Happily Ever After

In an interesting article (click here to read) a marriage counselor warns about the dangers of looking for prince charming in a relationship.  The article is giving advice mostly to straight women, but the principle is still the same.  One of the points he made really made sense to me.  He said that:

Both men and women need to look deeper into character, personality and compatibility to build a marriage with a happily ever after ending. Sure, you want to marry somebody who is attractive. But attractiveness is no basis for marriage.

I think this is true for any marriage, be it straight, gay, or mixed orientation.  This particular advice also helps explain how mixed orientation marriages can work.  They have to be based on character, personality, and compatibility.  That, along with a willingness to work for the relationship, is the basis of any happily ever after.

Risky Behavior

The problem with gathering data about those with homosexual orientations is the relative reluctance of many of us to identify as "gay" or "lesbian."  This leads to all kinds of biased data.  For instance, consider the following report from the CDC (click here).  In their study less than 2 percent of those studied identified as gay or lesbian, yet the percentage of people whose orientations are homosexual is usually considered to be much higher than that.  So what we have is an interesting bias.  In the study, we see much more risky behavior (smoking, binge drinking) among those who identify as gay than those who identified as straight.  But that's not too surprising due to the bias.  Many people consider coming out and admitting your orientation as a serious risk.  Gay-oriented people who are more risk-averse are therefore less likely to admit their orientation to others, and so more likely to be included with the straight individuals in this study.  In the end, what we really find in this study is that gay people who are less risk-averse are more likely to exhibit risky behavior.  Umm ... yeah.  We kind of knew that.  Until people feel more safe admitting their orientations, it is going to be really hard to get good data of any kind about those of us with gay orientations.

Male

I have always been very comfortable in my own skin.  One of my favorite qualities of myself is that I'm male.  I wouldn't have it any other way.  I know my wife feels the same way about being female, and I'm fine with that.  But I'm glad it's her and not me.

First, I hate makeup!  How can ladies stand putting in on and washing it off all the time?  I have to wear stage makeup when I'm acting in a play, and I detest it.  I always break out in a mild acne rash the week after a play.  I'm glad I'm not a woman.

Second, I really prefer a more constant level of hormones, rather than the monthly swing girls have to put up with.  In fact, almost everything about that monthly process makes me very glad I'm a guy.

Third, I relish the cultural leniency that guys have with wardrobe.  I can wear that same t-shirt that I've worn for years, even though there may be a hole or two developing, and I can say "it's just a guy thing" and get away with it.  (Well, until my wife throws it out when I'm not looking.)  I'm also very comfortable in a shirt and tie.  Let's just say, I like guy clothes.

Finally, I really just love being me, and I happen to be male.  I wouldn't want to change it.  Even my orientation is something that I love about myself.  I wouldn't want to have to change, and have to learn a whole new set of emotional adaptions to deal with girls.  I've already spent so much time and energy dealing with my attraction to guys.

Overall, I love being a boy.

Gender Identity

My orientation is gay, but to be clear, I identify quite strongly as male.  Since my physiological gender is male, that works very well for me.  I just happen to find other males attractive, rather than females.  I have no desire to dress in drag, nor do I find guys in feminine clothing to be remotely attractive.  I'm not attracted to girls, so dressing up as girls doesn't appeal to me.  So where does this cross-dressing thing come from?  I don't get it.

Please don't confuse this with those who are transgender, those who strongly identify as one gender, but are physiologically the other.  I don't think that's what's going on.  Or maybe it is.  For so long, people have mixed up gender identity with orientation.  Maybe it's because they get lumped together, LGBTQ and whatever new letters they are adding to the list.  I've heard that list referred to as "gender confusion" before, but that seemed really wrong to me.  I am not confused about my gender or that of others, and I'm definitely part of the G from the list.

Maybe people in the gay culture have cultivated a ritual of cross-dressing that has strong meaning to them, helping to set them apart from others, part of that gay-pride thing.  I could see something like that developing socially.  Still, it seems somehow wrong to me.  It's part of the gay culture that's always made me kind of uncomfortable.  Could someone explain it to me?

