In my last post, I looked at the common comparison drawn between orientation and race. This time I'd like to examine another comparison.
"Being gay is like having alcoholism."
First, let's examine the similarities. Alcoholism is, in some measure, an attraction to drinking. The thing that people emphasize is that there is a distinct difference between the attraction to drinking and the drinking itself. In the same way, a homosexual orientation is an attraction, but that can be seen as separate from forming sexual relations with another person of the same gender. I think this is the main point of the simile for most of the people who use it.
But there are many significant differences. First, alcoholism is precipitated by drinking alcohol. On the other hand, at least for most people, orientation is established long before any sexual activity. That was certainly true in my case. But many extrapolate using this analogy, and figure that homosexuality is caused by homosexual relationships, which is taking the analogy way too far.
People who abuse alcohol really do have a problem that needs to be addressed. Similarly, there are certainly those of gay orientation that are addicted to sex. They also have a problem. But their orientation is actually not the problem. Sex addiction is a problem regardless of whether the orientation is straight or gay. So unlike alcoholism, where the attraction to alcohol fuels the addiction, it's not the orientation that fuels an addiction to sex.
An interesting similarity is the idea that "once and alcoholic, always an alcoholic." Basically, there are those who believe that alcoholism is something that doesn't go away, you just have to learn to deal with it. Despite this belief, there are many people who claim to actually be cured of alcoholism, that they no longer have the temptation to over-drink. Similarly, many people claim (and I'm among them) that a gay orientation is something that can't be "cured." If your orientation is gay, you have to learn to deal with it. Yet there are some people who claim that their orientation has changed.
Of course, the big issue that offends some people is that alcoholism, the attraction to drinking, is a disease. But a gay orientation is not. Extending this analogy to imply that a gay orientation is a kind of mental disorder is probably the worst use of this analogy. Please don't fall into this trap. It's such a common mistake, that this analogy should probably not be used at all, or perhaps only if great care is made to prevent its use in that way.
Tuesday, March 11, 2014
Friday, March 7, 2014
Compare and Contrast - Gay vs. Race
Last time, I talked about the extrapolation fallacy. When we draw a comparison, it's always tempting to take it a little further to gain more insight, but that can produce more confusion than insight. Let's take a look at a popular example.
"Being gay in our culture is like being black in the 50s."
This is a very important and widely used comparison. It's the basis of labeling people as bigots -- the racists of our day. There are many similarities. But there are also many differences, which often get ignored. Like any analogy, we can learn much from these differences.
The fact that gay individuals have been treated as second class citizens is the obvious similarity, but the scale of the class gap really is not similar at all. It doesn't take much research to see the decades of Jim Crow laws and such were far more severe and blatant than the discrimination based on orientation. So while the comparison is apt, we need to temper the reactions.
Another difference is the ability to hide. There was no don't-ask-don't-tell when it came to race. This changes the way orientation discrimination has progressed, both in good ways and bad ways. For instance, the good: I suspect most people are friends with someone who is gay, but they just don't know it. When the friend comes out to them, this provides opportunities to overcome stereotypes because they are already friends. On the other hand, the bad: keeping secrets can have emotional consequences like feelings of isolation, higher levels of depression, etc.
A very important similarity is the fact that orientation, at least for most of us, is not something we actively choose, just like race is not something that is chosen. But there's a remarkable difference. While race is mostly identified its physical characteristic, people were of the unfortunate belief that there were personality and behavioral differences. People mistakenly believed that those of African heritage were mentally inferior or some other such nonsense. On the other hand, orientation is primarily a trait that affects behavior -- sexual and relationship behavior in particular -- but many want to view it as some kind of purely physical attribute, like race.
These kinds of differences confuse the lines of communication, because people tend to forget about the differences and focus only on the similarities, and often take the analogy too far. This is getting too long, so I'll put other examples in future posts. This analogy is one used by the "pro-LGTBQ" side, so let's look at one used by the "anti-LGTBQ" side next, alcoholism.
"Being gay in our culture is like being black in the 50s."
