New Title and Layout

When I first made this blog, I got the name gayoriented because I though of gay as an orientation rather than an identity.  I liked the idea that orientation was like eye color -- not something you chose, just an attribute.  I think of identity as having more to do with our choices.  So I used the blog title "My eyes are blue, but I'm not" to represent that idea.  But I was never clear about it, and I often wondered if most people understood, or just thought I had a weird way of naming my blog.  So I'm changing the name of my blog to match it's URL.  I am also messing a little with the layout.  I'm including a couple static pages linked at the top.  Let me know what you think.

Regular Posts

Wow, things have been crazy this year.  I usually write a bunch of blog posts at once and schedule them to be released over time.  But I've been so busy, this hasn't happened often enough, and my buffer of written posts has run dry.  Family stuff and work stuff and church stuff has all conspired to take up lots of time lately.  This blog has taken a back seat.  I'll eventually get everything up and running again, but it may take some time.  We'll see.  I haven't forgotten.  I've just been busy.  Eventually I hope to be back to regular posts.

Miracles

Think about the children of Israel, after Moses led them from Egypt.  We often wonder at how stupid they were not to recognize the significance of the miracles that Jehovah did for them, through their prophet.  But that's mainly because we look at the whole thing from our modern point of view.  Think about things from their point of view.  In Egypt, Pharaoh had magicians who guided the people through mystic powers and led in the name of deities.  The plagues and signs that Moses showed the people were simply an extension of the basic worldview of the Israelites.  Because of that, it was probably a lot harder for them to view these signs and wonders as the spectacular miracles that we do, and it became difficult for them to keep following Moses.

I wonder how often we have great miracles going on all around us, but because of the structure of our worldview we entirely fail to see their significance, fail to see the miracles for what they are.  We lose the essence of the wonder in the humdrum scientific explanations, missing the amazing miracles that we are being shown in these latter days.

Consistency

One of the real problems I see in the nature of discussions dealing with orientation is consistency of vocabulary.  For example, one person may say that being uncomfortable in the presence of two guys kissing makes a person bigoted against gays; then turns around and says that being gay is not a behavior, but an innate part of a person's being.  So, is being gay defined by one's orientation, or by the act of kissing other guys?  I would venture to guess that a majority of guys who have gay orientations do not participate in homosexual relationships.  This makes the discussion somewhat tricky.  If we define "gay" to refer to orientation rather than behavior, it would be inappropriate to disapprove of gay guys who choose heterosexual relationships.  On the other hand, if we argue that a gay guy in a heterosexual relationship is not being true to himself, then we seem to be arguing that gay should be accompanied by behavior, which means we shouldn't be offended when people refer to gay as a lifestyle choice.  By not keeping consistent definitions, it makes it easy to manipulate conversations, which can make us seem dishonest.

If we want people to consider "gay" to be an orientation rather than a lifestyle choice, then we should start sticking to that convention.

Genetic

I completely feel that my orientation was not my choice.  It's not some kind of decision I made.  But I can't accept that there is a big genetic component to it, either.  Think about it for a bit.  If it was genetic, it should be entirely lost from the genome after just a few generations.  Gay guys are definitely less likely to have children.  They are more likely to join a monastery or other group in which they are not likely to procreate.  The orientation would simply go away by natural deselection. But it doesn't.

Some people have speculated that there are strong sociological benefits to have a portion of the population this way.  But others also point out that homosexuality is manifest in many different mammalian species.  If it was sociologically important, we should primarily see it in species with human-like sociology, but it seems far more general than that.  So that's not likely, either.

The only thing I can possibly think of is that there is some genetic component that is advantageous to females, for which the natural side-effect is that some guys turn out gay.  That would make male and female homosexuality very very different from each other.  Actually, there is some evidence that the mechanism for male homosexuality could be very different from the mechanism for female homosexuality, so this would be a possibility.  But unless this turns out to be the case, I just don't think that natural selection would allow a genetically caused homosexuality.

I give it as my opinion that orientation is not a predominantly genetic trait.

People Don't Change?