The Right to Be Crushed

Nothing bothers me more than the argument that a gay oriented man is somehow harming his wife if he marries a woman.  There's this weird idea of a right to have your spouse have a crush on you.  I detest this thinking largely because it leads to so much divorce among traditional heterosexual couples, let alone those with other orientations.  A natural consequence of this "right" is that when the honeymoon and glow of newlywed-ness wears off (and it will for almost every couple) it is time for the couple to consider divorce because their partner can no longer provide them with that crush.

I love the story of the poet Thomas Moore whose wife recovered from small pox, and wouldn't show her face because it was disfigured.  Thomas penned the lyrics to "Believe Me If All Those Endearing Young Charms" about how it doesn't matter how she looks; he will always love her.  That's what real love is, when the physical attractiveness is gone, the love is still there.

For my part, I never felt that fall from the honeymoon state in my own marriage.  I attribute it to the fact that I fell in love with my wife despite being attracted to men only, which means I didn't have the typical falling-out-of-attraction stage that many marriages go through.  I'm not saying I don't think my wife attractive, but my feelings for her developed as a whole rather than the common physical-first experience.

Granted, if a gay man was getting married to a woman simply because he felt obligated to do so, or because he wanted offspring, that is unlikely to be healthy.  And I would certainly expect anyone considering marriage to be honest with their prospective fiancé about their orientation.  But a marriage based on physical attraction is also unlikely to be healthy.  Some women feel that they need their spouse to be completely physically infatuated with them, and I agree that it's their choice.  Don't marry a gay man.  But don't be surprised and offended if your spouse sometimes finds others more physically attractive than you.  Like Thomas Moore's wife, it was something she had to get over, and realize that true love, in the end, has little to do with physical attractiveness.

Homophobia

The term "homophobia" gets tossed around an awful lot, and many instances don't make any sense.  This causes some people to reject the concept, since it is not  used consistently.  So, I thought I'd give some examples of what I believe to be homophobia, and examples of what is not.

1.  If someone believes that homosexual infidelity is somehow worse than heterosexual infidelity, then that is indeed homophobia.  For example, if a man cheating on his wife cheats with another man, is that worse than if he cheats with another woman?  I would consider those who believe so to be homophobic.

2.  If someone believes that homosexuality is a choice, and people need to choose to not be gay, then that is ignorance, not homophobia.  Sure, ignorance can lead to homophobia (and be fostered by it), but this belief by itself is simply a lack of knowledge of the truth.

3.  When a young man is so afraid of appearing gay that he always makes comments to support his masculinity, and avoids any physical contact with other males (or constantly says "no homo" when such contact occurs), then that is homophobia.  This can be particularly acute when the young man in question is, himself, attracted to other guys, but trying to hide it (perhaps hoping that his orientation will change).

4.  When someone fails to support or vote for a law legalizing gay marriage, that does not make them homophobic.  Such voting could be caused by homophobia, and often is; but by itself, being politically or religiously against gay marriage is not enough information to determine if the person is homophobic.

A final note: in my view, homophobia is different from bigotry, and they are both different from bias.  Everyone has biases.  That doesn't make them bigots.  Homophobia is a state of irrational fear of homosexuality.  Bigotry is showing unkindness to others because of they belong to some particular group.

Open Mindedness

One of the things that has always bothered me is the concept of open mindedness.  In most instances, it's use is equivalent to "you should be open to my opinion."  There is a ton of open mindedness in the world, but mostly it is shown by children.  They are open to all kinds of ideas.  As we become teenagers, we recognize how gullible we were, and reject all open mindedness and become very obstinate.  We close our minds and assume we finally really understand things.  After that, we usually open up a little and eventually settle down with some very fixed beliefs.  Those beliefs are then very resistant to change.  We feel that we have had to be open minded to reach our beliefs, and others who don't believe them just haven't been open minded enough to get there yet.  This makes discussion very difficult.

I find that there are a lot of people who believe that orientation is somehow a choice, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.  No amount of argument or logic will change that opinion, in most cases.  Similarly, I've seen people believe that anyone who opposes gay marriage legalization is a hardened bigot.  Neither side shows the least bit of open mindedness.  In order to be open minded, what is required is humility, respect, and charity for others.  When these are not present, an open mind is hard to come by, and real discussion is almost impossible.