This is a very important and widely used comparison. It's the basis of labeling people as bigots -- the racists of our day. There are many similarities. But there are also many differences, which often get ignored. Like any analogy, we can learn much from these differences.
The fact that gay individuals have been treated as second class citizens is the obvious similarity, but the scale of the class gap really is not similar at all. It doesn't take much research to see the decades of Jim Crow laws and such were far more severe and blatant than the discrimination based on orientation. So while the comparison is apt, we need to temper the reactions.
Another difference is the ability to hide. There was no don't-ask-don't-tell when it came to race. This changes the way orientation discrimination has progressed, both in good ways and bad ways. For instance, the good: I suspect most people are friends with someone who is gay, but they just don't know it. When the friend comes out to them, this provides opportunities to overcome stereotypes because they are already friends. On the other hand, the bad: keeping secrets can have emotional consequences like feelings of isolation, higher levels of depression, etc.
A very important similarity is the fact that orientation, at least for most of us, is not something we actively choose, just like race is not something that is chosen. But there's a remarkable difference. While race is mostly identified its physical characteristic, people were of the unfortunate belief that there were personality and behavioral differences. People mistakenly believed that those of African heritage were mentally inferior or some other such nonsense. On the other hand, orientation is primarily a trait that affects behavior -- sexual and relationship behavior in particular -- but many want to view it as some kind of purely physical attribute, like race.
These kinds of differences confuse the lines of communication, because people tend to forget about the differences and focus only on the similarities, and often take the analogy too far. This is getting too long, so I'll put other examples in future posts. This analogy is one used by the "pro-LGTBQ" side, so let's look at one used by the "anti-LGTBQ" side next, alcoholism.
Tuesday, March 4, 2014
Logical Fallacies - Extrapolation
As a human being, I communicate by finding comparisons. I think it is something hardwired into our brains. Notice how many parables were used in Christ's teachings. But the problem with any parable is that the comparison only goes so far. For every similarity, there are also differences. It's like when my junior high teachers asked me to write a compare-and-contrast paper. We learn just as much from the differences as we do from the similarities.
The extrapolation fallacy is where some relationship or analogy is drawn, and then that relationship is used beyond the scope of its relevance to draw some conclusion. For example, we know that a ten-year-old child is about 25% taller than a five-year-old, on average, and a fifteen-year-old child is about 25% taller than a ten-year-old, on average. If we extrapolate this to older individuals, we might think a 30-year-old was 25% taller than a 25-year-old. But that conclusion would be an example of the extrapolation fallacy in action.
Whenever someone says that "being gay is like -----", there is probably some relevant connection, some similarity that helps the speaker communicate their meaning. But when the relationship is extended to imply more about homosexuality than the primary similarity, that is when the extrapolation fallacy is being invoked. There are so many examples of this from so many different parties, that rather than list them here, I'll split them up among several future posts.
The extrapolation fallacy is where some relationship or analogy is drawn, and then that relationship is used beyond the scope of its relevance to draw some conclusion. For example, we know that a ten-year-old child is about 25% taller than a five-year-old, on average, and a fifteen-year-old child is about 25% taller than a ten-year-old, on average. If we extrapolate this to older individuals, we might think a 30-year-old was 25% taller than a 25-year-old. But that conclusion would be an example of the extrapolation fallacy in action.
Whenever someone says that "being gay is like -----", there is probably some relevant connection, some similarity that helps the speaker communicate their meaning. But when the relationship is extended to imply more about homosexuality than the primary similarity, that is when the extrapolation fallacy is being invoked. There are so many examples of this from so many different parties, that rather than list them here, I'll split them up among several future posts.
Friday, February 28, 2014
The Afterlife
Let me begin by stating that this post contains a lot of gospel speculation. In other words, I'm not sure I believe what I'm writing, but it's as clear a picture as my limited view can seem to discern.
In our current culture, people often strongly include their passions and desires as a part of their identities. Whether we have a passion for football, pride in our career, or desire to view fine art, we use these to define ourselves. However, these things may not really be part of our eternal identities. Similarly, some feel the need to define themselves via their sexual orientations. While that may be an important part of how they view themselves, it may not be true in the eternities.
