Aligning Our Lives with Reality

 In the most recent general conference, Elder Joseph W. Sitati of the seventy said that "the onset of day and night is one daily reminder of realities that govern our lives that we cannot change. When we respect and align what we do with these eternal realities, we experience internal peace and harmony. When we don’t, we are unsettled, and things do not work as we expect."

 I think it's safe to say that our orientation is one of those realities in our lives that we cannot change.  So we need to respect an align our lives with this reality so that we can experience internal peace and harmony.  If the church requires us to do otherwise, we will be unsettled, and things won't work as expected.  Is it any wonder that so many LGBTQ+ members are feeling so unsettled in the church?

Tradition of Their Fathers

In section 93 of the Doctrine and Covenants, the Lord sets out His definition of truth, and the way to enlightenment and receiving of the fullness of the Father.  But then He gives a warning in verse 39.

"And that wicked one cometh and taketh away light and truth, through disobedience, from the children of men, and because of the tradition of their fathers."

I think it's fascinating that disobedience is only one of the ways we can be cut off from light and truth.  The other is the tradition of our fathers.  What traditions do we perpetuate that keep us from light and truth?  I propose that there are many.  Ideas of racial superiority/inferiority certainly apply here.  Traditions of slavery.  Traditions of women be subject to men, or even the property of men, definitely count.  These traditions are so strong that they have become part of scripture -- particularly the Law of Moses in the Old Testament and the epistles in the New Testament.  As the church has slowly shed these traditions, we have become more open to receiving light and truth from the Savior.

I believe that the ban on gay marriage may be another of our traditions that may be keeping us from light and truth.  The only places in the scriptures that proscribe homosexuality are in the Law of Moses and the epistles.  It's not even mentioned in the gospels, or anywhere in the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, or the Pearl of Great Price.  And even where it is mentioned in the Bible, it's talking of gay promiscuity, not gay marriage.  Heterosexual promiscuity is also proscribed.

Could our opposition to gay marriage be keeping us from light and truth?  It seems to come from the tradition of our fathers, and not from scripture.

An Allegory

I recall hearing an interview with a paraplegic individual who was asked if they would like to turn back time and prevent the issue that caused their disability.  Their response was that while they would love to be healed, if the cost was to forget all the lessons they learned, it wouldn't be worth it.  The person they became was deeply intertwined with their experiences in overcoming their challenges, and they wouldn't want to lose who they became.

I feel similar in many ways.  The person I am has been greatly influenced by my experiences and overcoming my challenges and hardships.  I love my amazing wife and my wonderful children and I wouldn't want to give them up, or lose the lessons I learned along the way.  But taking the paraplegic analogy a little further, I never lost the use of my legs -- rather I was not allowed to use them.  I was required to either to live life in a wheelchair and let my legs atrophy despite their being perfectly healthy, or to leave my community -- alienate myself from my friends and family.  I think that's an apt description of what it feels like being a member of the Church of Jesus Christ, yet having a gay orientation.

Scriptures Out of Context

Sometimes it's interesting to take scriptures a little out of context and look at what they say.  These scriptures were generally written for a straight audience, and when we add the gay context, based on what the church teaches, it changes.

Mixed Messages

One of the goals I hope the church has is that they don't make second class citizens of any of their members.  Somehow there needs to be consistency in the way that everyone is treated.  But messages in For the Strength of Youth and also in the way the CES Honor Code is enforced tend to make second class citizens of their non-straight youth and members.

Let me explain.  The message to the straight youth is basically that things like holding hands, hugging, and things like that among boyfriend/girlfriend pairs and even occasional kissing is fine as long as it is kept chaste.  Save the heavier stuff for when you are married and you're great.  But if you're gay, well, any affection expressed at all is against the law of chastity.  The message, even if it's not meant that way, is basically that if you show affection toward those who you are attracted to, you've already broken the law of chastity.  The logical continuation is that since the law has already been broken, there's not really any incentive to avoid continuing on to the hot and heavy stuff.

So the Law of Chastity doesn't mean the same thing to straight vs. gay members.  Second class citizens.