Intellectual

As a child, I always tended toward intellectual pursuits.  I loved learning, and so loved school.  I was not very good at homework and tasks, but did very well when taking tests.  When in Jr. High, I had a friend with whom I would philosophize and debate.  He was particularly muscular and well built, but my feelings for him were purely platonic.  I only tended to get romantic feelings for guys I didn't know well.

Anyway, this friend told me once that he had read that the smarter someone was, the more likely they were to be homosexual.  I knew that we both considered ourselves quite intelligent, and was wondering if he was trying to come on to me.  I didn't really give a response to him and he never brought it up again.  I never thought of him as more than a friend, but have always been curious as to his meaning.  It's possible that he figured out my orientation, and was letting me know that it was okay.  But I never figured it out.

Since that time, I have never heard such a statistic relating intelligence and orientation.  Has anyone else heard such a thing?

Choosing Against Our Natures

I consider my orientation to be a part of my makeup.  I didn't choose it.  It's part of the fabric from which I am made.  However, as a member of the church, I don't have romantic relationships with other men.  Some people may question if it is wrong to ask someone to choose against their nature?  I contend that civilization is precisely that: asking people to choose against their natures.  For example, if you are hungry, you naturally want to eat the food available.  However, if you are civilized, you wait for the proper time to eat, you share food with others, you avoid foods that break with your moral code (vegans, for example), you control your diet for health reasons, etc.

I know people who are very competitive, so much so that it becomes hard to communicate with them some of the time.  These kinds of people often make excellent athletes or businessmen.  But to be civilized, they have to learn to compete within the rules.  That takes self control -- in particular, control to reign in their own natures and comply with society's laws and norms.

Some people may be better at this than others.  But all of us defy our own natures to exist in society.  There's an excellent article about the meaning of "free agency" that examines the evolutionary advantages that free will gives people.  In particular, the author claims: 

If you think of freedom as being able to do whatever you want, with no rules, you might be surprised to hear that free will is for following rules. Doing whatever you want is fully within the capability of any animal in the forest. Free will is for a far more advanced way of acting. It’s what a creature might need in order to adjust its behavior to novel situations, to get what it wants while still following the complicated rules of the society.  People must inhibit impulses and desires and find ways of satisfying them within the rules.

What makes free will powerful is the ability to follow commandments, despite the desire to break them.  I had a teacher once point out to me that free-form poetry's lack of rules makes it all sound rather similar, despite its more liberated nature.  A poet writing sonnets, however, must follow strict rules of rhyme and meter, and being expressed within that structure, the poems are more powerful and more distinct from others.  Similarly, our lives can be more powerful when we work within the rules, follow the commandments.

It is not some foreign idea to me that I should have to make choices against my natural instincts.  It is part of what makes me civilized.  It may seem harder for a gay-oriented person like me to find happiness and satisfaction within the structure of the Church, but it's harder to express ideas within the structure of a sonnet, too.  However, the poem and my happiness become more beautiful and powerful when we work within those rules.

Being Married

I read an interesting article by a therapist about five things that can cause friction in relationships that often lead to separation or divorce.  Here's a brief rundown:

1.  Believing that your aliveness is your partner's responsibility.
2.  Believing that relationships should be easy.
3.  Failing to understand that secrets are lies.
4.  Failing to understand that broken trust can be repaired.
5.  Failing to carve out quality time for your relationship.

This is an excellent list of attitudes to be wary of in a relationship, and points to ways to make a relationship stronger, by avoiding them.  I recognize that many people in so-called mixed-orientation-marriages can have trouble in their relationships.  What bothers me is when the trouble is blamed on orientation, when one of the five above is much more likely the culprit.

Also of interest to me is people who argue against a gay oriented man marrying a woman because the woman could never be fulfilled, never complete with such a man -- which sounds like attitude number 1 above.  It sounds like a dangerous attitude in a traditionally oriented marriage, let alone a mixed one.

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.