-05-04T15:34:00.000-05:00

I've been meaning to read up more on the hate-crimes legislation changes moving through Congress. I still haven't had a chance to really do the topic justice, but wanted to point out this really cool blog I found and his take on the issue.

Locker rooms, showers, saunas, and such

2007-05-03T20:11:00.000-05:00

Today after I worked out at my gym, I was chatting with one of my coworkers. He's not a bad looking guy and after we finished chatting he headed to the locker room. It's not the first time I've been given a natural opportunity to follow a good looking guy into a locker room, but lately I've avoided taking that opportunity. I hang back and stretch out instead. Or do just a couple more sets. And I'm proud of myself for it.

Sometimes this isn't a hard thing to do, but once last week it took quite a bit of willpower. The guy that time in particular was someone I'm really attracted to, and I've seen him there many times. We both finished working out at the same time and I thought I might as well go to the locker room. But I realized that I felt an urgency to do it that wasn't tied to me wanting to get clean. I did another couple sets.

This is on my mind mainly because I've seen so many stories about saunas and showers over my time blogging. Gentlefriend's was the most recent, but certainly isn't unique. I've heard repeated stories (both published and private) of guys in saunas masturbating while they watch each other. I initially thought this must just be seedy gyms with a rampantly gay population, but apparently it's not. I even read an article about a lawsuit by some janitors who were sick of seeing gay sex all the time at a popular New York health club chain.

It's enough to make me rethink the health benefits of working out. :-) Here I am a doctor, spending half my waking hours bickering with patients about how they need to exercise more and take care of their bodies, and yet I'm inclined to think it would be better for me to die young and fat than to put myself into a tempting situation like that.

I may not be strong enough to resist if the right temptation presents itself, so I've got to be vigilant in making sure that I don't let my subconscious cruise my horny self into a situation where I'm bound to be in loads of trouble. Luckily, my gaydar is not so good. Even more lucky, med school and residency have aged me a bit. Thank goodness for being old and ugly.

So. I guess I'll wait until the locker room is clear before getting my things. And saunas are over-rated anyway. :-)

Bedtime story

2007-05-01T22:24:00.000-05:00

I just finished watching The Mormons on PBS and it wasn't a bad flick. As I sit here with droopy eyes ready to doze off for the evening, I'm just alarmed at how blessed my life is. I've been meaning to write more "stories" on my blog, so maybe I can pop out a quick one before I slip into my sleepy coma.

I remember one of the interviewees in the documentary saying that it didn't matter all the good that came from the church if it were a fraud. None of the goodness mattered if the historicity demonstrated that it was all based on a fabrication. I don't remember the exact quote, so I hope I'm not giving a really bad paraphrase, but I just can't agree with the guy.

I've never been one to get wrapped up in the historical debates of controversial church issues. Those sorts of discussions just don't float my boat. Regarding the "facts" of polygamy and blacks and ERA and Mountain Meadows massacre... I still have a lot to learn. I do think that in the end the church is true not just in overall effect, but in the details.

When I was a kid, a friend of mine quipped that even if the church isn't true it's still a helluva way to live. I thought he was an idiot. I was a very idealistic little boy and my primary interest was in the truth. The absolute truth.

However; when I watch the cameras flip back and forth between Elder Jensen and various critics of the church, there's almost a demonstrable difference in light in their faces. It's not that the critics weren't nice folks, smart folks, good folks... but the church has had a refining effect on Elder Oaks and President Hinckley and Elder Jensen that seemed amazingly stark to me. Isn't that something to the credit of the church despite whatever academic squabbling a person wants to undertake?

At the end of the day I feel very happy knowing that a large portion (if not all) of the happiness I have in my life extends from my family and the happiness in my family extends from trying to live the gospel of Jesus Christ, and that gospel has come through this church.

Ok, kids. There you go. That is what you might call a "flight of ideas" post from your schizophrenic friend, -L-. And now, with no regard to whether anything I just wrote made any sense whatsoever, I publish and sleep.

Marginalized

2007-04-29T19:06:00.000-05:00

Several months ago I submitted my personal blog address to several bloggernacle blogs to be linked. The blogs had a specific policy regarding which blogs they would link, and I thought my blog complied nicely. It's LDS themed (and sexuality themed, but LDS just as much, I think), and generally uplifting in its goal. I checked back several times afterward to see my link, but it never showed up. This was on more than one blog in the bloggernacle ring, mind you. I never got any kind of acknowledgment from the blog administrators as to why my blog was not suitable, so I was left to speculate all on my own why I had been excluded.

I can't help but imagine the worst. I don't want to believe that I was excluded just because I'm gay or they found my blog distasteful. But what else could it have been? I talk about sex on my blog on occasion, but I don't think I've ever been offensive or inappropriate. Perceptions can be very subjective though, I suppose. I didn't think a post about sexual attitudes was too salacious, but I saw a link afterward where I was criticized for having discussed my little boy running around naked (without context). So, maybe my writing is just too much for some. Maybe I just did it to myself.

I'm disappointed to say that I still suspect that my being excluded represents a homophobic undercurrent in the ostensibly open-minded and tolerant folks in the bloggernacle. Creating a new blog--one with multiple contributors and a very clear intent to help faithful members dealing with homosexual issues--seemed one possible way to break free of this marginalization. It should have been unnecessary to be treated with respect by the cerebral naclers; regardless, I still don't know if the new blog will merit a link either.

Now, imagine my disappointment when I realized that at least one good friend of mine felt marginalized in exactly the same way with the start of this new blog. In my impatience to get the blog up and running, we created a subset of the blogs discussing LDS and homosexual themes that we thought were written by people who would want to be included in the new "community." This ended up being very hurtful for people who were mistakenly left off. It was a mistake, sure enough, but that doesn't make it any less regrettable and unfortunate.

Yesterday I was explaining friends' hurt feelings to my wife, as well as the misconception that we don't want varied points of view to be discussed, and the horrible notion that I'm just up and leaving my existing blog and promoting some bipartisan break in the community. She said, "Why do you need another blog? I mean, if you're going to discuss the same sort of things you always have..." She knows that I consider many of the non-LDS commenters on my blog to be friends and that I really appreciate all their feedback and insights. What purpose could this new blog serve other than to be divisive? I told her some of the history I've just written here--of being excluded from the bloggernacle rolls and feeling misunderstood. This seemed like a way to add a level of comfort--perhaps even just a superficial one--for those who want to feel very reassured that exploring homosexual issues is not a "bad" thing to do. And by adding one more URL, we haven't taken away any. If it helps more people to feel comfortable getting into and out of their issues, I will feel like the new blog will have done some good.

Sophistry

2007-04-27T12:01:00.000-05:00

I was commenting recently on a non-blogger blog (one that doesn't let you delete your comments) and woopsie--accidentally called someone a sophist. I didn't even wait to be called out on it, I just wrote my little apology and clarified that I disagreed with him and wasn't attacking his character. But, the damage apparently had been done and it didn't help the conversation going forward, what with him immediately calling me uncharitable, and me saying essentially I know you are but what am I?, and even pulling out all the stops and putting a "neener" in my next comment back.

Considering Beck's recent post, I've been mulling the difficulties with online communication about hot topics. There are lots of problems with it. First of all, we violate the dictum nearly every day to never discuss religion or politics in polite company (homosexuality being a fairly political topic). We talk about issues that cut to our hearts, and how can you stand back and let someone say something that seems wrong on the topic without lashing out?

I've erred on the other side too, coming down too soft when people say things that are just really messed up. It's a hard balance to strike, and I hope I can get better at it over time.

So, here are some new goals for myself:

Don't feel obligated to point out every ridiculous thing someone writes. Other people are smart enough to notice it too without my help.
Avoid discussion forums where there is an established history of really cranky people. This may take some substantial self restraint when the topic feels important to me and there are some really really stupid things being accepted as clever.
Don't be drawn into a comment war in which some other party and I consistently rephrase the other person's point and criticize it. This one is tricky because I'm always afraid after someone stupidly rephrases something I attempted to write very precisely that others will be persuaded that that was my intent. I clarify and clarify and it ends up being a tiresome bicker-session that informs nobody of anything and has a great risk of bringing out nastiness.
Even when somebody is a horrible raunch, I'll only look stupid if I get defensive in my response to their insults. Unfortunately, I've learned this from experience MORE than once.
People are generally sneaky only insofar as they are attempting to creatively forward ideals and opinions that they believe are right and good. When I think they are a disingenuous jerk, I should remember that they probably think the same thing about me, and we could all be a little more charitable to each other.

New button

2007-04-26T11:42:00.000-05:00

For several weeks now I've been working on getting Northern Lights up and running. It's a new moho blog intended to be kind of a hub for faithful LDS gays. There are a bunch of reasons for starting a new blog, and I figured I'd fill everyone in on the back story here. You can read the "official" story on the blog itself at ldslights.org.

A while back I tried to get a feel for what everyone thinks young LDS gays need in terms of resources. There were a lot of good points made, but I left the thread thinking that this community of bloggers, although imperfect, is one of the best resources available. The community is kind of an organic thing with lots of different view points, and that's part of what I love about it. There are smart, good people both in and out of the church who critically think and dialog about issues that matter to me. On the other hand, I've got to say that some of the posts I read on rare occasions don't do me much good. For example, I'm pretty susceptible to online images of shirtless guys. It would be nice to learn from people's blogs without being afraid I'll open a post and get some underwear shot that will tempt me to go looking for more.

And honestly I think my blog is as offensive as any. I'm free and loose with language that doesn't bother me, but very well may bother others. I'm not going to link to any examples of my occasional irreverent posts, but if you've read here very long, you'll probably know what I'm talking about.

What is a trigger for one is not a trigger for others... and one thing that makes this blogging community remarkable is the candid nature of what people talk about. I don't think that should change. However, I do think that if someone is a member of the church looking for information, exploring some personal feelings on the topic, and want to limit their looking to a topic-focused blog that has explicitly stated standards consistent with the church... there has been nothing available.

So, when I heard about North Star, a nonprofit group that has been in the makings for several months now but hasn't fully launched its web presence yet, I was delighted to have the opportunity to be involved in creating an associated blog--Northern Lights. I really do hope that you will put it on your sidebar, add it to your reader, and consider making it a part of your online rounds (there goes the doctor in me... I can't even think of another way to put it!).

I also want to briefly mention that we've tried to include some links to the existing queerosphere on Northern Lights. This was a quick and dirty effort and we tried to only include blogs by folks who consider themselves to be committed to the church for the reasons mentioned above. The trick is, we just based that assessment on our own views, not on your views. We'll try to be in touch with you to check that including your blog is okay, but if you think we've pegged you wrong (one way or the other), it's your own assessment that counts. Please let us know and we'll add your link or take it down.

And maybe my new button can be your new button too. :-)

Roommate

2007-04-23T15:23:00.000-05:00

This was to be the story of a straight roommate who fell in love with me. But, obviously that sort of statement is in need of a lot of qualifiers. Was he really straight? I think he was. Was he really in love with me? My wife thinks he was. Regardless, by all other accounts we were best friends and closer than I've been with anyone except my wife. I would have asked him to be the best man at my wedding, but he disappeared shortly after I left for medical school--no e-mails and no phone calls. Sometimes I wonder why a guy who was closer than a brother would suddenly drop off the face of the earth; why he would go from driving me and my stuff halfway across the country to ignoring me altogether. All I can figure is that he suddenly became aware how tied to me he had become and got scared.

Let me rewind a couple years to the beginning of the story. My wife and I had been dating for years, but parted ways when she graduated and our relationship hadn't progressed. She moved on with her life and I got a job in the real world. I lived in a BYU student approved complex even though I was no longer a student (shame on me) and enjoyed life finally pulling a paycheck and having my evenings study-free. At the end of the year the perennial student turnover emptied most of the complex and a guy from my ward I didn't know too well invited me to move into his apartment.

At first I didn't like the idea--this guy wasn't really a great friend, just an acquaintance. But the fact that I could go from a shared bedroom to a private bedroom sealed the deal. My then current room roommate deserves a whole chapter of his own, but we'll forgo that for now! So, I moved in with Jeff.

I don't remember exactly how the following months played out, but the fact that he had all the cool electronics meant that we spent a considerable amount of time hanging out. For whatever reason, he was really nice to me. He would wash my dishes and clean up my messes in a way that invited reciprocation, and soon we were just always looking out for each other and pretty close. He would use my stuff and I would use his. We traveled all over the country together and took every weekend we could to go camping in southern Utah. We hung out with each other's family. The lines of who owned what in our apartment were blurred in a way that felt like family. We just got really close.

He was brilliant and had landed a high paying job (six figures!) right out of BYU. He got me a job at the same place and with that transition we were together pretty much 24/7. One day a coworker discovered porn on an office computer and I was asked if I had been the culprit. I honestly answered that it hadn't been me, and Jeff defended me. After that fiasco had faded and we were chatting privately about it, he said he had been 100% sure it hadn't been me because it wasn't "my brand." He had become aware I was gay quite a while before as he used my computer in our apartment. I had been less than tidy with covering my internet history. But nothing really changed after he knew. I had no idea that he was even aware.