When Christ was confronted by the Sadducees, who didn't believe in an afterlife, they gave him a puzzle that they figured disproved the afterlife. According to Hebrew law, if a man died, his brother had to wed the man's widow and raise seed to the deceased man (as opposed to raising seed to himself). So if seven brothers all kept dying off, so they each had to successively marry the widow of their older brother, who got her as a wife in the afterlife? Christ's response was interesting. "When they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven." (1) I think what he could be saying is that marriage and sexuality are primarily mortal traits, and in general do not continue in the afterlife.
Peter, of course, was given power that whatever he bound on Earth would be bound in heaven, so he could bind a marriage that would last in the afterlife with that authority, but our sexuality could very will be quite different that what we experience here. And Peter's authority is the key. That authority rests with the prophets and apostles. They provide for such marriages in the temples. Only marriage between a man and woman are allowed to be sealed in this way. The Church does not want to support legal marriages which (according to our current understanding) cannot progress to be eternal. I completely understand the stance of the Church.
However, earthly marriages can also be viewed as agreements of comfort and convenience for people today, even if they may not be relationships that will continue in the afterlife. Is there a problem if laws are written that allow same gender marriages? I understand that view as well. Not all earthly marriages will continue after death.
So I give it as my opinion that due to changes in how we experience our sexuality, in the next life marriage will not need to even be a part of existence, except for those whose marriages were sealed by that authority given to Peter and subsequent apostles. For those who bind up their identity too much with their sexual drives and preferences, the afterlife could be a much greater shock than for those who identify themselves primarily in other ways. Again, this is a lot of speculation, and so is likely to be wrong. But it seems to make sense to me at this time.
In our current culture, people often strongly include their passions and desires as a part of their identities. Whether we have a passion for football, pride in our career, or desire to view fine art, we use these to define ourselves. However, these things may not really be part of our eternal identities. Similarly, some feel the need to define themselves via their sexual orientations. While that may be an important part of how they view themselves, it may not be true in the eternities.
When Christ was confronted by the Sadducees, who didn't believe in an afterlife, they gave him a puzzle that they figured disproved the afterlife. According to Hebrew law, if a man died, his brother had to wed the man's widow and raise seed to the deceased man (as opposed to raising seed to himself). So if seven brothers all kept dying off, so they each had to successively marry the widow of their older brother, who got her as a wife in the afterlife? Christ's response was interesting. "When they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven." (1) I think what he could be saying is that marriage and sexuality are primarily mortal traits, and in general do not continue in the afterlife.
Peter, of course, was given power that whatever he bound on Earth would be bound in heaven, so he could bind a marriage that would last in the afterlife with that authority, but our sexuality could very will be quite different that what we experience here. And Peter's authority is the key. That authority rests with the prophets and apostles. They provide for such marriages in the temples. Only marriage between a man and woman are allowed to be sealed in this way. The Church does not want to support legal marriages which (according to our current understanding) cannot progress to be eternal. I completely understand the stance of the Church.
However, earthly marriages can also be viewed as agreements of comfort and convenience for people today, even if they may not be relationships that will continue in the afterlife. Is there a problem if laws are written that allow same gender marriages? I understand that view as well. Not all earthly marriages will continue after death.
So I give it as my opinion that due to changes in how we experience our sexuality, in the next life marriage will not need to even be a part of existence, except for those whose marriages were sealed by that authority given to Peter and subsequent apostles. For those who bind up their identity too much with their sexual drives and preferences, the afterlife could be a much greater shock than for those who identify themselves primarily in other ways. Again, this is a lot of speculation, and so is likely to be wrong. But it seems to make sense to me at this time.