Okay, so I was watching the movie "Frozen" and the following lyrics are in one of the songs:

We aren't saying you can change him
'Cause people don't really change

I started thinking about how sad it would be if people weren't able to change.  Nobody could improve.  Nobody could learn.  Nobody could grow.  According to another movie, "Life is change."

Lots of things have changed for me throughout my life.  For example, I used to detest cheese.  I didn't like to eat it in any form.  Yes, I was the weird kid who didn't like pizza.  However, as I got older, my tastes changed.  I learned to enjoy many forms of cheese, and even changed my feelings for pizza.

Here's the question, though.  How much of my change was really choice?  Can we choose to change?  If we really want to change our preferences, can we just decide?  I don't think so.  My cheese example was something that changed slowly and naturally as I grew older.  I think most kids grow out of many of their dislikes as they mature.

Change is natural and healthy, so deciding that our preferences define us is dangerous.  When I was young, I decided that I wanted to be a scientist.  So naturally, I had to love my science classes and dislike English.  I defined myself by my love of things technical and my disdain for writing.  I really believed that it was me -- it was just who I was.  It wasn't until college that a professor was able to change this attitude.  I had to give up a part of my chosen identity and accept that I could write, that I did not have to be bad at English to be me.  It's surprising how hard giving up that part of my identity was, but it was a healthy change.

Similarly, I think it is not a good idea to define ourselves by our orientations.  "It's just who I am" is simply not true.  We have to not be defined by such things.  If we defined ourselves by our hair color, when our hair greys as we age it may seem as if we are losing our identity.  It's surprising how often this happens.  We all have a tendency to define ourselves by our natural traits, but our traits don't really define us.  Since most of our traits are not choices, they can easily change through natural processes, also not our choices, and we often lose sight of who we really are.  Rather, we should define ourselves by our decisions, our hopes, our convictions.  If we change the way we make choices, we can change our identities -- we can change who we are.  If we do so in a healthy way, we are growing into better people.

So, unlike the thought in the song, I say that people can and should change.

To Be Sinless

I think that for a lot of Mormons, there is this ideal of sinlessness to which we aspire.  For example, we want to be one of the 99 sheep that the Good Shepherd doesn't need to go find.  But when we carefully read the scriptures, Christ was talking to the hypocritical Pharisees who considered themselves above consorting with lesser beings.  They consider themselves the 99 who are not lost.  If we think about it, wouldn't we want to be the one that Christ seeks, the one that he saves?

In the Doctrine and Covenants, the instruction to Joseph Smith about the power and authority of the Priesthood does not require sinlessness.  Look rather at what disqualifies someone from the power and authority of the Priesthood: "when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness."

Notice, it doesn't say that you have to be without sin, because then it would be unavailable to anyone but Christ.  Rather, we shouldn't cover our sins.  The Gospel is all about repentance; we need to confess and forsake our sins.  We also need to avoid pride, becoming more humble and patient.  Most of all, we need to have charity towards others rather than exercising dominion in unrighteousness.

To me, it seems that the characteristics that disqualify us from priesthood power are characteristics of rebellion.  We all sin, but sinning is different from rebelling.  A rebellious attitude would encourage covering of sins, is motivated by pride or ambition, and is in the business of compelling or manipulating others to share or legitimize the rebellion.

It's also there in the sacrament prayer.  It doesn't speak of what we do, but what we are willing to do.  We need to be willing to take upon us Christ's name, always remember Him, and keep His commandments.  We all fail at doing these things sometimes, but if we are willing to keep trying and not become rebellious, we can receive great blessings and opportunities.

Why I'm a Member of the Church

When I was a young teen, I knew I was attracted to guys, and not to girls.  It wasn't something that I could question.  I also tended to the intellectual side of things, and asked difficult questions.  I sometimes felt alone and unlovable.  I wonder if all teens don't go through something like this at some point.  Those times drove me to seek out the Lord, and I had some very personal and powerful experiences.  That's why I'm a member of the Church.  Despite my gay orientation, despite my natural skepticism, despite my political views that often differ from a majority of members, I have a strong testimony of the veracity of the Gospel of Christ, and the institution of the Church.