The nice thing about the experience was that it gave me a chance to be honest with someone and talk about things. I gave him my speculation that part of my problems with sexuality were related to my repressed upbringing. We compared stories and his history intrigued me. When he looked at porn as a kid and his dad caught him, his dad (a bishop) said, "that's my boy," and didn't give him a hard time. The expectation was always there that he not look at porn, but he didn't feel guilty or shamed by the experience. His dad had an openness about things that took the "forbidden" element out. It normalized issues. I, on the other hand, felt I needed to confess to the bishop if my eyes fell on a swimsuit pinup as I walked down the halls of school.

He said he thought I needed things normalized. I needed a brother. Someone who didn't judge me for being gay, or looking at porn, or whatever. Someone who just accepted me and loved me anyway.

We kept hanging out, getting more affectionate over time. We slept in the same bed sometimes. One of us would fling an arm around the other one in a way that some would call brotherly and some would call flirty, and we'd fall asleep that way. I liked him well enough by this point that things could have gotten inappropriate fast except for one thing: he was straight. We discussed it more than once and I held some doubts whether it was really true. But without going into all the situational details, I had seen what turned him on, and it wasn't guys. Sure, maybe he was bi. If he was, he wasn't turned on by me, but he still loved me in a way that was hard to explain.

The summer before med school we planned a big trip with two girls (I married one of them later!). My wife tells me now that it was on that trip that she first really suspected that I was gay. Just seeing us together, how we played off each other, how much we really loved each other, she was convinced that we were BOTH gay. A few weeks later, I came out to her and she told me she already knew. But she loved me anyway. She liked Jeff too, up until the time she believed he was a rival for my affection.

And, there you have it. One weekend in the fall, we piled all my stuff into the jeep and drove across the country to my new home. We slept in the same bed for the last time and Jeff drove off into the sunset never to be heard from again. We had big plans that after I finished med school we would start a business together. Or maybe we would take flying lessons and buy a plane together. We had a good track record of sharing possessions. But, somewhere along the way I suspect he may have realized that he had been changed by our relationship more than he intended. Rather than just me feeling more "normalized," maybe he was brought to consider some gay feelings he never knew he had. I don't know. I still love him and miss him and now that my wife doesn't feel like she has to compete anymore (she definitely doesn't), I sort of wish he'd step back in and pick up where we left off as friends.

A story

2007-04-19T11:19:00.000-05:00

I keep reading lots of personal stories about the day to day lives of others around here, but I keep on not sharing many 'stories' of my own. Part of this is due to my reluctance to share too much in the way of personally identifiable information. This is stupid, probably, because it would take a research team a good while to dig through all these posts and find the bits and pieces that might collectively identify me, but I'm paranoid just the same.

Add to that my inability to think of any particular story in my life that seems particularly interesting. I could write about growing up and how I had posters of unicorns on the wall, loved rainbows (seriously), and had an unusually large collection of stuffed animals for a boy. I could write about middle school and my complete insecurity around most other boys (especially in the locker room). I had just one best friend and he and I spent all our time together. Turns out, he's gay and off in San Fran somewhere trying to make a life as a performer. I could write about high school and the seminary president snarling at me one day, "Are you gay?" in a very un-seminary-like manner. I don't think I acted or appeared gay in high school, and I was always taken aback by a couple rare such confrontations. Part of the issue, of course, was that this guy was ostensibly worthy to be the seminary president, but he was an intolerant jerk. If I could relive my life again, I would punch him squarely in the face. He wouldn't have fought back (he wasn't the type), but if he had I would have enjoyed getting beat up for it. Pain is so much less intimidating to me now days (hey, I can write for my own morphine! j/k).

I could write about my various crushes through college. There was the straight roommate who I got into a little trouble with, the straight roommate who fell in love with me (did I tell that story ever?), the straight roommate that I think has figured out I'm gay and doesn't return my calls even though we were best friends... Apparently I have a lot of roommate stories. Good thing my current roommate has an "anything goes" policy. ;-)

I could write about my experiences with bishops and counselors, my adventures with my family, my activist moments in national policy meetings, or my med school days.

But none of these things seem all that interesting to me. I could tell the story, but I don't have anything to say about it. Maybe it's time to come out to my family like several others have done recently. That might make for some drama. :-)

A world wide web of relationships

2007-04-17T15:19:00.000-05:00

Today I had another required medical conference to attend. It was horrible. There's a big emphasis on training doctors for... well, what seems like everything but medicine, hence today's struggle against sleep while someone droned on about safety issues (that I've heard before a million times--just so you know I'm not a safety hater!).

But a while back I attended a conference about relationships that everyone pretty much hated except me. I guess I have a higher tolerance when there are humanities involved. This one was heavy on the poetry and imagery. The keynote presenter shared a Hindu saying that means, "Thou art that," and speaks to empathy. Essentially, through pain and suffering we see ourselves in others.

This relationship conference actually got me thinking about blogging and why I've enjoyed it so much. I like the debates (sometimes) about advocacy and important social issues, but I also like the stories. I wrote as notes during one lecture: "Stories crystallize the meaning content of social narrative." I don't know exactly what that means, but it sounds true. ;-) Stories bring out iconic pictures from real details experienced by real people. I guess I see blogs as distinct from other websites because of the power they have in this regard. I've been a little shy on the storytelling in this blog, but that will likely change.

My notes also centered on "reciprocal influence"- we are not unmoved. When we read stories we are changed, and I hope the change coming from gay Mormon blog stories can always be for the better. I guess I see the community here as a very good resource for gay Mormons who need... something. I hope linking and incessant commenting by me is taken as supportive of these community ideals and doesn't make me obnoxious. ;-)

The ideal resource

2007-04-15T17:29:00.000-05:00

Most people say on these blogs at one time or another that they wish there were better resources for LDS folks who struggle with their sexual orientation. I'm wondering today a little more specifically what form such resources would take. What would they need to convey exactly?

There are currently books on the subject--not truckloads full, but certainly more than a few from a spectrum of views on the church and therapy. There are websites ranging from social to academic, faithful to antagonistic (to the church). There are quite a few discussion groups available. And, last but not least, there is a fantastic blogging community.

For all of you who believe we need more resources available (and I'm one), what do we need? I don't want to hear that you think your particular viewpoint is under-emphasized and should be broadcast louder. ;-) I'm just curious to know what you would want and need if you were looking for resources.

Choosing yardsticks

2007-04-13T08:16:00.000-05:00

Prayer was the yardstick by which my wife and I each decided to marry. And I recommend it as the most important factor for faithful Latter-day Saints when considering such a decision. However, prayer comes in a lot of different flavors and qualities, and you'll only want the best for this endeavor!

A suitable prayer will involve studying it out in your mind beforehand. This probably involves dating for an extended period of time (none of this falling in love in two weeks flat that I've heard about!). You'll want to know how your partner reacts in a wide variety of circumstances and situations. You'll need to talk explicitly about financial philosophies, ideal family size, gender roles, commitment to the church. When a snag comes up, see whether and how you can deal with it together. The way you play off of each other, the way you can give and take, is really important since a good marriage requires a lot of that.

One "yardstick" I arbitrarily chose for myself was that my wife would need to make me want to be a better person. When my actual wife came along, I thought she failed that test since she didn't really give a flying flip whether I swore or watched R-rated movies. I thought, she doesn't care if I'm EVIL! But, she was fun to be with and look at, so I kept her around. ;-) Eventually I realized that in all the important ways, she does make me want to be a better person. Thanks to her support, I'm becoming the best doctor possible, the best father possible, the best husband, and even a more righteous person. Her patience and support has known no bounds. It's so humbling to think about that my gratitude actually makes me choked up just thinking about it. Anyway, I'm glad I didn't hold too tight to that one arbitrary yardstick (although some version of it is probably good).

There are a couple approaches I've seen recommended for making big decisions. One is to trust the intial flash of insight you get when you overall consider some complex issue. The research on this one is pretty interesting. Another approach is to do actual research yourself--to have the humility to consider that there's a lot of wisdom in the world that you can benefit from. For example, parenting is a scary thing, but it's been done before. If you want to be a good parent, one trick is to actually read a bit about what's worked well for others. You'd be amazed at the data easily available to people, and amazed at the scarcity of parents who give that data any regard.

In the case of marriage, there are gazillions of books available. In the case of mixed orientation marriage, there are some. In the case of LDS MOM, there are few. But, what advice exists ought to be appreciated. The higher the stakes, the more important it is to really be as informed as possible. However, each data point is only a data point. I'm not a fan of turning over life's most important decisions to "the authorities," but neither am I a fan of turning up one's nose at those authorities.

Taking one's mass of experience and information into consideration, one is more prepared to present the issue to the Lord. Even then, it may be hard to open the quality of communication desirable if one is out of the habit of praying or not keeping one's church covenants. Prayer's effectiveness falls outside of the realm of science to measure, in my opinion, and will depend on the faith and faithfulness of the individual (which can never be suitably quantified for comparison). The manual on prayer isn't a scientific one, it's the scriptures. And even more data can be had through the scriptures, so it's a good idea to make scripture reading a part of one's investigation too.

In my opinion, the most important decision I've made in my life was to marry my sweet wife. Left to my own doubts and second-guessing, I may not have done it. But I prayed about it and the answer was affirmative. Since God knows me better than I know myself, I got married. Now I believe my job is to never look back and to make all my thoughts and efforts focused on making it work rather than reconsidering indefinitely what I need or where I'll be happiest. It's one place I think the Savior's advice applies about finding your life through losing it. The results of my decision to marry, and my efforts to make it work, will have "infinite and eternal" ramifications. It makes me glad to think I trusted God.

Opening a dialog

2007-04-11T17:15:00.000-05:00

Since I'm excited to have some measure of Dr. Schow's attention, and to shift focus away from the size of my penis, I would like to open a dialog about the Dialogue articles written by none other than our own Master Fob and Dr. Schow. But, mainly Schow's. We'll always have Fob to talk about.

Dr. Schow's article highlights some of the limited information we have about "mixed orientation marriages" (MOMs), and offers some guidelines to help predict which marriages are likely not to end in divorce. Overall I really enjoyed the article and found a lot to agree with. But there were little nuanced things that bothered me, so I'm bringing them up here for discussion.

Why do so many marital relationships of this kind fail? Primarily because the homosexual attraction of one spouse creates a major difficulty, despite hopes that such attraction will diminish over time. In reality, the great majority of those who are homosexually oriented cannot fundamentally alter their feelings by desire, therapy, or religious practice.
...
The reality is that homosexuality is not a choice and, except in rare cases, is not subject to change.

It's no news that the idea that change is impossible is disputed by NARTH. I'm still considering the idea of reading Schow's and Byrd's books as a set to compare the disparate data they present. Regardless, I agree with the statement here except that I would modify it to say, "...In reality, the great majority of those who are homosexually oriented have not been able to fundamentally...". Per the APA's consensus statement there have been no scientifically rigorous data to prove or disprove the possibility of even Reparative Therapy as a viable therapeutic option, let alone other therapies that could be conceived and have never been tried at all. To say "can't" is what nearly everyone does, and is to overstate our collective knowledge on the matter. Resist, people, and keep a good balance between skepticism and an open mind.

Thus, marriage seems risky for homosexuals and even bisexuals since we presume that some will end their marriages without trying therapy and that those receiving skilled professional assistance still achieve only this level of success.

I'm in total agreement that marriage is risky (for heteros too), but perhaps there ought to be inquiry into the manner and quality of "skilled professional assistance" those in the different outcome groups received. I've widely publicized my initial biases on this matter throughout this blog. The fact that people so pig-headedly refuse to find a workable therapist (and it may involve trying more than one) irks me. Well, I said it. Now you all know what I'm thinking. :-)

One of the reasons so many homosexuals enter into such high-risk marriages is that they are encouraged to do so by many LDS counselors, therapists, and ecclesiastical leaders who are ill informed about the nature of homosexuality and the dangers of homosexual-heterosexual bonding.

The idea that leaders are ill informed on this topic is one I agree with. But I'm curious about the "dangers of homosexual-heterosexual bonding"... or is this in reference to the dangers of not bonding?

The vast majority of homosexual-heterosexual marriages fail. However, as Ben attests, some, with strong determination, choose to try and beat the odds. Such hopes of success are, in part, based on claims that some homosexuals have achieved successful marriages characterized by adequate sexual compatibility. Such claims, however, must be examined in the light of (1) the complexity of homosexual feeling as it manifests itself in individuals (the HH Scale); (2) the relative importance that individuals attach to sexual intimacy as an element in the marital relationship (strength of libido and capacity for sublimation of sexual desire); and (3) other important factors such as whether individuals have personal compatibility and maturity adequate to withstand challenges to the marriage which are far greater than average.