Tuesday, February 25, 2014
Believing is Seeing
I recall reading a book by Joseph Campbell that really changed the way I viewed philosophy. He pointed out that the number 432000 shows up an awful lot in ancient cultures' mythologies, and concluded that there was something very important, cosmologically speaking, about that integer. He mentioned Babylonian uses, Mayan uses, etc. But being the nerd that I am, I quickly decided to write the number in base 60, since that's what the Babylonians used. To the Babylonians, it's just 2000. It's like a big round number that's roughly half a million. It's just double the cube of 60. What's the likelihood of rolling all ones on three rolled dice? One in 216, exactly half of 432. (Play creepy music). But it's all just a made up construct. There's nothing in the universe that says everything has to be made of powers of 6 and 10. It's just that humans have developed our numerical language around these things. It's like the Dilbert Comic:
Once my wife and I realized this, we tried it with another number. We chose a somewhat interesting number (the product of 3 small primes) and started looking for it. We saw it all over the place. If we believed that there was something extremely significant to the number, we would have found a ton of evidence for this. And there's the rub. If we focus on some pet theory, as we look around at the world around us we will see a ton of supposed evidence for our idea. I wondered how much of philosophy is based on this. How much of science is based on preconceived notions that we are simply affirming rather than actually producing real supporting evidence? It's an easy game to play.
I see people doing this with other things. When people watch Disney's Frozen, for example, and see Elsa as a metaphor for coming out of the closet as a homosexual, I get where they are coming from. I saw it, too. After all, that interpretation has meaning to me, my orientation not being public. Only I also realized that it could be seen as a metaphor for leaving your family and responsibilities in pursuit of personal pleasure. In fact, whatever your situation, you could probably draw up a good parallel with the story somewhere. We humans are very good at that. We look at the clouds and see forms of, I don't know, a bunny riding a wheeled crocodile, or something like that. I guarantee that the clouds have nothing to do with that, but we humans see the shapes. We draw parallels. We make metaphors where none were intended. And they help us make sense of the world. But please be aware that they are not necessarily an intrinsic part of reality. Rather, they are a way in which our brains interpret and communicate the world around us.
Once my wife and I realized this, we tried it with another number. We chose a somewhat interesting number (the product of 3 small primes) and started looking for it. We saw it all over the place. If we believed that there was something extremely significant to the number, we would have found a ton of evidence for this. And there's the rub. If we focus on some pet theory, as we look around at the world around us we will see a ton of supposed evidence for our idea. I wondered how much of philosophy is based on this. How much of science is based on preconceived notions that we are simply affirming rather than actually producing real supporting evidence? It's an easy game to play.
I see people doing this with other things. When people watch Disney's Frozen, for example, and see Elsa as a metaphor for coming out of the closet as a homosexual, I get where they are coming from. I saw it, too. After all, that interpretation has meaning to me, my orientation not being public. Only I also realized that it could be seen as a metaphor for leaving your family and responsibilities in pursuit of personal pleasure. In fact, whatever your situation, you could probably draw up a good parallel with the story somewhere. We humans are very good at that. We look at the clouds and see forms of, I don't know, a bunny riding a wheeled crocodile, or something like that. I guarantee that the clouds have nothing to do with that, but we humans see the shapes. We draw parallels. We make metaphors where none were intended. And they help us make sense of the world. But please be aware that they are not necessarily an intrinsic part of reality. Rather, they are a way in which our brains interpret and communicate the world around us.
Friday, February 21, 2014
Social Cost of Immorality
I hear a lot from members of the Church about the social cost of sexual immorality -- particularly the cost of homosexual immorality. The arguments are usually made to refute the fight to legalize gay marriage. But I worry about the blind spot they seem to exhibit toward heterosexual immorality. It's not that they think heterosexual immorality is good. The Church's stance is quite strong, and members usually agree in general. It's just that they seem to think homosexual immorality is so very much worse than heterosexual immorality. I think this attitude is usually ignorant bigotry. People are just reacting to their feelings of distrust of those who they don't understand. We all somewhat fear the unknown, the other.
When we really look at it, homosexual immorality has less of a social cost than heterosexual immorality. If a heterosexual couple is irresponsible sexually, there are many possible consequences. There is always a risk of sexually transmitted diseases. Certain protection can drastically lower the risk, but can't completely eliminate it. That is a personal risk that people take, and while there are societal costs, the main people affected are the participants. But there is also the risk of an unwanted pregnancy. This complication is not just personal. There is now another human being involved. The statistics are there -- the societal costs of children raised without fathers, particularly in neighborhoods full of fatherless families, are well documented. Statistically speaking, involved fathers are about the largest factor in predicting the academic and societal success of children.