Or worse, when the doctrinal mastery scripture is invoked -- the natural man is an enemy to God.  Gay kids need to choose to reject their nature.  People's misuse of that scripture can imply that straight members aren't enemies to God like gay members are.  See?  Second class citizens.

The question that church leaders need to ask is how the church can comply with God's insistence that He is no respecter of persons.  Because the current policies of the church tend (intentionally or not) to lead to different standards for different citizens of the kingdom.

Avoid the Appearance of Sin

There is a strong emphasis given by church leaders to avoid even the appearance of sin, and members take this very much to heart, sometimes to the exclusion of showing Christlike love.  I mentioned that in my last post, and it was brought to my attention that people may not understand what I mean.  So let me provide an example.

Suppose a member of the church admits to a second member that their orientation is gay.  The first question the second member asks is "but you surely don't act on it, do you?".  The church has a policy that a gay orientation is not a sin, only acting on it is.  So that second member is deciding how to interact with the first based on whether or not they are sinning.  That second member wants to make it abundantly clear that they don't approve of sin.  It can seem so important to them to make sure nobody thinks they approve of sinning that they make sure that anyone who knows they befriended the first member also knows that the first member was not acting on their orientation.

Do we do this with other sins?  When we interact with other members, do we make sure to let them know that our member friends do actually obey the word of wisdom?  If a friend introduces their spouse and children, do we ask whether the children were born in wedlock so we can properly make it known that we disapprove of having children out of wedlock?

Avoiding the appearance of sin is important.  We should not be skirting the line, pretending for social reasons that we are happy to share a drink with friends even if we slyly avoid actually drinking.  Taking a bold stand is good.  But that's dealing with our own choices.  When we take it to the extreme of shunning others to appear to disapprove of sin, then we are out of line with the teachings of the Savior.

Raw Honesty

Before I begin, let me make one thing clear.  I love my wife and my family and I do not want to do anything to lose them.  That being said, life can be very difficult.  I feel the desire for the romantic love of another man every single day.  It's something that remains painfully unfulfilled in my psyche and I have no hope of ever being able to fill that void.

Why, you may ask, would I choose to go the route that I did?  I had male friends my age who left the church to satisfy their desire to develop relationships with other men.  I have friends and family recently who, despite not being gay themselves, have left the church because of its stand against gay marriage.  Believe me, I get it.  I feel it every...single...day.  It doesn't go away.

I choose to stay in the church because I have had powerful spiritual experiences from a very young age.  I'm not talking about some burning in the bosom.  It's not something that was prompted by a church lesson or a leader.  It was just me pleading with the Lord.  And my prayers were answered in a powerful way.  I know the church is Christ's.  But it's still so hard.

The church doesn't minister to me.  How can it?  I can't tell them about my struggles because I fear the judgments of the members.  My ministering brothers occasionally might ask how I'm doing and I tell them I'm fine.  What else could I say?  But I feel extremely lonely.  Who else living in this sphere can I confide in?  I can talk about it with my wife, but not really with anyone else.  And as much as I feel loved and supported by her, it's hard to feel truly understood.

And there's nobody else.

Am I the only one?  I can't imagine that I'm this rare special flower and there's almost nobody like me.  But those who are like me are probably just as secretive.  So the church can't minister to them, either.  As long as there is such a powerful stigma against gay oriented people in the church, it will fail at its mandate to minister to the members who need it.  As long as the rhetoric is so much on avoiding the appearance of evil at the expense of lifting the hands that hang down, the church will fail its gay oriented members. 

We are here, but nobody wants to know.  We have testimonies of the divinity of the work.  We want to help build the church.  But we can't let anyone know about our struggles.

The Family Proclamation

I'd like to carefully read the proclamation on the family one paragraph at a time.  My aim is not some authoritative interpretation but an attempt to examine my current thoughts about it.

1.  We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.

This seems fairly obvious.  This is a main point of church doctrine that refutes some ideas in many Christian traditions that marriage is lesser than celibacy.   Families are more important.

2.  All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.

This one is interesting.  It's about gender identity.  Gender extends to the spirit world.  We know that this world is imperfect and flawed.   There are definitely cases of physiological gender ambiguity, and that means that spiritual gender does not always translate perfectly to birth gender.  So it seems to me that it's possible that there could be mismatches between birth gender and physical gender.  Maybe this could be one cause of gender dysphoria.