Here's where I'm lost. First of all, as Dr. Schow mentioned in a previous comment, we don't know how many MOMs fail, because the sampling is always biased. It's a privacy issue, a fear issue, a homophobia issue... whatever kind of issue it is, to say the vast majority fail is unfounded. To say the vast majority fail for those couples willing to come forward may be okay. To say the vast majority have failed for those who have written books, opined on blogs, or otherwise inserted themselves into dialog on the topic also might fly. But I'm not aware that anyone has managed to measure how many MOMs are out there plugging away unassailably. Do I think it likely that there are droves? No. But let's be precise so as to give people the best information possible with which to make life-altering decisions.

Also, in regard to this passage, I have some questions for Dr. Schow. Are these three characteristics "common sense" or have they actually been measured as contributing to the success or failure of MOMs? They sound plausible enough, but that alone is not enough to suggest they be used as a yardstick for making this decision. And here's why: you also say, "Much pain—directly and indirectly—results when these marriages fail," but you don't even mention the joy that those who were able to make it work may have achieved. Had I (a highly libidinous, Kinsey 6, man of average maturity) not married, I wouldn't be in the enviable position I am right now of being the happiest I have ever been in my life. I don't offer this to suggest that others can or will achieve the same thing by following the same path, but as an example of the perils of presenting only one side of the data (or patchy data or no data at all).

Using language like, "the odds are against him" bothers me a little bit too. Speaking of "odds" in scientific literature ought to be in reference to odds ratios or statistical measurements where the word has legitimate meaning. To use it as it is used here gives the impression that whether a marriage succeeds or fails is a matter of luck--where you land in that distribution curve is just a matter of odds. I couldn't disagree more.

Overall, the article shares some great information and an important caution about the dangers of hastily entering a MOM without a clear understanding of the risks. Many thanks to Dr. Schow for his tireless efforts to research these issues and help engender compassion and understanding within the church and society. Unfortunately, the repeated statements that adapting to heterosexual intimacy is impossible (sometimes with caveats, sometimes caveats omitted) and statements expressing opinions as facts (who "probably" should or should not marry) leave me disappointed that people will be misinformed on these points.

Penis enlargement

2007-04-10T20:18:00.000-05:00

If you've been online once or twice in the last year, you've probably seen advertisements for free ipods, free computers, free plasma TVs... etc. If you've been too skeptical to click on the ad to see what the catch is, let me give you the 411. You have to sign up for a bunch of crap you don't want and take a "survey" that is nothing more than blatant forced marketing. If you properly jump through all the hoops, wait long enough for credit, don't lose the address of the website where you signed up, and the company hasn't completely screwed you by changing the terms and conditions of your participation by the time you finish the hoop jumping, you'll get the freebie.

I gave it a try and several months later found myself short on completed offers. Desperate times call for desperate measures. I needed only one more offer, and then it appeared--the promise of male enhancement in a little blue pill. Not the blue pill (Viagra), mind you, just an herbal wannabe with no FDA approval for any indication--almost certainly good for nothing except padding the wallets of greedy men who prey on the insecurities of small-penised men everywhere.

It was presented as a combination of everything good about the Internet: free, private, and a guaranteed instantly enormous penis that would change your life. I needed one more offer and it was the cheapest one. It seemed a matter of economy to go ahead and do it. I had to. And... just maybe, I thought.

This is the type of thing I feel guilty about. Not for anything I did--I wasn't even planning to use the stuff at first, just throw it away--but for supporting a company that is everything I hate. Trotting out their testimonials and "science" to prove what hasn't been proven. Making promises that are ridiculous on their face. Reinforcing the idea that men need to fit a ridiculous caricature of a body type... (this is sounding like an anti-Barbie tirade). I hate that "herbals" get a pass from the government to make all sorts of ridiculous claims and then have no regulation to ensure that they are produced with any kind of safety or that they actually do what they say they do. Herbal supplements can be good, but they CAN also kill you since their quality, safety, and efficacy are all just a shot in the dark.

Despite it all, the risks didn't seem so great when I sat there holding the pills and considered the possibilities (however remote). So I tried it. And, guess what? They didn't really make any noticeable difference. But, if you really want to give it a shot, I still have most of those little blue pills left. As for me... there's always surgery.

MoHo

2007-04-07T17:16:00.000-05:00

Over the months I've been blogging, there's been a living anthropological experiment going on. We've formed a little society, and it's been kind of hard to define. Initially people seemed to call it "the gay Mormon blogs" or "the gay Mormon bloggernacle," borrowing the title from the larger group of LDS blogs. But this didn't seem to stick and seemed sort of long.

My wife called it the "queerosphere" one day and this term was popularized by Ty Babysfield and the Queen of Queers (to my best recollection). But I'm still giving credit to Mrs. L. The trick about the term queerosphere is that it doesn't explicitly say Mormon anywhere in there. How is this group of blogs to be differentiated from any other crowd of creative writing gays?

I've also seen the term "Gormon" used as an abbreviation for gay Mormon, but that was on a myspace blog that pretty much nobody here reads, and it didn't catch on because, hey, it's stupid.

Now, enter "MoHo". This is a catchy abbreviation for Mormon Homosexual coined by Tito and/or some combination of his friends. I think (and correct me if I'm wrong), that it was initially used to contrast "HoMos" from "MoHos" with the first syllable reflective of a person's personal priorities. I.e., if the person is Mormon first and foremost and still trying to live within the constraints of faithful church membership, they were a MoHo, otherwise they were a homosexual Mormon--a HoMo. This nomenclature makes sense to me, is clever, and actually seems to come in handy in some of the conversations I've had.

The problem is, without a lesson on the etymology of MoHo, how are people supposed to even know that's the meaning? There have been a few interesting conversations about who can be called Mormon or MoHo, and I'm not too eager to voice a strong opinion on that. So, I've caved to what seems to be the more popular usage and used MoHo in my sidebar to generically refer to one who self-identifies as same-gender attracted, homosexual, or gay and who has a connection to Mormonism. Maybe I'll have to break my sidebar links into multiple sections to clarify the distinction and use the term more aptly from now on! Or, I could just take the term off altogether. I hate to tinker with my blog... ;-)

Marital bliss

2007-04-06T16:22:00.000-05:00

I like it when people I've blogged about come to pay me a visit. I dunno, it just makes me feel important. Maybe Elder Oaks will come comment someday. :-) More likely an impersonator, now that I've said that!

In the mean time, Ron Schow stopped by recently to clarify his position on so-called mixed orientation marriages. The data for success is unfavorable, and given the recent planned divorces mentioned in the gay Mormon blogs I read, this has never been more emphatically on my mind.

Gushing about how great our marriage is and how happy I am has become a favorite past time on this blog of late, and I'm still standing by that. It's alarming to me how happy I am sometimes. Seems sort of indecent. Seems like I ought not allow myself such bliss while still struggling with so many issues in my life. I wonder whether it appears that I'm not struggling at all anymore--that things are sufficiently resolved (or repressed, depending on your inclination to cynicism) to put me riding off into the sunset. This makes me chuckle a bit, but I've been told I seem to handle everything with "relative ease" before, so perhaps people may get that impression.

The fact is, a couple years ago I wanted out of my marriage too. Not in a formal sort of way that involved conversations and rational thought and solutions (things I tend to advocate), but in a desperate, under-the-surface, frantic sort of way. This was before I had kids. I wanted to be freed from my marital situation in a way that wouldn't involve any pain for anyone involved--no blame, no long conversations, no tears, no betrayals. I wanted out scot-free. I wanted, during my most miserable moments, for my wife to die.

Yes, that is shocking and horrible beyond words.

But it was there, and I've since talked to my wife about it, and I'm telling you now because I tend to say stuff that no decent person ever would. So, I can understand when Laura says in her blog that she couldn't get married and be miserable for the rest of her life, because I was miserable for a while and there was no end in sight. I can understand the reluctance to consider marriage at all and the hopelessness that comes from feeling there are no happy alternatives.

But, somehow I'm still here and I'm now happy, and every once in a while when my wife takes longer than I expect at the store I have a horrible flash in my mind in which I wonder if there may have been an accident. And then I check the messages, look out the door, and fidget a bit until she arrives, safe and sound. If she takes particularly long and doesn't have her cell phone on, I may even start to ruminate on the worst possible scenarios, and they literally bring me to tears. Being a father and a husband makes me cry a lot, it turns out. I cry for happiness mostly, but once in a while it's out of fear of losing any of mine. I can't imagine life ever ever having the meaning and peace that it does without them all in it.

I can't explain how I got from point A (wanting my wife magically out of my life) to point B (horrified that anything bad might ever happen to her), but it surely has to do with Christ and positive change.

Family ties

2007-04-05T20:54:00.000-05:00

I'm not all that close to my family. My family is the type that sticks together through it all, helps each other in times of need, and stays happily at arm's length from each other. We've had a lot of good times over the years and being on good terms is a blessing I don't take for granted. My wife's family, on the other hand, are really close. Siblings there are best friends. I love hanging around them as a group because they enjoy themselves so much. My family has parties and good times, but her family's connections seem deeper.

A lot of this could just be perception. I can't be objective, of course. I do know that I've never been particularly close with my siblings. My brother who is nearest to me in age is nothing like me. He thinks we're more similar than we are. I think he's somewhat crazy.

I guess I just want to know the secret of being best friends with family members. How do people do it? I've seen plenty of examples of dysfunctional families over the years, but precious few really amazingly close ones. My best friend in high school had a family like that I always thought. I wonder if it was just an illusion.

I've never had a bad relationship with anyone in my family. But there's nobody in my family that knows I'm gay. I don't think it would change things if they did know. We wouldn't be closer. We wouldn't be further apart. We'd still see each other at the same family gatherings we always have, and we'd love and support each other in the same way we've done for decades. Maybe a family of grown adults can't really change their relationships anymore. My little new family is just getting started, though, and I'd like us to be tight.

Today's lecture

2007-04-04T21:23:00.000-05:00

I'm rotating through a department right now that involves interviewing troubled teens. During a presentation by one of the attendings today, several cases were presented and we had to go through the motions of taking a history and trying to "uncover" the real problem. As we went through the process I felt pangs of regret and worry anticipating my turn as a parent of adolescents. I've had multiple close relatives who responded to a parent's ultimatum, "As long as you're living under my roof...," by leaving home and living with a friend. One such episode is happening right now in our family, and it makes for some sad drama.

It reminds me of the difficulties of communication. Will my kids know how much I love them and how much my advice is based on wanting them to be happy? Or will they think it's all arbitrary and my way of keeping them under my thumb? How will I be able to convey when my advice is just opinion and when it's a matter of life-or-death safety? How will I manage to be frank without pushing them further away? I suppose such melancholy speculation is unwarranted for a father of mere babies, but it's on my mind today.

So, my post today is no lecture. I know I make my posts sound like a fatherly lecture at times, but today's lecture is canceled. In lieu, please accept my love and hope for all that's good for you.

Book club, April

2007-04-02T18:21:00.000-05:00

Possible modifications to the book club:

Selection every month is fiction and designated by a poll.
Additionally, anyone planning to read anything non-fiction that they think others might also enjoy (i.e. Foxx's book on marriage, Byrd or Schow's books in the poll last month, books by GAs...) could just say they are reading it and I'll put up their post date so anyone who wants to read it by that date can do so and then engage in a discussion on their blog.

That way everyone can read what they want and everyone else can take it or leave it. What do you think?

Also, my suggestion for the fiction title this month is Kafka on the Shore by Haruki Murakami, The Piano Tuner by Daniel Mason, or if you're in an edgy mood, Blindness by Jose Saramago. I've heard good things about all of these. Santorio's suggestion is Catfish and Mandala by Andrew X. Pham which he describes in the comments here. Post any other suggestions now and I'll throw up a poll in the next couple days.

Random clubbing

2007-04-01T18:07:00.000-05:00

There were several things in this book that I intended to post about, but none of them are all that interesting. (Plus, apparently I’m the only one who read the book.) So, rather than post for days about something nobody cares about, I’ll just get them out of the way now. :-)

For example, the relationship between Jon and Norrell was an interesting one:

You think that I am angry,” said Mr Norrell, “but I am not. You think I do not know why you have done what you have done, but I do. You think you have put all your heart into that writing and that every one in England now understands you. What do they understand? Nothing. I understood you before you wrote a word.” He paused and his face worked as if he were struggling to say something that lay very deep inside him. “What you wrote, you wrote for me. For me alone.”

It was kind of like father/son, and kind of like brothers… and I dunno. Interesting mainly because they understood one another in a way that nobody else could understand them. They had some very unique experiences in common. And that reminds me of some of you.

I have no quote for it, but the idea of Stephen and Lady Pole living out their years in a tormented double-life seemed very close to home as well. All along they want to tell someone, but can’t. They feel trapped and unhappy but are incapable of freeing themselves from their predicament (they are magically imprisoned every night). Again, it resonates with me.

This struck a familiar chord with me when I think of some blog comments:

“Ah, but, sir,” said Lascelles, “it is precisely by passing judgements upon other people’s work and pointing out their errors that readers can be made to understand your own opinions better. It is the easiest thing in the world to turn a review to one’s own ends. One only need mention the book once or twice and for the rest of the article one may develop one’s theme just as one chuses. It is, I assure you, what every body else does.”