Still, people will quietly shake their heads at teen sex in high school, but lobby loudly against high schoolers who want to start an LGTB awareness club fearing that it will be detrimental to society. They take their kids to movies that glorify irresponsible heterosexuality, but claim that the evils of those nasty gays will be the end of society as we know it. It seems to me that irresponsible heterosexuality has far greater societal costs than irresponsible homosexuality. And since homosexually oriented people form a much smaller percentage of the population, their effects are similarly smaller on society as a whole.
The focus should shift from fighting the homosexual movement to fighting irresponsible sexual behavior regardless of orientation.
(I should note that the official Church doctrine is already more or less written this better way, but many members -- including many leaders -- have it mixed up.)
When we really look at it, homosexual immorality has less of a social cost than heterosexual immorality. If a heterosexual couple is irresponsible sexually, there are many possible consequences. There is always a risk of sexually transmitted diseases. Certain protection can drastically lower the risk, but can't completely eliminate it. That is a personal risk that people take, and while there are societal costs, the main people affected are the participants. But there is also the risk of an unwanted pregnancy. This complication is not just personal. There is now another human being involved. The statistics are there -- the societal costs of children raised without fathers, particularly in neighborhoods full of fatherless families, are well documented. Statistically speaking, involved fathers are about the largest factor in predicting the academic and societal success of children.
Still, people will quietly shake their heads at teen sex in high school, but lobby loudly against high schoolers who want to start an LGTB awareness club fearing that it will be detrimental to society. They take their kids to movies that glorify irresponsible heterosexuality, but claim that the evils of those nasty gays will be the end of society as we know it. It seems to me that irresponsible heterosexuality has far greater societal costs than irresponsible homosexuality. And since homosexually oriented people form a much smaller percentage of the population, their effects are similarly smaller on society as a whole.
The focus should shift from fighting the homosexual movement to fighting irresponsible sexual behavior regardless of orientation.
(I should note that the official Church doctrine is already more or less written this better way, but many members -- including many leaders -- have it mixed up.)
Tuesday, February 18, 2014
Gay Football Player
I thought this was a very interesting reaction to a young man entering the NFL draft who came out publicly as gay. Unfavorable responses from NFL officials prompted a fascinating reaction from a TV news personality. Here's his report:
First, I absolutely loved his description of the hypocrisy in the NFL, how they are perfectly fine with young men who were involved with rape or even with murder, but coming out as gay would cross a line. However, I felt he then went on to weaken his argument. He started to complain about how people who wanted smaller government are also trying to get big government into our bedrooms. This is terribly detrimental to his point. It changes the focus from concern for the well being of a real person into a political rant aimed at a fairly unrelated vague political group -- those who promote small government. It makes him seem like a political ideologue who is just using the young man's situation as a springboard to attack ideological opponents. His concern for the football player now starts to seem insincere, and it weakens his position.
It's too bad, because his main point was originally done so well and powerfully. In order to affect change, we have to speak honestly and powerfully. Keep it focused and real. Don't tell people what they should think or how the information must be applied. Just make your point and let people decide for themselves how to interpret it.
First, I absolutely loved his description of the hypocrisy in the NFL, how they are perfectly fine with young men who were involved with rape or even with murder, but coming out as gay would cross a line. However, I felt he then went on to weaken his argument. He started to complain about how people who wanted smaller government are also trying to get big government into our bedrooms. This is terribly detrimental to his point. It changes the focus from concern for the well being of a real person into a political rant aimed at a fairly unrelated vague political group -- those who promote small government. It makes him seem like a political ideologue who is just using the young man's situation as a springboard to attack ideological opponents. His concern for the football player now starts to seem insincere, and it weakens his position.
It's too bad, because his main point was originally done so well and powerfully. In order to affect change, we have to speak honestly and powerfully. Keep it focused and real. Don't tell people what they should think or how the information must be applied. Just make your point and let people decide for themselves how to interpret it.