So I usually view new ideas from the starting point of my previous position (as basically everyone does).  This means that I see things from a position that already accepts the Church and its doctrine.  While this can make communication a bit tricky, I try my best to tell my story in a way that others can understand.  I also hope I come across as respectful of others.  If I fail, please forgive my shortcomings.

The Church and Politics

President Marion G Romney once recounted the following incident:

One day when President Grant was living, I sat in my office across the street following a general conference. A man came over to see me, an elderly man. He was very upset about what had been said in this conference by some of the Brethren, including myself. I could tell from his speech that he came from a foreign land. After I had quieted him enough so he would listen, I said, ‘Why did you come to America?’ ‘I am here because a prophet of God told me to come.’ ‘Who was the prophet?’ I continued. ‘Wilford Woodruff.’ ‘Do you believe Wilford Woodruff was a prophet of God?’ ‘Yes, sir.’ 

Then came the sixty-four dollar question, ‘Do you believe that Heber J. Grant is a prophet of God?’ His answer, ‘I think he ought to keep his mouth shut about old-age assistance.’

Old-age assistance became known as social security, and as we know, is soon to be one of the biggest financial burdens our government has ever faced.  The leaders of the Church warned us that it was not wise, and stated its position.  Did the Church have that right?  What kind of free speech should the Church have?  The gentleman in this story felt that the Church should not have the right to speak about an issue important to the man himself.  I think the man was wrong.  The Church has often warned of dangers, even when the warning was unpopular.

Many people have complained that the Church should not be allowed to express an opinion about same sex marriage.  I don't see how this is any different from the story above.  Where does it say in the tax law that to have tax free status, you have to give up your right to free speech?  It doesn't.  That's why the Church can and does file legal briefs, issue public announcements, and the like.  Can the prophet speak about things that may be controversial?  Well, they've been doing it all through the scriptures.  I don't expect it to stop now.  Nor will a controversy around the prophet's words shake my testimony.

If there were a proposed law that would increase restrictions on alcohol, the Church might very well support the proposal -- not that it's trying to control people's lives, but that the law seems to be doing something that seems responsible, from the view of the Church.  I can't help but think that the same thing is true of laws in support of traditional straight marriage.

If the laws eventually favor the side the Church didn't support, well that's fine.  The Church isn't trying to control, just make its voice heard.  Nobody is excommunicated for their political views.  But under current policy, you still can't join the Church if you drink alcohol, legal or not.

Logical Fallacies - Slippery Slope

I have lived in areas with freezing rain.  You people who have only experienced Rocky Mountain snow do not know what it's like.  The rain falls, and instantly freezes on anything it touches.  That releases a bit of heat which makes a slick layer of water on the top.  Friction practically goes away.  If you start moving down a slope, there is really no way to stop.  This concept forms the imagery of an interesting logical fallacy, the slippery slope.

It goes something like this.  If I take the following action, I will inevitably continue to take more and more extreme actions, so I should not take the first action.  If you start eating cotton candy, soon you'll be eating it every morning.  After that you'll progress to eating cotton candy for every meal, and become malnourished.  Therefore, you should never eat cotton candy.  In this context, it's pretty clearly a fallacy.

Take the following example:

If we allow gay marriage, where will it stop?  We will move toward allowing polygamous marriages, and perhaps marriages between siblings.  Even parent-child marriages!  Abominations in the gene-pool, and the destruction of the human race as we know it!  So we can't allow gay marriage!

This should be seen as just as ridiculous as the cotton candy example.  Now look at this one:

If we allow anyone to refuse service to a gay customer, where will it stop?  People will start by refusing to take pictures at a gay wedding, and pretty soon gay people won't be able to shop at the supermarket.  We can't let this happen!

The amazing thing to me is that many of the people who readily recognize one of the above examples as clear fallacy often entirely miss that the other one is based on the same logic, and just as unsound.  These fallacies are meant to rile up the masses -- they are a call to arms.  I think we need to stop this kind of verbal warmongering and start actually conversing.  That way we can problem-solve and actually come out better in the end.