And here’s a characterization of religion that I think many assume applies to Mormonism as well!

“Their religion is of the strictest sort, Stephen. Almost everything is forbidden to them except carpets.”

Stephen watched them as they went mournfully about the market, these men whose mouths were perpetually closed lest they spoke some forbidden word, whose eyes were perpetually averted from forbidden sights, whose hands refrained at every moment from some forbidden act. It seemed to him that they did little more than half-exist. They might as well have been dreams of ghosts. In the silent town and the silent countryside only the hot wind seemed to have any real substance. Stephen felt he would not be surprised if one day the wind blew the town and its inhabitants entirely away.

The characters in the book are very real to me, and I liked that about the book a lot. A few other quotes that I liked because they were funny, and then I’ll be done:

He had decided that the correct attitude to take was one of dignified moral superiority softened by a very moderate amount of apology.

But Drawlight, who had begun to believe that if anyone had ever died of boredom then he was almost certain to expire within the next quarter of an hour, found that he had lost the will to speak and the best he could manage was a withering smile.

“I think it most unkind of you,” said Lascelles at last, “to accept money for arranging to have me ruined, crippled and driven mad.”

Please don’t be unkind. ;-)

Miraculous magic

2007-03-29T17:08:00.000-05:00

... They began, as you did, with the aim of bringing back practical magic to the world. They were practical men and wished to apply the principles of reason and science to magic as they had done to the manufacturing arts. They called it 'Rational Thaumaturgy'. When it did not work they became discouraged. Well, they cannot be blamed for that. But they let their disillusionment lead them into all sorts of difficulties. They began to think that there was not now nor ever had been magic in the world. They said that the Aureate magicians were all deceivers or were themselves deceived. And that the Raven King was an invention of the northern English to keep themselves from the tyranny of the south (being north-country men themselves they had some sympathy with that). Oh, their arguments were very ingenious--I forget how they explained fairies.
-Susanna Clarke
in Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell

This reminds me of the clever efforts to explain miracles in scripture as natural phenomena. Locusts, frogs, water becoming dry land... all come to El Niño or something of that nature. Rivers turning to blood was accomplished with iron rich volcanic soil dying it all red... and the like. Seeing light and long deceased loved ones during near death experiences is chalked up to anoxic brain injury, spiritual manifestations and feelings of peaceful assurance can be mapped to certain parts of the brain. This interesting effort only bothers me when people try to use it to claim that miracles don't exist or that God doesn't exist. The jump to that conclusion is unwarranted.

There's the slightly confusing issue that the most sacred experiences people have aren't shared. This gives the illusion that miracles don't happen much these days. I can tell you I've had my share of personal miracles and that family members of mine have had miracles of a particularly dramatic nature... but since I'm reluctant to share the details on a blog, it's all for naught. It just pads my own confidence, nothing more.

And now, O all ye that have imagined up unto yourselves a god who can do no miracles, I would ask of you, have all these things passed, o fwhich I have spoken? Has the end come yet? Behold I say unto you, Nay; and God has not ceased to be a God of miracles.
Mormon 9:15

Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell

2007-03-28T13:30:00.000-05:00

She took his hands and her eyes were shining. "And you did it," she whispered. They looked at each other for a long moment, and in that moment all was as it used to be--it was as if they had never parted; but she did not offer to go into the Darkness with him and he did not ask her.

"One day," he said, "I shall find the right spell and banish the Darkness.
And on that day I will come to you."

"Yes. On that day. I will wait until then."

He nodded and seemed about to depart, but then he hesitated. "Bell," he
said, "do not wear black. Do not be a widow. Be happy. That is
how I wish to think of you."

I'm not quite capable of really being happy with the club's fiction choices. I'm conflicted between my desire for complexity that mirrors life and happy endings that leave me feeling optimistic and gratified. At the end of Kavalier and Clay, Sammy left his family to go be gay... to live the happy life he deserved. And it made me miserable. Because I am Sammy, in a way, and I know with absolute certainty that such a move on my part would be devastating all around. It would be a tragedy despite all the back patting I would get.

Jonathan Strange had eternal darkness surrounding him. What of it? A little darkness never hurt anyone! Just drink your vitamin D fortified milk and buck up, for crying out loud! I spent the whole book in love with his wife because she reminded me so much of my own wife. I cried when I thought of her miserable and trapped in a place that was inaccessible to me--in a manner that I couldn't overcome. And then... just when the enchantments start to be defeated, they decide to just part ways and call it good? Just until later, of course. When that pesky SSA, err, darkness is overcome.

Yes, yes, I realize this is supposed to be a poignant statement about love and sacrifice and a testament to their commitment to one another. But I'm not happy. I want my money back. Oh, wait, it was a library book.

Amazingly, my wife disagrees with me about all this. If I felt that to be happy I needed to leave her, she says, she would understand. She says it so lovingly, so sincerely, so unbelievably unselfishly that it makes me want to just make out with her right there and then.

Bring on the storms! Bring on the darkness! Bring on the otherworldly fairy-demons! We'll be holding hands resolutely through it all if I have anything to say about it.

Dieting indefinitely

2007-03-24T20:21:00.000-05:00

Getting patients to diet is an uphill battle. They may be sitting there unable to breath from sleep apnea, unable to move without pain from osteoarthritis, unable to take care of themselves because they plain can’t reach the necessary parts of their body, but some will munch their donuts as they shake their chubby fists and threaten to leave the hospital against medical advice if you restrict their calories.

The more compliant bunch will go ahead and accept the restrictions. At first. But after a few weeks… or a few months… or a few years… they typically go back to the habits that brought them to their state of obesity/cardiac disease/high cholesterol/etc. in the first place.

It takes an unusual amount of resolve and determination to continue denying yourself for a lifetime what you crave but know will not be for your good. Bodies are hard wired to reinforce eating high calorie foods, and it’s a relatively recent evolutionary paradox that there’s enough food around for people to kill themselves with it. Knowing that polishing off a dozen fresh baked cookies is really not going to be good for you—despite that the warm gooey chocolate chips perpetually argue otherwise—doesn’t assure doing the right thing. It’s a bit daunting to imagine that graph that shows people dropping out of their diet compliance—giving in—one by one over the months and years until only a fraction remain.

What does it take to be someone who can persist in choosing mind over body for a lifetime?

More sex

2007-03-22T13:23:00.000-05:00

In a way, my wife and I are achieving what some think is impossible. We're happily married, we've got a couple cute kids, and we manage to have sex even though I'm stark raving gay. Since I already opened the sex topic a few days back, I figure I might as well put in this little addendum while the subject is already on the table. Again, it's a topic that I approach with some reservation, because where is that line between appropriate and too much information?

Oh, well. I always did live my life as an open book.

The biggest challenge with having straight sex is making it an intimate experience between me and my wife rather than having my mind elsewhere (i.e. thinking about a guy). I could be wrong here, so feel free to argue with me, but I think the issue of intimacy focuses on not only what you do, but what the results are--are you more connected and intimate as a couple afterwards, or just messy? My wife pointed out to me after my last post on sex that I didn't really convey the parallel importance of physical gratification and intimacy--neither should nudge out the other. I mentioned that we love cuddling, but that's not the whole story. There is also that need for just the plain sex, I think.

I recognize that there's a commandment not to lust after anyone but one's spouse. So, there's that. But I want kids and I'm married, and so I'm willing to tolerate pushing some limits temporarily to make things work. And the way it has panned out is that I've thought about guys at certain times while having sex. This seems sort of pathetic, I grant, but it seemed requisite to achieve sex at all at first. It has become less so over time.

I haven't brought it up before despite that people kept saying "you must be bisexual if you're able to have sex with a woman." Folks, I'm really not. Or wasn't. Even now, I have some pretty good data to suggest that for all the progress I've made in being adequately turned on during intimate experiences with my wife, my responses are far more potent with guys.

Anyway, my point here is not to ruminate on my ambivalence and confusion on that topic. My point is to say that the raw physical component of sex is kind of important for a couple. The cuddling type of intimacy and pillow talk are great too. Neither should be the whole story or at the perpetual expense of the other.

Crazy gays

2007-03-21T21:08:00.000-05:00

I saw Forester's post today, and SG's comment, and some other posts that reminded me that I suspect gays are uncommonly crazy. Anecdotally, as I tally up the gays I know and the gays I know who have some sort of psychiatric problem (whether it be depression, bipolar disorder, OCD, etc...) it's a freaking lot. It's just plain huge.

So, if memory serves, Hooker's research was the first step in showing that homosexuality was not associated with intelligence or mental health. But, if memory serves, that study had an enormous selection bias / exclusion criteria (one that is ignored by all the same folks who spit on the ground every time Spitzer's name gets mentioned).

Conventional wisdom says that any difference in the prevalence of mental problems in gays is directly attributable to a hostile society and the unfriendly circumstances gays must live in. Which, I believe to an extent, but not to the extent of explaining all the mental illness I've observed.

There ain't nothin' morally wrong with being depressed or bipolar or whatever. I'm a big fan of mental illness not carrying stigma. I do wonder, though, why I get the impression that there's such a big correlation.

I don't believe being gay makes you depressed. So, I wonder what it means.

The essential -L-

2007-03-19T23:05:00.000-05:00

I still haven't managed to go back and put labels on all my old posts yet. I just keep saying the same thing over and over anyway, so it's not a big tragedy if you can't research all the early stuff. :-) Like the Barenaked Ladies put it, "It's all been done before." [Note: my preferred brand of Barenaked Ladies is a bunch of guys.]

If you want to read ol' -L-'s take on some standard topics, here's a good place to find them. I've ruminated on the value of guilt, the importance of balance, and the moral status of gay sex. Hope despite adversity, ways to do better, and settling. Advice on considering marriage, keeping married, and a significant peril of mixed orientation marriages. Whether homosexuality is a weakness, a disease, might be changed, and whether to care. So, there you have a dozen or so posts to catch my meaning on the issues. That might be the easiest way to see what I think... but I'll be sure to keep repeating myself. ;-)

Best friends vs. boyfriends

2007-03-18T15:21:00.000-05:00

My reparative therapist says that I need to connect with men. I need to find opportunities to be deep friends with them rather than just superficial. The idea is to meet my needs for male intimacy in a non-sexual way. This post isn't to discuss the merits of the therapy or this advice in particular, but rather to consider how to do this.

I've made some comments about having closeness with other guys and it being a good thing as long as you don't have sex. But I think you can still be in love with a guy in a way that contradicts the goal here without actually having sex. Basically, I'm wondering what's the difference between best friends and boyfriends assuming your relationship is platonic either way?

I imagine a best friend as someone I can call about anything, someone who knows me well, someone who supports me in my goals and situation. I see a boyfriend as someone who feels more a part of my life than a support... as someone who acts as if he has some type of claim on me (or me on him).

I don't know that I have any really good distinction worked out in my mind. Any advice?

Book club, March

2007-03-15T23:09:00.000-05:00

Remember to go pick up your copy of Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell so you can get it read in the next couple weeks! Book club is a lot more fun when it's not "vote on the book L has to read and post on all by himself" club. :-)

And for any of you Ugly Betty fans, see if any of the characters in the book remind you of any of the characters in the TV show. I have the cast for the movie version of this book all picked out in my head...

Straight sex

2007-03-14T07:06:00.000-05:00

I first want to just extend a welcome to all who came here through a Google search. You may not find what you're looking for, and I won't be offended if you leave. Feel free to come back and bring your friends when I do my post on penis enlargement.

I've been meaning for some time to post about sex, but I haven't known exactly how to do it. Understandably, there is some curiosity among single mohos about how a gay guy can possibly father children. Granting it's possible in the strictest clinical sense, is it something that robs a guy of all dignity to have sex with someone to whom he is not fully sexually attracted? How about with someone to whom he is not the least sexually attracted?

Well, the only way I could get myself to write this post at all was to speak only in vague terms about where we've been in our sexual relationship. I don't want to cheapen what I consider to be sacred and legitimate intimacy by sharing too much, but I do want people who are interested to have an idea of what it's like to be gay, Mormon, married... and sexual.

There's no question we were off to a slow start. I never kissed my wife before we were engaged, and even then I found that I enjoyed it less than when I had kissed a guy. This was not surprising to me though--after all, I'm gay. What surprised me was that I enjoyed it increasingly. I loosened up, thought about her rather than me, and things got better.

On our wedding night we had a family prayer right away. It seemed like an appropriate way to start a family, and without consciously deciding to, I turned it into an invocation for our sex. I asked God to bless us that the sex would be "hot and gratifying". Unfortunately, there were complications. [Shocker.] I even saw a doctor about this (who was, looking back, a complete moron). Viagra doesn't really help a healthy gay guy have straight sex, FYI.

Over the first couple years of our marriage, we tried different things to make sex more enjoyable--to facilitate things. We tried getting lots of books from the library about sex (I liked the pictures... hee hee), we tried toys (dice, edible whatevers, etc.), we tried lots of positions and circumstances. We conceded that our situation wasn't one well documented, and we were going to have to do some primary research of our own to figure out what would work.