Friday, February 14, 2014
No Beards
When I was a student at BYU, the honor code mandated that students could not wear beards (except in a few special circumstances). I loved it. I'm sorry to all you beard wearing fellows out there, but I think beards make you look unkempt and unattractive. I realize that my personal opinions are just that -- personal. But to my view, a clean shaven man is much better looking than one with facial hair. I include mustaches and sideburns in this. I will admit that there are a few guys who do look better with a well trimmed beard or mustache, but they are so few and far between, and I think it's due to familiarity rather than actual looks.
That being said, I hate shaving. It's a pain and it causes all kinds of headaches. If I could get away from shaving, that would be great. But I hate how my face looks with even a little bit of scruff. Luckily, I don't have sensitive skin. I can shave dry with a fairly sharp blade, and I'm usually okay. I often use an electric razor, though, because it's fast and easy. It's still a bother, though. One of the many dichotomies in my life. I have to sacrifice in one aspect to benefit in another. That seems to be a pattern throughout my experience. What do you think?
That being said, I hate shaving. It's a pain and it causes all kinds of headaches. If I could get away from shaving, that would be great. But I hate how my face looks with even a little bit of scruff. Luckily, I don't have sensitive skin. I can shave dry with a fairly sharp blade, and I'm usually okay. I often use an electric razor, though, because it's fast and easy. It's still a bother, though. One of the many dichotomies in my life. I have to sacrifice in one aspect to benefit in another. That seems to be a pattern throughout my experience. What do you think?
Friday, February 7, 2014
Notice the Difference
I recall many years ago I attended a youth conference where the speaker talked about the proper ways to show affection. He had ten steps, starting out with "notice the difference." He claimed that his four-year-old could probably identify who was male and who was female with very few mistakes, but that was not what he was talking about. Really notice. Looking back, I didn't really get it. I kind of knew, intellectually, but since I never was attracted to girls, it never really sank in that the way I felt toward boys was what he was talking about. It was a bit of bazaar dissonance that I knew very clearly that I was attracted to boys, yet didn't connect the feelings I experienced with the feeling that the speaker was talking about.
I get that a lot through my life. I was super interested in sciences like biology as a kid, but I was a little dense when it came to reproduction. I knew the biological concept of gametes, but I knew literally nothing of sex. When my father talked to me about the birds and bees (I think I was eleven) I was shocked. How could I have not known something like that? It really hasn't changed much for me. I usually fail to notice romantic undertones, even overt ones. I recall my father telling me when girls were flirting with me. I really hadn't noticed. I have gone out to movies with my wife, and she expressed her disappointment in the inferred sex in the film, and I was like "what sex?" I really don't notice.
Maybe if there were male-male romances in films, I might notice. But I'm not sure, even then. The only guys I recognize in films as homosexual are such blatant gay stereotypes, I don't identify with them at all. I think I'm just a bit obtuse when it comes to some of these romantic social games.
I guess I'm just not really good at noticing the difference.
I get that a lot through my life. I was super interested in sciences like biology as a kid, but I was a little dense when it came to reproduction. I knew the biological concept of gametes, but I knew literally nothing of sex. When my father talked to me about the birds and bees (I think I was eleven) I was shocked. How could I have not known something like that? It really hasn't changed much for me. I usually fail to notice romantic undertones, even overt ones. I recall my father telling me when girls were flirting with me. I really hadn't noticed. I have gone out to movies with my wife, and she expressed her disappointment in the inferred sex in the film, and I was like "what sex?" I really don't notice.
Maybe if there were male-male romances in films, I might notice. But I'm not sure, even then. The only guys I recognize in films as homosexual are such blatant gay stereotypes, I don't identify with them at all. I think I'm just a bit obtuse when it comes to some of these romantic social games.
I guess I'm just not really good at noticing the difference.