3.  In the premortal realm, spirit sons and daughters knew and worshipped God as their Eternal Father and accepted His plan by which His children could obtain a physical body and gain earthly experience to progress toward perfection and ultimately realize their divine destiny as heirs of eternal life. The divine plan of happiness enables family relationships to be perpetuated beyond the grave. Sacred ordinances and covenants available in holy temples make it possible for individuals to return to the presence of God and for families to be united eternally.

This is pretty straightforward explanation of doctrine.  It's unfortunate that many people have been denied the blessings of temple ordinances for a variety of reasons.  Life's unfair that way.  But if life were always fair, we wouldn't have to learn patience and longsuffering, and thus wouldn't be able to become like our Father in Heaven.  And in the end, everyone will have ample opportunities, even if they are denied in the short term.

4.  The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.

This is the first paragraph that deals directly with the Law of Chastity.  I noticed that it is worded to make sure plural marriage is not disallowed.  There is ample evidence in the scriptures that chastity is extremely important to Christ, and those that feel the church should "stay out of the bedroom" haven't carefully studied Christ's teachings.  However, the "only between man and woman" part is modern doctrine, or at least newly explained policy.  The references to homosexuality in the Bible are all in places where cultural context makes their modern applicability questionable.  And there are no references to homosexuality at all in the other standard works.  Either homosexuality is a new problem that didn't exist back then or the Lord didn't feel it was important enough to comment on it in the past, which is possible.  It could be a misinterpretation, or possibly it's just a doctrine for today.  The word of wisdom is such a doctrine, as there is nothing inherently immoral about drinking alcohol.  Christ himself drank wine.  The word of wisdom is a commandment for our day, given "In consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days."  In all honesty, the commandment against homosexuality feels more like the ban on those of African heritage from holding the Priesthood than an eternal doctrine.  Maybe it could be lifted.  I don't know.  Even if it is lifted, the Law of Chastity would still be in force and proscribe sex outside of marriage.

5.  We declare the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed. We affirm the sanctity of life and of its importance in God’s eternal plan.

This is an important distinction of doctrine, because it flies in the face of much of traditional Christianity where sexual intercourse is vilified and marriage is a punishment for those who don't practice celibacy.  The phrase "born in sin" is usually a reference to this tradition.

6.  Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. “Children are an heritage of the Lord” (Psalm 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, and to teach them to love and serve one another, observe the commandments of God, and be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations.

If parents bring children into the world, they have an obligation to provide for them, not just physically but also emotionally, socially, intellectually, and spiritually.   The neglect of these obligations is morally reprehensible.  Parents of LGBTQ+ children are not excepted from this duty.

7.  The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities. By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.

I mean, if children are important and chastity is important, marriages between men and women are rather essential.  However, there are many couples who are incapable of having children.  Their marriages shouldn't be relegated to side-note status.  Ideally, children will be born to parents who are faithful to each other and care for their needs.  But in this fallen world, there are broken marriages, orphans, neglected children, etc.  Single parents, adoptive parents, and other alternate care-giving situations deserve strong support from members of the church if the well-being of children is truly valued.

8.  We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

Again, parents of LGBTQ+ children who fail in their obligation to care for those children will stand accountable before God.  The breakdown of the family is of definite concern to members of the church, but I think it's easy to be distracted by the "gay marriage movement."  That movement does little to contribute to the breakdown of the family as compared to things like children being born outside of marriage, spousal abuse, spousal infidelity, and other such problems.  Yet the first thing I often hear about in Elder's Quorum when the breakdown of the family is mentioned is gay marriage.

9.  We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.

I am wholly behind strengthening families, as they are the fundamental unit of society.

In general, the family proclamation is very reasonable and a succinct statement on the value placed on families by the church.  I question the focus put on fighting gay marriage, but I see where it is coming from.  In many eyes, couples living together having children outside of marriage is remediable simply by encouraging them to get married, so it's seen as not as bad as gay marriage; but I think that's misguided because of the propensity for children to be harmed in the former rather than the latter.