And eventually the orgasms came.

I'd like to be able to say here that my wife turns me on as much as any guy ever could. But alas, it isn't so. And besides, what would I have to blog about if I were already at that point? I'll get there some day. The sex is enjoyable despite that, though, because we've both learned that most of the fun is in giving to the other person. I want her to feel every good thing possible, and it turns out that I do get turned on when she's turned on, despite it all.

For now we still have to be unconventional sexual partners--working out the kinks because we love each other and we're best friends. We don't have to have sex, certainly. And I think a lot of mixed orientation marriages end up being a version of celibacy. But despite the unusual amount of work that goes into gearing up for and making love, I think it's important. For one thing, people that have more sex are generally happier and more successful ;-). For another, they're healthier. Maybe Scot can whip through the primary research and provide a bibliography for that, but I'm pretty sure that's an evidence based statement (notwithstanding the screaming problems with the causal connection I'm implying).

Thankfully, our sexual encounters aren't like that creepy scene in Angels In America. I'm sure there are gay Mormons who might approximate that... but with some communication, open-mindedness, honesty, and commitment, sex has been "hot and gratifying" on more than a few occasions since my invocation. Even when the sex isn't quite as hot... there's always the cuddling. Mmmm... I'm gonna go lie down with my favorite person.

Humility, true and false

2007-03-13T20:47:00.000-05:00

My writing style includes bouts of false-arrogance (that I find amusing, if nobody else), and self-deprecation (also usually false). I like to tell myself that under that outward presentation I've got a pretty healthy combination of self esteem and humility going on. I know it sounds contradictory to call oneself humble, but the 12 steps gig I'm working on right now specifically says to be honest about both the good and the bad you find when you look at your life, and I think that with some regularity I'm pretty aware of my weaknesses, dependence, and blessings.

Unfortunately, I think when I dig deeper yet, I find lots of evidence that my life is filled with too much real arrogance and simultaneous unhealthy and unfounded poor self regard. In a weird way, I do think this contributes to my attractions. It's as if I can't really believe honestly within myself that I'm worthy of another man's respect and love. I mean, what do I really have to offer? My self scoffs and says, one way to connect (for someone as pathetic as you) is through sex. Everyone loves sex. It's a way to be loved. Yes, this sounds like I'm parroting Nicolosi, but it actually just popped into my mind through my honest introspection and it wasn't until I just typed it that I recognized the Nicolosi connection.

Let me hasten to add that I don't think that view of being accepted through sex makes any sense. So, I really do have a pretty healthy view of relationships and my own value... but all that cognitive self awareness sometimes conflicts with the the way I act. All I can figure is that I really do have some self-loathing in hidden places and my disrespectful subconscious is sometimes winning the war.

Whenever I consider myself, I'm very critical. When I read my journal, I'm embarrassed and want to burn it. When I think back to my mission I want to send apology notes to all my companions. When I think of achievements and public appearances, I always criticize the way I looked, the things I said, or ... something. Who would love me, I wonder? I don't know that I would love me if I met myself.

I think my self-conscious believes it's somehow indecent to give myself credit for anything. The good things are just meeting minimum expectations. The bad are horrible deficiencies. I have inconsistent expectations of myself and everyone else... and I don't know what they should really be.

I've been thinking about this for a few days now, and I still can't really tell what I'm getting at. But I went ahead and posted anyway because it jives a bit with what ATP was talking about today. I look at him and think, he's a great guy! Smart, funny, attractive (and no I'm neither joking nor hitting on you...). I wonder why he can't see it. And I can believe good things about myself with full certainty, but there's some deeply influential traitorous imp in my brain that will never be fully convinced.

Choosing influences

2007-03-11T15:17:00.000-05:00

When I was a kid, I always got the advice to choose good friends. But I never knew exactly how to go about doing that. It’s not like all the kids in the middle school line up waiting to be chosen by me. It’s more like if you want friends at all, you’ll take what you get and be grateful. There are personalities that I just clicked with, and looking back now, they weren’t always what one might call “a good influence.”

I like the idea of choosing the influences you subject yourself too, but it can be easier said than done sometimes.

Choosing to go to church or whether to read the scriptures and whether to watch a particular movie all seem to have reachable answers. But choosing whether to read some particular website, or follow a particular blog, or have some particular friend takes trickier judgment. As an adult my attitude has leaned more and more toward preferring the straight dope, so to speak... give me the anti-Mormon arguments, the pot-shots, the sophistry, I'll take all comers and I'll spend the effort to assess them for what they are. But sometimes I think this is a mistake. A big one.

Some time ago I joined a discussion group that calls itself supportive but turned out to be a meeting place for (what seemed to be) a bunch of really nice folks to grind their axes, indulge their hatred, and reinforce their skewed views on life. The hypocrisy is palpable every time I open up a few threads. It's almost like they've created an incubator for spiritual insanity. Of course, most of these folks would (and have) said precisely the same thing about the LDS church. It seems we're all "brainwashing" ourselves, I'm told. And in a sense, after stripping out the negative connotation, we are. I think people choose affirming influences--whether members of the church, members of an insane online discussion group or whatever.

But, as Einstein said, "The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing." I'm not an advocate of spurning all negative influences; we couldn't be rational and informed if we did. I'm just an advocate of spurning the bad negative influences.

I read blogs I don't agree with, but not all of them. Some have demonstrated their ill effects on me, and that's enough. I don't read much of the discussion group I mentioned above either. I tried to respond to some of their stupidity, but wasn't rewarded much for it--they persisted in their delusions and I left thoroughly abused. Why go back after that? If someone walks their dog by my house and leaves some crap on the lawn, I can clean it up easily enough. But I don't walk barefoot through the dog park and I don't go outside when it's raining dog doodoo. It's the same with anti-Mormon writings--I've answered every issue I've come across to my satisfaction when I put in the time and effort... but I don't have enough time and effort for the mountains of stuff thrown at me by folks who are so "concerned" for me (that they tenderly take me in... and then start snarling if I put up any resistance).

I'd rather build my own mountains of faith than fill the holes somebody else has dug.

Just be aware of what influences you choose and why. That's my advice for the day to all comers to the growing queerosphere.

Perfectionist

2007-03-07T21:50:00.000-05:00

I didn't plan to perseverate so much on the difference between my public self and my secret self, but it's just sort of flowed that way. I've appreciated the comments.

Today in the library I happened to see a book that had been pulled from the stacks and set on top of one of the shelves. It was about gifted children and how telling them they're special can sometimes lead to all sorts of problems. If there's one message I took away from my childhood, it was that I am special. And, really, I suppose it was true in a way beyond the standard "every child is special" line. But just as this book seems to warn, I ended up feeling like I had to perform a certain way to measure up. Constantly performing turned my life into a performance.

Perhaps the best therapy for my perfectionism was med school. I learned to be happy with passing rather than acing tests. Very happy. Thrilled. And as much as I hated it, I had to face the fact that I was no longer the brightest person around, no longer a star, no longer "special". It was drilled into me constantly for four years.

I haven't really lost my perfectionism, but it has been thoroughly tempered. I'm okay with failure in a way that I've never been before. I'm okay with faults. I'm okay with personal fallibility. I can even honestly criticize myself in this blog space--this weird half-life between public and private--most of the time without acquiring bruises that would otherwise make me withdraw.

And while this post is mainly about my past, and what has got me to where I am, I'm happy that I'm in a place that doesn't settle with character flaws but doesn't demand liberation overnight either. I've found the zone well distanced from overly wrought suicidal on the one hand and complacently damned on the other, and it feels sort of... perfect.

When no one is watching

2007-03-06T15:51:00.000-05:00

Being duplicitous is a mixed bag. The most obvious effect is that I created a pattern of loosening up my values when nobody was watching. They were still my values, and I still believed in them... but repeatedly edging across the border of behavior's acceptable limit (and never getting caught) allowed me to feel increasingly comfortable with things I should have been ashamed of. Basically, I numbed up my conscience because I was getting all the rewards and no notable negative consequences.

When no one was watching I looked at porn. When no one was watching I considered the possibility of meeting someone for anonymous sex. I started looking at online personals. Somehow, despite that I'm a principled person, I got myself to throw everything I believed temporarily away while I flirted with arousing alternative options. I lost track of what was really off limits by repeatedly violating my own standards. Would I then stop with looking? Would I stop with kissing? Would I stop anywhere? Yes, probably, but nothing was certain when I was (am?) my other self.

There have been some good things from duplicity. I didn't throw away my faith in the name of being "authentic". Sure, avoiding duplicity is a good thing, but not necessarily if the approach is to kill the virtuous part of myself and declare the licentious part the "real" me. People still treat me as if I am a principled person, so I believe them. And, yes, my mistakes represent the "real" me in a sense, but not the me I want to become or the me I believe that I am most fundamentally. Perpetually reinventing myself as a better person rather than accepting whatever "realities" may be is the province of repentance and a principle that I try to let guide my life.

For better or for worse, I don't want other people to define me. I want to define myself. And because I know the self I want to be, it would be nice if I had the personal integrity and strength to always behave the same way when I'm alone that I would if my parents were standing next to me.

The duplicitous guy

2007-03-05T19:19:00.000-05:00

I remember being at a friend's house when a movie was on that had an extended nude scene. I excused myself (in, I think, a completely non-self-righteous way) and walked home with my brother. I felt good about being the "good" kid, but I knew that I really had wanted to watch that scene. If only there hadn't been all those other people there that I had to be example for, I subconsciously thought, I could have had a look.

The same scenario played out in other situations. Our family would be watching a movie, and I would support the decision to fast-forward a sex scene or tut disparagingly at a nude scene... unless I was alone. When I was alone I could indulge my curiosity.

I tried not to look into the lockers in middle school where I knew kids had nasty Vanna White pinups... but I flipped through medical books and National Geographic mags to have a look at nudies as long as nobody was watching.

I think this duplicitous nature was directly caused by always trying to appear the "good" boy for my folks. They rewarded me with praise and love for all my good choices, so it seemed (however incorrectly) that I had to keep up appearances. I even excused myself for the show of righteousness because I knew my parents were having trouble with my brothers and sisters and would congratulate me for the good decisions I had made. I didn't want to disturb them more than they were, I thought.

It's easy to imagine how a kid who would never look at porn when anyone was around could suddenly be way over his head once the Internet solved the privacy and access problems for me. I ended up becoming very skilled at covering my tracks on the computer. I was enlisted to monitor others' use and once discovering a fellow RA had viewed porn on our office computer and once caught the Elders' Quorum president at it in the library. I was keenly aware of my hypocrisy, but I wasn't going to volunteer a confession either.

Even now I think the privacy issue and the trap of easy access are key to my addiction and recovery.

The nice guy

2007-03-04T22:10:00.000-05:00

I'm thinking about my life and I think I've always sort of taken on the role of the nice guy. I've always known this, but never really thought about how it plays into all the nooks and crannies of my life. I used to date girls who otherwise never would have dated. I used to befriend guys that didn't really have any other friends. I was the guy in school who was nice to everyone, but never quite felt like I deserved the respect of the kids I admired the most.

I figured my best chance of belonging was with the nerdy kids--the smart ones and the musicians. I fit right in with those "band fags"--the kids that held hands in a circle and shared inspirational thoughts before each performance. Like angels with one wing, we told each other, we had to embrace to fly. So, there we were, pimply skinny nerds, hugging and feeling loved. It was good stuff.

On the academic front, I always felt like I didn't measure up to the really smart cool kids. I still remember with a chuckle the time I took a standardized test and was so afraid that I would do so poorly that my smart friends would make fun of me, and then I inadvertently scored higher than anyone in my school had scored in years. I wonder what would have happened if I hadn't been scared of rejection. Hee.

I think being nice gave me a bit of an unrealistic view of myself and how I should interact with others. I thought I had to always defer to the needs of everyone else and that I had to prove perpetually and always that I was a "good" kid. It made it hard for me when I needed some space to figure things out, but didn't feel like I could ever be honest enough with my parents (or my friends!) to show my vulnerabilities. So I just weathered it alone most of the time.

Life was lonely and secret and motivated by a mix of generosity, kindness, secret failure, and overall a show of having things all together.

That's so gay

2007-03-01T18:34:00.000-05:00

I'm irritated. I've tried not to be, but it doesn't seem to be working. Watching the polls and pre-pre-pre-election info for the presidential race, I've seen that quite a few more people are willing to support a gay president than a Mormon president (although this statement combines two polls that didn't have comparable questions). Personally, I'm offended that anybody wouldn't want either kind of president because I think you should elect an official based on their character, policy, and leadership ability not on some ridiculous non-issue like religion or orientation. But the comparison does underline that it's becoming mighty unpopular to be Mormon these days, and apparently increasingly acceptable to be gay.

Well, if I can't have everything, I'll just be glad for the increased tolerance for gays.

But then I had to read the story about the Mormon girl disciplined for saying "that's so gay" in response to being teased about having 11 mothers. So, she was being harassed for being a Mormon, used an inappropriate come-back and lands in the principal's office being disciplined for her crimes while her provokers got off scot free. Hmmm.... Lawsuits and crankiness all around.