Friday, January 31, 2014
Love the Sinner
The principle of "love the sinner, hate the sin" is a very good one. The problem is that since we are all sinners, this should apply to all our interactions. We should love everyone regardless of any misbehavior. When we limit it to only one kind of behavior or one group of people, it changes meanings. It becomes a way to hate the sinner through the sin without acknowledging that we have that hate.
However, it's also easy to overreact. The fact that people misuse this phrase to excuse hate does not mean that the original principle is a bad one. We should all show more love for the sinners (that's everyone), but also reject irresponsibility and misbehavior. That's the principle, and it's still true, even if it's often called upon in a sorry attempt to excuse hate.
However, it's also easy to overreact. The fact that people misuse this phrase to excuse hate does not mean that the original principle is a bad one. We should all show more love for the sinners (that's everyone), but also reject irresponsibility and misbehavior. That's the principle, and it's still true, even if it's often called upon in a sorry attempt to excuse hate.
Friday, January 24, 2014
Mixed Orientation Dating
Why do people seem to think it is wrong for a gay guy to date girls? Are we really so utterly ashamed of homosexual orientations that we have to socially keep these lepers away from everyone else but their own kind? Why do so many people feel that a gay guy dating a straight girl is some kind of dishonest travesty? Why should we socially pressure gay guys to date other guys? Why do those who are publicly in mixed orientation marriages get anonymous hate mail?
When it comes to dating, I think the Church has some very good advice. Youth are encouraged to group date starting at 16 or older. I don't see how this really should be different for gay oriented youth. Enjoy your peers' company and learn and grow socially. I don't think it would be wrong to ask a girl out (on a group date) as a friend. Just enjoy other's company. The church also discourages teenagers from steady dating. Just make friends and have a fun time. That's what dating should be about for teenagers, and it's the same advice regardless of orientation. There's a growing body of evidence that earlier serious dating leads to more social problems. Teens shouldn't be pairing off and exclusively dating only one individual. It's much healthier to date a variety of people in groups.
When I look back at my teen years, I participated in group dates where it was just a bunch of kids of both genders with nobody pairing up. These activities were some of the most fun and memorable activities of my life to that point. When I started college I dated a large number of different girls, and had a lot of fun. When I returned from my mission, I planned to do the same, but I met this girl, and plans changed. She was unlike anyone else, male or female, that I'd ever met.
I don't think that dating girls had anything to do with finding my spouse. We didn't meet by dating. We met in other ways. But I love being social, and dating was a very acceptable venue to be social with those of the opposite gender. So I dated for this purpose. If a girl was after a romantic relationship, I would be scared. I was only attracted to guys. But I don't think dating girls was a betrayal of who I was. Rather, it was social exercise and development. All young people need some kind of social exercise and development.
So if you are a teenage boy with a gay orientation, that does not mean that you have to avoid dating girls. There's nothing wrong with dating girls. It's good to exercise those social skills. But if you don't feel comfortable dating girls, that's fine too. You don't have to.
When it comes to dating, I think the Church has some very good advice. Youth are encouraged to group date starting at 16 or older. I don't see how this really should be different for gay oriented youth. Enjoy your peers' company and learn and grow socially. I don't think it would be wrong to ask a girl out (on a group date) as a friend. Just enjoy other's company. The church also discourages teenagers from steady dating. Just make friends and have a fun time. That's what dating should be about for teenagers, and it's the same advice regardless of orientation. There's a growing body of evidence that earlier serious dating leads to more social problems. Teens shouldn't be pairing off and exclusively dating only one individual. It's much healthier to date a variety of people in groups.
When I look back at my teen years, I participated in group dates where it was just a bunch of kids of both genders with nobody pairing up. These activities were some of the most fun and memorable activities of my life to that point. When I started college I dated a large number of different girls, and had a lot of fun. When I returned from my mission, I planned to do the same, but I met this girl, and plans changed. She was unlike anyone else, male or female, that I'd ever met.
I don't think that dating girls had anything to do with finding my spouse. We didn't meet by dating. We met in other ways. But I love being social, and dating was a very acceptable venue to be social with those of the opposite gender. So I dated for this purpose. If a girl was after a romantic relationship, I would be scared. I was only attracted to guys. But I don't think dating girls was a betrayal of who I was. Rather, it was social exercise and development. All young people need some kind of social exercise and development.