Members who use the proclamation as their reason for opposing gay marriage need to read the whole document and take a look at where their efforts would be best used.  Activism against "abuse [of] spouse or offspring" gets short shrift compared to the efforts of members decrying homosexuality, and that's too bad.

Chastity

I know some people feel that the law of chastity is a form of bondage.  But for those who think that the church should abandon it, don't hold your breath.  It's not going to happen.  That's as much a part of religion as "Thou shalt not steal."

When it comes to confirmed doctrine, chastity is right up there near the top.  However, there is not much doctrinally about homosexuality.  It shows up a couple of times in the Bible, but only in context with things that aren't doctrinal.  It doesn't show up in the Book of Mormon or other canonical scripture at all.

Is it possible that gay marriage and the modern model of homosexuality could be compatible with the law of chastity?  Culturally, our model of homosexuality is deeply entwined with the "free love" movement that came to prominence in the 60s and 70s.  That is rather antithetical to the law of chastity.  So until our current cultural iteration of homosexuality and free love are disentangled, it probably can't be reconciled with chastity, and hence the church can't embrace it.

Maybe things will change in the future.  But in order for change to happen in the church, I think that the cultural basis for our current sociological structure of homosexuality will need to be upended.  I'm not sure such a change would be popular or generally accepted.  But that's also a staple of religion in the past.

Staying in the Closet

I am firmly in the closet.  It's not a particularly great place to be, but I'm entrenched.  And I have to ask myself why I stay here.

Human beings have incredible imaginations.  It's what really separates us from any other living thing.  I can imagine any number of things that might go wrong with coming out.  However, I need to try to be realistic.  Here are some of the reasons that I often discuss with myself.

I'm not a young millennial, so my peers are not of the generation that is predominately accepting of less common orientations.  However, I'm not a baby boomer either.  I suspect that many of my peers would be fine with knowing my orientation.

My family (the family I grew up in) would have a hard time with it.  Now let me be clear.  I grew up in a loving and healthy family, and I have no doubt that they would love me just as much as ever if they knew my orientation, but I don't have faith that they would be truly understanding.  It's hard enough, sometimes, to deal with typical family drama, and I don't feel like adding that much to the mix.

I live in an extremely conservative community and my coming out could have implications for my children who also live in this community.  This is still a place where leaders claim that "boys will be boys" to excuse small bouts of bullying in scouting and church activities.  I don't want to add any reason for bullies to target my kids.

I'm really quite worried about how others will react.  I worry that people will recontextualize everything I've done in the past in a new way.  People will identify any weird quirk I have with my orientation, rather than it just being me.  I'm a youth leader and teacher in my ward, and I worry parents will wonder what negative effects I must have had on their children.  People will complain to the Bishop that it's immoral to let me keep my callings. 

Interestingly, I work in the Temple, and I have no concerns that I would be rejected there.  My orientation has nothing to do with the work that goes on there, and coming out of the closet would not likely change much there.

On the other hand, my employer is run by a very conservative organization, and I could face real consequences to my employment upon coming out.  Officially, there should be no problem, but my workplace is run by people, and people can allow biases to negatively affect others despite official rules that supposedly provide protection.

I also fear the reaction of the LGBTQ+ community.  I'm married to someone of the opposite gender, despite my orientation, and many in that community feel as endangered by my choices as conservatives feel their families are endangered by gay marriage.  I don't want to have to put up with the constant pressure of justifying my marriage to people who will insist that it's wrong.

There are problems with staying in the closet, of course.  For example, I have a hard time speaking up when people in church make off-hand derisive remarks about homosexuality.  I don't always succeed at curtailing it (although I often try).  It would be easier to insist people stop that if I were out of the closet.

I worry that I can't be of help to others who may be in the closet if I myself am also there.  I don't really know of anybody in the closet like me.  It's lonely for me and I'm sure it's lonely for others.

I think it would be good for others in my ward, work, and social communities to have a colleague or friend who publicly has a different orientation.  I want to foster more communication and compassion from all parties.

But I don't think I'm ready to face the burdens and problems that I foresee.  So, at least for now, I'll stay firmly in the closet.

Busy

I have not been posting lately.  Sorry about that.  It's just that I've become much busier than ever before and don't have as much time to spend writing blog posts or reading blogs.  When life lightens up a little I hope I can find the time to write more.