I don't think her behavior is acceptable, but I do think it's more likely that she was not being deliberately offensive than it is that the kids who were harassing her were not being deliberately offensive. Basically, it seems that the school's policy is that insulting/harassing Mormons is just fine and dandy, but insulting/harassing gays is hateful and borders on criminal.

Step 4: Truth

2007-02-28T17:37:00.000-05:00

I guess I'd better interrupt gushing about how great my life is for a little down-to-earth reality check. I still have my unresolved issues, and they're still waiting to be worked out. 2007 started out pretty great in terms of avoiding porn, but I'm by no means out of the woods. So, it's about time I got back to doing the 12 steps.

Step 4 calls for a "searching and fearless written inventory of your life." I've read the description several times detailing exactly what this is intended to mean and how to go about doing it, but I'm still at a loss. This blog would be the ideal place to do it, I suppose, if I hadn't connected my real identity with it (for at least a handful of people). Now, I'm afraid I can never quite write things 100% frankly because I'll always be subject to the self-consciousness that is a part of dignified human interaction.

But a searching and fearless life inventory is bound to have many stories, some of which are not inappropriate to share. I guess I'll blog the ones I can and keep quiet the ones I can't. It is a bit of a shame though to leave such an incomplete overall story to make it seem contrived.

My efforts to rid myself of pornography addiction seem pretty closely intertwined with my being gay. They are two separate issues, yes, but in me they seem to be related so intimately I can never quite think of them separately. So, I'm going to try over the next while to remember the things that have happened in my life to make me who I am, how I've reacted to them, what my motivations have been, etc. In figuring it out, I'll be one step closer, and I will presumably have a great deal more personal insight.

One glorious result of completing step 4 is that you take a major step toward freeing yourself from behaviors that defined your past. The reflection of yourself that you will see as you complete this step can inspire you to change the direction of your life if you will let it. Because of the love and grace of the Savior, you do not have to be what you have been. By calling on the Lord for guidance as you examine your life, you will come to recognize your experiences as learning opportunities. You will find that uncovering weaknesses you have suffered with for so long will allow you to move forward to a new life.

-Addiction Recovery Manual

To marry or not?

2007-02-27T15:18:00.000-05:00

I wrote this a long while ago, but thought it was relevant to a few things I've read by others recently, so I went ahead and busted it out of draft status:

I remember the ache in a deep place in my heart. I wanted to be married so badly. I felt alone and needed someone to love me unconditionally--not just as a friend.

I've always been one to make friends pretty easily. At least, the kind of friends who are well above "acquaintance" but not quite intimate enough to call on a moment's notice to demand a shoulder to cry on. They would have said yes, of course, but I'm not one to make myself so vulnerable... even if it means being miserable in my wallowing loneliness.

Amidst the misery and self-pity, I had little insight into the fact that I was gay. I mean, I knew it in some sense. But it didn't weigh in consciously as a factor in my everyday decisions. So I still dated as if I were straight. I found no girls to be particularly what I was looking for, but I had a lot of fun just the same. On the rare occasion that I could comprehend the fun simultaneously with the inadequacy of it all, I realized I was in deep trouble. Fun wasn't going to get me a soul mate. And the soul mates I wanted were unavailable to me (as men).

Finally I got some good advice from my brother. He's an ardent Mormon in the true sense--works for the church, loves it, gives everything he has to it. I explained to him that there was a girl I had a lot of fun with (and had for years), but that it just didn't seem to be romantic or sexual. It didn't seem to be enough. Now, I suspect that he might know about my gay feelings even though we've never discussed it. He suggested that I consider all my feelings for her and not demand that it be a perfect fit. We had a connection, he said, that he had seen first hand. If we were both committed to each other, to the gospel, and recognized that life wouldn't be perfect, we might be right for each other.

Ultimately, God knows what is best. I'm one who believes there is not just one person in the world right for me, but that I could be happy with many of them. So, I asked God if she was right for me and he gave an affirmative answer. This woman knew by this point that I was gay. She accepted me anyway. We had a long history that I had never had with any other woman. We had had a lot of fun over the years. I thought that we could make it work. But there was a still a reluctant part of me that wondered if there was someone better. Should I hold out or should I just settle? My pride got in the way and the issue was suddenly not about sexuality at all, it was about finding perfection rather than accepting the love that was right in front of me. She loved me. I knew that she did. And on reflection I knew that I loved her. But the fact that it was only a deliberative love, not an unreflective one, gave me a lot of concern.

It took me several years to finally mature to the point where I realized that love can be something you perfect over time, given the proper quality and a sufficient quantity of raw materials. My gay feelings would be an obstacle more obvious than those imperfect character qualities that everyone has to deal with in marriage. And yes, it's qualitatively different, but not unmanageably so. We've made it work. And we continue to make it work. And despite all the nay-sayers who refuse to give any validity to our testimonial because of our relatively young marriage (not quite 5 years), I'm 100% confident that we'll continue to make it work.

I've never been happier and my loneliness is gone. The work continues, certainly. It's not all automatic.

But it's real. It's not a sham marriage. Despite the charges that I'm deluding myself, that I'm in denial, that I'm just a few months from melt-down... it's absolutely wonderful.

So. To the person who recently asked for advice on how to tell his family to lay off a little with their advice, I'd say just listen and relax. They might actually have something of value to relate, even if they know nothing about your sexual situation. Don't assume you will or won't marry. Live and learn, and stay open to God and his miracles. In my mind, it can always go either way until you close the door with your own self-determination.

Unconquerable

2007-02-24T23:31:00.000-05:00

OUT of the night that covers me,
Black as the Pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.

In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.

Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds, and shall find, me unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.

Invictus
-William Ernest Henley

Too familiar perhaps? But I still love it.

Have you ever laid down at night and when your head hits the pillow you realize with sudden clarity that you were beyond tired but failed to notice it because you just kept moving anyway? I sometimes stop and ponder whether I don't realize I'm miserable because I've just been too acclimated to it--but if I only had a moment of real freedom and gay enjoyment I would realize how much of a sham my attempt at a conventional family has been. And then I laugh out loud at the absurdity. Don't get me wrong, you'll see plenty of melancholy posts pop out of this blog, but the balance of my current life has been no less than charmed.

I've heard people claim that marriages like mine are destined to either fail or be propagated by sheer force of will despite that everyone involved is utterly miserable. By "marriages like mine" I mean a straight marriage in which one partner is gay. -L- must be some care-worn and prematurely aged 30-ish guy who puts on a brave face and continues through the motions of existence with no passion, no love, and very little life left after caving to the unreasonable... nay, impossible... demands of the LDS church.

Makes me roll my eyes just to portray the caricature.

But, perhaps it's precisely because I'm willing to weather the bad times without promise of relief--even when they're a bit extended--that I can feel comfortable knowing I'm the captain of my fate and my family's, and the fate will ultimately be a good one. If I have to endure misery for the circumstances I've chosen, I will. I'll continue "bloody, but unbowed." But I have full confidence that 1) such misery will be temporary, and 2) it's not inevitable by any means. Enduring calculated discomfort may be the secret to success in life... and so I don't really want or need to avoid all the misery I might be subjected to; but I have every intention of bringing happiness to the amazing folks who find themselves in my small family.

525,600 minutes

2007-02-23T08:34:00.000-05:00

It's been a year since I first cracked my knuckles and hammered out a self-conscious, slightly ridiculous post. There have been over 200 since then, and things for me have (appropriately enough) changed.

I've used this blog as a kind of narrative therapy: not a therapeutic intervention that has been measured for this purpose ever before (to my knowledge), but an amazingly effective one from my experience nonetheless. My counseling visits were a good start, and I still endorse counseling, but this has given me a much more thorough method with which to explore my ideas, receive feedback, and deliberately shake down my issues. And I have the permanent records of the journey rather than someone whose relationship with me will be temporary. I've thought all along that if I force myself to read relevant books and really think about what they say, I might be getting better therapy than if I were sitting in an office rehearsing my life details to someone who doesn't know me. I'm ultimately in favor of a combo approach for now--counseling and blogging.

However, I can't unreservedly recommend blogging as narrative therapy because there are certain risks involved. I've been subjected to some harassment, minor really, and a smidgen of humiliation and misunderstanding now and then. It's a risk, I suppose, exposing one's thoughts to public scrutiny where all manner of anonymous nay-sayers get a full opportunity to scoff and scurry away.

The other risk I've noticed is less applicable to me (since I'm remotely located and anonymous), but ought to be mentioned just the same. While I've made many friends online (some of whom have become more conventional friends over time), I've also heard of folks who have gotten into trouble with other bloggers. I suppose there's something to be said for the value of choosing good influences online and being cautiously judicious just as we should elsewhere.

But overall the enterprise has been a successful one, I think. If a year is measured in love, it has been a red letter year for me. Past that, this blog has been themed with change. So, I suppose I ought to give an accounting of where I've been and where I want to go. I'm more knowledgeable, sensitive, and self-aware than I was a year ago. I'm more faithful too, somewhat surprisingly.

This year I need to continue some of the projects I've started--like the 12 step program posts and book club. Oh, and I should probably go back and label all those old posts from before the new blogger! Finally, I probably need to economize a bit in terms of how I spend my online time, so I apologize if I comment less.

Anyway, here's to my one year blogiversary and positive change!

Moment of unity

2007-02-22T10:53:00.000-05:00

I know it's not always too fun to read the lyrics or poetry that others think is great, but I can't help myself.

...

Let us live for the grace beneath all we want,
let us see it in everything and everyone,
till we admit to the mystery
that when I look deep enough into you,
I find me, and when you dare to hear my fear
in the recess of your heart, you recognize it
as your secret which you thought
no one else knew...

O let us embrace
that unexpected moment of unity
as the atom of God...
Let us have the courage
to hold each other when we break
and worship what unfolds...

O nameless spirit that is not done with us,
let us love without a net
beyond the fear of death
until the speck of peace
we guard so well
becomes the world...

From Earth Prayer

By Mark Nepo

Relationships

2007-02-21T09:29:00.000-05:00

The further I go in my journey, the more I realize that life is all about relationships. Being lonely sucks. Loving and being loved by lots of people is much better. Who knew?

I was thinking about this because of a recent post by Samantha Stevens, as well as conjecture about the status of David and Jonathan's relationship in the Bible, as well as the discussion of Lincoln's relationship with other men. I still hold to the idea that social influences have affected my sexuality and I wonder if difficulties in relationships have been central to the whole issue.

I can think of lots of great and fulfilling relationships I've had in my life. My relations with both parents have always been above average, I think. And I've never been at a loss for friends of some sort or another. However, I think I just have a particularly needy personality... the kind that needs more than just a few casual friends and an above average connection with family members. And I haven't always gotten what I need emotionally.

I suppose there are two ways to address an unmet need. You can reduce the need itself or you can satisfy it. I think over the last several years I've done a little of both, but it's not yet quite enough. Getting married was a risky way to accomplish both at once, I suppose. Loneliness is much less of a factor than it has been, but it's by no means gone.

I find myself trying to gratify my hunger for connections in some indirect ways. I think it may be one of the reasons I'm always looking for approval of some sort--awards, recognition, good evaluations... favorable comments. ;-) And more relevantly, I think it's part of why my brain now thinks it needs to own another man in some physical way.

Now I have enough life experience under my belt to see how my relationships have played out. The exposition is done, so to speak. I make lots of quick friends and then have trouble staying in touch or "letting them in" more than a little... which leaves me pretty lonely. On the relatively rare occasions I have really let some man in and become emotionally tied to them in a more significant way, things have become sexual (short of sex, but still sexual). How this has happened, considering the men in question have nearly all been straight is really baffling. It's been more than once, and even if they're gay, it's been a pattern of me being unable to have fulfilling and intimate relationships with men without sexualizing them (and them reciprocating to some degree).

Lincoln, I think, was able to be intimate with men without being sexual. David of the Bible was too. But, the difference between them and me is that I'm gay... and what I mean by that is that I tend to flounder in that circumstance where they thrive. Not that I support the culpable connotation of it, but I am without natural affection. I either defensively disengage from deeper friendships, or I make them sexual in my mind where it is unnecessary for them to be so.

Queer Lincoln?

2007-02-19T22:04:00.000-05:00

In honor of President's Day (I guess), I heard a story on the radio today about how Lincoln might have been gay. This conclusion was drawn mainly from letters and records that show Lincoln likely slept in the same bed with other men on occasion, and even said such things as "I love you" once in a while.

I think I'd rather be gay Lincoln style, and avoid the sex.

Unreflective love

2007-02-18T23:06:00.000-05:00

When I have fears that I may cease to be
Before my pen has glean'd my teeming brain,
Before high-piled books, in charact'ry,
Hold like rich garners the full-ripen'd grain;
When I behold, upon the night's starr'd face,
Huge cloudy symbols of a high romance,
And think that I may never live to trace
Their shadows, with the magic hand of chance;
And when I feel, fair creature of an hour!
That I shall never look upon thee more,
Never have relish in the faery power
Of unreflecting love! -- then on the shore
Of the wide world I stand alone, and think
Till Love and Fame to nothingness do sink.