What Makes a Stereotype

What are the stereotypes around gay-oriented males?  Femininity?  A predisposition with fashion and style?  A dislike of manly things like cars, football, or hunting?  Involved in the arts -- particularly performing arts like acting, singing, and the like?  A tendency toward depression and/or suicidal thoughts?

Why are these stereotypes in place?  I'm not really sure, but I have some guesses.  First, I've seen numbers suggesting that a healthy percent of males are gay-oriented, but many of them don't express it to others.  You could say they are "in the closet," but I don't think that adequately expresses their position.  They won't necessarily identify as "closeted gay" at all, but rather that they are attracted to males, yet choose to be straight.  Please don't confuse me.  They don't choose their orientation.  That may not be changeable at all.  Rather, they choose a different identity for themselves.  Someone with incredible talent on the football field can choose to be a non-athlete if they want.  That doesn't affect their inborn strengths, but simply their desires to identify themselves differently.

People who are heavily involved in the performing arts, however, usually need to express a level of vulnerability and sincerity when they perform that makes such chosen identities harder to pull off.  In fact, it may seem dishonest to them to identify themselves as anything but gay.   So, among those who publicly identify as gay, a disproportionately high percentage are involved in performing arts.  Similarly, if there is a mental challenge involved like clinical depression or anxiety, the reflections used in most therapies are likely to make it difficult to identify as something other than gay, especially when their orientation has become entangled with the mental condition.  That would create a disproportionate number of depressed and possibly suicidal people among the gay population.

Not only that, but "gay" and "transgendered" have been confused so often that many traits of one are assumed to be part of the other.

Again, I'm not really sure about these, but I think they would explain many of the stereotypes that persist about gay-oriented males.  In truth, I don't believe in these stereotypes.  I think they are there due to sample bias and misunderstandings, and the real population of gay-oriented males will show no greater propensity for sports, effeminate behavior, the arts, etc. than the population in general.

But I freely admit that I may be wrong.  It's just so hard to get a good representative sample when so many people with gay orientations don't even identify as gay.

Compare and Contrast - Gay vs. Deaf

This one has always really fascinated me.  I happen to have friends who are part of the Deaf culture, yet I'm not deaf.  On the other hand, while my orientation is gay, I don't really interact with anyone who is part of the gay culture.

This parallel is often seen as offensive to both groups.  The similarities are quite remarkable, though.  Many straight-oriented people view a gay orientation as a kind of reproductive disability, but the gay community rejects that view strongly.  Similarly, many hearing people view deafness as a disability, but the Deaf culture strongly rejects that view.  Many people believe their orientation is something they are born with while others feel it is realized later in life.  Many deaf people were born deaf, while others lost their hearing later in life.  In both cases, the culture mainly caters to the former.

A major debate in the Deaf culture deals with cochlear implants.  If a deaf person is treated so that they can hear, is that the overcoming of a disability or is it the loss of part of their core identity?  Is the act of getting a cochlear implant a betrayal of the Deaf culture and heritage?  This sounds like debates surrounding re-orientation therapies that have plagued the homosexual community for years.  It also could be connected to mixed-orientation marriages where a gay person can have their own children with a straight spouse.  Is that a betrayal of their gay community?

Despite all these similarities, there are some clear differences.  First, the Deaf culture uses ASL primarily to communicate.  They have their own language.  The gay community, on the other hand, uses English, and their language does not identify them.  It would be difficult for a deaf person to hide their deafness from hearing people around them, while it is common for people to hide gay orientations from the straight people around them.  These different situations produce very different types of challenges and concerns among the members of each community.  A closeted gay man, for instance, might feel psychological trauma for hiding their feelings from their family and friends, but a deaf man can't hide their deafness, and doesn't experience the same problems.  Rather the deaf man might feel more isolated among the hearing because of the communication barrier, which the gay man doesn't experience.

Differences like these make it dangerous to draw too many conclusions from a comparison between the two groups.  This can be said of any parallels drawn between the gay community and another group of people, yet both sides of the "gay-debate" constantly extrapolate too much from such metaphors.  These comparisons are fine to communicate ideas, but they have no power to prove debated points.  Any relying on these similarities as evidence of some kind is a logical fallacy.