Overreaction

When some people are opposed to a book or movie, if they overreact and make a big deal of it, they just serve to promote the book or movie they opposed.  I am worried that the same thing is happening with Kim Davis.  Think of how it must feel to be her.  She is expressing a view that, twenty years ago, was held by a majority of Americans.  Suddenly she is accused of hate crimes for holding that view.  She feels persecuted, and what's more, she feels persecuted for doing what she feels is right.  It provides fuel to those who quote Matthew 5:10, "Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

When people exaggerate the seriousness of her crime, it tends to add fuel to the fire rather than mend things.  It would not have been hard to accommodate her, and allow an assistant to issue the licenses.  But now things are out of hand.  Those vitriolic posts and comments that accuse her of obscene bigotry are adding fuel to the fires of hate and intolerance themselves.  The "I'm going to make your life miserable until you change your mind" plan is not a very effective one.  A much better plan would have been to accommodate her, and let people feel she was being insensitive and immature, rather than belabor the point and make her a martyr, a rallying point for those with whom you disagree.

Born That Way

I know people who have a genetic variation that makes them different.  They are color blind.  They were born that way.  Have you seen the viral video of the guy who gets special glasses and can discern colors he never could before?  It's fascinating and wonderful.

Now, what about sexual orientation?  Suppose it could be fixed by some special hardware like the glasses.  What does that say about orientation?  Would it be right to round up all the gay oriented people and give them the hardware so they could be normal?

I think that the "born that way" premise is not a very good argument to make.  It's fraught with unintended consequences.  Another such consequence is that this kind of argument is often used to justify behavior rather than take responsibility for behavior.

Maybe the whole dialog needs to change.  I know I didn't choose my own orientation, and I don't think it's going to change any time soon, but that doesn't mean my orientation controls me.  I can take ownership of my own traits and make my own decisions.

Volunteer Response Bias

I've said it before and I'll say it again.  Statistics can be no better than your source of data.  Go to any statistics teacher at any school and ask about volunteer response surveys.  They are among the most common surveys yet have among the worst bias of all surveys.  Bias, in statistics, means that the sample does not accurately represent the population that is being studied.  A volunteer response survey asks people to volunteer to be a part of the survey.  However, only people who feel strongly are likely to respond, and they will encourage friends to respond, many of whom share similar views, making their opinions vastly over-representative.

For example, if CNN ran a survey on their website on whether or not GMO food was good for you, natural-food-nuts would quickly pounce on it and get their friends to do so as well, while most of the population would not bother.  The results would be very skewed and not at all representative of the population's view, even if it got huge numbers of respondents.

With that in mind, the results of the gay Mormon survey are out.  It was a classic case of a volunteer response survey.  I saw it circulating among a certain circle of friends, and I warned those who asked me about it that it was going to produce skewed results because of the way it was being run.

Imagine that you are a former member of the LDS church who was in a so-called mixed orientation marriage, but you got divorced and then excommunicated, or possibly had your name removed from the records of the church.  You are already public about it, and relish the opportunity to make yourself heard.  Not only that, but you have friends in similar situations so when you get the survey, you forward it to all these friends and you end up with huge participation from this portion of the population.

Now imagine that you are a faithful member of the church in one of these mixed orientation marriages.  You aren't public about it because you are unsure how people in your ward would respond.  You don't have lots of friends within the gay community.  Firstly, you are much less likely to come across the survey; and secondly, even if you do, you are less likely to fill it out.  You definitely won't be forwarding it to all your friends in mixed orientation marriages, because you don't know who they are.  You are in the closet.  You aren't making noise.  This segment of the population gets vastly underrepresented due to the nature of volunteer response surveys.

To me it was inevitable that the survey results would show that the participants predominantly left the church and failed at these mixed orientation marriages.  The bias was clearly pointed that way, regardless of the size of the survey or the actual divorce rates (or excommunication rates) of the whole population in question.  The sample does not accurately represent the population being studied.

It's Not Fair!

I think we, as human beings, are wired to value fairness and equity.  When my kids notice anything that strikes them as unequal, the complaints start up again.  "It's not fair!"  "He got more than me!"  We, as adults, are often still doing it.  The 99% movement motivated it's masses with a similar war-cry.  It's a normal human bias.