-John Keats

I love this because, after years of dating women, I never found unreflective love to be possible. But after some lengthy deliberations, I found my love for one woman in particular was real: reflective or not. Now, I'm enchanted at times with the stomach spinning realization that unreflective love has blossomed from our shared destiny.

I love you.

Ella Wheeler Wilcox

2007-02-17T05:56:00.000-05:00

I like Wilcox because, like I mentioned in that last post, her poetry is easily accessible. I've had moments that may have been a Gethsemane of sorts for me. But sometimes I'm afraid that I have a lot more of Gethsemane to look forward to. Whatever comes, I'll survive.

Gethsemane

In golden youth when seems the earth
A Summer-land of singing mirth,
When souls are glad and hearts are light,
And not a shadow lurks in sight,
We do not know it, but there lies
Somewhere veiled under evening skies
A garden which we all must see -
The garden of Gethsemane.

With joyous steps we go our ways,
Love lends a halo to our days;
Light sorrows sail like clouds afar,
We laugh and say how strong we are.
We hurry on; and hurrying, go
Close to the border-land of woe,
That waits for you, and waits for me -
For ever waits Gethsemane.

Down shadowy lanes, across strange streams,
Bridged over by our broken dreams;
Behind the misty caps of years,
Beyond the great salt fount of tears,
The garden lies. Strive as you may,
You cannot miss it in your way.
All paths that have been, or shall be,
Pass somewhere through Gethsemane.

All those who journey, soon or late,
Must pass within the garden's gate;
Must kneel alone in darkness there,
And battle with some fierce despair.
God pity those who cannot say,
Not mine but thine, who only pray,
Let this cup pass, and cannot see
The purpose in Gethsemane.

There are certain aspects of SSA that have changed my life in ways that I wasn't expecting. Some of these accommodations are certainly such that I would not have otherwise chosen them. But I accept them now out of necessity... and it turns out I'm okay with that.

Necessity

Necessity, whom long I deemed my foe,
Thou cold, unsmiling, and hard-visaged dame,
Now I no longer see thy face, I know
Thou wert my friend beyond reproach or blame.

My best achievements and the fairest flights
Of my winged fancy were inspired by thee;
Thy stern voice stirred me to the mountain heights;
Thy importunings bade me do and be.

But for thy breath, the spark of living fire
Within me might have smouldered out at length;
But for thy lash which would not let me tire,
I never would have measured my own strength.

But for thine ofttimes merciless control
Upon my life, that nerved me past despair,
I never should have dug deep in my soul
And found the mine of treasures hidden there.

And though we walk divided pathways now,
And I no more may see thee, to the end,
I weave this little chaplet for thy brow,
That other hearts may know, and hail thee friend.

Sonnet

2007-02-16T13:01:00.000-05:00

O precious evenings! all too swiftly sped!
Leaving us heirs to amplest heritages
Of all the best thoughts of the greatest sages,
And giving tongues unto the silent dead!
How our hearts glowed and trembled as she read,
Interpreting by tones the wondrous pages
Of the great poet who foreruns the ages,
Anticipating all that shall be said!
O happy Reader! having for thy text
The magic book, whose Sibylline leaves have caught
The rarest essence of all human thought!
O happy Poet! by no critic vext!
How must thy listening spirit now rejoice
To be interpreted by such a voice!

-Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

I don't think a blog is much of a "voice" for poetry per se, but poetry within the context of people's lives takes on a special voice in my view. I've never been a huge fan of poetry, but I do find that some poems are amazingly powerful in their simplicity. If they teach me something about myself, all the better. I like the ones that aren't so pretentious--that are accessible. It's the really weird poetry that turns me off, so I just avoid it usually. But I don't mind reaching out once in a while to try something new.

If, of thy mortal goods, thou art bereft,
And from thy slender store two loaves alone to thee are left,
Sell one and from the dole,
Buy Hyacinths to feed the soul

-Muslihuddin Sadi

Poetry is an online hyacinth... and no loaf selling is necessary.

A beautiful day

2007-02-15T08:15:00.000-05:00

After a hefty amount of snow, a near death experience on the freeway, and a run of sub-zero temperatures... today is gorgeous.

It reminds me that life cycles. Things don't stay the same for very long. I'd like my moody oscillations to trend up overall, though, and luckily, I think I'm being successful in that. I've still had my requisite ups and downs for the last several weeks and months, but overall there's a placid background of contentment... something I never really had a few years back.

It's likely that I'll hit some pretty low lows in the not so distant future. That's just life's way. So, I try to remind myself to be prepared for when they come. I try to ground myself with a constant awareness of what is most important to me in my life and where I want to find myself and my family next year, in five years, in thirty years...

And thirty years from now it's unlikely I'll remember this day at all. But it will have made me (in part) into whatever I will have become. And for that I'm very grateful for the beauty and the serenity of today.

Gilmore Gripe

2007-02-14T09:57:00.001-05:00

I can't stand Gilmore Girls this season. Or last season, really.

I think my problem is just that the characters and plot have become constrained for the purpose of extending the romantic tension. Luke and Loralei were so close to getting married, and everyone was so happy that she could finally have a bit of happiness from life, and so the writers had to sit down and come up with a way to destroy it all so that they could keep the show alive and kicking for a few more seasons.

Not having any actual good ideas, they went with the spiral of stupidity and unbelievable plot twists we've seen for the last couple seasons.

The thing about last night's show that was believable but still ridiculous and sad was when Loralei and Christopher were talking about their marriage and decided it just wasn't going to work out. They had a problem--and in my opinion it was a completely superficial and incidental problem--and they were incapable of trusting one another and moving on. They had to second guess each other until they made the rift between themselves transform from imagined to real. They chose to walk away.

This makes me want to swear a little bit.

I know that the show is designed for Loralei and Luke to be the favored couple. But inconveniently, that didn't work out and Loralei married Christopher. That should be the end. Marriage is a promise. And it was based on real love, in my opinion. Loralei and Christopher have loved each other for decades. And then when something makes it complicated, Loralei looks for advice from Suki (naturally, as best friends) but doesn't even bother to consider counseling! How can she not read my blog and know that everyone should get relationship counseling!

It's just so ridiculous. Can real people be so stupid? Wait, don't answer that.

So, here's a note of gratitude to a woman who has weathered much worse, is way more clever than Loralei, and always manages to rest comfortably in our permanent mutual commitment to one another. Oh, and she's hotter than Loralei too.

I love ya, babe. Have a Happy Valentine's Day.

My valentine

2007-02-09T18:04:00.000-05:00

What does a guy do for the most amazing woman in the world for Valentine's Day? Please keep in mind that the guy is dirt poor... and busy... and not terribly creative about such things.

I've seen all the crap people buy, and that's just not our style. But I would like to do something special. I might even pony up some cash in a completely unprecedented show of spendthrift indulgence and get a really nice piece of jewelry.

But even then, it would be nice to give it to her in a creative way. And some of the readers here are particularly creative, so I'm petitioning for your advice (or stories of things you've been impressed with before).

Rational faith 5: Wrap up

2007-02-07T21:31:00.000-05:00

While I was writing one of my previous posts, a resident I work with asked me what I was doing. I explained that I write a blog and that I was currently writing about science and religion. He recommended a recent article in Time magazine, so I had a look.

The article includes an interview with Francis Collins, the guy who headed the human genome project. Dr. Collins is actually sort of a hero of mine. I had the chance to meet him at the NIH a while back during a meeting for physician scientists. He was so approachable and happy, I just wish I had the opportunity to be his friend on an ongoing basis.

Anyway, I was happy to see him featured in an article in Time and taking a position similar to mine from the last several posts. Here are a few quotes from the article:

TIME: Dr. Collins, you believe that science is compatible with Christian faith.

COLLINS: Yes. God's existence is either true or not. But calling it a scientific question implies that the tools of science can provide the answer. From my perspective, God cannot be completely contained within nature, and therefore God's existence is outside of science's ability to really weigh in.

...

DAWKINS: I think that's the mother and father of all cop-outs. It's an honest scientific quest to discover where this apparent improbability comes from. Now Dr. Collins says, "Well, God did it. And God needs no explanation because God is outside all this." Well, what an incredible evasion of the responsibility to explain. Scientists don't do that. Scientists say, "We're working on it. We're struggling to understand."

...

DAWKINS: ... It would be unseemly for me to enter in except to suggest that he'd save himself an awful lot of trouble if he just simply ceased to give them the time of day. Why bother with these clowns?

COLLINS: Richard, I think we don't do a service to dialogue between science and faith to characterize sincere people by calling them names. That inspires an even more dug-in position. Atheists sometimes come across as a bit arrogant in this regard, and characterizing faith as something only an idiot would attach themselves to is not likely to help your case.

Collins acknowledges what I believe as well: science is inadequate for answering questions about God. He shows that a brilliant scientist can believe in God and science simultaneously. And Dawkins demonstrates the disdain of certain non-believers who seem to not only disagree with the idea of religion, but resent it. I'll stop short of writing an extended review of his comments (and tone) in the article.

I did have a few more thoughts I wanted to put in this series, but I'm sick of it now. Some other time I'll post those other thoughts on their own. I may not have persuaded anybody that I'm not brainwashed, but it was a great exercise to really look inside myself and realize why I believe as firmly as I do in the gospel even while aware of so-called anti-Mormon points of view. I'm very happy with my current level of testimony and understanding and look forward to a life of learning and growing.

Index to series:
Rational faith 1: Science
Rational faith 2: Spirituality
Rational faith 3: Grand unifying theory
Rational faith 4: Creative calculus

Rational faith 4: Creative calculus

2007-02-06T16:54:00.000-05:00

In trying to understand how to value both spiritual and scientific information, I've found the following analogy helpful.

I think everyone in the world is constantly engaged in assessing what is likely to be true, and the assessment is the sum of calculations our mind is constantly performing in the background. It's as if reality is a mathematical function of endless complexity that includes erratic twists and turns when graphed on a Cartesian plane. From the moment we're born, as humans, we gather bits and pieces of information and incorporate them as variables into our own equation that approximates that graph of real reality. The more successfully we are able to match our conception of reality with actual reality, the more empowered we become.

Early on we realize that our variables must be weighted with a relevant coefficient to achieve the best results. Certain pieces of information are deemed reliable and others are judged to be anomalous and are consequently given a low coefficient. We learn to be alternately skeptical and trusting in certain circumstances. We solve parts of the overall equation all the time, compartmentalizing and simplifying the data we have to keep in mind on an ongoing basis. Occasionally we find a clever way to resolve a set of variables that others may miss. It's natural and inevitable that variables drop out over time, either by being incorporated into some larger statement, or from being relegated to the distant past of forgotten experience.

We also have the opportunity to get huge swaths of the equation second-hand from parents and teachers. We can plug this data into our equation to see if it works, or add the information piece by piece based on our own experiences.

There is an inevitable challenge in managing this equation. Some previously resolved portion of the formula eventually ends up contradicting another. There's a division by zero, of sorts. Sometimes when this happens, you can go back and check the math, but that can be entirely impractical for sections of the formula that have incorporated hundreds of thousands of variables over years.

So, we add coefficients. We fudge. And I think we all do this out of necessity. We choose to devalue certain pieces of information to a fraction of their original value because they come into direct conflict with other more powerfully verified portions of the formula. The effort is always to judge rationally which terms carry more collective weight, which have more collective evidence. In really troubling instances, spot checks help sort out the facts. But often there are is no apparent way out of the mess despite that plenty in the peanut gallery claim a certain way to be the only legitimate one--and they frequently don't agree with each other.

The art of life, in my opinion, is learning how to best manage the whole enterprise. We all do it whether we realize it or not--it's just part of life as a biological creature. We assign coefficients to the evidence that presents itself in the cleverest way possible. Ideally we learn how to efficiently secure solved portions of the equation with the highest relevance and value. Life is about finding balance.

Some get carried away inflating the value of some information while zeroing out others. A piece of information zeroed out for its incompatibility with some other weighty established phrase may seem inconsequential alone, but if enough data is neglected serially over a long period of time, the person has managed to deceive himself thoroughly. It is this self-deception that many attribute to people of faith.

Another self-deception happens when new information is given higher credibility than old merely because of it's immediacy on the mind. Years of experience corroborated with a steady stream of consistent information is thrown away in an instant because of some plausible new bit at odds. Certain significant memories of a more ethereal character are more likely to be forgotten. They have to be vigilantly kept in the fore-front to be kept at all.

On the other hand, some people try admirably to keep all the data unmodified, accepting only raw information of the most demonstrable nature as legitimate. This approach is wonderfully successful for filling in certain parts of the graph, but is too inefficient to cover much and largely neglects certain key portions of the graph.