So if you are a teenage boy with a gay orientation, that does not mean that you have to avoid dating girls. There's nothing wrong with dating girls. It's good to exercise those social skills. But if you don't feel comfortable dating girls, that's fine too. You don't have to.
Friday, January 17, 2014
Narrative for Gay Members?
Christ taught His gospel through narrative. He took the principles he wished to convey and put them into parables, stories in which the concepts could be better understood and applied. He taught by example for the very same reason. Today, the Church leaders teach in much the same way. Just go over the last general conference and see how many stories were told to illustrate principles of the gospel.
Others teach by narratives, too. A very popular narrative, for example, is that when you are attracted to someone, you should have a sexual relationship with them. Watch almost any movie made for teens or adults in the last several decades, and that narrative plays out. It claims that there are no consequences (or at least very few) to a casual sexual relationship. Such things come and go with little effect on the participants. The leaders of the Church counter with an opposing narrative. They explain that our feelings of attraction for the opposite gender are healthy and essential, but need to be channeled into an eternal relationship in order for us to reach our full potential as children of our Heavenly Father. Sexual relationships outside of this context serve only to hamper our eternal progress and have dire consequences. It is a powerful narrative that resonates with most members of the Church.
What we are lacking, though, is a narrative for gay members. There are plenty of stories dealing with sexual morality, for example, from a heterosexual point of view. They are there in the scriptures, in conference talks, in stake conferences, in our wards and families. We are instructed to forgive people, and learn how to repent if we fall victim to inappropriate behaviors. However, where are the narratives for the homosexual members of the church? Where are the examples? Where are the gospel teachings that truly edify and light the way? Why do they seem to be missing?
I realize that the American cultural definition of sexual orientation has been changing dramatically. So the way we communicate about these things needs to change with our definitions. We need examples. We need leaders. We need the stories of more faithful members who have gay orientations. And they need to be broadcast to the whole church, not just some niche that a few gay members will locate. I don't mean to diminish mormonsandgays.org or Voices of Hope. They are great resources. But they operate on the fringe of the Church where many who need them will never find them. Those who need these stories are not just the gay members. They are all members. How can we expect leaders and members to know how to interact with their homosexual brothers and sisters if the Church has not provided any context, any narrative to help them understand?
Others teach by narratives, too. A very popular narrative, for example, is that when you are attracted to someone, you should have a sexual relationship with them. Watch almost any movie made for teens or adults in the last several decades, and that narrative plays out. It claims that there are no consequences (or at least very few) to a casual sexual relationship. Such things come and go with little effect on the participants. The leaders of the Church counter with an opposing narrative. They explain that our feelings of attraction for the opposite gender are healthy and essential, but need to be channeled into an eternal relationship in order for us to reach our full potential as children of our Heavenly Father. Sexual relationships outside of this context serve only to hamper our eternal progress and have dire consequences. It is a powerful narrative that resonates with most members of the Church.
What we are lacking, though, is a narrative for gay members. There are plenty of stories dealing with sexual morality, for example, from a heterosexual point of view. They are there in the scriptures, in conference talks, in stake conferences, in our wards and families. We are instructed to forgive people, and learn how to repent if we fall victim to inappropriate behaviors. However, where are the narratives for the homosexual members of the church? Where are the examples? Where are the gospel teachings that truly edify and light the way? Why do they seem to be missing?
I realize that the American cultural definition of sexual orientation has been changing dramatically. So the way we communicate about these things needs to change with our definitions. We need examples. We need leaders. We need the stories of more faithful members who have gay orientations. And they need to be broadcast to the whole church, not just some niche that a few gay members will locate. I don't mean to diminish mormonsandgays.org or Voices of Hope. They are great resources. But they operate on the fringe of the Church where many who need them will never find them. Those who need these stories are not just the gay members. They are all members. How can we expect leaders and members to know how to interact with their homosexual brothers and sisters if the Church has not provided any context, any narrative to help them understand?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)