It shows up again when I hear, "If there was a God, he wouldn't let so many people suffer more than others."  It's an insistence that any perfect being would be fair and equitable.  But all this assumes that the purpose for life is being content.  I rather think life is a crucible, a test, an opportunity to grow.  In order to learn math, we have to do homework and take tests.  We have to be challenged to grow.  It has nothing to do with equity and fairness.  Math tests aren't fair, they are challenging.  They are frustrating.  And sometimes we fail.

What kind of a teacher would allow a class where people can fail?  What kind of a teacher would cause so much discomfort and frustration among their students?  Well, a good one.  If we think of life, of God this way, I think it becomes clearer.

"Why does my orientation have to be gay?  It's not fair!"  Well, it can be challenging, but that just means the teacher feels this is the challenge I need in order to progress, in order to grow and develop.  The teacher trusts me to work on this particular subject.

Becoming

"You can be anything you want if you just put your mind to it."  So goes one of the most depressing phrases in common belief.  If you happen to be 5 foot 7, you cannot be an NBA center, regardless of how much you put your mind to it.  You can practice a bunch and become very good at basketball, but it's near impossible to be an NBA star (unless your name is Spud Webb), and there is no way you'd be a center.

We all have some kinds of physical limitations, but we are remarkably adaptable.  We can learn many different skills.  We can become good at almost anything we put our minds to, but we still have limitations to what level of excellence we can achieve.  And we can't change our stature by willing it to be so.

Similarly, we can't just change our orientations by willing it.  No matter how much one may wish not to have a gay orientation, it's like your height.  It's not going to just change.  However, you can increase your love for those around you.  You can develop and get better at social skills.  You can work on healthy relationships with people of both genders, and of all orientations.  There is so much that we can take time to develop, we don't have time to fret over the things we can't change.

We can become so much -- we can become more like our Father in Heaven.  That's a worthy goal.  Don't lose sight of it by worrying over what we can't change.

Outliers

I was talking with some friends who brought up the possibility that the church might sever its ties to scouting.  They talked as if there were an organized push to attack the church.  Personally, I think they have been reading too many posts by uber-conservative friends who share articles employing scare-tactics to push an agenda.  There is not some big anti-religious force behind the so-called gay agenda.  I know many people who have gay orientations and none of them have any designs to attack religion.  I did make an attempt to redirect their fears in a more healthy direction.  I think their fears are largely unfounded.

But there is a kernel of truth in their fears.  There are those who are trying to attack religion, and the LDS church in particular.  Once things settle down and normalize, there will be a few people, outliers from the main body of opinion, who will unite with those who attack faith and try to do the precise things that my friends fear, and which mainline opinion says will not happen.  In particular, will the gay marriage ruling be used to attack the church?  Of course it will be.  It's only a matter of time before some outlier from normal mainline opinion tries to use the ruling as grounds to attack the church legally.  Most judges would dismiss such attacks as frivolous, because they are.  But there will be a judge somewhere that rules against the church and the issue will escalate.  My hope is that we will have a reasonable enough legal establishment to prevent such attacks from progressing far.

Some day that may change, though.  But I don't think that day is imminent.

Friends of Scouting?

I've always had a few gripes about the scouting program within the church.  First, it's expensive.  Scout camp fees, badges, uniforms, books, equipment, and more tax ward budgets, and even with fundraisers, the families of scouts often have to lend extra financial support.  Then, on top of all this, we run "Friends of Scouting" campaigns to raise money, not for our own boys, but for the BSA corporate structure.  Each council has paid executives who need this money to fund their paychecks and run their offices.

Second, the path to eagle lacks flexibility.  Most of the merit badges you need are not negotiable.  While some, like personal management and physical fitness can be seen as valid life skills, others like camping, environmental science, and swimming don't appeal to all boys, and don't seem necessary in a program preparing boys for missionary service.  With all the merit badges available, why are there so few electives in the path to eagle?

Third, there is no equivalent program for girls.  Girls camp may be a fun program, but it lacks the structure, award system, activity opportunities, leadership training, and general recognition of the scouting program.