Being fully aware of the aforementioned limitations and pitfalls, I sit perched with my number two pencil and my sheet of graph paper wondering how best to tackle the variables I've assembled. I decide to compartmentalize where possible, and address the data by prioritizing by urgency, importance, and purpose. The process perpetuates itself as solved portions of the equation cast new light on previously obscure variables. In this way I'm persuaded by preliminary results that hope, when used judiciously, can sometimes be a legitimate coefficient. I'm persuaded that observance of certain rituals and covenants has surprising power, while others are silly or harmful. I'm persuaded that Occam's razor isn't always the final word.

The fact that I believe in free will leads me to believe that how I manage the effort will be an expression of who I am most fundamentally. Plunging the depth and breadth, traversing the whole while scooping up critical minutia here and there--it's all an art, a rewarding enterprise, and an expression of my soul.

Index to series:
Rational faith 1: Science
Rational faith 2: Spirituality
Rational faith 3: Grand unifying theory
Rational faith 4: Creative calculus
Rational faith 5: Wrap up

Rational faith 3: Grand unifying theory

2007-02-05T09:23:00.000-05:00

The conflict between science and religion is a cliché. It's there demanding to be addressed by anyone who values them both but notes the inconsistencies. Ezra Taft Benson said:

Religion and science have sometimes been in apparent conflict. Yet, the conflict can only be apparent, not real, for science seeks truth, and true religion is truth. There can never be conflict between true religion and scientific fact. That they have occupied different fields of truth is a mere detail. True religion accepts and embraces all truth; science is slowly expanding her arms and reaching into the invisible domain, in search of truth. The two are meeting daily; science as a child; true religion as the mother. Truth is truth, whether labeled science or religion. "Truth is knowledge of things as they are, as they were, and as they are to come" (D&C 93:24). Truth is always consistent. It can never be in conflict with itself.

This is a quote explaining an idea I've long been fond of. It jives with my sense that there's Truth out there with a capital T, objective reality plugging along despite our inability to pin it all down. I love the idea that ultimately there are answers for everything... things work. Proving existence of objective reality is burdensome (and somewhat ridiculous), so I just start with confidence in Benson's notion here.

However, the problem with interpreting Benson's quote is that it may tempt us to try to reconcile faith and religion now, as if we have the means to do so. This effort has been made in the past with some unfortunate outcomes. Churches have dictated what science is allowed to do, and dictated "truths" about the universe based on a presumptive reading of scripture. I'm of the opinion (and I think history supports me on this) that that's a bad way to go about things. I'm a resolute opponent of Intelligent Design masquerading as science, for example.

I see science and spirituality as two separate but effective ways of learning. They teach us about different things and we will be wise to use them only as directed. Science works terrifically for advancing temporal causes, but using it for spiritual pursuits is something like building a tower of Babel or seeking signs. That's not to say that reason isn't central, because I think it is inseparable from a genuine testimony, but the effort to prove religious principles can be antithetical to portions of the plan of salvation.

Similarly, intuition and unfounded confidence have to be checked in science. There's room for creativity and fresh ideas, but when it comes down to testing a hypothesis, aberrancies are wrought out and destroyed, precision is pursued with alacrity, and confounders are battled with vigilance. Holding on to any biases not supported by verifiable data is counter-productive. And, as I mentioned before, using doctrines or religious tenets anywhere in the scientific process is a bad idea.

Despite their differences, the effectiveness of both science and spirituality for their respective purposes is undeniable in my mind. As my previous two posts attest, they both work really well for me. It's just the inappropriate inter-mingling of the two methods that causes problems. Just as one should not combine the theory of relativity and quantum physics, the two systems of thought can't be mixed without coming up with some absurdities.

Is there a way to use both together to build a unified world view? Where's the grand unifying theory of science and religion? I'm working on my own version, but it has its problems. I do believe that some such combined world view is possible without resorting to being irrational. Perhaps it won't be provable (just as string theory attempts to reconcile relativity and quantum physics but can't be proved without a particle accelerator the size of a gallaxy) but that lack of proof won't make it automatically irrational.

Next time: my effort at a rational and faith-accommodating world view.

Index to series:
Rational faith 1: Science
Rational faith 2: Spirituality
Rational faith 3: Grand unifying theory
Rational faith 4: Creative calculus
Rational faith 5: Wrap up

Rational faith 2: Spirituality

2007-02-03T00:29:00.000-05:00

Despite the undeniable utility of scientific inquiry, it is largely inadequate to answer spiritual questions-questions that are arguably the most important ones we face. While science can tell me how best to reach a certain objective or what to expect from the natural world, it can't transcend the natural world to provide answers about meaning and purpose.

This observation is no indictment of science. It's just how things are. If we trace back natural laws to moments after the Big Bang, we find that they suddenly fail to hold. Laws we typically accept as fact are broken, it seems. We can no longer use our conventional tools to answer important questions. What was before the big bang? What is smaller than a quark (or insert the latest vogue subatomic particle)? What is past the edge of the universe? ... all seem out of reach. Even granting the theoretical ability to answer those specific questions, there will ALWAYS be something out of provable reach, as Gödel has gone ahead and shown. Let me say it again: on the most fundamental level, there will always be something just out of the reach of observation, measurement, and even logic.

One may choose to be satisfied with these limitations, but I'm prone to believe that there is a fully spiritual aspect to my humanity, and that addressing it may transcend those limitations. Maybe it just requires a different approach. I hunger for meaning and spiritual knowledge. How I find that spiritual information is still subject to rational processes but is not subject to all the assumptions of science (and therefore may not be subject to all its limitations).

Many are quick to point to the widely disparate conclusions drawn by those pursuing spirituality. They conclude that none of those spiritual views have any merit over the others. This is invalid. I believe that some spiritual conclusions are right, and some are wrong. Some are incomplete or inferior. And some are supernal and real. Faulting spirituality for its non-demonstrable nature shows a misunderstanding of the rules of the game, and denying that reason plays a role is equally incorrect. We ought to have respect for differing views without accepting them all as having equal merit. Some spiritual views are irrational, yes. But calling all spirituality irrational is a fallacy of generalization.

There are admittedly many perils inherent in any subjective process, but those perils can take you in opposite directions. I've met folks who interpret Mary's face on a piece of toasted cheese to be a sign from God, and although I can't rule that out, I agree with those who note such random "signs" will happen with certain regularity over time based on probability alone. On the other hand, categorically dismissing spirituality as the result of misinterpretation of coincidence in all cases is unjustified. A rational person will recognize that the existence of such misinterpretation and coincidence does not rule out the discovery of genuine spiritual information in some cases. That is, there are both real and mistaken spiritual experiences, and one's discovery of the existence of the latter shouldn't lead one to fallaciously generalize all spiritual experiences by all people to that group.

The notion that an all-powerful Father in Heaven has created this universe and our souls for purposes that can only be partially represented to our mortal minds as "joy" and "exaltation" establishes a framework from which to understand our spiritual world. The scenario is fleshed out quite reasonably and rationally with an explanation that God's interactions with man are limited and indirect because those circumstances are necessary for development of a righteous will and maturation of a divine nature. Further, the idea that God provides information through a nuanced combination of personal revelation and authoritative messengers makes a lot of sense.

Spiritual inquiry necessarily uses reason and logic, but expands acceptable working data past what is reproducible and demonstrable. Clinical trials and retrospective analysis are key for discovering and believing what can't be overtly proven (and must therefore be based on faith). But the data turned up by such analysis can only be personally appreciated, and may therefore get a lot of scorn from those who have had a vastly different personal spiritual experience and have no context to appreciate an individual's specifics.

Spiritual truths are most immediately meaningful for what they tell us about living life abundantly, finding joy, and being filled with other divine attributes like love. Spiritual inquiry, because of its subjective nature, is often condemned for its non-reproducibility. But this non-reproducibility is expected within the context of a personal spiritual journey in which transcendental truths are available on a need-to-know-when-you're-ready basis. So, ultimately, it comes down to each individual and his or her own experience. And my experience tells me that spiritual inquiry has been extremely successful in my life in providing meaning and purpose. It has been extremely successful in making the people I admire into the people that they are. It has been extremely successful in predicting what will make me happy and help me flourish. Basically, I like spiritual inquiry because it works really well.

Index to series:
Rational faith 1: Science
Rational faith 2: Spirituality
Rational faith 3: Grand unifying theory
Rational faith 4: Creative calculus
Rational faith 5: Wrap up

Rational faith 1: Science

2007-02-01T21:56:00.000-05:00

Those who practiced medicine many decades ago eventually realized that anecdotal evidence just isn’t as helpful as repeatable experiments that give consistent results. Where herb poultices and leeches had occasionally cured certain maladies (and inadvertently caused others), understanding pathophysiology helped invent and direct more reliable cures. We’ve moved toward understanding things and proving things rather than occasionally lucky stabs in the dark. Now, it seems, you can’t even apply common sense to medical problems without conducting multi-phase clinical trials to prove what everyone thought was right from the beginning. This is because evidence-based medicine has been extremely effective in treating disease, so it’s thankfully here to stay.

Science is the system of determining facts about the world through an objective process of measurement. At least, that’s how I think of it. The measurements have to be similar when done by different people at different times, and the facts apply only to conditions unique to the experiment. Testing hypotheses in this way has proven to be a hugely successful way of generating information.

Add on a little math and/or logic, and you can extrapolate facts from other facts. If this experiment shows us this, and this experiment shows us this, we can conclude that this third experiment would result in this, even though actually conducting such an experiment may be impossible. Through rational thought, we move forward.

And thus we have the Internet, antibiotics, space shuttles, etc. Go team.

Unfortunately, the progress from simple direct experiments like Mendel’s pea plants to sophisticated nano-scaled machines means that most of us are just going to have to accept most of science on faith. We can’t know it all for ourselves because the existing body of knowledge is too broad and too deep. The minutia of technology and the esoteric nature of sub-specialized fields of expertise mean that I’m obliged to sit here and happily type my blog without giving a second thought to how it all works. From the binary code of the software to the physics of electricity to the economics of free web-based services, I have no choice but to trust that people have this stuff figured out, and my trust is rewarded with results.

Unfortunately, faith in science can be misplaced. We resident doctors hash out the specific details of scientific papers all the time as a part of our training. In “Journal Clubs” we dissect journal articles to find flaws in their methodology, their study design, and the conclusions they claim to have reached. Contrast this with the press, who often not only fail to question the actual plausibility of a study’s findings but often overstate the conclusion and give the public a completely false impression that some ridiculous idea has been “proven by scientists.”

There are occasional mistakes that take scientists down a false path for a long time before realizing the error. Unfortunately, some errors are deliberately propagated by those who are trying to sell something, both material and ideological. Either way, don’t ever assume that something claimed on “scientific” grounds is a sure thing. Your trust is probably well-placed, but not necessarily.

The good news is that poor science, even the most esoteric kind, is likely to be eventually uncovered. But it’s uncovered by the folks who take the time to really understand the data, not by the peanut gallery who scoff at the unfamiliar. The scoffing is just noise.

My brain has gone all over the place now, and you just have to stay tuned to see why I even wrote this post. There’s no denying that a systematic, ordered approach to demonstrating what we don’t yet know has taken us amazing places--even in my life time. I like science, logic, and rationality, because they work really well.

Index to series:
Rational faith 1: Science
Rational faith 2: Spirituality
Rational faith 3: Grand unifying theory
Rational faith 4: Creative calculus
Rational faith 5: Wrap up

Book club, Feb

2007-01-31T21:52:00.000-05:00

I like movies for book club. They are short and sweet. :-)

There are several books I'm still interested in reading that lost previous months' club polls, but it's probably better to start from a clean slate. Anyone want to nominate a book?

I'm still interested in non-fiction titles. There are books by Byrd and Schow that I've mentioned wanting to read some time. There are books by general authorities that I think would be faith building and fun to read. There are always your Pulitzer prize books that are just plain hearty reading. We could read poetry...

I'm open for anything.

Rules

2007-01-30T16:26:00.000-05:00

It's going to be a rehash, probably. I've already mused about R rated movies and the pros and cons of following strict guidelines vs. the "spirit of the law". But watching States of Grace brought the subject back to mind again.

A powerful line in the movie was when Elder Farrell was reluctant to take Louis into their apartment and Elder Lozano says, "Do you want to follow the rules or follow the commandments?" Here's a place where there seems to be no room for argument. Disregarding the rules seems to be unavoidable to really be a follower of Christ.

Later in the film, after Elder Farrell had sex, I couldn't help but imagine to myself that the course of events that led to him being enamored with Holly all started because they disregarded the rules. Had they not started having roof-top family dinners and hanging out with Louis and Holly (Elder Lozano mainly talking with Louis and Elder Farrell left essentially alone for romantic heart-to-hearts with Holly), it probably wouldn't have happened.

I can already imagine some consternation... "What do you want them to do, L? Leave Louis in the street to freeze to death? Oh, yeah, murder's a lot better than losing your chastity!" But, my point is precisely that they could have kept the rules and still rescued Louis. Rationalizing things here and there leaves us open to embracing false dilemmas when we're not paying attention. They could have had him in the house that night, then found an alternative arrangement when he was better... or gotten permission... or called an ambulance... or whatever.

Ought one to follow or be self-sufficient in winging it? Are there ever any really easy answers?