Fourth, the international church doesn't have the same program.  A majority of church membership lives in areas outside the BSA's footprint.

Finally, the scouting program's requirements for leadership don't perfectly match the church's.  I've read of active temple attending members who happen to be gay being called as scout leaders and having their assignment shot down by the scouting program at the council level.  Yes, it's a rare circumstance, but a small problem can still sting.

Now, the scouts have done something interesting.  They remedied my fifth concern, but in doing so they broke faith with church leaders by voting when they were absent.  That might open a can of worms, because now the church is reviewing their relationship with the scouts.  I don't see the vote itself as a deal-breaker between the church and the scouts, but if the review starts considering other concerns like those I've listed, the overall picture might incline leaders to sever the relationship.  It will be interesting to see how this unfolds.

Why Do MOMs Fail?

What if a husband or wife in a traditional marriage has a gay orientation?  The failure of many of these so-called "mixed orientation marriages" or MOMs have been a popular topic for those write about gay issues.  For some, the existence of healthy MOMs is an affront to their opinion, and they have to relegate these claims to either "they must be lying" or "they are a weird exception and not relevant."  Ironically, these are the same arguments used for years to discount stable same gender relationships.  For others, the possibility of healthy MOMs give rise to unrighteously judging those who have gay orientations who are not in or do not desire to enter MOMs.  The problem is that we have no good way of measuring how many stable MOMs there are -- because any data is subject to social desirability bias (see this article for examples of this bias).

Regardless of this, there are definitely many MOMs that fail.  I wish to examine these.  First, some of them fail because of deception on the part of a spouse -- a gay man lying to his fiance or even to himself about his orientation, for example.  The other spouse can feel distress due to the deception and that can disrupt the trust in marriage and lead to failure.  It doesn't have to, but it often does.

Second, a gay oriented spouse might get married to hide their nature or in an attempt to change their orientation.  That's not a particularly healthy reason to get married.  When the orientation fails to change, if the couple has not developed a healthier relationship, their marriage will almost certainly fail.  However, even though the reason to marry may have been flawed, if the couple did develop a more healthy relationship in the intervening time, the marriage might still succeed.

Third, a gay-oriented spouse might find that they simply don't have the self control to avoid cheating, betraying their spouse.  That kind of betrayal can be destructive to marriage, of course.  But such lack of control exists among marriages between heterosexual partners, too, and can lead to just as much failure.

Fourth, a couple in a MOM might go through the normal stresses in a marriage, but they might blame the trouble on the gay orientation and not address the real source of the problem.  That, in my opinion, is the most tragic reason for a MOM to fail.

There are undoubtedly many other reasons for such a marriage to fail that I haven't listed, but these are probably the most common.  Understanding the common reasons can help a couple avoid the pitfalls and give couples a better chance of success.  Again, this advice is for those who desire to have a successful MOM.  There are certainly those who do not desire such a marriage.  In this case, it would be irresponsible to enter into a MOM.

Basis of Romance

An interesting article explores the nature of romantic love and come to some interesting conclusions.  For example, older individuals tend to have more satisfactory romantic relationships.  When looking for reasons for this, they found the following:

It has been found that older individuals perceive their spouse as warm during both disagreements and collaborative tasks and report high marital satisfaction. Older married couples have fewer marital conflicts than younger counterparts, although they report that erotic bonds are less central in their lives. Companionate love, which is based upon friendship, appears to be the cardinal feature of their lives. Overall, intimate relationships in old age are harmonious and satisfying (Berscheid, 2010; Charles & Carstensen, 2009)

The author makes the distinction between romantic intensity and romantic profundity.  The former is characterized by sexual excitement, fiery passion, and the like, while profundity is more centered on calm assurance, friendship, peaceful connection, and the like.

This kind of distinction is good for all couples to understand.  For me, a profound romantic relationship represents a maturity in the relationship that is characteristic of the most stable couples.  It's the qualities of my relationship with my wife that I most value.  Also, it is available for a man such as I who is attracted to other men rather than women, even in a traditional marriage.  The article makes the point that "excitement" is possible, and even desirable, in a profound romantic relationship.  The true love of long term romance is not characterized by fiery passion, but calm assurance.